The Online Photographer

Panny Fan (Good Grief, It's Tough Being a...)

Why don't camera companies ever do what I want? Don't they know they're supposed to? Obligatory LOL.

I happened to notice the other day that you still can't buy a GX9 "body only."

As Charlie Brown says, AAUGH! (I actually remember learning to spell "Aaugh!" like Charles Schultz did when I was about nine. Reading all the way through Peanuts Treasury one weekend at the house of some family friends was an important facet of my childish education.)

I still own four Micro 4/3 lenses (the 20mm, the 12–35mm, the 45mm Macro—all Panasonics—and an old Oly kit lens). I figured I'd hang on to them for when Panasonic came out with a Mark II version of the GX8.

But then the camerapocalypse happened and sales started to plummet almost as radically as they once soared, and it became obvious that a GX8 Mark II was not in the cards. I'm not blaming the company.

Still, it's frustrating being a Panny fan. The camera that got me into the fold, the GF1—beautiful, solid little brick, not the greatest sensor—was never updated. When that died I got a GX1, and tried to like it but didn't. My second-favorite Panasonic, the GX8, which I liked a lot but which also had a few problems, was replaced with an updated GX7, a camera I had also owned but hadn't bonded with. (Reading between the lines, you can see I was sticking with Panasonic but not batting 1.000.) They updated my favorite lens, but failed to improve its flaws. What? All they did was change the cosmetics and add a shiny little surround to the front element, as a fake way to make the front element look bigger—a dubious move at best—but they didn't improve the too-slow autofocus. When I finally decided okay, okay, there's never going to be a GX8 Mark II so maybe I'll just go along with the program and get a GX9, dang it all—well, that wasn't going to work either, because you couldn't buy the camera without buying the kit lens too.

I hate being forced into things like that. I already have a Panasonic Micro 4/3 midrange zoom I like, thank you. The 12–35mm ƒ/2.8. And it was expensive, too, bub. I don't want to buy another zoom. Yeah, I know I could buy the kit and sell the kit lens, but what a hassle. Besides, you know me...I'd have to compare the two lenses before I sold one on. More work for me. And then I'd probably get lazy and neglect to sell the kit lens and then I'd have another extra Micro 4/3 zoom in my camera closet next to the old Oly. So I figured I'd just wait until the GX9 was available all on its lonesome, and maybe I'd pick one up.

Never gonna happen, apparently. (You can get a card and a grip for an extra two dollars, though.)

I don't need a camera, so I guess this doesn't involve me. (Although I haven't actually needed a camera since 1980, so I don't know what that's got to do with anything.) But it seems strange that Panasonic wouldn't sell me a camera the way I'd like to buy it if I did want to buy one. Guess now I have to figure out if I should sell my Micro 4/3 lenses. I hate to leave the system. I love the system.

I have only one thing to say:

(Here's the link to that.)

I wonder if other people have love/AAUGH! relationships with camera companies.

I did stumble across a nice 3-D printed grip for the GX9 on eBay. Oh, it's $21 and fifty bucks for shipping...yeah, that figures!

Charlie Brown Mike

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Viewfinder of the New Pentax

Next week's crit print is gorgeously well crafted. I picked one that came in a stout box thinking it wouldn't be damaged this time. Another picturesque subject, but still, good things to talk about.

I really like it that I got to launch the "Print Crit" with a "lo-fi" black-and-white inkjet print made from a digital image of the groundglass of a camera obscura—an image cast by a single-meniscus lens in a brass barrel. That tickles me with its radical combination of now and then. And what nice serendipity—it really was the first package I opened. Thanks again to Frank.

A camera obscura is really just a viewfinder, when you think about it. It's a way of looking at the image cast or projected by a lens. A slide projector in reverse, essentially.

I've always been fascinated, and somewhat preoccupied I guess, by viewfinders. They're a crucial feature of almost all cameras. They dictate how precisely we can see what the film is going to capture, and with what kind of fidelity to the scene. Almost all cameras have some sort of way to "find the view" and how they do it determines to an important extent how the camera operator, the photographer, is able to interact with the scene in front of her. 

Dorothea Lange with the camera she used to take "Migrant
Mother." I've looked through one of those.

I've experienced a very large number of camera viewfinders over many decades. Peering through the tiny, dark tunnel of a 1940s rangefinder is very different from looking at the groundglass of an oversized view camera under a dark cloth, which is very different from lining up your eye with the rectangle of a wire "sports finder," which is very different from looking at the screen on the back of your smartphone (which is often a very nice viewfinder, I have to say. Except in sunlight). A viewfinder has a big impact on the character and "personality" of any given camera.

Pentax, an old friend
That's why I was pleased to learn that Pentax is paying special attention to the viewfinder of its upcoming new APS-C flagship camera, as yet unnamed. Bad luck for Pentax, which doesn't release very many truly new cameras, that it planned to launch its new flagship reduced-sensor-size DSLR at CP+, which normally would have taken place at the dual venues of Pacifico Yokohama and Osanbashi Hall in Yokohama, Japan, in February. Of course it was cancelled this year, so the introduction is on hold.

A video's been released that indicates something pleasing, though, which is that Pentax has paid special attention to the viewfinder. It will reportedly have a magnification of 1.05x (that's magnification, not coverage), making it as generously and luxuriously sized as a full-frame camera's viewfinder. This is particularly smart now that DSLRs are in decline and EVFs are proliferating—the one thing an EVF can't do is give you a direct view of the real world, letting the photographer see the real colors of the subject and the subtleties of the actual light.

I reviewed a number of early Pentax DSLRs and owned a couple, up to the K-5 of 2010. My problem with it wasn't with the camera...it's just that I'm pretty set regarding the focal lengths I like to use. Historically I characterized my lens use as follows: a ~35–40mm-equivalent prime, 80% of the time; an ~80–90mm-e prime portrait lens, 15%; and a wide-angle, 5%. If money was tight for people, I advocate spending the most money on the lens you use the most, and the least money on the one you use the least—assuming you have a good idea of how much you use what. I also think it's important that, in any given product lineup, there should be a lens you really like as your main lens. Pentax had a lens I absolutely adored optically, the 35mm Macro (full-dress name, the Pentax HD Pentax DA 35mm ƒ/2.8 Macro Limited, designed by Kato Koji, which Hoya later licensed to Tokina [thanks to Mistral75 for this information—see the first Featured Comment]), but, while I like ~50mm-e lenses and have used them a lot, they're a tad long to suit my preference for all-the-time use. The Macro, at ƒ/2.8, is a little slow as well—no real problem of course, but, for your main all-purpose lens, there are just going to be times when you'd prefer to it be a stop or two faster.

To make a long story short (unless it's too late for that), by 2012 I had just gotten weary of waiting for Pentax to come out with something in the neighborhood of the ~24mm ~ƒ/2 APS-C lens that I wanted. I've been very happy since then with wonderful lenses like the Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA, the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm ƒ/1.7, and my current Fuji XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 R. (Fuji has not one, not two, but three primes in my "sweet spot" range.)

(My departure from Pentax was discussed at the time, as I discovered while researching this post, in a six-page thread on Pentax Forums. One forumer, trying hard to be cynical, said "In all reality, it probably comes down to the fact that he makes more money promoting more mainstream cameras...," to which the OP, a Pentaxian called panoguy, answered, "If it was a camera review site, or some up-and-coming blogger trying to get lots of advertising and links, you might be right. However, this blogger is known for writing what he thinks, admitting his (and other's) faults, and basically not trying to be an opinion leader. Perhaps that's why he is an opinion leader!" I never saw that at the time, but what a nice compliment. Made my morning. Belated thanks, panoguy.)

'It's not you, it's me' —George Costanza
Of course, the world doesn't owe you what you want just because you want it. But I'm glad I didn't keep waiting, because today, eight years later, Pentax still doesn't offer a prime lens option in the 35–40mm-e range. Our failure to align is not Pentax's fault; it's my fault. Theirs is a business decision and I'm sure they made the right choice for the company. At the same time, it made no sense for me to stick with a brand that doesn't offer the focal length I use the most, so I made the right choice too. Simple as that.

I had a beef with Ricoh (which owns Pentax) for a while, too. They advertised on this site, and when Ricoh took over, they stiffed me on the bill! Walked away with $2,500 worth of advertising and refused to pay for it. What, too much for you, Ricoh? It was a lot to me. Scoundrels.

However, I would still review the new Pentax APS-C flagship, to catch up with an old friend and to relate the new camera to their historical offerings. But mostly to see how they fared in optimizing the optical viewfinder for the format. That's exciting. To me, at least, it's enough to distinguish the as-yet unnamed new flagship and give it an identity. Congratulations to project managers Tetsuya Iwasaki and Shigeru Wakashiro for attempting to make the most of the most important of a DSLR's advantages over mirrorless...it is a wise choice for right now.

Mike

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

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

Mistral75: "Hi there. The HD Pentax-DA 35mm ƒ/2.8 Macro Limited was not sourced from Tamron. It's an original Pentax design from the Hoya era. Japanese patent No. 4874852 published on February 15th, 2012 (patent application filed on April 9th, 2007; application No. 2007-101302). US patent No. US 7,715,118 B2 published on May 11th, 2010 (patent application filed on April 4th, 2008; application No. 12/062,721). Link. Inventor: Kato Koji. Hoya licensed the optical formula of the 35mm ƒ/2.8 Macro Limited to Tokina (not Tamron). Tokina used it for their AT-X 35mm ƒ/2.8 Pro DX Macro.

Mike replies: Thank you for that. I corrected the error.

Albert Smith: "It is not only Pentax, Nikon lost me when they failed to fill out their DX lens line. They came out with a petite 35mm ƒ/1.8 giving a normal lens angle of view that performed very well. I was sure it was the start of a system of DX lenses to parallel the full frame range, but no. They have terrific DX cameras, but if you have to mount full frame lenses to get the lens you want, you might as well go full frame. The full frame 35mm ƒ/1.8 G lens on a D750 is smaller than mounting the full frame 24mm ƒ/1.8 on a D500...so why use Nikon DX for the moderate focal lenths? Today I use only FX Nikon and went elsewhere for DX. I went all Fujifilm for my DX system and have way too many choices for my favorite range of focal lengths."

Aaron: "Upon my return to film photography recently I discovered and fell in love with the old all mechanical Pentax MX—and one of the main draws for me is its huge viewfinder. Pure joy to look through and bigger than any of my other SLRs digital or film. As I’ve played with various digital and film systems, I’ve found that a lot of my personal evaluation of a camera depends on the viewfinder. When actually out taking photographs I spend more time looking through a viewfinder than doing anything else with the camera, so I want a good one. Another bonus of the MX is that it’s such a small SLR that when paired with the old Pentax 40mm ƒ/2.8 pancake lens it’s hardly bigger than an old fixed lens rangefinder. (The 40mm 2.8 pancake doesn’t seem to get much love online because of its image quality—but if I’m after absolute technical quality I’m not shooting a 40 year old 35mm format film camera anyway, so it doesn’t bother me in the least)."

Did GoPro Steal My Friend Kenny's Camera?

This is my friend Kenny's experience with trying to buy a new GoPro camera.

He heard that there were unscrupulous people on eBay, so to be safe he decided to go directly to GoPro to buy his new camera. The camera he wanted retails for $399 and is on sale for $299.

There was also a $100 trade-in offer for older cameras. He had an older camera that he paid "three hundred and something" for. So he assumed that the offer would mean $100 off the sale price of $299, making the total price of the new camera $199. (Note that his old camera still works and is still useful, and he would have been happy to have it as a backup, or to give to his brother.) So he sent in his old camera and waited.

To his surprise, when GoPro received his old camera they charged him $399, minus $100 for the old camera, making a total of...$299, the exact same price the camera is available for even if he didn't trade in his old camera.

He, er, complained. Kenny is an ex-Marine who served at Guantanamo and in Iraq, so he doesn't take a lot of, you know, shit.

GoPro's response was that only one promotion is available per sale. So Kenny demanded his old camera back and said he would pay the $299 sale price straight up for the new camera.

GoPro refused to return it.

So then Kenny asked what would happen if he wants his money refunded, no deal, no purchase. Fine, Sir, we'll return your $299.

But not your old camera.

What? Right. Even with no transaction, they refused to return his camera to him!

He said, "[expletive deleted] you are [expletive deleted] STEALING MY CAMERA!!!" But of course the Customer Service person didn't have any power to make the situation right. Fuming, Kenny spent hours trying to reach someone who could set the situation right, and got nowhere.

My opinion is that he's correct—GoPro swindled him out of his old camera, giving him zero value for it in return and not allowing him to undo the deal once he realized he'd been ripped off. They're effectively confiscating his personal property for no other reason than that they already have their grubby paws on it and he's powerless.

He told me he got online and found other people complaining about the same double-cross.

He was so angry he was losing sleep over it, so he decided to let it go just for his peace of mind. 

But other people should be warned.

Be careful. Don't assume GoPro will be responsible or ethical just because you're dealing directly with the company.

Mike

P.S. I asked GoPro for comment via an email to pr@gopro.com (PR = public relations). If and when I hear back, I'll Update this post.

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

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

Benjamin Marks: "Kenny should explain to the customer service representative, and any manager he can reach, that his very next call is going to be to the Attorney General of the state where Go Pro is located to report an incident of fraud. 'Cause when you take somebody's property for nothing and refuse to return it, that's theft. And when you induce them to enter into a transaction that is intended to enrich with a false promise, that's fraud."

Moose: The old camera came in and was dumped, without ceremony or ID of source, in the bin of old cameras of no value to GoPro. It's the same as a coupon, to them. Even if the bin hadn't already gone in the dumpster and on to landfill by the time he complained, there's no way to identify his particular 'trade-in.' Just a guess.  \;~)>  "

Gordon Lewis: "I went to the GoPro offer website to see the fine print. At the bottom of the page are two footnotes:

1 Any GoPro or digital camera with an original retail value of at least $99.99 USD (or equivalent value in local currency) is eligible for trade-in.

2 Trade-in transactions are final; after you trade in your Eligible Used Device, you cannot get it back.

"This doesn't mean that I have no sympathy for your friend's predicament. I'm only pointing out that because GoPro's website offered full disclosure, he unfortunately has no legal recourse."

Mike replies: I'm not sure the issue is that they didn't cover their asses with the fine print; he realizes that now, and actually he realized it before he got angry about it. The issue is whether their advertising was deliberately misleading, and did not fairly reflect the caveats in the fine print. He ordered the camera off his phone, and this is the page he saw:

And as I understand it, he called them first to make sure the cash price was $299.99 before he proceeded. I think he can be excused for not realizing, from that, the caveats in the fine print that you cite.

And by the way, to add insult to injury, his new camera arrived yesterday, and guess what? The "Free 32GB SD Card Included" was not included!

Iran: "GoPro is near dead and I can see why. I wouldn't do business with them and I say this as someone who lives two miles away from their headquarters. They're all about themselves."

Roger Overall: "GoPro had a loyal customer in Kenny and they've turned off the tap of any future revenue from him (I'm guessing). Not only that, I'm in the market for a GoPro-like device. Now I'm a little less attracted to them. The damage this kind of behaviour does to GoPro's future sales is remarkable. Imagine if a very popular photography blog got wind of it...."

Bryan Geyer: "A large, well established, highly reliable, and ultra-ethical retailer is always your best source. In most cases, they will also prove to be the cheapest supplier as well, and the fastest to process and ship your order. Nobody meets that criteria better than B&H Photo. See their Go Pro listings."

#$%! Fuji

Irascible aside: I've been shooting raw for years, ever since Bruce Fraser's Real World Camera Raw changed my life. However, I think I might be done trying to convert Fuji raw files. The out-of-camera (OoC) JPEGs seem to always look better than the raw conversions, and don't seem to be that much less correctable. Even comparing Capture One conversions, which are supposedly among the best, the OoC JPEGs look better.

