The Online Photographer

Comments are completely up to date at 8:05 a.m. Wednesday and also at 12:20 p.m.

So my 12-step program has a basic principle..."when we were wrong, promptly admitted it." I was wrong on Monday. Hans Muus and other readers (and friends, privately), made the point that the Pixii is a real rangefinder, meaning it needs a FF (24x36mm) sensor to let FF lenses be "themselves."

Carl: "I see an actual valid point here. If a major goal of this camera is to be able to use Leica M lenses, then you need a 24x36mm sensor for the lenses to work 'right.' I'd have no use for my 35mm Summicron to be turned into an effective 52.5mm, etc, etc."

Oren: "It's even worse than that. The APS-C Pixii has the same problem as the Epson R-D1: the shortest FL for which there's a finder frame is 28mm, or 42mm-e. So you can't actually take advantage of the integrated RF/VF with any FL short of normal. Even if one were willing to buy new lenses to compensate for the crop factor, the body is useless for those of us who see the world through a 35mm-e field of view."

I was not only wrong but perhaps the exact opposite of right: The Pixii might be a camera that should only be FF.

One-offs
The Peugeot 604 I mentioned might be where I got my allergic reaction to one-offs when it comes to mechanical things. I'd rather have something common and mainstream, things there are a lot of and that a lot of people buy. Repairability and parts availability are much better, and replaceability is generally much easier as well. I once had a one-of-a-kind Leica lens and was uncomfortable with it—or rather uncomfortable with just the idea of it—because I knew it could never be replaced if I lost it or if it was damaged. I suppose I shouldn't have worried (I think the guy I sold it to is still using it happily), but it nagged at my mind.

There's one more issue, which is that one-off things can be harder to resell. I knew a guy in Wisconsin who hand-built speakers. His bread-and-butter had been repairing JBL L100's, and he had lovingly made a special bespoke pair of L100 lookalikes with premium Focal drivers and gorgeous handmade crossovers in a beautiful hand-finished cabinet. They sounded great, but he wanted $5k for the pair. The problem was, he hadn't laid the foundation to sell box three-ways for $5k. They'd need a name, name recognition, a market presence, reviews, and a warranty to be sold for that much, and they had none of that. It's not enough for you to be convinced they're worth $5k; if you want to protect your investment, you need other people to also be convinced they're worth that much. If the guy had $1,200 into them and wanted $1,800, that I would have considered. But he hadn't earned the extra $3,000. That's one thing real companies work for: the name, market presence, the support network with ongoing parts availability, and also the reputation! That's why they get to charge more.

When I was younger, every now and then you'd come across a guy offering a no-name preamp or something for sale for two thousand dollars, who tried to tell you that it got fantastic reviews when it came out, it was very rare, and it had cost $4,000 when it was new so it was a great deal at half that. The problem was, the guy who built it had gone out of business, he had only built 17 or 45 or 82 of those preamps, most people had ever heard of them, and nobody was going to pay two grand for an unknown quantity when you could get a perfectly clean used conrad-johnson for similar money.

I might be odd, but I'd probably rather have a new Toyota Corolla Hybrid than a 10-year-old used Ferrari that's been modified. The Ferrari would be nothing but expensive headaches, whereas the Toyota would be supported by one of the best service networks and be replaceable at short notice with an insurance payout. In the Toyota, you could drive the carpool, you could transport the dog, it would hold luggage, and you wouldn't worry too much about parking-lot dings and nicks. It's a "better" car, for one definition of better. (Of course, I've never driven a Ferrari, so it's easy for me to imagine I'm immune to their charms.)

I still think the best camera you can buy these days—okay, for stills—is a Fuji X-T5, along with a few Fujicrons and any other specialty lenses you might want.

APS-C works for me.

But okay, yeah, the Pixii, that should be FF—so the Pixii Max really is a good thing, and it would be the one to get, if you like what Pixii brings to the table. Or if one-offs appeal to you.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Richard Tugwell: "From what I've heard, a brand new Ferrari is also nothing but expensive headaches. Gorgeous, of course."

Mike Plews: "Back in the '80s Mrs Plews and I were negotiating the purchase of a Peugeot wagon. We were about to pull the trigger when the dealer told us that Peugeot was pulling out of the US, so the deal was off. Too bad, as a Peugeot wagon would have been perfect for us.

"We ended going down the street to the Saab dealer and threw down for a four-door normally-aspirated 900s with a stick. Wonderful car but a terrible hangar queen. As for APS-C, I'm a believer. My first digital camera was a Nikon D70 and it delivered excellent files (for my needs) for a decade. I eventually bought a D7100 which still suits me just fine; your mileage may vary. If I somehow felt the need for mirrorless, a Z50 or a Fuji system would be lovely. Being retired, my needs are much different from a working pro, but APS-C makes a ton of sense to me. It delivers smaller cameras, smaller files, smaller cost and terrific output. What's not to like?"

Raphael: "The APS-C Pixii would of course have been 'right' had they made APS-C lenses for it, say an 18mm ƒ/2.8, 23mmƒ/2, and 35mm ƒ/1.4, and a lower magnification viewfinder with matching framelines. The only technical problem being color shift in the corners with wide angles."

Comments have been up to date for the past two days

One of the permanent features of the manufacture of cameras since the announcement of photography in 1839 is the great natural appeal of building the perfect, or the ideal, or the best, or just a better, camera. It has been practiced right along, and sometimes it seems that almost every male who has ever used a camera has gotten the bright idea that he would be just the man to build, or at least decree the specifications for, this elusive grail. This is a permanent state of affairs. The perfect camera has been proposed ten thousand times. In some few cases the better camera is actually made. Its perfections are then judged, its flaws inexorably emerge, and it is then employed as a basis for a tweaked or improved variant, or an imaginary improved variant, usually prefaced with the phrase "if only it had," as in, "it would be perfect if only it had...."

"If only it had" is the neverending plaint of every seeker of camera-perfection. Most people like and prefer basically whatever camera they learned on and got used to when they were young and the world was whole and life was good, but "only if it had...."

In most times and places, the temporary techniques of the moment are accepted as eternal and essential, and the fashions of the moment are taken for verities. Thus, when box cameras were common, the perfect camera was naturally imagined as a box camera. And so it was with stand cameras, field cameras with movements, folders, TLRs, and so on and so forth, down to present forms. Anybody (or almost anybody) could build a view camera. However, since electronics took over, this perfectionizing impulse has been largely stymied. Now that photography has become sensor-based it's almost extinct. Now instead of building perfect cameras we just ask for them to be built. The few better mousetraps that actually get built are rare exceptions.

The Pixii is one such—one of those perfect cameras. It is a hybrid, a digital camera that takes rangefinder camera lenses in Leica M mount. But it has an APS-C sensor—and of course "full" frame cameras, those with 24x36mm sensors, are considered de rigueur* presently, so: "if only it had a full-frame sensor."

And now it will. A perfect digital rangefinder hybrid is getting morer perfecter.

Bog of snark
Sorry! I'm tumbling down the slope into the swampy bog of snark. I've nothing against Pixii. My family were Francophiles. We had a Peugeot 604 (Moonstone, with leather seats) when it was one of the only ones in the USA. The Pixiis are beautiful cameras made in France with high idealism and great attention to detail. The cameras embody a vision for what a camera should be at this particular time, relative to Leica.

