Sigma DP3 Merrill

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Okay, but seriously…

The Long Version: The Sigma DP3 Merrill is a camera that puts the decimal point in the wrong place. My comfortable high-iso limit is iso640, it takes about 50 photos per battery, writing a burst of one raw file to a fast memory card takes 13 seconds. Even its memory cards hold just a fraction of the images its pixel count should suggest, and it needs clunky raw-processing software that predates the invention of 'workflow'. The DP3M could be from the dawn of consumer digital cameras.

The Merrill lacks basic abilities that are included in any half-decent point and shoot these days. No image stabilization, no flash, poor LCD quality, and no concessions to shapes that the human hand can hold. Forget about modern conveniences like viewfinders, tilting LCD screens, or remote shutter releases. Every nitpicking review and every negative word ever written about this camera has at least some truth to it, and often quite a lot.

And yet it doesn't matter. The Sigma DP3 Merrill is a magic camera.

Some equipment creates uncommonly compelling images in a way that has nothing to do with the users' skills. Of course this undefinable ability won't perform for every owner, or even consistently for the fortunate ones, but when it's right it's unmistakable. The DP3M has this magic.

The DP3 Merrill creates my favourite photos. It's neither my favourite nor my best camera, but I can lose track of time looking at images that should have been nothing but snapshots. I want to use it out of all proportion to its operational merits, and despite all of its shortcomings. It's capricious, but give it its due and it can be benevolent and gracious; treat it carelessly and suffer its anger and wrath.

Would you choose a flawed and frustrating camera if the results have the potential to be exceptional? That question can only have a personal answer. Most people, quite sensibly, will say no outright. There are plenty of really excellent cameras out there that don't carry the Sigma-Foveon baggage. A few will say “yes, sometimes” – this is the group that I find myself in. Some people, I suppose, will give an unqualified yes. There are certainly more difficult ways to make art, and creating art is the only purpose for a machine like this.

last updated 14 sept 2014

Kinotehnik LCDVF

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Smaller and simpler.

The Long Version: LCD viewfinders are designed to work around usability problems that shouldn't really exist in the first place, so I suppose it was inevitable that one would find a home on my Sigma DP3 Merrill. While I'm happy enough with a bulky and complex tripod-mount one on my big SLR, a compact camera needs something smaller and simpler. After considering a number of options, including some very expensive ones, I picked up the Kinotehnik LCDVF.

The LCDVF – please don't make me type the company name again – is about as simple as it gets. The shell is one piece, without any hinges or diopter adjustment doohickery, with a two-element lens and a rubber eyecup that can be removed and repositioned for left-eyed people.

The viewfinder attaches with magnets to a metal frame that adheres to the camera. It's secure enough that I can pick up and carry the 1-pound camera from the viewfinder; this isn't wise, but it's possible. The package includes two of these metal frames, which gives the option to use the one viewfinder on two cameras, or provides insurance against adhesive mishaps.

The metal frame and magnets makes for a streamlined and lightweight attachment method that's perfect for a little camera, and weighs far less than attaching via a tripod-ready plate. It almost verges on elegant, but mine has just a little bit of side-to-side wobble that I've fixed by shimming the hood with a single thickness of gaffer tape.

The LCDVF has a 2x magnification ratio, and to be honest I can't really see the difference between it and a 3x view. The resulting image is large and clear; the 28mm-e lens that I used to take the above photo doesn't do it justice. The inside of the hood really is that shiny, though. I've never noticed it as a problem when I'm actually taking photos, but it is really shiny.

Of course not every camera needs the assistance of this kind of viewfinder; I'd never consider attaching it to my Ricoh GR, for example. But having the LCDVF on the DP3M really does improve my stability with this long-lensed camera; I'd rate its as being just a bit less of an improvement than a lightweight monopod. While I was mostly hoping that the LCDVF would help me see the DP3M's screen, now that I know what it can do I wouldn't hesitate to put one on any LCD-based camera that usually uses a long lens.

I bought the LCDVF because the Kamerar QV1 (right) added too much bulk, weight, and complexity to a little camera like the Sigma DP3M. While Kamerar does have smaller viewfinders, the slickness and simplicity of the LCDVF is hard to beat.

But simplicity may be only skin-deep with the LCDVF. It has a double-element lens that's noticeably thicker than the one in my Kamerar or Hoodman loupes, and Kinotehnik says that it won't risk concentrating sunlight and burning the LCD the way other designs can. I haven't felt the need to test this myself.

