Category: Equipment

Equipment for photographers.

Link: Fujifilm TX-1 long term review

Gale Lee wrote a Fujifilm TX-1 long term review for Casual Photophile.

The Fujifilm TX-1 (also known as the Hasselblad XPan) is a camera defined by a single design directive: take true panoramic images using 35mm film without wasting a millimeter of material, and everything about it— from its design to its physical engineering— flows from that goal.

and

The Fujifilm TX-1 (also known as the Hasselblad XPan) is a camera defined by a single design directive: take true panoramic images using 35mm film without wasting a millimeter of material, and everything about it— from its design to its physical engineering— flows from that goal.

Last year, I linked about the Hasselblad X-Pan which is the rebadged version of the Fujifilm, and talked about rangefinders. The Fujifilm TX-1 remains on top of my list of camera to try, this is why each time somebody write about it I wished I had one.

And what Gale tells us is that this camera is a tool a tool that may work for you, but maybe not. What make the TX-1 is the 1:2.70 aspect ratio and the fact that this is camera that you can shoot hand held, like street photography, but not only. It can be challenging to use but, once you are able to control, the results are… wow.

Back in the early 2000s I considered getting one, but its price, and the fact that the 24x65mm frame would be difficult (read expensive) to scan, I sort of chickened out. I’m pretty sure it’s more expensive now than it was back then.

This made me think on what kind of specs would I need to have similar quality panoramic format camera, but digital. Cropping is easy but in that aspect ratio the loss of pixels is significant. And then there is framing, I don’t know which camera allow setting a custom aspect ratio; back when I used an Olympus E-P1, I shot a lot in 16:9 aspect ratio. This scale down on the 12 megapixel.

NONS instant cameras

I just learned about the NONS SL42, a SLR for Instax Mini film. It’s a US$399 camera, currently out of stock. It has an passive EF mount, a light meter and shoots Instax Mini film.

After reading a few reviews from Emulsive and Phoblographer, this feel it might be a winner. The camera has its quirks, but then the Fujifilm Instax also do, differently.

So why a NONS instead of the Fujifilm cameras? Controls, controls, CONTROLS!

The Fujifilm Instax camera only have auto exposure, some with “creative” modes. Also their lens isn’t very fast, stopped down at f/12.7. With the NONS you get to have much faster and interchangeable lenses. The passive EF allow Canon EF lenses (wide open only) and, with adapter rings, you can use Nikon F, Pentax K, Contax CY and M42 lenses. These adapted lenses offer a tremendous quality for an affordable price on the used market, and with the faster aperture the possibilities are broader..

You can read an interview of the team on phoblographer.com about the design of the SL42. It explain that the number 42 isn’t about the answer to life, universe and everything, but rather because the original plan was to release a camera with a M42 mount, the screw lens mount one used on original Pentax SLR and that other camera makers adopted. It also explain why the switch to EF mount, which is the mechanical mount that presented the best versatility in term of further adaptations, and the story behind the NFE (NONS Format Extender).

I was getting excited. It’s out of stock ; turns out it’s no longer made.

The good news is that NONS decided to followup with the SL645 and SL660 cameras. While the SL645 still take Instax Mini, the SL660 takes Instax Square. At US$499 and US$599 respectively they are a bit more pricey. These new models seems to improve a lot. You pick one over the other depending on the format you want to shoot. There is even a back for Instax Square to use on an Hasselblad CM.

The idea of a more sophisticated camera that supports Instax film isn’t new.

When the Polaroid was created, the goal was to offer instant pictures at a time where even 1 hour photo was a pipe dream. So much that today the term “Polaroid” is still commonly associated with instant photography, even though the company died and later was reborn. The process was used in various areas, from identity pictures, to test shots for exposure in the studio, to document reproduction or slide show preparation. The idea of using a Polaroid on an Hasselblad isn’t some sort of sacrilegious practice, it actually was part of the workflow. Setup the shoot, test the exposure with a Polaroid back and then once everything is fine go one with using the regular film.

Instax becoming popular, the choice of Fujifilm cameras is definitely in the space of consumer: inexpensive and all automated. So alternative started to appear. For example the 2016 MINT InstantFlex TL70 is a dedicated TLR that shoot Instax Mini and comes at US$399. Also Lomography has a range of Instax cameras supporting the Lomographic style, as well as Lomo Graflok, a back for large format. While relegated into a corner product category of what I would call novelty, they represent an incredible venue for creativity associated to the medium of instant photography, and fill the niche of photographers looking for a more flexible tool.

