The Online Photographer

The Contax RTS II (Part III)

[Ed. note: This post has been amended to add a paragraph about the fate of Yashica and Contax cameras, just below the header "Some things are not meant to be."]

-

I mentioned in Part II of this three-parter that I audited a physics class in optics at the University of Maryland around the time the Contax RTS II came out. The professor was fantastic; I remembered his name for years and wish I still could. He had worked out his demonstrations to a fare-thee-well, and he was very personable and told stories to boot. The class was a fabulous illustrated introduction to the subject. I ate it up.

Waiting for class to start one day—this would have been in '80 or '81, before motorized film advance was incorporated into camera bodies—two students who were camera aficionados got to talking about their fancy motor drives, accessories that not everybody owned in those days. A friendly argument developed, and both boys (because of course they were being boys, even if they were technically men) unlimbered their cameras from their camera bags and attached the motor drives. One said "go!", and the battle was on. At first it sounded like both shutters were firing in unison, but then the shutter sounds gradually got out of sync as one camera began pulling ahead of the other. They ran this competition several times, but the result was the same—one camera owner won and was exultant, and the other lost, and was dejected, and had to explain until class started why his motor drive was plenty fast enough and why it didn't matter at all that the other guy's had won.

And this is part of how cameras evolve: by fashion, by status, and however we boys are trained (by all our varied influences) to "compete" with each other via our purchased possessions. Yes, it's all silly as hell, but we do it, and that can't be denied. 

For a while, in the period we are talking about, the later '70s to the middle '80s, when I was in photography school and first teaching, the opposite held true for short, undefined periods as well, because pros resisted change. Pros resisted built-in metering, and then autoexposure—in both cases because they, and dedicated enthusiasts as well, had worked to understand what was happening with exposure, had learned how to use the tools as they existed, and saw not liberation but rather restriction in the advent of these various technical aids, which were for amateurs and neophytes. If not fools.

In 1982, at the time the RTS II was introduced on the market, it was, vaguely speaking, near the end of a period when a top autoexposure camera was expected to be either shutter priority or aperture priority—not both. The reason for that was that pros and advanced amateurs had already worked out their own ways of using match-needle cameras, and were in the habit of either choosing their shutter-speed first and then adjusting their aperture until the needle matched, or choosing their aperture first and then adjusting the shutter speed. They wanted their autoexposure, if they wanted autoexposure at all, to fit their already-established ways of working. With the most popular enthusiast camera of the era, Canon's AE-1 (1976–84), there were actually different variant models with different kinds of autoexposure baked into each: the AE-1 itself was shutter-priority; the nearly identical AT-1, which was made for export and wasn't even sold in Japan, was manual, with a meter but no autoexposure; the AV-1 was the same camera as the AE-1 but with aperture-priority autoexposure; and the AE-1 Program—which came out in 1981,  just before our RTS II—added to the AE-1 the Program mode of the revolutionary but high-priced A-1, which had come out in 1978. (Few things were more divisive among Photo-Dawgs than Program mode in those days!) There were a few other brands as well which for a brief (but, again, only vaguely defined) period of years were associated with one kind of autoexposure or another: Konica, for instance, was a shutter-priority company.

A similar situation existed with regard to metering patterns. The famous Pentax Spotmatic was so named because it was originally intended to have spot-metering capability. It never actually did—it turned out the technology was not quite ready for prime time, and Pentax went ahead without it, but kept the name. But spot metering had become a thing by the early '80s, even though a lot of amateurs weren't quite sure how to use it. It reached its apex in the Olympus OM-4 of 1983. Also appearing in 1983 was the revolutionary Nikon FA, which featured evaluative metering, which Nikon called "Matrix" metering. Again, this was resisted by initiates, at first, and detested by pros, who considered it to be not only amateur nonsense for photographers who couldn't set their cameras, but also automation that took control away from them. If the camera was taking multiple exposure readings, processing them, and setting itself based on its secret mystical formulas, how the hell were you supposed to know what it was doing? The answer was, you didn't.

Commandability
This gets at an aspect of machines and devices I might call "commandability." That's when a device does what you tell it to rather than acting on its own to "help" without your input. I'll give you one example, as if you can't come up with many of your own. My iPhone has a switch on the side that used to turn it on and off. When I wanted it to be on, I turned it on. When I wanted it off, I turned it off. Simple, right? Straightforward. I got along well with this system; I grok the concept, and I am actually capable of pushing the switch. The switch served my wishes. It was at my command.

Well, at some point, my iPhone updated its operating system (on its own), and one of the numerous changes it adopted is that the iPhone and I no longer shared our old understanding vis-a-vis the on-off switch. The infernal thing now feels it should turn itself on and off. I pick up the iPhone, meaning to turn it on, but, instead, I turn it off—because it, attempting to anticipate my intentions, has turned itself on before I press the button. Then I try to do whatever I wanted to do with it, I discover it is off, curse floridly, and press the on-off button a second time, which turns it on. I never know whether the goddamned thing is off or on. Riding around in my top pocket it sometimes thinks I'm picking it up, and I look down to discover that it is on. The number of times when I want it to be in the opposite state of the state it's in have gone from zero to too many—"too many" being defined as one or more.

This nutty propensity has gotten completely out of hand in the modern world. Dumb machines are forever doing what they think you might want them to do—as if they could know. My sad fate is that I like being the one in command. That's my pleasure, and that's my preference. Every time any modern gizmo takes that away from me, I become just that much less happy*.

Don't get me started on self-driving cars and driving aids.

Gee-whiz gimcrackery, by Jack
Anyway, during that time period, the period when autoexposure and fancy metering patterns were coming along, it was initially assumed that professional cameras—the best cameras—would be conservative about adopting those newfangled helper technologies and aids for the uninitiated. For the very sound reason that seasoned and experienced photographers already knew what they were doing and didn't need the camera itself to help. So the Nikon F3, easily the leading pro 35mm camera, had only aperture-priority autoexposure, and offered only traditional centerweighted metering.

The RTS II followed suit.

But of course, those tiresome boys with their toys were still lurking in the background, ready to open their fat wallets, and they liked all the new tech. So the later '80s saw a proliferation of do-it-for-you new tech that's still with us today, changes that by the early '90s included "plastic" (i.e., polycarbonate**) cameras that were highly electronic and did all kinds of things to "help," including focusing for us, which was also resisted at first by those who had never known that they had any trouble at all focusing.

So my argument here is this: the pro cameras of the early '80s—the Nikon F3, Pentax LX, Canon New F-1, Leica R4, and Contax RTS II—were all supposed to be cutting edge when they were introduced because they all introduced electronics and incorporated carefully selected mixes of the latest features, and reviews of all those ancient cameras even today still tout all those then-new features—but actually that is not their significance at all any more. Actually their significance now is that they were the last flowering of a period in which simplicity was valued, the photographer's knowledge and judgement rather than technical helper aids were supposed to be in control, and the technical features were supposed to stay out of the way and not do anything to confuse the camera operator.  

I guess I have to walk back my comment from Friday about the RTS II's viewfinder being perfect. After using it for a bit I was reminded that the eye relief is a little too short—not for nothing did the F3's "High-Eyepoint" finder, which offered a smaller magnification but greater than eye relief, become a popular selling point. But the RTS II is still a camera that embodies those values that held sway in that brief golden hour when everything that was best about the "MMM" era (a term I coined, by the way, meaning "manual, metal, mechanical" in any order) was still being refined, but electronics were also being added sparingly and judiciously to help where they made sense, albeit not a way that was intrusive or confusing.

The situation changed quickly, and we're still in it, although I am firmly of the conviction that the "boys with their toys" have painted the ILC (interchangeable-lens camera) industry into a pretty dark corner. Cameras are just too damned complicated for newcomers to ever have a hope of understanding or mastering them—or even of detecting the basic concepts that are now well buried beneath many thick layers of obfuscation. But that would be a digression. Things changed radically by 1990, driven not by what was best but by fashion, feature-competition (more modes! More complicated metering! Higher top shutter speeds and sync speeds! Accessories for every conceivable purpose! Weird lenses in the system that everybody said they wanted but nobody bought! Wheeee!), and status.

Mike's verdict
And what of the RTS II? I promised you my unvarnished opinion. Gotta say I've always come away thinking it's a bit of a near miss, despite its awesomeness and beauty. The fault can probably be put at the feet of Porsche Design. Despite the supreme logic of its control layout, which is very shrewdly judged, I don't really find it that comfortable to hold and use. The beautiful zero-clutter finder requires you to jam your eye a bit too close in to see everything comfortably at once, that lovely meter-switch-plus-AE-lock collar is just too close to the right-hand end of the camera body to fall to hand naturally, and all that fastidiously engineered and carefully manufactured premium metal makes the little brick weigh too much for its size—about 4 1/2 ounces more than a Pentax LX, which itself, to be truly perfect, would be a tad lighter. I also have a vintage LX here, and the Pentax, with its handgrip, simply feels better. More comfortable and more natural.

So would I recommend the RTS II for film shooters today? Yes and no. Those simple electronics are robust, but they're at least 33 and possibly as much as 41 years old. Repair places are thin on the ground—I emailed several alleged Contax repairpeople, asking if they would exchange a phone conversation about the RTS II for a mention in this article, and didn't hear a peep back from any of them. And the famous Contax/Yashica lenses, for some reason, whether made in Germany or made in Japan, are quite expensive, not to mention that some of them are on the rare side now and the selection is limited.

Oh, but one good thing—I forgot to mention it on Friday. The RTS II takes a battery that's still common and easy to find, a 6-volt alkaline 4LR44 or equivalent. Always check to see what batteries are needed when buying an old camera! If you need diopters, some Canon diopters, which are easier to find, can be pressed into service, or so I hear.

But as a camera, considered in isolation, the bottom line is that the real joy of the RTS II, in retrospect, is not in the features it introduced, but in its simplicity and straightforwardness combined with high quality. It does only a few things, does them in a commendably commandable manner, and stays the hell out of the way while we're engaged in whatever we're engaged in. It wouldn't dare put a blanket of symbols and blinkies over my view through the finder; in fact the starkly plain finder, which is so easy to focus through, is a beautiful revelation now. The RTS II doesn't turn itself off or on (there's a very stout dedicated switch for that, which never confuses off for on or on for off); it never focuses itself on the wrong thing, never tells me in the finder what aperture I have set unless I ask it to, doesn't offer me modes or metering I don't thoroughly understand, etc. And all that, in today's world, is both rare and nice. Add a relatively petite Carl Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 Planar to this body (petite compared to the monstrous fast 50mms of today) and you'll experience how manual focus works when it works best, and understand what cameras of that era really were and why they were special.