In a fairly short time period I went from owning just the Hoodman Hoodloupe – and never using it – to having two different magnifying loupes to suit two different cameras. That's probably excessive, but it suits each individual machine and I don't see a lot of overlap. If I had to choose only one, it would be the LCDVF, and I'd just have to put up with having the magnetic frame tapeglued to the back of the D800 during the 95% of the time that I don't use an LCD hood on that camera.

The LCDVF and Sigma DP3M is such a natural combination that I prefer to use it whenever the little Foveon camera isn't on a tripod – which is the opposite of how I use my SLR with its bigger LCD loupe. Life can be funny like that.

last updated 13 june 2014

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Maj. William Stryker (Josh Helman) and Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter
Dinklage) working together to create a fiendishly complicated movie plot.

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Like its actors, the franchise is showing its age.
The Long Version:

I know I said I was about movied out after viewing Godzilla 2014 last weekend. The key word here is "about." This weekend I hit the early morning $6 matinee to see the latest X-Install of X-Men, "X-Men: Days of Future Past."

It was a better film than Godzilla 2014, but that's not a very high bar at all for success. What you should compare it to are all the other X-Men movies that have been produced in the series so far:

1. X-Men - 2000
2. X2 - X-Men United - 2003
3. X-Men: The Last Stand - 2006
4. X-Men Origins: Wolverine - 2009
5. X-Men: First Class - 2011
6. The Wolverine - 2013
7. X-Men: Days of Future Past - 2014

If you're paying close attention you'll note the general two-to-three year release pattern in the X-Men movies, as well as a love for colons in titles. "The Wolverine" was an odd-ball, essentially released to "correct" 2009's poorly received "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Of course that fits another pattern in the Marvel movie universe, the release of movies to correct for prior poor releases (the most classic example being "Hulk" in 2003 followed by the corrective film "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008, then again with a third corrective Hulk interpretation with "The Avengers" in 2012).

I have few regrets in life, but one of them is knowing I've seen all the movies I've just catalogued.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" is an attempt to correct the so-called damage caused to the franchise by "X-Men: The Last Stand," in which we see Jean Grey, Scott Summers/Cyclops, and Professor Xavier all killed. The franchise had really gone off the rails at that point, not that I really cared, mind you. This is, after all, a movie franchise based on comic books. It ain't Shakespeare.

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) wondering how much he can drink before he blissfully forgets all of this.

So what do you do with what appears to be a movie franchise storyline that's headed over the cliff? Follow it down to the bottom and then write another movie plot attempting to correct it. And this time, wrap the whole thing up with a happy ending. That's precisely what DoFP did.

The movie opens on a dark and stormy dystopian future. Using the NSA's three hops of mass surveillance rule, just about everyone in the U.S. who's a mutant or not and hasn't been killed by a lawful drone strike is rounded up into the year 2023's version of GitMo in New York's Central Park. Next we cut to a frantic battle in Moscow between B-list mutants we've mostly never seen before, mixed with some we have. We get a quick and violent demonstration of what future Sentinels are capable of, those robotic overlords who contain weaponized mutant DNA allowing them to "adapt to any mutant threat."

However (there's always a however), using one of the Good Mutant's ability to warn them in the immediate past (a few days before) when they're getting their asses handed to them by these super Sentinels, we see the rag-tag Good Mutant remnants avoid destruction in Moscow and arrive next up at a mountainside monastery in China. There, along with a really old Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian "Gandalf" McKellan) they conceive of an audacious and barely coherent plot to send the 2023 consciousness of Wolverine back to his 1973 physical self so that his 1973 self can somehow stop the key event that led to their current dire predicament; the killing of Tyrion Lannister in 1973 by Mystique.

The same Tyrion Lannister who would never live to write Game of Thrones, leaving Dr. Bolivar Trask so bored that instead of reading all those Game of Thrones books he would instead create the very first Sentinel. And the rest, as they say, became history.

Mystique's (Jennifer Lawrence) reaction to the dialog she's not been paid enough to deliver for this film.

The throwback works, and the next thing we know we're back with Wolverine's 2023 consciousness in his 1973 body, which conveniently happens to be naked in a water bed next to a not-quite-naked beautiful woman (thus fulfilling every old guy's fantasy), who he's not actually supposed to be canoodling with. As he's trying to dress his naked ass, three big guys burst in and threaten to kick Wolverine's partially dressed ass because they didn't get to canoodle with said girl. We've seen more than enough Wolverine movies at this point, so we all know how this is going to work out. Sure enough, in the next scene we see Wolverine, now in full 1970's denim and polyester regalia, swaggering out into the street with another man's car keys, ready for the big times of 1973.

