The Online Photographer: Cameras, new

Cameras, new

Saturday, 20 August 2011

Rare Rings and Big Prints

Here's me with a souvenir from my playing days. Ah, whenever this time of year rolls around, I miss playing pro football.

I'm full of it and fooling no one, of course. The big bling—it's a gen-yoo-wine Super Bowl ring—belongs to my friend Jack, who got it because he's on the Board of Directors of the current World Champion Green Bay Packers. This ring, though, is from Super Bowl XXXI, in 1996. (If you look closely you can make out his name on the ring.)

The last time I played football was in seventh grade. I will say I was a very good cornerback in seventh grade—I was fast, so I could always catch up to the guy trying to catch the ball. Given my skills, my football-playing career might have extended as far as freshman year—ninth grade, I mean—but, alas, I lacked ambition.

And by the way, when I tried the ring on, I had trouble getting it off.

Me: It won't come off.

Jack: Yeah, right!

Me: No, seriously, I can't get it off.

Jack: Oh, it'll come off...

[I'm thinking: meat cleaver?]

...with dishwashing liquid.

I did eventually coax it back off, without either lubricants or more radical methods injurious to my digit.

Before we go on, here are a couple of examples of that small but honorable genre of portraiture I've talked about before, a genre that you probably have examples of yourself on your hard drive: the "photo-friend across the lunch-table" genre. This is Jack's portrait of me, taken with his point-and-shoot (the Leica S2, and it's a radical crop from the file):

...And this is my picture of him, complete with ring and Leica, taken with my point-and-shoot (the Panasonic GF1 and 20/1.7 lens):

He wore the ring just to show me. He says he doesn't wear the ring from last year very often, because it's even bigger:

2010 on the left, 1996 on the right.

...But enough fun sports stuff that European readers won't understand. On to photography:

Jack does very well in what's called the "corporate art" market, meaning, he sells pictures to professional decorators for the public spaces of things like hotels and office buildings. Here he is shown with two of his creations (in this case, hanging in a country club).

This makes it perfectly clear why Jack can use all the megapixels he can get, and why he was able to justify his S2 as a business expense. Sure, it's fun to use as a point-and-shoot at lunch, but with prints this size he actually needs the resolution. The picture on the right in the shot above was taken with a 1Ds, and in the case of that picture he had enough resolution to print on canvas; the picture doesn't depend on fine detail. Another scene of the same size on the far wall (you can't see it here), taken with the same equipment, had more detail in the scene, and the print didn't quite have enough resolution, to my eye, even on canvas.

Jack says that with the S2, he can print on paper at these sizes.

Here's a shot of Jack's we published here on TOP right after the Packers' Super Bowl win last year. A 9-foot by 5-foot print of this picture now hangs in the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame. It's a merge of three frames from the S2 with the 35mm lens (wide-angle on the large sensor).

As Jack says, "that's when you need medium-format digital files."

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured (partial) Comment by Anthony: "I don't know, calling the GF1 and S2 point-and-shoots is a big no-no. Just 'cause you were using them on autofocus doesn't mean they're not manually capable cameras."

Featured Comment by Bob Dales: "How do you print 9x5 feet? Asked from the environs of 1.6x1.1 feet."

Jack MacDonough replies: Regarding calling very capable cameras point-and-shoots: Just because they are super-capable doesn't mean you can't shoot them casually. And even when shooting casually, I am not on auto-focus. Had it been on auto-focus for the first shot of Mike I would not have captured the ring in focus.

I had not imagined I would want to use the S2 for everything, but I have. It's small enough, and water resistant. Here is a link to another S2 shooter who also uses it for serious as well as less-serious work.

Regarding how to print 9 feet by 5 feet: Thanks to huge digital printers it can be done. My business plan could not work without them. However, any error gets expensive.

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "Q: How do you prevent someone from noticing that you're shooting with a Leica S2? A: Wear a Super Bowl ring on your shutter hand while shooting. Geez, Jack, nice bling! And nice photo work.

"@ Bob Dales: Printing at such large sizes is a whole different world. There are several technologies available for such sizes today, nearly all of which live mainly in the advertising display world. Of course I don't know how Jack's were produced (but would also be interested in learning). Here in Chicago Gamma Lab's Durst Lambda 130 can produce a single sheet (digital C-print) of up to 49.5″ x 240". As another example, back in 2006 Toronto's Art Gallery of Ontario printed some of my work on vinyl film for backgrounds in an exhibition. This comes straight out of the billboard production world.

Posted on Saturday, 20 August 2011 at 03:28 PM in Cameras, new, Photo-tech, Printers and Printing | Permalink | Comments (19)

Friday, 19 August 2011

The Big Sony Announcement: End of the World?

There's been a roiling on the rumor sites saying that on August 24th, Sony will introduce several new cameras. One will supposedly be the A77, allegedly the long-awaited replacement for the long-discontinued A700.

Note that an A700 replacement, like the end of the world, has been predicted many times before. Most recently, the August 24th annoucements were supposed to have come in July. Last July, that would be. The month that recently ended without any such announcement.

But remember, just because everyone who has foretold the end of the world has been wrong so far doesn't mean everyone who ever does will always be. If ye parse me.

The Sony A900, one of my half-dozen favorite cameras of the digital era

Another camera rumored to be coming in the Big World-Ending Announcement is an A920, a replacement for the A900. The rumor—Dilbert might call this a "hallucination"—is that the A920 will feature a 36-MP sensor.

Really? Didn't the market pretty much send a message that 24 megapixels was enough, already? Or have A900s, A850s, and Nikon D3x's been selling strongly without me being aware of it?

Of course, the 36-MP meme might be something somebody invented. That's the nice thing about rumors—because they don't have to be attributed, and they can't be proven wrong (for the time being, anyway) in that they concern things that will supposedly happen in the future, anyone can pretty much claim anything they want to. For instance, I heard a rumor that all cars will be solar-powered by 2016.

So, do we really need FF sensors with 36 MP? Would the advantage of having 36 MP vs. 24 MP tilt you into making a purchase? Has the limitation of having no more than 24 MP been holding you back? I've used the A900 and A850, and, much as I love the cameras, I'd say the high megapixel count was actually a mild liability in my book.

But tomorrow's post will concern somebody who indeed needs more megapixels. Or, I should say, needed, past tense. He uses what he calls a "point-and-shoot" that has 37.5 MP. Stay tuned for that; it'll be fun.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Peter: "Actually I'm less enthused about any of these possibilities and really looking forward to a potential announcement about the NEX-7."

Featured Comment by GH: "Coming from an A900 myself, 24mp seems to be the sweet-spot for my usual print size. I'm most excited about a relatively tiny, NEX-7 with 24 MP. The NEX-7 plus a few rangefinder lenses will be a fantastically small, yet capable, platform."

Mike replies: So what you guys are telling me is that a rumored NEX-7 is part of the rumored announcement? Got ya. Here's hoping.

Featured Comment by William Porter: "I for one am very eager to get the announcement of the A77 out of the way and then get my hands on one. C'mon Sony! Show me the camera and I'll show you the money!"

Posted on Friday, 19 August 2011 at 03:21 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (32)

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Nikon Outpoints Canon in J.D. Power Satisfaction Surveys

The press release:

J.D. Power and Associates Reports:

Online DSLR Camera Buyers Are Most Satisfied with Picture Quality, While Camera Durability and Shutter Speed/Lag Time Provide Opportunities for Brand Differentiation

Nikon Pro Series Ranks Highest in Online Buyer Satisfaction with DSLR Cameras

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, Calif.: 19 July 2011 — Owners of DSLR cameras indicate they are highly satisfied with the picture quality of their cameras, but are notably less satisfied with durability and shutter speed/lag time, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2011 Digital Single-Lens Reflex Camera Online Buyer Study released today.

The study examines satisfaction among verified online buyers of digital single-lens reflex camera models. Responses were collected by PowerReviews and reflect the attitudes of actual DSLR camera owners who conducted their purchase using an e-commerce site. The study measures satisfaction among DSLR camera owners across five factors (listed in order of importance): picture quality (including picture clarity, sharpness and color); durability and reliability (including damage resistance, battery life and sturdiness); variety of features (including zoom, image stabilization and low light settings); ease of operation; and shutter speed/lag time (overall "speed" of the camera, including shutter lag time).

Overall, online DSLR buyers indicate they are well satisfied with their cameras, with satisfaction averaging 887 on a 1,000-point scale. Among the five factors, camera owners are particularly satisfied with picture quality (917), but are least satisfied with the shutter speed/lag time and durability of their cameras (866 each).

"Clearly, picture quality is crucial to online buyers of DSLR cameras," said Larry Wu, senior director at J.D. Power and Associates. "However, owners expect no less than high-quality photos from their DSLRs, and other performance factors—such as durability and reliability, which is the second-most influential factor in overall satisfaction—have evolved as ways for DSLR camera models to differentiate themselves."

The Nikon Pro Series ranks highest in online buyer satisfaction with a score of 914. The Nikon Pro Series performs particularly well in shutter speed/lag time, durability and reliability and ease of operation. The Canon Mark-Series follows in the rankings with a score of 909, and performs particularly well in performance and picture quality. The Canon D-Series and Nikon D-Series rank third in a tie, each with a score of 889.

The study also includes the following key findings:

Online buyers spend an average of $937 on their camera.
Online buyers report taking an average of 918 photos per month using their DSLR camera.
A vast majority of online buyers (87%) say they "definitely will" recommend their DSLR camera to friends and family.
One-third of online DSLR buyers use their camera for shooting video.
While overall performance is cited as a reason for purchasing a particular DSLR model 31 percent of the time, online buyers cite previous ownership and brand reputation nearly as often.

The 2011 Digital Single-Lens Reflex Camera Online Buyer Study is based on responses provided by PowerReviews from nearly 4,500 verified buyers who purchased a DSLR camera online. The study was fielded October 2010 through April 2011.

The chart of the makes in the survey can be seen here. Sony pro series (A850 and A900, I presume) and Olympus E-series cameras weren't included because the survey sample sizes were too low.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Dennis: "My satisfaction with my DSLR is vastly higher than my satisfaction with J.D. Power surveys."

Posted on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 at 02:02 PM in Cameras, new, Photo industry | Permalink | Comments (60)

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

L.F. Deardorff and Sons Rekindled

For large-format photographers, the name "Deardorff" has some of the same luminosity that the name "Leica" has for small-format photographers.

