The Online Photographer

Snubnose Sony a7C

Darn, I wish I had said this when I was thinking of it a few weeks ago—y'all would think I was prescient. Or in the loop such that I knew this was coming, which I'm not, and didn't. What I was thinking was that a camera manufacturer should give us a lens that replicates the two lenses (well, the two lenses I have, anyway) on the iPhone: roughly, 28mm-e and 56mm-e.

We were treated a couple of days ago with a camera introduction of a type that's getting increasingly rare: a new camera that's not an iteration. An actual "Mark I."

Sony introduced the A7C, "C" presumably standing for "compact," an all-new camera with an up-to-the-minute full-frame sensor in a form-factor that's very close to the small, handy A6000-series bodies. Nice.

And along with it? A 28–60mm ƒ/4–5.6 compact lens that comes close to replicating iPhone viewing angles, which presumably iPhoneographers are getting ever more comfortable with. The lens is $300 when bundled with the camera, or $500 alone (note that it won't be shipping till February).

Detective tales
I'm old but not that old, and I seem to vaguely recall reading, when I was a kid, in comic books and detective stories, about something called a "snub-nose revolver," a revolver with a short barrel. (I'm not a gun guy, as you can probably tell.)

Photo by Hmaag (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Smith & Wesson Model 36 snub-nose revolver

Usually presented as the weapon of choice for tough guys and dangerous characters. You had to be careful of guys who packed a snubnose. Anyway that's what the A7C reminded me of when I first saw it.

Snubnose Sony

Naturally it's a camcorder, as all the kids want video these days. (Kids who can pay the $1,800 ticket, that is. )

If they'd given it an articulated viewfinder like the one on the Panasonic GX8 and a flip-up viewing screen instead of the type favored by the video set, my GAS would've been triggered. (You?) And we're never going to get one camera that leaves video off altogether, are we? Sigh. But then, we all know my tastes are nonstandard.

Here are all the details. Available for pre-order. Tough guys and dangerous characters can score one from Jake the Trenchcoat who hangs out under the streetlight at the corner of West 34th and Ninth Avenue. Da rest o' yous,watch out for mugs packing a7C's. They're small but they pack a wallop.

"Lefty"

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.

Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?

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

JG: "I want to like this camera and lens combo, I really do. But I'm not sure how useful 28mm ƒ/4 and 60mm ƒ/5.6 combinations will be for my purposes, even if they do make the camera smaller and lighter than it would be otherwise.

"As for snub-nose revolvers, your comparison is probably more apt than you realize, because they generally compromise performance for the sake of being a lot easier to carry and conceal (i.e., the best pistol is the one you have with you...lol!) Suffice it to say, though, if one is truly serious about self-defense, there are better choices one can make about the gun they carry. Likewise, if one is truly serious about their photography, there are better choices one can make about the camera they carry, too.

"Knowing a little about Mike's personal feelings about guns, I wouldn't have mentioned any of the above in my comment except he opened the door."

Last Man Standing

I mentioned (and pictured) a Wista field view camera yesterday. You might be interested to know that Keiichiro Nagaoka, builder of a similar but competing 4x5, is the last craftsman still building wooden cameras by hand in Japan. He was 82 years old as of the end of 2019 and has to make his own metal parts now (no more subcontractors willing to do it), but he's still building new 4x5's and 8x10's, just as he has since he started way back in 1962.

Here's the link to a September 2020 article about him originally published in Saray magazine: https://serai.jp/hobby/1002833.

Most people probably already know how to do the following, but those who don't will appreciate this: To auto-translate a whole web page, open Google Translate. In the right-hand pane, choose the language you wish to translate into. Enter the URL (web address) in the left-hand pane, then hit the "go" button in the right-hand pane (the rounded square with the arrow in it to the right of the URL). The auto-translation will open in a new window.

Keiichiro Nagaoka, from the Saray magazine article

Compliments of the participants in a thread at the LF forum (largeformatphotography.info) started by mhayashi, here's a look at what Nagaoka-san's workshop in Ueno, Tokyo, looks like from the street; here's a PDF of a Nagaoka brochure, and here's a video about him in Japanese. These give us a portrait of a happy craftsman who has spent his life doing what he likes.

One of the participants in that thread is Joe Kashi, who is also a TOP reader. Maybe Joe, if he is reading this, could send me a portrait of his Nagaoka, and tell us the story of it?

My old friend Oren, curator and custodian of the Stately Oren Manor View Camera Museum and Graveyard*, always preferred Nagaokas because they are lighter than competing 4x5 field cameras.

Heavy, man
Apropos of weight, the Wista-of-sainted-memory came in at least three woods—cherry, Japanese rosewood, and ebony. The cherry one is the lightest; and the rarest kind, the ebony, is the heaviest by a good margin. My own preference far and away is the rosewood one.

You will virtually never see a Wista with pristine bellows

Should you be interested in a Wista, the rarest of the rare happens to be up for auction right this moment: one on which the bellows are not crinkled from someone forcing it to close who doesn't know how to close it! Virtually all Wistas for sale have such crinkles in the bellows. It's cosmetic damage only—crinkled ones still function—but if you buy this pristine one, for heaven's sake learn to close the camera properly—do not force it—it's counter-intuitive but not hard to learn if you just work it out—and keep these "survivor" bellows in good shape!

Chances of that happening: close to zero, unless someone reading this really does buy that. It's rare that I can predict the future, but here's what's going to happen to that camera: the buyer will have trouble folding his new camera and ham-handedly try to force it to close, and those perfect bellows will become crinkled, just like all the rest. For such is life.

TOP is off tomorrow. See you on Sunday! I am still not caught up on the comments from last Sunday, but I will work on them till I am. Hope you have a nice weekend.

Mike
(Thanks to Oren and the folks on the LF board)

*That is, he, shall we say, owns, um, more old wooden view cameras than might be strictly required for purposes.

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:

Neil Partridge: "I'm never likely to use, own or even hold a bellows camera, but I'm intrigued: what's the right way to close one? Is it just case of doing it slowly? Is there a sequence to follow, perhaps with things being loosened off? Sorry I don't even know how one works!"

Mike replies: They all close differently. Or rather, there are different ways to close different cameras, and you just have to learn how yours works. It's like anything else. Buy a new car, you have to groove new habits for operating the controls thoughtlessly. The Wista folds in a way that's a bit counter-intuitive, and you need to learn how to do it and then develop a routine to do it properly. It's not rocket science—you could figure it out in five minutes with no instruction. But when you try the way that seems like it's obvious and it doesn't want to work, the thing to do is not to simply apply more pressure to force it. When I sold mine, there were no crinkles in the bellows.

Matt: "After working with a folding 4x5 for a few years, I scraped together enough cash to buy an ebony 45s...a non-folding work of art that also happens to be a wonderful camera to work with. It is quick to set up, a joy to use, and very easy to lock down solid. Being able to set it up without the extra steps of a folding camera has meant fewer photos missed. It has its downsides...more limited movements than some cameras, and shorter bellows than others, but it is one of the few cameras I’ve owned that makes me happy just pulling it out of the bag. I hope the same will be true for whoever buys that Wista!"

Lee: "The cherry Wista 45 DX I bought in 1982 has bellows that are in great shape, and not crinkled. I used it to shoot a portfolio to get freelance studio assisting jobs, and I shot with it around Europe for a year.

