Mirrorless wins! Again.

In my last post I was travelling to Christchurch to choose a new camera. For most of the post I discussed leaving the Fujifilm mirrorless system, and possibly moving back to the Nikon DSLR system. I had my eye on a couple of Nikon D7000s, as well as a possible Nikon D610 full frame. And then, at the end of the post, I made a throw-away comment regarding an Olympus E-M1.

Turns out it wasn't such a throw-away comment after all. When I got to the store in Christchurch (shout out to Greg and the team at Photo & Video) on Monday morning, the weekend had seen a run on their secondhand Nikon gear. Both D7000's were gone! Just as well I did have a plan 'B'.

And actually, the more I had thought about it over the weekend, the more I had come to the conclusion that my plan 'B' was really my plan 'A'. So when I arrived in store and was told that both the Nikon's were gone, I was actually relieved. The decision had quite clearly already been made for me 😄

Helping Hands. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm. f6.3 @ 1/250th, ISO 200

My positive impressions of the micro four thirds system had been rekindled with my recent testing of camera sensors (see last post here). Having looked back over a lot of landscape images from the last few years, I was impressed with how good the photos taken with my E-M1 looked compared to other (larger) imaging systems. Turns out that for what I use my images for, micro four thirds quality is plenty good enough. And that's not damning with faint praise.

Above is the first image I took on my 'new' E-M1. And it's sharp. Super sharp. Sharper, I believe, than the files from my X-E2 would have been. Maybe that has something to do with the extra depth of field you get from the smaller sensor - where f6.3 is really more like f13 in full-frame. But I also think that the actual pixel-level detail is clearer and sharper than what I was getting from the Fujifilm X-Trans II sensor. The E-M1 files just look 'crispier'? Not 'overly' digital at all, but certainly less 'smeary' than the  images I was getting out of the X-E2.

Gnarly Tree, Botanic Gardens. Olympus E-M1 with Panasonic 14-150mm. f5.6 @ 1/60th, ISO 200 

I used the Olympus micro four thirds system for about two years - probably about two years ago - first with the OM-D E-M5 Mk2, and then with the E-M1. So I'm fairly familiar with the layout and how they work. Many complain about the Olympus menu system being difficult to navigate, but I don't find that at all. I'd call it 'dense' rather than difficult. But even I will admit to now having to go through a fairly steep 're'-learning curve on the E-M1.

Fortunately, every button and dial on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 can be re-programmed and configured to work exactly how you would like it to. This is great, but is also where some of the confusion with the menu system comes into play. But if you are methodical, take your time, and set things up exactly how you like, then the E-M1 becomes an intuitive joy to use.

Christchurch Rose Garden. E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm. f6.3 @ 1/125th, ISO 200

My previous E-M1 was an all-black body, whereas this 'new' one is the more retro-looking silver and black version - which I actually prefer. The camera store did also have an all-black version, for a cheaper price, but it had done twice as many shutter actuation's (42k as opposed to 20k) and certainly looked the worse for wear. So I opted for the slightly more expensive silver-black version, and I'm glad I did.

To my surprise, and great delight, they also happened to have an HLD-7 grip secondhand. It wasn't showing on their website, so I thought I was going to have to fork out for a brand new one - at more than three times the price! But there it was, sitting on the shelf, ready and waiting for me 😊

I've written quite a lot over the years about my struggles with changing to mirrorless - mainly due to the smaller sizes. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to carry around smaller, and lighter gear. But even though I'm not a big guy and don't have large hands, there quickly becomes a point for me where the cameras are too small, and buttons and dials become too fiddly! The Olympus OM-D E-M1, without the grip, is ok. But, with the grip attached, it's perfect as far as I'm concerned. Just the right amount of weight, heft and button/dial sizing.

Some might even say that it's getting a bit too big for a mirrorless system camera? But not me. I'm quite happy to add some weight to the camera body itself, since the lenses are where most of the weight-saving occurs anyway. The Panasonic 45-150mm lens I purchased with the E-M1 body is tiny! It's an ultra lightweight and ultra compact (90-300mm f4/5.6 equivalent) lens with optical image stabilisation included (although the E-M1 reverts to its own superior in-body stabilisation instead). Its overall length is only 73mm and it weighs in at a tiny 200 grams. That's just crazy talk for a 90-300mm, even at f4 to f5.6!

Hansen Park, Christchurch. E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm. f5.6 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

When I knew that I was going to replace my Fujifilm X-E2, I sat down and made a list of all of the 'features' I wanted in a camera. Since I mostly enjoy going out and shooting landscapes, I wanted a camera that was suited to this kind of photography. But it also had to be 'general' enough to shoot whatever else I might need to cover - from family snaps to the occasional sporting event.

