XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

/

What a handle. Fujifilm have announced their XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR, and they’re getting a little carried away with the initialisms in their product names. We now officially have a new one, one whose purpose has been amended in the marketing materials, and another that’s been updated.

“WR” Weather Resistant

20 points of sealing, but Fuji are once again conservative with their language, and playing it even more safe. Weather Sealed sounds safer to me than Weather Resistant does, but Fuji state their latest lens features a “…dust-proof and weather-resistant design…”. I guess that air ventilator inside the bottom of the lens barrel is what allows them to make the dust proof claim. Does this mean the end of dust inside the the front and rear lens elements? Dust proof sure makes it sound that way. I’m interested to experience the improved feel and smoother operations the air ventilator also provides.

“LM” Linear Motor Technology

Not new technology, but based on the press release, this looks to be responsible for “near silent operation,” and not much else. Previously this feature was noted as being responsible for the 18-55mm’s compact size and fast autofocus. Perhaps the 18-135mm isn’t small enough to warrant the first claim, but I think copywriting may have let them down on the second. Anyhow, I don’t recall ever finding the 18-55mm, or anything other Fuji lens particularly noisy, so it will be interesting to see what kind of difference this newly described tech makes. Likely none.

OIS

Image Stabilization is now up to 5 stops thanks to high-precision gyro sensors with quartz oscillators. Fancy. If Fuji have actually achieved that, it’s an impressive feat. I remember getting excited about a mere 2 stops not that long ago. It makes me wonder what sort of handheld shutter speeds we’ll be able to get out of this lens.

Impressions

I have to admit that I’m not super excited about this lens. Its release has only made me more anxious for Fuji’s forthcoming FUJINON XF 16-55mm f/2.8. The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 starts out pretty slow at the wide end, clocking in at just under ⅔ a stop slower than the XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 at the wide end, and just gets slower from there. About the only thing that excites me about this lens its weather sealing (or resistance), and what its new features should mean for yet to be announced lenses.

If you shoot landscapes in poor conditions, a good strategy might be to buy the 18-135mm now, use it for 6 months until the 16-55mm f/2.8 comes out, and then sell it privately. You’ll lose a little bit on it, but it could be considered an extended rental. It also might be a decent option for those looking for a single, rain-or-shine lens solution. For travel it could easily be the only lens you need provided you aren’t shooting anything that’s moving quickly in poor light.

If you do decide to purchase the FUJINON XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, please consider using one of the links below for your preorder. You won’t pay a cent more, but it helps support the site and keeps me testing. Thanks!

 

Heavy Issues

/

I tend to get a bit obsessive when it comes to weight. I’ll agonize over things like bag purchases because of what material they’re made of and, as a result, how heavy they are. When it comes to tripods, carbon fibre wasn’t a possibility, it was a certainty. I employed the same methods when building a bike and ended up with a ride that goes everywhere with me, lest it get stolen.

Image courtesy of Fujifilm

Image courtesy of Fujifilm

Size and weight are the two main reasons I switched from DSLR to mirrorless, and while Fuji’s clever marketing graphic doesn’t perfectly illustrate the evolution of my gear, it captures the sentiment perfectly for me. I have evolved into a more nimble photographer thanks to “downsizing” my camera system, which also allowed me to downsize other things like my tripod.

The reduction in weight means I’m much more willing to bring my gear with me. I had become a vacation and special events photographer when it came to personal photography with my DSLR. Now I find myself with a camera and shooting much, much more.

Find out how much weight can be saved by going mirrorless in my article, Heavy Issues, Mirrorless vs. DSLR weight.

FujiCloud

/

Now that I’ve had a couple days to consider Apple’s WWDC announcements, I put together some thoughts on how they will, or could, impact us as Fuji photographers. Perhaps the initial response is one of dread, doom, and gloom. Yes, Apple is opening up the iPhone’s camera API to allow for manual control, but as I’ve stated elsewhere on the internet, we are a long, long way from a smartphone becoming my primary camera. I use my iPhone for photography when it’s all I have or for less important images like pictures of prices and dimensions of furniture or images headed directly to one social network or another. Smartphones are perfectly capable of producing great images, but I don’t enjoy using them as a camera, and will always have that nagging feeling that the image could be better if shot with a proper camera.

