The Online Photographer

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."

The Downsides of the Leica M10 Reporter

Having written about what I like best about it, here are the things that I've noticed that are, for me, the downsides of the Leica M10 Reporter (NLA new). But please, note those italics. I'm not a hater, and if you love your digital M, I get it and have no quarrel.

Cost: First is the elephant in the room, cost. I believe I read when I was a boy and still into military enthusiasms (ancient history now) that the German Tiger tank was superior to any armor the allies had, but that Soviet T-34 tanks were so much cheaper, and could be produced in such numbers, that a strategy developed whereby four T-34s would attack one Tiger. While a T-34 could never beat a Tiger one-on-one, at four-on-one it was no contest the other way around.

That metaphor might be brutal in light of the tank battles in Ukraine (sorry), but, very honestly, I think the excessive expense goes against Leica's stated intentions of providing a tough working tool for extreme conditions. To me, an important aspect of an all-the-time, on-the-go working tool is that it be replaceable. You either need to be able to buy a readily-available replacement quickly, or you have to have a second body already waiting in reserve. And the replacement/reserve obviously needs to be something you can afford, and cheap enough so that if you break or lose it, it's not a catastrophe.

Now, I know full well after having written this blog for 16.5 years that "price sensitivity" is an individual thing. We have everything from multi-millionaires to retirees on pensions reading this site (we used to have students, but I don't think so much any more). What is out of reach for some is a throwaway cost for others, and there's a whole range of people in between. Still, if you're doing weddings for pay with a Fuji X-T4, you probably have a backup body; yet I doubt that even millionaire owners of the M10 Reporter have a second one set aside and waiting in case they drop one into the punchbowl or set it on a concrete wall in a parking garage and accidentally knock it off and it falls four stories. (Both scenarios based on true stories!) I did meet a pro once who switched from a perfectly good main body to the more recent one because a replacement for the more recent one could be overnighted to him the next day, whereas the older body had been discontinued. But you might counter that the "tough working tool for extreme conditions" is actually just symbolic in the case of the Reporter—an homage to the concept, if you will. That's a valid point.

As you know if you read the comments to Friday's post, Jack Mac actually encouraged me to take the M10 R out for walks, and even said he wouldn't mind if I scratched it. Which is pretty generous of him. Still and all, cheapskate that I am, I must duly report that I find myself highly constrained by the preciousness of the M10 R. The most expensive camera I ever bought was an M6 c. 1990, $3k then and $6,700 in today's dollars. There were times when I felt uncomfortable carrying it around with me. I want a camera I can use up.

In any event we can no doubt natter amongst ourselves about the meaning and implications of a $10,000 camera body (the current going price for a Reporter) all day and all night, so let us move on.

No autofocus: To my mind, manual focus and autofocus are just options, and one is not better than the other. I'm pretty familiar and comfortable with rangefinder focusing, for at least the last 30 years anyway, and there are some advantages to manual rangefinder focusing: no clutter in the viewfinder; a direct view of the subtle intensities and colors of the real light because a rangefinder window is WYSIWYG in that respect; the infinity stop; and the focus stays where you place it until you change it. You hold focusing distance in your mind and can check on it with a glance if you forget. (Some of these can be simulated in various ways with some AF cameras.)

There are also some usability benefits that I pointed out in the previous post, for instance that it frees up a half-press of the shutter for AEL rather than AF-lock, and I like that.

However, I like AF too. Despite my transplanted cornea, my eyes aren't what they used to be. I'm not complaining at all; I don't wear glasses at age 65 except for computer use and reading, and I'm plenty thankful for that. But manual RF focusing requires some learning and practice, and I'm just as happy to let the camera focus itself, even though my use of AF is pretty limited. (I only use two modes, and don't begin to utilize all the Sony's capabilities).

No EVF: All you have to do is photograph with the Voigtländer 12mm (NLA) to have it blatantly pointed out to you that the field of view can be hard to see with an RF viewfinder. The M10's various framelines are approximate, and, despite Leica's clever perspective correction in the digital domain (called Perspective Control), there are still the usual headaches of parallax at closer focusing distances. An EVF is not WYSIWYG in terms of providing a window to the light and the color of the scene, but it's perfectly WYSIWYG with regard to perspective and the exact boundaries of the frame. Verdict? Six to one, half a dozen the other.

But the real gotcha with the viewfinder? It's that I've gotten into the habit of reviewing using the viewfinder! I love it, and I do it both while shooting, to check various parameters, and also while reviewing to see what I got. It takes ambient light, sunlight, out of the equation. Again and again with the Leica I would like to check what I just shot in the viewfinder, and of course can't—you can only review on the viewing screen on the back of the camera, which is hard to see in sunlight.

No image stabilization: It's been my observation that many times when you'd like to use something that's obsolescent, it would do fine in many respects, but there's often just one or two modern features that are so useful or sensible that it's hard to do without them. (I think of this every time I see Jay Leno tooling down the highway in an old car with no airbags. He's a head-on collision away from some fine old wooden Nardi steering wheel making contact with his spine from the wrong side. No thanks. I've watched "Idiots in Cars" vids. I'll take an airbag.) In the '90s I bought a Nikkormat FT-3 and considered using it as my main camera, and it would have been fine except that the 1977 groundglass was just very dark in comparison to more modern ones. If just that one thing could have been modernized, the older camera would have been fine. (At the time.)

Well, most old things have "just that one thing." In cars, backup cameras—stories of people backing SUVs over their own children deeply horrify me. You know where this is going: IS is one modern feature I happen to think is useful. Of course the M10 doesn't have it. Cartier-Bresson was rumored to go to bed early and abstain from coffee so he could handhold 1/4th sec., so there are workarounds.  :-)

Handling: The M10 was famously the first digital M to replicate the exact size and shape of the classic Leica, represented in Leica's literature by the M4. And of course the standard party line for half a century was that the Leica M was small and handy and "a camera you can get to grips with." It's received wisdom: i.e., you're supposed to believe it because everybody has always believed it. Yeah, but. The trouble is, the M10 is not small and handy by today's standards. It's handy compared to a 1930s folder and small compared to a TLR. It's not that they haven't done a great job replicating the original; it's that the world has changed. Today it's a little on the clunky and awkward side...

...Most particularly, the grip, or lack thereof. I'd consider a handgrip mandatory with this camera, although I don't have one here to try. The Sony A6600, which has the biggest grip of any of its ilk, makes that camera very handy and satisfying for a small camera. And I just handled a Nikon Z series (Dave Levingston's), which is excellent ergonomically, and it felt greatly more comfortable and secure in the hand than the 70-year-old design of the Leica.

Finally—and this is just a nitpick—I noticed that whenever I switched to vertical orientation (shutter release at the bottom and viewfinder window at the top right), my left thumb naturally hit the menu button. On the good side, even with the menu open on the viewing screen you can still press the shutter button and the camera will take a picture normally.

But you get used to handling. With a "you're in control" camera like the M10, you learn it. I'm sure I'd get used to the handling if it were mine.

