The Online Photographer

Smartphone Sunday

The two side-by-side camera modules in the Apple iPhone 7+

It's smartphone Sunday, apparently.

I finally downloaded a raw app (one of many) for my phone—Halide Camera. It lets the iPhone 7+ shoot in raw as the default, and improves the camera controls. It's allegedly an "expensive" app, but at $5.99 it's one of the cheapest camera accessories I've bought in years (he said ruefully).

I shot this quick torture test on the iPhone with the Halide app and the result was pretty good. I was easily able to adjust the exposure for the highlights. The shadow recovery wasn't what it would be with a Fuji GFX, of course, but it was adequate, just—by balancing the shadow, highlight and exposure sliders in Photoshop and then applying some judicious noise reduction I was able to get this acceptable result. It's not up to the standard of Micro 4/3 but it's certainly better than the OOP (out-of-phone!) JPEG.

The problem here was highlighted by Marco in a comment the other day. "Maybe I am digressing," Marco wrote, "but this point comes to me often when reading posts like this. How do you decide that you are going out to take snapshots (phone) or something more serious (camera)?"

That's been a big issue for me my whole life. No matter what my "current practice" might be, I'm always afraid of having the wrong thing with me when I stumble across something I really want to make a picture of.

Back when I "saw" in B&W, just having color film in the camera was a big liability—because I'd see a picture I wanted my "real" film for, and I was blocked. My camera bags always contained a few half-shot rolls of color film, because I'd encounter something I wanted to shoot with Tri-X and I'd hurry and get the dang color film out of the camera so I could load some of my "real" film. It was frustrating.

Because when I'm out with a camera I'm not just seeing. I'm seeing like the camera sees. Where "camera" means my preferred technique of the moment. Other cameras look different, and aren't always acceptable as a substitute.

So of course a big problem arises, as Marco says, when you're out and about and you only have your phone with you and you want your camera but it's not with you. Because you never know when you're going to see a picture.

And sure enough, I have maybe two dozen pictures I've taken with my phone which I dearly wish I had taken with my camera. In certain cases it's okay, I can live with it. But in about half a dozen cases it's just a loss. I got something good, something precious, but on the wrong camera. Too bad.

So maybe having the raw app on the phone is a capitulation of sorts—it's an acknowledgement that I actually photograph with an iPhone and not a dedicated camera* some of the time. Now, when that happens, I'll be able to shoot raw and stand a better chance of getting a decent file out of the thing.

(Wish I had taken those six precious pictures with the Halide app? I guess.)

Mike
(Lead photo by Kārlis Dambrāns from Latvia)

*By the way, how long before "camera" means "camera phone" in the culture, and we need a separate term for what we now call cameras? That day is coming, I'll bet. I already find myself using the term "dedicated camera" to say what "camera" used to mean. In the early days of digital we always had to distinguish "digital" cameras from cameras. Now it's the other way around—"cameras" are digital and we have to specify "film camera" when we mean one that shoots film. Ah, the warp and woof of terminology through time!

P.S. Today's the big day I migrate to my new computer. I spent half the day yesterday preparing. Wish me luck, although I hope I won't need it.

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

Want to help TOP?

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

Ned Bunnell: "Mike, I’ve been testing quite a few Halide images which I’ve printed at 8x10 and the results are actually pretty nice...especially the B&W’s. I’m also doing a lot more processing on my iPhone. You should try using Darkroom to convert your Halide images. It does a nice job."

The Most Amazing Thing About Photography Circa 2019

Bob Gary was right in saying that the "Complexification" post the other day "hit a nerve." I think so too.

The best thing I got out of the discussion was the "aside" in the Featured Comment by Dennis, who wrote:

I know plenty of people who have turned away from entry level cameras (ILC or fixed lens) in favor of their phones, but I think that's due to the ease of sharing photos taken with a phone.

As an aside, I truly believe that many people do not think that their phone is a 'good enough' camera (how many times do you read that phones are good enough for most people?)—it's just that the ease of use/sharing is worth the compromise. I think a lot of people who shoot phones as their primary camera would love a better camera in their phone (and that is driving phone manufacturers to compete on camera capabilities).

That's brilliant, and I think it's spot on—"many people do not think that their phone is a 'good enough' camera...it's just that the ease of use/sharing is worth the compromise." Couldn't have said it better.

It highlights a really astonishing development in photography as a whole. Just to make the point a little more deliciously, I'd like to digress with a description of how I was practicing photography in the late '90s in my little house in Woodstock, Illinois, USA (the town where the greatest movie ever made, Groundhog Day*, was filmed). This is long, but I think you'll find it entertaining, whether or not it sounds familiar to you.

Before I start, though, I should mention that I shot Kodak Plus-X, at an exposure index (E.I., meaning a film speed that departed from the official ISO rating) of 64, and Kodak Tri-X at E.I. 200. I made no adjustments of the film speed from picture to picture or roll to roll, or for that matter from year to year. And I got 35 exposures (more on that later) per roll of film, so you had to be mindful how many shots remained, and "pick your spots" for changing rolls to minimize any chance of missing the action. And there was no possibility of shooting color with the same click of the shutter—if you had B&W film in the camera, that's all you got, B&W.

So here we go. First, using a contraption called a Watson loader, I took 100-foot rolls of 135mm film—it was originally movie film, and, in long rolls, still looked like it—and loaded it into a number of reusable cassettes, leaving the leaders sticking out. Then I had to clip the leader into a "tongue" using scissors, for easier loading into the camera. After shooting the pictures, I collected the exposed films, and went upstairs to my bedroom closet, which I darkened completely by stuffing a bathrobe under the door. I could only do this at night, by the way, or the daylight bouncing around the bedroom would overwhelm my defenses. I prepared by cutting the tabs or tongues off square across and attaching the end of the filmstrip, sticking out of the cassette, to the inner core of a "King Concept" stainless-steel film reel. Then I switched off the light. In pitch darkness, sitting cross-legged on the floor of the closet, working by feel, I wound three films on to reels, and placed the reels into a large four-reel tank, with the three loaded reels on the bottom and an empty reel at the top (I got better agitation by using a generous airspace, but leaving the airspace meant the solution wouldn't quite cover the fourth, or top, reel). All done, I put the light-tight top on the tank, turned the lights back on, and set myself free from the closet.

I shot only 35 pictures per roll so that all the negatives, cut into strips of five, would fit into a single Printfile negative sleeve and could be proofed (contact printed) on a single piece of 8x10 photo paper. So I was preparing to develop 105 pictures.

Downstairs, by the kitchen sink, I had already "tempered" the solutions (i.e., brought them to the right temperature) by preparing a 66°F water bath in a large Rubbermaid kitchen tub. While I rolled the film onto the reels upstairs, I had the developer, stop bath, fixer, and surfactant standing in the tempered water to bring them to the 68°F processing temperature. I tempered the water using a plastic gallon jug of plain water I keep in the refrigerator to keep it cold; sometimes the water from the cold tap was warmer than 68°F.

To prepare the developer, every couple of weeks I had to mix a "stock solution" of Kodak D-76 from packets of powder and heated distilled water, which I then decanted into 16-oz. amber brown pharmaceutical bottles. Mixing developer stock solution took the better part of an hour, but I got eight 16-oz. bottles of stock from each mixing session, enough for 24 rolls of film. The developer stock had to be aged. Because D-76 took a few days to stabilize and got more active as it got older, I didn't use it for the at least 72 hours after mixing it, and after 90 days, if there was any left (there never was), I threw it out. But that meant that the bottles had to be labeled with the date and time of mixing.

Before processing, I took one bottle of stock and mixed it 1:1 with distilled water, tossed out four ounces to leave 28 oz., and cleaned and dried  the stock bottle. That 28 oz. of 1:1 developer was what I was bringing to the processing temperature.

Using two bi-metal dial thermometers and one mercury one for calibration, I then performed a ritual I had performed well over a thousand times: I processed the film. First, the tank was brought to temperature with one-minute tempered water bath. Then the developer for 8.5 minutes, with ten precisely choreographed agitations by inversions. The agitations took ten seconds out of every minute. Then the developer was dumped into a beaker so I could check the finishing temperature, and then stop bath was poured into the tank and agitated continuously for a timed period, then ditto for the fixer. The processed film was then rinsed and washed under the tap. Finally, I poured in a solution of four drops of Edwal LFN, a surfactant, and distilled water to prevent water spots when drying.

Then I took the wet films to another closet, on the ground floor of the house, and hung them up to dry overnight. By the way, this closet had to be wiped down and spritzed with Endust every few weeks to keep dust at bay.

The next morning, I carefully clipped the three films into strips of five frames each and loaded them into the transparent Printfile negative sleeves, which had three holes on the left for insertion into a binder and were about the size of letter-sized paper. This was my least favorite chore in the process. Then the Printfile sheets went down to the darkroom to be added to the pile to be proofed.

Once I had maybe nine, or 12, or 15, or 18 sheets ready to be proofed, I went into the darkroom, mixed three trays of chemicals, and contact printed each sheet. I used 8.5x11" paper that I kept for that purpose (I also liked that size for work printing).

At that point, I was ready to begin dealing with the pictures I'd taken.

The first step was to determine which frames to workprint. My rule was that I had to workprint at least one frame from a roll of film (this was to prevent laziness, since it kept me from tossing the whole roll aside as worthless), and no more than six (this forced me to make hard choices when I was examining the contact printed frame with a lighted loupe). Sometimes I took a number of days and repeated viewings before marking the contact sheets for workprinting.

A "workprint" for me was a quick-and-dirty 8x10 full-frame print of the image, so I could further evaluate the picture, edit them, and strategize how to print the selects. The next step was a darkroom session for workprinting. As with contact printing, I had a standard exposure time, contrast, and enlarger head height setting for workprints, and the job was simply to rotate all the selected negatives into and out of the negative carrier and expose all the paper, which I kept in a paper safe as I worked. I might make 10 to 50 workprints in one session, but I processed them about every 15—that was as many sheets as I could comfortably put through the solutions together, agitating by "interleaving," which meant continuously rotating the sheets of paper from the bottom to the top of the pile. Once processed and washed, all these prints were squeegeed and laid out on our couch or the carpet till the next morning to dry.

The next step in my workflow was to figure out which negatives to make "fine prints" of. As I mentioned earlier this week, I made finished prints on 11x14 fiber-base paper to several standard sizes. A 2–3 hour darkroom session was usually good for four to seven finished prints.

I won't even go into the process of making finished prints.

Here's what's funny about that...
It's kind of hilarious now to reflect that I was doing all this because it was the most convenient alternative!! Makes me laugh, now. But with 2 1/4 rollfilm, I could only develop 24 exposures per tank; with sheet film, I could only tray-develop maybe six to 12 exposures in one session. Both larger formats had other costs, such as smaller maximum apertures on the normal lenses, more expensive lenses of more limited focal lengths, more film changing, and fussier film handling. With 35 exposures per roll, fast lenses, and the ability to develop a whopping 105 exposures per tank, I was making the "slacker" choice...I was "compromising" (cf. Dennis's quotation) with the smaller 24x36mm negative size because, well, yes, it was easier.

I'm sure you don't need me to compare all that preposterous effort to today, but I'll mention a few high points. Now, I can:

• Carry the equivalent of dozens of film cassettes on one tiny card
• Shoot hundreds of exposures per card, with no film changing and no appreciable per-exposure cost
• Use ISOs of up to 5000**
• Shoot B&W and color simultaneously
• Carry much smaller lenses thanks to having a sensor that's much smaller than the 24x36mm of 35mm film
• Stitch frames together easily after the fact
• Review what I've shot instantly
• "Develop" my shooting instantaneously and with almost no effort
• Proof and store with a few clicks of the mouse and some keyboard notations
• Manage colors much more easily
• Make color prints that are arguably the most beautiful and longest lasting of any method in history

And so on. The list goes on. You know what I'm talking about...all the advantages of large-sensor (I mean anything over 1"), dedicated digital cameras.

Here comes the amazing part
But that's not the amazing thing I wanted to point out. With all that—all these vast, overpoweringly superior. hugely more convenient advances in photographing, affecting almost every aspect of current workflows, which taken together amount to approximately the same qualitative change as traveling from one place to another using a horse-drawn buggy vs. a Camry—even with all that, it's not enough.

It's not convenient enough. Or it's getting to be that way. For some number of people, a number that's growing all the time, Dennis is exactly right. They will accept picture quality that's not quite good enough in exchange for the improved convenience of having their camera in a slim little pocket-sized wafer they have to carry with them anyway, and for the convenience of superior pointing-and-shooting abilities (the iPhone really is better than a "real" camera in the software department—it balances exposure, corrects color, and applies HDR more intelligently), and for the ability to share with others and post on social media immediately.

