Doubling down on a strange camera – the Canon Photura 135 Caption

I don’t know much about the genesis of the first version of the camera sold by Canon under the names of “Photura”, “Epoca” or “Autoboy Jet”. Being a profoundly original camera (which, because of its unusual shape, probably required some very specific tooling in Canon’s manufacturing plants), I can only guess that the version 1.0 was not rushed to market but was the product of a long and well thought out development process instead.

Case in point, the model that replaced it two years after its launch, the Photura 135, was not that different from the original. It simply addressed some of the weaknesses of Photura 1.0, and its two main points of differentiation over its predecessor were its longer zoom (a 38-135mm instead of the 35-105mm of the first Photura), and the color of its body.

I had been so pleasantly surprised by the first series Photura when I had tested it in the Cabbagetown neighborhood in Atlanta, that I decided to bring it with me to a trip in Corsica, where it did not disappoint, for the most part.

*Canon Photura 135 next to the first Photura – the 135 is painted satin black and bit longer to make room for the 38-135 zoom*

In spite of its size, I found it easy to store in a bag (it’s shaped like a tube, at the opposite of the normal SLR shape, which is more like a long a tube attached to a large brick). It’s easy to keep your right hand wrapped around it when walking around town, and it’s fairly reactive for an autofocus point and shoot. The color pictures I had taken with it in Atlanta had impressed me (the exposure and the focus were tack on, the colors pleasant), and most of the B&W pictures I shot in Corsica and in the Riverside neighborhood happened to be pretty good as well.

My biggest gripe with the first Photura was that it its autofocus system was still very primitive, incapable of focusing on its own on a human being when held in portrait orientation (it needed a complex gymnastic to memorize the focus before re-framing). It also required the photographer to force the focus to infinity when shooting landscapes (by pressing a tiny rubber key at the back of the camera while pressing the shutter release). And the camera missed the exposure in some tricky situations.

*Canon Photura 135 – Ilford HP5 – Marietta, Veterans Day 2025*

The Photura 135 Caption

This “Canon Photura 135 Caption” is another of my Shopgoodwill finds – there were two of them for sale the week I bought it, and only one bidder, me. I picked what I believed was the nicest of the two for $19.00.

Canon created at least three different variants of the Photura 135, the “Base”, the “Caption” and the “Panorama”. Mine is a “Caption”. It can print the date or a choice of 5 messages on the negatives. Cool!

Contrarily to my Photura 105 which was a bit scruffy, this “135 Caption” is in a very good shape, cosmetically. And it’s finished in satin black, with pale, matt gold lettering. It may sound tacky, but it’s done with restraint, and the camera is rather pleasant to the eyes.

*Canon Photura 135 – the specs are listed on the body of the camera*

The Photura 135 is marginally longer than the 105, no doubt because of its longer zoom. I’m not sure that extending the longer focal length is a benefit, though, as we’re losing a bit on the wide angle side (38mm instead of 35mm) and a lot when it comes to luminosity – the largest aperture of the lens varies between 1/3.2 at 38mm and 1/8 at 135mm – which makes shooting with 400 ISO film almost mandatory.

The autofocus system seems to have been improved : the AF frame is visibly larger in the viewfinder, the button to force the focus to infinity has disappeared, and according to the documentation, it now relies on 5 infra red detection beams (!).

*Marietta, Veterans Day 2025 – Canon Photura 135 – Ilford HP5* – *I was facing the November sun and the camera nailed down the exposure – Clear improvement over the first gen. Photura*

The user manual is not very clear but I assume that focus and exposure are pre-determined on a central area of the scene when the photographer presses the shutter release half way and then evaluated again on a larger area when the shutter release button is fully depressed. On the 135 models, a “real-time” feature has been added (the lag time of the shutter release is reduced to 0.018 sec.), and the user manual recommends to use it to memorize the focus point, in particular when composing an image vertically (in “portrait mode”). The real-time mode skips the second focus determination step and only relies on what the central autofocus sensor has detected during the focus “pre-determination”, which acts as a sort of selective AF lock.

*Marietta Town Square – Veterans Day – The tone of the shirt of the man on the left was changed in ChatGPT*

The exposure determination also seems to have evolved positively with a three-zone evaluative system replacing the centered metering of the Photura 105. There is no exposure memorization and no magic +2EV button, but the evaluative metering of the “135” should perform better when the subject is backlit than the simpler system of the first Photura.

*Canon Photura 135 Caption – Caption, Autozoom and Real Time buttons have been added.*

Like the older Photura, the 135 Caption only operates under a single programmed auto-exposure mode, and is deprived of any “scene mode”. Being a camera from the nineteen nineties it does not offer any subject or face recognition capability. But like the Photura (and many Minolta cameras of the same vintage), it uses its power zoom to offer a sort of auto-framing capability, that ensures that in a series of shots, your human subject always occupies the same proportion of the image irrespective of its distance to the camera. I’m not sure I understand what the benefit is, but it seemed important enough to Canon’s engineers, who assigned a dedicated button to this function.

Lastly, the “Caption” version of the 135 gets a bigger self timer button, and the shutter can be fired remotely. The wireless remote controller and the extra strap that came with it originally must have been lost on my copy. Too bad.

*Canon Photura 135 – to load the camera, simply drop the film and pull the leader to the zone marked “film”.*

Testing the Photura 135 Caption on Veterans Day in Downtown Marietta, GA

The square at the center of downtown Marietta is one of my favorite spots – Marietta is a big and modern city 15mi from Atlanta, but the square still has this unique “small town America” feeling. Even more so on Veterans Day.

I was impressed by the Photura 135. The first Photura (let’s call it the 105) was already a good camera, but the 135 is significantly improved – the autofocus is much more capable, and it’s really better at determining the exposure, even in tricky situations.

It’s not a Leica M for sure, but it can be used for street photography, with interesting results. Interior photography is still not its forte – the flash flattens the image – but when this camera was launched, no compact-zoom camera was good at that.

The biggest limitation of this camera is its zoom – or to be precise, its very narrow aperture, in particular at the long end. With a zoom opening at f/8 at the longest focal length, 400 ISO film really looks like a minimum, and at the end of my Marietta escapade, I wished I had loaded the camera with something faster than Ilford’s HP5 (on the Photura there is no way to override the DX coding and push film).

Would I bring this Photura 135 to my next travel destination? Yes, definitely. But I would also bring some 800 ISO film, just in case. The Photura 135 is not as easy to find as the first generation “Photura 105”, but if you’re interested in shooting with a bridge camera, I would recommend you make the effort of locating the “135” – it’s a case of version 2.0 fixing most of the issues of version 1.0.

*Canon Photura 135 and Canon T90 – a family reunion of sorts* – *the Photura is shaped like a tube and much easier to carry in your luggage than a more conventional camera*

*Marietta, Veterans Day 2025 – Canon Photura 135 – Ilford HP5 – S curve and micro contrast improved on ChatGPT*

About asking ChatGPT to “Heal” my pictures – I submitted two of the pictures of this series to ChatGPT – for the first one (the man on the left with the walker) it simply changed the color of the shirt (it was bright white and too distracting). The picture of the two kids on the bench was taken at the end of the afternoon, at the long end of the zoom, and was a bit too soft (it lacked contrast and sharpness). I asked ChatGPT to increase the contrast of the image selectively, without touching the mid tones. It played on the two ends of the S curve and then increased the micro-contrast locally. And gave me a one page long explanation of what it had done and why. Everything it did I could have done with Photoshop if I had a Photoshop license, and was skilled enough to pull it off. I’m normally using Lightroom’s “Heal” functions, but in this case, I could not get the result I was expecting and I had to ask ChatGPT for help.

The originals:

Old gear, B&W film and AI – a match made in heaven? I’m sure we’ll have more opportunities to discuss the issue along the year.

More in CamerAgX

The Minolta AF-C – an ultra compact Point and Shoot from 1983

The Blue Ocean, or how Pentax’s positioning of the K-3 III affects second hand camera prices

If you’ve spent time on Pentax dedicated forums, you may have read that Pentax and Ricoh (the owner of the Pentax brand) follow a “blue ocean strategy” and want Pentax dSLRs to become “the Leica M of the dSLRs”.

I don’t know if those statements are coming directly from Ricoh or are just an invention of creative bloggers. But it aligns very well with what Ricoh have been doing with the GR series, and Pentax with the K-3 Mk III.

“Blue Ocean” means that instead of competing with sharks in an area rich in preys – so rich it’s tainted red by the blood of the victims, you retreat to a zone with fewer fish, but also fewer competing predators, and no blood. The Blue Ocean. As for becoming a Leica M equivalent, it obviously relates to a strategy where – by sticking to a technology that everybody else has abandoned, you build a niche for yourself and serve a small group of highly motivated (and wealthy) users with products which are without an equivalent anywhere else.

