Photo

I just received my Fuji GF670 from Dirk Rösler at Japan Exposures. This is a folding medium-format rangefinder camera, an anachronism in many respects, but I regret not getting a G690 when they were still made and since this is a limited edition (apparently quite a popular one at that), I went ahead. I have not yet shot a roll, but here are my first impressions:

• The unfolding mechanism is a bit finnicky. You have to be careful to get the front standard aligned with the film plane. Once deployed it seems fairly stable. Folding it back is also quite tricky.
• The meter indicator LEDs and controls are very reminiscent of the Epson R-D1, not surprising since both are actually made by Cosina.
• The leaf shutter is amazingly quiet. It makes a Leica sound like a clunker in comparison.
• The camera is quite light for MF, it feels lighter than a R-D1 (even though it weighs nearly twice as much) and is not that much larger.
• It does not exude quality like the Fuji-manufactured TX-2 (Hasselblad XPan II).
• The rangefinder patch is bright and clear. The RF base length is very short as in a VC Bessa, and will probably not be as precise as a Leica, XPan or Zeiss Ikon.
• The film loading mechanism is very easy to use, and built as well as other Fuji MF cameras such as the G617.
• You have to remember to reset the lens to infinity focus in order to fold it.
• You get a choice of 6×6 and 6×7, 120 and 220.
• The optional case is a snug fit. I wish it included a belt loop.

In grand old techno-fetishistic tradition, I put up an unboxing gallery.

Update (2009-08-27):

I have finally uploaded a gallery of my first test roll from the camera. The lens’ optical quality is outstanding, unlike most older folders (well, apart from the Plaubel Makina, of course).

I have stated on the record that my dream camera is a digital Contax T3 with an APS-C size sensor (or larger). Sigma launched the DP1, the first large-sensor compact this year, but it is a flawed camera, very sluggish, with a slow f/4 lens, and its Foveon sensor tops out at ISO 800, making it in practice a less capable low-light camera than my Fuji F31fd.

A few weeks ago, Olympus and Panasonic announced the Micro Four Thirds specification, which would allow for interchangeable-lens compact cameras with a larger sensor than the nasty tiny and noisy ones used on most compacts. Unfortunately it seems the whole misguided Four Thirds effort is destined to flounder, just as APS did compared to 35mm, despite the undeniable convenience. The 18×13.5mm sensor size has almost half the area of an APS-C sensor and all Four Thirds camera made so far have predictably poor low-light performance.

In a much more promising development, Samsung announced today that since it is finding it very hard to dislodge Canon and Nikon from their top position in DSLRs or even make a dent, they are going to create an entire new segment of professional quality compact cameras using the same APS-C sensors as their DSLRs, and due for 2010. Samsung uses the Pentax lens mount for its DSLRs, and has a long established relationship with Schneider Kreuznach. Pentax makes some very nice pancake lenses that combine high optical quality with small size. The only other company is Olympus, but the 25mm f/2 is saddled with the aforementioned Four Thirds sensor with all the limitations that entails.

At the same time, Thom Hogan has echoed rumors of an APS-C size Coolpix compact from Nikon. It looks like the big camera manufacturers can no longer afford to ignore the pent-up demand for this category, as demonstrated by the brisk sales of the DP1 (No. 49 on Amazon’s Digital SLR chart).

Update (2010-10-06):

There is now a wide variety of large-sensor compacts, including models with interchangeable lenses:

• Sigma DP1, DP1s, DP2, DP2s and DP2x: wonderful optics, compact, great image quality, mediocre high-ISO performance, very slow AF and user interface
• Olympus EP-1, EP-2 and E-PL: cute design, sensor stabilization, poor ISO performance, slow AF, so-so optics unworthy of the Zuiko legacy, but you can use Panasonic’s lenses on them)
• Panasonic GF1: great design, solid but heavy, mediocre ISO performance, very fast AF, great optics
• Leica X1: great optics, best high-ISO performance, excellent user interface, very compact and light, slow AF, no video, very expensive). The camera I carry with me every day in my jacket pocket.
• Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5: great high-ISO performance, poor user interface, very compact, awkward 24mm-e focal length if you want a compact lens. Made by an evil company that should be boycotted.
• Samsung NX100: disappointing high-ISO performance for an APS-C sensor, optical quality a question mark.
• Fuji X100: bulky, innovative viewfinder design, questionable user interface in the prototype, potential for greatness, but we will have to wait for the final production models.