Since time is of the essence, Wolverine drives up to the dilapidated door of a young Professor Charles Xavier (played by Mr. Tumnus, a.k.a. James McAvoy), where he proceeds to punch out a young Beast (Nicholas Hoult) and magically convince a slobbering, self-pitying Xavier that he's there to rescue him and thus rescue all of them from a fate worse than death 50 years in the future. More or less.

Quicksilver (Evan Peters) showing what he can do after consuming way too many stolen Hostess Ding-Dongs and listening to bad 70's rock. Wolverine, Magneto, and Professor X just ignore the little snot.

With that taken care of they then they hop on a jet plane and head to Washington D.C. where another mutant named Quicksilver (Even Peters) lives, and convince him, in between product placement shots for Hostess Ding Dongs and severe ADHD episodes, to break into the Pentagon and break Magneto out of the bottom of the Pentagon. Because. And this so captivates young Quicksilver's attention that his severe ADHD episodes temporarily abate long enough for him to get into the same car with Beast and Wolverine so they can drive to the Pentagon, and then walk into the Pentagon on a tour with a funky electronic gizmo made from a Radio Shack electronics kit that nobody seems to notice, that causes Sanford and Sons to play on the Pentagon's security video.

They eventually break Magneto out, but not before Professor X knocks Magneto on his ass for stealing the Professor's girl, Mystique. You just knew this complication was coming.

Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and Mystique sharing a quiet romantic moment together after Mystique grabbed him by his 70-styled lapels and threw him into a French phone booth with her.

Except, of course, Mystique isn't having any of it. She's a woman of the 70's, not just a feminist, but a Mutant Feminist with an agenda to free all her oppressed sisters around the world. She's not going to take crap from Magneto or Professor X or any inferior male, and shows at one point she's got more balls than both combined.

Magneto getting to the bottom of Watergate.

Since future peace is so dependent upon what Mystique does in 1973, and having been forewarned what will happen if she Chooses Poorly, she decides to do what any self respecting Mutant Feminist would do, and that's kill all the males, not just Dr. Bolivar Trask. Because, after all, Trask is just this guy, you know? But somehow, some way, she has a special plastic gun, and within range of this special plastic gun she conveniently has all the males who have caused a half century of political and cultural carnage, starting with Richard Nixon. If she can get rid of all those assholes, including Magneto, then what a happier, sunnier place the world will be going forward from 1973.

Mystique getting her revenge by drawing a bead on the writers and the director.

But no. Ain't havin' none of that. Young Professor Xavier, no longer high on drugs but instead high on life, is now miraculously sober enough to convince Mystique to just let the guys alone, and to trust him, they'll get it all worked out for the best. Honestly and truly. And so Nixon lives to be pardoned, Magneto floats off to be an asshole on another planet, Mystique swears off Mutant Feminism and limps off to hang out with Thor's brother in West Virginia, and everybody lives happily ever after. They even find Wolverine at the bottom of the Potomac and haul him back up so he's around for all those future X-Men movies.

Oh, yeah, I forgot this spoiler. Magneto drop-kicks Wolverine's ass into the Potomac. From the White House lawn. Trust me, Wolverine asked for that particular ass kicking.

In fact, the world becomes so bright in 2023 Wolverine nearly has to wear Cyclop-strength shades. He wakes up one last time in the movie, except this time he's alone (bummer) and in a regular bed. He stumbles out into the Charles Xavier School for the Gifted, where he finds a no-longer-dead Cyclops, a no-longer-dead Jean Grey, and everybody's busted relationships are all fixed again. Except for his relationship with Jean because Cyclops is alive again and Cyclops and Jean are an Item again, but hey, it's better than dying.

And in the last-last-last scene, after all the end credits, is a guy in some desert wearing an oversized IKEA bathrobe with skinny wrists and a skin complexion problem, with his hands up in the air, as special effects bricks fly in around him and magically create a pyramid in front of a cheering screen audience. Sort of like an Apple product release when Steve Jobs was alive. And in the magical bokeh background, there sit four indistinct dudes on their horses.

The End.

Update 26 June 2014

Box-Office Milestone: 'X-Men' Franchise Hits $3 Billion in Global Ticket Sales http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-milestone-x-men-715153

last updated 26 june 2014

Scarves

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: April 6 is National Tartan Day.

The Long Version: Scarves are something of an odd idea. Creating a strip of fabric specifically for wrapping it in the gap between ones' collar and chin hardly seems like a functional idea. Despite growing up watching "Dr. Who" episodes that prominently featured scarves, I never saw much point to them. Stylish accessories, perhaps, but more trouble than they're worth.

