Ah, what is so rare as a perfect gentleman ? He is always appropriately dressed, but never calls attention upon himself, the way a dandy would. He always fits in, yet maintains a distinctive identity. He never puts a foot wrong, whatever the circumstances. And, as and when matters require it, he always comes through for others. Though there are things a perfect gentleman would never stoop to doing…

Readers of the older persuasion may remember Jules Vernes’ Phileas Fogg, the perfect gentleman who circumnavigated the world in 80 days without ever losing his poise. And no, the picture below is not that of Mr Fogg’s cat. Merely an example of the Loxia 85 wide open.

The Loxia 85 is one such lens and, indeed, Fogg would have loved it. It is fairly compact, for a 85mm full-metal prime that is, and shares a common filter thread with the 3 other Loxia lenses (52mm). That commonality dictates the single performance parameter of the Loxia 85 that stands out: its (relatively) slow maximum aperture of f:2,4. So, how does it all add up?

Testing a lens is both exciting and boring. Exciting, because it is a potential new toy, something that can bring fun to your photography, and maybe enhance your sense of achievement. Boring because you have to take the same shot with multiple apertures, multiple lenses of similar focal length, and any fun in that, believe me, soon wears off. You can imagine my glee at leaving that part to Pascal…:-)

So let’s start with the fun part. Put the lens on, take a shot of a subject you know well, and look at the rear LCD of the camera, then magnify at 100%. Not forgetting that you only get one chance to make a good first impression .:-) With some lenses, that is all it takes, and you know. You go “Wow!”, and you know this is the start of a beautiful relationship. Or you may go “Meh!” and you think: “do I really need to do any more, I know how this ends up?….”

No point in maintaining any suspense here, DearSusan is not a site where the meat of the review is behind a pay wall, and you only get the teaser for free. Take a shot with the Loxia 85, and -Wow!- you are right up there with some of the world’s best lenses. For reference, I used it in comparison to the Sony 85 f:1,4 GM and Leica M Elmarit 90 f:2,8. And I compared some pictures with those from an Otus 85 f:1,4, a ZE 85 f: 1,4, a Sony FE 90 G macro f:2,8. Lofty territory indeed, and it held its own like a perfect gentleman.

Now to facts. Designing this can’t have been easy, because MM. Zeiss had decided that Loxia would be a line of compact manual lenses designed for the Sony FE mount that (a) had a common 52mm filter size, (b) would appeal to both photographers and videographers, and (c) had a common look and feel.

The common, compact size excluded making a fast (meaning f:1,4) 85. It just couldn’t be done with that filter size. But 85/90mm lenses are supposed to be portrait lenses, and, for portrait, you want a fast aperture to get a maximum amount of separation between the face and the background . Zeiss themselves do a fast-ish 85 for the same Sony cameras. It isn’t overly large or heavy, and it costs pretty much the same as the Loxia, it is the autofocus Batis 85 f:1,8. Don’t think that, because they come from the same stable, that of Zeiss, Batis and Loxia are part of the same range, they aren’t. Batis are for people who want/need autofocus. Interestingly, they were released not long before Leica went autofocus in 35mm format with their SL camera. Not a coincidence, many pairs of eyes are getting older, and can’t MF that well any more. Loxia, on the other hand, are manual focus like the other Zeiss lenses.

But no way could a 85 f:1,8 fit the Loxia form factor. It would have to be a f:2,4 lens. So, before they even started the design, Zeiss had more or less conceded the single most obvious application for that lens, the thin-DOF portrait. It is like designing a family car that only seats 4. Did you say counterintuitive? There are precedents, though: the Contax G 90mm, a remarkable Zeiss design of years past, was f:2,8, and the Leica Elmarit 90 was also f:2,8. Also, don’t think either that this new lens doesn’t provide any separation. It does, and beautifully, too, as some of these pictures demonstrate. Just not as much, and not with a razor-thin DOF, the way a f:1,4 lens would. But a perfect gentleman shouldn’t judged on his ability to compete with Usain Bolt, should he?

On the other hand, the new Loxia had to be what owners of the other Loxias expected it to be. Not only physically (format) and mechanically (haptics), but also optically. Including the recent and more-than-excellent 21mm f:2,8. Which means high micro-contrast, and a very clean, clear rendering, free of the distortions that weaken other designs, and with the “pop” and 3D that owners equate with owning a Zeiss lens. For reference, the picture below is straight-out-of-camera, and the one under it a 100% crop. Did I say lots of detail?

So, is there a life for slow-ish 85s?

The long and the short of it is: you bet there is! And it is fun, too! That is where MM. Zeiss show that they are not only competent, they are actually clever. Because the Loxia 85 is “only” f:2,4, the battle for the hearts and souls of the bokeh-freaks is lost. Or is it? Because bokeh can be creamy, wiping out any detail in the out-of-focus parts of the picture. Or it can be structured, and contain much graphical detail, though out of focus. And Zeiss decided, if we can’t get super-creamy bokeh, we will design a lens that will appeal to the structured bokeh crowd. Those who want the out-of-focus part of the picture to participate in the storytelling. That is not unusual for Zeiss, whose lenses have always been more on the structured side than overly creamy, but, with the Loxia 85, they outdid themselves. This lens has (a) very beautiful, structured bokeh indeed, and (b) great depth of field and (c) gradual transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. The result: a storyteller’s dream. This is where I believe that Zeiss have actually made significant progress recently. They now know how to design every aspect of a lens’ performance exactly to specification. I first noticed it with the Otus 28, and its telephoto-esque amount of blur, and here the opposite with the Loxia 85.

Now to results: what does the Loxia do for its owner? Simply, straight from wide open, which admittedly isn’t the widest, it delivers superbly clear shots, with massive detail and beautiful colors, abundant 3D and a drawing style which I can only describe as “on the gentlemanly side of absolutely neutral”. The pictures never raise questions as to whether they are sharp enough, ‘cause they are plenty sharp, but not “in-your-face-sharp”. Seeing the lovely colors and the painterly rendering, you might be tempted to think “low micro-contrast”. That would be a mistake, because the micro-contrast is actually quite high, definitely higher than the mild Sony FE 85GM, and in keeping with the recent –and great- Loxia 21. Again, Zeiss manage to improve in one area without losing out on another. You get colors and detail and contrast and neutrality, all in one. Wow! Very, very wow!

Basically, a direct comparison with shots from the Sony (2x the price), the Leica (also 2x the price in its time) and the Otus 85 (4x) shows that the Loxia pictures look to be of an equivalent quality level…. Wow! This lens in a way reminds me of my beloved ZE 85 f:1,4 Planar. In the ZE/ZF days (now replaced by Milvus), Zeiss offered 2 pairs of lenses. The 50 and 85 f:1,4, and the 50 and 100 f:2,0 Makro Planar. The Makro Planar pair offered immaculate performance at close range, and tremendous take-no-prisoners sharpness. The f:1,4 duo offered warmer, more romantic colors, and a gentle, graceful rendering. That, alas, they also came with all manners of aberrations, and shooting close up and wide open was just not a practical option. The Loxia seems to have much of the 85 Planar in its DNA. The beautiful colors, the gentleness, the overall loveliness that it imbues its pictures with. Fortunately, the aberrations are gone, and the Loxia is strikingly “clean” in this respect. But the very wide and fast aperture couldn’t make it, at least in a Loxia…

But you shouldn’t take this as meaning that the Loxia is an Otus, only much smaller, lighter and cheaper. It isn’t, primarily because (a) it is much slower, and (b) while there is little CA, it isn’t quite an APO lens. And the Otus has “something” special…

What Zeiss have done IMHO is made a clear choice. Rather than a lens that does many things “as well as possible”, they have chosen a lens that does everything it can superlatively, but there are things it can’t do. Rather than compromise each shot as the price to pay for broadening the lens’ capability (the sort of approach that leads to designing AF zooms), they have made the opposite choice: superb, but only for certain applications.

How does it integrate in the Loxia lineup? The star, to my mind, is the 21mm. Simply, the reference in that focal length. I would say that, within its relative speed limit, the 85 is as good. Maybe even, if, like me, you like a gentleman more than an athlete, you might find even a little bit better. It is, in a way everything I like best about the Loxia 50, the lovely colors, and the rendering, but made more modern with an infusion of the 21’s clarity and detail, yet without any of the countervailing loss one would expect. Very wow indeed!

So who is this sort-of-specialist lens for? The first category that comes to mind is the storyteller. Whether you are doing street, where you want to highlight your subject, yet show the context (thanks for the structured bokeh!), or landscape, when you stop down to where the slowness of the lens doesn’t matter at all. Or outdoor, where you have lots of available light, and where low weight matters for hiking. Or video, where you need a manual focus lens that has the same look as its brethren. So, while many bloggers may post snide knee-jerk comments about the worst speed-to-cost ratio, and thus the Loxia won’t win the specification game, there are oh-so-many photo-and-videographers that will love it to death. They also know how good “slow” lenses can be, like the Leica Elmar 24mm f:3,8 and the Super Elmar 21mm f:3,4, both of which are considered better for landscape than their larger, heavier, more expensive Summilux stablemates. Or the Leica R APO Telyt 180 f:3,4.

A quick word about using the Loxia. Just as the Sony A7 line has grown in size and weight (and performance) in its V2 iteration, the Loxia 85 is no small and light lens. Yes, it feels full-metal and very solidly built, and it balances well on my A7RII, but the I-have-given-up-my-DSLR-in-favor-of-mirrorless-because-of-lower-weight crowd are not going to get as light a lens as they’d want. Think more Leica R than Leica M. And, like other Loxia, it is a delight to use from a haptics point of view. Precise and smooth, well-damped focusing, automatic switch to magnify when you focus, a nice aperture ring, full EXIF. I wouldn’t have minded slightly shorter MFD, though, at 80cm, it can’t be criticized, but a shorter one would have been even nicer for flower shots and the likes.

So, 2 questions before I conclude: is the Loxia 85 an überlens? And am I going to buy one?

No, the Loxia is not an überlens. To achieve that hallowed status, a lens needs to produce superlative IQ. And the Loxia does that in spades. But it also needs to do it across a broad spectrum of situations, and there, the Loxia doesn’t measure up. So what does that make it? A lens that produces überlens-level pics, but “only” in many –but not all- situations? Because Zeiss have so brilliantly designed its performance envelope, I choose to call it a designer lens. Like a designer dress…

And the last question: will I buy one? As I already own a larger, heavier, costlier Sony FE 85 GM f:1,4, an überlens in its own right, though the Loxia can deliver even better results in some cases, I won’t. I chose the Sony to have at least one AF lens, so my choice is clear. But, as and when my age catches up with the weight of my lenses, and I go for a lighter system, I can’t imagine a better choice for a lighter 85 than the Loxia…

Habitual readers of DearSusan know of our strange custom to give lenses a name. But only those lenses that we, Pascal and I, love. Hence, the Otus 85 is Hubert (French version of Über). The Milvus 85 is Max. Well, the Loxia 85 earned itself a name. George. A royal name in its own right, as befits a perfect gentleman. But, for us, a different breed of George. George Smiley, the spy master from the John Le Carré spy novels. Why? Because Zeiss lent us this lens under strict secrecy guidelines. And also because George Smiley tried to bring/maintain some sort of propriety in this sorry world that was the Cold War espionage. A gentleman in a world of double agents, liars, thugs and hookers.

PS: a brief (and sad) afterword. Dr Hubert Nasse, über-scientist at Zeiss, passed away in late August. I cannot help but think that every picture I take with my Otus incorporates a tiny bit of Dr Nasse’s soul, which would indicate he had a very, very beautiful soul. R.i.p. Dr Hubert Nasse

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

Yes, it does and I’m beginning to like it a lot.

For a V1.0 release it’s pretty good. No crashes, interfaces with Lightroom, Aperture, PS etc.

I’ve not tried all the options and have done little more than fiddle so far, but as an editor, I’m impressed. The browser/workflow tools are still in development; promised soon.

It edits in studio make-up mode; splash the filter/effect on and then refine to taste. Sounds a bit extreme, but I don’t do Xmas chocolate boxes, calendars and/or “awesome” landscapes for Facebook, so the toning-down option is pretty welcome.

The interface is good, but not intuitive (yet) – I’ve still to get used to it.

The sliders do. They don’t jump around like Lightroom’s do when you release the mouse.

Edits and visuals are not that fast yet – LR is definitely still quicker.

Plug-ins aren’t really available yet, so these are samples – just RAW images re-worked in Luminar to see if it does the basics. It does.

Pretty well too, much more user-friendly than LR, although that could never be difficult.

More soon. Promise.

Here are two images I shot yesterday in Osaka:

Bikes. Lightroom processed image first, using a Velvia plug in. Luminar second, no plug in, just an approximation.

Woman in izakaya. Lightroom processed image first, using in-camera Acros emulation. Luminar second, processed to produce a good image.

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

While Paul navigated Japan and experimented with the very promising Luminar software, I was closer to home, in Berlin, making a set of photographs in various situations to compare the outputs of Capture One and Adobe Lightroom.

Lightroom got me very excited in the early days. Compared to my workhorse of the moment, Photoshop, the newcomer created a much better digital reenactment of the darkroom processes of my childhood. Instead of software for the digital creator, it felt like a digital experience created by photographers for photographers.

And it probably was.

More recently, however, 3 pain-points have gradually depleted the love and encouraged me to start looking elsewhere:

1. The excruciating file management bugs which not only make it a nightmare to locate files but also to back them up.
2. The move to a saas model which, although very natural from a business-model point of view, should have been handled with more empathy for long time customers. Today the Lightroom + Photoshop bundle is a steal at 12€ / month but the fate of files when you stop paying that money still isn’t as 100% clear in my mind as the original – and undefendable –  initial announcements. It takes minutes to damage a reputation and years to repair it.
3. Sony customers having to live with the nagging feeling that not only is their camera not the best at extracting finest colours from their sensor but also that not all RAW processors are created equal. Probably through not fault of theirs, Adobe stand at a disadvantage compared to Phase One (Sony partner) on that front.

So, temptation to try Capture One has been high for a long time, even though past attempts had resulted in a “life’s too short” knee-jerk reaction to the far less intuitive and flowing interface that Phase One had plagued their offering with. It took dedicated followers of quality such as coauthor Philippe to jump ship and face the learning curve.

This time, however, no chickening out of the trial.

One immediate nail in Lightroom’s coffin, for Sony users, is that the Express version of Capture One (a more basic version than the Pro, which doesn’t allow local adjustments, for instance) is free …

A second is that it’s very easy to import (into Capture One) files that have already been imported into Lightroom. The RAW files aren’t duplicated and the catalog is totally separate from Lightroom, as is the output folder you specify.

All of which makes a comparison very easy to perform.

And here we have it. I’ll get into the specifics of workflow and ergonomics in a more fully fledged review. The topic of today’s article is the different looks you can achieve and (are naturally drawn to) using the two pieces of software. Is Capture One really superior on Sony files ? Considering Lightroom’s more intuitive interface and ability to integrate with a huge range of third-party filters and presets, Capture One needs a solid win in this department to justify the effort.

In LightRoom, very high dynamic range situations are handled either by lowering the highlights / pushing the shadows via dedicated sliders, or lowering global contrast or via the curve editor, which replicates the same effects. Using the sliders can lead to a slightly lifeless image which can be livened-up via clarity or a slight mid-tones contrast boost (curve).

In capture one, the highlights and shadow sliders belong to an HDR group and act on the shoulders of the contrast curves. They seem to lower the contrast of highlights and deep-shadows as well as bring them closer to mid-tones. This results in a more lively mi-range, on which you can also work via a strangely named brightness slider. Clarity can also be added, but comes in two flavours/sliders: structure, which basically adds micro-contrast and clarity, which is very similar to the one found in Lightroom (but seems to have a more limited effect).