There's been an awful lot of argument online over the years as to what the best Fuji raw conversion software is. Maybe the best Fuji raw converter is simply the camera.

Or maybe I'm rusty in more ways than one, and just have more work to do.

Mike

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

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

Jamie Pillers: "To confuse matters even further, you could think about trying Fujifilm's X Raw Converter software. To use it, you plug your camera into the computer; then the software uses the raw processor in the camera to make the conversions. I haven't tried it, but it sounds interesting. Like you, Mike, I've been happy with Fuji's JPEG output for years. But the constant online chatter about 'best RAW converter for Fuji files' has kept nagging at me."

Tim Bradshaw: "I'm not sure why it's surprising that the best raw converter for a camera made by company x is...made by company x. It is really more surprising that sometimes it isn't made by company x. And of course, if company x is sensible, then rather than dealing with the crawling horror of incompatibility involved in making their raw converter work with whatever tangle of partly-broken software people are using this week, they will ship their converter in a powerful, special-purpose computer system every detail of whose hardware and software they control."

Albert Smith: "I am currently shooting with an X-Pro2 and an X-T2 and after fine tuning the multiple parameters within each film simulation, I am enjoying the SOoC JPEGs as the end item for my photography. To be sure, this required multiple shooting sessions in real world conditions to get the highlight and shadow settings the way I like, but I can now cycle through the finder after hitting the Q button and bring up the best simulation for the situation. Both these cameras have identical settings and I entered a narrative into the menu display so that I need only read the top of the Q screen for, 'general color,' 'high contrast color,' 'outdoor B&W,' etc. During three decades of slide shooting, there was no post processing. I use this same approach with the Fujifilm simulations...expose and compose correctly and it's like getting a box of slides back from the lab when I dump the images into the computer."

Taking the Camera for a Walk

Me and my shadow

You might be happy to know I put a Fujicron on the Fuji and a leash on the dog and took them for a walk yesterday evening. Exposed about 40 perfectly dreadful, junky pictures of nothing which are not worth a half second of anyone's attention. All my pictures are just so much the kind of picture I would take. Don't ya hate that? But it made me feel better so I'm glad I went. Butters was more productive...he sniffed and sniffed until he found just the spot and then cut a deuce. My chops are so rusty they're almost frozen. But the camera sure is fun to shoot. We got home and I spent a happy hour poking amongst YouTube videos of how to set up this-and-that on the X-H1. Got a few more things sorted to satisfaction.

Did anyone buy an X-H1 when it was on closeout? It got all the way down to $999 if memory serves. It strikes me as a simply amazing camera; virtually everything on it is well thought out and beautifully implemented, and works smoothly and effectively.

One thing I noticed yesterday that I had never noticed before is that the full-stop detents on the lens are ever-so-slightly more detented than the one-third stops in between. You can actually tell with your eyes closed if the lens is on a full stop setting. Who thinks of that?

All things considered, the Fujicron (I have the 35mm ƒ/2, and keep meaning to get the 23mm ƒ/2) is a very practical lens. Doesn't put a foot wrong as our British friends say. It's small and portable and the ƒ/2 maximum aperture is reasonably fast. It performs beautifully. It's weatherproof, has a real aperture ring, and autofocuses quickly and silently. The hood is tiny but effective. It doesn't even cost much. What more could anybody reasonably want in a lens?

Mike

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

Please help support TOP through Patreon

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

Michael J. Perini: "Well that was a refreshing post, and you even 'sound' happier.

"As you well know, like any other skill, when you lay off for a while you get rusty. Once the camera handling becomes second nature, the rust falls away fast. Speaking from personal experience, I am always surprised at just how fast 'rust' forms on all those 'hand/eye/brain' interchanges. Two years ago I was as close to the top of my form as I have ever been. I carried a big camera everywhere and pictures were made before the camera got up to my eye to press the button. On a cold January day I was putting the plow on my truck when suddenly I thought I heard a shot and found myself on my back in the snow in an awful lot of pain. Turns out, there was no shot, I had simply torn the quadriceps tendon in my right leg. My kneecap was suddenly four inches too low. Twelve weeks in an immobilization cast, 16 weeks of rehab and the reward for that was a problem in the other knee.

"Slowly getting better, but now my pictures suck. Not all, just most, and I can see I'm not sharp. It really is just regularly doing the work that gets you sharp. You still know all the stuff you knew, you know how things work, and you know how to look. It's the execution that slips. I made the first good one in a while this week, and it positively lifts you, changes your expectation, even makes you feel a little less...old. Same camera, a favorite lens, and time working....do it until the camera and lens disappear and it is just you and all that possibility.

"As Nike says, just do it. Every good one lifts you. What is more, the process lifts you. I'm a huge believer in Jay Maisel's 'go out empty.' We've nothing to lose but the malaise that comes from not working."

Mike replies: Wow, so sorry to hear about your tendon. That's tough. Wishing you the best with that, and thanks for the good comments and encouragement.

Steve Biro: "I got the X-H1 with grip for about $1,100 a couple of months before the price dropped to $999. I don't know if the rock-bottom price included the grip or not. But I'm not complaining. I usually use my larger, heavier Fuji lenses on the X-H1—mostly the XF 16–55mm ƒ/2.8 and 90mm ƒ/2. But the XF 23mm and 35mm ƒ/1.4 primes are on the short list as well. My lighter zooms are usually found on my X-T3 and the Fujicrons on both the X-T3 and the X-Pro2.

"I'm quite happy with my Fuji gear. But I'm still trying to decide if I want to sell the X-Pro2 in order to buy an X-Pro3. And don't get me started on whether I should consolidate the X-H1 and X-T3 for an X-T4, with IBIS."

Mike replies: Fuji did me a big solid by giving the X-T4 a flip-out video-style screen. I much prefer the X-T3/X-H1 -style flip-up viewing screen, which I think is one of the best things Fuji has engineered, so it means I don't have to consider "flipping" to an X-T4. Otherwise that might be nagging at my brain too.

Best Camera for Carrying All the Time

What's the best camera for carrying with you all the time? Sara Piazza mentioned the Panasonic Lumix LX100 Mark II in her featured comment to the twin calves post, and, after my encounter with Moses and Hope, I had just been idly looking at that very thing last night (I can drift into casual shopping mode at the drop of a hat. It's seldom serious, just diversion, usually late in the evening when I'm too tired to do anything else. For years I have avoided news near bedtime, lest it trouble my sleep).

Looks big. 'Tisn't.

The only time I carried a camera with me all the time was during my three years with the Leica M6, which might have been 1991–4. Then I got the job as Editor of Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques and I sat in a windowless cube of an office all day, every day, and wearing the Leica day after day at my desk soon became absurd, comical, Kafkaesque.

Seems to me there are two schools. One is that you get the smallest camera you possibly can and stash it in a purse, pocket, briefcase or backpack. The other is that you get a small camera but one that fits your hands and has some weight, the better to carry it on a strap hanging from your shoulder, and that's the way you keep it with you. The latter is what I did with my Leica. "You put it on in the morning and take it off at night, like your shirt," said David Vestal.

I do know photographers who never carry a camera unless they're giving 100% of their attention to photographing. They either want to be concentrating on it fully or not thinking about it at all.

A reader actually gave me an X100s a few years ago, and I found I wasn't using it so (with his blessing) I passed it on (i.e., sold it. There is much churn of cameras when you write about them, and that's been a constant up-and-down for me for 32 years). Isn't that a pretty perfect carry-all-the-time camera, or is it too delicate and fussy? I seem to remember that Michael McCaskey drifted away from his and got something else.

A further step up the ladder of behaviors is when you have a big camera that you only get out when you're photographing deliberately and purposefully. For me there's some mysterious dividing line...a small enough camera, and I will take it with me, hanging from my shoulder. But let it get just a little too big, and I leave it home unless I am going out specifically to photograph. This doesn't seem to be something I consciously decide, but it's been an observable behavior with me. The X-H1 seems to be on the far side of that mysterious divide for me...it's just big enough that I never take it with me unless I specifically mean to photograph. Too much to carry on the off chance of the herpetologist at the Walgreens (per RubyT's featured comment).

Josh Hawkins carries (carried?) a big Canon DSLR with a 35mm ƒ/1.4 all the time, though, so different strokes.

The best camera for carrying all the time for you? Do you even do that, or wish to?

Mike
(Thanks to RubyT and Sara Piazza)

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

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

BERND REINHARDT: "I actually ended up buying the X100s from you, and after a summer trip, I too sold it to a friend. I quickly realized that whenever I carry any camera with me, it might as well be the best one for the job. The occasions when I would say 'I will take the X100s over my Leica today' just didn't materialize. I remind myself of this anytime I get tempted to buy a 'small' camera now."

Dave Jenkins: "I pick up the X-H1 when I'm going out to photograph. I pick up the Fuji X-Pro1 with the 27mm (42mm equiv.) ƒ/2.8 lens when I'm just going out. I've been doing the 'on with my shirt, off with my shirt' thing for more than 50 years. My family refers to my camera as my 'appendage' or my 'growth.'"

Kenneth Tanaka: "Any relatively recent model of smartphone with a good camera system. Period. For me that’s an iPhone 11 Pro. I know many people grumble and grouse that this is not a 'real,' as you also have done in the past. But the loss from their prejudice is theirs. 'Invest' in a good smartphone and learn to master its camera. That means practice, practice, practice as you did with that old SLR blunderbuss of yore. Third party camera apps are no longer genuinely useful on the iPhone. In fact they don’t have access all the mediative facilities that the camera system offers. Stick with the native camera app.

"Next level up for me: the Sony RX100. Currently for me it's a Mark VII but any recent model is fine. It’s simply a stupendous super cam that can go almost anywhere. Look at some of my own work online as evidence."

Mike replies: I want to get behind the Sony RX100 VII, but it seems just ungodly expensive to me...thirteen hundred dollars for a little 1"-sensor digicam?! That doesn't seem reasonable for anybody but Sony.

Andrew Lamb: "The choice changes with however my back is feeling. I'm the same age as you and in reasonably good health but there are times when the thought of lugging a camera around is too much. There are times when I go walking when the only accessory I want is my dog."

schralp: "For about the same price, you can get the Z50 with the 'pancakey' 16–50mm lens. Although not loved by reviewers (who are hard to please these days) it is a very solid performer and the z mount is promising. It is about the same size, has a built-in flash, an APS-C sensor and allows you to change lenses."

Rob de Loe: "I used to carry a Ricoh GR all the time 'just in case.' It was an excellent camera, very small, very capable. However, I've passed through and out of that phase. I'm definitely in the 'all the way or don't bother' camp. I see countless interesting photographs all the time, every day; I can't turn it off. But I'm just not interested in making random pictures anymore, especially with a phone camera. If I'm carrying a camera these days, it's because I'm trying to make a photograph."

Steve Rosenblum: "Minolta CLE with M Rokkor 40mm ƒ/2 lens or Voigtlander Color Skopar 28mm ƒ/3.5 lens. Easily fits in a jacket pocket, especially with the 28mm which is little rock-solid jewel of a lens. If in a digital mood—Fujifilm X100V. The Fuji X100 series vastly improved once it got to the X100F and the autofocus got fast enough. The earlier models had too much focus lag. Now is is an ideal 'decisive moment digital' carry-everywhere camera."

Bob Hansen: "Sara's comments on her new Lumix LX100 II and your picture of this little gem brought a smile to my face. Being a Sony shooter for many years I have missed the the multiple exposure features of other brands. A friend recently showed a number of wonderful multiple exposure prints and mentioned he used the little LX 100. I tried it and bought it for the multiples but am smitten with what I am getting out of it. I also have the original Sony RX100 and have carried it like an additional appendage for years, however, the LX100 is now permanently attached to my body. I photograph, as you say, deliberately; however, carrying my extra appendage has given me many special images that otherwise would not be in my portfolio.

"Keep safe and well—we'll soon be out and about again."

Sara Piazza: "Gosh, famous on TOP—what fun! Part of what makes the Lumix work for me (aside from its being a great little camera) is the small padded bag that I keep it in, worn cross-shoulder. It's barely noticeable, plus it holds a battery and a couple o' cards. The camera is protected, and always there.

"I have been photographing for fifty years and have been through lots of cameras, but never have I been as pleased as I am with this one for everyday use (and I'd go really nuts if its screen tilted). I thought my top-notch phone camera would be the answer—and the Note 10 Plus does have a great camera, but it's slippery, and I can't even touch the thing without checking email and messages and social media, and I just wanted more pro options. And just so you know, I was out this evening with the EOS R, a 600mm big beast, and tripod, to shoot the paschal moon (wearing the Lumix, of course). Happy holidays. Sara from the Vineyard."

David Raboin: "I was always too careful about my photography purchases to buy a 'go everywhere camera.' Every camera or lens purchase had to go towards building the most capable kit and I ended up with a DSLR and giant, fast lenses. Even though it was big I took my DSLR almost everywhere. Last fall, TOP reader Ned Bunnell loaned me his Ricoh GR II for a long term test. It took me only five days to decide to buy my own GR III.

"Any camera that'll fit in your pocket is going to have compromises. You can tell that Ricoh's engineers are also photographers because they made all the right choices. With the GR you get a moderately fast prime lens coupled to a great sensor. You can operate the camera quickly with one hand. The GR is the only camera I know of that's as convenient to carry as my cell phone yet the controls are so easy that I can easily shoot one-handed, in full manual mode while pulling a suitcase through a crowd. The pictures look as great, killer lens and sensor. And the image stabilization means I can take pics hand-held in the dark. And the best feature is the camera's unassuming body. Nobody notices you are taking photos. It's easier to get street photos as well as true candid shots at home. I love it."

Kristine Hinrichs: "That LX100 II is my walking around camera. The colors are really nice, the mono color JPEGs are very good and I can even get good distance shots with the digital teleconverter. I have custom modes set for the later two and find it easy to use them. It is really pocketable."

How To Buy a Camera in 16 Easy Steps

If you want to be a photographer, here's one process for picking a camera.

First, decide whether you want to be a photographer or a camera hobbyist. There's a little overlap but not as much as most people assume. To pick which camera to buy:

1. Reflect on what kind of shooter you are and what you want to photograph.
2. Set a defined limit for the shopping period. Several months, maybe even up to a year if you're saving your money. But set a limit. Do not violate this intention; it is crucial. Defer your decision until the end of your chosen time period. Even if you think you've made up your mind sooner.
3. Set your budget for a minimum of one camera and one lens.
4. Define a range or area of products to explore, i.e., compact cameras, fixed lens cameras, FF cameras, whatever it might be.
5. Try five or six of the leading contenders that you can see, hold, look through and test-fire in person.
6. Choose one or two of the most useful lenses. Plan to add up to two or three more in the future. Two to five lenses is all anyone ever needs. In fact, if you have more than five lenses, get rid of the ones you use least. The fewer lenses you use regularly, the better your photographs will be.
7. When the time comes, make your camera decision. Be aware that it isn't critical; the more difficult the choice is between two products, the closer they are to each other and the less it matters which way you go. If you're really stuck and can't choose between two cameras, flip a coin. It really matters that little.
8. Now, stop shopping.
9. Study the camera, its controls, and its manual. This should be done as quickly but as thoroughly as possible. Devote some serious time to it; study it like you're cramming for a college exam. Note that there will be a test...or rather tests, plural. On an ongoing basis.
10. Set up the camera for the way you're going to use it and stop worrying about that.
11. At first, force yourself to get out and use the camera regularly. Touch it every day. Handle it a lot. Give yourself shooting challenges. Work out how you're going to hold the camera for horizontals and verticals, from low and high positions, eyelevel or waistlevel, etc. Switch from one configuration to another and back again. You're learning it. Don't worry about what you're taking pictures of; just get out and do it. The point is to get fluent as quickly as possible. If you can't go out shooting, then shoot what you can where you are—dentist's waiting room, stopped in traffic, shopping for groceries, whatever, doesn't matter. Do this for several months.
12. Every day at the same time, take out the camera in your living room and and run through the settings and practice your holding techniques. Three minutes is fine. Five minutes is plenty. Ten minutes is too much—you'll never keep it up if you do that much.
13. You've stopped shopping, right? No more reading online reviews. No more perusing manufacturers' offerings. No more thinking about any equipment you didn't choose. Stop it. None of that matters at all.
14. After you've made friends with the camera, you can buy a second body, but only if you want to. Buy one that is identical to the first. It's just a backup.
15. After you've made friends with the camera, stop shooting randomly. Pick serious projects or ways of working and concentrate your shooting only on serious work. Aside from your nightly five minutes, don't shoot casually and randomly. Look forward to the times you get to use your camera! Be prepared for those times and savor them. 
16. Stick with the same one or two bodies and two to five lenses as long as you possibly can. Repeat the above process as infrequently as possible. Change will come, faster than you think; there's just no need to rush it. Wear that camera out.

