The Online Photographer

Yeah, I know, "LEItz CAmera." But that's not what I mean.

I admit to a certain bigotry about Leica. It's photography's only marque for the carriage trade, the "lifestyle" (i.e., status) brand of camera. The Veblen Good...i.e., the more expensive, the better.

And I'm a Democrat. I believe in—or at least approve of—egalitarianism, voting rights, community, education, equal rights for all citizens, a strong middle class, strong government regulation of business, federalism, and so on. The more wealth inequality there is, the more markets tend to bifurcate into products for the rich and products for the rest.

You'd think I'd love Leica. It's a classic marque with a great deal of history and lore, and I appreciate that kind of thing. And the company does everything right. (Probably because it's owned by an enthusiast with a strong vision.) It has a large sensor camera with the world's best lenses. A FF mirrorless. Legacy film cameras. A B&W-only camera. Plus—and this is a big one—it's the only company in the world with the boldness and the self-confidence to make its products simple. This is often overlooked, but it's the Apple of cameramakers as well as the Ferrari*.

 New Leica TL2 with 35mm (~50mm-e) lens

Given my values, you'd think the just announced TL2 is perfect. Small and totable, extremely elegant, relatively simple, with a big sensor (APS-C) and lots of megapixels (24), and the perfect Leica lens (a 23mm ƒ/2, 35mm-e).

Since I already admitted today that I could be accused of snarkiness, I will also say that I really love the fact that it's a copy of the Japanese NEX-7. If you know a lot about Leica history, you know that early Japanese cameramakers copied German cameras, basically Leica screwmount rangefinder models—Tanack, and Leotax, and everyone's favorite, Nicca. There were even Canon and Minolta Leica copies. So to have a Leica that's a copy of a Sony is, historically, to go full circle—something I find wonderful and marvelous.

Anyway, I like Leicas. I shot an M6 from 1990 to 1993, and an M4 for a year in the later '90s. I think I'll try harder in the future to discuss Leicas merely as cameras, and less as a loaded idea.

Mike

*Did you know that Jay Leno doesn't own a Ferrari, despite having 169 cars in his collection?

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Leicus.
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Lynn: "Two points. If a Leica suits your style of shooting, it's not as expensive as you think—model upgrades/iterations aren't as frequent as most other brands. Film Leicas in particular seem to hold their value well. And they keep on working, with an occasional service. Secondly, there's the secondhand market which lowers the cost of entry.

"I might also mention that Barnack Leicas are wonderful precision tools that can be had for less than half the price of an iPhone and have a wonderful range of lenses, from cheap Russian Zeiss copies to modern Cosina-Voigtlander (and Leica) designs."

Mike replies: For hobbyist fun maybe, but in all my years in photography I've met exactly one guy who shot seriously with a Barnack Leica—it was in the 1990s, and it was the only camera he had owned since the '40s. I tried it for a while...trimming my film leaders with nail scissors before leaving the house, etc. Man, no thanks. A view camera is easier to use!

Douglas Chadwick: "Leica has certainly changed and I think it's just under the current ownership. I've owned Leica M cameras since the mid 1970s and back then they were just a little more expensive than Nikons. Things changed, slowly at first and then, since 2000 or so, they changed rapidly. It's an interesting comment on the current economy—the 1% has done extremely well over the last 30 years, and the new Leica company has done well in the new market.

"My newest Leica camera is an early M6, a great camera that seemed a little expensive at the time. My newest lens a 35mm Summicron ASPH. That also seemed expensive even before the price tripled. Tripled? Yes. But they have not made a camera that even mildly tempts me in the digital age. An interchangeable lens version of the Q I would probably buy. I have the money and I am a pro so I can write it off. But they have not even come close. Even though I have pretty much every lens and have owned more M bodies than I can count. But they are profitable, and I find that a good thing, even if they don't make anything I want. Maybe they will come up with something and they cannot do that if they go under."

Mike replies: Leica certainly makes a camera I would want—the S. That's the one where over-the-top lens quality really shines through.

Stefan: "Maybe it's more democratic to buy a Leica than a 'Japanese' Vietnam-made affordable camera—from the egalitarian point of view. Given that the Leica is so expensive because of the first-world wages in Germany, a Leica costs what it costs to produce it under the conditions you, Mike, live in. So the buyer of a cheaper camera made in low-wage countries is like a rich man making profit from underpaid villains in the middle ages."

Mike replies: I don't know about that. From what I hear many of Leica's employees in Germany are low-paid immigrants. And as far as I know my camera was made at Fujifilm's Taiwa factory near Sendai City in Japan, where the standard of living is quite high. And anyway, bringing skilled industry jobs to underdeveloped areas is usually considered a boon to those economies and populations, no?

Tommy: "The best thing about Leicas as far as I'm concerned is that they are a wonderful subject to talk about. Just look at the number of comments here, all of which I've enjoyed reading."

David Dyer-Bennet (partial comment): "...The higher levels of Veblen good aren't really to impress the hoi polloi, they're to impress lesser cognoscenti."

Section I
You're going to have to forgive me in advance. This post is self-indulgent, and might even qualify as "whining"—a word (like "silly") that I almost never allow commenters to apply to each other.

But I don't mind applying it to myself. Y'know...if the shoe fits.

My very perceptive and wise youngest brother (he's a Ph.D. psychologist and a gifted couples counselor, and he's in the right business) once said that I was great at giving other people purchase advice but terrible at knowing what to do for myself. And sure enough: I find myself not very happy with my cameras right now. Of all things.

I need IS, and I have IS—but only if I use a Fuji zoom I don't particularly care for. (It doesn't even have an aperture ring. And I might have lucked—bad-lucked—into a non-optimal sample.) So I got into Fuji for their lenses and I'm relegated to using one I don't like. Bah #1. Tried to switch back to Panasonic but got bitten when the body and lens I bought wouldn't play nice with each other. Figures the Dual IS wouldn't work, because I bought it for the Dual IS. Bah #2.

Section II: Long, meandering digression about cars; skip to Section III if car stuff is tl;dr for you
I have a non-ideal history with cars. (There's a point to this, so bear with me.) My parents bought my middle brother a little Mazda GLC when he graduated from college, but I didn't get a chance to graduate from college. Years later I graduated from Photo School, and my generous mother paid for half of a little Mazda for me—I paid for the other half. It was a 1987 323 DX sedan very similar to this one.

Like many people do who don't have adequate amounts of money, I failed to maintain it properly in the middle of its first hundred thousand miles, and was rewarded, as it neared the end of that period, by a series of serious repair bills that nearly broke me. But I kept that Mazda for eleven years. Still liked it when I had to say goodbye.

Once bitten, my next strategy was to avoid repair bills by leasing a car only for the duration of its warranty period. Sound concept. But right out of the gate I chose badly. Thanks to the legendary David E. Davis Jr., whom I had met, I picked a Dodge Neon Sport on account of it was Automobile magazine's "Car of the Year." How could David E., who was the editor who brought Car & Driver back from the dead and founded Automobile, steer me wrong?

The Rolling Stones. Photo by Philip Townsend via Paul Townsend.

Well, have you ever noticed how you hardly ever see a Neon on the roads any more? That's because very few of them are still running, despite a relatively recent lifespan from 1995 to 2005. They were dreadfully poorly built cars. (Mine was built in Illinois, which was a plus to me at the time because I lived there.) My Neon Sport was indeed quite sporty...for about eight months, when the engine commenced to lose compression and all the tolerances began to go out of whack. That car deteriorated faster than I had previously believed was possible. By the time it was two years old, it felt weak, creaky, and older than my Mazda had felt at age ten.

In fairness to David E., that's an Achilles heel of reviews—durability, repairability, and reliability. Reviewers are usually testing new equipment and giving their impressions. They don't get a feel for the products over the long term. This is true of most camera reviewers too. It's why Roger Cicala and LensRentals is such a priceless resource.

But back to the saga. You would think I would have sworn off American cars after the Neon misadventure, but I didn't. Next I bought a Ford ZX2. I was cash-strapped again at that point, so my plan of leasing a car and sticking with it for the duration of its warranty period flew out the window. I kept the ZX2 for nine years. Thankfully, mine was a wonderful car (some of them weren't, as I discovered from talking to other owners). It never gave me a moment's trouble, survived an accident that bent the frame with no issues past the repair, and was still running like a top when I foolishly sold it. Foolishly, because Xander was fourteen at the time and it would have made a great, and cheap, first car for him. But he ended up not getting his license until he was 18, so the Ford would have slumbered in the garage for a while.