Weight: The M10 Reporter is too heavy. With the 35mm Summilux especially. That combo tilts my scale at 972 g (34.3 oz.). That's not heavy for a camera, necessarily, but the smaller the camera the greater the subjective density and the more its weight is emphasized. My A6600 is also a bit on the porky side: with the 30mm ƒ/1.4 Contemporary it's 767 g. Like the handling, you'll get used to the M10 if you use it a lot. But it's too heavy. It can be lightened by using a lighter lens, but, like most of us, it would benefit from going on a diet. Weight loss of 15% or even 20% would benefit the body. (My body too. You?) You might say this is a matter of taste, and I'd have to grant you the point, but a cost-no-object camera should attain an ideal, and feeling like it's made of lead isn't ideal IMO. Note too that a handgrip would add yet more weight, putting this camera + prime combo at ~1150 g (over 40 oz.). Compare to the Nikon Z7 II and kit zoom at 1115 g.

Second car
What's the upshot here? Obviously, there is more than one reason to buy a Leica M. They're status symbols, very satisfying toys, cool body accessories, tickets of admission to various communities of geekery, and also, within their range, excellent working tools. Everyone's going to have his or her own mix of reasons for either wanting or buying one. As I made clear on Friday, it's a digital camera that goes most of the way to recovering/recreating the simple and secure experience of using a film camera. It fully realizes the promise of the early, imperfect first digital M, the M8. And it's a digital M that will be satisfyingly, gratifyingly familiar to those with histories as film M owners/users.

I do think its "beautiful simplicity" is plenty of reason for owning one. So is using it purely for serious photography. I see no impediment to that, if its natural limitations suit the kind of work you do or aspire to do.

Well, and if you have good insurance. (Consider a rider on your homeowner's insurance, or dedicated camera insurance.) 

However, even if money were no object, I would probably not be happy with an M10 as my only camera. (Although I think I'd like to do an OC/OL/OY with a Q2 Monochrom, which has AF and IS, and is weatherproof.) And I'll go out on a limb (way out on a limb) and guess that most M10 owners also own other cameras. I wasn't a pro for very long—only 6–7 years in the '80s–'90s—but during that (pre-digital) time I noticed that most pros I knew or met had pretty complete systems in at least one, more often two, and not infrequently all three major formats (35mm, 6x6 or 6x7, and large format); and then, many of them also owned a Leica M and a few lenses for "personal" work, as personal jewelry, and/or to tie in to the tradition of intrepid globetrotting photojournalists or committed art photographers such as Capa, Koudelka, Eisenstadt, Winogrand, and so many more great names from the olden days.

I also knew a few photographers who used only a film Leica M. I'm sure their "digital equivalents" are out there, and power to 'em. All I'm saying is that an M10 really is like a Miata*: you'll probably be happiest if it's your second car. Er, camera.

This ain't all. In our discussion of the M10, there's more yet to come.

Mike

*Steve Renwick said this.

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.

Leica 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:

Bryan Hansel: "On Friday, you gave me camera envy. Thankfully this posts brings me back down to Earth."

PWL: "Well, I have the M10 P, and to be honest, I don’t notice most of the difficulties you mentioned in your article, perhaps because I shot Leica M film cameras for years and are used to their idiosyncrasies. Where I will agree with you is that the price is a real issue. Makes it hard to use a very good camera in a lot of instances, because you’re afraid of destroying, damaging, or losing such an expensive item (although I should note that I do have it insured, but still…). And yes, I do have another camera system that gets a lot more use: Fuji X-Pro cameras. Pretty much my go-anywhere workhorse system."

Jeff: "I don’t mind the weight (provides stability for me), but the M11 black version, which is 20% lighter (530 g vs. 660 g for the M10, both with battery), provides an option for those who might. The EVF and hand grip issues can each be addressed via accessory add-ons, albeit at the expense of added bulk and weight. I don’t use either, but do use the accessory thumb rest (attached via hot shoe) for much better handling.

"My complementary system (for EVF, AF, IBIS, weather sealing, zooms, longer and wider focal lengths, etc) is the SL2. It has a virtually identical menu interface as the M, and seamlessly adapts M lenses. But I prefer keeping my M lenses (28mm/35mm/50mm) on my M."

Alex Mercado: "Pff…I always keep an M10 at easy access in the boot of my Morgan Plus Four. What is this 'My-At-Tah' you speak of?"

Bob G.: "Had to laugh (sort of) at your Nardi analogy…I had one on my '67 E-Type and it was scary to think about being in an accident with it. My mechanic said, the metal bends, but the wheel doesn’t. I felt 'better' with my single-spoke, downward-facing '71 Citroen Safari wheel…all this way before airbags for sure…."

Mike replies: Plus, you never wanted to go fast in a '71 Citroen.  :-)

Centeredlens: "+1 for camera insurance. I was afraid to take my M10 on vacation until I bought the peace of mind that I could replace it if it fell off a wall or got stolen. (Not that I’ve had to test the insurance yet, fingers crossed….)"

Jack Mac: "Mike, My explanations that if you ding it, it’s OK is partially based on my history of dropping cameras. Right after I wrote you that last week, I dropped an M 10 monochrome. It now has a loving ding in the upper corner. The digital M cameras are still robust. The Rangefinder patch was still in alignment and everything worked perfectly. Except I noticed that it doesn’t record color."

Mike replies: Heh. Reminds me of that old joke, 'Doctor, after my operation, will I be able to play piano?' Plus the fact that car repair shops occasionally car mechanics see cars towed in with the complaint that they will not start...and all that's wrong is that they're out of gas.

Dan Khong: "Twenty-five years back when the M6 and Rollies and Hassies were more seen and used side by side, the ownership of a Leica M stood out head and shoulders above the rest. Today, I am more likely to attract attention with a Rolleiflex TLR than—might I dare say—even the M10 Reporter (which I don't own so I am guessing). When I stroll around with a grey Rolleiflex T, I can almost always get a subject to agree to have their picture taken."

Pierre Charbonneau: "Digital M's are indeed a bit heavy in the hand. There are days when I prefer the Fujifilm x100 for walking around with friends.The autofocus is then a blessing. I guess it shows that I am then more casual and my subjects are appreciating this. And the pictures aren't bad either for all that."

Nicolas Woollaston: "the difficulty with wide angle lenses is also similar to the limitations in trying to use long lenses and in wanting to use any lens focused close, let alone macro."

Ben: "I just bought an M11. The cost is tough to swallow...I feel very lucky to be able to afford it now and able to use the lenses I've gathered over the years. And I definitely feel uncomfortable about the price/cost/value, so I always cover the silly dot. At least that's the only visible marking. The black M11 is, I think, pretty close to 25% lighter than the M10. So the weight is...perfect. It should've had IS, of course! But it's great to have really good high ISO performance in an M, so I can shoot at faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. Agreed about the hand grip...I added a stick-on one. We'll see how it goes, but the handling seems better. For whatever reason, I've always felt most comfortable with a rangefinder and OVF. I do also have a Micro 4/3 system (Panasonic GX8 forever! ;-) and a Fuji X100V...I quit Nikon some time ago. Have thought about a Sony system but the size of the lenses is off-putting."

Luke: "I'm so happy to see this post. Modern electronic gizmo cameras produce better pictures due to AF, EVF, IS, etc. If it's easier to use, yes, your pictures improve. IS or give up coffee?? Hah! Also, Mr. Mercado, does your Morgan even have a boot? Maybe you strap your Leica to the luggage rack?"

