Every December on the second weekend of the month, my lovely wife and I participate in a rather, em convivial, Christmas event, the annual caroling trip run by Cavanaugh’s Grille, which is our local pub.

It’s a non-paying gig, but nonetheless an interesting photographic opportunity, given the colorful holiday clothing, the festive spirit, and the inevitable breakdown in inhibitions as the night proceeds.

For you see, the trip`s premise is that we will visit and sing in most of the other pubs in the area. And professional singers these folks are not. They do know a thing or two about pubs, however.

The other local pubs are welcoming and appreciative as you might expect when 40-50 or so thirsty customers show up on a sleepy winter evening. They will often provide us with offerings of food and spirits.

 

Over the years I have utilized the X100 series to shoot the event, and they have never let me down. The combination of the fast 23mm (35mm equivalent) lens, the excellent low light capability, the quiet shutter and unobtrusive form, work perfectly. My only wish would be weather sealing, given the likelihood of a splash or spill as the night proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As with shooting any event, it pays to scout the venue(s). Knowing the bartender helps, particularly if you need to have them bump up the light level a bit. As we tend to visit the same institutions each year, I have come to know which spots in each place produce good lighting for images.

We have a Santa on the trip who functions as our leader, sort of. If we enter a place where there are children with families, he tends to get pressed into service, reviewing their Christmas wishes. If only they could see him later that night…

 

 

But I digress. With the X100s and t models, I leave the camera on RAW plus Jpg, with the auto ISO set to 6400, and try to keep the aperture at f2-2.2. This seems to work well. Where mixed color temps in the setting are unappealing or the light is low, I convert the images to black and white, which people seem to really like.

At the end, we repair back to Cavanaugh’s for the last thing people need…more drinks. Billy, the owner typically arranges to have food, and live music. Things then go rapidly downhill. The camera gear is put away as ethics demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As Christmas traditions go, it`s not exactly Currier and Ives.

 

It is, however, a whole lot of fun.

 

For additional images of  this and other Cavanaugh’s caroling trips throughout the years, visit my Smugmug site here. 

 

I have just returned from a trip to Baltimore, Maryland.

Often in June, depending where it is held, I attend the American Academy Of Sleep Medicine meetings.  This year they were scheduled for Baltimore, which is a surprisingly short drive from my Northern Pennsylvania home.

I’ve had many pleasant trips to the city in the past.  Though I initially hoped that my wife would accompany me on the trip, her work schedule prevented her from joining me, and I was forced to go alone. Thus I would need something to do with my free time.

Early June is a pretty good time to visit the Chesapeake region, as often the temperatures and humidity have not risen to uncomfortable levels.  Such was the case on my trip.  I arrived Sunday, shortly before a cold front came through, which on the back side yielded bright blue skies and temperatures in the seventies.  It was cool enough, at least on the water, for a light jacket.

Though this was not purely a photographic trip, I knew that I would want some gear along to occupy my off hours.  I decided on the Fuji X Pro 1 with multiple lenses for more deliberative photography, and the Fujifilm X100s, as my companion for street shooting.

I pretty much carried the X100s everywhere, including into the conference.  I took a lot of images even in the product exhibition hall, before discovering there was a strict rule against this, to the point where they would threaten to eject you, and confiscate your “film”.  The problem with enforcing this is that everyone had a camera in the form of their cell phone, and I saw many people photographing new products, that perhaps they wanted to remember, or even included a presentation.  Hell, one of the exhibitors had a Nikon DSLR in hand, and appeared to be shooting a lot of images.  The X100s was wonderful in this setting because of its stealth and its low light capabilities.

I have noticed, that compared to its predecessor the X 100, the X100s appears to have a decreased battery life.  This had been annoying to me before the trip, but I learned that if you keep the camera off (and not rely on the auto shut off feature), that the battery life was quite tolerable.  I did not need to change a battery over the three days of the trip (probably shooting 150 frames).

Anyone remotely interested photography who sees the Fuji X cameras, is fascinated by them.  They often assume that I am shooting film.

I took the opportunity to travel about.  Part of this was in search of meals, as the locals I encountered would generally send me out of the “Inner Harbor” neighborhood for the best restaurants.  Perhaps they are “seafood snobs” as I did have several good meals in restaurants overlooking the Harbor, including perhaps the best mussels I’ve eaten my life.  I don’t believe I’ve never had a bad seafood meal in the Chesapeake region.

It was a modest walk from my hotel, to the Federal Hill neighborhood of the city.  There, a large park occupies a flat-topped hill overlooking the Harbor, once used as a vantage point for cannons, which would have been the final defense for the city from the British in 1812.  The neighborhood features brick row homes, of an early 19th century vintage, quite similar to my old neighborhood in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia.

The neighborhood was positively festooned with quaint cafes and public houses (which is never a bad thing). Having stopped in a restaurant in the neighborhood,  I was reminded by my server  that in the Chesapeake region, they were having a particularly good soft-shell crab season.  She served me an appetizer that deliciously proved her point.

