360Photography

Category: Uncategorized

  • Zeiss ZX1 real-world samples gallery

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_9091590422″,”galleryId”:”9091590422″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    One of 2020’s many, many surprises has been the emergence of the Zeiss ZX1, a full-frame, fixed lens compact first announced in late 2018. Not only is it the optical company’s first-ever camera, it’s also built on Android with the ability to run Lightroom CC. At long last, this unusual camera has made its official debut and we’ve got our first batch of samples to share.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8 VR S sample gallery updated

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_5156689056″,”galleryId”:”5156689056″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    We’ve been spending more with the 70-200mm F2.8 VR S, a cornerstone lens in Nikon’s relatively young Z-mount lineup. In the time since we’ve gotten our hands on it we’ve taken it along on local trips to the coast and around our corner of the Puget Sound area – take a look at our updated sample gallery for even more photos from this much-anticipated lens, including several shots from the new Z6 II.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • The best Google Photo alternatives

    The best alternatives for Google Photos

    With news that Google will stop unlimited uploads to Google Photos starting June 15, 2021, many photographers are thinking about alternatives. While ‘free’ and ‘unlimited’ options are all but non-existent with Google Photos gone, there are plenty of options if you’re looking to get away from the Google ecosystem and don’t mind paying for either subscriptions or one-time purchases.

    We’ve rounded up a few of the best alternatives, ranging from simple to sophisticated, and have summarized their features and functionality. While some of these services do offer free storage, most are limited by data or the number of files uploaded, and some require a subscription or purchase before you can even use them.

    If there are other options we’re missing, leave us a message in the comments below and we’ll consider adding them to our list.

    Apple iCloud Photos

    Let’s get this out of the way first — iCloud Photos is clearly meant for people invested in the Apple ecosystem. While it is possible to use iCloud Photos to back up your images on Android and Windows devices, it’s not suggested. With that disclaimer out of the way, let’s continue.

    Apple’s iCloud Photos service is effectively Apple’s version of Google Photos. It uses your iCloud storage space to automatically back up the Camera Roll on your iOS device to the cloud. Once uploaded, those images are accessible from all of your other iOS, iPadOS and macOS devices through the respective Photos apps, so long as you have iCloud Photos enabled.

    Much like Google Photos, iCloud Photos will automatically recognize faces, intelligently tag your images for easy searching, show where images were captured on a map and even create ‘Moments’ that combine photos and videos together in easy-to-share collections. The best part is that it does all of this directly on-device, adding an additional privacy layer that Google Photos doesn’t offer.

    The option to turn on iCloud Photos is inside the Photos section of the iOS Settings app.

    As for determining how many photos and videos you can store, that will depend on how much iCloud storage you have. Every iCloud account is given 15GB, but beyond that is up to you, based on how much you’re willing to spend (and that 15GB is shared between all of your iCloud services). You can add an additional 50GB, 200GB or 2TB of storage for $ 0.99, $ 2.99 or $ 9.99 per month, respectively (Apple has a full support page dedicated to breaking iCloud storage prices down by region). Apple’s new all-encompassing Apple One subscription is another option for adding more storage to your iCloud account; and it even makes it possible to share storage across multiple iCloud accounts in the same family, which could help spread out the cost.

    This isn’t the cheapest option by any means, but in terms of functionality, it’s about as close to Google Photos as you can get and if you’re already invested in the Apple ecosystem it should be an easy transition.

    Photos (iOS/macOS app)

    If you’re an Apple user, but prefer to keep your content local, another option is to use Apple’s Photos app without iCloud Photos turned on. The macOS Photos app will effectively work the same as if you were using it with iCloud photos, but this option would require you to store images on a harddrive connected to your computer. It also means that you won’t have access to all of your images on your iOS or iPadOS device when your storage fills up.

    The workflow would look something like this: Capture as many photos and videos as you can on your iOS or iPadOS device, manually connect the device to your macOS computer and import the images from your mobile device into the macOS Photo app library. You would then have to remove the images from your mobile device to make space for more and repeat the process once your storage is once again full.

    This isn’t the most convenient solution, as it doesn’t do everything behind-the-scenes as Google Photos and iCloud Photos does, but it is the most privacy-focused, as everything is local. It does still feature all of the same great tagging, location and ‘Moments’ functions as iCloud Photos though, and even has built-in services for making photo prints and books. Thanks to Apple’s extension integration, you can also edit photos using third-party software, such as Affinity Photo, Pixelmator, Skylum’s Luminar and more. Apple-focused website iMore has a great collection of the best photo apps that have support for Photos extensions.

    Flickr

    This one shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Flickr has been around for 16 years and was arguably the go-to services for storing mobile images until Google spun off Google Photos from its Google+ social networking site in 2015. Flickr isn’t mobile-specific, but its mobile app — available for both Android and iOS — makes it easy to sync your photo library on-the-fly.