And if you want to be a camera hobbyist, well:

Nothing wrong with that. Shop continuously and indefinitely and get bogged down in it like a mastodon in a tar pit; tie your identity to brands; familiarize yourself in excruciating detail with entire systems and product lines; buy too many lenses; compare features exhaustively; argue your choices online; pursue infinitesimal differences of image "quality"; learn about and critique the business strategies of the camera companies; amass cameras like treasure; and maybe take a few pictures every once in a while!

You detect a certain tone in that, of course, but, really, cameras make a great hobby. I've loved it, myself.  :-)

Mike

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

You can help support TOP through Patreon

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

Earl Dunbar: "This is excellent advice. I’ve actually followed (most of) these steps on occasion, but not always. So guilty of being a gear guy at times.

"This does remind me, however, of a true story told to me at a camera shop (remember those?) I once frequented back in the early '80s. One of the clerks told me about a customer (someone I had seen in the shop but didn’t really know) who was taking forever to decide on a 35mm system. However it came about, at one point the shop allowed the customer to call Ansel Adams on the store phone. Virginia answered the phone, and when the customer asked for Ansel, she had him come to the phone. The customer proceeded to explain that he didn’t know which of two choices (Minolta or Canon, as I recall) was the best. Ansel answered, 'Which one do you like?' 'I kind of like the Minolta.' Ansel: 'That’s a good camera.' Customer: 'Thanks!' And he bought the Minolta. I swear this is true."

Bernard: "Are there even two cameras in that group that focus in the same direction, stop-down in the same direction, and have shutter speeds laid out the same way? I think not. It would drive me mental.... How do you expect to re-learn to play the piano when all the keys are in different places every time? You know, you may have been on to something with that whole one camera, one lens thing. It will be interesting to follow."

Dave Van de Mark: "This topic is right up my alley! Or is it alleys! Just having been awarded a grant by the National Park Service to do some specific work in the redwoods, I am into the search for what clearly will be my last shot at a high-rez camera—for very practical reasons: funds are minimal and I'm 77. So I must respond to your 16 points as I feel they apply to me. All in fun, of course. I'll skip past any of the above that I'm following much in the way you suggest.

1.) I am a wide angle landscape shooter, period. No more reflections needed.

2.) Time period for shopping is short due to project needing to start this spring. I am mapping out about three scenarios, obviously based on restraints I am required to live by.

4.) Only one range ideally: High resolution full frame mirrorless; fall back is APS-C Fujifilm.

5.) I cannot pretest anything and neither do I want to; 50+ years of photography 'experience' and massive amounts of online info will guide me here. Wish I did know more about how risky it is to buy refurbished.

6.) No plans to add more lenses; the greatest extent would be an excellent zoom with maybe—just maybe—one prime at my favorite long term focal length. Then that's it!

9. and 10.) relate to #5 in that I can't go pretesting anything, but once I make the purchase, I'll poor into it fast and furious to make sure it's 'right' so I can return it if not.

14.) My backup has to be what I own already.

16.) Your final point I have been living by for a long time—a Fujifilm X-Pro1 has served me very well but is near death and giving me fits at times.

"Finally, I don't fit at all into your 'hobbyist' description."

Mike replies: I have read with interest your comments about your Redwoods project and sincerely wish you well with it. I hope it is everything you hope.

Jim Arthur: "My first two film cameras sort of fell from the sky. I put no thought into them at all. My first purchase was planned more by the salesman than by me. I was in high school and had wandered into a Chicagoland camera store to see what a real (non-110) camera looked like. The salesman sold me a used Praktica for a song and started me down a long and winding road that’s really enriched my life. God bless that leisure suit wearing camera dude behind the counter.

"My next film camera was a K1000 I received as a gift. I wasn’t pining for a new camera and hadn’t asked for one so the new Pentax came as a wonderful surprise to a penniless 20-something.

"My first two digital cameras (bridge and DSLR) were the result of many, many hours of research and hand wringing. The world of digital was new and it was obvious that the manufacturers were just feeling their way along so it really paid to compare. Looking back, I think I chose well.

"Now that I’m more experienced and the digital realm had matured, I’ve stopped obsessing over gear. I know what I need, like what I have, and can recognize when my manufacturer of choice occasionally creates a product that makes sense for me as a next step.

"I enjoyed your 16 easy steps. I think the list will come in handy for those just getting started at a time when photography has so many options. I followed most of your recommendations when I first started shopping for digital gear back in the day. I found it reassuring to take a strategic and systematic approach to my purchases. I started my DSLR journey with an APS-C kit and then once a year, after receiving my tax refund, I’d purchase a quality full-frame lens. I now shoot full-frame and still use the fine lenses I purchased many years ago."

Bear.: "Just four easy steps for me.

"Step 1. Research, consider, make comparison tables, worry about necessary and unnecessary features, bug camera stores for trials, make up my mind but constantly change it about everything from sensor size, to type, to lens and accessory range, to brand, etc.. This step may take so long that it needs to be repeated several times over several years because every camera on the list is upgraded or replaced, or the manufacturer wholly exits the market, or whole new systems are introduced into the market. (Note. It is important not to enjoy this step but to agonize over every aspect of it: see note to Step 2).

"Step 2. Wait for something critical in my existing camera / system to permanently and irretrievably fail beyond repair or recall. (Note. The greater the agony and time spent on Step 1, the longer Step 2 will take, which saves money).

"Step 3. Wholly disregarding everything at Step 1, impulse purchase a new camera / system based on a wholly irrelevant consideration. For example, because of a sale—naturally, a 10% discount on a $6k camera that I don't particularly need or want necessarily amounts to a saving which equals or exceeds the whole cost of a $3k camera that I do. Or because a camera is particularly useful for a type of photography that I know I will never undertake (say, astrophotography or underwater photography) but because it is remotely possible that I just might, one day, try. (Note. The less relevant the consideration, the more likely the particular camera / system will be impulse purchased.)

"Step 4. Use new camera / system extensively and discover that whatever it is that I have purchased, its capabilities far exceed my needs or abilities, which realistically might be met by a Kodak Brownie. (Note. This discovery will start a thought process that if I had only spent more time and agony choosing the correct camera / system, my photography would 'improve,' and that I should therefore consider a different camera/ system: see step 1.)"

James Sinks: "...And then buy a D700."

Fourth-Generation Fuji X-T4 Is a True Redesign

Best of both: new Fuji X-T4 combines desirable features of the
X-T3 and X-H1, with a new twist

Usually, new versions of existing cameras are "refreshes," improving (sometimes "improving," quote-unquote) a few features and changing a few things so they can draw a new round of reviews, and/or enable a price increase, and/or attract customers who have a desire to own the latest and greatest. (Thom says the new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III is being derisively referred to as the "E-M1 Mark II Mark II," which I think is  funny if a little mean, and Nikon fans were scornful of the paucity of changes on the D6.) Occasionally, however, the opposite happens: a new iteration of an existing camera model is actually a complete redesign hiding in a similar-looking body with series naming and similar controls. To name one, that was the case with the Olympus OM-2S, a film camera manufactured from 1984 to 1988. It featured mostly new innards inherited from the newer flagship camera in the range at the time, in a then-familiar older-style body, retaining the old name.

Although based on the successful and very popular X-T[x] series and retaining its naming heritage, the new Fuji X-T4 is also a completely redesigned camera. It should really be thought of as a different camera altogether.

The takeaways:

• The shape and weight have changed: it's bigger and heavier.
• It uses a new battery ($70) that has almost double the capacity of the old one (but no cross-compatibility with older cameras either). This has resulted in the add-on battery pack / vertical grip ($329) being quite large.
• All-new shutter is quieter and faster than on older cameras, with spectacularly improved durability: it is said to have double the expected life of the old one, to 300,000 actuations. That's deep into what used to be considered professional-camera territory.
• IBIS (in-body image stabilization) inherited from the high-tech, high-tolerance X-H1. But with even better specs.
• Flip-out articulated viewing screen, abandoning the two-way flip-up screen that Fuji had previously brought to near perfection.

Those are far from the only changes, but those are the biggies. The short take is that this is a fundamentally all-new camera that strongly resembles the X-T3 (and shares its sensor). It combines the X-T3 and X-H1 into one. 

Fuji X-T4 big rig. Photo courtesy B&H Photo.

The feature that betrays the new camera's fundamental identity is the flip-out screen. Accurately or not, the audience for cameras like this considers IBIS to be primarily a videocentric feature, so the X-T4 follows suit with the viewing-screen style most favored by video shooters. This will probably be the biggest thing to get used to for people whose muscle memory is grooved to older X-T[x] cameras.

Another change is that the Still/Movie switch has been moved to a collar underneath the shutter-speed dial:

It's changed by way of a front-facing tab.

Otherwise the controls should be broadly familiar to most X-T3 shooters.

The Fuji X-T4 has a price at introduction of $1,699 and will ship in the Spring. It's available in black or silver and can be pre-ordered now.

Mike

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Kenneth Tanaka: "I have been on a bit of an X-system buying craze this winter. I'd be embarrassed to give details here but I will say that I have owned the X-T3 since it was introduced. (I also admit that it's not my most-used X camera.) Having disclaimed all that, I have to admit that I just don't see the X-T4 as a good value at $1,700 today. Yes, Fuji appears to have made many changes and enhancements that their X-T3 customers have requested and I salute them for that. But it's a different market today. $1,700 will buy you a much more capable full-frame camera system today, especially on the lightly-used market. Hate to say it but it just might be a little late for the X-T4's features on an APS-C camera."

Edwin: "The X-T1 originated from an idea—a smallish footprint, real shutter speed dial, ISO and exposure compensation dials, nostalgic design (it was trying to distance itself from other DSLRs) that looked like old film cameras. The last point resulted in a camera body with a very shallow hand grip and other odd ergonomic issues. It was a hit for people who like a camera different from the then 'normal' DSLR.

"However, as Fujifilm tried to cater for the need of more people, they are adding features and capabilities to the camera while trying to maintain the original design theme. When people picked up the X-H1, they realized that that should be the real deal instead of the weird design theme of the X-T[x] series. Now Fujifilm listened, so they're putting a lot of X-H1 goodness to the X-T4, but in order to be true to the original design theme, they came up with this compromised body. Yes, it's like a newly designed camera, but not from the ground up! They should have ditched the 'old film camera' design and came up with something more than a 'huge upgrade.'"

Bill Tyler: "Like a few others, I disagree about the flip-out screen. I shoot a lot of macro, often of small living subjects in situ. A flip-out screen lets me, among other things, shoot for portrait (vertical) orientation without craning my neck into knots. The flip-up screen is fine if you never want to rotate your camera 90 degrees, but as soon as you do, it's nearly useless. Unfortunately, I also agree with whoever noted that the hinging mechanism seems more prone to breakage with the flip-out screen. Sigh."

Mark: "Well, they lost me as an upgrader with that screen redesign. I already skipped X-T3 because I didn't feel the improvements made it worthy compared with the X-T2. Now Fuji add something I really, really wanted, IBIS, but throw in a back screen redesign that is great for videographers but awful for stills photographers. The tilt screen in previous X-T[x] models allowed to use the camera unobtrusively for shooting from the waist. It was also really useful for overhead and ground level shots. The new design makes the camera more conspicuous, more awkward to hold, and less intuitive for framing the shot because the screen is now off-axis. Since I use the tilt screen in my X-T2 a lot, I'll have to pass on this one. That's two X-T[x] models I skip in a row. At some point I may come to realise I won't find in Fuji cameras what I need, which would be a real shame."

Mike replies: Speaking personally, the screen change also loses me. I just really don't care for that kind of design. I've owned several. The last one I liked was on my Olympus digicam from 2003, when I was experiencing a moveable screen of any kind for the first time.

Not only does it do away with what I thought was a perfect design—ideal functionality, ideal implementation—but in some ways it seems like a betrayal of existing users. The screen was an integral part of the X-T[x] series cameras' identity.

Of course, as a writer for others I'm happy for people like Bill who like the change. It's not all about me.  :-)

Robert Newcomb: "I just upgraded my Leica M4-P with a $250 CLA. No screen or battery or firmware to worry about and it’s probably good for another 20 years. 😀 "

Stephen Scharf: "A note of interest regarding the X-T4 release: Patrick at FujiRumors conducted a poll, asking X-T1, X-T2, X-T3 and X-H1 owners if they planned to upgrade to an X-T4. By statistically valid margins of approximately 2:1, X-T1 and X-T2 owners do plan to upgrade to the X-T4. Conversely, by margins of approximately 2:1, X-T3 and X-H1 owners do not plan to upgrade to the X-T4. Looks like we're at the point where most end-users can skip generations. This of course, will significantly impact sales over the longer term."

Mark Myers: "Instead of offering silver and black bodies, why not offer versions in the 3 way tilt and articulating styles to suit the user's needs?"

Mike replies: This makes great sense, and I've always wondered why cameramakers don't go for it. I suppose because it compounds the difficulties of the supply pipeline and retailer's stocks, and doesn't immediately or obviously result in more income. Speaking of simpler cameras, I've always thought camera makers should offer de-contented versions of their higher-end cameras. They used to; the Spotmatic SP500 was one; the Leica R4s and Bronica SQ-B were decontented versions of the R4 and SQ-Ai that now sell for more than the more feature-laden versions. 

The New Nikon D6

Nikon just announced its new pro flagship, the D6.

Although you probably won't see this mentioned much on the Web and in the forums, this brings to parity the number of top-end film F cameras and pro digital D cameras. There's a slight disparity in the time it took to get there: the original Nikon F was introduced in April 1959 and the F6 began shipping in 2004 and can still be purchased new (or rather, out of what's called "new old stock," NOS, with outflow regulated to a trickle by a high price [UPDATE: This appears to be wrong! See Sal Santamaura’s comment in the Comments section. —Ed.]). Let's call that 45 years (1959 to 2004). The 2.7-megapixel, crop-sensor Nikon D1, a landmark in the development of digital imaging, arrived in time for the Millennium—June 1999. So the analogous span of time is 21 years, let's say—less than half the time it took to get to the sixth flagship film camera. Makes sense, considering the faster pace of development in digital.

We really should compare the D6 to the D1 for perspective, and the F6 to the F, but I just received a lovely Contax RTS II as a donation/gift (big thanks to Fred M.), and what strikes me about the new camera is the tremendous distance between it and the RTS II's near-exact* Nikon contemporary, the F3. I was in D.C. when the F3 was current. Many amateurs owned one, and far more wanted one. The richest kid in my second-year photo class had two. My studio partner (after I graduated), even though he did most of his work with Hasselblads, shot with one—he had the big motor drive for it and gave it the fond nickname "Darth Vader." (Click here to see a camera much like Darth.) I would occasionally see one draped on a besuited lawyer-type on the streets of the city. I wanted a top Nikon enough that I saved for, and purchased, a Nikon F4s when it was the latest thing (Paul called it "Luke Skywalker," of course). When it was new I was besotted with pride of ownership. 