The above image was shot inadvertently at ISO 1250 which required a shutter speed of 1/10th with the lens at f2.8.  This points out some good and bad features of the X Pro 1.  The good: that the combination of lens stabilization, and the lack of a mirror, allowed me to shoot a sharp image, at relatively slow shutter speeds.  The bad: the lack of an effective auto iso control on the X Pro 1 (as opposed to the feature on the X100s) means that I have to pay attention when switching cameras, remembering to alter the iso setting manually on the X Pro 1 as the lighting changes.

On another day, I made use of the water taxi service, both to gain another photographic vantage on the harbor, but also to visit Fort McHenry, which is preserved by the National Park System, for its role in the war of 1812.  As you may well remember, the fort served as the primary, outer perimeter defense of Baltimore Harbor.  It was the sight of the American flag being raised over the fort, after the British Fleet was sent packing that inspired Francis Scott Key, to write the Star Spangled Banner.  The fort served many purposes since that battle, including as a hospital for wounded in World War One.  Sometime in the early part of the 20^th century, it was restored to a condition near to that, when the famous battle occurred.

In order to get to the fort, you have to stop to change boats at Fells Point, a neighborhood of Baltimore famous in the early 1800’s for privateers: civilian ships and crews, who were sanctioned by our government to raid British shipping. This is another quaint historic neighborhood that if anything, looks a little older than that at Federal Hill.

It was also quite gentrified, again with bars, B+B’s art galleries, and quite honestly more bars.  Your water taxi ticket gives you two-for-one beer coupons for many of the establishments.  This makes it extremely important to remember that there are no “facilities” on the boat for the ride home.

As a whole , this city is a wonderful location for photography.  It is obvious that it has been developed in such a way that it is pleasant to view from the water, in a much more intimate way than for instance, New York.  There is a varied architectural themes throughout the city, all of which makes it visually stimulating, and quite interesting to photograph.  And the people are very friendly and proud of where they live.

Baltimore is a lovely place to visit.  I think the best months for a trip, might be mid to late May, and for September/October, all months when the schools are still in session, the crowds reasonable, and the temperatures moderate.

And, best of all, it’s soft-shell season.

Like many photographers, I’ve used Photoshop software for many years.  I think the first version I owned was Photoshop 6. I’ve consistently upgraded version by version since that release.

This was necessary in part, because I am a raw file shooter, and as we all know, Photoshop does not perpetually update Camera Raw for all new models, unless you have purchased the newest version.

I’ve accepted this, like most other photographers as the cost of doing business.  And I recognize that Photoshop is an extremely powerful program, and I’m sure quite expensive to manage and update.  So the $180 I typically pay for an upgrade roughly every two years seems justified.

Now I have no issue with companies profiting from the intellectual property they have cultivated.  But Adobe’s latest moves have me befuddled.

As many people know, Adobe has decided to forgo further Photoshop version releases.  Instead Photoshop will be a program that you’ll license, and for its use pay a monthly fee .  This new system requires that the computer where the software resides, periodically check in with the mother company for confirmation that the user has paid his tithe to Adobe.  That monthly fee for basic access to Photoshop, (after a yearlong discount) will be roughly $20.00 a month, or obviously $ 240 a year.

So instead of $180 every two years, I will be paying $480 for the same time period.

Granted, one will have use of a constantly evolving software product, with access to the newest updates.

I could understand a modest price hike to perhaps $10.00 a month, or $240 every two years.  But the current pricing is seen by many (including myself) as rapacious.

In many ways it’s an in-your-face challenge to photographers.  I think this policy has the potential to create a enough resentment, that many former users will look for a work-around, either holding onto their current version of Photoshop for as long as possible, or investigating other software.

This is especially poignant to me, as the user of Fuji cameras, and particularly the X Trans imager, for which Photoshop and camera raw are not the premier raw converter.  This fact has prompted me to purchase alternative software for raw development.

There are other software packages available for photo editing including several that are free, but not nearly as powerful as Photoshop.  However not everyone needs such feature rich software.

My style of photography for instance is more involved with the capture of the image than aggressive postproduction work.  For the most part images that I publish or sell, have had a modest amount of massaging, mainly levels adjustment, perhaps color balance or saturation changes, and then sharpening.  I occasionally use the healing brush, to remove an inconveniently located power line, or a piece of debris.  I’m not particularly enamored of high dynamic range images which always look unnatural to me.

I’ve never thought of myself as a particularly clever Photoshop user.  And it looks like I may not get a lot better now.

For now,  the raw files I produce are covered by Photoshop CS 6.  Given the relatively crappy job, Photoshop and Camera Raw do with X Trans files, I have been getting comfortable using for instance, Capture 1 in its place.  Perhaps GIMP, the somewhat Photoshop-like freeware program will be a” work around”.  Even Photoshop “Elements” May be useful.

No product or service, no matter how good and how ubiquitous, is ever essential.

