This article, edited, appeared in The American Thinker on May 16th, 2023

Several weeks ago, on my way to lunch, I stopped at the testing facility in our hospital for my weekly COVID test. This has been a requirement of my employment for at least the last year and a half after I refused vaccination.  The pretty young woman that has been assisting me, collected my sample. She then informed me that the testing facility was closing for good later today.  Subsequently, the hospital administration minimized the requirements for masking within the facility. With these developments, it felt as though the COVID debacle had finally ended.

Reflecting on this, I think back over the 3+ years and cannot escape the profound effect it has had on my life both during the pandemic and now afterward. I have seen death, certainly particularly in older patients and those with comorbid problems. But I have also seen fear and anxiety as a catalyst of social change, and generally not for the good. I have seen factionalism develop over differences in one’s level of vigilance and concern over the disease burden, and later about attitudes towards treatment and vaccination.

I lost friendships. In the beginning it was over the fear of being in contact with me as a caregiver for these patients. Later it was because I invoked natural immunity, and avoided vaccination. I endured their ridicule and even anger about my quaint notions of viral immunity, ideas that would have seemed completely rational, 2 years before.

Now things are changing. Very quietly I think people have grown to accept the notion that this virus was born in the Wuhan lab. It became clear that the draconian lockdowns were of little help, and left a lot of economic, social, and educational damage. They are finally beginning to understand that natural immunity, though not perfect, is likely to be more durable than that provoked by “boosters”.

It is also beginning to sink in, that the vaccines, were untested, minimally helpful and are likely to an extent unsafe, especially for the young. The lack of acceptance of the new bivalent injection I think confirms a new public wariness. Likewise, there has been a pronounced lack of enthusiasm for pediatric inoculation.

But for me, there have been much broader revelations.

As a physician in my 40th year of practice, the events of the past several years have had a profound effect on the way I think of the care I have been rendering.

The CDC, and NIH, manipulated the government, and the willing press, into supporting incredibly corrupt behavior. Prestigious medical journals, such as the Lancet, suspended their usual stringent review processes to publish fraudulent data. The regulatory agencies, and Pharma, acting in concert, punished non-doctrinaire opinions. They manipulated our academic institutions by the issuance and withholding of grant money. Leaders such as the beloved Dr. Fauci promoted phony letters to the editor decrying the lab leak origin story. This was done to protect the NIH and its likely illegal contributions to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for gain-of-function research.

Because of all of this, I looked back and wondered about my entire career. Was everything a lie? Were there medications, perfectly adequate, that I was convinced to discontinue in favor of new patented and expensive medications, with less well-understood safety profiles? How many of the other articles that I had read over the years were corrupt documents, meant to bolster the profits of the pharmaceutical industry? Just how badly have I been manipulated?

As a physician, particularly at my age, I have tried hard to remain current with my specialty. But how much of the latest information I absorbed served only to support the lucrative relationship between academic medicine and their sponsors at the pharmaceutical companies.

I never meant to bring too much drama to this pandemic, which I was fairly sure, even early on, would not be as severe as the doomsayers predicted. But I failed to anticipate the more profound interpersonal, economic, and professional impacts it would have on my life and that of others.

There is a punch line here. Despite being completely asymptomatic, and despite the fact, that months ago, the CDC declared random testing to be useless my last test was… positive.

Feels like a fitting end for this nonsense…at least for now.

I would be honored if you shared this.

Header image: After the Fire (Fujifilm X100V)

This was originally published in The American Thinker on January 12th,2022. It has been slightly edited from that article

We are now officially entering the third year of the Wuhan surprise. We are experiencing a brand-new SARS co-V2 variant, Omicron, which is sweeping through the population like a lot of nasty winter respiratory infections. Except that we test for it. And we know its name. 

As of early January, the Omicron makes up roughly 95% of cases in the Northeast (CDC data). In my state of Pennsylvania, for instance, our peak case numbers were triple what they were last December. Our hospital, and ICU occupancy so far however is slightly lower than last year, attesting to the more benign nature of this particular bug. 

I was looking through the hospitalization data, on the Johns Hopkins site.  As a former critical care specialist, two things are curious to me. Number one is that the total number of ICU beds in the country has fallen from 91,000 in January 2021 to 80,000 now. I’m sure that a portion of that decrease is due to acute illness of ICU personnel, given Omicron’s infectivity, and vaccine avoidance. I do wonder however how many of those beds were lost due to the firing of ICU staff due to their vaccines status. 

