RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘opinion’

Opinion: Camera names are getting ridiculous

11 Oct
Canon’s EOS 5D Mark II changed the camera industry forever. In more ways than one.

Looking back, I can’t honestly say I recognized the long-term impact of Canon’s big announcement at Photokina 2008. It’s only with hindsight I can see the significance of the unveiling of the EOS 5D Mark II.

It ushered in the era of Full HD video in DSLRs: that was obviously a big deal. But it was also the herald of an insidious trend in consumer cameras whose enormity is only now becoming clear.

At the time it seemed innocent enough. After all, the ‘Mark II’ was an iteration on an existing design. Sure the whole video thing meant that the second-gen model was arguably even more significant than the original ‘first-sub-$ 4000 full frame digital’ EOS 5D, but that ‘Mark II’ branding seemed logical, given how much it appeared to have been developed from its forebear.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II was the herald of an insidious trend whose enormity is only now becoming clear

Hemmed-in by the 30D, 40D, 50D APS-C series on one side and the flagship 1D series on the other, it made sense that Canon wouldn’t want to squander the remaining seven single-digit options available to it on a like-for-like replacement (a decision justified with the arrival of the 6D, five years later). So Mark II it was. And, without any fanfare, an uncontrollable naming phenomenon had begun.

In isolation, it might have been fine, Canon had already had Mark II models in its professional EOS-1D range, so where was the harm in releasing it into the consumer market? Meanwhile, though, another insidious trend in nomenclature was developing: the quasi-algebraic insistence on adding ‘X’ to everything.

Again, it started harmlessly enough: Nikon used it to signify its high-resolution pro DSLRs and later-on, Sony would use it to denote the presence of a CMOS sensor its compacts. But it rapidly expanded, to the point of near ubiquity. Panasonic dubbed its rangefinder-ish enthusiast G-series mirrorless cameras ‘GX’ and Canon decided ‘G X’ was a good way to style the large-sensor successors to its own G-series of compacts. To add to the fun, Fujifilm decided to use ‘X-series’ as the branding both for its mirrorless cameras, which use the ‘X’ mount and a diverse range of fixed lens cameras, which don’t.

But the perniciousness of both of these creeping trends came when they started to cross-breed.

It’s not just a circle, but it’s interesting to see that every brand has used the letter ‘x’ in its model names at one time or another.

Canon, having already produced models called G1 X, G3 X, G5 X, G7 X and G9 X, decided to adopt ‘Mark’ designations for its compacts, giving us three G1 Xs, two iterations of the G5 X and three of the G7 X. Thankfully Panasonic thankfully kept the GX7 Mark II and Mark III nomenclature to the Japanese market, instead confusing the rest of the world with a GX8 that wasn’t considered part of the GX7 series, before following on with the GX9, which was.

The Canon G7 X Mark II, not to be confused with the Panasonic GX7 Mark II (GX85). Likewise the G7 X III and GX7 III (GX9).

But, as ever, it’s Sony that’s really exhausted all possible permutations. Probably not helped by a period where it seemed determined to address every possible industry niche and replace each model before the previous generation had arrived in the shops, its naming system has got properly out-of-hand. So, we now have multiple ‘Marks’ of the very, very different RX0, RX1, RX10 and RX100 ranges. This system has become so unwieldy that the RX100 series has apparently divided into parallel short- (Mark 1-5) and long-zoom variants (Marks 6 and 7) necessitating the creation of the RX100 Mark 5A. Surely that’s a sign that this all needs to stop?

It just causes problems. As well as me not being able to remember any camera’s names anymore, it also means that some once-useful terminology has been squandered: I feel Olympus’s latest E-M1 model, for example, might have been better received if its had been pitched as ‘Mark II’ version of its predecessor. But I’ll acknowledge that calling it the E-M1 Mark II – Mark II was probably wasn’t an option.

Loath as I am to draw automotive parallels, it’s worth nothing that, with a few exceptions such as Toyota’s defunct US-only Scion brand, most motor manufacturers manage to avoid the obsession with the letter ‘x’ or calling things Mark II. This allows simple names that can’t be confused, such as Solara, Nova, Alpine or Bonneville.

Between pitching this article and finding the time to write it, Nikon has announced it’s joining the far-from exclusive club with its Z6 and Z7 replacements. Hoo – and I can’t emphasize this enough – ray.

I’m sorry: I know none of this matters. Camera naming schemes make not the blindest bit of difference to the pictures any of these models take, or how enjoyable the photographic experience they give is. But, possibly because I have to remember and write about them all, and perhaps because my brain is becoming less agile with age, I’m finding it all too much. Is it really too much to ask that camera companies stop calling all their cameras the same bloody thing?

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Camera names are getting ridiculous

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: Businesses, especially corporations, should pay to use your photos

14 Aug
There are thousands of photos of this particular musician online, which is why I couldn’t command as much as I would have liked for this image. The publisher who purchased a similar photograph had plenty of options.

In spite of the fact that we’re in the midst of a global pandemic, I’ve managed to sell three photos recently without putting forth any effort. All were discovered from my uploads to Instagram or Flickr. Brands and companies are always looking for fresh content and will continue to seek out images that complement their messaging. This is why it’s important to know your worth. Or, in this case, the worth of the images you create.

Would you ever work for free? If the answer is a resounding ‘no’, and it should be, then it doesn’t make sense to allow those with financial means to display your images in exchange for ‘credit’. After talking with other photographers who receive similar requests, and negotiating on my own behalf, I’ve arrived at figures that I believe are fair for an organization to pay if they want to amplify their message with your unique talents.

The first time someone requested to purchase a photo of mine, I was pleasantly surprised. It came in the form of a comment from a well-known hotel rewards program. What I can only assume was a social media manager for the hotel chain’s official Instagram account reached out and asked for permission to repost a photo from my feed. After the initial afterglow wore off, I was a bit taken aback.

At minimum, you should charge $ 250 for your image if it’s going to be printed. $ 500 is more of a fair price.

The rewards program in question is tied to an international chain of hotels that holds a current net worth exceeding $ 20 billion dollars. While I don’t know the exact figure of their marketing budget, I imagine it has to be millions of dollars annually. As a photographer, I have invested tens of thousands of hours, over the years, into my craft. I expect to be compensated accordingly.

To give you a rough idea of my expenses, currently, as a professional drone photographer, I spend $ 2,000 a year, at the bare minimum, on a new drone and a few extra batteries. Insuring each drone costs at least $ 500 on an annual basis and I typically have three in my arsenal. I also invest in accessories including memory cards, additional propellers, and neutral density filters – which easily tack on several hundred more dollars each year. I should mention that these costs are on the lower end compared to most professional photographers.