Verdict? It's a nifty old thing. But, since I'll never shoot film again, for me it's "surplus to requirements" as my friend Nick puts it. It's a nice option for those with the discrimination to appreciate its felicities, it elegance and its build quality (it's certainly more deluxe than the Minolta-based Leica SLRs of the period). But it's not ideal. I'll do another post someday about the film cameras I'd recommend most strongly for people who want to shoot film in 2023.

Some things are not meant to be
In 1983, only one year after the RTS II came out, Yashica was bought out by Kyocera Corp., the former Kyoto Ceramic Company Limited, a Japanese multinational high-tech and electronics conglomerate. Within only a few years, Kyocera ended production of most of the higher-level Yashica TLRs and SLRs to concentrate on the Contax models. They made some wonderful cameras over the next two decades, including the G-series rangefinder-style compact models, the deluxe RX, the compact Aria, and the lovely and impressive 645. The original C/Y lenses were designed by Zeiss with manufacture shared between Zeiss and Tomioka, Yashica's optical division, and as time went on Tomioka made more and more of the lenses, causing a bit of awkwardness because certain purchasers were chauvinistic about German-made lenses over Japanese-made ones.

There was also, unfortunately, a string of high-profile failures. Contax got into a fight with Zeiss when Zeiss refused to make autofocus lenses for the C/Y mount, which resulted in one of the more amazing one-off cameras ever made, the Contax AX, which used manual-focus lenses and actually moved the entire film plane in order to autofocus. It worked beautifully, although it was a big, thick, bulbous camera body. It could focus non-macro lenses into the macro range. Way too late, Kyocera did finally bring a couple of conventional AF SLRs to market, the N-series, but the new cameras used a completely new lensmount that was incompatible with all the older Zeiss-branded manual-focus lenses, which were pretty much the reason why people bought into the Contax marque in the first place. Rumor had it, too, that the 645 had been terrifically expensive to develop. The company finally bit off more than it could chew with the six-megapixel N Digital, which nevertheless gets the credit for being the first-ever full-frame digital SLR. It was announced in 2000, didn't come to market until 2002 after a number of awkward delays, and had to be withdrawn within a year. The star-crossed N Digital imbroglio was apparently the last straw for Kyocera, which ceased production of cameras in 2005. CONTAX as a cameramaker had lasted 30 years.

My own RTS II, I'm sorry to say, was stolen shortly after I got it, from the art teachers' faculty office at the high school where I taught photography. I shot a whole lot when I was student, but hardly at all once I started teaching. So I barely used it, really. Although my memory is vague on this point, I think the school's insurance company eventually sent me a check for my loss, and I used the money toward an Exakta 66, which at the time was the cheapest medium-format camera you could buy new. And of course I still had my trusty old Contax 139Q.

In 1988 I joined a professional studio, where the other three photographers all shared equipment in 35mm (Nikon) and medium format, and the unspoken assumption was that I would participate in the sharing of gear too. Not only did I want to be able to borrow their stuff, but I wanted to own some things that would be useful to them, as well. I contributed a Zeiss 150mm to the Hasselblad inventory even though I didn't own a Hasselblad camera, and I switched to Nikon. Collectively, we had a great deal of Nikon equipment, pretty much all that any of us ever needed. I bought a then-new F4s and replaced my Zeiss 35mm and 85mm manual-focus lenses with the Nikkor AF equivalents. (The photographer who owned the F3 called "Darth Vader" dubbed my F4s "Luke.") So that was the end of the road for me and Contax.

It's possible that the main reason I have such fond memories of the RTS II is because it's what I coveted when I was young and the world was new. That is to say, I'm being nostalgic and sentimental. That's possible, and I will concede the point. Years later, I re-bought another RTS II when I lived in Oak Park. Or maybe I just tried one out, borrowed from the local camera store. Whatever the reason was, I didn't have that one for long either. It seemed too old, and that was twenty years ago.

Now I have one yet again, sent to me in a box of old equipment donated by a kind reader who has great taste. That's the one in these pictures. Seems these old RTS II's just won't let me alone! Every now and again, I pick it up to look at it, play with it, and admire it. It's a nice old thing. It takes me down memory lane, like re-watching Annie Hall or American Grafitti yet again. And nothing wrong with that.

One thing's for sure: those were the days, and they don't make 'em like they used to.

Mike

*You can restore the "commandability" of the iPhone side switch by turning off Settings > Face ID and Passcodes > Attention Aware Features, and also Settings > Display and Brightness > Raise to Wake.

**Actually, polycarbonate was the secret to the AE-1's success too—the reason it was so cheap but generated so much profit was because the top plate, the most expensive part of a metal camera to manufacture, was actually cleverly disguised, plated plastic.

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 O'Connor: "I have used Yashica/Contax for 40 years now. I love the RTS II, but it has interchangeable focusing screens and the one I have is a micro-prism, not split-screen. My 62-year-old eyes have problems with that. The split-screen replacement FS2/3 screens are available, but hard to find...and the RTS versions don't fit the RTS II. I have purchased them online twice now, only to find a micro-prism screen in the box. I.e., people have replaced the micro-prism with the new split-screen and put the micro-prism in the split-screen box...sigh.... But the camera is great. Both that RTS and RTS II that I own needed a CLA to work properly. I would say I prefer the 159MM to either, but I would also shout out the Yashica FX-2. A robust mechanical Y/C lump that is great, and only needs a battery for the meter :-) .

"By the way, I like these retro series...."

Mark Sampson: "It's been enjoyable to re-live my own twenties with these posts. The photo magazines were full of the feature comparisons that were so important then, and I read them carefully. But I walked into a camera store in 1978, intending to buy a Nikon or Olympus, and instead came out with a 19-year-old Leica M3. I was otherwise broke, so I wasn't even in the camera feature game. Until 1984, when I was hired by Kodak as an industrial shooter and lab rat. My department used Nikons, so that's the way I went, when it was time to buy my own. And there I've stayed. But what was it that David Hume Kennerly told you, once?"

Mike replies: I too had to switch to Nikon, when I joined a professional studio with three other photographers who all shared equipment with each other and who expected me to participate in the sharing as well. All three of them shot Nikon for 35mm, so that was the end for me and Contax.

As for David Hume Kennerly, I ran into him walking across Rose Park, near 26th and P in D.C., when he was the unofficial photographer for President Ford and one of the most prominent and well-known members of the Washington press corps. Considering I was nothing but a raggedy young photo student, he spent a generous amount of time speaking to me. But when I asked him what kind of cameras he used, he got a bit worked up, and said, twice, "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter."

Mark P Morris: "I had a Minolta XD-11 in the early '80s. It was a nice little camera. The Rokkor Files said that 'the XD11 was the world's first camera with aperture priority and shutter priority, as well as a fully metered manual mode.'"

Mike replies: It came out in 1977, just before the Canon A-1, and became the basis for the "middle" Leica R SLRs of the period, R4 through R7.

Tex Andrews: "Good reads. I think a lot of problems with devices—especially computers and their phone cousins—is that they are designed in what I'll call 'the engineering bubble.' This is the space in which all the engineers play and design things, without serious input from end users who are not engineers. Things work beautifully for those guys because, well, they effectively designed them for themselves.

"As to simplicity, while I love my current cameras greatly, and they are arguably the best photographic tools I've ever had, the most enjoyment I got using a camera was with a Fuji medium-format rangefinder and a Luna Pro meter. The meter forced me to assess the entire scene, all of the light in it, and I had the spot attachments to do spot readings for the Zone System, and the model I had was the one with a Zone scale on it. Just lovely. It made you slow down and think a spell. And the viewfinder in the camera was a crude rangefinder which I barely used because the ranging part was too small, so I just used it for framing, and zone focused. It was a very pleasant camera usage experience, and of course the 6x9 negs were wonderful. I was reminded about this listening to the latest YouTube video from Pentax about their new film camera project."

John Denniston: "Your comment about photographers resisting automation in cameras reminded me of a day sometime in the late 1990s when one of my staff photographers, Colin Price, was assigned to photograph someone sitting in the driver’s seat of a car outside on a sunny day. Tough shot, especially with the NC2000s we were using at the time—but not for Colin, who cut his teeth taking pictures like this in the 1950s with a Speed Graphic. Colin set up a small flash in the back seat, another in the foot well on the passenger’s side, and filled with a flash from the camera. He took the picture, gathered up the flashes and was about to leave when he stopped, saying, 'I want to take one more,' and pulled out one of the just-introduced small point-and-shoot digitals from his pocket; a camera he picked up to take family snaps. He put the dial to 'P' took one quick shot and left.

"Back at the office while he was processing his pictures he called me over. 'You should look at this.' He pulled up the picture taken with the NC2000. 'Good picture,' I said. Then he pulled up the picture taken with the point and shoot. I looked at the picture, I turned my head and looked at Colin, Colin looked at me and then we both turned our heads back towards the monitor and sighed. It was better, a lot better, and we both knew what it meant. All our skills so carefully learned replaced by 'P' for professional."

Mike replies: And now people probably take better pictures with their iPhones! The baby pictures of my grandson that are arriving to me in a torrent from Illinois are excellent, despite often difficult lighting. Or what might have been difficult in the past.

Reminds me of a pro friend of mine who had a lot of strong skills, the best of which was probably his mastery of manual flashes, guide numbers and all that. Really came out at weddings, where all the amateurs and wannabe pros would fall down in difficult lighting situations and he would handle it with aplomb. Of course he used Nikon. Anyway I remember that when he first used my then-new Nikon N8008 and SB-24, c. 1988, he was morose. I think he realized right then that the days of his flash expertise being valuable in the marketplace were numbered.

The Contax RTS II (Part II)

Sorry for the delay. However, as I sometimes take the trouble to point out, this stuff doesn't write itself.

Taking up where we left off...