When I shot 35mm Tri-X with my old manual, metal, mechanical 35mm cameras, I was actually compromising for the sake of convenience. In May of 2000, by the time the $3,000, three megapixel Canon D30 came out, convenience had improved by—what? Ten times? Fifty times? over the old-fashioned film workflow described above that I was using in Woodstock. The D30 (I couldn't afford one) was the camera that Michael Reichmann of Luminous-Landscape famously declared to be as good as 35mm film (as long as you uprezzed carefully!). At Photo Techniques we sold Michael Reichmann example prints in our Collector Print program, to show people what was possible with "affordable" digital.

But in 2019, Y2k-era convenience is not only no longer news, it is no longer sufficient.

As I say, amazing.

Change is gonna come
You know what I'd really like to see? A comparison of image quality between a Google Pixel 3, Samsung S10, or Apple iPhone XS of today and a Canon D30 of the year 2000. That would really be interesting. Because it's possible we're at a similar stage in the third really major change in cameras in my lifetime. The first was the advent of point-and-shoots in the 1980s. The second and by far the most significant was film to digital. And the third might turn out to be standalone, large-sensor cameras to smartphones. (The one prior to those was rangefinders to SLRs, but I was two years old when the Nikon F heralded that the era of the SLR had arrived in 1959, so I didn't witness that.)

Time will tell.

Mike
(Thanks to Dennis)

*Is so. And since we're talking about Zen Buddhism, is this a good time to mention the concept of the Root Teacher? That's when you trace your teaching lineage from your own teacher, to your teacher's teacher, to his teacher, and so on. Well, my first photography teacher was David Vestal (I learned photography with his book The Craft of Photography open in my tiny darkroom under the basement stairs, and later hired him to write for Photo Techniques), and his teacher was Ralph Steiner, and Ralph's teacher—and thus my "root teacher"—was the pictorialist Clarence H. White, the founder of the first photography school in the United States. During one of his most creative periods, according to Ralph, Clarence White could only afford to expose eight (8) plates of film per month—two per week, and "he would spend every spare moment planning what he would do with those two plates on his weekend." And a surprisingly large percentage of those pictures were among his masterpieces.

There's probably a lesson in that, but I suspect I'd have to rewrite this exact same post for an infinite number of days before I achieve enlightenment as to what that lesson is.

**I don't believe I've ever shot a "keeper" picture at an ISO higher than that. Your mileage may vary.

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

Want to help?

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

Dave Jenkins: "It was complicated, shooting film. And of course, Photoshop has complications and difficulties of its own. It's just a different skill set, and I found the complications of film much more satisfying. On another note—I think yours was the first mention I've ever read or heard anywhere about D-76 gaining strength as it aged. I experienced that effect when I had my studio in the '90s—I used to mix a gallon at a time and found it giving me denser negs as I got toward the bottom of the jug. Rather than go through your process, I just switched to T-Max developer and mixed as needed."

Stan B.: "The complexification part in the analog days came from the shooting/developing routine described above. It was arduous, but...just that—routine. Today, endless choice is readily available; the complexification arrives when accessing that cornucopia of choice—it often comes with deciphering programs that are seldom routine and forever changing, evolving and becoming more...complex."

Mike Ferron: "Mike, I would describe your ritual when shooting, developing and printing film based photos now simply as 'keeping the faith.' About a month ago I picked up the most beautiful Leica IIIf and Summitar 5 cm ƒ/2 lens that was screaming at me from the local dealer's showcase. A total jewel to handle and admire and a PITA to actually use. And I love that. From the crazy loading of film to taking off my hat and glasses to actually be able to use the rangefinder then the viewfinder. Load Tmax 400, meter at 320 and the world is a better place in the end!"

Joseph Reid (partial comment): "There are cameras these days that will get your pictures to your phone wirelessly, such as the Nikon Z line, but they lay off the real work, processing your pictures and distributing them via the interweb, to the app and phone makers. As others have said, the old-line camera makers need to fix this. It's blisteringly obvious...."

[Ed. Note: You can read the full text of partial comments in the comments section. Click on "Comments" in the post footer.]

JOHN GILLOOLY (partial comment): "I purchased a very low serial number Nikon D1 the week they were available. The early days of digital were very difficult as the flash technology was crap and lab printing didn't really exist. My 64MB cards (32 JPEG fine images on a card—no chance you were shooting RAW) cost $349 and I eventually purchased a 1GB CFII card for $1200.00 after dropping a 'very delicate' IBM Microdrive. Everything was painfully slow. Downloading from the card was excruciating. Burning a CD took 40 minutes! Your description of B&W darkroom sounds so painfully slow and work-intensive from where we sit now. The first ten years of digital was a constant trial and error process with sacrifices in quality for many years relative to our analog world. I felt the time of the Nikon D3 was when digital finally came of age."

[Ed. Note: The next two comments came in one right after the other in this order. Coincidence?!?  :-) ]

Christopher Mark Perez: "Sony could easily solve the problem of convenience by replacing their mirrorless product line display interface with a full Android OS. Marry their high quality imaging system with a high quality fully functional networked OS and call it done (for now). They are an electronics company, after all. They could do that and make a whole lot of people happy."

Martin Doonan: "I love the irony that Android, as an operating system, was originally intended for digital cameras."

Neil Swanson: "Fifty years of shooting in formats from 35mm to 8x10, 22 years of making my living with a camera and what do I miss? Prints. I just don’t print or pay someone else to. It’s not a photo till it’s a print and yet I’ve got no idea what to do with dozens of boxes of prints I did make and nobody ever sees. But I miss prints."

Tom Frost: "I saw a cartoon that showed a roll of 2 1/4 film, a 35mm cassette, and a compact flash (CF) card. The caption, one under each device, said '12 exposures, six are good. 36 exposures, six are good. 600 exposures, six are good.'" 

Ian: "Found one of the very first images I shot on my D1 and my then new iPhone 8. Interesting to see how far things have come."

David Lee: "Loved to read your story Mike. I had a similar workflow. The part I enjoyed the most was the printing of full-frame negatives on 8x10 or 11x14 paper. I was using a Heiland Splitgrade that would give me a perfectly good working print at the first try 99% of the time. I designed a mounting and framing work table with slots for glass, cotton rag mats and frames. I was in total control of the photograph, from the shutter release to the hanging of the framed print. Almost eight years into digital and I still don’t have a printer. Shame on me."

Real Options

Just musing here. Mulling over the comments about the Range Rover thing, how's this for a concept....

A.) you pay a healthy amount of money for a luxury car, maybe double what you'd pay for a similar mainstream non-luxury version of something similar, b.) you get presented with a list of options, and c.) tick as many boxes as you want, configure your car just the way you like...

...NO CHARGE.

That's having options!

I predict the first company to do this will make out like bandits. Kia could do it, maybe. As a differentiator. Or Genesis.

And lest you say this is off topic, oh no, because it's exactly the way I'd like to buy premium (luxury) cameras. Pay one price, and they'll configure it the way you want it. Put everything on it, take everything off it, or anything in between.

To my knowledge only Leica has ever done this, with its à la carte program with film M's back in the day (and you paid an à la carte charge but nothing past that, right? I think), but that was mostly for cosmetic choices.

Mike

P.S. I'm sure people will say it can't be done. Nonsense. If it was what the market expected and the only way anyone could make money selling premium cameras, everyone would be doing it.

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

Want to help?

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

Speed: "Prix Fixe."

Walter, from girlfriends account...: "Sorry to disappoint, within this à la carte program Leica charged and charges for everything extra, besides a hefty basic fee to do so at all."

New News From the World of Stuff

Of course, the "stuff" doesn't have very much to do with photography—as they say in courtrooms, that's stipulated (in law the word means "to accept a proposition without requiring that it be established by proof"). That aside, a number of delightful new baubles of interest have passed by in the parade recently, as you might be aware.

The new Canon EOS RP

Full-frame Rebel: Most notable is the EOS RP, Canon's new "lower-end" R (full-frame mirrorless) camera. It's a small, light, relatively inexpensive* entry-level camera in the full-frame mirrorless interchangeable-lens category. It evidently uses a sensor very much like the one in the original flippin'-mirror 6D, which isn't really a bad thing as 6D pictures continue to look very nice; and it has a decent if basic feature set that includes things like a single card slot. I approve—I like simple. The notable things about it are a.) it's a Canon and b.) it costs only $1,300, which will look tempting to people who've been pining for full-frame but holding off because of the cost of entry. It will probably be popular for those reasons.

The new Fujicron 16mm ƒ/2.8

New Fujicron: Over in Fuji-land, an update called the X-T30 features a generous amount of trickle-down from the popular X-T3. To go with it there's another new "Fujicron." I refer, of course, to those small, light, still-fast-but-not-superfast X lenses nicknamed with a mashup of the words "Fujinon" and "Summicron." This time it's a pretty little 16mm ƒ/2.8 that's weatherproof and weighs only five and a half ounces(!).

Commentary

There's a reason why I stuck these two bits of stuff in one post. I can't help being struck by the juxtaposition of yet another Fujicron arriving at the same time we first see Canon's entry-level R offering.

...Which there's nothing wrong with, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. But most of Canon's R lenses so far are or will be premium, expensive offerings; the new lenses just announced don't look like they're going to change that. And the camera with even the basic lens is right back up to $2,200. Which ain't cheap**.

When the original Digital Rebel was introduced 16 years ago (can it really have been that long?), Canon had a whole slew of good but small and cheap SLR lenses you could stick on it. I'm left wondering what the point of a small, light, inexpensive body is when you're more or less obligated to buy large, heavy, expensive lenses to put on it.

There's really only one answer...it's so people can buy a "temporary" body as they begin to acquire lenses, putting off the purchase of a better, more expensive body to the future, at which point the RP can very logically become a second body / backup / carry-around / vacation camera.

Unless you just want that nifty 35mm with IS, of course, which solves all problems and quiets all objections. Mmmm.

Otherwise, I personally fail to see the appeal of a compact full-frame body that doesn't have reasonably light, easy-to-handle lenses that go with it. It's not like this kind of thing really matters...we all get what we want to get and then we get on with it. I'm sure the RP will be very nice, and eminently usable. But neither of the Canon R cameras have in-body image stabilization (IBIS), and neither does the X-T3; and if I'm going to get a mid-twenties-ish megapixel camera that's light and right-sized and doesn't have IBIS, I sure know what kind of lenses I want to go with it. One 16mm Fujicron to go, please. Also that one and that one too. Thenk-yew. That will be all.

Your mileage might vary, and I won't argue if it does. This "stuff" is supposed to be fun.

Mike

*Inexpensive as long as it's your money. If we're talking about mine, we need to discuss this further.

**Even with your money.

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

Here’s the situation

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

John W: "The 'big expensive lens' problem has always been my head-scratcher with FF Mirrorless. You still have FF, which means big lenses...period! The whole idea of mirrorless was to reduce size and weight. Sony seems to have cracked the problem somewhat, but only 'somewhat.' Their lenses are still big and very expensive but 'somewhat' lighter than the older FF DSLR lenses. APS-C as implemented in the Fuji system seems to be the true home of mirrorless. The size and weight are in the 'Goldilocks' zone and the sensors are 'good enough.' But though affordable the price is still a tad high. Still, with continuous free updates you can get a lot of mileage out of their cameras."

Larry Gebhardt: "The Sony A7II is still in the current lineup and Sony has dropped the price to $999. Given it's got IBIS and a range of smaller lenses it seems like an obvious choice over the RP if you're buying into mirrorless for the size benefits of the system. I think Canon should have introduced the RP at the same price, or at least added some smaller lenses with IS."

Upshot

I had to laugh at JohnMFlores's comment to the last post, which was, in its entirety,

Yes

...But, overall, I think the point is made, in my mind at least: cameras don't actually cost all that much. I'm thinking that perhaps I should stop boxing myself in to one stratum of the pricing tiers by conceiving of things as "inexpensive" and "expensive." It's really just all relative.

Personally, at this moment, I can tell you what seems reasonable to me: I balked at paying $1,649 for an X-H1 body (before the big price drop) and did in fact spend $1,213 for a Panasonic G9 body (when it reached its cheapest price during the holidays). So there's my own price sensitivity in a nutshell.

But that's just me. (And I'm still not sure I made the correct decision. I'm having opportunity-cost remorse over the X-H1, and half of me even thinks I should stick to B&W with the X-T1. I like color but I love B&W.)

I do continue to believe, and assert, that expenditures make much more sense if you get one of two things out of whatever you buy: One is "use," and the other is "joy," not that the two are mutually exclusive. I guess really the only truly wasteful way to spend money is to get neither use nor joy out of your purchase. Buy it and stick it in the closet and never touch it, and feel nothing but a pang of regret and guilt whenever you happen to accidentally lay eyes on it—that's how something really becomes expensive. Please don't ask how I know. And please don't tease me.

