The Online Photographer

I mentioned in the last post that very high up on my camera wish-list would be for Panasonic to remain open to the idea of a possible "GX8 Mark II" some day. They appear to have developed their Dual I.S. a little further since the GX8 came out, and it's accepted that subsequent if lesser models had improved shutters that banished the specter of the dreaded shutter-shock. I think it's a great camera design, a "sleeper" that might not have set any sales records but that is better than its reputation, and a useful tool for photographers who are actually trying to accomplish something. It's a perfect design to carry into the future in thoughtfully refined iterations, and that doesn't deserve to be a "one and done."

But speaking of that, here's a related camera geek question: if you could wish for a "Mark II" version of any camera, what would it be? That is, what camera from the past would you most like a modern up-to-the-minute update/refresh for?

A couple of fer-instances:

"Epson R-D1 Mark II"

"Panasonic GF1 Mark II"

Both of those make a lot of sense from my perspective. I could name a few more, but I'd rather hear your ideas.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

DavidB: "Nikon D700 Mark II. All the features of the D700 with a modern sensor and autofocus system. The D750 is not it. Nor are the D800/D810/D850."

MikeR: "I'd go for a Mark II of the GF1. A solid brick of a camera. Mine is now sporting a (little used) IR conversion."

Mattias: "Easy. I'd buy a Pentax K-01 Mark II in a heartbeat if updated with better AF, an EVF and a tiltable LCD. The original is much better than its rep with the K-5 sensor and a Leica-simple interface and I quite like their shot at creating a stand-out design."

Neven Falica: "Oh yes, GF1 Mark II would be great! With IBIS, 20 MP sensor, latest-gen rear screen and electronics. Also, Panasonic 20mm ƒ/1.7 Mk III lens would be great, too—this time with reworked AF."

Mike replies: I'd buy that lens too. No clue why they didn't improve the slow AF with v.2—someone wasn't thinking.

Dave Levingston: "Amen to the GX8 Mark II. I have two of the 'Mark I' because it is just the best camera I've ever owned in 50 years of doing photography, film or digital. It's damn near perfect. I'd get in line for a Mark II."

Andrew: "Definitely a GX8 Mark II. It would have been so, so easy, too. Just start with the existing GX8, and then...

1. Update the IBIS (same as G85).
2. Upgrade the shutter (same as G85).
3. Allow the Exposure Compensation dial to work with Auto ISO in Manual Mode (same as G9).
4. Remove the AA filter on the sensor (same as G9).
5. Move the front function button (duh).
6. Reshape the grip every so slightly (GX7 was comfier, despite being smaller).
7. Let the engineering and design team take the rest of the year off.
8. Profit."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Honestly, I want for no 'Mark II' of any camera. I have much more capability than I'll probably ever be able to use. But I could use a Ken Mark II, please. I have quite a list of upgrades I’d like to see in the new model."

Jon Schick: "Olympus E-1 II. Best handling DSLR I ever owned and much nicer than the ridiculously huge E-3/5 that followed. Newer sensor (same colours) with better AF and a larger LCD would have been a great way to keep using those lovely Zuiko lenses." 

Dave Karp: "I want a Pentax MX Mark II. It has been a long time, so it will have to be digital. And how about making it mirrorless to keep that small form factor? And a sensor small enough to keep the lenses small too, but big enough to make a decent size print. And no video. Just stills. With plenty of manual controls. A tilting rear screen would be nice—no swing out type, just tilt up or down would be fine, thank you. One more thing: A switch to flip it to black-and-white-only mode. That's what I want."

Mike replies: How is that not an X-T100? It even has monochrome modes in its film simulations....

Claim: "The best camera is the one you have with you."

Truth: No, it isn't.

With 25 years of working for and with photographers, students, and enthusiasts of every description under my belt, my considered opinion is that in the vast majority of cases the truth is the exact opposite of that. That is, utterly regardless of what camera they are using—and regardless of how much intensive work went into their shopping process—most photographers will discover and complain about its shortcomings, bemoan the lack of the accessories they want, nitpick about feature and design choices they wish were different, and ultimately find the camera they "happen to be using at the moment" to be disappointing and/or inadequate. It's human nature. 

Custom build
As someone whose work (writing about photography for magazines and online) has demanded that I work with a large variety of cameras for short periods of time, I can attest that it's very possible to have the wrong camera with you. In fact, it's possible to have the wrong camera with you more often than not. In fact, there have been times in my life when working with too many cameras started fracturing my work so much that I had to take a break from it and settle down and use only one camera for a while.

That's purely empirical, of course, based on nothing but long experience and lots of interaction with thousands of people who love photography and photographs.

The aphorism should be, "Photographers will find fault with most any camera." In fact, I believe that if a camera company offered to build a camera from the ground up exactly to any given photographer's personal requirements and specifications, it wouldn't be long before that photographer found something about his choices to bitch about. "Well, I wish I had asked them to...." "I didn't realize I wasn't going to like...." etc.

Myth truth
The truth is actually psychological more than technical: the best camera is the one that you know the best and do the most real work with. Anyone who photographs extensively with an intelligently chosen camera on a real project—a project in which the pictures engage his or her heart and mind—will come to love that camera, even if it has flaws. In fact, you'll probably come to love its flaws.

The best camera is the one you've used for work you find gratifying. So, if you want to have the best camera, keep working at mastering the controls of the one you have and your handling and shooting skills with it, and do some concerted work with it. The camera won't come around to you. You'll come around to the camera.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rick Denney: "Sorry, Mike, that hasn't been my experience. I find a camera in my hands can go one of two directions when I get into the middle of a project. It can either make me hate it, or make me love it. There seems to be no middle ground, and not much way for me to predict which way it will go.

"Many times I used cameras because they were the cameras I had and could afford. I did a lot of wedding-type stuff with a Mamiya TLR (C3 and then C33). I was intimately familiar with it, and did work I'm proud of using it. But the truth is I wasn't coming to love its faults, I was coming to hate them. The parallax issue (poorly handled in those cameras); the fact that I couldn't load it without removing it from a flash bracket (which I had to do every 12 exposures); the dangerous proximity of the M-X switch to the shutter cocking lever (the C3 didn't do that automatically, which actually did not bother me), etc. etc.

"I did plenty of paid and detailed work in the day using a Calumet CC-400, and then one day a used Cambo SC appeared. Never made another exposure in the Calumet. Used the Cambo for some of the most personally important work I did using that format. Then, one day, I switched to a Sinar F, and never made another exposure in the Cambo. I thanked myself for buying the Cambo, but then really thanked myself for buying the Sinar.

"I tried a couple of experiments with rangefinder cameras, and for any camera I make it my own by taking on some project with it. I end up hating them, even if I am happy with the work I did using them. I have not always been happy with the work I've done using a Pentax 67, but I still deeply love that camera—it just fits the way I think and work.

"And so it goes. I just don't find much correlation between familiarity and personal importance of work product on the one hand with my subsequent feelings about a camera on the other.

