The Online Photographer

What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been... (Sony A7III)

...That's what it says on one of my friend Dan's many T-shirts. (Another has a picture of a bone with the words "I find that humerus.")

But as I get to know the Sony A7III, I can't help but think of the first digital camera I ever used, the Agfa ePhoto 1280. That was about exactly 20 years ago, and the Agfa was still new, having started shipping a few months earlier. It had a sensor that was 6mm on the diagonal and almost (not quite) .8 of a megapixel. (That's not eight megapixels, that's point-eight of a megapixel, a million pixels in a digicam being a Shangri-la that was still over the horizon at the time.)

Same thing, over and over
At the time I was still in the habit of standing at my kitchen sink in Woodstock (where I used to live and where Groundhog Day was filmed) developing 105 frames of 35mm Tri-X by hand two or three times a week, a process that took just a little over two hours from prep to cleanup. I remember thinking, using the Agfa, gee, this is really fun! Too bad I can never use it, because the image quality will never be good enough. (I do think I thought "never," as human beings tend to be absolutist about things, and I, like many of you, am a human being.)

Some time after that, the urban myth that 6 megapixels would finally match 35mm image quality entered a short period of currency. Michael Reichmann (R.I.P.) created the greatest sensation of his distinguished Internet career by claiming that the 3-megapixel Canon D30 (note: not 30D) turned that trick. My thought at the time? We all just really want that to be true. 

I remember when I wrote that "I'm a Sony Man" because of a space-age new camera called the F-707 (5 megapixels, but a small sensor), the color accuracy of digital sensors was wildly off; the F-707 exaggerated and oversaturated reds. I really wanted small sensors to be good enough, too. They kind of almost were. Not quite. (I'm still at that.)

I shot with a Nikon D100 that had 6 megapixels. DPReview wrote, "It's still pretty amazing to think that you can now pick up a six megapixel D-SLR for around $2,000." The D100's image quality? Rah-rah forumers put the bravest possible face on it when it was new, but my opinion was that, well, 35mm wasn't really that great either.

The best thing about my first DSLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D—which also had the holy grail 6 megapixels—was its color accuracy—greatly better than that of the F-707 and better than most other DSLRs of the time. I still like that camera. Wish it hadn't broken. Wish the company that made it hadn't exited the field. But then as we know now, nothing is forever in digital-land.

It's possible to argue that the A7III is the K-M 7D's descendant, many generations removed.

I notice DPReview is still publishing "Image Samples" of new cameras and lenses. Hmm. I do remember, back in the antediluvian aughts, that I used to anxiously pore over DPR's image samples thinking is this one good enough? Does this one have that special something? I haven't done that for years. (Does anyone?) Now, I think, the challenge for camera and lens reviewers is to detect the differences in image samples, not that the samples really tell us anything of much importance.

This picture shows—or would show, if you could see and play with the whole file—several things the Sony A7III is really good at: preserving the subtle sense of real light; preserving the delicacy of accurate colors; and allowing as much correction in post as you're probably going to need.

Now, of course, the A7III's 24 megapixels isn't adequate for many enthusiasts. They pine instead for the A7rIII, which has mo' bettah. The A7III's color accuracy is fantastico, and it's one of the great things about a big sensor—that, and the file's deep responsiveness to Photoshop massagings. The land-and-lakescape you can see here is one of my favorites among the photographs I've taken recently, but the tiny-sensor-having iPhone just plain missed the subtle turquoisiness of the water that was actually the reason I tried to take the picture in the first place. The A7III would have preserved it, I'm pretty sure.

The A7III's IBIS is better than the K-M 7D's.

Remarkably unremarkable
It's possible that the most remarkable thing about the A7III is that it isn't remarkable. It's a great camera, but it's Sony's bread-and-butter A7-series model, the one in the middle. It's not even the slightest bit amazing, to paraphrase what DPR said of the D100, that we can pick up a 24-megapixel D-SLR [sic] for around $2,000. And full frame to boot. Ho-hum.

So anyway, the A7III is one of the best cameras I've ever used. I can almost not imagine a generalist shooter not being happy with it, although, as with those image samples, I suppose h8ers could find something to h8 if they worked at it. Really worked.

But what I keep coming back to is how far we've come over the past 20 years, and what a long strange trip Dan's been on. Just kidding, Dan.

The only thing that Agfa 1280 did better twenty years ago was that the Agfa was amazing, exciting and fun, and the A7III ain't.

But that's not anybody's fault. That's just how far we've come; it's the measure of how good good is now expected to be.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Stephanie Luke: "Love the egg picture. Just had to be color, that's for sure. Hmm, that reminds me of something else, but I can't quite remember what....  :-)  "

Rob de Loe: "I confess to looking for a hidden message in the arrangement of those eggs!"

Mike replies: I didn't even rearrange them before I shot that. So if there's a message, it's from the Cosmos, not me.

Bill Wheeler: "This relates to your amazing and fun comment above, Mike. Earlier today after developing a roll of Tri-X film (holy, holy, holy), I was reminded that for me (now and forever) there is nothing more magical than film. Amen."

Dillan: "Every article should start with a Grateful Dead reference."

David Evans: "Those eggs make me want an A7III. Again. But I can really only afford one or two lenses for it. And I just know I wouldn't be happy until I had acquired two or three more lenses and the whole thing was too heavy to carry. I'll stick with my GX8. I think."

John Holmes: "With the newer sensors I think that the differences in colors, ISO capability, etc., are more the result of the in-camera processing of the signals from the sensor."

Sony A7III: IS

Ken Tanaka said the other day, "The Sony A7III is already one of the most 'reviewed' cameras in amateur photo history," and Dan Bracaglia at DPReview rather famously declared that it might become his new-go-to recommendation for enthusiasts and semi-professionals, taking over from the excellent Nikon D750 (currently on sale).

The first thing I wanted to try was the image stabilization (IS), so I wandered around the house snapping this 'n' that with the ISO set to 800 and the aperture set to ƒ/8, which gave me exposures between 1/4th sec. and 1/8th sec.

And...wow. No complaints so far. Time after time I got solid-as-a-rock images with no sign of camera shake. I took dozens of trials, naturally. Here's one example at 1/5th of a second:

Deathless art photograph of my kitchen, as good as Walker Evans (uh, not).
Lens is the FE 55mm ƒ/1.8 Zeiss.

Detail (should render at 100% for you after you double-click on it).
Note that those are grains of salt on the stove. And
that the blog software softens images somewhat.
I can live with that kind of quality at 1/5th sec.

B'cause, y'see, I gotta see for myself. And since IS is the only reason I'd switch away from the X-T1/X-T2, I needed to find out about that first. Because if it wasn't what I wanted, back into the box and back to B&H Photo it would go.

So now, with that out of the way, I can start learning the menus and how to set up the camera. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

I have to admit that whenever I go around making "test" exposures, I feel like a geek/dweeb/propellerhead/dork/dope. Always have, as long as I've been doing it. But y'know, ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

And after I realized how well the system worked, then I had to go around and do it some more, just because it was making me happy. And that really made me feel like a dork.

Own it, Mike!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rob de Loe: "Ah, the kitchen stove shot. I confess to having a bunch of those in my 'test' catalogue too. There isn't another place in the house where I get that much shine, bright light and colour. It's my go-to location for comparing lenses if I'm trying to decide one over the other!"

Stephen Scharf: "I've been obtaining similar results with the Fujifilm X-H1. Here is a photograph of my EAR 324 phono stage taken at 1/10 second with the Fuji 18–55mm racked out to 55mm (83mm in 35mm-e).

"The image above is small due to TypePad's image posting size limitations, so here's a link to the original-size photo.

"As can be seen, it's tack.

"The UK-based YouTube video review guys, The Photography Team, have photographs using the Fuji 90mm (135mm-equivalent) taken at 1/4 of a second.

"So, be mindful, Mike, that you have also have a choice in the Fuji ecosystem, and you wouldn't have to sell off those sweet Fuji lenses."

Mike replies: You have an EAR 324? Do you mind if I, um, hate you?

kirk tuck: "The writer at DPReview did not give his final approval on the Sony versus Nikon recommendation. He stated that he'd wait for the tests to decide if the Sony was truly the camera that he would recommend going forward. Let's not jump the gun...."

Mike replies: Granted. Fixed now.

Moose: "It seems your standards may be low for this. Robin Wong reports, 'I can confidently hand-hold the Panasonic G9 with the 12–60mm ƒ/2.8–4 IS lens down to about 5 seconds, with a 50% hit rate. Yes, you heard that right—5 seconds! I thought I could only do that with the Olympus E-M1 Mark II.' He shows examples.

"I don't recall at the moment who, but others testing the E-M1 II reported similar 4–5 sec. results. Your example @ 55mm-e and Stephen Scharf's @ 82mm-e are fine, but already with the E-M5 II's older IBIS, here's an example from me of 1/20 sec. @ 600mm-e.