For pros AND...
I do have to object in part to the refrain common in our comments that the E-M1X is "for professionals" and if you need it for calculated business reasons then you'll make the buying decision purely on that basis. Yes and no. I've been in this game a while, and I can tell you that "professional" equipment is made for two categories of consumer, not one. One is, yes, pros who need it and people who will do a hardheaded cost/benefit analysis before investing; the other is well-heeled amateurs who want to use what the pros use...or who just want the thing, full stop. There's no telling what the percentage of each might be, as I'm sure it varies for each individual product, and by region, and based on what ideas are popular at any given moment in time, and even possibly by the state of the economy. And sometimes the two things are different facets of one and the same supernice Texan dude (cough cough Kirk LOL). But a little story along these lines: long ago, in Virginia, there was a professional camera store that catered to professionals. It was a very slick shop, stylish, and stuffed with exotic, expensive gear. It sold mainly studio lighting equipment, in the days when the average studio pro might invest $30,000 to $100,000 in strobe-and-head systems, light stands, clamps, cables, light shaping equipment (gobos, skrims, reflectors, softboxes, grids, etc.), flash meters, camera stands (the average hobbyist today has no idea what a camera stand is), backdrops, and so on. (A pro I assisted for claimed he had $30,000 worth of Matthews C [Century] stands, which in some circles used to be called "Hollywood stands.") Of course the store strongly emphasized the professional portion of its clientele. But the manager of the store, in an unguarded moment, confided to me that only 50% of its sales were to working pros; the other 50% were to wealthy people, some of them women, who had artistic inclinations and time on their hands and the intention to become fashion or studio photographers, and the wherewithal to outfit themselves to do so. The store downplayed this segment of its clientele, but, to paraphrase the manager (who was a woman), "without wealthy lawyers' wives I'd be out of business."

(This is an aside, but the same woman lectured on the use of the Minolta Flashmeter IV, which until the advent of digital cameras was the most complex device intended for photography I ever encountered, at least if you bothered to understand all of its functions. She also confided to me that if more than three weeks went by between these Flashmeter IV lectures, she had to brush up on its features and operation by rereading parts of the manual before her talk. Made me laugh...if the person who taught it couldn't even remember how to use it....)

So the E-M1X isn't just for working pros who need its capabilities and advantages, and you shouldn't believe otherwise. It's half* for pros who need it and half* for people who want to be like the pros who need it, or who want to be outfitted to try the things it's made to be good at. Those people are a very important part of any "pro" product's market, too.

That's my 2¢ about $3k. More mañana.

Mike

*Actual percentages may vary

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

Harsh reality

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

Mike Plews: "As enthusiasts this discussion revolves around what we want versus what we need. Reality sometimes settles the issue for us. My way of dealing with this is to call things based not on what they are but rather on what they were supposed to be. For example, I have a Toro two stage snow thrower that can shoot a frozen dog turd into outer space. I call it my Epson 3880. If you look out over our back yard you can see my D850. It has a 750 gallon tank, a distribution box and three 80 foot laterals. Right now Mrs. Plews is waiting for the local septic service to come and pump out our Nikon. For much of the '90s we had a dog named Deardorff. Nobody in our family is named Deardorff but I asked for a Deardorff for Christmas and I got a beagle. It's all good."

Mike replies: Mike, I am going to have to come meet you and Mrs. Plews someday. It won't be to see your Nikon, though.

Øyvind Hansen: "If you can afford it it is very reassuring to own the 'flagship,' at least until the next version comes out. It keeps the upgraditis at bay. There´s still horizontal GAS to contend with though...."

John Camp: "I read all of Kirk's blog entries, and would comment there more often if I could only figure out how to do it. (Something to do with Facebook, or maybe Google, or maybe both.) In any case, he's down at his local camera store so often he ought to sublease a space in the back room and move in a bed and a microwave. Then he could try out cameras in the middle of the night, at his leisure. He also ought to give the occasional workshop on portraiture. I'd sign up in one minute."

kirk Tuck: "I'd love to reply to the mention of my buying habits, vis-à-vis camera gear, but I'm heading out the door just now on my way to the bricks and mortar camera store in order to buy a new Fujifilm 90mm ƒ/2 lens. Perhaps, finally, it will be the magic lens that makes my career mildly successful. If not, it may be another month in which we boil the leather camera straps to make soup...(sigh)."

Mike replies: Should we take up a collection for you?

Of camera straps, I mean.

I assume well-used, grimy, sweat-stained ones make better soup?

(Actually, I'd better watch myself here...best not provoke karma under this heading!  :-)  Or I'll be eating camera-strap soup myself.) 

4-Cylinder Ferrari?

Olympus E-M1X

Please read the disclaimer before proceeding!

Disclaimer: NOTHING AGAINST Olympus, Olympus fans, Olympus users, anyone who's interested in this camera, anyone who's shopping for it, anyone who likes what it represents, anyone who's interested in its tech, anyone who thinks they might be able to make use of what it offers, anyone who's considering buying one, and, especially, any actual work (pictures or videos) that might be made with one. No hate...for it, you, Olympus or E-mix pics/vids.

If you'll look at the front of the new Olympus you'll see why I've been calling it the "E-mix," pronounced ee-micks, because "M1X" looks so much like "mix." Apropos that, isn't it a great thing that the alphabet contains the otherwise nearly superfluous letter X? What would the camera industry do without it?

Uh-oh, I'm digressing.

Character defect.

Before you read on, though, did you read the disclaimer? I want to make sure everyone read the disclaimer. Otherwise I'll get slammed with all sort of accusatory comments and emails over the weekend, and I'm in much too good a mood for that.

It's true that I'm probably supposed to be getting carried away by all the specs and the launch celebration like everybody else. I guess I resist celebratory launches—I'm like a grouch at the Super Bowl who wanders around muttering about CTE. However, if there was ever a product in our category I'm not in the market for, this would be it. And you should know that.

Okay. So, a question for you: Is it just me, or does this product (behind all the hoopla) maybe make less than perfect sense?

(What'd he say?! Whoops, please re-read that disclaimer again now.)

Don't get me wrong. I use Micro 4/3; I'm on record repeatedly as liking the 20-MP 4/3 sensors; and I'm not a professional so I'm not in the target market for the E-mix. But at first blush there seems to be some kinda cognitive dissonance going on with this new Olympus beastie, except maybe for critter and airshow photographers and others who need a lot of reach. It kinda feels like a supercar with a little motor, like maybe...I don't know, a 4-cylinder Ferrari.

For those of you who might be car-illiterate, or more so than I, Enzo Ferrari, as I understand the story, originally considered himself an engine maker, and his cars were deliberately and specifically 12-cylinder race cars—he originally built road cars to subsidize and homologate the racing program. Enzo's son Dino convinced his father to race V6 and V8 cars in the '50s, but when Ferrari built road cars with smaller-than-12-cylinder engines, starting in 1968, he didn't call them Ferraris at first—he called them Dinos, reserving the fabled "Ferrari" moniker for 12-cylinder automobiles.

Ferrari did make some 4-cylinder engines, originally designed by Aurelio Lampredi for Formula 2. But a Ferrari road car with a 4-banger? Not on your life.

I presume if I got anything too badly wrong in the foregoing paragraphs, reader and car aficionado extraordinaire Jim Hayes will set me back on the right, ah, track.

By the way, I like 4-cylinder engines too, although I'm really a 6-cylinder fanboy. I like V6's and straight 6's best. My dream car, for instance—yes, I know this is quirky—would be a Miata with a transplanted GM LFX V6 engine. Yum.

But I digress.

Again.

Back to the E-mix: I could be wrong. It just seems to me like a Pen-F, E-M5 Mark II, or GX9 is an all-around better housing for a 20-MP 4/3 sensor than a camera that mimics the style and purpose of the biggest pro Canons and Nikons.

Just wondering what you're thinking of Olympus's thinking here.

Remember that disclaimer!

Mike

ADDENDUM:

Actual 4-cylinder Ferrari—a 1957 500 TRC. But get this...it was a V4.
(Thanks to Hugh Crawford. Photo: Ferrari.)

UPDATE Jim Hayes adds: "I dig your analogy Michael! Enzo Ferrari reportedly never had much interest in road cars; just selling them to fund his racing. Big 12-cylinder road cars sold for much higher prices and made more profits, so that made marketing sense. When it came to racing he would build cars for any class he wanted to participate in, so if he needed an engine with fewer cylinders and less displacement, he would do it. They even experimented with 2-cylinder engines.

"While there was never a 4-cylinder road Ferrari, there nearly was one. He commissioned Bizzarini to build a miniature GT based on a 4-cylinder 1- liter engine derived from the current 12-cylinder 3-liter cars. Bertone designed a coupe for it. It never made production at Ferrari but was sold to ASA and eventually surfaced as the ASA 1000GT around 1967.

"It looked like a miniature Ferrari. The car was tiny and the engine, which looked Ferrari-ish, was jewel-like. I've seen a few and they are the size of a small Fiat of the era. Only about 40 were made and they are collectors items."

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

Harsh reality

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

psu: "FWIW Thom Hogan is using the same analogy. 😃 🚗 "

Mike replies: I swear I did not read or see anyone else's thoughts about the camera before composing my own. But..."great minds think alike"?

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "I think the E-M1X was designed exactly the way it should be to do the job it was designed to do. As a very long-time Canon 1D-series user, that is very clear. The E-M5 MkII, Pen E or G9 camera frames and lens mounts are not torsionally stiff and strong enough for the types of long (and relatively heavy) lenses that would need to be mounted on this camera and maintain critical optical tolerances, let alone providing the requisite durability and reliability. Pros don't care a whole lot about all the newest specs, they care about toughness and durability. And shutter life."

Chris C: "It's bigger and heavier than the medium format Fuji GFX 50R!"

Ken Blumberg: "I've been a dedicated OM-D owner for the past seven years (E-M1 Mark II and E-M5 Mark II currently). I enjoyed your digressions and especially like your Ferrari analogy. What brought me to switch from APC to Micro 4/3 was the form factor. I think the E-mix is a miscalculation. I'm looking forward to the E-M1 Mark III."

kirk Tuck: "So. Deep breath. Not every camera is designed and purposed for walking around Downtown Austin with the instrument draped over my shoulder, sporting a nice, smallish lens and being unobtrusive. Some photographers, especially those who photograph all kinds of sports (think Olympics) wildlife and other pursuits that require long, fast lenses, spend hours holding up said long lenses in their hangs, anchored by a camera body. If you have ever done this kind of work you have probably found out that a larger camera with more gripping space helps to hold the entire package more comfortably. In the same pursuits having a robust body is also a good thing. As is a fast frame rate. In the "old days" when everything revolved around print photographers convinced themselves that they needed big (think V12) sensors. Now some prefer smaller sensors in order to reduce the size and weight of those long lenses while still delivering ample image quality. They are helped in this pursuit by the current target media: electronic screens. About 60–70% of Internet content goes to cellular phone screens.... This means that the final results from a smaller sensor camera will seem identical to big sensor cameras when viewed in the medium of choice for the majority of audiences. But the small sensor camera users still want the robustness of the larger body as well as the comfort afforded by the larger contact area for their hands.

"And since I keep saying hands I would also mention that these working photographers (Olympus' target market for a camera like this) will appreciate image stabilization that is head and shoulders above competitors' offering.

"So, what we have here is a well-considered specialists tool that can also be a 'halo' product for Olympus. It was never intended to be an 'all-around' much as a Ferrari was never meant to be used pulling stumps on the farm. We need to get into our heads that all cameras are not all purpose. Heavy-duty users will see the advantages in this new camera and buy one if the advantages align with their very real needs. I think it would be a good choice for theater photography when paired with the Olympus 40–150mm ƒ/2.8. I hope Olympus reads this and sends me the new body for a long, long test run."

PhotoDes: "Well, I don't own Olympus or a 4/3 camera, but I see nothing conceptually wrong with the M1X. After all, sensors and processors have been improving steadily over the past 10 or more years—I suspect a 4/3 sensor today is better than my APS-C sensors of years ago. There are advantages to the smaller sensors, within their limits, and cameras shouldn't be sized to the sensors anyway as long as hands stay the same size.

"An interesting and significant new alternative as I see it."

Ciaran: "Mike, I agree with your question of 'does it make sense?' for the E-M1X, certainly from the customer's perspective. I doubt that many customers have been calling for a bigger, heavier Micro 4/3 camera.

"However, from Olympus's perspective, a bigger, more expensive camera with more batteries provides a vehicle for new technologies, which in their first generation tend to be bigger, more expensive, and more power-hungry than their predecessors. This appears to be the case for the E-M1X. Rather than developing a new higher performance processor, they employed two of the existing True Pic VIII processors, driving up size, cost, and power consumption. Judging by the pictures of the main board and exploded diagram on Imaging Resource, they are using all of the space that a big body gives them.

