the Olympus Tough TG series – when you don’t want to risk ruining a $1000 smartphone

Nice smartphones are expensive and they control so much of our lives – the access to our bank accounts, our virtual credit cards, our boarding passes, our text messages, our emails, our Facebook, Instagram or TikTok posts, our watch, sometimes, that we can’t afford to break or lose them.

Olympus TG-4 – the commands are simple – it’s a compact, not a “pro” camera

And for those situations when we don’t want to put our precious phones in danger, a few camera companies still offer ruggedized, waterproof, shock resistant compact point and shoot digital cameras. Kodak, Fujifilm, Panasonic all have one risk-all camera in their catalog, but the Tough TG series of Olympus (now doing business as OM System) is the undisputed favorite of the specialized journalists and bloggers, who can’t stop singing its praise.

Olympus TG-4 – images can be saved simultaneously as RAW and JPEGs.

Originally launched in 2012 as the Tough TG-1, the camera has been regularly upgraded along the years. The TG-2 introduced a better water resistance, the TG-3 a 16 megapixel sensor and WiFi connectivity, and the TG-4 the ability to save RAW images. The TG-5 adopted a new 12 megapixel sensor (and a more elaborate image processing engine) for better results in low light, and finally abandoned Olympus’ proprietary connector for a standard USB plug. The TG-C adopted an USB-C connector. And to a large extent, the current TG-7 is just a TG-6 where the glorious Olympus name has been replaced with « OM System ».

(a few weeks after this blog entry was published, I found a very nice (and cheap) TG-5 – click here to read the TG-4 / TG-5 comparison).

The Tough TG-4 equipped with a few accessories (wide angle lens adapter, lens cap from JJC, attachment for floating strap OM System

All Tough TGs share the same look, and a very luminous f/2 to f/4.9, 25 to 100mm (equivalent) zoom, which reduces the need for high ISO in low lights, and help contain the noise of the sensor. It’s a very small 1/2.3 inch sensor by the way, smaller than the sensor of the main camera of an iPhone Pro, and the biggest performance limiting factor of the camera.

Down a cliff – ready for the next adventure

The Tough TG is well built, with a particular care given to protection against water ingress. In addition to the modes and scenes you would expect on a compact digital camera, it is equipped with functions befitting its calling as a camera for adventurers : GPS, compass and manometer.

A learners camera for snorkeling. Scuba divers will need a waterproof housing and strobe lights.

It has no viewfinder, but the fixed LCD display is well defined and luminous enough to allow the photographer to get a feel for what’s in the frame in bright sun light.

What is it for?

As a waterproof / shockproof camera, it fits the bill. It will shine in all adventures, all water sports, from family beach outing to canyoning, rafting, sailing or snorkeling. On its own, it’s too limited for scuba diving (it can’t go deeper than 15m), but OM System can sell you a waterproof housing and a strobe light if you want to go deeper.

Is it also a good everyday camera? Definitely, if there’s enough light. It’s very reactive, it nails the exposure and the white balance almost all the time, and the jpegs are very nice, natural with just enough clarity, vibrance and sharpness to make them pleasant to look at. They don’t look over processed and artificial like the images shot with a smartphone, or mushy because of overly aggressive noise cancellation. In the shade, image quality suffers from visible digital noise and working on RAW files does not seem to improve the situation much. And in poorly lit interiors, you have to use the integrated flash, and the less said about it, the better. A smartphone will deliver much nicer pictures in the same situation, without the need for a flash.

On the beach – it will resist a drop in the sand or a long swim in the ocean

Is it a substitute to high end compact cameras like Sony Rx100? No – except in really bad weather or aggressive environments. Its sensor is too small, and it lacks some of the the controls an enthusiast photographer expects (you can’t select the shutter speed, for instance) – but I would pick a Tough TG over any small sensor compact digital camera, be it a Canon, a Panasonic or a Sony: it’s a very coherent package, solidly built, which will deliver the best images you can get in really difficult environments, and good enough pictures the rest of the time.

The camera I reviewed is a TG-4. The conclusions would be similar for the TG-3, which is almost identical. The TG-5, 6 and 7 benefit from a 12 megapixel sensor and a more recent image processing engine and are said to deliver better images in low light scenes. There is not much difference between the three more recent models. All three are significantly more expensive than a TG-4, and I was not sure a TG-5 or a TG-6 was worth the extra cost. With the benefit of the experience, I’m happy with the TG-4, which does what I expected it to do and I don’t feel the need for more.

Because it’s been on the market for so long, the price you have to pay for a nice TG will vary widely. On market places like eBay, you will find a Tough TG-1 for little more than $100.00, and a TG-3 or 4 will sell typically for less than $200.00. TG-5 and TG-6 are second hand purchases whose price is ultimately defined in relation to the cost of a new TG-7, which is currently listed at $550 by OM-System.

All pictures taken in the island of La Guadeloupe, in the Caribbean. The water is incredibly clean and transparent.

The compact digital camera – in demand but not available

Compact cameras – digital cameras with fixed lenses that could fit in pocket – are in high demand, but unavailable. Fujifilm can’t meet the demand for its most recent X100, Canon’s G7x is always out of stock, the Panasonic LX 100 Model II is no longer available.

Fujifilm XQ2 (left) and Z1000EXR – the 12 Mpix XQ2 produces much better images than the 16Mpix Z1000.