I thought that the Nikon D7000 fit the bill perfectly - since it's weather-sealed, has a good 16MP sensor, high frame-rate, uses SD cards (dual card slots), and has a live-view function. But then I read more about the appalling implementation of live-view on Nikon's mid-range bodies and I started having serious doubts. You can't, for example, change the aperture value when shooting with live-view enabled! Seriously!!? You don't get a histogram on the back of the screen when you have live-view enabled. AND, what's even worse, you can't see the change in exposure on the screen in real-time with live-view enabled! WHAT!!!???? What's the point of even having live-view if that's the case? These features are available on all other cameras with live-view, at any price point. But Nikon reserves these 'special' features for their top-of-the-line (read expensive) DLSR camera bodies! Bugger that Nikon!

Who you looking at? Olympus E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm.

Fortunately, the Nikon D7000 isn't the only camera with all the features I'm after. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 also has 16MP, a weather-sealed body, high frame rates, used SD cards (only one slot though), and has excellent live-view functionality - as well as a tilt screen for helping with ease of viewing on a tripod. A tilt-screen isn't a feature I would have considered a 'must-have' even a few years ago. But the older I get, the more I appreciate any compositional aid that will help me shoot more easily from tricky camera angles. In fact, a flippy-out screen like the one on the E-M1 Mk3 (and many Canon's) would be even better! But I'll certainly make do with the tilt-screen on the E-M1 in the meantime.

Red Rose. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm. f5.6 @ 1/25th, ISO 200

The images in this blogpost are some of the first taken with my new E-M1 setup with the Panasonic 45-150mm lens. To say that I'm happy with them would be an understatement. I'm more than happy. They are clear, crisp and sharp in a way that I honestly don't think that the files from my X-E2 were.

So yes, I think I've very much made the right decision switching (back) to micro four thirds. The E-M1 is an incredible camera, and a delight to use. I am enjoying reacquainting myself with it and am very much looking forward to taking it out on its first landscape shoot. I'm hoping that will be this very weekend....

Alas dear Fuji, I knew you well.

It's been a while since I posted on nzdigital (about three months), but I haven't been quiet during that time - anything but. I've been posting, instead, on my 'other' blog; The Fuji X-Files. It made sense, since I had invested heavily into the Fuji mirrorless system with the X-E2, and had a Fuji-centric blog waiting and ready to go.

And I enjoyed the Fujifilm X-E2, I really did. Well, at least I thought I did - until recently. Let me explain...

Lake Kaniere. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f11 @ 1/80th, ISO 200.

A few weeks ago I decided to film a video for my Youtube channel, comparing images taken with a full frame, APS-C and micro four thirds camera. I just happened to have all three sensor sizes together at one time, and thought it might make for an interesting video? And it certainly was interesting, and enlightening, but not quite in the way I had envisaged it would be. 

I went into the 'experiment' with a fairly clear idea of what I thought the outcome would be (not very scientific, I know), since I've shot on all three sensors over the years and know that they can all perform fantastically. All can produce clean, clear and sharp (more on that soon) images - at least at the sizes I need to print or display my work at. I took all the images at the same focal length, with the same effective aperture, and all in RAW so I could get the very best out of each sensor.

The three cameras I tested were the 24MP full frame Sony a99, my 16MP Fujifilm APS-C X-E2, and my son's Olympus OM-D E-M5 16MP micro four thirds. Above is the edited RAW images, with a 100% crop from the extreme left edge of the frame, from each camera. The full frame 24MP image has the edge in sharpness and clarity - of course it does. But having said that, the Olympus E-M5 micro four thirds image gives an impressive performance - with the very cheap 14-45mm kit lens no less - and isn't that far behind. But what shocked, surprised, and upset me, was how poor the Fujifilm X-E2 result was! It might not be quite as obvious from the images here on the web, but compared to the Sony and Olympus, the X-E2's 100% crop from the left edge is horrible! Soft, mushy and just plain horrible! Bugger 😞

On closer inspection, it looks as if the Fujinon XC16-50mm kit lens that I've been using has a slightly de-focused left side of the image, since the right side edge was indeed sharper. So chalk that up to a lens issue and move on. Whew!

Things will surely get better if we look at the central portion of the image - all shot at an f11 effective aperture, all on a tripod. Well, hang on there Bucky. Not so fast. Once again, it might be hard to tell from these web images, but - once again, the Sony and Olympus look very sharp, while the Fujifilm X-E2... not so much.

This time the result is not so much blurry, as just every so slightly 'mushy'? Detail just isn't as distinct and 'crisp' on the Fuji as in the Sony and Olympus images. On-screen, they all look fine. Sharp and clear enough. But pixel-peep at 100% and the Fujifilm X-trans sensor is definitely more 'mushy' in rendering detail. If I was being kind (hey, I'm trying), I'd say it produces a more 'painterly' image - maybe more filmic, than the other two? Great if that's the look you're going for.

Now normally I'm not a pixel-peeper. Really, I'm not. And I'm also not someone who has to have the 'cleanest' image possible with zero noise/grain present. In fact, with the Fujifilm cameras, I'm actually purposefully going the other way and introducing grain into the image. I like the fact that they can produce very film-looking images straight out of camera - when I want that look. But I'm also not the first to have noticed a general 'softness' with Fuji RAW files that aren't there with other systems.

