The Online Photographer

Rounding up a few significant recent releases:

Nikon D500
The Nikon D500 is a milestone. The biggie camera companies' commitment to the smaller sensor has been less than inspiring overall—as is often noted, neither Canon nor Nikon have ever bothered to build even adequate offerings of APS-C-specific prime lenses, and, after a desultory hodgepodge of offerings, Sony backed away from providing a full lens lineup for its former NEX cameras. ("Get an adapter, sonnyboy"?) The central signal of this lack of interest was that after first committing to APS-C for its pro offerings, Nikon reversed itself and went to FF ("full-frame," 35mm size...which used to be called "miniature" when it was a film format, but never mind). The 300S was its last pro-level APS-C camera, and that came out almost seven years ago now. Users waited, and waited. The professional-grade APS-C DSLR became Nikon's lost child, wandering in the wilderness.

The D500 is the Prodigal Son coming home again. It can of course be used as a main camera for general shooting, but as a $2,000 body with no IBIS its main brief for actual professionals is to serve as a specialty camera for sports-and-action photography and for those who shoot telephotos and need the reach—bird photographers for instance should love the D500. It has a high frame rate, very fast AF using an array of focus points the width of the entire frame, and an AF-point selection joystick. And with an XQD card (that stands for eXtra Quick Damn card...no it doesn't, but that's how I manage to remember it) it can gobble captures impressively before pausing to burp.

It will also have a very good viewfinder. Why is that important? Because most APS-C DSLRs for amateurs don't. And it's nice to have that option.

The D500 is worthy of the great 17–55mm ƒ/2.8.

D300s fans who have been wandering in the desert for 40 digital years are back to the land of milk and honey.

Pentax K-1
One downside of the new Nikon D500? It's no smaller, and only slightly (150g) lighter, than the Pentax K-1, the long-awaited, do-everything FF body from Ricoh. (That is, without the battery grip shown here.)

Maybe I've been in this business too long, but the K-1 puts me in mind, a little, of the Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta's 1998 swan song pro body. That Maxxum (called Dynax overseas) addressed longstanding gadfly complaints that Minolta didn't have a professional body (although it had tried back in '93 with the 9xi, a different camera than the 9). So Minolta finally gave in and produced one, and it was terrific...but it didn't have a pro system around it, its competitors were already well entrenched, and the market was shriveling because digital was on the way. So it kind of fizzled. Cut to 2016, and Pentax has endured longstanding gadfly complaints about its lack of a full-frame body. But its competitors are already well entrenched, and the market is, if not shriveling, at least contracting...

...And the all-new K-1 also looks to be terrific. In this day and age when multinational giants are competing fiercely with traditional cameramaking companies, Pentax is perhaps the only marque that is both: a fine old name (Pentax was the top consumer SLR in the 1960s) with the resources of a multinational giant, Ricoh, standing behind it. Can the K-1 compete, or is it too little, too late? Helping it along is a very nice price indeed for a camera packed with this much technology, especially at introduction—less than $1,800. I'll see one on my next visit to B&H Photo in New York City, in the meantime we'll hope it meets a better fate than the old Maxxum 9. But then this is manna from heaven for long-suffering Pentax fans, and Pentax fans are among the most loyal of all. The K-1 is currently back-ordered.

The very best thing about the K-1? Back to native angle of view for the wonderful Pentax Limited 31mm, 43mm, and 77mm lenses*.

Fuji X-Pro2
It's kinda funny that everybody has migrated to FF just as APS-C gets surpassingly good. The story of Fujifilm has been one of the great success stories of the past ten years, growing from next to nothing. What was Fuji in 2006 but a maker of a modified Nikon with a funky sensor (the S3) and a bunch of point-and-shoots like the cute little Z1? The X100 created a bonafide international sensation in late 2010 when it first appeared, and speculation that was half rumor and half hopeful fantasy flew in all directions about an interchangeable-lens version. Fujifilm very promptly fulfilled expectations with the X-Pro1, which, when it came out in early 2012, was one of the most hotly discussed and widely desired cameras of the whole digital era.

Did Fujifilm then either rest on its laurels or reinvent its own camera? It did not. Thanks to David Hobby we got an inside look at how Fujifilm went about exhaustively refining every aspect of the older camera to make it better in every way—while not changing its basic character, shape, operation, advantages, or "gestalt."

They fixed the battery slot; diopter correction is now built-in; there's a joystick for focus-point placement (double press it and focus resets to the center of the frame); there are two card slots (one UHS-II, if that matters to you); and about the only way that speed has not improved is in startup time...which is faster, just not enough to be really noticeable.

The unique viewfinder, denied even to Leica, was the original camera's most distinctive feature. But it's strongest point was its image quality. That has been significantly improved, and is the leading edge of the wedge as the Fujifilm X-Pro2 garners glowing praise from all over the world.

A unique camera that used to be good and is now superlative. Buy it with the new XF 35mm ƒ/2 normal, a lens that was made for it.

Sony A6300
I like refinement: it's a sound idea. Take a good design and make it better by getting feedback, improving weaknesses, and building on strengths.

Sony's A6300 is the furthest development yet of its NEX concept, which began in 2010 with the NEX-5 and NEX-3, Sony's first "mirrorless" cameras (although it took a while for the world to settle on that term). In 2010 it was a formidable combination of a super-tiny camera and a sensor as large as most DSLRs had at the time. All that is not quite as special any more as it was then, and Sony's interests have moved on to greener (think FF, and "green" as in $$) pastures, but meanwhile the concept has benefited from six years of steady refinement and steady improvement over multiple models. The current iteration isn't so wee, because really, it's better to size a camera to fit the hands of humans. But it's been refined into a highly usable and very user-friendly camera.

The A6000 was evidently a huge bestseller, surprising even Sony. It just seemed to hit that magic sweet spot of high performance, small size and convenience, and low cost. The A6300 is a "no, we meant this" type of refinement—"better" in numerous small ways, including, notably, construction quality. (Cynics might say it's a way to come in on top of the A6000 in price-point for customers who are less price-sensitive, but we're not cynics.) It does have a claim to fame: fastest autofocus in the world. Asterisk, among ILC's with APS-C sensors. But still, super-quick.

The A6000 is still in the lineup, and continues to be the better choice for those conserving precious shekels. Fast, light, cheap, and not too hard to learn to use, I'd say it's the number one recommendation for parents taking pictures of kids.

Lenses? It doesn't make a huge amount of sense, because it's too big and too costly, but if for the dedicated enthusiast, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, a lens I owned and still miss, remains a particular recommendation. It would be a shame to own an A6300 without also owning the Zeiss 24mm. I'd say it's worth shooting Sony's ex-NEX cam just to use that beautiful lens....

-

[To be continued next Monday...]

Mike

*There's no way for me to segregate the named lenses from the other Limited lenses at the link. Check FF coverage compatibility for the lenses you're interested in.

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Michael Murphy (partial comment): "For the best lens for the Nikon D500, get the Sigma 17–50mm ƒ/2.8 OS instead of the much more expensive Nikon. DxO rated the Sigma as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100. I have both the Nikon and Canon versions. [...] Now I just wish I could find an equally low priced, good quality 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 or equivalent to match! Even Thom Hogan recommend the Sigma over the Nikon, when the Sigma cost $600+. At $419 it is a steal."

Richard: "Speaking of miniature cameras, did you know that the Manhattan Miniature Camera Club is still in existence? You should pay them a visit the next time you're in town, it might be worth a story." 

Mike adds: From the Club's welcome page:

"Why 'miniature?' When our Club was founded, back in 1933, 'miniature,' or 35mm, photography was new and exciting. In fact, the Leica, the first successful 35mm camera, had been introduced only eight years earlier. The term 'miniature,' meaning the smallest standard format, was much used until the 1950s, and though the word no longer applies to 35mm cameras, we proudly keep it in the official name of our Club, both because it indicates that it is one of the oldest clubs in the metropolitan area and because it is the name by which the Club is widely known."

Jim R: "While it's not a flood, the number of people 'dabbling' in the K-1 is quite impressive. Source data = new member welcome page at pentaxforums, a USA user site. I never thought I'd see such a thing—multiple users of other brands coming to Pentax each day...and not just lurking!"

I'm not sure I'm the best person to talk to about rumors. I just seem to lack the gene that gets all tweaked out for upcoming things. Where is the world headed to?!? What's going to happen to it? Like, it's been spinning on its axis rilly rilly fast while traveling in this giant arc around this rilly close star! Where's it going? Where's it gonna end up? What's going to happen to the world?!?

Chill. It's just going around and around like an idiot kid who won't get out of the revolving door is all.