Cameras manufacturers have retreated almost completely from the compact digital camera market (the “point and shoot” of yore), and very few are still offering “premium” or “niche” compact cameras. The smartphone is king, the historical camera makers seem to believe they can’t compete with the thousands of software engineers working for Apple and Google, and are leaving them all the space.

But as good as they are, the smartphones are still limited by their ergonomics (you need two hands, one to hold the phone, one to tap, pinch, swipe or whatever), their absence of long telephoto lens and viewfinder, and their relative frailness. They offer very little in terms of direct controls – they’re extremely capable, but you have to trust them. At the top of that, they’re expensive. And we depend so much on them that we don’t want to risk them on the beach or while rock climbing.

Nelson’s Dockyard – Antigua – shot with a Fujifilm QX2

There is still room for small but good quality cameras, with good ergonomics an a complete set of controls.

The camera companies are primarily focused on the full frame, interchangeable lens camera market, but full frame ILCs are not really pocketable. Their little brothers with APS-C sensors are smaller, but not by much. Even the Fujifilm X100 is still too large to fit in a coat pocket.

So, what’s left? In the cheap point and shoot camera segment, only a few cameras proudly wearing famous brand names such as Kodak or Minolta. I’ve read relatively good reviews of the Kodak Pixpro cameras, but they’re very basic and you can’t expect too much from their tiny sensor.

Olympus (now OM-System) is still leading the fray when it comes to rugged, waterproof cameras – the Tough TG, currently in its 7th iteration – has discouraged all competition.

Fujifilm XQ2 with the WP-XQ1 waterproof case.

It leaves us with the premium category – with the cameras from Canon, Panasonic and Leica largely unobtainable, and Sony’s RX100 series in a state of virtual monopoly.

Older versions of the cameras listed above can be found on the second hand market, but you have to understand what you’re losing by going for a five or ten year old camera:

Video capabilities – most of the progress in recent years has been in that area,
Easier Bluetooth and WiFi connectivity, with a better integration with smartphone apps,
Reactivity (autofocus),
Quality of the JPEGs (“out of the box”) thanks to better processing engines – you won’t need to process RAW files as frequently

Fujifilm z1000 (left) and iPhone 15 Pro (right). Today a standard sized iPhone can be bigger than a dedicated camera.

More conventional P&S such as the Canon Powershoot S90 or S120; the Sony HX and WX series, Nikon’s Coolpix 9000 series are somehow cheaper, but they’re also more limited: the last models were launched in pre-COVID days, and they have tiny sensors and relatively slow zooms – which makes the use of a flash a necessity in low light.

You could also look for a compact film camera. At the top of the heap the Contax T series reigns supreme (but these cameras are now extremely expensive), followed by a group of still expensive models from Nikon (35ti, 28ti), Leica (Minilux), Ricoh (the GR1), Konica (the Big Mini) and others from Minolta or Olympus.

But those cameras are now twenty five year old at best – and some of their components didn’t age well (electronics in general and LCDs in particular). Most of those models have at least one big flaw that makes buying them at today’s prices a risky proposition (and even if it works today, will the camera work tomorrow?). The cost of film is also an issue (we’re currently trending towards a total cost of $1.00 per scanned image).

Olympus Tough TG-4 – generations differ by their sensors and processing engines, but the fundamentals of the camera have not changed since the TG-1.

What am I shooting with when I don’t use my smartphone, and can’t bring a mirrorless camera? I have a bit of everything in my bag. I tested (but did not keep) a Nikon J1 and I kept but don’t use a tiny Fujifilm z1000EXR – they’re cute but the quality of the images they were delivering was sub-par. I still use a very compact Fujifilm XQ2 – a sort of semi-premium homage to Sony’s RX100, and an Olympus Tough TG-4. They’re pocketable, produce images which are not as nice as what a recent iPhone can deliver but look more natural, and are a pleasure to use. I found an original Fujifilm waterproof case for the XQ2, and even with the case, it remains reasonably compact, if not pocketable. As for the Olympus, I’m waiting impatiently for my next trip to the beach to test it in its element – but it has already earned his stripes as a carry-along camera for my hikes in the nearby parks.

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area – Olympus TG-4

Chattahoochee National Recreation Area – the bamboo forest – Olympus TG-4

Js and Vs – Nikon’s first attempt at mirrorless

The J1 was the first member of the Nikon 1 family of cameras, a very compact 10 Megapixel camera with a small 1 inch sensor, interchangeable lenses but no viewfinder, and very few of the physical controls that expert photographers expect. Its sibling the V1 had an electronic viewfinder, but for the rest was more or less identical to the J1.

The Nikon One project was largely managed as an independent initiative – there were little technical commonalities between the Nikon One cameras and the point and shoot Coolpix, on the one hand, and the conventional dSLRs, on the other hand. It was also an opportunity for Nikon to test the image sensors of a new manufacturer (Aptina, instead of Sony) and to validate some technologies that would be integrated in the Z6 and Z7 full frame mirrorless cameras at a later stage.

I had bought a V1 when it was launched, and had been deeply disappointed by the image quality – the V1 did not cut it for me.

The controls: an intermediate step between a point and shoot and a dSLR.

When the J1 was new, the reviews were rather positive – photographers loved that it was a very reactive camera with a quick autofocus and a better than average build quality. Only the high ISO/low light performance was a disappointment – and the subsequent iterations (J2, J3, J4, V2 and V3) never really addressed the problem. Until Nikon switched to a sensor provided by Sony (for the final model of the series, the J5 of 2015) – image quality (too aggressive noise cancellation, so-so colors, limited dynamic range) remained markedly inferior to what you could get with a micro 4/3rd or an APS-C camera – and partially explains why – as a whole – the Nikon 1 series was deemed a failure on the marketplace.

