I do goofy stuff like documenting gear I’m using and the setup. I used to take a lot of notes but in my old age when shooting digital I’ve become lazy and just make a couple of pictures of the setup, gear I used, etc. I love when I accidentally capture something I use over and over, something I rediscover, something I can share and never really documented it before.

I don’t remember the first time I observed an effect I’ve used and abused for the last 30 years. It’s in my notes somewhere but when testing a portable flash unit a while back and documenting what I was using I rediscovered something I wanted to share. I am not one that buys ever size and shape of softbox, I’d much rather use some sort of diffusion material and blast a bare head, or speedlight through that. Better yet, I usually bounce that bare head off a reflective surface then through a diffuser of some sort or another.

In testing the Elinchrom ELB portable flash pack and head I was doing just that. I was using one of those fold-up 5-in-one reflectors/diffusers you can get dirt cheap, disposable cheap. I unzippered the gold/silver part and chucked it on the floor, then proceeded to set up my flash head and inner diffuser of that 5-in-one panel. I made a couple of shots documenting a “behind the scenes” instead of writing it down and happened to catch something difficult to explain but noticed decades ago and use to this day…

Look at that magical light when you have diffused light hit a sliver reflective surface and then on to your subject. I cannot even begin to recount how many times I’ve used this in countless variations to make very natural looking and beautiful light in the most meager and crappy circumstances. I’ve done it with mirrors in bathrooms. I’ve done it with liver mylar, I’ve done it with $1.99 “space blankets”. Special tip of the day… you only need one light, diffuse it, bounce it, and reflect it using what you have rather than buying a ton of specialized tools and modifiers. Play with one light and model it off of things you’ve already seen happen with God’s light, the sun.

Think way back to what put Fuji on the map… the X-100, then the rapid follow-up of the X-Pro. Quickly Fuji decided they wanted to be competitive in the system camera market and slowly they started to make cameras and lenses that were more the same as every other modern camera, measured by an autofocus and EVF mentality instead of making a better OVF/manual focus camera. I have zero doubt at this point that 97.641% of X-100 and X-Pro users use those in EVF and autofocus 99.999999% of the time and care far more about how it looks instead of how it functions as a manual focus, optical viewfinder camera.

You may remember I mentioned that I quickly ditched my X-Pro 3 and repurchased the ugliest, most beat-up X-Pro 2. I also ditched all of the Fuji lenses I owned except the original 35mm f/1.4 and 18mm f/2. I liked those lenses because they both had renderings and performance that reminded me a lot of my favorite classic 35mm optics. Good wide open but with some charm and character but stopped down they were great. They were relatively small and not complete hunks of plastic crap. They were by no means lenses that gave a great manual focus experience but I had high-hopes which never materialized.

There were good reasons for those high-hopes, take the 14mm f/2.8 as an example. This was one of the minuscule number of second generation of lenses Fuji made, the ones that had the push-pull manual focus engagement, a distance scale, a DOF scale and a somewhat better set of haptics for something of a reasonable manual focus experience. High hopes but alas the quickly abandoned that vision. I personally hoped that these lenses marked a vector to make a camera that actually provided a good to great manual focus experience along side auto-focus. That never happened.

The bottom line is Fuji never had and probably never will produce a camera and set of lenses that have a great or even good manual focus experience. Count the reasons…

1. The lenses feel terrible when manually focusing them, no pleasure, not tactile reward.

2. Bad haptics and bad ergonomics. Not only don’t you want to use them but the whole disconnected fly-by-wire thing provides nothing stable to rely upon or reference like we’d experienced with great manual focus cameras in the past.

3. I guess the distance and DOF scale in the viewfinder in manual focus mode are ummm useable but certainly not optimal.

4. The manual focus assists while turning the awful disconnected focus rings never really were as good, nor as pleasant to use compared to manual focus cameras.

5. No muscle memory, no visuals, no pleasure, why bother? The entire implementation pretty much sent you back into and auto-focus mentality.

This could be said of all digital, auto-focus cameras except the Leica M… again. I still have my X-Pro 2 and the two lenses mentioned above. I am not sure why I have it except it doesn’t represent any sort of large investment and I do use it occasionally. I don’t use it as an auto-focus system camera. My Canon’s are far better at that as they always were. I kind of use it as a similar in size Leica M kit that I don’t care about much.

I set it up to function as a “don’t care much” M substitute by using the OVF with none of the not-so-great EVF helpers. I have it set to manual focus all the time but use that AF-on button on the back to turn the lens and hit a pre-selected point in the scene as I would with any manual focus camera. I use it in full manual exposure choosing an ISO before I even start making pictures. I only use the play-back every once in a while if I REALLY need a test polaroid/histogram. In this manner I truly use it only when I want to take a manual focus approach and am not using my M cameras, digital or film. What’s the difference? It provides very little in pleasure and compromised viewfinder, and other features of a full manual focus mentality.

I want to reintroduce to those that forget and to those that never developed a manual focus mentality. In opposition to an auto-focus mentality where everything is about how to react as quickly as possible to a scene a manual focus mentality is all about approaching a scene with everything already thought-through. Everything evaluated and chosen with intent, wrong or right, this mentality and all of the things done with intent is in preparation or pre-visualization. In many ways this is the fastest way possible to react to what does happen.

In practice this mentality is not about speed, or precision or, anything auto-focus related. Instead, this approach and mentality will cause you to make completely different pictures than you would have. In many ways this approach will make better pictures overall because of your mindset and approach. Even in retrospect, I would say autofocus is not only not required but counterproductive for 80% of anything most of us shoot. Thinking all of those things through given a set of restrictions can and will force you to rediscover to see as cameras see, which is pure magic, rather than overcoming the way cameras see.

If you consider manual focus as a mentality and most of the scenes we make pictures of have zero reason to react immediately the big question is how pleasurable do you want that to be and what factors in a camera help you to approach a scene this way as opposed to clutter your mind and your ability to use the camera. While you can use just about any camera with a manual focus mentality the real question is how good is that experience. In most cases I’d say all modern auto-focus cameras are not a great experience.

I think about this more and more now as I shoot far less film. I hope Fuji and others besides Leica think about this and provide more offerings. I had high hopes for Fuji but I’m not sure they’ll be able to deliver. I’d love to see them revive the X-Pro and innovate the living crap out of the OVF and manual focus experience. I’d like them to put that camera on the level of an M camera, not by copying it but by giving us something unique. Their lenses are electronically coupled, it seems it would be easy to project something like the Canon manual focus indicators into the OVF that would be as precise and stunning visually as Leicas RF patch. They could match the optics in the OVF. Better yet they could bring back those push-pull lenses but give us better haptics. Until then, go shoot a roll of film on a great manual focus camera and try to remember to use a manual focus mentality when it might be a better approach to 80% of the pictures you make.

I stopped caring much about ISO, noise, dynamic range, BSI sensors, and all that other stuff that the internet continues to rage on and on about to this very day. This year, 2026 will be my particular 10th anniversary with the Canon 5DsR variant (I have the other one as well but I have only made a few shots with it to compare, if you can pick one of these up either will do fine get the cheaper one, in my experience the “regular one” is actually more rare but often less money). If my memory isn’t failing I think the 5Ds/R was released in 2015? I purchased mine about a year after release. I still consider this the pinnacle of DSLRs. It’s a better 5D mkiii in every way and probably the most stable, vibration free DSLR ever.

I won’t hash through that again but that camera is still my do-it-all camera I use almost every day for almost every subject. I don’t carry it around as an every day camera, out and about with me everywhere I go. I don’t use it as my ultimate photographic pleasure vehicle. I use it as a workhorse that gets out of the way and does nothing to irritate me. Even when new it was considered an inferior camera due to noise, lack of high ISO capabilities, dynamic range, etc.

I stopped caring much for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that once we crossed 10 or more stops of dynamic range I didn’t care. More over even those supposedly far, far, superior cameras (mostly Sony sensor cameras) really didn’t show a ton of advantage after base ISO. The dynamic range advantage quickly disappeared when shot at 200, 400, or higher. Which brings us to ISO invariance, something almost completely misinterpreted as “dynamic range” or lower noise. In reality it’s more like a neat parlor trick where you can shoot at “base ISO” then jack up the exposure insane amounts and it looks just like if you had set the ISO correctly… wow, look ma.

Does anyone do that? Why? If you start down the road of because blah, blah, blah or non-invariant sensors have “amp noise” or any of that I’d say it doesn’t really matter. In a lab it might but in terms of making great pictures it just doesn’t matter. Long gone were the days of horrendous digital misbehavior, even way back in 2016.

There are a few things to consider here, one is ugly noise which I agree just looks bad and terribly digital. The 5Ds/R has very small, mostly luminance noise that looks a lot like film grain, no simulation required. What’s more is at 1600 ISO (maybe even 6400 as I am being very conservative here) it looks way more like really low ISO 35mm film, even low ISO medium format film. I never had an issue with grain, depending on the context, in many ways it can set a mood and imply the lighting environment. All the ISO invariant, crazy amounts of exposure manipulation, pushing shadows many stops, all of it really doesn’t help photographs to be good.

In many ways drastic exposure manipulation is wrong-headed. Massive manipulations are serve as some sort of half-measure to changing the light in the scene. They mostly stem from making pictures in the wrong light for the kind of picture you wanted in the first place. Yes, I know people love to watch crappy pictures revived into WOW in Lightroom, and Photoshop, etc. Wow, will you look at that… are they good pictures? Meh, they are forgettable pictures for the most part and have none of the impact great pictures have. In many great pictures it’s using the light and working with it, imagining and knowing how cameras see the scene, recognizing that opportunity and doing a reasonable job of capturing it.

Let your shadows go black, make it part of your style, be more graphic, use less contrast sometimes, use way too much, double down on some of the things your trying to “fix”. If it’s dark why make it look like it was bright??? Use the mood, see the scene and the light the way cameras naturally see the scene and lean into that instead of trying to overcome the way cameras see light. I promise, you’ll have more fun, be more satisfied, and make better pictures.

I choose these pictures on purpose as these were an experiment to see what would happen if I used this camera at an extreme. Could I make dusk look like daytime window light given the color, props (dress, sunglasses, etc) and pose. The answer is yes, the question is should I? Probably not but just about every camera in the last decade and more can do this, but should you? Probably not. You’ll find far more joy living with limitations. Forget auto ISO and safe shutter speeds telling yourself you’ll decide what the picture looks like way after you make it. Let some motion blur in, let shadows be murky, carefully evaluate your highlights. Have fun, make better pictures, don’t worry about new gear so much.

Disclaimer: I have not touched the M-EV1, I don’t have to for the purposes of this post. There are valid reasons I suggest this but won’t list them as I am sure you’ll see my reasoning throughout this newsletter and either agree with their validity or dismiss them because I’ve never used one.

I’ve used M-mount glass on many, many full-frame EVF based mirrorless cameras. I’ve never done that in the context of real photography. The only reason I’ve done so is to prove/disprove and evaluate M lenses against other glass instead of reading other Leica shooters opinions about certain properties that I questioned. It is amazing how hard it is to find head-to-head evaluations of Leica lenses, especially highly vaunted, legendary M glass against other lenses. It’s hard to find that even with reasonably controlled circumstances on different bodies let alone the same body. Given how long that’s been easy to do one has to question why they are so rare. I speculate there are two reasons for this even though every M photographer I know has another system mirrorless or not.

