The Online Photographer

Hand Me That 750-Page IB, Please

I was reading "Chapter One: Don't Panic!" of Gary L. Friedman's The Friedman Archives Guide to Sony's Alpha 6100 and 6600 the other day, and came across this:

Cameras are literally more complex and harder to learn than computers these days. How much worse does it have to get before camera companies realize they are a.) sucking all the joy out of camera ownership and b.) alienating even geeky/maven customers? I'm alienated. I want a stripper model of the A6600 (and no, not a cheapened one like the A6100. They're both in limbo now anyway, with production stopped because of supply-chain bottlenecks). I don't even care if it's the same price, although it would make sense to price it a couple of hundred dollars less. Just make it so the book about it is 75 pages instead of 750 and can be handled by ordinary, normal paperback printing companies. I'd be happier.

Is it too much to ask for just a few non-hybrid cameras?

For those of you who will inevitably say "everyone wants fewer features but everybody wants different features," please consider two things: 1. the A6600 isn't even a pro model, and it's not even part of Sony's top line, which would be its FF cameras. It's a consumer camera aimed at amateurs. And 2. I'm not suggesting that Sony eliminate the full-featured version. I'm suggesting a stripper model alongside the "regular" model. A you-pays-your-money-you-takes-your-choice type of situation.

Would it be a commercially successful product? Probably not, and again I can list two reasons: 1. They'd blow it, because none of the companies have any experience streamlining the UI. It's not in their DNA, not part of their culture. They'd try, and get it wrong. And 2. It goes against the established customer culture, especially on, but not limited to, YouTube and the internet, which can't talk about any product without making it a competition between features lists. Oh well.

Regardless, I'm firmly convinced the camera companies have painted themselves into a corner with respect to complexification. By making their products "better" and "better," they're making them less and less appealing to buyers. The only exception is Leica, which continues to make some of its products simple and simple to operate—with no imitators, sadly. (Well, I guess Apple is another exception. It has to be counted as a cameramaker too now.)

Even Porsche made the Carrera T, a stripped-down, super-light 911. Of course, Porsche being Porsche, it cost more. (Charging more is Porsche's version of charging less.)

And the kicker here: it amuses me that Gary L. Friedman is literally a rocket scientist. He used to work at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Does it take a rocket scientist to comprehensively understand every aspect of the A6600? Q.E.D., baby, Q.E.D.

Mike

Book o' the Week
Eye and Brain by Richard Gregory, Fifth Edition. "As far as I know nothing in the past 50 years is a better explanation of how humans see." —Hugh Crawford

The link is a portal to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

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:

New Leica M11 Announced

[Comments have been added.]

The new-old M11

Leica just released the M11, and a new rangefinder M Leica is always going to be an occasion. The "pixel-binning" Leica can be shot at full resolution of 60 megapixels, a super-low-noise and even-higher-DR resolution of 18 MP, or halfway in between the two for either the best or worst of both extremes depending on how you look at it.

The price is an eye-watering nine grand, although my handy inflation calculator tells me that would have been $868 in 1954 when the first Leica M, the M3, came to be. Google fails me, but I believe the actual dollar cost of the M3 in 1954 was between $200 and $300. Then again, this one does more. And in 1954, the "sensor" was only available separately and represented an ongoing cost, so take that.

My outsider's opinion of the M digitals is that Leica first got it really right with the M10. The M11 builds on that.

The new camera features 64 GB of internal storage for simultaneous capture, or backup in case you fill up your last card, or even for shooting without a card if you're brave that way. Nice.

Another big change: not only does the M11 not have a removable bottom plate (a thing I always thought was kinda dumb on the digital M's even though—or maybe because—it mimicked the historical film cameras), it doesn't even have a door for the battery compartment. The cover is integrated with the battery as on some other Leicas. You just stick the battery in and it cleverly locks in place. The upgraded battery has 64% more capacity than the M10's, too. I can tell you a beefier battery is something I really appreciate with my A6600*.

The silver model has the desirable-to-some brass top plate, whereas the black version has a top plate made of aluminum and weighs less because of it.

Multi-segment evaluative metering is offered for the first time in an M camera. I always liked that, too...I'm so old I used it in the Nikon FA (1983), the first camera that had it. Well, there were some earlier approximations, but it came of age in the FA.

A new menu system debuts in the M11.

The camera has so many pixels that it offers in-camera electronic zoom (that's what it's called, right? zoom-by-crop) for use in a pinch—or maybe if you can't afford that longer lens you want. A new Visoflex 2 EVF ($740) will also fit the M10, and it's tiltable, a capability I used a lot and loved on the Panasonic GX8. Also nice.

Leica M11 with 35mm ƒ/2 and Visoflex 2 EVF. The
items in this picture represent $17,930 on the hoof.

On the traditional side, it's still manual focus—and still a true rangefinder to the manor born. Any M-mount lens new or old can be fitted. And, of course, those whose muscle memory for shooting was formed on film Leicas and then reinforced on the M11's predecessors (hi Peter) will feel right at home.

Altogether: looks really yummy. Don't forget to send me your old M10 when you get yours, okay?

Mike

*Which Sony has temporarily stopped manufacturing because of the pandemic, so if you want one you'd better grab one.

Book o' the Week
American Geography by Matt Black, a great name for a photographer but a terrible internet name, impossible to search. Stan Banos calls American Geography a "handsome, well thought out and put together book." Matt's work is outstanding.

The link is a portal to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

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:

Ernest Zarate: "Like Ralph Gipson says in the video linked to the M11 page at B&H, I too have found a camera that is 'capable of anything I was capable of asking it to do.' It’s not a Leica. I had my affair with a M6 back in the '80s. But I will confess the M11 makes me just a tad woozy and a bit weak in the knees when I look at it. Maybe it’s the stratospheric price tag, but I think it’s more the camera itself. Very handsome! I could easily afford it by liquidating some of the boys' college funds. Would that be selfish of me…? Yeah. I can dream though."

Joel Bartlett: "My introduction to the Leica M was the M8, the first digital M. My experience can be summed up in Longfellow’s poem 'There was a little girl.' …When she was good, She was good indeed, But when she was bad she was horrid. But I love my Leica CL."

'Stop Switching'

[Comments have been added.]

That's the advice of Thom Hogan of ByThom.com, who says your New Year's resolution should be to never switch camera systems again.

He makes the case for it. Charting some of the real switching dilemmas of the past, he concludes, "there's now no clear benefit. All you're doing is showing your angst and wasting money."

I also noted this sentence in passing:

"Oh, you switchers all tried lens adapters, because that seemed to be a solution that kept you from buying new lenses, but I've been amused as person after person attempting that trick quickly tires of it and succumbs to new mount lens buying."

He has further comments along that line, but let's not steal his thunder—you can read his article for yourself. I merely wanted to point out that this has been my observation over many years too. That's why I'm always advising people to make sure that all the lenses they want are available in the lensmount of the camera system they choose. Every time I say it, I hear from those few people who are happy using adapted lenses, bless 'em, but that doesn't change the fact that most people who count on using adapted lenses "quickly tire of it" once they actually have to take pictures that way.

Thom makes specific prescriptions for users of specific brands, too, in which the phrase "just get better at using it" keeps recurring. Sobering thought...that we should just get better at using what we already have. What a concept. The guy's no fun.

Another good recent Thom post: "2022 Is Going to See Changes."

Makes me want to...switch
So, when you read this post, was your reaction a.) to think of course I'm not going to switch, I already have what I want, or b.) to anxiously start thinking about switching again?

I'm in group "b," but then I'm a nut when it comes to cameras. Too old to change now*.  :-)

Mike

*Not really, but that's my handy excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Book o' the Week

American Geography by Matt Black, a great name for a photographer but a terrible internet name, impossible to search. Stan Banos calls American Geography a "handsome, well thought out and put together book." Matt's work is outstanding.

The link is a portal to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

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:

Ben Marks: "I had to laugh at Thom's idea, because it contains an unstated assumption that the relevant question is 'either this or that' and not 'why not this, but also that?'

"And let me just tip my hand here: I have Nikons and Leicas, a Fuji XPro-1 and an Olympus OM-D, a Pentax K1 and.... Well, you get the idea. And yeah, I am a bit of a photo gear hoarder. But the mortgage is paid and the kids aren't hungry, so....

"I do endorse the idea that no single piece of gear will be the one that makes you happy. But being able to take pictures in lots and lots of different situations, and with lots of different 'looks'? That has been shown, historically, to make me very, very happy. So when a piece of gear comes along that promises to add to those capabilities? Let's just say I have my eye on you, Nikon Z9."

Steve Biro: "If the purpose of one's involvement in photography is strictly to produce images, if one is a professional photographer or if one is attempting to do photography on a tighter budget, then what Thom writes is absolutely correct. But if photography is also an enthusiasm, if one is also a gear enthusiast or if one becomes bored periodically, one system isn't going to cut it. Over the years, my personal solution was to simultaneously run two systems that were different enough to make it interesting. I would gradually update bodies (usually as a camera maker would bring out the next generation) and add lenses to keep them reasonably current. For a while, when Micro 4/3 came out, I was running three systems. I could afford that at the time but not as I head for retirement. I'll probably go down to one main system (likely Fuji) with one full-frame body and two or three lenses to go with that.

"But if practicality is paramount, Thom Hogan has it right."

John Krumm: "I find that I yearn to switch every so often. The first switch was the hardest. It gets easier from there. I'm neck deep in keywording, re-organizing, and occasionally re-processing all my digital images since around 2008 when I bought an Olympus 420 and a 14–42mm kit lens. I get to revisit my history of switching, from the 4/3 cameras, then Micro 4/3, then Pentax K1, then Ricoh GRII, then various Fuji mirrorless cameras. Each had their charms. Got my eye on a Panasonic S5, which looks pretty sweet, but I'm resisting so far. "

John Krill: "I switched from Nikon DX cameras to Fujifilm X series cameras for one reason only. I wanted to use prime lenses. Wide to normal. And not the fastest (waste of money). I got them and I love them and the cameras. Especially my current everyday camera, the Fujifilm X-E4. I stopped using the X-Pro2 and it is now my backup. Hell of a backup, no? Anyway, I am very happy with Fujifilm cameras and primes lenses and have no desire to switch to anything else."

Joe Holmes: "I have reached the point where I can't see ever being disappointed shooting with my four-year-old Nikon D850, or my even-older collection of lenses. But to answer your question, yes, that does make me sad. I miss the thrill of new equipment."

Rick Popham: "Thom has an unusually clear-headed approach to gear advice in this age of Internet influencers. But I love switchers! Back in the day when my favorite camera store was still around, and Nikon and Canon kept leapfrogging each other, I got a lot of used Nikon gear in very nice shape. The source was a wealthy dentist who would trade in his gear and switch systems each time one frog would leap over the other. The guys at the store used to call me whenever 'Dr. D.' would start talking about the latest Canon releases (I shot Nikon).

"Nowadays I shoot mostly Micro 4/3, but would really like to trade in my Nikon F gear to try some of the new Nikon Z stuff. I guess that's a big enough change to call it a 'switch.'"

Kirk: "I didn't know that switching systems was a bad thing. I always thought it was fun and kept the process fresh and interesting. I guess I know better now. I wonder what other pursuit we can find to suck the fun out of next."

Mike adds: Kirk has been, um, known to switch from time to time. That's the problem of being a blogger...everybody knows your business!

Zack S: "I have a decent Fujifilm system; an X-T2 and six Fuji lenses which I acquired over a long period of time. Have two different pinholes for it and a zoneplate too, all in Fuji mount. The only adapted lens I have is a Holga lens in a Nikon mount and the adapter for it, but they do not work well together. Never really understood the whole adapted lens thing. When I got into the Fuji system I sold all of my Nikon things to avoid using adapted lenses. After all, what works better with a camera then lenses designed to be used with it?"

Hank: "I shoot a lot with old Leica rangefinders—I have II and a IIIa that I enjoy using very much, and the results, technically anyway, are really top notch. But I also keep my 'old' Nikon FM3a, partially because it really is a much 'better' camera than the Leicas (it does a lot more, more simply), but mostly because I seem to get more pleasing results out of it more often. With digital, I seem to be the opposite—the cameras which do more confound me a little, and they are less enjoyable to use. My little Ricoh GR III (and now GR IIIx) always seem to punch above their weight, and I end up with more interesting shots using them. Maybe it is because I expect less, or maybe because I am just more relaxed shooting them. Whatever the reason, I like 'em!

"All of which means that there is little out there now that appeals to me. I just sold my Panasonic S5. It was an excellent camera, and very good with my old Leica lenses, but never felt 'right.' I see no need to replace it with another camera of its ilk. I am beginning to learn, at nearly 60 years of age, that certain cameras do one thing very well, and once you figure out what it is, you’re golden. It’s a very personal thing, and no reviewer out there has the same needs that I do (apparently!)."

Huw Morgan: "I think the joy is slowly disappearing from the camera market just like it did for the PC market. When technology was advancing in leaps and bounds, switching cameras and computers was fun. Each switch brought a measurable jump in functionality, whether it was autofocus speed, compute speed or portability. Now that we've reached maturity in both areas of technology, a change brings little in the way of any wow factor. Right now, I think anyone would be very hard-pressed to pick a winner between a Nikon z6II, a Canon R6, and a Sony a7 IV. The pain of switching is huge compared to the tiny advantages one platform might enjoy over another.

"On the computer front, I recently upgraded from a 6 year-old desktop with a seventh generation Intel processor to a new desktop with a 12th generation Intel processor. The difference was marginal. Compared to the 'good old days' when Moore's law was in full swing, the upgrade was disappointing. The fun of technology has shifted to other areas like virtual reality and electric cars. Photography is no longer a technology race; it's back to being a profession and an art form where expertise matters more than tech."

Pak Ming Wan: "That comment about the lens adapter is so true. I bought a Pentax-K-to-Micro-4/3 adapter, with speed booster (i.e. it reduces slightly the focal length magnification) and used it for about a week or two. I finished by buying the lens I really wanted in Micro 4/3 (the Panasonic-Leica 15mm ƒ/1.7) and I haven't looked back. I haven't seen any advancements in camera technology that might make me switch. This is also supported by viewing Salgado's exhibition of 'Amazon' in London, where you can see his prints based on 2010s technology or earlier. They look perfectly fine to me."

Screamin' Sale on Fuji LF

(Fuji calls digital medium format large format, and I agree with and support that term. Nice to have some company as I go tilting at terminological windmills.)

Hmm, look, I did it again. I've got to stop starting posts with parentheticals. I should also stop making Don Quixote references, although it is thought to be the best-selling trade book of the past 13.8 billion years*.

The great news now is that there's a Fuji with the 33x44mm, 51-MP sensor, whatever you want to call it, for fifteen hundred bucks off this holiday season. The 50R is now for sale at a bargain three grand. (I've linked to Amazon because our friends at B&H are off for Shabbat until sundown tomorrow, Saturday—but here's their link too.)

