I just devoted two successive blog entries to the Pentax KP in the last two months. It’s my go-to camera at the moment, and I was wondering why I was neglecting my more modern mirrorless camera for an older dSLR.
I have a small set of very good Fujinon XF lenses and a mirrorless camera – a Fujifilm X-T4, that when properly set up, will deliver great pictures. The X-T4 is the camera I have with me on “important” occasions, when I know the result matters and I won’t have a second chance. And when traveling with the family because they won’t let me spend 20 minutes on a single picture, and I know the X-T4 will capture very good images, quickly.
But when there is no particular pressure to deliver, when I have the time to carefully compose the image and finesse the settings, I tend to use a single lens reflex camera. And I was wondering why.
Casa Milo – Barcelona – Fujifilm X-T4 – Fujinon 10-24mm f/4 XF lens (electronic viewfinder)
I guess that when I’m watching the scene through an optical viewfinder, it is easier for me to mentally project the final photograph. Through an optical viewfinder, I’m looking at the scene itself, unmediated by processing, and my brain actively completes the image, interpreting light, contrast, depth, and intent. Because I am looking directly at the scene, my brain remains responsible for transforming reality into an image.
The focusing screen does not dictate the outcome; it leaves space for intention, anticipation, and interpretation. I imagine the photograph before it exists, and I will work with the settings of the camera and shoot again and again until I’m pretty confident that I have captured the image I originally had in mind.
An electronic viewfinder, on the other hand, replaces mental projection with visual confirmation. The LCD shows me what the camera thinks the picture should look like, already interpreted — shaped by the camera’s exposure simulation, tone curves, and color rendering. It shifts my role from author to reviewer. Instead of projecting the image mentally, I am reacting to the camera’s preview. The act of imagining gives way to the act of evaluating.
It’s probably a question of habit. Because I had been shooting with single lens reflex cameras for so long, I simply kept on following the same routine when I started using a mirrorless camera – bringing the viewfinder to my eye, and looking at the scene through the lens of the camera until I had a clear idea of the image I wanted to create.
Composing an image through an electronic viewfinder required another approach – I needed to learn how to abstract from the relative information overflow of the EVF, and let my brain define the image I wanted to capture without being limited by what the camera had decided to show me. I’ve had ten years to adjust (and I assume I did), but shooting through an optical viewfinder is still more natural to me.
There are still enough photographers who want to compose their images through an optical viewfinder to keep Leica in business, and for Fujifilm to make a killing with the X-100 and its hybrid viewfinder. And there may even be enough OVFs fans over the world for a trickle of Canon, Nikon and Pentax new dSLRs to keep on coming from the production lines. For the time being.
Corsica – view from MonteMaggiore – Fujifilm X-T4 – Fujifilm lens XC 15-45mm – I like contrasty images, and I often compose facing the sun, using its rays to shape the atmosphere and character of the image. It’s much easier to do through an optical viewfinder.
Out of curiosity, among the readers of this blog, am I the only one with a preference for the clear, unmediated view of the scene offered by optical viewfinders?
Providence Canyon State Park, Georgia – Nikon D750. (optical viewfinder)
Cochran Shoals, Atlanta – Pentax KP – Pentax DA 21mm Limited.
Vickery Creek – Roswell, GA. Pentax KP, Pentax DA 21mm Limited
Ball Ground – GA – inside the “Burger Bus” Pentax KP – Pentax lens 35mm f/2.8 Limited (optical viewfinder)
Driving around Montepulciano, in Tuscany – Fujifilm X-T4- Fujinon lens XF 10-24 F/4 ((electronic viewfinder)
My big 2025 photography project was to move all my pictures out of my hardware dependent local storage, and migrate them to Adobe’s Creative Cloud. I knew I would not convert my Lightroom 6 catalogs (theoretically possible, but too cumbersome), but the folders on the Network Attached Storage device (NAS) where the originals were stored had always been carefully organized. I thought I would not lose much by not converting the catalogs. I subscribed to Adobe’s Lightroom Creative Cloud (first through the Apple Store, later directly on the Adobe Store), and uploaded all the original images, folder by folder, to Lightroom. The process was described in detail is a series of blog entries dedicated to Lightroom.
Which means I’m now trusting Adobe for preserving 28 years of scanned negatives and digital images in their cloud. What can possibly go wrong?
A recent post by Jim Grey (about “the lost photos era”) and interactions I’ve had with cloud service providers in a professional context brought back to my attention that storing my images in a cloud was a good first step but not enough.
Rome – Fontana de Nettuno – Piazza Navona. Nikon D80 – Jan 2010
The “shared responsibility model”
All cloud service providers (CSPs) operate under a shared responsibility model. It’s the CSP’s job to ensure that their technical platform remains available and secure, and that the data entrusted to them can be recovered in case of a disaster in their data centers. As the client, it’s your responsibility to “govern your content”: manage the uploads, the regular cleanups, and configure how the data is accessed and shared.