All photos above were processed in Lightroom. Below, you’ll find pairs of Lightroom / Capture One photographs, for comparison. Note again that this is the free version of C1, so all the C1 photographs on this page have only received global adjustments.

On paper, Capture One’s approach is slightly less intuitive. At the computer, however, it’s very satisfying indeed. To the point that even the free Express version (no perspective correction, no local adjustments) makes the Lightroom + Nik combo feel quite redundant. But how much all of this matters in real-life is really for each person to decide. So, on with the comparison pairs.

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

One major issue I still can’t understand or find a solution to is this: the jpg files from Lightroom (sRGB) look very similar here (on a relatively low gamut screen) to the file viewed inside the program. Whereas with Capture One, the files look a lot more saturated in the software than in the final jpg, whatever the output profile. So I’m providing a few sets of variants (ProPhoto, AdobeRGB, sRGB) for a few photographs so you can make your own opinion.

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One AdobeRGB

Capture One sRGB

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One (AdobeRGB)

Capture One (sRGB)

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One, AdobeRGB.

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One, AdobeRGB

None of these pairs were scientifically matched. White balance settings in Capture One do not mirror those found in Lightroom and image management is quite different. So these probably represent where the software took me more than how close the two can be made to look.

What I’m seeing is a more natural image with Capture One. More lifelike and realistic (which is also how Paul’s Luminar processings felt).

Which is great … when that’s what you’re going for. Capture One is obviously software designed for working professional photographers and it shows in the great realism of the final image. Sometimes, that feels a little dull compared to the more vibrant and saturated output from Lightroom. But it’s fairly obvious you can boost saturation and clarity on C1 to make it look like LR whereas it’s a lot more difficult to find the natural beauty in files that have been slightly overcooked from step 1, inside the RAW processing.

Horse for courses and a choice of individual tastes, then.

One area where I find Capture One absolutely sings, is B&W. Stay tuned, that’s the topic of the next article.

So, what do you see ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Continuing my comparison of Adobe Lightroom and Phase One Capture One photo editors, here is a sequence on B&W conversions.

So it’s fitting to start with a colour image, right? Just to set the scene of the first conversion.

Capture One in colour, AdobeRGB profile

Capture One

This conversion used one of the built-in presets. The one below used a second. We can all agree the looks are very different, but neither is an overbaked caricature. Unlike some (fun but) exaggerated looks you can get from Nik Silver Efex, these two examples are very typical of what Capture One’s presets will give you: a very distinct set of aesthetics but with a strong dose of realism always present.

Capture One

Let’s do that again. I’m loving Capture One’s B&W conversion so much, I can’t resist inflicting more on you Not even sorry !

Capture One

Capture One, B&W profile 1

Capture One, B&W profile 2

Capture One, B&W profile 3

OK, two more, with Lightroom added for good measure.

Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom B&W

Capture One

Capture One, different preset

This is particularly revealing. By no stretch of the imagination a scientific test, but one that mirrors what was already visible in colour: there seems to be a better management of the luminosity channel in Capture One, which makes it sing in B&W.

It also shows how different presets produce different looks. Lightroom also provides a few “filters” that pretend to mimic glass or gel filters of traditional B&W film (or Leica Monochrom) persuasion. They look nothing like the results of actual colour filters, but the results are still worth your time.

More interesting results can be achieved in both software, by manipulating the hue, saturation and lightness of the colours in the colour mixer B&W conversion.

In both cases, sliders let you dial in more or less of each colour into the final monochrome (just like glass filters would) and a colour editor lets you alter the properties (as opposed to the quantity) of each of these colours. Capture One provides a Smoothness (and Uniformity in the pro version) slider that’s really helpful for tone control.

Most of this can be done in Lightroom as well, but the Capture One implementation seems to produce more visible, yet more sublte, results.

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Which conversion you prefer is a matter of personal taste, but on the two pairs above, it took considerable local retouching in Lightroom to come close to what was possible in Capture One with global adjustments alone.

Adobe Lightroom B&W

Capture One

Here are a few random conversions on a bleak shot.

Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 1

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 2

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 3

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 4

Capture One

Capture One, B&W Profile 1

Capture One, B&W Profile 2

Capture One, B&W Profile 3

Capture One, B&W Profile 5

My preference, in general, goes to Capture One. That’s not to say this is systematic. On the example below (Paris, not Berlin), Lightroom does a more pleasing job. A similar result can probably be achieved by altering the colours behind the B&W conversion, but I couldn’t replicate the LR look easily.

Capture One

Capture One B&W

Adobe Lightroom

So that’s it. There’s little more I can add to these samples. Photography is subjective and monochrome work even more so.

I’ve always been happy with Lightroom’s B&W conversions, particularly with the complement of Nik Silver Efex 2, and don’t want to turn this into a sterile match. My point here is merely that Capture One does a wonderful job and that Nik’s tools wouldn’t be missed at all given the range of controls Phase One have crammed into Capture One. And that’s without local adjustments.

To end this, here are a few more from Capture One, photos mostly from Paris and London.

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

What do you think?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

A few weeks ago, my article (The MacBook Pro. Overpriced gimmick or World’s best laptop for photographers ?) garnered comments that where overwhelmingly … divided. Talk about entrenched camps. Interestingly, the transfuges who raised their hands seemed to be exiting the Mac world, drawn by the sirens of powerful GPU cards (Razer Blade …) and innovative thinking (Microsoft Surface Studio …).

All of which left me very undecided, until the screen hinge on my works horse XMG broke in half. Time to make up my mind.

Well, against the advice of 99% of my entourage and most of the online media, facing the scorn of my children and the disgust of my work partners, my money went to Cupertino.

Hats off to One Paul Perton for that Paul patiently explained the upsides of Macintosh ownership, the joy of using well honed machines and the long-life and reliability he’s experienced for the past 20 years. Up to the point when, unimpressed by my inability to make up my child’s mind, he summed his advice up in a short & sweep wrapper that leaves Nike looking drab and uninspired: “Just f$&king do it! You won’t regret it”.

So, here we are, 5 weeks later, with me typing this post on an unfamiliar keyboard with the speed of an dim-witted 4 year-old, two fingers and tongue sticking out. I f$&king did it, spent twice what I wanted to and live to tell the tale.

Do I regret it? Heck no!

Not now, anyway.

Bed of roses ? Not really! Devilishly hard, rather .

It’s an incredible amount of hidden automation we have inside ourselves. Not just the keyboard shortcuts, but the logics of file management, OS oddities, trackpad weirdness … For a life-long PC user, a Mac betters Aesop’s tongue as best and worst of all things.

The Good

Where do I start? No, that’s easy. The screen. The screen alone is 60% of why I bought the new MBP. And it is brilliant beyond anything I’ve seen on a laptop before. Colours look pure. Compared to a Samsung S7 and an S6, it is less saturated and flattering, slightly more neutral. Compared to my old screen, well, you actually can’t really compare it, it’s so in another league completely. Compared to the excellent Dell XPS 13, it’s a lot brighter and at tad more alive. Blazing mediterranean winter sun on the screen, everything remains super easy to read with the screen at 60% power, even though it is super glossy. Fantastic.

The touchbar is brilliant. It may be a small productivity boost but is mostly a very pleasant user experience. All the emoticon I have inflicted upon you are just one (silly) example of the numerous uses for this dynamic tool: as soon as I type a word, related emoticons appear on the touch bar. Example: angel . And there’s a lot more: on the fly volume and brightness adjustments, tab switch, editing tools that would be hidden inside menus …

Also, standard apps are brilliant. Pareto would get a boner. Pages, Photos, Keynote,  … as far as my limited experience goes, these really are a case of doing 80% of the work at 20% of the effort. Photos is actually a superb, lightweight piece of kit. The first photo (plane in clouds) was processed in Photos, using the inbuilt Apple RAW processor.

Luminar preset

Luminar preset

Some shortcuts are really intuitive and time-saving. Multilingual auto correct on all apps is a huge time saver for me. The list goes on.

The Bad

Some shortcuts are bewildering. 3 finger dancing gets old quite quickly.

Onboarding. Seriously guys … when you’re turning an innovative star into a cash-cow behemoth as Tim Cook is doing, you really need better on boarding than this. Coming from the PC world, a Mac sends a culture shock greater than

Finder. I must be missing something, but Finder feels very uninspired.

Compatibility and drive management. Put simply,  to one of my PC backup devices work on the Mac. I have to format one from scratch then copy stuff onto it. Silver lining: it can be formatted for Mac and PC (which is probably not easy from the PC side of the pond, so I shouldn’t complain).

Keyboard. It’s fast and pleasant to use. But the placement of familiar symbols is just all over the place and downright painful to relearn. Why oh why is it so difficult for companies to settle on a standard keyboard …

The Ugly

Ugly and Mac are rarely found in the same sentence. This is one magnificent looking piece of kit. But this restless search for pretty does induce some pretty unpleasant behaviours. Some situations involving slightly technical manipulations (installing software for instance) are dealt with using pretty graphics and no text at all, leaving the neophyte baffled and frustrated.

Some tiny, unexplained, unprotected icons can dismount drives in a single mistake click, leaving yours-truly in a state of rage not seen since Steve Jobs demo tantrums. Generally speaking, I can’t help feel some features are pretty for the sake of being pretty, at the expense of user experience. Modern PCs feel more logical in some respects.

Processed with Luminar

But that’s pretty much it. Cold Turkey? Yeah, plenty. That beast was enormous. But no withdrawal syndrome from leaving the PC behind.

As honestly and free from choice-supportive bias as possible, I LOVE this thing !

But it didn’t come alone.

MacPhun Luminar

60% screen, 10% reliability – I’m going to want to change it after a few years, anyway – that leaves 30% in my reasons for buying pie-chart. Luminar accounts for those. After looking for alternatives to LightRoom long and hard, Luminar caught my attention and actually made me buy an expensive computer just to run it. Stupid, right?

The thing is, Luminar is excellent! Really.

The marketing positioning is this: the only photo editing app that evolves with your skills. Be that as it may, the customisable work environment is really interesting. I’ll get back into this in a more formal review, but you can start with presets to find something that suits the photograph and your tastes, move on to filters for a more refined approach then fine tune with abundant local retouching tools.

The software builds onto the excellent Photos app and feels like a Photoshop / LightRoom hybrid. All photos on this page except the first were processed using Luminar.

Happy Camper ?

You bet. The combination of a near perfect screen, fast machine, software that comes closer to single-stop (for my needs) than any other before is really all I could have hoped for. So far, I highly recommend this combo: 5 DS stars.

More, much more very soon. Questions about this setup? Fire away

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is not, strictly speaking, a formal review of Apple Photos, the free MacOs photo-cataloging, photo-editing application. More of an unrant (a rant is what you complain about something, an unrant is when you compliment, but in an equally subjective and biased manner).

And if you think about it, much of what is written here applies to the whole Mac universe.

It’s kind of funny to be promoting Macs when they’ve bored or repelled me all those years. I always knew there was something special about them, and many of my turncoat friends told me they would never go back. But the closed-wall environment was not for me, and much of the strong points felt gimmicky.

It’s also funny to be promoting Macs when most of the Mac community has elected to shun the new MacBook Pro releases. Yet, it’s hard to think of a more pleasant environment in which to be editing and viewing photographs. And I’ve seen … a lot. Note the use of ‘pleasant’ rather than ‘best’. So many people get hooked up on specs and reports from men in white blouses that never see the light of day … Forgive me for taking the hedonistic road to my hobby.

This, then, is all about why I’m happy to have made the switch to this hipster environment of photo editing.

So, Photos …

A confusing name to use for a reviewer, really. In the following, the upper case denotes the app, the lower case refers to actual pictures. Onwards?

For those who’ve never used the app, the photograph above constitutes a whole review. That really is all of it.

A photo (lower case) on the left, a set of sliders on the right.

So, what’s all the fuss about ?

In a word, simplicity. Refreshing, brilliantly executed simplicity.

Simplicity is the hardest thing to do well. And some apps in the MacOS environment drive me bonkers. Finder, for example, seems designed for numb nuts. But Photos (upper case) ? No sir.

Above is the catalog mode. There are other fancy features that bundle images with close timestamps into memory albums. Let’s ignore that. Double click an image in the catalog and it opens up. Click Edit and the first view, above, appears with a range available adjustment.

Global adjustments only. By default, Light, Colour and Black & White. The Add menu, at top, can supplement these with Sharpen, Definition, Noise Reduction, Vignette, White Balance and Levels.

Simple, uncluttered but not dumbed down. The app is as easy to use as Instagram or any other app with presets. However, the difference with these is this: the range of editing the sliders give access to is huge and under your control. Some, like the Brilliance slider in the Light section, depart from the traditional darkroom controls (exposure, contrast …) and provide really interesting alternatives to them.

And the real kickers are the very first sliders in each section.  Each of these acts on all the others in the section to provide a wide range of “presets”, from which you can fine tune by acting on the individual sliders in the section. Thing is, though, these “preset” sliders are really “consistent”. Unlike saturation or other controls that can soon look overcooked, these maintain photographic consistence throughout their range. Unlike some products from other manufacturers, it’s pretty clear real photographers had their say in the development of this clever application.

Beyond these, you’ll find the usual crop (beautifully executed) and retouching (cloning) tools as well as a set of Instagram-like filters that really serve no purpose given how easy it is to create your own editing.

To sum all this up, I’ll just say that the global adjustments offered by this simple set of controls very rarely leaves me wanting for local tools. Which is saying a lot. That’s both a huge time saver and a guarantee for natural looking images.

If something goes overboard in Photos, Luminar can be called up in a couple of clicks. If some special local wizardry is needed, ditto, Luminar to the rescue. Above is a photograph with a dose of Luminar magic added to it. It has more mood than the one shown inside Photos (top of the page), but also looks less natural.

And natural is how I’d qualify Photos. Brilliantly simple and natural. Of course, Luminar (and Tonality, more on which later) builds on this.

To give you an idea, here is a photograph processed in Lightroom, Capture One and Photos. My main worry with the Apple environment was the quality of its RAW processor. But, to my eyes, the Photos rendition is the best of the three here. That’s not to say Photos is systematically superior to the two others, but it’s at least in the same ballpark. Good.

Processed in LightRoom

Processed in Apple Photos (ex iPhoto)

Processed in Capture One

Let me end with a few more photographs processed in Photos. With Lightroom I’ve always struggled to make this sort of drab image pop without looking unnatural.

And here, it was belting down with rain. It’s safe to say the gloomy atmosphere and vapour in the air are very well rendered here.

Photos isn’t without its issues. There are some minor bugs such as weird black streaks on some pics (see on first image) and broken thumbnails. But, all in all it’s a very satisfying piece of kit. Many of the free apps on the Mac are pleasantly simple and rewarding like this.

Some photographers love doing their processing in-camera, using inbuilt filters. Others enjoy assembling super elaborate contraptions, using 6 or 7 pieces of software to build their workflow. To me, Photos is the Goldilocks of photo editing environment. It’s brought back a lot of the fun and enthusiasm that my previous kit was slowly killing off. Goodie.

So. Wadjathink ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is a very interesting guest post by Brian Patterson on how and why to adapt enlarger lenses to outfit modern day cameras. Refreshing … Be sure to click on the clematis shot, it is full size and shows the lovely image quality of the lens. Brian, thanks a lot for sharing this.

That’s the best title I could come up with for this wonky article – honest. How else do you introduce the idea of shooting images with enlarger lenses? There. I’ve said it. I take pictures using old enlarger lenses. I know. Who taught this guy to take pictures anyway?

