GIANNI GALASSI PhotoGraphia

ITALIAN RATIONALISM WITH THE X-TRANS SENSOR (X-T1 REVIEW CHAPTER 4)

Fujifilm X-T1 - Fujinon XF 56mm (80mm eq.) w/polarizer
1/170" f11 ISO 400
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

The brightly lit buildings and empty spaces of the Foro Italico compound in Rome make one of the most celebrated masterworks of the Italian Rationalism, as well as the ideal subject to test the monochrome attitude of last generation's Fuji X-Trans sensor. As Fuji-related posts build up on this blog, I realize that my announced review of the X-T1 has already started, and will continue with further "chapters", each focused on a different aspect of the camera. PhotoGraphia readers could call it an "in-progress review". Of course, as far as the imaging pipeline is concerned, X-T1 and X100S are to be considered exactly the same.

For different reasons Fujifilm X cameras, like Leica and Sigma, play in a different league. They can be considered as "statement cameras", and in most cases their owners consider themselves as "aware" photographers -of course being good photographers is another kettle of fish-. No offence meant to other brands' buyers, we are speaking here of imaging tools that can not be bought by accident. At the most, people choose them out of snobbishness. So having in mind this kind of photographer, the effectiveness of the monochrome workflow is something worth focusing on.

Since black&white dedicated cameras like the Leica M Monochrom or the Phase One Achromatic make the ideal while unreachable (for most humans) tools in this respect, setting our camera's picture mode to monochrome, choosing perhaps a red filtering, is definitely a tempting option. All the more so if our camera is an X Fuji, thus capable of delivering mind blowing out-of-camera jpgs: set to b&w, filter in red, tweak low-light curve to dark, add a notch of contrast and you are done, right? Wrong.

Too good to be true. View your file 100% in your PC, and you will find that the marvellous blue sky you shot earlier in the day now shows the most irksome blotch artifacts, along with the inevitable white border randomly marking the edges of trees, roofs, antennas and lampposts. As I already described in a previous post, the X-Trans sensor doesn't perform the miracle, alas. Moreover, in out-of-camera monochrome jpg, the lowlight areas tend to be too blacked out, while the highlights show too steep a curve towards their maximum level. Of course such an ooc-mono-jpg could be good "enough" for the intended use sometimes, but people investing in gear like this are supposed to be a little picky, at least.

This is why I tried to fine-tune a reliable monochrome workflow for my X-T1 and X100S cameras. The aim of which is to obtain a tonally rich, low-contrast and flat file. Like we used to do during the film era, when a dumb and muddy black&white negative was considered as the ideal base for a good printing (editing) process. "Expose for the lowlights and develop for the highlights" was the rule of thumb at the days. Nothing much has changed. So here is my how-to list for the shooting part:

• Shoot raw+jpg (raw is a good parachute, just in case).
• Set Dynamic Range to "Auto". This involves going up to ISO 800 in daylight sometimes, but believe me, it's the only way to get smooth and less likely to be blown-out highlights. Plus, the X-Trans sensor gives you more than enough headroom as far as image noise is concerned, so don't worry.
• Set film simulation on "Negative Pro Standard", which ensures smoother color gradation (yes, you need good color to get good black&white). Forget all those crappy "Provia", "Velvia" and "Astia" presets. They are marketing's and not photographer's invention. A name reminescent of a great film doesn't necessarily make a good digital capture.
• Set white balance on "Auto": Fuji's is the best I have known in my entire digital photographer's life.
• Set color on "0".
• Set sharpness on "-1", in order to avoid or at least reduce the impact of the white border issue.
• Leave highlights and shadows on "0".
• Set noise reduction to "-1". Why give up the awesome X-Trans sensor's detail rendition when you can selectively take care of noise in post-processing, if needed? Have you ever tried to apply Noise Ninja or D-Fine to the smooth areas of a landscape (the sky, for instance), while leaving the crispness of the detailed areas (rocks, building, the sea surface) intact?
• Enjoy yourself.

As for editing, either you are an X-T1/X100S user or not, follow the steps listed below (which are a copy/paste from a previous post on the same matter):

• At home, open your file in your photo-editing application and tweak levels in order to get a full-range histogram, from far left to far right (a brightness-calibrated monitor is de rigueur).
• Launch Nik Silver Efex Pro plug-in and select the red or yellow color filter to begin with. You can also tweak filter's hue and/or intensity according to your needs.
• Second step: generously push the luminosity/midtones slider to the left. This will exceedingly darken your image: it's all right.
• Now try and recover highlights by alternatively pushing the dynamic-brightness or the white-enhancer cursor to the right (the former could cause halos around objects surrounded by a plain dark sky, while the latter could give too much contrast). This is when your photograph almost takes its final looks.
• Never use "structure" sliders on the whole image: this will spoil your job with fake-sharpness borders and artifacts. At most, sharpen your image locally (see next step).
• Use Nik's control-point technology to brighten/darken/contrast/uncontrast/sharpen/soften limited areas of your image: you can activate as many of them as you wish, and -believe me- the whole job is a breeze.
• If your composition needs a little visual help, maybe you would add some vignetting to it. You better postpone this enhancement and use your photo-editing application: Silver Efex does a lousy vignetting job.
• And now the final step. Go to the toning options and select a hue value of 30° with a 20% of "silver tone". This is the way I always warm up my black&white tone a little bit, in order to be sure that the CMYK printing conversion will remain on the warm side (I hate random blueish tones in my printed photographs). Of course cold-tone lovers can pick their tone values accordingly.
• Back to the photo-editing application, check the histogram: sometimes the highlight slider needs a little adjustment.
• The final touch, if needed, is a smooth curve tweaking, in order to get exactly the brightness and density your photograph deserves.
• Proudly post/print your photograph and be happy.

My in-progress Fuji X-T1 review will continue in the next few days, so stay tuned.

Chapter 1 of my X-T1 in-progress review can be found here.
Chapter 2 can be found here.

Fujifilm X100S - Fixed Fujinon 23mm (35mm eq.) prime
1/750" f8 ISO 200
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

Fujifilm X100S - Fixed Fujinon 23mm (35mm eq.) prime
1/1200" f8 ISO 400
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex pro 2

MY MONOCHROME WORKFLOW

The derelict Mira Lanza factory in Rome
Sigma DP2 Merrill - Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime w/polarizer
1/100" f8 ISO 100
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

Commenting my last post, PhotoGraphia reader Mark asked me if I could share some of my monochrome workflow. Here is a concise how-to which I hope you will find useful:

• In your camera's menu, set sharpness to the lower value: white-border artifacts tend to become obvious in mono conversions.
• Again in your camera's menu, set picture mode to the most "natural" or "standard" or "neutral" color value: oversaturated or overcontrasted files make lousy b&w conversions.
• While shooting, use your live histogram in order to avoid highlights clipping; if in doubt, underexpose a little bit.
• Remember that sensors, like film, feed on light: more light always means better results.
• Rely on jpg if you are a good photographer and are very familiar with your camera's behavior. Otherwise shoot raw.
• At home, open your file in your photo-editing application and tweak levels in order to get a full-range histogram, from far left to far right (a brightness-calibrated monitor is de rigueur).
• Launch Nik Silver Efex Pro plug-in and select the red or yellow color filter to begin with. You can also tweak filter's hue and/or intensity according to your needs.
• Second step: generously push the luminosity/midtones slider to the left. This will exceedingly darken your image: it's all right.
• Now try and recover highlights by alternatively pushing the dynamic-brightness or the white-enhancer cursor to the right (the former could cause halos around objects surrounded by a plain dark sky, while the latter could give too much contrast). This is when your photograph almost takes its final looks.
• Never use "structure" sliders on the whole image: this will spoil your job with fake-sharpness borders and artifacts. At most, sharpen your image locally (see next step).
• Use Nik's control-point technology to brighten/darken/contrast/uncontrast/sharpen/soften limited areas of your image: you can activate as many of them as you wish, and -believe me- the whole job is a breeze.
• If your composition needs a little visual help, maybe you would add some vignetting to it. You better postpone this enhancement and use your photo-editing application: Silver Efex does a lousy vignetting job.
• And now the final step. Go to the toning options and select a hue value of 30° with a 20% of "silver tone". This is the way I always warm up my black&white tone a little bit, in order to be sure that the CMYK printing conversion will remain on the warm side (I hate random blueish tones in my printed photographs). Of course cold-tone lovers can pick their tone values accordingly.
• Back to the photo-editing application, check the histogram: sometimes the highlight slider needs a little adjustment.
• The final touch, if needed, is a smooth curve tweaking, in order to get exactly the brightness and density your photograph deserves.
• Proudly post/print your photograph and be happy.

