Here it is mid-February, in the middle of another unusual winter in Pennsylvania. Ten days ago there was a crusty cover of snow on the ground here in the Pocono region. Unfortunately, an altitude related ice storm seven days ago wrecked the brief period of cross-country skiing we had enjoyed after a 9-inch snowfall.   This week, a 5 day period of >50-degree weather finished things off, cruelly teasing us into thinking that spring is around the corner (it is most certainly not).

I am somewhat heartened that this heat wave will not be fully expressed up in the Adirondacks, where I hope to be recreating in several weeks. Nonetheless, these lackluster winters can be very discouraging to those of us still enjoy snow sports and the photographic opportunities that “normal” winter provides.

Unfortunately, at this latitude, it appears that for at least this year, winter will be a cold damp brown and gray season with occasional teases of snow. I am starting to hate winter, but for different reasons that most of my friends.

The worse thing about this has to do with living on a dirt road. For most of the winters over the last 25 or so years, the road will freeze in mid-to-late November and then remain frozen, and often snow-covered, until sometime in March when we get our first extended bout of above freezing weather. There will then be a roughly 2 week period, where the road becomes soft and unstable. Driving on it can feel as though he will sink down to your axles; it leaves our cars coated with splats of red shale mud. Then one day the road dries and compacts, and is all is well for the remainder of the year.

This year, the road has been through maybe 3 cycles of freeze/thaw which is getting rather irritating. Freeze/thaw also leads to large potholes in the paved roads. I really hate this.

I sometimes think I should either move permanently to the Adirondacks for January-March, or give up on the whole winter thing, go south, wear shorts with black socks, and gradually prepare for death.

On a happier note, I pretty much have determined that I will purchase a new X100f along with at least the TCL X1 100 mark II teleconverter (I use this much more than the wide converter). It will be extremely pleasant not to forget to adjust the camera when the lens converter is on (the phase II versions of the converters talk to the camera so it adjusts automatically). I’m hoping to use it in the Adirondacks, so I am waiting to see whether it goes on back order after the introduction date. At some point, my used (but not too used) X00t will go up on E Bay.

 Boy o’ boy, May feels a long way off.

 

 

Back in the days before digital imaging, it was much easier to keep your gear current. I think back to 1980s vintage Nikon F3 which was produced (admittedly in multiple forms) for perhaps 20 years. The camera featured very simple technology, with little pressing reason to update. There was finally an auto focus version of the camera in the last several years of its twenty-year lifespan, but for the most part there was little change over its long history.

Nowadays things are radically different. Cameras are far more sophisticated, and photographers now expect fairly frequent updates to them, even though they long surpassed the performance of those older cameras long ago. I think also the fact that the technological advances of new models involve not only exposure and focus, but the actual film stock (the digital sensor) that the camera uses increases the interest in upgraded models.

In the last week, Fujifilm has announced replacements for 2 cameras that I currently own. The X100F replaces the X100T model in a somewhat confusing nomenclature scheme. And the X-T10 is replaced with the X-T20.

As always the question of whether to and when to upgrade comes up.

Let me first acknowledge, that photography is not my main source of income.  I have always tried to be rational about equipment purchases.  Every once in a while I find myself with a bloated collection of gear which needs to be thinned.  I am there now.  Soon, I suspect I will once again become a frequent visitor to my FedEx drop-off point.

I see that I am not the only one who faces this dilemma. A Fuji photographer I very much admire, Zack Arias, writes about gear simplification here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First my thoughts on my current X-T10 currently the budget version of the SLR style X-T1 interchangeable lens camera. This for me as a modestly used device (I have learned that I prefer rangefinder style cameras and I already own a nearly identically spec’d  XE-2). The main improvement in the newer camera is, of course, the sensor, which is now 24mp.  I already own a version of this sensor in my X Pro 2.  In my experience, the real resolution boost offered by the newer chip is modest, and the high ISO performance is roughly the same.  Still, more resolution is not a bad thing.

Whereas I do enjoy the Acros film simulation that is only offered in the 24 mp cameras I can typically get pretty close to the same profile with a custom RAW conversion I have set up in Photoshop. There are autofocus improvements I suppose, but I’m not grossly unhappy with the current camera (and perhaps there is more to come in a firmware upgrade). Finally, while I think the enhanced video capabilities are interesting, they are not important to my workflow. 

Thus I probably won’t upgrade this camera anytime soon.  In fact after this analysis, as much as I like the little X-T10, I would consider putting it on E Bay list, and waiting for the rumored rangefinder style XE3 to be introduced.

The X100T to “F” upgrade is slightly different for me. I like the fact that the battery will now be the same as all of my other Fuji “X” cameras though the older battery was fairly cheap(and I have a lot of them). I hope the camera will still be chargeable through its USB port. Once again the new sensor (the same 24mp sensor of the XT-20) is not really a draw for me, but not a detriment either.  Apparently, unlike a lot of other people, I do like the new ISO/shutter speed dial (same as on my X Pro 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do wonder however whether the incremental improvement in auto focus in this model line will be greater (the X100T had earlier auto focus technology than the X-T10). To me, a very significant improvement is the autofocus “joystick”. It was a very useful addition to the X Pro 2.

Ironically, I have actually avoided using it on that camera for fear of it becoming reflexive when it is not available for focusing on my other bodies.  Currently, if one is to retain the largest number of function buttons on the camera, moving the autofocus point, requires you to first press the lower button of the four-way pad, which then tells the camera that the keypad  is to be used for autofocus.  This means an additional step and occasionally results in lost opportunities.  With the joystick, moving the autofocus point can be done instantly.  Adding it to the X100F means that I will be more comfortable relying on it in both cameras. In fact the lack of the joystick on the X-T20 means that it will be more difficult to integrate that model line in the future.