By contrast, I can't see many passionate amateurs wanting a D6. The things it does well are just too specialized: 10.5 FPS in live-view mode; 105 focus points which are all selectable and cross-type; AF at the center point down to –4.5 EV; extensive GPS and transfer options and capability; and so on. To name just one feature that pros might value but amateurs wouldn't, the new Priority Image Transfer gives you the ability to move particular images to the front of the download queue. I can't imagine many amateurs getting lathered up at the mouth over that.

The astonishing abilities of the D6 "imaging computer" make a camera like the F3 look positively quaint. With the F3 you had to focus the lens yourself, which was primitive. If you didn't own Darth's motor drive or a motor winder, you cranked the film from one frame to the next with thumb-power. The biggest difference in my view is that the D6 will "process" your pictures in nanoseconds and transfer them to your computer (and thence on to your client) wirelessly, whereas Paul and I used to have to make 50-mile(!) runs in the car—often daily—from our studio in Maryland to Chrome, the custom lab we used in D.C. (25 miles one way). If a client wanted to pay for rush processing, we could get images in his or her hands sometimes within 24 hours. But that included two Chrome runs.

Perfect for...?
The D6 costs $6,500 and weighs 2.8 pounds (1270g). It might be cruel to say something like "Nikon has made the perfect sports and assignment photographer's camera, while appearing not to notice that newsrooms and magazines are withering around the globe, their staffs and budgets shrinking..." etc. Don't fix what ain't broke, sure, but the niche this camera evolved for might be changing under Nikon's feet. It might still be true to say that pros who need the D6 need the D6, although I can also imagine many pros thinking that they'll just continue to get by with their paid-for D5's or lesser Nikons, given, you know, the climate out there. As another bellwether, DPReview has let the D6 announcement pass with little fanfare but is all over the new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

After a year with the F4s, I reverted to using two N8008's in the '90s. For all its felicities, the F4 turned out to be unlovable—too big, too clunky, too heavy, and it chewed through batteries like a hungry pygmy shrew. I used to say that you could always tell where I was because Luke left a trail of spent AA's in its wake like Hansel and Gretel left breadcrumbs on the floor of the forest. But then, I'm prone to exaggerating.

That was the last top-end pro Nikon I was personally interested in. They're just not aimed at the likes of me, and, if you ask me, arty enthusiast amateurs coveting top pro Nikon bodies is probably a thing of the past. If I wanted a Nikon I'd want a Z6.

Just one opinion. YMMV.

Mike

P.S. I'm very behind on the comments and I promise I will get to that later today.

*Nikon F3: 1980–88; Contax RTS II: 1982–1990.

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

TerryM: "In defence of the F4: at least the MB20 battery grip cut down the weight and size to four AAs. I found this gave me plenty of battery life for slide film. And I can’t think of a single frame where the meter didn’t nail the exposure. I could focus on stars with a hard infinity stop lens and open the shutter in the dark just by feel...can’t tell you how much better than with a mirrorless camera. I’d still be using it if I didn’t ruin it by dust and moisture, and sort of regret going for the lighter weight of a FM2N. Long live the F4!"

beuler: "All the negative D6 reviews boil down to using the same sensor as the D5. It seems to me the D6 is the direct equivalent of the F6: the flagship of an obsolete fleet. It's no bad thing; the F6 is a fabulous camera. It's just that nobody needs it is all. Expect the Nikon Z flagship to smoke the alpha 9 in every way except price, whenever it comes out. The question is: will it be too late?"

Mike replies: A couple of months ago I started doing a post on the term "flagship." It was really interesting and I got pretty deep into it. The term comes from the ship occupied by the commander of the fleet, who flew his pennant to indicate his presence aboard. This led to the secondary meaning of the word, in that the flagship was also often the grandest and largest ship in the fleet.

Flagships in that latter sense have often been costly. The worldwide arms race c. 1900 centered around battleships: Japan won, with the Yamato class, c. 1938 (there were only two, Yamato and Musashi—a planned third was converted on the fly into an aircraft carrier). We all know where that went. The Sovereign of the Seas in 1637 was both a vanity project of Charles I and a political statement intended to symbolize the English crown's claim to the oceans, against the interests of the Dutch, who wanted the seas to be free for all. Sovereign of the Seas, later renamed Royal Sovereign among other names, was encrusted with lavish carvings covered in gold leaf, and cost so much that building it contributed to the financial crisis that helped fuel the English Civil War. During which, of course, Charles lost his head.

Stern of the Sovereign of the Seas, from a painting by Peter Lely

Of course this really had nothing at all to do with so-called "flagship" cameras, not even by analogy, so I abandoned that post. (You should see TOP's graveyard of abandoned post ideas...pretty wacky, all things considered!)

Severian (partial comment): "Re: Flagship, I (and Nikon) certainly hope that the D6 doesn't become the kind of flagship which is used as a metaphor / cautionary tale! Consider the Swedish ship Vasa."

Mike replies: Totally. Everyone should know about that. I think the first full-frame DSLR, the Contax N Digital, might have been a case of Vasa syndrome.

Fuji X-T4 Coming February 26th

...According to FujiRumors. It will be fun (well, for me, anyway) to see how much the X-T3 and X-H1 "DNA" get blended in the new camera. Will IBIS "trickle down" into the X-T[x] series?

The rest of this post is a digression!
Although, to be honest, I'd say I'm interested rather than excited. In 2012, the peak year of the camera market, I had to admit to myself that I was feeling a little crazy. I coveted the latest beautiful cameras a little more intensely than was mentally healthy! For at least the first 15 years or so of the current century, cameras were like American cars were in the postwar years. Progress was rapid; news was fun to follow; updates were regular, and "gamed" by the makers to keep interest at the boil; new products were admired, coveted, and envied; to have the latest and greatest was a feather in one's cap and a source of satisfaction. Curiosity about the "new" and the "next" was always high. New models were kept secret and unveiled to great fanfare. I have to admit I bought several cameras because the urge to possess them was so intense and I just gave in.

As is widely noted, though, that era seems to be on the way to fizzling out. Over the past five years, we seem to have transitioned to a general feeling of "digital cameras are good enough." People are turning away from ultimates and "settling" for more mainstream options that are very good, or good enough. We seem to be keeping our cameras longer and updating less often. More people are choosing to buy models on closeout or simply buying used.

The same thing happened in cars, of course. The halcyon years of a happy shared excitement over annual model updates are long gone. I remember hearing in 2008 that the hypothetical "average American" could no longer afford the hypothetical "average new car," and most people don't buy new cars every two or three years like my father's age cohort strove to do. Car models are updated about every four to six years, sometime with a "refresh" in the middle of the model run, and the average person keeps a car about eight years. (Mine is six now.)

Average cars are much better now, their biggest problem being complexity (sound familiar?). One fun statistic I like to quote is that the 1970 Porsche 911 S, a prestigious, expensive-for-the-era* sports car, which received a bigger engine that year, was able to do 0–60 in 7.8 seconds. Fifty years later, a Toyota Corolla Hatchback with a manual—bog-standard transportation for the masses—does 0–60 in 7.5 seconds.

Of course, the X-T4 is no Corolla. More like a Lexus IS, maybe (0–60 MPH in 5.6 seconds for the IS350 Sport).

1970 Porsche 911. Today, a Corolla is faster.

Will you be looking forward to the X-T4 rollout? A lot of the 2000–2015 culture remains in place. But I wonder how much of it is habit now. These days there's something hollow about assuming that large numbers of people are going to get all excited about whatever's next up. Do you know off the top of your head, for example, the announcement date for the replacement of whatever camera you're using? How eager are you to find out exactly what features it will offer?

It ain't 2012 any more.

Mike

*$8,750 (about $57k today) in an era when wealth inequality wasn't so extreme and hence expensive cars weren't so expensive.

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Paulo Bizarro: "I upgraded my XT2 to XT3 a few weeks ago, benefiting from a EUR 200 discount on the latter. This is why I like new cameras introductions."

Allan Graham: "Do I know off the top of my head the announcement date for the replacement of my camera? No, I had to ask Wikipedia. It was on 25 August 2007 that the D300 was announced. I suppose I'm just a grumpy old git who likes the comfort of familiarity and is irritated by unnecessary novelty."

Mike replies: Your camera was replaced in April 2016 and you're skipping at least one update, which is a smart idea and often given as advice. On the good side, when you finally do replace your D300, you're going to be amazed by the improvements, and that's always fun too.

MikeR: "Back in the heyday of American cars, they really were not all that good. It was quite an accomplishment, with normal maintenance, (including 2,000 mile oil changes), to get to 100K miles. You had to trade every few years to avoid being plagued by repairs. In contrast, when I traded my 1999 bright red Solara in for a frankly nondescript RAV4 in 2015, it was still running fine at about 225K miles, but I had aged out of it...worn knees and stuff made getting in and out difficult. Yeah, the 'magic' of those big old barges is gone, but I don't miss them. Fun to see at vintage car shows, but let someone else have the pain of keeping them running."

Mike replies: As I'm sure you realize, I wasn't suggesting those days were better, just that the market was more dynamic. You're right about old cars. When I was a kid (I'm a few days shy of 63), we'd drive from Milwaukee to Indianapolis to see relatives, and, being conservative about such things, my dad would take the Oldsmobile (that was a real car name, kids, I'm not being cute) to the gas station, which was also the mechanic's shop, for a "checkup" before we left. When my brother and I made lists of the biggest changes in our lifetimes, "the reliability of cars" was one of the items on my list.

If you want to see some tempting samples of those old cars, though, check out Vanguard Motor Sales.

Fujifilm Cheerfully Marches On: The X100V

New X100V: The line between the top plate and the body is
now straight all the way across

Oops! When you've updated your camera three times and you've already run through the X100, X100s[econd], X100t[hird], and X100f[ourth], what do you call the fifth? Not F, because that's already taken.

Roman numerals to the rescue!

The latest—fifth—Fuji X100 is called the X100V (which makes it sound a lot like a Sony, but never mind). Unlike the X-Pro3, there's nothing controversial about the updates. And, as with all Fuji products, they don't stint on the trickle-down—the X100V inherits as much of the current goodness from the X-Pro3 and X-T3 as it reasonably can. There's one new touch I find delightful and only one absurd little glitch. (But at least the oddity made me laugh. I'll get to that.)

Everything's updated that you'd expect to be—sensor, processor, EVF, etc. Fuji made unspecified changes to the lens such that Internet is calling it "new lens." I'll reserve my doubts until we get chapter and verse; I'll guess it's substantially the same lens with a few little tweaks, like replacing two elements with one aspherical one or something. But then there's never been anything wrong with the X100 lens. It's excellent, always has been.

The back is now noticeably cleaner, more like a Leica

Notable changes—flip up viewing screen! Nice. I like these, and find them useful. For photography (and I don't do video) I'm personally on Team Flip-Up rather than Team Flip-Out, but even if you're the opposite you still might appreciate the upgrade from a fixed screen. The four-way pad is gone, simplified to the joystick. Aluminum body, instead of magnesium is a big but invisible change. That's probably what accounts for the $100 increase in launch price. Fuji seems to be concentrating on improving the camera's ineffable object-quality in this release.

The delightful touch—retro ISO setting! It's now a lift-and-turn collar on the shutter-speed dial with a little window to see the values, just like on some old film cameras. This is needless but smile-inducing, so we'll put it in the + column. [CORRECTION: Oh, I'm wrong. This was new on v.4, the f, not this V. Sorry for my misteak. —Ed.]

The X100V has been carefully updated four times since the original

The silliness is that out of the box the camera is weatherproof but the lens is not, which on a fixed-lens camera is absurd on its face and made me laugh when I first read it. But it's not as silly as it sounds. It's just that you have to buy a separate adapter and special filter (also known as a "filter") to make the lens waterproof, which then makes the whole camera waterproof. On a $1,400(!) pocket camera this kind of nickel-and-diming is always a bit off-putting, but it was probably the only way the engineers could implement weatherproofing without making other accessories obsolete, so, okay. (Actually the two items you need, if you buy the Fuji-branded and -approved versions, adds nearly $100 to the cost of the camera, so maybe it's not appropriate to talk about nickels and dimes. Tens and twenties maybe?) The upshot is that people who carry this camera with them all the time can now have a weatherproof camera, and that's going to be a big plus for some people looking to upgrade.

Wearing it
Because carrying this camera all the time is what it's best suited for. Wear it. Put it on in the morning and take it off in the evening, like your shirt or blouse. It's light and tiny—like the X-E3, tinier than it looks if you've never seen one in person—and very (very) capable. Don't forget the unique-to-Fuji OVF/EVF, which is maybe a bit of a gimmick but certainly provides an opportunity for meaningful customization to your preference. (Be grateful Leica didn't develop this feature, because we'd never hear the end of it.) 

As an aside, condolences to all you X100f owners who just got shoved into the shade. It's inevitable with any digital device: you get a period of time during which you have the latest and greatest, and then the sun moves and you're abruptly out of the bright light. The lustre, the shine, the glow—all gone. Or not gone; just over there now, not here where you are. Especially when the new shiny glowing thing has a new lens. How did you ever settle for that old thing on your old X100f? How can you believe you're capable of taking decent pictures? Won't your friends scorn you, perfect strangers pity you? And look in the mirror, too...you're growing older. All part of the same problem. Everything about you is getting to be just so contemptibly yesterday.

Joke mode off, you might want to think about moving on from an original X100 or the X100s if you're still shooting with one. Mainly because the new one will be noticeably faster. Otherwise, you're good. Gotta get your money's worth out of what you already have.

Bottom line on the V, though: Fuji is an innovative company with formidable resources, and yet for some reason has a strong sense of direction in its products, and the X100 series is a successful product that's been supported by strong sales and which in return supports a high price. Put all of these together and you get an inherently popular design that has had a lot of time, talented man-hours, effort, and money lavished on refining it and keeping it up-to-the-minute and endowed with the latest tech. For what this camera is intended for and for what it does best—namely, being your constant companion all day every day—you almost couldn't do better.

Mike

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Curt Gerston: "I have the X100T, so I'm hopelessly out of date now, but still I'm considering having it as my one-and-only camera for a month in Europe this summer. I'm a little scared to commit to that one focal length for such a unique and big trip, but it'd also be an interesting challenge, and it would be nice to leave all the heavy gear at home."

J. Wilson (partial comment): "It's amazing that the entire Fujifilm X range began with this little camera as the cornerstone, and such a relatively short time ago. This camera always puts me in mind that Fujifilm and their designers loved cameras, the kind those of us of 'a certain age' cherished: They must, as well."

Huw Morgan: "I don't get the attraction. Sure, it looks retro and produces nice images, but a fixed-lens camera in the smartphone era? What does it do that my phone can't do besides take up more space and eat up my bank account?"

Michel: "Re 'Not F, because that's already taken'—reminds me of Gary Gulman’s brilliant routine on state abbreviations. If you are looking for a distraction this is well worth the six minutes or so."

Mike replies: Thanks! That was funny. In related time-wasting videos, you might enjoy this one. (And by the way, I always write out State names on TOP for the benefit of readers who aren't from the Ununited [sic] States.)

