The Online Photographer

In the wake of my short article "How to Buy a Digital Camera" the other day, several people suggested that multiple lenses aren't really required (quite true) and that these days, you might as well buy a camera with a fixed (i.e., permanently attached) lens on it, there being several very nice options available.

That's fine, except for one thing. I'd like to show you one of the nicest lenses of the whole digital era:

...The Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 7.1–51mm ƒ/2–2.8. Lovely lens. And the oldest examples are barely 13 years old and probably still in fine condition. Lots of life left in 'em yet.

Of course, you'll have to be happy with an 8-megapixel "Super HAD CCD imager" circa 2003. Not that there's anything wrong with that—just grab a couple of Memory Sticks and off you go!

Who loves ya, baby
Of course, ou could argue that even interchangeable lenses become useless when their whole systems become obsolete. For instance, when Canon switched from the FD system to the clean-sheet EOS mount in the early '90s, infuriating loyal customers whose FD lenses had just become obsolete...

Oh, wait.

Fixed-lens cameras are fine—nothing wrong with them. It's just that when you decide to get rid of the camera, they fairly define the old saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." It's not a conclusive argument against them; just something to take into consideration is all.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Dennis: "Since I was a Minolta Maxxum user, I settled for a Sony F717 while waiting to see if Minolta would ever produce a DSLR. It was a nice enough camera in its day. Around $900 or $1,000 then. Worth around $25 now. I took some nice enough pictures with it in good light. It could still do the same today, but cheaper cameras are better in just about every way, from image quality to viewfinder quality to focus speed, shooting speed, and recording speed.

"I've had my RX100 several years now (and plan to keep using it several more); enough to justify the $500-ish price tag.  I love the idea of the RX10 with its pretty fast 28–200mm equivalent, nice ergonomics, and excellent viewfinder, but I don't like the idea of spending that kind of money again on a fixed lens camera. I guess that's mostly because I'd view it as a second camera (much like the RX100 now) whereas if I could really get rid of my ILCs, I probably wouldn't mind spending $1,000 on a fixed lens camera every few years.

"Another consideration is that with a DSLR system, you buy lenses, and you can be sure that whenever you want/need to buy a new camera to use with them, there will be something available. With a fixed lens, there's no guarantee that the company will keep up that product line."

Kev Ford: "Plus you have to learn a whole new control layout with every different fixed lens model; it's not enough to learn lenses' characteristics?"

Anthony Collins: "A link to Ken Rockwell? I feel like I've been Rickrolled. No, new word coined: I've been Rockrolled."

Mike replies: All photo-related searches lead to Ken eventually.

Gato: "I open TOP and see an old friend. Aside from the wonderful lens, that was the only digital camera I ever really loved. They could stuff in a modern chip and processor and I'd buy it again today. Had Sony continued along the lines of the 828 and R1, odds are I would never have owned a DSLR. After using film SLRs for years I was more than happy to be rid of multiple lenses, with the toting and packing and changing. It is a shame that such a fine lens dies with the chip, but cameras today are hanging in much longer than in the early days of digital while lenses, with their electronics and mechanical complexity, age faster than in the old days. So I'm not sure it is as big a thing as it was 10 or so years ago. Just last night I was looking at RX10 prices. I have not ordered yet, but I am sorely tempted."

Jacob Long: "Can confirm, had the Sony F828—that lens was easily as sharp as any of the other samples of Zeiss glass that I parked in front of my Contax film bodies. It's a shame it's permanently stuck to the front of that camera."

thomas hobbes: "The problem with digital is that it seems to be a lot easier to build an amazing and small lens for a fixed lens camera than for an interchangeable lens camera. if only somebody could produce a lens like the one attached to rx1 at even twice the size for an interchangeable lens camera...."

Mike replies: The variables you can eliminate with a fixed lens are what's called the "flange distance," the distance between the sensor and the flat ring on the front of the lens that the lens seats against, which on an ILC has to be fixed to accommodate all possible lenses, and the diameter of the exit pupil, which is limited by the diameter of the ILC lens mount. This could indeed theoretically change the design of the lens in some cases, and influence its size somewhat...although I doubt as radically as 2X.