Chimneys of the Aragonese Castel in Ischia Island
Sigma DP2 Merrill - Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime w/polarizer
1/100" f8 ISO 100
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

INSANELY SHARP: SIGMA DP2 MERRILL USER REVIEW

Sigma DP2 Merrill - Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime
1/640" f8 Iso 100
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex pro 2

It's good to know that the photo industry is living its early years' excitment again. Like in mid 19th century, when a photographer also had to be an engineer and a chemist in the meantime, and a wealth of bases -copper, pewter, paper, glass-, and chemicals -silver chloride and iodide, collodium, albumin- were tested in the quest for the ultimate light-sensitive medium, digital era photography tries alternative technologies in order to create the perfect capturing device. Thus alongside traditional Bayer-matrix sensors we now have Fuji X-trans CMOS, Leica and Phase One monochrome and Sigma Foveon X3. The latter, when first introduced by Sigma in 2002, ignited more curiosity than excitement.
PhotoGraphia regulars know that I don't think photography is about sharpness. I'm perfectly happy with small-sensor pocketable cameras if they can make the job done and, generally speaking, pixel-peeping gets me bored. On the other hand I don't think photography is about unsharpness either, and the growing fibrillation about ultra-fast primes delivering huge amounts of bokeh -i.e. unsharp image areas-, most of the times at the cost of the overall picture quality, leaves me cold. Of course there are situations where a properly tuned unsharpness adds value to the image, like in classic portraiture. And situations where an improved sharpness can turn a good photograph into a great one.
Enter the Sigma DP2 Merrill.

To quote a Jethro Tull's song title, the unit is thick as a brick: a black parallelepiped with a lens, a 3" screen, 13 buttons and a wheel. Compact, yet not small, it looks as if it was designed by some Bauhaus architect in the Thirties. If "less is more" is your mantra -as it's mine- then the DP2M perfectly suits your taste. As soon as you hold it, the camera just feels right in your hands, and reassuringly well built. Body is all metal, as well as the big wheel surrounding the wide and smooth shutter release, a wheel that can be custom set to several different functions (my choice is exposure compensation). No rubber nor leatherette wraps the camera. Buttons' response is firm and positive, while their layout is the best I have ever seen. The connector and battery/card doors are unusually well built as well.

The customizable wheel on the DP2M's top plate

Compact yet not pocketable, with the optional VF-21 optical viewfinder (we'll discuss about it later) the camera becomes a little less compact, but unannoingly. I like carrying it with an Optech USA neoprene wrist strap. This was the base of my kit this summer, along with a B+W circular polarizer, the original LH2-01 lens hood (not small but very effective, especially for a non-selfcapping lens), the essential spare battery and my inseparable and versatile Canon G15 with its optional (and rarely used) 1,40x tele extender. All this was comfortably yet unobtrusively packed in a black Billingham Hadley Digital bag.

My DP2M with optical viewfinder, lens hood and Optech USA wrist strap

I confess I'm a lazy writer lately. And since I found a brilliant and clever review of the DP2M on a blog called "The Absolute Sound", I suggest you to click through to that article for comments about all the camera and software details. It's amazing how music gear geeks can be matter-of-fact and unprejudiced when testing and evaluating an imaging product. I definitely share every word in their review, so writing an identical one would simply be nonsense. I prefer focusing on the most relevant (to me) aspects of the camera though. And I'll do it in an unorganic order.

Sigma DP2 Merrill - Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime
1/80" f8 ISO 200
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

• The Sigma DP2 Merrill is a no-frills tool that could seduce many users who are fed up with all the bells and whistles of more feature-rich cameras on the market. Borrowing a typical Ken Rockwell's definition, I'd say it's "a man's camera" (no offense intended, ladies). Somehow it's like driving a black Land Rover Defender, if you see what I mean. Or writing with a fountain pen instead of a ballpoint.
• Notwithstanding its 920,000 pixel definition the 3" LCD behaves very poorly under bright daylight, which makes the optional optical viewfinder an essential accessory. Too bad the VF-21 unit sold by Sigma is crappier than one can expect. Small, plasticky and, most of all, too narrow: for glass wearers, seeing the entire frame is simply impossible. I'll look for an alternative -perhaps a vintage one- although being aware that 45mm is an unusual focal length.
• Image quality is jawdropping. Color accuracy and per-pixel resolution are spectacular. So much so that during my first weeks with the DP2M I often found myself taking trivial shots only for the pleasure of seeing how details and texture were rendered in the file: awesomely. Imagine having in your hands a medium format camera with the bulk and weight of a large mirrorless for the price of a Micro Four Thirds prime lens. Foveon sensor's three-layer architecture overcomes the moiré artifacts issue once and for all. No low-pass filter is needed here, and it shows: images delivered by this camera are insanely sharp.
• Monochrome conversion is amazing. I noticed that some pro reviewers now rate how effectively a camera's output can be transformed into a black&white image, and I think this should be considered as one of the standard main benchmarks when the overall quality of a camera is to be evaluated. DP2M's files flawlessly convert into a sumptuous, creamy black&white, rich in smooth transitions and devoid of artifacts, that will surely push every user to go back to the roots of modern photography.

Sigma DP2 Merrill - Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime
1/200" f8 ISO 200
In color (top) and converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

• Battery life is simply non-existent. I have read about people getting to reach even 60 to 70 shots out of one full charge. I never managed to go over 40. This is why Sigma supplies two batteries out-of-the-box. If they were honest, they'd supply four at least. If they were clever enough, they'd have cloned the fat power unit from Canon Powershot, for instance, instead of Ricoh GR's, as they actually did. The DP2M body is large enough to house at least 2.5 times of battery volume, which could lead to 100 shots out of one full charge. Sigma engineers shamefully forgot that a three-layer sensor needs a lot of power, and delivers huge files that need more power to be written on the SD card. On the other hand nostalgic photographers maybe will find the 40 shots limit as a romantic souvenir of the 36-frame film era. I don't.
• No matter the SD card speed, writing time has something to do with eternity. Image review is unavailable before 18 to 20". During this time previous shots' playback is not available either. The only way to quickly check an image is by activating the 5" after-shot review, which of course causes more power drain.
• DP2M's histogram is definitely the worst histogram I have ever tried. It's totally unreliable. If you buy this camera, PLEASE DO NOT TRUST THE HISTOGRAM! Moreover it refers to jpg format only, which is, by the way, of the lousiest quality -Leica M8 and M9 users know more than anybody else how lousy a jpg can be-. The DP2M is a raw-oriented device. Period. You'll need jpgs for browsing purposes only, as most browsers don't visualize .x3f files.
• On the other hand the DP2M raw files can manage highlights and shadows in a way I have never seen before. With bright subjects a +1/3 exposure compensation will be enough, whereas a -1/3 to -2/3 will do in any shadowy situation. Like we used to do in the film era, more or less. Good ol' habits.
• The menu system is clean and straightforward: 47 items spread into 10 pages. Furthermore, a clever and customizable quick menu is made available by pressing the dedicated QS button on the back panel.
• As far as user interface and stability are concerned, Sigma Photo Pro -the raw developing software delivered with the DP2M- is one of the worst applications I have ever had experience of. Miniatures rendering takes close to eternity to be performed and easily causes your computer to crash. If a crash is luckily avoided, the curve of getting familiar with buttons and sliders is a steep one. But SPP does a marvelous job on your .x3f files: the color picker finely tunes an already almost perfect white and color balance, while the "X3 fill light" slider is very handy when an image is affected by poor or dull lighting. IMHO this feature is far better than the "luminosity" slider found in Adobe ACR. Sigma Photo Pro has a competitor though. Iridient, as far as I know, is the only alternative to SPP at present, and a very interesting one. Smooth, steady, fairly fast and reasonably priced, Iridient can perfectly demosaic a long list of raw files. Compared to Sigma Photo Pro, an .x3f file developed in Iridient has an elegant and understated filmish look which could please some nostalgic of the analog era. I'd be in trouble if I had to pick "the best". They are different in their approach to the final image and I suggest everybody to run some test. It's free and instructive.

