The Online Photographer

The Best Camera, According to CR

The "Top Picks of the Year" issue of Consumer Reports (CR), November/December 2023, arrived in the mailbox a little while back. I don't subscribe to any paper magazines except The New Yorker, but you get CR as a paper magazine if you pay for access to the website. This issue features full rankings on cooking appliances—oven, ranges, and cooktops—as well as "The Best Cameras from Our Tests."

Cooking appliances did not fare so well. CR looks askance at cooking appliances. Microwaves especially—the pages for microwaves were full of light green (merely good) and yellow (middling or neutral) bars. With few dark green bars (the best rating) to be found. According to CR, the best microwave you can buy, a standout in a sea of mediocrity, is the Panasonic NN-SE7-85S.

So I was almost...well, proud when I came to the Mirrorless Cameras page. Solid dark green bars almost all the way to the bottom, and an unbroken string of those black checkmarks-in-circles that mean "CR Recommended." That's not the only page; there are seven more mirrorless cameras on the page before this one (all CR Recommended) and 13 more on the following page. All of the latter are the lighter green for "good," but even the lowest-rated camera they listed—the Olympus OM-D M10 Mark IV and 14–42mm—did not fall so low as to earn a yellow bar, the meh rating. However, 11 of 13 at the bottom of the list did fail to win the coveted Recommended checkmark.

I know, I know—we don't need no stinkin' CR to choose our cameras. We are way past that. I was just kinda proud, as I say—according to CR, our whole category be boppin'. We strong. They don't like microwaves. They do like cameras.

Top recommendations overall? The Fuji X-T4 (whut? Right, 4) with the 16–80mm OIS lens is No. 1, and the Fuji X-T4 is in second place as well! Paired with the 18–55mm OIS. That seems a little out there, but hey, their house, their rules. The Nikon Z6 with 24–70mm S rounds out the top three (they recommend the plain Z6, but I linked to the Z6II. You can search out a non-II if for some reason you really have to have CR's third-best camera recommendation).

I'm almost right there with them—my top recommendation, for people who do not have a camera at all and want one—which includes virtually not one single person reading this—is a Fuji X-T5 body (Amazon agrees with me; it's their Top Pick too) with the 35mm ƒ/2 Fujicron as a first lens. I'd actually prefer the ƒ/1.4, but that's not a mainstream recommendation any more. I prefer the X-T5 because it has the World's Most Perfect Viewing Screen (IM Hmbl. O) and the 40-MP sensor for great big prints. The X-T4 has the flip-out screen (an anomaly in the X-T[x] line) and the (slightly) older 26-MP sensor which is merely wholly adequate for 99.9% of everything your might ever want or need to do with it. I ought to do an X-T5 vs. Z6II shootout sometime. Who else cares?

But the Fuji X-T4 is the Honda Accord of cameras. Or rather, the Hyundai Santa Fe Hybrid of cameras (that's CR's top pick in vehicles over $30k).

That's random
Oh, and, the weirdest thing the entire issue calls out? Features, even, picture and all? The Kohler Moxie BT showerhead, which they rate highly for its performance as, ahh, well, a showerhead. What makes it weird? It's got a speaker in it. Because naturally. And you thought the folks at CR were all practical and fuddy-duddy and buzzkill! They sing in the shower too.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Kirk W.: "That takes me back to about 1983, when, inspired by my uncle Stu with his Minolta SRT-101 and my eighth grade science teacher’s patience with us as we learned how to thread film on to developer tank reels (shout out to Mr. Jacobsen!), I was in search of my first 'real' camera. I dropped my hard-earned berry picking and haying income on the top-rated Consumer Reports camera, the Pentax ME Super. I remember poring over that list for hours, even pre-internet, being dazzled and paralyzed by the range of choices. There were Nikons and Canons and Minoltas and Olympuses of course, but I can still remember some more obscure brands as well, such as Topcon, Konica, and Ricoh. Looking back now, that was not the ideal way to buy into a camera system, but it did work out. The camera still works like new (at least the last time I ran some film through it) after decades of use and abuse. And it will still be ready to go long after my current magic digital cams are obsolete."

robert e: "Actually, I think we camera geeks do need a 'stinkin' CR'...to help us recommend gear suitable for non-geeks (or for when we want a more casual, forgiving or incognito camera)."

Niels: "My parents always selected larger household acquisitions based on the CR equivalent in my country. They chose the best rated item within their budget—and often that meant buying at a lower price than they originally expected. I think it served them well—I never heard them complain about purchases done this way, although they were generally quick at complaining about a lot of other things.

"When I left home, my mother gave me a subscription to the magazine, but I could never use it the way they did. My compulsive behaviour of researching the life out of anything that I plan to purchase prohibits me from just picking from a list, although it could have saved me much energy it seems: for my first full frame mirrorless camera, I ended up buying a Nikon Z6 with the 24–70mm S—and I am very happy with it! I would never have thought my preferred product would be at the top of such a list. Maybe my requirements aren't as special as I think?

"I should possibly revise my behaviour, although I'm afraid it would violate my nature."

David Dyer-Bennet: "My first SLR was chosen largely as a result of the Consumer Reports rating. In 1969 (bought late in December).

"It was a Miranda Sensorex, and it was not a very good choice for me. I largely liked the quirks, like a removable pentaprism, a bottom-weighted meter (the sensor actually on the mirror), and a front-mounted shutter release (it was considerably easier to hold really steady for vertical shots that way) [Burt Keppler of Pop Photo also liked the front-mounted shutter releases. —MJ]. But it didn't have the range of lenses, especially fast telephotos, that Nikon did. I think Pentax or Nikon would have been better choices for me at that time. (With access to hindsight, definitely Nikon.)

"Of course, as I figured out later, they are rating cameras for, gosh, 'Consumers,' as it says on the cover, and even then I was not anything like a normal consumer of cameras.

"They are the only consumer testing outfit I've encountered who have any understanding of statistics and quality control and such (they get multiple samples through normal distribution channels and test those). But the things they choose to measure and the priority they assign to various things is very much consumer-oriented."

The Progress of the Great fp Monochrome Safari

Note that I'm not reviewing the Sigma fp. I'm interviewing it. That is, checking out whether it's suitable for my own personal use.

I'm also not recommending it, as I stated once before. My personal needs and interests here are not typical. As a reviewer, I often recommend things for others, but that's when I'm putting other people first, taking their part and considering their needs and interests first and foremost. It's a different mindset. I am quite capable of doing that, but I am not doing it now. Now I'm thinking of myself.

I admit I got derailed there for a few days—I got COVID. I seem to be over it now, knock on wood, although I'm still fatigued and a bit weak and low on energy. (And sleeping like I did twenty years ago, which is delicious.) But I've continued to make some modest progress anyway.

Background
Jason M. loaned me a Sigma fp that he'd had converted to monochrome (i.e., black-and-white only) by Monochrome Imaging Services (MIS), one of several small businesses that strip the color filters off color sensors to render the cameras monochrome-only. Which made it into an "fp-M," a non-Sigma appellation meaning fp Mono. I used it for a few weeks and decided to buy my own.

After some delays (one part was backordered), my camera is here. It is currently unconverted, and I've tried a few alternatives with it—namely, shooting with its own internal Monochrome profile, and shooting in color and converting the to B&W in software. These experiments have made me unhappy, largely because I've done all this before with other cameras. Briefly: the Sigma DNG Monochrome profile is useless to me, because you need to use Sigma Photo Pro as a raw converter to process the files as B&W. In Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) they open as color files. With capture set for JPEG, they do open as black-and-white, but the JPEGs preserve even less highlight detail than Jason's converted camera does. Finally, I can of course open color raw files and set the profile to Monochrome in ACR, and then edit the B&W file to optimize it.

Before I get any farther, the results of doing that look very good. You don't lose a lot of sharpness, and the conversions offer more control than shooting with the fp-M...

...Which is what I don't want. Before you know it I'm dealing with two complications I don't want, namely 1.) would this image look better as a color image? and 2.) the B&W Mixer. When you change from "Color" profile to "Monochrome" profile in ACR, the "Color Mixer" changes to "B&W Mixer." It looks like this:

And the sliders change the value of each of those colors in the file conversion.

This is exactly what I don't want—a palette of endless possibilities for spectral ranges tailored to each individual image. The bottom line is, I don't want to deal with color when I'm shooting or post-processing. This isn't an accommodation to lack of competence; I'm perfectly competent to do that and I don't mind doing it. What it is is a preference: I don't want to do it.

I want to work in black-and-white. Currently, Leica is the only manufacturer that understands this from an artistic, aesthetic, creative perspective. All the rest of them DON'T GET IT. Say what you will. They do not understand.

Punk rock commitment
So that's why checking out the B&W options for the color fp are making me unhappy—I've been there, done that, and that's not what I want. What's been resonating in my head is Andrew Chalsma's comment: "I think sending it out for conversion before taking a color image is the only way to go. Punk rock commitment."

I did use the new camera just enough to check out whether it has any problems. The next step is that it goes off to MIS for conversion.

If you feel I've shortchanged the parts of this process you might have been interested in, I apologize, but I'm on the trail of something I've long wanted and I have to keep pressing. May I please use COVID as an excuse?

Meanwhile, my friend at B&H Photo sent me all four of the fp hand grips they sell, and it took me all of an hour to choose which one I like best. But that's a separate post.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Migrant Mother, by Sarah Meister. "Each volume in the One on One series is a sustained meditation on a single work from the collection of MoMA." Forty-two pages with many illustrations. An engaging guided tour of the history and lore of "American photography's Mona Lisa."

This book link is a portal to Amazon. You're very kind use our links as they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rob de Loe: "I gained another, but different, window into your thinking recently. I'm not a potential Hasselblad X2D customer, but I was curious about Hasselblad's Natural Color Solution. Long story short, Hasselblad has built a nice route through the complexity of colour that starts with finely tuned cameras, and passes through their Phocus software to give you what amounts to one choice out of the box for colour. As a Fujifilm person, it was striking to open a Hasselblad X2D file in Lightroom and realize, there is only one camera profile. In comparison, with Fuji, there's a boatload of film simulations from which to choose. I'm not sure what I think about the Hasselblad approach, but I get the concept of keeping it simple for people who like things simple."

Herman Krieger: "Black-and-white is beautiful."

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "I think this all makes perfect sense. And it immediately makes me thing of two analogies. First, the decades-old MAC/PC debate. I remember the PC people always talking about the endless configurations and option of the PC platform. But I was never looking for an endlessly configurable computer—I just wanted a machine built for what I needed. Turnkey, very few choices, very few options. Apple provided that. And recently when re-engaging with film, all of the mentions of varying options of processing B&W film was also a turn-off. When shooting film I really don't want options. Part of the reason I'm shooting it is to limit options. Limit the available choices. An attempt to simplify the process of photographing down to the parts I love and value most—the capturing and sharing."

Sigma FP M: Short Take and Personal Impressions

[TOP is off on Saturdays. Housework day, bills to pay, what can I say? How 'bout Sunday?]

This is not a review, for reasons I'll explain. Just some personal thoughts and reactions after using this for a few days. It's a modular camera, and I'm discussing it as the owner has it set up, with the I-Series 45mm kit lens, LVF-11 chimney finder, and SmallRig cage and grip. The "M" is for monochrome, in case you haven't been following along lately. However, almost everything in this particular post applies to the regular color FP too. Note that I'm using the original Sigma FP, not the more recent 61-MP Sigma FP-L.

It's on loan from a reader. I'm using it to see if mono-sensor camera pictures can look as good as B&W converted from color files in software. It was converted to monochrome-only by Daniel Morrison at Monochrome Imaging Services in Portland, Oregon, USA. I have no affiliation with his business. I'm using it for B&W stills, using basic controls—nothing fancy, and that is not what it was built for.

I like this a lot, but it's a very quirky rig, and not only because it has trouble taking color pictures. I described the setup of the camera a few days ago, and even compared it to chopsticks (for scale) for Mrs. Grahn.

It's said to be the smallest full-frame (24x36mm) digital camera ever made.

And as anyone knows, the bigger the better.

It's just a little brick with a large Leica L-mount on the front, a large fixed viewing screen on the back, no EVF, no mechanical shutter, no hot shoe, and no grip. But hey, it does have a grid of ventilation channels between the sensor and the viewing screen meant to keep the sensor cool during extended video takes.

It has been criticized on the Web for having too few buttons and dials.

And as anyone knows, the more buttons and dials the better.

It's meant to be the heart of a modular setup up to and including something like this:

I will not be using it that way.

The power switch is a large slider on the top left of the camera. Another sliding switch next to it chooses between Cine and Still. The viewfinder, which literally bolts on as far as I can see, is similar to the old "chimney" or "stovepipe" finders made for a number of old film medium-format cameras except it's horizontal rather than sticking up vertically.

I've only used it for a few days so far. It fit me like a glove right from the first, to my surprise.

