Leaving Nikon Part One: Why and to Where?

View fullsize

The first Z camera and lens I purchased. I was immensely impressed out of the gate with not only the camera but the 24-70/4 S. I wish more companies made small f/4 zooms like this and paired them in kits.

I’ve shot Nikon as my primary system since I left Canon behind in 2012. I’ve owned and used cameras from, as far as I can tell, every current manufacturer save Phase One. Some stuck with me longer than others – I have pretty limited experience with Pentax DSLRs, for example. I’ve never been a brand loyalist in any sense; the idea of that is just silly no matter how you look at it. Obviously, there is a form of “sunk cost loyalty” once you’ve invested in gear. Leap frogging from one system to another because so-and-so has this summer’s best [insert whatever specification] is solely in the realm of spec-sheet chasing hobbyists, not that of a working photographer.

Of course, there come times – especially after many years – where you find your priorities, needs, or preferences have shifted, as has the camera and photography landscape. I continued using DSLRs as my primary bodies until Nikon released the Z series because, well, I simply didn’t get along with Sony bodies (I’ve probably owned and eventually sold more models of Sony than any other company – my first mirrorless camera was actually a Sony).

Despite the subject of this post, I still view the Nikon Z cameras as the absolute best all-around system on the market. They are handily the best ergonomically, with the Panasonic S series a close second, though at the expense of portability. Their sensor IQ is unsurpassed (though certainly matched) by anything below medium format. Their lens lineup is second to none in quality* and second only to Canon for overall selection if you include native adapters. In my opinion, their mirrorless lens system is absolutely brilliant: benchmark image quality along with their laudable decision to skip f/1.4 lenses and put everything into f/1.8 primes. And I won’t get started on the mind-blowing performance of lenses like the 16-50/3.5-6.3, 24-50/4-6.3, and 24-200/4-6.3.

View fullsize

Nikon’s phenomenal 16-50/3.5-6.3 DX kit zoom. Probably the best sub-$500 kit zoom I have ever used. Pairs great with the Z7 too, giving you the same 20MP resolution as the Z50.

*To be clear here: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic… they all make amazing full-frame mirrorless lenses. But I see Nikon as having the overall best line-up when you consider image quality, size, price, options, and build quality. They went the right direction with affordable pro-level f/1.8 primes, great f/2.8 and compact f/4 zooms, and some absurdly good budget zooms (that’s where the “options” part comes in). Panasonic is doing something similar (20-60, 70-300/4.5-5.6, 70-200/2.8 and f/4, and now pro-level f/1.8 primes), but they lack the smaller options of Nikon (e.g. 24-50 and 16-50 pancakes) or the more affordable options (20-60 being an exception). Sony, lately, has very much impressed me with their compact f/1.4 GM primes, the 28-60, the newest G zoom lenses, etc. But… Sony’s lenses as a whole are not at the same level; many of their earlier lenses range from average to downright awful (most of their APS-C lenses are simply ok, often pretty poor). Even a number of their early Zeiss-badged lenses were quite poor (24-70/4 ZA). Lately, though, they’ve been killing it and of course they do have the largest ecosystem available… especially including third-party options.

View fullsize

Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons

Canon opted to kick off their full-frame mirrorless line by releasing two subpar bodies (EOS R and Rp) alongside ultra-fast, expensive, top-of-the-line glass (the 28-70/2 has to be commended, though – what an achievement). Yes, Nikon did this with the Noct-Nikkor f/0.95. What they didn’t do, however, is release two 85/1.2 lenses before they had a remotely affordable f/1.8 version. Canon decided to put resources into niche lenses like 600/800mm f/11 primes before a single f/4 wide angle zoom, a 50mm lens that isn’t dirt-cheap sub $200 or ultra-expensive over $2000, or a single prime lens below 35mm. I just don’t get it at all – and before I settled on what would end up being my first foray into another system, I kept coming back to Canon only to be immediately reminded why we haven’t gotten along in a decade.

*Canon, and sometimes other manufacturers, seems to think that professionals only use fast or ultra-fast glass. All you need to do is look at the popularity of Nikon’s 14-30/4, Sony’s 12-24/4, or Canon’s own 17-40/4L lens to see how much nonsense that is. These lenses are popular because they’re affordable, they’re all many people need, and they’re much smaller than faster f/2.8 alternatives. The same goes for f/1.2 primes. I have zero issue with the faster lenses being released – a 14-24 (or similar range), 24-70, and 70-200 at f/2.8 is a widely popular trio. F/1.2 primes are popular. It’s the apparent way Canon prioritized their lens releases that left me baffled, along with the release of legitimately unimpressive and poorly designed bodies out of the gate – bodies which screamed enthusiast but only had very expensive lenses to pair with. I’m sure the 28-70/2 is amazing, but let’s be honest… how many people bought it? I see it is a kind of halo product (like the Noct-Nikkor), except that Canon has continued the trend to this day – though they have tossed a few affordable lenses out here and there.

Again, they still don’t have a single prime lens below 35mm. That’s just plain damn strange.

I have to applaud Panasonic – I nearly went with their system to begin with. After using the S1, 20-60, and 24-105 lenses not too long ago (on rental for a job), I came away extremely impressed. The ergonomics are definitely the most “Nikon-like” (button/control placement, menus, overall design) and they just make sense. I found this true of the Panasonic G9 as well (the S1 is basically a leveled up G9). The lenses are very impressive. And it probably goes without saying, but no one comes close to Panasonic on the full-frame hybrid video front.

View fullsize

Panasonic S1 w/ 24-105/4 OIS

Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons

Sony. Boy oh boy. My first mirrorless camera was the a6000, not too long after it was released. I used it alongside my Nikon gear and I loved it at the time. Then I started doing work repairing cameras (and lenses) and, despite most of that work being on 35mm or medium format film cameras, over time I was able to use many (and I mean MANY) digital cameras. I eventually got the a6300, only to have Sony give those us of who bought it the finger when they released the a6500 eight months later. I even shot a few scenes for a ten-episode show with the a6300. I’ve also owned the a7, a7 II, a7R II, a7S II, a few RX100 models, and the RX10 Mark II (which I quite liked) – I’ve used, but not owned, the a7 III and a7S III.