    Flickr has seen plenty of ups and downs since Yahoo! purchased it back in 2005, but since being purchased by SmugMug in 2018, the photo-sharing site has seen a steady improvement in features and functionality. It lacks the automated tagging and fancy AI-powered collection features Google Photos and iCloud Photos offers, but it still has tools to manually create collections, add tags, share albums and more.

    For a while, when it was owned by Yahoo!, Flickr offered an incredible 1TB of free storage to everyone who signed up for a free account. SmugMug reversed that decision, presumably to reduce costs, limiting it to 1,000 images in total.

    While that’s enough to get most people started, you’re probably going to need more storage if you’re using it to replace Google Photos. For that, you can pick up Flickr Pro, a premium version of the Flickr experience which not only offers unlimited full-resolution photos, but also removes all ads, shows detailed analytics of images you’ve made public and offers discounts on other photo products and services, including Adobe subscriptions, Peak Design gear, Pixsy and more.

    Flickr Pro has multiple subscription options, including monthly, every three months and annually. These plans cost $ 6.99 per month, $ 18.99 every three months and $ 60 per year, respectively.

    Prime Photos

    Amazon’s Prime Photos is included with an Amazon Prime membership. The service is similar to Google Photos in that you can upload unlimited full-resolution photos to the cloud, organize your content, search by tags/locations/people, share your albums and even create custom photo products, including prints, books, mugs and more. Prime Photos has apps for Android, iOS, macOS and Windows computers, making it easy to upload photos from essentially any device you own.

    One of the limits of Prime Photos is that you’re capped at 5GB for video uploads. With more and more phones shooting 4K video at increasing data rates nowadays, that 5GB of storage could be used up pretty quickly, so if you want all of your videos backed up to the cloud as well, Prime Photos might not be the way to go.

    Still, if you’re an Amazon Prime member, it’s a benefit that’s there for you when you need it. Amazon Prime memberships cost either $ 12.99 per month or $ 119 per year. There is a free 30-day trial and multiple discounts, including a student discount that offers six months of Amazon Prime for free and an annual subscription cost of $ 59 per year.

    Note: DPReview is a wholly-owned but editorially-independant subsidiary of Amazon

    Plex

    Plex is a multimedia server that makes it possible to self-host music, videos, TV shows and photos that can be viewed and played back anywhere in the world so long as the computer or network-attached storage (NAS) device you’re using to store your content is connected to the internet.

    Plex itself is free to download and use. The process might sound complicated, but it’s as simple as downloading the Plex server app to your computer or NAS and pointing it to the specific folders with your media in it. It’s a fantastic tool for those with large movie and music libraries, but it also works great for managing personal photos and videos on-the-go.

    Once the Plex Media Server app (available for both macOS and Windows computers) is installed, you can create various libraries using individual folders on a harddrive connected to your computer or the NAS you have the Plex Media Server app installed on. Once the Plex Media Server has a new library of images to work with, it will put them into a timeline and even organize your subfolders into albums if you choose to do so. Plex also offers an option to automatically add tags to images by letting it upload a small thumbnail of the image for analysis; if you don’t mind the privacy implications of this, the functionality is quite impressive and makes searching for images much easier.

    The Android and iOS Plex Mobile app even have a built-in camera upload feature that will automatically take images and video from your mobile device and upload it to your home server, similar to Google Photos, iCloud Photos, Flickr and others. This can be done manually or behind-the-scenes and can be limited to just upload when you’re on Wi-Fi or also on LTE/5G if you don’t mind hitting your bandwidth cap.

    Setting up Plex isn’t for novice users looking for a hands-off approach with minimal interaction. But if privacy is a concern and you want full control over every facet of your content, it’s hard to argue with the benefits Plex offers.

    While all of the features mentioned above are free, Plex does offer a Plex Pass, which adds a handful of premium features for viewing, downloading and syncing your other media, as well as improved access to analytics for when other people — whom you’ve shared certain media libraries with — are accessing your data. Plex Pass costs either $ 4.99 per month or $ 39.99 per year. There’s also a Lifetime Plex Pass for $ 119.99, which will give you all of these features in perpetuity, even if the price increases down the road (spoiler alert: they usually drop the Lifetime option a good bit during Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales).

    NAS Solutions

    If you have a network-attached storage (NAS) device, there’s a good chance you can install your own, self-hosted photo storage solution. Support varies from company to company, but QNAP, Synology and Western Digital all have dedicated photo management programs that can be installed onto their respective NAS units.

    These self-hosted solutions tend to be less fleshed out than their more commercial-oriented counterparts and oftentimes require a more hands-on approach, but if you want to ensure privacy and like the granularity of managing everything yourself and have the compatible hardware, these are available options.

    Below are the photo management solutions offered by the various manufacturers. If you notice we’re missing one, leave a note in the comments and we’ll be sure to add it to the list.

    Synology

    Moments — Aside from a similar logo to Google Photos, Moments offers similar features as well. It not only supports live photos, 360-degree photos and more, it also automatically tags and groups images based on subject matter, date and location.

    Photo Station — Unlike Moments, which seems to be more focused on mobile photographer, Photo Station appears to be more of a professional-oriented storage solution, with an emphasis on metadata, watermarking features and even galleries which can be shared with friends, family or clients.