However, I like APS-C. I've always liked APS-C. I consider that smaller-than-24x36mm sensors are, or were, one of the basic inherent advantages of the whole digital development since the beginning, and I consider it bizarre that this obvious advantage is being stolen from us due to outside pressures, namely, at the moment, that "real" cameras have to do their best to distance themselves from phone-camera-sized sensors. I'm trying not to get doctrinaire about it, because I don't want to close my mind. It doesn't really matter what size sensor you use. FF sensors work just fine for taking pictures.

Anyway, for those of you for whom the Pixii would have been perfect if only it had a full-frame sensor, well, gather your shekels into a pile, because you are about to be indulged.

Here is a Pixii

Here is the Pixii Max.

Mike

*Rigueur is one of only a few words I cannot spell without help. The French sometimes salt their words with extraneous vowels and I have trouble remembering where they go. The French also complain when English and American words seem to obtrude into the patrimony of their language, overlooking that a whopping one-third of English words descended from French in the first place, thanks to William the Conqueror. English would not exist as it does without French! If you'd like to hear some odd back-formations purporting to be what English might be like without such borrowings, head to YouTube and investigate the term "Anglish." Quite an odd little world, but an interesting etymological game.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "I have no idea whether or not Pixii’s creators consider it to be 'perfect.' Nor have I ever used one of these French rangefinder cameras. But I do salute Pixii for thoughtfully moving forward with this line of cameras. They do seem very committed to the rangefinder camera experience and to refining that experience over time with their products. Whether or not the camera is an APS-C sensor may be a hurdle for some, particularly since the goal is to use gorgeous M mount lenses. (Do recall that the first digital rangefinder, the Epson R-D1, was APS-C.)

"But, to me, the main issue seems to be ergonomics. The camera looks cute but gives every indication it was born from a 3-D printer. It just doesn’t scream 'pick me up and take me out' to me. The other issue is price. For the neighborhood of the Pixii’s price one could buy a used digital M. But I wish Pixii well and hope it helps keeps the rangefinder genre in play a bit longer."

Hans Muus: "In this exceptional case, something else is the matter. Remember that the APS-C Pixii uses ‘full frame’ Leica-mount lenses, in conjunction with its optical viewfinder; 28mm is the shortest focal length for which trustworthy framelines are shown in the OVF, which comes down to (or adds up to, if you will), a full frame equivalent of 42 mm. You cannot reasonably go any wider than that. The new Pixii Max camera has the exact same outside dimensions, OVF reach etc.—only the sensor is now of full frame size, and therefore the image of the full frame lens is used in its totality. The 28mm lens is now exactly that, a 28mm lens. Naturally, this goes for the other (35mm, 50mm, 75mm) focal lengths as well, resulting in a much more practical choice of focal lengths."

John Wilson: "J'ai grandi à Montréal. Le français était obligatoire à l'école primaire et secondaire. Je ne comprends pas à qui est destiné cet appareil photo. Peut-être que je ne suis pas assez français pour percer de tels mystères. Je suppose que je vais devoir m'en tenir à mes Fuji."

hugh crawford: "Sniff, real Francophiles drive Citroëns. (A joke. All French cars are wonderful.) My wife worked for a woman who had a Peugeot 604. It was lipstick red. She had worked on the Peugeot AV account (multiple screen slide projections for press events and video walls for auto shows). When Peugeot left the USA, she ended up with the car that had been imported for the Auto Show. It was all legal spec since Peugeot had been planning on staying in the US market, but it was essentially a one of a kind, hand-built version with maybe a dozen press cars imported before they pulled the plug. You can imagine what it was like to get something serviced that officially never existed. It was a really nice car but if you ever said something nice about it it you would immediately regret it."

Mike replies: Our 604 had a similar fate. My brother somehow managed—while sober, and in broad daylight—to run into the back of another car stopped a stoplight, and the repair parts were to all appearances sent from France in a rowboat. And those at the oars were none too diligent about their project, either. It was in the shops for something like seven months. I don't remember exactly, but I think my mother got rid of it thereafter as being impractical. It certainly was that. However, the 604 had two great strengths: wonderful steering, and a ride like a magic carpet. I can still conjure up the sensation of both.

Nicholas Hartmann: "Don't go slagging on French. The vowels are not 'extraneous'; once you know the (admittedly complex) rules, the letters in the word tell you how to pronounce it. The rules have a few exceptions, and although there are silent letters and some tongue-twisting vowel combinations, what you see is largely what you get. Save your contempt for written English, in which the most common pronunciation rule seems to be 'it depends' (think 'though,' 'bough,' 'through,' 'tough,' or 'warden' vs 'garden,' among many others). Irish/Gaelic is even worse. If you want logic and clarity and one-to-one correspondence between written and spoken, learn Czech."

Mike replies: Nick is a former President of the American Translators Association, and should know!

I've been watching videos about language recently, and really enjoying learning a little about the manifest oddities of English, which I've long been aware of but never really understood. One presenter I enjoy is called RobWords. The video "Is English just badly pronounced French?" is a recent example. I think I recommended "The weirdest things about English" a few weeks back.

I hope this guy is reliable, by the way. Once one is outside of his or her area of expertise, it's tough to be certain. For example, a linguist called Dr. Geoff Lindsey recently pretty thoroughly debunked an idea that spread from a questionable Wikipedia article into many YouTube videos, including one by another of my favorites, diction coach Erik Singer. I buy Dr. Lindsey's arguments, but that won't cure the misinformation.

Comments are 100% moderated as of 8:48 a.m. today, Wednesday, Juneteenth. There are new Featured Comments on posts going back to "Sweet Spot." (Happy Juneteenth to all our Black readers, by the way. It's an exclusively Black holiday, and belongs to them, but if you're Black or you live in a city with lots of Black residents you know what a celebration it can be.)

I did pretty well with my new routine yesterday—got up early, got my constitutional in (an old word—Oxford Languages calls it "dated"—for a health walk), then showered. The plan only fell down when I sat down at the computer; I immediately got distracted. So it was well after three in the afternoon by the time I got the comments all done. By then it was so late I didn't write a new post.

So this morning I made it one step further...the comments are done early. Now here I am writing a new post, so maybe another further step too. I'll get there. One step at a time, pardon the pun.

It's beastly hot here. I stepped out of the house at 7:27 and it was muggy as could be. The wind was from the south. Yellow trefoil and pink peavine flowers mingled at the roadside. I saw an eagle. I told a person walking past in the opposite direction that I had seen it. The second person I mentioned it to said, "I know. She's got her nest down where we live, up in a tree." A few days ago I saw a coyote in my yard for the first time since I've lived here. I got an excellent view; I was inside, sitting in the armchair talking to my son, and first I saw him running along the tree line toward the road. I said to Xander, "Hey, a fox just ran by!" But a moment later he came trotting up the driveway back in the direction he came from, much closer to me, and I got a longer, better view. Not a fox.

+=+=+=+=+

I should point out that most of us might not be in the best position to judge the Pentax 17. TOP has young readers, and female readers, and people of color who read, but still and all, TOP readers do skew older, white, and male. So I'll just gently point out that if you're older than, oh, say, 35, and you're not Japanese, the Pentax 17 probably isn't for you. Not targeted at you, anyway. Although anybody can like anything they want to.

