Hardware

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/2 R WR is a weather resistant normal focal length lens for the Fujifilm X system. It’s thought to be a refresh of the f/1.4 lens that came out at the introduction of the X system, but it’s actually quite superior in (almost) every way. The only place where the newer lens doesn’t win is with the maximum aperture. Other than that, it’s faster to focus, it’s quieter, it’s sharper from edge to edge (although admittedly I don’t care about how sharp the edges of my pictures are). Images are razor sharp, but then again almost all modern lenses are sharp “enough.” But as far as sharpness goes, this lens gets very sharp. It’s also smaller than the f/1.4 version.

One area where I think this f/2 lens is really strange is the shape. It’s a weird shape with a taper towards the front element. It just looks really weird, and as of right now, I think it’s kind of ugly. And even though it is fairly compact and thin, it’s just long enough to de-balance the X-E1 and X-E2 bodies I shoot with. I much prefer the pancake form factor of something like the 27mm f/2.8 or the 18mm f/2.

Let’s talk about the lens hood that comes with it. It’s super dinky, all plastic, round, and it makes the end of the lens look like a suction cup. I see it breaking within a few months with regular use. There’s also this odd thing where, when you try to screw it off but you’re gripping it too tightly, it warps and causes the threads to lock up, and it gets really difficult to remove. You have to use a light touch when you screw it off.

I’m also not much of a fan of the 50mm-equivalent focal length for general, everyday use. I’d much prefer something like a 35mm-equivalent (like the 23mm on my X100S) or even a 28mm equivalent (I own the 18mm Fuji as well). I’ve always liked to shoot wider and get closer. The 50mm equivalent is a little too long for me for recreational use unless I’m specifically shooting a job that calls for that focal length

My preferences aside, the lens renders beautiful images with great detail, and is super fast and quiet. The last couple days have been overcast so I haven’t been able to put this thing through it’s paces in some sunlight yet, but I look forward to doing that as soon as possible. I will continue to shoot with this as extensively as I can for the next few weeks so I can try to get comfortable with this focal length and put together some more in depth thoughts.

Buy one here.

These are the first photos I’ve taken with my Canon EOS M and 22mm f/2.0 Lens Kit.
.

I bought the camera because my Ricoh GR is still in repair, as far as I know CRIS Camera is still waiting for the part to repair it. For my personal photos, I’ve been shooting nothing but film and with my iPhone when it’s convenient. I have nothing I against pictures taken with a phone (outside of the fact that comparatively speaking, they suck)–what I hate is the experience of shooting with a phone.

Shooting exclusively with film again for nearly 2 months straight has reminded me of how we used to shoot pictures–carefully chosen subjects, conservatively exposed frames. Much more thought went into whether we wanted that frame or not. We weren’t so profligate with it, and I feel like my digital shooting is much more careful now because of it (until of course I fall back into the habit of clicking-because-I-can, which is just inevitable with digital).

With the holidays coming and my daughter at the magical age of 2.5, and very aware of the legend that is Santa Claus, I wanted something more robust and capable than an iPhone, and more flexible and generous than film, since we have so many holiday activities planned. To hold myself over, I got a Canon EOS M and 22mm f/2.0 Lens.

At an equivalent focal length of 35mm, and a lens faster than that of my Ricoh GR, the focal length is right in my comfort zone.

After getting out of the office, I decided to take a twilight stroll and push the camera/lens combo’s low-light abilities for my first run through with the camera.

So far I can definitely say I enjoy shooting with the camera, but with the finer controls buried in menus and touchscreens, and only one real spinning control dial and a minimal amount of buttons, my impression is that the EOS-M is a step up from point and shoots (albeit a big step up) rather than an alternative for those who want to leave a D-SLR at home. It feels and acts like a point-and-shoot in its slight sluggishness and choice to use slow-ish shutter speeds, rather than an aggressive picture-making machine like the Ricoh GR.

I haven’t even shot with the camera in daylight yet as of this writing, but I’m definitely looking forward to shooting all weekend with it. I’ll post more as I shoot more.