The Fujifilm GFX 50R, here seen with the 50mm-equivalent 63mm lens

The hot and hot-selling Fuji large format camera at the moment is the GFX 50S II, which features the 51-MP sensor in the same body as the 100S and has five-axis sensor-shift image stabilization. However, the 50R (2018) at this nice, nice price would give the newer camera (2021) more than a run for its money if I were the customer.

Of course it's not just three grand. You need another thousand dollars for the 50mm (40mm-e) basic lens I would get. Or $2,300 for the 32–64mm 2X zoom, at 25–50mm-e basically an "adjustable 35mm" as far as I'm concerned. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd jump on this if I only could. Screamin' deal.

Mike

*I.e., all time. 13.8 billion years is thought to be the approximate age of the Universe, by current hominid-brain calculations.

Book o' the Week

This is the book that sold 1,100 copies through our links, back when it first came out in 2007. It's essentially a catalogue raisonné of the work of the iconic American landscapist. I suppose it won't sell any more, since everyone already has a copy, but the link can be a portal to Amazon for your holiday shopping. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

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:

Alan Whiting: "Coincidentally, Don Quixote came up for me recently. I tutor High School students, and mentioned DQ to an upper-level Spanish student. He'd never heard of the book or the character. A survey of my students over the next week showed twenty knew nothing of the old knight, to one who had. It's not just cultural; the one student was of Indian extraction, the rest included several of European ancestry. A niece and nephew know nothing about him. Somehow Don Quixote disappeared from American culture across one generation. Would Xander recognise the reference? (I wrote a short blog about this.)"

Earl Dunbar: "Personally, I really like your opening parentheticals—I think they’re fun even if I might tire of them. Eventually. But not right away.

"I’ve never handled a Fuji large format, other than Fujinon LF lenses, so I can’t say how I’d like not having an optical viewfinder. But you are absolutely right to choose the 40mm-e lens. That’s the one I would get and never mount any other."

Patrick Perez: "It does seem like a good price. My question is more about what advantage in the real world the larger sensor would give over a 24x36mm sensor at essentially the same pixel count. I'm guessing that current LF sensors are a step behind the latest FF sensors in technology. Notwithstanding the X-Trans filter array, which may be an advantage or disadvantage for certain photographers, does the larger sensor get you anything? Asking because I might buy my last camera in the next 18–24 months, and want to know how to decide."

Five (Unrelated) Camera Questions

[Comments are posted! Tuesday 10:30 a.m.]

-

1: Controversy!
In the previous post, I thought the controversial Principle would be the Second one, "Buy the best camera you can afford." But no. Going by the comments, it appears it was the First Principle, "Use the biggest camera you can carry," that caused all the ruckus. So, a question for you: Should the First Principle actually be:

"Use the biggest camera you can [comfortably(?)] carry,"

or

"Use the smallest camera that gives you what you want"?

I've phrased it "what you want" because that would have to encompass both results and performance. There's overlap, but they aren't quite the same thing. If the camera misses a feature you need, or has slow focusing, then it's not what you want because it can't give you the results you need in certain situations...even if it does in other situations.

I think actually the second option above is what I've almost always done. What do you think?

(Aside: My guess is that many people who shoot with big cameras such as the Leica S3 or Fuji GFX 100S or Nikon Z9 actually are using the smallest cameras that give them what they desire...whether it's results or capabilities. And pros don't carry big rigs to show off. They need what those cameras can do and they wouldn't be happy with anything smaller / less capable. I think this was true of people who used Pentax 6x7's and Linhof Technikas and Nikon F5's in the film days, too. John Sexton uses a Linhof 4x5; I'm pretty sure it's the smallest camera that gives him the results he desires. I guess we could ask.)  

2: AF film camera?
Say you wanted to shoot 35mm film. Say your eyes aren't what they used to be and you realize you could benefit from autofocus. So the question is: in 2021, which vintage autofocus 35mm film camera(s) would head up your eBay shopping list?

(Aside: I don't believe a single interchangeable-lens AF 35mm film camera is currently made or offered for sale, am I wrong? Since I last looked, a plethora of ultra-cheap film point-and-shoots have cropped up like mushrooms in a wet lawn, but those are more like toys than usable cameras. Or let's be kind and call them novelty products.)

3: What's the best Nikon for bird photography?
I've offered my nephew David a Nikon telephoto for his bird photography, an 80–400mm. It was a donation from a reader and I thought I'd pass it on. He wants to know which Nikon body would be best for the lens, for birds. Beyond recommending APS-C to extend the effective reach of the lens to 120–600mm-equivalent, I really don't know—I've never been into either critter photography or longer telephotos, so the lay of the land isn't familiar to me.

Any suggestions, from Nikonian critter shooters?

(Aside:  I took one brief stab at bird photography while I was testing the Fuji 100–400mm, and gained a new appreciation for it—it's harder than I imagined. You need a fast camera. Fast, fast, fast. David and his wife have two little boys and he's a teacher, though, so I'm thinking the choice needs to be budget-conscious too. It seems to me like the D7500 would be the ideal recommendation. Recommending the D500 might make even better sense, but it might be like saying "You should buy a Ferrari 599.")

4: What are you really missing?
If you use a mainstream, middle-o'-the-road, mid-priced-but-good camera, what are you really missing by not having one of the flagship, line-leading, best-of-the-best models? More and more, manufacturers tout improvements and capabilities that just don't apply to me, and hence, don't interest me, and hence, don't tempt me.

(Aside: Speaking of that old piece on the Ferrari 599, which still amuses me, I'm 100% certain I would not want a "supercar" or a high-end luxury car even if I could afford it. The insane level of electronificomplication and all the fripperies, gewgaws, excess features, maddening complexity, and needless capabilities don't even speak to my tastes, values, or preferences. My daydreams extend first to a new Miata and then—in fantasy only—to a Porsche Boxster, and no further. But the same is not quite true with cameras. Medium format digital does nag at me a little. I've said I'm going to test a medium-format camera sometimes in the near future but I admit I'm scared to request it—scared I'll like it!)

5: Fuji vs. Micro 4/3, who wins?
I've long thought the two most recommendable options for hobbyists are either Micro 4/3 or Fuji X—and that, of those two, Micro 4/3 won, largely because of all the lenses available for it. Has that situation changed now? I don't know, it just seems to me like Micro 4/3 is in full-on retreat now and that Fuji X has pretty much taken over the top spot as the No. 1 most recommendable system recommendation for hobbyists...with no real competition.

Your thoughts?

(Aside: I know we're not supposed to say that Olympus is gone, because OM System is a company that exists and they're going to try to make a go of it. But OM System is like an overgrown kid who got kicked out of his rich parents' large and opulent mansion—his lifestyle is in for a painful adjustment. He's going to have to make his own rent. All of it. No more sponging off the parents and afternoons by the pool. And Panasonic seems to have dropped Micro 4/3 like a hot potato, while it gleefully concentrates all its energy, resources, and enthusiasm on FFM. Yeah, I know, there's lots of juicy Micro 4/3 stuff still around, but—well, ever heard the phrase "lame duck"? Set me straight if you disagree.)

Mike

P.S. For this post, I'll limit Featured Comments to people who concentrate on only one question. Maybe two. I know some amongst the Commentariat will be tempted to expound on all five, and that's fine, but you'll find those in the full Comments Section.

Book o' the Week

Our National Monuments: America's Hidden Gems by Q.T. Luong. Just out! Brand new. Publishing isn't easy. Our friend QT (Tuan) Luong tells me that his new book will have to sell 6,200 copies out of a print run of 7,500 just to break even! And that's not including the labor and time it took to make the photographs. Fortunately, the predecessor book, Treasured Lands, has done exceedingly well. It has won 12 international awards and is now in its 6th printing.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Rick in CO [1]: "Smallest camera with the biggest sensor!"

Sharon [1]: "Re '(Aside: My guess is that many people who shoot with big cameras such as the Leica S3 or Fuji GFX 100S or Nikon Z9 actually are using the smallest cameras that give them what they desire...whether it's results or capabilities. And pros don't carry big rigs to show off. They need what those cameras can do and they wouldn't be happy with anything smaller / less capable.' This is it exactly for me. I don't even think about the weight of the 100S. It does what I need it to do."

Andre Y [1]: "Dan Winters's latest Instagram post is an interesting demonstration of 'use the biggest camera you can carry' where he climbed up a very tall redwood tree with a 4x5 film camera and lighting equipment to make a portrait. Winters operates at a rarified level, literally and figuratively, and most people don't need to do what he does, but it was still interesting to see what one working photographer does."

Mike replies: Mind. Completely. Blown. I have tears in my eyes after the senseless tragedy in my former hometown—I moved to Waukesha, Wisconsin (pronounced WOK-uh-shaw) because it seemed like a great place to raise a kid, and Xander grew up there and still has many friends there. It was always a safe town—much lower than average crime rate, nice people who were friendly but didn't mind your business. To imagine the cheery "Dancing Grannies" of Waukesha (and oh, I know their type) mindlessly run down and killed during a parade meant to celebrate the joy of Christmas is just a savage body blow to my faith in the basic decency of humanity. Evil, evil, evil. And all those blameless broken little ones in the hospital...it is literally excruciating to think about. Anguishing.

But then there's that astonishing Instagram post you've brought us—the woman who spent that incredible number of days in the tree to save it (I cannot imagine living in a tree for one night), the photographer carrying a 4x5(!) to the treetop to make that beautiful picture—well, it blows my mind. A salve and a restorative. What an astonishing, amazing thing all around. One which also seems quintessentially, quixotically human. "Thanks, I needed that."

Richard Man [1]: "One thing that I have been chasing since the earliest days of my photography pursuit is the tonal values. I love shades of grey! It's for that reason that I am now shooting with an 8x10 camera. I will probably stop at 8x10 unless I get into something really huge like 20x24 or larger (wetplate). It's easy to scan 8x10 on a flatbed and switch to a digital workflow from there, whereas it's hard to do for any larger format."

Andy Munro [1]: "Perhaps the statement should be 'Use the smallest camera that gives you most of what you want.' I'm not sure there is a camera that gives you everything. In my case, I like being able to change lenses on my Panasonic S5 rather than the fixed lens on my Fuji X100V. But, I find myself using the Fuji all the time as it's so compact."

Andrew Sowerby [2]: "In 2021, which vintage autofocus 35mm film camera(s) would head up your eBay shopping list? Nikon F100. Not too big. Well made. Excellent metering and responsiveness. Lots of lenses available. Pair it with Nikon's 35mm ƒ/2 AF-D lens and have fun!"

Jonathan [2]: "Recently picked up low-shutter-count Canon EOS 1v for just over 400 bucks. Chasing a toddler around the house with a manual-focus rangefinder was just not working out. With a nifty fifty and a whole lot of Tri-X, the EOS 1v was just what the doctor ordered."

schralp [3]: "I recommend the D7500 for your nephew. It is more than capable yet remarkably affordable."

Tom Noto [3]: "I'm not a birder myself, but the conventional wisdom is that the D500 is the best body for that use. That's a very nice lens you've given your nephew. If I were he, I would budget for a decent used D500 body and expect to pay in the $800–1,000 range. A D7500 might be a bit cheaper, but won't work as well in terms of the AF. I would simply save up for a bit longer and get the D500."

Brian [3] (partial comment): "I picked up 2nd hand D7200 for $US350. It was perfect."

Ed. note: The full text of partial comments can be read in the full Comments Section, accessible at the bottom of the post.

DavidB [3]: "What's the best Nikon for bird photography? The choice should be the camera that does bird photography best and that is the D500. If he goes with the lesser camera he may soon be disappointed (especially because of the difference in focusing technology between the cameras) and end up buying the D500 anyway. Now he has two cameras."

Richard Skoonberg [3]: "Bird photography. One of the best bird photographers on Flickr, Tennerka (Irene), uses a Sony A6000 and A6300 [discontinued; replaced with the A6400 —Ed.]. Here is a link to her Bird album. Another camera type that is often used for bird photography are those superzooms with 1" sensors made by Sony and Panasonic."

Geoff Wittig [4] (partial comment): "Re 'What are you really missing?'—Often not very much, depending very specifically on what photography floats your boat. If I shot sports, I imagine the R3's eye-controlled focus and insane speed would be very tempting indeed. But shooting landscapes, Canon's spiffy new R5 just leaves me with an overwhelming sense of 'meh.' The video features have zero interest for me. The higher speed is irrelevant. There is just nothing there to tempt me to abandon my large investment in excellent EF lenses for the new RF mount. My elderly EOS-5DS R bodies still have competitive resolution, and used within their acknowledged ISO limitations they still provide what I'm after. Swing and a miss, Canon."

Joseph Candrilli [4]: "Answering #4: I have been involved with photography since 2005 when I purchased my first SLR. I have always bought the best in what I can afford. It started with the Rebel XTi, Followed by a Canon 6D With good glass, then to Sony A7rII and now an A7r IV [current version is the A7r IVA. The difference is much-improved rear LCD resolution. —Ed.]. I have never been interested in video yet I constantly feel as if that is really the only thing being upgraded from body to body.

"I finally accepted what I knew all along. Find a good body that you are happy with and are comfortable changing settings easily and invest in the best glass available. I was shooting with a 70–300mm and was not happy with any of my results. I thought it was me, something I was doing wrong or didn't understand about the Sony system. Photo quality was good but not fantastic. I rented a 100–400mm GMaster for a week and was stunned by the results. Sold my 70–300mm the next day for a new 100–400mm GMaster. Invest in glass."

Severian [5]: "Your comments about the future of Micro 4/3 with OM Systems are very funny—and quite accurate. As prices on 'new hotness' rise (for new models of other brands) and prices on left over Micro 4/3 gear falls, there will be intense temptation. In the securities markets, when a stock price of what was once viewed as a solid company is crashing, there is always the danger of the value trap. 'What a value, look how cheap the price is' requires the follow-on warning, 'and it could easily get a lot cheaper!' Think 'Kodak' as a classic value trap. I think the same applies here. Eventually, some old-stock, but new-in-box Micro 4/3 will show up at shockingly low prices. Purchasers should buy with the expectation that at some point further along, neither the camera nor the lenses and accessories have any value. If they are still OK with a purchase from a 'this camera and lenses are disposable' point of view, more power to 'em."

s.wolters [5]: "So surprised that you joined the army of critics who are yapping about Olympus/OMS? Please lay down on the TOP readers' couch. Is it the new 20mm ƒ/1.4 lens that you actually would like to have? Or the 12–100mm ƒ/4 zoom, that is excellent at any focal length? The ƒ/1.2 PRO trio perhaps? Or its image stabilization that is by far the best on the market?"

james wilson [5]: "I for one would like to disabuse you of the notion that Micro 4/3 is a lame duck. The G9 and the E-M1X are among the highest performers in cameras today. They are rugged and ergonomic. Available lenses surpass other mounts in quantity and are equal in quality. The GH5 holds a large chunk of the video market all by itself. That said the format has been held back by having an older sensor for its fine instruments. They have been at the mercy of Sony in this matter since they do not produce their own imagers but that is about to change. Sony has announced the stacked Micro 4/3 sensor and OM and Panny have been heavily teasing their new offerings arriving 'soon.' I am not holding my breath but I think the game will soon change. In the meantime my little GX9 is the ideal travel camera and my G9 is really great at everything else."