I mean, I like new products. I just don't quite see the point in getting too lathered about them before they're real.

Of course I understand that many people really do enjoy rumors. I hung out on the ND section of Miata.net for about two years before the 2016 Miata was unveiled, and I'm pretty convinced there are still some guys out there who won't get out of bed or pull the covers off their heads because they miss their favorite form of argumentation and disputation so much and are still grieving. That car was discussed so much before anyone knew anything that just the rumormongering had became a lifestyle for some guys. A bunch of middle-aged motorheads arguing heatedly over speculative beliefs that couldn't be confirmed or debunked—there's fun for ya.

So I'm not one to rain on anyone else's parade. Clearly, people love camera rumors. Call it...nextmania. The craze for whatever's coming next.

So anyway—I started off track here and am now going to take a crowbar and wrench myself back on course—there's a rumor that's been going around, that started apparently on sonyalpharumors.com, that Sony will release a full-frame mirrorless camera in the Fall positioned above the A7 series. The "A9"—not an official name—will have either 72 or 80 megapixels, and continuous capture (without a buffer limit), writing to dual high-capacity, superfast XQD cards. (In related news, my mental hard drive for things known by three initials is almost full, and nothing will delete—but never mind.) Fantastic! So you'll be able not only to record pictures that are too big, but you'll be able to get too many of them too fast, too.

Sorry, I'm just trying to be funny. I don't mean that.

...Meanwhile, we just couldn't have IBIS in the A6300, could we. Grump.

We could either discuss the "A9," or just wait till it happens. I suppose I'll be ready to write about it after it's been out for a year. I guess I'm more of a classicist. When I was young I was more interested in old things than new things.

Mike

P.S. Every time someone in the Comments uses the phrase "game changer" it's going to hurt me like a bee sting, as I'm allergic to it. Do as you like, but take it easy on me please.  :-)

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Dennis: "I think we need to stop measuring camera companies on big flashy numbers like 72 MP. Take a lesson from sports and their assists and turnovers, earned run averages and more stats than you can shake the proverbial stick at.

"How about measuring each camera company's LBR (lens to body ratio) each year? Or it's FFC (full frame to crop)? What's their average FU (firmware updates per body)? We can talk which company has an aging lineup and which one is in (or should be in!) a rebuilding season. Just think how much easier it would be to argue over who's best if you had access to stats like these (and 20 or 30 others).

"Of course, to settle it once and for all, we'd need a fantasy camera league. That would undoubtedly be more fun than taking pictures for some."

The new Leica M-D

-

Leica M9 shooter and TOP reader Benjamin Marks thinks about the new M-D

The short announcement at Engadget got me thinking. Hmmm. Would have to think hard about this. I see the logic of keeping it simple. But how do you do firmware updates with no way to interact with the camera? Maybe you have no firmware updates. Or maybe the interface is all on my computer?

I am thinking about how I actually use my M9. For all of its flexibility, I actually keep the thing on a set of settings and do most of my manipulation after the fact. For me:

• RAW only
• ISO 400, unless circumstances dictate otherwise
• Color space set to...I can't even remember. Adobe RGB?
• Image size: Set to max
• Motor drive: 3 fps

So, OK. As far as it goes, Leica has more or less standardized my choices as the only choices on this new machine.

This raises the question: So what do I actually use the screen for? Well, I do have some lenses that back-focus, or for which the DOF changes unevenly as they are stopped down. The 50mm ƒ/1.5 Sonnar comes to mind. Checking focus is easy and has eliminated the little note cards I used to keep with each problematic lens back in my film days.

Also, I use some lenses—like my 15mm and 21mm's without an auxiliary finder, and have been checking what is actually in the frame using the M9's screen. So I'd have to change that part of the workflow.

I also tend to share the best of a series with the subject in real time...sort of like: look how good you (or your child or your pet or whatever) look. Without the screen, the camera is less of a social device. It would be OK for street photography, maybe. Say goodbye to the whole "but you weren't even in the picture..." tension-diffuser with a mad member of the public, or a cop, or whatever. Also, the "is that a digital camera?" question/answer gets a little more nuanced. "Yeah, it is digital, but you'll have to trust me...."

Ironically—and maybe this is why I have devoted any thought to a camera I can't afford and won't consider purchasing until I am looking at a used one in seven years—this camera, in terms of workflow, is more or less what I imagined I would be using back in 2000. I thought—insanely incorrectly, as it turns out—that for our Manual M's we would have a drop in focal-plane sensor with the "cassette" space taken up with a small battery, storage, and associated electronics. Ironically, the battery and storage pieces of my cockamamie future-proof idea are "there" (have you seen the size of the storage chips most phones take? Sixteen MB on a chip the size of my little fingernail...and this is the "old" tech). I just never imagined how quickly film would go poof as the medium of choice. Shows what I know/knew.

I also imagine that by cutting out the screen and its battery requirements, all firmware except one preset set of settings, etc. that Leica may actually have a better profit margin on the M-D as a unit than their current M-of-the-year that has to have a team of engineers thinking about how all those pieces fit together, and how they will be upgraded, and supported etc. I will be listening for sales reports with a bemused sense of detachment.

Ben

©2016 by Benjamin Marks, all rights reserved

Originally published at Rangefinder Forum (RFF).

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Mark Roberts: "If you shoot strictly raw you are quite right to have ignored the color space setting: It affects only in-camera JPEG."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Mike, 'Zahnwalt' would come to mind—a made-up word out of 'Zahnarzt' (dentist) and 'Anwalt' (lawyer). That is also the group which is usually getting the biggest and baddest Harleys—they can't really ride them; it's more about the possession (and on Germany's roads at least, a small Ninja-like fighter motorcycle would drive circles around them anyway)...." 

Kenneth Tanaka: "No camera company indulges in past-tense pretense more devotedly than Leica. 'Step back to the future.' 'Focusing on the essential.' 'The joy of anticipation.' Who gets up, eats breakfast, and goes to work to write this stuff?!

"Of course the central thesis at the core of this facility deprivation design is that your pictures are lame because you spend too much time fiddling with your camera's nasty digital digital controls and looking at that new-fangled peep show screen on the back of cam as these days.

"Raise your hand (or open your wallet widely) if you really subscribe to this thesis. No, my hand is not up. In fact I'm thrilled that Leica recently converted to those new-fangled CMOS sensors, thus enabling live-view in that peep-show screen on my M-P (240)! It has eliminated the need for old-fangled special viewfinders for wide lenses.

"The Leica M-D was inevitable after the model 262 which kept, but severely censored, the camera's peep-show. It's a digital film camera. It's a camera designed around a strict fundamentalist philosophy of photography. If 'great' photographers of yore didn't need 'it' you shouldn't need 'it,' either.

"Leica is just about the only camera company on Earth that could, and does, indulge such deprivation whiffs*. My initial reaction is that the M-D is the most ridiculous such indulgence yet. But that's badly misguided. Leica has long realized that amateur photography among its clientele is 90% about the experience of photographing. As an admittedly weak analogy someone flying an Airbus A380 all day might feel more 'connected' flying something like an old 1930s Fokker on weekends. So for an earnest price, in this case six thousand dollars, Leica will give you that Fokker experience in the age of the Airbus. There's nothing wrong with that.

"Now if they follow-up with an M-D that limits you to just 36 shots per memory card...."

*[Not quite—Porsche sold a 911 that was lightened by taking lots of non-essential stuff out of it. For instance, removing the door handles and replacing them with leather straps. Of course, the lightened Porsche cost more.

Lightness does have a positive virtue in sports cars, and making one-offs can be more expensive because it departs from the main production run. —Ed.]

Stephen McCullough: "Well I like it. I rarely use the screen on my cameras. This has the controls I need and nothing more. Oh, and one small point: this Leica shoots DNG only. No JPEGs. Nice."

Gordon Cahill (partial comment): "Like the Monochrom, Leica have identified a tiny customer group that no one else caters for and made them a camera. Certainly it's a small group and the cost of entry is high, compared to some others. And a camera like the M-D won't make sense to many. But lots of people said Leica were crazy to make a camera that shoots only in black and white and yet here we are on the second version because the first was so successful. What Leica are becoming, once again (finally) is the camera company not afraid to take a risk."

Gaspar Heurtley: "I'm part of that 'bridge generation' between film and digital as a mainstream (I'm 34), so I've always had a film approach to photography. I shoot with an Olympus E-M5 full of features I couldn't care less about (went through the menu once, set it the way I like and never looked back) but I rarely look at the screen and I use buttons instead of the touchscreen. I always thought that Leicas where made just to show off (you know, 'look at me, I have a Leica'), but this is the first time they have something I really long for: pure simplicity. No other company is ever going to do something like that, unfortunately."