All you white-collar Batis and Loxia shooters can take a long yawn if you’ve stopped reading already. I don’t blame you. It struck me as more than just odd to seriously consider going down this road. Until I saw images made this way and realized you can’t always get these results with normal taking lenses.

So, you interested? You’re still reading so I’ll take that as a ‘yes’.

There’s a big assortment of enlarger lenses out there – some are better than others. Rodenstock Rodagons. Schneider-Kreuznach Componons. And even more you probably haven’t heard of, like the Russian Vega-5U 105/4 I fell in love with. Mounted on a bellows, my sample captures 2:1 and 1:1 images as sharp and contrasty images.

Did I tell you the best part? They’re cheap! But that’s not why I buy them. Primarily, it’s the combination of wide open aperture performance and a variable bokeh that draws us flies to this flame. Flat field enlarger optics have little or no CA, little or no distortion and little or no lack of sharpness that even some pricey ‘camera’ lenses won’t give you.

The purpose of this article is to offer some insight on using enlarger lens with modern digital cameras – on my 24MP Sony a65, in this case. The aforementioned Rodagon, Componon and Vega models are a great starting point for this adventure. You’ll need a bellows, of course.

For this primer, we’ll look at samples from my Rodenstock 80/5.6 and Vega-5U 105/4 lenses. First, what these optics look like mounted on my Sony a65. The Vega-5U is used for closeups and macro while the Rodagon gets to work at longer distances on the street.

First up is the Russian Vega-5U 105/4 – a Zeiss Biometar optical design reproduction made up of 5 elements in 3 groups intended to enlarge 6X7 images on 120/220 roll film.

Next, the Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 – a 1980’s optical design intended to enlarge 6X4.5 and 6X6 film images taken on 120/220 roll film. The Rodagon still represents their premiere enlarger lens formula. A $30 42mm >39mm helicoid, coupled with a short extension tube for closeup/macro subjects, and M42>MA adapter enables a wide focusing range.

Eat Your Veggies!

It’s important to tell you at this point that I grow vegetables. They make great models. Always smiling in the morning sun. At least one good side, once you find it. Available anytime you need them. And they have plenty of bugs for friends. So every time I get a new, uh, old lens, it just takes a few minutes to get the skinny on how good they are, or aren’t.

Vega-5U 105/4 & Basic Bokeh

Vega-5U 105/4 & Mid Aperture Bokeh

Vega-5U 105/4 & Infinity Bokeh 1 (Blueberries)

Vega-5U 105/4 & Infinity Bokeh 2 (shown w/ Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8)

Vega-5U 105/4 & Macro Bokeh (Yellow Squash)

Vega-5U 105/4 Macro (Clematis)

Vegas-5U 105/4 Infinity Sharpness Check 1

Vegas-5U 105/4 Infinity Sharpness Check 2

Next up is the 1980’s Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6, their premium enlarger formula of the day. IQ is excellent wide open and even better just one stop down. This nearly apochromatic enlarger lens is still available for today’s film shooter.

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Wide Open

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Bokeh 1

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Check

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Close Up

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Bokeh 2

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Distortion Check

Rodenstock Rodagon Contrast Check

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Wide Open

So why in the world would anyone go to the trouble to shoot with these lenses? Personally, I love the optical properties they possess and the renditions they create. The sharpness is so rewarding and the variety of bokeh effects seem endless and easily accomplished with a little practice. For landscapes and street shooting they are tiny and essentially weightless. And they can be found for $50-60 in excellent condition by the savvy online buyer.

Everyone loves an adventure. This one is straight out of the darkroom…

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is a new hands-on guest post about the new Leica M10 and 4 interesting lenses by reader PaulB. Here’s is his bio and introduction :

“My name is Paul Barclay and I have been practicing photography for the past 33 years. I began pursuing photography seriously after graduating from Engineering school, and early in my career I had the good fortune of being able to mix industrial photography with engineering for about 12 years. Today I am involved with the business side of my industry rather than engineering, so my photography is personal.

I began my photographic journey using film with an Argus medium format camera, though I quickly upgraded to a Nikon SLR system. In the mid-2000’s I switched from Nikon to Leica, made a serious effort into large format landscape photography, and was a contributing photographer to an online magazine during the internet’s infancy. Today, I still have my large format equipment, though I mostly use Leica and Olympus cameras, with a Sony A7II on the side.

My favorite forms of photography are street, travel, and landscapes.”

Thanks Paul !

I know the title of this article seems a bit strange, but my first impression of the Leica M10 came a few days after it’s announcement when I visited my favorite Leica dealer. When I walked in the door I was surprised to find one of the store’s regular Leica users holding a new M10 in the leather half case. This was the proud new owner of what was most likely the first M10 in Seattle. Needless to say, my first impressions from talking with this new owner and handling my dealer’s demonstration sample gave me the desire to try the M10 for longer than just a few minutes in the store.

My first opportunity to really use the camera, with my lenses, came a couple of weeks later when my dealer let me borrow their camera. Since I was only able to use the camera for about 2 hours this is my second impression. I would need a much longer period of time to write a review. In addition, since several good reviews have already been written, I needed to have a different point of view in order to provide what I hope is valuable information to anyone reading this. So I decided I would use four legacy lenses with the camera set to ISO 800; there will be more about this setting later. The lenses selected were the 135 mm APO-Telyt M, a first generation 50 mm Summilux M, a 21mm Elmarit M-ASPH, and a mystery lens.

After picking up the camera from my dealer, I walked a few short blocks to South Lake Union and one of Seattle’s jewels for photography, The Center for Wooden Boats. As the first image above shows, the camera was equipped with the optional grip base, a hot shoe cover, and no camera strap. It also shows how much larger the rangefinder window is and the location of the ISO dial.

When I arrived at my destination, I took a little time to check the camera menus, the button and switch layout, and their function. During this time I noticed how different the power switch configuration is. It’s just a two-position switch, off and on, rather than a four-position switch as on my M9. I started using the camera set to single frame advance and later changed to sequential frame advance. The button function on the camera and the menu choices are simple and the way I thought they should be. When I started my photography session I thought I might miss the versatility of the four-position switch on the M9. But if you have ever found yourself in the situation where you have missed images because the switch gets bumped to self-timer, or between settings, you will quickly appreciate the new switch. It is very simple and it works.

The second thing I noticed is the shape and size of the grip, and the size and position of the thumb rest molded into the rear face of the camera. My first thought of the grip was I might like it to be slightly wider, left to right, and possibly shaped slightly farther around the side of the camera body. In using the camera for almost 2 hours I never gave the grip or the thumb rest a second thought. Their size and placement provided for a secure and comfortable hold on the camera. Considering that about half of the time I was using the grip exclusively with a firm hold, says that it is well done and makes the grip a worthy addition to the camera. This is a bit ironic, considering the attention being paid to the new thinner body.

I started using the camera with the 135mm APO-Telyt M lens, which is probably the most difficult focal length to focus on a Leica. Since 135mm is the limit for the base length between the rangefinder windows, and generally speaking the distance to our subject makes details small in the viewfinder. As the image of the clock below shows, when our subject is fairly close and has large easy to see features, the new viewfinder size and magnification helps with the focusing process. Though when the subject gets farther away, such as with the image of the canoe below, focusing a 135 mm lens can still be a challenge. As the image of the Oar House sign shows, when your subject gets harder to see, it becomes easier to miss-focus. So for photographers with eyes that are under 40 years old, using a 135mm lens with the finder alone may be sufficient for good focus. For my 58 year-old eyes the optional EVF will be a requirement for this lens.

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

For the rest of my time with the M10, I switched between the other lenses and as you can see all of the images we were challenged by bright sunlight. Which meant using f4+ to f5.6+ in order to keep shutter speeds below the 1/4000 th of a second limit.

The Mystery Lens

50 mm f1.4 Summilux M (Ser. 1)

Even with the exposure challenges presented with this location, all of the above images show the dynamic range potential available with the new sensor. In each of the original files the white boats are very close to being washed out and the shadows are very dark with almost no visible detail. In the case of the 135mm image of the canoe above, the woman under the roofline was the only person visible in the unprocessed image. For the girl on the left, only the shine on her face was visible, and the other girl was not visible at all. In Capture One 9, I was able to bring down the highlights and bring up the shadow details, and the default noise reduction was more than enough to counter the noise in each of the images. I did reduce the noise correction to zero to check a couple of images, and while visible the noise was not offensive.

50 mm f1.4 Summilux M (Ser. 1)

The Mystery Lens

One experience that is not visible in most of the images above is the effect of the new viewfinder size and magnification on the focusing and framing process. In short, the new viewfinder is a big improvement for focusing and framing the 21mm through 50mm lenses I used. For the 21mm, since the camera had a hot shoe cover installed and I did not want to lose it, I used the hard frame edges of the viewfinder instead of my external finder. For this location and subject I think the hard frame edge is reasonably close to the 21 mm field of view, see below. Though I would want to compare this to my finder before I made the choice to leave it behind.

21mm f2.8 Elmarit M-ASPH (Uncropped)

Another thing to point out is I wear glasses, and the new finder size and magnification made seeing the frame lines and focusing much easier than I experience using my M9. Though be aware that since the field of view is much bigger, you may need to alter your technique if you grip your lenses from the top when making vertical images, as your hand may block the viewfinder.

Over all I enjoyed using the M10 and I am pleased with the images presented. Which means I will want to use the camera again for a longer trial. Though, there were acouple of disappointments in this experience. First, I was disappointed I did not take a bit more time to go over the camera to get the feel for all of the features. As old habits die hard when you are busy, and when I realized I needed to reduce the ISO setting I went into the menu instead of adjusting the ISO speed dial. The second disappointment came while choosing images to include in this article. My normal method of making images is to set the camera to record DNG and JPEG files, with the JPEGs set to monochrome. I am used to the wonderful B&W images the M9 produces and the B&W JPEGs from the M10 are not up to that standard. The M10 B&W JPEGs appear to be a simple de-saturation of the color image with a very slight tone adjustment. Hopefully this can be corrected in the future with a firmware update.

For those interested, none of the lenses used are 6-bit coded, so no in camera lens correction was applied. And all the images were processed to taste for exposure, sharpening, noise, alignment, and aspect ratio using Capture One 9. White balance was set for the best gray point in the scene, otherwise no color or lens corrections were applied in post.

Finally, I would like to thank my Leica dealer, Glazer’s Camera, for loaning me the camera, and Pascal Jappy for the opportunity to make a contribution to Dear Susan and it’s readers.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

We’ve heard a lot about the new medium format cameras from Fuji and Hassleblad and some user reviewers are now surfacing slowly. But what’s been on our mind lately, here at DS, is how these compare to the current star of our Full Frame lineup, the Sony A7rII. And now, thanks to contributor Bob Hamilton, we can.

We only have a few samples to share but these are 100% and converted to jpg in a high quality setting so comparisons are still interesting. If more come our way, we’ll add them to this feed.

Before the pics, a couple of methodology caveats :

(1) Both cameras are using their own glass. So what you’re seeing is a system to system comparison rather than a back to back camera confrontation. Still, that’s what people will be using in real life. So 120mm Macro on the Fuji GFX and Sony G 90 on the A7rII.

(2) Images are processed with LightRoom. And it’s my experience that LightRoom and Sony don’t get along perfectly all the time. Sometimes the colours are a bit off, particularly in the yellow-greens that foliage often exhibits.

So, with that covered, many thanks to Bob and onwards to the photographs. Warning, large files ahead (35MB each).

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

Second pair

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

Third set

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

My conclusions are that the GFX feels a tiny bit less electronic at 100% and colours seem a bit better. On the other hand the A7RII seems a little sharper. But the real conclusion is that, in terms of IQ, both are so close as to make no significant difference, other than colourwise. So, coming from a Sony A7rII corner, it’s hard to see anything compelling enough to make a switch. Moving up from a different system, your mileage may vary.

Update: Here are a few more links with great photos made using the Fuji GFX or that show more comparisons with the Sony A7rII. If you have any to add, I’ll add those links / picture here :

• Striking New Orleans colour with the Fuji GFX : https://www.mendelsonfineartphotography.com/blog/new-orleans-with-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s-camera
• Fuji GFX + 120 Macro vs Sony A7rII + Otus 85 : http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/otus-85-on-the-a7rii-fuji-120mm-macro-on-the-gfx-50s/ I’m really not sure how the author got such appalling corner image quality on the Otus at f/2.8, mine is essentially perfect, and I’m not sure why anyone would be interested in viewing anything at 250%, but the global image comparison remains interesting : colours and 3D are very different.

Then, there’s usability. But we’ve covered that elsewhere, no point on repeating ourselves.

So, what do you think ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Smartphone photography is a bit of a polarizing topic, here on DearSusan :  some photographers herald it as the definitive solution for close-up, spontaneous, huge DOF explorations, while the arrière-garde argue that they’re perfectly happy with their large bodies (cameras, that is) and super lenses. I personally fall in both camps.

Well now, there may be a unifying solution. It comes from Zeiss, who else, bringing with it the promise of jaw-dropping optical yumminess while bolting on to your ever-present friend, the Smartphone. It’s called the ExoLens, and consists of an exo-skeleton designed to hug your phone and hold a lens over the phone’s inbuilt camera.

My daughter recently bought a similar bolt-on lens systems for her OnePlus 3T phones. A Holga-like fun addition that creates the sort of edge blur you expect from a toy camera and which, let’s be honest, is a lot of fun. Zeiss’s positioning is … different. More … serious. The photograph below (from the ExoLens website) illustrates this point quite clearly. The lenses look like they are polished from diamond by Astraea and a held together by parts that would look at home in a Koenigsegg.

Is this all marketing hype ?

Nope. To me, this is a niche game-changer, with a small target audience that will adore it.

Unboxing the ExoLens System

So, a parcel turned up a few days ago, sent by the great people at Rivolier (Zeiss representative in France) and it felt like they’d mistakenly sent me a baby Otus. Inside the parcel, 4 Exolens boxes : one bracket for iPhone 6/6s, one wide-angle lens, one macro lens, one telephoto lens.

Unboxing followed, somewhat bewildered. Yes, unboxing. Some have questioned the price of these accessories. And I’ve yet to assess image quality. But in terms of packaging and build, you’re clearly getting your money’s worth. This is clearly not toy territory.

In fact this isn’t even usual photo lens territory. The Tele Exolens, while small, is built like a Milvus. Which, for those who’ve never seen one, means heavy and beautiful. Full metal jacket. Large glass elements. Aspheric design. T* coating. The whole shebang. Immensely desirable. Here’s another photograph from the website.

The front of the barrel is roughly 40mm (1.6″). 50mm (2″) with the metal hood. And – wait for it – the lens cap is brilliant. On my MacBook Pro, the above photo is roughly 10:9, 10% over real life size. Adjust according to your dpi resolution

Have they lost their mind ?

However, once past the very positive first impressions, it’s hard not to question the rationale for this lens system.

1) Image quality is never going to be good

Let’s face it. What you’re buying is a real lens. Something like a downsized Milvus 50/1.4 (a brilliant, brilliant lens, by the way). It’s heavy. It’s expensive (by phone standards, dirt cheap by lens standards, and for what you are getting). And, although my shock at seeing these things has prompted me to start writing before any testing, I have no doubt quality will be excellent.

But … Isn’t the final quality of the image tied to the quality of the lens inside the camera ? If so, what’s the point ?

The ExoLenses can’t possibly be optimised for a specific smartphone camera. That would render most of the available mounting brackets useless and would imply a redesign for every new smartphone release.