 
 

The things I think will be interesting for Fuji shooters are Apple’s cloud offerings, and the potential for Fujifilm within their app. With the iCloud Photo Library and iCloud Drive announcements, even more people could switch over to using an iPad as their primary photo management and editing platform, complete with remote backup of all your photos.

Initially this might mean shooting JPEG as iPads and RAFs don’t exactly play well together where editing is concerned.1 Even that might be ok—since switching over to Fujifilm, I’ve been shooting JPEG a lot more—but this is where Fuji needs to step in. What’s stopping them from giving their iOS app the ability to process RAF files the same way their cameras do? In fact, now that I think of it, why doesn’t it already?2 Fuji could also conceivably let users shoot “tethered” wirelessly to an iPhone or iPad. JPEGs get pushed merrily along, complete with GPS coordinates to the Photos app and then to the cloud, RAFs sit in the app waiting to be processed out to JPEGs. RAFs could also be stored on your iCloud Drive,3 or deleted when you’re done editing or your device runs out of space. Making use of extensions, our photos will gain access to VSCO filters via their iOS app which is considerably more affordable than their desktop alternative. That’s just one example of photo-editing.

Even if the idea of using an iPad exclusively doesn’t sound appealling, iCloud Drive offers some great potential features. Go on vacation, shoot for a day, then copy all your photos to your iPad. They’ll be backed up, and waiting for you to edit back home on your Mac.

In short, I hope Fuji have their devs working hard on adding as many iOS 8/Yosemite/iCloud features as possible, as soon as possible. Getting my photos onto my iDevice needs to be even faster and easier than it is now. There are too many hoops to jump through, too much back and forth connecting, reconnecting. I want to open my Fujifilm app, select my camera, and start mucking with images. I want to edit on my devices with real Fujifilm X-Trans demosaicing algorithms and Lens Modulation Optimizers.4 This, in my opinion, is how Fuji will come away from the smartphone camera slaughter as unscathed as possible, and ahead of their competition. By embracing it.

  1. There should be no trouble storing RAF files on your device, and iCloud via Fujifilm’s app. ↩
  2. Manually processing photos in-camera is not fun. ↩
  3. At $3.99/month for 200GB, this is a decent-sized photo library and isn’t a bad price for a remote backup of all of it. Now if only Fuji offered lossless compression of their RAF format. ↩
  4. Not Adobe’s reverse-engineered Camera profiles. ↩

Filters for “Protection”

/

I remember buying my first expensive lens—Nikon’s 18-200 super zoom—like it was yesterday. It was hopelessly out of stock just about everywhere, but I stumbled upon one at “Japan Camera” in my once sleepy local mall, and snapped it up. With that lens mounted in my trusty D70s, I was ready for anything. Soon after, I walked into Henry’s1 to inquire about a Circular Polarizer. The sales-guy asked, “For what lens?” As I proudly swung my camera ’round to show off my new baby, the sales-guy gasped and exclaimed “You’re running that thing ‘naked’?!?”

He totally got me. While I knew I could probably find a “protective UV filter” online for less money, I didn’t want anything to happen to my precious before I got it. The sales-guy hammed it up, carefully placing the LCD-side of my camera on a cloth, took out his Rocket Blower, and gingerly puffed what little dust might have found its way on the front element like he was performing heart surgery. Out I walked with a genuine Hoya Super Duper HMC Deluxe filter with about 8,000 coatings and 99.999967% light transmission or whatever.2

I bet a lot of you reading this have similar stories or have seen sales-people in action, preying upon an unsuspecting lens purchaser with a filter to protect their “investment.”3 I heard the “protective UV filter” line at Exposure just this past weekend and couldn’t help but cringe.