So here's what I like and don't like about it so far:

Upsides

• The camera reminds me of old film medium-format cameras. The results remind me of film 4x5. We might have a print sale someday so you can see for yourself.
• I like the viewfinder. It's obviously a viewfinder, as it magnifies the dots of the viewing screen (and it's B&W!), but it's large and immediate, with a large eyepiece although not an extreme amount of eye relief. Eyeglasses wearers would not find it enough. I had to learn to go ahead and press my eye socket up against the rubber eyepiece surround, which blocks extraneous light and gives that nice, great big, and clear overall view of the finder. There's a lot to be said for a big viewfinder. There's an immediacy to your visual connection to your surroundings. I've taken to it.
• I like the menus. Obviously, shooting DNG only, B&W only, and stills only, a lot of the menu items become moot, because they control JPEGs, color, or video options. But what remains, what pertains to me, I like. I said the other day that "the menus feel like suddenly encountering a sensible adult after spending years surrounded by fractious five-year-olds," and let me double down on that—I feel like I can sense the intelligence and the sensibleness of the designers behind the menus, who are on my side for once.
• Love the info in the viewfinder too—pretty much only what I need to see and nothing else, very clean and no-nonsense. Except for one weird exception: there's an enigmatic little "9" in the extreme bottom right...I have no idea what that means. I'm going to assume it's a John Lennon reference.
• The "sideways chimney finder" puts my hand away from my face, making it more comfortable and convenient to hold the camera when shooting, and also to find the buttons I need by feel.
• Silent shutter release. The feedback is visual instead of audible—the finder blacks out for a split-second. You just have to rewire your brain a bit to expect a visual cue rather than a sound. I'm good with that.
• Love the setup—aperture on the lens, EC on the front dial. So easy and clean. Partly because that suits the way I've always preferred to control exposure, I will admit, but still.
• It's a simple camera. As I'm using it.
• Fits Sigma's I-Series L-Mount lenses. A plus, take my word.
• The level of clean detail you get without the Bayer mosaic is pretty astonishing, cf. our ongoing sample gallery. (I do feel like I'm in early days with adjusting to it, though. My brain is not quite calibrated. That's more due to the monochrome aspect of the sensor than the camera itself, though.)
• This is just me, but I like that it feels most comfortable when you're looking through it shooting. Lots of cameras are designed with other things prioritized, like how they look, how much they resemble some other camera, how comfortable they are to carry, how easy they are to sell, etc., etc. I like that this is all sort of an awkward bodge but that it all comes together and feels great when you're actually looking through it and pressing the shutter button. Kind of the opposite of cameras that look sleek and slick and design-y but aren't all that ergonomic when you go to take a picture.
• Exclusive! You won't find many other people shooting with one, that's for sure.  :-]

Downsides

• You have to peer through the finder to see settings.
• You're issued a dire warning to keep a cap on the eyepiece when you're not looking through it. That's awkward. And the cap doesn't attach to the camera.
• Smallest ever, maybe, but only sorta kinda. Not as configured here. The body module is the smallest ever. But as configured here it reminds me of carrying a Bronica medium-format rig around. Not that there was anything wrong with that.
• The camera is awkward to carry on the strap. It works, but the weird body-in-the-middle configuration means you're not going to forget it's there, and too much moving around on your part sets it to flopping around awkwardly. It's not really comfortable to carry on your shoulder. It might be better to shoot out of a small bag, perhaps with a wrist strap for security when you have the camera in your hands a lot.
• Thumb pad is too small, except when shooting. An immediate concern would be buying the proper grip or cage—there are a bunch of them available, and they're all different. Some of them put the grip father out from the camera body, and they include a larger space for your thumb.
• With the SmallRig cage Jason has on it, it's impossible for me to remove the SD card with my fingers! Oops. (It's in the battery compartment.) I have to use the pliers function of a wire stripper tool I have. Obviously this is also an aspect of the design of the grip you're going to put on the camera—some of them attach to the side of the camera and don't require an added bottom plate at all. Big caveat emptor on that.
• It's for a particular kind of shooting. It's not a fast action camera. No use parsing all the reasons why; that's just the wrong application for it, so look elsewhere. Think of it as a studio camera you can take into the field if you're the contemplative type...much like a medium format film SLR. Slow camera good.
• Turning it into a monochrome camera is hella expensive, and kinda makes no sense except when you consider all the rest of the crazy stuff you've ever spent money on for love or kicks.
• No IBIS.

'Better to be a nerd than one of the herd'
The very best thing about it? It's different. Genuinely different. Two reader comments:

Bear. wrote: "DP Review and many other reviews online plainly have an inherent bias in favour of 'do it all' cameras. Thus, for example, that a Leica M rangefinder does not autofocus is considered to be some sort of flaw, or negative; whereas in reality, of course, that the camera manually focusses only is the whole point. The same is true of many reviews of Sigma cameras. Sigma tends to produce quirky, targeted cameras which are very good at one or two things to the exclusion of almost everything else. Those exclusions are, I presume, deliberate. In any event, presumably purchasers wanting cameras that do anything otherwise than what they want will not buy one. But that is hardly a negative. Why buy a truck if you want it to drive like a sports car?"

Jim Arthur wrote: "I am always interested in the capabilities of custom tools that can’t be purchased at the corner big-box store. We have all read the reviews of the latest bleeding edge offering from the multinational camera companies and while their offerings are impressive…they tend to move as a pack and homogenize the tool."

Got that right. And this is a camera that goes its own way and doesn't go along with the crowd. Some will damn it on that account, others praise it, and thus it is and ever shall be.

Recommended?
I wouldn't go that far. How would I know? Because, as I've said, I'm using it for a.) stills, b.) raw, and c.) monochrome (B&W), whereas it's meant to be the heart of a video rig. You wouldn't want me reviewing video functions because I know nothing about that. Thirty years ago I worked for six months as a high-end audio salesman, and I exasperated the boss because I refused to learn anything about home theater. Not my medium. Here's what I know about video: in my lifetime I have watched some movies. There you go. I haven't owned a television since 2013, so you can see the level of my commitment there. I wouldn't review a video camera. You wouldn't want me to.

But it's not true what Ken said, that nobody has reviewed the Sigma FP positively. Kirk Tuck has. Steve Huff tried it and and had to buy it, proclaiming the LVF-11 "the best viewfinder experience for manual focus I have ever used." It is seductive, I'll agree.

Me? I love it. Not like. Love. I think it's a great one-shot-at-a-time stills camera. I'm not recommending it due to the fact that my needs and use-cases are so quirky and persnickular, and because it's not a "do it all" camera homogenized to go along with the pack. The best I can say is: don't overlook it just on account of it's so different—that's a feature, not a bug. And, unless and until you get your actual warm mitts on one yourself, weird sideways chimney finder included, don't judge.

Have a look.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kirk: "After your nudge via your first tests with the FP I pulled mine back out and subbed it into my workflow for studio portraits instead of the Leica SL2. I'm photographing portraits with a big (6x6 foot) diffusion panel and good LED lights. So, continuous lighting.

"I did two portraits that way yesterday for corporate clients using the FP with the Sigma 90mm ƒ/2.8 I-Series (small, light, sharp, nice lens) using the face detect/eye detect AF in the camera. The results were just perfect. Lovely colors and skin tones. High resolution of details and perfect AF every single frame.

"I bought mine back in the Spring of 2020 just a month or two after the launch. I use it mostly for stills and mostly with the enormous finder hood. I love the camera. It's just great. And the best thing about it (besides the size) is the color science and overall tonality.

"The only change I'd make on your set up is to lose the SmallRig cage and grip which I found makes it harder to reach the shutter button. Sigma makes a nicely sized grip and baseplate called an HG-21 which also has attachment points for the big hood. It makes handling the camera much more comfortable. It's about $95 but it's very nicely made.

"The '9' in the bottom right corner of the screen is, if I have this right, the number of files remaining in the buffer.

"I think it's a wonderful camera and am currently looking around for a used copy of its big brother. Just for fun.

"Have a blast with your new loaner. It will continue to grow on you, I'm almost certain."

Grahn Johan: "Thanks Mike for your kind mention of Mrs. Grahn. She sends her greetings! I really appreciate that you picked up on my joke! That is a big reason why I like this 'place' on the internet. Not so dead serious about cameras, we can actually make jokes about them. Unfortunately I live far away from where you live and it's hard to think we will every meet. But I would love to sit down with you and have a chat about whatever...."

Bill barton: "I have been using an FP now for about a year and a half, set up the same way the one you are using. Except I am only using Leica M lenses on it. Works well. I can still focus with my eyes so all is well for right now. Yes it's a pain to carry around but once you put the finder up to your eyes it just works. Enjoy and have fun."

Sample Album on Flickr

Getting tired of B&W yet? Wish I'd get back to writing about pool? It's funny, Kirk Tuck sometimes goes off topic, and I sometimes go off topic. But we're completely different...I go on about pool and he goes on about pools.

Anyway, this morning I've uploaded a small album of sample pictures taken with the Sigma FP Mono and Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 I-Series lens.

It's important to mention that these are just my very first trials with a monochrome camera; I've never tried one before. These are the results of the first two days spending a few hours each day trying out this camera. I consider myself very far down the learning curve and am only starting to feel my way toward knowing how to use the camera and edit these files. I'm very far from an expert. My purpose here is to see, eventually, if I think B&W from a monochrome sensor can compete with conversions from conventional color files, which I have more experience with, and with darkroom prints from film negatives.

I'll add more examples as I take more. The loaner Leica Monochrom and Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH arrived yesterday, courtesy of Chris, so the next journey is going to be to make some comparison photographs with the two FF monochrome cameras to see what we can see.

Thanks again to Chris and Jason for kindly loaning me their cameras to try.

Mike

UPDATE: Turns out Flickr has promoted one of my test pics on its "Explore" feature for the last couple of days. That has resulted in it getting 4,509 views (over twice as many as others in the set), seven comments, and 72 "Favorites."

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim Arthur: "I have never been a B&W guy but these pictures are impressive. Jason’s converted camera produces files that remind me of what I see on Shorpy. I would love to see a print of one of these files. I bet it would also be impressive.

"Thanks for posting your findings, Mike. I am always interested in the capabilities of custom tools that can’t be purchased at the corner big-box store. We have all read the reviews of the latest bleeding edge offering from the multinational camera companies, and while their offerings are impressive…they tend to move as a pack and homogenize the tool. I feel the same way about cell phones. Their computational photography is impressive but if everyone on the planet uses the same algorithm to take a photo, all photos begin to look the same."

Don Cox: "I've been using an FP for a couple of years. I bought it mainly for use with my lenses from film SLRs, and it works very well. Converting a raw file to B&W on the computer works well, so I see no need for a physical conversion. If I want to use flash I use a different camera. Recommended for experienced photographers who want a well built practical tool. As you say, a bit like a classic Hasselblad, but much more reliable because there are no moving parts (except the control wheels). The cable release is particularly good. Try it with a 105mm Nikkor if you have one—adapter costs peanuts. DPReview doesn't like Sigma cameras, but there's a good Sigma forum on the DPReview site."

Mike Ferron (partial comment): "I am looking at your Sigma samples and they do look good. Personally I have decided to devote myself to B&W film. There is just something about the look. I also have my little darkroom up and running again, printing 6x6 medium-format images on fiber matte. I also picked up an 8x10" field camera for not too much money. At about $7 per shot I have decided to shoot one image a week with this rig and contact print. This aging guy has young enthusiasm for the project."

Chico Ruger (partial comment): "My two cents: The photos seem unremarkable. I’m not referring to the creative aspects of the shots, just the B&W visual attributes. I feel converted color files done with a modicum of skill would produce images of at least comparable impact...I don’t see significant output advantages that would lead me to a monochrome-only sensor."

robert e: "Whew. If my camera had that much resolution I would think about leaving the longer lens at home."

Richard Parkin: "The EXIF says 'Flash (on, fired)' on all I’ve looked at. Seems unlikely."

Mike replies: I can't figure out why it says that. Flash is "Off" in the menus. And there's no hot shoe and obviously I'm not using any flash. I also don't think there is anything connected to wherever an outboard flash would be connected. So I'm at a loss. Some kind of bug I guess.

Dave: "Is it me, or do the photos of your yard look like they've been sharpened? Either that or that lens is really, really sharp!

"Those clouds sure turned out nicely! Very good contrast with the yellow filter.

"Thanks for posting all those photos."

Mike replies: Yes, the yard pictures were sharpened, especially "Butters on Alert." I wasn't planning on posting them to Flickr when I processed them. I'm still not sure exactly how best to process files for posting on Flickr, but I assume I'll get there with practice...same as with the processing of these files in general: I know I'll get better at it if I keep working at it. You almost can't help it.

Five or six months ago I decided I was going to learn position play in pool. (I'm a good shooter and usually I enjoy just shooting my way out of trouble, without paying too much attention to pattern play.) I started working on it, and at first I was almost comically bad at it. Just didn't know where the cue ball was going to go. But I just settled in to keep trying, and gradually I've learned specific shots, done speed drills, watched for clues in professional matches on YouTube, and practiced, practiced, practiced. Now I'm actually getting kinda good at it. I'd say I still have a lot to learn, and partly my progress is blocked by deficiencies in motor skills and coordination—execution and consistency—but I'm doing way better than when I started.

You just have to keep after things if you want to get better. If I keep processing monochrome files I'll keep learning about how to do it.

Rob Campbell: "Basically, all such attempts to show or prove concepts such as the one we have here regarding mono or colour sensors, are meaningless online. Only if you can show a set of comparison prints of the very same subject, shot at the same time, can anything close to a valid judgement be pronounced. Sadly, even that inescapably reduces down to the capability of the person making the prints. For what it’s worth, I guess one’s better off having a camera that doesn't restrict your choices. Anyway, until Leica came along in its alternative universe spaceship, nobody ever shed a tear over the matter. Indeed, one of the best things about digital was precisely that you got all the choices wrapped up in the equivalent of a single roll of film. Not a lot has happened, really, to change that situation."

Kirk replies to Rob: "Re 'Anyway, until Leica came along in its alternative universe spaceship, nobody ever shed a tear over the matter.' This implies that Leica was the first to come to market with a monochrome camera which is not at all true. Kodak DCS 200 cameras were available in both monochrome versions and IR versions. There was a DCS420M version and also a six-megapixel APS-H DCS 760 monochrome version which was extremely well regarded. Over at Contax the original Contax N1 which was the first full frame six megapixel DSLR was reportedly available in very limited quantities in a monochrome configuration but the line was discontinued within a year of launch. The later Kodaks were coveted by photographers dedicated to black-and-white imaging and are still sought after today. Leica was third in line, at best, in the investigation of digital monochrome-only cameras. Just setting the record straight. And yes, a number of very expert practitioners shed tears about the discontinuation of both Contax and Kodak dedicated black-and-white models."

Parking Lot Picture (Monochrome Sample)

It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately. But this sample from the Sigma FP-M (adding an "M" for monochrome seems to be the convention for converted cameras) looks extremely good and extremely clean on my monitor (NEC MultiSync PA272W). I have some nicer example pictures already, and will share some after I collect some more, but I just thought you might want a taste of what the camera with the converted sensor is capable of.

These detail crops should be at 100% after you click on them; hopefully the sharpness is not too compromised as you see it. (I'll find a different site to post samples on, so you can see them in all their glory.)

Again, I hope you can see this on your device, if not you'll have to take my word for it, but you can actually see shadow detail inside the wheel well of the pickup truck...the amount of detail this camera can capture seems well in excess of what I'm used to from 24-MP sensors.

Fine detail in the background is excellent. Part of this is the lens, which is exceptional—very sharp without being harsh.

Finally, check out the little dude "parked" on top of the streetlight! Best seat in the house. This detail looks haloed somewhat as presented here, and I'm not seeing that in Photoshop.

Finally, how's this (ISO 400) for a "shadow/sun" test? Put a textured white surface in direct sunlight and see if it still shows texture....  :-)

(You'll see it 100% after you click on it.) Of course these are edited to something near my taste in tonal values, so they may not be to everybody's liking...even if you could see them the way they're supposed to be. I know from experience that as I "exercise the muscle" I'll get better at correcting the files. I'm just kind of finding my way at the moment, learning what the available controls do and which works for what. For example, some strategies for raising shadow values seem to work better than others. I'm already using curves in ACR much more than I do with color pictures. More samples to come.