"This example also points out why multi-second IBIS doesn't mean much to me. Pretty much everything I shoot handheld (other than tests) moves; people, flowers, critters, trees, clouds, water all move. In my practical experience, subject motion is much more of a problem than insufficient IBIS, even on the last generation of Micro 4/3 IBIS. So, the IBIS you report is indeed very useful, although possibly not quite enough for me, with my interest in macro and telephoto, but far from the best available. It makes sense, really. The distance the sensor has to move is twice as great for FF, and the weight to be moved goes up with volume. Making some assumptions with insufficient hard data, it seems an A7III sensor is something over twice as large in volume as a Micro 4/3 sensor. To move over twice the weight over twice the distance and stop it to half the precision in the same amount of time is a considerable challenge."

Mike replies: My ulterior motive in trying out the Sony is that I'm giving it a chance to pull me away from my attraction to Micro 4/3. If it doesn't, there's probably a Panasonic in my future. Maybe the G9, but I just can't help but keep holding out hope for a GX8 II, even though I know full well the futility of waiting for imaginary cameras...as I've been doing it for decades.... :-)

Sony A7 Mark III In Da House

The TP (theoretically perfect) or PoP (perfect on paper) Sony A7III arrived last evening!

This is petty—I'm griping, and I admit that—but here are the first two things I noticed.

1. No charger. It's one of those deals where you get a cable and a USB adapter for charging the battery in-camera. Granted, Sony's pricing on this model is aggressive, and maybe this is a smart way of cutting costs. But it's faintly annoying that I had to wait for this box to arrive for three weeks and the very first thing I discover is that I'm going to have to order a charger and an extra battery and wait for those things too. (Or that's what I would have to do, if I were keeping the camera.) To add insult to injury, the bleedin' BC-QZ1 charger is corded (I hate that—I much prefer chargers that plug right into the wall), and it costs EIGHTY-EIGHT dollars. Really? That's [x]% of the value of the whole camera, where x is a number Ctein could figure out but I can't. [UPDATE: Frank Gorga says it's 4.4%. Thanks Frank.] And the extra NP-FZ100 battery is another $78. The aggressive pricing just got a little less attractive.
2. The engineering of the box. Yeah, this is probably because I have to repack this and send it back to B&H a month from now, and also because I've unpacked and repacked way too many cameras in the last 30 years or so. But all the little cardboard puzzle-pieces fell to bits when I was removing the stuff from the box, and I already know I'm going to be irritated trying to get it all back together. I always am, but I'm going to be again. With all the talented engineers the camera companies have at their disposal, can no one come up with a competently engineered box that's logical and easy to repack? It's not asking the moon.

I know I'm sounding like a grouchy graybeard, but that's only because I'm a grouchy graybeard. (Only sometimes grouchy. Mostly pretty dang cheerful, to be honest. Once you're past that pesky midlife crisis, it's really pretty great to be alive.)

Anyway I'm waiting for the battery to charge, and then I get to try the TPoP A7III! Which is a good thing, and I'm not losing sight of that. Also on the good side is the fact that the Sony A7III's battery life is claimed to be the best of any mirrorless camera.

And away we go!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

01af: "Oh dear...so from now on, four weeks of frowning skies and downpours in upstate New York."

Mike replies: EXACTLY. You understand!  :-)

Earl Dunbar: "Sony should have Apple make their packaging."

Apple duckhead

Joe Boris: "To put one of your curmudgeon-ings to rest, if you've ever owned an Apple laptop or other device that came with one of the (I can't find a way to attach the pic I just shot of it to this post) small, white, 'folding 2-pronged outlet adapters' [called a 'duckhead' —Ed.], they will insert perfectly into the cord port of this Sony charger, the Fuji X charger, and most other similar devices. This tiny thing replaces the long cord entirely. It is only 1x1.5x.75", so it almost fits in a pill bottle. I bought five of them on eBay several years ago for a few dollars, and now every charger I use that came with a cord, now wears one of these."

Fred: "Thank you Joe Boris for that very useful tip about the Apple charger outlet adapter [duckhead]. I've had a handful of these laying around from my Apple purchases over the years and now they have a use, a very good use at that."

robert e: "Hi Mike! Great to see you back in full stride. Interesting that Richard Butler of DPReview awarded the NP-FZ100 battery a 'Gear of the Year' award last year, for its role in sufficiently eliminating the usability gap between mirrorless and mirrored ILCs. Could it be that its value is actually greater than the 4.4% of cost? There seem to be plenty of off-brand chargers, not so much batteries—yet. Looking forward to the review!"

Terry Burnes on Phone Photography

Guest Post by Terry Burnes

Mike and I recently had a bit of an offline exchange about the question of whether a phone camera is or can be a “real” camera. As this seems a current topic, perhaps even a debate, in photography, and occasionally here on TOP, Mike asked me to put a few thoughts together.

Let me say right up front that my answer is yes. But at the same time I understand that there are significant differences between my iPhone 8’s camera and my OM-D E-M5 Mark II, not to mention some newer full-frame cameras.

My main point is that I think we should be open to all forms of photography and whatever any photographer uses to make good photographs, from wet plate to the phone. I also think phone cameras are among those evolving most rapidly right now and thus bear watching and perhaps keeping up with, especially as regards photography by the young (in other words, the future of photography).

Finally, I wonder if those judging phone photography harshly are personally familiar with the latest technology. It really came into its own for me with my iPhone 7 and now 8 [6+ and 7+ for me —MJ]. Prior to that I tend to agree that the tech was limiting. I’m confident an iPhone X or Google Pixel 2 would be even better. And we clearly have more to come.

Mike asked me to send him an example of a recent photograph taken with my iPhone. Let me be clear here that I do not consider myself an especially accomplished photographer. I’m an amateur always striving to improve, as I suspect many TOP readers are. This post isn’t about my photography, it’s about phone cameras.

So below is the photograph I sent to Mike. It’s a simple one taken a few days ago on a walkabout in the historic section of my town of Gardnerville, Nevada, with my iPhone 8 with the Sirui add-on telephoto lens (60mm-e) attached. I picked this because it’s a common sort of composition, such as many of TOP readers might take; it has considerable detail and tonal variation; and it shows the use of a phone camera much as we might use our ILCs, for “artistic” photography and with a lens different from the “kit” lens.

Like many of you I have several cameras, all from the Olympus system and targeted at different uses. My “main” camera is my OM-D E-M5 Mark II. I consider the others secondary. But what has happened for me personally is that my iPhone has slowly taken over as my secondary camera. And having done that I now find it slowly taking over my photography in general, edging out my OM-D bit by bit.

That is for reasons that are both obvious (availability and convenience) and mysterious (the effect it seems to have on my limited creativity). One clear advantage my iPhone has over my OM-D is that it almost completely eliminates the need to deal with the technical aspects of photography, thus putting more emphasis on the artistic side. That may be a disturbing statement to some of you, but I believe there are two fundamental aspects of photography, the technical component and the creative component. I struggle with both. But to focus on the latter I’m inclined to let the camera do as much of the former as possible, leaving me with more time to think about the photograph I’m trying to produce.

I’m not trying to convince anyone about the merits of phone photography. That’s up to each of you. But to help you decide, let’s play a little game.

I maintain a website of my photography, called Catch and Release Photography, which I normally share just with family and friends. It’s organized chronologically for the most part. The best examples of my iPhone photography are my 2017 albums. The one titled Along the Way contains 199 photographs that I personally feel are my best of last year (I know, too many, but that’s as far as I could go with the always-excruciating culling exercise).

Here is a link to that album.

Sixty percent of the photos in that album were taken with my iPhones, a 7 then an 8. The other photos were taken with my OM-D E-M5 Mark II or my Olympus E-PM2. All received the same sort of post processing in Apple Photos. Can you tell which are which, phone or “real” camera? Maybe you could share your thoughts in the comments, picking one of each.

In a few days Mike will post a list of the phone photographs and you can check your conclusions.

Remember, this is not about my photography. Compliments are welcome. Share your criticisms with your dog. And yes, I know on-screen display is not the “real” test—printing is. But I think most photography is viewed on a screen these days. And my iPhone photos that look good on the screen seem to print as well as the others, though I don’t use fancy printing options.

And I’m not making a case for the phone being your only camera—just maybe your second camera. If you need a big beautiful print, by all means get out your full-frame camera and best lens and have at it.

With that said, as my iPhone has slowly intruded on my “real” photography I have worked to improve its capability. Few of us stick with an ILC and its kit lens. Well, why not augment the phone camera too? So below is a photograph of the kit I’ve assembled.

I don’t usually have this with me. I take it along when I want something more than just my phone but less than my OMD kit.

