The Online Photographer

Need Your Help: Best Enthusiast Cameras List

So I need to ask for some help. I'm compiling a list of the Best Enthusiast Cameras. Ten, no more than 12.

First time in a number of years, so it had better be good.

[UPDATE: This is for a list of current cameras, available new. Sorry, forgot to make that clear!]

Lists are trivial by nature (although I've always enjoyed them, and I enjoy them from both sides—compiling them, and reading or listening to them). But at the same time, I want to be as thorough, careful, and intelligent as possible. I think it's being responsible to take it seriously. Because even if the list itself is neither useful nor pertinent to someone who reads it, the things it says, and the reasoning used in making the choices, can be thoughtful and interesting. A well-done list is entertaining to read even for people who don't need such a list. Poor lists are shallow misshapen things that litter and clutter the information landscape, and we wouldn't want to be a party to that.

My very first pass, just thinking about it, brought five selections to mind immediately, including three Fujis, which right away is a problem. Three choices is obviously too many from one manufacturer on a list of only 10 or 12. So I don't need too much help with Fuji (I've shot Fuji at least partially for a whole decade now). On the other hand, I need the most help with both Nikon and Canon.

I can post later about some of the considerations that go into a list. I have a long history with that, too, and it might be interesting to touch on. Another thing I think is interesting is balancing a list. Does it leave out a manufacturer? Does it leave out a format? What about people who don't have enough money or who have a lot—is there something for each of them? Does it take into account different purposes? Should it include a film camera? If so, what format? Lists always get criticisms from different vectors. The Academy Awards seemed to be ignoring Black people a few years ago. The Nobel Prize in Literature, until Dylan, seemed to be studiously avoiding Americans. Many lists catch flak for not being inclusive in one way or another that actually wasn't part of the original specification for the list. Or for being too inclusive. And so forth. It all goes to the question of balancing. A list of only 10–12 is going to call for some careful balancing, and the balancing in some cases might actually lead to different choices.

But on to the point: what I need your help with: using all your experience and knowledge, what would you propose as being a camera that cannot be left off such a list, or that deserves the highest consideration?

What do you really love?

I'm not asking you for a whole list. I think your comments will be more useful if you nominate one. Or two. Maybe even three but not more than three. Don't dilute your advocacy. Up to you, though.

Giving some reasons would be good.

But I probably shouldn't over-specify here. Unless it's too late already.  :-)

And bear in mind the "enthusiast" part...here we're looking for cameras that can be central to an initiate's hobby and practice. Definitely not looking for pro cameras, but we are looking for choices that can nourish their owners' enthusiasm*. Something in which they can take pride, things that are cool as well as competent.

And if you don't agree with or like this whole idea, there's no need to explain that to everyone. We're just having fun.

And, thanks!

Mike

*Ansel Adams used that phrase many years ago and it has always stuck in my mind.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Dyer-Bennet:  (partial comment): "No, there should not be a film camera. Because film cameras, for modern users, are a very large and special sub-area of the hobby, where I strongly suspect the choice criteria don't look much like those over in the digital area. The two areas aren't enough alike, and nearly nobody will agree on the relative rankings of a pair of cameras one from one side and the other from the other. 'A' film camera cannot usefully represent the position of the film aficionados, anyway. So, make it a list of digital cameras, to avoid implying that it's selected from all cameras."

robert e (partial comment): "'Balance' and 'fairness' are tricky concepts. IMO—at least if I'm understanding the definition of 'enthusiast' in play here—an honest, accurate and useful list would give Fujifilm as many spots as they've earned. Canon and Nikon have decided to focus more on filmmakers and vloggers. There are lists on which they would deserve multiple kudos, but for this particular one (if I'm getting the gist of it), they should make way for Fujifilm, Pentax/Ricoh, Olympus/OM, Leica, Hasselblad, etc.—companies who've gone out of their way to cater to (or at least haven't yet abandoned) the still photography 'enthusiast.'"

Terry Burnes (partial comment): "To me the utility of list like this is as a guide for someone who hasn't already decided, so in this case someone who wants to become an enthusiast but isn't yet one. I think that rules out extravagantly expensive or esoteric kit, but still demands quality results, otherwise why bother? So something sort of middle of the road. And as Mike has said many times, when it comes to ILCs you're buying into a system, so you have to consider the availability of lenses. Finally, a new enthusiast likely has come to this by way of family and travel photography, which is likely to continue. To me that argues for affordability, compactness, light weight and a modest presence, not a suitcase full of expensive, large, heavy, ostentatious gear."

Robert Ardinger: "Leica Q3, Way expensive, Wonderful to use. Extremely good in the 28-35-50 focal length equivalent cropping range. Great color and beautiful black and white conversions. Simple and solid and has reinvigorated my desire to make photographs. It is an enthusiast's camera, not a camera for everyone. I have had film Leica M's since 1973 (first one a very used M3, last one an M6 bought in 1998) but never really bonded with digital M cameras (tried an M8 for a while). The modern digital cameras and their lovely autofocus lenses from Nikon, Fuji, etc. worked well for my needs for the last 20 years. After reading about the Q3 last Fall I put my name on a no-cost wait list almost as a lark, forgot I did so but eventually, 6 months later, I received an email saying "mine" was in stock. Debated, lined up items to send to KEH and went ahead and bought it (wondering if I might ever get the chance again soon). A big budget buster but after using it for some time now I am very glad I purchased it. I do hope I feel this way in a year or so." [Leica Q3 for those who might want to take a look. —Ed.]

Matthew: "I would have to nominate the Pentax K-3III Monochrome. It's hard to think of a more enthusiast-oriented camera than that. A monochrome camera in a colour world. A mature SLR when the momentum is shifting to new technologies that are only just now learning their design language. And, well, it’s Pentax. It’s hard to think of it appealing to anyone who isn’t deeply committed to what it offers. But there’s nothing else like it: a landmark camera made for exactly the photographers who want it, not the generalist who could use anything." [Pentax K-3III Monochrome]

Moose (partial comment): "...My second, probably hopeless, recommendation is the Oly TG-[x] Tough series. In a long maturation, dropping from 16 to 12 MP better suited to the small sensor, adding raw output, then 12-bit lossless raw, the last two models, TG-6 and -7, are darn near perfect for their purpose. What may not be generally realized is that they are superb macro cameras, focusing incredibly close, with accessory ring light and with focus bracketing or in-camera stacking, to deal with the shallow DoF of macro. My TG-6 is an awesome little thing." [Olympus TG-7]

Mike replies: The TG-6 and -7, while rainproof on their own, also offer a true underwater housing rated to 147 feet. For not very much money, as underwater housings go. Awesome little thing, indeed.

nextSibling (partial comment): "Too many variables here, but I'll just pick on one. It's a favorite phrase of marketers, but I'm not sure 'an enthusiast photographer' actually exists. The implication is of an enthusiastic amateur, non-professional, with some kind of 'general' interest in photography. But that covers such a wide variety of individuals so as to be meaningless. We all have our different interests, uses, ideas and ambitions for our cameras. The landscape photographer is going to have very different ideas about their ideal gear compared to a sports enthusiast, to pick a trivially true example. This is why I always prickle at camera reviews of 'The Ten Best...'. For whom? [...] Everyone needs to take their own journey."

Daniel Homan (partial comment): "Enthusiasts almost by definition are excited about some aspect or set of aspects of photography, so recommending a best camera is a challenge without knowing what aspects of photography bring them the most joy. If one loves on-the-go macro photography, as I do, I would recommend the most recent Olympus or OMD camera...simply unparalleled for that kind of work. On the other hand, if you have kids who do night-time Marching Band (as I also do), a full-frame system with moderately fast lenses works really well to balance noise and shutter-speed. I've had a couple of friends ask me for advice recently about what to get if they want to get into mirrorless cameras. In both cases, after understanding to their interests, I've recommended whatever full-frame Nikon they can afford."

Alan: "'Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem—in my opinion—to characterize our age.' —Albert Einstein."

Mike replies: There an Art Kane photo with that quotation as its title!

Christopher Perez: "Enthusiasm: Here's what currently gets me going. Sony A7 and Sony Zeiss 35mm and 55mm. Ooooo, absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. Something additional: Color Management. Understanding as much as possible about the choices software manufacturers make for us in attempting to make us happy with what we see. There's something undeniably thrilling about how the Sony A7 coupled with outstanding camera profiles tickles the enthusiasm."

Fujifilm X100 VI Gets IBIS! Woo-Hoo!

Surely one of the landmark cameras of the whole digital era is the Fujifilm X100 series, which started in 2010 and just now reached its sixth, count 'em, sixth, iteration. It was a surprise smash hit, and propelled Fuji into its current role as a multifaceted camera manufacturer. The Fujifilm X100VI (Mark VI, that is) was just announced, and is available for pre-order. It's the king of compacts, the apotheosis of the point-and-shoot, the modern-day Barnack camera.

I'll assume you're passingly familiar with the X100 series. What's so different about the VI?

It's a major update, for two reasons. Starting with the most important new feature, the VI get IBIS (in-body image stabilization) for the first time in the model's now 131/2-year history. Fuji was late to the party with image stabilization, but now that they have it they're obviously spreading it around their lineup generously. The new IBIS claims six stops of improvement at the cost of only 1.5 ounces of extra weight—the camera can actually stand that, and it might actually make an improvement in hand-feel—and nothing in terms of added size.

If you want to modify the opposite extreme and make the lens slower in bright light, there's a built-in 4-stop ND filter for shooting wide apertures for better bokeh in bright light. I don't know when that arrived. Word on the street is that you can use both IBIS and the ND filter together, which might be especially useful for video.

You remember the tagline of Bill Hader's "Stefon" character on SNL, who reviewed the latest, hottest clubs? "This club has everything"?  Well, after five go-rounds of refining the original, the Mark VI has everything. Ghosts, banjos, Carl Paladino, a stuck-up kitten who won't sign autographs, furkels*. No, seriously: all the goodies of previous versions, including its Leica-inspired good looks, flip-up screen (the 3.0", 1.62m-dot LCD is a touchscreen), knob-and-dial controls including an aperture ring, a way to increase the weather resistance by adding two mysterious rings to the lens (I can't quite sort that out), and of course the famous and exclusive hybrid viewfinder that switches on demand from optical to electronic. Using the front switch that pays homage to the frameline lever on ancient Leicas. (Modern ones too, Jeff reminds us. But ancient ones too.)

X-Processor 5
The second big new thing is the sensor/processor. The Mark VI inherits Fuji's latest 40-megapixel sensor and processor from the X-H2. The plethora of pixels makes possible 1.4X and 2X digital crop settings at lower but still usable resolutions, resulting in equivalent focal lengths of ~50mm and 70mm. That's separate from the attachable optical converter lenses, available as accessories, that change the native 35mm-e lens to 50mm-e and 28mm-e.

AF is said to be "improved," and it probably is. In car magazines, every new model of virtually any sporty car claims to have a chassis that is "X% stiffer" than the last model. Some wag of a writer once factored in all the claimed improvements over time and noted that the latest car had to have a chassis that was something like 2,371% stiffer than the original—which might have been possible if the chassis originally had the stiffness of spaghetti or silly putty, or the new one was as stiff as a Formula One racecar. "Improved AF" is a bit like that. On the other hand, the original X100 did have pretty slow AF, and by the Mark V it had become significantly better and, moreover, no longer an annoyance, so it's good that they're continuing to improve it. The processor, like the 40-mp sensor, is Fuji's current best.

The X100VI also sports a new film simulation called Reala Ace. This kind of thing would normally not be of interest, mimicking, as it does, a gimmick, but the X100VI has twenty film simulations, and finding your favorites among them is actually a real part of the appeal of the little camera. Some the film simulations are very good, and, if my own experience is any guide, they can actually be surprisingly difficult to reproduce "manually" in Photoshop. No reason to scorn them. Fuji knows color.

The X100-series is a remarkable camera. It's been popular for going on 14 years, and with successive generations of humans, too—it's gotten an significant injection of popularity from attention on contemporary social media. Granted, it's not cheap at all at $1,600, but maybe it's actually creeping into Veblen-good territory, in which people prefer to pay more because of what the camera says about them and their values and their sense of style (and their wallets). It's a premium price; but it's a premium product.

Simplicity
It's not exactly the pathway I personally would have liked to see with the camera. I'd be in favor of lower price and not so much of everything. I mean, if I wanted a do-everything general-purpose camera with multiple focal lengths, I'd just get a Fuji X-T5 for pretty much the same price as this, along with a dessert-cart choice of Fujicrons starting with the 23mm. Granted, the conversion lenses for the X100VI are cheaper, but they're also not usable on any other camera.

The X100 series would be the perfect package in which to reach for a little Apple-like simplicity. (Although I sat in on a lecture at the Apple Store recently about how to use the iPhone 15 camera, and that has lost its Jobsian simplicity too. I can't even remember half the arcane things I learned how to do.) I've opined in the past that I'd like to see simplified, streamlined, easy-to-grok versions of existing full-featured cameras come on to the market, and if Fuji had a different vision for this camera it would be interesting to see what could be done with it. But that isn't the fashion, so, never mind. I guess Gen Z'ers need their video. But to add a note of gratitude to my tune here, videography functionality is probably why this little varmint got its IBIS, so, okay. Thanks for that.

Verdict
This looks to be easily the best and most capable iteration of this perennially popular little camera yet. If I were in the market, I'd get it just for the IBIS and let everything else fall where it may. If you have and love any of the five older versions, even the V, now would be the time to move up.

Mike

*That was the club called "Push," where club owner Gay Dunaway built a fantasy world that answers the question, "Nooow?"