Kodak, Kodak, film cameras

When I wasn’t looking, 2 different model of film cameras where released under the Kodak brand. Just to be clear these are inexpensive and marginally better than the disposable counterparts, and Kodak is just a brand on top of it. This is not the Ricoh Pentax 17 at CAD$680.

From 2022, the Kodak Ektar H35 Half Frame Camera is manufactured by Retopro. It’s 35mm film half-frame camera, with a 22mm acrylic lens, f/9.5 fixed aperture, and 1/100 sec fixed speed and a flash. The frame is vertical in the natural camera orientation as the film transport is horizontal. About CAD$80. Comes in various colours in a design reminicent of older Kodak camera.

In 2023, a follow up Kodak Ektar H35N still made by Retopro, brought the lens to a fixed f/8 aperture with one of the element made of glass, and now has a bulb shutter speed and a tripod mount, and can perform multiple exposures. Still has a flash. About CAD$100. Comes in various colours with a slightly different design.

From 2024, the Kodak i60, manufactured by Meta Imaging Solutions is a 35mm film camera with a 31mm acrylic lens, f/10 fixed aperture with a minimum focusing distance of 1 meter and 1/125 sec fixed speed, and a flash. Really feels like a disposable camera you can refill. About CAD$80 as well. Comes in various colours in design directly inspired by the Instamatic 100 from 1963. Reading Kodak own website saying it uses “135mm film”, I want to scream. Beside the design it looks like all the others on Kodak website.

All in all it seems like competition to Lomography, both in quality and and price, albeit with maybe Lomography trying to provide more “fun”.

Rangefinder

The Leica M is the de facto digital rangefinder camera.

Rangefinder

What’s a rangefinder? It’s a viewfinder where a moving part is coupled with the lens focusing to triangulate the parallax. That moving part is projecting the image taken offset the viewfinder, and move when the lens focusing moves. If the two images coincide, the triangulation is focused on the subject, indicating the lens is now in focus. Still not following? You can read about rangefinder cameras on wikipedia.

The rangefinder is a great device to be able to focus precisely without having a through the lens viewfinder like on a reflex camera. It allowed a more compact camera design than a reflex camera, are there is no need for a mirror box, while still allowing precise focus. This was long before auto focus systems. Which is at the heart of the Leica M, mostly unchanged from the 50s design, at least in principle.

Some quite unique cameras like the ultra wide Fujifilm TX-1 or Hasselblad X-Pan were rangefinder cameras. This was a good solution that a reflex design couldn’t allow easily. There were also some medium format rangefinder like the Mamiya 7 that allowed much more compact design.

On of the design constraint of a rangefinder is that the field of view of the viewfinder is fixed, and while some camera can change the frame lines depending of the focal length of the lens, it can’t got wider than it is, and the longer the lens, the smaller the frame is. In general lens shorter than 28mm were less accurate to frame do to the frame line being outside the field of view.

So now that we have mirrorless, through the lens (auto) focusing, what’s the point of a rangefinder camera? The rangefinder is a precision device much more fragile of complex to manufacture, that may need readjustment over time. Part of the design of the rangefinder is that the viewfinder is offset from the lens, and usually also offers a wider field of view. This leads to a style of shooting that is particular to it.

I once shot a couple of rolls on a Leica M7 in 2011 and I loved it. The feeling, the results, I can’t really describe it though. You can still buy a Leica M6 new for little under CAD$8000 (body only).

Digital rangefinder camera

In 2004, Epson did make the R-D1. It was a digital rangefinder camera, the first one. While still being able to use Leica M lenses, it sold for a fraction of the price of Leica flagship M7 rangefinder film camera, as it was based on the much cheaper Cosina R bodies. This camera wasn’t perfect, but filed a niche. I think one of the biggest limitations was that it was an APS-C sensor, thus had a 1.5x crop factor. The 35mm lens you were fond of on a Leica suddenly became like a 50mm. If you loved wide angle, then it became a bigger issue, wider angle lenses, even non-Leica, where much more expensive. Full frame sensors weren’t a thing at the time. When Leica released the M8, it had the same issue, at a much higher price; albeit with the APS-H sensor, the crop was only 1.33x. With the discontinuation of the Epson R-D1, Leica M became the only game in town.