"Olympus seems to be taking a bigger step into computational photography with the E-M1X, and this is an area that they could differentiate themselves in. (It is also technology that works well with small sensors, as Apple and Google have shown us.) The size of the box is important for a computational device. There are good reasons why the highest performing gaming and Photoshop PCs are desktops, not laptops; desktops have the room, the power, and the thermal management to house the latest processor and graphics card. Similarly, the E-M1X has much more room and power and enhanced thermal management (heat pipe!) compared to the Pen-F, for example. To do the same job with less volume and power might be doable, but it would require greater engineering resources and/or time (miniaturization is hard). Constraining themselves to a small box would be a disadvantage to Olympus, especially when the big boys have their big cameras to bring new technology to.

"Olympus may not sell a lot of these, maybe not enough enough to recoup development expenses, but it gives them the opportunity to get their new tech into the field and benefit from customer feedback while possibly gaining some favorable interest in follow-on products. And now they have a big body for future first generation technologies, relaxing the constraints for size, cost, and power during design."

Mark Jennings: "Enzo’s personal taste? Hard to say. He drove a Fiat most of his life. He tolerated his road car customers, and their taste tended to be a lot of romantic ideals. Ferrari himself just wanted to win, and V12s in the '50s were somewhat more reliable: lots of tiny, low mass parts moving at low speeds. Ferrari V12s typically weren’t the most powerful engines in a race, but they finished a little more often."

Jack Kurtz: "I'm a working photojournalist who uses the E-M1 Mark II and Pen F bodies. I like them a lot. I am a huge fanboy of the E-M1 Mark II and the small primes.

"But the E-M1X is kind of a head scratcher. I think the biggest challenge with Olympus' current cameras is that they've hit the limits of their 20 MP sensor, and this doesn't address those limits. I switched to mirrorless, and specifically Micro 4/3, from Canon 5D series cameras and L lenses because of the smaller/lighter ethos mirrorless promised. E-mix feels like a step backwards.

"As intriguing as some of the new technology in the E-M1X is, it doesn't solve any problems I currently have. I don't photograph planes, trains, or critters, so, even though the autofocus is very cool, I don't need a camera that picks up on a plane, train, or critter.

"I'm hoping some of the new features in the E-M1X trickle down to the E-M1 Mark II through firmware updates. (Specifically, access to both SD cards when you're using Olympus' iOS app, Ol Share.) I'm glad Olympus is still innovating and I think the eMix is a great proof of concept camera—but I don't see myself buying one."

Marcin Wuu: "I don't follow. It seems exactly the same case as the Panasonic G9—too big a camera with too small a sensor. Or is there a limit to how ridiculously oversized those things can get, and the G9 is exactly it?"

Mike replies: The G9 isn't a large camera when you see the actual object in person. It's merely not small, is all.

The light is not quite right in my "studio" in the morning, but here are a couple of quick comparison snaps for you—

G9 with 12–35mm next to X-T1 with larger handgrip and 14mm ƒ/2.8

Next to c. 1977 Nikkormat FT-3 with AIS Nikkor 85mm ƒ/2

Now go look at this. As you can see, that's not apples and apples.

Ed: "Who I'd like to hear from is an actual working pro sports photographer who uses Canon or Nikon and has had a chance to use this Olympus and compare."

Mike replies: That describes Stephen Scharf (who shoots motorsports such as motorcycle racing), who we'll probably hear from if/when he gets a chance to take the E-mix out for a spin.

David Dyer-Bennet: "I run a battery down in my EM-1 Mark II most days shooting roller derby. With a little anticipation you can change batteries at a break in the action, but I know people who don't want to think that far ahead. And I wouldn't be surprised if somebody shooting 4X the photos I do wouldn't run the battery down sooner, maybe multiple times per bout. (I'm already using the 40–150mm, so focusing big glass, and using CAF, so I can't increase my power draw too much.) This certainly isn't the body for the dedicated landscape photographer, and probably not for the street shooter (I don't do enough of that for my opinion to be more than a guess though). But it does seem to be designed for fast continuous action, sports and wildlife."

Whitney Dunn (partial comment): "The size arguments seem misplaced. It’s not for everyone, sure, but neither is a D5 or 1DX. They’re niche almost by definition. The role of these type of cameras isn’t to find a broad audience but to complete a system. You need a body with the best autofocus we can deliver, that will stand up to serious abuse, and deliver regardless of the conditions? Here you go."

Sunday Support Group: OC/OL/OY (and Mike's Camera Decision)

From time to time I suggest little exercises—well, okay, sometimes some big ones too—for people to consider. I love learning, and learners naturally teach.

One of those exercises was called OC/OL/OY—one camera, one lens, one year. Here's a description of it on PetaPixel*.

So...it's January...time for resolutions...which I am notoriously bad at keeping...and I'm thinking...well, that maybe I should take my own advice and do a OC/OL/OY.

I've actually done a OC/OL/OY before, several times. Mainly because there have been a number of more-than-one-year periods when I only owned one camera and one lens. In my first year in photography school I only had a Contax 139Q and a fast Zeiss 50mm lens. In Year Two I made the most momentous equipment change of my life and career and sold the 50mm and replaced it with a 35mm and an 85mm. Whew, big change. Brave new world.  :-)

I actually even did a OC/OL/OY with a zoom lens once, too...I purchased my first DSLR, used, in 2006 I think it was, and it came with the Minolta 28–75mm lens made by Tamron that's still available as a Sony lens. (Buy Tamron's own version instead, available for Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony DSLR mounts; it's almost half the cost.) I liked the lens so much on the "crop-sensor" camera (in FOV equivalency it was about a 42–110mm) that I never got another lens for that camera. Note that I can only recommend this lens on APS-C—I didn't care for it on FF at the short end.

Mike's camera decision
I decided to unwrap the G9. And keep it, that means. So I've got a new camera. It's not perfect for me (mainly because, ironically, it's just more camera than I need and prefer) but it does have what I need right now—fast AF and excellent IBIS. I bought David Thorpe's book. I ordered an extra battery and hunted down one of my UpStraps.

I sold two cameras and a lens and covered the cost of the G9 that way. It's expensive, but Amazon still has it at the lowest-ever price of $1,212.49. B&H is only slightly higher if, like I did, you prefer to buy from them. That's what makes it better than the Olympus E-M1 Mark II for me—it costs less. For people who are less price-sensitive the Oly might have a little edge. It has a bigger tribe of users.

So what lens would I use for a OC/OL/OY? I have four Micro 4/3 lenses...the 20mm (an old favorite, but one that triggered this little blat), the Panasonic/Leica 45mm Macro, an old Olympus 12–50mm that came with an early Micro 4/3 camera I quickly sold, and my bread-and-butter 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 II. Again, the Oly version might have a bit of an edge, but I like my Panasonic lens.

I don't really doubt that I could use just the G9 and the 12–35mm for a whole year, but...a true OC/OL/OY would mean no iPhone photographs other than just record-keeping, note-taking, and social-media-communication-type snaps for that year. And that would mean having the G9 with me much more than I keep a "good" camera with me now. Can I do that? Hmm.

Well, I probably should. I'm pretty addicted to iPhoney snappery, not always to good effect.

Mike's new camera. Uh-oh, this picture is an iPhone snap.

But hey, challenges are supposed to be challenging, right?

Unless I really commit, my OC/OL/OY won't last more than a month. And I'm not really committed yet. Just thinking about it.

But I'll keep thinking about it.

Mike

*...Which I had never seen before I Googled "OCOLOY" just now. Thanks, Michael Z. and PetaPixel!

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Franklin Berryman: "Given your photographic experience, what do you hope to achieve by such a commitment? I mean there should be a goal other than just saying you did it."

Mike replies: Excellent question. I will ponder that, but I think the goal is re-commitment, renewal, re-engagement—a restoration of your involvement; putting gear, GAS, and technical fussing on the back burner, getting out with the camera more, and concentrating on seeing. Sound about right?

Benjamin Marks: "Why not start with OC/OL/OM (one camera, one lens, one month) and see where it goes?"

Paul McEvoy: "On Instagram for musicians (I believe there are other equivalents for other arts) there is a tag #100daysofpractice (and now #1000daysofpractice). I believe the violinist Hillary Hahn started it. Basically practice your instrument every day for 100 days. Generally post a video of yourself doing such every day (the last requirement is sort of loose).

"I’m on day 312 or thereabouts. About 740 hours of practice which very well might be more practicing than I’ve ever done in my life. I’ve gone from an inconsistent 1-2 hours a few times a week to 16-20 hours weekly. It’s been mostly very enjoyable.

"For me the most important thing has been getting offline. I lock my phone in a thing called a kitchen safe for large periods of the day and don’t have other internet access at home. I have another phone I use to make calls. It’s just the damn internet that screws up my brain.

"The other thing is a large wall calendar (now datebook planner for the new year) where I marked down my practicing hour by hour. This made a huge difference in feeling like I was keeping my streak up.

"It’s been life-changing. I have come to just love practicing in a way that as a lifelong musician I never have before. Just consistently sitting with my instrument and exploring, mostly the same stuff day after day and really digging in. Also totally owning being able to record something that’s pretty awful and put it up there knowing it will be better in six months.

"Lately I’m pondering returning to photography a bit with a similar mindset although it’s hard to serve multiple masters."

Big Price Drop on Fuji X-H1 Appears to Be Real This Time

It's not $1,199, but it's $1,299 with the power booster vertical grip and two extra batteries. Since the vertical grip alone is normally $269 and the batteries normally each cost $66—and $1,299 is $250 off yesterday's price of $1,549 for the body—that's like a closeout price for this camera.

Buy it from B&H, as Amazon only has the body-only for the same $1,299. UPDATE: Amazon U.S. now has it too.

Your total savings compared to yesterday are $651. That's...good. Very good.

I don't understand the reasons. Maybe it's just not selling well. I guess it does come across as being rather, ah, unfocused, from a marketing and product-lineup perspective.

As you'll read in the next post, this price drop arrived 12 hours too late to complicate my life, for which I guess I'm grateful?!?

But at any rate, having just tried out the high-precision X-H1 myself, I can attest that this is a very, very good deal for an unusually high-quality camera. I only tested it for stills shooting, but for that application it's superb. And the IBIS (in-body image stabilization) is extraordinary—I could shoot comfortably down to third of a second with a good success ratio. You might do better than that, as I am somewhat shakey.

Mike
(Thanks to Steve Biro)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Martin D: "For me, the X-H1 is the natural complement to the X-Pro2. The X-Pro2 is for work with my trio of 23mm/35mm/50mm lenses (all in their compact ƒ/2 versions), where my style is 'be gentle, become part of the scene, and keep both eyes open.' The X-H1 is for working with the 16mm ƒ/1.4 and 90mm ƒ/2 lenses, where the fields of view are slightly more extreme and the lenses themselves are heavier and bulkier.

"With the 16mm and 90mm lenses, the X-Pro2 feels a little too light, and the optical viewfinder (which I love) reaches its limits. By contrast, the higher-resolution EVF of the X-H1 comes into its own, the bigger camera body matches the chunkier lens bodies perfectly, and with the 90mm of course it is also great to have IBIS. (Not all that different to having a Leica M4 for the 35mm and 50mm and a Nikon F2 for the teles and fisheyes!)

"Since I use these two combinations in parallel, I want to minimise any differences in sensor types and processing engines, and in this light the fact that the H1 uses the same 'old' sensor as the X-Pro2/X-T2 is a plus point, not a minus."

In 2018, SONY Moved the Cheese

You know what they say: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

TOP Camera of the Year 2018: SONY a7 III

Exhibit 1: In 2018, mighty Canon took its lead from...Sony.

Exhibit 2: In 2018, mighty Nikon followed in Sony's footsteps too.

Exhibit 3: In 2018, Sony got Panasonic, its largest and fiercest competitor among Japanese electronics giants, to depart from its exclusive dedication to Micro 4/3 and take the plunge into competing with its (Sony's) full-frame mirrorless (FFM) line as well. 

I hope no one will interpret this as a gimmick choice. It's the opposite of that—a cold-eyed look at significance and importance. And really, the a7 III (here's the Amazon link) is a stand-in for all of Sony's evolving and proliferating interchangeable-lens full-frame mirrorless (FFM) offerings, which also include the a7R III, a9, and a7S II. I nominate the a7 III because it's the one that arrived in 2018.