1. People interested in this are non-M photographers but don’t own any Leica M lenses so they can’t. What’s more their interest falls short of buying into the Leica M system. Let’s call this curiosity at best.

2. People that own M lenses, especially those made by Leica and especially the high-dollar modern M lenses really rather not know or if they do they do not want to demonstrate results that don’t “optically” justify the purchase.

Merely my speculation, maybe I’ll dig up some of my tests and put them out there. Here’s the bottom line. Leica makes good glass. In many cases throughout the decades one might even say superlative glass when that lens was “new” compared with the competition. Today they still do make great lenses… for their size. The important qualifier there is the “for their size” part. Personally I am not that interested in “perfection” at any size. I love the size of M-mount glass from Leica and other providers. I’m not a collector nor do I have any desire to buy “the best” lens Leica can make such as the 35 and 50 APO lenses, don’t care.

I won’t go into crazy detail but I’ll give one example of Leica M lens nutty-ness that has existed forever and literally exists to this very day. Let’s take the case of various 35mm and 50mm Summicron lenses. Like many newer versus older lenses older models tend to have less contrast. Most normal folk consider more contrast = better lens. Not in LeicaM-land. I’ve seen endless debates on how older Leica lenses are far better because the lower contrast leads to better shadow detail???? Wrong and stupid. I continue to hear people talk about the Leica “glow” when referring to brand new M lens designs that use everything in the book to eliminate anything that could remotely be referred to as “glow”.

Yes, many older, much older Leica M lenses do very much have a “glow” to highlights in particular. Any other brand and people would throw that lens in the trash, glow yea… right… I’ve been provocative enough to challenge that with friends that are Leica shooters and use that term off-handedly with things like the new 35mm ASPH designs etc. I challenge them to show me, right here and right now. I’ll use my regular old camera with whatever happens to be mounted and we’ll see if you can show me. Never happened, never will. Want “glow” buy really old Leica glass or a bunch of other glass from the same era with similar glowy flaws. Hey, I am all in on lenses I like to use and produce a result I like. I love my Leica M Summitar, there aren’t many lenses as glowy as that. What’s great about that lens is the size, the feel, and how remarkably good it is when stopped down.

I thought this was about the M-EV1

The M-EV1 is a camera for people that want to shoot M-mount glass with an EVF. Most Leica shooters can already do this as most Leica M shooters already have a mirrorless camera and probably an M-mount adapter. I know photographers that have a Leica SL camera just to do this and own no SL lenses, not even Panasonic lenses. This camera is for those people who want an EVF for the occasions where they will get better hit-rates than using the Noctilux, or a 90mm/2, or a 135mm wide-open than they will on a regular M camera. The same will also want perfect framing on wider lenses.

Will they get the “best” way to shoot those lenses with an M-EV1. The short answer is absolutely no with absolutely no qualifications. I’ll give you a list of reasons for that assessment.

• No argument about Leica’s current EVF from the SL-3, the Q3, and now the M-EV1 having a gorgeous high-resolution EVF with great optics in front of that EVF. Here’s the rub, it suffers massive performance issues in low light just like the snap-on Visoflex they already sell.

• The EVF also suffers in absolutely horrific focus peaking visuals as do all EVF’s, maybe even worse. Where the M-EV1 is supposed to shine it fails miserably with respect to the newest competitors, all of which you can fit with M lens adapters. Even the SL cameras are better due to better processing of the EVF data.

• If you want “perfect” and quick focus with lenses like the Noctilux or any of the wide-aperture super-shallow DOF M mount glass the M-EV1 is not the best option. You will have to punch in to be precise, you probably have to do the same with an SL. In my own assessment other mirrorless cameras do better in this department. Let’s hope for a firmware upgrade or something.

• I expected something truly great, something really innovative. Something like Canon has had for a while with their manual focus guides, or more recently the Nikon light-up focus point.

Yes, I know the Canon and Nikon focus confirmation aides work differently and depend on lens communication but conceptually, especially in the Canon focus guide case, this is the true successor to the rangefinder patch. It’s perfect, it shows you a small square with two arrows that get farther apart or closer together depending on how far out of focus you are, better yet they turn gray when they are PERFECT. I’d imagine you could easily simulate that with computing power (the kind that can detect and track eyes in real-time) rather than the rough, not so precise focus peaking of a decade ago. Punching in sucks, it is not fast and has most of the downsides of using a real M in Liveview.

I almost never criticize Leica on “performance” vs price because using any sort of quantifiable price-performance metric is silly. If you want the Leica form factor and the best rangefinder you can get with all the haptics an M presents and access to all the Leica M and screw-mount optics in that package it’s a niche market producing premium products and the price is the price. I do however criticize a few things like gouging loyal customers that support the company and want to continue to see it produce cameras like the M via absolutely unjustifiable prices for things like a battery ($200+) but worse in my opinion is the price positioning of products like the M-EV1.

Can and should this new not-a-rangefinder EVF camera command an $9000 price tag? Let’s see if we can justify this? It’s a niche product that will definitely be a lower volume product than anything like a Sony, Canon, or Nikon in a similar form factor. Yes, I would never expect it to be price competitive with anything that is remotely similar. Secondly, it is a premium product by some measures. It does have a high-end EVF with high-end optics you view that component through, that’s important. It is made from high end materials, it’s not plastic. In that way a premium price is warranted.

How about looking at the purely within Leica-world. I’d have to say it is absurd and accidentally signals who this product is for. Remember that guy I mentioned above that uses an SL to shoot his M lenses but owns no SL lenses? That guy that wants an EVF but has an M. The M-1EV is for that guy, that guy who will pay more money for a worse experience and be happy for it. Yes, you can buy a Leica SL3 or an SL3-S with the same build quality and a better EVF experience for less money. More money, worse EVF experience, no option for some great/better SL glass but it is an M. That is who this camera is for, the guy that is shooting and SL3 with M lenses that will definitely pay more… because it’s an M-something-or-other. This is obvious because of that $9000 price tag.

For those who would argue with me. Let’s take a look at a brand new Q3 at less than $7000. Not cheap, no complaints but you get a body with the same sensor, same imaging capabilities, a better EVF experience, a decent MF experience, AF, and a superb, arguably the best 28mm optically as a bonus. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s for who I think it should be for but Leica is so, so, worried it will not sell many that they are going for the only market that is “safe”. That safety in really low numbers exists only in the M-buyers market. It’s a really high priced EVF for M-buyers.

I wish they were more courageous and priced the M-EV1 where it might shake things up a bit. I think they should peg this camera $5,000. This would really shake things up and give Leica buyers something to think about. Consider this…

• Current Q camera owners now have a choice of grabbing a “43” to complement their “28” or considering the possibility of giving up AF and getting an M-EV1 and a 50 of differing specs for “around the same money”. A real gateway into the M system.

• Same for those M-curious non Leica customers. Would it be so bad to give more people a way into a new M and a lens that would be palatable? I think more than a few of those entry customers would save their pennies for an M11/M12…

• You might even cut into a heck of a lot of manual lens on mirrorless shooters at that price point.

• And yes, you’ll still sell a $5,000 OVF to those M customers that have it all.

With this pricing definitely would produce more volume, you did it with the Q cameras. Are you sure you can’t do it sans lens with a very similar M camera?

At first glance you might think these are completely different cameras for completely different photographers but they are more the same than one might think. The biggest difference is probably the price with the M10 still approaching five grand for the body alone. All of these cameras can be had used and all of them probably hold their value better than the run-of-the-mill digital cameras of the same vintage. The surprise you might not expect is that the GR is the king in terms of costing more used than what it cost new. The other two are great values compared to newer models.

All three are in the realm of “compact” cameras that would be considered for those that might want something different than a workhorse do-it-all camera you already have. While the do-it-all camera system can be made far more compact merely by what lens you decide to take, these three cameras primarily exist to limit choice to one degree or another, keeping what you carry compact. All three are also in that sweet-spot of 24mpix sensors.

Who are these cameras for?

There are plenty of photographers where each of these might be the primary, one-and-only, camera but for most they are a secondary camera. You certainly don’t need all three, especially if you own another “do it all” system camera. All of these are luxury second system cameras unless you settle on a very limited, restricted set of choices as your only camera. I own all three in addition to my “do-it-all” Canon stuff… Why?

The Fuji X-Pro

Long ago this was the “flag ship” of the Fuji X line-up. Today it’s still the official top of the line but in reality Fuji updates the X-pro far more slowly than the rest of its cameras. I’m not sure we’ll see an X-Pro 4 and I’m not sure Fuji knows what to do with it. If we do see a fourth rendition I expect it will probably be the most expensive body in their line-up but I am not at all confident anyone, including myself will have much interest. I was one of the first out of the gate to by the X-Pro 3. Surprise, I sold it after about six months because I consider it a total flop. There was not one new feature I considered better than the X-Pro 2. In fact I found the cheapest, most banged up X-Pro 2 I could find and bought that. Today you can find a well-used X-Pro 2 for about $1000.

The entire purpose of this camera was the optical viewfinder and Fuji really screwed the pooch on this version as they compromised its functionality and focused on a better EVF. From my point of view there is absolutely no reason to buy the X-pro if you are primarily, or even exclusively going to use the EVF. How did they screw it up? A ton of ways, too many to enumerate but here’s a few…

• The old OVF was fantastic and innovative, they even one-upped Leica. Yes the OVF was not as good optically as a Leica but it had two zoom levels, one for wide lenses and one for normal/short-tele lenses. Gone… I loved how great the old one was with 28mm lenses, even 24mm lenses, the new one was terrible for anything under 50mm (35mm equiv).

• The new better EVF was not that much better. I couldn’t tell unless they were side-by-side. The new EVF was certainly not on the level of the Leica Q or even the SL. Worse was the changes made for a better EVF experience sill compromised even the not-bad but not-great EVF they installed.

• Added non-sense features like that fake film-tab screen on the back that showed what film simulation was selected.

• Oh and a screen that you could not use unless flipped down… kind of a low-courage way of emulating an M10-D that has no screen at all. Honestly a stupid idea. In my opinion they would have been far better off by just getting rid of the back screen entirely like the M10-D/M11-D. You still have the EVF for settings, menus, and image review as an escape hatch… To many compromises for the concept of this camera.

• Titanium. Hmmm, sounds good I guess. No charm at all beyond the notion that titanium=good. Magnesium was fine, actually better. The execution was crappy and honestly in the best pictures as well as real-life that thin titanium look cheap compared to the painted magnesium of previous cameras. They doubled down on this with a super-durable coating that cost extra and again looked horrible most of the time due to finger prints. Even the painted version just didn’t look or feel as good as the previous models. Fail!

• A “better” sensor that did nothing except prove that the wonky X-trans filter array arrangement doesn’t seem to work well as the resolution increases. Want proof'? How come the GFX medium format cameras don’t have it but have all the same “film simulation” JPEG settings???