The second strange data point is that in the US as a whole or Pennsylvania in particular, there are said to be roughly 20% of ICU beds unoccupied. In my experience over the years, intensive care units tend to be full, and we accept new admissions only by transferring out the least ill. If I was running a 20 bed ICU and had 4 open beds, I’d be feeling pretty comfortable. Maybe this data is wrong, but if it’s not, this is hardly a crisis. 

As of January 2022, a majority of the population has been coerced into multiple inoculations, with spike protein-producing mRNA. Despite this, we are seeing record numbers. How could this be? 

Data from Britain suggest that roughly 50% of coronavirus patients in the hospital, were admitted for something else. In the United States, those numbers fall between 30% and 60% depending on the locale. In our hospital, there has been an obvious reduction in acuity for patients that carry the Covid diagnosis, given the benign characteristics of Omicron. 

It has become rather clear that natural immunity and/or vaccination/booster status are irrelevant in the current surge. In fact, in the case of vaccination, there is data from Iceland and Denmark suggesting that the population most prone to Omicron are those who have had the full original course of the vaccine. Here’s the data from Iceland, where the population is 91% fully vaccinated. If you look at infections per 100,000 people based on vaccine status, the fully vaccinated, have the highest prevalence of infection. Now in the same data set, it’s clear that the vaccinated have less severe disease, which we have been saying for some time, In the case of Omicron, for most people, that point is moot, given the mild nature of the syndrome. 

Again I say, if you’re interested in being vaccinated or boosted, that’s your choice. But given Omicron’s obvious vaccine resistance ( which is likely to persist in future variants), the strategy of forcing a monovalent vaccine on the population during a pandemic has clearly failed. 

Data out of Israel suggests efforts there with a fourth Pfizer booster have been ineffective in preventing the spread of Omicron.

In my circles over the last month, I’ve had a fairly large group of friends and acquaintances, who have been infected. These include the vaxed and boosted, the group formerly known as fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated, and those like me with natural immunity. All of us, at a variety of ages, have had a roughly 3 to 4 day viral upper respiratory syndrome, of little consequence. I know from my practice, that this is also being seen more broadly in the community. 

Another thing I have noticed is that given their cold-like illness, people that suspect they have omicron are reluctant to be tested, so as not to be inconvenienced by having to isolate. This may be contributing to spread, but also signals a change in attitude towards this illness among many people. 

In a sensible world, given this data, public health officials would quietly back away from the insistence on mass inoculation, and begin to feature therapeutics in their approach to Covid. I wouldn’t actually expect them to admit failure, but perhaps only to change their emphasis. Instead, they are doubling down. 

In my former life as a doctrinaire practitioner, I would’ve been loath to consider the wild claims of medical conspiracy theorists. Some talk about the vaccine containing graphene, and other nanoparticles meant to monitor and control. I certainly don’t believe in these theories. But the escalating efforts to penalize the unvaccinated by their governments seem so irrational, that it is not unreasonable to wonder: what the hell is going on? 

Why insist, that an increasingly ineffective immunization be given again and again, at shorter intervals, to the entire human population, including children who tend not to be severely affected? And how can we force injections with products that are still officially investigational, and not FDA approved? And why, as these vaccines have the highest rate of adverse effects by far, according to the CDC’s VAERS data, do we insist? And by firing reluctant healthcare workers, who have a fairly high rate of vaccine hesitancy (I wonder why?), we are stripping the healthcare system of talent we now claim to desperately need. 

None of this passes any test of common sense. More and more I think people are beginning to realize this, and are growing skeptical. Even elements of the press are starting to ask questions like: “how many more boosters will we be expected to take?”  

There is an alternate way, as shown by countries as diverse as India, Mexico, and Japan. We need to encourage early treatment, with cheap safe, and proven antiviral therapy such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, in protocols that have already been developed. Pfizers new drug Paxlovid may be useful if further studies confirm safety and efficacy. If people wish to be vaccinated, fine, but only with products approved for use by the FDA (Pfizer’s Comirnaty). This would mean patients would have legal recourse if they were to suffer a devastating side effect. 

We have a right to expect competency, not corruption from our public health officials. 

Seems to me, they have been a big disappointment.  

As always, I’d be honored if you’d share

It is been a year and 11 months since the happy little packet of spike proteins and mRNA arrived in our country courtesy of Dr. Fauci and the Chinese Communist Party.