    Synology has a great overview of the two programs and how they compare with one another.

    QNAP

    A look at the Synology QuMagie photo app.

    QuMagie — Defined as an ‘AI photo manager,’ QuMagie works similarly to Google Photos in that you can automatically offload photos and video from your smartphone using an accompanying app and have the content automatically analyzed for facial and subject recognition. It offers a timeline view, smart album features and has multiple sharing options for sharing one-off images or full galleries with friends and family.

    Photo Station — It’s the same app that’s available on Synology NAS units, although there might be a slight difference in version numbers based on how often either NAS manufacturer updates the app.

    Western Digital

    Camera Backups — Western Digital doesn’t go into detail about its Camera Backups NAS app, aside from saying it ‘[backs up] photos and videos from your camera to the My Cloud system.’

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Venus Optics’ 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro lens is now available with Pentax K mount, new stepless EF mount version also available

    Venus Optics has announced its popular Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro APO lens is now available for Pentax K mount cameras and is also available in a stepless aperture version for Canon EF mount.

    When the Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro APO lens was announced back in 2018, it was supposed to be available for Pentax K mount systems alongside Canon EF, Nikon F and Sony FE mounts. However, the K mount version never came to fruition, with Venus Optics even announcing RF and Z mount versions back in April of this year before any news of the K mount version came out.

    A macro shot of the aperture coupling on the new Pentax K mount version of the Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro APO.

    Now, the wait is over. As with the previous versions of the lens, the Pentax K mount version is constructed of 12 elements in 10 groups, features an aperture range of F2.8-F22, uses a seven-blade aperture diaphragm and has a maximum 2x magnification ratio. The lens features an automatic aperture coupling lever, which allows the lens’ aperture to be controlled through the camera, but if you prefer a more hands-on approach, you can adjust the aperture using the manual aperture ring as well.

    In addition to the Pentax K mount model, Venus Optics has also released a variation of its EF mount model that features manual stepless aperture control. This video-oriented version of the lens makes it easier to get just the right exposure and the inclusion of a 13 aperture-blade diaphragm over the seven-blade aperture diaphragm in the automatic aperture EF mount version should make for even smoother bokeh.

    Below is a sample gallery of images taken with the Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro APO lens by photographer Thomas Shahan, provided by Venus Optics:

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_6109712727″,”galleryId”:”6109712727″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    Both the Pentax K mount and Canon EF mount stepless manual focus versions of the Laowa 100mm F2.8 Ultra Macro APO are available on the Venus Optics online shop and through authorized retailers for $ 449.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • DPReview TV: Battle of the 70-200mm F2.8 zooms (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic)

    Who makes the best 70-200mm F2.8 zoom lens for full-frame? We tested the latest models to find out: the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM, Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8 VR S, Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS and the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 70-200 F2.8 O.I.S.

    Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV every week.

    • Introduction
    • The competitors
    • Size and weight
    • Livin' La Bokeh LoCA
    • Autofocus
    • Sharpness
    • Video performance
    • Final rankings

    Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8 sample gallery

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_8685700048″,”galleryId”:”8685700048″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8 sample gallery

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_5156689056″,”galleryId”:”5156689056″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 sample gallery

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_1304509160″,”galleryId”:”1304509160″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    Panasonic S Pro 70-200mm F2.8 sample gallery

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_0696132436″,”galleryId”:”0696132436″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });
    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Adobe apps not officially supported on Apple’s M1 chips using Rosetta 2, but native versions are coming

    Earlier this week, Apple announced the first trio of Mac computers built using Apple’s own silicon. The new MacBook Air, 13″ MacBook Pro and Mac mini devices all use Apple’s new M1 chip. During the event, Apple announced that Adobe, among many other developers, is working on releasing new versions of its software that are compatible with the M1 chip.

    As it turns out, these new M1-compatible versions will be critical for Adobe Lightroom users on the new Apple silicon Macs. On a dedicated page about Lightroom Classic compatibility with the upcoming macOS 11 operating system, Adobe warns that ‘Adobe apps run under Rosetta 2 emulation on Apple devices with Apple Silicon M1 processors is not officially supported.’ The company continues, ‘Native support is planned.’

    Click to enlarge

    Early adopters of the M1-powered Apple computers will have to do without official support for now. It is worth noting that at this point, Adobe hasn’t discovered any issues with running Lightroom Classic 10 under Rosetta 2 emulation, but as it is not officially supported, the user does assume non-zero risk. The MacBook Air, MacBook Pro and Mac mini computers powered by the M1 chip are all available for order now ahead of a November 17 release.

    In Apple’s presentation, embedded below, Senior Vice President, Craig Federighi, said Adobe is bringing Lightroom CC to its M1 computers in December and following it up with Photoshop in early 2021 (around the 18:10 timestamp).

    While Photoshop and Lightroom are the primary apps for photographers in the Adobe ecosystem, the company has many other heavily-used apps, such as Premiere, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, and much more. As of writing, Adobe has not offered a timeline for other Adobe apps built for the M1 chip.