There are many reasons why the first and second-gen Sony FF cameras aren’t great – I don’t think anyone would dispute that. They really came into their game with the third gen models. But every time I tried one, I just ended up missing my DSLR. For many reasons.

Things have changed, though. I no longer see any advantage to DSLRs; EVFs finally matured to the point where they’re simply transparent. With a nice EVF, I’m never actively aware that I’m looking at a digital display. Mirrorless autofocus has significantly improved, from tracking to new features like eye-AF. Lenses have improved. General technology itself has improved – once Canon and Nikon finally put all their resources into mirrorless, we’re seeing great improvements with every new release no matter whose name is on the front.

View fullsize

Sony a7R III. One of the cameras I considered, especially appealing given it can be found used for under $1800.

Photo by Ke Chun Yuan. Creative Commons License. Find the original here.

Sony was one of the top two most attractive options for me to move to – mainly because of their prevailing technology (especially autofocus, though others have caught or nearly caught up, especially Canon) and their massive native lens selection. Adapters like Nikon’s FTZ work wonderfully and are great to use while switching over or to fill gaps in the lens lineup, but I’d still rather have a native-mount lens any time. As I mentioned, I really love not only the types of lenses Sony has decided to release recently, but also how fantastic they are. The 28-60 compact zoom is identical to Nikon’s 24-50 in approach, just opting for a bit more on one end at the expense of the other. And both are truly excellent optics. Their 24/35/135 1.4 GM, 50/1.2 GM, and 20/35/85 1.8 G lenses are very good and surprisingly compact pieces of engineering. I’ve really loved the recent 70-350 G and the older 24-105 and 12-24 G zooms: stellar image quality but still affordable. Most of all, while I have not used them yet, I bend the knee to Sony for releasing the 24/2.8 and 40/50 2.5 G lenses. I used to beg Zeiss for f/2.5 or 2.8 versions of their Otus lenses – which they basically had in the Loxia line, but nothing for any other mount, let alone DSLRs. Nikon should be doing something similar with the upcoming 28 and 40mm pancakes, but I’d love to see a 24, 35, and 50 as well (Sony already has some great 35mm pancake options with the 35/2.8 Zeiss, Samyang 35/2.8, and the slightly larger Tamron 35/2.8).

So, with all my love for Nikon, why did I start to look elsewhere? It’s really a culmination of several factors that ended up compounding on themselves. This past year, with *flails arms* everything that’s happened, resulted in the need to do some gear downsizing. It also forced me to look ahead at where I want to go and be professionally and think about what I really need to do that and what is the most economical way to get there, even if some sacrifices have to be made. There’s also the elephant in the room, at least if you read pretty much any photography website: Nikon has not been doing well financially. They’ve closed a number of factories and significantly trimmed down their employ across the globe. In my logical brain, I know that these decisions are likely to help them succeed in the long run (reducing operating expenses generally does that). But the non-logical part of me can’t help but be worried.

View fullsize

Fujifilm X-Pro3. I actually loved this camera when I played with it. But, its price, lack of IBIS + grip support, and several other factors make it unsuitable when you’re trying to keep costs down, since it can’t be my main camera.

Creative Commons license, Wikiemedia Commons.

I don’t really buy into the idea that Nikon is doomed to fail – in fact, I think that’s very unlikely. However, it is true that they aren’t doing as well as they had hoped, nor as well as others. It’s also true that, unlike say… Sony or Panasonic or Canon… they don’t have other departments to lean on. Pentax is a fantastic example: the only reason they manage to keep releasing cameras and lenses is because their imaging department is a miniscule part of the company’s revenue. Off the top of my head, only Nikon and Leica are not in such a position. But Leica will continue forward as usual because they’re a niche, luxury brand with a comparatively small workforce and they don’t need to worry about someone else undercutting their prices or stealing their customer base. They also make cinema lenses and probably microscopes and whatever other stuff.

Obviously, I’d be lying if I said the Olympus situation didn’t knock a bit more fear into me as well. Which will turn out to be pretty ironic in part two of this.

If Nikon’s demise was truly my only concern, I wouldn’t even be writing this. I’m not selling my gear and switching brands over something like that. Hell, even if it happened, worst case scenario is that I’d sell my gear a few years down the road and still be able to switch systems just fine. I think it’s important to step back and not take for granted that most people, including myself, could do 99% of everything we want to with the lenses/cameras Nikon has already released (if you include F-mount via FTZ adapter for Z bodies).

However, like I mentioned, I was forced to 1) sell off some my lesser used gear (45mm PC-E Micro, Zeiss 2/50 Makro ZF.2 and Nikon 135/2 DC, just to name a few) and 2) think critically about the next 5+ years and what I want to do and what I would need to do it. There’s no longer leeway for hoarding expensive gear I only use every so often. Long story short, I’m working to branch out into a couple relatively uncharted waters for income work, while also focusing on some personal projects of mine. There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s the basic gist.

So, where did I land with a new system? The answer is Fujifilm.

View fullsize

Photo by Henry Söderlund, Creative Commons License. See original here.

However, that’s far from the end of the story.

The rest of which will be in Part Two, coming soon.

35mm Camera Recommendations (Part One: SLR & Rangefinders)

Film has experienced a bit of a resurgence in the past five or so years. We’ve seen a proliferation of never-before-made film stocks and even some of the ones killed off have been brought back to life (Fujifilm Acros 100 – my favorite b&w stock). As a life-long avid shooter of film, from 35mm to 4x5, and experience with thousands of camera models, I thought I’d do a post on my own suggestions – from sub-$100 bargains to collectible, premium offerings.

View fullsize

Nikon FM w/ Nikkor 50/1.4 AI-S

Each pick is only that – my choice based on user experience and, naturally, my personal preferences. There are obviously dozens, if not hundreds, of other options that others may prefer. None of my picks are meant to imply that others are inferior; so, before you ask “what about [so and so]??” please keep in mind that I guarantee I already considered it, I probably love the camera, and simply prefer whatever I chose instead. Though I will say almost all of these are limited to manual focus cameras only. Maybe I’ll do a later article on autofocus 35mm cameras, because there are plenty of truly great ones (Nikon F100, Pentax MZ-S, Canon EOS-1, Minolta Maxxum 9 (a-9), Nikon F4/F5, etc, etc).

