The Online Photographer

Pentax to Build New Film Camera?

I haven't caught up with this yet—there are various teasers and a press release, and I haven't seen or read everything carefully yet—but it appears that Ricoh is exploring the idea of building and marketing an all-new Pentax film camera.

I've been waiting for years for this to happen; it was inevitable that it eventually would. The huge market in unwanted used film cameras destroyed the market for new 35mm cameras (although Leica still makes several legacy models for its usual very high prices). As the used market stiffens—vintage cameras have been going up in price over the past few years—and the old cameras themselves continue to age, it became obvious that someone would eventually decide the time was right to build a new one. Helping the situation is the fact that film photography, in a manner very similar to the market for vinyl records, has rebounded modestly in popularity. (Vinyl records declined to less than half a percent of the market at one point and appeared to be about to disappear altogether, before rebounding to as much as 6% market share. Revenues from vinyl, although not unit sales, now exceed that from CDs.)

Anyway, I hope to catch up on the "Pentax Film Project" situation after Christmas. If the "first" post-crash new film camera turns out to be a Pentax, however, nothing would please me more. Pentax made some of the very best MMM (metal, manual, mechanical) cameras over many years, from the beautiful Spotmatic through the MX to the professional LX. I owned many of them over the years.

I have only one piece of advice for the makers of the prototype: I would urge them to make every function integral. As someone whose dominant eye deteriorated physically over the years (ending in a partial cornea replacement), I encountered a peculiar problem with old cameras: a lot of them required add-on diopters, made available for the cameras when new but not always easy to find for older, discontinued cameras. I'm probably wrong about this and a real camera collector will no doubt correct me, but I believe the first built-in diopter correction was found on the Olympus OM-4. The Pentax LX had it, although it was implemented as part of the replaceable finders on that camera, and exchangeable finders would not be needed on a new camera. Built-in diopter corrections means users in the future won't have to embark on frustrating hunts for elusive add-on lenses that by then will be very scarce. (This goes for non-standard strap connectors too, Pentax.)

Picture taken with 1960s Pentax Spotmatic and Super-Multi-Coated Takumar

Of course my hope would be that the makers of the prototype could dispense with all the annoying gee-whiz features that are no longer needed now that digital has taken over so many workaday functions. There's no longer any need for high-speed motor drives, very high shutter speeds, flash, or silly features like multiple-exposure buttons. Any pragmatic task that a digital camera does much better just isn't needed on a new film camera, which can accordingly be simplified to its essence.

But the camera will be made with Japanese connoisseurs in mind, among whom are to be found some of the world's most devoted camera mavens and experts. It will be very interesting to see, if indeed we get to see, what Pentax opts to make for such a target clientele.

More on this in the new year, I hope.

Mike
Flickr page / New Yorker author page

Original contents copyright 2022 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

ONE: The Twelve Links of Christmas 2022*: Leica Q2

Leica Q2 and Q2 Monochrome

As if to emphasize one of the comments I made about videos the other day, I've just spent half the morning trying to find a segment in a video I just watched recently and cannot find to show you. It's a spot in a woodworking video where the presenter talks about tools. The point he makes is that you shouldn't feel bad about dropping money for good tools if you want to, even if you're at an early stage of your involvement and feel like you haven't quite earned the right to own them yet. Good tools are helpful to beginners and make learning easier.

It echoes something I heard long ago about custom-fitted golf clubs. A salesman in a huge junk-filled pro shop in Chicagoland explained to me that even though they never buy them, beginning golfers are actually the people who could benefit the most from a high-quality set of fitted clubs. He said he was a scratch golfer—zero handicap—and had been playing golf all his life, and had played in semi-pro tournaments and tried Q-School. He had played with many club sets over the years and could easily adjust to anything within a few hours. Beginners who are learning their swing for the first time are the ones who would benefit from a set of clubs that they didn't have to adjust to. But he added with a sigh that no one ever took this advice, that beginners never buy good clubs. The idea that they aren't yet good enough for good clubs was too ingrained. He was quite an Eeyorish, melancholy fellow, with a fatalistic attitude. And he wasn't actually trying to sell me anything—he had already qualified me and satisfied himself that I had no money and wasn't going to buy anything.

I've heard the same thing about acoustic guitars—that good ones are much easier to play. Presumably Molly Tuttle or a virtuoso like Marcin can play on anything, but a beginner would be best advised to buy a good instrument from the start because it's better to learn on. I don't know personally if this is true.; it's just something I heard.

Stuck in the tarpit
I'm half convinced that the same is true of cameras. I've been working with students, amateurs and newcomers in many capacities for more decades now than I care to mention, and I've observed pretty consistently over many years that newcomers insist on buying cheap starter cameras because they're convinced that that's what's appropriate for their level. But then they immediately get distracted with cameras and shopping, which of course has nothing at all to do with learning how to photograph. This preoccupation with gear can last for a number of months only if they're lucky—most often they get mired in it for years, and, in fact, quite often the distraction proves terminal. They get into gearheadism and never get back out of it. Instead of getting into pictures, learning how pictures work and learning how to shoot, they devote themselves to learn about specs and tech and the industry and all the endless minutiae of techniques they don't even know they need and never quite get around to concentrating on actual photography.

The Leica Q2 is a perfect antidote to all that. It's got a fixed 28mm lens, same as the basic focal length on many smartphones so it will be familiar, and since you can't interchange the lenses you never have to worry about getting more lenses. And it's very simple and straightforward to use, unlike many good cameras. (Check out this T-shirt I ran across the other day.) And it's a Leica, which for better or worse is the only Veblen Good in the camera universe, and has the reputation of being the best of the best. One of the best reasons to own a Leica and a Leica lens is that you never have to wonder about and worry about whether a Leica would be better than what you've got.

If you were to get this for Christmas, you could then dive right away into learning how to arrange and organize pictures, learning how to translate the three-dimensional visual world into two dimensions, learning how to find and interact with subjects, learning which pictures people respond to, learning what your own visual concerns are, learning how to process and edit...in short, learning how to photograph. You won't need to worry about whether your equipment is good enough.

I'm not saying it's necessary to buy a great camera right from the start and be done with it. But it's a more valid and viable option than most people give it credit for.

And you might not even be able to afford another camera for a long time, which would probably be a good thing.  :-)

Mike
Flickr page / New Yorker author page

*A list of a dozen beautiful gifty things in the spirit of the season.

Original contents copyright 2022 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Drake: "Your argument of beginners having good tools couldn’t be any more ‘sound’ when it comes to acoustic guitars (or any stringed instrument for that matter). I would like to add to previous comments, that the most important reason for this is that a cheap guitar will not stay in tune! I learned this for myself after buying a super cheap used guitar at a church sale to see if it might be something I would like to pursue. I didn’t know how to tune it properly so a guitarist friend helped. It stayed in tune for about five minutes. My friend told me to get rid of it immediately."

ASW (partial comment): "Regarding the purchase of quality tools, there is another option in the introductory/trial phase and that is renting. At the beginning of the pandemic, my wife decided to fulfill her long-term desire to learn to play the cello. She started by renting a decent cello for six or nine months to make sure that she actually enjoyed the lessons and practice involved, after which she found an independent luthier in our region from whom she bought a decent quality used cello. Let's call it a Nikon D700-level cello; pretty good, not the newest or flashiest, but better in some ways than the cello she had been renting. We found the process quite interesting as he was an older (70s?) fellow who seemed to enjoy talking about his work and the dozens of instruments under repair in his shop. We ended up spending over an hour with him and he asked lots of questions about her experience and goals with the cello and used that information to help her select from his stock. She recently returned for a tune-up, new strings, and a better quality bow."

Kristine Hinrichs: "The truth of the matter is that most photographers could have purchased at least one (likely two) Leicas for what we’ve spent over the years 'upgrading' from this camera/lens or that to the newest model."

John Krumm: "The 'buy quality' approach is definitely true with flutes, in my experience. I started playing the flute in summer school before fourth grade. My parents bought me what they could afford, a used middle-grade brand, not great. My instructor could make it sing. But I could never hit the lowest and highest notes. One day (later in middle school) I tried out my classmate's new, expensive German flute. All of a sudden, I had way more range. And that was part of how we were assigned our chair positions in the band; we had to play the chromatic scale, at speed, from the lowest to highest note. I never did get the nice flute, and I quit playing after ninth grade. That's one thing I appreciated about Olympus DSLRs when I started photography. They put many of their best features even in the lower models."

brian: "My wife, legally blind, is a fiber artist and quilter. She was 'to-and-fro-ing' about a new sewing machine, as she had trouble sewing straight lines: not important for the art, but quilt show judges do not make allowances. Anyway I got a great machine for her and she, excuse the pun, has never looked back. She is now winning quilt show awards."

Mike replies: That makes me want to root for your wife. Good for her! I see great quilts made by the Amish and Mennonites around here. I always stop to admire them.

Keith: "Similarly applies to the shooting sports, where it's widely recognized that a firearm that properly fits the shooter's proportions and has a smooth, crisp trigger will be much easier for a beginning shooter. An experienced one knows how to adapt and compensate. "Regarding camera choice, that factored into my decision to go with the Olympus E-M1 series and a trio of pro-grade lenses. I was content to make the best prints I could make up to 22" size, and knew I couldn't blame failure on said equipment. Several years later and no regrets on my choice, so I don't have to second guess my gear and can move on to the important things like composition, lighting, and camera straps.  :-)"

ELEVEN: The Twelve Links of Christmas 2022*: Nikon Z7II

Nikon Z7II

By 2020, the camera market had fallen to approximately 7.4% of what it was in 2011. That's a tremendous decline. Much of it is accounted for by the rise of decent cameras included in smartphones, which wiped out the market for high-volume digital point-and-shoots. In 2021, 93.8% or so of the remaining interchangeable-lens camera (ILC) market was divided between just five companies: in order, these are Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic—and the top three of those account for a whopping 83.7%. All the other brands, for example Ricoh, Hasselblad, OM System, Leica, Sigma, and many smaller and specialty brands, share only the remaining 6.2% of the market between them. In the top five, Canon, Sony, and Fuji have generally been increasing in market share in recent years, whereas Nikon and Panasonic's fortunes have been falling. It's worth pointing out that although Canon had more than twice the market share of its next-largest rival, Sony, Sony, with its formidable head start, was actually preeminent in 2021 in the all-important full-frame mirrorless subcategory.

Nikon, which was the premier professional brand from the 1960s to the 1990s, is no longer even one of "the Big Two." Although it retains outsized mindshare, especially among those of us of a certain age, it was overtaken by Sony in the late teens, and in 2021 fell sharply against its rival, to 13.7% versus Sony's 22.1%.

These numbers don't tell the whole story, though. Although very late to the field of full-frame mirrorless (FFM), Nikon got to start with a clean slate when it introduced the Z System in 2018—mostly full-frame with a few DX (APS-C) models, all mirrorless—with basic design specs that allowed its lens designers great freedom. As with Canon in 1991 when it introduced the EOS line, this initially caused some, er, adjustment among its existing clientele. Understandably—Nikon had stuck with the F-mount, with certain amendments, since the 1950s! However, the lineup has proliferated vigorously since then, and there doesn't appear to be a dog in the bunch. Nikons are much liked by our readership of experienced photographers and veteran amateurs. In particular, many feel that Nikon's engineers bested Sony in intangibles such as hand-feel, ergonomics, and control placements. And there's never been anything wrong with Nikkor lenses.

We tend to like and recommend "sweet spot" models as opposed to extremes (most portable, highest spec, etc.)**, and the sweet spot in the Z System you might say is shared by the 6 and 7 duo. The first half of the duo is the simpler and more basic but still very high-quality Z6 and Z6II. We recommend the former, which is on sale for $600 off this holiday season at B&H Photo with the standard very good zoom lens. It was cheaper to start with than the Z6II, which offers only a few incremental improvements that won't be reflected in the user experience for most. It's a relative bargain and is a very solid choice. Here's the link to a similar kit but with the more recent mark II version of the body. Meanwhile, the higher level Z7II is the latest version of the better-spec'd mid-line model with all the bells and whistles, for those with fatter wallets and/or more affection for special features and specific capabilities.

These cameras are below the Z9 in the Nikon line. However, note that both these cameras are far more capable, and capable of more beautiful results, than perhaps 99% of the digital cameras ever made. As appealing as it may be to chase "the best," it's worth it only if you have a specific need for something the highest model can do; just owning the extreme is a temporary feather in your cap in a constantly moving market, and nobody will be able to tell from your pictures that you parted with the premium. But by all means suit yourself: the Z9 is currently $5,496.95 at B&H.

Mike

*A list of a dozen beautiful gifty things in the spirit of the season.

**And pros, at whom the top models are targeted, seldom need advice from bloggers and YouTubers anyway.

Original contents copyright 2022 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Thomas Rink (partial comment): "To sum it up: The Z7II is a small but well-made and powerful camera. Ergonomics are great—it is almost impossible to change a setting by accident. Battery life is not a problem either, as I was able to shoot for three hours at about 0°C, and still had 50% charge remaining. In my opinion, this is definitely a fun camera!"

Warren Hinder: "I am fortunate to have both a Z7II and a Z9. Apart from the physical size differences, the ergonomics and functionality of the Z9 is near perfect. For landscape photography the Z7II is excellent, light, and well matched to the ƒ/4 Z lens range. For any action work, birding, etc., there is no comparison between the Z9 and Z7II. I never thought I would go back to a camera of this weight and size, but the Z9 is such a joy to photograph with. It reminds me every day why I have been a Nikon user for nearly 50 years."

Sony A7R V: Taking Bets

The newest high-resolution Sony is here. It's the A7R Mark V, and is STBI™ ("said to be improved"). I'm sure it's a very good camera for $3,898. The last one was, and that one got a price increase too. The cynical might wonder—do they jack up the price to cover the improvements, or do they contrive the improvements to justify jacking up the price? Maybe a little of each.

V is the roman numeral for five, of course, and I find myself wondering how high the iteration number will eventually go. Things like this usually settle into patterns, sooner or later. The average automotive model cycle, for instance, lasts four to six years, with a "mid-cycle refresh"—meaning, they change a few things that are obvious to the eye, to expose earlier ones as out of style; fix any glaring problems from the original if they haven't already; and add a little dosh to the pricetag.

