It is very like in size to my Canon Canonet QL17 GIII. In fact it is slightly slimmer. The lens is a little shorter than the Canon and this makes it very easy to slip in a jacket pocket. Besides the size of the camera, it has very good image quality up to 3200 iso, a fast, sharp f=2.0 lens and a hybrid viewfinder that let’s me choose between using the LCD, an electronic viewfinder or a real optical viewfinder. The X100 was the only camera that had all of these things in a size that I can carry everywhere.

I considered the Sony Nex-7, it has a electronic viewfinder and similar small dimensions without a lens, but the 24mm f=1.8 lens is another $800 and it is much larger with the lens attached. I also considered all the Micro 4/3s cameras, but they didn’t have high iso image quality that I wanted or an eye-level viewfinder integrated into the design.

Also, I admit to just thinking the X100 is very cool. I love the retro, old-school styling. I like having the aperture setting on the lens and a real metal exposure compensation knob under my thumb.

The images are where the X100 really shines and I think that’s what decided me more than anything else:

The X100 lens will focus up to 4 inches. You can either use the fussy little control knob or just flip the AF selector to manual focus. Oddly, when in manual focus mode, you can use the rear AF-L/AE-L button to auto focus across the entire range of the camera’s lens. In autofocus mode, you can only go down to about 2 1/2 feet. Using the manual focus ring on the front is an exercise in futility, just use the rear button to autofocus it close.

Ergonomically, the camera is a little small for my hands, but the Fuji leather case makes it big enough to hold comfortably and the edges of the leather give my hands a bit of a grip. I decided to use a wrist strap to keep the entire package small. When I go hiking, I’ll use one of my longer padded neck straps to carry it. The little leather strap that came with the case is too short for me. I like the camera to carry at hip level when hiking, not bouncing at tummy level.

The flash is small, but very effective for fill. Fuji has really got the fill flash perfect on this camera:

I converted the image to black and white to mask the color temperature difference in the subject and the background. The Fuji keeps the iso high for the proper exposure but just adds a little light to brighten the subject. For indoor pictures, if you don’t change to b&w the background will be yellow and your subject will be in the neutral flash color. Good thing I prefer black and white. This is one area that the Fuji actually does a better job of than the D700. The D700 would default to the lowest iso setting possible when using the flash and auto iso. I would have to manually boost the iso to get a decent fill flash. Even then the D700 would not do as good of a job. The Fuji just seems smoother and better balanced.

On the down side, the auto focus is a little slow and hunts a bit some times in low light. But for the most part it does the job. I also have found a little shadow banding when pushing some of the raw files. The files don’t have the latitude of the D700, I’ll have to be more careful in getting my exposures right.

Overall, I’m very pleased with my choice. I like the portability and flexibility. Here’s a couple links to some sample shots:

Test Shots
Dinner with friends
At the range

So I’ve started on a mission to find the right combination of camera, film and developing to give me the results I want in a small, easy-to-carry package. And I think I have the right film and developer now. Here’s a shot of a couple of friends in a dimly-lit restaurant. I used my Nikon N80 and a 50mm f=1.8 AF-D lens loaded with Arista Premium 400 pushed to 1600.

I developed the film in Kodak D-76 diluted 1+1 for 13:15 at 21 degrees. I’ve got good details, smooth gradations and the grain is under control. This is as dark as I would normally want to shoot and this combination has delivered the goods.

I love my N80, its compact, lightweight and has a ton of modern features that help me get the shots I want. I can select spot, matrix or center-weighted metering with my thumb without having to look away from the viewfinder. I can select any of 5 different focus points and the spot meter will meter off that point. In shooting candids in low light, a spot meter is your best bet because there are bound to be a lot of bright lights in the background trying to fool a meter.

Another great feature of the N80 is the 1/4000th shutter speed. Most of my old manual cameras have either a 1/500th or 1/1000th shutter speed. If I rate my film at 1600, that means I need to have at least a 1/2000th shutter speed to shoot that speed outdoors. The N80 gives me some flexibility to do just that.

I’ve started a gallery with sample shots of Arista Premium pushed to 1600, you can see all the shots here.

Not only was I shooting a new camera, but I was also shooting a new film, Arista Premium 400, which is supposed to be Kodak Tri-X 400 repackaged and sold much cheaper than Kodak. I bought it from Freestyle Photo for $2.20 a roll. I shot it at 1600 asa to see if I could replace the now discontinued Fuji Neopan 1600.

And not only was I shooting a new film with a new camera, I decided to develop the film myself. Holy Cow! Talk about lot’s of opportunities for failure. Anyway, I managed to stave off disaster and ended up with real images on my film. I was pretty pleased with the way they turned out. Very gritty and vintage looking.

You can see all the pix here. I’ll have more on the Mamiya coming up.

It has a fast, semi-wide 38mm 2.8 lens. The lens is fairly sharp, but nothing amazing. It uses 2 AA batteries, instead of the expensive 2CR5 that the Tele uses. It is also smaller and lighter than the Tele. It auto advances the film between shots and does it in a pretty noisy fashion. The asa goes from 50 to 400 in 3rd of a stop increments and then jumps up to 1000 asa instead of 800 like a lot of other cameras. The Tele set the asa automatically using DX encoding up to 1600 asa.

The cool thing about having a manually set asa is that you can cheat a bit with some film. I wanted to try some Fuji Neopan 1600, but I didn’t really like the Fuji at the box speed of 1600, I wanted to try it a little slower. So I loaded it into the Sure Shot and rated it at 1000. I was very pleased with the results. Shot at 1600, the Fuji Neopan is too contrasty and doesn’t have enough mid-tones for my taste. Shooting at 1000, it still has good contrast, but the mid-tones are much more apparent and the grain is nice and not overwhelming.