Compared to a modern APS-C mirrorless camera – playing in a different ball park entirely.

If image quality (in low light in particular) was already disappointing in 2010, it’s obviously very far from what a good smartphone can deliver today. Shooting in RAW and post-processing in Lightroom really improves the results, but even in RAW I was not convinced by the results – some images are good (well lit subjects at relatively close range), but most of them lack punch.

The J1 at its best – well lit subject, at relatively close range

A J1 still has two major advantages over a phone: the long tele range, and the ergonomics.

Conceptually, the J models were point and shoot compact cameras with interchangeable lenses. The standard zoom was a 10-30mm affair (equivalent to a 28-80 on a full frame camera), but longer range zooms (a 30-110 and an extra-long 70-300 – equivalent to 80-300 and 190-800 respectively) were available, and if it was not enough, an adapter was available to mount a Nikon F telephoto lens. Some wildlife photographers were big fans of the Nikon 1 series, because it gave them a very long range with a reactive autofocus in a very light and compact setup.

An old inn in Vinings, GA – they built small at that time – Nikon J1

As for ergonomics, I would say that anything is better than a smartphone. Smartphones need to be operated with two hands (one to hold the phone, one to play with the controls on the screen), and pinch to zoom is not as easy or direct as rotating a ring on a lens. Even if it’s shaped like a bar of soap, the J1 is still easier to hold than a phone, and has more physical controls.

What about the colors? The J series cameras were available in a wide variety of colors, with coordinated lenses. White, Black and Silver were always available, but each iteration also benefited from not so common colors (Dark Red and Light Pink for the J1, Orange and Dark Pink for the J2, Beige and Wine Red for the J3, Tangerine for the J4). Only the final model (which is also technically the best, by far) bowed to convention, and was only available in an “all black” pro attire, or with a “retro-look” silver with black leatherette.

Processed in Lightroom – the RAW files of the J1 respond well to post processing

The J1s are apparently reliable, but the lenses are not. The lenses (all models except for the 6.7-13mm and the 70-300 zooms) rely on very small plastic cogs to open the diaphragm to the requested aperture, and those little cogs may become brittle over time, then break and make the lens unusable. If you buy a lens, ensure that it has been tested by the vendor – you can be sure that “untested” just means “not working or for parts”.

A Nikon J1 is still a pleasant camera to shoot with, provided it’s outdoors and under a nice weather. It’s very reactive and much more usable than micro 3/4rds or APC-C cameras of the same vintage, which were still relying exclusively on contrast detection for autofocus. It’s just a tad too big to fit in a pocket, but with its small size and its funky colors, it does not scare people like more serious looking cameras tend to do nowadays.

The dollar tree – RAW file processed in Lightroom – Nikon J1 – 10-30 lens

The same dollar tree – shot a few months earlier with an iPhone 15 Pro. The contrast and the resolution are much better.

A Nikon 1 next to the smallest mirrorless ILC from Fujifilm (here the X-A5). The X-A5 is larger but produces much nicer pictures, out of the camera.

The J series are fun and cute cameras, let down but insufficient image quality – the J5 apart – and by unreliable lenses. A J1 in working order can be had for far less than $100 with a standard zoom, and a body only J5 can not be found at less than $200. Non standard lenses (tested, and in good working order) are more expensive ($100 to $400 depending on the model).

Well lit, close up – another good picture – at least technically.

Photos taken in Vinings and in the Coalmont OHV Park (TN) where dollars grow on trees.

Looking for my next “serious” digital camera

It’s not that I’m competitive, or that I carve for attention. But when I travel with my better half, she also takes pictures, and good ones at that. She has no interest at all in the technicalities of photography, but she has a good eye. And with an iPhone, that’s enough to get very good pictures, most of the time.
Within a few minutes of the picture being shot, it’s posted on one or two social networks, “liked” and commented.
Now, imagine yourself shooting with a 10 year old dSLR, in RAW, of course. You won’t get usable pictures until you’re back home, and find the time to fire up your laptop and launch Lightroom. By the time you’re done, your pictures will be yesterday’s news. Or most probably, last week’s.

The manufacturers of conventional cameras have understood that, and are slowly addressing the problem. The newest digital cameras are much better at uploading the freshly shot images to a smartphone, and they’ve improved their jpeg rendering enough that shooting RAW is not an absolute necessity, and that Jpegs are usable straight out of camera most of the time.

High level, I was happy with my Fujifilm X-T1, but I was ready for something a bit more recent, with a better viewfinder than my X-T1’s. I was still missing the large top of the plate display of the enthusiast oriented dSLRs, and I wanted a better integration with smartphone apps.

So I purchased a very nice Fujifilm X-H1 on eBay, The X-H1 was Fuji’s flagship camera in 2018 – with a 24 Megapixel sensor and – a first for Fujifilm – in body image stabilization. The fit and finish was splendid, the viewfinder much better than the X-T1’s, and the images were stunning – straight out of the camera. But I was extremely disappointed by the battery life of the camera. In the real life, not even 100 pictures per battery charge. I admit I’ve been spoiled with Nikon dSLR and their 1000 shots per charge, but 100 was definitely too little – imagine the logistical nightmare if travelling for a few days in a place without easy access to electricity – having to carry something like six batteries, two chargers, a few power banks to feed the chargers … No way.