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Stephan Cowdery: "It's hard to believe that there were camera lines without IBIS in 2024. Of all the improvements in cameras in the last 20 years, IBIS has to be, in terms of improving image quality (in non-tripod situations) the most significant."

Michael: "I have the X100V (Apparently I'm one of the lucky few), and it is such a joy to use. I love the tactile feedback of the controls, the wonderful film simulations, the OVF/EVF option, and the ability to accessorize it to your liking (I added a soft shutter release and thumb grip). The fixed focal length makes you think a lot more about composition and being a part of the process, which reignited my enjoyment of going out to take photos. You would be surprised how differently you look at the world and the hidden treasures you find to photograph when you are restricted to one focal length. When people talk about the camera you just always want to use, this is the camera they are talking about."

William Cook: "After reading your excellent post on the X100V in September [Wasn't it February? —Ed.] 2020, I wrote this comment: 'I have always throughly believed in this type camera and Fuji’s interpretation is near perfect...except for one thing (for me). And obviously, that ‘one thing,’ is only important to me and maybe a few others. Certainly not important to enough people for Fuji to entertain the idea of including it—image stabilization. Because of my older, less than steady hands, I need stabilization. My current larger camera doesn’t have it but my lenses do. As much as I would love to have the X100, I would need a tripod. Kinda defeats the carry everywhere ethos. But I still admire it.'

"I can’t believe they’ve included the one thing I’ve always wanted in this camera! I put my money where my mouth is and at five minutes after the embargo ended the other night, I had mine on order at B&H (through TOP’s link, of course!). Normally, whichever camera feature I truly desire, the universe conspires to ensure it’s NEVER offered. For once, providence has smiled upon me!"

Dogman: "Lovely camera, the X100. I'm still happy with my X100S. I'm sure the VI is 'better' in many ways but I love the 'S' too much to part with it. Or upgrade from it. But, yeah, the VI is a really lovely camera."

Arg: "If the X100 is, as you say, the king of compacts, then the Ricoh GR is the Lord Tyrion Lannister of compacts: no doubt flawed, but devilishly small, incomparably clever, and able to make one smile uncontrollably in its presence."

Charlie E: "The X100S pulled me into the Fuji X system back in 2014. It was a great camera aside from the very slow autofocus. £699 felt a lot at the time for a fixed lens camera, even if it did look pretty. I don't think I could justify £900 more on that sort of camera, even if it's pretty, has the great Fuji simulations, IBIS, etc. (inflation hasn't been 228% in the last 10 years, though it feels like it sometimes).

"The X100S did pull me into the X system though, and I traded up to an X-Pro2 which I still carry with me every day and I won't swap it until it breaks. Hopefully there will be a new version with IBIS at that point!"

The Camera as Wearable Accessory

Some cameras are both picture-takers and fashion accessories. Primary among these is the beautiful and cunningly tiny and delicate Fuji X100V, the latest iteration of the viral sensation that took even Fuji by surprise in September of 2010. (I was told back then that Fuji initially expected the camera to be a niche product that would appeal mainly to females in the Japanese home market. Instead, it's been like a book that was a surprise best-seller and then never went out of print.) You can actually buy an X100V at Amazon right now, although the prices start at $1,900, rather a lot for a fixed-lens camera, but then remember you're getting the lens. But the camera has been particularly hard to get for a long time now. DPReview says it is "so desirable that it's almost impossible to actually buy an X100V (without paying a substantial premium over the list price). This may be a knock-on effect of the chip shortages and supply chain problems, post lockdown, an intentional restriction in supply to keep prices strong or the winding-down of production in anticipation of a new model, we can't be sure." B&H lists it for a slightly more reasonable $1,400, which hardly helps, as it is "temporarily out of stock" there, a condition that's been so persistent that they might have to rethink that word "temporarily."

The Sony A7CII

If you have an X100V, hang on to it. It's been so hard to get that prices of used X100F's have been rising as fast as the prices of two-year-old Toyota RAV-4's.

Of the "usual suspect" alternatives, the Ricoh GRIII (28mm-equivalent) and the GRIIIx (same camera but with a 40mm-e lens) are just as good for pictures but not nearly as good as jewelry. In fact, the opposite might be the case: the Ricohs are anonymous, both in terms of their appearance and the brand name. Not always a bad thing of course. Other alternatives are also-rans as well, in the present sense, because they don't cut it as style statements.

Sony's beauties
The best camera-as-fashion camera right now might be the Sony A7C, which has been unjustly overlooked almost since it got here. It's a handsome camera, especially in silver. Even a bit smaller than the X100V (and they're both surprisingly small, if you've never seen either in person), it has a better grip, it's full-frame, and it takes interchangeable lenses.

For a lens, I'd get the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar ZA. It's barely four and a quarter ounces, and it comes with a dedicated lens hood. Yes, it's slower than the Fuji lens by a stop, but with a FF digital sensor, does that really matter in practice? It looks great and balances well on the camera, even if passers-by can't see the little blue Zeiss logo.

There are actually three options available now: the original 24-MP A7C which was introduced in 2020, and the pairing of the new A7CII and the new A7CR which were announced just last August. The A7CII has slightly improved specs in most areas, including a modestly higher-resolution 33-MP sensor, and, as those familiar with Sony's nomenclature can guess, the A7CR has a 61-MP sensor, enough to offer a noticeable improvement in resolution in some cases. You won't save any money over the Fuji, but the A7C trio are all available. So at least you can spend your money if you want to.

With the little Sony instead of the little Fuji, would you turn just as many heads out on the boulevard? That remains to be tested. But probably.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Mackenzie: "Lack of availability of the Fuji is primarily a result of it being touted on TikTok. That led to the rapid rise in prices as it was purchased as jewelry driven by the 'influencers' there."

John Holmes: "A Speed Graphic for me, please...the 'Weegee Look' will really command attention!  :-)  Merry Christmas."

David L.: "I had the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar lens for Sony. Definitely enjoyed using it, and carrying it, and I was always happy with the results. It would fit well with any compact Sony camera."

Richard: "My recent experience is that the camera of mine which attracts the most attention (by far) is my Olympus OM-2n."

Mike replies: That's because it's the best all-around choice of all the used cameras from the film era, the best balance of old and new, light yet tough, ideal size, sweet to operate, sufficient capabilities without excess crud, and accessible price. Want to see mine?

And Here's What I Think the Pentax Film Project Ought to Be

Disclosure from the outset: I don't have any insider track at all. I haven't even followed the rumors, and haven't even looked at the teaser videos that are out there. This is just all my own imagination. It isn't information.

With that out of the way, a few basic principles:

• A new 35mm film SLR must be designed to be iconic. It should be something that can last in the market for 20+ years like the LX did, and be something worthy of standing next to the survivor film Leicas. It must be special enough to gain some mindshare out in the general culture, beyond the boundaries of the community of enthusiasts.
• It must position Pentax as an iconic marque and company, and build off of its classic heritage and highest accomplishments. Perhaps even help launch a proud Pentax brand, with regalia and merch and swag and wearables, in the same manner as Harley-Davidson did so successfully during one of its comebacks. Maybe that last is a stretch, I dunno.
• It must be mechanical, or at least mostly so, so that it has "object quality." Jewel-like. A fetish object. An object worthy of desire. With electronics used judiciously, sparingly, and only where needed. Not unworthy of being pressed into use as a "fashion accessory" by some. We old Photo-Dawgs don't care, but classic film cameras are personal style statements to young people now. Lean into that!

I'd have them make the "Spotmatic III." Does any old SLR look as classic and perfect as a Spotmatic? That doesn't exist. The same size, shape and weight as the classic SP and SL. Perhaps with adjustments—maybe three ounces lighter, and maybe the pentaprism would have to be a bit larger. Modernized, stylized—slightly. The same beautifully durable materials. (Do any old cameras wear as well through time as Spotmatics? Methinks not.) And purist: no self-timer. No hot shoe or flash terminals. No mirror lock-up (well, maybe mirror lock-up). No double exposure button. No connection for motor winders or drives. No autofocus, of course (although I'd tolerate a focus confirmation light)—manual focus might be slower, but it's its own joy. The whole camera would embody the ideas of  deliberation and contemplation, as does using film in 2024.

None of that is needed now because the camera won't be anybody's go-to for workaday, necessary pictures. Just a purist machine for exposing negative film and nothing more. It doesn't need to do any kind of specialist double-duty. It would be for one thing and one thing only: looking through, and exposing pictures mindfully, deliberately, and joyfully.

The legendary Pentax Spotmatic, pride of Japan in
the 1960s. Photo by Paul M. Provencher.

Then, some modern updates: 100% finder and better eye relief, better coating in the prism and finder optics. But with plenty of "snap" on the groundglass, rather than brightness at the expense of being able to see the plane of focus. K-mount, of course, not Pentax screwmount. Diopter correction built in, so it can't get lost. The beautiful self-timer lever could be retained to serve as the lens-release lever. Great care taken with haptics and hand-feel: the smoothness of the wind-on, the sound of the shutter (quieter), the damping of the mirror. I'd give it three sizes of optional add-on handgrips, but, continuing under the heading of "if it ain't broke," retain the plain old ring lugs so that any strap could be used, and a mechanical connection for a mechanical cable release. 

One thing they could work on re-engineering would to foolproof the film loading. Years of serving students and enthusiasts have taught me that that's something that can frustrate people about film cameras. Kodak's research showed the same.

Spot on
Autoexposure and metering is where my fancies get really sweet. Pentax needs no introduction to logic in control layouts: they perfected it, their cameras (many of them) embodied it. So, the classic aperture ring and shutter speed dial (going up to 1/2000th or at most 1/4000th, no more than that is needed for film now!), with an "A" for auto on each: when both are set on a value, you're in Manual mode; when the aperture dial is set on A and the shutter speed dial is set on a value, you're in Shutter Priority; when the aperture is set on a value and the shutter speed is set on A, you're in Aperture Priority; and finally, with both set on A, you're in Program Mode. No more modes than that.

Simple centerweighted averaging metering. People will, after all, be using forgiving B&W film and forgiving color negative film for the most part.

...But here comes the kicker. Longtime Pentaxians know that the name "Spotmatic" was originally chosen because the camera was supposed to have spot metering capability. But it was too early for the tech, the idea was dropped late in the development, and the cameras never had spot metering—even while the name was retained.

I'd propose to restore the original raison d'etre of the classic camera. On the back of the top plate, right where it's easiest to access for the thumb of your right hand, a small button that, when you push it, gives you a spot reading corresponding to just the area of the focus aids in the finder, and simultaneously locks exposure until you release it again. This allow you to take a spot reading on a middle gray area of the picture and recompose and take one shot or many, or quickly revert or reset as needed. Two metering methods (and nothing else, no matter what your engineers can think up), in combination giving the photographer all he or she really needs for general and expressive photography.

Simple. Purist. Elemental.

Could they sell this whole idea? I don't know, but I sure as hell could.

Skimp not!
Finally, and this is important: really, really good build quality, and a high enough price. (That might sound surprising, coming from me!) You have to differentiate it properly from actual old cameras. It has to be better and finer, in part because it is newer, in part because it's made to be a precision instrument. Not priced so high that it seems like a ripoff: that would not be aligned with Pentax's history of making plain, unpretentious working tools (which this is not manifesting but rather glorifying, as all good retro ought). I'm thinking somewhere between maybe $2,200 and $2,800, today? To earn the company some money, sure. But it also has to be high enough for the new camera to be the aspirational target of all those young enthusiasts who are currently using actual old used SLRs from the bygone days. Importantly, it has to be enough nicer than all the old cameras that it creates legitimate lust and longing: the kind of thing people of all sorts would want because, well, because they want it. Remember, nobody needs a film camera. People will only buy one because it's beautiful and it delights them and it promises them an experience and they desire the thing. They'll buy it only for love, so you've got to make something people can love and then be able to articulate all the reasons why they should.

Never happen, of course. But, as Ernest Hemingway once famously wrote (coincidentally, in The Sun Also Rises, Japan of course being the Land of the Rising Sun): "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Landon Whitsitt: "This may not earn me a 'Featured Comment' spot (pun intended), but: YES. A thousand times YES. All this. Every bit of it."

Mark: "When Nikon released new film rangefinders in 2000 and again in 2005, my impression is that they were mostly snapped up by collectors. Of the ones currently for sale on EBay, quite a few are (or claim to be) unused. Will that be the case with a new film Pentax? I hope not, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Pentax’s revived film SLR sells at collector prices, and has a limited production run."

Erwin Frank-Schultz: "Agree with most of your ideas. Don't see much harm in a self timer and sync terminal. Love the idea of focus confirmation LED (with arrow either side). Should have optional focus screen with no optical focus aid, just circle for sport meter and frame for assisted focus. The first camera I bought (rather than 'inherited') was a Canon AL-1—loved the focus confirmation on that. Single button press spot meter / AE-lock also spot on.  ;-)  Any thought on lenses that should be released alongside?"

Bill S. (partial comment): "So what about lenses? I'm sure Pentax will want to sell some lenses for the camera."

Mike replies: Hmm, not sure, because I no longer remember off the top of my head all the various functional permutations. I think it would require an A lens to conform to the modes I've already called for. But the A lenses weren't my favorites. I'd say on the ideal plane at which my brain resides on this topic, it should be designed to be native with SMC Pentax-M lenses, the best line they ever had, and that there should be some new ones to go with the camera—but all designed for character rather than excessive, bland, synthetic-looking, overperfected perfection like many of today's lenses. Leave resolution to digital. The Spotmatic III would be for negative films, B&W and color.

Oh, and for any such camera to be manual-only would be THE KISS OF DEATH.

