Update: October 2022
I haven’t posted anything on here in quite a while, nor have I updated my portfolio or finished the site.
The combination of the pandemic, a death in the family, and my new job has shifted focus away from this. I’m now a Senior Staff Writer for Petapixel, which I started writing for in May of 2021. A few of my recent articles/reviews:
OWC Thunderbolt Dock (and Hub): Finally!!!
Your first thought reading the title might be “Finally what?” since there are only two computers that advertise Thunderbolt 4 ports, as far as I know.*
It isn’t the Thunderbolt 4 part that is the biggest deal – at least, not right now. In the future, when Thunderbolt 4 ports become mainstream on both Apple and Windows machines, then there will be some additional advantages to a dock like this. But we’ll get to that later…..
The Thunderbolt interface – and USB-C – has been one of my favorite computer features (and computer-like devices e.g. iPad) introduced in at least the past decade, up there with USB 3.0 and Solid State Drives. There was a lot of fuss when Apple moved to Thunderbolt 3/USB 3.2* ports in their MacBook Pro models in late 2016; most people decried the idea of needing to use adapters or “dongles” (as one Apple rep around that time called them when I looked at some in a store). I was one of them. If you only used Apple computers, you didn’t know anything about Thunderbolt 3, which had been used in many Windows laptops for an entire year prior to Apple’s adoption. Also, not many devices or peripherals had Thunderbolt 3 connectivity in 2016; USB 3.0 was still the prevailing interface.
*USB 3.2 is a USB-C interface and may support Thunderbolt 3 speeds, but it has a 5Gb/s minimum speed and doesn’t require TB3’s 16Gb/s PCI-e, nor does it require support for a minimum display resolution. It also has a minimum charge output of only 4.5W. One advantage to USB 3.2 over TB3 is it usually displays the speed (see graphic down the page) whereas TB3 only has the lightning bolt, which tells you nothing about its actual specs beyond the minimum requirements.
Apple specifically took flack for moving the MacBooks entirely to Thunderbolt 3 in 2015; they replaced all of the standard USB-A ports with TB3 (two or four ports depending on the size), which at the time was highly unusual. Actually, it still is – I can’t think of any other non-Apple laptop that only has Thunderbolt ports, though I’m sure some exist. Some of that criticism was certainly valid; I remember complaining about it to an Apple rep at MicroCenter at the time. Not to mention, migrating away from MagSafe and dropping the SD card was both unnecessary and miscalculated.
The upcoming 14 & 16” MacBook Pros will still feature Thunderbolt only ports most likely, but will restore the SD card slot and possibly HDMI port, as well as MagSafe charging. The MagSafe is a very good decision – one of my least favorite aspects of my laptop is that I have to occupy one of the Thunderbolt ports to power the computer, not to mention the inherent magnetic advantage of MagSafe (though I solved this with a nifty 90 degree “MagSafe” Thunderbolt adapter from Amazon – which works with any device, not just the power supply).
I didn’t purchase my 2017 Pro 15” until 2019, refurbished, and by that point Thunderbolt (or at least USB-C – they are not the same) had become a fairly ubiquitous interface – from hard drives to monitors to various peripherals like my Loupedeck CT. And most devices - such as mice, wireless headphones, and now thankfully cameras - use USB-C for charging/data transfer. Plus, small USB-A to USB-C adapters are cheaply available and you can just leave them on your device’s cable.
Thunderbolt 3 vs. Thunderbolt 4
Your first thought reading the title might be “Finally what?” since there are only two computers that advertise Thunderbolt 4 ports, as far as I know.*
It isn’t the Thunderbolt 4 part that is the biggest deal – at least, not right now. In the future, when Thunderbolt 4 ports become mainstream on both Apple and Windows machines, then there will be some additional advantages to a dock like this. But we’ll get to that later.
*The Asus Zenbook 13 and Dell XPS 13 both have two Thunderbolt 4 ports. You’ll understand why “advertise” is in italics later.
Have you ever wondered why (and been extremely frustrated that) none of the Thunderbolt 3 hubs or docks available for Macs have additional Thunderbolt ports? Or, if they do, they only work for charging something, like a phone or tablet. This has always been a source of frustration for me because it effectively means I cannot expand beyond four Thunderbolt connections (on a MacBook Pro, that is) – and one of those will be taken up by the power supply. Sure, I can add hubs with USB-A ports, but those ports bottleneck, for example, my numerous external SSDs and they certainly don’t support multiple high-resolution displays.
From now on I may refer to Thunderbolt 3 & 4 as TB3 and TB4 for brevity
The answer seems pretty simple but it also isn’t: a single TB3 port cannot support additional fully functioning Thunderbolt 3 ports. I’m not sure why this is exactly, but I suspect it has something to do with the minimum PCIe 32 Gb/s interface vs. Thunderbolt 3’s 16 Gb/s. Similarly, TB3 can only support one 4K display per lane, while TB4 can support two* – which again I have to suspect is related to the 16 vs. 32 PCIe interface. Thankfully, TB4 fixes this by supporting accessories with up to four Thunderbolt ports without any loss in functionality, allowing you to daisy chain or use bus-powered devices like you haven’t been able to until now.
*TB4 also supports one 5K, 6K, or 8K display.
TB3 supports data transfer up to 40Gb/s and TB4 is a minimum 40Gb/s. USB 3.2 can support 5, 10, or 20Gb/s and USB4 is minimum 20Gb/s up to 40. So, in case you were wondering, no – USB4 and TB4 are not the same, though TB4 is USB4 compliant (vs. TB3 which is USB4 compatible). And yes, “USB4” is correct; the USB-IF (fancy folk who decide what USB standards are) dropped the space. The primary difference between USB4 and TB4 is the latter has a minimum speed of 40Gb/s, minimum data of 32 Gbps, and must support two 4K displays at 60hz. USB4’s minimum is basically half (20Gbps, 16Gb/s PCI-e, one 4K display at 60hz).
Imagine from Intel
Here’s the part that isn’t so simple. Intel opened the TB3 protocol to the USB-IF to use in developing the next standard (USB4), which they did. However, Intel continued to independently develop TB4, eventually announcing it at the Consumer Electronics Show in early 2020.
On paper, TB4 doesn’t seem like a significant improvement over TB3. The reason is because, unlike most USB or other data transfer protocols, TB4 wasn’t focused on one-upping its predecessor. TB4 was developed not to flaunt maximum speeds, but rather to solidify a set of minimum specifications. USB 3.2, TB3, USB4 – all of those may mean very different things and you’d have no idea without reading the fine print.
This is where it gets complicated: You see, Macs with TB3 ports have always had full TB4 capability. Or perhaps I should say potential. “Thunderbolt 4” is more of a marketing term to kick the ass of PC makers – as it stands, manufacturers of Windows machines were free to pick and choose what specifications they would adhere to, of course while still being able to claim TB3 support. That might be the minimum requirements or it might be the maximum, which is what Apple has always done. I mean after all, if you can say you have Thunderbolt 3, why put in more effort or technology than you have to? At least that’s how most PC makers felt, it would seem.
Then in comes a new standard that says “this is how it has to be if you want to claim support for this.”
But Macs – both the new M1 as well as Intel options – are fully Thunderbolt 4 compliant (provided of course they are new enough to have TB3). So why haven’t we been able to use hubs or docks with additional Thunderbolt ports until now? Because this potential wasn’t unlocked until MacOS 11 Big Sur. These new OWC docks and hubs will work with Catalina or whatever earlier version, but you won’t get the full benefit unless you’ve upgraded to Big Sur. And I suspect, though I haven’t looked it up, if your computer is even capable of running Big Sur, then you are golden.
For PC users, as I mentioned before, you can only really take full advantage of these docks/hubs on the few models with actual TB4 ports. But rest assured, more and more models will quickly adopt the interface now. For once, PC users can thank Apple for something; arguably, the TB4 standard would not exist if not for them, as it forces manufacturers to adhere to a strict specification, something Apple has been doing this entire time. Now you’ll know if your PC purports to support TB4 it isn’t stripped down in any way – there simply isn’t wiggle room.
OWC Thunderbolt 4 Dock & Hub Features
The OWC Thunderbolt 4 Dock sports 11 ports, up to three daisy chains, 90 watts of charging power, two 4K displays or one 5k/6k/8k display – all through a single cable plugged into a single port on your computer.
Imagine from OWC
It features an adjustable LED that lights up when powered, a Kensington Security Slot and a Nano Security slot for anti-theft cabling (I’m just quoting this from their site, I have never used these two security slots in my life).
Mini-Review: Two Months In
When I took delivery of the shipment, which I received in mid to late March (I pre-ordered in early January), I was surprised by how heavy the box was. Upon opening it, I found myself holding one hell of a hefty lump of metal. This thing is a brick and I mean that as a sincere endorsement -- this isn’t a travel device (that’s what the hub is) so the weight helps keep it firmly planted on your desk, which I absolutely love. I can insert an SD card or plug, plug in headphones or a USB cable without the hub moving around, which is something I can’t say about any other hubs I’ve used. The heft and overall aesthetic eschew a truly quality build -- it really looks like something that will last until Thunderbolt 5 is unveiled.
