The Fu-jis; ready or not. Fuji GA645 and Fuji GA645Zi

My NEX has been doing an excellent job for social/fun photography; but I've kept wondering whether there is any way of upping the image quality (and improving on the user interface) without going for something bigger and heavier. A Full Frame DSLR is unsuitable as a carry-everywhere: too heavy,  too intimidating. The alternative, the Sony RX, may represent excellent value, but in absolute terms, it is insanely expensive for my wallet's tastes.

And then it hit me. What about film?
I hadn't shot film in about 15 years but in the meantime, film has actually got a bit cheaper (taking into account inflation), there are loads of places you can buy and process all over London, scanning is easy and quick with modern computers' CPU power; and experimenting would not break the bank. So the only real question is whether film would look any different/better than a competent digital.

I wanted to get a fully mechanical 35mm SLR but then I saw the medium format Fuji 645: much more user friendly (for instance Auto Focus) which meant that -in a social situation- you can pass it around to friends and they can do a decent job taking photos without you needing to explain/adjust anything. And, let's face it, back in the 1990s the price of this thing would have consigned it to the "day-dream" category. So armed with Ektar and Portra film, I went out there to find out whether I had wasted my money.

As you can sense already, this article is not about exactitude and DXO markings. I'll give you an honest appraisal of these beasts; and I will try to think who might benefit from opting for this sort of camera and under what circumstances.

Feel and user interface

Staring with the fixed-lens GA645, I must admit that this is not the most conventionally "pretty" camera; but then you notice that it just sits in your hands very comfortably and securely. The weight is just right. In fact, the chassis of the GA645 is all metal and even though this is surrounded by hard plastic, you will not notice any creaks. And, given that this is a medium format camera, the size doesn't feel as if it gets int he way of things. I know that the internet is obsessed with "pocket-sized" cameras but honestly I can't fit my NEX in my coat pocket with the 18-55mm; and I couldn't fit my GF1 in there either with its 14-45mm.

The GA645zi represents a more conventionally impressive bit of design - do young people still say "bling" and "ice"? In any case, I still say "shiny" and this camera is indeed very. Shiny. The outer shell is titanium and it is heavier than its non-zoom stable-mate. The reality is that both cameras are extremely well put together. Their controls are so intuitive and common-sensical that you'll be using them in Aperture Priority within minutes without any hesitation - and getting to EV compensation is pretty straightforward too.You can see where Fuji's excellent traditions come from - no wonder the company have had so much success and respect for their digital cameras in the last few years.

But I jumped the gun: this is a film camera, so how difficult is it to load it with film? Simplicity itself: getting to grips with un/loading the film becomes a non-issue after the second attempt. There is auto film advance and very clear markings everywhere, so the only thing to watch out for is a known issue: make sure that you apply a bit of pressure on the film as you are loading it, otherwise it will not end up being tightly wound up when you unload it and light leakage could occur. There are a couple of useful videos which show how to do the film un/loading - they refer to different Fuji models from different decades, but the methodology is the same:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPB-b-Gxcz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx7G8TtH3Vg
It's worth repeating: it's amazing that a camera company uses its tradition to define how all their cameras fundamentally and recognisably behave through time. I wish Nikon, Sony and Canon could learn and apply this lesson to all their products in the market right now! Why do they expect useras to employ a different thought process every time they use a different camera from the same stable? Why is the Nikon V1 so different in its UI than the Nikon 3200? Can you imagine going food-shopping and having to use English at your green-grocer's, German at the bakery and Chinese at the fish monger's? Ok rant over.

How do they perform

First things first, the Auto Focus is useful and user-friendly but basic: there are focusing zones (1.5m, 2m, etc); the camera identifies -in most cases reliably enough- at which zone your subject is situated and focuses on its target distance; but it does not focus at any in-between point even if your subject is there. There is some chatter on the internet about "soft" results, but I have not seen any examples of real missed focus. Most soft images arise from users not taking into account the minimum focus distance: a challenging 1m on the zoom variant and a more usable 0.7m on the fixed lens. Needless to say, these cameras are totally and absolutely unfit for macro. Also, the manual states it clearly: the AF is not suitable for moving subjects. These are portrait and landscape cameras.

Which is what makes them great for travel; along-side my NEX (for video and selfies), these MF cameras make for a light-weight but powerful combination.


Image Quality
So many variables...