Kenneth Tanaka: "I’ve never touched a Pentax camera in my life and my desire to use film again is just slightly ahead of getting a cold sore. But I’d endorse your performative specs for such a camera. It’s worked for Leica for a long time."

Mike replies: That amounts to high praise from you! (Ken is a businessman and remarkably clear-eyed and hard-headed.)

Kenneth Tanaka: "Addendum: Watching The Beatles' A Hard Day’s Night yesterday (an annual event) reminded me of how terrific Pentax’s marketing maneuver was with them. Pentax gave 'the lads' cameras around that time…which they used well during their first American tour. (Ringo's snaps were published some years ago and Paul’s were just recently published.) Plus Ringo is prominently shown with his camera in the film. Although the main audience from those days is dwindling, Pentax might still do well to leverage such retro moments, as the film camera itself is pure retro chic."

robert e: "According to Pentax designer Takeo Suzuki, the first camera being developed for this project is a compact, fixed-lens non-SLR with a mechanical film advance lever. This video is particularly interesting. But there is lots more at the project's home page. The main takeaways for me, based on a brief sampling: 1.) The project is not about one camera—it's about reviving a vibrant and relevant film camera industry to support the growing numbers of young film enthusiasts and make the hobby more accessible to the uninitiated. (With Pentax as the flagship brand, of course.) That said, a lot is riding on this first camera. If it succeeds, SLRs and medium format are possible. 2.) It's about the joys and pleasures of analog photography, including the satisfying haptics and ergonomics of mechanical cameras. More generally, Pentax wants to understand and deliver what people find so compelling about film photography. 3.) It's a last chance to preserve and pass on a living body of manufacturing know-how (and Pentax's legacy) before it disappears along with its last practitioners. However it goes, Pentax seems to be doing a wonderful job so far of involving the world and stoking enthusiasm."

John v: "Not having seen anything about Pentax’s film camera plans, I’m inclined to think the untapped film camera market isn’t high-end SLRs but rather high quality point-and-shoot cameras. It’s the Yashica T4 and Contax P&S cameras selling for ridiculous prices to young film photographers."

Roger: "Pentax will need to come out with a 6-MP CCD-sensored digicam if they want to stay current with the cool kids. It’ll need to use AA batteries and create 'film-like' output."

Kodachromeguy: "It will be difficult for Pentax to find the machinists/technicians, materials, and production system make a new camera that has the smoothness and precision of an early 1970s Spotmatic. Was the gearing made of brass? Was each camera hand assembled? Nikon pulled it off with their reissue rangefinders in the early 2000s, but it was expensive and difficult. They even had challenges finding the correct metals and coatings."

Steve Renwick: "The meter display should be match-needle style, like God Herself intended. And of course the camera should allow the photographer to go on shooting, unmetered and manually, if the batteries fail."

What Will the Pentax Film Project Camera Look Like?

I certainly don't know, but I'll venture one guess: they'll probably get it wrong. At least in terms of what I'd like.

There are several reasons. First, because everybody wants something different and they won't be able to satisfy everyone with one camera. Second, because they won't be able to resist doing something "special and distinctive" to "set it apart" from other film cameras. This is a common failing in design: designers simply can't make something classic and archetypal, because they can't resist the lure of specialness. Like the slanted top deck on the MZ, or the nonstandard strap fasteners on the LX. So some kind of special feature or special capability will be baked in or tacked on the new camera, because that's human nature. Third, because we have certain capabilities now that we didn't have back in the film era, and the committees influencing the final product will not be able to tie themselves to the mast and resist all of those siren calls. Example from the same country but a different field: the Mazda Miata, a.k.a. MX-5, a car whose purpose is to distill the essence of elemental 1960s British roadsters, has an infotainment screen.  An ugly anomaly sticking up out of the dashboard like a giant flat sore thumb. Audrey Hepburn wearing a clown nose. Why? Because that's what we do now. Hell, if I were calling the shots on that car it wouldn't even have a radio. Listen to the engine and the wind rushing by! So the Pentax film project will have onboard chips and a variety of electronic complications, because that is what we do at the moment, and because the designers will not be able to bring themselves to deny those things to the company's customers even if they say they are pursuing simplicity, purity, and directness.

There might be another reason, which is that cameramakers equate complexity, featuritis, and complication with desirability and consumer appeal. It's so thoroughly entrenched in the culture that I doubt they can collectively step back from that even if they wanted to. Oh, and one last one. In creating an ideal, one must not give in to the temptation to go to extremes. Rather, one must find a thoughtful and considered Middle Way that is in perfect balance. But it's human nature to go to extremes.

Finally, I have to note (though it makes me sound sour) that Pentax has never been great at clean-sheet, blue-sky designs: the MZ-S, the *ist, the K-01. They're better at building on their solid, sensible, workmanlike past.

LX = 60, for 60th anniversary

But even if you accept the idea that the mission is to create a camera that distills the best of Pentax's film past—a fact not in evidence yet—there are still problems. I've been reviewing cameras for longer than most of today's camera engineers have been adults, and have forgotten more about using Pentax film cameras than most people know. I have more experience with Pentaxes than any other marque. I've used dozens of them from every era. The 1950s Asahi Pentaxes like the Honeywell H3V? Tried 'em. The Spotmatic series of the 1960s? I've used virtually every single model of Spotmatic, including the SP, Electro-Spotmatic, and ES II, and many of the M42 screwmount lenses. The early K-mount trio, K2, KX, KM? Owned 'em all. The early "tiny" cameras, when "small" was the in-thing in the early to mid-1970s, the MX, ME, and ME Super? Check, although the big hole in my bonafides is that I never owned an MX. The K-1000, of course, because I was a photo instructor and teacher. The professional LX of 1980, obviously—still have one. The only cameras that are lacking from my resumé are some of the "BBP" or "black-blob polycarbonate" models, the P-series (although I owned a P30) and the Z-series like the Z-1p and PZ-1p, because I rather loathed the trends by then and took a dim view of BBP cameras from all makers. I also used the onetime flagship/pro MZ-S (a camera I don't think ever gained much traction) and I owned a plastic-fantastic MZ-5n. Among many others. I also used the medium-format cameras and carried on with the early Pentax digital SLRs, too, although both of those are beyond the current discussion.

The point of all this is that I'm qualified to say this: there isn't actually a single historical Pentax camera that embodies in one camera all of the virtues of the great Pentaxes of the past. Each one has some weakness or some omission, or was too early in the development of some needed technology, or was decontented and cheapened to meet competitive price points, or lost something that an earlier model got right, or...something. As with most things, to keep up with the styles of the moment you embrace progress and change, which is good, but you also throw away some of the things you were already doing right, which is bad. The closest they came to putting all the company's virtues into one camera were the MX (1976–85), and the LX (1980–2001), the latter produced to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the grand old Asahi Optical Co.

But that is what I'd be after if I were in charge of the Pentax film project: to embody all of the venerated old company's traditional film-camera virtues in one great synthesis of its strengths from across the years.

And what would that look like? Well, that would be another post. And it would just be my personal opinion, which is worthless in the present context. The coming camera, though, if it is actually going to arrive, will probably not be anything like what I'd like. As to what it will be...well, it may be exciting, and it may be different, and I might even like it, maybe even love it. I'll try to keep an open mind, just in case.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Grant: "Ouch! 925 words to slam Pentax for a camera that has yet to be released and only 10 words to say your mind is open. Methinks your mailbox will be full. Almost 50 years a Pentaxian. Ten-plus film bodies, three digital bodies, far too many Pentax and K mount lenses to count. I can't put together ten words of complaint."

Mike replies: Well, as I explained in the previous post, I'm sick. Can't breathe, can't sleep, and my brain isn't getting enough blood.  :-)

Joseph L. Kashi: "I still have my two M42 Spotmatics, but did get two BBP bodies to go along with the KAF lenses that I have for my K-1 II. I must say that the Spotmatics still feel better in the hand and in operation than the late BBPs, which have been relegated to a dark drawer. On the other hand...a local camera repair place has a CLA'd LX in the case for a few hundred. Makes one stop and consider the extent to which the LX could be improved, at a much higher price. The realistic tone of your post makes perfect sense to me. Better realism than disappointed optimism. After all, you can't fool nature, to quote Richard Feynman."

Robert Roaldi (partial comment): "Whatever Pentax builds, assuming it actually gets built, will be Leica's only competition in film cameras, and indicators are that Leica film bodies still sell well. It's a crazy mixed up world. Fuji still makes a ton of money selling instant cameras, and I don't see how a new film body is so unusual compared to that. We have a camera store here in town whose main purpose is to sell film and every time I've been there, it's full of people a third my age. Something is afoot."

robert e (partial comment): "I rather hope for the opposite: that Pentax will start from scratch and build a capable, affordable, efficient film camera that makes sense for today, using the most sensible materials and design approaches available now. That ethos, if you ask me, is what made the early Pentaxes (and most later Pentaxes, too) great, not any particular set of features or specific details."

[You can read the full text of "partial comments" in the full Comments Section, accessible through the footer or by clicking on the post title and scrolling down. —Ed.]

Rob de Loe: "If you want a one-stop destination to learn about all these Pentax cameras Mike mentioned, visit the Pentax Forums."

John Camp: "Not being an antiquarian, I have no idea why people would want a new film body. As my first real SLR was a Spotmatic, and I currently own a Pentax Monochrome and a sackful of lenses, I have no problem with Pentax, but a new film body? Why? Why, when you can get a Nikon F6 with the battery pack from KEH for a hair less than $1,300 in LN– condition, or another in EX+ for $1,096? Or—get this—an F5 in EX+ for $86. Of course, film does give you limited flexibility and inferior pictorial output at no extra charge."

Stellar Seasonal Bargain: Sony A7III

The Sony A7III full-frame digital mirrorless camera body is on sale with some enticing accessories at B&H Photo for $700 off, only $1,298. With a kit lens it's probably an even better deal. $1,300 for a highly featured new FF camera body from a major maker is a good deal any way you cut it.

...However I'm not exactly certain I would recommend it. There is indeed a difference between the FF and APS-C 24-MP sensors; you can tell. It's just that...it's not that much of a difference. I'm sure in some situations you'd be glad to have the larger sensor. But in a lot of situations, I don't quite believe that viewers in general would notice all that much. And the high-res FF sensors—40-MP and above—are so good that I think it's smarter to go all the way if and when you get a new FF mirrorless camera. I don't know if you would agree.

And the better that smartphone cameras get, the more camera you need to strongly differentiate your results. My friend Jack has been singing the praises of this transformative little SmallRig cage for his iPhone 15 Pro Max. There's a shutter release button in that grip, and you can reposition the grip on the long side for verticals. There's one with two handles as well. He says it's extremely handy and a delight to use, although he notes that you lose a little of the advantage of total invisibility; it turns the iPhone into a real camera in more than one way, in that people notice him more when he's got the phone in the SmallRig. If an iPhone 15 Pro Max was one of your cameras, something like a Canon EOS R5 might be better as the other one.

But still, there's cost to consider.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

hugh crawford: "If you’re a collector or merely an accumulator of old lenses, the full frame Sonys are a pretty wonderful way of using them. APS-C cameras are less wonderful in that respect."

Jack Mac: "The SmallRig addresses several issues I have had with using an iPhone as a serious camera replacement.

1. Holding a naked iPhone as a camera is not natural. It’s not fun. The SmallRig handle makes an iPhone easier to use as a serious camera.
2. It’s too easy to smudge the iPhone’s lenses. The SmallRig has lens protection that makes it easy to keep your fingers off the lenses. But remember to wipe clean your lenses before you slide your iPhone into the cage.

"If I’m just taking one quick snapshot, I don’t need to use the SmallRig. But now when I am out doing serious shooting, the iPhone in a SmallRig is my primary camera.

"A photographer friend who saw me use a SmallRig asked me if I thought it made for sharper pictures. It doesn’t make better pictures; it makes taking pictures more fun. If I’m having fun, I take better pictures. Now he has a SmallRig too."

Brian B: "For what it's worth, B&H has the Nikon Z7 [refurbished —Ed.] for just under $1,400, or with the 24–70 ƒ/4 lens for $1,650. A great deal for 45 full-frame megapixels! (Via diglloyd.)"

John Krumm: "I've accepted the fact that most of the reason for me owning a full frame camera vs. APS-C or Micro 4/3 is not to impress viewers, who do not look at images at 100 or 200 percent magnification, but to satisfy my own need for pixel peeping, which it does. Fortunately, it's a decent camera too! "

Rob L (partial comment): "What is nuts right now is that it's cheaper to get a really great full-frame body—the A7III new, or Z6's, Leica SL's, Panasonic S5's used or refurbed—for way less than the best crop-frame bodies. And with crop-frame lenses not having much of a cost differential from full-frame, there's a lot of choice (or confusion!) around."

Alan: "Dynamic range is often an issue for me and my Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras can not match my 10-year-old and counting original A7."

John Camp: "I have a full-frame Nikon Z7II with 45 MP and an APS-C Fuji X-T5 with 40.2 MP, and on a large Apple Studio monitor I'll be damned if I see any difference on similar photos; that might change with prints, but I suspect they'd have to be especially large prints to see anything at all. I prefer the Nikon because I've had Nikons since the 1970s and the Z7II (and the Z6) are definitely a solid part of the whole Nikon ecosystem, and felt instantly familiar to me. The Fuji is quite different (the lenses are more compact, for one notable thing) and many people sing their praises, but I have to think before I shoot.

"For me, that's now the difference between high-end APS-C and FF—the way the camera handles and how your brain reacts to it. The actual photos, not so much. If you're an older person like me, and were once satisfied with film, I believe that Sony A7III would do anything you want."