The grey area is of course backup – CSPs generally commit to recovering your data at Day Minus One if something really bad happens to their infrastructure, but they won’t be obligated to do anything if you deleted a folder by mistake, or if you wanted to recover a group of files as they were at a specific point in time. CSPs generally consider that backups and restores are the responsibility of the client.
Although Adobe is a reliable company, I know I have to protect my images from a catastrophic error on their part, and from a major mistake (fat finger?) on mine.
Rome, Jan 2010 – Nikon D80
A reminder – the differences between Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Lightroom Classic
Adobe Lightroom Classic is the current iteration of Adobe’s original image edit and management software, launched in 2007 as Lightroom 1.0.
It’s a “fat client” application designed to work on Windows or MacOS workstations (desktop or laptop), which stores your images locally (on the hard drive of your workstation or on some form of higher capacity local storage, DAS or NAS). Lightroom maintains at least one local catalog of your images, which contains all the ratings, flags, titles, captions you have entered, as well as a log of all the edits and setting changes (crops, exposure, color balance, sharpening,…) performed on the images.
The system is totally self contained – but as everything (catalog, images and edits) is kept locally, it’s your responsibility to manage the storage, the backup and the disaster recovery of your images.
Under the same Lightroom brand, Adobe is selling a totally different range of cloud based products simply named Lightroom or Lightroom CC, whose lightweight clients run on a smartphone (iOS or Android), a tablet (iPadOS or Android) and on a desktop or laptop (Windows or MacOS). All those products share the same on-line library (hosted on Adobe’s Creative Cloud).
Contrarily to Lightroom Classic, the Creative Cloud versions of Lightroom (smartphone, tablet, PC or Mac) don’t keep any image or catalog on your device – just a cache to reduce the response time. The whole system works very well: I can upload images from my camera through a smartphone while traveling, perform light edits on a tablet at the hotel the same day, and spend more time perfecting the images on a laptop when I’m back home – it’s seamless. As long as I keep paying for the subscription, of course. And bar a catastrophic event in Creative Cloud.
Rome – Fontana de Nettuno – Piazza Navona. Nikon D80 – Jan 2010
Backup workflows don’t live forever
Even if the image formats themselves (jPEG and DNG) have been remarkably stable over the last 20 years, the hardware, the software and the cloud services offerings have not stopped evolving – and what used to work reliably ten years ago does not work any more. Which means that every now and then, we need to take a hard look at our workflow and re-engineer it.
When I put it in place in 2018, my image preservation workflow made sense – I was using Adobe Lightroom 6 running on a Mac to edit my photos and manage my libraries. Lightroom 6 was keeping the catalog on the local hard drive of my Macbook and was pointing to a volume on the Netgear NAS to store the images themselves. I was also running a backup application named Arq on the Macbook, and using it to keep a backup of the NAS in Amazon’s long term storage, AWS Glacier.
Along the years, this finely tuned workflow crumbled.
First, the OS of my old MacBook stopped being supported, and I saw its capabilities decline progressively as it could not access the services that Apple (and others) kept on making more secure with more refined security protocols and longer encryption keys.
To make the matter worse, Netgear decided to get out of the network storage business – my RN214 NAS still works, but is not supported and (of course) its OS and its built-in backup apps are not updated anymore.
Last but not least, AWS has now sunset Glacier as I was using it – it’s not a stand alone product anymore, just a storage class in the S3 product portfolio, using different APIs.
Rome, Jan 2010 – Nikon D80
My storage and backup strategy was crumbling and I had to act. That’s why I migrated the libraries themselves to Adobe’s Creative Cloud last year, and why I’m now implementing a new backup and restore workflow now.
My new workflow– saving the “digital negatives“
As often nowadays, I called ChatGPT for help. The workflow it recommended, and that I implemented, is still based on Adobe Creative Cloud being my primary image store, the “source of truth”. Lightroom (the PC/Mac edition of Lightroom) on my MacBook will act as a sort of gateway to the NAS, and the NAS volume will store my local replica of the originals stored in Creative Cloud.
It’s important to remember that for Lightroom, a local storage volume is nothing more than the place where it stores a local cache. What is being replicated to the local volume is the source image – the original JPEG or raw files exactly as they were originally uploaded from the camera – before any transformation, optimization or edit was performed. The images are grouped on the SAN by date (one folder per year, one subfolder per day) and the album structure you defined in Lightroom is not respected. Again, it’s a cache that we use as a way to backup our source images, not a backup of the final images after Lightroom has processed them.
The local cache on the SAN shows the original files grouped by date of capture – the Lightroom Album structure and the edits are not preserved, only the original image itself (compare with the structure of April 2016 in Lightroom, as shown below).
Lightroom CC – the folder/album structure (here, April 2016). In Lightroom the images are grouped in user defined folders and albums.
How to setup Adobe Lightroom
Once the Mac is logged in the Network Attached Storage volume, simply click on the “Adobe Lightroom” option at the top left of the screen, select “Cache”, and under Performance, check the “Store a copy of all originals option”, and point to the folder of the NAS where the original images will be dropped.
The sync process is managed automatically by Lightroom. Every time you add new pictures to Lightroom, it will start replicating them to the SAN.
