The Online Photographer

The Troubles With Film

[Comments have been added, Saturday 8:50 a.m.]

-

Disclaimer: This post is for people who for whatever reason want to shoot with film or are interested in it. It's all just my opinion. You're the boss of you, and you do what you want to do, and power to you.

My opinion is a version of something Carl Weese once said: digital imaging was the Coming of Age of color photography; black-and-white was already perfect.

A corollary is that black-and-white is neither native, nor particularly natural, nor done very well (except by a dedicated and skilled few) in digital. With film, color methods and materials were difficult and complicated, and, with the exceptions perhaps of Kodachrome (no longer available) and dye-transfer printing (no longer practical) also never terribly attractive. (And both Kodachrome and dye transfer were certainly difficult and complicated—end-users just didn't see the difficulty and complexity.) Many people had aversions to one color process or another: I thought Cibachromes were garish and more or less the opposite of the qualities I appreciated; John Szarkowski reportedly refused to acquire carbro prints for MoMA because he thought the process was so alarmingly ugly. Well, now, in digital, it's black-and-white methods and materials are difficult and complicated! I just received some prints in the mail from Richard Man, a wonderfully skilled B&W printer, and he has been working for a long time to perfect his digital and hybrid B&W. To be honest, I don't know why people would go to the trouble of shooting color film with old cameras, especially 35mm cameras. Why would they do that—because they want to spend more on something that's less practical and looks worse? If you're going to work in color, digital imaging is for you. If you're going to shoot film, work in black-and-white. Those conclusions just seem logical and sensible to me. Of course, if you don't agree, like if you want to shoot bushels of color neg film in old Leicas like Bill Eggleston, or if you like the look of some particular color film, you do you. This is just my 2¢, like I said. But when I say "film" I'm talking mainly about B&W.

High ISOs
Assuming you want to shoot film (this is not the old film vs. digital debate), what are the actual problems with it?

I'm going to set aside expense, because different people have different price sensitivity. A lot of people have lots of money, and some people don't have much at all. So talking about expense really has nothing to do with the activity; it has everything to do with individuals' own circumstances, to which I cannot speak meaningfully when talking to a room.

As I see it there are three main problems with film these days.

One is that film isn't fast enough.

I remember a period in the growth of digital when digital cameras couldn't do high ISOs. My Sony F-707 (2001) could barely provide a usable result at ISO 400, and 200 was a lot better. I recall hearing seasoned professionals opining online that they would consider switching to digital "as soon as digital does high ISOs as well as film." (Italics mine.)

Well, that's solved now. Larger sensors do higher ISOs better, but you can get mainstream APS-C cameras that will provide excellent results at ISO 1600, and some legacy-size sensors ("full" frame, a ridiculous name) will yield good results up to ISO 6400. (Most sensors, however, yield optimum results in a range of lower ISOs, usually from base to about 800.) If you think my numbers here are too low, well, I have high standards.

Film can't keep up. Digital is several stops better in most cases. Since film speed was always a headache in the old days, the advent of a solution has just made the headache that much worse.

I can remember when art photographers (well, in the D.C. area anyway) started feeling like they could depart from the old trusty Kodak VPS (ASA/ISO 100) and start using ASA 400 color films. Until T-Max P3200 came along in the mid to late '80s, Tri-X and HP5+, both 400 ASA films, were the best you could do for speed, and photographers swanned around with all sorts of generally self-defeating schemes to "push" them to be able to shoot at higher shutter speeds. The highest ISO I ever shot with film was 1000, with P3200. (The "P" in P3200 stood for "push.") If it had been ISO certified, it would have been an ISO 800 film, pushable to two stops. I pushed it a third of a stop. I got excellent results with it that way, but then I was kind of a virtuoso.

Lens speed
A second problem with film is that, apart from 35mm (and why would you want to use miniature format now?*), the camera lenses aren't fast enough. Although there are exceptions, most medium format lenses top out at ƒ/2.8, and most view camera lenses at ƒ/5.6. In addition, older film lenses weren't as good wide open as modern lenses are. Consider for example the Fuji GS645s 6x4.5 cm camera that Ben Marks mentioned the other day. That "wide" version of the GS645 folder had a 60mm ƒ/4 lens that was really good...as long as you didn't shoot it wide open, where it was pretty useless. So what that meant was that the camera, which was designed to be small, light, and portable, effectively had an ƒ/5.6 lens! So, bring your tripod along. Which kinda defeated the point.

Tone über alles
A third problem is that people scan film now. It's not inherently a bad idea, but it's usually badly done. It's badly done in the great majority of cases. It's not that peoples' scanning skills are poor. They will proudly tell you that scanning captures exactly the information in the negative, all of the information. And that's true. So what's the problem?

Taken from an article about the pioneer of sensitometry Loyd Ancile Jones

The problem is the film curve. Originally called the H&D curve, for Ferdinand Hurter and Vero Charles Driffield (a short but nice biography can be found here); Kodak assigned an angle to the straight-line section of the curve in the '30s and called it Contrast Index; later it was known as the characteristic curve. It plots density against exposure. And the problem is that it is not linear! Nor does it account for human perception. To correct it, it needs to be counteracted by the paper curve, which is also not linear. The matching of the film curve to the paper curve is essential to get the best results from film because that's how it was designed to be used. So to reproduce exactly the information on the film is a bollix; it is a tragedy; a mistake; it misrepresents the tones; it is ugly; it sucks.

A few film photographers now understand how to introduce the counteracting paper curve to the scanned negative file (I explained a basic method here and boy, am I prolix. Sorry). Most camera pointers out there on the wilds of the Internet don't. There are actually two reasons why the typical scanned film photography commonly seen online is ugly, and this is the main one. The other is that it takes some experience to come up to speed with exposure and development, and it was well known in the film days that newbies were often not up to speed yet. This is of course still true of people trying film today. I often see, for instance (accompanying bad-looking B&W JPEGs supposedly representing film photographs), reports of truly dubious film-developer combinations ("stand developed in Rodinal" seems to be a popular crime). Newbies. Led down the garden path. Not enough experience yet.

What's worse—the icing on the fallen cake—scanned B&W negatives tend to have compressed highlights. Since highlights are the single worse feature of digital capture (now thankfully being ameliorated by the high-megapixel FF and large- [AKA "medium"] format sensor cameras), this just makes a known problem worse.

+   =   +   =   +   =   +   =   +   =   +

So those are the problems with film circa 2021, as I see it. Of course that's not to say that there aren't people out there doing very fine work with film; there are. There are also people doing perfectly fine work scanning. (You don't have to protest. I know you're out there.) They're in the minority, is all I'm saying. Just because there are problems doesn't mean everyone is affected by the problems.

Of course, I suppose good workers in any craft have always been in the minority, and traditional photography is a beautiful craft. And an ancient one, dating back to just before 1839 (our Year Zero).

Eye and heart
So now let me say a few more words about this, under the principle that once you are up on your horse you might as well ride it. (Here it might be a good idea to return to the top of this post and read that first sentence again).

There is no longer ANY need to be practical with film photography. That is, you do not need to have a handy, portable camera; digital cameras can be as portable as your pocketable phone. You do not need to "push" film to achieve higher ISO speeds, at the lamentable expense of the beauty of the image; just look at DxOMark's "Sports" rankings (which, by the way, have nothing to do with how useful a camera is for shooting sports; it's just what they choose to call low-light capability) for the leading high-ISO contenders**. And please, don't try to mimic the look of digital images using film. Film photography has its own beauty. Go for that.

I would suggest, if you choose to master film, that you shift your priorities to go for the maximum beauty of the medium. Don't try for fine grain; just use a bigger negative and enlarge less (nobody cares about film grain in 8x10 sheet film, n.b.); grain is a concern with high enlargements. If you don't like it, just enlarge less. Don't push it; give the film all the exposure it needs to look best. And so forth. Ignore all the tweaks and strivings and conceits we applied when film was all we had.

Trying to achieve the maximum beauty of the medium is the only thing that makes sense to me today, in 2021. Do it however you see fit, though, for your definition of beauty...Carleton Watkins'  pictures are beautiful but so are George Krause's.

George Krause, Fountainhead.
Original prints for sale at his website, at the link.

Finally, don't be afraid to settle on your own style. That's one of the big advantages of black-and-white film photography—it has a very broad range of interpretative and expressive possibilities. This encompasses both techniques and also concerns. Don't mimic. Be yourself. Go for what satisfies your own eye and heart. Be as quirky and weird, or as classic and formal, as you wish to be.

I could go into that all that at great length, but it's already almost 1:00 p.m., so it'll have to be a different day.

Have a nice weekend! I'll be back here on Monday, and here's hoping you will be.

Mike

*I'm joking. Don't kill me.

**Note that DxOMark leaves Fuji out of its rankings—calumny by omission!

Products of the Week

Which one is best? Panasonic S1R (47.3 MP), Sony A7R IV (61 MP), Canon R5 (45 MP), Nikon Z7 II (45.7 MP), or Leica SL2 (47 MP)? You know the answer.

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

Andrew: "Re 'If you're going to work in color, digital imaging is for you. If you're going to shoot film, work in black-and-white': I couldn't agree more. That's my current approach to photography and I've never been happier!"

Leonard Metcalf: "I hope you do come back to this and go into it in great length…I still see them as two different mediums. Film / digital. It helps me separate out their differences and celebrate the strengths of each."

Stan B.: "Wouldn't disagree with anything stated, although for what it's worth, for someone (like me) who uses wide angles and can have such a wide variety of minute details and various lighting scenarios all in one image, a hybrid B&W film and digital printing workflow provides a more than acceptable compromise balancing image quality and ease/superiority of image manipulation/editing that analog only yields to the absolute masters of darkroom printing.

"Speaking of B&W mastery, Mimi Plumb's 'The White Sky' is on exhibit at the Robert Koch Gallery in San Francisco. If anyone wants to experience the absolute beauty that is traditional black-and-white photography, aesthetically and technically (35mm B&W analog, far as I can tell)—I urge you to see these prints first hand whenever possible...one visit is the equivalent of 9,000 YouTube videos on how to do B&W right."

Mike replies: The White Sky is yet another photobook I will never own, and I'm unhappy about that. It sold out very quickly. By the way the prints at Koch are inkjets from vintage negatives, looks like. When done well, these can be even a little better than darkroom prints.

John Sparks: "I have recently been playing around with film.

"In the pre-digital days, I was trying to get the best, most perfect, most beautiful print I could and went from 35mm to 645 to 4x5 to 8x10 and finally settled on 6x7 as the best compromise between quality and the kinds of photographs I wanted to make. I have printed for professional photographers, had prints in museum shows, and sold prints.

"Then came digital. At first it really wasn't good enough for me, but replaced the snapshots in color that I had been doing in 35mm. Then in 2008, I got a Sony A900 and it became good enough for just about everything. I stopped using film. I have better cameras now (even my Panasonic G9 is better than the A900). The photographs are technically great and easy to print. I have some B&W prints that I like as well as some of my prints from 8x10.

"The current digital cameras do everything that I was trying to do when film was the only choice.

"Now, I playing with film again. I'm not trying to do what I did in the past. I don't want to make the most perfect prints that I tried to make with 8x10 or 6x7. I can do that with digital with ease. I want to make the prints that Mike calls ugly, some of which actually work and look beautiful. I want to see tons of grain. I want to see the warts that were hard to work around in the old film days. I want to have to work hard again. I don't want the film prints to look the way the digital prints look. I also don't want to make them look the way I wanted to make my film prints look in the days before digital."

Mike replies: This has a parallel in the history of furniture making, as recounted by Prof. David Pye in The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Apparently surface perfection was once highly valued until machine finishing, which could be more perfect much more easily, came along. Then, handwork that showed roughness, variability, and the inherent nature of the materials began to be treasured above smooth perfection and high finish.

Bob G.: "I going to have to comment and put my two cents out there for whatever it’s worth. I’d like to agree with most everything you say on this comparison, but like to add that the end result of the archival medium of having a film negative seems to me better than having a digital file. I have over a hundred years of old negatives by my grandfather and his camera to copy and print; the tones are wonderful. Digital files are a pain to keep copying onto the most recent media or method in vogue. But, I follow your argument that color is now in the digital world and black-and-white makes better images in film, by shooting color with my digital cameras and shooting and developing B&W with an array of vintage and modern ones. I always have the two when I’m out shooting. As long as the final result is a print, the plan works. Film negatives and color digital files hopefully will back these up for the future."

Mark: "Well you said all that much better than I ever could. I get a lot of enjoyment out of BW film photography and darkroom printing, and will most likely continue. Hobbiests/amateurs do all sorts of things with less-than-optimal gear. My steel-framed bicycle doesn't match up against the latest carbon fiber machines by any measure, but it didn't detract in the least from my ride this morning."

Ray Foxlee: "An interesting post, especially to those of us wholly or partly wedded to film photography. My journey with film is now in about its 60th year and despite that many years, I certainly don't count myself an expert at dealing with film. I shoot digital as well as film (scanned and printed digitally!), and in many respects I agree that digital is the way forward for colour, but the fact remains that I still can't replicate the colour palette of Kodak Portra through the digital process, at least to my satisfaction. That film, especially shot on my Rolleiflex, is just beautiful—at least to my old eyes. I don't doubt that a darkroom print would look even better than the hybrid process that has to do the job these days.

"Film for black and white?—absolutely, especially medium format and larger. Old style films like FP4+ still have a magic that is both hard to beat and also define, especially when using some of the fine older lenses, such as the Zeiss Planars.

"But it is not just a 'film' issue to many who stay with film, as the simplicity of using film cameras comes as a relief, when compared to the increasingly complex digital camera experience.

"The 'price' paid for using film is often a steeper learning curve in achieving a satisfactory result. A case of 'no gain without pain'?—perhaps!"

My Own Favorite Format...

[Comments have been added, 1:02 a.m. Friday.]

-

...Is 645. Loaded with B&W film. Ha!

I'm kind of being funny. But it's also sort of true.

Curiously, I've never shot 645. Well, I have, but only briefly and sporadically, with borrowed cameras, rented cameras, loaner cameras for review, or friends' cameras. And once when I asked at a camera store if I could wander around the neighborhood with their store demo and shoot a couple of rolls. They let me.

Mamiya 645 Super System

The reason I've never shot it is that I could never quite find a 645 camera and lens I liked. I tried them all, though.

A couple of years ago I almost took the plunge and switched: I borrowed a Pentax 645 from John Sarsgard (thanks again, John) and, using an adapter, mounted my Schneider-Kreuznach Xenotar MF 80mm ƒ/2.8 on it (picture in this post). The lens was made for the Schneider Exakta 66. Focus confirmation worked with the manual-focus lens, and I came within millimeters of pulling the trigger and going ahead...but the cost of film and common sense prevailed! I recovered my sanity just in time to prevent yet more needless expenditure. (I spend too much money not going back to film.)

The closest I ever came to 645 was my year with the Exakta 66. It's a square format SLR that had a waist-level finder, but for some reason I always cropped my pictures to a 645...vertical. It wasn't really a conscious decision, it's just the way I saw with that camera. Then, once I had a bunch of pictures in that orientation, I wanted the future pictures to match, so I just kept shooting that way.

645 cameras were klunky and big and not much fun to use. The fun came in the darkroom, where those big negatives sure were a pleasure to print.