Why is the "basic" workhorse a7 III a better pick for CotY than the shiny and hot new Nikon Z6 or Z7, Canon EOS R, or Panaleica's forthcoming forays into the breed? Because it has evolved to "Mark III" status already and there are already a large number of native Sony and Zeiss lenses for it, including the Zeiss Batis 40mm which would be my pick for a basic normal prime. Sony knows this space already.

And why draw attention to Sony's FFM line this year, when it's old news in digital-dog years? That should be obvious. Clearly, the biggest movement in serious cameras in 2018 was the coming of age of FFM (regardless of whether it flies or fizzles in its greatly expanded form, something which remains to be seen). And just as clearly, Sony's success in the segment is what moved the cheese. I've long thought that Leica has been drawing inspiration from Sony's product ideas, although I admit that makes for a somewhat subtle debate. But it's not subtle this time. In these new cases Sony's influence is plain, and indisputable. So Sony is the "leading camera company"...in the sense that it's the camera company that's leading the others. It's not just Leica and Panasonic. Even Nikon and Canon became Sony followers this year.

Maybe Nikon's, Canon's, or Panasonic's FFM cameras will snag trophies a few years hence, once they mature. But not yet.

Right now, it's Sony that should take a bow. It was the prime mover in the biggest development in the camera market this year.

That's the view from here.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

A Mistake? Fuji X-H1 Super Low Price

I don't know what's going on, but Amazon has a few Fuji X-H1's listed at $1,199 right now.

[UPDATE 1:30 p.m.: The good price is gone now.]

[UPDATE #2 10:30 p.m.: Turns out this was a false alarm—just a mistake. See the Featured Comments.

Sorry for the letdown, but it seemed worth mentioning if someone could have gotten a good price. I've been hearing rumblings that the X-H1 might be in for a substantial price drop, and that it could be several weeks away. So keep an eagle eye out if you're interested. Thanks to several correspondents this afternoon and evening. —Ed.]

Everybody else, even Amazon's other vendors, is listing it for $1,649.

Mistake? Bait-and-switch? Gray market? Don't know; proceed with eyes wide open.

But maybe you can score a big savings.

It happens. It's happened to me before. Years ago, I got a digital camera at $200 under wholesale because a large retail chain promised to "beat every advertised price," and I found a very cheap price online that was most probably fraudulent. I explained this to the store. They discussed it among themselves, and then honored their offer. Mere days later, the store closed that loophole—but not before I'd walked away with my very cheap camera.

Anyway, just thought I should point out this deal. The X-H1's superlative build quality and technical tolerances make it a much-more-than-$1,200 camera. Frankly, it's a pretty good deal at $1,649.

Mike
(Thanks to Gordon)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

C.R. Marshall: "I ordered one just before 9:00 a.m. Central Time. It is coming from Unique Camera. They didn't have the lower price on their web page. Amazon says it should be here in a week. I will report back to Mike when it arrives."

Mike replies: Excellent C.R.! I will be curious. Thanks.

C.R. Marshall: "Email from Amazon at 10:28 a.m.: 'Hello C.R.Marshall, We're writing to inform you that your order from Unique Photo, Inc. has been canceled because the item you purchased is out of stock. Please return and place your order again at a later time. We're sorry for the inconvenience this has caused. In most cases, you pay for items when we ship them to you, so you won't be charged for items that are canceled.' Looks like they caught the mistake.

"As a postscript, I am not assuming bad behavior by Amazon or Unique. Someone accidentally posted a wrong price. Unique wisely backed out of the deal. They really don't have an X-H1 at that price."

Camera of the Year?

So what should be our Camera of the Year for 2018? I have a pretty good idea.

Looking only at enthusiast cameras, there weren't actually very many all-new cameras. Many, from the Lumix LX100II to the Leica M10P, were derivations of already-existing models. This is a salutary trend in my opinion. Refinement of technological objects is a very important aspect of their creation and development, and I actually like, and approve of (expect, even), the trend towards Mark II, III, etc., iterations. Fuji does an especially nice job of it, especially if you include mid-model firmware fixes in the equation.

When you look for only truly new and original designs, however, the list of 2018's prospects shrinks pretty dramatically. Even the Lumix GX9 is really a restating of the GX7—I think it's even called the "GX7 Mark III" in Japan. Just because the lineage was interrupted by the very different GX8 doesn't mean the GX9 and GX7 aren't child and parent.

Looked at that way, 2018 was still a pretty great year. We had the Fuji GFX 50R, the "rangefinder-style" version of Fuji's fuller-than-full-frame (FtFF—I just coined that) or "medium" format digital; the new and innovative Zeiss ZX1 (well, that one's not actually out yet, so it'll be considered in 2019); the "one-off" Fuji X-H1 which I used and reviewed, and which you can get for $1,399 right now; the amateur or entry-level-focused Canon EOS M50 and Fuji X-T100; and of course there was "the FFM revolution," the three Sony A7 competitors from Canon and Nikon, the EOS R (why am I hearing so little about that one? Do I just travel in the wrong circles?) and the Z6 and Z7.

Am I missing anything? Good thing the Panasonic G9 came along in 2017, or I'd have to give it the palm just because it's sitting here on my desk all hot-roddy and supercool.

So what would be your take?

Mike

P.S. Or let me put this another way: if some offered you either a brand new Fuji GFX 50R or a Nikon Z7 and two or three lenses to use for free for the next three or four years, which of the two would you say yes to?

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Panasonic G9 is the Porsche 911 of Cameras

So—big surprise—the G9 is not what I thought it would be. First of all, that idea I had about using the same sensor as the GX8? Out the window. The G9's sensor/processor makes pictures look quite different than pictures from the GX8. In some ways the files are better. And I don't think I like them quite as well—I miss the GX8's special sauce. But they're different.

Meanwhile, wow, what a great camera. This is just great fun to use. One can deconvolute all the details to death, and I'm sure I will, but mainly it's just plain holy mama Nürburgring-shredding fun. Right off the bat, I started thinking of it as Porsche-like: lean, mean, clean.

It fits you like a glove, it works like an extension of your mind, it's tossable, it's quirky; yeah, it's a bit too big and heavy (like the 911 keeps getting bigger and bigger); it's fast fast fast—and also quick (not quite the same thing). It's nimble. It handles great. It's not a FF muscle car. It's just great fun, and there's every reason to want to keep one in the garage for weekends. (Er....)

More as we wend along toward 2019. I just wanted to chime in with my first impression of the G9: it's the Porsche 911 of cameras.

Hope you had a nice Christmas! More soon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Jim Kirkpatrick: "I switched from FF (Canon) to Micro 4/3 a while back to save weight. I started with an Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II (what a mouthful) but found that, while I liked the images it produced, the controls, and, most glaringly, the menus, gave me heartburn. I switched to the G9 early this year and have been very happy. The G9 has a personal menu where you can stash frequently used items, and that's very useful. Having worked at a Porsche dealer in the '80s and being a Porschephile in heart, I concur with your assessment. My G9 fits me like a supple driving glove"

Dave Van de Mark: "'...It's tossable...'? I get everything else but not this.

"Glad you appear to like it a lot, but so far no comment—yet—about it being a 'keeper.'"

Mike replies: Sorry, stock car-journo term. Easy to toss around turns; more figuratively, easy to drive free and loose. Even more figuratively still, invites you to take it out and toss it around.

No decision yet, but I'll let you know.

Peter: "Before unpacking the purchased Lumix G9, Michael, I request that you extend your experiment and rent a Lumix GX9. (Upon your prognostication earlier in the year, I waited for a few months for Panasonic to introduce the GX8 Mark II—but gave up and bought a GX9 a few months ago. Not a Porsche—maybe a Miata?) Using the 'compare' feature on the B&H website shows GX9 maintains a lot of the tech advances of the G9, losing a few features like the larger viewfinder size and longer battery life because of the smaller form factor. The GX9 digital files are different from the GX8 files, though it may be because the GX9 eliminated the low-pass filter. I’m not sure the difference shows up in standard print and screen view but GX9 files are much sharper and clearer at the pixel-peeping level. The GX8 did not stop me using my FF Canon DSLR but since the GX9 arrived, the Canon has mostly stayed on the shelf. I am enamored with the Lumix GX series with its Leica-look."

RubyT: "I'd like to second Peter's delight with the GX9."

G9 IBIS

It's past bedtime, but I just thought I'd put up one example of the G9's IBIS, which is the first thing I've been playing with—

This is a wider view of the whole scene, taken at 32mm FOV equivalent. I tried to match the "subjective brightness" of the scene so you can sorta tell how dark it was. There's just one light on, over the sink at the other side of the room.

So, pretty dark.

This is not the same file—this is a small center crop of a shot at 64mm-e. Both of these were taken handheld, without bracing my elbows on anything (although I was sitting down). The kicker? The exposure time in the detail shot was one second.

That's pretty remarkable...for me.

You'll see various claims and various "proofs" around the Internet, but the thing to remember is that everybody's different. Just because some young hero can handhold five seconds with an E-M1 Mark II doesn't mean I could. Really, you can only make comparisons of different cameras with the same operator. I'm not terribly steady any more, so one second is great.

It takes a few weeks of use with a new camera to get a handle on the lowest shutter speeds you can really trust, but, just playing around with the G9 around the house tonight, I'm getting pretty consistently sharp results even at exposure times of 1/2 second and 1 second. (The top picture here is 1/2 sec.) Maybe I'm feeling mellow.

By the way, it rained cats and dogs all afternoon, and this evening we had a thunderstorm, complete with lightning. Really, if you need rain where you are, I'll come and rent a camera. Should do it.

Gotta get to bed....

It'll be raining tomorrow, so I'll have plenty of time to write more.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

David Evans: "Just for fun, I tried to duplicate your detail shot with my Nikon P900 and found I could get similar anti-shake performance at 1/4 sec. (which surprised me) but definitely not at 1 sec."

William Schneider: "I first encountered image stabilization on my Olympus XZ-1. While I absolutely love IS, I noticed that it made me less careful when hand-holding my other cameras. I started to get shake-induced blur. I've become spoiled and inattentive."

Mike replies: I know what you mean. The same thing happened to me when I started shooting people using high-speed continuous on my Fuji X-T1. Once I realized it was making me lazy, I redoubled my effort to hit the shutter at exactly the right moment, just as if I was shooting with a film camera with an advance lever. And then let Continuous High take a handful more shots after that one.

The Battle With Entropy

I thought I had a pretty good day yesterday in the neverending fight against entropy (defined as "lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder"). Got some housework done, paid some bills, picked up half the pine cones in the driveway. And we finally had some warm and dry weather, so before the last snrains (that's snow + rains—see yesterday's footnotes) I used the leafblower to herd a lot of leaves onto the lawn. Yesterday I raked some more, brought the lawnmower into the house for a while (seriously—the only way I can get it to start is to warm it up) and then fired 'er up and did some serious leaf mulching. Got the leaves chopped to bits over a wide section of the lawn. Then I went to dinner at my favorite restaurant in Geneva, New York, at the north end of Seneca Lake.

But then FedEx came and delivered the Panasonic G9. When I got home from town and noticed FedEx had been to the house, I naturally also felt the first rain drops. Within an hour it was raining hard, and the rain kept up for hours—like it always does when I rent a camera.

It's not even supposed to rain here at this time of year. It's supposed to snow.

So I woke up this morning and thought, well, at least I got a lot of mulching done yesterday before the rain came. I imagined it was going to be a pleasure to open the shade and gaze out on the clear, clean south end of the front lawn, which was all mulched yesterday. Well, wouldn't you know, the hard rains last evening and last night dropped a whole lot of the brown leaves that were still clinging to the sycamores. And the part of the lawn I had just mulched was covered with leaves again!

Okay, score one for entropy. The wind and the rain took all my hard yardwork of yesterday and neatly undid every bit of it. You have to laugh.

This morning I got up early and made soup, with heirloom beans from Rancho Gordo. It's really good, too. Maybe the best I've ever made. Ate it for lunch. Yum.

Now it's looking like it might clear up, and if it actually does I'm going to go to town, both literally and figuratively, with the new camera.

Sunsets are getting later already
I should mention that this is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere—the least amount of daylight. But it's not the day with the latest sunrise or earliest sunset. "For us at mid-northern latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere," says EarthSky, "the sequence is: earliest sunset in early December, shortest day at the solstice around December 21, latest sunrise in early January." We'll get just under nine hours of daylight today, leaving 15 hours of darkness. But sunset is already coming three minutes later than it did on December 8th, and it gets better and better from here.

Only 79 more days till daylight savings time!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Geoff Wittig: "Embrace the entropy! As a teen I tried to convince my father that raking leaves was pointless; waiting a few days would permit the wind to move them to the neighbor's yard, neatly solving the problem. He was sadly not persuadable on this issue.

