The Pentax 645D
The Pentax 645D was announced in March for shipment worldwide in May, and finally made it to these shores (the U.S.A.) just recently. Its history has been plagued with starts and stops: its development was famously jettisoned only to be resuscitated when Pentax was purchased by Hoya. The timing turned out to be just right. Now, Pentax has another problem on its hands. It was expecting the 645D to be a prestige product, an image leader. It has been caught by surprise by the heavy demand, especially in emerging markets. Who expected this to be a viable product?
It's looking like it is. We haven't seen one yet, so my comments will be limited. But, according to early reports, none of the vagaries of its development seem to be mirrored in the camera itself. Pentax had a basic body design to build on that was both a well-conceived camera originally and also had been steadily developed and refined to create an exceptionally well-thought-out design. The addition of the large digital sensor (40MP, 44x33mm) breaks the bounds of "full frame" (24x36mm) to which larger cameramakers are currently constrained.
As such, the 645D has only scant competition: its direct competitor is only the S2 by Leica, another smaller maker with a long heritage, and the Pentax is less than half the S2's price. Each also competes with modular medium-format cameras with digital backs, but the 645D compares favorably there as well.
We have one medium-format camera review under way currently, and we hope to be able to use a 645D later this year to add our modest contribution to the collective impression. But even with direct experience pending, the verdict is clear: 2010 was the year the 645D got here. Here's to the future.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Edd Fuller: "I think this is good news for Pentax users. Pentax's ability and willingness to compete with other camera makers has been questioned frequently in the past, often with dire predictions that Pentax users will eventually be left high and dry. I don't expect to be in the market for a 645D anytime soon, but I will continue to use Pentax as my primary platform. The success of the 645D makes me more comfortable that I can rely on the future of the Pentax system overall."
Featured Comment by MarkB: "Here's to the promise of dreams fulfilled! Dreams of ownership have now supplanted dreams of availability...."
Featured Comment by Harriet Rubin: "I value this site for its precision in writing and sensibility, particularly of the no-nonsense variety. So how can a camera you haven't reviewed and nobody or almost nobody has yet used be the camera of the year '2010.' I hope it isn't sponsor pressure. Shouldn't you wait until 2011 to add it to any list?"
Mike replies: "Camera of the Year" isn't a review. It doesn't say that the camera is "the best" or "the best of its class" or even "good." It's just an evaluation of significance. As Gordon says, if you were to name the Man or Woman of the Year, you wouldn't have to know the individual personally in order to make an intelligent choice.
I would of course never review a camera without having used it myself...normally, pretty extensively. When I reviewed cameras for magazines my standard was that I had to use a review camera for three months, using it for real work. That was a far stricter standard than most reviewers held themselves to, then or now.
Nowadays I'll review a camera without having used it extensively, but I'll always tell you what the extent of my experience with it actually is. If it's just my impressions from having handled it at a camera store, I'll say so. If I own the camera, you'll know. You can evaluate what I say accordingly.
In keeping with that, you're certainly free to ignore my "Camera of the Year" choice if you want to. (Or anything I say about anything, for that matter.) I have no objections at all.
Featured Comment by Zalman Stern: "I've shot with one and agree with the choice. The unexpectedness here is really the sum of the design decisions Pentax made. It isn't just one thing that makes the camera great, it is the whole package. The 645D is of course on the big side and handles like a medium format camera, so its audience is generally photographers who are used to those things. That said, the 645D is the only medium format digital that feels natural to someone used to 35mm DSLRs."
The runner-up for Camera of the Year this year in TOP's humble opinion is the Sony A55, a DSLR that uses a (still-) innovative pellicle mirror (essentially a beam splitter). It's an action camera for video shooters and a technological tour de force.
The pellicle mirror has a long (if somewhat marginal) history in SLR cameras, starting with the Canon Pellix of 1965. Canon (Nikon, too) subsequently used the technology in some specialized high-speed pro cameras—i.e., cameras with fast motor drives. Because the mirror didn't have to flip out of the way, it was easier to achieve blazing fast frame rates. But it was the Canon EOS RT from the early '90s that was intended to showcase the technology to amateur photographers.
The EOS RT probably also scared Canon away from the technology permanently, at least for advanced amateur cameras in the A55's category. Canon fully expected the RT to be a hot commodity among advanced amateurs, but the product was a spectacular flop—the run of 10,000 units, which began its life with a premium pricetag, was expected sell out within a year. Nearly a decade later, there were still NOS (new old stock) RT's—discounted heavily to just above half their original asking price—going begging.
Why? Hard to say why photographers stayed away from the RT, but it was probably because of two perceptions—first, the image-forming light from the lens having to go through the mirror was expected to have some deleterious effect on sharpness (a reasonable-seeming assumption, just not one that was actually true), and people just didn't like the idea of the 1/3rd-stop reduction in the image-forming light that created an effective speed hit. At any rate, that was the last pellicle-mirror camera for advanced amateurs we're likely to see from Canon.
Sony is either willing to take chances that Canon et al. won't, or else it just doesn't know any better, having no negative experiences in its history to dissuade it from the idea. And that's a good thing.
The A55's mirror is fixed—it doesn't flip up when the exposure is made
Times have changed, of course. With today's high digital ISOs, the "film speed" hit isn't really noticeable any more, or it certainly isn't critical. And what with the malleability of digital images, perhaps people feel a bit less paranoid about phantom deterioration of image quality.
Plus, I loved the RT. Great camera. Canon knew the truth about it—it was the company's potential customers who had it wrong. I had one for a year and did a lot of great work with it. The lack of vibration, super-speedy shutter lag (it beat even the Leica M6), and relative quietude were all pleasing and practical. A fine camera, for its day.
In the A55, one of the old advantages applies—a very fast frame rate. The A55's pellicle mirror (or "translucent mirror technology" also permits phase detection autofocus for shooting at up to the camera's full speed of 10 FPS, which makes for focus tracking that's unprecedented at this level of the market.
We haven't reviewed this camera. The best reviews are at The Luminous Landscape, which is more interested in video than most other photo sites. L-L has a preview, a more complete follow-up that fleshes the Preview out into a full review, a video sample, and a brief autofocus tracking demo.
At any rate, the A55 is a fresh application of a valuable and practical technology, a departure from the me-too-ism all too frequently observed in DSLR marketing these days. That's worth a nod in our book.
Mike
The Sony A55 at B&H Photo, body only and in a kit with the standard 18–55mm zoom. If it were me I'd also get this lens, with or without the zoom.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by ben: "Oh man, what an awesome camera! I got to play with it for a week, so I could teach my friend who bought it how to best use it. For me, the thing about the camera is how great the EVF is—better easily than any of the Panasonic G-series. I think marrying the pellicle mirror to an EVF system was really a stroke of genius for Sony.... If this camera had a Nikon mount I would buy it in a second.
"One detail that I really like about the A55 is that in manual focus, the selected focus point lights up (red or green, I can't recall which) when your subject is in focus. Much better than having to keep checking the bottom left corner on a Nikon. A little detail, but one that makes this camera great for anyone who prefers manual focus."
Featured Comment by William Porter: "The A55 is indeed a noteworthy camera. I went with the A55's more conventional cousin the A580, mainly because the A580 has a vertical battery grip and the A55 doesn't. As a wedding shooter, I worried that the A55's relatively limited battery life would be a problem for me. I was also a bit concerned by early comments about the A55 noting that it isn't a great choice for studio work. But I've now had several chances to play with the A55 and I like it a lot. The A55's EVF seems to be a point of contention with some photographers but I rather like it. If Sony comes out with an A77 in the next year, I'll probably turn that way.