Kenneth Tanaka: "Chiming-in very late, sorry. But as a long-time and very current Leica owner here are my thoughts.

First, I agree with much of your earlier praise. Leica’s excision of video from the M cameras and converting the user control interface to the SL-style design greatly simplified the camera’s actual and apparent usage. Until last week I owned an M10-R and, previously, an M10-P, M240, and M9…so I’ve keenly observed and welcomed the camera’s evolutionary refinement. I am pleased to say that the new M11 maintains that design line and even extends it in new and useful ways.

"I also mostly concur with your 'downside' points of this post; cost, no autofocus, no image stabilization, awkward handling, and weight, although these have always been intrinsic characteristics of this type of camera. Your 'No EVF' point is not entirely accurate as the camera does offer an accessory EVF (Visoflex) that attaches to the hot shoe and articulates 90 degrees [$740. And more weight. —Ed.]. Regarding handling I would also add that an accessory grip has long been available for these M cameras giving the hand at least a better purchase on the camera. Regarding weight, as someone noted, the new black M11 with its aluminum top plate is significantly lighter than previous digital Ms. In fact, its weight is slightly less than that of the film M7!

"Beyond your downside points I would add three others that, in my experience, represent practical limitations of the M rangefinder that should be paramount to anyone considering using such a camera for particular jobs. I don’t think they’ve been noted yet:

Lack of weatherproofing: The Leica M is simply one of the least weather resistant cameras on the market. Lens mounts are metal-to-metal. Heck, the whole bottom of the camera must be removed just to change batteries and SD cards! I have never had an M camera fail from weather although I have never pressed the boundaries.

Metering: The nature of the M10’s design is such that center-weighted-average is what you’re going to get. (That has changed somewhat with the M11.) This is easy to manage but it’s important to understand that exposure precision will be entirely up to you.

Close focus range limitation: The nature of the M rangefinder’s optical design leaves most lenses with a closest focus distance of approximately 3 feet. There are accessories and at least one special macro lens that enable you to get closer to subjects but this has been a notable limitation of the camera’s design since its invention.

"But let's be honest: nobody buys an M with their head. Nobody needs one of these cameras for anything any more."

Josh: "As a Brit, talking about backup cameras (second cameras) and backup cameras (reversing cameras on a car) in the same post confused the hell out of me for a second!

Mike replies: Oh—sorry! That didn't even occur to me. But it should have.

Sroyon: "I enjoyed Josh's comment about backup cameras. Made me think about using a backup camera as a backup camera (forgot your Leica at home? Simply ask your subject to stand behind the car and record them on video) or alternatively, a backup camera as a backup camera (reversing camera on your car not working? Gaffer tape your spare Leica ME to the rear fender and stream video to your phone)."

Medium-Format Camera Tip

I have a small tip for you re medium-format film cameras. My second-ever magazine assignment was to attempt a survey of all the available medium format film cameras, which I did over many reviews. I've used a lot of those cameras over the years.

I also suspect that medium format will be the first style or type of film camera to fade from the scene entirely. Unlike 35mm, there were never lots of them; and they are mostly pretty complex devices, many with some weak point or another; and many of them are most useful with a range of accessories and add-ons, which are not kept together with the cameras and yet are useless without the cameras, meaning they get hard to find. Finally, the experienced repair-people are already aging out.

Why would you use medium-format film cameras? Well, with film, I always used to say, the smaller the camera, the easier it was to use in the field and the harder you had to work in the darkroom, and the larger the camera, the harder it was to work with in the field and the easier and more pleasurable it was in the darkroom. Medium format was either the best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds, depending on whether your glass is half empty or half full.

Folders!
One of the most recent medium format film cameras, and hence among the newest used ones, is the beautiful folder made by Voigtlander (Cosina, headed by the great enthusiast Kobayashi-san). There are two versions, the Voigtlander Bessa III 667 (technically it should be either Voigtländer or Voigtlaender, but people write "Voigtlander") or the Fuji GF670*; it's the same camera but was marketed by both companies. There's a variant with a fixed 55mm wide-angle lens. Either type will be hella expensive in the used market.

But if you want to try that style of camera, a sleeper is the Agfa Super Isolette. It was among the last of a very long line of folding cameras that included many German makes and models. These folders are not ergonomic masterpieces, and take a little getting used to...and they're not fast. But the Super Isolette is still relatively on the cheap side, around a grand, and they can be repaired by Jurgen at Certo6.com, who is the man when it comes to folders.

There's only one gotcha, which is that the film advance can't be repaired by anyone. So always make sure what you buy has the film advance tested by the seller before you buy, and always advance the film gently and deliberately, as if the whole camera depending on its continued smooth functioning, because it does. And you have to be aware that yes, if it ever fails, it will "brick" the camera—the only solution is to find a donor camera and graft in the whole mechanism.

Super Isolettes were made in the mid-1950s and they are just superbly well built. (The film advance is delicate because it's gloriously complicated in the German way and as exquisite as a watch movement. Okay, almost).

I don't think a Super Isolette is necessarily the best or most practical option—it's just a workable substitute for a Bessa III. (Everyone I know who bought a Bessa III never got into using it...they all become shelf queens.) I personally like the Bronica SQ-A (it takes cheaper batteries than the later SQ-Ai). Still cheap-ish, and the system of interlocks saves me from making mistakes. The problem there is the backs, which fail at a pretty high rate. That's according to Helix's rental department in Chicago in the mid-'90s. So get at least two backs.

They are all awkward, kludgy, and lovable
It's unfortunate, but there just is no such thing as an ideal medium-format film camera. The market for the final 30 years was mainly pros, and the Hasselblad was the standard in North America (for all but portrait photographers, who typically used Mamiya RB67s), and the Rolleiflex SLRs were the standard in Europe. They kinda suffocated development of alternatives, although a variety of makers kept trying.

A Pentax 6x7 is also a great option. They go off with a great icky thump, and you just can't believe the flopping mirror doesn't degrade the image with vibration, but it doesn't. Add Tri-X and the results are very nice.

Base advice—when interviewing medium-format candidates, make sure you can focus the darn thing, whatever it is (I cannot focus Rolleiflex TLRs), and figure out how you're going to meter and whether you can live with that. Many cameras had those awful metering prisms as an add-on...studio pros never used in-camera metering and just didn't need it.

If wishes were horses, a frog wouldn't bump his ass so much...wait....
What I always wanted was a square camera (because you don't need to accommodate horizontal and vertical composing), with a waist-level-finder, that had in-body metering. They're out there, but they're all expensive. Currently I own not one but two Rolleiflex 6008AFs, pristine, and one 80mm AF lens which no longer autofocuses. Plus a 45-degree finder and the handgrip, two newly rebuilt batteries, three battery casings (they're what you need to get rebuilt to have a functioning battery, and they are rare), and three chargers including one new one and one old one which has never been opened. I really need to get the lens fixed so I can sell the lot, but...I always have lots on my plate, plus procrastination is a thing.

I have finally come 'round to the conviction that I will never shoot medium format black-and-white film again. This insight has come only after buying, I don't know, half a dozen medium-format cameras that I never used? Three of them are still upstairs (the Rolleis and my Exakta 66).

But for pure photographic beauty, I'll always be loyal to them.

