Oh Dear. And then there's the Kamlan 50mm f1.1. And a folk cure for acid reflux.

Low light, hand held photograph of my nightstand taken with the Kamlan 50mm f1.0 lens. 

There are too many books and pens and film cannisters and stuff on my nightstand. My favorite things there are the packs of Juicy Fruit chewing gum. It's really cool And it's a Kirk-io-pathic cure for acid reflux. Seems your own saliva (which chewing gum does a good job helping create) is one of the best antacids "on the market." Occasionally I'll have something that makes my esophagus complain and rather than reach for a "Tums" or something more malevolent, like Prilosec..." I'll grab a piece or two of Juicy Fruit chewing gum and chew away my discomfort. I keep it handy for those late night occurrences that seem to follow a plate of french fries washed down with tannin rich red wine.... Try it. And when it works go back to your gastroenterologist and scold them for prescribing deadlier stuff first...

(Disclaimer: I am not paid by the makers or distributors of Juicy Fruit in any fashion. Not even free gum. But I'm ready for them to hire me to create a campaign for their medical use of the product. If you work for the chewing gum company then call me, I'd also like a new car....).

But I digress.

How's that Kamlan 50mm f1.1 lens working out for me? I've shot it more and more often lately and it's a lot of fun. Sharper than I thought it would be (in the middle of the frame) at wider apertures but falling apart pretty quickly as you move to the edges of the frame. Nobody will mistake this for a modern macro lens but it's at least as much fun as anything LensBaby ever came out with and more controllable.

I'm doing some fun portraits in studio next week and I'm determined to mix this lens with a liberal dose of constant, LED lighting to really see what I can squeeze out of it. I guarantee it won't be "sharp in the corners."

Fuji-cron 23mm f2.0. Nice lens.

Ben at Thundercloud Subs.

Just another update on my dalliance with the Fujifilm XF camera system here. I previously purchased two of the compact and virtuous f2.0 prime lenses from Fuji; the 50mm and the 35mm. I used them both and found the center sharpness to be wonderful and the overall look to be very pleasing. If there's a downside to the lenses the camera's lens profiling capabilities make it invisible to me. In fact, I liked them so much I decided to pick up their matching sibling, the 23mm f2.0. All three are small and light, have high center of frame sharpness and, by going a couple stops down you can even have sharp corners ---- if you really want them. 

I got the 23mm during a period when I was totally engaged in a long photography project, shooting portraits, and relied exclusively during that period on longer lenses and zooms. You'd think I would have pulled the 23mm out of the bag and used it on some of the locations, just to see how well it worked, but you would be wrong. My recent schedules have been so tight that my choice would have been to screw around with the new lens and miss my next flight or keep the lens in the bag and make the schedule work for my client. 

But over the last weekend and in small chunks of time this week I've been able to bring the lens along (riding on an X-E3 body) and give it a few tries. 

The top photo is handheld (which means there's no image stabilization anywhere - in camera or on tripod) and shot at f2.0. I used the Acros color (B&W) profile and I see what all those Fuji fans mean when they say, "You gotta try it." It's probably the best black and white processing I've seen from a camera since.....wait for it.....Tri-X film in my Leica M6. After shooting a bunch of frames with the Acros B&W setting I'm coming to look at the X-E3, with the trio of compact primes, to be my digital Leica substitute. We'll see how that goes. 

But I'm also interested in how the lenses perform when used on middle ranged and distant subjects and so I took the lens out for a walk on Monday, when we had clear skies, and shot some of my usual subject matter. It's convenient though boring to see the same bridge and buildings show up again and again in the posts but having them in multiple tests and posts means I can switch back and forth between posts to see how different cameras and lenses handle the same basic subject matter. 

These were shot at f4.0 or 5.6 so I expected them to be sharp and they certainly were. If you need flat field lenses with high sharpness across the frame and no vignetting then these are not the lenses you are looking for... but if you understand how lens design and sharpness work and like the character and contrast of a good, all purpose lens then you might enjoy these. I'm beginning to think the mania for "flat field" lenses is a result of declining enrollment in college humanities programs; that failing is making our culture into a society made up solely of linear thinkers who value absolutes and technically measurable specifications above less tangible (and more lovable) qualities. Soon we'll all be programmers and engineers and society will die off from the ensuing sheer boredom. 

At any rate I think Fuiji made (at least) three lenses that have a solid reason for existence in the bags of independent photographers and provide me personally with many reasons to appreciate them. I'll keep them. 

The 23mm is the same angle of view on APS-C as a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. Not always my preferred focal length but when I feel like going wide it's a perfect starting point. 