Sigma DP2 Merrill- Fixed Sigma 30mm (45mm eq.) prime
1/500" f7.1 ISO 100

Lloyd Chambers, the editor of the autorithative Diglloyd blog, suggests that, for the price of a cheap Leica lens, one could buy the whole Sigma DP trinity -DP1M, DP2M and DP3M, respectively 28, 45 and 70mm eq.- and be happy. I confess that it's a tempting option, except that my favorite focal lengths range between 50mm and 150mm equivalent. I'd gladly buy a 100mm eq. DP4M equipped with the same sensor, if it only existed. But then I'd also want an electronic viewfinder (even an add-on one), a better LCD, better battery life, better writing speed, better developing software, better whatever... And bang goes the zenish simplicity of this oddball, yet awesome, not-so-compact compact camera.

 

FEATURED COMMENT by Massimo Zirilli

The only thing that scares me about the Merrills is the need to carry another camera in the bag, since results from IS0 400 are not acceptable. Anyway, I love the way this camera is "affecting" your recent works, and I know that is an amazing device. But I would like to read something about the NECESSARY superb post production that this sensor needs for showing how beyond any other sensor can be in terms of resolution. It's definitely a camera for clean and technical developers, don't you think?

Massimo,
you are perfectly right. I forgot to mention that the DP2M should not be used above ISO 200. Of course it could, but then I don't see the point in using it, given its unacceptable picture noise at ISO 400 already.
Like Ducati motorcycles in the bikers world, the Merrills are surely to be seen as second cameras that can deliver amazing results if shot slowly under bright lighting. Otherwise the marketplace is full of cameras delivering good to very good quality with smooth and fast operation and virtually no noise even at higher ISOs. But we are talking about AMAZING image quality here.
As I tried to explain in my post, the Sigma DP2 Merrill is not a camera for everyone.
Regarding the post-production process, apart from the severe quirks affecting Sigma Photo Pro, it's not more complicated than developing Bayer-matrix raw files in Adobe ACR. Being a jpg fan I'd gladly skip that part of the job, but one advantage of developing .x3f files in SPP is that parameters MUST be let at the default value most of the time.

ANOTHER BUILDING SITE

Olympus OM-D E-M5 -Olympus Zuiko 45mm (90mm eq.)
1/400" f7.1 ISO 200
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

Yes, 90mm (equivalent) can be considered my favorite focal length (along with the 140mm eq. of the Canon G10/12/15, but that's another story). I realized this since the day I started to add shooting data to my posts. It was the Elmar-M 90mm in my Leica days and now it's the fabulous Zuiko 45mm in Micro 4/3. So I end up overlooking my other M4/3 lenses most of the times, among which two other stunning pieces of glass stand: the Panasonic Leica Summilux 25mm (50mm eq.) and the Olympus Zuiko 75mm (150mm eq.). As a matter of fact I often use the latter (along with the 45mm) when taking shots of my 18 months old grandson Andrea. But this is strictly a family affair  ;-)

Olympus OM-D E-M5 - Olympus Zuiko 45mm (90mm eq.)
1/400" f7.1 ISO 200
Converted into monochrome with Silver Efex Pro 2

EXPERT SHIELD Screen Protector REVIEW (and a giveaway)

A couple of weeks ago Ed Tyson from Expert Shield UK Ltd kindly sent me samples of their Expert Shield screen protectors for testing on my Olympus OM-D E-M5, on a Fuji XE-1 borrowed from a friend of mine and on my iPhone 4. In their site Expert Shield claim that their screen protectors rely on a special technology which makes them totally different from their competitors: ease of application, transparency, glare reduction and scratch resistance promise to be leading-class level. Being totally unaware about plastic film technology and silicon-adhesive coating, I couldn't help giving Expert Shield's screen protectors a try.

Application turned out to be smoother than I thought. Thanks to the provided microfiber cloth I easily managed to clear my cameras and phone displays from fingerprints and dust particles. Then it only took a little care in order to align one edge of the adhesive side, peel of the rest of the covering film and firmly press to avoid air bubbles -which seem to be a lesser issue than in other screen protectors I used in the past-. For one of the screens I had to make a second attempt due to misalignment: no problem, the protector allowed a clean detachment and subsequent repositioning while keeping its full adhesive power. The only caveat is about the microfiber cloth: if used with alcohol -after removing an older screen- it dyes your fingernails and tips with a soap-resistant deep blue. Solution: do the dirty job using something white, and then finish with the Expert Shield microfiber.

How do Expert Shield screen protector behave in the field? Quickly said, as if it wasn't there. Image visualization is totally unaffected by its presence. Perhaps slightly improved, thanks to its anti-glare surface. And tactile experience is comparable to a glass surface, which can be particularly appreciated on capacitive and heavy-duty displays like the iPhone's. As for scratch resistance, I confess I didn't test it (Expert Shield didn't provide me with spare screens), but there is an interesting sanding-machine test video on their site.

The bottom line: Expert Shield screen protector is a top-class and cost-effective product I definitely recommend to anybody wanting to get their screen protected.

They are so proud of their screens at Expert Shield that the first three readers of this blog who will send them an email containing the word "PhotoGraphia" along with their camera/device model (if available) will be presented with a free home-delivered screen protector. With the compliments of Expert Shield UK Ltd and myself. Thanks Ed.

SIGMA 30mm f2.8 EX DN-Micro 4/3: USER IMPRESSIONS

Olympus OM-D E-M5 - Sigma 30mm (60mm eq.)
1/250" f11 ISO 200

A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine lent me his Sigma 30mm f2.8 Micro 4/3 for a tryout. He was under the impression that this was a more than decent product after a couple of months of use on his Panasonic GF3. Nonetheless he wanted the opinion of somebody who was more deeply into the Micro Four/Thirds system than he is.

Everybody has his own ways to "test" a lens and/or a camera. Unsurprisingly, I use the building in front of my office window. Don't worry: I will not inflict those trivial and dull images on PhotoGraphia readers. All the more so because of their unscientific and totally subjective shooting procedure and comparison method. Suffice it to say that I was quite impressed by the performance of Sigma's unexpensive and unpretentious product. So much so that I immediately wanted to take some real-world photographs with it.

So I mounted the lens on my Olympus OM-D body and went out for a bicycle ride. First stop, the MAXXI Museum. Designed by Iraqi-British architect Zaha Hadid, the Museum of Art of the XXI century in Rome is one of my favorite subjects, with its sensuous curvy raw-concrete surfaces and light although imposing volumes. Moreover it stands only a few minutes from where I live.

The Sigma 30mm doesn't sport the glamorous looks of the Digital Zuiko lineup, nor the rugged feeling of their Panasonic cousins. As I said it's an unexpensive lens, and it looks like one. In a cool and pleasant way though. The oddest thing is its rattle. Yes, when unmounted, or mounted on a switched off camera body, it sounds as if something was broken and loose inside it and, literally, rattles. All this funny noise stops as soon as the camera is switched on. Then one can appreciate what an unusual 60mm equivalent prime can do. Personally, I find it very useful whenever I deal with large details of huge buildings. When I have a zoom lens I set it on focals between 50mm and 80mm equivalent quite often. Therefore I disagree with those who find the Sigma 30mm "too unusual". Of course its Sony NEX version crops to a more standard 45mm equivalent, but with the tradeoff of making the lens less suitable for portrait use, and a little less sharp near the edges, I think.

Back home, after downloading the SD card in my computer, I have been pleasantly surprised by Sigma 30mm's quality. Center is sharp, corners are just a little softer, light falloff is very moderate wide open and disappears with a couple of stops. The only annoying issue is lateral chromatic aberration, which requires a little tweaking in ACR or PTLens (or whatever software you use) in contrasty scenes. Color rendition is in the natural side, and contrast increases the perceived resolution.

At the end of the day, can the Sigma 30mm be compared to, say, the Panasonic Leica Summilux 25mm? Definitely not. This lens does not belong to the Micro 4/3 "holy trinity" (Panny 25mm, Zuiko 45mm and Zuiko 75mm). To my eye it can be put in the same range of Olympus' Zuiko 12mm. Whithout the all-metal construction, of course, and the clever manual-focus ring-switch. But for the price (especially after Sigma's announcement of its cosmetically upgraded version) it's one of the best buys currently available on the Micro 4/3 market place. Moreover it comes with an included bayonet lens hood and a beautifully made lens pouch.