Brands are more than willing to pay ‘influencers’ to promote their products and services. They shouldn’t hesitate to compensate you for your work. Source: Mediakix

Brands don’t have any qualms about paying influencers to promote their goods and services. So why should anyone expect photographers to give away their hard work and vision for free? It doesn’t make much sense but some people, especially those starting out, are so enticed by the concept of gaining exposure or credibility that they enthusiastically say yes.

My friend Dino Kuznik, who has been approached by the likes of Tesla and an another major auto manufacturer, not only demands top dollar for his work, he also makes it a point to contact brands and insist they remove his photos if they’ve posted them without his permission. He also recommends that creatives use this licensing calculator to arrive at an appropriate fee, especially if providing a high-resolution file is required. If you don’t negotiate properly, or have terms clearly laid out in a contract, you could lose out on compensation.

Brands don’t have any qualms about paying influencers to promote their goods and services. So why should anyone expect photographers to give away their hard work for free?

‘Imagine coming to Times Square and seeing your photo on a billboard screen and realizing a company has been using it for a big campaign. But you couldn’t do anything about it [because you didn’t bother with a written agreement]. Now, if there was a contract, you could probably get a considerable amount because of the breach of contract/damages/etc,’ Kuznik explains. Typically, the client or company will provide the terms including a schedule detailing how, where, and when the image will be used. If the terms seem ambiguous, ask for clarification. Otherwise you may not have any legal recourse.

If a brand wishes to license your image, they should provide a contract explicitly stating how it intends to use it for promotional purposes. Unless you are directly hired for a campaign or are paid a hefty amount for an image, you should retain the rights to use your work in any manner and at any time gong forward.

It’s wise, outside of calculating a fair price, to thoroughly research a brand before agreeing to an amount for the rights to use your image. Find out what type of advertising they’re running, if any, and what the company is worth – if that information is available. So, what should you charge if someone approaches you to request a photo of yours for their own marketing or branding purposes? Well, that depends on a variety of factors.

Kuznik was approached by an auto manufacturer (unnamed due to a non-disclosure agreement), to create a 3×3 grid of curated photos for Instagram. Because it’s a major automotive company, it compensates photographers on the higher end of the pay scale for their work. Kuznik had another engagement that prevented him from taking on the assignment but, had he made the trip, he would have been paid between $ 7,000 – $ 10,000.

Tesla offered photographer Dino Kuznik $ 400 per image for Instagram and Twitter use. He negotiated the use of one of their vehicles for a road trip instead.

Tesla offered him a rate of $ 400 per photo, strictly to be featured on its Instagram and Twitter accounts. Kuznik thought that was a bit low for a company of that magnitude. Instead, he negotiated a deal where he could borrow one of their cars for eight days. Between not needing to purchase gas or pay a car rental fee, it was worth his while to get free access to a Tesla for a road trip.

My last three sales have been for either strict Instagram use or for a small outdoor exhibition, the latter given that we’re in the midst of a major pandemic. Here is what I charged:

  • I sold a photo I took of artist Jamie XX at a music festival several years back to a major publishing house in New Zealand. The photographer that sent me in her place never signs contracts, so the copyright remained in my name instead of the organizer’s. I agreed to $ 100 for the following reasons: there are close to 7,000 other images of the artist on Flickr, the platform where my image was discovered, and the contract expressed the wish to use it one time only on the publisher’s Instagram account.
  • A small, local construction company purchased a drone photo of one of their buildings for $ 200. They will only use it on their website. I had taken the photo for fun and had allowed a friend to repost it to their account, otherwise I would have charged $ 250–$ 300.
  • An international exhibition asked for permission to display a photo of mine and include it in a brochure that would be distributed to 1,000+ visitors. I gave the organizers the option of $ 250 for the display photo and brochure or $ 100 for rights to only display it from June 18th – 27th. The exhibition chose the latter since COVID has impacted its business.

Research a brand before agreeing to an amount for the rights to use your image. Find out what type of advertising they’re running, if any, and what the company is worth.

Social media and photography platforms are wonderful tools for building your portfolio and generating leads. There are times where it makes sense to partner with certain accounts and share your content instead of selling it for profit. An example is an Instagram takeover I did for Awesome Mitten. Since I sell aerial photography prints of destinations around Michigan to people who live in the state, it made sense to promote some of my offerings to potential customers during the Holiday season. My efforts generated a dozen-plus sales.

There are times when it makes sense to use hashtags or share your images on relevant social accounts. This regional promotion made sense for my business.

It’s important to keep in mind that this is passive income for me. I charge significantly more to perform on-site aerial photography and videography work for clients. I also sell my images to stock photo services and as art prints. Speaking of print, any publication should pay you $ 250, minimum, to print an image. Depending on circulation, you could get up to $ 1,500 per photo. The purpose of writing this article is to remind creatives that they shouldn’t give away their work in exchange for credit when approached by a business, brand or individual.

On a final note, it’s imperative to develop your own signature style. Make it a point to actively look for new subjects, lesser known locales, and unique perspectives. While I enjoyed capturing musical artists performing live when starting out with photography, a lot of my images looked similar to those of my peers. I quickly hit my creative apex and found a new passion with drone photography. Consistently honing your craft and experimenting with new techniques and technology will help you attract the attention of those who have the means to support your endeavors, and allow you to command top dollar for your work.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Businesses, especially corporations, should pay to use your photos

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: The film vs digital debate, settled, once and for all

26 Jun
Photographers have always been prone to debate.

Ever since I got back into photography as a hobby, I’ve been genuinely surprised at the frequency and ferocity of film-versus-digital debates. I’m not sure why they get so heated, or why they even happen at all. I’d like to blame the polarization that afflicts our society – us-vs-them, all-or-nothing (and if that’s the case, maybe Perry Farrell is right and it’s time to bring in the Martians) – but I’ve been around enough to know that photographers have always been prone to debate, be it T-Max vs. Tri-X, color vs. monochrome, or Nikkor vs. Rokkor.

So, as someone who shoots both mediums, with a slight preference for film, I’d like to settle this debate once and for all. Digital is better.

I mean, of course digital is better. Digital is the logical progression of everything the photography industry has been working towards since Nicéphore Niépce discovered light-sensitive asphalt. From wet plates to roll film to Kodachrome to Instamatics to Ektar to the megapixel sensor, the goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer’s skill level and the quality and speed of the results they can achieve. To that end, digital is one of the industry’s greatest triumphs, even if it did prove fatal (or at least injurious) to industry giants like Kodak and Polaroid.