If you’re working with Lightroom away from your home network, no problem. Adobe will consider that the cache is not available, and will download the images from the cloud.
In Lightroom CC – check the “Store a copy of all originals” option and point to the NAS as a the local storage
Creating an off-site backup of the Network Attached Storage volume
The primary storage location of my images is Adobe Creative Cloud. I keep a replica of the originals on a network attached storage device (NAS) at home. It’s a pretty solid data protection system, but it’s only keeping one replica of Creative Cloud’s originals – and a replica is not a backup (because it only keeps the most recent version of a file). It is not very complicated or expensive to make it even more robust, and create an off site backup of the original images.
Duplicati – the backup job (it took it 12 hours to backup 110 Gbytes of pictures – not bad at all).
That’s what I used to do with Amazon Glacier – and having an off site backup of my photo library was a saving grace when my first Netgear NAS device gave up the ghost. Restoring the images from Glacier took a week, but it’s better than losing everything.
The target Google Drive after the backup – the data is grouped in blocks of 50 Mbytes.
This time, I tried different options (Arq, Backblaze) which for various reasons (performance, cost, no support of network attached devices) did not work for me. My current setup is based on an open source software named Duplicati, which is pushing the Lightroom replica on the NAS to a Google Drive. It works, backups are reasonably fast (around 2.5 Mbytes/sec), and it’s flexible enough: I can recover a specific image in a few minutes if I need to.
Validating that the setup works
Backup and restore workflows are fragile, and they can fail for all sorts of reasons (expired passwords or keys, OS or software upgrade, hardware or network related issues, human error). And it’s not because the backup is successful that the restore will be.
Restoring the data – selecting the document to restore is easy and the restore takes no more than a few minutes.
I had to validate that, with the Mac and Lightroom CC up and running, and the NAS volume mounted, that:
any new image added to the Lightroom CC library was replicated to the SAN, in its original state,
the backup software would catch the new image and back it up to the Google drive,
and that I could restore any image or any group of images as needed.
The tests were successful.
Saving the final images
You may also want to preserve a copy of the final state of your images, after Lightroom has applied all of its edits.
The challenge of course is that in Lightroom, the images don’t really have a final state. Adobe keeps your original photo and a sort of log of the transformations you performed, and dynamically creates a file containing the image you want after you have requested an export. You pick the quality, the dimensions, and the file format (small JPEG, large JPEG, PNG, TIFF, DNG, …) with or without sharpening – depending on what you intend to do with the image (email attachment, social media, photo gallery, photo album, print, …). And the image you need is created on the fly.
Lightroom – so many ways to export a photo
I understand that a professional photographer delivering images to many clients may want to keep a trace of what was delivered, and have an archival system specifically tuned to preserve them. (And pros may prefer working Adobe Lightroom Classic, anyway).
I’m not in this situation and I’ve never really given much thought about it. I simply export the images I need to the same shared folder in Apple’s iCloud, that all my Apple devices (iPhone, iPad, MacBook) can access.
Final words
In the days of film, it was not easy (or cheap) for amateur photographers to create duplicates of their color slides or their negatives, and store them in a second location as a backup. Photographers were at the mercy of fire, floods and burglaries, and could lose the images of a lifetime in a few minutes.
Digital images can be easily duplicated, and the duplicates stored in totally different locations, on totally different media. The setup described here is very easy to implement: a NAS is not even needed (the local SSD of a PC or a Mac would work as well), and many of our subscriptions (Microsoft Office Family for instance) already include 1 TB of storage and could be used as backup target.
More about Lightroom and fifty five camera reviews:
All the images of this series were shot in Rome, in April 2009 and in January 2010, with a Nikon D80. They were saved as originals on multiple generations of storage, recovered from a catastrophic NAS failure, and imported in Adobe’s Creative Cloud last year. I just adjusted a few sliders before exporting them to WordPress.
Until this year, the big Japanese camera makers seemed to have abandoned the “digital compact camera” market almost entirely, retreating to a few niche products such as the Sony RX100 or the OM System Tough TG, and leaving all the space of “casual photography” to smartphones.
The commercial success of a few of the remaining compact cameras (the current versions of Fujifilm X-100 and of the Canon G7x are almost always out of stock), and the prices reached on the second hand market by some high end compact cameras from the past decade are pushing the camera companies to reconsider their product strategy. Canon is widely rumored to be preparing a new range of compacts.
In the meantime, a few lines of cameras of the past decade – the Canon SX700, the Nikon S9000 and the Sony HX series in particular, are getting all the attention and are more expensive than ILCs of the same vintage on eBay.
Sony Cybershot HX60
Sony’s HX line of products
The H in HX stands for HyperZoom – the cameras of the series all have zooms that can reach at least an equivalent of 250mm on a full frame camera. Some of the HX models (the ones with three digits in their name) are shaped like a bridge camera and would not fit in a pocket, while the HX models with one or two digits (HX5 to HX99) are pocketable little bricks that could fit in the pocket of a coat.
The HX pocketable models were developed across 4 generations.