How to Buy a Camera (in Five Principles)

[TOP publishes on Mon/Wed/Fri. Comments have been added.]

-

1. Use the biggest camera you can carry.
2. Buy the best camera you can afford.
3. Only buy dedicated lenses for it.
4. Buy as few lenses as possible.
5. Keep the camera as long you can.

Discussion
Use the biggest camera you can carry. Ansel Adams used to say "the biggest one I can carry!" in response to the question "what camera do you use?" Interestingly, though, as he got older he migrated from view cameras to the Hasselblad, a modular medium-format SLR that used 6x6 cm film. For him and his landscapes in the heroic style, this qualified as a "miniature" camera, one that required virtuoso technique to get outstanding results from. The results you can accept obviously have a lot of bearing on the idea "the biggest you can carry," because if you're not able to get the results you demand from your best opportunities, then any camera is semi-worthless. It's well worth it to carry the camera you're going to need and want for your very best shots. Convenience is not adequate compensation if you lack that.

(Illustration courtesy of CameraSize.com)

"The biggest I can carry!"

The biggest camera you can carry obviously can be a very small camera. I've personally always been allergic to large cameras—just don't like them. So, for me, cameras the size of the Contax 139Q, Olympus OM-4Ti, Panasonic GF1, and Sony A6600 (~500 g) are right around the biggest I want to carry. For some people, the biggest you can carry might mean the "Max" size of the iPhone they can afford! For one of my friends, on the other hand, it means the Leica S. In the '80s, a good friend used to carry around a Bronica GS-1 with a prism finder on it, and it was a big beast.

Buy the best camera you can afford. It only hurts once. If you don't do this, you'll probably pine for something better, and the idea that your camera isn't as good as you should be using could put a damper on your enthusiasm and your motivation. Human nature predicts that we will always be most interested in the tier of product just above what we can afford, no matter what it is, but if you stretched to get what you have it will be that much easier to resist the siren call of that "next level." 

Only buy dedicated lenses for it. The temptation to use third-party and (shudder) adapted lenses is always strong, but, unless that's the core of your particular hobby, you're likely to be frustrated by lenses that weren't specifically designed to work seamlessly with your camera body. And only the manufacturers truly know how to ensure that its lenses do that. My current Sigma lens, while optically rewarding, doesn't seem to support all the focusing features of my Sony.

The proper way to buy a camera is to first check out the lens line, making sure everything you need is currently in the catalog and available, and only then checking out the camera bodies. If you can't find a body you like you can always cross that marque off your shopping list and start over, but lenses—well, lenses and software, now—determine what your pictures are going to look like. You'd better make sure you're going to have what you need—without operability limitations.

Buy as few lenses as possible. Ted Orland's now ancient poster "Photographic Truths" (the original one)—a collection of jokes—includes the line "Owning more than one lens assures that you will always have the wrong lens on the camera for any given picture." Apart from that, there's another reason, which is that it takes a long time to really master how a lens will look in a large number of different circumstances; and it's better to know one lens well than ten lenses superficially.

Keep the camera as long as you can. We live in a world and a time of neomania—a craze for the new. Digital cameras even matched that mania for a while, because the pace of development really did mean that a three-year-old camera was outdated. But there was an old idea that used to be better understood, which held that when you switch to a new camera you lose a year—because that's how long it takes to really "get the feel of the wheel," for the camera to become second nature in your hands.

Of course it's not 2012 any more, it's 2021. The pace of development in basic still-picture functionality has slowed, and one could argue that we reached a point of sufficiency several years back. How much do you really get as a stills photographer, now, by buying the newest camera? Virtually all cameras are hybrid cameras now, and chances are that some or even most of the improvements will be in the video realm. So as a stills photographer it's once again possible to stick with a camera you know well for quite a few years before being forced to make a change.

Commentary
You might very well disagree with, or even object to, any of these five principles. The nice part of that is that I'm not the boss of you* and you'll do whatever you want—which is as it should be. Maybe you want three dozen cameras for the same reason you have a big clothes closet—so you can wear something different every day. Maybe you prefer to have a variety of cameras for a variety of different jobs or interests. Maybe you're cheap even though you're rich, and you aren't comfortable losing money on digital cameras. Maybe you simply enjoy change like some people enjoy a new car every two years. Maybe you just like cameras. I can think of a dozen reasons why you might not want to follow this advice.

Still, I think it makes some sense if what you want to do is shift your interest away from all the techie stuff and all the shopping stuff and concentrate on making pictures.

Mike

*My son's then-favorite quote from the theme song of the TV show Malcolm in the Middle (2000–2006, when he was between ages seven and 13) was "You're not the boss of me now!" It will come as no surprise that I forbade him to get a tattoo, and he came home at age 18 years and one day with his first tattoo. Not up to me; I wasn't the boss of him any more.

The five cameras in the illustration are: Sony A6600; Panasonic GX8 (discontinued); Hasselblad X1D II 50C, a hot seller; Nikon D500; and Leica S3.

Book o' the Week

Our National Monuments: America's Hidden Gems by Q.T. Luong. Just out! Brand new. Publishing isn't easy. Our friend QT (Tuan) Luong tells me that his new book will have to sell 6,200 copies out of a print run of 7,500 just to break even! And that's not including the labor and time it took to make the photographs. Fortunately, the predecessor book, Treasured Lands, has done exceedingly well. It has won 12 international awards and is now in its 6th printing.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Albert Smith: "Re 'Use the biggest camera you can carry....' This is a moving target. I use to lug around my Nikon D700 with external battery grip and fast zooms without thinking about it. After three years with various Fujifilm bodies and prime lenses, I took out my D700 to play with a certain old Nikkor lens that I wanted to re-examine on the FF sensor. It was shocking how huge that camera was, and without the battery grip. With the Fujis, I added passive grips just to have something to hold, but I felt that my fingers barely made it around the Nikon for a secure grip. Maybe I'm getting old but I can't believe that I could tolerate that DSLR."

Nick: "'Can carry' is an interesting standard. I'm a fairly large person with few physical impairments to prevent me from carrying camera-sized objects; I probably 'could' lug around some enormous pro-grade-with-built-in-vertical-grip SLR (with ƒ/2.8 zooms, natch) or a huge moose of a medium-format digital rig. For me, the standard is, 'happy to carry,' or 'likely to pick up and carry rather thank skipping it.' I use an Oly E-M10 with a couple of ƒ/1.8 primes, and it stays home more often than it should because even it annoys me sometimes."

Ernest Zarate: "Excellent advice, IMHO, and I like your rationale for each of your five principles. I’d amend the first one thus: Use the biggest camera you can carry comfortably. I rather like biggish cameras; they seem to fit my hands best. And I grew up (photographically speaking) when cameras were biggish by necessity. (I did have an OM-1, which was a bit too dainty, though I greatly admired its elegance.) My favorite handheld camera was the Mamiya 6—the moment I picked it up I knew it was the camera for me. My current camera, a Canon 5D SR with 24–105mm L lens, is also hefty and large. But most important to me is that those are comfortable cameras as well. They fit well in my hands, and the controls fall where I need them and are easy for my big fingers to manipulate. Tiny buttons, wheels, rings, etc. are too cramped to feel comfortable to me. An uncomfortable camera (too big, too small, too heavy, too light) is one that will spend far more time on the shelf than going out in the wild to be used."

David Dyer-Bennet: "One of the many ways lists like this are useful is to help you bring to the front of your mind the places you disagree  :-) . I'm not going to parade my disagreements, because they're not terribly relevant to anyone else, and besides, knowing this crowd, you're entirely capable of coming up with your own disagreements.

"But somebody starting a list makes it easier for me to modify the list towards being useful for me, compared to having to start from scratch myself.

"I've felt off and on that I knew most of what I needed to know about buying cameras. Maybe sometimes I was simply mistaken, but in my own eyes it seems to me that the field changed, invalidating some of my earlier conclusions. For example, I remember a long period when it seemed, in my bubble, that nobody would seriously consider buying a zoom lens from any of the camera body companies; we thought they'd gotten behind the curve in that area, and Tokina and Tamron were making better lenses (I'd place this in the '70s and early '80s). Since then the camera companies caught up, and vastly complicated the interfaces (making the third-party job harder, except perhaps in Micro 4/3), and now the third-party lens companies are working on their prime as well as zoom quality, and it's all much more complicated. I do think a number of the more interesting things are third-party this week, but I'm thinking more Voigtlander and Laowa and, cough, Zeiss than Tokina and Tamron these days.

"And I imagine a number of you remember the days when Sigma was broadly laughed at as a lens maker. They've certainly turned their image around!"

Nigel Paterson: "Ensuring the equipment can produce the images required might be the first consideration, and one which allowed me to switch from full-frame Canon to Micro 4/3. With the smaller format I can carry a body, three lenses (7–150mm), flash, converter, and accessories in a single motorcycle pannier (side case). The cost, equipment compromises and weight/bulk of the entire kit (not the camera itself) was a primary driver for me to switch. Really pleased to have done so, especially now Canon has gone to RF, which is eye-warteringly expensive."

Why the Sony A6600?

[Comments have been added, 3:15 p.m. Saturday]

-

Although you hear all about the ins and outs of my camera perseverations in excruciating detail—it's part 'n' parcel of our grand topic here—I don't actually buy that many cameras for my own self. I'm currently still mostly using my Fuji X-T1 from 2014. I have tried to replace it several times, most notably with the Panasonic GX8, but so far nothing's "took." I also own an X-H1 which is a good tool (see below) but is not my box, personally.

And although I really cannot afford a camera at the moment—I had some very serious difficulties with Amazon in the Summer of '20 and it cut my income grievously, more's the pity (ultimately all caused by the pandemic)—I recently did buy a Sony A6600. (Currently on sale. I bought mine from B&H Photo.)

Why the A6600?

Well, I should say first that I've never found anything better for B&W conversions than an X-T1. I don't know why, but there's something about that 16-MP Fuji X-Trans sensor that seems to match well with Nik Silver Efex Pro, the conversion software I use, and my personal taste in tone and how I like B&W images to look. I'm currently excited about the new Nik Silver Efex Pro 3* I just bought, which is part of the new Nik Collection 4 introduced in June. It's the first overhaul of Silver Efex in a long time.

Otherwise, however, I've just never been convinced that Fuji X-Trans files really play all that well with ACR, especially the ones from Fuji's 24-MP sensor. I'm not convinced they won't, either, and I'm the first to admit that people who are more adroit with software than I am (which is not saying much) might have no problems. One indicator, though, is that many deep Fujiphiles seem to like other raw converters better than Adobe's. Which is something I understand. Anyway, Sony's sensors seem to be a more natural match with ACR. I've never actually been all that happy with the results I get from the X-H1 and ACR.

Why not just change raw converters? Well, you can. In fact, if you have a 24-MP Fuji, you might just want to research and/or explore a few different raw converters. But ACR is what I want to use.

That lens
The second reason is that I want to (need to?) explore the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 DC DN Contemporary lens more thoroughly. It's an elaborated Planar-type with a concave-convex grouping between elements 3 and 4, similar to the old Pentax Super-Takumar design, a design I've always known I particularly like. I go way back with it. Of course the Contemporary has aspherical followers and Sigma's current coatings and so forth—all the up-to-date special sauce—but the basic look is one I recognize and have always liked. It's a markedly inexpensive lens, and the sample of it that I received when I tested it was mildly decentered, so I'm aware that I might have to do a little sample experimentation to find a "good one," but I'm willing to go through the hassle. The lens seems like it might be balanced toward lens contrast a little more than resolution, a design choice I like, and I like the bokeh of lenses of this design. Not to everyone's taste perhaps but then, I'm me, and my taste is my taste.

And even though I can't afford a Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA, we may have to have a shootout with a rented one.

Those tangible intangibles
Finally, what the late Erwin Puts called "haptics." Although the A6600 design has blatantly obvious areas where it could and should be improved—I seriously hope the next major revision of Sony's flagship APS-C "NEX-style" body will have the top controls of the A7C (although without the damn flippy screen)—the A6600 fixes two of the things I most disliked about the A6500, the puny battery and the weak little hand grip. The A6600 gets the big high-capacity battery from the FF A7[x] cameras, and the handgrip is now big enough (I use the MHG-XT add-on grip with the X-T1).

Most of all, though, I've long been frustrated by the Japanese camera industry's convention of pairing big cameras with high or "pro" build quality and small cameras with cheap, flimsy "amateur" build quality. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there's a general correspondence. The A6600 is one of the exceptions. Despite its smallish size I find it to have the feel of a well-built, deluxe device and I like that. I like the heft of it, the feeling of solidity, the crisp action and damped feeling of the dials, the lovely shutter sound. Extraneous issues? Perhaps, but I think people like getting out and about with a camera they love to use better than with one that merely serves. Everybody says cameras are just tools, and if that's the way you feel I won't argue with you. But I'm not like that. I like to have a camera I enjoy using. I like the feel of this, that's all.

The best? Naw
I've little doubt that, in a battle between the Sony A6600 and the Fuji X-T4, the Fuji would score the win by knockout. (In fact the X-T4 might be the No. 1 most recommendable all-around, all-purpose camera on the entire market at this moment. Although sadly not for me, because I don't like flippy screens.) And I have a lot of Fuji lenses—more than I've ever had for any camera I've owned since the Olympus OM-4Ti in the '90s, actually. I'll be keeping the X-H1 as well as the X-T1. But I just felt the need to get to grips with the A6600 and the Sigma 30mm, use it a while, and get familiar with it. And have some fun with it.

Mike

Ken Bennett adds: "I guess I am a 'deep Fujiphile' and I get along with Adobe software just fine. I am currently shooting work assignments with three X-H1 bodies and a very complete GFX-100 kit. I have a couple of X-Pro2 bodies for personal work, and I have an overly complete selection of lenses.

"The key for X-Trans raw files is to change the default sharpening. (Try 42/1.4/40/30 for starters, in Lightroom.) But the really big difference is to use the Enhance...Raw Details command in the Photo menu. IMHO this fixes all the issues that the Adobe raw engine has with X-Trans files. It's especially helpful for landscape images. The Enhance command can take a while to work, especially on large sets of files.

"Have fun with the little Sony, Mike."