I think Adobe is about to find this out.

Right now, at least from a photographic standpoint, life is pretty damn good.

It has been several weeks since my initial discussion of the brand-new Fujifilm X100s.

Not infrequently people are asking, “Is it worth trading up to what on the surface is an almost identical camera.  Now as I have said before, I tend to be cheap. And not all upgrades are worth the money.

So my best answer is this: my beloved X100 has found a new home somewhere in northern Minnesota, having sold on eBay for a reasonably good price, but certainly still at a loss.

Yes, the X100s is that big an improvement.

Because there was no one was due to be at my home during the week the camera was to be delivered, I shifted to delivery my father‘s address nearby, where there would be someone available to sign for the package.  I stopped off at the end of the day, and opened the camera in his den.  I inserted a battery, and an SD card.

Now, it should be said that my father is somewhat bemused by my interest in photographic equipment. The whole “unboxing” thing is lost on him (which means he’s not crazy like his son).

I was fairly familiar already with the camera and quickly set it up to my preferred configuration, composed an image involving my father, and snapped a picture.  The camera selected iso 3200 and then opened the shutter.

When I finally got home and download the memory card, I realized that X 100s. was probably going to work out pretty well.

So what are the real differences between this camera and its predecessor?  So far, for my use I’ve noticed several real improvements.

The first change that I noticed, right off the bat,  had to do with start-up speed.  The previous camera was extremely unpredictable in this regard.  Sometimes I would turn the camera on, and it would be ready instantly.  Other times (like when I would see a great shot and tried to grab it quickly) the camera would fail to activate until after the moment had passed. I cannot tell you how frustrating that was (note to Fuji: I forgive you, but just this once).

With X 100s, on means ON, and right now.  So far I have not missed any shots because of the delay in “boot up”.  For a professional user, this alone is probably worth the cost of the upgrade.

Probably the most important upgrade for my style of shooting has  to do with the operation of the auto focus.  Finally there is an X-body where selection of the auto focus point can be done with one’s eye to the viewfinder.  This was accomplished by moving the  AF button to the top of the multidirectional control, where he can be easily accessed by your right thumb.  Once selected, you can then use to control to move the square throughout the frame.  This is a huge improvement for those of us who rely on  auto focus.  This is the way it should have been designed originally.  I wish my X Pro-1 had the same feature.

The auto focus also does seem faster.  Before I sold my  X100 I did compare the 2 cameras side-by-side, and it did seem that the newer camera was more capable of locking onto poorly lit objects, and was somewhat faster.  I really didn’t mind the old system however.  None of these cameras focus like a good DSLR, but given what I use them for they don’t really have to.

Manual focus too has finally been perfected.  The focus ring finally moves the point of focus fast enough to be useful, and the new focus aids include a split screen function, and focus peaking.  I find that the former feature is more difficult to use.  Focus peaking however is extremely useful and seems very accurate.

It is true that the exposure compensation dial seems to be less prone to inadvertent changes.  I also like having the “Q” button available on the back of the camera.  I grown to find this feature useful in my X Pro-1 and is nice to have it here.

The lens is essentially the same as the X100.  As I understand it can focus closer than on the old camera but otherwise to my eye it looks the same.  Like its predecessor the lens is fairly sharp wide open, but really gets interesting at f4.0 and beyond.  And the leaf shutter is just as silent as before.

In terms of image quality, basically it’s an X Pro-1 with a 23 mm lens (35 mm equivalent).  That is to say that the files are very good, with wonderful Fuji color, and excellent dynamic range (I can easily recover the highlights in the window behind my father).  There is lots of resolution for big prints.

It is somewhat vexing that as of this writing, Capture 1 does not support the X100s files, but I’m sure they will soon.  In the meantime ACR and Raw File Converter can both be used to convert the X100s raw files.  I’ve come to realize that for detailed landscape images, Raw File Converter is preferable because of the superior detail that it can reveal. I prefer ACR for a high ISO images and portraits, where it has a very nice smoothing effect on skin, and grainy images.

The camera definitely has better low light capability than its predecessor:  enough that I now set the auto-ISO control on ISO 6400 (rather than 3200 on the X 100).

Now more than ever the camera is an ideal companion to one of its interchangeable lens brethren.  I love to shoot with the X pro-1 mounted with the 60 mm f2.4 lens, in the bag along with X 100s.  These cameras are very complementary to each other, with similar controls and essentially identical image quality.  And remember, the very useful X100s. focal length is currently unavailable in the XF lens catalogue(at least at f2.0).

All of this has made me very happy.  I wish I thought the auto focus button placement on the X Pro-1 could be upgraded through firmware, but so far there is no sign of this happening so far.  I imagine an X Pro 2 with the X100s focus improvements, and perhaps an even more improved sensor and I find myself salivating like a Pavlovian dog.

eBay I think, has not seen the last of me.

I am not a generally a wide angle shooter. When many years ago, I began to get serious about outdoor photography  I, like many other photographers just starting out, assumed that proper landscape photography was most appropriately done with short focal length lenses encompassing a wide field of view.