This image softness has mostly been attributed to Adobe Lightroom's handling of the Fujifilm RAF files (yes, I'm using Lightroom). It's a common, and oft discussed issue, with a couple of work-arounds.

First, third-party plug-ins can take over the RAW development engine inside of Lightroom to process the RAF files. This is the 'fix' preferred by those who wish to stay within the Adobe ecosystem.

Second, ditch Lightroom all together and move to Capture One for processing RAF files in the future. Capture One has worked closely with Fujifilm, and are known to have a much superior RAW processing engine for RAF files than Lightroom. People have reported much sharper images processing in Capture One than Lightroom. So fortunately, there is a fix.

Having said all that, I'm not laying the blame only at the foot of Adobe. I have to at least consider that the lens has something (a lot) to do with IQ and sharpness. I've been shooting the X-E2 mostly in jpeg, and letting the camera process the image. If you do this, then a lot of the inherent lens issues will be 'minimised' by the processing software. So that what you get out of camera should be fairly sharp, corrected images. Not so with RAW. The RAF's are unadulterated data - warts and all - and it seems that maybe the XC16-50mm has quite a few warts?

So, having established this, I made two decisions immediately. One - get a new lens, and two - start processing RAF files in Capture One.

And that's exactly what I did. I purchased the 23mm f2 prime (35mm equivalent fov) and downloaded Capture One Pro for Fujifilm (which just happened to be on special). Problem solved - right?

Well actually, no. On the lens front, I'm sure that I am getting sharper results with the 23mm prime than I was with the XC16-5mm kit lens. No doubt. It's a lovely little lens, and a joy to use.

But, when I went back and re-processed the RAF file in Capture One, I got the exact same result as I had when I used Lightroom. The Fuji file still looked 'painterly' rather than crisp and sharp. Bugger (again) 😢

After that, it was a bit like one of those inkblot tests. Once I had seen it, I couldn't 'un' see it. I started going through my back catalog of images and looking at photos at 100% (I really am NOT a pixel peeper!). If I clicked on an image at random, then I could almost always tell if it had come from the Fuji because of the painterly pixel structure. If I clicked on an image, enlarged it, and thought "great, that looks better" then it was invariably from another camera sensor (usually a Nikon). And once I started playing the 'spot the Fuji fuzziness" game, then that was really the beginning of the end for me and Fuji.

Motukiekie Beach. Fujifilm X-E2 with Fujinon XC16-50mm

I've had a lot of fun using the Fujifilm X-E2, and made a lot of amazing images with it. It's been another piece of my mirrorless journey puzzle, and shown me that I can get along with smaller cameras. But it's also been a bit of a struggle, I'm not gonna lie. The X-Trans sensor is a unique beast, and many struggle to tame it satisfactorily. It's especially difficult if you're an otherwise satisfied Lightroom user. 

Shooting jpegs and using images SOOC (straight out of camera) is a serious option to consider with Fujifilm - their film profiles are really that good. And boy, have I had a lot of fun (and wasted a lot of time) with custom film profiles. The combinations are almost endless. Which again, unfortunately, presents something of a problem. I've programmed, changed, and reprogrammed the custom film settings on the X-E2 dozens of times - tweaking, reshooting, tweaking and reshooting again - only to end up changing them all later anyway. They are fun, but for me they've also been time-wasters, and something else for me to obsess about with my photography (me, obsessive? never!?).

So I've decided - for better or worse - to move on from Fujifilm (what a shock). I've used it for about a year now, which is fairly good going for me and a camera system historically 😕 I haven't really been a one-camera-one-system guy for years now. Variety is, as they say, the spice of life.

There is, however, one love that I have returned to time after time. And I think she is calling me again... 

I'm pretty sure I was using a Nikon before I switched to Olympus, and I know I was using a Nikon D300 before switching to the Fujifilm X-E2. My first digital 'love' was the Nikon D70, tearing me away from my 20 year affair with Canon. Nikon has been the stable home in my system-swapping career, and I hear her calling me again... 

I've also thoroughly documented my struggle (love and hate relationship) with 'going' mirrorless, since I'm still convinced (as are many) that mirorrless is the future of photography. But... having grown up using SLR style cameras, the DSLR has a strong emotional, and physical, attachment to me. As soon as I pick up a solid, hefty, magnesium alloy DLSR body, it feels like coming home. They just feel so 'right'. So wonderfully good in the hand. And try as I might - and I have tried - mirrorless cameras, with all their bells and whistles, just do not feel as good to hold and use. This is a hugely underrated part of enjoying photography. How does the camera 'feel' in you hands. Does it make you want to pick it up and use it for long periods of time? For me, Nikon's just do.

Of course all of this would be moot if money was no object. It would, of course, present a whole new raft of problems - but if money was no object, then I would definitely be buying a mirrorless camera. But not a tiny wee thing like a Fujifilm XT30 or Olympus E-M10III - something solid like an Olympus EM1x or Fujifilm XT4 with grip attached. Actually, what I think I would do is wait for the new Nikon Z9. I think that's going to be a stellar camera for Nikon. But alas, I haven't won lotto (that I'm aware of anyway), so budget is, as always, a major factor.