The goal of the industry has always been to narrow the gap between a photographer’s skill level and the quality and speed of the results achieved

Today, a snapshooter can whip out their phone and get an image that pops like slide film, without manipulating controls, and share it in an instant. Likewise, long gone are the days when professional photographers had to worry about a photo lab screw-up costing them a job. And we hobbyists and artists can produce images that, from a technical standpoint, rival those from master film photographers of decades past. And we can process those images in minutes, not days. And with the lights on.

So yes, I’d say that digital is better.

But I’d also say that just because something is better, that doesn’t mean it’s more enjoyable. Air conditioning is better, but I still like to open the windows. Automatic transmissions are better, but I still prefer a clutch pedal. Air travel is better, but I still like to drive or take the train.

Digital may be better, but I still like to shoot with film. A lot of people – an ever-increasing number, I am pleased to say – do as well.

I have several film cameras. Each has its own personality, and the differences between them are what makes them so enjoyable

Some people like the look of film. I can dig that, although it strikes me a bit funny, because back in the 1990s the look of film is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I shot T-Max, Ektar and Velvia in hot pursuit of invisible grain and true-to-life colors, not knowing that in a few years’ time digital would give me that – and with the benefits of instant photography as a bonus. Now that I’m back to film, I find that I prefer traditional-grain, black-and-white films and the muted colors of old C-41 emulsions.

Personally, I really enjoy the feel of film photography. I love the sensations of my old film cameras, the process of focusing a scene on ground glass, the sound of the mirror and shutter, the little vibrations I can feel (or, in the case of my Nikons, can’t feel) through the film-advance lever. I have several film cameras, some fully manual, some fully automated, and many in between. Each has its own personality, and the differences between them are what makes them so enjoyable.

I love the process of developing film – the smooth shhhhk-shhhhk-shhhhhk as I wind the film onto the reel, fussing with development charts, smelling the fixer (which can’t possibly be good for me). I love imagining the processes I have set in motion, molecules of silver salt reducing to metallic silver until I command them them stop. I always feel that same little anticipation when I pop the cover off the tank, unroll a bit of film and see if the process worked. It always does, but it’s still a thrill, and has been since the very first roll I developed.

I love the uncertainty of film, knowing that the picture I set out to get might not be the picture I got, but it might be even better. And nothing can top the raw thrill of realizing that quick ‘grab’ shot turned out to be the best of the roll.

Air conditioning is better, but I still like to open the windows. Automatic transmissions are better, but I still prefer a clutch pedal. Air travel is better, but I still like to drive or take the train

But I also enjoy digital photography, and for entirely different reasons. Digital gives me a completely different connection to the process – the ability to see something, compose an image in my head, capture it and get instant feedback. My mirrorless camera provides a welcome short-circuit between what I see and what I want to be seen. I have a Sony ?6000, not the newest or most impressive rig, but the first digital camera with which I’ve really bonded just as I bonded with my 35mm Pentax so many years ago. I’ve taken some of my favorite images with that wonderful little camera.

I’ve never been much for photo editing, just as I was never much for fine-tuning my prints in the darkroom, but I imagine that many digital photographers find the same thrill in processing their images that I find in processing my film. I am amazed at the way a skilled editor can literally reach into their images and manipulate the very stuff they are made of. Just like images appearing on film, digital processing is, to me, its own kind of magic.

My point, if I have one, is that I’d love to see bickering replaced with understanding, appreciation and – dare I ask it? – respect. At the end of the day, we are all photographers. What matters is not how we do it, but that we do it.

Digital gives me a completely different connection to the process – the ability to see something, compose an image in my head, capture it and get instant feedback

And let’s not forget that digital, like film, is only a step on the path. Years from now, I bet today’s digital devotees will find themselves arguing with photographers who can’t understand why anyone would bother when hyponeural stereo-proton imaging is so obviously superior. (‘Seriously, what kind of dinosaur hauls around a camera?’)

What amazes me about the differences in technology and method is not how they divide us, but how they unite us. We are all image makers, and the basics of focusing light on a sensitive surface have not changed since the days of the camera obscura. So I say we stop fretting about which is better, or whether better even matters. Our time would be better spent enjoying and appreciating and supporting each other. Doing so has the potential to make us all better photographers. And who knows – it might even be the balm that heals.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: The film vs digital debate, settled, once and for all

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: Stop worrying about new cameras and love the one(s) you’ve got

13 Mar

I’ve recently found myself in the following situation: Over the course of just a couple months, the two main digital cameras I shoot with have both been replaced by new models. This includes my everyday, ‘personal’ camera in the Fujifilm X100F and my ‘gig’ camera in the Nikon D750.

With the announcement of the X100V and D780, in the blink of an eye my kit suddenly went from feeling fresh to feeling like last night’s leftovers. But the more I dig into the differences between these modern generations of cameras and the generation which I own, the more I feel relieved. If you’re in a similar situation, let me assure you, it gets easier. Here’s why.

Pixel counts are leveling out

The megapixel wars have largely wound down and most brands aren’t fixating on increasing the number of pixels in a camera with each subsequent generation, as they have in the past. This is a trend we’re starting to see across the board from multiple brands. Case in point: my D750 has the same number of pixels as the D780, and the X100V offers only a modest 2MP gain over my X100F.

This is not to say neither brand has improved the image quality in these updated models. Indeed the D780 has far nicer JPEGs than the D750. That’s an important improvement, but not one that necessarily matters to me as a Raw shooter.

With the Fujifilm, I tend to stick to JPEG shooting and there’s no real difference between the two cameras there. The only real image quality difference comes down to the lenses: the X100V’s updated lens should provide better corner sharpness and close focus. I certainly can appreciate both of those improvements, the latter especially for portraiture. But then again doesn’t that just mean my X100F’s lens has more ‘character’ by comparison? I can live with that.

Double exposure shot in-camera on the Fujifilm X100F and edited in Adobe Photoshop.
ISO 2000 |1/125 sec | F2

New features are nice but perhaps not necessary

So if camera companies aren’t making huge strides in image quality with the current generations coming out, where are they concentrating their efforts? The answers lie in usability refinements, autofocus improvements and video/feature additions. These are nice-to-haves, but for me, not need-to-haves.

Both my cameras have signs of a life well-lived. But they’re still as capable as ever – in fact more thanks to firmware updates – even if they’re not as beautiful as they once were. Just like me.

Sure, a tilting touchscreen would be a nice addition to my X100 camera, especially for street candids. But then again, I’ve already trained myself to shoot from the hip, while zone focusing with my X100F, so do I really need a tilting screen? The same goes for touch capability; yes, a touchscreen is handy for quick point placement, but the AF joystick on the X100F is also rather speedy.

Similarly, am I tempted by the D780’s excellent live view mode? Heck yes I am. But is it enough to make me want to replace my D750? No. The same goes for video. As a primarily stills shooter who dabbles, I’d definitely appreciate the D780’s movie-making features. But not enough to trade up.