It seems to me this is a very common beginner’s mistake. I quickly found out that capturing scenes that are attractive to the naked eye using such lenses, often created a visually uninteresting, unfocused image. Too wide a field of view can leave an image without much of a focal point, with which to draw the viewer “into the picture”. Wide angle lenses also offer little magnification of distant objects, and can make a scene, for instance with a backdrop of mountains, appear uninteresting relative to the photographers own visual viewpoint.  Longer focal lengths work better for this.

But ” wide’s” have certain advantages.  They can make linear objects appear longer and more dramatic.  They do this in the same way they  deemphasize distant objects; by making the end of a fence line, or road appear further away.   They have better depth of field than longer lenses.  This can all be used to one’s advantage.

I have noticed over the years, that a lot of my truly wide-angle lenses like my Tokina 12-24 mm for DX, did not get much use. I seemed to gravitate into shooting mid-range and mild telephoto zooms and primes for landscape, which in my mind allows better isolation of the subject, and improves with prominence of the background  as well as the bokeh  of most of the photos I produce.

Nonetheless, when Fujifilm introduced its XF 14mm f2.8 R optic, I just sold some equipment, and had a little extra cash. Because of the affection I have for the system, and the excellent reviews of this lens,  I figured it would be reasonable to acquire one for myself, and perhaps reinvigorate my wide-angle photography.

I ordered one up from B&H in New York, and as it often is the case, it arrived on the next day.

The lens itself is fairly large. If anything it’s a bit larger than the XF 18-55 mm midrange zoom lens with which it shares its petal shaped sunshade . It has a detented aperture ring, a fairly broad focusing ring, and in a touch reminiscent of my Tokina glass, a slip clutch that allows a quick switch from auto focusing, to manual focusing.  It also has a focus distance scale embossed in the front of the lens.  It is the best finished of the XF primes that I own.

Like all the XF lenses, it feels extremely well-built, and balances nicely on my X Pro 1.

You can read the reviews. Pretty universally, the lens is thought to be quite sharp, pretty much edge to edge by f4. Also in different from other XF lenses, its native and distortion is very low, and there is little, if any correction required in software.  This is great for architecture, but sometimes leaves one wanting, if you’re looking for that slightly fish eyed perspective that can make some portraits and street shooting visually interesting.

I do not intuitively shoot with wide-angle lenses.  For me it is a challenge, but certainly a joyful one. Given the drab browns of early spring. I find myself looking for unusual patterns particularly in shadow and light, and opportunities to find color in the bland surroundings.

My copy of the lens seems as sharp as advertised.  Autofocus is slightly slow, but again you’re not going to use this lens for sports or action photography.  I think it is better specified for deliberate shooting.  Flare is extremely well controlled.

The time of my testing of the new lens, was coincidental with the availability of Camera Raw version 7.4, the final release. I had already played with the release candidate, and was eager to see whether the final version offered additional benefits.

I developed a number of X Pro 1 images, with Capture 1 Express, and then again with the newest version of ACR. I didn’t notice much difference between the release candidate, and the final version, but I agree that Adobe has clearly improved the raw file extraction since its earlier efforts, probably to a point where in most situations the differences between its capabilities, and those of competitive raw converters, are minimal.

Trust me, I spent a lot of time on the sharpening of both images. Still, particularly in looking at prints, I think for fine detail, looks more natural and dimensional in the Capture 1 (and the Fuji Raw File Converter) results.

Yeah, I know, the ACR image has a different color signature, than the one done on Capture 1.  Try as I might in ACR, I had a really difficult time duplicating the color balance on the second image which to me  were the colors that I was seeing at the time the image was shot.  I think this is an idiosyncratic situation, and not typically a problem for ACR.

You can be the judge, but to my eye, color aside, the second image looks much better,  slightly in terms of detail perhaps, but with significant improvements in micro contrast.  To me it just looks more real.  And it prints that way also.

All this aside, I think this additional lens, and the improving  options for raw file conversion are really great enhancements for the Fuji X interchangeable lens bodies.  I continue to love shooting with them.

Oh, and I’ve pre-ordered an X 100s.

It’s going to be a fun Spring.

Those of us who shoot the interchangeable lens Fuji cameras such as the X Pro 1, and XE 1, have had much to enjoy.

But as we discussed in an earlier posting, the novel configuration of the new Fuji sensor in these bodies, has apparently made it somewhat difficult for imaging software companies to come up with the appropriate software to translate the raw files into images, particularly given the potential of the sensor and the camera body.  Adobe in particular have struggled with this.  There has been two problems with Adobe Camera Raw, and Lightroom conversions of the Fuji files.  Number one there has been a smearing affect in areas of images, weather is for instance white lettering on a darker background.

There is also an obvious lack of detail in the Adobe conversions, relative to those done with Fuji’s bundled Silkypix-based conversion software, and Capture One 7, not to mention the in-camera raw conversions.