What Is 'Global Shutter'? Part II (Sony A9III)

The new Sony A9III

So it's not like we've never had global shutters before. Most CCD (charge-coupled device) sensors worked that way, and most early digital cameras had CCD sensors. Today CCDs are still widely used, but mostly for practical uses like microscopes and other medical equipment, telescopes for astronomy, scanners, bar code readers, and so forth. CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) sensors offered many advantages for cameras—they have higher dynamic range (remember the DR limitations in early digital cameras?), they're much more energy efficient and generate less heat, and they offer size and manufacturing advantages because the readout logic could be integrated on the same chip. And they have far less blooming than CCDs. "Blooming" is when one photosite (pixel) becomes saturated and begins to spill over into the photosites around it. Canon was an early pioneer of CMOS sensors in cameras, beginning development in the 1990s. The first major pictorial camera to have a CMOS sensor was the landmark three-megapixel Canon D30 (not 30D!) of 2000.

At Photo Techniques magazine, I started a series of print sales to provide examples of techniques for readers called The Collector Print Program, and we offered several Canon D30 prints made by a guy I had just met named Michael Reichmann. CMOS sensors have undergone continuous development and improvement since then, and almost all pictorial digital cameras now use them. I'm not aware of any exceptions, although one or a few may exist. 

And there have been CMOS-sensor cameras with global shutter before: B&H Photo lists the Sony PMW-F55; Blackmagic Design Production Camera 4K, URSA 4K, and URSA Mini 4K; and the AJA CION. All of these are or were expensive video cameras: the Sony PMW-F55 CineAlta for instance has been described as a "super camcorder," and the first announced price was $34,900.

Enter the Sony A9III
The new Sony A9III (which isn't out yet, mind you, and might not be for a while) might not interest you personally for your immediate needs. But it's probably going to prove to be a landmark camera. Depending of course on future implementation. The 24x36 ("full-frame") CMOS global-shutter sensor demands a massive amount of processing power: Sony says eight times as much as the A9II, which was no slouch in that department. The highest shutter speed is a fantastical 1/80,000th of a second, and the sync speeds are said to go up to that (I still haven't worked out what's going on with the sync speed). The maximum frame rate is up to 120 per second, with new controls to set and access that. Rolling-shutter artifacts and banding will be completely eliminated.

As has the physical mechanical shutter: in the A9III, there isn't one.

On the disadvantage side, base ISO is 250, which might result in a measurable diminishing of best-case DR. But note that word "measurable." I think it would be unwise to make too much of that, at least until practical testing starts to get real-world effects sorted out. Until we know better, I would doubt it will be detectable in ordinary shooting.

The camera is a true tour-de-force, and a technical showpiece. As a product, it's a niche camera meant for very serious sports, action, and wildlife shooters, and for a subset of professional and semi-pro videographers. As such it will pass by in the parade of products as all digital products do. However, as a demonstration of future possibilities and of Sony's technical prowess, it's astonishing. Therein lies its real meaning: to remind us what Sony can do, and to bring Sony full-frame mirrorless back into the conversation—if not front and center, at least shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the players.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Peter Jeffrey Croft: "Re 'The camera is a true tour-de-force, and a technical showpiece.' What an incredible camera, and as you say, a technical marvel. I'm reading Akio Morita's [co-founder of Sony —Ed.] book Made in Japan at the moment (a bit late, yes) and it's no wonder Japan is way out in front in so many ways. Sony treats its employees so well, as a family, with a great deal of respect, encouraging them in so many ways to be their best. My work was in the electronics field (TV broadcast) and I used to say it felt as if our management read the books about managerial best practice, then took an oath to deny and forget everything they read and do the opposite. I felt discouraged and disheartened at the lack of respect (when our chief engineer retired, he wasn't replaced), and the lack of care about employees who felt un-valued (I was the union rep so I heard their tales of woe). Again and again, I had to wave goodbye to great guys who left because they felt un-valued and underpaid. We had secretaries who were paid more than techs! The company cared almost nothing for academic qualifications—not their business, they said. Training is not our business. It's no wonder Japan raced ahead and is so advanced. This camera is just one example; there are many, many more."

Jayanand Govindaraj: "My guess is that, for now, in practical terms, the 120 fps speed is meaningless and a marketing gimmick, as the camera uses slower CFE(A) and SD UHS II cards, so no amount of buffer can compensate for the slowness of the cards. I doubt you would get more than two seconds shooting at that speed before the buffer overflows—unless, of course, the RAW that is mentioned is a highly 'compressed' version, bordering on JPEG. In that case, the photographer will get an animal/bird/sportsman/whatever twitching, at best, and have 240 frames of that twitch to check out. If you are forced to cut the fps to get decent shooting time, I would guess there are many other cameras that will be better for the purpose, and at a lower cost.

"This is a technological tour-de-force which could well be the future, but I doubt whether it is the present."

The Once and Future M

Following on from the previous post:

Leica currently offers three film M cameras, only two of which, the MP and M6, were referenced by Dr. Kaufmann in the segment of the interview we quoted this morning. I'm assuming that's because the M-A, which has no light meter and no branding, doesn't account for very much of those resurgent sales.

The MP, which some owners definitely like, has always seemed to me to be a bit of a Frankencamera—a Franken-M, mebbe you'd call it? It's got bits 'n' bobs from the M3 of yore, the best-ever-selling M camera and the one that really put Leica up in the pantheon. But it's not an M3, and an M3 isn't terribly usable anyway. Ever loaded film into an M3? It's more than a bit of a pain. I'm not sure why anyone would want a less-good rewind knob just for retro-styley reasons. As with all things taste-related, though, YMMV. To prove that point, the MP comes in black paint, originally a cost-cutting measure for the cheapie version of earlier M cameras but which later became cultish and desirable. I'm a sucker for that. So, whatever floats your boat. It's all up to you.

But the M6...mmm-mmm, no pun intended. That's the one I'd have; the once and future king. (The reference is to T.H. White's fantasy masterpiece recasting the Arthurian legend.) Introduced in 1984, the M6 was an M4-P with a built-in light meter. The "6" came from its six framelines. It was in production until 2002, and over the years I owned four of them, coming and going. To this day I'm very grateful that I got to "get to grips" with an M6 as a rite of passage in my photo journey. Leitz and Leica sold 175,000 M6 cameras in the first go-'round, making it second only in popularity to the M3 from the 1950s. (I touched on this in my "Leica as Teacher" essay from 2009, followed up by "Why It Has to Be a Leica.") The new 2022 M6 was re-introduced as an homage product last year at about this time. Makes me weak, and I'm not ashamed to admit it*. It's a true reproduction, but with many upgrades in materials and tech, for instance the coatings in the rangefinder/viewfinder system. I like everything about it, from the brass top plate and black paint (yes, I like the brassed look—sue me) to the "Leitz" name on the red dot, which I'm sentimental about. Is that the first time the Leitz name has reappeared on a Leica product? I believe so. Someone will tell me if it's not. The new one is not a TTL. But to reproduce my snarky sniff from when the TTL first came out: "flash is what Nikons are for."

Tellingly, it's out of stock at B&H Photo.

I wouldn't get a Leica lens for it, although you certainly can. I frankly don't see the need for a super-sharp lens on a film camera today. Digital is sharper, period, if you want sharp. The 35mm camera and lens was never made that could compete with my Sigma fp-M for sharpness, for instance (one reason I conceive of it as a "hand-holdable 4x5"), and many premium digital cameras out-resolve mine. Instead, I would embrace what's called character. I would happily have fun trying the many M-mount and Leica screwmount (a.k.a. LTM, for Leica thread mount) lenses out there, new and antiquarian, looking not for perfection but for personality. Why not, with an old film camera? I definitely wouldn't pursue fine grain, another fetish of B&W photographers in the film era, for the same reason. Digital is more grainless than the most grainless B&W film. Now that the pressure of technical perfection has been lifted from 35mm film photography, it can just be itself, with no apologies. I'd like it like that.

In fact, I like everything about the 2022 M6. Except of course the $2,847.50 pricetag. It would be great if it were half that**. But hey, you can't have your cake and, ahh, have it truly be cake too.

Mike

*Well, maybe a tiny bit ashamed to admit it.

**Of course, it's actually double that. Again, though, a feature, not a problem.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Deathless Leica M Film Cameras Rebound

Dr. Andreas Kaufmann in 2019.
Photo by Cmichel67 (license)

In a recent interview published in French on a French website, Dr. Andreas Kaufmann, the Chairman and also the angel of Leica (he saved the company during the rocky years of the digital transition), has revealed some startling facts about the film Leica M. 

But first, one salient datum: Leica is the only company that has continuously manufactured and marketed high-quality 35mm film cameras through to today. I think that's true. (If only one 35mm film camera could survive into the digital age, it should have been the Leica M. And so it came to pass.)

What Dr. Kaufmann told Phototrend is that in 2015, the company came very close to throwing away all the tooling for the film cameras! Sales had slowed to a trickle, about 500 per annum, and looked like they were only going to continue to decline. The end, it seemed, had come.

That actually echoes another episode in Leica history. When Leitz made the transition to SLRs, the company almost discarded the tooling and dies for the M4 camera, but Walther Mandler wanted to continue designing lenses for the rangefinders at Ernst Leitz Canada (Elcan) in Midland, so he had the M4 tooling shipped to Canada, and the Leica rangefinder line squeaked by into the future, just. (I'm just going from memory here. I'd ask Erwin for amplification of this story, if only I could. R.I.P. He would have been quite happy with this latest development, I would guess.)

Anyway it's a good thing they didn't deep-six the tooling for the film cameras, because, remarkably, sales have rebounded to ~5,000 per year. That might not sound like much. But it is, because Leica is a luxury brand and they're high-priced...meaning that low sales numbers are a feature, not a problem. I mean, nobody wants an exclusive luxury product that everybody has, pretty much by definition, right?

And in the same interview, Dr. Kaufmann gave the sales numbers of the digital M cameras as "eleven or twelve thousand a year." Meaning—and this is as astonishing as it is delightful—that Leica is now selling almost half as many film M cameras as digital M cameras! That is what you would have to call significant.

...Significant how, though, I'm not sure, exactly. Here's my guess: there's a steady but low-level demand for 35mm film cameras, and the vast stock of abandoned and hence cheap 35mm film cameras left over from the film era is aging and deteriorating at the same time that many old-line mechanical repair-persons are cutting back, aging out, or passing away. And with only one good new option on the market, more people who want to shoot 35mm film are turning to it.

Of course, there could be factors that I'm not seeing, which might concern fashion or status: for instance, possibly new film M cameras are a status symbol in Singapore, or have become fashionable in China, or some such, and that's what's helping drive those 5,000 sales.

Of course, personally I hope that what's going on is that people actually want them to take pictures with.

Here's the relevant passage and a translation:

Que pensez-vous du retour de l’analogique?
Nous sommes plutôt satisfaits parce que nous sommes encore les seuls à pouvoir produire des appareils argentiques. Dans nos usines, vous pouvez encore voir de vieilles machines dédiées aux appareils argentiques en fonctionnement. Mais en 2015, on a pensé à tout jeter parce qu’on ne produisait plus que 500 boîtiers argentiques par an. Mais il y a eu un beau rebond depuis et, en 2023, nous allons produire près de 5 000 appareils analogiques M6 et MP.

Et combien d’appareils photo en tout?
Dans la gamme numérique M, je pense que c’est 11 ou 12 000 par an. Comme il s’agit d’un appareil photo à prix élevé, il n’est pas très judicieux d’opter pour une production plus importante. Mais je dirais que nous apprécions beaucoup le retour de l’analogique. Et nous en ferons plus. Les éléments clé sont le développement et la gestion des laboratoires. C’est la partie la plus délicate. Et nous nous penchons sur la question.

What do you think of the return of analog?
We are quite satisfied because we are still the only ones who can produce film cameras. In our factories, you can still see old machines dedicated to film cameras in operation. But in 2015, we thought about throwing everything away because we were only producing 500 film cameras per year. But there has been a nice rebound since then and, in 2023, we will produce nearly 5,000 M6 and MP analog devices.

And how many cameras in total?
In the digital M range, I think it's 11 or 12,000 per year. Since this is a high priced camera, it is not very wise to go for larger production. But I would say that we really appreciate the return of analog. And we will do more. The key elements are laboratory development and management. This is the trickiest part. And we are looking into the matter.

If you read French, here's the interview. And big thanks to Oren Grad for providing the link, the translation, and the tip.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "I don't have a Leica. I've never owned one. I have used a borrowed Monochrome for a week in the past and enjoyed what was a slower and more methodical process than my Nikon and Sony lives. Somehow it does in fact feel more significant when using it? The images feel more important? And I love the Boston Leica Store and how it presents and magnifies photography as a lifestyle and an art. So I love this post and that they are still here and if anything, gaining momentum—with their digital as well as film cameras."

Dan Khong: "Singapore? Leica is doing well here and the main shop is in Raffles Hotel, an iconic old style building filled with history. Many film cameras are on back order. A visit to the shop is highly recommended if you are passing through. There is a gallery with rotation of photos on display every few months. The latest batch - by a traveling salesman - is so good in capturing the faces and lives of people all over the world."

Chris Bertram: "Reminds me of a story I was told about a Swiss watch manufacturer when I bought my watch (a Nomos, German, with a hand-wound movement). Unfortunately I forget which manufacturer it was. It might have been Patek, but that could be wrong. Anyhow, when quartz came out, the company decided that they would drop all their hand-wound movements and the decision was taken to throw out all the machinery, dies, etc. needed to make them. The guy in charge of the workshop decided not to throw them out but to store them behind a wall that was being built: literally to wall them up. He didn't tell anyone. A few years later when the company regretted its decision, he (retired, I think) was able to tell them where the gear was so they could resume production. It could be apocryphal, but it is a nice story."