I will do further articles on 35mm compacts and medium-format options, as well. This one is limited to 35mm interchangeable lens cameras.

(Pictures are from cameras/lenses I’ve had in my possession - often quite briefly - over the years, so the quality is not great)

Ultra-Bargain (<$75 w/ lens)

Yashica FX-103 Program

This is actually one of my favorite hidden gems of the film world and can routinely be found with a Yashica 50mm lens for $50-75. It uses the Contax Yashica (C/Y for short) bayonet mount, which means it can utilize all of the extremely excellent Contax Zeiss lenses, many of which are still incredibly good even on high-resolution digital cameras. In fact, many of the lenses were so good that some of their designs exist to this day in the Zeiss Milvus series.

Contax themselves produced a number of great 35mm bodies, many with some incredibly advanced features (the Contax AX can autofocus with manual focus lenses). However, a lot of these are motor-wound (meaning no film advance lever) and most have reversed controls with the shutter speed dial on the left-hand side. I tend to prefer the simplicity and tactility of a manual advance lever and traditionally placed shutter speed dial.

The FX-103 Program has four modes: P (Program), HP (High Speed Program), A (Aperture Priority), and M (Manual). That’s far more than most cameras in this price range, plus it has an unusually extensive ASA range from 12 to 3200. There really isn’t anything to complain about here.

Bargain ($100-175)

Minolta X-570 or X-700

There are a number of great options I considered here; Nikon FE, Nikon FM, Pentax K2 or MX, but ultimately settled on the Minoltas because the X-570 was one of my first cameras and they’re powerhouses – loaded with features, and compared to the Nikons or Pentaxes, the glass is a good deal more affordable. The X-700 has Program and Aperture Priority, and Manual modes; the X-570 lacks Program, which is honestly not a mode I ever use with 35mm cameras anyway. Otherwise, the bodies and features are nearly identical.

There are a plethora of great Minolta lenses available at very reasonable prices; there is also the renowned 58/1.2 Rokkor which is a nice chunk of glass that produces lovely, dreamy images wide-open. Even that lens can be found at fairly decent prices. Your regular 50/1.8 or 50/1.7 lenses are dirt cheap and 50/1.4 or 55/1.4 lenses are incredibly affordable as well.

Make sure to check compatibility between lens type (MD vs MC) if you intend to use the X-700’s program auto mode (MC lenses are aperture priority or manual only).

Nikon FA

In the 1970s and early 80s, Nikon made a number of exceptional “mid-range” models – that is to say, they were designed to be a step down from the top-end Nikon F2/F3 variants. But, they proved highly reliable, durable, and a bit more compact – so they found a huge home with photographers of all kinds. These models included the Nikon FE, FE2, FM, FM2, and the ahead-of-its-time Nikon FA. Introduced the year after the FM2 and the same year as the FE2, it was positioned as an advanced amateur body. Yet, one feature in particular – its multi-segmented exposure meter – was the first of its kind. Today it’s better known as matrix metering (Nikon), evaluative (Canon), multi (Fujifilm & Sony), etc. It’s a now-commonplace metering mode that utilizes a microprocessor to analyze a scene and select the appropriate exposure.

View fullsize

Nikon FA w/ Motor Drive

The FA also offered four exposure modes – Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Program Auto. This was, again, a first for a Nikon camera until 1988’s Nikon F4.

Lastly, the FA could mount AI, AI-S, AI-P, and non-AI lenses (though the latter would not be able to make use of all exposure modes). I believe it was the last body with the ability to accept non-AI lenses until the FM3A many years later.

Today, excellent copies can be found for $100-130, easily. It’s a steal.

Mid-Range ($200-500)

There are tons of amazing options in this range and I could do a list of 30 of them. But I’ve picked five favorites of mine from five completely different line-ups.

Nikon F3 / F3HP

The Nikon F3 is one of the finest cameras ever camera – by anyone. It is nothing short of perfect; rock-solid build, amazing ergonomics, and one of the most dependable cameras I’ve come across.

The F3 is, of course, the successor to the legendary Nikon F2, but this time with a built-in light meter (no clunky finder necessary) and aperture-priority automation. Like Nikon’s FE/FE2/FA models, the F3 has an electronically controlled shutter, so it will not function without batteries (though on a personal note, in my experience with thousands of cameras, the longevity and reliability of mechanical and electronic cameras is no different – do not be concerned about it, at all).

Its successor – the F4 – was a revolutionary camera and well-worth owning if you need autofocus, but me? I like manual focusing on the nice, bright, beautiful matte screen, and – while it may seem minor – I like a thumb-operated film advance as opposed to automatic motor winders found in the F4 and all later autofocus cameras.

The F3HP is simply the F3 with a high eye-point finder (very nice for those of us who wear glasses). Since the finders are interchangeable, a regular F3 can become an F3HP by swapping in the DE-3 finder, and an F3HP can use one of the many other finders available – including the basic DE-2 finder. There’s even a (very cool) waist level finder available (DW-3). Focusing screens are also easily interchangeable.

Minolta XK (aka XM, aka X-1)

I have a fair number of cameras that I came across or fixed and then sold, now wishing I hadn’t. The Minolta XK would rank up there quite high, along with the Contax S2 described below.

Quite simply, this thing is an almost brick. It may be the most solidly built 35mm camera ever made. With the AE prism (includes aperture-priority) finder attached, it is a hulking beast with tall shutter speed and ISO dials (not unlike the Nikon F2 with Photomic Finder, except larger). With the plain and unmetered P-finder, the camera has a much sleeker design (again, not unlike the Nikon F2 with the unmetered DE-1. Like the F3, a waist level finder is also available.

With eleven interchangeable focus screens, a horizontally traveling titanium shutter, and a beyond impressive brass construction, this is one of the finest cameras of its time. Lenses are also excellent in quality and now low in price compared to glass from Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, and others.

Contax S2

The Contax S2 is on the higher-end of the price spectrum compared to some of these others, depending on condition and where you buy from (KEH currently has one for $542; I have seen some from Japan for $400).

This is one of the last Contax C/Y bodies released – done so to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Contax cameras (some bodies even have “60 Years” emblazoned on the front – naturally they fetch a higher price tag.