Section III: less about cars, back to cameras
The point of all this is that sometimes you stick with things for a long time (Mazda 323 for 11 years, Ford ZX2 for nine) not because you necessarily want to, but because it's prudent. Well, let's not mince words...you do it because you can't afford to do otherwise. And I think that's where I am with cameras now. I like to switch cameras every three years too. But my current three-year-old Fuji X-T1 kit lacks only a short telephoto portrait lens to be complete, and I'm used to it, and it works fine. It just doesn't have IBIS. Bah #3, but oh well.

So what to do? Probably the best thing to do would be to wait for the X-T3, or the GX9. Wait to see what happens, in other words.

The camera I probably should buy if I bought one right now is a Sony A7II. It makes the most sense as a complement to the iPhone, and for landscapes around the Finger Lakes. The camera I probably would buy at this point is a Sony A6500. That camera has come down in price since its introduction, currently selling for a still-pricey $1,398. But what trips me up each time I think about it is that the three prime lenses I would want for it are the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, the Zeiss Touit 12mm, and the Zeiss FE 55mm ƒ/1.8 (a full-frame lens, but ideal as a short tele on the APS-C A6500). That's what used to be known as a basic kit of prime lenses—normal, wide, and portrait tele. And those three lenses together retail new for a whopping $3,095. That's $4,493 for the kit! Compact camera and three basic lenses. Shades of the Leica CL of my teenage years. Even with the offset of selling the Fuji stuff and a few other things I could dispense with, that's still a heck of a lot of money to get IBIS. And it's not like there's anything Zeiss can do with a lens that Fuji can't. Except maybe get away with charging more.

Okay, enough with the whining. (What was that old Rolling Stones song?)

Code E30 BMWs were made from 1982 to 1994. This is a 1990 318i. I really wanted an E30 back in the day, but oh well.

I still love boxy '80s sedans with low waistlines and big greenhouses. The cooler, better-built version of my 323 would have been a BMW E30 (second generation, not that I wouldn't have liked an E21) 3-Series. More than any other single person, it was David E. Davis who put what became the BMW 3-Series on the map, with his epochal review of the 2002, one of the most famous and influential car reviews in automotive history. But I had to just keep that in my head as the car I would have gotten back in the day...if I had been able to get what I wanted. Maybe that Sony A6500 and those three lenses will just have to live in the same place in my head, that's all.

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, well you just might find...that you already have what you need. Or all you're gonna get.

(Goes something like that.) 

So tell me I'm not alone here. Anything you've been jonesing for, but can't have? Doesn't have to be a camera or a car.

Mike

"Open Mike" is the anything-or-everything, open-topic Editorial page of The Online Photographer. It's supposed to appear on Wednesdays, but very seldom does.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

I can't get no satisfaction
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Charles Rozier: "I think that Stones song must have been 'You Can't Always Tell What You Want.'"

William: "The BMW 2002 is one of those rare cars that got everything right. Most of all it's fun to drive. The 1967 BMW 1602 invented the sport sedan concept that just about every other brand eventually copied. The switch to a 2 liter engine in 1968 inspired Davis' review. After reading 'Turn Your Hymnals to 2002' in college, I decided someday I would own a 2002. About 7 years later I bought a low milage 1973 2002. I was able to do all the routine maintenance myself (plugs, points,valve adjustment, oil, filters, etc). The car never needed major repairs. Back then BMWs were somewhat rare. When you passed one you exchanged a headlight flash.

"Some friends mocked the 2002's boxy styling. One by one I took them for fast rides along twisty rural roads. They quit mocking my 2002.

"I think of my first Fujifilm X100 the same way...a game changer. This was the first digital camera I enjoyed using. The X100 catalyzed the sale of my film photography gear. The X-Pro1 completed my transition from film to digital media. I only used film cameras (Zeiss Ikon M and Nikon F3) because I enjoyed using them. The two Fujifilm X-series cameras made them redundant. Shortly after buying a X-T1, I sold all my Nikon DSLR bodies and F mount lenses. Now the X-T1, a X100T and half a dozen XF lenses meet my needs."

Mark Kinsman: "To directly answer your question, I'm jonesing for the GFX with lenses, but it will never happen. My resolve is to spend more time with what I do have, the X-Pro2 and XT-2 and some excellent Fuji glass."

Peter Wright: "That's a great picture of the Stones, and one I hadn't seen before. Among my friends of the day, the Stones were our all time favourite band. (I was eleven when the '60s began and lived in the UK for the duration.) In the picture they look like they are trying to be a knock-off of the Beatles, but in the early '60s that was how all British groups dressed; changed soon enough of course. Brings it all back. Thanks.

"My camera of the time was quite unusual: a British-made 35mm uncoupled rangefinder with interchangeable lenses (although I only had one), built by AGI of Croydon, London. Interestingly, AGI made the entire camera, including the shutter and lenses, and it was very compact and reliable. In 1970, I sold it for about $10. The folly of youth.

"If I had those years over again, I would take that camera, my girlfriend(s) of the time, and visit as many Stones gigs I could get to, and photograph the daylights out of everything. But what did I know?"

"I don't need IBIS. I might buy an X-Pro 2 some day. I might not."

Fred Fowler: "I too read the David E. Davis BMW 2002 review in 1968 and managed to buy a new one in 1976...only to make the mistake of trading it on a 630 CSi a few years later. That mistake was rectified by buying a 911SC a few years after that. Upon buying my first house I managed to get all my worldly possessions including my stereo in the Porsche, which mostly consisted of a pair of Levis, some underwear and a Nikkormat. Many decades, several houses, three wonderful children and much unwavering effort later I've never managed to get in a position to acquire another 911 new or old, much as I'd like to. I don't know exactly where this is going, but maybe you should just be happy with your X-T1."

Scott: "Yes. The latest iteration of the Klipsch Heresy in cherry :-) . Beautiful old-school speakers."

Mani Sitaraman: "That photograph was taken by Philip Townsend, and is incorrectly attributed to Paul Townsend, who posted that picture on Flickr. Philip was a noted British photographer of the 'sixties scene and had special access to the Rolling Stones in the early days. He died in 2016. I do not know if Paul Townsend is related. Philip Townsend was survived only by his two sisters."

Mike replies: Thank you Mani. I have made the correction in the caption.

Ron Zack: "Just a quick note to say that I can relate to everything you are talking about in this post. Literally everything. Cars, cameras, stereo equipment, homes, computers...the list is far too long for me. The issue of cars is far too depressing, as my taste in vehicles has always been far beyond my means to obtain what I would like. So let's talk about cameras and audio.

"Even though I have a perfectly good little Olympus E-P5 with the absolute best IS I have ever used, I keep having this unnatural desire for the new Panasonic G85. What does the G85 have that the Olympus does not? Well, several things: a tough, weather-resistant body, an extremely advanced electromagnetic shutter, and a fairly decent kit 12–60mm zoom lens that is also weather resistant, with an option of someday getting the zoom lens I've always wanted in Micro 4/3: the Leica 12–60mm ƒ/2.8–4. The one thing the G85 does not have that I really would like is that nice 20MP sensor. While I have always loved my Olympus lenses, the Panasonic/Leica branded optics really do a much better job of meeting my needs, and I would love to use them on a Panasonic camera. But it's very hard to justify spending $1,000 on yet another 16MP camera whose IQ and IS will most likely be no better than what I have now. (Sigh.)

"In terms of audio, I again have this irrational desire for a pair of Klipsch Heresy III speakers, and perhaps a 'good enough' Harman/Kardon electronic stereo receiver to power them. That's a $2,500 'investment' just to listen to music. Probably be better to spend the money on live shows instead, but yet the desire for those Klipsches will not go away....

"It's bad trying to deal with gear lust with cameras, but when you want all your belongings to be better than what you have, it can get to be rather depressing."

Paulo Bizarro: "Just get one of the Sonys and be done with it.  :-)  You don't have to buy all at once, do you? With the money you already spent in the Fujis and Panasonics, you would have bought the small Sony kit already.  :-)  Don't Sigma make the DN 19mm and DN 60mm for Sony E-mount too?"

kirk tuck: "Mike, trust me. I can fix the camera side of the equation for you. Here's what you do: Buy a Sony A7II. Get the Sony 24–70mm ƒ/4 because it covers all those focal lengths you normally love and does so pretty well in a light weight, weather-sealed package. The body has I.S. and the lens has I.S. Now top it off with the outrageously good Sony 85mm ƒ/1.8. Buy a couple of extra batteries. It's all the resolution you could want. The two lenses are very, very good and the overall 'shootability' is wonderful.

"Total cost? So, $1500 for the body (new), the 24–70mm is about $1,000 and the 85mm is $600. That's right around $3k. Sell the Fuji stuff and you're almost there....

"I know it all works because I'm shooting with the same system right now. Today. And the results are perfect. Well, as perfect as they can be with a Texan at the controls...."