Okay, that’s enough. Fuji had courage when they introduced the X-100 and then the X-Pro 1. They did improve while still being courageous with the X-Pro 2. They lost their way with the X-Pro 3 and I don’t think they know where to go with this given the flag-ship position and pricing. My suggestion is to back off the “must be better” than the XT line as a do-it-all camera and double down on the OVF goodness, give photographers a version without a screen for an M10-D thing (better weather sealing and maybe even less cost as opposed to Leica). Make it clear the XT is a do-it-all and the X-Pro is not instead of trying to make it so. Give us a real premium feel and finish like brass and paint, the X-Pro 2 paint was great, give us a gloss option too. Make it an object of joy. Give us a monochrome version EXCLUSIVE to the X-Pro line. Heck Leica just stole the X-E concept from you and put made an M.

Let’s face it, Fuji is now a system company that is far more interested in delivering a system camera that can compete with Canon/Nikon/Etc than they are at being a niche camera company. They have two cameras to consider if you want some sort of non-system camera, The X-100 series and the GFX100RF, the X Pro-3 was a strange beast trying to be both a system camera and a specialized use camera, it failed at both. In a way the X Pro cameras are kind of specialized use cameras that have a “system camera” escape hatch. I discovered that by ruining my Fuji X experience entirely when I jumped into it as an alternative to my Canon system way, way back.

The Leica M

Every body knows this camera and its system. It is not a general purpose “do-it-all” system. It’s not supposed to be. For some it can and is their only camera but for most it’s not. There are a lot of things to like about the Leica M. It’s limiting and it forces you to make different choices and approach subjects differently by giving you no options. It’s not at all like a Leica Q or Leica SL system, there are no escape hatches when you choose an M camera. The Leica SL is an escape hatch of sorts for manual focus M glass but then again so is any other mirrorless camera with a cheap adapter.

I love my M cameras and in the film days it was my everyday carry camera. Most of my favorite photographs of my children were made with a film M camera. The lenses are ludicrously expensive but you don’t need all of them, there’s no point in having all of them. You only need the ones that you are going to use on the narrow field where this camera shines. There are many third-party bargains out there now as well, some of them in the great category. The M is meant to be a limited system where you can travel light and self-limit what your options are.

Note I used the term M rather than a specific model. Why do I own a digital M is really the question… It’s a simple answer, film prices are just too high for me to use my film M cameras. Personally I’d rather shoot a film M camera and I have zero interest in better, faster, higher resolution M cameras. My 24mpix M10 is fine and always will be. Maybe a monochrome version is in my future but probably not. Shoot an M for the shooting experience and how it forces you to approach subjects differently. Shoot an M to forcibly limit your options, Shoot and M to remove any notion of carrying a large bag of gear. All great reasons, heck if you already have settled on a restricted amount of lens options and your photographic world revolves around that limited set of options go ahead and make it your only option.

The Ricoh GR

The two cameras above may not seem similar but in practice they should be. Why would one want an M camera or an X Pro with a giant bag of lenses and other crap? Honestly I don’t see the point. Yes, you could put a zoom lens on an X Pro but why? In practice the M and X Pro will primarily be used with one lens, something in the normal-ish category hooked to the camera most of the time. The minor difference is that one might chuck an alternate lens in their pocket “just in case”. If a normal is your go-to lens you may chuck a 35mm or 28mm in your pocket. The reverse is also true. The GR is a camera where you want a wide and don’t have the option of a normal in your pocket.

Now there’s an option of making that more of a normal lens only decision as well. We have the GR IIIx with a 40mm in addition to the 28mm. In practice for what the M and X Pro are actually good for, you can see they are practically the same camera with one giant, glaring difference — size. The GR can and does fit in your pocket. The other two do not. The GR is literally a take it everywhere camera, the other two can be but there are so many times I have decided not to take either. The GR is a real camera that like your phone comes with you everywhere. That is the difference. Unless you actually bring your M or your X Pro or your X-100 everywhere the GR is the option where you will.

I’ve owned the original APS-C GR and got rid of it because at the time it was superfluous. Most of the time I had another camera with me so it was an add-on. It’s the same reason I got rid of my X-100 cameras in multiple versions. If I was unwilling to bring an M or and X-Pro I was unwilling to bring my X-100. Not so with the GR but I didn’t realize that at the time. That’s the GR’s killer feature and it’s why I didn’t bother comparing it to The Leica Q cameras that are arguably more comparable given the fixed-lens, auto-focus, and now focal length parity with the GR IIIx and the Q 43.

Not so final thoughts

I’ll share some of my fixed-lens camera thoughts as well as my impressions of “image quality” between these cameras next time. Until then I am in a place where I think fixed lens cameras are fine, even great for cameras that will actually go with you everywhere. If they don’t I’m not sure I’m on board but might be.

Let me clarify the title. Most cameras and lenses produce the same results, or results so similar in 90%+ of picture-making circumstances that you could choose any of them. Clarifying that a little further, I don’t mean all focal lengths are the same nor do I mean that all film formats (if using film) are the same. Almost any APS-C, Full-Frame, or 44x33 medium format digital cameras produced in the last decade using just about any equivalent focal length produce more similar results than different results.

In my photographic pursuits, I’m constantly reminded of this. I make mistakes in choices of what gear I acquire all the time. I make fewer mistakes than I did a decade ago, more importantly, I choose a particular camera and lens I use for far different reasons than I used to.

The Similarities

Let’s take two very different cameras with two very different lenses. First up is a full-frame 24-megapixel camera from 2017 using a lens made in the 1940’s. The other camera has an APS-C 24-megapixel sensor released in 2016 using a lens released in 2012. One camera is manual-focus only with only one focus aid, the other has a bunch of auto-focus modes with 27 options of focus points and how one might use the focus mechanisms.

Taking a closer pixel-peeping view should reveal how different these rigs are… Surprise, they aren’t different, at least not in these conditions, with these exposure parameters. Surprise I didn’t even use the meter in either camera, I used the sunny 16 rule. That turned out to be 1/2000@f/4 ISO200.

Yes, if you do the math you’ll come up with 1/3200 shutter speed but I used the shutter speed dial instead of the fine-tuning crap available on the APS-C camera and decided to use the next shutter speed down instead of up. Why? I know both camera’s characteristics for ”real exposure”. Just as I would know which way to err on two different 400 ISO films.

The difference sure is subtle. I see a bit less depth of field at f/4 between the two. That’s expected given the two different sensor sizes and respective focal lengths for an equivalent field of view. I also see that those two lenses are not exactly the same field of view or image magnification either. The 50mm has a slightly wider field of view with correspondingly slightly less magnification.

Sharpness is the same, contrast is similar as I made no contrast adjustment between the two. Rendering of in-focus and out-of-focus areas are extremely similar in ”look”. So why choose one over the other? Why do I own both? When would I choose one over the other when deciding which one to take with me? Why do I like either of these cameras and lenses instead of the innumerable other choices to be made? All good questions but the answers depend far more on how you work and knowing these answers for your particular needs, desires, psychology, etc. Why the X-Pro 2 instead of the X-Pro 3. Why the M10 instead of the M Typ 240 or the M11? All of the answers to these questions nothing to do with “better” in the way all of us have been conditioned to think about camera gear.

Some Short Answers

I take the X-Pro 2 with me when I have no idea what I want to photograph and am likely to spend zero time considering the subject matter and how to approach it. One example are events that have nothing to do with any project I am working on that are fluid and I’ll be making a ton of random pictures while mostly participating in the event’s activities.

I take the M10 with me when I have specific subject matter and intent. I’ll be making far fewer pictures with a very specific “look”. Circumstances where I don’t want to be distracted away from specific kinds of pictures I already have in mind. In many ways the M10 (and all M cameras) put me in a zone and puts me in the moment with no distractions.

Putting it another way, the M10 (and my M4 with film) will absolutely influence the way I work while allowing me to super fine-tune “the look” and providing the simplest and best way for that particular way of working. The X-Pro 2 provides a compromised version of what I like about working with my M cameras and a “look” that is close enough in a pinch.

Longer Answers

I love optical viewfinders, especially range-finders but that holds true of SLR type cameras as well. This is more important to me in most of my work than any niggles of various performance parameters. I have zero need ever of fast frame rates or even motorized frame advance.

I like the optical design and general look of the Fuji XF 35mm 1.4R, the newer lenses do nothing for me. It has fantastic optical performance where it’s focused and focus falloff and transitions I find pleasing from f/1.4 to f/4. It does have a “look”. In many ways I find it’s look similar to some other 50mm lenses I’ve liked including some versions of Leica summicrons.

The lens used on the M10 shown is my chameleon 50mm. As you can see at f/4 it’s as sharp as a new lens where it counts and has a similar rendering. This all changes wide open. It gets crazy, swirly, and glowy while remaining reasonably sharp in the very shallow plane focus. It takes care in use wide open but produces an unmistakable look.

What’s really important to you? Is it based on experience or projection of what “should/might” be important to your own work?

While I’m not setting any records, using expired film 11 years out of date 400-speed film is not something I prefer. I was so giddy with the results from the ancient 100-speed film, ancient Diafine, and ancient Ilford Rapid Fix in my last go-around, I decided to chip away at the brick of 400TX languishing in my freezer. This time with a more analytical approach.

I wanted to know the state of affairs with base fog, shadow speed, and all the other parameters to successfully use that old brick of Tri-X. I already had an idea the Diafine worked similarly to when I first mixed it, now I wanted to know how good (or bad) that HC-110 developer was. The bottle certainly appeared degraded. Instead of clear yellow syrup, it was dark orange and murky. The plastic bottle had imploded due to the small air space at the top presumably being gobbled up via oxidation of the secret recipe.

Testing The 400TX With Diafine

I loaded up a roll in the Leica M4 and made 36 frames side-by-side with my Leica M10. I used the M10 to get a good baseline film exposure at ISO 400. I then made two exposures on the Tri-X, one at 400 and one at 200.

Theoretically, fresh Tri-X should look great with more than enough shadow density at box speed using Diafine. The one-stop overexposure was compensation for fog and loss of speed due to age. Diafine from my experience produces very low contrast highlights. After souping the old Tri-X my expectations of low contrast highlights were met merely by seeing the negatives. Time to get technical…

I scanned the negatives using my Canon 5DsR and a well-diffused strobe. More on that another day if anyone is interested. Time for some analysis.

I pulled them into Capture One (anything with levels or curves controls would work). A quick explaination of my methodology would be helpful. Possibly useful for those of you using a camera to scan film as well.

• I inverted the curve making the negative a positive. Now the blacks are the highlights and the whites are the shadows.

• I set the white point of the curve to the film base (see the right hand of the curves control). This is now absolute black. The specific brightness value was 219. The absolute value is dependent on my camera exposure but as long as it was below 255 it’s fine.

• I set the black point to a fully exposed, fully developed frame of maximum density film that was part of the film leader. This would be the theoretical maximum highlight density possible with the film and developer. The specific value in this case was 17. Again this is specific to my “scanning” exposure but fine as long as it was not 0.

All of this was to get a numerical baseline that I could reproduce and compare to the HC-110 as well as get a good idea of the shadow speed of the film in both developers.

Testing 400TX With HC-110

Old film with really old HC-110. I had to decide where to start in terms of development time and dilution. I settled on using a stronger dilution of B and adding 10% to HC-110’s recommended time.

Why, you ask; The HC-110 certainly has lost some degree of activity, I just don’t have a clue with how much. It also has a minimum amount of concentrate per roll based on fresh activity. If I used a more dilute solution I ran far more risk of it completely pooping out. Dilution B is extremely strong, so much so many films require extremely short development times that are not viable. Above 70F dilution B is not used much. Here are the results so that we can compare them to the Diafine.