"But I absolutely agree there is no 'best' camera. Cameras are either appropriate to what we are trying to do with them, or not. (Having fun is one of those objectives, of course, though we sometimes forget.) And they either fit the way we think and work, or they don't."

toto: "The best camera is the one that another photographer is using."

jh: "The car analogy: While racing cars, I was amused by fellow drivers who were always dissatisfied with their cars. Spent fortunes making them better and hours tweaking them at the track. Me? I just set up the car simply and spent a lot of time practicing on the track to learn how to get the most from it. Guess who was more successful? In any situation, the biggest improvement comes from the driver. Get the analogy?"

Mike replies: Sure do.

1. If you were going to get one camera to shoot film, small or medium format—removing cost from the calculations—would it be a.) a rangefinder or b.) an SLR?

2. If you were going to get one Fuji, would it be a.) a rangefinder-style (X-Pro2, X-100F) or a DSLR-style (X-T2, X-T20)?

Just curious....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Hishimaru: "Pentax 67II for that thunderclap that can be heard across the cosmos! And an X-Pro2 since it's been my favorite child in the herd of cameras I've accumulated."

Mark Sampson: "35mm film? Leica M6 with 35mm ƒ/2, 50mm ƒ/2 and 90mm ƒ/2 lenses."

Mark adds: "I'm surprised to find myself a featured commenter...but I should have said in the featured post that I've 'been there, done that, and would do it again.' There are a lot of good choices out there, however. I'll learn something from this thread, for sure."

Mike adds: ...And you might enjoy the next post, too.

Ernie Van Veen: "I already have a Nikon FE2 and an old Russian FED2 rangefinder with a 52mm ƒ/1.8 lens. I have to admit that when I (rarely) want to shoot some B&W film, I pick the FED2 for the 'fun' factor. If I had to be serious about shooting film (when is that ever going to happen?), I'd definitely use the Nikon FE2. It's simpler. If I had to buy a Fuji, it would be an X-T2. No, an X-Pro2. No, an X-T2.... (Maybe that's why my brother has both.)"

Steven Paomer: "SLR. DSLR."

Bryce Lee: "For both replies, a Single Lens Reflex. It just feels more comfortable. To me Fuji is a film company, only."

Bill Tyler: "For film, a Leica M series. Why? There's an aura around Leicas and Leica lenses that attracts me, and I'd enjoy the experience of using one with film. For Fuji, one of the DSLR-style bodies. It's what I'm familiar with, and because I photograph wildlife and macro subjects, anything rangefinder-like is not practical (though EVF makes that less true)."

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "Fuji: this is a really tough one. The X100F, with three different viewfinder subsystems, a built-in optical ND filter and a leaf shutter that provides real high-speed flash sync up to 1/4000th second, in my humble opinion, is a triumph of digital camera industrial design. Photographs from the X100F also have a '3D-like' quality usually only seen on digital medium-format cameras. I attribute this to a synergistic interaction between the 24-megapixel X-Trans sensor, the non-interchangeable 23mm lens, and Fuji's third generation X-Processor Pro that produces some of the highest image quality I've seen from any camera this side of the Fujifilm GFX50S. Accordingly, I think the X100F is probably the best camera I've ever used with respect to a camera's 'design embodiment fulfilling its design intention.'

"On the other hand, my X-H1 is the best interchangeable-lens Fuji X-cam I've ever used, producing the highest image quality I've seen to date from my set of interchangeable XF-mount lenses (my hypothesis as to why is Fuji was able to achieve exceptionally tight optical tolerances from lens to sensor with the new stronger, stiffer, more robust body). 

"If I was forced to pick, I probably have to go with the X100F, but man, this is a real Sophie's choice for me...."

Giovanni Maggiora: "RF any day...X100 any day...why? because!"

Jeff: "If you have only shot digital and you want to experience what shooting film was like, shoot with a Leica rangefinder. Digital and film SLR usage and experience is very similar save the info in the viewfinder. Photographing with a rangefinder is like going to another era. Also it is the most frequent advice given when someone is in a creative rut, try a Leica, one camera, one lens.

"Nothing says Fuji like the X-100 series camera. It is the basis for all of their later success. The X-T2 might be a better overall camera but you said get 'one' Fuji and the X-100F is a complete camera system that requires no additional lenses or accessories."

Rodger P Kingston: "In my old age I've given up using a bulky SLR/DSLR. For film, I'd choose my beautiful little Contax T2 (which I still own), with its sleek Porsche Design body and Zeiss Sonnar lens. For digital, I'd go with the Fujifilm X-T20 with the 18–55mm zoom lens. It's so small I'm surprised every time I pick it up, yet—like most Fuji cameras—it fits my hands like a glove—or like an old screw mount Leica."

Andrew Molitor: "No hesitation, I'd get whatever the latest generation Nikon D3x00 is. It's small, it's adequate to my needs, and I know where the buttons are. It's what I intend to get when my D3100 gives up which will probably be within another couple years."

Øyvind Hansen: "1.) Nikon F6, probably the most refined and sophisticated SLR ever, and it works with most modern Nikkor lenses. And it is available brand new. 2.) X-Pro 2, because of its unique viewfinder amongst system cameras."

Over in the Dept. of Stuff You Don't Need is this lovely leather messenger bag from Nikon meant to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the company. It's made by Ona, costs a lot, and looks swell as hell, with subtle and tasteful labeling. If you're a "Nikon Man" or a Nikon fan, could be just the thing for your 100th Anniversary D500*.

Mike

*The D500 refurb is a much better deal, but then why would you be looking for a deal if you're able to drop $400 on a leather messenger bag?

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Dan Khong: "The bag is good for:

1. Bragging rights
2. Making Nikon rich
3. People who cannot afford Hermes or Birkins
4. Cultivating mold in tropical countries
5. Keeping for 20 years and then reselling for a profit on eBay

"All said, any Nikon gear carried in this bag could well take better pictures compared to Nikon gear carried in a plastic supermarket bag."

Brian Stewart: "ONA leather bags are great! Work really well and are comfortable to carry and classy. I have two, one larger and one smaller, but not this particular one, the Prince Street. The bag at $389 is what you need. What you don't need for an extra $10.99 is the Nikon logo. Doesn't look like a camera bag, until you stick the logo on it."

Mike replies: The difference is $10.99? That doesn't sound like Dan's point #2 is correct then....

But hey, at least Nikon isn't charging an extra $150 for the logo.

Way back when, I had a Contax. The camera was made by Yashica in Japan, which had a cooperative agreement with Zeiss in Germany. It was not really a true collaboration: originally, Yashica had to order lenses from Zeiss, which manufactured batches of them to fulfill the order. Yashica paid for them and then resold them to customers. Later, a factory was built in Japan (note passive case, since I don't know the particulars about who built, paid for, or ran it), and the companies told customers that Zeiss expertise—and, supposedly, inspection and supervision—was used to build Zeiss lenses there. So Contax was a Japanese camera with German lenses, at least originally. "Contax" was a former model name of Zeiss.