So, maybe a dSLR was the solution after all. I still love shooting with a reflex camera – the optical viewfinder of a full frame is a pure delight for the eyes – and over the years I have accumulated a large number of Nikon F lenses. And I feel at home with a Nikon. Every command at the right place. I found a well used Nikon D750 at MPB, and started using it. The battery life was what I expected from a Nikon dSLR, and it was a pleasure to shoot with. But…. there was a long list of “buts”.

It’s not that the camera is large or heavy (in fact, the D750 and its descendant the D780 are the smallest and lightest full frame dSLRs from Nikon, on par with Canon’s smallest and lightest, the EOS 6D), but the lenses are big and ponderous. The more recent, the larger and the heavier. As for my old cherished lenses, they may be smaller and lighter, but they’re a bit overwhelmed by the 24 Megapixel sensor.

You may consider that Fujifilm’s “film simulations” are just brilliant marketing, and that Nikon’s Picture Control does more or less the same (preparing JPEGS usable straight out of the camera). But in reality, Picture Controls are not as easy to use (and not as good) as Fuji’s simulated film, and – in my opinion – the D750 still gives you better results if you shoot RAW and massage your pictures to taste in Lightroom.

Lastly, the D750 is still tied to Nikon’s ancient WMU (Wireless Mobile Unit) mobile app, and the less said about it, the better. This camera was launched in 2014, and it shows.

So, now what? I sold the X-T1, I sold the X-H1, I sold the D750, and finally purchased a lightly used Fujifilm X-T4 and a wide angle zoom. The X-T4 is still small for a modern mirrorless camera, the viewfinder is beautiful, the fit and finish impressive, and the battery life is correct (I did not feel the need to buy a second battery yet, and you can charge it directly from a USB source).

Admittedly, there is no top plate display, but almost all of the exposure parameters are controlled by dials on the top plate. If you buy a Fujifilm lens of the XF series, aperture is controlled by a ring around the lens, which is very intuitive if you’ve worked with film cameras in the pre-autofocus days. Zooms with a sliding aperture (like the 18-55 f/2.8-4) have an unmarked aperture ring, but the recent constant aperture zooms and the fixed focal lenses have easy to read aperture markings.

Because the camera is built around an APS-C image sensor, its lenses are much smaller than optics designed for a full frame camera.

Out of camera, the JPEGs are very good, and there are many film simulations to play with. Lastly, the smartphone app (Xapp) is a significant improvement over the old Camera Remote.

I’m just at the beginning of my new digital journey. I need to test all those film simulations, and I have to create a new workflow, laptop free and Lightroom Classic free. A workflow only relying on iOS devices (iPhone, iPad) and on the mobile version of Lightroom.

Pictures shot in Marietta, GA – Fujifilm XT-4 – default settings

Air Travel with photo equipment in the smartphone era…

And other ramblings…

Have you noticed? Everybody’s shooting with a smartphone, anytime, anywhere, and nobody seems to be objecting or even paying attention. But pull a conventional, dedicated camera from a photo equipment bag, and people start freaking out.

And suspicious neighbors or passersby are not the only ones panicking at the sight of a camera.

US Formula One Grand Prix – Austin – Nikon D700

Two weeks ago I was stopped for a good 20 minutes at a TSA checkpoint at the Atlanta airport, because the agents were intrigued by the camera I was carrying (a Nikon D700 with a 28-70 f/2.8 zoom lens). Admittedly, it was a relatively bulky camera + lens combo, but I’ve also been stopped when I was carrying a much smaller Nikon FM with a 35mm fixed focal lens. It’s just that photography as we knew it – with dedicated cameras – has to a large extent left the mainstream. Shooting with film cameras was already an oddity, but it increasingly looks as if shooting with DSLRs is following the same route.

You can see from time to time, typically in touristy areas, a young person carrying a film camera strapped to his or her neck (a Canon AE1 in most of the cases), but I don’t see them actually taking pictures (they wear a camera like you would wear jewelry) and I don’t see film making a come back. Not with those prices, for sure. Film is getting expensive, and the cost of processing and scanning has gone to the roof during the COVID years. My favorite color film is Kodak’s Ektar 100, and it’s now costing $15.00 a roll. Fujifilm are raising their prices massively as well. Processing and scanning are now around $20.00 per roll – which brings the total cost of a scanned image to more than $1.00.

Of course, users of digital cameras don’t have to pay the Kodak or Fujifilm « tax », but cheap cameras have almost totally disappeared from the new equipment market. And even the best dedicated digital cameras are still miles away from the convenience of smartphones: what the software engineers manage to do with « computational photography » on modern smartphones never ceases to impress me, and the simplicity of the integration of the iOS or Android native photo apps with all forms of image sharing services is something a dedicated camera user can only dream of: if you’re happy with the resolution of a 12 Mega Pixels image, and with a focal range equivalent to a 13 to 75mm lens on a full frame camera, the smartphone is hard to beat.

Soap Creek Park – Marietta, GA – iPhone 15 Pro – Straight out of the camera

Beyond the obvious (launching cameras with higher resolution sensors and long range zoom lenses that don’t have an equivalent in the smartphone world), the historical camera manufacturers are working at slowly transposing in the dedicated camera world advances we’ve enjoyed on smartphones for years (“global” electronic shutters and the near real time upload of the pictures to the cloud is the most recent example). They’re also working at making the conventional digital workflow of the pros and enthusiasts (shoot in RAW, post-process in Adobe Lightroom, and export to JPEG for social media consumption) less of a given – with film simulations and picture control modes, images can be shared “straight out of the camera”.