It reminds me of something I've mentioned before. It used to be that reviews were very important for movies. But then the movie studios figured out that there were basically four kinds of moviegoers: younger females, older females, younger males, and older males. If you could design a movie to appeal strongly to one of those groups, or to any two of those groups at once, then you'd likely have a success. If you could somehow figure out a way to appeal to three or even all four groups, so much the better, but those tend to be unicorns. I.e., rare.

I said that one avenue to success was to appeal strongly to one of those groups, but in practice it needs to be one of only three of the four. If you designed a movie to appeal to older males, good luck, because older males, by and large, don't go to movies. Accordingly, most movies these days are designed to appeal to one of the following: young females; younger males; both younger females and males; females of all ages; or older females. Occasionally they'll try for one that hits older males and older females (On Golden Pond might be an historical example), and some war or action flicks might be for both younger and older males. But those are generally not thought to be promising strategies.

So if you're an older male, and have noticed that few movies appeal to you these days, there's a good reason for that: they're not making movies for us any more.

Furthermore, then the studios and their marketing strategists figured out that most reviewers are older males. So why worry about what reviewers think? They aren't members of the target audiences! So movie studios started more or less ignoring reviews. Who cares if some old white guy doesn't like The Hunger Games or Frozen or Maleficent, Mistress of Evil?

Anyway, I don't have any insider information, but my suspicion is that the Pentax 17 is tailored to young people. Young people are driving the film fad; they're comfortable with lo-fi picture quality, which they sometimes value; they're comfortable with vertical rectangles, from shooting with cellphones; and they take readily to relatively cheap, fun-to-use cameras. Nikon Z cameras, like nicer new cars, might appeal, but they're simply priced out of reach. The new Nikon Z6III, which is nice but decidedly mid-line, not by any stretch the fanciest or best (or most prestigious), will cost $2,500. That's a whopping 6.7% of the median annual salary of 20- to 24-year-olds! The Pentax 17 probably mostly gives priority to the Japan home market, too, where half-frame has always been popular. Even the vaguely steampunk look and oddball design fairly shouts the kind of style that means "cute, young, fun" in Japan.

So have patience, Photo Dawgs. The cameras pointed at us might be coming, but this ain't it. Again, that doesn't mean you can't like it. In the early '90s, I did get the inside scoop on a camera called the Contax Aria, and I learned from a very reliable inside source that it was specifically designed to appeal to Japanese females. But I liked it. Another example: the newer Mamiya 6 (1989, first camera I reviewed for a magazine) was designed with the idea that it would appeal to wedding photographers. I got that straight from Henry Froehlich, the co-founder of Mamiya America Corporation who retired as its Chairman of the Board. The Mamiya 6 turned out to have wide appeal to lots of different kinds of photographers but not to wedding photographers. You can like whatever you want.

Another comment I'm coming across is along the lines of "who would buy a Pentax 17 when there are so many great old film cameras available used?" I'm not entirely in agreement with that sentiment. I have a whole shelf of those older film cameras, and those old film cameras are getting...well, old. At age 67 I tend to think things are recent when they're really not. For me, for instance, we just switched over to digital. But no. I once defined the era of the transition as 1995 (when newsrooms could buy a 1.3-megapixel Canon/Kodak DCS-3 for $12,500) to 2007 (when all those buildings at Kodak Park were demolished). That's not recent. That's 17 to 29 years ago. That's a long time to younger people. Similarly, apart from a very few exceptions, it's been a long time since most mainstream film cameras from major makers were available new. The Pentax 17 is the first new Pentax film camera in 20 years, so it's said. That's a long time in film-camera years. It's going to sell to some people who are 20 years old. The great mass of disused "left over" film cameras from the film era is aging out. It's high time some new ones started to come along. Not everybody wants a new one, of course, but not everybody wants an old one any more, either.

+=+=+=+=+

So you might think it was redundant when that woman I passed mentioned that the eagle I saw had her nest "up in a tree." Where else would it be?

But not really. I chair a meeting of a 12-step program at the Fire House in Branchport, NY, every Sunday, and for several weeks there was what looked like a wounded bird in the gravel parking lot not twenty feet from the main door. The firemen had put up three orange cones around her to protect her from clueless vehicles. Curious as to whether she was being attended to, I called the Fire Chief, Nancy Oppel, for the story.

Turns out she was a killdeer, a kind of bird that likes to lay their eggs in gravel because the gray and black spotted eggs are camouflaged. Then she'll protect the eggs by putting on an act; pretending she's wounded, she'll lure predators away from the eggs, feigning injury and putting on a threat display, then flying away or attacking if you get too close. The "wounded" bird in the parking lot at the Fire House was actually just sitting on her eggs! Strange place for a nest if you ask me. But apparently the chicks hatched last week, and there are some new killdeers in the world, and all is well.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "I think the '17' will quickly become a short-lived novelty…that may command 2x prices in a future retro resale market. (I see a distant future feature on Antiques Roadshow.) Speaking of antiques…the summer heat sometimes prompts me to make irrational purchases. (OK, same goes for the cabin-fevered winters.) Yesterday I bought a like-new-in-box Epson R-D1x! Yup, the nearly 20-year-old first digital rangefinder that presaged the Leica digital M! I had always wanted to try one of these out but never had a chance. I can’t wait to get my hands on this 6-MP CCD marvel with its retro meters and fake film advance (shutter-cock) lever! Now we’re talkin’ Antiques Roadshow!"

Mike replies: Wow, what a find! I'm sure I don't have to say "have fun with it." But have fun with it!

BG: "Thank you for noting that we old white geezers who think we know everything about film cameras are not the target audience for this new Pentax half frame. I hope it is a roaring success."

Rick Popham: "Killdeer chicks are very cool. They can walk almost as soon as they're hatched, and they look like miniature versions of their parents. Keep a lookout for them!"

KeithB: "I read a joke a long time ago in Reader's Digest. A man would leave his front door in the morning, walk around his house, and then continue on to his morning walk. When someone asked about this he said, 'Young man, that is the Preamble to my Constitutional.'"

The first all-new full-production 35mm film camera from an old-line manufacturer in many a year. It's called the Pentax 17, a refreshingly simple name. (Today's the 17th, you'll notice. The half-frame format is 17x24mm.) It has a BOKEH mode on the Mode Dial. The fixed lens is a 25mm, which is 37mm angle-of-view equivalent: perfect. And the price is only $499, which is refreshing too!

Now can we get us a place that will make 4x6 prints without charging two arms and an eyetooth? I'd like to shoot with one and never shoot a horizontal.  :-)

I'll tell ya, I'm tempted to buy one just to support the mission!

BRAVO RICOH!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Christer Almqvist: "An uglier top plate I never saw."

Luke: "Your word is a setting on a dial! It's a sad perversion of the original meaning, but still...."

John Krumm: "I'm surprised how appealing they managed to make it, despite it having that consumer-ish fixed range focusing system. It would have been a distinctive camera in 1973, and it is now. While I might not get this one for myself, I might buy it for my daughter, who likes to shoot film. I really am looking forward to their next camera, hopefully a full-frame 35mm, perhaps using the same body, with more precise manual controls. When we retire, we plan to move down to Minneapolis, and I could see myself using this cool film lab, located in a cool coffee shop, if it's still around."