Best Cameras of 2019

Best Camera Introduced in 2019: The Leica Q2

Comment: 2019 was a year of market contraction and a light year for new camera introductions. Yes, Nikon and Canon announced the latest updates to their pro flagship cameras that are of interest to some pros. However, the beautiful Q2's only real competition for this honor came from Panasonic's high-tech (and high-priced) Johnny-come-last FFM's (full-frame mirrorless), the S1 and S1R; Fuji's completely over-the-top 100-megapixel medium-format GFX 100; Olympus's odd small-sensor mimicry of the EOS 1D X Mark III and the D6 (both coming soon), the OM-D E-M1X; and Sony's two top refreshes, the A9 II and the 61-MP A7R IV. I think the Leica wins this race. It's pretty, petite, and useful, with a superb fixed lens and enough pixels that cropping can legitimately become part of your workflow. It is "to the manor born" as a small(ish) carry-around camera like Oskar intended, spiritual descendant of the great workhorse Leica rangefinders. Leicas are for the so-called carriage trade now, i.e., aimed at the too-well-heeled, but that's okay. The Q was a good camera. As the Q2 it became great.

Best Camera Available in 2019: The Fuji X-T3

Comment: It doesn't have IBIS, and there are legitimate reasons for choosing competitors and alternatives of course, but, all things considered, the X-T3 is "the best of most worlds" right now. It's beautifully styled, it has a superb range of enthusiast-centric lenses, it's been thoughtfully refined over three generations (and the X-T1 was a very good camera to start with—I should know, I've had one since it came out). It's easy to use and learn, and it offers a superlative balance of almost all things: speed, size and weight, image quality, video capability, on and on. And it's satisfying to use, and imparts real pride of ownership. It's tough to make a better choice in an all-around serious enthusiast camera as we turn the corner into 2020.

Best for the Least in 2019: The Canon EOS Rebel T6 with normal zoom and telephoto zoom lenses.

Comment: Tough to claim this for the whole of 2019, because these deals change all the time, but right at this minute it's tough to buy more value in a camera brand new. For only $399 (!) you get not one but two basic zooms...and a card and a case. This 2016 T6 currently on closeout is the direct descendant of the groundbreaking Digital Rebel, the first-ever DSLR to cost less than $1,000, Summer 2003. As you might expect it's not a luxury camera, but its technology is mature at this point and the T6 is highly capable. And, you get to carry around and show off a camera emblazoned with the name of the world's leading camera company. No one will fault your taste.

Best Pocket Camera of 2019: The iPhone 11 Pro Max.

Comment: I dunno. I'm just talkin'. What do I know from Androids or Zombies or whatever they're called? I bought my first Apple computer in 1985, when the old IBM and the old Soviet Union were the evil empires, and if you're in the ecosystem you stay in the ecosystem. The iPhone 11 Pro Max has three cameras of different focal lengths (plus a selfie module), and it has improved the already formidable software tricks of recent iPhones: I have a friend who has one and the "Night mode" is great. And the big Super Retina OLED screen of the Max model is marvelous for looking at pictures on. Not at all bad for reading books on, either. Also works as, you know, a phone. There were great unknown photographers out there in 2019; their work is just locked away on their phones, and their friends' phones.

Editor's Choice: The Nikon Z6 with Nikkor Z 35mmƒ/1.8 S

Comment: An expensive pair, but not out of reach for many. Mavens buy high-spec models, but normal folks choose normal cameras. The Z6 brings tech specs and intangibles to the table that Sony didn't already have (examples: 55mm diameter lens mount, and Nikon's expertise with ergonomics and hand feel, respectively), and it has that special Nikon sauce in its image quality, yet it's still a reasonable, sensible, moderate camera by the standards of the moment. The Z6 feels small, has a beautiful viewfinder with copious eye relief and a large range of diopter correction, and 24 MP is plenty. Add the new 35mm Z lens with its outstanding bokeh characteristics and you have the kind of camera we like at TOP: a medium-weight cruiser as opposed to a battleship, a Boxster rather than a Hellcat.

Honorable Mention: Sigma SD Quattro H

Comment: It's still out there! Way below the waves. This is the camera everyone tends to forget. Hobbyists forget it, buyers dismiss it, photo writers every now and then awaken from their torpor and go "oh, yeah." Three years old now. I can't imagine this as anyone's only camera—but then, I can't imagine an iPhone as any photographer's only camera, either. The SD Quattro H might best be thought of as a digital view camera, meant for use on tripod, as you work at a leisurely, deliberate pace. Its Foveon sensor is unique, however, and an argument can be made that it yields the very best image quality possible in digital—we really do need to have a Foveon-camera print sale just to put examples in the hands of people who have never seen one up close and personal. Lovely. Distinctive. Different. It is really the camera for landscape and still life photographers.

Reader Favorite: ...You tell us! What impressed or tempted you most during the last year?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Jeff: "Not to forget the Leica SL2, with higher resolution, improved EVF, ergonomics and weather sealing (IP54), and Leica’s first IBIS, which operates with native and adapted lenses (L mount alliance, M, R, S, and more). And, while certainly not cheap, the Hasselblad X1DII came to market for roughly $3k less than the first iteration, despite better performance."

[Thanks. An earlier draft of this post started off talking about the SL2, but I changed approaches midstream, and then neglected to work the SL2 in. I hesitate to admit it but I wasn't even aware of the Hasselblad X1DII. —Ed.]

Alan Ostling: "The Olympus Tough TG-6. On my annual visit to the SF Bay Area for Christmas, I surprised my friends and relatives by tossing it to them from across the room. If, instead of catching this flying ball of fun, they dropped it, so much the better. It does 1:1 actual macro—5X if you count the crop factor. The 25–100mm ƒ/2 lens does all its zooming laterally inside the waterproof camera body, thanks to a prism which bends the light path 90°. It has built-in geo-tagging, and shoots RAW. Steal one now (the price has dropped $50 since I bought mine)."

James Moule: "Over the last 68 years I have used Leica systems, Canon systems, Nikon Systems, and Olympus systems. By system, I mean multiple bodies and a large collection of lenses. Today, I carry a Sony A9 II and the Sony 24–105mm ƒ/4 lens. I set it on auto ISO. I shoot handheld. All I have to do is press the shutter release and it will instantly focus on the right thing and deliver a super sharp image, perfectly exposed, with a high dynamic range. Twenty-four MP is all I need."

[Ed. note: I always like opposing viewpoints about the same post (and both said "never mind"):]

Michael Hill (partial comment): "I'm not sure it would be possible for me to disagree more than I do with your choices...but...never mind."

Al C.: (partial comment): "Agree with every one of your nominations, except the Fuji (never mind.)"

[Here are Michael's and Al's comments in full:]

Michael Hill: "I'm not sure it would be possible for me to disagree more than I do with your choices...but...never mind. To each their own, live and let live. All the best to you and yours in the new year/decade! I'm not any brand's fanboy but I would be hard pressed not pick the Sony A7R IV as the best camera by measure of versatility, quality, features and value. If I could afford it (I can't) I would buy one (along with a new computer with lots of RAM and hard drive space to process and store the images from my new camera).  :-)  "

Al C.: "Agree with every one of your nominations, except the Fuji (never mind.) Problem with the Q2 is that you really need a grip. On the other hand, a grip completely ruins the purpose, aesthetic, and experience of the thing. A Q is not a tool. Hit by a bit of GAS attack over the holidays, I almost clicked on a Z6 plus 35mm S combo. The Quattro is not technically a (Bill Merrill) Foveon, and lacks the inimitable pixel quality of a true X3 Foveon. Worse, irrecoverable highlights closes the case, in my opinion. Overall, not a bad decade—for photography, that is. Let's hope the '20s will be better."

Robert Roaldi: "The Olympus E-M1X just cannot get any love, the main complaint being that it's too large. It is the same size as my E-M1 with battery grip, which is a very good size to accompany the longer lenses normally used in sports photography. The other important sports-oriented bodies from Nikon and Canon came first so the E-M1X will not be an alternative to anyone already invested in those brands but it's not clear why a new sports shooter wouldn't choose a much smaller and lighter option."

Mike replies: They really should prefer a smaller-sensor option. It makes more sense. But their opinion matters, not mine.

Sharon: "What about the Fuji GFX 100? I have the 50 and it cured any GAS I might have had but still the 100 is a pretty cool camera."

Mike replies: I did mention it, saying it was "completely over the top," which might not be fair. I think I might have said the same about the 2007 Sony A900 when it was new and had the mostest megapickles. I guess it's just hard for me to get too excited about a $10,000 camera that will lose most of its value over the next 13 years (my ~$2,700 A900 is now worth about $700). That's mainly because it's beyond my own means and I don't need it for any reason, probably. Again, might not be fair.

Howard: "I had the Sigma 'bug' with the DP Merrill fixed lens cameras. I had all three at one time. I am technically advanced in working with raw converters, and read a lot and experimented a lot with the Sigma software and another third party converter available at the time. After a year or two of using them sometimes alongside an Oly OM-D E-M1, I sold all three of the DP Merrills...the issue was that the color was more often than not funky and it wasn't very predictable and not at all easy (or not possible) to fix. For black-and-white they were great. But this may be the one regret I've had with photography equipment purchases I've made over the last 20 years or so. Not that I spent or lost a lot of money on the cameras. I didn't. But my regret is that if I'd had whatever the Sony A7R model was at the time, I would have had much better photos overall and more consistency and less frustration with the very funky color. They were very portable and there was a 'fun' factor involved; they reminded me in some ways of using a view camera. But I would not go near another Merrill made by Sigma again."

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "Many, many pro and commercial photographers have needs for a full professional-level medium-format camera system for their commercial work, but have not been able to make the entry cost of a $35,000-$50,000 Phase One (body alone) system profitable from a business perspective. And pros, well successful ones, at least, only buy a piece of equipment if it will return a profit on their business.

"The GFX100 completely changes all that, and this is why I think its one of the top three most significant camera releases of the last decade.

"Now, pros can buy into a literally state-of-the art MF digital camera body that has unmatched set of functions and features: Fast AF, IBIS, 4K full-sensor video, 100% coverage of the sensor with AF and..and this is big deal: full Capture One Pro support including film and lens profiles built in (good luck with that for your MF Hassys).... I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, the GFX100 came in and in one fell swoop, now owns the pro MF camera market-segment.

"There is a reason this camera has been on a consistent approximately two-month backorder since it was launched...because Fujifilm cannot make the camera fast enough to fill the pent-up demand from professional and commercial photographers."

Rodolfo Canet Castelló: "My wife insisted and I bought a Fujifilm GFX50R on 28th December. I don’t care what 2020 can bring now. What a camera! All the best in 2020 for you all!"

Mike replies: Whoa! It's going to be a good year for you.

Sharon: "Mike, have you had a chance to shoot with the Fuji GF 32–64mm? Oh my, what a lens! I think it is this lens I love more than the cameras. I'm sorry I missed your comment on the GFX 100. It is too expensive. The 50s is enough for me."

Mike replies: Here's the link to Sharon's camera and lens (25–51mm-e). And here's the link to Rodolfo's camera with Sharon's lens. Lovely....

Sunday Support Group: What the Fuji X-H1 Is Not Good For

SA*

I remember hearing years ago that veteran daily photographers never switched cameras lightly, because "you lose a year"—that is, it takes a year before the new camera is completely familiar and its use second nature.

So I constructed this handy chart:

Average length of time photographers used film cameras: 10 years

Average amount of time it took to become fully familiar with a new film camera: one year

It struck me at the time that this was not something to be casually dismissed. It seemed like a lot to risk a whole 10% of your working life to a camera that was not yet fully familiar to you. But then, it was a necessary evil, every so often.

Then it occurred to me that these numbers would be different for digital cameras, so I added the following to my chart:

Average length of time photographers use digital cameras: three years

Average amount of time it takes to become fully familiar with a new digital camera so its use becomes second nature: more than three years

The equation has changed somewhat!

Still learning the ins and outs of the X-H1
and getting used to it,
Mike

ADDENDUM: Look what Ned Bunnell had to say on his Instagram this very day! A nice coincidence. Charles Harbutt's Travelog is one of the great forgotten books of the hippie generation, in case you don't recognize the name.

P.S. Do you use aftermarket books like the one linked to learn your cameras?

P.P.S. The $999 closeout price of the X-H1 is still a spectacular bargain, but note that they are almost gone (the link is to Amazon; B&H doesn't have any left) and the camera's mysterious unpopularity probably means there won't be an X-H2.

Consider: 1.) it's not even two years old yet. 2.) it was originally priced at $1,900. 3.) its development cost was very likely a great big honking whack. 4.) $999 is less than: a.) a Sony RX100 Mark VII point-and-shoot; b.) a Nikon D750 on sale, c.) a Sony A6600 on sale; d.) a Fuji X-T30 with kit lens; e.) a Canon 90D; f.) a Panasonic G9 Micro 4/3 camera on sale; g.) either of its Fuji stablemates the X-T3 and the X100f; h.) an Olympus E-M5 Mark III; i.) a Ricoh GRIII; j.) a used 1984 Leica M6; k.) 20 sushi dinners at $50 each including tip; l.) one Starbuck's Pumpkin Spice Latte Venti every morning on the way to work for less than a year; m.) a mere six pairs of Ugg boots. Now, admittedly, the X-H1 is not good for keeping your toes toasty while padding around the house on Winter days, while also standing up to occasional trips outdoors while the dogs pee (I covet a pair of Ugg boots, but cannot bring my cheap self to drop the toll). But then, you cannot ask a camera to do everything.

*Satire Alert.

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

Keep The Online Photographer alive via Patreon

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

Neil Swanson: "I jumped on the $999 bundle. I had an X-Pro2, with the three 'crons, and had never handled an X-H1 at all. The specs were very good and the price, well how could I not. Turns out I like camera very very much. I truly don't understand complaints of its size. Without the grip its small. If you'd been shooting Nikon D3 or D4 cameras you've gotta laugh at size complaints. What do these guys shoot, Minox? The X-Pro2 was my first mirrorless so I had nothing to compare it to. When I got the X-H1 I discovered a much better EVF. It is my first camera with a folding back display. The shutter release and the sound of the shutter is crazy good. Very much like the best Leica M2 I ever had after service by DAG. The X-H1 is my first IBIS camera. Love that.

"So what did I do? I sold the year old X-Pro2 and got an X-Pro3. The EVF is large and improved, folding rear display, fine, not an issue for me. The AF is screaming good now. So much of what I like in the X-H1 is now in the X-Pro3.

"Knowing there may not be an X-H2 is sad. The X-H1 s excellent. It needs little improvement. Add the latest sensor and AF guts and boom, done. An X-H1 with a grip and a 'cron is a fantastic package. I used it alongside my D4S shooting a show at the Beacon Theater in NYC. It was a breeze working one to the other.

"I really want an X-H2. Please build it."

Dogman (partial comment): "Aftermarket books? Oh, yeah. These days I seldom even open the manufacturer's owner's manual. It seems they delight in arranging the manuals in such a way that confusion ensues. All of the aftermarket books I've used have been better prepared and more useful. And I always buy them in e-book format. Kindle app in the iPhone means the book is always with me."

Stan B.: "I think the 'problem' with the X-H1 is that it's an 'in between' product like the Leica M5 or M8. That is, it incorporates proven technology into a package that some find unattractive, and others have already found just fine elsewhere...."

Hugh: "I have bought the following: Canon 5D, 2005; Canon 5D2, 2008; Canon 5D3, 2012; Canon 5D4, 2016; Canon 100D (SL-1), 2017; Canon RP mirrorless, 2018. Only looked at the instruction books for the 5D4 and RP to set up the WiFi transfer. The rest is essentially the same camera. Who cares if there are better cameras from other makers...my muscle memory hasn't needed retraining, and I never need to look at the camera to change settings. If I'd bought Nikon, I'd have followed the same pattern. Life is too short to change camera systems. Plus, I don't need to spend money on new lenses."

Dillan: "I just bought a new EOS R on Boxing Day (December 26—it's kind of like Black Friday for Canadians). I can attest that the EOS R is way more complicated than my last camera, an original 5D. There are so many features and adjustments available, it makes my 5D look like something from another age. Three years to become proficient? That might be true!"

DavidB: "Thom Hogan's (bythom.com) Nikon camera guides are always excellent. I've used the D700 and D750 guides."