The design of the dock is excellent -- it feels like a piece of equipment made by someone who actually uses devices like this, which isn’t something I can say for a lot of cameras or other electronics. What I mean by this is that the ports are laid out and positioned pretty much perfectly. As it sits on my desk -- which is how I imagine it will sit on the desk of most folks -- the front (the side that says “Thunderbolt Dock” and features the SD slot) faces toward me. The rear, which sports the greatest number of ports and inputs, faces away -- just like any monitor, computer, speaker, or other electronic that you may have on your desk.
The way OWC has chosen to where to place which ports is what makes this such an excellent design. The ports or inputs that you don’t access frequently -- power supply, HDMI cable, peripherals like hard drives, a second monitor, printer cable, etc. that are rarely disconnected -- can all be plugged into the rear of the dock via its variety of Thunderbolt, USB-A, and HDMI ports. Conversely, those that you may need to plug and unplug frequently -- notably the SD slot and headphone jack -- are located around front for easy access. There’s also one USB-A and one Thunderbolt port on the front for those times when you need quick, brief access to them. Otherwise, most of your usual suspects can stay around back, keeping your working environment freer of cables.
The rear Thunderbolt ports are also well-spaced, unlike those on the MacBook Pros, with is quite welcome if you’re using a wide USB-A to USB-C adapter -- or any other situations where you need that extra bit of room between ports. They also seem well-designed -- with pleasant and reassuring click-into-place feedback upon inserting a cable. Earlier model Thunderbolt 3 MacBook Pros were notorious for their tendency to develop loose Thunderbolt ports after a time and as an owner of a 2017 model that needs to be sent in for repair for that very issue, I appreciate the confidence this dock gives me that I won’t constantly have to deal with disconnected hard drives or power if I so much as breathe on the cables.
But in case something does go wrong, OWC provides you with a two-year warranty and I can personally say their customer service is ironclad (I can’t speak to their warranty service, though, because I’ve never needed to use it).
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one of my favorite features of the dock (and the hub – and OWC’s former products as well): the ability to use their proprietary OWC ClingOn cable stabilizers. Each one attaches to the dock, surrounding one of the Thunderbolt ports, with a little screw that feeds into a tiny hole just above the port to secure it firmly to the dock’s body. The Thunderbolt cable is then fed through the center of the ClingOn adapter, making for a nice little guard against accidental jerks of the cable as well as making it less likely to accidentally disconnect
As for the hub, which I pre-ordered immediately after receiving the dock, it looks to be the same thing, trimmed down for travel and remote use. It still offers the same four Thunderbolt 4 ports and one USB-A port, Kensington Nano slot, up to three daisy chains, 4K-8K displays, and of course DC power input. Charging power drops from 90 watts to 60 and it loses all of the other inputs. Just barebones Thunderbolt expansion plus a standard USB 3.0 port. It also supports the use of the amazing ClingOn cable adapters. I haven’t actually had the need to use it yet, but I’m confident it will be exactly what I expected it is.
If I were to give the OWC Thunderbolt 4 Dock a rating, it would be a wholehearted five out of five stars. Everything about it is impeccably designed and I have not had a single issue using it. All of my peripherals (and I use A LOT, some of which are always connected, some of which aren’t) have always worked flawlessly when connected through it.
The OWC Thunderbolt 4 Dock is now available to purchase at B&H Photo and Adorama. The OWC Thunderbolt 4 Hub is pre-order only on their website here for $179 but strangely currently in stock at B&H for $149. It’s worth noting that I paid $249 for the dock, which is now $299 at Adorama (though $249 at B&H), and I pre-ordered the hub for $149, so it would be best to look around before you buy as the prices seem to fluctuate. Make sure to purchase the Thunderbolt 4 dock, not the prior Thunderbolt 3, as they look very similar.
35mm Camera Recommendations (Part Two: Compacts)
Some people scoff at the idea of handing over in excess of five Franklins for a “point and shoot” camera – “you can pay half the price and get the same result!” Honestly, that’s almost certainly true. Few of these cameras will allow you to do more than a camera that costs $175; some functions may be easier to use, but most of the difference is in the higher-quality construction, design, and general aesthetics/haptics. A lot of the premium pricing of these cameras is also based on brand name, marketing upon release that advertised these as the best-of-the-best, comparative availability, etc.
As usual I recommend KEH or UsedPhotoPro for any of your used camera/lens/accessory needs - both always have plentiful 35mm (and other film) options available!
Continuing from where we left off here….
**For any non-product photos, i.e. the sample images taken with the various cameras discussed here, I have uploaded the original scans *without* modification or adjustments beyond cropping to 1:1 or other aspect ratios in a few cases. I would typically, like any photo, run these through Photoshop/ACR for all the normal color/tonal adjustments, but I want to give you an idea of how the variety of film stocks shown here appear “straight out of camera” - I’ve purposefully picked a number of different stocks, though I rarely shoot more than two or three of my personal favorites. Obviously, results will still vary depending on many factors, especially including your choice of development chemicals, dilution, temperature, agitation, duration, etc, etc.**
Bargain Compact (<$200)
Minox 35 GL/GT ($40-75)
These little guys are true gems. Possibly the smallest 35mm camera ever made (I believe that was their claim at the time) – others come close: Contax T, which is rangefinder coupled but also hundreds of dollars higher on the price tag, Olympus XA2, Lomo LC-A, etc. But none (even the Contax) approach the level of true love I have for them. The Minox 35 line is by no means perfect – the exposure control is limited, the film advance can often have issues (likely due to how tiny and cramped everything is), it’s zone focus only, the batteries are online-order only, and the leaf shutter is prone to failure. Then again, most compacts are for one reason or another… at some point. Thankfully you could get one of these for $50 (or less, depending on the model – GL is cheaper than GT).
No camera ever made is more deserving of the adjective “discreet” than these cameras. Zone focus only and the limited aperture-priority only metering system means you really only need to raise the camera to your eye for framing. The leaf shutter and manual film advance means you’ll never hear the camera in action outside of total dead silence. Here’s a photo I shot from the hip in a restaurant while going to the restroom (zone focused obviously, set to max f/2.8 aperture, estimated frame – you could do stuff like this all day long with someone standing right next to you and no one would know, let alone hear it).
Minox 35 GT, Kentmere 400 pushed one stop
Note on batteries: you can power the camera with four 1.5V Duracell 76A (aka LR44) or Energizer 357 batteries (all of these are the same) stacked together and wrapped in electrical tape (two 3V Duracell DL1/3N aka CR1/3N or Energizer 2L76 will work as well) – these are a lot easier and cheaper to find than the native 6V option, especially the four 1.5V option which almost every drugstore will carry. If you don’t want to deal with that, just buy the Exell S27PX battery from B&H or Amazon.
Alternative: Lomo LC-A or Olympus XA2
I won’t write too much about either of these because this will be way too long if I do.
Both are great options and you can’t go wrong. The Lomo LC-A – based on the design of the Cosina CX-2 - isn’t quite as small as the Minox, but it’s still pocketable. It features a fixed Minitar 32/2.8 leaf shutter lens and a zone focus system (0.8m, 1.5m, 3m, or infinity) which is controlled by a lever on the left side of the lens housing. Another lever on the opposite side controls the aperture – from f/2.8 to f/16 – along with an automatic mode marked by an A. The caveat to choosing your own aperture is you’re locked into a 1/60th shutter speed; in A mode, the camera can choose anything from 2 minutes to 1/500th.
Lomo LC-A (32mm Minitar)
There’s also a Lomo LC-W (wide) that sports a 17/4.5 Minigon lens. This is a newer model made in China, as opposed to the original which was produced in the Soviet Union/Russia (its production stretched from the mid 80s to the mid 90s). The LC-W can be purchased new from Lomography, but it’ll run you over $400.
Similarly, there’s a Lomo LC-A 120, a 6x6 medium format version with a 38/4.5 Minigon XL lens. Like the LC-W, it can be purchased new from Lomography for a sweet $449.
The Olympus XA2 is a very fine alternative to the Minox 35. It’s negligibly different in size or weight and features a 35/3.5 Olympus D. Zuiko leaf shutter lens capable of speeds from 2 seconds to 1/750th. Exposure is entirely automatic.
Like the Lomo, it’s a scale focus camera with three positions, marked by silly little symbols: a single person, two people, and a mountain. I don’t know the exact distances but I assume they represent approximately 1m, 3m, and infinity.
There are five Olympus XA models, all extremely different in both features and price. The Olympus XA (original model) will run you over $200 – it’s an aperture priority rangefinder with a 35/2.8 lens. The XA1 is a mechanical camera with a selenium meter surrounding the lens – this is probably the least desirable model, especially given the failure rate of older selenium cells. The XA3 is identical to the XA2 but with DX coding. And the XA4 is similar to the XA2 but with a 28mm “macro” lens (minimum focus is 0.3m, which is again zone focused).