"I like that Sony is willing to take some risks like this. The electronic camera may benefit from some serious rethinking, and I'm glad that Sony is doing it (along with Panasonic, Sigma, Ricoh...)."
Featured Comment by Edward Taylor: "One interesting aspect of this camera that I haven't read about anywhere is that it would seem that the translucent mirror would solve the problem of sensor dust. I am always hesitant to change lenses in the field with most digital cameras because I never know when doing so may ruin the rest of my shots because of a dust spot right in the middle of the sensor. This design would allow the sensor compartment to be sealed just like on fixed lens cameras."
Featured Comment by Robin P: "Also a very interesting review at Photo Club Alpha."
Featured Comment by Dennis: "Tests suggest the A55 is (expectedly) slightly behind the D7000 and Pentax K-5 using the same sensor at high ISO due to slightly light loss (yet still excellent) and that it records plenty of detail. There have been many discussions about 'ghosting' of highlights due to the mirror, with most people seeing no problems; it seems likely (not quite concensus yet) that the ghosting occurs in extreme lighting situations where the highlights are overexposed.
"I tried an A33 alongside the NEX-5 for a few days. I was really looking for a compact camera and hoping the A55 would satisfy, but I ultimately decided that I'd be more likely to carry the NEX when I wanted something compact. The A33 was without a doubt the better camera, though.
"AF is fast (D D-B: yes, DSLR fast). Competes favorably with any sub-$1000 DSLR, though AF speed is very lens-dependent. The camera is small. With a small prime like the 28/2, it's a nice unobtrusive camera. (It's also very quiet—much quieter than the noisy NEX). Sony has finally put out a few affordable primes—the 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and new 85/2.8. Unfortunately, they all use the new SAM focusing which is smooth, but not silent (it clicks at the start and stop of focusing and is annoying on video if not as loud as screw drive lenses).
"With big lenses, the camera is fine—you put your left hand under the lens and control the camera with your right. It's with mid-sized lenses like the excellent 16–80mm that I found the camera uncomfortable after a while.
"I've always liked LV on an LCD—the LCD on the A33 is nice (though I prefer one that flips out to the side) and I really like the idea of keeping it protected when not in use. The EVF, I didn't like so much. Not because it's an EVF versus an OVF, but because it's hard to look at with eyeglasses (for me anyway). Some cameras are better than others for eyeglass wearers. I can see the entire VF on a Canon 7D with ease; a 60D pretty well, the Nikon D7000 easily enough. On my A700 (which has an excellent VF) I have to make a point of looking into the corners. But the EVF on the A33 was very tiresome. I had to hold the camera unnaturally close to my eye (pushing my eyeglasses further up along my nose than I usually wear them) to see the entire frame.
"Now—one of the best things about the A33—a seemingly trivial feature—is the built in level. OK, other cameras have levels, too. But you can see at a glance a horizon level (am I tilted left or right?) in either landscape or portrait mode, overlaid over the VF whether using the OVF or the LCD. And it has another level telling you whether the camera is aimed up or down. You might think this only handy for architectural photography, but playing around with it, I found a lot of my images were improved by simply bending and shooting from a foot or two lower to get a straight shot, rather than aiming the camera down.
"It's really a fantastic little camera. It bugs me, though, that Sony appears intent on giving up on 'true' DSLRs in favor of this design exclusively. Have you even been out shooting stars at night and then been blinded by your LCD? Do we know the mirror won't get gunked up and hazy after a year of use? I would like to have the option of a DSLR backup camera to go along with an SLT (which would probably get used most of the time)."
SA*
You've no doubt heard of a blue-chip company. Well, now there's a delightful camera with a new type of "chip." In a move cleverly designed to protect collectors' investments, Leica has announced an M9 with a body covering made of baked molasses cookie studded with real chocolate chips. The unusual camera body covering—believed to be a World's first—is meant to insure future purchasers of the collectible-to-be that their camera has in fact never been used, or even displayed in direct sunlight. Anything but the very lightest touch would naturally cause the chocolate chips to run or melt; thus, anyone acquiring one of these highly desirable cameras on the aftermarket will be able to see almost literally at a glance that their camera has never been degraded by any picture-taking activity.
The camera features sapphire glass and a silver-chrome 35mm Summicron lens. Only 50 will be made. Leica tells owners of the new camera that they may test their camera to assure themselves that it works properly by soaking their hands in ice-cold water, drying them quickly, and then making one or two exposures before their fingers warm up. Even so, the precious edible must be handled with the greatest care, or touched only on the top and bottom plates.
Priced at $129,500, the new camera comes at a satisfying premium of$121,500 over the price of an ordinary M9.
Mike
UPDATE: We have been notified that we slipped a digit in the price of the Chocolate-Chip Leica. TOP regrets the error. The actual price is $1,295,000.
UPDATE #2: We have now been notified that we did indeed slip a digit in the price, but in the other direction, you idiot, the other direction. The real price of the camera is $12,950. This means you pay a mere $4,950 extra for the chance to own this delicious soon-to-be-prized confection. We believe we've got the number right now and once again, regret the error.
UPDATE #3: The cookie coating is not ostrich leather, as might have been reported on other sites. Do not contact PETA.
Mike
(Thanks to OG)
*Satire alert. Picture courtesy leicarumors.com.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Paris: "I read on the Web that the thermal expansion properties of the cookie dough change the flange focal distance, so some lenses may not focus to infinity. Deal breaker. Count me out."
Featured Comment by Player: "I believed every word. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary to me: just another slice of the Leica aficionado/ collector's life. I was incredulous to learn it was satire :)."
Featured Comment by Roger Bradbury: "At this price, it must be a fortune cookie."
Featured Comment by chris: "Your 'Update #2' is still wrong. You forgot to subtract the cost of the Summicron lens; the price premium is, umm, only, about $3000 more than a regular-production M9, not $5000 more.
"Yes, I got that it was satire. The sad part is that given the abysmal non-availability of Leica M9s and most of their best M lenses, a $3000 premium to take them both home today almost seems reasonable.
"What pushes this all firmly beyond the range of satire is that once you take them home, chances are you'll have to send it all off to Solms for another couple of months before you get everything actually working perfectly. (Yes, I own an M9, and in spite of everything I am not sorry.) Heck, if they've 'pre-re-adjusted' the sets they're selling, these would be practically a price wash in terms of basic value—after the addition of 35 cents worth of black gaffer's tape...."
Mike replies: I actually did forget to subtract the cost of the lens.
Featured Comment by David: "You wrote, 'Only 50 will be made.' I believe that number may be in error. Another source mentioned the quantity as being a baker's dozen. Another concern is the rumor that Leica can't actually warranty any product that's been baked at 350 deg. for a few minutes. Damn lawyers!"
Mike replies: Those other sources are almost correct. The actual number to be produced will be 3.846153846154 baker's dozens, closely approximated. Thanks for pointing this out!
When the Fuji X100 site went up the other day (something we announced here), a tab called "The Story" was left blank and listed as "coming." It has now been published. Or at least, the story of the lens has been published—and it's interesting enough (back focus is only 5.3mm—take that, SLRs!). As for the story of the viewfinder, it's available—but only by guessing and plugging in the likely URL. Maybe we're jumping the gun just a bit in saying it's been "published"—it doesn't seem to be linked to the main site yet and probably isn't intended to be "live" yet. You might want to take a look soon, as Fuji might yank it. (Although it will certainly be back eventually.)