I'm going to Christchurch this weekend (as I write this). I've sold my Fuji gear already, have a few other bits and pieces to sell, and with the money I am going to buy another camera and lens(s). I don't know exactly what I will get, but at the moment I'm thinking it will be a Nikon DLSR. Something like the D7000 pictured above. Or maybe, if my budget can stretch and I can be convinced that its sensor is clean, a full-frame Nikon D600? It will all depend on what the store has in its secondhand department at the time.

Then again, there's a very nice black and silver Olympus OM-D E-M1 for sale as well. And, as we all know, the future is mirrorless! 

Getting 'retro' with Digital - the Olympus Evolt E-300

Generally speaking I'm not one of those photographers who worries about the megapixel rating of a camera. I don't feel the need to shoot at 50, 40 or even 20 megapixels to take a 'good' image. Great photos have nothing to do with megapixels. I'll say that again in case you missed it - great photos have NOTHING to do with megapixels.

I have, from time to time, been known to take out a 6MP Nikon D70 and take photos with it. And despite its 'limitations' (tiny, low-res lcd screen ) I still really enjoy shooting with it. You can get some cracking images out of it. I even posted a video about my experiences with it on my Youtube channel here.

And why not? The D70 didn't stop being a camera when it was 'replaced' by the D80, or the D90 etc... Ok, 6MP won't let you print billboards, but it will let you print up to A3. And who but a handful are printing anything nowadays anyway?

Which leads me, I guess, to the subject of this post - the Olympus Evolt E-300. Which was also released the same year as the Nikon D70 (2004), and which also didn't stop being a camera when the newer E-330 was released  a couple of years later.

But why am I posting about it now - you ask? Well, I've only gone and bought one, haven't I! And why would you do that - you ask (again). That's a very good question, and I'm still trying to figure that out I suppose. But I have a few ideas....

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, it was darn cheap. I mean throw-away cheap. Of course there are a few reasons for that. A) its age - yes, it's an old camera from 2004 - practically a dinosaur technologically speaking (although you already know what I feel about that line of reasoning). We live in such a consumer-driven throw-away society, that any technology older than a few years is seen very quickly as redundant and un-useable. Which makes some of these old digital cameras a complete bargain. Ironically, they are even cheaper than old film cameras. But, of course, old technology does come with a few risks. That leads me nicely into point B) its condition. It's not in a good state. In fact giving it the term 'beater-camera' might be doing it a favour? So buying it as-is was a bit of a gamble. It may not even work at all? The seller made no promises - but did say that it was powering on when the battery was charged. So that's something I guess?

As you can see from the photos, which are of the actual camera I've purchased, it has had a pretty hard life by the looks. As seen above, the CF card door looks busted and held together by tape, and general overall condition is poor. I'm hoping that it's only cosmetic, and I won't mind using tape to keep the CF card door closed if I have to.

Actually what concerns me the most is the lens. It comes with the standard 14-45mm f3.5/5.6 kit lens, but there's something very wrong with it in the pictures supplied for the auction. For a start, it's on upside down! And it also appears to have some sort of adapter between it and the camera body? The guy selling it 'seems' to not know much about cameras. He's being very vague anyway - which also may not be a great sign. But, once again, I'm hoping that it's all purely cosmetic, and a functional camera will arrive in the post. Wishful thinking? I hope not.

So why did I but it then? I guess GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) had something to do with it. I just like buying and trying cameras. Despite all my reservations with the condition, auction images and seller, ultimately I suppose I smelled a bargain, and it was too good to refuse. Which takes me back to my original point - it was cheap. So even if it turns up DOA, I'm not really in it for much and can chalk it up to experience. But if it actually works...

Second reason I decided to get the Olympus E-300 is simple - I've always wanted one. I remember vividly when they first came out, and I wanted one then. Some reviewers at the time called the camera ugly, and it's certainly unconventional. But I like the look of it. I also like the fact that it's different from most other DSLR's - both then and now. I guess it reminds me a little of my Fuji X-E2, with its rectangular shape and viewfinder off to the left-hand side. And although it might look like a rangefinder styled mirrorless camera, it's certainly not.

The Evolt E-300 uses a rather unique mirror system instead of a pentaprism to create the view through the optical viewfinder. Olympus called it an Optical Porro Finder, and its sideways swinging mirror lends to the camera's flat-top profile. Instead of the image from the lens being directed upwards to the viewfinder prism it is directed rightwards and then up to the viewfinder which is offset from the lens axis. A similar system was used by Olympus in their Pen series of film cameras. To my knowledge, the Olympus E-300 and E-330 are the only DSLR's to ever use this unique mirror design (I could be wrong), so that alone makes me want to try the camera out. Some may think it's ugly. I actually think it's kinda cool looking. And it looks positively bad-ass with the optional grip attached!