So here’s a little schadenfreude for my naysayers: yesterday, I was diagnosed with what I suspect is Omicron. In my case, it started with very subtle bronchitic symptoms at the end of the day on Tuesday. Walking out to my car from work, I suddenly felt an unexpected sense of fatigue for that time of day. Suspicious, I went straight home, and grabbed a home test kit. That first test was negative.

Overnight I felt chilled and achy but took some Naprosyn which improved my symptoms. The next morning I retested and was unequivocally positive.

Since then, my main symptoms have been that of a rather annoying viral respiratory infection. There is some fatigue, a modest cough, but a lot of upper respiratory congestion and sneezing. Yesterday, at least in the morning, the symptoms might have prompted me to call off work (as if I weren’t busy) even without the quarantine requirements of Covid-19. Today I feel better. Symptomatically I would’ve gone back to work, albeit with a little self-pity.

Unfortunately, this is SARS CO-V2. The 10 day period of isolation will encompass Christmas, and disrupt plans to gather with family, and otherwise socialize. This arbitrary number is annoying given that I can easily retest when I become asymptomatic and prove I’m not shedding virus.

In my case, I can see why this variant spreads so efficiently. Omicron infects preferentially the tracheobronchial tree, versus the alveoli (lung tissue) in earlier viruses. It thus causes more cough and sneezing symptoms which help to aerosolize and spread the viral particles. Given this, however, it is much less likely to cause issues with “gas exchange” and thus hypoxia and respiratory failure. This seems to have so far borne out both in South Africa and now Great Britain.

I have been taking again the cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin, given the unavailability of Ivermectin. I’m also taking zinc, vitamin D, and a B complex supplement in addition to my usual medications.

Obviously, my situation will not be universal, and some people, particularly people with lung disease, will have more problems. But in reading reports in countries where omicron has become dominant, this is a fairly typical presentation. From my point of view my experience is nothing to get excited about. We’ll see what happens but, three years ago, if such an illness were spread in the community, I would probably notice an increase in exacerbations in my asthma and COPD patients. I have seen this kind of outbreak many times before Covid. The general public is typically unaware.

Omicron has definitely changed the game. There is an international study in preprint, detailing the mutational change in the virus, and its ability to escape immunity, both natural, and vaccine-induced. Here is an article in Forbes that nicely summarizes the study’s findings. In short, the spike proteins have mutated to cling more tightly to the ACE-2 receptors in the respiratory tree, which may explain the preference for the upper airways. Natural immunity also has been thwarted by these new mutations. This was studied by using convalescent serum.

It is interesting to look at the vaccines in detail. Pretty much all of the vaccines lost efficacy against the virus two weeks after the last injection. By three months post the third injection, the vaccinated were susceptible to Omicron. It is interesting to me that the most durable vaccine appears to of been the one offered in China by Sinopharm, which, by the way, is a traditional attenuated live viral vaccine. This means people are vaccinated against the whole virus, rather than just the spike protein.

Parenthetically, according to Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technique, traditional vaccines take much longer to produce. China appears to have gotten it done in record time. I wonder whether they had a “head start”

To me, all of this suggests several conclusions:

#1. With Omicron we are essentially back to square one in terms of immunity. Thank God it isn’t particularly virulent. Hopefully, this will be a trend.

#2. As with multiple efforts with coronaviruses in the past, vaccination is not a practical solution, and ought to be deemphasized.

#3. It’s time to turn to therapeutics, which are less likely to be affected by mutations.  We need Ivermectin to be freed up for use. The promising new antiviral from Pfizer, Paxlovid, has just been granted an Emergency Use Authorization but is unlikely to be widely available for some time. Unfortunately, from their own data, Merck’s drug Molnupivinir, may not be particularly useful.

As I have said before, this virus and its variants are becoming endemic in the population. Any expectation that you will not be infected, or re-infected, is likely unrealistic.

And for my vaccine-devoted, Fauci-worshiping critics, enjoy your opportunity to revel in my illness.

Your turn is coming.

As always, I’d be honored if you’d share.

Header Image: Tracks on the Back Pond (Fujifilm X Pro 1, XF 18-55mm f2.8-4)

Your choice of camera often influences the way you use lenses; particularly in the Fujifilm camera universe.  Though the SLR-like bodies such as the XT-2, and XT-20 are very popular, I came into the X series by shooting their rangefinder styled products, and for the most part, continue to do so.