I’ve learned a lot since that filter purchase. First of all, that 18-200 was pretty terrible, optically. Secondly, if I want constant “protection” for my lens, I’ll use the hood, which can improve picture quality, rather than degrade it. For those of you who want to keep your lens as compact as possible and hate the idea of sticking a huge hood on the end of your lens, leave it at home, leave the filter locked up behind the counter, and take some care not to smash the front of your lens into tree trucks.4

Now before you pop open a new tab to search for that example of some dude who dropped their expensive lens and was saved by their $100 filter that smashed into bits, I’ve probably already seen it. Yes, accidents can happen. I myself dropped my Nikon 24mm f/1.4 lens on a hard tile floor, denting the front filter ring. That is not an inexpensive lens, I was careless, and it cost me. The repair was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250. Ouch. It would have been fine if I had the hood on. It might have been fine if I had a filter on, but you know what? I haven’t bought a “filter for protection” for any of lenses I’ve owned since then, and I’ve owned a lot of lenses. There is no doubt that I’ve saved significantly more not buying filters for all those different lenses5 than I’ve spent repairing lenses due to lack of protection.

Of course there are other reasons for attaching a neutral clear filter6 on the front of your lens. Some hate lens caps, preferring a filter in their stead. Others shoot at company parties where cocktail spills are a certainty, not just a slim possibility. Totally understandable, but if you’re not in hazardous conditions and you’re after absolute lens acuity, shed that filter with impunity, never mind dust, get yourself a Rocket Blower, and put your hood on to reduce flare and really protect your lens.

  1. The largest photography chain in Canada. ↩
  2. No matter how good the glass is, at certain angles it will refract light. This is another problem I have with putting a piece of glass that doesn’t alter my image creatively in front of a very expensive lens. If you have to protect your lens, get a hood. ↩
  3. Unless your lens appreciates in value, it isn’t an investment. ↩
  4. See video. ↩
  5. Step-up rings will only cover so many sizes, and having to swap lenses is already a pain. I can’t imagine having to swap filters too. ↩
  6. This is the kind you want, not a UV filter which does nothing for digital cameras outside of degrade picture quality and cost more. I personally like Hoya’s clear filters for anything that’s not neutral density where I go for Breakthrough Photography’s X4 filters.↩

X-T1 Autofocus Speed

/

A disappointing showing from the Fujifilm X-T1 in The Camera Store’s “Great Mirrorless Camera Autofocus Shootout,” in which they pitted the X-T1 against the Sony A6000, Olympus’ OMD E-M1 and the Panasonic GH4.

While Chris Niccols assures us that they they’ve chosen the best glass available on each platform, I don’t think the variable aperture FUJINON XF 55-200mm has any business being in an AF speed challenge of any kind, and I have a feeling Fujifilm would like him to redo this test once their FUJINON XF 50-140mm f/2.8 hits the market. It’s tough to fault The Camera Store for choosing the 55-200mm though, as the only other option for them would have been the “consumer grade” FUJINON XC 50-230mm, which is likely to perform even worse. Still, a disclaimer or two might have been appropriate.

Another thing I think they should have touched on in the video, is that the GH4 has an MSRP that’s just shy of 50% higher than the X-T1 or the E-M1. If I were spending another $600 on top of the X-T1’s price, you better believe I’d be expecting better AF speeds. Then there’s the A6000. At half the price it shouldn’t be able to leave both the X-T1 and the E-M1 in the dust, but that’s exactly what it did. Impressive. The big surprise for me was the E-M1’s poor single point performance. Every time I handle that camera, I almost marvel at how quick it seems to lock on focus.

Most remarkable is that the GH4 apparently held it’s own against the D4S. That is astounding considering you could get every mirrorless body in the comparison for the price of a D4S and pro zoom. Twice.

The key takeaway is that mirrorless cameras have caught up to, and surpassed DSLRs in their price-point. This has to make you wonder what just about any camera manufacturer1 could do with a $3,000+ mirrorless camera body—let alone one that costs $7 grand—and it makes me excited to see what the X-Pro2 will be capable of.

