Voigtlander Bessa R2a

The R2a is a really charming camera, and a very viable alternative to a Leica. 

It's compact, relatively well made, easy to operate, fairly unobtrusive, and reasonably inexpensive. Instead of spending time and money sampling the plethora of pocket rangefinders from the 1960s and '70s, many people would be much better served if they'd spend a little extra and pick up one of these cameras to get the real rangefinder experience from the get-go. If you've spent time with a Leica it's obvious the first time you pick a Bessa that there's a difference in the quality of manufacture, but the rangefinder in the Bessa is so many times better than even a good pocket rangefinder like a Canonet QL17 or Electro 35, and so close to a Leica M that it makes the shooting experience so much more enjoyable. In fact, if I were to start shopping all over again, I would probably have bought this camera first instead of an M2 and saved my pennies down the line for an M6 or MP or the like. Don't get me wrong, I love my M2, but the R2a has it where it counts and is honestly a better day-to-day camera.

All that being said, I don't really shoot the R2a much, partially because most of my shooting is done with a Leica M8 (I just prefer working digitally at the moment), and when I do want to shoot film I want that connection with the older ways of doing things and I prefer to use my M2. I do, however, keep the R2a as a good backup, and it's easier for me to switch from shooting the M8 to shooting the R2a largely because of the built in light meter...the viewfinder also doesn't scratch my glasses like the one on the M2. You know, if Voigtlander would see fit to produce a digital version of the R2a for a somewhat less than an M8 or M9, I think I could be compelled to buy it.

Why did I get the R2a and not the R2m? Because I've never really found fully mechanical cameras to be sufficiently more reliable than electronic ones. Why didn't I get an R3a? Because I use a 35mm lens as often as I use a 50mm lens, and the R3 cameras don't have 35mm framelines. What about the R4a? The R4 models have too small of a 50mm frameline area because of the differences in viewfinder magnification. Also, I don't think any of the other models came in gray paint, and I just like the way it looks.

If you're looking for the rangefinder experience and this is your first step into these cameras, my recommendation would be to not spend the money on the actual Leica bodies, but to get a Bessa and spend the extra money on your lenses instead. What about the Leica CL? The Bessa is easily the better camera and likely the more reliable one as well. I did ultimately sell the R2a, and most of my film photography in the last several years have been with medium format cameras, but I've always sort of thought this was maybe a camera that I should've kept.

Canon PowerShot G1 X

Woah!  What a big sensor you have!

This camera marks Canon's first timid step toward what has now become known as the mirrorless camera segment.  In it's slightly bulkier-than-a-G12 body it houses a nearly APS-c sized sensor with a 4:3 ratio, which is a dramatic step up from the relatively tiny sensor in the previous G-series bodies. That means that with this camera you can get DSLR image quality out of one of these cameras at any ISO setting, and because the sensor appears to be basically a cut down version of the 18mp sensor that appears all they way up the line to the EOS 7D, you ought to be able to achieve similar image quality.  All this from a camera that fits in a jacket pocket, and still retains the highly successful design ethos of the G-series cameras.

So why does it seem so many people in forums are displeased with this camera? Well, it seems to me that a lot of folks wanted something more akin to the Sony NEX7, and I'll admit, I'd like to see something like that come from Canon, but this ain't that camera.  

The biggest problem for the G1X is that there are a lot of other cameras on the market, often for less money, and with the potential of interchangeable lenses. Up against those cameras people often worry that they'll be disappointed with a single built-in lens. That maybe true, but for someone like me, the 28-112mm-equivalent f/2.8-5.6 lens covers a lot of the range that I usually work with, and it's certainly of higher optical quality and faster aperture than most kit zoom lenses in that range for entry level DSLRs, so when I look at this camera, I think about how it would fit in with how I shoot, and I think it'd be great for a lot of things.

So who is this camera really for? If you're a super fan of the G-series cameras you'll probably like the G1X. The only thing you might miss using the G1X is that it won't focus as closely as you might be used to with the smaller sensored G-cameras, but you should notice that your pictures look somewhat better, especially as light levels fall. If you're looking for a travel camera that won't force you to compromise on the picture quality of your DSLR, the G1X might be a good replacement if you're shooting with something like a Rebel and a kit lens. If you're a street photographer, the G1 X is probably worth taking a look at, depending on how you work with your cameras. I know Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape doesn't care for the fully articulated screen of the G1 X when he's trying to be discreet, but there are other ways of shooting where this doesn't matter.