From upper left, a small bag from Waterfield Designs in SF that is specifically designed for carrying a phone kit. Then an auxiliary battery for charging the phone if necessary. A Joby Gorillapod. A LensPen and a microfiber cleaning cloth. And four auxiliary lenses: Moment “Superish” 170-degree fisheye, Moment wide angle, Sirui telephoto, and Moment macro. Finally, in the center, a clever phone camera grip from Just Mobile, the Shuttergrip, with lanyard.

Moment lenses: I use their basic phone case, which contains a mount for their lenses. That mount also works for the Sirui lenses, which have the same mounting system as Moment. It’s a good case for protecting my phone and makes attaching and removing the lenses easy and accurate.

Sirui lenses

Just Mobile

Waterfield Designs

A few comments. All the lenses are quite good, far from toys, but I didn’t like the Moment telephoto (too soft on the edges. Moment says that’s because it is a portrait lens), so I substituted the Sirui, which is much better for my purposes. I think the Sirui wide angle would probably be the equal of the Moment wide. Sirui are about two-thirds the prices of Moment.

The wide and telephoto lenses are very useful, the wide being about an 18mm-e and the tele about 60mm. With the 28mm-e native phone lens, that makes a pretty good spread. The Superfish and macro are less useful but nice to have along in case.

The Shuttergrip allows one-handed operation of the phone camera, or much more stable two-handed operation. It contains a bluetooth shutter release that can be detached for remote shutter operation. It has a tripod mount.

With this little kit I feel I have the operational equivalent of my Olympus E-PM2 interchangeable-lens camera. The major difference then becomes the sensor, MFT vs. whatever small sensor is in the phone. But that’s only a liability in low light, where the phone still can do pretty well:

In the end I’d say the two big weaknesses of the phone are low light and long telephoto (the twin-camera phones are slowly solving the bokeh problem). But I think that stuff is coming, somehow. Huawei seems to be coming out with a three-camera phone and as sensor tech progresses I think low light will become less of a limitation for most phone photography.

But the phone camera has some major advantages too. Size, and convenience—and of course it’s the camera most of us always have with us. But it is also very inconspicuous, leaving the user something other than a photographer in the eyes of those nearby.

Most of us have our phone with us, so why not make use of the camera? At least us amateurs. The pros will still want the larger-sensor cameras, but I think will make greater and greater use of the phone for ancillary photography.

I don’t do video so phone videography would be a topic for others, but there is a lot about video on the Moment website (Moment has just announced development of a cinema anamorphic lens). I think video or hybrid photography is another area where the phones and their young customers are making rapid progress. I get the feeling that in the future, still photography is going to have its hands full competing with that.

Once again, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Do what you want. But you probably have a camera in your pocket. Why not make it the best one you can afford and then use it, especially when lugging a “real” camera around is not in the cards. I think if you get a current Apple iPhone or Google Pixel and learn to use it well you’ll find it slowly creeping into more and more of your photography.

As for me, I’m not sure yet another ILC is in my future. The one I have is pretty good. But I’m sure more phones, and their cameras, will be coming. And I’m looking forward to learning what they will be able to do.

Terry

TOP reader Terry Burnes, 71, is from Gardnerville, Nevada, USA.

Words and pictures © 2018 by Terry Burnes, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Fred: "This is a very interesting post. As Terry states there is a real virtue in having a camera that is with you all the time and that all you need to do is point and shoot. Also with a phone camera you can easily inflict...er...show your pictures to others. (I find backing people into a corner useful.) Also I have never been that concerned about pictures in low light. The quality of the image is what it is and that usually works for me, after all the picture is in low light.

"What I wonder about is if you are going to have some extra lenses and other things to carry around with you would you do just as well to have a little soap bar Micro 4/3 interchangeable-lens camera with a touch screen on the back? I'm sure it just comes down to personal preference. Good post."

hugh crawford: "I remember photographers carrying 35mm film cameras for when they didn't have their 'real camera.'"

Lenya: "Obviously, a good photographer can take great pictures with whatever they have at hand. A great skier can ski on any pair of skis. It is the unwashed masses who need all the help they can get out of their equipment. Apart from that, what if you wonder outside of your house with your puny phone in hand, and then suddenly you stumble upon a running cheetah, a motorcycle race, or a diving kingfisher? Not to mention a beautiful model that you must photograph at ƒ/1.4 and 105mm? Or it suddenly gets dark and the Milky Way shines like, well, like a Milky Way shines? Nah, security is security is security, and without a serious camera one would always be paranoid about what might have been."

Curt Gerston: "I teach a middle school photography class...great fun. A few years ago, I insisted my students use the drawer full of Canon Powershots I had for their assignments. Some wanted to use their phones, but I insisted they use 'real' cameras...this was Photography after all. I carried an iPhone myself, but refused to take pictures with it (it was at best an emergency camera).

"About four years ago, some students (ignoring my 'real camera' admonishments) began turning in portfolios of work from their phones. Some of it was truly great...I was amazed: these were photos with genuine and unique vision, and much better than most of what I was seeing from my students using the Powershots. In fact, when I started letting more of my students use their phones, the overall quality of the work improved: I’m speaking of the creative aspects of their photographs, though the technical parts clearly were improving each year too. It reminded me of a truism we hear, but sometimes forget: the importance of the comfort the artist has with his/her tools. My students use their phone cameras all the time, all day long. When the time comes to do 'work' with them, many of my students are much more adept at 'seeing' with a phone. It just fits for them, and the work shows it.

"So, I'm much less snooty about it now, and even use my own phone camera much more often (got an iPhone X...that’s a pretty good camera). I use my Fuji much more still. And I have a bunch of used Olympus Micro 4/3 cameras for my student who want to start to take more control of their shutter speeds, D-o-F, etc. But, there is no doubt in my mind that for this new generation of photographers, it’s going to be the phone that does most of the work. Maybe not if they become pro fashion or sports photographers, but who knows? I still can’t believe what phones can do already. Ten to twenty years from now, phones might be all anyone needs."

More On Video Reviews of Camera Equipment

Text vs. video is probably just generational, as Michael Mejia vividly explains. (Many values, beliefs, and cultural verities people think are eternal and unchanging are actually just generational, or shared by several generations but not necessarily by those before and after.) I haven't seen very many video reviews of cameras. I don't like watching them, therefore I'm not very familiar with the genre. I'm sure there are many good ones out there. I do appreciate David Thorpe. (He's probably closer to my generation!)

Also bear in mind that I'm a creature of the printed word, so what you're about to read comes from the standpoint my own bias. (That bias is dear to me, so I certainly don't apologize for it. The written word is fabulously rich and has given me great pleasure throughout my life, in many, many ways.)

The shortcomings of video reviews were stated succinctly by nextSibling:

The problem with video in general is it has very low information density and poor reference mechanisms, as information designers would say.

Bingo. A commenter also named Michael extolled the video Fuji X-H1 review by Palle Schultz (who, Roman points out, is not a fully independent reviewer, but, like Jonas Rask, is an official "Fuji X Photographer." Here's the list).

And actually, for me, Palle's video is a perfect illustration of what nextSibling complains about: it's mainly about the videography aspects of the X-H1, something that doesn't interest me because I shoot only stills. So I get 1/5th of the way into the video, and it starts to waste my time with details about what it's like to shoot video with, and then I get more and more impatient as I wait for the video-shooting segment of the review to end...which it never does, because the reviewer has shot a doc with it and it's almost entirely a discussion of his thoughts about the X-H1's video capabilities. Would I have watched the whole thing through if there was some way of knowing that in advance? No. But nowhere is the review labeled as what it is, and I have no way of knowing that most of the information I happen to want is not even there. I'm just following along blind, going wherever the guy who's talking wants to take me.

Upshot, for Michael: "No reason to view or read anything else." Upshot for me: almost entirely a waste of my time. (Nothing against Palle; his information seems good for what it is.)

Quick, find that
Reviews such as those on DPReview have very good "reference mechanisms" (the table of contents and the index in a printed book are reference mechanisms) in the form of a dropdown menu where pages are labeled with different topics. So if you want to find out about stabilization, say, you can go directly to where that is discussed. Great, except that a technical review has another large failing, which is that it repeats a great deal of the information provided by the manufacturer. I consider most of that to be redundant. I'm fully capable of finding the press release and going to the manufacturer's website (or B&H) and reading the manufacturer's claims for the product, all by myself. A review should contain judgements and opinions. I don't want it to be a substitute for, or a rehash of, the manual. So the only bits of a technical review that interest me are the little nuggets where the reviewer evaluates or critiques the manufacturer's claims or approaches those claims from the standpoint of actual use or experience. And those are sparse.

In that way, even a review that's "dense" with information actually has low information density, which has always been my problem with technical reviews. (I really don't even want all the nitty-gritty spec-sheet details on a product until I've 90% decided to buy it.)