Kyocera, which by then owned Yashica, left the camera business in 2005.

In those days "motor drives" were add-on devices that cost a fair amount, so they were high status among hobbyists. I took a class in optics at the University of Maryland, and I remember sitting in the lecture hall before class where two fellow students had brought their cameras, each with impressive high-end motor drives. With no film in the cameras, they had a showdown. They synchronized the shutter press, and the cameras started firing in unison. Then, the rate of one student's motor drive began to fall more and more behind the other's. He was humiliated, and the winner was exultant. (Humans love wins and losses.) The cameras probably fired around 5 frames-per-second (FPS), which was fast in those days. One was a little "better" than the other.

Sitting several rows behind them, I thought, how silly—I never need to shoot that fast.

So I bought a "motor winder" for my Contax 139Q. It was just what I wanted—at 2 FPS, it added a small amount of weight and size to the camera, which was too small for my hands by itself, and it saved me the effort of cocking the camera manually, which was all I wanted it to do. Each time I took a picture the camera was ready to take another shot in half a second.

From then on I've had this idea...what's enough?

You can look at every feature of a camera this way. What features are "must have," which are optional for you, which do you not need? And in terms of the technical capabilities, what's adequate? Personally, I value good viewfinders, image stabilization (IS) or in-body IS (IBIS), shutter silence, and responsiveness—how fast the camera focuses and, especially, how quickly it shoots when you tell it to, that is, by pressing the shutter. I want to capture the exact moment I want, and I practice that skill. I've never cared too much for frame rate specs.

But my preferences aren't unchanging. Sometimes the tech capabilities improve to the point where I start using them and learning to like them. Now, for instance, I use continuous high (CF) on my Fuji quite often—I still pay close attention to firing the shutter at exactly the right moment, but on CH I shoot several shots quickly instead of just one. It saves me from things like blinks and momentary awkwardnesses like a waving flag or a waving hand looking not quite right in one particular exposure.

Ten years ago I would say we all were really eager to have the latest and best. Now I would say we're well into the era of "adequateness"—where people are saying no, I don't need the ultimate—this is enough. I heard from my friend Dennis the other day, who used to shoot with a high-end Nikon. Now he's using Micro 4/3 for everything. Why? I guess because it's adequate.

It's a nice way to look at product purchases...not what's "best," and thus "wins," but merely what's good enough for you.

Mike

P.S. I do have to add an addendum, being rigorously honest: and that is, that even though my personal value system is to choose what's adequate, sometimes I cannot help shopping for, and coveting, what's best. Even though I don't really want to, and even though I don't really need it.

I guess that's human nature.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Gordon Lewis: "It's funny how the word 'adequate' can have a slightly pejorative implication these days, as if adequate really isn't quite good enough. I guess it depends on what noun it modifies. It's one thing to describe a camera or lens as adequate and quite another to describe one's spouse or lovemaking skills the same way."

I want to say first that I can have fun with most any camera.

I did my first serious photography project with a Kodak Instamatic 104, at Gettysburg Battlefield; I was twelve and on a seventh-grade trip to Washington, D.C. (Gettysburg was a day trip. I was mad about the Civil War in my youth.) I did an art school project with the same Instamatic 104, printing the color negatives on B&W Panalure paper. That was called "The Great Pigeon Safari," since the only requirement of the series was that each of the pictures, made around urban D.C., had to have at least one pigeon in it. I would call this project—ahem—a bit bird-brained. I had a 5x7-inch tailboard camera called "Frankencamera" that the great sensitometrist Phil Davis adapted the back for in the basement workshop of the house he built himself, mainly out of Spancrete, outside of Ann Arbor, Michigan. I've used an 8x10 Deardorff (for one single picture, just to say I'd done it), a Mamiya 6 medium-format rangefinder with all three of its lenses when it was new, a new Leica M6 and an ancient beat-to-crap Pentax Spotmatic with pieces missing from both the body and the lens. I once spent $5,500 on a camera system (RZ67) and I've taken lovely pictures with an Olympus Zuiko lens I bought for $10. I've taken pictures contentedly with both a Nikon D800 and a nearly antique 1950s Zeiss Contessa I inherited from my Aunt.

So please don't bust my chops, please. I'm just not one of those people whose identity is tied up with the camera they use. Yeah, I love cameras, but in a totally doofus-y kinda way. I'm kind of the ultimate dilettante hobbyist.

So here's my thought for today. In 2003 it seemed a little radical to buy a camera made by an "electronics giant." What, buy a camera not made by a camera company?! The idea seemed both progressive and transgressive at the same time, somehow. Of course that attitude seems quaint today. There, there, grandpa.

But as I read Curt Gerston's Featured Comment under the "Terry Burnes on Phone Photography" post, I caught myself wondering whether my camera in the future—my main camera—won't be made by Apple, Google, or Samsung.

It's not really that crazy. The reason is that I seem to visualize pictures better on the phone's viewing screen than I do using any other kind of viewfinder. I do better seeing the image in two dimensions rather than three or a virtual three.

...Except in sunlight. This is a grabshot I made a few hours ago of the rear of Birkett Mills, which makes the town where I live "America's Buckwheat Capital." I show it to you because not because it's an example of the iPhone camera succeeding, but because it's an example of the iPhone camera failing. It's a fail for two reasons: because he focal length I needed was somewhere in between the phone camera's 28mm-e and 56mm-e lenses, and the strong sunlight made it difficult to see the viewing screen. I kinda had to guess at composition.

But here's the thing: phones are a huge business these days, and cameras are one of the front-and-center flagship features of the phones. I have no idea if this is true, but I'll bet there are more camera software engineers working at Apple than there are at Canon and Nikon combined. With maybe a few more old-line manufacturers thrown in to boot.

And yet, the manufacturer's name on the grill of the truck, as well as the license plate number, are clearly visible in the file, and the color was perfect out of the camera, and so was the exposure. I'll wager it shows more detail than 35mm Tri-X and as a single exposure it was free both in terms of money and the time needed to muck around with it. And I have at least as much fun with it as I did with the little Kodak Disc camera, or the plastic pre-Holga Diana, or the Canon Xapshot still-video camera I once happily distracted myself with.

Phones are far from perfect. But 2003 was 15 years ago, and I'll bet that 15 years from now, people will be looking at legacy SLR-o-types and texting to the friend sitting next to them: srsly?

They will look about as up-to-the-minute to them as the cannons and caissons at Gettysburg seemed to my Civil-War-besotted 7th-grade self.

...And note the pigeon in the Birkett Mills picture. Some habits die real hard.

Mike
(Thanks to Curt Gerston)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

George Feucht sent a very interesting comment yesterday: speaking of the Sean Flynn M2, he wrote:

I own my dream camera: A plain-jane Leica M6 with ZERO history. Zero significance. Zero collectability. Limited production run? Hell no! These are tools. The magic goes away when the master goes away. If you offered me HCB's Leica at a standard price, I'd say 'Hmmmmm...no built-in meter, right?'