    In case you missed Apple’s event on Tuesday, you can watch a replay of the stream below:

    The Apple M1 chip promises massive performance gains over prior Intel chips. In the case of the M1-powered MacBook Air, Apple promises up to 3.5 times faster CPU performance and up to 5 times faster graphics. The MacBook Air also ditches a fan, offering a ‘silent design.’ The 13″ MacBook Pro maintains an active cooling system, offers up to 2.8 times faster CPU performance and up to 5 times faster GPU performance. With the M1 chip, the new Mac mini also sees massive gains. Its CPU is up to 3 times faster and the GPU is 6 times faster. The new computers start at $ 999 USD, $ 1,300 and $ 699 respectively. For the full details on the new machines, check out coverage from earlier this week.

    Adobe has been hard at work developing native versions of its applications, including Photoshop shown here during the Apple presentation on November 10. In the presentation, seen further above, Adobe states that it has observed massive performance gains on Apple silicon.

    The move to Apple silicon is a major one for Apple. The promised performance gains are hugely impressive on paper, and the foundation being built appears to be a strong one. Of course, software must be designed to take full advantage of the new silicon. Adobe certainly has the talent and resources to do so.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Apple’s new ProRAW image format will capture 12-bit Raw DNG files

    Apple has released the iOS 14.3 developer beta which, amongst other improvements, includes the new ProRAW photo feature Apple showed off at its virtual iPhone event last month.

    Until now, not much was known about the ProRAW workflow and what type of file the latest iPhone 12 Pro devices would output. We now know, thanks to the iOS 14.3 developer beta, that a ProRaw file will be a 12-bit Raw image captured as a linear digital negative (Linear DNG) file. The file will offer up to 14 stops of dynamic range, according to a report from PetaPixel, and offers the usual post-production adjustments we’ve come to expect from Raw files: white balance adjustment, better exposure refinement and more.

    Turning on ProRAW in iOS on the new iPhone 12 Pro devices is done by toggling it on in the Settings app. As with HDR and Live Photos, images captured as a ProRAW file will have a ‘RAW’ badge displayed alongside it to distinguish it from other images. It’s worth noting though that the image shown in the Photos app is simply a JPEG conversion of the Raw photo, akin to how Raw photos you view on your camera’s displays is actually a JPEG preview. You will only see the Raw image when it’s imported into a compatible post-production app for editing.

    Speaking of editing, the DNG file should be compatible with any app that accepts DNG files, but it might take some time for all apps to integrate specific profiles for getting the most from the ProRAW format. The DNG files stored to the iOS Camera Roll can either be edited directly on your mobile device and exported as a JPEG from there or be saved and exported to your computer for editing in apps like Lightroom, Affinity Photo, Capture One and others.

    Co-founder and designer for pro camera app Halide, Sebastiaan de With, points out that ProRAW works on the wide, telephoto and ultrawide camera modules and is also compatible with Night Mode shots (no luck with Portrait mode shots or Live Photos). He’s also discovered ProRAW images come in at roughly 24–28MB, which is quite large considering that’s the size of most DSLR and mirrorless Raw files.

    No API is available at this time for ProRAW capture, so even if it does become available in the future, it might take some time to see ProRAW capture enabled in third-party apps.

    Apple’s new ProRAW format is limited to its new iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max devices, so unless you’re planning on upgrading to the new flagship iOS devices, you won’t be seeing this new capture mode. For those of you who already have a compatible iPhone, there’s no information on when iOS 14.3 will be publicly available, so you’ll still need a little more patience.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • This DIY camera uses machine learning to tell you what it sees

    A camera that knows what it’s looking at would have seemed like a farfetched pipe dream not long ago. These days, however, you can even build such a camera in the comfort of your own home. Adafruit has shared a project that allows you to build a camera around Adafruit’s own BrainCraft HAT system, which is itself an AI Machine Learning addition to the Raspberry Pi 4. Plus, it even tells you what it sees.

    As DIY Photography observes, the Raspberry Pi Machine Learning camera uses TensorFlow Lite object recognition software to figure out what it is looking at. The project works with either the 8MP Pi Camera Module or the 12.3MP module that includes interchangeable lens support. The enclosure is 3D printed.

    So what is a camera that can determine what it’s seeing be used for? As John Aldred points out at DIY Photography, ‘…it opens up a lot of options for connecting the Pi to a ‘real camera’ for shooting photos or video. You could connect a DSLR or mirrorless camera from its trigger port into the Pi’s GPIO pins, or even use a USB connection with something like gPhoto, to have it shoot a photo or start recording a video when it detects a specific thing enter the frame.’

    Imagine a scenario in which you want to remotely photograph a specific animal. Perhaps you don’t want to have a camera constantly capturing images or shooting whenever it detects motion, but instead want something more precise and fine-tuned. Maybe a sports photograph could utilize object recognition to capture a specific moment during a game with one camera while manually shooting with another. Aldred also notes that you could potentially have the object recognition software place object keywords into image metadata, which could make organizing large batches of images a much more streamlined process.

