And speaking of Summicrons, Thorsten Overgaard has a wonderful (and long) interview with Leica lens designer, Peter Karbe, that is well worth the read.
Thorsten Overgaard: Leica 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH f/2.0
last Sakura of the season: 90mm Summicron + 50mm Summicron
Summicron-M 90 (pre-ASPH)
I always miss sakura season. But this year, my wife and I spent two meals under the cherry blossoms, once with knäckebrot and cheese and wine, once with Japanese fried chicken and rice noodles and beer.
Read moreNo One is Writing a Good Camera Blog, Trust The Phoblographer
Last year, The Phoblographer's Chris Gampat published an article entitled: No One is Making a Bad Camera, You’re Just a Bad Photographer. It's the typical rant of the typical gearhead photo blog, ragging on the person that has problems with her camera and/or lens. Why? Because Phoblo is in the know, that's why. In Chris's own words:
This year, the site is turning five years old–and we’ve been reviewing cameras since day one. The technology has become better and better and back then (sic) folks used to say that something is a good camera or a bad camera. To a certain point, this is still expressed in forums, in conversations amongst friends, and by people that have nothing better to do with their lives than be trolls. But I’m going to tell you the complete God’s honest truth (sic) right now about the world.
Chris had me at the complete God's honest truth. And by the way, he never says anything about the world. Trust me, I read his article thrice. The conclusion I came to is that to Chris, a 'camera' is the following and only the following.
a sensor
autofocus
technology
If a sensor performs so well that real photographers can add noise if they want, then that's all that matters. If it autofocuses fast enough, then that's all that matters. If its technology is better than before, then that's all that matters.
In part, Chris is correct: no one makes bad sensors anymore. Indeed any user of any modern camera system should be able to publish amazing images, even with the kit lens. And AF is good to great on most, if not all major hardware releases. In which case, I agree with Chris's longest paragraph:
No one is making a bad camera or a bad lens or a bad light or a bad camera bag or a bad sensor. For years (yes, years) the sensors have been incredible. Too much noise at a high ISO level? Oh well, bring it into Adobe Lightroom and no one will bitch about it unless they like looking at an image at 100% all the time. But those people never go on to become better photographers and only worry about looking at lab tests all day and night. Now, more than any other time in history, it is possible for you to create a better image.
And maybe Chris is just poking fun at the people that can't get over a few points of dynamic range points. In his words, these people are trolls. But seriously, since when did cameras boil down to simple constructs of sensor and autofocus? And if it did, wouldn't the people bemoaning performance be in the right? I don't get it.
The majority of people with cameras around their necks don't read DPReview, or Rangefinder Forums; certainly they read neither your rag nor mine. If they wish something was different on their camera, it's probably with something from the below list:
1. simplicity and consistency of use
2. battery life
3. size/weight
4. start up time like right now?
The things I seethe about -- and, what in Phoblo's definition don't count in the definition of a camera -- are the following: broken interface, poor ergonomics, and especially, the constantly multiplying number of unlabelled, user-programmable buttons. Fujifilm's insistence on using two controls (one labelled and one unlabelled dial/ring) for aperture and shutter speed, could be cut down to two controls.
Sony's splitting of magnification functions between three buttons, and hyper sensitive eye-sensors that disable displays with a wayward wave of the hand, are equally as idiotic. And yet no one in the Trust me, I should know camp has a bug to bear about anything but ISO performance.
Buttons that either cannot be reached by normal thumbs, or that depress too easily, or are impossible to reach should not be turned into AF-ON buttons. Worst of all is the constantly changing interface. Camera makers should design interfaces to stand the test of simple interaction, and those interfaces should stand the test of time. Most of the problems lie in the mirrorless camp, whose main aim appears to be to make SLR cameras with out the R.
Notice how none of my complaints tick ISO performance, dynamic range, or AF boxes? I might also note that I am one of the simplest camera users out there. So is my wife. Myriad others out there merely want to take photos without having to drag along an in-the-know friend, or the manual. Hand them a camera from the same manufacturer and they want to take photos, not a 1000-level course on how to operate a camera.