Think of it as the Harley-Davidson of cameras.

Will Whitaker, himself a large format man of sterling reputation, tells me that L.F. Deardorff & Sons, Inc. has been resurrected in the hills of southeastern Tennessee. Barry Cochran, who once worked for the Japanese-owned incarnation of the Deardorff company in Athens, Tennessee, and who is known to many people under the Ebay handle "attrevida" as a purveyor of NOS Deardorff parts, has begun Deardorff production again in the small southern Tennessee town of Cleveland. Last year he and his wife Monica bought out the estate of Jack Deardorff, including original tooling and the rights to the hallowed L.F. Deardorff & Sons name. Barry's first offering is a run of 15 new 8x10 and 15 4x5 Special* Deardorff cameras to be delivered in 2011. I wonder how long it's been since you could buy a current-production Deardorff new?

Wooden view cameras are essentially immune to the larger trends in the camera market. They're not just under the radar, they're the kind of thing that the radar doesn't even detect. (To stretch that metaphor well and good.)

Barry had been splitting his time between Cleveland and a job in Greensboro, North Carolina for some time. Will says, "I was living in Greensboro and met Barry some time ago as the result of an Ebay purchase. I got to know Barry better and over several outings for Chinese food we discussed his plans as they developed. He's been working very diligently at this and is intent on making this venture work."

Let's hope it does. This market will never get so small that there won't be room for thirty new LF cameras. Especially genuine Deardorffs.

Here's the new website, and here's a link to the Introductory post Barry and Monica wrote on the LF Forum about their business, their history, and their plans for the future.

Mike
(Thanks to Will)

*The Deardorff 4x5 Special is a 5x7 camera available with either a 5x7 back or a 4x5 reducing back.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Karl: "I knew Jack Deardorff back in the '80s when I was shooting 8x10 daily, doing commercial work. Jack struck me as being a real artisan and a bit of a character, but no doubt lacked the business and marketing skills that might have kept the company afloat. It's great to see the name in production again, particularly by owners committed to the quality of the Chicago production. There are certainly slicker, lighter, slightly more sophisticated field cameras being made now, but none I'd rather shoot with."

Question from Andrea B.: "OK, this is a stupid question—how does a person learn how to shoot with one of these LF cams?? Is there a book?? Do I need a personal trainer?? I've always wanted to try this. And those Deardorffs are simply gorgeous."

Mike replies: At the risk of exposing the quirkiness of my enthusiasms, I simply can't resist answering this very not-stupid question at some length, so please bear with me.

At the very basic level, a view camera is exceptionally easy to use. Here are the basic steps:

• Learn to unfold and fold the camera from the "storage" (boxed, or closed) to the "ready" (working, or open) position and back again. This is not always easy right at first but you can work out how to do it slowly and it's always the same, never changes, so after a while it gets to be second nature.

• Find a lab that will process the film you choose. Let's say for the sake of this illustration that you're choosing Velvia film (E-6 process) and you live near New York. So you might choose Duggal, which regularly processes all sizes of E-6 films up to 8x10.

• Load the film holders. This consists of opening a light-tight cardboard box in total darkness, removing a sheet of film, then half-opening the film holder and slipping the film into it underneath the grooves or guides on the sides. Again, this takes a bit of working-out at first (it's fiddley but not difficult) but it's always the same, never changes, and once you get used to it it becomes easier and easier. The only thing you have to remember is to insert the film emulsion-side out, which you do by keeping the notches in the corner of the sheet of film in the "upper right" as you slip the sheet into the holder. Note also that you don't need a "darkroom" to load and unload film...you just need a dark room. I used to do it in a closet with a towel placed at the bottom of the door. You can also use a changing bag, although I've never cared for them. Whatever works.

• When you get to the location where you want to take the picture, you set up the tripod, attach the Deardorff, and unfold it. Then you mount the lens on the front, set it to the open or widest aperture, and open the shutter using a slider switch on the shutter (the lens is mounted directly to the shutter in a view camera lens).

• The lens then casts an image of the scene on to the ground glass. The image is somewhat dim, which is why you need the characteristic "dark cloth" that typifies the old-timey stand-camera photographer in story and song—that's the cloth you drape over your head. It's purpose is to block extraneous light so you can see the image on the groundglass better.

• Focus the camera. This is done by racking the lens stage in and out using a fingerwheel on either side of the bed of the camera, positioned roughly below the film plane. (On many cameras the knob on one side racks the lens in and out, and the knob on the other side is a lock.)

• At this point you might apply movements to the camera. The various movements do take a long time to master, and that's mainly why you would need a book on how to use view cameras. But in many cases you don't need movements, or you need very minimal ones. Many times pictures can be taken with no movements at all, by simply aiming the camera using the tripod. Very few smaller-format cameras offer movements, so you're most likely shooting without movements now. This is a little misleading, because smaller formats offer greater depth-of-field and hence less need for movements to keep various parts of the image in focus, but let's assume for now that you're not using movements this time.

• Close the lens. The image disappears from the groundglass.

• Take a meter reading of the scene. There are many aspects of view camera practice that can be complicated greatly for the sake of control or precision, and metering is certainly one of them. But you don't absolutely need to complicate it. Of course you can use a handheld light meter and simply take an averaging reading. But if you have a decent digital camera, you can use that too. Set the ISO to 50 (if you can)—the speed of your film—and find the proper exposure where the picture and the histogram look right to you. You're probably fine with this exposure. Note that you might have to adjust the EV (exposure value) to get into the range of the view camera lens. That is, most view camera lenses are at their optimum at ƒ/22 or ƒ/32; your DSLR exposure might be, let's say, ƒ/8 at 1/125th. So you'll have to count apertures down and shutter speeds slower...closing the aperture from ƒ/8 - ƒ/11 - ƒ/16 - ƒ/22 is three stops, so you'll have to lengthen the shutter speed by three stops too, from 1/125th - 1/60th - 1/30th - 1/15th. (If your DSLR only goes down to ISO 100, say, you'll also have to increase the exposure by one extra stop to match the film speed of your Velvia.)

• Set the aperture and shutter speed on the lens (in our example, 1/15th at ƒ/22).

• Cock the shutter. All these controls—aperture, shutter speed, slider for opening and closing the lens, and cocking lever—are on the lens.

• Insert the film holder in the camera. This is easy; it slides in right under the groundglass, which is held to the back of the camera with spring clips.

• Check to make sure the lens is closed.

• Pull the darkslide. The film is now facing the lens inside the camera.

• Do your best to channel Edward Weston, hold your breath, and click the cable release.

• Re-insert the darkslide. Many film holders have white and black sides to their "handle" ends, the end with the thicker bar where you take hold of it. Usually, white side out means unexposed film, and black side out means exposed film. This, obviously, is just so you don't expose the same $9 sheet of film twice without meaning to.

• Remove the film holder, remove the lens, and "knock down" (it's a figure of speech!) the camera and tripod.

• Back home, you transfer the exposed film to an empty film box (you can use old ones, or buy empty ones, or get an old one from a friend or from your processor).

• Send or deliver the film to your processor.

• When you get the transparency back, mount it in a masking mat, put it on a light box, and marvel. Later, wow all your friends—and I don't mean just your photographer friends.

That's the basic process. The rest is refinement. Once you're equipped, you could be up and shooting the first day.

Posted on Wednesday, 13 July 2011 at 02:48 PM in Cameras, new, Cameras, old, Film and Darkroom, News and Occasions | Permalink | Comments (30)

Wednesday, 06 July 2011

Two Brief Observations

This is Part IV of the Ricoh GXR experience. But don't roll your eyes—this will be very brief; then, I think there will be a long pause as I come up to speed on the features, firmware versions, the zoom lens I don't want to use, etc.

First observation: The handling on this little camera is almost addictive. I liked it from the start and now, when we should be getting to the "honeymoon's over" stage, I like it more.

Second Observation: The module design which makes so little sense to us shopper savants happens to make for a good conversation piece. At the 4th of July gathering I went to yesterday, people would ask politely, "Now what kind of digital camera are you using?" And I'd do my little schtick of popping the lens/sensor unit off the camera, and people liked that. (I know people like something when I get the question, "How much?" They didn't like that answer, though.)

We now return to our regular programming.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Posted on Wednesday, 06 July 2011 at 02:15 PM in Camera Reviews, Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, 03 July 2011

The Rainbow Girl (Ricoh GXR Part III)

Lately I've been blathering on about how much I love black-and-white—and I do, I do—and I know I said just a couple of days ago that I'd probably shoot only black-and-white with the Ricoh GXR I'm trying.

But, to misquote auld Rabbie Burns, The best-laid plans o' Mikes and men / Oft go awry*. Reality has a way of wagging its finger at you when you try to get all doctrinaire and purist with your photo technique. Yesterday we had our annual neighborhood block party, thanks to the yeoman efforts of our neighbors and most excellent hosts Bill and Peggy Macgregor (whose house, as it happens, was behind the streetlight in my picture "Wisconsin #7," TOP's very first print sale offer from way back in '06). They put on a relaxed and enjoyable party, not a trivial matter with 40 or 50 people attending.

As they do every year (thanks guys), the Waukesha Fire Department showed up to let the kids douse each other with the hose from a pump truck.

And some pictures just don't cut it in black-and-white...

...Even I know enough to shoot this in color. I don't actually know whose child this is, so I don't know her name. It sure looks like she's found the proverbial end of the rainbow though, doesn't it? Two of them, in fact. By rights, there should be pots of gold about even with her feet to her right and her left.

A few user details, for those expecting a review: The GXR handled focus pretty well (only a few frames lost) although, like most compacts, it's pretty deliberate in terms of speed. It focuses "carefully," is how I might put it—not fast, not too slow—and there's a short but distinct lag as it writes the RAW file to the card. So you're not going to be rattling off any quick bursts in RAW mode.

It's funny, but I absolutely love compacts...up until the time I need to shoot in earnest. As soon as I saw the firehose get going I knew I had on my hands what is known as "a photo opportunity," and when the old instincts kick in and you go into coverage mode, concentrating 100% on shooting, that's when you wish the GXR would magically transform itself into a D3s or something. (No helpful leprechaun in that rainbow in that regard.)