*Pentax K-5 II – Sigma 8-16mm lens – bench in Atlanta, GA*

You can see the Blue Ocean strategy at play in the way Ricoh declines its ultra compact GR camera into a series of extremely specialized products (GR IIIX with 40mm lens, GR IV monochrome, GR IV High Diffusion Filter, …). As for being the Leica M of dSLRs, consider the case of the Pentax K-3 Mk III: the last and arguably most elaborate APS-C dSLR launched by any camera manufacturer, it was proposed at a comparatively very high price, and was followed by an even more expensive variant equipped with a monochrome sensor – that’s taken directly from the Leica marketing playbook.

You can argue that Pentax did not have much success as an innovator in the recent years (the Q series and the K-01 did not meet their public), and that until recently they were selling cameras primarily on value.

*Pentax K-5 II – Pentax DA 18-55 lens – porch in Marietta, GA*

The K-7, K-5 and the K-3 Mk I and Mk II are a good example: not rated as highly as Canon or Nikon’s best cameras when it came to autofocus or video performance (for instance), they produced images of high quality, and offered advantages unique in their category (in body image stabilization, full weather sealing) at a price point lower than their competition.

The pricing strategy started changing with the launch of the Pentax KP in 2017 and became obvious with the release of the K-3 Mk III – which clearly tried to be the best dSLR with an APS-C sensor – ever – but was at the same time more expensive than Canon and Nikon’s offerings.

As of today, you still have to spend almost $1800 for a new K-3 Mk III (that’s the 2025 Holiday promotion, it still lists officially at $2000) and up to $2200 for a K-3 Mk III Monochrome, which is much higher than Canon’s 90D at $1200, and Nikon’s only remaining new APS-C dSLR, the d7500 currently selling for $700.

It percolates on the cost of older Pentax dSLRs on the second hand market – the K-5 and the first two K-3 models could still be considered bargain buys not so long ago, but the K-3 Mk III has pulled the prices upwards. Being the most recent predecessors of the K-3 Mk III, the K-3 Mk II and the KP are logically the most impacted.

The introduction of tariffs on second hand cameras coming from Japan has made the matter worse by cutting the main source for cheap Pentax cameras: imported second hand Pentax dSLRs are subject to tariffs, factor that if you buy from a Japanese retailer.

*Pentax K-5 II – Pentax DA 18-55 lens – Hood decoration (Chevrolet)*

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

The recent Pentax cropped sensor dSLRs line up today: from the K-5 to the KP in a few words

The Pentax K-5, K-5 II and K-5 IIs: Available new between 2010 and 2013, the K-5 remains a very good value proposition – with a solid build, a long battery life, great ergonomics and a very good 16 MPIX sensor delivering very good images. Some details are dated: there is no WiFi, and live view and video capabilities are very limited, but it’s still a very good camera if you’re shooting exclusively still images. Nice copies of the K-5 can still be found between $200.00 and $250.00. The K-5 IIs is approx. $100 more expensive.

The Pentax K-3 and K-3 II: – Sold between 2013 and 2017, the K-3 and the K-3 II are essentially a K-5 IIs with a 24 Mpix sensor. The K3 II gets a better autofocus system and an integrated GPS but the K-3 and the K-3 II keep the same fundamental qualities and limitations as the K-5. And they make you pay dearly for their 24 Mpix sensor (up to $650 for a K-3 Mk II).

The Pentax K-70 and KF – launched respectively in 2017 and 2022 – are more or less the same camera under a different name – they are the remote successors of cameras like the K-r tested last year in those pages, the last two representents of a long line of the mid-level Pentax dSLRs. They benefit from some “pro” features like weather sealing and in body image stabilization, they have the same 100% viewfinder and the same 24 Mpix sensor as the K-3 or the KP and offer WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. The LCD display at the back is fully articulated. But their autofocus module is dated and limited, they’re not as solidly built as a K-3 or the KP (polycarbonate instead of a magnesium alloy), they are deprived of the K-5 and K-3’s top plate display and only have one SD card slot and a smaller battery.

Note that the entry-level or mid level Pentax dSLRs (starting with the K-30 up to the K-70s built before 2021) may all suffer from issues with the solenoid controlling the aperture – the most recent K-70s and the KF are using a different component and will be OK. The KF is still available new for approximately $650.00 in the US, and a nice second hand K-70 can be had for $400.

*Pentax K-r – “SR” is for “Shake Reduction”. It’s a important differentiator – no other brand offers in body image stabilization (IBIS) on digital reflex cameras*.

The Pentax KP was launched in 2017 as a replacement of the K-3 II, and discontinued in 2021. It introduced a new slim, retro-inspired body design with user replaceable hand grips – esthetically pleasant but with controversial ergonomics. It benefited from a new and improved image processing engine and from a tiltable rear display. It combined characteristics inherited from the K-3 II (24 mpix sensor, all metal construction, 27 point autofocus system) with characteristics typically seen on entry level cameras (only one SD card slot, small battery, no top plate LCD display). If you can live with those limitations and its ergonomics, it’s the closest you’ll get to the image quality of the K-3 Mk III, at a fraction of the price.

Like the K-3 Mk II, the KP has become expensive – the typical second hand price being in the $600 to $750 range.

*The KP’s differentiator – a tillable rear display*

I only know the Pentax K-3 Mk III from its specs sheet, and reviews I’ve read or watched here and there. Under a body that looks similar to the previous K-3s, it’s a very different camera, and now that the Nikon D500 has been discontinued, a credible candidate to the title of most elaborate APS-C dSLR.

With a new 26 MPIX BSI sensor, a new autofocus system, a top plate LCD display, a third control wheel, a touch screen and a joystick to select from 41 autofocus points – it’s a very significant step above the K-3 II and the KP. It has almost everything expected from a top of the line dSLR, and its specs sheet compares favorably with the best APS-C mirrorless cameras. The only glaring omission is the lack of an articulated or tiltable rear screen, which can be an issue when shooting with wide angle lenses or for macro-photography. Still available new from retailers, it can not be found second hand for less than $1300, more than twice as much as a more abundant Nikon D500.

*Pentax KP – Pentax DA 35mm f/2.8 macro lens. Sweetwater Creek, GA*

Fujifilm X-T4 – of the pros and cons of using a very sharp knife

When I was in high school, our physics teacher had tried to explain that sometimes lab instruments were too precise for the job at hand. My 15 year old brain had struggled with the concept. How could an instrument be too accurate, how could a knife be too sharp?

Precise and powerful tools are more demanding – they’ll perform well in the hands of skilled operators who know what they’re doing, but will yield inconsistent results and sometimes be dangerous in the hands of poorly trained users.

*ISO on the left, shutter speed center and exposure compensation on the right – the typical Fujifilm User Interface.*

Which brings me to the case of my Fujifilm X-T4. As a tool, it’s very sharp. It’s a highly configurable, 26 mpix APS-C camera, with a great electronic viewfinder and a plethora of dials – ISO, shutter speed, exposure compensation and even a real aperture ring on some lenses. It’s not a camera for beginners or for occasional photographers – there is no “scene”, “green” or “iAuto” mode that you would have found on compact cameras and entry level ILCs, and some useful settings (like choosing between Average, Spot or matrix exposure metering) are hidden deep in the menus.

There is a lot to say about the user interface of Fujifilm’s cameras. Some of their cameras are designed to operate like the first multi-automatic SLRs of the late seventies – with dials and rings that you have to set to “A” (or not) and no PASM mode selector – while other cameras are designed with a modal interface, but with no top plate LCD display and no dial, a bit like an entry level dSLR. The same is true for lenses – some have an aperture ring with markings, some have an aperture ring with no marking, and some have no aperture ring at all. And the camera operates differently depending on the type of lens mounted on it, and on the position of a switch on the barrel of the lens. It’s rather confusing. Honestly, I prefer the modal user interface of Nikon’s high end dSLRs, and I’m not a Fujifilm photographer because of the user interface of their cameras, but rather in spite of it.

*The aperture can be controlled automatically (switch on “A”) or by rotating the unmarked aperture ring*.

The UI quirks aside, Fujifilm “X” cameras have a lot going for them. They are renown for their beautiful “out of the box” JPEGs, for their best in class film emulation, and for offering the most comprehensive range of great lenses of any APS-C mirrorless system. Top of the line models are also very solidly built while still being compact, a benefit of sticking with cropped sensors. But professional reviewers often complain that their autofocus system is not as good as what Sony and Canon ILCs can deliver.

*The X-T4 has a fully articulated LCD, in addition to an electronic viewfinder, of course*.