Here’s what Oliver Schindelbeck, master brain behind the ExoLens system, explains :

The basic parameters of smartphone cameras (Viewing angle, aperture, entrance pupil, sensor size) do not vary so much. The Exolens lenses are afocal systems and we calculated our lenses to fit to the maximum most of these parameters. Therefore the Exolens lenses fit to most of the existing smartphones from optical point of view. The limiting factor in most cases is the mounting of the lenses. We need a very precise and sturdy mounting system to guarantee the image quality (…) afocal photography allows to cover a range of different parameters.

2) But who on earth wants to carry heavy lenses for a Smartphone ?

Well, it’s all relative. The lenses feel large and heavy compared to the plastic toys on offer elsewhere. If you’re worried about carrying 3 Otuses in your bag, don’t be

3 Exolenses and an Otus 85

In fact, the largest is not half the size of my tiniest lens, the C-Sonnar 50. It’s only compared to usual phone accessories that the size is noticeable.

Plus all 3, and the bracket, come with dedicated textile pouches. So, it’s quite conceivable to shove all this into a tiny town bag and carry along a tiny, high quality 16-56mm + macro system with you at all times rather than rely on digital zoom. All for less money than an entry-level compact with crappy ergonomics.

And that does make sense. But …

What if you’re not Wolverine-compatible ?

This one’s a biggie. There are a few mounting brackets available for the most common phones on the market. And, yes, they seem built out of something from Wolverine’s claws. But some people will inevitably fall outside that range. Like me, with my Samsung Galaxy 6. Oliver tells us that a “Sturdy and precise mounting system that aligns the lens in the exact position“ is important and that “Unfortunately in the Android world the variety of phones is too big to offer solutions here.“

So, if you’re listening, Samsung, Google, HTC, LG, OnePlus … (yeah, right) please take note : if you want to compete on photo-related arguments, maybe you need to take serious third-party add-ons into consideration.

If you’re not the owner of a phone compatible with one of the brackets, cases or edge clips provided (see website), you can test your patience by holding the lens in front of your phone’s camera.

But I wouldn’t bother. It’s pretty easy to live-view when you’re centering and when you’re decentering but it’s a very hit (orchid, above) and miss (daffodil, below) affair. With plenty more of one than the other

Since my phone isn’t physically compatible with the mounting bracket, co-author Philippe took on the hard task of making photographs with his iPhone 6 and providing his insights, below …

Shooting with Zeiss Exolens (Philippe)

The promise is simple: a trio of add-on Zeiss lenses for smartphones. What Zeiss do is deliver “other” focal lengths than the native one. One wide, one long-ish, one for macros.

Let’s face it, I was more than skeptical, because I couldn’t see how mounting glass in front of my iPhone 6 was going to make it other than what it is, a very average camera-phone, as high-end smartphones go (Pascal’s Samsung Galaxy S6 runs rings around it, both for IQ and UI/creative software). But it could conceivably make it worse, as many add-on lenses do on high-end camera systems.

iPhone 6 with Exolens Wide

Up to now, I thought if someone has the “right” idea on how implement real camera IQ  on a smartphone, it is Sony with the Qx and DxO with the One. Meaning putting a real camera with APS-C sensor onto the smartphone. The Sony bombed, and I can’t say that I’ve seen the One set the world on fire. Thus the Zeiss sounded like a bad idea: bound by the limitations of the iPhone 6 IQ, and further burdened by the weight (and cost) of the Zeiss add-ons.

iPhone 6 without Exolens

iPhone 6 with x2 Telephoto Exolens

To be honest, to a large degree, I have to eat my own words. I still don’t understand how, but the fact is, my iPhone with Exolens delivers vastly better IQ than without it. Not just marginally better, vastly. It definitely puts it in the Galaxy S7 category in many ways, and ahead of it in some ways. Astounding, shocking even…

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

More specifically, and here I am talking about the wide and the long lens add-ons, because a shot with the macro add-on is so different from without it (its range is very close-up indeed) that the two cannot be compared, my phone has more dynamic range (its most frustrating limitation) and vastly better colors than without the add-on.

iPhone 6, no Exolens. Harsh and uninteresting.

iPhone 6 & Zeiss Exolens Tele plus minimal post processing? Night and day …

With such improvements, my phone’s ability to handle contrast and less-then-easy situations, just where it usually falls apart, is transformed. Pascal and I went to the Grau-du-Roi on a very sunny day. I took a few shots with the short tele mounted, and showed them to Pascal. He just went ”wow” at how the “system” handled the massive light and glare of a sunny day in Provence. He even asked me to re-shoot some scenes without the Exolens, just to make sure we weren’t seeing things, the way you do after too much rosé de Provence. Then he tweaked the image with a modicum of PP (30 seconds worth) to make it even better. The shadows are no longer just dark and colorless blotches, and the highlights no longer feel screechy. The picture is no longer a pain to look at. Many would consider it mildly attractive. And, remember, we are talking just about maximum contrast conditions, the sort of light that makes any smartphone cry “uncle”, and which is a challenge for any “serious” camera.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

So, in a nutshell, look at the results, and I can’t see how you can fail to be a convert, as am I.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

There is a catch, however. You know the story about things that are too good to be true …

The catch is the material implementation. The extra hardware takes a bit too much time and effort to screw and slide on. Then it can slip off all too easily. The extra weight makes the iPhone ridiculously top-heavy, making it impossible to keep it in my breast pocket where it usually sits. Because weight and finish-wise, the Exolens is real Zeiss. Metal construction and all the hallmarks of German quality, including a “convincing” amount of weight.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

So, in conclusion, I find Exolens to be conflicted. A brilliant feat of optical wizardry that puts better IQ at the disposal of anyone who shoots iPhone 6 and 7 (you’re talking a 9-digit number of people!). But clunky implementation which, while not ruining a smartphone’s simple and elegant way to take pictures and zip them online, to my mind, makes carrying one or more Exolens around a less than attractive proposition.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

Pascal concludes

From a scientific point of view, it’s hard to explain how a passive system (lens) can have an impact on digital aspects of photography such as dynamic range. But the fact are there. On every comparison we’ve made on the iPhone 6, shadows are less murky and highlight roll-off is more gentle. Colours are just better to look at. It’s possible this wouldn’t be the case on other cameras but we can’t deny what we saw with this one.

At the end of the day, there are 2 ways of looking at a product like this, if you’re interested in photography.

(1) You already own and use a camera and your Smarpthone is just your selfie accessory or a documentation tool. Forget about the Exolens system. It won’t make your phone better than your camera (except if that’s a few generations old and your phone is very recent). And you’ll probably not be interested anyway because “traditional” photographers tend to shun phone cameras.

(2) You started photography with your Smartphone and have outgrown the feeble possibilities of its digital zoom. You want to step up to a more mature system without breaking your back, the bank or the Smartphone shooting process. Or you’re convinced that Smartphone photography has something to offer as a complement to the more traditional approach but are reluctant because of the usual IQ issues.

iPhone 6 & Zeiss Exolens Wide processed in MacPhun Tonlity CK

In that second case, the Exolens system makes a lot of sense. The relative size and weight of the lenses (compared to the toy-category competition) and the asking price are less than a new camera.

With your bracket permanently attached to the phone and the lenses packed in their pouches in a bag, you’re just seconds away from a lens change at any moment (heck, that’s actually how co-author Paul carries and handles his Fuji / Leica / Zeiss kit). Although we can’t help thinking a clipping system would be quicker than a screw mount, changing your Exolens isn’t that much more cumbersome than changing a lens on a traditional camera and you never get dust onto your sensor. You save weight, a lot of money and retain the great screen, on the fly editing and social sharing capabilities of phones that somehow continue to boggle the minds of traditional camera makers in 2017 …

For a traditional generation of photographers, it probably all sounds ridiculous. For the younger person that wants to get into serious photography making no compromises in convenience or optical quality, it’s simply brilliant. You already know what camp you fall in. Or do you ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

After 2 months of ownership and some 900 images, these are my thoughts on the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50.

Here is a link to the original article #614. I used an Otus but purchased a Milvus

Milvus 50

Firstly, yes it’s a keeper why, I will go into that a little later, the 50 has since been joined by the 2.8/21 Milvus, but that’s a story for another time. They both will be joined by the new 1.4/35 when it becomes available “downunder”, in about a months time I’m told.

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

A manual focus lens, to some, may seem like old school and out of date. These were my thoughts prior to experiencing the Zeiss Otus in April this year. I quickly adapted to the concept; being a Nikon shooter I don’t have EVF and am limited to using the “Nikon focus assist DOT” in the view finder while shooting hand-held. Of course, manual focus on a tripod is close to a no brainer with live view.

Otus 28

The Otus has a long throw about 3/4 of turn from memory and makes locating optimum focus relatively easy. The Milvus does not have the same length of throw so focusing can take a little longer and at times does get frustrating when hand-held on close-ups wide open.

Philippe gave me a tip early on, to open the lens to widest aperture focus and then stop down to the desired aperture.

The famous Zeiss micro contrasts is something I quickly fell in love with and it continues still. It’s something that I find very hard to put into words it has to be seen to be totally appreciated.

Otus 55

Otus 55

Bokeh, well that’s what top shelf glass is renowned for and the 50 does not disappoint as I have said in the previous post I am a confirmed “Bokeh Slut” to quote Philippe. Is this regard the 50 performs well against the Otus, which do you think?

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Otus 55

Otus 55

It’s so soft and creamy.

My original plan was to compare images taken by Nikon 1.8/50 & 28/24-70 (at 50mm) and the Zeiss 1.4/50 at various apertures.

Unfortunately, the web is not a good place to compare images taken by quality glass (yes the 1.8/50 is far from being quality) due to resolution limitations. In my last article the nifty 50 was mistaken for an Otus, but on a good quality screen or print they can easily be identified by their look. That’s only one of the many reasons why we should all print more of our images than we do, me included so we can better appreciate our work as it was originally intended to be viewed.

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

The bottom line is the Zeiss 50 out performed the other lens in my opinion at all aperture. Sharpness, micro contrast and the overall look which I know is very subjective.

Milvus 50

In summary of course its a keeper due to what I’ve said above about its image quality. Yes it does have drawbacks to name 3, manual focus, weight and size, not to mention the price. These are out weighed in my opinion by the image quality, bokeh, build quality and the overall feel of the Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50.

I’m not qualified to say how the Milvus line stacks up against the Otus, some YouTubers say they perform to about 95% of the Otus you be the judge.

Given the price differential and that the Milvus line are fully weather sealed I think they are a winner and the way to go, if you want that little extra and the absolute best then the Otus is for you.

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Posted on DearSusan by Dallas Thomas.

Around a year ago, Philippe wrote this review of the then new Sony “G Master” (GM) 24-70mm f2.8 zoom for their full frame E mount cameras. In his review he talked about the excellence of the lens, it’s resolution, it’s sharpness, it’s contrast, but also it’s lack of “magic”. His conclusion was that many modern lenses such as the 24-70 GM can be technically excellent, but that the last drop of something “special” that raises a picture from soulless perfection to having “magic” eluded them.

I’ve been photographing with Sony’s A7 and A7s cameras since 2014, and my most used lens has probably been the Sony FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Vario-Tessar. My experience with that lens could probably be a review of it’s own, as I always felt it is much maligned in many online reviews, and basically offered solid performance on 12-24Mp cameras.

Lone flower (Sony FE 24-70mm f4 OSS Zeiss Vario-Tessar)

I recently purchased a Sony A7R2 body, and it was then that the greater demands of a higher resolution sensor (42Mp) started to reveal some weakness in the 24-70mm f4 Vario-Tessar. It wasn’t that the photos were terrible, but whilst it made good quality photographs at lower pixel counts, the very finest detail and “bite” was simply missing with such a high resolution sensor.

I think that there is a philosophical issue with the “zoom vs. prime” debate about focal length and composition, the one side favouring the flexibility of a lens that fits the scene, the other favouring finding scenes that fit the focal length.  Since many of my photographs fall broadly into “travel”, the flexibility of a standard zoom that covers wide angle to short tele focal lengths often trumps the potentially better image quality of prime lenses and the need to constantly change lenses.  For travel, I believe it’s important to have a lens that can capture the scene you want, not force you to find compositions that suit it, a subject I hope to return to in a future article.

Offering (Sony FE 24-70mm f4 OSS Zeiss Vario-Tessar)

So it was that I decided to upgrade my “standard” zoom to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master to take full advantage of the A7R2 sensor.

After using it for a couple of days it was obvious that my copy of the lens had some issues. Part of the frame towards one corner would often show smearing, and closer inspection of images at different focal lengths and apertures revealed some apparent centring issues that made corners on one side look rather soft at any aperture. More worryingly the plane of focus appeared to be diagonal through the frame, so depth of field on one side of the frame was different to the other.  Fortunately the dealer where it was purchased was very understanding, and after discussing the problem with Sony, Sony offered to replace it instead of taking it in for service, which could have taken several weeks. The second copy had notably better, more consistent image quality across the frame.

River View, taken at 66mm with an aperture of f11, shows excellent corner to corner detail

Many opportunities to show the lens at it’s best had been missed, as at the time the replacement was only used for some physique portraits, a test it passed with flying colours.  I was interested to find opportunities to see it’s “bokeh” rendering. “Bokeh”, a Japanese term, refers to the way a lens renders out of focus detail.  The general goal is to produce very smooth out of focus details with good blending of luminance and tone, with no bright hard edges. Philippe also wrote an article about “Why am I such a bokeh slut?” . Further background to the term can be found in this article written in 1997 In Photo Techniques magazine, which was thought to be the first time the term was discussed in western media.

Sony made great claims about the bokeh quality of the G Master lens series, which the company stated required new “extreme aspheric” elements which had surfaces ground with extreme precision. Aspheric elements, which have irregularly curved surfaces, can be made more cheaply by bonding components together (“bonded aspheric”), but where the elements meet the bonding creates imperfections which can result in optical imperfections visible in out of focus highlights (sometimes called “dirty bokeh”). Sony claimed to have improved bokeh quality by using a new manufacturing technique which required a new lens polishing machine to create very smooth extremely perfect lens surfaces.

One of my particular dislikes about out of focus rendering is what is sometimes referred to as “wiry bokeh”, where out of focus details take on a rather nervous wire-like quality rather than being smooth and blended. This is often combined with out of focus edges of contrast that have double edges, and “Nissen rings” can also occur, where out of focus discs of light are formed with a hard bright edge.  In my experience, some lenses with very high contrast which are often also optimised to produce very “sharp” results, particularly suffer from these effects.  It seems that very high contrast and excessive “sharpness” work against blending of out of focus areas and tend to accentuate brighter tones and highlights as discs where the goal of “good” bokeh is smooth tone.  Samples from my Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 show some of these traits.

Wiry bokeh, showing poor blending in out of focus detail (Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 OSS at minimum focus distance)

Nissen rings from tiny highlights on wet foliage (Zeiss Batis 85mm f1.8 OSS at minimum focus distance)

Even with my first defective copy of the 24-70mm G Master lens, my initial impression seemed to show a pleasant smoothness to out of focus areas, although it’s a common mistake to judge lens bokeh with plain low contrast backgrounds, since they offer little challenge and rarely reveal true character.

Chinese statues

I wrote recently about my “short breaks” of a few hours where I have been able to spend a few hours indulging in some photography as an antidote to some of life’s stress.

During one of these breaks, I took a walk in a narrow park beside the river Severn, and came across some beds of meadow flowers in the afternoon sun. There is always something quite satisfying photographing flowers, because nature does all the hard creative work for you, and the photographic process is often little more than the act of recording it: as Steffen asked, is photography creation or just depicting creation?  Philippe and others often take beautifully minimalist photos of flowers, shallow depth of field and plain backgrounds showing them off in all their delicate beauty.