Today's consumer cameras have more buttons than ever before. They are more complicated to work than ever before, and many manufacturers mate them to control schemes that change from release to release.
Bad designs exist. Bad cameras exist. And camera blogs whose sole focus is on the speed of this, or that, and draw no attention to bad design, and who place no responsibility on the manufacturer (ostensibly to procure samples and freebies), do nothing at all to improve the market. They are in fact, bad blogs.
Trust me, Chris, I've worn glasses sine I was twelve. Do the maths.
On Fujifilm digital camera rental programme prices
Most X fans await the X-Pro 2 with breath abated and hovering pointers caressing the checkout button of their nearest online retailer. Still, the X-T1 is Fujifilm's de facto top model, both in price and performance.
The X-Pro 1 debut price was higher, but it fell to about half within a hear of release. I picked mine up for less than 850$ in 2013. Meanwhile, the X-T1's price has fluctuated by less than 15% since its debut. Today, new X-Pro 1s cost significantly less than new X-T1s (BH Photo):
X-Pro 1 999$
X-T1 1299$
But eager to prove to customers that the X-Pro 1 still is the PRO model in its lineup, Fujifilm have kicked off rental prices of the X-Pro 1 at 120% premium over the X-T1.
Source: Fujifilm Pro Rental Service (lens and camera prices linked in PDF files)
via Fujirumors: RENT – SHOOT – RETURN: Fuji’s Pro Rental Service effective NOW in USA! Rent X-gear for 3 to 7 days!
Photigy to remove all advanced tutorials
Before you have a heart attack, remember to check your calendar.
Plug: Photigy are one of the internet's best resources for both the advanced photographer. They have a range of materials designed to help you nail both the shot and all post processing.
Am I wrong in thinking I could get MORE subject separation with 23 vs 35?
DPReview member oracle82 writes:
“I know this is a frequent issue, the 35 1.4 vs 23 1.4... but I’ve been wondering about the issue of subject separation with the two. I know that the 35 will have more of a compression factor given the longer focal length. But, I seem to have gone from a 50mm equivalent shooter to more of a 35/40mm equivalent shooter recently. I just prefer the slightly wider view now, and find the 35 to be a little too narrow these days - even though it was the first prime that I bought with my XT-1.
As such, I don’t use the 35 all that much now, and when I do, I find myself backing up for a bit wider view. Of course, then I start to lose some of the blurred background because my subject ends up being further away from me.
I’m not trying to blur out the backgrounds completely, I have other lenses for that. But I do like a slightly blurred graduation when I am shooting certain things at wider focal lengths. Not portraits, just everyday type of photos.
I’ve been toying for awhile with the idea of selling my 35 for the 23, since I don’t use it a lot. It’s a fantastic lens, I just hate having expensive equipment around that I don’t use much.
I’m wondering if the subject separation from f/1.4-2 would be adequate enough with the 23, especially since I can get closer? As I said, with the 35 I find myself backing off to get more in the frame, so I lose a lot of that shallow depth of field. (I really hope this makes sense). If I want more serious subject separation, I have a legacy 58mm that I can use.”
And the award for most confusing answer goes to Christof21 who supplied the link to a website called How Much Blur, which compares the theoretical percentage of blur captured by both lenses at similar distances.
But the question specifically addressed the separation of subject and background at different camera to subject distances. In other words, supplying a link, no matter how erudite it may seem, isn't enough. Relevance is key.
The best response from the same thread attempts to answer the question asked, which distilled simply is this:
I like to shoot [people or other objects] at wider angles. Because of this I have to move farther from my subject when using the 35mm 1,4, which reduces the amount of separation between the subject and the background. Which lens, the 23mm 1,4 or the 35mm 1,4, would return more separation between the subject and the background?