By the way, just as an aside, I'm having great fun shooting with this. It's very satisfying to me.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rick Popham: "Are you shooting raw files and processing them with ACR? I was under the impression that removing the Bayer filter required a specialized raw processor, but I admit I haven't looked into it. I'm not likely to get a monochrome camera, but this is pretty interesting."

Mike replies: As recommended on the Monochrome Imaging website, I'm using the Monochrome2DNG converter app by FastRawViewer for the out-of-camera files so that demosaicking isn't applied. It's very simple to use. I just use it between the card and the destination file, so it doesn't even add a whole step the workflow...maybe half a step, because you have to set the filename and the destination folder. The files then open in Photoshop (or Lightroom, I presume) with the Monochrome profile already set.

Chris Kern (partial comment): "Re 'It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately.' One option that might give you better control over image quality would be to use a link to an external public site for photographs."

Mike replies: I'm readying an album of photographs on Flickr that will show some of the B&W test shots that I've done with the Sigma FP so far. However I want to have at least a dozen files up to start with and I've found I can't work on the files in the daytime—the glare in my office makes it impossible to evaluate lights and darks on the screen. It's a little iffy because I'm new to converted sensor files and also to Flickr. And a little out of practice with B&W. But that's how you learn: do.

Becoming a Sigma Fan (Sigma FP)

[Note: I just charged the battery to this camera yesterday, shot with it yesterday afternoon, and wrote this this morning. So this is not a full review.

I shot with it some more this afternoon. I'll post some images soon. —Ed.]

-

Man, I'll tell you, I am becoming more and more a fan of Sigma.

You know how I always say you have to try it for yourself, in person, before you can pronounce an opinion about a camera? A reader named Jason sent me his camera to try. Here's Jason's camera:

It's a Sigma FP converted to monochrome by Monochrome Imaging Services. There are four bits in this rig: The original 24.6-MP FF Sigma FP, still available new even though it's been replaced joined by a much higher-resolution version, the FP-L [UPDATE: see Kirk's comments in the Comments Section. He says the original is still an ongoing current product. —Ed.]; an aftermarket cage with an integrated wooden handle, the SmallRig CCM 2518, which seems to be out of stock or backordered everywhere (and might be gone, who knows):

The normal lens, which comes bundled with the camera for only an extra $200 (it's normally $400 to $550 alone—the Leica L-mount version is on sale but the Sony E-mount version isn't); and a bolt-on hood:

Called the LVF-11, it's a stovepipe-style magnified (2.5X) finder for the LCD screen with a generously large eyepiece with diopter control. Sold as a $292 accessory.

Now, I know I have a tendency to get enamored of new cameras I try, like I did over the Panasonic GX8 and Sony A6600, but I also have plenty of cameras I try that are perfectly fine but don't grab me for one reason or another, like the Panasonic G9 and Sony A7 Mark III. So I am susceptible to being carried away, but at the same time I'm not undiscriminating.

Well, on paper, the Sigma FP seemed like the least promising camera I could possibly try...I just wanted to try a monochrom sensor. The camera is a tiny little box designed to be the heart of a video rig. It has a Sony-made 24x36mm sensor, no grip, no eyelevel finder, and no mechanical shutter. Couldn't possibly be for me, right?

Before we get to the camera, the lens is gorgeous. This is the first time I've seen one of the new Sigma I-Series lenses and it's really nice. It's all-metal, very well made, with a super-precise aperture ring, and ribbed metal rings for a great grip; even the lens hood is ribbed metal, with plastic for the interface so it engages with a soft thock. And yet it's light and just about right-sized. The look might not be classic, but that's because it's designed with feel and ergonomics prioritized. It exudes precision and attention to detail. It's a honey.

I even managed to dig a 55mm K2 (medium yellow) filter out of the piles of boxes in the barn. Interestingly, you see B&W in the viewfinder, because that's all the sensor can see, so of course you don't see the yellow of the filter either. I'll do a demonstration eventually of the effects of filters on the B&W image.

As for the camera, as configured here anyway, to my great surprise I really like this little thing. As you know I prefer to use aperture-priority and exposure compensation when I shoot, and having the aperture on the lens allows the front dial, which is right under your index finger, to be mapped to EC. The view of the LCD screen, although a little grainy by comparison with a real EVF, is generously huge and immediate. The always-on electronic shutter is as gentle and silent as a butterfly fart. The menus...let's see, how I can say this without being politically incorrect...the menus feel like suddenly encountering a sensible adult after spending years surrounded by fractious five-year-olds. The information on the finder is just what you need and no more.

It feels a lot like an old modular film medium-format camera, such as a Bronica or a Hasselblad, to use; a bit clunky, a bit slow, but you really engage with the world through it, and get to grips with it, and it imparts a sense of seriousness.

And you know how I've been going on about simplicity? Well, when set to stills, at least, this is a simple, purposeful camera.

I just wanted to try the sensor. I didn't expect to like the camera too. More about it in a future post, no doubt.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Chico Ruger: "Would love to see a photo of this rig being held or next to something like a coffee mug for some perspective of its size. I know you showed the rig with its dimensions, but (for me) that doesn’t help as much as the type of photo I am suggesting."

Mike replies: Sure. Here are some tries at that:

With tableware...

Next to Fuji X-H1 and 55–200mm lens...

With ordinary 12+ oz. drinking glass...

...And with a tennis ball and a pair of scissors. I have two pairs of scissors, one largish and one smallish, and this is the smallish pair.

Hope that helps!

Chico Ruger replies: "Thanks, Mike, for the additional photos! It is quite a bit smaller than it appeared to me in the photos in the original post."

Walter Smith: "You started this...."

Grahn Johan: "My wife is Japanese. We eat a lot of rice. How about comparing the camera to a pair of chopsticks? Thanks!"

Mike replies: I am nothing if not helpful:

Richard Parkin: "I’m not hugely surprised that you like it as Kirk Tuck has written frequently how much he’s surprised he likes his (non-mono) one, also with the clunky viewing hood."

Basic Camera Functions

I'm back from my trip. The purpose of it was for my son and his mother to meet for the very first time, 29 and a half years since his birth. He has a sprawling family on her side, and we met only a fraction of them, but there were a lot of new faces, and some I remembered from the old days. And I got to meet my son's new girlfriend, Kate, for the first time. Nobody knew in advance how it was all going to go, but it seemed to go as well as it could have. There was a nice spirit all around; one of reconciliation, and compassion, and forgiveness, and generosity. Kate is pregnant, and has experienced intermittent feelings of illness, and she is taking very good care of herself and their as-yet-unnamed son-to-be, but we managed some touristy activities as well. The high point was the National Aquarium in Baltimore's Inner Harbor, which is absolutely an A+ attraction—Kate and Xander both especially like aquariums, and I enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. Despite having lived in the area all those years ago I had never been there before. It's really well done. If you're ever near it and find yourself considering a visit, don't hesitate.

Visitors at the National Aquarium in Baltimore,
which was remarkably crowded on a weekday.

I took the Sony A6600 and tried to use it, although I forgot to bring it in from the car on the Aquarium visit. Although I took only a couple of hundred exposures, it was really the first time I had used the A6600 since I first tried it as a loaner from LensRentals. I'll show you a few pictures from it tomorrow.

Wait for it
One of the surprises, not a good one, is how slow it seemed. Of course one of the many "vexations" (I like that obsolescent word) of the iPhone is that it's so slow and awkward to use—if I see something like an airliner against a while cloud or a speedboat passing a perfect position in a lake composition, I've learned to not even try to get the iPhone ready, but just to observe the sight. Well, unfortunately, I have some of the same feelings about the A6600. It just seems to take a while to go from off to on and ready, and even if it's in the "On" position it takes too long to wake from sleep. Shutter lag also feels long, although it might not be.

One of the great advantages of the classic film Leicas—M4 through M6—is how responsive they could be. Shutter lag (the interval between pressing the button and the film being exposed) was famously short—if memory serves, 19 milliseconds vs. ~80 ms. for a pro SLR and 150 and up for an amateur SLR (many were around 200 ms.). But of course you don't have to turn on a film camera—it's always on. With the Leica, I got into the habit of zone-focusing it by feel depending on the situation I was in—at the Aquarium, for instance, I might have set it to six or eight feet and just carried it that way. Then when you raise it to your eye you have just a little adjustment to make. At any rate, good film cameras were "shutter-button priority"—there were a number of things you had to do to get ready to take the shot, but if you pressed the button the shutter went off and that was that. It didn't refuse to fire until the settings were all set.

It struck me that it's kind of curious that for all our "measurbating" and comparing of features on digital cameras, we don't really make a big deal of the basic responsiveness numbers, although AF speed might be an exception. I guess because these are so hard to measure, and differ based on circumstances. Does anyone know of a site that has compiled a comparative list of functions like turn-on time, wake from sleep, AF speed, latency, buffer clearing, and other responsiveness traits? I do see these mentioned hither and yon, but as I say I'm not sure we pay these things sufficient attention.

Anyway I did notice that with the A6600 slumbering on my shoulder, hanging from one of Al Stegmeyer's UpStraps, too many beats pass before it agrees to take a picture. Repeatedly, things changed before I could get a shot. Part of that is down to my rusty chops, but part of it was the camera's fault.

If you'll excuse a digression (of course you will, because those who don't are long gone by now!), the UpStrap is by far the best camera strap I have ever used—and many famous photographers starting with Jay Maisel agree with that. My new one is the "Friendship," and it's the best small-camera UpStrap yet. I have several similar older UpStraps, but I have other cameras now and needed a new one for the Sony. The only one I've ever found that stays on my shoulder without fuss.

Everything has an arc
And incidentally, while I am on the subject of responsiveness, the new iPhone is definitely worse than older ones. The auto-turn-on feature is a pain—I'm going to turn auto-turn-on off if it turns off—and the swipe commands are too many and too touchy to be convenient, although I suppose a few adroit young people will have them mastered. My brain doesn't work that way. Plus, the camera is now so configurable that it's actually possible on the phone to get into that dreaded state where I've done something and don't know right away how to undo it, which is the tell-tale curse of all overly electronic-i-fied devices. And face recognition is worse than the old fingerprint recognition, because it assumes you will be shining the moon of your mug directly at the screen at all times, which I often am not. So the iPhone-as-camera is leaving its signature strength—simplicity—behind. That trend will continue, because it always does.

More about "what I did on vacation" tomorrow or Monday. At any rate, I am back.

Mike

(New Book of Interest coming on Sunday[?])

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

robert e: "What a momentous occasion. Glad it turned out well. Best of luck going forward.

"My Canon M is as slow as it gets. Like other commenters, I've trained myself to touch the shutter to wake it up before I even lift it. It helps, too, that I often have a manual-focus and -aperture lens on it. My biggest 'vexation' with it is the lack of a viewfinder."

Jim Arthur: "It’s good to have you back and I’m glad the trip went well.

"I agree with you on the importance of responsiveness. I still shoot with an old EOS 6D and the combination of an optical viewfinder and back button focus allow me to grab a shot in the blink of an eye. I guess I take it for granted.

"Back in the day, DPReview included a Timing and Performance section in their reviews. I imagine this became less relevant once people got used to the idea of digital and digital performance improved across the board. I just took a look at their 2004 review of my Olympus C-8080 and there is an entire page dedicated to timed camera operations."

Omer: "The wake-up lag and the settings info lag in the viewfinder has been a Sony issue for a long time. DPReview has reported it many times and only recently has Sony deigned to change it but only in the more expensive full frames. The reputation that Sony does not understand what photographers need in cameras is justified by exactly these issues. As for the shutter lag, the E-first curtain shutter mechanism actually has one of the shortest lag times in the industry. The thing is, only the closing mechanical shutter is heard and so the perception of lag stems from not hearing the two curtain shutter mechanism. If you use the A6600 enough, you'll learn to either press the shutter before lifting it up, or in the settings keep it from going into sleep mode."

Tim Swan: "Nothing has been faster between intention and photo than my Leica M6. But here's a tip for faster iPhone camera start-up. On your iPhone, go to Settings > Accessibility > Touch. Scroll down, then select Back Tap. Select either Double Tap or Triple Tap and set it to open the camera. Now, as long as the power is on (even if you're not logged in) you can double-tap the back to open the camera app."

Mike replies: Wow. Excellent. Thank you for that.

A Correction: Sony A6600

I'd just like to correct a couple of mis-impressions in the Sony A6600 post below, which set a record for traffic in recent days.

First, although it could definitely be improved and in fact is rather crying out for some improvements that would be easy to make, it's also a very fine little camera that is a constant pleasure to use. It's got a great feel in the hand, the battery lasts forever, and the haptics (hand-feel, the feel of the knobs, size, sounds, responsiveness etc.) are excellent, among those indefinable things that make a camera pleasing.

If Sony improves it they'll only double down on making the video features better, and that won't improve the camera as a stills shooter which is all I care about.

A reader admonished me for saying the A6600 has "top-level features," claiming that the camera re-uses the A6500 sensor and allegedly doesn't have Sony's very latest. I don't think he knows that for sure, but maybe he's right. However: doesn't matter. The A6600 sensor is excellent. It's outstanding. It's highly correctable, especially in terms of shadow recovery; has very good DR in practice, great color, and the files are very pleasing. I really hope to put it up against the Leica's full-frame sensor before I send that camera back, because my seat-o'-the-pants sense is that it's going to hold its own even in absolute terms. I don't care if something isn't the absolute latest, which is a constantly diminishing attribute anyway, as long as it's good. I said that A6600 has a very good sensor, and I'll stand by that all day long. It's one of the main reasons I use the camera.

That is all.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

The Goldilocks 'Just Right' Camera

When we parted on Friday, I promised to propose the Goldilocks camera, for the sake of argument. Something ideal in the middle of the medium-format digital 44x33 cameras and high-megapixel FF cameras on the one hand, and the latest smartphones with their smartcameras on the other. Not that there's anything wrong with those.

The OM System Olympus-badged OM-1

The just-right point, I think, where everything is in balance, the happy medium, is the OM System "Olympus"* OM-1.

Read what Kristine Hinrichs said in her comment to the "Hypothetical Camera Question" post:

I’m still getting great results with my Micro 4/3 system—currently the new OM-1. I can shoot 80 MP tripod-mounted if I need it, or 50 MP, handheld, using the high-res modes. I have had images from other Olympus models printed as large as 10x17 feet and 4x6 feet. These cameras are lighter and more reasonably priced. So many people use 'shooting FF only' as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism. For my work, I’d rather be able to easily shoot handheld 2–3 seconds and up to 6-ish seconds if I take a deep breath, than shoot larger files.

If you have not looked at it, the OM-1 is really a big jump in performance and image quality. When you get through all of the specs to real use, the dynamic range is much better and the images have a special quality.