Pretty sure I'll never shoot film again. But there's one way I'll shoot 645 as I disappear into the sunset: If I were rich, and I could pay someone else to develop the film and make the workprints! Then I might. But that won't happen.

...Except in my imagination, where I enjoy the process.

Mike

Products of the Week

Which one is best? Panasonic S1R (47.3 MP), Sony A7R IV (61 MP), Canon R5 (45 MP), Nikon Z7 II (45.7 MP), or Leica SL2 (47 MP)? You know the answer.

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

Niels: "I seem to recall that you once wrote favourably of the Bronica RF645? It must have been short lived. I don't encounter many, if any, users in the film forums I frequently visit."

Thom Hogan: "'Format' is a terrible word, because it's a stand-in for multiple things. First, there's sensor size, where biggest you can afford and will use should always win, and then there's aspect ratio, for which the camera makers have always taken shortcuts. I want a 2:1 aspect ratio, minimum. Closest I can get on anything I'd use is 16:9, because that's what the digital TV negotiations produced. Of course, now I'm paying for pixels I don't use, because the die size dictates 3:2 or 4:3."

Kirk Decker: "I got a Mamiya 645 1000s my second year of college. It was an early model that didn't have interchangeable backs, but it was a non factor as I was coming from 35mm. I loved that camera. I had it for a very long time, shot a ton of weddings with it. Eventually I succumbed to the lure of the Hasselblad, but I still occasionally cruise up and down eBay gazing longing at the 645's."

William Cowan: "You are, of course quite right about the 645 film format. Since I first had my hands on one 20 years ago, I have always felt that the Contax 645 represents the peak of film camera development. (YMMV.) Zeiss lenses, autofocus, flash exposure evaluation, removable back and easy choice of portrait or landscape, but most importantly Contax handling. It is just a pleasure to use. So, until I cannot carry it any more...."

Stephen Cowdery: "Nice to see the Mamiya M645 system pictured. It was one of my favorites except (as you noted) for shooting verticals, with the WL finder on it was almost impossible, and the prism finder was awkward and bulky. "

Chris Kern: "I recently acquired a sample of the first 'serious' camera I used as a teenager, my father’s prewar Zeiss Contax rangefinder, and I have been shooting black-and-white film after a hiatus of half a century (sic). I pay a local lab to develop the negatives—I don’t have the patience to start developing film again—which I scan at 3600 dpi and post-process in Adobe Lightroom. I find I can make 12x18-inch prints from the scans with excellent results. Film has its own esthetic: a combination of texture and tonality that I’ve found challenging to replicate in an all-digital workflow. A couple of samples: a recent view of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington and a United States Park Service crew winterizing the C&O Canal tour boat at Great Falls Park in Potomac, Maryland."

Tom Duffy: "I was a longtime owner of a Contax 645. I bought it when it first came out and kept it and my three lenses until last year when I traded it all in on a Canon R5. I thought it was the best camera system that I ever owned except for the very slow autofocus, the horrible battery life (10 rolls of 120 per battery), the weight with the battery grip and prism, and constant depth of field limitations handheld. :) If not mounted on a tripod, I could always get better, i.e., sharper results with a 35mm camera. I tried to use it as a 'grownup' 35mm camera and as a 'baby' view camera. It didn't work well as either. A medium format SLR's strength is in studio portrait work. I still use a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder which has much to recommend it."

John Sarsgard: "You're welcome. Last time I used it was for black-and-white portraits for a woman who worked at MoMA and had fond memories of the darkroom from art school. She wanted portraits with her fiancé made on film. I used Tri-X 400 and developed it in XTOL, Kodak's last, and in my opinion, best film developer. It was great fun on a splendid day in Central Park, and almost as much fun later in my darkroom. However, I did scan the negatives of choice and made the prints digitally. There was a weird shortage of 120 Tri-X at the time, and I had to pay $15 per roll!"

Daniel M.: "The best and satisfied experience I got in using the 645 film format is with the Fujica GS645 Pro (EBC 75mm), a small folding camera, very compact and lightweight that worked nicely with Fujichrome slide films. The rangefinder was precise and I brough the camera even for motorsport reportages. Only good memories! (Although I must add that you had to be careful with the Fujica GS645 since the folding mechanism has appeared to me a bit fragile.)"

Richard Skoonberg: "I used a GS645 for many years for weddings and portrait work. It was a love affair with its big bright viewfinder/rangefinder and 220 film, and it folded into a clamshell that could fit into a coat pocket. So easy to use. Later when I was no longer doing weddings, I sold it on eBay for more than I paid for it. I needed the money to pay tuition for my daughter's first year of college. Such is life."

Mark Sampson: "In 1979 I was hired as a yearbook portrait photographer, and the studio issued me a 645-format Bronica ETR-S, for shooting group photos and 'candids.' I worked with that camera for the two years I had that job, and enjoyed it; handled well, didn't break under hard use, and provided fine image quality. I was unable to shoot much with it for myself, and that job didn't pay enough to buy one of my own, but I always liked the format and the camera."

Hugh: "4x5 film shot vertically is now the perfect format. I’m surprised you hadn’t noticed. Put the processed B&W negative on your iPad, snap it with your phone, invert the photo so it’s a positive. Exactly the right format to upload to Instagram at 1080x1350 pixels, complete with the black border, notches, and TXP320 in the margin. Instant artistic credibility.  ;-)  "

Les Myers: "Your 645 Mamiya system gracing this column is exactly like the one I have. I love it!"

Five (Unrelated) Camera Questions

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

-

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any suggestions, from Nikonian critter shooters?

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

Mike

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

Book o' the Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I Don't Love the X-H1

Over the years (and many cameras) I've noticed something: Sometimes you bond with a camera, sometimes you don't.

I have to face it: I haven't taken to the Fuji X-H1. It has become clear.

This isn't a value judgement. It's a great camera. And it was a gift, and an extremely kind one at that—I'm grateful for the experience of getting to know it. But I don't love using it and I'm not enthused about the results I manage to get from it. For whatever reason, it hasn't joined my parade of favorites.

Why? Not sure I know. I don't think it's quantifiable. It's kind of like breaking up with someone you still really like, admire, approve of, wish the best for, and aren't unhappy with...but simply don't love, for whatever mysterious alchemical reason.

You can't force it. I've tried.

And this is absolutely not a knock against anyone else who uses it and loves it. We're all different.

Xander and Alyssa. I even like the touch of blue on the right, the distinctive color of Xander's new car.

I had a wonderful visit with my son and his girlfriend and their delightful little doggie Ziggy. They are excellent dog parents, attentive and caring but relaxed, tolerant, and adaptable. We had trouble even remembering how long it had been. A friend told me recently that his little kid thought a stylized "2021" spelled "ZOZI," so I'm going to try to set this past week in my memory as "the Zozi visit." I think I treasured every moment because it's been so long since I've seen them—COVID-19 made for the longest time Xander and I have ever been apart in his entire life. Just over two years, since June of '19. I hope such a long gap between in-person visits never has to happen again.

What is real
Re the picture above, when I mentioned I was taking a little time off, Gordon Lewis wrote: "Well, okay, as long as you show us one or two portraits of Zander with your 'real' camera. And while you're at it, see how he feels about watches."

That's when my feelings about the X-H1 finally gelled. Even meaning to carry out Gordon's request, I found myself resisting getting it out or taking it along. In some ways it makes sense: I have a long history of liking small, light cameras—139Q, M6, OM-4T, CLE, C-3040z, GF1, and so on. Pro cameras such as the F4, RZ67, and D3 haven't suited me. They usually strike me as fantastic cameras made for somebody else. So the thought that kept nagging me about Gordon's comment was: I kinda don't have a real camera.

The iPhone comes closest for me right now, if I'm honest. By a small margin, it's closer to the way I like to shoot than the X-H1 is, but in the other direction. I get criticism for publishing iPhone snaps here, but I actually wouldn't mind being a smartphone photographer. There are even a few things the phone does well: for instance, it always seems to hit the proper exposure, at least if the highlights aren't blown (I always worry about that). And it does well at balancing mixed light. I understand the newer ones have a very usable "Night Mode" too. Unfortunately, as much as I love it as a "note-pad," the iPhone isn't my axe either. The sensor's too small: the images look great on the phone itself and do okay at the 800-pixel-wide blog-post size as long as the dynamic range is adequate, but the files don't correct easily, have too many artifacts in enlargements, and those highlights I mentioned are often blown. I dislike blown highlights. The iPhone is simultaneously a.) very good at casual snaps to use as communication and b.) frustrating to try to control as well as deficient for non-stylized regular prints. I've seen people use them for great small prints, used within their limits, but usually processed in some distinctive way. The ergonomics also leave a lot to be desired.

So it's both very good and also bad. Kinda like texting: texting is great too, but only within its intended limits. You wouldn't write a book that way.

If the X-H1 is at one end and the iPhone is at the other, I want something in the middle.

And, come to think, Jay B., who gave the X-H1 to me, didn't want to keep it either. He loves his Leica Q2.

Awk-ward!
Anyway, I almost hated to write this post. But I need to be up-front with everyone about where I find myself camera-wise. It's our deal, am I right? Another time this happened was with the Olympus E-M5, which I got all enthused about at first but that I didn't bond with. I had to 'fess up that time too, awkward as it was. (I'd link to that post, but I can't find it.)

Anyway, I'm officially on the lookout for a new camera. Which is odd, for me, in Zozi. It will probably be a Fuji, but then again, I won't be selling the X-H1—I need a capable body for the lenses I have, and it's a good camera for specific tasks.

And by the way, Gordon, what Xander thinks about watches? Basically that they're not an asset. That also made me realize something about myself—I instinctively think possessions are assets when they're generally not. He who dies with the most toys doesn't win, he who dies with the most toys just makes it harder on whoever has to clean out his house. Xander's got a much better head for investing, money, and finances than I do. One of many things I admire about him.

But then, I think the world of the guy. We had a really nice four days.  :-) 

Mike

Product o' the Week:

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

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

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

James: "I can't believe I was on your page at the moment you made a new post! Glad you had fun with your family—the most important thing in life."

Gordon Lewis: "It surely wasn't my intent to trigger such self-reflection, but if you got an engaging post out my previous request, so much the better. I'm glad to see you documented Xander and Alyssa's visit regardless of what camera you used. If nothing else, images help break up the monotony of text on screen. The best part of all of this is that, despite your challenges, doubts and insecurities, you have managed to raise a strong, healthy, loving, level-headed young man. Congratulations, my friend."

Mike replies: Thanks.  :-)

Robert Roaldi: "Have you tried bonding with a Fuji X-E4 (or previous versions)? I had a similar issue with a Rollei 35s. I liked everything about it except taking pictures with it. Maybe I should just collect them instead.

"About the X-H1, could it be the looks? I don't like the aesthetics of a 'squarish' top body, I prefer a bit of a pointed top on the 'pentaprism.' I know this is silly but a lot of personal preferences are."

Dave Van de Mark (partial comment): "I totally understand where your head is at with the X-H1 because I am in a 'near' identical space with my camera, a Panasonic S1R. The situation is slightly different from your lack of love for using the X-H1. I love using my S1R but often find it too heavy and bulky for the 'situations' I have been and will continue to find myself in, and am looking for an occasional substitute."

Pierre: "You ought to try an X100V. Fixed 35mm equivalent. Plenty of tweaks under the hood to make it faster and more responsive than previous X100 models. Tilt screen. Built-in leaf shutter and ND filter."

Mike replies: For fourteen hundred freakin' dollars? For a little point-and-shoot? Above my pay grade, I'm afraid.

Kirk: "Leica M10 + 35mm Apo Summicron-M. Perfect size. Perfect performance. No where to go from there.... Resist the temptation to go with chrome finish. Stick with the utilitarian aesthetic. All done."

Mike replies: At $19,000 all in I'd be all done all right! And if Xander thinks watches aren't an asset...besides, how exactly is that better than an X100V? At least the X100V can focus itself—that's a thing that came in during the 1980s.

Your suggestion brings a hazy memory to mind. Years ago I used to buy Automobile magazine for a columnist named Ezra Dyer, who Google tells me is now a Senior Editor at Car & Driver. You might remember me talking about how he decided that whenever anyone among his friends and family asked him for a car recommendation, they never bought what he suggested, so, from then on, no matter who it was and no matter what they really needed, he was going to suggest a Ferrari 599. Have you taken that to heart, Kirk?  :-D

Kirk replies: "Exactly!"

robert e: "Thanks for sharing your joy and pride and pics of your wonderful ZOZI visit, Mike! Interesting thoughts about 'real' cameras. I think for many of us, if not most, no single camera can do it all because our needs or interests are too varied. Maybe we should just roll with it and instead of pursuing 'the one' or 'the middle,' build the tool box. And that's not GAS talking; in fact, I expect this approach to result in less GAS than the pursuit of a chimerical ideal."

Mike replies: So sort of like having a watch collection instead of just one watch.... ;-)

Moose: "What about 1" sensors? I know, I know, bigger sensors are better. But, you know, I spend a lot of time inside image files. I simply don't think about whether they are 20-MP 1", 16- or 20-MP Micro 4/3, 24- or 42-MP FF. They all process much the same and give the same sort of results.

"I've just been processing some 2009/10 12-MP Canon 5D photos, and it's all pretty much the same. Sure, the size they all can be printed will vary, but for web display and book pages, they are all similar. I feel that current 1" sensors are at least as good as the first Micro 4/3 sensor systems.

"The two cameras that come to mind are Sony RX100 (latest version) and the Panasonic ZS200. One NatGeo photographer says he uses only the Sony for his magazine work. Both use the same sensor. I chose the Panny mostly for the wider zoom range, which matters a lot to me, and for the mechanically and ergonomically better EVF design, which doesn't pop up and down. (I can see me losing that one to handling.)

"Physically, they are somewhere between cellphone and 'serious' cameras. Coat pocket-able or nice in a belt case.

"To give an idea what it can do, here are way too many photos, 146, that I've taken with it and posted somewhere or other. Many are photos you would never take and/or won't like. I hope others tickle your fancy. I do think they demonstrate great range/versatility. There are several that show full pixel samples and/or before and after processing. Anything fuzzy or murky is artistic license, not camera faults.  \;~)>  "

Jamie Pillers: "I have the X-T4 and the X-E4. I like the X-T4 for its grip, beautiful EVF, sound of the shutter, life of the battery, and two card slots. I like the X-E4 for its size and its minimalist approach to buttons and grip (there isn't one). The X-E4 suits me like the little screwmount Leicas suited...forces one to relax with the simplicity of the thing."

John Camp: "I don't think that switching around from one theoretically fine camera to the next theoretically fine camera (all the cameras we are now dealing with are theoretically fine) will get you very far. The best thing to do would be to lie down and close your eyes and remember what your best-feeling camera was like—all of the various ergonomic details, and the visual cues as well—and then find that camera among the long list of theoretically fine cameras we have available.

"I personally very much like the Panasonic GX8s and the Nikon Z cameras...and if you look at them closely, you'd find that the GX8's and the Z's are very similar, except that the GX8's are smaller and lighter. I've now gotten to the point where I can use them interchangeably, depending on what I'm doing.

"Rather than looking for a perfect camera, you should be looking for a friend. Whatever you come up with will be capable of taking excellent pictures. IMHO."

Mike replies: Yep, that's exactly what this post is about, that sense of your camera being a friend. It's what I haven't gotten from the X-H1 despite giving it the old college try (now there's an expression from way back).