A comment from Josh Hawkins today brought this up. Josh is now a dad and living in Las Vegas, but back when I lived in Oak Park, Illinois, he was the manager of Oak Park Camera, which in those years was a lovely old-time camera store more or less around the corner from where I lived.

Josh mentioned that he might go look at a Leica M-Monochrom at CES, the International Consumer Electronics Show at the Las Vegas Convention and World Trade Center and several other locations in Las Vegas (halfway over—it's open today and tomorrow, if you find yourself in Vegas), except that it "seems like a pointless exercise in torturing myself."

I replied that the Sony A7RII is too expensive for me, so I'm obviously not in Leica's market space either.

That got me to thinking...what's the most expensive camera I've actually ever bought? Not counting lenses and accessories.

I believe for me it's a tie—this still makes me shudder, because I'm not rich enough to have bought either of these cameras once, never mind both of them, but I believe I paid $2,700 for the Sony A900 and about the same price for the Chamonix Whole-Plate 6.5 x 8.5-inch large format field view camera*, which I think is also the most exotic camera I've ever owned (unless you count actor Jack Lemmon's M6).

I think the Chamonix wins because shipping was $150 from China and the holders are not really accessories—they're essential, and go with the body. I don't know, would you large format folks count dedicated holders as part of the "camera body"? Anyway I bought three at $200 each.

Ironically, I used both cameras very little. That's the other half of the cost equation for a camera: part of the cost is how much cash you lay out for it, and the other half is how much use (and/or money) you get back out of it. You can make up the former with the latter, if you're diligent and chose wisely. The "cheapest" cameras I've bought this decade in terms of use-for-cost were the Panasonic GF1 and the Sony NEX-6.

What's the most you ever paid for a camera, do you remember? We won't judge you either way!**

Mike

[UPDATE: I'm wrong on both counts here. Forgot the Big Dragoon! I bought a Nikon D800 after it came out. Sold it at not too bad a loss so I don't think of it as a sunk cost. Can't remember the number but it was over $3k all in. Sorry for my poor memory! —MJ]

*This camera is still for sale, if you know anybody who might be interested. I can only ship to the US, though—my last prospective buyer was from the UK and the shipping cost turned out to be prohibitive.

**Do bear in mind that I ask commenters not to respond to other commenters unless they're being helpful—no criticisms of others, please!  :-)

TOP takes Saturdays off. We'll be back on Sunday with a sweet guest article from Contributing Editor John Kennerdell. I'm still working on my Sigma 35mm Art review, which will be entertaining, and we'll have a nice landscape mini-portfolio next week as well.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Andrew C E: "My Nikon D810 is the the single most expensive thing I own, and that includes my car (which gets significantly less use than the D810). I think it was just shy of $4,000 CDN new after the sales taxes were included, and I haven't had a moment of buyer's remorse."

Mike replies: You, Sir, are a true Photo Dawg, and I say that as a salute.

KeithB: "My next one."

Michael Perini: "I bought a very early Canon 1Ds III in Nov 2007 when everyone was getting Full MAP (if you could get one) of $7,995 for the body. But it is still my main camera in 2016. I may or may not replace it with a 1Dx II which I hope will be cheaper."

JG: "A Contax 645 with a Phase One P30+ back and a slew of lenses. I refuse to add up what it cost me in total, but I did buy everything used at very attractive prices. And as it turned out, it was absolutely, completely the wrong camera for the type of photography I was doing with it. Live and learn, eh?"

Don Davis: "Kodak DCS620, not purchased 'personally,' but by the newspaper for me to use. Ran close to $10k. A couple of years later, the aperture return lever failed. If it had been an F5, the repair would have been about $400 (including complete cleaning/tune up by NPS). Since it had to be returned to Big Yaller, it was $3,800, since they plugged a new Nikon body into the computer. Paper reluctantly paid, then we traded the thing...got $2,200!"

mike plews (partial comment): "If you consider camera cost in terms of percentage of net worth than the hands-down winner would be the Honeywell Pentax H1a I bought in high school for $169.50 which took me a year to pay off."