On the good side of the ledger, the annual block party is a killer for scene contrast—lesser digicams do not cut the midday sun and shade, something I can attest to from experience. And the GXR does unusually well in that regard for a compact. It seems to like to keep the histogram "exposed to the right," which is quite helpful, and shadow recovery is good if you want it. And I haven't done a thing with different RAW converters yet—haven't even loaded the Ricoh software, whatever it might be, on to the computer yet.

Our dashing local teachers
Then, earlier today, I got a chance to use the GXR to do a quick portrait of my wonderful neighbors Rose and Pete Lange, dressed to kill and off to a wedding. (We arranged this yesterday at the block party.)

Rose and Pete, who live in the house down by the corner and have three sons, are both local teachers—art and music, respectively. The vintage Miata (a 1990 NA) isn't actually theirs. They have a sweet arrangement with a friend who goes away on vacation around this time every year—they water his flowers for him while he's gone, and he lets them borrow his Miata. Pete provided the stepladder, and I made a dozen or so quick shots before they hit the road. Elapsed travel delay, less than five minutes.

This shot works equally well in either color or black-and-white, and I might have to try it both ways before deciding which way to print it. I suspect it might make a prettier print in black-and-white.

But I have to admit, one more time, that there's something fundamentally unsatisfactory to me about shooting a digital camera in black-and-white mode. It doesn't matter what you can do with the file, it matters what's in your head—and I've always found (this is just me, now) that I see how a camera sees. When I'm shooting black-and-white film and have no option available to me, I visualize in black-and-white. And I find that very satisfying. (I would have shot the rainbow girl differently with B&W film, concentrating more on her and her gestures and ignoring the rainbow.) And when I'm shooting with a digital camera that sees color, I see in color. I'm not saying that's good or bad, and I'm certainly not saying it's something anyone else should or shouldn't do. It's just the way reality happens to be for me.

The GXR did just fine for this portrait. Exposure comp was easy to access and the file will make a dandy print, I'm sure. This, naturally, is another shot that needs to be bigger than you see it here, because of course what the viewer of the print will want to see are Rose and Pete's smilin' mugs.

Now farewell light, thou sunshine bright, and all beneath the sky!**

Mike

*Yes, I know, the old Scots is "gang aft agley," but "agley" means "awry," and you have to be Scottish know what "agley" means nowadays. If they even do, I dunno—would someone from Scotland chime in on that, please?

**Burns again....

The stuff I've been using:

Ricoh GXR body shell
A12 33mm (50mm-e) ƒ/2.5 macro module
A12 18.3mm (28mm-e) ƒ/2.8 module (all shots in this post)
VF-2 external LCD electronic viewfinder

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by John Roberts: "Although the Ricoh GXR doesn't interest me in the least as a prospective purchase, I have really enjoyed this series of reviews. I appreciate that you've been taking the kinds of photos most people would take when trying out a new camera instead of the usual brick walls, studio set-ups, and 'artsy' subjects. To me, the kinds of photos you've included in this review tell me more of what I want to know than the usual fare included with many camera reviews."

Mike replies: Glad you're enjoying it, John. I figured only a minority would be actually considering this camera, so I'd better try to make the posts at least pleasant to read for those who aren't.

P.S. I don't do artsy, I do lifesy.

Featured Comment by Dave Stewart: "One thing that makes me see differently when shooting B&W film is the yellow filter!

Mike replies: Yes, I always shot with SLRs and K2 filters in my day, too. For those who haven't: imagine looking at the world through yellow sunglasses. It does tend to help you ignore colors.

...And I suppose I should add, for those who wonder why in the heck someone would do that: colored filters can change the spectral response of black-and-white film; they tend to lighten their own color and darken their opposite. With older films especially, which didn't have very natural spectral response (they tended to be less sensitive at the red end of the spectrum), yellow filters were considered to be normalizing, making a rendition that was closer to how the mind perceives values. I always liked the medium yellow filter (Wratten #8, Kodak K2) because it tended to make caucasian skin tones smoother and de-emphasize (reddish) blemishes, and it darkened blue skies and brought more tonal gradation out of "white" clouds. Orange and red filters did the same only more so—red filters are how Ansel got his tradmark "black" blue skies, visible for instance in his picture "Monolith, the Face of Half Dome." The only thing you had to look out for was large areas of open shade (the shade of a big tree on a bright sunny day, for instance) because open shade infills with blue light from the sky without the balancing white light from the sun, and the yellow filter makes blue go darker. So sometimes open shade areas could be too dark. I think Ansel talks about forgetting about this when he was photographing a craggy cliffside with an orange filter—he'd chosen the filter for the sky and forgot that it would make the shadowed areas on the rock face too empty. That's a long-ago memory, so I could be wrong. I would imagine it's in the book Examples.

Posted on Sunday, 03 July 2011 at 04:48 PM in Camera Reviews, Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (38)

Saturday, 02 July 2011

Oot and Aboot with a GXR

I found this thing sitting out by the side of a busy local road as if it were a ten-year-old Chevy Lumina. Like somebody's going to be driving by, see it, and think, "Hey, I've been thinking maybe I should get an old crane. What if I ever need to lift some girders or knock down a building? I should take down that number." But who knows, maybe they'll sell it. It is Waukesha.

All three of these pics were taken within shouting distance of dusk tonight using the 28mm module on the Ricoh GXR.

All three look better bigger, but whaddaya gonna do?

It occurred to me that I'm not really being fair here, because I'm using the VF-2 electronical viewfinder gizmahickey, which I like, on the GXR, and I don't even own the equivalent DMW-LVF1 for my Panasonic GF1, and the only Olympus Micro 4/3 I've tried was the E-P1, which didn't even accept the slide-on EVF (also called a VF-2). That was the major update of the E-P2. Having to frame the picture with the live view LCD is great indoors, when it's brighter than an optical viewfinder would be; but outdoors, where everybody who says you can see it fine is lying, it becomes a pain. The EVF solves that. The tilt feature of the VF-2 is more appealing than I thought it would be, too.

There's nothing to take pictures of where I live. I need to move to Prague, or Ireland, or the Orkneys. Anywhere but here. (Don't listen to me. I don't even know where, or what, the Orkneys are.) Don't you hate it when you come back from shooting and you want certain pictures you took to be good, but they're just not? That always happens to me. I wanted one I took on the other end of this car lot to be good. Alas, it wasn't. It's always hard to let those go. Sometimes you catch yourself working on those shoulda-been-goods thinking, grimly, this is good, goddammit, it is. But you can't make chicken salad out of chickenshtt.

Is this a Lumina? Whatever, this picture shows the Miata driver's nightmare. All I like about it is the "Ultimate Rides" sign in the background. One admires a used car lot with aspirations. Waukesha is the land of car dealers. We have 4,000 used and new car lots.

No we don't. I'm exaggerating.

ADJ.
It's time now for me to jump into the GXR's manual. One problem with computational-device digi-picturetakers is that if something goes wrong and you haven't read the manual yet, how do you know if it's a device failure? You sure? Sure you didn't press the wrong button, bump something, or let the wrong electrical impulses slip from your brain synapses into the camera circuitry? The GXR quit working on me at one point tonight, and I don't know whether I should blame it or not. Coulda been me. Who knows? I turned the camera off, slid the lens module and the VF off, rebooted, and we were friends again.

I'm liking the GXR because I already trust its results. There's nothing worse than coming home with a halfway decent picture but finding the file is so sucky (for whatever reason) that you can't eke what you want out of it (happens with negatives too). The viewing screen on the back of the camera is a great boon, for sure, but it's a betraying bastard sometimes, too. Its scintillating tiny bright perfectness occasionally promises more than the file can deliver in the cool glow of the computer back home. This was ISO* 1600 at twilight—there was still some light in the sky—handheld. It looked good on the viewing screen—but who knew?

You can't pixel-peep this; it's a mite ugly at clinical distances. But it would print.

The other salient fact of the GXR so far (still first day, remember) is that it's completely different when you're just using the thing than when you're evaluating its odd concept and cost and figuring out if you can construct the outfit you want. In use, it's just a nice large-sensor compact with a 28mm, friendly and handy and nice, whatever you think of the weird way it got to be what it is.

Since I still don't have any idea what the "ADJ." toggle on the back of the camera does, though, I do need to crack the book.

Mo' later,

Mike

*By the way, I was wrong the other day when I said "ISO" was not a technically correct term. It is. I contacted the ISO (International Organization for Standardization [sic]), and was informed that the ISO standard for determining the ISO speed ratings of digital cameras is ISO 12232:2006, Photography—Digital still cameras—Determination of exposure index, ISO speed ratings, standard output sensitivity, and recommended exposure index. My bad. Sorry.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Hugh Crawford: "The 'ADJ.' control on the back of the camera—that's the Adjective toggle. The default is for the camera to take pictures of nouns like apples, knives, or string. If you set the Adjective toggle, then the camera is set to photograph qualities like red and round, or sharp and pointy, or tangled and tied to a balloon. It's this year's version of art filters.

"I hear the 'recklessly impulsive' preset is a real hoot."

Mike comments in an aside to all the rest of the readers: I love it when Hugh gets on a roll....

Featured Comment by RobG: "Mike, re the Manitowoc crawler—you'd be amazed at who might buy it. These things are darn useful; depending on the model they can be rigged as a crane, a dragline, a piledriver.... Got any more pics? (Yeah sorry, I have a bit of a thing about cranes and big earthmovers.)"

Mike replies: More Manitowoc-crawler-porn for Rob...

Featured Comment by Jack Nelson: ""I'll hold off buying until they add the ADV switch. Swiftly, slowly, darkly...."

Mike replies: TOP has devolved to grammar jokes. I love it.

Featured Comment by Alastair Smith: "TOP has 'devolved' to grammar jokes? Don't you mean 'declined'? Bad grammar jokes are catching, I'm afraid: watch you don't get inflected!"

Posted on Saturday, 02 July 2011 at 02:25 AM in Camera Reviews, Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (53)

Friday, 01 July 2011

Futzing with the GXR, First Day

Snapshot of my peoples with the GXR and 50mm Macro module. ISO 200, ƒ/4.

I've taken to the little Ricoh GXR pretty readily. At this point I've just unboxed it, toyed with it a bit, and taken a few quick snapshots—haven't even cracked the manual yet. When I took the above I was trying to see the LCD—I missed the clip-on VF-2 in the box amidst all the foam peanuts. I expected a bigger box.