John: "Pre-covid, my wife and I would go to China every year to visit her family. There, Leica is clearly a well-regarded luxury brand. Occasionally, my scruffy M6's would be recognised and commented on appreciatively, even in remote country areas.

"The downside of film in China is the plethora of X-ray machines. Seventy to eighty cassettes of HP5+ to be wrangled past elderly and dubiously maintained machines. However, a theoretical problem, not an actuality. As a long-nose, by-passing these dodgy contraptions at railway stations is straightforward.

"However, flying out from Beijing, I'd balk at the up-to-date X-ray machines and insist on a hand check. This necessitates going to a side window, where a young woman will check the plastic bag of film tipped out onto the counter.

"She knows this is a pointless exercise, while knowing that I know she knows that. After five or six film-pots have been opened and peered into, I pick one up, open it and show her the contents. After a couple more, I’d just pop a lid, peer inside then close it. The shared process much speeds things up, repetitive strain injury is avoided, honour satisfied, and both of us are mildly entertained by the nonsense.

"However, this only works with commercially-loaded cassettes, not the bulk-loadable brass Leica cassettes I use in the UK. These IXMOOs, besides their substantial weight, look militaristically sinister to the uninitiated and would be definitely X-rayed, if not dismantled."

Red

There's an old saying in professional photography—I think the fashion photographer Douglas Dubler might have been the first person I ever heard it from—: "If you can't make it good, make it red." [See Hugh's correction below —Ed.] I've always believed (on no evidence whatsoever) that this was something William Eggleston was playing off against when he made his iconic "Red Ceiling" photograph (and if you've never seen a dye transfer print of it, you've never seen it*), which can be found in the essential photobook William Eggleston's Guide.

I know I'm a sucker for red. Particularly deep red, which is red with some black in it. It might even be hereditary—my mother had me paint my brother's bedroom that color in a long-ago family home—it took four coats—and her dining room in Cambridge was painted "Chinese red" to match the inside of an antique chinoiserie cabinet that had belonged to her own grandmother. I can't say it was her favorite color, but she liked it.

Jerk me around
If there's too much red in a photograph, I'm immediately suspicious—I feel like someone's trying to pull my chain. And yet, still, I remain susceptible. All sorts of disparate objects can grab me—or at least kinda nag at me—if they're red. Back when I played golf (that's getting to be a long time ago now), a new set of Wilson golf clubs came out called "Deep Red" that had a variety of amusingly obvious sexual references in the marketing—the irons were called "Fat Shafts," for instance. And despite the fact that I am the absolute farthest thing from a.) a pilot or b.) the kind of guy who will ever own an airplane, I recently I found myself watching a video for something called a Kodiak 900, and if you take a quick look you will know why. I'm a big fan of Mazda's "Soul Red" color on its cars, the prettiest stock paint available on any mass-market vehicle sold in America.

Which brings us to...

Okay then. Remember those? Well, they're still makin' 'em—this is the seventh gen, but the first with the OM System name on it. (Might cause you to wonder just how long OM System can coast along refreshing old Olympus-era products.) What is it? It's the OM System Tough TG-7, and it's a survivor—an actual digicam, AKA digital point-and-shoot, in the era of the smartphone. Complete with a wee little 1/2.3" (6.3 x 4.7mm) sensor. Of course, that's not the point. What sets it apart is that it's flat-out waterproof (no weasel phrases like "weather resistant" here, a term that means "you can get caught out in a drizzle for as long as it takes you to get back inside") and made to stand up to rough handling. That means not it's only waterproof but crush-, shock-, freeze-, and dustproof as well. Which sounds satisfying. B&H says it is:

• IPX8-rated waterproof for underwater use to depths of 50' (15 meters)
• Freezeproof to temperatures as low as 14°F (–10°C)
• Shockproof to drops from as high as seven feet
• Crushproof to withstand pressure up to 220 pounds force
• Dustproof to protect the internal components of the camera
• Anti-fog design prevents condensation from forming inside the lenses

Which you have to admit could be very, very useful. In situations where the phone could not compete with it, and in which you would not wish to explore the limits of your expensive main camera—because who wants to find out how many pounds of force it takes to crush your new Leica or Canon FFM like a scuttling beetle under a boot?

Fun, too. Take it camping, or waterskiing, or to the beach, or give it to the kids in the swimming pool.

I tie myself to the mast when it comes to red stuff, but if I were getting a TG-7 you know which color I'd buy. Here it is on Amazon. It's also available in black.

Mike

*"'The Red Ceiling' is so powerful that, in fact, I’ve never seen it reproduced on the page to my satisfaction. When you look at a dye-transfer print it’s like it’s red blood that is wet on the wall. The photograph was like a Bach exercise for me because I knew that red was the most difficult color to work with. A little red is usually enough, but to work with an entire surface was a challenge. It was hard to do. I don’t know of any totally red pictures, except in advertising. The photograph is still powerful. It shocks you every time." —William Eggleston

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Rachel Wenstrum: "Personally, I have an aversion to red, all shades. Did you know that three of every four country flags in the world include red? Red is a warning color, hence the reason stop signs are red, and why the red light is the one that indicates 'don't proceed.' I recently copied this from someone's blog: 'While red can be associated with passion and love, it also represents anger, violence, and danger.' When something is wrong we cite a red flag. When we are angry we're red in the face. When we lose money we are in the red. There have been studies that claim when someone wears red they may have an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate. I once read someone calling red arrogant and attention-grabbing. And no, I do not want my sweetheart to send me red roses on Valentine's Day...he knows...and mine are white."

hugh crawford: "I always heard it as, 'If you can’t make it good, make it big. If you can’t make it big, make it RED!' Usually attributed as advice by Paul Rand. Also, less often, to Clement Greenberg, as a put down of something big and or red."

Mike replies: A job for the Quote Investigator! But yes, your version is the one I was imperfectly remembering.

David Brown: "I am in total agreement about that Mazda Red! If only I could get that paint on a Honda or Subaru!"

Curt Gerston: "I have version 5 of that great Oly camera, and it’s been on trips where better cameras fear to tread: river rafting, snorkeling in the Galapagos and Hawaii, many backpacking trips. I have many, many fun pictures I couldn’t have gotten otherwise (I mean, I know I could’ve gotten expensive and large underwater housing for my Fuji cams, but…too big and cumbersome. I wouldn’t have bothered). Now, the Oly accompanies my daughter to camp every summer, where she has a blast with it, and we don’t worry about its health. It lives up to its Tough name. The IQ is just okay, but a lot better than the pictures I wouldn’t otherwise have gotten if I hadn’t slipped it into my pockets over the years."

Just Announced: The Nikon Zf

To the manner born: the brand new Nikon Zƒ

Has Nikon finally done it?

As I reported when the Nikon Z-fc came out, my memory is that people have been asking for something like a "digital version of the FM2/FE2" for twenty years. (Before that, they were asking for a digital back for their actual FM2's and FE2's and other metal, mechanical, manual (MMM) cameras, and a scant few such backs, as well as a fanciful product called "digital film," appeared briefly seen above the waves a long time ago.) Nikon's been listening all along. First try was the Dƒ (2013), which was actually a pretty nice camera, with a wonderful sensor from the big pro D4 (if memory serves). It took most of the old AIS lenses without an adapter. But its faux-retro knobs 'n' buttons 'n' dials sprouted up all over it like out-of-control growths, and the whole alarming shebang stuck most people as a Frankencamera. Too honkin' big, too identity-free, too "neither-nor" to satisfy either the neo crowd or the traditionalists. Still, the guy I know with access to the most cameras of anybody in the world—Todd Gustavson, curator of the gargantuan camera collection at the George Eastman Museum—had one as his daily driver when I wrote about him, and he liked his. That's not nothing.

Did Nikon stop there? No. Next came the Z-fc (2021), which everyone agreed was closer to the retro-nostalgic design brief, even though it had some distinct nods to social-media uses. That one (still available, for $957) was a truly nice little camera that lots of Nikonophiles really liked—even, it's rumored, some photographers who didn't remember the originals on which it was based.

God love 'em, Nikon was still not done. Now we get the new version of that camera—the just-announced Nikon Zƒ. Not only is it even more like the original, in responsiveness and to-the-manner-born good looks, but it packs in some serious digital tech from the Z-series. Debuting at around $2k, it's larger overall than the FM/FE series of olde, which actually might make it an even more ideal size (we'll have to wait and see). And we'll happily overlook both the tiny little handgrip which closely resembles the F3's, as well as the flippy screen, since it means you can turn the screen inward and shoot in no-chimping mode like God intended.

Here's the supercool Zƒ at B&H Photo , body only, and as a kit at Amazon.

More about the innards in a future post. But seriously, thanks for this, Nikon. On behalf of graybeards everywhere. Thanks for continuing to try.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

robert e: "An unglamorous but very practical improvement: the new Zƒ's battery has twice the capacity of the older model's, as far as I can tell. That might have something to do with the slight size increase and substantial weight increase (50%-ish!)."

Jeff1000: "You nailed it Mike! I couldn’t agree more. I’m thinking about getting one to complement my Z6 and Z7 and eschewing the Z8 and the Z9. All I’ve been looking for is a little snappier autofocus performance from my Z6, and the Zƒ seems to offer that. I’m all set with my terrific Z7 since it’s dedicated to landscape and the like, and I only use single point autofocus anyway. It looks like Nikon is going to make a lot of photographers happy with the Zƒ."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Sadly, you can not turn the LCD inwards—as far as I've read elsewhere, it's the focus point selector / movement...too bad, but with this alone they screwed it up once more."

Mike replies: Obviously it does interfere with using the screen as a touchscreen, but you can do it:

Christopher Perez: "When I see these kinds of nostalgia cameras, I get nostalgic for a time when photographs seemed to matter and people valued them."

John Krumm: "I will be torn with buying this for a while...until I buy it. I absolutely don't need it, but I of course want it. So kudos to Nikon for hitting my vulnerable 'buy now' spot. I also already have the 'muffin' 40mm ƒ/2, and both the 28mm ƒ/2.8 and 26mm ƒ/2.8. The 40mm is the tops, a solid lens. And then there is my Voigtlander APO 35mm ƒ/2, which would look at home on this camera. It's kind of calling for it."

John Camp: "A strong resemblance to the Fuji X-T5, though the Fuji is a half-inch less wide and a half inch shorter, and has a 40-MP sensor."

All About the Medium: The New Mark II Version of the Fuji GFX100

The best camera Fuji has ever made? The lens
is the GF 32–64mm (25–51mm-e).

The other newly refreshed camera of note is at the other end of the sensor-size spectrum from the G9II: it's the new Mark II version of the larger-than-FF-sensor GFX100. It's Fuji's new flagship, meaning the camera that Fuji itself considers to be the best the company makes.

Curiously, it's another camera labeled as a refresh—usually a rather "meh" or "blah" event in my view—that is actually a new design. The new camera doesn't use remotely the same body shape as the large, "phone book" pro-style GFX100, with its built-in vertical grip: here's the Fuji GFX100II next to the Fuji GFX100. Nor does it mimic the body of the GFX100S, the former "lite" version of the original GFX100. Here's that comparison. Unlike the Panasonic, though, the GFX100II doesn't borrow another existing body style; it appears to be all-new. Couldn't they just have called it the GFX102? Or the GFX110?

And a handsome bugger it is, too. Very sorted-looking, very put together. This one will turn heads on the boulevard. The existing camera it most resembles, to my eye anyway, is the FF Leica SL series; here's a link to that comparison. Except the Leica has always looked like it's trying a bit too hard to be "styley," wearing its design-y pretensions on its sleeve, a fashionista who's stealing a glance at you out of the corner of her eye to make sure you're looking at her. The Fuji manages to be even more stylish while looking more cameralike, less Bauhaus, all business, like the woman who looks great in her clothes but doesn't care what you think*. Very nicely-designed, nice-looking camera.

Professional system camera
Again, this shouldn't be an after thought, but there are new lenses as well, aimed squarely at professionals: the GF 30mm ƒ5.6 Tilt-Shift (24mm-equivalent) and the GF 110mm ƒ/5.6 Tilt-Shift Macro (87mm-e). (I remember when Canon introduced the three tilt-shifts for the EOS system. A Canon official explained to me at the time that each lens might lose money as a standalone product, but that their presence in the lineup was expected to entice professionals to switch to Canon EOS, which would repay them richly with sales overall.)

One blogger thinks The GFX100II is meant to split the difference between the two earlier cameras, embodying the best of both. It splits the difference neatly in terms of price, at least: the GFX100 was ~$10k, the GFX100S was ~$5k, and the GFX100II comes in right down the middle at $7,500. It's a poor** person's alternative to the upcoming Leica S3 replacement. The nifty tilting viewfinder attachment, the built-in diopter correction on the side of the "prism" housing, a whopping 9.44-million-dot EVF, too many other features 'n' functions to list, and of course the 102-MP resolution, are going to make it a powerhouse image-maker. (That's the word, powerhouse, and mere mortals have no doubt.) Oh, and upgraded IS—the only way to express IBIS is in however many fewer stops of light it allows you to shoot hand-held. These numbers keep inflating, like the prices of consumer goods lately. I think the GFX 100II claims 80 stops...or is it 800? Something like that. You can handhold that shot you need of the black fisher-cat speeding silently through the dark woods on a moonless, pitch-black night. At a small aperture.