With cameras, repetitive iteration seems to be the norm. It happened before the "mark [x]" trend, too. I remember reading long ago that when a camera company hits on a model that's particularly successful, that model tends to sprout variants and updates. The camera being talked about at that time was the Canon EOS 620 (1987), so that goes back a ways. I owned one of its variants, the EOS RT.

I'm simply not enough of a gearhead to know this off the top of my head, but my intuitive impression is that most successful camera "lineages" tend to last for five to seven iterations. At least, a few of the ones I remember do. For example, the Nikon F lasted for six...there was never an F7. How about the Sony F-505? I can't track them one by one, but DPReview called the F-717 the "fourth generation" and later noted that the F-828, the last of the line, was "clearly" descended from the F-717. Then it went kaput. So, five. How about the Olympus OM-1 film cameras? I count the OM-1, OM-1N, OM-2, OM-2N, OM-3 (the mechanical model that worked without a battery, once highly prized and very highly priced on the used market, but now affordable again), and finally the OM-4 and OM-2S. That's seven, although it includes the "N" updates—questionable—and leaves out a few variants that had top and bottom plates made of titanium.

How many iterations were there of the original Canon 10D? I'm not sure. How about the Olympus XA pocket point-and-shoot, which evolved into the Stylus? Can anyone help us out here and count out the lineage of any particular model lineages that they're personally familiar with? I tended to pay attention only to the makes-'n'-models I was personally interested in or owned.

Leica headache
Count on the Germans to throw a wrench into the generalization. Try counting the lineage of, say, the Porsche 911. It's like the old Philosophy 101 problem of the Ship of Theseus—the newest one has almost nothing in common with the first one except the name and, very vaguely, the shape. The Leica M lineage might have a few more than seven, but it depends on how you count. I wouldn't count the one-off models, and I wouldn't count the M5, because it wasn't really the same camera as the rest of them. And how would you count the new M6 and old M6? One model or two? Here's how I'd count them, in order: M3, M2, M4, M6 early and late, M7, MP/M-A. So, six. But that might be too convenient, counted in such a way that it fits into my predetermined scheme. If you count all the variants and include the M5 and M1, then the M is an outlier. Either way I certainly would not group the digital M models with the film lineup—those are stylistically replicants, but fundamentally different. That lineage started with the M8 and extends, so far, to the M11.

How about the Olympus C-2000Z lineage? How many cameras were included in that before it fizzled? Or the Nikon Coolpix 900/950 lineage with the famous swivel body? My brother had one of those, and that was really a fun camera to use.

Is there any digital camera that has reached Mark VIII—eight? The indefatigable Sony RX100 has reached Mark VII status, despite the blitz of the iPhone/Android locust swarm. The celebrated Fuji X100 is up to Mark V and still going strong. How would you count the Ricoh GR models, film and then digital?

So then, how many iterations do you guess will the venerable A7R eventually rack up, before Sony finally overhauls its position in the lineup and makes an all-new model? It can't go on forever.

I have no crystal ball. But then, I've never been a betting man.

Mike

Featured Comments:

Kenneth Tanaka: "The apparent invisible boundary on model sequences is based solely on marketing psychology rather than technological incrementalization. (Sony’s A7R V offers the same resolution with a new processor and AI-based AF enhancements.) But, yes, I’d bet that an 'A8' or similar marketing reboot will come next, if the line continues."

Joseph T: "Olympus E-PL1 through 10, skipping 4."

SteveW: "iPhone 14."

Robert Roaldi: "There was no Canon G8, I don't believe, and they skipped G13 and G14 to go straight to G15 and then G16. (The G7 did not support RAW, an anomaly.) So, not counting the G7 because of the RAW omission, there were 12 iterations."

Dan Montgomery: "The 'Grand Tour' guys (formerly the 'Top Gear' guys) report that Subaru has sold 212 versions of the Impreza, grouped into five 'generations.' Impressive—and impressive cars, though I don't think I'd like to actually meet anyone who can talk about all 212 variants."

Søren Engelbrecht: "Time for my old Leica joke, it seems:

Q: 'How do the locals count to ten in the city of Wetzlar?'
A: "3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4.2, 6, 7, 8, 8.2, 9, 240, 10.'"

Mike replies: Made me laugh anyway!

Michael McCulloch: "Ship of Theseus? I prefer Trigger's Broom:

Mike replies: Love it. Nice skit. That's like Howard Mansfield's book about restoring things, The Same Ax, Twice.

2022 Leica M6 Price

Rob Campbell writes: "Film only makes sense if it returns to pre-digital price levels."

Actually, in the case of the 2022 M6, it did.

The new Leica M6 costs $5,295. That's virtually the same as it was in 1992, which was pre-digital for almost all of us.

I found this at Photo.net, posted by "JDMvW." He reports that it's from Popular Photography in July of 1992:

And I ran that through the U.S. Inflation Calculator maintained by CoinNews, and got this:

Q.E.D.

I'm not trying to help you rationalize a purchase, mind you. Film still costs a lot, in money, time, and effort, and it's a PITA, and there are tons of other options for those who want to shoot "miniature format," as it was sometimes called way back in the 1930s and '40s. I mean 135, a.k.a. 35mm. (What's in a name? We now call it "full frame.") And make no mistake, the Leica M6 was extravagantly expensive in 1992. That was the year I bought mine. I paid $2,000 for a used one, saving ~$500, along with another $1k for a 35mm Summicron, which was roughly 3–4X what you'd pay for the equivalent Canon or Nikon lens then. But you can't deny that the 2022 M6 costs the same as it did in 1992, adjusted for inflation. I love to complain about Leica prices, and don't worry, I'll continue to be all sour-grapey. But ya gotta give credit where credit is due.

A fortune hanging from a strap
I had a couple of problems with my M6 that were related to price. First, I felt exposed carrying around $3k on a strap on my shoulder. It was too much for me to lose, and I was often conscious of it. It felt a little like holding someone else's infant. Second, I couldn't justify keeping the M6 after I switched to Olympus and bought an OM-4T, a camera that suited me much better and that I did better work with. It was too much money to keep tied up in a camera I wasn't using, at that time. I was "forced" to sell it. I subsequently owned two other M6's, including actor Jack Lemmon's. I sold Jack's M6 to Art Elkon, who passed away a few years ago. Don't know what happened to the camera.

But I did shoot with the M6 for a solid year, in '91–92, and did a lot of shooting, carrying it with me every day ("I put my camera on in the morning and take it off in the evening, like my shirt" —David Vestal) and it's an experience I'm very glad I have under my belt. Remember "The Leica as Teacher"? One of my more popular essays here.

Now if someone would just create an updated and upgraded new version of the OM-2N—and sell it for the same price as one cost in 1984, adjusted for inflation—then you'd really have something!*

That is all,

Mike

*If you ask me, one bargain 35mm film camera to check out these days if you want to shoot FFF (full frame film, guffaw) is the little-known and even less appreciated Olympus OM-2S. It had the simplicity of the OM-2 and OM-2N, but with weather sealing, and much of the guts, including the same shutter, of the fancier OM-4T, the flagship at the time. (Using the flash drained the battery, which explains some of the market's aversion—so then, just don't use it with the flash.) The OM-4T is also a great camera, but its fancy metering features, though deeply beloved of gearheads (including Yr. Hmbl. Ed.) when it was current, were actually of pretty limited usefulness practically speaking. Today, OM-4T prices are higher, as they are for all "apex" models, no matter how old. It still costs more to buy a Leica IIIg than a Leica IIIf! People want the latest model even when the latest model is 65 years old. Makes no sense to me. It's that MMB complex I mentioned the other day.

So get an OM-2S and then spring for a thorough CLA (clean lube adjust) by a reputable repair-person—John Hermanson might be at the top of that heap for old OM film cameras. It will give you a lot of what you can get from a brand-spanking new 2022 M6, minus the status of the latter among the limited coterie of the cognoscenti of course.

Book o' the Week

Leica M: Advanced Photo School by Günter Osterloh, Second Edition. My favorite of all the Leica gear books. UPDATE: When I posted this "Book of the Week" two days ago, Amazon said it had ten copies left at a reasonable price. Well, look at the price now! Guess I'd better go find a new book of the week. Timing is everything.  :-)

The book link above is a portal to any purchase at Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Lothar Adler: "I am always surprised that the Zeiss Ikon ZI rangefinder camera is almost never mentioned, although it is a really very good camera and has everything you need. Including a very good viewfinder with a much larger measuring base for better focusing than with a Leica—I had tested both in parallel with the same lenses and finally bought the ZI, with which I am very satisfied. Unfortunately not digital, which I am almost embarrassed to confess."

Mike replies: I certainly mentioned it!

Peter Tutt: "I am with you Mike with the OM2S. I bought one new back whenever for the spot metering. Great for the street too, hold it upside down, 28mm lens, and nobody knows. I put a heap of T-Max 100 through it and it's still going strong. Gem of a camera!"

The Ultimate Icon: Leica Re-Introduces the M6

Even the box is an homage

"Iconic" is a buzzword that is heavily overused now—everything mildly familiar, no matter how trivial, is called "iconic"—but, today, Leica re-introduced the, yes, iconic M6 film camera.

The new version is highly respectful of the 1984–2002 original, down to having "Leitz" on the red dot. Which might have taken some doing—the founding Leitz family sold Leica in 1986 and originally forbade the new owners from using the cherished family name. However, the new one's not an out-and-out replica. There are a number of technical updates and luxurious touches.

• All optical surfaces will be coated. At one point, under earlier owners, Leica tried to cut corners with coatings in the rangefinder optics. Users for a spell complained of spurious reflections in the finder, a problem Leica hastily fixed without admitting there was a problem.
• The top plate will be made of brass with a tough black lacquer. (Black paint is—all right—iconic.)
• The original M6 (basically the Canadian M4-P with an uncoupled light meter cleverly added) just had two little arrows that told you which way to turn the aperture ring to get proper exposure. Later models added a red dot in between the two arrows as confirmation of correct exposure; the new M6 has the red confirmation dot.
• The shutter speed dial is the right size and turns the right way! A victory for the way things are supposed to be.
• A low battery warning has been added. All right, but it took more than a year to run down the battery in an original M6. The quaint but pleasing custom was to replace the battery every year on your birthday, whether it needed replacing or not. You apparently need a newfangled nagging nanny warning. Okay, we're good with that. Me, I hate the tire pressure warning system in my Honda. The old tire pressure warning system was me with a pressure gauge, and it worked much better. Am I digressing again?

There is also a new and (gasp!) tiny (another win for the way things are supposed to be) 35mm Summilux V1 Steel Rim, which Jono Slack has been using for months now.

Cue gushy happy YouTubby comparos between vintage Leitz-labeled '80s M6's and the gleaming new one in 3, 2....

Mike

P.S. If you're buying one, a plea to wait until B&H has 'em for preorder so you can use my links...okay, you're probably not that patient. I understand. Go ahead, I'll eat cat food.  :-]

Book o' the Week

Leica M: Advanced Photo School by Günter Osterloh, second edition. My favorite of all the Leica gear books. And they are legion. You will actually learn practical stuff from this one. Used, but this is the latest edition from 2011.

The book link above is a portal to any purchase at Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Rob L: "Cool! My M6 is again a current model!  :-)  It's really the best M, so glad they brought her back."

John Krill: "I guess if I have to ask the price I can't afford it."

Mike replies: $5,295 body only. Bear in mind there are lots of choices for lenses that don't have to cost an arm and a leg and an arm. Especially from Voigtlaender and Zeiss.

Albert Smith: "Maybe this old-school lens might be a good compliment to the new M6. Leica is reissuing the first generation pre-aspheric 35mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux, same optics in modern body. You could drop 10 grand for the camera and lens. So glad the I bought my M6 when it only cost $2,000 in the late '80s."

Mike replies: Not that it matters, but I myself coined the term "king of bokeh," way back in '97. But not about the original of that lens.

Ned Bunnell: "Mike, regarding your B&H link, I was told the M6 will only be sold through Leica stores and Leica direct here in the U.S. And in very small quantities. So it’ll be interesting to see if B&H gets them."

Mike replies: Figures. So it's just another special edition after all, for collectors.

Ned: "Mike, this is not a special edition just for collectors. By 'small quantities,' I simply meant they’re being made by hand in Germany so production yields will obviously be much smaller than a company who builds a large production run at the start of a new model release. Depending on the response Leica gets, it could be awhile before you get your camera. I also am guessing that Leica knows what used M6’s are going for these days, so they decided they could capture a good percent of this money by offering a new model. I actually think this is a smart move on their part. Since they still have all the tooling for the M6, development costs are much less than designing and building a brand new model."

Rob Campbell (partial comment): "Film only makes sense if it returns to pre-digital price levels. Other than that, it’s just a silly conceit."

Luke: "Wait...you have to buy a whole new sensor after every few shots? How 'iconic.'"

Ernest Zarate: "Shortly after I got the settlement for the motorcycle accident in which I nearly lost my lower left leg, I bought myself a new M6. Looked just like this, presentation box and all. I got the Leica 35mm ƒ/2 lens, too. Terrific camera. So precise and extremely well engineered. Very…German. But it got sold a few years later so I could get the Mamiya 6.

"Now, that camera was a masterpiece. But I do think of my M6 now and then. I don’t regret selling it. And I’m not laying down the thousands of dollars for this brand new re-intro version (though if I had the do re mi…hmmm…). But I do think of it now and then. That Leica *snick* shutter mechanism was and is intoxicating. In the end, it wasn’t the right camera for me. We never really clicked, it and me. I never did any memorable or really meaningful work with it. Maybe in a sense it was too much camera, or, rather, it was too freighted with the Leica Legacy for me. It was too much a hurdle to get over. A camera (for me) has to be a tool, form following function, that gets me results. That just never happened with this camera. Anyway, it’s a very nice memory I have and I’m happy to see the M6 back."

Alan King: "It’s interesting that they re-issued the original 35mm Summilux. I owned one of the originals, made in Germany, from the second-to-last batch. For myself the lens was unusable wide open, though it was fine stopped down. It was my primary lens for 12 years or so because it was so small and light. When its value hit $3,000 it finally became too expensive to keep. I ended up buying three brand new Voigtländer lenses, and a certain peace of mind, with the money."

Coming Fuji X-T5 to Have 3-Way Tilt Screen

Fujirumors is predicting that the tilting viewing screen will be restored to the upcoming Fuji X-T5, due to be announced and shipped in November. It claims that the likelihood of this happening is "100%."