The S2 (and later, the S2b) are actually rather simple cameras. Mechanical shutter, no auto-exposure modes, and a simple spot-meter (unusual at the same) powered by two LR44 batteries. It’s as basic in operation as a Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM.

The beauty, I suppose, lies in this simplicity. Unlike previous Contax bodies, which swung for the technological fences, the S2 was as minimalist as it gets – and I actually quite like the spot-only meter. And, unlike prior bodies, the design is more akin to the standard orientation of Nikon, Pentax, Canon, etc. bodies: shutter speed dial on the right, ASA dial/exposure compensation on the left, manual film advance lever. The main reason I preferred Yashica bodies over Contax was due to their reverse shutter/ASA dial positioning and (often) motor-driven film advance. The S2/S2b is none of this.

It pairs particularly well with the phenomenal Contax Zeiss 45/2.8 Tessar.

The S2b uses a center-weighted meter and is available in a lovely graphite finish. Otherwise, the two are identical.

Contax G1 (Green Label)

Contax – again pioneering some of the most innovative technology – surprised the camera world in 1994 when they released an autofocus rangefinder. That camera was the G1: a titanium-clad body with electronically controlled exposure, autofocus, and rangefinder system. Lenses are screw-driven via an in-body motor that turns a pin on the lens mount, forcing the helicoid back and forth.

Unlike every other rangefinder camera to that point (and since then), the viewfinder field-of-view changes depending on the lens being used. That is to say, instead of relying on a small box in the middle of the frame for a 90mm lens, the viewfinder “zooms” to fill the entire frame (not unlike a modern mirrorless camera).

None of this would be wholly persuasive to convince you to add it to your bag, but the lenses are what clinch the deal. Like most Contax lenses, G-mount glass was made by Carl Zeiss – and they are some of the company’s finest work. Ranging from a 16mm Hologon to a 90mm Sonnar, all of the lenses are optical works of art. In my opinion, the 90/2.8 Sonnar and 45/2 Planar stand out as the crown jewels, though I have heard the 16/8 Hologon is a true beauty (and also very expensive).

View fullsize

Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f/2.8 for Contax G

The 90 Sonnar can be found dirt-cheap (<$200) and is a must-have lens for any G1 or G2 owner. It also adapts easily to most mirrorless systems (Sony E, Fuji X, Micro 4/3, Nikon Z, maybe more) – though due to the lack of a focus ring on G lenses, focus must be controlled by a ring on the adapter. I actually didn’t mind this at all (I use a Fotodiox Pro and a Metabones – both great, with an edge to Metabones). The 28mm and wider lenses don’t perform as well on digital bodies, but the 45 and 90 lenses are excellent.

If you search for Contax G1 bodies, you may find some described as “green label.” These are updated versions with modified ROM and will have a literal green label inside where the film canister sits. The upgrade allows these bodies to use the 21 and 35mm lenses (regular G1’s can only use the 16, 28, 45, and 90 lenses). No G1 can use the 35-70 zoom.

Leica CL/Leitz Minolta CL/Minolta CLE

When it comes to rangefinders, the Leica CL (sometimes labeled Leitz Minolta CL) is one of the best deals on the market currently.

The CL was designed in concert with Minolta. Unlike many other M-mount rangefinders, the CL has framelines for 40mm lenses – along with 50 and 90mm. Leica and Minolta designed and released a Leica 40/2 Summicron (almost certainly a wholly Minolta design) that was bundled with the camera as well as a Leica Elmar-C 90/4.

Like the M5 that was released one year prior, the CL uses CdS meter on a pivoting arm in front of the shutter that drops down right before the moment of exposure. Because of this, certain lenses cannot be mounted without damaging the arm: those with excessively protruding rear elements (usually wide-angle) and collapsible lenses (which can be used if you don’t fully collapse them).

Seven years later, Minolta introduced the very similar Minolta CLE – one of the most advanced rangefinders of its time due to the presence of aperture-priority autoexposure (something Leica wouldn’t accomplish until the release of the M7 decades later).

View fullsize

Example of white spots and coating damage on an M-Rokkor 28/2.8. There was little effect on image quality, with the exception of excessive flare when directed toward a strong point source (and without a hood).

The CLE included framelines for 28, 40, and 90mm lenses – the former due to Minolta’s introduction of the M-Rokkor 28/2.8. They also released the M-Rokkor 40/2 and M-Rokkor 90/4 – these two being identical to the previous Leica versions, as far as I know. The M-Rokkor 28mm is notable for its development of white spots inside (which often don’t affect the image) and the middling durability of its coating. Nonetheless, all three lenses are exceptional optics.

……………..CONTINUED IN PART TWO

New Acquisition: Nikon 35Ti

View fullsize

There isn’t much to say here - yet. A full review will be forthcoming once I’ve, you know, actually used the camera.

The Nikon 35Ti (and, by extension, the 28Ti - depending on what focal length you want) has always been an extremely interesting and desirable camera for me. I’ve always wanted one premium compact point and shoot in my collection (“collection” meaning “things that look good on a shelf AND that I use”).

I had a Leica Minilux once upon a time, but the viewfinder was utterly abysmal and the camera was, overall, not for me - at least not at that price.

View fullsize

I’ve had a number of others in my possession, usually cameras that I fixed and immediately sold: Contax T2, TVS, TVS II, Konica Hexar AF, and the more usual suspects like Rollei 35, Olympus XA, Olympus Mju, etc. I was most impressed by the Contax T2 and Hexar AF…. with a serious case of seller’s remorse on the T2 all these years later where it’s now double the price (at least).

For the past couple years, I’ve lusted after a Minolta TC-1 or a Nikon 35Ti.

Lo and behold, I came across an excellent condition 35Ti with all original packaging (even including the roll of Ektachrome that was sold with the camera).

View fullsize

From top (clockwise): 1) Number of shots taken, 2) Aperture - either chosen by you in A priority or by the camera in P, 3) Exposure compensation, 4) Focus distance

So far, I am a happy camper. The top panel dials receive mixed reactions - personally, I love them. For the same reason I like the top LCD panel on the Nikon Z cameras, I can walk around with all basic parameters set without ever bringing the camera to my eye. And the viewfinder doesn’t get cluttered with info, just the shutter speed.

It’s now loaded with a roll of Fujifilm Acros 100 II…. so I’ll check back soon.