"A French electrician and photo hobbyist got curious about the camera in Fiesole when I was shooting Etruscan ruins. We gave him a ride back to his hotel in Florence, and he hosted my wife and I in his Paris apartment a month or two later. He gave us a ride around Paris in his 2CV the evening we arrived, pointing out the various places around town where sex workers were picked up by their clientele. He was working on his Ph.D. in psychology, and that was his area of study. You never know where an interesting camera will take you."

Kodachromeguy: "Mike, even most metal folders (Wista, Toyo Field, Rittreck) have wrinkled bellows. The Rittrecks seem especially prone. Maybe folding a field camera does take a rocket scientist."

Malcolm Myers: "I have a Nagaoka 4x5. Sadly, it doesn't get the use it should. One day I'll get back to it."

Mike replies: As I said, mostly I cannot predict the future, but....  :-(

Michael J. Perini: "Lovely story about Mr. Nagaoka, I love it. For me, the quintessential wooden view camera has always been the Deardorff. It does everything you need and no more. Wista and Nagaoka made wonderful cameras but the best out of Japan were those from Ebony, especially their truly innovative wide-angle 4x5's which could be had with stainless steel or titanium hardware."

Fred Tuman: "A Nagaoka saved my commercial career. We were starting a very high-end residential wall coverings shoot in Coconut Grove, Florida. The prep time alone for this project cost thousands and it was all on my head. My usual large format kit consisted of six large cases with two Linhof 4x5's, 8000 watt seconds of lighting, tripods, light stands, etc.; weighing in at about 150 lbs. All of this goes on the airplane with my assistant and I. As a backup I also take with me, as a carry-on in a backpack, the Nagaoka and three small lenses, plus six film holders. My assistant carries a light tripod, three small light stands, and three Vivitar 283 flashes with built-in slaves.

"As you are about to guess...all the checked-in luggage goes to a destination unknown. The client (with his wife and two kids) are anxiously waiting with three stylists to get this production going. The Nagaoka performed brilliantly. For three days we shot all the vignettes with this modest combo. Thankfully, after the third day,the children were getting restless, and the client took them to Disneyland and had the confidence enough to leave me be. The rest of my equipment miraculously showed up and we could get our business done."

Mike replies: Fred's story is another example of the pro's dictum: always have a backup!

Learning to Love the Panasonic GX9

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mo's field (you remember Moses!)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice weekend! See you on Sunday.

Mike
(Thanks to Izzy and B&H Photo)

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

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

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

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

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

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

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

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

'Leica Cannot Keep Up With Demand'

New black Leica M-A unmetered film camera.
Curiously, in stock at B&H Photo as of this writing.

There's a meme going around the photosphere that "Leica cannot keep up with the demand for film cameras." Here's an example. It's because of comments made by various Leica bigwigs lately.

I have no doubt that everything those gentlemen said was true, but we need more data. I mean, it could be that they have two guys assembling 36 cameras a month and now they're getting 44 orders a month. It doesn’t precisely mean either that demand for film cameras is surging generally or that Leica is selling film cameras hand over fist. I mean, it could mean that, but we need a little more drill-down for adequate interpretation.

Big grain of salt, is all I'm saying.

Change of sub-topic but not subject
...Here's a related question: if you were getting a film Leica—and let's say you could afford anything—what would you get? Brand new? Leica currently makes two film cameras, the M-A (meterless, so no battery) and MP (metered, so one or two button batteries that last a year plus). Curiously given the "can't meet demand" theme, B&H has the silver MP in stock and the black M-A in stock). Or vintage?

I'd go used, but I'd be torn. The plain everyday M6, which was an M4-P with a built-in, coupled but non-autoexposure light meter, is the most practical Leica and the most common on the used market (I'd search out a Leitz example). But I think I'd hold out for a really good M4 (all of those were Leitz) and have it serviced. Repair ace Sherry Krauter told me long ago that the M4 was the best-built Leica, as well as the only one that didn't improve, degrade, or fluctuate over its production lifetime: all built to the same high standard from first to last. Although Leicaphiles will dispute this every which way, it's good enough for me. I shot with an M4 for a year and it was a luminous experience, one of many in photography I'm grateful to have had.

Mike
(Thanks to Steve R.)

[CORRECTIONS galore: I somehow managed to make a high density of mistakes in this, for such a short post. The picture was originally labeled as an MP, which is wrong; fixed now. Also, the M6 meter is not uncoupled as I first said; it's coupled, just not auto-exposure. Also fixed now. Thanks to Pieter K. and Carl W. for taking care of dotty Uncle Mike, who obviously isn't taking his pills. —Ed.]

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:

Chris Nicholls: "As the happy owner of an M6 (with 0.58 viewfinder to suit my spectacles) and an M4, I'll confirm that you can't go wrong with either of those."

Dan Khong: "My best Leica is nicknamed the Hexar RF. It has aperture priority auto exposure and motor drive. Miles ahead of the pack."

David Saxe: "Over the past 30 years, I have owned every Leica M series film camera except the M5. If I were to buy a pure nostalgia/retro film camera it would be the M3. It had brighter viewfinder and with only three framelines it didn't need to nest them inside each other. Also like any other film Leica, it allowed me to use my favorite lens—the Dual Range Summicron."

Nigli: "I have a friend who has a Leica. Her father took a photo of Che Geuvera with it. I want that one."

Bruce Appelbaum: "Five years ago I bought a Leica M7 starter kit that included the 50mm Summicron lens. I paid about $5,800 for the whole thing, which was a great price—Leica had dropped prices because they said the dollar was very strong.

"The nearest thing to the Leica were a couple of Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder cameras. The Voigt cameras went out of production and the remaining stock of 4A, 4M, 3A, and 3M versions closed out at less than $1,000 for the body only. I cannot recall which other Leica bodies were available in 2015, but none of them was offered with the lens. The two cameras in stock are now about $5,200 each and the same lens that came with my M7 is now $2,600. Sales tax not included in any of these numbers.

"Do I like the M7? Yep. Using it has improved my photography by limiting me to a prime lens and a 36-exposure roll of film. No exposure bracketing to run through high dynamic range software, and I have to move my ass, not a zoom ring, to frame the photo.

"My issues: it seems like film prices go up a lot every time I need to stock up, and since I do my own B&W negative developing, chemicals are more expensive, and Kodak no longer sells one-liter packs of D-76.

"P.S. I have a very understanding wife who allowed me to splurge for a camera and lens what could have been a nice down payment on a car."

Larry Canaday: "So...I still have the M4 I got in Germany in 1969. For about five years it (with two Summicrons) was my only 35mm and accounted for well more than half my photographic income. I'll get some Tri-X and let you know the results."

BDR: "It’s funny this should have come up today, as I just bought a brand new silver Leica MP yesterday. The prices of used Leicas with meters have gone up so much over the last few years, that purchasing new suddenly seemed more reasonable."

Mike replies: I dearly hope you bought it through my links. Someone buying a Leica through my links is the holy grail.

Rob L: "I'd stick with my M6—meters are helpful, and I know what the one in my M6, at least, is telling me when I shoot TMY or HP5+. I do agree, the M4, or M4-P, is likely more solid, but heck, the film rewind knob on mine took a nasty hit in the late '90s and I just kept dealing with the slight grinding on turning until the brass smoothed out, and it's still fine, so how much more do I need? What still strikes me is how elegant the M6 remains. a simple indicator of exposure if you wish to pay attention, two controls to adjust exposure, one for focus. You may get things wrong but it's hard to be confused."