*The most important thing with this software is restraint, restraint, restraint. It's very easy and perhaps too tempting to take things over the top. Subtlety is not its natural strong suit. You have to be ever vigilant.

Book o' the Week

Photo No-Nos: Meditations on What Not to Photograph by Jason Fulford. Although I would never actually let anyone tell me not to photograph anything, this is a fun book for getting "the lay of the land" as what subjects and treatments are common. There are some nice insights, and it's a pleasant read, although I think it will be more fun if you already know a lot about photography and can relate to the subjects he discusses.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link:

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:

schralp: "Did you consider the Nikon Z5 with the 40mm ƒ/2? About the same size with excellent haptics, and produces files very compatible with ACR."

Mike replies: I didn't, although that would be a very sensible alternative to consider. I came at this sort of backwards: I didn't start with the idea that I wanted a new camera, compile a list of potential candidates, research the alternatives, try out the leading contenders, and then make a decision. That would be the sensible, logical way to shop. I wasn't even in the market for a new camera. I tried the A6600 + 30mm Contemporary to write about it, liked it a lot, and found as the months passed that I wanted to get to know it better. The reason I reviewed the A6600 in the first place was because I have a history with the lineage: I reviewed the A6500 before that, and owned a NEX-6 before that. The A6600 addresses some of my issues with the earlier iterations in a satisfying way. I still have other issues, which we'll discuss in due time.

The Z5 + 40mm ƒ/2 would be an excellent choice of a camera for us to review in the future, however, and I'll put it on the list. I really do need to try the Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic mirrorless FF options now that they're here; I'm already familiar with the A7-series cameras to some extent, and fair is fair. Although I'm not personally very interested in FF mirrorless cameras, they are certainly a current top choice for the kind of people who read TOP.

Jeff1000: "If a camera is not a tool, then what is the alternative? A toy?"

Mike replies: Well, it is a tool, in that I'm more interested in pictures than in cameras (some photo hobbyists are the opposite, and there's nothing wrong with that). But I'm an amateur photographer essentially, in that I don't work for clients or shoot on assignment. While my photography is not merely a casual pastime because it's what I write about, it's at least entirely up to me what I photograph and what I use. So I can afford to shoot with cameras that appeal to me and that I enjoy using.

Beyond that, I'll let robert e's comment do the talking. Here's that:

robert e: "Haptics matter for any tool. How much they matter is down to the use case—casual vs. critical, momentary vs. long-term, etc., and of course to the user's intentions and sensitivities.

"At the level of, say, a chisel or knife, haptics directly affect users' comfort, endurance, safety and confidence, and thus ultimately their capabilities and even health.

"If the idea is that it's only the end results that matter, well, haptics affect how good those results can be, or how consistently or frequently 'good' can be achieved, or even attempted, or the kinds of 'good' possible; not to mention how pleasant or efficient it is to get there.

"To the possible objection that cameras these days are complex systems and can't be compared to chisels or brushes, countless studies as well as practice in fields like laparoscopic surgery or aviation disagree. Haptics can be as or more impactful in complex tools as they are in simple ones."

"And, OK, I've been one of those people who can find pleasure in working around or even leveraging poor haptics or design, especially in vintage or toy photo gear, but that's its own category, or maybe a 'branch' of this hobby. But even we camera masochists can argue that haptics matter, if often in reverse.  ;-) "

Stained Glass Windows

The real price of the Leica M10 Monochrom is $8,379.95, not $20,396,742,085,730,953,837,592,380,750. On Kelly Blue Book, I just looked up the value of my car, an Acura I bought new, and it turns out it's worth between $10,400 and $11,900 in trade-in, or between $12,300 and $14,100 in a private sale. I was actually pleased to see this; the value of used cars has gone up. Three years ago, the same site thought my car was worth considerably less, maybe about the value of the Leica. In any event, I'm never going to spend the value of my car or even half the value of my car on a camera. Just ain't happening.

But that's just me. One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone's price sensitivity is particular to their own situation. There are whole swaths of the world population to whom a nice quartz wristwatch or a new digital camera is so far above their means that it's incomprehensible; and yet, down the road from me, someone just paid a million and a half dollars for a house that will most likely be a Summer home, not a place the owners will occupy year round. There's no virtue in what we each consider affordable. What you can or can't afford just depends on how much money you have and how much of it you're willing to spend.

Still, each of us can have our own standards that serve to ground us. Here's an old story that sticks in my mind.

At the Congregational church I attended during my formative years, there was a plain transparent glass window in the nave above the altar. In size it wasn't imposing or ostentatious; it was proportionate enough, but not large by any means. The proposal was made that the church should commission a glass artist to create a stained-glass window to fill the existing modestly-size aperture in the wall, to dress up the presentability of the nave. The proposal passed, and money was raised for the project—at which point it became controversial. A contingent of the congregation thought perhaps the expense was an extravagance, and that the money could go for something more appropriate to the church's mission. The controversy grew and was debated at length, albeit respectfully and without rancor as far as we kids knew. The discussions went on for months. Finally, the majority of the congregation just couldn't bring themselves to spend so much on something that amounted to decor. In the end, the money went to a mission that fed disadvantaged children in a South American country. The window in the church stayed as it was.

Another example of price standards is an opinion I used to hold when one of my hobbies was being an audiophile. My personal standards of appropriateness were that 1.) you shouldn't have more money invested in your stereo system than in your record collection, and 2.) your stereo shouldn't cost more than your car.

Those were just personal value judgments. They came from knowing people who had elaborate stereo systems but few records, and from a certain stereotype, the (usually single) male who lived an impecunious lifestyle, with a small, shabby apartment and a beater car, but who owned a lavish stereo system and loved nothing more than to argue the relative merits of expensive pieces of gear.

Of course there's nothing wrong with either of those things; free country, to each his own, and all that. Why not? It's none of my business.

I left the audio hobby behind in the mid-2000s, when I bought a particular issue of Stereophile magazine (or maybe it was The Absolute Sound—the two kind of ran together in my mind) in which there were not one, not two, but three reviews for individual components that each cost more that $45,000 (you need five or ten individual components to make up a system). The thought hit me like a bolt between the ears: what in the world has this got to do with me?

The value equation reached back to the stained glass window. Even if I had 5 x $45,000 to 10 x $45,000 in disposable cash to spend on a stereo, I certainly wouldn't spend it on a stereo. If you have enough money for a stained glass window, maybe you have enough money to feed some orphans in another country.

There's another funny/peculiar aspect to my own price sensitivities: I like value. It appeals to me. I get pleasure out of things being utilitarian, plain or at least not too fancy, and, especially, not ostentatious. When I briefly worked at a high-end audio salon, I was much more comfortable in the mid-price rooms than around the price-no-object displays. It's not my nature to want to puff myself up or rub other peoples' noses in their relative misfortune (I mean, assuming I could).

In human terms this is just weird. We're wired to covet status and display it when we have it. I just checked online, and there's now a stained glass window in that church I used to go to! And an organ, even. The entire altar has been renovated.

At any rate, an $8,400 Leica isn't actually expensive. Not unless it is to you. If you want one and it makes sense in terms of your particular price sensitivities, then it's quite possibly merely the correct camera for you.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Joshua Rothman: "I think I have retrospective price sensitivity. Over the past couple of years, I've bought some big, fast primes for my Fuji system; now, I'm looking back at my photos and regretting it. The pictures I've taken with the cheaper lenses (the Fujicrons and the 35mm ƒ/1.4) are perfectly good! I should've stuck with those cheaper lenses to begin with, instead of going on an expensive lens odyssey. I'm actually a little shocked at how I was thinking about value-for-money. Pixel-peeping cast a spell over me, making me vastly overpay for sharpness about which I no longer care."

James: "I can only afford the best I can afford. I started saying this to myself when auditioning stereo in the 1970s, but I apply it to everything."

GKFroehlich: "One solution is to get a more expensive car."

The Universe is Forcing Me to Buy a Camera

Every now and then I make a rash promise. I'll say something like, "if somebody builds a ______, I'll buy one."

And then somebody builds a ______, and...I don't buy it. 

Usually because I'm too cheap. I acknowledge being cheap. Partly because of always feeling poor, and exposed, financially speaking. (When you work for yourself and survive by your wits, you tend to feel exposed, even during periods when you aren't.)

For example, I swore I'd buy the first B&W-only camera that came out. But then Leica was the company that first came out with a B&W-only camera.

I don't buy Leicas. Not because I don't like them, only because they all cost $20,396,742,085,730,953,837,592,380,750. (That number is a close approximation of what all Leica prices look like to me. Just a string of numbers divorced from all reality as well as all possibility.)

At the time I figured, well, it will only be a short time before another company takes Leica's lead and produces a cheaper B&W-only camera, so I'll just wait a little bit.

The Monochrom first came out in 2012. I'm still waiting.

The new Ricoh
But I'm burying the lede here. Bad journalism!

The news is that Ricoh is coming out with a new GR.

It's called the GR IIIx, and the news is that it features "a newly developed GR lens for high-quality street photography at a standard viewing angle." (Italics mine.)

More from the press release, which stands about a 60% chance of being a practical joke aimed exclusively at me:

The RICOH GR IIIx incorporates a newly developed 26.1mm F2.8 GR lens, which harmonizes exceptional image quality with a slim design. Unlike past GR-series models which featured a 28mm wide angle of view for exaggerated perspective, this lens provides a 40mm standard angle of view in the 35mm format, delivering images with a more natural perspective and a more truthful sense of depth for a completely different type of street photography.

Ricoh is bringing out a GR with a 40mm lens. Apparently...I don't think I will completely believe it until I am actually holding it in my hands. It could be a trick. The Universe does tend to play tricks on me.

Anyway, assuming this is something that will come true and not an April Fool's in September, don't you think I have to buy one of these? Forty millimeter equivalent is my favorite focal length, and I've championed the virtues of the focal length in print and online since the '90s. I have to have been at least partly responsible for its increasing popularity.

The kicker is that I've been mulling over the idea for some time now of doing an OC/OL/OY. (One camera, one lens, one year, in case you're new here.) It's not like there aren't other cameras with 40mm-e lenses; I have several. It's not that. Just that the Universe seems to be trying to tell me something.

And the GR IIIx will have IBIS, another technology I like, as I just mentioned yesterday. That settles it—the Universe is trying to communicate.

I think I'm kinda being...forced to buy one of these and do an OC/OL/OY. What do you think? I think I kinda have to.

Unless of course it turns out it costs $20,396,742,085 and I cheap out.

Mike
(Thanks to J. Adam Carlberg)

Book o' the Week:

The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

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 Robison: "Yep! Don’t know how many times I’ve engaged in that 'they [even though "they" don’t exist]  ought to make a...' And even as the thought forms I know that the R&D alone would be $5 million and the market tiny and…and…I could never afford it anyway.

"But, that said. What is so difficult with not putting a color filter array over a digital sensor? Can’t the chip fabricators just skip that step?"

SteveW: "Yep."

Albert Smith: "The lack of a viewfinder is a deal-breaker for me. Dioptor-adjusted finders are absolutely required in bright sun, as rear LCDs flare out and, for me anyway, require reading glasses to see. Ricoh make an accessory finder à la Leica, but with no confirmation that the focus is on the right thing. It is a good idea though, 40mm-ish lens on a compact camera with good imaging capability. Maybe that's why I have the 27mm fused to my X-E2s."

Chris: "List price (I hear) is going to be 999 dollars. Not cheap, but not Leica expensive.... I believe it's going to be a stunner in terms of performance—Ricoh never plays around with their GR lenses. And it will fit in a pocket. I always hoped Ricoh would do this, but I never really believed that they actually would. Well done, Ricoh/Pentax."

Bahi: "I was preparing to write to you in excitement about this. It's the first digital GR that I'm interested in. Would love a digital viewfinder accessory that shows focus and a histogram but perhaps that is asking too much. It looks fantastic."

Bob Rosinsky: "But what about a brand new Sony A6600?"

Gilly: "I have the GR III and absolutely love it. The 28mm focal length is great and I have the wide angle lens as well when I need it. A 40mm would round out my lens choices perfectly. Two small cameras would be all I need for my basic photography."

Moose (partial comment): "OC/OL/OY has always struck me as like being The Man in the Iron Mask, with only one eye hole, or perhaps a form of torture in one of Dante's circles of Hell. I was recently wandering through a great botanic garden and old-growth redwood groves. I was carrying three cameras, covering 10mm to 1120mm FF equivalent. That was just about enough. (This photo this small is a crime.) Would I be allowed to process the endless supply of Raw files on my computer, while I abstained from photography for a year?"

Mike replies: Funny. One man's meat is another man's poison!

Gary: "I agree with James. I quite like my GR III which takes wonderfully sharp images with its APS-C sensor. It's a really versatile camera, to my surprise. And so small and light! I call it my Mighty-Mite. Yes, the lack of a viewfinder is a drawback but ya know there are compromises and you learn to live with them. The 40mm (equivalent) lens will make this camera even better for my uses."

Tam: "It’s like they knew I’d literally just sold my GR Digital II."

Trevor Johnson: "1.) It easily fits in your pocket, shorts, trousers etc. An iPhone Max doesn't very easily. 2.) It is much easier to hold and compose than an iPhone, unless you add stuff to the iPhone which makes it even bigger. 3.) Monochrome conversion is lovely."

David Raboin: "I've owned a GRIII for almost two years. I love it—sharp lens, great sensor, and wonderful ergonomics.

"If you do go for this new GR, prepare yourself for a learning curve. Using a GR is a totally different photography experience than what you're probably used to. First and foremost is the lack of viewfinder and small-ish LCD. The LCD is significantly smaller than a phone screen. With a phone, you kind of see what you're getting when you shoot. With the GR, you almost have to imagine the finished shot, especially if you're in a rush and don't have time for perfect framing. To me, this isn't even a hindrance, but it means I shoot and think differently when using the GR. It's one of those limitations that actually fuels creativity.

"On the strictly plus side, the GR is small. It can go anywhere. Get in the habit of carrying the GR in your pocket and soon it becomes an extension of your body.

"The ergonomics are fantastic. This camera is made for one-handed operation. Your phone camera will feel clumsy and awful after you get used to the GR.

"In a nutshell, the GR is my favorite camera of all time. It doesn't do everything, but it's just so much fun. I like to build up a month's backlog of images on my GR's memory card and then I'm always surprised by a few gems when I finally get around to uploading the pics into Lightroom."

Fred Haynes: "I bought a GRII two years after it was introduced. I started to salivate for it after Gordon Lewis posted a mini review on TOP. I never bonded; it was to be not a street camera, but a city camera. My wife and I love wandering the streets of Manhattan, and this camera was easier to carry then my Olympus. But without image stabilization and no finder, it became a camera that worked best with brightly lit indoor settings.