Being of (fractionally and nominally) Scottish descent, the last time I was in Ottawa I took the opportunity to visit a tartan shop on Robertson street. How could I not? The photo above is of the Robertson Hunting tartan, while the one below is a standard Robertson. So my first scarf purchases as an adult were simply as accessories, without too much regard for function.

Of course that was before I knew that this winter would be one of the coldest in recent memory, and before I knew just how much warmth a scarf would add to my usual winter outfit. I still never took to scarves for all-purpose wear, though, since they are much more difficult to add or remove quickly than the typical toque and gloves. I'll certainly want to keep them handy for next winter, though.

Today, April 6, just happens to be National Tartan Day. The lead photo is the 'Maple Leaf', the official Tartan of Canada.

last updated 1 dec 2013

Victorinox Soldier 2008

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Heavy but multi-functional.

The Long Version: Swiss Army Knives are proven tools that have been refined over time, which is a nice way of saying that there are often only small variations between models. Victorinox's 2008 Soldier traces its lineage back to the Trekker that I reviewed in September.

The new Soldier knife shares a few traits with the older Alox Soldier model from my last review: it has the same can opener, and no tweezers or toothpick. But otherwise it's a very different knife, being much bigger with a locking blade and a locking 'cap lifter' that's big enough for some serious prying. There's a philips driver and awl on the back, an excellent saw, and the one-handed-opening blade with its very interesting serrations.

The Soldier puts the serrations on the front of the knife, where most of the cutting is done, and leaves the base of the blade plain for detail work. This is a sensible and uncommon way of doing things, but in practice it works very well. They're also incredibly sharp, with a fine pitch that's going to be miserable to resharpen, but so far that hasn't been necessary.

The handle on the Soldier is dark green nylon with grippy bits and a bas-relief shield. Like all 111mm knives, I find it far too large and heavy for pocket carry, but keeping a grip on it shouldn't be a problem.

I said in my review of the standard Trekker that the one-handed model is what I would buy if I had to do it over again, and the Soldier proves me right. This is the knife that I carry in my work bag as a backup to my lighter pocketable SAK, ensuring that I always have the ability to break down an inbound skid of product, reduce the wooden pallet to kindling, and reassemble the best bits into a serviceable table. I may never need to do that, but there's no doubt that the Soldier is a very capable knife.

last updated 1 feb 2014

Wenger Standard Issue

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: One of the best.

The Long Version: In this era of mil-spec spec-ops mall-ninja tacticool aspirational garbage it's easy to forget that the title "Swiss Army Knife" is not yet another example of marketing's language abuses. Victorinox and Wenger do actually make military-issue hardware, both historically and currently. This review is of the Wenger Standard Issue, which is the smaller Alox knife in the photo above; the other knife will have to wait a little bit for its companion review.

The Standard Issue is a 93mm metal-handled knife with a large blade, in-line awl, can opener, and bottle opener. That's remarkably like the Victorinox Pioneer, and for a very good reason. The knives issued by the Swiss Army were all made to the same specifications, despite being supplied by different companies. So the 1961 Soldier knives, and their 'civilian' variants, are all built on the 93mm Alox platform pioneered by the Pioneer. It's a rugged and versatile tool set in a minimalist work knife, so it makes perfect sense that it was in service for some thirty-five years.

Setting aside the manufacturer and its historical legacy, the only difference between the Victorinox Electrician (that I reviewed last January) and the Wenger Standard Issue is the bail on one end and the can opener on the other. And even though this is a Wenger knife, the can opener is the cuts-forward Victorinox style with the small screwdriver tip, not the sharpened hook that typifies most Wenger knives.

The 93mm Alox is my favourite style of SAK for medium-duty work tasks, being solidly built without being too large or heavy for just-in-case pocket carry. The bail on the Standard Issue makes it easy to retrieve from a watch pocket or to clip to things, and provides an immediate cue to the orientation of the knife as it's drawn, with the only downside of needing a bit more care when closing the blade.

One other distinction that marks the Soldier knives is a date stamp on the tang of the blade. Mine is marked 99, making it more than a dozen years old, and it has had at least a few years of solid use before being put away to languish in a drawer. It was rescued by a friend of mine who gave it to me, and after just a bit of work it's as smooth and sharp as my newer knives. I don't hesitate to use it for difficult tasks, carry it often, and sharpen it as needed, yet I'm sure it has another good dozen or more years to it. As nice as a new Swiss Army Knife is, old ones can be better.

last updated 31 jan 2014

Victorinox Classic SD

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Emergency tools for very small emergencies.