These Fuji lenses are currently on sale. I got mine for $50 less than it would have been the week before. It makes a nice stocking stuffer...

Were those ancient digital cameras really unusable? I found this quick photo of Elton John and was pleasantly surprised at the capabilities of the "primitive" camera.

Elton John©Kirk Tuck 2005.

Andy Roddick started a foundation, and what better way to kick off a new foundation than to invite a friend like Elton John to come to Austin, Texas to do a fundraising concert at the Four Season Hotel?
I was asked to come along and take photos of Sir Elton John with Andy, and his friends and family, (not for public display) and also to cover the dinner and concert for the 250 people attending.

The camera I was using at the time was the Olympus E-1 and the lens was an Olympus 14-54mm. So, about 5 megapixels of resolution with an older CCD sensor. Should have been a noise machine; right? But we didn't know any better back then so I persevered. We also read a lot of stuff on the early web about how hard it was to do flash with digital cameras in 2004-2005 but most of us found that using manual settings made short work of good exposures with flash...

Of course, I would love to be able to send back a couple of current cameras in a time machine so my younger and handsomer self could make great use of those ISO "invariant" Sony sensors everyone seems to gush about. But I can't currently afford even a Sears time machine so I'll just have to be happy that the images came out, were well used, and assisted the Foundation with their fundraising goals.

Rick Perry was there too, but that's another story. He sure look groovy in his black turtleneck shirt...

Sometimes you just have to use the camera you have on hand. Waiting for the future is too expensive.

The two times I met and worked with former President George H.W. Bush.

I first met President George HW Bush in Scottsdale, AZ in 1998 or 1999. I was photographing a conference of CEO's and the big event of the week was a dinner at a private airplane museum, out toward the dessert, with a special speaker. The guests would have a cocktail reception and look at the aircraft. At the end of the reception they would line up (about 75 people) and meet the former president. They'd get to say a few words, shake his hand, and then the two would turn toward my camera and I'd take commemorative photograph with Mr. Bush and the V.I.P. guest.

I got to the venue a couple hours ahead of time to get the lighting set up and ready. I put up a canvas background and three lights. I pulled a Hasselblad camera with a Polaroid back out of a bag to test my exposure over and over again with sheets of Polaroid, and a patient stand-in. When I figured I had it nailed down as far as I was going to get it I marked spots on the concrete floor with gaffer tape so the president and the guests would have marks I could keep leading them back to. 

About an hour before we were to start I got a visit from the secret service. It was low key. I was already in the system for the jobs I'd done early in my career with another president. They also figured I'd been pretty thoroughly vetted by my client. And yes, I had been. I also had a ten year history with them by that point. (And I'm still doing work for them in the present....). 

Fifteen or twenty minutes prior to my start time I looked up to see Mr. Bush striding in my direction. He came over and shook my hand, asked me my name and asked me to walk him through my picture taking process. As we were talking he looked at my suit and I looked at his. As it turned out we were wearing the same color and style of suit. We looked at our labels and they were both from the same maker. Mr. Bush laughed and complemented me on my taste in clothes. I did the same to him. 

Soon we started the line up and greeting process and we worked as a good team. It was the film days and I didn't want to leave much to chance. I had pre-loaded three cameras and equipped them with three similar lenses. All three cameras were pre-set for aperture and shutter speed. I had unboxed a few more rolls and had them standing by. At one point I got ahead of myself and finished the third roll of film too soon. I needed to rewind and re-load in order to finish photographing all the people still in line. Mr. Bush had been paying attention. I think he saw my look of impending panic. He smiled, nodded and asked the person in front of him --- the next guest in line --- to tell him about his business. He was giving me time to get the camera ready! I re-loaded and looked up, giving Mr. Bush a quick "thumbs up." He nodded and thanked the gentleman in front of him and got back into the rhythm of moving people through; respectfully but also efficiently. 

After the last person in the reception line shook the former president's hand Mr. Bush walked over to me and stuck out his hand. "Thanks for that," he said, "That was a smooth as it gets." I thanked him for bailing me out by spending a bit more time with that one guest. He just smiled and said something like: "film doesn't load itself."

He walked into the dining area and a few minutes later he was giving a speech. The planners of the event didn't feel like they needed to have a photographer in the dining room. Too much distraction from the speaker everyone had come to see. I understood but I really wish I'd been there to hear him hold that room...

He was so gracious in his dealings with me. At that moment my admiration for him transcended any sort of political dogma. Now I am nostalgic for the time in American politics when he was at the helm. I guess it's true. What the old blues singers sang: You don't miss your water till your well runs dry....