Mike Ferron: "It takes the average Olympus user approximately one year just to activate the very useful 'Super Control Panel'!"

Greg: "Have been using Nikon D700's since they first came out in 2008. When I shoot sports I use a D4, when I need to a D850, but for 95% of my images I rely on the D700's since their operation is second nature to me after all these years. Guess I just don't fit into the three year cycle...."

Mike replies: That speaks very well for the durability of the D700.

Dan Khong: "When one changes cameras, it's not like changing a car in which one gives up one car to trade to a new car. Most times, there is an overlap between owning a new camera till one sells the older camera and even that might not always happen."

Mike replies: Good point.

Best Casual Cameras

The Canon EOS M5 with the IS lens made to go with it

You might consider this the "Selfish Edition" of the regular "Sunday Support Group" that I skipped yesterday—I noticed that Canon is having an aggressive blowout sale on its M5 and M6 mirrorless cameras—big savings—so, in honor of the season, I'm posting some links in support of our little corner of the Web, good old TOP. Click through to B&H and Amazon to see these cameras. And if you do a little extra shopping while you're there, well, hey, 'tis the season.

:-)

So to kick it off, Canon's nicely designed little M5 with its excellent 15–45mm (24–72mm-equivalent focal length) zoom for half price—just $450 for both camera and lens—would be a great walkaround camera for a Canon 5D Mark IV shooter or a great everyday camera for anybody, and it would make a heck of a great Christmas or Hanukkah gift. ($349 body only, but you'll need a lens.) It's too complicated to learn, but that's true of almost every dedicated camera these days. Alongside that failing, the Canon M5 gives you just about single every feature and capability that current fashion requires, in a well chosen mix, for a price that's very nice. Very nice.

Fuji X100f
This is the current version of the very camera I asked for years ago, years before it came out. Back then, I speculatively called it "The Decisive Moment Digital," or DMD (see "The Digital Camera I'd Like to Own" from 2005). The X100f is the DMD. It's also probably the single most significant camera of the decade of the twenty-tens if you ask me. Wildly successful, to the initial surprise of its maker (which thought it was going to be a niche camera for a certain subset of discriminating, fashion-conscious Japanese females—so wrong, as it turned out—it's been popular with photographers of every description worldwide), it launched Fuji's emergence as a major cameramaker, and it remains a landmark. The current version is highly refined, having gone through four iterations. It's still pretty. And I still like it. And it's still popular. It's Fuji's gift that keeps on giving.

Casual?
What exactly is a "casual camera," anyway? I don't mean to be derogatory at all. It's just this: a lot of serious photographers only work when they're working. Even art photographers—they want to concentrate on what they're doing, and when they're photographing they don't do anything else. They have their "main rig," whatever it is—their best camera—and that's what they use when they're shooting for real.

But it's a rare photographer who doesn't like to have fun and play with a camera as well. So what do you grab when you're doing something else but don't want to be without a camera? What do you shoot with when you're not shooting seriously? The casual camera.

In fact, the whole concept of a "casual camera" might be high status, you might say, rather than the opposite. Because to be casual means not all your work is casual. It's the one you just have fun with, and bring along for the ride when the big rig stays at home or back at the studio.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with one of these handy little overachievers as your only camera, either.

Quintessential casual cameras: the iPhone 11 Pro (front) and 11 Pro Max

iPhone 11
Ken's right, the number one casual camera has got to be the latest iPhone, or a counterpart from the Android universe. To the youngest generation, a "camera" is a feature on a phone. ILCs—especially DSLRs—are to them like our fathers' cameras were to us. And a phone camera is the one that best fulfills the old saying, "the best camera is the one you have with you." I have a hard time remembering to take my phone with me. My son (age 26) doesn't—it's second nature to him.

Ricoh GR III
But a lot of people just don't like shooting with phones. The Ricoh GR III seems to me to fill about the same niche now that the Leica M6 did when I was young. Back then, a lot of working pros had their Nikon or Canon, a backup body, and an arsenal of lenses from which they could choose for specific assignments...and then they had an M6 and a lens or three. Back then, Leica had a small share of the market, but were responsible for far more than their share of two things: 1.) respect and enthusiasm from photographers, and 2.) good work.

The same things seem to be true of the Ricoh GRIII today. I know a lot of very experienced shooters who love their GR's.

Wreath-laying ceremony, a few days ago. Ricoh GRIII photo by Ned Bunnell (used with permission).

Minolta X570
What about a camera for the younger-generation "film virgin" who wants to try film and see for him- or herself what the fuss is about? It actually takes some knowledge and work to buy really old cameras successfully (witness my recent problem buying that Pentax SL). And you do have to hit the sweet spot, to find a camera that embodies the "gestalt" of old mechanical film cameras while having just enough modern features to not be a pain in the katuschka. And it doesn't do much good to want the one everybody else wants, because popularity will have driven the price up.

May I recommend the Minolta X-570 (called the X-500 in Europe and Asia) from 1983? (Inset, from eBay.) It's actually a slightly better camera than its more famous, two-years-older sibling the X-700—for one thing, it shows shutter speeds in the finder when used in manual mode. All it lacks is program mode, and you don't want that anyway if you want the full experience. It's a fun camera to use and shouldn't be either too expensive to buy or too finicky to familiarize yourself with. Any camera repair shop will be able to work on it.

Fuji X-E3 with 27mm
Back to the modern day. Martin D recommends the Fuji X-E3 with the Fujinon 27mm "near-pancake." (You might want to wait till it's on sale to buy the latter.) This makes a lot of sense—it's not quite as pretty as the X100f and lacks the amazing OVF/EVF feature unique to Fuji, but it's virtually just as small (both are smaller than you think if you've never seen them) and with the X-E3 you can change lenses. This might not be a plus in the "casual" column but it's a good idea if this is going to be your only camera. Don't forget the nifty aftermarket thumb grip!

Sorry, but I can't get behind any of the 1-inch sensor point-and-shoots like the Canon G5X Mark II or Sony RX100 Mark VII...yeah, I know they're great cameras and very handy, and tiny, but $900 and $1,200 respectively for 1-inch sensor fixed-lens cameras just seems too dear in this down market. Of course, if you can afford one, you can afford one. Go for it.

Used digital
Want a casual used camera? Don't forget you can buy digital cameras used and save a bundle. I'd venture to recommend the old Nikon D40 or D40X. As a camera it's no great shakes—typical amateur DSLR—but it seemed to have the special sauce when it came to yielding lovely results. You can find one for well under $100 if you lurk and look. Just don't try to make prints that are too big. And then you can pair it with the spectacular but very inexpensive AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm ƒ/1.8G for only $167, a lens you will want to keep if you ever move up to a newer Nikon DX (DX means APS-C in Nikonspeak) body. All you'll have to remember is not to tell your friends how little money you spent. 

Final choices for today, two we've talked about before:

Olympus Pen F
Another very attractive classic retro camera beloved of many of our readers, the Olympus Pen F (which appears to be no longer available [NLA] in silver!?) can be casual or not: pair it with the splendid M.Zuiko Digital ED 12–100mm ƒ/4 IS PRO lens and you will have the best all-in-one camera known to man (well, Sony RX10 Mark IV owners will quarrel with that), or mate it to the small but great M.Zuiko 17mm ƒ/1.8 in matching silver and you'll have a stylish walkaround shooter than anyone would envy.

The Pen F is a pretty serious camera to tag with the label "casual." Maybe more truly casual would be the Pen E-PL9 for $449. Or, look for a lower-numbered E-PL[x] used if you're short on bucks (or pounds, or euros).

Panasonic GX9
I'm still a bit miffed that Panasonic won't sell me one of these without a lens bundled in, but you know what they say: Oh well. There's nothing wrong with the slower of Panasonic's two 12–60mm lenses (the GX9 comes with the ƒ/3.4–5.6 zoom; the pricier one is the Leica-branded ƒ2.8–4 one), but I don't need a zoom, and these (probably because they're bundled with the GX9!) are all over eBay at only $160–200. And it means you have to go through the rigamarole to resell the kit lens if you don't want it. But the GX9 is a great little camera, featuring Panasonic's tilting viewfinder and the very nice 20-MP sensor I like so much. Panasonic will give you $200 off for the holidays, and you can get another $200 off by selling the lens, and you're at right about $600 for the body. A deal, if not a steal.

UPDATE: The GX9 is available body-only in the UK. (Thanks to Richard Parkin for this.)

Am I just being sentimental with this last choice? I like Panasonics...oh, yeah, I should have mentioned that! A casual camera should be one you like. And enjoy using!  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Daniel Evan Rodriguez: "Might I suggest a 'more perfect' partner lens for the M5? The little Canon 22mm ƒ/2 is revelation—affordable, small, fast enough, with great sharpness where you need it and fantastic character. Add the 50mm ƒ/1.8 STM on the EF Adapter for a really fun 35mm/80mm combo. At about US$800 for that set with the current sales and rebates (with a printer too!), I can't think of a better 'go out and make that dang photograph' setup."

David Evans: "There is another dimension to 'casual.' My Lumix TZ70, which I carry everywhere, could be replaced for £209. An iPhone 11 Pro, which I don't own, would cost over £1,000. Guess which I would feel most casual about? I also have a Moto G6 which is good enough for really casual snaps."

Mike replies: I know what you mean. I once had a one-of-a-kind lens, but the thought of losing or damaging it made me crazy. So I got rid of it. That sounds weird to say it that way—afraid of losing it so you let go of it deliberately?—what sense does that make?—but it was really the way I felt as I was carrying it around that bothered me. I like knowing that my stuff can be replaced if need be.

Gavin Mclelland: "I had a Nikon D40 back in the day and still regret selling it. Not a big sensor but it did its job very well."

David Comdico: "My vote is for the Fuji X-T30 which I use as my main camera although I purchased it as a 'casual camera.' It has the same sensor as Fuji's top of the line cameras and is very compact when used with one of Fuji's pancakes—or even the Fujicrons. For film I'd go with an Olympus OM-1N which are still inexpensive and OM lenses can compete with the best. The viewfinder is truly excellent, better than any digital camera."

Robert Harshman: "Wake up, it's 2020 now, it's a phone, period. Casual cameras whatever that is, is simply a phone. There is nothing casual about using a DSLR or mirrorless camera given the quality possible of a device that most of us have anyway. Today dragging a camera device along with you is simply not a casual choice. Small cameras not being a phone are pretty much over."

s.wolters: "At a certain moment in the old film days I used a Polaroid SX70, a Yashica T4, an Olympus Centurion APS all-in-one, a Nikon F100 and F65, a Contax G1, a Rolleiflex GX and a Mamiya 7. And I borrowed a Horseman 4x5 field camera from a friend now and then. (With her as the main accessory).

"Now my 'casual' Olympus Pen-F has replaced them all. It’s my point and shoot, walk around, documentary, travel, portrait and precision camera for close up and high-res shots. Micro Four Thirds gives me more than I need, though I could be just as happy with the Fuji system I suppose. Hate smartphones for photography, but love my iPad for making contact with people while I am traveling. In a way that replaces the SX70."

New Look for Nikons

How is it that a deliberately retro digital looks more 2020 and
up-to-date than a black-blob polycarbonate DSLR?

Respectfully proposed: isn't it high time for a new look for Nikons?

A few days I wrote about that great closeout deal on the Nikon D610, and it really is just a heck of a great deal. And I did like that camera. It feels sharp and capable.

But let's be honest. It's not a looker.

It got me to thinking.

Nikons just look old these days.

And dated. They just exude "yesterday."

Not even yesterday...last year. Last decade. Last century. Yeah, that black-blob polycarbonate lump (BBPL) look that came into the mainstream in the 1990s is just plain last millennium.

As with all BBPL cameras, originally it was inherited from the work of the renegade industrial designer Luigi Colani, via Canon. But Colani himself grew old and departed this coil, and anyway his original idea has morphed through so many less talented hands at Nikon that it's merely vestigial...and greatly debased, much as Frank Lloyd Wright's "open plan" concept—originally a subtle idea, in the master's hands—has come to merely mean barnlike interiors with no finishing.

Even the logo looks yesterday. Just because Ford and Coke keep their original typefaces (because they're glorious) doesn't mean everybody should. Yes, Nikon's italic forward-slanting sans-serif typeface was clean and modern...in 1953, when it made its first appearance. Now, it insistently screams "'nineties" to me, like scrunchies, slip dresses and Seinfeld.

Aaaugh!!
And speaking of screaming, I think if I see that poor shriveled misbegotten red "Nikon slash" stuck brainlessly on yet another camera, I think I might! Scream, that is.

A long way back, Nikon asked Giorgio Giugiaro, the famous car designer, to design a few of its cameras. Such was the fashion at the time: Contaxes (a cooperative nameplate from West German Zeiss and Japanese Yashica, later part of Kyocera) were originally designed by Porsche Design Studio (now Studio F. A. Porsche), the industrial design firm founded by Ferdinand Alexander "Butzi" Porsche, designer of the fabled and famous 911 and grandson of Porsche founder Ferdinand Porsche. Canon (in second place, and a striver) hired zany Colani. Nikon followed suite by engaging Giugiaro, who boldly put a red line down one side of the angular F3. Brilliant! It looked new, it looked fresh, like the bright new dawning decade!

...Trouble is, that decade was the 1980s.

Now, like a 90-year old who still pomades his ducktail like he did when Elvis was King, Nikon just keeps insisting on that same little old tired design fillip, doing like they were told by the cool guy way back when.

Same sad red accent a third of a century after it first appeared. Giorgio,
what hast thou wrought? Here on the D610 it's so tired it's literally drooping.

The very essence of anti-fashion is to stick with ancient styles and never change. I've seen hot-rodded Mennonite buggies shined to gleaming that look cooler than most Nikons do.

Black blob is the new old
One proof of this concept is that even the most "retro" of new cameras somehow look much more up-to-the-minute than the average Nikon does. How is that? Yet it's true. Possibly the most retro camera out there is the Fuji X-T30, and somehow even it looks more up to date than a BBPL camera. Have a look. My Fuji X-H1 just looks the business; it's really a handsome camera, whatever else you might think of it. Ditto a variety of Leicas, Panasonics, and other Fujis. Nikon DSLRs are ugly stepsisters. 

Automobiles have "house looks." And even those change from time to time...at least after a few decades they do. (Sometimes not for the better, I'll admit. I miss BMWs.) Even F.A. Porsche's 911, which is famous for staying the same, has changed an awful lot. 

Yeah, I know, cameras are tools and meant to be ergonomic, not pretty. Sony A7 family cameras look better but are said to handle worse. I get that. Then why is it that Canon BBPL cameras look about five times better than Nikon BBPL cameras do? Like Volkswagen sedans, Canons look clean and sleek and grown-up. Nikon DSLRs look blobby and frowsy and dumpy, and a little haphazard, like stuff just got stuck on wherever. You know what they say about camels—horses designed by a committee.

Cool. (I'm ignoring the red accent, because it looks like the
designer hated the idea and some suit insisted.)

Maybe the Z line will be the new Nikon look. Do they really look that good, though? I hear some people don't like 'em. I do like the Z7 myself. I think it's cool, like it would fill the hand like Wild Bill Hickok's Colt—but I'm not sure the Z7 [$700 off!] is pretty enough to hang a whole new house style on (or that Nikon has any intention of doing that).

Glass house
And yeah, yeah, I know, TOP itself is dowdy and frumpy and never changes, and Yr. Hmbl. Ed. is the furthest thing from a fashion plate, and I shouldn't talk. Got that, and yes. But doesn't that mean that if even I think there's a problem, there might actually be a problem?