John Camp: "I somehow missed the equipment bug. I'm a writer, and I'll use about any keyboard. As a photographer, I like Nikon equipment because I've used it forever, and it somehow feels the same between generations, even if there are substantial changes. But I've got no problem with Canon or Sony, and if I had to use those, I wouldn't obsess about it, because the photos would be just fine (fine for my level ability.) I now use Panasonic, which doesn't feel as good as Nikon, but makes a much more compact package, which is the only reason I use it. But tools are just tools; if I were in the house-building business, I doubt I'd have to find the perfect hammer before I could work.

"That's pretty much how I feel about cameras and cars and musical instruments and so on—I don't want a camera, I want something that takes pictures; I'm not focused on a car, I want to go somewhere. I don't particularly need a Gibson or a Fender, I just want to play a tune."

Canon has updated the 5-year-old 6D, its bargain full-frame model. The new Mark II version is almost exactly the same shape and weight, with styling changes almost too subtle to see, but it sports numerous improvements that bring it up to Canon's current high standards. New are a 26.2 megapixel CMOS sensor, a flip-out touch screen, and (semi-?) weatherproofing. A big change is that the sensor now uses Canon's fast Dual-Pixel autofocusing and has 45 cross-type autofocusing points, up from a now old-fashioned 11.

Despite the faster focusing, the 6D Mark II is not meant to be a sports or action camera—although it shoots at a speedy 6.5 FPS, you'll only shoot for 3.2 seconds at that speed because the buffer only holds 21 frames of raw. Nor is it meant to be a video camera—the 6D Mark II lacks 4K video, probably to avoid cannibalizing Canon's higher models.

Nevertheless, there's a whole lot the 6D Mark II does right, and it's still way overspecified for almost all general types of still shooting at very high levels of quality. It's not especially a bargain at the initial ask of $2k, except when compared to the current Mark IV iteration of the famous 5D at a pretty hefty $3,300, but the price will probably settle down a bit in the months and years ahead. The original 6D is still available for $1,400.

Canon seems well pleased with its current lineup, and has been upping its game through refinement—by concentrating on the tech and the details. With five years gone by since the 6D came on the scene, this refresh for owners of the original is logical and timely.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

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

Eolake: "I bought the Mark I of this...and Micro 4/3 cameras became good, and since then the main role of the 6D has been looking good on display in my living room with the amazing 85mm ƒ/1.2 lens."

Tom Burke: "I'm a 6D shooter so of course I'm interested in this new version. What I'm seeing is a camera that's better in pretty much every area than the original, but not, to my eyes, compellingly so for an owner of the original. Especially at the price—there are many other things I can spend £2,000 on that would make me happier, and possibly even help me make better images!"

Zlatko: "For a stills photographer, the original 6D is more than competent and has been a terrific bargain. I would buy the 6D2 immediately if the original 6D weren't still so darned good. Not every camera needs to be mirrorless, and not every photographer needs 4K video. Rather than 'stripping out' features, Canon is refining certain features that stills photographers really appreciate, like the AF system and the sensor. AF is not improved by having a tediously high number of AF points. I just want a few high quality AF points."

Mike replies: You know, Zlatko, I buy your argument. Canon has built a camera for my kind of photographer: a generalist without specialty needs who is into stills. It also builds different cameras for pros and for amateurs who want everything. So why not a camera as you describe? One that "[refines] certain features that stills photographers really appreciate."

Thanks for the comment; I think you opened my eyes. I think I now like the 6D Mark II a lot better. (Now if it cost $1,300....)

Greg Boiarsky: "If you own a 6D, you know that you don't necessarily need to upgrade. I have always found the original 6D to be a very capable camera. While not exceptionally fast, the autofocus is dead accurate and works in very low light. Body build is just fine, and image quality is first rate. Frankly, it's a great portrait camera and very serviceable landscape camera. My only real problem is that the dynamic range is just a bit too low for all-around landscape use. I'm not much into video, so the basic HD is fine for my use.

"I'm sure the Mark II is a fine camera. The question is whether an articulating back screen, improved autofocus, slightly improved resolution, and improved frame rate are worth the additional $600 (or more, as Canon has an excellent refurb program). If the price drops a few hundred dollars, the camera might be a no-brainer, leaving the 6D as a fine backup."

[Note: The following two comments came in right after each other, in this order. —Ed.]

Frank: "Some say here: improved autofocus, but this camera uses the AF module of the APS-C 80D, so focus points are cluttered around in the middle center of the full frame. It means: focus and recompose for many portrait photos, for example. Live view has better AF naturally."

Alan: "Re: 'AF is not improved by having a tediously high number of AF points. I just want a few high quality AF points.' Maybe for you but being able to focus anywhere in the frame is a real advantage for me. I'd hate to go back to having them all clustered around the centre."

Christian: "For the intended purposes, a Pentax K-1 would be even better and cheaper...a K-1 with an FA Limited is a beautiful thing...."

I shall say this gently and keep this post brief, lest I wreck havoc in your exchequer and turn your esteemed spouse into an esteamed spouse*.

But let me quietly suggest that one of the many advantages of the Fuji X System is that you can own both of the top-end flagship cameras in order to enjoy very different shooting experiences on different occasions, without needing to own two sets of lenses, since of course they share lenses.

But not only that...you can upgrade each camera only every other cycle.

So if you were the owner of an X-T1, for example, and find yourself tempted by the -2 upgrades, what you could do is buy an X-Pro2, and then wait for the X-T3 before you replace the X-T1; and on that cycle, skip the X-Pro3 and wait for the X-Pro4.

That becomes a sly way to both have a new camera at every upgrade cycle and also be prudent and only replace each of your cameras on every other upgrade cycle. Heh heh...evil chuckle. (Not for nothing did they used to call me a "purchase enabler" on the Pentax mailing list.)

I'll be quiet now.

Mephis...er, Mike

*Ctein's joke, not mine, so blame him.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

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

Thomas Wiegold: "Well, that's more or less how I do it with my Olympus and Panasonic bodies in the Micro 4/3 system. To be honest, I even skip more cycles, but the idea behind it is the same."

Leon Droby: "Hmm. Hope you don't know my wife.  ;-)  You missed the other advantage. The X-Pro and the X100 are really the same camera. At least they look the same from five feet away. So I've progressed from an X-Pro1; added an X100S; replaced first with an X-Pro2; replaced second with X100F. All while only owning one camera!"

Mike replies: You have got the knack, Leon.  :-)

The Sony A9 is now shipping.

Sony's new flagship should be considered the second wave in an attack by mirrorless makers on the fortresses of the best, fastest, most full-featured DSLRs. The first was the "overdeveloped" Olympus E-M1 Mark II.

Sony's A9 is an attempt to match the speed of professional DSLRs. Its stacked CMOS full-frame sensor offers 20 FPS, no image blackout when shooting, fast AF in extremely low light, and, using electronic shutter, a totally silent shutter release. PetaPixel immediately did a comparo with the Nikon D5, and concluded that "the a9 was able to match the D5 in tracking AF and high ISO performance."

Call it the Civic Type R of cameras, if you will. An engineering-driven marvel, the Type R is a modest "hot hatch" based on an economy car that just set the record at the Nürburgring for a lap by a FWD car.

The A9's cost is reasonable for professionals, although for the rest of us it's also clearly another instance of the new order wherein the makers are going to give us a lot but ask a lot in return. (Like the E-M1 Mark II and Panasonic GH5.) Sony is going after professionals now, it's clear. If it wasn't already clear from all the premium, quality-no-object lens introductions lately. It's getting to be a dust-up for sure.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

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

emptyspaces: "My video team uses the A7R II and A7S II for shooting 4K video. The A7R II has a crop mode which can come in handy, while the A7S II is optimized for video in many ways. Both cameras are superb, and the A7S II especially shines in the video realm. We've cranked the ISO up over 100,000 before and been able to use the footage. I believe the native ISO of that sensor is 3200. The A7S II does something unique for video—it uses the entire sensor. Most other cams just grab an 8MP or 2MP patch from the center. By using the whole sensor, and keeping it to only 12MP, it gathers the extra light often needed for 4K video. The audio preamps in both cameras are surprisingly good. We often shoot with a Sennheiser wireless transmitter minijacked straight in. Nice cameras all.

"That A9 is probably a cracker, but nothing our video program will need."

Nothing makes whatever expertise I possess vanish faster than when I'm camera shopping. When I'm shopping I become the same mass of angst and insecurity, the same jumble of fretting and theorizing and furtive obsessive review-reading as anybody else.