HX5, HX7 and HX9 belong to the first one, with 10 and 16 megapixel image sensors and a reach limited to 384mm. The HX10, HX20 and HX30 form the second generation. They share a 18 mpixel sensor and are pretty close to one another – primarily differentiated by the reach of their zoom and the support of Wifi.
Sony Cybershot HX60 – size comparison with a Fujifilm Z1000 EXR and a Fujifilm XQ2. The Sony is two to three times thicker than the two Fujifim digicams
The HX50 and HX60 mark a significant evolution towards the high end, with a 20 Megapixel sensor, an accessory shoe, a bulkier body and longer zoom reach. They share a G series, 25-720 zoom. The main difference between the two models is that the HX60 has NFC in addition to Wifi, and is controlled through the new unified Sony menus.
The last four models (HX90, HX80, HX95 and HX99) all share a 18 mpix sensor and a smaller body with a telescopic viewfinder and a flip up screen. Their lens is a new, more compact, Zeiss labeled, 24-720 zoom. But they lose the accessory shoe of the previous generations and a few physical controls (like the exposure compensation control wheel). The differences between last four models are relatively minor. The HX80 is the simplest, while the HX99 has everything (a touch enabled rear display and a GPS, and it can save RAW files).
The 30x zoom belongs to the G series (one step above the “normal” Sony lenses, one step below the “Zeiss T*”)
Lastly, all models whose name ends with a “V” have a GPS chip. The HX60, for instance, was available as a GPS-less HX60, while the HX60V had the GPS chip. Not all combinations were available in all geographies. The HX60, for instance, was not available in the UK or in the US, but the HX60V was.
The different models: a summary.
You will notice that after the HX60 Sony reverted to a 18 Mpixel sensor.
The main differences between the last six models
On paper, the most recent generation with its very compact body, its telescopic viewfinder, its Zeiss labeled lens and its flip up rear screen seems the most interesting. Recent models also benefit, generally, from image sensors and processing engines that produce better pictures (less prone to noise, and therefore more immune to the smearing caused by aggressive noise reduction algorithms). But models of that series are also the most sought after, and cost twice as much as a HX60 on the second hand market, at approx $500.
Shooting with the HX60
The HX60 is not exactly a pocketable camera, unless you wear a coat or an anorak with large pockets. And you will feel its weight – at 272g (9 1/2 ounces) it’s not light either, twice as heavy as a typical compact camera like the Sony W series or the Canon Powershot 170 IS. It does not give the impression of being fragile, but it’s not a rugged camera and its owner will feel compelled to carry it in a soft pouch.
It offers more physical controls than a typical point and shoot and elaborate menus (inherited from Sony’s big mirrorless cameras) which, coupled with the rather succinct documentation, could make it intimidating for beginners.
I left it in Program (“P”) mode most of the time; there are also a “Superior Auto Mode” and an “Intelligent Auto Mode” that detect the scene for you and adjust the settings accordingly – simply adjusting the exposure with the correction dial when needed. I’m not sure there is any benefit in leaving the full automatic modes for Aperture or Shutter Speed priority modes – the largest aperture varies between f/3.5 and f/6.3, and the smallest aperture is always f/8 – your options are limited. And even if a shutter speed of 1/1600 sec is proposed, selecting it it will force the camera into very high ISO territory – to the detriment of image quality.
The menus belong to Sony’s current generation.
Compared to the screen of a modern smartphone, the display of the HX60 is not very bright – you have to set it to +2 to be able to compose somehow comfortably when shooting outside. It takes a toll on the battery life, which is limited to one or two hundred pictures in the real life.
The HX60 supports WiFi connections to a smartphone or a tablet using Sony’s current “Imaging Edge Mobile” application. Transferring photos to the mobile device from the camera is not 100% intuitive, but with a bit of trial and error, it can be achieved.
the exposure compensation dial is useful.
Image quality
Image quality is surprisingly good for a camera with such a small sensor – as long as the sensitivity remains under 800 ISO. Fortunatelly, if you leave it in auto mode, the camera is programmed to operate when possible at very slow shutter speeds (and in the 80 to 250 ISO range) and thanks to its very efficient optical image stabilization system, it still delivers images free of motion blur at 1/20sec.
A detail from the feature picture – at 125 ISO the image quality is very good (f/3.5, 1/30s)
Images shot at 1600 ISO or above are best viewed on the small screen of a smartphone, as the noise and the image smearing resulting from the noise reduction algorithm take their toll. The 18 Mpixel sensor of the cameras of the following generation (HX80 and above) is supposed to perform better in those situations, but I had used a Sony WX350 (equipped with the same 18 Mpixel sensor) for night shots in Las Vegas a long time ago and even if the neons looked fantastic, noise severely impacted the poorly lit areas. If there is an improvement, it’s marginal.
A small portion of the Cirque du Soleil image posted below. At 1600 ISO noise and image smearing become very visible
As a conclusion
What distinguishes this camera is the very long reach of its zoom. Shooting with wide angle lenses is more natural for me, and with my “normal” cameras most of my pictures are taken at a focal length located somewhere between 28 and 40mm (full frame equivalent). Shooting with a small camera that can reach a focal length of 720mm is a new experience for me, and a sort of eye opener. You look at the world differently when you know you can isolate details far, far away.