John: "It's probably the 1D X I bought last year, even though I bought it off eBay at around $4,000. That purchase pales in comparison to the big white Canon tele I bought a few months later, though. But the most painful purchase ever was a Rollei 6008i on eBay on which I lost a lot of money selling it because Rollei dropped its new price by $1,000 during the short time I owned my used one. I tend to think in overall ownership cost and actual use of the gear. Price is only part of the equation."

Walter Glover: "For me, the high point of price was back in the 1990s when I purchased a brand new Sinar P2 which was $12,500 AUD. No holders, no accessories. No extras. I do not know what the exchange rate was back then but in today's money that would be $8,300 US. And didn't that camera earn its keep over the years. Fascinating to see them going for less than two grand on Ebay today."

Richard: "I paid $1,500 for a Canon 10D. Only a month after that, the 20D was announced."

Ian Land: "Mine is also a Chamonix—an 8x10, with three film holders, and a 4x5 reducing back. I bought it a couple of years ago when I sold my house. I'd always dreamed of shooting 8x10, even though I was a bit worried it would be too heavy to hike with (I'd regularly hiked with a 4x5, but that's like hiking with a compact camera compared to 8x10). I've almost never bought a camera new, but I felt this was a big moment, and deserving of something pristine.

"I had to wait around two months for the camera to arrive, and then another few weeks before I had a chance to use it. It was not immediate love; I struggled with development and didn't like any of my initial images. I started to think I'd made a mistake. But then I worked out a tray development method which gave me consistent results, and noticed, as I used the camera more often, that it became more and more the camera I wanted to use, despite the size, the cost of film, and the general inconvenience. Now I get to use it once a month or so, and those days always seem to be the shooting days I most enjoy. I took it out last week and discovered the Copal shutter on my only shuttered lens for 8x10 is broken. I won't be happy until it's fixed and I can use it again."

Doug: "I'm not rich, I'm an average retired guy who's not afraid to spend money on my hobbies. I contend, after 50 years in the motorcycle hobby, that photography is inexpensive. Go visit a Harley shop and see what $3,000 buys you. Hint: Chrome for your $25,000 Hog. And that Harley will depreciate more in the first year than the entire cost of a new D810. People buy Harleys every day, buy Jeeps, jet skis, or even golf clubs, that cost much more than a fine camera."

Mike replies: Thanks for that. That actually made me feel better.

Josh Hawkins: "My biggest purchase, by almost every measure, was my Nikon D1h. A good but not great camera at the time. I can't remember the totals, but camera alone was about $4k, and another $4 or 5k on lenses and accessories. All at employee discount pricing. Took me about three or four years to pay off. Also got me from a job in photo retail, good job but not the right career for me, to a good career in photojournalism. A career I greatly enjoy and enjoy the benefits of to this day. I'd call that a worthwhile investment. And if you want to buy it, I believe it's currently covered in dust on the top shelf of my kids' closet."

Bill Wheeler: "My most expensive camera was a used Leica M7 and 35mm Summicron lens kit. I don't recall how much I paid for it or sold it for a year later. I did worry about leaving it behind somewhere or banging it against something. My fear of damaging this expensive camera ruined the whole experience of owning it and using for me. I know, I know: it's me and not the camera. Honestly, I was glad to sell the Leica and to replace it with a cheap used Nikon SLR. No regrets."

Sal Santamaura: "That's such an easy question, Mike. Here's my answer. A decade ago, when I was still an aerospace engineer pulling down fairly substantial bucks, it took months of deliberation before overcoming my inherent cheapness to buy that camera. Back then, it cost 'only' 73% of Ebony's current price. However, a dozen Lotus holders increased my total expenditure to 1.7 times the camera's 'base' price.

"Today, retired and on a fixed income, deliberations center more on how many boxes of 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 Delta 100 to buy during Ilford's annual special sizes order period.  :-)  "

Eolake: "Funny enough far from the most advanced. It was that Canon (10D?) which revolutionized the field just around the millennium by giving three megapixels for a much lower price than anything before. I bought it with a good zoom for hmm...about six grand in dollars, and paid cash. Created a bit of a stir in the shop."