I hope the XE 3 will have a joystick.

 One new development I am both frustrated and intrigued by is the improvements in the lens converter system for the X100F. the new converters communicate with the X100F, allowing the camera to automatically adjust when they are mounted (I often forget to do this on my current camera).  This is wonderful, except that I have pristine copies of both of the older lens converters for the X 100 series which I understand are optically identical. I would probably first upgrade the TCL (50 mm FOV), as that is the one I use far more frequently than the WCL(28 mm FOV).  I could really save some money here if only my interaction with the camera was a little more disciplined.

As this is my most commonly used camera, I believe it makes more sense to upgrade this instrument, given that I will obtain the most benefit and enjoyment from the money spent.  And my fairly pristine X100T, on eBay, seems to have decent residual value.

This explains my thought processes, on upgrading equipment.

Feel free to offer your comments and ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  I still think the practice of upgrading from one highly capable smartphone to another slightly more smartphone is a relatively wasteful exercise. But, when my previous phone began to look shabby, and the battery started to fail, I began to shop around. I finally acquired a Samsung Galaxy S7 Curve at a remarkable deal from Verizon. It pushed all the right buttons for me: Beautiful screen, faster processor, bigger battery, waterproof…and apparently a better photo experience.

On the camera side, there are some signs that Samsung “gets it”. For the G7 models get fewer megapixels (12 vs. 16 on the S6) on a bigger sensor, with on-chip autofocus, a microSD card slot and the ability to shoot RAW.  This might just be a smartphone that can produce a decent image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So how has it worked for me?

The Samsung Galaxy S7 curve, at least as of this writing, Is Samsung’s high-end smartphone (the G8 is imminent, which is probably why I got mine cheap). It’s a beautiful instrument, with a sleek metal body and that unique curved screen.   As a phone/ tablet, it is for my purposes essentially flawless, with a gorgeous display, fast processing, and excellent battery life. It’s still waterproof but it no longer has the annoying flap over the USB port so annoying on my previous Galaxy S5. If you want a great phone, buy one today.

How does it work as a camera? On this issue, I have definite reservations.

The new sensor is supposedly an improvement in the older sensor, with the pixel pitch (1.4) up approximately 40% from the sensor in the S6. It tests very well on DXomark (It currently ranks 2^nd among camera phone sensors). Theoretically, this should improve low light capability. To an extent it does. But compared for instance to even the “crop frame” sensor of the 16mp Fuji’s (pixel pitch 4.79) you can’t really expect too much.

Here’s a jpeg image shot of my friend Elliot in typical tavern lighting.

 

The camera shot this wide open f1.7, at iso400 and 1/10sec. The resultant jpeg is aggressively noise managed, with smearing of what detail there might have been. I consider this unusable for other than display on the phone’s own screen.

Now here’s the Raw version, processed in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the image is grainier, but the detail is retained in Elliot’s face, and in the 3×5 cards in the foreground. And in the raw converter, I can decide between noise and detail. This image may be more useful.

Autofocus is fast; much more responsive than in my previous S5. This is apparently due to “Dual pixel technology” of having phase detection pixels throughout the whole sensor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The camera app is at one time very good, and very weird. On the surface, the app seems well designed, with multiple modes available, including “pro, which allows significant manual control. It is in this mode (only) that you can access raw capability. There are multiple autofocus modes.

It is at the same time frustrating. You can save your jpegs to the SD card, but the far larger raw files will save only to the camera’s memory. So the point of having an SD card slot is undermined.

Also, the camera seems to use any excuse to shift out of raw capture mode. Specify a “vivid” jpeg profile in “pro” mode and raw capture is lost. Accidentally do a burst of shots…same thing. I thought I was shooting raw for the “frozen pond” shot above, only to get home and find that I wasn’t. This behavior causes me to think that this is not in any way a reliable device for serious photographers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most infuriating is the phone’s behavior when attached to my PC. When hooked up by USB, you first need to pull down the typical Android notification screen and enable the phone to transfer media. Fine.

Problem is that when I use Photoshop Bridge, to navigate into the camera files to edit them, the software doesn’t recognize the jpegs and can’t display a thumbnail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even more ironically, Photoshop can’t recognize its own proprietary dng. raw files while they reside on the phone.  This problem does echo the behavior of my previous S5.

 

 

 

 

This means that if you want to edit a file, you must copy it into a file on your computer. Then for some reason I cannot fathom, it becomes readable. With the raw files (which remember won’t save to the SD card) potentially eating up a lot of camera memory, I just cut and paste them to a file on my hard drive, and deal with them there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about the image quality?   Compared to my Galaxy S5 I think the loss in resolution and sharpness is surprising. The jpegs, perhaps in an effort to reduce noise, are over-processed to the point where a lot of detail, particularly in the shadows is completely lost, The above  “Hemlocks in the Snow” image illustrates this nicely; note that it was shot at 1/100 sec ad at iso 100, which are hardly challenging settings.  They look fine on small displays, however.

The raw files seem to lack dynamic range and cannot be pushed too far before they look odd. I saw banding emerge with modest editing of color or contrast. The “Twin Springs” image above, for instance, was shot at iso 50 and yet, was still very fragile.

I’ll keep trying, though.

For me, all of this means that I will rarely use raw, and mainly, as with previous phones, use the phone to shoot jpegs for casual use.

The Galaxy S7 is widely thought to be one of the top two or three camera phones available now. I’m sure will enjoy using it.

But camera phones aren’t cameras. Not yet anyway.

 

 

 

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. 

 

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.

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.