Canon and Nikon are late to the party, and risk being marginalized if they continue to ignore market demand.

Update (2013-01-28):

The range of worthwhile options has expanded even further:

• Fuji X100s: builds on the X100 with fast AF and an even better sensor. I have been using the X100 as my “every day carry” camera for two years now and have the X100s on preorder.
• Leica X2: mostly fixes the AF sloth of the X1 and adds an EVF option. If it weren’t for the X100s, it would be a very compelling camera.
• Sigma DP1 and DP2 Merrill: still slow, much higher resolution sensor, at the cost of greater bulk. Outstanding image quality at low to moderate ISO that dwarfs all but the highest end DSLRs and medium format digital. Very poor battery life. Poor software workflow options (not supported by Lightroom).
• Sony RX1: extremely expensive, but great sensor and build quality. So-so AF. Sharp lens but has very high distortion, can be corrected in software but then you lose resolution.
• Sony RX100: very compact, fast AF, versatile zoom lens. Decent ISO performance due to its’ 1″ sensor (in reality 13.3mm x 8.8mm, the 1″ is deceptive vacuum tube terminology that compact camera makers use to disguise just how tiny their sensors are).
• Canon EOS-M with 40mm pancake lens: very compact, specially considering it has an interchangeable lens mount, excellent image quality, slow AF, questionable ergonomics).
• Canon G-X: decent optical and sensor performance but clunky design that is neither fish nor fowl, neither really compact nor flexible like a compact system camera.
• Olympus E-PM5: reportedly very good ISO performance and AF. Wide range of m43 lenses available.

The only manufacturer missing is Nikon, which for whatever reasons does not have competitive models. Their tiny sensor Coolpix line is undistinguished to the extreme, and their 1 System, while having excellent AF, has mediocre low-light performance, is fairly bulky despite the compromised sensor, and is not competitive with the Sony RX100.

Last Saturday, I became the proud owner of a Leica M8. Then, a not-so-proud owner. As of yesterday, an ex-owner…

I returned it and sprung for an Epson R-D1 instead, saving almost 50% in the process. I had already previewed one at MacWorld SF two years ago.

Most people interested in a M8 know by now about its problems with sensitivity to near infrared, which manifests itself as a magenta cast in certain situations. There is a work-around (buy costly Heliopan or B+W IR filters for your lenses, although there are rumors Leica will provide two free filters), but many are legitimately angry at Leica for having rushed the M8 launch despite such a fairly obvious flaw. It’s not an ideal situation but I could deal with it, as long as Leica stood behind its product and committed to a free upgrade to the corrected model once a definitive fix becomes available.

The straw that broke this particular camel’s back was quality control, however, or the lack thereof. My M8 exhibited almost an entire column of dead pixels (the bottom 3/4 at x=2888). If you must, see this jpeg or the original DNG. This kind of flaw would be unacceptable in a sub-$1000 Canon or Nikon, it is simply outrageous in a camera as expensive as the M8.

The magenta cast is not an edge condition visible in limited conditions, by the way (Leica claims it only affects black synthetics under tungsten light), the photos I took last Sunday indoors in available light are completely unsalvageable, with a strong magenta cast everywhere that cannot be corrected by any amount of custom white balancing. Here is an example: JPEG, DNG.

Last, but not least, noise levels are excessive at ISO 1250, let alone 2500, with smearing in rows where bright highlights are present. Essentially, this camera as it stands today is utterly useless outside broad daylight conditions (I don’t have an IR filter, so I can’t comment on how effective they are). Of course, pretty much all cameras do reasonably well in daylight, even cheap and nasty point-and-shoots with too many megapixels crammed in a sensor too small. Rangefinders give you a two stop advantage due to the absence of mirror slap, but even with a Noctilux, the M8 has no edge over a Canon DSLR because of the noisy sensor. Then again, it is one of my rules of photographic thumb that Kodak stands for poor quality, and since they make the sensor in the M8, I should have expected the worst.