Ed Hawco (partial comment): "We're witnessing extremes. Most digital cameras have mind-boggling sets of options, beyond the point of distraction, but this Leica M-D is too far in the other direction."

Shiny and new: the new Olympus Pen F

With expensive but undeniably desirable gadgets that lose value quickly, it's worthwhile to spend a little thought to develop an adoption strategy so you don't waste your resources.

Three strategies:

1. Be an early adopter and buy new, but keep the camera only for a short time, say 6 to 18 months. Or two years at the most, especially if you're willing to keep an eye on the announcement and timing of replacement models. Why: this way, you always have the latest up-to-date camera, and with any luck you can sell the model you have before it's superseded. Your loss includes the early adopter "premium" (most digital cameras are at their most expensive right after introduction) to the possibly more discounted later-life price, plus the inevitable new-to-used depreciation, but you can often still get a good amount of your investment back out of the camera—more than half in many cases. This strategy makes sense for: people who enjoy trying out the latest thing and don't mind switching often, and who will put relatively a lot of use on their cameras within a relatively short time.
2. Buy new but up to a year after introduction, and keep your camera for a relatively long time, at least 3–5 years. Why: this allows early adopters to be the "beta testers" for the product, allows time for the camera to be thoroughly reviewed, and gives "the crowd" time to uncover nagging problems and issues—some of which might be fixed by the manufacturer—making your purchase more likely to be fully eyes-open and therefore safer. The downside is that there won't be much value in the camera after five years have gone by and you won't recover much of your investment selling it used. But by then you'll presumably have gotten so much use out of it that this won't matter very much. An additional advantage to this strategy: when you finally do buy a new camera, the improvements in its technology will probably be very real and quite noticeable. Makes sense for: people who are conservative about their purchases, like to get to know their equipment well, and are secure enough to use a camera that's a bit "yesterday's news."
3. Buy older models used or on closeout at the end of their lifecycle. Around the time camera models are replaced, early adopters are often selling examples that have received relatively little use, and dealers and discounters are clearing out slow-selling older stock. Bargains are to be had. And of course models that are two or three generations old are usually available on eBay or from other sources of used gear. Why: prices are often a fraction of what they were when the cameras were the latest thing. Right now, for example, the Fuji X-Pro2 interchangeable-lens RF-style camera is the latest thing, but it sells for $1,700. The X-Pro1, which also created a huge amount of excitement and inspired a lot of devotion among its fans when it was announced in early 2012 and also cost $1,700 new, now can be purchased new for $500. It's known to have "slow" focusing, but that's a relative thing—it's not that slow, and it's perfectly good for scenics and landscapes or deliberate portraiture—and you're saving $1,200. It's a nice body to use while starting a collection of lenses. This isn't the only example of course—a great many cameras reach a "low ebb" in pricing, and are sometimes spectacular bargains. Prices can be such a bargain that whatever value is left in it after your term of ownership amounts to a bonus. An additional advantage to this strategy: it's a way of inoculating yourself against impulsive purchases. You know you're not just getting your head turned by the latest shiny toy that everyone's excited about! This strategy makes sense for: people who like to spend as little as possible and like real bargains, but can resist the siren song of the latest thing.

So what I'd recommend is either buying early and getting out again quickly while the model is still current, or choosing carefully and deliberately and keeping the camera for a number of years. I personally think it's too hard to limit yourself to older, discontinued products purchased used—it's human nature to want the latest and best. But some people have the discipline to do that.

A fourth strategy might be:

4. Create a "photo budget" you're comfortable with and just "write off" that cost in your mind as the amount you pay every year for a pursuit you enjoy. I did that for many years in the decades between 1980 and 2000, first earmarking $3,000 annually for my no. 1 hobby and later, when my salary improved, $5,000, mainly paying for film and printing paper but also a revolving door of cameras and lenses. I didn't worry about getting that money back; it was what I was willing to pay to do something I loved, and I've never regretted a penny of those old budgets I spent. I got my money's worth. Doing what you enjoy in life can cost a few bucks, which is okay if it's within what you can afford.

ADDENDUM (see below):

5. Moose's "Smategy": Don't scrimp; you're supposed to be enjoying yourself! Buy whatever you want!

Sounds good to me. :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

JG: "Personally, I've employed all four of the strategies you outlined and in pretty much sequential order, too. I am now photographing with a pair of older cameras bought used, and most of my modest photo budget is used to buy paper and ink to make prints. (Most of which are then neatly stacked in stylish Pina Zangaro cases and stored under my bed, but I digress...)

"It has taken me quite a while and cost me a lot of money to reach this point, but I don't believe I could be any happier than I am today. It really is liberating to finally focus the majority of my attention on the photos I take and not the cameras that I take them with!  8^)  "

Kusandha: "Thank you for suggesting option 4! I have mostly worked with option 2 in the past, but I like the sound of option 4 a lot more as a way to fight off GAS, enjoy this hobby of mine, and also be more financially responsible as I get older."

KW Leon: "My strategies:

1. Buy new
I was sent to buy a camera for the office. So I picked up a Panasonic for a few hundred and spent a few thousand on an M8 for myself. Like sending an alcoholic to pick up the drinks for the office party.

2. Don't use
Left the M8 unopened, continued using the M6. Until the M9 came out and I got that too. At which point I finally decided it really was time to unbox the M8.

3. 1C/1L/many Y
I have 14 M lenses but the M8 has only ever had three lenses mounted on it. Once a lens goes on, it stays on for much longer than just one year. I have no issues with using a digital (!) camera that's ten-year-old news. The M9 is still NIB.

4. Buy in case they don't make them any more
E.g., FM3A (never used). 75mm Summilux, once I heard it was discontinued (did I ever use it?). Old 90mm Macro Kit when the new 90mm Macro Kit for the M240 was announced (better get it before it's gone; never used). Etc.

5. Sell nothing
Except for a Seagull TLR 30 years ago. Should have kept the camera; what was the $50 I got for it?"

Burple: "Following strategy 3, I recently purchased a refurbished Sony A77II with Sony 16–50mm ƒ/2.8 lens, with warranty, for $650. Selling the lens (which retails for $799) for $400. Thus, got myself a new a77II for...$250! If I sell my Sony A700 as well, I just upgraded for almost nothing."

Rodney Topor: "Your strategies seem to assume you stay in the same ecosystem. If you wish to change ecosystems, you also have to buy a new set of lenses to go with your new camera. OK, you can buy new or second hand lenses, but it's still expensive, and changes the thought processes and economics significantly."

Phil: "If you’re seriously considering costs as part of your camera use, it’s usually best to buy a high-end camera, one of the 'pro' models. These will hold more value over a longer usage span, the models aren’t turned over as quickly so they stay current and valuable longer, and they will be supported longer by the manufacturer. Also think of repair—if you break a cheaper camera, it may not be worth putting, say, $250 into a $500 camera, so you never get a chance to 'use it up' or resell it. The high-end camera may be the best buy no matter which strategy you use—it’ll hold a higher percentage of its price at resale after 1–2 years even if you buy early at top price, and it’ll last longer and still be worth keeping for many years or selling if you buy later after its price cut. Same goes for lenses. 'Kit' lenses are basically throwaways, but the popular high-end lenses hold their value very well, more so than camera bodies."

Moose (partial comment): "Strategy, smategy.

"My strategy in photography is to enjoy myself, not to minimize its expense.

"If one of my hobbies were scrimping, saving, making do, and so on, I might enjoy doing photography with greater emphasis on doing it on the cheap.

"But I don't derive joy from that. So I would do it if I had to, but I don't, for the gear I like. If I derived joy from high status stuff, and could afford it, perhaps I would be using Leica and other high $ gear. (They are making something other than rangefinders, now, no? I really dislike rangefinders.)

"But what really floats my boat is finding gear that I enjoy using, that fits, and that is capable of producing images that I enjoy having made and enjoy sharing with others.

"And, truth be told, I simply enjoy taking photographs. I'll see something I've shot many times before, and still derive pleasure out of really paying attention to it and shooting it again. Sheer waste of time, and perhaps a little $, but this is not an exercise in efficiency."

Bob: "📷
😗Nice! How much?
💰
🤔It does so much more than my old 📷. 😕

I can afford to have 📷📷. 💰💰. 😬

😇 You don't need another 📷.

😈 Yes you do! Look at how pretty it is. Just think how much better your pictures would be with the new 📷.🌊🌷🌝⛰🌄🏜🌈🌇🏝🏯😈

😍
😇 Don't do it!
🖕
😍😍🤑🤑💸💸💸💸

😍😍😎😎I got a new 📷🤗😍🤗🎉.