In 1982, the year the Contax RTS II was introduced, the "heavy metal" rocker Ozzy Osbourne bit the head off a bat onstage. What will now permanently be the bestselling album in history, Michael Jackson's Thriller, came out, in November. Martina Navratilova won 90 of 93 tennis matches, and North Carolina won the NCAA Men's College Basketball tournament with the help of a freshman sensation then known as Mike Jordan. AT&T, colloquially called "Ma Bell," was ordered to be broken up. A movie called E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was helping Steven Spielberg earn $500,000 a day. On the Mall in Washington, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, designed by a young unknown named Maya Lin, was dedicated. It was so stark that a figurative statue called "Three Soldiers," which was not part of Lin's design, had to be added two years later to placate detractors. (Lin's somber Memorial, now widely admired, is no longer controversial.) On January 14th, Air Florida flight 90 hit the 14th Street Bridge shortly after taking off from what was then called National Airport, and plunged into the freezing Potomac River, killing 78 people, including both pilots and four motorists on the bridge. A day later, "shock jock" Howard Stern called Air Florida on the air and asked to buy a ticket to the 14th Street Bridge, for which he was fired*. Thelonious Monk, Philip K. Dick, Leonid Brezhnev, and John Belushi were among those who died that year, as well as Princess Grace of Monaco, formerly the American movie star Grace Kelly. She died when she suffered a cerebral hemorrhage behind the wheel and drove off a mountainside. Instead of a "Man [or Woman] of the Year," which had been a big deal since the late 1920s, TIME magazine named the personal computer "Machine of the Year." In the U.S., a gallon of gas cost 91 cents, a loaf of bread cost 50 cents, and the average price of an existing home was $67,800. Argentina invaded the Falklands Islands. Dallas, M*A*S*H, and Hill Street Blues were on American TV, and the young standup comedian David Letterman's first (and still best) late night show, simply called "Late Night," debuted on NBC**. A new and high-tech type of music carrier called the Compact Disc, or CD, a joint effort between Sony and Philips, was first manufactured***. A computer scientist named Scott Fahlman proposed that a colon, hyphen, and close-parenthesis, like this: 

:-) 

be used as a marker for jokes. It became the first "emoticon," a word Fahlman coined—even though the Russian émigré author Vladimir Nabokov had proposed the same thing way back in 1969, writing, in The New York Times, "I often think there should exist a special typographical sign for a smile—some sort of concave mark, a supine round bracket." 

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C....
Far less significantly—well, except to me—I accidentally applied to art school in 1982. I had become obsessed with photography, learning all I could about it on my own. And when I got going learning something, I really got going. I never received an academic degree, but when motivated I could be a ferocious autodidact. I once tried to teach myself Anglo-Saxon, for instance, and got further with it than you might imagine. After many visits to Industrial Photo in suburban Maryland—I would stop on my way home from the University of Maryland, where I was auditing a physics course in optics—I had carefully weighed all the options and finally purchased a Contax 139Q (for "quartz") and a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm ƒ/1.4 lens, which became my only lens for more than two years.

I was moonlighting at a framer's shop and met a photographer, a customer, who told me about the Corcoran School of Art's Open Program, where she had taken a class. I called the Corcoran, asked to be sent an application for a photography course, and had filled out more than two pages of the application out before I figured out that what they had sent me was an application for the four-year full-time program, which I hadn't even known about. Nothing much was going on in my life; I was living in a group house and working full-time as a handyman at Johnson's Flower Center, a garden center on Wisconsin Avenue, and working evenings and weekends at the frame shop. So I completed the application, was accepted, and entered the Photography BFA program as a second-year student in the Fall.

Naturally, when the RTS II came out and was covered in all the magazines, that became the "dream camera" I really wanted. But not really, because it was beyond my slender means, even though I had been working those two jobs. I considered at the time that the RTS II really should be considered a new camera on account of all its improvements and refinements, or what are now called "upgrades." The shutter on the original RTS of 1975 was known to have some problems, so the RTS II offered a horizontally-traveling new shutter made of titanium—I recall being cautioned never to touch it, as the titanium was very thin and a dented shutter could not be repaired. It inherited quartz-controlled shutter timing, which "trickled up" from my 139Q. I don't know how accurate it was—Dick, at Pro Photo, where most of the photographers in the Washington press corps had their cameras repaired, had a shutter tester, but testing cost $15 and I was a cheapskate. The RTS II had a fully mechanical backup shutter speed, 1/50th sec. (that's the control on the bottom right of the mirror housing, next to the lens), TTL flash, and this, that, and the other thing. You can research an exhaustive list of the differences as easily as I can (i.e., not very easily).

Thoughtful design, innovative tech, and careful engineering
But several things deserve mention. It's remembered that Contax eventually went to great extremes, in the RTS III of 1990 (which really was a completely different camera), to ensure film flatness. The engineers and product managers at Zeiss, one of whom I eventually met, were preoccupied by it, in order to better show off the superiority of their lenses. The RTS III's vacuum back sucked the film flat against the pressure plate before every shot, an engineering nicety that might have appealed to buyers conceptually, even though it's doubtful that any of them ever were able to detect the difference visually. This is almost lost to history now, and I don't know that anyone still cares, but that concern with film flatness was already being addressed way back in the RTS II. The back and film path were carefully engineered, with such features as an oversized, extremely high-tolerance pressure plate made of a special material, and an oversized takeup spool. 

Looks perfectly ordinary, but in this case looks are deceiving.

A lot of the differences were things that seem to have been of concern only in terms of "feature competition" at the time—for example, interchangeable focusing screens. The RTS II had no fewer than eight available! But who cares? Who could care? It was simply something that buyers were looking at back them, ticking off their feature lists as they did their shopping. Soon enough, it stopped mattering—feature proliferation was just about to take off in a much bigger way, as we'll see in the next post. The salient point on that score is that the RTS II shipped with a standard focusing screen that differed from the usual. Most cameras at the time had a central circle consisting of a split-image inside a microprism "collar." The RTS II shipped with a standard screen that had a center spot of microprism only—no split image. Of course, various other screens were among the seven additional options, including your choice of a horizontal or 45°-angle split image. If your heart's desire is to make yourself crazy, try finding those now. The RTS II lost some of those comparisons, too—for example, the flash sync speed, soon to become a competition, was only 1/60th, and several other pro cameras of the era featured exchangeable prism housings—only the Leica R4 and the Contax did not.

The RTS II shared with the RTS its then-unique electromagnetic shutter release, which was very light and very precise compared to the competition. At the time it had the effect of spoiling you for anything else, although it's difficult to recover that sense in today's world. I can't seem to find the spec, but my memory is that it offered the shortest shutter-button travel and the lowest shutter lag of any SLR at the time.

But the best features of the camera were both new on the II. Primarily, the prism and the viewfinder were all new, offering 97% coverage vs. 93% in the RTS, and .87X magnification. The prism was engineered with no corners cut whatsoever, and the view through the eyepiece is as close as it gets to perfection. It's bright, even across the field, "snappy" across the whole field (that is, you can detect focus easily anywhere, not the case on the later high-brightness screens). It's large, and offers decent eye relief (I don't seem to find a figure). Most of all, it's supremely clean—all you see is the world through the lens to the edge of the rectangle. In normal shooting there are only two red LED data points in the finder, the shutter speed on the right and the aperture underneath, both outside the image area—but you're not even presented with those unless you want to be. (If in use, exposure compensation, AE/manual mode indication, AE lock, overexposure warning, flash data and battery check are also visible.) It can stand as well as anything as the high-water mark of camera viewfinders, not just among SLRs, not just of that era, but of 35mm cameras overall. Shoot with it for a while and you'll see just how much we have lost with the insanely cluttered and confused finder views of most of today's digital marvels.

The other feature that's really nice and that I've never seen elsewhere is the very effective AE lock system. To see the finder information, you don't half-press the shutter—the information only briefly appears in the finder as the shutter is being pressed. Rather, you press a button on the front of the camera body to turn the finder information on—for 16 seconds, to prevent battery drain. The nifty thing is that there's a very handy collar switch around this button which permanently locks any shutter speed value once you activate it, and holds it until you switch it off again. It's highly convenient, very practical, and efficient. I'll go so far as to wax hyperbolic and say it's probably the best AE lock system ever devised.

And now the other shoe drops
The cameras that the RTS II competed with in its era were the Nikon F3 (1980—one of my studio partners had one, which he called Darth Vader), Canon New F-1 (1981—my brother bought one), Pentax LX (1980—I've owned several, and still have one now) and Leica R4 (1980—I've rented one of those too, although the one I bought for myself was the R4s). I'm pleased to report that after graduating from the Corcoran School of Art Photography Department, I got a job as a part-time teacher at a local college, and used that as a stepping stone to a full-time job as a high school photography teacher. Being paid a whopping $17,000 in annual salary (actually the equivalent of $47,600 now, which is hard to believe), I was finally able to buy a brand new Contax RTS II. Was it worth buying then? More importantly, what's the situation now—is this old camera actually recommendable to film shooters today? I'll give you my considered and informed, but hardheaded and realistic, opinion.

But before I do that, I have to say that, unfortunately, all of the foregoing, about the features and technology of the RTS II, is actually beside the real point, and doesn't matter all that much in understanding the camera. To put the RTS II in proper perspective and learn the actual significance of it and of the other top cameras of that era, stay tuned for Part III.

I hope you're enjoying reading this, even if, quite understandably, you don't care much (or at all) about old film cameras.

Mike

*I won't watch or listen to him to this day. If you don't naturally empathize with innocent travelers who suddenly find themselves trapped and drowning in freezing water after a traumatic impact, you're a psychopath, and that's the end of the discussion.

**"Still best," thanks in part to Letterman's head writer and then-girlfriend Merrill Markoe, who deserves credit for a lot of the original features on that show. I had been living without a TV, but I bought one specifically to watch two programs: the 1983 Super Bowl, and Late Night. I later bought a tiny B&W TV with a screen about the size of a piece of 4x5 film. Know why? Because I could put a small sheet of Rubylith—transparent red masking film—over the screen, and watch football games—and Late Night, often enough—in the darkroom.

***I bought twenty of them before I bought my first CD player.

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:

Rob Griffin: "Your writings on the Contax cameras and the RTS and RTS II are a wonderful read. Great stuff! From the mid-'70s to mid-'80s I worked full time at what I believe was the best camera store in Phoenix, The Guild. I think we may have been the biggest Contax dealer in the Southwest. Your impressions and thoughts about the Contax line are right on point."

Mike Cawley: "Wonderful! My first serious camera was the RTS II. Coupled with the W-2 motor drive, I felt like a real photographer. Didn't have enough $ to buy the III when it was introduced, but managed to handle it at a camera show. It had that same 'solid brick' feeling of quality like the II.

"Keep 'em coming!"

The Contax RTS II (Part I)

Contax RTS II with Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar
60mm ƒ/2.8 C 1:2 macro lens

I don't know how deep a dive you want on this. I just noticed that these seem to be quite cheap on eBay, and it's a camera I had a lot of history with, although I'm sure I've forgotten a lot of what I once knew. Although I've refreshed my memory on a few names and dates, the following is mostly off the top of my head, not researched exhaustively (I'm a blogger, folks), so take it with that leetle grain o' salt.