Some cynically say that the X100 offers nothing new: very wrong. What's new about this camera is the hybrid viewfinder.
"...For those who have a deep familiarity with cameras, it was wondered whether such users would like to once again experience the pleasure of shooting photos through an extremely clear and sharp viewfinder."
Even through the translated, careful and somewhat opaque language of the marketing website, the excitement and enthusiasm of the design team's "'Eureka' moment" comes through.
The hybrid viewfinder design team:
Takashi Soga, Hitoshi Miyano, and Shigeru Kondo
This sparked an idea. If we were considering a custom LED display, why not a custom LCD panel? This would not only enhance the freedom to display information content, but also open up a broad range of display item variations such the display of histograms and 'floating' text. This concept suggested one after another display patterns and applications.
One look through the prototype confirmed the development team’s confidence in the selection of an LCD panel as they viewed the sharpness of the frame and floating text—a quality that they likened to looking at the control panel of a luxury car.
The result? Hitoshi Miyano: "I am proud to say that we have developed the best viewfinder on any camera that has ever borne the Fujifilm brand." Takashi Soga: "This is the only viewfinder of its kind in the world."
It remains to be seen how good the viewfinder actually is, but it is the only one of its kind in the world, and it is a genuine innovation. Seems significant to me.
One small revelation: the brightness of the viewfinder's LCD projection is tied to the camera's light meter! And the viewfinder has its own shutter. Interesting.
Here's the link, with the caveats mentioned in the first paragraph. I'm about to shut the site down for Christmas, so I won't be around to correct this if the link breaks—just be aware of that.
Mike
(Thanks to Bharat Singh)
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Most of us are already aware of the spectacular fashion in which the forthcoming Fuji X100 "stole" this year's Photokina—definitely the surprise hit of the show. (And Fuji were as surprised as anyone.)
Fuji is obviously preparing the introduction carefully now that it knows to expect heavier demand. A new website offers more solid detail and a lot of tasty morsels of information. The meat of the site can be found under "What's New" —> "Your Questions Answered," thereafter by clicking through to the successive screens with the "Next Category" tabs.
Amongst other things, the answers mention that the camera will come with a hood; an all-black model is under consideration but not currently planned; and shutter lag will be on the order of 100 milliseconds. (Good news, considering that shutter lag is the downfall of many a fixed-lens camera—cf. the Leica M6 at 19 ms (or 16, depending on your source), a pro film SLR at 60 ms, mid-level amateur film SLRs at 150 to 250 ms., and current Nikon DSLRs at 65 to 120 ms.)
Mike
(Thanks to numerous readers, and to Thom Hogan for the Nikon DSLR shutter lag numbers)
UPDATE: Fuji actually says 10 ms shutter lag, not 100 ms. I think my error was due half to innumeracy, from which I do suffer, but half to incredulity: I flat don't believe a 10 ms shutter lag figure for an autofocus camera. Possibly with the AF turned off, or prefocused. Still seems like the Fuji website got that one wrong, especially considering the shutter lag on cameras like the Olympus E-PL1. We'll see. —MJ
P.S. By the way, I object to the recent expansion of the coined term "innumerate"—from the 1988 book by John Allen Paulos, meaning someone who isn't good at manipulating numbers—to include "someone who is unfamiliar with the methods of science." I'm bad at arithmetic, but fully versed in the principles of the scientific method. Those two parts of the now-common "definition" of innumeracy don't necessarily always arise or exist together, in my opinion. "Innumeracy" should continue to mean "unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods; unable to use mathematics," and not get all uppity. We don't need just another synonym for ig'nant.
UPDATE #2: An early indication of the camera's price and release date have been revealed, according to Photo Rumors.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured [partial] Comment by chris: "For those puzzled by the choice of fixed lens—I've said it before but I will say it again, 'cause I'd like it to come true: for a camera in approximately this niche, I'd actually rather buy a second camera with a different focal-length fixed lens and have total redundancy, than buy just another lens. The potential advantages of the fixed lens design are considerable—from better alignment, sealed/dustless operation (especially with no moving shutter...), to specific sensor-lens optimizations, unconstrained by generic flange distance, for size and performance, and even cost savings (it definitely costs money to design and add the mounts to all those bodies and lenses; I'd rather pay 10+10 for two complete cameras with quality fixed lenses, than 7+6 for one camera and one lens, then another 6 for a second lens, etc., that doesn't keep working if the body dies...)."
(See the rest of chris's and Ctein's comments in the Comments Section. —Ed.)
Featured [partial] Comment by Ctein: "One caution of some import: my previous experience with Fuji RAW conversion software is that it sucks. From what I've heard from others, this is not uncommon with camera-maker-supplied conversion software. I'm not saying Fuji is worse, on average, that anyone else. But it is bad. Until folks can see RAW conversions done through something like Adobe Camera RAW, do not assume that the image quality that you're seeing in the sample photographs is indicative of what the camera is capable of. Maybe it will be. Maybe Fuji has written a new converter that doesn't seriously screw up the tone or color rendition or the portrayed exposure range. Dunno. But they haven't in the past, and I wouldn't make any assumptions. So, don't jump to any conclusions until you can see third-party conversions."
...And speaking of digicams, a.k.a. digital point-and-shoots: Amazon's Gold Box deal of the day today is the Canon SD4000IS digicam
Available in black, red, or silver. B&H Photo sells a leather case for the camera, too, for $14.95. (Note that the case has no belt loop.)
Unfortunately the deal is only good for shipment to the USA, and although the "Gold Box" deals are supposedly good for 24 hours, this sale is "while supplies last" and these most likely won't last all day—Amazon has 83 of them as I write this. So move reasonably quickly if you decide you need a deal on a high-quality stocking-stuffer.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Along with daytime soap operas, print magazines, and Compact Discs, digital point-and-shoot cameras—digicams—appear to have passed their peak. According to a recent article by Sam Grobart, unit sales of digicams are down 16% since 2008.
Their sin? They are "single use devices," according to Grobart.
Devices that do only one thing. Like can openers. How quaint. Even a rolling pin has two uses—it can roll out pie crust, and Olive Oyl can use it to brain Popeye when she's sore at him.
All digicams do is take pictures. Well, movies, too, most of 'em—but that only gets them into the rolling-pin category. Call it 1.1-use.
A digicam (this is the Panasonic TS10) is an amazing marvel of technology, but its best attribute—convenience—is fast being superseded
As it was long predicted they would, cellphone cameras have, in the past few years, surpassed the magic quality threshhold—the point at which their quality has become "good enough" for their convenience advantages to engage with a turbocharger kick. Sales of smartphones are soaring. Not just because of their photographic capabilities, of course; but their photographic capabilities are causing more and more people who own them to set aside their fusty old 1.1-use point-and-shoots. (Or leave them at home on the shelf...just as point-and-shoots once caused casual "consumer"-type photographers to leave their SLRs back home in the bag in the closet.)
Sam Grobart says people love the apps, too. I'll take his word for that.
The reported trend accords with my anecdotal experience lately. I can't tell you how many people have told me that their iPhone 4 or other smartphone has become their carry-all-the-time camera. That includes at least two real pros (by "real" I mean people who make all or almost all of their actual livings as photographers, not just those who sell a print once in a while or do a few weddings a year for friends of friends. I'm not a pro, by that measure).
As with CDs, the softening market might only soften so far. Some people like single-use devices—you'll laugh when I tell you about my own newest photographic single-use device, which I'll get around to doing probably within the next few weeks.
