The Online Photographer

Panasonic GX85 Review, Part II

(Part I is here)

Words and pictures by Gordon Lewis

One of the benefits to shooting with a Micro 4/3 camera is being able to get this much depth-of-field without having to use ridiculously small apertures.

The key to making a camera such as the Panasonic Lumix GX85 as enjoyable as possible for street photography is for the shooting experience to be smooth and intuitive. You want the camera to melt away. You want to be able to pay more attention to what’s going on around you and less on the camera. This will depend partly on camera ergonomics, but just as much if not more so on how you set it up. The way I set up a camera may not be the way you would want to set up yours, but knowing my settings will at least give you a reference point for how well the GX85 performs with them. With that in mind, here’s a basic list:

• File format: RAW
• Exposure Mode: Aperture preferred. This allows direct control over depth-of-field.
• Front dial controls aperture. This is the manufacturer’s default.
• Rear dial controls exposure compensation, with no need to press in on the dial first.
• Pressing the Fn1 button changes dial functions so that the rear dial adjusts ISO and the front adjusts white balance. Once you have assigned this function, you will be able to make the same switch by pressing in on the rear dial.
• Cursor buttons control AF point position (up, down, left, right, etc.)
• The shutter triggers only the shutter release, while the AF lock button triggers AF start. This is so that pressing the shutter button won’t alter any manual focus settings.
• Turning the focusing ring triggers manual focus assist, just in case AF fails to do the job. I opted for focus peaking, but 100% magnification in the center of the frame is also an option.
• Silent shutter. The manual shutter, although dead quiet, sounded "laggy" to me, as if the mechanical movements took longer than the actual shutter speed. I therefore opted for the silent (electronic) shutter. Its only practical limitation for street photography is that it’s incompatible with electronic flash for flash fill.

These are by no means the only available settings, but they provided what I consider a near ideal balance between full automation versus swift and sure manual control. Focus and exposure in daylight were blazing fast and, if not always 100% accurate, close enough not to ruin a shot. I experienced some AF hunting in very low light, particularly with slow lenses, but a quick shift of the focus ring was all it took to move the plane of focus point where I wanted it.

Joy, Financial District, San Francisco

Viewfinder issues
The eye-level viewfinder shows where Panasonic cut corners a bit to reduce cost. Although it’s large, high-res, and bright, eye relief is short. You’ll need to have your eye close and well-centered to see the entire frame. That can be difficult if you’re wearing glasses. Another issue—one common to most mirrorless cameras—is that direct sunlight that enters the viewfinder or reflects from the rear LCD can cause either one to wash out. A slight shift of position is usually all it takes to correct the problem. Some reviewers have also complained about a color rainbow smearing effect during rapid camera movements. I didn’t notice this, but you might, so be sure to look for it.

What I did notice was that the colors and contrast in the eye-level viewfinder didn’t quite match those on the rear LCD, and that both made scenes look brighter than in real-life. This means that if you try to "expose by eye" rather than by meter, there’s a good chance you will underexpose. Fortunately, you use the setup menus to reduce the brightness of either one or both viewfinders.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, as with all Micro 4/3 cameras, the GX85’s native aspect ratio is 4:3. However, the eye level viewfinder has a 16:9 ratio. This results in black space on both vertical sides of the frame. You can change the aspect ratio to 3:2 – the standard for APS-C and full-frame formats—to eliminate the bars, but this can also make it harder to see the entire image. Any 3:2 image will import into Lightroom pre-cropped, with the full image area still available if you want it.

I wouldn’t obsess over the viewfinder too much, though. Street photographers typically frame and shoot within seconds. Although there may be better viewfinders to be found, the GX85's is definitely respectable.

A look at lenses
As I mentioned in Part I, I was shooting with three Micro 4/3 lenses: the Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8, Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7, and Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 OIS. The 17mm was the smallest and lightest of the three, followed by the 42.5mm and then the 25mm. Each weighed less than five ounces, yet was fast enough for flash-free low light shooting without having to rely on absurdly slow shutter speeds or high ISOs.

Another advantage of their small size was that if I didn’t feel like carrying a camera bag, I could carry one lens in each pocket of a light jacket and the third on the camera; or I could carry the GX85 with 17mm alone in a single pocket; or simpler still, sling the GX85 plus any lens over my shoulder.

This was shot with the 17mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko and cropped to square format. Although it may not look it, I was close enough to tap the fellow in the green plaid shirt on the shoulder.

The Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 was perfect for available light interior shots where its optical image stabilization, combined with the GX85's IBIS, helped eliminate camera shake while the fast aperture helped blur distracting backgrounds.

Waiting for the Fox Chase, SEPTA Station, Philadelphia. Shot with the Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7.

The 17mm was ideal for shooting on narrow streets or in tight spaces. On the other hand, because of its wider than normal angle of view, tight framing may require you to be only a few feet away from your subject. For that reason, I tend to favor the 25mm. It lets me get tight shots without feeling as if I’m obnoxiously sticking the camera in someone’s face. The 42.5mm was best for shooting scenes on the other side of a street without actually having to cross. It had the added benefit of OIS, which, combined with the GX85’s IBIS, added up to five stops of stabilization.

File import and final notes
Lightroom will attach a generic Adobe profile to any raw files you import from the GX-85. There are no profiles that match Panasonic’s JPEG "photo styles" such as Standard, Vivid, Portrait, etc. This means that if you shoot raw+JPEG, your JPEG colors won’t match your raw colors and vice-versa. Fortunately, I found Adobe’s profile reasonably neutral yet appealing. The examples I've uploaded were only minimally altered and should offer a reliable insight into Panasonic’s overall color palette.

Waiting for a friend, Roam Burgers, San Francisco.

Here’s a center crop at close to 100%. Not bad for an image shot at maximum aperture.

What may be hard to see from these JPEG samples [TOP's blog software subtly blurs posted pictures—it's a bug, not a feature. —Ed.] is the surprising amount of micro-detail they have. We’re talking fine textures that go on and on. I attribute this to the GX85's IBIS, lack of an anti-aliasing filter, accurate focus, and good glass. Is there as much detail and low noise as you’d get from a full-frame camera? No, but unless you're making huge prints or pixel peeping and have perfect technique, you’ll never see the difference. You'd also have to shoot with a much larger, heavier, noisier camera that uses large and heavy lenses. Thanks, but I’d take the Panasonic GX85 any day.

The Panasonic GX85

If you can’t get great street shots with this camera, then trust me my friend, it won't be the camera's fault.

Gordon

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague of Mike's from Camera & Darkroom magazine and later the writer of the blog Shutterfinger, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and three kids. In a former life, he wrote sitcoms in Hollywood.

©2017 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Street stealth
Buy a GX85

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

Ricardo Silva Cordeiro: "Loved the review, thanks for sharing. This camera received a lot of negative feedback upon its release but when I handled one on a store I felt there was something special about it. I investigated a bit more and yes, the viewfinder isn't top-notch and it has an 'older' 16-MP sensor, but everything else seems just perfect and it looks like camera users (not testers) are loving it. The handling, responsiveness, low-profile look and small size are ideal for street shooting.

"Panasonic's UI is among the best too, as is their AF technology as long as you use single point only (in my experience Panasonic AF is only reliable that way; use multiple-point AF and you will end up with mostly front-focused shots. Happens with my LF1, LX100 and ZS100). And the sound of that shutter is even better than the one of the E-M5 which I thought was the best. I'm struggling not to get back to the ever-attractive Micro 4/3 system, but if I do I'm almost certain it will be with this camera plus a Leica 15mm ƒ/1.7 and Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7."

MarkB: "I really liked Gordon's thorough overview (not 'review') of the GX85, but once again, his sample photos show what a competent and experienced photographer can do with the Panasonic... not what I can expect to achieve. Like watching the Stig do laps in a reasonably priced car!"

Panasonic Lumix GX85 Review, Part I

Words and photos by Gordon Lewis

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 with Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko

Preliminaries
A few weeks ago I mentioned to Mike that I was shopping for a new camera to use for street and travel photography. My Nikon V1 now feels too small, unrefined and limiting, my Canon EOS 60D too bulky and too often unreliable. Mike asked what I had in mind. No sooner had I mentioned the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 (GX80 outside North America) than he asked if I’d be interested in trying one out and documenting the experience. I now recall that he slyly avoided using the word "review" lest he imply that serious time, effort, and analysis would be involved. So I took the bait. He connected me with his contact at B&H Photo in New York (TOP is an affliliate advertiser), and two weeks later I had a Panasonic GX85, Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko, and Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 Lumix G Power OIS on a 30-day loan.

Street vs. travel
Let's start with what makes a good "street and travel" camera. Photographers who are into either genre will generally agree that a street or travel camera should be:

• Lightweight enough to carry for several hours without causing pain or weariness
• Small, quiet, and visually understated enough to avoid attracting undue attention, either to the photographer, the camera, or the bag it’s being carried in
• Ready and able to focus and shoot, swiftly and accurately, within a second or two

It also doesn’t hurt if the camera is sturdy enough to handle the occasional bump or jolt without slipping into a coma, or a few raindrops without drowning. If it can shoot all day on a single fully-charged battery, so much the better.

As for the difference between street and travel photography, I find it’s more a matter of attitude than equipment. Both benefit from the three essentials above, but travel photography is more focused on making your subjects look attractive and inviting, while it’s perfectly acceptable for street photos to look dark and menacing. So, now that we’ve got all of the preliminaries out of the way, let’s see how well the GX85 does with the three essentials.

Street or travel photo? Why can’t it be both?

First Impressions
The Panasonic GX85 weighs about 426 grams (0.94 lbs.) with battery and SD card, and measures 122 x 70.6 x 43.9 mm (4.80 x 2.78 x 1.73 inches). Its dimensions feel just right to my average-sized hands, and the weight has just enough heft to feel reassuring without crossing the line into being burdensome. I could fit the GX85 with three fast lenses (the two I mentioned above plus a 25mm ƒ/1.7 Lumix G I own) into a Domke F-5XB shoulder bag, and the entire kit weighs only 3.5 lbs. (1.6 kg.). That’s what I call traveling light.

As for being unobtrusive, a black GX85 is about as nondescript as a camera can be. All it took was a single piece of black gaffer’s tape to cover up the white "LUMIX" on the front to make the body look featureless. Mind you, it’s by no means ugly, but neither is it something you’re likely to ooh and aah over.

It won’t attract the attention of anyone’s ears either. The standard mechanical shutter and in-body image stabilization are just barely audible, and then only in a quiet room with your eye to the viewfinder. Switch over to the electronic shutter and the odds of anyone hearing you shoot, even from a foot or two away, will be next to none.

It take a truly unobtrusive camera to be within an arm’s reach of your subject (and vice-versa) without being noticed

Flip the power switch, located on the back of the camera where the tip of your right thumb naturally falls, and the GX85 is ready to shoot within a second. It wakes up equally rapidly from sleep mode, so if you prefer, you can keep the camera switched on and simply tap the shutter button to be ready for action. Focus is swift and sure—provided, of course, that you aim the focusing area at the right spot.

The main controls are all clustered on the far-right side of the body and have everything you need most: front dial, rear dial, PASM mode dial, on-off switch, shutter button, and video record button. By default, both control dials control the same function. For example, if you’re in aperture value mode, you can use either control dial to adjust the aperture. Pressing in on the rear dial changes the mode to exposure compensation. These functions are all programmable of course, so you can change things around to suit your preference. The trick is in knowing how you want everything set up and how to do so.

Handling impressions
When it comes to actual handling and shooting, I found that my fingers naturally settled away from the control dials but still close enough to allow swift and sure adjustments. The dial detents were stiff enough to minimize moving anything by accident. (That said, it's still a good idea to get into the habit of shutting off the camera before putting it into your camera bag.) There are nine buttons, including the 4-way controller, within the area that falls below the right thumb. Unlike some cameras I’ve used (cough, Fuji XT-10, cough) these buttons are not easy to push by accident. Unfortunately, their small size and gray lettering made them difficult to see in low light. It's also hard to tell what which button is which simply by touch. Speaking of which, the GX85 has a very well-implemented touchscreen interface on the rear display. Menu text is large and legible. The menus themselves are arranged with reasonable logic once you get used to them. You can navigate through the menus or playback images by using control dials, the 4-way controller, a fingertip, or all three. You can also set it up for touch-focus-and-shoot. I went "old school" and shot with the touchscreen feature off so I'd have one less thing to be concerned about.

All in all, the GX85 was an easy camera to get familiar with. After an hour or so of sorting through the menus, playing with the controls, and setting it up, I felt ready to hit the streets.

Your intrepid reviewer descends into the bowels of San Francisco
in search of truth

Coming up in Part Two…
In the next and final installment, Gordon offers a frank assessment of how well the GX85 performed on the unforgiving streets of Philadelphia and San Francisco. Was the GX85 up to the task, or was it undone by shameful limitations? In the meantime, what qualities do you think make for a great street camera?

Gordon

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague of Mike's from Camera & Darkroom magazine, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and three kids.

©2017 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Kenneth Tanaka: "Delighted to see Gordon do a review of the GX85. I know I've been vocal here about how impressed I've been with mine. Heck, it's so good it prompted me to re-buy a few Micro 4/3 lenses that I'd sold in 2015! I'm particularly delighted to see that it's Gordon taking the GX85 for a walk. He's both very skilled and very thoughtful. Bring on Part II!"

Jonathan: "Great street camera: Immediately turns on, immediately wakes from sleep. Fast autofocus or easy scale focusing. Precise, sensitive, shutter button. Fast shot to shot time. Quiet shutter. Ergonomics. Bright, clear viewfinder or back LCD. Not too big."

How Weatherproof Are Olympus Cameras?

Words and pictures by John Lehet

Recently TOP had some comments about the weatherproof qualities of Olympus pro gear. I can tell you that it's hard to exaggerate how good these cameras are at keeping the wet out. I think I might have subjected mine to the ultimate test.

Even though 90% of my exposures are made with a Sony full-frame body, I keep and carry an Olympus E-M5 Mark II. I use the Olympus for various reasons: it's easier to get greater depth of field with it when that's a consideration; the Olympus Pro zooms are the only zoom lenses I own; the IBIS is fantastic; and it's compact.

And it's extremely weatherproof. Though I've owned Olympus weather-sealed bodies for a few years now, my first real test came in the Summer of 2015, squatting on the edge of a pond one misty morning. I had been using the Olympus, and it was in my open bag. With the Sony to my eye, I heard a "plop."

It was not a frog.

The Olympus with ƒ/2.8 zoom attached had fallen into the pond, into a few inches of water. I quickly scooped it up and dried it off on my shirt as best I could.

It was fine.

Knowing that the camera had survived that, I felt confident using it on a beach in driving wind and a deluge the following Winter. The atmosphere and storm-whipped waves compelled me to photograph madly. I usually don't mind getting soaked, but I don't like to ruin camera gear. So I kept the Sony and its lenses back at the house we were staying in, and used the E-M5 Mark II with the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 and the 40–150mm ƒ/2.8 Pro zooms. I got soaked to the bone. Of course, the camera and lenses were fine.