Automaniac
A few years ago, I tried "splitting" my automobile needs from one into two separate cars. (I had never owned more than one car previously, two of them for around a decade each.) I bought a used Miata with a stick shift (still miss it) for fun, and an AWD Toyota RAV4 with an automatic (on closeout for 0% financing) for practical hauling, long trips, dog transport, and Winter driving. It was the older style RAV4 that aped a Land Rover, with the side-hinged rear door and outboard-mounted spare tire with the kinked "crease" on its hard cover. I loved the styling of those and it was the only car model ever for which I liked every single available color.

Made sense on paper. But I found myself driving the RAV4 most of the time, and, much as I admired the 6-cylinder Toyota, I missed having a zippier car with a stick as a daily driver. Old dawg, I guess, but I've never been able to get comfortable with automatics.

So I bailed on the two-car plan. In 2014 I sold the Miata and the RAV4 and bought a '14 Acura ILX 2.4. It's basically the cushier, older-fella version of the Civic Si—it's built on the Civic platform and it has the same drivetrain as the '14 Civic Si. The larger 2.4-liter engine was only available with a manual, which I approved of—so many cars are only available with a stick with a smaller "economy" engine option. (There is currently no Acura model with a manual transmission at all.) With "wrong wheel drive" and too much weight on its chassis the '14 ILX gets discombobulated in hard switchbacks and remains suave only while you're driving up to maybe 80% of its capabilities, but then, I have too much weight on my chassis, too, and I get discombobulated sometimes now, and I seldom push anything to more than 80% of the max these days. Sixty percent might be more my speed.

The change back to one car was kinda ironic, because afterward I moved here to the Finger Lakes, where the two-car plan would have been...perfect. This area cries out for an open-top roadster during the five blissful temperate months, and for a more practical AWD car in the Winters. You see a lot of roadsters around in the warm months, from Jags and Mercedes and even a Maserati or two, to a variety of Miatas and vintage MGs, Fiats, Triumphs and Alfas. I'd get one of the new Miatas, but there's no chance of me shopping for that. Way out of my ballpark. You know what they say: Oh well. But I like my little Acura and will probably be keeping it till it's six or eight years old at least. Or, if I'm true to past form, ten.

The same principle...
I kinda hate me when I'm camera shopping. I'm just so pathetic.

But anyway, my latest thinking is to apply the same two-part principle to cameras. Switch to a deliberate "two camera" plan. Deliberately "admit" the iPhone as one of my cameras, since it kinda already is, and then get another camera to complement it.

Photographing in this area is different than I'm used to, and I wonder if I ought to adapt. Lately I keep looking at the A7II and the 6D (the latter with an IS lens)—despite the various warnings I get about the shutter noise of the A7II. I'm very drawn to the Micro 4/3 solutions with IBIS, but I'm also liking the idea of a bigger sensor and a zoom. More of a landscape camera than what I'm used to. (When in the land of the landscapes, do as the landscapists do.)

Wait, what did I just say? "A bigger sensor and a zoom"? Me?

I know, I know...

Cicero and [mumble mumble]
...But we do whatever we need to do for the pictures, which come first. And you can't be so doctrinaire that you become afraid to change. "Change of mind is not inconsistency," said the great Roman orator Cicero. (Who ended up having the tongue of his severed head stabbed repeatedly with hairpins by Fulvia, wife of Antony, as their revenge against his way with words, but never mind that.) And did someone post a quote here recently about going ahead and committing to something but then not being afraid to change your commitment? Can anybody find that? I looked but could not find.

[UPDATE from Dylan Skola: "The quote you're thinking of is from the 'Have Faith' post of May 31st: Richard Alan Fox: 'I was an art student in San Francisco from 1971 to 1980. At some point in that decade Ralph Gibson gave a lecture about his work and methods at the former modern art museum on Van Ness Avenue. Paraphrasing my memories he said, "Always take a position, and do not be afraid to reject it and take another position." That is what I remember he said and it has been useful in my life since.'" Thanks Dylan! —Ed.]

Does anyone like the A7II? Or does everyone who buys an A7[x] buy one of the schmaltzier versions? I suspect the A7II will be my next rental.

I'm glad I'm not richer; I'd waste more money. Speaking of going bigger, though, Ken keeps hinting that he'll review his GFX for us. I hope he does. At least there's no chance of me shopping for that one, either.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

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

Josh Hawkins: "I'm a fan of this plan. Each camera needs to address the weaknesses of the other. The iPhone is portable, good and always there. The big camera is for fun, for the joy of shooting, for the luxury of shooting nicely.

"A few years back I had gotten to the point of only taking my iPhone on camping trips with my kids. We do camping trips every few weeks, year round. I found I wasn't getting as many keepers and I just wasn't having as much fun, all around, as when I had an SLR with me. So I just repurposed my old 5D mark I for the job. I still have the iPhone, but when I want to have fun taking pictures, I can and do. It's about having the right tool for the moment and using it, not because you can, but because it's just fun."

Sal Santamaura: "Yeah, A Bigger Sensor and a Zoom. That's why I'm awaiting the Fuji GFX 100S to go with Fuji's GF 32–64mm ƒ/4.  :-)  "

For a couple of years back in the heyday of digital, I nominated a camera as "The World's Most Desirable Camera"—which is absurd, of course. I meant the hottest of the hot newest products, the thing that everyone was talking about, the thing that had the highest or most widely shared degree of covetability.

Right now, that would be the Fuji GFX.

We should get used to calling it the "Fuji GFX-50S," because we'll have to as soon as another GFX camera model comes along. Remember "the OM-D"? When there was only one, we could call it that. Now we have to specify which OM-D. Pretty soon there will be another Fuji GFX (no, I don't have any information), and we'll have to call the first one the 50S.

So we might as well start calling it that now.

The fetching Fuji GFX, which we should start calling the 50S

I've decided I personally don't covet a Fuji 50S. I just do that sometimes—try not to covet what I can't get. It'll only drive ya crazy. I've gotten good at not wanting things.

A mote in the eye of Ye Paragon
Anyway it seems the Internet has reached its first small determination about the 50S—it works best with its own lenses. Lloyd Chambers of Diglloyd has figured out that Fuji put a piece of protective glass 9mm away from the sensor so that any dust on the protective glass would be defocused and become invisible to the sensor. That's fine with Fuji's own lenses, because it's taken into account in the design, but Lloyd has found that it causes increasing unsharpness toward the edges with adapted lenses shorter than 85mm.

This doesn't sound like a concern to me, because if I were coveting a Fuji 50S, I'd be coveting its own lenses to use with it. Let's face it: with all of Fuji's products, the glorious lens lines are one of the reasons to want the camera in the first place. Can you imagine buying one of the top-of-the-line Fuji X twins, the X-T2 or X-Pro2, and not using the XF lenses Fuji makes for them? I wouldn't be caught dead.

But your mileage may vary. There are lots of reasons people might want to use adapted lenses. Anyway caveat emptor.

If I were going to make a hobby of adapted lenses (and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that—quite the opposite, it sounds like more fun than the proverbial barrel full of monkeys) I'd get a Sony A7II or one of the other A7 series cameras. The A7II is cheap (for a full-frame mirrorless with in-body image stabilization [IBIS], important because IBIS works with adapted lenses too), it's full-frame, and there are heaps of adapters made for it.

Back to fabulous Fuji-land...
If only, I muse to myself, if only there were someone out there who could write a review of the coveted GFX-50S for us. In the rolling mists of my imagination I picture someone who lives high in a tower in a White City...someone with Japanese heritage, even, who is daily surrounded by many cameras like heaps of gold...someone who is himself a fine if as-yet little-known photographer of said White City, who is astute about the ways of art and knows great Museums down to the warrens and vaults of their out-of-sight treasures...how I would love to post a review for you of the World's Most Desirable Camera from such a shutter-clicking knight-errant*...am I merely dreaming?...very well then I dream....

Nah, I'm coveting stuff again, and that will never do.

Mike
(Thanks to Michael Perini)

*A knight-errant (or knight errant, or white knight) is "a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning 'wandering, roving') indicates how the knight-errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels (pas d'armes) or in some other pursuit of courtly love." (Wikipedia)

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

A k-nicht who says ni
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Jeremy: "I've succumbed to the temptation and got the GFX last month, together with the 32–64mm ƒ/4 and the 63mm ƒ/2.8.

"I've been using Fuji cameras for a few years now and I really like the bodies, lens line-up, and image quality. Especially, the black-and-white conversions are somehow effortlessly nice. The GFX, compared to X-T2 (which it replaced for me) is like a premium version of the same car—everything, except for speed and video, is ever so slightly better: the build quality, the ergonomics, the color rendering, the exposure range, the high-ISO noise, the ability to shoot in more aspect ratios in live view with little resolution penalty, the battery life, the tilting viewfinder. All of this translates to a much more satisfying shooting experience overall, for me. I have large hands, and the GFX is actually much nicer to hold than the X-T series (but I still prefer the X100 for casual picture taking). I dislike 'unnatural' highlight roll-off characteristic of many digital cameras: the GFX renders highlights beautifully. I like using the camera at lower-than-eye-level: both the viewfinder and the LCD screen are tiltable. I like to use square and panoramic aspect ratios: seeing them before capture and having enough resolution to crop heavily is lovely.