He brings up an interesting point. Some photographers are happy to use unique, exotic, or unusual equipment. Others, like George, prefer to use common, standard, easily replaceable tools so that if something goes wrong or breaks or gets lost, they're not "out" anything more than money. They just get a replacement and carry on. I knew one pro once who refused to use any lens unless he could get a brand new one overnighted from B&H Photo, in case anything happened to the one he had. He wanted to use equipment that was common—commonly available, easily repairable, and readily replaceable.

I was going to ask you if you have a preference along these lines, but I'm not sure if this kind of thinking even pertains with digital cameras. Don't we think of cameras now not as durable goods, but as consumables? Aren't they essentially disposable? Does anything really gives a digital picture a special "look" such that we might need to use specific equipment to make more pictures that match it?

I don't know if this is better or worse, but the days when a certain specific set of equipment and materials was integral to the "signature look" of someone's finished work seems to be increasingly a thing of the past. Do you agree? If you drop your Leica S2 off a cliff, just buy an S 007. If your X-Pro1 is stolen, just buy an X-Pro2. Or is there still any reason to use specific cameras or lenses to help maintain the "look" and the integrity of your finished work?

Mike
(Thanks to George)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Keith: "This brings up an interesting question I've been thinking about. And you are likely one of the most qualified people to answer. The Internet seems to suggest that the 'magic' of the 16 MP Fuji X-Trans sensor (especially for black-and-white images) is not quite there in the 24 MP version. Since you have both; is this just internet hyperbole, or do you see a difference?"

Mike replies: You know, I would like to investigate that. Unfortunately the world here is nothing but white at the moment, but I'll try to get to it.

George Feucht: "Haha, I didn't expect to set off a whole new discussion. Interesting question, Mike. Also with 'HCB' I was talking about Harold C. Brown—his Leica is in terrible shape and the meter doesn't work. (Kidding.)

"I was talking about collectibles and the false projected value on them. I've never asked for an autograph, because it just really doesn't mean that much to me. I'd much rather have a 10 minute chat over coffee with a hero than some artifact. The same with a famous photographer's camera.

"Here's an interesting encounter that fueled this opinion: I was at a person's house and they had a beautiful Leica M3 on a display shelf. I asked about it, and the woman said it was her (deceased) father's camera. It was sentimental to her, but all I could think was 'That poor camera. It will never have a roll of film through it again, because it's now an artifact.' I clicked off the 50mm rigid Summicron, popped it on my digital Leica, and took a portrait of her. I showed it to her and said 'Your dad's lens still works beautifully.' It was a hint, but that camera will never leave its safe display case because they are too afraid to shoot with it.

"As for your question: Sensors are the new film stocks and lens signatures will always be regarded. However, the democratization of photography with digital means that lighting and compositions are more important than ever. If you can fuzz out your background on an iPhone like you could only do with a 135mm ƒ/2 before, you need to rely on vision and talent instead of gear."

Bryan Willman: "This is one of the things that drove me to sell all my Leica gear and go to Fuji X-mount. I want another body, I want another lens, I can just go and buy it, and I'm not competing with looney collectors."

Richard Skoonberg: "Professional photographers need standardization in the backup equipment they have to have. If a camera fails, a lens is dropped, or a strobe breaks in the middle of a shoot or during a wedding, it is important that everything remains consistent. If not, this can impact the overall quality of the delivered product. So there is a risk involved if you are using one-of-a-kind cameras and lenses in a professional setting."

Dennis Mook: "With modern and highly sophisticated image editing programs, with some exceptions, you can pretty much match any other camera and lens combination’s 'look' if you are willing to learn the software and put in the time. As a 'simple' example, one aspect of my Fujifilm X-T2 and Fujifilm lenses I like most is the 'look' of the images in regards to color palate. I was able to pretty much match each of the Fujifilm film simulations as Lightroom presets for my Olympus E-M1 Mark II image files. They are not exact but very close so now when I use my Olympus, the files look like the Fujifilm files. I’m only an amateur at this but companies such as Alienskin with their Exposure X3 editing software, DXO, the NIK plug-ins, etc., who are experts at this, in my opinion, could easily duplicate any film, digital camera or lens 'look.' The answer for me is buy what feels the best and works the best for you and if you want your images to look a certain way, put in the time and effort to learn how to edit them to appear that way."

["Open Mike" is the self-indulgent Editorial page of TOP. It appears on Wednesdays except when it's snowing, raining, or clear.]

I'm going on four years now with my Fuji X-T1. Want to buy it?

I usually keep my cameras for three years; also, I've been thinking for more than a year now of switching to a system with IBIS, because my handholding skills (at one time superhuman and legendary...well, okay, let me rephrase that: at one time fairly decent) are deteriorating as I continue to ruin my formerly superb athletic skills by exercising only my typing muscles.

I've also been thinking of two other changes, too:

• One is to accept the iPhone 7+ into my photo equipment kit, deliberately. That makes me shy away a little from  1" and Micro 4/3 cameras. Too close. Those solutions are great if you want a do-it-all jack-of-all-trades camera system, but with the iPhone filling in the lower position as the always-with-me "note-taking" camera, it seems logical to head in the other direction, to something with a little more IQ firepower, at the other extreme—FF or medium format—to counterbalance it. Of course I'm not sure this is logical; maybe it just seems logical.

• The other is that I want to experiment with a longer zoom. This would be new for me. I once wrote a review of the Nikkor 180mm that was sort of jokey and tongue-in-cheek. The article's conclusion was that nothing is far enough away from me that I need a 180mm...not even the moon.

But, as I've mentioned, up here in the Finger Lakes, my former hard-hearted attitude is softening. Pictures do seem farther away. I keep noticing things that might make good pictures that are much smaller crops of the visual world than I'm used to organizing in my mind's eye. I explained that here (ignore the Fuji-loving bits, which are still true. I still do love the Fuji. Never didn't. Don't hate it now. In fact, if you are looking for a huge bargain in a high-end camera, the large amount of depreciation on the X-T1 makes it a stellar money-saving choice right now. You can get a good body for less than $500 if you look around, and it's a hell of a $500 camera. The X-T1 is the Jaguar XJ Supercharged of cameras).

Of course, this consideration directly militates for a Micro 4/3 or 1" camera, because longer tele work is among the strengths of smaller sensors.

So: IBIS, possibly a larger sensor, and availability of a practical longer zoom...all these things together are complicating my choices. And, probably, clouding my judgement.

Recently, I've been investigating the Pentax K-1. According to B&H Photo's cataloguing filters (Pentax brand—>full frame), there are a dozen Pentax lenses available new for the K-1. Twelve. And several of those are legacy lenses designed for film. Some film lenses are not quite ideal for digital, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that film designs often left the innermost element uncoated, because reflection back from the film was not much of a problem. Digital sensors, on the other hand, are reflective, so you can sometimes get anomalous flare when using lenses designed for film on digital cameras. [UPDATE: See Keith B's comment below. —Ed.] That's not to say any of the older Pentax lenses won't work, or won't work in most situations, just that not all of them were specifically designed for digital cameras.