This week, Adobe made available a of quotes “release candidate”  raw conversion software for Photoshop and Lightroom that is said to among other things, address the weaknesses in  X Trans raw processing.  I wanted to see if it represented a significant improvement.

DPreview has done an evaluation of the new raw processing software.  Their images when compared to earlier raw conversions, do tend to suggest that the “smearing” problem has been somewhat successfully dealt with.  It did appear however on their images, that reproduction of fine detail may still be an issue.

To find out, I ran a picture of the hemlock trunk I’ve used in earlier articles through the newer Adobe converter and then compared it to images converted with other software.

I actually did additional sharpening, on the files converted with a newer Adobe plug in.

To my eye, at least on this image, the fine detail/watercolor issue continues to be a slight problem, though less so than before  (the differences are more pronounced when viewing the on uncompressed Tiff files).  Files converted with the Fuji Software, and Capture 1 version 7 continue to be  slightly superior in terms of apparent resolution but it’s closer than before.

But  then I converted some other image files I have recently taken with Capture One Express 7.0 and Adobe Camera Raw.  This particular  file which was fairly typical, I reconverted multiple times, to make sure I hadn’t made any mistakes.

 

Here’s the 100% images

To my eye, there remains a significant difference in detail retention with a strong advantage to Capture One (and believe me, I worked hard with the Adobe file).   Given this, I think Adobe still has a way to go.  For now I will  be using Capture One, or Fuji Raw File Converter, for detailed landscapes.

On a related note, Capture 1 has released version 7 of its Express Software which is less well featured on the pro version, but should still be useful for  the X Trans raw files.  I shall probably acquire that software as I do not require all of the capabilities of the more expensive version.

I suppose the good news here is that there are now several excellent choices for the conversion of Fuji X Trans raw files.  This would certainly be important to Fujifilm, who is about to come out with two more cameras (the X100s, and the X20) that use the same sensor technology.

Though Adobe conversions are still not optimal, they are improved and in many cases may now be adequate.

Man I hate progress. Just when you think you have the perfect camera body (or audio gear, or smartphone, or automobile); just when you think your little automotive or electronic universe is perfect, some snooty set of engineers, employed by a busybody manufacturer, goes ahead and makes an improved version of your toy.

You find yourself staring at the brochure (or more likely now the web page) for the new creation.  You breathlessly review the device’s new specifications and capabilities and just hoping that its ancestor, which you currently own, has not been made completely obsolete by the new arrival.

Unfortunately, the manufacturer has no desire to take you off the hook, or to give you any comfort in the knowledge that you currently possess a device that is still adequate to the task.  Their marketers want very badly to convince you that it is absolutely essential to sell your current device and possess their new offering which is so much more advanced, that you might as well not even own your current camera (or audio gear, or Smartphone, or automobile).

And it works.  One by one the pages of eBay sprout multiple new auction offerings of the old device, as their owners work to raise the capital so that they acquire the new model. And generally, it will be a model, that if you’re lucky, is perhaps 5% better overall than the device it replaced.

But when the UPS man finally arrives with your new toy, for you the consumer…no, the aficionado, your universe is complete. You’re back on top.

Now, we’re all I think, to some degree or another subject to these impulses.  You wouldn’t be reading this blog if you weren’t interested enough in camera gear and photography to waste a portion of your day perusing these articles.

And I wouldn’t be writing these articles if the subject didn’t interest me.  But it’s important to keep one’s head squarely on one’s shoulders.

Nikon has just released the D7100.  I’ve written extensively on its predecessor articles which you can read here and here.  I thoroughly enjoyed the D7000 and it will continue to hold a valuable place among my collection of camera gear.

The new camera has several interesting advances:

It sports a 24 megapixel Toshiba sensor, which  is similar to the 36 megapixel sensor of  the D800e in that it lacks a “low pass” filter.  It should thus have noticeably better resolution than the D7000, which has only 16 megapixels with a filter.  Nonetheless, the current resolution has proven to be very adequate for most of my needs ( the image above for instance, was significantly cropped).

Though more megapixels can be useful,  they  will be so only if they do not if adversely affect the low noise levels, and particularly the wide dynamic range of the current D7000 sensor. In fairness however, most often with Nikon sensors, the newer ones are strikingly better than their predecessors in most attributes.

The D7100 has a new autofocus system which is said to be more sensitive than the old one.  The autofocus points are also more broadly spread across the frame.  That’s a good thing.

There’s some improvement in burst speed, add a new crop factor (1.3x) which yields an image reduced to 15 megapixels, but allows you to access the camera’s highest burst speeds (seven fps in the crop mode, as opposed to six fps for the D 7000 in full resolution).

There are improvements to video capture including the addition of stereo microphones.

And like the D600, there is now a lock button on the mode dial.