Shot on the Nikon D750 and edited in Adobe Camera Raw.
ISO 12,800 | 1/250 sec | F2.2 | Nikon 20mm F1.8G

Simpler can sometimes be better

I’m not trying to get all philosophical here, but when it comes to getting creative, simplicity can often be refreshing. Because even though my D750 and X100F offer limited usability compared to their updated counterparts, specifically when shooting with the rear LCD, those limiting factors streamline how I use these cameras.

Moreover, other comparative limitations just mean I’ll have to come up with creative workarounds, not unlike learning to shoot from the hip blindly due to the lack of a flip-out LCD. And creative workarounds spawn even more creative thinking – the secret sauce of good photography.

‘Shiny and new’ is overrated

We’ve all brought home a shiny new gadget, whether it be a camera, a smartphone or some other device, and babied it like we’d birthed it ourselves. But shiny new things aren’t meant to stay shiny and new forever – a fact that can take a while to sink in.

On the other hand, there’s something to be said for the comfort of time-tested, worn-out gear. Both my cameras show signs of a life well lived, complete with love and some hard knocks. But they’re still as capable as ever – in fact more so thanks to firmware updates – even if they’re not as beautiful as they once were. Just like me. Which means I don’t hesitate to grab my X100F to tag along for a night on the town, out of fear it may sustain some sort damage. But with a brand new X100V, I might be more cautious.

Shot on the X100F and edited in Adobe Lightroom.
ISO 400 | 1/1600 sec | F5.6

Happiness is accepting the inevitable

Aging is inevitable: just as a new car loses its value once driven off the lot and your camera’s shutter starts to wear after the first shot, we too begin to age the moment we are born. That may sound depressing, but it’s not! Here’s a lyric by the folk singer Jeffrey Lewis to explain why…

‘Time is going to take so much away, but there’s a way that you can offer time a trade. Because your looks are gonna leave you. And your city’s gonna change too. And your shoes are gonna wear through. So you gotta do something that you can get smarter at, you gotta do something you might just be a starter at. You better do something that you can get better at, because that’s the thing that time will leave you with.’

So don’t worry about having last generation’s model, instead invest that energy in your own photographic passion and betterment. Because just as your camera will inevitably fall out of vogue, your time behind it too will one day come to an end. Get out there and shoot!

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Stop worrying about new cameras and love the one(s) you’ve got

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: Film photography has found its feet again

04 Mar
Photo: Hamish Gill

Film photography is not what it used to be. It’s changed – or more, it’s evolved. For the better, too. But I bet there are a lot of people who haven’t even noticed!

Photography just seems to be one of those pastimes that has the potential to get under people’s skin. There are so many ways to take part that it’s no wonder we find ourselves in camps, adopting one or a couple of methodologies, approaches, processes or even brands, and taking ownership of them as if they belong to us.

In doing so though, it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that our approaches and whims are just a product of our own choices, and therefore simply right for us. Instead, it appears to me that a large majority of photographers get into the habit of thinking they have made the ‘best’ choices and that everyone else who doesn’t follow suit is somehow wrong, deficient or missing out.

Film photography in 2020 is what it is – not because of a battle with digital, but because of how it has integrated with and into it

Unfortunately, in our world of social media and websites and forums and blogs and YouTube and ‘influencers’, it feels a little bit like the views and opinions held by the majority can leave little room for the views and opinions held by everyone else.

So what’s all this got to do with my opening gambit?

Well, it’s my view that because of all this, many photographers who have committed wholly to digital photography might not have noticed a real change in the film photography landscape.

The pixl-latr is a product I launched on Kickstarter as a low cost and effective solution for digitizing negatives.
Photo: Joe Handley

Now, please don’t think I’m about to start waffling on about growth in film sales and increased interest in more traditional photography mediums as a whole. It is true that there has been quite significant growth, but to my mind, the growth is at least in part a byproduct of a change in attitudes toward film photography. Attitudes that I have seen perpetuated through some of the hundreds of thousands of words I’ve published by the many photographers who have written for my website, 35mmc.

It’s true that I still see the occasional ‘film vs. digital – which is better?’ YouTube video pop up, but it has long been my view that these conversations are behind the curve. It actually strikes me that this argument is dead, and this seems to be an opinion shared by an increasing amount of people. Not because one side won or lost, but because the sides have joined forces.

Film photography in 2020 is what it is – not because of a battle with digital, but because of how it has integrated with and into it. Digital has changed film photography for the better, and I feel quite strongly that the opposite is true too.

The FIlmomat is an updated automatic film processor, launching soon!
Photo: Lukas Fritz

To begin with, the simple way people are using digital cameras and the advancements in both software and hardware for the digitization of film are examples of how the technology has advanced in favor or supporting film photography. But digital has also helped democratize film photography. The barriers to entry are less, and not just when it comes to amateur-level kit.

Film photography has influenced digital technology too. As most readers here will be aware, some of the bigger brands have taken inspiration from film cameras. Fujifilm is probably the most notable with their retro-aesthetic digital cameras and built-in film simulations. The way film looks, or at least the way people think film looks has – for better or worse – influenced digital photographic styles.

The ways photographers approach image creation seems to have been cross-fertilized between the worlds of film and digital

And that’s all even before we consider people’s workflows and attitudes toward creating images. The creative ways photographers approach image creation as a whole seems to have been cross-fertilized between the worlds of film and digital. So for example, in the last few years, we’ve seen a huge increase in the use of ‘vintage’ lenses – something that I’m pretty certain is attributable to an increase in photographers seeking something of a more film-era-like ‘feel’ to their work. And then there’s how digital workflows such as the use of Lightroom has for some people sped up or aided in the process of using film and other traditional mediums as a starting point to a final image.

The Cameradactyl OG is an affordable 3D-printed 4×5 camera.
by John Whitmore

In short, film and digital workflows, technologies and creative approaches have merged. The narratives around which is ‘better’ have – for many at least – fallen by the wayside. The questions of how they can be combined for the benefit of an increased range of possibility and potential have come to the surface instead.

But, while all this is true, there’s no drama in a draw – neither side won the battle, so the story has had few attention-grabbing headlines. There’s less of an angle to hang opinion off in the gray area. Nuanced opinions, fence-sitting and happy mediums don’t get clicks, views, upvotes, likes or shares so readily.

Film and digital workflows, technologies and creative approaches have merged

I had to pose a combative opening gambit just to get a lot of you to read this article, I’m sure. But really, I didn’t want to… well, if I’m honest, I sort of did, because I quite enjoy the argument. But my argument is not one of trying to convince people to think one way or another about how to create or take part in photography. I prefer instead to try and highlight the fact that the arguments themselves are often quite pointless.