Mike

*[CORRECTION: I'm sorry, my memory failed me as to the name of the Fuji version. I had it as the "667" when that is an alternate name for the Bessa III. I was confused by the naming when they came out and I guess I still am! I apologize for the error. Thanks to Ned B. for pointing it out.]

Book o' the Week

 All About Saul Leiter. The Amazon writeup for this book says "Photography lovers the world over are now embracing Saul Leiter"—and oh boy, is that ever true of me—"who has enjoyed a remarkable revival since fading into relative obscurity in the 1980s." One of my favorite photographers. Beautiful photopoems. Saul's Early Color (which you can still get for around $300) was one of our all-time bestselling book links. (I bought two, one to thumb and one to not touch!)

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Link to B&H

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:

Medium-Format Film Cameras Today

A reader/friend wrote to ask about medium-format film cameras. I thought rather than recycle my aging information and opinions right off the bat, it would be fun to open it up to the experts and mavens among you.

So, any thoughts on recommended models; cost, affordability and value in the current environment; repairability issues; best practices; your preferences? Any other thoughts?

He shoots an old beat-up Leica M film camera and a used Leica Q2. He reports he "takes more and more" of his photos on film, and asks, "if I bought a Mamiya 6 or a Pentax 67, isn't it possible that it would just break and be 'bricked'?"

I'm on deadline today for the NY'er and cranking on that, so the comments might be a little slow in posting. I'm having a lot of fun, though, although this particular assignment feels a bit like landing a narwhal with a fishing rod....

Mike

Book o' the Week

 All About Saul Leiter. The Amazon writeup for this book says "Photography lovers the world over are now embracing Saul Leiter"—and oh boy, is that ever true of me—"who has enjoyed a remarkable revival since fading into relative obscurity in the 1980s." One of my favorite photographers. Beautiful photopoems. Saul's Early Color (which you can still get for around $300) was one of our all-time bestselling book links. (I bought two, one to thumb and one to not touch!)

This book link is a portal to Amazon.

Link to B&H

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:

Jason Randolph: "It's Hasselblad 500 C/M for me. I don't use it as often as I should, but it hasn't disappointed me yet. I bought a couple of them before the prices went to the stratosphere, plus a few lenses. They were popular enough that finding one is easy. Regarding repairs, I know there are still shops that service them, though I don't know how the supply chain for parts looks these days."

Benjamin Marks: "I haven't shot a roll of medium format film in a decade, which is pathetic really, given that I have some cameras sitting on the shelf (an older Hassie 500, Rolleiflex, a Pentax 6x7...all the goodies). 'Bricked' covers a lot of ground, but my general assessment is that as long as your buddy sticks to cameras without electronics (or minimal e.g. the light meter in the MF Fujis) he should be fine. There are still specialty repair shops working on this stuff: David Odess in Randolph MA for the Hassies, Frank Marshman in Harrisonburg VA for just about anything, Sherry Krauter and Don Goldberg for Leica (and now Youxin Ye too). This was pro gear, most of it, and pretty robustly made. It is stuff that was, in general, designed to be repaired. I'd say, 'go for it!'"

Jim Grey: "I think Yashica TLRs provide a ton of bang for the buck. My experience has been that they are robust—if they have not been abused during their life, they are likely to be in decent working order today. They were common enough that there are still a few shops that will repair and CLA them if needed. People seem to gravitate toward the Yashica-Mat 124, but I think the sleeper Yashica TLR is the Yashica-D. It doesn't have an onboard meter, and you have to manually cock the shutter, but its 80mm ƒ/3.5 Yashinon lens is plenty sharp and creates a lovely, swirly bokeh."

T G McKenna: "I'm partial to my Mamiya RB67. The interlocks prevent me from doing something stupid, and it's been trouble-free for the past 16 years. Cost? Unknown—I've never thought of replacing it. Value? Absolutely."

Pie In the Sky

On Wednesday, I was really just asking about reissues—what old camera do you wish you could buy new (if any, in Ken's case). I was surprised at how many commenters answered with some version of "this film camera, only digital."

Are we sure about that?

Film ≠ digital
Right now I've been using what is arguably the pinnacle of that idea—a digital camera uncompromisingly intended to be similar to an older film camera, the Leica M10 Reporter (courtesy of my friend Jack). It's supposed to channel the old M3–M2–M4—M6 range, except be digital.

It is a surprisingly successful effort. But in general, the whole idea is inherently flawed. Digital cameras are just different kinds of devices than film cameras—different controls needed, different capabilities, different layouts, different feel. Choices that made sense on the film camera don't on the digital one, and vice-versa. They require different skills to operate, and using them is a different experience. Personally I don't think there's any such thing as a "film camera except with a digital sensor." The M10 is probably as close as it's humanly possible to come, and Leica has done a very good job—the haptics and gestalt really are pretty close to a film Leica M.

The only problem is that what they've come up with is a very odd digital camera indeed. I like it, but it's weird, not remotely like any other digital camera. And not something that anyone could ever have come up with as a clean-sheet design, if film rangefinders had never existed.

Every time a camera maker has tried to make a digital version of a film camera the result has been unsatisfying. Are people flocking to the Nikon Z fc? The Z fc is to the FE/FM cameras pretty much what any "film camera but digital" would have to be.

A film camera, except it's digital

I also wasn't asking for blue-sky ideas, which some people responded with. I mean, it's all good—you can respond however you want to. The discussion can go where it wants. I'm just the maître d' here.

Money
Personally, speaking for myself only, my biggest problem is that I can't afford what I want. So under the category of "camera," what I would wish for is "more money for cameras." Of course, I'd be much richer if I could have back all the money I've ever wasted on cameras, so perhaps I should be careful what I wish for. Rimshot.

Also under the category of "film camera" (Nostalgia Dept.) is "enough money to have XP2 developed and proofed professionally." That's a necessary part of my occasional film daydreams. Which would take away all the work while leaving only the fun. Ha! More pie in the sky. I'd just print, which isn't work to me. (Know what else? I'd print on Ilford RC papers. I never could take RC papers seriously back in the old days—there was all that brouhaha early on that they wouldn't last—but I have prints from four decades ago that look like they were made four weeks ago. Ilford figured it out.)

Back to reality: and speaking of not being able to afford what I want: I'm feeling almost wounded that the Fuji GFX 50R is no more. I've been carrying around a vague idea in my head for several years now that "one day I'll have one." Yeah, right. As if. Never more than a fantasy, but hey, the loss of a fantasy is still a loss. I'm pained that it came and went and I've never even seen one.

You know what they say: Oh well.

Four+two

Four standout cameras I wish were still made, only with modern sensors and imaging processors: Sony F-707; Epson RD-1; Olympus E-1; Nikon D700. You know what I sometimes think? That when camera companies occasionally get one right, they have no idea what they've done. They're just engineers throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, but, when some sticks, they ignore it and keep on throwing spaghetti.

That's too cynical, I know.

Two cameras I wish I could buy new now: Konica-Minolta 7D, Olympus OM-2N. The 7D was my favorite DSLR. I never owned an OM-2N, but my beloved OM-4T's added several fancy features that quite honestly I never used and didn't actually need. The OM-2N would have been all I really needed. The design could be cleaned up a bit, though.

A reissued K-M 7D would have to have a 6-MP sensor! And the same color rendition. Those Minolta engineers got that just right. I've never owned a digital camera with better color. I would love to see what sensor manufacturers could do with six megapixels these days. I'll bet it would be wonderful. We will never know.