To me, as a landscape photographer, the usefulness of upgrading to the D7100 would entirely depend on the sensors characteristics.  If the increase in resolution is accompanied by simultaneous dramatic improvements in high ISO performance (an achievement Nikon does tend to pull off) then the newer camera may be worth acquiring.  If the gains are in resolution alone, that I suspect I might acquire one when the market is right, i.e.; when the used market for the D7000 is still good, and the 7100 refurbs or discounts start to appear.  Time will tell.

Remember I own a D 600 which makes resisting this new offering much easier.

Obviously we need  fo people  to purchase goods, if we’re ever to improve the economy of our country, and for that matter, that of the globe.

But as always I urge caution when new models of our beloved equipment become available.

For unless they offer significant improvements in capabilities, specific to your usage patterns, then the newest model is unlikely to be a good investment.

Now, none of this applies to you if you own a much earlier camera body, particularly one that is a couple of steps below the 7000 series.  If you need what the D7100 offers, and can afford it, then by all means enjoy.  I believe you’ll be buying a fine photographic instrument.

However always remember that the addition of a new model does nothing to alter the quality and function of its predecessor.  I suspect we could all improve our output as much, by better utilizing the features of our current camera gear as by buying the newest model.

Take a deep breath and think, before you push that “confirm purchase” button on the screen.

I didn’t think I had much more to write on the Fuji X Pro 1.  Since my original review, it has become one my main photography tools.  I have grown to accept the limitations in terms of raw file conversion and auto focus, in exchange for the brilliant image quality this camera generally delivers.

Several events recently however have caused me once again to revisit the camera and its work flow.

I have been using Adobe Camera Raw as my main conversion software and a trial/ beta version of Capture 1 for my more critical images, particularly landscape images with fine detail.  One Sunday morning recently, I started to process some files that were shot the day before.  I opened Capture 1 (the beta Pro version) only to find that it had expired, taking with it  the trial version I downloaded prior to the issuance of the beta.  Well, no matter,  I figured I’d go to their website thinking that I could download Capture 1 Express. This is a stripped down version of the full program including only the core features, including the raw file converter.  At $99 it seemed a reasonable deal.

Unfortunately, it turns out that and the Capture 1 has shrewdly withheld X trans-sensor support from the less expensive software.  This may just be a matter of the “Express” product being an earlier software version, though it is easy to suspect that, given the superiority of their software in the case of the Fujis, they’d like us to spend the full $300.

Momentarily frustrated by this, I retrieved the X Pro 1 box, and retrieved the software disk, which includes the Silkypix based-raw file converter that came free with the camera.  I was aware peripherally, that there had been several software updates to this.  Sean Reid of “Reid Reviews” compared this software to Capture 1, and Adobe Lightroom, and felt it was second only to the Capture 1 results in image quality.  Given the circumstances I figured I’d give it a try.

Doing some research, I discovered that there had been a further  update of this converter (ver.3.2.13.0), one more advanced than the one Sean tested.  I installed the original disc, and updated the program from the website.  As I had a bunch of files converted with Capture 1, I decided to reconvert them with the Fuji software for comparison.  I also compared conversions by ACR.

This is a good example. It’s from the original X Pro 1 article.  It was shot with the 60 mm lens, and I marveled at the time how sharp it was.  If you “pixel peep” the Adobe version you can see the smearing, and “watercolor effect” people are talking about.  I didn’t really notice this effect until I reviewed the Capture 1 version  which has much better preservation of fine detail ( BTW I did try to sharpen the Adobe version).

I then converted the file using the updated Fuji software. To my eye there is a  very similar gain in resolution over the version converted by ACR making the Fuji and Capture 1 versions essentially indistinguishable. This held true over multiple conversion comparisons.

Silkypix has a reputation for being awkward to use, and for the first couple of images that was true.  After converting perhaps 20 images, I began to get a feel for it and now feel much more comfortable with the work flow.  I still cannot find a way, like you can with Capture 1, to have it open converted images in  Photoshop (I’ll keep working on this however). Still, given that it’s free, I think I can put up with its few shortcomings.

Parenthetically, I thought it would be interesting to compare conversions of my Fuji X 100 images between the Fuji program, and ACR.  One particular landscape image, was accidentally acquired at asa 1200.  I always like the Adobe conversion.  But arguably the Fuji version was perhaps slightly more detailed with significantly better handling of noise (using raw file converter’s default noise reduction settings).  I’ll have to keep looking at this.

Another issue to discuss is the newest firmware issues for both the X Pro 1 body, and the 35 mm F1.4 lens.  No I’m not a person with a lot of beefs about the XP1 focusing speed or accuracy.  I use this camera for more deliberative photography.  If I’m going to a sporting event, I generally take one of my Nikons.  I do however desire that the auto focus to be as fast as possible. The new firmware,  version 2.03 is said to improve the accuracy of the auto focus system.  This is apparently particularly so for 35 mm when its firmware is upgraded (ver. 2.02) at the same time.

I upgraded both the camera and the body.  Prior to doing this, sitting in  my deliberately poorly lit studio, I attempted multiple times to obtain auto focus lock on 7 different low contrast objects in the room.  I was only able to lock focus on 2 of them.  After the upgrade, I was able to lock focus on 5 of the 7 objects.