My main interchangeable lens body is an X Pro 2 (which I use along with my X100f). To me, going back to the M series Leica film cameras, rangefinder-type bodies like the X Pro 2 are shot with prime lenses which tend to perform better anyway. Thus my XF zooms have tended to languish at the back of the cabinet.

 Several weeks ago I was traveling to the Adirondacks, and selecting the photo gear that I would bring along.  Years ago I would pack 2 or 3 bodies (Fuji and Nikon), and several bags of lenses.  Maybe because I have been photographing there so long, and perhaps in my dotage, I’m getting a bit lazy. My tendency now is to streamline things a bit with perhaps 1 or 2 small camera bags.  Along with the X100, I will usually bring the X Pro 2 with several prime lenses, perhaps the 14 mm, the 56mm, and a 90 mm.  This works out fairly well given that the X100 has a fixed 23 mm lens.

 

One complaint I have about the XF lenses is that the lens pouches are virtually identical, without any exterior labels to indicate the lens within.  It’s thus easy to grab the wrong lens.  Rather than the 14 mm lens I was looking for, I found that I had pulled out the 18– 55-millimeter zoom which has similar bulk.  I hadn’t used the lens in some time so I thought: What the hell, let’s give it a try with the bigger sensor of the X Pro 2  and see how it holds up from an image quality standpoint.

In the “Dacks” I shot the lens and liked what I saw.  So I left it on the X Pro 2 for the next several weeks after returning home.

In photo workshops when I am teaching beginners, I’m a big proponent of prime lenses.  This is not only because their image quality tends to be superior (especially for the price).  I also think it’s important for people to understand and then characteristics of individual focal lengths to their photography

If they do utilize a zoom, I suggest that they avoid the habit of zooming to frame an image, and instead treat the lens like a collection of primes.  I have had to remind myself to do the same.  With the zoom mounted, I look at the scene and determine what focal length would be desirable in terms of foreground/background relationship and depth of field.  I then choose a focal length.  Putting my eye in the viewfinder.  I can then step backward or forward when possible to adjust the framing. That’s a lot easier than changing lenses constantly.

Another issue I have had with the X Pro 2 is camera shake.  Perhaps I have been spoiled by the very soft leaf shutter of the X100 series.  I find that I get a fair number of images with the X Pro 2 and it’s more robust shutter action, where there has been movement artifact.  The image stabilization in the little 18-55mm is a big help with this, noticeably reducing the problem.

 

I have forgotten how nice the image quality is.  Used as I am to some of the high-quality lenses in the Fujinon line, I am delighted with the look of images shot with this modest lens.  It’s got good contrast and handles the 24-megapixel sensor of the newer cameras with ease.  It’s capable of obtaining lovely detailed 3-dimensional images, although at the 18 mm end, it  is slightly soft until it’s stopped down.  And like all of the XF lenses it has a solid feel and lovely built quality.

In the weeks since returning home, we’ve seen a variety of weather here in Northeastern Pennsylvania, including bitter cold,  then a sudden thaw that led to severe ice damming and flooding on the Susquehanna River in the Wyoming Valley.  The residual of this has been bank ice of a size and volume I’ve never seen before.

Now, in the mountains, a  winter snowpack is finally building, which for us more and more, seems to be a February/March event.

There was even some snow at Nescopeck State Park for their Winterfest event, something we haven’t seen in some time.  It was fun to see the sled dogs finally get to pull their sled.

I’m aware that there are better short zooms in the XF series lineup, including the 16-55mm f2.8, which is said to be very sharp indeed.  Unfortunately is quite a bit larger and heavier (though it is weather resistant) and has no optical stabilization.  And at $1100, it’s significantly more expensive than the $700 18-55.  And there isn’t an image I have shot over the last several weeks that makes me pine for a more exotic lens.  If I need more sharpness, I will go back to the primes.

I forgot how much I like this little lens.  Like the 60 mm f2.4 I wrote about here, I’m moving it to the front of the cabinet.

In the highlands of Northeastern Pennsylvania, meteorological summer has passed by, without stopping to say hello, or even waving as it drove past.

I can’t say there was no hot weather, but for the first time in many years, I don’t remember any even slightly uncomfortable nights sleeping in my non– air-conditioned bedroom (most summers we have a week or so of nighttime temperatures in the mid-70s).