V.I. Voltz: "Behrouz Boochani wrote his first novel No Friend but the Mountains by text message while held by the Australian Government at the Manus Island detention centre. An exception that maybe proves the rule."

Tex Andrews: "Camera bonding: definitely a thing. Same with tools. Above, someone mentioned a Rollei 35S. They came in different flavors, but in form factor they were of a piece—and I bonded with mine. Maybe because it was my first 'real' camera, maybe because it was so simple it distilled photography for me to an essence, something I later had with my Fuji GSW690II, like the Rollei's radiation-affected sci-fi big brother (also known as the Texas Leica).

"I've had other great cameras, with mixed bonding, like girlfriends (of which I've not had many). You can't explain the bonding—an excellent camera may just not click (pun intended) with a person. And I've had some cameras I bonded with that I had to let go with sadness. Happy to say my current two are bond-mates. Phone? not really, although the convenience and utility of it cannot be denied."

[Ed. note: So many good comments on this post...the above is just a sampling. By the way, that's the concept for "Featured Comments"—a sampling, for people who don't have the time or inclination to read everything. Featured Comments are not just "the best ones" and certainly not the ones that agree with me—what I try to do is provide a selection that is representative of the whole spectrum. There are always great ones not featured.]

Giant Box (Landscape Camera for Sale)

I have a camera to sell. I thought I'd offer it here before putting it on eBay.

Tom Burke visited TOP World HQ a few years ago from Sheffield, UK (here's Tom, not to mention Tom Waits; portrait at right by me). Tom wrote a nice comment about landscape cameras this morning, partially in response to my grousing about not wanting a "camcorder" (heh):

"DPReview has just published an article 'Best Cameras for Landscape Photography 2021,' and their pick is the Nikon Z7II. Well, OK, it’s a very good camera, but expensive.

"Then I looked at their reasons for preferring it over competing cameras. In the case of what you might think of as the leading three contenders—Canon R5, Fuji X-T4 and Nikon D850—their reasons were almost entirely video-centric. The Canon had 'limited battery life with EVF at 120FPS', the Fuji was a criticised for having 'limited tools for video exposure,' and the D850—surely the last great all-round DSLR—for having 'poor autofocus in live view/video mode.' And these were being assessed for landscape photography! What happened to horses for courses?

"Of course, with landscape photography especially, the skill and dedication of the photographer is a key component, as are the other tools they might have and use—graduated filters, for example. The actual camera is quite secondary, it seems to me. There’s really no need to spend nearly £3,000 on a camera for landscape photography! In fact I became quite incensed by this, and I looked at my local photo dealer’s secondhand listing (I'm fortunate to live in a city with one such dealer…) to see what might be available for much more reasonable cost. I could get a Canon 300D, the first Digital Rebel, for £35! Going for something slightly more recent, a 500D or 550D (T1i/T2i) were available for less than £200 each. Looking at Nikon my eye was immediately taken by a D300 for £165.

"I’m sure that any of these cameras would be plenty good enough, with sufficient technique and processing, to produce excellent landscape images; and all for a fraction of the prices of the cameras dpreview assessed. In fact, I’m quite tempted…."

Nikon in search of new home
Along those lines, and in the spirit of Tom's comment:

I received a giant box at the front door recently, and it was full of Nikon gear. A longtime reader/supporter, having transitioned to lighter mirrorless cameras and their lenses, sent it as a donation in support of TOP—the expectation being that I'd "do something with it" all, with the proceeds being a friendly gift.

It was very fun to open.

That's how come I have this D800E to sell. Here are the details:

Nikon D800E in fine, clean condition with very low shutter clicks (fewer than 2k) and many extras, no box.

Extras, with new prices where applicable:

• MB-D12 Multipower Battery Pack/vertical release, with both inserts, one that accepts the same rechargeable lithium batteries the camera uses and one that accepts eight AAs ($427, still available); 
• Really Right Stuff BD800 Arca-Swiss tripod mounting plate ($60, still available);
• Four Nikon EN-EL15 rechargeable batteries ($57 each, still available), with charger;
• One Sandisk Extreme 32GB CF card ($30);
• Nikon SB-800 Speedlight (current SB-700 is $327).

That last is the only bit you don't strictly need for a top-class landscape kit.

First $1,198 + shipping gets it, so I can transform it like a Harry Potter wizard into a Sony A6600, on account of I want to write about the lens "drawing" of the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 Contemporary. (I have, er, lots to say. Famous quote from a former Editor when I asked her how she liked my latest submission, after a long pause: "Well, you certainly said everything there is to say.") But if you think that's too much, by all means make an offer you think is a good deal for you. If no one wants it for the asking price I'll take the top offer. For that matter you can also offer more if you want to add in your own donation to the proceedings! (Has such a thing ever happened, in world history?) I can ship today if you contact me soon enough.

There is lots more besides, including some delightful lenses, which I think I will offer to my Patreon Patrons before slapping it all on YeBay. I was mighty impressed by the excellent Nikkor 80–400mm.

Giant thanks to Benefactor of the Box and to Tom, and I hope it's nice in their parts of the world this time of year.

Mike

Book of Interest this week:

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

Also sponsored by...

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

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

Canon v. Canon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

Book of Interest this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competition from Used

In the nineteen-teens, Henry Ford sat atop the automotive world, but a formidable new competitor gradually emerged over those years: himself.

In 1908, each Model T took twelve and a half hours to assemble and cost $825 (about $18,000 today). It became so popular that Ford eventually didn't even have to advertise. By 1920, three out of every four cars on American roads was a Model T. Ford kept driving the cost down and improving the efficiency of manufacture. By 1925, each new Model T took 93 minutes to produce and cost $265 (about $4,000 today).

No matter how far he managed to drive down the cost of the Model T, however, Ford had to compete with used Model T's. They became, for a while, a serious competitor to new ones.

So, consider what I stumbled across yesterday. Go to this page, and at the top of the page under "Navigation," click on "Sample photos on the Nikon D700 (FX)." Take a look at the samples. Even with all the caveats that might apply to online JPEGs, and regardless of what you think of them as pictures, I think you'll agree that they're pretty passable images technically.

Then, consider...those pictures were taken with a $92 Chinese lens on a 13-year-old DSLR.

A Model T with a 1917 New Jersey license plate

It's almost like we're in the exact opposite situation of the one we were in at the turn of the millennium. Along with all their other problems these days, camera manufacturers have to compete with their own older gear on the used market...a lot of which is surprisingly capable, and proving formidable as competition to new gear. 

Mike

Will you help sustain "The Online Photographer"?

Also sponsored by...

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

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

ASW: Well then, I feel pretty fancy today since I bought a lightly used D700 in 2018 and it remains my main camera. I thought the D700 was a great camera when it was introduced in 2008(?) and, to be honest, my photography goals (pictures for myself and family; limited printing to 8x10-ish) haven't changed all that much since then so what more do I need? Sure, I enjoy reading about the new technology and would love to have a D850 or Z7II, but then I would convince myself that I had to have upgraded lenses and would require an upgraded computer. I don't think I could make the return on investment work out, especially since I would have to sell my car and at least one kidney in the transaction, so I'll stick with what I have."

Ian Goodrick: I was using a D700 from the day it was released until I moved to a Z7II about 6 weeks ago. The D700 was and still will produce results that exceed the demands of a vast majority of clients. Never had an image rejected because the quality was not good enough, but you did have to know it’s limitations regarding High ISO noise and dynamic range. I also submit to picture libraries and have never had an image rejected due to lack of resolution, sharpness or any technical reason associated with the camera. Missed dust spots is another issue.

"Still finding the limits of the Nikon Z7II but could not be happier with what it produces. So far I really love the lightness compared to the D700."

Tam: "I do almost all my work with dozen-year-old DSLRs. The magazine editors just want the photos, they don’t care what camera was used to shoot them.

"Some older stuff is even getting a little cult-y. D700 prices have actually gone up since I bought mine a couple years ago."

Mike replies: When I polled readers five or six years ago, the D700 was most-named as the favorite digital camera new or old.

Dan: "This is absolutely true, and the proliferation of full-frame cameras will drive that reality even more. The psychological advantage of 'full frame' means that a very old ff camera like a D700 will sell for more than a technically more capable, newer, small sensor camera. We have reached a point where 'below average' is way better than we really need."

Jim Simmons: "My favourite Henry Ford story: He used to go to junkyards to inspect the parts of Model T's at the end of their lives. People thought he was inspecting parts that had failed, but he was inspecting parts that hadn't failed, because he figured he could make those parts cheaper. His ideal car would be one in which all the parts would reach end of life at the same time."

Moose: "I take your point. In fact, I have photos taken with an early '60s Canon 58mm ƒ/1.2 on the original Sony A7 that I think are first rate.

"The metaphor isn't bad, especially for photographers like you, whose photographic interests largely lie in the 35—135mm equivalency zone and whose preferred subjects are people, dogs, houses, yards, landscapes, and so on.

"It appears that there was little technological change in the automobile market over those years, at least at the bottom.

"On the other hand, for a photographer like me, there has been tremendous tech/capability change over the 13 years you reference. The D700 came out in 2008. The Oly E-M5 in 2013.

"That camera, and the other Micro 4/3 mirrorless ILCs that followed, completely transformed photography for me. I own too many camera bodies now—and not one is a DSLR. Yes, I also have FF bodies, but mirrorless.

"Then let's look at what they can do:

"Freesia is a plant that flowers sequentially along the side of a long stem—super 3D. This photo uses the depth compreession of 800mm equivalent to make the blossoms of much the same size, rather than diminishing with distance. Then, in-camera focus bracketing gives the DoF for them all to be in focus.

"Leaving aside the fact that Nikon didn't even have an 800mm lens until 2013, it weighs four times what the lens I used for this shot does, and is commensurately longer and heavier. I could not have casually carried it out into the yard and taken this perspective and framing. And, of course, focus bracketing wouldn't be an option.

"So, this shot couldn't be made with any 13 year old camera. I know, you aren't into flower photography, or model trains, or any of the others sorts where this stuff makes possible what wasn't possible before. But a lot of us are.

"Another example, from this week:

"Olympus 100–400mm lens, with 1.4x teleconverter = 1120mm equivalent. ProCaptureL on the E-M1 II body gave me a series of shots to choose from.

"Yes, there were roughly equivalent photos taken even back in film days, with huge, exotic gear, heavy tripods, endless preparation and endless patience. Now, I can do it along the way on a day trip, when I happen to see a Great White Egret, grab camera on the back seat, point it handheld, wait a few minutes until it does something photographically interesting and track it as it flies.

"These at only some of the tech changes in capabilities that have shown up in cameras and lenses in the last 13 years that vastly increase the range of photos that can be made.

"My first SLR was a Nikon FTn, but it, a used Model T or a D700 doesn't do it for me today.  \;~)>  "

Mike replies: You make good points. But you reminded me...remember this guy? He drives Model T's. I hear he has a number of them—three, maybe? I was gassing up the car two summers ago and he pulled in opposite me at the filling station in one of them.

Rob L.: "Having just purchased a used Z6 instead of a Z6II, and shooting F-mount glass instead of Z lenses, I might resemble this remark."

Sunday Support Group: Impulse, or Compulsion?

Every time I sell stuff on eBay I end up...buying stuff. I bought another film camera a few days ago.

Geez. This marks what, five months since I swore up and down to myself that I would never, ever, under any circumstances ever buy another film camera again? Yeah, about that long.

It was a pure impulse purchase. I wasn't even looking at film cameras at the time.

I now own twelve, which might be a lifetime high number (I don't actually keep track), which I think you'll agree is very appropriate in light of the impressive amount of film I shoot every year, namely, nada, also expressible as "zilch." So I need all these cameras, obviously.

I had a girlfriend once who had such a thing for shoes that she seemed to be incapable of walking past a women's shoestore without being drawn inside by an invisible tractor beam. Shoes were like a compulsion with her. Well, can't imagine that.

But wow, look...I scored a Nikon N8008 for a mere $99 and it turned out to be new. In the box, with the protective film on the bottom and the JCII sticker fresh and sparkling. It even had the little plastic insert over the film gate. Not a mark of any kind on the thing. Looks untouched.

Of course, the seller might possibly have been being just a wee bit disingenuous even so—because the battery compartment was hard to open and the batteries, which the camera had obviously been stored with for a long time, had oxidized and bled some of that white crusty stuff (what is that, anyway?) on the insert and into the battery compartment.

Or possibly there was no intent to deceive; maybe the seller just didn't realize. It's possible. Things happen. People do pass away, loved ones put their belongings up on eBay without really knowing how or if they work...things like that. Collections are broken up and sold. Things are parceled off to intermediaries for selling. Could have been quite innocent. Then again, maybe that's why a pristine LN Nikon was for sale at a measly ninety-nine bucks. And how come he described it as "in perfect working condition. All of the shutter speeds, program and manual modes, light meter, motor drive and all other functions are working as they should"? Really? How would he know that, with ancient dead-as-a-doornail batteries frozen in the battery well? Methinks the seller doth claim too much.

Caveat emptor all the way on Ye Olde Fleabay.

Anyway, an hour's soak of the battery holder in a weak solution of vinegar and a little careful swabbing of the battery compartment with a dry Q-tip, some fresh batteries, and all was forgiven.

For a camera that's 30 to 33 years old, this is a time capsule.

Leading edge but not bleeding edge
Takes me back (nostalgia being no doubt the main attraction here). In 1988–91, the original 8008's production run, Nikon pitched it as an amalgamated successor to both the FE2 and the FA. The FA was the first camera to feature what came to be called Matrix metering, although it was called "Automatic Multi-Pattern" (AMP) metering in the FA. That was the beginning of the end for photographers understanding how metering works. It boasted the "world's fastest autofocus" at the time. It's also very easy to focus with manual-focus AIS lenses, what with its AF-confirmation dot in the viewfinder.  It has auto-load and auto-wind and -rewind, ultramodern features in the '80s. Woo-hoo. It also had lots of of plastic, which alarmed everyone.

Oh, and I need to eat a little crow, too: remember the other day when I was expressing dismay that the new Pentax K-3 III will cost two thousand dollars? Well, the N8008 cost $857 when it was introduced in 1988, and that is, ahem, $1,934.37 in 2021 dollars. Hmm. Maybe the problem here is that my sense of the value of money is stuck in 1988?

I had two 8008's back then (for some reason no one then ever used the "N" when referring to it). I joined a professional studio with the condition that I would switch to Nikon, because the other three photographers all used Nikon and everyone pooled their equipment. Needed a particular lens for a job? Somebody had one. My Contax stuff wouldn't have been useful in the mix.

I wanted to get an F4s, and had one on order, but there was a several-month delay before it would be available, so I bought an 8008 to use in the meantime. When my F4s arrived, I de-accessioned the 8008, as planned. Then, after using the F4s for a year, I decided I actually liked the 8008 better! So I bought another one and sold the F4s. So this is my third of these.

I slugged it out as a pro for five years, although gradually my business and income shifted mainly to high-quality custom B&W printing for exhibition and reproduction. I was better at that than anyone in town. I was not better as a professional photographer than anyone in town.

Now all this old camera needs is an AF-Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2 D, which by a strange vagary of fortune is still available new. Not gonna do it, not gonna do it, not gonna....