Mike Plews: "I could see people loading one of these with Tri-X and going out to embrace the grain and good for them. It kind of reminds me of audio before CDs came along. I watched and occasionally participated in a compulsive battle with clicks, pops and surface noise on my records. I had a friend who dropped real money on a click and pop filter and it made me jealous. Then CDs came along and the playback was essentially flawless. You could use a CD as a coaster one minute and listen to pristine audio from it the next. This put the zap on my head but it freed me of my obsession over surface noise. I just listen to the music. Recently upgraded to an Ortofon Red cart and it is so detailed a gnat turd sounds like a gunshot. Don't mind at all. I just toss on a copy of Revolver and thank God that I'm here to listen. Before I bought a D70 I regularly lost my s**t over grain. My loathing for it drove me to shooting B&W exclusively on medium format. Now after a decade or more of grainless digital B&W I find myself wondering what all the grain-based anxiety was about. I am tempted to buy one of these babies myself and just go out and play."

xf mj: "I genuinely want the digital version of it."

Just an idle question—what, in your opinion, would be the sweet spot in the Nikon Z lineup?

And, more generally, what do you think is the sweet spot in full-frame? I've been taking a look at the whole landscape, and started building a post about all the available alternatives, but it got bogged down—there are an awful lot of 24x36mm-sensor cameras now, especially when you consider compact fixed-lens cameras, pro cameras, and both SLRs and mirrorless.

The Z7 II

If I got a new "colors camera," as Xander called it when he was a little boy, it would probably be a Nikon. Old habits die hard. Hence I've been trying to parse the Z lineup.

To me it looks like the best option for me would be the Z7II, only I'd probably get an original Z7 to save money. It looks passably light and compact, has an amount of resolution that didn't exist when this blog was young, and is pretty reasonably priced all things considered...inflation included. I know Thom has said the Z8 is the sweet spot, but that might be more for a professional or for those for whom it will be their main axe. Since a "colors camera" would play second fiddle to my "grays camera," in Xander's words, I think the Z7 might do it for me.

I'd love to hear your opinion.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Bryan Hansel: "For me, it's the Z8. The Z7II doesn't have the latest focus system or features, and that sets the Z8 apart from it."

Nick: "I propose that the improvements from the original to 'II' models are such that a Z6II would be a better result for you than saving money on a original Z7, particularly if you're not that concerned with higher MP. The first versions did somewhat feel like first attempts, so that a Mark II model would be a smoother and more enjoyable process. As an example, it was a deal breaker for me that the Z6(I) did not have or even allow a battery grip with a shutter release. The Nikon grip was a dumb battery holder with no control connection to the body possible. A third party solution had to use a wired connection from a 3.5mm connection on the grip back into the body. How did Nikon forget that people like to use grips with a vertical shutter release?!"

John Krumm: "My guess is that for your type of shooting, the regular Z7 will be a very good color camera, and a very good deal. However, were I in your position, I might instead think of something like a Panasonic S5, something L-mount, to keep lenses shareable with your no-colors camera. Perhaps another rental is in order?

"Then again, maybe you don't want sharable lenses, but a totally separate system."

Kent Phelan: "I have owned a Z7 since 2019 when it first came out. A year ago I purchased a Z7II because the AF was supposedly faster. I needed it for event photography, photographing young people. The 'II' does in fact focus faster, and I rely on it for fast moving subjects, particularly with longer lenses. I should note that there is no visual difference between the results of these cameras. The 'II' model produces images identical to the original (in terms of quality, sharpness, noise etc). I for one think the Z8 is too damn big. Nikon bet the farm on the original Z7 body. It was a world-changing shift for them to introduce a new lens mount and all new Z lenses. They had to get it right. In my opinion they hit a home run. The Z7 form is perfect. In its own way it has grown a bit Leica-esqe to me. After five years of steady use, the controls and haptics are perfect. Reminds me of the well-honed Leica M bodies. Also, the Z lenses are world class, particularly the ƒ/1.8 primes (which are a bargain IMO). Summicron quality. As GM lenses and L lenses from Sony and Canon are now regularly north of $2k, the Nikon Z primes, particularly in ƒ/1.8 guise, stand out in the marketplace. In my opinion they are hidden gems in plain sight. Seriously good.

"I think the Nikon Z system as a whole is the sweet spot in the marketplace. Nikon is back!"

Dale Moreau: "Well, I still use the D800 you convinced me to buy a decade ago even though I was fine with the D700...the D800 was somewhat large for a travel camera, so I added a Fuji X-pr01 then the 2. Last spring someone stole my backpack with the Fuji and a few lenses while in Italy. With the insurance, I decided to replace it with the Z5, since I could use all my Nikon lenses. It was fine...then I started looking at the ZF when it came out, and it quickly won me over. So now I am more than happy with the ZF with old and new manual focus lenses; it works better than the Fuji with those. It's become my everyday camera. And with the resale value of the D800, I just keep it in the car for when I might want the higher pixel count."

Steve Biro: "I own both a Z8 and a Zf. I love both, but I truly believe, for many, the Zf is the way to go. The original Z7 is a good camera, but it’s a bit slow all around. So is the original Z6. There was a reason Nikon added a second processor to the Z6 II and Z7 II. If you’re committed to buying used and you don’t need 45 MP, the Z6 II is still a great option. If you’re buying new and can’t swing the Z8…go for the Zf."

Jeff: "Now there’s the Z6III. "

Jeff1000: "I’ve been doing just dandy with the original Z6 and Z7. If you want extra resolution, the Z7 is a terrific choice, around 46 MP. While the firmware updates have significantly boosted autofocus performance, I believe the Z7 falls short for sports and wildlife photography; although, in the right hands, it could probably suffice. For practically every other type of photography it is well suited, and the image quality is superlative. For what it’s worth, I highly recommend the Z7. One downside for some photographers, but not me, is the single card slot, but that’s your call. "

William Schneider: "Using a Z7-series camera as a second body is exactly what I have done after adding a Z9. In my case, it's a Z7II and not the original Z7. Because the Z7II has two card slots and accepts cheaper SD cards in one of them, I'd suggest a Z7II over the original Z7. This reduces the incremental cost difference between the two and you'll also gain a smattering of technical refinements in the newer body. I find the smallish size of this camera convenient especially when paired with either the Nikon Z 40mm ƒ/2 or the 28mm ƒ/2.8 'muffin' lenses. It makes a compact kit....

"While I sometimes wish for a Z8 as a second camera, a Z7II is more than adequate for my purposes and makes wonderful photographs."

The Leica D-Lux 7 got here two days ago. I took an immediate liking to it. It's outdated now—it's the predecessor to the forthcoming D-Lux 8, which isn't available yet. I thought I'd take a preliminary reading on the form-factor so I know whether or not I might want to try out the D-Lux 8 when the time comes.

Each time I get something from Lensrentals, I'm impressed all over again. A cardboard box taped over in proprietary tamper-proof tape arrives. Inside is a ridiculously sturdy hard case that could probably protect a china teacup in a tornado. Inside that is a soft case, with a strap, that you can use as a camera bag if you want to; and inside that is whatever you rented, strap attached and battery all charged up, along with any extras that go along with it, neatly bagged. In a folder is the return label and several lengths of repackaging tape on paper backing. To return it you just reverse the unboxing process—not even having to scrounge up your own tape—apply the readymade label, and drop it off at the carrier. In between you get a cool new camera to play with.