After owning the original Fujifilm X100 in 2012 for about 4 months, I decided that its “quirks” (read: the things that sucked about it–that’s right, I said it) were things that I decided I couldn’t live with. We took it on a family trip to Oregon, and the resulting photos from that trip are spectacular and live in a printed and bound book. But for me, the resulting images are only half of the equation. The experience of shooting, and how a camera makes me feel–the way it performs, the way it feels in hand, and the way it becomes an extension of my hand and eye is a huge part of what draws me to photography. I found that with the X100, not always, but often enough, I noticed the camera–the same way you notice something on the ground and step over or around it so you don’t trip. Then, 8 feet later, there’s another thing on the ground you have to step over so you don’t trip. Then, 6 feet later…you get the picture. It was getting in my way.

My main issues with it were these:

• Slow, inaccurate focus that hunts, and can’t focus closely, unless you’re in Macro mode, in which case it works even slower.
• Manual focus that is simply unusable.
• Electronic viewfinder does this “stutter” thing right as the camera acquires focus from a half-press of the shutter button. About half a second of lag is the best way I can describe it, and with moving subjects, the resulting photo is not what I intended to compose. It was enough to drive me nuts.

I wanted to love the X100, but I didn’t. I liked it very much, but I didn’t love it. With a now-2-year-old child, speed is very much a concern when it comes to cameras, so i decided to move back to the Micro Four Thirds system with an Olympus PEN E-P3…until I saw the X100S

So let’s move on . The Fujifilm X100S. I bought one. I love it, and there’s nothing (as of this writing) I would change about it. Here’s why:

Virtually every issue I had with the X100 was addressed and fixed or improved. Autofocus is faster. Not as fast as advertised with the .000004 nanosecond autofocus that is claimed (yes, I’m exaggerating), but it is faster. Fast enough, and I’m willing to bet that it will get even faster with future firmware updates. Manual focus? Not only is it usable–it kicks ass. Focus peaking allows me to manually focus faster than any film rangefinder I’ve ever owned. The laggy-EVF-when-half-pressing-the-shutter issue is still present–but much better, and it isn’t bad enough to bother me. In respect to speed, everything about the camera is faster, and I feel that the X100s is the camera that the X100 should have been.

There is one feature, though, that is above and beyond the “should-have-been-on-the-X100” category: The sensor. The sensor makes beautiful pictures. Not since I bought my very first DSLR in 2004 did I pixel peep a file and say “wow, that is beautiful.” Great highlight retention, excellent shadow detail, and razor sharp. It is worth mentioning that I’ve only owned the X100S for four days, but I did have a chance to put it through the most demanding and difficult of situations that I personally shoot in: a live theatrical production dress rehearsal. Fast shoot, lots of movement, and fast turnaround. Normally I would shoot RAW and do a 24-hour (or less) turnaround of the selects to deliver to a theater company, but in this case, I decided to break one of my longstanding rules with my theatrical photography: Shooting in JPG…with no post production. Just an edit of the selects in Photo Mechanic and up they went on my website. Normally I would shoot in RAW only, and adjust the files to my liking in Lightroom. I felt like I was taking a huge risk, so naturally I shot in RAW + JPG so I could have the RAW file for later use and for archival purposes. But what I delivered to the client were JPGs, right out of camera. I couldn’t be happier, and in one night, I have changed the way I look at my shoot/post workflow for theatrical shoots.

Another spot where the X100S shined is in its consistent and reliable metering–even in a situation that wreaks havoc on a camera’s meter: a stage with brightly spot-lit subjects and backgrounds that often fall to black. With DSLRs, I shoot manual, and spot meter to nail exposure. With the X100S, I shot in aperture priority using Matrix metering (I think Fuji actually calls it “Multi”) and I found myself dailing all the way down to -2 stops to hold highlights, keep shadow detail, and keep the midtones on the actors right where they needed to be. The Fuji nailed it every time.

I did make some adjustments to how the camera handled the JPGs:

• Pro Neg Standard
• Color -1
• Sharpness -1
• Highlight Tone -1
• Shadow Tone -1
• Noise Reduction -2

This resulted in the camera getting really close to how I would process a RAW file in Lightroom. Default JPGs in most digital cameras are always too saturated, contrasty, and over-sharpened to my eyes, and I find that noise reduction just sacrifices details to produce a less-noisy file. I really don’t care about noise. Remember the grain in that stuff we used to shoot with? What was it called? Oh yeah, film. OMG, this grain is ruining my pictures! Not once have I had a client complain about a picture having too much chroma noise. Not that it mattered for this last production–the files were clean as a whistle.

Speaking of Lightroom, I haven’t had time to play with RAW files with the 4.4 update, but I’m so much less concerned about it now after seeing the JPG output from the X100S.