I didn't think I would ever see Mr. Bush again but I was wrong. It was Fall of 2004 when the folks at Dell, Inc. invited Mr. Bush to speak at one of their conferences that was held at the Barton Creek Conference Center, just West of Austin, Texas proper. The conference was like most others; various speakers came with their PowerPoint presentations and every once in a while we'd break for coffee and snacks.

Near the end of the afternoon Mr. Bush took the stage and gave a wonderful 30 minute speech. My brief called for me to photograph him while he spoke and while he shook a few people's hands in the main conference room. Then he and his security folks (just two) would get into a waiting elevator and head to the penthouse for a meet and greet with a small handful of Dell executives. I rode up in another elevator and entered the penthouse after the president's entourage. We would be waiting 15 minutes for our host, Michael Dell, and his team, to give the final wrap up speech downstairs and then they would come up for a very casual question and answer session with Mr. Bush.

I walked into the penthouse suite and realized that the only people in attendance (at the moment) were me, the bartender, one secret service guy (the other one was positioned outside the door of the suite) and the former president of the United States (and at that moment the father of the current president!). I was a bit intimidated. But Mr. Bush came right over, shook my hand and asked/said, "You look familiar, have we met before?"

I reminded him of the show in Scottsdale and he smiled and said, "Ah, that's right. We were wearing identical suits!" I smiled and got it that he really remembered. I was amazed.

Mr. Bush was having a glass of white wine while he waited for his hosts. It was a very, very nice Sauvignon Blanc. He took a sip and then turned to me and asked, "Would you like a glass of wine? This is really good!" I was quite touched but I explained to him that if the Dell people walked in and saw me with a glass of wine in my hand, chatting up their guest, it might ------ limit my future freelance activities with the company. He said he understood but he also rubbed it in a little. He said, "You don't know what you're missing...."

The rest of the afternoon I tried to be a fly on the wall and not to disturb the flow of the intimate meeting. I waited until Mr. Bush exited the room before I started packing up to go home. On the way home I thought about my afternoon. Mr. Bush was not just the usual politician we saw in fast glimpses on the news. He was brilliant, a great conversationalist, a fairly fluent French speaker and an appreciator of good wine. I was happy to be able to spend more time in his orbit. And I was thankful that my work with Dell, Inc. put me in the position to have that experience. I was struck by how much emotion I felt when I heard of his passing this week. I think he will eventually be regarded as one of the great American presidents of the 20th century. He was a man of my father's generation. Not distracted by glitz and excess but a man who served us with honor and dignity.

And he was the only president who has ever offered me a glass of wine. That's so cool.

Unbelievably, the camera I was using that day was a Nikon D2h. Two lenses. An 80-200mm f2.8 and a 16-85mm. No I.S. and only 4 megapixels......

Funny moments...

It's always funny when a new client queries you about a style, and a look, and they send you a reference photo (link) to review. And the photo they've selected and sent along is something you shot four or five years earlier. Makes it easy to say, "Yeah. I think I can do that style."

Taking care of the "back office" stuff is just as important as taking the photos.

Where e-mails with "noreply" in the address sometimes end up....

Okay. You've taken the photos, you edited down the number to something reasonable, you've done your post processing and made them look incredible and then you put them in a folder and sent them off to your expectant client with your favorite transfer app. For me that application is WeTransfer.com. We use the service all the time. You can upload up to 2GB of files for free or you can upgrade to their Plus service for $120 a year. That gives you unlimited storage and 20 GB uploads instead of the 2GB limitation.

All good and well. You access the service and upload your stuff. Then you get an e-mail that makes you feel like you've done everything right and you're on your way to HappyClientVille. The e-mail confirms that you uploaded everything correctly and that the service has sent along notification to your client with a link that will allow them to download your treasures. You're home free....

You move on to your next project.

But then you hit the seven day mark and you realize that, if you are using the free version of the upload software and your client has not yet downloaded those beautiful files, then they have been deleted and you are back at square one. Yikes. That means your client; the one who has been expecting to hear from you for over a week, is probably wondering if you've forgotten them or just fallen off the face of the earth.

You re-upload all your work and send it again. But this time you also send a personal e-mail to the client, as well as a text, letting them know to expect the e-mail from WeTransfer.com and to remind them to download within seven days.

And you'll probably almost instantly get a response from the client who lets you know that neither the first volley of e-mails nor today's are anywhere near their mailbox and absolutely not in their spam folder or their junk mail folders. Now you have a conundrum on your hands.

The issue is the "noreply" word in the apps e-mail notifications. It can trigger a number of e-mail systems to prevent those addressed e-mails from even being presented to the mail box. The bigger and more I.T. intensive the company the more likely it is that this will be the cause of your issues.