For my money, the XA2 offers the best bang for your buck unless you want the wider 28mm lens of the XA4.
Mid-Range Compact ($200-500)
There are a lot of worthy candidates in this range. I’d argue you should probably aim for the $200-300 range – if you get up toward the higher end, you might as well spend a bit more and get a “premium compact” (read on). Not because your photos will necessarily be any better, or because price alone has anything to do with the quality or capabilities, but because those cameras retain their value very, very well. In fact, they’re most likely to appreciate in value. I remember when you could buy a Minolta TC-1 for $550 and it wasn’t that long ago. It was maybe three or four years ago that I sold a Yashica T4 for $300 or a Contax T2 for about $500, which was average market value for both at the time. To put that in perspective, that’s what “as is” Yashica T4’s are selling on eBay for right now. The cheapest Contax T2 currently listed is $780, from Japan.
Olympus XA, Kodak Ektar 100, cropped to 1.78
Japan always has the cheapest prices on these more expensive cameras – and in my experience with numerous purchases from numerous Japanese sellers, they are quick to ship and very accommodating if there is something wrong or if it’s not exactly as described – just make sure to read the description because their rating scale tends to start at EXC on up to EXC++++…. even if there’s fungus, haze, or operational issues. The few times I’ve had an issue, the sellers would offer to simply refund part of the purchase… very generously so I might add. I never hesitate to buy from Japan – just make sure they have solid feedback and like I said, thoroughly read the description and look at pictures.
My choices for this $200-500 range would be: Olympus XA, Rollei 35S or 35T, Konica Big Mini F, Ricoh GR1, GR1s and GR10 (the GR10 is a great option if you’re tight on funds, over the other two), Contax T, Yashica T3, and Minox 35 GT-X.
Of these, the Yashica T3 and Big Mini F are the least exciting, and probably not as likely to appreciate in value. I like the Yashica T3 over the T4 or T5 (aka T4 Super) – it’s uglier and a bit bulkier, but the lens is about a half stop faster (f/2.8 vs 3.5) and it has a rather neat “waist level finder” on top (it’s very very small and not something you’d regularly use, but it does come in handy occasionally). Also, they’re a good bit cheaper the T4/5.
Yashica T3, Ilford SFX 200.
My picks overall would be the Rollei 35S or T, Ricoh GR model, or the Contax T. The Minox 35 GT-X was one of the last models (late 90s vs. early 80s for the GL/GT). Compared to the GT, it’s a bit more stylish with lovely grippy material flanking each side on the front, it takes regular CR1/3N batteries, and has DX code reading. It also used the newer MC Minoxar lens (still 35/2.8) instead of the original Color Minotar – a lot of people seem to like the rendering of the Minotar over the Minoxar lenses. If you like the Minox 35 cameras, this is one of the premium options, but it’s not really worth paying 8-10x the price of the GT. Not that it isn’t a great camera and probably one of the few Minox 35 models that might appreciate in value, but it has stiff competition from….
A very similar camera to the Minox 35 line is the Contax T, which I do highly recommend. It’s only a bit larger than the Minox 35 bodies and once you see photos, you’ll instantly recognize a lot of their shared DNA. Like the Minox 35, it is an aperture-priority only camera with a hinged front lens cover. Most of the specs are incredibly similar if not identical. Biggest differences: it is a true rangefinder, meaning you can accurately focus through the viewfinder (no guess work unless you want to) and it sports a 38/2.8 Zeiss Sonnar lens vs. the 35/2.8 Color Minotar. Unlike its successor T2/T3 models, this one is as manual as it gets (aside from being aperture priority only) – none of the loud autofocus, whirring auto-film advance, program mode, etc. Which, like the Minox 35, makes it much smaller, quieter, and the epitome of discreet.
The Ricoh GR models are a design that pretty much exists to this day, currently in the Ricoh GR III digital camera. The GR digital cameras have gone through seven different iterations over the years, three of which (GR, GRII, GRIII) sport APS-C size sensors. And there’s a great reason Ricoh chose to keep the basic form factor: it’s one of the finest pieces of ergonomics design in history.
The GR1s is the successor model to the GR1 – only notable differences are an illuminated LCD display, ability to use Ricoh lens filters, and a couple additional coatings to the lens.
Rollei 35TE - not the model I’d recommend, but the only one I have a photo of.
The Rollei 35 line, which offers a multitude of different models, has a very strange design with all of the controls - aside from the film advance - relocated to the front of the camera and sports a lens that you manually retract and collapse. Oddly and often confusing to many at first, you must advance the film to the next frame before you can collapse the lens - the camera will literally not allow you to do so otherwise. But this way, it’s completely ready to go once you pop the lens out next time.
The Rollei 35 (original model, no letter, just “35”) was first produced in Germany and later moved to Singapore. Both sport the same 40mm f/3.5 Tessar lens designed by Zeiss. The Made in Germany models say “Carl Zeiss” on the rim of the lens, while the Singapore models read “Made by Rollei.” This can be a bit misleading – the lens was indeed made, as in produced and assembled, by Rollei, but it is still the exact same lens that Zeiss originally designed. This happens all the time today; Hasselblad XCD lenses are made (not designed – same as the Rollei 35 situation) by Nittoh in Japan, many Pentax lenses are made by Tamron (though I think a lot of those are also Tamron designs), Leica TL lenses are made by Panasonic (and maybe some of their full-frame L mount lenses).
So, the upshot? There’s no difference between a Made in Germany Rollei 35 and a Made in Singapore Rollei 35. Yet, you can get the latter for ~$175 (I just bought one for $170 due to writing this article) while the former will run you ~$225-275. This was exceedingly common with cameras and lenses in the film era – Made in Germany Leica lenses fetch more compared to Made in Canada (or, nowadays, Portugal) despite being identical beyond those three words on the barrel.
The 35, 35S, and 35T are the best options.
Premium Compact ($500+)
Some people scoff at the idea of handing over in excess of five Franklins for a “point and shoot” camera – “you can pay half the price and get the same result!” Honestly, that’s almost certainly true. Few of these cameras will allow you to do more than a camera that costs $175; some functions may be easier to use, but most of the difference is in the higher-quality construction, design, and general aesthetics/haptics. A lot of the premium pricing of these cameras is also based on brand name, marketing upon release that advertised these as the best-of-the-best, comparative availability, etc.
The excessive premium of decidedly average cameras also just comes down to a bizarre course-correction in the market; consumers creating demand for a previously average product, followed by word-of-mouth which then drives up desirability, leading to a ballooning of prices. The best example would be the Olympus mju-ii aka Olympus Stylus Epic. This was the highest-end model in Olympus’s budget point-and-shoot line of cameras, which included both fixed prime lens models and a number of zooms. It’s about as barebones and basic as you get; all plastic construction, basically no physical controls (I think it has TWO buttons on it, one for flash control and one for timer) – the lack of controls translates into lack of functions; spot-meter only, AF only, Program mode only, no DX override or exposure compensation, etc. You could absolutely not get a more basic camera. Yet they routinely sell for over $300! You could land a Konica Big Mini F or Rollei 35s for less than that – not to mention many other fantastic cameras – for the same or lower!
Konica Big F Mini, Portra 160, cropped to 1.78.
People like to talk about how great the lens on so-and-so is. “The Summarit 40mm lens on the Leica Minilux is as sharp as a lens gets!” Nonsense like that.
Here’s the reality. Of course the lenses in compact 35mm cameras vary (often greatly) in quality, but there comes a point where you’ll simply never notice the difference. This can certainly be true of modern lenses made for digital cameras, but it is especially true when shooting film – 35mm is only capable of resolving somewhere around 20MP at best.**
**There is no wholly accurate way to measure resolving power of film compared to digital resolution. I have, however, read the report from the most comprehensive and scientifically sound (that I’m aware of) research project on the topic. To keep it short, film itself is capable of resolving up to around 160MP, but that’s only theoretical as it doesn’t include the lens in the equation. With an excellent, high-resolving optic, a fine-grain black and white film can potentially resolve 22MP (Fuji Neopan 100). Fuji Velvia 50 (slide film resolves finer detail vs. color negative, typically) is capable of about 16MP. These are under ideal conditions with an excellent lens, focus, exposure, development, scanning, etc.
You can scan film at whatever resolution you want. A $300 flatbed scanner will allow you to scan at ridiculous multi-hundred-megapixel resolutions. But that’s meaningless since most of that is just grain – not any actual detail. There are other issues as well – if scanning with a digital camera, what’s the quality of the lens? Does the sensor have an AA filter? Did you get the focus spot on? Is the camera (sensor) perfectly planar to the film or is it tilted slightly? On and on.
Fujifilm Klasse, Kodak Ektar 100
At any rate, the list of high-caliber, worthwhile, collectible compacts worth buying is long. And unlike some of the others, I have a hard time here picking one or two firm suggestions – all of them have something to offer that the others don’t (except one high-end brand I’ll cover shortly), and you can’t really go wrong with any of them. Also, $500 and up is a big range – some of these you can get very near $500 and at least one is nearer to $1500.