The Long Version: It's hard to know how to rate the Victorinox Classic Swiss Army Knife. "Classic" is a deserved title, not just a marketing term, but despite being adorable they're not without their limitations. Yet they're ubiquitous, popular, inexpensive, available in a huge array of colours and patterns, and make great gifts. That's enough to make the classic Classic SD into the SAK of the Month for December.

The Classic is the definitive keychain knife. Small and light, it only has a few tools: very small blade, nail file with screwdriver tip – the 'SD' part of its full name – and small scissors. The models with plastic scales, either nylon or Cellidor, have a toothpick and tweezers; the aluminum-scaled Alox Classic has neither.

As barely a two-layer knife, the Classic is fairly thin to begin with, while the Alox models are practically wafers. That doesn't really impact their usability – it's not as if these are serious cutting or prying tools to begin with. But the removal of the toothpick and tweezers does significantly cut down on the number of functions of these tools, so I tend to carry the Alox model only when I'm also carrying a SAK that includes them. They're very handy for threading wrist-straps on little cameras, among other things.

The nail file is the typical SAK match-striker, not the nicer full-width cutter found on the Executive, which I prefer. The driver tip is good for small screws that don't need much torque, but nobody's going to mistake this for a hard-core tool. Light switch and power outlet covers may fall before its might, but not if they've been painted over.

There are actually three Classics in my household; in addition to my Stayglow and Alox models pictured, Penny has one with clear green scales on her keychain. None of them see much use, but they're all appreciated. Mine mostly helps prevent me from losing my keys, especially the glow-in-the-dark version, since I almost always have at least one larger Swiss Army knife nearby. But they're nice to have, and can be useful in a pinch, which is all the excuse I need to own a few of them.

last updated 13 dec 2013

Ricoh GV-1 Viewfinder

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Society for Camera Anachronisms approved.

The Long Version: The Ricoh GV-1 is an add-on optical viewfinder that's marked with 21mm and 28mm framelines, which makes it a decidedly odd accessory in these days of electronic viewfinders and zoom lenses. It conveys no information aside from a rough approximation of framing in exchange for considerably increasing the bulk and cost of the few cameras that can use it. On the other hand, it does come with a nylon carrying case, so there's that.

Ricoh also makes the GV-2, which is a physically smaller optical viewfinder with only 28mm framelines, but it offers less eye relief than the bulky GV1. That rules it out for me – I can see the GV1's 28mm lines with my glasses on, but the 21mm lines are a struggle. Both Ricoh viewfinders have squarish black stippled metal bodies that match the GR-series cameras.

With an eye to the viewfinder the framelines take up almost the entire field without the 'tunnel' effect that SLRs are famous for. The 28mm framelines are visually larger than a midrange DSLR's viewfinder, and to my eye even exceeds the entire viewing window of the Fujifilm X-Pro and X100/s optical viewfinders. It can't match the awesome m-mount Zeiss Ikon for viewfinder size – few can – but it the GV1 is brighter.

The guides on the GV1 are a bit tighter than the actual capture area, especially toward the bottom of the frame. The lines are basically in a 3:2 aspect ratio, despite the viewfinder being made for for the small-sensor GR Digital line, but it makes surprisingly little difference between the two camera types. The viewfinder is also offset to the right to avoid the pop-up flash that's next to the hotshoe on the GRD cameras, but the new GR has a bit more room up top, which will make it more compatible with other 28mm finders.

The view through the GV1 is very good. Clear, bright, and with good optics in its own right, although its slight barel distortion exceeds that from the lenses of the GR/D4. An interesting side effect of looking through a wide-angle accessory finder like the GV1 is that they make vertical perspective visible, which is something that we're normally blind to although it absolutely will show up in the GR's photos.

For critical framing the GV1 is useless, and for normal use it's not really necessary; the LCD screens on the GD and GRD4 are very good even in bright sun. (Although the lower default brightness of the GR makes it slightly weaker than its predecessor in this regard.) It's occasionally useful as a fast framing aid, even with the LCD on, since I find it more intuitive to bring the camera up and quickly boresight my subject rather than look away from my subject and concentrate on the image on the LCD screen, which may not even be in focus yet. I've done this with taxis and with fighter jets, and it works just fine for snapshots, although obviously composition is somewhat extemporaneous.

Where the optical finder really shines is for discreet photography with the LCD turned off. "Street" photography is an obvious example, but there are ample other times when it's nice to be subtle, smooth, and unobtrusive. Here the GR's focus confirmation LED comes in handy, letting the camera and viewfinder work as one unit. I just have to remember that the brim of my hat won't be in the photo even if it impinges into the viewfinder's field of view.