The short term work around is to copy the download links from the confirmation e-mails that you get when the files are successfully uploaded and sent and then put those into an e-mail from you to your client. And then follow up with a text or a phone call.

The client should be able to use the download links just as they would if the links were coming directly from WeTransfer.com. The files get downloaded and everyone gets to move on with the project.

The larger fix is to put the "noreply@wetransfer.com" into your White List in your e-mail program. But after your client does that they may still not receive their e-mail notifications because the sender, Wetransfer.com will probably have complied with the law and placed the client's address in a "bounce list" which prevents them from continuing to "ping" the client's e-mail server.

If this has happened you need to walk your client through the process of getting off the bounce list as well. Here's what you need to do at Wetransfer.com https://wetransfer.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/208584016-I-don-t-receive-your-confirmation-email-anymore

I was traveling all of last week and didn't do my usual follow up so Murphy's Law was immediately invoked and now I'll spend time unraveling the consequences. But it's good to make sure your client got your stuff ---- otherwise you really aren't finished with the job and are in NO WAY ready to send an invoice. Clients are always happier to pay your invoice AFTER they are sure they got what they asked for....

That's what I've been up to today. No reflection on my client or their e-mail security but a ding on my own personal record for prompt follow ups and client service. Mea Culpa.

And, of course, after using the Fuji X-T3 for a week straight I chose the Panasonic G9's for yesterday's rehearsal shoot of "SantaLand Diaries" at Zach Theatre.

Mr. Jimmy Moore as "David." 

Under the old tungsten stage lights at the smaller, older stage, 

(the original stage at Zach Theatre). Camera: G9

Lens for all: Olympus 40-150mm f2.8

ISO 1600.

(Taken during a running tech rehearsal. Or, how fast can you frame and focus on a production in the round with a fast moving actor and very contrasty lighting?

Shoot fast. Shoot often.

Why do artists do their art? (And, yes, I am including photographers in the mix). A reprint from years ago.

I just saw this older post and I re-read it. I believe every work I wrote even more now, with the passage of time. Please have a read and let me know what you think. Sadly, I also think I was a better writer back then......ah well....

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2010/11/passion-is-in-risk.html?fbclid=IwAR3Xv-i9BlzHdBqTbJH8bSfQUBOGXbA6K_00o4p68ZM4YyMXJ8wfVpqXhlA

I always wonder what people mean when they say a lens is "meh." It must mean something different than I thought.

I was given to believe that my life as a sometimes Fuji camera system user would not begin until I jettisoned the "decent" but underwhelming 18-55mm "kit" lens and bought the real Fuji prime lenses. Then I'd be able to realize the potential of their "awesome" sensor...

But I'm a bit of a contrarian so I've been using the "kit" lens nearly non-stop. Yes, at a wide open aperture it does vignette a bit. But what do I care? I didn't buy the lens to shoot flat art documentation, or brick walls. I've also heard that it's very, very sharp in the center but less "convincing" in the corners. And they say that as if it's negative thing. I'm thrilled that it's sharp in the center and I'm happy I don't have to worry about distractions in the corners.

Oh hell. Just try a lens you are interested in and see if it works for what you do. Most reviewers; like the dim bulbs masquerading as technical experts at the big website, have a weird set of parameters for "measuring" the value of lenses, but the stuff they think is important; like dead even exposure across the frame or total lack of field curvature, are part and parcel of some of the best lenses ever made. 

Bottom line. I think you can do great work with this kit lens. You might save yourself from some carpel tunnel syndrome and you might save some cash by passing by the "prestige" lenses and learning how to best use all around "good" lenses to make photographs. 

These two shots are handheld, in low light, and shot with the aperture of the 18-55mm lens wide open. It's pretty much a worst case basket of settings for any lens. But with a centered subject all I see is sharpness and clarity. 

I finally believe it's true; you can "over buy." 

I couldn't let this milestone pass. Earlier today I published the 3,900th blog post on the Visual Science Lab. It was brilliant....

Noellia in red shoes and a red belt. 

Three thousand nine hundred captivating blog posts.

When I hit 10,000 I expect you people to throw me a nice party.....

My final assessment of the Panasonic G9 versus the Fuji X-T3.

Zach Theatre.

Earlier this year I bought two Panasonic G9 cameras to supplement my little collection of GH5 variants. The GH5 & GH5S are still the best hybrid video and still cameras on the market for actual, day-in-day-out video productions. The new stuff from Nikon (Z7), Canon and Sony is all flawed in one way or another when it comes to video but that's another story and one that will change soon. 