Mike replies: That's a great line, "You may get things wrong but it's hard to be confused." My memory is getting less sticky these days but I hope I remember that.

David Lee: "I was into Leica for quite a long time. Now I don’t know what to do with them. When I daydream, I say to myself that I will buy an M10 and sell the M6’s and just keep the lenses. Then reality bites and I realize that I am not getting an M10 and I will not shoot film anymore. We need someone to come up with a digital back door that fits any M body. That’s me daydreaming again."

schralp: "Sorry, this reminds me that when it comes to Leica, the emperor has no clothes. Seriously, $5,200 for a box with a shutter that spools film by and allows viewing through another window? And, a couple hundred more if you want a meter to guide your decision making. I certainly hope you’re right; that is to say, there was a demand for 44 and they only made 36."

Speed: "Why would anyone want to use a film camera today? ...Wonders someone with a manual-transmission car. OK. I get it."

Luke: "I used to lust after a Leica M. It's a lovely analog machine. The whole focus-by-proxy thing, though...a helicoid, and a cam, and some levers, and windows and frame lines, and a best guess. The only M that Imaging-Resource ever tested was very badly misaligned, and focus was trial-and-error only. My first cheap digital Rebel many years ago was an astounding masterpiece of precision manufacturing for very few bucks. Now, that's amazing."

[Luke tested products at Imaging-Resource for many years. —Ed.]

Rick in CO: "Best all around film camera I've ever used, which I had to sell to get into the Leica digital M, was the Mamiya 7. Great lenses, easy to use and light enough to carry anywhere. Still miss it!"

scott kirkpatrick: "On 'Leica Bigwigs.' Leica's not big enough for the wigs to have grown much. The lead owner, Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, is from an Austrian family which cashed in its real estate enterprises about 20 years ago, was looking for a classy new investment, and were drawn to Leica by its partnership with Hermes. Hermes left soon after, but the Kaufmann family stayed for the cameras. CEOs and finance guys have come and gone since then, but there is a tier of product managers that seem to have come up through the ranks. They also seem to love cameras. Stefan Daniel, who is quoted in your linked article, is a special case, and a real jewel. He's the VP with overall responsibility for products, but he started as a teen-aged intern doing camera and lens repairs. He claims that on certain very old and treasured R lenses, he is the only one left at Leica who knows how to fix them and can do so. His taste is for simple products and user interfaces, and it shows. So when Daniel (and Peter Karbe for lenses) talks about new products or about Leica history, they are not just selling something. They have been there and are willing to share opinions about why things have been done as they were."

Fred Tuman: "In 1974 at the impressionable age of 18 I walked into Olden's Photo Store with $350 in my hand looking to buy a Leica. The salesman showed me a beat-to-death Canon 7 and said this was the best my hard-earned sum could manage. I stared at the wrinkled metal shutter for a long time seeing my dream slip away.

"Then a miracle happened. A priest tapped me on my shoulder and said if I could drive him back to his parish, he might have some Leica stuff I'd be interested in. Luckily I borrowed my brother's car to get into the city, so off to the garage we went. All the way back to Queens, he kept asking me what type of photography I liked to shoot, and from the conversation I knew he was legit and the real deal. We went to his quarters and his room was decorated with excellent photojournalist-style photos taken from around the world. He pulled out from a cupboard a Leica M2, a 35mm ƒ/2 Summicron, a 50mm ƒ/3.5 Elmar, and a Leicavit. (at the time I didn't know the 'Vit' was worth more than the rest of the bunch.) I happily gave him my $350, and started my love affair with Leica that has never ended. It's the only camera you don't look into...you see through. I use my digital M of today exactly the same way as that first M2."

Panasonic GX9 Review

This isn't actually a review*. It's a brief account of my recent experience shooting with a Panasonic GX9 for 19 days. The GX9 I used was brand new when it arrived as a loaner from B&H Photo.

First, the bad news.
My first impression taking the camera out of the box, I have to admit, was a wave of negativity. I'm a fan of the GX8, which I owned for a year, and I was not a big fan of the GX7, a very different camera which I also owned for a year. Don't get me wrong—the GX7 is a good camera, and has been used to good effect by good photographers I know. (That's three "goods" to drive the point home. You see what I did there.) However, I did not like it. It seemed too small and fiddly, sort of unsorted, and my intuitive sense was that it never worked quite right. I wanted to like it but couldn't. I never trusted it. Didn't bond with it, you might say.

So my first thought was, oh no, not this again. It seemed all too familiar. Like that gnarly little GX7 had returned to haunt me.

...And taunt me, too. Taunt me about the GX8, I mean. I really am genuinely a little angry about the orphaning of the GX8. And no kidding about that, I'm sincerely unhappy about it. The GX8 was of my favorite cameras of recent years, yet it was one which could have used the kind of "refining" Mark II revision that so many cameras routinely get. Not to skip ahead, but, the exact same sort of revision the similarly not-quite-there GX7 has received with this GX9. Why not the GX8? I'm perturbed. As well as, let us admit, petulant.

So my first reaction was twofold: the GX9 wasn't a GX8 II, which was a bad thing; and it really was a GX7 II...also a bad thing. That's why unboxing the GX9 triggered a gut response of dismay, even something close to disgust. 

Finally, ordering a GX9, in the US at least, force-feeds you a kit lens, and I also resent that on principle. I'm a grownup. Not a beginner. I'll pick my own lenses, thanks. Minimum I expect from a camera company: give me the option of buying the kit lens or the body-only. What, you want to discourage as customers people who already own your lenses?!?

Overall, I was pretty grumpy.

At that juncture—in that state—I blatted out a reactive screed of a post and splashed it out onto the blog. Probably a bad idea. Various readers complained, and they were right. I decided not to fix it, but simply to remove it**. So away it went.

Get a grip
Knowing the awkward grip/bulge on the side of the GX7 was one of the many things I disliked about it, and wanting to pre-emptively defend against being annoyed anew, I ordered this for the GX9 from eBay:

It's a very reasonably priced, impressively lightweight handgrip designed for the GX9. I thought it would improve my personal experience of the little GX9. And it did.

After a few days of feeling grumpy and cross and knee-jerk negative—and of ignoring the camera still cradled on top of its disordered shipping materials—the grip arrived. As I fitted it to the camera, I felt a pang of self-recrimination and thought, oh, Mike, grow up. Get over yourself. It's a camera. After all these years, you can use any cam damera under the sun and adapt to it, can't you? Didn't you use an ancient dented Spotmatic with no light meter and a broken lens for a whole year once (c.1998), and make perfectly nice pictures with it? When did you get so picktidious? (That's picky and fastidious mashed together.) At least this thing has a flip-up viewing screen, which you like, and which your precious GX8 didn't have. It's small and tossable, which you say you like. It's got a longer lens than your 12–35mm zoom (the GX9 comes with the 12–60mm ƒ/3.5–5.6 ASPH POWER O.I.S. standard), and you've wanted to experiment with a longer lens. And the kit lens makes the camera a bargain, because the lens alone retails for $498, meaning that they're throwing in the camera for only an extra $300. So just go do your job and adjust to this and shoot with it for a while. Stop being a baby.