The time when I'm most likely to remove the GV1 is when I'm taking macro photos, since it's very easy for it to cast a shadow on the subject. The good news is that my GV1 usually lives on the bigger-sensored GR, which is fairly bad at macro photography, leaving my closer-focusing GRD4 naked and ready to go. So the viewfinder even gives me a quick way to tell my two Ricoh cameras apart, which probably isn't a problem that many people will have.

Having the viewfinder attached does considerably increase difficulty in finding a camera case that will hold the complete assembly. I usually carry my GR in a neoprene sleeve that was meant for a 5" tablet; it cost $7 at an office supply store, making it the best accessory-per-dollar I've ever spent on anything photographic.

Seeing the camera with the viewfinder attached has different effects depending on the audience. Non-photographers seem more inclined to notice the camera and then dismiss it; instead of being just another compact digital camera it looks more like a film or toy camera. People who know cameras seem to take it a little more seriously, since it says something about the owner's intent, even if it may be a bit of an affectation.

Yes, it is something of an anachronism, but the GR with its matching viewfinder just has a certain integrity that I really enjoy. That might sound trivial or superficial, but i've proven over and over again that I take better photos when I'm using gear that I like. At the very least, I take more photos with gear that I like, and often that's the same thing.

last updated 27 spet 2013

Fujifilm X-Pro1 and Fujinon 35mm f/1.4

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Wait for round 2

The Long Version: I read somewhere that in comedy, the best way to act drunk is to act sober, but fail. I thought about this a lot when I rented a Fujifilm X-Pro1, which acts like a digital rangefinder, but fails.

One of the most attractive parts of rangefinder photography – in theory, at least – is the ability to create images with a minimum of fuss. Aficionados call this “purity of photographic spirit”; others call it “lack of features”. And while the X-Pro1 clearly draws inspiration from simple, mechanical rangefinders, it’s also a look-at-me! showcase of innovative electronics, a dichotomy that is the source of not only the camera’s considerable charms, but also its numerous frustrations.

Nowhere is that more apparent than its show-stopping piece of tech, the hybrid viewfinder. On the one hand, it’s super cool. On the other, you’re forced to constantly choose between imperfect options. The optical viewfinder (OVF) is the looser, more fun side – particularly its Iron Man digital-projection-on-glass display – but suffers from imprecise frame lines. Meanwhile, the electronic viewfinder (EVF) provides accurate framing but also a small amount of lag; for timing-critical shots, you’ll be happy the OVF is around.

However, the OVF doesn’t guarantee speed in some situations. Let’s say you’re using the 35mm lens and your subject is about a meter away. At that relatively close distance, the change in framing due to parallax is pretty jarring. You frame this…

…only to focus and then see that you’re framing this…

…so a compose-then-focus motion becomes compose-then-focus-then-recompose. Which sometimes becomes

1. Compose
2. Focus
3. Recompose
4. Click
5. Review; frame lines still way off
6. Fine! Switch to EVF
7. Dog walks away.

Do that enough times and the simpler X-E1 starts to make more sense.

It’s all the more frustrating because there’s much to love here. For starters, I found the size and weight to be in that nebulous Goldilocks ideal range: not too small, but not too heavy. Leica size without Leica heft.

And the retro controls are great. With dedicated dials for aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation you lose some flexibility but gain simplicity and clarity: there’s no possibility for confusion, you can check your settings at a glance, and you can set the camera by feel.

At the system level, I admire that Fujifilm initially ignored the all-millimeters-covered mob to instead focus on prime lenses with reasonable focal lengths. I wonder how the accountants were convinced to try this; it must have been tough to get through the pitch with the designers’ massive swinging balls always getting in the way.

I used the 35mm f/1.4 and my only complaint is that the aperture ring is a little slushy. I can’t speak to the quality of the other lenses, but the consensus from others is that the worst XF lens is merely very good.

The excellence continues with the sensor. I’d be comfortable letting auto-ISO do whatever it wants up to ISO 6400. I’m less comfortable with Fuji’s go-it-alone stance with the unusual X-Trans design and in not working closely with the big-name RAW converters. (There are those swinging balls again.)

So the camera’s bones are solid. That said, no review of a Fuji camera can skip the laundry list of interface oddities:

• In Macro mode (which forces the EVF), the EVF/OVF switch doesn’t switch you out of Macro mode to the OVF; you have to cancel out of Macro mode first
• The major command dial directly under thumb has no function unless you’re using the Q menu (I think?)
• Three of the four directions on the directional pad do nothing unless you’re in the Q menu. (Again, I think?!)
• The sensor that detects when you have an eye to the viewfinder can be flummoxed by bright, overhead daylight, which is precisely when you most need the viewfinder
• There’s a button dedicated to metering when I would think the AE lock and the exposure compensation dial entirely remove the need to quickly change the metering pattern. Am I missing something on that?