It has an 8MP 4/3rds sensor from Kodak, and was the second DSLR Olympus released using the 4/3rds sensor mount (the original 4/3rds, not micro 4/3rds). ISO's go from 100 to 400, with a boost up to 1600 which isn't advisable. It has no IS - that came a little later. And there's also no live-view, but I'm not bothered by that. The lcd on the back is only 1.8" and low-res, so wouldn't be much good for live view anyway. It does have a silent-wave sensor cleaning system. shutter speeds up to 1/4000th, and a +/-5 EV exposure compensation range! It shoots in RAW, RAW+Jpeg, and Tiff - although I'll probably try to get the best out of the sensor by processing the RAW file.

The seller online described the camera as a 'project' for somebody, and that's exactly how I'm viewing it. I'll clean it up, hopefully get it to work, and then take it out and see what kind of images I can make with it. IF it's a working unit, and IF I enjoy using it, then it may just be the start of my journey into 4/3rds? Zuiko glass is top quality, and apparently some of the 4/3rds lenses are right up there with Canon 'L' series at a fraction of the price. I'm not put off by a 4/3rds sensor, just as I wasn't put off by micro four thirds. At the end of the day, they are all just tools you can use to create your own vision. I just hope that this tool actually works!?

=================================================================

UPDATE

The camera arrived not longer after publishing this post - and nope - it didn't work! DOA 😱😠

Oh well, you win some, and you loose some....

Using Fujifilm's PC AutoSave function

There's not a lot I don't like about my Fujifilm X-E2. The size, weight, form factor, ergonomics and IQ are all fantastic, and I adore the range-finderesque style of shooting (which is a complete surprise to me).

There are, however, a couple of features (or lack of in one case) that I am not all that crazy about. First, which I wrote about last post, is the X-E2's inability to set individual white balance shifts for each custom film setting. To be fair, this isn't just an X-E2 issue, and was only recently fixed with the X-Pro 3 and X100V. Still, I wish the X-E2 had this ability.

Second, due to its X-Trans II sensor, the X-E2 doesn't have the Acros film simulation, and nor does it have any Grain setting for the film recipes. If I am going to stick to shooting in Jpeg-only going forwards (which remains to be seen), these are two settings I would dearly love to have. As much as I adore the X-E2 in most other respects, these omissions have me seriously considering upgrading to the X-E3.

And third, I'm not a huge fan of the positioning of the SD card underneath the camera right next to the battery. For a couple of reasons. Primarily, it's fiddly to get the card out with the battery in place, and even worse if the extra grip is attached. Fuji's own accessory grip for the X-E2 covers the battery compartment completely and so needs to be removed every time you need to change battery or SD card. I also have a third party grip which is better, in that it does have a cut-out so the door can be opened without complete removal of the grip. However, it makes the hole quite a bit deeper and therefore even more difficult to get you fingers in to eject the card. Sigh...

While not much can be done to fix my first two gripes (other than an upgrade to the X-E3 or X-Pro 3... yes please), my final issue does actually have a work-around - especially if you're shooting jpeg-only. It's a brilliant solution called PC AutoSave, and basically uses your home wi-fi connection to transfer all the images from the card to your computer wirelessly.

I recall a couple of years ago investigating whether this could be done on my Olympus OM-D EM5 MkII. I think that I had seen on some promotional material at the time that this feature was available on the Fuji's - so I presumed that since the E-M5 MkII had wi-fi connectivity, that it could do it as well. But alas, it couldn't. I actually wrote about my frustration with this at the time here.

In the ensuing couple of years, I'd obviously forgotten about this feature on the Fuji system (I'm getting old), and haven't been utilising it at all. Something (don't ask me what) jogged my memory the other day when I had returned from a quick shoot with the X-E2 at the Cobden Lagoon (see last post). As I was preparing to fight yet again with the camera to give up its SD card I suddenly thought "Hang on a minute. Can't you download these images over wi-fi?" And the answer is 'yes', you can.

It's pretty strtaight-forward as well (thanks Fujifilm). Just download the Fujifilm PC AutoSave App on your PC or laptop, open the software on the computer, and follow the prompts. You will first have to set your camera up to 'Save to PC' in its wi-fi settings, and then connect the camera to your home wi-fi network. But once you've achieved these simple tasks (the software walks you through the process) the rest is plain sailing. Point the software to the folder you want to use as the 'download' folder, hit enter when the camera asks you if you want to transfer the files to your PC, and bingo - away it goes. Brilliant!

Honestly, this is the answer to all my prayers (in-so-far as the SD card issues are concerned). With wireless transfer of images to my computer, I need never take the 64GB SD card out of the camera ever again! And you only have to go through the (relatively painless) rigmarole of setting it up once. Next time you come back from shooting, set the camera to 'Image Preview' mode, press the wi-fi button, and the camera should pair up to the computer automatically.

It's a great system for someone shooting Jpeg-only, with 'relatively' small file sizes. I'd imagine that if you were shooting RAW + Jpeg and came back from a wedding with a full 64GB card (or two), then it might take quite some time to transfer them all over wi-fi. In that scnario, perhaps the old-fashion card reader might still be the better option? But for one or two hundred Jpegs transferred over wi-fi, the wait time isn't too horrendous.