The GXR is handy to hold and fun to shoot with. I can definitely see why people tend to like the UI. I especially like the camera with B&W, much to my surprise. It's not often that that happens.

The top shot is converted from RAW (looks better bigger, but you'll have to take my word for that—a touch overcooked small. Looks a little too dark through the TypePad software, too). This second version is the out-of-camera JPEG, which you can tailor to your taste in terms of contrast and sharpness—you can see some of the tweaks I've made to the top version (click on either to see 'em a bit bigger). The out-of-camera JPEG isn't horrible, though.

You see a paler, brighter version of this on the LCD and in the VF-2 when shooting in B&W mode. So—as you can with a number of other cameras, though far from all—you can shoot, review, and edit without leaving B&W, and then start from a color RAW to make the real conversion on any shots you like. The point I'm wending my way painfully toward is that if you assume the top version is a decent simulation of what I think B&W ought to look like, then you can see how close the camera's default rendering comes to it. (Some cameras in B&W Mode are so horrid I can't stand to subject myself even temporarily to their idea of "B&W." Most film B&W is pretty bad, from "student grays" to the Ansel-wannabees' "soot and chalk," but the digital world can be a veritable house of horrors when it comes to utter cluelessness—both from practitioners and manufacturers—about monochrome. It's no wonder at all that people don't care for it.)

And the files seem to retain highlight information well for conversion, another distinct shortcoming in many digital cameras. The skintones look pretty good to me so far on my 27" iMac monitor. (The above—not sharpened for showing at this size, n.b.—looks almost—dare I say it?—filmlike.) Too early to tell, but the few test snaps I've done so far (mostly things like backlit window curtains, bright crap back in the bokeh, nothing to show you but that tell me what I want to know) are encouraging.

I have a feeling you're going to be SOL if you want me to talk about color rendering with this camera, as I suspect I'll spend my three weeks with it shooting B&W. (But give me a day or three to zero in on its weaknesses, and we'll see.)

This is just a camera JPEG too:

Much more typical shot of Lulu, whose modeling skills
are, I have to say, hopeless.

I'll be going out with it again this evening. Plus, we'll have a nice review of Peter Turnley's Paris workshop (which I missed, why, why?) this weekend. And I still need to post Vlatko's XZ-1 review. More anon,

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Posted on Friday, 01 July 2011 at 05:59 PM in Camera Reviews, Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (25)

Olympus Debuts Dazzling New Micro 4/3 Gear

Two zooms receive revised styling to match the pretty Pens, and the two delectable new primes are a 12mm (24mm-e) ƒ/2 (3 o'clock) and a 45mm (90mm-e) ƒ/1.8 portrait lens (6 o'clock).

As I'm sure Micro 4/3 fans are well aware, Olympus yesterday introduced no fewer than three new Micro 4/3 cameras—including the E-P3, a replacement for the top of the line Pen E-P2—and two beautiful new prime lens gems. Two zoom lenses also have gotten new cosmetics.

Sometime TOP contributior and e-friend Eamon Hickey sent us some "brief notes from a briefing" with Olympus:

A week and a half ago, I got a short introduction to the new Olympus Pen system products from Toshi Terada, Manager of Digital SLR Product Planning for Olympus Corp. (Japan) and Sally Smith Clemens, Product Manager for Olympus Imaging America. I had only a few minutes of PRFCRP (public relations firm conference room play) with a few of the products, but here are some quick impressions:

• Olympus is emphasizing the new autofocus system on these cameras, calling it the world's fastest. Based on my short hands-on with the E-P3, I'm comfortable saying that for stationary subjects in good light it is indeed much, much faster than the E-P1 that I used many moons ago. Mr. Terada noted that his company's speed claims do not extend to low light or continuous focusing of moving subjects, and I have no worthwhile comment on those important areas of autofocus performance, since I couldn't test them. But this is a definite leap forward for Olympus contrast-detect autofocus.

• The Pen Lite (E-PL3) definitely caught my eye. It's about 25% smaller than the E-PL2, but possesses a great deal of the E-P3's advanced design and functionality. It does give up one control wheel, a loss that I—and many others, I'm sure—will lament, but it may (jury is still out) come closest to the ideal (or at least my ideal) of a really small camera that's still suitable for enthusiast photographers. I'll be pestering Olympus to let me test this camera when it's available.

• The 12mm ƒ/2 (24mm-equivalent) is nifty—I have little doubt this will become an aficionado's favorite. It's no pancake, but it's definitely compact—roughly the size of a medium-speed rangefinder lens, but probably a bit lighter than most (can't remember exactly). Feels well made, operates smoothly.

Its "snapshot focus" mechanism is very nice. You just slide the focus ring back (towards the camera) and the lens instantly switches to manual focus mode. When it does, it reverts to the focus distance it was set for the last time it was in manual focus mode (that is, it's an instantly accessible preset manual focus distance). This permits an easy combination of autofocusing and classic zone focusing. The lens has both a depth of field scale and a focus distance scale. In manual focus mode, the focus ring feels decently damped, and it has hard stops at nearest focus and at infinity (it doesn't freewheel). I really like what Olympus has done with this manual focus clutch mechanism and would love to see them do it with one or two more focal lengths (a 28mm or 35mm equivalent and a 50mm equivalent, maybe).

• The 45mm ƒ/1.8 is also nice at first touch—again, no pancake but roughly similar in size to a medium-speed rangefinder lens. It's a portait lens, plain and simple, and as such, highly welcome. Almost everything else that's worth saying about a portrait lens requires shooting with it, which I did not do, so I have nothing more to add at this time except that I'll be looking to cadge one of these off the nice Olympus folks, too, when it's available.

• Finally, I liked the little FL-300R flash—it's not only quite compact but also wireless-TTL capable. Carrying a couple or three of them would no problem. Add an E-P3 or a Pen Lite, your favorite Micro Four Thirds prime lens or two, and some gaffer's tape, and you could put together a very compact system with a fair degree of lighting versatility.

What with the new Leica/Panasonic 50mm Summilux announced recently, the options for Micro 4/3 users are getting richer all the time. For more on the new Olympus equipment and many more pictures, jump to Eamon's full report over at Rob Galbraith DPI.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by ILTim: "I love my GF1/20mm—for me its absolutely the Goldilocks camera system. I have been disappointed by the direction the GF2 and especially the GF3 are taking, but Olympus has revitalized my hope. I love their ambition to make this system king, snapping and snarling at the heels of the DSLR market like a furious little dog. They're making a really good go of it! This is what Olympus must have had in mind all those years ago when 4/3rds was introduced; good thing they kept at it."

Featured Comment by Kirk: "I think the lenses are the real news. While the E-P3 might be marginally better in the image quality department than the existing cameras it won't be by much for my kind of shooting. I'm happy with the focus on my E-P2. The reason I would consider an E-P3 is strictly for the the styling and the improved video capabilities. I know many reader of TOP don't want to think about video, but in my business clients are falling all over themselves to get short videos up on the web. The new E-P3 looks like a good production tool for a one-man video production team....

"But the 45mm ƒ/1.8 is the one most of us have been waiting for. Good for Olympus for having the cojones to flesh out this system."

Featured Comment by Ctein: "I find the body only mildly interesting, unless there's a palpable jump in RAW image quality over my E-P1. The bigger, better screen is nice. But I'm OK with what I've got. Also the wider range on exposure bracketing is nice. But on the E-P1, so far as I've been able to figure out, there's no way to get it to do real auto-bracketing (expose a burst of frames automatically, not just increment the exposure settings). Without that, I find I usually don't use the exposure bracketing feature because too often I forget to turn it off or need to restart in midstream.

"So, probable pass on the camera.

"But those prime lenses? Oh yeah. The 12 and 45 are just what I've been looking for to complement my 20mm Panasonic. I can pretty much dispense with my 14–42 zoom with those. Hardly use it anywhere except at the extrema.

"If the reports on those lenses are good, this could keep me with Olympus for several more years."

Mike replies: I agree about the lenses. Assuming pleasing image quality, both are ideal to augment either the 20mm ƒ/1.7 or the new 25mm ƒ/1.4 in a three-lens prime set.

Years ago I figured my own lens use as: normal 35–40mm, 80% of my shooting; 85–90mm portrait lens, 15%; and 5% WA. Which meant that I usually forewent the WA, as it was often the most expensive lens and got the least use...although, when you need a WA, you tend to really need it.

These two lenses really improve the look of the whole Micro 4/3 universe to my way of thinking—no small thing considering that the lovely Lumix G 20/1.7 is already the ideal lens for my taste. I like everything about that lens, and I'm such a nut case about optics that that's a very rare occurrence indeed.

Featured Comment by Dave Kee: "Whew, I am glad we are back to talking about expensive new gear. All those posts about actually taking pictures with basic equipment were sooo boring."

Posted on Friday, 01 July 2011 at 01:41 AM in Cameras, new, Lenses | Permalink | Comments (37)

Thursday, 23 June 2011

The Pentax Q System

It's really difficult to show in a picture just how tiny the new Q really is.

I hardly know where to begin. But, since I've gotten pretty good over the years at anticipating typical web reactions to new products, I guess I'll start by saying this isn't "the Pentax mirrorless." No. Get that idea out of your brain. What it is is a premium point-and-shoot. A wee mini-digicam. You know, like the Olympus XZ-1, the Panasonic LX-5, and the Canon S95.

But it is different. It's the first mini system digicam. It has interchangeable lenses.

The sensor is not APS-C or 4/3rds size. It's a 1/2.3" digicam-sized sensor (6.16x4.62mm). So who in the world would design an interchangeable-lens premium point-and-shoot for such a small format?

Well, let me answer that rhetorical question with another question: does the Q system remind you of anything?

The Pentax Auto 110 system of 1978, world's only interchangeable-lens 110 camera. The 110 negative was 13x17mm and the film came in a cassette.

(The picture is a hint.)

So what does "Q" stand for, anyway? Quirky? Qute? (More on that in a moment.) There are a couple of trends that seem on the rise in Japan. One is, well, tininess, and the other is...let's call it "playfulness." Almost as if we are all starting to get just a bit tired of serious, utilitarian, cookie-cutter black-blob DSLRs and the everlasting pursuit of clinical perfection, and just want to have a little fun. So take a look at the system photo below:

(That clip-on optical finder, by the way, is for the standard prime lens.) So can you read the word engraved on those two lenses in the front? Here it is a little bigger in case you lost your reading glasses when you were out on the Bay in your cigarette boat today:

"Toy" lens? Whaaa?