Marietta (GA) – the square – JPEG “straight out of the camera”

Lastly, there seems to be a renewed interest for compact digital cameras. Since nobody manufactures them anymore, the second hand market is the only option. And (for no reason I can think of), the Nikon Coolpix seems to be the hottest item – in particular if it’s painted in a striking “velours red”. Maybe it’s the color? Modern dedicated cameras are high end products built out of magnesium, and they would not convey the same image of competent seriousness if they were pink or yellow.

After a long pause, I’m returning to this blog. With a pink compact camera (not a Nikon), a full frame DSLR (a Nikon), and a best of breed mirrorless camera. Stay tuned.

Dia de los muertos 2023 – Atlanta – Shot with a Nikon D750 in RAW and post processed in Adobe Lightroom

The Nikon F3

(originally published in Sept 2009 – I did not change a word – just added a comment at the bottom of this post)

Nikon’s F3 was the “pro” camera of the early eighties, but it kept on selling until 2001. A dwarf compared to current mid-level digital SLRs, not to mention monsters like an EOS 1DS or a D3. Incredibly simple to use compared to anything digital sold these days. Aperture Priority Automatic or Semi-Auto exposure. Center weighted metering. That’s all. It worked. And it still works today.

Consider all the changes that took place in the SLR design between 1980 and 2001. Multi mode exposure, spot and matrix metering, integrated motors, autofocus, DX coding, the F3 had none of that, but it outlived two or three generations of newer-better-faster pro bodies from Nikon or Canon. The F3 had the elegance to hide its real technical advances under a classical skin, and to let the photographer communicate his instructions through smooth and oversized controls. Of all the pre-autofocus SLRs of Nikon, the F3 is the most pleasant to use, and probably the one which will yield the best results.

Olympus OM-1 / Nikon F3 – larger than the OM-1, but not by much – it’s significantly heavier, though.

The F3 is an exception in the Nikon F lineup. It’s compact, smaller than its predecessors, and way smaller than its successors, the F4 and F5. In fact, its size is very comparable to that of the FM, itself hardly bigger than the yard stick of compact SLRs, the Olympus OM-1. The F3 is also easy to use, without the idiosyncrasies of the F and F2s with their Photomic finders and manual aperture indexing, and without the myriads of commands of an F4 or the menus and submenus of an F5.

The F3 is much more modern and usable in everyday life than a semi auto camera like the FM: its commands are larger and smoother, and the automatic exposure system is faster to operate; thanks to the center-weighted metering and a memory lock button, it does not deprive the photograph of his control on the exposure . When a flash is needed, the FM still requires the user to concern himself with Guide Numbers. The F3’s flash system is modern: following the path opened by the Olympus OM2, the SPD (silicon) cell is housed under the main mirror, and provides On The Film flash metering. But the Nikon engineers avoided loading the F3 with complications like multi-mode auto-exposure or multiple metering patterns. The F3 has few commands, and they’re so easy to understand that no manual is needed.

Nikon F3 – the standard viewfinder can be replaced with the “High Point”.

All the commands are generously sized, and very smooth to operate (the film advance mechanism is mounted on ball bearings). The view finder is wide, bright and clear, making focusing easy. After a few years of production, Nikon replaced the viewfinder with a high eyepoint (HP) model, which could be used more easily by glass wearers. The viewfinder is the only part of the camera which is really larger than what you would find on contemporary advanced-amateur SLRs.

Of course, the F3 is not perfect. It may be compact, but it’s heavy (approx. 750g). Its OTF flash system may have been advanced for its time, but the shutter only syncs at 1/60sec, and none of the viewfinders of the F3 system has a standard flash hot shoe: the F3 requires a specific flash adapter, to be inserted at the top of the rewind lever. But if I had to own and use only one film camera, that would be the F3, without any hesitation.

Cameras like this Nikon F3 have a removable prism. With the prism removed, one can see the image as formed on the ground glass (the focusing screen). At this stage, it is still inverted right/left you have to keep the camera at waist level to see the image of the subject.

My 2021 take on the Nikon F3 – over the last twelve years, I’ve had the opportunity to shoot with almost every Nikon SLR manufactured between 1970 and 1995, and I still hold the F3 in very high esteem. There are a few other Nikon bodies that would compete in the “desert island camera” category – I can only see the FE2. The FE2 is much lighter, it’s easier to read what shutter speed the auto-exposure system has selected, but its viewfinder is very narrow compared to what the F3 (even in its non-HP version) offers, and it’s probably not as solid as its “pro” sibling.

Nikon F3 – Nikkor 24mm AF – lunch break along the Seine – at that time Notre Dame cathedral still had its original roof.

Paris, Place de l’Hotel de Ville (City Hall) – Nikon F3 – 24mm Nikkor AF

Triel s/Seine - Dec 25th, 2010 — Triel s/Seine – Dec 25th, 2010 – Nikon F3 – Nikkor 135mm F:3.5 – Kodak CN 400

More pictures shot with this Nikon F3 on CamerAgX’s Flickr gallery

Canonet GIII QL17 – better than the Leica CL?