Fujifilm X

In 2010 Fujifilm introduced the Fujifilm X100 and a year later the Fujifilm X-Pro1. The former introduced Fujifilm hybrid viewfinder, which led to a lot of people wrongly calling it a rangefinder camera, which is inaccurate. Rangefinder style is probably a better moniker.

What did the X100 offer? The optical viewfinder allow shooting more like with a rangefinder camera, with overlaid frame lines (parallax corrected as bonus) in a wider view than the lens offered ; as well as other indicator that a digital display can offer. The focusing was done using an auto focus system like on most digital camera, through the lens. The hybrid part allowed to switch, as needed, to a completely electronic viewfinder. Best of both world.

The X-Pro1 brought this viewfinder to an interchangeable lens system, based on an APS-C sensor, that the whole Fujifilm X is now based on, with more traditional body designs. I bought one sight unseen. I love it and is saddened by the fact that the X-Pro3 is no longer available, and that the X-100 VI (the 6th generation) isn’t available yet.

Pixii

In 2018 we started hearing about the Pixii. A French made rangefinder digital camera. I noticed it again recently in my meanderings, I then realised I had never followed up on it ; I actually had forgotten about it, maybe because I thought it was a vapor ware, or something. The camera is real. At about USD$3000, it is priced less than half of the Leica M that goes for USD$8000.

It is definitely a rangefinder camera, with a digital overlay. That’s awesome. The image quality seems to be good according to reviewers. Pixii even offer the DCP profile for colour, and how to use them in Rawtherapee which it to be outlined as not other camera vendor care outside of the Adobe monopoly or their sub-optimal application.

What else?

It seems that in the 2023 model (A2572) some of the controls require a companion proprietary phone app, a bit like the Leica M-10D. This raises a lot of red flags as it mean the camera will be much less usable without it, which mean that if Pixii ever discontinue the app, or the phone gatekeeper do, you are SOL. It’s a bad industry trend.

The other point is the fixed storage, where you buy your camera like a phone with a fixed memory capacity. This is nuts. Not only you pay an unnecessary premium (USD$270 for going from 16G to 64GB, while a 128GB SDXC goes for USD$20, or a higher speed for USD$120), but what happens to having separate cards? If you need more storage, connect the camera to your computer they say. What happens if your flash storage die? Like a MacBook, you throw it away? For example the Leica T has some internal storage that is apparently a microSD that you can upgrade if you open the camera, and it is in addition to an external slot. I clearly remember the outrage when a major brand camera didn’t come with dual card slot. So I don’t get how not having one would even get considered… It feels like they designed it like a smartphone.

The last point, and it’s even more fundamental. It’s the sensor size. There is nothing wrong with an APS-C sensors, they can deliver quality even in low light, and Fujifilm proved it. It’s great with a dedicated lens lineup, but the M-mount lenses come from film, and are designed for a full frame system that is the Leica M since the Leica M9. If you have a set of prime lenses for your shooting style, the Pixii will need a different set to compensate for the 1.5x crop factor.

Macfilos has a review of the camera. They say:

The Pixii is, in some ways, the most modern rangefinder camera imaginable. There was no legacy to consider when designing the body.

Ahem, M-mount lenses are a significant legacy. Even more that they are designed for a full frame sensor (or a 24×36 frame on 35 mm film).

About the app:

*It is technically possible to use the Pixii almost completely without the app (see the comments section), but it is the opinion of the reviewer that this makes little sense as the whole concept of the camera is based on connectivity.

I’m still of the belief this is a planned obsolescence item. Software does suddenly stop working. Software from trillion dollar corporation do. Software from smaller outlet do. Mobile app store do remove apps for many reasons. If that ties important feature, this turn your camera into a brick. The Panasonic Lumix S9 might also suffer from this.

Now I’d love to take it for a spin, being able to say how it feels as a camera. The shortcomings on paper that I mention are not fatal as an image capturing device.

Update 2 August 2024: Added that the M8 had a 1.33x crop.

Fujifilm upgrades

Pondering an upgrade, even though I haven’t shot much lately, actually since the pandemic started in 2020. I must actually be suffering from GAS at that point. So let’s keep it at nerding over camera.

First, rumor has that the Fujifilm X-Pro4 will not be for this year ­— it’s just a rumor. I wanted to upgrade on that front as I still enjoy using my X-Pro1. This is why somewhat I am looking at the X100 VI as a compacter solution in that form factor. The catch is that it only is available for pre-orders, and my local camera store doesn’t have any to demo. Not sure what to do. Let’s keep at lusting.

