A Broken Resolution, To My Benefit

Fujifilm X-A1, XC 16-50 f3.5-5.6 OIS

So I've broken my previous resolution to just shoot film for the next couple of weeks. Why?, because after going through and processing 9 rolls of B&W leftover from the last 1.5 years I was reminded of both why I love film (tonality, simplicity of a manual, mechanical SLR) and why I don't (IQ in general, the process after film leaves the camera). I also spent some time going over my options for a D600 replacement as I've decided it will be replaced, if only because it's simply too large & heavy for me to be comfortable carrying it in the manner to which I've become accustomed.

Tried the Pentax K-3. Awesome ergonomics. Smallish. Heavy. It seriously weighs more than the D600 and you feel every gram. The K-50 just isn't there in ergonomics, it's too much the budget camera.

Looked closer at the E-M1 system. Honestly, if there wasn't IMHO a better option, this is the way I would go. The 12-40's awesome, the camera itself is too and I could get by with one of the light carry options. I really do want a second light carry body to stick in my bag for days when I don't want my main camera, I used this method back when shooting the D300/D40, the E-30/G1, A700/A33 and E-M5/E-PM1 kits.

I looked at the E mount system again. I've already got the light carry option there, the NEX-5R. And it's got all my basics covered for lenses (ZA 16-70/4 OSS, Touit 12/2.8, ZA E 24/1.8, ZA FE 55/1.8) except a macro, and that's coming later this year. Downsides are lens costs, every lens I want is $1k+, and the lack of a more serious body. The new A6000 is IMHO a NEX-5/6 replacement, and I'm not impressed by a lower-end EVF, but there's no high-end APS-C body to replace the NEX-7 and fill the gap between the $700 A600 and the $1700 A7 (and I want to remain on a single format, no FF/APS-C splits).

I also decided to set aside some previous opinions about the Fuji X system. There's no doubts I like the lens lineup, from the day they launched the X Pro1 I've been drooling over the lenses. But I was always skeptical about X-Trans, especially with the RAW conversion issues with LR4 in particular, and the fact remains that X-Trans does trade off some low ISO performance for better colour noise performance at high ISO's, a tradeoff that is the opposite of my needs. But with the announcement of the X-T1, the closest thing out there to a digital FM2n that I so want, and taking a closer look at the X-M1/X-A1 twins, as well as some discussion on the Alt Gear forum over at Fredmiranda.com I decided that while the X-Ex and X Pro1 bodies aren't really what I want, the other two options in the line could work very well for me. I chose to acquire the X-A1 because it both lets me dip my feet into the system without worrying about X-Trans (the X-A1 has a conventional Bayer sensor, its twin the X-M1 is the same camera with the X-Trans sensor) and because it's just about right as a light carry camera.  I also really do like the lens lineup, all the primes look great to me, although the system does need a mid-range zoom (a 16-70 or similar, the upcoming 18-135 is too much range for my tastes, although if it's good I'll probably get it).

So I sold my Sigma 105 OS Macro and purchased the X-A1 kit with the 16-50 kit lens. I'll be adding to it slowly over the next few months, with pretty much every prime on my list, and possibly the 55-200 (it's very good, but I'm not sure if I really need it). The D600 is going to be sold on to fund the initial prime acquisitions, as will my 24-50 AF-Nikkor and the NEX-5R. Not sure what I'm going to do with the film stuff. It's just not there for me anymore, except for occasional dabbling. Might just keep it for that (or maybe just the Chinon CM-5, the FM10 can actually be sold for some value).

B&W Film Choices

Ilford FP4+, Nikon FM2

In my previous post I was discussing my issues with GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and my decision to temporarily halt and spend some time shooting film again. I'd noted that I had 300' of HP5+ and a brick of Neopan 100SS.

Just to explain the terminology here, 135 format film comes packaged two ways, the first is in the standard, ready to shoot, 135 format cannisters, usually (and incorrectly, although I'll use the common terms) called rolls. Rolls are truly rollfilm, 120 and 220 typically, that come spooled on rolls with paper backing. A brick of film is a bulk package of these preloaded cannisters, typically a plastic-wrapped package containing 10 individually boxed 135 format cannisters, but can also refer to items like Fuji's Press Packs, with 20 rolls, packages in plastic containers but not individually boxed, in one large box.