Background
Brief history: Zeiss was once by far the most prestigious camera manufacturer in Germany (right, Leica was distinctly second fiddle) and hence the World. When the Japanese started making cameras in a serious way after WWII, most of their efforts were knockoffs and copies at first, and nobody thought they would amount to much. But Japanese cameras were cheap—always an advantage—and as the years went by they got better and better. What turned out to be the last great flowering of mainstream German cameramaking occurred in the 1950s, when Leica sold almost a quarter of a million of one of the most beautiful cameras ever made, the M3 rangefinder*. No similar Zeiss rangefinder ever sold in numbers like that, because Zeiss rangefinders were saddled with a more complicated and less reliable shutter design. But no other Leica M rangefinder ever sold as much, either. The M3 was kinda like the Miata in that sense—Mazda still trumpets the Miata as the most popular two-seater ever made, but that's because of huge sales of the original model in the '90s. Later ones sold in what, comparatively speaking, are dribs and drabs. Same for Leica rangefinders (although the M6 sold strongly, considering. Nowhere near as well as the M3 however). Even Leica once tried to give up on rangefinders, when it moved the tooling for the M4 to Canada.

When Nikon made the professional Nikon F, its first SLR and a camera with build quality rivaling that of older Zeisses, at the end of the nineteen-fifties, and other Japanese makers started upping their game in SLRs (Pentax, with its M42 screwmount Spotmatic line starting in 1964, was the dominant SLR maker of the decade), it spelled the beginning of the end for rangefinders as mainstream top pro cameras. What formerly had been the most admired type of photographer, the globe-trotting photojournalist and the embedded combat photographer, with Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, David Douglas Duncan, and LIFE magazine's Alfred Eistenstadt as paragons, began giving way among amateur shutterbugs to more of an admiration for studio pros and and fashion photographers such as the David Bailey character in the movie Blow-up. Amateurs wanted to use wider, faster, and longer lenses for effect, and camera magazines, led by the influential Herbert Keppler, who had taken the helm at Modern Photography in 1956, heavily touted the advantages of the SLRs' through-the-lens viewfinders. As photographers began migrating en masse to SLRs, the old rangefinders (apart from the cheaper and delightful fixed-lens compacts you can read all about on Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest site) got slaughtered, and the Japanese eventually sent the Germans packing. (And by the way, this was the origin of the Leica mythos, because a whole new generation of artistic and expressive photographers in the 1960s, young and poor at the time, found Leica M3's plentiful and cheap on camera store used shelves, and adopted them.) By the early 1970s the shift was more or less a fait accompli—Germany was no longer the center of cameramaking in the World. Zeiss's camera business, and in fact the entire German camera industry, was in decline, Japan in the ascendancy.

Contax to CONTAX
The result for Zeiss was a cooperative agreement with Yashica, a second-tier Japanese camera company founded in 1949 and based in Nagano, officially dated from 1975 (it's complicated). Yashica would make the cameras, and Zeiss would make the lenses: the best of both worlds, on paper. The marque took a venerated Zeiss model name, Contax, as its brand name; the Japanese styled it "CONTAX" in all caps, but that "sounds" wrong when English speakers read it (all caps was later called "shouting" when the Internet took off) and it never stuck, except internally.  

Yashica had something to prove, which is always a good thing. Although it was a giant high tech company, it was not the most prestigious of the Japanese makers: that was Nikon, in those years. Yashica's maiden Contax (or CONTAX) product was the RTS (for "real time system"), designed by Prof. Dr. Katsuiko Sugaya and known from 1973 as "Top Secret Project 130." It was a premium SLR boasting what was then the latest in technology, including an electronically-controlled shutter and electronic aperture and shutter-speed readouts next to the image in the finder. The electronics look rudimentary to us today, but they were the latest thing then: the landmark full-electronic Canon A-1 didn't come along until 1978. Fully in keeping with the new marque's strong German connections, the industrial design—the styling—of the RTS was created by Porsche Design, which had recently been founded as an independent concern in Stuttgart by F.A. Porsche. "Butzi" Porsche, as he was known, was the son of Ferry Porsche and grandson of founder Ferdinand. His first(!) product design had been the original Porsche 911, no less. Which is not too shabby, you must admit. I believe the RTS was his first camera design, but don't hold me to that. The date for the Contax RTS is variously given as 1974 or 1975.

Seven or eight years later, in 1982—eight to 10 years being pretty standard as a rate of refresh for top camera models in that era, a standard set by Nikon—along came the RTS II. And although the outer styling was still by Porsche Design and the RTS II looked a lot like the original RTS, the innards, and the operation, of the refreshed and refined new camera were a different story entirely.

And we shall get to that tomorrow.

Mike

*"Willi Stein designed the camera, the rangefinder is from Stein and Ludwig Leitz, the finder optics are from Heinrich Schneider and Willi Keiner, [and] the M bayonet is from Hugo Wehrenfennig." —the late Erwin Puts, in private correspondence.

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 Kochanowski: "A post after my heart. The shutter and the overall feel of the Contax cameras, no matter what model, is exactly the same: smooth, damped, weighted, and impeccable. The beauty of it today is you can buy a banged-up model off eBay and it will likely work like new. I got one for about $130 to use with a Zeiss 24mm for a project, and sold it a few years later for about $135. If you don't mind, I can tell you that my book The Grift was shot with a Contax T2 that dates back to the late 1990s. The Trump people frowned on 'professional' cameras, I didn't have the heart to tell them my 38mm ƒ/2.8 Zeiss was as pro as anyone needed. Looking forward to Part II and maybe many more on Contax."

Shaun O'Boyle: "I photographed with an RTS II for years. I don't think I've felt as much 'one with a camera' since using the RTS II. It had what I needed, where I needed it, with a solid reliable build. I miss that connection to a well-made image-making instrument, lacking to various degrees in every camera I have owned since the RTS II."

Stephen S. (partial comment): "Please do continue telling us fascinating stories of these cameras, hopefully in a way that satisfies all I want to know without making me want to try to buy one!"

John Krumm: "It's kind of funny to read about the Z8 everywhere, and then come here and the big gear post is part one about a Contax RTS II. Refreshing actually."

Mike replies: I'll get around to writing about the Z8 in 40 years or so.

Spin Drift: "I was in high school when the original came out. I was using my Dad's Contaflex at the time and was smitten by the Zeiss glass. In college I was fortunate to work in a department store camera department and could buy equipment on discount. Saving up for a year and a second job netted me a first generation RTS, 25mm ƒ/2.8, 85mm ƒ/1.4, and 135mm ƒ/2.8. I still have them and use them. Went Nikon for digital and secured an adapter that lets me use those lens on my Z cameras. I bought a 'Blad instead of upgrading to a RTS II in '85. Still have the 'Blad. Sensing a theme here? I like old glass for use on newer mirrorless bodies. I was able to buy an F2AS with 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 200mm out of an estate. Having a lot of fun with them. Keep on keeping on!"

'Classic' Camera?

For a post about an old film camera that seems like it's a pretty good bargain on eBay, and I was going to title it with the rubric "Classic Camera" followed by a colon. But then I thought, hmm, is that one really a classic camera?

It seems to me that a classic camera is one that was widely accepted and that a lot of people used back when it was current, and that a lot of others admired or approved of, and that at least a few photographers bonded with and used in a dedicated, long-term way to make meaningful or significant work. And maybe even continued to use even after it became obsolescent. Does that sound reasonable? The Leica M3 and M4 are classic cameras; the Leica M5 isn't. The Pentax Spotmatics are classic cameras; the Pentax P3 isn't. The Minolta SR-T 101 is a classic camera; the Minolta Maxxum 5000 isn't. And so on.

Unless, of course, you're simply using the word "classic" as a substitute for the word "old." Which I guess many people do. But not all old cars are classic cars. Not all old books are classics by a long shot. So not all old cameras are classic cameras.

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:

Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day

Photo by Vijay Ramakrishnan

I probably don't need to tell you this, because everyone who cares already knows, and everyone who doesn't know doesn't care—but yesterday was Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day.

And if you're not 100% clear on what pinhole photography is, you're in luck—Larry Bullis, Tom Lindsay, Guillermo Peñate, Howard Wells, George L. Smyth, Brigitte Harper, Gordon J. Holtslander, and Gregg Kemp prepared a succinct but informative Pinhole FAQ page in 2003 (remember when FAQ pages were all the rage on the Web?) at the pinholeday.org website.

The illustration is Yr. Hmbl. Ed. cheating on the PDBlur entries again—as you know, whenever we have a Baker's Dozen I find a way to show you a few more pictures than the basic 13. This one is by Vijay Ramakrishnan, of Pleasanton, California, USA, who writes: "I have a deep-rooted connection with trees that I can’t quite put into words. They are my favorite subjects, especially oaks. This pinhole photograph is very much an exception to my typical treatment of trees, which tends to have the clarity and sharpness of traditional landscapes. The blur from the long exposure and the fuzziness of pinhole photos give them a dreamy quality that I love. This is one of my favorite tree photos, perhaps because it’s more reflective of the hazy but strong attraction I feel toward them. It was a two-minute exposure on 4x5 film, taken with a Santa Barbara pinhole camera at Filoli Gardens, about 30 miles south of San Francisco."

I like it too. And I like it for the Blur contest because the blur is caused both by the pinhole aperture and by flare, which works well in combination. (Vijay's picture will of course still be considered for the Baker's Dozen; it has obviously already made the first cut.)

Lensless 4x5" Pinhole Camera

Vijay's Santa Barbara camera, which as far as I can tell is no longer available, was made by the Lensless Camera Mfg. Co. in Fernley, Nevada, USA. Its 4x5-inch cameras are great if you don't want to make your own—you can customize film size, effective focal length, and wood type.

Naturally, they're not expensive.

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:

Wait, What?

The Fujifilm X-E4 is discontinued?!? Did I know that? Gotta think if I knew that. I don't think I did. How did that happen? Does anyone know the story/rumors/rationales? Any statements from the company about it?

That really surprises me. I thought it was a mainstay of Fuji's lineup and a very successful design. I know a lot of my readers over the years have loved the X-E[x] family of cameras and used them.

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:

Ed Turkel: "Patrick, over at FujiRumors, posted on this a while back. Even has a YouTube video speculating on what's next. With an upcoming Fujifilm X Summit coming on May 24, he's been speculating on updates to their roadmap, and what might be announced."