The F4s was the camera that turned me off of big cameras, by the way. For the duration, as it turned out. What a portly beastie it was. (Paul, whose name was on the lease at our beautiful studio, called his Nikon F3 with full motor drive "Darth Vader." So of course he called my F4s "Luke." He was sadder than I was when Luke departed.)

Will I ever take a single picture with this survivor 8008? Probably not. But one thing's absolutely for certain this time: no more film cameras for me. This is it. No question. Never buying another one.

Believe me? Why of course you do. How could you doubt?

It's hip to be square
Meanwhile, back in the here and now, I've been taking pictures with the X-H1 using the widest lens I have, the 14mm prime (21mm equivalent), with the aspect ratio set on square. It's very different for me. Not the way I'm used to seeing at all. But I've been in a rut, so I'm shaking myself up. Trying to be more iconoclastic in my compositions, too, to loosen the visual calcification.

We'll see how that goes. But I always enjoy experiments.

And y'know, I do love photography, so it's all good.

Mike 

Books o' the Week

Nikon fan are ya? Nikon: A Celebration by British automotive writer and Nikon collector Brian Long covers the history of the company from its beginnings to the end of the film era. A U.S. parallel with more concentration on opinions about the equipment is B. Moose Peterson's Nikon System Handbook. The 6th Edition covered film equipment up to 2000. <—These are portals to Amazon.com thru TOP; you can also search for Nikon books from The Book Depository, which offers free shipping worldwide.

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

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

Ron Hoffer: "I sincerely took the same pledge around four years ago after I sold off the last of my Nikon SLR gear, figuring the remaining stable of six classic, elegant and capable film cameras (Leica M7; Contax T; Rollei 35; Hasselblad 501 CM; Rolleiflex T, and a folding medium-format Ikonta) should suffice for my occasional film shooting diversion from Fuji fan behavior. Barely a year passed before two lovely M-mount lenses passionately and successfully cried to join the brood. After all I could use these on my Fujis! But how to explain the purchase and then near immediate return of a rebought Nikon F3HP and then a Barnack Leica? Alas, their behavior suggested expensive repairs ahead. When the electronics of my pocket rocket Contax-T failed two months ago, I lost all resilience and succumbed to a Pentax Spotmatic; a chrome version of my first serious camera from 51 years ago. At least I chose two lenses that I never used before (a 35mm ƒ/3.5 and 55 mm ƒ/1.8). After a professional CLA, the camera reminds me of my youth, with a serious shutter 'clunk' and the benefits of small aperture hyper-focus to account for the crude groundless focusing. First rolls affirmed the glory of Takumar glass and home souping in Rodinal. So, the itch is satisfied for now; that is unless a Mamiya 6 or 7 crosses my path...!!!"

Crabby Umbo (partial comment): "I knew more than one fashion photographer that favored the 8008 over the F4. They first bought them as back-up, and then just started using them as their primary!"

Kye Wood: "The only cure to this specific ailment is this; have your collection (of whatever you keep purchasing) on the table in front of you. At all times. When you're presented with temptation, glance at the surfeit. The urge will immediately abate. I can guarantee that this strategy works for cameras, lenses, watches and guitars."

Malcolm Leader: "White powder? From the web: White Crystals and powder on the battery is potassium carbonate. This is electrolyte (potassium hydroxide) which reacted with O2 to form Potassium Carbonate. In this condition the battery is no longer usable. Potassium carbonate is a very strong alkaline and water soluble."

hugh crawford: "I used to use a 8008 and the dedicated flash that Nikon made for it because it had one really neat trick. You could set it up so if you held it over your head and were using autofocus the flash would project a spot where the camera was pointed. It was great for when a PR agency client was throwing a party at a nightclub and there were a lot of other photographers crowding around some celebrity. Stick your arm up, get the red spot on celebrity X, push the button, and you get the overhead eye-of-god photo of celebrity X surrounded by photographers. As an extra bonus you would often get them looking straight at the camera (because of the the mysterious red spotlight) with a puzzled expression as though they had just recognized someone.

"The PR people loved it since it showed that the celebrity came to the event, the press covered the event, and the celebrity was looking right at the camera.

"I didn’t really have any 35mm equipment at the time so I went into Lens & Repro where I was a frequent renter, and said that I needed to rent a camera for party/disco photography. The guy behind the counter said 'watch this,' did the red spot thing, and I was sold."

Mike replies: Great story! I never knew about that.

I was amazed at the sheer number of flash units pictured in the "System Information" brochure that came with the old Nikon. It made me reflect that one of the things that made Nikon top dog back in the day was its expertise with flash...no other camera came close. With today's extreme high ISO's making flash much less necessary, that could be another contributor to Nikon's decline these days.

Richard Man: "It's so cheap, I save money every time I buy!!!  ;-P  "

John Camp: "Back in the '90s, I had newspaper photographer friends who were secretly leaving the newspaper-supplied F4s's at home and using their N90's instead. The N90 I believe was the 8008 successor, and was a terrific camera that weighed about half of what an F4 weighed. That was important—PJs carried an immense amount of crap around with them, ready for anything, and some literally damaged their shoulders with the weight of their camera bags."

Mike replies: I used to believe I damaged my neck by draping heavy cameras around it and maybe I did. I had chronic neck pain for at least twenty years. Believe it or not, the thing that cured it was pool!  It didn't occur to me until after I bought first first pool table (in 2012 or so) that it might make my neck pain worse, but it did the opposite—something about leaning over above the cue and then raising up my head as far as I could stretched whatever needed to be stretched or strengthened whatever needed to be strengthened. In three weeks my old neck pain was gone, and it hasn't come back. It's amazing what the right exercises will do. Physical therapy is full of deep mysteries, I think.

Alex G: "I can still recall the desire I once felt for a Nikon F100. Sometimes I forget that it’s an old, obsolete desire and it feels very real. I satisfied that impulse pretty well with a N80, back in 2004...the last film camera I bought new. It came somewhat close to the F100. Fortunately I resold it while it still had some value. But these obsolete desires just live in your head alongside the names of ex girlfriends’ parents and the like."

David Brown: "eBay came close to being like crack to me in the late 1990s and early 2000s (I'm recovering...). At one time I owned 12 (Twelve!) 35mm SLRs that worked, and a couple or three that did not. I think (I would have to count) that I am down to six or eight now, and four medium format. Last frame of film? I don't remember."

Open Mike: Change for the Sake of Change?

["Open Mike" is the open-topic editorial page of TOP, when Yr. Hmbl. Ed. frets about the stuff that clutters his brain. It is sometimes on-topic, sometimes not. It's supposed to appear on Wednesdays, and sometimes does.]

Something new and novel happened to me yesterday: I had to admit to myself that I like my old digital camera better than my new digital camera. And my old lens better than my new lens.

I won't talk about the cameras themselves or their features, because this isn't really about that. It's more about how we make decisions to change, and why we sometimes change things that don't need changing.

Big warm wet kiss
For some reason, something I read in an audiophile magazine many years ago stuck with me. The writer admitted that he was in a permanent state of constantly changing his system, that he was always looking to upgrade. Then he admitted that the first time he optimized his system, he had landed on a modestly expensive (in the high-end audio world, that would mean "very expensive but not absolutely insane to normal people") system that was suited to his personal tastes; it consisted of tube electronics and Quad electrostatic speakers is all I remember. He described its sound as a "big warm wet kiss." He said something along the lines of, it wasn't accurate but it departed from accuracy in the ways he liked. Then he admitted that when he continued to upgrade that first system, a.) he felt great remorse when he first committed to the dismantling of what had taken him so long to arrive at (by selling some of the essential components such that he could no longer put the original system together again); b.) that he missed that first system for years afterwards; and c.) that he still, years later, periodically got nostalgic for that first system. I might be embellishing the story for present purposes, but I think he also admitted that he hadn't ever liked any "accurate" system he had ever built since then quite as much as he had liked that first one.

The obvious question springs to mind...why hadn't he just kept that first system and been done with it?

I already have one
It's almost like when we like a category of "things" too much, we feel compelled to continue to optimize, to fret and tweak and shop. (Hmm, that would have made a good title for this post..."Optimization Without End.")

There are many things I own or have owned in the past that I don't optimize. In most cases that happens with categories of things that I like but don't really like too much. I like my car, for instance, and I'm not really tempted by new cars. I mean, it'll eventually wear out, of course, and I'll have to replace it. But I'm not talking about that. My thinking about it usually goes like this:

1. Maybe I'll buy a new car.
2. All I can afford is a used one.
3. I already have a used car I like.

Another example for me is my chef's knife. Now, I know knife geeks exist; but I found a chef's knife I liked (my then-girlfriend's amateur chef stepfather had recommended it to her, and I liked hers), located a source even though they had been discontinued, and bought two, one to use and one as a backup. And I was done, folks. I use my knife every day in the kitchen, and I'm perfectly happy with what I have. Zero desire for any further changes. Those two chef's knives are going to see me out. Actually, there's no reason why the one won't, and I'll leave behind the new one in the drawer.

I've replaced my tripod once in 44 years. I really liked my first one and kept it contentedly for a number of decades. When I bought my second one it was an improvement in every way, and now I really like that one and have utterly no desire to look at other tripods. I'm completely happy with it.

And I know lots of people who are perfectly happy with their cameras or their lenses, too—every now and then I hear a comment along the lines of, "I bought my Nikon XX in 2012 and I've been perfectly happy with it ever since." Now, granted, you don't hear a ton of comments like that in the digital photography world because the pace of change was so rapid in 2000–2015, and improvements tended to be large enough to be noticeable. But still, there are people out there who just aren't shopping all the time.

Strange as it may seem.

Historically, there are many photographers who stick with one set of gear for what seems like forever. Even if they don't use the same exact items, they stick with something very similar to it. When Henry Wessel died, he was still using the Leica M3 and the same ancient Canon lens for it that he'd been using for decades. Cartier-Bresson upgraded to the latest Leica M bodies as they came out, but used the same 50mm collapsible Summicron that he had used for virtually all of his pictures since the 1950s. (He did carry other lenses sometimes and tested other lenses occasionally, but when I was leafing through his proof books at Magnum New York with Erich Hartmann, Erich told me that "you can look through book after book and hardly come across a single picture that wasn't taken with the 50mm lens.") I don't know what Michael Kenna's actual gear consists of, but he seems perfectly settled on using film 'Blads for his work, and has been for a long, long time as far as I know.

There are many more examples.

747 to 747, 911 to 911
Sometimes, things actually do develop to a point of sufficiency. Consider, for example, that it took humanity 65 years to get from Kitty Hawk to the Boeing 747 Jumbo jet...and that the 747 has been in service now for 53 years! Granted, there are refinements to the story—later competitors, design changes to the Boeing, etc.—but it looks an awful lot like progress was pell-mell until we got it right and then there just hasn't been a huge burning need to change further.

Sometimes it seems to me that smartphones have already passed that point. Yeah, they continue to evolve, but how much of that is marketing and styleyness and how much of it reflects a genuine need for improvements? Weren't smartphones essentially "there" with, say, the iPhone 6? (Ironically, the cameras might be the most visible things in need of upgrading!)

One way you can tell that the point of sufficiency has been reached is when there start being aficionados of the original "sufficient" models. For example, there are people who actually like the old iPhone 4s, and hasn't Apple introduced models either called the "Classic" or intended to be such? (I don't actually know the details; I don't keep up with phones.)

Take for example the classic Leica. Introduced in 1953, the point of sufficiency was reached by 1984 when they took an M4-P and shoehorned in a manual, non-coupled onboard meter. You can make the argument that everything before the M6 was preamble, and everything after it, postscript. Leica even makes the M10, which I've always argued essentially amounts to a digital replica of the classic Leica rangefinder. (Like Porsche still builds a replica 911. They call it the "911.")

Stuck! Is that bad?
Anyway, I have to admit that I want to like my latest camera best. I do consider it "better." I'm glad I have it and I often use it. I want to like the smaller, slower "Fujicron" that better fits my personal ideology about lenses—that is, what I say I like. But, when you get right down to it, I'm more comfortable with my 2014 camera body and the first, too-big, too-fast 35mm-equivalent lens I got with it. I like using the equipment better and I like the pictures I get with it better. It fits. It suits. It serves. Still.

So why not just stick with that?

The inescapable conclusion is because I can't. I'm too addicted. Addicted to change for the sake of change; to tweaking or optimization. I'm irrevocably settled into a comfortably permanent state of "upgradeitis." Upgrading is a part of my wiring, it seems like...my muscle memory, in typing terms. New is always best, YouTube tells me. I've been upgrading since I bought my first digital camera! I can't stop now. Can I?

Mike

Product o' the Week:

A fantastically comfortable ergonomic mouse for PC users. Should be considered incompatible with Mac unless you want to use only default settings. Available in regular and small sizes, right and left hand, and wired and wireless. WARNING to Mac users: Do NOT download USBOverdrive! It broke my computer. But really, for you PC users, you won't believe how easy on your hand this mouse is.

The link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

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

albert w erickson: "Mike, I haven't commented in while and thought I would jump in with a comment. A wise man said 'wealth consists not of having great possessions, but having few wants.' Not really sure who said it but it is very true.

"I have been going through some anguish considering which camera to get rid of. I now have two Nikon Z cameras, a Nikon D750, and a Fuji X-T3. According to my wife I am a hoarder. I have promised to relieve myself of one or two cameras. The problem is the D750 is my favorite camera. It's more than five years old and old technology but I love it still. The Fuji is a great travel camera because of the small lenses. That leaves the brand-new Z's. They are great cameras and take beautiful pictures and all that, but there is something I love about the IQ and feel of the D750. It really feels like a camera to me. This is clearly a first-world problem and one I will solve soon. In all probability I will sell the Z6 and keep both the D750 and the Z7 II. The Fuji needs to stay because I love walking and shooting with the small primes.

"I feel better already having confessed my crazy dilemma. Thanks for the post; you really hit a nerve with me. Be safe my friend."

Mike replies: As a public service we should probably do a post showing eight or ten pictures of guys with outrageously huge camera collections. Then when readers' spousal units give them a hard time for having too many cameras, they could show her or him that post and say, still think I have a problem? —Mike, CPE (camera purchase enabler)

Terence Morrissey: "This brings up a good point: how often should you upgrade your camera body? I asked that question to the late Michael Reichmann, who recommended every second new model."

Benjamin Marks: "As a fellow gear-head, I have noticed this too. I have many cameras, and many lenses, but just two axes. OK. Three axes. Actually, now that I think of it, three axes, two hatchets, and a maul—oh and a wedge and a small sledgehammer. And an extra wedge from that time I couldn't find my wedge at the beginning of the heating season, but couldn't spend more time looking for it. We burn a lot of firewood. Sigh.

"I think there is something about what I call the 'modularity of purpose' that encourages acquisition. The maul you use to split cord wood is not the tool you need to make kindling. A medium-weight axe will get stuck in a large, wet, piece of wood. But the maul's weight and geometry make it perfect for the task. The maul, on the other hand, is too heavy to be wielded with any finesse. So if you are liberating a small stack of kindling from a straight-grain piece of cord wood, a hatchet or a wedge and hammer really are the tools you need. So would one medium weight axe be enough? Maybe. Is it the best tool for all jobs? Not even close. Same with chef's knives and paring knives.