The G9 is the best handling of the family. The grip fits my hand perfectly, the camera is an extremely stable platform and the image stabilization is amazing; especially when using lenses that are supported by Panasonic's dual I.S. system. The capper is the wonderful EVF on the G9. In many respects it's a perfectly designed photography tool. 

I should have left well enough alone because the system is fun to shoot with, produces really pretty files and very, very nice photographs. Coupled with Panasonic's best lenses and a few of the Olympus Pro lenses the whole system should provide P.R. photographers, event photographers and art photographers with an amazing assemblage of powerful imaging tools. But then, there is a natural curiosity that seem to only be assuaged by hands-on experience, and so, I fell into the Fuji trap. 

I call it the "Fuji Trap" because it's set up with lures and encouragements to just dip one's toe in and give it a try. The constant marketing mantra is just how wonderful the color is in the files and how beautifully Fuji cameras and lenses render skin tones. 

Now that I've put 6,000 exposures through the X-T3 and have spent like a drunken trust funder on their lenses I think I can pen a few thoughts on which system I like best and which one I'll keep. 

Here are the arguments for each camera: 

Panasonic G9:

Perfect ergonomics. Which means that camera handles better than most and every button and control is intuitive and well placed. It may be the most sensible camera layout I've come across.

The electronic viewfinder is large and lovely to look through. 

The camera is very responsive. Using fast, V90 UHSII cards means the buffer clears quickly and the camera never slows down in use. 

The camera's AF is constantly an issue with writers and v-loggers, existentially. Most have bought into the religion of CD-AF being vastly inferior to PD-AF but my experience doesn't bear that out. In all but the lowest light the camera focuses quickly and accurately. Certainly, one of the bigger DSLRs, optimized for sports shooting will do better, lock on quicker and follow a moving subject better but for most photographers the G9 gets it just right and works well. In the studio, under good modeling light or LED panels I've never had the camera hunt for focus. The opposite side of the whole religion of phase detection is that the G9 is consistently more accurate in its focusing. If you've got the little square in the right place and it lights up green you never need to second guess that you'll get a sharply focused image with the nexus of sharpness precisely where you need/want it. 

The smaller image sensor has several benefits. In video use it doesn't generate as much heat as a larger sensor so the image are less subject to thermal noise. The second advantage of the smaller sensor is that its lower mass and smaller geometry make its image stabilization very effective. Much better than anything I was ever able to get from a full frame Sony camera, for example.

The one area in which all arguments end up is about the size of the imaging sensor. It's a micro four/thirds sensor and not an APS-C or full frame sensor. For some people this may be a deal killer. My experience is that in decent light and with great lenses the system holds its own for nearly every use imaginable. It will give up ground to bigger sensors as the ISO goes up and the light goes down. That's the ONLY trade-off for this camera. 

So, what about the Fuji system?

The Fuji X-T3: 

The X-T3 is interesting. The only parameter in which it beats the G9 is in the sensor technology. The sensor has twice the real estate and because of this can handle high ISO noise a bit better than the G9. In a raw to raw comparison there is little difference in the color; a skilled post processor can make either camera look like the other and so the only real imaging advantage beyond high ISO noise handling is one of preference: Do you like Fuji's Jpegs (SOOC) better than those of the competitors? The Jpegs are very nice. With much effort you can get the G9 Jpegs close but for the rest of us the X-T3 does it effortlessly and that's a nice thing to have if you are predominantly a Jpeg only shooter. I'll confess that part of my obsession with getting exposure and white balance as accurate as possible is my desire to use Jpegs for as much of my work as possible. I resist spending too much time fine tuning images. My early experiences with color photography mostly revolved around slide film and medium format transparency film where color accuracy and the exposure were locked in and unchangeable by the photographer once processed. It worked for us then by freeing up our time. 

It can work for us now for the same reasons.

While I like the retro controls on the X-T3 I think anyone would have to admit that the controls feel more cheaply made and more plasticky than those on the G9. A better made control interface may not affect imaging but it sure adds to one's comfort level with a camera and one's confidence that it will be reliable. 

Demerits for the X-T3 include: a less logically laid out menu and a kludgier interface altogether. A pixie size battery which definitely limits shooting time with stills and even more so in video. Where the G9 can shoot well over thousand frames without breaking a sweat the Fuji is probably best coupled with a battery grip. There is a reason the Fuji engineers made a grip that keeps the camera battery in the camera and then adds not one but two additional batteries in the grip. You'll want them.