I suspect that my friends with boats and/or swimming pools were disappointed. I, however, loved the pleasantly warm days, and crisp nights. So the climate trend that I described in June, which helped to abort a gypsy moth infestation, continued for the next 2 months.

For a variety of reasons, I have not had a great deal of photographic output over the summer. I think that the summer season often distracts me from photography with a number of different diversions, and discourages me from photography in a number of ways. From the biting insects that plague me when I try to I set up my tripod, to the monotonous green landscapes, and the sunrises that are inconveniently early, I tend to lose some enthusiasm over the warmer months.

Usually, my interest in a new piece of gear stimulates me to get out and shoot, but at this point, I’m extremely content with the gear that I have. This is particularly true of the X100F, and the X Pro 2. I really don’t crave the next upgrade in focusing or sensor resolution.

I read with interest the introduction of the Nikon’s new flagship DSLR, the D850.  I should really be lusting after this camera, with its state-of-the-art backlit 47mp sensor, its 9 frames per second speed, but I’m not.  Two generations old now, my 36mp D800E still looks new, works beautifully, and produces gorgeous files that look great in as large a print size as I am likely to create.

Maybe I’ll buy a refurbed one in a couple of years.

  Also though, I can’t escape the feeling that big bulky DSLRs are like dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous; about to be overwhelmed by the smaller, more convenient and increasingly capable mirrorless cameras which are becoming a more dominant force in the market.

Meanwhile, things photographically are looking up.

 Here in the Poconos, the leaves are beginning to change color, and the sound of katydids punctuates the crisp night air. The big cinnamon ferns in the forest are beginning to change to a sort of golden brown, while the deer transform from the red coat of summer to their cold weather coat of gray. Sadly, the humming birds have disappeared south.

For my wife and I, there will be an upcoming trip to the Adirondacks, to enjoy Oktoberfest, and “peak leaves”.

There is also the fresh introduction of the Fujifilm XE-3. Hmmm.

There should be plenty to write about, and photographic in the upcoming months.

Stay tuned.

 

 

It has been a quiet summer here on the Pocono Plateau. The weather has been quite pleasant since mid June, though in the last week or so we’ve had several runs of severe afternoon thunderstorms that resulted in power outages  in our small community.  Otherwise the weather has been lovely.

I have noticed that my postings tend to fall off during the summer months. I think part of this is due to a certain contentment I feel with the onset of the season .

We had the usual march of summer flowers including honeysuckle, black-eyed susan’s, mountain laurel, foxglove and finally rhododendron.  Now the first cardinal flowers have appeared alongside stream beds.  I noticed yesterday that goldenrod is beginning to bloom.

In our neighborhood we had an abortive gypsy moth outbreak, but a fortuitous run of cool wet weather in early June encouraged several pathogens, which wiped out the caterpillars before they could do much damage. This undoubtedly saved several old Chestnut oak trees on my property who are already relatively marginal.

We have had the usual run of community events, including our Fourth of July celebration, summer cocktail parties, and the very pleasant wedding of the friend’s daughter that I help to photograph. I am really enjoying the combination of the X 100f, and the X Pro 2/56mmf1.2 for events like this.

The house is empty this summer. My daughter of course lives in Seattle, and my son, who is a graduate student, is doing an Google internship in that city. It is nice that they can be together.  We did meet up with them in State College, when they flew into attend a wedding.

Equipment wise, I have acquired a DJI Mavic Pro drone, and have been trying to master shooting smooth aerial video. Once I have something to show for it, I will share my experiences on these pages. It turns out there is definitely a learning curve to this.

Mostly though, I am enjoying the summer season. I am looking forward to some events with the potential to provide some content for these pages as the summer goes on.

So bear with me.  I’ll be back.

 

It has been almost 4 months since the UPS man walked up my driveway, and dropped off my X100f.  It has become, as was its predecessor the X100t, my most used camera body.  And over that period of time, I have definitely formed some opinions on the camera particularly compared to its predecessors.

I posted my initial review of the X100f here.

The “f” model  X100 some ways is the most revolutionary new model, at least since the “s” version of this small range finder-like body.  It slightly larger than its predecessors, mainly to accommodate the larger battery of the other cameras in the “X” series.  I was concerned that this would alter the physical joint using the camera, but over the months the differences mean nothing.  And the convenience of packing one battery type for a photography job or trip is well worth whatever additional girth the camera brings.  I also like the idea that in a pinch, the camera can serve as a charger for the pool of batteries either in a car or at home.