    Image credit: Adafruit

    The technology is still developing, and machine learning takes time, but there’s a lot of interesting potential here and talented, creative individuals often find ways to push new gear and tech to the limits. At the very least, it seems like a fun project. If you’d like to learn more and view the complete parts list, click here. In total, you’ll need the Adafruit BrainCraft HAT (around $ 40), Raspberry Pi 4 ($ 35), a camera ($ 30 and up) a 3D printed case, and a few more odds and ends. Click the following links for helpful user guides: ‘Easy Machine Learning for Raspberry Pi’ and ‘Running TensorFlow Lite on Raspberry Pi 4’.

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • $20 film camera challenge: Minolta Riva Zoom 90EX – Dan Bracaglia

    Intro – the challenge

    Our ‘$ 20 film camera challenge’ is partly an acknowledgment that the universe is well-stocked with affordable analog cameras, and you don’t necessarily need to spend an arm and a leg on something trendy to get great shots. But it’s also a fun excuse to reassess the cool and often quirky camera designs of the not-too-distant past.

    The rules are simple: Find a film camera for under $ 20, shoot a roll or two with it, and describe the experience. Film and developing costs do not count toward the $ 20, otherwise you’d have no money left to spend. But shipping and/or tax do count.

    In our very first challenge, DPR writer Aaron Gold ended up falling in love with the surprisingly feature-rich Minolta Maxxum 5. In the second edition, DPR editor Dan Bracaglia pulls the trigger on another Minolta camera…

    Read the first installment of the $ 20 film camera challenge here

    $ (document).ready(function() { SampleGalleryV2({“containerId”:”embeddedSampleGallery_6631296540″,”galleryId”:”6631296540″,”isEmbeddedWidget”:true,”selectedImageIndex”:0,”isMobile”:false}) });

    Dan Bracaglia and the Minolta Riva Zoom 90EX

    The hunt

    I’ve been considering purchasing an inexpensive 35mm pocket zoom camera for some time now – something I can toss in my bike frame bag and bring along on adventures. As a kid, I remember shooting with our family’s Olympus Stylus Zoom and recall enjoying the experience and the photographs immensely. And so I figured the $ 20 film camera challenge was the perfect excuse to take to eBay and do a little shopping.

    I also picked up an Olympus Stylus Zoom 105, as a sort of consolation if the Minolta didn’t work

    The camera industry pumped out a ton of these autofocus-enabled ‘compact’ zoom cameras during the 1990’s. And I had no shortage of well-priced options from every major manufacturer. I’d never shot with a Minolta compact camera before, only an SLR, but a recent, glowing article about the Minolta Riva 110 over on 35mmc.com had me intrigued.

    Priced at $ 15, the Minolta Riva 90EX (aka Minolta Freedom 9T) was my camera of choice.

    I couldn’t find a Riva 110 for under $ 20, despite a strong desire for as much zoom as possible, but did I track down the a slightly-older Minolta Riva Zoom 90EX, priced to fit the rules of the challenge. Note: The North American version (which I picked up) is called the ‘Freedom Zoom 9T,’ which doesn’t sound as cool, so we’re going with Riva 90EX.

    It had originally been listed at $ 20, but was subsequently lowered to $ 15 with free shipping. The seller noted it was in mint condition, minus a cracked hinge on the film door, which they were confident was a non-issue. I figured ‘what the heck’ and bought it for the asking price. Grand total: $ 16.52.

    Full disclosure: I also picked up an Olympus Stylus Zoom 105, as a sort of consolation if the Minolta didn’t work. That one I splurged on and spent $ 49.10 with tax and shipping.

    The ‘pick’

    The Riva 90EX has a nice selection of features including a double exposure mode, landscape mode and even a continuous drive mode.

    The Riva 90EX debuted in the early 90’s at a time when the ‘compact’ AF zoom camera market was blowing up and brands were churning out new models, with each generation offering more and more reach.

    A mostly automatic camera, the Riva 90EX is built around a 35-90mm F3.5-5.7 lens and includes a nice selection of modes and features, some more useful than others. For instance, ‘Landscape mode’ locks focus at infinity and disengages the flash, something I found useful when shooting street photos on a sunny day toward the tele-end of the focal length. There’s also also a double exposure mode and even a continuous drive mode which, from my testing (without film), shoots at a zippy 1 fps.

    In use

    You ain’t a beauty but hey, you’re alright.

    Upon unboxing my new/old Minolta Riva Freedom 90EX, I popped the film door to see how weak the cracked hinge really was: it fell off in my hands, with only the date cable keeping it attached.

    “The first time the date imprint function was ever actually useful,” I thought as I grabbed some gaffers tape.

    After loading in a battery I checked to make sure the flash, zoom and shutter worked, and all seemed to be functioning as intended. I then went to set the date on the back because why the heck not? It’s there. Much to my dismay, the year only goes until 2019, something that is actually mentioned in the instructions. Was Minolta foreshadowing a lack of faith and/or the ultimate demise of their camera business all the way back in the early 90s?