So, my choices: Leica Minilux (reluctantly), Contax T2/T3, Minolta TC-1, Nikon 28/35Ti, Konica Hexar AF, Ricoh GR21/GR1v, and the Fujifilm Klasse/Rollei AF35M.
Leica Minilux
It’s fine. Terrible viewfinder, unless you want to experience the thrill of something seemingly designed to replicate the experience of looking through a drinking straw (0.35x magnification). Compare that to the Nikon 35Ti or Contax T3, which are 0.5x magnification. A lot of compacts have small, abysmal viewfinders (some don’t), but given its size and premium Leica-cost, it should be much, much better.
Its star quality is the doubtlessly phenomenal 40/2.4 Summarit lens. But the reality here? Most of these other cameras have lenses that are as good and possibly better in the case of a few of them.
The rest of the camera is fairly average – I like the combined focus/aperture dial; some cameras only have menu-driven manual focus, which is… fiddly and just pointless most of the time. And it’s nice to be able to set a hyperfocal distance and shoot quickly without waiting for the whirring autofocus motor to latch on. The shutter in the Leica tops out at 1/400 (vs. most others at 1/500 or the Minolta TC-1 at 1/750, which is rare). It’s a nice camera without a doubt, but I really do hate that viewfinder.
Leica Minilux. Most are champagne, but there are black variants available - but they’ll cost you.
It may seem like I don’t care for it and that’s pretty true. But I mentioned it for one main reason:
The Minilux is a bit notorious for the dreaded E02 – an inevitable error code for this camera caused by wear on a lens flex-cable. It’s not really a caused for concern in reality: almost all of these cameras will inevitably fail. All of these premium options are fully electronic pieces of technology going on two to three decades old.
I know… that certainly doesn’t seem like a reason to mention the camera here. But, here’s how I look at it: I would actually be more comfortable with a Minilux in terms of failure issues than a lot of these others. Why? Because 1) given the notorious nature of the E02 error, there are a number of places that still repair them, for reasonable prices to boot – I cannot say the same for any of the other cameras* and 2) self-conversion kits for the lens exist, though doing a quick search shows that MGR Production (who produced the Minilux conversion adapter I knew of) has seemed to have vanished – their website is down and their last Facebook post was March 2018, in which they were working on a Contax T3 lens conversion adapter. I will continue to research (or maybe they’ll respond to me FB message?).
*This actually isn’t quite true. The easiest and most reliable cameras to get repaired, in the United States at least, are the Contax T2 and T3 (and possibly the TVS series), which are the only point and shoot cameras that Nippon Photoclinic (located in NYC) still services. I can personally vouch for them (not that they need it, they have a sterling reputation); they do quality work at reasonable prices with very quick turn-around and offer free, no-commitment estimates (you pay return shipping, obviously). They also work on many other 35mm, medium and large format cameras as well as lenses and are the authorized North American service center for Contax, Linhof, and Wista cameras AND lenses. But they service Bronica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Rolleiflex, many many more. I’ve personally had them repair several Contax G2 bodies. Find them here: http://nipponphotoclinic.com/services/
As for the Minilux, user “vintageandphoto” on eBay in the Ukraine, offers E02/E01 repair for Minilux cameras for $145 (plus your shipping cost to send it in). I’ve read nothing but great reviews across forums about him. He also fixes T2, TVS, and TVS II cameras for $130. You can also easily find many lists for a new flex cable on eBay if you’re brave and want to do it yourself. So, while the Contax cameras may be “easier” via Nippon, you’ll definitely be spending more than ~$160 (once you include shipping to the Ukraine) than you would for the Minilux.
Leica Minilux. Kodak Portra 160, cropped to square
It’s worth noting that all or almost all of these cameras can have their lenses converted to Leica M mount (with coupling) by Miyazaki san of MS-Optical fame. I’ve been in touch about having the 35/2 Hexanon from a dead Konica Hexar AF I’ve had sitting around for a few years converted – a rough estimate at the time was in the $600-700 neighborhood, but don’t quote me on that. Miyazaki san also converts non-compact lens to M-mount: Contax G 28/35/45/90mm lenses, for example, are quite popular.
**Apparently, I should have done my double-checked before posting this; Miyazaki san no longer offers conversions. However, Skyllaney Opto-Mechanics in the UK does M-mount conversions, but as far as I know, only for lenses with built-in helicoids. They do tons of Contax Zeiss, Pentax, Nikon AI, Canon FD, Minolta MD, and maybe M39 (rangefinder) lenses, though they say SLR lenses are the most cost effective. (https://skyllaney.com/services/).
Ricoh GR1v or GR21
I already wrote fairly extensive about the Ricoh GR cameras above. These are the “top” models – “top” simply meaning “most expensive” in this case. Just pick whichever is suited for your needs.
The GR1v was the GR1s replacement and offered several new features: DX override (you can just set the ASA yourself), auto bracketing mode, and the ability to add presets to manual focus mode (1m, 2m, 3m, 5m, and infinity). Everything else remains the same.
Ricoh GR1s. Ilford FP4+ pushed one stop.
FP4+ pushed about a stop is one of my favorite choices for a gritty, grainy, vintage look. Many of the images from that combo look like they could have been taken from a 1950s newspaper.
The GR21 is a completely different camera than any of the others, at least in some major ways. It’s also by far the most expensive (cheapest currently on eBay is $1099 OBO – next cheapest is $1440). It’s very similar to the GR1 but instead of a 28/2.8 it has a 21mm (surprise, I know) f/3.5 lens with 9 elements in 6 groups. If you want a very high-quality 35mm compact camera with a 21mm lens, this is your only option. You need it or you don’t. Value will probably do nothing but continue upward.
Minolta TC-1
One of my favorites. I’ve been looking at a few lately after I came across one on KEH the other day. These are one of the smaller premium point & shoots – shockingly, it’s smaller than any of the other cameras (I mean shirt pocket tiny). The GR appears to be a bit thinner with the lenses retracted on both, but the TC-1 is thinner once the lenses are extended – there’s not much in it either way. Despite the use of titanium in the TC-1, both it and the Ricoh feel about the same weight – however the TC-1 feels more robust and solid. The Ricoh is much quieter to focus – actually quieter than any of the cameras, save the Hexar AF.
The TC-1 is a masterpiece of design. It sports a rather unusual 28/3.5 G-Rokkor lens that is unrivaled in quality, but oddly has a four-step (in approximately one-stop increments) bladeless aperture. Bladeless aperture, you say? Instead of a variable diaphragm, it uses a disc with three perfectly circular holes (plus wide open). This limits it to f/3.5, f/5.6, f/8, and f/16 only – but do you really need anything more? This lens was actually sold in limited quantities with rangefinder coupling and an M mount – same is true of the Ricoh GR, though that one had an LTM mount.
Minolta TC-1, Rollei Retro 80s
The camera is aperture-priority only, which is controlled by a rather odd (and hard to describe – just see the photo) notched “slider” that moves back and forward to click into spot at your desired aperture.
On the top is a basic control dial that moves between function settings, e.g. ISO (offering DX override), AF or Manual focus, flash, exposure comp, etc. Thankfully, unlike some compacts, flash setting is retained when you cycle the power, so you don’t have to constantly turn the flash off every time you turn the camera on.
Shutter speeds range from 1/750 (pretty impressive compared to others) to 8 seconds. You have to get used to the LED shutter speed readout in the viewfinder – it doesn’t display the precise SS, but rather a range. For example, 500 and 125 may be illuminated and this indicates the SS is somewhere between 1/350 and 1/180. Or if just 125 is illuminated, SS is between 1/180 and 1/90. Not exactly logical and honestly a pretty poor design; I’d love to know the reasoning behind this choice.
A very, very worthy option.
Contax T2/T3
If you’re looking for a camera to use and enjoy with an excellent lens that will also definitely appreciate in value, look at these two. I’m still kicking myself for selling that T2 a few years back for $500. Why did I? Well, it’s just not my favorite camera.
Contax T2, Ilford XP2 Super 400
It’s got everything you want. Great build quality, and amazing 38/2.8 Sonnar lens, a nice little grip on the front, nice viewfinder. But it just didn’t excite me much, which wasn’t helped by its larger size. It’s big compared to, for example, the Ricoh GR’s, Minolta TC-1, or its successor – the Contax T3.
The T3 is a much nicer camera, in my opinion. If your budget more than covers a T2 but not quite a T3, either bite the bullet or save up a bit longer and get the T3. It’ll appreciate in value more than probably any other compact and it actually is a wonderful camera.
Contax T3 (cropped in slightly); Kodak Tri-X 400
Compared to the T2, the T3 changes may seem trivial to some, but they really impact the way the camera feels and works with you – which, to me, is incredibly important for any camera, but especially small, discreet, fast cameras like these. The T3 is quite a bit smaller than the T2; it has a redesigned layout on top; it has a newly designed 35/2.8 Sonnar (vs. the 38/2.8 of the T2); and it focuses down to 35cm (13.8”) instead of the 70cm (28.6”) of the T2 – a considerable difference.