Meanwhile, in the same thread, Mike Peters said:

My Micro 4/3 system already out-resolves, is sharper, and has more dynamic range than my 35mm Kodachrome slides and my 120 Fujichromes. Everyone was happy with that stuff back in the day. Rarely does more capability in anyone's camera make for more interesting photographs. [If] you work on a tripod and are looking to recreate what you got with a view camera, and need to print very large, then sure, more is always better. And for that, I have a built-in high res mode that'll get me there on my G9's and GH6's. But for the average shooter out there, [medium format is] like driving a Ferrari in rush hour traffic in NYC.

I'd get the OM-1 with the excellent OM System 12–100mm ƒ/4 as well as a "nested"** normal or normal-wide prime. The former has all the range I'd ever need and superb dual-IS, and the latter makes the camera much smaller and more portable as a walking-around camera. If you don't need such a long zoom, OM System has a very high quality fast normal zoom, the 12–40mm (24–80mm-e) ƒ/2.8 Mark II. 

Here are few more advantages of the OM-1:

• Small and light
• Superb sensor with extreme high FPS capabilities
• 20 MP is a "Goldilocks" number as well (just ask Nikon)
• Highly weatherproof
• Excellent IBIS
• Great viewfinder, reportedly
• Excellent AF
• High-res modes, some available handheld (Kristine mentioned this)
• There's a hobbyist's cornucopia of Micro 4/3 lenses from a number of companies

Of course the Fuji X-T4 is an excellent alternative to the OM-1 (both have that darned flip-out videographer-centric viewing screen that I dislike, but I'm much unhappier with Fuji for its version, on account of the X-T2 and X-T3 had achieved the perfect viewing screen and then Fuji threw it away), and there are others.

Is smaller better or worse?
And now we come to a touchy subject. Four-Thirds (13.5 x 18mm) was introduced in 2003, and I was an early supporter from the get-go. The reason is that I think it's an advantage to have a sensor smaller than 24 x 36mm (a.k.a. 35mm, a.k.a. 135). You get a narrower angle of view from the same lens focal length, which I consider an advantage; the lenses can be smaller and lighter and brighter because they have less to cover, which I consider an advantage; and you get more depth-of-field for the same aperture, which I consider an advantage. I've always thought it a plus for digital that cameras can be designed to have smaller-than-35mm sensors. It was something we always wanted with film—cameramakers kept trying to make film sizes smaller—but it turned out 24x36mm was a practical minimum for film. With APS-C and Micro 4/3 we were freed of that limitation. That was and is a good thing.

And it's a good thing I've always been loathe to relinquish. Faced with the choice:

[Micro 4/3 or APS-C] vs. [FF or medium format]

...I usually choose the option on the left. I did own two FF cameras along the way (the Sony A900 and Nikon D800), but neither of them made it to the status of my everyday go-to "axe" for whatever reason. Other than that I've almost entirely chosen Micro 4/3 or APS-C cameras for my personal use over the past 16 years. All three of my current cameras are APS-C.

But not everybody agrees with that viewpoint.

If you want a 24x36mm sensor, compare the OM-1 with the Nikon Z5:

(Image courtesy CameraSize)

As you can see they're about the same size. Both have nice big grips. The effective focal length (angles of view) of those lenses is the same, the Nikkor being slower at the long end, counterbalanced by better higher-ISO performance. The Nikon is 76 g (about 2.7 ounces) heavier; the Nikkor lens is actually only 9 g heavier. The Z5 is a little simpler, which—again in my book but maybe not in yours—is a plus. Bigger plus: you can get that Z5 and lens and a card and a bag for less than the cost of the OM-1 body alone. Although price sensitivity might not be much of an issue for you with expensive cameras.

I personally like 40mm as a walkaround focal length, and Micro 4/3 has two options there, the 20mm Panasonic and the highly corrected 20mm ƒ/1.4 OM System. Nikon has the new ultralight 40mm ƒ/2 Z lens (only 170 g / 6 oz.), which effectively makes the camera smaller and lighter. So, really, you can get an equivalent FF camera with not much if any penalty, presuming that's what you prefer.

Again, it doesn't matter to me that the OM-1 isn't smaller and lighter than a "full-frame" camera, because I think the smaller sensor is an advantage and I would prefer it. But your mileage may vary***.

Image quality
This is bound to be controversial, but I also prefer the image quality of the Micro 4/3 to FF. It's not quite as smooth or detailed, but it has more "bite" and subjectively gives an impression of greater sharpness. I like it better, all else being equal. Note that I don't make large prints (13 x 19" paper is the largest). It's a matter of taste.

Conclusion
After I wrote the "Goldilocks" post I heard it from a few M10 shooters (no, I have no hate for the M10, quite the contrary), and if you haven't seen Stephen Scharf's comment in the Comments Section of the "Goldilocks" post defending the iPhone 13, go look at it. No hate for that either; I have one. And there are many cameras out there and I'm not the expert on what other people should buy. This is just my opinion. And of course Micro 4/3 is on the outs in terms of popularity, with Olympus having bailed on its camera division and Panasonic busy vigorously filling in an entire FF line. (I'm also very unhappy with Panasonic, for abandoning the GX8 instead of making a GX8 Mark II.)

But to me, the OM-1 hits the Goldilocks Principle nail right smack on the head. It's the best all-'rounder for everything and anything. To me, it makes more sense than an iPhone, and it makes more sense than a FF or larger-than-FF camera.

I'm guessing you will have an opinion about that, so let 'er rip, I'm ready.

Mike

*It's not made by Olympus. It's to be the last Olympus-branded camera and was called that as a 50th-anniversary homage to the original Olympus OM system, which debuted with the compact film Olympus OM-1 in 1971. I want the next one, with "OM System" blazed on the front. And please, call it the OMS-1...it's the age of the internet, and things need searchable names. Don't we know that yet?

**A "nested" prime is one with a focal length within the focal length range of the zoom.

***You have to use that phrase in every camera comparo; it's an internet rule. 

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

SteveW: "My iPhone is my standard zoom with a range of 13–77mm equivalent. And longer if necessary with digital zoom. My nested lens is a Fuji X-T4 with a 33mm ƒ/1.4 or 23mm ƒ/2. Currently, I have more fun with the iPhone which is always with me. Everything about it is easy."

SW Rick: "I can see the flame-throwers being ignited as we speak.  :-) "

Mike replies: Nah, we're nice to each other around here. Our little corner of civility on the web. 

James: "For what it's worth, I’ve had no problem getting Micro 4/3 images accepted into juried all-media art shows and selling prints at my local gallery. And that’s with lesser models—E-M10 Mark II and E-M5 Mark III."

Benjamin Marks: "Not much rests on agreeing or disagreeing about a specific piece of gear. But having said that, I absolutely love the OM-1. I have one that I use with Olympus primes that I originally bought to use with an earlier Micro 4/3 camera. I use a Pen-F as a back-up/second body when I am out with it. No zooms. Lenses are 12mm, 17mm, 20mm, 45mm, 50mm, and 60mm, and I usually carry four or five (they weigh almost nothing). The 45mm and Panasonic 20mm are the magic lenses of that group for me.

"I have that larger Pentax K-1 and I have a Leica M-9. But for photographing my family, or the streets of New York City, the combination of in-body stabilization, AF, a silent motor drive mode, and low-light IQ good enough that it has never been the limiting factor for my photography really puts it in the Goldilocks zone for me, of 'just right.'

"If I am having someone over for a portrait session, the Pentax definitely comes out. But for traveling around in the world, the OM-1 is really a treat. I am thinking of buying a spare in case the company now making them 'goes away' at some point."

Aaron: "I use Micro 4/3 and the OM-1. I also have a Sony A7RIV. Perhaps surprisingly, in marginal light for landscapes I prefer Micro 4/3 for the simple reasons that I can shoot at ƒ/5.6 and get roughly the same depth of field as ƒ/11 on the full frame. In addition, as you note, the stabilization is great—I routinely get an extra stop or two compared to the Sony. Put those together and I routinely shoot the OM-1 at a 3–4 stop faster ISO than the Sony. So much for the full frame advantage (at least in marginal light without a tripod)."

Dan D: "Micro 4/3 really made photography fun for me. The size is ideal for travel and street photography. I carry a Lumix G9 in a Kiva street bag with an Olympus 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 and a Lumix 20mm ƒ/1.7. I prefer the Lumix menus over the Olympus as I felt Olympus's were not very intuitive. After selling all my Nikon cameras and lenses I haven't looked back. The Lumix G9 hits the Goldilocks spot in my hands."

Daniel J. Cox: "I’ve been shooting Micro 4/3 cameras since 2008. Full time since about 2015. You did a fabulous job pointing out the many benefits of Micro 4/3 and in particular the new OM-1. But by far the best line in your review was Kristine's: 'So many people use "shooting FF only" as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism.' Absolutely dead nuts on! Could not have said it better myself and Ive been shooting professionally for over 40 years. The OM-1 is a tremendous camera."

Dave Levingston: "That OM-1 is more camera than I need...and apparently about the same size and weight as my Z7II. I'm enjoying working with the Z7II, but find myself frequently just reaching for the Panasonic GX8's for anything where I don't feel the need for the higher pixel count. If only Panasonic would make a worthy successor to the GX8 with a higher pixel count sensor.... At any rate, I won't be getting rid of the Micro 4/3 kit, though the Z7 is here to stay as well. But I do agree that M 4/3 is the Goldilocks system."

Fulvio Senore: "About normal zooms for micro 4/3 don't forget the Olympus 12-45 mm f/4. It's cheaper, smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 one. I use it with my GX9: I don't care if it is slower and I am very satisfied."

Pak Ming Wan: "No problems with this choice at all. My GH5 Micro 4/3 at 20MP is plenty good enough. Micro 4/3 arguably pioneered the whole mirrorless march (even though the maturity in the market now is more even across the board). The new OM-1 I think is much more camera than I'll ever need. For the record, I feel like my GH5 is the Ferrari and my Leica M-Monochrome is my Ford Focus."

Brunell Val: "My Goldilocks system is Fuji X-T2. If I had to start over, I might migrate to Nikon FF mirrorless. Seems weird that Canon and Sony are hardly mentioned, as I perceive them to be the commercial/innovation market leaders based on reading elsewhere on the Web."

John: "What’s missing in your comparison with the Nikon is that the OM-1 is much, much more camera than that Nikon. The OM-1 is on par with the top cameras of the other brands, except for a smaller sensor. Plus, it uses computational photography that other cameras don’t offer."

One Crazy Camera

Okay, I've only had my new iPhone 13 Pro for the better part of one day, but let me show you a couple of things. First, this is Butters, cowering under my desk because of the fireworks. In this top frame, I did my best to reproduce the actual visual impression of the actual light. This is cleaner and a bit more contrasty than my eyes see it, but it's fairly close. This top picture is intended to give you an idea of the light level:

The picture, in other words, was taken more or less in the dark.

Next, fixed up in Adobe Photoshop 2021:

Click on it to see it larger. (Seriously, do, and look how pretty.) It takes an astonishing amount of correction for a small-sensor file. I'm not at the limits yet here.

This is a ProRAW .dng file, by the way. That's my leg on the left, and the edge of the desk at the top. [UPDATE: And at the bottom left, that reddish area, that's my finger! Yikes. I haven't done that in many years. I'll have to get used to these three big ol' lenses on the back of the phone.]

Finally, this will be a 100% detail after you click on it to enlarge it. Keep in mind the blogging software blurs images slightly, which affects the rendering of hairs; the original is a bit sharper than you'll see. I haven't done any noise correction (noise doesn't bother me; I actually like it). I did "level up," though:

I imagine you'll say, "I've seen better," but stay in context—this is a phone, taken handheld, using lots of IS, under very dark conditions!

Here's a detail of a test shot made in daylight. This will also be 100% after you click on it, hopefully. Something a little funky is going on at the top edge of the sunlit portion of the solid stem of the lamp, but I don't know what.

I would normally "unsharpen" this a bit to get rid of the edge artifacts, but I wanted to process it minimally for you. (And sorry about all the dust on the speaker. I'm a bad housekeeper.) It's an 800-pixel center section, also of a ProRAW shot. Pretty good for a tiny sensor.

This is a SOOC JPEG, not ProRAW, again adjusted to show the actual dusk light according to my visual impression, with no adjustment for the haloing. And this has some digital zoom added over the longest focal length module (I don't know how to find out how much). Plus Butters was tugging at the leash when I took it. Really pretty impressive that I got a shot at all, much less that it looks this decent.

Here's a rather tough lighting and color-depth challenge, which the camera + software has handled with remarkable aplomb. Note that the sunlight tree behind the campfire is just a little out of the d.o.f.:

I think I needed to twiddle the black point just a skosh, here. But for digital rendering of the colors of fire, that's pretty strong, you've gotta admit. Again, it's a phone. This is also just a JPEG, not a ProRAW.

That's enough, for now. Color me impressed, out of the gate. Pretty amazing camera system.

Hopefully I'll be back later today with Stephen's portfolio. But tomorrow, at the latest? Never make promises, Mike....

Mike

Book o' the Week:

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Richard Man: "Keith Cartmell wrote: 'How much of the image quality (and I admit these are pretty good quality images) comes from computation photography techniques, rather than the optical qualities of the lens and sensor technology?' A lot. You can see it in action especially in low light photography. Just a gut guess (I am a Silicon Valley tech geek by days), Apple probably has more software people working on just the computational photography aspect than all other non-phone camera companies (e.g. excluding Google and Samsung) combined on their respective cam processing pipes."

David Brown: "I have an iPhone 12 Pro and am equally astonished at the camera(s). If the ergonomics were better, I would be tempted to use it even more. However, as it is, in extreme wide angle and low light, it is hard to beat."

TC Lin: "People call it a 'tiny' sensor, but it's actually larger than the sensors of a lot of the older digicams that we used to use in the early part of the century, e.g. the Canon Powershots et al."

John Merlin Williams: "Just wait till you try 'Portrait' mode! When you view the image after taking, click 'Edit' in the bottom right of the screen. In the next view, you should see an f-stop number (my iPhone 11 Pro defaults to ƒ/4.5)in the upper left of the screen. This is the effective f-stop setting of the preview now on your screen. Click that 'ƒ/4.5' button and a 'Depth' slider bar will appear at the bottom of the screen. Scroll back and forth from say, ƒ/1.4 to ƒ/16 to change the effective aperture—and prepare to be amazed."

Ed Kirkpatrick: "I think it's a camera that makes phone calls...."

Dave: "...And how is it as just as a phone?"

Mike replies: Improved in at least one way I've noticed: the speakers, both the earpiece and the 'speakerphone' mode, are much better.

The Downsides of the Leica M10 Reporter

Having written about what I like best about it, here are the things that I've noticed that are, for me, the downsides of the Leica M10 Reporter (NLA new). But please, note those italics. I'm not a hater, and if you love your digital M, I get it and have no quarrel.