Using the exact same setup, we can see that the black point (max film density for highlights) is not only similar it turned out identical - 17. On the other end, there’s a material difference in the base+fog density. The white point (absolute black) is 236 vs 219. So what does this mean?

• First off is that the HC-110 works and is viable to process the rest of that brick of 400TX.

• It certainly confirms HC-110’s reputation of having low fog, at least compared to Diafine.

• I see no significant difference in shadow speed between the two developers but this film certainly does not have any tolerance for anywhere near one stop of underexposure that is typical of 400TX.

• Based on the one-stop over-exposure frames that seems to be too much compensation for the age, so it looks faster than 200 but slower than when it was fresh.

• The HC-110 does produce markedly more contrast even with the black and white points neutralized but not nearly what I expected given the use of dilution B and the 10% extended time. The HC-110 is certainly less active than when fresh based on my prior experience.

I’m going to use a semi-zone exposure methodology being fully aware at 400 ISO there is zero flexibility and err on the side of a bit more exposure when measuring for zone III (two stop under for deep shadow). For general shooting, I’ll probably use 320 ISO. Both of those decisions go hand-in-hand with 25-30% more time at dilution B. I am guessing about that extension of development time based on what were zone VIII (3 stops over mid-gray) exposure in my test frames vs max density measurements.

Conclutions

While it is certainly not wise, I am going to use these ancient materials for actual project work. I am going to use them soon. Stay tuned, the next Refigerator Resscue will be a far more methodical approach to the brick of Legacy Pro 100 (aka Acros 100v1).

I have a lot of film in my fridge. Most of it has been there for well over 5 years, some of it more than a decade. I did shoot a roll or two during the COVID lockdowns. Beyond that test to see if the C-41 color films were worth anything I’ve not done anything with it. The only reason I can fathom why I’ve let it expire and age into oblivion is that film cost has become unaffordable. Even black and white film costs about the same as color. It’s hard to justify $35/roll including processing.

Fast-forward, I found three rolls of 35mm B+W film in the side pocket of a camera bag I’ve not used in five or so years. I chucked a few things together to make some pictures of my niece and discovered a roll of TRI-X, Acros 100 (the old version), and Legacy Pro 100 (allegedly Acros 100). I have no idea how old these are but I am guessing at least a decade. On a whim, I loaded up my beloved Leica M4 with the Legacy Pro 100.

While I made a few pictures that day, I randomly made a few frames with the M4. I wasn’t being careful about considering exposure and probably made a few errors as can be seen above. Either that or my M4 is in dire need of a CLA? The next day I made a few more crappy pictures to finish off the roll as it was only 24 exposures again not being careful or scientific.

I didn’t plan on developing it that day. In fact all of my B+W chemistry is way older than 5 years old. I was thinking none of this old crap is going to work. I don’t know what possessed me I decided to develop it anyway. I couldn’t even find my daylight changing bag so I used a blanket in a dark room.

I threw out the working strength Ilford Rapid Fix as that was definitely no good. On my side was the fact I had an unopened bottle of the concentrate. For a developer I chose Diafine I mixed in 2016, they do claim it lasts forever. As I went through the simple process of the time/temp agnostic two-bath developer I said to myself, ”this is never going to work” a hundred times. I remember saying the same thing to myself the very first film I developed myself at 14 years old. This is never going to work.

It worked! I felt giddy, similar to the way I felt that very first time. I couldn’t believe it worked. I definitely won’t be paying $35/roll to shoot a lot of film (unless I experience some sort of unexpected windfall) but it’s ridiculous not to use what I already have in the refrigerator. This time I’m going to be a bit more scientific. Next up is testing the ISO of my old film and the strength of that decade-old, unopened bottle of HC110.

In a galaxy far, far away…

Sorry, that Star Wars opening was the first thing that came to my mind when thinking about my first interchangeable lens and the camera that came with it. Or is that the other way around? Why that phrase? I don’t quite know but it has something to do with how long ago that was and that the first Star Wars was released the same year as that first camera/lens combo came into my possession.

For a very long time that one lens, the normal lens as everyone called it, was my only lens. On 35mm film cameras that bundled “kit lens” was almost always a 50mm. In many ways I’m glad for the years I spent with the constraint of one focal length. That constraint taught me many things far before I could articulate them with the correct photographic vocabulary. The most important thing is how important it was to choose where you stand in relation to the subject you are attempting to portray. I’ll venture that where you choose to stand is the most important choice you make with a close second being when to release the shutter.

At first, the choice of where I stood had everything to do with framing the subject. Hard lessons to learn because framing dictates the endless choices of composition. Without realizing it I somehow started to notice what is referred to as perspective. Perspective is tricky to work out on your own with one lens. That critical aspect of the relative size of things changes entirely based on where one stands. I think that notion of perspective made me slowly understand wide-angle lenses and telephoto lenses far before I obtained either.

I don’t remember when the light bulb turned on but I do remember pondering why prints I made of the same “framing” looked way different depending on if I stood closer than when I stood farther away and cropped the enlargement to get the same framing. I noticed it on portraits first.

Slowly I became aware choosing where you stand first, then choosing the framing was super important. My next purchase was a 135mm so my tight portraits didn’t need to be cropped like they did when I used my 50mm. My next lens a few years later was a 28mm. That 28mm was a bear, it took me a very long time to figure out how to use it. Fast forward a decade and I finally learned that the closer you are to a subject the faster everything changes with tiny changes in where you stand, camera angle, and relationships between foreground and background.

When a zoom lens is attached to the front of my camera I tend to treat it as a bunch of primes. I still choose where I want to stand first then choose the focal length. This might sound like what everyone does. In reality I see many photographers choose the zoom setting based entirely on where they happen to be standing. It’s a very different mentality resulting in very different pictures.

The mini-project I’m working on now (working title = Water Colors) has everything to do with where I choose to stand. The gradients of light on the water, the intersection, and the arrangement of objects within that gradient, all of it changes wildly a step or two in either direction and just as much if I stand, sit, or lay down.

As I narrow down the aesthetic, color palette, and level of abstraction I’ve been experimenting with the best focal length to carry with me for overall visual cohesion as I collect images and refine what the overall project will look like when I finish this fall. I’ve ventured out with 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm equivalent fields of view. I’ve almost settled on the 75mm field of view (speaking in terms of 35mm full-frame) but just to be sure I decided to take my trusty and very versatile 105mm f4L out for a spin.

The opportunity for framing with any of the wides was extremely limited based on framing and the huge number of things to arrange in the frame. I am glad I experimented a little bit as the 24mm angle of view gave me some ideas related to this project and the possibility of extending the concept but truthfully to pursue those visuals I’m going to need to be in a boat.

My trusty, do anything 50mm would work. Even so, a very short tele like 75mm seems to be the perfect framing for all of the places I was choosing to stand.

The 100 to 105 was just too tight and gave fewer opportunities than even the wides which surprised me. You may ask, why not just bring the zoom, choose where to stand, and frame away... I am looking for a very cohesive visual aesthetic for my target of 20 photographs and at this point the way I am looking at the project I think I may want a very similar perspective and geometry in what ends up in my final selections. Looking at it another way I am also limiting where I can stand and the size relationships of things in the frame.

This project is weird for me as I can usually choose my perspective and where I stand arbitrarily. Here I must choose based on the light, the sky, and a fixed arrangement of “stuff” I cannot move. I see and talk to many photographers that primarily shoot landscapes and use a zoom based on where they are standing instead of figuring out where they want to stand and then choosing the framing. Is that a habit based on merely having a zoom? It may sound the same but in practice, it is very different and produces very different results.

I don’t know how many of you use primes vs zooms but in either case, choosing where you stand first may be an eye-opener if you’ve not approached subjects that way before.

The price of film has become almost unaffordable as of 2023. I guess you might be able to shoot 35mm black and white on somewhat of a budget assuming you buy bulk, load your own cassettes, develop, and scan it all yourself. Color film, especially higher speed professional color film processed and scanned is getting to the point of bank account threatening.

I’ve long been an advocate of shooting film occasionally. I think it’s valuable that get in the habit of shooting far too many frames of the same subject, from the same viewpoint, and hoping something will change for the better as we waste time doing so. Slowing down, thinking creatively within the limitations of a small number of frames and refining your vision instead of accumulating worthless multitudes of frames is a great exercise for just about everyone.

I have shot more digital than I have film for quite a while, probably a decade. My film shooting informs my digital use far more than the other way around. Now even my meager use of film is looking like it may have to be reduced. I’ll probably not chuck it out completely but yet again I’ll have to relegate it to endeavors that are more of a sure bet than speculative experimentation.

Let me offer an alternative for those of you that might also be feeling the pinch of film costs this year. How about a crappy but challenging interesting lens? The lens mentioned in the title is one I did an installment of ridiculous lens comparisons on a while back.

Obviously, it’s manual focus. Beyond that, that lens will bite you hard if you’re not careful with the background vs the aperture used. It also has low-tech lens coatings making it do interesting things in suboptimal lighting conditions. Oh, yes, the rendering wide open isn’t even close to high resolution towards the edges of the frame. You have to actually compose, choose a rendering, focus carefully, decide what should be sharp, guess what might be attractive rendered in the odd way the lens renders at large apertures then take the picture. Sounds a lot like film doesn’t it?

I’ve started to expand and refine a play-project that I’ve messed around with in the last couple of years (inspired by and shot on film). Instead of using film I’ve used three different digital cameras and that old Summitar. I’ve also used a preset (which I do not tweak) inspired by the film I used in the past. My verdict is that using that lens and constraining the “look” via one preset goes a long way to being very much like film. I only take that one lens with me to avoid temptation and also to feel as unburdened as I do with a small 35mm film camera and one lens.

I’ve not completely decided on which particular digital body of the three I’ve tried but I will soon and I’ll stick with that for this installment of the project. So far it’s been the Fuji X-Pro2, the Nikon Zfc, and my Canon R body. Yes it’s more like a 75mm than a 50mm on the later two cameras. Although I am still digesting the photos I’ve made, I am leaning far more toward the APS-C bodies as I think the isolation and compression of standing farther away with tighter framing is leading me to a different place than my previous work.

More later. Have any of you been shocked at 2023 film prices in terms of “how high can they possibly go???”

The picture at the top is one of my beloved Nikon FE 35mm cameras. I have more than a dozen FM, FE, FM2, and FE2 cameras in the typical chrome and my much preferred black paint finishes. I like the FE cameras the most. I rarely need a shutter speed over 1/1000s and more importantly, they don’t have the model plastered on the front, they are prettier. Of course, the FE and FM also have a flip-up lever so that mounting Non-AI glass is possible as well. The FM2/FE2 eliminated this feature.

Way back before there was a digital option and for sometime after that, my cameras consisted of Leica M for everyday carry, Nikon 35mm for longer lenses and general use, Hasselblad medium format for the bulk of “work stuff” and a large format camera for occasional technical product photography and alternative process endeavors. I dabbled with other 35mm film camera systems. I always had a special place in my heart for the Olympus OM cameras. I tried to love the Contax G system but couldn’t, if only it was manual focus or had mechanical manual focus…

I was invested in Nikon, I loved my FM/FE bodies, my F/F2/F3 bodies, and I loved the lenses in my collection. They served me well and were completely reliable. Along comes autofocus and then digital. I was not a fan of the F4 and definitely not the F5. These things were as big as my Hasselblads. Worse, I was not enamored with the shitty plasticky autofocus lenses.