Konica Hexar AF & Nikon 28/35Ti
I’m including two options here because they are both exceptional, about the same price, yet one or the other may suite your personal preferences over the other.
There are a lot of options when it comes to premium compacts and plenty of other articles written about them. I absolutely love the Nikon Ti series (in either 28mm or 35mm flavors): they’re fitted with absolutely fantastic lenses and the – at first odd and potentially off-putting – clock-like dials on top are actually one of my favorite points of design in any camera. No other AF compacts allow you to see your aperture, exposure compensation, focus distance, and number of exposures remaining all centralized in a single panel. The Konica Hexar AF displays all of this info externally as well, but not in a single location nor as stylishly. I should note that almost every other compact will display some/most of these settings in the viewfinder only; the Nikons and Hexar are particular exceptions.
My personal choice favorite of the two is the Hexar AF because it’s the only autofocus, auto-advance compact that is quiet enough (incredibly quiet in this case) for me to describe it as fully inconspicuous thanks to its “stealth mode.” The Nikons, the Minolta TC-1 (another personal favorite), the Contax T2/T3 – all are fantastic cameras with top notch optics, but stripped of discretion by their loud, whirring film advance and focus motors.
Konica Hexar AF, Kodak Portra 400
The Hexar AF is larger than others due to its significantly larger and utterly fantastic lens, but none of these cameras (sans Ricoh GR series) will comfortably fit in a jean pocket or shirt pocket. Once you step over that line, the difference (to me) is minimal – all of them will do just fine in a jacket pocket or dangling from a wrist or neck strap. The Hexar is still undeniably larger, however I’d guess the weight is similar to the others because of their titanium-bodied construction.
The Hexar also excels in a number of other ways due to its larger construction: there’s actually a slight grip rather than the flat fronted, boxy designs of the others and the viewfinder is of significantly higher magnification – closer to an ILC rangefinder than a compact. Many of the compacts have fairly abysmal viewfinders – an inherent trade-off in return for their diminutive size.
Of course, if size is a priority, the 28/35Ti cameras, with their fully retractable lenses, are going to win out (and the Minolta TC-1 is even smaller). You absolutely won’t lose anything to the Hexar in terms of sheer image quality, though the lens is a stop slower. However, there’s one notable advantage in favor of the Nikons: matrix metering.
First introduced in the Nikon FA and later the F4, Nikon created the first version of what is today the most commonly used exposure mode. Other cameras of the time had spot or center-weighted metering, which can easily be fooled by strong point sources or particularly dark luminance areas. Matrix metering (aka evaluative, aka multi) splits the scene into quadrants, uses a microprocessor to analyze it, compares it to similar scenes from its library of computer knowledge, and choose an exposure based on what it believes is best for that scenario. Taken for granted today, it was incredibly remarkable technology – though not foolproof – when first introduced and only improved over time. By the 90s, when the Ti compacts were introduced, the technology had been significantly refined.
Nikon 35Ti top panel display
It’s hard to go wrong with either of these choices; the Nikons present in a more conventional 35mm compact design, while the Hexar takes on a form more akin to a Contax G with the 35 Planar attached. Unsurprisingly, this is what it was marketed as an alternative to. I find the Hexar more comfortable, pleasant, and discreet to use, but your mileage may vary.
Lastly, we have the Fujifilm Klasse – also available as a Rollei AFM35 – which is a lesser known, though still incredible, compact fitted with a 38mm f/2.6 Fujinon lens, program or aperture AE, auto DX coding, and manual focus via a dial on the front alongside the lens. The Klasse was also available in two other variants – the Klasse S, which is essentially the same with minor upgrades here and there, and the Klasse W which sports a 28mm f/2.8 lens instead of the 38mm.
The Klasse (or Rollei AFM35) is an excellent option particularly if you want something a bit longer… closer to a 40mm. Resale value and desirability isn’t as high as some of the other options, so this one is less likely to appreciate considerably. But that’s not the primary goal in buying any of these cameras anyway.
Zoom
Lastly, we have my lone recommendation for a compact 35mm zoom camera. Most of these cameras tend to be consumer-oriented, both in price and feature set. Read into that as you will. Some of those are actually pretty good – the Olympus Stylus Infinity Zoom cameras are great, though with limited user controls and middling build quality.
My pick(s) are the Contax TVS models: there are three and all have their place depending on your desired features and especially budget.
*The TVS will run you about $250-325, TVS II $450-600, TVS III $600-825.
The first, just known as the Contax TVS, is the cheapest. It’s fitted with a 28-56/3.5-6.5 Vario Sonnar lens, whose zoom control is operated by a knurled ring/knob encircling the lens base, and the aperture is controlled by a separate knurled ring just above this. Like most compacts, its either program AE (flip the aperture ring to A) or aperture priority (set the ring to your desired aperture). Like the Contax T2/T3, focus can be manually controlled by a thumb dial on the top.
Biggest issue with the TVS: no lens cap. The lens doesn’t fully retract into the body like the T2/T3 and your only option is to buy a threaded lens cap (I forget what diameter… I want to say 30.5mm). A similarly sized pinch-cap may work – which would be nice for quicker deployment, but I feel like there’s a reason I had to buy a threaded cap.
Contax TVS, Kodak Portra 400
The TVS II is very similar in almost all but a few respects: the viewfinder has been significantly modified – unfortunately I don’t quite remember exactly how, but I do recall it being brighter than the TVS and displaying shooting info in a more logical and cleaner manner. The knurled zooming ring and knob around the lens base have been removed and you now zoom simply by turning the lens. It’s worth noting you could also do this on the TVS, but I always liked the ring/knob as it basically guaranteed your hand wouldn’t interfere in the viewfinder. Lastly, there was now an automatic lens cap that opens/closes when you extend the lens.
The TVS III is an entirely different design from the other two. Now sporting a 30-60/3.7-6.7 Vario Sonnar lens that extends from/collapses into the body when you open or close the hinged door – much like the Minox 35 cameras, or the Contax T (which is what the TVS III design is based on).
Other major changes include removal of the aperture dial, which is now controlled electronically by two arrows (up/down) on the front face of the camera body. Likewise, the zoom is also electronically controlled. Unlike the other two models, this is NOT stepless – there are variable stops of 30, 37.5, 45, 52.5, and 60mm. Essentially like a set of five prime lenses (this actually was not uncommon with many film-era fixed lens zooms). The camera is also a good bit smaller than the TVS or TVS II.
I personally like the TVS III the most of the bunch – I don’t love the idea of electronically controlled aperture or zoom, but in practice it’s actually very nice… you can do everything (zoom, change aperture, take photo) with your right hand only now. The folding design is a tried and true favorite of mine and the smaller size is certainly welcome. And lastly, the stepped zoom isn’t a bother to me at all. Hell, most of these viewfinders may only show 80-85% of the frame – under 90% wasn’t uncommon even for top-of-the-line SLRs. Plus, with five stops from 30 to 60mm, you can easily adjust your frame with a few steps in either direction.
As usual I recommend KEH or UsedPhotoPro for any of your used camera/lens/accessory needs - both always have plentiful 35mm (and other film) options available!
Adobe Camera RAW "Enhance" Issue
I wanted to try out the new Enhance feature of Camera Raw, but found myself unable to do so when I tried as I get this error: "Enhance requires a graphics card with Metal support."
I wanted to try out the new Enhance feature of Camera Raw, but found myself unable to do so when I tried as I get this error: "Enhance requires a graphics card with Metal support."
Seems simple enough, except I’m running a 2017 MacBook Pro 15” with a Radeon Pro 560 (4GB) graphics card - a computer that undoubtedly supports Metal.
i’ve tried just about everything: updating Adobe apps, removing and reinstalling all the apps, and updating to Mac OS Big Sur (from Catalina).
Nothing makes a difference and I continue to get the same error.
Since I am still out of town, my MacBook is my only work computer that I have with me… though even if it works fine on my desktop, I would still like to be able to use it on my traveling computer.
I’m pretty stumped and have exhausted most obvious avenues as well as internet search results.
Any tips appreciated…
Leaving Nikon Part One: Why and to Where?
I’ve shot Nikon as my primary system since I left Canon behind in 2012. I’ve owned and used cameras from, as far as I can tell, every current manufacturer save Phase One. Some stuck with me longer than others – I have pretty limited experience with Pentax DSLRs, for example. I’ve never been a brand loyalist in any sense; the idea of that is just silly no matter how you look at it….
The first Z camera and lens I purchased. I was immensely impressed out of the gate with not only the camera but the 24-70/4 S. I wish more companies made small f/4 zooms like this and paired them in kits.