"I don’t go to the city like we did, I’m older and less capable. But when I need a camera with me, it’s back to the OMD. The IIIx is 1,000 dollars, a lot for a camera with no finder. If you get this as your camera to carry, you might be disappointed. In my humble opinion!"

Arg: "I think it is Nowhere Near to what an A6600 with FE 28mm ƒ/2 lens (or Sigma 30mm ƒ//1.4) would give you. So, if spending $900 on this would be the end of your A6600 future, I call it a poor trade. Sure it's pocketable, but since when has that been your top priority? In exchange you lose 1-to-3 stops of lens speed and object separation, vastly lesser AF, slightly lesser IS, and the option of other lenses (even if only to do sequential OCOLOY projects with different lenses, LOL)."

The Fuji GFX 50S II: "Rebel"?

Lowest Price: Various cameras set price landmarks in passing. The one I remember is the Canon Digital Rebel, also called the EOS 300D. Introduced at roughly this time of year 18 years ago(!), it broke new ground as the very first DSLR under $1,000. Less memorable now but important at the time was the Sony A850 (a stripped down version of the A900 I've passed along to my son), which was the first "full-frame" camera to break the $2,000 barrier. That one came along in 2009—yep, also at about this same time of year. Now, the Fuji GFX 50S II is the very first "medium format" camera (O, unhappy terminology) to come in below $4,000.

It's a weird sort of distinction: a cheap expensive thing. Four thousand dollars is still a lot of money to most people. It is to me, anyway. Jumbling our clarity about it is that those landmarks are arbitrary: $4,000 now would have been only $2,700 the year the Canon Digital Rebel came out, and the Digital Rebel's $900 body-only price in 2003 would be $1,335 now. No longer nice round numbers. (Round numbers are false landmarks anyway, but think about the origin of the term "landmark": you have to choose something as a landmark if you're going to navigate successfully.)

Anyway. The Fuji GFX 50S II is, as of this writing, the least expensive medium-format digital camera ever.

Twins: And its biggest new feature: well, first we must mention that the 50S II body is identical (or as near as I can tell) to the existing GFX 100S, the less expensive version of the 100-MP GFX 100. Same weight, too.

IBIS: ...Now we move along to the biggest thing the 50S II has that the 50S doesn't: in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which the lookalike 100S has also and which the 50S II seems to have inherited from that camera along with its looks.

I have a strange relationship to IBIS these days. It's one of the camera features that made the biggest impressions on me in my whole life; in the 2004 Konica-Minolta 7D (called Dynax in Europe and Maxxum here), the camera with which I took those two pictures of Lulu I posted the other day, it was a revelation. Its practical advantages as expressed in that camera were very clear to me. It gave me confidence and I had great trust in it, and I became a strenuous advocate of the technology.

Strangely, perhaps, I have to admit that I have never had another camera that made me feel the same way about IBIS. It worked inconsistently in early Pentax DSLRs (most of the ones I used were pre-production models sent to me by Pentax); in some other cameras such as the Panasonic GX7 the feature seemed almost not to work; and it certain other ones it frustratingly worked on some shots and not on others, which inspired the opposite of trust.

But I still have a provisional allegiance to the feature, and I'm always glad to see it available.

We'll continue our tour of the new Fuji after B&H comes back from Rosh Hashana and you can actually preorder it again.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Ken Bennett: "Hey, Mike, I have a GFX100 (the big one), and also the original GFX50S, and the IBIS in the larger camera makes a huge difference, especially for handheld portrait photography. Given the slow flash sync speed of these cameras, I can't count how many photos were ruined by small amounts of camera shake with the 50S. Even at 1/125 sec., using the 110mm lens, there is a lot of movement that is totally corrected in the newer cameras with IBIS. So I am a big fan.  :-)  "

Mike replies: Thanks for chiming in Ken. It's great to hear the opinion of a pro who actually owns both those cameras. 

Albert Smith: "And so it begins...again: 'Fujifilm Announces Delivery Delay for GFX50S II with GF35-70mm Kit Due to Pre-Orders Exceeding Expectations.'"

Mike replies: Yes, that's why I rather hurriedly posted on Sunday, so people who are interested could get their pre-orders in before B&H closed for Rosh Hashana.

Fuji GFX 50S II

The Fuji GFX 50S II

Fuji recently made a flurry of new product introductions. All save one serve to tidy up the catalog. That is, they groom and rationalize the product lineup, keeping it logical and balanced and up to date (and no company is better at keeping its lineup logical and balanced than Fuji).

When a manufacturer constructs a product lineup, it has to consider all sorts of things—tiers and prices and overall completeness (that is, there should be neither "holes" in the lineup nor unnecessary duplications). And consumer tastes and expectations, naturally. But the manufacturer also has to deal with time. Individual products don't stay in stasis over time. Their place in the lineup and their suitability to their target niche changes, relative to competitors as well as to the company's own mix of offerings. Their meaning changes, you might say.

The original Fuji GFX 50S is a good case in point. When it came out in September 2016 it was Fuji's first and only 33x44mm ("medium" format or larger-than-FF, hereinafter referred to as large-format digital) offering. Accordingly it was a deluxe product with lavish features like its high-quality interchangeable viewfinder, and it had an initial price, $6,500, that was suitable for all it offered.

As the years went by, however, other Fuji large-format digital cameras followed. First, two years later, the then-price-leading GFX 50R, with its rangefinder-style body shape; then the ceiling-shattering high-megapixel GFX 100 in May of 2019; and most recently the more compact and less expensive "everyman" version, the 100-megapixel GFX 100S, in January of this year. Forward strides.

Weird limbo
Those later introductions gradually relegated the original GFX 50S to a weird sort of limbo in the lineup. Despite a considerable price adjustment, at $5,500 the GFX 50S was only $500 cheaper than the GFX 100S that has double its pixel count, and the GFX 50R, with the same pixel count, is not only newer but $1,000 cheaper—enough to make most of us stop and think. So while the GFX 50S made perfect sense in the lineup in 2016 and 2018, well, the times, as they say, changed.

I don't know sales numbers or popularity firsthand (Yr. Hmbl. Ed. just stands outside the shop window looking in), but Fuji has said that the GFX 50S sold greatly in excess of expectations at first. With the other three models now in the lineup, I imagine that situation probably reversed itself recently. Up till last week you could simply do better with your $5,500 even within Fuji's own lineup, never mind outside competition.

The Fuji GFX 50S II with its new 35–70mm kit lens

Hence the GFX 50S II. The revised model is interesting on its own, but a big part of its purpose is to adjust the position of the model within Fuji's current large-format digital lineup. It's now merely the "SLR-style" body shape version of the 51.4-MP-sensor tier in the line. Gone, along with its status as the one and only, is its position as the top of the line—and thus, gone as well is its deluxe viewfinder (a good reason to keep your GFX 50S if you already have one).

At $4,000 to start with, it's also the cheapest Fuji 33x44mm large-format digital body yet.

Of course, there are many of the upgrades one would expect after five years, and a tasty new feature the original didn't have. Y'all know what it is. But we'll get to that next.

Mike

P.S. This is the month that B&H Photo has a lot of closings, starting tomorrow. So if you want to get your name on the list for the new GFX 50S II, better do it today! (You can't pre-order when B&H is closed.)

Camera of the Week:
The full-frame mirrorless Canon EOS R6 features the same 20-MP CMOS image sensor and image processor as the EOS-1D X Mark III, and most of the up-to-the-minute features that anyone but a dedicated specialist could want. Plus native access to Canon's latest R lenses.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of our most recent Book of the Week, Bystander, as a link to The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

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:

Dan: "This 'sort of big' format is just not doing it for me. I don’t see what the combination of this sensor and the slowish lenses Fuji has offered can do that differs from a good 35mm sensor and fast lenses. I’ll wait for the inevitable introduction of a reasonably priced true medium format camera. A 6x6 sensor at $6k or less would have me at 'hello.'"

Mike replies: Well, I have three comments, for what they're worth: first, we'd need to compare actual cameras and results to see if 33x44 differs, and how much, from various FF offerings. I don't shoot FF and medium format, so I'm not keyed in to the real-world differences enough to speak confidently about them.

Second, it's always been a useful seat-o'-the-pants rule of thumb for me that you have to skip a sensor size to see appreciable differences. (I got that from Ctein, I believe.) Thus, in my experience, FF is not really all that much better than APS-C; I mean, I can see it, but it's a little too subtle to really nourish my enthusiasm. This rule of thumb would predict that 33x44 might also be a little too close to FF. What you have to remember, though, is that Fuji's mainstream line is the X-series, which use APS-C sensors. So in that context, 33x44 is two sizes larger than APS-C and hence the GFX line provides a useful counterpoint to Fuji's other line. For Fuji to make APS-C cameras and 33x44 cameras makes a great deal more sense than for the company to make APS-C cameras and FF cameras. I like their choice, myself.

Third, remember that several very formidable industry players and lots of happy customers are invested (in several senses of that term) in FF, and thus it serves their collective interests to encourage and spread the notion that 33x44 doesn't really have any advantage. The larger format would be vulnerable to such rumors, too, because so few people have direct experience with it. My advice: stay open minded and trust your own eyes, not the popular conventional wisdom which might or might not amount to a subtle sort of brainwashing.

Greg Heins: "The 50S is truly one case where that accessory viewfinder makes the camera. I love it."

...And About the Camera

...And about the camera, I just really want an A6600, but I can't do it. I already have an X-T1 and an X-H1, and they'll do everything I need a camera to do, and, therefore, I can't pull the trigger on a $1,400 camera I don't have the lenses for and don't need. Just can't do it. Just. Cannot. Do it.

It's a psychological problem more than anything else. It just seems too wasteful and impractical. I have a whole Fuji system—two bodies and six lenses. If I sold the bodies and bought an X-Pro3, that would make enough sense, I think.

Do you ever run into problems with this? The most common one, I suppose, is buying too much, spending too much, indulging yourself too much. But I often have the opposite problem...difficulty letting go of the money. When I started teaching photography in 1985 and I suddenly had an income and a place for an enlarger, it was still very difficult for me to buy the enlarger. It took me months of struggling with it before I managed to place the order.

Ninety percent of this stuff is half mental, Yogi Berra allegedly said. The image that usually comes into my head is of the great golfer Ben Hogan, whose yips took the form of not being able to draw the putter back to make a putt. He would stand there at address, frozen, unable to move. Very, very mysterious, the way the brain sometimes works. 

Mike

Product o' the Week:

Ringlight for Zoom, Facetime, vlogging, streaming, video recording, remote working or remote learning. Holds a phone, or you can set it behind and above a desktop computer with a built-in camera. The following image is also a link: 

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Dan Gorman: " A few years back, I suddenly developed a near-complete inability to hand-write the capital letters W and M. Only with great effort could I make my pen/pencil move. Once the first stroke was finally under way, it took tremendous concentration to form the rest of the letters, and generally came out pretty badly mangled. A year or so later the problem disappeared on its own. I still have no idea what caused the problem, or what caused it to go away. All good now, but the episode did give me a new sense of my own vulnerability."

Mike replies: Wow, that's fascinating. I'm very interested when I see things like that happen in myself. For example, when I was 45 or so I started occasionally transposing letters as I typed. I had never done it before. Then, for a few years, I'd be typing along, and just one random word would come out with all the letters mixed up...the proper letters and the proper number of letters would be there, but jumbled. If I were trying to type "mixed" what might come out was "dxemi." And just one word amongst all the rest.

Now that never happens any more. What the...?!

Have you ever read The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat? It's Oliver Sacks' engaging recounting of a wide variety of neurological disorders. A fascinating, memorable book, I thought. 

Mike: "Take the stuff you have, all of it that you don't or won't ever use, and trade it in for the stuff you want. Simple. Take the hit, get what you like and stop whining.  ;-)  Seriously, it's only money. Use what makes you happy. Then go out and take some pictures with the new stuff that you want to have and use. It's not like you want a Leica SL2 and a 50mm Summicron!"

Mike replies: I almost never allow any form of the word "whiner" in the comments, but in this case I have to allow it.  :-D

Jamie Pillers: "Mike, have a look at the Fuji X-S10. It has all the guts of the X-T4, including IBIS. Thus, better performer than the X-H1. And it's tiny! Have a look at CameraSize.com and be surprised. Another feature I like about the X-S10 is it has the type of flippy screen I like...you can fold it around so that the screen doesn't face out. Thus the camera has more of a feel of a film camera and it promotes 'anti-chimping'. And...the cost is very nice! And...it's lighter than the A6600.  :-)  "

Sroyon: "Yes I know the problem you describe. In 2011, a camera store in Tokyo let me handle a film Leica (I had already told them I wasn't in the market for one, just wanted to see what it was like). I had never handled a Leica before, nor even a rangefinder. Of course Leicas are beautiful and finely-engineered and all that, but what I remember most vividly is focusing on a shelf across the room. I was used to focusing with an SLR, but seeing the double-image come together, the rangefinder suddenly felt like the easiest, most natural way to focus.

"I could afford it—I was a finance lawyer at the time, in fact I was earning more than I currently do as an academic—but I just couldn't bring myself to buy it. Photography is just a hobby for me; I had a perfectly good film camera and a perfectly good digital camera already, and spending that much on a camera just felt...wrong.

"Anyway seven(!) years later, my girlfriend finally got tired of hearing me carry on about how amazing it was, said 'Right, let's get you one for your birthday.' And we got an M3 and 50mm Summicron from an estate sale (she paid half, most expensive birthday present ever). I will always be grateful to her, because I unreservedly love that camera, and if not for her prodding, I would never have got it for myself."

The New Nikon Z fc

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say some variation of "Why can't they just make a digital FE2/FM2/FM3a?", it would pay for a Snowflake.

Well, maybe not quite. But I've heard that a lot over many years, starting two decades ago and more.

Have you ever said it, or something like it? Be honest now.

So now that it's here, what are you going to do about it? This is it, the new Nikon Z fc, and it's exactly what all y'all were asking for.

The top plate is the most "FE/FM" thing about it. Beautiful!

Back down to earth
Of course, it's another retro Nikon. And the last retro Nikon, the Dƒ, was an absolute horror. I mean, it was a pretty good camera—it did a few useful things, like work with manual focus Nikkors, and it had a very nice sensor. Owners actually tended to like it. But they had to avert their eyes to buy it. The factory hit that thing hard with the ugly stick. Conceptually, it was a Frankenstein—retro styling cues troweled on awkwardly all over it, with exactly the authenticity of a very bad fake Elvis, toupée and all. On a camera that looked like its designers had no freaking idea what it was supposed to be, or to whom. (I'll be honest, the Dƒ permanently changed my feelings toward Nikon. I still have respect; just not quite as much as I used to.)

And dammit, Nikon, you just can't throw us a bone, can you? Not even when you're throwing us a bone!