"But you've also identified the allure of the value 'upgrade.' Many of these are designed to enhance manufactured gear that is produced at a price point. Seiko, for instance, made their SKX dive watches with a mineral glass crystal, the trade name of which is Hardlex. It is reasonably tough stuff, but will get scuffed after several years of daily watch wear. For about $50 more, they (or you) could install a synthetic sapphire crystal on their dive watches, which is superior in every way. Sapphire is pretty close to diamond in hardness—you can wear a watch with a sapphire crystal every day for 15 years and it will not have a scratch. Once you replace the inferior Hardlex with the superior Sapphire you are better off as a user, but hosed as a collector. Why? Because collectors put a premium on unmodified watches. And so it goes.

"There is also an issue of gender lurking here. I am trying to think of modular goods that are susceptible to upgrades: computers, cars, motorcycles, firearms, stereos, watches, sailboats—really boats of any kind. Maybe I have tunnel vision here, but it seems to me that the pursuit of these gear categories breaks down (at a guess) 95/5 along male/female lines. Most of my photographer friends who are women have one or two cameras and that's it. Not so with the guys. It is a strange and beautiful world."

Ilkka: "I agree. I fully agree. Up to the point when you said you must ‘upgrade.’ No you mustn’t! The only thing I might add is a suggestion to buy good quality, whether it is a tripod, or a kitchen knife, or tools, or a lens. Maybe camera as well. Then there will be no need to change it for decades, maybe even in a lifetime. I still use a Gitzo tripod and Linhof ball head I bought 40 years ago. I bought binoculars 30 years ago and just sent them in for service. First time. The manufacturer offered to open them up and clean them for free. I have a Tenba bag I bought 30 years ago. It is a bit rough around the edges and needed some simple repairs, but it is still better than most of the other bags I have bought over the past ten years."

Bear.: "When my parents finally downsized from their empty-nester family home, my mother had the most brilliant brainwave of her long, married life. She told my father that she wanted the best washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and iron that money could buy—she asked, please go research them and acquire them for our new home.

"Being male, my father did—he spent weeks searching the Internet, telephoning factories, reading consumer magazines, and testing various models on shop floors. After careful consideration, the new appliances were purchased at great expense (about which my mother carefully said nothing) and delivered. He then spent days ensuring they were properly installed, reading instruction manuals to learn all the features, etc.

"Thereafter, they were his babies. My mother is not allowed to use them—and she has not had to wash, do the dishes, vacuum the house, or do any ironing ever since. My father does it all. Hmm."

Mike replies: Now that is a wonderful story. Really tickles me. And you know what? As I read it I found myself instinctively sympathizing with your Dad. Ha ha! Thanks for that.

Open Mike: Square

I really need to work on comments this morning. I'm fast getting far behind again. I've had a couple of less-than-productive days, although I seem to have found time for exercise and for typing practice.

I confess I didn't know that I could set my Fujis to shoot square. I know why—it's because when I got them I looked for a 4:3 ratio, which I prefer most, and they don't have that, so I just left them set to 3:2 and forgot about it. They also have a selection for a longer, skinnier aspect ratio—16:9 I think? The camera isn't handy at the moment—and I never use that either.

I've never been attracted to the square aspect ratio per se. Most times I've shot with square cameras, I crop. It's only attractive to me on the iPhone because it makes the "camera" more natural to handle, removing some of its inherent awkwardness.

I did come across these recently:

They're my aunt and uncle. Mary Polk, my mother's younger sister, with Sailor the standard poodle whom I remember as an uncommonly good dog, and her husband, my uncle Smokie Polk. They had a farm south of Lexington, Kentucky, where Smokie bred and raised thoroughbred racehorses for a number of decades. He was at some point the President of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Breeders' Association. I was always very attached to both of them; Mary is a wonderful soul, and I admired, and sought to emulate, Uncle Smokie (who was always called Al or Dr. Polk at Keeneland Racetrack. Smokie was a vet as well). They're in their eighties now, and long since retired from the horse business. Mary never worked that I know of, but she's very accomplished all the same: she's an outdoorswoman and canoeist, who I recall went on Outward Bound wilderness treks in her 40s with people half her age, and she's an artist as well—she learned woodworking in midlife and built beautiful furniture. She not only designed the exquisite lake cottage they live in now, but she built most of the furniture in it. They raised four kids, and raised them well, and now the house is full of happy grandchildren every summer. They also own an island way, way up in the Boundary Waters of Canada where they have a small cabin—the trip in is so arduous that they've outfitted their skiff with survivalist supplies. Smokie is also an accomplished sailor, which is no doubt how the dog got its name. He's owned at least three boats since I've known him, not counting "stinkpots" (motor boats). Mary's canoes are the best of the best of the best.

In short, they've always been two of the coolest people I even know; that they're related to me is just an extra bonus. Uncle Smokie bred mainly middle-level racehorses, not the big-time names of the marquee races, but he did have a Triple Crown winner once—he was the breeder (not the owner or trainer) of Temperance Hill, who went off at 54.3-to-1 odds in the 1980 Belmont Stakes to beat Derby winner Genuine Risk and Preakness champion Codex to become one of the greatest long-shot winners in Belmont history. Temperance Hill was subsequently named Champion Three-year-old Colt of 1980 (all the Triple Crown races are for three-year-olds). The three Champion Three-year-olds preceding him were Spectacular Bid in 1979, Affirmed in 1978, and Seattle Slew in 1977, all names to conjure with; it was a golden age of American horse racing.

I took these portraits when I was ten. I think I was actually a pretty good portraitist when I was ten! Portraits are what I've always been best at. I had my first photo show in the dining room of my prep school when I was in ninth grade, and they were all portraits, of classmates and faculty members. Most were nabbed by the yearbook staff and used in the yearbook (without so much as a by-your-leave, which didn't seem unusual at the time), so I no longer have them.

These Instamatic prints are tiny, only 3 1/2 inches square including the borders, taken with a Kodak Instamatic on Verichrome Pan film. The film was 126 size, in a one-piece cassette that dropped into the back of the camera. The resolution is very low—the lens is probably a doublet or triplet. I don't actually know. And I don't know its speed or focal length, either. (It was an Instamatic 104.) [UPDATE: it was a plastic 43mm, f/11, single-element meniscus! Take that, Olympus 25mm PRO with your 19 elements! Thanks to several readers for this.] The Instamatic was the brainchild of Dean M. Peterson, one of the greatest unsung inventors in the history of American photography. It was designed in response to research that exposed the fact that loading film was one of the things consumers felt most insecure about. It shot in square format only, and the pictures came back from the drugstore printed square.  

I find I'm much more sympathetic to Kodak's whole program now than I was then—the advertising campaigns about "memories" and the little packets you'd get back from the drugstore with a neat stack of square prints with white borders, with the month and year stamped in the margin of each. Turns out that was a very robust and useful program. It has that sort of confident, plainspoken mid-century vigor about it. By the time I became an art student it was conventional to denigrate Kodak's resolutely middlebrow approach to photography—we were awtists, after all—but as aging has scraped away some vanity and ambition I've come to realize that Kodak was more right than wrong. I'm thankful I have these prints now, and thankful I can so easily place the date to April of 1967.

I'm not sure if there would be anything to be gained by "trying out" the square format of my Fujis. But it does have some of the appeal of simplicity, the square—a reminder that the real challenge of technique is to get past it, so that, once past, we can get down to work.

Mike

Book o' the Week:

ArtCurious: Stories of the Unexpected, Slightly Odd, and Strangely Wonderful in Art History by Jennifer Dasal (Penguin, 2020. Adapted from the popular podcast.)

This link above is a portal to Amazon, through which most anything you purchase will be credited to TOP. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

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

KC: "Thanks for weaving such a nice story into this discussion of aspect ratio. I hope your aunt and uncle have a chance to see this post. As a former Lexingtonian I have to point out that the local racetrack is actually called 'Keeneland.'"

Mike replies: Thanks! Fixed now. My cousins reminded me of this when they saw the post.

Michael J. Perini: "Charming Pictures to be sure, and I couldn't agree more that as you say that Kodak 'was more right than wrong.' A company that realized and was willing to pay for pure research. Some great scientists and engineers there—they even invented digital. They were a supertanker and in the end, just couldn't turn the wheel fast enough.

"Like many TOP readers I shot with almost every format out there but mostly 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, and 8x10. The film camera I loved most was the Hasselblad. I did some good work with that camera. When I picked it up I 'saw square.' But when I was shooting 35mm or 4x5, I never missed the square format. I just shot what I shot.

"But even though I haven't shot a square camera in years, I often find nice square compositions hiding in my 2:3 files. Occasionally I will see a composition that is begging to be square and compose it that way on the 2x3 sensor. I've never felt the need for a square camera viewfinder to 'see' square or any other shape. I usually think—get the picture in whatever shape you can get it with whatever camera you have—if it is a strong picture, it will survive. If it is not, its shape doesn't matter."

Dan Khong: "One does not need many elements to shoot good pictures. The Instamatic lenses were like magnifying glasses but they made a lot of folks happy. The Tessar lenses stood their ground over many decades. They still produce astounding pictures in Rolleiflex TLRs. One might conclude: An average camera in good hands is better than a good camera in average hands."

Steve Belanger: "Great post, Mike! Thank you. I too had an Instamatic 104, given to me by my older brother as a birthday gift. My introduction to photography at age 12. My family and I took a trip to Montreal in 1968 to see the 'Man and His World' exposition. I still have a handful of great photos and memories of that trip."

Crabby Umbo: "By the way, I consider the 126 cartridge to be another of the great 'lost formats.' Manufacturers not only made rangefinder bodies with quality glass, but Kodak made a reflex with interchangeable lenses. The whole 'chink' in the armor was the cartridges' inability to hold the film flat, and in an exact enough plane to really get quality out of the image. My Mom had a high quality version with a glass lens and a wind-up motor drive, which I loved to use, but was always frustrated with the blurriness! A simple concentration on fixing that cartridge, and it would have had real legs. Can't believe Kodak made the decision to go with increasingly worse formats like 110 and Disc, all while the consumers were abandoning their models to go with the image superior autofocus, autoload, point-and-shoot 35mms. Sheesh!"

Mike replies: I believe the origin of the idea that eventually became the Disc was to solve the film flatness problem.

Peter Croft: "I find square format frustrating. I can never work out whether to hold the camera horizontally or vertically.  :-) "

Mike replies: Here's the trick: neither!

Actually, though, I had a photo school classmate who did a project shooting a square camera in the diamond format. 

SteveW: "'It's hip to be square!' —Huey Lewis & the News."

Frank Field: "Square format is not easy to shoot, I think. I see Michael Kenna as a contemporary master of square format. Study his compositions and your square format images are bound to improve."

What Do You Shoot With These Days?

Based on actual usage rather than ideals, what would you say your two main cameras are these days? If it can be b0iled down to two, I mean. Main camera and primary alternate. I just wonder what people are actually shooting with these days.

I was going to say Main: Fuji X-H1, Primary Alternate: Fuji X-T1, but then it occurred to me that I do a lot of "all kinds of stuff" with the iPhone too. I guess if I had to say, for my main camera I switch off between the X-H1 and the X-T1 (which I try to keep in the car) and then my primary alternate is the iPhone. Of course that's cheating on my own rules which is pretty absurd!

I find I still don't like to "claim" the iPhone but I have to be honest.

You? Where're you at these days?

Mike

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

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

SteveW: "My main cameras for some time have been Nikon D750 and D7500. I'm a Nikon guy, and the cameras are easy for me to use. (I doubt I'll find the motivation or justify the expense to change systems, even to the Nikon Z system.) That said, I am more and more using my iPhone 11 Pro. I'm finding it fun to use, and getting images in different ways just by how small the phone is, and how I can hold it in varying perspectives so quickly and easily. And it's always with me. After using the iPhone, picking up one of my DSLR's is quite an A/B effect. Like going from a Miata to a Suburban?"

Ed Donnelly: "A9 for wildlife and other moving objects, and A7R IV for everything else. Although I own and am very fond of an X-T3 as well, it just doesn't get as much love as the Sonys for some reason. "

Brad Burnham: "Hasselblad 500C and iPhone XS Max."

Kyle Batson: "I lucked into a windfall earlier this year and splurged on a Leica M10. I’ve barely put it down since. And because my Voigtlander 35mm ƒ/1.4 is under repair, it’s been my 50mm ƒ/2 Summicron that I have been shooting with for the past several months. It’s the most wonderful shooting experience I’ve had, second to my Fuji X-T3 with 35mm ƒ/2 I sold two years ago.

"My other go-to, my secondary, is my Sony RX10IV. I’ve never been a super zoom fan, but the size, zoom range, image quality, and value combination is unmatched. I don’t use it nearly as much as the Leica, but it’s great for hiking, travel, and wildlife work. Still in my kit is the wonderful Sony A7 III and Leica Q, but they overlap a lot with my other cameras for current uses so much they aren’t getting much use lately."

Jay Burleson: "Gone back to ultra-simple. I now have only two cameras (have never really used my phone for pictures). Carrying a Leica Q2 and a Leica Q2 Monochrom in one bag and the whole package is not much bigger than a loaf of bread. Just like the old days; one body for color and one for B&W."

Fulvio Senore: "Just one camera: Panasonic GX9 with the 3D printed handle that you recommended about six month ago."

Cecilia: "OM-D E-M1 Mark II and iPhone X...I keep thinking I should need more...."

Mike replies: Count your blessings!

Carl Blesch: "Bought a Nikon Z6 in mid-2019 and have been in love with it ever since, mainly for delivering clean images in low light at high ISO settings. My previous main camera, a Nikon D7100, continues to be a useful backup, especially for long telephoto shots with its DX sensor. And, of course, my iPhone."

Brian Small: "Canon M5 for my main. I don't really have a primary alternate but I do have a collection of old digital point-and-shoots that I still use regularly."

Lynn: "I must be the odd one out here. My main alternates between a Leica IIIc, CL (film) and OM-4. Mostly with 21mm and 35mm lenses. Sometimes a 50mm. Alternate is one of the Fujifilm Instax models—the Mini 9, SQ6, and Wide 300, depending on the subject. I just love the Instax colors and rendering. The monochrome film is not too bad either."

Lesley: "My main camera is a Nikon D600 and the secondary one was a Nikon AW1 (mainly used for cycling and kayaking) until last winter when I bought a Nikon Z50 as a lightweight camera for a spring trip that never happened thanks to COVID-19. At first I was annoyed because I no longer 'needed' it, but now I often have it in the car, or in my purse, and I'm really glad that I bought it.

"I have used Nikons since the days of the Nikkormat and it's nice to have a camera I can still use with an older lens."

Chris Kleihege: "So far my team is looking so lonely...My main camera is a Walker Titan 4x5 and my point-and-shoot is a Polaroid that was my grandfather's. It's modified to hold 4x5 holders."

Joseph Brunjes: "My Chamonix trio of awesomeness (4x5, 11x14, 8x10)."

Mike replies: Chris, meet Joseph. Joseph, Chris.

Carl Coryell-Martin: "I'm about a month into a one camera, one lens, one year project with a Fuji X-Pro2 and 35mm ƒ/1.4. I purchased the 35mm lens back in January for a canceled trip to Singapore, and finally started bonding with it back in November."