Jim: "About a decade ago, a friend of mine bought a 4x5 for just north of $5k for the body alone. Probably paid twice that for the lenses etc. He used it only a couple of times. Today you can buy that body for $800. That's the bad news. The good news: he's decided to give it to me."

Herman: "If you relate the cost of a camera to your income, my most expensive camera was a Kodak Bantam that cost $14. I bought it in 1941 when I earned about $0.25 an hour working part-time after school."

Mike replies: Herman's website is always a fun and rewarding visit.

Jack: "Leica S2 when introduced for over $24,000 so that's easily the most expensive camera I have ever purchased. Cost per image taken was pretty low. Cost in relation to income produced was very low, as it paid for itself many times. Of course then I put the winnings into a Leica S (007)."

Mike adds: Friend Jack is a retired businessman who put his business acumen to work with his photography, and makes more money with photography than all but a handful of full-time pros I've known. Nice feller, too!

tex andrews: "Pentax 645Z, late May or early summer of 2014, one of the first available cameras on the east coast of the US—and this after having bought an A7R in January. Sheesh. Traded in a ton of gear, really stripped things down, including some beloved stuff, to get the price down to $5,500.00. I have used it a ton, the A7R much, much less. I also already had a nice core group of lenses for the Z, and was able to quickly score a bunch at ridiculously low prices, such that I am now better equipped with it than I have ever been with any other camera. So, in terms of overall cost, it was all a really good deal, probably more cost effective than many other routes, in terms of (big!) bang for the buck. And to top it off: It's kind of made me GAS-proof (with the exception of something truly small, like the RX1RII). It's not like I can top it at this time, IQ-wise, for anything I could conceivably reach without the Powerball win. I could happily use this camera until it breaks and never look over my shoulder."

Techfan: "As a teenager in the 1950s I worked as a caddie at the local public golf course to save the cash to buy a Leica M2 with a Summicron lens. It cost $600 used and I brought it at Grand Central Camera in NY. When my parents found out how much it cost they went ballistic. I just could not disappoint my mother and hard-working father so back it went. Enjoyed the camera for the 15 minutes I had it. What a wonderful masterpiece of craftsmanship!"

Mike replies: That's a tragic tale.  :-)  I notice that the current price of a used M2 body is right around $600 (considerably cheaper than the going price back in the '90s). Then again, $600 in 1955 adjusted for inflation is $5,313 now...which is more than the cost of a new silver MP at $4,395. I don't keep up with Leicas any more, but I wonder what the main differences between the M2 and MP are?

Robert Billings: "Nikon D3X, purchased used last year from KEH for $3,300.00. I use it professionally and as I'm nearing retirement it will be my last camera (yeah right!). My son calls it an elegant sledgehammer. I should have bought it sooner and paid more. It's that good!"

Ernest J. Zarate (partial comment): "Wish I could remember the exact dollar amount spent on these cameras/lenses, but, unfortunately, I suffer from a rare syndrome known as photographus dollarus amnesia that blocks out such details. However, I am most certain that the most expensive cameras I've ever owned (and used extensively) are, chronologically: 1) Leica M6 with 35mm Summicron; 2) Mamiya 6 with 50mm ƒ/4 lens (after I read Mike's glowing review of the camera, I could not resist—one touch, and I was sold!); and 3) Canon 5D Mark II with 24–105mm L lens...I never look back (part of the PD amnesia syndrome), always enjoyed the camera I was using tremendously."

Randall Teasley: "Mine would have to be the Nikon D2X purchased at $5,000 in 2005. I've since upgraded to the D800E but the faithful D2X still sees yeoman duty attached to a copy stand. At base ISO the files from this camera are still just dreamy wonderful."

Mike replies: Repurposing! Another good way to get more back out of a purchase. Thanks for the reminder.

The rumors look pretty solid: the Fujifilm X-Pro2, long-awaited successor to the hybrid rangefinder X-Pro1, will be arriving on January 15th, 2016.

The confirmation came from an unusual source. Magnum Photos mistakenly released two photos taken with the X-Pro2 on its website. In removing them, Magnum explained itself by saying that the photos are embargoed until January 15th. Ipso facto.

Still technically a rumor, though, n.b.