Cost: First is the elephant in the room, cost. I believe I read when I was a boy and still into military enthusiasms (ancient history now) that the German Tiger tank was superior to any armor the allies had, but that Soviet T-34 tanks were so much cheaper, and could be produced in such numbers, that a strategy developed whereby four T-34s would attack one Tiger. While a T-34 could never beat a Tiger one-on-one, at four-on-one it was no contest the other way around.

That metaphor might be brutal in light of the tank battles in Ukraine (sorry), but, very honestly, I think the excessive expense goes against Leica's stated intentions of providing a tough working tool for extreme conditions. To me, an important aspect of an all-the-time, on-the-go working tool is that it be replaceable. You either need to be able to buy a readily-available replacement quickly, or you have to have a second body already waiting in reserve. And the replacement/reserve obviously needs to be something you can afford, and cheap enough so that if you break or lose it, it's not a catastrophe.

Now, I know full well after having written this blog for 16.5 years that "price sensitivity" is an individual thing. We have everything from multi-millionaires to retirees on pensions reading this site (we used to have students, but I don't think so much any more). What is out of reach for some is a throwaway cost for others, and there's a whole range of people in between. Still, if you're doing weddings for pay with a Fuji X-T4, you probably have a backup body; yet I doubt that even millionaire owners of the M10 Reporter have a second one set aside and waiting in case they drop one into the punchbowl or set it on a concrete wall in a parking garage and accidentally knock it off and it falls four stories. (Both scenarios based on true stories!) I did meet a pro once who switched from a perfectly good main body to the more recent one because a replacement for the more recent one could be overnighted to him the next day, whereas the older body had been discontinued. But you might counter that the "tough working tool for extreme conditions" is actually just symbolic in the case of the Reporter—an homage to the concept, if you will. That's a valid point.

As you know if you read the comments to Friday's post, Jack Mac actually encouraged me to take the M10 R out for walks, and even said he wouldn't mind if I scratched it. Which is pretty generous of him. Still and all, cheapskate that I am, I must duly report that I find myself highly constrained by the preciousness of the M10 R. The most expensive camera I ever bought was an M6 c. 1990, $3k then and $6,700 in today's dollars. There were times when I felt uncomfortable carrying it around with me. I want a camera I can use up.

In any event we can no doubt natter amongst ourselves about the meaning and implications of a $10,000 camera body (the current going price for a Reporter) all day and all night, so let us move on.

No autofocus: To my mind, manual focus and autofocus are just options, and one is not better than the other. I'm pretty familiar and comfortable with rangefinder focusing, for at least the last 30 years anyway, and there are some advantages to manual rangefinder focusing: no clutter in the viewfinder; a direct view of the subtle intensities and colors of the real light because a rangefinder window is WYSIWYG in that respect; the infinity stop; and the focus stays where you place it until you change it. You hold focusing distance in your mind and can check on it with a glance if you forget. (Some of these can be simulated in various ways with some AF cameras.)

There are also some usability benefits that I pointed out in the previous post, for instance that it frees up a half-press of the shutter for AEL rather than AF-lock, and I like that.

However, I like AF too. Despite my transplanted cornea, my eyes aren't what they used to be. I'm not complaining at all; I don't wear glasses at age 65 except for computer use and reading, and I'm plenty thankful for that. But manual RF focusing requires some learning and practice, and I'm just as happy to let the camera focus itself, even though my use of AF is pretty limited. (I only use two modes, and don't begin to utilize all the Sony's capabilities).

No EVF: All you have to do is photograph with the Voigtländer 12mm (NLA) to have it blatantly pointed out to you that the field of view can be hard to see with an RF viewfinder. The M10's various framelines are approximate, and, despite Leica's clever perspective correction in the digital domain (called Perspective Control), there are still the usual headaches of parallax at closer focusing distances. An EVF is not WYSIWYG in terms of providing a window to the light and the color of the scene, but it's perfectly WYSIWYG with regard to perspective and the exact boundaries of the frame. Verdict? Six to one, half a dozen the other.

But the real gotcha with the viewfinder? It's that I've gotten into the habit of reviewing using the viewfinder! I love it, and I do it both while shooting, to check various parameters, and also while reviewing to see what I got. It takes ambient light, sunlight, out of the equation. Again and again with the Leica I would like to check what I just shot in the viewfinder, and of course can't—you can only review on the viewing screen on the back of the camera, which is hard to see in sunlight.

No image stabilization: It's been my observation that many times when you'd like to use something that's obsolescent, it would do fine in many respects, but there's often just one or two modern features that are so useful or sensible that it's hard to do without them. (I think of this every time I see Jay Leno tooling down the highway in an old car with no airbags. He's a head-on collision away from some fine old wooden Nardi steering wheel making contact with his spine from the wrong side. No thanks. I've watched "Idiots in Cars" vids. I'll take an airbag.) In the '90s I bought a Nikkormat FT-3 and considered using it as my main camera, and it would have been fine except that the 1977 groundglass was just very dark in comparison to more modern ones. If just that one thing could have been modernized, the older camera would have been fine. (At the time.)

Well, most old things have "just that one thing." In cars, backup cameras—stories of people backing SUVs over their own children deeply horrify me. You know where this is going: IS is one modern feature I happen to think is useful. Of course the M10 doesn't have it. Cartier-Bresson was rumored to go to bed early and abstain from coffee so he could handhold 1/4th sec., so there are workarounds.  :-)

Handling: The M10 was famously the first digital M to replicate the exact size and shape of the classic Leica, represented in Leica's literature by the M4. And of course the standard party line for half a century was that the Leica M was small and handy and "a camera you can get to grips with." It's received wisdom: i.e., you're supposed to believe it because everybody has always believed it. Yeah, but. The trouble is, the M10 is not small and handy by today's standards. It's handy compared to a 1930s folder and small compared to a TLR. It's not that they haven't done a great job replicating the original; it's that the world has changed. Today it's a little on the clunky and awkward side...

...Most particularly, the grip, or lack thereof. I'd consider a handgrip mandatory with this camera, although I don't have one here to try. The Sony A6600, which has the biggest grip of any of its ilk, makes that camera very handy and satisfying for a small camera. And I just handled a Nikon Z series (Dave Levingston's), which is excellent ergonomically, and it felt greatly more comfortable and secure in the hand than the 70-year-old design of the Leica.

Finally—and this is just a nitpick—I noticed that whenever I switched to vertical orientation (shutter release at the bottom and viewfinder window at the top right), my left thumb naturally hit the menu button. On the good side, even with the menu open on the viewing screen you can still press the shutter button and the camera will take a picture normally.

But you get used to handling. With a "you're in control" camera like the M10, you learn it. I'm sure I'd get used to the handling if it were mine.

Weight: The M10 Reporter is too heavy. With the 35mm Summilux especially. That combo tilts my scale at 972 g (34.3 oz.). That's not heavy for a camera, necessarily, but the smaller the camera the greater the subjective density and the more its weight is emphasized. My A6600 is also a bit on the porky side: with the 30mm ƒ/1.4 Contemporary it's 767 g. Like the handling, you'll get used to the M10 if you use it a lot. But it's too heavy. It can be lightened by using a lighter lens, but, like most of us, it would benefit from going on a diet. Weight loss of 15% or even 20% would benefit the body. (My body too. You?) You might say this is a matter of taste, and I'd have to grant you the point, but a cost-no-object camera should attain an ideal, and feeling like it's made of lead isn't ideal IMO. Note too that a handgrip would add yet more weight, putting this camera + prime combo at ~1150 g (over 40 oz.). Compare to the Nikon Z7 II and kit zoom at 1115 g.

Second car
What's the upshot here? Obviously, there is more than one reason to buy a Leica M. They're status symbols, very satisfying toys, cool body accessories, tickets of admission to various communities of geekery, and also, within their range, excellent working tools. Everyone's going to have his or her own mix of reasons for either wanting or buying one. As I made clear on Friday, it's a digital camera that goes most of the way to recovering/recreating the simple and secure experience of using a film camera. It fully realizes the promise of the early, imperfect first digital M, the M8. And it's a digital M that will be satisfyingly, gratifyingly familiar to those with histories as film M owners/users.

I do think its "beautiful simplicity" is plenty of reason for owning one. So is using it purely for serious photography. I see no impediment to that, if its natural limitations suit the kind of work you do or aspire to do.

Well, and if you have good insurance. (Consider a rider on your homeowner's insurance, or dedicated camera insurance.) 

However, even if money were no object, I would probably not be happy with an M10 as my only camera. (Although I think I'd like to do an OC/OL/OY with a Q2 Monochrom, which has AF and IS, and is weatherproof.) And I'll go out on a limb (way out on a limb) and guess that most M10 owners also own other cameras. I wasn't a pro for very long—only 6–7 years in the '80s–'90s—but during that (pre-digital) time I noticed that most pros I knew or met had pretty complete systems in at least one, more often two, and not infrequently all three major formats (35mm, 6x6 or 6x7, and large format); and then, many of them also owned a Leica M and a few lenses for "personal" work, as personal jewelry, and/or to tie in to the tradition of intrepid globetrotting photojournalists or committed art photographers such as Capa, Koudelka, Eisenstadt, Winogrand, and so many more great names from the olden days.

I also knew a few photographers who used only a film Leica M. I'm sure their "digital equivalents" are out there, and power to 'em. All I'm saying is that an M10 really is like a Miata*: you'll probably be happiest if it's your second car. Er, camera.

This ain't all. In our discussion of the M10, there's more yet to come.

Mike

*Steve Renwick said this.

Book o' the Week:

Inspiration Leica Akademie (English and German Edition). A "group show" of 76 Leica Akademie photographers from 16 countries worldwide, curated by Heidi and Robert Mertens. It looks to me like this is going out of print soon, so act soon if you want one.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you choose to support the site.

Leica at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bryan Hansel: "On Friday, you gave me camera envy. Thankfully this posts brings me back down to Earth."

PWL: "Well, I have the M10 P, and to be honest, I don’t notice most of the difficulties you mentioned in your article, perhaps because I shot Leica M film cameras for years and are used to their idiosyncrasies. Where I will agree with you is that the price is a real issue. Makes it hard to use a very good camera in a lot of instances, because you’re afraid of destroying, damaging, or losing such an expensive item (although I should note that I do have it insured, but still…). And yes, I do have another camera system that gets a lot more use: Fuji X-Pro cameras. Pretty much my go-anywhere workhorse system."

Jeff: "I don’t mind the weight (provides stability for me), but the M11 black version, which is 20% lighter (530 g vs. 660 g for the M10, both with battery), provides an option for those who might. The EVF and hand grip issues can each be addressed via accessory add-ons, albeit at the expense of added bulk and weight. I don’t use either, but do use the accessory thumb rest (attached via hot shoe) for much better handling.

"My complementary system (for EVF, AF, IBIS, weather sealing, zooms, longer and wider focal lengths, etc) is the SL2. It has a virtually identical menu interface as the M, and seamlessly adapts M lenses. But I prefer keeping my M lenses (28mm/35mm/50mm) on my M."

Alex Mercado: "Pff…I always keep an M10 at easy access in the boot of my Morgan Plus Four. What is this 'My-At-Tah' you speak of?"

Bob G.: "Had to laugh (sort of) at your Nardi analogy…I had one on my '67 E-Type and it was scary to think about being in an accident with it. My mechanic said, the metal bends, but the wheel doesn’t. I felt 'better' with my single-spoke, downward-facing '71 Citroen Safari wheel…all this way before airbags for sure…."

Mike replies: Plus, you never wanted to go fast in a '71 Citroen.  :-)

Centeredlens: "+1 for camera insurance. I was afraid to take my M10 on vacation until I bought the peace of mind that I could replace it if it fell off a wall or got stolen. (Not that I’ve had to test the insurance yet, fingers crossed….)"

Jack Mac: "Mike, My explanations that if you ding it, it’s OK is partially based on my history of dropping cameras. Right after I wrote you that last week, I dropped an M 10 monochrome. It now has a loving ding in the upper corner. The digital M cameras are still robust. The Rangefinder patch was still in alignment and everything worked perfectly. Except I noticed that it doesn’t record color."

Mike replies: Heh. Reminds me of that old joke, 'Doctor, after my operation, will I be able to play piano?' Plus the fact that car repair shops occasionally car mechanics see cars towed in with the complaint that they will not start...and all that's wrong is that they're out of gas.

Dan Khong: "Twenty-five years back when the M6 and Rollies and Hassies were more seen and used side by side, the ownership of a Leica M stood out head and shoulders above the rest. Today, I am more likely to attract attention with a Rolleiflex TLR than—might I dare say—even the M10 Reporter (which I don't own so I am guessing). When I stroll around with a grey Rolleiflex T, I can almost always get a subject to agree to have their picture taken."

Pierre Charbonneau: "Digital M's are indeed a bit heavy in the hand. There are days when I prefer the Fujifilm x100 for walking around with friends.The autofocus is then a blessing. I guess it shows that I am then more casual and my subjects are appreciating this. And the pictures aren't bad either for all that."

Nicolas Woollaston: "the difficulty with wide angle lenses is also similar to the limitations in trying to use long lenses and in wanting to use any lens focused close, let alone macro."

Ben: "I just bought an M11. The cost is tough to swallow...I feel very lucky to be able to afford it now and able to use the lenses I've gathered over the years. And I definitely feel uncomfortable about the price/cost/value, so I always cover the silly dot. At least that's the only visible marking. The black M11 is, I think, pretty close to 25% lighter than the M10. So the weight is...perfect. It should've had IS, of course! But it's great to have really good high ISO performance in an M, so I can shoot at faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. Agreed about the hand grip...I added a stick-on one. We'll see how it goes, but the handling seems better. For whatever reason, I've always felt most comfortable with a rangefinder and OVF. I do also have a Micro 4/3 system (Panasonic GX8 forever! ;-) and a Fuji X100V...I quit Nikon some time ago. Have thought about a Sony system but the size of the lenses is off-putting."

Luke: "I'm so happy to see this post. Modern electronic gizmo cameras produce better pictures due to AF, EVF, IS, etc. If it's easier to use, yes, your pictures improve. IS or give up coffee?? Hah! Also, Mr. Mercado, does your Morgan even have a boot? Maybe you strap your Leica to the luggage rack?"

Kenneth Tanaka: "Chiming-in very late, sorry. But as a long-time and very current Leica owner here are my thoughts.

First, I agree with much of your earlier praise. Leica’s excision of video from the M cameras and converting the user control interface to the SL-style design greatly simplified the camera’s actual and apparent usage. Until last week I owned an M10-R and, previously, an M10-P, M240, and M9…so I’ve keenly observed and welcomed the camera’s evolutionary refinement. I am pleased to say that the new M11 maintains that design line and even extends it in new and useful ways.