Never fear, the standard prime lens (47mm-equivalent) and the standard zoom (27.5–83mm-e) are both top quality, highly corrected lenses. A third is a fisheye (!). The "Toy Lens Wide" (35mm-e) and "Toy Lens Telephoto" (100mm-e) are both designed with aberrations deliberately left in, like a toy camera, or a Lensbaby, or a Lomo. Each is only going to cost $79.95 (!!).

They're just for fun, in other words.

That can't possibly be for us.

Well, speaking of that, you might have noticed that in most of North America, it's the middle of the night as the embargo ends and this post goes up. Not a terribly logical time for a product introduction. You can probably guess where it's the middle of the day: Tokyo. The Q system might or might not be popular in the rest of the world, but I get the feeling it's basically a Japanese product for the Japanese market. It's all between Japan and Japan. So natter all you want about the concept: if you're not Japanese, you most likely weren't the immediate target. So chill out. You're invited to the party, you just don't happen to be the guest of honor this time around is all.

Littlest for now
I never put much store in smallest or "biggest" or "this-est" or "that-est." It doesn't seem like a real distinction. It's always provisional. Somebody can always out-do you later. Neverthless, the Q will be the smallest interchangeable-lens camera system on the market when it ships. Take that, other tiny cameras!

In any event, if I'm right and "tiny" and "fun" are both hot in Japan at the moment, then the Q system hits both objectives at least as hard as anything else out there. I don't know who can beat interchangeable $80 lomo-esque lenses and The Tiniest crown. Maybe if the camera came in paisley.

It doesn't, just black and white (both with the silver lens).

As you might expect from the foregoing, the camera will be available in Japan well in advance of shipping to the rest of the world. When it finally gets to North America next fall, it will be sold as a kit with the standard prime for somewhere in the neighborhood of $800.

So here's a few more points about the Q. As for what the Q stands for, I'll bet you've never heard this before: The original Pentax bayonet lens mount, the venerable K-mount, was called "K" because it was supposed to stand for for "king." As in, king of the lensmounts. Very early promotional material and advertisements actually featured a king playing card to play up the association. Well, so now you know what historical well they drew from to get the "Q" name:

Here's another fun fact about the Q system: Pentax engineers have actually been working on it for five years. They started the project before there was a sensor good enough for it, apparently trusting that, given the known pace of development, a good enough sensor would be along eventually. Only when Sony's latest back-illuminated CMOS sensor become available did Pentax finish the project and bring the product to completion.

I'm not going to run down all the features and settings, as there are a zillion places on the internet you can get all that. But I will just note that the camera has built-in sensor-shift image stabilization. And, I will note that I haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about with all that stuff about the in-camera "bokeh control," so don't ask me! (In fact, I'm not even sure I want to know.)

We'll definitely get one of these to test once they wend their way to these shores.

Mike

ADDENDUM by Ctein: No doubt there will be many folks upset with the small size of the sensor, but as one who did a reasonable amount of photography with a camera of very similar sensor size and pixel count (the Fuji S100), I can testify that entirely professional results are possible from that size and pixel count. By way of example, I'm selling 17x22" prints of the following photographs, and most folks do not consider my standards to be low:

Grasses in Liquid Sky
Reflections in Montreal Centre
Stairs in Montreal Centre
Mall of America Rooftop

and here are a couple of three-frame stitched panoramas:

Dam Falls
Lock and Falls

No, I don't expect the available light performance to be sterling. There's a lot of things I don't expect this camera to do. Only trying to preempt remarks of the "why waste a semi-professional design on such an amateur format" type.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Julian: "Hah! I just knew the big announcement would concern a Pentax product. My money was on a 'full-frame' DSLR to fill an obvious gap in the lineup, though."

Featured Comment by cgrab: "Great that the people at Pentax seem to have ideas of their own. First the 645 and now the Q-system. These cameras might not be for everyone, but certainly some people will want exactly that. Much better than another me-too product."

Featured Comment by John Roberts: "The price is indeed high, but kudos to Pentax for trying to keep the fun in photography (or maybe to put it back in). Does everything we do with a camera have to be 'professional grade'? Didn't we buy our first camera because we thought it would be fun to take pictures? It was only later that many of us got enslaved to the obsessive and unattainable pursuit of perfection. I'm for anything that shakes up the stuffiness of the photography world!"

Featured Comment by Aquemarropa: "No, thanks. An $800 camera with a sensor smaller than the one in the G12 or LX5? With Apple putting an 8MP camera in the next iPhone and having 1,000+ apps to customize your shooting, editing, post-production and (especially) sharing, it's clear that people can live with small sensor cameras if done right. Unfortunately for Pentax 'done right' really involves lower cost and more flexibility, not merely interchangeable toy lenses at the price of a Canon T3i. I suspect that after an initial sales flurry this system will be only slightly more popular than the niche Ricoh GXR system; and if I remember right Ricoh said they were aiming for 5,000 unit sales per month on that. I just cannot see people spending that kind of money on a camera merely for the pocketability factor considering the competition."

Featured Comment by T: "So many digital cameras, so few with a sensor the size of a piece of film."

Featured Comment by peter.gilbert: "Warning: Lenses may be a choking hazard for small children!"

Featured Comment by David H.: "The kit here in Japan (don't know which lens [kits will be sold with the standard prime —Ed.]) will be at about ¥70,000, which is might be a bit steep except for nuttier (?) enthusiasts who wouldn't mind paying that much for a halfway decent camera that is smaller than their car. Unfortunately, that price will likely never come down here, nor will much discount be found. At ¥40,000, I'd be tempted. At ¥70,000, it will need to be able to do things I know it can't. But I do know guys who might just pay that much....

"Small has always been big here, I just wonder why it has taken so long for companies to start to move to smaller digital cameras of decent quality. The vast majority of normal sane people I see taking photos are using cell/smart phones. Only old guys (and a few young women) are running around with huge Nikon D300s and such."

Featured Comment by Dave Luttmann: "$800? Dead in the water. Sorry, it's a cute idea, but overpriced. Come back at $500 and maybe we'll talk."

Featured Comment by John Eriksson: "This camera is quite capable of single-handedly murdering the premium compact segment (Canon G12), I think. I'm quite intrigued at this moment in time and might get one as soon as they are released here in Sweden."

Featured Comment by Amin: "When the rumors first emerged, I was as skeptical as anyone else. When the confirmation first came, I was as puzzled. Yet I find myself quickly warming to the idea. I like small gadgets, and this seems like good fun to me."

Featured Comment by Peter: "In sensors that small, a BSI [back-side illuminated —Ed.] sensor makes a big difference. Even though I recently got a smartphone, I still take along a Sony TX5 as my everyday camera, and it has probably the best low-light pictures out of any small-sensor digicam that I've ever used. Especially if you cheat and use the neat mode where the camera combines multiple frames to make a composite image in low-light. The technology is trickling down very quickly to the smartphone space as well.

"One odd observation: with all the talk about how the most recent Pentax DSLR's images are incredibly clean because of all the know-how they developed working around that Samsung sensor's noise a couple of generations back, you'd think they'd get more of the benefit of the doubt on their decision to finally bring this to market.

"As for the price, as many people have already mentioned, it's too rich for my blood. But that's just because I need a new camera system like I need a new hole in the head. I think when you consider the implications of interchangeable lenses, there will be a fair number of people who are willing to pay the $300 premium over a high-end, enthusiast compact. It'll depend greatly on what level of support Pentax brings to the table. Also unless demand is really high, or supply is really low, street prices will probably be lower."

Featured Comment by JohnMFlores: "In 2007 I purchased a Ricoh GX100 at a 50% premium over competing cameras from Canon, Panasonic, et al. Why? For the feel of it in my hands, the way the controls seemed to be directly connected to my mind's eye, and the way it disappeared when I tried to capture decisive moments. Connectivity—the organic kind—is important too, and if the Q offers that same feeling I'll happily pay the premium."

Featured Comment by John Robison: "What do these lenses use for light control? Rotating variable ND disc? I mean, at 8.5mm you sure couldn't afford to stop down very much before resolution suffers, a lot. I dunno, mayhaps there has been much progress in optical design for ultra short FL lenses lately. Clever idea though. I wonder if anyone else will jump on this concept.

"As for the 'toy' lenses. Well, a few years back Nikon sold (only in Japan I think) three or four lenses named 'Amusing Lenses.' If I recall correctly they were a fisheye, a 120mm that was macro or soft focus depending on how you configured the lens cells, and a 400mm ƒ/8. These were in the Nikon F mount, of course, and a full set today would probably go for one to two grand to a collector."

Ctein replies: John, first point: Focal length has nothing, directly, to do with resolution. Doesn't matter if it's an 8.5 mm lens or an 85 mm lens, it's the f-number (relative aperture) that limits resolution…if you have a diffraction limited lens. Big assumption, there.

Second point: you've never been able to stop down very far before resolution suffered, unless you were using large-format film. In a good 35mm system, with a top-quality lens and modern high-resolving films, stopping down below ƒ/4.8 sacrificed resolution. No joke. Most photographers never knew nor paid attention because they were incapable of testing this. It was my job to test for stuff like this.

Now that every semi-knowledgeable shutterbug with a large computer monitor can obsessively pixel-peep until their eyeballs bleed, you're seeing all sorts of panicky postings about how resolution degrades when you stop down too far.

Yawn. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Bottom line: you want to stop down very far to get increased depth of field or slow shutter speeds? Then you're going to sacrifice peak resolution.

Incidentally, for a system with the form factor of the new Pentax, the 'limiting aperture' isn't much different than it was for 35mm cameras. Somewhere between ƒ/4 and ƒ/5 .6. Stop down to ƒ/8 and you'll see a slight degradation in peak resolution. Stop down to ƒ/11 and you'll see a noticeable one. Stop down to ƒ/16 and it will be substantial.

As I said, same as the old boss.

Third point: short focal length lenses have been exceptionally good for many, many years. You can thank the motion picture industry for that. What's hard is making really good lenses with a wide field of coverage. But a short focal length lens for a smaller format, so that the field of coverage is the usual? Those lenses are really, really good.