In short, there is no one true path! In fact, one of the most beautiful things about photography is in the wealth of choices it provides us with.

Which is ultimately why film photography has found its feet again. Not as I say because it’s won any battles, but instead, that for all the objective differences and subjective reasons why people might choose to shoot it; despite what the majority might think and say about it, it’s still an option that’s available to people. And moreover, in 2020 it’s an option that quite readily fits into our modern digital world if and when required or desired.

Hamish Gill is the publisher of 35mmc.com and a moderator in our Film Photography forum.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Film photography has found its feet again

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: Fujifilm’s decision to omit the headphone jack on the X-T4 is a mistake

28 Feb
Want to monitor audio while shooting video on the Fujifilm X-T4? You’ll need a dongle.

Just a quick warning: I’m going to clobber Fujifilm a bit in this column. But not until I praise Fujifilm.

A few short years ago, Fujifilm was the last camera company I associated with great video. At a time when competitors’ cameras were capturing serviceable 1080p footage, Fujifilm’s models slotted in somewhere between the Fisher Price Elmo video camera and the iPhone 4 in terms of video quality.

A ‘worst to first’ story?

My, how times have changed.

Today, Fujifilm is a shining example of what’s possible when a traditional camera company decides to tackle the challenge of video. There’s no complacency here, and in recent years the company has not only caught up with, but surpassed, many of its competitors in key areas. Recent models deliver beautiful 4K video, 10-bit color and support the H.265 codec up to 400 Mbps. F-Log gamma provides post-processing flexibility, and the gorgeous Eterna film simulation delivers beautiful cinematic footage.

$ (document).ready(function() { ImageComparisonWidget({“containerId”:”reviewImageComparisonWidget-20799971″,”widgetId”:744,”initialStateId”:null}) })

Fujifilm’s early efforts at video were less than spectacular. In recent years, however, the company stepped up its game and is a top contender in the mirrorless arena.

With the X-T4, Fujifilm dials it up a few more notches. In-body image stabilization, separate menus for stills and video, F-Log view assist for visualizing a LUT in-camera, 240 fps recording, a dedicated Q-menu for video and much more show that Fujifilm is serious about appealing to video shooters.

That’s why its decision to omit a headphone jack from the X-T4 is simply mind boggling, especially considering that the X-T3 includes one. Here’s the problem: being serious about adding features that people want and recognizing how customers actually use your product are two different things.

Being serious about adding features that people want and recognizing how customers actually use your product are two different things

For all the great improvements – and they are great – the X-T4’s design overlooks one of the most basic principles a video shooter cares about in the field: a reliable workflow with as few points of failure as possible. Every time you introduce something like an adapter between connectors you increase the risk of something going wrong. Some things will always go wrong in the field, but there are certain key things that just can’t go wrong, and the ability to monitor audio is one of them.

I’ve been here before

I was an early adopter of mirrorless cameras for video work and embraced models like the Panasonic GH2. There was a LOT of room for improvement in that camera, but I found reasonable workarounds for most things.

However, it had a big Achilles heel, and it’s almost the same one as the X-T4: it used a non-standard 2.5mm microphone jack that was incompatible with the standard 3.5mm plug on most hot shoe microphones (like the Rode VideoMic series).

I ordered a couple adapters and threw them into my bag, but adapters and dongles have a habit of disappearing or failing without warning. As a result, I subsequently ran into several situations where I couldn’t connect a microphone due to a missing or, in at least one case, a defective adapter. Was it the end of the world? No, but it was very disruptive and frustrating, particularly since the camera included a jack – just a non-standard one.

Requiring an adapter to monitor audio on the X-T4 is reminiscent of Panasonic’s decision to use a non-standard 2.5mm microphone jack on the GH1 (above) and GH2 – something that wasn’t popular among videographers.

When this happened, it didn’t matter how capable the GH2 was when it came to video quality. The fact that it introduced a point of failure to one of the most fundamental parts of my workflow did. Where will you be when you discover you’re missing the USB adapter for the X-T4? I don’t know, but the things I do know are 1) it’ll be precisely when you most need it, and 2) USB to 3.5mm adapters aren’t the easiest thing to replace quickly, unless you’re lucky enough to be close to a big box or electronics store.

If fairness to Fujifilm, there’s one way to get a headphone jack on the X-T4: you can use the battery grip. This may appeal to some people, but unless you need the grip it’s basically a really big dongle. The headphone jack should really be an integral part of the camera.

Why Fujifilm needs to get this right

Some may argue that the X-T4 isn’t a ‘real’ video camera, and therefore omitting a headphone jack isn’t a big deal. You’re right: it’s not a C200 or an FS7 or anything else in that class. It doesn’t have XLR inputs, SDI connectors or any number of other things. Also, one could fairly argue that the Fujifilm X-H1—a camera we praised for its video capabilities—had the same limitation, so why complain?

Because the basic definition of what a video camera is has evolved, particularly in the prosumer market; whether for size, budget or just familiarity, many creators—including enthusiasts exploring the world of video—are now using mirrorless cameras to produce content that would have required a pro video camera in the past.

Fujifilm, if you want to appeal to videographers please don’t introduce a potential point of failure to a critical part of the workflow.

I’m convinced that Fujifilm is trying to appeal to these users, and it’s certainly getting their attention with a product like the X-T4. Not only can it shoot beautiful video, but it’s a pretty self-contained, stand-alone solution thanks to all the tech packed into it.

Which is why removing a feature that’s so critical to the video production workflow, and which was included on the camera’s predecessor, is simply baffling. It suggests that while Fujifilm has done an amazing job of adding features that videographers will love, it still doesn’t quite understand how they work.

Despite what I’ve written here, I’m really looking forward to using the Fujifilm X-T4 to shoot video. It’s an exciting camera and I already know I’m going to love it, but I’ll have several USB to 3.5mm adapters in my possession before I commit to using it for anything serious.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Fujifilm’s decision to omit the headphone jack on the X-T4 is a mistake

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: New rules proposed by the FAA are a threat to drone pilots – including photographers

15 Feb

The FAA is proposing new rules related to flying drones in the US, and if you fly drones – including for photography – these rules WILL affect you. In this article, I’ll look at the implications of the proposed rule changes and how you can comment on them before the FAA makes them final.

The day after Christmas, the drone industry was finally gifted the long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (drones), and what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) presented was a shock to many commercial and recreational remote pilots, alike. The government agency completely ignored recommendations from all 74 industry stakeholders that make up the Aviation Rulemaking Commitee (ARC), which is concerning.