Over the two years I’ve been using this X-T4, I’ve never been in a situation where the autofocus was lacking (I don’t shoot sports or wildlife), but I’ve struggled with the exposure – sometimes the UI got me confused, and some other times the matrix metering was not as evaluative as I would have like it to be. To the point that for casual or travel photography (when I don’t have to time to sweat on the settings), the camera is generally set to operate in Program mode, with the good old center weighted metering.

The Taj Mahal – Fujifilm X-T4 – Fujinon XF 18-55mm lens

That’s the problem with sharp tools – they need a skilled and well trained operator – and only lots of practice makes you a master of your domain (“Ubung macht den Meister” as they say in German). If you use it frequently enough and are willing to learn its idiosyncrasies, this X-T4 will reward you with impressive images, but an occasional or moderately motivated photographer may be better off with an easier to use camera.

*The so called “Q” menu – where the most important settings can be modified.*

Which is a cruel dilemma if like me you also like to play with old cameras – it’s tempting to shoot with the latest of your garage sale finds, but the time spent shooting with a curiosity is time not spent getting intimately familiar with your main, “serious”, camera. A case of too much equipment getting in the way of better pictures.

*Two APS-C cameras – mirrorless cameras have grown in size, and this X-T4 is not really smaller than the Pentax K-5 next to it. It’s much lighter, though.*

I’ve shot almost exclusively with the X-T4 over the last two months, and I’m definitely more comfortable with it by now. It’s time not to follow my own recommendation and to go back to the oldies. I have a few interesting finds in my pipeline.

In the meantime, I wish you a terrific 2026—may it bring you inspiring subjects, rewarding shoots, and many great images.

Xavier T.

More about cameras and photography in CamerAgX

This series was shot in the North West of India (mainly in Rajasthan) a few weeks ago with a Fujifilm X-T4 and the excellent Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4. Being larger, heavier and not shooting as wide as the 15-45 XC Power Zoom, the 18-55 is not as convenient when traveling, but it’s a class of its own when it comes to image quality.

Tiger, Ranthambore Natural Park – Rajasthan (Fujifilm X-T4, 18-55mm lens)

My surprising… image of the year

A few weeks ago I was writing that at least on Flickr, the make and model of the camera had very little influence on how an image was received.

Case in point.

Just before Thanksgiving, I posted a picture taken a few years ago in Atlanta’s Little Five Points neighborhood with a Pentax P3, a film camera that suffered a terminal failure a few rolls of film later (an issue with the film advance mechanism like most of the P3s, of course). The lens – the Pentax A 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 – was so bad I got rid of it (my copy was faulty – the lens has a decent reputation otherwise). The image was not that great either but was made more interesting in post-processing with Lightroom, and in a few weeks, it has become my most appreciated image of the year in Flickr.

I even received a request to use it from a pro-bicycle user group…. Go figure.

I’ve been traveling recently, and will be on the road again during the holiday season. I’m not forgetting this blog, in fact I’m harvesting more images for later use, but it’s very likely that this post will be the last one before Christmas.

Happy Holidays to you and to your families.

*Atlanta Little Five Points. Pentax P3/P30 – Pentax A 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5* – *the wall has been repainted since, and is far less interesting…*

*Trying to save a compromised image in Lightroom.*

More of the same series….Same camera, same lens, same roll of film.

*Another image from the same roll of film – Atlanta, Inman Park.*

*Ford Bronco II – Inman Park Neighborhood, Atlanta.*

More recent content in CamerAgX

Nine months on Flickr and a first conclusion – the camera does not matter

What is Flickr and how does it work?

Flickr is a 20 year old photo hosting and sharing on-line service, functioning as a community for photographers. It is the home to approximately 110 million photographers, 55 million of them being regular users. I had been a Flickr early adopter back in the days, but had let my account go stale a long time ago (I felt that Flickr had lost their way after being acquired by a succession of poor suitors). The current owner of Flickr seems to have done a decent job at making it relevant again. I opened a new account in February and have been posting one or two images a day since then.

In the world of social media, Flickr is different:

Although Flickr offers free accounts, it only lets you post a maximum of 1,000 images for free, and I assume that most serious users pay for the so-called “Pro” subscription. The “Pro” subscribers are spared the ads that the “free” users have to endure.
Flickr offers very little for photographers who would like to directly monetize their images (or anything else for that matter) – Pro subscribers can include links to external (commercial) websites in the description of their images (the URL of their own storefront, for instance) but to a large extend Flickr is a commerce-free zone.
Lastly, even if there is a curated “Explore feed” (a gallery of photos which is regularly refreshed by an algorithm), Flickr subscribers are directed by default to their own “Activity feed”. The images which are proposed to you every day in your “activity feed” come exclusively from photographers you follow and groups you have subscribed to. As a Flickr user, you don’t feel you’re a captive audience; you have much more control on what reaches your “feed” than the average Facebook or Instagram user.

Financed to a large extent by the subscriptions of its “Pro” members, offering very few opportunities of monetization, and only marginally driven by algorithms, Flickr is a bad place for marketers, influencers, advertisers and click-bait hunters, which is pretty refreshing in the world of social media today.

I did not have a tele-photo lens I could mount on my Fujifilm mirrorless camera, so I brought an old Tamron Adaptall lens back in service, and mounted it on a Nikon D700. My highest view count on Flickr. *US Grand Prix 2022, Austin, TX*

How is Flickr measuring your audience: views and favorites

As a member of Flickr, you can not only look at the pictures posted by fellow photographers, but you are encouraged to also submit your own. Your contributions will be added to the “activity feed” of your followers, and, if you have submitted your image to a “group”, to the “activity feed” of all the members of that group. If they’re active on Flickr that day, there is a chance they will “view” the image you’ve posted.

Flickr do not encourage competition and won’t publish an official ranking of photographers, but, as a “Pro” member of Flickr, you are offered some statistics about your own audience, over a specific day, over a week, a month, or over the life of your account.

*Flickr – the daily stats – here, the views*

“Views” are a very flattering metric – is counted as a “view” any download of a specific image, irrespective of the time spent looking at it by the “viewer”.

Whether the image is closely examined by a fellow photographer interested in your creation process, or just browsed in one tenth of a second by a distracted scroller does not matter – “Views” are simply a reflection of the number of file downloads to the browser or the app of all end users.

The size of the image is not taken into consideration either: a thumbnail included in an email sent by Flickr to a distribution list will also count as a “View”, as long as the email has been opened.

In such an environment, a photographer with a large number of active followers will necessarily get more “Views” than another one with a smaller (or less engaged) follower population. And an image submitted to a multitude of groups will also have more chances to be “viewed” (that’s where an algorithm kicks in to prevent photographers from gaming the system by submitting a picture to hundreds of groups).

*Flickr – the images with the most views*

“Favorites”, on the other hand, counts the number of “Likes” a picture receives – it’s a humbling figure – an image can be viewed thousands of times (if submitted in enough active groups by a popular photographer), but only collect a few likes, or none at all.

I take pictures for pleasure, but I’m nonetheless interested in the feed-back of my peers – being able to see what clicks and what does not is one of the reasons to join a photographer community such as Flickr.

What makes an image “popular”? The subject and the groups to which the image is submitted are important, obviously, but does the equipment itself play a role? In other words, will my fellow photographers favor pictures taken with modern or expensive cameras, considering that they don’t know upfront what type of equipment was used? Is there a camera or a class of cameras that will harvest the most views and the most likes?

*Ranked #1 in “Favorites” (tied with three other pictures) – Pinup, a French Bulldog Photo taken in 2005 with a Pentax *ist DS and its 18-55 kit lens.*

Ranking by Views

I like to shoot with a bit of everything (like old cameras I buy on eBay or Shopgoodwill), but I have always had a recent “serious camera” for the important occasions, currently it’s a Fujifilm X-T4. Before the X-T4, I was shooting with a X-T1, and before that with a Nikon D80, which had replaced a Pentax *ist DS. I also shoot with a Nikon D700 from time to time (when I want to play with old Nikkor lenses), and with film cameras when I feel like it.

Now, the rankings…

Ranking by Views – the camera used to take my 10 most viewed pictures:

Image #1: shot with a Nikon D700
Image #2: shot with a Nikon D700
Image #3: shot with a Nikon D700
Image #4: shot with a Nikon D80
Image #5: shot with a Nikon D80
Image #6: shot with a Nikon D80
Image #7: shot with a Nikon D700
Image #8: shot with a Nikon D80
Image #9: shot with a Nikon D80
Image #10: shot with a Nikon D80

Surprising – it makes you wonder if I really needed to spend all that money upgrading to Fujifilm mirrorless cameras and lenses…

Views are a function of your number of followers, and to a certain extent to the groups you publish the picture to. If you publish an image to the “Nikon D700” or “Nikon D80″ group, you will reach more committed enthusiasts ready to look at images taken with the camera they love, than if you publish it to…”Industrial ruins of the Rust Belt” – and the view count will reflect that. Of course the subject matters – I had brought the D700 to a Formula One Grand Prix and to a trip to Istanbul, and I had spent a few weeks in Venice and Marrakech with the D80 – a glamorous sport and three exceptional cities are definitely attracting lots of viewers.