Posted on Thursday, 23 June 2011 at 12:00 AM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (121)

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

More Camera Not-Yet-News

Since this is a day of no posts (first, a post about something I can't talk about, then a post about a lost post) I figured I should post a post about something that's still in the future: I just got confirmation from Japan that Ricoh is sending me a GXR and three lens units.

So that's one more thing I can't write about now, and one more nothing post for today.

...And, my mouse just stopped working. I think maybe Voldemort is in the area.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Jeff: "I'm not going to comment today."

Posted on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 at 06:19 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (13)

Cool New Camera

Check back here at 11:00 tomorrow (Wednesday) night (CT) for the details on an exciting all-new camera (i.e., not just a warm-over of an existing model).

Mike

P.S. Spoilers in Comments won't be posted, so don't try!

P.P.S. Kinda makes you nostalgic, doesn't it? Remember what it was like a decade or so ago, when significant all-new cameras were coming down the pipeline thick and fast, one after the other? That was a fun time.

P.P.P.S. The Leica M9-P (or M9P—Leica itself writes it both ways), introduced today, turns out to be a total non-event. It has a "sapphire glass" LCD cover, no red dot, and is available in silver. As Archie Bunker used to say, whoop-de-do, whoop-de-do.

UPDATE: It's actually not an all-new camera...it's an all new camera system. Really, no joke.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Posted on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 at 01:46 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (52)

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

Panasonic GF Series to Continue to Get Smaller

SA*

In an interview with the Japanese magazine Fashion Camera
(方法カメラ) yesterday, a spokesman for the Panasonic Corporation revealed the company's ultimate aspirations for its GF mirrorless camera: to make it as small as a contact lens.

"Engineers need goals," said Toshiro "Elmer" Kikuchiyo. "People really liked the size of the GF1, so we made it smaller. That made our customers 23% happier, so, when our engineers came to us looking sort of aimless and lost, our management direction was clear."

Elmer said he expects the current direction to continue. In Japan, one iteration or generation of a concept is enough to establish a tradition. At the current rate, the Panasonic GF camera will be essentially too small to see easily by 2023, at approximately the GF18.

"We envision it being too small to find when you drop it on the floor," said Elmer, smiling, "like a contact lens. This will make our customers 819% more happy."

As the camera gets smaller, its instruction book will get larger.

Asked if perhaps the ever-diminishing size might not have consequences in terms of photographic competence and capability, Elmer replied that only one of their designers, who he identified as Hideo, is a photographer. Hideo originally thought that the best direction might be to start with the excellent base of the GF1 and add photographic capability. Panasonic opted for the opposite approach. "First, in the GF1, we eliminated the superfluous viewfinder," said Elmer. "Now we've eliminated the hot shoe. Some of our more visionary designers are already proposing to eliminate the LCD viewing screen next. And why not? You can't see it outside anyway." He added that Hideo is a good employee and keeps quiet.

If he ever does say anything, Hideo will be assigned to figuring out how to make ink cartridges for inkjet printers hold less ink.

Mike

*Satire Alert. This post in no way reflects the views, beliefs, or intentions of Panasonic Corp. or any of its employees named Hideo.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "Then there is this—quoted from Engaget: 'We know some of you have been a little disappointed in Panasonic's GF line of Micro Four Thirds cams as they've shed advanced features and become more "consumer friendly"—terrifying words for any serious user to hear. But, we've got some good news, at some point in the future the GF line will split with a more professionally-minded model sold alongside the more simplistic GF3. That's straight from the mouth of Ichiro Kitao, the head of Panasonic's camera division, who spoke to PhotoRadar about the company's plans. When the GF1 will finally get a spiritual successor isn't exactly clear, but we're glad to hear the pocketable Micro Four Thirds series will finally get another serious shooter.'"

Mike replies: Will this happen before or after the pro-level Olympus Micro 4/3 body arrives? Sorry, I'm being cynical again. Can't help it sometimes, though.

Featured Comment by Jim McDermott: "Stop knocking Panasonic and Sony. We all realize the benefits of the truly pocketable camera, or as Mike calls it, the DMD. That magical moment arrives, you plunge your hand into your pocket, whip out the DMD, pause only to blow off the tissue fluff, take a second look, blow off that last, stubborn bit of fluff, switch on the camera, deftly descend through three menus on the touch screen, set the action program, touch back to shoot mode, raise the camera at arm's length to peer into the rear screen (your only option), whack celebrity in face accidentally as you do so, get knocked to the ground by said celebrity's boyfriend, land heavily on DMD, make mental note as you lose consciousness to bring along Gandolfi next time."

Posted on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 at 11:14 AM in Cameras, new, Satire Alert! | Permalink | Comments (67)

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Tsk, Tsk—Bad, Very Bad!

SA*

A Guest Post by L. T. Gray

I'm afraid our friend Lloyd Chambers has stepped in it. Stepped square in fresh poop with a great big squishing sound. He's written a commentary about the Leica M9 that's not totally over the moon about that august device (which Mike actually quite likes, we hasten to add—even though he can't figure out how to get the Tri-X in).

I can't find the post Mike wrote on the Leica User Group (LUG) many years ago now called "The Leica Rules" or something like that, but I do remember one of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic.

For instance, if you'll remember, Mike wrote a review of the Leica M8 (in separate "Pro" and "Con" sections) that now looks quite sane and balanced. But it wasn't at the time, because, when he wrote it, the M8 was still a current product. Big mistake. Leica fans let him know in no uncertain terms what an irredeemable shit he is. And they were right to do so.

He should have learned his lesson long ago, when he wrote a review of the 35mm Summicron (4th version, now called the "Pre-ASPH") that was only mostly glowing. He said the lens had excessive vignetting with thin-emulsioned B&W films such as 100 Delta. He duly got raked over the coals by aficionados for daring to say such a thing. Later, when Leica introduced the 35mm Summicron ASPH, it mentioned that one of the improvements is that it vignettes much less than its predecessor version. You see, only then did the earlier lens start to vignette; before that, it never did.

Lloyd, your review might look perfectly reasonable...someday. Once the M10 has come out. Until then, though...well, your timing is very poor, and you've done a bad thing. Very bad. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done until you're ready to play by the rules again.

L. T.

(Important Note: I had nothing to do with writing this post. Don't blame me. I am not the author. L. T. Gray is a former columnist for the now defunct English Darkroom User magazine. —Mike)

*Satire Alert.

Send this post to a friend—but please, not if your friend is a Leica user!

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Ed Buziak, Founding Editor (ret.) of Darkroom User magazine: "El Tigre, huh? My lips are sealed!"

Featured Comment by Erlik: "I saw Lloyd's rant. I don't mean it pejoratively, but it is a rant. I had two questions.

"One: if you can find so many things wrong with the camera, what have you been doing with it for two years?

"Two: the camera is too expensive? Wasn't it too expensive when you bought it?

"Besides, for all his expertise and experience, I wonder whether he thought everything through. I'm not talking about the reactions. Couldn't care less. But we all know that Leica is a boutique manufacturer. He must have known that.

"So where does he think that Leica is going to find manufacturing resources for increased numbers of cameras and lenses should they lower the prices? And why does he think that Leica wants to raise the numbers of its cameras and consequently lower its prestige and margins?"

Posted on Sunday, 12 June 2011 at 03:50 PM in Cameras, new, Satire Alert! | Permalink | Comments (52)

Wednesday, 01 June 2011

Discontinuous Demand and Its Discontents

In a comment written in response to the "Film Falls Off a Cliff" post below, our friend Thom Hogan (of ByThom.com, the world's best Nikon news site) wrote the following:

Beware that statistics can show something both 'up' and 'down' simultaneously. You have to look at what's being measured. The 'down' statistic is overall film sales. This is a 'global' statistic, the entire universe of film. You can have 'up' statistics, too. For instance, if there were 10 competitors each with 10% of the global market, the global market shrinks by 50% and six competitors close their doors, someone's sales are going to go up (maybe all of the remaining four, but by definition, at least one).

I talked to one local lab about this. Their sales were up, and they felt comfortable that film was seeing a resurrection. Then I pointed out that all their local competitors were now closed, so anyone who was still shooting film who had used a local competitor was now coming to them.

Still feel confident that things are 'up'?

Just so. Oren and I had been discussing this privately. He referred to it as "taking share from others." Writing back, I wondered what accounted for Harman's 8% rise in sales in 2010. "It's quite possible it could have been linked to disappearing competition as easily as increased popularity. I really don't want to have to research it—especially since I know the conclusions will be, well, inconclusive—but it's quite possible it could be simply people migrating to Ilford as other B&W films went south. Impossible to know without more data than we have readily available."

The concept was most vividly and succinctly put into words in my experience by the late Ian Brightman, who was at that time the owner of Beseler, the enlarger manufacturer, in a meeting in the publisher's office at the photo magazine I edited. The publisher asked him if he was worried about the decline in enlarger sales, and he replied, "Not necessarily. In a down market, the last man standing makes out like a bandit."

But what if there is no 'last man'?
A somewhat related topic is what happens to industries when none of them can weather an abrupt market change (apropos the Ctein column below, I should say that I'm doubtless discovering for myself ideas that are very familiar to economists—I've never taken an econ course in my life, more's the pity).

To create an illustration, let's say that somebody invented hovercars that were half as expensive as automobiles and ran on antigravity, sunlight, and optimism. The market for gas cars would crash as the world's population swiftly migrated to hovercars for their personal transportation. But let's say that 15% of the population still needed or wanted petrol cars*. The problem would be, for the short term, that for a while there would be a huge number of perfectly good gasoline-powered cars glutting the used market—so many for so little money that, for a good long stretch of time, no one would need to buy a new car. So all the car manufacturers would go out of business, or switch to making the newfangled hovercars.

But then, eventually, the supply of decent used petrol cars would begin to dwindle and disappear. At that point, the 15-percenters are in trouble, no? Because they still want to use petrol cars, but no one is making petrol cars any more. The irony in this scenario is that there might be, at that point, a market perfectly sufficient to support one or two companies making petrol-powered cars. There just wouldn't be any manufacturers who had survived from the era of petrol-powered cars to supply them. (And, of course, re-starting an industry is much more difficult and expensive than simply continuing an existing industry, even on a much reduced scale.)

If I had to put my own name to this problem, I might call it "discontinuous demand." Not only does an industry get whacked by an abrupt shift, but there's a period when the remaining demand "looks" artificially low, because of temporarily high supply from the used market.