A shot taken with the E-M5 Mark II in wind and pouring rain

During this period, I had gradually developed the practice of carrying more gear than I had previously. The main problem with that was that the E-M5 Mark II body didn't always settle into its compartment in the bag anymore.

The day of the first big snow last year I did a lot of photography, in three sessions. I used the E-M5 Mark II and other cameras within walking distance in the first session. I drove someplace I thought might be good for a second session, and for the third session I was closer to home again.

Still snowing the next day, I went out again, and reached for the E-M5 Mark II in my bag. It wasn't there. I couldn't find it anywhere. Tracing my steps from yesterday I would only be slogging through eight to ten inches of new snow. If I was going to find the camera I would have to feel it with my foot. There would be a lot of ground to cover, kicking at acres of new snow cover. Hopeless.

So I wrote my little Olympus off as lost. Sometime later I replaced it with another used E-M5 Mark II body with low use, and I also replaced the 60mm ƒ/2.8 Macro lens lost with it.

First big snow day. Taken with the A7R II

Here in Vermont last Winter we had steady snow cover, but it was not by any means a Winter of powder. It rained as often as it snowed. Hard rain at times, including Winter thunderstorms. The snow has often been wet snow. While March was a Winter month, often below freezing, February was unusually warm, featuring a lot of thaws and rains. I've been painfully aware of this weather, knowing that I had an Olympus EM-5 Mark II with the 60mm ƒ/2.8 Macro lens out there somewhere. But then...

...Four and a half months later...
...I found the lost Olympus!

About two weeks ago, next to the path between the garden and house, there it was: lens-up, during Vermont's final mid-altitude snow melt. It had been out in the elements for four and a half months: four and a half months of hard, atypical, changing Vermont Winter. Raining and snowing, freezing and thawing. I grabbed it out of the snow and immediately took the lens off to look inside the camera and through the lens. There was some wet fog on an inner element, and condensation on the sensor glass. I took out the battery, which was dry. Camera and lens, separated, were placed in a sunbeam on a warm windowsill for a while, as I prepared a large glass jar with dry desiccant. The lens quickly cleared, and of course the sensor glass dried quickly.

The next day was maybe too soon to check, but I couldn't help my curiosity. I put the battery in, put the lens on, and powered it up.

It worked perfectly.

Well, not perfectly. There is still one little problem. The power switch does not power the camera off. Because I have never learned to use my left hand to turn that camera off (every other camera in the world has a power switch on the right side of the camera body), I've always been prone to keeping it on (by accident) and relying on it going to sleep within seconds of inactivity. That still works, so that's how I continue to use it.

For all practical purposes, the camera's function is the same as ever, even if the resale value isn't. I'm still keeping the camera and lens in a jar of desiccant in hopes that that last bit of water in the switch will dry. After this Summer's trip to Iceland I will probably sell the newer replacement body and newer lens for near what I paid, and keep the risk of failure here where it belongs.

The Olympus has risen: Honeybee and squill

Over the last few days I've used that lost-and-found camera and lens to make over a hundred exposures. All perfectly fine.

So if you know someone who's wondering whether Olympus means it when it says its cameras are "weatherproof," this Vermont photographer's answer is: oh, yeah.

John

John Lehet was our most recent print sale artist. Here is his website.

©2017 by John Lehet, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Still works!
Give TOP a “Like” or Buy yourself something weatherproof

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

adamct: "I started reading this post pretty skeptical. I was expecting another story about holding a camera under running water or getting caught in a giant storm. I was wrong. That story is pretty amazing. I know how wet this winter was, and how great the temperature swings were.... Thanks!"

scott kirkpatrick: "Olympus has been careful about weatherproofing for a long time. Way back when the Olympus E-1 was new, there was a legendary example. A hard-working PJ had assembled a work kit of an E-1 and the basic lenses of that era, 11–22mm, 14–54mm, 50–200mm, and 50mm macro, and it all lived in a single capacious bag. Her faithful dog, feeling a bit neglected in favor of all this useful gear, decided to make it his own, marking the bag and all of its contents as only dogs can. It took about a week for the unusual smell to be tracked down to its source, but everything was soaked, rinsed clean—and continued to function flawlessly."

John: "I think my Olympus just surpassed my 1DX in the trust I put in it. Thanks!"

DB: "Notes to self: a.) replace long-serving E-M5 with E-M5 II when convenient; b.) don't lend John Lehet any photographic equipment."

John Lehet replies: Unfortunately this is far truer than you know. Though I had a multi-decade stretch of zero disasters, recent months have been off the chart. Since mid October I've had some crazy losses. I also lost a Zeiss Loxia 50 somehow—tumbled out of bag. And in late December I had a very expensive Zeiss Loxia 21mm pickpocketed out of my bag at night in the crowded city park where I took this picture.

On one outing this winter, I fell into this river, but only knee deep. I managed to fall onto the bank as I fell through what I thought was solid ice, but which was only a crust made of ice crystals.

I managed to fall onto the bank and not into the river.

Then another outing, I slid down the bank on my back along the side of a frozen waterfall. It turned out the soil was basically ice, and almost as slippery as the fall itself. I had just lost one of my ice cleats from one boot. The debris on the ice at the bottom of the fall is all stuff that came sliding down with me. I was very lucky to have managed to stop there, since it dropped off even more steeply just below.

In that case my Mindshift Rotation Pro backpack protected my gear perfectly, even though I ripped a coat and some jeans in the slide.

The bigger and tougher pack instead of carrying two bags, as I had been, I think is going to help a lot.

I think the cause of my disasters is largely that I am so heavily using so much gear. My gear isn't as simple as it used to be, and lately my use is exponentially greater. Also, in the fall my father died, and I think the grief was a kind of disability in terms of functioning normally.

Someone joked about a GPS. In fact after these mishaps, my adult children, wonderful people, got me for Christmas a Gear Eye from Kickstarter. It hasn't shipped yet, but I think it is due soon.

Colin Work: "I can't give any objective measures, but as a sailing photographer, I've written off a number of allegedly weather-sealed Canon items due to rough conditions at sea. I decided to give Olympus a try and in some three years of year-round sailing in sometimes horrible conditions, I've not had a water related issue."

The Smartest Way to Buy a Camera

Hearken ye! I'd like to blather just a bit about a very old word, yeoman.

But first: I'm being kind of a stumblebum this year. A sluggard. What used to be called, back in the dim, swiftly receding days of the 'nineties, a slacker. I posted Part I of the "Recommended Cameras" list way back on December 6th, and haven't even gotten around to writing Part II yet. (This isn't that.)

I hate it when I do things like that. I think at some point during my fifties, my get up and go got up and went.

I'll work on that soon. (The list, I mean, not my gumption, moxie, work ethic, spirit of enterprise, etc.—my current activity level is age-appropriate. As the great Uncle Arthur Kramer used to say, I'd work harder, but it would interfere with my nap.)

Meantime, it struck me that like many reviewers, I naturally concentrate on talking about high-level cameras in every line. The ones that offer the highest performance and the most appealing "it" factor. Before it arrived, I assumed I would include the new Olympus E-M1 Mark II on the TOP list.

But when it arrived on the scene, I was taken aback by the price. Two thousand dollars. For a Micro 4/3 body? You can get a Panasonic GX8 for $800 less even when it's not on sale. Same for Olympus's own Pen-F. You can get a full-frame Sony A7 Mark II mirrorless for $500 less.

So is that...smart?

Granted, it's an "overdeveloped" camera, as Olympus told DPReview. Granted, it's targeted at pros, who might like a striver's level of snappy performance and to whom a few hundred dollars tacked onto the purchase price might not matter in the grand scheme of the financial statement. Granted, its level of performance is class-leading in many ways. And it's well designed and pleasant to use, despite having its On/Off switch in an annoying place. I liked the Mark I, which I owned briefly. (And which is still available. For a nice price. You can get it in a kit bundled with the $700 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 zoom for $1,300—$700 less than the Mark II body with no lens.)

But...two grand. It made me think twice, and then think again. Is the E-M1 Mark II truly recommendable at that exalted price?

I know people who will buy it, many of them gladly. But what about people for whom the value equation is important? That includes a lot of us. It even includes a lot of people who could afford an E-M1 Mark II if they wanted to.

The E-M1 Mark II's stabilization may be the best of any camera's.

It's so, so tempting to chase the latest and best. Top models of anything are "no apologies." (Well, at least for three or four years, until they get superseded.)

But it might be smartest, just in terms of spending your money intelligently, to pick the lineup you like the best and then buy the next best camera, whatever that is. Thus:

• E-M5 Mark II rather than E-M1 Mark II.
• D7200 rather than D500.
• A6300 rather than A6500.
• 6D rather than 5D Mark IV.
• X-T10 rather than X-T2.
• A7II rather than A7rII.

Or even...

• E-M10 Mark II rather than E-M5 Mark II!

And so on. You get the idea.

The strategy might not be sexy, but it's sound.

Medieval metaphor
And now for "yeoman," and you can stop reading right here unless you enjoy reading my nonsense.

Yeoman is a tough word to get a handle on—it means many things, and none of them seem to quite relate to each other. A class in England below the gentry. (Not very helpful, given that most of us are hazy about what "gentry" means, too.) A clerk in the Navy. The owner of a small farm (we have lots of yeomen around where I live, if that's the case. Or can you be both Amish and a yeoman?). In medieval times, a servant ranking higher than a page but not quite as high as a squire. Without getting into a tangle of etymology, competing meanings, and mildly conflicting mental images, I think basically yeoman means one who serves, but solidly; a stalwart; someone who is loyal, dependable, and responsible. Someone who does drudge work because it needs to be done, but works well.

Anyway I think one might call these second-tier, near-top-of-the-line, more value-oriented, second-rank cameras yeoman cameras.

Okay, that name won't catch on. I'm not good at naming things. But you get the idea. From these yeoman cameras you get 80% of the performance of the glamorpuss line-leader cameras, but for more reasonable prices. They're reliable. Sensible.

The smart buy.

The GX85 instead of the GX8. Anybody use the X-T10? Are ya happy enough?

...Because sometimes, you'd like the top of the line, but you just don't feel like parting with two grand for an electronic device that's going to be yesterday's news three to five years from now.

Nothing against the noble Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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.

Yo, man!
Like Mike or Patronize TOP’s affiliates

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

Luca: "Cameras are now computers, and with computers the smart strategy has always been exactly the one you just described, i.e. buying the 'second best.' And frankly unless you're a sport / war / extreme situations in general shooter I don't see the point to have an ultrafast camera (and even then something like the A6500 or the A77 II could be all you need anyway). Essentially, maybe 0.1% of us 'need' (as opposed to 'want') an EOS 1Dx, a Nikon D5 or even an Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

"And the X-T10, by the way, is an awesome camera!"

Marcelo Guarini: "I was waiting for the OM1 Mk II, but after reading its specifications I realized is not my camera. I don't need a camera for fast action, sealed for Mars sandstorms and freeze-proof for the dark side of the Moon. Amazon had the Pen F for $945 during a couple of days in November, so I got one and I couldn't be happier. Image quality is better than my OM-1 and so is the in-camera stabilizer. Last night I took several perfectly sharp handheld half-second shots. I'm loving this little camera."

Gordon Lewis: "Whether it was wise for Olympus to price the E-M1 Mark II at $2,000 and whether it's wise for someone to pay it are two different issues. The issue is moot for me because I can't justifying paying that much for any camera. I'm doing what you suggest in your post: looking at cameras that do most if not all of what I need a camera to do, at a lower price than the top of the line. Instead, I'll use the money I save to spend on high-quality lenses. As you say, cameras come and go, but good lenses are good for a lifetime."

Mike replies: I agree with you entirely except for the very last word of your comment. Seems to me the only lens line I could have used for my lifetime—mine being similar in span and era to yours—is the Leica M line. And with that there are, and have been, many other compromises. Seems to me when you and I were young we could have invested in the Canon FD lens line, and, while those are newly "good" again—on a full-frame mirrorless digital camera—there have been significant stretches of our lifetimes during which they would not have been good.

But if you had said "for a longer time" or even "for a long time" instead of "for a lifetime," then we would agree.

Dennis (partial comment): "I've noticed many times that I tend to be happier with things that I've paid more than I've wanted for than I am with things where I've compromised out of frugality. I love a good 'price performer' but over time, I have far more regrets about bargains than I do luxuries. So my recommendation is don't buy based on perceived value nor just because something is state of the art—buy what you want."

beuler: "It seems to me that Olympus is putting the E-M1 Mark II up against the Canikon 1D X Mark II / D5. Brave but stupid? Let's wait and see. In any case it is the cheapest of the three."

Arg: "One only needs to read the featured comments by Dennis and Gordon to confirm that the real driver here is one's personal values. By which I don't mean anything unique, but rather the common value sets. For example, valuing exclusivity highly is a common set, as is valuing economy."

My Favorite Camera Right Now Is a Panasonic...

...That I'll never own...

...And that doesn't exist yet...

...And that might never exist.

It's the GX[x], where x > 8. It's the hoped-for next iteration of the GX8 that will incorporate the improved shutter from the GX85. And a larger battery.

Ever since I had the GX8 here a few months ago I've missed it a fair bit...

...Which surprises me. I wasn't immediately impressed by the GX8 when I saw it at the big trade show in NYC with Gordon when it was new. Using it, however, was a different story. Many things about the UI seemed pleasing to me, including the ability to move the focus point on the fly with the touchscreen (I'm pretty clumsy with most cameras' means of moving the focus point—I like joysticks too, like on the X-T2). But especially the tilting viewfinder.

The viewfinder on a camera most fundamentally determines its basic character, like steering feel in a sports car. Methods of "finding the view" is also the root determinant for camera types, generally speaking, and a history of viewfinding methods would be an interesting and inventive way of looking at the history of cameras. It's curious to compare the groundglass screen on a view camera with an iPhone [x]+ held up in front of but away from your face. Outdoors with the latter, you actually need a dark cloth, too!

The tilting VF on the GX8 is a work of art, and the team at Panasonic that developed it should get a BIG round of applause. It's big and clear to the limits of the technology at this point in time, but it's also ergonomically comfortable—the eyecup fits your eye and blocks stray light, and setting the angle to however your head and arms are most comfortable is very sweet. (It's the camera for left-eye-dominant people.)

I really liked the GX8. There's the shutter-shock issue with certain lenses, but that's like a pesky fly—annoying, but it's not going to kill you. You just have to study up on the issue and learn how to sidestep it. It's bad publicity as much as anything, since other mirrorless cameras exist that have the same basic issue. The GX8 caught all the heat for it, that's all.

I wish I could do more comparisons of the GX8 IQ with the IQ of some of the other mirrorless competitors from Fuji, Sony, and Olympus. It seemed impressive to me, for Micro 4/3, but I don't have the greatest sense of context right now, having been out of Micro 4/3 for some time. (Did I mention that my current favorite camera is in a format that I don't even shoot?!?)