Mmm, I just realized that my system leaks a ～35mm equivalent. And Sigma makes a 19mm too...

Olympus OM-D E-M5 - Sigma 30mm (60mm eq.)
1/250" f11 ISO 200

DESERT ISLAND CAMERA: CANON G15 USER REVIEW

Canon G15 @ 11mm (50mm eq.)
1/800" f6.3 ISO 80
Straight out-of-camera jpg

I have been using Canon's G-series cameras since 2008, when the G10 was introduced. I immediately fell in love with the G10: sumptuously built, rugged, dense, ergonomically clever with those marvellous exposure compensation and ISO metal dials on the top plate, and delivering awesome IQ thanks to its top class 28-140mm eq. zoom lens along with an incredible 14.7 Megapixel CCD sensor. At the time, authoritative site Luminous Landscape found that G10's files could even not-so-unclosely match medium format Phase One 45+'s in terms of overall quality, perceived resolution and color rendition. At last, five years after my switch to digital capture, my dream of a compact "true" camera came, er... true. In a few days, having my G10 always with me became an habit, so much so that many of my best shots were made with that little gem in the following years, while my DSLR rig stood in my studio's closet. Moreover, when shooting in bright light -a customary condition in my photography-, I could comfortably take advantage of its outstanding jpg output, without the hassle of the raw processing. Most of the photographs I exhibited in Venice in 2010 were shot that way with the G10.

Canon G15 @ 8mm (37mm eq.)
1/1250" f4 ISO 80
Straight out-of-camera jpg

This is why when the G11 was introduced in 2009 I didn't care to upgrade... I mean, downgrade. The new camera was equipped with a 10 Megapixel sensor instead of the G10's 14.7, in order to improve low light performance. But I suspect Canon marketing was upset because of the G10 cannibalizing the brand's entry-level DSLRs in terms of sales. Anyway I didn't need better high-ISO noise level and dynamics, and most of all I didn't want the extra bulk and toyish feeling of the G11's swivel LCD screen (which was well built, though, but I loathe them all).
Nor could the 2010 G12 replace the G10 in my vest pocket. As a matter of fact I have used one for limited amount of time, but IMHO it lacked its ancestor's solid feel and IQ. No doubt the customizable front wheel was an improvement, but the presence of the same swivel LCD screen as the G11's really annoyed me. So I stuck to the G10. Until now.
(More than four years: an unprecedented lifespan in the digital photography era. For me, at least.)

My Canon PowerShot G15

Enter the Canon G15.
I only had to hold one and play with it for a couple of minutes to decide it was time to trade-in my beloved G10 and upgrade to something really better. The Canon G15 definitely improves an already nearly-perfect product. 8mm thinner and more than 5mm narrower compared to its predecessor, tough as a gun thanks to its almost all-metal construction and coarse all-black paint finish, equipped with a fixed (thanks God) 922,000 dots 3" TFT LCD screen and, above all, a fast f1.8-2.8 28-140mm eq. lens, the G15 is nothing less than exciting.
Despite the smaller size and a 10% less in terms of weight, the unit handles perfectly, and that's something Canon designers should be praised for. As far as the layout is concerned nothing has changed, except for the upper deck, where all the essentials are now closely gathered around the shutter release. Thanks to this rearrangement, the exposure compensation dial (+/- 3EV) is easily operated by the user's thumb: a godsend. Slightly overlapping it, the mode dial cleverly offers, like the G10's, two custom presets (C1 and C2) along with the usual modes. Lying just below the shutter release, the front wheel is used to change the main parameter according to the selected mode. Briefly, the photographer can hold and operate the camera one-handed. Dials, buttons and wheels are perfectly designed and sized, and their response is solid and positive even wearing gloves. Consequently, getting familiar with the G15 only takes minutes. Once extended, the retractable lens is firm and steady like a fixed one, thus adding to the overall ruggedness feeling. The same can be said for the removable knurled ring surrounding it. A totally different tune, compared to the chunky and clunky G1X.

The G15's upper deck: an ergonomics masterwork

The optical viewfinder has always been one of the G-series' distinctive elements. Predictably there is one in the G15 too. Many reviewers point out that this key-hole device is unworthy of a 500 dollar camera. They are right... theoretically. Because as far as I know no manufacturer offers a camera as small with a built-in EVF. And hot-shoe mounted optical viewfinders (which are undoubtedly better) can't zoom and tend to get entangled in one's pocket. At the end of the day, IMHO having a key-hole finder with almost no extra bulk to pay for is far better than not having any. I know, it only covers about 80% of the real frame and in most units it's far from being properly aligned. But I was lucky enough to catch a well-aligned sample, and it turned out to be useful in most critical situations.

Canon G15 @ 7mm (32mm eq.)
1/1250" f4 ISO 80
Out-of-camera jpg, monochrome converted with Silver Efex Pro

As an imaging device, the G15 delivers far more than expected. The 1/1.7" 12 Megapixel CMOS sensor and Digic 5 processor pipeline produces crisp, clean, well contrasted pictures, with natural colors, rich detail and well-contained highlights. The in-camera processing is simply stunning, so much so that the resulting jpgs are virtually undistinguishable from raw, and the perceived resolution is even better than the G10's, notwithstanding the lesser definition. In my experience, black & white conversion is a good way to evaluate and judge a camera's output. If the converted image can bear heavy tone tweaking without showing artifacts and "broken" transitions -particularly in the blue channel- this means inherent good dynamics and color balance since the capture stage. Well, the G15 files convert reliably and smoothly, giving a rich and creamy grayscale.
Autofocus, although not comparable, for instance, with the Olympus OM-D's, is reactive enough. Manual focus is theoretically available, but the lack of a dedicated around-the-lens ring and TTL view always makes the option a joke in this kind of cameras. There are a tiny retractable flash and a video function in the G15 too, but I can't say anything about both, as I never use them. I'm not even curious to know if or how they work. The same can be said about the so-called creative modes, as well as the many extended-dynamics options that can be found in any camera nowadays, including this one.

Canon G15 @ 16mm (74mm eq.)
1/500 f4 ISO 80
Out-of-camera jpg, monochrome converted with Silver Efex Pro

And now to the title of this post. Am I tired of my Olympus OM-D and its marvellous lenses? Of course not. The Micro Four Thirds system I have put together in the recent years is definitely the best I have ever owned and used in my entire life. But I made a discipline of having a camera with me all the time, day and night, no matter the place. And size matters, in this respect. Size along with versatility, image quality, reliability and ruggedness. So if I had to give up all my cameras except one, I'd have no doubts: as of today, the Canon G15, equipped with a simple wrist-strap, would be my camera on the proverbial desert island.
Provided that there is something interesting for me to take a photograph of on that island. Which I'm not so sure, as a matter of fact. 

MONO E-LAB-ORATED

Canon G1X @ 60mm (105mm eq.) w/polarizer
Square-cropped, lab-unsaturated and slightly level-tweaked out-of-camera jpg
1/640" f5.8 ISO 100

I'm frequently using LAB color method in order to turn my images into monochrome. I first convert the file into LAB, then I dump a, b and alpha 2 channels, just preserving alpha 1 (i.e. luminosity). This way I avoid the hassle of some artifacts appearing, for instance, in blue sky areas when converting into monochrome via the usual Photoshop color mixer.
What amazes me in this process is the increase in overall sharpness of the converted image, especially in the details. My technical knowledge doesn't go far enough to understand why. So I'd be grateful to anyone explaining to PhotoGraphia readers and myself why a LAB-converted image is (or looks) sharper than an RGB unsaturated one.
Thank you in advance. 

A DASH OF TECHNIQUE

Olympus E-M5 - Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm at 45mm (90mm eq.) w/polarizer - 1/250" f8 ISO 200
in-camera monochrome (red filter) - out-of-camera jpg

PhotoGraphia regulars may notice that I started captioning my photographs using their main exif data. I don't think my previous posts were lacking anything, yet I'm currently in a more "photography-oriented" mood than in the last few years and, consequently, I'm interested in this aspect of the imaging process a little more than usual. Things change.
Therefore you can expect a dash of technique will be added to my next posts every now and then. I'm quite sure this will please most readers, while those who don't care won't be bothered at all.