Compare this with 94 lenses that show up when you filter B&H Photo for "Nikon brand—>full frame." That might include a few duplicates. It would take too long to check.

Of course, there's no Nikon DSLR with IBIS.

I'm probably overthinking things. I usually do when it comes to cameras and lenses. I should probably just go with a K-1 and a 43mm, and add something like a nice Tamron 70–200mm zoom. No, actually I should probably just get an Olympus E-M5 Mark II (you can leave them in snowbanks, I hear) and a 12–100mm ƒ/4. (Except I'm officially frightened of Olympus cameras now...they are now more complicated to operate than my formerly impressive hominid brain can handle.) In the meantime I shall go on using my Jaguar XJ Superch...er, my trusty, much-depreciated Fuji X-T1. (Really, you should check out that Jaguar video, it's funny.)

As you can see, I'm no better at camera-buying decisions than you are. As my wise brother Scott once pointed out (he was talking about stereo equipment, but I think it applies to camera gear too), "You're good at giving consumer advice to other people, but bad at knowing what to do for yourself."

Scott knows me better than almost anyone.

So actually, what I will probably do is...just keep using the Fuji X-T1, as I've been doing since I started thinking about replacing it more than a year ago. The paralysis by analysis will continue until I just say the heck with it and buy a GX8.

Mike
(Thanks to all the people with dozens of lenses who made me feel better about myself yesterday)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Denise Ross: "The Pentax K-1 is the best camera I've owned. No contest, film or digital. Works perfectly in FF mode with all but the widest angle APS-C lenses. Beautiful with some of the old classic lenses. Great battery life. Funky, but wonderful, display screen system, especially if you do a lot of verticals. With a pancake lens, it's not even particularly heavy. Otherwise, however, it can feel like a beast. Still, I'm about your age and I'm pretty sure I'll be happy to tote it around for at least another ten years."

Joe: "While you've discovered that you could go a little more telephoto in your lens choices, I've discovered that I need to go a little wider. My favorite walk around lens used to be the classic 85mm ƒ/1.4, but I discovered that I tended to frame everything too tight. And no matter how many times I told myself that, when I framed through the viewfinder, I never took a few steps back. Only when I got home and looked at the images on the big screen did I see what I should have done. Finally I decided to force the change, and I started carrying a good 50mm ƒ/1.4 (the wonderful Sigma Art) instead of the 85mm. And sure enough, it made a big difference. It made me give my subjects more breathing room, made things more environmental. It worked.

"It's just funny that it took a hardware change to make it happen. Kicking myself wouldn't do it."

William Cook: "This would be amusing if I weren’t going through the same angst myself right now. By the way, word is that Panasonic is about to announce the GX9...."

Mike replies: I looked into the Japanese source, translating it via Google Translate, and it only says Panasonic is "testing" a camera called the GX9. It mentions nothing about an announcement, and nothing about whether the "GX9" being tested is a refresh of the existing GX8. And I've learned over the years not to wait for vaporware, because our minds are too suggestible...in the absence of evidence, we end up believing what we want to believe.

So, I dunno, could happen, but I dunno.

Jim Simmons: "The OIS on the Fuji 55–200mm is quite good. Consider that. This desire to shoot at longer focal lengths could just be a fad for you.  ;-)  "

Stephen: "I would actually be pretty interested to read a series from you documenting your transition to using a longer telephoto. I know how far from your normal preferences that is. I think it'd be fairly interesting to see what it was like for you to get used to using one."

Mike replies: I did this a couple of years ago with the 14mm (21mm-e) on the Fuji. I had never photographed with such a wide lens, never made friends with the focal length. I ended up keeping the lens more or less glued to the camera for six months or so and really made friends with it. And yet for some reason I seldom use the 14mm now. The experience emboldens me to think that I could learn to use a 70-200mm-e and make friends with it, but I'm not sure I'd end up using it as a go-to lens. The proof is in the experience, of course, not in talking about it. 

Dave: "LOL...you realize in 15 days Fuji will be announcing the X-H1, with IBIS. You can read about it here. And it will take all your XT1 lenses.  :-)  "

Mike replies: My belief is that it will be larger than X-T2, cost $2k, and be video-centric. Intended to compete with the GH5. Not sure it will be for me. We'll see.

Cliff Lee: "Borrowing one of the ‘Rules’ of cycling: Rule #12: The correct number of bikes to own is n + 1. While the minimum number of bikes one should own is three, the correct number is n + 1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s – 1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner. Replace bike with lenses, and I feel the rule would apply just as accurately!"

John McMillin: "Go for the Pentax, you won't regret it. You liked the Sony a900, and this is the perfection of that, with every feature plus more, and a much better sensor, of course. It won't fire ten frames per second while focusing on a speeding bullet, but that's not your style, either. Fret not about any lack of lenses. Between the few digital-designed lenses and those ancient manual lenses folks gab about, there are wonderful choices, not limited to the lovely Limited lenses. I've relied on the late-film-era F series Pentax lenses, which are sharp, small and well built. (I've never seen any trace of rear element flare on an image. I think that problem is situational, or theoretical.) Then, I've gradually traded up to even better lenses from the current line. If there are sharper lenses than the 28–105mm or the 300mm ƒ/4, I have no use for 'em. The biggest holes in the Pentax Lens lineup come under 20mm and beyond 300mm, but there are third-party choices. Oh, the 300mm crops to 450mm ƒ/4, and still fits in a jacket pocket.

"Knowing Mike's preferences, I think he'd be happy with the 31mm and 77mm Limiteds. The K-1 crops them easily to 46mm and 115mm with the twist of a dial, and can you say SQUARE FRAME? Sure you can, and you can see the results in the finder, too. Once I remember this 'Rolleiflex feature,' my compositional choices blossom."

Keith B: "Mike, I just recently noticed a photographic lens-themed meme propagating on the Interweb, Digital Photography Division: That the rear elements of many common camera lenses are not anti-reflection coated. Remember the one about how 'lenses with fewer elements give better 3D'? This one is even more demonstrably false. Go try to find one [a lens] that isn't [coated on the rear element]...I'll bet that neither you nor anyone else can. As a 62-year-old lens nut who has personally taken a close look at the rear and front elements of many, many hundreds...maybe thousands...of photographic lenses in the past, well...45 years or so, I can tell you that the number of post-WW2 interchangeable camera lenses that had un-AR-coated rear elements probably number between three and five. It just isn't true."

Mike replies: Thanks Keith.

The two most important things
about photo equipment:

How the lens sees the world, and
how well you see what the lens sees.

In other words, your understanding of how the lens will render the "pretext," AKA the reality in front of the camera; and, how well the camera lets you aim the lens, i.e., the viewfinder and your skill using it.

That's according to me, anyway.