And remember, this isn't necessarily bad news for digital imaging. Sales of DSLRs are up, continuing a trend that was only briefly interrupted by the worldwide recession. I foresee a good world, imaging-wise, in the immediate future, in which multi-use devices of ever-improving quality and flexibility take the low end, a thriving market for good-quality 4/3-to-ff-sensor cameras occupies a smaller but vibrantly competitive and healthy middle ground, and a decent handful of quality-above-all cameras like the Leica S2, Pentax 645D, Leaf Aptus II-12, and Hasselblad H4D-40 occupy the Olympian fastnesses at the pinnacle.
That's until the next paradigm shift, at any rate—which is also coming. (We just don't know what that will be yet.)
The point-and-shoot—the camera real photographers loved and hated, loved to hate, and hated to love, but sometimes did. Too early for an R.I.P., but maybe the beginning of the long goodbye.
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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Paul Van: "I would suggest that the watch business is a good place to look at to get an idea what will happen.
"At one time, everyone had a watch. Then, it seemed to decrease as clocks were available in all cars, microwaves and so on. Then timekeeping became a cell phone function.
"A lot of watch names disappeared, but the market has stabilized. People wear watches, still. If you ever thought photographers or audiophiles were a little obsessed, then check out some of the watch forums! But be careful...like audiophiles and photographers, they welcome you into their world—and you might not leave!"
Featured Comment by D'11: "One another interesting and unintended effect of many smartphones (or at least the iPhone): People of my generation (in their 20s) adjusting to the idea of using a single, fixed-focal lens. The iPhone doesn't have an optical zoom, and people seem to be alright with that. All of a sudden, when I hand people my GF1 + 20mm kit, they seem to be more likely to take a step forward or backward, instead of immediately asking where the zoom button is."
Featured Comment by Jeffrey Goggin: "As yet more proof that cell phone cameras are indeed becoming our future, Dave Wyman is now offering photo tours of Yosemite National Park geared to cell phone users:
Alternative Photography in Yosemite—Thursday through Sunday, November 17–20, 2011
We will test our creative eyes on this unique trip to Yosemite, where there will be one restriction: no DSLRs. A digital point-and-shoot, a cell phone, Holga, Diana, Instamatic, a Rolleiflex or Yashika Mat, a Polaroid or a pinhole camera? Yes.
For a few days, we will remove ourselves from the burden of weight and the burden of technological complexity, and from the belief that weight and complexity are necessary components of meaningful or artistic photography. Includes accommodations, a couple of meals, field locations. Instructors: Chuck Nadeau, Dave Wyman. Cost: $525 (single supplement available).
-
[Note: Ctein's column will appear tomorrow (Friday) this week. And in case you don't read all the way to the end of this post, Happy Thanksgiving! —Mike]
-
I find it curious that digital photographers are preoccupied with format just like film photographers were (and are). In digital we have all sorts of delightfully unstandardized, arcane size labels—just like film, albeit even more so. Quick, what's 1/1.7" in plain English? You have no idea, do you?
Don't feel bad—I don't know either, offhand (1/1.7" is 5.7 x 7.6 millimeters, a 4:3 aspect ratio). The point is, if you're a film virgin who came of age after the advent of digital, you might also not know that "6x7" and "4x5" refer to centimeters and inches, respectively, or that "127" refers to an outmoded 46mm-wide rollfilm usually but not always used in cameras as a 4cm square. The various film sizes are a permanent motley, never to be rationalized now (efforts to rationalize, which have been persistent down through the years, have almost always just led to a still greater proliferation of formats and film sizes).
Here's a brief and by no means exhaustive rundown of common film sizes:
Subminiature and Miniature (anything smaller than 35mm)
Small format (usually just called 35mm)
Rollfilm (also called medium format)
Rollfilm, first introduced in 1901 strictly for amateurs, does not come in cartridges or cassettes—it is wound around a spool with a partial or complete paper backing behind it, and when you "run it through the camera" you literally run it through the camera—it comes off the front spool and is taken up by the initially empty back spool, so it comes out of the camera wrapped around a different spool than it went into the camera on. The empty front spool is then used as the take-up spool for the next roll.
There are two sizes, called 120 and 220, the latter being twice as long (many medium-format cameras can take both kinds). The different rollfilm formats are created by using various segments of the 6-centimeter-wide film—the segments being commonly 4.5cm, 6cm, 7cm, 9cm, 12cm, or 17cm long—hence 645, 6x6 (or 2 1/4, pronounced "two-and-a-quarter"), 6x7, 6x9 (Fuji made a 6x8 studio camera system once), and 6x12 or 6x17 panorama sizes.
Large format (refers to individual sheets of film that can be loaded into a camera, regardless of size. A subset of large format is ultra large format, which refers to anything larger than 8x10-inch. It's abbreviated ULF, a term that started to gain currency only in recent decades).
There are a few larger sizes as well, such as the famous 20x24 Polaroid cameras, but there is little standardization in mammoth cameras and they are relatively quite rare.
Another major subset of format which I won't go into here are the various panoramic sizes, which range from 35mm swing-lens cameras such as the Widelux to so-called "banquet" cameras, which are ULF cameras in panoramic or semi-panoramic aspect ratios.
Johnston's First Law of Format
The essence of format in film is that—as I've always said—the larger the film size, the easier it is in the darkroom and the harder it is in the field; the smaller the film size, the easier it is in the field but the harder it is in the darkroom. That's why I always shot 35mm black-and-white—I'm a very good craftsman in the darkroom but only so-so in terms of my shooting skills. Virtuoso shooters like Edward Weston and Joel Meyerowitz (who published ~100 of ~400 8x10 exposures in his great book St. Louis and the Arch (OoP and rare), which still amazes me as a "keeper" ratio) can make great work with bigger cameras. Much-more-average me, not so much.
And the most interesting thing about format (in film; it has different technical connotations and hence different meanings in digital) is that there are trade-offs all along the progression from small to large, and yet the advantages and disadvantages are almost always overlapping, which makes the tradeoffs and balances endlessly fascinating.
Just a few examples:
Weegee with a Graflex (above); the cameras are still common on Ebay (below).
I won't go into a complete rundown of all the issues, because when I think about it, it seems that the great majority of my readers would fall into one of two camps: those who already know all this, and those who won't care.
When large is small
What interests me about format at the moment are the tradeoffs in the "large format" category, which, as you recall from the above, basically means the 4x5-inch to 8x10-inch segment, and traditionally comprises three formats: 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.
The least common of the formats we're discussing, 5x7, exists on an uneasy razor's edge. It's just a bit small for contact prints, although it the size does work with many images; and it's just a little too big to enlarge, although it's still possible to find 5x7 enlargers without too much trouble. And the retrenchment mode of film photography in the onslaught of digital has made something of a casualty of 5x7. It was never popular to start with, but cameras, films, and holders have been getting even less common lately. It's still viable, however, for those who choose to use it.
Four-by-five has always been by far the most popular and ubiquitous sheet film size, for reasons of economy and camera portability to some extent, but mainly because it's by far the easiest large format to enlarge. Again, there's not a clear cutoff: there do exist some 5x7 enlargers, as I say, and even a few 8x10 or 10x10 ones, although the latter tend to be enormous and prohibitively expensive.
A Saltzman 8x10 enlarger being loaded on a truck.
(From a post at Aardenburg Imaging.)
Lately, however, it seems to me that the meaning, the significance, of the larger formats has shifted considerably. Professional photographers, especially studio and architectural pros as well as still-life and landscape fine art photographers, previously constituted a major market for 4x5. Now they have abandoned shooting the format in droves. The classifieds are awash with old studio monorail cameras, and development and sales of new models have declined precipitously.