📷🐱📷🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱

🤔That was a lot of 💰to spend to 📷🐱. I don't need 📷📷.

I'll sell 📷🤑.

😐 No one wants my 📷😢

😰

What if no one buys it?😱😩😩😩😩

😀🤑🤑Sold!

☺️ <---- Current position in cycle.
☺️ May
☺️ June (maybe)

📷

🤔

🙄

😬"

Gerard Kingma: "You can do an automated find-and-replace 'camera' for 'car' in Word and it's still a valid article."

PaddyC: "The featured comments (and comments in general) for this post are some of the best I've read in a long time. Gerard Kingma's observation is wonderful. I love Bob's emoji post. Is that a first for TOP? I don't always read the comments. I give the single best sentence to Moose: 'Sheer waste of time, and perhaps a little $, but this is not an exercise in efficiency.' Had me truly cracking up. But best reply must go to KW Leon. I'm still chuckling at that one. Thanks to everyone who put a smile on my face this morning. TOP is great."

Just wondering if any Panasonic GX8 users have reports about the effectiveness of the Panasonic Dual Image Stabilization in the GX8 with properly modified lenses?

If you haven't heard of Dual I.S. [sic—Panasonic uses the periods], Panasonic claims to have perfected a method of combining the effects of in-body IS with in-lens IS.

The best breakdown of the feature's capabilities I've found so far occur in an excellent review of the GX8 by Richard Wong. The graphs about Dual I.S. start about halfway down.

In passing, let me note that it's difficult to write a really good review of a camera. The tendency is to vapor on with vapid banalities or else to create a turgid list of all the features and specs such that the review has about the same entertainment value as reading a manual. I've noticed a tendency in recent years—I think it started with Steve's Digicams—of expanding the "conclusion" section into almost a standalone mini-review in and of itself. If research shows that most readers skip to the conclusion anyway, then that seems to make sense. Although one slight oddity that then arises is that conclusions have to have conclusions.  :-) 

Sometimes the best reviews are amateur reviews. It requires a certain amount of passion and enthusiasm towards a camera on the part of the writer just to have the energy and diligence to do all the work to create a proper review...otherwise it's just too much of a grind. It looks like Richard did due diligence in his review of the GX8—it's nicely done. Kudos.

Years ago I ran across a very nicely-done review of the Leica M6. (Where was it, Photo.net maybe?) When I read it I thought, damn, I would have published that in the magazine. It was written by a guy from Texas I'd never heard of but whose name you might know—one Kirk Tuck.

Richard Wong's data abut the GX7's IBIS match my experience—good for a stop or a stop and a half maybe, or, in other words, not very good. His review implies that Dual I.S. in the GX8 is about as good as, and possibly a little better than, the IBIS in the OM-D E-M5 Mark II, by general consensus currently the gold standard in IBIS across brands and formats. If so, then it marks a giant step forward for Panasonic in that regard. Just wondering if any of our readers have opinions about that from real-world use.

I like Panasonic, having owned a GF1, GX1, and GX7. The latter two didn't break into the heavy use category for me, through no fault of their own, but the GF1 was one of my two most-used digital cameras since I first went digital 13 years ago. The other being my beloved Konica-Minolta 7D of sainted memory. I've asked for a GX8 to review. (I'm still in the queue for an Epson P600 review unit but have no other reviews on the horizon except one for a camera bag.) 

One last comment about the GX8: seems to me that Panasonic has solved the riddle of size. I found the GX1 to be just too small for comfort for me, and although I know a great many people absolutely love the Fuji X100 and I certainly don't argue with them, I find that to be too small and fiddly too. (I wonder about the Pen F, pretty as it indisputably is.) Speaking of the M6, I remember a comment made by Andrew Matheson eons ago in his book Leica M6 to M1: Rangefinder Practice. The Leica, he said, "is a camera you can get to grips with." The GX8 seems to be a camera you can get to grips with.

Again, any users want to comment on that? I held a GX8 on a tether in New York, but I haven't shot with one.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Michael Walsh: "Regarding camera size—am sitting here with a brand new, just arrived Pen F. I was very worried it might be too small, but having played with it for a few hours it feels just right. One thing though—everyone says 'modelled on the original Pen F,' but have to say it far more reminds me of my (very) old Leica IIIf ! Anyway, a lovely camera and I am (in Yorkshire-speak) chuffed."

Mike Peters: "The GX8 is so far the most satisfying digital still camera that I've shot with. I'm not a small or huge person, six feet, and it fits my hands perfectly.

"The GX7 was far too small, but I liked the tilting viewfinder and touch screen, but missed the articulation of the rear screen. Plus the battery was too wimpy. The GX8 uses the GH2 and FZ1000 battery, and so far at events I have put over 1200 shots on one and not killed it.

"The still image quality is a cut above the last generation of 16-MP chips, and it's very usable with judicious processing at ISO's over 3200, up to 12,800 in a pinch.

"The IS is a bit of an unknown to me. I don't use many stabilized lenses. My main zooms are the Olympus 12–40mm and 40–150mm 2.8's. What I can say is that I can shoot at 150mm at 1/60th with confidence. That being said, I've also shot with confidence at 1/125th without IS for a long time before the GX8.

"The other lenses I use are the fully manual Voigtlander ƒ/0.95's and a full complement of Panasonic and Olympus primes, only one of which, the 42.5mm ƒ/1.7, is stabilized in the lens. And when I shoot video, I rely on a 3D gimbal for stabilization.

"I have two GX8's for all of my still work, and two GH4's for my video work, and previously owned GH2, GH3 and GX7 cameras. I've always found the Olympus bodies too small, and the same for the batteries. And once you get used to moving focus points with your thumb on the rear screen while peering through the viewfinder, there's no going without it.

"Last, but not at all least, being a right-eyed user with a big nose and glasses, having the viewfinder on the left edge of the body allows me to peer into it straight on, as opposed to looking through the very top of my glasses. It's a big help, trust me.

"All in all, it's a very well designed tool for making photographs, and once you get used to the layout, it will disappear in your hands."

Massimiliano Marchetti: "I believe most camera reviews have usually a fatal flaw: they are very detailed and useful but are based mostly on first impressions. Especially with the current level of complexity of digital cameras, I do not believe spending a few days or a couple of weeks with a camera is enough to get a proper experience and understanding of it. That is why, in my opinion we often see a lot of focus on the camera features while at the same time the review misses to drill down how and if these features visibly improve the shooting envelope."

Mike replies: Back in my idealist and impoverished youth, reviewing cameras for magazines, my personal standard was that I had to use a camera for three months, including for real work, before I'd write about it. That's impractical now, of course, but you're right that too many review go too far in the opposite direction.

Edward Taylor: "I have a GX8 that I originally bought as a 4K b-roll camera to use for video along side my GH4. But I loved the camera so much that now I use it for stills and video, and find its ergonomics to be great. Image stabilization is amazing. I have pretty stable hands, but there is a real difference of at least 2–3 stops when using the GX8. Try this camera, and I think you will have a hard time putting it down. It is solid, weather resistant, and has all the bells and whistles and does everything well. I, too, used the GF1 and loved it, but this camera blows it away. I have a lot of nice cameras to choose from, but now, the GX8 always seems to be the one I grab on my way out the door."

[Edward has written a number of camera reviews for TOP. —Ed.]

"Photography is all we do, and it’s all we’ve ever done."

—Sigma press release for the sd Quattros

Sigma has dropped the curtain on a dazzling surprise. The audience gasps! Applause swells and fills the room!

First of all, if you think Pentax is the wallflower at the DSLR party, consider Sigma. It owns the rights to an inherently superior sensor architecture, but, because it's proprietary, it's been stuck with developing it alone. My belief is that if the Foveon technology had been "open source" and available to all companies to develop competitively, it would be perfected far beyond where Sigma has been able to take it alone, and it would be in 98% of all cameras by now. If not 100%.

As it is, it's pretty amazing. The technically most impressive digital images I've ever seen were taken with Sigma cameras. The Foveon sensor has a beauty and an innate integrity that is unique. With intensive development from huge multinational electronics giants working competitively, the Bayer array sensor has come a very long way. It's still inherently a rather primitive kludge, analogous to tricolor cameras from the early days of color photography, which made original "color separations" on three sheets of B&W film in-camera...never mind that the color sensitivity of B&W film itself wasn't truly panchromatic! Analogously, Foveon is Kodachrome.