By the way, my new Olympus OM-D E-M5 is an awesome camera. More on this matter in the next few weeks. In the meantime I'd like to know which manual-focus lenses, in your experience, better match the 16 megapixel Micro 4/3 sensors, both Olympus and Panasonic, in terms of sharpness, resolving power and microcontrast. My current tests deliver unexpected results.

FUJI X-PRO 1 CONCISE HANDS-ON REVIEW

A photograph I shot with the Fuji X-Pro 1

Thanks to my "gear-pusher" friend Riccardo, some weeks ago I had the opportunity to test the long awaited Fuji X-Pro 1 for a weekend. The camera was a standard production unit. Riccardo also provided me with the new Fujinon 35mm f1.4 prime. As I recently recalled in this blog, I have been the happy user of a Fuji X100 (see my review here) for a year now, so much so that great were my expectations when I went to collect the two gorgeous black boxes concealing the new camera and lens.

OLYMPUS OM-D E-M5: FIRST CONTACT

This is a photograph I shot today inside Zaha Hadid's Maxxi Museum in Rome using my brand new Olympus OM-D E-M5 and Panasonic 14-14mm lens at a whoping ISO 1250 sensitivity. The camera really impresses me. Apart from the usual insane Olympus' menu system (which is so poorly translated in Italian that I had to switch it back into English) its operation is flawless. Design and build are close to pefection, and as far as image quality is concerned the kit I used delivers well.
I'll come back to this new gem with an upcoming review. Stay tuned.

CANON G1X REVIEW

One of the first photographs I shot with the Canon G1X

I'm currently preparing my upcoming art fair, which will be held in Milan (Italy) next April. While selecting the photographs to be shown I was struck by the huge percentage of Canon G10's shots among them. This is certainly due to the fact that a Canon G camera is purposely designed as a carry-everywhere tool, so much so that I actually have been carrying it always (I mean, always) with me. Besides, the G10 is the camera I have been the most faithful to since my switch to digital capture, as I bought it as soon as it was released in 2008 and foolishly trade it in just a couple of months ago in order to fund the purchase of a Fuji X10. As PhotoGraphia regulars may recall, I was deeply unsatisfied with the X10 (my Fuji X10 review can be read here) and a couple of days later I gave it back to my photo-gear pusher in exchange of a last generation (I presumed) Canon G-series camera, the G12.

FUJIFILM X10 REVIEW

A photograph I took with the Fujifilm X10 premium compact camera

I wasn't sure I would post my impressions about the new Fujifilm X10 premium compact, as this camera became unusually popular long before anybody could actually run a real test over it. On the other hand this cute artifact is now gaining such a success among reviewers all over the magazines and the web, that I feel I must be loyal to PhotoGraphia readers and frankly tell them my opinion.

I PHONE. AND YOU?

My wife Daniela presented me with an iPhone 4 last winter. No need to say I avoided even trying its built-in camera. I was too snobbish for that. Well, to tell the truth a friend of mine convinced me to install the Hipstamatic and LoMob apps, and in order to see what those apps can do I shot a couple of pictures that I immediately erased, as they had zero interest to me. Until July, when I found myself waiting for somebody to come out of a building one morning, while the sun was drawing an interesting black pattern on the facade in front of me. As usual, I had a camera in my bag, but it was one of those situation that don't allow a man to stop and take a photograph: people simply wouldn't have appreciated that. On the other hand I have a rule of never give up a potentially good shot if I see it, no matter the situation. What was I supposed to do?

I was really embarrassed, when I suddenly realized that I had a second camera in my pocket. One that was disguised as a cell phone, and nobody would pay attention to. So I took out my iPhone and started shooting photographs while pretending that I was reading email messages. Luckily I forgot to launch the Hipstamatic app, and when I got back home I could see what a straight out-of-iPhone jpg file can look like: I got astouned. The above photograph is one out of a dozen shots I took that morning, square-cropped and slightly tweaked in levels and contrast.

Does this mean something special? I don't think so. The good news is that I actually own one camera more than I thought: an ultra compact five megapixel unit, very silent and unobtrusive, equipped with a 30mm equivalent lens and delivering -under ideal lighting conditions- an "usable" image quality. Am I therefore going to ditch my Leica M9 and become a cameraphone geek? Definitely not. To put it simply, I am aware that I have more creative opportunities, and what has already changed is that I sometimes deliberately take a photograph with my iPhone, even in situations where I'm allowed to use a "real" camera. In my computer there is a new folder now, called "iPhone keepers". Day after day, it's filling up.

JOY MACHINE: FUJIFILM X100 REAL-WORLD REVIEW

A photograph i shot with the Fuji X100

PhotoGraphia regulars may recall a post in which I praised Fujifilm for their then newly announced X100 premium almost-compact camera. It was October 2010, the only interesting news at Photokina came from the enhanced-quality/smaller-size segment and the hybrid viewfinder technology sounded like being a winner.

Nine months (and tons of enthusiastic reviews) later, a small parcel coming from Hong Kong was delivered to my studio and the next minute I was unboxing that beautiful little gem.

I have been shooting only with the X100 since then. The last time was today, trying to catch the sunrise light over the sea of the French Riviera during my usual (on holiday) early morning bycicle ride. By the way, I have tons of French sunrises in my hard disks wich are not likely to be ever made public; but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

As usual, I will leave to professional reviewers the task of scientifically measure and rate every single feature of the camera. Which has already be done by many, on the other hand. I don't remember any photo product being described, commented and buzzed as widely as the X100. And for sound reasons.

In putting my hands on the X100 for the first time i got amazed: a camera that looks and feels like... well, like a camera! Seen from above, the unit shows everything a photographer could expect from his tool: analog dials for aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation (all of which can be read even when power is off), a Fn button which is ideal for ISO setting, along with a threaded release button (allowing the use of any classic $10 universal flexible release, instead of a bulky and clunky $80 dedicated remote) and a moderately protruding pancake lens.

 
The X100 seen from above: 100% pure photography

Build quality is top class. Despite its moderate -but not insubstantial- weight, the body feels sturdy and reassuring. The leatherette covering thoroughly matches the metal top and base plates, which are somptuously painted and engraved. Generally speaking, the X100 could be mistaken for a luxury analog compact from the Seventies, back side apart. Only the poorly designed rear wheel and the flimsy battery/card cover on the bottom deserve a word of reproach.

Though the sore point is yet to come. Because, after a full charge of the battery (the same as previous cameras from the house: well done, Fuji), the poor photographer would want to set his brand new camera up according to his own taste and needs. Well, I fear that the only way to do it without getting completely lost would be by taking the same drug Fuji menu designers are obviously addicted to. Unfortunately it's not mentioned in the user's manual.

Briefly, I have no suggestions about this issue. The only way is that you take your time, concentrate, breathe deeply, write notes and keep your fingers crossed. As a matter of fact Fuji partly addressed the harsh criticisms quickly aroused by the X100's menu system one month ago, when firmware version 1.10 was released. But, apart from some crazy behaviors and bugs which have been duly fixed, the song remains the same. On the other hand this painful procedure has to be performed only once (and whenever the firmware is updated, unfortunately). I mean, this kind of camera only requires to be set up once for all. It's not like when you fiddle with a sophisticated DSLR to choose among a wide range of specialized performances in extreme shooting conditions. Forget all this. Once you have decided if you need the histogram to be displayed or not, or the DOF scale, or the spirit level, or the grid, if you want auto-ISO or whatever being set on, and what function the Fn button should be enabled to, I'm pretty sure you will forget about crappy menus and everything, and will concentrate on composing your photograph and shoot. Because this is a back-to-basics tool: once configured, you get quickly used to it that way, and you are done.