The Sony HX60 is a very efficient little camera, using its elaborate technology (a really impressive image stabilization system in particular) to overcome the limitations of its small sensor and deliver very nice pictures. It’s not exactly pocketable and without being fragile, it has to be treated like a small “serious” camera rather than an always available note taker that you will throw in a handbag with your car keys.
Because the camera manufacturers have more or less abandoned the “elaborate, small sensor” compact market, this Cybershot from 2014 is very close to representing the “state of the art” when it comes to “travel zoom” compacts. The HX60 is not for everybody, but if you like long, long zooms in a 270g camera, this one is for you.
This camera belonged to my late father in law, Eric, who passed away recently. In his late years, he was more interested in painting, but he still knew how to use a camera. He shot most of the pictures posted below. They show what a person with a good eye but no particular interest for photography can get out of a HX60.
Carnival parade – Narbonne, France
Rural landscape in the Grenoble area (France).
Roland, cat.
Roland, again.
Ostrich, in a zoo. Shot at a focal lengh of 90mm (approx 550mm full frame equiv.) at 1/250 sec. 125 ISO.
The Cirque du soleil. Shot at 1/25sec and 1600 ISO. Not bad for a small sensor camera – as long as the picture is viewed on a smartphone or a tablet.
A fellow painter at the workshop – shot at 125 ISO
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-4Chattahoochee National Recreation Area – the bamboo forest – Olympus TG-4
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 lensThe 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.
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
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.
Nikon Coolpix S6900 – pretty in pink
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
Thom Hogan has been on the Web forever, it seems. He’s a pro photographer, has a background in marketing and product planning, and he also teaches, I believe. He’s been publishing very detailed user guides for Nikon cameras for ages, and his collection of Web sites (www.bythom.com; www.dslrbodies.com, www.sansmirror.com) is always an interesting read, not only for users of Nikon equipment, but also for anybody who wants to understand the market forces shaping the photo equipment industry.
He has much more experience of Nikon cameras than I do, and my tastes have been – at least in part – formed by what I read in his books and Web pages over the years. So I won’t say “I’m right, he’s wrong”. Let’s be honest: if there’s such a thing as being right in photography, the odds that he is are much higher than mine. But sometimes I simply beg to differ.
Film Era:
Thom’s list includes some cameras that grace my personal collection, even if they’re not my preferred in Nikon’s range. The F90/N90 is extremely efficient, but a bit too automatic for me, and the F4 is really too heavy to be used anywhere but in a studio. I never used the F100 or a F5 (too modern for me – I tend to like my film cameras with a conventional user interface – you know, knobs instead of LCDs and control wheels).
A single control wheel, and the aperture value controlled by the aperture ring on the lens itself: the two major differences between the N90 and a modern Nikon body.
Nikon F4 with the MB-20 grip. The MB-20 grip is smaller than the MB-21, and was standard equipment in most of the world. In the US, the MD-21 was standard.
Which leaves us with the last entry of his list, the FM3A.
The FM3A is an evolution of the FM2/FE2 cameras, with a dual shutter control mechanism (electronic and mechanic) – which offers the best of what the FM2 (mechanical) and the FE2 (electronic with On the Film TTL flash control) can offer. I don’t own a FM3A, but two of its direct ancestors are at the top of my list: I use my old FM relatively often – because it’s a rugged camera and I know it’s going to work no matter what. The FE2 is a peach (it oozes quality, and it’s so pleasant to use) – one of the very best film cameras ever.
Nikon FE2
Digital Era
You can collect “classic” cameras for their beauty and for their importance in the history of the industry or a brand, but to me, a camera I can’t use to take pictures doesn’t qualify as a classic – it’s at best a “curiosity”.
In my opinion, early digital cameras are not really usable anymore, primarily because of their very limited dynamic range and very low resolution. If I brought one to cover a photo opportunity, I would most probably end the day disappointed and frustrated for having missed what could have been a great shot because of the technical limitations of the camera. Or I would have put it back in the bag, and used an iPhone instead. That’s why there is no early digital camera in my collection.
I recognize the importance of cameras like the D1h or the D100 in the evolution towards modern digital photography, but I will not add them to my collection. On the other hand, I believe that cameras like the D3 and D3X are still perfectly usable, but because they’re so big and heavy, I would ignore them, and buy their little brother, the D700 instead. Admittedly it’s still a big and heavy camera, but its performance is still exceptional, and with it I can use all the Nikon (and Nikon-compatible) lenses I own.
Because I’ve been using Nikon cameras for so long, I find the D700 very intuitive and rewarding to use, and even today, the quality of the pictures that the 12 Mpixel sensor produces is incredible (in particular in low light or high contrast situations).
Nikon D700 – a classic
It may be too early to add a D850 to a collection of classics, but it will most probably be the last enthusiast / pro DSLR from Nikon – the future is clearly mirrorless. They may launch a D6 for the Olympic Games next year (who knows) but I doubt they will keep on developing the D800 series beyond the D850.