(I also couldn’t figure out how to shoot a video with it. I consider this a positive.)

Of course none of these ruin the camera. Also keep in mind I only rented it for a week; with more time, you adjust and compensate for the quirks and limitations of any camera.

And Fuji’s on to something: DSLRs in this price range have better-faster-stronger specs but don’t deliver the same experience as an X-Pro1. With the direct controls and the retro good looks and the big viewfinder and the excellent lens, I thought it was – most of the time – a blast to use.

Fujifilm’s designers are in a tight spot: they based their design on the best elements of simple cameras, but no digital camera is simple thanks to the demands of the typical “what-about-my-astrophotography” camera buyer. I do not envy their position.

That said, it’s to Fujifilm’s credit that critics are mostly clamoring for a slightly more polished camera instead of kvetching about image quality. I say give them another round to take advantage of better electronics and user feedback. While I may eat these words later, I’m optimistic Fujifilm will deliver.

I mean, have you seen the reviews of the X100S? David Hobby called it “damn close” to a perfect camera; Luminous Landscape left little puddles of drool all over their website.

More than some other manufacturers, I get the sense that Fujifilm is hungry to do better. Each round of cameras is exponentially better than their last. They’re getting better at high-end digital cameras faster than the competition is getting better at doing, well, anything interesting.

So while the X-Pro1 is not quite the simpler digital camera some of us are clamoring for and that will never come – hell, even Leicas do video now – they’ve definitely got my attention.

Victorinox Tinker

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: The knife other knives build on.

The Long Version: The Victorinox Tinker, August's SAK of the Month, barely needs an introduction. Its tool mix is pretty much the core Swiss Army set, making for a useful two-layer knife: large blade, small blade, can opener, cap lifter, awl, Philips screwdriver, toothpick, tweezers. It's the Mechanic without pliers, it's the Hiker without the saw, it's the Spartan with a Philips driver: it's the 91mm version of the smaller 84mm Tinker with the exact same tools. Pretty fundamental stuff.

The Tinker has a couple of notable omissions from the staple Swiss Army Knife tool mix: no scissors or nail file. This makes the Tinker into a task-oriented knife for people who are likely to be doing mechanical things, like fixing vacuum cleaners or trimming hoses, rather than a knife that would be carried for no particular purpose.

I was fortunate enough to be carrying my Tinker on the day when I had to frame and hang fourteen photos at work, which meant driving drywall screws into chipboard instead of hammering nails. The knife, cap lifter, awl and screwdriver all came in very handy, and there was nothing else I needed. Well, a tape measure would have been useful, but that's life.

I carry my Tinker when I'm feeling a little more industrious than my Compact, but when I'm not expecting to need the additional elaborateness of my Mechanic or Explorer. It's a solid, practical choice for a no-nonsense two-layer Swiss Army Knife. It doesn't stand out from the crowd, but that's not really what it's there for.

last updated 4 aug 2013

1 Nikon 18.5mm

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Small, sharp, sold separately.

The Long Version: Of my three Nikon 1 lenses – the others are 30-110 and 10-30 – the 18.5mm prime is my favourite. It's small, bright enough to avoid some of the V1's high-iso penalty, and can almost create some foreground-background separation. Using it on the V1 is a little like having a real camera.

The prime lens also feels more solid than the collapsable zooms, which are built well but have more moving parts. Sharpness is good, but barrel distortion can be an issue, so I always apply software correction in Lightroom or use DxO Optics with its images. To be fair, that's something that I choose to do with most of my photos, including from thousand-dollar primes, but with the 18.5 it's not so much of an option for me.

What bugs me about this lens – there's always something – is its over-specificity. Focal lengths are approximations, and naming this one down to the thickness of a fine mechanical pencil lead is taking it a bit seriously. What would be so wrong about simply calling it an 18mm? If the derpreview commentographers want to lose their mind over it being a 48.6mm-equivalent lens, I say we should let them.

And yes, I do realize that I'm doing the exact same thing.

last updated 27 July 2013

Sigma 19mm and 30mm F2.8 EX DN E-Mount Lenses, Part 2

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: My how time flies.