This effect was true both for the 35 mm lens, and the 18-55 mm zoom.

The 35 mm did behave somewhat differently after the upgrade. Before ultimately locking, the lens swept up and down it’s focus limits, before establishing focus.  This was different behavior than prior to the upgrade.

That day I went out to shoot some images for my local state park where there was a winter festival occurring.  In good light, I found that I could merely press the shutter and shoot the image without waiting for focus lock.

I did this multiple times, and the auto focus was very accurate.  I believe this is an improvement from the previous level of performance.

In summary, the most recent software upgrades, for the camera, and the bundled raw file converter, have once again  improved the overall experience with the X Pro 1.  I still hope that Fuji fixes the auto-iso issue that everyone complains about and finds further ways to improve the auto focus.  I also wish that Adobe would put the time into their raw conversion software so that it would equal the performance of Capture 1 and Fuji’s version of Silkypix.

Overall however, I’m pretty damn content.

Faithful readers of this site are aware of my affection for the Fuji X series cameras, both the X100 and the X Pro 1.

I think perhaps the one characteristic shared by both cameras is the very high quality lenses Fuji has designed for both devices. This includes the fixed 23 MM lens on the X100, and the three original prime lenses offered with the X Pro 1.  Still and all, there are times when a zoom lens is helpful, particularly in circumstances where “zooming with your feet” is impossible.  And although these cameras seem to have less propensity for motion blur then say, a digital SLR with the big moving mirror, it still an issue. It is particularly a problem when I use the cameras while hiking, when my vigorous cardiac contractions can cause camera shake.  With all this in mind, I was very eager to try the 18 -55 mm f2.8-4 image stabilized zoom lens Fuji announced with the X E1.  I was hopeful that the high quality of the prime “XF” lenses, would carry over to the new zoom.

I finally received word several weeks ago that the lens was in stock at B and H so I ordered one.  I’ve been shooting with it in a number of settings and would offer these observations.

Obviously this is less than a formal review.  There’ll be no resolution charts or other such technical data (I lack both the equipment and the inclination).

The lens arrived in the usual black Fuji packaging.  Included with the lens, is a scalloped lens hood and a pinch lens cap.  Unlike some of the prime lenses, the hood and lens cap function much like more conventional lenses (the hood can be reversed and stored on the lens).  The lens also comes with the familiar XF mount lens pouch which is larger than the lens, and closed by folding the end flap over itself (I’d really rather a drawstring).  Happily the build quality of the lens seems identical to the prime lenses.  The lens is mainly metal with very precisely machined ridges on the zoom and focus rings. Happily it is not much bigger than the 35 mm prime with its rectangular lens hood.

Unlike the prime lenses, the aperture ring has no markings and the aperture is determined by looking at the viewfinder, or rear LCD.  There is a separate switch which determines whether the aperture ring functions, or whether the aperture is set to automatic (allowing shutter priority shooting).  The movement of all the rings is very smooth.  I don’t use manual focus very much but the amount of travel required of the focus ring to go from near too far, seems fairly modest.  In my experience autofocus with this lens is fairly quick, perhaps roughly as good as the 35 mm.

One great feature of this lens is that it is image stabilized.  It’s always hard to know how well this feature works.  I become fairly adept at shooting the non-image stabilized Fuji lenses without much motion blur.  Reportedly the feature is good for keeping the image sharp for 3-4 stops of longer exposure.

This lens is really meant to be used with the electronic viewfinder.  At shorter focal lengths, the optical viewfinder can be useful, but as the lens is zoomed, the bright frame delineating the actual image, shrinks to a point where is roughly the size of the focus box, and thus essentially useless for framing.  I just keep the viewfinder set to electronic, which for me works fine.

I had the lens with me for a recent model shoot, and for a trip to the Adirondacks.  It is fairly fast (maximum aperture at 55 mm is f4.0).  For portrait work, I obviously used the long end of the zoom, but even with the slightly tighter aperture, background blur, I think was quite pleasing and the lens was very sharp.  I would have to say however, that the 60 mm f2.4 really shines in this setting.

The lens really comes into its own for landscape photography.  Fitted to the X Pro 1, the combination easily fits in my small Mountainsmith fanny pack.  Particularly in the middle of its focal range, the lens is fairly sharp corner-to-corner and quite contrasty, much like its prime brethren.

I was curious to compare the lens to a known standard.  Unfortunately the only lens that I have in the XF line within the zoom’s focal length range is the 35 mm f1.4 so I shot them against each other using my usual tabletop scene, both at f3.6.

These crops are taken from the periphery of the image, as I think the center image is fairly close between the two lenses in terms of sharpness.  I think you’d have to agree that the 35 mm is better at the periphery, hardly a surprise.  I would say however that the 18-55mm has many of the same positive attributes, of the 35mm, and 60 mm I already possess.