Honestly, it's seldom business for me, although of course rentals are just that for many people who depend on them as part of making their living. They feel to me more like an indulgence—like a pedicure, or a luxurious hot bath (my home has no bathtub, just a shower, and I miss it sometimes) or dinner at your favorite guilty-pleasure restaurant. Granted, I'm lucky in that I don't have to pay for them. Having to do so might steal a little of the glow. But Lensrentals makes the whole process so frictionless that it's not hard to think of it as a treat for oneself.

As such, I recommend it just for the pure pleasure and fun of it. Give yourself a week with an alluring piece of exotica a few times a year to recharge your own batteries and refresh your enthusiasm.

More about the Leica(slash-Panasonic) D-Lux 7 in due course, if I decide to write about it.

Mike

P.S. See you on Sunday—I'm off on Saturdays to do housework and yardwork.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Every now and then, back in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in the early days of this century, I used to stop by the local Best Buy, a so-called big-box store, to visit the camera department and have a look around at what was on offer. There was a whole camera section, with a guy in a vest wandering around in it, whose charge it was to look after any customers or lookee-loos like me. If he wasn't busy, I'd chat him up, to sort of get a handle on what was popular and what people were buying. I couldn't say how many cameras were on display, but it was closer to a hundred than to zero, I'd bet.

So I was in the Walmart in Watkins Glen the other evening, looking for zip-ties. The first employee I encountered, near the door, a somewhat decrepit old man with a white beard, knew exactly where they were. His directions were precise. I went right to them.

Zip-ties in hand (to affix Butters' tick collar to the inside of his regular collar), I gravitated to an aperture in the back wall that was emblazoned "PHOTO" in large cutout letters. Inside was a largely empty room with a three-sided rectangle of countertop in the middle. No one in there.

Emerging again, I found a passing employee and asked him if they still sold cameras.

"Oh, sure," he said, agreeably, and took me to the section of aisle you see above. Encased in glass were two lower-end Canon DSLRs with kit zooms (distant descendants of the original Canon EOS Digital Rebel of 21 years ago), four Kodaks (Kodaks?), and a camcorder. As you can see, to the left was a section with instant cameras (about three times as large as the "Cameras" case) and to the right, a GoPro display.

"That all?" I asked.

Saying nothing, he fished a large smartphone out of his packet and brandished it at me. "Any more," he said, "these take really good pictures."

I gestured toward the Cameras case. "So do you sell many of these?"

"Well...these are for people who are really serious about their photography." He sounded kind of skeptical, as if to say, no one is that serious about their photography.

I asked him if whether they used to have more. "Oh, yeah," he said. "We used to have a whole aisle." Then he added, "that's been a while."

He gave me permission to take this picture, and as he walked away I whipped out...well, my iPhone.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff1000: "After reading your blog I looked to see what’s available at the Best Buy in Salt Lake City (where I’m currently situated). They have the full array of Nikon stuff: Z8s, Z9s, Z6IIs, Z7IIs, and pretty much all the Z lenses. Sony and Canon stuff too. Maybe that Watkins Glen store is an outlier?"

Mike replies: The store in Watkins was a Walmart. Maybe I should check a Best Buy—there is one down near Corning which is about 45 minutes from me. Could be it's just a Best Buy / Walmart difference, and NOT a sign of the times! That would be encouraging. I added a question mark to the title of this post!

E.: "Same desolation here (Southern Europe). At the two biggest appliance stores in town (no dedicated photo shops left, 800k inhabitants) all you can find is, exactly, the same picture you posted, Mike. Well, except that, last time I checked (three weeks ago), in one of them there were only three models on display. Globalisation makes shops look unsettlingly alike...."

John Krumm: "I really appreciate Best Buy. When everyone is moving online for electronics, it's nice to be able to touch and try stuff. I bought my washer there and paid them to deliver it. I bought my cheap, surprisingly good Roku TV there. They installed my wife's new stereo with Apple Airplay in her 2000 Miata, in their three-bay install garage. I see elderly people getting their laptops serviced. I hope they stick around. I don't think I've bought a camera from them, but I might."

Alan: "My wife is Thai and when over there a few years ago we visited the local shopping centre and I was amazed to see three or four (I forget how many but certainly three and I think another one slightly further away) camera shops all of which seemed to have in stock just about every camera I could think of and a very good selection of lenses too. They also had a large physical paper catalogue from which they insisted they could get anything they didn't have in stock 'quickly.' To rub salt into the wounds of a jealous westerner who lives in a town with no dedicated camera shops and only a meagre selection at the local Currys (electrical retailer) each shop was well staffed with helpful people. This was all a few years ago but my wife is there at the moment and reports that those shops are still there."

Tam: "Blog Poster: 'I went to the Walmart in a census-designated-place in upstate NY with a population of less than 2k and wow, the camera section in modern big box stores has really shriveled up.' Commenter: 'Well here in Austin, Texas, a state capital city of a million people and a regional...if not national...hub for creatives, we have three camera stores!' Ah, internet. Don't you ever go changing on me.  ;-)  "

The big news in the camera world this morning: the arrival the of the Leica SL3. Leica has put everything it knows how to do into one camera.

For what it's worth, Leica was copying Sony long before Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic followed suit. The original SL came out in 2015, three years before all the bigs finally jumped into full-frame mirrorless, a field that Sony had had all to itself for years prior to that. And unlike many all-new cameras, the initial 2015 SL was already a very good camera.

More integrated, better balanced
Now it has just gotten its second from-the-inside-out refinement. And the outside has changed: the new camera is a little smaller, and it has slimmed down by losing a bit of weight. Some of the controls have changed: the power-on switch is now a button like you'd find on a computer! Okay, that's different. We'll trust that they know what they're doing. Inside, it's not just the processor and sensor that are new, as is usual with a refresh, although both those things are indeed new. The entire shutter is new; and so is the IBIS system. The latter is rated less than its predecessor but, knowing Leica, I'll lay odds that it's actually better and that Leica is just being more conservative about the stated spec. At long last, the SL gets an articulating viewing screen, and the right kind, too, flip-up rather than flip-out-and-twist. Big win on that score.

All the little tweaks and minor changes to the body have added up to a camera that's notably more handsome than its predecessor, if that matters to you. (Most people who say it doesn't are probably lying a little bit.) It looks more integrated, more balanced.

The camera retains all the things its partisans have loved about it for most of the past decade: the fantastic viewfinder image, the satisfying heft and hand-filling grip, that over-the-top eyepiece diopter adjustment that looks like it came off a submarine periscope or some other kind of military hardware.

The camera now has hybrid phase-detect autofocus, with better focus tracking, as well as eye-detection. Even thought the focus system as a whole will likely not come quite up to the high standard of the leading Sonys, it is doubtless good enough for all but the most fastidious comparison shoppers. 

There's more: more dynamic range, always a plus if it turns out to be true. A better, bigger, longer-lasting battery—one that matches the one in your Q3, so you can have the same batteries for both and switch between them. The camera is still on the power-hungry, side, however, according to reports. The entire menu has been revamped to be simpler and clearer. A CF Express type B slot has been added if that matters to you.

Simplicity is challenging
The best thing about Leica cameras hasn't gone away. They are the only company to which simplicity, ease of use, and a sensible operator experience is a high priority. They actively avoid over-complexification. The limited number of knobs and buttons and sliders and touchscreens, all the fantastical but maddening feature-overload of most higher-level cameras these days, is not just for the sake of clean, purposeful design. Although you get that too. The SL3 is likely to be easier to learn, and easier to shoot with, that a lot of the kitchen-sink cameras today. Some people like complexity, but not everyone does.