Distant cathedral

My meadow flower photos weren’t like that, as bright directional sunshine created flowers half in backlight showing their translucent petals and half in their own hard shadow. The sunshine and the busyness of the backgrounds made photos that screamed out to be brightly coloured and cheerful, an antidote to recent pressures on my mood.

Distant sky 1 : Handling of back lighting shows good resistance to flare

Distant Sky 2 :  Again, with strong sunlight in front of the camera, resistance to flare and colour fringing is good

Busy : probably one of the “worst” samples I could produce, with some slight nervousness to the background, although certainly not “bad”, although I find the result quite “painterly”

Smooth : at minimum focus with low contrast backgrounds, the bokeh can be very smooth

It was one of the first opportunities to use the lens at open aperture, and I was immediately struck by the quality of the bokeh behind the plane of focus. Even with bright sunshine creating high contrast backgrounds with bright specular highlights and hard shadows, the effect was painterly, almost impressionistic. No hard edges, no nissen rings, no double edges and only the slightest nervousness.

Sunflower

Meadow field

Close up : minimum focus is around 38cm from the film plane, so as the lens telescopes when zoomed to 70mm, the subject can be only a few cm from the front element

Close up 2 : At minimum focus distance, the lens has slight softness towards the long end of it’s focal length range, which probably aids bokeh

Pretty in pink

Painterly meadow : a surprisingly “painterly” rendering with fairly gentle fall off to out of focus

Although the needs of high resolution digital imaging has made the design of all lenses more complex, prime lenses are generally still simpler than zoom lenses that cover “standard” focal lengths, and require fewer aspheric elements and esoteric types of glass.  Their faster apertures offer greater control over shallow depth of field, and their simpler designs can offer cleaner more attractive bokeh.  I don’t really expect magic from a zoom lens, even a fancily manufactured high end one.  The value of a good quality zoom is the ability to be consistent: you want a lens that you can use at different focal lengths and apertures that will produce good photographs.

Bloom : highlights behind the plane of focus can show some slight lack of blending

This article was never meant as a detailed technical review of the lens – there are several good places on the internet that can provide very detailed bench tests of resolution, vignetting and other technical measurements.  Since I haven’t yet had much opportunity to grow accustomed to my second copy, it would be premature to make too many statements on it’s character and performance.  With modern lenses, resolution can mostly be taken as a given, and even when used with a 42Mp sensor the results seem excellent.  At minimum focus there is some obvious softness, although it’s not extreme, and detail becomes crisper with focus even a few inches away from minimum.  Contrast is enough to give good detail without becoming excessive and screaming “sharp”.

Death and Decay

The fall off from in focus to out of focus seems quite soft and gradual, which works against very obvious “3D” effects, but I suspect contributes to it’s general drawing style and bokeh, which for a zoom I would regard as mostly very good and occasionally excellent.  So far I have seen no significant issues such as nissen rings, double edges or “hardness”, although there can be a slight nervousness behind the plane of focus.  I didn’t think a mere lens could turn my photographs into Monet’s water lilies or Van Gogh’s sunflowers, but based on some of these photographs and their quite gentle almost painterly style,  I  think I’m going to have to politely disagree with Philippe and say this lens can have magic – it just needs the right challenge.

Photographs in this article were taken with the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 G Master lens using an F2.8 unless otherwise stated, using a Sony A7R2  E mount full frame camera, and were post processed to taste using SilkyPix Developer Studio Pro v8.

Posted on DearSusan by Adrian.

The chance to shoot with Nikon’s new D850 was an opportunity too good to knock back, when offered by my good friend Ken.

These few words are not a review of the 850, but my thoughts after only a very short period of use.

The 850 feels similar but different to my 810. The grip is slightly deeper and appears to be more comfortable for my regular sized hand.

The 153 point focus didn’t get a workout as I was using my MF Zeiss Milvus 50 and 21.

Has Nikon made the 850 any easier to use MF focus lens with, the quick answer is no.

The new LCD is very impressive when compared to the 810, much more detail and better to pixel peep with. The articulation is a welcomed addition.

The image quality is excellent, you may well ask are 45.7 Megapixels better than 36.3 Megapixels to be honest I’m not sure I can tell the difference. Having said that, I did not take exactly the same shot with both and compare them side by side.

The shutter to my ear is slightly more noisy on the 850 then the 810. I didn’t use the 850 in burst mode.

I enjoyed my time with the 850 it was joy to use and I felt at home with it. As usual Nikon has moved the buttons around to confuse you as they do with all new models.

The burning question would I shell around A$5,200 to add one to my bag, the quick answer is No. My reasons are my 810 is only 3 months old and I have a D4S if high speed mode is required. If I didn’t own both of these cameras, then yes the 850 would be a worthwhile purchase as it’ll be an excellent allrounder especially if you purchase the optional battery grip to get extra FPS.

Thanks Ken for the use of your beloved 850 and chat as we walked around Sydney CBD.

I thought this shot was appropriate to end this article!

Posted on DearSusan by Dallas Thomas.

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words. Well, here’s an 8 000 word review that involves little reading!

Took a wee trip into the hills of the Southern Highlands on Tuesday to a location where I was pretty certain, from previous experience, I’d get some shots of Red Kites (and other birds) and the opportunity to try out the Sony A9 for wildlife photography to see how well it functioned in terms of autofocus accuracy and tracking ability and image quality at pretty high ISO’s. To say I was impressed an understatement and I have to say that I’ve never experienced a camera with its autofocus capabilities, made all the better by the fact that, using the electronic shutter, the EVF does not blackout and panning with fast-moving creatures is a relative dawdle as a result.

Most, if not all, of the attached images were taken at ISO 6400 which required a bit (but not too much) noise reduction in Lightroom.

All shots were taken with the 100-400mm G Master lens, mainly at the 400mm end.

It’s a keeper.

Posted on DearSusan by Bob Hamilton.

Here at Dear Susan there has been much discussion recently about raw development and editing software. There have been disgruntled mutterings about Apple’s Aperture, Adobe Lightroom and the monthly tax for continued access to your own catalogue, and various of Dear Susan’s contributors have tried some of the lesser known development and editing tools for Apple. I’ve never been an Apple user, but as someone who previously used Adobe Lightroom I certainly have much sympathy for some people’s frustrations and unhappiness.

Penang, Malaysia : Temple door mural 1/80s f2.8 ISO100 : SilkyPix : Faithful Standard Colour

Finding a raw development and editing tool that’s right for you should probably be a fairly personal choice, as different people like to work in different ways and have different end goals. Often it seems that most users choose Adobe because they are market leader and there is a wealth of “information” available online in the shape of video tutorials and guides.

When I owned a Fuji X system camera I became frustrated with Adobe Lightroom as the output was particularly bad, and even when I paid for a newer version which claimed to give better results with X Trans raw files, they were still mediocre at best and the software was very sluggish.  As a result of my frustration I decided to purchase a license for Ichikawa software’s “SilkyPix Studio Developer”.  It has now become my primary raw development tool for almost all my photography, and I have never really understood some of the negativity and hubris about its features and user interface.

With Adobe’s recent changes to the Lightroom product and their charging model, together with a number of new entrants to the market with new raw development and editing tools, it seemed like an ideal time to write a review of SilkyPix.  The article linked below gives an overview of some its features, how to use it for those more familiar with other software, and some insight into its strengths and weaknesses.  It is quite lengthy, so has been broken down into sections to try and make it easier to digest, and I hope others may find it useful and give the software a try – the results can be truly excellent.

Pictures as smooth as silk?  A SilkyPix overview from South-East Asia.

Posted on DearSusan by Adrian.

Never meet your heroes. Isn’t that what they say?

I’ve always wondered what that really means. Perhaps in ancient times it meant that upon meeting that big brave knight you discover that he’s actually scared of little spiders. Perhaps in modern times it means that upon running into the actor who played that delightful character in your favourite feel good movie, you discover he’s not a delightful character and doesn’t make you feel good at all.

I guess fundamentally, meeting your heroes means that whatever preconceived ideas and connotations you have about someone, they’re unlikely to be borne out in reality.

This is entirely fair enough, especially with celebrities. After all, you don’t know them, you know their work. Just because a song makes you feel a certain way, it doesn’t follow that the song writer will too. Just because an actor/actress plays a role that fires up the willing suspension of disbelief of your imagination it doesn’t mean the person will, in fact in real life they may not be anything like they are on screen.

Don’t let me discourage you. No sir. Queue for hours for that signed book or T-Shirt, buy those tickets for An Audience with ____ but once you’ve interacted, asked your question, thanked them for being them, got their autograph, then it’s time to go. These are real people, but they don’t occupy a tangible place outside of your imagination.

Cameras can be a little like this no? What’s the best camera in the world right now? No, not necessarily which camera would you personally like for Christmas, but thinking purely about what makes a camera good, which is best?

It doesn’t matter what you answered, but the chances are that you picked a modern, current, and hot of the press camera.

Did you say the Sony A7Riii? Maybe. Why didn’t you say the original A7? Because it’s old. Because the newer variants of this camera are better, better featured, better IQ. Simply better in every measurable way.

But what happens if the camera you want is in its twilight years? How is it if for whatever reason you didn’t own a camera when it was hot, not even when it was tepid and now positively cold so much time has passed?

Like buying the car you dreamed of as a teenager when you’re into your forties or fifties – are you being stupidly sentimental or will you actually have a car that you can trust to drive every day?

Hoping to catching a cracker, but did I manage that with my purchase?

I don’t know the answers. But these questions were certainly flying round my mind as I signed the DPD delivery electronic box thingamy and eagerly opened something that I’d wanted for quite a while.

Y’see… I’m mainly a Fuji guy. I love my X-Pro cameras. I won’t bang on. I have a whole website for that… except to say that the X-Pro2 is good at pretty much everything and excellent at very little. A true Swiss army knife of modern mirrorless.

True be told, I only really discovered the digital Leica Ms after I read reviewers comparing my original X-Pro1 against them.

Back then I kinda had Leica down as a lens company that still made film cameras.

I was, at the time, rather free of this modern ‘the camera as a celebrity’ culture. I spent the 1990s and most of the 2000s shooting film on a SLR. In the late 2000s I finally relented, I bought a DSLR.

And the thought process I used to select it was pretty much the same as people use to choose common, everyday practical medium sized cars from well-known manufactures.

My Nikon was like a Ford Focus to me and it served me well. It didn’t get me joining Nikon forums or craving FW updates. It got me out taking pictures.

Gentle tones, the blown highlights aren’t a show stopper and believable colour

The good ol’ days huh?!! Things have changed a bit since then.

So this Leica, this camera that you don’t even see in the regular camera stores, the camera that reviewers loved to compare my X-Pro1 against. What was it all about?

First ‘proper’ test shots. I’m happy enough with the colours

As someone who likes wristwatches, I’ve no axe to grind about things that don’t do a great deal more than their more commonly found stablemates other than have an unnecessarily high level of build quality and cost, but even so… happy with my Fuji.

Time went on and the newer Leica M developed closer to the spec of the other mirrorless cameras.

I started to pick up on the Leica world debate of the M9 sensor Vs the M240 one.

You didn’t think you’d get through a new (to me) camera review without a cat shot, did you?

I’ve no dog in that fight, but looking at many M9 images…. Including the ones from fellow DS’er Paul, which you can see here. Well I have to say, to my eye, I saw a lot of charm in them.

Not every image of course, but the ones taken by people whose PP choices and subject matter matched my own tastes. I can (and do) say this about many images from many cameras, but the M9 files certainly seemed to have a ‘something’ about them

You won’t see it at web res, but the textures/contrast and all the shades of orange in this are really quite pleasing for me

Eventually, after about three years the time came to own one. My very own M9.

50mm is a bit longer than you credit it sometimes, plus that’s one tall chimney

Pretty much at the lowest ebb of its depreciation curve (I hope) and just back from ‘the mothership’ with fresh sensor, CLA and rangefinder calibration. I paired it with a 50 ‘cron (debated the 50 summilux, but that’s rather expensive and I’m not sure that F1.4 and rangefinding were going to work out that well for me)

ISO640. You’d see colour noise if you pixel peep

It was at that moment I got the idea for this article. I was about to meet my “hero” and I had already had many warnings about this particular hero….

• ISO unusable after 800, intrusive noise by 400.
• If a fly farts near it, the rangefinder will go out of calibration and Leica will take 6 months to fix it
• The sensor will break
• The shutter mechanism will break
• It will lock up randomly
• It will eat SD cards (which I hope doesn’t give it wind, as that’ll presumably uncalibrate the RF)
• It will only talk to SD cards of a low spec that aren’t even made any more

Then, if all of this wasn’t alarming enough… there’s the Leica-Rhetoric, that goes something like this.

Leica shooter: “Pah Canikon / Sonuji? Far too complicated. You need a simple camera to shoot with”

The Leica shooter often then goes on to explain this ‘simplicity’

“You won’t be able to make it work. It’s a special skill using a RF. There’s no auto focus you know, are you sure you can cope?”

OK I stopped down… But moving objects and an M… maybe I’m getting the hang of it

I didn’t sign up for all of this!

I just wanted to make pretty pictures! I knew how to focus a RF, the mrs has a small collection of 60s/70s film ones.

And this boils down to my real reason of wanting a nigh on nine year old (design) digital camera.

First ‘proper’ test shots. I’m happy with the fine details and tonal transitions

It’s not just the legendary M9 secret sauce IQ – I want off the merry-go-round. Not forever. Just now and then.

Fuji are about to release a new FW update for my X-Pro2. I don’t really care about the 4K video. But I will install it, I will test it and I’ll almost certainly write about it.

One assumes that they’ll be an X-Pro3 at some stage. I’ll probably buy it.

When the X-Pro3 lands, the first questions people will have will be about the ISO and AF performance.

Owning (and especially writing about) a modern digital camera can be quite an involving affair. You need to know or find out the best application to PP the files, to keep abreast of any bug fixing and feature adding FW releases. You need to learn the tips and tricks to maximise your RAW with your ISOless sensor.

ISO640, PP’d to the dizzying heights of approx. 2400 – nothing for A7S owners to lose sleep over!

You might even find yourself writing a whole website about all of these things…

We truly live in exciting times. But some days, I just need a break.

My first M street portrait.

Do you know what future FW features I’m expecting for my M9? None.

Do you know what secret tips there are to use an M9? None.

Do you know how many film simulations the M9 offers? Two – colour and monochrome.

M9 + New User + Mono + Street = this

In terms of blogging and discussing the M9, there’s simply nothing to say. It’s been said already.

There’s only one thing the M9 is really good for, and that’s taking pictures in plentiful light.

Perhaps we can say that the files from the M9 are a little filmic.

We can debate this all day long… but this works just as well in BW but I like the colour. I love where I live (this needs no debate)

But what we can definitively say is that is that using an M9 in 2017/18 is very “filmic” in that there’s very little to care about other than focusing on and exposing for the picture you want to take. No face detection, no ‘sudden motion’ tracking AF, no instant share Wi-Fi. It’s just a camera.

It’s been three weeks now… so I’ve had a few chances to use it. But equally it’s only been three weeks, so it still has plenty of time to go wrong

One of the first things you’ll notice about the M9 is that the shutter makes a noise as it re-cocks. I’ve read people referring to this noise with great affection, but for me it’s a bit annoying and feels like one day it will stop… and I don’t mean that in a good way… it sounds like there’s a clockwork mouse in there!