The other way that 35mm film comes is in bulk rolls, usually 100' for stills emulsions (movie 35mm emulsions are usually much longer). You load these 100' rolls into a bulk loader, and use that to load your own reloadable 135 format cannisters to shoot. This illustrates one of the long-forgotten oddities of naming conventions. Because 35mm film is originally a motion picture stock, and motion picture films are denoted by their nominal width, to this day we refer to 135 format film as 35mm. But correctly 35mm is the film stock, and 135 format is the result of loading 35mm film stock into a 135 type cannister.

So what I've got is 3 100' bulk rolls of Ilford HP5+ for bulk loading, this is generally the cheapest way to shoot 35mm film in large quantities, as you get 18-20 rolls per bulk roll (depending on how you load, I do 35 frames so they fit on a single 7x5 type archival negative holder). This tends to run me about $2.50 a roll for Tri-X, my usual film choice. I'm shooting HP5+ right now because I got 4 bulk rolls cheaply due to water-damaged packaging, the film was fine. I'm a fan of both films, but normally shoot Tri-X because it's significantly cheaper in bulk rolls (about $20/roll last time I purchased any, that's about $1/roll once loaded), the price difference these days seems to be reversed so my next purchase will likely be HP5+ again.

And the second thing I have is 10 rolls of Fujifilm Neopan 100SS, I got a couple bricks of this cheaply (about $1/roll) due to it being short dated, or close to its expiry date. Note that film, if properly refridgerated, can last well beyond its expiry date, especially if it's slower film and/or B&W film. Now Neopan 100SS is not a personal favourite, but it's a solid perfomer and I typically shoot 3-4 rolls of HP5 or Tri-X for a single roll of anything else so I tend to experiment more with my slow film choices.

Now in terms of film choices for B&W film, the first thing you need to do is choose whether or not you're going to buy a modern grain (or T-grain) film, or a classic grain film. Modern grain films have a much more regular sizing of the film grains and tend to produce a smoother, less grainy look. They also tend to be pickier about exposure & developing. Classic grain films tend to be grainier, and have that rougher, classic B&W look. Personally I prefer the classic grain films, with the exception of Fuji's Neopan Acros 100, which combines the smooth grain of a modern grain film with exceptional reciprocity characteristics and a complete lack of the developing and exposure sensitivity usually associated with modern grain films. I also don't shoot any of the super-speed films. If I need more than ISO 400 I will push-process an ISO 400 film rather than shoot one of the ISO 1600 or 3200 films.

In terms of film choices, my first choices are almost always Tri-X or HP5+ for a fast film (ISO400) and Acros or PanF+ for slow films (ISO50-100). I tend to avoid the modern films both because they are not to my taste and because they're typically more expensive than the classic grain films I prefer. Other films I've been fond of were the Agfa APX line (25, 100 and 400), and to some extent the Kentmere branded films from Ilford, which are Ilford's budget films. I've tried some of the eastern-european stuff and while interesting they generally are more trouble to work with than the Ilford films I'm semi-standardized on. Once the Neopan is gone I'll likely just buy a couple bricks of PanF+ and stick with that and HP5+ for the long term.

Chasing the Dragon

Delta 100, Nikon FM2,  Most likely the Nikkor 28/3.5 AI

 I've pretty clearly been chasing the dragon of late with regards to my digital gear. Frankly, I've always been bad for this, I've averaged one major camera and/or system change per year. But the last few months have been my worst, with two primary system switches and almost a third. That's just getting ridiculous and I need to get over it.

 So I'm taking a break from digital. I'm going to carry the FM10 instead as a primary for a few weeks and shoot some film. I've got pretty much all the kit I need for that sort of shooting (I'd like a 20 and/or a 135 or 200, but I've got the basics covered for now). We'll see in March where I am and where I really want to go. Who knows, I might just stick to film for a while as my primary medium. Well, at least until it's time for some landscape work again, I'm not going back to the hassles of scanning colour film.