Fortunately, after file transfer is complete, the camera disables the wi-fi connection automatically. You should, however, make sure that you have a reasonably full battery in the camera during image downloading, since the camera - not surprisingly - needs to be 'on' during the process.

This all may be old-hat to many of you who have been using Fuji cameras fro a while. But for me, it's been almost revolutionary! I've never been able to do this with any other camera that I've owned - although I wanted to with the Olympus's and couldn't understand why they didn't.

If, like me, you've been fiddling about getting the SD cards out of the slot next to the battery chamber, then fiddle no more! Download Fujifilm's PC AutoSave app and enjoy the liberating experience of wireless image transfer! What a relief.

Jpeg-only week one with Velvia Film simulation

It's my first week of shooting in Jpeg-only with custom film simulations on my Fujifilm X-E2, and I've already completely rearranged my recipes!

Cobden Lagoon, early evening. X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/20th, ISO 3200. Velvia recipe

In my last post I explained how I've set up the seven custom slots to allow for white balance adjustments for each film recipe. This relies on heavy use of similar film stocks that use the same WB channel adjustments. Mostly, this meant using Kodak film recipes. But when I took a series of test images (again, see last post), I came away feeling that there wasn't enough variance in the final results. All the images looked a bit too similar. 

So, I decided to start from scratch, and have now programmed in a whole new set of recipes that are hopefully going to give me a bit more variance between 'looks'. I've kept the first two film simulations from my previous set (Kodak Ektachrome 100SW and Fuji Acros), and have added Agfa Optima 200, Agfa Scala, Fuji Velvia, Ilford HP5 and Kodak Gold 200. I feel a lot better about this set of recipes - it feels a bit more 'democratic'. Two Kodak, two Fuji, two Agfa and one Ilford. Sounds pretty good to me.

Cabbage tree and tussock. f/8 @ 1/30th, ISO 3200

I've been itching to get out and start shooting (always a good sign), and got my wish this week after work. We've been having some lovely sunsets here recently (it's mid winter), and driving home from work I could see that the sky was starting to colour up nicely.

However, the sun also sets pretty quickly this time of year, so you need to be at the right place at the right time or you'll miss the light. 

There is a lagoon walk not far from where we live, so my wife and I headed off from home towards the lagoon, hoping that the light would last - and colour up enough to get some decent images. 

I took my Fujifilm X-E2 with Fujinon 16-50mm XC lens, the 50-230mm XC and a spare battery. I don't carry a tripod when we go out walking in the evening. My wife is happy for me to wander around with the camera, but if I started setting the tripod up every 5 minutes I think that her good nature would be sorely tested. So I grab anything I can hand-held, and don't mind cranking the ISO up if I have to.

In fact, all of my film recipes use 'Auto' ISO - with the colour stocks topping out at 3200, while the B&W simulations get cranked up to 6400 if necessary. If it's a toss-up between camera shake at low ISO's, or getting the shot with some 'noise' (grain) at high ISO's, I'll get the shot with noise every time.

Most of the photos I took while on the walk were captured at ISO 3200. And while there certainly is some 'noise' if you zoom into the image, I certainly don't find it objectionable. I understand that noise is a subjective thing. Some want as clean an image as possible at ISO 250,000 - whereas others (like me) don't mind a bit of noise in an image.

Cobden Lagoon blush. X-E2 with 16-50mm XC. f/8 @ 1/20th, ISO 3200. Velvia recipe

If I was blowing the images up super-large for printing then it might be a different case. In that scenario I would use a tripod and lower my ISO as much as possible. But these are just 'test' images to start to get a feel for the particular film recipes, so they were only going to be for the web or social media anyway.

With the sky starting to 'pink-up', I knew I wanted to shoot with a recipe that gave me the richest possible colour. So I set my custom slot to C5 - Fuji Velvia. Colours don't get more punchy than on Fuji's Velvia slide film, and as can be seen from the images accompanying this post, it was certainly the right choice!

Purple Haze. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600. Fuji Velvia film simulation

 

Initially I thought that I had lost the light and had left it too late. But when I held the camera up to my eye, the evf exploded with colour! The above image certainly didn't look like this to my naked eye. But with the Velvia recipe, the light was intense, and incredible. I snapped some images, showed my wife the back of the screen, and she couldn't believe the colour I was getting.

Full disclosure - all of the recipes I'm using are taken off of the internet - and more specifically, from Richie Roech's excellent Fuji X Weekly blog. I have, however, had to modify them slightly, since most of his custom film recipes are designed for the X-Trans III sensor (and the X-E2 uses the earlier X-Trans II sensor).

Cobden Lagoon Sunset colours. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600

Now, the keen observers among you (of which I'm sure there are many) will no doubt be saying - "Hang on a minute. Don't Fujifilm cameras come with a pre-exisitng Velvia film stock already programmed in"? What do you need a 'Velvia' custom recipe for"? Excellent question, and point well taken.

All Fujifilm digital cameras do indeed come with the Velvia film stock included (as well as Astia, Provia, Monochrome etc). And while the Velvia film recipe I'm using starts with the Velvia stock as a base (obviously), it 'tweaks' it to produce even more Velvia film-like goodness!