The new camera is also rumored to have 40 MP, and no vertical grip is planned. I've owned a vertical grip for my X-T1 for years and have yet to use it a second time, so I guess this doesn't alarm me personally.

Given that I still own an X-T1 and haven't really "taken" to the X-H1 for whatever reason, I ought to begin saving up for an X-T5. I have a lot of Fujinon X lenses.

More holistically, I hope that the existence of the X-H2[s] will mean that Fuji feels okay about not stuffing the X-T5 to the gills with gee-whiz features. Fujis were always fun to use, and that was arguably their best "feature."

Mike

Book o' the Week

Annie Leibovitz. At long last, the unlimited trade edition of the humongous, limited Sumo edition by Taschen. Mind you, this is still a huge book—15.4 inches high, 556 pages, and almost 13 pounds. And the price! (But that's nothing—the Sumo weighed 57 pounds and cost $7,500.) This is the closest ordinary folks (with ordinary shelves) will get to the ultimate Annie.

The book link above is a portal to any purchase at Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Nico.: "According to the Fuji lens roadmap there’s also a 30mm (45mm eq.) macro lens due this year. With Fujicron form factor(?) Wasn’t ~40–45mm your favourite focal length, Mike?"

Mike replies: Yes, and both my current Sigma lenses are 45mm or the equivalent angle of view. There's nothing special about 45mm, it's just that many of us (not all!) have focal lengths with which we feel at home.

Open Mike: Notes vs.* Art

["Open Mike" is the Editorial Page of TOP, wherein Yr. Hmbl. Ed. wanders down tributaries and scolds the internet betimes. It appears now and then.]

-

I'm very happy with my cameras recently. My Sigma fp is not yet converted to mono-only, so I'm still using Jason's—and I still need to shoot with the Leica Monochrom. (My plans were interrupted by COVID-19, from which I have recovered.) But I really like the idea of splitting my arsenal into an "art" camera and a "note-taking" camera...the odd and unusual fp-M as a sort of walk-around B&W view camera (that's kinda how I think of it), and the iPhone 13 for taking visual notes.

The life of an artist
This split—a notepad on the one hand and the ambition to make self-conscious art on the other—has a long history with me. Before I first got into photography in a big way, I was into art—I drew and painted, which was my claim to fame when I was in the "gifted kid" stage of the Life of an Artist—so a lot of of my early photographing was as references for drawings and paintings. That is, it was all note-taking—it didn't matter if a photograph worked as a photograph; it didn't matter if telephone wires spoiled a sky. I was only going to use it as raw material anyway.

Then, when I got more serious about 35mm photography, I deliberately and consciously conceived of my shooting as half art and half personal note-taking. That is, I wanted to make "good" photographs to show, but I also wanted to be free to record things, to shoot things I wanted to explore or remember—and just to play around. I conceived of my contact sheets not only as raw material for art but also as my diary. My idea was that the balance should be half and half. I formulated this early on, and it freed me up to not be too serious all the time.

Ever since smartphones got "good enough," they've created tension in my life. All too often, they've been "the camera I've had with me." And that's been to the detriment of my photography, because photographs happen to you when you're out and about with a camera, and, contrary to the common truism, the best camera is not the one you have with you. In fact, it's a very common mistake, and occasionally a tragedy, to have nothing but the wrong camera with you. What you really need to have with you is the right camera, the camera the occasional good pictures should have been taken with. At this point in history I have lots of pictures taken with various smartphones that I really wish had been taken with a better camera.

Convenient and fun
And yet...convenience. It's what drives the evolution of photography. The quality of smartphone cameras as cameras is almost completely beside the point; their great advantage is the convenience of instant sharing over distances. The other day I shot a short movie, in color, with sound, and sent it to my cousin in California (I live in New York), who received it almost instantaneously, watched it, and sent a comment back. All over the course of just a few minutes. When I entered photography school 40 years ago, that would have been utter science fiction. In response to such an idea, anybody with any knowledge would have responded, "that's never going to happen." (It's one of the cool things about getting older...sooner or later you live in the future.) Anyway, convenience has most consistently been the driver of the evolution of photographic technology right from the start, up until this minute, and it's useless to pretend otherwise. And shooting with a phone is fun. Why would you deny yourself something readily available and free that's so much fun?

(As to what "note-taking" is—my iPhoneography—I was going to post some illustrations in this post, but on second thought I think it would just be a distraction. I'll put some examples in a separate post.)

I used to think that the ideal was to have only one camera that could do everything, which is why I've always leaned toward APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras. I wanted one camera that was suited for both note-taking and more serious shooting. But for quite a while now—at least since Sara and I went to California to meet her parents in 2014, and I took only my iPhone 4s—I've had this idea that using the smartphone frees me up to balance it out with a camera that's more specialized and less suited to covering the note-taking aspects of photographing. I b'lieve at one point I mused in these pages that maybe it should be a Fuji medium-format digital camera...big balancing out little. (I'd link to that post, but I can't find it.) But honestly, a dedicated B&W camera with an enormous viewfinder that yields as much detail as I could want is just the perfect counterbalance to the iPhone...for me personally.

I want to use the iPhone. I'm going to use it. No sense pretending I won't. The important thing is to have something that suits my personal desires that balances it out. And I feel like I've got that now.

Like I say, I'm just very happy with the solution offered by this pair of cameras. One is easy to use and shoots color and panos and movies and everything is available for instant sharing; the other is funky and deliberate, lets me see in B&W again, has a giant viewfinder, and is perfectly suited to concerted shooting ("concerted shooting" meaning shooting when that's all I'm doing). It's ideally suited (again, just for me) to careful, slow, contemplative photographing. The opposite of the iPhone.

So the two of them balance each other out. One does one kind of shooting I want to do, and the other does the other kind of shooting I want to do.

Express yourself
Of course, the Sigma fp-M paired with the iPhone 13 Pro is a very idiosyncratic answer to the question "which camera?" You could pretty easily make the argument that getting a mainstream high-megapixel FF mirrorless camera with a 24–105mm zoom lens and then having it with me at all times would actually make more sense and be the best thing I could do. But, hey, I've always been an artist at heart. And we march to the beat of our own drummers and take the roads less traveled, right?

Mike

*And by the way, "vs.," the abbreviation for the word versus, is pronounced ˈvər-səs. (Hear it here.) Idiot YouTube has decided that the way to say it is "verse," which is brain-dead. Have you noticed the blinding speed at which the world is becoming illiterate? I come across strange and primitive semi-literate formulations of English almost every day now, even in reputable sources. Verse is the singular of "verses," which means lines of metrical writing. Versus means "against" or "in opposition to." It descends from the Latin word meaning "facing."

Book o' the Week

Annie Leibovitz. At long last, the unlimited trade edition of the humongous, limited Sumo edition by Taschen. Mind you, it's still a huge book—15.4 inches high, 556 pages, and almost 13 pounds. And the price! (But that's nothing—the Sumo weighed 57 pounds and cost $7,500.) This is the closest ordinary folks (with ordinary shelves) will get to the ultimate Annie. It will be released on Friday, and can be pre-ordered now.

This book link is a portal to Amazon. You're very kind use our links, as they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

John Krumm: "We like to think the gear doesn't matter, but of course it does, it just is very personal and is not always related to what is broadly popular. So I understand your pleasure with your unusual camera and funky elephant grip.

"I've recently started shooting with a new manual-focus Voigtlander APO 35mm ƒ/2 Z mount lens. [This one? —Mike] I just totally love using it. I'm getting better and better at just looking at the distance scale and guessing the zone. It makes focusing a pleasure, not a chore, when you can skip the whole magnify, fine-tune, then shoot process. But I would not recommend it for most people." 

Mike replies: I focus the 45mm ƒ/2.8 on the fp-M manually too. The AF works fine, but I just like the manual focus.

John: "Re '[This one? —Mike]': Yes, bought a few weeks ago from CameraQuest, the main U.S. Voigtländer dealer, but newly available at B&H. Not a perfect lens, but very nice, with great feel. I'm hoping they eventually make a 28mm version."

Geoff Wittig: "Gaaah. I feel physical pain at the degradation of the English language before our eyes. 'Verse' is bad enough. Nails-on-a-chalkboard for me is 'on accident,' an utterly wrong substitute for accidentally, or by [way of] accident."

Mike replies: I feel like everybody who cares about language has at least one pet peeve that drives them particularly wild. For me it's "loose" in place of "lose." There's no reason why that one in particular should bug me so much—but every time I see it I get to feeling that it might be all right to strangle someone.

Luke: "Easy, Mike. Don't loose it. Breath, breath."

Tom Duffy: "At least a perfect camera combination is possible for you. Always available vs. contemplative. I'm still trying to shoot Tri-X and digital at the same time. And it seems that I really prefer a 6x9 negative to 35mm for Tri-X. And I'm in love with that large 50mm ƒ/1.2 on my Canon. Camera bag no matter what. I don't know how this situation is going to resolve."

Mike replies: What a nice coincidence. I have a quote by Tom Duffy taped to my office wall, and for some reason it caught my eye this morning. After rereading it, I found myself wondering whether Tom still reads TOP, or if he might be among the legion of the departed (there's a lot of turnover in a blog audience, even though this one has many loyal readers who've been reading for many years). And then I turned on my computer and found this comment at the top of the stack. Nice.

Terry Letton: "Arghh. You guys that think words have meanings fixed from on high. No No No. their meaning is whatever the current consensus says it is and that changes over time. Sorry my pet peeve."

Ken: "Yesterday, a photo caption in the paper referred to two cyclists in post-Ian Florida 'peddling' their bikes somewhere or other. I 'must of' missed when pedaling bikes went out of fashion, but it doesn't 'phase me' if some guys just want to sell their bikes instead of riding them."

Kylian: "What? Aren't you going to tell us what quote of Tom Duffy's you have taped to your office wall?"

Mike replies:

"I used to do a lot of climbing when I was younger (OK, way younger) to the point of getting frostbite from a winter climb on Long's Peak in Colorado in '77. Experientially, I found that if I kept looking at the summit of a mountain, I would find myself becoming disheartened at my seeming lack of progress as I climbed. I came to realize that since I knew the goal, all I had to do was keep putting one foot in front of the other, and that steady-state, non-introspective activity achieved the summit.

"The insight stuck with me. Much of success in life comes from endurance and not much more. As important as thinking is, I'd make the case that after defining a goal, it's often more productive to simply endure."

—Tom Duffy

[From this post. Bruce Springsteen said something similar about his early career; he said something to the effect that there were setbacks that could have discouraged him if he had let them, but he knew that if he just kept walking, he would get there in the end.]

Danielsroka: "Having both a note-taking camera and an art camera makes sense to me as well. But not just from the nature of the camera (its convenience, quality, etc.) but from where the photographs end up living, and how they get used. My note-photos taken on my iPhone live on my iPhone. They are made to be quickly referenced, lightly edited (at best) and easily shared. My art photos taken with my Nikon D850, on the other hand, live on my computer, where they can be carefully considered and slowly edited. Neither environment is good for the other type of photo for me, so I appreciate having the clear separation between them."

Fujifilm Goes the Nikon/ Sony Route (The September 8th X Summit)

As per the Fujifilm X Summit press event last night, it looks like Fuji is going the Nikon/Sony route, splitting its flagship camera into a "high speed" and "high resolution" pair.

The Fujifilm X-H2 made its debut last night. It has 40 megapixels, the highest-ever resolution in a Fuji X camera, as well as a pixel-shift mode for even higher resolution on a tripod, and is the first APS-C camera ever to offer 8k/30P video. The previously introduced 26-MP X-H2S is the high-speed variant.

Also introduced was a redesigned XF 56mm ƒ/1.2 II—the new one has 13 elements and old one 11, which means it's not the same design. The new lens has a larger filter size, 67mm vs. 62mm, and weighs more, 445 g vs. 405 g, but the $999 cost is the same. It's slated to ship at the end of this month.

Fujifilm GF 20–35mm ƒ/4

In addition, a GF 20–35mm ƒ/4 wide-angle zoom for the medium-format cameras was introduced. With a 16mm–28mm angle-of-view equivalent, it's an ideal range for a wide-angle, but the lens is still reasonably sized and not too heavy thanks to its modest but still adequate maximum aperture. The price is $2,499 and it ships on October 6th. There's no way to quantify this for certain, but this was probably the most requested lens that had previously been missing from the GF lineup—a single lens that can satisfy every wide-angle need and purpose for generalists, the only one you need to own or carry.

The camera's model name on the back and no "S" on the
front are the identifying markers of the new X-H2

While the X-H2S seems targeted at professionals and action shooters, the 40-MP X-H2 looks designed to appeal to people such as artists, enthusiasts, landscapists, fashion and portrait photographers, and printmakers. It also seems to have more to offer to stills photographers, in that the stills image quality of the X-H2S isn't better than that of the X-T3 or X-T4, but the stills image quality of the X-H2 is expected to exceed that of those smaller cameras. The physical design of the pair, which has drawn praise for being effective and efficient, is the same. An outstanding viewfinder is reported to be a highlight of these new cameras. The new X-H2 also costs a more reasonable $1,999, vs. $2,499 for the pro-oriented X-H2S. Cameras pre-ordered in time will ship on or around September 29th.

Several future products were teased, including two tilt-shift lenses for the GF medium-format lens line.

Mike

Thom Hogan: "Technically, it's the Nikon route, pioneered in the D1h/D1x, and iterated several times since (D2h/D2x, D3/D3x, Z6/Z7, and many suggest D5/D850)."

Mike replies: Fixed. Thanks.

David Bateman: "In response to your response to Dennis's comments, I don't think Fujifilm released the H2 series for photography, but rather videographers. The H2 (no s) is for 8k, just the sensor isn't really fast, so can't do everything. So they also released the H2s which has a fast sensor and can do many wonderful videos things, except 8K. So that is where we are. I wouldn't be surprised if this 40Mpixel camera sensor doesn't end up in other cameras. Or maybe it will as the market may demand it, but I don't think the camera was designed for photographers."

Kodachromeguy: "ByThom recently wrote about the new megapixel war and noted how many buyers insisting on more more more had murky ideas of their real needs. 48 'sounds' better than 24."