But consider the poor SD1, Sigma's first and nearly only DSLR [UPDATE: This isn't quite right. See Jim Kofron's Featured Comment below for more accurate information. —Ed.]. It was introduced in 2010 for a price of nearly $10,000...which probably sensibly reflected the development cost. It had a Sigma lensmount. With pixel count not an accurate metric of image quality, it came to be widely believed that the company's "pixel count equivalent" was a bit of a fudge, if not a con. Sigma couldn't win for losing. And its very rarity meant that most people couldn't see the pictures.

So along came the very strange digicams—cameras that took the form of fixed-lens point-and-shoots, but required the care of shooting with medium format to achieve the image quality of which they were capable. Add awkward proprietary software, and you had truly quirky outlier cameras that were not only out of the mainstream but very far from it. And at that, you had to buy separate cameras to get different lenses, as with 1960s Rolleiflexes. Weird. Quirky. But that sensor—wonderful.

Enter the sd Quattros
So what's happened now? Sigma has put its best Foveon X3 Quattro Direct sensor into an interchangeable-lens mirrorless body somewhat similar to the Leica SL. The sd [sic] Quattro and sd Quattro H differ only in the size of their sensors: APS-C (1.5X crop factor) for the former and APS-H for the latter. Remember APS-H from the Canon EOS-1D and the Leica M8? Sigma's is 26.6×17.9mm (1.0 inch×0.7 inch), with a 1.2X crop factor, and, as for pixels...well, it's complicated. In three layers, the top layer is 6,200×4,152, the middle and bottom layers are 3,348×2,232. Sigma estimates the quality to be about equivalent to a 45-MP Bayer array, but that's disingenuous because it's not equivalent. It's better.

As far as the details are concerned, I'm not going to get into that here. The cameras are in development—there's no ship date and no hint as to pricing yet. Here are the spec sheets if you want to delve into them.

Suffice to say that if you love Sigma Foveon quality—they have a small but devoted (dare I say cultish?) fan base—that game just changed.

This one's going to be fun to watch.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Chris Fuller: "I had a Sigma DP2 Merrill and the images were astounding, if you knew how to use it correctly. I loved their look. However, ultimately the slow software and the camera's very limited use for certain types of photography did not match my goals, so I sold it. Still think of that camera, though, with great fondness."

Jim Kofron: "Hi Mike, The SD1 was the first and only DSLR to use the 'Merrill' version of the Foveon sensor. The very first DSLR was the SD9 (first Foveon sensor, sans microlenses), followed by the SD10, SD14, and SD15. I've owned the last three (and have a DP3 Merrill). It's been a while since I've had a new Sigma (I skipped the SD1), and I'm looking forward to these new cameras (I'll probably spring for the H). I assume that this will also mean that I'll be springing for some new glass too...

"The game has changed. Hopefully the EVF and focusing have improved the operational characteristics. The QS menu system on the Merrills and Quattros are actually quite nice—the camera will get out of your way when you want to shoot. Having said that, I've had a hard time really embracing my DP3 (which creates marvelous images) because I really like to look through a viewfinder. And yes, I know that you can add one to the top, but...."

Geoff Wittig: "I will confess to never handling one. However, my understanding is that Sigma's Foveon sensor cameras have been hamstrung by a combination of sluggish electronics and kludgey raw processing software, rendering them marginally usable in the real world, despite the immense potential of their sensor architecture. Hopefully Sigma are devoting sufficient resources to the supporting electronics and software so the undoubted virtues of the sensor are available in a usable form.

"We're so spoiled by the remarkable speed and responsiveness of modern cameras that sluggish, balky devices are immediately kicked to the curb. I recently pulled out my old EOS-1Ds (circa 2002) and took a few shots. At its introduction it was considered much more usable and responsive than Kodak's competing 14-MP DCS Pro SLR, but today it feels like it's set in cement. You take a shot and count ('One-one thousand, two-one thousand'...) for several seconds before the preview image comes up on the LCD. It's excruciating!"

Massimiliano Marchetti: "I am an happy user of the three Merrills and one has to see the prints to really realize the quality and unique signature of the Foveon sensor. This is a surprising and very welcomed announcement from Sigma; waiting to see how they will improve upon the existing models and fix some of the issues of the Quattro series sensors. One thing for sure they need to improve is the Sigma Photo Pro software that is still incomplete and slow even if it usable with some pain and patience."

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "My own history with Sigma's Foveon cameras has arced over the years. My first encounter was with the original DP camera (which I reviewed here in 2009?) was a horror. I had never encountered a gadget that provoked me so close to mayhem. But some of the image files were wonderful. Fast forwarding a few years I bought the DPx Merrill cameras. Better design, or at least more tolerable. Last year I decided to spend dedicated time seeing what these guys could really do for me. After only a couple of weeks using the DP Merrills exclusively (I felt like Alfred Eisenstadt) I ended up with two outstanding sets of images, two of which have become among my all-time favorites. One is superb a street collage and the other is a rather surreal park/construction scene. Of course you cannot possibly discern the distinctive qualities of these images on a web site; you must see them printed large. But you can get a sense of their extraordinary detail from this tiny section of that park scene. You can nearly tell what these guys had for lunch! (By the way, I shot both of those as in-camera JPEGs.)

"Is this new Sigma in my future? Probably not, as I'm trimming kit and becoming more selective in my needs. But those of you who are curious about the legendary Foveon sensor it may soon be an excellent time to buy a used DPx Merrill to see for yourself.

"Your Sigma DPx Merrill Fun Fact! The Sigma DPx Merrill battery (a Sigma BP-41) is the same as Ricoh's DB-65 battery, used in their GR and GR II cameras!"

Al C.: "The DP Merrills are, in both absolute and relative (to peers) terms, the most amazing product of any kind I have ever owned. You nailed it: it has that Kodachrome glow, that ineffable transparency of light captured live. But then it may even be better in B&W, with that purity, bite and texture of 'narrative' which only the best of B&W can convey. Sure, I have to wait 15 seconds to chimp a shot. So? Sure, SPP takes five seconds to process a raw image. But my jaw hits the table every time the finished image locks in on screen.

"For the audiophiles among you, the analogy which comes to mind is that Bayer is solid state and Foveon is tube.

"In 2002 I was speaking with a pre-eminent, old-timer Sand Hill Road venture capitalist. I asked him which of his portfolio companies he believes will be a breakthrough homerun, knowing he's had quite a few of those. Without thinking, he said Dick Merrill's Foveon. He said it will revolutionize digital image capture. He was wrong. And he was right. If only...."

Canon and Nikon have long been like Toyota and Honda, the same but different, different but similar.

Lo and behold, though, they've diverged! To appearances, anyway.

Canon EOS 80D: familiar looks, familiar goodness

Canon
What we have here might be only lack of synchrony in the announcement schedule, but still. Canon has introduced the EOS 80D, the latest in a long and distinguished line of its pro-am* APS-C DSLRs. We're sort of to that point where we're improving the electronic-device capabilities of cameras—everybody's got to have the latest connectivity features and video, for example. Cameras are little computers, and woe betide the maker who misses a trick. But of course anyone shopping for their next DSLR wants whatever they buy to be up to date in all ways, so these regular refreshes are a service. The 80D features a new 45-point AF system and a 24-MP sensor. You can count on this being a highly developed product, as it's the Camry/Accord of the Canon lineup, and Canon is one of the top makers of DSLRs, and this line of products has been through many generations of continual refinement.

Canon also introduced the PZ-E1, "the world’s first detachable zoom adapter that provides silent and smooth zoom and can [be] adjusted incrementally to 10 different levels of zoom speed" for video zoom. 

Tiny, premium Nikon DL18-50 looks the business

Nikon
Nikon, meanwhile, has sailed up alongside Sony's popular and highly profitable RX100 series and fired a full broadside. It introduced the "DL cluster," a range of three 1" compacts. There's the Nikon DL18-50 ($847), Nikon DL24-85 ($647), and Nikon DL24-500 ($997). They differ mainly in their fixed lenses, hence the names. (The focal lengths in the names are 35mm-equivalent, notice.) The DL24-500 has a much great zoom range but is a much slower lens in terms of maximum aperture, and has a different form factor from the other two despite sharing similar internals. You can pick which angle-of-view range you want based on the kind of photography you do.

I like the names, by the way. They seem strange at first but they make sense and I'll bet we get used to them quickly.

Shootouts with the highly popular Sony RX100 IV should be forthcoming on the high seas. Should be interesting, although these are perilously close to cameras for people who don't read comparison reviews.

Despite being one of the great names in the business, Nikon has a noticeably spotty history with consumer cameras. Most of its offerings all the way back to the point-and-shoot revolution of the 1980s have been afterthoughts or OEMs or also-rans. (Even when they're very good like the would-be GR-killer Coolpix A that we liked.) Not since the 35Ti—a "premium point-and-shoot" from the film era—has Nikon really scored a true direct hit—and that was inspired by the competition too (the Contax T2). Unless I'm forgetting an exception. People like some of its tries—a fair number of people have come around to liking the Nikon 1 series, for example—but it seldom manages to lead (or dominate) at the lower end.