Because there it is on the top plate, in the upper right hand corner, that little red video button. The marketing materials show the allegedly retro thing being used on a selfie stick as a vlogging camera, on a mini tripod for web streaming and conferencing, and with an external mic—you know, just like an intrepid PJ back in the day. Not.

With watches, there are things called "time only" watches. They just tell time. Three hands, sometimes just two. Nothing else. And you know what all the other bells and whistles are called? The things time-only watches don't have? "Complications." I love that. Could we possibly have just one simple "picture only" camera, no complications?

The answer is, of course, no. The bottom line is that you can't escape the age you're in, and you can't escape the fashions of the day. That's life on life's terms. There's actually no such thing as retro.

'She's a Rainbow'

...Except maybe in the realm of style!  :-)

Climbing Mt. Fuji
On the good side, maybe it's intended to be a Fuji X-T4 killer—a knobs-'n'-dials APS-C of agreeable size. (Here they are side-by-side at Camerasize.) I'm not going to close my mind to the Z fc. It could be great. I certainly like the direction.

Takashimaya Historical Museum

Mount Fuji by Takeuchi Seiho, 1893

Although it's a long way to the top of that mountain.

So what do you think? What's your initial reaction to the news? Boy, I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say about this. Unless all those guys who used to pine for this very thing—this very thing—have all suddenly mysteriously up and evaporated.

Hold up!
Tomorrow, the lens. If you have a comment about the lens(es) you may want to wait.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

GKFroelich: "For what it's worth, I've shot with Nikon single-digit F models since the F2 (never had an F nor an F6), and with their digital counterparts since the D2 variants (no D1 nor D6). These days I shoot primarily with Nikon D5s, D500s, and D850s (and I have a couple of D7200s lying about here somewhere). The essential (to me) controls have for the most part been consistently placed, and have operated in the same manner, across all of these models.

"The only mirrorless camera I currently own is a Nikon Z50, with its two kit lenses (I had the V1 back when it was current). The image quality is great, the camera and lenses are small and lightweight, and they provide a compact 'rig' that covers lots of contingencies (I add the now-discontinued 5T and 6T doublets for macro capability with the tele-zoom). But the controls are scattered all over the place, and many are buried in the menus or behind some inscrutable tiny icon on the rear touch screen. The whole experience is very un-Nikon, and I've missed a few photos as a result. As long as I shoot in fully (or mostly) automatic modes, it's not much of a problem, but at times it can be frustrating, even infuriating.

"The new Z fc appears to be a Z50 packaged in a more Nikon-like body, with actual Nikon-like controls on its exterior. I won't pull the trigger until I've learned more about it, and maybe read (or viewed) a couple of reviews, but based in its appearance, I'm a future owner of one!

"Now let's see what they do with the Z9."

Christopher May (partial comment): " I think this will do better than the Dƒ did. That was a quirky camera but I think it would have been a bigger seller had the price been lower. The Z fc comes with a price tag that's going to make it a lot more popular than the expensive Dƒ."

Doug Chadwick (partial comment): "If I could have gotten this instead of my first digital, a D80, I certainly would have. The control layout would have eased my transition somewhat. However 2007 is now a rather long time ago."

Al C.: "I dunno. The front wheel, the ridiculous name (huh? Z-fc?), and the non-serious fonts ruin it for me. And that's in black, never mind the rainbow! I am sorry, but frisky is not in the Nikon gene. This is embarrassing."

Thomas Rink (partial comment): "As I see it, the nostalgia for film cameras like the Nikon FM2 is due to their simplicity and ease of use. This camera, on the other hand, is as complicated as any mirrorless digital camera, but with an even more complex user interface—in addition to the retro-style dials, it also has front and rear command wheels. My Fuji X-T20 suffers from the same flawed design, but at least there is a lens lineup for it."

Alex Mercado: "Without a Prontor-Compur connection; nor a threaded shutter button; and the sensor is below 100MP—this has to be tHe WoRsT nIkOn EvAr!!! Okay, all joking aside, I like it a lot."

Yoram Nevo: "They forgot the 'Auto' setting on the ISO dial. Well that's a real bug. I should know since I'm a software engineer and write bugs for a living."

Stéphane Bosman: "I'm sure there is a market for it, but it is not the people who have known and taken pleasure in using the FM, FE, FM2 and FE2 cameras. As you said, those were simple and a delight to use. My current handheld cameras are an FE2 and an F3, and this new Nikon leaves me much colder than my Fujis."

almostinfamous: "It has everything I want in a camera except IBIS. I am interested in the colourful ones too, actually—might get a few of my former students to actually consider Nikon."

Hugh: "Retro camera. APS-C, therefore limited use with my Pre-AI Nikkors. Complaining about it shooting video is missing the point entirely. Thirty seconds with some superglue would fix that red button so it never shot video again, and you could even stick black tape over the red button like a cool kid with a Leica. Fortunately Canon make the RP, which is full frame, costs about the same, and works beautifully with manual focus vintage lenses…and Fuji make APS-C cameras with matching lenses."

Steve C: "In plain sight Leica is staking a monopoly on simple user interfaces. The Typ 240 brought video, but let you render the button completely inoperable. (Love!) The subsequent next model removed it completely, and the one after struck two more buttons from the camera. When their product director was interviewed about the S and SL's spec-sheet competitors he said 'Yes, but they're covered in buttons. If you want only four, this is the only one.'"

Fujifilm GFX System: We Hear From Tokyo

A while ago I sent several questions about the GFX 100S to Fujifilm, and yesterday afternoon received answers from the company in Tokyo.

I should mention that I have to be a little careful with my wording here, so as not to imply that the company said anything it didn't...no playin' around here, Mikey! 'Kay.

If I refer to larger-than-FF with fly-by-night names, for instance, that's me, not Fujifilm. I'm just not liking the status quo on that, is all. The middle format already has its settled name, which is "full-frame." Then, the conventional term for larger-than-FF is medium format, which makes sense exclusively in legacy terms. It was in the middle between small, 35mm cassettes, and large—sheet film—hence medium. The term applied to digital makes sense no other way.

As George Lakoff eloquently and simply explained, how you frame an issue (frame in the sense of formulating the concept and defining the terms) is a large part of the debate. Full-frame currently wins the framing sweepstakes, hands down.

To my way of thinking, legacy terms are irrelevant now. The past is past. Medium format was a niche even back in the old days. Now, calling the smaller middle format "full" and the largest-sized formats "medium" is actively misleading. It makes no sense at all.

I'm digressing already here, but if it were me I'd call anything larger than full-frame some name like "maximum format." Max format? "Large-format digital" serves the purpose pretty well I guess. In any case, I'd be stomping out the brushfire of "medium-format digital" like a mad dervish. I think Fujifilm is trying.

But enough of that—on to GFX!

How it's going
First, the GFX system as a whole is doing great—selling much better than Fujifilm initially expected it would. The latest body in the system, the GFX 100S, is the best-selling body in the system, and it experienced much larger initial demand than Fujifilm anticipated. In fact, the GFX 100S is supercharging (my word, there) the sales of the entire system: for example, the average number of lens sales per body is still three, but lens sales are up across the board because of the high numbers of sales of the GFX 100S body.

Second, the success of the GFX system is not regional or driven by any particular market. It's selling well everywhere across the globe, including major markets such as China, the U.S., the Euro Zone, and the home market of Japan. (No ranking implied in that list.) This matters because sometimes cameras will do better in specific markets than in others. I've heard of many examples over the years—for example, rumors that a certain high-end product was particularly in demand in China or that a certain product was much more popular in Japan than elsewhere. Not the case with the GFX stuff, Fuji tells us.

Fujifilm thinks the GFX 100S ($6,000 at B&H) might be be getting part of its boost from its dramatically (my adjective) lower price-point than the GFX 100 ($10,000).

Big nugget
But the big nugget, so to speak, the key takeaway, seems to be this: sixty percent of GFX 100S buyers are either new to the GFX system or new to Fuji as a whole. That indicates that many photographers are shopping the GFX system against the proliferating full-frame alternatives and are taking the plunge into Max format in appreciable numbers.

(You see what I did there.)

In other words, the GFX 100S is making converts.

In a big way. (Ooh, did it again.)

Rational
This all pleases me, by the way, because I just love the thoroughgoing rationality of Fuji's choices. To me, being fully committed to a large and complete system in the practical size of APS-C yet balancing it with large-format digital is a sensible and thoughtful—and above all a practical—solution. It just makes no sense to me for any company to be in APS-C and yet not be committed to it and not offer complete systems. Smaller formats make so much sense for so many tasks—as pocketable walk-around or backpacking cameras, for macro, for supertelephoto. Yet when ultimate image quality and ultra-large print size are wanted, you want to be able to go after that too—and nothing currently beats 102 megapixels in a larger-than-FF sensor. I could go on at some length about the advantages—to us—of Fujifilm's balanced approach. But it's a post for another day.

Anyway, I put in a call to my friend Izzy at B&H Photo and requested a GFX 100S and GF 50mm ƒ/3.5 (40mm-e) lens for review. If they can't provide it, Fuji says they can send me one soon. (When new products are hot, smaller outlets have to wait in line for review units.) So hopefully one way or another I'll have a review before the end of the Summer. It won't be the first camera I've ever reviewed that I can't consider buying. I'm looking forward to the education—to acquainting with Maximum format. (Am I calling it that now? I dunno....) It's one of only a few photographic formats I have almost zero experience with so far.

My thanks to Fujifilm for its assistance with this post.

Mike

P.S. No new post tomorrow, I don't think (lots of posts in the past couple of days) but I'll be actively moderating comments.

Book of Interest this week:

Ralph Eugene Meatyard: American Mystic (Fraenkel Gallery, 2017). An excellent introduction to Meatyard's quirky, spooky worlds. "Photography is a dream of awaking to a world still dewed in sleep." And Fraenkel Gallery's productions are always a cut above. The link is a doorway to Amazon.

Also sponsored by...

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Sharon: "If we lived closer, you could try one of ours. I absolutely love the 100S. It is a heavy system but I walk around town with the 110mm on a lot. It's a beast but I forget all about the weight when I'm shooting, and I have serious issues with my hands. The in-camera stabilization is amazing. We shot after sunset, handheld, and the files are sharp. What I love most is that any failure of the photograph will be an artistic one on my part, not because of any technical shortcoming of the camera."

Rob de Loe: "The data from Fuji on new adoptions make sense to me. My anecdotal evidence is the wave of new members to the DPReview Medium Format forum. People seem to like posting there that they are now in the club, and why. The why part is the GFX 100S, almost without exception."

Thom Hogan: "Not sure '60% new to GFX system or new to Fuji' is a meaningful statistic. GFX is a relatively new system to start with, so that number would be high no matter what.  ;~)  . And it's down from the 100% that would have happened with the first entry four years ago. To make sense of any such statistic, we'd need volume numbers, both past and current. Makes a big difference as to whether they've sold 50,000 units or 150,000 GFX units so far."

Peter: "Here's my vote that 'Maximum Format' will be your second addition to the worldwide photographic lexicon (#1 being Bokeh, of course)."

Jim Simmons: "Oh come on, Mike, you're a wordsmith, you know better. 'Large' format worked because the word is flexible. 'Maximum' implies it's the biggest, and that is impossible to know."

Christopher May: "Sometimes a point of reference remains the reference point long after it's been swept away into the dustbin of history. Witness railroaders saying they're 'highballing' when they receive clearance to move their trains. This stems from a type of signal with large balls raised and lowered by pulley. When the ball was raised, the train was clear to go. This type of signal was already mostly obsolete at the turn of the 20th century but 'highballing' is still an almost universal term in railroading today. I think the fate of 'medium format' may be similar. It originally made some sense when digital backs were attached to medium format film cameras like the Mamiya 645AFD and Contax 645. The Fuji cameras may have little to do with those cameras or their associated film format but the terminology remains."

John Dougan: "I'm an American living in Russia, and I just got rid of my Sony A7R IV to get this camera. I was so impressed, that even though I bought Sony's 135mm ƒ/1.8 just three weeks before the purchase of the GFX 100S, the image quality was enough to convince me to take the loss. And my God, is this an amazing camera. One thing that I learned though, for long exposures on a tripod, make sure you shut off the image stabilization or you'll be left scratching your head wondering what went wrong. Here's my first night of night photography with this camera."

Kirk Tuck: "Why words? Why not numbers? Start with 35mm (full frame) as 1X and then everything bigger is whatever the size difference might be. Such as a 1.25X, 1.50X, 2X etc. And, in the other direction an APS-C would be a .5 and smaller sensors a .25 etc. I'm sure camera makers will eventually make an array of image sensors bigger than the current Fuji ones and it's a quick and easy way for people to understand the difference in sizes."

darlene: "After 30+ years of shooting professionally, people ask me what I currently shoot with, so I started slowly working on a page that will show the gear. The categories go like this: Large Format (Sinar, Linhof, Cambo) Medium Format (ALPA, Hasselblad, Mamiya) Small Format (Fujifilm, Nikon, Minolta). Most pro shooters I know refer to camera sizes as Large, Medium and Small. The lenses covering the formats make us distinguish things even further when need be. Currently I have three digital backs in-house; (2) 44x33 sensors and (1) 49x37 sensor and they are for my Medium format and Large format cameras. If I had a Fujifilm 50R (want one), it would fit into the medium format category. Why? Because of its real estate. I like the KISS principle!"

richardp_london: "Full Frame goes up to Fuller Frame. Beyond that are Impressive Frame, then Excessive Frame. In the other direction Full Frame goes down to Sufficient Frame, Adequate Frame, Scant Frame, Inadequate Frame and finally Insufficient Frame."

Mike replies: That actually does about nail it! I've shot with Insufficient Frame, and an 8x10-inch sensor would clearly be Excessive Frame. I usually shoot with Sufficient Frame and Adequate Frame.

Spectacular Dud

Figures. The alleged "new Sony APS-C flagship" will be nothing of the sort; and it won't be coming in May as originally expected, either. Sony Alpha Rumors now predicts that it will be called the "ZV-E10." They say journalists have had it in their hands for a long time now and are just waiting around for the NDA to expire, that it will have no viewfinder and the same old 24mm sensor (Seinfeldism: not that there's anything wrong with that), and is to be positioned as a vlogging/streaming camera.

In other words, nothing to see here, move along. By the way, did you know that the venerable RX100 series 1" point-and-shoots have morphed into the ZV-1 (below), a version specifically made for vlogging?

More videos of me!

Bleh. Maybe I'm crotchety this morning*, but I'm tired of camcorders oppressing cameras. I don't want a camcorder. I'm a photographer. I like "stills cameras," previously known throughout most of history as "cameras." It might be old-fashioned, but I grew up pointing cameras away from my head.