My Fuji Velvia recipe for the X-Trans II sensor looks like this:

Fuji Velvia

Film base: Velvia

DR:200

Colour: +2

Sharpness: +1

Highlight Tone: -1

Shadow Tone: 0

Noise Reduction: -2

White Balance: 'Auto' (+1R, -1B)

ISO: Auto up to 3200

Cobden Lagoon Sunset. Fuji X-E2 with 16-50mm. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 1600. Velvia recipe

Am I pleased with the results? You betcha! The vibrancy it produced from the small amount of colour that could be seen by the naked eye is incredible. And yet, the first few images I took on the walk (seen above) are 'fairly' realistic to what I saw at the time. So yes, it's punchy and colourful - but not so over-the-top so as to look fake and unuseable. Not great for portraits, but amazing for landscapes - exactly like the actual Velvia film stock. 

Of course I will need to try it out at other locations, under other lighting conditions. But if this night at the lagoon was anything to go by, I think I may have found my go-to landscape film recipe!?

WB settings for film simulations in my Fujifilm X-E2

In my last post I discussed 'going 100% Jpeg'. This may sound scary to some photographers for who shooting Raw is almost a religion (and yes, that was me too). It's really only been made possible - for me at least - by shooting with the Fuji custom film simulations (or recipes).

Fujifilm expects you to play around with film simulations and create your own - that's what their X-Raw Studio software is all about. Unfortunately, my X-E2 is not compatible with X-Raw Studio (I presume it only works for X-Trans III sensors and above?). Fortunately, others have done the hard work for me already, and there are a plethora of film simulations on-line to choose from (check out the amazing Fuji X Weekly blog).

All sorts of parameters can be tweaked to create a 'look' you're after; from highlight and shadow tone, to sharpness and colour - and even grain and clarity on the latest Fuji camera models (alas, again, not my X-E2!) To get the very best out of these film simulations, you also need to tweak the white balance R & B (red and blue) channels to truly dial-in the colour shifts that some 'films' give. It's well known among film shooters that Kodak has warmer tones than Fuji, whose films are generally slightly cooler (bluer). To achieve these colour variables, the R and B channels can be changed to mimic these tonal variances. So far so good.

Unfortunately, on most of the Fuji cameras, these changes to white balance in the R & B channels are a 'global' change. So, for example, if you have Auto WB set, with a +3R and -2B colour shift, all film recipes that use Auto WB will have the same shift applied. Annoyingly! This has, fortunately, been fixed with the X-Pro 3 (and X100F I think?) - but I don't have an X-Pro 3, do I...😞

Fear not, fellow Fuji user - for there is a work-around for this... kind of. Since the white balance shift is global, what you need to do is set different white balances for each film simulation, applying the correct red and blue channel shift to each white balance. You can also, of course, choose film simulations that use the same r&b channel colour shifts. I've set my X-E2 up with a combination of the two. Let me explain...

The seven film recipes I have currently programmed into my Fujifilm X-E2

Currently, in the seven allowable custom setting slots on the X-E2, I have Ektachrome 100SW, Acros mono, Kodachrome II, Kodak Tri-X, Fujichrome Sensia 100, Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak Portra 400 film 'simulations' programmed in. Of those, five use the same Auto white balance shift (Auto +3R, -4B) while two have different WB settings applied with their own R&B channel shifts.

Remember how I said earlier that Kodak is known for being a 'warmer' toned film. Look at the list above. Five of them happen to be Kodak film recipes - four of which (Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Ektar and Portra) use the same Auto WB as mentioned above. The fifth is actually the black and white Fuji 'Acros' simulation. Since mono is less crucial with colour shifts (obviously), having my Acros film simulation share the Kodak films WB setting isn't an issue.

Having said that, of the two film recipes that have other WB settings applied, one of those just happens to be a Kodak mono film - Kodak Tri-X. This recipe actually uses a Daylight WB, with +9R and -9B. The final, odd one out is, not surprisingly, the Fujichrome Sensia recipe. The slightly 'blue' cast associated with many Fuji films is actually achieved by using the Fluorescent 2 WB with a -1R and -3B channel shift. As can be seen in the thumbnails above, it certainly gives it a blue tone over the other Kodak film recipes. 

It's early days using these film recipes, and the above images were taken on a very overcast and gloomy day - not my normal shooting conditions. Initial indications, however, are good, with the film simulations rendering the Jpegs as expected. Ektachrome and Ektar are exhibiting the punchier colours, while Kodachrome has a more vintage look. Sensia, as mentioned, has the cooler Fujifilm tones, whereas Portra colours are more subtle and muted (ideal for portraits). The Acros and Tri-X mono recipes are fairly similar in overcast conditions. I expect more variance will become apparent in brighter light?

I won't go into each individual recipe in this post - it's far too long already 😆 Look for future blog posts where I will discuss each individual recipe I'm using in greater detail. If anything I've written in this post doesn't quite make sense, or you want further clarification, don't hesitate to comment down below and ask me questions. I'm just feeling my way through using channel shifts as well, so maybe we can work all this out together?