A friend's Fuji X-Pro1, with the 23mm ƒ/1.4 lens. The new 35mm ƒ/2 seems made for this camera, though.

If you are after the X-Pro1 on closeout and want the following two lenses in particular, Adorama has a package with the 23mm ƒ/1.4 and the 27mm ƒ/2.8 pancake for $1,249. Even with the current sale prices of the lenses ($700 and $300 respectively), that's like getting the body for $250, which is a very good bargain. Of course, people looking for very good bargains and willing to settle for older cameras might perhaps not have $1,249 sitting around waiting to be spent, but then I'm just passing along the news.

The X-Pro1 was the interchangeable-lens version of the hugely popular X100, now in its third iteration (and on sale for $200 off) and still very successful. The X-Pro1 was one of the most innovative cameras of the entire digital era when it came out and is still very pleasant to shoot with. Its special feature, which it shares with the X100[x] family, is that it offers effortless flick-of-a-lever switching between optical rangefinder-style viewing and an electronic viewfinder through the same eyepiece.

Although its relatively relaxed responsiveness was the most damning criticism leveled at the X-Pro1, it's actually quite pleasant to shoot with for general shooting. It's not the right camera for concerted action or low-light shooting, but I wouldn't say it's terrible at those tasks either. Quite a fun camera to use. Chris Gampat said of it, "The Fujifilm X-Pro1 is still an excellent camera—in fact, it’s still one that I use often. Its autofocus performance isn’t much slower...than that of the X-T1 and the image quality it delivers [...] in my opinion still rivals that of full frame 35mm sensor cameras from a couple of years ago. Even today, ISO 6400 on the X-Pro1 is the cleanest I’ve seen from a camera with an APS-C sensor."

The new camera—rumors, mind—will have a 24-MP sensor (big news in Fuji-land), 200 AF points, dual SD card slots, and be markedly quicker than the X-Pro1. In fact much of the nuts-and-bolts functionality can be expected to show the usual incremental improvements—not just focusing speed but the resolution of the EVF and so on. (For the best new scuttlebutt, always check the latest from fujirumors.com.)

Something to look forward to in January.

Mike
(Thanks to Adam Lanigan, jim, Dave, Patrick, and others)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

I knew there was something "right-sized" about the Fuji X-T1:

With the Leica M4. Graphic courtesy Camerasize.com.

Can anybody provide a picture of the Fuji XF 23mm ƒ/1.4 with either of the 35mm ƒ/1.4's from Canon or Nikon? (Or the Zeiss 35mm ƒ/1.4 for the Sony A7[x] cameras.) I think that's the size comparison that really makes the Fuji right-sized for me.

...All a matter of personal preference of course!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Curt Gerston: "Here's [a graphic from] Camerasize.com again with an XT1 and 23mm ƒ/1.4 compared to the Canon 5DIII with the 35mm L II. I agree: the Fuji is just right for me too."

Mike replies: There are functional differences between the setup on the left and the one on the right (to satisfy the nitpickers), but they both do essentially the same thing according to what I need them for, and based on the radically different size and weight (Fuji: 301 g, Canon: 760 g) of the lenses, I know which one I personally would carry along and which one I'd leave at home in the closet....

Friday Night Lite: If you could have any one camera (cost no object), but just one—and you had to use it exclusively for, let's say, the next four years—what would it be?

Optional: Why?

[If you comment, see if you can please stick to the question—instead of, say, explaining why you absolutely need a minimum of nine different cameras, or why I'm a troll, or why no cameras are any good, or why any camera will do because it's art that matters, or....]

Extra credit: What's the #1 best rock-and-roll song?

Mike

[UPDATE, 267 comments later...My answer is "Leica S, but you can't always get what you want." (Rimshot!) And for extra credit, Bob Dylan's "Leica Rolling Stone." (Rimshot no. 2!) (And boy, did you guys ever make me go a long way for two bad jokes!) Ha!

Also, one reader beat me to the second joke....

Anyway, that was fun. Hope you have a nice Sunday.

