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 usually a late adopter.  If a new piece of equipment comes out, I’m cheap enough that I will generally wait until some time has elapsed and enough people have published their experiences with the equipment, before I make the purchase decision.

But when the Fujifilm X100s was introduced I was intrigued.  I love its predecessor, even for all its quirks, a few of which remain even after the latest firmware update. I have never enjoyed a piece of gear more, nor been more pleased with the images it produces. I sold my D 700, in part because the X100 replaced it for indoor event shooting.

I used the X100 all the time (for the year I owned it).  So when the update came out, I was not immediately interested.  But as I read reviews, I realized that this was a favorite camera now optimized.  I decided that rather than wait, I would place a preorder through B +H Photo.  They have a  strong return policy and I wasn’t worried that I’d be stuck with it if I were unimpressed.

It seemed to take forever for delivery, but my new camera finally arrived about three weeks ago. I’ve been shooting with it  ever since.

 

So far I’m extremely happy with the X100s.  I will have a more complete report once I have a chance to shoot in a few more environments.  I am particularly excited to try out something that is also possible with its predecessor, high shutter speed flash synchronization.

So far however I am enjoying the hell out of the X100s, so much so that I have listed my X100 on eBay (Item number:321117326639).

So bear with me.  It was the X100 that shook me out of my photography doldrums.  Testing the “S”, particularly as spring erupts here in The Pocono region of Pennsylvania is a pure joy.

Stay tuned, there’s more to come.

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.

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.

In the last several months, I’ve had a fair number of changes to my equipment collection.

When I acquire something new, I like to write about it, whether it’s a “keeper” or not.  We’ve talked most recently on these pages about the Fuji X Pro 1. Given some new developments involving the technology surrounding that camera, there will be more to say.  Now however, I want to talk about a camera acquisition I also have alluded to recently, the Nikon D600.

I acquired this device shortly before the X Pro 1, and was shooting it extensively up to the point where the Fuji arrived.  As the Fuji was the older camera, I decided it would be more appropriate to  offer my comments on that camera first, as I was already late in the game.

Now, on to the D600.

The D600 is closely related to previous Nikon DSLR designs, particularly to the D7000.  Its body design follows a pattern seen in that “serious prosumer” camera bodies that Nikon has put out over the years.  Happily, the specifications keep improving with each generation, to a point where they have become very credible professional tools on their own; less robust perhaps than the D800 or D4, but more than adequate for fairly heavy use.  Now I am a somewhat leisurely landscape photographer, who will not be climbing in the Himalayas, or repelling off some cliff in the Amazon Basin. For me, these cameras are a nice combination of ruggedness, yet with reasonable weight.

Perhaps the most important new feature on the body of the D600 is a locking button on the mode dial on the left upper top.  This eliminates one of my main objections to that control style, vs. the three or four button knob  in that location on the D700/800/D4 bodies.   Every so often I will shoot with for instance, my D7000, only to find the mode dial has moved either to “program”, or to full manual; the latter setting particularly screwing up the exposure.  With the D600, this should no longer happen.

There also some changes to the video controls on the camera, which are admittedly less interesting to me.  When compared to the D7000, the D600 body is “puffed up” by about 10% visually.  All of the good things about the earlier camera have been retained (and I really enjoy that earlier camera).

There are certainly some wonderful websites such as DPreview, where you can read an in-depth description of the camera functions, and menus.  As always, I hope to convey to you the experiences of an “average” user and how the cameras features impact my photography.

I have had a somewhat jaded approach to this camera.  I admit being somewhat thrilled, but slightly intimidated, by the quality the sensor and its high-resolution.  I’ve discussed here before that I have a less than robust collection of FX appropriate lenses.  Other than some prime lenses, I own a 17-35 mm, f2.8, as well as the 70-200 mm f2.8.  My best midrange zoom seemed to be a Tokina 28-80 ATX f2.8, which has not always been well reviewed but I always thought was quite sharp, at least on DX.  I began to consider purchase of some serious glass, perhaps starting with the Nikkor 24 -70 mm F2.8.  I looked through my lens collection to see what I wasn’t using, and could sell to fund this expensive purchase.  The Tokina seemed a likely candidate for a quick eBay sale and I began to look for the box and packing materials.

But then it occurred to me that just maybe, I ought to consider shooting the D600 with the Tokina lens.

This particular lens, out of production now, is roughly as massive and heavy as the legendary Nikkor 28-70 mm F2 .8.  The lens is beautifully finished with a black crinkle surface.  Over the years its weight and size have tended to relegated to my storage closet as I have many DX lenses that seemed as sharp… and were a lot lighter.  Nonetheless, I figured I ought to at least give it a try before selling it.  I mounted the lens on the D600 and went hiking (with a tripod) in nearby Nescopeck State Park.

All I can say is wow!  To my eye, this is a very fine FX lens, and is extraordinarily well matched to the 24-megapixel Nikon sensor.  Contrast and detail are outstanding even at the edges of the frame.  I say this, even after shooting the extraordinary 60 mm Fuji “X” lens.  I’m not it selling it now.