  1. Aside from Sony’s A7r, but that full frame sensor eats up too much of the MSRP to afford much opportunity for blazing AF speeds. ↩

The X-T1 is ready

/

There were a couple of issues that plagued the release of the X-T1. The first that most already know about, was the light leak. The second, slightly less well know is this, the directional pad of buttons (or D-pad) used for menu selection was mushy, somewhat unresponsive, and quite unsatisfying to use.

I want to state early in this post that for any of you who have been reading my thoughts and comparisons of the X-T1, and are concerned about the crummy buttons, you can now safely buy a new X-T1 that has a much better D-pad than those found on the pre-production units, and the the initial run of manufacturing.1 If you’re buying from a store, you can easily tell if you’ve got a good one through the plastic baggy that the camera ships in, so if the dealer is reluctant to crack the Fujifilm sticker-seal, it’s no problem. Just test the buttons through the bag. If the buttons click like this, you’re good. As we know the light leak issue has also been addressed, and clicky buttons also seem to indicate light tightness.

Taking responsibility

Fujifilm came forward pretty quick, acknowledged the light leak, and offered a fix for owners with afflicted cameras. With the D-pad, they have been pretty tight-lipped about the problem. I can only surmise this is because the earliest D-pads, while crappy, do technically work. They’ve also been somewhat cagey about whether or not rumours about X-T1’s going in for service for the light leak, and coming back with a better D-pad are true.2 I’ve heard from at least two other owners that cameras sent in for light leak repair—with the D-pad noted on the bill of service—have come back with the D-pad marked as having “no fault.” This was also my experience. Again, while technically true as the buttons can be considered as not having “fault,” and work as originally designed, the fact remains that manufacturing has been quietly adjusted. X-T1’s are hitting the streets in high quantity with substantially better buttons on their back sides. This isn’t luck of the draw.

The bad news

Unfortunately some early adopters are being left out in the cold. I actually went to the extreme of selling my launch X-T1 privately,3 and buying another. For many, this won’t be worth the loss on the retail price, but it was for me. I can now use my X-T1 without mild feelings of contempt.

The good news

A silent tweak to manufacturing is better than no tweak at all, and that tweak means my biggest, and really only major gripe about the X-T1’s handling has now been addressed.

For those of you still waiting to place your order, now is the time. The more time I spend with this camera, the more I like it, and the more I feel it is the interchangeable Fuji body to own. I’m about to download and install the X-E2 firmware, but I’m confident the X-T1 will still be my primary body, rain or shine.

Fortunately, Fujifilm don’t have a history of releasing X-Series camera bodies with manufacturing issues like these. I don’t think we’re in a “wait and see” position when Fuji release their next camera (yet), but I’m hoping to see better QA with their next release.

  1. I’m not positive, but serial numbers of cameras with the poor D-pad seem to approximately coincide with up to and including the light leak range of serial numbers. Possibly a little beyond. For instance, my X-T1 that suffered both issues was had a starting serial number of 41A05. My new X-T1 is 41A09. My undestanding is ≥41A06 have no light leak. ↩
  2. The official response I got was “Our technicians check all aspects of the camera.” ↩
  3. For the record, I noted in my listing that it was a launch unit with a poor D-pad. Fortunately I was at least able to say it had no light leak. ↩

On Adobe, and Lightroom for iPad

/

Today marked the release of Lightroom 5.4 which delivers the long awaited Fujifilm X-T1 support, and Film Simulation Modes for RAFs via the Camera Calibration panel. Awesome stuff. I plan to throughly analyze their profiles and compare them with their in-camera counterparts as soon as possible.

Today also marked Adobe’s announcement (or confirmation) that Lightroom will be available on the iPad for Creative Cloud subscribers only. This comes as little surprise, and yet I can’t help wondering what the hell they are thinking. It seems to me they are leaving money and users on the table by choosing (or sticking with) a pricing model they hope will encourage Creative Cloud subscriptions.