This noise can be delayed, by engaging discrete mode. This stops the shutter from re-cocking until you release the shutter button. Although sometimes it doesn’t re-cock, keeping you waiting a while…. Which is pretty scary. A quick google reveals “they all do that mate” but still it would be nice if it worked consistently…

SD Cards, well I only own modern ones!

• 16gb Sandisk UHS-ii no drama (yes seriously UHS-ii)
• 16gb Sandisk UHS-i no drama
• 32gb Sandisk UHS-i refused to acknowledge there’s a card there
• 2^nd 32gb Sandisk UHS-i no drama

At normal ranges you can’t really blur the background with a 50 ‘cron. I’m not sure I’d want to in this scene, the colours here are as I remember them

Rangefinder focusing. I have OK eyesight. It’s pretty easy – look for things that work well with the split window that are where you want focus to be. Pay attention if you’re using focus and recompose. Not everything has to be wide open. F4 and 1 meter gives shallower DOF than F2 and 5 meters anyway… it reminds me of using film cameras. I’m enjoying it.

Menus! Spartan. But more complex than you might think! The wheel/D-Pad to navigate is on the right; the button to select things and save changes is on the left. You’ll need two hands and the camera away from your face to change anything!

The settings are also on two different menus. (Set and Menu)

I started off by setting it to DNG only. However, the preview jpeg is pathetic, I mean it’s tiny. Like a windows thumbnail! So I set Monochrome jpegs and it turns out I quite like them and they’ll take a bit of editing.

Metering: it has one mode – centre weighted. It works well… But I’m still finding my feet with it. For example metering can be very different between holding the camera in portrait rather than landscape . Look where the light is, adjust to suit.

Exposure compensation: It has this! Something that can be set in the menu or made to work with the scroll wheel. Personally I haven’t bothered…. I look at the histogram in playback and if it’s bad I take another shot with a revised SS!

ISO: Yes…. 640 is ok. Best not to pixel peep…. You can just about get away with 640 and about 2 stops of lift in post. But best to shoot accordingly. This isn’t a modern camera; you can’t expose for the street lights then lift the street 5 stops in post. If you want a dark picture with some light bits in it then you can work with it

ISO640 and some post (taking it to about ISO2400ish)

The DNGs: Early days. I’m sure my PP of them will evolve. After 3 weeks my current thoughts are that DNGs from this camera broadly fall into 2 camps. Virtually perfect straight off the card, do very, very little and hit ‘export’ or nope no good, don’t bother – push them hard and say hello to banding. I mean they have latitude, don’t get me wrong. But you can’t expect your raw editor to get you out of all sorts of bad exposure decisions with this camera. The AWB is a bit of a mixed bag. Sometimes sublime, sometimes polar, sometimes a bit warm.

(I’ve always been of the opinion that you have to work a bit for an acceptably exposed shot, either in camera or on the computer. With the M9 it pays to take the former approach)

Battery life: Fairly pants to be honest. A bit better than my X-Pro2 but 5-600 shots is about what I’m getting (I usually get 450-500 from the Fuji and let’s be honest a modern mirrorless has the sensor running if it’s turned on, the M9 has its shutter closed the whole time you’re not shooting a frame)

Base plate thing… It’s funny in a sort of not very funny way. Like being the butt of a practical joke. No I’m just kidding, I think all cameras should have a detachable part than you need to store in your mouth while you rummage through your bag for a spare battery or card (not)

Leica cachet: I took the Leica out on a day trip to London. A surprising number of people stared at it (usually people holding DLSRs) so I black taped over the part that says ‘Leica’ and this stopped happening.

Yup, I could’ve grabbed this grab shot with any mirrorless. But it’s a zone focused Leica – so it’s special and not quite in focus

Nice little touches: The buttons are not labelled. Instead the label is engraved and paint filled on the body above the button, so your fingers won’t rub the paint off over time.

Tactile stuff: Everything is pretty good. Everything is easy to turn but not loose enough to get turned by accident. The SS dial has different strength clicks for 1/2 stops and a big space click for A.

Cheap feeling: The shutter action is quite abrupt and ratchety – it works well enough though

OK, that’s it folks – that was your review!! Longer than you expected? Well my X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 reviews are about 100,000 words combined and counting…. You got off lightly!

The day we were in London (city of my birth), all day was golden hour  – cold though

For an emotive review, well that’s a little harder. At the very start I asked if we should meet our heroes, and I specifically meant, would owning an old camera actually be rewarding or a let-down?

But more importantly, the files…. I saw a lot of charm in other people’s M9 work. Would this turn out to be solely the result of their skill or did the camera lay the foundation for that skill to come into play?

Away from the city where I was born and back to the city where I live, softer light and 10 deg C more heat!

The files are a little different to my Fujis and other cameras (bayer sensored ones) I own, but frankly some targeted PP towards a ‘kodachrome*’ type colour and you wouldn’t be a million miles off. Of course the M9 has a CCD sensor and nearly all other cameras are CMOS, so fine details are handled a bit differently. But that’s pixel peeping, not image making.

(*of course Kodachrome was available in many flavours from its introduction in 1935 and discontinuation in the 2000s, so I don’t think there’s an actual Kodachrome look, more like a how we think it should look look)

The Fuji (and the Sony and the Canikon etc) offer you many more possibilities, both in useful focal lengths, focus acquisition and in areas where you can take natural light pictures, eg >ISO1000

The M passed the street test

But that’s not the point of the M9. The M is very good at a narrow range of working.

I’ll give you an example.

I wanted (and succeeded) in shooting my five year old on a swing the other day.

How I would go about this on the Fuji: either use tracking AF, or use manual focus and focus peaking. But the snag with focus peaking is that it turns off when you half press the shutter, so you have to anticipate when to hit the shutter button (no big drama)

But the M doesn’t do this. When the two rangefinder images are aligned, you have focus so I simply had to watch her swing through a few arcs then set the focus and when I wasn’t looking at a double image, hit the shutter (which is pretty much lag free) and it worked.

The mirrorless cameras viewfinders are full of info to help you. Is the focus peaking showing focus where you want it, is the green AF lamp lit up? You have to commit some attention to this in order to get the shot. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very easy to work like this!

By contrast the M has nothing going on in there. Some LED numbers in Aperture mode for the SS that look like they came off an 1980s calculator (I’m wondering if there’s a way to get them to spell 55378008 like we did in school) and in manual mode, an exposure meter that looks a tiny bit like Morse Code (which I find a bit dot dash dash / dash / dot dot dash dot to be honest )

Basically, when the image in the VF looks good and there’s no LED flashing at you it means hit the go button. This is the inverse of my other cameras where I’m looking for them to tell me when to take the picture, rather than the Leica which is telling me when not to take the shot.

I’m not much of a BW guy… the M9 might just change that!

I like this methodology. But let’s not get carried away on a sea of minimalism, and a less is more narrative – it’s a camera, not a tax bill… each system I own makes it possible to get a shot, and the mirrorless cameras with EVFs can tell you some very useful stuff. (Framing, exposure, and remaining battery life to name three)

The Leica is a simple tool. I (currently) have only one lens for it. The only place it will confirm focus is in the centre of the VF. It only has one metering mode. If I want to get away from central compositions and metering, I need to get creative… no wrong word… inventive. The Leica is literally a fixed point and I must pivot around it to get to where I need. This couldn’t be my only camera, but for many applications it is indeed a nice way to work.

I don’t get home with a card full of images and find some where I think ‘oh I should’ve used spot metering for that, silly me’ like can happen with the Fuji/etc. I’m not agonised by the choice of numerous mono and colour choices in post (I’m glad to have those choices with my other cameras though)

In short this old world; SD card cranky, clockwork shutter camera is indeed a hero, an hero from an earlier age, in so many ways it can’t compete in the modern world – the kids (including the M240/M10) run rings round it, you take what few features it gives you and look to yourself to find more, if you over exert it’s buffer with a spray and pray shooting style it’ll keep you waiting for a very long time.

But in the right light, with the right attention paid to its usage, it can still hold its head high. 18mp is enough, the correctly exposed files can certainly sing and the whole process of shooting it is enjoyable. I’m getting a real “I made that” feeling to my favourite shots with it.

UK golden hour

The files are nice, a bit painterly sometimes, but I’m finding I want to believe them and that’s always been the hallmark of good story telling – a willing suspension of disbelief and the files certainly deliver that to my eyes.

Ultimately though it’s early days. I wouldn’t even say honeymoon period… frankly we haven’t even taken the ‘do not disturb sign’ off of the hotel door or opened all the wedding presents yet.

So ask me again later…. Ask me after we’ve lived in each other’s pockets for a while.

But one thing’s for sure, the M I have will never be anything more than it is now and it can only ever do what I figure out it can do. I’m happy with that and I either stay happy or I don’t and move on.

Bletchley Park Mansion. Notable because I grew up a stone’s throw from here, oh yeah, and they did something or other during the war with code breaking

And in so many ways, I can’t think of a better way to have a bit of down time every now and then from the modern world of high tech cameras – 10 jpeg settings for better RAW / How to make your custom Fn buttons work for you. None of that is applicable here

Meeting my hero? Well – he’s an OK guy. I’m not in his intimate circle, I haven’t seen him get mad, and maybe he does yell at his staff when his latte isn’t just right. It’s too soon to tell. But we’ve been hanging out together and as long as I do things his way, he seems happy enough to have me around.

I have a thing for washing lines… yes I know, but I promise I don’t touch… I’m filing the colour here under ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ rather than calibrated accurate

Image Notes: All images shot with the M9P and 50mm Summicron. Images taken in the UK (central London, along the Grand Union Canal in Buckinghamshire, and Bletchley) and Portugal (Porto). If you’ve ever in Bletchley, I highly recommend the Bletchley Park Museum – if you think I’m bleating on about old world tech being good enough for the job in hand, then you have to see what these folks did with 1940s tech to crack code, it is truly inspiring.

Posted on DearSusan by Adam Bonn.

It’s 9 months since I took the step and bought my first Zeiss lens, it was the Milvus 1.4/50 after using Philippe’s legendary Otus 55 and 28 in Paris. See #614 I Used an Otus but purchased a Milvus

Otus 28

Since June the Milvus family has grown to:

You may have guessed I’ve fallen in love Zeiss MF lens, due to  the IQ and that Zeiss look, that’s a personal preference, like shooting what you want to shoot, which is what I enjoy doing now instead of trying to get “likes” on social media or from camera club judges.

Let me explain the 21 replaced my 16 – 35 zoom. After reviewing the focal length most often used in Lightroom, 21 was very close to the large majority, of course there were outliers I was prepared to compromise.

Milvus 21

Milvus 21

Milvus 21

Milvus 21

The 35 was a straight swap for the Nikon 1.8/35.

Milvus 35

Milvus 35

Milvus 35

Milvus 35

Milvus 35

Milvus 35

The 135 was sort of a swap from my Nikon 2.8/105 macro lens which had hardly been used in the 4 years I owned it. The 135 can be used as a macro as it has 1:4 image ratio and with  extension tubes you can get very close. I know some purists would say you really can only use a macro lens for close-ups, again I’m prepared to compromise.

135@ minimum focus distance

135 using 33mm extension tube again at minimum focus distance

In the short time I have owned the 135 it has become a favourite when you need/want to isolate a subject. It’s sharp across all apertures, barrel distortion is none existent and the rendering is very pleasing to the eye even straight out of the camera.

Milvus 135 SOOC

Milvus 135 Processed Image

Milvus 135 @f2

Milvus 135@3.5

Milvus 135@f2

Milvus 135@f14

Now to try and explain why I chose to exchange (I use this term extremely loosely) relatively good Nikon AF Zoom Lens and primes for the expensive heavy manual focus lenses. I now only own 2 zoom lens 2.8/24 – 70 and 4.5-5.6/80 – 400 for wildlife/sport etc and 1.8/50 & 1.8/85, they haven’t been used since before June last year and are gathering dust in my office/camera room.

I find that when using a MF lens I slow right down and really think about the composition that has flashed into my head. Yes I know you can do that also with any camera/lens combination but having to manually focus on your subject makes me a little more careful.
To concentrate to ensure 2 things , firstly composition, and secondly that I nail focus. I have to rely on Nikon’s focus verification in the viewfinder for this and at times it’s not up to speed or could it be operator error, to be totally honest it’s the latter.

The ideal situation would be to use a tripod at all times and use live view, unfortunately it’s not always convenient  to carry and use a tripod. Then good old fashion camera technique must be relied upon and at times it can be hit and miss.  My focus rate for is about say 7 out of 10. I’m prepared to accept that situation.

In a nut shell I’m a happy camper with my decision to go down the Zeiss route and will continue to explore what the lens combination I now own can produce with diligence.

Merci Philippe!

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Milvus 50

Posted on DearSusan by Dallas Thomas.

Regular readers of DS may recollect my pseudo M9 review from a few months back, and if you can’t, then feel free to click here and you’ll find the article.

It’s been four months now, and I thought that you might like to know how the M9 and I are getting on?

The flavour of my M9 review was that I’d finally obtained a camera that I’d wanted for quite a while, and under the adage never meet your heroes I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect with such an old design of camera nigh on 10 years after it was first launched.

I ended the article with the line

Meeting my hero? Well – he’s an OK guy. I’m not in his intimate circle, I haven’t seen him get mad, and maybe he does yell at his staff when his latte isn’t just right. It’s too soon to tell. But we’ve been hanging out together and as long as I do things his way, he seems happy enough to have me around.

Well four months is plenty of time to get acquainted, finish the honeymoon and settle into the daily routine of married life.

I originally paired my M9P with a 50mm Summicron, and I’ve since been able to big that pairing up with two ‘new’ lens additions. The 35mm F2.4 and the 90mm F2.5 Summarits.

So that’s an M and 35/50/90. Probably one of two de facto trinity choices you can make for the rangefinder only Ms (the other being 28/35 or 50/75)

Before we get onto my thoughts on the gear, I think I should start off by my sharing a Leica experience that’s only vaguely connected to the camera.

I so very nearly called this post Digital Leica on a Budget because basically my outlay has been about what a single M10 costs (only I’ve got an M9, three 6-bit coded lenses, a case and spare battery), equally you can quite easily spend that sort of money on the Sony and some top end lenses, or even the Fuji and some lenses.

Of course if you go the Sony/Fuji route you’ll be getting new gear and faster glass, and more ISO, DR and all that important stuff.

But the fact remains… Person A spends £x on a rig and experiences happiness and person B spends exactly the same on a different rig, and also experiences happiness.

I would personally file this under about the same thing is happening, people buy cameras that they want

How wrong I am!

You see it turns out when you own a Leica, people’s opinion on how you spend your money is something to be shared with you and it’s seldom supportive.

So, I won’t dare suggest I’m doing this on a budget. In fact let me hold both hands up and completely confess that I’m obviously an idiot, spending as much money as you all have on a system, but not a system as technically adroit and versatile as you astute people have selected for yourselves. The happiness and joy you must feel completely trumps mine. I salute you. With Sarcasm.

You see folks, it turns out a Leica conjures up a lot of emotion from others, and not that much of it is good.

But, let’s not get sucked into camera politics. I certainly haven’t. I don’t buy cameras to belong to a tribe or a clan I buy them because I want to use them to take pictures.

The pictures I want to make with my M are basically reportage and documentary in nature.

If I wanted to go aperture large and DOF shallow the whole time, I can’t think of a camera that I’d like to use less than a (rangefinder only) M.

I like shallow DOF, but that’s what my Fujis can be used for, with EVFs, and focus peaking and even AF and face detect.

No, the Leica rig I’ve ended with up with is basically what it says on the cliche tin, small, compact and FF and used for capturing scenes, not snippets of scenes.