Tim Wilson: "Huh. Three pages of comments, and my browser is finding zero instances of 'S1R,' as in Panasonic Lumix S1R, my current 'primary.' Would have thought there'd be others here who'd discovered this phenomenal camera and its system of fabulous lenses. Mine is responsible for banishment to a storage cabinet of (in order of declining pixel count) a Pentax 645D, a Nikon D810, and a Canon 5D mark II. Secondary: Lumix G9."

Mike replies: Here's a nice picture of it by way of consolation.

Lars: "Zeiss Ikon ZI + ZM Biogon 25mm ƒ/2.8 + Fuji Superia 400. I read your review here in 2008 and decided to buy that camera. I'm still using the same combo each and every week. Couldn't be happier!"

Mike replies: That's so cool.

The Nikon F, 1959-2020

The Nikon F has died at age 61, after six iterations.

Some time within the last few days Nikon Japan added the 旧製品 ("old product") tag to the webpage for the F6—while the Nikon Direct store in Japan now shows 販売終了 and Yodobashi Camera shows 販売を終了しました, which are just shorter and longer ways of saying "sales have ended."

The F series, Nikon's flagship professional 35mm film SLRs, lived from April of 1959—the company's first SLR—to now, November of 2020. But, like Kodachrome, it endured far past the time it could have. Nikon managed to keep it in the catalog well into the digital age.

The F6 was not, of course, a relevant product for Nikon at the end or anywhere near it. However, many photographers still living will have memories of F's past.

I personally owned a F4s, bought new. Although I was very camera-proud of the purchase for a while, for actual use on the job I eventually went back to using a pair of N8008's (called F-801 in Europe).

The F6, last of the F-series, has now been
labeled 旧製品, "old product"

One of my memories of the F4 didn't concern the one I owned. I walked into Pro Photo in Washington, D.C., where all the professional photojournalists had their repair work done, and saw two F4s's, painted tan, on the repair table (the techs worked out in plain sight of the walk-on traffic at Pro Photo). Both cameras looked horribly beat up. Partly, I suppose, because the paint wasn't a very durable surface. But that wasn't all. Based on appearance they could have been ten years old. As I was talking to the owner, Dick, I learned that both cameras had been brand new only six months earlier! Pro Photo had painted them in desert camouflage for the Gulf War when they came out of their boxes. Sorry that I don't remember their owner's name any more—or it's possible Dick didn't tell me. He was by nature taciturn, but also, most likely, discreet.

I also owned a collector-grade F2 bought long after its era. I never took a single picture with that one, but it was beautifully built.

Anyway, the Nikon F is dead. Long live the Nikon Z!

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad)

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.

Thanks to all our Patreon contributors!

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

Sal Santamaura: "Procrastination doesn't pay. I waited until August 25 to place my order for an F6 with B&H, hoping to secure one of the four units they've received roughly twice each year for quite a few years. Now I'm waiting for the B&H email advising my order is cancelled. Or, if uncharacteristically optimistic, delivery of an F6 from the last batch Nikon ships to dealers with open orders that were placed before the discontinuation. Fingers, crossed, but not holding breath."

UPDATE from Sal, Wednesday Nov. 11th: "It's time for an update to my featured comment. This morning I received an email message from B&H notifying me that the F6 ordered in August was just shipped and will arrive here in two days. Friday the 13th will be my lucky day!"

Mike replies: That's pretty cool, to know you got one of the last ones.

Mark Sampson: "I disagree that the Nikon F is dead. As long as 35mm film is still made, some of those cameras will be in use after anyone reading this post today has passed on. Rather like the Douglas DC-3, of which nearly 200 are still operational, 85 years after the type's introduction. (It was said for many years that 'the replacement for the DC-3 is... another DC-3.')"

Speed: "Wikipedia tells us that the Nikon F was introduced in April of 1959 priced at $186 with a 5 cm ƒ/2 lens. An online inflation calculator figures that would be $1,664 in 2020. Wikipedia again: The Nikon F was succeeded in 1972 by the Nikon F2 series after a production total of 862,600 bodies. The Nikon Z that Mike mentions sells for a few dollars under $3,000 without a lens—but the 'film' is free. An interesting comparison would be the new Apple iPhone 12 Pro Max which is priced from $1,100 to $1,400. A completely different way to make terrific photographs and Apple will sell a ton of them. Statista tells us that Apple sold more than 200 million iPhones per year between 2015 and 2018. And more than a few went to serious photographers."

Michael W Purcell: "Still occassionally shooting with my Nikon F from PJ days in the later '60s. Damn thing just won't quit."

Photo by Lynn Burdekin (larger size on Flickr)

Lynn: "I used the Nikon FM and FE for quite a few decades until moving to a Canon 5D soon after it came out. Loved the 5D. Then one day in 2015 I was browsing in an op shop (charity store I think you call them) and I asked if they had any cameras. Usually they keep them on display but there were none in sight. The staff member mentioned they had some in a box out the back and would I like a look. A few minutes later he returned with a large cardboard box filled with old cameras most of which you wouldn't look twice at. Then I noticed an old tan leather never-ready case with Nikon F embossed on the front. Inside was a plain prism F in chrome with the original 5cm ƒ/2 lens. It was dusty and the mirror was hanging up but on a hunch I bought it. It wasn't until I got it home that I noticed the serial number: 6407XXX, which I believe makes it a late 1959 model. A CLA later it looked like new, a thing of beauty.

"The F6 looks a great camera, but I'll stick with the metal, mechanical F. There's something magic about history."

Helcio J. Tagliotto: "Nikon F can also save your life!"

Mike replies: I enjoyed that.

New Old Lens for the Wista (Continued)

For those following along, here's my 4x5 with the new-old lens on it. (The camera is a rosewood Wista 45DXII, the lens a Calumet Caltar II-N 135mm ƒ/5.6.) I got the lensboard off eBay. You have to get one with the right sized hole—this lens has a Copal 0 (zero or zed) shutter, so (naturally) I got one with a Copal 0 hole.

For those who might know little to nothing about view cameras, to mount a lens on a lensboard is simple. The rear cell of the lens unscrews from the back of the shutter. Then you remove the retaining ring.

Clockwise from front: rear optical cell; plastic lenscap; retaining
ring; and the rest of the lens, here set
down with its front cell facing down

Simply seat the lens on the board, fix in place with the retaining ring, tighten with a lens spanner wrench (here's one of those on Amazon). Actually what I do is just hold it in place and rotate the shutter itself a little until tight, taking care that the retaining ring isn't riding up on one edge of the hole in the board. Then replace the back cell.

Rear cell of lens on board, showing retaining ring

By the way the lens board is a "board" even if it's made of metal. And the hole is said to be "drilled" even if it wasn't, as in, "a Technika metal lensboard drilled for a Copal 1 shutter."

There's a lens in there. Chien ancien in background.

The camera folds up with the lens on it! Which is not necessary and not something you can do with most lenses because they're too large. Normally you'd remove the lens on its lensboard and put it in your bag. But setting up and knocking down the camera in the field is a process you might go through many times in a day or half-day of shooting, so eliminating steps saves time. So it's nice.

Keiichiro Nagaoka
You might recall our posts on Nagaoka cameras, handmade in Japan, here and here. The first was called "Last Man Standing." Alas, the last man is perhaps no longer standing. I have not been able to confirm the news through journalistic channels, but we have heard multiple rumors now that Keiichiro Nagaoka recently passed away. We heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that he entered the hospital, where he was unable to receive visits from his family due to the cursed COVID-19, and never came out again. Deep respect to Nagaoka-san and his family. His work lives on. He lived his life doing what he wanted to do!

Old view cameras never die, but they do migrate
While I'm still on the topic of old view cameras, our friend Ned (the retired President of Pentax USA) recently gifted his old Kodak to our friend Christopher (whose print I critiqued here—I'm going to do more print crits soon, by the way)—and Christopher decided to use his old Kodak lens with it and shoot Kodak transparency film, for a spiffy all-Kodak outfit. Without pictures it didn't happen, so here's the picture:

Photo by Christopher J. May

Sweet!

Mike
(Thanks to Ned, Chris, and the many readers who send news)

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.

Thanks to all our Patreon contributors!

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

David Dyer-Bennet: "I'd never really considered the process of mounting a lens on a view camera lens board before. Now that you've laid it out so clearly, I'm startled that the positioning of the rear cell is sufficiently precise! I would have expected the distance of the rear cell from the front cell to be critical to the usual sorts of optical tolerances, and I wouldn't have thought screwing down a nut, even metal-on-metal, would be sufficiently precise. Learn something new every day! (On consideration, probably the precision needed in large-format lenses is somewhat less than miniature formats, for one thing.)"

William Schneider replies to David: "The front and rear lens cells are precisely spaced, but the shutter retaining ring has nothing to do with it. Here are some illustrations that show how the retaining ring and rear lens cell attach. That should demonstrate how precision is achieved...

Mike adds: Yes, and the cells do have to be precision calibrated to each individual shutter, which is why shutters aren't considered user-interchangeable. Old lenses can be mounted in new shutters, but only by specialists, for instance by S.K. Grimes, "The Photographer's Machinist."  These days you would also have to have a donor shutter, as Copal stopped making new shutters in 2013. I don't know whether Compur shutters are still made or not.

Bill Tyler replies to David: "The positioning of the two cells is quite precise. The retaining ring holds the front cell in place, but neither the retaining ring nor the thickness of the board interfere with the rear cell as you screw it in. There's enough of the front cell's rear that extends past the board so that the two cells mate precisely. And yes, for most lenses, that spacing is critical. Incidentally, lens boards are quite easy to make for most view cameras for anyone with a modest supply of tools. They're just square pieces of wood or metal with a hole in the middle, except for some camera, like the Graphics, for which the lens board actually has a lip around the edge."

Rob de Loe: "I've mentioned previously in these comments that I'm done with film. That's it! Done done done. Never coming back. But...someone introduced me to Portrait Pro and Portrait Body Pro software over the weekend. I knew this kind of thing existed, but I didn't really know if you know what I mean. I thought 'Sky Replacement' was bad. After checking out Portrait Body Pro, I actually felt ill. I hate everything about what this kind of software is doing, and will do, to photography. And so while going for a walk to shake off the queasy feeling, I thought to myself, 'I guess I'll have to go back to film after all.' Nope, not doing it! But really, within a decade, at the outside, film will be the only way to make a remotely authentic photograph. So good for you, Mike, for getting ahead of the curve!"

Mike replies: I advocated in the 'nineties for letting the word "photography" and related words stand for old-fashioned optical-chemical photography as it was understood up until the digital era, saying we should use "digital imaging" and related words for the new technology. Alas, digital had low status in the beginning, which inevitably led to the co-optation of the word "photograph" for its results, the better to claim equal status for it. Now that it has more than equal status, it's too late to go back to terminology that makes the sensible distinction.

Sunday Support Group: Scores

The Wista arrived on Thursday, and I thought I'd show you a few pictures of it. It does not have a lens yet.

They're surprisingly small and delicate in person, which is hard to convey in pictures.

Like a '30s leading lady, this Wista has a "good side." The KEH description did not mention wrinkled bellows, and this camera's bellows are not wrinkled on one side, but are wrinkled on the other side! I've never seen that before. I don't even know how it's possible.

The ground glass has markings for medium format backs.

It even has a red dot. And an extra one for good measure. Just kidding. These are the the index marks to show you the neutral position for the front standard.

Now that it's here, it's dawning on me that this is going to be hard to pull off without a darkroom. I could have someone else process and print the film, of course, but where's the fun in that? Maybe I should have worked this out earlier....

Sometimes I'm not too smart, but just can't help myself.

Oh well, forge on, let the chips fly, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it, and other clichés along those lines.

Look what else I scored yesterday! Right out of the ground. Steamed or roasted, yum. This will keep me in crucifers for several days.

Mike

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

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

Richard Man: "We all must do 'not too smart' things sometimes. I took just a dozen photos with the 8x10 in Yosemite last weekend, and while one thinks that all possible photos in Yosemite have been taken, I really like how much control I have with the camera. I used movements in almost all images, most of them just slight amount, but the results are so satisfying. By the way, this is taken with the lens that you highly recommended—the 12-inch Gold Dot Dagor. It draws beautiful images with portraits, landscapes...anything I throw at it. Thank you."

Mike replies: That's beautiful Richard.

Mark B: "Holy crap that's a pretty camera!"

How to Choose a 4x5 Flat-Bed Field View Camera

One point I wanted to make about the 4x5 flat-bed field view cameras: It doesn't matter which one you choose.

Pick whatever appeals to you. Just because I like Wistas and gas on about them doesn't mean Wistas are "better" or that they're necessarily the ones to have. 

You don't get a lot of advantage by optimizing here. People researching fret over movements, but really, in the field, about all you ever need is some front rise and either a little forward tilt of the front standard or backward tilt of the back standard. If the latter, it's a little more convenient if the back hinges from the bottom rather than pivots in the middle, but you're good either way. You're seldom going to use much more than that unless you're a fan of movements and like to go out into the world and look for reasons to twist up your camera.

You also seldom need more than 12 inches of bellows draw. Again, unless you have special and specific purposes in mind. I did copy photography of paintings with my old Wista and a 210mm plasmat, fer cripes sake. With lenses of normal focal length on a 4x5 (the standard lens is 150mm), 12 inches is enough for almost any purpose. Can you do absolutely anything with it? No, but if you're trying to outfit yourself to cope with any possible photographic eventuality, choosing a view camera in the first place is putting on a hair shirt.

Same goes for lenses. People worry about coverage but most lenses for any particular format do fine in most situations. Longer lenses tend to cover more, lenses cover better when stopped down, and lenses cover better when focused closer. Even if you have a lens with iffy coverage by the specs, you'll probably only rarely run into any problems. Aficionados might go on and on about late-model 75° apochromats, and they are wonderful, but heck, the Rodenstock Geronar, a budget 62° lens with only three elements that used to be bundled with inexpensive monorails (here's a sample), is essentially a modern reproduction of Dennis Taylor's legendary Cooke Triplet, a lens that took some of the greatest and most famous pictures in the history of photography, never mind being the basis for millions of binocular and slide projector lenses. It was good enough for Ansel. Photographers today ought to be able to limp along with one.

People worry greatly about lightness in cameras meant for the field, and that's a legitimate concern if you're going to carry your camera in a backpack, but, again, it's overblown as a problem for most people. Being a photographer means having to schlepp. Most of the rest of the "stuff" you have to carry to shoot large format is going to overwhelm a pound or two of difference in the camera body. Put your money into a carbon fiber tripod and you'll be doing your back a bigger favor than you will by chasing the lightest 4x5. Even many of those who do landscapes base themselves out of the backs of their cars. My teacher Frank DiPerna used to say that he'd lug his 8x10 only a short distance from his car. When I asked him what he did if he saw a picture beyond that, he smiled and said, "There are no pictures more than a hundred steps from my trunk." [CORRECTION from Scott Kirkpatrick: "That is an old Weston family quote. Nancy Newhall credits it to Brett. I think Edward opines it in the Ben Maddow volume. Doesn't make it any less true." I guess Frank was quoting when he said that! Thanks for the clarification Scott. —MJ]

Wisner Technical Field. To use one, wear a deerstalker, smoke a meerschaum pipe, and call everyone "old chap."

Chamonix 45F-2. To use one of these, begin every sentence with "so" and have a sleeve, if not two.