Much has been written about the Fuji lens line up and Fuji users absolutely gush over their favorites. I'll agree that every Fuji lens I've tried so far is great but the line up is fallow just in the range where I wish it was lush. With the luxury, all purpose, standard zoom you get a nice, wide 24mm (equivalent) starting point but the lens only extends to the equivalent of 82.5 mm. For a portrait or lifestyle photographer one would hope for something that extends out at least to 105mm (equiv.) like the venerable Canon 24-105mm L lens, or even better, to 120mm like the Nikon version of the all purpose zoom. 

I could live with the limitations of their luxe zoom if they also had a portrait lens that hit the sweet spot around the (equiv.) of a 90mm to 100mm. In actual focal lengths I'd relish a 60-65mm or a 70mm with an f2.0 or faster aperture. But they don't have one. And I haven't found a good third party alternative that hits the range I want. Sad, because it would make a nice extension to their f2.0 primes to have a sibling that works for those of for whom shorter is not better. They do make a 60 macro but by almost all accounts its first generation pedigree delivers a slow and iffy AF performance. There are both an 80 and a 90mm (actual) lens but they are very expensive and just a bit too long. There is a reason why the traditional companies had lenses in the angles of view which photographers loved. They delivered; experienced photographers proved those focal length to be task perfect. 

So, in essence we have a camera with a great sensor, great colors, really wonderful files that by my estimation match the quality of full frame sensors and we also have a bunch of great lenses in some focal lengths (I could argue with myself that I should just skip the portrait primes and get the 50-140mm f2.8 but....... why can't I have both?) but we have a body with plasticky dials and wheels, parsimonious battery life and some weird interface issues (not insurmountable). 

Does the quality of the final files make up for the less lovely parts the equation? I'd say the raw files are just a bit more detailed and less fragile than the G9 files. You'll see a difference when you're operating at the edges of the envelope. Your choice is to get stuff really right in camera with a G9 or take advantage of the extra margin of safety with the Fuji. Used well the Fuji can really sing in making portraits. 

My take? For sheer usability, reliability and lens selection (across both Olympus and Panasonic), as well as great battery life and great ergonomics, the G9 wins hands down. If you need a robust camera system that can deliver great video and really good stills then the G9 is perfectly sorted. 

So, why would I want the Fuji? It's a slightly better portrait camera. One can see that Fuji's core market is portrait workers and they've worked to optimize the look and feel of their files to make photographs that make people look good. While the 55mm f1.2 is just a bit short for a portrait lens it is highly usable at f2.0 and makes gorgeous images. Used in a square format orientation it's just beautiful and this is the one area in which it just pulls past the G9. The extra pixel diameter, lower noise and wider dynamic range, coupled with Fuji's famously good color expertise tips the scales in its favor when it comes to making people look good. 

When it comes right down to it I can't decide which system to give up so I'm keeping them both. I've processed tens of thousands of Panasonic files this year and they've finally got the color really dialed in with the G9. It's the best color photography camera the company makes and part of the reason people prefer the Fuji is that the Panasonic is more (too) accurate. People like a richer, warmer and more flattering files and that's what the X-T3 delivers. I'll keep both systems. 

strange twist: I knew that cameras could be very lens dependent but the Olympus Pro line of lenses and some of the Panasonic/Leica lenses illustrate to me how much this aids or diminishes the look a camera system can deliver. I've always found the look of the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro to be special and highly detailed, in a very convincing way. Recently, I've been playing around with the same company's 45mm f1.2 Pro lens and find it spectacular. Funny that the right focal length and the right designs of a lens can make such a profound difference in whether one likes or dislikes an entire system. 

So far, I've only found a few lenses that deliver this for me in the Fuji line up and, interestingly, they are the three f2.0 primes I wrote about earlier today.

In my estimation the G9 stays as my all around system. The Fuji earns its place as my studio and environmental (fair weather) system. 

That's where I am on the two systems now that I have over 5,000+ examples from the Fuji to ponder and maybe 20,000 from the G9. Take it all with a grain of salt; I might warm up more to the Fuji after we get into five figures worth of experience. You never know. 

Added 12/30/2018: I found this video on YouTube which is also a comparison between the two cameras. His take is slightly different than mine but it's well done and I've enjoyed other reviews presented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEAztipqsmE

A trio of lenses that remind me of my early days in photography; working with one old Leica and three prime lenses.

There's always another side to the argument. The photos here were all done with the amazing 

24-600mm equivalent zoom lens on a Sony RX10iii. Somewhat neuters my whole 

argument just below. Consistency is a vice......