—Mike the Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

jseliger: "I haven't held it yet and will likely never own it, but the Sony RX1R is extremely appealing to me for its combination of simplicity and image quality. I like the combination of small size and extreme quality, and I'm more likely to use cameras that that I can chuck in a bag (ideally with a light tripod). The RX1R probably best meets those needs. At $3300, though, it's about twice as much as I could conceivably spend, so this will remain a purely hypothetical exercise."

Steve P.: "Sony A7sII + Loxia = Photo Heaven. In honour of its high ISO performance I nominate 'There is a Light That Never Goes Out' by The Smiths."

Brett Jensen: "Ricoh GR won't get fooled again."

Steve Renwick: "Nikon FM3A. If you have to ask, you won't understand the answer. 'Moondance.' Of course."

marek fogiel: "This does not look like such a big limitation to me. Which camera? Obvious, Leica M7. Best rock song? Obvious, 'I Can Get No Satisfaction'—why? Because rock n'roll can't give me satisfaction; I am a jazz addict."

Ned Bunnell: "Ricoh GR in a heartbeat. It's been my primary everyday camera for the past two years. It's the only camera along with my iPhone (hope that doesn't count as one camera) that I've taken on trips to Cuba, Mexico, Alaska, Florida, BVI, the Western U.S. etc. Based on this experience, I can honestly say its performance and image quality has never caused me to wish I'd brought a bigger camera.

"I enjoy the GR's 28mm field of view. The lens is sharper than any interchangeable 28mm lens I own. It's compact so I can travel very light with the camera, batteries, hood, OVF, and .75 wide angle conversion lens in my small Artisan and Artist Oscar bag. I guess I'm saying that another four years with my GR wouldn't cause me any angst at all."

[As you might already know, Ned is the former President of Pentax USA. —Ed.]

Alan Carmody: "Fuji X-T1. 'Sympathy for the Devil.'"

Brian: "Camera: It better be the D810 as I've just bought one and won't be able to afford another for at least four years! Song: Stones—'Paint it Black.'"

david adam edelstein: "The Leica MM2, which I finally got my hands on back in August and which hasn't really left them since then. Without hyperbole, this is the digital camera I have been waiting for since digital became a serious thing. Crazy beautiful files at low ISOs, doesn't blink when I shoot in the dark. Uses my existing 20-year-old lenses. If every other piece of camera gear was stolen while I was out of the house with the MM2 and my 50mm Summicron, I'm not sure I'd replace anything.

"Also: 'Voodoo Chile,' either Mr. Hendrix' original, or Mr. Vaughan's reinterpretation."

Nikon D750 vs. Nikon D810. Graphic courtesy Camerasize.com.

John Seidel: "Nikon D750. 'Wooly Bully' by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs."

AHC McDonald: "Twin lens. TLR. Make, model unimportant."

Edd Fuller: "Sorry, recently underwent a gadgygdalectomy so am unable to answer."

Pete Atkinson: "Nikon D800, only because I understand how to use it, unlike my new washing machine and microwave. Manufacturers make devices so complicated as though they think this is the only one we have to master?

"JSB's Toccata and Fugue in D minor—more metal than R&R I admit...."

Brian Ripley: "Canon 5DS R. Because of its lens collection (you said nothing about one lens...). In 11 years of Canon FF DSLRs I've not yet found the system lacking a lens that did what I want (affording and carrying it might be another matter). E.g. I have appreciated macro lenses (100/180mm), tilt/shifts and super-telephotos."

James Shackleton: "Ok. I'll play. Canon 6D + 40mm ƒ/2.8. Excellent IQ, size and weight. 'All along the Watchtower'—Jimi Hendrix."

Roland Tanglao: "Hi all! Olympus E-M1 and all the Olympus pro lenses! Cheers!"

Jack: "One more vote for the Leica S.

"I already did this exercise for real. I owned the Leica S2 for four years. The first year with just the 35mm S lens. After one year the 120mm S came out, and I added that. So I have experienced both this exercise, as well as your past exercise of one camera, one lens for a year. As you once said, if you go all out on quality, you will not be turning equipment over every six months, and maybe you save money by starting at what some consider the top. Well, some would say the Phase One is certainly more expensive, but I would not choose it for four years.