I do encourage you, if you're not already, to set some film 'recipes' up in your custom settings on your camera and start using them. They are a lot of fun, especially if you're an ex-film shooter who had some favourite film stocks back-in-the-day. Yes, I know it's still digital. But you can at least pretend you're shooting film - can't you?

Shooting Jpeg Only for 6 months!

Yeah, I know - the Jpeg vs Raw debate is about as old as Canon vs Nikon - and about as interesting (not). Any photographer worth their salt will tell you that you should only ever shoot in Raw, and if you absolutely HAVE to have a Jpeg (for some bizarre reason), then shoot in Raw + Jpeg (and then throw the Jpeg away).

I'm one of those photographers, to be honest. I've pretty much only ever shot in Raw since picking up my Nikon D70 sixteen years ago, and have never really understood the Raw + Jpeg argument. If you've shot Raw, what on earth would you need the (inferior) Jpeg for? Ok - maybe sports photographers had a case for shooting jpeg once upon a time (when cards were measured in Megabytes and not Gigs). But for 99.99% of the rest of us, just shoot Raw. Job done.

But... (isn't there always a but)... more recently - and I mean only in the last few years - the allure of shooting Jpeg-only has been brewing. More and more 'serious' photographers have been extolling the virtues of using Jpegs SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) because the manufacturer's Jpeg processing engines inside their cameras are just so good! The rise of mirrorless cameras, where you can actually see your exposure (and tweak the highlight and shadow areas) before taking the shot, has helped hugely to light a fire under the 'shoot Jpeg only' brigade. Expose carefully, use a creative filter, and have the camera process it for you. Job done.

Shipwreck, Cobden Beach. Fuji X-E2 Jpeg (edited)

About a year ago, I moved over to using the Fujifilm system - namely the X-E1 and X-E2. I've absolutely fallen in love with the ergonomics, handling, and IQ from these range-finder style APS-C cameras. But if I'm honest, the main reason I wanted to try out the Fuji system - and the main reason I'll probably stay in the Fuji ecosystem for a very long time - are their film simulations.

I grew up using film, and still shoot with film cameras from time to time (see my recent posts on choosing a 35mm film system). So moving to a digital camera, from Fujifilm, that shoots with film simulations like Velvia, Provia and Astia, was almost a no-brainer! In fact, I'm not quite sure what's taken me so long to be honest?

But... (there's that but again)... the film simulations are only applied to Jpegs. Not surprisingly, the Raw files are left untouched. No problem - I hear you say. Just shoot Raw + Jpeg and have the best of both worlds. A Jpeg with the film simulations applied, and a Raw file that you can tweak and torture to your hearts content in Lightroom or Photoshop. And yes - thank you - that's exactly what I've been doing. Job done.

Or is it? Because a very large part of me isn't really very happy with this solution. I've always thought, as mentioned earlier, that shooting Raw + Jpeg was rather redundant. And I still do think that. I hate coming back from a shoot with 100 photos - only that's now 200 because I shot in two file formats, one of which I know I'm probably never going to use! In the past, that 'redundant' file was the jpeg. Now that I'm shooting with the Fujifilm, and utilising film simulations, the redundant file is - well - the Raw file!

Proud grandparents. Fujifilm X-E2 Mono (no editing)

I've toyed (briefly) in the past with shooting Jpeg-only when I was using Olympus gear. The Olympus Jpegs are known for being excellent SOOC, so I tried to go Jpeg-only with them for a while. Didn't last long through, since I wasn't really excited about their existing creative filters.

With Fujifilm, however, their film simulations are 'next-level'. On their own they are fantastic. But there's more! You can actually build your own 'custom' film recipes and programme them into seven slots to recall and use them instantly. There are many custom recipes on-line - most famously on Fuji X Weekly, a blog run by film recipe expert Ritchie Roesch. This means that you can pre-programme film 'simulations' like Kodachrome 64, Kodak Tri-X and Agfa Optima into you camera and switch between these 'looks' as the mood (or scene) dictates. For a die-hard film shooter like me, this is absolute photography heaven!

For example, at the moment in my X-E2 I have; Ektachrome 100SW, Fuji Acros, Kodachrome II, Kodak Tri-X, Fujichrome Sensia 100, Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak Portra 400 all programmed into my custom film simulation settings. I can flick between them almost instantly, get seven different 'film' looks SOOC, and have minimal editing to do once I get the image home.

So I've decided to 'bite the bullet' and shoot Jpeg-only for the next 6 months at least. Seriously. No cheating. No Raw + jpeg 'just in case'. It will be film simulation Jpegs only for the next six months. Sounds a bit scary. And for a die-hard Raw shooter, it is a bit scary. But modern Jpegs - well exposed modern Jpegs - are surprisingly editable. And If I'm happy with the film simulations, there shouldn't be much - if any - editing required anyway?

As someone who is more than happy shooting film - I think I'll handle Jpeg-only digital capture for six months. Who knows, I may even go longer?