I shot the 17-35 mm lens which is certainly excellent, though not quite so clear edge to edge.  It’s still a wonderful optic, and to me it should certainly not be discarded on acquisition of the D600/800.  The 70 – 200 mm VR lens (the first version) also to my eye looks fine, very sharp in the center and only slightly less so at the edges. Generally with a zoom of that range, I don’t care about the little vingnetting described by reviewers (which is easily corrected on processing), or whether the corners are absolutely sharp (version 2 of that lens is said to be better optimized for FX).  For now I see no reason to upgrade to the newer version.  That having been said, the main problem with all of these lenses is that they are seriously large and bulky.  You’ll need a serious backpack to carry good FX glass, plus a tripod for great remote landscape photography.

There is another option. With the Nikon primes I own, the D 600 is wonderful.  Shooting for instance with one of the excellent 50 mm Nikkors, is a delight.  A handful of primes would seriously reduce what you would carry on your back.

I did acquire with a camera the “kit lens” the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR lens.  This is in fact a fairly reasonably sized midrange zoom with image stabilization.  I’m not a lens snob, and I’d hoped this lens would be similar to the 16 – 85 mm VR DX glass, which is essentially parked on my D7000 and is quite sharp and contrasty.  Unfortunately at least my copy of the lens was lackluster at best, and I returned it. Interestingly, the little Nikkor 28-70 f3.5 I wrote about here, looks better to my eye on the D 600, than the newer lens.

I shot some comparison photos as is de rigueur for these camera tests.  I shot my usual test subjects with the D700, the D600, both with a Nikkor 50 mm f1 .8, and compared them to the X Pro 1 with its 35 mm f1 .4, (which on DX has nearly the same field of view)both at F 5.6.  For the record, I developed them using the same raw developer (which currently cannot currently be named) which is said to be the best developer in particular for the Fuji files and also great for Nikons.  I did not always use standard settings, but attempted to best optimize each image.

Here’s 100% crop of images I shot at ISO 320 on the X Pro 1 and the D 600

Here’s a set at ISO 3200, including shots from the D 700:

In either the low or high ISO images, I think it’s clear that the Nikon has an advantage in resolution.

I think the high ISO noise rankings (higher is better) would be D 600 > X Pro 1 > D 700.

I’m impressed with the Fuji.  The difference in resolution between it and the Nikon seems clearly less than the eight megapixels the sensor sizes would suggest.  This is probably the cause of the removal of the anti-aliasing filter on Fuji.  Again, I think the high ISO images suggest that the D600 is better than the Fuji, which is slightly better than the D700.  That camera, even allowing for the different image magnification of its smaller files at 100%, clearly has less resolution, and noise suppression than the other two.  It’s amazing how good these imagers are getting.

I’m actually rather impressed that the Fuji does not lose ground to the Nikon D600 as the ISO numbers increase.  The newer Nikon in my mind however, is a clear winner here.

I should also mention that in playing with the files, the dynamic range of the camera seems very high.  This camera appears to have some of the same abilities to lift the shadows as its older sibling the D7000.  It also does a very nice job at highlight detail retention.  In this regard it feels almost like my old Fuji S5 pro.  On a raw image, you can dial back what appears to be a blown out sky or snowfield, and find that there is significant detail available.

One issue with this camera has to do with the autofocus.  There been reports that the performance of the autofocus on this camera is mediocre, compared to cameras higher up in the Nikon line.  To me the autofocus always functioned well, but my main frustration was the rather restricted area of autofocus points in the viewfinder.  This is very frustrating for landscaping.  It can be very difficult to bring a focus point for instance on a spot in the periphery of the image.  Then I realized that a simple solution for this is to move to “live view” while, particularly on a tripod, which brings to bear the camera’s very adequate contrast detection autofocus system which can cover the entire frame.  Problem largely solved.

One other issue I think deserves discussion.  Some very thoughtful photographers have written about the importance of using careful shot discipline, if we’re to extract all of the high-resolution of these devices.  As the megapixels increase, it seems logical that we may increasingly rely on camera stabilization devices, whether physical or electronic, in order to prevent motion blur.  The larger mirrors in the full-frame digital SLRs such as the D600 can cause issues with camera motion when they swing up and out-of-the-way on shutter activation.

Also with FX Nikon cameras is that the few image stabilized lenses available tend to be rather large and not particularly fun to carry around ( excepting the little  Nikkor 28-70).I did do some free hand shooting with the D 600 and noted that it was fairly difficult at times, to prevent motion blur, unless one used at least a monopod. Now I don’t shoot thousands of frames every day, and there are pro shooters who are so steady, and have such good technique, that this may not be a problem for them.  For me however, I need to be careful.

For these reasons, I believe that mirrorless devices such as G series Panasonics, and the Fuji X cameras, which are smaller than full-frame DSLRs and offer lenses with image stabilization, will likely be my choice for free-hand shooting.    I find, for instance, that the mirrorless cameras are much more forgiving in this setting.  I get much less motion blur with even the non-stabilized 60 mm lens (90 mm equivalent) on the X Pro 1 then I do with shorter lenses on the D 600.

