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.