Let's get serious
However, this...

...Is how it's really meant to be used. (That's a frame-grab from this video. The videographer is Ahmet Bayer.) Most of the GFX 100II's gleaming new features are of course video-centric, still imagemaking being so despicably 20th-century (easy, Mike...). The B&H page talks breathlessly about 4k/60p video, "12-bit 4:2:2 Apple ProRes RAW or Blackmagic RAW," aspect ratios for multiple cinema formats, compatibility with Fujinon Premista and Cabrio cine lenses, and—be still, my beating heart—frame.io camera-to-cloud integration so I can finally "utilize the camera's built-in Wi-Fi or Ethernet LAN connection to connect to Frame.io and deliver hi-res raw or JPEG images, send h.264 video proxies, or upload 8K ProRes video securely for review." You're going to scorn me if you know what all those things mean, because I don't. 

Of course, you can ignore all that, and just use the $4k worth of features you need for stills.

I'm just playin'; don't think I'm bitter. To each what he or she needs. My own camera was actually made for video, and I have it set up just beautifully for exactly what I want it to do. So, no harm, no foul. I'm just not a video person, is all. I try to watch a half dozen or so movies every year, but that's not always easy because I don't tend to enjoy them. The last three I've watched fell short for me. Anyway, I'm just not interested in video features on a camera—I would far rather buy cameras that don't even offer video. But of course they all do now. Am I getting off the subject?

Anyway: Fuji's new medium-format flagship looks to be a tour-de-force, with everything it's done so far in the larger-than-FF format all rolled neatly into one camera.

Mike

*Calm down, metaphor-man.

**!!

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "The Hasselblad X2D offers no video. It also has an elegant but not lavish design, superb ergonomics and a simple menu interface. If I weren’t already satisfied with the Leica SL2, which has easy-to-ignore video controls, that’s what I’d buy."

hugh crawford: "Don’t you think that Fuji is competing with the Hasselblad X2D 100C? That is certainly the pair that I would be cross-shopping, the Fuji with more features or clutter, depending on how you look at it, and the Hasselblad with a leaf shutter. I’d go with the Hasselblad myself being a leaf shutter and strobe guy."

[Ed note: The two comments above came in right next to each other. It always tickles me when that happens, whether the comments say the same thing or the opposite thing. Here are those two cameras next to each other.]

Ken Bennett: "Hey, Mike, good preview and I agree with you on the whole video thing. Shows my age, I guess. Anyway I have the original GFX100 at work, with some of Fuji's excellent lenses, and it's an interesting camera. It reminds me of the original Canon D30, from 2001—lovely files from an almost unusable camera body. Seriously, the user interface is so bad I regularly want to throw it against the wall. But the files, just wow. So I'm getting ready to retire, and thinking about what kind of gear I can use when I have to give back the Fuji MF. Like, what am I going to shoot? I have a complete Fuji X system, so I'm covered for just about any kind of work, but once you've worked with those 100-MP files, and have seen how much dynamic range they have, and how much detail, it's hard to let that go. On the other hand, a reasonably low cost GFX system with the Mark II and three zoom lenses is $15k. Hmm. Still not sure what I'm going to do, to be honest."

Roger: "I recently bought a GFX 50SII. With Fuji’s sale I got the body and the (amazing) kit lens for less than a Sony A7RV body. Seriously more camera than I need, but so what. The price of that camera begs the question: with sensors so much more affordable why aren’t we getting cameras with square sensors? There’d be no need to reorient the camera for vertical shots, there would a larger option with a 1:1 ratio, and current lenses would cover the entire sensor. Heck, a 24x24mm sensor might make Micro 4/3 more appealing."

Leica: A Different Definition of Luxury

Antony Shepherd commented here about the new Panasonic G9II:

"So, if it's as big as a full-frame camera, and costs around the same, then why not just get the full-frame camera? That just sounds odd to me. Wasn't one of the basic points of micro 4/3 cameras that the cameras could be smaller and lighter?"

The way I look at, it's a case of unrelated conceptual frameworks colliding, as it were.

It's a funny situation, kind of. On the one hand, you have "this is a smaller sensor, so everything can be smaller, more compact, and more portable." On the other hand, you have, "higher quality / more expensive stuff has to be bigger." Japanese camera companies are certainly not the originators of the bigger-is-better concept—if anything, I'd be inclined to lay that at the feet of Americans—but they seem absolutely devoted to the proposition when it comes to marketing cameras. "Better and more expensive" almost always means "bigger and more complicated." When something like that is consistent and persistent, it becomes a signifier—meaning, it telegraphs a message; in this case, "I'm better than others and I have more money than others do." Once "big and complex" becomes a signifier of status and luxury, then you're stuck with it. You can't redefine "better" in a different way. Every now and then someone will make a weak attempt to go against the grain, but not enough people catch on and the attempt fizzles.

For instance, when it comes to single family homes (which I think are among of the worst consumer products on the market, in need of a thorough rethink), signifiers include excessive size, architectural excrescences galore, deluxe materials festooned arbitrarily about, and sybaritic amenities such as hot tubs, saunas, wine cellars, and home theater rooms with huge billowy leather-shrouded loungers in rows. And of course middle-class people spend the most money on the kitchen, so the kitchen has to be in the living room where they can show it off. A different definition of "luxury" might be: a house that is "just big enough," energy efficient, designed for safety and low maintenance, intended to be long-lasting, beautifully crafted, and thought-through from the start to be age-in-place friendly. But that is not how we define luxury.

Thank heavens for Leica, which is different enough and independent enough that it can go its own way. It does follow a different definition of luxury. The original "Barnack camera" was conceived to be small and portable, and, with the M10, the digital M actually got smaller than its predecessor. And even Leica's outgoing high-quality flagship, the S3 (discontinued in July and not slated to be replaced until 2025), is pretty simple, even by comparison to a mid-level Japanese ILC.

But the G9II is actually not that "big" when you consider the much smaller lenses. (Most TOP regulars know this, I know.) That's where you save the weight and size. Look for instance at both identical-looking cameras, Micro 4/3 and FF, with equivalent 24–70mm lenses of exactly the same speed. Not subtle!

Mike
(Illustration courtesy B&H Photo)

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Brian Fisher: "Railfan photographer here. Yes! Smaller lenses and the knowledge that I'm using an aperture two stops brighter than I would have with a full frame body. If I don't need it to stop motion I get to drop my ISO."

Jason Melancon: "I use Micro 4/3 professionally (location portraiture). Micro 4/3 cameras were not even possible for me to use professionally until they became large enough to be comfortable in my hand for a shoot of many hours. And I don't have particularly large hands. The smaller Micro 4/3 cameras are fine for EDC [everyday carry —Ed.] or vacation/trip snaps but those are different use-cases. Even though the Panasonic S5II/G9II ergonomics feel good to me, certainly good enough, I would have been happier still if the G9II matched the slightly larger grip size of the G9. As Mike points out, the weight savings, which is meaningful, is in the glass, particularly zooms."

Håkan Andersson: "I totally buy the argument about the lenses being smaller. I shoot with a G9 today and enjoy the 'full' size of that body but really appreciate the relatively small lenses. Another striking comparison is if you mount the 70–200mm on a full-frame body and compare that with the 'equivalent' 35–100mm on a G9. I'm quite tempted to get the G9 II (mainly for the upgraded autofocus) but I'm afraid I will miss the top-plate LCD quite a bit. Why on earth did they get rid of that?!?"

David Comdico: "The benefit of a big body that houses a small sensor is for video. You can shoot all day and it will not overheat."

The Panasonic G9II: New High-End Stills Camera

There are two new updates to high-end cameras, at either end of the ILC sensor spectrum. Let's take a look at the Micro 4/3 update first, the Panasonic G9II ($1,900), introduced yesterday.

The new G9II. Look familiar?

While I'm happy that Panasonic has introduced a new Micro 4/3 camera, updating the flagship stills-side body, some of the choices the company made seem...interesting. First of all, it does away with the G9 body style and form factor, which a lot of users liked a lot and are obviously used to, and adapts the existing S5II full-frame (FF) body:

(By the way, I have Idan's permission to post images from CameraSize.com here. Here's a link to all three cameras. Note that you can change the view, to compare, say, the top plates.)

This re-use of the S5 design isn't necessarily just a so-what: you lose the top display. And some people really liked the G9's deluxe, oversized viewfinder, and it's not a given that it has survived into the new body style—we'll have to see it for ourselves before we know how they compare. The G9II is a bit lighter than the S5II, by 82 grams. It's the same weight as the older (2017) G9. Users who have honed their muscle memory to the G9 might be in for a period of adaptation if they want to move to the new v.II.

The new camera's sensor—probably the same one already found in the GH6 ($1,700), Panasonic's "video-centric" Micro 4/3 flagship—has 25.2 megapixels as opposed to the G9's 20.3. Despite the fact that the G9II is said to be oriented toward stills, our friend Carl points out that many of the G9II's feature improvements seem to be for video. The biggest change is phase-detect autofocus, which is probably for video too, but it makes for better focus tracking and face recognition with stills.

I'm not saying there's anything amiss with the G9II. But it does create one odd disconnect: it means Panasonic is now offering two nearly identical bodies with sensors of nearly identical resolution, the big difference being that one is Micro 4/3 and the other FF...and the FF model costs $100 less than the one with the smaller sensor. Hmm. You'd naturally be interested exclusively in the former if you already have a bunch of Micro 4/3 lenses, so Panasonic is taking care of its legacy customers. And that's good. But you can't say the new camera offers much in the way of innovation or fresh thinking for Micro 4/3. And it makes a pointed comparison for newcomers to the ecosystem who aren't invested in lenses yet. Seems pretty clear which direction Panasonic would rather have them go.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that Micro 4/3 is a sweet spot for sensor size, but the way things have worked out it has gotten all but lost between the sea of smaller sensors and the prestige of larger ones. Pity, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. No use cryin'.

This probably shouldn't be an afterthought, but two Micro 4/3 lenses were updated too: the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 and the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm f/4–6.3 II ASPH.

The nice price
As often happens, there's a silver lining here for Micro 4/3 fans. The original G9, which is still a technical tour-de-force and is hardly dated at all, can be had right now for the old-fashioned, pre-pandemic, pre-inflationary period "good camera" price of $900, less than half what the II version goes for. If money matters. My friend who shoots with a G9 simply bought another one.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Aggressive Nikon

My other question this morning is that "little" problem with Nikon's new Z8. It's this: have we really gotten to the point where we have to spend four thousand dollars for a camera that's not even the top of the line?!?

Kinda like spending $100,000 on a Boxster and having people look down their noses at you because you can't afford the good Porsche.

When I was poking around learning about the Z8, I encountered in at least two separate places the word "aggressively" when talking about how Nikon is pricing the Z8. Yeah, Nikon is really biting the bullet and giving away the farm when it's willing to take a mere four grand for a body.

I always have to be on the lookout for mis-perception. I know that older people (I'm 66) tend to have an outdated concept of the value of a dollar. On one episode, Richie Cunningham's old-fart father on Happy Days was scandalized because gas was 25¢ a gallon, and the studio audience went ooooooooh. When I matriculated at Dartmouth it was the most expensive college in the country. It cost $1,300 a trimester, or $3,900 per year, for tuition, not counting room and board, books, or lab fees. Add all those things and it was a cool six grand annually. I just looked it up, and the average cost before financial aid for one year of a Dartmouth education now is $81,501. The average cost after aid, including grants and scholarships from the college, the state, and the federal government, is a piffling $33,023. I'm so old that not only does $81,501 for a year of college actually seems like kind of a lot, but $33,023 does too. I'm sure most young people are like, "what?"

So maybe it's me, is what I'm saying.

I have one more point to make about this, but I'm having trouble expressing it, which doesn't happen often. I've tried to write it about four times and I'm not happy with it. I'll let you weigh in on this first, and give that another go later.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Thom Hogan: "Long ago I learned the difference between current value, future value, and other forms of valuation.

"Unfortunately, most people don't get there, so they do things like spend today thinking tomorrow will be the same price and they can catch up on savings later. Vice versa, they believe something that they paid X for still has a value of X (or at least hasn't depreciated much).

"The truth about digital cameras is simple: 1.) current pricing has tended slightly above inflation as market size went down and camera companies simply built more expensive models to keep their revenue/profits intact. 2.) past models depreciate far faster in value than people think, to the point where there's little value in a five-year-old camera left. 3.) Inflation never left, but it's now back at higher levels, and this means that X dollars now is not X dollars tomorrow.

"If you can't get a grip with all three of those things, you will find you feel like you're falling behind, or that things have significantly changed to your detriment. Everyone wants to take their eye off the ball, but this is one of the most important balls to keep track of.

"As for 'Nikon's aggressive pricing,' I've been reporting that for some time: at basically the same level of camera, Nikon has been pricing lower than Canon and Sony, at least for full frame. I believe that's intentional and necessary.

"At the lower end of the market (APS-C/DX), Nikon is pricing higher than Canon and Sony, for the most part.

"But then you have to apply what I wrote earlier. A Z50 kit today costs basically US$1,000. Twenty years ago that would have been US$600. So that Z8 is equivalent to a US$2,400 camera in price back in 2003. Go look and see what that camera was and compare it to what you get today.  ;~)  "

Robert Roaldi: "People like to spend a lot of money; it gives them pleasure; you have to let them.  :-)

"The cost vs. benefits analysis that working pros, or at least advanced amateurs, go through is one thing. People buying themselves a once-per-decade treat approach things differently, I think. Anyway, I see people with pristine clean $60,000 behemoth personal trucks, taller than I am, in grocery store parking all the time. $4,000 is less than the annual depreciation on their vehicles. People spends tens of thousands of dollars on weddings. That party lasts a day, tops."