*Ranked #1 (it was a tie) for favorites, and #3 for views – Venice, on Dec 25th 2010 – Shot with a Nikon D80 and a Sigma 18-125 lens.*

Ranking by “Favorite” (top 10)

But the ranking of the number of “Favorites” shows a different … picture.

Images with the most favorites:

Tied for Rank #1, Image #1: shot with a Pentax *ist DS, Image #2: shot with a Nikon D80, Image #3: shot with a Nikon FE2 on color Film and Image #4: shot with a Holga on color film
then, tied for Rank #5, an image taken with a Canon Photura loaded with Ilford B&W film, another taken with an iPhone 15 Pro, an image shot with the Fujifilm X-T1, another by a Pentax K5 Mk2, a snapshot from a Nikon F3 loaded with B&W film, and last but not least a picture taken with the Fujifilm X-T4. All get the same number of “favorites”.

Film or digital, Nikon, Pentax or Fujifilm, recent or old, none of this seems to matter. A picture taken with a “Holga” ranks #1, while a photo taken by a very good “modern” dSLR (a Nikon D750 that I used for a few weeks) is #27. And the Nikon D700, which attracted so many viewers, could only convince very few of them to tag its images as “favorites” (its most favored image ranks at #63).

In a way, it is comforting. At least for an amateur photographer like me, gear does not matter that much. Or let’s say, the absolute performance of the camera – as measured in tests and discussed ad nauseam on Youtube or in specialized forums – is not that important.

*I like it, but it ranked low in views and likes – Petra, Jordan – June 2018 – Fujifilm X-T1*

If the camera does not really matter as far as the Flickr Views and Favorites are concerned, what does?

The subject? The user base of Flickr and the groups are so diverse that there is no specific subject that automatically brings views or favorites, like the videos of kittens on other social media platforms. No magic bullet to expect here.

Technically, and to a certain extent, the views and the favorites are dependent on how many people are scrolling their activity feed that day – you can have a superb picture and not garner many views or favorites, and because you’ve posted it on a slow day, or at the wrong time of day, or in groups with low or inconsistent attendance, it won’t have the viewers it deserves. You only learn with experience.

But then, assuming experienced Flickr users all have their personal little tricks to optimize their audience, what really makes the difference?

If you look at Flickr’s “Explore feed” and at what the photographers you follow are regularly posting in your “Activity Feed”, there are some really stunning images. Not necessarily perfect, technically. But different. Original, reflecting the vision and the personality of the photographer who created them. They make you stop, look at them, and say “wow!”

Invariably, these stunning images get lots of “Views” and lots of “Favorites”.

Because ultimately, it’s the eye and the heart of the photographer that make the difference.

Happy Thanksgiving.

*Pictures taken with a modern camera get some love, too. Tied for #5 on the favorites ranking, this picture taken in Piedmont Park, Atlanta with a Fujifilm X-T4 and a 55-230mm lens.*

My albums on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/camer-agx/albums/

A few pictures I like but which do not seem to have found their public.

*The Rolling Stones in concert. Mercedes Benz Stadium – Atlanta – iPhone 11*

Canon Powershot s400 Digital Elph – when old gear is still pretty good

A few weeks ago I tested a Pentax *ist DS, and I was not thrilled with the experience. Another *ist DS had been my first dSLR in 2005, and at the time, I had been pretty satisfied with my purchase. But if I was disappointed by the *ist, what would I think of its predecessor in my equipment bag, a 4 Megapixel Canon digital point and shoot camera, if I tried to use it now?

*Canon Powershot S400 – the finish is impeccable and resisted the test of time*

I finally located my old Powershot S400 last week. The camera was in a very good shape, but the battery was definitely dead. It was to be expected – it was a 22 years old item, and it had probably not been recharged since 2010. I ordered a new compatible one on Amazon, and just received it. Under its newfound power, the camera started immediately, ready for new adventures.

Back then

The Canon PowerShot S400 Digital Elph (sold in Europe as the Ixus 400), was launched at the beginning of 2003. The review DPReview published in April of that year was very positive (with a “Highly recommended” rating) and I followed DPR’s advice and bought one for Christmas 2003. At $500, it was as expensive as a middle of the range film SLR, but offered a convenience that a film camera could not beat.

Shot in Miami Beach in 2004 – Canon Powershot S400 – it almost looks like the stage of a movie – where are Barbie and Ken?

With a ceramic coated metal body, a 36-108 (full frame equivalent) zoom opening at f/2.8, an optical viewfinder and a 1.5in color display, it was very well spec’d. It captured images with a four megapixel 1/1.8in CCD sensor (and produced only JPEGs, not RAW files), that it stored on a CF card. Very compact, beautifully built and finished, and delivering best in class pictures, it was flying off the shelves.

There are approximately 350 pictures shot with the S400 in my Lightroom library (in the early days of digital, we were still remembering the cost of film processing and we were shooting with restraint) – and I’m still impressed by how nice some of them looked.

Canon Powershot S400 ready to shoot – the Coca-Cola can is one of the “mini” 7.5 FL OZ cans – the camera is really compact.

We never took the conscious decision to “decommission” the S400, we just used it less and less (as our phones were getting better at taking pictures with every new version) and we finally forgot about it. The last time we moved, I had packed it under bubble wrap with a much larger film camera, and found it by chance while de-cluttering a closet a few days ago.

Rediscovering the Powershot S400

What’s immediately surprising with this camera is the quality of the finish – it looks like a luxury object – and its small size, it’s not really bigger than a pack of cigarettes. One of the selling points back in the days was the “Cerabrite” coating of its metal body, and the truth is that it shows no scratch and no stain.

*Atlanta Aquarium – Canon Powershot S400* (summer 2008)

Contrarily to more modern cameras, there is a physical switch on the back of the S400 to set it in “shooting” mode (the other position is for image playback), in addition to the traditional on-off button. But apart from that, the camera’s commands are more or less identical to what we would find today in an entry level camera. There is also an optical viewfinder, but I surprised myself by framing most of the pictures on the small color display at the back of the camera – it’s smaller than the display of a smart watch but it’s responsive and its resolution is pretty high (relative to its diminutive size), and it’s good enough as long as the sun is not too bright.

*Miata is always the answer… the interior of this MX-5 was fairly cramped – not enough room to store a dSLR – and the Powershot saw service as the onboard camera for the trips to the beach*

The default sensitivity is 50 ISO, and it can peak at 200 ISO, at the cost of some noise, of course.

It’s a camera designed by photographers for photographers, who can chose between three metering modes (spot, average and matrix), and can memorize the focus or the exposure with AE and AF lock capabilities for situations when the automatism can not be trusted. A very limited movie mode has been implemented (at best, 320×240 pts at 15 frames per second for 3 minutes).

*Canon Powershot S400 – the rear display is quite small but very legible.*

Contrarily to what we find on current point and shoot camera, there is no image stabilization, no scene mode and of course no subject or face recognition. Let’s not forget that this camera was launched in 2003.

Image quality

Many photographers are nostalgic of the look of pictures shot by early digital cameras – they don’t like the surgical precision of the images taken with today’s high resolution CMOS sensors, and prefer images captured by the relatively low-res CCD sensors found in the compact cameras of the first decade of the 21st century.

I’m not sure that CCDs on their own were so great (the *ist DS also had a CCD sensor and did not deliver images that nice out of the box). A lot must have been related to the settings of the image processing engine. And to Canon’s magic touch.

And today?

This camera is surprising. Shooting JPEGs at 50 ISO with a 4 Megapixel camera launched in 2003 would have seemed like a punishment. But the Powershot S400 is surprisingly pleasant to use – it’s very reactive, and leaves some control to the photographer (simply press the shutter release button half way to memorize the exposure). I suspected that the dynamic range would be very limited, and it is, but if you set the exposure on the highlights, high contrast images can be saved in an image editing application like Lightroom.

*Atlanta – Halloween decorations – Canon Powershot S400. (Oct 2025)*

DPReview testers had been impressed in 2003 by the quality of the JPEGs (not excessively sharpened, and preserving a lot of details), and even in 2025 you can’t help being pleasantly surprised – I took a series of pictures of the Halloween decorations in my neighborhood without paying too much attention to the settings of the camera (shooting with the sensitivity set to 50 ISO was probably a bit over optimistic, it forced the camera to operate at relatively low shutter speeds and wide aperture) – but the images required little work in Lightroom to be good enough to be shared here.