But anything Canon or Nikon does is interesting, if only because Canon or Nikon did it. And the market will likely be moving in the direction of 1" sensors as sensible smartphone camera competitors. I suspect the tide is on Nikon's side in this one.

Mike

*I detest the term "prosumer." Ugh.

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Jim Tardio: "The Nikon DL18-50 looks to be a street and travel photographers dream...that's really the perfect range for that type of shooting."

Michael Perini: "I don't think they have diverged very much , just a little out of sync—Canon did their 1" offerings a month or two ago. G7x, G5x, G9x. Nikon did the D500 but not the next D7200 (I think). Nikon has had the 1 series, and these new ones are basically the 1 series with fixed zooms. I thought the DL18-50 was a neat idea until I realized that they have gone with a big accessory EVF—I thought we'd seen the last of those—especially when you consider how elegantly Sony integrated theirs."

A smile and a wave to all you Pentax fans out there.

In case you don't know, in the camera world, Pentaxians are a breed apart. They're moderate, mild, friendly, dripping with decency, thoughtful, considerate, intelligent and tolerant.

You know—like Canadians.

They're also quietly long-suffering, and long since resigned to being second fiddle.

You burst on the scene already a legend*

Yesterday, though, they had a moment—a shining, triumphal moment, like the British in the 2012 Games**. Pentax, now owned by Ricoh (itself reticent but overachieving), introduced its first full-frame camera, simply called the Pentax K-1. (Love that. Simple. Sweet. Short. Sensible.) The letter "K" has been identified with Pentax since it called its first bayonet mount the K-mount, when it changed over from M42 screwmount. That happened during the reign of Charlemagne over the Franks, approximately. "1" means, well, 1. The tip, the top. First in line.

We knew the "full-frame Pentax" was coming. It had been leaked a time or two. What we didn't know was that it was going to be a D810 killer! The same number of pixels. A bit smaller, but actually a little heavier.

It also has: full 5-axis in-body image stabilization (take that, Canikon). A battery big enough to last and last. A unique articulated viewing screen that doesn't just flip up but can also be angled, but without getting out of line with the optical axis. Wi-fi. No anti-aliasing filter. It has Pentax's pixel-shift for still lifes, for full color information at every pixel location. Dual card slots. And little assist LEDs that helpfully light the way for when you have to futz with the camera in the dark.

It's weatherproof, dustproof, and works in the cold. And has 14-bit raw. And here's the best part: at $1,799, it's a big bargain.

Compare to the trifling, no-IBIS-having, ratty fixed-viewing-screen D810 at a cool GRAND more.

The body style reminds me of a Land Rover. Tough, macho and ready for anything, with a beefy grip to hang on to. Clearly it take cues from the K-5 and its descendants, as well as providing echoes of Pentaxes past. Pentax knows how to design camera bodies, arguably above all other makers. Its best are a cut above.

As an aside, this made me smile:

Someone on the design team had a little fun with that. Pentax has been using this little design cue in one form or another since the fabled Spotmatics, and maybe earlier.

And—at last!—that lovely, luscious set of Limited lenses are restored to their intended, totally quirky focal lengths. The three are the 31mm Limited, the 43mm Limited, and the 77mm Limited. (My friend Oren refers to these nonstandard specs as "Pentax numerology.") Older K-mount lenses can also be mounted to the K-1.

...Of course, Pentax now has the most hodgepodge lens lineup of any maker anywhere in the world, since it's been making lenses for multiple formats since Andrew Jackson was President and concentrating on APS-C lenses since the Administration of Woodrow Wilson. (Note: these are exaggerations. That thing about Charlemagne, too.) Sure to delight shoppers is the totally awkward fact that some of the APS-C lenses will a) fit on the K-1 and b) cover full frame at certain apertures or focal lengths but not others. This will give rise to delightfully arcane arguments among people who like to construct equipment kits on paper with no thought whatsoever to practicality in the real world. (All APS-C lenses work in crop mode, however, and crop mode can be set for any lens.) At least you can see what the lenses do—there's a real glass pentaprism with near-100% coverage that promises good magnification and eye relief.

And the vertical grip is removable.

There are two new dedicated lenses, a 15–30mm ƒ/2.8 and a 28–105mm ƒ/3.5–5.6. Pentax says there will be more. (Note TOP's ongoing advice, however: make sure the lenses you need are available before you buy any camera. Promises don't take pictures.)

While it's unlikely to be the biggest, baddest, fastest or most professional FF out there, the K-1 seems squarely targeted to be one thing: the perfect enthusiast full-frame body for dedicated diehard Pentaxians. Seems to me like it's just exactly tailored to what they'd most want, like, and appreciate.

Let their fun begin.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and how very considerate of Pentax to build the perfect body for the Sigma Art 35mm ƒ/1.4 I wrote about just the other day. (Thanks to John Krumm for pointing this out.)

*Joan Baez singing about Bob Dylan

**As hosts in 2012, Great Britain had its best Olympics since 1908.

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Trecento: "Congratulations, Pentaxians! I'm very happy for you! (It really feels like a good friend has just had a much-longed-for child, after many years of disappointments that had made even bringing up the topic painful. Good show.)"

Glenn Brown: "Thank you very much. —Glenn Brown, Canadian  :-)  "

Ned Bunnell: "The first three lenses I'd love to try with the K-1 would be the 'three amigos,' a.k.a. the FA* Limited 31mm, 77mm and 43mm (the order in which I'd shoot with them)."

[Ed. Note: As I've mentioned before, friend Ned is the former President of Pentax USA.]

Hugh Smith: "Remember when Honeywell distributed Pentax? Then Asahi? Now Ricoh. Curioser and Curioser, Alice. Mi dos pesos."

Mike replies: Those are three different things. Asahi Optical Corporation was the name of the Japanese company before it changed its name to Pentax Corporation in 2002 (Pentax had previously been a brand name). Honeywell was just the U.S. distributor from the 1950s to the '70s. Ricoh is a larger company historically known for making copiers that bought the cameramaking assets of Pentax from its previous owner, Hoya. Hoya is a Japanese glassmaking company that bought Pentax in 2006. Hoya was mainly interested in the medical divisions, which it still retains. Ricoh was interested in the interchangeable-lens camera assets, and that's what it bought from Hoya—similar to the way Sony bought the cameramaking assets of Minolta, except that Sony considered its own name to be stronger in the market whereas Ricoh continues to use the Pentax name. Ricoh acquired all shares of the former Pentax Imaging Corp. and created a new division called Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company Ltd. in 2011.

Then on August 1st, 2013, Pentax Ricoh Imaging Ltd. changed its name to Ricoh Imaging Ltd., specifying its product naming strategy in a press release: "The company has...unveiled its future product brand strategy: both PENTAX and RICOH products will remain in the market under the new name to reinforce the company’s commitment to the business with Pentax becoming the brand for all DSLR, interchangeable lens cameras and binoculars, and Ricoh becoming its brand for compact cameras and new technological innovations."

Curiously, the Pentax name was originally a trademark of East German VEB Zeiss (VEB stands for Volkseigener Betrieb or "people-owned enterprise"), but was stripped from it after the war. Asahi, which was founded in 1919 but made its first camera in 1952, adopted the Pentax name in 1957.

Confused enough yet? The short version is that Pentax has been a brand name of Ricoh since 2011.

Kevin Purcell replies to Mike (partial comment): "To clarify, this was not quite the same as Sony and Konica/Minolta deal.

"Konica/Minolta and Sony agreed to work on DSLR cameras in 2005. Sony bought the intellectual property of Minolta's SLRs and lenses from Konica/Minolta when the latter exited the DSLR camera (and photo film, photo paper paper and minilab) market in 2006.

"Konica/Minolta is alive and well. One division still designs and builds lenses (and other optics) for third parties that put their own brands on them. This includes camera lenses which you see patented on a regular basis.

"Ricoh bought all of the Pentax Imaging company from Hoya which includes not only the ILC cameras but the compact cameras and sports optics (like binoculars and spotting scopes).

"Pentax is now really just a brand of Ricoh Imaging Co much as that might irk some Pentaxians."

Chas: "Hi I went back through my collection of old Pentax spec sheets and found that the little design quirk on the top of the pentaprism goes back to the AF [Asahiflex —Ed.] model introduced in 1957. Sadly my collection of old Pentax cameras doesn't include one or I would include a photo...."