"Now I live on a (very) windy hilltop about 40 miles from TOP's world headquarters, and I have my satisfaction. We have countless trees, and every breeze no matter how slight from September to December deposits a fresh crop of leaves on our ~5 acres of threadbare grass. There is no way to stay ahead of the steady accumulation. Even my wife has conceded it's an exercise in futility. So now I can blissfully enjoy the leaf fall from the window while sipping coffee."

Tom Burke: "Seven hours and 30 minutes of daylight in Sheffield today, at just over 53° degrees north. Of course, with the mainly dull and rainy day we’ve had, you’d have been hard-pressed to say when daylight began or ended—it sort of leaked into the sky, and then a few hours later, leaked away again. That’s how winter usually is in England—grey, wet, generally not freezing, and little snow. I hate it. And it’s not photographically helpful either.

"And the maximum elevation the sun reached on mid-winter’s day here: 13° above the horizon!"

Rick Popham: "I think the arrival of my rental G9 has reinforced and multiplied the rain production of your rental G9, because it's raining like hell here in Connecticut—and I have the day off. Oh well, if it was snow we'd be buried in it. One of the things I want to test with the G9 is the effectiveness of its IBIS. My Olympus 40–150 ƒ/2.8, like most of the Olympus lenses, doesn't have stabilization in the lens. But the body stabilization in the Olympus cameras is so good that it works very well with that lens, even at the long end. So the comparison will be interesting (to me, at least).

"Here's to drier weather and photogenic subjects! Merry Christmas to all TOPers!"

Mike replies: And to you.

Ed Donnelly: "Well don't leave us hanging! How about the recipe for the best soup you ever made?  :-)  "

Mike replies: I'll try. Start with 1 16-oz. package of Rancho Gordo Yellow Indian Woman heirloom beans. Check beans for any foreign matter, rinse well, then cover with 2–3 inches of water (they expand a lot) and soak overnight. In a large pot, sauté 3–4 cups mirepoix (I buy storebought from our excellent Wegman's grocery store but of course you can make your own) in a small amount of oil for five minutes, adding 4 cloves minced garlic for the last two minutes. Dump in the beans along with their soaking water, add 2 bay leaves and half a teaspoon of oregano, and boil briskly for five minutes. Reduce to a simmer (covered) for 1.5 hours, stirring occasionally. You'll have to add more boiling water as it cooks.

Then add 1 can organic petite diced tomatoes, 2/3 cup uncooked brown rice (I use RiceSelect Texmati organic brown rice) 3 more cloves minced garlic, 1/2 tsp. ground turmeric, 1 tsp. salt, 5 turns from the pepper grinder, and the juice of half a lemon. Bring to a boil again, then simmer for an additional 35 minutes. Remove the bay leaves. Salt to taste before eating. Allow the excess to cool at room temperature, then refrigerate. Keeps for a week or a little more.

Hotspur Closser: "When I think of entropy, I always come back to Yeats: 'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.' And as far as the solstice goes, why does the shortest day of the year feel like the longest? It doesn’t seem right."

Mike replies: I don't know what the other nine are, but that's one of the ten poems everyone should be familiar with.

Buried Treasure! (Belles 150A Ref V2)

Belles 150A Reference V2, vintage about 2013(?)

So I have two Panasonic G9's on the way. (The first one should be here any minute now.) My friend Izzy from B&H Photo sold me one as a way to lock in the current lowest-ever price—just $1,213—and another is on the way from Lensrentals so I can try it out first.

The idea is that I won't open the one from B&H until I've used the rental unit and decided whether to keep the camera. That way if I have to return it I can return the camera in the untouched, unopened box to B&H—but I won't have to risk missing the sale price. (Sometimes, B&H knows how long special pricing will go on for. Other times they don't.)

Shopping is complicated.

Free money?
Looking for packing material in the basement to ship my now de-accessioned GX8 turned up a wonderful surprise—a  stereo power amplifier that I had utterly forgotten I owned. So thoroughly had I forgotten it that I was mystified when I found it, thinking, what's in this Belles 150A box, books or something?

No—it's a pristine Power Modules Belles 150A Reference 2 stereo power amp, hand-built by David Belles in the US of A—just up the road, in fact, in Pittsford, New York, a suburb of Rochester. I called the company and the fellow on the phone (I believe it was David himself, although I didn't ask) estimated from the serial number that the amp must be about four years old. I think it's more like five or six, though, because, about six years ago, I bought some new speakers and went through a period when I was auditioning amps for them. Most of the amps came and went—buying and selling being about the only way I could audition anything—and I must have simply neglected to sell the Belles. Either that or I liked it too much to ungrip my grasping greedy fingers. I don't remember. (Here's a review of the amp. I can see why I might have liked it.)

The amp I had at the time was very different—a 35 watt per channel EL-34 tube amp that is a modernized modification of the classic Dynaco Stereo 70. It's not a refurb or a restoration or what's called a "resto-mod" (i.e., restoration with modifications)—every part on it is new, including the replica base. I still have that one too. Don't use it, but can't unclamp my grip.

I asked David Belles—if it was David Belles—how much they would charged for a checkup. "Why?" he said. "That amp was extremely well built, and it's made to last for years and years. A checkup would waste your money and my time."

Belles 150A V2's cost ~$2,800 new (something like that—they're special order now and not listed on the company's web page) and the going rate is about $1,000 used. I would have bought it used, I'm certain, but I have no memory of what I paid.

So anyway, I feel like I just found $1,000 in the couch cushions!

Of course, I should just put it in the bank. But I feel like if I really wanted to indulge, I could use it to justify a 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 II*....

Ah, dilemmas....

Mike

*Here's why I want one over the Olympus 40–150mm

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

JG: "Ahh...so there wasn't any madness to your method after all and you're not buying a G9 blind, as it initially appeared. I hope it proves to be everything you want in a camera and more!"

Robert Roaldi: "Quick, go check the garage again, there might be a Porsche in there that you forgot about?"

Mike replies: There's just no finding that damned Porsche. I know I put it someplace....

Manuel: "So, if David made tube amplifiers, would it be right to call them 'tubular Belles'?"

Mike replies: I believe that's what you'd be absolutely obligated to call them, under the karmic laws of the Universe.

Christmas Present, Continued

So I decided to go for a Panasonic G9. Christmas present for myself. Sold several pieces of equipment and raised the cash for it, so it's a straight "trade-in"—that's my rationalization and I'm sticking to it! The 12–35mm is as big a zoom as I want to carry, and I already own it.

Thanks for all the nice comments re my Peter Whitmer log cabin picture. That was nice of people. One reader told me it was his favorite of all the photographs I've ever posted, which is a high compliment. It's funny, I didn't think that much of that picture before I posted it...I was just "playing around" when I took it.

Which I seem to be doing a lot lately.

I've been in a strange mindset about picture-taking lately. I've been looking at pictures from the GX8 on the calibrated screen (I can shift my monitor from web colors to calibrated with the touch of a button) and I just love doing that. Very satisfying to fix 'em and then just...gaze at them. I'm enjoying doing it for its own sake. I feel energized. But I feel like I'm playing. I'm being very free with my shooting—not making any demands of it. Just playing, having fun.

Every sensor just looks great these days—the Fuji X-H1 pictures look really good, the Sony A7III pictures looked fantastic—I mean fantastic—and as I've mentioned before, something about the Micro 4/3 20-MP sensor really grabs me. I just love the way it renders, that crisp look it's got, the look of the "grain" (noise). Not saying it's the best, or better than anything in particular, but I like it and it's the one for me for now. Sure hope I like the G9 better than the GX8! The second chapter of my book project about photography (yes, I've started that one too, and it's coming along) is called "Stopping Shopping." Heh!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Ten TOP Recommended Cameras

Having read thousands of individual reviews, having heard from hundreds of readers, having looked at online JPEGs till the cows come home, and having been blessed with an uncanny knack for reading between the lines, divining the tea leaves, and keeping one ear to the ground where cameras are concerned, and...

Yr. Hmbl. Ed. originated and wrote this annual feature for the now-historical PT way back in the '90s

...having been at this sort of thing a while, TOP considers the following cameras to be the strongest, most solid recommendations for still photography (formerly known as "photography") today.

Ranked in order of least to most expensive:

Sony a6000 ($448): Sony makes better cameras but not higher-value cameras. The a6000 doesn't have to make excuses—it's a handy, full-featured camera with excellent image quality that's easy to learn and fun to shoot with, with a nice electronic viewfinder and a flip-up screen. For the holiday price of $448 you can hardly go wrong.

Panasonic GX85 ($598 with 12–32mm lens—body not available separately): Currently a leader sans weaknesses in the "better than a phone" entry-level category. Simple, small, modest in all ways, easy to use—it's also very capable and gets unusually high marks from owners, even from very experienced photographers. They tend to love it. You should listen.

[UPDATE: The GX85 is available with two lenses, which makes for an even nicer price for the body if you sell the two lenses. The reason I didn't link to this originally is that I don't care for my copy of the 45–150mm, and I do my best not to recommend things I don't like. —Ed.]

Olympus Pen F ($999): Among all the high-style choices, the "King of Retro" Pen F is arguably the best and most useful as a camera. (The Fuji X-100f is even prettier, and the Leica Q offers greater prestige.) It has Olympus's excellent IBIS and the latest Micro 4/3 sensor that Yr. Hmbl. Ed. loves so much. Exquisite little beauty, if it suits your taste.

Panasonic G9 ($1,298): Panasonic appears to have gotten everything right on this one. Waved off by the major sites and forum mavens, it's drawing rare raves from people who actually use it. And at the current price it's a real bargain over its main competition, the Olympus E-M1 Mark II, which is also a great camera but costs $300 more.

Fuji X-T3 ($1,499): The perfect system camera and the perfect all-around "camera in the middle" (if you need IBIS, go with the X-H1). You won't go wrong. To be honest you can't go far wrong with any Fuji, no matter which flavor you choose. But the X-T3 started as a great design and has been very carefully updated twice. It's slick as bear grease.

Nikon D500 ($1,797, currently with a free battery pack): The top choice for the sports or wildlife shooter, for its blazing speed and smaller sensor, the better to bring the far near, my dear. And, it suits Mike's favorite Nikkor zoom, the fast 17–55mm with its ideal focal-length range. Yum. Hard to fault the big-dog D850, but the D500 makes the shortlist.

Pentax K-1 Mark II ($1,897): Viewed as an also-ran everyplace else, but not here. The K-1 offers the most full-frame fun any diehard old photo-dawg will have with a full-throttle, over-the-top high-MP gorgeous glorious brawny big axe. Upholder of a long tradition, it will keep you smiling from dawn till dusk. And we value that.

Sony a7R Mark III ($2,798): How could we not give a place on this list to the camera that changed the world? In an almost seismic shift, Sony's quadripartite FFM (full-frame mirrorless) lineup gave rise just recently to whole new product categories not only at Canon but at Nikon and at the new Panasonic/Leica/Sigma partnership. Sony's been perfecting its flagship version for five years and three generations now: catch 'em if you can, noobs.

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV ($2,799) The leading mainstream DSLR from the world's leading camera manufacturer. The 5D was the original "everyman" camera sporting a 35mm-sized sensor, with lineage that goes all the way back to the first EOS in the antediluvian days of film. It has only ever gotten better...and better. A spectacular camera for the very serious.

Fuji GFX 50R ($4,499): With apologies to the SLR-style GFX 50S, we love, love, love this one: anyone who remembers the original "Texas Leica" couldn't fail to. The 50R brings Fuji full circle. There are other "medium format" cameras, but this is the one to fall for. Review to come, in the New Year.

Mazda MX-5 Miata (oh, wait, that's not a camera, that's a car. But "Miata" is the answer to every question, so...*).

Mike

*It's a trusim on car enthusiast forums that "Miata" is the answer to every question. Just repeating the joke—but also commenting on "blanket recommendations" such as...well, the ones above. Good, thoughtful ones contain a dose of truth at their core yet also should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, for the excellent reason that general answers don't always address specific questions.

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Hélcio J. Tagliolatto: "Man, those 'Best Cameras' selection issues from PT were one of the world's most awaited photo magazines! I miss C&D and PT.

Mike replies: I still miss Jim Hughes' original Camera Arts, which was only published for three years.

Rob L.: "Miatas have a backup camera, it counts!"

tex andrews: "Well...a very good list! Very balanced, as far as stills photography goes. Truly, the best, most brand neutral list I have seen in quite a while. Kudos for finding a spot for Pentax—really underrated (I'm a Pentaxian)—and for a digital medium format camera with the Fuji, and a nod to that wonderful legacy. Good to see the workhorse 5D Mark IV on the list; I use them at work and have to give grudging respect where its due. Panny, Fuji, and Sony hit the list twice each and deserve to. Well done, Mr. Johnston. Wish your Internet presence was larger. Now, got to remember to do my Amazon ordering through here. I have been, but missed some these last several days."