At the end of 2013, Adobe announced 1.4 million subscribers to Creative Cloud. That’s 1.4 million + people who will get Lightroom for iPad “for free.”1 Maybe Lightroom on iPad will keep some of those subscribers loyal,2 maybe some people will begrudgingly subscribe in order to get it.3 I won’t, and I think they’ve passed up an app pricing structure that would make them more money, make their customers happier, and be more future-proof. I’ve been pondering this morning about what that might be. One idea involves the dreaded in-app purchase (IAP).

“This app offers in-app purchases”

It’s not uncommon for top-tier apps on iPad to sell for $19.99. Twenty bucks is a fair price for an app like Lightroom, but that could be cut down to $15, $10, or even $0 because camera and lens profiles would cost anywhere from $1 - $5 each.

Done.

Things could be kept simple ($5/camera, $1/lens), but there’s tremendous flexibility in this pricing structure too. “Consumer” gear could be less expensive, “Pro” gear more expensive. Exotics or lenses with complex distortion correction profiles could also command a premium.

How many Creative Cloud subscriptions does Adobe realistically hope to gain making Lightroom for iPad subscription-only? Compare that number with how many photographers would happily shell out for Lightroom as a standalone application while being able to purchase camera and lens profiles as they see fit? I’d have happily paid Adobe $5 for the Film Simulation Modes they released for Fujifilm cameras today. Don’t want or need ’em? Then you’ve got the built-in Adobe profile already. The nice thing about Fujifilm is those same profiles would work across every camera that shares the X-Trans sensor, but let’s get back to Adobe for this post.

This model gives customers the freedom to purchase what they want, and more importantly what they actually need, something Creative Cloud fails at miserably. It’s also self-sustaining since we photographers can be a fickle bunch, generally speaking, many of us collect lenses, and we love our upgrades. Maybe Adobe would only ever get $7 less Apple’s cut from some photographers, but 70% of $7 is better than 100% of nothing.

I’d upgrade to a 128GB iPad just to have this imaginary version of Lightroom with me when I go on vacation. It would be an immediate backup of my photos to the iPad I’d have with me anyway, and I could start the selecting, rejecting, and editing process while still on vacation or on the flight home. I could see a lot of photographers doing the same for jobs.

What about Lightroom for the desktop?

Maybe it’s time the desktop version moves to a pricing structure like this one too with a reduced core applicaiton price. I’m personally not a fan having 100’s of MB of profiles I don’t need on my computer, and if DxO can implement a decent profile download system, Adobe sure can. We’d just have to hope they wouldn’t build it in Flash.

Of course the pay once and get everything model we’ve enjoyed to date with the desktop version of Lightroom would be ideal, but I’m trying to see this somewhat from Adobe’s side, and acknowledge that additional and recurring revenue might be a necessity.

The future of photography?

Perhaps most importantly of all, it protects Adobe from a potentially huge threat from Apple. Not strictly from Aperture, but from the iPhone. With any luck, Aperture for iPad is on its way. Maybe it will be announced alongside the iPhone 6 which presumably will feature an even better built-in camera. Now consider the iPhone 6 (or even a simple iOS update) allows owners to capture and manipulate RAW data with immediate support for it via the newly released Aperture. Given Apple’s track record these days, Aperture would be free. Now you’ve got the most popular camera on the planet’s RAW files editable via Apple’s competitively-priced one-time fee (or free) iPad app, and Adobe’s subscription-only app, once they get around to supporting the iPhone’s RAW files. Or, Adobe could just sell the iPhone profile for $2 to a ton of “iPhoneographers” who want to keep using Lightroom on the desktop.4

Apple isn’t known to add complexity the way adding RAW support certainly would. However, they are heavily focused on the photography market in general, and it seems there should be a very easy way to make RAW data available to users who want it via Aperture for iOS and the Mac, while keeping those who aren’t interested blissfully unaware. If photography continues to be an area Apple hopes to dominate, RAW support of some kind ought to be in their future. Just imagine all those VSCO presets being applied to sensor data rather than JPEGs.