So I did. I did a little mental flipperoo, like turning off one switch and turned on another, and started taking the little bugger out for exercise. And that's when the fun started...

[...To be continued...]

Mike

Ed. note: Please hold on to your comments until the conclusion. Thanks!

*I put "review" in the title for the search engines.

**That's happened remarkably few times over the years, actually, although I've done it before. You'd think I'd have hundreds of false starts and rough drafts that never made it to publication, but no, not so; and you'd think there would have been dozens if not hundreds of times that I had put up a bad post, thought better of it, and then deep-sixed it hours, days, or weeks later. But that's not the case either. It has happened, but not very often. It was the same way at the magazines—I wrote between two and three hundred articles that were published in various newspapers and magazines, and only two were ever rejected. (I took note of it when it happened because it was a rare occurrence.) At this point I've written roughly nine thousand(!) posts on TOP, starting at Blogger and now on Typepad, and, with relatively few exceptions, everything I write goes up, and everything that goes up stays up. I have an indulgent editor, though (me).

How to Buy a Camera

Pick the lenses first. That's how I do it.

This is just my idea of how to go about this, by the way. Just friendly advice, is all, submitted for your consideration.

Figure out what you want for lenses and then find the brand that has all the lenses you need. Then pick a camera body that fits those lenses.

That's first. The second rule I have for myself is: I make sure all the lenses I want exist now. All. Now. Never buy a camera based on one or more lenses that are on a "roadmap" (= promised product) or that you simply assume will eventually be made someday because it's logical. The market doesn't do logic, or—at least—what strikes you as logical might not appear that way to marketers. It's exasperating that smart corporations with all their resources still fail to see things your way, but it happens.

Left hanging
My advice comes from bitter experience. It's the result of months and years spent waiting and waiting and waiting for lenses I assumed would be in the pipeline "sometime soon"...but weren't. I think my friend John C. just went through this, drumming his fingers impatiently for Nikon to announce a Nikkor-Z 70–200mm ƒ/4, smaller and lighter than the ƒ/2.8.

I've done the same thing more than once over the years, I'm sorry to admit. After a while you do get tired of being left hanging, so you might as well have some sympathy for your future self from the start.

The lenses should fit you in terms not only of optical performance, but also in terms of size, and affordability, or any other parameter you personally happen to care about. You know what you care about; I don't. Size is important to me, but I know photographers who don't care about it at all. When asked what camera he used, Ansel Adams used to answer, "the biggest one I can carry!"

Having all the lenses you might want available now is one of the things that makes Micro 4/3 so appealing, in my view. Anyone who can't build a personal kit of lenses out of the multitudinous offerings in Micro 4/3 isn't trying very hard. It's also one of the reasons I loved the Olympus OM system so much in the '80s and '90s—I loved the lenses. These days, Fuji floats my boat. Your (nautical) mileage may vary.

Oh, and if you're fastidious or quirky in some way? Indulge that. Make yourself happy. That would be my advice. Only you know what ruffles your truffles, and it doesn't have to make sense to anybody but you. Matching filter sizes? Superfast maximum apertures? The L-word engraved on the barrel? Rainproofing? Good bokeh, for whatever your definition of "good" happens to be? Bargain price, expensive price? Latest thing, vintage thing? Lots, few? Well-worn, pristine? The same brand Dad used? Anything but the brand Dad used?

And don't settle. At least for your main lens, the one you use 60–80% of the time. There are times I've bought into cameras thinking well, I can just use the [x] lens, it's not perfect but it'll do, only to find myself growing more and more unsatisfied down the road.

Rural views
Of course, you need to have enough experience in the first place to know what kinds of lenses you want. There aren't any rules for that. For instance, my main need is for a prime (single focal length) lens I like in the 35mm to 40mm or equivalent range. (At times I use a 50mm-e.) But Thom Hogan, who certainly knows lenses, says he has never cared for the 35mm(-e) focal length, finding it "in between." I know plenty of people whose main lens is always a zoom, who feel constricted and trapped with just a prime on the camera. So then they need to be able to find and afford the right zoom for their tastes.

And even my needs are changing. Five years ago I moved to a rural area of rolling farmland and narrow lakes in deep valleys, and as I've mentioned several times, scenic pictures are "farther away" here. What I'm carrying in the car as of now are the focal-length equivalents of a 21mm, a 50mm, and an 85–300mm zoom. That's a new kit for me, from a Mike-historical perspective.

A final possibility I can imagine is that you simply don't care about lenses—you'll use what you have, you're not picky, and you can adapt to a variety focal lengths. I'd say I don't know what planet you're from, except I've often been the same way—when I'm reviewing a camera! Or when I was too frugal to have it the way I wanted it. Or just bought something to try it.

When I got my first DSLR, it came with a Chinese-built film-era zoom of 28–75mm, which on my APS-C camera was ~42–112mm focal-length equivalent. (A version of which is still available but darned expensive now.) Not my kind of lens at all. Well, it was my only lens on that camera for several years. It was good enough, and I didn't know if I'd stay with that lensmount (brand) so I was reluctant to buy anything else, and I got used to it.

All this speaks to my first thought about the Nikon Z5: what about the lenses? I'm not looking to jump systems, but I evaluate cameras this way out of habit. Well then, the Nikkor-Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S looks to me like it might be one of the best 35mms made, optically speaking. But compared to the Fuji of similar spec, it might be a bit too much of a honker—big, heavy, expensive—and although it's only borderline in all three of those negative characteristics, I'm suspicious as to whether I'd be happy with it over the long haul. I know myself too well. Could well be fine (or better than fine, ideal) for others, but it doesn't look like a natural fit for me. I'd have to try it out to know.

Your Kentucky windage may vary.

TGIF
Have a great weekend, wherever in the world you are. Be cautious, and prudent, and good health to you and your family too. ("The hawk just hovers in the updraft, thinking its minimal, hawkish thoughts and waiting for hawkish opportunity." That's from "The Virus is a Hawk." Great sentence, sad truth.) If the weather holds, I plan to head out with the new-to-me used Fuji 55–200mm tomorrow and see how we get along. Looking forward to that. I'll be back here on Sunday.

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:

trecento: " I'd like to add, 'don't underestimate the kit lens.' I've used some very good kit lenses before, and I know others have tested some that perform exceptionally.

"I've lost a lot of opportunities to not owning an adequately fast prime. I learned that the hard way, when I bought an affordable entry level DSLR, without checking to see if I could heft or afford the prime lenses for it. That was an expensive mistake. Most of the loss wasn't the money—it was the opportunity to take pictures with a more appropriate lens. I even considered switching to a system that had more awesome features...until someone warned me that I should see for myself if they even made a prime lens in the focal length I needed. (Spoiler: NO.) I think seeing for yourself is the most important thing. Mike is right. Find out what you need to do, then ask the lenses: can you do this?"

Josh Hawkins: "Re 'Pick the lenses first.' Absolutely. I'm also a fan of having a personal lens roadmap. I lay out my ideal set of lenses, within some sense of reality, and then buy just those lenses as much as possible. Other random lenses to fill this hole or that hole for a while just end up being wasted money. (I'm bad about selling my old used gear. I hope that gives you a good laugh Mike.) It also forces me to sit down and decide what I really want and need, ƒ/2.8 or ƒ/4 in my zooms? And sometimes the answer can be surprising."