I’ve shot Nikon as my primary system since I left Canon behind in 2012. I’ve owned and used cameras from, as far as I can tell, every current manufacturer save Phase One. Some stuck with me longer than others – I have pretty limited experience with Pentax DSLRs, for example. I’ve never been a brand loyalist in any sense; the idea of that is just silly no matter how you look at it. Obviously, there is a form of “sunk cost loyalty” once you’ve invested in gear. Leap frogging from one system to another because so-and-so has this summer’s best [insert whatever specification] is solely in the realm of spec-sheet chasing hobbyists, not that of a working photographer.
Of course, there come times – especially after many years – where you find your priorities, needs, or preferences have shifted, as has the camera and photography landscape. I continued using DSLRs as my primary bodies until Nikon released the Z series because, well, I simply didn’t get along with Sony bodies (I’ve probably owned and eventually sold more models of Sony than any other company – my first mirrorless camera was actually a Sony).
Despite the subject of this post, I still view the Nikon Z cameras as the absolute best all-around system on the market. They are handily the best ergonomically, with the Panasonic S series a close second, though at the expense of portability. Their sensor IQ is unsurpassed (though certainly matched) by anything below medium format. Their lens lineup is second to none in quality* and second only to Canon for overall selection if you include native adapters. In my opinion, their mirrorless lens system is absolutely brilliant: benchmark image quality along with their laudable decision to skip f/1.4 lenses and put everything into f/1.8 primes. And I won’t get started on the mind-blowing performance of lenses like the 16-50/3.5-6.3, 24-50/4-6.3, and 24-200/4-6.3.
Nikon’s phenomenal 16-50/3.5-6.3 DX kit zoom. Probably the best sub-$500 kit zoom I have ever used. Pairs great with the Z7 too, giving you the same 20MP resolution as the Z50.
*To be clear here: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic… they all make amazing full-frame mirrorless lenses. But I see Nikon as having the overall best line-up when you consider image quality, size, price, options, and build quality. They went the right direction with affordable pro-level f/1.8 primes, great f/2.8 and compact f/4 zooms, and some absurdly good budget zooms (that’s where the “options” part comes in). Panasonic is doing something similar (20-60, 70-300/4.5-5.6, 70-200/2.8 and f/4, and now pro-level f/1.8 primes), but they lack the smaller options of Nikon (e.g. 24-50 and 16-50 pancakes) or the more affordable options (20-60 being an exception). Sony, lately, has very much impressed me with their compact f/1.4 GM primes, the 28-60, the newest G zoom lenses, etc. But… Sony’s lenses as a whole are not at the same level; many of their earlier lenses range from average to downright awful (most of their APS-C lenses are simply ok, often pretty poor). Even a number of their early Zeiss-badged lenses were quite poor (24-70/4 ZA). Lately, though, they’ve been killing it and of course they do have the largest ecosystem available… especially including third-party options.
Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons
Canon opted to kick off their full-frame mirrorless line by releasing two subpar bodies (EOS R and Rp) alongside ultra-fast, expensive, top-of-the-line glass (the 28-70/2 has to be commended, though – what an achievement). Yes, Nikon did this with the Noct-Nikkor f/0.95. What they didn’t do, however, is release two 85/1.2 lenses before they had a remotely affordable f/1.8 version. Canon decided to put resources into niche lenses like 600/800mm f/11 primes before a single f/4 wide angle zoom, a 50mm lens that isn’t dirt-cheap sub $200 or ultra-expensive over $2000, or a single prime lens below 35mm. I just don’t get it at all – and before I settled on what would end up being my first foray into another system, I kept coming back to Canon only to be immediately reminded why we haven’t gotten along in a decade.
*Canon, and sometimes other manufacturers, seems to think that professionals only use fast or ultra-fast glass. All you need to do is look at the popularity of Nikon’s 14-30/4, Sony’s 12-24/4, or Canon’s own 17-40/4L lens to see how much nonsense that is. These lenses are popular because they’re affordable, they’re all many people need, and they’re much smaller than faster f/2.8 alternatives. The same goes for f/1.2 primes. I have zero issue with the faster lenses being released – a 14-24 (or similar range), 24-70, and 70-200 at f/2.8 is a widely popular trio. F/1.2 primes are popular. It’s the apparent way Canon prioritized their lens releases that left me baffled, along with the release of legitimately unimpressive and poorly designed bodies out of the gate – bodies which screamed enthusiast but only had very expensive lenses to pair with. I’m sure the 28-70/2 is amazing, but let’s be honest… how many people bought it? I see it is a kind of halo product (like the Noct-Nikkor), except that Canon has continued the trend to this day – though they have tossed a few affordable lenses out here and there.
Again, they still don’t have a single prime lens below 35mm. That’s just plain damn strange.
I have to applaud Panasonic – I nearly went with their system to begin with. After using the S1, 20-60, and 24-105 lenses not too long ago (on rental for a job), I came away extremely impressed. The ergonomics are definitely the most “Nikon-like” (button/control placement, menus, overall design) and they just make sense. I found this true of the Panasonic G9 as well (the S1 is basically a leveled up G9). The lenses are very impressive. And it probably goes without saying, but no one comes close to Panasonic on the full-frame hybrid video front.
Panasonic S1 w/ 24-105/4 OIS
Creative Commons License, Wikimedia Commons
Sony. Boy oh boy. My first mirrorless camera was the a6000, not too long after it was released. I used it alongside my Nikon gear and I loved it at the time. Then I started doing work repairing cameras (and lenses) and, despite most of that work being on 35mm or medium format film cameras, over time I was able to use many (and I mean MANY) digital cameras. I eventually got the a6300, only to have Sony give those us of who bought it the finger when they released the a6500 eight months later. I even shot a few scenes for a ten-episode show with the a6300. I’ve also owned the a7, a7 II, a7R II, a7S II, a few RX100 models, and the RX10 Mark II (which I quite liked) – I’ve used, but not owned, the a7 III and a7S III.
There are many reasons why the first and second-gen Sony FF cameras aren’t great – I don’t think anyone would dispute that. They really came into their game with the third gen models. But every time I tried one, I just ended up missing my DSLR. For many reasons.
Things have changed, though. I no longer see any advantage to DSLRs; EVFs finally matured to the point where they’re simply transparent. With a nice EVF, I’m never actively aware that I’m looking at a digital display. Mirrorless autofocus has significantly improved, from tracking to new features like eye-AF. Lenses have improved. General technology itself has improved – once Canon and Nikon finally put all their resources into mirrorless, we’re seeing great improvements with every new release no matter whose name is on the front.
Sony a7R III. One of the cameras I considered, especially appealing given it can be found used for under $1800.
Photo by Ke Chun Yuan. Creative Commons License. Find the original here.
Sony was one of the top two most attractive options for me to move to – mainly because of their prevailing technology (especially autofocus, though others have caught or nearly caught up, especially Canon) and their massive native lens selection. Adapters like Nikon’s FTZ work wonderfully and are great to use while switching over or to fill gaps in the lens lineup, but I’d still rather have a native-mount lens any time. As I mentioned, I really love not only the types of lenses Sony has decided to release recently, but also how fantastic they are. The 28-60 compact zoom is identical to Nikon’s 24-50 in approach, just opting for a bit more on one end at the expense of the other. And both are truly excellent optics. Their 24/35/135 1.4 GM, 50/1.2 GM, and 20/35/85 1.8 G lenses are very good and surprisingly compact pieces of engineering. I’ve really loved the recent 70-350 G and the older 24-105 and 12-24 G zooms: stellar image quality but still affordable. Most of all, while I have not used them yet, I bend the knee to Sony for releasing the 24/2.8 and 40/50 2.5 G lenses. I used to beg Zeiss for f/2.5 or 2.8 versions of their Otus lenses – which they basically had in the Loxia line, but nothing for any other mount, let alone DSLRs. Nikon should be doing something similar with the upcoming 28 and 40mm pancakes, but I’d love to see a 24, 35, and 50 as well (Sony already has some great 35mm pancake options with the 35/2.8 Zeiss, Samyang 35/2.8, and the slightly larger Tamron 35/2.8).
So, with all my love for Nikon, why did I start to look elsewhere? It’s really a culmination of several factors that ended up compounding on themselves. This past year, with *flails arms* everything that’s happened, resulted in the need to do some gear downsizing. It also forced me to look ahead at where I want to go and be professionally and think about what I really need to do that and what is the most economical way to get there, even if some sacrifices have to be made. There’s also the elephant in the room, at least if you read pretty much any photography website: Nikon has not been doing well financially. They’ve closed a number of factories and significantly trimmed down their employ across the globe. In my logical brain, I know that these decisions are likely to help them succeed in the long run (reducing operating expenses generally does that). But the non-logical part of me can’t help but be worried.
Fujifilm X-Pro3. I actually loved this camera when I played with it. But, its price, lack of IBIS + grip support, and several other factors make it unsuitable when you’re trying to keep costs down, since it can’t be my main camera.
Creative Commons license, Wikiemedia Commons.