    Upon unboxing the Minolta Riva Freedom 90EX, I popped the film door to see how weak the cracked hinge really was: it fell off in my hands

    In-hand, the Riva 90EX feels large and plasticky, in fact I’d go as far as to say it’s much larger in life than the product photos suggest. But the 1990’s bloat also means there’s lots to hold on to and it’s quite comfortable to grip. The shutter button is nice and clicky, but the zoom toggle has almost no tactile response, which I found odd. The top of the camera offers a nice big (for the era) LCD with setting info. Annoyingly, some settings are saved when the camera is turned off, others are not.

    ‘Landscape mode’ conveniently sets focus at infinity and disables the flash. Annoyingly though the camera doesn’t save the mode selection when you turn it off and back on again.

    I really enjoyed carrying this camera around. Its lightweight design made it easy to sling over a shoulder and its fat grip made it unlikely to slip from hand, though the bloated size meant it just barely fit in my bike frame bag.

    Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by its functionality in most shooting scenarios. The little bit of control over the flash, i.e. the ability to turn it off (which can be done independently of ‘Landscape mode’) is much appreciated. And though I didn’t try to shoot any double exposures, it’s certainly a feature I might enjoy messing around with when the moment strikes.

    Was Minolta foreshadowing a lack of faith and/or the ultimate demise of their camera business all the way back in the 90s?

    The camera offers one central AF point, so focus-and-recompose is the name of the game. I found AF acquisition speed to actually be quite good, given the era. In operation it unsurprisingly sounds like an early 90’s camera, which is to say, it’s noisy. If you’ve ever sharpened a Ticonderoga (pencil) in an electric pencil sharpener, that’s what this camera sounds like when the film is advancing. The zoom action is also audible, though the zoom speed is pretty quick.

    There’s really not much else to say about the Riva 90EX; it’s a $ 16 chunk-monster of a camera with just enough controls and some pleasant features to make me happy. And one I enjoyed bringing along on adventures, thanks to its functionality and low cost of replacement, should chaos ensue (I drop it). But how are the photos?

    The photos

    About a quarter of my images have a pronounced circular flare, a possible sign that optical coatings somewhere in the lens may have degraded.

    The Riva 90EX is certainly capable of solid image quality, but my copy has one obvious and unfortunate issue/defect: substantial circular flaring when shooting at the wide end of the focal range. I shot a grand total of 50 images and roughly 1 in 4 shots have this issue. Sure, it looks cool and artsy for some of the more abstract images, but it’s just flat-out annoying in others.

    At first I thought the flaring was a result of the flash, but it also appears in images shot in bright sunlight where the flash was disabled. Could a lens hood fix this? Possibly, but it also may just be the result of lens coating degradation. That’s the bad, now for the good:

    At the wide end I’d call the lens satisfyingly sharp and at the tele, acceptably sharp; not bad for $ 16

    I was pleasantly surprised with the rest of the images, though Kodak Gold 400 seems a bit greener than I remember (I mostly corrected this in Lightroom). The autofocus system proved fairly reliable; very few of my shots had missed focused. The metering also seemed pretty good, especially given some of the more dynamically complex scenes I shot. At the wide end I’d call the lens satisfyingly sharp and at the tele, acceptably sharp; not bad for $ 16.

    The takeaway

    I really like the versatility of the camera’s 38-90mm focal range, especially for street shooting. I also appreciate the camera’s design, handling and features. But persistent flaring when shooting the wide end of the focal length is a deal-breaker.

    Ultimately, I suspected I would love this style of camera, especially the versatility of the focal range, and my time with the Riva 90EX confirmed my suspicions. I’ve long been both a fan of both digital pocket zooms as well as compact 35mm cameras (but with fixed focal lengths), and this feels like a natural category of camera to now explore.

    Plus, the sheer number of 90’s pocket zooms available for cheap means you too can explore it, without breaking the bank. Of course, the next model I’ll be trying is my new Olympus Stylus Zoom 105. Here’s hoping for flare-free shooting!

    The lens on the Riva 90EX is satisfyingly sharp at the wide end.

    Who’s going to take the $ 20 film camera challenge next?

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

  • Roger Cicala: the difference between sample variation and a ‘bad copy’ (Part 2)

    I compare a lot of lenses. They aren’t all exactly the same.

    In today’s article we’ll look at variation versus bad copies a bit differently to last time. Plus, I’ll explain how people get three ‘bad copies’ of a lens in a row.

    Variation versus bad copy frequency

    Imatest type graphs are easier to visualize so I’m going to use those today. These graphs allow us to visualize center resolution (toward the top on the y-axis of the graph) and overall resolution (toward the right on the x-axis), with individual lenses plotted as dots. Don’t worry about the numbers on the X and Y axes, all you need to know is that the sharpest lenses are plotted up and to the right, and the softest are lower and to the left.