I like Panasonic lenses too, but I'll stop now.

Let's just say I hope there will be a successor (many, actually) to the very nicely designed Panasonic GX8. I like Panasonics.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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.

No shock.
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Aaron: "The GX8 is a fantastic camera, but for some reason has been heavily criticized for issues many other cameras exhibit. The more I use it the more I appreciate its size, control layout, image quality, and especially the tilting EVF. Any follow up to the GX8 that includes more recent developments in shutter design and IBIS will only improve what is already a great imaging device."

Mike replies: Well said, well said.

Gordon Lewis: "Had you accompanied me to this year's PhotoPlus in NYC (no recrimination, just stating a fact) you could have had the pleasure of playing with the newly introduced Panasonic DMC-G85 (aka G80 outside the US). Quite impressive. Imagine the GX8 mated with an Olympus E-M1 and you get the basic idea. It doesn't have a tilted EVF but it does have an articulating rear display. Other features that might interest you are dual IS (in-body + optical), quiet, shock-free shutter, and a variety of automated focus modes. Examples include focus-stacking, and post-exposure focus control. You probably could not care less that it also has stabilized 4K video, but others might. The biggest complaint about it so far is that the IS is so aggressive it causes jumpy video when panning from side-to-side. For some reason the G85's sibling, the DMC-GX85, does not have this problem. You'd have to shoot video fairly often to care much either way.

"Bottom line: You are not alone in realizing that Panasonic mirrorless cameras are serious contenders. Don't be too surprised if dozens of your readers write in to voice their agreement."

Dave Levingston: "I'm still loving my GX8 (purchased on the sale that you announced here last month). I am starting to think that I won't be using my Nikon D7000 much any more. And the 12–60mm lens that Adorama was 'giving away' with it is really a great lens. Very sharp, very little distortion and a near perfect range of focal lengths. I have yet to see the shutter issue. I've not tested for it and really have not studied up on it. I just keep shooting and getting excellent results. My only complaint so far is that the lens and sensor are so sharp that I've had to introduce a touch of blur in Photoshop for portraits. You could see pores in the pores."

Panasonic GX8 Review

...Or more precisely, non-review.

There are several things about the Panasonic GX8 (currently on sale and less than $1k) you would like a review to answer...one, how well does the Dual IS system work? And two, is the alleged shutter-shock problem real, or is that just a random slander to give armchair shoppers on the Internet something to bite their fingernails about?

The problem is, I can't really answer either question.

The reason I can't say anything about the shutter-shock problem is that, having heard about it, and being nervous about missing pictures, I switched the camera to electronic shutter to avoid it so none of my pictures could be ruined. (I think both the illustrations below are with the camera on mechanical shutter, however.) I was then on the lookout for any of the problems that the electronic shutter is alleged to cause. But unfortunately (this happened with the GX7 too), in all my shooting I never had any problems with the electronic shutter. My advice on this head would be, if you're concerned about it, read up on the issue, shoot with the electronic shutter most of the time, and switch to the mechanical shutter in those rare situations where you expect the electronic shutter might lead to problems. My general observation is that when a problem is said to exist but people who are looking hard for it have difficulty provoking it to happen, it might not be too much of a problem. But bear in mind I found out essentially nothing solid about the issue that might add to discussions elsewhere.

Also, I only used one lens with the camera, the 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 Panasonic zoom (currently on sale for $200 off). I really liked the lens, although it has stiff competition (Panasonic has a problem with that...it keeps coming up with great products which are then overshadowed by products that have slightly better specs) in the Olympus 12–40mm ƒ/2.8. To really have the last word on the alleged problem, you'd need to test it exhaustively with many different lenses. I'm sorry I can't be of more help here.

I'm also not going to say much about the Dual IS. It appears to work; how many stops it might gain for you, I can't say. I have some particular personal problems when it comes to objectively testing IS.

Mike you are worthless!
...I know. So what can I say about the Panasonic GX8 that might be useful to you?

Just this: I think that ergonomically, from a functional handling standpoint, this is one of the best digital camera designs I've ever used.

I've been through some changes with Panasonic—I've owned or borrowed about five of them, starting with the GF1 (with the 20mm lens) which was my main camera for about three years, until about 2012. To say the company's design goals have been rather inconsistent is something of an understatement. Its premium mirrorless cameras have taken wild swings back and forth from one idea to another. The GF1 was a utilitarian brick, no-nonsense and workmanlike; the successor GX1 took small 'n' light to an extreme, being almost too small for adult human hands; the greatly improved but underrated GX7 looked sidewise at the Fuji X100 as an exercise in exquisite, jewel-like design, elegant and delicate.

With the GX8, Panasonic took another wild swing of the pendulum, throwing out the idea of small-as-a-virtue, but also tossing out the design-exercise aesthetic of the GX7, going back to the idea of a workmanlike brick that's meant to be used...but with a lot of the GX7's feature-richness kept on board.

The result, I think, is singularly successful.

And now, just when you didn't want it, a digression
One thing that's still shifting and changing about digital cameras is the degree to which different designs are allowed to "settle." It was a big advantage of the film era—refinement was slow and gradual, and designs evolved rather than being replaced. Leica's most successful rangefinder, the M6, was an M4-P with a manual light meter built into it, and the M4-P was made with some of the tooling for the M4 that had been sent from Germany to Canada. It was a steady and slow evolution. Nikon's first standard for the F pro SLRs was that they'd have ten-year lifecycles. Now, if you find a digital camera you love, well, enjoy it while it lasts, because it might not last long.

There have been some exceptions—Canon particularly, but Nikon almost as much, has tried to stay consistent with its SLR designs. The practical advantages are that users are already basically familiar with new bodies as well as with different bodies in the same lineup. The disadvantages are that it precludes top-to-bottom rethinks and the innovation that requires, as well as a certain boring sameness after a while that can put a damper on excitement and, hence, sales. Another exception is of course the "refresh"—Mark II and III, and so on, variants of basic designs.

Stop here
So may I just say that I truly hope Panasonic will stop here for a while with its top-of-the-line mirrorless design. The GX8 probably looks good to use to you, from afar, but it's actually better than it looks. I was encouraged that Fujifilm took a "Mark II" approach to the X-Pro1, even though it's called the X-Pro2. They took the best parts of the initial design and refined it exhaustively. That's how great cameras evolve. And it's a relief for users when they don't have to say goodbye to their favorite designs and learn a new body all over again from scratch. There would be nothing wrong with refining the GX8 in the same way. Really, the basic design is so good that it just shouldn't be thrown out with the next swing of the pendulum.

Dawn

Dusk

So what's good about it? Well, I'm not going to make exhaustive descriptions of, or arguments in favor of, each feature. You can go to the big review sites for that, the ones that have staff and only talk tech.

The things I like best about the GX8:

• The size: Not too big, not too small, just-right hand grip. Weight-to-size ("density") is just about perfect too.
• The VF: Love the viewfinder. The tilting feature seems somehow more serious and more useful than the same feature on the GX7. It's not just for use as a chimney finder (i.e., pointed straight up). In fact, I find that using it as a 45° angle finder is perfect, allowing a very comfortable and stable hand-holding stance with either eye. (Side note: the GX8 is a great camera for left-eyed shooters and also people who wear glasses). Also, you can completely cut out stray light outdoors so the view through the eyepiece is saturated and clear—I had no problems shooting in bright light. The EVF itself—although it's one of those things that can be noteworthy for only so long, as progress in the technology marches on—is the best I've so far experienced, edging out the excellent EVF on the Fuji X-T1, which itself is one of that camera's best features.
• Touchscreen: This is the first touchscreen (save the ones on my i-devices) that I truly like. It makes changing basic menu settings quick and simple, and I just love the way you can place the focus point using your right thumb on the touchscreen as you shoot. As good as the joystick on the Fuji X-Pro2? Can't say, but Panasonic's solution works a treat, that's for sure.
• Button 'n' dial configuration: In keeping with emerging practice, the camera is extremely configurable. You can change all sorts of things to suit your taste, from almost all the physical buttons to the directions the dials turn. I didn't do so, but I could see that if I owned the camera and took the time to set it up the way I wanted to, it would make the camera that much easier to learn to operate intuitively. (All the more reason the next iteration should preserve the same form-factor—you're going to put some effort into first customizing the operation of the camera, then using it enough that it becomes second nature. That's effort and practice you don't want to throw away three years from now when the body is replaced.)
• Lenses: I should mention again (I've said it before) that I love Panasonic lenses. They're all just the right size, great in quality, and you can put together a splendid, very sensible outfit that won't break either the bank or your back.
• IS: ...Even though I can't quantify its advantage. (This was the reason I tried the camera, because I suspect I personally need IS at age almost 60.)

The things I don't like? The swivel viewing screen. I much prefer flip-ups. That's just a settled preference of my own, and your take might be the opposite. Oh, and I had some problems with the battery door sticking, and my fingers are too big to remove the SD card comfortably. No biggie, but, in the Irony Dept., the old GF1 was perfect in this respect. See what I mean about not changing what works?

'Gestalt'
The overall "rightness" of this body design is where this thing scores like Stephen Curry. It's got the mojo of a pickup truck: fit for working and the tool for the job. The whole package has a sort of git 'er done gestalt that makes you feel like you're set to take on any task. It's not too pretty and not too precious, but oh man does it all come together.

I loved this camera, and I think it's better than a) appearances, and b) you probably think it is.

Granted there's a huge amount of competition in the mirrorless space...a glut, even. But I hope the GX8 (here's the link again) won't be semi-ignored like some of Panasonic's bodies have been when they get apparently overshadowed by the competition. Try this before you diss it. The company's designers hit the nail on the head this time around. I really do hope this will be a long-lived design. It deserves to be.

Mike

[Thanks to B&H Photo for the loan of the review equipment. —Ed.]

[Ed. Note: Bear in mind that TOP is no longer publishing on weekends! So I'll see you on Monday. I said before I was going to do a techie post on Mondays and "Open Mike" on Fridays, but I'm switching that around. I think it's better to have a photo topic sitting at the top of the site for the whole weekend; to have an "Open Mike" up there could mislead surfers as to what the site is all about.

Hope you don't miss me too much, but, even more, I hope you don't forget to come back. Have a nice weekend!]

Original contents copyright 2016 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.

TOP's links!

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

Mike: "Yup, it's the best Panasonic camera ever. I've been a dedicated Lumix user professionally since the arrival of the GH3. I've used up two of those, two GX7's, and still have two GH4's with about 180,000 clicks on each. The GH4's have been retired to video only duty since the GX8 is out.

"I have two GX8's and use them exhaustively for all of my stills, professionally and for personal use where I use the square crop. They are the best still camera, for me since the advent of digital. I love the swivel screen because it lets me shoot verticals from low or high viewpoints, and even around corners or from inside a scientific hood pointing backward because it lets me see the composition from any angle, and set the focus point too.

"Now that my company is purchasing my cameras, finally, after three years of providing my own, they got me Sony A6300's. And, I hate them. They feel like toys compared to the Lumix cameras, and the lack of touch screen makes choosing the AF points absolutely maddening. Plus they overheat when outside in the sun, and sometimes just stop working altogether until I remove the battery and restart it.

"Don't get me started on the menus. And then there's the lenses. Blah, ugh, blech. Not nearly enough, slim pickings when it comes to available focal lengths and lens speed, and mediocre performance.

"The Micro 4/3 system is very complete. I mix and match my lenses between Panasonic, Olympus and Voigtlaender, and there's nothing that I need and either don't have or can't get. I much prefer the Lumix bodies over the Olympus, which are too small for the most part, and the batteries are underwhelming. I've never been happier with a camera, or the whole system as I am now. Good stuff.

"Oh, and I've never seen the effects of shutter shock, ever. I shoot in the danger zone all the time, and it's never ever reared it's blurry head in my experience of probably over half a million frames with many bodies."

Alan: "I recently ran into the shutter shock issue for the first time when using a GX7 and 14–42mm OIS kit lens. I'd previously used primes on the GX7.

"Once I saw the problem I Googled it and did my own little tests and although I found the issue intermittent and limited to that lens on the GX7, it's present enough to make me want to avoid using shutter speeds of 1/80th to 1/250th when using that camera and lens.

"Switching to electronic shutter is a work-around in natural light but I've seen banding in shots taken under artificial light and it completely ruined a shot I really wanted. So sadly it's an issue for me with the GX7 and 14–42mm when using the mechanical shutter at the sort of shutter speeds I'd be using in lower natural light and also when using the GX7 and the electronic shutter with any lens under some artificial lighting.

"The shutter shock issue ruined every shot I took on a day out (I'd been shooting in low light so I set the shutter speed to 1/200th and thought I'd be OK but unbeknownst to me this is right in the shutter-shock range and every shot is soft) and the banding issue ruined a shot I really wanted so I seem to hit problems both with shutter shock and when trying to avoid it, at least under some artificial light.

"As my G7 also has a few little niggles I'm not exactly happy with Panasonic. If they bring out a problem-free GX7 type camera (but I'm not getting the new GX80) I might buy one and maybe even a mini DSLR type camera too but only once the geeky Internet crowd have declared them shutter shock free.

"I'd advise anyone thinking about buying a Panasonic camera to research these issues and decide if the workarounds of using the electronic shutter or avoiding the affected shutter speed range are acceptable or not.

"I don't want to risk losing any more shots to these issues so until the shutter shock issue is fixed Panasonic isn't getting another penny from me."

Bunnell: Fujifilm X70 vs. Ricoh GR

The new Fujifilm X70 and its evident inspiration, the Ricoh GR II

-

Guest post written and illustrated by Ned Bunnell

I was intrigued when Fujifilm announced the X70 in January. The press release touted it as a premium fixed-lens compact camera. Design wise, clearly it’s the baby brother to the X100T. However, its specs indicate the X70’s primary mission is to compete with the Ricoh GR II. Having shot almost exclusively with the GR and GR II for the past three years, as well as shooting film several times a year with the GR-1v, you could say I’m a devotee of Ricoh’s compact camera design philosophy. Knowing this, Tony Rose of Popflash Photo loaned me one of his first X70’s and asked me to see how the X70 compared with the GR. After shooting with the X70 for two months, I have a few thoughts about the X70 as a GR competitor and why Fujifilm entered this niche market.

Both cameras use a 16.3 MP APS-C sensor and a 28mm equivalent ƒ/2.8 lens using seven elements in five groups. Fujifilm dropped the hybrid viewfinder used in the X100T but added a tilting touchscreen to the X70. Knowing that some users might miss having a viewfinder, Fujifilm offers a VF-X21 optical viewfinder that looks like a clone of the Ricoh GV-1 (see above), and they both have framelines for 21 and 28mm. Ricoh sells a .75 wide angle converter lens* that increases the GR’s field of view to 21mm. Although I have not seen any announcements from Fujifilm, it’s likely they’ll offer a similar converter lens. There’s already a setting in the X70 to select "wide conversion lens."