The Long Version: Back in mid-February I wrote part 1 of this review with every intention of following up with part 2 in a reasonable amount of time. Sometimes life intrudes into plans, such that your idea of reasonable evolves into not what you originally intended. It's good that I'm just now getting around to writing part 2, because it's allowed me more time to work with these lenses and the NEX 5N. The singular flaw with all camera reviews is that everyone is so eager to get their review out in front of the public before anyone else that the reviews wind up reading pretty much the same and pretty thin on meaty real-world use. I don't have that excuse this time for writing a thin, meatless review.

Behind the Counter, Key West Florida, Sigma 30mm, f/2.8, ISO 2000, 1/60s

Unless a camera manufacturer is grossly incompetent (and Sigma has skirted that particular edge more than once), gear performance, and especially a lens' optical performance, is pretty much the same across contemporary lenses; that is to say, of good to excellent optical performance, even in the face of 100% pixel peeping. Personally what I want to know about a lens is more mundane, such as how well will it work in the real world under varying conditions and how well it holds up under use. I have toted the Sigmas all over a good portion of Florida since purchasing them, and under my ham-handed amateur use they have worked flawlessly and held up quite splendidly.

Conch Train, Key West Florida, Sigma 19mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/800s

In part 1 of the review I talked about how, in spite of the fact the Sigma lenses lacked in-lens image stabilization, I purchased them anyway primarily because I'm so cheap and I refused to make any major (read: expensive) lens purchases for the NEX 5N. Fortunate was I to have chosen to purchases these specific lenses, simply because I didn't need in-lens image stabilization for how I use these lenses.

Under practical use the Sigma lenses shoot far above their discount cost to me. As an avowed amateur photographer I have neither a burning need nor an infinite amount of cash to purchase every top drawer lens that is offered in E-mount (such as the Zeiss Touit lenses). At $99/lens (and even double that price), the Sigma 19mm and 30mm are some of the best lenses you can purchase for your Sony NEX cameras. For photographers on a budget, a good deal of enjoyment comes from reducing the economic pressure by not tying up large sums of cash in eye-wateringly expensive camera equipment. Based on that metric the Sigma lenses are thus very, very enjoyable.

Ringer, Key West Florida, 30mm, f/3.2, ISO 100, 1/160s

An irrelevant issue that has cropped up on the various forums is the mechanical noises the lenses produce. The first noise comes from shaking the lenses, either accidentally or deliberately. Both lenses use an internal focusing element. When the NEX 5N is powered up, so is the lens, and the internal focusing elements are locked into place. Powered off the internal elements are allowed to float. I've given both a fair deliberate shake, and you can hear a soft 'thunk' as the elements hit the extremes of their travel. That noise means nothing. If all you can do is shake your camera in public to hear the lens make a noise, then perhaps you need to find another hobby.

Big Boat, Key West Florida, 30mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/60s

The second irrelevant issue is the noise produced by the aperture. During focusing the aperture blades will snap open to the aperture's widest opening, the lens will focus, then the aperture blades will snap back down for proper exposure. This has been described in various fora as "lens chatter." The Sigma's aren't the only lenses to exhibit this; for example you can spend over $500 for the µ4:3rds Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 and experience the exact same behavior. From a practical standpoint it means nothing to the overall operation of the lens. The noise is low enough that you have to be very close to the lens to hear it, let alone care about it.

Other than the two nit-noids just listed both lenses focus silently and very quickly, which is 99.9% of the time they're in use.

Better Than Sex, Key West Florida, 19mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/3200s

The strengths of the Sigma 19mm and 30mm far out weight their perceived weaknesses. Combined with the Sony NEX 5N they create a modest but quite enjoyable compact system, especially for travel. I spent a fair amount of time just carrying and using the 5N and the two Sigma lenses. If you can find the older versions of these lenses at the discount prices then by all means pick them up. Even the more current 'Artist' versions are reasonable, given that more metal is used in their construction, even at twice the price ($199) of the first generation. The Sigma lenses really strike a nice series of compromises between image quality (very good), use of materials, construction, and overall operation. For the budget photographer who's more interested in making photographs than making a status statement, you really can't go wrong purchasing the Sigma 19mm and 30mm for your NEX camera.

Picket Fence, Key West Florida, 30mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/80s

Bike Stop, Key West Florida, 30mm, f/5.6, ISO 250, 1/60s

Sunrise, Key West Florida, 30mm, f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/800

Rent Me, Key West Florida, 19mm, f/2.8, ISO 100, 1/80s

Rail Bridge, Bahia Honda, Florida, 30mm, f/6.3, ISO 100, 1/640s

Technical

All photographs taken hand-held with the Sony NEX 5N and post processed in LR 4.4 and the Nik Collection.