I looked longingly at the Canon autofocus cameras, especially the new lens lineup that was with them. Finally, Nikon produced the F100 and a couple of AF-S lenses like the 28-70 f/2.8 AFS. Any day now they would start pumping out some well-built autofocus glass, some great lens designs, and better autofocus for the occasions it helped. Any day now…

Fast-forward a bit, digital was now here. I still used film for my personal work and the vast majority of any other photographs I made for others but I bought into the Nikon DX system in the form of the D2H and the D2X. Now I just had to wait for the DX glass. I waited and waited and waited and waited. Meanwhile, Canon had already gone full-frame and had a ton of L series lenses which everyone had to admin were superior in many ways to the shitty plastic full-frame lenses Nikon had (with a couple exceptions). Nikon continued to tell all of its loyal customers DX was the way of the future, smaller, better, faster lenses were “why”.

Then it happened; Nikon abandoned DX to amateurs and there was never to be that pie-in-the-sky DX glass that was smaller, faster, and better. Overnight every Nikon digital shooter bought into the D3. I held off. Yes, it was better in every way than the D2x and the D2h, miles better. Then again it was not miles better (for my purposes) than Canon’s full-frame line-up. It might have an edge in high ISO or frame rate but that’s cause um 12 megapixels. Canon had that in the 1Ds and the 5D version 1 way before Nikon. Let’s wait and see…

During this tumultuous time of digital, those heady days of new camera announcements constantly that really were “better” in material ways for many normal picture-making tasks, I had issue after issue with Nikon bodies. Remember the oil on the sensor scandal? That wasn’t just the D600, it was also the D3, D3X, and a few other cameras. It was most famous with the D600. Speaking of the D3X, Nikon’s answer to Canon’s full-frame high resolution, remember the D3x Hitler rant? I believe it was the prototype for all rants that came after. Funny but not funny if you are a Nikon shooter.

Worse, my autofocus Nikon glass had all sorts of issues. Three of my plastic AF full-frame lenses went belly-up. Not because of mistreatment, abuse, or any kind of physical stress. They failed while gently using them without any fanfare. How did they fail?

• 20mm AF-D: Broken aperture permanently stuck closed

• 50mm 1.4 AF: Broken aperture permanently stuck closed

• 105 AF Macro: Bad electronics, refused to operate on ANY autofocus camera even if you wanted to manually focus.

This was when I started the on-again, off-again, on-again love affair with the 5D series cameras. Eventually, I sold all of my Nikon AF cameras and lenses never to look back. That was a good decision considering all of the subtle issues I’ve helped other photographers work out on their D800’s, D810’s, and yes their D850’s. To this day I think the Canon 5DMkIV and 5Ds/R are better cameras for most people than those. Let me know if you want the details.

That brings us to the one Nikon auto-focus lens I still own, the AF-D 105 Macro. The picture at the top of the post was made on my newly acquired Zfc with a speed booster Z-F adapter. I still own that lens not because I need or like it but because I couldn’t sell it for more than a few dollars given it doesn’t work on any Nikon AF camera. Works fine if the camera has no idea it’s there as a completely manual lens. It’s not built as well as my Canon 100L Macro and I am sure if I had the means to test both the 100L would probably produce higher resolution if it mattered. Maybe not but I trust these Nikon lenses far less than the distance I could through them.

I trust all of my manual focus Nikon, Leica, and Zeiss lenses far more to work exactly as they always have than any modern, motorized, electronic-laden lens. At least I’ve found a use for that 105 macro after a decade of it laying around. It’ll come in really handy for the one time it makes sense to have a really small camera body like the Zfc with a really big Macro lens rather than my Canon or Hasselblad macro options.

Given my propensity to prefer pretty cameras over features that do nothing for my particular photographic endeavors, you’ve had to guess I’d purchase a Zfc sooner or later. Turns out that my acquisition was later rather than sooner. I was tempted the day it was announced. Why the delay? Why the wait and see?

The big obstacle was the DX/APS-C sensor. I have zero Z-mount lenses and don’t have a plan to acquire any. Even if I had plans, Nikon has shown no loyalty to an APS-C system ever in terms of small, fast, well-built primes specifically for an APS-C system. All of my F-mount lenses are manual focus, all metal gems from the past. I shoot those on some of my favorite 35mm film bodies. We all know APS-C sensors are not great if you're not a fan of telephoto lenses and more of a wide-ish shooter. Heck, I don’t even own a Nikon F-mount 35mm to work as a normal lens. The closest thing I have is a 28mm f/2. The dozen or so lovely 50mm lenses are now short telephoto lenses. So short that I wouldn’t use them much.

So what was it that tempted me? I was not enamored with the various non-traditional color schemes on offer. I’ve always preferred black-painted cameras over chrome versions. I guess it was a few months ago when Nikon offered the somewhat limited, available directly from Nikon black version that drew me in. I didn’t jump at it but then recently they offered a $100 discount with that plastic-fantastic tiny zoom lens. I could resist no longer, my rationalization skills took over and two days later the black Zfc arrived on my doorstep.

Is the Zfc as bad as they say?

No, the criticism of being too plasticky is not the case at all. I think the bulk of those comments step entirely from the battery door and the flippy screen. There are possibly two or three digital cameras ever produced that don’t have shitty-feeling battery doors, there are even fewer cameras that have any sort of movable screen that doesn’t feel plasticky. The rest of the camera feels just as solid as an FM/FE.

The other thing that may cause this feel is the unbelievably cheap feel and featherweight lenses every reviewer has paired the camera with. Any of the lenses that are typically paired with the Zfc are extremely light and all plastic. The kit zoom, the 28mm f/2.8, and the 40mm f/2.0 are all very light and very plastic.

If you adapt an old F-mount lens to the Zfc it feels more like an FM/FE film camera than you might imagine. In fact, picking either up it’s difficult to distinguish one from the other until you feel the controls on the back of the Zfc or look through the viewfinder.

Where did Nikon go wrong?

The executive summary; Nikon was not brave enough to get rid of features and tried to please both people that wanted a modern feature-filled camera as well as those that wanted a classically styled, paired-down photography camera.

Nikon did incredibly well in reproducing the FM/FE body. The textured leatherette on the body and viewfinder are incredibly similar in look and feel. The finish, at least on the black version I have, is almost identical. It looks like paint, we’ll see if it wears like paint and shows magnesium down the road. They even accurately copied the odd, non-centered proportions where it’s wider on the shutter speed dial side than the film rewind/ISO side.

The problem arises in the decision to festoon the back, front, and top plate with all sorts of unnecessary buttons and controls that are uncomfortable and error-prone to use. They are extremely difficult to use as one that wants to use classic adapted lenses would want to use them. The camera is too small for the rear control layout, period, full stop, end of story.

Zooming in or out when using manual focus in critical situations is cumbersome and error print. The function button on the front is impossible to miss when handling the camera so it’s always being inadvertently activated. The PASM modes are completely unnecessary for classic use. Why not just get rid of them and put “A” on the shutter speed dial like the FE/FE2? If you want a multi-mode camera get the Z-50. The D-pad sucks and so does the button in the middle, not because all D-Pads suck but because this one is too stiff and too small. The buttons crowded into the space between the D-pad and the screen are almost unusable. This is all especially true with your eye to the viewfinder.

The articulating screen and placement of other internal electronics are such that the sensor is nowhere near where the film plane is on the FM/FE. This causes lens adapters for F-mount, or any SLR lenses to be very long, far longer than if the sensor was mounted anywhere near the back of the camera. Mounting an adapter and a 50mm lens produces the same size camera as an FE with a 135mm lens mounted as shown above. Ironically M-mount lenses would be better and more in line with the overall size when using the Zfc.

Bottom line

Is the Zfc the optimal camera for those that like to use either new or vintage manual focus glass on a digital body? Absolutely not. Is it usable, fun, and worthwhile for that purpose? Yes, especially if you are looking for something super small, good-looking, and to do double duty as a modern autofocus point-and-shoot you can take anywhere.

Right now I am working with a very small kit that consists of the Zfc, a 50mm 1.4, a straight-through adapter, a speed-boosting adapter, and that tiny featherweight zoom that Nikon insists you buy with the black version. This is a tiny kit that gives you high-quality (but slow) autofocus 24mm-75mm equivalent, 50mm f/1.0 for shallow DOF and speed, and of course a 75mm f/1.4. That one vintage lens you select can be fine-tuned to your needs of the day. Do you want something dreamy and imperfect or something bitting with a bit more modern rendering?

Do vintage lenses work well with the Zfc? Yes, in fact, some of the vintage F-mount lenses work better than expected, better than they did on my Nikon Df. Two examples are my 18mm f/3.5 AiS lens which has always worked fine on APS-C as 28mm but was hopeless on full frame in strange colors etc in the corners. On the speed-boosting adapter, the 18mm seems not to have those weird color problems in the corners. The same holds true for the 28mm f/3.5 non-AI and AI lenses which suffered the same or worse until f/8 or so. In fact, the 28mm f/3.5 really has a unique look cropped or on the speed booster that I like when wanting a vintage look.

I’ll experiment with the custom control settings to see if I can get the Zfc anywhere close to how the X-Pro 2 or X-Pro 3 works with manual focus lenses. Right now either of the Fuji cameras is far more fluid and natural shooting manual focus lenses than the Zfc but if I can work out a control scheme that gets it close I’ll consider it a win.

I forget if the Canon 17-40L or the 24-105L is the oldest. There close in age, both are what could be considered second or third generation EF lenses. Both were the precursor to a lot of modern lenses that were absolutely amazing in terms of value and versatility. Both of them are have been trashed in various bullshit arm chair quarterback forums for well over a decade.

The common cliche is neither are real L lenses. In any case, neither of them deserve the shade cast their way. I think the notion that both of them are not worthy of mounting on your camera came from the people who had spent twice as much or more for their f/2.8 lenses the year before each was released. I am sure that the buyers of the 16-35 2.8L version I were especially irritated that this much less expensive lens handled better and performed far better. How dare Canon make a better lens that cost less…

If you don’t have one and shoot either Canon digital or film do yourself a favor and grab one. I am serious it’s been one of my favorites since I belatedly bought one to replace my 20mm f2.8 that broke. You might even be able to find one free. I am also serious about that I know a couple of people that got theirs free from photographers that upgraded to either the version II or III or the 16-35 f4L. Here’s the funny thing; none of the lenses before the version III 2.8L perfomed as well in the corners as the 17-40 and they generally had more distortion throughout the range. The 17-40 has very low distortion from 24mm to 40mm.

But, but, but what about those awful corners you have heard so much about? Don’t worry about them. Sure they are far from perfect but how do you use your super-wide zoom? Landscapes? If so they’re probably pretty boring as the only way to get across the frame sharpness is by shooting things really far away. If you have any close foreground, either it or the background is out of focus anyway. If you worry that much about across the frame perfection get a tilt-shift.

