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.  

Saint Etienne... and Scritti Politti

Good to see them again; Mr Gartside was in fine voice and a great time was had by all.
What a support band!

And on to the main course with some good old hits from Good Humour (you know it's going to be a good night when Ms Cracknell opens with "Lose That Girl".

The evening ended with a whole bunch of 30 and 40-somethings playing with giant balloons and Sarah getting giggly.

 

Ms Cracknell did not wear her Santa hat like she did a couple of years ago - the only disappointment of the evening :-)

More new stuff! Woo-hoo!

As you can see from my posts, I have used a fairly wide range of photography gear: Sony pocket cameras, Panasonic and Sony mirrorless and a bunch of Canon DSLRs. After a few years of transition I have settled on my good old 1DsMkII and 1DMkIII, alongside a NEX F3 (and a GoPro Hero).

Understandably then, it is difficult (hypocritical even) to play the role of the puritan when it comes to new cameras releases and rumours. And yet, as a consumer, I cannot but look some of this and scratch my big fat head :-)

A Sony rumours website has reminded everyone that most major camera manufacturers will be announcing new products around 8-10 January.
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sony-to-announce-new-photographic-products-in-early-january/
This has to happen because, clearly, there is dangerously low inventory of 2012 models sitting in warehouses; and, as we all know, there have been historic, seismic developments in sensor technology over the last six months. Ok, I will stop the sarcasm.

The problem is described extremely well by Thom Hogan in this article entitled "The JC Penny Problem":
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/november-2012/the-jc-penney-problem-only.html
In summary: if you teach people that the SRPs are a joke, you get 4-month old cameras being sold at nearly 40% below SRP (check out the trajectory for the NEX 5R and F3 if you include cash-backs ). And if you tell consumers that replacement models will always be in place 10 months down the line, then picking up "last year's model" at close down prices is the way to go: why buy anything new? 

The RX100, F3, 5R and NEX 6 are superb; give them another 10 or 15 months of peace in the market place to find an audience. Immediate price crashes of new products, followed by a mad rush to clear inventory are not helping camera manufacturers establish an identity or camera stores pay the rent.

Also, I wish someone could explain why Sony, Nikon et all bother with non-premium called pocket cameras any longer? 

• The phone cameras are killing them.  
• Is anyone making money out of a £75 camera?

And yet, according to the mighty http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.php Fuji has around 25 pocket cameras in the £50 to £100 price range; Nikon and Sony, another 13 or so! And, after 10/1/2013 we will have more.

I will get a bit more time to shoot photos for fun this weekend - here's hoping for a few sunny and chilly days :-)

Normal service

Ah, London! A few flakes of snow and the trains have all gone screwy :-)
At least the views are nice and it's good to give all your cameras a bit of exercise.

Here is the NEX F3

And a couple from the 1DSMkII

The Sony RX1 and rage blogging :-)

The eagerly awaited reviews of the Sony RX1 are trickling out. Steve Huff was one of the first out of the traps:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/12/03/the-sony-rx1-camera-review-part-2-my-pick-for-camera-of-the-year-2012/

I do not have the RX1 in my hands; and I do not intend to buy one. But reading the review and the comments provides one with a tabloid version of how confusing and confused we all are, camera-makers and photographers alike.
Where to start?

• Apparently, the Sony RX1 is the answer to "quality starved enthusiasts". 

Did he really say "starved"? Because, for my money, enthusiasts had never had it so good.
You want FF? Walk into any second hand reputable dealer and pick up a 5D or a 1DSmkII for peanuts. And let's all stop complaining about "high ISO noise" and "slow AF": these sort of cameras put food on thousands of tables over the last ten years. And now they are not good enough for people to take photos of their toddlers?
You fancy mirrorless? Some of the latest NEX models are down by 35% in three months (Sony's F3 and 5R); a Panasonic G3 or an Olympus EP2 can be bought for loose change second hand (I have seen mint EP2s going for £99).
I am not even going into modern APS-C DSLRs which are super-performers and on permanent sale, cash-back or whatever. You'd struggle to find a duff model; realistically, only ergonomics and choice of lenses make any serious difference to "which camera should I buy?" question.

•  Can the Sony RX1 (unproven product, just beginning to ship now) be Camera of the year 2012?

I certainly don't think that Steve Huff is on the take; not because I know him and can vouch for his character, but simply because you can only be on the take once. Then you become a busted flush.
Having said that, there is a difference between child-like entusiasm (a good thing) vs childish over-eagerness. This review is full of the latter.

"The RX1 is hands down my favorite camera of 2012 and one of my favorites of all time and this is only with just over 3 weeks of use. The build is solid, the lens feels great, the manual control of aperture on the lens is a godsend and the silent shutter means that for street shooters this camera will be just what they have been looking for. High ISO is superb as well."

There are many equally solid, quick to configure, quiet, good ISO cameras out there. What on earth is so special about this £2,500 monster? Is it the "Zeiss look" as stated elsewhere in the review (a look which can be achieved with any camera that can take a Zeiss lens via adapter)? Hooray for marketing and hype over substance.

• Have photographers finally lost the plot?

The comments below the line are confusing but so are some of the "minus points" in this camera's review. Apparently, lack of EVF is a killer for many: these folk believe that shooting a medium-wide lens (ie, a "true" FF 35mm) demands the use of an EVF. Not simply that "it would be nice"; it is gosh-darned essential!

The AF performance is questionable; FF sensor + Fast lens + contrast detection + low light = ropey AF performance. Is anyone really shocked by this? But, at the same time, every forum from sonyalpharumors to DPreview is chock-full of people who really, really want an interchangeable FF mirror-less. Not a single one of them gives a good explanation why they'd want such an expensive gadget plus new lines of lenses (as opposed to the 2nd-hand Canon 5D solution described earlier).

Is it any wonder that the camera companies keep iterating and produce meaningless models with cut-down features in tiny price increments (say "hi" to the dozens of Nikon Coolpix models)? We (as consumers) keep giving them confused messages. Maybe it's not their fault that we end up with fascinating (and the RX1 is a trully fascinating miniaturisation project), but ultimately impractical works of madness :-)

Normal service (ie, photos) will resume soon: can't stop watching Breaking Bad!