Of course, you'd also have to add to my OM-2N wish, "more youthful eyesight." Because I have an OM-2N, and I have trouble focusing sometimes. Not always. In other words, only God could grant my whole wish. We are firmly in the realm of fantasy here, obviously.

Of all six cameras just named, none have any chance of ever being offered again. The F-707 probably comes closest to being possible, but it'll never happen.

I also wish for a digital Xpan—not for me, but because so many other people loved them. Of course, that's the same argument as hoping for a few B&W digital cameras. People would say, "why do you need an Xpan? Just take several frames and use pano software." Yeah, well, but that's not the same thing. It merely ends up with a similar result, which isn't always enough. It's a process thing, a visualization thing, a method-of-working thing. Some people want to make an entire panoramic frame with one shutter click, and would take better pictures if they could do that. They'd work better that way. Same with a B&W digital, but "the majority" doesn't get that.

By the way, I no longer actually wish for a B&W digital camera, because they'd get the tones wrong. Just like they sometimes make a lens with the perfect specs (focal length, aperture, size, shape, and weight) but its bokeh sucks.

This is not a suggestion
This one is pure pie-in-the-sky, but you know what else I'd be interested in seeing? An intentionally optimized modern version of a 1970s MMM ("metal, manual, mechanical") SLR. My sense at the time was that as they solved the various problems, they were also morphing into PAE (I just made that up—"polycarbonate, automatic, electronic") designs. So there was never really a fully optimized paragon of the classic MMM genus. Various cameras came close, and others had specific features that were ideal, but no one single camera ever really put it all together. Again, this is not a real-world suggestion. No such camera will ever be made, ever, and couldn't be popular even if it was. So please don't yell at me that this isn't a practical suggestion, please. I'm not saying it is.

The digital TLR idea is also something that nags at my mind. (This one might actually be a viable product.) A camera with a folding hood like a Hasselblad, Rollei, or Bronica waist-level finder, a viewing screen you look down on, and the square format. Of course it wouldn't actually have to have "twin" lenses. It wouldn't have to be an optical viewfinder; an EVF would be fine. It's just a very sweet way to work...intimate, yet nonintrusive—the camera on a strap at the level of the solar plexus; pop open the viewfinder, look down into a nice clean square viewfinder (which could be larger than the optical ones of yore), and see the world. Anyone who's ever been in love with a Hassie or a Rolleiflex will know what I mean. People think you're looking at something in your hand, not at them. They're not threatened.

I just really liked that way of shooting, and it's too bad it's a thing of the past. But digital camera makers were very inventive and creative in the first dozen years of digital, and the marketplace kept spanking them for it. Soon enough they returned to making nothing but DSLRs and point-and-shoots...just like film, only digital. It was only when Sony led the way to FF mirrorless that they finally started to leave the old 35mm PAE DLSR behind.

And the world turns.

Mike

Book of Interest:

Hank O'Neal, Ed., A Vision Shared: A Portrait of America 1935–1943 (Steidl, 2019). The reissue of the best overall survey of the work of the FSA photographers of the 1930s. Every public and school library should have a copy, for one thing. Thanks to Andy Moursund for turning me on to this book many years ago. Originally published in 1976 by St. Martin's Press.

The book link above is a portal to Amazon.

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:

Niels: "Are people flocking to the Nikon Z fc? They seemingly are. Japanese price comparison portal (Kakaku.com) list the Z fc as the 11th most popular interchangeable-lens camera at the moment. From Nikon, only beaten by Z9 and the Z50 kit, thus it sells better than both Z6 Mark II and Z7 Mark II. I'd also argue that the Fujifilm X-100 wouldn't have been contrived without film rangefinders, and that it is quite a successful implementation."

Jeff: "Not necessarily a thing of the past. Put a digital back on a 500 C/M, including the modern Hasselblad version. As for 'getting the tones right' with a digital B&W camera, that’s why I carry colored filters when using a Monochrom. Much of the time, however, the tones are beautiful even without, especially from the original M9-based Monochrom with 18-MP CCD. My prints, viewed next to my former silver prints, don’t lie."

Bob Johnston: "I had a K-M 7D. You are right, the colours were outstanding and it was a joy to use. Mine wasn't too reliable though. I had to use gaffer tape to hold the battery cover closed. Then there was the dreaded black frame problem. The downfall of Minolta was a tragedy. They were by far the most innovative camera designers."

Mike replies: The troubles with mine started when it would occasionally tell me that there was no lens attached—even though I only had one lens for it and never took it off the camera. I would have to unmount and remount the lens several times in order to take an exposure. The electronics gremlins multiplied after that. The results I got with that camera were excellent, though.

Bob G.: "I think, Mike, with these posts, it seems that any reincarnation would not work, like the recent examples of 'retro' in form or function. And when they are produced, they’ll elicit the 'uncanny valley' syndrome we used to have to deal with in animation (and still do). The recreated product may technically answer all the needs, but something will still be 'not right' and it will feel like an imposter, to be eventually rejected."

Bear.: "Stopped at Leica store and had a play with the M11. Dang. All I need now is money."

Camera Query

Lighthearted question: If you were to name one camera from the past that you wish they'd start making again, what would it be?

Any era, any type.

And it could have updates (technology, mechanics, build quality, cosmetics) if you want. 

Mike

P.S. I've got my pick in mind, but I don't want to steer the conversation.

Book o' the Week:

Ernst Haas: New York in Color 1952–1962. "When Haas moved from Vienna to New York City in 1951, he left behind a war-torn continent and a career producing black-and-white images. For Haas, the new medium of color photography was the only way to capture a city pulsing with energy and humanity. These images demonstrate Haas's tremendous virtuosity and confidence with Kodachrome film and the technical challenges of color printing."

This book link is 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:

John Holland: "A very intriguing question! I really had to think for a long stretch about this. I'd imagine a particular camera from my collection, and then think naww, it has this or that annoying aspect (for me). I finally thought of two, one for film and one for digital. For film: Olympus OM-2n. No updates necessary. For digital: Olympus E-1, but with a modern sensor. Perfect form factor, super quiet. All successor Olympus DSLRs have better sensors and worse ergonomics. I should say the answer kinda surprised me, because I've shot mostly Nikon since the early '80s. But both these Olympuses (Olympii?) are more pleasant to walk around and shoot with all day long. They bring home the shot. So does Nikon, but ya gotta nurse/curse it a bit more."

David Graham: "Sony F717."

Hélcio J. Tagliolatto: "Contax 159."

Stephen Scharf: "Fujifilm GFX 50R."

Mike replies: Wow, what happened?! I just heard about this when I read David Myers' comment. I'm...taken aback. It's only 3 1/2 years old.

Stephen replies to Mike: "My guess is the advent of the GFX 50S Mark II did it in. Likely the newer camera is selling quite a bit better. It could have also been a supply chain issue with respect to availability of sensors. If I recall correctly, they both use the same sensor, so it could be that Fujifilm decided to use the allocation for the more popular and profitable camera.

"Like David, though, I really liked the GFX50R; both it's form factor and image quality. A good buddy has one and just loves it."