Mike replies: Here it is. Right? [UPDATE: Nope, wrong. Linked is a Pentax K. Thanks to Tom for the correction. —Ed.]

David W. Scott: "Sold. Well done Pentax. I'm a Canadian Pentaxian that has been waiting a long time for this. I've dabbled in Nikon and Fuji, but my primary system is Pentax, both K-mount and screwmount. All but one of my lenses are full frame, because I knew we would get here eventually. I recently sold my K-5 to maximize the salvage value, hoping that the K-1 would deliver. It does, and at a world-beating price. The K-1 will be coming home to join the LX, K2, my Dad's Spotmatic F, and the quirky K-01."

vinck: "It makes me sad, actually. I really liked my K-5 and DA Limited lenses, and have a kind of fondness for Pentax. But try as I might, I can't see this making any sort of business sense. It really seems like a waste of good money.

"Let's see: launching a full frame camera, which is a niche even to DSLRs to begin with, long after everybody else. Those that needed full frame have gone looking elsewhere, bought the lenses in their new home, and are unlikely to return. Those that stayed with the brand didn't really need full frame, and probably still don't. And if they have bought DA lenses, those are not really useful on the K-1.

"Then there is the lack of lenses. For the time being, you have to contend with a handful of zooms, and no modern prime. Most old lenses won't be any good really on a 36-MP sensor. There's a reason Canon and Nikon have updated an awful lot of their lenses.

"So now they have to develop a full line of FF lenses in addition to the body. All this must have cost an awful lot of money and divert an awful lot of R&D resources, and will continue to do so. Pentax is a small player to start with, and the company now has to manage four lines of interchangeable lens cameras, where Nikon has three and Canon two. And it's not like the 645 or Q lines are fully fleshed out either.

"And all this money for...a DLSR? Seriously? The consensus seems to be that the future of DSLRs is pretty grim. They'll stay, but should be relegated to confidential volumes. This could have been the start of a new FF mirrorless system with a line of new lenses to be deployed. And adapters for old lenses to please those that have them. Instead, we have here something that should effectively prevent Pentax from developing any kind of mirrorless line because, well, resources are never unlimited.

"'For dedicated diehard Pentaxians.' Yes, indeed. But are there enough of them to recoup the development costs? I have my doubts.

"I wish this company well, I really do. But I fear this might not serve them well in the long-term...."

Michael Barker (partial comment): "I enjoyed reading that post! It's a camera that really, really needs to exist (well, compared to cameras in general). I'm pleased that it came out so over-the-top snazzy. When I visited the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum it was all 5D Mark III's and D600's and D800's...maybe next time there'll be some Pentaxian winners? And, astrotracing sounds like a lot of fun...."

The PhaseOne A-series IQ3 100MP medium format camera

(Is überkamera a real word in German? I have no idea.)

No lights action camera
First, the new location überkamera. (Well, one of two, the Nikon D5 being the other.)

Canon has announced the EOS 1D X Mark II, its latest professional flagship DSLR. (The 1D X came out in 2011, the 1D Mark IV in 2009, the 1D Mark III in 2007, the 1D Mark II N in 2005, the 1D Mark II in 2004, and the original EOS 1D (an APS-H [28.7x19.1mm] camera with a 4-megapixel CCD sensor) in 2001. Thanks to dpreview for being the public repository of this and similar historical information). As you might expect, "it uses a body that's the most subtle possible evolution of the classic 1D design, which makes sense, given how many of its long-standing professional users will need to find it familiar the moment they use it," writes Richard Butler at dpreview. "Inside, though,"—also as you might expect—"almost every aspect of the camera's feature set has been overhauled."

The raison d'être of a top pro camera is that it do everything, so of course an exhaustive list of the 1D X Mark II's features would seem endless, not to mention more confusing than enlightening for all but those whose livelihood demands that they master it. However, a few brief stats: 20.2 megapixel CMOS FF sensor with dual-pixel CMOS AF in Live View; 61-point AF (41 cross-type) to –3EV; ISO 100 to 51,200 expandable; 4K video up to 60 FPS; 14 FPS stills (16 in Live View), to 170 frames in raw, unlimited in JPEG; digital lens optimizer (DLO), lens aberration correction, and diffraction correction; CFast2.0 and CF dual card slots; it's huge and heavy—you can look up those numbers if you care; GPS; USB 3.0 and HDMI; and the pre-order price is $5,999 at B&H Photo in a kit with a 64GB Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 Memory Card an Extreme PRO CFast 2.0 Reader/Writer. Vincent Laforet called the 2011 1D X "the king of the night" for its exceptional low-light performance, and says Canon has pushed that envelope even further.

Do you care? The answer is that if you do care, then you care very much. A pro makes a living with his or her tools, and keeping the edge is part of how you've got to compete in the cutthroat climate of the declining professional market.

But if you've never thought of the term "depreciation" in connection with your cameras, then you probably don't.

The Corcoran School of Art in the nation's capital, now called the Corcoran College of Art and Design and run under the auspices of George Washington University (it was independent when I graduated in '85), a number of years back began offering photojournalism courses and making weak bleating noises attempting to pitch itself as offering practical career training. Nothing wrong with that, except it went against more than 100 years of institutional history, as the Corcoran had always been first, foremost, front to back and top to bottom a fine arts institution in all ways.

Similarly, TOP is mos' def a personal and amateur photo blog, not a haute art or pro photography site. The last Canon professional flagship camera I used, personally, was the EOS-1n, a film camera introduced in 1994, and I didn't use one until it was well out of date. The last top professional digital camera I even tried was the Nikon D3, which impressed me enormously in 2007. We're interested in professional photography, as we are interested in the art world—as we are interested in the photography industry and auction sales records and photo museum politics and many other related but ancillary subjects—but I would guess that even full-time pros who read this site do so because they are also passionate, devoted amateur photographers in their off hours and apart from their businesses, not primarily to find information relevant to the conduct of that business. The leading publication in the US for professional and commercial photographer is PDN (from Photo District News, founded back when there was a photo district in New York City), which features articles such as "14 Successful Promotional Pieces." I would guess that even our readers who will buy and use the 1D X Mark II will also own personal cameras that they grab first for casual use, personal artwork, family documentation, and to exercise their enthusiasm for the art of photography.

A Canon 1D X Mark II next to two cameras our readers might be more likely to choose for their personal work (Canon 5DS and Leica X).
Illustration courtesy camerasize.com.

So are we interested in the EOS 1D X Mark II? Of course. What's not to like about the latest, bestest, biggest and baddest of anything in the photo firmament? So, does 14 FPS with a 170-frame raw buffer and focus tracking to die for make your eyes cross and your knees go weak? You know who you are.

Magic numbers
On to the studio. The other recent überkamera news is that, as you might have heard, the magic number of 100 megapixels has been attained. The PhaseOne A-series IQ3 100MP joins existing Phase One A-series models (the A-series IQ3 50MP, A-series IQ3 60MP and A-series IQ3 80MP) offering integration with the ALPA platform and compatibility with the Phase One XF camera system. The Alpa version is based on the ALPA 12TC "mirrorless" (that's funny, but that's what the press release said) camera body and comes with the 35mm Rodenstock Alpar lens. Two optional lenses are available, including the ultra-wide 23mm, and the ~normal 70mm.

The ALPA 12TC body, shown here, is basically a machined frame to hold a digital back and a view camera lens together, with a handle added. There is a range of attachable accessories. The body as shown here costs approximately $2,450, depending on exchange rates. Perhaps not too surprisingly, they have a bit of a problem with counterfeiters.

Here's the XF System version. The prices of these cameras make Leicas look cheap. I'd say you need to be billing in the $500k and up range to be looking at one. Which does include a fair number of high-end studio guys. The price of the Phase One A-series IQ3 100MP Camera System (for the ALPA, with Rodenstock Alpar 35mm lens) is $56,000. Do you have to supply the 12TC body yourself? I wasn't able to find out, and it won't matter to the aforementioned $500k-and-up guy or gal, and it's academic to this former art student, so....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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's links!

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

Wolfgang Lonien: "No, 'Überkamera' isn't an official or even widely used term, but still we 'Krauts' would understand what you mean. So to use a term like that is even somehow creative, and mirrors the 'Zeitgeist.' What we do use here sometimes is 'Überflieger,' for someone who achieves greatness without putting too much effort in something. 'Über' is quite flexible, and is used for verbs like 'überfahren' (to roll over), 'überholen' (to overtake), or 'überhaupt (nicht)' ((not) at all). Or 'Überbelegung,' for an overbooked hotel or airplane or such. And yes, sometimes we use artificial combinations to point out that 'Über-' something means 'better than any other.' So in that sense, fair use. Hope this helps...."