The die hard Leica folk would be ambivalent at best with my Summarit lens choices, and the non-Leica folk just struggle to understand why I bought any of it in the first place.

Living on outlier island, population: just me, or so it seems…

And you know what? I really like living there 

Once I’d started to gel with the M I knew it would only be a matter of time until I wanted more lens options.

Originally I thought that I’d end up with a 35mm Summicron to accompany the 50. But to be honest I just ended up getting bogged down in the myriad of 35 ‘cron variants and how they were all judged on things like ‘bokeh’ and what the supplied lens hood was like. They also weren’t cheap.

As often seems to happen in life, a nearly new 35 F2.4 Summarit became available at just the time I was giving up on finding a ‘cron that I was prepared to pay for and I decided that I’d much rather save some £100s than have an extra 1/2 stop.

The 90 I was in no hurry for, but an ex-demo 90 F2.5 Summarit came along, technically brand new with the full warranty and for Fuji glass money, so I decided that a 90 ‘rit was probably the smarter choice, being lighter and slightly more forgiving with finding focus.

If you’re detecting an undercurrent of pleasure in my tale of GAS, then you’re spot on. I’m very happy with my choices.

Ironically the pick of the bunch is probably the 90. It draws like the 50 ‘cron, is very sharp and the build quality and tactile stuff is also on par with my 50. The irony? It’s not a FL that I’ll use a great deal of the time.

The (newer design) 35 Summarit shows some cost reduction compared to the other two, the focus and aperture rings don’t feel as nice, but hey-ho you at least get the leather pouch and the hood in the box (compared to the older Summarits which come with a non-leather pouch and the hood is an optional extra). Frankly I’d rather a nicer aperture ring than a real leather pouch, but I’ve no complaints with the IQ and the aperture ring isn’t bad per se (a bit better than a Fuji XF35 F1.4 in fact) just not as nice as my M 50 and 90 lenses.

So, should we see some pictures with my cheap (sic) yet overpriced Leica tat?

The previous article was populated entirely with 50 ‘cron shots, so that seems a good place to pick up from.

50mm Summicron

Even on FF, 50mm and F2 is never going to obliterate the background… The busy background also means busy bokeh. But that said the subject is isolated well enough, and the image has a decent amount of ‘bite’ to it.

As legendary as the 50 ‘cron is (and it is) – it’s not a lens entirely devoid of annoyance and issue.

The annoyance is that there is no supplied lens hood, the modern version of this lens features a telescopic hood that slides out and clicks into place. Personally I don’t feel this is a well implemented solution, and as I slide it back and forth I kinda feel like a male Jewish teenager wondering what could of been.

Annoyances aside, the issue with the 50 ‘cron is the propensity for flare.

Catch the right light in the wrong way, and there’s more flares than the 70s, Disco Stu says recolect your pre-digital high school photography teacher’s advice about having the sun behind you and my modern day advice is be careful with contre-jou style shots.

Above: A bit of flare can help an image.

Above: A bit to much flare loses it’s flair.

But overall I like the 50. Very much. It’s a solid performer and I enjoy shooting with it.

This was parked up in a local garage. In Portugal. The let me come on in and photograph it.

After two months of only having the 50mm I got the 35 and 90. So let’s start off with the 35.

35mm F2.4 Summarit

And I have to say that I’m enjoying the 35mm far more than I thought I would, and I also have to say I’m not 100% sure why…. I also own the Fuji XF23 F1.4 (35mm equivalent on APSC), and that’s a killer lens, but I’m somehow more pleased with using a true 35mm. There’s something just a little different to the look… I suspect it’s the reduction in field curvature on the longer optic.

Wide open. Yeah… yeah if I’d spent another £1500-2000 on the F1.4 one then the background could be some more blurry. Meh.

Like I said all those words ago… I didn’t want an M to do the whole shallow DOF thing… I like shallow DOF. Very much. But sometimes pictures work better when there’s some background and context. Honest. Plus with a smaller aperture that whole zone focusing thing really gets easier 

As ever with an M9 (more so an M8, a little less so an M240) you’ll need to watch the ISO. Sometimes shots have to be clean, other times you can get away with a bit of noise. I took all three lenses to London that day, I’m not sure I even mounted the other two.

Not only has the 35mm surprised me by how much I’m enjoying the FL, the M9 has surprised me with how much I’m enjoying black and white photography.

When it comes to the 35mm, I’ve stopped caring how clicky the aperture ring is or isn’t, and instead I’ve just been enjoying taking pictures with it. I think that’s a good sign.

So that just leaves the 90mm.

90mm F2.5 Summarit

As I wrote earlier, in a strange way the 90 ‘rit is almost the star of the show. The cheapest of the three M lenses I own, yet it gives away nothing to the 50 ‘cron in terms of IQ, doesn’t flare like the ‘cron nor (because it’s an £80 optional extra) is the hood a bit naff. The tactile feely stuff is nicer than the 35 ‘rit and overall there’s nothing I can really find to criticise about it. Oh hang on… it’s a 90, it’s that FL that you seldom need outside of portraiture.

A freezing cold England. A freshly unboxed new lens. I found a swan. Decent subject isolation, and a nice transition to the OOF areas. My only complaint was how cold my fingers got that day.

At a max aperture of F2.5, you’re not going to enjoy Sony or Canon 85mm or even Fuji 56mm levels of subject isolation. But I don’t feel that’s a show stopper and for the days it is, I have a Fuji XF56 F1.2 anyway.

Back home in Portugal and the cat became the model. She looks thrilled about it doesn’t she?

After the swan and cat cliche-gate, I present random Portuguese horse (or Pony maybe? I dunno!) as a 90mm shot.

Stopping the 90 down a bit and being quite far away makes for a different usage case than up close and wide open.

Summary

So there we have it, Leica on a budget erm I mean I promise to flagellate myself daily for such puerile acquisitions from such a fake deity.

I couldn’t have the M9 as my only camera. I (no doubt like you) have need of the performance and features of a far more modern camera.

I still shoot my Fujis, at first the Leica was all new and exciting, I couldn’t put it down. But now the honeymoon is over I find myself deciding on what camera I want to use that day.

It’s certainly not Leica day everyday.

But that I want days off of the merry-go-round rhetoric I sprouted way back in the first M9 post still holds very true.

You see with the M9, it’s really just you and what you do at the time of capture. There’s no real driver aids to help you get focus and exposure, certainly nothing like a WYSIWYG EVF or even a live histogram. The LCD is low res and chimping with it is a monkey’s game. The fabled zone focusing marks on the lenses are at best aimed at film users, and not really a way to ensure critical focus at anything under mid to high aperture numbers.

The ISO might not be as bad as they say… but it isn’t great either. If I remember correctly, DxO claims about 8 stops of DR at base. With the M9 you’ll need to use your nous to operate within a narrow range, with little in the way of assistance from the camera and compared to modern offerings little scope for recovery afterwards.

The art of photography becomes all about what you do at the point of capture. It doesn’t even record the aperture value you used. You live in the moment of setting up the shot, then afterwards you either take profit from the fruits of your labour or you find you’ve a bad apple.

But after a while, you start to develop your Leica technique. Muscle memory pre-focuses the lens, because it turns out that you often shoot things that are (say) 3 meters away. You start to know what SS works best in which types of lighting.

The camera demands you forge a connection with it, or else you’ll simply become despondent with it.

This missive is in no way shape or form is designed to flip the Leica nay-sayers.

You’ll know if you want one or not.

And if you do… well seeing as we now live in a world of £2000 Fujis and £3000+ Sonys, you might find that compared to the current crop of highstreet brands, a yesteryear red dot camera isn’t quite the colossal capital expenditure that it once was.

Of course, as I’m sure will get fed back to me in the inevitable comments, it’s an apples and oranges comparison.

A secondhand M9 is not a brand new Sony A7r2 (even if they cost about the same), an ex-demo 90mm Summarit is not a brand new Fuji XF56 (even if they cost about the same)

But equally a £1 is a £1 is a £1. If you want to spend your pounds on apples, rather than oranges. Then I suggest you do so.

I did and for certain days, and certain situations I can’t remember a time when I enjoyed myself this much.

But full disclosure…. I’ve a paid gig tomorrow, and it’s not the M9 that’ll be accompanying me…. aw screw it, there’s room in the bag, I might take it along, you never know.

Posted on DearSusan by Adam Bonn.

Sydney Harbour bridge on a very foggy morning

GAS we’ve all had it, in mid May, it struck with a vengeance.

The thought process was; maybe, I should change systems and ditch the heavy Nikon D810 and go for a more compact body, like the relatively new highly acclaimed Sony A7R 111, surely any bugs of the previous versions have now been ironed out!.

An adaptor could be used to enable the use of my Nikon mount lens, problem solved.

I spoke with several people who had changed from Canon to Sony their comments were “I won’t go back”. Nobody I know has switched from Nikon to Sony, maybe I live in a small world. The only thing ex Canon shooters recommended was to switch completely and not use lens adaptors as auto focus could be effected. As I use Zeiss Milvus MF lenses this was not a concern.

Sherpa required

I asked Philippe of his thoughts which basically aligned to mine.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the D-850 is a very nice camera, and a very fine image maker. If I had to point out differences there are some between the 2 cams. My opinion is that the Nikon has better in-camera processing, including colours, meaning images require less PP, and are sometimes outright better. It is also more robust, including better weather sealed. It is a much quicker camera, with essentially no lag. And many prefer an optical viewfinder.

The Sony on the other hand offers IBIS which, for me is major. It offers an EVF with magnification, which helps in some cases. It is lighter and smaller, but how much that matters is individual, the Nikon may be preferred by people with larger hands and for better balance with heavy lenses.

One area where the Sony is unquestionably better is the huge choice of lenses. Just about anything works (not the Leica rangefinder wides, though). But how much that is worth to you depends on which direction you are giving your lens kit….”

I didn’t consider the lenses as all mine are Nikon mount.

Previously in #649. Three and half hours with the Nikon D850 I wrote that I decided that Nikon D810 was all I needed or wanted at the time. How times change, well 9 months is a long time isn’t it?

After much deliberation and many hours watching YouTubes reviews of both contenders, I decided to stay with the Nikon.

My main reason for change was to get  a smaller/lighter body after taking into account adding an adaptor to the Sony there was there was less 250 gms saving, not much. Also to swap to Sony I would need to purchase the lens adaptor, spare battery and shutter release. The smaller body of the Sony didn’t really suit my hand, my knuckles touched the lens body and wasn’t comfortable. I also didn’t want to have two camera systems to navigate and remember at that critical time!

Pascal has asked, I provide my thoughts on the D850. I’m not going to go into too much technical detail you can find many reviews on the web and YouTube by the regulars who do reviews for a living or are paid to, well I’ll leave that one alone!

Initially, the 850 feels extremely similar to the 810, but it is different like 810 was from the 800. Small changes like a deeper grip making it more comfortable to use. Now the D4s does not feel as good to use as its grip is nowhere as deep. The D5 has a deeper grip, no lets not go down that track!!

The buttons have been moved to align with the other Nikon models the D5, D500 and D750 I believe. Like all new things you quickly adapt.

How does it perform? I feel the metering system is much improved over the 810 where previous I was having to dial in negative exposure compensation of about 1 stop when using my Zeiss lens now in the majority of cases I’m not getting any blown out highlights with no exposure compensation in normal shooting.

The Strand Arcade, Sydney

Focus peeking is a wonderful addition especially with MF lens, on a tripod it works like a charm, but you still need to be extremely careful to place the focus point in the correct spot to ensure you get pin sharp results as the camera will punish poor technique. I have found using a 135 even stopped down to f14, at about a metre, not focussed exactly where you intended, provided far less than perfect results. The image below is a perfect example, the intended focus point was the log not the mushroom. Operator error!

Hand held Live View it’s still much better than the 810 and will take some time to get use to shooting using a screen instead of a viewfinder.

In Body Stabilisation would be an added bonus, maybe one day Nikon please!!!!

I didn’t get to do any side by side evaluation of files with the 810 as the camera was sold within 3 days of advertising it.

But I do have similar shots from the same location The Royal National Park just south of Sydney. These 3 images are all taken from the same spot using different lens, I have cropped the 2nd image to try to get the same perspective, the extra size of the 850 file does come in handy for this.

D810 35mm

D850 21mm cropped

D850 Multi Row Pano 3 rows x 5 shots 135mm

Can you pick any difference in IQ?

My eye favours the 2nd, it’s very hard when viewing on digital screens, don’t you agree, I’ve yet to compare print against print.

I find the files need slightly less post than the 810, which is a bonus and the colours render slightly richer to my eye even in RAW.

The increased FPS is a bonus but not a specific reason why I bought the camera for,  the D4s takes care of sport and wildlife shooting. I will be interested to see the 850 performs with these genres in the future, but from all accounts it’s no slouch.

The articulated screen is a bonus and come in handy on the tripod in difficult positions. My only concern is how good is the weather sealing! Talking of the LCD’s this one is a huge improvement over the 810 much more detail due to higher resolution, but I think it still behind the class leader Sony.

The screen has does have some touch functionality which most of the time I forget to use, as time goes by I will get used to it and am sure will use it more.

Connectivity, it does have what Nikon call Snapbridge, I had a play and decided it was feature I could do without as it was slow and cumbersome.

Battery life is improved, which is a bonus if you use live view a lot as I do with landscape and seascape photography.

Image Quality well 45.7MP does provide a large file and lots of detail. However as the majority of us don’t print, can we tell the difference viewing it on a digital screen?

Improved Autofocus being the user of MF lens the majority of the time this was not huge feature for me, the few times I used AF it snapped focus quickly.

Focus Stacking, again isn’t a feature I’ll use a lot due to my choice of MF lens. I used it a few times using the 24 – 70/2.8 Nikkor lens, it worked well and gave sharp focus, from the desired focus point to infinity without any fuss. I can see it being a valuable tool for shooters that want their landscapes pin sharp throughout the entire image. For Macro shooters it could be a huge bonus, but then again are we allowing the camera manufacturers to de-skill us or is it just another feature, you tell me?

7 shots stacked in PS @2.8 using Nikkor 24 -70/2.8 with bad CA, not my favourite lens by a long shot

The $64,000 question was it worth the upgrade from the D810?

It is a significant leap forward from the D800 and a large enough leap to upgrade from the D810 and something I don’t regret.

I’m still learning how I can get more out of the camera and capture the type of images I want to capture, this process will continue no doubt until GAS shows its ugly head again in the future, hopefully very much in the future.

Finally, Pascal I know this has probably not provided you with any definitive answer to your question, should you forsake your Sony A7R11 for a Nikon D850.

If you want a really good review of the Nikon D850 watch the YouTube of Steve Parry IMHO.

My final word, hell yes, get the 850 Pascal!

PS My comments/thoughts are only after a short period of ownership so maybe Cliff Whittaker may wish to add or subtract to then.

Posted on DearSusan by Dallas Thomas.

Kaiman Wong (Kai W) calls it a beast. An acknowledged street photographer true, but jizzing around in the rain outside a new(ish) building at 1 New Change in the City of London is hardly a decent test.

There are now three X-H1s in the hands of our contributors and a triple header road test seems like a much better plan. No specs, no test methodologies, just three photographers, their images and their opinions:

Bob Hamilton – a DS regular, known for his fine landscapes and more recently, some outstanding wildlife photography. He was the first amongst us to get his X-H1.

Chris Gibbons – a new DS recruit, Chris shoots events and conferences for clients in Johannesburg but for pleasure it’s all about wildlife – mainly birds. He’s learned from some of the greats and here debuts his new camera accompanied by some fine shots of our feathered wildlife. Chris’ X-H1 arrived just two days after mine.