"There are nice touches everywhere, such as the rotating information display on the rear screen when you're shoot in vertical orientation (X-T[x] has that, but only in the viewfinder), nicer dials, addition of the 'C' position to switch between dials on lenses and command dials etc., etc.

"The lenses are fantastic too, especially the zoom, which is very sharp and focuses very quickly. The 63mm is quite small for a medium-format ƒ/2.8 lens, and surprisingly light.

"There is one issue though: I'm an (avid) amateur and I don't need the GFX. In the same way as I don't need a top-spec car model. But I like and enjoy it so much that even on days when I'm not using it 'purposefully' I still pick it up and walk around the house snapping happily.

"I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, but it is a great camera, and well worth considering if you're looking for top-notch image quality in a very versatile package."

Mark Kinsman: "So did Ken Tanaka respond to your thinly-veiled call out? 😊

Mike replies: Yes. He says he's working on a "a 'field notes'-style article rather than a full review of the GFX." Which sounds perfect. I can't wait! [UPDATE: See Ken's comment in the Comments section below.]

Bob Johnston: "If I had the money to buy a GFX would I buy one? You bet I would. Would it mean that I would produce better photographs? You bet it wouldn't."

Mike replies: I think I concur exactly.

Sony said years ago that it was targeting the #1 spot among camera manufacturers, and yesterday we learned that despite mixed success in the quest so far, the company is still deadly serious about that longtime goal. The new Sony A9 takes dead aim at the working professional photographer in many fields, from runway and theater to sports.

The flipping mirror is a horseless carriage. Sony's initial attempts to break away from it—the "SLTs" or beam-splitter cameras—were ultimately no more successful for them that they were for the first major innovator of that technology, Canon. (I loved my EOS RT—switched from Nikon to use it, back when the elder Bush was President—but you know I'm weird.) In mirrorless, Sony found a technology to migrate to that was more amenable to the company's many technological and engineering assets. The first real fruit of that tree was the A7 series, which was a great success with the market Sony wanted to target, spawning a proliferation of different models and a vigorous iteration of new generations.

I'll tell you what else—the A9 suddenly makes it obvious what Sony's recent lens program has been about. It has seemed a bit mystifying to me, what with my artist/snapshooter's outlook. Who wants giant fast cost-no-object premium lenses the same size as Canikon's when the average Joe-Bob would have to amputate a foot to afford one? (Er, sorry. They're dear, I mean.) Didn't interest me too much. But now it's obvious that guys like me aren't the target—the purpose of the recent parade of the new Sony lenses was always to put in front of cameras like the A9.

...Which, by the bye, Sony says is the most capable camera of any kind ever.

Lenses for pros for a camera for pros.

We've seen that the low end of the market is dropping away as smartphone cameras impinge, and the high end of the market contracting as many cameras have reached the point of sufficiency, removing our urgency to upgrade. We already recognize that the manufacturers are responding to this by making better products and then charging lots more for them. Pros have long been a small market, but in some sense are (still) the tail that wags the dog. In the brave new world of the 2020s, that might become more true rather than less.

The stakes are still high, in other words.

Oh, and one more observation in passing: although Fuji gets an emphatic honorable mention in this sense, Sony still gets the nod as the most exciting cameramaker to watch. Agree? Disagree?

Here's Imaging-Resource's first take.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Intelligent discussion.
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Keith B.: "Whether or not the new Sony is accepted by the pro PJ/Sports community depends on three things: 1.Finder brightness. Gotta be able to see clearly when used in full 8000 footcandle sunlight. 2.Motion delay. Broadcast video cameras have about a one frame delay: about 1/30th of a second. This'll have to be that good, in both bright and dim light. 3. Absence of effective blackout/freezout. The action has to be live during high-FPS shooting. On a (D)SLR, you can manually follow focus while shooting at 10 FPS. No mirrorless has been able to do that...yet."

Dennis: "I agree that Sony is exciting to watch. They're frustrating because they're not grounded in photography the way other companies are, so you really have to scratch your head when you see some of their releases and some of their omissions. But that may be precisely why they feel so free to take risks. And while Canon and Nikon are, at heart, optics companies, and many of us appreciate a system built on optics, the heart of Sony's system is the sensor, and we're seeing how they can exploit their sensor technologies. (Their sensor technologies also influence the rest of the market, so that makes them interesting, too).

"And the whole market is changing...Nikon and Canon have always been the workhorses of pros, but more and more pros are diversifying and getting into video, aerial photography and whatever else it takes to keep earning a paycheck. For video, Canon, Sony and Panasonic are solid choices (without branching outside of the camera brands)...Nikon and Fuji aren't players in that market.

"I've had a love/hate relationship with Sony for years. I shot A mount for years (Minolta, then Sony) but found things to dislike about it. I tried a NEX, but ended up disliking it greatly. Now I have an A6000, but still just don't take to it. (I prefer using the bigger Nikon that I bought when I left A mount). There's nothing wrong with the A6000 (which is far more than I could say about the NEX-5) but it's kind of a soulless camera. Fuji has soul; Sony has brains (but the gear is amazingly capable, so bring your own soul and you can do wonders with it)."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Agree. Heartily. Sony has been my primary camera vendor/platform for nearly four years. In fact as I write this I've just returned from over four hours with an A7RII in my face on a project. Their cameras and high-end lenses have never failed to impress me, despite the most nay of naysayers against Sony's chances when they dived into the pool. Most innovative and bold camera maker today? Unquestionably, perhaps followed closely by Fujifilm. Canon and Nikon still win top honors for ruggedness and for ergonomics. (Nothing feels better to use than my 5D4.). But Sony's quickly and easily overtaking both of them in quality of electronics and quality of optics."

David Babsky: "The A7S—which I use—was, and is, an astonishing camera: it'll shoot in extremely low light, and with a completely silent electronic shutter. Wonderful for close shots of musicians, actors, at weddings etc, without putting anyone off with shutter clunks. Ditto the A7RII...but with a very high pixel count (42 MP) for finely detailed photos—and for cropping, if necessary, afterwards.

"The A9 just extends all that (but at 24 MP) to very fast shooting...20 shots a second with the electronic shutter. No flapping mirror, no clattering shutter, no noise (neither audible nor 'sensor noise') to speak of. Like Olympus' E-M1 and PEN F, but 'full frame.' I stopped shooting with a clattering mirror and shutter long ago. This really tolls the death knell of mirror-flapping SLRs."

Dan MacDonald: "Sony will have to do a lot better with service and support if they want to attract top tier pros. Working in repairs I can say that my experience with Sony is that they have mediocre customer service and getting repairs done is often notably more expensive than Canon or Nikon and more time-consuming. In fact I would be willing to bet this is the reason Canon continues to dominate for sports and press photography, as in my experience they have excellent customer service for such a large company, second only to Apple. Not something that effects the enthusiast or even semi-pro photographer too much typically. Of course then there's the laughable battery life, and why haven't they released a 16–35mm ƒ/2.8 zoom or a 14–24mm? Both are popular focal lengths used by many pro reporters and sport shooters. However if Canon and Nikon are not taking mirrorless seriously at this point they will likely find themselves slowly going out of business. They already have a lot of ground to make up, and Sony will eventually get there."

John McMillin: "When out hunting images, why not use this rapid-fire automatic weapon? Because you'll wind up with thousands of images to sort through and delete, if you have the attention span. Or because you're not working in the field of sports or high-speed motion analysis. Soon we'll just use high-res continuous capture. You'll have new software using algorithms to make the initial cut, or, what the heck, to automate the entire process. Progess? Not for most of us.

"I do hope that this Sony catches on with the White House press pool though. The current clatter of snapping shutters is a huge distraction to those who want to hear the audio of the event, and disrespectful to the office, even with a Prez who deserves little respect. And the noise is as anachronistic and unnecessary as if they were shooting off flash powder."

Mike replies: I agree. Maybe apocryphal, but an old story was that in certain jurisdictions Leica rangefinders were the only cameras approved for courtrooms because they were sufficiently quiet. With today's totally silent cameras it makes no sense to allow loud cameras in major press conferences. Or on golf courses at major events!