What don't I like about it? I do think there are better screen designs for this type of camera that would save some space and clean up some of the button layout. I also don't care for the optical viewfinder, and I wish they'd either get rid of it, make it nicer, or replace it with an electronic one. I also don't much care for the scroll wheel on the back of the camera as it's a bit fiddly, but the front dial is pretty nice in comparison. I don't really mind the increase size and weight compared to the other G-series cameras, but it may be a consideration for some people.

So all in all, I find a lot to like about the G1 X, but it might be a tougher call for some people, and certainly, if you're looking at this camera, the nicer Micro Four-Thirds cameras are probably worth a good look as well.

Leica R4

What what?!  A film SLR?

Yup, that's right, the Leica R4.  We took a trade-in at work, and as part of our process of checking over the camera we normally run a roll or two of film through them to make sure everything functions like it should.

I haven't yet gotten the film back from the lab, so I'm just putting up this picture to prove that I am still alive and still blogging.  I'll come back once the film is scanned and finish this post off with my thoughts and some samples.  But I'll just say, what a camera.

Fujifilm X Pro-1

The next best thing to a Leica.

So I am pretty excited about Fuji's new X-system as it looks to be everything I've wanted in a mirrorless camera body: it's compact, has at least an APS-C sized sensor, has analog-styled controls, well-built, and has high quality, fast aperture fixed-focal length lenses.  I'm hesitant to say that this camera would make a good replacement for my M8, but...but this is the camera that Leica should have been developing, or perhaps the camera that Kyocera should have released as a Contax G3.

Anyway, I'm impressed Fuji, and I'm impatiently awaiting the official announcement and the first user reports.  And I'll update this post with any future thoughts once we know a little more about it.  Exciting stuff.

The Specs (possibly):

- 16 megapixels APS-CMOS "X-trans" sensor with better than fullframe picture quality

- no anti-aliasing filter

- new Fuji X-mount with flange distance of 17.7mm

- launches with three lenses: 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4, and 60mm f/2.4

- second generation hybrid viewfinder like the one on the X100

UPDATE Jan. 09, 2012:

Well it's official, and wow what a camera!

If I could have designed a camera like this, this would have been the camera I would have designed.  It would really do Leica well to look closely at what Fuji accomplished with this, because I think a lot of people looking at used M8s are now going to be looking at this camera instead.  I love my M8, and I don't think I could ever bring myself to sell it, but if I was buying from scratch today, the M8 would be off the table. Now, Leica has sort of hinted around that they might be getting ready to release just such a camera later this year, but I sort of wonder how far they would go towards producing such a strong competitor to the M9 level camera.

But anyway, after reading through a lot of the previews on the internet I'll add a couple of thoughts. 

One of the best things I've seen on the X-Pro 1 is the inclusion of a PC-sync port. I can't imagine why Leica decided that this was a feature that isn't useful on their cameras anymore, but considering that you occasionally need the hot shoe for a viewfinder or other accessory, it's very annoying to not have a PC-sync port if you're using off-camera flash or working with studio strobes. In fact, it's such a glaring omission on the Leicas that I question whether Leica believes that the M-series are truly professional caliber cameras. Fuji on the other hand, must really be commended for including this very useful feature, and it leads me to think that they may be committed to this new system on a professional level in a way that none of the other current mirrorless makers seem to be positioning themselves. Service and support would be the way they drive that point home, so we'll have to see if they offer something similar to Canon's CPS for X-Pro users.

One thing that I'm still not too sure about is the viewfinder. I know that was one of the biggest selling points of the earlier X100, but it seems to me that an all electronic viewfinder would be much cheaper to manufacture and probably more useful to the majority of photographers. That said, I've got a couple of objections to electronic viewfinders. For one I've always felt so much more disconnected from the scene with an EVF, but I'll admit I still haven't gotten to use the newest EVFs on the Sony NEXs and Panasonic GHs, so maybe things have changed. The other thing that bothers me with EVFs is that in very low light shooting situations staring at a very bright LCD tends to make it that much harder to see in the dark when the camera is away from your eye. So there's pluses and minuses to both optical viewfinders as well as EVFs, and maybe Fuji's taken the best approach to viewfinders in general; however, it still seems like it might be an unnecessarily complicated solution. I'd like to get one in my hands and see what I think; it might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread.

Anyway, there's plenty of reading on the internet if you want to look over all the hands-on previews that were posted today.  I'll probably post another update once we start seeing some good image samples.

Canon PowerShot SD1000 Digital ELPH

Best looking point and shoot...ever!