Mike replies: It did make me chuckle. Ironic!

I like your idea of a personal road map or buying plan. It's like going into the grocery store with a list versus wandering around seeing what catches your eye. Another hint for saving wasted motion is to buy the cheap version of a lens first. If you don't like it, you can always trade it for the expensive version later. But often when you just take pictures with it you realize it serves the purpose just fine. Taking pictures cures a lot of lens angst. Of course sometimes you have to buy the "good one" just to satisfy curiosity.

I bought the Fuji 23mm ƒ/1.4 first, in 2014, because it was all there was then. Only recently added the newer 23mm ƒ/2 which I probably would have bought first if I could have. Now I guess there will be a shootout, which basically will be decided by which one I grab most often. It's an uphill battle for the Fujicron, though: the 23mm ƒ/1.4 has served me well and it's not that big.

 

Nikon's New Z5

Working with the Z5. Illustration courtesy of B&H Photo.

When Nikon's new Z5 was announced the other day, not quite two years after the rollout of the Z mount, I had to confront a disagreeable facet of my psychology: I think I'm reflexively more interested in products that aren't at the top end of the range.

I shouldn't be prejudiced; it makes no sense to be. But there it is. I find myself feeling much more enthused about the Z5 that I have been about the high-end, mega-megapixel cameras where the Bigs battle each other for bragging rights.

Tiny! But slow. But tiny!

Half a lens
And, knock me over with a feather—along with the new camera, Nikon actually introduced a new lens that is designed for small size and (actual, not just claimed!) compactness. The new Nikkor Z 24–50mm ƒ/4–6.3 is slow, which I think I don't mind because sensors have gotten so fast and we just don't need the same speed from our lenses we once did. But it's very small and handy. This from the company that rolled out a plain old 50mm ƒ/1.8 that is nearly three and a half inches long, weighs nearly fifteen ounces, and takes a relatively humongous 62mm filter. An exercise in optical perfection it is, but a nifty fifty it is not.

Of course, the 24–50mm is only half a normal zoom lens—it's missing the tele half. But hey, why not? You can use it as an "adjustable normal lens." My recent experience with Micro 4/3 lenses indicates that where I live, anyway, the reach of a 70mm-e zoom just isn't adequate for freedom; the 12–60mm I had with the GX9 really did allow me much more freedom and brought a whole new way of seeing within reach when taking pictures. If you can only go to 70mm, you might as well stop at 50mm and just acknowledge that you're going to need a separate companion lens in the tele zoom range. Good frinkin'.

Going to Lhasa
So now what Nikon needs to complement the new lens is a matching short telephoto. Something like a modern descendant of the famous E Series 75mm–150mm ƒ/3.5 lens would do. They can make that one slower, too, if it's also light and handy like the 24–50mm and not punishing to carry.

If you're not familiar with the old E Series 75–150mm from the 1980s (and why would you be?), it was a budget lens intended for amateurs that had a special optical quality—smooth, gentle, luminous—that fashion and pro portrait photographers loved. It made models' skin look fantastic, in the days before you could make them into whatever you wanted in Photoshop. Despite its "lesser" consumer status (unfortunately accompanied by lesser build quality—the one-touch zoom could get loose and creep after a while), it became a cult classic beloved of some very big-name fashion shooters who could have shot with any lens they wanted.

Not to mention that the legendary Galen Rowell favored it. He carried light lenses because he thought nothing of running for miles to get into position for a shot. If I'm not mistaken the much-admired cover photograph of his Mountains of the Middle Kingdom was shot with that lens. Used to be you could get a poster of it. Its title is "Rainbow Over the Potala Palace," the Potala Palace being in Lhasa.

Only on TOP do you start out reading about a new camera intro and end up in Tibet.

Anyway, more about the Z5 in the future, but I wanted to herald its arrival. It's only $1,400 at launch, so it's Nikon's answer to Canon's RP (which is admittedly even cheaper now because it's been out for a while). Looks good. But then, apparently I'm a hound for less expensive cameras in the more practical, utilitarian region of a product range. Even though it makes no sense for me to be like that.

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:

Albert Smith: "That Series E 75–150mm ƒ/3.5 lens was amazing, and not just because it was cheap. I bought one on a whim during its closeout for exactly one hundred bucks. I already had the classic 105mm ƒ/2.5 as well as the AIS 85mm ƒ/2 and 135mm ƒ/2, so I did not need the zoom. It was so good that it lived on my F3.

"That zoom and a second camera with a 35mm lens was all I needed for 90% of my shots.

"In Galen Rowell's book Mountain Light he gives the long narrative explanation of capturing that rainbow shot in Tibet. Great luck and timing. It would be hard to say the image would be better with a bigger more expensive lens...he had to jog to get the angle for the alignment before the rainbow faded. He stashed his gear and ran to the best spot with his F3 and the 75–150mm zoom. Before his death, it was his best selling image...made with this hundred-dollar lens."

Canon R6 and R5: Mike's Take

Thanks for all the great responses to the Canon R6 and R5 post the other other day. My own idiosyncratic personal reactions to the Canon R6 and R5:

• Canon has really changed lensmounts—again! But with much (much) less fanfare (not to mention less sturm und drang and the tearing of hair and rending of garments) than in 1987 (the beginning of EOS), if only because they haven't at the same time killed the EF mount. The SLRs will march on for now. But development seems to have veered into full-frame mirrorless (FFM). Is the EF mount in the early stages of "dead man walking" status? (This is the way Olympus's original 4/3 departed, you recall.)
• Each time I read the description—clearly guided by Canon—of the new 85mm ƒ/2 R Macro as "compact," I want to do a spit-take with my white tea and lemon. That beast is a brute. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but yer killin' me—stop with the "compact" adjective already. Not.
• My initial reaction is that the R6 and R5 would each be keenly priced at half their actual introductory prices. C'mon, they're Canons, not designer Leica specials with goat-scrotum leather coverings. Some economist I read long ago claimed that peoples' conception of money becomes fixed around age 50, in which case the value of money might be stuck at 2007 in my head. So maybe it's my fault. So two-thirds then. That would make them $2,599 f0r the R5 and $1,665 for the R6. Sound more rational? Does to me. (Easy for us to say, though.) Ironically, the company that started the trend of premium pricing to make up for lower sales, Olympus, is following Contax and Bronica and a list of other once-great camera brand names into the dustbin of history. But that's not stopping others from following their lead.
• I morosely foresee a future (in my cloudy crystal ball) of nothing but complex and feature-laden FFM camera/camcorders on the one hand and smartphones on the other (and Fuji, hopefully, still marching alone to the sound of its own drummer in the middle).
• The new Canons look nice to me. Style, stylishness, and styleyness were never Canon's strong suit. But I echo what many commenters said. FFM just doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me without—ahem!—compact lenses (for an accurate value of the word "compact"). Sony's odd decision to match its Alpha 7 and 9 cameras with size-no-object optics seems to have defined the trend that others will follow. Maybe I'm just contrarian, but I just don't want to lug around a 500-gram medium-speed medium-telephoto, nor a lens the size of the Zeiss FE 35mm ƒ/1.4 as my short-normal prime. They just seem to me more like Veblen goods for the purpose of bragging rights than useful daily drivers. (Exhibit: compare two premium 35mm ƒ/1.4 lenses for full-frame.)*
• Y'all know how much I love IBIS. Eight stops seems like hyperbole, but we'll see.