Brian O'Connor: "No battery, mechanical 35mm film camera new. i.e., Pentax K1000, SP, Nikkormat, OM-1 etc. I love those old cameras, but am a bit sick of fixing them. It would be nice to have one that is clean and new.  :-)  The other one would be a film body that only has the electronics necessary to take Canon R/Nikon Z/Sony FE/ lenses. It would be interesting to see how those lenses performed on film."

Ray Noble: "I miss my Minolta Maxxim 9. It was rugged, had excellent handling, great lens selection and most of all was very intuitive. I am sure I read the manual because I always do, but I never had to refer back to it for anything I wanted to do with the camera."

Dennis Mook: "Mamiya 7."

Michael: "Nikon D700 with 24-MP sensor."

Richard T: "The ergonomics of the Olympus E-1 remains unrivaled (and dampened shutter cherry on the cake). Can’t believe they knocked it out of the park right from the get go and not once revisited that design."

Mike replies: I can't believe it either. Seemed like a winner to me. In a sensible world it would be on about v. VIII by now.

ASW: "Interesting question. I wouldn't mind a reissue of my Nikon D700, as I don't think any of Nikon's newer DSLRs really replaced it. I would keep the build quality, size, and form factor and ask for an upgrade of the sensor to the latest technologies. I would be happy with 24–30 MP (I'm mostly still happy with 12 MP)."

Henri van der Sluis: "For me Canon A-1, would buy it today again without hesitation in spite of the fact that I still have and use my first A-1 that I bought in 1980. No updates…don't change a good thing; plenty of modern alternatives available."

Herman Krieger: "My favorite all time camera was the Zeiss Super Ikonta B. I had a prewar model, that I carried with me while in the Army Air Corps during WWII. I later had a postwar model."

Ricardo Silva Cordeiro: "A resurrection of the Epson (or Cosina/Voigtlander) RD1. Could maintain the APS-C sensor, but a current one from Sony. It should also offer more frame lines for various focal lengths.

"Just wish there could be a accessible rangefinder camera, on a market of so much high-performance cameras this niche model could be successful—just target the marketing to nostalgia. It could even be stripped down in some areas, like removing the back screen or/and any video features (so the image processor can be older/cheaper), a true purist camera at less than 2,000 bucks."

Rick: "Hasselblad Xpan. Much missed—sorry I sold mine, a unique camera."

Jim Grey: "Nikon F3 all the way."

Bruce Bodine: "Olympus E-1 with updated Kodak sensor."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Olympus OM-2N."

Yoshi Carroll: "Sony F-707 with interchangeable lenses and an APS-C (at least) sized sensor."

Kodachromeguy: "The Rolleiflex TLR based on the robust F chassis. These cameras were so incredibly handy, durable, and optically excellent."

Allan Ostling: "I want Nikon to reprise the Nikon 1 system. I cherish the 70–300mm 1 Nikkor which affords an 810mm equivalent view, perfect for birding and much lighter than any other 'serious' lens for this demanding task. I have two Nikon 1 J5 bodies. The last of the line, the J5 has a 21-MP BSI sensor which was an improvement over the 18-MP V3 body. I also use the 32mm 1 Nikkor 32mm ƒ/1.2 (85mm-e) mounted on a V2. A V4 or a J6 would be a real treat."

Patrick Medd: "Given that a used Mamiya 7 is now selling for approximately £4,000 and a reconditioned Rolleiflex for not much less, we must be approaching the point where it starts to make economic sense for one of the manufacturers to start producing a new film camera—probably in the medium format arena."

Mike replies: I'm watching for this to happen. It's what happened with collectible classic LP records: as the prices for originals rose to $60, $90, $150, $200 and higher, 30 years ago it became viable to press new reissues at $30, a price that had previously been unheard of for new vinyl records (the going price is now $40). If the choice was a used original for $300 or a pristine, unplayed new reissue at $30, the latter had its own appeal and seemed "cheap." (You can get such records at places like Acoustic Sounds in Salina, Kansas, or Music Direct in Chicago, Illinois.)

Fred Haynes: "Ha! We all come out of the ‘woodwork’ with a post that asks such a question! Me? Definitely the rangefinder Nikon S2! After that, the Olympus OM-1. I loved the S2, and I foolishly sold it to buy the Olympus. But I love the OM-1 too; the match needle metering was so simple and easy to use. The finder was bright, it was just a pleasure to take pictures! If I had the Nikon today, I’d just use the 50mm normal, and a 35mm wide that I had as well."

Bob G.: "There are too many to list…but in view of that, I wish fancifully that each major manufacturer somehow would institute a boutique division that would explore their best camera and remanufacture it, addressing any small problems in the past. Some older cameras had maybe only a few things that made it less than perfect. The reproduced model might be chosen by customer consensus and made to a pre-order amount. But then, it’s all wishful thinking…you really can’t recreate the past that’s in user’s minds. Change or improve one thing, and it won’t be the same…."

Mitch Krupp: "Pentax 6x7. Well, maybe it's just the time of my life when I had a 6x7 that I'd like back...."

Mike replies: Amen. Nailed it, the source of most nostalgia.

Homing In On 'Simple' Cameras

[Comments have been added.]

About the Leica T, Doug Reilly wrote: "I think the camera of which you speak might be the Leica T. It is fabulously stripped down. One button in addition to the shutter release. Two dials. A very responsive and pretty touch screen for everything else, and by everything I mean very little, and you fit most of the functions relevant to stills photography on their version of the quick menu. In A mode, the right dial adjusts the aperture and the left dial can be set to one of six functions, including exposure comp, which is where I leave it. It’s got autofocus and an add-on EVF, and tweakable auto-ISO. I think it’s brilliant, and bravo to them for bucking the trend. (...The T was released prematurely with a very poor firmware, so it received a lot of negative press. They upgraded the firmware and created a sleeper camera that, if it shines for you, is a heck of a deal.)"

About the original Canon 5D, Rich Reusser wrote: "I recently bought a Canon 5D classic, as it was dirt cheap and I fondly remembered my first one years ago. I'll be darned if my memory isn't spot on. The 2006 state of the art was refreshingly basic. A real joy to shoot without the camera getting in my way."

About the Hasselblad X1D, Gordon wrote: "Menus can be done well. Camera companies...just don't. Hasselblad's X1D interface is sublime. They take full advantage of the touchscreen to make accessing most things incredibly easy and intuitive. If you understand the basics of photography there's no need to read the manual at all."

About the original Leica SL, Kirk wrote: "I bought a Leica SL, the original version, specifically because of the simplified controls and simplified menus. Four unmarked buttons and a power switch on the back. One hour to learn the menu. Very limited complexity for things like JPEGg settings or video. A five line section in the menu for video. It's exactly the camera you are describing as a great photo camera. And it's well built, feels great and takes a complete system of lenses from three alliance partners and a growing base of other makers. They are available all over the used market at about $2,200 in great shape. There's the solution to all the 'deep dive' menus and complexity."

About the Fuji X-T1, John Krumm wrote: "You have a 'stripper model' of a camera, sort of, the Fuji X-T1."

=   +   =   +   =   +   =   +   =

Mike's comments: First of all, after we play pool on Monday we go to lunch, and on the way to lunch I saw a red fox in the snow. They're lovely animals, and as cold as it's been, his coat was thick and luxurious. I screeched on the brakes and backed up! He was like, what's this now? I watched him skedaddle through the open trees. Beautiful. I got a great view of him (or her). I don't see many foxes.