 I've got 300' of HP5+ and a brick of Neopan 100SS, and an FM10 with 28, 35, 50 and 100mm lenses. Lets see where it takes me.

Second Thoughts with the D600

Fort George, a photo by Mawz on Flickr.

OM-D E-M5, m.Zuiko 12-50

The above shot was taken in light rain with the weather-sealed E-M5/m.Zuiko 12-50 combo.

On Saturday I was out in light snow with my D600, which proceeded to lock itself up 1.5 hours into a 6 hour photowalk. All indications are that the cause was a limited failure of the weather sealing, specifically on the WB and LV buttons, causing them to lock on (I was not using either mode, and had not pressed these buttons). The D600 is supposed to have limited weather sealing, by which I'd expect it handle this sort of situation, but not heavy rain or serious splashes. However this experience is causing me to re-evaluate this decision and consider if I need a camera with a better grade of sealing.

If I consider that, I'm left with pretty much 3 options.

1. Get the E-M1/12-40 kit I'd considered to be one of my primary options when selling off the E-M5 kit.

Upsides:
EVF
Probably the best normal zoom in my price range
good lens selection
compact

Downsides:
IQ is at the low end of my preferred range
generally not well suited to adaptation
No compact bodies I really like as NEX-5R replacement
Limited battery life

The second option is getting a Pentax K-3

Upsides:
Best IQ available for this level of weathersealing
Good compatibility with MF lenses
good LV implementation for a DSLR
good battery life
Has fully supported interchangeable focus screens
Can use NEX-5R with K adapter as second camera.

Downsides:
OVF not ideal for manual focusing
fixed LCD
No really outstanding weather-sealed normal zoom (DA* 16-50 is pretty good, but the Oly 12-40 is distinctly better)
Limited selection of older lenses readily available (tempered by option of buying Samyang lenses).

The third option is to buy a K-50/30/60

upsides:
Cost, can buy glass right away.
AA battery compatibility
remarkably good OVF for the cost (100% 0.92x)
Can use NEX-5R as second camera


downsides:
IQ not all that much better than E-M1 (for 30/50, 60 is expected to have identical IQ to K-3)
Limited capability body compared to K-3 or E-M1
lousy battery life for a DSLR (but still better than E-M1).
And all the K-3's downsides.

Of course all options would come at a cost.

1. I'd lose the ability to share lenses with other Nikon shooters (I regularly go out shooting with them).
2. Have to sell my Sigma 105 OS Macro (damn, I do love that lens). I'd put the proceeds towards another one (Pentax) or the comparably performing Oly 60/2.8.
3. Lower IQ. I'd definitely be giving up some IQ by going down to a crop body again, a small loss in the case of the 24MP bodies (K-3, rumoured K-60), somewhat more notable in the case of the other 16MP bodies.
4. Lenses, I do love the wide selection of Nikkors out there, used & new, AF & MF. None of the options I'm looking at can match the selection, and even less of those lenses are actually sealed.
5. I still do shoot a little film. If I go m43, then I'd keep the FM10 and my small set of manual focus lenses. If I go K mount, it's off to find a late Cosina body to replace the FM10.

Upsides to going to a truly sealed body:
1. Trust. I'd know I don't have to worry about weather conditions since the camera would exceed my personal limits. And no worries about oil on my sensor (which it looks like I might have). This is huge for me.
2. Ergonomics. While the D600's ergonomics are better than I'd thought at the first try, I'm still not 100% on them, particularly the undersized grip. All options I'd be looking at have better grip designs and the E-M1 and K-3 both have better control layouts
3. Performance. All options have higher max shutter speeds and faster continuous shooting. The latter doesn't matter to me but the former definitely does.
4. Lenses. A reduced selection does mean less GAS, and what are available are generally excellent. In the case of the Pentax, there would remain the option of buying some extremely good legacy glass in the future.

The Forgotten ISO Range

Reflections in the Water, a photo by Mawz on Flickr.