One of the first photographs I shot with the Fuji X100 (out of camera jpg)

The hybrid viewfinder has been considered as the X100's forte months before the camera was actually released. No surprise. When switched to electronic it's as good as the Olympus EPx's add-on unit. Well, not as bright, perhaps. Anyway, although definitely too dim for daylight use, it helpfully gains EVs in low light, allowing an accurate framing even in the darkest shooting conditions. Nonetheless the real treat comes when it's switched to optical. Imagine a current Leica M viewfinder, only a little smaller but definitely clearer and brighter, with a neat and crisp rectangle accurately outlining the actual framed area, and surrounded by additional, fully customizable and easily readable informations. Framing through such a perfectly engineered device is a unique and exciting experience most young photographers can't even imagine. And soon you realize that not only your left eye, but also your right hand is perfectly at ease with the X100, because its insane menu system is lavishly made up for by its stunning ergonomics: everything is simply in the right place, has the right shape and works the right way. The silent release button is the cherry on the cake (provided that the stupid fake shutter sound is set to off, of course). Nothing to do with the clunky and noisy Leica M9's. The X100 can be unnoticeably used during a theater performance or a classic music concert.

A switch on the left side of the body allows the focus to be set to manual (or continuous). Don't delude yourselves, the X100 manual focusses by-wire, which has nothing to do with the experience of a proper, true mechanical focus ring. Therefore I prefer to make do with the autofocus, which is reliable and not too hesitating.

Another photograph I shot the same day with the X100 (out of camera jpg)

Don't worry, I didn't forget that a camera is about taking photographs in the first place. Nor did Fuji engineers, who made a really great job in this respect: the X100 lens-sensor-processor-firmware pipeline is definitely the best performer I have ever tried in my life (as of August 2011). Let me make one thing straight: I have only shot jpg's with the X100 so far, and I won't change. As this blog's regulars know, I'm allergic to raw formats and I expect a good camera to properly do its job, which is to take a photograph and properly process it into a usable file, instead of subcontracting this task to the photographer. Whenever a masochist outburst makes me want the hassle of raw reviewing and processing, I shoot with the Leica M9, which delivers the lousiest out-of-camera jpg in the history of digital photography.

A 100% crop of the above photograph (out of camera jpg, no sharpening)

Whith all the picture parameters of the X100 set to standard you get awesome colors and tonal values, rich details and microcontrast, a sharpness you'd expect from a 16 Mpixel camera at least, no visible noise (at reasonable ISO values), no distortion, no corner fall-off, no chromatic aberration. The lens' better performance is at f5.6 and f8. If you need more depth-of-field f11 is the best compromise. At f16 the effects of diffraction become obvious. I warmly suggest to avoid the film modes, as they dramatically cut down image quality. If you want to play with those effects you better save the expense of a real camera and use the Hipstamatic app with your iPhone. Moreover, by living all picture parameters on standard you will not have to fiddle with the crazy menus of the X100. In-camera black&white is also to be avoided, as it generates visible artifacts in the smooth areas like, for instance, a deep blue summer sky. This is probably due to a weakness often found in the blue channel of digital cameras.

Incidentally, I don't see the point in clumsily trying to imitate film rendition with digital capture, when the best film cameras can be purchased for nothing nowadays and films are still easy enough to find and get processed. It's like buying furniture covered with fake wood. It's a little sad, I think. You like wood? Buy real wood. You want a film look? Make your life easier: use film.

So are we talking about THE perfect camera? I don't think so, but we are very close to it. The X100 is a light and swift tool, but not as fast. On the other hand speed is not the first attribute we'd expect from such a camera (personally, I couldn't care less). Pro DSLR are there for that, and they do an excellent job in that field. Wake-up time could be slightly improved, perhaps, as well as focus reactivity. Somebody could miss an interchangeable lens, but a fixed 35mm equivalent focal length is part of the DNA of this kind of camera. And after so many years of zoom addiction (I confess being an addict too), leaving home with only what is considered as the "golden focal length" can be highly educational: if you only have a hammer with you, you'll only see nails and won't miss one.

To get instructions, and a safe guide through the fanciful menu system above all, forget the user manual and refer to Ken Rockwell's cleverly thought and written Fuji X100 User's Guide: everything you'll ever need to know is there. As for accessories, I got my X100 bundled with the adapter ring and hood as well as the ever-ready case. The latter is a very well built and sturdy classic brown leather case (with matching strap), perfectly tailored around camera's body and fast to open thanks to its magnet system. As a biker, I'm a fan of this kind of camera protection, and my X100 sits inside it since the very first day. As for the adapter and hood kit, despite the top quality build and finishing mine is still unused, as it's not compatible with the case. Too bad.

At the end of the day, if you like the idea of strolling around with a light and compact rig -made even more unobtrusive by its handsomely nerdish appearance (especially with it's brown leather case)-, go back to the essentials and find the pure joy of photography again, the Fuji X100 is your camera. Period.

HOW A LEICA M9 CAN MAKE A DULL DAY YOUR DAY: FOLLOW UP

Concluding his comment to my last post, How a Leica M9 can make a dull day your day, PhotoGraphia regular David Aspinall raises the eternal question: do I want to be bothered with technology or just take photos?
I don't know about painters or sculptors and their relationship with the tools they use to get their art done. What my experience tells me is that a camera is far from being a "neutral" or "passive" instrument. There is a strong and deep relationship between a photographer and his tool. This is due to the inherent complexity of the latter and the influence it has on the way a photograph can -or can not- be taken. Not even the most zen-ish equipment (field camera or pinhole, for instance) is devoid of a well defined tech awareness and attitude. Not to mention the cultural, commercial, fashion or fetish value lying under every single choice.
So I'm afraid the correct answer to David's question is: no answer. We will keep feeling guilty whenever we suspect that we are overseeing photography in favor of technology. In the meantime we will keep peeping new gear in the quest for the "perfect" camera (which will never be launched). This is a syndrome I know very well and I will never recover from. And I think it's part of the exciting and neverending game we call photography.

HOW A LEICA M9 CAN MAKE A DULL DAY YOUR DAY

I took this photograph during a recent visit in Prague. I was in the process of testing the Leica M9 (although this wasn't my journey's purpose - see my Leica M9 review) so the dull sky waiting for me that morning, definitely one of the dullest I found in my entire life, didn't discourage me from leaving the hotel and have a long walk downtown. Which perhaps I wouldn't do, if it wasn't for the excitement of a new camera to play with. I must say I didn't shoot too much that day (I never shoot too much, on the other hand), but I got the chance to try something odd. For me, at least.
I often found myself taking photographs in unusual lighting conditions since then, which is being healthy for my creativity. This is why there is something new coming out from my pipeline recently, and some results are already there.
Of course I'm very far from suggesting the purchase of new gear as a cure for adverse light conditions. No, it's all about keeping curiosity at the highest possible level, and the aptitude to challenge one's own habits, under both aesthetic and technical points of view.
Even though the M9 and the Summicron 35 asph are really awesome...

STROLLING ABOUT WITH THE LEICA M9

A detail of Frank Gehry's "Ginger & Fred" building in Prague I shot with the Leica M9

We had a lousy winter and spring in Southern Europe this year. Lighting conditions were far from being my ideal most of the times, so I got fun toying with cameras I didn't know yet. PhotoGraphia regulars may remember my quick review of the Canon S95, an incredible little gem that I eventually gave up only because, well..., it's too little for my hands and I couldn't help messing up with those tiny buttons. Later on, on the opposite side, I made a couple of journeys dragging on my poor shoulders a Canon 5D MkII equipped with an L 24-105 f/2.8 zoom of the same brand, an outstanding rig that suggested me a couple of musings about format shifting. After which I happily gave it back with no regrets.

But something kept buzzing around in my head. I have been a rangefinder camera fan for a long long time. Since my film years. I like them for their simple layout, their compactness and light weight. For being so unobtrusive that nobody gives a toss if you stroll around his property with it, or even directly point it towards his face (which, honestly, doesn't occur to me very often). For their tiny and flawless lenses, gorgeously machined in solid metal and always bearing a useful (to me, at least) depth-of-field scale. This is why, after my switch to digital capture I longed so much for a good substitute to my beloved Leica M4-P film camera, until the day I found it (almost, but not exactly) in the Epson R-D1. Thanks to which I could use the old M-bayonet lenses I was familiar with (apart from the 1,5 crop factor), along with a couple of short Voigtländer glasses -as for the latter, I quickly learned that their optics don't fit well with sensors, due to the angle of incidence of light rays in the peripheral areas of the frame-.