All I'm saying here is that if you ever plan to get a 4x5 field camera, you don't need to worry any more than you want to about "shopping concerns." There's no secret-society insider knowledge in my choice of a Wista. Get whatever appeals to you for whatever reason, whether it's a Nagaoka, a Zone VI, a Tachihara, or a Canham with a reducing back; a new plywood Intrepid or Shen-Hao, or an ancient restored Baby Deardorff; an expensive Ebony or a cheap Horseman Woodie; a gaudy neo-Edwardian Wisner or a sleek ultramodern Chamonix. No matter what you end up with, you're going to wish some little thing on it were different (human nature!) and you'll grow to feel affection for it in proportion to how much you use it. If you like it, if it appeals to you, you're good.

And if you find you're not using it, then set it up in the corner of the living room as a conversation piece! Like a racehorse put out to pasture. They're pretty things, and exotic to normal citizens. Instead of actually using it, you can explain to your friends how to use it, and let them get under the dark cloth and look at the image on the ground glass. It's all good.

Mike

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.

Please help lest TOP get put out to pasture!

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

Vijay: "Agree with so much of what you've said here about shopping. I probably have about a 100 sheets worth of experience with large format since 2003, and I love returning to it every once in a while. But one of my most enjoyable experiences with large format has to do with the 'conversation piece' element of it. My son's third grade teacher invited parents to come in to class (a few years ago) and give a brief talk about their career or hobbies. I took the LF kit in, gave a brief talk and let the kids take a peek under the ground glass for an upside-down view of their playground. Watching their reactions was priceless!"

Mike replies: It was also always a highlight of the high school photo classes I taught. The kids really enjoyed that day. The experience of looking through a view camera gets at something essential about photography: you're seeing what the lens sees, and it was the attempt to seize and fix that image that was the main impulse for photography's invention in the early 1800s. As complicated as people think view cameras are, they're really the most simple and elemental of cameras. You don't have to use one for taking pictures to be enriched by an encounter with one.

Rick in CO: "For my backpacking alternative, I wrote an article in Shutterbug a few years ago. I settled on the Super Graphic with a 135mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar and a 210mm ƒ/6.3 Zeiss Tessar."

Walter Glover (partial comment): "The entire history of lens design is available to you. Choose from coated, uncoated, Petzvals, Ektars, Imagons and more. Work out who you are, what you want to say about what you see. Make a highly personalised decision that is your look, and own it."

Jack Baty: "I've long considered an upgrade to my beat-up-and-leaky Crown Graphic, but could never decide which camera I should get. When I saw your post I thought, 'If it's good enough for Mike, then...' and 20 minutes later I had a Wista 45DX in Cherry and 150mm Sironar-N on the way from KEH. FWIW, That's how I chose a 4x5.  :-)  "

Mike replies: So you're the guy!! I noticed that that one had disappeared from the KEH website as well.

Now I feel like I'm on the hook, so I really hope you like it. We'll have to compare notes.

Mike Plews: "The Wisner and Chamonix are just stunning; they are beautiful objects. Thanks for the pictures. Photographers curious about 4x5 but are on a budget may want to look into a clean Crown or Speed Graphic. They have limited but useful movements and the added benefit of coupled rangefinder. I believe Wright Morris did his best work with a Graphic with a normal and a 90mm Angulon. A Super Speed Graphic might be even better (poor man's Linhof). If you do go this route you will also need a fedora with a press pass stuck in the band and a cheap cigar to chomp on."

MikeR: "How long ago was the Kickstarter Wanderlust Travelwide 4x5 campaign? I eventually got my camera, mounted a recommended lens on it (from KEH), added some accessories (like an add-on rangefinder), and...nuthin'. It's in a drawer, never having had a single sheet of film exposed. In order to use it, I would now need to send the lens out for CLA, since the shutter has glued itself into extreme slothfulness. So, if after a bit you kind of just let the project sort of sit, and maybe silently disappear into a hidey-hole somewhere, well, you'll have company...as will I."

Mike replies: Yeah, I've done that, with many cameras. Some I get along with, some I just wish I did!

How Is This Time Different?

Yesterday, jp41 wrote:

"Mike, I am not making this up. When I executed a Google search today for TOP, there was a random TOP image that caught my eye mid-screen. When I followed it back I came upon this webpage. There, I found your new resolution posted: '...my New Year's resolution this year: 50 sheets of WP film in '11.' I was seriously considering emailing you about this and then I encountered your latest posting and learn you've already gotten yourself another new view camera. Nice coincidence! I'm looking forward to some view camera related stories coming from this."

So that was 2011...I would have had to look it up. That was the earlier outbreak of "largeformatitis" I was thinking about yesterday. 

How things have changed in nine years! The Single Use Device was a nice idea (if you don't want to follow the link, it was a Chamonix Whole-Plate view camera I bought for myself back then with big plans and high hopes, but never did much with). It was also one of the earliest occasions when I was earning enough to buy myself a nice camera as an indulgence. The Chamonix was an amazing camera, honestly one of the most beautiful photographic devices I've ever even seen, much less owned. Those Chamonix cameras, built on Dick Phillips' design principles with his blessing and crafted to a fare-thee-well, are incredible. If I were buying one now I'd get one of those red-bellows'd 45N-1's. They're simpler than the current 45N-2, but where view cameras are concerned, I like simple better.

I do have a whole-plate camera, and it's a lovely one for sure—but it's an antique that I use for "display only" in my living room. Built in 1903 not too far from here by Rochester Optical Co., it's the first thing guests see when they come in my front door. (Or that they would see, if I had any guests during COVID.)

The Single Use Device was a bailure (fail 'n' bail), I'll admit. Honestly, I had neither the extra time nor the extra energy to be a large format photographer in 2011 and the years immediately following. Those were heady days in our little corner of the Universe: 2011 was still on the uphill side of the peak of the digital camera market (2012); the peak for TOP (2013); and surely near the peak for written blogs on the Internet (exact year unknown, but they're kinda old hat now). I was probably working 10 hours a day and for the most part seven days a week in 2011. There was one year in there somewhere when I took no more than about 14 days off the entire year—meaning I didn't take weekends off. Although I think that was earlier than 2011. I was testing a lot of digital cameras in 2011, keeping up with all the news. I didn't have enough time or energy left over to go traipsing around the neighborhood schlepping a tripod and a view camera.

Plus, I fell in love in 2014 and moved house not once but twice, in '14 and again in '15. Still miss her, if I'm honest.

But that was then and this is now. Now, my audience is about one-third what it was then, I spend about half as much time working, taking Saturdays off plus a few days here and there throughout the year. I earn less. (TOP and me are currently kept going by direct donations, and thank you for that! Y'all know who you are.)

It seems a more promising time for an attempt to return to film and large format now. I have more time. I'm actually looking for something to occupy and distract me, having been (mostly) isolating for the past seven months.

I still don't have a darkroom (I actually don't have a single room in my house that can be darkened, not even a closet), and that's a problem, but I'm thinking about ways to make negatives and at least get the results up on the blog so you can see what I'm doing. I might have to be creative. 

And at this point, I need a kick in the keester...a "way to reinvigorate, re-commit, and recharge," as I put it in Sunday's post. 2020 seems like a better time in my life to go tilting at windmills than 2011.

But as ever, "we'll see."  :-) 

Mike

P.S. Wouldn't it be cool if my only two cameras were a 4x5 for B&W film and an iPhone? That tickles me for some reason. Though probably only because it's contrarian, impractical, and, yes, quixotic....  :-)

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.

You can help support The Online Photographer with Patreon

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

Richard Parkin: "Re 'Wouldn't it be cool if my only two cameras were a 4x5 for B&W film and an iPhone?' Damn! I repeatedly resisted commenting yesterday that you should sell all your other cameras (except maybe one for 'scanning') and use just the 4x5 and iPhone (maybe upgrade the iPhone) as they seem to me to be a natural fit. You have the iPhone all the time and can use it for noting photos to take with the 4x5 and so on. I think there are relevant apps too, and the iPhone is a view camera in a way.  ;-)  "

robert e: "Re 'Wouldn't it be cool if my only two cameras were a 4x5 for B&W film and an iPhone?' Or if they were one? 

Viewfinder Preview

Mark II Artist's Viewfinder

"I think Michael Reichmann once reviewed a similar app where the iPhone was mounted to the view camera to act as a real-time viewfinder (and perhaps exposure meter, too?)."

Mike replies: Wow, thanks for that. I love Viewfinder Preview. Carl Weese predicted this more than 20 years ago: he wrote an article for Photo Techniques in which he detailed using a small digital camera to scout locations and tripod positions for his large- and ultra-large-format work. VP takes it several steps further.

Struggle, It's Good for You

So look what I got:

I decided to try to take my own advice of last Sunday. (No, I had not been thinking of this when I wrote that...this was a late-night impulse purchase. I was tired and my defenses were down.)

As ambition, this would be cray-zeee. I haven't even set up a darkroom, but all the darkroom equipment I own is predicated on negatives up to 6x7 cm. Plus, I've admitted many times that I'm not very good at large format photography. Or at least I wasn't, back when Rain Man came out and George H.W. Bush was president.

But I'm actually going to try to use this beastie a little.

Know why? To challenge myself.

Because it's good to struggle.

So I've heard, anyway. They say if you want to keep your mind limber as you age, you need stretching exercises for it. That is, it's good to try to learn a foreign language, even if you never achieve fluency. It's good to try to learn to play an instrument, even if you're not musical. It's good to try to learn logic or Latin or square dancing. Something new to you, something that will be a challenge for your brain and/or body.

It doesn't actually matter if you master it, or even if you can master it. The point is that the struggle is good for you. It gets you out of your rut. Forges new pathways in the old, worn synapses.

If it's also humbling, such that it makes you more grateful for the skills you do possess, there's probably not much bad about that.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
This might well be another outbreak of chronic Largeformatitis, which recurs from time to time, like, I don't know, a skin rash. If so, so be it.

At least I didn't have to shop. There are all sorts of beautiful 4x5s you can buy if you want one, but I bonded with a Wista in 1987 and it still forms the main part of my experience with large format. There might be many good 4x5s—there are, I mean—but this one's "mine."

People who are good at large format work hard over long periods of time to get fluent and acquire their technique. They earn their chops. It's something that requires mastery. It's not like I'm going to come along as, effectively, a newbie, and accomplish anything noteworthy. For me, this is like learning to play chess, or to sing, or swim. (I can't swim.) To struggle against it, that's the point.

(Although look at this guy's first 4x5 photo. I think that's a hell of a first try. I like circle-in-center compositions. I don't know, but I'd say he should stick with 4x5.)

Of course, maybe this Wista will just sit on the shelf and I'll admire it. Look on the bright side: if that happens, then you get to tease me about it.

In other words, maybe I'm just shopping again. It happens. At least I didn't buy a motorcycle.

I need help!
Now for a topic that could eat up some bandwidth: which lens?

I don't want a super-sharp, analytical, clinical, hypercorrected ultramodern computer-corrected lens. I want something that doesn't necessarily call attention to itself but that has some character. And beautemous bokeh. Doesn't have to be "sharp." Just pretty.

Anybody out there got any thoughts or opinions about that? Or about LF lenses in general?

You know me and lenses. Some things never change.

Mike

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

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

Kenneth Wajda: "A woman in my town was having a yard sale with camera gear and she had a Wista DX and Schneider 150mm G-Claron ƒ/9 lens which is surprisingly easy to focus, and it can stay on the camera when the camera is closed. I love it.

"I ended up shooting a series of photos on Bergger Panchro 400 with it this summer—I went out with just two film holders and had the goal of bringing back four exposed sheets of film (that's how many fit in an SP445 film tank) and these are the results. (A few were with another lens but most were with that 150mm).

"As it goes with goals, when you need four photographs, you find four photographs.

"I also have a 203mm ƒ/7.7 Kodak Ektar that will fit on the camera when closed, but haven't used it yet."

Mike replies: I really enjoyed looking at those Kenneth. You have a knack. A knack for getting people to co-operate, too, looks like.

Josh Hawkins: "Re 'Of course, maybe this Wista will just sit on the shelf and I'll admire it. Look on the bright side: if that happens, then you get to tease me about it.' I for one would never do that. Nope. Never.

"(I’m completely on board with trying new, uncomfortable things. They say musical tastes solidify in people by their early twenties or earlier and if that doesn’t make someone want to listen to new music I don’t know what will.)"

Mike replies: Josh was the manager of Oak Park Camera when I lived in Oak Park. This comment seems to imply that he might tease me about buying cameras, and I have no idea why he would suggest such a thing, do you?

Daniel: "Why not keep it simple? One lens—only one. Learn to use it and view the world in 4x5 through it. Tray develop in the dark and contact print. 4x5s are jewels in a contact print. Bill Ratcliffe, Orem, Utah, photographed for decades with one 4x5 and one 10-inch Kodak Commercial Ektar lens, and did well with Audubon magazine covers, books and magazines."

Nikhil Ramkarran: "You are out of control (he says as he contemplates which of his tripods can hold his near unused Toyo 4x5 or whether he needs a new tripod 😋). You’re a bad influence Mr. Online Photographer!"

Shootout! Of the eBay Specials

eBay specials, clockwise from front right: Pentax Spotmatic SL with dented prism and Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm ƒ/1.4 M42 screwmount lens; Minolta XG-M with 45mm ƒ/2 lens; Olympus OM-2N with Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 (the lens was the gift of a kind reader); Contax RTS II with Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 60mm C (the camera was the gift of a kind reader); late-model Pentax LX with Pentax-K 50mm ƒ/1.4 and wooden grip; and Nikon FE with AI-S Nikkor 85mm ƒ/2.

Over the coming Winter I plan to write a bit from time to time about these "eBay specials," for absolutely no good reason except for fun. I'll compare various "haptic"* or ergonomic aspects of holding, handling, and using them. All of these cameras or various close cousins of theirs are available on eBay or other used camera sites if you go looking for them.

Mike

*Haptic: "relating to the sense of touch, in particular relating to the perception and manipulation of objects using the senses of touch and proprioception**."

**Proprioception: "perception or awareness of the position and movement of the body."

(That's the first time in a while I've looked up a word and then had to go look up another word from the definition of the first one.)

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.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Luke: "Is there a word for following a trail of words through the dictionary?"

Mike replies: How about "Rathole, n., Pointless waste of money, time, or resources"....

I've been doing that all my life. In fact I used to read the Encylopedia Britannica that way (14th edition, to 1973—I was one of those who was not a fan of Mortimer Adler's split 15th edition). I'd go from one article to another letting each one suggest the next thing to look into. I could read for hours that way.

Crabby Umbo: "The Nikon, screwmount Pentax, and Contax are cameras I've known, owned and loved! Still have a screwmount Pentax (fixed up by Eric Hendrickson, thanks Eric!) that I use today. Something about those Pentax Spotmatics that fit in the hand so perfectly, and the lenses are just something. Loved the Carl Zeiss lenses, the Nikon robustness, but something about the Pentax Spotty....

"Might I suggest a Canon FTb or TLb as well? Had a few FTb rebuilt one time back in the '90s—sorry I sold them—and for some reason, love the breech-mount lenses better than the later, more plasticy FD (non-breech-mount) series. Fair warning, though, the breech-lock lenses seem to get their fit and feel from grease on the focus threads; if they're old and dried out, they spin pretty loosely."