At the beginning of the seventies, every camera maker had to have a super-compact camera in its line-up. They were designed for the amateurs who did not want to carry a heavy, expensive and complex single lens reflex, but were still looking for good quality camera offering more control than a Kodak Instamatic.

The most successful camera of this category was Canon’s Canonet series (which sold in the millions), but German camera makers also tried their luck – in cooperation with Minolta in the case of Leitz.

Manufactured in Japan by Minolta, the Leica CL was a sort of mini-Leica M5, with a similar semi-automatic exposure system, the same M bayonet, and a large viewfinder equipped with a coupled rangefinder. The CL was much smaller than the rather bulky M5, the base of its rangefinder was much narrower than the M5’s, and it only accepted two specifically designed interchangeable lenses (a 40mm and a 90mm), as well as the standard 50mm Leica lenses. The CL had a short sales career, but its general design was refreshed by Minolta a few years later, when they launched the Minolta CLE, which supported a dedicated 28mm Minolta Rokkor lens (in addition to the 40mm and 90mm lenses), and offered Minolta’s first flash system with on the film (OTF) metering.

The Leica CL with its standard 40mm lens is a tad smaller than the Canon.

Apart from having interchangeable lenses and a Leica price tag, the CL’s characteristics were pretty much in line with what the other manufacturers of compact cameras were offering.

Canon was the undisputed leader of the “super-compact” camera category, with its highly successful line of “Canonet” cameras. The GIII is the last iteration of the Canonet series, and the QL17 (named for its impressive 40mm f/1.7 lens) formed the top of the line. Let’s compare the Leica CL (from 1973) with the GIII QL17.

What they have in common :

rangefinder compact camera
focal length = 40mm
Fast Maximum aperture: F/1.7 (Canon); F/2 (Leica)
Size/Weight: Canon: 120 x 75 x 60 mm / 620g / Leica: 120x 76 x 32 (no lens)/400g without the lens; 510g with the lens
Same PX625 battery (unfortunately)
CdS cell
both can work without a battery

Both cameras are rangefinders with very good 40mm lenses.

There are significant differences though:

the Leica has a curtain shutter and offers a range of interchangeable lenses. But the Leica only supports 3 focal lengths (40mm, 50mm, 90mm) – it does not have the viewfinder markings needed to support Minolta’s Rokkor 28mm.
The Canonet has a central shutter, and a fixed lens (40mm F/1.7 in our case, but cheaper versions of the cameras were equipped with a slower lens). A big plus of this super-compact is Canon’s exclusive Quick film Loading system (hence the “QL” acronym), which is so much better than Leica’s film loading process – which at best can be described as acrobatic (it requires a table, a chair and 2 hands, at a minimum).
Canon is either auto (shutter speed preferred) or fully manual (the meter is off if the camera is set to manual); the Leica is a semi auto camera (the well known matching needle arrangement).

the viewfinder – in yellow – the frames, the rangefinder patch at the center, and the aperture scale on the right.

Metering

Both cameras use CdS sensors for metering, and because they were using Mercury batteries producing 1.35v (the PX625 model) which are now absolutely unavailable, workarounds are necessary. The Leica only seems to work with Wein’s 625 Zinc-Air cell. The Canon seems to be a bit more tolerant, but I still recommend using a Zinc-Air battery, as they provide the same voltage as the original PX625 Mercury battery.

To tell the truth, I don’t really trust the exposure system of any of the cameras, and I use an app named Pocket Light Meter on an iPhone to determine the best exposure. With a tolerant film, the exposure will be OK.

QL stands for Quick Loading – the mechanism works extremely well.

Hands-on with the Canonet GIII QL17

I bought this camera at an antique market, from a specialist who used to own one of the two or three remaining photo equipment stores in Atlanta, and was dispersing what was left of his inventory – he said he had completely reconditioned the camera (the combo lens-shutter in particular) but that he could not guarantee that the metering and the auto-exposure system would work.

The camera was expensive (at the top of the range for such a model) – but when I received the scans, I was happy I had spent my money on it: the optical quality of the images was really impressive – it’s difficult to beat a well-designed 40mm prime lens.

Being small, silent and graced with a good viewfinder, it’s a good camera for street photography, provided the subject is not too mobile and leaves you all the time you need to set the focus and the exposure.

The QL17 seen from the top – it’s a “shutter speed” priority camera, that can also be operated in manual exposure mode. All the controls are on the lens.

I was very favorably impressed by the technical quality of the pictures I shot with the Canonet – obviously the film plays a role here (I like Kodak’s Ektar 100 for its color rendering and high definition) but this 40mm f/1.7 is definitely a great lens, and the mechanical shutter/iris combo is accurate enough for the shots to be correctly exposed (I was using an external light meter, though).

Would have the pictures been better if shot with the Leica CL? Probably not. The lens of this Canon camera is that good.

The black ring controls the shutter speed, the silver ring the aperture (it can be set to A) and the guide number for the flash.

Buying

Leica CL : it sold well, aged well, and does not seem to be in high demand. In addition, even if the CL’s Summicron-C 40mm lens can be physically mounted on the full size M cameras (M5, M6 and the like), there is no corresponding frameline in their viewfinder, limiting the practical interest of the lens for the other Leica photographers. Therefore, the CL and its 40mm lens form the most accessible combination to enter the Leica M system. Interestingly, the non-Leica alternatives supporting the 40mm lens (Minolta CLE, Voigtlander Bessa R3) are all more expensive than the CL. Expect to spend at least $300.00 for a nice body and $400.00 for the lens.
Canon – the Canonet line was sold over almost 15 years, and specific models like the GIII QL f/1.7 are rather sought after. Most of the copies are either “untested”, or “cosmetically perfect”, but few vendors promise that the metering system and the shutter are going to work, let alone be accurate. You can find a nice “untested” copy for $50.00. Fully functional cameras are more expensive (typically above $150.00).