*Testing the dynamic range – if you set the exposure on the back-lit flag, you can somehow save some details in the shadows in post-processing.*

As a conclusion

Two things are very clear regarding this Powershot S400 Digital Elph:

Canon was obviously intending on solidifying its position as the market leader in an early digital photography world, and had spared no effort to be the top dog. They had put all their considerable know-how in designing and manufacturing a camera which was impressively good at delivering pictures, solidly built and esthetically beautiful.
When I look today at pictures taken during the same period with other digital cameras (even early dSLRs), I can’t help being impressed by the Digital Elph’s JPEGs: color balance, control of highlights, skin tones – they had nailed it – no need to shoot RAW and spend hours fixing imperfections on Photoshop – the images were great out of the camera.

The S400 is only a 4 Megapixel camera, best used at 50 ISO (flash mandatory inside, and even outside under overcast weather). A recent smartphone will outperform it (but it would also outperform any recent point and shoot camera, except maybe in the long telephoto range). This Canon Powershot S400 is a small and beautiful object that can still take good pictures, and as a whole, it definitely shoots far above its weight. Old, beautiful, and still usable.

Extracting the best Image Quality from the Olympus Tough TG-5 when traveling

Why use a digital compact camera (aka point and shoot) when traveling, rather than a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (ILC) or a smartphone?

I can see two reasons:

a better size-reach combination – only a point and shoot like this Sony HX-60 can offer a 720mm full-frame equivalent focal length at the long end and still be pocketable;
a unique size-ruggedness combination – only a rugged compact point and shoot like an Olympus Tough TG can be carried around all the time, without fear of dust, sand, water. If it gets drowned, crushed or falls in a crevasse, it’s not so much of a big deal. You don’t need it to authenticate to your employer’s VPN, and you don’t store your electronic plane tickets on it. And if you have to replace it, a similar camera will only cost you a fraction of the cost of an ILC or a smartphone on the second hand market.

*The 30x zoom has no equivalent in APS-C or full frame camera systems*

Conventional, long zoom (non-rugged) point and shoot sometimes have relatively large sensors (up to 1in) and a well designed telescopic lens; they offer an impressive image quality, but their motorized telescopic zooms with their retracting lens cap won’t take sand, rain or a fall to the floor lightly.

*On long zoom compact cameras, the lens is protected by a group of retracting blades. You don’t want a grain of sand or a few drops of water to make a mess of it.*

What constraints Image Quality on the Olympus TG-5?

High level, the Olympus TG-5 and its close derivatives the TG-6 and TG-7 deliver a pretty good Image Quality (IQ) for rugged cameras, but are limited by the small size and resolution of their sensor (1/2.3in and 12 Megapixel respectively), and the design and implementation of the lens, a folding internal optic.

That being said, if you’re intended to extract the maximum image quality from the TG-5, it’s important to understand how the camera controls the exposure parameters, and aperture in particular.

*On the Olympus TG, the lens is hidden behind this blade of glass (a decorative bezel normally hides the bayonet over which accessories can be mounted)*

Very few compact cameras (and it was also true at the time of film) use a conventional iris for a linear control of the aperture, with the well known sequence of stops (f/2.0; f/2.8; f/4, f/5.6, f/8, … and so on). In a typical compact camera, aperture control is often performed by the shutter. This design comes with its own set of limitations: only a few aperture values can be selected, and they’re not available with all shutter speeds.

On the TG-5, the maximum aperture of the 25-100mm zoom (full frame equivalent) varies between 2.0 at the widest angle and f/4.9 at the longest focal length (it’s a sliding aperture lens). In order to limit diffraction, the camera only offers two “real” aperture settings (f/2.0 and f/2.8 at 25mm), with higher values (up to f/8 at 25mm) being simply simulated by a Neutral Density (ND) filter. Therefore, image quality will peak at f/2.8, and stopping down beyond won’t improve it (IQ could even be marginally worse because of the ND filter) .

*The lens, now protected by the UV filter and the lens hood.*

If you decide like me to travel with a Olympus Tough TG-5 (or TG-6 or 7), how to extract the best Image Quality from the camera?

IQ is all relative. If pictures are to be viewed on a social media app installed on a smartphone, the TG-5’s Image Quality is more than adequate. Color balance, exposure, focus, dynamic range are spot-on. Images uploaded to social networks are generally downsampled to a resolution of 3 to 4 million points, a far cry from the 12 Mpix of the Olympus sensor, and not enough to start making the performance limitations of the lens and the heavy hand of the JPEG rendering engine noticeable.

But if the final destination of your image is a 8x11in print, or an 8k monitor, the weaknesses of the lens and the aggressiveness of the sharpening algorithm will become visible, unless you follow a series of steps to ensure the camera always delivers its best.

Olympus Tough TG-5 – how to get the highest quality images:

*The Tough TGs are all available in black and in red. TG-4 on the left, TG-5 on the right (with a JJC UV filter mounted on the accessory adapter*).

Read the manual – The Olympus TG-5 may be a point and shoot, but it’s a highly configurable, and therefore relatively complex camera. Settings are dispersed across multiple menus, and navigating them is unfortunately less than intuitive. In your quest for the best IQ, you’ll have to understand how to save your images as RAW files, how exposure memorization and correction work and after the picture has been shot, how to review and adjust some of the technical parameters. So, read the manual.
If you don’t want to read the dreaded user manual (who does?), ask precise questions to your favorite AI chat application. AI is getting very good at answering questions about cameras and photography, most of the time. ChatGPT 5, for example, combines the information and the test results it gets from DPR, Imaging Resource and Photographyblog with customer feedback collected on forums to provide detailed and mostly exact answers.
Shoot RAW. If you’re really interested in maximizing IQ, it’s definitely much better to shoot RAW and fine tune Clarity, Dehaze and Sharpening in a dedicated image editing app.
Use the sensor where it’s at its best, at 100 ISO, taking advantage of Olympus’ image stabilization capabilities to operate at low shutter speeds.
ChatGPT 5 recommends shooting in A mode (Aperture Priority) and selecting an aperture of one stop above full aperture (that would be f/2.8 at 25mm, which slides to f/6.3 at 100mm) for best performance. That’s the aperture where the lens is the best, but in A mode you are in charge and have to keep an eye on everything (on the shutter speed in particular).
In the real world, the Program P mode does more or less the same job as the A mode – at 100 ISO, for instance, the program sets the aperture at f/2.0 as long as the shutter speed has not reached 1/100s, then steps up to f/2.8 and remains there if possible.
The camera comes with a long list of scene modes – the Scenery/ Landscape scene works well with static subjects when traveling, and I use it often – and it appears to keep the aperture at f/2.8 as much as possible. There are other interesting scene modes – use them if they get you the result you want. Just be aware that Scene modes don’t let you chose the sensitivity or correct the exposure values.
Finally, the obvious – protect the lens from fingers prints and smudges with an easy to clean UV filter, and from incident light with a lens hood.

Of course, you can’t always work with low shutter speeds at 100 ISO. If your idea of a good vacation is to visit ball parks around the country and shoot the players in action at dusk, maybe the TG-5 is not the camera you need.

Why you should shoot RAW with the Olympus TG-5: an example.

*Calvi, Pointe de la Revellata – enlarged section of a JPEG (straight out of the camera) – screenshot taken on Adobe Lightroom Classic*

*Calvi, Pointe de la Revellata – enlarged section of a RAW file, (moderately adjusted in Adobe Lightroom Classic).*

The TG-5 can be setup to save an image as a RAW file and as a JPEG simultaneously. The images shown above are two screenshots of “La Pointe de la Revellata” in the bay of Calvi, Corsica, taken while editing in Lightroom Classic.

WordPress is downsampling the images massively, but click on each picture and you will see the screenshots at full resolution. And you will really see a difference between the JPEG and the ORF file. The JPEG (the first of the two) shows a much more pronounced accentuation, which translates into an almost cubist representation of the mountain in the backgroud. The RAW file, below, is more subdued. The full image (exported from RAW) is shown at the end of this blog post.

Will all the Olympus Tough TG cameras offer the same Image Quality?

In the heyday of compact digital cameras, Olympus was proposing three different lines of Tough cameras, with multiple variants in each line. This blog entry only covers the “one digit” Tough TGs, and specifically the TG-5 and its close derivatives, the TG-6 and the TG-7.