I have been using the camera a lot with the TCL  X100 Mark II, which automatically changes the camera setting to reflect the change in the field of view (35–50 millimeters).  This lens, like its predecessor, is optically excellent, and now I don’t forget to change the camera setting.

I’m pleased with the autofocus performance in general, but I am sometimes frustrated by the facial recognition, which is somewhat inconsistent even shooting multiple images of the same scene.  Sometimes it just won’t pick up the face.  It would probably be better, to turn it off and just use a focus point.  This is especially true since we now have the advantage of the joystick control.

I’ve noticed a few other things.  The focus mode switch on the side of the camera seems to have had its actions stiff and somewhat.  On the camera’s predecessor, I actually had some gaffer tape over the switch to keep it in the “S” setting as I often found that it would move unbeknownst to me (I generally only use manual focusing for panoramas, and almost never use continuous focusing).

I have never been overly impressed in the past with the resolution improvement of the new 25mp sensor relative to its 16mp predecessor, but I think I’m noticing more shake artifact in images with the newer camera.  Maybe as I age my hands aren’t as steady as they used to be.  Still, in all, I don’t remember this with the previous bodies.  Nothing in the leaf shutter mechanism is changed to my knowledge, and the camera still has a nice soft shutter sound.

I was already a fan of the Acros black-and-white film simulation on my X Pro 2, and though I shoot in raw, I often develop images in photoshop with this profile.  To my eyes, it is relatively close to the camera-generated image.

Overall I’m extremely pleased with my new camera.  The X100 series has become like an old friend to me, and in my collection, even among the other Fujifilm products, it is the easiest to reach for what I’m going out and about.  It remains discrete and non-threatening and wonderful for event and street shooting, and with the extra resolution wonderful for landscapes.  Also with its soft shutter and built-in neutral density filter, it remains my favorite camera for moving water.

It’s,  going to get a lot of use over the next several years.

.

 

 

I am a creature of habit. Whether it is merchants, restaurants, vacation spots… etc., I derive comfort in familiarity. It is an impulse I endeavor to resist… not always successfully.

It’s also true in terms of camera gear. For I just bought my fourth version of the Fujifilm X100… the X100F.

It arrived in late March, of the latest iteration of an old photographic friend, the newest camera in the X100 series. I have been shooting it since then, in the somewhat sparse scenery of early Spring.

Over the last several years, this camera line has been the one that I reach for the most. I have been looking over archived raw files in preparation for my upcoming photography exhibit. I couldn’t help but notice that particularly in the last 3 years; my X100 series uploads far exceed those of my other equipment. I have grown very comfortable with the camera’s functioning, the image quality, and the range of focal links offered between the native lenses and the lens adapters.

Given this, I may skip other upgrades, but the newest X100 will always be interesting to me.

 

I have no desire to be repetitious and waste the reader’s time. Therefore if you wish, you can read my reviews of the original X100, the X100s, and the X100t which will serve as a basis for this review. My desire is to discuss what I think are the relevant improvements, and what they mean to my workflow in the Fuji system. There are also websites such as DPReview, and The Imaging Resource that can be a source of feature-by-feature descriptions of this product. My mission here will be to describe the effect those changes have had on this user.

The best way to summarize my reaction to this camera is this: that in terms of image quality, controls and features, it now is almost completely in sync with the X Pro 2. This is very important to me as these cameras are my go-to pairing for weddings and events. I now can shoot the same resolution files and film simulation on the X100 style body that I can on the interchangeable lens X Pro 2. And the relevant controls and menu structure are now roughly the same. This means that I can quickly make intuitive adjustments on either camera without thinking.

First and foremost, the camera in hand feels roughly the same as the previous generations. All of the buttons on the back of the camera have been relocated to the right side which does facilitate their operation while looking through the viewfinder. The camera feels extremely well-built, though weather sealing is still not a feature.

 

I have written here and here about my reactions to the new sensor offered in the later Fujifilm cameras. The resolution increase from 16 megapixels to 24 is not trivial, but also not overwhelming. It certainly means you can crop more aggressively, which is certainly helpful on the fixed lens X 100, and the images do seem to have improved “per-pixel” sharpness. In particular, because of my exhibit, I’ve been doing a lot of printing. I remain extremely impressed with the amount of detail on even 17-22 inch prints that even the earlier 16mp Trans-X megapixels can produce without straining. Obviously, the new sensor will be better yet.