Coincidence that the sensor size, lens FOV and optical accessories of both cameras are similar? I think not. By offering a very similar camera system with a tilting touchscreen (which is quite responsive and accurate in selecting focus points) Fujifilm is likely to sway potential customers to buy the X70 versus the GR II which is looking a little dated these days.

Fujifilm reduced the body of the X100T to create a smaller, almost pocketable camera. Like the X100 series, the X70 is a beautifully built camera adorned with retro looking buttons. Many say the X100 and now the X70 look similar to the classic rangefinder camera. After comparing the black X70 to my Leica M4, a classic film camera introduced in 1968 (above), it’s clear Fujifilm did a great job matching the luxurious black paint of the early Leicas. Compared to the X70’s beautiful fit and finish, the GR is the epitome of minimalism. Void of any shiny buttons, housed in a matte black finish with a boxy shape, the GR is meant to be unobtrusive but highly functional.

The X70 is a bit thicker due to its fixed, non-retractable lens, whereas the GR is slightly wider to accommodate its array of controls and very secure thumb grip which occupy the right backside of the camera. In reducing the size of the X100T and needing to use a bigger frame to hold the LCD, Fujifilm had less space to lay out the buttons and controls. The body feels a little crowded especially on the back of the camera, which in my opinion hurts the handling and ergonomics of the X70.

Compared to the X70, the GR makes one-hand operation intuitive and comfortable. The GR’s controls and extensive customization options allow you to assign your most used settings so they’re within fingertip reach, and you never have to raise the camera or move your hands between shots.

Having always shot in raw, I was pleasantly surprised by Fujifilm’s out-of-camera (OOC) JPEG film simulations. While not as accurate as what I get from shooting DNGs with the GR or even the X70’s own raw files, the X70 JPEGs exhibit film-like colors, good tones, and nice contrast. However, if you dig a little deeper into the X70 JPEGs you will notice smearing in subtle details even at ISO 800. Note: you can't control noise reduction with the X70’s X-Trans filter, versus the GR, which has no AA filter and lets you turn NR off if desired. Technically, the GR produces more detailed images than the X70. But it might not matter in this rapidly changing photography world.

As part of testing the X70, I posted images on Instagram from my iPhone using unedited OOC JPEGs. Folks don’t notice the X70’s image smearing but they immediately like the color and saturation. Many photographers today don’t do any desktop image processing, never shoot in raw, and are more interested in easily transferring images from camera to phone. Therefore, the X70’s film simulations, which are ready to upload and post on social media, could actually be more important to a prospective buyer than the GR’s superior files and better ergonomics.

(While I’m impressed with the X70 colors, I prefer the detailed, full range images I can process from my GR. The GR's raw files are extremely malleable; I can pull out more detail from the shadows, and the conversions to B&W from GR files are excellent. And while I’ve read claims that the X70 is better at high ISOs, my tests at night using a tripod at ISO 3200 indicate the GR has more detail and better contrast and shadow definition vs. the X70 image, which is noticeably smeared and lacks detail. If I put the X70’s pleasing OOC color aside, both raw and JPEGs from the GR have more bite or detail—but you’ll have to use Photoshop or Lightroom to process your images.)

Am I going to abandon my GR for the X70? Not a chance, as the GR’s image structure and ergonomics suit my style of photography perfectly. However, since they’re both very capable and enjoyable cameras to use, when asked via direct message on Instagram how I netted out the cameras, my reply was "one has a beautiful body, and the other would suit a ninja warrior."

Quite a few folks on the gear forums have asked "why" the X70? The 28mm fixed lens APS-C camera market is a niche. Nikon put their toe in these waters a few years ago with the Coolpix A, but it was discontinued in less than two years. Ricoh sells the majority of GRs in the Japanese market, where it has developed a cult-like following. I’m sure one of Fujifilm’s goals with the X70 is to keep its loyal X-series customers in the fold, even if those customers want a compact, street-shooter style camera.

I’m actually hoping the X70 does well. It might prompt Ricoh to respond with a strong GR III offering, since they disappointed many loyal users with a rather meager upgrade from the GR to the GR II. Competition, even in a niche market, is a good thing.

X70 and GR photos

GR photos from Cuba

Ned

*Note that to use the conversion lens, you also need an adapter.

Ned Bunnell is an avid photographer with an eye for people, places and classic cars. He retired as president of Pentax US (Ricoh Imaging) four years ago. You can follow him at Instagram.

©2016 by Ned Bunnell, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Click here for TOP's affiliate links

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

Ken Ford: "Very nice review! I was initially interested in the X70 until I realized it did not have an internal finder—that killed it for me. Shoe-mount OVFs are a poor substitute for a built-in VF of any kind."

KeithB: "While the intended meaning of the statement 'If I put the X70’s pleasing OOC color aside, both raw and JPEGs from the GR have more bite or detail—but you’ll have to use Photoshop or Lightroom to process your images' is completely understandable in context of the article, experienced Fuji X users often advise using Photo Ninja, Iridient Developer, Capture One, or other raw converters for Fuji X files. This is especially relevant since the review makes mention of 'color smearing' and image detail in general, which the Adobe ACR raw converter is known to have problems with when processing Fuji X files."

To the Panasonic Camera Division: Nice Work! (And, the GX8's Viewfinder)

Open comment directed at Panasonic: Great work.

Seriously, you did well. Whoever was responsible for the conception of the GX8, promote that person. Whoever worked on the details of the UI, give that person or persons a bonus.

I acknowledge that I am not Mr. Typical Photographer, representative of the widest possible swath of the buying fan base. But I do have a fairly wide familiarity with a variety of cameras, having owned 11,358 different ones (I first typed 1,358, but then it occurred to me that maybe that wasn't enough of an exaggeration to make it clear that it's an exaggeration) and having tried out another, oh, ~4,000 more. (That's an exaggeration.)

I'm really liking the GX8. It's not pretty, and it's not diminutive in the way that usually charms the Japanese, but it sure is nice to hold and pleasant and easy to use. Ergonomics get an A+ from me so far. Still R-ing TFM though*.

Here they are at B&H Photo, which loaned me the equipment for the review. Note that GX8 bodies are currently on sale for $200 off.

Viewfinder über alles
To keep this post from being just a fluffle of opining:

A camera's viewfinder is all-important. It's what connects the camera to the world, in the most important way for the enterprise at hand, i.e., visually. A great viewfinder is a reason to buy one camera over another. It's what sold me on the Fuji X-T1, second only to Fuji's beautiful lens system.

(I should explain that I now prefer electronic viewfinders [EVF's] to optical viewfinders [OVF's]. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each, the EVF edges ahead for me.)

I directly compared the electronic viewfinders of the Panasonic GX8 and the Fuji X-T1, and the GX8 to the optical viewfinder of the Sony A900 DSLR, previously my gold standard (among the cameras I'm familiar with, so only 15,358 of them) for an OVF on a DSLR. The Fuji beats the Sony, as I've mentioned before (and the Sony beats the Nikon D750, as I've also mentioned before). The Fuji X-T1's viewfinder is one of that camera's strongest points, and it is indeed just a little bigger than the one in the GX8. But not much. The Fuji's seems a little more coarse to me, and not quite as color-correct. Big win for the Panasonic is with eye relief (this refers to how far back from the eyepiece your eye can be while still allowing you to see the whole frame). The Panasonic has great eye relief. I find it easy and pleasant to see the whole frame in the GX8 even with glasses on. With no glasses on it's A/B**.

So the GX8 is highly recommended to both left-eyed shooters and glasses-wearers.

I very much like the upper-left-hand position of the GX8's EVF, and I very much like the tilting feature, too, which I first learned I liked when reviewing the ill-fated Ricoh GXR a number of years ago. (Remember that one? With the interchangeable lens/sensor modules?)

I find this shooting position, with the finder at about 45°, very comfortable. Sort of midway between a studio and a snapshot camera. Reminds me of...

...Another camera with a 45-degree finder. (Rolleiflex 6008AF shown without lens.) Of course the GX8's VF adjusts effortlessly to all positions from straight up to straight back.

The GX8's tilting finder is in essence an answer to the grizzly Photo Dawgs who ask where interchangeable finders went, such as those on the Nikon F3, Pentax LX, and Canon New F-1. Well, it's now all-in-one, can't be lost, doesn't cost extra, and comes built-in on the Panasonic GX8.

There's even a larger accessory eyecup to eliminate extraneous light when you're shooting outdoors. I'm very curious about how the VF will do in bright sunlight, but this morning it's gray, wet, and snowing again. We've had more Winter in April than we've had all Winter; Winter took all Winter to get here. I'll let you know about the VF in bright sunlight once the sun comes out.

Anyway, just because the VF on the GX8 tilts, don't think it isn't a world-class VF. It's clean, clear, easy to see, and yes, pleasant to spend time looking at. A nice interface with the visual world. (And kind of a contrast, when you think of it, in innovation and implementation, to the traditional "faux prism humps" on the X-T1 and the OM-D's.)

It's an excellent viewfinder, both in an absolute sense, and comparatively.

Mike
(Thanks to B&H Photo)

*"RTFM" is "read the f------ manual."

**Awesome/brilliant, for American and U.K. readers respectively.

Original contents copyright 2016 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.

I finally decided I could afford this book, and ordered
it two days ago. Can't wait!

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

Steve G: " I completely agree that a tilting viewfinder is a boon, not a gimmick. When I first got my Ricoh GX100—and there are still more gallery shots in my portfolio from that camera than any other—I thought the tilting EVF (maybe a first for Ricoh? I don't know) was just a marketing frippery. I soon found myself using it a lot, and it became a big part of why I loved that camera so much."

Mike replies: Yes, I do think this should be emphasized. Using tilting finders has convinced me. I think it's a serious and desirable feature, and this is the best implementation of it I've used yet.

Of course, I haven't actually used 15,358 cameras—in fact I probably use fewer cameras that most reviewers do. I'm sure Luke at Imaging-Resource, for example (he reads TOP) is familiar with many more VF's than I am.

James Clarke: "I am interested how you find the exposure compensation dial. Having not used the GX8 (still using the GX1) I'm inclined to agree with this take on the ergonomics."

Mike replies: Wow, I completely disagree with that assessment. The EC dial, which by habit I use a lot (I know it's something some people don't use, but I do), is one of the best things about the GX8. You just raise your thumb and forefinger and there it is, right to hand in the perfect place. I can set it easily—I mean very comfortably, no stretch, no fuss—while holding the camera one-handed!

beuler: "I first tried a tilting VF on the Konica Minolta Dimage A2. I miss the feature and wonder why it has not replaced the faux prism hump as design standard. I find a tilting EVF more versatile and useful than a tilting rear screen."

Ah, the Night Sky (Old FF Dynamic Range)

Ah, the night sky. It contains a multitude of heavenly bodies....

Lest you we thinking that old sensors are as good as new, those aren't actually stars. That's shadow noise.

With the Nikon D750 dispatched back to LensRentals from whence it came, and the sun out, I enlisted Butters to help with a high-SBR trial. (SBR is "subject brightness range," which should be pretty self-explanatory.) He likes lying in the sunlight, and he's essentially white. About the highest natural SBR you'll encounter in the wild (with "lit" subjects, not counting pictures with light sources or reflections in the frame), is dappled sunlight on the ground in the woods, but this has got to come close. That top shot is the Sony A900's shadow noise at 200%.

More recent sensors generally do much better.

This is the same shot HDR'd to the max in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). I don't normally use true HDR so I don't know any particular tricks as to how aficionados would do it. What I did was peg the Highlights slider, then increase the Exposure until the highlights looked okay. Then I pegged the Shadows slider, then added Noise Reduction until the "night sky" effect went away in the shadows, then added a little Clarity. Quick, crude, and dirty...

...But I was impressed. If I were printing this I'd back off till the HDR look went away, but I must say I'm impressed with what ACR can do with A900 files now. Detail isn't softened much despite the high NR, and the shadows open up well...not as well as a modern sensor would do, but then this is an extreme situation. As Geoff Wittig wrote in his comment to the previous post, "I've recently gone back to some of my older digital images captured more than 12 years back with the original Canon EOS-1Ds. Yes, anything above ISO 200 shows pretty dreadful noise. But it's amazing how well the files actually stand up with some careful processing. And it's remarkable how much better Photoshop CC is for 'developing' these files than the release I was using back then. No question I can print a lot larger with new images shot at 50 mp, but it's the whole imaging chain that matters in the end...."

Sensors have definitely improved, but, as with Geoff's 1Ds, modern processing tools actually make the older Sony A900 into a better camera than it used to be.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Sal: "Mike, can you explain what you mean by 'pegging' a slider?"

Mike replies: Pushing it all the way. (Sorry for not explaining.) A physical meter needle is said to "peg" when it hits a predetermined point in its range, particularly the limit...originally because there was often a physical peg that prevented the needle from moving past it.

New Full-Frame vs. Old Full-Frame: Nikon D750 (2014) vs. Sony A900 (2008)

I don't own a normal lens for my old Sony A900—I used to use it as a portrait camera with an 85mm. Recently I had the idea that a new lens might breathe new life into the old beast. And I had never tried the Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 Art that's been getting so much positive attention since it came out in 2012. So I thought I'd put the two together and see what happened.

At the same time, I wanted to try the Nikon D750 and the new Tamron SP35mm image-stabilized lens.

The lightbulb lit up, and I decided to ask LensRentals for two identical Sigma Arts—one for the Sony and one for the Nikon. (Shown above, on the cameras.) That way, not only could I see how the Sigma did when paired with the Sony, but I could see for myself how the Sony's aging sensor stacked up against a newer sensor with the same pixel count in the Nikon (both are 24-MP full-frame DSLRs). I also reasoned that it's the kind of "test" (I call them trials or tryouts—I don't work hard enough for them to be called tests) that isn't often done on the Internet. Most Internet reviews are of equipment when it's new. So if read a review of the A900 from 2008 and a review of the D750 from this year, both will talk about the sensors and the image quality in terms of the standards that prevailed when the reviews were written. It's difficult to get a clear picture of how older things stack up against newer ones.

The weather hasn't been good until today (I'm going to get out to shoot very soon) but here's a rainy-day trial intended to stress exposure range a.k.a. dynamic range. Shot at ISO 800 with both cameras.

The Sony needed quite a bit of noise reduction (NR), here applied to make the large file look good. But I was surprised at how pretty the result was.

The Nikon needed less noise reduction in the shadows and retained slightly better detail around the light; it was also noticeably easier to work with and had more flexibility in responding to the controls in ACR. I'd call this a win for the newer sensor. But not overwhelmingly; the Nikon doesn't kill the Sony as I expected it might.