The Lowdown on the New iPhone

It looks like both iPhone 14 "Pro" models—the Pro and Pro Max—will feature one camera with 48 MP. This can be used two ways—for expanded cropping options, or for pixel-binning down to 12-MP in low light. The sensor on the wide module is still 12 MP, but it's physically bigger. And multi-exposure computational photography isn't just for Night Mode any more—you can use it for normal shots as well, to get better quality. The range of focal lengths is also changed, to four: .5X, 1X, 2X, and 3X. How that works out is that the three modules are 13mm-equivalent (12-MP), 24mm-e (48-MP in Pro Raw), and 77mm-e (12-MP). The "2X" option is 48mm-e and uses a cropped section from the 48-MP module.

DPReview points out a very interesting little fact: that iPhones, in sensor size and number of megapixels, have now caught up to the old all-in-one small-sensor digicams such as the Canon Powershot G15 of ten years ago. Albeit with far more capability thanks to processing, binning, and image combining.

Check out Tom Burke's comment from the other day (you might remember Tom—scroll down a bit at that link):

TB: This summer I decided to be honest with myself and recognise that I was simply no longer using my DSLR and lenses. When we went to Dubai in late winter they never left the hotel room; I used the iPhone instead. So during the summer I sold all my photo equipment and I've been waiting for Apple's announcement. I like the hardware improvements in the iPhone camera system, such the bigger sensors, improved apertures, and the increased resolution of the main camera sensor which it seems can be used in either full resolution mode or in binned 12 mp mode. And of course the continued improvements in the software are also attractive.

But the camera and its surrounding system are just part of the story. What I've come to understand is that good technique is as important with an iPhone as it is with any system. Night mode, for example, works pretty well however you use it, but with the phone on a tripod and exposure triggered remotely (via my Apple Watch, for example), the results can be stunning. So I'm pretty sure I can see an iPhone 14 Pro in my future. Mastering it is going to be my next photographic journey, and I'm looking forward to it.

It's a perfectly legit approach, and I'll be interested to hear how he gets along with the new iPhone 14.

Mike

Peter Wright: "I watched the presentation today. Very slick! Looking at the camera section made we wonder why I even think of getting another camera any more. I doubt if anything I want to photograph can’t be done with the 14 pro. Seriously, isn’t buying a dedicated camera a waste of money for almost all of us? The only exceptions could be if you have some very special needs like professional wildlife, or some strange proclivities like the desire to photograph with a 'greys' camera."

Funny Things

I've added a few more shots to the fp sample album. I spent well over three hours out shooting yesterday. I got five keepers, although I only posted three of them. I'm holding a few back so I have something to post in case I don't get anything today. (I always worry about where the next picture is coming from.)

To me, using the fp-M is like walking around with a medium-format camera that shoots 4x5. Here's a funny thing: I've always said I want a camera with IS and my new camera doesn't have IS; I've always said I like small cameras and my new camera (as I'll configure it) isn't small; I've always said I don't care for high resolution and my new camera has high resolution; I always said I don't need full frame and my new camera is full frame; I've always said I didn't mind 3:2 and I've decided to shoot the new camera in 4:3 (for the most part). I guess I'll add that I've never done video and the camera was meant primarily for video.

And, when I first started writing about photography almost 40 years ago, the one brand I knew I didn't like was Sigma, which at the time made very inexpensive commodity lenses for people (and there turned out to be many of them) who couldn't afford better. And now I'm a Sigma shooter.

Goes to show you, you never know what's going to click.

As for the OC/OL/OY idea, here's another funny thing: you don't actually want me out photographing all the time. The more time I spend out photographing, the less time I spend writing about photography, and the latter is what I'm really good for.

The same thing has usually been the case when people make other suggestions to me, like, that I should teach workshops. The problem is the same: the more I do of other things, the less I'd write.

How It Works
By the way, here's how I'd do a portfolio, or a body of work, or a book:

• Start with a defined idea.
• Shoot every day.
• Distill the day's shooting down to that day's keepers. Aiming for between one and five.
• Do provisional post-processing on them so they can stand on their own well enough to be well seen (and so I know the files will work.)
• Do that for a year, or some other defined but extended period of time.
• End up with 400–1,500 keepers.
• Make a quick pass and throw out all the "what was I thinking" or "I don't even remember that one" or "I'm repeating myself" duds.
• Resulting in 100–400 strong pictures.
• Get down to serious editing/sequencing.
• End up with 40–60 pictures that work together in sequence and express my take on my idea.

Only then could I begin to think about the logistics and financing of a show and a book. Which is why I'm so impressed with people who have a show and create a book!

Over the past week or two you've watched me do steps 1–4 with the borrowed Sigma fp Monochrome. The keeper rate would go way down during the long Winter months, but in a year, maybe two, I could be ready for the next eight steps.

Of course, no one really needs me to do that. I think people would rather I write.

Mike

P.S. Oh, I forgot one! This is pretty funny. I used to have to wait till after sunset to do darkroom work, because my various darkrooms were seldom light-tight enough during broad daylight. And now, I have to wait till after sundown to process the day's shooting, because the glare out on the porch where I work makes it too difficult to judge values of gray during the daytime. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use these links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Peter, in Boulder: "I don’t know who to put this into words Mike, other than to say this post makes it very clear how much you’ve enjoyed taking pictures this past week. I’m smiling reading it."

robert e: "I've always enjoyed your writing and looked forward to your posts, Mike, but the fp-M saga really has me on the edge of my seat anticipating the next post and uploads. Your excitement is contagious. I'm still flabbergasted by what seems to me extreme depth of field. I'm wondering what the trick is, but maybe it's not a trick at all—maybe it's just been a really long time since anyone on the internet has stopped down. We do want you writing, sure, but I think all of us would prefer you writing about having fun. We just need to figure out how to make that practicable."

Mike replies: In a short while I'll upload to Flickr an example of what the Ancients called "pan-focus" or front-to-back focus...the world of today has forgotten that this was the manifesto of the then-revolutionary Group ƒ/64, to have everything in focus front to back, ƒ/64 being a stopped-down aperture that gave good depth-of-field on an 8x10 view camera. [UPDATE: Here it is.]

Stephen McCullough: "Although you’re making photographs, this is creating material for the writing. And you ‘sound’ happy. I’m enjoying this series."

Mark: "Finally a Speed Graphic replacement…."

Tom Duffy: "I really like this picture. The tones on the shady side of the barn are perfect. I'm not sure I could have resisted making the sky a little more dramatic. Good restraint on your part. I remember when digital started becoming a thing for Leica and people were commenting on the great image resolution. A naysayer commented, 'Since when did the Leica become a view camera?' Since digital, almost every camera has become a view camera. This is why I own two tilt-shift lenses for my Canon."

Decision Made

As of today, Adorama is having a big sale on the Sigma fp—only $1,759 for all three pieces I need, the camera, the lens, and the magnifying finder—that's $300 less than the best price yesterday. At some places it was $500 more. What a difference a day makes. I bought one this morning. So, decision made, for better or for worse.

Seeing for yourself
This is how it's going to be nice for the blog: before I send it off for conversion, I can compare the color and monochrome versions of the exact same camera.

Not only can I compare the monochrome-sensor fp to edits from the regular uncoverted color fp, but so can you—I can post large B&W files from the converted camera and large color files of the same scene from the unconverted camera. You can download the files, change the color files to mono, and compare them for yourself. So the question "which are better, files from a monochrome camera, or converted color files from a color camera?" is one you will have some evidence for on your own, with your own methods and preferences applied, which is usually the best way.

Sometimes a price drop is as good as a shove

Plus, Sigma has an in-camera monochrome DNG option, so I can report back on that, and perhaps compare that to the monochrome-sensor files as well.

'Interior'
Check out my latest, if you haven't seen it—I love playing around with this camera, so just for fun I wanted to see how close I could come to the "feel" of the light in my living room when it's sunny outside. "Interior" is a HDR merge in Photoshop (File > Automate > Merge to HDR Pro, then "Tone in ACR" to adjust as usual). I "fooled" Flickr by uploading a lighter image, but I couldn't defeat the sharpening or whatever is going on there. The lamp base has haloing around it that is not there in the real file.

This merging of several exposures is very easy to do, by the way. I like the way this one turned out.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Robert Roaldi: "I have found that the best part about coming to a decision is that once the decision is made, you don't have to spend time thinking about it anymore, and you can get back to what you were doing."

KeithM: " I look forward to hearing more about this camera and the B&W conversion. I have toyed a few times with the possibilities or practicalities of using the Sigma fp or fp L as one would use a view camera—i.e. only a couple of primes and always on a tripod. It would be a step up in resolution and image quality from the Micro 4/3 cameras I usually use—when not shooting LF film (which is not often!). I think the tripod and restricted lens/focal length choices makes one think harder about image-making. Anyway, I look forward to hearing about, and seeing, the results of your new project.

"And, by the way, I also look forward to seeing more lovely images of your local environs—you are lucky to be able to live in such a beautiful spot."

Guy Perkins: "Not related to this post, but about B&W photography, I wonder if you have come across the work of Ando Fuchs. I'm sure you look at far more photography than me so the answer is probably yes. But I thought of his work in relation to your thoughts about B&W toning and style. His work might be overly dark in tone for your taste, but following him on Instagram I find his work of a very high standard, and his style is his own. Thank you for the blog."

Mike replies: There's always room for photography when we're talking about photography. Thanks for the good tip.

Sunday 'Open Mike': Decisions

I have just been having a high old time with Jason's loaner camera, the monochrome-converted fp. I love B&W and I am so happy being able to shoot it again in a free and unfettered way. I've been spending a lot of time out and about with the camera these past few days. This is just provisional for now, pending further investigation, but it seems that a converted sensor can give results that are as good, in most cases, or at least almost as good, as conventional color files converted in software.

Osprey Nest, edited to look as close as I can come
to Kodak Plus-X in D-76 1:1 with a yellow filter

I believe two things will be true: 1.) that I'll get better at editing these files as time goes by and I practice more, and 2.) that my taste will evolve to move a little closer to the way the files naturally want to look. It's not like there's ever been one invariant look to the B&W materials and processes I've used over my lifetime, up to and including edits into B&W of X-T1 files.

So I have a decision coming up.  Assuming the sensor conversion itself is a sunk cost, because I'm going to do it one way or the other, I need to decide: whether to follow my original plan and have my Sony A6600 APS-C camera converted; or to recreate Jason's camera for myself.

It makes the most sense to convert the A6600. I already own it; I don't believe I need the outstanding resolution of the FF sensor, nice as it is; the camera is smaller and easier to carry; and it has IBIS. I would need to buy a lens with an aperture ring for it, but there are candidates.

Unfortunately, you can't try these things before you buy. Ideally I'd convert the A6600 and then pit it in a comparison against the Sigma fp. But converting it would destroy some part of its resale value, which is about $1,100 right now; and if I resell it I will be out the $1,200 cost of conversion. This makes for a potentially disastrous mistake if it turns out to be the wrong choice. I'd have to unload a camera I have $2,400 invested in for maybe six or eight hundred dollars if I'm lucky. I've taken losses that bad before on my photography hobby, but ya hate to lead with your chin.

On the other hand, an fp like Jason's is an expensive proposition. Camera and lens are $1,900, the viewing magnifier $300, the grip $100. It's okay to dismiss the cost of the conversion because, as I say, that's a sunk cost presuming I get a camera of any kind converted. It's also okay to dismiss the resale proposition, because I like the camera a lot and I think I can commit to keeping it for the long haul—even if I don't use it much I still think I'd enjoy having it and using it occasionally. But it's $2,300 out of pocket not counting the conversion. I'd have to sell a bunch of stuff to rationalize the purchase.

The fp doesn't have IBIS. That is a serious drawback. (Friday's task was experimenting with low-light shooting with the fp.) but I like other aspects of the camera so much that I might be able to put up with that. Also, I still need to have a few prints made before I get too carried away.

The best outcome would be to convert the A6600 and have it be good enough to live with. The worse outcome would be to convert the A6600 and not be happy with it and still continue to want an fp.

Decisions, decisions...what I should probably do is simply keep shooting with the fp until Jason needs it back, and then decide. If you can't decide, delay.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Fred Lyon, San Francisco Noir. "The version [of San Francisco] that Fred Lyon celebrates in his new book is a classic San Francisco full of smoky jazz clubs, neon lights in the fog and sharply dressed men and women stepping on and off of trolley cars. Made mostly during the 1950s and '60s, Lyon's images are big on atmosphere and style, and hit many parts of the city that visitors love." (PDN)

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Jeff: "I bought a mint used original Leica M(9) Monochrom, with new sensor/service and warranty, for $3,500 in 2017. I could sell it now if I wanted to for about $3,800. Regardless, I’ve received more than equivalent value and joy from the experience in the meantime, and the prints are reminders. Sometimes it costs less in the long term to make up your mind, pay more up front and enjoy the ride."

Severian: "You wrote 'If you can't decide, delay'—there is some real wisdom there, when applied properly. The pain of an unmade decision (ambivalence) is often overwhelming to some people so they resolve the tension too soon, often to a less than optimal answer.

"Over the years, reading what you've written about how much you value IBIS, I think you need to delay long enough to fully recall how much a non-IBIS camera is a major annoyance for you.

"I think no IBIS would be a constant burr under the saddle for you. Of course, you know 'you' better than your readers!"

Mike replies: I wonder if I do, though. My brother Scott, who knew me really well, used to say that I was much better at advising other people than I was at knowing what to do for myself.

David Aiken: "There are two ways to get a camera that shoots B&W only: you can obtain a camera with a monochrome sensor or you can restrict your own personal choice in shooting. You're the man who has proposed the one camera, one lens, one year challenge to readers on a couple of occasions. I'll propose a challenge to you. Pick a camera you have, set it up to show a B&W viewfinder and screen, and use it only for B&W for a period, six months to a year. If you want to shoot colour for a particular purpose, you have to use a different camera but you then can't convert anything taken with a different camera to B&W. That way you're faced with a binary choice when you go out to take photos, if you choose a particular camera then you have to shoot B&W or colour depending on the choice of camera; if you want to shoot in B&W or in colour you have to choose a specific camera.

"Those are the same choices you'll be faced with if you obtain a monochrome camera so just start doing it today with the cameras you have and see how it works for you. If in six months or a year, whatever time period you set yourself, you can't imagine working any other way, then get the monochrome camera. You'll have answered your questions about whether having a purely monochrome camera will work for you and whether you're prepared to deal with the cost issues without the reservations that currently seem to bedevil you."