The above shot was a grab as I wasn’t the hired gun to shoot this wedding. That woman in the background giving e the evil eye was. Guess how much of that frame is actually super sharp. Very little, even at f/5.6 there’s a very narrow plane of focus no matter what lens you are using. This is not even as close as I usually use this lens. What about bokeh? Well, stopped down to f/5.6 I’d say there is plenty of separation.

It’s super hard to tell the difference between a wide-zoom at f/4 and one at f/2.8. The only reason to get the latter is if you shoot in the dark which as you know that one-stop increase is not usually the difference between good and bad. Get yourself a 24 f/1.4 instead. That is my next lens, or at least that’s what I’ve been telling myself for a decade but haven’t gotten around to actually needing it. I’ve made out fine in terms of the bokeh department using my super-wide super-close.

I wish Canon would make a real replacement for this, one that is totally self-contained with absolutely no extension at any zoom setting. It’s light, it’s constant aperture, it’s plenty sharp and it’s super cheap now. It’s been super cheap for years and years. Need a beater lens for those situations where you’re scared to take your brand new EF/RF $2000+ lens, grab one of these for a song if only for that. I will assure you that you’ll quickly become a fan.

In our last installment of ridiculous lens comparisons I attempted to demonstrate that most lenses, even the most reviled, are extremely competent and comparable. The difference shows up in edge cases. I proudly use all sorts of unacceptable lenses that I’m sure many photographers would consider unsuitable, even unusable. My Canon 24-105 f4L version I, my Canon 17-40 f4L, and all sorts of crappy glass like the subject of today's musings; the ancient Leica screw mount Summitar.

I have a few photographer buddies that spend a ton of money shooting Leica digital M bodies with both older and brand-new Leica lenses. None of those people using anything as old and crappy as the Summitar. It’s kind of funny given that even when using lenses such as the 35mm Summicron ASPH or a new-ish 2000’s 50 Summicron they speak a lot of some je ne sais quoi Leica glow that drives their choices.

I tease a lot when I ask them to “show me”. Invariably they show me an image that doesn’t really exhibit any distinguishable characteristics beyond a reasonably sharp image shot at a wide aperture with a reasonably okay blurry background. Of course, I cannot resist shooting side by side with them using my crappy Canon RF 35mm and 50mm 1.8 lenses which are quite good but dirt cheap. In many cases they are the same, sometimes my plastic-fantastic Canon RF lenses are measurably better both aesthetically and technically given how good they actually are, the absurdly close focus distances they have, and the ability to focus absolutely perfectly on a Canon mirrorless camera.

That brings us to today’s ridiculous lens comparison, the Leica 50mm Summitar vs. The Fuji 35mm 1.4 XF. I love both of these lenses. I like the Fuji 35mm as it’s very good but not so clinical as to have zero character. I also like it because it fits on my X-Pro cameras. The Summitar from the 1940s (I think) is a completely different beast. I like the Summitar because it’s like two or three lenses in one tiny little package. Shot wide open the Summitar looks absolutely wild in terms of bokeh but still retains unbelievable sharpness where it’s actually in focus. If you stop it down even a tiny bit, say half a stop, the lens is crazy sharp, possibly better than the Fuji 35mm f1.4, and hard to tell the difference from a far more modern lens.

Oh, what about that Leica glow? Well, that exists but it certainly doesn’t exist in more modern Leica glass. It’s become a word that people use to mean “I like this lens” because it’s sharp wide open. Want to see where that term came from? Let’s take a look at the Summitar vs. the Fuji 35mm 1.4 both shot wide open. Yes, the Fuji is a stop faster given the Summitar has a maximum aperture of f2.

The shot at the top is the Summitar on a Canon R body. Can you see the Leica glow now? That’s all sorts of optical aberrations that are corrected away in modern glass. This happens a lot with Leica’s older fast lens formulations. It also happened a lot with other companies' lenses with similar aberrations. So why did Leica git famous for this? The best I can come up with based on my own experience and evaluation over the last three or four decades is that Leica formulations happened also to be very very sharp at the same time. Compare that 1940s screw mount lens to the modern Fuji where the two are both in focus.

It’s hard to tell which one resolves better. The focus fall-off and transition behavior are worlds apart. The RF has a bit more magnification given its 30 megapixels vs the X-Pro 2’s 24. The bokeh of these two lenses is also completely different. Does one have “good” bokeh and the other “bad”? I really don’t look at it that way. The Fuji is mostly non-offensive in most circumstances. The Summitar is wild and in some conditions, it looks busy and awful. In other conditions the Summitar is sublime in its rendering, some refer to this bad bokeh as swirly. I can attest that in the right conditions, it looks more like a painting and does look swirly.

We use that word swirly because it’s a Leica lens, if were a third party more modern lens we’d just say it had bad, horrid, busy bokeh. When it comes to out-of-focus point light sources (how many people measure bokeh but that’s only one aspect and only important in conditions with point light sources) it is very good because of the amazingly round 10-bladed aperture. I think at some point Leica got rid of that and newer versions have 6 bladed apertures. Personally, I’d avoid those 6 bladed versions because they just don’t look as cool as the older lenses with crap tons of rounded aperture blades.

If we stop both lenses down a hair they look more the same than different. Both are fantastically sharp a stop or two down from maximum aperture. This is typical of old lens designs with fewer elements and a more classical design vs. modern lenses that are mostly retro-focus designs.

Again were’ looking at the Summitar with more magnification and less depth of field given both of them are now at f/4. The Fuji is a stop faster when shot wide open but the Summitar appears to have less depth of field than the Fuji 35mm, I’ve always felt that one stop less depth of field thing when comparing full-frame to APS-C was a bit off, who knows. I consider both of these lenses to be very sharp where they are in focus and the ancient Leica is very comparable with the new Fuji at f/4.

So which lens is “better”? I like both, I especially like the Fuji when in circumstances where auto-focus will make a big difference. I like the Summitar because I give up nothing if I shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 in terms of sharpness but gain the actual old-school Leica glowy-ness and wild, crazy, swirly bokeh wide-open.

Do different lenses have different renditions, different focus fall-off characteristics, etc? Sure but the more modern the glass, the less different they actually are in my estimation. Does the new Leica glass have some degree of special sauce? It depends on which lens you are discussing. Some of them do have a very different “look”, the ones that attempt to perform across all circumstances, all apertures, all focus distances, and provide edge-to-edge sharpness don’t really have any sort of distinguishing rendering beyond the performance they attempt to achieve. T

This is why I can comfortably compare my RF 35mm 1.8 to more modern Leica glass and be sort of agnostic. Is the canon built the same way? No, Does it feel as good to use? No way. Does it mostly make the same pictures, in some situations marginally worse or marginally better? Sure.

Keep in mind that when it comes to physically small lenses the compromises made in some Leica lenses from an optical design standpoint do have a different rendering than those that attempt optical perfection. Heck, Leica is even selling a reproduction of the first version of the 35mm Summilux now and it has a lot of the characteristics I appreciate in the Summitar when it comes to rendering. Guess what other lens has crazy rendering to a degree when it’s wide open... That RF 35mm 1.8 but that’s a Canon plastic non-L lens so we call that bokeh bad.

#photography #camerafashion #essay

Skimp on the camera, put your hard-earned money in glass. Good advice, we’ve all heard it and I am not about to contradict this truism. Here comes the but…

The truism is self-referentially ummm, true. The real question is when to use which particular ”better”lens. Maybe even when to bother investing in better glass. I’ll admit, I love great optics as much as any other photographer and I’ll admit I am extremely nuts when it comes to serious over-investment in lenses that cover the same range.

I have more ways to shoot 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm than I know off the top of my head. I am honestly embarrassed at how insane I am about that 28-85mm range. That count I won’t even bother to estimate, well that’s for one camera system. I’m just as insane when it comes to my other camera systems in the same range. Heck, if I narrow that down to merely the 40-60mm range it’s still dozens of lenses across systems (speaking in terms of angle of view).

What lens do I use for production of more pictures than any other over the last decade plus? A universally denigrated Canon 24-105 f/4L makes an absurd showing when I look at the number of useful images I’ve made. It ranks at over 50% in terms of both images made as well as actually used. What’s more, is that I use it on a 50-megapixel body with no qualms. Well, I use it mostly with no qualms unless it matters.

How can this be? Well, as I’ll demonstrate below that boat-anchor of a lens is pretty good where it matters in actual use. I don’t care much about the corners. I use it the most in its middle zoom range (28 to 85-ish) where it’s pretty strong. Here’s the run-down:

• I usually get to stand where I want to stand so I don’t crop much. I don’t even rotate the image more than a degree.

• Most images I shoot for verticals (and about half of horizontals) are cropped 4:3 by design, there go the corners and also why I use a 50mpix body

• I typically use large to medium apertures where nothing but a fraction of the image is in focus anyway.

• I shoot close (see above)

The only place that lens is noticeably weak is in the extreme corners and at 105mm in general and worse when shooting at minimum focus distance. So here we go with the ridiculous lens comparisons…

Canon 24-105L vs 17-40L

First up let’s make this easy by comparing it to another crappy lens nobody but I would ever use in 2023. Yes, it’s the even more bad 17-40L (sarcasm as it’s better than the far more expensive 16-35L 2.8 version 1 and version 2 in many situations). All illustrations made with my obsolete Canon R with the old 30mpix 5Div sensor just because I can mount anything on it. Feel free to download and pixel peep the screenshots at 4K resolution.

Is that moiré I see on the 30mpix image on the left? Wow, that must be pretty sharp to get moiré on a crappy old 5DIV sensor with an AA filter. Don’t pay a whole lot of attention to that given that if I move a millimeter forward or back it would go away (which is why it doesn’t show up much in the rest of the photos or real life).

Canon 24-105L vs RF 35 1.8 Macro

Yea, yea, I know, it’s not an “L” and it’s not expensive enough to be considered “good” but in use, that little gem is fantastic enough to ditch the EF 35mm 1.4L II if you don’t need the tiny bit of extra speed. At f/4 it’s superb.

Yep, we have a touch of moiré on both, luck. Here’s the point; They are both fantastically sharp where the lens is actually in focus anywhere near the center.

Canon 24-105L vs Voigtländer 35mm 1.4 Norton VM II

Yep, moiré again, you know the deal. Yes, this lens is terrible at 1.4 but quite good at f/4. I use it all the time for critical subjects at f/4-f/8 but truth be told I like the effect wide-open when shooting on my M cameras. It’s a dead ringer for the now lusted-after version 1 Summilux M 35mm (I think the design is a ripoff and I can’t tell the difference myself wide open).

The High-megapixel Myth

You’ve heard it before, if you upgrade your camera somehow your lenses get “worse” than they were. In other words, lenses that seem perfectly fine on a “low pixel count camera” will suddenly be much worse on a “high pixel count camera”.

Poppycock, all your lenses will produce more detail with more pixels. Yes, you will be able to see their flaws more clearly with more magnification. You’ll also realize that there is not as much DOF as you thought there was even on perfect lenses. Will all your prints somehow look worse at the same sizes? No, they will probably be better.

Conclusion

Is “good” glass better than lesser lenses? Absolutely but that has to be evaluated in context. My best glass is in a whole different universe in some circumstances. A perfect example is the Canon 100mm L macro vs the 24-105mm f4L when shooting flat objects up close near 100mm. The difference is obvious without pixel-peeping. How about non-flat scenes at moderate apertures? It’s hard to tell one lens from the other.