Here's another attempt to find an extreme of highlights and shadows despite the overcast weather—a darkened interior with a window. At ISO 3200, I let the Nikon pick the exposure and manually set the Sony to match—ƒ/5.6 at 1/10 sec. Out of the camera the scene looked like this:

Then for each picture I HDR'd to the max: –100 highlights, +100 shadows in ACR.

To my surprise, the Sony result wasn't half bad. Detail out the window was very good in particular, although that could be due to the vagaries of exposure, which is never exactly identical whether at the mechanical or the electronic level.

The Nikon did better in the shadows, although I feel the Sony result is more true to the "feel" of the real situation as I experienced it, for what little that's worth. (That kind of judgement is called a "perceptual" appraisal. Once you determined that's what you wanted, you could probably match with the Nikon.) It looks to me like the Nikon just exposed a little more for whatever reason. The Sony might also be biased toward greater highlight detail, something I've long suspected just from using it (and probably the reason I liked it).

But then here's a pretty clear difference:

(You'll be seeing it at 100% after you click on it.) That's a detail of the noise from the Nikon file, captured as a screenshot from ACR. You can see "grain," but bear in mind this is ISO 3200 boosted +100 in the shadows, with no added noise reduction (NR). You could clean and sharpen this up a lot further.

This is the same thing from the Sony file. And bear in mind that Sony's engineers baked some NR even into the RAW files (we can turn to Imaging-Resource again for a good discussion of sensor NR—although I sure wish they'd date their articles).

This probably makes you remember how obsessed everyone was with shadow noise during the middle years of the decade of the 2000s, and why. The Nikon example makes you realize why it's no longer such an issue.

Result of this trial: the Sony did better than I thought it would, but the Nikon's sensor is clearly better. As I recall, I used to limit the A900 to ISO 1600 in real shooting.

But now here's a different situation, one where the old Sony actually came out on top:

Here's the shot. I was wandering around with both cameras focusing back and forth from near to far objects to get a handle on focusing speed for the kinds of things I shoot. (Verdict on that: the Nikon's faster but it's mainly noticeable when the lens has a longer way to rack. The A900 is Alydar, always second but running a good race. I was never bothered by the Sony's focusing speed.)

Here's the detail from the Nikon test shot. You'll notice that I managed to handhold 1/10th of a second with the unstabilized Nikon in the window shot above, but here, at 1/25th of a second, I've gotten just a slight amount of camera shake. (This is a degree of camera-movement degradation most shooters would have been unaware of in the film years, by the way, before we could easily examine detail at such high magnifications.)

Look at the same detail from the Sony:

(Again, if you click on these you'll see them at 100%.) Much sharper. Note the bluish blotching in the black block letters, though.

I added a little speed for the Nikon shot so I could more easily hand-hold it—1/25th vs. 1/10th. There's certainly the possibility that I merely happened to hold the camera more steady for the Sony shot; in the window shot above, I handheld the Nikon at 1/10th and I don't see any motion blur. But given that the Sony shot here is at 1/10th and I can't handhold 1/10th as a rule, I'm going to credit the Sony's IBIS for the sharper result here. That has not been demonstrated by this single test, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

One for the old guy.

Tentative conclusion for now
It appears from my few comparisons (these and several more) that the Sony sensor in the D750, with Nikon's processor and implementations, is superior to the then-groundbreaking Sony 24-MP sensor from 2008, mainly in the area of shadow noise and high ISOs—and it appears to have more in reserve for manipulation in post. But just as nine-year-old Lulu-dog occasionally gets to the ball first by being clever, despite two-year-old Butters' youthful strength, speed, and agility, the Sony still has a trick or two up its sleeve. The A900 is still in the game. (Lulu has a ton of heart too. She's always game.) So far, the Sony is losing but putting up a decently impressive fight.

I should add the possibly apocryphal admonition of the old Leica lens designer: "all tests are just shortcuts. The way to really get to know a camera is to use it for a year."

I got outside today and shot a bunch of stuff with one camera after the other. If there's anything to talk about from those comparisons I'll get to it this week. I have another reader portfolio review tomorrow (Monday), which I'm looking forward to.

Mike
(Thanks to Ctein)

Equipment for our posts is provided by
LensRentals or B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Ulf Aagerup: "It’s great to see a sober comparison of cameras from different generations. The idea that photos from old digital cameras is comparable to those from new ones is interesting, and in line with my experience. I have the EOS 5D and the 5D Mark III. I prefer the look of the original’s files. I also prefer the look of the Fuji X100 compared to that of the later versions, and the X-Pro 1 files compared to the latest Fuji Xs. I don’t know why this is the case. If it were not for the newer cameras’ superior handling, I would be happy with my old cameras."

Mike replies: There was something sweet-spotty about that original 5D. I know what you mean about the files—they looked great, and no one could ever quite figure out why. Black-and-white conversions, too. A landmark camera for Canon, in several ways.

Making Friends with the Nikon D750

The box that arrived from LensRentals three days ago contained a Nikon D750 (currently on sale for $400 off at $1,897; that's normally the price for the D610, which is on sale for $500 off) and a copy of the new Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 Di VC USD ($599).

The next day's LensRentals box brought two Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM Art lenses ($899, which is a chunk of change except that's very cheap for its specification—an AF full-frame 35mm ƒ/1.4 lens). They're identical except that one fits Nikon F mount and the other fits Sony A mount. I had in mind doing an evolution-of-FF tryout between the long-in-the-tooth 2008 24-MP Sony A900 and the new 24-MP D750. Predictably (I say that because I predicted it!), we have not had one spot of sunlight since the first box arrived, which annoys me, but then, it is Winter in New York, so what did I expect?

I've only got a few days with this stuff anyway, which is enough for tryouts but not tests. (When I used to write camera reviews, my personal standard was that I had to use the camera for 90 days, exclusively and for real work, before I'd write about it. Ah, youth.)

The lineup that doesn't quite line up
Even before seeing one in person, I considered the D750 the top recommendation among all Nikons. That doesn't mean this is an easy or sensible recommendation, however; Nikon's full-frame lineup is quite confused. It has the D4S (currently $500 off at $5,997), soon to be superseded by the D5; the D810 ($2,797), its 36-MP pixel-leader-o'-the-moment and a hunka hunka burning love (sorry; I mean it's a big ol' dragoon); the faux-retro Dƒ ($2,747 at the moment), which is apparently soon to go the way of all digital things, as end-of-lifecycle discounts have been doing the Whack-A-Mole dance recently; and then the D750 and the D610 (currently on sale for $1,497 and Nikon's best bargain in a FF camera), which are sorta the same but sorta aren't.

You get the feeling these days that Nikon's lineup is designed by a committee, but that the committee no longer meets. As if everybody's thinking straight but nobody's talking to anyone else. The only point of clarity in the FF range is that the D4S is targeted at pros. Beyond that, the D810 is for landscapes and product shots, sorta; the D610 (which I actually like quite a lot but which, as the D600, had a rocky intro with some well-publicized problems) is the entry-level FF; and the Dƒ is the camera that encapsulates Nikonish befuddlement in one body, because it's a retro dials-'n'-buttons buttons camera but a modern all-electronic camera as well. It comes off as not both but neither, a hybrid Frankenidea like a calf born with two heads or some other metaphor of DNA gone wrong. (While remaining a capable camera, of course; it's still a Nikon.) The distinction between the D610 and the D750, in terms of lineup placement, seems inherently difficult to parse. The difference in features between the two is modest (Imaging-Resource has the best comparison page). The biggest difference I notice is the D750's articulated viewing screen.

There's nothing wrong with any of these cameras, I hasten to add. It's just that as a product lineup it's pretty muddled. Nikon never lacks for competence, but recently seems lacking in clarity and, dare I venture to say it, confidence. Or it could be that the lineup suffers in comparison to Sony's bold A7 line, in which the various models each have unusual clarity of purpose.

Well and good
But down to the D750. It's named to conjure the famous D700 from 2008, which our readers in a poll some time back settled on as the #1 best-loved camera of the digital era. For some inexplicable reason, Nikon orphaned the D700. And the D300. When anyone would have thought that follow-ups to both those stalwarts would have been no-brainers. The D750 isn't entirely a logical D700 successor. It's been too many years, for one thing, and, as Thom Hogan points out, the D750 probably has the wrong sensor: to be a D700 heir it should have the one from the Dƒ. Not that there's nothing wrong with the sensor it has.

But I think it serves well enough as a D700 successor in spirit, as it's the current all-rounder FF Nikon that's best targeted at enthusiasts. Well and good.

It's impossible to unlearn what you already know, so I can't guess how the D750 would "present" to someone who's new to Nikon DSLRs or just new to DSLRs in general. They're very familiar to me. As a consequence the controls were mostly already familiar and the camera fell right to hand.

First handshakes with the D750 in the dark and changey weather.
Tamron SP35mm lens.

Nikon builds SLRs, and it is very good at building SLRs, and the D750 is a very good Nikon. It's a pleasure to hold, to look through, and to photograph with. Everything works a treat. It's loud. It has a flip-up viewing screen (I like those). Given time, you'd gradually fill in your knowledge of whichever controls aren't immediately apparent, and the controls you use most often would become second nature. The D750 is quite wonderful. It feels like a privilege to be using it every time I pick it up.

Making friends
The point I wanted to make today—forgive me if I go overboard here in the daily struggle to express myself—is that when you first try a new camera, I think a measure of respect for the process—for the experience—is appropriate. It's just a camera, so nothing about the experience is all that crucial. But, psychologically, you're at a vulnerable stage. You're calibrating broadly, and big missteps or mistakes or frustrations are going to loom larger than they should in your evolving appraisal. What I try to do, if I can, is to make sure that my first experience of a new camera is a positive one. If possible, I use a lens that's already familiar to me; I take some time to sort out the controls, and make sure I have the basic settings all configured correctly and that I know how to do things I'm likely to want to do right off the bat, like change the aperture or apply exposure compensation or switch to manual focus; I make sure the battery's charged and the card is fresh.

And I wait for good light and a relatively target-rich shooting location. The point is that your first experiences are going to go a long way toward setting your first impressions of the equipment, and it's sensible to make sure your first impression is a positive one. Even if you have to wait a few days.

Don't "stress" the camera right away by going directly to a test of whatever extreme capability it's supposed to be better at than the competition, or, worse, don't immediately test the feature the Internet tells you is weak or suspect. You know what a camera needs to shine: good light, middle apertures, low or medium ISO, subjects that are easy to focus on. Feed it what it wants and let it please you from the start. Make demands gradually. You'll make friends more easily that way.

Because it doesn't matter which camera you use, but it does matter that you enjoy using it and that you come to trust it. Doing good work helps your fluency with your equipment, and fluency with your equipment helps you do good work. Of course it doesn't matter so much with a brief tryout using a rental, but it certainly does when you've been saving for six months to buy an expensive camera you hope to use for several years, and it just arrived and you have it in your hand for the first time. In that case especially, what you want with your new camera, like Bogart said at the ending of Casablanca, is "the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Hey, look—the weather's clearing up! I'd better get outside.

Mike

Equipment for our posts is provided by
LensRentals or B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Lorne Black: "I think you are describing the difference between the lust for new equipment and actually using it as intended. Once money changes hands there is often a bit of buyer’s remorse. With cameras, the best way to battle that is to attach a favourite lens and make some photos.

"As to Nikon’s Dƒ, I see it from the other direction. In the ’60s and ’70s most SLRs looked pretty much same, slab sided and with sharp edges. Currently, DSLRs look pretty much the same with softer, rounded edges. Shape has nothing to do with capability though it can affect how comfortable it is to hold. Control layout may be good or bad, but the camera style has little impact. After eight years with my trusty D200, and with no D400 in sight, I was on the verge of buying a D800. But for about the same money the Dƒ offered the D4 sensor in a style I preferred. Admittedly, owning an F2, F3HP, and FM3a does influence my thinking. After two years and 20,000 frames I still find it an amazing bit of kit."

jerry roebuck: "When you have the time, and of course if it interests you, I would be very keen to know how easily this camera works with AI lenses. (I'm an old geezer with some very good Nikkor glass...and failing eyesight, so ease of focus is high priority.) Thank you."

Mike replies: With limited time with the equipment I'm unable to try everything. The D750 with AI lenses is something I'm unlikely to get around to because I'm not interested in it myself. Generally, my position for years has been that it's best to use cameras with the lenses they were designed to be paired with. I've had to modify that position since mirrorless came along, but I still stick to it pretty firmly personally.

I think I'd probably encourage you to switch to AF, Jerry, even if you have to trade a lot of older lenses for only two or three current ones. I often say that I lived at the perfect time to be a photographer. There are many reasons for that, but one of them is that the various automated focusing aids came along at the right time for me. As I got worse at focusing, cameras got better at it. Sweet. If you have problems focusing, the technological solution for you exists and is very effective and convenient, so I'd say you might as well take advantage of it.

Anders responds to jerry: "Kirk Tuck recently posted about using manual focus lenses on modern DSLRs."  

Thom Hogan responds to jerry: "The Dƒ is the best of the Nikon DSLRs if you're going to try to manually focus them via the focus screen. It's mildly better than the rest due to some small focus screen changes.

"However, remember that the AF indicators still work on all Nikon DSLRs when you manually focus. They even tell you which way to turn the top of the focus ring on AI lenses  ;~)  ."

Roger Engle: "I'd be curious to see B&W conversion comparisons between the D750 and X-T1, having heard that both do pretty well."

Mike replies: That's something I'm curious about too. I'll try if I have time.

Chris: "An incredible camera package, no doubt. I don't see the Nikon 35mm ƒ/1.8G ED lens getting much attention online. It's an excellent performing lens, on par with the Sigma in sharpness. You can couple it with a D810 and have a camera package that is actually lighter (by 230g) than the D750/Sigma combo. A light, capable lens on a D810 is nice alternative to consider for anyone's hard-earned $."

Bob Gary: "We need a paragraph or two like that with every camera manual we get so we don't get disappointed. If we applied those evaluations every time we approach any human tool, their usefulness would be so much more rewarding...."

iPhone 6s Camera Review Scores

DxO mark has given the camera in the Apple iPhone 6s a score of "82." That can be contrasted to the score of the camera in the iPhone 6, which was 82, and the one in the iPhone 6+ (which I own). That one got...an 82.

The next score up from 82 is "H" and the score just below 82 is "Orange." Sorry, need meds.

But here's the thing: I use the iPhone because of what it does as a smartphone. Not because of the camera it has in it. I do use the camera in it, but only because...it's the camera that's in it. So why review these cameras-in-phones? I'm not sure I quite see the point.

Of course, I could be ignorant, and missing something. What's the other kind of phone called? The non-Apple ones? Zombie or something like that? Automaton, Cyborg, Bot? I can't remember. I am not of that world. Maybe if you use Automabot smartphones you compare cameras and buy your phone based on the camera it has?

Speaking of Apple, they* just released a whole new lineup of iMacs with 4k and 5k Retina displays. Here's our review. And do we recommend these for photography? Oh mos def.