Clean.

Did I mention the sensor is now 60 MP? It's not like you'll see a big difference from 47 MP, but its crop modes are now higher-res, and that's an advantage.

Just a platform?
Leica cameras from the R3 on were meant to be, and sometimes were only expected to be, just a platform for the lenses, which were the real point. There's nothing lacking with today's Leica lenses. But because Leica is a member of the L-Mount Alliance, you can also use Panasonic and Sigma lenses natively on the SL3. Which is handy because, well, the camera costs seven grand, and the lenses are, if anything, relatively even more expensive than that.

I probably didn't cover all there is to know here. But from what I hear there are other camera sites and channels on the internet, and one or two of them might have something to say about the SL3. Me, I like what I see. Maybe this is "seven grand but worth it." What's your take?

So although this camera continues the tradition and extends the naming protocol of the earlier SL line, it's for all intents and purposes an all-new camera. And although it's the first new L-mount body to come along in quite a while, at least it's real news, as well as something to smile about.

Mike

Look at the SL3

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Arch Noble: "Regarding your comment about Leica placing a high priority on 'simplicity, ease of use, and a sensible user interface,' I'm with you. To me, that is one of Leica's best features. But I would take issue with your statement that Leica is the only company in this category. After decades of shooting 35mm and its digital equivalent, about six months ago I took the leap and bought a Hasselblad X1D II. One of the main reasons I chose that camera was the simplicity of the interface and a menu that was simple and logical. It even comes with free post-processing software, 'Phocus,' which is also relatively easy to learn. So as far as I can tell, there are two companies that have made simplicity a high priority."

Kirk: "I have both the original SL and the SL2 and I've pre-ordered the SL3 for just a handful of reasons. The biggest being the ability to shoot full frame raw files at three different resolutions. It allows for full sensor shooting in either 60, 36 or 18 megapixels. The lowest resolution being perfect for event work, the middle being perfect for portrait work and the highest being best for big advertising assignments that go beyond just running on the web. The second reason for me is the phase detect AF. Mostly just to get better performance with eye detect AF. Both of the previous cameras have eye detection AF as an added feature of firmware updates and they work well if you have enough light on your subject and time to wait for the contrast AF system to lock in. I should mention that though the Q3 and now this camera, the SL3, have a new battery, it is the same size (physical dimensions) as the batteries for the SL2 and Q2 and those older batteries are usable in the new camera. As well as in the Q3.

"I find the files from the SL and SL2 cameras to be really good and look forward to seeing if the SL3 is even better.

"I'm sure there will be 'new product glitches'; there always seem to be. But Leica is good about quick and continuing firmware updates for their cameras. Is the asking price of $7,000 worth it? Having owned their previous cameras I would say, for me, yes. If I were recommending a camera to someone entering the photographic professional? I'd probably steer them to one of the Panasonic cameras. And, after dropping seven grand on a new Leica I'm sure I won't be the only person disappointed when the same technologies and image quality comes to a new Panasonic product about six months from now. I guess it's all part of the new L2 initiative....

"Fun with products. It never stops."

Dan Khong: "By Leica standards, seven grand is about the price you pay for the average camera, and the pride of ownership of the red dot. But digital being digital, the Achilles heel is the battery and once they are no longer available, it's a death sentence. and the camera is as useful as a paperweight. By way of an example, my 10-year-old Leica D-Lux 5's battery recently conked out and Leica has stopped manufacturing them. Thankfully the Panasonic's LX5 battery could be used, but is no longer available in shops. Finally, I found a seller on eBay. But if not for Panasonic's partnership with Leica, the D-Lux 3 would be a paperweight too. So my question is, thinking 10 years or more down the future, are we ready to pay seven grand for a camera that would one day surely become obsolete purely because the battery will no longer be available?"

Jack Mac: "I have handled the SL3 and find it a justifiable upgrade. Regarding the on off switch: the reason is for compatibility with the LeicaFOTOS app. If you want to turn on the camera remotely with the app you can. If they had left the mechanical on-off switch they would have had to mechanically make it move remotely unless you thought your camera was still off. The camera turns on instantly now. So you can leave it on at sleep mode just like your iPhone and as soon as you touch the shutter it’s ON, so even faster than swiping up in your iPhone screen or pushing an action button on an iPhone 15 Pro."

Andy F.: "If I were into the L mount I'd wait for the upgrade to the Panasonic S1r which is due at some point in 2024. I would expect it to have pixel shift, which Leica have omitted from the SL3, better IBIS, and many more video features, and it will be at least two grand cheaper."

Inclusions (these aren't all the inclusions):

Thanks to Matthew and others, The Pentax K3 III Monochrome has made it on the list.

Thanks to Dennis Mook and others, the Fujifilm X-T5 has made it on the list.

Entering the running (these aren't all the cameras in the running):

With a nod to Hugh and others, the Canon R8 has come into consideration.

With a nod to Moose and others, the Olympus Tough TG-7 has come into consideration.

With a nod to David Dyer-Bennet, I've decided not to include any film cameras. His argument was persuasive. I've already blocked out in my mind another different kind of article I can write on that subject, though.

With a nod to robert e, I'm not going to try to be balanced in terms of including all the various companies.

With a nod to Tom Burke and others, The Canon R7 has come into consideration. Tom makes a good case that it's suited to a particular type of enthusiast.

Still on the fence about (these aren't the only things I'm on the fence about):

—Whether to include a smartphone, as suggested by psu and others. I'm leaning toward yes. Partially based on the hunch that there are serious smartphone photographers out there nobody knows about, working away. Photography was always in part a "primitive," vernacular art.

—Whether to include a 4/3 camera. As you know I'm a longtime supporter/booster/fan, but even I will admit there are signs of decline.

—Which fixed-lens camera to go with, as I don't think there's room for more than one. With a nod to Robert Ardinger, the Leica Q3 might hold the lead at the turn, but there are other strong contenders not far back.

—Whether to include a medium-format, high-megapixel camera. Do landscape enthusiasts actually prefer those? Or do most landscapists use FF and a zoom?

—Whether the Sigma-Leica-Panasonic L-Mount Alliance earns a spot on account of multi-maker compatibility and interchangability. I'm leaning toward yes. Although 4/3 got there first....

More updates to come as things evolve...I named a few commenters here, but I've read the comments from everyone carefully, and offer thanks to all.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Surely one of the landmark cameras of the whole digital era is the Fujifilm X100 series, which started in 2010 and just now reached its sixth, count 'em, sixth, iteration. It was a surprise smash hit, and propelled Fuji into its current role as a multifaceted camera manufacturer. The Fujifilm X100VI (Mark VI, that is) was just announced, and is available for pre-order. It's the king of compacts, the apotheosis of the point-and-shoot, the modern-day Barnack camera.

I'll assume you're passingly familiar with the X100 series. What's so different about the VI?

It's a major update, for two reasons. Starting with the most important new feature, the VI get IBIS (in-body image stabilization) for the first time in the model's now 131/2-year history. Fuji was late to the party with image stabilization, but now that they have it they're obviously spreading it around their lineup generously. The new IBIS claims six stops of improvement at the cost of only 1.5 ounces of extra weight—the camera can actually stand that, and it might actually make an improvement in hand-feel—and nothing in terms of added size.