Also, the XT-50 was just announced, which isn’t a path I’m gonna take anyway.

I could be considering the X-S20 as an addition mostly because it has the tilt-screen which mean that it has a bit what I’m looking for video, ever since my G7X MkII decided to stop working. Not that the X-T3 is not capable, but the tilt-screen remains a game changer and I like to keep a photography camera at the ready.

RIP my Canon G7X Mark II

It was already a bit finicky last summer. But this time it really is: my Canon G7X Mark II is dead.

This is a camera I bought mostly for video vlogging and others. It was my work horse for the few videos I uploaded on YouTube, but I didn’t use it much for photography, even though it’s very capable as I always preferred my Fuji X or the phone as convenience.

The symptoms. I have a freshly charged battery.

– Press the power on button
– The lens extends as the Canon logo appear on the screen. So there is power and the screen works.
– At that point after the green activity led blinks, the screen shuts off, while the lens stay extended.
– The zoom control do nothing, nor do the shutter. The mode dial don’t seem to change anything.
– The power switch doesn’t do anything either so I can’t turn off and retract the lens.
– The only button that does anything is the playback button. Pressing it, retracts the lens and enables playback, showing the pictures on the card. I even got the clock setup as the battery was drained for long enough. Another confirmation the screen works. Including touch, as was as the control wheel.
– Pressing the video record button or the shutter triggers the lens extension. But then the screen turns black, like if nothing came from the camera sensor, and switches off.
– The only way to switch the camera off is to press playback and then the power button act normally to retract the lens.

Has anyone any idea?

Some samples I took with it (pardon Penny’s cuteness):

KVB Piusstraße U-Bahn station, Cologne, Germany
Penny posing.
Passenger reading a magazine, on a flight somewhere between Montréal and London.
Penny, as usual.

And one of the first pictures I took with it:

Penny is comfy as I try my new camera.

I might as well just replace it. Shall I get the G7X MkIII ? I’d like to avoid Sony.

I’m not excluding taking a crack at fixing it as it could be a benign problem. I don’t think it’s worth getting it serviced otherwise given the cost.

Hasselblad X-Pan

Beau Photo tells us Hasselblad “The Holy Grail” XPan – Is it worth it?:

I’ve shot with the XPan numerous times, and each time I would put my clown mask on and tell myself that this camera will be mine someday. After a year of using this camera, I believe the XPan is worth it.

I remember more than 20 years ago hearing about the Hasselblad XPan, or its Japanese original, the Fujifilm TX-1 (the Hasselblad is actually just a rebadged Fujifilm). It was expensive, its lenses were expensive.

But what is it? It is a rangefinder film camera that could shoot in panoramic format, 24x65mm on a 35mm film (135) as well as the standard 24x36mm. It was pretty much the only option for panoramic photography without using a rotating lens like the Horizon or Widelux cameras, or without getting an expensive Mamiya 7 with the adapter to use 135 film instead of the 6×7 120 film frames.

I remember reading an article where the photographer used the XPan to cover a bicycle race. And vertically framed pictures showed us how unique this camera could be.

Too bad it is even more expensive now.

The future is mirrorless

There, I said it. The future of interchangeable lens cameras is mirrorless.

Olympus E-P1 camera

Let’s see why.

The SLR design date back from the film days. A design that allow precise framing using through the lens viewfinder, but that has a somewhat complex mechanical design, increasing cost and size. Today, the film being replaced by an electronic sensor, an instant image can be obtained through the lens. An electronic viewfinder will also be through the lens, with all the advantage of the SLR design, and more. Without the need for that complex and bulky mirror box, the camera can be designed to be more compact.

There are a few reasons why DLSR exists and are still somewhat the de-facto design: trade offs.

The first trade off is that you have to change the lens mount to benefit from a more compact design. This made moving from the older film camera to the digital one is not as easy unless you threw away your investments in glass. This was a perfectly valid point in the last decade, and since the move has happened, the problem persists, even for those that started with a DSLR.

The second trade off is the performance of the autofocus system. DSLR use a phase detection system with sensor located in the mirror box. Something that appear to be problematic on a mirrorless camera, and phase detection AF is more performant than the contrast detection system commonly used by mirrorless cameras. Manufacturers have worked out technology to improve the situation a lot. A small category of users that needs it really needs it still, but we are getting there.

But it is time to make the jump.