Yamaha A-S3200 integrated amplifier

Two societies
Re pricing, we could talk about this seriously. There is plentiful evidence that wealth inequality is leading to a specific reaction in the marketing of goods, namely, the gradual creation of two distinct tiers—one on the low side for the increasingly impoverished middle class AKA "normal people," and another at the high side for the top 20%. We're seeing it in all sorts of things. Take as a random example Yamaha's line of integrated amplifiers. It looks like only one line of similar-looking products, but there are essentially two full lines with a gap in the middle: one that tops out at $900 with the A-S801, and the other that starts at $3,000 and goes up to the A-S3200 at $7,500. (The identifier is that the higher line has illuminated meters and the cheaper line doesn't.) The span between $900 and $3,000 is a dry desert. This is merely responsive marketing; it reflect the fact that the wealthy are increasingly price-insensitive to the cost of minor purchases such as electronics, but the average joe doesn't have the scratch to even be tempted. We're seeing the same thing in cars: a withering in the middle (even the Honda Accord isn't selling well), and proliferating offerings at what would decades ago have been considered the preposterous supercar level, meaning, today, cars that cost in excess of $100,000.

Or perhaps the cost of the new Canons merely reflects the fact that in the fast-declining camera market, lower sales mean that the development costs are are going to have to be spread over fewer total sales, meaning that the price of each unit has to be higher.

In either event, the new R's seem too expensive to me. But that judgment might be tainted by sour grapes; if I had a much fatter wallet I might feel more sanguine about it, who knows.

Those slow, slow teles
The other real development here is something that seems to me to have been an awful long time coming: the development of slower lenses (i.e., with smaller maximum apertures) to adjust to the reality of increasingly higher usable ISOs. That's just smart. Superfast lenses were developed for an era in which a fast film was ISO 400 and even at that came with penalties in the form of more visible graininess. Now ISO 1600 (two stops faster) usually has no penalties, and sensitivities two stops more than that often shows only minor degradation. A lens that's four stops slower than the feasible maximum can be so much smaller, cheaper and lighter that it's astonishing more cameramakers don't go that route. So Canon's new slow teles for the new R cameras are really the most significant news, in my eyes anyway.

Of course, you could also argue that they're just trying to wring the best out of a bad situation, because anyone who chooses FF for long telephoto work maybe has a contrarian streak themselves. Micro 4/3 and 1" sensors are getting so good these days, and make so much more sense for long tele work, that it almost seems a little addled to build up a supertelephoto arsenal for a FFM camera.

It might make me sound like a fanboy (a word I almost never allow in the comments, have you ever noticed?), but I increasingly approve of the position of Fuji X in the marketplace. They seem to flourish in the sensible middle path, with balance all around. I would not want to be stuck being pulled between FFM and smartphones myself. At least not until there are a lot more slower and truly compact lens choices for the former, anyway.

Mike

*Although Geoff Wittig loves his size-no-object Sigma ARTs for his landscape work, and he's a sensible no-nonsense guy.

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:

Vince: "I agree on the slow(er) Canon teles, but I think ƒ/11 is a bridge too far."

Tex Andrews: "OK, re: Fuji. Please, please please remember Pentax. Digital medium format? Check. FF DSLR's that are very reasonably priced? Check. Excellent full featured APS-C cameras, also very reasonably priced? Check. Darn good lens lineup? Check. Ability to use lenses from the higher format on the lower ones via a native adapter? Crazy, and check. Even some sub-APS-C cameras, especially if you throw in Ricoh. Also the Theta—it's excellent. The only thing they don't do well is video. But here on this site that's mostly not what we're talking about."

PaulW: "If your thoughts on the R5 and R6 are idiosyncratic, then mine must be too, because you've echoed my thoughts completely with this post. Perhaps I've been shooting micro 4/3 for too long, but big lenses are so off-putting to me that for the past few years I've based all my camera buying decisions on lens size and weight. Thanks to you, I've now dipped a toe into the Fuji waters. We'll see where this goes. Stay idiosyncratic!"

Ross Attix: "On your point about the new Canon bodies being too expensive, I have to ask 'compared to what?' For 20 years top- of-the-line cameras have been in the $4,000–$6,500 range. Mirrorless a bit less. Right now, just looking at the Sony brand, an A7R Mark IV is at $3,200, and the A9 Mark II is $4,500. Now that is only one other brand, but it happens to be the one which has been gobbling up the market the past few years, so I’d argue not a bad choice for comparison. I wish the new Canons were less because they are out of my budget for sure, but I think they are priced where I would expect.

"As to your comment about the two societies, I think you have made a good point, but using the Honda Accord sedan as a reference is a bad example. All sedan sales have declined in recent years. But it isn’t because of the price point, it is because more and more people are moving toward an SUV of some sort. Staying with that brand, they can't produce CR-V's fast enough, so there are plenty of buyers in that lower price range."

David Dyer-Bennet: "In your telephoto analysis, you don't seem to notice an assumption you're silently making: that the old fast telephotos were fast enough. Yeah, if those were fast enough, then being able to use two stops higher ISO means we can get by with telephotos two stops slower; that's incontrovertible. But the old telephotos weren't fast enough. I find lowest acceptable shutter speed is most often set by subject movement; a tripod (or IBIS) doesn't help with that. Bigger apertures or faster films/sensors are the only things that help."

Geoff Wittig: "Thanks for the shout-out, Mike! I suspect Canon is just doing what Canon does; their marketing guys by now have things down to a science. After several years of pent-up gear lust from their very large customer base, and the frankly disappointing Canon R, the R5 is finally the camera we all wanted a year or two ago. The price point is surely based on their estimate of what their market will bear without recoiling in horror. It's $400 more than the price of the 5D Mark IV at its initial release, so it might seem almost reasonable, if you knew nothing about Nikon's Z7 or Sony's a7R IV. I have zero interest in video, so many of the R5's headline features are pointless for me. I'm used to carrying a heavy load of lenses and tripod so the modest weight reduction is of limited relevance. But if the new sensor does indeed have better dynamic range and noticeably cleaner shadows than my very well used 5DSr's, I might have to bite the bullet."

Mike replies: I assume because you would be able to continue to use your existing lenses via adapters?

Rob L: "It has not escaped my attention that I can get a Sony RX10 Mark III and have a pretty good 600mm for a lot less than 400mm in Fujiland. It seems like there is almost enough interest that a dedicated, fixed lens 600+mm 1" sensor camera could be made for a price that would be hard to beat. I got out of Canon after the Digital Rebel, but the new R's, although far too high in price, make me smile. These are machines meant to set the standard and the new lenses are interesting—the 600mm and 800mm especially so."

Crowd-Sourced Post: Canon R5 and R6 Introduction

Tell me, what is your reaction to the announcement yesterday about the new Canons?