Note that, importantly, this definition doesn't specify either how the lens renders, or what kind of viewfinder the camera has to have or how you will use it. It's always been an article of faith with me that you can take good pictures with any kind of camera, no matter how bad, and you can take bad pictures with any kind of camera, no matter how good.

But to me, the lens's characteristics and the viewfinder are the most important things about photo equipment. YMMV of course!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

marcin wuu: "Viewfinder was one of the two main reasons I switched to mirrorless. Being able to see the photo exactly (well, almost) as it will be taken beforehand is simply mindblowing. (The other reason is the ability to mount just about any existing lens. Geekery exquisite.)"

Jim Simmons: "The best combo of lens and viewfinder I've ever used: Leicaflex SL and 50mm Summicron (and 90mm Summicron). The viewfinder screen had a circular semi-coarse microprism in the centre, surrounded by what looked like a matte screen, but was actually a micro-prism surface so fine you could not see the texture. But when you focus the image, it 'snaps' into focus like no other viewfinder experience I've ever seen. The viewfinder's only drawback is that it shows a 92% view, not 100%, as it was designed to simulate what you would get from a mounted transparency, right down to the rounded corners."

Reader Crabby Umbo wrote a great comment on yesterday's post—here it is if you missed it. Like him, I started off with Speedotron, made in Chicago, although my photo school had the amateur Brown Line instead of the fancier Black Line equipment used by professionals. The first studio I was a part of had Black Line stuff.

Also like him, I've always liked "bare bulb" flashes, which is what I was taught to call light heads with the flash tube outside of the housing. I've been trying for 24 hours to remember the name of the bare bulb flash I had some experience with, but the brain cells where that information was stored have evidently expired. Cain't recall for the life of me, Maw. It was a regular on-camera thyristor flash with exchangeable head or tube units, and one of the several that were available was a bare bulb.

Personally I've always thought monoblocs or off-camera studio strobes ("strobes" are what we always called studio flash units of any kind, even though they are not technically stroboscopic—that might be a dated term now, I don't know) were easier to use than on-camera flash. On-camera units—what Nikon calls Speedlights—are complicated and hard to learn and I never trusted 'em, and the on-axis light of a hot-shoe-mounted flash is reliably crummy to my eye even if Lee Friedlander did do a lot of work with them. Off-axis light always looks better to me. Monolights are much simpler to understand and hence to use—I am talking about understanding the way the light will look, not just understanding how to control the equipment, but that too—and moreover, they're much more flexible and the light looks a lot better.

Bear in mind IANAE, I am not an expert.

However, Crabby Umbo makes great points about the directionality of the lights from ring tubes buried in attached reflectors vs. flash tubes outside the housing, especially with soft boxes. Do read his comment if you're interested in this stuff. Note that with digital cameras and maybe some ND filters you can easily test a softbox for evenness. He mentioned the Dynalite Baja B4 and take a look at this thing:

Now that's beautiful, with that big ol' bulb hanging outside the housing, and he's right, that's what you want to have inside a soft box.

This one's got less power than the cool Flashpoint I featured yesterday but then that's what higher ISOs are for. It recycles in three seconds instead of one, but unless you're paying high-priced models by the minute and trying to impress an art director with your flashy industriousness, I doubt you'll care very much. There's a more powerful B6 too, and a corded A6-600. I didn't look into their color consistency. Maybe someone will comment about that. None of them are very expensive by the standards of ye olden days. I can't afford a new light right now but I'm going to read up more on these, I like the looks of 'em. Thanks to Crabby.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Mike King: "Your on camera flash might have been an Armatar, a Vivitar modified by Armato for a bare bulb and a bigger capacitor, a Honeywell (probably not a thyristor) or a Sunpak 120-J. I've used a Soligor monolite for 30+ years and also have a couple of cases full of the old Bogen (Bowens) monolites."

Mike replies: I think that was it, the old Sunpak 120J:

Oddly enough there's a newer 120J II that you can still buy new for Canon, although I don't find it at Sunpak's website:

Wolfgang Lonien: "I have all books from Kirk Tuck—and did what he recommended: I got three monolights with 300Ws each. Love and use them all, and since they're not the outdoor cordless battery types, all three of them together cost less than the one you mention here. But: today (or maybe tomorrow) I think I'd go the Godox route, though maybe with an even smaller one.

"A good young photographer named Sean Tucker shows good work with one of these in his 'Mentors' video. I think his results are awesome."

Mike replies: An excellent video—I watched the whole thing, despite my low patience level with video presentations of information. His triptychs are terrific. It's ironic that when the final works were shown, I had to stop the video three times so I could look at them long enough!

Crabby Umbo: "Mike, thanks for the 'plus one'...I will say that to work around the poor diffusion of my current monobloc heads, I went to the fabric store and found grayish see-through material with silver sequins all over it, cut an eight-inch circle out of it, and had it sewn dead-center onto the internal diffuser of my current soft boxes. It shoots the hard ugly light coming out, right back in and all over at odd angles. It 'sort of' works better, but still not like the old 'long tube' Speedotron 102 heads in a soft box!"

Steve Rosenbum [sic]: "Fascinating posts. I don't do any studio-style work and rarely even use a camera mounted flash. So...you could be describing the differences between alien cultures on Mars and I wouldn't know the difference. Still, cool to read about another realm of photography."

[This might be a good time to mention that in Featured Comments, "site style" on TOP is to reproduce the commenter's name exactly as it comes in, which is why there seems to be no consistency in commenters' names. I assume this is our friend Steve Rosenblum, who neglected to type the "L" in his name. I hope he'll permit me to leave it the way it is to illustrate this point. And by the way, he's no bum. —Ed.]

STEPHEN R WALKER: "Godox makes a bare bulb unit, similar in size to a speedlight. But I say real photographers use a Speedo—Brown or Black, still quite a machine, from Chicago."

Herman: "Flash powder beats 'bare bulb' flashes by a long shot."

[Herman K., born 1926, is TOP's official Oldest Reader, a title we fervently hope he continues to occupy until he's at least 111. I'm sure he doesn't actually use flash powder—OK, pretty sure—as he is younger than I am in spirit and mental agility. —Ed.]

Another Mike who has been around since the old days: "Yes, and the XPLOR heads are the bare bulb type when you take off the reflector, and they have a head extension so you can separate the bulb from the power pack and put it on the top of a 20-foot stand without it being top heavy. Seems they thought of everything. It's all right here."

Mike replies: It does seem like that light has everything. That's kinda why I wanted to write about it.

Phil Aynsley: "I use a mixture of monolights and floor packs [above]. Always Bron. The monolights have traveled around the world about eight times in the past ten years or so. I simply couldn't shoot what I need to without them (plus a Canon 430 as a third light)."

I've always used monolights, AKA monoblocs, and I love 'em. I've always owned a monolight; never owned a good one.

What's a monolight? Just a self-contained studio "strobe" (flash) that doesn't require a separate power pack. 

The new Xplor 600 Pro TTL made by Godox and marketed by Adorama under the Flashpoint name goes one further: it's powered by a rechargeable battery, so you don't need to plug it into the wall. It's also wirelessly controlled.