Kenneth Tanaka: "This also surprised me when I first learned of it last month. I had an earlier model X-E some years back and it had a certain fun factor to it. I don’t know. But what I’ve seen/read makes me suspect that the decision was driven, at core, by supply chain issues. Fuji has been having a very hard time making X100V’s, the crown jewel of their Leica M mimic form factor line. (I just sold mine for about the same price as I paid for it new…three (?) years ago! And I replaced it with a used-like-new black unit for $300 over list!) Amidst Fuji’s newer models and Fuji’s probable plans/challenges for the X100 (newer sensor, etc.) line I suspect something had to go. And I further suspect that the X-E, being neither fish nor fowl, just didn’t sell enough units to stay onboard."

TC: "I can't help but wonder if Fuji has either made an upcoming X-Pro4 that is small and light enough that the X-E series is now redundant, or an X-E5 with a hybrid viewfinder that makes the X-Pro series redundant."

Peter Komar: "I had an X-E2 a few years back, it was my favorite digital camera of all time. The X-E4 just did not appeal to me: no grip, not enough buttons on the rear of the camera; they just ruined it. I feel the X-E2 was their best effort in that lineup. I had an X-E3 for about a week, hated it, felt cheap and plastic. The X-E line just got worse with time, shame on you Fuji."

Albert Smith: "There is a thin line between discontinued and unavailable. Doesn't matter which word you use if the bottom line is that you just can't buy this camera. The X100V is not discontinued, but you just can't buy one...for almost a year. The X-E4 has mixed reviews from longtime Fujifilm users. It was panned for the ultra stripped-down layout, removing what many considered 'must have' features like the three-position focus mode switch from the front and reducing the number of programmable function buttons. They also shaved off the ergonomic grip, but offered (for $150) an optional screw on grip and shoe-mounted thumb grip. The image quality is first class, based on the sensor and processor, and for those who never owned a previous X-E class body it was fine. Me, I still use my X-E2s and X-E3 when I want to go small and light, but never gave the X-E4 a second glance after seeing what was left off of it.

Pavlov's Audiophile

I clicked on the ad for this because I casually assumed it was a piece of audio gear: it was not!

First guy: I compulsively buy everything I see that has to do with the Beatles.

Second guy: Sounds like you need help.

First guy: No, I already have three copies of that.

So I'm a little worried about myself...I used to be "camera obsessive." Poring over gear and daydreaming about it set my endorphins to firing (as they say; I don't actually know what that means). Lately, however, not so much. Photo gear doesn't really do it for me any more. 

Is there something wrong with me, or am I just...recovering?

Mike

P.S. I have to add that I do love to operate my own camera, and pictures are "doing it for me" more than ever.

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:

Rebel Rebel

Rod S. asked, about the Canon post: "What's a Rebel? or What is this 'Rebel' of which you speak? It's a purely American thing, you know. Those cameras are called other names everywhere else in the world. I guess the label appeals to an element of American folklore. Or the 1959–1961 television series. Or both. Your thoughts?"

Mike replies: Here's the story as I heard it in the early '90s. I can't reveal my source, but it came from a guy who should know, a highly placed Canon USA employee at that time. Canon—through the same guy, as I recall—later officially denied the story. So do note that this post would not get a pass from the fact-checking department.

The original Rebel came out in 1990. Most professionals when the original Rebel came out shot with Nikon, which had been the leading high-end camera brand for many years and was the overwhelming choice of pros. And this led to an embarrassing little problem—a lot of the pros Canon hired to shoot their advertising campaigns shot them with Nikons! Ouch.

So evidently Canon went looking for a pro who actually used Canons. October 1990 was three and a half years after the launch of EOS, which initially cost Canon some goodwill among its established customers, because of the lensmount change which made all the old FD lenses obsolete. But by 1990 the advantages of EOS were beginning to kick in and Canon was starting to rebound. Eventually, of course, it would overtake Nikon and become the choice of many pros as well.

In 1990, 20-year-old Andre Agassi, with his leonine mane of golden hair (which later required hair weaves and clips to maintain because of his encroaching early-onset baldness), was literally and figuratively the golden boy of the tennis circuit. In 1986 he was ranked 91st in the world; in 1987, 25th; and in 1998, 5th. Tennis players tend to burst on the scene brash and aggressive because they're so young; they're immature when we first get to know them, and we don't find out their real character until they've been around for a while. It's hard to recover the moment now, but in those days the old customs of the genteel English game still held sway. Many earlier players at that time had tended to kind of push against the tradition of wearing all-white on court. Andre, at least the way I remember it, was the first young player to flout that tradition completely, unapologetically wearing boldly colored outfits on court*. He got a lot of criticism about it, and he didn't care—he did what he wanted and let his racquet do the explaining.

And it happened that one of the few top sports pros who used Canon cameras at the time happened to shoot a lot of tennis, and had a lot of pictures of Agassi in his portfolio, and had a very good relationship with Andre. And that's why Andre was chosen to be the spokesman for the new entry-level EOS.

So, Andre Agassi was the rebel. The name of the camera came from Andre, not the other way around. And Andre was chosen to be the spokesperson because a top Canon-shooting pro had access to him.

And if you want an international twist, Rod, Andre's father was an Iranian Olympian.

Here's a question that might stump even our Commentariat: who was that photographer? Anyone know who shot the first Rebel campaign with Andre Agassi? I don't recall. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about this story, if he's still alive these 33 years later. I'm sure he knows a lot more about it than I do.

Mike

*After weeks of speculation in the press as to what he would wear on court at Wimbledon in 1991, he went against all expectations and wore all white.

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:

Go, Gen Z! (Or, Got An Old Digicam You Want To Get Rid Of?)

Now would be the time, according to a new article published in the New York Times today. You'll get a lot of it from the title: "The Hottest Gen Z Gadget Is a 20-Year-Old Digital Camera."

I'll quote a few choice quotations from the article*:

"The cameras of Generation Z’s childhoods, seen as outdated and pointless by those who originally owned them, are in vogue again."

(GenZ or "Zoomers" refers to the generation born between 1997 and 2012, meaning, people between 10 and 26 years of age right now. The generation currently being born and under age 10 are called "Gen Alpha," a term I would swear I never once heard till today. Although maybe it went in one ear and out the other.)

"Gen Z-ers grew up with smartphones that increasingly had it all, making stand-alone cameras, mapping devices and other gadgets unnecessary. They are now in search of a break from their smartphones."

The article immediately goes on to say that they're spending too much time online and want to get away from it—and then, that what they're doing with their "blurry, overlit" early-digicam pics is posting them on TikTok and Instagram. Online. But then, fashions 'n' fads don't have to follow internal logic.

"...People are turning to thrift stores and secondhand e-commerce sites to find cameras with sufficiently vintage looks. On eBay, searches for 'digital camera' increased by 10 percent from 2021 to 2022, with searches for specific models seeing even steeper jumps, said Davina Ramnarine, a company spokeswoman. For example, searches for 'Nikon COOLPIX' increased by 90 percent, she said."

Old and in the way

In other words, if you periodically look at the 10- to 25-year-old digicams in your camera closet and think to yourself that they're utterly useless to anyone now and you'll never be able to get a dime for them—well, their moment has come; 10- to 26-year-old digicams are in demand among 10- to 26-year-old people! Time to slap those quaint old artifacts up on eBay and get in on the action. 

And let's applaud the trend. This is how some of tomorrow's great photographers are going to get their start. One last quotation:

"Young people are reveling in the novelty of an old look."

...In images that have character, distinctiveness, and feeling rather than sterile perfectionism. Sometimes, in the words of the old Dave Edmunds song, bad is good.

(The article was written by Kalley Huang.)

This was kinda how Leica got so famous
The trend has historical precedent. Looking for cheap, available alternatives that are funky and have an identifiable gestalt is why the generation of photographers who got famous in the Photo Boom of the late '60s early '70s—the cohort profiled in Gilles Mora's 2007 book The Last Photographic Heroes: American Photographers of the Sixties and Seventies, who dominated photography (and photography teaching posts) for the next half century—used Leica rangefinders and valued the "snapshot aesthetic" and the photojournalistic ethos. SLRs took the camera market by storm starting in 1959 and continuing throughout the 1960s; by the late '60s and early '70s, the used shelves of camera stores were lousy with the old rangefinders that had been popular in the '50s and early '60s and that nobody wanted any more. (I think I first heard this from Bruce Davidson, in one of his books or an interview or something). Among these, Leicas were built like a cross between a Tiger tank and a 1980s Mercedes, and hadn't even started to break down. (Another reason for Leica's rise is that its sturdy shutter design was bulletproof, in an era when Zeiss, which had once been the overpowering market leader, settled on a shutter design that was overcomplicated, delicate, and finicky, and unreliable as a result. But let's not get too far into the weeds here.) Those old 'fifties M3's were plentiful and cheap, and of course they still worked. What better for impecunious young photographers with artistic aspirations who couldn't afford the latest Nikon F?

Another precedent was the view camera craze of the 1970s, when commercial photographers all had to have sleek metal monorails, and discarded fuddy-duddy old wooden Deardorffs were going begging. My friend and former art school teacher Paul Kennedy bought an 8x10 Deardorff in very nice condition for $300 in that era just because it was too cheap to pass up—he didn't even really want it; he did his commercial work with a Hasselblad and a Nikon F3 named Darth. (He called my F4 "Luke.")

And so on. There's the life, and then there's the afterlife.

Speaking of an afterlife, I'll trot out a story many of you longtime readers have heard from me before, about another occurrence I consider extraordinary. The desire for a distinctive look is what drove the recent fad among cinematographers for my onetime favorite lens, the old Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2. Time was when that wee little lens with its very distinctive imaging properties was on closeout forever in the tiny print of the classified ads in the back of the big camera magazines. It listed for as little as $69—nobody wanted them and retailers could hardly give them away. Yet, recently, old used ones were going for three grand and up on eBay! Why? Because modern lenses approach perfection, and are starting to all look the same. With a look that is "samey." And what is that look? One my friend Oren once referred to as "analytical/clinical," which is, in the end, just one more look among many. (The demand for the Zuiko 40mm has cooled a bit since then—discarding the high and low outliers, the last ten that sold on eBay have ranged from $1,000 to $1,700. Still pretty astonishing for a lens that Olden camera couldn't unload for $69 forty years ago.)  

Any of you youngsters want to buy my 10-year-old Sony NEX-6? Works fine. Cheap!

When it comes down to it, there's never a magic bullet: mere equipment isn't enough to make pictures sing. But what people—well, some people—really seek from gear is character, not perfection. Having fun with funky old cameras nobody seems to want is one way to get there. This trend, if it really is a trend, is hilarious. But it's also wonderful, and I wish to cheer it on. Go, Gen Z!