Mike

*Did you know that a company is properly referred to as "it" in standard copyediting? "They" is demotic and improper in written English, despite its widespread use.

[UPDATE: ANDROID. I knew I'd get it. When you get older, it's not that you forget things, it's just that it takes longer to search the database. Takes the hard drive longer to spin up.

On the good side, there's more in there: the average 60-year-old knows four times as much as the average 20-year-old. Not about gaming—or zombies, since I brought that up—but still.

We also have an utterly delightful habit of using 20-years-out-of-date slang as if it were the latest thing, like "mos def," but we're all pretty sure that young people are charmed by that.]

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Derek: "I was in the tiny minority that would actually choose a phone based on its camera. I just switched to Apple this year because I thought maybe the cameras had gotten good enough. But alas not, even in bright daylight all my photos have an interesting watercolor-esque artifacting pattern. You can't see it if you're just looking at the phone screen, but pop it a decent sized monitor and ugh, no thanks.

"But maybe the real issue is I don't actually like taking phone pictures. Phones are awkward to hold, they are not responsive as cameras, and I vastly prefer composing shots in a viewfinder. My millennial peers seem to have no issue with the above complaints, including some who are avid photography hobbyists. So perhaps I should just put on my curmudgeon ribbon and crawl back in my DSLR/X-T1 hole."

Adam Lanigan: "Even Mos Def himself thinks it's out of date these days, having changed his name to Yasiin Bey a few years back."

Ed Hawco: "Regarding 'Did you know that a company is properly referred to as "it" in standard copyediting? (...)' you're only partially correct. In standard American usage it is 'it,' but in standard British usage the collective noun for a company or entity is the plural 'they.' I much prefer the American usage. A company is a single entity, even if it is made up of numerous people. But when a company does something, it is acting as a single unit, and legally it is a single unit.

"Another common British vs. American conflict is where you place punctuation at the end of a quotation. Brits 'do it like this'. Americans .do it like this.' (Again, I prefer the American way, although strictly speaking the British way is more logical and less problematic.)

"I have the luxury of being a Canadian, where we are perpetually torn between British and American usage. Most of the time I lean towards American usage, as it is generally a bit more evolved."

Do You Trust Your Camera?

Written by Gordon Lewis

Is it just me, or are today's digital cameras getting downright sneaky? The companies that sell them would like you to believe their programmable wonders will take care of all everything that gets in the way of your creativity—trivial tasks such as focusing, exposure, white balance, and contrast compensation for example. Then, as soon as you give these cameras your complete and unquestioning trust, they do something completely unexpected and just plain Wrong.

Have you ever had the focusing point you so carefully selected shift elsewhere and without warning? Have you ever set the touch screen feature to “off” only to discover that the camera has somehow turned it back on again, and not only that, but also exposed twenty perfectly focused frames of your buttocks? How about seeing the white balance change from neutral to cool when you switch lenses, even when the new lens is pointed at exactly the same subject?

Don’t even get me started on focusing accuracy and consistency. I’ve owned cameras that will chose a different plane of focus every time I activate the AF, even when the camera is on a tripod and the subject is motionless. (Can a rock breathe?)

I’ve learned over time never to mention such quirks and inconsistencies when referring to a specific camera, because some expert user will invariably appear from the ether to inform me that, had I taken the trouble to read sidebar number two on page 229 of the recently revised PDF edition of the owner’s manual, I would clearly understand that the camera was faultless and had done exactly what I had programmed it to do. My fragile ego can survive such humiliation; I just wish my mis-focused, poorly exposed photos could.

I probably shouldn’t be telling you this, but at times I become so paranoid and distrustful of some cameras that I resort to manual settings—or at least I try. How truly manual can such settings be when the lens has no aperture ring and the body has no shutter speed dial? Given that even manual settings are programmable, there’s always the chance that whatever your camera was set to when you shut it off may not be what it’s set to when you switch it back on.

For some, this unpredictability adds a sense of fun and adventure to their photography. For me, it fosters a sense of wonder: I wonder what devious little tricks my camera has up its sleeve for next time. Am I the only one who’s had this experience? Am I the only one who feels this way? Or have I only scratched the surface of the perfidies today’s cameras are capable of? I’d truly like to know.

Gordon

Harvard alum Gordon Lewis has written about those treacherous cameras for decades, for many photography magazines. Most recently he is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook.

©2015 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Bob: "My experiences are similar to yours. And as Hugh Smith noted, figuring out which setting you inadvertently changed just so you can figure out how to reverse it, only brings added frustration.

"I use Olympus cameras, and agree with John Krumm that it helps to stick with one system and learn that as well as possible. But while I like the cameras and especially the lenses, I'm frustrated by the lack of quality documentation for that company's products. They might as well have not added a bunch of features, because I haven't yet figured out how to use them. I know, I know, it's my fault; I should spend more time learning how it works. (But I checked an actuarial chart and I’ve only got 25 years left to live. So I obviously don’t have enough time to waste learning my way through some Byzantine menu system.) I finally complained to Olympus after receiving an offer to purchase a video to help me use their camera. They sent a courteous response, a printed copy of their full manual (which wasn’t much better than the abridged version that’s included in the box), and a coupon for a discount on another Olympus product. (I used it to purchase their 75mm lens, which I really like. Yet it it strikes me that the outcome of that whole interaction benefited Olympus rather more than me.)

"My day job has been with a software company that writes ERP (enterprise resource planning) software for businesses. While the company spends significantly to produce documentation, it also receives ongoing requests for content. The interface on my phone frustrates me, as does the interface for cable TV and the Internet service I get through the cable company, and on and on. I think the lack of documentation for technical products borders on being unethical. The fact that there’s a manual of sorts sent with a camera isn’t enough. I’d like the scenarios that the features were designed to address described in the documentation, along with better procedural documentation for implementing those features. If they’re too difficult (which is to say, too expensive) to document, maybe the companies should design the interfaces so they’re easier to use in the first place. The other day I overheard a colleague who works on user experience telling another colleague that the most effective product demonstration he’s given involves showing customers how to hide all the fields they don’t use on our complex data entry forms. To be clear, all those options make the product powerful; you can tailor it to fit a wide range of business situations. But the complexity makes it awfully challenging.

"Personally, I don’t see this changing until users demand better interfaces and better documentation as criteria for purchasing the next updated camera. That’s a long way of saying that I don’t see this changing."

The E-M5 Mark II: Dissenting Opinion (Shell Station)

Words and photo by Bob Rosinsky

I nearly always agree with Mike's assessment of cameras. However, I think the Olympus EM-5 M II is more versatile than the EM-1 (I own both cameras). As much as I love the EM-1's first-rate ergonomics, I often reach for the EM-5 II instead. For the money, the EM-5 II is Olympus's best offering. There are two main reasons why:

IBIS (in-body image stabilization):  The EM-5 II's 5-axis IBIS is a miracle of modern technology. The difference between that and the EM-1's IBIS is noticeable, especially when hand holding the 40–150mm ƒ/2.8 PRO + 1.4X teleconverter. It works great with the 75mm ƒ/1.8 lens too.

High resolution mode: The EM-5 II's high resolution mode is fantastic. The multi-shot technology works well for reproduction (color accuracy, micro contrast, resolving power), still life, and static landscapes. The dynamic range is amazing. I am looking forward to the next iteration of Oly's multi-shot feature. Imagine being able to handhold a camera that shifts the sensor eight times within 1/60th sec. and delivers a high resolution RAW file with super-accurate color.

Last night, I took a picture of the neighborhood Shell station with the EM-5 II in high-res mode. The native resolution is 9,216x6,912. That's 25.6x19.2 inches @ 360 DPI. Exposure data: .3 sec. x 8, ƒ/6.7 @ 12mm with the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 PRO lens.

Detail—click for 100%

I corrected the perspective in two steps. First in ACR and then in Photoshop CS6. All image data adjustments were made in ACR (curve, HSL [hue, saturation, luminance] for the red, orange, and yellow channels, color temp., and one local adjustment to decrease exposure on the Shell logo).

I manually content-filled the lower left-hand parking lot and the bottom of building (that section got cropped out when I corrected the perspective).

From start to finish, I spent approximately 30 minutes on the picture. The print, on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, looks great.

Bob

[CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that the E-M1 has 3-axis image stabilization. "E-M5, E-M1, E-M5 Mark II and E-M10 Mark II all have 5-axis image stabilisation. It's only the E-M10 (original) that has 3-axis IS. (Ignoring PENs)." Thanks to Josh for this.

Bob Rosinsky adds, "Mea culpa; the EM-1 does indeed utilize 5-axis image stabilization (rise/fall along the y-axis, shift along the x-axis, pitch, yaw, and roll). The second generation 5-axis IBIS in the EM-5 II is noticeably better. I must have been thinking of the EPL-5, which only has 3-axis IBIS but employs the same sensor as the EM-1. Sorry for the confusion...."

Yr. 'umble Ed. would like to remind readers that errors in a published article are not the writer's fault, but the editor's. The culpa is all mea's. —Ed.]

©2015 by Robert Rosinsky, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

k4kafka: "Not understanding Bob Rosinsky's exposure time...what does '.3 sec. x 8' mean?"

Mike replies: The E-M5 Mark II's innovative high-resolution mode combines eight separate sequential exposures made with very slight sensor shifts into one image. Olympus says the resulting file is equivalent to one made with a 40-megapixel camera. The feature offers versatility for higher-quality shots of unmoving subjects when the opportunity presents itself, such as with still lifes, product shots, and many landscapes.

BH: "I agree that the E-M5 Mark II is an excellent camera. The list price does seem to run about $200 too high though; it feels like it should sit right between the EM10 and the EM1. Why'd I shell out for the EM5.2? Exactly because it walks the line between the two. Smaller than the E-M1, still has weather sealing unlike the E-M10. Plus I really like the rotating LCD that I can turn around...NO CHIMPING! (Seriously, this was a selling point for me.)

"I have to admit I'm kind of taken with Micro 4/3. I don't like the RAW files as much as Fuji's, but that's rather subjective. Excellent build quality, super-smooth and quiet AF and truly small bodies and lenses are what makes the system."

Jack Kurtz: "I have to agree with Bob Rosinsky's assessment of the E-M5 Mark II. The image stabilization is amazing. A real game-changer. I'm able to handhold my 40–150mm zoom with the 1.4X matched teleconverter, total focal length of 210mm (or 420mm in full frame terms) at 1/10th of a second. I've made handheld timed exposures at 2.5 seconds with a 12mm lens. I wish the E-M5 Mark II had the E-M1 autofocus, but otherwise I think the new technology packed into it makes it a real winner."

Phil Stiles: "I join the dissent. I own both cameras. For me the option of using a silent electronic shutter is the key feature that the EM-5 has that the EM-1 doesn't. But they both use that oh-so-sweet 40–150mm ƒ/2.8."

Mike replies: Be sure to read Moose's comment about silent shutter mode in the Comments Section.

Raxtich: "I have both an E-M5 and the E-M1. While I love the E-M5, I could not get comfortable with the ergonomics, so I was reluctant to switch to the Mark II when it came time to upgrade. I chose instead to spend a couple hundred extra for the E-M1 and have not regretted it."

Canon 5DS R Real World Review

Words and Video by Michael Tapes of LensAlign

When a new Nikon or Canon camera comes out I always pick one one up to test in the "LensAlign Lab" to check for any issues. I also like a hands-on feel so I can answer customer questions from my own experience. In the case of high-resolution cameras like the brand new Canon 5DS and 5DS R, I was particularly interested because the degree of precision in its autofocus would be so critical for these cameras to realize the true potential of their native resolution.

I purchased a 5DS R with the above intent in mind. No surprises in the lab. But after some real world shooting, I was impressed enough with how it performed in my own photography that I decided to put together a "Real World Review" video that your readers might find informative.

—Michael Tapes

[Here are the links for LensAlign and FocusTune. I think it's also interesting that this video shows you one reason why Michael developed these products...he clearly needed them for his work. As you might for yours...or you might just want them to optimize your system because you appreciate precision. —MJ]

©2015 by Michael Tapes, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Speed: "I know. I'll sell my motorcycle to buy a new 5DS. The same motorcycle I promised to sell when I bought my 5D MkIII."

Mike replies: Made me laugh. We've heard about that motorcycle before. That's a very useful bike—it can be used to justify many cameras.

Open Mike: Why I Chose Fuji

In the Comments a few days ago, Tim Bray asked:

I read most of your stuff but don’t recall ever seeing a piece about why, among all the different sizes and shapes and provenances of cameras that pass through your hands, you adopted the Fujifilm, in an era when there are so many alternatives, all good. If you didn’t write such a thing, perhaps you should.

The first thing to say is that I don't really think it's important what I choose. It's common on the Internet for people to make a big deal when they switch systems, as though their allegiance was somehow globally important. As a reviewer, I don't care what you use and I don't think you should really care what I use—the point is for each of us to use what suits our own taste and what's best for our own work.

Naturally we like what we use...that's why we chose it; and sometimes that extends to results that are distinctive. So when we see other people using the same equipment, we might tend to like their results a little more. In that way, say, large-format photographers might prefer looking at other large-format work, and so on like that.

But I'm mainly in favor of people finding the right camera for themselves. I'm especially enthusiastic about helping people find cameras that they'll enjoy using and owning and that will enhance their enjoyment of photography. (I get pleasure out of photography and I like it when others do too.) But whether that camera is a Sigma Foveon, a 4x5 view camera, a full-frame professional Canon DSLR, or a small-sensor bridge camera that goes to 1200mm-e doesn't matter so much to me.

In the old days when people would ask, "Should I use a Nikon or a Canon?" I'd say, "sure."

That is, pick one or the other. Which you would choose is up to you and really makes no difference to anyone else.

So, with that caveat in mind....

I backed into Fuji in an odd way. As with most camera types and brands, I was originally accused of not caring about Fuji or paying any attention to them. (Also in the old days, I would get accused, simultaneously, of being a Leica partisan and also of being anti-Leica.) When Sony's NEX cameras came out I was accused of ignoring them, and yet in due course I ended up using one as my main camera. Same with Fuji. Why didn't I ever pay attention to Fuji?

Mine's black. I just wish it were silver. I'm going to try to snag one of these
as a second body once they're discontinued.

So I figured I'd give one a try, and asked B&H Photo to send me one of the then-new X-T1's ($1,149) and a 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens ($749) (35mm-e being my "home" or "normal" focal length).

This next bit is quite embarrassing, but hey, to quote David Vestal, "I'm in the disclosure business." Gotta be honest, even if it makes me look foolish.

I forgot to return it.

And forgot again.

This got so embarrassing that when I was about a month late getting the X-T1 and 23mm back to them, I decided it would be easier to pay for it. I figured I'd use it for a while, write about it, and sell it on. I'd be out some money, but I can justify that if it's something I write about.

And then I just fell more and more in love with the thing. To the point that it now ranks with the Contax 139Q (1979) and the Olympus OM-4Ti (1986) as one of my favorite cameras ever.