Stay tuned, I’m always up for ridiculous lens pet tricks. Next time maybe I’ll do 50mm. As always, use the right tool for the right job, and above all else use what you like and makes whatever you’re photographing more fun while producing results you like. Or maybe it will be funny to show how big of an epic fail the 24-105 is at 105 really close vs the 100mm L macro…

I started photography with 35mm film. I graduated to better cameras that used 35mm film. I started developing and printing my own prints from 35mm film. As I sought higher and higher quality prints I learned to be extremely economical with film real estate. I was careful to use every bit of the film wisely so I didn’t need to crop and lose any of that precious film area.

I wanted more quality and larger prints. In the days of film that next step was typically medium format film. Before the internet, graduating from 35mm to larger formats what a strange, expensive, and mysterious endeavor. I didn’t want to make mistakes like the mistakes I made buying the wrong 35mm equipment. As painful to my wallet as it was, as long as it took me to save, I decided to go with what all of the other great photographers used. I decided to buy a Hasselblad 500C/M and an 80mm Zeiss f/2.8. That was my one camera and one lens for a long time. Other lenses for that camera had to wait.

Learning to use that camera effectively took a long time. I was enamored and mesmerized that I didn’t have to flip the camera around or even decide between horizontal pictures. I fell in love with square pictures. I printed square pictures. Over time I realized my world did not consist of only square compositions. More importantly, the rest of the world was not enamored with square pictures all the time unless of course you only shot album cover art.

My own personal work and the work I did for other people demanded horizontal and vertical compositions. So I developed an eye for shooting the Hasselblad looking for square and horizontal compositions. I still had no need of flipping the camera around. I thought that was still fantastic. I bought a gridded focus screen which helped to do that more precisely. As an added bonus it was great for making frames that had precise vertical lines and level horizontals. I loved the Hasselblad even more. I can shoot square compositions, horizontal compositions, and vertical compositions on the same camera in the same orientation. I was still making each frame composed specifically for one of those aspect ratios and orientation of the final print.

I still didn’t fully realize the full potential of shooting square. One day out of the blue I finally had the revelation of shooting a square camera. Why not pay attention to all three at the same time for every picture? So that’s what I did, in fact, it was easy with a square camera format. Why didn’t this occur to me immediately? I can make every frame that all three worked and worked equally as well. This was revolutionary for me, every shot that worked (yes you still make bad pictures here and there that don’t work at all) also worked as a square, a 4/3, a 3/4, a 4/5, a 5/4, a 3/2, etc. There was plenty of film real estate to make great-looking prints and double spreads in a book or magazine.

This is when square cameras in general and the Hasselblad 500 cameras truly became my favorite cameras ever. To this day that holds true. If you’ve not tried this or if you have a square camera and don’t compose this way all the time I implore you to start doing it today, for every frame. It may take a while before you get really good at it but it will happen. Sure there will be some pictures that you like better, that are better with one orientation or aspect ratio than another but do your best to make it difficult to decide for the majority of frames you make.

If I am using my Hasselblad 500 cameras this approach is a habit. That habit is just one of the reasons I find joy in shooting 120 film with those cameras. I have another habit that’s not quite so positive. If I pick up any 3/2 (aka full-frame 35mm) camera I immediately revert to using every square millimeter of film to its maximum efficiency. Every frame I shoot is a 3/2 composition with nothing else considered. It’s either a vertical or horizontal long skinny composition.

This is appropriate for 35mm film. It’s not as if you’d choose 35mm film of any kind in the 21st century to make 4/5 or square pictures. Even in the early days of digital, you’d really not use a 3/2 camera and not care about resolution. Of course, if that’s all you had and knew you were shooting 4/3 pictures or square pictures you’d not do that. I still get a nagging feeling when shooting 50 megapixels when I intentionally am shooting for 4/3 or 4/5 or square output by backing up a bit and not caring about all those pixels I am throwing away.

Many photographers have fully embraced this in modern times but old habits die hard when not working on a specific output intention. Here’s a thought, what if one used the square philosophy when shooting 3/2 or even 4/3 cameras. I don’t mean shooting for the square but instead shooting them in one orientation always but making every single composition work as a 3/2 horizontal and vertical, a 4/3 horizontal and vertical, and a square? Would this work?

I’d probably not do this with a 16-megapixel camera just as I’d not do this with 35mm film but it’s certainly a reasonable idea when using 40 or 50-megapixel full-frame cameras. I’d speculate that using 3/2 cameras would be the most difficult to make all those aspect ratios work for every composition made. It would probably be easier with 4/3 cameras. Stay tuned I am going to see if I can do this myself and how it works out.

I am going to see if I can kill that old habit, at least on digital non-square cameras as it was extremely valuable on square film. Why shouldn’t it be the case with today’s high-resolution non-square cameras. I may have to work in reverse than my Hasselblad 500 cameras but we’ll see.

Inspired by this pile of leaves I scooped up out of the driveway, I made this autumn still-life with my really slow camera — the Hasselblad 503CXi and my 120mm Zeiss. The aesthetics of the leaves in various states of decay seemed beautiful in soft north facing light. I set up a tripod, set the ISO on my CFV 50c II digital back to 100, then slapped it on the ancient 503. Of course I wanted a bit of depth of focus so I shot at f/22 and 4 seconds of exposure. The way that back starts to count out the seconds when it hits 2 is great.

The shot you see is strait out of camera as rendered by Hasselblad’s Phocus software (free, what a bonus given how brilliant the iPad and iPhone versions work). Hasselblad does have a talent for digital color, just gorgeous. The old-school rendering of that Zeiss 120mm Planar is charming without being decidedly retro, there’s just something pleasing about it; Sharp and detailed without being harsh.

After wrapping up with the 120mm and 503CXi, I slapped the back onto the 907x. I only have one XCD lens right now, the tiny but brilliant 45P f/4. I do want a 90mm or a 135, or a 120… I really want one of those new versions… see why I don’t have another lens yet? I’d be broke about a week starting down that path.

I’ll stick with my one and only tiny all purpose 45mm for now. For the heck of it I made a hand-held shot of that same scene after ratcheting the ISO up to 1600 and spot metering the exposure while monitoring the live view. Of course I set the WB to “shade”. Getting as close as the 45P would allow me resulted in the following photo, again strait from camera to Phocus and a JPEG conversion.

Sure, it’s not quite as crisp but most of that is due to the extremely shallow DOF. Proof I don’t need another XCD lens at the moment. It looks great, it’s super easy to handle, and it matches up with the 907x body in terms of it’s size and convenience. I love that little 907x so much I went all in. I have the grip (which I use mostly when shooting verticals). I even grabbed the absurdly expensive, completely inaccurate optical viewfinder. Honestly I bought the viewfinder mostly for the cold shoe for a flash trigger. Having messed with the actual optical viewfinder a bit, I did find it super fun to use in some circumstances. It certainly reminds me of using the 907SWC, maybe I’ll get a super-wide XCD instead?

I guess the reason I shared this little story of my slow camera kit is to encourage you to find a camera and an lens you just love to use and embrace it. Make what you can make with a small kit and ignore the rest. My pared down medium format kit is really small already but this episode has inspired me to just get out of the house with the 907x alone, no bag, no other lenses and enjoy the outdoors while the color and the weather lasts.

Preface

I use film, I use digital, I have a thing for cameras that give me joy to hold, look at, and use. There are cameras that I just don’t get along with. The reasons for the acrimony are hard to pin down no matter what features, performance, or output they offer that may theoretically give me an advantage in hypothetical scenarios. Crazy as it may sound, I much rather use a camera that gives me joy even if the consensus judges that particular camera as inferior.

Maybe it’s my preference for simplicity or what I perceive as simplicity. In the land of cameras across all formats, features, and capabilities One could divide them into two arbitrary categories; fast cameras and slow cameras. I am not suggesting this division is something as trivial as a camera that can make three frames per second versus a camera that can make thirty. I’ll go farther and say that division isn’t even a camera that autofocuses at a glacial speed compared to the latest eyeball tracking a person on a rocket sled barreling towards you. Even with manual focus, manual exposure cameras I consider a Leica M camera a fast camera and a Hasselblad 500 with waist-level finder a slow camera.

You may theoretically use any fast camera as a slow camera but you cannot do the reverse right? Logically this is correct. In my journey as a photographer, I’ve found this logical conclusion irrelevant in use and maybe more importantly my psychology. I have found I am a very different photographer and make very different pictures when I happen to use a slow camera instead of a fast camera. I also make very different pictures.

For the neigh sayers out there thinking that “I could make those same slow pictures with a fast camera” I’ll walk through this for you to at least consider my proposal that is untrue. The error in that thought process is that the evaluation is always in retrospect looking at the picture I made with a slow camera. I’ve made the same mistake. The reality is that the vast majority of scenes, subjects, and scenarios can be made with either a slow camera or a fast camera.

In my use, I’ll make very different pictures when using a fast camera in those circumstances that could be made with a slow camera. This is true for compositions, lens choices, handheld vs tripod, camera orientation, aperture selection, and shutter speed. The list of the choices I typically make goes on and on in scenes where either a slow or fast camera could be used.

My Current Kit

I’ve always had a deep affection for my Hasselblad 500 cameras. I think they’re now retroactively known as the V system. I like square pictures. I like optical viewfinders. Naturally, I’d be excited when Hasselblad announced the CFV II 50c 907x. I didn’t care a lot about the 907x part of that alphabet soup of a name. I cared far more about the CFV II 60c part which is not the actual camera but a digital back that fits on all 500 (or 200) series classic bodies. What’s more, it works just like a film back. No wires, no external batteries. Slap the thing on and it works just like a film magazine.

I waited for what seemed like an eternity for Hasselblad to release a model I’d buy. I had to get through the announcement to the availability timeframe. Then I had to get through the special limited edition models. Finally, a “regular” edition with no special nameplate, no special finish, and general availability happened.

I got lucky enough to find one that was “new - open box” at a quite substantial discount to full price. Of course, I grabbed it. That same Hasselblad dealer had an open box 45P f/4 X system lens that was heavily discounted. The price was so low that I grabbed it even though I was primarily interested in the back for use on my 500 series cameras to make a competent film/digital slow camera kit. Something I’ve dreamed about for more than a decade after selling my H2 with digital and film backs.

I have a gaggle of 500 series cameras as well as a bunch of Zeiss glass ranging from wide-angle through telephoto. These cameras and lenses were once my “main work cameras”. When I referred to kit I meant the specific gear to take with me on outings for general photography. I thought I had that ironed out before the introduction of that X series lens. That impulse buy combined with me just playing around with it and the 907x component completely revised my thinking.

Instead of a bunch of Zeiss V system glass or even two V system lenses, I decided on the 45P, the 907x, my 503CX body, and a 120mm Zeiss Makro Planar. That may sound strange but think about this set of components for a moment. I have what could be considered a versatile normal-ish lens for 6x6 square pictures. It’s not so different from the 100mm Zeiss I preferred over the 80mm for 6x6 pictures. The 120 focuses very close for tight shots. The 45P gives me a wide on the 907x when shot 4:3. Stopping there that’s not so bad in terms of versatility but think about what happens when you start mixing the use of 6x6 and the 44x33 digital back. Slapping the CFV II on the 503, now I have something like 150mm short tele. When shot squire with the 500 it’s more like a 180mm on 6x6 and still more real estate than a full-frame body cropped square. Back to the 907x and 45P, it’s more like an 80mm on 6x6 when shot square.