The drone industry needs Remote ID, the concept that every drone should have a digital license plate, to move forward. Having a uniform system in place to identify unmanned aerial vehicles in national airspace is imperative for the safe operation of every aircraft sharing the skies. It will also enable more complex operations including flights at night, over people, and beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). Remote ID is a step in the right direction but, unfortunately, the FAA has proposed costly, privacy-violating rules that will at first stifle, and then eventually crush, the potential of a burgeoning industry.

The FAA is proposing new rules related to flying drones in the US, and if you fly drones – including for photography – these rules WILL affect you.

I’m not going to summarize every section of the 87-page (the original was 319) document in one article as it goes far beyond the scope of what most DPReview readers want to digest. Instead, I’ll cover some of the main points of concern and, finally, offer suggestions and resources for leaving an effective comment for the FAA if you’re one of the nearly 1.2 million registered drone users in the U.S. If you’re prepared to make your voice heard, comment HERE.

What will potentially change?

The NPRM proposes that both manufacturers and UAS (unmanned aerial system) operators will be responsible for meeting Remote ID requirements. The main purpose is to connect a UAS with its owner. Capabilities are divided into two categories – “Standard Remote ID” and “Limited Remote ID.”

  • Standard Remote ID ‘would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same information to a Remote ID USS (UAS Service Supplier) through an internet connection.’ Most flights would be conducted under these terms.
  • Limited Remote ID ‘would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station.’
New rules under consideration by the FAA would have wide implications for drone operators in the US, including a requirement to broadcast personally identifying information when flying.

Let’s pause for a moment and acknowledge that a drone will need a SIM card to operate under these new guidelines. Leading carriers such as AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile charge between $ 10 and $ 20 per month to add a device like a tablet or smartwatch to your data plan, so we can probably expect similar costs for a drone. If you’re operating more than one UAS, like many small businesses and some hobbyists, this adds up quickly. Major carriers also have gaps in the data coverage they provide. Many rural areas don’t get any signal, which will effectively limit where drones can be operated.

Key data, including the control station’s latitude, longitude, and altitude can be accessed by anyone from takeoff to landing, not just law enforcement. This is concerning because the general public will know exactly where a remote pilot is operating. If someone gets angry or doesn’t understand the nature of drone operations, they could easily harass or even attack the pilot. What’s more, the FAA estimates the remote pilot will be paying an additional fee of $ 2.50 per month to be connected with a USS.

The general public will know exactly where a remote pilot is operating. If someone gets angry or doesn’t understand the nature of drone operations, they could easily harass or even attack the pilot.

Drones need to be equipped with Remote ID in order to comply with the above draconian restrictions. The FAA is confident that most commercial aircraft can easily be outfitted to meet new requirements. Where things get especially cost-prohibitive involves equipping hobbyist or ‘amateur-built’ unmanned aircraft with Remote ID capabilities. The FAA doesn’t provide a solution for an affordable Remote ID kit. This means any UAS that is at least 50% constructed by a person will either need an independent solution constructed by that builder (a process that could potentially cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars) or it will be restricted to an ‘FAA-approved identification area’ or FRIA.

Remote pilots have 12 months to suggest areas where drones can operate without Remote ID. The issue is many of these designated areas could be located tens to hundreds of miles away from your front door. There will likely be a charge similar to the Academy of Model Aeronautic’s (AMA) $ 75 current annual membership fee. Speaking of, the FAA also wants to overhaul the current registration process by requiring hobbyists individually register each drone instead of as a pilot. Some hobbyists own dozens of model aircraft. At $ 5 a piece, registration fees could potentially add up to hundreds of dollars.

What can you do?

The FAA is gathering comments from the public until March 2nd. The good news is, officials are required to read each and every one submitted by the deadline. However, if you take the AMA’s terrible advice, cut and paste one of their boilerplate comments into the form, and pass it off as your own, it will be disregarded. Unfortunately, I’ve already seen too many of the 12,000+, and counting, comments start off with ‘I am writing in response to the FAAs notice of proposed rulemaking on remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). I am deeply concerned…’ Please, do not do this. Take the time to craft an original response.

Image shared with permission from Ryan J. Latourette

As I mentioned earlier, I am basically summarizing some of the more pertinent concerns this NPRM brings up. If you’re looking to leave an impactful comment, I highly recommend checking out this in-depth resource from Pilot Institute. Skyward, a drone operations management platform, has a group of policy experts answering common questions in a webinar scheduled for Tuesday, February 18th. Joining drone-related Facebook Groups and forums and asking for guidance is another avenue to pursue, especially if reading and interpreting a lengthy legal document feels like a cure for insomnia.

It’s important to remember that this is a proposal. Nothing has been finalized. This is why every person that flies commercially, or for fun, must comment. It will still take the FAA several years to implement any changes. The more we, the public, can convince them that drones are beneficial, and provide viable alternatives to what has been suggested for Remote ID, the better chance we have of devising solutions that will work out for everyone.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: New rules proposed by the FAA are a threat to drone pilots – including photographers

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: Why I’m excited about the D780 and what it means for the future of Nikon

07 Jan

As a Nikon D750 owner who’s been using the camera for 5+ years, I’ll admit I’m excited about the D780. The refreshed model is, essentially, a DSLR version of the Nikon Z6 and I fully expect it’ll be relevant for another 5+ years.

I’m also excited because the D780 proves Nikon is still committed to DSLRs in 2020. And it might point to a continuing strategy, at least for now, of releasing ‘companion’ DSLR/mirrorless products, like the D850 and Z7 or the Canon EOS 90D and closely related 6D Mark II.

A proper replacement for the D750 provides the perfect stepping stone for folks interested in the Z6 or Z7, but who are still not ready to fully commit to a new system

A proper replacement for the D750 – which the D780 looks to be – also provides the perfect stepping stone for folks like me, interested in the Z6 or Z7, but still not ready to fully commit to a new system. That said, in another three to five years I very well may be ready to make the jump: especially if replacements for the Z6/Z7 fill in the gaps where Nikon’s DSLRs are still superior, like autofocus.

Why does the D750 continue to be such an excellent stills camera for the money? Because it offers still-competitive dynamic range/image quality (this image was pushed 2.25-stops), highly reliable autofocus (with great tracking ) and great ergonomics in a well built, small/lightweight DSLR body. Which is all to say, the D780 has some big shoes to fill.

ISO 3600 | 1/320 sec | F2.2 | Shot on Nikon D750 + Nikon 35mm F2 D

Nikon’s 3D Tracking autofocus in the company’s DSLRs is still better implemented and more reliable than the tracking in Z-series cameras, even with recent firmware updates. And though the number of AF points is unchanged from the D750 to D780, the new model inherits the AF algorithms of the flagship D5, so users should expect further improvement to what is already (and still) a top performing AF system.