What is nice about the Fuji’s in general, and the X100F, in particular, is that all this resolution is very usable. Again in reference to my upcoming exhibit, I had identified an image shot with my D800E for inclusion. This is a 36mp DSLR, and given this, I have always been aware that camera technique must be perfect in order to avoid shake artifact, (which is much more evident the higher the resolution). For this reason, I shot this image from a stout Gitzo tripod, and with a remote release.

When I printed the image, however, I discovered that there was camera shake, which essentially ruined the image for me. Undoubtedly this came from the impact of the mirror as it swung out of the way of the sensor. I shoot all the time with the mirrorless Fuji bodies, and particularly X100, on a much smaller tripod, and essentially never have this problem. Because of its leaf shutter, the X100 is particularly forgiving in this regard. So bring on the resolution!

 

I remain underwhelmed with the purported improvements in high-ISO performance for the new sensor noted on some other websites, but on the other hand, I don’t really do formal tests on this. I was already pretty darn happy with the earlier cameras. It’s certainly no worse than the earlier chip and may be a smidge better. I’m certainly content continuing to use ISO 6400 as the upper limit on my auto ISO setting.

Then there is the matter of the mechanical ISO dial which it also has in common with the X Pro 2. Many people were unhappy with this feature when it first appeared. From my style of shooting, however, it is very convenient. So good are the trans X sensors that I generally shoot in auto ISO without much worry. But if, for instance, I’m shooting moving water, or daytime fill flash, the ISO dial makes it easy to quickly switch to ISO 200, and then switch back when I’m done.

 

Several improvements do really alter the relationship between the cameras. The X 100F now uses the same battery as all of the other Fuji bodies. This really simplifies keeping a good collection of batteries charged and ready to go, it also means when I change camera bags, I don’t have to worry about which type of extra battery I have stowed there. Also, since the X100 series has an onboard USB charging, in a pinch it can charge batteries to be used on my other Fuji bodies. The battery indicator apparently now displays a more accurate representation of the percentage of power remaining. Oh, and hopefully battery life will be longer, though this was never really a problem for me.

I’m a big fan of the Acros black and white film simulation, which given the new sensor and processor, is now finally available on the X100 series. I like the fact that I can set the film simulation, but shoot the camera in RAW alone, but still see the film simulation in the viewfinder. I later apply the film simulation in post processing, as it now is available in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

Then there is the focus point joystick, which again appeared in the X Pro 2. Now that it’s available on the X100, I feel as though I can begin relying on it. For those of you who unfamiliar with the feature, it allows direct access to focus point adjustment without first pressing any other buttons. It thus frees up a programmable button on the camera for other functions. It is a feature that is long overdue.

Another really likable improvement in the camera is its ability to recognize when one of a new series of lens adapters is mounted. With the older cameras, I was forever forgetting to change this adjustment manually, which theoretically results in some distortion in the image. I did acquire the 50mm field of view TCL X100 II (the adapter I most often use). The old version sold on eBay for surprisingly good money, which is heartening.

 

 

Every time there is a new version of a particular model in the Fujifilm lineup, auto focus has been improved. Before I sold it, I compared the “T” model to its replacement. There did seem to be a slight improvement in focusing speed, particularly in low contrast areas, but again these cameras of gotten good enough that for my style of shooting such improvements are not that impactful.

There is an increase in the number of focus points from 49 in the X100 T, to 325 and the newer camera. This is the same as on the X Pro 2.There is a little wider screen coverage, but in general, to me, the larger number of points seems to increase the amount of time it takes me to move to the right part of the sensor. I tend to keep these cameras set to show a lower number of points in the viewfinder.

 

I’m sure as time goes on, I will have additional comments as I gain more experience with this instrument. Overall I am quite content. In most ways, this is a superior camera than its predecessor (which happily also sold for decent money on eBay). Who knows what is yet to come in future firmware upgrades.

Yes, I am definitely a creature of habit.

But if you find something that works, why not stick with it?

 

 

Among Fujifilm “X” users, the unique characteristics of the Trans-X sensor used in most of the camera line is a very familiar topic. This sensor was developed in 2012, and was one of the first sensors to not include an  anti-aliasing filter,. These filters, which slightly blur the image (thus reducing apparent resolution) had been included in most digital imagers up to that time to prevent the phenomenon of moiré. The Trans-X sensor used a less symmetrical color filter array to prevent moiré effects.