Short summary:

Canon R5:

• 45 MP full-frame CMOS sensor
• 8K 30p RAW/4K 120p video
• Dual-pixel CMOS AF II focusing
• 8-stop in-body image stabilization
• High-resolution 5,760,000-dot electronic viewfinder
• Up to 20 FPS continuous shooting with electronic shutter
• Touchscreen
• Top-plate status LCD that stays on when the camera is off
• Dual card slots, one CFexpress and one SD UHS-II
• WFT-R10 wireless support (WRT-R10 is Canon's wireless file transmitter)
• 5.43 x 3.84 x 3.46 inches / 138 x 97.5 x 88 millimeters
• 1.62 lbs. / 738 g (body with battery and memory)
• $3,899 body only
• Canon's pitch: "Better than a 5D"

Canon R6:

• 20 MP full-frame CMOS sensor
• 4K 60p video
• Dual-pixel CMOS AF II focusing
• 8-stop in-body image stabilization
• 3,690,000-dot electronic viewfinder
• Up to 20 FPS continuous shooting with electronic shutter
• Touchscreen
• No top-plate status LCD
• Dual card slots, both SD UHS-II
• No WFT-R10 wireless support
• 5.43 x 3.84 x 3.48 inches / 138 x 97.5 x 88.4 millimeters
• 1.5 lbs. / 680 g (body with battery and memory)
• $2,499 body only

Here's the body size compared to a couple of existing FFM cameras.

Here's the body size compared to a couple of full-featured but smaller-format cameras.

Here's the R6 body size compared to two direct competitors.

What are your thoughts? You don't have to be in the market for a camera, and you don't have to be a Canon shooter. You can say anything you want, from your opinion of Canon's marketing decisions, to whether you personally find the products to be appealing or not, to what you think of how these offerings stack up to the competition's. I'll add selected comments to the post.

Oh, but one thing though: Make just one or two points per comment. You don't need to give us a long rundown of your reaction to every aspect of the cameras. (Remember, past about two reasonably-sized paragraphs, the shorter the comment, the more people will read it. The longer, the fewer. Wait, is that also true of blog posts?!)

Each time I took a run at this yesterday, I found myself being way too...me. That is, I couldn't be objective enough, couldn't seem to help interpreting them in light of my idiosyncratic reaction as a consumer. I figured it would be better to let you do that than to pretend my opinion matters more than anyone else's. As a reader recently said privately, "The strength of your reviews is that they are personal reactions, not attempts at neutrality. A weakness of your reviews is that they are personal reactions, not attempts at neutrality."

Looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mike
(Thanks to Moose)

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:

Dogman: "I really don't pay much attention to new camera announcements anymore. So my reaction is mostly 'meh.' What did catch my attention is that the R6 is 'only' 20MP. To me that's a Good Thing. I'm kinda burnt out on more pixels jammed onto sensors. Just keep it functional, simple and useful. Otherwise, I don't see anything that excites me."

Mike replies: The Nikon D4 sensor also found in the Dƒ was only 16MP, but it was a beaut.

Kenneth Tanaka: "My reaction: I bought an R5. Sony has been my main system since, what, 2014 or 2015? It’ll probably remain so for certain technical work. But the fact is that Canon was my first, and main, camera system since 1973. Although I’m down to just a single DSLR, a 5D Mark IV body, I have drawers brimming with excellent Canon glass. Late last year I rented the R and didn’t like it. But I did like the R concept, so I bought the RP. I love that little 26MP full-frame camera! Light, small, has my favorite color richness that I love so much about Canon. And the new RX-mount lenses I’ve been using are sublime, not to mention becoming reacquainted with my old EF glass. So I sold some gear in February in anticipation of the new R5.

"As I mentioned already I am a purely color guy and a real fan of Canon’s color science. (Sorry Sony, but you’re not quite there.) Every Canon digital camera I’ve ever owned (from the venerable 1D-series to the lowliest p&s) has given me superb, rich color. So I expect no less from the R5. (Sorry, I’m not a video guy so the 'groundbreaking' 8K capture facilities will remain lost on me.)"

Benjamin Marks (partial comment): "I don't know about you all, but I am getting a 'Nikon F6 End-of-Concept' feeling. Once prices come down to $1,000 per unit on these [full-frame mirrorless] puppies, you'll buy one and be set for the next 10 years, just like you were with your F3 or F1."

Steve Biro: "The R5 is way too expensive for me and battery life in the R6 makes it a non-starter—again, at least for me. Nonethless, I'm sure Canon will do well with this line because, well, because Canon."

Dave Van de Mark: "Compared to my brand new camera, the Panasonic S1R, the R5 looks to claim quite a list of 'fastness' and 'moreness' goodies in its specs while staying on the lighter and smaller side of my camera.

"But those high-end specs are about things that I would never need nor use, which is why the 'mere' contrast focus and tracking capabilities of the Panny doesn't bother me. And video isn't important either.

"I think Canon was smart not going after Sony in a pixel race—45 to 47 MP may be a nice sweet spot for FF. What I can't compare at this moment is the overall ergonomic character of the Canon R5, but I will say right now my S1R is an absolute dream to control and use, weight notwithstanding. And that's being said having had extensive experience with other ergonomic champions like Nikon and Fuji."

Trevor Johnson: "Excellent news. Over the last few weeks, Canon UK has very kindly lent me some cameras and lesnses, at no cost, with free courier delivery. Last weeekend I had the RP, the 15–35 ƒ/2.8, and the 'R' adapter. I was mainly interested in the lens and how good the adapter was with all my current EF lenses. The lens and adapter were excellent, but what surprised me was how much I liked the RP body. So it will be either the R5 or R6. For what I do the R5 makes the most sense of all the 'R' series."

SteveW (partial comment): "I can't justify the investment to a new system since I don't use video at all and I'm satisfied with my Nikkor F-mount lens set. But I won't lie, it's fun to see these new releases."

Mike: "Nikon Z 6 shooter here. Both are real nice, especially if you’re a Canon shooter. Will be a hit for Canon.

"Finally, IBIS.

"The R5 seems to be competitively priced for what you get. $500–700 more than a A7III/Z6/S1 for an R6 is kinda a hard sell. I would think $2,200–$2,300 (price of EOS R at introduction) is more realistic. Why exclude 5 GHz WiFi? There’s that Canon nickel and diming again."

Fred Haynes (partial comment): "I’m not impressed. But I’m certainly not in the market, there’s that one spec, the price! I think that’s going in the wrong direction."

Michael J. Perini (partial comment): "Well, if there is anything the whole camera industry needs, it's buzz. I haven't seen this much buzz in a long time, especially from Canon. That has to be good whether you are a Canon fan or not."

Stan B.: "Do they have something against...aesthetics?"

Ned Bunnell: "Rather than comment on the cameras, I’ll tell you what their presence means to me about Canon’s future.

"I worked for Canon prior to Pentax [Ned retired from the position of President of Pentax USA —Ed.]. If you remember, Canon was late to market with a DSLR. At one planning meeting I was at in Tokyo, a very senior executive took me aside and basically said 'Don’t worry, we’re going to be number one. You’re doing a great job marketing the PowerShot. Keep at it and don’t mess up the brand while we finish the project.'

"Canon is still a conservative company with very long-range plans. Just conjecture on my part. But if I had a similar meeting today in Tokyo, the senior executive would likely be telling me 'Don’t worry, we’re going to be the last man standing.'"

Steve Greenwood: "I'm not in the market for a full frame body—still enjoying the Panasonic GX9—but if I was I'd be looking at the Sony A7 Mark II at $1,398 for the (555 gram) body instead of the R6 at $2,499 for the (680 gram) body. The Sony is still very capable for stills (my only interest) and the selection of both native and adapted lenses is huge."