Nikon’s 3D Tracking autofocus in the company’s DSLRs is still better-implemented and more reliable than the tracking in Z-series cameras

I have no doubt in my mind Nikon will continue to dial in the reliability of AF tracking in Z-series cameras (and fix the clunky implementation). And for enthusiast photographers curious about mirrorless, the Z6 is a sensible camera to consider as-is. But for folks like me who rely on their camera for freelance work, or for those entirely making a living behind the lens (bless your souls), sticking with something that has a proven track record is a no-brainer. Not to mention, the D780 offers dual card slots, something many professionals insist on. The Z6 does not.

While I would’ve appreciated a small bump in sensor resolution in the D780, no increase means I don’t have to worry about the camera out-resolving my aging collection of AF-D lenses.

ISO 6400 | 1/500 sec | F3.2 | Shot on Nikon D750 + Nikon 85mm F1.8 D

Still, the camera does fall short of my hopes in a few areas, most notably the continued lack of an AF joystick and/or a touchpad AF implementation (the latter is offered in the mid-range D5600). I also would have liked to see some bump in resolution, though the updated sensor (likely the same as the Z6’s) does offer some image quality improvements. Still, I’m jazzed as heck for 4K video (with usable video autofocus!), a touchscreen, faster burst shooting and better AF, even if Nikon did remove my precious pop-up flash (truly handy as a fill for back-lit portraits).

By giving the D780 the same live view implementation as the Z-series, Nikon is gradually guiding traditional DSLR users to appreciate its virtues

Ultimately, I know there will likely come a day semi-professional DSLRs are phased out completely. Thankfully the D780 is proof Nikon is taking its time and not forcing users to switch too quickly. By giving the camera the same live view implementation and performance as the Z-series, Nikon is gradually guiding traditional DSLR users to accept and appreciate the virtues of a good live view experience, something current D750 users know nothing about. All while allowing us to keep our familiar DSLR form factor and precious optical viewfinder.

At the end of the day, this is a hugely important camera series for Nikon, having successfully straddled the line between professional and enthusiast cameras ever since the D700 debuted more than ten years ago. There’s a reason these cameras are so popular and find their way into the hands of so many photographers: they offer good reliability and good bang-for-the-buck in the long run. Heck, I still use my D700 from time-to-time. With the D780, the legacy of this series continues on. And if the days of the DSLR are truly numbered and this is the final chapter in the D700-saga, it seems to be a proper finale… unlike ‘The Rise of Skywalker’.

The Nikon D750 has and continues to serve me well.

ISO 3200 | 1/500 sec | F10 | Shot on Nikon D750 + Nikon 35mm F2 D

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: Why I’m excited about the D780 and what it means for the future of Nikon

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: I love what the a6x00 series can do but I’m not convinced by the ergonomics

17 Nov
Something for everyone? Sony uses variations of the same body for everything from its $ 600 entry-level model all the way through to its $ 1400 one.

All of Sony’s current APS-C cameras come in variants of the same camera body. And the more I have to use them and write about them, the more convinced I am that it’s not ergonomically especially well suited to any specific type of user.

The a6000 series cameras all derive, essentially, from the NEX-6, a mid-range/enthusiast camera from 2012. It was a time when Sony was experimenting with NEX body shapes and interfaces, as it tried to create a product that matched the people actually buying the cameras. Having tried stripped-down cameras with icon-based interfaces and odd ‘three dials, but all controlled with your thumb’ designs, they settled on something in the middle. And then tried to make it work for everyone.

Personally, I’m not sure they’ve succeeded. I believe they’ve created a series of cameras that’s intimidating to beginners but too simplistic to be enjoyed by more advanced users.

Too complex to be simple

As I wrote in my recent review, the a6100 can be a very good family and travel camera. This is thanks to two main things: the autofocus being really powerful, and the touchscreen meaning you can tell it where to focus without needing to really engage with the user interface.

More than one person I’ve handed the a6100 to has recoiled and asked me ‘what do I press?’ which makes me think it would make more sense in the a5100’s body.

The problem is that the camera design and user interface seem to have made almost no concessions to this audience. On more than one occasion I’ve handed an a6100 or a6400 to a novice only to watch them recoil and demand I just tell them which button to press.

The camera body and displays are awash with obscure icons, to a degree that can be intimidating to the first time user. And the menus aren’t just consistent with the range-topping a9, they’re pretty much directly copied across. You have to have a lot of faith in your user interface to believe that pro sports users and family photographers will be equally well served by it. To me that faith seems, shall we say ‘optimistic’?

I’d argue the Fujifilm X-A7 is a much more approachable entry-level camera than the a6100 (and that the X-T30 is a more engaging mid-range camera than the a6400)

Sure, you can stick the camera in ‘Auto’ mode (or perhaps iAuto+ if you can find it), but ‘just ignore all the buttons, labels and stuff, and use it as a point-and-shoot’ isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the camera’s design.

The result is a hugely capable but not especially welcoming camera for beginners.

Too simple to be sophisticated

At the other end of the spectrum, you have the a6600, which has impressive looking specs on paper: excellent AF, weather sealing, in-body stabilization and the longest battery life of any mirrorless camera. But the shooting experience doesn’t always live up to this spec, in my opinion.

Although the body has twin control dials, they’re both controlled with your thumb, rather than the thumb-and-forefinger layout found on almost every rival model. In my experience I have to think more, and re-position my hand to a greater extent when trying to operate the a6600. And, while it does gain some extra custom buttons over the cheaper models, they’re located in positions I find uncomfortable to operate.

The addition of a touchscreen means it’s no longer such a faff to move the AF point, but I still find the a6400 and a6600 less enjoyable to shoot with than their rivals.

These criticisms, which extend to the a6400 if you’re trying to take control over exposure, aren’t about trying to make moment-by-moment changes (something my colleague Carey found to present its own set of problems), but more about being able to enjoyably take control over the camera. Maybe it’s just me.

As the camera market seemingly contracts back to a state where most people buying cameras are doing so because they enjoy the process of taking photographs, it becomes ever more important to make cameras that are enjoyable to use. The a6400’s autofocus is unquestionably better than that of its current peers, but would I rather go out shooting with it over a Canon M6 II or Nikon Z50? No.

One thing common to most $ 1000+ cameras (including Sony’s a7 series cameras): twin control dials controller with the forefinger and thumb. Clockwise from top: Canon EOS M6 Mk II, Fujifilm X-T3, Olympus OM-D E-M5 III, Nikon Z50.