    The graph below shows plots from multiple copies of two prime lenses. Let’s call them ‘Red’ and ‘Green’. The Green lens is a fairly expensive, pro-grade optic. The Red lens is a cheaper, consumer-level prime. You’ll see that there’s one copy of each in roughly the middle of this graph, away from the main cluster at upper-right. I’d return both of these samples to the manufacturer. So would you – they’re awful.

    Multiple copies of two lenses, the ‘Red’ lens and the ‘Green’ lens, plotted by center and overall sharpness. Two bad copies of each are obvious at the lower left.

    But could you tell the difference between the best and the worst of the other copies, in that big cluster at upper-right? That would depend on the resolution of your camera, how carefully you pixel-peeped, which lens we are talking about, and honestly, how much you cared.

    The Green lens shows less variation, which is about what we expect (but don’t always get) from a fairly expensive, high-quality lens. A perfectionist with a high resolution camera, some testing skill and enough time could tell the top third from the bottom third, but it would take effort.

    The Red lens has more variation, which is typical for a consumer-grade lens. A reasonably picky photographer could tell the difference from the top third and the bottom third. None of the bottom third are awful; they’re a little fuzzier, a little more tilted, not quite as good when viewed at 100% magnification, and you might see issues if you made a large print.

    With more variation, you get more ‘not as good’ lenses, but they’re still not ‘bad copies’

    If you look carefully, though, the top third of the Green and Red samples are about the same. With more variation, you get more ‘not as good’ lenses, but they’re still clearly not ‘bad copies’; they’re just ‘not quite as good’ copies.

    So why would we argue about these two lenses on the Internet? Because based on a graph like this, a lot of testing sites might say “Red is as good as Green and costs a lot less.” The truth is simply that the Red lens has more variation. Sure – a good copy of the Red lens might match a good copy of the Green lens. But you’re not guaranteed to get one.

    A word about that yellow line and worse variation

    There’s obviously a point when large variation means the lower end of the ‘acceptable group’ is unacceptable. Where that line lies is of course arbitrary, so I put an arbitrary yellow line in the graph above, to illustrate the point. Where the yellow line is for you depends on your expectations and your requirements.

    The Subjective Quality Factor can theoretically decide when the low end of variation is not OK, and it can be used as a guide to where to place the yellow line. The key words, though, are ‘subjective quality’. Things like print size, camera resolution, even subject matter are variables when it comes to deciding when SQF is not OK. For example, the SQF needed for online display or 4K video is a lot lower than for a 24″ print of a detailed landscape taken with a 40 megapixel camera.

    Every one of us has our own SQF; call it your PQF (Personal Quality Factor) and your yellow line might be higher or lower than the one in the graph above. Manufacturers have a Manufacturer’s Quality Factor (MQF) for each of their lenses, which is the famous ‘in spec’.

    When your PQF is higher than the MQF, those lower lenses are not OK for you. They might be fine for someone else. Wherever a person’s yellow line is, that’s their demarkation line. These days, if they get a lens below the line, they go on an Internet rant. So now, as promised, I have explained the cause of 8.2% of Ranting On Online Forums (ROOFing). It’s the difference between MQF and PQF.

    Put another way, it’s the difference between expectations and reality.

    If you test a set of $ 5,000 lenses carefully enough, you may find some differences in image quality. The technical term for this phenomenon is ‘reality’.

    It should be pretty obvious that people could screen three or four copies of the Red lens and end up with a copy that’s as good as any Green lens. I don’t find it worth my time, but I’m not judging; testing lenses is what I do.

    Unfortunately, though, people don’t post online “I was willing to spend a lot of time to save some money, so I spent 20 hours comparing three copies and got a really good Red lens.” They say “I went through three bad copies before I got a good one.”

    The frequency of bad copies and variation

    Just so we get it out of the way, the actual, genuine ‘bad copy’ rate is way lower than I showed in the graph above. For high-quality lenses it’s about 1% out-of-the-box. This explains why I roll my eyes every time I hear “I’ve owned 14 Wonderbar lenses and they’re all perfect.” Statistics suggest you’d need to buy over 50 lenses to get a single bad one. The worst lenses we’ve ever seen have a bad copy rate of maybe 3% so even then, the chances are good you wouldn’t get a bad one out of 14.

    Most of these ‘those lenses suck / I’ve never had a bad copy’ arguments are just a different way of saying ‘I have different standards than you’

    What about the forum warrior ROOFing about getting several bad copies in a row? He’s probably screening his way through sample variation looking for a better than average copy. If he exchanges it, there’s a good chance he won’t get a better one, but after two or three, he’ll get a good one. So he’s really saying “I had to try three copies to find one that was better than average.” Or close to average. Something like that.

    Semantics are important. Most of these “those lenses suck / I’ve never had a bad copy” arguments are just a different way of saying “I have different standards than you”. I get asked all the time what happens to the two lenses John Doe returned when he kept the third? Well, they got re-sold, and the new owners are probably happy with them.

    Why are there actual bad copies?

    In short – inadequate testing. Most photographers greatly overestimate the amount and quality of testing that’s actually done at the factory, particularly at the end of the assembly line.