I don’t really buy into the idea that Nikon is doomed to fail – in fact, I think that’s very unlikely. However, it is true that they aren’t doing as well as they had hoped, nor as well as others. It’s also true that, unlike say… Sony or Panasonic or Canon… they don’t have other departments to lean on. Pentax is a fantastic example: the only reason they manage to keep releasing cameras and lenses is because their imaging department is a miniscule part of the company’s revenue. Off the top of my head, only Nikon and Leica are not in such a position. But Leica will continue forward as usual because they’re a niche, luxury brand with a comparatively small workforce and they don’t need to worry about someone else undercutting their prices or stealing their customer base. They also make cinema lenses and probably microscopes and whatever other stuff.
Obviously, I’d be lying if I said the Olympus situation didn’t knock a bit more fear into me as well. Which will turn out to be pretty ironic in part two of this.
If Nikon’s demise was truly my only concern, I wouldn’t even be writing this. I’m not selling my gear and switching brands over something like that. Hell, even if it happened, worst case scenario is that I’d sell my gear a few years down the road and still be able to switch systems just fine. I think it’s important to step back and not take for granted that most people, including myself, could do 99% of everything we want to with the lenses/cameras Nikon has already released (if you include F-mount via FTZ adapter for Z bodies).
However, like I mentioned, I was forced to 1) sell off some my lesser used gear (45mm PC-E Micro, Zeiss 2/50 Makro ZF.2 and Nikon 135/2 DC, just to name a few) and 2) think critically about the next 5+ years and what I want to do and what I would need to do it. There’s no longer leeway for hoarding expensive gear I only use every so often. Long story short, I’m working to branch out into a couple relatively uncharted waters for income work, while also focusing on some personal projects of mine. There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s the basic gist.
So, where did I land with a new system? The answer is Fujifilm.
However, that’s far from the end of the story.
The rest of which will be in Part Two, coming soon.
Sigma Fp-L Rumor: Let's Talk About Sensor Tech
The rumor mill is churning – as it does every day – with specifications of the upcoming Sigma Fp-L. The release of this successor model itself is almost certain, but these sensor specs are not. However, I wanted to talk a little bit about the sensor and its design and why it’s very exciting technology – and also how it’s based on a 30-year-old innovation…..
**Update: Obviously now we can safely say this rumor was entirely false, but this is still worth a read for a number of reasons**
The rumor mill is churning – as it does every day – with specifications of the upcoming Sigma Fp-L. The release of this successor model itself is almost certain, but these sensor specs are not. However, I wanted to talk a little bit about the sensor and its design and why it’s very exciting technology – and also how it’s based on a 30-year-old innovation.
*I need to note beforehand, this is a complicated topic, especially given the little information we actually know to be true – combined with technology that has almost certainly changed over a few decades. Not everything here is guaranteed to be the resulting product. I will also be using the terms “pixel” and “photosite” interchangeably as it refers to the sensor design; this refers to the sensor pixel, which due to interpolation, is different from pixels in the final file.
The sensor – named IMX513BQR and made by Sony (shocker) – has a 60.75MP effective resolution. It’s rumored to be the replacement for Foveon X3 — presumably because Foveon, while amazing in many ways, has a significantly limited shooting envelope; it doesn’t shoot video, it’s unusable for shooting color above ISO 400, maybe 800 depending on your threshold of acceptability. I’m not entirely convinced this is a Foveon replacement, but I’ll get to that later.
Source: DIY Photography
This new sensor, with a CFA layout dubbed “Sony ClearVid,” supposedly changes things up by rejecting the traditional square, side-by-side arrangement of pixels, instead opting to rotate the pixels 45 degrees resulting in a diamond-like orientation.
Why? Because by rotating the pixels, you’re now able to pack more together. The actual pixel size remains the same, but the horizontal and vertical pitches are reduced. The below diagram shows this concept. The design also increases vertical and horizontal resolution (at the expense of diagonal resolution), which is a benefit because a majority of the world exists in horizontal and vertical planes (thank gravity for that).
Why did I say “supposedly changes thing up”?
Because the rumors are fairly vague and not at all detailed and I’m not sure if they’re using the term pixel when they’re actually talking about the photodiodes of the CFA.
At any rate, this layout is theoretically great for a number of reasons: 1) you have the aforementioned superior vertical and horizontal resolution and 2) for a given pixel size you can pack more pixels into the same area. Essentially, for a given pixel size, you’re able to obtain greater horizontal and vertical resolution while retaining the larger pixels of what would be a lower-resolution sensor with the normal orientation.
By retaining the same pixel size, you also retain the same full-well capacity while simultaneously obtaining a higher resolution – something not possible in traditional orientation. The result is that each photosite is able to collect more light before saturating (larger pixels = more light per pixel, think of them like buckets collecting rain); this means you have a greater SNR. In theory, that should mean better dynamic range compared to the essentially identical resolution sensor found in the a7R IV (if it is indeed a 61MP sensor), but at the least it means superior low-light/noise performance assuming the CFA itself allows the same amount of light to pass through. Which, as I’ll note later, it might not.
The confusion of its actual resolution comes from whether or not the photosites themselves are rotated 45 degrees or whether they’re oriented as usual but with the CFA photodiodes rotated. Given the rumors of a 30MP green channel binned output as well as a 120MP mode, plus the effective 61Mp resolution, my guess is the pixels are indeed rotated. Since the rumor specifies a 3.76-micron pixel pitch – which is 61MP in a traditional layout, but when rotated would allow the packing of more pixels – I think this is where the “effective” resolution comes from.
This is not unlike the love-child of SuperCCD/EXR (we’ll get to it) and Foveon technology. The 30MP output should be equivalent, in theory, to a 30MP Foveon sensor, which Sigma has always claimed results in an equivalent bayer filter output with twice the spatial resolution – except this time, there actually are that many pixels and the Foveon-like output is half the spatial resolution, not double. It’s sort of a reverse Foveon, where each photodiode is sampling some light from each color channel, but not with the layered photodetectors for each spatial location as in a Foveon design.
Some History
Sony introduced their “ClearVid” (aka “Q67”) CFA in the mid-2000s, first used in some kind of camcorder. The design was later used, most notably, in the Sony CineAlta F65 cinema camera (still a current model), which had a 20MP sensor capable of outputting 8K resolution. The answer to “how?” – since 20MP isn’t nearly sufficient for a direct 8K readout – is exactly the same as this new 61MP sensor outputting 120MP. However, it should be noted that the sensor pixels themselves were not rotated in the original ClearVid design, only the photodiodes of the CFA.
But Sony didn’t invent this unusual though undeniably exceptional technology. They rode on the coattails of someone else…
Before Fujifilm was using Sony sensors in their own bodies, they were putting their own sensors in someone else’s bodies*. These sensors – deemed “Super CCD” – varied from model to model over the years; in the S1 Pro the photosites of the 3.1MP sensor took the form of a honeycomb tessellation, oriented diagonally. This translated to the same result of higher vertical/horizontal resolution. (I actually have an S1 Pro, of which I am working on an article about – it’s an interesting experience to use, to say the least).
*The S1 Pro, S3 Pro, and S5 Pro were based on the Nikon N80 (aka F80) 35mm body, modified with an extended base to house six AA batteries; essentially like an integrated vertical grip, but without the vertical controls.
The Fujifilm S3 Pro, which I had for a brief time.
A third generation of SuperCCD matrices (there were seven or eight generations over time) appeared in 2003, but in two different designs. The first, dubbed SuperCCD HR (high res), has pixels placed adjacently in the 45-degree orientation previously described, though since they were octagonal (unlike Sony’s ClearVid) the layout is a bit different. In order to produce a traditional image file – which is in horizontal/vertical planes (rows and columns) – the camera would have to interpolate, merging the two adjacent photosites. The recorded file can’t exist in the same zig-zag pattern and only half of the positions are filled. So, you end up with half the spatial resolution – aka twice as much. This is what happens when you output a 120 megapixel pattern of the sensor, so each line is read out and there are indeed twice as many vertical and horizontal lines. Normally a 2x linear increase would result in 4x the spatial resolution, but due to half of the positions being empty, you end up with 2x the spatial resolution.
Fujifilm SuperCCD variations (some of them, anyway)
The other third gen design, called SuperCCD SR (“Super dynamic range”), integrated two photodiodes per photosite – one of them larger than the other. The result is increased dynamic range since one photodiode (the larger one) is more “sensitive” and can operate at a lower charge, while the other smaller site is, by its nature, less sensitive. The idea is to combat blooming and the tendency of CCD sensors to easily clip highlights – and if you’re able to do that, you’ve increased your SNR (dynamic range). This isn’t unlike the design of dual gain output (DGO) sensors used in cameras like the Canon C300 Mark III, Canon C70, and Arri Alexa’s ALEV sensors, which read out each photosite at two different amplifications – one at normal exposure, the other at lower amplification to gather what would normally be clipped data. These signals are then fed into the ADC and blended together.