Paul Perton – me. If you’re a DS regular, you’ll know I shoot on on the street and am equally at home in the landscape. My approach and finished images often fall outside the norm. The X-H1 promises to be a fine companion for the kind of photographic subjects I like.

Bob says:

Young Monk, Punakha Dzong, Bhutan – XH1 + 50-140mm

Birch Tree Refections, Loch Katrine, Trossachs, Scotland – XH1 + 50-140mm

Birch Tree Refections, Loch Katrine, Trossachs, Scotland – XH1 + 50-140mm

My take on the X-H1, after some 20,000 images taken, is that it is a meaningful improvement over the X-T2 in many ways but still some way off the mark in several others….at least compared to the Sony competition I also own.

The EVF is excellent – deeper, better and more pleasant to use than that of the A9 or A7R3 for non magnified viewing but not nearly as good as those of the 2 Sony cameras for magnified, manual focusing. The Sony EVF appears to be more contrasty than that of the Fuji which is probably why manual focusing is easier with the Sony cameras but standard viewing not so pleasant.

The IBIS is excellent and I would say at least 2 stops better than the IBIS in the Sony cameras. It makes the use of certain lenses, such as the 16-55mm f2.8, much less problematic that they were when used on the IBIS less X-T2.

The body is much more robust than that of the X-T2 and the deeper handgrip is a major improvement.

Image quality seems better than that of the X-T2 which I find surprising given that I understand that both sensor and processor are exactly the same as those in the X-T2; perhaps it’s due to the noticeably improved autofocusing of the X-H1? The X-H1’s auto white balance is definitely more accurate than that of the X-T2.

However…

Early Summer, Loch Achray, Trossachs, Scotland – XH1 + 50-140mm

Daybreak on Loch Katrine and the Arrochar Alps, Trossachs, Scotland – XH1 +16-55mm

Roe Deer Buck, Clyde Valley, Scotland – XH1 + 100-400mm

Mute Swan in Flight, Clyde Valley, Scotland – XH1 + 100-400mm

The implementation of the exposure compensation button and dial is, to my mind, inferior to the simple dial of the X-T2, being much more cumbersome  and clumsy to use for fast action photography – for example, for birds in flight moving from a dark background, such as the ground, into the air which necessitates more exposure. The top LCD is useful and I’m sure more so for video photography than for stills but its introduction, forcing the change from the exposure compensation implementation of the X-T2, is a negative aspect for me and one with which I still have difficulty even after 20,000 frames, more often than not necessitating the removal of my eye from the viewfinder to see what I am doing.

The shutter button is far, far too sensitive and results in many images taken by mistake which can be an issue if tracking birds in flight using the high speed continuous drive mode in particular, meaning that the comparatively meagre buffer is used up with unintentional images. The Sony cameras have the sensitivity just right.

The autofocus is, as I said, noticeably improved over the X-T2’s and is very reliable and accurate for what I would describe as “normal photography”. However, it’s not a patch on the autofocus of the Sony A9 for fast action photography, such as tracking birds in flight, where the total lack of blackout in the EVF, the fast frame rate of up to 20fps, the comparatively huge processor buffer and the limpet like, rabid pit bull nature of its zone autofocus system makes a 90%+ hit rate in tracking fast moving birds a reality. Sadly, the X-H1 simply cannot compete in my opinion. The A9 has to be tried to be believed.
All in all, the X-H1 is a lovely camera which gives great image quality and is, for the most part, a pleasure to use. However, as you can probably gather from the above, it is not my go to system for wildlife photography where the attributes of the Sony A9, detailed above, more than compensate for the relatively short reach of the Sony G Master 100-400mm lens compared to the Fuji equivalent.

The one thing I should say is that the battery life of the X-H1 is now very poor compared to the new type battery in the Sony cameras which has been transformed completely from being a relative disgrace to being utterly superb. I can get well over 2,000 images from the new Sony battery in normal use, by which I mean a mixture of continuous and single drive shooting.

Fuji needs to address this issue even if it means users of future and existing cameras needing 2 battery systems and the inconvenience that would cause.

Roe Deer Buck, Clyde Valley, Scotland – XH1 + 100-400mm

Beech Leaf on Snow, Clyde Valley, Scotland – XH1 + 80mm macro

Mute Swan, Clyde Valley, Scotland XH1 + 100-400mm

Festival Spectator, Paro, Bhutan – XH1 + 50-140mm + 1.4xTC

Chris says:

Can Fuji do BIF? Specifically, the Fuji X-H1 + 100-400?

For the uninitiated, BIF stands for Birds In Flight. As opposed to bird on twig, bird on stick, telegraph pole, garden feeder, fence post or any other stationary object.

Fuji does all of the latter extremely well, but since the introduction of Fuji’s X-T1 in 2014, whether it does BIF and, if so, how successfully, has been a matter of intense debate.

For bird photographers, BIF is a sine qua non. After all, flight is what birds do – it’s what makes them….well, birds.

I had an X-T1 for a couple of years and came to the conclusion that the answer was no, it could not do BIF. In fact, it couldn’t much of anything moving at speed as far as I could tell. Not even my Airedale terrier, Ben, running straight at the camera.

Somewhere along the way, I added the 100-400 to my collection of Fuji lenses, but its performance was so bad on the X-T1, it went back to the shop on the day I bought it.

From there to an X-T20 – better AF-C than the X-T1, to be sure, but still nowhere close to my Nikon D500 + 200-500 f5.6, which I’ll simply call ‘the Nikon’ from here on.

Perhaps the X-T3 would do the trick, I thought, waiting patiently for its rumoured release towards year-end.

However, my business has seen an increased demand from clients for video, which the X-H1 apparently does very well and the Nikon D500 does only adequately. So I’ve been watching reviews and reading reports about the X-H1 with interest. Among them are two bird photographers whose work I respect and they are beginning to speak very highly of the Fuji combination. So, one Saturday recently, I decided to take the plunge – camera, grip and lens – and set off to find some birds. (For brevity, if you‘ll allow me, I’ll use the same shorthand – X-H1 + VPB + 100-400 = ‘the Fuji’.)

At first sight, the combination looks as hefty as the Nikon. But don’t be fooled. It’s not and it’s a good kilogram lighter. Towards the end of a day’s shooting, it makes a big difference. On that score alone, the Fuji wins.

With power set to ‘Boost’ on the grip, and OIS to ‘on’ and limiter to ‘5m-∞’ on the lens, AF to CH and 8fps on the camera, it was time to set off.

Both of the bird photographers I mention above stress the importance of using the AF-C Custom setting – although both use it slightly differently and both also recommend the 3×3 Zone setting.
With all of that dialled in, and Auto ISO enabled (max 1600, min shutter speed 1/1,000), off I went.

The Western Cape region of South Africa, where I live, is heading into winter. The light can be very poor at this time of year and many of the birds which visit in summer went north a couple of months ago. But there are still enough residents around – certainly enough to test my limited skills on!

That first session, I’m afraid, yielded nothing spectacular at all. My heart sank – was this to be a repeat of the X-T1 experience?

I needed better light and more birds. A day or two later, with the sun shining, I found myself at Cape Town’s V&A Waterfront, one of the city’s major attractions, and a place thronged with gulls. With a convenient railing to lean on, the Fuji and I were in business.

Hartlaub’s Gull, Cape Town

It’s OK – quite heavily cropped in Capture One 11 – usable, but I wouldn’t want to print it in any kind of large.

Hartlaub’s Gull, Cape Town

Not the greatest composition, but like the first one – cropped and usable.

At the point, it’s worth noting that I had about a dozen or so shots in this category, from around 400 overall. Not a very high keeper rate at all, IMHO.

Back to the drawing-board.

Out again the following day, tinkering with the settings in poor light. No gulls this time, but close to my house there’s a vineyard which is home to several pairs of Spotted Thick-knees.

Spotted Thick-knee, nr. Paarl, South Africa

That’s more like it, I feel. Good feather detail, a sharp eye with a hint of catchlight. I’d print this one happily and I’m starting to feel more confident about the Fuji’s ability to do BIF.

For the sake of comparison, here’s a similar one, shot on the same day with the Nikon:

Spotted Thick-knee, nr. Paarl, South Africa

It’s a slightly different crop, but perhaps the key difference is that I had managed to lock the Fuji’s ISO at 1600 – whereas the Nikon’s was working as Auto-ISO is supposed to between 100 and 1600. This came in at ISO 280. Operator error – nothing to do with the H-T1.

One observation at this stage – the Nikon, at 500mm, is getting me closer to the birds, as you would expect. The Nikon’s OVF is also allowing me to pick the bird up faster than the Fuji’s EVF, but the difference is very slight.

I’m still not getting enough keepers, though. Time for some more homework and more fiddling with the settings.

What followed was the breakthrough session. Good evening light, clear blue skies, and a large tree which is a roost for White-breasted cormorant, Sacred Ibis and Hadeda Ibis.

I had also noticed, as I processed the images from the previous batch, that parts of the birds’ bodies were in focus, while other parts, especially eyes, were not. Could it be that the 3×3 Zone focus was allowing the camera to lock on to any old body part?

So I switched from 3×3 Zone to Single Point – choosing the second-smallest of the five options.

That was promising, and I could immediately see better results as I chimped images on the X-H1’s screen.

But what made the real difference, especially in terms of keeper rate, was switching from half-shutter focus to AF-On. The X-H1, with its slightly deeper grip, fits my rather square and not-very-big hand perfectly and suddenly the AF-On button is just where I need it to be.

Egyptian Goose. Nr Paarl, South Africa

Egyptian Goose. Nr Paarl, South Africa

Again, not a very inspired image, but the important thing to note is that the Fuji is holding focus and not latching on to the background (as the X-T1 would certainly have done).

White-breasted Cormorant. Nr Paarl, South Africa

Again, holding focus admirably.

White-breasted Cormorant. Nr Paarl, South Africa

Good wing position, but perhaps not as much feather detail on the neck as I would like?

Sacred Ibis. Nr Paarl, South Africa

Plenty of feather detail here, sharp eye with catchlight. I’m happy.

So can the Fuji X-H1 and 100-400 do BIF? On the evidence above, no question. As my familiarity with the camera-lens combination grows, I’m sure the images will also improve. Will it replace my D500 + 200-500, though? That’s a different matter: where weight is not an issue – driving my own vehicle to a shoot, for example – I think the Nikon still has the edge for BIF and will make the trip. But when I’m flying to a destination with restricted baggage, especially carry-on, or if I’m walking anywhere for any length of time, I’ll have the Fuji and be safe in the knowledge that if I do need BIF, it won’t let me down.

One final thought. The Nikon D500 is a very fine camera. With any of Nikon’s big telephoto primes attached, it’s formidable. But Nikon has ignored the shorter distances for its APS-C range (DX, in Nikon-speak). There is simply nothing carrying a Nikon badge that comes remotely close to Fuji’s 16-55mm or 50-140mm, leave alone any of the remarkable primes, like the 23mm 1.4 or 90mm f2.0.

Those lenses, allied to the excellent X-H1, are why, for both my business and pleasure, Fuji is now my go-to system.

Paul says:

The Kogelberg at dawn – X-H1, 16mm f1.4 @ f11

Winter wave – X-H1, 100-400 zoom (372mm) @ f5.6

Dunes at Betty’s Bay – X-H1, 16mm f1.4 @ f11

Betty’s Bay – X-H1 with Zeiss 25mm Biogon @ f11

I’ve havered for weeks over the X-H1. I’ve had an X-Pro as a constant companion for the last three years, supported on long journeys by the pocketable X100F. It’s been faultless and racked up 28,000 images during that time, despite its close-to-pathetic battery life. Why would I want to change it?

As I wrote in an e-mail to Pascal a couple of weeks ago about the IBIS in the X-H1; “I’m reaching an age where image stabilisation is increasingly important. My hands don’t shake, but the rest of me does.”

A joke at my own expense, but nonetheless, IBIS is now a need-to-have.

The mirrorless X-Pros have also been a route to carrying less and less on my travels, but as I’ve bought a couple of additional primes, my camera bag mass has grown accordingly. To quote Northcote Parkinson; “The work expands to fill the time available.” Change as appropriate.

Rooi Els river – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f11

Morning abstract – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f22

Walker Bay – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f16

Wavelets – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f11

So, the X-H1 is destined to be a travel solution. Paired with Fuji’s 16-55 zoom, it’s quite a handful, but not a monster like the Nikon D800/24-70 zoom duo. Performance-wise, it gives up very little to the Nikon set up and does reduce the bag mass quite considerably.

The Fuji primes will get either get used for specific travel excursions, or (along with the X-Pro) when my camera bag is in the back of the Landy and I don’t need to be much concerned with how much they weigh.

So, what’s to like about the X-H1?

Clearly for me, the IBIS is a given – wish I had it in Japan last year for all of those evening/after dark shots I took. In my immediate post-purchase shooting tests, I’ve found I can hand hold the X-H1, with 90mm prime at f16 for a 1/15th. That’s a real win and means less dragging a tripod around in my suitcase.

Next is the shutter, which is soft and seductive enough to make you want to shoot more and more, just to enjoy its feel. It does take a bit if getting used to, however. For a press the shutter halfway shooter like me, you’ll find lots of pictures you didn’t mean to take, as you learn just how little encouragement the button needs.

The articulating screen is also a massive step forward, but I’m not so sure about its touch facilities – I need to spend more time fiddling with it, before I’m even halfway convinced.

Morning abstract – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f22

Walker Bay – X-H1, 90mm f2 @ f5.6

The cellar at Muratie vineyard – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f11

Crystal – Gordon’s Bay – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f11

Viewfinder? Brilliant. ‘nuff said?

An added bonus – The X-H1 can be charged via a standard USB cable. I usually carry several spare batteries when travelling and share them between the X-Pro and X100. Now, I’ll substitute the X-Pro and leave the charger at home – the X-H1 can charge batteries for its own use and I can swap them, for the X100. It’ll even charge off a cigarette lighter USB connection and cable in the car. Another win.

Just about everything else works like all the other Fuji cameras; reliable, predicable and generally, a joy to use.

So it’s great. There are a couple of downsides and I do have a few grumps, two that are quite serious.

Firstly, the 16-55 zoom I’ve paired with the X-H1 body is a real dust pump, with the result that I need to clean the sensor far more than I’ve become used to with my X-Pros and prime lenses. That means more, rather than less kit to carry. I know that’s not a specific X-H1 issue, but Fuji do need to find a solution for their flagship APS-C product.

Fire damaged trees – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f11

The Kogelberg reserve – X-H1, 16-55 f2.8 zoom @ f16

The second, I’ve since solved, but caused me some serious Googling and a lot of head scratching; the Fuji remote cable/release is small and light. It travels with me and has been hugely useful over the years. Like the batteries, it’s the same remote for both the X-Pro and X-H1. Provided you can find where to plug it in that is. The obvious port is where you’d expect, under a flap on the opposite side of the body to the twin SD card slots. Except that that’s a micro HDMI port and the micro USB connector doesn’t fit.

Several searches and a few e-mails tracked the solution down – the manual is completely useless on this point – the micro USB plugs in to one section of the full size USB port. It works fine and is a really clever solution. I just wish Fuji had made it clearer in the manual.

Final grump (so far) – I use exposure compensation a lot in my photography and find the button to activate the command wheel used to change these settings way too small and awkward, especially when the camera is on a tripod at eye level.

Aside from the dust – not really the X-H1’s problem – it’s all good.

This is a fine camera. A firmware update arrived a few days ago and has made a significant improvement to the camera’s AF performance, making me even happier that I’d bought it.

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.