The market

Currently only 4 vendors still offer DSLR. Canon, Nikon, Ricoh-Pentax and Leica. Sony hasn’t released a DSLR in a while and given their α lineup (mirrorless), I don’t think they will, Olympus has made the switch to M4/3 a while ago already, Panasonic has been mirrorless only as well also with the M4/3 system, Leica is mostly betting on mirrorless and Fujifilm has been kicking it with the X- series, improving at each generation and the GFX medium format.

In August Canon announced the EOS R, their full frame mirrorless system, while they have a EOS M series that feature an APS-C sensor. They just announced new lenses for that system, so it might stay for a little while. And it is much more affordable as well.

Weeks prior to that, Nikon had just announced the Nikon Z, their full frame mirrorless system, after discontinuing the Nikon 1 which wasn’t really a sensible proposal with its miniature sensor.

As for Ricoh-Pentax life is tough. The Pentax K 01 wasn’t really a success, nor was the Pentax Q that disappeared as quickly as it appeared. And now that it is Photokina, it doesn’t seem that Ricoh had anything to announce in that product line.

If anything, the growth on the market for Sony as proven that mirrorless full frame can be a viable option. Sony is clearly the market leader for full frame and Canon, Nikon and Panasonic wants to try to catch up.

Is full frame the future? I don’t think it will be the only but it will be dominant. Panasonic just announced a full frame mirrorless, sharing the lens mount with the Leica SL, while still continuing with the M4/3, and Sigma who barely has presence in the camera body market has announced they were developing a body for the L-mount. I’m confident that Fujifilm can continue with the X-series without moving away from APS-C, with a more compact system that nails the image quality including in low light, at a price lower than the current full frame lineup. Sony will probably keep some of their APS-C mirrorless until they can bring down the price of the α series down enough.

The medium format has a future too for demanding users, but the price is steep. For example, the Fujifilm GFX 50, a “medium” format sensor mirrorless starts at about US$5,000.

The future

I predict that within 5 years, neither Canon nor Nikon will be pushing DSLR, except maybe in a few niche segments like top of the line sports. The Leica S might survive as Leica just announced the S3 just 10 years after the previous iteration but this camera is already in a very niche segment given it’s price. And some of the manufacturers won’t be left unscathed.

SLR mount for a mirrorless, does it make sense?

There is a lot of chatter lately about Canon and Nikon tardiness in the mirrorless world. On one side, Canon seeked feedback from their user about what they want in a pro mirrorless camera. On the other side, Nikon is announcing a full frame mirrorless camera with a new lens mount dubbed “Z-mount”. In both sides there is one topic that seems to come back into the discussion: the camera should be directly compatible with the SLR mount (EF for Canon, F for Nikon). While it is clearly understandable why users would want that, let’s explain on why it is not a good idea, and why the mount adapter is the best compromise — compromise that Canon made for the EOS-M.

A lens mount is defined by a certain number of attributes ; flange distance is the one that matters here.

The flange distance or register distance is the distance between the lens mount ring on the camera body and the focal plane (the surface of the sensor or the film). It is a fixed dimension for the lens mount.

On an SLR camera, you have the mirror box between the lens and the sensor, defining a minimum flange distance, while a mirrorless doesn’t have the mirror box. This is why in general a mirrorless camera has a much shorter flange distance even with a similar sensor size.

Flange Focal Length (2 types camera)
Flange on a SLR camera (top) and mirrorless camera (bottom). By Shigeru23 (Own work) licensed under GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

For example, Sony E-Mount is 18mm while Sony A-Mount (former Minolta SLR) is 44.5mm, as Canon EF-M is 18mm while Canon EF and EF-S are 44mm. In both cases the flange on SLR mount is more than twice as large as on the mirrorless.

What would a DSLR mount do on a mirrorless system? It would increase the thickness of the body in way that the camera wouldn’t be that much more compact. The real example is Pentax mirrorless Pentax K-01. With a flange distance of 45.46mm for the K-Mount, the camera is bulkier than it should with a thickness (depth) of 59mm. In comparison, the Canon EOS-M100 is 35mm thick (deep) as it uses the EF-M mount, designed for mirrorless.

That’s why using a DSLR mount for a mirrorless system, meant to be more compact, isn’t a good design choice. Offering an adapter that support all the features of their DSLR mount is, on the other hand, the best compromise that a camera maker can do, almost equivalent to the practicality of using native mount, but the advantage of the size: the extra bulk only comes if you need it.