It’s interesting to note how the reviews published so far managed not to mention any of these problems, which are completely obvious, even with the most cursory of inspections. In at least one case (Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape), the reviewer found out about the IR issue, informed Leica about it but neglected to mention it in the review. This confirms me in my belief Phil Askey’s reviews at DPReview are the only reliable online reviews of digital cameras.

Leicaphiles seem to be mostly in denial, or minimize the extent of the problem. I am as big a fan as any of Leica’s optics and their rangefinder cameras, but the flaws in my M8 were so glaring I can’t even begin to fathom the levels of cognitive dissonance required to sustain a positive opinion of this train wreck in the making.

All the reviews I have read so far have been raising hallelujahs and claiming the M8 feels like a real Leica M. It most certainly does not:

• The body feels much thicker than the MP, and is just as thick as the R-D1, in fact, despite not having a flippable LCD like the R-D1.
• The lightweight magnesium body does not have the same level of robustness as the R-D1, let alone a MP, and feels more like a CM. It’s not even to the same grade as the original Digilux.
• The lens mount lock does not snap positively and reassuringly as it should, and the release button feels cheap compared to my MP or M6TTL.
• The shutter release is mushy and unpleasant. The shutter sound itself is a loud thunk followed by a noisy motorized re-cocking.
• Setting ISO is buried in a menu and you need even more keystrokes to change it than on a Rebel XT (the R-D1, in comparison, has a genuine knob to set it quickly with direct feedback).
• The rangefinder on mine was slightly misaligned vertically, something one can tolerate in a $300 Bessa, but certainly not in a M (to be fair, rangefinder patch vertical alignment is an endemic problem with the R-D1 as well).
• In another sign of sloppiness and poor quality control, the copy of Capture One LE included in the box was missing the serial number required to activate the program.

After using the R-D1 for a few hours, the superiority of the design over the M8 is readily apparent (with the sole exception of the taller body and short rangefinder base length):

• The R-D1 has perfectly acceptable ISO 800 and 1600, unlike the M8, making it suitable for available light shooting.
• The LCD screen pivots and can be turned around to protect it from scratches (or resist the temptation of chimping).
• The viewfinder has an honest to goodness magnification of 1.0x like the original M3, not one that panders to jaded wide-angle junkies (I never shoot wider than 50mm and my MP is a 0.85x mag, so yes, I am biased)
• The power supply is a manageable size and even has a cord, unlike the bloated wall-wart type Leica supplies with the M8.
• The shutter speed dial goes in the traditional direction, not the M6TTL/M7 direction…

One bright light in this fiasco: Doug Thacker at Calumet Photo San Francisco (above) went well above the call of duty to help me with my purchases, all with unfailing good humor (he once sent me an email at 11PM to let me know of the IR sensitivity problem before they started receiving theirs). He even set one M8 aside for me even though I had cancelled my initial pre-order (they are in short supply and are reportedly going for over $6000 on eBay right now, so the opportunity costs are considerable). I think I will switch from B&H to Calumet for the bulk of my photo purchases in the future.

Update (2007-08-25):

I must be a glutton for punishment, as after reading Phil Askey’s M8 review, remarkably thorough as usual, I decided to give it another chance and get one for my birthday. The first one I ordered (from Amazon) had a severely misaligned rangefinder – points at infinity would not coincide at all when the lens was at infinity focus. It had a low serial number, suggesting an early model with teething problems. Presumably Amazon does not sell that many, so I returned it and ordered another one from a place with much higher turnover, B&H. That one was a recent vintage (they have an orange sticker on the body cap), but its rangefinder was also misaligned, if not as severely.

In frustration, I went to my local Calumet and finally found one that focuses correctly. Wonder of wonders, it even seems like there are no dead pixels or highlight streaks. Conclusion: Leica’s M8 quality control is still spotty, your best bet is to buy locally and test the rangefinder in the store itself.