Mike
(Hat tip to Gordon Lewis and many others)

*I've been working on setting it in my mind that "quote" is the verb and "quotation" the noun, and I'd been looking for a place to include both words in one sentence. Learning never ends.

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 Raboin: "My fifteen-year-old daughter has expressed interest in digital point-and-shoot cameras from the early 2000s. She told me that those old cameras take better-looking photos than current cellphones, that phone pics are too detailed or the colors and contrast are so boosted that the photos look unrealistic. She also said that on-camera flash is a popular look on TikTok. We found my old Canon Powershot S30 in a box in the attic but couldn't get it to turn on. The battery wouldn't charge. Too bad."

Mike adds: Can we (collectively) help David's daughter? Does anyone have an old digicam that works that they would be willing to give her? If you do, contact me (mcjohnston at mac dot com) and I'll put you in touch with David.

Richard Alan Fox: "About those 'bullet proof' Leica cloth shutters. Back in the mid-seventies I was the manager of the Brooks Camera repair shop in San Francisco. Annie Leibovitz and Jim Marshall, both Leica users, were among our clients. I remember several Leica shutters (not belonging to AL or JM) coming in with pinholes burned by the sun focused through the lens. Got a Leica? Get a lens cap."

Mike replies: Hmm, would we classify that under "user error"? Seems so. I'll note in passing that the unusual viewfinder on my Sigma fp-M comes with a cap for the eyepiece printed with a bold warning to never let the sun shine through the eyepiece onto the viewing screen. So it's obvious that's a potential problem.

Jeff: "In dictionaries I checked, 'quote' is also properly used as a noun, meaning 'quotation.'"

Mike replies: Yes, my dictionary also acknowledges that the two tend to be used interchangeably in colloquial writing. But I like those subtleties and try to at least be aware of them. I have a Webster's Second. Although I seldom refer to it.

(Re Webster's Second: one of the best-known controversies in lexicography was the publication of Webster's Third New International Dictionary in September 1961, which switched from a prescriptive [i.e., strict/"we'll tell you what's correct"] to a descriptive [permissive/"anything goes and we'll just tell you what people do"] approach. Many sticklers for language were outraged—well, at least troubled—and kept their old Second Editions rather than capitulate to the barbarians at the gate.)  

Dale: "You didn't mention another retro trend that seems to be going on. Anecdotally, the last few times I've been walking around in urban areas (Seattle and San Francisco), I've encountered younger people (20s–30s) carrying film cameras. I recently visited a photo processing lab in Berkeley, California; there was group of people going in as I was leaving, and they all looked to be in their early 20s."

Mike Plews: "I am on the middle of a project that has me printing pictures going from last month back to scans of K25 slides from the '80s. Two older digital cameras are reminding me of why I enjoyed them so much. Of the 61 landscapes I ended up printing, five were shot on a Canon S95 and 15 on a Nikon D70. You can get either one now for under a hundred bucks and the files from both are really gorgeous. The D70 files are lush. It meters snow scenes better than my D7100. Go figure."

Bill Tyler: "That search for imperfection and a distinctive look is what drove art photographers to the Diana way back when, and later to the Holga."

hugh crawford: "Digicams do daylight fill-flash competently, which phones and cameras that don't start with the letter H pretty much fail at. That's what I keep them around for."

Mike replies: Kind of ironic, isn't it, as flash was considered a weakness of point-and-shoots when they became popular. Built-in flashes on point-and-shoots and digicams were puny and weak, and being too close to the lens they produced the dreaded red-eye, which various makers tried to find solutions for.

George: "Perhaps I am now more 'in' than I thought? I still use a Sony NEX-5R as my main camera. When they were on clearance, being replaced, I bought a second body (which is still untouched in the box), in case mine ever breaks."

Mike replies: You are a hipster now, George, no question.  :-)

Mark Sampson: "Ha. In 1978 I was an 'impecunious young photographer with artistic aspirations' when I went into a local camera store, thinking to buy my first top-level camera...a Nikon FM, or perhaps an Olympus OM-1. Yet I walked out with a 1959 Leica M3. Never realized until today that I was part of a trend. I seldom met another Leica user, and after 44 years of professional photography (and a few artistic accomplishments) that Leica still sits on my shelf."

Pentax to Build New Film Camera?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this in the new year, I hope.

Mike
Flickr page / New Yorker author page

Original contents copyright 2022 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Sarah's Deal: Fuji X-T30

My former Corcoran classmate and friend Sarah H. has been offered a deal on a Fuji X-T30 with two small Fuji primes. She shoots professionally (family portraits and weddings) and has two older Nikon DSLRs and three lenses, but would like to try mirrorless and could use something more portable for travel. The price checks out as a decent deal.

She'd like to know how well flash works on the X-T30, and I had no answer for her. Can anyone share any information about using flash on an X-T30? Does anyone have an opinion about the Fuji X-T30 in the general? There's a new iteration out now, the X-T30 II, though it doesn't seem much different from the first.

Mike

History of the Monochroms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

*Based on the DPReview Product Database.

Book o' the Week

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

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

Go to B&H Photo

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

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

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

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

The Pinchpenny's Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

Book o' the Week

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

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Camera for Me

I've always loved photographs, and visual art more generally. I got to visit the East Wing of the National Gallery when I was visiting Maryland with my son and his girlfriend, and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it and by how many artists I recognized on sight. But I've also always loved cameras and lenses. For many years I considered this a separate hobby.

Looking back, there were many times that I've been disappointed by developments in cameras, and I thought I would discuss a few of these this morning. These disappointments were usually caused by expectations, or assumptions. Not for nothing is "Don't make assumptions" the third of the famous "Four Agreements" of don Miguel Ruiz. 

The first time it happened was the Nikon N8008 of 1988. It was very cutting edge at the time, collating some of Nikon's then-recent advancements—I think it was their second consumer AF camera, and it had the futuristic Matrix Metering from the FA. I really liked that camera, but there were several things about it that I thought should be changed. It's been so long that I can no longer recall what they were, not that it matters to the story. But when the updated N8008s came out, in, what was it, 1991 or so, the company had made changes I had utterly no desire for, and had not addressed in the slightest several things that I considered blatantly obvious shortcomings. I was frankly amazed by this—I had allowed myself to sincerely believe that the improvements I desired would be widely shared and would be crystal clear to anyone who was familiar with the original camera, and thus, clear to Nikon. Not the case.

That came on top of an issue I'd had with my previous Contaxes—I had wanted a particular lens that I was certain Zeiss would eventually deliver. Yet new lens after new lens arrived and they were all things I didn't want. My "obvious" addition to the lineup (a 35mm ƒ/2) never materialized.

The huge disappointment (for me) of the N8008s, on top of those frustrations with Zeiss, was when I formulated a personal rule: never put any stock in vaporware. That is, always buy cameras and lenses based only on what actually exists now, and don't assume that what you happen to want will ever be produced in the future...no matter how obvious it seems to you, or how logical it seems to be based on trends.

I only wish I had been able to follow that principle more firmly over the years!

Digital days
The next disappointment was the further development of the Sony F707, which was one of my favorite digital cameras. The sensor was alarmingly bad by today's standards—noise was overpowering over ISO 400, and the red channel clipped easily. But that camera was one of the most fun to use of anything I've ever tried. It was a constant pleasure, and I just loved it. The early years of digital were a delight, because camera designers were initially unleashed to be creative in dynamic ways, and many early designs were extremely inventive. It was a lot of fun, and it was both perplexing and hugely disappointing to me when digital cameras eventually settled down to be nothing more than digital versions of what had previously existed in film: standard point-and-shoots and standard SLRs. All the promise of the innovative early years of digital turned out to be only a phase that passed.

Again, I can't recall any more the specifics of my disappointment with the development of the Sony F[xxx] line—of which the F828 was the last hurrah—but it doesn't matter now. I mourned when the line came to an end.

In the 2000s I was shaken by the demise of three of my favorite marques. Contax and Bronica both ended camera production in 2005 (I never owned a Bronica, but I rented one whenever I had a job that needed medium format), and Konica, which had previously merged with Minolta (which itself had never recovered from the Honeywell lawsuit), followed in 2007. My first DSLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D, was another of my all-time favorite cameras, and probably the digital camera I liked best of all. The color was second to none, although the highlights lacked headroom. My particular camera went wonky—something in its electronics went haywire, and it stopped being reliable. If that hadn't happened, I wonder how long I would have used it—probably as long as I possibly could have. I bought mine used in 2006, right before the company that produced it called it quits. You can understand that I mildly entertained the superstition at the time that I had become some sort of Jonah!

Corporatethink
The last time I got fooled by my tendency to make assumptions was, as you probably know if you've been reading TOP awhile, the Panasonic GX8 of the summer of 2015. I really liked that camera, and actually bought it twice. It was perfectly reasonable to believe that it would receive a "Mark II" iteration, which it needed in my opinion—that's the way most camera models renewed themselves in the years around the mid-2010s. Little did I know that Panasonic was already no doubt internally strategizing its launch into FF mirrorless (FFM) and, in its planning (I almost said "thinking," but corporations aren't sentient entities and don't think, of course), had effectively left Micro 4/3 behind.

I don't think I've ever been less settled in my cameras than I am now. Not since my very first Contax that I bought for art school. I just don't feel like I have what I want or know what I want. I actually dreamed last night of photographing—I had found an ideal camera, but for some reason I never had it with me. I kept coming across great scenes, then leaving to go find the camera, and returning to find the scene had vanished. Strange, frustrating dream.

The great shift to FFM of 2018–19 is of course the biggest development in dedicated ILC manufacture in recent years, and I haven't yet gotten with the program. I'm still soldiering on with my Fujis and my sentimental one-off sortie back to Sony. Once again, I've been marching to the beat of a different drummer, out of step with the rest of the troop—I still believe smaller-than-24x36 sensors are such an obvious advantage of digital that I can't see the sense in leaving them behind.

I don't like to think of what will be the next big camera marque to fail, but I have always doubted that there is enough energy in FFM to sustain four companies (Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic) pouring their resources into the format, with another (Leica) tagging along with one model.

What to get?
I've been thinking recently that the ideal camera for me is...

The Leica Q2 Monochrom*. Small, basic, uncluttered, well made, and B&W only.

There's only one little trouble with it...it costs about four times more than it should because it's a fashion brand. I would need Sony, Fuji, or Panasonic to make it, not Leica. $1,550 would be a perfectly reasonable price for what it is and what it offers.