The fixed lens on the GA645 is amazing: fast enough (f4) and with no distortions to my eyes.
The zoom may not be as great, but -comparing like with like- it is better than my Canon 24-105: sharper, less distortion, less coloured fringing. I think you will need to spend silly money to get something better.

Film choice is important; from my Kodak-exclusive experience, there are some obvious choices:
Ektar 100 is fun and dramatic but it's no good for skin colour, unless you want to have a 1950s-style apple-cheeked cherubs. Under-exposing a bit will turn everything a bit blue; over-exposing can affect any colour, depending on the light, time of day etc.
Portra 160 is a nice summer-time film, with natural skin colours and very fine grain.
Portra 400 is bread and butter: good for everything.

And how about output?
If you have the space and time, you can control everything from processing to printing.
If not, then you have choices. My own preference is to either get the film processed at Aperture (24-hour turn-around for £6) and do my own scanning using my Canon 9000; or use genieimaging to develop and scan for around £7 per film with 3-4 days turn-around.

If you print, go for 7x5 at least - the prints are very satisfying and "three-dimensional"; if you scan yourselves, don't bother going over 25-ish MB. There is enough character there to be happy.

Who are/aren't they for?

NOT: for action; for macro; for people obsessing over pixels and scratches.
FOR: fun; travel; conversation starter :-)

Long time no see - lost in Medium Format film and toys

Has it really been half a year?! Ok, what have I been up to?
I've been playing with some lovely new/old gear and rediscovering film. Here are the Three Graces courtesy of Wikipedia sourced product images.

The Fuji GA645Zi, a Medium Format, 6x4.5 camera with a 55-90mm f/4.5-6.9 zoom lens (equivalent to 35mm-55mm in FF terms).

The Fuji GA645,  Medium Format, 6x4.5 camera with a fixed 60mm lens at f4 (equivalent to 38mm in FF terms). Dan Stella is the mighty expert on all things Fuji and you can see the complete specs and a very useful discussion/exposition of the abilities of these cameras here:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/ga645.html 

In summary, the Fujis are really user-friendly cameras featuring sharp but non-interchangeable lenses, AF (of sorts) and are champions when it comes to people and landscape shots. As long as you make absolutely sure that the people in question stay still (the AF is zone-based and basic). I will do a separate piece on these two cameras, but I am not spoiling anything by saying that I am mightily impressed.

And, moving from 1990s tech straight to 1978 ("Rush goalie. Two at the back, three in the middle, four up front, one's gone home for his tea. Beans on toast? Possibly, don't quote me on that. Marvellous" TM Ron Manager) here is the mighty Canon A1. Its original price would translate to around £1,200 in today's money, so we are looking at the Canon 7D of its time. It is an electronics driven, FF SLR with all the trimmings and -to my mind- the most annoying Aperture Priority UI ever. Again, I will write a separate piece but I'm going to have to think about this one. A lot

Also, I got a Nikon V1. C'mon don't judge me, it was only £230 ;-)

I'll be back soon

Pentax Q - hands on

Only a couple of years late but I just added a little white Pentax Q to my camera collection. It comes with the prime (45mm equivalent) and the standard zoom (27-82mm) and the whole set up is tiny.
 
So, what is the point of owning one? How does it fit in my camera family (Canon 1 series, NEX, GoPro, iPhone)? Who might find it useful? And what are the gotchas of the format? All the photos in this article were shot with the Pentax Q.

The Q suffered some seriously negative publicity when it was first released: the twin kit was priced at around £700 and the "experts" commenting on DPReview started comparing its (potential=imagined) high ISO performance against the D7000 even before the Q had been released. Thankfully, The DPR pros moved on and Pentax or dealers dropped the price to more realistic levels, especially as the Q10 (its slightly larger sized successor) was announced.

Why did I buy it?
I've been looking for a really small and pocketable take-everywhere camera that would surpass my iPhone, but would be smaller than my NEX+19mm Sigma. At its current price, the Q is pitched just right to make me consider it alongside the Fuji X10, the Panasonic LX7 and the Sony RX100. I was lucky enough to be able to play with all these cameras and test their RAW output in LightRoom 4. This is not a techy comparison of wall and cat shots. I will try to convey what makes this little camera different, special and a fantastic fit for some users- and a darn lousy fit for others!