And you are...?
A basic problem of many video reviews these days is that unless they're an established content provider and you're an established fan, you often have little idea of the qualifications and skill level of the reviewer. Take this to the bank when I say it: many people can talk a great game without having the skills to shoot their way out of a wet paper bag. When I write reviews, I take a lot of pains to let people know where I'm coming from and what my skill levels are—and I take pains not to lie about it. If I don't shoot video, say, or long lenses, or fast action, you'll know it, so you can evaluate the information you're getting from me accordingly.

Another obvious problem with reviews these days is that they are posted immediately, and they function mostly like company PR. Hey, look at this exciting new product, here's everything the manufacturer wants me to say about it, go buy it from my links! Right, we're all guilty of the latter, including me, because that's how sites survive these days. But that only excuses the practice, it doesn't make it a desirable trait in a reviewer. By far the most valuable reviews come from people who have used the product for weeks or months and have gotten thoroughly familiar with it through actual experience. (And who have gotten over the glow of "new toy" pride.) Not somebody who shot with it for an hour or just handled it at the company's booth at a show.

Unbeholden
This would seem to vindicate the practice of "beta testers" who receive pre-production samples and use them for weeks before the official rollout date. Except that's not a good practice either, because the best reviews are firmly independent and no beta tester can be truly independent, by definition, for the simple reason that they are dependent (note the word) on the manufacturer for the testing sample. So they're all "making nice." They know full well if they don't, they won't be getting the next new camera in advance. No matter how free they pretend to be, they are not free, because they always have to be mindful of their relationship with the manufacturer. They become de facto extensions of the company PR departments.

Another way this subverts impartiality is that the companies have learned to only give equipment to people that they know for sure are dyed-in-the-wool fanboys and highly unlikely to let slip a negative word. Leica is particularly guilty of this, but most of them do it. Why wouldn't they? They want PR. They do not actually want critical, fully independent reviews.

And ideally?
The best reviews, I think, would:

• Be fully independent*;
• Be the result of using the product over time;
• Be subjective, with the reviewer being completely forthright and forthcoming about his or her skills, affiliations, and biases;
• Keep fully in mind each reader's likely desire to skip over certain parts that don't concern, or pertain to, him or her;
• Keep the information you can get directly from the manufacturer and the manual to a practical minimum, instead reporting on independent experience and use and the results of independent testing, and things like look and feel and ergonomics**; and
• Mix text and very short videos (and other media, for instance graphs or sound files)—all well crafted, and each tailored to the information most suited to each specific media...
• ...With each of the separate video segments clearly labeled and short—of two minutes or less in duration. As the reference mechanism.

Is anyone doing ideal camera reviews these days, taking full advantage of the felicities of the Web but not falling prey to its commonplace idiocies? Not in my opinion***.

That's probably because no one can afford to. The competition from amateur reviewers and forum discussions is just too diffuse and widespread, and the pressure to provide fodder for peoples' initial curiosity is just too great, to focus sufficient attention on a professional, thorough, fully independent review that comes out weeks or months after the release date. Note that this is a situation that other industries exploit to the max; for instance, big ticket movies are now promoted specifically to minimize word-of-mouth publicity. Ad campaigns stir up interest in advance of the films' release in order to help make back the film's investment in the first days and weeks after release—even if the film actually sucks and the eventual consensus is that people don't like it. (That's why films' "first weekend" box office takes are reported so breathlessly, as if any moviegoer cares about that.) The parallel in our field is that people want to be first with the news—and the first owners of new products—because they get attention that way.

But here's the point relative to the post title: the best video review would probably be a string of separate very short video segments, each part labelled separately. That each part should be competently done and maximize video-specific forms of content, things that video is actually useful for conveying, while minimizing the annoying "talking head" stretches, should probably go without saying. Except that it does need to be said. (Have you ever watched a video review where the talking head is waving a new camera around and you just want to have a decent look at the darned thing? Like the guy who was waving around a GX9 for minutes on end while I still didn't know if the viewfinder was fixed or tilting, or whether the viewing screen was the flip-up type or the side-articulated type. That drives me nuts.)

I should add that I've been reviewing cameras since the 1980s and I'm a former editor-in-chief of a technical photography magazine. Just saying that so you know I know my way around the subject, even though I only infrequently write full, formal reviews any more.

Mike
(Thanks to many commenters from Saturday)

*For instance, I get review samples only from B&H Photo and LensRentals; I can be beholden to both those organizations without being the least bit prejudiced in favor of, or against, any particular brand of camera or lens. When I reviewed the Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 Art I had two of them here, one for the Sony A900 and one for the Nikon D750, but I didn't have any connection to Sigma or, in fact, any contact with them at all. All you saw was some nice words about LensRentals, which were not prejudicial.

**I always tried to keep in mind the interests of the person who would like to use the camera but couldn't. What would I want to know about it myself if someone else were telling me of his experience with it? It's very hard for inexperienced and amateur reviewers not to take things for granted.

***Roger Cicala comes closest, for this writer. Thom Hogan's and Kirk Tuck's are very good. I don't actually look at a lot of other peoples' reviews.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Ferdie: "tl;dr. ROFL!"

beuler: "Generally, text reviews are more informative than video (think of the typical spec table). Video reviews are more entertaining than text (think of ex-DigitalRev TV presenter Kai). Do I seek gear reviews to be entertained? Absolutely! Sue me.  :-) 

"Most video gear reviews will fall between the two extremes of production value. On one end of the spectrum there is just a guy sitting in front of the camera talking. Here is an example à propos. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is the voice over a multitude of imagery that helps to make the point. Here is an example of a one-man-show with high production value. And here is a video review of video review channels. [That last is excellent; thanks. —MJ.]

"In the end what really counts and keeps viewers coming back is engagement. The guy just talking to the camera can be engaging if he is a naturally gifted public speaker and the high production value video will engage if the eye candy is sweet enough—this is independent of the content/substance. In a similar way, the most expert gear connoisseur will not have a single reader for a blog post if he is a lousy writer. Any of you who are regular readers of the LensRentals blog can consider if you keep coming back because of the deep technical insights or because of the wit and lighthearted penmanship of Roger Cicala. Many of the readers here will no doubt watch videos occasionally if they are posted in the middle of a web page article. Just be aware that a huge chunk of Internet users will occasionally read a blog post if it is linked from a YouTube video."

Bill La Via: "I would say that Jonas does a pretty good job of making his biases known (see the second paragraph in his review). Not all sponsored photographers (from any of the brands) do so but I have always found him to be pretty transparent. I also find some genuine nuggets in his 'reviews.' I have found that one needs to read many reviews to triangulate a completely balanced view of a product, and that even then it’s only an approximation of reality; biased reviews are the norm rather than the exception."

Gordon Lewis: "For what it's worth, I tend to look at the video vs. text issue from the perspective of being a professional instructional designer for roughly 20 years. In my profession, video is perfect for showing how to do a procedure, or showing something that would take a lot of words to clearly describe. A procedure can be as complex as a total ankle replacement surgery to something as mundane as clearing a clog out of a dishwasher, but if the steps are visually clear enough, the need for verbal description is minimal.

"Even so, it's good practice to add time coded steps or sections, so that if I want to go directly to Step Three or some other important topic, I know exactly where to find it. Where video really sucks is when you have a talking head or disembodied voice that is simply explaining instead of showing. This is almost as idiotic as having a voiceover narrator read the exact text that's already printed on screen. Why do I need to look at you if all you're doing is talking while holding a camera?"

Keith: "Print vs video. Maybe it's because I'm old school, but video as a way of giving actual information is terrible. With text one can skim along thinking, 'I know this, know this, know this, aha! that's what I'm looking for,' and then start reading closely. It's easy to go back to step 2, and make sure you really do cut the red wire before attaching the blue wire to something. One can skim over the introductory text and dive right into chapter 6, because the table of contents says that's where to find what you're interested in. That can't be done on video unless someone has already posted a comment (if you read the comments) that says the review actually starts at 2:18. Plus,and this is a personal thing, I can't stand the way most videos start. 'Hey what's up, blah blah here for xyz, click on the like button,' and other such blither. Most of them have no idea how to get to the point, and once there, stay on it. Give me text any day."

Terry Letton: "This just reminds me the Chevy Vega was once Motor Trend Car of the Year. I bet MT would have liked that one back."

Wes Cosand: "Just a note to say thank you for your reviews. On the basis of your reviews of the Panasonic cameras and those of David Thorpe, I rented the Panasonic GX8 and its Olympus competitor and used them for a couple weeks. Then I gave my children all my full frame gear and ordered GX8 bodies and lenses, and have never derived more joy from photography."