Conclusion

I can’t be totally sure the pricing structure I outlined above would work, or if it would ultimately even be profitable after the content delivery system is in place. It’s really just musing with some griping for good measure. What I do know is Adobe’s actions are getting frustrating, and are starting to reek of hubris. I’m curious what it would take for them to wake up. Extraordinary apps like Pixelmator are already putting a dent in the once invincible Photoshop. If I wasn’t so deeply entrenched in the industry I am (advertising, marketing, etc.), I’d have dumped Photoshop for Pixelmator already.

Adobe’s apps have become uncontrollably bloated and hopelessly inconsistent. Lightroom was widely regarded as they only app they were still “getting right.” I think that sentiment will change with photographers to some degree today, and that’s a shame.

  1. Anyone who believes this needs to reassess their definition of “free.” ↩
  2. I doubt this number is very high. Most people who subscribe do so out of necessity. ↩
  3. This number is probably even lower. ↩
  4. Or on Windows for that matter. ↩

“Why full frame?”

/

My last post has generated some great feedback, and questions about whether or not I want Fujifilm to produce a full frame camera, and why. I started responding to these questions in the arena in which they were asked, but the length of my response quickly got into blog post territory so here we are.

“Do you want Fujifilm to produce a full frame camera?”

I sort of alluded to this in my previous post, but for clarity, my position on full frame is I don’t think it is necessary (yet), but I wouldn’t be disappointed if they did. Again, this is because I believe the current lineup of XF lenses is already (or soon will be) very complete. I don’t think we are missing much in the prime world now that the 56mm f/1.2 has been released. The “high speed wide angle prime” will be gravy. We still need a line of pro/weather sealed zooms. Happily, they’re on their way.

“For what purpose?”

This is a more interesting question to answer, and the differences may seem minor. It’s sort of *“last 10%”* sort of thing. There is a real difference in what f-stops mean on APS-C sensors as it relates to depth of field, but beyond that, the added light-gathering of a full frame X-Trans would be phenomenal, and I suspect dynamic range would also improve.

When I made the move from my Nikon D300 to the D700, the difference was huge. APS-C sensors have improved dramatically since then, but so have full frame sensors. Just imagine what Fujifilm’s noise reduction algorithms could do on 24 megapixel full frame sensor.

Full frame = bigger

If the X-Pro2 does go full frame, I expect it will stay within the same size as the current X-Pro1 (which is smaller than Sony’s A7), with a few modifications to bring it in line with the X-T1.2 Physics dictates that lens sizes may need to increase, but if you look at the size of previous lens generations from Nikon (AI-S, AF-D) or even Leica and Voigtländer, it quickly becomes apparent that much more compact full frame lens designs are possible.3 Who knows what sort of engineering trickery Fujifilm Japan have up their collective sleeves.

A second lens line up?

If they did release a full frame line of cameras, then yes, I would expect a full line of full frame lenses. Canon and Nikon have been trying to execute that plan for years with varying degrees of success so why not Fujifilm? Remember, digital started with cropped sensors and full frame lenses, and it stayed that way for years before the full frame sensor came out. In fact, Nikon still hasn’t had a full frame digital camera available for longer than it only had an APS-C camera available. If anything, Fujifilm at least have the order right.

Conclusion

My previous post wasn’t meant to outline what I want or what my expectations are. It was largely idle speculation, what I think could happen based on what we’ve already seen Fujifilm achieve—a complete camera system in about 3 years.

I don’t quite understand why some people are up in arms about this though. APS-C-sized cameras aren’t going anywhere. Fujifilm will no doubt continue to iterate on them, and will almost certainly keep releasing firmware updates for them. The torrent of new lenses may slow to a trickle, but once again, I don’t think that’s a problem. I would much prefer to see Fujifilm continue to innovate and push boundaries rather than slow down and start resting on their laurels. If they do decide to stun us with an impossibly small full frame camera system that we can decide to buy (or not), how is that a bad thing? Either way, I’m looking forward to their next big announcement.

  1. More on that in another post. ↩
  2. I fully acknowledge those lenses are manual focus only and/or are driven by the camera so they don’t have the circuitry found within Fujifilm’s lenses. All this demonstrates is more compact lenses then say the latest generation of primes from Nikon is possible. ↩