Furthermore, it seems like "convenience," always a relative term, is no longer the advantage it once was in large format. True, 4x5 is still the most common and easily the most widespread large format, same as ever. It's easiest to find equipment and film for, by far, and generally it's quite a bit more cost-efficient than still larger formats.
But, as I've always said, the problem with 4x5 is that it's too small.
How is that? The statement becomes less puzzling when you consider what you are going to do with the negatives. While 4x5 originally was popular because it's by far the easiest sheet film size to enlarge, you also essentially have to enlarge it—because it's too tiny to contact print. What's the problem with that? Nothing at all, except that 4x5 enlargers are expensive and require a big commitment now that you're unlikely to need one to help you make a living.
In the days when you just wanted a camera with movements, the tiny-ness of 4x5 was a big advantage. Now—when digital is better in virtually every way (more flexible, more convenient, less costly, on and on)—why would you want to shoot large format at all? There's only one real reason, I think. Well, two, the second being that it's just plain great fun. But the main reason might subtly have shifted over to what my friend Oren Grad referred to the other day as "mainlining pure, unadulterated photo-optical pleasure": contact printing.
I've been talking here in part to you "film virgins" out there—people who don't happen to have a past with this particular mistress. So I should digress momentarily to define a contact print. It means printing without an enlarger, by sandwiching the negative above the photo paper and shining light through it. Here's a link to a photo of Edward Weston's darkroom. (Not quite a shrine yet—notice the CDs!) Note that there is no enlarger—just a light bulb. That's what he printed with. The little rectangle under the light is a contact printing frame, the purpose of which is to keep the negative flattened against the paper. No other equipment needed, to speak of.
And here's a link to a picture of photographer Eiichi Scart looking at a contact print. Note that the surround is black; that's natural. Think about it. That's why Ansel Adams trimmed and dry-mounted his 8x10 contact prints.
Curiously perfect
There's no reason you "need" a contact print. They're not materially "better" than 2x enlargements from 4x5, or, for that matter, than well-made inkjet prints from good digital files.
They're just beautiful, is all.
And nothing imparts a more direct and visceral sense of the image cast by a lens. Certainly, in this age when the Big Print is indomitably fashionable, they won't "carry a room"—they're not great for framing, tending to get lost on most walls. They're really best for holding in your hands and looking at. I've seen thousands that way, in my marathon sessions at the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. Just the picture and the viewer, an intimate, one-on-one experience.
Toward this end-point, 4x5 is just below the threshold. It's not till you reach 5x7 that you really move into the range of contact-printable sizes.
The trouble then is that as you move up in size from there, the problems of cameras, lenses, films, holders, and all the rest quickly mount, requiring real devotion from the photographer who wants to practice the old art. The cameras get to be whacking huge monsters right quickly, the lenses get very long in focal length (a normal lens for a 4x5 camera is 150mm, for an 8x10 300mm), the film gets expensive (a single sheet of 8x10" Kodak Portra costs $9. That's just for the film, and doesn't include developing), and the weaknesses of large format—long exposures (and hence motion blur), shallow depth of field, cost, etc.—increase exponentially with format size.
Rare English Middlemiss Patent Field whole plate camera, 1886
(photo from Wood and Brass)
Curiously, a new "sweet spot" might be beginning to emerge in the changing world of large format's new meaning. It's so far just a glimmer, highly esoteric, just a tiny subset of a tiny subset of photography at the moment. But I've finally come round to agreeing with Oren's longtime conclusion that it's curiously perfect.
It's called whole plate (6.5x8.5 inches). It an unstandardized format (literally—there is no ANSI standard as there is for 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10) that sits right in between 5x7 and 8x10. It's rather radically old-fashioned—the term itself harkens back to a full-sized plate for a daguerreotype camera (whole plate daguerreotypes—the pictures, I mean—are rare, and prized). Daguerreotypy was the dominant photographic technique from roughtly 1840 to 1850.
Grace Greenwood, a whole plate daguerreotype from the George Eastman House collection. Original size 6.5 x 8.5 inches (21.6x16.5 cm.)
Yet it just seems like a perfect size for a contact print. To see if you agree, try this little exercise: take a common piece of bond paper—copier paper—and cut out a 6.5x8.5" rectangle. Now, just hold that in your hands, and imagine that you're looking at a picture of the highest resolution conventional photography has to offer. Just you, with a print in your hands, one on one. Nice, isn't it?
Modern Chinese Chamonix whole plate camera is one of
only a few available new.
A whole plate camera can be considerably smaller than an 8x10, and a normal lens for the format will probably be mounted in a #1 shutter rather than the much larger #3. So far, there are only a few modern whole plate or WP cameras—from Ebony, Chamonix, and Argentum, and custom builds are possible from bespoke cameramakers who offer such services, who might include Keith Canham, Richard Ritter, Gandolfi, and Lotus (you'll have to check). More than usual care must be taken in entering into this recondite little back-tributary of photography, because holders are not (!) standardized, and film is not generally available—it must be cut down from 8x10 or ordered during the once-a-year ULF special order from Ilford.
It remains to be seen, of course, whether WP will grow, or if it's a passing fad. I'd love to see a true standard developed, and it would be wonderful to see new cameras. Maybe we could do a print offer some day of some nice examples of the work of present-day whole plate enthusiasts. We'll see.
The once and future king
Of course, of the conventional formats, the best for contact printing is the way Weston worked for much of his life, the tool of choice for photographers from Richard Avedon to Nicholas Nixon to Alec Soth, and the final refuge of many purists and searchers-for-the-grail: 8x10. It has many of the advantages and few of the disadvantages of most of other large and ULF formats.
I'm afraid a fuller discussion of 8x10 must await another day, however. This post has gone on a bit too long already, and a discussion of 8x10 could easily go on for just as long again. And your humble blogger has turkey to get to. So let me just say "Happy Thanksgiving" to all (yes, even those of you not in countries where Thanksgiving is celebrated: when you think about it, every day is thanksgiving with a small "t"), and...
...To Be Continued!
Mike
P.S. For more about whole plate, you really shouldn't miss Oren's excellent article on whole plate that we published in 2007. It's good.
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by using our links to 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 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Dave Karp: "Mike, another really fun article. Regarding your friend Oren: I have corresponded with him many times via the Internet. He is supremely knowledgeable, easily shares that knowledge, is generous, reasonable, and level-headed. His online posts and his comments are always right on. I am grateful for his advice over the years. Certainly, I caught my WP addiction from him.
"Regarding WP: You are Oren are absolutely right about a WP contact print. The size of the print and of the camera are both 'just right.' There are still old cameras out there. I have an Improved Seneca that was probably made early in the 20th Century (and a 5x7 back for it too). A new bellows and some cleanup were all it needed.
"The lenses, in addition to being smaller and lighter, are also generally less expensive than modern lenses that cover 8x10 and larger. Most of the lenses for my 4x5 also cover the WP film size nicely. I have a bunch of old holders, but new holders are available; the lowest-priced come from Chamonix. Have a Happy Thanksgiving."
Featured Comment by Bill Bresler: "And thanks for the photo of Weegee, that 'genuis' of the camera. I worked with a photographer who knew Weegee. One of our reporters actually went out on a date with him when she was going to schoool in NYC. He took her to the the Yiddish Theater. I was a young punk at the time and was pretty impressed."