Yet another big plus: The X100S is unbelievably silent. I don’t have a scientific comparison but I do believe its even quieter than the X100. I have all the sounds, beeps, and fake shutter clicks turned off. A huge plus when you want to avoid distracting actors.

In all, the camera is everything I want. It’s fast, small, light, and I wouldn’t mind carrying it around all day. The pictures are great, low light performance is the best from any camera I’ve ever owned, and just as importantly, the shooting experience itself is one where the camera absolutely just becomes part of you.

Notes on the theatrical shoot: Sweeney Todd, presented by Bay Area Stage. I shot with both a 7D + 24-70mm f2.8, and the X100S. The whole gallery featuring pictures from both cameras (and a few from my super-compact Canon S110) can be seen here.

Buy the X100S from Amazon.

Canonet QL17 G-III. Arista Print Film, ISO 400

Yet more from the antiquated Canon PowerShot G5. All the above taken in 2004. I’m noticing more and more that plenty of dynamic range can be pulled from the RAW files from this camera. Enough so that I’m tempted to buy a G5 on Ebay and start shooting with one again to compare it to my DSLRs and Micro Four Thirds gear. I turned off all the sharpening in the Lightroom develop module, and also in the export dialog because the more I look at it, the more ugly I think digital sharpening is.

Straight JPG from the Canon PowerShot G5

From 2003, going back through the archives to see what I shot. I remember carrying the G5 with me everywhere, just as I do with my camera now. I didn’t know a thing about manual exposure, but I began to learn on that camera, since it was the first digital camera I owned that had manual controls. I owned a G3 ever so briefly, but I returned it and got the G5 which was sparkly new at the time. It was slow and clunky, but it had an f2 lens…even though I didn’t know what that meant at the time.

The Canon PowerShot G5. An archaic, small-sensor digital camera (before I knew, or cared, what a small-sensor digital camera was) that, looking back, had a lot of shortcomings. It was slow. The sensor, at 5 megapixels, was considered far too “pixel dense” at the time, and many people complained of chromatic aberrations and purple fringing. But it had a few things really going for it. Mainly, the thing shot pictures in RAW format. I decided I’d bring RAW files into the latest version of Lightroom (4.2 as of this writing) to see what I could pull out of the files.

It is interesting to see how much information was in these files, and to see how improved software can bring a lot out of them but it’s even more interesting to see how personal tastes in post production change, too. I’m glad I was shooting RAW back then–there’s a lot in these pictures that I just didn’t see those many years ago. For you EXIF peepers, the image dates state 2011, but these pictures were taken in June of 2004, and I sold the G5 to fund a purchase of my first digital SLR back in 2005 (a Canon EOS Rebel XT).

Here’s an example of the color checker in use as a reference.

In a nutshell, the question came up about the Color Checker’s purpose. It does a couple of things:

1) You can create DNG color profiles of each of your cameras so that color profiles match among multiple cameras (but that’s not what I’m illustrating here)

2) White balance reference (that’s what I’m talking about here)

So check out the example below (click on it to make it bigger)

The upper left photo is of my trusty friend Fernando, and this is the Camera’s interpretation of the scene’s white balance. In other words, the camera is capturing the scene in a native raw format and guessing at the white balance. The result? A decent picture of a human being. It’s good enough if you’re taking casual snaps. Sometimes the result is Oompa Loompa orange skin. Sometimes it’s Incredible Hulk green skin. Sometimes skin is a shade of purple, a la The Count. Point being, sometimes human skin tone doesn’t quite look like human skin tone.

Add to that the fact that a camera’s white balance is drastically different based on the lighting used–tungsten lights commonly found on movie sets and theaters have a deep orange hue, as to where fluorescent lights have a green tint, and open shade can be blue.

One solution is to take the photo into your editing software of choice, and mess with white balance manually, and make a guess of what looks closer to accurate for you. It could take a minute or two, or longer if you wanted to spend the time with it. One of my personal problems is that I will adjust a photo to my liking, then make corrections to a whole set from that session, then call it a night. I’ll come back to it the following day and realize that my tired eyes deceived me, and what looked fine the night before looks horrible after a night’s rest. Really, it’s a combination of taste and best guesses.

An easier solution that takes the guessing out of the equation? A calibrated neutral reference, like the the grey patch of a Color Checker.

All you have to do is take a picture of the scene with a color checker in it, bring the picture into software that can edit a RAW photo like Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, take your white balance dropper and click on the Color Checker’s neutral gray patch. Done. That’s it. White balance is neutral to that scene.