Re simple cameras, two things to get out of the way first. One is that I don't need a simple camera. I'm not looking for help. It's not like I can't operate any camera, even a very complicated one. I've been reviewing cameras literally half my life. I can take pictures with anything, from an oatmeal carton with a pinhole on up. Second, I'm not advising any manufacturers from a business/marketing standpoint. Yes, I do think they've painted themselves into a corner by making their products unappealing to normal people because of excessive complexification; but I'm not saying that one product that went against the grain would be a hit in the marketplace. Of course it should be a hint that both Leica and Hasselblad lead the way in purposeful, pared-down devices that aren't gummed up with endless options and 750-page manuals. If it's not "What do I know?" Then maybe it's "What do they know?"

The other thing about this is that I'm not suggesting all cameras need to be simple. Just a few. Well, a few that don't cost five grand or more.

And third—um, did I say two things? There's a third—which is that I'm not even sure "simple" is the right word. Purposeful is more like it. Focused, if you'll pardon the eternal pun. This is more like what I mean:

1. Purposeful
2. Pared down
3. Able to be mastered
4. Built to do one thing really well rather than all things just in case

I'm at a disadvantage making these arguments, though...I haven't used as many high-end cameras as Ken and Kirk and I'm sure many others have. In recent years I haven't used a lot of cameras. Maybe what I need is to expand my familiarity with the options more....

Mike

Book o' the Week

In Search of Elsewhere: Unseen Images by Steve McCurry. The two Steve McCurry books I own—Looking East and The Unguarded Moment—are oversized (but not too oversized) and have some of the very best color photographic reproduction I've seen. I hope this will be the same, although it has a different publisher. Steve McCurry, although his career is not without blemishes, is a superb and accomplished photographer whose work is a joy to own and revisit. Note that he's a "visual storyteller," not a photojournalist.

The links are portals to Amazon. Thank you kindly for helping support The Online Photographer!

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

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

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

Thomas Rink: "Isn't it funny how all attempts to simplify photography result in increased complexity? For example, automatic exposure—the user has to know how the exposure meter works to dial in the right amount of compensation. To make matters worse, if the camera uses matrix metering, the user has to second guess how the machine would compensate exposure to eventually compensate that. Or autofocus which requires the user to know how the related algorithm works to get the most out of it. These are 'leaky' abstractions; the user has to know about the underlying mechanism and how the abstraction works in order to use the feature. Smartphone cameras show us that this can be done better."

Jack Mac: "The Leica M11 is the most simple of all the Leica M’s film or digital! A film Leica M had a very challenging way of taking a baseplate off to then thread the film across the camera back. Leica retained that baseplate for the M8, M9, M 240, and M10 even though threading film was unnecessary. Finally in 2022, Leica has dropped the removable baseplate from the camera so that users themselves no longer accidentally drop the removable baseplate when changing batteries or SD cards."

Bear.: "Now that you mention it, I’ve realised I’ve got a Leica Q2, three Sigma Merrills (28mm, 40mm and 75mm FF equivalents) plus a soon to be retired Sony RX1. They are all purposeful, pared down, create fantastic images within their design parameters, and don’t do much else especially well. I am obviously limited in the types of images I am able to make with each of them but find those limitations to be quite inspiring in their own right, as I have to see the world in a way that enable me to take photographs that are within their capabilities.

"Having said that, I’m a 'fine art' photograph with the freedom to choose my own subject matter for my photography—if I were a professional photograph meeting clients’ requirements for a living, I suspect those limitations would be (um) precisely the opposite of inspiring—and I that would much prefer a Nikon Z9 or Sony A1 or two with a bag of zoom lenses and lighting gear."

Dogman: "It's ironic and baffling to me that we were told computerization was going to make things easier and our lives more simple. Instead those who design and build computerized devices have made our lives more frustrating and they have complicated many previously simple tasks. Makes one wonder. Are the machines serving us or are we serving the machines?"

Geoff Wittig: "I have really come to love the pared-down interface of the Fuji XT series in actual use. Yes, Fuji's menu structure is a kludge, there are too many redundant buttons, and the X-H1's exposure compensation is God-awful, pressing a tiny little button while turning a clumsy squishy wheel. But the X-T2/3/4 series is just about perfect. Big simple knobs for exposure compensation and basic controls, with no need to dive into the menu swamp at all. And a nice aperture ring on the lenses. They could leave off all the other stuff as far as I'm concerned."

Dave Millier: "Interesting that living out in the wilds you don't see foxes very often. I live in London and I see about 50 foxes every day. There are several living next door and they screech spookily every night. They sleep on my shed roof during the day. Today, on the school run, I saw a fox happily trotting down the pavement (sidewalk) of a busy commuter route in broad daylight without a care in the world. It's odd that there are more foxes in the heart of the city than in the countryside. Beautiful looking animals and easy to photograph but I was not so pleased with them when they ate my backyard chickens.  :-(  "

My 6x9 Story

[Comments have been added.]

Photo of a Fuji GW690III by Benjamin Balasz

Every now and again someone mentions the "Texas Leica"—the nickname for the oversized Fuji 6x9. It and several other medium-format rangefinders once made by Fuji were the ancestors of the current GFX 50R. I'm too lazy to go research the various versions, but I think there were three of them, the GW690III being the last. They were rangefinders that took 6x9 cm negatives on 120 or 220 film. The GW690III wasn't really very Leica-like, since it had a fixed 90mm lens and no built-in light meter. (The Leica of the time, the M6, had a non-AE light meter and of course allowed for interchangeable lenses.)

I used a Fuji 6x9 once, although I don't recall the circumstances now—I probably had it on loan, or deposit, you might say, from Josh Hawkins at Oak Park Camera in Oak Park, Illinois. I lived over and down six or eight blocks, in Forest Park.

My overriding memory of the camera was that it drew attention like a flashing red light. For some reason, whenever I had the thing in my hands, people would react like I was waving a gun around, staring at me and giving me a wide berth, hiding their faces if I pointed it in their direction.

Well, maybe it wasn't that bad, but it felt like it. I felt totally exposed when I was using it.

I think part of this is me—I'm not particularly "invisible" when I shoot. I guess I get anxious or something, and people pick up on it. I'm never up to no good, but people are suspicious anyway. I'm a bad "candid" photographer. I do better when I have permission. Inevitably, if I point a camera anywhere, whoever is in the frame, whatever they are doing and no matter how far away they are, will look at me. Usually with a glare.

Maybe I just remember the occasions when they do, I don't know. That could be it.

I wrote about this on the old site, telling a story about how, when I got the Panasonic GF1, I was driving down the road pointing the camera out the window at a motorcycle rider I was passing. Of course I was watching the road and shooting blind, not the other way around. Surely, in that situation, the motorcyclist wouldn't notice me?  The camera was inside the car. And he'd have his eye on the road too, presumably. But when I got back to the computer, the one picture that almost included him in the frame and happened to be in focus showed him looking right at me! With a narrowed, suspicious glare. Funny.