Featured Comment by Arne Croell: "Since your post was about all the different film sizes still (though sometimes barely) available, don't forget the European cousins of 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, which are 9x12, 13x18, and 18x24 (measures are in centimeters). Also note that they are a tad smaller in reality, as they are for the inch sizes (!), since the nominal sizes were for glass plates, and in old times you had to deduct the size of the film adapter for your plate holder.... Of those European sizes, 9x12 and 18x24 are smaller than their inch equivalents, whereas 13x18 is larger and thus a small step towards WP. If you look at the used market in Germany, 13x18 seemed to have been more popular than 5x7 in the USA; you can find a fair amount of cameras, holders, etc. in that size."
Featured [partial] Comment by David Dyer-Bennet: "Since one of the purposes here was to provide information about film formats for people new to film, it should be pointed out (and nobody else seems to have done it yet) that the metric nomenclature for 120/220 roll film that we all use is a recent imposition, and only approximate.
"That film format was designed in inches, and the formats using it are 'really' inches. 2.25 inches by 2.25 inches ('two and a quarter') is what '6x6' 'really' is. 6x7 is 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. 6x4.5 is 2 1/4 x 1 5/8). Oh, and 6x9 is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4."
Featured Comment by rolo: "In all this fascinating nomenclature, you overlooked the glorious term for 120 film that is used in the instruction manual for the Nikon Coolscan 9000: Brownie film."
By the way, if you happen to like the idea of cameras of different colors but you're into older cameras, don't forget cameraleather.com—they make self-adhesive replacement leather kits out of all sorts and grades of leather and lizard skin, up to and including cobra skin. Not guaranteed to improve your photographs, but fun nonetheless. They even make a Griptac kit for the Canon S90 (with one for the S95 on the way), although Griptac is basic black.
Oh, and speaking of camera colors, remember how I said, about the pink K-x, "I'm secure, but not that secure"? Well, I guess Eolake is that secure, because guess who bought a pink K-x from Japan...for street photography?
Street Fightin' Stobblehouse
As he says, "Who's gonna be antagonistic towards a photographer with a pink camera?"
Mike
ADDENDUM: I almost forgot about this! (Although I had one of these cameras in for review once, and I found myself almost allergic—I didn't take to it at all. Although Keith builds many fine cameras, and is a genuinely nice guy to boot.)
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by using our links to B&H Photo and Amazon! Many thanks.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Paris: "Regarding CameraLeather's non-pink products: I re-covered my ugly Leica M2 with black Griptac and it transformed the camera. Gives purists the heeby-jeebies, but if you actually take pictures with your Leica, it's the best modification ever."
Featured Comment by Zalman Stern: "Is it true Jim Marshall had a cobra snake for a neck strap and a brand new Leica made out of a rattlesnake hide?"
Nobody ever mentions this, but c'mon, everybody knows Canons are for women, Nikons are for men, right? Canon always advertised its cameras using hunky sports stars. To appeal to the ladies, of course.
This Andre Agassi ad featured beefcake poses (click!) and a shirt-toss, even. Think of it for a sec...who's doing the shooting there? Clearly designed to appeal to teenybopper girls (or maybe gay guys).
And remember what the Rebel is called in Japan.
Ume Kayo's EOS 5. From John Sypal's Tokyo Camera Style (thanks to
Dean Johnston [no relation]).
In Japan, gender marketing has always been a bit more...forthright. If you're a guy, and you see a white Japanese camera, here's a hint...that's not for you. The old Contax Aria was marketed in Japan for women. Not in the U.S., where "discrimination" is bad. But, guys? If something is called an "Aria," here's a hint—that's right. Not for you.
I actually loved the Aria. (Not going there.) The camera I just bought, however (redeeming myself?) is probably the ultimate guy camera. Unfashionable name. Utilitarian. Weatherproof. Styling? Solid "generic camera," nuthin' special. When you need to shop for new footwear, do you think of Farm & Fleet? The K-5 is the camera equivalent of the faithful 17-year-old Toyota pickup that you refuse to give up but that your wife refuses ride in, or the comfortable pair of running shoes your girlfriend has tried to give to Goodwill not once but four times, requiring rescues from the donate pile and future vigilance on your part. The K-5 is for people who like...hammers. And for whom a "good name brand" means Miller or Walther or DeWalt.
In fact, DeWalt should make the K-5. That would suit. I love my DeWalt drill
It's not actually a brand thing across the board. Only eight females so far have ever bought a 1D Mark IV. That camera might as well come with a fat stogie and a sideline pass to a football game. And the K-x in rainbow colors? I don't have to spell that out, do I? They make a pink K-x in Japan. (I'm secure, but not that secure.)
Women love the Panasonic LX5
Speaking of Leica, the M9.... Not saying men don't buy and use them...secure men. But women love the M9. It's the ultimate chick camera, no question. Simple to use, ever so expensive, and the ultimate in fashionableness.
Audrey Tautou famously sported an M8 in a Chanel No. 5 ad shot by
Bruno Delbonnel. Not only that—the French actress is an avid
Leica M digital shooter in real life.
Seriously, is there a more fashionable camera made anywhere? It's not just the breathtakingly expensive designer dress at the Oscars—it's the breathtakingly expensive designer dress at the Oscars that the celebrity press swoons over and no one dares make fun of. (Real men, on the other hand, shoot the S2.)
If you want to score serious points with your photographer wife or girlfriend this holiday season, guys, you know what to do
Mike
(Thanks to O.G.)
(P.S. Just having a little fun this morning. It does go without saying no one should take this post too seriously, right? Um...right?)
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by using our links to B&H Photo and Amazon! Many thanks.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Andre: "Point of fact: Audrey Tautou holding a Leica M is absolutely the sexiest thing that has ever happened anywhere. I just can't imagine that particular marketing ploy being aimed at women. Talk about camera lust!"
Featured Reader Picture:
What secure men drive: TOP reader Hugh Crawford and the "Huemobile" (geddit?) around 1980. Photo by Valerie Shaff.
Featured Comment by Rana: "It's not the marketing that makes me dislike the Nikons—it's the size. While I'm a Pentax gal (and have been one since my first film SLR), I did look briefly at Nikons and Canons to see what the competition had to offer.
"Nearly every Nikon DSLR about broke my wrist; Canons did not. (Nor did Pentax.)
"As for pink cameras, I like the dark ones because they're less likely to show up if shooting a reflective surface, and I dislike anything branded pink because I have issues with several pink-based marketing campaigns for other products. (The only compelling reason I ever heard about getting something pink came from a female construction worker; she liked her pink hammer because it was the only one what was never "borrowed" by her co-workers.)
"I agree with Marion's take [see the Comments section —Ed.]—and want to add that one of the things that keeps your site in my bloglist is the absence of the usual hoo-rah machismo too often in evidence at other photo sites."
Mike replies: Yes, I'm not long on hoo-rah machismo. Heck, I'm a "Mr. Mom," remember—I raised a kid from infancy. Few men have changed as many diapers as I have. Not saying I'd want to do a lot more of that, though.
Funny story about the pink hammer. I worked with a guy who used to be a shop teacher. He told me that a lot of boys in his classes were taking advantage of the bathroom break, so he took an 8x20-inch piece of steel plate, chained the bathroom key to it, and painted it day-glo pink. Suddenly, no more boys had to go to the bathroom during his classes.
Featured Comment by Will: "I hate myself for even opening this can of worms, but I cannot help myself...