The answer lies in the oracle82's own question: Of course, then I start to lose some of the blurred background because my subject ends up being further away from me.
Any answer concerned with the amount to which a background is blurred and not the degree to which the subject and the background are delineated one from another, is pointless. And so becomes the 35mm's f/1,4 aperture when the subject is moved closer to the background in order to capture a wider view.
The answer is: no, you are not.
The 23mm 1,4 lens will more keenly separate the background from the subject.
Here is the thread: Am I wrong in thinking I could get MORE subject separation with 23 vs 35?
The Missing D300s Replacement, Redux
Thom Hogan on the missing Nikon D300s replacement:
“Will Nikon give us a D300s replacement? When would they give it to us? What will it be like? My predictions are yes, fall 2015, and not as good as what I just described.
Here’s another thing that comes into play: I don’t think that the remaining customers for DSLRs are entirely price sensitive. Sure, they are at the D3300/D5500 level, and Nikon needs to do more to make that work for them. But those DSLRs are likely to be eclipsed by mirrorless at some point, anyway. At the D7200 and up level, and especially at the pro body type we’re talking about with a D300s replacement, the customer is far less price sensitive than they are feature sensitive. If the options are (1) what I described above at US$2199 versus (2) the current 24mp sensor doing 10 fps in basically a D810 type body without the other things I described at US$1799, I’ll bet #1 would outsell #2.
We’re looking at a glass half full, half empty type of situation. Nikon would probably think they’ve been successful in filling half the glass (FX is doing okay, and they’re still selling DX DSLRs and making a profit). I’d say they’ve failed to fill more than half the glass (the pro gear right now is decidedly awkward, the DX DSLRs are arbitrarily defined and the channel is overstuffed with them, the Nikon 1 has been a random walk through design ideas with no one polishing anything, etc.).
A D300s replacement will tell us whether the glass will continue to be half full, or is still half empty ;~). But boy is it coming late to market. Really late. Harvard Business School Case Study late. ”
Radioactive Konica Hexanon 57 f/1,2
Some of us are into sharpness. Some of us are into OOF rendering. Some of us are into bokeh. Others, are into radiation.
The new Voigtländer 35mm F 1,7 Ultron
The new Voigtländer 35mm Ultron
If the old one's minimum focus distance of 1 metre made you rethink purchase, the new, highly-stylised one, which focuses down to 0,5 metres (great for M240 users and when mounted to other mirrorless cameras), may catch your fancy. Unfortunately, this lens, too, bears straight, not inwardly scalloping aperture blades.
Here are the specs:
Focal Length 35 mm
Aperture Ratio 1:1,7
Minimum Aperture F 16
Lens Construction 9 elements in 7 groups
Angle of View 62°
Aperture Blades 10
Minimum Focus 0,5 m
Maximum Diameter 53 mm
Length 50,6 mm
Mount M-Bajonett (VM)
Weight silver 297 g, black 226 g
Filter Size 43 mm
Color black and silver
Others standard lens hood
Optional ---
Source: Voigtländer VM 35 mm F 1,7 Ultron
Thanks: Sony Alpha Rumors
Fujifilm: The World of Film Simulation episode 1
Explanation of Fujifilm colour ethos and helpful visual graph of film simulations available in X cameras at Fujifilm X World's Facebook page.
“First of all, the color reproduction is not just a “tendency” for FUJIFILM cameras, but rather a “world of its own” to put it more correctly. It does not just look “vivid” or “soft”. They are in their own world of color reproduction of “Velvia” and “ASTIA”.
When you shoot a photo, you would first look at the subject. It can be anything from “autumn leaves” to “person”. And you would set it to “Vivid” or “Soft” depending on the subject. You may be happy with the result if the autumn leaves appear vivid or the skin appears soft.
At the same time, you may be unsatisfied with the result, but think that “it can be edited later” if they were shot in RAW.”
Source: The World of Film Simulation episode 1
via: Fujirumors. Thanks @umad.