Nicholas Condon: "As a 43 year old, I'm middling-young for a (now somewhat lapsed) hobbyist photographer. As an Internet content consumer, though, I'm ancient. And I just absolutely can't stand to acquire information (as opposed to entertainment) from videos. 'Hi, I'm Bob. Today, I'll be showing you how to use the <$FEATURE> of <$PRODUCT>. First, turn on <$PRODUCT>...' ...And with 30 seconds wasted without one single quantum of useful information conveyed, I'm done. In that amount of time, there's a good chance that, on a text-and-graphics instruction page, I could have already found the one small bit of information I was looking to obtain from the silly video to begin with. Meanwhile, my girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter would rather sit through a 45-minute video to obtain one sentence of useful information than find that one sentence in a well-written text-and-graphics article. There is either a severe generational divide here, or that particular 12-year-old has substantially more patience than this particular, grumpy 43-year-old."

Mike replies: Yes, it's somewhat interesting and ironic how common it is to say that kids today don't have any attention span, when actually they have a protean patience for videos that many older people don't have. I do wonder how they spend time to watch all that...but then, they would wonder how I have the time to read a book each week. I guess it's all a matter of priorities and preferences.

Rene Theberge: "The best review of a camera I've read in a long time is Kirk Tuck's recent review of the Panasonic GH5. It told me everything I needed to know about this camera in actual use."

Eolake: "Correction: MY generational ideas are wise and correct. Earlier ones are stuffy. Newer ones are silly and ephemeral."

Jim (partial comment): "I second your comments re video vs. written reviews or whatever, and that from someone who has created over 100 highly technical videos, mostly lectures, that have over 2.5 million views. I have two 30-something techie kids and know other age groups and I think the deal with video is 'CPA'— continuous partial attention. You cannot read an article and do much else, but you can watch a video with some attention and do other things. The bane of our existence is the CPA on phone calls when you can hear the clicking of a keyboard in the background."

Mark Roberts: "I greatly prefer written reviews to video, but so many video reviews fall far short of what they could be. Here's a checklist that far too many YouTube video makers have no idea they need. How to make a video:

1 — Write a script Write out exactly what you're going to say (verbatim) and what you're going to show. Then re-write it.

2 — Rehearse the script For crying out loud, practice a few times before you press Record.

3 — Edit Trim all the fat.

4 — Add voiceover narration in post Don't describe doing what you're doing while you do it. Adding narration in post lets you concentrate at one thing at a time and do it well.

5 — Edit again After you think you've trimmed as much as you can, watch your video again and see if you can cut any more. If you're honest with yourself you'll find more. I've given up on many videos because they were too long but never one because it was too short.

"Also: Keep the intro brief. I've seen some that go one for almost a minute with animation and music. Check out B&H Photo's videos for comparison. Their intro is five seconds long and contains little more than their logo."

Mike replies: I will add to your Number 5, Mark, that I'm more engaged with videos that move quickly. When my son did his videos when he was in high school, he researched the top video presenters and developed a fast and clear method of speaking (which he was very good at). One of my favorite video producers, Doug DeMuro, speaks very quickly and actually edits out many pauses. It's not that everything he says is essential, as that the video keeps moving quickly. I can stick with him for 18 minutes where I will leave other presenters much sooner simply because they talk slower and don't fill the time as well.

Also, your Numbers 2 and 3 go together somewhat...as you rehearse, edits will be suggested as you actually hear what's natural to say and what's not.

Ken Tanaka (partial comment): "Honestly, whether you’re researching a camera or a lens, renting/test-driving is THE best way to make the best-infomed decision about something costly."

Roger Cicala: "Another well thought out piece, Mike, that I enjoyed. I work with around a hundred 25–35 year olds and have this conversation with them a lot. I find video reviews inefficient and a waste of time; they find written reviews not very entertaining.

"Personally, I think video avoids constructive criticism. When I see someone writes something I think is wrong or incomplete, I send them an email, they can correct their article if they think it's appropriate in a few keystrokes. When the video is incorrect at the 15:33 mark, well, they aren't going to make a new video. And I've always wondered, if everyone is there to watch video because they don't like to read, who reads the 312 comments on the video page? What's the proper protocol, anyway? Shouldn't I make a video comment instead of writing?

"In this business, the one thing that has amazed me is how little investment from the manufacturer is required to get PR reviews. A few lenses, a trip or chance to lecture, being named an 'Ambassador,' and they have a friend for life. It's got to be the best return on investment they can get.

"I'm very lucky, I don't have to make my living doing this. I want to believe I'd write the same stuff if my livelihood depended on it. But I doubt that's really true; I'd certainly be more 'damn with faint praise' and less 'they really screwed this up.'

"You, Thom, Kirk, Dave Etchells and a few others are opinions I search out. I think, perhaps, what we all have in common is we're old enough to not care what the manufacturers think (very much)."

The Olympus E-M5 Mark II Torture Test, Part II

Introduction: You probably remember the last time our friend John Lehet abused his Olympus E-M5 Mark II...by losing it in a snowbank in the dead of Winter in Vermont and finding it four and a half months later. And discovering to his amazement that it still worked fine.

Well, he obviously wasn't done torture-testing the Olympus...read on.

Words and picture by John Lehet

I've walked along rivers and brooks in the Winter here in Vermont since the early '80s, back then with a big tripod and a view camera in a backpack. I've fallen in boot- or knee-deep many times over the years. Frequently I keep working and walking even if I have filled my boot with Winter water. I shrug it off.

This time was much more serious. I was walking along a little brook last week to photograph ice and water. Here's a photo of a little waterfall upstream from where I fell through, an exposure from early December:

I fell through ice into a fast-running brook at about 15°F air temperature, which I often do—but this time I was chest deep. I had a lot of gear on me: three cameras and a lot of lenses, some of them quite expensive. My first thought when I fell through was, "OK, I guess I'm done for the day." Second thought was, "Oh my god, my gear!" Third thought was: "Nothing matters except I have to climb out of this. I'm not dead yet, and that's lucky."

This time I was probably even more laden than in the view camera days. I had my Tenba DNA 13 bag, which I love a lot, as a side bag. It was bobbing on the water, floating. It was lucky I had zipped the top zipper, as I often work from it open. I also had on a Mindshift 180 Pro backpack, fully loaded. If you don't know those bags, they have a regular interior backpack compartment, but then also a sliding belt pack on the bottom that rotates; it can snug into the bottom of the pack then slide around to the front for quick access. I had that snugged into the backpack as I stepped onto the bad ice.

After I climbed out I found the bottom part of the Mindshift bag dangling from its safety strap, and unzipped. I don't know how the main strap got unbuckled from my waist, but I know it was buckled before. It doesn't unbuckle any more easily than any backpack waist band. However the fastener to keep the belt back inside its compartment had not been latched.

On the shore I did a quick inventory. Inside the Tenba bag looked pretty dry, if not impeccably so. The dangling bottom of the Mindshift pack was also pretty dry. I guess it hadn't opened up underwater, but had stayed in its compartment. I started climbing the long way up the bank to the car and did a quick inventory while I was walking. There was an empty spot in the Mindshift bag. Something missing. I went back to the stream and looked down into the flowing water to see the Olympus E-M5 Mark II with the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 Pro lens on it. Maybe silver cameras are better than black ones in cases like this—very visible! I fished it out, and pulled the battery.

My car is an 18-year-old turbodiesel VW, which has been having reliability issues since about October. I've had to walk home from some photo outings since then. As I climbed up through the snow toward the car, dripping and freezing cold, I was not 100% sure the car was going to start. All the attachment that's been keeping me from moving on from that car melted away that morning. Sometimes it's not OK if the car might not start.

At home, still hypothermic, I inventoried all the other lenses, and the A7RII, and the infrared Micro 4/3 camera—many had a few drops on them but everything was perfectly fine and functional.

I took the lens off the E-M5 Mark II that I fished out of the stream. The body looked OK, but the lens had actually taken on water—there was water inside it. Not good.

After a day in a jar with desiccant, I tried the E-M5 Mark II with a different lens, and...

Perfect. No issues.

I'm bummed out about my 12–40mm lens. I'm attempting to dry it using desiccant and a warm-ish oven. It does seem to be slowly drying out. Not sure if it will ever work again, or what I'll do with it if it doesn't.

The Sony body and all my vintage and Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses were only protected by the bags and would not have lasted a second in the stream. The Olympus body survived being submerged in a rushing stream at a depth of a couple of feet for, I guess, a full minute or more. My sense of time was quite broken by the time I pulled it out.

The Olympus is not my main camera, but it's easy enough to carry, and tough enough for anything, versatile enough to bring home the best photos of all the gear sometimes.

And it's definitely waterproof.

John

Here's John's website.

©2018 by John Lehet, all rights reserved

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

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Jack Stivers: "Enough already! I was quite convinced about the Olympus's water resistance with the lost-in-a-snowbank experiment. This latest baptism by liquid ice was unneeded additional proof. I think we all get it. You've been quite fortunate to date to survive these mishaps, but to continue on this way could amount to treading on thin ice. Again."