Atlanta – World of Coke – Nikon D700
My always available and patient models – the performance of the camera in low light and with multiple light sources of different color temperatures is simply incredible. Nikon D700 – Nikkor 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 AF – 3200 ISO.
The N2020 (F-501 outside of the US) was Nikon’s first mass market auto-focus SLR. It was an upgrade of the N2000 (F-301 “in the rest of the world”), Nikon’s first SLR with an integrated motor. They inaugurated a new type of laser etched focusing screen, and a new camera naming scheme based on numbers. Because they had the two lowest numbers in the hierarchy, they were often mistaken for low performance entry-level models.
Nikon F-501/N2020 with a Nikon E Series 35mm f/2.5 – note the convenient AE-Lock and AF-Lock buttons next to the lens flange. The recessed red button starts the self-timer.
It’s obviously a wrong perception: just consider the price of the N2020 – a few years after being launched, it was still more expensive than Minolta’s enthusiast oriented Maxxum 7000, in the same ballpark as the ground breaking Canon EOS 650, itself derived from the very high-end and very expensive Canon T90.
Like the Nikon F4 that would follow two years after (and contrarily to the Minolta and Canon auto-focus cameras), the N2020 retained conventional commands (shutter speed knob, aperture ring, ISO speed dial), and, as a true high-end Nikon, protected the photographers from unfortunate lapses of attention with all sorts of locks and flashing red LEDs.
Nikon’s transition to auto-focus
At the end of 1985, Nikon was apparently not certain that their (generally technically conservative) customers would enthusiastically embrace auto-focus, and they edged their bets. They first launched a manual focus version of their new body, the N2000 (*), and took their time to fine tune the auto-focus version, the N2020, finally presented in April 1986. They were not certain that the photographers would adjust to motorized film advance either, so they kept a conventional rewind crank. The N2000 and the N2020 could read DX coding, but still had a conventional film sensitivity selector. Just in case. This prudent approach extended to the design as well. Nikon did not go for a full poly-carbonate body with rounded edges, they kept an hybrid metal/plastic construction with a design language based on sharp angles. Do you start seeing a pattern here?
Nikon N2020/F501 – the focus mode selector is still the same on current Nikon dSLRs.
Yes, the auto-focus of the N2020 is primitive – with only 96 photosites (the following generation launched in 1988 with the N8080 and the F4 had a new sensor with 200 photo sites). Strangely enough, the auto-focus area at the center of the viewfinder does not feel as narrow as it does on the F4, but it’s far less sensitive in low light, making it almost unusable indoors.
Very simple viewfinder – the selected speed on the right, and the AF guides at the bottom.
By today’s standards, it’s more of a focus-assist system than a true auto-focus, but because there was a version of the same camera without auto-focus, the viewfinder retains the characteristics of manual focus cameras (92% coverage, 85% magnification, precise and relatively grainy focusing screen). It is still suited to manual focusing, even though the default focusing screen of the N2020 is deprived of a micro-prism ring. Other focusing screens (including the very sought after K type with a micro-prism ring surrounding a split image telemeter spot) may still be available – but as far as I know the model is specific to the N2020 and I could not find any on eBay.
Nikon N2020/F501 – this one is equipped with a AA battery holder. Note that the tripod socket has been pushed to the left of the camera to make room for the batteries, and that the camera has the full featured AI-S mount with the focal length sensors (on the right side of the lens mount on the picture)
The F601/N6006 – the successor of the F501/N2020 – The battery its now in the ergonomic handle, the tripod socket sits under the axis of the lens, and the lens mount has been simplified (the sensors and pins specific to the AI-S declination of the Nikon F lens mount are gone).
Everyday use
The N2020 (in fact, mine is a “rest-of-the-world” F501) is the camera that I had brought with me – virtually untested – to a long trip to Israel, Jordan and France. The camera did not miss a beat, and fulfilled its mission brilliantly.
The village of Minerve, (departement de l’Herault, France) – Nikon N2020 – Nikon E 35mm f/2.5 – Kodak Ektar 100
It does not exude from the N2020 the impression of quality that emanates from a Nikon FE2, a F3 or a F4, but it still feels less of an amateur photographer camera than the Nikon FG. Compared to the FG, it’s larger and heavier, and receives a faster shutter (1/2000sec) and an exposure memory lock button (more useful than the +2EV button of the FG). Like the current pro cameras from Nikon, it can be controlled via a wired remote. The back has a window showing the film cartridge, a film advance indicator, and a red LED warns the photographer if the DX sensitivity coding can not be read. Clearly not a body for the experts or the pros (roles that would be fulfilled in Nikon’s product range by the N8008/F801 and the high-end F4 respectively), but not a simplified or spec’d down entry level camera either.
The F601/N6006 (1991) next to the F-501; the interface design of the F-601 is an intermediate step between the classical interface of the F-501, and the full modal interface of the F100.