I purchased this camera new in early 2007 for almost $400, and looking back now, I can't believe I spent so much money on a point and shoot. This was actually the first brand new camera that I'd purchased since 1996, and I bought it because I needed something to take with me when I traveled visiting friends, going to shows, for taking snapshots when I really just didn't feel like dragging out the big DSLR. I came very close to buying the G7, but when I saw the first press images of this camera, I knew immediately that I was going to buy this as soon as it was available. I'm not usually the sort of person that's terribly image conscious, but the original Canon Elph (back when APS was a film format rather than a sensor size) was what I considered the best looking point and shoot of the 1990s, and here was a wonderful little digital point and shoot that brought back everything I loved, style-wise, from the original.

Of course, aesthetics aside, I do expect a camera to have some basic performance capabilities. I knew from borrowing this camera's predecessor (the SD600) that these little cameras were to a level that I felt the picture quality all the way through the ISO scale was what I considered good enough for a pocket camera. I didn't really need a camera like this with manual control, because I don't honestly see the point in a camera with this small of a sensor (DOF wide open is already tremendously deep, and there's not much benefit with respect to resolution from stopping down). At the time, things like 24mm equivalent wide-angle lenses, HD video, image stabilization, sweep panoramas, and the like didn't exist--or at least didn't exist in anything but the top tier of cameras--and weren't even on my list of criteria for picking a camera. The only thing I wished this camera had was RAW capability to get the most flexibility out of it's files, and I still wish it had it.

I took this camera on several vacations and looking back through the photos that I got with it, the daytime snapshots are pretty much what you would expect, with good exposure, low noise, and nice colors. My camera's lens has always been kind of soft at the edges, but for your typical snapshots there wasn't anything wrong with them.

The photos that stand out to me are the ones that are far from perfect. Many of them are motion blurred, taken at high ISO in very low light, and sometimes slightly out of focus. None of that's the camera's fault of course, since I was shooting in some difficult situations: at night on the street, in bars, at shows, late night trips to the supermarket, places that I really should have had a DSLR for the best picture quality. And that's the thing, I would have never taken these photos without the SD1000, because I wouldn't have bothered to have the DSLR with me. Instead I just felt more free to snap away, because I wasn't using a serious camera and didn't expect much of it. And because of that I think these photos capture a much better sense of the feeling of being there than a more perfect photo would have. And some of these...I almost hate to say...are some of my most favorite photos that I took in those years.

So you know, it's worth considering whether you really need to be purchasing all this bulky, complicated photo equipment, when possibly you'd be taking pictures that you'd be happier taking with something much cheaper, and much less fussy. Naturally, I've had people look at those photos and say, "oh, these are terrible, too bad you didn't have a better camera," but they're the photos that I wanted to take, and I'm always happy to look at them again.

Would I buy this camera again?  If it were still 2007, absolutely. Today in 2011, I'd probably be looking at something like the Canon S100 or the Ricoh GR Digital IV, but not for the manual control, mostly just for the RAW capability and a better quality lens with less CA and unsharp edges. I'll always have a special place in my heart for the SD1000, however, and it still works as good today as it did a few years ago even if today's cameras easily out-shoot it.

Sears 35rf

I figure I've talked about the high end so I suppose I should talk about the low end as well.

This is the Sears 35rf, possibly from the late-70s or early-80s, but I'm not really too certain about that.  It's a store-brand clone of the Ricoh 35rf which I understand is a simplified version of the more nicely constructed Ricoh 500G, but the lenses used in all three cameras are the same.

With a 40mm f/2.8 lens this is no Canonet QL17, but I found this camera at a thrift store for $4 which included the working Sears brand flash.  Made mostly from stamped steel and plastic, this little camera certainly feels...um...inexpensive, but operationally, there's not much to complain about and it 's much lighter than a QL17.  Unlike the Canonet the light meter still functions when you're shooting manually, but there is also a shutter priority mode in which the camera indicates via match-needle the aperture being selected.  Fortunately the camera uses a standard 1.5V alkaline battery which is easy to come by.

The rangefinder patch is on the dim side, unsurprising given the inexpensive nature of the camera, but it's at least reasonably accurate when you can see it.  The focus throw on the lens is fairly short so there's not much use for terribly accurate focusing anyway, and with a maximum f/2.8 aperture you're not going to be getting super shallow depth of field to begin with.  The brightlines are also kind of difficult to see in dim lighting, but they're not really that accurate anyway so you're not loosing out on much.  The lens isn't bad, at least up to compact standards, but it's nothing all that special either.  The ASA rating only goes up to 800, so if you were wanting to push some HP5 to 1600 or shoot some TMZ3200 to compensate for the slowish aperture you'll have to deduct a stop or two from the indicated value.