Mike replies: Excellent, sage, sane advice. However, unfortunately, I've tried exactly what you're proposing on many different occasions already...with the NEX-6; with the Fuji X-T1 (I was very dogged that time, and stuck with it over hundreds if not a thousand+ images, but ultimately it was just too much of a struggle and not fun; with the "Big Dragoon" AKA D800, which I bought specifically hoping I would love it for B&W....

B&W with the Big Dragoon

It's all documented back there in the archives if you go looking for it. 

Rob Griffin: "Decisions, decisions, certainly a skill that is not my strong suit, but I think it would be a good idea to make some prints before you make a final decision. You and many others here on TOP have said that an image file is not really a photograph until it’s printed.

"Many people have commented on and don’t understand your 'mindset' issue. I have the same mindset issue you have spoken of when trying to shoot black-and-white images on a digital camera. I wish I didn’t, but I am not sure that any sort of mental training would help me overcome the issue. I am happy for the majority of readers of TOP that don’t have the same issue, but it is a real thing for some of us.

"I number of people have said seeing an image in black and white in the EVF or on the LCD is helpful to them when shooting black and white with a digital camera. I wish I felt that way. I feel mostly uncertain as to what I am seeing when viewing the image on what amounts to a black-and-white monitor. Mike, you wrote about when shooting black-and-white film in a film camera the image in an optical viewfinder or on the ground glass is in color. For me, having taken up black-and-white photography years before digital photography was invented, seeing color in the optical viewfinder but black and white in my mind’s eye feels natural, what I am used to. If possible, I think you should try a camera with an optical viewfinder converted to monochrome before you make a decision.

"Your pardner in a specific 'mindset.'"

History of the Monochroms

I'm not an expert on Leicadom, but, if I've parsed the source* correctly and not missed anything, here's the history of the company's unique dedicated B&W models:

2012 (announced May 10): Leica M Monochrom (internal pre-production code name "Henri" in homage to H.C.-B.). 18-MP FF CCD sensor. Based on: Leica M9. Sample by -M&E-.

2015 (announced April 30): Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246). 24-MP FF CMOS sensor. Based on: beats me.) Sample by bob camera.

202o (announced January 17): Leica M10 Monochrom (current product). 40-MP FF CMOS sensor. Based on: Leica M10-P. Sample by Paolo Viviani. [UPDATE: See Jeff's Featured Comment below.]

2020 (announced November 10): Leica Q2 Monochrom (current product). 47-MP FF CMOS sensor, fixed 28mm ƒ/1.7 lens. Based on: Leica Q2. Sample by guy clift.

Presumably there will eventually be a Monochrom based on the M11, which was announced seven months ago.

Mike

*Based on the DPReview Product Database.

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Jeff: "The original M Monochrom was based on the M9 sensor, sans Bayer filter. It was CCD. Likewise, the M Typ 246 was derived from the M240, which was CMOS. But the M10 Monochrom sensor, also CMOS, was not based on the M10 or M10-P sensors, which were 24 MP, even though the body and other features were based on the latter. Rather, the 40 MP sensor was derived from the Leica S3 sensor architecture, as was the M10-R, which has the same sensor with a Bayer filter. This was apparently a way for Leica to produce some economies of scale from the uniquely specified and expensive 30x45mm S3 sensor. The M10 Monochrom and M10-R therefore share its pixel pitch, but scaled down in size.

"There are also many other differences between the evolving Monochrom bodies. The M9 platform, for instance, has frame lines optimized for 1m, a .68x VF magnification, a very loud shutter re-cock mechanism, a RAW (DNG) based histogram (unique to this camera), etc. The M10 Monochrom has a much more robust body with better weather sealing, a quiet shutter, a larger VF diameter with .73x magnification with better eye relief, frame lines optimized for 2m, and is a much more modern body with tighter digital tolerances."

UPDATE on The Great Monochrome Safari

A followup on the progress of The Great Monochrome Safari, in which Don Quixote Mike stalks the veldt in a funny hat for "always-on" digital B&W and other big game not mandatory for the sustenance of Dawgs*:

—Daniel Morrison at MIS (Monochrome Imaging Services, one of the camera conversion businesses) doesn't have any loaners. Daniel has been kind and cordial, but I'm going to guess that, just maybe, he gets a little weary of having to wade into long hand-holding discussions with punters like me who aren't in the end going to open up their wallets for his services. So I'm going to try not to press him too heavily unless I actually decide to spend for his services. His is the most informative website as far as I can tell, so he's already put up a lot of information for everyone who cares to look.

—Haven't heard back from Roger Cicala, but no worries—I don't think he always sees emails right away. Plus it's vacation season.

—Reader Jason M. has a MIS-converted Sigma FP that he's willing to let me try. The Sigma FP, if you don't know it (I didn't), is a very small 24-MP camera (presumably intended for video?) that comes with a Bayer array rather than Sigma's proprietary variant of the Foveon sensor.

—Reader Chris H. is sending a loaner Leica M Monochrom. We will eventually parse the offerings in that lineage and sample the one he sends.

—Reader Steve R. referred me to an accomplished photographer, Norm Eder of Portland, Oregon, who uses MIS-converted camera(s) for his concert and music photography work. I've sent him an email.

Resources
A few resources which have surfaced, thanks to the Cloud-Mind of the Commentariat:

The new Pixii camera, which I was already planning to try at some point, has a real Mono mode in which the processor ignores the color information from the Bayer array. [Thanks to Frank Grygier and Richard Parkin for this.]

Here are some of Norm Eder's pictures, "most but not all" of which were shot with his MIS-converted Sony. [Thanks to Steve Rosenblum.]

Here's an interesting and carefully done comparison of converted raw files from a Leica Q2 compared to the Q2 Monochrom, then a similar comparison of color and mono M cameras, and finally a showdown between the two Monochrom cameras, Q2M and M10M. The color Q2 comports itself admirably, being almost indistinguishable from the Q2M at lower ISOs (putting paid to the supposed sharpness advantage of monochrome sensors, at least in this comparison), but the ISO insensitivity of the monochrome sensor wins out at higher ISOs: according to the tester, David Farkas, the mono sensor has a two-stop advantage over converted color files. Looking at "where the cameras hit their respective ideal maximum ISO values," by which he means "the highest ISO values achievable without a significant sacrifice of image quality," David's conclusion is that the color Q2 files, when converted to B&W in software, look very good up to ISO 6,400, and the Q2M's, to ISO 25,000. (The latter is the value as given in the camera's menu.) [Thanks to James for this.]

More parties heard from
I'm more than 100 comments behind in moderation, so there are lots more comments on the previous post coming up. New Featured Comments as well. Here are three common reactions:

• I understand where you're coming from.
• I don't understand where you're coming from.
• Is that really worth $1,200?

Mike

*An art school friend called fine-art students "art dawgs" so I started to call our little cohort in the Photo Dept. "photo-dawgs." Like most of my attempted coinages it did not catch on. Except with me.

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Bob G.: "Individual determined and focused artistic endeavors can and should be beyond critical reproach, as well as immune to any financial logic. History has shown time and time again that strong artistic ideas will prevail, regardless of the barriers thrown up against them. Persistence will make it so."

Jeff1000: "I think you’re tilting at windmills."

Same Old Problems! (More on Monochrome Sensor Cameras)

No surprise, I'm experiencing the same old problems as always in discussing this topic, the topic of the monochrome sensor.

Problems with explaining
First, it's not a question of output/results. Of course I can make B&W/monochrome files/pictures, and have done so a great many times in innumerable ways. It's an issue of mindset. (Thanks to Jeff for introducing that word in the comments.) It doesn't affect everyone, so not everyone gets it. This happens every time the topic comes up, and apparently, from what I find "out there" on the internet, it comes up everywhere else it's mentioned, too.

Secondly, what's needed isn't to see the B&W/monochrome image in the viewfinder or in the workflow. I have something like 90,000 B&W negatives that I shot mostly with SLRs with yellow filters on the lens—what you see in the viewfinder is a color image "stained" overall with yellow. I don't care what I see in the viewfinder. I have no problem visualizing the final results based on whatever materials I'm using. It's what the camera sees that counts, not what I see.

The problem is that I shoot with a different mindset when I'm shooting color. I take different pictures. I mentally translate the world differently. I look for different things. Do you see? And what happens with me is that I can't help looking for color pictures when I'm photographing if I know the camera is recording color. I'll always be looking at the world as if I'm looking for both B&W and color pictures. It's very unsatisfying.

...To me. I understand that if you don't experience this, then naturally you wouldn't see why it's a problem. But I'm telling you it's a problem for me, so it doesn't help if you simply say I shouldn't be having the problem.

It's not an inability, either. I actually did a project in art school for which I shot color negative film and made enlargements on Panalure B&W paper, to make B&W prints. It's just that I find that difficult to sustain over the long haul. If I know color is available, I gradually migrate into seeing color pictures again and making pictures that have to be in color. It's totally a mental thing. It's not a technical issue or a technical problem. It's about mindset.

Jeff wrote,

The reason my Leica Monochrom cameras (M9 Monochrom and M10 Monochrom) help with my black-and-white mindset is that I’m not distracted by looking for color pics, as I know the monochrome cameras can’t capture color [...]. I’ve found that it’s a different mindset than when I shoot with my color-based digital cameras, even when my intent is to take B&W pics. I didn’t think this would be the case before I actually bought a Monochrom, but I should have learned otherwise from my decades shooting B&W film.

There it is..."distracted by looking for color pics." When you look for B&W pictures you're looking for scenes that will render nicely with just luminances. When you look for color pictures you're often looking for colors that work together or against each other. It's a different mindset. I'm sure some people can simply "decide" they're shooting B&W, and only look for scenes that would render well as luminance-only, and God bless 'em. I find I can't do it. 

Aspect ratio
Stephen S. added,

"Re 'But what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color. Can't seem to help it. However the camera sees, that's how I'll look at the world.' I fully understand this, and how I relate may help others who can't figure out why you don't just set a colour camera to record B&W: I have many cameras where you can choose to photograph in a different aspect ratio than what the sensor physically is, but I can never bring myself to do it, as it seems like I'm just wasting potential. I want to use all of the sensor I've got. Why throw away perfectly pixels on the top and bottom of my frame, and perfectly good light from the lens, to crop a 4:3 or 3:2 sensor to 16:9? I know it's all in my head, but I have a hard time doing it. Using a sensor's full size and native aspect ratio just makes me feel better about it.

That's a good analogy. I've had different experiences with that. Once I tried to use a 28mm lens meaning to crop it down to a 35mm angle of view in post, and found I simply couldn't do it consistently—I found myself simply composing pictures with the entire 28mm field of view. (Duh, huh? It took all of one day to discover how dopey the idea was. Probably didn't even need to actually do that experiment.)

Oddly, when I once had the opposite problem, I had no trouble. I had an old medium-format SLR, 6x6cm, on which the viewfinder showed less than the negative would record. Worse, the overlap was offset:

And for some reason, in that case, I would often find myself calmly composing in the viewfinder with the top of the picture cut off! I knew the negative would get it, and I didn't worry about it.

And this is odd. With most square cameras, it doesn't matter if I mean to crop to a vertical or horizontal rectangle, I end up composing with the whole square. I just end up looking for square compositions and arranging to the square in the viewfinder. But in the case of that one camera with the offset viewfinder, from first to last I created vertical rectangles. It just felt natural, and that's the way I saw and that's what always worked.

Why was this? No idea. But it brings up a crucial point: you need to adjust to yourself. You're not seeing with a camera. You're not even seeing with your eyes, mostly. You're seeing with your brain. So you have to adjust to how your own brain likes to see things!

Problems with the product
People who are objecting that it makes no sense to pay a lot of money to cripple a perfectly good sensor sure got that right. People like me are trapped by the camera manufacturers. Apart from Leica, the cameramakers have no interest in making cameras with B&W-only sensors, I presume because they know the "take rate" would be minuscule and they'd make no money on the product. And they have no interest in giving random artists what the artists need—their purpose is to make money. Q.E.D.

But could they? If they wanted to? Of course they could. It would be easy as pie. If there were a market for it, the camera would be simpler to make and most likely cost less.

I honestly believed that once Leica did it, that some other more mainstream manufacturer would follow suit with a reasonably priced monochrome sensor camera. But no. Didn't happen. I'm sure the camera makers just don't see it as something that would be worth the hassle. It would be like a car maker building a sedan with a stick shift, manual windows, and no air conditioning.

So then I'm left with taking a $1,200 camera (what I paid for the A6600) and investing a further $1,200 in it, to make a camera that would have cost $900 if Sony offered it as a commercial product.

This would make sense two ways: 1.) if I wasn't price-sensitive about that extra $1,200 (I loved what Bruce Bordner said: "don't make a business decision on a toy"); 2.) if I knew I'd like it and would use it. But of course you can't try it before you buy it, so that makes the second proposition iffy. (You can't even find much about it online; there's doesn't appear to be a lot out there.) I don't really like the tonal rendition of the Leica Monochroms, for instance, so they're not really what I'd want. [UPDATE: I don't actually really know this...having not tried a Monochrom for myself. —MJ] What Sroyon said is very true: "What I'm wondering is, do you know for sure that you'll like the way the B&W-converted sensor renders colours? Because as you know, sensors have a spectral sensitivity curve, just like film. With a product like Tri-X, decades of research have gone into producing a curve which 'translates' colours to B&W in a pleasing way, both natively and with the typical filters." Richard Parkin seconded this, writing, "Why do you think the B&W from a converted camera will be the 'good' B&W you desire?" The answer is that I don't know if it will be.

Anyway, I've asked Daniel at Monochrome Imaging if he has a converted camera he'd be willing to let me try for a couple of weeks for the purposes of writing about it. We'll see what he says.

Maybe I could ask Roger Cicala if he has any interest in adding a few converted monochrome-sensor cameras to the rental fleet at LensRentals, just so people could try them out. He might not be, as they already rent Leica Monochroms. But I'll ask.

Thanks for all the comments! Very engaging, at least for me. I love B&W, and miss it a lot.