Rare: Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 Macro at UsedPhotoPro

View fullsize

Available with six-month warranty here at Robert’s Camera

I don’t (and won’t) normally post items for sale like this, but this one deserves a special mention.

The Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar SL (Nikon Mount) is one of the rarest and most elusive lenses out there – in fact, this is the first time I’ve seen one for sale in the United States. There were very, very few of these made across a variety of different mounts. Voigtlander produced them along with the much more common 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar and the 180/4 APO-Lanthar, the latter of which is also quite rare.

Not only are these lenses difficult to find, but they are absolutely outstanding performers; the 180/4 is truly apochromatic and insanely small for its focal length. The 125/2.5 is also apochromatic, a little over a stop faster, and focuses to a full 1:1 macro.

Robert’s Camera (aka UsedPhotoPro when referring to their used department) has one on sale for $2,000 in excellent condition with the original hood (which are not easy or cheap to find) and box. Included is a six-month warranty.

Coupon code TAKE5 will save you 5%.

Please use the following link, which will provide me a (very) small referral fee. I just hope someone snaps this up because it’s a remarkable piece of glass.

Buy Here At UsedPhotoPro

Pssssst, Nikon: My Z Camera Wishlist

Recently, it became official: the Nikon Z series cameras have almost entirely replaced my DSLR for in-studio work and portraiture. The D810 still lives for the outdoors – landscapes and wildlife in particular.

Having used the Z series for about 15 months now, the amazing haptics, seamless transition, and absolutely brilliant lenses clinched the deal. In fact, I consider the Z6 and Z7 two of the finest digital cameras (period) ever made and certainly near the top of the best MILCs. No one else has made a full-frame mirrorless camera with such an excellent design and seamless transition from the DSLR counterparts; not to mention the enormous lens library if you consider existing F-Mount lenses with the adapter. Canon succeeds on the latter front, but the EOS R was an underwhelming mess of design and features (I am very impressed with the 1DX Mark III, however, and the EOS R5 and R6 seem to have fixed the terrible ergonomics of the R).

View fullsize

Taken with iPhone 8 in DNG via Lightroom Mobile, edited in ACR/PS

So, having spent a good amount of time now with the Nikon Z6 and Z50*, I feel pretty comfortable discussing a few of the shortcomings and features I would like to see implemented in the next iteration(s). A fair number of these would also apply in general to most mirrorless cameras – be it features that exist in some cameras but inexplicably not in all, or features that don’t exist at all but should.

The recently-announced Z5 addresses one of these features (dual card slots), however it uses two SD slots – I would like to see either dual CFexpress or CFexpress + SD in the next generations.

*Most of these apply more to the Z6/Z7 but a number are (or could be) applicable to the Z50 as well.

Firmware Updatable

• Linear manual focus modes for Z lenses* – this should be a standard option on all mirrorless cameras. Fly-by-wire manual focusing is already a nightmare without the haptic feedback of a helicoid – not to mention the lag and subsequent backlash in focusing precision. Plus, with the increasingly video-stills hybrid nature of cameras, there is no reason not to have this (Fuji does it). Spend five minutes trying to pull focus during a video with fly-by-wire lenses and you'll want to shatter the camera. And no, there isn’t any mirrorless camera with sufficient video AF-C. Even the cameras that can keep focus locked, the transitions are still very harsh and uncinematic (particularly when “racking” focus from near to far or far to near). Possible exception is Canon and their dual-pixel AF, but I haven’t used their EOS R cameras enough to testify one way or another. The EOS cinema cameras are great and the 1DX Mark III is likewise very impressive.
  
  *For those who don’t know: most AF DSLR lenses (except some newer ones, e.g. Nikon’s AF-P) and manual focus lenses have focus rings that are coupled to built-in helicoids. This gives them linear, mechanical, repeatable focus, usually with hard stops at each end in the case of non-AF lenses. The focus ring on a focus-by-wire design is not mechanically linked to anything and isn’t linear – turn the ring slowly and it may take 300 degrees to cover the full range; give it a quick twist and it may do it in 25 degrees. Not to mention, due to the lack of physical coupling, there is always lag between when you initiate/stop focus and when the camera indicates that you have, making it impossible to tell when you’ve hit your mark - inevitably ending up in you overshooting the target. Focus-by-wire is undoubtedly superior for autofocus, but it is garbage for manual focusing without some user selectable adjustments in its behavior (like Fuji offers) or rackable linear focus modes with hard stops a la some Sony and Olympus lenses.
  

• IBIS based pixel shift for full color sampling and high-resolution still-life / product / landscape (see: numerous cameras from Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic). Note: not sure if this is firmware updatable or would require hardware adjustments in the imaging or processing pipeline. Leica added it to the SL2 via firmware so my guess is Nikon could too.

• IBIS based astro-tracer (Pentax K-1) Note: again, not sure if this is firmware updatable or not, but as above, I don’t see why not.

• Rotate monitor/EVF info when shooting in portrait orientation (why everyone doesn’t do this is beyond me)

• In-camera focus stacked output. The Z’s can already do focus bracketing (or "shift" in Nikon-speak) but an option for in-camera blending and output (e.g. Olympus) would be nice for those who would prefer to bypass the Photoshop step; the excellent JPEG output from these cameras makes this a worthwhile feature. Of course, it should also still save the individual raw files.

• Live Exposure modes: Olympus calls these Live Composite and Live Bulb. They may be proprietary, though the iPhone has a similar feature as may other cameras. Essentially, each mode allows you to see the image “develop” without waiting for the exposure to end (meaning you can end the exposure once it’s exposed to your liking). Live Composite shoots a series of consecutive frames and blends them into a pseudo-long exposure. Live Bulb is like a regular bulb mode, except the screen refreshes every so-many seconds (you set the frequency based on your exposure time as the sensor is only capable of 24 refreshes, I believe - e.g. a 48s exposure would refresh every two seconds).

• Auto ETTR Metering Mode – auto expose to the right just until highlights clip. Think of it as an automatic exposure compensation mode. Highlight priority metering kind of does this, except in the reverse: it’s used to prevent highlight blowout by metering for the highlights (so, in a sense, applying a negative exposure comp). But in the case of ETTR, you want what the camera considers overexposure. Note that this is for RAW shooting only. JPEG shooters DO NOT want to ETTR.