Kate [John's wife]: "John's wife strongly agrees!"

Sony A6500 vs. Fuji X-T2

I got this note from Bob Travaglione:

Dear Mike, I have been putting off deciding on which camera to order and commit to a system. I have not seen your long promised review "Sony a6500 vs. Fuji X-T2: since your discussion on lenses available for these cameras. The prices are low right now and I want to click on your B&H link soon to buy one of them.

Oops, and sorry. All I can do at this point is give you my impressions and conclusions—not a full review, but it will probably serve as my input into your decision, Bob, for what that's worth.

First let me remind people of my old joke: When someone asks "should I get a Nikon or a Canon?" the proper answer is "yes." That is, yes, buy yourself a camera...then get to work using it. In the same spirit, both of these picture-takers from Sony and Fuji are highly evolved, highly competent, wonderful devices, and, while there is plenty of basis on which to distinguish them, they're both great cameras that are likely to serve their owners well. If you like one of them, don't worry too much about it. (Another thing I used to say all the time is that the degree to which you master the camera you choose is significantly more important than which camera you choose. That's still true.)

But enough meta-nonsense: which one's better? That's what you want to know.

For me, it was no contest. I'm fairly used to the old "NEX" form-factor, because I used a NEX-6 for two years when that camera was new. But having been treated to a number of newer designs such as the fine Panasonic GX8, which is several levels better as a "rangefinder-type" design layout*, the Sony doesn't quite cut it for me in terms of form-factor. It's not that it's bad; far from it. It's absolutely fine. I could get used to it, and I'm sure after a while it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

And, quite possibly, the fact that I've been using the Fuji X-T1 for the last three years or so might account for most of what swayed me immediately in the direction of the X-T2. I know some people don't like the X-T[x]'s knobs 'n' dials layout, preferring a less intuitive but more customizable electronically-oriented controls—but I do. The X-T2 is different in a great many ways compared to the X-T1, but almost all the changes, taken one by one, are small and subtle—to any X-T1 shooter, the X-T2 feels, if not exactly the same, immediately familiar and comfortable in a general sense.

As far as the IBIS is concerned, I didn't do the work, so I'm going to cop out by quoting something a Leica publicist once told me, quoting a Leica lens designer—"the best way to test a lens is to use it for a year. Everything else is just a shortcut." The IBIS seemed to work with the 24mm (with the 16–70mm, the camera deferred to the IS in the lens). But as to how well...I'd have to use it for a year to render a verdict. Let's move on quickly....

One thing I should emphasize is that there's certainly nothing wrong with the A6500's image quality. It's exemplary, with plenty of DR, excellent color, detail, and sharpness. High ISOs are very useful and even the JPEGs are highly correctable.

Amusing myself during a layover in Atlanta with the A6500

Using a good lens with it, it's almost a poster child for how far good digital has come. No bad habits anywhere that I could detect.

But despite my longing for IBIS, despite my liking for Sony cameras in general, and despite my great affection for the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA (provided this time by LensRentals), I picked up the X-T2 almost every time I went out to shoot.

The X-T2 is a poster child too—it's the paragon of how much a good design can be improved with careful attention to detail...and a demonstration of how a lot of such relatively small changes can add up to a markedly better camera. Compared to the X-T1—which wasn't, and still isn't, a bad camera by any means—the X-T2 is distinctly better. What they've done to it is almost the opposite of using the same basic camera and changing a few bits for the sake of change—it seems like there's very little from the parts bin. It's a slightly different size and shape (which means, unfortunately, that the X-T1 handgrip and battery pack won't fit), the knobs and buttons have been rearranged and refined, and the flip-up screen now works vertically as well as horizontally, something I didn't think I'd care bout, but in actual use find that I like a lot.

Forced to pick, I'd say the Sony's file quality is a little higher than the Fuji's, but below the threshold of the differences in raw converters and not at the level that would allow you to pick one from the other when looking at pictures.

The new Fuji is much faster than the older one, in every way that I could figure out to compare. The difference is most apparent when shooting brackets, which used to be a steady beat and now is a quick zipzipzip.

I can't say the Fuji is my absolute favorite camera from a usage standpoint. And I haven't tried to shoot action with it yet (something I seldom shoot anyway, but even less now that I live in the Lake country)—that was a relative weakness of the X-T1. But it's got to be very close to the best it can be for the kind of camera it is.

Relative sizes, courtesy CameraSize.com

Most of all, the X-T2 is so good in almost every way that it's just a pleasure to use. It's quick, intuitive to set once you've got everything settled, yields excellent files, and is very configurable. But that doesn't really get to the soul of the machine. It simply seems like every  feature has been contemplated and refined and improved, and, coupled with the camera's very high build quality, it makes the X-T2 a pleasure to use. I enjoy it every time I pick it up. To give you just an indication of Fuji's attention to detail, I could swear that not only is the shutter-button feel slightly better, the shutter sound has been improved, and so has the feel of the on-off switch. At least it seems that way when comparing my X-T1 and X-T2 side-by-side. All the little things—the main knobs having "on-off" locks, the vertically-flipping screen, the slight overhang of the EC dial allowing you to turn it quickly with your thumb, the new joystick, the socket for a mechanical cable release in the shutter button, even the larger area where your right thumb rests when you grip it—almost unnoticeable in pictures, but much more comfortable to me when I grip the camera—the new design of the eyecup—all those things add up to greater pleasure when shooting. The X-T2 gets out of your way even more than its predecessor, and seems even more at your service.

As to whether you should get one if you already have an X-T1, I can only say that I wasn't going to upgrade. The lightly-used X-T2 was a gift from a kind friend—he bought several mirrorless cameras to try them out, but after a number of months found himself usually preferring his Canon DSLR. Thanks again, G.!

Conclusion
I want to emphasize again that both the Sony A6500 and the X-T1 are excellent cameras. I you have either one I can't see a reason to want to run out and pick up anything else, unless you have some very specific shooting conditions in mind and you're convinced by specs and tests that another camera will serve you better. But faced with the two cameras at hand, it didn't take me long to make up my own mind—the Fuji X-T2 is one of the most capable and satisfying all-around cameras of any kind I've ever used. Maybe Josh Hawkins, the former manager of my neighborhood camera store back in Oak Park, will chime in to confirm just how very many cameras that is! Heh.

As they might say in horse racing, win for Fuji, pulling away at the wire, with daylight between 'em**.

Mike
(Thanks to G., LensRentals, and B&H Photo for the loan of the A6500)

*And really good—I sincerely hope Panasonic doesn't orphan the body style and the nifty tilting viewfinder, although I wish they'd switch to a flip-up viewing screen for the non-video-oriented GX8 successor rather than the video-type swing-out one.

**But come Spring, the Fuji will have to do battle with an A7II.

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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Gordon Reynolds: I own a Sony A6000 with your preferred lense, the 24mm. I used it a lot when I first got it because, well, it was the only camera I owned at the time. It felt great in my hand, very portable, and made images I could rarely complain about. All was well and good until....

"The XT-2 came along and it has been my take-out camera since I got it. The main difference for me between the two cameras is that the Fuji is so easy to manage. Of all the settings I’m likely to fiddle with the ones I most often change are on a dial that clearly marks the setting, ISO, aperture, shutter, along with +/- exposure. I used to frequently make unintended changes on the Sony, which annoyed me no end. That rarely happens with the Fuji and it’s easy to rectify when it does.

"I don’t often find I wish I had IBIS, so that doesn’t figure into the equation for me. The EVF on the Fuji is stunning, but maybe the EVF on the Sony A6500 is now as good. I wish battery life on both cameras was better, but I've adapted—I keep extra batteries with me no matter the camera (though I pine for the days when I could use a DSLR for days without recharging the battery).

"I did prefer the image quality from the Sony, and under certain circumstances that’s still true to a small degree, but since incorporating Iridient X-Transformer into my work flow I’m very happy with what the Fuji provides. Somehow that bit of software makes, for me, a whole lot of difference."

Fujifilm GFX Review, Part III

The Fujifilm X-T2 (APS-C) and GFX 50S (medium format)

-

Reviewed by Stephen Scharf

Part I
Part II

I rented a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the GF 32-64mm ƒ/4 zoom lens for a few days over a long weekend, including at my last professional motor race of the year, the Go Pro Grand Prix of Sonoma Indy Car race. To get a feel for the camera in a real-world setting, I used the GFX at the race for atmosphere, paddock, and pit lane photos at the race. I also used it for some landscape and architectural photography.

This is the third part of this review and is comprised of final impression and conclusions.