D600, Sigma 105 OS HSM Macro

For all the concentration on high ISO performance on digital, with camera's reaching as far as ISO ~200,000, there's an equally useful ISO range being completely ignored. This range is the other end, the range between ISO 6 and ISO 100. Once upon a time ISO 25-50 in particular was where landscape photographers lived, shooting Velvia pulled to ISO 40, or Tech Pan at ISO 25 or any of a dozen other films in this range. Today we shoot at ISO 100 if we're lucky, ISO 200 if we're not and then have to dig out filters if we need to get the shutter speed down to blur water or let us get a lens wide open for some planar separation.

I can count on one hand the number of images I've taken above ISO 6400, but I constantly wish I could drop the ISO below the 100 (or 50 extended base) on most of the recent camera's I shoot. And I keep getting reminded that my F3's ISO range was 6-6400, a far more useful range for most shooting than the current 50-51,200 my D600 offers.

So come on camera makers. Do something different for a change and give me a camera designed for the ultimate low ISO performance, at an actual low ISO.

Golden Liberty

Golden Liberty, a photo by Mawz on Flickr.

Olympus E-PM1, Leica DG Summilux 25/1.4

Post-rain golden sunset in Liberty Village.

That FX Look and Some Thoughts on Social Networking

Private Property, a photo by Mawz on Flickr.

D600, Sigma 105mm f2.8 HSM OS Macro

This shot is a great example of the FX look that many are looking for. This is at f4, but you still have some real DoF separation, and it would be difficult to achieve on APS-C as you'd need a ~70mm f2 lens stopped down to about f2.5 to achieve this look. Ironically it would be easier to get this look with m43 as 50/1.4's are commonly adapted (however most aren't nearly as good at f2 as the Sigma 105 is at f4). But this sort of mid-aperture subject separation is a constant struggle to achieve with smaller sensors and can really deliver when you are shooting subjects with planar separation like this one.

This is also a good example of what I don't like with FX, I'd have had to stop down a fair bit more to get the deeper DoF I generally go for, if it wasn't for how planar the subject was I'd have been struggling down at f8-11 to get the shot.

On to social media. I hate Facebook, just like everybody else. I'm regularly tempted to just walk away, but it provides too easy a capability to interact with people who I don't see face to face on a regular basis (and to plan events with those I do). I also do Flickr, which once was a great photographic community but now is mostly a mediocre hosting site with wide-spread support. And I do several subject-specific forums, notably Fred Miranda for photography and a couple forums for model aircraft. Frankly, I'm pretty unsatisfied with the entire setup, I'd like more integration, especially between the community I am involved with on Fred Miranda and the photo hosting on Flickr.

That leaves a few options:

500px - Great photography, almost non-existent community outside the semi-payed blogging/commenting interface. They've essentially fixed what used to be wrong with flickr (masses of lousy photos drowning everything else), but not the result (the interesting flickr users abandoning the community aspects). It's also even more photography specific than Flickr, and lacks the hosting capabilities of Flickr, so it's of interest to me, but never will be a primary area of action.

G+ - I'm still not sure what G+ is supposed to be. There's a strong community of photographers involved, but overall the interactions are stunted. And there's the Google Walled Garden aspect, as Google promotes interaction within their ecosystem it's easy to get content pushed out of G+ but difficult to push it in from non-Google sources (like say Flickr). This makes transitioning to G+ difficult for non-Facebook uses (and for FB, all you really have is the ability to push posts from G+ to FB). From what I've read it should also be a great replacement for subject-specific fora, but it fails there due to the lack of uptake outside of techie circles (very few of the typically middle-aged to elderly men who build model airplanes even realize G+ exists, so I can hardly replace the 4 fora I'm active on for that interest with G+). Oh and Hangouts? Supposedly the killer feature for G+, but I still can't see any attraction to them. But I never liked Chat in any form, especially not group chats, and Video chat is even less interesting. Of course I am a bit of an introvert which might explain that. Chat is hard, and not something I do for fun, rather something I do when I'm already somewhere with some people.