Sorry, I'll stop now. Nothing against vloggers; it's a cool thing to do and it's a dynamic arena right now. My only gripe is that I don't want my bow-and-arrow to also shoot bullets. At least not all the choices. Actually, what's probably happening is that Sony wants to push serious photographers into its full-frame product lines, and not-so-subtly discourage buyers from thinking that "little" 1-inch and APS-C sensors are appropriate for anything but video.

Anyway, so much for my attempts to soften the ground for a review of the new top-o'-the-line.

And by the way, this is a good example of why I don't typically talk about products that aren't here yet. There's plenty of time to talk about products after they're out in the sunlight. 

Dogs and Dawgs
Most people know the expression "Pavlov's dog." Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov was studying in the 1890s how dogs salivate when presented with food when he noticed that the test animals began to salivate when they heard the footsteps of the assistant approaching with the food. He became fascinated with what became known as "classical conditioning" and spent the rest of his life studying this kind of learning.

We Photo Dawgs are not above that...we've been conditioned to salivate, figuratively speaking, over the next new thing, the enthusiasm for which I once called neomania. I don't know about you, but I'm actually kinda tired of neomania and the constellation of conditioned behaviors surrounding it in Internet culture...all the breathless speculation, wish-lists, ultimatums in advance ("It better have x or I'll..."), arguments over what the coming product will or will not have (when all you need to do, all you can do, is wait and see), and the inevitable let-downs. I don't know why I still get snared every once in a while...it was a lesson I learned in the early '90s waiting for the Nikon N8008s! Boy, how I admire people who just find a box, learn to make it do what they want to do, and get on with it. It ain't the golf club, it's the swing that counts.

Anyway, I'm getting an A6600, because I want to explore the Sigma Contemporary Trio on APS-C. But that's a different subject, about which more later. Sorry for the wasted bandwidth earlier in the month.

Mike

*I used to call myself a "curmudgeon in training," but I finished my training and got my certificate....

Book of Interest this week:

Ralph Eugene Meatyard: American Mystic (Fraenkel Gallery, 2017). An excellent introduction to Meatyard's quirky, spooky worlds, and Fraenkel Gallery's productions are always a cut above. The link is a doorway to Amazon.

Also sponsored by...

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

John Krill: "Re 'I don't want a camcorder. I'm a photographer.' YES. That's why I love Fujifilm. When I read reviews of the Fujifilm X-E4 that mentioned poor vlogging experience I knew I made the right choice. Because I'm a still photographer not a videographer or whatever they call themselves. P.S. The X-E4 has turned out to be a better camera than I thought it would be."

Stephen Scharf: "Camera companies, YouTubers, and as audio reviewer Hans Beekhuizen calls it, 'the social media,' spend an incredible amount of time and resources to convince you that if only you'll buy the latest and greatest camera, you will be a better photographer. This is bullish*t.

"As you mentioned in an article you posted back in 2008 entitled 'Big Sticks' (remember that one?), it's not about the size of the bat you use, it's how hard you swing it that matters. At the end of the day, you're gong to find that an A6600 doesn't take photos that engage with your viewers any more than your X-H1. Or your X-T1, for that matter.

[Ed note: Jeff S. and DavidB found that post—here it is. Featuring Stephen's great shot of Chris the V. Thanks, Jeff and David.]

"Just give me a camera with excellent shutter life, a fit-for-purpose AF system (Canon 1D MkII-level), a proper-sized grip, and a stiff and strong lens mount on a durable and rugged body, and I'm good to go. How successful my photographs are is overwhelmingly due to how well my vision and execution can realize my intention, rather than having eye-AF or 30 FPS. And, having the discipline to show up for the shot."

Mike replies: But Stephen, the X-H1 is no longer new. (Kidding.)

My Fujis are not going anywhere.

Albert Smith: "Re 'I don't want a camcorder. I'm a photographer. I like "stills cameras," previously known throughout most of history as "cameras..."' Yes, yes, yes! I have several Swiss Army knives and Leatherman multi-tools, and if you need a screw driver or a small file in a situation where you don't have a proper tool box, they can really bail you out. But you wouldn't use them for serious work under the hood of your car or home repair. Why use a Swiss Army camera?

Mike replies: Ah, I'm going to steal that term, if you don't mind.

Thomas Walsh: "Amen to Stephen Scharf's comment."

Sony A6600: Is the Price Premium Worth It?

First, I know I joke about how it rains every time I get a camera to review, but it's a little freaky and I really don't like it. I have the A6600 here for a week, and the last three days have been more or less constant rain. I left my tea mug outside yesterday morning and this morning there's an inch of rainwater in it. I've still been shooting every day, but dang, cut it out.

Sony is just about to replace its high-end APS-C camera. According to various rumors, none confirmed, the new camera will resemble the A7C in design and have a higher-resolution sensor. Can we assume it will sport the latest Bionz XR processor, and therefore inherit the overhauled menu system that debuted on the A7S III? Don't ask me; there's nobody in here but us chickens. But that would certainly be a sound move, as the current menu system is of the HM type. (HM: hot mess). My guess on price: $1,598. Just a guess.

The A7C has a PASM dial on top of the top plate, which makes more sense than an inset one, and it has a secondary control wheel tucked into the back which allows the main control dial to be dedicated to exposure compensation.

In the not even two years since its introduction, however (it was announced in August of 2019), the A6600 has commanded a hefty price differential above and beyond its lesser siblings. The series has several tiers: the A6000 has been a price leader for years and is still available in kits; the new base model, the A6100, is currently $750 at B&H Photo, while the intermediate A6400 is $900, or combined with a kit lens for $100 more. The A6600, meanwhile, is back up to its regular price of $1,400 from the recent sale price of $1,200, although the price might differ on Amazon.

I'm here to tell you that in my opinion the A6600 is absolutely worth the price disparity. It's not a perfect camera (despite a myriad of attempts over 182 years, that hasn't been accomplished yet), but the build quality is special. Everything about it exudes quality and care in construction. In fact, the "gestalt" of the camera reminds me of nothing so much as the day I unwrapped my much-awaited Leica M6 in the parking lot of a Post Office many years ago—it has that same super-solid, overbuilt, quality-foremost, carved-from-a-single-block feeling. The grip is wonderful, I really like the card slot position (which on the A6000 is fiddley for my large fingers) and the knobs 'n' dials 'n' buttons are smooth, tactile, and pleasing.

These kinds of things matter on a camera, to me. The A6600 is similar to the other A6xxx-series camera, present and past, but it's really a different camera, because of the build quality.

Now as to the new one just being loaded into the starting gate: it will no doubt have some changes I would like, and it will get some things wrong. I ran into a fellow on a forum who was just ranting and railing about the fact that Sony would launch a new APS-C camera when what he is waiting for the A7 IV (I think...I get them mixed up). He was very bitter and couldn't stop perseverating on his disappointment. I really felt like giving him a paternalistic lecture, but then I realized we each have to learn our own lessons. If there's one thing I've learned about the camera marketplace over the years, it's this: never put your faith in vaporware. Any new camera that comes out is never going to be exactly what you think it should be. I'm sure a few of the things I like about the A6600 will be missing in action, or (needlessly, in my opinion) changed, on the new one. That's just the way it always is.

In fact, it's almost like it's a law: every new camera introduction will have some feature or other that you are convinced the manufacturer got wrong, or some conspicuous (to you!) weakness. (That's the "If only it had..." rule.) Just like every old retro camera will have at least one feature that would have to be modernized to make it fully usable now. It's always something.

The best thing about the A6600, though, imperfect as it may or may not be for any given user, is its absolutely deluxe feel and build. I love it. It's up to you whether that would be worth paying for, but it's a perfectly good reason for it to cost more.

Mike

Book of Interest this week:

The Education of a Photographer, Edited by Charles H. Traub, Steven Heller, and Adam B. Bell, Allworth Press, 2006, 256 pages. A small but rich gold mine of short essays and interviews by and about photographers. Also available from The Book Depository with free shipping worldwide.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

JOHN B. GILLOOLY: "I've been using the A6600 alongside the A9/A9II since it was released. I like to have the two form factors as they have different strengths and expand my lens versatility. The A6600 operates and performs parallel to the A9II—you don't feel like you are going to a 'lesser' body when you use it—just a different body."

Dan Khong: "Mike, I think you will eventually evolve into a test driver of weather-proofed cameras and lenses. Just sayin'."

Mike replies: There ya go. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, right? Anyway the sun is shining now.

Eric Rose: "Exceptional build quality seems like such a waste these days since digi cameras generally don't stay in the hands of the first owner for more than five years. Unless the owner is shooting professionally the average digi owner can get away with something that's less elegant and not built to withstand a nuclear attack. So IMHO the price differential is a waste of money and does not increase the likelihood the user will take any better photos than a cheaper model."

Mike replies: A fair point, but to me build quality is about more than longevity. It increases my pleasure when I'm using the camera.

Huw Morgan: "I had an A6600 for a year before succumbing to GAS and buying an A7c. The A6600 was a gem. You've mentioned the build quality, but the battery life and the autofocus were also superb. My only complaint was that Sony dropped the useful built-in flash."

Canon v. Canon

The other day in the "Competition from Used" post I said, "It's almost like we're in the exact opposite situation of the one we were in at the turn of the millennium." Which got me to thinking.

Back then, Canon had just introduced the D30 (not 30D, but D30) a "reasonably priced" digital SLR that had a three megapixel sensor. It was bigger news in the photography world then than anything at all is now. Photo writers across the globe breathlessly ventured the holy-grail claim—that the D30 it was almost as good as, or as good as, or a little bit better than, the results you could get with 35mm film! This was hotly and happily debated far and wide. I was Editor-in-Chief of Photo Techniques magazine at the time, and at the magazine we offered a selection of "Collector Prints" taken with the new D30 by a guy from Canada I had met a few years earlier by the name of Michael Reichmann. Michael's prints were meant to show off the new Canon and make the case for digital as something that might actually be viable for enthusiast non-pro photographers, an idea to which there was still a lot of resistance at the time.

Now cut to today and compare that situation to this: the Canon EOS M6 Mark II is in its second iteration already and it's hardly even made a blip on my personal radar screen...even though I prefer small cameras and tend to pay attention to them. Lens options are limited, but paired with its standout 32mm ƒ/1.4 normal prime lens, its capability compared to Y2K norms is just insanely good. It's a small carry-around camera no bigger, really, than an original Barnack Leica. (Strange that Leica would let another company call any camera M6, but maybe some kind of statute of limitations has run out.) The little lens, which is about two and a quarter inches long (56.5mm) and weighs just slightly more than eight and a quarter ounces (235g), is nevertheless a no-apologies fast normal with superlative performance—and very nice bokeh I might add. The little camera has a spectacular 32-megapixel sensor (more than ten times as many pixels as the D30, n.b.) and is reputed to be very fast. Any way you look at it, the little M6 Mark II runs rings around the hot news from October 2000.

Despite all this over-the-top goodness, though, the M6 II barely moves the needle in today's world as far as consumer excitement as concerned, at least that I can tell. Certainly nothing like the frenzy of interest in the D30 in 2000.

The lens and camera together cost $1,328, which might be somewhat of an impediment to interest, but then, it's neither a compromised camera nor meant to be a budget alternative. And consider that, adjusted for inflation, that $1,328 would have been only $866 in 2000, the year the Canon D30 came out at $3,000 and DPReview called it an "unbeatable" value for money. Put the other way around, the D30 would cost $4,600 today. That was cheap compared to the digital SLRs that newsrooms were paying $25,000 for only a few years earlier. And by the way, DPReview calls the M6 Mark II "a good bit cheaper" than the Sony it competes against (they must mean the A6600). Of course, you might also want the M6's removable $199 EVF-DC2 viewfinder, but that's up to you.

The M6's only problem? Odd, but it might be a little too old fashioned. Not enough bigger/better than its biggest existential threat and wannabe competitor, the smartphone.

Mike

Book of Interest this week:

How Photography Became Contemporary Art: Inside an Artistic Revolution from Pop to the Digital Age, by Andy Grundberg, Yale University Press, 296 pages. A longtime critic and observer attempts a synthesis. Good reading. Also available from The Book Depository with free shipping worldwide.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Ken Bennett: "Back in the fall of 2000, the university where I work hosted a presidential debate. I was going to cover it shooting all film, of course, but Canon Professional Services offered to loan me the as-yet unreleased D30 digital camera. So I got one and shot some test images, figuring they would be okay for maybe a website, and I was amazed at the overall quality of those photos. I ended up shooting most of the events surrounding the debate and some of the debate itself with that D30. Had a double-truck image in the alumni magazine from one frame, and it looked great. Nothing like today, of course, but easily comparable to or better than the Fujicolor 800 color neg we were shooting at the time.

"Then I had to send it back, which turned out to be a huge blessing. I had shot 1,500 frames and had no idea how to handle them; editing, viewing, captions—none of it. I was used to shooting film and scanning individual images for print reproduction (or making actual prints in a darkroom). So I spent the next couple of months figuring out how to manage all the digital files. Then we got our first D30 that winter, the second one a few months later, and a pair of the original 1D bodies the following year. (Four megapixels! Eight frames per second! Amazing autofocus! Seriously, they were da bomb, and the later 1D Mark II was my favorite Canon ever. Shot a lot of good photos with those.)

"Kudos to Canon for the D30. It changed my life and my career in so many amazing ways. I could go on at length.  :-)  "

Tom Burke: "I use Canon cameras and have for many years, so the M line ought to interest me. However, it doesn't—there aren't enough good lenses (and none from third party suppliers that I know of) and a lot of the cameras are missing viewfinders—I need a VF.

"I was however attracted to that sensor, so I bought the M6's cousin, the 90D, which has the same sensor in an APS-C DSLR body. Yes it's bigger and heavier than the M6 but it's lighter than the full frame camera I had previously. I'm delighted with it, and given the price of Canon's R series, I suspect I've bought my Final Camera. The 90D and my iPhone 12 Pro will do me for the foreseeable future.

"I never had a Canon D30, but I did have its successor, the D60, which I bought used. That was my first DSLR and was the game-changer for me—previously I'd had EOS 35mm SLRs."

R. Edelman: "The Canon D30 made me think of Bill Biggart, the photographer who was killed at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He had some film cameras and a D30. The only images that survived were from the D30. Even though the lens was ripped from the camera, the compact flash card survived. That's one tough camera."

Ed. note: Bill Biggart's website is still up, and contains a picture of his ruined D30 as well as a small selection of his recovered 9/11 images. 

Srsly? The New Pentax

I have to admit I was shocked when I found out the price of the new Pentax.

For those of you not following along with DSLR news (more and more people, lately), Pentax has introduced a newly designed camera that unfortunately has an iteration naming convention because of where it falls in the lineup. And an awkward iteration it is—the K-3 Mark III, or K-3 III. I gather that should be pronounced kay-three-three. Pretty soon Porsche will get to the 911th version of the 911, I guess. I would love there to be a Porsche 911 Mark CMXI. (That's the roman numeral for 911 as you've probably guessed.)