Handling
The Q is a camera that makes you want to use it. It is a very well put together piece of solid kit with proper, accessible controls and a logical menu structure.
I can use it unobtrusively and silently. The leaf shutter on the lenses is whisper quiet and syncs with the flash at up to 1/2000. If someone wants to learn the basics of photography and wants the usability of a classic SLR but without the expense of film or the bulk of a DSLR: the Q is a very good place to start.
I have come to tolerate my NEX after customising its menus as much as I can, but using the camera still feels less immediate; and the RX100 felt very similarly fiddly. I applaud Sony for the innovation and the design of the RX100, but there are a few too many quirks.
The LX7 (like the Q) is one of these cameras seemingly designed by people who like and understand photography; while the X10 was a mystery wrapped inside an enigma: gorgeous retro looks coupled with labyrinthine menus and a -comparatively- massive size.

IQ  
None these cameras can be compared to the NEX format in terms of IQ. Even my humble NEX F3 is good enough for most things in life. I would like to write a more detailed analysis of this camera soon, but it's worth saying in advance that pound for pound (whether you measure weight or UK currency) the NEX line is an amazing proposition. 

But what if you want to go really small? Unfortunately, I found the X10 to be a disappointment. I am sure there is an EXR/magic button somewhere to make everything better, but really the files that came out of the camera (mushy, soft) were not good enough for 2012 - for my money.
 
 The RX100, the Pentax Q and the LX7 were solid in terms of their RAW files. The Sony had a bit more leeway in terms of higher ISO performance and a bit more acuity/clarity when it came to landscapes. The other two feature faster lenses to help keep the ISO below 640. And the Pentax has an in-built ND filter to make the most of its fast prime (unlike Sony which has to increase the aperture). In real life, it's a wash and I would happily print in A3 from any of these three.
  
In the end, the choice came down to an emotional response to the design: the RX was my least favourite (slippery little sucker) and the Pentax Q "defeated" the LX7 only due to its smaller size and the promise of a wider selection of lenses in the future.

What it can do
The Pentax Q provides trust-worthy metering, letting you concentrate on the composition and mood. Stick it on aperture priority and take advantage of the built in ND filter if you want to enjoy an easy life . 
The camera's superb design (unless you have large hands) provides quick access to key settings that help -indeed encourage- the user to experiment with their style of shooting.
It creates photos which are heads and shoulders above any smart-phone I have used (iPhone and Galaxy II) while not taking up too much additonal space in your pocket.
It produces good enough photos for A3 prints and the web.
RAW files can take quite a bit of sharpening in Lightroom.
Yes, photos have grain if you step over 400 ISO but -honestly- I could swear there is less chroma noise than my old GF1 and its red and green blotches.  

Overall, this is a remarkable achievement for a tiny camera and I think most photographers should take a moment to ponder what's "good enough" for them at this point in time. As well as what's good enough for their aching backs and shoulders :-) 
   





 And what it cannot do
The battery is small and it dies quickly and often - I bought another four knock offs at £2.46. Not a massive expense, but you are always aware that the camera is about to die on you.
It cannot AF during movies: not a problem for me, but trying to sell a compact camera without this very basic function must be a losing proposition. I am almost certain it is related to the terrible battery life, but I still think this is a colossal "gotcha" for its intended audience. 
This is a small sensor camera. It will not do shallow DOF even with the prime at f1.9. 
It does not have the fastest AF on the planet (it's on par with NEX).
The zoom lens is too soft at the long end - no doubt due to difraction (see Photozone.de for examples). I am mostly using my Q with the prime and I only use the zoom at the wide end (at f2.8). It would be nice if Pentax could construct a v2 of the basic zoom with a constant f2.8.
 
 Moral of the story - know your requirements


The Pentax Q is a very welcome and fun addition to my photo-gear family and I am glad I don't have to rely on the iPhone for my social/fun shots. However, this is the key issue: the Q is not my one and only camera. Photographers looking for "the one", might prefer to make a different set of compromises and go for NEX or m43 or the wonderful LX7. This is a difficult issue for Pentax who -I guess- wanted to pitch the Q as a natural step up from P&S.






From a more philosophical/detached point of view, I am incredibly glad that camera companies are innovating and I am happy to have "supported" NEX, m43 and the Q with my wallet. I hope these guys and Fuji can deliver a much needed kick in the pants for Canon and Nikon. I have been a Canon shooter for most of my life and I could not even bother to ask for a loan of an EOS M or a Nikon V1 from my regular rental place; the two big gorillas need to do something special one of these days, even if it is a gloriously failed experiment a la Pentax Q.