When we photographers get together to jabber about equipment these days and mention the "holy trinity" it's mostly understood that we're referencing three lenses; usually fast zooms; and that they'll cover something like 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm. It seems that everyone with any thought of being a "professional" is drawn to these lenses like addled moths singeing themselves on a naked 60 watt lightbulb. If everyone is using pretty much the same lenses (but with small variations between manufacturers) then everyone's work will probably have.......some vectors of commonality?

And what's old saw? That when one has a hammer everything looks like a nail? Never before have so many lazy photographer stood in one spot and zoomed in an out in order to make the most of their almost infinitely flexible choice of overlapping focal lengths.

I get it. There's a compulsion to "have all the important focal lengths covered." You'd use a prime but you might get agitated if your lens was a 50mm and what you really needed was a 45mm, right? So, with a spread of something like 16mm to 200mm in a seamless progression you now have the potential to cover everything without missing a beat because you have....the holy trinity of zooms. 

How did we ever do photography before these zooms were all perfected? And is an endless choice of no gap focal lengths a good thing or actually an impediment to interesting photography? I can see it both ways. If you are under pressure and are delivering images that have to fit a project instead of really exploring a personal vision then zooms are definitely the way to go. I often reach for an even simpler and more mentally boxing zoom, the 12-100mm. I can cover a lot of stuff quickly with that one but I often find myself staying stationary and using the zoom to compose and crop rather than investing a bit more time and energy in actually thinking about what particular focal length might work best in a given situation and then taking my time to implement that vision. 

The zooms are also practical when weather, dust or the jostling of crowds makes changing lenses dicey or inconvenient. And yet, I can't help but entertain the idea, bolstered by a bit of research in my archives, that discrete, single focal length, prime lenses that are well considered and used, might be better tools for the more creative parts of photography.

After a recent job during which I used my new Fuji X-T3 almost nonstop with the 18-55mm zoom (weather, dust, time, packing considerations, etc.) I walked through downtown carrying two lenses; neither of which could change focal lengths. These two lenses are very interesting to me because they force me to think about how I will compose and what I will photograph with them. 

These two lenses are the Fuji XF 50mm f2.0 and the 35mm f2.0 models. They are small, unobtrusive (in a way that the Sigma 50mm Art lens and the Zeiss Otus will never be) and easy to handle lenses and they are part of a diminutive trio of lenses that Fuji fans call, "Fujicrons," a nod to Leica's f2.0 lens family which are all called, "Summicrons." In the days when I shot with Leica rangefinder cameras it was de rigeur to build a system the core of which were the 35, 50 and 90mm lenses. Photojournalists modified that by selecting the 28mm instead of the 35mm but the intention was pretty much the same; have great optics that mostly covered the absolutely most important and most used focal lengths in a professional's arsenal.  When compared to zoom lenses both the Fujis and the Leicas are at least a full stop faster, are better corrected, have higher resolution and sharpness, and are much less of a burden to carry and shoot when out on the streets or in the middle of an event.

I bought the 50mm XF Fuji first and was delighted by the test shots I was getting from it; even wide open. It's a bit short, for me, to be the optimum portrait lens for the Fuji system but they seem to have a dead spot they need to fill in the fast, 60-70mm range. I'm sure they'll figure it out at some point. But with the nice sensor in the X-T3 I don't really mind cropping just a bit. And the 50mm is just about perfect when I use the camera's 1:1 crop setting (square format). 

I liked the 50mm so much that when the lenses went on sale I bought the 35mm (which is my favorite normal focal length on the APS-C sensor). It's also very good wide open and excellent everywhere else. When I got back from my whirlwind of shooting for my corporate client (in snow, sleet and rain. Now I'm starting to sound like the old postal service....) I thought it would be fun, medicinal, happy, restorative, etc. to get back to my roots as a primitive and naive, low tech, photographer. So today I ordered the missing link in my diminutive trio; the Fuji(cron) 23mm XF f2.0. 

While I'm sure clients will drop in from time to time in December, and I will do their work with my many zooms when appropriate, I thought it would be fun to create a formal construct for my own work during the month. To that end I'm putting together, in an small, old, worn Domke camera bag, my nod to the nostalgic (and very effective) systems of yesteryear in my collection of the 23mm, 35mm and 50mm f2.0 lenses along with the small and light (and rangefinder-esque) Fuji X-E3. Maybe I'll go all Robert Frank and just climb onto a Greyhound bus and head west. Maybe I'll drive somewhere. Oh hell, I might as well use up some frequent flier miles and fly somewhere... In any case I can't wait to subject myself to the formalist discipline of limiting myself to these three well spaced focal lengths and some additional shoe leather. Maybe I'll start a new counter trend to the standard zooms, giant perfect fast lenses and all the other stuff we routinely convince ourselves we need in order to be professional. Or at least to play at being professional. 