All I'm asking is, is it time for a new house look for Nikon? A top-to-bottom rethink. Sometimes old is classic, but sometimes old is just old. Enough is enough. Even the Rolls-Royce grill has evolved! Enough with the black-blob plastic-lump look, the tired red bit tacked on like a dowager's pin, and the 1990s-looking Helvetica logo. However sharp and modern Nikons perform, most of 'em do it looking dated. And that's not cool.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Gordon Lewis: "Life is too short to wait for Nikon (or any other camera company, for that matter) to produce something I want. Instead I choose from what's currently available, like it or leave it. So, rather than wait for Nikon to introduce a camera that's more like a Fujifilm X-T3, I bought a Fujifilm X-T3, and guess what? I even mount my old AI-Nikkors on it from time-to-time. It's all I can do not to feel smug."

Thomas Rink: "I've used a Nikon D800 as my main camera for more than five years. A couple of weeks ago, I bought a Fuji X-T20 secondhand as a camera for family snapshots. In regards to aesthetics, I share your point of view. The Nikon is big, heavy and ugly, whereas the Fuji looks small and nimble, much like a '70s film SLR.

"In terms of function, both cameras are similarly competent picture-making tools. They provide everything I need, and the technical quality of the pictures from both cameras is very good.

"But: the Nikon is much easier to use, and handles much more 'fluidly' than the Fuji! There is a button to control each essential function right under my finger. In my opinion, the button-and-command-wheel interface is more ergonomic than the retro-style dial interface of the Fuji. Also, I find the general handling of the X-T20 a bit 'fiddly'; it is quite easy to inadvertently change a setting. This never happened to me with the D800!

"To sum it up: Yes, Nikon DSLRs are big, heavy and ugly, but their UI and handling has been refined during each subsequent camera generation since the '80s."

Larry Johnson: "Your design points are well made but I'll offer a counter view. I rather like the anonymity and blahness my camera (D610) exudes when I'm out in a crowd or alone on a remote trail. It doesn't shout 'hey! Look at ME!'

"As the most modest of the 'serious' Nikon DSLRs it's a notch above a nothing burger, but I keep getting good pictures out of it. I admire the 'look' of the new Leicas but don't want one. I think the little Fujis are nifty looking but I prefer a larger sensor. Furthermore, I can't easily handle their smallness.

"I love the look of the Fiat Spyder but I'm more of a Highlander guy. For me, pretty is as pretty does."

Cyber Monday Sports-Car Nikon

Cyber Monday deal, effective today: full-frame Nikon D610 with 50mm lens, mobile wireless adapter, and vertical grip / battery pack for only $896.95. That's a discount of $1,100 off the regular price.

In other words, they're giving this away today and tomorrow. And the lens isn't the old "nifty fifty." It's the new (June 2011) ƒ/1.8G lens that normally goes for $217 and is currently on sale for $177. It weighs only 6.5 oz. (185g) and thus effectively lightens the camera. It's a classic 7-element Planar type with the convex and concave surfaces between elements 4 and 5 (you count from the objective, AKA the outermost, element inwards) that I much prefer in lenses of this type—it predicts excellent bokeh, which this lens exhibits. It's not a premium lens by today's seriously over-the-top standards, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it's better than almost any 50mm lens you could buy 40 years ago. An excellent classic lens design, and you're getting it for less than nothing. I'd prefer it, for the excellent bokeh, but then I'd use it in the traditional way: stopped down almost always, except in cases where I absolutely needed the speed. I don't like today's big, heavy, expensive primes, with their aseptic, analytical, look-at-me rendering.

I owned the bigger Nikon DSLR...an earlier version, the D800. Is it wrong that I actually preferred the D600 at the time? Lighter, handier, easier on the computer storage, and somehow it seemed more responsive to me. But then, I'm a sports car guy, not a muscle car guy.

Funny how camera prices have gone up and down. True, cameramakers are charging more for cameras these days, and it seems (pretty transparently) to be a business strategy. But then you can get really great deals—I mean real bargains—like this. Remember that equally fantastic bargain on the Fuji X-H1? Well, the X-H1 lists as "discontinued" across the board on B&H now. Gone. This D610 will likely be gone soon too. They're asking you if you'd like one of the last ones for very little money while they still have a few. It's a camera you could use for ten years for <$90 per year(!!), and for the right buyer, man, what a deal.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Michael J. Perini: "My daughter owns and loves this lens (she shoots weddings). A great bargain, a near giveaway here.

"By the way the space is between elements 3 and 4 (not 4 and 5) and both of those lens surfaces are concave, just oriented in opposite directions."

Mike replies: No, I said what I mean—I'm talking about the cemented surfaces in the 4/5 group. In many Planar-types both those surfaces are flat, to save money. That doesn't impact the plane of focus performance much, but it influences the look of the bokeh.

Malcolm Myers: "Interesting that they get rid of old digital stock at rock-bottom prices, yet you can still buy an F6 brand new some fifteen years after it was launched."

Mike replies: That's a completely different sales strategy. What they're doing there is regulating the outflow of the "new old stock" (NOS). NOS means new items that were manufactured a long time ago but still being warehoused. The idea is to keep the item in stock for a long as possible so it can be catalogued as being available new, and no official decision has to be made to either discontinue the product or make another production run. They're not going to do another production run of the F6. If they wanted to close it out, they could, but they'd rather keep it in the catalog. The price is raised to put a damper on the rate of sales so it doesn't sell too fast.

Pentax did this for years with the LX. The LX remained officially "in production" for many years after the last batch was made; but by the end, the price had risen to a king's ransom.

As electronic products, there are two reasons digital cameras aren't kept in stock like that.

One is that the company knows the tech and features are going to be outdated quickly. The crucial difference is that with the F6, demand will fall to a trickle, but there will still be demand. Whereas with a digital camera, demand will fall to zero. With low demand, the price per unit can go up; with no demand, it can't. Nikon will still occasionally sell an F6 (introduced 2004) for $2,550. But if it had NOS 2004 D70's in the boxes brand new, it most likely couldn't sell any for any price. (On eBay those are going for $20–40, mainly for conversion to infrared. If Pentax still had NOS LX's hanging around, it could sell a few every year, for high prices. That's because the demand has fallen very low but it has never gone to zero.

The other reason is so the company doesn't have to maintain a stock of spare parts to guarantee repairability. Nikon probably has a protocol for how long it will guarantee a stock of parts for cameras of every category—longest for professional products, shortest for low-end consumer models. But the sooner the D610 can be officially discontinued, the sooner the clock can start ticking on the period during which parts will be provided and repairability will be guaranteed, whatever that is.

I hope Ned or Eamon will correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. I'm just guessing; I don't have any firsthand knowledge of Pentax or Nikon policy.

Speaking of NOS, before they changed the tax laws, publishers could keep old books in stock as NOS and gradually raise the price as the stock sold, in order to keep the book in the catalog. Rumor had it that in the 1980s, Oxford University Press was cataloguing and selling brand new copies of books that had actually been printed in the late 1800s!

Eamon Hickey: "I think your description of Nikon's thinking re: the F6 vs. the digital models is very likely correct, but I can't say for sure from personal knowledge of that particular issue. I never heard any decision-makers talk about it. On the question of repairability, you're correct that Nikon (and everybody else) has official protocols, but I don't think they are 'guarantees' in the legal sense—i.e. an enforceable contractural obligation. I do know what Nikon's used to be: Nikon had an official plan to keep spare parts available for all cameras for five years after they were discontinued. For pro-level cameras, it was clearly longer than five years, although that was never stated explicitly in my hearing. For lenses, the plan was to stock spare parts for 10 years after the model was discontinued. In practice, when I had to day-to-day experience with these things, most cameras and lenses could be repaired by Nikon or other repair shops, with stockpiled spare parts, for significantly longer than the five- and 10-year targets.

"Important caveat: I don't know if these protocols are still in effect at Nikon. They could easily have changed in the last 10 or 15 years without me knowing about it."

Steve Rosenblum: "There are quite a few people in the review section for this camera on the B&H site complaining of sensor oil and dust problems that Nikon has failed to resolve. Perhaps that is another reason for the low price?"

Mike replies: I thought those problems were on the D600 and were solved on the D610. I thought that was the rationale for the +10 update. No?

Dogman replies to Steve and Mike: "The D610 is a very competent camera. It is the replacement for the D600 that had the shutter that splashed oil on the sensor. Nikon did (reluctantly and belatedly) replace the shutters in D600 cameras under warranty but the camera had gained a reputation by then. The D610 has a new shutter and a few new features over the D600. The vast majority of reports I've read indicate the oily sensor issue has been resolved but you still see an occasional owner's review saying their particular camera has a dirty sensor. Personally, my Fuji mirrorless cameras get more crap on their sensors than any of the DSLRs I've ever owned, including a D610. I very much like my D610, bought 'well used' and still plugging along without any issues whatsoever.

"The 50mm ƒ/1.8 Nikkor is a sweet lens that I also like a lot. I've read user reports that indicate the ƒ/1.8 lens outperforms the current ƒ/1.4 model. I only know I like what mine gives me."

Sunday Support Group: Out of GAS?

When I think back on it, there were a number of cameras I bought because I basically couldn't help myself.

In 1989, I was nine years into the acute phase of my photography obsession, and four years out from my graduation from photography school (and I had just suffered a setback in my personal life, which usually worsens, temporarily, my gear obsession and my focus on material things, as if my mind is grasping for a distraction). Canon introduced the EOS RT.

The RT was an EOS 630 with a pellicle mirror. A pellicle mirror is a fixed beam splitter in the place of the moving reflex mirror—Sony called its pellicle-mirror cameras "SLT," for "single lens translucent." It's a feature that has never been popular with photographers, but in 1989 I thought it was cool and cutting-edge. Couple that with the fact that Canon introduced an especially small and light 35mm ƒ/2 lens—then and now my favorite focal length and lens speed—at around the same time, and I couldn't resist. That RT seemed like the happenin' thing, stylish and capable. It was a significant investment for me at the time, but I bought one.

...Which was kinda nuts, in that I was semi-unemployed at the time and already had a perfectly good autofocus Nikon and Nikon's version of the exact same lens. What can I say? That EOS RT was too beautiful and too cool not to possess. I wanted it. Like really, really wanted it.

Well, that was a harbinger of my future, turns out. I did like the RT, and did some good work with it, and I even kept it for a couple of years. I believe it's the only Canon I've ever owned, apart from a few historical specimens. I never disliked it. I honestly can't recall how or why I moved on from it.

Since then I've bought at least half a dozen cameras because...well, apparently because I had to. The significance of the EOS RT in my life seems to have been the start of a new pattern. 

A camera to me seems to contain infinite promise. Photographs grab hold of the unknowable phantasm of life; they fish magic talismans of permanence out of the always-vanishing river of experience. They are tokens of memory, and they defy time. They honor the things we've loved as those things pass by into emptiness. Sights vanish forever with the passing instants—but not quite entirely, if you have the right camera and you snatched a particle to keep for yourself. The Buddhists say the world is an illusion, that you cannot lean on the world, you cannot hang on to now. The camera whispers seductively in your ear that you kind of can.

And while it's true that every camera disappoints, it's also true that every camera and every lens yields its gifts, its rewards. I've almost never owned a single camera that didn't give me back something precious.

Cash in hand but empty-handed
Anyway, what I'm getting around to is that one of our commenters said the other day that he really wants to buy something but there's just nothing he needs and nothing that entices him. He titled the comment "Out of GAS?"

That seemed remarkable. But only two parts of it. First of all, I can understand all those of you who don't have the urge to buy and spend—it's not something I'm personally familiar with, but I'm assuming a fair percentage of TOP's readership consists of grown men and women who possess that mysterious quality called maturity, and that you people can do all those weird things like "defer gratification" and "regulate desires" that mature people reportedly do, at least according to what I've read. (Okay, I'm being tongue in cheek here—a little—I'm 62, and not entirely lacking in maturity).

And I can certainly understand not needing anything. Hell, I haven't needed a camera for decades.

It's the combination of feeling the urge—the want—the desire—to buy something and not finding anything that's appealing enough to buy that's remarkable about Moose's comment. You know, you just want a toy and the money is burning a hole in your pocket and you're locked and loaded for self-indulgence and...nothing calls your name. Nada.

In one way I can understand it, because I find myself truly, honestly, deep-down sick of overcomplexity. It really is a turn-off for me. It's not that I can't handle it, it's that I don't want it. A new camera these days feels partly like a four-hour math exam I haven't studied for.

I don't even want my cameras to shoot video! How counterculture is that?

I dunno. I've indulged camera GAS in my life more than most people—I even made part of a career out of it for a while there—but I can always find something else to want. And yet that idea of there's nothing out there that entices me seems strangely plausible.

This post has no conclusion. Topic for discussion? I have no idea what to think. It may be that this is the camera-geek's equivalent of the proverbial irresistible force and immovable object, and my brain is getting set to explode! Your turn.

Mike
(Thanks to Moose)

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Yiorgos: "I'm out of GAS too, although I wish I weren't. A new camera re-energizes my photography, which does need a boost. I recently attended PhotoPlus in New York City, looking for the one camera that would excite me and spark a new idea. I thought that it might be the Fuji X-Pro 3, or some camera from the larger manufacturers that I had overlooked. But I walked away—for the second year in a row—disappointed. Everything seemed either too big, or too expensive, or uninspired. It's subjective, of course, how one perceives these things. What GAS I do have has me thinking that I ought to buy the Pentax KP with one of those small Pentax Limited lenses, before such a gem of a camera disappears from the marketplace. For years, too, I have been thinking about getting the Mamiya RB67. Then I think that I should just repair the Leica M4 that's sitting in my closet and be happy.

"I do consider that the problem may not be about GAS at all, but about time, money, and cultivating creativity. I'm short of these things too."

Mani Sitaraman: "I went through a similar mania or obsession that lasted about six or seven years, starting in 1994. The fever broke when the camera world went digital, with the Nikon D100. I simply haven't wanted, wanted, a digital camera the way I wanted some of those old film cameras, back in those days.

"It made no logical sense. What do a Rollei medium format SLR, a Minox C and a Plaubel Makina 67 have in common that I would find a reason to rationalize buying all three? The only camera that I desperately wanted and then bought, and that I then used constantly for years, because it fit my hand like a glove, was a Leica M6 0.85. The only reason I stopped, was that lab processing became too expensive, scarce, and of uneven quality."

MikeK: "I recall reading somewhere that the brain likes the novelty of a new purchase—and gives you a little dopamine hit when you buy something. I find that there's always new camera stuff I could buy, but I'll mostly keep using the same body and decent zoom lens. I started looking at L-brackets recently—even though I don't use the tripod that much....

"I do find when I go into a record shop these days (if I can find one) that there's not much I want to buy—maybe I'm just getting old or maybe all the bands I like are gone (or have given up and got proper jobs)."

Guy Perkins: "I'm older than you Mike, and about to buy a camera because...I just need to buy a camera. Oh dear."

Jim McDermott (partial comment): "Mike, I, too, bought the EOS RT (it didn't stay with me long, but I used it on a Greek [Lesbos] holiday in 1991, where it did good service. I'm sure I felt the same way about it as all my many GAS purchases—initial fascination, followed by deflation (or at least, a puzzled, what-was-that-all-about moment) and then an abiding inability to learn from the experience."

Mark L. Power: "Re 'A camera to me seems to contain infinite promise. Photographs grab hold of the unknowable phantasm of life....' Beautifully said, Mike, and it echoes my feelings exactly about cameras. Those two paragraphs go into my quote file.

"There's a curious kind of trust between photographer and a camera. My own superstition is if I don't get at least one 'keeper' from my first time out with the camera (usually before I even know how to work it) than I'll never trust that camera again and soon it sits on a shelf gathering dust until I can find someone to buy it."

Kodachromeguy: "Nothing that entices you? How about going back to basics? Buy a film camera. After all, you have the know-how and practical experience. That would give us plenty of articles as you describe your journey."