You deliver the edit to the client, they pay, and you pay your rent for one more month and you’re known as the guy that takes decent pictures where folks don’t inadvertently look like Oompa Loompas.

ALERT: BORING GEAR TALK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

For the last year, I’ve been shooting with with the Micro Four Thirds system. Specifically, the Panasonic Lumix GF1, 20mm f/1.7 and 14mm f/2.5 lenses. Great camera and very fun to shoot with, without the size and bulk. It became a great behind-the-scenes tool when I was on film sets and was my carry-everywhere camera.

Primarily owning Canon SLR gear, I chose Micro Four Thirds and the GF1 for several reasons:

Size

Compared to the SLRs I use to shoot other stuff, M43 gear is absolutely tiny. It’s not super-compact digital tiny, like the Canon S95, but your back and shoulders won’t feel the weight if you have one slung around your shoulder all day. In fact, you’re going to want to carry one around all day because they’re so damn fun to shoot with. Paired with one of the pancake lenses, you’ve got a really great little package, even compared to the smallest Canon SLRs.

Lenses

The fast primes in the M43 system are the absolute kings of the hill. As of this writing, the zooms currently available for the system don’t even hold a candle in my book. The primes are small, fast, and they are optically amazing. I went with the pancakes: the 20mm f/1.7 and the 14mm f/2.5. Outside of their fast apertures and great optical performance, their size is right at the top of the list of reasons why I chose them. I owned the revered (by forum geeks) Panasonic 14-45mm zoom for a couple of weeks, and it was okay, but I didn’t like it because the slow apertures and relatively large barrel size when compared to the primes.

Cost

Okay, so this M43 system isn’t exactly cheap. At the time of release (2009), the GF1 kit with a 20mm or 14-45mm (your choice) was $899. You can pick up a body on Ebay today for about $180, and the lens used for about $350-400. But you have to consider the target market of these “system” cameras: DSLR owners who don’t want to lug their DSLRs around with them all the time. A Canon EOS 7D with a 24-70mm lens is a 5-pound behemoth compared to a GF1 , and yes, once upon a time I was “dedicated” enough to carry the 7D on vacation with me, even though it was left in the hotel room half the time. Never again.

Build Quality

Not all M43 cameras are made the same; the GF1 in particular has a metal body and really solid construction, and it really inspires confidence in me to carry it wherever I go. From what I hear, the GF2 and GF3, and the lower end of the Olympus lines (PEN Lite) aren’t quite as confidence-inspiring in their construction, which is not to say they’re not sturdy. Recently Panasonic has introduced the GX1, the “true” successor to the GF1 despite the GF2, GF3, etc. naming convention.

Handling

The GF1 has dials and buttons laid out in such a tactile and logical way. The rear control dial has a click function which can change the function of that dial on the fly. For example, if you’re shooting in aperture priority, the rear dial controls the aperture, and if you click it in, it controls the exposure compensation. If you’re shooting in manual, the click switches between aperture and shutter. Logical, easy, and it works well. Menus aren’t crazy deep and the important functions have buttons assigned to them (ISO, metering mode, AF mode, white balance). It isn’t the all-dial-and-wheel super fast control you have with a DSLR, but this isn’t a DSLR and you’ve got less real estate to deal with. Considering that, the controls across the back and top don’t feel cramped in the least bit. Their is also a dedicated video button next the shutter button. Want to make a movie? There is no dial to turn or menu to dig into–just press the video button and you’re making movies. If you want, you can use the top dial control to kick it into video mode and disable the dedicated video button altogether–and this is only one example of how customizable this camera is.

Focus is quick, and from what I understand, at the time of release it was best-in-class. To this day, I still find it nice and snappy, but naturally not as fast as what you’d find on an SLR. Never at any point did I feel like it struggled for focus, and when pushed to its limit in, say, a very dark room, it still found focus pretty well. Shutter lag is negligible; I’m sure you can find a spec on that somewhere if you Google it.

It is worth pointing out that these cameras are not meant to replace DSLRs for those that actually need what DSLRs offer. Don’t expect to shoot a sporting event with one of these and end up with something that might grace the cover of Sports Illustrated. Compared to a DSLR, these are simply not as fast and responsive. But compared to most compacts, they are damn fast, and they sure as hell are responsive.