"I also mostly concur with your 'downside' points of this post; cost, no autofocus, no image stabilization, awkward handling, and weight, although these have always been intrinsic characteristics of this type of camera. Your 'No EVF' point is not entirely accurate as the camera does offer an accessory EVF (Visoflex) that attaches to the hot shoe and articulates 90 degrees [$740. And more weight. —Ed.]. Regarding handling I would also add that an accessory grip has long been available for these M cameras giving the hand at least a better purchase on the camera. Regarding weight, as someone noted, the new black M11 with its aluminum top plate is significantly lighter than previous digital Ms. In fact, its weight is slightly less than that of the film M7!

"Beyond your downside points I would add three others that, in my experience, represent practical limitations of the M rangefinder that should be paramount to anyone considering using such a camera for particular jobs. I don’t think they’ve been noted yet:

Lack of weatherproofing: The Leica M is simply one of the least weather resistant cameras on the market. Lens mounts are metal-to-metal. Heck, the whole bottom of the camera must be removed just to change batteries and SD cards! I have never had an M camera fail from weather although I have never pressed the boundaries.

Metering: The nature of the M10’s design is such that center-weighted-average is what you’re going to get. (That has changed somewhat with the M11.) This is easy to manage but it’s important to understand that exposure precision will be entirely up to you.

Close focus range limitation: The nature of the M rangefinder’s optical design leaves most lenses with a closest focus distance of approximately 3 feet. There are accessories and at least one special macro lens that enable you to get closer to subjects but this has been a notable limitation of the camera’s design since its invention.

"But let's be honest: nobody buys an M with their head. Nobody needs one of these cameras for anything any more."

Josh: "As a Brit, talking about backup cameras (second cameras) and backup cameras (reversing cameras on a car) in the same post confused the hell out of me for a second!

Mike replies: Oh—sorry! That didn't even occur to me. But it should have.

Sroyon: "I enjoyed Josh's comment about backup cameras. Made me think about using a backup camera as a backup camera (forgot your Leica at home? Simply ask your subject to stand behind the car and record them on video) or alternatively, a backup camera as a backup camera (reversing camera on your car not working? Gaffer tape your spare Leica ME to the rear fender and stream video to your phone)."

The Leica M10: It's Simple

So I've been using the M10-P Reporter edition, and I'll have a few comments about it next week. Unless I procrastinate. Or forget.

But first, at the risk of flagellating the dearly departed pony ever more severely, I will say that it is what I've been gassing on about, namely...

...A simple camera.

Exposure compensation is on the little thumbwheel on the rear (you can see the serrations of it there at bottom right), and reads out in the finder. There's a shutter speed dial with "A" as an option. There's a numbered ISO dial (so you can see where it's set even when the camera's off). There are apertures on a ring around the lens. You focus the camera and the focus stays where you put it until you change it.

All you really need.

There's a button on the back for review, one for live view, and one for the menu (I haven't even dipped into the menu yet, much less delved). There's a four-way navigation pad. There's a shutter button with an on-off collar around it. There's a bay for the battery and for one (gasp! one) card. As far as I can tell, the thing doesn't shoot video, and if so, thank you, Lord: proof that there could be a camera that's not a hybrid camera/camcorder.

An effectively simple camera. An effectively simple digital camera.

My question is, why can't we have something like this? Why can't somebody make something like this? There's not a camera on the market anywhere close to as simple as this. Not one. Why not?

What is so complicated about making a simple camera?

So there you go. Proof of concept. Whenever I talk about simple cameras, everybody jumps all over me like I'm crazy. Everybody wants different features, they say. It's easy to configure your complex camera to be simple, everybody says. I'm not willing to buy anything less than all the features my money can buy, yells internet, rudely.

I still say, the market needs a handful of simple cameras. Cameramakers are killing themselves with geeks-only complexity. It's too much. Some people just want to take pictures.

I'm not suggesting all cameras should be simple. Just a small minority. You can still have your Omega777 on which the G12 button can be configured to change pet's-eye follow-focus from front eye to back eye on the fly. You can still have your OMG Y-ME LMNOP that has three focus stacking modes and a dry-ice well for cooling the sensor during 193-minute continuous video clips. You can still have your Minnion DigiFlibbitWibbi Mark E that features 87 dynamic spot-metering points with a CPU that recognizes potential Likes-generating Instapix and makes the needed framing flash madly with one of 16 configurable colors in the viewfinder. Which, but of course, reads the transmission coefficient of your eye with lasers and compensates for your cataracts. I'm not suggesting any of those things be taken away from anyone, certainly not anyone named after a large North American antlered ungulate of the Cervidae family. Just, if you please, one or two or three or four effective, simple but high-quality cameras too. Pared down, all business, feature-creep-free.

I'll go take my meds now, and lie down with a hot-water bottle on my head. Talk amongst yourselves.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Ara Güler's Istanbul, one of the more amazing books in my collection. I'm also amazed it's still in print. Not only does it culminate a longtime habit and a vast body of work for the Turkish photographer of Armenian descent, one of the few world-famous photographers from Turkey—a labor of love—but it's a unique and wonderful example of bookmaking. If you don't buy this, at least see one sometime.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Pak-Ming Wan: "That's pretty much the conclusion I got after a couple of minutes of handling a digital M. They are far from perfect digital versions of their analog heritage—not the fastest, quietest, lightest...but they are the simplest digital cameras you can buy. And I like that."

Steve Biro: "Yes. A simple camera. You'll get no argument from me. Now, please, can someone make something like this for under $2,000?"

Jeff: "The (fatter) M240 series was the only M platform with video capability. That was removed when the slimmer M10 (and now M11) was introduced."

Dennis Mook: "Mike, you mention the complexities of the Omega 777 and the Minnion DigiFlibbitWibbi Mark E but you certainly can’t forget the simplicity of the Lindenblatt KL-2. They still can be found if you are interested!"

Ed. note: One of the rarest cameras, considered by some to be mythical. boriscleto on the Pentax Forums wrote, in 2009:

The guy who used to run Cambridge Camera Exchange, long known as one of the worst NY camera dealer, sold his own brand of cameras. The Cambron cameras were rebadged Zenits, they were the cheapest camera you could buy, $99 with the Helios 58/2.

Then he had his "high end" camera, the Lindenblatt KL-2. This was a Topcon K-mount camera that was never sold by Topcon, Topcon AM-1. It was released in 1983 by Cima as the Cimko LS-1, and in the US as the Lindenblatt. If you look at the Cambridge ads in old magazines you'll see that he priced them almost as much as a Pentax LX....

End quote. —Ed.]

Alex Mercado: "Leica M10-D: Nicht Schimpansen ['no chimping' —Ed.]. Possibly the simplest digital camera."

Michael Wayne Plant: "My wife allowed me to have one and I agree it is a joy and a pleasure to use. I also have a D850 and I am still learning how to use that three years after I got it, whereas the Leica M11 I got recently is even easier to set up and use, than the Leica M10 I had for the last five years. It took me all of five minutes to set up and configure my new M11 ready to go and make images. The hardest part was setting up the profiles, so I can with one touch switch between black-and-white and colour shooting.

"For me this is camera heaven!"

Patrick Hannan: "I absolutely agree, and it was the motivation for me buying my M10—and given it is almost perfectly simple it is also why I am not remotely tempted to upgrade to the M11 as it isn't as simple as the M10. Simply perfect in my view."

Steve C: "Yes, I remember Stefan Daniel talking about exactly this thing—the clamouring from people who say that they want a Leica, and would buy one but for all the missing features. He said something to the effect of, 'We say to those people: you can have that camera, that camera exists. But it is not available in a body with just four buttons. Other people make that camera. We want to make a simple camera, with just four buttons.'"

Mike replies: It's really a shame that only Leica has this courage.

Rob Campbell (partial comment): "...Everybody knows that cameras are no longer designed for the production of photographs: they are designed to wring the blood from your wallet. Period. Photography, largely, has become redundant."

John Cornelius: "Happy Birthday! I'm a little late to this post. Every time you talk about a simple camera I gaze up at the Leica M4 on my shelf. The camera is simple. Operating it is simple. Getting the photos out is a little complicated, but I do it still. I guess I'm stubborn. Gave away my OM-Ds, both of them; I just couldn't make them simple enough."

Thomas Tveit Rosenlund: "Well the Leica and Hasselblad simple cameras are crazy expensive. Why not just get the Fuji X100v and be done with it. I don't like the menus but I only use them to format the memory card anyway."

One Problem with the Leica Reporter

...Is that the camera is worth ~$10k, and the lens ~$4k. That isn't the price of a used car...it's the price of a good used car. (At least here in rural Upstate New York*.) Yesterday it rained all day (at first, rain in midwinter seemed like the waters burning from east to west or the birds flying backwards**, but you get used to freaky things), and today it's snowing, so I've "reported" a whole bunch on the inside of my messy house. No way am I taking $14k on the hoof out the house into weather. I'm antsy enough being responsible for this as it is.

Taking pictures in the house is nostalgic for me with a Leica, though. I used to practice camera-handling with my M6 for five or ten minutes every night in the living room. You have to if you want to learn to zone-focus by feel, without looking through the viewfinder. So it seems right in line with the M*** gestalt.

Just thought I'd mention it,

Mike

*I have a buddy who is still driving a $500 junker he picked up five years ago. He even tried to give it to a guy who worked for him—the guy was homeless and bathing in the lakes—but when the guy blew the area he left the car behind and my friend reclaimed it. Guess the guy couldn't afford the gas (American for petrol. Note that you italicize foreign words). My friend also has two, count 'em, two pickup trucks...he keeps the wee little mite for when he just wants to go somewhere, to save on, okay, petrol.

**Traditional signs of the apocalypse.

***For Messsucher [sic], rangefinder.

Book o' the Week

Ara Güler's Istanbul, one of the more amazing books in my collection. I'm also amazed it's still in print. Not only does it culminate a longtime habit and a vast body of work for the Turkish photographer of Armenian descent, one of the few world-famous photographers from Turkey—a labor of love—but it's a unique and wonderful example of bookmaking. If you don't buy this, at least see one sometime.

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "Bad weather makes for good photographs. But bad weather will probably brick that tough-looking-but-actually-frail Leica M. I don’t blame you for not wanting to let your expensive guest play in the rain. It may be wearing Kevlar but it ain’t up to a D-Day invasion. Sunny streets only, please."

Mike replies: And as you know, Ken, value in older cameras greatly depends on condition. Which makes for a contradiction: makers can make, and we can buy, cameras that are intended to be especially tough and stand up to handling and wear and other sundry insults. But, if your camera shows signs of wear and handling, much less injury, it will be worth less. So the Reporter, which is ostensibly all business and made to be tough, better not get scratched!

Which is a lead-in to:

James: "That's my Leica conundrum. I bought a Q2M. It's an awesome camera. It also cost a little north of $6,000. So I rarely use it. I'm just not in the class of folks who can afford to use a Leica. I have had for a little over a year and it's the worst camera investment I have ever made in terms of usage. I guess I am going to sell it.

"I noted another commenter talked about a machine that forces you to slow down [John Gillooly, in the Comments section below this post  —Ed.]. I am not trying to be disparaging but you don't have to go fast or take lots of photos; you choose to do that. I also have an X-Pro3 and an X100V. I'm sure there are faster cameras, but just because I can take a bunch of photos in rapid succession doesn't mean that 'I have to take a bunch of photos in rapid succession.'

"It reminds of of a quote I read from Miles Davis when John Coltrane told him he didn't know how to stop soloing. Miles said: 'Take the horn out of your mouth.'"

Leica M10-P Reporter

Leica M10-P Reporter

This is what I have here to try this week. It's a Leica M10-P Reporter. (Goes toward "simple cameras.") The website Digital Camera World, a year or so ago, quoted Stefan Daniel, who is now Executive Vice President Technology and Operations, Leica Camera AG, Wetzlar: "A couple of years ago we got to know about Gabriele Micalizzi, and his saying that a Leica saved his life. He was photographing in Syria, and he was hit by shrapnel. And he had one camera before his face and the other one in front of his chest…and without his Leicas maybe he would not be here, or he would have been much more seriously injured.

"His vest inspired us a bit, because this is a Kevlar vest, which protects from bullets and so on. And we thought, maybe it's also time to honor these photographers, these reporters, the people who really risk their life on a daily basis. And so, we talked."

The Reporter was limited to 450 pieces and is no longer available new. It has dark green paint scratch-resistant finish and black Kevlar body covering. The minimalist body design omits decorative engravings and retains only functional markings. The friend who loaned it to me has purchased an M11. He bought the Reporter because Leica special edition cameras tend to hold their value better. He plans to sell it after I try it for a bit. (If you're interested, I can put you in touch with him.)

Actually I'm a bit jammed up, because I also have the Zeiss Loxia 25mm ƒ/2.4 here to test, so I'll need to spend a fair amount of time shooting this week, switching back and forth.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Ernst Haas: New York in Color 1952–1962. "When Haas moved from Vienna to New York City in 1951, he left behind a war-torn continent and a career producing black-and-white images. For Haas, the new medium of color photography was the only way to capture a city pulsing with energy and humanity. These images demonstrate Haas's tremendous virtuosity and confidence with Kodachrome film and the technical challenges of color printing."

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stan B.: "Recently saw a new, boxed and packaged M10 Reporter for...$44,000 on eBay—that would just about kill me."

Mike replies: I didn't see that. The two I found in the "Sold listings" both sold in November for a couple of hundred over $10,000. That means my friend might make a profit when he sells this one. The original price was $8,795.

Kenneth Tanaka: "I hope you enjoy the M10-P. I enjoyed mine. That 24 MP sensor was a real sweet spot for these passive manual cameras. More forgiving than the 40 MP M10-R that I now use*. And the M10 was the first model to slim down closer to original M dress size after a period of fat M240-style bodies laden with unwanted video features. That Kevlar wrap on the Reporter won’t stop a bullet but it’s reported to be a bit rougher and grippier than the normal animal skins. Leica recently introduced a 'Reporter' model of its Q2. (No thanks, I like my plain ol’ Onlooker Q2 just fine, thank you!)

"Re: ergonomics of the M camera: 🤣 . I almost always use an acce$$ory handgrip, often with a finger loop to keep the camera secure. I’ve found the thumb rests more inconvenient than useful. Their protrusion means that catch on clothing, etc. And since they mount in the hot shoe they have to be removed when using a Visoflex EVF, which became essential when the camera’s resolution became so unforgiving.