I'm not that old, but, when I was in my late twenties, I was shooting with Kodak Plus-X rated at E.I. 64 (a stop more exposure than its ASA rating of 125), and I used a yellow filter (Wrattan no. 8, AKA K2), which cut out another two-thirds of a stop of light. And the lenses available then weren't terribly good wide open...I had a Leica 35mm Summicron, for instance (the so-called "Pre-ASPH") that I almost never used wide open—it wasn't very good at ƒ/2.

Light was a significant limitation on what I could shoot. I ended up switching to Tri-X (E.I. 200) with no yellow filter, just to ease the severity of that limitation.

Seems like ancient history now. The difference between photo tech 32 years ago and now is much, much greater than the difference between 32 years ago and 32 years before  that.

Now, of course, many good cameras are barely worse at ISO 800 than they are at base ISO, and they're usable with good IQ up to ISO 3200 or even 6400, with "acceptable" IQ even higher than that. (I usually argue with that word "acceptable.") And lenses are significantly better wide open than they used to be (although very seldom at their best. The old rule of thumb, to stop down two stops from wide open for maximum optical quality, is still generally true. There are plenty of online lens tests that will allow you to figure out your lens's optimum aperture).

Lighting conditions are much less of a limitation than they were even 32 years ago. I took a wonderful lakescape lighted by moonlight with my old Contax 139Q and Plus-X, but it took a 30-second exposure on a tripod. Now I can casually shoot pictures of the moon with my iPhone 7+ handheld and they turn out pretty well, sometimes. Better cameras than that, better capabilities. Brave new world.

The advantage of monolights are that they're portable and self contained. The disadvantages, at least of the cheaper ones I always owned, were lower power, slower recharge times, and longer flash durations than separate pack-and-head systems. Plus, the cheap models I owned usually had inadequate modeling lights that could barely penetrate an umbrella, and poor color consistency. Especially annoying was that some of them had different color light at different power settings! That's a headache.

Monolights have come a long-long way since I bought my last cheapie. Like one of Stefon's hot new clubs, the Xplor 600 Pro TTL has everything. A powerful modeling light, no wires, worst-case recharging times under a second and stable color consistency. I won't tiresomely list the features when you can get all that with a click of your mouse. It's cheap, too, at least compared to the professional Profoto, Elinchrom, and Broncolor alternatives it goes a long way toward competing with. The one big disadvantage: weight at the top of the light stand. Since I normally use such lights pretty close to the ground, for things like portraits and small tabletop objects, it's not an issue for me. But if you regularly hang lights 20 feet in the air then you might want a more lightweight head.

The big question...with today's equipment, do you really still need a monolight? Well, define "need." All I'll say is that once you have one, it's surprising the number of things you can think of to do with it.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Peter Wright: "I had never owned monolights; just regular flash guns and PocketWizard triggers, until recently when I sprung for the Godox AD200 system. It's a lot less expensive than the unit you show, but more than enough for my needs including using umbrellas or other modifiers (still has about three times the power of any on-camera flash). The triggers are flawless.

"Re 'All I'll say is that once you have one, it's surprising the number of things you can think of to do with it.' Absolutely true! (Especially when you combine it with modern cameras that have base ISOs of 200 and up, and new lenses (like the Olympus PROs) that are designed to work at max aperture.) I had a great time over Christmas subjecting my visiting family to my low-cost mini studio!"

Michael Perini: "As W. Eugene Smith said, 'Available light is any damn light that’s available.' Even though modern cameras are very capable at high ISOs, light levels that require ISO 1600 or 3200 are often not beautiful light. Keeping an open mind about supplemental light opens new possibilities. For those who reflexively dislike flash, it’s good to remember the toupee effect—we only notice the bad ones. I’m a big fan of a little ‘help’ when conditions warrant. The featured unit certainly covers all the bases."

Ken Bennett: "Love monolights, have always had a bunch of them around. The new Godox stuff (Flashpoint at Adorama) is well thought out. Some older flash companies ought to be looking over their shoulders....

"Last Wednesday I put in a request for an quote on some more Flashpoint gear at Adorama, including another Evolv 200 (I have two already) and one of the Explor 600 monolights—the less expensive non-TTL version. On Thursday the news came out about the 600Pro—darn good timing, as I would have placed the order that afternoon.  :-)  The 600Pro specs are good—half the recycling time (which was already fast), more light output, and a well designed reflector that takes up less space in my rolling case. The downside is the total full power flashes drops by about 1/3, but that's a trade I will happily make for faster recycle time. Of course they have high speed sync and even TTL with most camera systems. The Evolv 200 works like a champ with both my Fuji and my Canon gear. I'm thinking I need to donate or trade in the large pile of Dynalite and Elinchrom gear in my locker and get a half dozen of these new 600Pro monolights. Maybe a couple of spare batteries."

B&H's "Mega Deal Zone" of rebates and promotions ends at midnight tonight. There are hundreds of items discounted, only a few of which I can personally recommend. Most notably, the Silver Graphite Fuji X-T1 is back down to $599 again. Note that in my experience the Fuji X-Trans files convert particularly well to B&W, and I find 16 MP to be fine for B&W. The still-excellent X-T1 might be a great camera for you for B&W shooting. Next, if you've wanted a Panasonic GX8, you can get one for only $748 if you can accept the silver version, which apparently is selling slowly. The black version is still $1,197.99.

A few more items I can recommend—if you trim prints or cut down larger sizes of paper or film into smaller ones, you will find a rotary trimmer invaluable, and $89.95 for an 18" model is a great price.

There's a Manfrotto 190Go! compact carbon fiber travel tripod with head for $289.95. I like the leg locks on the Manfrottos, they're easy to use.

The Tokina AT-X 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 PRO FX zoom is on sale for $619, but only for Canon. The one in Nikon mount is still $949. Compare to the Canon 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II at $1,699. Tokina was originally founded by former Nikon lens designers who wanted to be a little more adventuresome and were frustrated with Nikon's inherent corporate conservatism.

Freehands fleece shooting gloves are only $14.95 in Men's small, medium, and large, and only $4 more for extra large. Women's sizes too.

Calibrate your screen with the Datacolor Spyder5 PRO. $60 off.

There's also a Canon kit, a Sony kit, and a Panasonic kit that are extremely keenly priced.

Go nuts!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Dave Karp: "You are 100% right on with your paper cutter recommendation. Years ago, I agonized whether or not to buy an older version of the Rototrim cutter. It was available for a great price at a Freestyle Photo sidewalk sale. I bit the bullet and bought it. Cameras, lenses, and other equipment have come and gone, but that trusty cutter has been invaluable. I never regretted spending the money for a moment once I started using it."

Mike replies: My trusty Rotatrim 36" has been serving me well for so long that the clear plastic piece has yellowed. Still razor-sharp, though.