View fullsize

• Customizable thresholds for Auto EFCS. Currently this setting switches from EFC to mechanical at 1/320 (I believe), but it would be nice to have it simply switch over at 1/2000 or whatever speed you choose.

• More flexible Auto-ISO thresholds. The "slow" to "fast" is decent (lowest appears to default to a little over 1/4x focal length), but more precise values – rather than ambiguous low-to-high steps – would be very nice. The Z50 is even less customizable than the FX cameras.

• Allow non-CPU lens data selection to be assigned into the i-Menu. You can assign it to a function button, but not the quick access menu, which is senseless.

• Add 21, 40, 75, and 90mm to the options in non-CPU data; they have 43mm and 86mm because once upon a time Nikon made a 43-86mm lens, but no 40mm or 90mm. Nikon: this is a mirrorless camera, people will be adapting all kinds of lenses. This could easily go for other focal lengths as well, these are just the ones I have noticed missing.

• Proper shutter speeds in video mode to mimic shutter angle (e.g. 1/48th = 180°). As far as I’m concerned, just call it 180°, 172.8°, etc. when in video mode. The latter is both more consistent and easier coming from cinema cameras and eliminates the need to adjust shutter speed when changing your frame rate.

• Fully separate the video and stills menus. In photo mode, you should see all photo-centric options in the menu and only those options. In video mode, you have only video-centric options. For the photo menu, just remove the video tab and a couple other options. For the video menu, redesign it entirely from scratch. For a camera that can output 12-bit RAW, a dedicated video only menu should be there. That, I feel, is one of the best possible changes to fully bring hybrid mirrorless cameras to maturity on the video front. When I’m shooting video on most of these types of cameras (whether Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, etc), I’m constantly frustrated by the cluttered menus and options and symbols that are entirely irrelevant to me (even if greyed out). A completely new video menu (think Blackmagic – easily the best videocentric menu interface out there in a camera under $5,000) would benefit stills and video shooters alike.

• Z50 only – already implemented in Z6/7: option to use EVF only for shooting and the LCD for menu/image review. Currently our options are just EVF Only, Monitor Only, or Auto Switch.

Next Generation Additions/Changes

• Dual Card Slots – while the choice to use the more robust XQD (and now CFexpress) format was a good one, and the single card slot doesn’t personally bother me, I would obviously prefer a second slot. No reason a UHS-II SD slot can’t fit in along with it, perhaps with a few millimeters of adjustment to the dimensions.

• Internal 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 with N-Log gamma; leave HDMI output for the 12-bit ProRes RAW (though internal RAW video is not something I’d complain about – it would probably have to be Blackmagic RAW or similar, though, which is a superb format).

• Sub-dial under the PASM (e.g. Fuji X-T3, X-H1, Panasonic S1/S1R) for either metering mode (my preference) or drive mode. Avoiding menu diving (even into the easily accessible i-Menu) as much as possible is preferable.

• Mode dial should be permanently unlockable (e.g. Olympus). Push down to lock, push down again to unlock – we retain the option to leave it unlocked.

View fullsize

Taken with iPhone 8 in DNG via Lightroom Mobile, edited in ACR/PS

• Electrical contacts for a vertical battery grip – the vertical grip Nikon finally released (sans any buttons or dials) was nothing but a joke at that price, and provided no controls. I don’t see the point in a vertical grip at all if you still have to awkwardly maneuver your hand to the regular controls to adjust settings and take a photo. I don’t even see how it helps with larger lenses.

• FTZ adapter with Arca Swiss detachable tripod foot. I shouldn’t have to purchase two L-brackets (one for the camera, one for the adapter) because you decided to make a non-Arca Swiss non-removable tripod attachment. Fotodiox Pro and Metabones adapters are Arca compatible and removable. Or, if that’s too difficult, at least make one with no tripod mount - it can really get in the way when on a tripod.

• Electronic front curtain at all shutter speeds (currently tops out at 1/2000). I assume this is a hardware limitation in the Z6/Z7 given that prior DSLR models had no such limit; it might be due to readout limitations at the faster speeds.

• LCD that tilts in portrait orientation (e.g. numerous Fujis, Panasonic S1/S1R)

• User selectable raw color – e.g. “Neutral Color” and “Nikon Color." This would work best if the Neutral mode was standardized across all manufacturers (pipe-dream). All companies have their own color and tonal adjustments baked into the raw files. Some kind of neutrality would make consistency much easier to achieve between different makes and models without having to jump through hoops in ACR or whatever you use. But, since that will never happen, I’d be happy with a simple “neutral color” mode that was standardized across all Nikon models (though tonal response, particularly at either end of the curve, will still vary from model to model based on the sensor architecture, processor, among many other factors). I’d love if my Z50 and D810 had the same color. Hasselblad is the only company I know of that does anything like this, with their “Natural Color Solution.”

Current State of Sensor Formats

**Note: 99% of this was written before the unfortunate announcement of Olympus selling its camera division. So, that affects some of what I’ve opined here and probably answers a few questions about the recent trends in the camera industry that I bring up - namely, how larger sensors have caught up to or surpassed the advantages of smaller formats.**

View fullsize

Nikon Z6 - Full Frame Sensor. Photo taken with an iPhone 8 in LR Mobile.

Once upon a time, we would see major innovations in sensor technology every other year or so: the shift from CCD to CMOS. The release of the D3 and D700 which, while also being around the time of the “full-frame” sensor explosion*, represented a significant boost in dynamic range, speed, and high ISO capability. There was the advent of full-frame 1080 24p video with the 5D Mark II – arguably the single most influential event in indie cinema history (along with the Arri Alexa and RED One). Then came the megapixel race: Nikon released the D800, bumping us past (for 35mm or smaller formats) the 20-24 megapixel ceiling; Sony soon followed with the same resolution in the a7R and the race was on.

*The first full-frame digital camera was the Contax N released in 2002. Canon introduced the full-frame 1Ds later in 2002 and Kodak unveiled the DCS Pro 14n in 2003. Canon then gave the world the 1Ds Mark II and 5D in 2004/2005, which saw significant IQ boosts over prior models. However, it wasn’t until Nikon released the D3 and Canon the 5D Mark II that the market began to shift toward full-frame as the digital standard.