Perfection!
...Not. Nothing's perfect. But some things fit us. The X-T1 hasn't pushed Ken Tanaka's buttons, and Michael Reichmann wrote (astutely) about the camera's shortcomings in his "Further Thoughts" article. Without hitting a laundry list of features, I can summarize what I like about the Fuji easily by naming the top five things I like best about it. (Keep that opening caveat in mind; not everyone agrees with me on all points.)

• The way the files convert to B&W. Tonal properties in B&W are poorly understood in the camera and photo communities of the Internet. But it's something I'm very sensitive to and that I discuss often with fellow mavens of the subject such as my friend Oren Grad. It's one of those things that's difficult to write about; if people are going to challenge your statements, articles on the subject would have to be strongly supported with experimental evidence and technical background. (I could write a great article on the subject if I had a month of time free.) But I both know more about B&W tonality than most people, and also have strong tastes of my own. As you might understand, I'm very particular about what I like. X-Trans sensor files converted to B&W using Silver Efex Pro 2 are the holy grail I've been waiting for for many years in digital, or close enough.

• The dynamic range (DR) of the X-Trans sensor. Some opinionators dislike the X-Trans sensor and others dislike using Adobe Camera Raw with its files; can't say I agree. I love the way you can drag the highlights back down and crank open the shadows with these files without making them look like heavy HDR. Traditional film B&W technique was mainly the art of controlling contrast, and early digital was as bad as transparency film...it sure is liberating to have such freedom. (DR is related to tonality.)

  Scott and Tatiana at the Harvard Arts Museum, uncorrected

Scott and Tatiana, quick correction for sharing by email

One further thing I'll say about the sensor and the resulting image files is that the quality is plenty good enough for my work. I shot 35mm and medium format in film, and was happy with the tradeoff; and I've owned a Sony A900 and Nikon D800 full-frame DSLRs, and I'm also just fine with the 16-MP X-Trans APS-C sensor in comparison to bigger dawgs in the digital world. It's not a compromise for me. YMMV.

• The viewfinder. The baseline for me is that I've gotta see things, and I've always liked big, beautiful viewfinders. The way that any particular camera "finds the view" is an essential part of how it allows you to interact and respond visually to the look of the world around you. What each of us likes depends on what we're accustomed to, what best suits to way we tend to conceive of what we see, and whether the viewfinding mechanism or method offered by the camera is technically good. Optical viewfinders (OVFs) are superior in some ways and electronic viewfinders (EVFs) are superior in others; my preference now tilts toward EVFs. Fujifilm obviously put some serious work into the X-T1's wonderful viewfinder—it's one of the nicest available with today's technology.

• The lens lineup. I've often mentioned that my lens hobby is separate from my photography hobby, but so far I love what I've seen from the Fujifilm XF lenses. I only own two so far, but I've looked at a lot of work made with them. Moreover, I like Fuji's choices; the whole lineup has a sensible, through-designed feel to it, in contrast with the "evolving motley" approach of some other systems, which fill gaps haphazardly and press odd bedfellows into service to make up sensible lens sets. I seldom get the luxury to build up a lens arsenal in one system like other dedicated amateurs naturally do. I'm strongly considering doing so this time around.

The 23mm, which I use as a normal, is a beautiful lens in just about every way except its lack of weatherproofing: it's small and compact, fast, performs well wide open, has perfectly fine, unobtrusive out-of-DOF blur (bokeh), and great resistance to flare. And I'm besotted with my new distortion-free 14mm, which is a special lens I'm enjoying greatly so far. I'm very happy to be in this lens line right now.

  Garden Buddha and young maple, 14mm ƒ/2.8 XF

• The layout, design, and specs of the camera. Funny thing is, camera bodies are now a less important aspect of choosing a system than they used to be. We used to keep bodies for an average of eight or ten years, up to 30 or more; now we keep bodies for two or three years, up till, what, seven maybe? With Fujifilm in particular you have a wide range of body style choices. Fuji does a great job of updating firmware, which, as much as any brand or marque, usefully updates camera bodies you already own (new X-T1 firmware is due out soon). And if you don't like a particular body, the next generation will be along before you know it. They change like the seasons.

All that said, the X-T1 really suits me—I like the traditional dials 'n' buttons arrangements, the flip-out viewing screen, the lack of a built-in flash, the weatherproofing...and the size and weight hit sweet spots that I settled on as being ideal long before the X-T1 itself was a gleam in its designers' eyes.

More caveats
I acknowledge that camera choice is now a big part of the photo hobby...much bigger than it was when I first got into photography seriously in 1980. Still, it doesn't matter objectively as much as most people might think it does.

A little story: years ago I encountered a salesman at a golf shop. I mentioned at one point that I hardly needed fitted clubs because I was a rank beginner, and he told me something very interesting. He said that fitted clubs are most important for beginners. he said he'd been playing golf since childhood and was a scratch golfer (i.e., expected to play par golf—very good), and that he could play with just about anything; he had the skill to adjust to any clubs. He mentioned that Lee Trevino used to win putting wagers putting with a Coke bottle on a stick. In a perfect world, he said, it would be beginners who played with expertly fitted clubs. This wasn't salesmanship because he had never sold a set of fitted clubs to a beginner.

Similarly, it's beginners who really should make sure they have nice camera equipment that fits them. Longtime photographers can shoot with lots of things and make do, as long as the equipment is up to the tasks they need to use it for. Do you really think it matters whether Peter Turnley shoots with a Nikon or a Canon? He just masters whatever he's using and gets on with it. The pictures are what matter. So I'm sure I could use an Olympus E-M1 ($1,299) (or E-M10, $449) without any trouble. I know I could be happy with a Sony A6000 ($548) and that great 24mm lens ($1,098). I'd be delighted to shoot with a Sony RX1 ($2,798) or Sony Alpha A7 Mark II ($1,698). I could work for years with a Nikon D750 ($1,997) and not suffer a bit. I could even shoot with a Leica M ($6,380) if I had to. (I'm kidding. Don't kill me.*)

So please don't think I'm saying that the Fuji is "best" in each of these five parameters, or that other cameras can't be just as good or better.

All I'm saying is that these are the reasons why I'm so happy with Fuji right now, and looking forward to more explorations, in several senses of the term, with the X system.

Mike
(Thanks to Tim)

*Although just for myself, I wouldn't trade my Fuji gear for the equivalent Leica M gear straight up. The rangefinder way is not my way. (See the caveat in the intro please!)

"Open Mike" is the sometimes-off-topic Editorial Page of TOP. It usually appears on Sundays and is sometimes a day late, especially when I'm away from home as I am this week.

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Joe Holmes: "The first time I saw the output of my wife's Fuji X-E2 and its 23mm lens I was shocked at the gorgeous quality of the images. Wasn't this just a film company until lately? It took me a minute to remember that I've got an old Fujinon 90mm lens here in my closet for my long-gone 5x7 camera. They've been building lenses since the 1940s. No wonder they're good at it."

Bill Pierce: "I don’t know how much time you have to experiment, but I really prefer to 'develop' my Fuji files in Iridient Developer or PhotoNinja. They’re not standalone programs. You’ll still have to send their TIFFs back to Photoshop or Lightroom for printing and maybe some final tweaking. But, for the black-and-white shooter, Iridient offers a variety of quick adjustment possibilities in terms of color conversion and some sharpening effects set just for B&W. PhotoNinja’s controls are less obvious initially, but offer six different B&W presets that are quite beautiful. I try to keep my digital darkroom pretty simple and adding more programs to it is not something I normally favor. But I do think these two programs are worth examining for Fuji files."

[Pierce, a photojournalist himself, is renowned as a New York city printer for some of the world's top B&W photographers. —Ed.]

BWJones: "Fuji has a long history of making camera lenses that are found in everything from cell phones to satellites. I came to the X-mount Fuji system in 2013 and I've been smitten ever since. Last year was an experiment of sorts in trying to return to Leica, but I've since concluded that I'm much happier with the Fuji. It is an amazing system that tells me Fuji 'gets it.' I am also seriously happy with their color management. At times if you look at the white point that the Fuji camera selected, it looks weird...but the color mapping is right on."

Robert Murphy: "I am old, I admit it, but Fujifilm cameras were back in the grand old days of film known as Fujica [from 'Fuji Camera' —Ed.]. The old cameras had an M42 screwmount (for those who remember those), and the Fujinon lenses were excellent.

"What killed Fuji was they were late to change to a bayonet mount. One the plus side those older cameras could mount almost any M42 screwmount lens made, even though some would not meter. Many of us in Japan in the 1970s either used a Fujica, or had friends who did (I was a Konica T3 user). Those old cameras were rugged, the lenses were sharp, and one did not need to be embarrassed by using one. So I, for one am not caught off guard by the renaissance of Fuji."

Mike replies: My third camera, a gift from my father on my 16th birthday, was a Konica T3.

Earl Dunbar: "Decades ago I was in a small camera shop in the Midwest and one of the salesmen told me the story of someone who came in multiple times, and just couldn't make up his mind on which camera to buy. My memory is fuzzy, but I think the choice was between Canon and Minolta. However it transpired, the customer actually called Ansel Adams' house to get instruction from On High. Amazingly, Ansel himself came on the line after Virginia answered. Conflicted customer: 'I can't decide between Canon and Nikon...' Ansel: 'Which one do you like?' Conflicted customer: 'I kind of like the Minolta.' Ansel: 'That's a good camera!' Conflicted customer happily bought the Minolta. To this day he probably tells people it was Ansel's choice."

David Zalaznik: "In 1977, I loved taking photographs. I used a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 20 (I think). I was a painter in a hospital in Dubuque, Iowa and was quitting my job to take a three-month backpacking trip in Europe. Before leaving, I stopped in the local camera store because I convinced myself I should upgrade to the Pocket Instamatic 40, or 60, I can't remember. The salesman convinced me to consider a 35mm camera instead. This was something that I never considered a possibility in the realm of my abilities.

"So, a Fujica ST605 and instruction book in hand, I boarded Icelandic Airlines and that camera changed my life. I returned from the trip, worked three more years, went back to college and have enjoyed an almost 30-year career in photojournalism, including having a book of my photographs, Life Along the Illinois River, published by the University of Illinois Press in 2008.

"If not for that Fujica, I might be refinishing a chair right now."

That Ol' Camera-Aesthetics Problem

This is probably only an amateur problem—pros are more hard-headed than this. Have you ever had to choose between the camera you like best and the one that gives you the results you like best?

Seems to me that's happened to me a time or three in my decades of cameraphilia. I get some idea of "the perfect camera," and I get myself all outfitted...and it ain't right because it's not giving me the results I want, or I just never get used to handling it, or I feel conspicuous and dweebish being seen with the thing, or whatever. Or I find a camera that gives me just what I'm looking for in terms of results, but I don't really like (or approve of) the camera itself.

Examples of the former would include the Leica M6, which I tried very hard to like but never felt natural with, and personally the prime example of the latter would be the old Exakta 66, a preposterous cranky old bodge of a camera that sang as sweetly as an Amati for me. 

Some people really like shopping for cameras, but once they arduously arrive at the perfect shopper's choice, they learn that they just don't like it very well or don't do very well with it. Oh well.

In my lengthening years, I've started to feel that you just have to go with results. If the camera's not quite right, who cares? It's the print on the wall or the JPEG on the Retina screen that matters, above all. And if the camera's not quite right, well, so what.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

Am-a-zon

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

John Camp: "Yeah, the Leicas, but the problem was slightly different than the one you describe. I loved both the form factor (the carry-ability) and the potential results.

"But I never could manage the rangefinder when I was in a hurry, and so the results were often terrible—completely missed focus. I put a black-and-white calibration target on my garage that I printed out from the net, then I'd walk away from it, whirl, focus and shoot...and even after doing this daily for quite a while, the results were not good. On the other hand, I could manually focus a Nikon in a trice.

"The thing that pushed me out of the Leicas was something of a tragedy. My first wife was dying of breast cancer, and one of the last things she was really able to do was to get her Ph.D from the University of Minnesota. I stupidly took the Leica M8 to her thesis defense and the subsequent celebration, and virtually every photo was out-of-focus. I sold most of my Leica equipment shortly thereafter (at a profit, somewhat to my surprise), returned to my Nikons, and really never found what I was looking for in terms of quality and form factor until I started shooting Micro 4/3."

Moose: "Sure, I recognize the problem, and I've had moderate versions of it over the decades.

"The big one was a Canon 60D. I'd been using a 5D, happily and with results I liked a lot, for five years. Over those years, improvements in tech seemed to me to have made smaller sensor formats capable of meeting my needs.

"I really wanted to get away from the size and weight of the FF gear, so after a lot of research, I bought the 60D. On the surface, it was just right, both physically and electronically. And I soldiered along with it as my DSLR for over a year.

"But I was never really quite happy, in a way that I never quite put my finger on. A friend pointed out that from his perspective, I wasn't doing as good work as before.

"Fortunately, the Oly E-M5 came along. Once I found out about the cure for shutter shock, we got along very well. Now, 'Son of E-M5,' the Mark II, has come along, with almost everything improved a little or a lot.

"I recently had occasion to dig back into a couple of 60D files. It's still hard to say just what's wrong with them for me, but it's definitely true. Doesn't happen with the older 5D files."

John Caradimas: "The Leica M6! I had dreams about that camera for years. Then when I got it, it proved a nightmare. Being a Nikon user, I was trying to focus and I ended up changing the aperture. When I eventually got the focusing ring, I was turning it in the Nikkor's direction, which was exactly the opposite of the Leica lenses. Sold it after three months; I guess I'll remain a Nikon man."

Bob Munro: "Nikon D70—loved it but wanted more/better, went to Pentax K20—loved it even more, got sick of lugging it all around, finally arrived at Sony—first the NEX-7 (went to heaven!), then the A7r! I have two perfect (for me) cameras! Nothing about them I don't like—so, miracles do happen!"

Sergio Bartelsman: "My favorite camera is the one that is invisible, which means that it doesn't get in the way when using it. No shutter lag, silent, manual button controls, small, unobtrusive, light, and a comfortable and decent viewfinder. I dont care for AF, because I use it very little. The X100S and the XT1 give me that. The X100S is great because it looks analog and old and people don't take you too seriously when shooting, and that's good. Not having interchangeable lenses is liberating. Plus you can shoot with only one hand and that draws even less attention. Less is definitely more. About the looks, I care a lot about the aesthetics of my pictures, not of my cameras. I tend to get better pictures when looking like a tourist than a photographer. People don't pay much attention to you that way."

Animesh Ray: "An example of the first would be Olympus OM-1, which I absolutely loved because of how it fit my hands and low things looked through it. But I never could get good shots through it. Leica M6 is the one that I don't quite figure why people like its ergonomics, but my success rate with it surpasses that of every other camera, including Nikon F3HP, which comes a close second (tied with Pentax SV) only to OM-1 so far as I experienced it. Of course I rarely focus the M6, mostly using d-o-f. Even M9 is not as good to me."