I don’t think there is much of a difference between the TG-5, TG-6 and TG-7 – mainly progressive improvements on the video capture side (the photo section is identical). The TG-3 and TG-4 have a different sensor (16 Mpix, with a lower dynamic range and more noise), but only the TG-4 can save RAW files. And all models before the TG-5 have an Olympus proprietary USB port, which will force you to carry around an easy to lose proprietary USB cord to recharge the battery of the camera. To me, a used TG-5 is a very good compromise – they abound on the second hand market (eBay, Shopgoodwill) and can be found for less than $200.00.

As a conclusion

A camera is always a compromise between conflicting design goals, and a compact, rugged, water-resistant point and shoot camera can’t be expected to beat a 60 mpix full frame ILC when it comes to image quality.

From an IQ point of view, the TG-5 is probably the rugged compact camera with the highest potential, and if the photographer shoots RAW and pays attention to the exposure parameters (exposure modes, aperture, ISO), the output will reach a much higher level than what could be expected from a compact camera with such a small sensor.

More recent content in CamerAgX

All pictures of Calvi shot last summer with an Olympus TG-5 set at 100 ISO – and saved as RAW files – Clarity, Dehaze and Sharpening applied with moderation in Adobe Lightroom.

Calvi, Corsica – from Notre Dame de la Serra.

Calvi, Corsica. The flag of the region at the city hall.

Calvi, la citadelle (and two exhausted tourists)

Calvi (Corsica). “Chez Tao” is a famous piano bar, where music lovers and night owls congregate.

Lightroom – upgrading from Mobile Premium to the Lightroom 1TB plan

We’ve already discussed in those pages the complexity of the range of the Adobe Lightroom products, and the fact that some versions of Lightroom are only available in the Apple and Google app stores, while others are to be procured directly on Adobe’s Web store.

More about Adobe Lightroom in CamerAgX

In the mobile app stores, there is a free version of Lightroom Mobile which does not offer much more than what the native (and very good) photo apps that Apple and Google propose. If you’re serious about cataloging and photo-editing, you’ll have to subscribe to “Photoshop Lightroom Mobile with Premium Features” for $49.99 (one year, pre-paid) in Apple’s or Google’s mobile app stores. It gives you access to an enhanced set of features on the phone, tablet and web browser versions of Adobe Lightroom, as well as an allocation of 100 GB of storage in Adobe’s Creative Cloud (Lightroom Mobile and Lightroom Web keep a few Gigabytes worth of picture replicas in a local cache, but the full size original pictures are stored in the Adobe Cloud, and the application can’t operate if the cloud storage is full).

Lightroom Mobile on the iPhone – “please start deleting unneeded items” – not much of an upgrade path if you believe the message on this iPhone. Wrong. There is an upgrade path. But not in the Apple App Store.

If you reach the limit and need more storage (I reached the ceiling with approximately 15,000 pictures), there is no way to only buy more storage capacity from Apple, Google or Adobe. To get more storage space in the Adobe Creative Cloud, you have to subscribe to an Adobe Lightroom or Photography Plan directly on Adobe’s online store, and there is no refund for what’s left of your subscription in the app stores of Apple and Google. Ideally you should wait until you get very close to the expiration date of the mobile subscription before you switch to Adobe’s.

It looks bad enough on paper. How is it in the real life?

Lightroom for Web – same Mobile Premium subscription as above, but here Adobe lets you know that there is an “upgrade” option. It brings you to Adobe’s store where you can only subscribe to Adobe’s Lightroom or Photography Plans.

Upgrading from a mobile version of Lightroom

The upgrade is seamless. If you use Lightroom Mobile, you already have an Adobe ID (distinct from your Apple or Google app store IDs). Simply connect to the Adobe store, sign in with your Adobe ID, pick the photography plan you need, flash your credit card (it’s costing $119.99 if you pre-pay one year in advance), and you’re done. There is nothing to reinstall, nothing to configure. Within a few seconds, you will see your storage limit raised by an increment of 1TB in your mobile or Web apps.

The Mobile Premium subscription was just upgraded to the Adobe Lightroom plan. There are still a few weeks left in Apple’s Lightroom Mobile Premium annual subscription and the total cloud storage subscribed is 1.1 TB (100 GB from Mobile Premium, 1TB from the Lightroom Plan).

The upgrade to a Lightroom Plan also gives you an entitlement to two extra laptop/desktop versions of Lightroom, “Lightroom” (a thin client version of Lightroom formerly known as Lightroom CC), and “Lightroom Classic”, the current iteration of the “fat client” Lightroom application that Adobe has been selling since 2007. Lightroom and Lightroom Classic can both be installed on the same Windows or MacOS machine, and will take advantage of Adobe’s Creative Cloud to keep their respective libraries in sync.

“Lightroom” (represented in the dock of a Mac by the “Lr” icon) is similar in principle to Lightroom Mobile or Web, except it doesn’t run from an App or a Web browser, but from a local client installed on your machine. Its library of images is stored in Adobe’s Creative Cloud, not on local storage, but it benefits from more local image caching options, including the ability to replicate folders and albums locally, in which case it operates even without an Internet connection.

LR Classic (represented by the “LrC” icon) is the successor of Lightroom 6. It’s a large (fat-client) application installed on the local disk of a Windows or MacOS machine, which relies on local storage (directly attached or network attached drives) to store as many Lightroom libraries as needed. The storage is under the photographer’s responsibility, who has to manage, backup and protect what could amount to terabytes of data.

In summary, Lightroom Mobile (with Premium features) and Lightroom Web are products relying primarily on cloud storage, with limited local caching capabilities. Lightroom is also primarily relying on cloud storage, but has more manageable replication capabilities. Lightroom Classic, on the other hand, is designed as a stand alone product relying on local storage, which can, on demand, keep folders and albums in sync with the Adobe Creative Cloud – so that they can also be accessed from mobile devices.

One consequence is that you may have up to three versions of the same Lightroom album on a PC or a Mac: one created in Lightroom’s local cache, one in Lightroom’s local replica, and one in a Lightroom Classic library.

Lightroom Classic (on the left) and Lightroom (thin client) running here simultaneously on the same Mac. Lightroom Classic works with a local library, Lightroom from images stored in the Adobe Creative Cloud.

A surprise: the images don’t look the same when you are editing them in Lightroom Web and Lightroom Classic

All versions of Lightroom always preserve the original image uploaded by the photographer, and the edits are saved as instructions (metadata) in some sort of log. When time comes to export the final image as a JPEG or a TIFF file or to print it, Lightroom starts from the original image at its full resolution and re-applies the changes and transformations described in its log.

However, Lightroom Mobile, Web and PC/Mac are primarily cloud based products, and – by default – only keep a small subset of the photographer’s library in a local cache, where “smart-previews” are stored at a reduced resolution (up to 2640 points on the longest edge). You can force the system to download a full size version of the image, but if you don’t, the edits will be performed on a “smart-preview” at the reduced resolution. Lightroom Classic, on the other hand, relies on local storage (and is not bandwidth constrained) and always shows you the image at full resolution.

Calvi (Corsica) Pointe de la Revellata – Olympus TG-5 – the image looks great on Lightroom for Web (2640 pts on the longest edge for the smart-preview), but at full resolution in Lightroom Classic, it does not seem that sharp anymore.

You don’t really see the difference between a smart-preview and the full resolution of an image on a smartphone or even a tablet (the screen is too small), but when you start using Lightroom Classic on a PC or a Mac where you only had used Lightroom Web before, the difference can be striking – an image that looked sharp enough as a smart preview on Lightroom Web may suddenly look much too soft when shown at full resolution by Lightroom Classic on a 8k monitor.

Not really a surprise … but

The smartphone and tablet versions of Lightroom have more or less similar capabilities, and they’re not very different from Lightroom Web. Lightroom (the laptop/desktop thing client) sits somewhere between Lightroom Web and Lightroom Classic.

Its feature set is close to the mobile and Web versions, but, being written for desktop and laptops machines, its UI is menu driven and more similar to Classic. Its photo-editing capabilities are more elaborate than Mobile or Web, and because PCs and Macs generally support larger monitors than tablets, the images can be shown at a higher resolution.

Lightroom Classic is also menu driven, but is a totally different animal altogether. As mentioned above, it stores everything in local libraries (catalogs in Adobe parlance), and can, if requested, sync its local libraries with the Creative Cloud, one at a time or as a group. But it’s a partial, asynchronous replication, that the photographer has to manage. Classic also offers features which are completely missing on the other versions of Lightroom, like the ability to run all sorts of plug-ins, interface with Google Maps, or create photo-albums and slideshows.