PaulW: "I too have run out of GAS. I've built up a fully fleshed-out camera system that I'm completely content with. I have no need, or desire, to purchase anymore camera gear. But, I've now developed a nasty case of SAS (software acquisition syndrome). I find myself constantly trying, and frequently buying, different photo related software packages. Several of these packages have required more horsepower than my current system has, so I've also developed a case of computer HAS (hardware acquisition syndrome). I think camera GAS pales in comparison to computer HAS. The choices are endless and overwhelming. Does this merry-go-round ever stop?"

Steve C: "I've had good success at getting off the GAS treadmill in both cycling and photography by finding my way into buying really expensive, dead-end stuff that really only suits me and that I love to use, regardless of 'performance.'

"Part of this is convincing myself / realising that the build of 'performance' in either domain is subjective and the result of practice, training, and development of one's potential, and that there are always people more obsessed with that pursuit that I will be.

"A made-just-for-me bicycle is an expensive thing, and almost valueless to anyone but me. And because it suits just me so well, I just haven't ever wanted anything else since. In the long run I think it's worked out for the best both monetarily and experientially.

"When people who are getting into cycling ask me for advice on bikes, there's nothing I can tell them. I ride a lot, but I'm just not following the equipment race.

"Camera-wise, I did the OCOLOY exercise with a borrowed M6 and after a few months of really hard wrestling, fell permanently in love with the M system. I longed for the flexibility and quick feedback of digital though, and managed to scrape my way into a digital version and haven't cared for the digital specification race since.

"Now that I can eyeball exposure pretty well, the final happy dead-end for me is an M-A. It's everything I enjoy with almost nothing to go wrong, nothing to run out of charge and nothing to go out of date (it's all since obsolete anyway). But I'm in no rush to get there. So long as Leica keep making them (and there seems to be a standing six-month backorder) they won't be any better or any more obsolete in a year or five from now.

"When friends ask me about cameras I have nothing to tell them other than that Fuji seem to care about cameras that make sense. Outside of that I can talk about pictures, but have no idea about cameras.

"It's a pretty happy place to be.

"That said, going back to Mary Ellen Mark's statement that it's not when you release the shutter but why that matters, if you do it for the revelry of marveling at the amazingness of technology (and for many people, chemical technology's ability to fix an image on paper was a similar a-ha moment), I think that's fine too.

"The only thing that leaves a sour taste in my mouth is when people with profound GAS feel the need to be right about their own preference of the moment and point out the idiocy and inferiority of all dissenters' views. I've learned that part of what makes any field interesting is the personal histories and reasons behind the differing opinions. Why should we want everyone to agree with us?"

Mike replies: I'll just mention, gently and compassionately, that over the years I've had many, many friends and readers explain to me in great detail that the Leica they just bought is their last camera purchase and that they'll never need to buy another. I never rub it in when they buy another new camera a few years later. It does seem, however, from my vantage point, that calling a Leica purchase "the final happy dead-end for me" (or any of a hundred similar phrases meaning the same thing) is perhaps just part of the justification process for the purchase. But we'll see how you do.

Don't beat yourself up if it turns out you were over-optimistic about that, though, because you won't be alone.

New: Leica SL2

Leitz Leicaflex SL2, 1974: built like a Tiger I. This one's for sale.

First of all, the new Leica SL2 full-frame mirrorless (FFM) camera has an excellent name. I've often enough been a critic (or at least a lampooner) of absurd, obtuse, opaque camera names, so this should be acknowledged. The original Leicaflex SL2 was a beautiful, big, heavy, over-engineered, over-spec'ed SLR that Leitz made, late and grudgingly, as a response to the overwhelming popularity of the SLR. It was built like a Tiger tank. The name of today's SL2 FFM pays homage to that proud heritage product while at the same time remaining distinct from it by virtue of the fact that the earlier product has the tag "Leicaflex" attached to it whereas the new one is called merely by the current company name, Leica. So you can still search for the older SL2 on the Internet and not be swamped by results for the new camera.

Second, the second iteration of a camera is usually a promising and exciting event. It means that the original product was popular—otherwise there would be little reason to publish a new edition, as it were—and, also usually, the second generation corrects most of the niggles and glitches of the first, after the first has been thoroughly tried, sorted, used and discussed by its purchasers and, um, others. (It also sort of turns early adopters into de facto beta-testers, but that's neither here nor there.)

As befits the faster pace of evolution in digital, the SL2 offers some serious upgrades from the earlier SL (Type 601) from 2015. Most notably, it has in-body image stabilization (IBIS) almost certainly compliments of Panasonic, also most likely the source of the SL2's new OLED EVF—already one of the great features of the original. Although Panasonic has not been a leader with IBIS, and played catch-up for a long time, its most recent cameras seem finally to have caught up with longtime leaders and developers such as Olympus and Sony (née Konica-Minolta). The SL2 uses a new sensor of 47-megapixel resolution (same as the one in the Q2) and a new processor, called Maestro III. It is said to offer 14 stops of DR. It features a revised body design in response to complaints about the original, and revisions in the controls and menus. The rear viewing screen is bigger and has better resolution, although it's still not articulated in any way. It's a choice. The camera has a nice status panel on the top plate and the big, beautiful diopter control looks awesome (inset). The camera will cost $5,995.

Leica SL2. This one's for sale too.

Real-world tests to follow, out on the wilds of the Internet.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Jeff: "Plus even better weather sealing (IP-54), better video capabilities, and now with even more lens options through Leica (including SL, TL and adapted M, S and R lenses) and through the L mount alliance (Panasonic Lumix and Sigma). The sensor is also better optimized for M lens use (especially wide angle) than the Lumix S1/S1R, somewhat offsetting the significant price disparity."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I rented an SL about a year ago to test it out. My experience was similar to Aaron’s; it was a miserable experience. The SL was heavy, awkward to hold, awkward to control. The experience was made all the worse because the project I was shooting required me to hold the camera away from my face and pointed downward most of the time. After 40 minutes my arms burned, my eyes were aching (trying to see the non-articulating screen), and the 10-lbs. battery (exaggeration) was nearly dry. There is absolutely nothing about the SL2 that seems as it would help facilitate me making better images. I don’t care about their IBIS or their newly rounded edges. The sensor may be lovely (same as in my Q2), but so what? I’ll stick to my infinitely more capable and versatile Sony A7R, Fuji GFX, and Canon systems, thank you."

Mike replies: That sounds like my reaction to the R8 and Leicaflex SL2 film cameras. I had an immediate strong aversion to the R8, which a friend loaned to me at Photo East one year. (He loved it. Rumor had it that it sold very poorly.) An idea of the tanklike build of the Leicaflex SL2 can be seen here. Nothing wrong with that if it's what one prefers, but it's not to my taste.

For that matter both those film cameras reminded me of the Zeiss Contarex, a candidate for the best-built, least user-friendly camera ever made:

CC by 2.0

Gordon Lewis: "My grandfather was the proud owner of a Zeiss Contarex, which he let me use for a few days so that I could experience what it was like to shoot with the pinnacle of German design and engineering. Excitement transformed into disappointment as soon as I discovered that not only was the Contarex as heavy as a brick, the selenium cell exposure meter (the "eye" above the lens) was prone to underexposure caused by light reflecting into the meter from the brushed chrome lens barrel. I've had an antipathy towards heavy, over-engineered cameras and lenses ever since."

Chuck Albertson: "Mark Meyer (cf. Mike Plews's comment) survived an ejection from an F4 Phantom while shooting an assignment in the 1980s over the Mojave Desert (engine flameout). The strap on his Leicaflex SL2 snapped when his 'chute opened, and the camera dropped several miles. It was found by some hikers about a year later. The film was recovered, and the camera was repairable (the lens was a write-off). His camera used to be in the museum at Leica in Wetzlar, but had disappeared the last time I visited. The digital SL is robust enough to have been OK'ed by NASA to ride on its sounding rockets; the first one didn't go so well, as the 'chute malfunctioned. The SL has been my day-to-day camera for a couple of years. The image quality is superb, especially with a SL prime attached to it, and it's incredibly durable. You could win a bar fight with it, and then use it to photograph the losers—wasn't that Marty Forscher's working definition of a professional-grade camera?"

Coming Revolutions in Storage and Memory

We were talking about SD cards yesterday, and whether 95 MB/s (megabytes per second) is enough download speed or whether you need to pay the premium for 300 MB/s cards. Yes, of course, some people do need the latter—pros, videographers, heavy shooters, anyone on a deadline, etc.

As far as storage and memory are concerned, though, you need to know about two things, both of which were mentioned in the Comments. The first is called CFexpress, a possible new standard in portable removable media that's a big leap from what we've had up till now. The other is some even more exciting news in archive storage, an issue which has been a real headache in digital (and for certain analog media, such as the originals of movies) for decades now. It's called Project Silica, and it's just in the proof-of-concept stage now. But the concept is fascinating indeed. As are the concepts behind the concept.

CFexpress
Think your measly 300 MB/s SD card is the sh*ts? Well, yes, it is, but maybe not for long. CFexpress cards use Sony's XQD form factor and will be back-compatible with XQD devices, and can potentially deliver four lanes of 1GB throughput per lane. Upcoming examples of the Type B version of the 38.5×29.8×3.8mm cards can hold half a terabyte of data with read speeds up to 1,750 MB/s and write speeds of 1,000 MB/s, and the potential is for even more than that.

This is better tech. But as Kishore Sawh writes on SLRGear, "we’ve seen 'better' tech come and go in various fields before simply because they weren’t broadly adopted, and this was a concern for photographers and manufacturers. Make no mistake, adoption rates and market share can make or break a 'superior product.'" Truer words were never spoken. But that, in case you were wondering, is why the Nikon Z6 and Z7 and other Nikons use XQD cards—Nikon has already announced upcoming firmware updates to enable the Z6, Z7, D5, D850 and D500 cameras to use CFexpress Type B. Nikon is only waiting for the cards to become available before releasing the firmware that will enable them. (I don't know how many other current, or imminent, pro cameras use or will use XQD, but I'm guessing there are and will be more.)

Photo courtesy Lexar

A Lexar CFexpress card fits in the XQD slot of the Nikon Z7

More generally, it remains to be seen if CFexpress will be the storage media of the future, because it depends on adoption and acceptance. For now, though, I can't see how companies making cameras for professionals could fail to keep up with each other and transition to CFexpress—it's just so much mo' bettah. In the more distant future, it's certainly possible that cameras will involve a paradigm shift away from traditional handheld interchangable-lens standalone cameras—already, many amateur cameras are index-card-sized, quarter-inch-thick wafers (that is, smartphones) that can send their pictures wirelessly to the cloud for storage. Who knows if professional digital imaging will go that way too, or some other way? But assuming there remains a need for portable removable storage and a need for improvement in that area, CFexpress may be on the cusp of creating a decisive leap in the existing state of the art.

Microsoft Azure's Project Silica

Photo courtesy Microsoft

And speaking of the cloud, check this out. What you're looking at here are, on the left, the four reels of the 1978 movie Superman on celluloid, and, on the right, the same movie encoded on a palm-sized piece of hard silica glass. It's a technology developed by a sprawling Microsoft division known as Project Red Dog (2008) > Windows Azure (2010) > Microsoft Azure (2014). It's called "Project Silica." The successful transfer in the picture above is the proof of concept.

It's astonishing. Microsoft says "the hard silica glass can withstand being boiled in hot water, baked in an oven, microwaved, flooded, scoured, demagnetized and other environmental threats." Awesome/brilliant as all that is, it's not even the new technology's neatest trick. An absolutely huge problem in data storage, and one that looms even larger for the future, is that vast amounts of labor—and hence, expense—are needed to keep ahead of entropy, a.k.a. decay. In this case, for instance, "Warner Bros. proactively migrates content every three years to stay ahead of degradation issues." Just imagine having to do all that work just to keep Superman in shape! Then multiply it over all the movies Warner Bros. has ever made, then to all the movies anyone else has ever made, then to all the other kinds of information humanity thinks is as deathless and eternal and essential to culture as Superman....

Anyway, what's sorely needed is storage media that is "write once, read always" (WORA), so when you put something away you don't have to tend to it. Ant Rowstron, partner deputy lab director of Microsoft Research Cambridge in the United Kingdom, says, "one big thing we wanted to eliminate is this expensive cycle of moving and rewriting data to the next generation. We really want something you can put on the shelf for 50 or 100 or 1,000 years and forget about until you need it."

'Zackly. Here's a picture of my former WORA technology:

I haven't touched it in better than 20 years and all the image information is right there  awaiting potential excavation. This method isn't practical any more—once it reaches this stage it's stable, but it takes too much work and cost to get to this stage.

The piece of glass in the picture above contains 75.6 gigabytes of data plus error redundancy codes. How much work will it take to get that information to that stage? For the piece of glass pictured, probably a whole lot. I presume the eventual answer to that question is that the answer will evolve. Project Silica isn't currently intended for home storage or computing (or for your Lightroom catalog)—it's for the cloud. But if it turns out to be practical—and see those comments above about adoption and acceptance—it could eliminate the eternal headache of "write once, then back up over and over and over again at regular intervals until you run out of money or until some idiot drops the ball, at which point everything goes to hell pretty damned quickly," i.e., the current state of digital archiving.

If you want to know how it's done, you'll have to read Microsoft's article, released just a few days ago, because it's over my head. (I'm guessing you already know whether you want to read it!)

Mike
(Big thanks to Speed)

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

New Olympus E-M5 Mark III Will Ship in Late November

At first glance, it looks like the latest iteration of the very capable mid-line Olympus Micro 4/3 camera, the E-M5 Mark III, will be significantly different from its predecessor. From browsing various "pre-reviews" and announcements on other websites, it appears that Olympus is doing two things with the new camera: 1.) positioning it to be a backup to the E-M1 II with many of the more expensive camera's features and capabilities, even rearranging the controls to bring them more in line with the E-M1 II's controls; and 2.) emphasizing small size and light weight, probably to better differentiate it from full-frame mirrorless (FFM) cameras. (This doesn't take a genius to figure out: the new tagline is "Empowering You to Break Free of Heavy Gear.")

As far as the "smallening and lightening" is concerned, Olympus is known for class-leading IBIS (in-body image stabilization), and the press release reserves a whole section for the new (smaller and lighter) mechanism in the E-M5 III.

It's commendable that Olympus looks like it is making no move to intentionally cripple the new camera to protect higher-end models. It appears to be giving the E-M5 III all the capability it can.

The new camera is expensive, though, considering the competition.

It will be available in silver and black.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Eolake Stobblehouse: "I have watched several preview videos about it today, and I’m quite impressed. This camera is right up my alley. It can do everything I want and more, it is lightweight, and the image stabilisation is astounding. And of course I already love the Micro 4/3 system."

Nigel: "After handling a Nikon Z7, I am starting to have some doubts about the viability of the Micro 4/3 system. One by one the reasons for using this system are falling away. Only the size advantage when you use long lenses remains as a clear reason to use Micro 4/3.

"The 20-MP sensor is starting to be a little long in the tooth in a camera which must compete with cameras with much the same characteristics but with larger sensors which also cost less. At my local dealers an E-M1 Mark II is bundled with a 'free' 60mm Macro. Removing the cost of the Macro with what I could sell it for on eBay, the E-M5 III costs more than the flagship. Something is very wrong with Olympus’s pricing.

"This camera I feel suffers from the D300/D500 syndrome. When the long-awaited upgrade to the best selling D300 arrived, it was too late. I, like many others, had gone elsewhere. I jumped over to Micro 4/3 and the then-evolutionary E-M5 Mark I. Technically it produced better pictures than my old D300. Now the Micro 4/3 sensor is lagging behind the latest APS sensors.

"Once the Z system has some more lenses and the equipment becomes available more readily secondhand, I am convinced I will be returning to Nikon. The Z system gear is quite lightweight enough for me to hike in the mountains with; the very reason I fell in love with the Micro 4/3 system, but with all the advantages of the 24x36 sensor."