Mike replies: From your lips to everyone's ears. TOP has not been doing at all well this holiday season. It's stormclouds on the horizon.

David Brown: "Love my Lumix GX85! Have considered getting a Sony a6000, but then, I already have the Lumix. P.S. Have briefly thought about the Miata."

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "Regarding the Panny G9: Completely agree. I shot with the G9 for two hours at a camera store demo day in May, and absolutely loved it. Excellent build, quality, controls, logical and clear menus, and man, it is super-fast and responsive. If I weren't shooting with Fuji X, I'd be shooting a G9. Great camera."

Joe Kashi: "Roger Cicala at Lensrentals writes that his choice for a full frame camera is the K-1 and Roger has access to practically every camera and lens in production."

Niko X: "I think the saying goes that the name MIATA itself is a recursive acronym for:

"M iata I s A lways T he A nswer."

Daniel: "You missed the Canham View Cameras. Well built, various film formats and they hold their value. USA made, they are excellent."

Mike replies: Keith is a really nice guy, too.

Jeff in Colorado: "I own three of those six [now 11 —Ed.] items:

"a6000: in my opinion one of the biggest bargains in photography right now. Mine came bundled with the crappy-wonderful SELP1650 compact zoom lens: Aberrations galore, but what a useful little lens! The combo easily fits a jacket pocket.

"I think of the Olympus Pen F as more of a premium-priced boutique product for those who love a camera that feels solid, with controls that deliver just the right clicking sensations. I imagine that the power switch alone has sold more than a few Pen Fs! Take styling cues from the Leica III-series cameras then give the controls a crisper action than the Leicas ever had, and you've got a Pen F.

"What can I say about my original 1.6L Miata—my priorities have changed over the years, and so has the climate."

The Fuji X-H1: Opinions and Impressions

Still Pond, Fuji X-H1 and XF 35mm ƒ/2

The culture of objects seems obsessed with excess these days. On one of the auto channels I watch, More Doug DeMuro, Doug answered the viewer question "what is the best car?" by proposing the "Bugatti" Chiron (I use the scare quotes because I know what real Bugattis were, and they weren't hypercars for oil sheiks built by Volkswagen). The Chiron is a two-door, two-seat mid-engined "sports" coupé with a 1,479-horsepower V-16 engine.

Really? Is it fun on on-ramps? Whatever.

Compare a "Bugatti" Chiron to the car in this video. I get that things move on, but doesn't it seem like maybe the world's gone a little nuts? I bet the Chiron'll be made "irrelevant" by a car with a 2,022-HP V-24 engine any day now. Then, mere Chirons will be for the weak. Like those poor passed-by girly-men driving Veyrons now.

Well, Doug likes supercars, so that's his business. They bore me stiff. Give me Scotty and his beaters any day.

(Fun fact—Scotty's grandfather's real name was Elmer Kilmer. Made me laugh.)

Or, take exhibit two. As the numbers of homeless climbs, both worldwide and in the once-democratic USA—we don't bother to count them here, nationally, because of course they do not matter, but officials in Los Angeles estimate that there are approximately 70,000 people living without roofs over their heads on any given night in Los Angeles County—New Yorkers are complaining that the new "needle-thin" super-skyscrapers south of Central Park are robbing the park of daytime sunlight. One such skyscraper has only 50 palatial residences in it that cost up to $100,000,000 each.

Which doesn't seem so bad until you consider that most of the people who buy them won't live there. They will just be New York City pieds-à-terre for people who have multiple other residences around the globe. So people who use the park are being deprived of their sunlight by massively expensive buildings that will remain, on any given day, mostly empty.

Enter the X-cessive Fuji
The "H" in X-H1 stands for "hyper," according to Fuji, and the X-H1 is the "hyper X camera." Though X-cessive, I don't actually think it's a bad name. This is hearsay, so take it for what it's worth: years ago, when Fuji's involvement in camera marketing could be described by the word "dabbling," an industry insider who had warm 'n' friendly ties with Canon told me that a high-up official at Canon had confided to him that there was only one company that Canon was afraid of, and that it wasn't Nikon—nor was it Leica or or Sony or any of the other usual suspects. It was Fuji. Fuji is a formidable technology company with impressive competencies and capabilities, and the X-H1 reads to me like an attempt by Fuji to engineer and manufacture an X-mount camera that represents some semblance of the best it can do. Hyper X indeed.

I tried the Fuji X-H1 for seven days courtesy of Lensrentals. Lensrentals very smoothly and efficiently rents a full range of cameras and lenses so that you too can do exactly what I did and try out any camera or lens for yourself. If you've never tried it, you ought to. It's potentially useful, and usually fun. I certainly enjoyed my time with the X-H1, even though it rained for five days out of the seven.

I used the 35mm ƒ/2, 23mm ƒ/1.4, and 14mm ƒ/2.8 lenses with the X-H1, all of which belong to me (I have an X-T1). Seven days is not long enough to get to know a camera. So these are my impressions and my opinions of its various quirks and features (as Doug DeMuro would say).

Bias
But first, my prejudices, because a reviewer ought to always be honest with his prejudices: I kinda fell in love with this camera. I liked it much better when it went out the door than when it came in. It was tough to part with it, and I miss it. So read this review with that rosy glow, and whatever level of caution it triggers in your skeptical self, in mind.

Size
I'm a bit weird in that I like small cameras but I have big hands so I prefer a big grip. Years ago, Canon made a film camera with a pellicle mirror that had several exchangeable handgrips, one of which was oversized and extended below the base of the camera (you can see it here). I loved that. It also had a soft leather padded hand strap that went over your knuckles. That's one of the downsides of reviewing cameras for decades, something the late Burt Keppler, revered guru of Popular Photography magazine, once wrote a column about: sooner or later you see every single facet of a camera done perfectly, so you always remember the one camera that really got that one thing right according to your own taste—and no camera gets everything right. (The X-H1 does get one thing perfect according to my taste, and I'll mention that.)

The X-H1 is a wee bit on the large side. With a bigger X lens like the 23mm ƒ/1.4 it's what you'd call a full-sized camera—not huge, but not compact or light by any stretch. It's helped by mating it with a Fujicron, even if it then looks a little odd and unbalanced.

I ended up liking it, though, because it handles so well. The large grip is perfect for my largish hands, and I didn't find it too heavy. I like cameras that allow you to let the camera hang by inserting your fingers between the grip and the lens with your hand open, like this...

(Here demonstrated with a GX8 and Panaleica
45mm Macro. I sent the Fuji back already.)

...while you change a card, and the X-H1 does this nicely.

If you go to camerasize.com and call up the Panasonic G9 (Micro 4/3), this camera (APS-C), and the Sony A7 III (FF), you might be surprised by how close in size they all are. So you might argue that this camera's size basically just embodies the contemporary Japanese idea of how big a camera ought to be.

At any rate, with the camera in hand, actively shooting, everything falls into place. Feels great, handles great. Very comfortable camera to shoot with, at least for me.

Controls and configuration
Excellent. I love the way this camera is laid out. Absolutely nothing has that feel of "this is here because it's the only place we could fit it in" as you'll find on so many smaller digital cameras (or digital cameras crudded up with too many buttons and wheels and so forth). The layout of this camera is nice and clean. Everything is thoughtfully placed. You have all the controls and flexibility you need, but it's not overdone. If you need to customize any of them, you can do that, but I think you'll find this camera both easy to get to know and then easy and intuitive to operate once you get the "feel of the wheel" and start doing things by muscle memory. I realize I might feel this way partly because I'm already familiar with Fuji cameras and controls. While that's true, I really liked the control layout and the camera's handling, and I believe most people will like it too once they learn it.

Controversial features (EC)
There are only two controversial aspects of the controls and configuration, so I'll mention those in detail: the top-plate LCD and the missing exposure compensation dial.

Top plate LCD: One is  the presence of the top-plate LCD or "sub-monitor" as it's sometimes being called. I had a little trouble getting used to this, because it's always on. I'd glance at the camera, see the readout on the top-plate, and reflexively assume I'd left the camera switched on. After years of finding out at the wrong time that digital camera batteries are depleted, I'm a tad sensitized to that, so it would give me a start for half a second before I remembered. But that's the kind of thing you'd get used to after a while. Personally, I liked the top-plate readout. I like to know in my head exactly how the camera is set while I'm looking at the world, and I'm in the habit of checking this by looking down at the camera and taking note of the settings—which is no doubt why I tend to like Fuji's knobs 'n' dials layouts. The top plate readout helps with this, and I found it handy. I liked it.

No exposure compensation dial: The other aspect of the camera that has given Fujistas pause is the flip side of the above, namely, the absence of the exposure-compensation (EC) dial, that being one of the things that most of us have liked about our Fujis since the X-100. It had to be done away with to make room for the top-plate readout LCD. To activate EC, you either press a little button and turn the rear wheel while holding the button in, or you can set the button to lock on with one press and lock off with another. So set it how you want it. The top-plate readout when the camera is off tells you by default how many exposures you have left at your current camera settings and the state of your exposure compensation. Being able to see where you have the exposure compensation set is one of the main advantages of a dial for me, because I can check it at a glance even when the camera's off. I can do the same thing with the top plate LCD on the X-H1 as well, so the absence of the EC dial is moot for me.

On balance: the top-plate readout LCD is a win, even though the EC dial had to go. There's a nice upside and no appreciable downside.

Viewing screen
This is the thing that the X-H1 just gets absolutely right. I know this depends on personal preference, but I find flip-up viewing screens preferable to the flip-out articulated type that for some reason are preferred in the video world (I don't know why but I assume there's a reason). I suspect it largely depends on what each of us got used to, although my own first digicam had the flip-out style. The Fuji's viewing screen can be flipped up fully in landscape orientation, angled downward helpfully for above-the-head shots, and flipped up partially but quite adequately in vertical/portrait orientation. It's very easy to use and really works a treat. No idea how it will last over a decade of hard use. The only thing it won't do is turn the viewing screen all the way around to face the body for people who don't like to use, or see, the viewing screen at all. While I get the argument for that, I've never needed it, so that's not an issue for me.

My opinion? YMMV, but for me, this is perfect, and dare I say...un-improvable? All cameramakers could adopt exactly this mechanism, and Fuji could use it for the rest of its history, and I'd be all for it. A+++. But just my opinion.

Eye-level viewfinder
The VF is really good. Big, clean, smooth, and easy to see. It has none of the harshness of early EVFs, which could look like old TV screens. It  looks like a FF-camera EVF for the most part, and you can of course customize it in various ways to show different information.

The only negative thing I noted was that sometimes it doesn't give a very accurate report to the eye of the subtleties of colors in the scene, or of the subtleties of the light—something we take for granted with an OVF. Of course, I didn't mess with the EVF custom settings, so it's quite possible that that could be improved over the default. This is a strength of Fujis: the EVF of the X-T1 was a revelation when it came out, and the X-H1's is a whole 'nuther level better. It's so good you don't really notice it.

Battery life
The Internet says it's not the greatest, but of course I didn't get a feel for it in seven days. Might be something for you to consider, though.

(As you do so, a tiny mini-Mike will be sitting on your left shoulder whispering in your ear, "no camera's perfect.")

Video
I do stills, yo.

Menus
I'm comfortable here, no doubt because I'm already pretty accustomed to Fuji menu choices. There was only one time I got flummoxed, and that was when I tried to reset the bracketing intervals. I was way out in the country and it was raining, and I couldn't find the right menu item anywhere. In one of those surreal moments we all find ourselves in once in a while, I soon found myself sheltering in my car, on a wet road deep in the country, Mennonite farm silos over the crest of the hill, listening, on my phone, to a YouTube video of a guy from England giving a tutorial explaining how to set the bracketing on the camera I held in my hands. Weird.

I guess the experience just struck me as being a world away from using an old manual Leica or Pentax and finding it natural to be alone when I'm alone. Back then I would have found it incredible that there could be a control on a camera I was holding in my hands that I didn't know about. Times have changed. Anyway, the item is in a focusing submenu [Correction: the Drive menu], not an exposure submenu, which is why I couldn't find it.

But of course you get this sort of stuff settled relatively quickly—it's no big deal. For the most part, I found the menus logical and comprehensible.

IBIS (in-body image stabilization)
This is a big deal to me, as I'm sure regular readers are tired of hearing. I already told you about my initial impressions of the IBIS, here, and that didn't waver for the short time the camera was here chez TOP—using normal/wide lenses, I found it relatively easy and remarkably reliable to handhold the camera down to shutter speeds of 1/6 sec. with no problem, and often as slow as 1/3 sec. Given that my own comfort/ability level with the unstabilized X-T1 is 1/30th with the same lenses, that's...great.