If you want to modify the opposite extreme and make the lens slower in bright light, there's a built-in 4-stop ND filter for shooting wide apertures for better bokeh in bright light. I don't know when that arrived. Word on the street is that you can use both IBIS and the ND filter together, which might be especially useful for video.

You remember the tagline of Bill Hader's "Stefon" character on SNL, who reviewed the latest, hottest clubs? "This club has everything"?  Well, after five go-rounds of refining the original, the Mark VI has everything. Ghosts, banjos, Carl Paladino, a stuck-up kitten who won't sign autographs, furkels*. No, seriously: all the goodies of previous versions, including its Leica-inspired good looks, flip-up screen (the 3.0", 1.62m-dot LCD is a touchscreen), knob-and-dial controls including an aperture ring, a way to increase the weather resistance by adding two mysterious rings to the lens (I can't quite sort that out), and of course the famous and exclusive hybrid viewfinder that switches on demand from optical to electronic. Using the front switch that pays homage to the frameline lever on ancient Leicas. (Modern ones too, Jeff reminds us. But ancient ones too.)

X-Processor 5
The second big new thing is the sensor/processor. The Mark VI inherits Fuji's latest 40-megapixel sensor and processor from the X-H2. The plethora of pixels makes possible 1.4X and 2X digital crop settings at lower but still usable resolutions, resulting in equivalent focal lengths of ~50mm and 70mm. That's separate from the attachable optical converter lenses, available as accessories, that change the native 35mm-e lens to 50mm-e and 28mm-e.

AF is said to be "improved," and it probably is. In car magazines, every new model of virtually any sporty car claims to have a chassis that is "X% stiffer" than the last model. Some wag of a writer once factored in all the claimed improvements over time and noted that the latest car had to have a chassis that was something like 2,371% stiffer than the original—which might have been possible if the chassis originally had the stiffness of spaghetti or silly putty, or the new one was as stiff as a Formula One racecar. "Improved AF" is a bit like that. On the other hand, the original X100 did have pretty slow AF, and by the Mark V it had become significantly better and, moreover, no longer an annoyance, so it's good that they're continuing to improve it. The processor, like the 40-mp sensor, is Fuji's current best.

The X100VI also sports a new film simulation called Reala Ace. This kind of thing would normally not be of interest, mimicking, as it does, a gimmick, but the X100VI has twenty film simulations, and finding your favorites among them is actually a real part of the appeal of the little camera. Some the film simulations are very good, and, if my own experience is any guide, they can actually be surprisingly difficult to reproduce "manually" in Photoshop. No reason to scorn them. Fuji knows color.

The X100-series is a remarkable camera. It's been popular for going on 14 years, and with successive generations of humans, too—it's gotten an significant injection of popularity from attention on contemporary social media. Granted, it's not cheap at all at $1,600, but maybe it's actually creeping into Veblen-good territory, in which people prefer to pay more because of what the camera says about them and their values and their sense of style (and their wallets). It's a premium price; but it's a premium product.

Simplicity
It's not exactly the pathway I personally would have liked to see with the camera. I'd be in favor of lower price and not so much of everything. I mean, if I wanted a do-everything general-purpose camera with multiple focal lengths, I'd just get a Fuji X-T5 for pretty much the same price as this, along with a dessert-cart choice of Fujicrons starting with the 23mm. Granted, the conversion lenses for the X100VI are cheaper, but they're also not usable on any other camera.

The X100 series would be the perfect package in which to reach for a little Apple-like simplicity. (Although I sat in on a lecture at the Apple Store recently about how to use the iPhone 15 camera, and that has lost its Jobsian simplicity too. I can't even remember half the arcane things I learned how to do.) I've opined in the past that I'd like to see simplified, streamlined, easy-to-grok versions of existing full-featured cameras come on to the market, and if Fuji had a different vision for this camera it would be interesting to see what could be done with it. But that isn't the fashion, so, never mind. I guess Gen Z'ers need their video. But to add a note of gratitude to my tune here, videography functionality is probably why this little varmint got its IBIS, so, okay. Thanks for that.

Verdict
This looks to be easily the best and most capable iteration of this perennially popular little camera yet. If I were in the market, I'd get it just for the IBIS and let everything else fall where it may. If you have and love any of the five older versions, even the V, now would be the time to move up.

Mike

*That was the club called "Push," where club owner Gay Dunaway built a fantasy world that answers the question, "Nooow?"

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Stephan Cowdery: "It's hard to believe that there were camera lines without IBIS in 2024. Of all the improvements in cameras in the last 20 years, IBIS has to be, in terms of improving image quality (in non-tripod situations) the most significant."

Michael: "I have the X100V (Apparently I'm one of the lucky few), and it is such a joy to use. I love the tactile feedback of the controls, the wonderful film simulations, the OVF/EVF option, and the ability to accessorize it to your liking (I added a soft shutter release and thumb grip). The fixed focal length makes you think a lot more about composition and being a part of the process, which reignited my enjoyment of going out to take photos. You would be surprised how differently you look at the world and the hidden treasures you find to photograph when you are restricted to one focal length. When people talk about the camera you just always want to use, this is the camera they are talking about."

William Cook: "After reading your excellent post on the X100V in September [Wasn't it February? —Ed.] 2020, I wrote this comment: 'I have always throughly believed in this type camera and Fuji’s interpretation is near perfect...except for one thing (for me). And obviously, that ‘one thing,’ is only important to me and maybe a few others. Certainly not important to enough people for Fuji to entertain the idea of including it—image stabilization. Because of my older, less than steady hands, I need stabilization. My current larger camera doesn’t have it but my lenses do. As much as I would love to have the X100, I would need a tripod. Kinda defeats the carry everywhere ethos. But I still admire it.'

"I can’t believe they’ve included the one thing I’ve always wanted in this camera! I put my money where my mouth is and at five minutes after the embargo ended the other night, I had mine on order at B&H (through TOP’s link, of course!). Normally, whichever camera feature I truly desire, the universe conspires to ensure it’s NEVER offered. For once, providence has smiled upon me!"

Dogman: "Lovely camera, the X100. I'm still happy with my X100S. I'm sure the VI is 'better' in many ways but I love the 'S' too much to part with it. Or upgrade from it. But, yeah, the VI is a really lovely camera."

Arg: "If the X100 is, as you say, the king of compacts, then the Ricoh GR is the Lord Tyrion Lannister of compacts: no doubt flawed, but devilishly small, incomparably clever, and able to make one smile uncontrollably in its presence."

Charlie E: "The X100S pulled me into the Fuji X system back in 2014. It was a great camera aside from the very slow autofocus. £699 felt a lot at the time for a fixed lens camera, even if it did look pretty. I don't think I could justify £900 more on that sort of camera, even if it's pretty, has the great Fuji simulations, IBIS, etc. (inflation hasn't been 228% in the last 10 years, though it feels like it sometimes).

"The X100S did pull me into the X system though, and I traded up to an X-Pro2 which I still carry with me every day and I won't swap it until it breaks. Hopefully there will be a new version with IBIS at that point!"