This wasn’t just a gimmick or theoretical. The S3 Pro, introduced at the beginning of 2004, was measured by DXO Mark with a dynamic range result of 13.5 EV. Let me repeat: 13.5 stops of dynamic range on an APS-C sensor in 2004.
To put that in perspective: it wasn’t until four years later in 2008 that its score was bested (by the Nikon D3X at 13.7 EV). In 2011, it was still 5th highest scoring camera for dynamic range. One spot above it, at 13.6 EV? The 80MP, $42,000 Phase One IQ180 medium format camera introduced in 2011. Every other medium format camera on the market was behind an APS-C camera from 2004. It should be noted that other cameras, mainly full-frame or APS-H, had superior color depth and low-light performance, but none could equal the Fuji in dynamic range. In 2005, the closest competitor was the Nikon D200 at 11.5 EV – a full two stops behind.
So, the dynamic range claims are not empty platitudes, they are borne out by testing. In fact, these cameras (the S3 and S5 Pro) were very popular with wedding photographers for this very reason (and their use of Nikon’s F-mount).
Let’s Talk About Other Filter Arrays
Again, Fujifilm. In 2007 or 2008, Fuji announced a new CFA – the EXR – whose goal was to take the advantages of the SuperCCD HR and SR technologies and combine them. As mentioned, the HR (high res) used photosites at 45-degrees and then interpolated these adjacent pixels into a double-resolution file. When combined with the SR (super dynamic range) tech, the camera could also use the dual read-out channels that record two separate exposures which are then merged – the entire result is a sensor with greater dynamic range that can be interpolated to a higher resolution. The combination is in many ways akin to a hypothetical Foveon/dual gain output hybrid.
Originally, the EXR technology was in a number of cameras (mostly small sensor compacts) using CCD technology. In 2011, Fuji debuted EXR CMOS – I believe first in the 2/3-inch sensor X10, which was a new line that would go on to include the X20, X30, and X70. The X10 and X20 cameras were basically the original X-Pro, except with a fixed zoom lens – a very good one too (I still own an X20) with a fast f/2.0-2.8 aperture. They had an optical viewfinder like the X-Pro, though no switchable EVF. The X30 later moved to EVF only, which was unfortunate, and abandoned the EXR technology in favor of… X-Trans. The X30 marked the end of SuperCCD and the beginning of Fuji’s continued use of CMOS technology.
A Rare Medium Format Camera
An interesting note in the (again rather vague) rumor is this is the same CFA used in Phase One’s IQ3 100MP Trichromatic back. The underlying sensor is certainly not – the resolution isn’t sufficient for a 61MP FF cut-out. Unfortunately, Phase One is incredibly reticent when it comes to revealing the actual design of the Trichromatic’s CFA.
This is about as much as Phase One has revealed, which isn’t much. All we really know is that it uses a stronger array to filter out the unwanted signals, thereby reducing false color, fringing, UV light pollution, etc. However, the wavelengths that the sensor picks up at each photosite are reduced, which is why the camera has a low base ISO of 35 vs. the regular IQ3’s ISO 50. It’s not a fabricated or extended ISO 35, however; the CFA cuts out more light, but it also cuts undesired signal. Since the pixel wells don’t receive that signal, it can be tuned to a true ISO 35. At any rate, it’s wholly indeterminable whether this is actually the same CFA or not; graphics like above are as much information as we have and still doesn’t answer the question.
A Cinema Camera
As mentioned before, Sony’s ClearVid technology is used in the Sony F65 cinema camera, which can produce an 8K video file despite its 20MP sensor. It can also bin down to 4K.
Sony F65 Layout
Conventional bayer arrays are arranged in a 2x2 RGGB grid – that is, four pixels, two green, one red, and one blue. The F65 ClearVid sensor, however, is arranged in the “zig-zag” manner previously described, with CFA photodiodes at 45 degree angles. So, instead of one pixel sampling only one color and using neighboring pixels to guess the color, each pixel can sample full green plus some red and some blue which overlap neighboring pixels. The above image shows this design and you can see what I previously mentioned – due to the zig-zag pattern, you can output an image with 2x the spatial resolution by sampling from twice as many horizontal and vertical lines, but only half of those positions are filled. You can see this empty space between each alternating photosite in the below photo. Note how half of the crosshairs are over nothing, yet there are still more photosites packed into the same total area. This is how it can produce 8K resolution with a 20MP sensor.
And since each pixel receives full green information – at a 4:1 ratio to red/blue – it can do a clean green channel output with half the spatial resolution (30MP in the case of the alleged Fp-L sensor). The below image – from a previously rumored 48MP “Foveon” sensor (Sony IMX311AQK) – displays a 24MP green channel image. It also shows how each pixel can sample R, G, and B light at varying ratios, which is not unlike what Foveon does. Foveon is in quotes because Foveon sensors are designed with stacked layers in the silicon, with each pixel receiving all visible light – though depending on if it’s red, green, or blue, it only penetrates the layers to a certain depth.
If this technology is so great, why hasn’t Sony used it yet?
A fair question. One issue is that the design works very well in a CCD (charged coupled device) sensor via binning and combing charges from neighboring pixels. When implemented in a CFA, you can’t combine the charges from pixels of alternate colors. Foveon X3 arrays were invented largely to address this issue – the goal was to build on the inherent advantages of CMOS sensors but also address the problems caused by conventional bayer pattern arrays. These advantages are numerous, from being able to capture all available light in a single spatial sampling site, to reducing color cross-talk and eliminating aliasing. The latter was a particular issue in the early days of CMOS technology, due to their lower resolution. The solution was to add an OLPF (optical low pass filter) but that’s a non-ideal solution as it results in a resolution reduction below the theoretical Nyquist limit of the sensor. Fuji addressed this with X-Trans, which eliminated aliasing without the need for an OLPF, but also had wildly varying results in the demosaicing process.
But as resolution has risen, AA filters have begun to disappear – this is why you almost never see them in a camera over 24MP – the higher the resolution, the more lines available to distinguish between different signals when sampling. Similarly, a higher resolution sensor requires a sharper, more aberration-free lens to induce aliasing (softer lenses induce a similar effect as an AA filter, plus additional aberrations).
There’s also the matter that significant gains have been made in CMOS technology – particularly low-light and resolution – since Sony’s ClearVid / Fuji’s EXR technology was last used. In fact, Fuji released very few EXR CMOS cameras (e.g. the X10/20) before jumping ship over to X-Trans. We’re now at a point where we use a 61MP sensor and pixel bin down to 30MP for clean color as well as interpolate up to 120MP. And it’s the 30MP mode that is truly appealing – which is something that prior ClearVid/SuperCCD/EXR sensors did not provide, almost certainly because the sensors were natively 12MP at best (most were 3 or 6MP) and binning would have resulted in a 6MP file. Not exactly appealing at the height of the megapixel race.
Is this a replacement for Foveon?
I don’t think so. What I believe is going on (and this is purely my opinion) is that Sigma’s advancements with Foveon have stalled for the time being – they’ve admitted that they were working on a new full-frame Foveon sensor, but have taken that idea off the table at the moment because it just isn’t working.
Part of this, I believe, is their new foray into video-centric cameras a la the Sigma Fp. And Foveon simply isn’t capable of keeping up with other sensors when it comes to video, more than anything else. Low-light and video are the Achille’s heel of (current) Foveon technology. This wouldn’t be an issue with this sensor, especially since low-light capabilities shouldn’t be affected, though if it is indeed the same CFA as in the Trichromatic, it will be less sensitive once it filters out unwanted signals. But the sensitivity reduction is still a far cry from Foveon.
I think a new Foveon sensor is still in the works, but it just simply isn’t there yet. I see this as a bridge between traditional bayer sensors and Foveon until such time that the new Foveon tech is capable of whatever Sigma’s goal is.
I don’t think Foveon is dead. I hope it isn’t. But I’m also excited to see if this sensor – or a similar one – comes to fruition. I do wonder if there will be issues, at least to begin with, in the demosaicing process – not unlike X-Trans suffered from for many years before, most notably, Adobe was able to produce results like Iridient or Capture One. Sigma made great strides with the introduction of an optional DNG file output in their Quattro and Quattro H bodies, allowing for a no-nonsense, direct-to-Photoshop (or Lightroom) workflow. In that case, I think the demosaicing process took place in-camera, as opposed to Sigma Photo Pro.
Either way, I’m interested to see what this technology does for us in 2021. My S1 Pro is now over two decades old and, to put it mildly, things have changed since then. My prediction is that this has very promising potential, especially with the 30MP output – which in itself is more resolution than many cameras on the market. ACR’s new “Enhance” feature (which I have yet to try) has made me begin to question how necessary 60MP+ files really are anymore. I do wish more 24MP or under sensors were made without low-pass filters, though.
At any rate, technology still presses forward as always, and this is yet one more exciting example.
Ishimoto Blog:
Integer posuere erat a ante venenatis dapibus posuere velit aliquet. Fusce dapibus, tellus ac cursus commodo, tortor mauris condimentum nibh, ut fermentum massa justo sit amet risus.