This combo gave me a point and shoot with pretty decent low-light capabilities. So good in fact, that I never tested the flash. Unfortunately, Fuji has discontinued the Neopan 1600 film, so I only have 5 rolls left in the freezer and then it’s gone. I’m going to try shooting some Tri-X at 1000 and 1600 to see if I can use it as a replacement.

I took it to a New Year’s Eve party and took some snaps without a flash. It did a great job. Well exposed and in focus, easy to use, just the thing for a party camera.

The Sure Shot is a great, inexpensive way to take some snap shots, even in low-light with right film.

As you can see, the little Oly is about the same size as the Canon Digital. Both fit easily into a pocket and can be carried with little effort. The Oly is a true rangefinder with manual focusing and aperture priority exposure. You set the aperture you desire and the camera figures out the shutter speed necessary for the shot and displays the information with a needle on the left side. The Canon is an auto everything model, no manual controls at all. You get what the camera thinks is the best shot. The Oly is equipped with a 35mm f2.8 non-zoom lens. The Canon with a 35-140mm f2.7-5.6 equivalent zoom. Without using the zoom, it is a very similarly spec’d lens to the Oly. In the interest of fairness, all pictures have been tweaked to look their best using contrast, saturation and sharpening. No extraordinary measures have been used.

The first round is a interior portrait of my muse while sitting in a little bbq place in downtown Paducah. First the digital:

As you can see the portrait has a lot of detail and is very sharp. The lens has distorted her face a bit more than I would like, but that is because I was closer to her than with the Oly.

Now the film shot, I was using Kodak Gold 200:

See how the skin tone is much more flattering? There is much more depth and richness to the color overall. Also, see how much blurrier the background is? How it separates the subject and puts the focus on the subject? Compact digital cameras have a much smaller sensor, so there is a lot of depth of field and subject isolation is much harder to accomplish. Round 1 goes to the Oly and film.

Round 2 is a detail shot from a steam locomotive on display at the Paducah riverfront. First the digital:

The Canon has done a good job, it has a 10 megapixel sensor and it has captured a lot of detail. Now the film:

I like the warmth of the color better, but the Oly and the Kodak Gold have not captured the same amount of detail as the Canon. I estimate the detail available from this combo to be close to a typical 6 megapixel camera. If you need detail, digital is the way to go. Round 2 goes to the Canon.

The final and deciding round is dynamic range. How much color can be captured in a high contrast situation. So this shot is a landscape shot of the train and the sky. First the digital:

The black train is predominant in the image and so the Canon has correctly exposed the train, but see what has happened to the sky? The sky has completely blown out to white, there’s no color there for me to try and save, it’s gone. Now the film:

Really there is no comparison between the two, the film captures not only all the detail in the train, but also all the color in the sky. Round 3 definitely goes to the winner, the Olympus XA and Kodak Gold.

You can see all the shots here.

Also you don’t want to have things like hands or feet closer to the camera than the rest of them. That will make their hands look huge. As you can see in the portrait below, which was shot at 35mm, my muse’s hands run parallel to the focal plane of the camera, making them proportional.

Using a wide angle is a great way to show a person in the context of their life. Most photojournalists prefer wider angles to tell a story in context. The best focal length is 28 or 35mm. 24 is a bit wide and it begins to distort features. Here’s a 28mm below, you can see her face starting to lengthen in comparison to the above, but its still not too distracting.

These were shot on my full frame D700, so if your shooting on a smaller frame DX or APC sensor you’d have to reduce the focal length appropriately.

My sweetie and I went down to the Arch for a photography expedition. I took my trusty Nikkormat FTn and 24 2.8 ais lens, loaded with Ilford Pan 50 film. In my pocket I had my new walk-about camera, an Olympus XA. Darn thing is so small and light, it fits in my pants pocket. I can take it anywhere and not even know it’s there. Ilford Pan 50 is a very slow B&W film, so the Olympus was loaded with Kodak Gold 200. It’s nice to be able to shoot b&w or color and the little Olympus is the perfect 2nd camera because of its size.

In trying to see the Arch differently, I tried to shoot it as if it was not the main focus, but this annoying thing getting in the way of the beautiful sky.

Perspective is important. I’ve set my lens right on the structure itself. The wide angle lens let me get everything in the shot and makes it look small. It is really difficult to convey the true size of this object. The tree in the shot below looks almost as tall as the Arch. That’s a false perspective, that’s one of the effects of a wide angle lens.

Of course, I still had to do a more traditional shot. I used a yellow filter to add contrast to the sky. We were fortunate to have some nice high clouds.

You can see all the shots here.

With Velvia 50:

With Kodak Gold 200:

As you can see, the color in the Velvia shot are much richer and vibrant. The Kodak is a more natural color, but it is a bit dull. Here’s another pair:

With Velvia 50:

With Kodak Gold 200:

The results are similar. The Kodak Gold is a bit duller and less vibrant. Velvia is 50 iso, so it very slow film. This allows me to do some shallow depth of field like this:

The downside to this film is that it is very slow and so is not good for anything less that vibrant light. Also, it is very expensive, about $7 a 36 exposure roll from B&H photo. I just bought Kodak Gold on sale from Walgreens for $1.50 a roll of 24 exposures. Plus, my local lab charges $11 to develop a roll of slides versus $5 to develop a roll of print film.

If I’m going someplace where I know the colors will be great I will pony up the money for Velvia. Otherwise, I’ve got a lot of Kodak Gold around for general shooting.