Mike replies: According to a recent article in The Atlantic, there are 13,000 weddings annually in America that cost $1 million or more.

Ken Bennett: "Re: Thom Hogan's reply to your post. Back in 2001 we bought a pair of Canon D30 digital cameras, for $3,000 each. They'd be closer to $6k now, and they were total dogs. The files were nice, but the autofocus was objectively lousy, and the buffer nonexistent. Three raw photos and it locked up for 20 seconds. Fine for landscapes, but not so much for journalism. But we persevered.  :-)  My new Fuji X-H2s bodies were $3,000 each with the vertical grip, and they are light years beyond those early digital models. Soooooooo much better, and for half the cost, in real dollars."

Rick Popham: "I see Thom has already mentioned this, but the Z8 pricing is aggressive versus comparable Sony and Canon models. To me, while I don't really want to spend $4k on a camera, the price seems fair. Back in 2012 I dropped $3k on the Big Dragoon—the D800, which I very happily used for years. Now I'm pretty comfortably using Micro 4/3 gear, but am also a bit nostalgic for the processing flexibility I got with that 10+ year old sensor. So I'm starting to hear the Siren call of the Z8. Somebody tie me to the mast! Must. Be. Strong."

Christopher Perez: "Until the recent pandemic, durable goods inflation was for all practical purposes non-existant. If you don't believe me, look at the information provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Looking into my crystal ball I'd say that durable goods inflation will return to zero in the next year or so. Non-durable goods are another matter. So what's going on with cameras and lenses? I think the situation is very similar to the motorcycle market of the 1980s. In the early '80s you could buy a brand new Japanese 450cc streetbike for around $1,000. Buy the end of the decade the price was double that. Why? Because the Japanese manufacturers knew the market was shrinking into a leisure activity niche. So to chase better gross margin and some modicum of market sustainability, prices rose, volumes dropped, and specialization became king (broadly off-road on one end and cafe-racers on the other, with a bit of touring thrown in). Sounds familiar? The Japanese camera manufacturers seem to me to be doing today what Suzuki/Yamaha/Kawasaki/Honda did with their motorcycles 40 years ago. Just a thought."

Steve Biro: "Thom Hogan’s post about the price and value of digital cameras rings true—even if I personally feel $3,000 (or close to it) is a more appropriate price for the Z8. What bothers me more is the price of vehicles these days. Cars and trucks that were $25,000 two years ago are $35,000 today. And it’s not just inflation. If that were true, prices would be up in the 15 percent range. The automakers may have been facing big supply chain issues for a while, but the pandemic also taught them how to make twice as much money selling half as many cars. And so the consumer is being soaked. I wonder how true that is in other industries?"

Malcolm Myers: "I look at the cost of new cameras and just baulk; they are very expensive to my mind. I am still happily using ten+-year-old cameras that are sufficient for me. If I lost one I'd simply buy another secondhand for a fraction of new. I'd maybe even upgrade to an eight-year-old camera! But I don't think it's just cameras. In the mid-1980s I went to see Bruce Springsteen and it cost £40 as I recall. He now sells tickets for nearer £300, which I felt was very expensive. I just checked an inflation calculator and £40 in 1985 is about £118 today, so maybe things are more expensive now."

The Mighty Nikon Z8

The Nikon Z8

It seems to me that over the years, there has been a camera that we might call the "top amateur camera." I believe with a few companies that it might even have been an official term. At least internally, sometimes externally. It's sort of the sweet spot for people who are into photography but don't make their livings with their cameras.

I am brand agnostic, but I grew up in the era when Nikon went unchallenged as the top professional 35mm brand (not the case in this century), and over the years I have only shot Canon for one stretch, although I loved the Canon I had. So I tend to know more about Nikon than I know about most other brands. Just not as a "fanboy." And it seems to me that Nikon has generally had that "top amateur model." The Nikkormats in the days of the early F's. The N8008 in the time of the first autofocus F model, the F4 (I had both and usually shot with the N8008). The F100 at the end of the film era. The 6-MP D100 in the early days of DSLRs. The D700 hit the sweet spot perfectly. Then the D800 and D850 starting a decade or so ago. Maybe it's from Nikon that I got the idea! True (deep, dyed-in-the-wool, dedicated) Nikonophiles can correct me if you think I'm off base. For instance, it's not always true that there is a split between the top pro and top amateur models: the F3 was deeply loved by both constituencies—and well suited to both.

Working for the people I've always worked for turns the usual hierarchy on its head. All my life I've worked for students, advanced amateurs, "shutterbugs," enthusiasts, techie mavens, and art photographers (I qualify that last as being a label, not a claim). The top amateur models always rank higher than the top pro models. They're more desirable. Example: would you rather have an OM System OM-1 or an Olympus E-M1X? Not one in 20 amateurs would spring for the latter, if my guess is correct. Even though the latter is cheaper right now, because of the vagaries of fortune. Then again, the legacy Olympus E-M1 Mark III, new, is cheaper still. That's the one I'd pick, at this particular historical moment. (But I digress.)

Sure, you can shoot a pro model if you want to. But why would you? Pro models always had drawbacks for amateurs. Usually (but not always) higher cost, complexity, and size and weight. You paid for durability and dependability that amateurs simply didn't need. Burned in my memory is the sight of two F4's from the Gulf War, painted sand color, sitting on the repair bench at Pro Photo in the heart of Washington DC. Those two cameras looked like they were at least 10 years old. They were in getting refurbished for another "tour of duty." Actual age of the two cameras since new? Six months. Amateurs, who generally tend to pamper their gear, don't put their cameras through hell. So why pay for it?

Anyway, Nikon has done it again. They've introduced the "top amateur" camera in the Z lineup: the Z8, which has most of the trickle-down features of the Z9. (You couldn't make me carry a Z9. I'd feel like a dork, for one thing.)

There's one "little" problem with the Z8, which we'll get to tomorrow.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jon Porter: "I've never liked the practice of reviewers assigning cameras to users as professional, amateur, entry-level, etc. There are only three categories of gear—high-end, mid-range, and low-end—which are used interchangeably by all levels of photographers.

"Plus another issue is defining what a professional photographer is these days. Ask a dozen of your readers and you'll get a dozen different definitions. I define a pro as someone whose primary income is from taking photographs, not the guy who shoots an occasional wedding or works in the camera department clerk at Best Buy. Others would argue that anyone making money through the broad category of photography is a professional."

Bambang: "Z8 is today’s version of F100."

F. Hall: "I might have gone to Nikon when mirrorless was taking off but the one thing that held me back was lack of 4:3 aspect ratio which I had mostly settled on by then. I wonder why we can't set it to whatever we like when it comes down to it.

"When a camera strongly bills itself as a hybrid camera I seem to lose all interest but that is just my mind messing with me. Using anything but a smartphone to photograph (or not having a smartphone on you) puts you squarely in the dork category. I am well past the age to care about that, and I have doubts that you really care about it either. This assumes dork means an unstylish, not with-it person."

Terry Letton: "Ya you can look like a dork if you act like you don’t belong there, but the reverse is also true. If you have good equipment and act confident and shoot appropriately it can be to your benefit.

"Of several possible illustrations I’ll just use one. I enjoy shooting motor sports but seldom actually get to do it. I was at the New Hampshire NASCAR race and decided I wanted to shoot Qualifying. I had my 5D Mark II and a borrowed big white 100–400mm lens. I stood close to the chain link fence so it would be out of focus and began to methodically shooting each car in turn as it pulled to the front of the line and took its run. Partway through I snuck a peek at the security guard who I had been expecting to shoo me away. He was instead keeping others from bothering me. I made sure to thank him on the way out."

Stephen S.: "I worked at a camera store through the early 2000s that had a clientele of predominantly amateurs and advanced amateurs, and only a few professionals. We regularly sold entry-level film SLR cameras from several brands; Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta to the amateurs. To advanced amateurs? It was tons of Nikon F80 (N80) and a lesser quantity of F100 bodies, but virtually nothing from any other brand. One single Minolta Maxxum 7, one single Pentax MZ-S, one single Canon EOS-3 and a few Canon Elan 7 bodies. Nikon truly had the advanced amateur market all to themselves, at least where we were located."

Cameras We Missed (Ricoh GR IIIx)

I have a friend who has something like 50 view cameras. When I asked him why, he said he felt the need to "demystify" the subject: he wanted to understand the view camera—experience what other photographers had experienced, survey the developments over time—and the only way to do it was to get familiar with the quirks and foibles of many of the available types and historical alternatives.

I have certainly demystified cameras in my lifetime. I have no idea how many different cameras I've used, but it must be in the hundreds. I'm familiar with the Canon Xapshot, the Instamatic 104, the Olympus C-3040Z, the Argus C3, the Mamiya C33; the Kodak Disk Camera, the Wisner 20x24", the Sony F707, the Nikon F2, the Deardorff 5x7, the Zeiss Contessa; the Konica T-3, the Bronica SQ-A, the Nikon D700, the Mamiya 6, the Hasselblad 500C; The Konica-Minolta 7-D, the Minox B "spy" camera, the Panasonic GF1, the gigantic Fuji GX680, the Ricoh GXR with its odd removable sensor modules. The list goes on and on. Rangefinders; cameras with wire frame viewfinders; TLRs; view cameras with fresnel lenses on the groundglass; SLRs; DSLRs; smartphone cameras; pinhole cameras; copiers used as cameras; scanners used as cameras; tailboard cameras; digital cameras with less than a single megapixel before the word "megapixel" even came into currency.

I used to have a sense that there were lots of cameras I still wanted to try, but I'm not sure that's true any more. It's possible I've about had enough. Now I just want to use my cameras. I'm very happy with my current cameras, warts and all, but they have made me lose interest in lots of other cameras, including many of the old ones I own.  The most recent sea change in ("real") cameras was the switchover to FF mirrorless c. 2018, and this is maybe the first major development in 40 years I haven't kept up with personally. (I do know they're great cameras, because I keep my ear to the ground.)

But when I pose the question to myself—any cameras out there I still want to try?—the answer comes up "yes." The one that come to mind is the Ricoh GR IIIx.

Who says the Ricoh GR IIIx doesn't have a viewfinder?

The GR line is one of the stoutest and most durable lineages in cameradom at the moment. There have been 13 of them, beginning with the (film!) GR1 in late 1996—when Bill Clinton was President, Larry David had just left his decade-defining show "Seinfeld," the Spice Girls were a thing, and the rounded "jellybean" Ford Taurus was the best-selling car in America. In 1996, there was no iPhone, no YouTube, and Netflix hadn't even started mailing out physical DVDs in those little red envelopes. In other words, long time ago now. The GR made the changeover to digital in 2005, without losing its established identity. And the GR cameras seem to have something rare that used to be true of Leica—they seem to have a far higher percentage of devoted fans than their market share would predict. Their partisans love 'em. I've never tried one, in all those years, but I'd like to. Not now, though. Someday.

So how about you? Any cameras you've missed? What have you always wanted to try for yourself but never have?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Andrew L: "I had a jellybean Taurus in the mid-2000s, a cheap used car which ran for just over 200k miles for me before the transmission needed a major fix or replacement which I couldn't afford/didn't want to afford. The trunk space in that thing was amazing, all of the hockey gear for me and my friends was a breeze to pack around, and the 3.0l V6 Vulcan engine was absolutely bombproof. Ugly car, chintzy interior, but its utility was unassailable.

"I own the GRIIIx, and it's totally unique out there for a standard-lens compact that goes into any pocket. Snap focus is a bit harder to use than the wide angle 28mm version due to shallower DoF, and it's still hard for me to point and shoot without looking at the screen for sneaky street shots. Something about the small size of the camera makes muscle memory a difficult proposition, you never know precisely what your lens is aiming at. But the lens is one of the best I've ever seen, superbly optically corrected, and the GR imaging engine is second to none, even if the sensor isn't cutting edge anymore. It's a truly great camera, it could be your only camera, giving up absolutely nothing except edge use-cases."

Awesome and Brilliant Metrics

As we were alerted to via PetaPixel, there's an interesting and well-done post at a home products and review site called SimpleGhar (what's a ghar?) that breaks down, in all kinds of ways, the kinds of cameras in use on Flickr.

The graphics are awesome. British translation: brilliant. Whatever word you choose, they really are awesome and brilliant. As a former magazine editor, I can tell you I would have killed to be able to publish such detailed and well-presented graphics. Assuming it's good data, of course.

The only thing is, and I'm sure you're already aware of this, that Flickr probably isn't very representative of photographers today as a whole. I can't really summarize its reputation generally, because I'm not familiar with all the sharing sites or their content. But my sense is that it's relatively conservative, slanted toward users who care more than average about image quality in the presentation of the pictures, and, all things considered, small. The most interesting revelation concerns Apple: first, that it did so well on Flickr against dedicated ILCs (interchangeable-lens cameras), and secondly, that it so thoroughly dominated the smartphone category. I would expect it to, but maybe not by so much. The top 24 smartphones on Flickr are all Apple iPhones.

More globally, of course, in terms of numbers of pictures made, Apple would completely clobber all those cameramakers, even Canon, and not by anything like a small margin.

Still, data is always interesting, as the kind reader who sent me the link observed. Check it out.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Camera Density

I wonder if weight is really so important with cameras, or if the issue is really density. Thom Hogan mentioned this recently (I've been reading about the Z8, and Thom is the go-to Nikon guy). I have no data to back this up, of course, but there must be a density range that people instinctively feel is appropriate for a camera of a given size. If you take a very heavy small camera and find a large camera that's the same weight, you might feel that the former is "too heavy" while the latter is "flimsy" or not substantial enough. It's the density you'd be reacting to.