JOHN GILLOOLY: "For me as a commercial photographer, this could be the inflection point where I actually consider a switch from Nikon DSLR. The size and silent shooting being the main differentiation points. Critical image quality and continuous tracking focus have been my sticking points for not considering the Micro 4/3 OM-Ds as a viable replacement. (Complement yes, replacement no.) I don't think Sony currently offers the glass that would get full time sports photographers to move away from Canon and Nikon. Sony would really need to offer fast lenses in the 400mm and 600mm ranges to pull that group."

I want to thank everyone who helped me with my dilemma yesterday. The effect of reading all those comments had just the effect I wanted—it clarified my decision (not "the" decision, n.b., because others might easily come to different conclusions).

Downside of the Sony A6500 for me: the cost of the two lenses I'd want (Zeiss 24mm ZA and 55mm FE) plus the stiff cost of the body make it too expensive (I'm poor right now). The fact that it offers no true raw is a glitch too, but then, all three cameras have drawbacks—the anti-intuitive menus on the Olympus, and the rumored "shutter shock" and less-than E-M1 Mark II-level IBIS of the Panasonic are similar nagging departures from a perfectly well-rounded appeal, in each case.

The E-M1 Mark II is deeply impressive and probably the best all-'round choice technically, but the extremely high price coupled with the fact that its biggest strengths, while they'd be nice to have, do not dovetail very well with my actual needs, push it outside the pale. Again, just for me.

With the GX8, I've used it, loved it when I used it, and missed it when it left. I love the tilting viewfinder, find the handling amenable, and tend to like the files. And Panasonic's lens offerings are extensive and excellent, never mind all the other Micro 4/3 options.

So this morning I contracted to buy a used 12–35mm, and in the next couple of months I'll be looking for a black GX8 with low miles on its odometer. Next up on the GAS-treatment front: deciding whether I can live without the Fuji's B&W, which I love. X-Trans sensors are the best for B&W of any I've found.

Probably should make a clean break, though. Shooting two systems has never worked well for me.

GX8 with 12–35mm

I've been thinking of a few other things, too...maybe doing a OC/OL/OY project myself, for one thing.

And for another, I think I've decided that in the future I'm going to be a little more outspoken about my admiration for Panasonic. I've been a fan for some years now, since the GF1, and I love their lenses, many of which, as you know, are co-branded with Leica. Within every such megacorp is a smaller division of designers, engineers, planners and marketers who make up the photography divisions. They fight their own fights within the broader company, although we never hear about that. And those people might well be no less invested and devoted than the people who are keeping Leica alive. (How do you think the team that developed the NX1 feels now?)

Several people said that they'd rather buy their cameras from a dedicated camera company than from an electronics giant, and I understand that, but in the brave new world of today, more diversified corporations might actually be more stable in the long run. I suppose the wild card is that corporation's devotion to its photographic products, which might not be as high at a megacorp as at a company where photographic products are the legacy business with proud histories stretching way back. Samsung doesn't need cameras to survive, for example, and can even complain about the incursion of smartphones on its camera business—even as it is itself churning out smartphones by the ton! Anyway it's always been a highlighted difference between Nikon and Canon that so much more of Nikon's bottom line depends on cameras and lenses. It makes the company weaker, ironically, not stronger.

I had one more thing to say but I've forgotten what it was. If I remember, I'll insert it here later.

[UPDATE: What I'd meant to add was that I'm going to start saving up for the GX[x][where x>8] right now, just in case the GX[x][where x>8] is an updated GX8 and doesn't ruin too many things that are good about the GX8.

Hey, you never know. Could happen.  :-)  —M.]

Who needs just the right camera?
For perspective, a little story I've told before. Years ago, way out in the sprawling exurbs of Chicagoland, during my 10-year flirtation with golf (a sport for which I have negative aptitude, but loved playing for the sake of camaraderie with my brothers and cousins), I ran across a jaded, aging, Dickensian salesman in a stuffed, dusty, old-timey Dickensian golf equipment store. (No, he did not have a Scots accent, nor was he wearing plus-fours and tartan socks.) We got to talking, and eventually the conversation came around to custom-fitted clubs.

I told him I didn't need fitted clubs because I was just a beginner and didn't play much. He sighed the sigh of a deep maven who has seen everything. "Everybody says that," he replied, "but the truth is the exact opposite. Look," he continued, "I played number one on my college team. I spent two years on the Nike tour. I'm a scratch golfer today. My swing has been grooved since I was twelve...

"...And I can play with anything. You could walk through this whole store and pick any set of clubs at random and I could play with them. I'd adjust. I'm good; I can do that."

His opinion was that experts aren't the ones who most need fitted clubs—beginners are. But, of course, beginners are the players least likely to invest in them. He pointed out that Lee Trevino used to beat guys at putting contests putting with a coke bottle on a stick, and beat guys at driving contests driving with a putter! (Both true.) But should a beginner learn golf putting with a coke bottle on a stick or driving with a putter?!

I got the point.

I've come to believe something similar about cameras. I've used literally hundreds of cameras over the years—I've written dozens of published reviews. Quite honestly, I can use any camera. As long as it isn't super far-out and specialized, you could pick one at random and I'll adapt. Doesn't really matter what it is. If I had to, I could figure out how to use it for my purposes almost no matter what. Some might be more of a challenge, some less, but hey, I'd figure out workarounds. I'd be okay.

It's beginners and people who are just getting started who can really benefit from using nice cameras, and who should spend time getting one that fits them, appeals to them, and feels best to them. It will make much more of a difference for them.

Yes, it's fun (and tough!) for me to find just the right camera. But it's not essential. Three years from now I'm sure I'll be using something other than the GX8, and I'll be more or less fine then just like I'm more or less fine now. Seriously, if I were to get the itch to do an OC/OL/OY project with an iPhone 7+, a Panasonic GX8, or a Leica S, I'd probably have just as much fun with any of the three. I'd simply figure out what I could and couldn't do, what the strengths and weaknesses of each camera are, and then just do with each camera the kinds of things each is best at.

So what camera I use is actually not a momentous decision. If for some reason I had to use my X-T1 for three more years, I'd be fine. If I had to go back to the old Sony A900 FF DSLR for three years, I'd be fine too. If I had to use nothing but the new iPhone for three years, I'd survive that as well.

The point is the pics, in the end!

Me with the GX8 (the loaner I had here for review in May '16)

...And having fun, too, of course. Which I plan to keep on doing!

Mike
(Many thanks for all the comments yesterday!)

P.S. Hope you don't mind the recycled illustrations. New example shots to come, I'm sure.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Keep on truckin'
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

My brother Scott always said I'm great at giving other people advice but not so good at knowing what to do for myself. Whether he's right about that or not, here's my dilemma.

I love my Fuji X-T1, but I need a camera with IBIS (in-body image stabilization). Here's the reason. The three top contenders as of this moment are the Panasonic GX8, the Sony A6500, and the Olympus E-M1 Mark II. I've been thinking this over for more than a year now, and I can't decide.

Which do you think?

Mike

UPDATE: Sorry for the radio silence for the greater part of the day! Tough day working on finishing and paying taxes.

I have intently read all 187 comments and, surprisingly, you have collectively consolidated my opinion and helped me reach my decision. I'll get back to the subject in the morning. Thanks to all! —MJ

Original contents copyright 2017 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:

Tim Shoebridge: "I own the A6500 and E-M1 Mark II. From an IBIS point of view there is no contest, once you try the E-M1 Mark II there is no going back. It is stunningly good."

Mark: "Go with the one you lurv. You'll be regretful if you make the mature, sensible decision but in fact never have fun with it. Any one on your list is already more camera than most of us need. But why IBIS? Lack of it hasn't stopped other companies and other photographers from being extremely successful. The new Fuji X-T20 looks massively tempting from here...."

Andrew: "Easy: The Olympus has the best IBIS, the Sony produces the best files and the Panasonic is the nicest to use. So I solved the exact same problem by going the way of the heart: Fuji. Have fun choosing!"

beuler: "I don't want to be mean, but knowing your equipment choices over the years, we all know you will pick the Sony. We know that because it doesn't have the sensor you are obsessed with. And I mean that only half in jest."

Geoff Wittig: "All three contenders are great cameras in different ways. The Oly is perfect if speed is everything, like sports or wildlife photography, but I don't think that's your thing. The Panasonic has great video features, but...likewise. The strongest argument for the Sony A6500 is ruthlessly practical. The camera business is in distress, and when the music stops not everyone will have a seat. Panasonic is not broadcasting reassuring vibes. Olympus is still under the cloud of management scandal and near-bankruptcy. (Even Nikon is looking shaky!) Sony by contrast is colossal and moving from strength to strength. My suspicion is that five to ten years from now, Sony/Canon/Fujifilm will still by viable systems. For the other camera makers...I think there are going to be a lot of orphans out there. Pressure from cell phone cameras is only going to intensify."

Michael Roche: "Get the GX8 Mike, you know you want to, so man up and pull the trigger."