For my purposes, this is probably the most versatile kit in the smallest package with the least weight you could have when shooting film and digital. So far it may also be the most enjoyable slow camera kit I’ve ever used. It’s virtually the same size as my film-only minimal 500 kit that I’ve taken out with me time and time again, vacillating between the 100mm and 120mm.

This unlikely menagerie is a hybrid system that I enjoy more than I could have predicted. The 907x that I originally dismissed and a tiny lens I bought on impulse stimulated the disposal of my prism finder and a return to the waist-level finder that came with my 503CX. I long considered the waist level finder similarly to the body cap.

Now I have two cameras that get out of my face (literally) when making photographs. I find I’m far more in the moment shooting this style of waist-level finder camera than having something plastered against my face. The pictures are very different, especially portraits, when not hiding behind a camera.

I’m still figuring the ultimate slow camera kit out. I may end up substituting the 100mm or even the 80mm for the 120mm. Only experience will prove which way I should go. What about other X lenses? For now, I am satisfied, I’m in no rush. The only lenses that come to mind would duplicate what I already have with the 500 series use. Maybe something really wide? Maybe the 90mm for use when I don’t want to shoot film?

Are any other X or 500 Hasselblad users out there? I’d love to hear how you view the two systems. Better yet, if you are experimenting with a hybrid kit, where did you end up so far?

Once upon a time, I had a huge Canon DSLR system. Heavy, a couple of large camera bags, a real obstacle to joy when lugging it all with me. Kind of sucks the life out of you when you are burdened with too much crap. Even one body with a small zoon was a bit much when the primary reason for a little trip was not a photo job. Even my 50mm 1.2L on a full-size body was four times the size of a similar 35mm film camera. I needed something fun but capable of making pictures I actually cared about here and there.

Along came the original X100. Sign me up! After what seemed like an eternity you could actually buy one, so I did. It was great!!!; Except for a few nagging issues. So I upgraded it to the X100S when that was available. A little better but still some minor things drove me nuts like the frame line behavior between shots even in manual focus. Oh, I also really wanted a 50mm field of view as well. Out goes the X100S and in comes the X-Pro1 with all three lenses available. Oooops now I needed a small bag.

Not quite there, same bullshit frame line behavior, not nearly as capable as the canon. Loved the size of the 18mm and 35mm primes. I kinda loved a few things but hated a bunch of other things. What’s this? An XT-1 that was “better” in every way. Bought that, I guess the EVF was okay, not as bad as a few years ago but I still really wanted an optical viewfinder 80% of the time…

I had a great idea. Maybe I’ll try upgrading the Fuji system to replace the Canon system so I don’t have to decide which one to bring. I felt like I had the wrong camera when I only brought the Fuji too much. I’ll grab a bunch of the new “better” lenses for the camera I only kinda liked but I did like the size.

After a spending frenzy, I had all the stuff, well almost all the stuff. The viewfinder was still not great in a lot of circumstances. I still had a few issues with getting focus confirmation while actually focused on the background in backlit conditions. I still thought I brought the wrong system a lot and as an added bonus my Fuji bag was just as big as the Canon bag I typically packed.

Then the X-Pro2 came along, this would solve all of my problems. New OVF, “better” focusing, and more pixels. Oh, a couple new better lenses that were even bigger than the last set of “better” lenses. Gotta grab those. Meh, I did like the camera a lot better but god, I’ve saved no size and weight, and truth be told the Canon stuff was still my go-to gear for jobs and I still thought I had the wrong system a lot of the time. I sold the Fuji system lock stock and barrel.

What the hell… Why do I have two systems that are about the same size. What happened to the fun and the whole point of why I wanted the X100 in the first place. The problem wasn’t the Fuji system. The problem was me. I made something simple and constrained trying to do too many jobs. I just traded my do-anything system for another do-anything system when what I really wanted was a simple camera with no camera bag similar in size to a 35mm film camera and one small prime.

I still have my Canon system that’s evolved a little bit since that time. I love it for all of the things it does really well. I also have a Fuji X-Pro “system” again but this time It’s the two original lenses I liked, the 35mm and the 18mm. I love that camera again now that I never use a camera bag when I decide to take it.

I’m sure many people have a giant Fuji system and love it for all of the reasons I love my Canon system. I ruined my own Fuji experience because I was stupid and tried solving a problem I didn’t have. I subverted the entire reason I personally wanted a Fuji in the first place.

I wanted a good-looking well-performing, unobtrusive camera that I could travel without a camera bag at all. I wanted a non-system just with a 50mm field of view. I fall into the trap of subverting what I like about something by trying to make it do everything with no real reason. Maybe I’ll stop that someday. For now, I’m happy with my no-bag X-Pro and a clear decision process. Am I going somewhere primarily to make pictures? Canon bag. Any other time it’s the Fuji X-Pro.

Like many worthwhile endeavors in life, photography is easy to learn but takes a lifetime to master. Mistakes will be made. Without mistakes, there would be no progress on any front. Frustration and even despair are all part of the process, right? Sure it is, just need to get back on the horse and try, try again. That’s how it goes … or at least that’s what they say. Here’s what they don’t say; Stop making the same mistakes over and over again.

Avoiding the same mistake is obvious right? Sure it is, in your head when thinking about broad generalizations. That kind of advice is merely a platitude. In practice, some mistakes are difficult to identify. Let’s divide the world of errors into two arbitrary categories. The first is obvious problems that stand out after you make them and the source of the problem is easy to trace. Bad light, bad exposure, lousy focus, crappy composition. Sure it takes time and effort to get better at those things. Even after one gets better there will be the same problems here and there but they’ll be less frequent.

The second arbitrary category is far worse. Those issues are of a philosophical nature. In many cases, they are impossible to identify and diagnose by anyone but yourself. Tremendous effort is usually dumped onto going farther and farther down the road you shouldn’t have taken in the first place. You find yourself not where you want to be so you tend to go faster in the wrong direction. This second category is insidious.

Dirty, sweaty, frustrated, dejected you claw your way out of the hole you dug for yourself. Slowly recovering from wasted money, and more importantly, time to start over. You won’t make that mistake again, will you? That’s the insidious beast of philosophical mistakes— you probably will. You won’t make the same exact mistake but you’ll make the same kind of mistake. How does one avoid that?

I don’t think anyone has the answer, I certainly don’t but I may have some insight given how many times I’ve made a certain kind of mistake. The 35mm Summilux in the title is an example from a quarter-century ago. The example I owned was an old, beat-up, second or third-hand used lens. It was the second lens I scrimped and saved and finally purchased to complement my 50mm Summicron and Leica M4. The M4 and Summicron were also used and a bit beat up, it’s all I could afford when acquired in the mid-1980s.

I loved that camera for what it did well and despised it for what it failed to do. The same goes for that 35mm Summilux. By the time the mid-1990s rolled around I had a lot more money. I had other camera systems in addition to that M4, 50mm, and 35mm. I now had medium format, 4x5, etc, etc. All of those systems did particular jobs very well and other jobs not so well. The M4 was my EDC camera, my behind-the-scenes camera, my family camera, and the camera I took with me when not planning to make any particular picture. I carried a tiny light meter with me. The M4 had no meter.

One day I happened across an article in a long-forgotten publication about Leica’s then-new 35mm Summicron ASPH. Sharper by a mile, the perfect lens, the lens that would make all my problems go away and all things would be right in the world; Or so that writer said. This got me thinking, why not upgrade the Leica kit to an M6TTL with the better more accurate 0.85 magnification finder. I convinced myself that a more accurate focus, sharper 35mm, and “better” finder would allow me to use the tiny Leica to shoot “serious” pictures with ease.

Yes, this was the answer. An in-camera meter, a better focusing finder, and a sharper lens would let me shoot Kodachrome 25 and 64 and PanF+ in the Leica rather than lug my medium format for “serious” things. I kept the M4 as they weren’t that popular/valuable at the time and I needed a backup when shooting serious things with the Leica. I did sell the Summilux to cover part of the cost of the new ASPH.

Fast forward. How did that work out? My exposures were worse. I eventually worked out how to use the M6 meter to get decent results on the chrome films. A huge distraction working on that skill for months. The ASPH was sharper wide-open when testing it. It solved none of my problems for what the Leica didn’t do very well. Framing on a 35mm lens was a nightmare with the 0.85 finder even though it technically had 35mm frame lines. Worse yet, I lost a stop of speed where I liked using my Leica as an EDC — on-the-fly camera in varied lighting conditions with 400 ISO film. The final bonus with the new, better 35mm was that I didn’t like the way it looked wide-open and close up nearly as much as the old Summilux.

I dutifully mastered the new obstacles, easily identifying the problems and solving them. I forced myself to use the new gear to take pictures with the Leica where I would have been far better off using the medium format gear. I was now using the Leica to take serious pictures, the ones you plan with intent and travel to specific locations to take pictures of a specific subject.

Took me a while to figure out I had completely destroyed the experience, results, and look of what I liked using the Leica for by attempting to make it better at doing things it didn’t do well. Solving problem after problem, getting better at using it for things I didn’t even want to do. Sure I still made casual, documentary-style pictures that I loved with the M6. All of those were with the 50mm I already had using ISO 400 black and white film usually pushed a stop or two. The ASPH Summicron was uncomfortable to use on the M6 due to the “better” finder and didn’t look nearly as good at doing what I liked to do.

The M6, the Summicron ASPH, a 90 ASPH, and a whole bunch of other super expensive Leica gear are long gone. My first M4 is still with me. I use it for the same things I used to use it for that made me fall in love with that camera in the first place. Candid black and white subjects with high ISO film wide-open. That problem I corrected? Philosophically I’ve avoided a few but repeated them here and there over the last 25 years. Literally, I purchased a replacement for the 35mm Summilux this year. I am extremely pleased with my purchase. For the first time in a quarter-century, I have my M4 connected to a 35mm 1.4 although technically not a Summilux.

I stumbled across a Voigtlaender Nokton VM II at a great price. I bought it. Much to my surprise, it looks exactly the same in terms of wide-open rendering as my first 35mm Summilux. Stopped down it’s super sharp. It even looks the same externally in many ways. Handling is similar but instead of wings on the aperture ring, it’s more typical of other Leica lenses. After ten seconds of research, I found the optical design is a clone of the Summilux with one tiny extra element that I assume is the claimed correction for focus shift when stopped down. You’d be hard-pressed to detect which lens was which wide open from what I see.

Optimizing For The Wrong Things

After making more than my fair share of philosophical mistakes I’ve found there’s a certain flavor many of them have. That pernicious second category of mistakes circles around optimizing for the wrong things. The tricky nature of optimizing for the wrong things is the huge distraction of solving easily identifiable flaws while doing so. At this point, I’m sure I’ll fall down that rabbit hole again but while falling I ask myself the question “why” a lot in serious ways rather than superficially. I ask reasonable questions like why am I trying to do this at all rather than how can I make this thing I shouldn’t be doing in the first place “better”.

#essay #camerafashion #photography #leica