Always some Achilles' heel, eh? Some "flaw in the ointment," as my brother Scott used to say. You know what they say: Oh well!

Mike

*However, it's possible that it is only the perfect camera for the old Mike. I've noticed that I have a tendency to achieve things after the time for them in my life has passed. Years ago I bought a wonderful loft in West Chicagoland, a really beautiful and stylish place, but eventually I realized that the loft was the perfect place for me to have lived as a single guy in my 20s, an era which by then had already passed—I was a parent in my 30s by then. The loft wasn't the perfect place to raise a kid. (I did adjust successfully, though.) I think I have a tendency to want things that are perfect for a "past self" rather than my present self. Still less my future self. I wonder if many of us don't do this to some extent. The Q2M is ideal for an older version of myself, a guy who was ambitious to create art, carried a camera everywhere, liked moderate-wide primes, was devoted to B&W, and printed. Not really "me" any more, alas.

Book o' the Week

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

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

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

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

A Correction: Sony A6600

I'd just like to correct a couple of mis-impressions in the Sony A6600 post below, which set a record for traffic in recent days.

First, although it could definitely be improved and in fact is rather crying out for some improvements that would be easy to make, it's also a very fine little camera that is a constant pleasure to use. It's got a great feel in the hand, the battery lasts forever, and the haptics (hand-feel, the feel of the knobs, size, sounds, responsiveness etc.) are excellent, among those indefinable things that make a camera pleasing.

If Sony improves it they'll only double down on making the video features better, and that won't improve the camera as a stills shooter which is all I care about.

A reader admonished me for saying the A6600 has "top-level features," claiming that the camera re-uses the A6500 sensor and allegedly doesn't have Sony's very latest. I don't think he knows that for sure, but maybe he's right. However: doesn't matter. The A6600 sensor is excellent. It's outstanding. It's highly correctable, especially in terms of shadow recovery; has very good DR in practice, great color, and the files are very pleasing. I really hope to put it up against the Leica's full-frame sensor before I send that camera back, because my seat-o'-the-pants sense is that it's going to hold its own even in absolute terms. I don't care if something isn't the absolute latest, which is a constantly diminishing attribute anyway, as long as it's good. I said that A6600 has a very good sensor, and I'll stand by that all day long. It's one of the main reasons I use the camera.

That is all.

Mike

Book o' the Week

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

Our link to B&H Photo

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

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

The Sad Story of the Sony A6600

I thought I would bring you up to date on the situation with some of Sony's smaller cameras.

Sony told its dealers at the end of last year that it would no longer take orders for the APS-C A6600 or the beautiful A7c, which put a full-frame 24x36mm sensor in the A6xxx form-factor. Parts shortages were the reason. The A7c was essentially an interchangeable-lens version of the fixed-lens RX1. The A6600 was the latest in the A6xxx product line, with a larger battery, top-level features, and improved build-quality. The A7c was barely more than a year old at the time of discontinuation, having been introduced in September of 2020. The A6600, introduced in late August 2019, was a little more than two years old, but it hadn't been easily available before the news came of its suspension.

Sony A6600

At the same time, it was announced that the A6100 had reached end-of-life. Intended as an entry-level replacement for the longtime-bestselling A6000 of early 2014, the A6100 also turned out to have a short life, as it, too, was announced in August 2019 alongside the A6600 and thus came to an end after only a little more than two years. Although parts shortages were blamed in that case too, declining interest in APS-C cameras probably also played a part.

It's possible either the A6600 and A7c or both could return one day, when parts supply problems are solved. It's possible even Sony doesn't know, as it would depend on decisions yet to be made.

My A6600
One of my longtime frustrations with Japanese cameramakers is that there is always an assumption that smaller, lighter, or simpler cameras are for less serious photographers and should be decontented, built less well or more to a price point, or use less than the best sensors. The A6600 bucked this trend: it had most of Sony's best AF technologies including tracking and eye-detection, a huge battery and beefy grip, and a very good sensor. The build quality was first rate, a far cry from the high-value but budget build of the original A6000.

Alas, the camera was just not designed by photographers. I can't believe it was, anyway. As DPReview noted in its review, "this camera is just begging for a front control dial"—both dials on the A6600 are accessed with the thumb (i.e., set flush so you can't grab them with thumb and forefinger) and there's no way to control both aperture and exposure compensation with dials. The back controls are inherited from past models and have an unexamined feeling to them, like nobody bothered to take a fresh look. It's not a disaster but it's still something of an ergonomic fail. Basic operating controls should be job one for camera designers, not something that come in second to how sleek and cool the shapes all look in a drawing. (Nikon schooled everybody with its Z series, which look goofy but feel great in the hand and ergonomically put the needs of the operator-photographer foremost.) Sony's cameras seem to me to give precedence to clean industrial design over either hand-feel or operating control. I've never held or operated an A7c, but it solved the top-plate problems, assuming the FF lenses you get for it have aperture rings. Unfortunately it dispensed with the in-line viewing screen. And it didn't have a front control dial either.

Anyway, that's what's going on with these products, as of now.

Mike

UPDATE: Looks like the A7c will be back. Jeff In Colorado found this report of an announcement to that effect.

Book o' the Week

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

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

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

Bob Rosinsky: "I've been shooting with Sony cameras for over ten years. They all have their quirks; most cameras do. I currently use a Sony A6600 and an A7c. Ergonomics aside, both are highly capable machines. I use them for stills and video. Sony color science has improved over the years, and autofocus is stellar. Another plus is the availability of reasonably priced high-quality third-party lenses, although the Sony 24–70mm ƒ/4 is a bargain, especially on the used market."

The Best Bargain Out There Right Now

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet?! Be reasonable, Mike.

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

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

Mike

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

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

Cat picture by DizzieMizzieLizzie

HDR Storefront by Gordon McCallum

Small B&W object by Glen Bledsoe

Action shot by Youri Koliada

Kid pic by Gaétan 

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

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

GAS crisis averted. But it was a close one!

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

**The A6600.

Book o' the Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Link added by Ed.  —Ed.]

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

Nikons 'In Order of Desirability'

A few days ago I listed the current Nikon DSLRs "in order of desirability," and several readers asked me to explain that ordering. So here goes. First, this is what I wrote:

The current Nikon DSLRs, ranked in order of desirability, are:

The D850 (pro FX/full-frame, $2,800);

The D7500 (prosumer DX/APS-C, a bargain at $999);

The D500 (pro DX/APS-C, $1,600);

The D780 (prosumer FX/full-frame, $2,200);

The D5600 (amateur/consumer DX/APS-C, $800 with kit lens);

The D6 (specialist professional FX/full-frame, $6,500—don't buy unless it's a business expense and you can depreciate it); and

The D3500 (entry/cheapie DX/APS-C; with kit lens, $650 that probably won't be money well spent).

Get 'em while you can....

First, I wouldn't buy a Nikon DSLR, so that needs saying. I owned a D800 briefly (some cameras "take," some don't), and I tested both the D750 and D7200 when they were new. I think the Sony A900 was the biggest SLR I ever owned, film or digital. Big SLRs have never done it for me, as a rule, in the same way I don't like pickup trucks—and the bigger, the less I like 'em. As my friend Gabi once observed, "you like go-karty cars," and the same is true translated to cameras.

No, wait, it was the Nikon F4s—that was my biggest-ever 35mm/FF SLR. I bought it new when it was first introduced, right after joining a professional studio in the Maryland suburbs of DC, and there was a waiting list: I used an N8008 as a stopgap until the F4s arrived. After using it for a year (and converting it to an F4 with the smaller hand-grip), I went back to the N8008. I own an N8008 now, and I'm surprised by how heavy it is—that wasn't my memory. But it's a lot smaller than the F4. But I digress. (When don't I digress? But let's not digress into that.)

The list also isn't my personal list. Mine would probably go: D500 first, D780 second, ferget the rest.

Here's the rundown, with reasoning:

D850: This is Nikon's top pro-am DSLR, the highest quality and, apart from the D6, highest functioning. The most pixels, the better to make big prints with, my dear. A natural choice for dedicated photography enthusiasts who want a full-dress Nikon with no apologies needed.

D7500: I ranked this highly because at only $1k it's a relative bargain, and as a DX/APS-C camera it's more useful for long-lens work like birding and sports, even if the sport is your kid's soccer game or pictures from the stands at the stadium.

D500: Thom said it better than I could: "The D500...is still in the top three APS-C cameras you can buy today, and only recently eclipsed in any way (by the X-H2S for sure, and in some ways, arguably by the R7)." Since it's been out for quite a while, it's high value both new and used. Odd to call $1,600 "high value," but it's considerably cheaper than the D850. Or the XH2S. This is the one I'd have, and I'd have the now-elderly Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17–55mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED lens on it. That is truly one of Nikon's best-ever lenses, made at the tail end of the time that Nikon was sticking to APS-C, and the only lens most people will need on a D500. Love that lens. I'd almost buy the camera just to be able to shoot with it. Personally I probably wouldn't even buy any other lens for the D500, to simplify my choices going out the door.

D780: The sensible choice for full-frame, if you don't want to splash out for the D850.

D5600: Of course this is a good camera, since it's Nikon's Corolla or Civic. But the advantages of SLRs plummet when you move away from the better viewfinders, IMO. I'd never shoot with this, if I'm honest.

D6: Anyone interested in a D6 for valid reasons wouldn't be looking for advice from me. My only job, therefore, is to prevent rich neophytes from buying it for status reasons. (In the days of the F4s, I occasionally saw one hanging from the shoulder of a Washington lawyer or a Washington tourist, and I'd silently think to myself—because that's how I think to myself, silently—"too much camera."

D3500: Again, doubtless good of its breed, because it's a Nikon and Nikon is Nikon, but if you're going to spend for this, you should definitely spend the extra trifle and get the D5600. It's only a $150 difference in price.

So that's my reasoning.

Some people like DSLR viewing, and the recent wholesale shift to mirrorless will make DSLRs more appealing to those people, not less. Like those who stuck with Leica-style rangefinders in the 1960s, back when everyone and his uncle was shifting to SLRs. You don't have to follow the crowd.

SLRs and EVFs have different sets of advantages and disadvantages. I switched allegiances a few years back. Plus, I love the way the new Nikons can put WYSIWYG exposure compensation on a lens control ring; if I were getting any Nikon now it would be the Z6 II (assuming it supports that feature, which I'm not 100% positive about. I tried it on Dave Levingston's Z7 II when he was visiting). 

So that's it. I would guess I've tried my last Nikon SLR...new, anyhow.