Roger: "The Sony A7II. You're in the ballpark cost-wise. It has 5-axis IBIS, it's mirrorless, glass is fantastic (even the 'low-end' non-G or -GM glass), and it's full-frame. I know that smaller sensors are up to the task but I prefer wide-angle glass; I really prefer my 24mm field of view not come from a 16mm lens. Rent one. I think you'll come away impressed."

Dennis Mook: "My primary camera is the Fuji X-T2. I find its limited number of features, as compared to some other cameras, refreshing. Everything about the camera is straightforward, in my opinion. It is a joy to use and the image files are pleasing. However, no IBIS. IBIS is becoming more and more important as I get closer to being a septuagenarian.

"Recently, I purchased an Olympus E-M1 Mark II to complement the Fuji and primarily for its extensive imaging features, one of which is IBIS, that I need or want to use on occasion. I find this camera very useful to use as opposed a joy to use. I know that owning both cameras is not an option for many. I find myself almost always picking up the Fuji unless I specifically need IBIS or one of the other features specific to the Olympus. The Mark II is very complicated when compared to the Fuji and not nearly as intuitive to use. However, I don't find it problematic as I had a the original E-M1 and the menu system is almost the same. Once you learn it, everything becomes easier. Both cameras produce pleasing image files and, if done right, can be matched for their overall 'look.' I really could be happy with either.

"Currently, the only reason I would give up my Fuji camera is for IBIS. I find the IBIS in the Mark II utterly remarkable as I can consistently make sharp images handheld at 1 second. Truly remarkable. If it comes down to using a camera that I 'love' to use but won't allow me to produce the work I want to create versus a camera I 'need' to use that is not as pleasurable but allows me to achieve personal photographic success, I'll take the latter."

Patrick Perez: "Lamborghini Murcielago. You can't go wrong."

Andy Munro: "I like this sort of game of spending someone else's money. My vote is for the Panasonic. I like the interface and the control layout—even little things like the power switch fall to hand. I have tried Sony and Olympus and didn't enjoy the experience. I seem to remember that you liked your Sony but not the Olympus. So that's one to move off the list."

john seidel (partial comment): "The Sony still has a 'lossy' compressed raw file in the A6500 without the option for a real raw file. If you shoot at night, you will eventually notice that all is not right with your photos and it will not please you to find out that you can do nothing about it. You can search online for many examples of this misery. I have the 5N and the A6000 and many thousands of night-time photos upon which I worked hard, to no avail. When I eventually learned that the problem with the files was not my doing but Sony's, I was both relieved and disgusted. What possessed Sony to do this? It is a betrayal of trust and, until I can afford a real camera, I can do nothing about it."

James Moule: "I own the Sony Alpha 7RII and a bunch of Zeiss lenses and the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and a bunch of Olympus PRO lenses. I'm surprised to say that I would recommend the new Olympus. The image quality is stunning and the shutter release is almost instantaneous. The IQ has 'bite' to use your word. Shooting the Oly E-M1 Mark II reminds me of my old Leica IIIg with Tri-X."

Frank Petronio (partial comment): "Sorry I don't understand why someone would want image stabilization? I mean I understand the marketing point but in practical usage what does it mean? [...] How many good photos have been made thanks to someone using IBIS, VR, etc.? Because I can't think of very many."

John Lehet (partial comment): "I've never used the Panasonic or the Fuji, but I know I love IBIS. [...] Once you use IBIS, consistently, it's hard to go back."

D. Hufford: "Oh, am I too late to sway you?

"As IBIS/VR is important to you, I'd go with the Olympus. Maybe the GX8 is better than the GX7—gawd I hope so—but I doubt it can touch the newer Olympuses.

"I have had a chance to use a friend's Olympus E-M1 in low light recently and it was about 1 utlraquadzillion times more effective than the GX7 which is rumored* to have stabilization. It was even better than the stabilized Panasonic 12–35mm on the GX7. Then again, I believe my Olympus E-P3 outperforms the GX7.

"I have very steady hands and can get away without a tripod or support more so than most I know. However, in 2017 a camera without stabilization is at a disadvantage to one that has it. And of course, the longer the lens, the more important it is. I prefer it in body as if it is in a lens, it is just one more thing to go wrong. Since I change bodies more often than lenses, if something goes wrong, I prefer it go wrong with the body.

"Speaking of wrong, the GX7. I reckon you ought not let my comment be the deciding factor as I am biased. I think the GX7 is the worst designed computer game camera I have ever used. That may affect my view of the GX8 just a slight bit. And besides, rumors and propaganda have it that Panny is going back to its field of expertise—making VCRs and cassette recorders.

"*I'd swear it didn't. Can't be sure as the motion blurred photos match the soft, blurry, double-lined view of my warranty 'repaired' GX7's viewfinder."

Mike replies: You're being too hard on the GX7, and I suspect got one that isn't quite right, but you did make me laugh, because, yes, with the GX7's IBIS the difference between "off" and "on" is exquisitely subtle. I know people who love the GX7 even so.

Tomorrow at 1 p.m. Eastern time B&H Photo is holding a live event about the new Panasonic GH5. The panel will consist of filmmaker and music video maker Jacki Huntington, Documentary filmmaker Griffin Hammond, photographer and filmmaker David Flores, YouTube filmmaker Lok Cheung, and Sean Robinson from Panasonic's Lumix Luminaries team. 

Mainly of interest to videographers and photographers who also shoot video, a primary feature of the forthcoming GH5 for still photographers is "6K PHOTO," which allows superfast video-speed capture of stills image bursts with image quality of 6000x3000 pixel resolution, or about 18 MP.

Here's the link to the page about the event. There's also a comparison of the GH4 and GH5 at the link.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The company GoPro, currently experiencing contraction and layoffs, looks to be an exaggerated version of the accelerated business cycle typical of today. It's beginning to look a tad like all of digital photography—as we know it, anyway—might itself be a sort of extended flash in the pan*; but at least it has lasted a good twenty years and will certainly stick around for a while more. GoPro was the hero camera company (sorry) just a few years ago. That was a fast transit from latest thing to yesterday's news.

Now it's drones, apparently.

Relative to flashes in the pan, what's your take on mirrorless cameras with oversized sensors? The big Fuji system and the new little big Hasselblad seem to be the hottest topics in photography right now. Everybody's talking them up, although I feel a little like most of us are teenagers debating whether Lamborghini or Ferrari is better. Is that going to last, though? Are the big, expensive medium-format mirrorless cameras going to saturate their market pretty quickly and move on to being yesterday's heroes—ignite brightly and then disappear in a poof of smoke that would be—or will they carve out a sustainable niche, thrive and grow, and open up a new migration path away from FF DSLRs?

It will be interesting to watch.

Mike
(Thanks to Jimmy L. Day)

*An expression I like. Although it originates from 17th-century musketry, it always makes me think of Jacob Riis blowing off heaping piles of flash powder in close, cramped New York City tenements.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Lenya: "No idea about drones but any frequent visitor to a ski resort knows that for any representative of the Snapchat generation skiing or riding without a GoPro attached to the helmet is a major faux pas. I would guess that their demise may still be far off in the future, even if on the Snapchat time-scale."

Tom Hassler: "My money is on a short-ish fad cycle for the little big cameras. Medium format has always been for professionals and well-heeled amateurs who are chasing the image quality dragon. We are so far beyond the point of sufficiency with even the smaller mirrorless offerings that the market for 50+ megapixel 'small' cameras has got to be minuscule. Not that they won't sell, because there is always a limited but dedicated cadre of folks who can afford the nth degree of anything and enjoy owning it. Here's a hidden cost to be factored in beyond bodies and lenses: upgrading computers to accommodate those humongous image files!"

Omer: "I think there are enough 'medium' format users to justify the cameras. Reading the DPReview forums one can glean the continuing desire for more resolution and larger sensors irregardless of aesthetic photo quality. I mean, pickup trucks have been getting bigger and more expensive, and still sell like whatever. Many of them are kept spotless and used mostly to go grocery shopping. So, yeah."

I know you find no appeal here. Move along.

I get it from many recent comments that we're not updating our cameras as often as we used to. But if you should happen to find yourself on the uptake side of a lengthened ownership cycle, and just in case you've been hankering for those tasty Olympuses, either the Pen-F or the new E-M1 Mark II, I thought you might want to know they're on sale.

Here's a link to the sale page. (Remember to use the promo code "TRADENTIME" at checkout.) Additionally, in case you want the top Olympus with the top Olympus normal zoom, the constant aperture 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 (24–80mm angle of view equivalent), the pairing is on sale for $300 off.