Conclusion

I’ve never been much of a rangefinder guy – I like the clear view and the fact that the viewfinder shows more than what will be captured on the film, but I always tend to forget to set the focus – or if I set it right at the beginning of a series of pictures, I forget to adjust it if my subject moves or if I change the angle of view. My success rate at that exercise is abysmal.

The rangefinder of the Leica CL tends to be easier on the eyes than the Canon’s (the focus zone is significantly more luminous than the rest of the viewfinder and pops out, as opposed to the Canon where it’s simply a yellow patch). But the Summicron-C lens on the Leica is smaller and its focusing ramp stiffer than the lens of the Canonet, so it’s more difficult to operate for the casual photographer.

The back of the Leica CL – loading the film is a cumbersome process

All in all, the Canon is definitely easier to use than the Leica, and the quality of the images roughly equivalent. But just a few years after those two cameras were released (in the second part of the seventies), automatic exposure SLRs had become so small and light (think Olympus OM-2, Pentax ME or Nikon EM) that provided you paired them with a tiny pancake 35 or 40mm lens, they were almost as compact as those two rangefinders, and so much easier to use.

At least for me, SLRs will produce better results, with more consistency and a lower effort. Rangefinder cameras of the film era require a lot of practice and muscle memory to produce images of quality – and in the hands of a casual photographer who simply shoots a few rolls of film per year, I feel that they simply leave too much to chance. Truth to be told, the only camera equipped with an optical finder that I can really live with is the Fujifilm X100t – it gives you the best of what the Canonet and the Leica CL offer (image quality, direct optical view, compactness, silence), but has enough automatic systems (reliable auto-focus, reliable auto-exposure, switchable digital viewfinder) to overcome the lack of practice of the occasional user.

Atlanta – Piedmont Park – Canonet GIII QL 17 – Kodak Ektar 100 – Piedmont Park is where all semi-pro photographers bring their clients for outdoors pictures, and where lovers spend quality time together.

Atlanta – Piedmont Park – Canonet GIII QL 17 – Kodak Ektar 100

Atlanta – Vinings Jubilee – Canonet G III QL 17 – Kodak Ektar 100 – you can see the limits of the lens – the signage of the shops is barely readable.

Things to look forward to in 2021

Atlanta – Sweet Auburn – Pentax Super-Program – Lens Pentax AF 35-105 f/4-5.6 – Kodak Ultra 400

You can’t say that 2021 started under the best auspices, but hopefully we’ll see the end of COVID related restrictions and will be able to return to a more normal life soon.

What do I have on my bucket list?

I’m still hesitant because of the time commitment it would require, but I may start processing film myself – having film processed by good labs is getting seriously expense – but if developing conventional Black and White film is relatively easy and does not require much in terms of equipment and time, scanning requires good hardware and is extremely time consuming. I may give it a try, though.

I still believe that Nikon cameras from the late-seventies/early eighties offer the best compromise between reliability, optical quality and usability, but I can’t help trying my luck with cameras from other brands – I’m still looking for a really good lens for my recently acquired Pentax Super-Program (I decided I like it after all), and for a good camera to pair with the great Contax Vario-Sonnar I bought last year: the Contax ST is so big it scares people, and the Yashica FX3 is simply too unreliable. I may finally buy a Contax Aria – if I can find one costing less than a mortgage payment.

Last but not least, I’m keeping an eye on the new Nikon mirrorless system (the Z6 in particular) – it would be a great way to use my favorite full frame lenses on a digital camera. Of course, I would have to sell a few of my cameras to pay for it, but the value of film cameras has risen dramatically recently, so it should not be too difficult to fund.

2020 in the rearview mirror…

I’m glad 2020 is over – and that, with vaccine starting to be available (not everywhere – Georgia is a laggard) – 2021 brings some hope of a return to normalcy.

I did not take many pictures last year, I did not travel much and tested my recently acquired cameras primarily in Atlanta neighborhoods – Piedmont Park – often – and Sweet Auburn – frequently.

It did not prevent the traffic on this site to explode – with 36,000 visitors and 52,000 pages viewed over the year – thank you.

As in previous years, the Angenieux 28-70 f/2.8 zoom and its Tokina cousins were at the top of the list, followed by the Fujica 35mm reflex cameras and a newcomer to the top 5, the Nikon N90. Readers are predominantly coming from English speaking countries (USA, UK, Canada, Australia), followed by the non-English speaking countries of Western Europe.

CamerAgx – Posts and pages – views in 2020

I finally had a couple of 35mm cartridges processed (and by the way, film processing is getting seriously expensive in those post COVID days) and I’m preparing a series of posts on some of your favorite subjects – the Tokina 28-70 zoom and the Pentax Super-Program, of course, while exploring new territories with a surprisingly good Canon QL17.

Thank you for following this blog, and sharing comments – now that the worst seems over, Happy Rest of the Year…

Hopefully soon an image from the past…Coffee and Octane – Feb. 2021 – Atlanta (Nikon FE2 – Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 – Kodak Ultra 400)

The Contax 35mm SLRs of the Yashica-Kyocera era

A prestigious sub-brand of the famous Carl Zeiss company, Contax had stopped manufacturing its own cameras when it licensed the use of its brand name to Yashica in 1975.