Pictures (duh)

The system takes great pictures. Not much more to say. If you want crazy dynamic range, go elsewhere. These cameras are digital and make no bones about it. But the aforementioned lenses are sharp and beautiful. They shoot RAW , and I shoot in RAW pretty much 100% of the time. I didn’t use any of the JPG presents–I like to get the colors I want with RAW files. High ISO is good, perfectly usable at up to the maximum 3200 for the GF1. There are cameras in this system, and in other systems, that shoot astronomically high ISOs, but jesus, what’s so shitty about taking pictures in good light that we need to take pictures in near darkness?

Goodbye (temporarily)

In all, I really found the system fun to shoot with, with no glaring drawbacks (personally). I couldn’t stop shooting with the system, and I like I mentioned, it made me want to shoot more and more. However, I’ve decided to part with it for the time being. One aspect that I love about DSLRs are the eye-level viewfinders, and I really missed that with this system. The GF1 has a viewfinder accessory which I owned for a couple of days. It absolutely sucked, so up on Ebay it went. Grainy, laggy, crappy color. It was like an EVF from a 1990’s Hi-8 Sony Handycam. So I went looking for a camera that had either a great optical viewfinder or a decent electronic viewfinder. Hello, Fujifilm X100–it has both an OVF and EVF. As usual, my late-to-the-party review on that camera is forthcoming.

Summary

Fun to shoot with. Responsive with just enough buttons and dials to keep things fast and under control. Great pictures, decent high-ISO capability. Viewfinder accessory for this particular system sucked, though I understand the Olympus viewfinders are much better. Go ask Google. Great camera to bring with you everywhere you go so you don’t have to use the “DSLR is too big/heavy” excuse.

More and more people are asking about the right lenses for photographing theatre, so here are my 2 cents. There are so many choices but my general advice is this:  Get the fastest glass you can afford–if you do this kind of photography a lot, it’s worth it. By “fastest,” I mean the largest possible maximum aperture. In terms of flexibility, something like a 24-70mm with a constant f2.8 is great, but you’ll find with some theatre productions, you will still have to bump your ISO very high, because they can be dark. Very dark. Here is an example of something I shot at ISO 3200, f2.8 at 1/30th . A very challenging production because scenes like this one were so dark and obscured with fog.

Had I shot the above picture with a lens that had an aperture range of something like f3.5-5.6, I would have to bring my shutter speed down to something unacceptably low; with all actors’ movement, a blurry picture is all but guaranteed.

Another thing to think about is your focal length coverage. If the theater is big with a high stage, you may find yourself backing up 5-10 rows and shooting with long glass. If it’s small and intimate, you might find yourself right up against the stage and shooting wide to medium. For the most flexibility, a 24-70mm f2.8 will give you great coverage, but if you have the means, I would suggest adding something like a 70-200mm f2.8 so you can get close-ups of actors and their expressions. You really have to think about covering a show with everything from wide shots that showcase the scope of the set, all the way to tight, emotionally evocative expressions on actors’ faces.

Then, there’s the prime lens school of thought. I personally love using primes. I shot this entire production with a 50mm f1.4: http://www.mikepadua.com/Theater/ihatehamlet/12858869_8FhdcP#928216556_YqvWr. However, I had a large area to move about in front of the stage, which allowed me to “zoom” in and out (with my legs!) as I needed. You won’t always have this luxury. While I enjoy shooting like this, I prefer zooms for speed and flexibility and didn’t feel a need to keep the primes in my bag.

From a budget standpoint, if you are shooting with crop-sensor body like a the Canon 7D or Nikon D7000, this type of lens is a great place to start:

Very economical, with a zoom range of 17-50mm (equivalent to 27-80mm in 35mm terms) and most importantly, a constant aperture of f2.8 throughout the zoom range. I shot many of my first shows with this lens. It’s got shortcomings like you’d expect from any budget glass but nothing fatal.

I had to buy and sell a few lenses before I settled on my trusted combo (and many will tell you the obvious choices) of a 24-70mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8. There are lots of reviews and opinions floating around on the internet, but in the end it comes down to your preferences and what works for you. If you’re not ready to make a big investment in a new lens yet, there’s always rental houses like BorrowLenses.com which I’ve had great luck with. And before you put down money on a new lens, try shooting with what you already have. You may find it does the job just fine. If it doesn’t, you’ll discover its shortcomings and your needs will point you in the right direction.

Kudos to http://markhemmings.com for getting the conversation started!