Those a few that are unfamiliar with this topic can find more information here.

Because of  the unique design of this sensor, programs to convert the raw files generated by these cameras have at times struggled to optimize the resultant files. Part of this may have been at least in the beginning, Fujifilm was not particularly forthright with information on the sensor.

Over the years we have looked at the different raw converter options for the  Fujifilm cameras and in my case those compatible with a Windows environment (definitely not a Mac person).

For many years it seemed clear that Phase One’s Capture One software was then programmed to beat, besting Adobe Camera Raw, and even slightly better, then Fujifilm’s on Raw file converter, based on the Silkypix photo management product.

Ultimately Adobe refined its raw conversion process for X-trans, and Photoshop and Lightroom became more competitive. Recently the differences in conversion quality, though still favoring Capture One, have not been worth the workflow interruption required.

Then there was Irident X Transformer. This was a Fuji specific raw file converter, exclusive to IOS, that has long been said to produce the best, most detailed images, from Fuji raw files. But alas, it was unavailable to those of us in the Microsoft world.

Now a version of Irident has been released for the Windows platform. I was excited to give it a try.

This is a very simple product with one mission, to convert a photo file from the Fuji raw format to the Adobe native DNG format( which Adobe understands very well), where it then can be further processed into a Tiff, jpeg or other file type. In the process of conversion, the program also applies a unique sharpening algorithm, as well as noise reduction, and lens correction, all of which can be controlled by the user. There is also Irident developer, a full featured photo program for IOS and Windows, selling for US$99.00.

 

 

X Transformer is roughly analogous to Adobe’s own digital negative converter, a program they offer for users of older Photoshop versions, who now wished to convert files from newer cameras not compatible with their versions of Photoshop.

I was eager to apply the program, to raw files from both the 16mp and 24mp X-Trans sensors, and compare them to Adobe Camera Raw conversion alone. I also converted files from the original conventional sensor X100 to see whether there was any advantage with that camera’s output.  I also converted Raw files using Capture One, and Adobe digital negative converter (which then I finalized in Photoshop much like one needs to do with the Irident DNGs) for comparison.

I tried to pick images with a variety of color mixes mindful of the effect the X-Trans sensor is said to have on green foliage.

I processed all images using equivalent amounts of sharpening. I turned sharpening to low on the Irident converter.

Below is fairly typical of the differences in the 16 mp files, the Irident conversion pulling far more detail than ACR alone, with Capture 1 (version 9) in the middle. So you know, the jpg conversion needed to post these actually tends to minimize the differences.

 
Below is a file from my X Pro 2. Here the differences between the various conversions are more subtle, though the original TIFFs still favor the Irident workflow. Look at the small patch of lichen on the branch which is more detailed on the Irident version. I actually think that the Capture one version lags behind the ACR conversion, but I may have under sharpened that file slightly.

Out of curiosity, I dug out a file from the Bayer sensored X100. Here I could detect little advantage for adding an Irident conversion first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

Now this is not scientific, but I have formed the following conclusions:

Pre-converting the raw files with Irident X Transformer into DNG seems to be helpful to extract the most realistic and detailed X Tran images from Adobe Camera Raw. This effect, however, is to me, more noticeable for the 16 mp imager where Irident is quite helpful. The advantage of Irident seems to be some less dramatic with the newer 24mp imager though not negligible. Is this because Adobe has done a better job in their algorithms for the Trans-X III? Or has Irident not quite figured things out for this sensor?

Also, Capture One remains a step ahead of ACR for 16mp Trans-X though not as good as Irident +ACR. For the 24 mp imagers is seems to have less advantage though I have not upgraded yet to version 10. All of this suggests to me that Adobe has done a better job with analyzing and coding for the new 24mp sensor. I did not test Capture One with the Bayer-sensored X100 because in the past I have noticed little difference between ACR and C1 with conventional sensors.

Finally, I should say something about the Workflow using Irident X Transformer. It certainly adds an extra step to processing. In my case the program wouldn’t display thumbnails, requiring me to go back to Adobe bridge and get the file #. This is annoying.

So, in summary, I would say if you want the simplest workflow with X-Trans files, go with Adobe products such ACR or Lightroom. Capture One is certainly an alternative with the potential to reveal a smidgen more detail, but for me, it is less streamlined. Finally, for big prints and critical results, adding Irident X Transformer to Adobe definitely allows you to extract more detail from your images.

 

 

 

 

 

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.