Thomas Rink: "Sorry, but my opinion is probably of little use here. Because for a lot of features, I don't even know what they mean. For instance, what is '10-bit 4:2:2 C-Log raw,' or 'hybrid dual pixel phase detect/contrast detect'? I guess I'm too technically challenged for these cameras."

Andy Munro: "Overall a positive mirrorless splash. I have not been looking at new cameras so this latest feast from Canon is very positive. Lots there to like, and it made me look. But isn't this just more of the same? Where is the SIM card slot and while you're at it, make that 5G. Let me auto (or selectively) offload to Dropbox (or your choice of destination) and auto tag the EXIF. Let me log into WhatsApp/Facebook/etc. and send the photo."

Aaron (partial comment): "For me personally it's size, size, size. No, not sensor size (my Micro 4/3 and APS-C bodies do a fantastic job for my needs). And no, not body size (A Panasonic G9 is about the same size). It's body + lens size."

Jon S: "I spend a lot of time, about eight to 10 hours a day, looking through a viewfinder shooting e-commerce images. I can't for the life of me imagine wanting to spend that much time looking at a tiny screen millimeters away from my eyeball. It's a shame because the 100% AF coverage, eye-detection AF, and the faster USB 3.1 gen 2 protocol for tethering means it is an ideal camera for me otherwise."

John Abee (partial comment): "Short answer = Too Expensive."

Doug Vaughn (partial comment): "Best feature = IBIS for my classic Zeiss, Olympus, and Nikon lenses."

Stopping Shopping

I used to consider 'stopping shopping' to be an essential bit of advice. Of course, it's not something you will read on photography websites very often, including this one, as we all make money encouraging people to shop. We are all what used to be called, in the 1970s, "co-opted." Involved and implicated in the great cultural project, namely, encouraging each other to buy and spend. I don't excuse myself, nor can I pretend I'm above it.

Sounds absurd
Aaron's comment in the previous post (the fourth Featured Comment) reminded me of the usefulness of stopping shopping. In film photography days, when the firmament was much more stable and progress more staid and incremental, I used to advise students to a.) set a predetermined limit on the period of their shopping, and then b.) set a time period for stopping shopping...a period in which to abstain. This simply acknowledges that eternal, obsessive shopping can become a waste of time. I don't tend to remember numbers, but I believe I used to recommend shopping for a new camera for three months and then using whatever camera you chose for five years. In this regimen you'd set a "no-later-than" date for making a decision—for deciding what to buy—and then resolve not to shop again until a defined future date. (I do that with cars.) For instance, if you were doing this now, you'd say "I'll make my purchase before October 6th and then not shop at all any more until October 6th, 2025." If you get the gearhead urge during that time, just console yourself with the idea that on October 6th, 2025, you get to buy yourself a new camera. And you'll dive into it then. Something to look forward to.

Until then, though, no second-guessing yourself, no returning to the shopping phase, no reading reviews, no gear talk, etc. This sounds absurd now, doesn't it? But back then, magazines (and books) were most of what we had, and shopping and gear talk weren't nearly so much a part of the hobby. It was known in the publishing industry that the average car magazine buyer would read magazines for up to two years before a car purchase, and then stop buying and reading magazines after the purchase. In photography that wasn't so clear, but it was somewhat similar. Nobody but photo-writers in magazines cared what brand you allied yourself with, or what format you used. Nobody but photo-writers in magazines concerned themselves with the business problems of cameramaking companies, and "testing" things was considered a sort of eccentric sidelight, a way of diddling around and distracting yourself. People aspired to actually create photographs. At the least, they pretended that they aspired to create photographs. I remember how weird I thought it was when people started making a big deal online about "switching systems." It seemed odd, at first, that people imagined that anyone but themselves would care about such a thing. To the inevitable question "should I buy a Nikon or a Canon?", my answer was: Yes. In other words, sure, buy a Nikon or a Canon. One or the other. Or something else. Whatever. Then get down to work.

Let's not get crazy
Shopping for three months and "stopping shopping" for five years was probably idealistic, and hence unreasonable. So I resolved to try it. I was big on putting my money where my mouth was and experimenting with taking my own advice. But I gave myself five months to shop and determined to then use whatever I chose for three years. (I mean, let's not be too crazy.)

I needn't have been quite so lacking in faith in myself. I settled on a camera (an Olympus OM-4T) in less time than five months, and managed to use it for four and a half years. Almost my original prescription. During that time, I managed to quiet the gearhead shopping urge...sort of. During that whole time I still shopped for lenses, and I was just as obsessive about that as I used to be about cameras.

In the digital era, my typical time with a camera has been roughly three years. Not really so unreasonable, given the pace of progress in 2000–2015. But there have been a number of false starts, when I bought something and just didn't like it once I started to use it.

Anyway, the notion that continual shopping might be a distraction and a diversion—and thus worth taking a rest from—seems as quaint and old-fashioned as Kodak D-23 or an Eastman 2-D now. It's antithetical to the hobby as it has evolved. For the past twenty years, in the online culture, it's most of what we're on about.

Virtuous?
There's a thing I've learned about recently called "virtue signaling." Definition: "the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue." I don't mean to suggest that "stopping shopping" is virtuous. For me it's really only a way of calming down my gearhead tendencies, which, as Aaron suggested in his comment, can get in the way of focusing on pictures and lower my Satisfaction/Gratification Index. Because I am, as you know, a nut. Of course, I've personally dealt with that by writing about photography, so now I "need" to try all different kinds of gear because I write about it. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. But I cannot lie—that arrangement is, in part, merely making an advantage out of what is really a weakness.

As with almost all photo writers (and vloggers) online, it's to my pecuniary advantage to encourage you to shop and spend—I ain't gonna lie. But really, the most important thing is what's best for your own satisfaction and gratification. Sometimes that's new gear, but it just as easily might be giving shopping a rest for a while.

Mike
(Thanks to Aaron)

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:

Dave Stewart: "I like the timing of this post...just as the rumour websites, and their regulars, are getting excited about several new camera and lens announcements coming soon (allegedly)."

s.wolters (partial comment): "What also helps is to force yourself to wait three months after you made your choice. In most cases you will change your mind."

Mike replies: That is also an essential skill in both eating and with addictions...dealing with things by putting them off. If you get into a ravenous state while eating a meal and you feel impelled to keep going after you've just finished, simply wait twenty minutes first. It works wonders. We often find that the ravenous, craving state of mind will pass. In early sobriety, if you just can't stand the cravings and you make up your mind to drink or use, just tell yourself yes, I'm going to...but tomorrow. Put it off till tomorrow and you'll find that the crisis has passed by then and your resolve is renewed.

Sometimes procrastinating tendencies can be turned to advantage.  :-)

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 Schulz did when I was about nine. Reading all the way through a 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:

Kylian: "Hey Charlie—never paid too much attention to the spelling of AAUGH, but I can draw Snoopy in less than 30 seconds. This has not gotten me as far in life as your orthographic skills have gotten you. Camera companies sometimes come sooo close to getting it right (using my parameters of course) that the miss can be particularly frustrating."

Wes Cosand: "And many of us who have been Panasonic users for years already have a copy of this kit lens which we don't use but were forced to buy with a previous camera. I would have purchased a GX9 but then I'd have two unused 12–60mm lenses."

John Camp: "There's nothing wrong with the GX8. It's the most nearly perfect camera ever made.  8-) "

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.