 I'm going to break with tradition here and put in some links to Amazon. You can ignore them and move on or click them and read more about the lenses. If you buy stuff on Amazon while you're there on a direct flight from my site I'll get a small commission which I'll use to buy more lenses..... but accessing Amazon from my blog and then buying stuff is penalty free. The prices are the same.

Here I go: The Fuji 23mm, the Fuji 35mm and the Fuji 50mm. I'm still not sure the X-E3 is as good a choice as an X-Pro 2 might be but it's a damn sight cheaper and the imaging performance should be just the same..... Time will tell.

Whatever your point of view you have to admit that's one cute dog......

Making sense of the current camera market. Why is it so strange?

Many years ago I started writing about the inevitable switch from DSLR cameras to mirrorless ones. It seemed obvious to me that once electronic viewfinders were perfected that there would be no one who would pass up the chance to have real time live view and a convincing and mostly accurate preview of what their final images will look like. But I did not predict that sensor size would become a fashion imperative. The “full frame” sensor is all the rage right now. And, to a certain extent, I get the emotional attraction of getting something that was either unattainable (Nikon) or brutally expensive (Canon) just a bit more than a decade ago, but the question is whether or not it’s still important, necessary or even that much of a differentiator for most people. 

If you’ve been reading this blog for a good while you’ll know that I’ve vacillated back and forth between the pixie formats and three different camera makers’ full frame offerings. In the best of all possible worlds I can see a difference in absolute quality between the bigger sensors and the smaller ones but I can also see that it’s mostly a big, long game of diminishing returns. 

I do think that if you are truly concerned with ultimate image quality you should now be considering the even larger sensors in the new flood of medium format cameras from Hasselblad, Fuji and Phase One. My take is that the overall geometry and size of the sensor makes more of a difference in the look or visual style of files than whether or not the actual technical quality of one sensor is superior to another. Or whether the differences are worth the $$$.

The common comparison is generally between any of the new 50 megapixel mini-medium-format cameras, like the Fuji and Hasselblad and the flagship of 35mm style cameras, the Nikon D850. Techno-enthusiasts love to point out that the Nikon at least equals the dynamic range of the bigger cameras (but only when used at ISO64-100) and that the resolution differences are so small that they are mostly unnoticeable. I’m sure it’s true that it would be hard to discern any advantages as you spend more money to get into the big stuff, unless you want to take the big step up to the larger, 100 megapixel cameras and backs. 

But this misses the point of the difference in overall size. It’s the real estate. The need for longer focal lengths in order to get the same angle of view as the lenses on 35mm sized cameras. The different linear dimensions of different size classes of sensors impacts what I like to call the “focus ramp” of a lens/camera system.

But for better or worse the emphasis on full frame orbits around two parameters: How well you can drop stuff out of focus in the background and how high an ISO you can use before you get multi-colored, popcorn-sized noise in the files. It’s a small envelope of advantages for a nice premium in price.

I find it fascinating that everyone seems to have a conflicting sense of the current camera market now. The smallest segment, full frame mirrorless absolutely dominates the news and appeals to people who follow the camera industry daily.  Why is it so strange? Why have multiple companies set their camera manufacturer tipping point to mirrorless+full frame at the same time? All except for Sony, who have had a five year head start in this particular market. My thought is that the fashion for full frame started buzzing about four years ago on the internet and that the companies who make cameras anticipated a longer timeline for mass adoption of mirrorless and got caught with their pants down. But I think it's critical to remember and understand that this market segment (FF mirrorless) is actually a very small percentage of the overall market for cameras. APS-C and smaller is the bulk of what people actually buy.

If I had to guess I would conjecture that the market for mirrorless will continue to rise in relationship to DSLR cameras but the percentages of the overall mix between smaller formats and larger ones will remain the same unless and until full frame cameras drop in price dramatically and become as affordable. For the vast majority of users micro four thirds and APS-C cameras delivers results now that are mostly far above the abilities of most practitioners to wring out of them. I prefer the smaller formats for a number of reasons but foremost is the ability to do so many different things well: 4K video, high resolution stills, generous depth of focus and great handling. While premium m4:3rds doesn't represent the ultimate in price to value ratios the current flagship Panasonic and Olympus cameras are formidable imaging tools that deliver variations of image stabilization that bigger formats cannot currently match. 

Following the herd means stepping in a lot of manure. The right camera for one user might be another users least favorite. I council my friends who are camera shopping to pick the camera that feels best to them and does what they want it to do; regardless of sensor size. You might feel the same.