Then came the most awaited camera of the past decade: the Leica M8. I wouldn't be able to afford it without trading-in my R-D1, so I did. What a mistake! The most insanely expensive camera I had ever bought simply delivered poorer results than any point-and-shoot worth ten times less. I sold my M8 almost immediately (making a little profit though, as it was heavily back-ordered at the time), and since then I have been very angry with Leica, and found it really difficult to consider the German manufacturer as one related to real-life photography. This is why, when it came out a couple of years ago, I didn't bother to test the M8.2, and dismissed it as the next red-dotted swindle.

In the meantime Micro 4/3 had been launched. Again, PhotoGraphia regulars may remember a post where I acknowledged the new-born format as the Third-Millennium Leica. I first bought myself a Panasonic GF1, a reliable and well enough built camera, reasonably priced and blessed by a good quality lens lineup. Then I switched to Olympus EP2, a better jpg performer fitted with a far better (although optional) electronic viewfinder. Not that we are talking about a flawless camera (read here and here), but it was reasonable to expect the launch of a more accomplished and pro-oriented Panasonic or Olympus Micro 4/3 camera within the end of 2010. So I considered an upgrade as forthcoming.

Except that now this prediction turns out to be wrong: as of June 2011 there is no pro-oriented Micro 4/3 camera looming on the horizon. Panasonic has decidedly lowered the target of its GF lineup, whereas Olympus seems to be hesitating about what to do in the future. So Micro 4/3 enthusiasts feel like their favorite (and only) brands are simply dumping them. And perhaps they are right. In the meantime rumors follow one another in the Net -and unfailingly turn out to be untrue- about new EVIL systems to be introduced by Nikon or Canon or you-name-it. Shortly, the Third-Millennium Leica seems to be getting a serious stalemate.

This is why, as soon as I had a chance to test a Leica M9, I didn't miss the opportunity. As usual, this "review" is based on my personal real-world experience of a couple of thousand shots, without the help of any measurement test devices, and lacks any direct comparison with other cameras' performance.

A power plant in downtown Salzburg (Austria) I shot with the Leica M9

One thing must be said in advance: the Leica M9 is a great camera. The images it delivers are simply awesome, rich in detail and microcontrast, incredibly deep and plastic. Color rendition is unusually film-like. Is this enough to recommend the M9 as a reliable photographic tool? Definitely yes. Is this enough to hail the M9 as the perfect camera? Definitely no. Let's see why.

• Design & Ergonomics - The M9 is based on the classic 1954 M layout. Hate it or love it. Personally, it's my favorite: no mirror box, no prism, (almost) no noise (acoustically speaking); few buttons, levers and knobs. For mysterious reasons Leica designers decided to keep the detachable baseplate of the film models, which makes accessing to the battery and to the SD card unbelievably slow and difficult. The lack of a film-advance lever makes the unit a little slippery, especially in one-hand operation. This can be addressed via the add-on Thumbs-Up grip by Match Technical Services, a clever and insanely expensive accessory allowing a good rest to the photographer's thumb. Beware: the black paint wears off the tip of the Thumbs-Up grip in a couple of days of normal use, which makes the thing even more overpriced.
• Build Quality - The Leica M9 (as the M8 and M8.2) is sumptuously built and finished, which is of a great value for me. I simply can't use a poorly built device, be it a camera, a bicycle or a cellphone.
• Viewfinder - Crystal-clear, wide, a luxury. Yet, despite its indisputable qualities, there are severe usability limitations, as it's unfit for focal lengths shorter than 28 mm (already too wide for a comfortable viewing) and longer than 135 mm (already too long for decent framing and precise focussing). After the introduction of the Fuji X100 hybrid viewfinder, the Leica unit suddenly looks outdated and inadequate. And, in a way, it really is. As for 35 to 90 mm focal lengths, it perfectly does the job. And shorter lenses are easily covered via external optical viewfinders. Yes, they make operating the camera even slower, but it must be said that a Leica M does not allow a fast setting up (changing lens involves fiddling with menus too). It's a fast camera only AFTER it has been set up. Manual focussing is quick and easy, thanks to a bright and very accurate rangefinder. And the depth-of-field scale engraved on each lens barrel is the cherry on the cake.
• Exposure Compensation - It's easily operated through the rear wheel, but once it has been set, nothing inside or outside the viewfinder reminds it to the photographer. The only way to know is by rotating the rear wheel again, thus unintentionally changing the exposure compensation value. A couple of LEDs more could have done the job. This is an example of sloppy design. The same could be said about ISO value, although this is a little more excusable, as ISOs are easily accessible through a dedicated button.
• Menus and Buttons - Leica did an excellent job. I wish all camera menus were designed like this. No garbage menus here. You unbox your camera, set it up once and you are done. Frequently used menu items are cleverly grouped in a six-line list accessed through a dedicated "SET" button. Very effective.
• Rear LCD Monitor - It's a crappy 2.5" 230,000 pixel TFT. A display this bad is hard to find even in point&shoot cameras priced 50 times less. It's slow, coarse, inaccurate, totally useless. A reliable playback device was to be considered a standard feature in a 2009 camera. Twice as standard in such an expensive pro outfit. Leica staff, from the top managers to the last janitor, should be corporally punished for such an insult to their paying customers. Unless they only want to deal with worshippers, which I'm not. I require value for my hard-earned cash. Moreover it easily scratches, as Leica geniuses didn't bother to protect their LCD jewel with a sapphire-glass screen. It's plastic, and it only took a two-hour walk to scrape off mine. According to recent rumors, this issue will be addressed in an upcoming M9.2 (or M9-P) model: a good excuse to raise an already crazy price, and dump the second-hand value of all the existing M9 cameras. Pretty unfair.
• RAW, JPG, Noise - I already praised M9's image quality. As everybody knows, the Leica M glass lineup is definitely the best in the marketplace. And the M9 body squeezes this superior quality out of every single lens. Provided that we shoot in RAW (DNG) format, as the JPG delivered by the M9 is unacceptable: color rendition, sharpness, noise reduction, white balance, brightness and contrast are simply wrong. This makes DNG a forced choice, thus requiring the photographer to take the hassle of the RAW processing even at low ISO values. On the other hand the M9 is not about speed. Don't get me wrong: it's far from being a slow camera. If you allow me a daring comparison, it reminds me the amazing 1995 Mamiya 7. Of course Mamiya 7 was a medium format body in the film era, but I'm persuaded that the recent evolution in digital formats has caused a downsizing process, so that now a 24x36mm sensor can be considered as "medium format", whereas Micro 4/3 is the Third Millennium "Leica format" (see my post on this matter). As for noise many manufacturers can do better, even with APS-C bodies. This is no surprise, as Leica proved to be particularly weak as far as software design is involved. In Solms they perfectly know how to beautifully machine a piece of solid metal or to create matchless lenses. Unfortunately, firmware development is a totally different job. Yet, at ISO 1600, an M9 DNG file developed in Adobe Camera Raw shows a noise which can be compared to a nice film grain of the old good days, and I'm happy with it. In the meantime I can't help imagining how could the M9 firmware perform, if only it was designed by the likes of Olympus or Fuji.

The unpretentious snapshot of an unusually colored building I took in Salzburg (Austria)

A 100% detail of the same snapshot (1/750 f6.7 @ ISO 160 - Summicron 35mm ASPH)

THE BOTTOM LINE: I insist, the Leica M9 is a great camera delivering awesome photographs: sharp, deep, detailed, with stunning color rendition and a creamy, silver-like black&white. It's ease of use can be considered at the same class and level of the rangefinder medium format units of the film era. Despite its insane price, the M9 is far from being a flawless product. Which is caused by a mix of poor design, corner-cuttings and lack of digital know-how (due to the "luxury" brand ownership of Leica in the recent past years). Yet the M9 is definitely a photographer's tool, with a great appeal and a strong, unique personality.

SHIFTING FORMATS

Thanks to my photographer friend Tom McLaughlan I've had the opportunity to test one of the most celebrated medium format cameras on the marketplace: the Canon 5D MkII. I know, the specs say it sports a 24x36 mm sensor, a.k.a. "full format". I have two questions, then: full format, compared to what standard? A film standard, ok. But we are talking digital here, aren't we? Getting out of an old habit is not that easy, right? Second question: considering that Hasselblad H3D's or Leica S2's sensors are about 35x50 mm and are called "medium format", how can a 24x36 mm unit be possibly called "full"?