Contax’s unique selling proposition: the Carl-Zeiss lenses

Along the seventies and the eighties, Yashica developed two lines of Contax SLRs: a line of pro-models (the RTS followed by RTS II), and a line of more consumer oriented products (137, 139, 159, 167) for well heeled enthusiasts who did not want to pay for and carry around a large, heavy and very expensive pro camera. Without reaching the production volumes of Canon or Pentax, the Contax cameras of this era still sold in respectable numbers (200,000 units for the Contax 139, for instance).

The Contax SLRs of the nineties all follow the same design language, and the organization of the commands is almost identical.

The cameras were technically on par with the competition and benefited from a very attractive design, but their real differentiator was their access to a line of interchangeable lenses carrying the Carl Zeiss brand.

With the advent of autofocus systems (Minolta opened the fire in 1985 with the Maxxum, soon to be followed by all other major Japanese camera makers), manual focus cameras found themselves rapidly relegated to two niches: cheap entry level / learners cameras on the one hand, and high end products for traditionalist photographers who preferred a conventional user interface and a full metal construction, on the other hand.

Contax RTS from 1975 – the first fruit of the cooperation between Yashica, Carl-Zeiss, and Porsche Design – Photo Courtesy Jean-Louis Beek

Contax, having declined to adopt autofocus, did not have products for the heart of the market anymore, and had no interest in selling entry-level models. They focused on the high-end of the market, trying to create cameras for each of the many small niches composing the “traditional, manual focus cameras” market.

Aside of the Contax ST already reviewed in those pages, what was Contax selling in the nineties?

RTS III – the “pro” camera of the Contax family – with more or less the same specs as the ST, but with a unique flash metering system, a faster motor, more “pro” features such as mirror lock-up and a unique vacuum back to keep the film flat during the exposure, but also more heft and much more weight,
S2 and S2b – semi-auto only, with spot meter only (S2) or average (S2b) metering only – two very spartan cameras at the polar opposite of the RTS III – for a totally different – and minimalist – experience,
RX – the successor of the ST, launched 2 years after. Most people posting in forums tend to prefer the RX to the ST, because of its focus assist and a lower weight. But it needs Lithium batteries (lighter than the AAA batteries of the ST, they are expensive and difficult to find nowadays) and its lower weight is due to a more liberal use of plastics in its construction, which is not to everybody’s taste. It was succeeded by the RX II, almost identical cosmetically but deprived of the focus assist system.
AX – its absolutely unique autofocus system (where the photographer sets the (manual focus) lens to the infinite, and the whole film chamber of the camera moves forward or backwards to adjust the focus) makes for a very large SLR (it looks more like a medium format camera, actually) – a curiosity.
Aria – the last of the Contax manual focus line – launched in 1998, with a set of specs similar to the ST’s, but in a smaller body, and with matrix metering. Some people like it for its reduced weight and size, other photographers hate that it’s built (at least in part) of painted polycarbonate (plastic). I still have to test one, but that’s the only one I would consider as a substitute to the ST.

Contax Aria – the last 35mm manual focus SLR from the brand – the design and the general disposition of the controls are almost identical to the ST’s, but the camera is lighter and smaller. (Source: Ground-Glass.net)

In addition to its line of 35mm SLRs, Contax also launched an autofocus, modular medium format camera, the 645 in 1999, a well received line of autofocus rangefinder cameras (G1, G2), and many “premium” compact cameras – which are highly sought after today.

The last years

Contax finally launched their first autofocus 35mm SLR, the Contax N1, in 2000, but it came far too late to make an impact on a market already moving to digital. To add insult to injury, the autofocus lens mount was not compatible with the C/Y mount of Yashica’s and Contax manual focus cameras, or with Yashica’s own autofocus lens mount – in fact, it had more in common with Contax’s own medium format camera system, and was technically very close to the mount designed by Canon for its EOS cameras.

Contax N1 – the autofocus SLR – apart from the industrial design and the general organization of the controls, very little in common with the manual focus SLRs of the brand. (Source: Contax)

The digital version of that camera, launched in 2002, was the first attempt by a major vendor at selling a full-frame 24x36mm dSLR, but the sensor they were using was simply not good enough and the camera made a flop.

Contax N Digital (Source: Contax UK). The first dSLR with a 24x36mm full frame sensor.

Kyocera (the Japanese ceramics giant that had bought Yashica in 1983) – finally pulled the plug on all its photographic activities in 2005, and the Contax brand has not been used since. At the time it left the photography market, Contax was still selling 35mm film SLRs (the Aria, the RX II and the RTS III, and the autofocus N1 and NX), a medium format film camera system (the 645), a line of expensive compact point and shoot cameras (film and digital) and its full frame 35mm digital SLR, the N Digital.

More about it:

The Web site of Contax-UK (frozen in 2005) – surprisingly it’s still up, 15 years after Contax withdrew from the photo equipment market:

https://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/_html/index.html

A very detailed and well documented review of the Contax AX and its automatic back focusing: https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera-reviews/contax-camera-reviews/reviewing-the-contax-ax-autofocusing-manual-focus-lenses

A review of the Contax Aria in the Casual Photophile https://casualphotophile.com/2019/06/17/contax-aria-70-years-edition-review/

MIR is not only about Nikon: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/contax/index.htm