Just a few years after the Nikon D800 and Sony a7R, Canon threw down a trump card with the 5DS/5DSR and their 50.6MP sensor. Sony followed months later with the 42MP a7RII. This was the peak of the resolution race – in fact, Canon wouldn’t lose the title until over four years later, upon the recent release of the a7R IV. Instead, camera manufacturers shifted focus to other technology: BSI sensors, blazingly fast frame rates, silent electronic modes that could compete with mechanical shutters, advanced autofocus features like eye AF, IBIS, improved EVFs, etc. We also saw an explosion of new lenses with seemingly everyone trying to one-up the others with sharper, faster, aberration free optical designs. Lenses became larger and heavier while cameras became smaller and lighter. Recently, this trend seems to have reversed itself: manufacturers realized there is such a thing as too small for a camera and engineers have worked toward a nice middle ground with smaller, slower lenses** that retained the similarly impeccable IQ (and succeeding, along with a higher price tag to match).

*The use of in-camera software to correct for various optical deficiencies – vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion – has also been pivotal in the reduction of bulky lens designs.

While it may not seem like it, there’s been a massive shift in the camera world just in the past two years. Though unlike what we saw in the mid to late 2000s, it has been less of a shake-up and more of a subtle, natural evolution. Specifically, I’m referring to the disparateness between formats.

Not too long ago, it looked something like this:

Smartphone: terrible, usable only for what I’d describe as non-photography photographs; pictures to document something where IQ is irrelevant.

Compacts (ranging in size usually up to 1”): acceptable to very good image quality, particularly at or near base ISO. Many had impressive zoom ranges, some had fixed prime lenses (or limited ~24-70mm range) and large sensors. Many of these are still extremely good cameras (see: Ricoh GR series, Fujifilm X100 series, Panasonic LX100). Most of the compacts (excluding the large sensor outliers) hit a threshold of acceptable quality somewhere between ISO 400 and ~1600, depending on their sensor size and your standards.

Micro Four Thirds: A big leap from the 1” or smaller sensors, especially being the smallest format with interchangeable lenses.* Micro 4/3 built their reputation with a number of landmarks in imaging tech, starting in the late 2000s. They were the first mirrorless ILCs**; they matured and standardized the implementation of in-body sensor-based image stabilization (originally developed by Konica-Minolta); they cultivated the first truly thorough mirrorless lens line; and, due to some very wise choices with their mount, they had the distinct advantage of tiny, cheap, but optically excellent lenses.

*I’m ignoring the Nikon 1 and Pentax Q series because neither was ever a fully realized or mature system.

**Technically, the Epson R-D1 was the first MILC followed by the Leica M8, but for obvious reasons we’re restricting this to cameras with autofocus, live-view, and zoom/telephoto lenses.

 APS-C / APS-H: Before full-frame technology matured, these were the standard sensors in professional and prosumer camera bodies. APS-H had a ~1.3x crop factor compared to the ~1.5x (Nikon) or ~1.6x (Canon) APS-C crop factor. It was used primarily by Kodak in a number of models, Canon in their 1D series, and Leica in the M8/8.2. It was eventually phased out in favor of the (slightly) smaller APS-C format – likely because the performance difference was negligible, improvements in APS-C were advancing faster, and APS-H required the use of full-frame lenses since lines like Canon’s EF-S couldn’t cover the larger sensor. It made no financial or technical sense for Canon to maintain three separate sensor-size lines at the same time (FF in the 1Ds and 5D series, APS-H in the 1D series, and APS-C in the Rebel line). So, Canon dropped it, Kodak dinosaured out of the digital camera market (though continued to make sensors), and Leica upgraded to full-frame in the M line.

Note: APS-H is still used by Sigma in their sd Quattro H body. As far as I know, this is the only camera currently in production to use an APS-H sensor.

View fullsize

Nikon Z50 - APS-C Sensor. Photo taken with Nikon Z6 & Nikkor 24-70/4 S

And thus, APS-C became the gold-standard for prosumer and consumer bodies. Advantages were plentiful over the larger 135 size: greater sensor yield (meaning cheaper to produce), smaller bodies, and smaller lenses – all while retaining good IQ and decent ISO performance. It was an excellent compromise between quality, cost, and size. Sony’s 2014 APS-C a6000 ushered in a mass appeal of mirrorless cameras among general consumers – it was the best-selling mirrorless camera of all time and the best-selling camera over $500 year after year. In fact, it still regularly remains toward the top. It may well be the most successful and profitable MILC ever released.

35mm/135 aka “Full Frame”: Since roughly 2007/2008, this has essentially been the standard against which all other formats are compared, right down to field of view or “crop factors” (part of this is of course inherited from the days of film). Full frame yields the best sheer IQ when you consider factors like size, weight, cost, flexibility of shooting, etc. Yes, you will have greater potential for superior image quality from a medium format system, but even today MF is still extremely limited by price and lens selection. And prior to the last couple years (i.e. the release of Fuji’s GFX and Hasselblad’s X1D), there was zero question about which format had the greater price-to-performance ratio, not to mention other factors like size/weight.

Medium Format (specifically 44x33): Until recently, it was very limited in application, but undoubtedly the best image quality under ideal circumstances. Improvements in technology were – and still are – slow to progress; the 50MP sensor used today (also the first CMOS medium format sensor) dates to late 2013 or early 2014. Earlier CCD based cameras like the Hasselblad H4D and Pentax 645D had incredible acuity, color, and tonal transitions at base ISO. But, once you pushed beyond ISO 400 or so, such advantages rapidly, and non-linearly, dissipated. Cameras like the Nikon D800/E existed at the same time and easily won out on dynamic range, color, and noise at anything above the lowest sensitivities. They also had significantly more latitude for hand-held photography, anything requiring a smaller footprint, fast glass, or access to a library of specialized lenses (e.g. tilt shift, super macros). And, of course, they were leagues more affordable.

Ok, let’s travel to 2017/2018.