But it's not a refresh, not the old model warmed over. It's all new.

Some intriguing improvements
What's so special about it? Well, I've not seen one, but according to everybody's go-to site for nutz 'n' boltz, Amazon's DPReview, it has a new sensor. An MB sensor. That stands for mo' bettah, which as far as I can tell is how every new sensor is trumpeted on release. Or 90% of them anyway. Maybe I've become inured to marketing hype.

The best glass pentaprism viewfinder ever on an APS-C DSLR. Okay, they've got my attention.

MB autofocus. Goes in the "I'm jaded, show me" bin.

MB IBIS. Okay, that tweaks my GAS a tad too. Wouldn't take much to beat the SR (shake reduction) in the old K-20, but then, that came out in April of 2008, Grandpa. (I was around back then, sonny!)

Big honkin' battery that lasts forever. I admit that this always appeals to me.

All-new, better, longer-lasting (300k actuations) shutter. Okay; like the sound of that.

There's video-y stuff. Don't care, don't care.

The camera looks the absolute business. Reminds me of the Jeep Gladiator somehow. Or the new Bronco. I am not supposed to care how a camera looks, but of course I do. This has always been a strength of Pentaxii; they tend to look like cameras are supposed to look.

It's Ricoh's flagship APS-C DSLR. DPReview thinks it's clear that a lot of genuine clean-sheet engineering effort has gone into this camera, and that is worthy of some respect unless and until we find out differently.

Maybe I should check that out
So I was just thinking, hmm, I used a lot of Pentaxes a decade ago, I should really catch up with them and see what they've been up to recently, maybe I'll request one for review. It can't cost that much, right? It's got a fixed viewing screen. As in, doesn't articulate at all. You know, like Grandpa's DSLR. Hey, at least you won't have to fret about flip-up vs. flip-out.

But then I got grumpy. I caught myself thinking, bah, they'll probably want fourteen or fifteen hundred for it, the way things are going these days.

Then I looked.

Two grand.

TWO GRAND?!? What? Seriously? That's the exact same price as a brand new in-the-factory-sealed-box K-1 II! Full frame, half again as many megapickles, fancy hydraulics all over the viewing screen so you can contort it however you want it K-1 II! That one. It's three hundred dollars more than a Fuji X-T4! That's like John Starks trash-talking Michael Jordan. Same price as the pro Nikon D500! Same price as the full-frame Sony A7 Mark III! Help, I can't stop typing !'s!

Corporations are not actually people, so they cannot actually lie around in the rec room feeling sluggish and useless and puffing one too many joints, but: Ricoh must be high.

Two grand.

Down boy
Well, calm down, hoss. I need to stop applying my price sensitivity level to cameras. It's a bad habit. And it's dumb. There are plenty of people out there for whom the difference between $1,200 and $2,000 for a camera body is not especially meaningful.

Pentaxes look the way cameras are supposed to look.

It occurred to me when I was contemplating the meaning of Erwin Puts's work and relationship to Leica yesterday that my primary allegiance isn't to brands, it's to the people who use the brands. Just because I've only ever owned one Canon doesn't mean I don't like Canon, because I think of Josh H. and Tom B. and all the people I know who have shot with and loved their Canons over the years. My primary attitude toward Leica doesn't link directly to the corporation or even the legend or the lore, it links to Jay B. and Jack M. who both love their very different Leicas. The meaning of Nikon isn't "what do you think of the D850," it's "just think of all the great work that's been done with Nikons by so many different people over the years" from Eve Arnold to Galen Rowell to Peter Turnley.

I haven't always liked Ricoh. (They stiffed me for $2,500 worth of advertising when they bought Pentax. Just said, nah, we're not honoring that, go stuff yourself. Refused to pay the bill.) But I've always really liked people who use Pentaxes. They're the nicest people. It's the users that matter, not the name on the top plate.

So I should just chill out. Two grand means it's out of my price range; it doesn't actually mean it's too expensive.

Here's the K-3 Mark III at B&H. So tell me, how do we feel about the concept of a "flagship APS-C DSLR" in April of 2021, in the era of full-frame mirrorless? Does it feel a little like "most popular mid-size sedan" in the era of SUVs and pickup trucks?

Mike

Book o' this Week:
Accidentally Wes Anderson, the group-sourced book of the Instagram trend, endorsed by the director. Go read about it! <—This is a portal to Amazon; also available at the Book Depository for global delivery with free shipping.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Speed: "Broadly speaking, camera buyers come in two flavors—those that are already in the system and those that are new to the system. Low prices are designed to lure newbies while high prices are designed to net those with a bag full of lenses who don't want to start from scratch. Exception that proves the rule...useful new features and outstanding performance can demand a premium from everyone. A friend and life-long Canon user sold everything (Canon DSLR plus a bag of heavy lenses) and spent a boatload of money for small and light Sony mirrorless products. His chiropractor was the loser."

John McMillin: "Yes, it's a fearsome price. I paid that much for the K-1 when it came out, and was happy to do it, because other FF options were considerably more. For me, the big draw of FF was getting a full-sized OVF again. This new K-3 III promises a view almost as big, and possibly brighter. It will certainly be faster than the K-1, which suits itself to leisurely contemplation of the scene while the buffer writes to the card. So it will be a more versatile camera, for sure.

"The image quality difference between the two doesn't concern me; I can barely tell my K-1 photos from those of my old K-3 (v.1). Good enough is good enough. As with your truck analogy, we're all awash in excess capacity, with pickups that are too tall to load easily, sporty cars too powerful to ever drive hard, and cameras so rich in detail capture that we need to enlarge to ridiculous sizes to find any differences between them. There is something satisfying about doing the job with less, of having just enough and using it fully.

"The key spec I'm waiting to learn is just what the crop option does on the new K-3 III. The K-1's three-way crop gives me fast access to normal, 1.5x [? I don't know what this means —Ed.] and the classic, elegant 1:1 aspect ratios. I suppose the K-3 offers only a square crop, but if it gives 4:3, the artistic choice, I might sell my Micro 4/3 gear and take the plunge. But in a year or so, when prices have declined due to discounting."

Michael J. Perini (partial comment): "It is just so late to the party. I wish them well."

Steve Biro: "This is Pentax trying to do with DSLRs what Leica did with rangefinders. Leica could not compete with modern cameramaking, so they focused on their heritage at increasingly bespoke prices. And now Ricoh is taking a page out of that playbook. I fully expect the replacement for the Pentax K-1 II to be even more money. I wish Ricoh good luck but I'm not sure that it's going to work. They need a lot of conquest sales because the traditional Pentaxian (and I was one for a very long time) is a skinflint."

robert e: "I think the sticker shock is that much greater because Pentax used to be the value brand for the savvy student or amateur. Seems to me that pro-build SLRs are a niche market at this point, so shouldn't we expect niche prices? The price tag may be more harbinger than outlier. I imagine pentaprisms and mechanical shutters aren't getting any cheaper to make, especially at best-of-breed level. 'Why?' is a different question, and perhaps more salient, but not one I can address.

"The thing I miss most about DSLRs might be decent battery life."

Bill Skones: "Milking the faithful with deep pockets. They almost all do it, and Pentax needs to do it. The price of the Pentax KP dropped almost 20% in the nine months from when it was introduced to the following holiday season. It's probably true most enthusiasts don't need a camera costing more than $1,200 and many would be fine with one costing half that. But every manufacturer needs premium, high-margin products, and for Pentax that includes an APS-C DSLR. I plan to buy a K3 III, after the price drops some if I can stave of the GAS. I like the appearance, operation and handling of Pentax cameras. Hope you will get a review copy and let us know what you think. Of course that would not be time well spent on your part, since it would not interest most readers or get many click-throughs to purchase."

Bill Pearce (partial comment): "If the difference between $1,200 and $2,000 is trivial to you, it's god's way of saying you have too much money."

Alex Sarbu (partial comment): "For me the difference between the $1,200 and the $2,000 camera is very meaningful: the $1,200 one would not give me what I want. Yes, the $1,200 camera would be 'cheaper' but it would be money wasted; the $2,000 one looks like a more cost-effective option (YMMV)."

Zyni Moë: "Think someone at Ricoh realises the end is coming and is trying to extract last profits from declining sales: GR III price was also much higher than GR II."

David Dyer-Bennet: "I guess maybe for an APS-C $2k is expensive. Nothing I've looked seriously at in 10 years has been that cheap, though, certainly isn't today."

Andrew Kochanowski: "You know I'm your Pentax guy, though this comment is late. I must have missed this yesterday.

"The K-3 III was obviously designed just for me. I can't wait to get one. I also think it's a pretty good move for them. With all the talk of DSLRs dying, I think I saw that they still accounted for half of all interchangeable lens camera sales last year. Half is a lot.

"I'd put the $2k price tag in perspective. They aren't going for the working press pros or the sports shooters who already have all the Nikon and Canon gear they need. They are going for the age 45+ amateur and occasional pro who grew up with film SLRs and who know how nice a proper SLR feels. They are selling a premium product like Leica at a still-significant discount from the Leica price of entry. I think the target audience can afford $2k, and think the price point is not a barrier at all.

"I've had the K-5, the K-3 and the KP since 2015 or so, and lemme tell you, they all feel great. Their viewfinders are nice and bright, and I can only imagine how nice the K-3 III will be. They get great battery life, even the smallish KP. If you care about such things (and boy, I do) the rubberized, knurled, and positive tactile feel knobs are great. All of them feel dense, like you're holding a chunk of magnesium covered in nice fake leather (because you are).

"The only knock against these that I ever really saw was the AF. I'm not a sports shooter, and imagine that you'd want the best tracking you could get if you were, but for me, on the street and doing candid stuff, the AF was fine. The new one is supposed to be far better; we'll see."

News Flash: $1000 Off Fuji GFX 50R

This just in—B&H has announced a price of $1,000 off the Fuji GFX 50R body, which they're selling for $3,499 with a free bag and 64GB card. Thought you'd want to know.

Mike

Gear o' The Week:

If I could shoot with any 50mm focal-length-equivalent lens, it would not be unobtanium: it would be the relatively modest, relatively slow, relatively older Pentax 35mm ƒ/2.8 DA Macro Limited on APS-C. I don't know how it measures and couldn't care less. If you care first and foremost about pictures, especially prints, this is one beautiful lens. Luverly. As a normal too. This link is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

B&H Photo also has the Magic Macro, naturally.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

You Just Won!

[Insert yourself here]

Good news! You just won a contest. The prize is the exclusive use of any Fuji GFX camera and any three lenses of your choice, for five years. You have to turn the equipment in at the end of that time.

Which body will you take?

As sweet as the 100S looks, I'd have to go for the GFX 50R. Something about the layout of that camera promises the kind of simplicity and directness that I've craved. And as much time as I've spent thinking about it, I just don't know why I would ever need the extra ~49 MP of the 100 cameras.

I really need to read some reviews of the GFX 50R to see if that simplicity is real or just an illusion. Oh yeah, wait, I was going to request one for review.

If all my wishes come true, someday my entire camera arsenal will consist of a GFX, the latest iPhone, and a 35mm film camera. (Regarding the latter, I'm not going to say which one because I don't want to risk making it more popular than it is!)

But I reserve the option to keep other film cameras around as showpieces. (I like cameras. Does it bum out anyone else that they hardly ever show cameras on "Antiques Roadshow"? They'll show photographs every now and then, but they obviously don't have a "Camera Table" or any experts on hand. What are we, chopped liver? You'd think that if they have not only a toy person and a plate person and pottery person but a doll person, they could at least have one camera guy. What's that Ben said the other day? About "camera gearhead and amateur photographer" being "pretty invisible culturally"? There are certainly camera collectors out there in the world. And newsworthy collectibles. And interesting and compelling stories. Maybe it's just that collectible cameras just aren't sold in antiques shops, but are the province of specialist dealers.)

The GFX 100S seems like a camera of contradictions to me. It's bleeding edge! But it's also niche. It's remarkably cheap! But also extremely expensive. It's innovative and forward-looking! And tailored to a contracting marketplace. It's a clean-slate new system! But it doesn't have any legacy lenses available. It's small! But it's big. And so forth.

It seems like there are three good reasons to get a GFX 100S, only the first two of which are commonly acknowledged: 1.) If you make prints larger than five feet wide. 2.) If you want the freedom to crop down to even just a quarter of the image area. 3.) If the camera really appeals to you and you can picture yourself using it with great pleasure and getting a lot of joy out of owning and using it.

Point 3 doesn't seem difficult to me, but then I'm a big dreamer.

Because let's face it, all cameras are a combination "I need it" and "I want it" in some proportion or another. This one looks to be pressing the "I want it" button pretty hard. Just sayin'.

Mike

Book o' This Week:

André Kertész, On Reading, the lovingly crafted reprint of the lyrical 1971 classic by an early master of the small camera. (Would make an excellent Valentine, for a person who reads.) The above link will take you to Amazon. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

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

Herman Krieger: "Here's an 'Old Camera' table for you, with the expert on hand."

Stephen Scharf: "I'd take the GFX 50R. In fact, I was just looking for used ones on Fred Miranda today (and there aren't any, FWIW). I have a photographer buddy who has produced some beautiful photos with his GFX 50R. The depth and resolution of the tonal range and the fineness of gradation of contrast with both the 50S and 50R is exemplary. Especially on black-and-white photos. The large pixel area on the 50-megapixel sensor GFX cameras don't hurt, in that respect."

Ronny A Nilsen: "100 is not enough.  ;-)  "

Mike replies: Thank you! I meant to include that link somehow.

Frank: "For a hobbyist, reason 3 is the only reason to purchase camera gear. The other two are really extension of number 3—e.g. you want to make five-foot prints or want the freedom to crop. As a hobbyist, this is always a want, and never a need.

"Years ago I went on one of those Pop Photo photo treks—brought along a lower level canon SLR and maybe one out of my three lenses was an L lens. Of course most of the others in the group had professional-level gear. But during that weekend, I saw that some of my photos stacked up well, and the ones that didn't were my fault, not the equipment's. One of my main takeaways from that weekend was that an amateur's camera kit was not a reflection of his/her skill as a photographer, but a function of his/her income, budget, and buying priorities. For a hobbyist, that is all there is to it—to get equipment we love, can afford, and fulfills our desire to make the photographs we want to make."

Mike replies: One of my sly little ambitions when I was young was to photograph with only a beginner SLR, a 50mm lens, and Tri-X, and make better prints than most of the guys who fretted interminably about the latest and best equipment and films. Would have been nice, but as it turns out I'm the worst gearhead I know. But there's something very cool about using basic gear and shooting rings around the toffs with all the latest.

Yonatan Katznelson: "Point #3 is what finally pushed me over the Fuji edge on which I had been teetering for years."