All of this sounds like I'm pretty negative on the camera, but I'm really not.  No, the rangefinder experience is not up to Leica standards--does anyone honestly expect that from these pocket rangefinders--but it's perfectly usable and probably preferable to your basic AF 1980s compact cameras.  In fact, what so impressed me about this camera, was that in something smaller than a Walkman (the sort that plays cassettes rather than MP3s), and probably cheaper too, you had a camera that gave you all the manual control that you could expect from a much larger and more expensive SLR type camera.  Yeah it was cheaply made, but it was a cheap camera.

Anyway, for awhile when I was in college this was my go to travel camera and it rode along everyday in my bag, and made a couple trips to Chicago and St. Louis with me.  I was never unhappy with it, but ultimately I replaced it with an Olympus Stylus Epic mostly for the built-in flash.

Examples:

Leica M2

Well I figured since I've got Leica's on the brain, I'd might as well get it out of my system.

So this is my lovely 1958 Leica M2 and the equally lovely 2008 Carl Zeiss T* Planar 50mm f/2.0 ZM.  On top you will notice the later model MR-4 Leica-Meter.

A few years ago, I had this massive camera collection with one conspicuous omission:  I had no serious rangefinders.  Sure I had a couple of Canonets and some Soviet-built LTM copies, and some other consumer grade rangefinders, but nothing...dare I say...professional.  So I decided, gosh darn it, that I was just going to do it and go right for the top and get a Leica.  I certainly spent a good deal of time considering alternatives:  Konica Hexar RF, Contax G2, Voigtlander Bessa, Canon Model 7.  But nothing other than a Leica was going to be a Leica.

So after checking around and spending a lot of time going through the used market, I determined that the M2 was the best buy at the time, and the lower magnification viewfinder allowed the use of a 35mm lens better than an M3 did and was considerably cheaper than an M4.  Of course the M2 has no built in light meter, but the MR-4 Leica-Meter was actually fairly inexpensive and worked far better than I ever expected it to.  Sure you have to manually reset the frame counter and it's not as quick to load and rewind as some of the later models, but I don't think there's a prettier M-body except maybe for the MP.

The body is really like no other film camera that I've ever used.  Compact, light, quiet, extremely well built, but still elegant.  I used to own a few Canon F-1s and they were massively heavy and felt like solid bricks of metal, but if the Leica was a fine blade, the Canons were cudgels; both deadly weapons for sure, but obviously of different character.

Using the M2 is really effortless in a way that I didn't expect considering it's age and relative awkwardness, but compared to say the M8 that I use most of the time now, the M2 just gets out of the way.  I'm not really sure if it's the character of film versus digital capture, but once I've shot a photo with the M2 I'm looking for the next one, not thinking about whether I should check the histogram or not.

Lens selection is a whole different ball-game in Leica land.  The Leica lenses are perfection, no two ways about it.  And there's a lot of people out there that would say that it's a waste to buy a Leica body and not use Leica lenses on it.  I call baloney on that.  There's no one else that makes a body like a Leica, maybe a Zeiss-Ikon or a Voigtlander, and I have picked up a Bessa R2a, but when I go out shooting film it's usually the M2 that goes along.  If you enjoy rangefinder shooting, but you're not wealthy enough to buy top-tier lenses, does that mean you should stick to your SLRs and hope that someday you're flushed with cash?  No, of course not, get the body that enables you to shoot the way you want, and then get the lenses you can afford.

So once I had the body I set about looking for lenses.  I temporarily used the old Jupiter-8 50mm f/2.0 that I had on the M2 with an adapter, buy I found that I couldn't quite get infinity focus with that combo.  It was a pretty nice lens for what it was though, and it helped me settle on getting a 50/2.0 of some sort as my first lens.  I narrowed the search down to a used Leitz 50mm f/2.0 Summicron-M, and I suspected that I'd go with the Dual-Range Summicron as it was the most affordable.  But after looking long and hard at the Zeiss ZM line of lenses, I realized I could get a brand new 50mm f/2.0 Planar for the same price that the Dual-Range Summicrons were going for used, and it had been acknowledged to be nearly as good a performer as the current Summicron.  I figured it'd be good enough for me, and I wouldn't have to mess around looking for just the right used lens.  So I sprung for the Zeiss, and my word, it's a beautiful lens.

Examples (not all with the Zeiss):