"I now have had the Leica S 007 for two weeks, and if forced to choose one lens, it would be the 30–90mm S zoom. Yes, I plan to be with the S type 007 for four more years."

Dana Thomas: "Hey Mike...this is easy as I am already in the second year of use of the Lumix GH4. And if the type of work I continue to do last another two years it will clinch the deal. With the amazing Lumix 35–100 ƒ/2.8 lens on the GH4 I cam seamlessly move from stills to video and the image quality and speed of use is spot on...'nuff said."

Jeff Hohner: "Evil! Bait taken. Fuji X100T. 'Roadrunner' by the Modern Lovers."

Kirk Tuck: "Given my history it's insane to even take a stab at this one but...here goes: I would choose the Nikon D810, and to distill it down further, I would pair it with the Otus 85mm ƒ/1.4 lens. I would choose this combo because the camera is obsolescence proof for about three of the four years due to its outrageously good sensor. The lens is the best thing I can hang on the front given that I love shooting portraits.

"I thought first of a Leica MF camera and lens but realistically, no matter how much cash I have to spend, I still wouldn't want to carry that stuff all around with me. The D810 + Otus will be more than enough to build muscle. In use the D810 has been rock solid and the menus make sense to me. But it's cheap enough that I wouldn't worry about taking it out in rain or active volcanoes.

"As to the extra credit question, I think that's a softball. It's so obviously '(Can't get no) Satisfaction' by the Rolling Stones. The runner ups are 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and 'Purple Haze.'"

Esa Kivivuori: "Leica Q (type 116). I just tested it for four weeks. It is truly a magnificent camera with a fantastic lens. ...Blood, Sweat & Tears: 'Sometimes in Winter.' I've loved it since 1968."

This picture covers a relatively mind-boggling span of the history of camera technology, and deserves a bit of deconstruction. It shows, of course, a smartphone, resting on the beautiful new "Non-Use Device," acquired for decor in the recently completed TOP Headquarters atrium, a.k.a. the old table just inside the front door of my little house.

The Non-Use Device*, which turns out to be exceptionally beautiful and exceedingly well preserved, was built c. 1903–06 in Rochester, New York, not far from my new environs. The largest of the Pony Premo cameras of the era, the No. 6 also was a whole-plate (6.5x8.5-inch) size camera of a type called "self-casing." It folds into a neat little leather-covered box with a handle, like a small valise.

The smartphone, of course, is an iPhone, currently the most-used type of camera on Facebook, which in turn is the largest collection of publicly-accessible photographs in the history of the medium.

That's not quite all. Do you remember earlier this month when I wrote about "Mr. D.," the Illinois high-school photo teacher who came by HQ 2.0 in Wisconsin to pick up my once-prized SaltHill print washer? You might remember Jeff came by sporting a very cool axe, his Horseman Multiformat 985. I took a snap of Jeff using my phone, and he took one back using his Horseman.

So the picture being displayed on the iPhone in the above picture is his picture of me...which he took on B&W film and sent to me by email.

So in the top picture we have a medium-format film picture emailed to a smartphone which is itself a camera of sorts, and a turn-of-the-last-century "portable" view camera.

I dunno, it just seemed kinda around-and-about to me, weaving this way and that through the dense thicket of the history of image tech.

 Mike

* The name derives from the Single-Use Device, a whole plate Chamonix view camera I once argued was good for only one thing—black-and-white contact prints.

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

John Willard: "And what did you use to take that picture? And then post on the web...this is almost like a room with mirrored walls where you see an infinite number of your reflection."

Mike replies: Right, taken with my Fuji X-T1, a digital camera designed to be "retro" and reminiscent of older film SLRs....

Okay, okay, one more and then I'll stop. (Or will I? Can you control fanboyism? Or is it a compulsion, beyond the reach of willpower? Shut up, Mike....)

If the X-T1 was inspired by the Fujica ST-901, as we learned in the Verge article linked in the last post, does that mean that the Fujifilm X-T10 due to be released in a few days is a riff of the old Fujica ST-701 of 1971?

New Fujifilm X-T10, coming soon

Fujica ST-701 of 1971

Cameras are fun. (Thanks to Kevin Purcell for this.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!