Mike

Book o' the Week

Chromes is an edit of more than 5,000 Kodachromes and Ektachromes taken from 10 chronologically ordered binders found in a safe in the Eggleston Artistic Trust. This archive was once used by John Szarkowski, who selected the 48 images printed in Eggleston’s seminal book William Eggleston’s Guide, while the rest of the archive has remained almost entirely unpublished. Three volumes, slipcased.

These book links are your portal to Amazon. Please use our links; they help support the site.

Go to B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Clyde Rogers: "I'm primarily a black and white photographer, a Pt/Pd printer, and have a Leica M10 Monochrom. It's easily the best camera I've ever owned, and I love the results I get from it. The primary technical advantage is not just absolute higher ISO capability, but how much better the noise looks is as it creeps in at middle ISOs—smooth and stochastic, never chunky or patterned.

"That said, the black and white camera hasn't changed my photos in any way I can notice. I get that better middle and high ISO, but won't carry a second camera, so lose color. I was hoping for but haven't noted any mindset advantage. Having used both extensively, I think an excellent black and white EVF is a more useful tool for me than the monochrome sensor. The ability to do filter effects after the fact is also worth more than the noise/ISO advantages. Is the monochrome sensor worth it? As the owner of a beautiful monochrome camera, I have to be honest and say not for me."

John Cornelius: "$2,400.00 would buy a lot of Tri-X; just saying. I still shoot it, develop it myself, scan it and print digitally. Silly, but I love it. With any luck the next house will have room for a darkroom and I can be even sillier. It is my hobby, I can be as silly as I want."

Pierre Charbonneau: "Mike, About your dislike of the Leica Monochrom’s tonal rendition, I would point out that the natives files coming out of the camera are on the flat side, without any pop. On the other hand, these are very rich (shadow details) and malleable, so you can play with it a lot, to your liking. After years of using the first and also the latest iteration of the Monochrom, I do not have yet any preset to apply universally to the files. Each picture that I spring for asks for a specific process, even if moderate, like for the curve, exposure, highlight and shadow and even graininess. In the end, it is less work than shooting and processing Tri-X, and the work is cleaner and safer than the chemical way. I still use a film Leica here and then, to reset my appreciation of film. I enjoy using the old non-automatic, manual winding and the beauty of the camera and even the distinctive click of the shutter. But the road to satisfying results is more complicated."

William Cook: "Depending on the day, it may or may not be natural to ‘see’ in B&W for me, but I fully understand what you’re getting at. I too yearned for a simpler camera and I also was a happy B&W film shooter, mostly in medium format. I get easily overwhelmed and the dearth of controls on current digital cameras is the opposite of what I want, well, except for IBIS, that’s mandatory! All that, coupled with the infinite ways to enhance a photo in Photoshop, was overwhelming—and not fun. Granted, most other photographers feel exactly the opposite that I do. I yearned for a simple B&W experience again. When the Leica Q2M was released, that was the answer to my dreams. I don’t even want to get into the angst over the price, but I bought one anyway. Instead of thinking of how I can fiddle the color sliders to produce a ‘filtered’ monochrome image, I do it the old fashioned way, with glass filters on the lens. In Photoshop, I adjust exposure, maybe some dodging and burning, add a touch of sharpening, and that’s about it. Rather than endless options, I love the constraints and discipline. The process now makes me think more when I’m behind the camera and I enjoy the entire photographic process again. I suppose those younger would consider me a dinosaur, but there should be room in the tent for all of us!"

Kirk W.: "C’mon Mike, just hurry up and do it. Then within a few months, I’ll be able to order one of those trick new Fuji X100Ms!"

Henning: "I get what you say, because I'm the same way. I started shooting mostly B&W film. In later years colour became more important. They definitely required a different mindset. I photographed professionally for 40+ years, and in the early years B&W was requested more than colour. By the 90s B&W had largely disappeared as a preference. In the transition decades I was often asked to shoot both B&W and colour, and I always asked the client which was more important, as I had to know going in. With large format in particular, it was easy enough to shoot both; just put in a different film holder, but my vision was right for one but not the other. I couldn't readily do both to my highest standard on the same job on the same day; it was either/or. If a client was particularly discerning I would suggest that I go on two different days (I did architectural photography) and use one medium the first day and the other on the next day. I probably did that about once a year.

"Now I have colour cameras, and I have an M10 Monochrom. I don't take both on the same day."

Frank Gorga: "Although I am,for much of my work, a black and white junkie, I doubt that I will ever buy a monochrome-only digital camera. The reason...flexibility. The control one has in converting colors to gray tones using modern software is much too important to me. The color channels sliders allow me to dial in exactly the right strength or a particular color 'filter' rather than having to rely on one or two strengths of a physical filter. Additionally, one can easily 'stack' virtual filters something that is not recommended and difficult to do with physical filters. Lastly, using layers and masks, one can apply different color filters to different parts of an image. This is not something I do often, but it is impossible to do with physical filters. To me, a monochrome digital camera is a big step backwards."

Inkphot: "Another analogy to think about. I have recently returned to shooting (now digital) with single focal length lenses, something I almost always did when using film (I haven't shot film since 2003). I find I select a focal length to use depending on a whim. A 35mm-e one day, 28mm-e another or an 85mm-e the next. It doesn't matter what the focal length of the lens is, after a few practice compositions I find I can now see and compose in my head the view the camera will record. Using a zoom lens these day throws me off balance. I feel very discombobulated. On the other hand I find the ability to show a black and white image (grey actually) in the EVF and on the LCD to be very useful for me to 'see' in B+W. Also I have a camera converted to infrared and the same thing happens when I am out shooting with it, I find I quickly adjust to seeing in IR (obviously not literally). So Mike I totally get where you're coming from on this."

V.I. Voltz (partial comment): "I don’t think you’d be happy with the tones from the Monochroms. They look like APX 100 in Rodinal—they lower the midtones and produce quite closed shadows. And, most of all, the tones are more resistant than you might imagine to opening them up—it is harder to do and image quality suffers more than I thought it would. In 2012 when I got the first Monochrom I noticed this markedly, thought about it a while and just decided to live with it and shift my look. Until then I used a lot of Plus-X in Xtol with a yellow filter. I thought about continuing with film as my main medium, but, as you put it, I’ve done enough of that work. These days when I use film I use Adox CHS 100 II to match the tones of my Monochrom."

Frank: "Re 'I love B&W, and miss it a lot.' I think you are missing black and white photographs that have been beautifully exposed and developed in the darkroom on fine paper. Digital monochrome photography is quite different, and is often very ugly. I have not yet seen a single beautiful black and white photo from digital that was beautifully printed. For that you need a 6-greys printer, another investment."

Jens Hauser: "I have more or less the same issue because I want to try a monochrome Sony before I decide to buy one, so renting one would be super. I have loved monochrome for a long time and edit many of my photos to B&W."

Bill Tyler: "I have to admit that a full monochrome camera has a strong but irrational appeal for me, even though I would likely not use it very much. What's stopping me is the price."

Joe Holmes: "The mindset is powerful. More than once I've lifted the camera to my eye and felt a kind of reeling vertigo as I discover that my mind's lens, with which I'd been I scanning the world, is not the lens I've got on my camera."

Josh Hawkins: "It is all mindset. I shoot my mirrorless camera in the B&W setting but with raw files. I’m seeing the image on the LCD as B&W. I’m composing for B&W. But I’ve got all the color data. I almost never use the image in color though. It looks wrong. Off. I just can’t. It’s a B&W image, in my mind. Thanks for the read. As always."

The Pinchpenny's Dilemma

Thanks for all the good camera talk on Friday and yesterday. I always enjoy that, as superfluous as it may be. I enjoy cameras and talking about gear.

What I've decided to do is enlist the help of Monochrome Imaging Services (MIS) and have a Sony camera converted to B&W-only. (I actually started talking to them about this briefly right before the pandemic, but let it drop amid the concern of those early days.)

I have several candidates to be the donor camera. And I have three E-mount lenses hanging around the camera closet: a Sony 16mm, the Sigma 30mm Contemporary, and an older Sigma DN 60mm ƒ/2.8. (Actually for some reason I have two of those. Not sure why.) That's enough to play with. If I like the camera, I'll eventually need a lens with an aperture ring, but there are several possibilities for that: the Viltrox 23mm (also available in a cosmetically slightly differentiated mount as a Tokina for those who feel an urge to pay more), the Sony FE 24mm ƒ/2.8, or the Sigma I-series 24mm ƒ/3.5. Both the latter are FF lenses but will work on APS-C Sonys.

What to do, what to do
The only problem is that I have to raise $1,200 for the conversion. The camera budget is dry as a bone at the moment. Have to figure out some way to raise a bit o' cash.

Looming behind that problem is a pinchpenny's dilemma: I can have either my old Sony NEX-6 or my new Sony A6600 converted. The conversion costs $1,200, which is a significant investment. So do I invest in the older, less valuable camera, with its smaller (16-MP) sensor? Or do I convert the sleek new 24-MP A6600, which I like better and is much newer...and has that great big battery that lasts forever...but which will presumably be worth much less on the resale market after conversion? NEX-6's go for less than $250 these days. But minty A6600's go for $1,100–$1,300. It's like if you want to hot-rod a car, which do you choose: do you invest more than the car is worth in an old clunker, or do you void the warranty and hurt the resale on a perfectly good late-model vehicle? Which is more cost-effective? Which is less risk? Thinking about this is prob'ly gonna make my brain hurt tonight.  :-) 

Home at last
I hope my "cheap gene" doesn't derail the project. I really do want to experience a camera that shoots only B&W again. I had a lot of experience shooting B&W, and I have no trouble seeing in B&W if that's how the camera sees. But what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color. Can't seem to help it. However the camera sees, that's how I'll look at the world. (Not everyone is like that.) I think it will be very interesting to be "forced" to see in B&W again. I'm working on an article for the big mag about B&W right now, so at the very least, it'll be grist for the mill.

From what I can see, the process has a lot of advantages. First of all, the camera becomes about one stop more sensitive because of the removal of the CFA (color filter array). You don't actually lose the ability to affect the image with color filters—you just have to do it the old-fashioned way, with color filters on the lens! That won't be a drawback to me. Furthermore, there's very little difference between ISOs...for instance, ISO 100 and ISO 3200. Even though you can see a slight difference when you pixel-peep at 100%, the higher ISO image is still very clean and quite pleasing. Finally, the image from the converted camera is markedly sharper than a color image converted in software. All this is discussed on Monochrome Imaging's website.

A small detail from the above. This will be 100% after you click on it. TOP's blog software softens images slightly.

I downloaded the above sample image (made with a converted a7R II) from MIS's website and worked on it in Photoshop. Raw files from converted cameras do need to be run through specialized raw converters (this one's just the JPEG, not the raw file), so that the standard demosaicing that would be done on color files isn't applied. After that, though, the images open as monochrome files in Photoshop and are easy and natural to work on. I fiddled with this one a bit, which was fun.

A converted Sony might be a "poor man's" Q2M, but I have a good feeling about this. I do know most people don't understand—you don't have to tell me yet again—however, I've always wanted a B&W digital camera. I just can't pay Leica's prices, is all.

More to come in this topic, I'm sure. (Unless I lose momentum. That sometimes happens. We'll see.)

Mike

Book o' the Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Gordon Lewis: "Re '...what I've always found is that if the camera sees colors, then I'll see in color.'

"I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, either in logic or fact. All cameras with optical viewfinders, including film cameras, display color. This means you are and have always been fully capable of imagining an image in B&W even though you are seeing color through the viewfinder. The only difference in the film days was that you had to commit to a full roll or sheet of B&W film.

"Mirrorless cameras or DSLRs with 'live view' however, are capable of displaying live images in B&W if you set the camera to B&W JPEG or RAW+JPEG. You don't have to 'see in B&W' because the camera can do it for you. Some would see this as a simple, cost-effective way to achieve your goal. Apparently you do not.

"I'm sure you're well aware of these facts, as are your readers. Whether or not you choose to take advantage of this feature is entirely your prerogative, but if you're trying to build a case for the merits of spending $1,200 to convert one of your Sonys to a monochrome sensor, this is one of your least convincing bits of evidence."

Mike replies: Hi Gordon. (For those who don't know, Gordon and I are friends and have been fellow photo-writers since the early '90s; he's been a houseguest here at TOP Rural World HQ.)

I can easily believe that it makes no sense to you (in logic or in fact), because you would not be that way, and indeed most people are not that way, but my visual brain works the way it works and I have to work with that. I get a pretty acute sense of how any camera is "seeing" and then, when I'm using that camera, I find I can "previsualize" (to use Ansel's term) the way the camera is going to translate any given scene. It's that way for me with all cameras. I had no difficulty at all seeing color in SLR viewfinders and previsualizing the look of Tri-X or HP-5 Plus or whatever I had loaded in the camera. (The viewfinder image of SLRs was yellow for me, actually, because of the K2 filters on my lenses.) In fact, seeing "bad" B&W in a digital viewfinder is a hindrance, not a help, when I'm visualizing my own B&W conversion which would be much different. I have yet to find a "B&W mode" in any digital camera that's halfway decent as B&W. Most of it simply looks like color desaturated—a look a colleague, John McIntosh, once called "student grays"—which is very different from good B&W. There's not one "B&W." There are many.

I have the look of the result in mind when I shoot. I was actually a little surprised when I first learned that most people don't. I suppose this the reason, or part of the reason, why I was a good B&W photographer.

And I am certainly not rationalizing a purchase! I have felt this way about B&W since I gave up film around 2000, and I have struggled with it since then. Have I not been complaining about the lack of dedicated B&W digital cameras since that time? The record will show that I have been. For example, this post from 11 years ago. It is not the only one—I wrote about the issue on the old Blogspot blog, and in my column in Black & White Photography magazine, and on The Luminous-Landscape. Or this from 2020. Here's another one from when the Leica Monochrom came out, which began with the words "Regular readers will know that I've been calling for a monochrome digital camera since forever...." And that was ten years ago.

If I get a camera converted, it will be only the last in a long series of tries. I bought the "Big Dragoon" (Nikon D800) meaning to use it for B&W. (Note the illustrations at that link.) I tried a Sigma DP2 with the same intentions. I tried firmly resolving to convert everything from the X-T1 in Silver Efex 2 (result? Fail, because I kept seeing in color because the camera sees in color). I tried going back to film several times, unsuccessfully because it's so much more work and so expensive. Why? To get back to B&W. The logical question is probably not whether I ought to try a converted camera so much as why I've waited so long to try a converted camera....