Acreage comparison between Fuji X-T1 screen and iPhone 6+ screen

Here's one small way that smartphones are better cameras than other cameras, which no one seems to ever talk about. What if you see—recognize—pictures better on a screen than through a squinty eyepiece viewfinder?

I suspect this of myself, although I'd really rather not admit it. If it's true I'd prefer not to know.

There are all different kinds of viewfinders. There's the old battle of rangefinder vs. SLR viewing—the difference between composing through a glass window with pan-focus and composing through a lens at its widest aperture with limited D-o-F. Now we have DSLR OVF vs. mirrorless EVF to consider too, with many flavors of implementation. In ancient times you could add TLR viewing and view-camera viewing on the groundglass.

Sportfinder on a Graflex Crown Graphic

There's even the nothing-but-air "sportfinder" on the old Crown and Speed Graphics, which consisted of a little ring of metal in the back of the camera to position your eye, and a rectangular wire frame on the front of the camera that puts boundaries on reality for you similar to what the standard 127mm "wide normal" lens will see.

We learn how to "see" (compose) with all of these, or rather with whichever ones we choose to use, but the question here is, are some people better with some types than with others? I think many of us are, given all the hot bother I used to read about rangefinder vs. SLR viewfinding. And is that just a preference, or does it have a qualitative effect too, an impact on how well we are able to compose pictures? That is, when we have a viewfinder that suits the way we mentally organize pictures, are the pictures better?

It's a small thing, but it must be admitted: the screen viewfinder on my iPhone is bigger and better than the screen view on any of my digital cameras. So if I do see better "flat," at some distance from my eye, rather than squinting into the tunnel of whatever kind of eyepiece VF, then that has to go down as a tick-mark in the "pros" column for phone cameras. I mean, if we're being fair. Much as we hate to admit that phones are better than real cameras in any way besides connectivity.

Of course, this is offset by the fact that in bright sunlight, you sometimes can't see the screen of a phone at all. Then it becomes a worse viewfinder, obviously. The not-so-obvious solution to this would be a hood of some sort, like the folding hoods on TLRs or film Hasselblads.

Picture this
I can't quite envision how a "real," i.e. larger-sensor, interchangeable lens camera optimized for a large viewing screen with a hood would look. But picture this. Start with a body shaped like a cube, like a film Hasselblad body only smaller. On the front of it there's a lens mount. On top of it, so you look down on it when you're composing, TLR style, there's a large square screen. The screen has a fold-up, fold-down hood for in-use/in-storage modes. On the side of the camera there is a handle, adjustable in angle like the handle on my Rolleflex 6008AF, and somewhere on the body there is a dial for switching between square, vertical, and horizontal viewing/capture. It would be kinda like a digital TLR, with no need for the twin lenses of course.

As I say, I don't know how that would look; I certainly don't know how it would sell. (I just think about what photographers need to do good work, not as much about what products would impel customers to the all-important point of sale.)

But it would be an interesting design and engineering challenge to design a real camera that was optimized around a screen viewfinder, rather than having the screen be a secondary afterthought tacked on to the back of a conventional-looking camera, with no hood to shade it in the sun. The camera market provides lots of choices, but within a rather narrow range. There's nothing like this currently, just like there's no reasonably-priced B&W-only camera.

Sometimes I wish I worked for a camera company. I could be the Gyro Gearloose.

Getting back to the way my head works, it's perilous to my ego to consider that I might "see" (compose) better with a flat screen than with a more lifelike and dimensional eyepiece view. But I do have to admit that I suspected this using my old Exacta 66 (with waist-level finder) long ago, and again with the iPhone during my recent project which is now wrapping up. Or, concomitantly, that I might prefer EVFs to OVFs because they tend to "flatten" the scene, that is, make it look more two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional, which (I suspect) aids me in visualizing what the picture will look like as ink on paper.

But I don't want to know. I want to believe I can do anything, with anything! SuperMike, superphotog, no limits! Well....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Ernest Zarate: "This is why I keep coming back to TOP—such a wondrous rumination on a tantalizing possibility: a camera designed around a screen! In my freshman high school beginning photo class, we used TLRs (Yashica, Mamiya and Rollieflex), so that design is very familiar to me and has a special place in my own history of photography. Not to mention the square format...bliss. I have no idea what your proposed VF-centric camera would look like (is your photo at the top of the article a starting point?), nor how it would sell...but it has the potential to be a sight to behold—literally. Thank you, Mike, Superphotog, for giving me a thoroughly enjoyable vision to ponder this weekend."

Jeff: "I probably learned the most about composition by using a large format ground glass. Turning an image upside down is a technique used in art classes (and one I still use with my prints and even when doing Lightroom edits. By the way, you can buy a mint first version Leica Monochrom for just over $3k, not cheap but a lot better than the original $8k asking price. Dealers have samples that have recently had sensors replaced due to a corrosion issue that has now been solved. And you get a fully checked out camera from Germany."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I think your wish is long since granted."

William Schneider: "While not quite a real-time viewfinder in the traditional sense, some studio shooters use yet another option—tethered shooting. Supported Nikon, Canon, or Leica cameras can be tethered to a computer running Lightroom and can quickly display frames as they are taken. There's nothing like having a large computer screen to view your work critically for focus, exposure, lighting, and composition. All it takes is a USB cable to connect your camera to the computer. A list of Lightroom-supported cameras is available at Adobe. In addition, there are Wi-Fi to tablet solutions available. These methods more closely mimic working with a view camera's large ground glass, but are used with a small camera that can be handheld. For grizzled view camera users, the best thing is that the pictures are viewed right-side up."

Kevin Willoughby: "Take this to the logical extreme: the iPad has a huge viewfinder. (The biggest iPad viewfinder is bigger than an 8x10-inch view camera's groundglass!) For me, the iPad does let me see the final composition in a way no squint-and-peek viewfinder I've ever used. The old Rollei TLR viewfinder, on the other hand, seemed to tell me more about the tonality of a B&W image than I can see with an iPad. Maybe because of the low-contrast ground glass?"

raizans: "I've been wishing someone would make a digital camera with a waist-level finder for years! I got the idea back when EVFs were still really bad. I always imagined a form factor more like the Rolleiflex 6000 series or HY6, but not cube-like. It would be mirrorless (preferably Leica M-mount) and flattened like the Hasselblad X1D, except there would be a tilting LCD with a folding hood. The Hasselblad V1D sort of stole my idea!  :-)  In an alternate universe, the American camera industry would be making stuff like this, along with digital panoramic cameras based on 1" to APS-C sized sensors, and also crop sensor technical cameras and tilt-shift lenses for amateur architectural photogs."

Hugh: "Am I unusual? I've 'seen' the picture (previsualised?) before I lift the camera to my eye. I’ve a pretty good idea of where the edges of the frame will fall at any distance, probably because I’ve used the same three prime lenses (35mm, 85mm, 135mm) for over 30 years. Possibly using zooms prevent that. Did anybody ever compose a photo using a Leica M series viewfinder? You just had to practice until you knew without looking where the edges of the photo were...."