Mike replies: Ja tut es. Danke. Geschrieben mithilfe einer Übersetzungs-app.

Ken Bennett: "Just a few years ago I would have been salivating over the latest new super-camera from Canon, but I'm no longer shooting much in the way of actual journalism or sports, and I no longer need a 'big' camera to impress clients. I still have a pair of the 1D Mark IV bodies, which we received in April of 2010, one of the first shipments available (and which cost $11,000 for the pair).

"So they are six years old; six years of pretty hard use, at least for a while. Now, though, my primary Canon system at work is a 5Ds, which I use for landscape, architecture, and some studio portrait work, and my real primary camera is the Fuji system with which I shoot about 90% of my assignments and 100% of my personal work. I pull the 1D's out for the occasional sports assignment.

"So, this is really cool, but there is no way I can justify it."

Dan MacDonald: "I continue to be mystified why neither Canon or Nikon will sell a top spec camera like the 1Dx or D5 without the vertical grip being integrated into the body. I would be very interested in a 1D X spec-ed camera in a 5D sized body. They've done it before with the EOS-1V and F6."

Mike replies: I can't explain why Canon and Nikon do what they do, but I can explain why Canon does what it does: because Nikon does it. And I can explain why Nikon does what it does: because Canon does it.

Just kidding.

D: "I work in the commercial side of photography as a digital tech (or digital operator if you're in Europe). I typically bring cameras and computers on set and maintain file integrity and build color for images while shooting tethered for major photographers and campaigns. I recently had a chance to play with the XF + IQ3 100MP back during a demo with the local rep. While the camera wasn't as jaw dropping as I had expected it to be, the technology in the sensor was quite astounding. The sheer range of the sensor itself was brilliant. I could pull back details in the highlights that were blown out (values around 250-255) and they were completely clean. I'm talking sending to the images to print clean. Somehow Phase and Sony have found a way to keep the medium format body alive in the world of high-res 35mm bodies."

Guest post written by Gordon Lewis

When I discovered a few days ago that Olympus was introducing a digital version of its landmark PEN-F camera, I admit I was excited. It has the look of the mechanical cameras that photographers of my generation know and loved so well. (I can’t speak to the feel though, since I have yet to hold one.) There are the de rigeur tiny buttons here and there for various digital functions, but mainly there are knurled metal dials: one on the front and four on top. Plus, it’s not just any type of mechanical camera; it’s in the rangefinder style, with the eyepiece in the upper-left corner and no DSLR hump in the middle. The viewfinder is electronic rather than optical. That may not be to everyone’s taste, but it’s still an attractive alternative to similar designs that require you to use the rear display for viewing or tie up the hot shoe with a bulky accessory viewfinder. For those of you who actually like framing with the rear display, Olympus made it the type you can flip out to the side and swivel upward or downward.

The new Olympus PEN-F

Without lens the PEN-F is not much bigger than a bar of soap and would be easy to slip into a purse, messenger-style bag, or coat pocket. Add one or two of Olympus’s petite yet fast primes (the 17mm ƒ/1.8 and 45mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuikos come to mind) and you have a compact, lightweight, yet highly capable kit.

As if these weren’t enough clues to what type of photographer Olympus is targeting, consider this: The PEN-F also has a built-in feature that lets users tweak JPEGs to simulate black-and-white films, including grain simulations and adjustable color contrast filtration. It can also adjust color reproduction and saturation globally (entire image) and locally (by specific colors). If you want to be able to get that classic street or film photography look in-camera, here is where you can find it. You can do all this and more by shooting raw of course, but this will require specialized software and a level of skill you may not have. Also keep in mind that because the PEN-F is not yet available for sale, it will be a few months before you find third-party raw converters that support it. You could also use Olympus’ raw converter, if you don’t mind getting up to speed with what’s likely to be a new and unfamiliar workflow.

There’s a long list of other great features too; for example, a new 20-MP sensor, high-resolution image mode (new to the PEN-F form factor), 5-axis IBIS (in-body image stabilization), electronic shutter, and super-short shutter lag.

So is the new Olympus PEN-F the street and travel photography camera you’ve been waiting for? Do you need it NOW? It will take a few months of use and reviews by real users before there’s any market consensus. In the meantime, if you’re GAS-ing hard, here are three observations to help relieve the pressure:

• The initial street price, body only, is set at $1,199. There are a lot of equally good or even arguably better cameras you could buy for that or less, including cameras that are roughly the same size, form factor and weight. (The Sony A6000 at $550 comes to mind.) The street price is sure to drop after the PEN-F has been on the market for a while, so if you’re the type who hates to find out your camera is selling for a third less than you paid for it, be patient; the price will fall.
• The PEN-F is accompanied by a long list of “premium leather” accessories such as straps, camera bags, and even wrapping cloths. What’s next? Gloves and a houndstooth sport coat with leather elbow patches? Unless you’re into this sort of thing—and I don’t look down of those who are—you may want something where the emphasis is less on style and more on function.
• Remember that you probably felt the same way about whatever other cameras you own now before you bought them. The lust you feel today will eventually subside, only to be replaced by another. In the meantime, the camera you own now is infinitely more useful to you than the camera of your dreams.

Make no mistake: I still find the PEN-F exciting and definitely plan to rent one for a few days, once it’s available and the weather is more to my liking. I’m just under no illusion that a particular style or brand of camera will make me a better street and travel photographer than I already am. Only hard work and more travel will do that. This is not to say you have to feel the same way. If the PEN-F is exactly what you’ve been waiting for and you plan to buy one as soon as it’s available, I’d love to hear why.

Gordon

Contributing Editor and friend o' TOP Gordon Lewis is a writer who lives with his family in Philadelphia. One of his claims to fame is that he used to write television sitcoms. Most recently he is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook.

[Note: For more about the original Pen-F, see Ken Tanaka's article here. And here's more from the famous Olympus Camera designer Yoshihisa Maitani about the original Pen. Thanks to Kevin Purcell for the latter link. —Ed.]

©2016 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Stephen Scharf: "I have to admit I was seized by GAS pangs when I first saw this little puppy. It does look really cool, and I love all the analog dials and wheels for controlling functions. And the retro silver color. From Kevin Raber's first impressions review, it's also really well-made. Then I realized these GAS pangs were driven more by the joy and feel of operating a camera rather than being driven what its really supposed to do, which is capture and produce images. The same GAS pangs drove me to buy the original OM-D E-M5 and subsequently, the E-M1. All absolutely terrific cameras with excellent image and build quality and a fine suite of lenses available. That I never actually used. Because as good as they were, and they are really good, they could never match the magic I see in Fuji X-cam files (not to mention the X-system's unerringly accurate auto white balance).

"I still really want the new little Pen F, but this time, I'm not going to cave...."

marlof: "Yes, I'll get one as soon as they're released. Why? I like using Olympus cameras. I also like using the relatively small Olympus prime lenses (12mm, 17mm and 75mm). Not so much because of their optical quality, but because of their feel in my hand. With those lenses, especially the 12mm and 17mm, I've always preferred the PEN body size over the OM-D body size (which suits the bigger zooms better). The reason for that is simple: the OM-D 'prism' hump and slightly larger size doesn't help the camera in sliding in and out of my jacket pocket (with the other lens in the other jacket pocket). That's also one of the reasons I never liked the add-on viewfinder. I passed on the E-P5 because of this. In using the E-P1 I found that I prefer shooting with a viewfinder, but in using the E-P3 I learned that add-on viewfinders don't work for me. Now they have added an integrated viewfinder to my favorite type of camera. For me, that's a no-brainer; this is a camera I've been waiting for.

"Will it make me a better photographer? No way. But that's not the only reason to buy a new camera...."

Peter Wright: "As a Micro 4/3 user since 2008 with the introduction of the G1 (which I still have), and as an owner of an E-M5 since its introduction in 2012, I am very interested in the Pen F. However I am temporarily immune to GAS: For most of 2015 I did the 'Leica as Teacher' program using my Leica MP, Delta 400, and a Zeiss 35mm lens. (That probably prevented me from upgrading to the E-M5 Mark II last spring.)

"At Christmas when the program was over, I broke out my old E-M5 for the family pictures. However, one of the many things I learned during the year, was that I really enjoyed pure B&W photography, and I missed being in that pure B&W mode, although digital has some definite advantages. Therefore I decided for this year, to embark on a OC/OL/OY program using a newly purchased M-Monochrom and a 50mm lens I already had. Consequently I don't feel the need for the Pen F right now. That gives the Pen F time to drop in price and get a useful firmware upgrade or two before I finally get around to 'needing' one. See how TOP saves you money—I think?"