I know you're probably not interested, because we're "over" new cameras now. I don't want a new camera, either, he lied. But just in case.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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:

Charlie Ewers: "I take full personal responsibility for the Olympus sale. After waiting, and waiting, and waiting, I finally pulled the trigger and got an E-M1 Mark II last week—at full price, of course."

To run a blog like this you look at a thousand things, remember a hundred, and write about ten. Recently (I mentioned my birthday, and my age—I suppose it's related) I've been having more trouble keeping the threads alive in my mind. I let more things drop, and lose some things I meant to write about. Occasionally I even offend someone along the way. But I don't mean to. It's just that it's getting tougher for me to juggle it all in my memory.

So I awoke with a start this morning to the realization that I never continued the "Best Digital Cameras" postings! Arrrgh. Here's Part I, but it makes no sense without a Part II and maybe even a Part III.

Sorry about that. I'll get on it.

Dang.

Idle Q
Meanwhile, a question. Assuming there is such a thing—many will demur, with good reason—is it possible to pick, out of current offerings, one best all-around all-purpose camera? With everything in the best possible balance—image quality and printability, price and value, operational strengths, versatility and utility, dealer network and service, system, functionality, and user experience?

If you had to pick, which camera would you say that is? I have one in mind, but I'll hold off mentioning my notions of it lest I unduly influence others.

If you don't want to play, or think it's a stupid question, fair enough. So don't play. But I like this sort of mental exercise in connoisseurship. I think it can be clarifying, and hence possibly useful.

...Well, maybe that's rationalizing. It can be fun, is probably more like it.

What would you say? Assuming you had to pick one.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Pick one
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Craig A. Lee: "Personally, my ideal camera would feature 52 weeks of paid vacation per year. That way I would have time to put interesting places, people, and things in front of it."

Rumors are swirling* that Canon, which had originally intended to introduce a 6D Mark II in 2016, might be killing off the model altogether.

Why? Well, it's speculation still, but there have been indications of an all-new Canon camera model on the way, and the rumor mill has quickly spun that into a full-frame mirrorless. This is unsubstantiated, although it does seem relatively logical. And the Canon 6D is Canon's entry-level full-frame SLR, and a full-frame mirrorless to compete with Sony's very successful A7[x] series would presumably cross-cannibalize with the 6D. So Canon might put the 6D update on the shelf on order to give the new camera a better chance.

The Canon 6D "Mark I," introduced in the Fall of 2012 and still current

It's also possible that Canon will make its mirrorless camera larger-than-FF, AKA "medium format," to join the Hasselblad and Fuji medium-format mirrorless models...and prevent those brands from making inroads from that front.

Rumors have circulated regularly of a Canon medium-format camera for many decades now. The first one I heard about was in the mid-to-later 1980s, when it would have been a film camera. And no doubt Canon has done due diligence over the years with mock-ups and prototypes; the details would mostly be proprietary, though, so full disclosure is impossible.

Another unsubstantiated rumor...an industry legend, who is gone now, once told me that his friends at Canon privately confessed to him that Canon was only afraid of one company, and it was "not Nikon, and not Leica." That company was Fuji. That was surprising at the time, because that was way back when Fuji essentially just dabbled in the camera market. As we all know, Fuji isn't dabbling any more. So that might support the idea of a FF+ sensor mirrorless camera from Canon, as it would answer Fuji. Japanese companies traditionally pay the most attention to what their Japanese competitors are doing...and not what we consider their Japanese competitors, but what they consider their Japanese competitors.

This is probably pretty far out yet, in any event—if there's one thing that seems fair to generalize, it's that Canon does not move as fast as some more nimble companies...such as...er, well, Fuji. But either a full-frame or medium-format mirrorless model from Canon, if either proves to be true, would be very big news indeed in our little corner of the World.

Mike

*Here's one.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Shot from a cannon.
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Speed: "A Canon medium format camera would require a whole new set of lenses. Lenses that wouldn't work on their APS-C cameras, their full frame cameras or their cinema cameras. I think you need to analyze Canon based on the markets that they serve such as professional wedding/portrait/school, studio, advertising, architecture/real estate, video advertising/marketing, broadcast (news, feature, documentary), on-line video and so forth. When Canon moved into cinema it was priced right, their existing lenses were a powerful feature, and the 5D Mark II had put their foot in the door. By the way, there is a big price gap between the 6D to the 5D Mark IV. Plenty of room for something new and different."

Jack: "One thing that mitigates against the notion of a Canon digital medium format is the question of where the sensors are going to come from. Canon has pretty much used exclusively its own sensors in its DSLRs. Furthermore, Canon's dual-pixel sensor technology is fundamental to PDAF on Canon mirrorless (at the moment). The thing is, as far as I know Canon's never made a chip-making machine (stepper) capable of making chips that large. Few steppers are—about the only option is Nikon's venerable NSR-4425i stepper from the late 20th century, only available pre-owned. Either way, whether buying Sony sensors like everyone else is doing, or buying used Nikon steppers, Canon would have to go out-of-house for digital medium-format sensors. Well, unless they've decided it's worthwhile to build their own wide-format stepper, which I really doubt."

ADDENDUM from Jack: "I've learned that Canon does indeed make steppers that can produce medium-format-sized chips. Their new FPA-5510iX can go up to 56x52 mm. That's big enough for a 645-sized frame (56x42).

"So I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that if Canon ever does go medium format, it might be 645, not the 'almost 127' of current medium-format sensors (excluding Phase One)."

Verve: "The 6D is so good and so reasonably priced that I bought two of them, and they have serve me well. I sincerely doubt that Canon will kill the 6D. I fully expect a 6D version II will follow the original."

More than a rumor: retailers and e-tailers are ordering unusually large initial shipments of Fujifilm's new GFX-50S. They're clearly expecting the new camera system to be strong-selling despite its high price. Initial demand looks to be sky-high for such an expensive product. That's the scoop on that.

Me, I normally don't covet super-expensive things. "Sour grapes" (telling yourself that what you can't reach is not worth the cost, or aren't as good as they appear, or that you wouldn't like them) is my normal stance toward such things. I consider things like $500,000 cars to simply be symptoms of anti-social wealth inequality and not for me.

But then, following the dictum of the Oracle ("Know Thyself"), I sometimes ask myself the opposite question: how would I feel if wealth inequality worked in my favor? Would I drive a Mercedes-AMG GT if I could? Sometimes I wonder. (Okay, not very often.)

Along those lines, I wonder if I'd want a Fuji GFX, too, if I could afford one without strain.

Roman mosaic with Greek legend: the Delphic maxim "Know Thyself."

I think it would make a lot of sense in a way. Now that I use the iPhone for casual "note-taking" snaps (something I had to force myself to start doing a couple of years ago, as you might remember), a FF or FF+ sensor camera makes sense to complement it.

I learned how this works years ago when I spent a summer using a 4x5 view camera intensively (the only time in my life that I did so). I found to my surprise that it improved my 35mm shooting (which was my normal technique at the time). I had been trying to use the 35mm camera to satisfy my desire to make carefully composed, precisely framed shots; once the view camera took over that role—a role it was better at—my 35mm shooting got looser and more free.

And better.

And because I had the 35mm to satisfy my "note-taking" and "visual exploration" urges, I wasn't tempted to try to take snapshots with the view camera.

It was nice.

Taught me a lesson.

Anyway I can imagine the GFX-50S being the "yin" to the iPhone's "yang." The flip side of the same coin, the other end of the same stick. Instead of going with one system in the middle (I consider APS-C / Micro 4/3 to be the "middle" of the sensor-size range), go with two cameras that are each more extreme—phone camera for records, notes, sharing, and utilitarian tasks, and a FF+ sensor camera for more deliberate, contemplative, expressive, finished work.

It's a theory, anyway. I wonder if it would work, or if I'd just miss the regular ol' middle-sized cameras I'm used to. I really do like those.

Le weekend
Be all that as it may, I'm off to work on me book over the next two days. I'm going to enjoy that. I've been looking forward to it. Back on Monday. Hope you have a nice weekend your own self!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Surviving in the middle
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself a GFX

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

Andrew Lamb: "Re 'I found to my surprise that it improved my 35mm shooting (which was my normal technique at the time),' Mary Ellen Mark said something very similar. She stated that moving from 35mm to medium format made her a better 35mm shooter and moving from medium format to large format made her a better medium format shooter.

"Moving to large format just made me broke."

Mike replies: Not making yourself go broke is a good first principle where these things are concerned.  :-)

Dennis Ng: "My D810 fulfills that role vs. the iPhone 7. I guess it is better to be even better."

Peter: "I get you. The two cameras that I use most these days, and that complement each other in terms of subjects, approaches, and projects are a Minolta TC-1 (small 28mm point-and-shoot with flash) and a Chamonix 4x5."

Mike replies: Very cool.