Some cameras are both picture-takers and fashion accessories. Primary among these is the beautiful and cunningly tiny and delicate Fuji X100V, the latest iteration of the viral sensation that took even Fuji by surprise in September of 2010. (I was told back then that Fuji initially expected the camera to be a niche product that would appeal mainly to females in the Japanese home market. Instead, it's been like a book that was a surprise best-seller and then never went out of print.) You can actually buy an X100V at Amazon right now, although the prices start at $1,900, rather a lot for a fixed-lens camera, but then remember you're getting the lens. But the camera has been particularly hard to get for a long time now. DPReview says it is "so desirable that it's almost impossible to actually buy an X100V (without paying a substantial premium over the list price). This may be a knock-on effect of the chip shortages and supply chain problems, post lockdown, an intentional restriction in supply to keep prices strong or the winding-down of production in anticipation of a new model, we can't be sure." B&H lists it for a slightly more reasonable $1,400, which hardly helps, as it is "temporarily out of stock" there, a condition that's been so persistent that they might have to rethink that word "temporarily."

The Sony A7CII

If you have an X100V, hang on to it. It's been so hard to get that prices of used X100F's have been rising as fast as the prices of two-year-old Toyota RAV-4's.

Of the "usual suspect" alternatives, the Ricoh GRIII (28mm-equivalent) and the GRIIIx (same camera but with a 40mm-e lens) are just as good for pictures but not nearly as good as jewelry. In fact, the opposite might be the case: the Ricohs are anonymous, both in terms of their appearance and the brand name. Not always a bad thing of course. Other alternatives are also-rans as well, in the present sense, because they don't cut it as style statements.

Sony's beauties
The best camera-as-fashion camera right now might be the Sony A7C, which has been unjustly overlooked almost since it got here. It's a handsome camera, especially in silver. Even a bit smaller than the X100V (and they're both surprisingly small, if you've never seen either in person), it has a better grip, it's full-frame, and it takes interchangeable lenses.

For a lens, I'd get the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar ZA. It's barely four and a quarter ounces, and it comes with a dedicated lens hood. Yes, it's slower than the Fuji lens by a stop, but with a FF digital sensor, does that really matter in practice? It looks great and balances well on the camera, even if passers-by can't see the little blue Zeiss logo.

There are actually three options available now: the original 24-MP A7C which was introduced in 2020, and the pairing of the new A7CII and the new A7CR which were announced just last August. The A7CII has slightly improved specs in most areas, including a modestly higher-resolution 33-MP sensor, and, as those familiar with Sony's nomenclature can guess, the A7CR has a 61-MP sensor, enough to offer a noticeable improvement in resolution in some cases. You won't save any money over the Fuji, but the A7C trio are all available. So at least you can spend your money if you want to.

With the little Sony instead of the little Fuji, would you turn just as many heads out on the boulevard? That remains to be tested. But probably.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Mackenzie: "Lack of availability of the Fuji is primarily a result of it being touted on TikTok. That led to the rapid rise in prices as it was purchased as jewelry driven by the 'influencers' there."

John Holmes: "A Speed Graphic for me, please...the 'Weegee Look' will really command attention!  :-)  Merry Christmas."

David L.: "I had the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 Sonnar lens for Sony. Definitely enjoyed using it, and carrying it, and I was always happy with the results. It would fit well with any compact Sony camera."

Richard: "My recent experience is that the camera of mine which attracts the most attention (by far) is my Olympus OM-2n."

Mike replies: That's because it's the best all-around choice of all the used cameras from the film era, the best balance of old and new, light yet tough, ideal size, sweet to operate, sufficient capabilities without excess crud, and accessible price. Want to see mine?

The Sony A7III full-frame digital mirrorless camera body is on sale with some enticing accessories at B&H Photo for $700 off, only $1,298. With a kit lens it's probably an even better deal. $1,300 for a highly featured new FF camera body from a major maker is a good deal any way you cut it.

...However I'm not exactly certain I would recommend it. There is indeed a difference between the FF and APS-C 24-MP sensors; you can tell. It's just that...it's not that much of a difference. I'm sure in some situations you'd be glad to have the larger sensor. But in a lot of situations, I don't quite believe that viewers in general would notice all that much. And the high-res FF sensors—40-MP and above—are so good that I think it's smarter to go all the way if and when you get a new FF mirrorless camera. I don't know if you would agree.

And the better that smartphone cameras get, the more camera you need to strongly differentiate your results. My friend Jack has been singing the praises of this transformative little SmallRig cage for his iPhone 15 Pro Max. There's a shutter release button in that grip, and you can reposition the grip on the long side for verticals. There's one with two handles as well. He says it's extremely handy and a delight to use, although he notes that you lose a little of the advantage of total invisibility; it turns the iPhone into a real camera in more than one way, in that people notice him more when he's got the phone in the SmallRig. If an iPhone 15 Pro Max was one of your cameras, something like a Canon EOS R5 might be better as the other one.

But still, there's cost to consider.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

hugh crawford: "If you’re a collector or merely an accumulator of old lenses, the full frame Sonys are a pretty wonderful way of using them. APS-C cameras are less wonderful in that respect."

Jack Mac: "The SmallRig addresses several issues I have had with using an iPhone as a serious camera replacement.

1. Holding a naked iPhone as a camera is not natural. It’s not fun. The SmallRig handle makes an iPhone easier to use as a serious camera.
2. It’s too easy to smudge the iPhone’s lenses. The SmallRig has lens protection that makes it easy to keep your fingers off the lenses. But remember to wipe clean your lenses before you slide your iPhone into the cage.

"If I’m just taking one quick snapshot, I don’t need to use the SmallRig. But now when I am out doing serious shooting, the iPhone in a SmallRig is my primary camera.

"A photographer friend who saw me use a SmallRig asked me if I thought it made for sharper pictures. It doesn’t make better pictures; it makes taking pictures more fun. If I’m having fun, I take better pictures. Now he has a SmallRig too."

Brian B: "For what it's worth, B&H has the Nikon Z7 [refurbished —Ed.] for just under $1,400, or with the 24–70 ƒ/4 lens for $1,650. A great deal for 45 full-frame megapixels! (Via diglloyd.)"

John Krumm: "I've accepted the fact that most of the reason for me owning a full frame camera vs. APS-C or Micro 4/3 is not to impress viewers, who do not look at images at 100 or 200 percent magnification, but to satisfy my own need for pixel peeping, which it does. Fortunately, it's a decent camera too! "

Rob L (partial comment): "What is nuts right now is that it's cheaper to get a really great full-frame body—the A7III new, or Z6's, Leica SL's, Panasonic S5's used or refurbed—for way less than the best crop-frame bodies. And with crop-frame lenses not having much of a cost differential from full-frame, there's a lot of choice (or confusion!) around."

Alan: "Dynamic range is often an issue for me and my Micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras can not match my 10-year-old and counting original A7."

John Camp: "I have a full-frame Nikon Z7II with 45 MP and an APS-C Fuji X-T5 with 40.2 MP, and on a large Apple Studio monitor I'll be damned if I see any difference on similar photos; that might change with prints, but I suspect they'd have to be especially large prints to see anything at all. I prefer the Nikon because I've had Nikons since the 1970s and the Z7II (and the Z6) are definitely a solid part of the whole Nikon ecosystem, and felt instantly familiar to me. The Fuji is quite different (the lenses are more compact, for one notable thing) and many people sing their praises, but I have to think before I shoot.

"For me, that's now the difference between high-end APS-C and FF—the way the camera handles and how your brain reacts to it. The actual photos, not so much. If you're an older person like me, and were once satisfied with film, I believe that Sony A7III would do anything you want."