That's the situation film camera makers find themselves in right now, I suspect. There's probably a market out there for film cameras—it never really went away, and it will be sufficient in the future to support one, two, or three small companies. But it can't support any camera manufacturers in the interim, because of the vast supply from the used market that it can't compete with.

The situation isn't absolute—there are still some nice film cameras available. But you'll notice that many of them are niche products suited to markets that were already very small even before digital came along. (I'm speaking mainly of bespoke handmade view cameras. The Fuji folder is another example—Fuji was making the odd occasional quirky one-off camera every now and then back in the film-only era, too.) Those companies can deal with limited demand, because they'd been dealing with a limited market all along.

Crystal ball gazing
My friend Phil Davis used to tell me he didn't fear death—that his problem with reaching the end of his life (he died at 85 in 2007) was that he was so curious about what was going to happen next. I won't be around to survey the camera market in 2060, but I wish I could be. I'm very curious as to what it will look like.

I'll make two predictions: first, that large-format black-and-white optical-chemical photography, practiced by a small band of craft adherents, will be the very most prestigious form of photography—and that there will be one, two, or three small manufacturers making a variety of film cameras, steaming merrily along and doing very well, thank you. Just a guess.

Mike

*The diehard pessimists?

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by David A. Goldfarb: "Case in point:

Driving Essentials Whips
Chrysalis Acres Tufflex Carriage Driving Whip
Westfield Whip
Advanced Equine Whips for Drivers
Big Black Horse Whips and Accessories

Featured Comment by Chad Thompson: "As much as people love to trot out the old adage involving buggy whips, something a little closer to home is the wet plate camera. Currently there are about three manufacturers of them here in the states. Near as I can tell they're all doing fairly well selling their buggy whips. Here's my whip:

"And thanks to another reader here for the referral to the builder."

Posted on Wednesday, 01 June 2011 at 06:16 PM in Cameras, new, Photo industry | Permalink | Comments (33)

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Last Post on the Ricoh GXR...

...Well, probably anyway.

A reader named Andrew claims, in the Comments to the previous post, that the #1 request on various forums discussing GXR modules is for a module optimized for B&W.

So let me just say that I hope Ricoh does not make a B&W-only module for the GXR.

Because, if they did, I'd be forced to buy one.

I'm just sayin'.

Off to Madison to have lunch with Ctein, who is gracing the Dairy State with his presence for a science-fiction convention (I think that's what it is). We had Himalayan food last year; wonder what kind of cuisine he's got in mind for today?

Mike

UPDATE (Monday a.m.): Well, the Editor and the Senior Contributing Editor had a very nice lunch (pasta) and managed to talk for more than five hours, despite the fact that Ctein was sleep-deprived from four days of intensive conventioneering. I got to look at a bunch of pictures, including the first bad prints I've ever seen from Ctein (they were unfinished works-in-progress, and hence don't count against his cosmic perfect score).

Amusingly, when I showed him my Mamiya 7II, it wouldn't work, and at first I couldn't figure out why; it turned out the darkslide curtain was engaged. Now, how did that happen? I only own one lens for the thing, and I don't think I've ever engaged the darkslide curtain on purpose*. Spontaneous auto-adjustment in the camera bag? I finally remembered that the last time I had the camera out I was showing it to another friend—he must have closed the curtain to remove the lens and I just didn't notice.

Reminded me of a photographic truism, though: you're never so much of an expert that you're immune from being dumb. At least, I'll never be. (I actually dislike the whole idea of being "an expert," but that's a whole post for another day. Practitioners of zen meditation already know what I'm talking about.)

I also got to see and say hello to Ctein's friend Laurie Toby Edison again, after a lapse of only 14 years, and thus came my dose my serendipitous learn-something-new for the day: it turns out she's been a jewelry-maker since 1969. I never knew. Beautiful tiny molten-silver sculptures that change in the lighting. She works mainly on private commission and doesn't sell online, so unfortunately you can't see. But she had a large display at the Con.

Ctein and I agreed that having met at the convention two years in a row, we have established a Tradition. I'm already looking forward to next year's visit. Now if I could just get myself to Minneapolis....

*The Mamiya 7II is a rollfilm rangefinder with lens shutters, so to change lenses mid-roll you need a way to protect the film from exposure. The camera provides a darkslide curtain that works via a key switch with a safety lock on the bottom of the camera. But, obviously, if you only have one lens and never remove it from the camera, you have no need to use this feature.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Ilkka: "How about a B&W sensor that is IR sensitive, and a dedicated set of filters, one to block IR (à la M8) and other to block visible light, to make the camera IR only. With a good, short lens that is corrected for both visible and IR. To me it makes perfect sense because this fits exactly the Ricoh concept of matching the lens and sensor. And not so easy to duplicate by Micro 4/3 or Sony NEX."

Mike replies: Superb idea. From your mouth to Ricoh's ear.

Posted on Sunday, 29 May 2011 at 11:42 AM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (36)

Saturday, 28 May 2011

The Ricoh GXR M-Module(s)

Nice discussion about the Ricoh GXR yesterday—lots of interesting thoughts. I've asked for a loaner. I've never used a Ricoh, so I thought trying one might usefully further my education.

The thought that I keep coming back to is that the system only makes sense if there's some combination of modules that a) you want and b) isn't redundant. If you want a full two-lens prime set (the 50mm-e and the 28mm-e), you're buying an extra sensor you don't need. It's only if you want the option of different sensors with your different lenses that the system really makes sense—say, one zoom with a small CCD, one prime with a large CMOS.

Lots of commenters were adamant about the notion that tying a lens to the sensor would make the lenses the opposite of future-proof—that is, to get a newer or different sensor, they'd have to re-buy the lens part of the module in the future.

That's just a different sort of worry about redundancy—having to buy the same lens twice doesn't appeal to people any more than having to buy the same sensor twice.

I don't personally have much concern about redundancy because I've never tended to amass a "collection" of lenses in any system. For any given camera, I tend to use one or two lenses, and I tend to use any particular lens or pair of lenses only for a handful of years at the most. I know that some photographers do "invest" in large collections of lenses that they'd like to keep using for as long as possible as they update bodies within the same system, but I'd suggest that for those people, something like the Ricoh GXR simply wouldn't be the right choice—it's not actually a system camera, and it's probably a mistake to imagine it as one.

What it is is a customizable camera. You can build it to suit yourself...

...Hypothetically, at least. It seems to me that to be a really successful product, the system would have to offer an embarrassment of choices so as to be easily customizable for each customer. That thought must give Ricoh the willies—it's a scary thought to imagine investing in the development and manufacture of lots of product options just on the hope that demand might be created thereby. What if you threw your expensive party and no one came?

The other way to make it into a successful product, as several commenters mentioned, would be to detach the sensor from the lens, so you could buy the body shell and the sensor and the lenses all separately. That unfortunately eliminates some of the technical advantages of doing it the way Ricoh's done it so far, and some of the compatibility between various lenses and sensor sizes, but it would allow for truer customization by each customer. Of course, the rumored "M module"—a sensor with a Leica M bayonet mount and no lens—promises to do just that.

If I were in the shoes of Ricoh's product managers, I'd make sure that there wasn't just one M module, but rather, several choices. What the choices would be is up to the imagination, at least from where I sit (I don't know what's actually technically feasible, or fundable). They could go with a couple of different sizes of sensor, such as one full-frame and one APS-C; or a choice of resolutions; or a choice, perhaps, between a sensor optimized for high ISO and one optimized for high DR; or perhaps specialized sensors like an IR one and/or a B&W-only one. But if Ricoh were to introduce, say, three M-modules at launch, with the promise of three more to come a year later, I would imagine that the GXR would go from being a quirky fringe product with a few passionate adherents to being a hot-selling and popular product.

Of course, other problems arise in this scenario, like the unfortunate fact that M-mount lenses are manual-focus. I've used M-mount lenses on my GF1 with an adapter, and all I have to say to that is no thanks. But as long as we're just speculating, all those inconveniences can just be shunted aside for the time being. (It's so easy to know what should be done when you're not the one paying for it, or taking responsibility for it, or doing the actual engineering.)

Even after thinking about it and reading a lot about the GXR on the web yesterday, my thoughts have tended to warp and woof like this: Ricoh is really on the trail of something big here, only they haven't quite really found it yet, and they really are on the trail of it....

Mike

P.S. William Wragg suggested in the Comments to this post that another option would be to have several M-modules optimized for WA, normal, and tele M-mount lenses.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Posted on Saturday, 28 May 2011 at 02:28 PM in Cameras, new, Photo equipment | Permalink | Comments (14)

Friday, 27 May 2011

The Ricoh GXR and Hybrid Cars

Hybrid cars seem like a great idea. They greatly improve real-world gas mileage, and if everybody used 'em, we'd save a huge whacking vast amount of the world's dwindling supply of black gold—maybe even enough to put a sizeable bite in America's dependence on foreign oil.

The Ricoh GXR also seems like a great idea. By putting the lens and sensor in a single module, you not only eliminate dust and match each lens to each sensor perfectly, but you detach the camera from the sensor, meaning that the camera becomes relatively future-proof—further developments in sensor technology can be easily incorporated without having to buy a new camera (or learn a new interface).

But the Achilles' heel of hybrid cars is like a persistent gnat that can't be swatted—cost accounting*. Cost accounting on the micro level—i.e., the level of each individual buyer. Never mind that driving a hybrid car is a good thing to be doing; never mind that it makes sense at a macro level; what it always, always, tiresomely comes down to is cost accounting. You get thus-and-such better mileage; gas costs X; therefore you will save Y dollars a year; but the hybrid car costs K dollars more than the regular non-hybrid version of the same car...so you won't save money in the long run. Nice idea. No sale.

Same deal, more or less, with the GXR. It's a nice idea...until you start crunching numbers. I mean, how nice would it be to buy a GXR body and an S10 module (24–72mm-e ƒ/2.5–4.4 lens, 10-megapixel 1/1.7" CCD sensor), which would give you a nice all-around happy-snapper point-and-shoot similar to Ricoh's GX-200—and then, later, be able to buy an A12 module (50mm-e ƒ/2.5 Macro lens matched to a 12.3-megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor) for fine-art and printmaking uses? It's two entirely different cameras in one, with the advantage of small size and an interface that's consistent—consistent because it's the same.