    Many companies use a test target of thick bars to set AF and give a cursory pass-fail evaluation. A target of thick bars is low-resolution; equivalent to the 10 lp/mm on an MTF bench. Some use a 20 lp/mm target to test, and 20 is higher than 10, so that’s good. The trouble is that most modern sensors with a good lens can resolve 50 lp/mm easily. This is what I mean when I say (as I do often) that you and your camera are testing to a higher standard than most manufacturers.

    Why is there high variation?

    Usually, it’s the manufacturer’s choice, and usually for cost reasons. Occasionally it’s because the manufacturer is living on the cutting edge of technology. I know of a couple cases where a lens had high variation because the manufacturer wanted it to be spectacularly good. They designed-in tolerances that turned out to be too tight to practically produce, but convinced themselves they could produce it. Lenses like this tend to deliver amazing test results, but then attract a whole lot of complaints from some owners and a whole lot of love from others.

    What’s that? You want some examples?

    This is not the bookcase mentioned below; that one is under nondisclosure. This is my bookcase. My bookcase has better optical books.

    Service center testing

    Years ago, we had in our possession a $ 4,000 lens that was simply optically bad. It went to the service center twice with no improvement. Finally, the manufacturer insisted I send ‘my’ camera overseas with it for adjusting. The lens and camera came back six weeks later. The lens was no better, but the camera contained a memory card with 27 pictures on it. Those pictures were of a bookshelf full of books, and each image was slightly different as the technician took test shots while they optically adjusted the lens.

    This, my friends, is why we decided to start adjusting lenses ourselves. And yes – after offering to share those bookshelf images – I was eventually sent a replacement lens.

    Non-adjustable lenses

    Many lenses have no optical adjustments. They’re assembled, and then what you get is what you get. If in-factory QC detects a really bad one, it might be disassembled and the parts reused, in the hope that random reassortment gives a better result next time. Or it may just get thrown away; the cost of disassembling and reassembling may be greater than the saved parts.

    A common type of non-adjustable lens called a stacked lens; ‘element – spacer – element – spacer, etc’ with a front and rear retaining ring holding everything together. The usual method of correcting it is to loosen the retaining rings, bang the lens on a table a few times, and tighten it back up. That probably sounds ridiculously crude, but it sometimes works.

    Many fully manual lenses (not those made by Zeiss or Leica) are non-adjustable, as are some less expensive manufacturer and third-party lenses.

    Minimally-adjustable lenses

    A number of prime lenses have only one or two adjustable elements. This is not necessarily a bad thing; adjusting one or two elements is a lot easier than adjusting six, so the technician is more likely to get things right.

    One of my favorite lenses, both to shoot with and to adjust, is the venerable Zeiss 21mm F2.8 Distagon / Milvus. The front element of this lens is adjustable for centering and we’ve done hundreds of these adjustments over the years. The fun part is doing this adjustment lets you choose what type of lens you want. You can have razor sharp in the center with soft corners or you can let the center be a little softer and the corners much sharper. It’s a great example of adjustment being a trade-off, even for relatively simple adjustments.

    MTF graphs of a Zeiss 21mm F2.8 Distagon, adjusted for best center sharpness (above), and optimal edge sharpness (below).

    Consumer-grade zoom lenses (manufacturer or third-party) and prime lenses with apertures smaller than F1.4 tend to be minimally or non-adjustable. A fair number of better zooms and primes are minimally adjustable, too.

    Lenses with many adjustable elements

    More adjustments means less variation, at least in theory. It also, however, means when something is wrong it’s far more complex and time consuming to get the adjustments right. Time, as they say, is money and complex lenses can be rather hard to adjust.

    I think the most we’ve seen is nine adjustable elements. These are usually top-of the line zooms, but we’ve seen six adjustable elements in some top-end primes. That’s something we never saw even five or six years ago.

    So, what’s the key takeaway?

    Let’s start with my definitions. A bad copy of a lens has one or more elements so out of adjustment that its images are obviously bad at a glance. Such a lens (assuming it is optically adjustable) can usually be made as good as the rest.

    Variance, on the other hand, means some lenses aren’t as good as others, usually as a result of a number of small imperfections. A simple optical adjustment isn’t likely to make them as good as average. All lenses have a little variance. Some have more. A few have a lot. How much is too much depends on the photographer who’s shooting with them.

    The Canon 70-200mm F2.8 RF has (give or take one, I’m not certain I recall all of them) 8 or 9 different adjustable elements.

    Reducing variation costs money. The reality is the manufacturers are doing what works for them (or at least they think they are). There is a place for $ 500 lenses with higher variation and good image quality, just like there’s a market for $ 2,000 lenses with better image quality and less variation.

    Roger

    Roger Cicala is the founder of Lensrentals.com. He started by writing about the history of photography a decade ago, but now mostly writes about the testing, construction and repair of lenses and cameras. He follows Josh Billings’ philosophy: “It’s better to know nothing than to know what ain’t so.”

    Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)