"As an enthusiast-photographer-reader-of-this-blog that makes his living as a cinematographer, you've used the wrong terminology when you claim in your caption that the Chanel spot was 'shot' by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Jeunet directed the spot, and rather aptly. But as was the case with Amelie; A Very Long Engagement; the Coen Brothers' segment in Paris, je t'aime; Across the Universe; and the 6th Harry Potter film, the Chanel spot was 'shot' by the immensely talented Bruno Delbonnel. I'd forgive most outlets this transgression, but for a blog about photography, credit should be due to the man most responsible for photographing that Chanel spot so beautifully. When you see a gorgeous photograph from a fashion shoot, do you credit the art director or the photographer? Not a perfect analogue, but useful enough. Give Bruno his (hard-earned) due."
Mike replies: Done. Thanks, Will.
I've mentioned recently that I haven't really owned a DSLR for a while. That's a bit overdramatic—I've had several cameras on manufacturer loan, and my trusty old Konica-Minolta 7D, although broken, is not entirely out of commission—most recently I used it to take the portraits I showed in the post "Last Minute Senior Portrait." And I've not been deprived of digital camera ownership, either—I bought myself a Panasonic GF1 and its accompanying 20mm lens last year.
But it's true that I haven't had a fully functioning DSLR that I actually own myself for some time now.
I'm afraid the bad economy may have hit TOP at last, two years after the crisis—sales through our links, which keep the site afloat, have been worryingly depressed so far this season, down considerably from last year. I hadn't realized how much until the past couple of days. I certainly hope this doesn't signal the beginning of the end, although I suppose this gig can't last forever. Anyway, despite the poor economy for the site, today I went ahead and did the deed—ordered a Pentax K-5. (Mike needs a DSLR, right, guys? Help enable me here....)
Pentax was kind enough to sell me a camera "on accommodation"—a widespread practice in many different consumer products industries whereby reviewers are given a wholesale, discount, or employee price—but I did pay for it myself; it's not a loaner. It'll be my camera.
I've also mentioned many times that despite its stellar lineup of primes, Pentax doesn't make the lens I need—a 35mm equivalent. Again, just to be clear, there's absolutely nothing magical about my preference of a 35mm equivalent prime lens (or, for that matter, the 3:2 aspect ratio); it's just that I shot for so long with a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera that it's become the way I see pictures, and the way I want my camera to see pictures. It's just a personal thing, but it's the way it is with me.
Where a lens is concerned, it seems like the choice is down to either the Sigma 24mm ƒ/1.8 EX DG ASP Macro lens (which is a little too big and heavy) or the Pentax 31mm Limited (which is a little too long). I have to admit that I have not personally had good luck with Sigma products in the past; but many of those experiences are quite old now, so maybe they're also out of date. At any rate, you take pictures with lenses, not with reputations, so if I decide to go that way I'll deal with the lens I receive and judge it on its own merits.
Here are the reasons I decided to go with the K-5, roughly weighted according to how much I was influenced by each:
The other finalists for me were the Sony A900 (I just don't feel rich enough for that one, more's the pity), the Olympus E-5, and the Canon 60D. I certainly fretted over it enough, I'll say that.
Pentax gives priority to its civilian customers, so I have to wait for mine until the next shipment hits these shores. That may be a few weeks. I'll write more when the K-5 actually comes.
Mike
(Thanks to John and Nic for the sample pic and weatherproofing links)
Send this post to a friend
Please help support TOP by using our links to B&H Photo and Amazon! Many thanks.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
The sensor in the new Pentax K-5 has taken over the #1 ranking for APS-C sized sensors on DxOmark.com, and not by a small margin. DxOmark is unambiguous in its praise: under the heading "The best APS-C in all tested fields," they write, "No need for suspense: this new 16.3 MP sensor is simply the best APS-C we have tested so far, sometimes able to compete even with very high-end full-frame cameras." It comes in sixth overall—nestled in between the Nikon D3s and D3 and surrounded by nothing but full-frame and medium format cameras. You have to go all the way down to #19 on the list to find the next APS-C sensor camera.
Calling its dynamic range performance "wonderful," DxOmark says this area is "clearly where the K5 struts its stuff...even the [Nikon] D3X’s full-frame sensor is not [as] good."
Where high ISO is concerned, being a "small" sensor, the K-5 is still "roughly a stop behind" the $780-more-expensive Nikon D700 and $900-more-expensive Canon 5D Mark II*. However, the K-5's overall sensor score of 82 trounces the APS-C competition, "more than 9 points better than the D90 or the Alpha 55, and 16 points ahead of the Canon 7D or 60D," and is top-ranked for high ISO among its same-size peers. (Note that the scores for the new Nikon D7000 are not posted yet, so Nikon still has a shot to retain the high-ISO crown.)
Here are the DxO Sensor analytics and here is the DxO review.
Mike
(Thanks to Iñaki Arbelaiz and Chris Nicholls)
*Prices per B&H Photo
Disclaimer: Note that Pentax is TOP's top advertiser this year. The K-5 is available directly from Pentax, from B&H Photo, or from Amazon
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Adam Maas: "Samsung made the 14-MP sensor used in the K20D and K-7; all other Pentax DSLRs except the MZ-D prototype use Sony sensors. The K-5 in fact shares its sensor with the Sony A55, A580 and most likely the Nikon D7000. (The reason the K-5 outperforms the A55 is the light losses due to the pellix mirror and Sony's processing chain being a bit behind state of the art.) The MZ-D used the same Phillips sensor as the Contax N Digital—Pentax simply chose not to ship the camera when it became clear the sensor could not deliver the performance Phillips promised.
"Pentax's struggles to get good performance from the Samsung sensor (something Samsung itself has been unable to do—the NX cameras, which also use this sensor, lag behind 4/3 in performance) resulted in the PRIME II engine being the current best processing chain on the market in terms of IQ. When coupled with the much better-performing Sony CMOS sensors, this results in class-leading performance. The K-x was the first PRIME II/Sony CMOS camera, and its performance is stunningly good for a camera you can buy for $500."
Featured Comment by Kent Phelan: "The K-5 is the big Inside Secret in the DSLR world. Compact, magnesium chassis, weatherproof, 100% viewfinder, 14 bit DNG RAW capture, and the fabulous DA Limited compact lenses. It covers all the checkpoints of my previous Nikon D700 in a significantly smaller and (IMO) ergonomically friendlier package. Did I mention it has the quietest shutter I’ve ever used—Leicas and Mamiya 7 included? For a certain type of photographer this is the perfect camera. I believe it was John Camp who once compared the Pentax K-7 to a Leica M digital. I’m sure many thought that was an odd statement. Not me. I use my K-5 as I used my M8, with much of the automation turned off and with fixed DA Ltd lenses. I have been a Nikon/Leica person my whole life, but I find this camera quite compelling.
"Regina Carter, taken two nights ago. K-5 with DA70 lens, ISO 2000, RAW capture re-sized in post (LR3) but nothing more."
Featured Comment by Dan Bridges: "The DxO DR tested performance of the K-5 is amazing. It has the same DR at ISO800 that my K20D has at ISO100. If you use the 'Print' tab on the DxO charts to get a normalised 8 MP result which is useful for comparing sensors with dissimilar MP, at ISO80 there is an impressive 14.1 stops of DR.
"This enormous DR will not mean much for JPEG shooters, but for the raw shooters the dark shadowy waters to that can be dredged for submerged details are very deep and rich indeed. It also will significantly reduce the need for HDR in landscape shooting.
"The knee at ISO3200 and up is on-sensor NR designed by Sony. (DxO now indicates any sensor that has this in part of its ISO range with the label 'smoothed' on its charts. Nikon has it.) It is non-defeatable. Its effect on the published shots so far seems mild. If you are going to have NR, on-sensor is the place for it since it can be tuned to the sensor's characteristics and it can be performed before Bayer filter demosaicing so it is less visible."