At any rate, that Nikon D600 is a wonderful camera and will add significantly to most shooters capabilities, both out in the woods, on the street, and in challenging low light situations.  For me the camera’s weatherproofing makes it a natural choice for use when it’s raining and snowing, and its small size and lightweight but sturdy build make it a good companion out in the wilds.  The only disadvantage of the FX format is the need for larger lenses, and some sort of camera stabilization.

When you comply with its needs however, the results are wonderful.

I’m becoming a Fuji guy again.

I shot Fujifilm cameras for many years. I started with an S2, and shot later with an S3, and S5.

I always loved the gorgeous output of their unique imagers, despite the quirkiness of the Nikon bodies they resided in (relative to the comparable Nikon DSLR of the time).

 Anyway, after the S5, Fujifilm stopped making Fuji/Nikon hybrids, and I began using Nikon cameras as they became dominant in sensor technology.

I’ve written on these pages, how the purchase of the Fuji X100 reinvigorated my photography for reasons that I still don’t completely understand.  With the purchase of the Nikon D600 (soon to be reviewed) and the sale of my Fuji S5, I was happy thinking that I have created the perfect collection of equipment for my various photography needs.

I was content.  The combined capabilities of my D600, and X100 in fact were making my D700 somewhat redundant.  I was perusing Ebay to obtain the probable sale price of that camera, when I came upon another lightly used camera body for sale.  The auction was nearly ended and the price of the camera was still very tempting.  I placed what I considered to be an unreasonably low bid assuming (and perhaps wishing) that I would not win. After all, I really didn’t need this new camera.  For better or for worse however, in an hour my cell phone alerted me to an e-mail I had received, informing me that I was now the proud owner of a Fuji X Pro 1.

I’m receiving the news of my purchase, I immediately ordered from B and H photo, a 35 mm F1.4 Fuji X. lens so that its delivery would coincide with the arrival of the body.

Now, I had originally been somewhat lukewarm about the X Pro 1.  I handled the body in a camera shop in Boston several months ago.  To me it felt somewhat light weight and not as substantial as my X100.  My error however, was not handling it with a lens.  When the 35 mm arrived along with the camera, I mounted the lens and immediately noticed the nice weighty feel of the combination.

I have subsequently acquired the Fuji 60 mm lens and I’ve been shooting for long enough with the system to have formed some definite impressions.

The X Pro 1 in use is a significantly larger camera than the X100.  I still prefer that camera to use as an indoor events camera given its small size, its 35 mm (equivalent) lens (a focal length not available yet in the Fuji X lens line), and its very quiet shutter.  The X Pro 1 is also very capable in these situations, when the image calls for a longer focal length (I don’t yet own the 18 MM as I may wait for the  Fuji X 18 – 55 mm f2.8 optic to be available).

Call me a Fuji fanboy, but I really enjoy using this camera system.

First and foremost, particularly with firmware 2.0, most of the early foibles of the X Pro 1 (and X100 before it) have been dealt with.  The ergonomics of the camera are a nice improvement over the X100.  Once again we see the lack of a mode dial, its function replaced with the rotating shutter speed dial, and aperture ring on each lens.  Each control has a position marked “A”.  For instance: when A is selected on only the shutter speed dial, the camera is in aperture priority unless A is also selected on the aperture ring at which point the camera is in full auto mode.  The only problem with this, is that you need to be alert for the possibility that the shutter speed dial( or aperature ring in shutter priority) accidentally moves off the “A” setting, which then places the camera in full manual mode.

There is a new button near the thumb rest, labelled “Q” which gives immediate access to the most commonly use settings of the camera.  This is very helpful.  The thumb wheel, now rotates completely that seems mainly useful for controlling camera functions and when pressed in, accessing a magnified viewfinder for manual focusing.

The autofocus button, though still poorly located on the left side of the camera, is it least now at the bottom of the stack so that it can be found more quickly.  I find though I still have to take my eye away from the viewfinder to change the focus point, something that is unnecessary for instance, on my G-series Panasonic cameras.

Then there’s the  dual viewfinder.  As with my X100, I tend to use electronic viewfinder more than the optical one, but the latter is useful when shooting action, as it allows you to observe a subject that is “out of frame” and time when he will be “in frame” so that you can push the shutter at the appropriate time.  The lack of a diopter adjustment is a complete mystery.  Apparently you can buy screw in viewfinder lenses and change the diopter but why Fuji excluded the adjustment feature is beyond my comprehension.  Happily the standard viewfinder works well when I wear my glasses.

The autofocus performance is a common topic of conversation for reviewers of this camera.  I find it about as reliable as the X100, which is to say not as reliable as my better Nikon bodies, but adequate.

A major reason to buy one of the Fuji interchangeable lens cameras is the quality of the lenses offered.  Both the 35 mm, and 60 mm lens are bitingly sharp in a way that I have not often seen in other lens/camera combinations.  The 60 mm is particularly so.  I cannot wait to use it for some upcoming model shoots I have scheduled.

Another issue with this camera is the supposedly poor state of raw file interpolation currently offered by the major photo software companies.  As most readers know, the X Pro 1 has an unusual sensor with the kind of randomization of the colored photo sites that allows it to go without an anti-aliasing filter.