Final impressions
As far as I am concerned, when it comes to photography, it's all about the print. Per many of the comments from TOP readers in Parts I and II, one cannot really get a sense of this capabilities of the Fuji GFX from simply viewing small, low-res images on a computer display. So I spent the last few weeks making, viewing and reflecting on (no pun intended) prints made from the GFX to serve as a context for my final impressions. [Stephen, who I know to be a skilled printmaker, is sending me some prints, and I'll write a separate post giving you my impressions of them. —MJ]

For one thing, most displays have a pretty limited bit depth (most don't even have a 10-bit native LUT) and as such, can't really display all the information present in a printed 16-bit file. For another, it's really only with larger prints that one can start to get a sense of what GFX 50S is really capable of. Given that I have an Epson 3880, the largest prints I could make were 16x20 inches, but it was at least a starting point for reference and represented an improvement over viewing the photographs on a computer screen. Just to put things in perspective, though, it's when you start to print at 24x36 or larger that you really start to see the benefits that a medium format camera brings compared to APS-C or full-frame.

The other points where medium format cameras such as the GFX have advantages are in tonal gradation, acuity, and lens performance. While the Fuji GFX 50S doesn’t have an absolute resolution higher than some FF cameras, with a pixel area of 5.3 μm the area per pixel is approximately 30% larger than, for example, a Canon 5DSR, which means that for a given exposure the Fuji is going to capture more signal relative to noise. And more signal translates to more exposure latitude and a broader tonal range as well as potentially higher color accuracy. As mentioned in Part II, the ability of medium format to capture luminance variation across a broader range means, as Ming Thein has insightfully pointed out, greater control over how the highlights roll off in medium format.

Additionally, lenses designed for larger-format sensors have to make fewer optical compromises than lenses for smaller sensors, and generally suffer from less distortion and field curvature. These lenses also provide a finer degree of control over the range of depth-of-field and greater separation or distinction between the plane of focus and the out-of-focus areas of an image.

This provides us with more editing headroom, more control over the tonal range and depth-of-field, and as such, impacts how "natural" an image looks, particularly in a print. I liken this sense of naturalness to audio reproduction, where a first-class turntable playing a well-mastered and pressed LP or a high-resolution (e.g., 24/192) D/A converter renders a sonic presentation that sounds considerably more natural and musical than most 16/44 Redbook CDs played on a consumer-grade CD player. It can be tough to put into words, but you definitely know it when you hear or see it.

All this adds up to more "information" in an image, as well as more control by the photographer of how that information is edited or displayed, particularly in the print.

I wasn't able to compare prints from a Canon 5DSR or comparable FF cameras to a Fuji GFX, but I've spent quite a bit of time making and examining prints of the photographs presented in Part II. Black-and-white conversions were made using the Fujifilm Acros film preset from the RAW image in Lightroom, and printed on Epson Premium Luster paper using the Epson 3880's Advanced Black and White mode rather an ICC paper profile. "Norris Canyon Road" was the first photograph I took with the GFX that really started to give me a sense of what was medium format was all about. When printed, the tonal range—and, importantly, the camera’s ability to hold subtle gradations of tonality from the whites to the blacks—is impressive. The clouds have a soft, natural, look; the hills, fencing and pasture reveal midtones with highlights, midtones, and detail with subtlety yet clarity, and the quarter-tones and shadow regions of the trees and barn still reveal detail, texture and pattern.

The San Jose City Hall photographs possibly represent even more of a challenge, as the luminosity ranges from specular highlights that print near paper-white to blacks that are close to the Dmax of the printer's inkset. The photographs encompass quite a broad tonal range and, in some areas, a large amount of high-frequency detail, but, in viewing prints, one can see that the camera holds detail from the very brightest non-specular whites to down into the shadows towards the deep blacks. Gradations of tonality, surface, pattern, and texture are finely resolved, and the prints have the "silvery" quality of a silver gelatin print. Areas of windows, walls and doors that upon initial viewing appear to have no detail clearly show shadow detail and texture upon close examination under good lighting. I've sent three of the black-and-white prints to Mike, and hope that he will provide his insights and comments about them for the gang. [I will. —MJ]

The default color profile for the GFX, like the Fuji X-cams, is based on Provia, a film well-known for its accuracy and neutrality. I didn't make many color prints from the Indy Car race, but those I made were very accurate with respect to color, accuracy, saturation, and contrast, with gobs of detail—very Provia-like in color (even though Provia is a slide film).

Conclusions
The Fuji GFX is well-designed, beautifully made, and easy and intuitive to use. Its light weight and excellent ergonomics made it easy to shoot handheld, and, as I mentioned in Part I, the camera just gets out of the way of the photographer and lets you concentrate on your work rather than fiddling with the camera. The camera's operation and functionality just "falls to hand," so to speak, and, for a medium format camera, I found it to be responsive and snappy in use. Any camera that can lock focus and capture a racing car at speed is responsive enough for almost any real-world application in which one would use a medium format camera. The viewfinder and LCD viewing systems are just gorgeous in use, with accurate color and very fast refresh rates. An added plus is that, like the X-Pro2/X-T2, when shooting using the black-and-white film presets, you see your image and exposure in black and white as well. Most importantly, I literally never thought about the fact that I was using an EVF or, more to the point, that I was missing an OVF, when photographing with the GFX. In my opinion, EVFs have advanced to the point where they are more practical and useful than OVFs.

At the end of the day, medium format cameras all about image quality, or the attributes commonly regarded as image quality, and the GFX delivers those attributes in spades, with exceptional resolution, dynamic range, color and white balance accuracy, tonal range and gradation, editing headroom, and the control over distortion and the planes of D-o-F that medium format lenses bring.

An added plus using the GFX is that the metering and white balance is so good, so accurate, and the dynamic range so broad, that very little editing was required. Ninety-five percent of the time, if I had to do any editing, it was simply to tweak the black and white points of the histograms—and that, folks, was pretty much it. Standard sharpening and printing at 240 DPI for these photos yielded prints with very high level of detail without pushing either the image or printer to their full capabilities.

When the GFX 50S was announced at Photokina in 2016, there were a lot of expectations for this camera. Fujifilm was sending a message to the rest of the industry that it was fully committed to mirrorless and that it was "gettin' serious." Since its advent in the market, the GFX system has seen both rapid and widespread adoption by professionals and advanced amateurs as well as support from a surprisingly large number of third-party manufacturers.

Based on the camera's design, functionality, amazing image quality, flexibility and ease of use, and its continual development into a fully-fledged system with new lenses, accessories and recently, lighting systems (e.g. Profoto), I think it's destined to become a reference standard for many photographers as well as for the industry as whole. At a price of $6,499, it's difficult to think of this camera as an excellent value for money, but, if you get what you pay for, a camera with the capabilities of this one is an off-the-charts value proposition. The GFX delivers what it promises.

For me personally, I loved using and shooting with this camera. It immediately felt right at home. It was light, snappy, and fun to use. If you can afford to buy one, or have the opportunity to rent one, do so, and enjoy—but be mindful, as this camera has absolutely ruined me compared to anything else I've shot with when it comes to image quality.

I look forward to using the GFX again, and encourage anyone interested to do so as well.

Stephen

A scientist by profession and a photographer by avocation, Stephen Scharf has been a professionally accredited motorsports photojournalist since 2003. He’s currently one of the track photographers for Sonoma Raceway, covering all their professional motorsports and racing events for photojournalism, PR, and media purposes. His photographs have been published in numerous newspapers in the SF Bay Area, including the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as various motorsports websites and magazines. His work also includes landscape, architectural, urban exploration, fine art and documentary street photography.

©2017 by Stephen Scharf, all rights reserved

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

Fujifilm GFX 50S

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

Sony vs. Fuji: A Slight Change in Protocol

Lake Keuka shoreline near Penn Yan. Sony A6500
and Sony/Zeiss 16–70mm zoom.

I get grumpy easily when it comes to zoom lenses. To explain why, I'll just mention that when I bought a small used Mercedes in 2010*, it was the first car I ever owned that had an automatic transmission...

...And it drove me crazy because I never knew what gear it was in.

I realize that this is a simple failure on my part to get with the program: everybody in the world knows the whole point of automatic transmissions is that you just forget about gears and let the car take care of it.

But I wanted to know, and couldn't let go.

Anyway, right out of the gate I experienced some, er, disappointments with the Sony/Zeiss 16–70mm ƒ/4 lens on the Sony A6500. The picture above, for instance, is dead sharp in the middle of the shoreline and a bit unsharp on the edges, both north and south.

Since the point (for me) of the A6500 is the in-body image stabilization (IBIS), and the 16–70mm has in-lens IS to which the camera defers with that lens attached, I've decided to bring the sailboat about and take a different tack. Rather than take the time to figure out what if anything is wrong with the zoom—a potentially long process with a high probability of triggering grumpiness—I've decided to just get a Sony/Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA Sonnar and use that on the Sony, comparing it to the Fuji X-T2 with my XF 23mm ƒ/1.4. That way I'll be using the IBIS in the Sony and also be spared the obligation of testing a zoom lens to find out how it behaves, which can be a bit like describing the color of a chameleon. (The 16–70mm is known to be an excellent lens with a rather high occurrence of bad samples. The 93 reviews at Amazon include 55 five-star reviews and 11 one- and two-star reviews, for example. That's 11.83%, which is a little on the high side.)