*Troyes, France – the cathedral – iPhone 15 Pro – edited in Lightroom*

Is the upgrade to an Adobe Lightroom plan worth it?

if you need more than 100 GB of cloud storage, and want to keep on using Lightroom for Mobile, you don’t really have a choice. If you don’t plan on using Lightroom on a PC or a Mac, you end up paying an extra $70/year for 900 extra gigabytes of storage. Not exactly a bargain.
if you have a desktop or a laptop, you get everything you had bought for $49/year in the mobile App Store (phone, tablet and web apps, with 100 GB storage), plus Lightroom and Lightroom Classic, plus 900 GB of extra storage, for “only” $70 more per year. A much better deal.
whether you install Lightroom Classic on your PC or not is another story – it’s a complex product, and the integration with the rest of the Adobe Lightroom family not that straightforward.
but Lightroom (for PC or Mac) is very pleasant to use, fully integrated with Creative Cloud, and a perfect companion for the Mobile versions of Lightroom. I strongly recommend you use it.
Lastly, once you’re in the Adobe world, you are not limited to 1TB of Creative Cloud storage. You can further increase your allocation up to 10 TB by increments of a few terabytes at a cost of approximately $10.00 /Terabyte/month.

The ideal use case – the one that will maximize the benefits of an Adobe Lightroom or Photography Plan – is that of photographers who need to store huge volumes of pictures in multiple libraries (catalogs) in their home or office IT infrastructure, but want at the same time the ability to work with a limited subset of their images while traveling – adding or editing pictures from a smartphone, a tablet or a laptop. They will take advantage of all the versions of Lightroom, and of the synchronization capabilities between them that Creative Cloud brings.

*Troyes, France – the center of the city has been totally restored recently. Worth a visit.*

If you don’t need or don’t want to manage multiple local photo libraries, you can still rely primarily on Lightroom Mobile and Lightroom for PC or Mac, that work very well together, and only fire up Lightroom Classic occasionally to use a specific plug-in or create a photo-album.

One last word: Adobe photography plans are available through subscriptions, that bundle multiple products and services. The content and price of those subscriptions have been known to change frequently over the recent years. I believe that my description of the bundles and the cost of the subscriptions are accurate when I write these lines at the end of September 2025. But it may change without notice in a few months, and will most probably be different in the years to come. If you’re considering spending your hard earned money on Lightroom, do your due diligence before committing to a one year plan.

More recent content in CamerAgX

Panasonic G2 and Yuneec 14-42 Pancake Lens

Shooting with a 6Mpix Pentax *ist DS – when old gear is really too old

The price of a digital camera on the second hand market is more or less proportional to the number of pixels of its image sensor – interchangeable lens cameras (dSLRs and mirrorless) with anything between 24 and 50 Megapixel (Mpix) sensors are considered current and command big bucks, while models with less than 10 Mpix are deemed virtually worthless.

Case in point – I bought a Pentax *ist DS (a 6 Mpix dSLR from 2004), a bit scruffy but in working order, for less then $35.00.

So, it’s cheap, but is it still usable?

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax kit lens 18-55* – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – Sept 2025

For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. Click on the image to see it at full resolution – you will see the difference.

Why the Pentax *ist DS back then?

At the turn of the century, the photography market was different from what it was to become a few years later – there were only four companies in the world selling digital SLRs (Canon, Fuji, Kodak and Nikon). And those cameras were very expensive, and primarily bought by news agencies and well heeled pros.

2002 saw a first wave of more affordable digital SLRs reach the market (Canon, Fuji and Nikon all launched models in the $2000 price range). Pentax and Olympus joined the fray in 2003 with the *ist D and the E-1. At the end of 2003 Canon made digital SLRs affordable for amateurs with the Rebel 300D, the first dSLR to sell for less than $1000.00.

Nikon and Pentax followed rapidly with two models priced around $1000, the D70 and the *ist DS. Like millions of amateurs, I was looking for my first digital SLR in those days, and the *ist DS was my pick. Its specs were not that different from the D70 or the Rebel. What made the difference for me was its small size, its large viewfinder, and the good reviews of its kit lens.

Of course, I sold it after a few years to upgrade to a 10 Mpix camera, which itself was sold a few years later to fund the next upgrade, and so on.

*Family Reunion* – *the *ist DS (left) looks serious in black, the K-r (right) was available in fancy colors.*

Why a *ist DS now?

A few months ago, I bought a colorful Pentax K-r (a 12 Mpix camera from 2010) and was surprised by the quality of the RAW files it delivered. You pay a bit more for the colored body of a K-r, but all white and all black models can be found for less than $100.00. In my recollections, the *ist DS was a good little camera, and I was wondering what it would be like to shoot with a 6 MPIX dSLR now. I started checking the usual auction sites, and $34.00 made me the proud new owner of another Pentax camera.

*Pentax *ist DS – Pentax 18-55 Kit Lens – Vinings Jubilee (Atlanta) – adjusted to taste in Lightroom*

First impressions

I had shot a few thousand of pictures with my *ist DS in the early 2000s, so this “new” *ist DS is not really a total unknown for me.

What struck me immediately when I received my $35.00 *ist DS is how similar it looked to the K-r; as if Pentax had kept the same moulds over the 7 years that separate the two cameras. The *ist DS is smaller than Nikon’s mid-range APS-C of the same vintage, but the general organization of the commands is strikingly similar to what current Pentax and Nikon APS-C dSLRs look like – to a large extent the dSLR camera had already found its final form in 2004.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-5 (right) – the layout of the commands is very similar – the most striking difference is the rear LCD display – a huge progress in the space of a few years*.

Visually, the biggest difference is the rear LCD display – the DS’ is very small (2in diagonal, some smart-watches have larger displays), and its dynamic range very limited.

*Pentax *ist DS – this picture was in the performance envelope of the camera.*

My $34.00 camera is old, and definitely not in tip-top shape (the mode selector is stuck in the Auto-Pict position, the integrated pop-up flash seems to be dead), but it still works well enough to get an opinion about this generation of 6 Mpix cameras.

Back in 2005, DPReview was very happy with the responsiveness of the camera, but concerned with the quality of its JPEGs. Today, the standards are different, but the responsiveness is still OKay-ish – when there is enough light for the autofocus to operate – otherwise it hunts desperately.

As for the image quality, even in RAW, it’s often disappointing.

*Pentax *ist DS – even in Lightroom and starting from RAW, I could not get the sky, the church and flower bed to be exposed correctly at the same time.*

*Pentax *ist DS – another image (taken at around 11am) where the limited dynamic range of the sensor is clearly visible.*

*For comparison – same lens, same ISO settings, same hour of the day – Pentax K-5 – minor adjustments in Lightroom. The difference is striking.*

The camera is twenty years old, may have been treated badly by some of its owners, and may not perform as well as when it was new, but, in any case,

the dynamic range of the sensor is limited (DXO evaluates it at 10 EVs, as opposed to 14 EVs for the sensor of a more recent Pentax K-5 for instance). If the scene is lit evenly, the results are correct, but even Lightroom can’t save RAW images like the picture of this old church or that plant on my deck.
I’ve been used to shooting with cameras and lenses equipped with image stabilization mechanisms, which this *ist DS is deprived of. Images which would have been technically good with a camera from the 2010s are blurry because of camera shake,
the autofocus is a hit or miss – it works fine on static scenes, not so well if the subject is moving or the scene too dark.

*Pentax *ist DS (left) and Pentax K-r (right) – even an entry level model like the K-r has a much better rear LCD display (and a Live View button). And it will perform much better*.

Conclusion

Obviously, this camera works, and in ideal circumstances, will deliver usable images. But even if the images are saved as RAW files, the highlights are often desperately burnt, and the shadows too dark. The autofocus struggles with moving subjects, in particular if they’re not perfectly centered, and because this model is deprived from image stabilization, images will be blurry if the photographer does not pay close attention to the shutter speed. Very clearly, there is a huge image quality and usability gap between this *ist DS and cameras launched six to seven years later.

In the days of $5.00 Starbucks Lattes and $10.00 McDonalds Value Meals, $34.00 is not a huge sum to spend on a digital camera. But if you put the equivalent of six more Value Meals on the table, you’ll get a much more usable Pentax K-r (or any equivalent 12 Mpix dSLR from the early 2010s). Add another five will get you a really nice 16 Mpix dSLR like a Pentax K-5, or an already modern mirrorless camera such as the Panasonic G2 (12 Mpix) or the Sony Nex 3 (14 Mpix).

*Pentax K-r – Centennial Park – Atlanta – the K-r only has a 12 Mpix sensor but behaves like a modern camera.*

I’m not necessarily attracted to the latest and greatest features of the newest cameras (I also shoot film with cameras from the 1980s…), and will be happy to shoot with a digital camera deprived of movie mode or of wifi/bluetooth connectivity, if it still delivers images of good quality, most of the time.

But if the performance of a camera (by modern standards) is so limited that I start missing too many potentially good pictures, the quest for minimalism goes too far to my taste.