If you don’t forget it’s a very early auto-focus camera, and don’t expect it to behave like a Nikon F6, it’s a pleasant camera to use. On the plus side:
the ergonomics – simple, easy to learn, no menus, no hidden functions, just conventional knobs and rings
the conventional Nikon average weighted metering – that is to say: accurate and predictable (at least as long as the cell is not blinded by the middle-eastern sun)
its relatively compact size
it works with any Nikon AI, AI-S, AF or AF-D lens without any limitation (the lens mount has all the sensors and pins of a true AI-S camera).
Exposure determination can be left to one of the three program modes, or controlled more directly by the photographer (aperture preferred auto-exposure and manual modes)
It runs on standard AAA or AA batteries (the AA battery tray was optional)
it’s reliable – it simply works, with no known mechanical or cosmetic issues.
Not everything is perfect: the viewfinder is informative, bright, but rather narrow, with a relatively short eye-point (the same as the FG or FM-FE), the winder is rather loud, and of course its auto-focus system dramatically lacks sensitivity in low light – it is almost unusable indoors if the scene is not lit like a studio. But it’s not too much of an issue today : even with its standard focusing screen, the N2020 is one of the few auto-focus SLRs that can still really be used with manual focus lenses – at least with wide angle lenses.
One year separates the two cameras – the F501/N2020 was launched in the spring of 1986, and the Canon EOS620 in the spring of 1987 – the Nikon is still a classical camera, the Canon is already fully motorized, with a large information LCD and a modal interface.
How much?
Today, early auto-focus cameras are dirt cheap, and this one is not different. Very nice copies can be had for $35.00 in specialized second-hand photo equipment stores, and will not fetch more than a few dollars on eBay or at Goodwill.
As a conclusion
Like the F4 in the “pro” market, the N2020 is at the same time Nikon’s last “enthusiast” body with a conventional user interface, and the first of a long line of auto-focus and motorized SLRs.
Its conventional user interface is well thought and makes for a pleasant experience, and its high-magnification viewfinder is better suited than the F4’s for manual focus operations. The N2020 is also reasonably light and compact (half the weight of the F4 with its MB-21 grip), but of course you can’t compare a camera designed for amateurs with a high-end professional rig.
Homps (Departement de l’Aude, France). Homps is a harbor on the Canal du Midi in the south of France. Nikon N2020. Nikon E 35mm f/2.5 – Kodak Ektar 100
It would not be reasonable to buy a N2020 and expect it to deliver the performance of a more modern auto-focus SLR. With its simple and narrow auto-focus sensor, its limited processing power and its weak focus motor, it can’t even compete with a F4, let alone a N90s or any auto-focus film SLR manufactured in the mid to late nineties. But if you see it as a manual focus camera with a focus-assist system, it becomes much more enjoyable.
The manual focus E Series lenses are a very good fit for the N2020. Designed originally for the EM, the lenses are built out of plastic with a simplified optical formula (to save on weight and contain cost), but some of the E lenses (the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2.5 for instance) are probably as good optically as the metal-built Nikkor lenses of equivalent aperture. Nikon’s first consumer grade (sliding aperture) 35-70mm auto-focus zooms have a bad reputation, but the 28-70 AF f/3.5-4.5 that followed a few years later is very compact and sharp – a little known gem.
With a manual focus prime lens or a small auto-focus zoom (like the 28-70 F/3.5-4.5 mentioned above), the N2020 will form a cheap, reliable, compact and highly capable set, to be used to learn the basics of photography, or as a second body for the occasions when a more expensive camera can not be risked.
(*) In 1990, Nikon did it again- they replaced the F301-F501/N2000-N2020 series with two cameras – one with an improved auto-focus system (the F601/N6006), one with manual focus (F601m, N6000).
Village de Minerve (Hérault, France) – the church plaza. The flying bird carved in the stone (on the right) is a memorial to the “Cathars”, local heretics from the XIIIth century annihilated by the Albigensian crusade. Nikon N2020 – Nikon E 35mm F/2.5 – Kodak Ektar 100.
I don’t want this blog to turn into a Nikon fansite. But Nikon related pages are now the most read: the Nikon D700 and FE2 entries have been the two most visited pages lately, leapfrogging the pages related to the Angenieux 28-70 f/2.6 zoom, which had been the readers’ favorite for years. And I can’t hide that Nikon film cameras are those I prefer, and that I’ve put my money where my mouth was.
Interesting things are happening at Nikon’s. On August 23rd, they will unveil a new full frame mirrorless digital system, launch a new lens mount and at least one lens.
Teaser from Nikon: the silhouette of Nikon’s new mirrorless body, and its huge lens mount. It looks much simpler than the Nikon F mount below,
The new lens mount will be typical of modern mirrorless cameras (short flange distance, and, I assume, no mechanical interface at all – autofocus and aperture control being all electric ), but its diameter will be unusually large – much larger in any case that the Sony E lens mount.
Over its 59 years of commercial life (so far), the Nikon F mount has gone through many revisions to support successively aperture indexing, automatic aperture indexing, matrix metering, auto-focus, silent wave auto-focus motors, and more recently, electronic diaphragm control.