Moose (partial comment): Re 'I have a good feeling about this': Petty sure I've heard this before, likely more than once, about an enthusiasm that has fallen by the wayside. (I have those, too.)"

Mike replies: Yeah, that's why I'll probably resist this in the end. Because I'd have $2,400 invested in a camera that would be worth almost nothing and my enthusiasm would inevitably ebb, leaving me with naught but a big loss and a rueful feeling. It's why I've never had a camera converted.

I would sure love to "demystify" it, though. You never really know about something until you try it for yourself.

Thomas Rink: "Assuming that 1.) you bought the A6600 for making photographs, and not for reselling it, and 2.) your thing is B&W photography, I think the conclusion is simple: just have the camera converted! Then use it until it is worn down beyond repair, and you don't have to worry about resale value."

Bruce Bordner: "Why should you worry about resale value? Pick the one that feels better—the body and controls aren't going to change. Your value lies in how much you will enjoy it. Don't make a business decision on a toy."

Kye Wood (partial comment): "OK. I'm very late to this party. But—Mike. Buddy. You're no spring chicken. I think you should jump on this idea, ASAP."

Bill Bresler: "Ye Gods, man! It sounds like a really good idea, but I just can't get past the $1,200 price."

Roger: "That NEX-6 is likely approaching its 'recycle by' date—look for its recycle symbol. It probably has a 10 in the center. That’s 10 years of expected life. Not much point in paying to convert a camera whose lead-free solder could turn on it at any moment.

"I own a Typ 246 Monochrom and an A7III. I get what you’re saying about how the camera in use affects how you see. It’s a different experience."

Mike replies: The NEX-6 recycle symbol does say 10. However, according to the information I found about this, the number refers to the type of polycarbonate plastic the camera is made of, and isn't a prediction of longevity in years. However, the camera is 9 1/2 years old.

Roger replies: "Well we’re both wrong. That symbol with the 10 in it is a RoHS compliance symbol. The plastic recycle symbol tops out at 7.

"At 9 1/2 years old I’d be very leery of that camera’s lead-free solder causing a short circuit."

Mark Sampson: "If Leica (of all manufacturers) can't make a B&W camera with tonality you like, what are the odds that some conversion company will? It's your business to understand these things and then write about them—modifying a camera is just part of the cost of doing business. Convert the older camera, you'll get your answer, at a lower cost."

Extra Credit Question

A camera should make you happy. So I have a brief question. If you've been reading me for a long time and know my tastes, what camera would you recommend for me? I'm being serious, although I know some people will be tempted to make a joke of this.  :-)  It's okay, I won't hold it against you.

And you don't have to take budget into account.

Just curious,

Mike

Book o' the Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Kirk: "The best of all possible worlds. A Leica SL2-S (insanely good high ISO, beautiful files/color at all ISOs) with its simple and elegantly designed menus and operational interface combined with Sigma's i-Series 35mm ƒ/2 lens—which looks perfect on that camera and delivers great, sharp photographs. Even at full retail you could be back on the streets shooting beautiful monochrome images (and superb color images) for comfortably less than $6,000 and never again have to wonder if the Leicas are really all that great. If you are feeling flush with Patreon cash you could go ahead and spring for the 35mm Summicron but I think it's too big and heavy for the kind of work you might want to do. I tend to stick to the Sigmas. The SL series is radically under-appreciated. Or...well...nothing else. Because why settle for less?"

Niels: "I think you need a film camera. One cannot love a digital camera. That’s a fact."

Thomas Walsh: "I don't believe (given what I have read from this blog) that you will be content with a particular camera. For a while you will enjoy it; but eventually something else will appeal to you. Your tastes vary, your interests vary and you are curious about many things. My opinion is that you would be best served to abandon writing about gear and focus on other aspects of photography: techniques, photographers, genres. You know a great deal about those things and a great many more. I am always educated and intrigued to read about what you have devoted your career to learning. Your recent New Yorker piece is a case in point. Anyway, that's my two cents."

Rob Campbell: "Nothing. The best part of GAS, even imaginary GAS, is anticipation and uncertainty. Why spoil that delectable state of suspended climax by actually owning anything? Nobody needs to make photographs; today, one talks about them. Making them is so, well, pedestrian: tradesman’s entrance kind of thing. Be happy; free yourself of having to prove anything, even to yourself."

Stephen S.: "There are technicians who will scrape the Bayer filter off a sensor to turn any camera into a monochrome version, so that's a possibility.

"I bought a Leica T a while back because I wanted to experience the 'single block of aluminum' build of it. I expected to hate using the camera, and I do: image review can't actually be turned off, it has no IBIS, no peaking and the dials can't be assigned logically so manual focus lenses are a pain, the EVF is ridiculous, and other issues...and yet, I absolutely love the results I get from it, especially the B&W profiles, which do something I can't figure out how to recreate on other cameras. The limitations and minimalism actually make it a refreshing change from my other do-everything cameras. It pairs well with the Sigma ƒ/1.4 primes of 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm, or the 18–50mm zoom. The TL2 would solve many of my complaints, but is out of my price range."

Frank Figlozzi: "Leica M Monchrom (Type 246)."

Mark Rouleau: "Ricoh GRIIIx. It's the most fun I've had with a camera, ever. You'd love the lens, which is amazingly flare- and chromatic-abberation-resistant, the image-stabilization for the 'yips' as I believe you call them, and the pocketability. No viewfinder, but does have a hotshoe, which many pocketable cameras no longer have."

Christer Almqvist: "Only if I can also recommend the lens that has to go with it."

Mike replies: You may.

Peter: "Show me six of your best photos and tell at what size they get displayed and I'll point you to a suitable camera."

Mike replies: I don't know about "best," because very little of my film work is digitized and my digital work isn't organized, but you can see three of my pictures in my recent newyorker.com article that are fairly characteristic.

"A Family Chair" (titles are by the editors) was taken with a Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron, and "Xander at 14" and "A Birthday Moment" were both taken with the Konica-Minolta 7D and a Tamron zoom. Most of what I consider my "real" work is B&W.

Here's an example of digital B&W:

Taken with the Fuji X-T1 and XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 and converted with Nik Silver Efex 2.

In the darkroom I had three standard sizes for 35mm prints, although I occasionally departed from those when needed. They were 7x10.5" for most pictures, 5x7.5" for pictures that wanted to be smaller, and 13" wide by whatever it is for prints that wanted to be bigger, all on 11x14 paper. I started printing 7x10.5" because I had a box of 500 sheets of 8.5x11" RC paper once and got to like the slightly larger than 8x10 size.

Roger Bradbury: "I suggest a Leica with a 40mm lens on it, and a couple more lenses; a 28mm and a 90mm. It'll have to be a late model digital one and not a film camera, as you've been led astray by the miracle of pixels.  :-]  Thinking about it, what you'd really like is a sort of digital Minolta/Leica CL...."

Brandon: "Either a Fuji XS-10 or a Ricoh GRIIIx. The Fuji because it’s the right size, it has IBIS, and you already have/enjoy the lenses you’d need. Biggest drawback is that the screen flips out instead of tilting. The Ricoh because it is quite small for having an APS-C sensor and because the fixed lens is 40mm-e. It doesn’t meet the exact specifications of the DMD, but it is in that spirit for sure."

Bear.: "Leica Q2. I passed on the Monochrom as too limiting for a go-to, take-everywhere camera, and also because I’ve become lazy and used to being able to avoid physical filters by just converting colour files when I do want B&W work.

"It took me a long time to work myself up to spending the serious coin it costs and I had doubts about 28mm, since I mostly shoot in the 35mm range. But I’ve both adapted to the wider angle and use the 'digital zoom,' which shooting raw really amounts to no more than automated frame lines for a 35mm FOV. Apart from making sure that always have it on a strap over my neck when carrying or using it, I’ve made no concessions to its cost.

"Probably because I’ve already spent the money, I have convinced myself of its value—it really is such a joy to hold and use as a tool that I often prefer to adapt my images to the tool rather than carry different gear. I think if a Q3 were released with the 60-MP sensor from the M11, I would probably go for it—the extra resolution would give the 50mm 'zoom' enough resolution for it to be a useful tool. And if Leica manages to fit in IBIS or a higher resolution EVF or both, I would definitely be a buyer—I might have to sell the car though!"

Jim Couch: "Simple—Micro 4/3 Olympus OM-1 with the PRO M.Zuiko 20mm ƒ/1.4. Nuff said."

jens: "Contax G2 and free film and development."

Mike replies: If I ever get rich, I'll go back to film and have somebody else do all the work. I spent enough of my life doing that work, frankly.

HVJ: "Long-time reader here. Jettison it all for a Q2. Joyous."

Bruce Polin: "Honestly, whenever you describe your ultimate camera you come very darn close to describing the Hasselblad 907X but, for some reason, you seem to avoid it, which could mean you really might have a crush in it. Have you asked her out yet?"

The Best Bargain Out There Right Now

I came very close to buying another camera yesterday. As close as you can come without actually doing it.

The Canon 5DS R DSLR from 2015—basically a 2012 5D Mark III with a 50.1-MP sensor (which dominated the pixel race in 2015).

It's on blowout sale brand new at B&H Photo for a mere $1,499. Are you kidding me? Considering it listed for $3,900 new, that's beyond a deep discount. Not only is it older now, its strengths matched and exceeded by current competition, but Canon is moving away from DSLRs altogether. The perfect storm for a true blowout sale price. So the former king-of-the-hill prosumer Canon DSLR is now only $100 more than the garden-variety hobbyist 6D Mark II FF that has half as many pixels.

As regular readers know, I've been playing with the iPhone camera a lot lately, and thus I've had a hankering for a while now to balance it out by going the other way. I keep talking about trying a medium format camera, or something else where high quality is part of the point. Something at the other extreme from the phone. You know, so all the ballast isn't over on one side of the hold.

But I didn't know about the blowout price of the 5DS R until Jonathan mentioned it commenting on the "Hypothetical Camera Question" post.

To get a camera that used to cost $3,900 for $1,499 is almost more than my "cheap gene" can pass up. Of course it's not exactly cheap, because I don't need another camera and I know from experience I don't particularly like big SLRs. But I was willing to overlook that because...well, because I overlook practicality when GAS strikes! (If I'm honest.) And the 5DS R is best for one kind of photographer: people who print larger than 13x19". Which I don't. Yet.

Yet?! Be reasonable, Mike.

I think the only thing that will cure my GAS is when they RUN OUT of these. The 5DS's are already gone. Sure the 5DS R's won't be far behind?

I'm still out on the ledge, to be frank. I've been reading reviews for two days. Could it hurt to try it? Just try it? The two little figures on each of my shoulders are whispering into my ears. Don't do it...better hurry...don't do it...better hurry...aaaaaugh....

Mike

ADDENDUM in the light of day early Thursday morning: Take a look at a few pictures. I can't snag them and reproduce them here, so you'll have to click through and see them on flickr. (Left clicking on the link usually gives you an option to open them in a new tab, as you probably know.)

Just look at them holistically...do they work okay as pictures, notwithstanding whether you like them or not? Sharp enough, adequate detail, decent color, unobtrusive bokeh? Do they get across what the photographer was trying to show, do you think?

Cat picture by DizzieMizzieLizzie

HDR Storefront by Gordon McCallum

Small B&W object by Glen Bledsoe

Action shot by Youri Koliada

Kid pic by Gaétan 

We used to say "but how would they print?" except that these days, things usually print better than they look onscreen...we need to pixel peep to tease out the alleged flaws a little better. For instance, this shot by Glen Bledsoe isn't perfect, but it works perfectly well. Nobody minds the slight motion blur, which just indicates, well, motion. It's no worse than 98% of the pictures ever taken in similar situations on film.

Anyway, the upshot is that these were all taken by my current $264 lens, the Sigma 30mm Contemporary, and earlier versions* of my little Sony camera**. When sanity returns I realize I should just take pictures with that, and not get all swept up in the idea of a Canon 5DS R (just because it's "cheap") and EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L (which isn't cheap, except it's a good bargain used).

GAS crisis averted. But it was a close one!

*Respectively: A6500, A6000, A6500, A6000, A6000.

**The A6600.

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Robert: "I have a rule which helps with GAS: 'when in doubt, don't.' If you have waited two days already you are in doubt."

Trevor Johnson: "I bought one from B&H last year. Although I live in the UK, the cost, including all duties, VAT and carriage, came to just under £1,400. And delivery from order to arrival at my doorstep took only three days.

"Why the 5DS R? Because I use the 17mm and 24mm Canon TSE lenses and the 5DS R is still the king of resolution when using them. I have used those lenses on an R5, but the 5DS R has a clear resolution advantage over the R5. It is quite simply a great camera, still extensively used in pro architectural photography."

Jim Kofron: "Buy 10. Think of the money you'll save!!!"

John Camp: "Maybe you don't do big digital prints, but you could—there are all kinds of online printers, and you can get like 24x36 for $65 bucks or so. And it's not like you'd buy a hundred of them, just one now and then when you hit something really good. If you think of yourself as a photographic writer, maybe you need a lot of cameras going through. But if you still foster a photographic picture-taking gene, you should have one good solid high-res camera, that basically you could keep forever."

Alberto Bengoa: "I was in the same boat with the recent closeout discount for the Fuji 50R, originally introduced at $4,500, now sold for $2,800 with a free lens. That's the same price I originally paid for a Canon 5D Mark II in 2009, with a (lackluster) lens thrown in. Long story short, I now own a Fuji 50R."

Ken Bennett: "Don't do it, Mike. Avoid the GAS attack. I have the 5DS and while it was a fine camera, it is nothing really special, and it's 10-year-old tech. The Fuji GFX stuff blows it away."

Tam: "I can’t blame you. I bought an open-box 5DS for something like eleven hundred a few years ago and it’s still my main work camera for product photography and landscapes and portraits and stuff. If you need ninja-level eye focus or ultimate dynamic range for amazing nightscapes there are certainly better choices these days. But if you just need a bangin’ camera body for the buck, it’s hard to beat the 5DS/5DS R."