Keeping in mind the context of my general comments about the controls above—love 'em, but maybe because they feel familiar to me—here are three highlights: the joystick, the AF-ON button, and the shutter button.

Joystick
I've become agnostic about joysticks. I used to like them, no doubt because I got used to one on a long-ago camera I owned. But I know a lot of people strongly prefer them. It was a nice addition to the X-T2, and it's the same here—the feel is good and it's ideally positioned. I just didn't use this camera long enough to really know whether I would become attached to the joystick again. It's entirely possible. If you have an X-T2 or X-T3 you already know what you think of it (but in that case you're probably not thinking of getting an X-H1).

AF-ON
A change from the X-T[1/2/3] is the addition of an AF-start button next to the AE hold/lock. It might be tied to the shutter button's unusual feel and operation, I don't know. This is another thing people who get used to it tend to like, and on the X-H1 it falls so easily to hand that I found myself using it. I don't know, but I think if I owned this camera I'd turn off the shutter focusing (I assume you can do that, though I don't actually know) and go with the AF-ON button for a while, just to see how I felt about it set up that way. Nice addition, IMO.

Shutter button
The feel of the shutter button is very unusual. I've tried a lot of cameras in my time, but I'm not sure I've owned a digital camera with a shutter release this light, responsive, and fluttery-feeling. It's very responsive, and probably works a treat when shooting video, but it lacks the distinct half press / full press stages that most stills camera shutter buttons have. The two stages are there, they're just very light and not very distinct.

I don't know though...I ended up really liking the shutter button on the X-H1 quite a lot. Rumor has it that you can send your body to Fuji to get them to reset the shutter feel to more a more conventional level, but I'm pretty sure I'd leave mine the way it came out of the box. I liked it. It helps give the camera its character, like steering feel does on a car.

The shutter mechanism (see picture at right), which Fuji calls "feather touch," is very purposeful—it's part of a holistic design solution that includes the large handgrip for a firm grip, the high-precision IBIS system, and isolation bushings for the shutter assembly, all of which are intended to contribute to steadiness and the elimination of mechanical shock and movement.

But the stock shutter-button feel is certainly different and quirky, so it's something you're going to need to try in person before deciding on this camera for good, however you manage that.

Personal impressions
And talking about character is a nice lead-in to discuss my impressions of the X-H1.
Usually, it takes me a long time to get used to a new digital camera. The early stages are almost embarrassing—I particularly dislike three things: one, needing to change a setting and not knowing how to do it; two, screwing up the setup by accident and not knowing how to get back to the way I had it set before; and three, finding a control or feature to be placed somewhere I don't expect it to be and/or finding it awkward to use. An example of this last includes the card slot in my Panasonic GX8—it's in the battery compartment, and I can almost not grip the card with my clumsy fingers.

Anyway, I was surprised by how quickly the X-H1 became a friend. I got used to it, and started to trust it, within days. With three cameras in the rotation, it was the one I would grab in preference to the others just to take a quick shot of something interesting.

Coming soon at some point in the future*: Mike's verdict of the X-H1. At that point I'll explain why I opened this post talking about Bugattis and New York skyscrapers.

Mike
(Thanks to Nico Maijer)

*"Don't hold your breath or you'll turn blue and die." <—as my friend used to say on the playground in 4th grade

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Ramón Acosta: "If you would shoot any kind of event on video you would understand why the flip-out screen is more useful for video. With video there is no stitching images or switching to portrait orientation, so sometimes you have to place the camera against the back wall and stand next to it, making sure your subject remains in the frame. Sometimes you are directly underneath your camera and those extra degrees vs. a screen that can only tilt can save your shot. Sometimes you need to show the person in front what the framing is so they know how much they can move around, and of course, they are a lot more useful for selfies and for one man band vloggers."

Miserere: "'Volkswagen are now into speed and luxury and all that nonsense.' Scotty made me laugh outright with that statement.  :-D  The video put a big smile on my face. Thanks for linking to it, Mike; I think I agree with Scotty and I've started the day with some chuckles."

Mike replies: He's a hoot.

Michael: "Thank you very much for that, Mike. I use both X-T3 and X-H1, but often find myself grabbing the X-H1, especially late in the day. If I only could have one, then...umm...probably the X-H1, just for the IBIS."

Curt Gerston: "There are four things about the X-H1 that make me keep picking it up in preference to the X-T3, and it's all about feel (much like your review): the grip, which is so comfortable; the top screen + rear dial, which I prefer to the EC dial; the IBIS, which helps with my favorite primes; and that lovely shutter.... Oh how I love that shutter. The X-T3 is a very good camera; the X-H1 is a very delightful camera."

Michael Bulbenko: "Actually, on the X-H1, if you do want EC on the rear command wheel and have it toggle, simply reassign the Rear Command press action to be 'Exposure Compensation' and that will do what the top EC button does by default: activate EC. Then without moving your thumb you can dial in plus or minus comp, press it again to take it out of EC to prevent accidental bumps. Then, you can re-assign that top EC to something else, like Focus Check."

Mike replies: Excellent idea.

Which SUV...Er, Sorry, FFM Would You Choose?

The new Lumix—er, Panasonic—er, Lumix by Panasonic—S1R
full-frame mirrorless. It's not actually out yet.

Everyone in America must buy an SUV now. It's a new law that was passed some while back when I wasn't looking. SUVs or pickup trucks—they're what Amurricans drive now.

It isn't actually a law. But I'm starting to feel like I'm being pushed into it. It's almost like there's an unspoken pressure to conform. I mean, is it still okay to drive a little sedan? Can I drive a little sedan and still be an Amurrican? And not a subversive? I mean, I am a liberal.

The new standard(?)
Do you ever get that slightly uncomfortable feeling that that's what's happening in the camera world, too? I mean, what's going on? There's been this high-profile tide of new camera systems, all jumping on the Sony/Leica bandwagon of full-frame mirrorless (FFM). It seems painfully plain that we're all supposed to be excited about FFM now. Are we kinda being pushed into it? Does anyone else get that "any color so long as it's black" feeling about FFM, or is that just me? What's your choice: this SUV or this SUV? What's your choice: Nikon Z7 and Z6, Canon EOS R, Leica SL, Panasonic—er, Lumix—S1 and S1R, or Sony A7 III, A7S II, A7R III, or A9? Are those going to be real cameras, going forward? Micro 4/3 is piddling and paltry and nobody even likes APS-C any more even though we all shot that for years. And floppy mirrors are so 2010.

FFM is set to be the SUV of the camera world, looks like. Ford has even announced that it's not going to make cars any more (except the Mustang). The whole company is going to go with SUVs and pickup trucks. Wow.

I don't know. I don't have anything against full-frame mirrorless, by the way. I liked the Sony A7 III when I shot with it—beautiful files, although I didn't really warm to the user experience. And I'm as interested in the comparos and feature lists as anybody—it's all fun to read about. (Whoops, I shouldn't admit that I don't watch review videos. You're supposed to, I think.)

If you're chuffed about FFM—and I can certainly see why you would be—I'm glad for you, because you've got a lot of happy shopping to do. Hypothetical question: if you had your cameras stolen and had a big wad of insurance money burning a hole in your pocket (because, ahem, you've got your cameras insured, naturally)—which of the Big Five FFM system brands would you buy into? (I know, two of the brands are in the same system, but you know what I mean. And don't forget that Sigma will probably come out with a Foveon-sensor FFM in a year or two.)

If I were forced to choose, I know which one I'd get...

A Panasonic G9.

Wait, that's not one of the choices. A Fuji X-H1?

Okay, I'm confused. Or there's something wrong with me....  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Larry Gebhardt: "I really consider the professional sized DSLRs the SUV/pickup trucks of the camera world. The mirrorless FF cameras are much closer to sports sedans. I'd rebuy the same Sony A7R III, at least until Nikon gets a full lens lineup, that I find desirable, for the Z7."

Joe Holmes: "I've been left cold by the mirrorless systems for the past few years, but at the PhotoPlus Expo last month I had a chance to handle Nikon's Z7, and for the first time I thought, hey, maybe I could actually warm up to this mirrorless thing. I'm sure I was influenced by the fact that its controls were very familiar to a long-time Nikon DSLR user. But if all my gear disappeared and I had to start from scratch, that's the first camera I'd check out."

Rip Smith: "With all the new toys coming out, my GAS is flaring up but I'm bummed out because there is nothing I feel I have to have. I am quite content with my Olympus E-M1 II plus Pen-F and some really nice lenses. Whatever can I do to relieve my GAS?"

Mike replies: How about a beautiful original print from our Peter Turnley TOP Print Sale on Monday? The sale will be going on all next week, until Friday. And boy, do I ever hope it will be successful.

James Bullard: "In my entire driving life I have owned only one sedan. My first car was a convertible but I don't think that counts. It has to have a solid roof to be a sedan. I traded that for an Opel Cadet which was like a forerunner of today's small SUVs and, except for that Subaru four-door sedan and an XT Coupe, I have always driven an SUV or a pickup truck. Why? Because they fulfilled my need for hauling stuff and going places that challenge a sedan.

"As for FFM, assuming I could afford whatever I wanted, I would probably go with the Canon EOS R because it fits in with lenses and accessories I already own. I'm sure any of the FFM offerings would be more than adequate for my needs and I don't see the point of completely changing systems over some feature that I have gotten along fine without thus far and probably wouldn't use much if I got it.

"Reality: I can't afford any of them so it doesn't matter. If they are the future and every new camera is going to cost that much, I'll take up drawing again."

kirk Tuck: "Loving the G9. And the Olympus Pro lenses. Match made in heaven. Two camera bodies, two lenses and we're ready to head out and shoot for our commercial clients. They love it. And I can fit the whole set under the seat in front of me; even on smaller, regional jets. Nice."

Mike replies: I really want to try a G9.

Lowest Prices Ever

...Should there be eight exclamation points at the end of that title?

But my contacts at B&H Photo tell me these actually are the lowest prices on these items they've ever offered. (It's possible you might be able to find them advertised for even less, but then you wouldn't be dealing with B&H Photo. They clearly label anything that's gray market ("Imported"), they never bait-and-switch, they never sell open-box as new, their delivery is quick and efficient, and they offer generous, no-hassle returns. Dealing with B&H is as safe as mail-order gets.)

I think these deals are just for today? Not sure. On to the news:

Sony A9 body, ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OFF (lowest price ever)

Canon 6D Mark II, $500 off and a grip for free (lowest price ever)

Canon EF 16–35mm ƒ/2.8 III wide angle zoom, $300 off. This deal ends at the end of the day (11:59 p.m. EST) on Wednesday.

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, $500 off (lowest price ever)

Sony A7RIII, $400 off (lowest price ever)

Older Sony A7RII, only $1,598, (lowest price ever) (42 MP and IBIS...no, Mike. Down boy.)

Canon 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 II normal zoom (if you haven't seen Roger's teardown of this lens, check it out. He concluded, "Would I get one? Of course—I’m a resolution freak, a gear-head, and I don’t have a 24–70. I’ve just examined the highest resolving zoom lens I’ve ever tested and found it’s also built and designed superbly. I can’t walk away from that combination.")

Canon 100–400mm ƒ/4.5–5.6 IS II, $400 off

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV with 24–70mm ƒ/4, $650 off (lowest price ever. Also comes with an extra battery, the BG-E20 battery grip, a SanDisk 64 GB Extreme Pro memory card, and a shoulder bag, all thrown in to sweeten the deal.)

A few other things are on sale, but those are the big deals. Go nuts! (But careful, don't spend the rent money.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

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

Geoff Wittig: "If you've ever lusted after Canon's 16–35mm ƒ/2.8L III, just buy it. I can't praise it highly enough. I wasn't much of a wide angle user previously, tending to favor ~70–120 mm equivalent or so, but this lens has changed the way I see. Build quality is fabulous, handling is impeccable, and it's sharp edge to edge even wide open. Distortion is trivial, especially for this focal length range. It's much, much better than versions I and II."

Michael Perini: "I would second Geoff's comment about Canon's 16–35mm ƒ/2.8 III. I bought it and the new 24–70 ƒ/2.8—they are about as good as lenses get. Not only are they dead sharp, they both focus nearly instantly. But more than that, they create images that have a 'rightness' and depth about them. They are both better than most primes. I also own the 17mm T/S which I thought was in a league of its own—it now has company."

Oskar Ojala: "I paid nearly a grand more for my Sony A7RII when I bought it. Tells a lot about the camera market today. I still use it as my main camera, several times a week, and it was the mirrorless that made me completely give up on DSLRs. Yes, it has some quirks, but so do all cameras, and I get results consistently, so I'm not looking for a new camera right now (although the raw speed of the A9 is tempting...). And 42 megapixels might be too much, but it still looks stunning even if I need to crop."