None of which is to say that they’re bad cameras. As I say, the a6600 has excellent battery life, impressive AF, in-body stabilization and, most importantly, can take really nice images: we’d actually recommend it for some types of shooting, despite not quite cutting it when pushed to its limits. But it wouldn’t be my first choice of camera, if I had to grab something to go shooting with.

And that’s a shame because, with the introduction of its 16-55mm F2.8 and support from Sigma’s trio of F1.4 primes, Sony’s E-mount is starting to look like a credible APS-C system for enthusiast photographers.

Not just on the outside

The problems aren’t all just a question of handling. The menus also show little sign of specialization. Across all three models you’ll find a host of hand-holding features such as Soft Skin Effect, Smile Shutter and Auto Object Framing buried in the menus. These seem too well hidden to be useful for most beginner users and risk just being distracting clutter for more advanced users.

A horizontal layout with no indication of where different sub-sections live means the Sony menus rely on the users’ memory more than most (though Canon’s layout is looking similarly overwhelmed). The ‘My Menu’ option lets you configure your way around the worst of it.

In fairness, Sony has made some effort to arrange, name and color-code the sections of its menus, but it still gives you no real way to find your way to those sections. This means you have to rely more on memory than with most other brands. And even if they did give top-level section indicators, I’m not sure how many first-time users would guess that you enable AF Tracking in video mode using the ‘Func. of Touch Operation’ in the Setup menu, rather than something from the ‘AF’ sub-section of the Camera tab. Again, it just doesn’t feel like these cameras have been tailored to suit any particular type of user.

Shop-shelf confusion

What are the differences? Which one should I choose?

So maybe I’ve got all this wrong. Maybe Sony isn’t trying to segment the market based on different needs and expectations, but solely by price. Perhaps that’s why the body styles and model names are so much less distinct than those of the similarly-priced models from other manufacturers. So rather than making X-A7/X-T100 style models for the beginners, M6 II / Z50 rivals to address the middle ground and an X-T3 competitor for more hands-on users, maybe Sony’s just making undifferentiated price variants.

If it’s purely a question of ‘how much camera are you willing to pay for?’ then it makes some sort of sense. But I’m not sure it results in cameras that are particularly well suited to any specific person.

*Richard Butler will not be reviewing the a6600

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: I love what the a6x00 series can do but I’m not convinced by the ergonomics

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Opinion: The Nikon Z50 is a good camera, but that may not be enough

10 Oct
The Z50 is a lot like a mirrorless D5600. Which is no bad thing but probably won’t attract a new audience.

To a great extent, the Nikon Z50 looks like a very good camera. The very good camera in question being the D5600. The mirror has gone, but not a lot else seems to have been changed: most of the specifications and much of the experience has been ported over directly from what is a very capable mid-market camera.

Every aspect of the Z50 has been borrowed from somewhere else: the sensor (now with PDAF toppings) from the D7500, the lens mount and AF system from the Z6 and the concept and price from the D5600. The ingredients seem well blended together but end up tasting familiar, rather than enticing.

There’s little evidence of the Z50 being made any more appealing or accessible than the D5600

Nikon is pretty clear about who it’s targeting with this camera: people who love to share attractive moments from their lives on sites like Instagram, but who don’t necessarily think of themselves as photographers. People who are hitting the limits of what their phone can do, or who want to feel more involved in the photographic process.

That’s solid enough in theory, and the Z50 will undoubtedly take great Instagram-style photos. But it doesn’t feel like Nikon has done much to make this camera any more attractive to them. The retractable kit zoom helps to deliver a reasonably-sized package (despite the camera being built around a lens mount that’s oversized for the full-frame format), but is it really just size that was stopping these people buying D5600s? After all, Nikon had already done a pretty good job of paring down the size of its mass-market models.

Instagramer-friendly? I’m skeptical. Or possibly just squinting into the sun.
Photo: Carey Rose

Beyond size, there’s little evidence of the Z50 being made any more appealing or accessible than its DSLR twin. It gains a second command dial, and that’s definitely something: Nikon has a history of building cameras with well-shaped hand grips and well-positioned dials and the Z50 continues this tradition. But it’s hard to see that bringing non-camera-buyers flooding back to Nikon.

The user interface hasn’t been amended or simplified to be more familiar to an audience whose primary photography experience has been their phone’s camera app

It’s a similar story in terms of operating the camera: Nikon has added its pretty capable Eye-AF system from its big Z cameras, but it’s done nothing to make focus tracking any quicker or easier to operate. The icon-abundant user interface hasn’t been amended or simplified to be more familiar to an audience whose primary photography experience has been their phone’s camera app, rather than a compact camera’s interface.

The Z50’s ‘Creative Picture Control’ options let you shoot (or re-process) images with heavy filters applied.

Perhaps the thing that surprised me most about the Z50 was that it doesn’t let you use the rear screen as a touchpad, when you’ve got the camera to your eye. It’s a feature that’s present in almost every mirrorless camera with a viewfinder and, more significantly, in Nikon’s own D5500 and 5600 models. And yet it’s gone missing from here: leaving you to learn button presses and repeatedly stab at the four-way controller, in much the same way as you had to on the D50, over a decade ago.

For the more experienced user who already knows their way around the interface, the Z50 might be more interesting. Or could be, were there any lenses for it. But a F3.5-6.3 maximum aperture collapsible kit zoom isn’t likely to set enthusiast hearts racing. As always, sharing a mount across sensor format promises cross-compatibility, but it’s hard to look at the current range of full-frame Z-mount lenses or Nikon’s published roadmap and see many with size, price or focal length that make them great pairings on this body.

Nikon doesn’t have a great history of supplying anything other than zooms for its DX DSLRs. This is the sole fast aperture prime introduced in 17 years.

That roadmap only includes a single additional DX lens: an 18-140mm travel zoom that fits with stated ambitions, but is unlikely to enthuse many enthusiasts. Which is a shame, because in many respects the Z50 a rather usable and competitively priced rival to Sony’s a6400 or Canon’s EOS M6 II (only without support from Sigma).

Nikon may think it’s making a camera for people who don’t see themselves as photographers, but seems to have made another solid photographers’ camera by mistake

To an extent, the comparison with the Canon is telling. The Z50 is not conceptually dissimilar to the M6 II: metal bodies, twin dials and so forth. The difference is that Canon isn’t aiming the M6 II at Instagram users; it’s got the M200 for that. Which just adds further weight to the impression that Nikon may think it’s making a camera for people who don’t see themselves as photographers, but seems to have made another solid photographers’ camera by mistake.

As things stand, it’s not clear what the Z50 does to attract a new audience. And a: ‘build it and they will come,’ approach seems optimistic, to say the least.

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Opinion: The Nikon Z50 is a good camera, but that may not be enough

Posted in Uncategorized

 
« Older Entries