I just want to know how my lenses behave and why, that's all. And that's much harder to figure out with a zoom than a prime ("prime" being a colloquial term for a fixed-focal-length lens).

Anyway, the nice folks at LensRentals are zooming a 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA Sonnar to me which should arrive today, and the 16–70mm is going back to B&H Photo, which kindly loaned me the A6500. LensRentals doesn't rent bad samples, and they test their rental returns to make sure of that. (The 16–70mm was new in the box.) I'm very familiar with the Zeiss 24mm, having owned one for a couple of years a few years back.

I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the 16–70mm, by the way. I'm saying I might have gotten a bad sample and didn't want to take the time to find out. I'm trying out the cameras, not the lenses.

The nice 2014 Acura ILX 2.4 I drive now, based on a Civic and built in Indiana, has the same drivetrain as the '14 Civic Si, including the same 2.4 liter motor and the same sweet, smooth stick shift. And soon I'll be shooting primes with both of this Autumn's test cameras. All shall soon be well in Mikey-land once more.

Mike

*It cost $24k, and magically convinced everyone that I had suddenly become rich. A friend who had just bought a brand-new $48,000 SUV exclaimed, "Ooh, fancy! I could never afford a Mercedes!" It did lose $9,000 of value in a mere three years even though it was already a used car to start with, so maybe I should have been rich to buy the thing, I don't know.

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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Juan Buhler: "My Leica M9's sensor cracked (!) a couple of months ago. So I used the A6000 with Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 exclusively during Peter Turnley's workshop in San Francisco last week. Peter already uploaded the workshop's photos (scroll down to see my images). BTW, this was Peter Turnley's first workshop in San Francisco, and it was excellent. I was privileged to assist Peter with the organization a little bit. It was a fantastic experience!"

Mike replies: Juan is a gifted street shooter who I've featured on TOP several times. Juan taking a workshop from Peter is a bit like Raphael taking a painting course from Michelangelo, but then again why not?

John Camp: "Maybe you should confine your lens testing to newspapers taped to the wall. That is a very nice shot and screw the softness, it's a very nice shot."

Mike replies: It is, and thank you, and I wouldn't hesitate to show it—the post was merely to explain why zooms can make me grumpy if I have to learn what they're doing and why they're doing it at every focal length and every aperture. It just takes a long time and a lot of shooting and a lot of looking to get to know a zoom well, that's all.

Sony vs. Fuji: Battle of the Diminutive Titans

No Goliath anywhere: just David vs. David.

Thanks to a loan from B&H Photo (the Sony) and the generosity of a friend (the Fuji), I have Fujifilm's top APS-C mirrorless camera, the X-T2, and Sony's top APS-C mirrorless camera, the A6500, sitting, as you can see, on the light table at TOP World Headquarters (AKA the windowsill in my family room). (Actually the Fuji is the co-top-of-the-line, with the X-Pro2). I'll be using both over the next month, and no doubt will have a few comments to post as I go along.

I'm reasonably familiar with both cameras, as I owned and used a NEX-6 for two and a half years and have been using my X-T1 for almost the past three.

What do you think of the lens choices? Fair fight?

I won't be starting to post until B&H gets back up and running after the Succos holiday closing. They supplied the Sony to me, so it's only fair that my links should go to their pages.

Looking forward to getting to know these guys!

Mike

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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Ken Tanaka: "You’re in for lots of fun this Fall. I’ve used both for quite some time. While they're both 'diminutive' they feel very different in practice. My preference? The Sony for its all-around performance and versatility, as well as its touch screen. But the Fuji is wonderful for the 'classic' photographer."

Fujifilm GFX Review Part I

Reviewed by Stephen Scharf

I recently rented a Fujifilm GFX 50S and the GF 32–64mm ƒ/4 zoom lens for a few days over a long weekend, a weekend that included my last professional motor race of the year, the Go Pro Grand Prix of Sonoma Indy Car race. To get a feel the camera in real-world settings, I thought it would be fun to use the GFX at the race for atmosphere, paddock and pit lane photos, as well as doing some landscape and architectural photography. This user review will be comprised of three parts: Part I, operation and first impressions; Part II, photographic use and image quality; and Part III, final impressions and conclusions.

Operation and first impressions
The GFX has the solid, robust feeling of a professional body, with all-magnesium construction and a grippy rubber covering. A deep front grip and extruded thumb rest ensure excellent purchase when holding the camera. The fit, finish, and overall build quality are excellent, as we’ve come to expect from Fujifilm.

As a Fuji X-T2 user, it was very easy to get up to speed with the GFX: the lens aperture rings and control knobs for setting ISO and shutter speed, the camera back with D-pad and function buttons and menu system are effectively identical to the X-T2. On the right side of the top cover there's an LCD in place of the exposure compensation knob that displays at a glance key camera settings, frames remaining, etc.

The 32–64mm ƒ/4 lens (25–51mm-e) is also very high-quality and well-made, the aperture ring having just the right amount of resistance to prevent accidental changes. The large rubber grip for the zoom ring makes holding the camera and lens very nicely balanced in-hand.

On both camera and lens, there are nicely thought-out design details. For example, the top surface of the ISO and shutter speed knobs are concave for improved ergonomics, a better feel turning the knobs and a more positive engagement of the locking buttons. The LCD articulates to the same positions as the X-T2, and also has a touch-screen to select both AF lock or position. In addition to the artificial horizon there is a set of half-rings with markings that can be displayed that show the degrees of pitch and roll of the camera.

Very cool.

There's also a framing outline that can be invoked on the LCD making it easier to see the frame borders when shooting against dark backgrounds, such as black seamless. Nice. Another big win is the self-timer can be set to remain invoked even if the camera is shut off.

The GF-series lenses have a "C" position in addition to the "A" setting on the aperture ring that allows setting of lens aperture with the command dial instead of the aperture ring if desired. There is also an interlock on the aperture ring of the lens that prevents selecting the C and A modes accidentally.

All these design details shows how well Fuji thinks things through regarding design, ergonomics, and functionality, providing photographers with the flexibility to configure the camera in a way that's best suited to their preferred style of operation.

Mounting the lens, the GFX is compact for a medium-format camera, but the most surprising thing is just how light it is. I don't know how Fuji made a camera and lens that are so well-made and robust, yet so light. Every photographer I showed the camera to remarked on its lightness.

Here’s a photo showing the GFX and 32–64mm next to my X-T2 for scale. The camera, with the 32–64mm attached, fits very easily into a Think Tank Retro 7 with room for an X-T2 and another lens or two.

Powering up, the camera starts up quickly and the electronic viewfinder is beautiful: big, bright, clear, and fast, with excellent resolution. The LCD is also very high-resolution and looks gorgeous. With the 32–64mm zoom lens mounted, I found the autofocus to be quite fast; likely faster than my X-T1, and plenty fast enough for the type of photography for which this camera was designed.

After taking a photo, there is a blackout of ~½ second, which is the time the Sony sensor takes to read out the data from the sensor. I noticed the blackout for the first five or six frames. The GFX is very much a "think about what you are doing before you take the photograph" kind of camera, and with that mentality in mind, after those first few frames, the blackout was something I never noticed when using the camera.

Pardon the cat photos, but these happen to be the very first shots I made with the GFX. I tried a to do a bit of product photography the night the camera arrived but my newly adopted little kitten, Aga, took over proceedings, so I took a few informal portraits of her.

This is a straight out-of-camera JPEG with virtually no editing.

The image below is a 100% crop (once you open it by double-clicking on it) of Aga’s cute little face. TOP's blog template unavoidably softens and blurs images somewhat, but take my word for it: the color, naturalness of tones, and detail, particularly on a 5K Retina display, are very impressive.

Overall, my first impressions are that the GFX is a very well-made and well-designed camera that is easy to pick up straightaway and start shooting with. Straight out-of-camera JPEGs show very accurate color and skin tones and impressive detail. They require little to no editing. The camera's compact size and light weight make it very easy to shoot with effectively hand-held.

More soon. In Part II I'll concentrate on using the GFX in a real-world photographic setting, and an evaluation of image quality.

Stephen

A scientist by profession and a photographer by avocation, Stephen Scharf has been a professionally accredited motorsports photojournalist since 2003. He’s currently one of the track photographers for Sonoma Raceway, covering all their professional motorsports and racing events for photojournalism, PR, and media purposes. His photographs have been published in numerous newspapers in the SF Bay Area, including the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as various motorsports websites and magazines. His work also includes landscape, architectural, urban exploration, fine art and documentary street photography.

©2017 by Stephen Scharf, all rights reserved

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

Go big
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

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.