Because Nikon has made a core business principle to guarantee at least a modicum of compatibility between its older lenses and its newer generation of bodies (particularly for high-end cameras sold to professionals), the new full frame mirrorless body will accept Nikon F lenses, via an adapter. But Nikon has not shared any detail about this adapter yet.
Nikon F mount – clockwise from top, on the mount’s flange : the meter coupling lever used for aperture indexing, the lens type signal pin, the lens release pin, the auto-focus shaft. On the inside of the exposure chamber: the electrical contacts used by AF lenses (top), the focal length indexing pin (right) and the aperture stop-down lever (left).
The adapter could be made simple, with no electrical contact and no mechanical linkage to the lens. Generally speaking, mirrorless cameras are not dependent on the automatic aperture pre-selection capabilities of the lens, so it’s likely that any Nikon F lens old enough to have an aperture ring will not only physically mount on the adapter, but will somehow work when the camera is set to semi-automatic exposure and manual focus mode. But recent lenses deprived of an aperture ring (or with an electronic control of the aperture) would not work with such a simple adapter. Which would go against Nikon’s tradition of preserving compatibility in priority for recent and/or expensive pieces of equipment.
2 very simple adapters: Canon FD to Fujifilm X (left), Nikon F to Fujifilm X (right). In both cases the mirrorless body does not control the aperture on the lens (no pre-selection, no shutter priority or program automatism).
The adapter could be made very complex. Sony supports Minolta/Konica-Minolta/Sony A mount lenses on its E Mount mirrorless bodies thanks to two models of adapters. The most complex of the two, the LA-E4, has its own autofocus motor in order to provide support and adequate AF performance for screw-drive autofocus lenses (which still constitute the majority of the Series A lenses offered by Sony today). Sony’s adapter also has a Phase Detection AF module, probably because its A series lenses were not designed for the contrast detection auto-focus system of its NEX mirrorless bodies.Nikon’s original AF and AF-D lenses (the screw drive lenses without an auto focus motor) could be supported using a similar setup if Nikon really wanted to, but I doubt they’ll have any appetite for such a solution (one of the reasons being that professionals have been buying AF-S lenses with a built-in auto focus motor for almost 20 years now – and probably don’t use many screw-drive auto-focus lenses anymore).
Sony LA-E4 A NEX Camera Mount Adapter (Source: Adorama). With its built-in auto-focus motor, it accepts any Minolta/Konica/Sony A lens (with the AF drive shaft), and its Phase detection AF module behind a semi-transparent mirror offered better performance than the contrast detection AF of the early Sony Nex bodies.
Nikon’s now defunct One series (J1 to J5 viewfinder-less cameras and V1 to V3 SLR like models) could accept F mount lenses thanks to an adapter. With the FT1 adapter, auto-focus lenses with a built-in auto-focus motor (AF-S lenses, with or without an aperture ring) are fully supported (all auto-exposure modes, vibration reduction and auto-focus, of course).
Older auto-focus lenses (the AF and AF-D lenses) can be used in all the auto-exposure modes but don’t auto-focus. Lastly, AI and AI-S manual focus lenses will only be usable in Manual or Aperture Priority Auto Exposure modes.
Nikon FT1 adapter (Nikon F to Nikon One lens mount adapter) – the adapter is seen from the front (where the F lens will be mounted). Source: Adorama
My bet is that the new adapter will offer the same functions as the FT1. It will fully support any lens introduced in the market since the last years of the XXth century (AF-S, AF-S G, VR, AF-P), and with reduced capabilities, most of the older lenses.
Will there be a penalty in terms of auto-focus performance for users of AF-S lenses ?
That’s the real question.
First answers on Aug. 23rd…
Update: Aug 24th, 2018
So.. Nikon had a busy day yesterday: they launched a new Z series of bodies with 2 cameras, the Z6 and the Z7, 3 lenses of a new S series, and a F to Z adapter.
Nikon Z7 body with the adapter in place – it’s the only official picture of the adapter seen from the front of the camera. The mechanical actuator operating the aperture is visible on the left, inside the lens mount. Source: Nikon.
In the picture above, the Nikon F to Z adapter looks very similar to the FT1 adapter – no built-in auto-focus motor, no auto-indexing mechanism to support full aperture metering for AI or AI-S lenses, but “a mechanical actuator to operate the aperture on the lens you mount to it” (according to DPREVIEW)
Nikon F to Z adapter – What you see here is the back of the adapter – which will be attached to the Z6/Z7 body. The diameter of the back of the adapter is larger than the front – the new Z mount is definitely huge. (Source: Nikon)
As I expected last week, lenses released during the last 18 years (AF-S, AF-S G, VR, AF-P) are fully supported, and the VR lenses gain 5 axis image stabilization in the process.
Older lenses (AF, AF-D) will not auto-focus but will still access all the auto-exposure modes of the Z bodies. Older manual focus lenses will mount but will have more limited exposure control capabilities.
For more (and in particular an opinion about the auto-focus performance), you can check DPREVIEW’s very interesting first take on the F to Z adapter.
Massada (Israel) – Kodak CN400, Nikon F501 – Nikon E series 35mm f/2.5 lens.
CamerAgX - a new life for old gear 