Don't look
Anyway, I made several sorties out and about with the Texas Leica, molesting passers-by, invading peoples' privacy, and flustering innocent pedestrians. It was feather-ruffling for all concerned, me included. A few days later, having let the big beast rest for a day or two on the shelf, where it was harmless, I found myself contemplating it and thinking, well, there has to be something I can shoot with this dang thing. I concluded that maybe I just needed to be farther away from people.

So I performed a little experiment. I was living at the time in a loft in a former warehouse in West Chicago, a beautiful and impractical home that was one of the most interesting places I ever lived. I was on the fourth floor, higher than most of the surrounding buildings. When it was being built, the contractor put in a sliding glass door. The idea was that buyers would pay $5,000 extra to have a small metal balcony installed outside the door. Since I suffer from acrophobia, and would have gotten the heebie-jeebies suspended in the airspace above the alley, I declined to buy a balcony, so my sliding glass door just had bars on the other side of it so I wouldn't, you know, mosey out of it by mistake and plummet four stories to the concrete.

They were building new condos across the street, and I had occasionally been observing the construction, opening the sliding glass door and leaning with my elbows on the top bar of the barrier. Never once had I noticed any of the workers looking at me; they were quite a distance away—I would estimate 200 feet or so—that's two-thirds of an American football field—and of course they were always going about their business. And it was Chicagoland. The Chicago metropolitan area—Chicagoland—is now getting close to having twice the population of the entire State of Wisconsin. So there were cars going by, airplanes in the sky, pedestrians. Trains passing on the nearby L. I had a great view of the L tracks from my front windows.

I put the Fuji around my neck and watched the workers for a few minutes. Casually, I slowly brought the Texas Leica to my eye.

And as soon as I looked through the viewfinder, the construction worker in the center of the composition turned around, stared right at me, and glared.

How had he noticed me? It's almost uncanny, as if I radiate some telepathic signal or something. I've never understood this. I took the picture anyway, but, as always, I felt awkward, as if I had imposed on the guy and annoyed him.

I recall thinking, gee, if I ever took this thing to the beach, I'd probably get arrested.

Anyway, that was it for me and the Texas Leica! If OPC was where I got it, back it went.

Mike

Book o' the Week

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

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

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

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

Tex Andrews: "Oh, be still my heart! My favorite film camera of all—the GSW690II. It was with this camera that I started to consistently shoot better, and oddly fell into my current and long time project, going on about 15 years now. To get my current camera that owns my heart, my 645Z, I had to trade in a bunch of gear to get the price down to 'only excruciating.' Almost all of the trade-ins hurt, but this one was by far the one that really made me sad, and does to this day. I'll get another one one day, but when I traded it in it actually felt like a betrayal, that camera had been so good to me. I felt faithless."

John Hufnagel: "If I recall correctly, the Graflex Combat Graphic was the first camera colloquially known as the Texas Leica. It even looks like a Leica."

Tom Duffy: "I really like my Fuji GW690III. The loud 'Ping!' when the leaf shutter goes off is about as un-Leica as you can get. 23 years ago, I brought it with me to Disney World on a family vacation and shot many rolls of Kodak 400 speed color negative film in 220 format. I came back with a large number of good pictures. My hit rate was actually way higher than my average. I've heard it described as 'everyone's second favorite camera.' Except yours, evidently.  :-) "

Steve C: "I watch Joel Meyrowitz's Masters of Photography course (which is excellent by the way), and he walks around shooting in the street looking like a seven-foot-tall Star Wars villain and nobody seems to notice. Ashley Gilbertson is the same, looking like a rock'n'roll guitar tech or perm'd biker, but gets the most incredible, up close, essence of humanity pictures."

Mike replies: Yeah, I really think it's a matter of personality and social adeptness. It's what you project to other people. And how you feel about yourself.

s.wolters: "It’s not only the camera, it’s the camera in combination with you. With my Pentax 67 I had the same kind of experience as you had with that Texas Leica. With my Rolleiflex people always reacted positively and sometimes tried to make contact or even wanted to pose.

"I envy some female photographers. A few months ago I was at a tourist hotspot where fifty people tried to photograph an overwhelming landscape with their smartphone in vertical mode. Only three or four had a proper camera. One of them, a pretty girl with very short pants and very long legs drew all the attention. Her rucksack full of equipment would have made any paparazzo jealous. As it happens when traveling around I also saw her at some other places. Because of her appearance she always made contact with anyone within minutes, using her bulky Canon 7D combination as a conversation piece. A Texas Leica would probably worked for her as well, but a phone camera or point and shoot not because those aren’t special enough to start a chat. One of the reasons I’m using Micro 4/3 is that think I look rather harmless with it. With a FF DSLR I feel that one day I will get lynched by an angry mob."

Robert: "I have almost the exact opposite experience. I‘ve taken thousands of pictures of strangers and hardly any of them have bothered to look. Most were taken with Leica rangefinders rather than a Texas Leica, admittedly, but many were taken with a Canon 5D Mark II with a 24–105mm on it, some even with a Rolleiflex. I remember one day in London where even when getting very close no one seemed to be bothered, and another in a small town in Germany, and the same thing. Same with all over Asia, except there people often do look then smile widely after the picture is taken. I am not usually furtive. So maybe it's the U.S.—I've never shot there."

Ilkka: "Maybe the problem was that you thought of it as Texas Leica instead of New York Linhof. A big handheld camera instead of a more convenient and faster 4x5 replacement."

John Krumm: "I have similar results shooting strangers, at least in the Midwest. Here in Duluth people see you coming from a mile off. They don't usually think you are actually taking a photo of them. What usually happens is they stop walking or even stop their car so that you can take your shot without them in the way. Nowadays I pretty much never see anyone else with a camera around the neck. I'm the only weirdo in a town of 85,000 who does that, it seems (I know there are a few others, just not when I am out and about). That's why so many of my people shots are from a distance...."

Hugh: "It’s a person thing, not a camera thing. Not a criticism really. I never had any problem doing street photography with a Pentax 67. Same size, much more noise. Speed, confidence, and a friendly smile when people notice."

Stan B.: "Come to think of it, Tod Papageorge did some exemplary B&W street with it...."

Mike replies: He certainly did.

David L.: "Regardless of the comments, putting a 6x7 or 6x9 negative in an enlarger and printing it on fiber-base paper is a sublime experience. I had Fuji 6x7 and 6x9 cameras and regret letting them go."

Martin D: "I loved l, loved, loved that camera. Had both the 90mm and the 65mm 6x9 versions. For me, the very size and monstrosity of the thing made me invisible, like wearing a hi-viz jacket and helmet—people just took me for someone from a different world and ignored me. This is the camera to take Walker Evans-style shots of everyday life. I used Agfa Scala B&W transparency film—wow, how those massive transparencies came to life on the lightbox. Took the best portrait of my father with it. One roll of 120 only gives eight shots, I metered carefully and used only one shot for my father, it was perfect. Boy, I miss this camera."

Mike replies: Did you know that film was just plain old Agfa APX 100 with reversal processing? True.

Eric Brody: "The closest I ever came to the 'Texas Leica' was the Mamiya 7II, a fabulous lightweight rangefinder with some of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, and I've used a lot of lenses. Even though each lens had its own, almost silent, leaf shutter, I never used it for people, so I never got to scare anyone. What interests me about this conversation is how people seem to sort to two groups, those with the 'courage' to do street work and those, like me, who are irrationally afraid of it."