Sensor technology tends to trickle upward; BSI (backside illumination) was originally developed by Sony with their Exmor R and used in some Sony phones as well as the iPhone 4s. It wasn’t until five or so years later that the technology appeared in a larger format sensor (Samsung’s APS-C NX1) and subsequently moved upward to the Sony a7RII and recently to medium-format with the GFX 100 (but oddly never to M4/3). Sensor-based image stabilization began with Konica Minolta’s Dimage A1 (2/3” sensor) onward up to Olympus (4/3 sensor) with the E-510, and now in 44x33 with the GFX 100.

The upshot of this that while under optimal conditions a larger sensor will always produce a higher quality image, there has almost always been various equalizers in the mix to close the gap (even if not fully so) under specific circumstances.

With the release of the Olympus E-M5 in early 2012, there now existed cameras with incredible in-body stabilization that could fit in a jacket pocket. But their sensors were 1/4 the size of full-frame. Given equivalent sensor technology, this gave full-frame a two-stop advantage. But it wasn’t really that simple: with 4-5 stops of image stabilization in the E-M5 versus zero in any full-frame camera (at the time), the Olympus could more than close the gap in lower light. Where the Nikon may require ISO 3200 to achieve a sufficiently fast shutter speed, the E-M5 may be capable of shooting at ISO 200 – all in a much smaller package to boot. There are limitations to this, of course: drop too low with your shutter and while you may be able to get a sharp image of a static subject, you may not for people or other moving objects. Conversely, at base ISO on a tripod, the Nikon wipes the floor with the Olympus. 

Something odd has transpired particularly in the last two years or so. 2018 saw the release of Canon’s EOS R and Nikon’s Z6 & Z7, the first full-frame mirrorless cameras from either company – in fact, from any company other than Sony and the far more niche Leica. Looking specifically at the Nikon Z, we now had a full-frame, in-body stabilized sensor in a body the size of an Olympus E-M1. We could now shoot 50mm at 1/8 of a second with ease – even lower if we accept a dip in hit-rate. The Olympus still has better stabilization; physically speaking, on an equal playing field, a smaller (read: lesser mass) sensor will always be easier to move. 

Of course, for a given field of view, aperture, and build quality, micro 4/3 lenses will always be smaller. You cannot get a full-frame 28/2.5 with autofocus at the same size of the Panasonic 14/2.5. But, since our playing field has been (mostly) leveled via stabilization, the other option is faster glass, which also applies if matching DOF is important to you*. Then we have something like this: Nikon Z with 24-70/4 S and Olympus E-M1 with a Panasonic 12-35/2.8. But now, we are once again back to almost exactly the same size and the Panasonic lens is still at a one-stop DOF disadvantage. These are simple rules of physics and the reason that lenses like the Fujinon XF 200/2 are gargantuan behemoths – they’re trying to match a 300/2.8 and thus ends up being about the same size and weight (and often, more expensive).

*DOF equivalency is a big, dumb topic of debate in internet forums and comments sections. Apparently, everyone on the internet shoots wide-open portraits or pictures of fence posts or something. If shallow DOF is that important to you, use full frame. It’s significantly cheaper and with more options. Alternatively, you could try to work past your obsession with bokeh and obliterating any sort of context behind or in front of your subject, but that’s your prerogative. Ironically, the same people who tear their hair out over f/1.4 lenses vs. f/1.8 also chase resolution, which is entirely wasted if most of your frame is out of focus.

Beyond this, we now have cameras like the Hasselblad X1D and Fujifilm GFX 50R that are approximately the same size as the Nikon Z, E-M1, or Panasonic G9 lines. With the exception of Sony’s a7/a9 line, the ubiquity of large format mirrorless cameras didn’t exist even just three years ago. Now it’s become not only commonplace but is clearly the direction of the future (nothing points to this more than Canon ceasing development of new EF lenses – I expect Nikon has or will do likewise). It’s quite possible that cameras like the Nikon D6 and Canon 1DX Mark III will be the last pro-DSLRs produced by those companies – consider the four or so year development time between new models… what will mirrorless technology in 2024 look like? My guess is the few remaining benefits of DSLRs will have been eclipsed by then, especially considering that depending on who you ask, they already have been. And, of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out both Panasonic and Sigma’s entry into the full-frame mirrorless game – also both within the last two years.

Another issue is that prices have constricted inward; the lower end has gone up (a Fujifilm X-T4 is $1700, an E-M1 Mark III is $1800) and the higher end has dropped (a Sony a7III is $2000, a Z6 is $1800). Mirrorless medium format can be had for less than pro body full-frame. You can acquire mirrorless full-frame for $1,000 or less (Canon Rp, Sony a7II) – the same as an E-M5 Mark III and less than a Sony RX100 VII!

All of this is to say that while the capabilities of larger formats have largely caught up to the advantages of smaller formats in many ways, the price has seemingly done the opposite. This isn’t at all intended to say that Micro 4/3 or APS-C don’t still have advantages; you won’t find full-frame lenses with the same size, price, and quality as many of the Olympus of Panasonic lenses. This especially applies on the telephoto end (where I think M4/3 still retains a serious and very legitimate advantage); there is nothing in APS-C/FF with the same reach, size, or price that compares to the Olympus 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300. And there are very few larger sensor cameras that can do the frame rates of a Panasonic G9 or E-M1X in C-AF (only the Sony a9/a9II and Canon 1DX Mark III come to mind) and none can equal the speed in S-AF. Plus, all of this is to say nothing of the built-in features Panasonic and especially Olympus have developed over the years – arguably the closest thing to what we’d call computational photography in ILC cameras today.

A lot of what we’re seeing here is due to a natural paradigm shift in the camera world that, in large part, was brought on by the mass adoption of smartphones. More photos are taken and shared today than ever before in history – but unlike the 2000s or earlier, very few “regular” people even own a dedicated stills camera. The market caters mostly to amateurs, hobbyists, and professionals now – not mom and dad.

To close, I’ll simply say that this is a very interesting time in photography. Image quality and features are more than we could have dreamed of five years ago and our options are vast and expanding by the day (the Fujifilm GFX 50R was recently discounted permanently to $3500). There’s a good deal of volatility and uncertainty thrown into the mix due to COVID-19; it’s made for some nice discounts and offers out there*, but is also doing some concerning damage financially speaking.

I, for one, will be very curious what the next year or two holds for us.

*Panasonic is giving free 2 year warranty extensions (for a total of 3 years) on all of their cameras and lenses purchased between now and March 31, 2021. Make sure to register online!