I'm afraid marketing gurus are a little confused. Their anxiety about forging yet the ultimate selling strategy drives them to contradict themselves and, most of all, drives us crazy as to what a real-life photography understanding is concerned. In 1840 the standard focal length used by French photographer Louis Daguerre was 360 mm, i.e. a format about 200x300 mm. Ninety years later, when the first 24x36 mm Leica hit the market in 1932, the standard format was the 120 roll film (56x56 mm) introduced by Kodak for its popular Brownie camera in 1901. Thus the 24x36 mm was immediately called "small format", whereas the 120 roll 56x56 mm (a.k.a. 6x6 in Europe) lost its small format privilege and gained the "medium format" name, which remained the same until now. Sheet film, in all its declensions, already was and still is called "large format".

As you can see, a major tech innovation produced a shift in real-world use of the various film formats, which caused a deep change in manufacturers' design strategies and in their product lineups. Not to mention the profound influence exerted on the photographic language. Without that format shift, photography wouldn't be the same.

PhotoGraphia regulars may recall that i called Micro Four Thirds the "Third-Millennium Leica". The new 18x13 mm sensor is to a 24x36 mm what 24x36 mm was to 56x56 mm in the Thirties. This is simply called evolution.

So how current formats should be considered compared to the old film formats? Here is my chart:

• 1/2.3" sensor (p&s pocket cameras) = Minox 8x11 mm film;
• 1/1.7" sensor (hi-end Compacts like Canon G12) = Olympus Pen 18x24 mm half format film;
• Micro Four Thirds sensor = 24x36 mm Leica film;
• APS sensor = 127 roll compact-medium format film;
• 24x36 mm sensor = 120/220 roll medium format film;
• 35x50 mm sensor (Hasselblad, Leica S2) = large format sheet film;

Large format sheet film (4x5 inch and over) have no digital equivalent, except the Seitz 6x17 cm scan camera.

Now we can go back to my experience with the Canon 5D MkII. I got the camera equipped with the 24-105 L zoom lens. Compared to its predecessor 5D, the unit has better ergonomics and feels a little more rugged (although not as rugged as Nikon semi-pro DSLRs). The overall finish is of a good level. The on/off switch is still in the wrong place and the mode selector tends to inadvertently move (but Canon offers a retrofit safety selector for less than 100 $). Weight apart, the camera feels good in a man's hand and is very fast. The rear control wheel can be easily operated by the thumb and the viewfinder is simply sumptuous. Briefly, it's been like using a classic 1969 Asahi Pentax 6x7 medium format film camera.

Looking at the files, what really strikes me is the very low and extremely pleasant noise, which is only detectable at ISO values over 1000 and definitey looks like a fine film grain. As expected in a Canon camera, raw and jpg deliver almost the same picture quality, especially in bright light. The 24-105 L rendition is slightly soft, and -quite surprisingly for such a big lens- distortion and lateral chromatic aberration are strong.

In short, did I like the camera? Yes, its qualities are unquestionable and its (few) flaws forgivable. Except for its bulk and weight: a total 3.5 lb (more than 1,500 g) that I fully enjoyed during two trips, in London and Lisbon. When you walk eight hours a day with such a load hanging from your neck, the only happy guy is your physiotherapist (no kidding). If you ask me if my kind of photography requires me to strain myself that much, the answer is NO. Not that I dislike the idea of a medium format (ok, um... 24x36 mm) digital camera. When shooting handheld in low light it's a resource, and sometimes I'd like a little bokeh in my photographs. Yet I don't need a DSLR. A rangefinder camera would do the job, but there isn't much choice in the digital era, I'm afraid. We'll see.

The three photographs in this post has been shot last month in London with the Canon 5D MkII. The first and the second one, portraying details of the More London buildings, has been made possible by my friend Tom McLaughlan, who managed to get the More London security allow me to shoot. Thank you again, Tom.

BEING AN OLYMPUS MICRO 4/3 CAMERA

Let me make it clear: this is not a camera review, not even an informal one. I'd only like to share with PhotoGraphia readers my musings about two cameras I'm deeply satisfied with. Which doesn't prevent me from pointing out some issues and objecting to some manufacturer's choices (or shabbinesses).
After trading-in a Canon S95 and a Panasonic LX5 which I owned for a while, I have been shooting with an Olympus E-P2 and an E-PL2 for a couple of months. The main reason of this purchase is the poor definition of my Panasonic GF1 electronic viewfinder. I tend to use bigger focal lengths lately, so I can't risk to get motion-blurred photographs by holding the camera with my arms stretched out -which is a good way to frame with wide angles, on the other hand-. I need a "real" eyepiece so that I can push the unit onto my face and fine-tune my framing with no shake. And, most of all, with the capability to reliably manual-focus, when required.
In the meantime, my winter attempts with low-light and night photography induced me to work with old primes, as focussing-by-wire with modern electronic glasses is a real pain in the ass. Having some Leica lenses still sitting in my closet, it just took an adapter to mate them with my Olympus Micro 4/3 bodies.

Olympus E-P2, electronic viewfinder WF-2
and a 1973 Leitz Elmar-C 90 mm (180 equiv.) f/4 lens: a great combo

I was a little skeptical in the beginning, but finding out that the ergonomics of such an outfit are (almost) the same as my old rangefinder cameras really delighted me. Leica lenses perfectly match those units, under both functional and technical points of view. A lens like the Elmar-C 90 mm f/4 (180 equivalent) can easily focus with the help of the bright and surprisingly crisp Olympus WF-2 electronic viewfinder, even slightly stopped down. On the other hand a shorter focal like the Elmar-M 24 mm f/3.8 (48 equivalent, say the standard 50 mm of the good old days), at f/5.6 delivers a depth-of-field from 1.7 (6 feet) to infinity, allowing an easy and hassle-free framing even when operated through the rear live view screen.
The next lens I'm going to try is the Voigtländer Super Wide Heliar 15 mm f/4.5, which promises to be a good all-around solution, thanks to its 30 mm equivalent focal lenght and a gorgeous 0.8 meter (2.6 feet) to infinity depth-of-field, wide open. Theoretically, at least, since I have been disappointed by Voigtländer-to-digital matings in the past (you get what you pay). But, according to serious reviewers, this one seems to be better than its siblings. We'll see. The 4/3 sensor's reduced size could help.

Since my very first shots I have been struck by Olympus bodies' picture quality: they deliver the best jpg's I have seen in my entire digital life, definitely. At ISO 200 to 800 you could'n tell a jpg from a raw. This proves that, thanks to the new processing engine and algorithms, the in-camera image treatment has really reached the next level. Plus, the thinner-than-competition anti-alias filter helps squeezing the maximum crispness out of any lens. Briefly, a joy. But... There are some buts:

-Why in the hell the live view system of the E-P2 cannot visualize the EV alterations set by the photographer? No matter how I tweak aperture values in manual mode, or exposure compensation in any mode, the displayed image remains the same and, worst of all, even the histogram doesn't show any change (which makes the histogram display totally senseless). This function is implemented in most (and cheaper) compact cameras. Why E-P2 users aren't entitled to it, whereas E-PL2 (fortunately) are?
-Why in the hell the endless E-P2 and E-PL2 menus don't allow users to configure live-view screen according to their needs? For example, I can not have the histogram and the grid shown in the same view, nor I can move the histogram wherever I'd like it to be. No, I'm obliged to toggle between different modes by countlessly pushing the "display" button: it's crazy.
-Why in the hell the E-P2 histogram is so big it hides most of the framed image, whereas the E-PL2 one is so poorly outlined that I have to guess what it says?
-Why in the hell the button layout of the E-PL2 is so totally (and crazily) different from the E-P2? Do those cameras belong to different lineups? Perhaps Olympus designers have fun every time I mistake the "menu" button for the "info" button, or the "playback" button for the "trash can" button. Or maybe Olympus R&D department is outsourced (an euphemism for "subcontracted") to anonymous (and different) external camera makers, with no coordination or briefing coming out of the brand's management?
-Why in the hell the "Fn" button configurability is restricted to such a few options?
-Why in the hell the WF-2 electronic viewfinder, notwithstanding its price, has got to be so flimsy and poorly built?
-Why in the hell the two cameras don't share the same battery (and charger) notwithstanding their identical battery size?

To sum up, why Olympus management makes so unnecessarily difficult being an Olympus Micro 4/3 camera?