*Pentax *ist DS – still powered by conventional AA batteries* – *no need for a charger (and the battery life is surprisingly good)*

It is true that when cameras like the Pentax *ist DS (and its Canon, Konica-Minolta or Nikon 6 Mpix competitors) were launched in 2004, we were impressed by the huge step they represented over the digital point and shoot digicams we’d been using for a few years, and even today, we’re still proud to share the best images we got from those early dSLRs. If I set it up carefully, and use it within the limits of its performance envelope, I’m sure that even my scruffy *ist DS will get me decent pictures.

But today, I see the Pentax *ist DS more as an interesting curiosity, than as a camera I could use day to day. In the six years that separate a Pentax *ist DS from a Pentax K-5 (or a Nikon D70 from a D7000), there has been a huge step forward in reactivity, resolution, dynamic range and low light image quality, a step so large, that if I had to chose, I would spend a bit more on a dSLR or a mirrorless camera of the early 2010s, and forget about the *ist DS.

More about Pentax cameras in CamerAgX

Pictures from my first *ist DS, shot between 2005 and 2007

*Pinup, French Bulldog – shot in Jan. 2005 with my first Pentax *ist DS.*

*Maui, Hawaii – at the top of the Haleakala – Pentax *ist DS*

*Charleston, SC – April 2005 – Pentax *ist DS*

*Fort Myers, Florida – Pentax *ist DS – Xmas 2005.*

*A cenote near Cancun, Mexico – Pentax *ist DS – July 2007*

Who’s really manufacturing film in 2025?

There is a store named Bellows in Little Five Points (a neighborhood in Atlanta) where they still sell a wide selection of 35mm and 120 film. I stopped by yesterday and bought film from Kodak, Harman and Fujifilm.

Back home, I looked at the box of Fujifilm Acros 100 II that I had just bought. It clearly mentions it’s made in the United Kingdom. Fujifilm? In England? A quick research confirms it: the Acros 100 II film is made by Harman Technologies Ltd, the British company that manufactures its own Ilford and Kentmere Black & White film, and also supplies B&W film for brands such as Agfa, Rollei, Oriental Seagull and … now Fujifilm. No wonder that Harman can boast of a 80% market share in the segment of B&W photo film.

The company currently known as Harman Technologies Ltd is the result of a management buy out of Ilford Imaging UK Ltd, after it went under in 2004. Founded in 1879 by a Mr Harman, the manufacturer of photographic material we know as “Ilford” still operate from their historical facilities in Mobberley, near Manchester, and have added color film to the well known range of B&W film stock (Ilford FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, XP2, Kentmere) they produce in their plant.

Over its 146 years of operations, Ilford went through an incredible number of acquisitions, mergers, rebrands, splits, receiverships and buy-outs, and as a result Harman Technologies does not even own the “Ilford” brand.

*Eastman Kodak, Fujifilm, Harman Technologies – the volume leaders of what remains of the photographic film industry. But who manufactures what, and for whom?*

The “Ilford” brand currently belongs to Ilford Imaging Europe GmbH, which inherited it along with the Swiss side of the old Ilford business (which used to manufacture Cibachrome and later Ilfochrome photographic papers). That side of the Ilford historical business went through its own series of plant closures, acquisitions and bankruptcies, and does not produce film or photographic paper anymore. It licenses the use of the “Ilford” brand to Harman Technologies for its B&W products, and simply distributes a range of color photographic products under the Ilford brand.

As a consequence, the current Ilford Ilfocolor film and the Ilford Ilfocolor single use cameras have nothing to do with Harman Technologies or the Mobberley plant (Harman’s own color film is sold as the “Harman Phoenix”), and are probably made by one of the companies that picked up the pieces after the East German (ORWO) and West German (Agfa) film manufacturing giants went under.

I can’t describe how this whole constellation of remote descendants of Agfa and ORWO is organized, as the situation still seems very murky, with insolvencies and lawsuits left and right. The German side of Agfa is long gone, and I don’t know if the current reincarnation of ORWO is still in operation. If they are, it (probably) makes them one of the only four companies in the world still in the color film manufacturing business, alongside Eastman Kodak and Fujifim – the heavyweights, and Harman – the new entrant (*)

At least one small (and reputable) company, ADOX, could salvage some of the industrial assets of the fallen giants (as well as some of the machines of the Swiss side of Ilford), and operates a B&W film plant in Germany.

After this detour through Switzerland and Germany, let’s go back to Fujifilm. Do you know that the Fujicolor 200 film sold over here in the US is manufactured by… Eastman Kodak. Which may not be the case in other parts of the world – Fujicolor 200 film is also packaged in China through a partnership with a local company, presumably to serve the Asian markets.

*Made in the US by Eastman Kodak, distributed by Kodak Alaris.*

In addition to Eastman Kodak, Harman, Fujifilm and the remnants of the German photographic film industry, a few players still manufacture film: in Belgium, Agfa-Gevaert produce specialty B&W film for aerial photography, Foma Bohemia make B&W film in the Czech Republic, and Ferrania are trying to restart a B&W film factory in Italy.

Photographic film is definitely manufactured in China and possibly in the Ukraine (by China Lucky and Svema respectively) but those brands are not distributed in the US and I have no precise information about them.

*American Petit LeMans (2009 edition). Yellow and American. Like Kodak. Shot on film in 2009 with a Nikon camera.*

The rest of the brands (Arista, Cinestill, KONO Manufactur, Leica, Lomography, Rollei, …) may commission the manufacturing of limited batches of their own proprietary film from one of the player listed above, or create their own “experimental” film by altering cinematographic film they buy mainly from Kodak, or simply re-label film produced by Harman, Foma, Adox and a few others.

As for the Instax instant film (one of the fattest cash cows of Fujifilm – $1Billion revenue with a 20% margin in 2024), it’s still made in Japan. Polaroid’s manufacturing operations are split between a main plant in the Netherlands and a smaller unit in Germany (one of the Agfa offshoots) which supplies the negative layer of the instant film. An exception in this industry, Polaroid has reunited under the same owner the brand and the plants, and manufactures and distributes its own products.

*Green boxes do not necessarily come from Japan anymore.*

There are no reliable statistics about the total value of the photography film market in the world – I’m reading anything between $500 million to $2.5 Billion a year – a fraction of what the market was as its peak in 1999 (Kodak’s revenue alone that year was $17Billion, which would equate to $32Billion in today’s US dollar).

*American Petit LeMans – Braselton (GA) – another Japan-England cooperation: the Mazda-Judd* – *Shot on film with a Nikon Camera in 2009*

With the exception of Fujifilm, all the big players of the twentieth century (Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Orwo, Polaroid) have been dismantled, with the ownership of the brands often decoupled from the ownership of the remnants of the manufacturing assets, and the actual manufacturing and distribution activities under the responsibility of new actors. It explains the proliferation of new or resuscitated brands such as ADOX, Harman, Harman Phoenix, Kentmere, Original Wolfen or Rollei.

Does it matter? Not to me – as long as I can find good film to feed my cameras.

(*) Why is Harman entering the color film business, by the way ? They see a strategic opportunity in color film, obviously, and they’re also uniquely placed to take advantage of it because of their experience with chromogenic film.

Harman (as the successor of the pre-receivership British side of Ilford) has been manufacturing monochrome chromogenic film since 1981 (the XP, XP2 and now the XP2 Plus). The XP2 Plus (like the defunct Kodak BW400CN) is conceptually a simplified version of the typical chromogenic negative color film (think Kodacolor or Fujicolor), with only one layer of neutral color dyes as opposed to three layers of colored dyes in the negative color films.

In the heydays of film photography, the benefit of chromogenic monochrome film was primarily that it could be processed with negative color film, in the same machines using the same baths – the photo processing labs and the minilabs did not have to dedicate equipment and chemicals to the XP2 or BW400CN film like they would have had to do with “true” B&W film.

Two good sources of information about film photography:

silvergrainclassics.com

Kosmofoto : the new photographic films released in 2025, so far.

More about film, film cameras and old gear in general in CamerAgX.com:

CamerAgX – a new life for old gear

Author: xtalfu

Doubling down on a strange camera – the Canon Photura 135 Caption

The Blue Ocean, or how Pentax’s positioning of the K-3 III affects second hand camera prices

Fujifilm X-T4 – of the pros and cons of using a very sharp knife

Canon Powershot s400 Digital Elph – when old gear is still pretty good

Extracting the best Image Quality from the Olympus Tough TG-5 when traveling

Lightroom – upgrading from Mobile Premium to the Lightroom 1TB plan

Shooting with a 6Mpix Pentax *ist DS – when old gear is really too old

Who’s really manufacturing film in 2025?