It will be tempting to leave it on the camera most of the time.

With this lens I have no burning desire to obtain the 18 mm prime lens.  The 14 mm f2.8 and the upcoming 23 mm however still interest me, and I will look to acquire them.

In summary, this is a really nice addition to the XF lens line.  It appears to continue the reputation of the Fuji lenses for great optical quality at a very reasonable price.  If I had to do over, I might have bought an XE 1 with this lens (which makes the lens an even better bargain) and then acquire the primes over time.

Adding it to my X Pro 1 has made the system a lot more versatile and fun.

Here’s a a particularly snooty essay I wrote recntly,  which was published in edited form in The Times Leader, our local daily. Available here is the dangerously raw version I originally sent out.

 

CRASS: gross 6a; especially: having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination.  Miriam Webster online dictionary

I was recently watching a popular television show with a co-worker. It features a female comedian, who seems to have a penchant for placing young men in degrading situations in front of a studio audience of women. That particular morning, the offerings included several very fit young men onstage clad only in briefs.  Now I understand that “turnabout is fair play” but to see this on morning television is somewhat jarring.  My friend, watching this with me, defined the scene perfectly. “That’s just crass” she explained with a hint of embarrassment in her voice.

“That’s exactly the word!” I responded.  Yet the more I thought of it later, the more I realize that this very descriptive and at one time commonly-used label has likely become obsolete.  I believe this is because the word “crass” describes behavior so widespread in society now, that it is indistinguishable from the normal baseline. After all, what good is an adjective when it describes something that is ubiquitous?

Our TV and radio advertising is a good example of this.  As a 12 year old boy, I would’ve had no concept of “erectile dysfunction”, but in this era, we are bombarded with products said to boost a man’s virility.  What irritates me the most, is not only the open and sometimes graphic description of what used to be a private matter between a man and his physician. No, it is the fact that  most of the men in the ads appear to be younger than me.

Crass behavior has increasingly infected our politics.  As a Republican, I am of course tempted to quote examples from the left, but crassness is often the norm for both parties.  I think of both of our recent vice presidents, and more recently our current Speaker of the house, who have been quoted using the “F” word.  I do have to mention our current president, who publically referred to his recent opponent, as a “bull sh***r”.  I think of Congressman Joe Wilson, who famously called out “you lie” as president Obama spoke in front of both houses of Congress.

I also believe there is a more subtle form of crass behavior in the political realm.  Until our current president, the chief executive did not appear on entertainment talk shows while in office (Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on Arsenio Hall occurred while he was a candidate).  Interviews of the president were always conducted by news anchors or other prominent journalists, and generally taped in the White House.  This tradition was meant to show respect for the office.  Now our president appears on light entertainment shows like the “The View “on what seems like a weekly basis; sitting perhaps in the same chair as such noted luminaries as “Snooki”.

Crass behavior has become the norm among the common folk also.  One does not have to work hard to find examples.  Log on to YouTube, and search for videos of shopping centers on “Black Friday”. Or notice how a large segment of our population seems to want to emulate the appearance of thugs in biker gangs.  Walk around a local mall, and over hear the conversations of your fellow shoppers, sprinkled as they are with the “S” or “F” word. (I admit that I’m occasionally guilty of this particular sin).

I believe that much of our societal coarseness comes from the entertainment industry, which has sunk at this point essentially to the Marianas Trench of depravity. Crass behavior apparently makes for good media.

I think of Howard Stern, who for 30 years has filled the airwaves and, the minds of young people, particularly young men, with mean-spirited exploitative misogynist garbage.  Madonna’s entire career comes to mind, particularly the part where she created a pornographic picture book of herself, just in time for Christmas giving.

Then consider the “Hip Hop” genre, where the “artists” apparently think its part of the lifestyle not only to look like criminals, but then to actually shoot each other.  Given this, I suppose it’s fortunate that video gaming industry affords young people the opportunity to practice killing other humans with a variety of weapons, in increasingly high definition video.

Do I even have to mention Fifty Shades of Grey?… Or reality TV?

Now some will accuse me of being prudish.  They will defend our current culture by claiming that we are becoming more sophisticated, less inhibited than in our Puritanical past.  I submit to you, that a culture that will no longer enforce the most rudimentary standards of behavior and deportment, is losing its individual and collective self discipline, as well as its decency.

I believe that a society that would discourage interpersonal rudeness, promiscuous sexuality, gender exploitation, and violent cultures of so-called entertainment, would be less likely to have riots over Christmas bargains, fatherless children, violence against women, or drive-by shootings.   I suspect there would be less likelihood of senseless tragedies, like the carnage at the Newton school.

Change, has to start with us.  If entertainment we encounter, trades on cruelty and exploitation, turn it off, and more importantly, encourage your children to do the same.  If a politician is vicious, deceitful, and disrespectful, vote them out.  If you’re in public, dress modestly, curb your language, and insist on the same from your children.

There is another obsolete word I think of.  Be classy.