Dennis: "Yeah, sort of. I idealize mirrorless cameras; compact and tidy, with a couple of nice prime lenses. But my aging DSLR just delivers. It has nothing to do with sensors or lenses (the DSLR is outdated in terms of the sensor). It's the autofocus, it's the handling, the controls, the practice, the predictability. So I vote for results, but results based on getting the shot."

Pak-Ming Wan: "I've got quite the opposite to others here: I get my best results with an M9 + 35/2, and no other combination of body or lens is quite the same. So for the moment I'm in that happy place where I don't really need anything more! For the moment...."

Ranjit Grover: "Mike, Unlike what you feel, I do not think that the print on the wall or the JPEG on the screen is all that matters. The feel that I get while handling a camera is important too. I guess that is true for most people. Unfortunately I do not get that satisfaction from the present day cameras with no dials or control rings. I use my DSLR to get a good quality picture but I do not feel attached to that DSLR as much as I feel to an old Minolta rangefinder camera that has been sitting in my cupboard for close to thirty years. Photography is also about cameras, handling them and possessing them. I have gotten rid of more digital cameras in any one year than the number of film cameras I have had in the whole of my pre-digital life. And I do not feel sorry about that."

iPhoneographer No More

Cat's Eyes in Sunlight, Apple iPhone 6+

A few months back, I got roundly criticized in these environs for grumping about the iPhone camera. It was (correctly) pointed out that a) I was using a phone that wasn't up to date, b) I didn't know how to use it, and c) I hadn't given smartphone photography a chance.

Well, now I have, and here's my "camera review." I've been using the up-to-the-minute iPhone 6+ camera a lot. I'd say I've taken pictures with it every day since I got it. And I've had great fun with it. It's a very capable digital point-and-shoot; I like the wide lens; I've gotten lots of "nice enough" results (e.g. Winifred the Cat, above), and it's certainly highly convenient to be able to "communicate by image"—I've had great fun shooting pictures to friends. And pictures look great on the iPhone 6+ Retina screen.

It's practical, too—for example, when I wanted to remember where my car was parked in the airport parking lot in February, I just snapped a picture of the location including the sign. When you want to remember a phone number from a billboard, a picture is quick and easy. And so forth.

I can give good marks to the iPhone as a digital p/s. It's reasonably easy to hold and use, it starts to "get out of the way" adequately when you get used to it, and it's quite flexible.

'The wrong film'
But now that I've done my duty, I'm going to go back to my real camera. The problem is that photographing, for me, is like deep-sea fishing for sailfish—you can do it for years and never get a strike, or (as happened to me when I was a boy) you can get insanely lucky and get five "bites" in one day.

When you're fishing, and you get lucky and a fish takes your bait, you really need to be using the right tackle. Similarly, when I get lucky and the stars all align and I get a "real" picture I'm going to want to print—like that picture the other day of the Rockingham Meeting House—I really, really need to be using the right camera. I shudder to think how I would have felt if I'd encountered that scene with just the iPhone on me! It would have been just like, in the old days, having the wrong film in the camera.

Fortunately, I had my Fuji with me on that occasion. The file is typically Fuji-amazing: not only is there detail in the brilliant glare on the roof, there's also detail inside the many-mullioned windows of the Meeting House. I stand the best chance of being able to make a good print when I have the file I want from the sensor I prefer and I'm using the lens I want.

So I'm retiring as an iPhoneographer. The temperature just crossed the 60°F mark here in Upstate New York, which I understand makes this the first warm day of 2015 here, and I'm going out for a walk with my pet X-trans sensor and XF lens.

But I have zero quarrel with anyone who enjoys smartphoneography—no problem at all. I've had great fun with all kinds of cameras, including toy cameras, antique cameras, a very early Canon Xapshot "still video" camera c. 1988, point-and-shoots—and now, a phone-cam.

Photography is first and foremost fun, and iPhoneography is photography. Ergo....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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.

TOP's links!

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

Mark Kinsman (partial comment): "Cat pictures and iPhones, kinda sums it all up, in a way."

Mike replies: Ya saw what I did there. :-)

Stephen Scharf: "The dynamic range of my Fuji X-cams (shooting mainly with the wonderful X100T of late) continues to amaze me on an almost daily basis."

Mike replies: It's really just such a blessing, for B&W especially. I earnestly wanted the D800 to "give me black-and-white back," but as much as I yearned for it to be the case, it just wasn't, quite. It was left for Fuji to actually give me the gift I sought. I'm going to write an ad for those people one day soon, I swear.

Steve Sobs: "Poor Winifred's burned face. Apple, where's the tone curve control? Raw mode? Your solution to the highlights problem is limited to HDR - not exactly different thinking. While I'm griping, how about a way to set the default camera app for the lock screen, so I can quickly get to something more thoughtful like Camera+ or 645 Pro."

The Small Cameras We Love List So Far

Sony A7s

The following cameras are first-ballot inductees to this Fall's Small Cameras We Love list:

Sony RX100 series

Sony A7 series

Panasonic GX7 (Currently favorably priced.)

Ricoh GR

Fuji X100 series

Fuji X-T1 (Everyone has his or her own favorite Fuji; I think the X-T1 embodies the best of the "knobs and dials" retro style of ergonomics that Nikon attempted with somewhat less success with the Dƒ. And an interchangeable-lens Fuji definitely belongs on the list because of the sheer beauty of the XF lens line—the Fuji XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 R and Fuji XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 R lenses, among others, are utterly superlative and very pleasing products, and actually inexpensive for the level of perfection they offer.)

Leica S (Although not "small" in any absolute sense, the S camera is so well designed that it seems handy and light for its sensor size and IQ, and is relatively simple to operate. I've seen lots of my friend Jack's work done with the S2—most recently a book he created that included several pictures he made as I photographed alongside him—and the quality of the camera's images speaks eloquently for itself. Confined to an exclusive club because of its price, the S is nevertheless one of the crowning achievements of the digital era in cameras.)

Chamonix 45N-2 (inexpensive, lightweight 4x5 view camera that embodies the design principles of Dick Phillips of R.H. Phillips and Sons. Chamonix does not license the intellectual property, but Dick decided that since his own business is shuttered he's okay with that so that his design ideas live on. I think it's important to give him credit when discussing the Chinese-made Chamonix cameras.)

Olympus OM-D E-M1

This is not the complete list, but a "first pass." A number of other candidates remain in contention.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 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.

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Roadbuilding! (and the Cameras I Used)

Time to make road! Windsor Drive, Waukesha, prepped for concrete.

So we had a very interesting day on Windsor Drive on Friday. The road construction crews had carefully prepared the ground with graders and "steamrollers." Do they still call them that? Forgive me, I'm going to be relatively vocabulary-deficient today. (Road construction is far from my field, and I was playing spectator, not reporter.)

The Power Paver SF-3000 showing the screws that chomp concrete. Xander thinks this is my new favorite thing. I think he's right. It has a 260-HP Cummins diesel and can move at speeds up to 36 feet per minute, although it wasn't going anywhere near that fast on our street.

Guide wires were set up on either side of the street (you can see them in the foreground here), and a giant contraption that moves on tank treads called a "Power Paver" was fired up. [Thanks to Steve Snyder for the link. —Ed.]

A succession of dump trucks and cement mixers deposited loads of wet concrete in front of the Power Paver, which has a worm drive all the way across the front of it that you can see in the second picture. The Power Paver then slowly crawls up the street munching raw concrete and...

...Spitting out a continuous slab of smooth, pristine road behind it. I had never seen the process before, and it was way cool. See the horizontal pink line near the bottom of the frame? That's the guide wire—it looked to me like sensors on the Power Paver keep it on track as it trundles along and does its work.

Time for my little stretch—that's sprawling TOP World Headquarters in the background.

This picture shows most of the process—loads of wet concrete being delivered in front of the Power Paver, which then slowly crawls over it and ingests it. Exactly how it turns it into road is, well, magic, in accordance with Clarke's Third Law.

 It leaves behind a continuous, very clean slab of 8-inch-thick concrete road surface. The Windsor drive project is 1,324 feet long and was estimated to cost $470,000. However they're also doing Charles Street at the same time, and I think the estimate for both was considerably higher. The builder is Willkomm Construction Inc. of Kenosha.

Following along later is a smaller road-spanning apparatus, also on treads, to surface the road with grooves and (I'm guessing) repair small imperfections. These pictures are a bit out of strict order.

Here's the new road in front of my house. Ain't it beautiful?

Hours later, after dark, this guy comes along. It's his job to saw cuts in the concrete about two inches deep, so the concrete will break cleanly along the cut [see vbsoto's comment below]. He has to wait a certain fairly specific amount of time after the concrete has been laid, after it's set but before it gets too hard, so he has to work through the night.

I had fun shooting this guy in the dark. His saw has a light on the front that illuminates the clouds of concrete dust. He was a nice guy—told me he sometimes worries about security, working all alone in the middle of the night. The flyer the company passed out to residents said he might be working until six o'clock in the morning, but surprisingly the noise didn't bother me. I was surprised, however, that he wasn't wearing hearing protection. His machine was pretty loud.

A note on cameras
I have about five mirrorless cameras in the house right now. The first one I grabbed was the Sigma DP2 Merrill (you can buy a new one at the link, but they're plentiful on eBay right now too). I used that for the top two pictures. Lots of bright light, right? Well, was it ever the wrong tool for the job. I needed a zoom lens to be able to frame better, and the image on the Sigma's viewing screen was fugitive in the bright sunlight—aiming was hit or miss. Then, after I'd left the house with a full battery, the camera spluttered off after about fifteen minutes. Dead batt. Rats. Forgot about that. When they say the battery in the Sigma is good for ~60 shots, they ain't lyin'.

After that I switched to the Olympus E-M1 (pictures 3 through 9). This is currently my favorite camera to use—a luxurious-feeling device, responsive and comfortable to hold, with a stellar EVF. I currently only have one zoom lens, and it's for Micro 4/3—the slow 12–50mm that came with the now-departed E-M5. That's the lens the middle pictures were taken with. Very good lens, but not sexy.

When it came time to shoot the cutter, though, I realized I don't really have a camera that's highly suited for high ISO. I picked the Fuji X-T1 because its marvelous 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens is faster than any other lens I currently have. I set it on ISO 3200 and ƒ/1.4. Used that for the last two pictures (and many more like them). Great lens. I trust it already. That last picture has camera shake, but that's not the lens's fault. (It doesn't hurt that particular shot.)

I have only one serious gripe with this camera, and it wasn't in play here—it's that when you set the aperture ring on "A," it's very easy to knock it off that setting. The lens really needs a lock for the A setting. (I also wish the X-T1's ISO dial had a two-position in-out locking switch like the E-M1's PASM dial, instead of the push-and-hold one it has—but then, I wish the Olympus had an on-off switch where the Fuji's is. Oh well, you know what they say about greener grass.)

It's kind of BS to have so many cameras cluttering the closet. I know some people are motivated and energized by having a large selection of cameras to use, and I'm not saying they're wrong. For them. But for me, it starts to get to be a Camera Cabinet of Babel, especially with my fairly woeful mix 'n' match hodgepodge of various lenses—I tend to have one or two lenses for each mount, and not very rationally chosen, either. I've got a whole shelf cluttered with chargers and I'm always getting batteries and accessories mixed up or lost. I've got to pare back down to one or two cameras. I will do that soon. (And if you believe that....)

The X-T1 is a very nice camera to use as well. That's the camera that ate the Nikon Df's lunch, done all up with ultra-traditional dials and knobs and doing it even better than Nikon. It makes the camera feel sensible and controllable even when you don't know it very well. Its EVF is good too, and the form-'n'-fit factors are just as good as the Oly's if a trifle different.

Of the cameras I currently have, the Olympus E-M1 is the one I think I'd standardize on if I could have only one. I need a better lens for it, though. With the latest lenses it focuses extremely quickly. I covet the Panasonic 12–35mm for it—you recall that Ctein had John Camp's copy in Madison and I got to try it. I really like how the camera operates. And, with IBIS, it has all the features I want.

I will say, though, that the Fuji's files are so good that the X-T1 makes me a little—a little—less satisfied with the image quality of the files out of the Olympus. Not that there's anything wrong with E-M1's files, but the X-T1's are that little bit better. It really is a pleasure to work with the Fuji's files, and I love the look you get from technically good shots.

That 23mm could use a few more pixels behind it, though. Its aperture ring foible aside, it really is a lovely lens. Best lens I currently own, in fact.

Mike

Note: Open Mike, which usually appears on Sundays, appeared on Friday last week.

Original contents copyright 2014 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.

TOP's links!

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

vbsoto: "I'm a civil engineer out in Los Angeles so can give you a little more behind-the-scenes rationale on the nighttime cutting of the concrete. All materials expand as they rise in temperature or in this case shrink as they cool. They cut the concrete at the coolest part of the day because that is when it's the shortest (most contracted) and it's actually under tension and will most likely crack the remaining six inches beneath the cut before the guy calls it a night."

Les Myers (partial comment): "The paving machine you photographed is a kid's dream! Tonka, where are you?"

Mike replies: Seriously. That's what I kept thinking. I also envy the guys driving the giant front-loaders and rollers up and down the street. (Interesting that I know the words "steamroller" and "steam-shovel" but I don't know what those vehicles are actually called in the modern, real world.)

Darr: "I use a Hoodman loupe over the screen and a tripod most of the time when shooting the DP Merrills; think of them as mini field cameras without the bellows. My snap-shooter is a Sony NEX 7 with a Zeiss 16–70mm. Interesting story and images."

Mike replies: Thanks for the Hoodman tip Darlene. Is the H-LPP3 is the one you use?

Darr replies to Mike: "That should be the one Mike. I let it hang from my neck and use it with the Merrills on and off tripod. Really easy to use and very beneficial."

R: "Are they still using the old Power Paver SF-3000? I heard that the SF-3010 might be released soon."

Mike replies: ...Available for pre-order, but at a price premium, right?  :-)

Jim in Denver: "I fully believe you could be happy using nothing but the E-M1. I've gotten rid of everything except mine, and a Canon compact for which I have a scuba housing. No worries, no regrets; the size is wonderful, the lenses are jaw-droppingly amazing, and it handles beautifully. I didn't know it was the camera I've been looking for all my life, but it seems that it is."

Daniel Stevenson: "I have to agree with the Hoodman comment for the DP2M, although the actual Hoodman was a bit pricey for me. I have a third party one that works essentially the same but for a lot less money. And I don't even consider the DP2M as the camera I take out for snapshots. I consider it my large format camera and treat it the same. If I am going to use it the big Gitzo goes along. I also use an external meter. Although the size makes me feel a bit silly sometimes, until I look at the results. That thing puts out awesome 'negatives.'"

Mike replies: That seems like the smart thing to do. Treat the DP2M like a much larger camera. Makes a lot of sense in fact.