Mike replies: That was known as "packing" and it was an integral part of the helical design. One of the kindest things you can have done to an old manual-focus lens is to have it re-packed by an expert repairman. Not terribly expensive, and it gives them new life. I used to like finding lenses in otherwise excellent condition that were dried out, talk the seller down because of the loose, dry focus action, then pay ~$65 to have the lens repacked, resulting in a fine, smoothly-working lens that focused like butter. Old Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses were prone to the problem and responded beautifully to the treatment.

I agree with you about Spotmatics. If I could suggest one manual-focus film camera that should be revived today in deluxe, modernized form, it would be a Pentax based on a Spotmatic. Cf. the Nikon S3 2000, a gorgeous modern copy of the 1958 S3. My Spottie would be a "resto-mod," though, as they're called in the car world, with a 100% finder and centerweighted AE metering. Alas, it would cost three or four thousand dollars and I would never be able to bring myself to buy one.

Juan Buhler: "Just a week or so ago I bought a black Pentax ME Super on eBay for $25. It was a bit of a gamble because the condition was unknown, but the camera works fine and looks great! The ME Super was my first 35mm camera back in 1992 or so, so this was mostly a sentimental purchase. I did shoot a roll of Fuji color film with it though. It’s hard to remember to wind the camera after each shot.... I also still have my two black MXs, and every now and then I run an old roll of black-and-white expired film and develop it in caffenol, just because it’s fun. I look forward to those posts!"

Dan Khong: "Mike, Thanks for letting me choose a present for this Christmas. I want the Olympus. It's the smallest camera made during the days when others were huge, clunky and qualify to be more like paper weights. And the 40mm focal length—neither too long like the 50–55mm nor too wide like the 35mm—is just right for my style of street photography. Please bubble wrap and courier by either DHL or FedEx. Merci beaucoup!"

Books About Camera Collecting

Three thousand cameras
I got more tips and pointers to this recent article on the BBC than almost anything else in recent memory, about a man named Neville "Jim" Matthew who loved to travel and who picked up cameras wherever he went—lots of regular readers thought I'd be interested in it and should feature it. When Jim died recently he left his collection of 3,000 cameras behind, in the former Salvation Army Hall he bought to house them.

Jim Matthew

Those readers were right; I enjoyed that. Had to smile at this bit:

"'He really enjoyed talking to people about it when they came into the hall,' says his widow Dorothy. 'I had to come down and rescue them sometimes because he did not know when to stop. He was a very good speaker. He didn't have a small talk but if it was something he was interested in he could talk for a long time.'"

Not quite coincidentally, do you know the difference between a collector and a hoarder? The collector is organized. If you have a lot of stuff and it's junked all over everywhere (why is my collar suddenly hot?), you're a hoarder; if it's all neat and organized, you're a collector. There's more to it than that, but that's the baseline of the distinction.

Three books
Apropos of Jim Matthew and his 3,000 cameras, here are three books about camera collecting that are highly enjoyable even if (or perhaps particularly if)  you have no aspirations to be a collector yourself:

Collecting and Using Classic Cameras by Ivor Matanle. This might as well be considered one of those delightful travel books with the writer as genial tourguide; Ivor's friendly character comes out on every page, and his delight in old cameras and the people and places he photographs with them is very evident. The cameras are interesting too. I consider this kin to one of my favorite books from childhood, Ralph Stein's The Great Cars, which is half grand tour and half memoir and similarly charming.

Jason Schneider on Camera Collecting: A Fully Illustrated Handbook of Articles Originally Published in Modern Photography. Jason Schneider is the Dean of American camera collecting, and he's a fine writer too, which makes his passion come alive. He understands these old devices like few others, and has the knowledge to put them in a holistic perspective. If you like this book, you might have to "collect" volumes two and three as well.

Our friend Todd Gustavson's Camera: A History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital. Todd, as longtime readers of TOP already know from our 2016 article "A Visit to the Treasure Vaults," is curator of the George Eastman Museum's vast camera collection. Not only is this book far more comprehensive and thorough than most books about cameras, but Todd's "portraits" of the cameras are excellent (in 2016 and perhaps still, he was using a Nikon Dƒ and a manual-focus Micro-Nikkor 55mm to document the collection).

Leicas line the walls
I had an early encounter with camera collecting. When I was young, there was an elderly gentleman who had a camera store on a major thoroughfare in Washington, D.C. I coveted a Leica at the time, and he sold them, so I went to investigate. I found a shop that was stuffed to the gills with endless rows of old Leicas of every sort; perfect. When I presented myself, he sized me up and said slowly, "You would like to purchase a Leica camera." As much a statement as a question, it somehow managed to convey skepticism without being at all impolite. I took him to a bank of cameras near the front of the store and pointed to the M3 I wanted, which sat among rows of other M3's. "How much is that one?"

He looked at me about as if I had offered to cut off his pinkie finger with a dull knife.

"That is not for sale," he said curtly. "These Leicas you see around you are for display only."

Since then I've encountered several other proprietors who preside over what are purported to be "shops" but are actually collections. You can't talk them out of much. There might be a few things for sale—the then-current Leica catalog, in that gentleman's case I regret that his name, which I retained for years, has sifted out of the memory bank. But they are really collectors, and would no more sell a piece of their collection than they would sell you a tooth!

[UPDATE: It was Heller's Camera in Bethesda, Maryland. Andrew Heller, who was Hungarian, died in 2004, and you really should read his obituary—pretty sensational. I had no idea. He was a photographer of important world events too.]

Have you ever seen the A+E show "American Pickers"? They occasionally come across a junkyard owner who won't actually sell them anything. I've also known at least two people—one a book guy, one a camera guy—who owned shops because it facilitated their collecting—they would cherry-pick the best of the items that flowed through their shops for their own collections. (I never got to see either collection, more's the pity, although there's still time.)

I did eventually own an M3 for a while, though. Jason Schneider can tell you all about the M3, and do a much better job than I can.

Mike
(Thanks to a number of tipsters)

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.

Please help support TOP

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

Paul Judice: "I worked for a Leica collector/dealer in the early eighties. He sold new Leicas to doctors (we were near the Houston Medical Center) and displayed rarities for admirers to view. The downside to this was that the 'museum patrons' ate up so much time with questions about items we weren't even selling."

John Shriver: "Heller's Camera in Bethesda, Maryland had a wonderful collection of Japanese Leica clones in the 1970s. They were in the Air Rights Building on Wisconsin Avenue. Never bought a Leica there, but bought film, and dropped off film for processing by Colorfax. Run by a fine European gentleman."

Mike replies: That was it! Thanks. Found out more about Andrew Heller now that you mentioned the name, and added it to the post.

Funny, as I was writing this post, my brain suggested "Andrew Heller" but I thought, no, that can't be it, because I had a high school classmate named Andy Heller. I assumed I was remembering the wrong name.

Jim Simmons: "Michael's Camera in Melbourne, Australia has the best camera collection I've ever seen. Every age, every format, almost every variation of Leica made."

Albert Smith: "I own the Ivor Matanle book. I was really into classic cameras and after thumbing through this book in a bookstore (remember those?), I bought it within two minutes. I own several of the cameras within, but what really got me was his narrative descriptions of the quality of the older optics. This was often simply accepting the flaws of pre-computer designed lenses and embracing '...pleasing roundness and slight softness of the image' or 'the curious characteristic of defined yet slightly unsharp detail.' I enjoyed this book decades ago and your post here made me pull it off of the shelf again."

Tom Burke: "Ivor Matanle! I used to have that very book. I think I donated it somewhere when I realised that I was never going to actually collect, let alone use, any of the cameras he mentioned in it. He also used to write an occasional guest column in Amateur Photographer, especially during Garry Coward-Williams' editorship. I kept a couple of issues celebrating 'Leica: 50 years of Leica M' (2004) and '80 Years of Leica' (2005), and Ivor had a lengthy article in each. (And from ferreting around about AP I have just learned that Roger Hicks died last year. Today is not a good day....)"

David Brown: "I was told (years ago) that I had crossed over from photographer to 'collector' when I bought a six-foot-high cabinet to keeps the cameras in. Alas, it's no longer large enough."

Jeff (partial comment): "Mr. Heller sold me my first Leica in the '80s. He also convinced me to buy Summicrons, particularly a 35mm to start. I asked him about a Summilux, and he interrupted with his thick Hungarian accent, forcefully saying 'Summicron.' I started to say that I read about this or that, and he again cut me off, 'Summicron.' This continued for another 10 minutes or so. I bought an M6 and a 35mm Summicron.

"I visited many times over the years, and when he and his wife were too old to keep up the shop, I was one of the people he approached to determine if I had any interest in buying. That likely would have been a disaster for anyone, given what was to quickly change in the industry.

"I still often think of him as I handle my M10, M Monochrom, and SL2 (with some old and new Summicrons!). I wonder what he’d make of all this digital Leica stuff. Probably not much; he was an old school guy, happy to share his well earned wisdom. And he loved Rollei, too."

Bob Curtis: "His book is available at Amazon, under his more Hungarian name, Andor Heller."

Joe Kashi's Wedding Present from his Wife (a Nagaoka)

Words and pictures by Joe Kashi

Joe Kashi's wedding present from his wife

Joe Kashi: Here's the back story about my Nagaoka 4x5. It was my first large format camera, a 1976 wedding present. I still own and use it.

While at MIT in the early 1970s, I had some photography coursework with Minor White and first became acquainted with large format photography in the process. But, I could only afford a screw-mount Pentax Spotmatic and a few lenses, which I also retain.

After MIT, I moved to DC in 1973 to attend law school. While in DC, I married a woman who was an accomplished artist, a painter in oils. (By the bye, she studied at the Corcoran through high school.) We often backpacked in West Virginia's Spruce Knob/Dolly Sods wilderness, and getting a super-light and compact large format camera seemed a natural.

Just before we married in 1976, we saw an ad for a new Nagaoka, then being imported by Graphic Imports of Honolulu. We surmised that any craftsman still building wooden cameras in 1976 was elderly and likely not long for this world—that was 44 years ago! So, we promptly ordered one as my wedding present from her. My camera is engraved as serial number 517. I recall that it cost about $600 new, a non-trivial sum for a law student in 1976. [Inflation Calculator: $2,741 today —Ed.]

The only lens that I could afford back then was an older 120mm Goerz Dagor, which turned out to be a sharp, handy lens that worked well with 4x5 color film, even though it was not coated.

Some of my nicest early images were made with that 120mm Dagor, so of course I sold the lens, the only time I've ever sold any photography gear. I regret doing so to this day and could never find another Dagor in that focal length. Currently, the camera sports a 145mm Zeiss Double Protar VIIa triple convertible lens.

Fast forward to 2020, when I have been living in semi-rural Alaska for decades. Now, my preferred non-digital format is 5x7 B&W. When I saw the article about Mr. Nagaoka not only alive but still at work, I hazarded an inquiry about whether he might be willing to construct a 5x7 field camera comparable to my 4x5. Apparently, he's ill at the moment but I'm willing to wait.

If Mr. Nagaoka is able and willing to make a 5x7 comparable to his compact 4x5, I promise to put it to good use. I've looked for a 5x7 Nagaoka on eBay for years without success although some were reputedly made in years past.

Although I have other 5x7 cameras now, I have zero doubt that a new Nagaoka 5x7 would be the epitome of a super-light-weight but practical 5x7 field camera. (Outdoor photographers can be a bit weird about an extra pound or two. It's probably no surprise that my digital preference is Micro 4/3.)

I've weighed the Nagaoka against other ultra-light-weight 4x5 cameras like my Toho FC-45X and Calumet-Gowland. The Nagaoka is noticeably lighter than even these, and easier to use.

By the way, it folds intuitively and easily. I've never had a problem with the bellows.

Out of curiosity Friday evening, I looked for other Nagaoka cameras on eBay and found several. One 4x5 claimed a serial number identical to mine, 517. After a double-take, I double-checked. Mine's definitely #517.

That eBay camera is advertised as "mint" but looks as though it's been used to pound large nails. It seems such a shame to do that to a camera that was jewel-like when left Mr. Nagaoka's small shop!

Joe Kashi

UPDATE Monday Sept. 21 from Joe Kashi: "Hi, all: A few replies consolidated as one comment:

1. Between 2006 and 2018, I went fully digital, mostly Micro 4/3 but also with a full-frame kit that's heavier than the 4x5 outfit. I began adding large format film back into the operational mix two years ago because I felt that I was becoming stale using a digital-only approach. The slower, more thought-out large format film approach is, for me, a good complement to digital-only. I occasionally take my Olympus Pen-F along to meter and use its B&W mode to help frame and visualize large format images faster. Melding classic and modern tools makes sense.
2. Unfortunately, I don't have a large format photo gallery online. While I've had a fair number of solo exhibits and juried show acceptances, there's no online gallery. I'm still a firm member of the mounted large print school.
3. The closest optics that I've found to that classic 120mm Dagor are a late-model Schneider 120mm Angulon, itself a more recent 'reverse Dagor' design, and a multicoated 125mm ƒ/5.6 Fujinon NWS. They’re both sharper, almost as light, and less expensive used than classic Dagor lenses. Redesigned late model US-made and Swiss-made Dagors using modern optical glass and still-repairable shutters are superlative but very expensive on the used market. Typical of most classic field cameras, the Nagaoka handles lenses from 75mm (21mm-e on full-frame) to 300mm (85mm-e) without fuss or hassle. Large format is largely extreme-wide-angle through short-telephoto photography."

Original contents copyright 2020 by Joe Kashi. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

Fred Haynes: "This is a pretty camera! Jewel-like is right. The metal fittings are shiny and new looking. Are these fittings and controls off the shelf? Or does Mr. Nagaoka custom manufacture those as well? As beautiful as it is, it’s not something I’d be interested in unless I was younger, lived in a more picturesque part of the country, and had a good working darkroom, and a few bucks in my pocket. The last is the most important! Oh, I like the pictures you took that support the writing. Very nice!"

William Schneider: "In 1984, Petersen's Photographic magazine published a 'buyer's guide' comparing features and cost of various studio 4x5 cameras and folding field cameras. In a fit of nostalgia from reading recent posts, I scanned the summary chart and placed it online. This list, while chock full of view camera choices, omits some field cameras like Tachihara and Ikeda. It was indeed the golden age for view camera photography."

Philip Ramsden: "My introduction to 4x5 was while working for Leica in the 1980s. We had the Linhof agency. So my wife found a Linhof 'press type' camera, no movements and a 127mm lens. It served me well until I started teaching Scientific Photography at one of our colleges. We taught students to use movements on our 4x5 studio cameras. My next move was to an Ebony because Linhofs are heavy. Ha ha! Ebony is one of the heaviest timbers around and my camera is probably as heavy as the Linhof. But the results are superb. I only shoot B&W and process at home. If the shots are good enough I have a 4x5 enlarger so can make an 8x10. Bliss. I still shoot 35mm B&W and digital with Fuji cameras but that is for colour. Thanks for all the photos of the Nagaoka."

Luke: "I took my 4x5 Crown Graphic to the baseball stadium back when the Braves were big losers and the place was only one-third full. I set it up across the field from the spectators to shoot back at the action. A security guy soon showed up, saying 'No video!' After he got a closer look, he said: 'Oh! That's the kind of camera they used to take your picture sitting on a pony when you were a kid!' My antique 'pony' camera captured a view of about half the stadium. With a loupe on the original chrome, I can easily see my wife and her dad in the crowd, and see his wristwatch."