"...*Which is why I’ve turned to the dark side and bought an M11. That triple-resolution (18/36/60) sensor really grabbed me by the neck! And Leica seemed to have one with my name on it in NJ. So it arrives tomorrow."

Aaron Greenman: "Enjoy Mike! Great lens too…. My favorite and on my camera 98% of the time. And don’t get too hung up on the limited edition part…it is what it is. 😉 Best Regards, ACG."

Jeff: "Regarding Ken’s featured comment, different strokes. I also have the M10-R (40.89 MP), and only use the RF. I have no problems regarding focus or blurring given my smallish print size and shooting technique. The black paint finish (and no red logo) on my version also appeals. It’s an ideal pairing with the M10 Monochrom. I also like using the small Leica thumb rest, which never gets in my way, as opposed to the bulky and weighty grip. The M11 holds no allure. We Leica users are very particular about our tastes and preferences!"

Do You Still Care About 'Sample Galleries'?

Many things have changed in the digital imaging universe over the past 20 years, and it's been a wild and fascinating ride. One thing I noticed the other day: I seldom look at "sample galleries" in equipment reviews any more.

Not only am I surfeited with the kind of pictures that appear—and I'm just as guilty of perpetrating them as anyone else, so my own "sample" pictures are just as soulless to me as anyone else's—but I just don't get much useful information from them any more. About the only thing I can really deduce from them is that I can get a rough idea (just a rough idea) of the bokeh of lenses, assuming the sample shots show that. Sometimes (not always) I can get a sense of what my maximum ISO would be if I were shooting with the camera.

I no longer look at falloff—that can be changed to taste in post. I no longer look at noise—offhand, the last time I can remember that being a real impediment for me was with the GF1 (2009). I certainly never look at "sharpness"—we've long since passed the point where all cameras and most lenses are sharp enough.

...Well, my iPhone 7 is not sharp enough! But that's not even fair to the iPhone, much less all other cameras. Now that the iPhone 13 is here.

I have a sense that I'm forgetting something, that there is indeed something I look for sometimes that I'm just overlooking. Maybe it will come to me.

One issue: post-processing skill has surpassed the raw material produced by the equipment as the biggest determinant of the quality of the final image. The best fine printer whose work I'm familiar with is Ctein, and he has never bothered to shoot with anything more than Micro 4/3! It gives him the raw material he needs to make perfectly beautiful prints on 13x19" and 17x22" paper. Of course he's a virtuoso, but the point holds.

So the kind of "sample" shots I would most like to see would be...prints. That would be interesting. But of course no online provider can present prints for me to look at. (TOP readers who have purchased prints in our print sales will be well aware of how different a fine original print is from seeing the same image as an online JPEG. And what the heck is wrong with that TOP guy, anyway? Why haven't there been any print sales lately?)

But the telltale in the end is that when I read camera reviews now, I find I seldom bother to look at the samples very carefully. I might click through them dutifully, but I seldom come away thinking I've detected much of anything useful—other than about the shooter's skills in seeing. This is a big difference from 15 and 20 years ago, when I used to pore over sample shots with great attention and study them to see what I could glean from them of a camera's or a lens's performance.

It's not that there aren't differences in lenses and sensors any more—there are. They're there. It's just that I have a hard time getting a handle on them from online samples.

I guess I still do want to see what the bokeh might look like in lens reviews—but galleries that only show bokeh wide open are of limited value too. I've never shot for bokeh as a primary value—it's never the point of pictures for me—so the subtler bokeh of stopped-down apertures are useful to know about for me too. Those can be a little harder to find. (I've always found that to get a sense of a lens's bokeh, you need to look at lots of samples. It's easy to be misled from just a few.)

For the most part, it might be all right with me if reviewers dispensed with sample shots altogether, and just told me in words what they are seeing from the equipment in their own work. But I would need to trust that they actually investigated in their shooting what they are telling me about! Not everyone is reliable about that.

Oh—flare, that's what I was forgetting. That's something I look for in sample shots in lens reviews. But reviewers don't always test for it or show samples.

What about you? Do you still find sample shots informative? Do you still look at them and study them? See if you can remember how you used to look at them and how you look at them now. Any change in that over the years?

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mark Rouleau: "I do look at sample galleries, but usually for color more than anything else. I find I am very sensitive to the default color palettes that the various camera manufacturers have. Sony colors often seem a little off to me (YMMV). And I know people wax eloquent about the Canon and the Olympus, but I think the new winner might be the Sigma fp models. Odd camera with a ton of usability issues, but the sample images I've seen almost make me want one."

DavidB: "A few of my current lenses are used for astrophotography. It is important to know how well these lenses obtain pin-point star images—especially in the corners. So before buying I often will look at astro photographs posted by others. For all other purposes, no."

John Krumm: "I do look at them, but often find them lacking. They seldom take enough stopped down shots for my taste, and I make most of my shots with lenses stopped down. Despite claims otherwise, not all lenses look the same stopped down. If I had my druthers, there would be a few wide open shots, but many more at different apertures. These days they tend to just take a pile of wide open shots like that's all that matters. It's annoying."

Mike replies: It is. Especially since you have to be careful to know what you're looking at. At times I've been fooled into thinking a lens is worse than it is because most of the samples I saw were shot wide open.

Peter Jeffrey Croft: "I used to really enjoy the sample galleries on DPReview while they were in London. I loved the shots around their offices, with all the details and the candid people shots. But when they moved to Seattle, I lost interest. I just don't find their new location interesting. The samples are dull and boring. Some of their UK based reviews and sample galleries were so good that I've kept a lot of the shots. I remember their review of the Sigma DP series and the SD14 especially, and I still look at the shots for enjoyment. I bought the Fuji S100FS in 2008 much on the basis of their review and samples, and I still have the camera and the images I took on a trip to Europe in that year. I'm still marveling at the images I got. So apart from finding Seattle boring, I think I'd say I do like sample galleries."

Mike replies: Come to think, I actually wrote a post to this effect in the early days of DPReview, when the founder Phil Askey owned it. It might not have been here; could have been at another venue. I did enjoy the cumulative virtual tour of London. Paris gets all the love, but London is even more historic and almost as photogenic. But of course we weren't looking at those pictures as technical trials, but for their content. 

xf mj: "I guess I don’t look at them as a scientist and don’t know if I want them to be scientific evidence. Probably because I don’t know what I’d look for. Instead, once I’m convinced that the camera or lens is probably technically good enough and that I’ll like it, I just want to see that people did good or beautiful work with it. So I try and find personal blog posts showing nice work they’ve produced with the product and see if I approve and like the look. This has gotta be less than objective, maybe useless, but it gets me excited for my purchase, and makes me feel part of the community that uses the product well. The community I’d like to join. And it’s just nice to see others’ good photography. I suppose this is why I’ve gravitated to some brands and products over other equally good brands and products. Oh well.

"Most larger/popular/pseudo-scientific camera sites' sample photos are just dumb and uninspiring. The pictures are so uninteresting, it makes me want to find a different hobby and never lay cash down for a camera ever again. (Same also with their attempt at objective writing.) It’s more fun to feel inspired when I spend my money. Most on-line sites seem instead to want to tell their readers that they’re not making a mistake with a purchase. And then make me feel a year or two later that it actually was a mistake. Must’ve been, because the latest and greatest has gotta be bought to correct that 1- or 2-year old technology that has become a shame to own, right?"

Mike replies: I have felt what you describe! I've gotten enthusiastic about a product only to have the sample images actually dampen my enthusiasm...because, after all they're just more digital images, nothing special, undistinguished and indistinguishable.

Speaking of Reviewing Cameras...

...I'm still intending to try out the Fuji GFX 100S. Unlike most cameras, I don't want to try that one. Why? Because I could never afford one (viz. the recent "Stained Glass Windows" post) and I'm afraid I'll like it. Trying one is risky. The things I do for ya!  :-)

[UPDATE: Dan said it best in the Featured Comments: "It would either disappoint me deeply or ruin me for anything else."]

By the way, if you haven't seen DPReview's "Shelburne Hotel with Corey Arnold and the Fujifilm GFX 100S" video yet, highly recommended—head and shoulders above most camera marketing videos. I was glad to "meet" photographer Corey Arnold and I definitely want to see more of those crab-fishing photos. The film is at the Amazon link for the GFX 100S, in with the product pictures. (Amazon owns DPReview.)

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Phil: "Thanks, Mike, for that link about Corey Arnold. I first saw his work in Portland, Oregon about seven years ago. It was one of those nice serendipitous moments as a tourist where you are just aimlessly browsing though galleries and come upon something that is arresting and memorable. They were his big colour prints of fishing in Alaska, complete with eagles and bears and hauling in the catch on the deck of a fishing boat. How he kept his gear dry (enough) I'll never know!"

Eolake Stobblehouse: "The Warhol book has very high reviews. But I don't think I'll get it. There is something about Warhol, both his personality and his work, which I find...creepy. He seemed so intensely, uhm, disconnected. Completely without feeling. And in his work he seemed to revel in that, celebrate it and emphasise it."

Dan: "That’s the same reason I have never driven a Porche 911. It would either disappoint me deeply or ruin me for anything else."

Shootout: Sony vs. Ricoh?!

I think I'm getting over my initial "IWT!" (I want that) reaction to the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx.

For one thing, I remembered my Summer-long longing for a Sony A6600 and Sigma 30mm (45mm-e).

That lens seems to be different in a way from many other recent lenses I've tried—it tilts just a little more toward high contrast rather than high resolution. From what little I've seen so far, I'm guessing the GR IIIx's 26.1mm (40mm-e) lens does too. It's tough to know without trying them for myself, and sometimes, these days, it's tough to untangle true lens characteristics from lens+sensor characteristics. (It was easy as pie with film because you could change the lens but not the film.)

By the way, if you don't know what I'm talking about, the best explanation I've seen was in the old Canon EF Lens Work III (which Canon seems to have stopped updating some time ago). The appendix about the optical characteristics of lenses in that book is the best basic text about the optics of camera lenses I know of. Regarding this topic it has some illustrations that are worth a thousand words.

I once tried to suggest to Canon that they should publish the sections on optics as a separate publication, without the quickly outdated lens catalog. But my importunings fell on deaf ears. Or, more probably, no ears. It would have been a nice thing to have. When Canon stopped updating Lens Work the baby went out with the bath water.

But back to the subject—it does seem like a shootout is called for here, doesn't it? The Sony A6600 and the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 DC DN Contemporary vs. the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx which should be along before the end of October. Two very different cameras, but equally appealing to me, each in its own way. I've already tried the Sony for a week and very much want to use it some more. But I think I should also "demystify" the Ricoh, too—I've never used a GR, and the series has been around for a very long time. It's past time I tried one for myself.

And while the cameras are different, their results are potentially very close. Both lenses have similar angles of view and both sensors are 24-MP APS-C. The biggest difference is the lens speed, ƒ/1.4 vs. ƒ/2.8. I think it would make it a good comparison. The very different layout and design of the two cameras could make for interesting discussion. I'll put it in the queue.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos."

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jeff1000: "Hey Mike, Nikon's coming to market very soon with a compact pancake 40mm Z lens. It's sure to be a stunner. Pair it with a Z5 or Z6 and you've got a pretty svelte package there."

brian: "For what it's worth, if you're willing to stray as far from your favored 40mm focal length as a 30mm lens on an APS-C camera would take you, you might be interested in the little Sigma 45mm DG DN ƒ/2.8 lens—on a 'full frame' body. The little Sigma 45mm seems like it might appeal to you since the designers opted to emphasize bokeh but still achieved good resolution with the lens stopped down a bit. A Sigma engineer [actually it was Yasuhiro Ohsone, Sigma's Head of Product Planning —Ed.] reported receiving 'a surprising proposal from our optical engineers in charge: to develop the lens with the highest priority given to its expression of bokeh.' The Sigma 45mm lens seems to puzzle people who prioritize wide-open sharpness, but it's been well received by some who look for a good balance of rendering and sharpness. As for me, I'd be interested in your take the GR IIIx. I use manual-focus Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses on my Sony A7R III, and the tiny Ricoh seems like it might be better than a phone as an autofocus complement to my kit."

Mike replies: Yes, the Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 DG DN Contemporary is a true lens connoisseur's lens, and a rarity on today's market. If I shot full frame it would be my main lens, and anyone who shoots L-mount or E-mount and has multiple lenses really should own one.

Albert Smith: "I love that Canon EF Lens Work book. I bought mine in the mid '80s while never having a Canon camera from that era. I also had the Eyes Of Nikon book, but the Canon book put it to shame in the amount of great info it contained. Besides the contrast/sharpness skewing in the designs that you mentioned, it also had one of the best sections on picking out a selection of focal lengths to cover your specific interests and subject matter. Terrific book that I still pull off the shelf today.

"It was simpler to test one lens against another it those days, even different brands. Just load the same film in each camera and test away. Today, how much is the sensor more responsible for the end item image than the lens? Direct comparisons of lens A to lens B might have little to do with the lenses."

Bill Allen: "The feel of the GR is very difficult to convey. The rubberized grip was the first thing that hit me when I took it out of the box. It just makes you want to go out and shoot. The heritage of the GR line really shines through. I have the GR II, and I was skeptical after the X100s didn't do it for me. But that skepticism went right out the window when I received it. You just have to try it. It's quite a nice landscape camera in its own right too. Even QT Luong used a film GR when mountain climbing, if I recall. Even if the GR IIIx is a bit on the pricy end, try getting your hands on an older model to get a feel for the GR ethos. I also recommend this article from Chris Leskovsek."

The Verdict

So it looks like the consensus is that I should try the Fuji GFX 50R with the 50mm ƒ/3.5 or 45mm ƒ/2.8 lens. I'll request one for review. (It doesn't cost me anything to borrow equipment, but thanks to those who expressed concern about that.)

A couple of readers suggested that I should review all of them. All the medium format digital cameras. That actually would be oddly appropriate. The first involved, long-term brief I was given as a Contributing Editor to a photography magazine (Darkroom Photography) was to systematically review the options among medium format cameras. Before I was done I had reviewed the Bronica SQ-Ai, Rolleiflex 6002 and 6008 Integral, Fuji GS645S, Fuji GX680, Exacta 66, Mamiya 6, Bronica ETRSi, Bronica RF645, Mamiya RZ67, and probably a few more that aren't coming to mind at the moment. (Favorites: the SQ-Ai and Mamiya 6.) I used some TLRs too, just not sure if I actually wrote about any of them.

I doubt I'll do the same thing with digital "medium format" cameras, but it would be nicely symmetrical in terms of my photo-writing career, duplicating in the digital realm that earlier survey.

—Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Book of interest this week:

Picture This: How Pictures Work, By Molly Bang
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon from TOP)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Time to Test a Medium-Format Sensor

Fuji GFX 50R

I decided a while back that my education is lacking and that I should try out a camera with a larger-than-FF sensor. The only one I've ever touched was a Leica S2 thanks to my friend Jack, but that was a long time ago now and my exposure to it was brief. Generally I've tended to stay away from them because I really didn't consider them to be mainstream products—they tended to be extremely expensive and thus only available to a minuscule percentage of photographers. I also wasn't really interested in being put into the position of recommending products that had such a high probability of causing money to evaporate. I lived through an era in which high-end digital cameras could cost $25,000 and then a handful of years later be worth essentially nothing. That struck me at the time as being, well, crazy, at least for private individuals.

Hassleblad 907X 50C with viewfinder and control grip

But that was then and this is now. Today, a Sony A7R Mark IV costs $3,500, a Panasonic S1R costs $3,700, and a Nikon Z7 Mark II costs $3,100, whereas a Fuji GFX 50R costs $4,500, a Pentax 645Z costs $5,000, and the new Hasselblad 907X 50C costs $6,400. The gap between the most expensive FF models and the least expensive medium format ones is just not that great any more.

I've never thought I needed a medium-format digital camera, but on the other hand it's good for me to know what I'm talking about, insofar as that's possible. So, it's time.

What do you think I should request? I'm leaning toward the Fuji 50R as being the most Mike-like, not least because there's a 40mm-e lens available for it (the 50mm ƒ/3.5).

But I'd be doing this more for you than for me.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Book of interest this week:

Picture This: How Pictures Work, By Molly Bang
(clicking on the link above takes you to Amazon from TOP)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

AN: "I’ve owned the Pentax 645D, 645Z, Fuji 50S, and 50R. I think the 645Z is the best camera in the world in every respect (for my purposes, anyway), except it’s rather big and heavy. So I use the Fuji 50R with the 50mm lens. The 645Z is definitely better ergonomically, and I think the image quality is actually a bit better too, but the 50R with a pancake is delightful little package (and close enough to the 645Z otherwise). I never used the Hasselblad, so, since you are doing this for me, I think you should review the 907X. Just in case it might be the actual best camera in the world."

T. Edwards: "Try the Fuji GFX 50R please(because I am thinking of buying it....)"

Richard Parkin: "Hasselblad X1D Mark II, not that I shall buy any of them.  ;-) "

Tom Hassler: "Given your affinity for and experience with Fuji gear, this seems like a no-brainer. Having shot with a GFX100 myself, I found little to complain about (except maybe the heft and slow-ish autofocus.) The lenses are superb! I have to wonder though if trying out the GFX50 isn’t somewhat missing the point? Sure, you’ll get some of that 'medium format look' from the physically larger sensor and the different focal lengths associated with your accustomed angles of view. But a big part of that look is also the extremely fine gradations of tone that a whole lotta pixels gives you. As hot-rodders love to say, 'there's no substitute for cubic inches.' Since this isn't a case of you spending more money, I’d say try the GFX100 for the full experience. Go big or go home!"

William Cowan: "There are still a lot of V series Hasselblads about. I think that might have a lot of interest."

Pierre: "For what it's worth, the holding the GFX 50R feels like holding a tissue box. I found the GFX 50S far more comfortable - and for my money better looking."

Mike observes: So far, in the Featured Comments, the vote is one to one to one to one to one to one.  :-)

Jnny: "Test 'em all. Don't be a wuss."

Tex Andrews (partial comment): "Well.... This is a tough one, I think. Fuji has gotten a ton of press and comments from everywhere. The DPR 'medium format' forum is basically a Fuji forum now. It may be that it is the most Mike-like, but maybe not at all, really. Pentax is in the Rodney Dangerfield situation right now. Hassy is...Hassy. I feel like if you can't do them all, then don't do any.

"Finally, nowadays you have to look hard and carefully at the images to see differences (they exist), and to see the differences you need a really good monitor or need to be printing really large. You also need to be looking at certain kinds of images. I don't think 'general photography' cuts it in this regard, and I see images from lots of advocates of medium format and wonder why they bother. Full disclosure: I am an advocate of digital medium format (and film), and have seen the differences for myself closely compared to images from FF cameras. Those differences are quite meaningful to me in my work—but my work is niche as a pro and fringe (not nutty, though) as an artist.

Kenneth Tanaka: "Either the Hasselblad X1D Mark II or the 907x with the XCD 45p lens. Not to be a wise guy but I own the entire Hassy XCD system (my 'What I Did During COVID-19 Pandemic' school project), the Fuji GFX50s, and even a Phase One XF system. The Fuji is very well-known and very accessible. It's unquestionably the most versatile system but it's awfully well-known. No, I think if you want to look at something genuinely new-ish it would have to be one of the new Hassy bodies. Coupled with that lovely little 45p lens you can—dare I say—rule the world. It's more you than you may realize. Light, smallish, yes blind-hog slow autofocus but you're not a shooter of movement. I think you'll enjoy either and each has its own charms. As they share the same sensor system the colors are ooh-l-la nice. Plus if you have an old Hassy V camera you can strap that CFVII 50C (from the 907x) right onto it!"

Rob Campbell: "Don't do this: you'll end up wanting to keep it!"

Learning to Love the Panasonic GX9

[This is the third and last of our three articles about the Panasonic GX9/12–60mm ƒ/3.5–5.6 kit. The first one is "Panasonic GX9 and 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 Review, Part I," and the second is "Panasonic GX9 Review." Plus, I've posted pictures from the camera in several other posts, for instance this one and this one. Bear in mind the blogging platform I use softens (and darkens, which drives me crazy) the pictures somewhat. The kit I used came to me new as a loaner courtesy of my friend Izzy at B&H Photo. If you buy one because of these articles, please consider buying yours from Izzy. —Ed.]

-

I wrote previously about my knee-jerk negative reaction when I received this camera. It wasn't what I wanted it to be.

As soon as I set aside my prejudices, though, it was only about three days before I took to the GX9 like a duck to water. For about the next ten or twelve days I would grab the thing every day, sling it on, and head on out to the back roads to snap happily away at this 'n' that and the other thing. Just poking around the countryside.

Whither Micro 4/3?
Does Micro 4/3 have a future? Probably, but times are a little stormy for the format at the moment. It's next in line for the juggernaut that is the smartphone camera (shudder!) to steamroll over and obliterate. Olympus has quit the field, leaving its camera division to who knows what fate (I'm in the pessimist camp on that), and Panasonic has a new girlfriend in FF mirrorless, and is lately all starry-eyed and distracted over that. Sometimes I wonder just how much longer Panasonic (which is actually a great company) will find cameras an appealing market in which to be.

The camera market seems to be splitting into camera phones on the one hand and FF-sensor engineering marvels on the other, plus a jumble of niche products. It's a bit ironic that, concurrently, 4/3 has arguably fully matured and come into its own as an excellent compromise. The sensors are better than they ever were, and have gotten good enough that you can use them for dang near anything (Jose Luis Gonzalez's camera portraits that I featured the other day were shot on Micro 4/3). Yet the size and weight of the cameras and lenses really do make for a big plus over most bulky FF camera and lenses-on-steroids combos.

The 4/3 sensor size is less of a compromise now than it has ever been, if you're just into taking pictures rather than making microscopic comparisons between cameras in order to declare a gold-medal winner.

Here's an example of a slight limitation of the small sensor. Shooting with camera-determined autoexposure, the sunlit bit at the top of the tree trunk in the background is too overexposed to recover completely. So you do have to be a little more careful with exposures than you would have to be with a high-DR FF sensor.

And, as with phone cameras, there are DR limitations. In this shot a very bright evening sun is either in the frame or just out of it (I don't recall exactly), and with a lot of HDR I could just get the slight striations in the sky in the upper right, which is enough sky for this small JPEG. No telling if it would be enough in a print or a larger JPEG. Exposing for the sky here, on the other hand, resulted in the dark areas being too dark to bring up in post.

But this is all just par for the course in getting to know your sensor.

Getting to know your sensor and getting to know your lens are the two basics when familiarizing yourself with a new camera. And zooms are tougher to get to know than primes by a long shot. Where do you get field curvature, where do you get distortion, where do you get vignetting...it just takes a while to sort it all out, but once you do, you're aware of when issues are going to pop up, so you can either compensate for them while shooting or else you know you're covered and you won't have any problems. The picture above was wide and wide open, so I could start to get a read on worst-case vignetting. I ended up darkening the light upper-left-hand corner, because I needed more vignetting! I almost never mind vignetting. Darkening the edges of a print was a standard protocol when I printed in silver. It almost always helps and almost never hurts. And of course you can almost perfectly correct it in Photoshop if you want to, these days.

Mo's field (you remember Moses!)

Overall I liked this little camera and lens. It punches above its weight, you might say, its weight being one of the great things about it. Just not painful to carry. You can take it with you.

Grip it
Speaking of carrying, a little more about the aftermarket handgrip I used with the camera (I took pictures of it on the camera but I'll be darned if I can find them. Oh well, there are some on the eBay page linked below). It was 3-D printed by a 36-year-old electrical engineer from Czech Republic named Viacheslav Pronin. He bought source files from a guy named Alex from Switzerland for a GX85, and modified the files for the GX9. His customers suggested the Arca Swiss mount. The grip is made of PETG, a glycol-modified version of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), usually used to make water bottles. The handle is hollow, which accounts for its lightness. On my gram scale which I use to measure my white tea, it weighs in at 54.4g (1.92 oz.). It takes just over six hours to print. You can buy one from Viacheslav Pronin on eBay for $22 (shipping is free). A nice touch is that although it attaches to the camera by the tripod mount, it provides a new tripod mount in the grip so you're not deprived of it. Full disclosure, Viacheslav sent me one for free, although that doesn't do me any good because I didn't keep the camera.

With the Pronin grip, the GX9 is just handy. Even the zoom is petite. And speaking of the zoom, let me eat just a little crow: Panasonic isn't being stupid trying to encourage people to try this lens. It's a really nice little zoom, quite sharp and with a very useful range.

Sorted
Once I'd gotten past my initial funk I noticed that several things about the camera had been changed since the GX7. The on-off switch is in a new spot, and I found it an improvement—it falls naturally under the right thumb and it quickly grew very comfortable to use. Plus, the camera has sprouted an exposure compensation ring, good for me because that's the way I shoot, using the exposure comp frequently. That goes way, way back for me, to the Contax 139Q I went through art school with. The Contax had a prominent exposure compensation ring quirkily marked "1/4, 1/2, X1, 2, 4." (A "stop" means either half as much light or twice as much light as the next stop up or down.) There's nothing good or bad about it, it's just how I get the job done. And in just a few days, that control on the GX9, too, became easy and natural to adjust.

Although the GX7 and GX9 are more or less identical in size and shape and weight, my subjective impression is that there have been a number of incremental technical improvements that together take the whole experience up another notch, mirroring the aggregate of all the small improvements in ergonomics. Not just the 20-MP vs. the earlier 16-MP sensor. I attached a strap, but just as often carried the camera swinging from one hand or the other, and it never felt burdensome or weighty carrying it that way. [CORRECTION: Augh! I knew there was something I forgot. I meant to add a few sentences about the GX8's much-discussed shutter-shock problem and the fact that it is said to have been entirely fixed in the GX9. Please see Helmut the Austrian's Featured Comment below. —Mike the distractable Ed.]

It's been a long time since I used the GX7, so this is only an impression from memory, and you should read as much subjectivism into it as you want to. However, I felt during my time with this camera that all the small changes have made for a big improvement. As similar as it is, almost everything seems better. The controls, the viewfinder, the IS, the speed, the viewing screen, the battery life—I would guess all these things are at least a little better on the GX9.

Are there downsides? Yes, absolutely, but they're just imperfections rather than outright negatives or deal-breakers. Namely: the viewfinder is nice, but it's not a patch on the superior viewfinder of the GX8. The Pronin grip is an all-but-essential improvement, but it can't entirely hide the fact that the camera isn't an ergonomically excellent design out of the box. It's small and a bit finicky. But I got used to it. And the shutter sound is laggy, which made me uncomfortable at first—it mimics the sound of a slow shutter speed, which made me feel insecure at times, like I wasn't shooting at a high enough shutter speed to stop action or hand-shake. But that goes away too. Biggest downside: I personally would get a proper travel charger and an extra battery for it (I charged direct to camera while I had this one), and that adds significantly to the cost. But hey, it only stings once.

It's not perfect, in other words. But you'll forgive that. It's a camera, and you just have to get used to it.

The overriding impression I took away from the experience is that this kit is both useful and fun. I got quite attached to it while it was here. I just don't grab my more businesslike X-H1 with nearly the same let's-go-have-fun-with-photography feeling. I really enjoyed the time I spent with the Panasonic GX9. No, it's not a GX8 II, and yes, I still want a GX8 II. But I'm glad I came to my senses and gave it a chance.

Recommended? You bet. Override your prejudices and your analytical misgivings, if you have any, and just take the little thing out for a walk. You'll make friends before you know it.

Have a nice weekend! See you on Sunday.

Mike
(Thanks to Izzy and B&H Photo)

UPDATE Saturday morning: I have a mea culpa to make...

I really should make a serious effort to finish camera reviews while the camera is still here. With this camera, hugh crawford had questions about the shutter sound and jseliger had questions about the autofocus, and I don't have the camera here any more to examine or compare. Also, waiting until the camera departs before finishing the review makes it more difficult to finish writing the reviews somehow. Which tends to make me procrastinate, and for me procrastination is deadly.

In the future I'll make a sincere effort to change my policy and work to finish the review while the camera is still on the desk.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

jseliger: "The missing word in the post is 'autofocus,' which has been Panasonic's weak point for a while. If you're shooting things where autofocus isn't very important, then obviously it doesn't matter, but Panasonic's autofocus has fallen far behind Fuji, Sony, or Canon."

Olybacker: "The way the world is at present, and the way the camera manufacturing world is at present, I cannot help but wonder whether the next 'shocking development' from the mainstream and mass-market camera makers will be a new film camera. Who will be first?"

Helmut the Austrian (partial comment): "Regarding the shutter: maybe, the mechanical sound is not so awesome, but this system seems to be an answer to various discussions and complaints about shutter shock not only in the GX8. Imaging-Resource says: 'The GX9 sports a brand-new shutter drive mechanism which is in most respects a significant upgrade, but which does have a couple of potential drawbacks. Based around an electromagnetic drive, it's said to have only one-tenth the shutter shock of the previous system, helping photographers to maximize per-pixel sharpness. It's also noticeably quieter than the old mechanism. But one downside is that it now tops out at a fastest shutter speed of 1/4,000 second, where the GX8 could shoot at 1/8,000 second.' Greetings from Austria / EU, with many thanks for your interesting blog."