Aaron: "I chased the high megapixel cameras (for me A7R Mark IV) because I kept thinking 'but what if I want to print large?' In reality I’ve printed larger than 13x19" exactly three times in 20 years of photography. All three are high detailed landscape photos printed at about 24x30 hanging throughout my house. They’re fantastic prints in my humble opinion. I’m still always proud of them every time I walk by. They were all taken with the original Canon 5D—12 MP! So I’ve decided to be happy with my more than capable Micro 4/3 cameras and let the A7R Mark IV go the way of my other completely unrealistic expectations of myself and my photography. (Now check back with me in three months and see if I’ve actually been able to make myself sell the Sony!)"

Bruce Alan Greene: "Go on…get the camera! I’ve been using the 5DS for four years. Bought a used one for…$2,600! It’s a great camera and not so big for me as I often use a 35mm ƒ/2.0 prime lens which is small and lightweight. With 50 MP, one can easily 'zoom' in Photoshop to 50mm or a bit more. Way lighter and smaller than a zoom on a mirror less camera.  :-)  And, dynamic range is better than the reviews describe and I’ve shot many photos at night hand held with success. At the very least, the price of admission will provide content for future stories here!"

Phil Aynsley: "I used the 5DS R professionally for many years, before switching to the R5. It is an excellent camera!"

Gordon R. Brown: "How much is a used Canon 5DS R selling for at Precision Camera in Austin, Texas? A recent Visual Science Lab blog post had pictures of the display cases there filled with used DSLRs that no one wanted. I suspect you could buy one there for less than the new price at B&H Photo."

[Link added by Ed.  —Ed.]

Geoff Wittig: "Hah. Don't do it, Mike. Don't get me wrong, I love the 5DS R. I own two of them, complete with battery grip, L-brackets and lots of lenses, and I still use them all the time. They still yield great results—with a giant asterix. You can get wonderful high resolution files that print beautifully right up to 24x36", if you work within its limits. This older sensor does not like high ISO; noise in the shadows is annoying by ISO 400. Any camera movement will instantly degrade the image, so you must have the camera bolted to a heavy, solid tripod; and use mirror lock-up with a cable release; and focus very carefully. The small apertures needed to maximize depth of field and the low ISO limits mean long shutter speeds, which in turn means waiting patiently for the wind to stop blowing before tripping the shutter. Oh, and it's big and heavy. So there's that. And it doesn't have IBIS. I don't think it will be a good match for your style of documentary, slice-of-life photography. If you didn't bond with the Nikon or Sony full-frame hi-res DSLRs, you won't like this one either."

The Goldilocks 'Just Right' Camera

When we parted on Friday, I promised to propose the Goldilocks camera, for the sake of argument. Something ideal in the middle of the medium-format digital 44x33 cameras and high-megapixel FF cameras on the one hand, and the latest smartphones with their smartcameras on the other. Not that there's anything wrong with those.

The OM System Olympus-badged OM-1

The just-right point, I think, where everything is in balance, the happy medium, is the OM System "Olympus"* OM-1.

Read what Kristine Hinrichs said in her comment to the "Hypothetical Camera Question" post:

I’m still getting great results with my Micro 4/3 system—currently the new OM-1. I can shoot 80 MP tripod-mounted if I need it, or 50 MP, handheld, using the high-res modes. I have had images from other Olympus models printed as large as 10x17 feet and 4x6 feet. These cameras are lighter and more reasonably priced. So many people use 'shooting FF only' as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism. For my work, I’d rather be able to easily shoot handheld 2–3 seconds and up to 6-ish seconds if I take a deep breath, than shoot larger files.

If you have not looked at it, the OM-1 is really a big jump in performance and image quality. When you get through all of the specs to real use, the dynamic range is much better and the images have a special quality.

Meanwhile, in the same thread, Mike Peters said:

My Micro 4/3 system already out-resolves, is sharper, and has more dynamic range than my 35mm Kodachrome slides and my 120 Fujichromes. Everyone was happy with that stuff back in the day. Rarely does more capability in anyone's camera make for more interesting photographs. [If] you work on a tripod and are looking to recreate what you got with a view camera, and need to print very large, then sure, more is always better. And for that, I have a built-in high res mode that'll get me there on my G9's and GH6's. But for the average shooter out there, [medium format is] like driving a Ferrari in rush hour traffic in NYC.

I'd get the OM-1 with the excellent OM System 12–100mm ƒ/4 as well as a "nested"** normal or normal-wide prime. The former has all the range I'd ever need and superb dual-IS, and the latter makes the camera much smaller and more portable as a walking-around camera. If you don't need such a long zoom, OM System has a very high quality fast normal zoom, the 12–40mm (24–80mm-e) ƒ/2.8 Mark II. 

Here are few more advantages of the OM-1:

• Small and light
• Superb sensor with extreme high FPS capabilities
• 20 MP is a "Goldilocks" number as well (just ask Nikon)
• Highly weatherproof
• Excellent IBIS
• Great viewfinder, reportedly
• Excellent AF
• High-res modes, some available handheld (Kristine mentioned this)
• There's a hobbyist's cornucopia of Micro 4/3 lenses from a number of companies

Of course the Fuji X-T4 is an excellent alternative to the OM-1 (both have that darned flip-out videographer-centric viewing screen that I dislike, but I'm much unhappier with Fuji for its version, on account of the X-T2 and X-T3 had achieved the perfect viewing screen and then Fuji threw it away), and there are others.

Is smaller better or worse?
And now we come to a touchy subject. Four-Thirds (13.5 x 18mm) was introduced in 2003, and I was an early supporter from the get-go. The reason is that I think it's an advantage to have a sensor smaller than 24 x 36mm (a.k.a. 35mm, a.k.a. 135). You get a narrower angle of view from the same lens focal length, which I consider an advantage; the lenses can be smaller and lighter and brighter because they have less to cover, which I consider an advantage; and you get more depth-of-field for the same aperture, which I consider an advantage. I've always thought it a plus for digital that cameras can be designed to have smaller-than-35mm sensors. It was something we always wanted with film—cameramakers kept trying to make film sizes smaller—but it turned out 24x36mm was a practical minimum for film. With APS-C and Micro 4/3 we were freed of that limitation. That was and is a good thing.

And it's a good thing I've always been loathe to relinquish. Faced with the choice:

[Micro 4/3 or APS-C] vs. [FF or medium format]

...I usually choose the option on the left. I did own two FF cameras along the way (the Sony A900 and Nikon D800), but neither of them made it to the status of my everyday go-to "axe" for whatever reason. Other than that I've almost entirely chosen Micro 4/3 or APS-C cameras for my personal use over the past 16 years. All three of my current cameras are APS-C.

But not everybody agrees with that viewpoint.

If you want a 24x36mm sensor, compare the OM-1 with the Nikon Z5:

(Image courtesy CameraSize)

As you can see they're about the same size. Both have nice big grips. The effective focal length (angles of view) of those lenses is the same, the Nikkor being slower at the long end, counterbalanced by better higher-ISO performance. The Nikon is 76 g (about 2.7 ounces) heavier; the Nikkor lens is actually only 9 g heavier. The Z5 is a little simpler, which—again in my book but maybe not in yours—is a plus. Bigger plus: you can get that Z5 and lens and a card and a bag for less than the cost of the OM-1 body alone. Although price sensitivity might not be much of an issue for you with expensive cameras.

I personally like 40mm as a walkaround focal length, and Micro 4/3 has two options there, the 20mm Panasonic and the highly corrected 20mm ƒ/1.4 OM System. Nikon has the new ultralight 40mm ƒ/2 Z lens (only 170 g / 6 oz.), which effectively makes the camera smaller and lighter. So, really, you can get an equivalent FF camera with not much if any penalty, presuming that's what you prefer.

Again, it doesn't matter to me that the OM-1 isn't smaller and lighter than a "full-frame" camera, because I think the smaller sensor is an advantage and I would prefer it. But your mileage may vary***.

Image quality
This is bound to be controversial, but I also prefer the image quality of the Micro 4/3 to FF. It's not quite as smooth or detailed, but it has more "bite" and subjectively gives an impression of greater sharpness. I like it better, all else being equal. Note that I don't make large prints (13 x 19" paper is the largest). It's a matter of taste.

Conclusion
After I wrote the "Goldilocks" post I heard it from a few M10 shooters (no, I have no hate for the M10, quite the contrary), and if you haven't seen Stephen Scharf's comment in the Comments Section of the "Goldilocks" post defending the iPhone 13, go look at it. No hate for that either; I have one. And there are many cameras out there and I'm not the expert on what other people should buy. This is just my opinion. And of course Micro 4/3 is on the outs in terms of popularity, with Olympus having bailed on its camera division and Panasonic busy vigorously filling in an entire FF line. (I'm also very unhappy with Panasonic, for abandoning the GX8 instead of making a GX8 Mark II.)

But to me, the OM-1 hits the Goldilocks Principle nail right smack on the head. It's the best all-'rounder for everything and anything. To me, it makes more sense than an iPhone, and it makes more sense than a FF or larger-than-FF camera.

I'm guessing you will have an opinion about that, so let 'er rip, I'm ready.

Mike

*It's not made by Olympus. It's to be the last Olympus-branded camera and was called that as a 50th-anniversary homage to the original Olympus OM system, which debuted with the compact film Olympus OM-1 in 1971. I want the next one, with "OM System" blazed on the front. And please, call it the OMS-1...it's the age of the internet, and things need searchable names. Don't we know that yet?

**A "nested" prime is one with a focal length within the focal length range of the zoom.

***You have to use that phrase in every camera comparo; it's an internet rule. 

Book o' the Week

Grit and Grace: Women at Work in the Emerging World. Unfortunately, this will be the posthumous swan song of the indefatigable documentarian Alison Wright, whose untimely death at 60 in the Azores this year meant she never got to see it published. Wright's photography was inextricably entwined with her life's dedication to social justice, a sense of acceptance of humanity, and a roving search for beauty and color.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

SteveW: "My iPhone is my standard zoom with a range of 13–77mm equivalent. And longer if necessary with digital zoom. My nested lens is a Fuji X-T4 with a 33mm ƒ/1.4 or 23mm ƒ/2. Currently, I have more fun with the iPhone which is always with me. Everything about it is easy."

SW Rick: "I can see the flame-throwers being ignited as we speak.  :-) "

Mike replies: Nah, we're nice to each other around here. Our little corner of civility on the web. 

James: "For what it's worth, I’ve had no problem getting Micro 4/3 images accepted into juried all-media art shows and selling prints at my local gallery. And that’s with lesser models—E-M10 Mark II and E-M5 Mark III."

Benjamin Marks: "Not much rests on agreeing or disagreeing about a specific piece of gear. But having said that, I absolutely love the OM-1. I have one that I use with Olympus primes that I originally bought to use with an earlier Micro 4/3 camera. I use a Pen-F as a back-up/second body when I am out with it. No zooms. Lenses are 12mm, 17mm, 20mm, 45mm, 50mm, and 60mm, and I usually carry four or five (they weigh almost nothing). The 45mm and Panasonic 20mm are the magic lenses of that group for me.

"I have that larger Pentax K-1 and I have a Leica M-9. But for photographing my family, or the streets of New York City, the combination of in-body stabilization, AF, a silent motor drive mode, and low-light IQ good enough that it has never been the limiting factor for my photography really puts it in the Goldilocks zone for me, of 'just right.'

"If I am having someone over for a portrait session, the Pentax definitely comes out. But for traveling around in the world, the OM-1 is really a treat. I am thinking of buying a spare in case the company now making them 'goes away' at some point."

Aaron: "I use Micro 4/3 and the OM-1. I also have a Sony A7RIV. Perhaps surprisingly, in marginal light for landscapes I prefer Micro 4/3 for the simple reasons that I can shoot at ƒ/5.6 and get roughly the same depth of field as ƒ/11 on the full frame. In addition, as you note, the stabilization is great—I routinely get an extra stop or two compared to the Sony. Put those together and I routinely shoot the OM-1 at a 3–4 stop faster ISO than the Sony. So much for the full frame advantage (at least in marginal light without a tripod)."

Dan D: "Micro 4/3 really made photography fun for me. The size is ideal for travel and street photography. I carry a Lumix G9 in a Kiva street bag with an Olympus 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 and a Lumix 20mm ƒ/1.7. I prefer the Lumix menus over the Olympus as I felt Olympus's were not very intuitive. After selling all my Nikon cameras and lenses I haven't looked back. The Lumix G9 hits the Goldilocks spot in my hands."

Daniel J. Cox: "I’ve been shooting Micro 4/3 cameras since 2008. Full time since about 2015. You did a fabulous job pointing out the many benefits of Micro 4/3 and in particular the new OM-1. But by far the best line in your review was Kristine's: 'So many people use "shooting FF only" as some sort of outdated badge of professionalism.' Absolutely dead nuts on! Could not have said it better myself and Ive been shooting professionally for over 40 years. The OM-1 is a tremendous camera."

Dave Levingston: "That OM-1 is more camera than I need...and apparently about the same size and weight as my Z7II. I'm enjoying working with the Z7II, but find myself frequently just reaching for the Panasonic GX8's for anything where I don't feel the need for the higher pixel count. If only Panasonic would make a worthy successor to the GX8 with a higher pixel count sensor.... At any rate, I won't be getting rid of the Micro 4/3 kit, though the Z7 is here to stay as well. But I do agree that M 4/3 is the Goldilocks system."

Fulvio Senore: "About normal zooms for micro 4/3 don't forget the Olympus 12-45 mm f/4. It's cheaper, smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 one. I use it with my GX9: I don't care if it is slower and I am very satisfied."

Pak Ming Wan: "No problems with this choice at all. My GH5 Micro 4/3 at 20MP is plenty good enough. Micro 4/3 arguably pioneered the whole mirrorless march (even though the maturity in the market now is more even across the board). The new OM-1 I think is much more camera than I'll ever need. For the record, I feel like my GH5 is the Ferrari and my Leica M-Monochrome is my Ford Focus."

Brunell Val: "My Goldilocks system is Fuji X-T2. If I had to start over, I might migrate to Nikon FF mirrorless. Seems weird that Canon and Sony are hardly mentioned, as I perceive them to be the commercial/innovation market leaders based on reading elsewhere on the Web."

John: "What’s missing in your comparison with the Nikon is that the OM-1 is much, much more camera than that Nikon. The OM-1 is on par with the top cameras of the other brands, except for a smaller sensor. Plus, it uses computational photography that other cameras don’t offer."