Yesterday Panasonic introduced the GF2, which appears to be a sort of hybrid between the original GF1 and the LX5. The GF2 is 17% smaller and 7% lighter than the GF1, and looks very similar to the LX5 (which of course has a fixed lens and a much smaller sensor).
Large size never seemed to be a problem with my GF1, which always seemed very "right-sized" to me. I realize that lots of manufacturers are quite worried about the success of Sony's NEX-5 camera (note for instance that on the DxOmark Sensor rankings, the little Sony—the top-ranked minicam—comes in ranked one slot above the Leica M9. Nos. 28 and 29 respectively. Who's not worried? Nobody's not worried). I've seen the NEX-5, and it's one slick little camera. It has a touch-dial. Anyway, maybe the shrunken nature of the GF2 is a response to the smallness of the NEX-5.
The press release says the GF2 is a "DSL" camera. I had to ask, and was told that "DSL" stands for "digital single lens." Right, sans reflex. And "DSLM" stands for "digital single lens Micro." Anything to avoid calling your camera evil, I guess.
The new camera has fewer buttons than the GF1, and loses its top dial. Howzat? Well, because it inherited the touchscreen controls from the G2, zat how. The camera now has full HD video capability, and of course the sensor is said to be morer/betterer. Sensor m/b is a claimed feature of every model upgrade and can be taken for granted, but shouldn't be gushed about overmuch until actual tests can determine that the m/b-ness will be a) detectable yet only b) incremental, both of which, come to think, can also be taken for granted.
I don't care much for touch screens. They seem to belong more on oven ranges than cameras. I recall a programmer friend who had a prototype touch screen PC many years ago that he was very proud of even though it barely worked. But I guess if you're going to get rid of the mirror you might as well get rid of the dials. It's all going in the same general direction.
I'm still shopping for a DSLR (a.k.a. DSL+reflex) camera these days, so I'm going in the other direction, myself. Having bought a GF1 of my very own some time ago, that itch done been scratched. Would I upgrade? What, with the X100 due in March? I'm already saving my money for that. I am a fickle bastard.
But this new camera looks very nice, even though it seems to lean distinctly more towards the mass market than the last one did. The new camera will be sold in black and silver for men and white, red, and pink for the ladies.
I kid. You can get whatever color you want. As long as it's available in your market.
Said to be coming in January, 2011.
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Miserere: "There's nothing wrong with this camera; there's a lot wrong with the name. GF2 is a misnomer, it should be something like GS1 (S for simple), the first in a parallel line of simpler cameras. Olympus understood this, which is why they called their most simple MILC E-PL1 and not E-P3."
Featured Comment by Jeffrey Goggin: "Unfortunately, Panasonic has a history of introducing cameras that appeal to serious photographers (such as its first 4/3-format camera, the DMC-L1 with its stellar Leica-influenced lens) and then going downmarket with its follow-up camera (as it did with the L10 that replaced the L1), so it's not a big surprise the GF2 follows this tradition."
I've been passing along Amazon's Deals of the Day when they have anything to do with photography. Today's Gold Box special is the Panasonic LumixDMC-F2 for only $69. That's ~$20 cheaper than it was yesterday or than it will be tomorrow. The 10-megapixel F2 is the entry level camera in Panasonic's 2010 point-and-shoot range.
Disclaimer: I've never seen or used this camera, so this isn't a recommendation. (Just passing the news along.)
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
This morning at 8 a.m. Mountain Time, Pentax USA announced that it will import, sell, and service the eagerly awaited Pentax 645D medium-format digital camera. The camera body will ship in December 2010 for $9,995.95. The SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm ƒ/2.8 lens will ship at the same time for $1,199.95.
Reading between the lines, I suspect Pentax USA thinks its allotment will sell out through pre-orders. TOP is currently working on an interview with Ned Bunnell, President of Pentax USA, and, in the interview, he says it is "important for your U.S. readers to know that we'll be bringing in an extremely limited quantity of units to the U.S. I hope folks don't think I'm saying this as a sales pitch. Quite frankly, we'd relish having more units to sell. However, it's not going to happen."
TOP sponsor B&H Photo is among the very limited number of dealers that will be accepting pre-orders. I'll try to provide the link as soon as it goes live.
Purchasers of the camera will have "prioritized access to a dedicated team of U.S.-based Pentax 645D specialists to answer 645D customer service and product questions (Monday–Friday 7:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Mountain Time—holidays excepted)" and will be automatically enrolled in Pentax Professional Services, which offers quick access to rental lenses and accessories and high-priority repair services.
Editors' Choice
Pentax also announced that the camera has received an American Photo magazine Editor's Choice 2010 award in the November/December issue. An excerpt: "The 645D's gigantic 44x33-millimeter Kodak CCD boasts two-thirds more pixels than a full-frame 24-megapixel DSLR and produces 23x30-inch native image size at 240dpi, ideal for big prints. The body itself offers superb balance and ergonomics, a light but tough magnesium-steel alloy frame with extensive weather sealing, and automatic sensor-dust cleaning, a first in a medium-format digital camera. It also features built-in automatic correction for a given Pentax 645 lens’s optical characteristic."
I must say that this editor agrees with that editor. The Pentax 645 has a long history, and has always, in my view, been a particularly successful camera design, brought to a high level of logic and elegance through successive iterations during the film era. It's an excellent point of departure for a digital version, and it's really no wonder the camera was far more popular in Japan than expected (causing the shortages that delayed the worldwide launch).
If you'd like to see it for yourself, the camera will be displayed at the Pentax Booth (booth 612) during the PDN PhotoPlus Expo from October 28–30 at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City. (PhotoPlus, the biggest U.S. camera show, is open to the public.)
Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Andre: "In related news, I have a slightly used kidney for sale."
Featured Comment by Joshua: "Excellent! now I can walk around with my old 645 film version and pretend it's digital and look rich!"
From now until the end of the year, Canon is offering, through B&H Photo (for newbies and drivers-by, B&H Photo is one of the three biggest sponsors that support The Online Photographer), deep discounts on its Pro9000 Mark II dye inkjet and Pro9500 Mark II pigment inkjet printers.
Here's da deal: when you buy the printer alone, you get $100 off the Pro9000 Mk. II or $200 off the Pro9500 Mk. II in the form of an American Express Reward Card. However, when you buy either printer along with any one of six Canon DSLRs, you get $400 off the package in the case of the Pro9000II and $500 off in the case of the Pro9500II. Those rebates also come in the form of an American Express Rewards Card, mailed to you after the fact.
That's almost—not quite, but almost—a free pro printer when you buy a camera.
The cameras eligible for this deal are: the 50D, 5D Mark II, 7D, T1i, T21, or the new 60D, which B&H now has in stock.
Here's the page with the deals. Or, just click on the "Mail-in Rebate" link on the pages with any of the relevant products. There's a limit of one claim per household.
Tempting, eh?
Meanwhile, Epson, not to be outdone, is offering not-dissimilar rebates on three of its printers, two of which, the R1900 and R2880, are pigment ink printers. The Epsons can be bundled with cameras from different manufacturers.
Finally, Canon camera rebates through B&H Photo are still in force, through November 24th.
Mike
(Thanks to Isaac)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Paul: "Anyone have much experience with the Canon printers? I was considering buying a new T2i and my fourth HP B9180 is pretty much on its last legs (it was terminally ill at birth). So...it's tempting. Links to good reviews would be awesome."
Mike replies: There are a number of user reviews at Amazon