Size...and quality too! I was surprised when I made the nostalgia purchase* a few years ago of a mint Nikon N8008 (1988). I rented an N8008 when I was waiting for my F4s order to be filled. Then, after a year of lugging around the ungainly and not-very-satisfying F4s, I shelved it and bought two N8008's to use instead (that was during the seven years when I made my living as a professional photographer). What surprised me on our re-acquaintance was its density—I didn't remember it as being that heavy, probably because it was much lighter than the F4s. But it's heavy for its size by today's standards.

Although the N8008 was superbly designed—still one of the most comfortable cameras to hold and look through that I've ever used—it had a lot of polycarbonate for its day, so it still managed to feel a little cheap. That's another aspect of density—it connotes high quality. A Leica M9 with a simple 50mm ƒ/1.4 (or not so simple actually) isn't a paperweight, but it's very solid. The lens especially is a little lead brick. A pleasing density is part of what gives the equipment the aura of the deluxe.

No matter how much we humans seem to love extremes, many aspects of camera design are a matter of balancing conflicting parameters. Part of what makes the Nikon Z cameras so special is that their ergonomics, haptics, and hand-feel are so good. The Z8 is too big for my tastes. My idea of the perfect size and weight is the Fuji X-T1 with the large hand grip. The Z8 weighs more than double what the X-T1 alone weighs, without the hand grip. But it's bigger, too, so perhaps the density is what people should pay attention to. Any lighter and it might not feel right; you'd have to heft one to see for yourself. Like a lot of things, the size and weight of a camera are as much a matter of our perception as anything.

Mike

*I should really stop doing that.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff1000: "I think you’re on to something with 'density.' When I finally located and purchased my 2023 Subaru Crosstrek Premium 6MT, my reaction was that this made in Japan, jewel-like, very affordable little CUV was very dense feeling, like a miniature Sherman tank. But it could just be my imagination since I’m smitten with the car."

psu: "For the life of me I can't figure out why digital camera bodies are so gigantic. Put a D700 and an old N8008s (or F100, or maybe even the smaller hand grip version of the F4) next to each other and compare. The 8008s looks and feels more like an Olympus Micro 4/3 body than something that captures pictures on a full 35mm frame. And it has a motor in it! Even the Nikon Z bodies are kind of chunky and heavy compared to the N8008s...and the whole system is made to feel more bloated by the fact that the Z mount and lenses have a larger diameter than the F, so everything is all around just bigger. I dabbled with the Z cameras (Z6) but have mostly decided to go back to the Olympus...just for the size."

Tom Duffy: "I always felt that way about the Leica M camera. Very heavy for its size. Maybe its not being easy to hold had a lot to do with it. Now the Mamiya RZ67, that was just heavy."

Brian: "Same for headphones. A high-end (maybe by name only) manufacturer added weights to its product to make them feel better quality."

Dave Jenkins: "The first time I held a Fuji X-Pro1 it felt 'hollow' to me. I learned to love it, though, and still have and use one. The Leica M3 has always seemed about perfect for density to me."

Nigel Voak: "I guess we do expect a certain grade of camera to have a certain feeling of weight in our hands. My D850 weighs what I expect it to weigh, whilst when I pick up my Z7, I unconsciously take into account the missing heft of the glass prism. I suppose this is just because I have been handling cameras since 1975. Your mention of the Nikon N8008, called the F801 in Europe, brings back fond memories of the times when I was shooting performing arts for our provincial theatre. I bought two, to replace my FM2 bodies, and the crystal-clear viewfinder was a big step forward. I still have these bruised and battered bodies that worked faultlessly for ten years or more."

Kye Wood: "The Miata was notably first of all cars to have haptic balance on all controls. That being that the brake pedal feel matched with the resistance required to turn the steering wheel and even all other minor in cabin controls as well. Haptic consistency plus density equals greater than the sum of those parts."

Here Are My Reactions to the Pentax Monochrome

The first commercial monochrome-only DSLR is now available for pre-order.

Traditionally, "monochrome" is what it's been called in the UK. The near-universal US term is "black and white." This is abbreviated "B&W," and hyphenated when it becomes an adjective, for example, in the phrase "black-and-white camera." Neither the British nor the American term is exactly correct, but I won't get into that.

In any event, I'm a B&W photographer from way back. I began writing for Darkroom Photography magazine in the '80s, became chief editor of Photo Techniques magazine in the '90s, and, under the nom de plume "L.T. Gray"—el tigre, geddit?—was a contributing editor to Ed Buziak's Darkroom User magazine, which was based in Wales. I was a regular columnist for the British Black & White Photography magazine in the 2000s. Although I could and did print color with everything from JOBOs to massive $10,000 Hope processors, my principle expertise was B&W darkroom printing. And we all know how practical and valuable that is now.

More than that, I love B&W—and I have since I was a kid. When I open a page of image thumbnails on Google Images or in Flicker, my eye zooms right in on the B&W shot if there is one. When I used to spend hours in the Art Library at Dartmouth, looking through book after book, I gradually realized that I preferred drawings to paintings by 1400s–1800s European artists. And so on. In photography, it has to be good B&W photography, and that's becoming increasingly rare, but, assuming it's good, I usually prefer it. I know some people are the opposite, preferring color, and of course I have no problem with that.

So here are a few of my personal reactions, "global and local," you might say, to the first B&W-specific DSLR, formally "The PENTAX K-3 Mark III Monochrome," per Pentax; "Pentax Monochrome" for short:

Global (with my public writer's hat on): I suspect that this is in effect a limited-edition, one-off model, the sensor of which is a color sensor that's been stripped like any other custom conversion, rather than a sensor made to be monochrom direct from the fabricator, that could take advantage of economies of scale. (Note that the foregoing is speculation. I don't know.) Still and all, it's an official, custom product that has received the attention of Ricoh's engineers and designers—with a factory warranty, too—and there's no small advantage in that.

Ricoh is a company I'm not very familiar with personally, but it's a cameramaker that goes its own way, and one which, in its own way, is just as adventuresome as Leica or Sigma or Fuji. My personal position as a photo-writer is that I want photographers to have what they need to do their work. Ricoh/Pentax provides a lot of richness to the mix. Current products serve a big chunk of the market very well, but there isn't much creativity in the smaller niches. That's another article. So I absolutely applaud the Pentax Monochrome.

At the same time, I have some sympathy for Leica. Leica courageously began serving B&W photographers in 2012 and has done so continuously ever since, expanding from the Monochrom M rangefinders to include the Q[x] camera line in Monochrom versions as well. I don't think the Pentax threatens their efforts, because the price of entry is so different, but Leica deserves its success in this field.

In a perfect world, as I see it, there would be a mono-only pictorial-camera sensor that comes that way from the factory, and several companies would make mono-only cameras that could cost less than the color versions. On the other hand, the era of mainstream B&W is over. Robert Frank famously said that "black and white are the colors of photography"*, but colors are the colors of photography now, and nothing's going to change that back to what it once was.

But that makes Pentax's (Ricoh's) move more valuable, not less. A mono-only camera is easier to use for dedicated B&W shooters because it removes the color/mono ambivalence that saddles every photographer who simply converts color files in post. Some deal with that well, some not well, but it's an impediment that's best eliminated if what you're really dedicated to is excellent black-and-white. Most photographers can see better in B&W if it's the way the camera sees. There's a reason the Leica Monochroms have been around so long and have sold as well as they have.

Compared to my custom modified Sigma, let alone the Leica Monochroms, the $2,200 Pentax Monochrom is a bargain. You're getting a K3-III ($1,700 for the colors version), a highly refined and beautifully designed "goldilocks" digital SLR, with a sensor conversion to mono and dedicated menu controls added for only $500 extra. Add a lens and you can still be beneath the cost of mine, which itself is less than half the cost of a Leica Q2 Monochrom.

So, my reaction: bravo. And, 'bout time! And, godspeed, Ricoh—I hope this product succeeds, and I'll try to do my part to help**.

###

Local (with my private photographer's hat on): My first reaction was an amused state of something close to anguish. I've been calling for an "affordable" B&W-only camera since the early 2000s, and I expected it until the Leica Monochrom was first released in 2012. After that, I was sure it could only be short time before a more mainstream cameramaker mimicked Leica while undercutting it in price. Well, it's only taken 11 years for that to happen. But the irony was that just last year I finally, finally caved to what appeared to be the only real option for a B&W camera for me, and had a camera converted: a professional-photographer reader loaned me his Sigma fp that had been converted by Monochrome Imaging Services, and I liked it so much that I duplicated it for myself. It cost about $1,800 for the camera, viewfinder, and 45mm lens, and then $1,200 for the conversion, which was paid for by a different generous reader. So, $3,000 all in, even though I didn't have to pay all of that myself.

Then, while my camera was out being converted, the rumors of the Pentax Monochrome started up! The timing seemed...freaky.

Epiphany
At first, I admit, I was tempted to see this as another example of the Universe mocking me, which has happened rather too much in my life. As you might remember, I joked that I was the cause of the Pentax coming along when it did, specifically so I could be thus mocked. That might be called the "self-centeredness fallacy," i.e., the addlepated belief that everything that happens in the wider world is directed at us personally. Of course I don't believe such a thing objectively, although things in the wider world do affect us personally and sometimes we can't help but attach some kind of weight to that fact. The ancients called it fate.

But the other night I had an epiphany. It's actually not UNfortunate for me that I bought the Sigma when I did, just before the Pentax arrived; it's actually fortunate. I was out photographing the other night and lucked into one of those magical situations, and took a picture I consider a wonderful stroke of luck. I'll tell you about it and show you the picture in a few days. But looking at the result in the camera later, it suddenly occurred to me that I'm damn lucky to have found a camera that I like so much, that gives me good results and a way of working to which I've long sought to return.

This isn't to say that I'm sorry the Pentax has come along. Actually I'm delighted. I applaud Pentax and I hope the camera sells well and brings the company all kinds of attention. But, personally, I really like my Sigma rig. It's got all kinds of limitations, from rolling shutter to the fact that you have to use outside software for ingestion. It's a quirky camera, no doubt. But the whole shebang fits my preferences like a pair of Tricker's brogues, and I'm delighted with it and have been very happy shooting with it. It's for me. Had the Pentax come along just a little earlier, I no doubt would have bought that—it's probably an all-around better solution to the B&W-camera conundrum than the one I've ended up with, for any number of reasons, and 99% of prospective buyers will be happier with it than they would be with what I use. If the Pentax had arrived just before the converted Sigma came to my attention, I would have been invested in the Pentax and probably wouldn't have been able to justify switching to the Sigma even if I knew I wanted to.

So I had it backwards. This actually worked out great for me, not badly. I was lucky, not unlucky.

It's all in the way you look at things.

I'll show you that lucky picture I got in a few days. You might not like it—I lean toward the documentary rather than the pictorial, and not everybody prefers that—but it feels like a "hit" to me and it's a good example of the kind of shot I'm after when I go out looking. And how it fell into my lap makes for an interesting story.

Mike

*"Black and white are the colors of photography. To me, they symbolize the alternatives of hope and despair to which mankind is forever subjected. Most of my photographs are of people; they are seen simply, as through the eyes of the man in the street. There is one thing the photograph must contain, the humanity of the moment. This kind of photography is realism. But realism is not enough—there has to be vision, and the two together can make a good photograph. It is difficult to describe this thin line where matter ends and mind begins." —Robert Frank (source; I don't know where the original came from, but I trust Aperture to get it right.)

**Putting my readers' interests first, of course.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Shriver: "There's one important difference in the Sigma fp. You compose the image in monochrome on the LCD on the back. With the Pentax, the reflex viewing is (of course) in color; only Live View and playback on the LCD are in monochrome."

Dan Khong: "Anything in B&W imaging resonates with me. I was brought up in the days of Verichrome Pan. That's also one of the the ways—undistracted by colour—by which we reach into the soul of a subject. Through Photo Techniques magazine, that certain chief editor became a friend. Now what's his name again?"

Mike replies: I don't know, but he just became the new Mayor of Denver.

By the way, the very beginning of my interest in photography overlapped with Verichrome Pan and Medalist paper. Still fond memories. I should frame the few prints I still have; they're artifacts now.

Gary: "Apparently there are Nikon F-to-Pentax K lens adapters, so Nikon shooters wouldn't even have to buy a new lens. More importantly, I'm curious about the distinction you make between a color sensor that has been modified to take only B&W images, and a hypothetical 'right from the factory' B&W sensor. Why would the latter be preferable? Which type does Leica use in their Monochroms? Also, what are the advantages of (either type) B&W sensor, vs. setting your camera to monochrome mode?"

Mike replies: Well, with the considerable caveat that I don't actually know what I'm talking about, I just assume that making a sensor without applying the color filter array (CFA), and then not having to strip the CFA, which is a painstaking, time-consuming, and expensive job, would make the sensor cheaper. But Voltz already has a Pentax Monochrome, and he says it looks like the sensor was manufactured without the CFA in the first place, because he knows how to recognize a sensor that has had its CFA removed. So maybe Pentax (and does that mean Leica too?) has already got that sorted.

There's a lot the manufacturers don't tell us. It's nice when every now and then I discover one of those "secrets," but that doesn't mean I know very many of them.

The chief advantage of a B&W sensor is that it doesn't record color, so you don't have to decide while you're shooting whether whatever you're looking at should be a color picture or a B&W picture, and then, later, you never have to make that same decision in post. That helps in concentrating the mind and the mission.