Mike

Book o' the Week

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

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Our link to B&H Photo

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

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

Tam: "This brings us to the immortal photography nerd scene from Veep, 'Not a 1D?'"

Albert Smith: "Regarding the DX 17–55 ƒ/2.8, I concur that it is the top of the crop-sensor food chain in Nikon world. I got one to use on my D300s and the images that I come back with often shock me with the quality. And if you put the external battery pack on the camera along with this lens, you may need a hernia truss and a chiropractor when you finish a shoot. You really need to know that you need this lens. It is not a casual carry-on-spec optic."

Mike replies: That is true. Serious Nikons be big.

The iPhone at 15: 'You Have to Adapt. What Else AreYou Going to Do?'

iPhone doodle

The first iPhones came on the market at about this time 15 years ago.

It's an era now. One that has hugely impacted our hobby. As Enric Martí puts it, "You go through life having to change. The world is moving quickly. You have to adapt. What else are you going to do?" That's from a nice article and portfolio called "The iPhone at 15" from the AP that has some interesting reflections on the iPhone and a diverse selection of photographers' personal pictures. Enric Martí, a native of Spain, is deputy director of photography for the AP.

Enric Martí

By the way, about the picture at the top: I'm sitting here drinking that mug of tea, which helped me discover that the iPhone has parallax! I was very self-indulgently taking a picture of the pretty light, as I often do, when I noticed a particular streak of light that was on the screen but that I wasn't seeing with my eyes. Turned out it was because the lens is offset up in the corner and the view is slightly different from what I typically see when from behind the screen. When I moved my head around, the little reflection showed up. I moved in on it to show it better. It's mild, and you'll only notice it doing closeups, but yeah, a sort of parallax.

I stopped off at the Verizon Store to look at the 13 Pro again. My old phone is starting to worry me, acting buggy. I do need a dependable phone...I think I bought my current phone right around this time six years ago, back when the iPhone itself was only nine.

Mike
(Thanks to Kenneth Tanaka)

Book o' the Week:

The Mindful Photographer by Sophie Howarth. I only know of Sophie Howarth from her time as a curator at the Tate Modern in London, but my impression then was positive. Her brand new book (it only came out a few days ago) is about slowing down as a means of enjoying photographing more. It's said to contain a curated collection of photographs along with anecdotes and explanation.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you wish to support this site.

Here's our link to B&H Photo

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

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

Peter Komar: "I am not trying to spend your money but get that darn phone. I have the 12 Pro and for me it has brought back the joy of photography. I have mentioned this before but it is very easy to shoot IR with just a filter and shoot in night mode. The ease of use and editing on the phone adds huge bonus points."

Albert Erickson: "Mike, I haven't commented in awhile since I have been away, but I saw that you were looking at the iPhone 13 pro and will tell you it is truly an amazing piece of photo equipment. I used to say I would never use my phone for serious photography, but I have changed. I now use my phone much more than a real camera. Further, I can print nicely small 5x7 or 8.5 x11 prints from the 12 MP built into the phone. Just an observation. I think you would find the phone very useful from a photographic standpoint. All the best, Eric."

Joseph: "I'm overdue for a new iPhone too, but I can't bring myself to do it this late in the cycle. The new ones will likely be here in September. Especially when you skip several generations, iPhone camera improvement is really quite remarkable. I still use an OM-D E-M5 from 2012, but an iPhone 5 from that same era? No thanks."

Chris A Beloin: "Turns out that 92% of Apple products are made in China, and our trade relationship with them is very much in question with recent events. Better get that iPhone now in case it takes a couple of years for Apple to resource manufacturing to another location, should that supply chain get sanctions, etc."

Gavin Paterson: "I bought an iPhone 13 six months ago; it’s a revelation! I have Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Sony digital systems, as well as Nikon, Olympus, Leica, Ricoh and Voigtlander film equipment, but most of the time have just the iPhone in my pocket, so now (at last! says my wife), will cull what I have to be subject-specific, such as telephoto for wildlife, and enjoy a simpler life courtesy of Apple!"

V.I. Voltz: "You should see the parallax when the 13 Pro Max can't decide if something is macro or not and starts jumping between the 28mm-e lens and the 13mm-e lens. Hope you don't have a latent Brian malfunction. [I love that typo so I left it in. —Ed.] But, I must say, it's about the only flaw I can find with the camera, within its basic limitations."

Rich: "I went from an iPhone 6 to a 13 Pro and I can confirm that the cameras are amazing, considering their size. I use it a lot as a feed for Instagram and visual note-taking. Also only have to charge it every couple of days, although I don’t make a lot of calls, so YMMV."

Hugh: "Hmmm...you feel you need to change cameras frequently because of your job as a photography commentator? The most important photographic instrument of today is the phone—iPhone or Samsung—yet you are on a six year old iPhone? That's a bit like still shooting with a Canon 50D in DSLR terms.  :-)  There was a big jump in picture quality with the Samsung S10 (2019), and probably with the iPhone around that date. In this country one can get an immaculate refurbished S10 for £200 and a sim only contract."

Great Expectations

Matt O'Brien wrote in response to yesterday's post:

"All of these reasons are why I am waiting for the [Leica] CL2."

The late Leica CL. It was Leica's me-too X100[x],
but failed to slay the dragon.

Alas, Fuji excepted, these are woeful times for people who like smaller-than-24x36mm sensors, and the Leica CL is one more reason. On May 17th, Leica Rumors published an internal document from Leica advising its dealers how to handle any questions they might get about the CL and TL from "distributors, customers, and the media." Essentially, the document says that sales of cameras with smaller sensors are in die Toilette (again, Fuji excepted, I would guess) but that the FF segment is still a bright spot, and that this state of affairs "has prompted Leica Camera AG to discontinue its CL-/TL2-system cameras." The company adds that it'll be concentrating on FF cameras going forward.

On the good side, the rumor filters through that Leica is surprised at the success of the Q series. (See Peter Wright's comment.)

Leica did affirm that it'll service any CL or TL2 for six years from date of purchase. B&H lists the CL as discontinued, but, in what is no doubt a glitch, lists the TL2 as being both available and discontinued. I have a feeling if you were to try ordering a TL2 with lens (same price as the TL2 without lens), your order would be cancelled.

Six years might be a good prediction for the extent of survival for "legacy" smaller-sensor ILCs. (The legacy is from the days when "chips," as they were called then, were exponentially more expensive the larger they were.) If I were to wax acerbic as is my wont betimes, I would fire off a snarky comment about how we'll soon all have to drive giant pickups like the GMC Deniali [sic] and take pictures with proper bricks and bags of giant lenses if we can't be satisfied, like good sheeple, with the phones Apple gives us. But I won't go there, and thou art welcome. You might think Fuji is also excepted from this six-year dire prediction, but they're only one decision away from it. Remember that Nikon was "committed" to APS-C in the early days of DSLRs, until it wasn't any more.

But, as Matt knows by now from other commenters, he's unlikely to get a CL2. But hey, Matt, join my club—I'm waiting for the Panasonic GX8 Mark II. Comma, dammit. Miss Havisham is still waiting for her bridegroom, too—we all have our great expectations!

Mike

P.S. Note the categories for this post. :-)

Book o' the Week:

Inspiration Leica Akademie (English and German Edition). A "group show" of 76 Leica Akademie photographers from 16 countries worldwide, curated by Heidi and Robert Mertens. It looks to me like this is going out of print soon, so act soon if you want one.

The book link is your portal to Amazon from TOP, should you choose to support the site.

Link to B&H Photo

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

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

xf mj: "I just upgraded to a used 'big dragoon' Olympus to pair with a new-to-me 80–300mm-e lens, but these last posts had me really thinking I should replace my ol' 2011 E-M5 + 20mm combo with a Fuji X100v. I still very much enjoy the digital equivalent of a walk-around, almost pocketable RF with a wide-normal, and those posts were a good reminder of that love. For a few years every other comment I made on TOP expressed my allegiance to that E-M5 combo.

"So I do a deep looking back at the image quality etc of all these guys. It's all good. Quite good. What the industry achieved with that Fuji, probably with this CL, with the E-M5 Mark III, etc., is more than good enough. They are all great. They are all capable cameras, some with IS, some with good weather sealing. All I ask of everyone who owns these cameras now is to treat them nice and sell 'em cheap to me someday on eBay!

"The market has briefly forgotten this segment for the time being. Hopefully it will twist back around. Some possible evidence in the vehicle realm: I live in a rural coast area, and all the big truck bros are now into buying used Minis to drive around these days. They want stick shifts, good gas mileage, and some fun handling. Gives me a weird kind of hope. Heck, maybe a fun-to-drive, compact, reliable, light-duty truck will be back in vogue soon too!"

Mike: Strange, I just noticed the other day that I'm seeing more Minis on the road around here. There's a Mini parked in a driveway that used to serve as parking for one of those 700-HP Dodge Challengers.

A mini point-counterpoint:

Kirk (partial comment): "As to the Leica CL, which I own. The images out of that small and agile system are extremely good. It's a product that required a better educated market, and the interchangeable lens capability makes it head and shoulders better than the Fuji X100V. I owned that camera as well—until I shot with the CL. Then it was 'Adios X100V.'"

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Re: the Leica CL, alas, 'tis fading to history. No surprise to me. I owned one for a couple of years. Yes it was kinda kute. Yes, it loved M lenses via an adapter. Yes its native lenses were nice. But the package, as a whole, was, typically for Leica, overpriced, outdated, quirky, and under-featured. I felt no sentimental pangs when UPS took mine away."

stmpjmpr: "Re 'Leica is surprised at the success of the Q series': I'm surprised that they're surprised: The Q gives a lot of the Leica feel and quality, but for those of us whose eyes aren't up to the manual focusing of the M. Its simplicity, quality, and M-inspired styling are alluring. To Yuan's point in the comments, it is EVF-based, but it's quite nice in manual focus mode."

darlene: "In 2010 I purchased my last DSLR, the D700 for an Iceland trip. My favorite Iceland photos were actually made with the smaller Canon G7 because it stayed in my pocket and was easily accessible, although the D700 images are 'prettier.' Not long after, I acquired my first mirrorless camera, an APS-C Sony NEX-7. The D700 was sold off after it slept for a year in my gear closet. I shoot tech cameras with digital backs in the studio, and Fuji APS-C cameras for all my other needs. No longer do I have a need for the 24x36 sensor. If I did not shoot medium format, that might be a different story, but medium format and tech cameras make me happy. The 4/3 system never interested me because I found APS-C good enough for my smaller format needs."