Ricoh GXR A12 module. It's not a whole camera, but it sorta costs like one.

Where's the rub? Same as with the hybrid car, of course...cost accounting. Where's the savings of converting your point-and-shoot to a fine-art-fine-print camera, if the A12 module ($700) costs you more than a whole separate camera would? You can't save money by essentially re-using the same body shell with different lens-sensor units if every lens-sensor unit costs as much as whole cameras from the competition. (Plus, of course, you can't mix-and-match sensors and lenses**, which bothers some people. The reason I don't quite buy into this as a drawback is that, of course, you can't mix-and-match sensors on your DSLR, either. But still.)

I have to confess, I still really like the idea of the GXR. It's just that I can see the bean-counter objection standing in the way of the concept, too.

I'm curious as to what people think about the GXR, especially if you happen to own one.

Mike

*Reader Keamu points out that I might be using the wrong term. He says what I mean is "cost/benefit analysis."

**A corollary to this is that it give Ricoh more chances to miss your own preferences where the product-line offerings are concerned. What if it makes the right lens but puts it with the wrong sensor, or vice-versa? Ye ken the problem.

Ctein replies: I'm one of those who is bothered by the combined sensor-lens thing. Putting usability and other important issues aside, it's the characteristics of the sensor, combined with those of the lens that determine what my photos will look like. Some people put more weight on the having the right sensor, others the lens. None of this is different from the film days, really.

If sensors (or lenses) were anywhere close to ideal it wouldn't matter. They aren't. Cost aside (unrealistic assumption) I have to decide what tradeoffs I want to make between resolution, ISO performance, noise levels and exposure range when I choose a camera body. Once I make those choices, I live with and work with it, same way you'd decide to go with Tri-X for your film work and work the way the film sees.

The Ricoh approach keeps yanking the rug out from under me. I get the worst of both worlds—I d not get the consistent behavior of one "film type" but I don't get to choose the film type, either, it just changes on me. That's not a feature, it's just another handicap.

Now, maybe Ricoh has done pairings that really are close to optimal. That would mitigate my complaint. I think that's yet to be demonstrated.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Winsor: "The GXR has never made sense to me. Integrating the element, the lens, which has the longest technological life into a unit with the element with the shortest technological life, the sensor, just means you have to throw away a perfectly good lens after the short, short period when the sensor is outmoded. Film cameras were actually the perfect modular system with lens, body, and image capture system (film) as separate units. A digital camera with separate lens, body and digital back would duplicate that, making the short life components, the electronics, replaceable. Additional revenue and customer service by offering specialized backs for things like black and white only, or infrared."

Featured Comment by David Stock: "I'm having a great experience with the GXR and the two current larger-sensor modules. The GXR may not be the best zone-focussing or action camera. But the combination of great lens quality and a high degree of customization makes for a terrific portable choice for other kinds of work.

"What the GXR lacks in terms of grabbing action it makes up for in precision. The 100% electronic viewfinder is really pretty good, and allows real-time viewing of the histogram, horizon level and other info. Focus is quick with the latest firmware, and deadly accurate. Best of all, the matching of sensor and lens seems to really deliver, at least for me.

"The 33mm (50mm-e) macro unit especially gives me incredible detail and corner to corner sharpness up and down the aperture range. (Noticeably better than I get from all but one of my lenses on the Pentax K-5, for instance.) It's ƒ/2.5, has no visible distortion or CA issues, and, of course, focuses as close as I could possibly want. I love the way it renders out-of-focus areas.

"Almost all the controls are very customizable, which allows many different ways of working. For instance, I can change from autofocus to manual focus instantly.

"I use little Voigtlander optical viewfinders on the GXR sometimes. Not perfect, but really good for certain situations. Ditto for the very good rear screen.

"The GXR has very solid construction, like all the little Ricohs. Because the units are sealed, I have no hesitation wrapping my fingers around the lens casting, which makes the camera more stable and comfortable for me.

"All in all, this is one of the best digital cameras I've used. I think the GXR is a sleeper—it's been under-reported and perhaps underestimated. It could be even more versatile with some firmware tweaks, and with real helical manual focus. Then again, that M-mount unit is coming...."

Featured Comment by Miserere: "I am currently using the GXR for a review to be published on SeriousCompacts.com. I too had misgivings for the system, but after a couple of weeks of shooting with the 28mm and 50mm modules I've had to reconsider my feelings. The thing is, the camera is very small, silent, and it has two control wheels! True, the sensor isn't of Sony NEX quality, but it's holding up so far. My point is this: You can't judge a camera solely by how much it costs. There are some cameras that just feel right and you're willing to pay extra for them. Just ask the Leica folk!"

Featured Comment by Christopher Osborne: "The problem with the GXR is that the cost of future-proofing the camera it that you do completely the opposite to your lenses. My lenses are a much bigger and much more long term investment than any camera and any system that requires me to junk them all every time sensor technology improves is just really never going to work!"

Featured [partial] Comment by Godfrey DiGiorgi: "The GXR was a 'dark horse' pick for me when i was looking for a compact alternative to my pro DSLR kit. I'm very glad I discovered it and have found it to be more than just capable. Even though it's somewhat expensive and the system is limited in scope, it suits what I do very well and produces image quality that is nothing short of excellent while being a pleasure to use." [Read Godfrey's entire comment—really a mini-review—and find a link to his image samples, in the Comments section. —MJ]

Featured Comment by Ed Hawco: "Frankly, the GXR concept seems a bit like a solution in search of a problem."

Featured Comment by Farnesworth: "GXR? Best small camera out there. After just about getting on with a Leica X1 (slow, less than helpful interface but lovely pics) the GXR with A12 modules was a breath of freash air. Excellent pic quality (at least equal to X1), endlessly customisable—just the perfect small cam at the moment."

Featured Comment by Jan Kusters: "As far as I am am concerned, the biggest news with the GXR was that is shows how a sensor can be an interchangeable part. Now ad a lens mount, and we get a camera that is really versatile. We do not need a new camera because sensor technology takes a step forward, we can opt for a smaller sensor to get more reach of depth of focus, or a bigger sensor for more IQ.

"Dare I dream? We could even get dedicated infra-red and black&white sensors.... Those specialized sensors would even go a long way in overcoming the bean-counter argument (one body, two sensors and three lenses might still be cheaper then three bodies). And right now black and white sensors (three times the pixel count of a colour sensor and no bayer filter) don't even exist, as far as I know."

Featured Comment by Dan States: "The GXR is the Helena Bonham Carter of cameras. Wacky, but hot in a strange way."

Featured Comment by Thom Hogan: "Wish I'd thought of the hybrid analogy. It's a good way of pointing out the conundrum that Ricoh presents possible GXR users. Technology sometimes solves the right problem at the wrong cost.

"However, unlike a hybrid, the GXR will never pay back the extra costs. Lenses (at least good ones) are expensive to produce. Sensors and ASICs (each module has one as does the body) are also costly parts. So most of the cost is bundled in the wrong place.

"Fortunately for Ricoh, the GXR body is well-refined, very photographer-centric, and pretty substantive in build for a 'compact.' Thus, the APS modules make for a fairly nice fixed lens compact, and you'd get a body plus two lensors at about the Fujifilm X100 price. Plus you'd get more refined firmware and not be swatting bugs while you shoot. The X100 produces somewhat better IQ at high ISO, but it also has shooting issues to get that. For what it's worth, the Ricoh GXR is, like the X100, one of the best cameras to use to shoot in quiet environments. It's even quieter than the X100, actually (assuming you turn off the ubiquitous Japanese 'let me beep for you' settings).

"With the upcoming Leica M mount module for the GXR, things change slightly. Suddenly we get a digital 'Leica M8 substitute' at far less money (but only 12MP of resolution). But if you don't already have M-mount lenses, then the economics, once again, don't work out.

"It's a strange game Ricoh is playing, though they play it well. The thing that makes me sad is that in many ways they 'get' the things that a photographer wants in a camera where other makers don't, but then they wrap it in a strange, costly package that will keep you paying in the future."

Featured Comment by J Stern: "It's a great camera and once you use one you know it. you have to have one in your hands and shoot with it to really know what it is all about."

Posted on Friday, 27 May 2011 at 12:10 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (56)

Monday, 23 May 2011

Pinhole Egg? The Pinhegg

Photos by francescco

Regularly, something needs to come along to prove to me that I haven't seen it all. Francesco Capponi at Lomography.com is the latest in that long line with the "Pinhegg," a pinhole camera made of an eggshell.

The last three needed ingredients on his list are "Stubbornness," "Patience," and "More Patience," which I can believe—four successes required more than 50 eggs.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Featured Comment by Lynn: "I can see this is no yolk...how much do I shell out for one?"

Posted on Monday, 23 May 2011 at 07:56 AM in Around the Web, Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (16)

Friday, 20 May 2011

The Sigma SD-1 Is (Gulp) HOW Much?

In case you've forgotten, we're still in the waiting period for Sigma's new überkamera the SD-1 (Sigma is notorious for rather long waits between announcement and availability). But this morning I got a press release from Sigma saying the camera will ship in "early June," which is of course right around the corner.

The SD-1 will allegedly have the best image quality ever achieved in any DSLR. Even the Pentax 645D...

...With which it will compete in price. The press release, y'see, also announces the U.S. retail price of the SD-1: $9,700, which will make it more expensive than the Leica M9 or Nikon D3x. It will become the most expensive APS-C DSLR by quite a distance.

My take is that the SD-1 is going to be the most interesting DSLR released in ages. Alas, I probably won't get to try one, but I shall be monitoring the gala proceedings with a sharp eye.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim K.)

UPDATE: Turns out that big number might have been a bit of a red herring, if this page is to be believed. Either that, or the price drops have started already.

Or has it got you thinking that the kits look like bargains??

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Posted on Friday, 20 May 2011 at 03:12 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (59)

Recent Posts

+ Sponsors

Resources

Cameras, new

Saturday, 20 August 2011

Friday, 19 August 2011

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Wednesday, 06 July 2011

Sunday, 03 July 2011

Saturday, 02 July 2011

Friday, 01 July 2011

Thursday, 23 June 2011

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

Sunday, 12 June 2011

Wednesday, 01 June 2011

Sunday, 29 May 2011

Saturday, 28 May 2011

Friday, 27 May 2011

Monday, 23 May 2011

Friday, 20 May 2011

Portals

Search

Stats