Larry Bolch

If it is about photography give me the richest and most advanced toolset I can use. If I don't need a feature at the moment, next week it may let me overcome a rare and difficult photographic situation, and because I truly understand my cameras, could be my photograph of a lifetime. 
 
If it is about cameras, by all means go for Leica. Every time they remove a contemporary feature, they add $1,000US to the price and the suckers buy it. Why? Because it is ridiculously expensive, and Leica has mastered selling mystique. The same people who buy Leica, show up at exclusive car auctions with a 2005 Ferrari Superamerica with less than 1,000 km on the odometer, because they need the garage space for the Bugatti that is on order. They won't drive the Bug any more than the Ferarri. Connoisseurs of stuff bought as objects to hopefully raise their personal self-image.
 
As an aside, the first camera an employer put in my hands was a Leica IIIg and I still have my battered M3. However, at that time, they were tools for working photographers, not chest jewelry for dilettantes and wealthy collectors. 

If it is about photography give me the richest and most advanced toolset I can use. If I don't need a feature at the moment, next week it may let me overcome a rare and difficult photographic situation, and because I truly understand my cameras, could be my photograph of a lifetime. 
 
If it is about cameras, by all means go for Leica. Every time they remove a contemporary feature, they add $1,000US to the price and the suckers buy it. Why? Because it is ridiculously expensive, and Leica has mastered selling mystique. The same people who buy Leica, show up at exclusive car auctions with a 2005 Ferrari Superamerica with less than 1,000 km on the odometer, because they need the garage space for the Bugatti that is on order. They won't drive the Bug any more than the Ferarri. Connoisseurs of stuff bought as objects to hopefully raise their personal self-image.
 
As an aside, the first camera an employer put in my hands was a Leica IIIg and I still have my battered M3. However, at that time, they were tools for working photographers, not chest jewelry for dilettantes and wealthy collectors. 

“The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don’t know what to do with it.” – Edward Weston

The opposite of pure—reducing a state of the art digital camera to the limitations of a film camera. Purism with a digital camera implements the state of the art features available at the time of manufacture in my opinion. A stripped down digital camera is simply a crippled camera that would require constant workarounds to overcome its limitations. That is totally contrary to the spirit of digital photography.

I discovered I could see just fine if I used my reading glasses. They must be very high-quality optics, since they cost nearly $20 at the grocery store.   Problem solved. Next I set the adjustable viewfinders on the other cameras to match. Now I shoot everything when wearing the glasses.

Out of the camera, 72 ppi is meaningless. It is just a placeholder. It becomes meaningful when you go to make a print. At that point, a print resolution is applied in software that will match the pixel dimensions to the size of paper. When viewed on a monitor or on the Internet, it has no application or significance.

I wish that ACR/LR/PS would do the same for my D700 shots. There is nothing the least bit creative about fixing a lens in processing. Just an extra manual step.

Having spent much of my life shooting film, I would rather carry a tiny battery than 15 extra rolls of film to get the same number of exposures. 20 seconds to change it, and I am back shooting again. My Nikon D700 battery is enormous in comparison and so is the camera. I just can not get exercised over a battery that only does 300 or so shots without changing.

Pixels are much over-rated. A decade and a half back, I was shooting with a Coolpix 990, at 3.34MP. I shot a close-up portrait of a Macaw and a friend wanted a print of it so I gave him a copy of the file. I was shocked when he said he had it printed at 24×36! Eventually, I visited him and was amazed at the quality of the image. From anywhere in his living room where it hung, a casual viewer would never question the lack of detail. Certainly my X-Pro1 would show a lot more crispness and detail if prints were side-by-side and viewed at reading distance. At normal viewing distance, not so much.

Pixels are much over-rated. A decade and a half back, I was shooting with a Coolpix 990, at 3.34MP. I shot a close-up portrait of a Macaw and a friend wanted a print of it so I gave him a copy of the file. I was shocked when he said he had it printed at 24×36! Eventually, I visited him and was amazed at the quality of the image. From anywhere in his living room where it hung, a casual viewer would never question the lack of detail. Certainly my X-Pro1 would show a lot more crispness and detail if prints were side-by-side and viewed at reading distance. At normal viewing distance, not so much.

Out of the camera, 72 ppi is meaningless. It is just a placeholder. It becomes meaningful when you go to make a print. At that point, a print resolution is applied in software that will match the pixel dimensions to the size of paper. When viewed on a monitor or on the Internet, it has no application or significance.

At this point, medium-format is a bit of a misnomer. In film sizes, nothing under 6×4.5cm was considered medium format. 6×6, 6×7 and 6×9 were the common formats, while Fuji built a magnificent 6×8 SLR and a 6×17 panoramic camera. Current MF sensors are in essence half-frame versions of 6×4.5—roughly 4.5×3cm. The ratio between full-frame and medium-format is about the same as between APS-C and full-frame. (Note: Sensor size not only varies from brand to brand, but from model to model in the case of the Hasselflex.)
 
In 2012, The Camera Store in Calgary did a video comparing the Nikon 36MP D800 with a 40MP Hasselblad. While the Hasselblad had an edge, it was remarkably small for the difference in price and the size of the sensor. 
 
https://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk
 
Fujifilm built some wonderful medium-format film cameras, and certainly has the resources to do so in the digital realm. However, the market is small and the cameras such as Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya and Leica are well established. An actual medium-format sensor would be one way to distinguish an identity, but unless they went to a company like Teledyne DALSA for a custom part, the part just does not currently appear to exist. Even using the current 3×4.5cm sensors, the price would cause considerable sticker-shock among consumers who feel that an X-T1 is expensive. Of course, a larger sensor means bigger and heavier lenses and camera bodies to handle them. Don't expect f/1.2 to f/1.8 lenses. Few have apertures wider than f/2.8 and they are priced accordingly.

Money for the X-Pro2 is in the bank, should I choose to spend it. Highly satisfied with my X-Pro1 and would be willing to continue with it indefinitely. However, it is nice to be able to shoot with two similar cameras instead of switching lenses, and would be tempted to shoot with both. A Fuji honcho said in an interview that the X-Pro2 would not ship until they could include a significant technological breakthrough. Once I see the whole package, then I will decide whether I will add it.

Having spent much of my life shooting film, I would rather carry a tiny battery than 15 extra rolls of film to get the same number of exposures. 20 seconds to change it, and I am back shooting again. My Nikon D700 battery is enormous in comparison and so is the camera. I just can not get exercised over a battery that only does 300 or so shots without changing.

The 60mm is my most used lens, or very close to it. The close focus is great, but it is an all-around excellent short telephoto. Using its compression, I have found it excellent for panoramas, either stitched in the camera or in Photoshop. Distant details are greatly enhanced.

When I bought my X-Pro1, I was delighted that the first lenses released made a classic photojournalist's kit (18, 35 & 60mm). While I use zooms a lot on my dSLR, primes seemed to match the rangefinder-style shooting that the X-Pro1 fosters so well (both eyes open, prefocus or zone, etc.) Three and a half years later, my initial opinion still holds. I added the 14mm which is brilliant, significantly wider than the 18mm, and very crisp. Recently, I added the Samyang 8mm fisheye, which is a delight. At the moment, this kit serves me very well and I have zero gear-lust. 
 
I have a Metabones Speed Booster and adapter which I use on occasion, mostly with an AI-S f/1.8 105mm Nikkor. It works great but adds a lot of weight to the bag. No point in most of the other Nikon lenses since they are generally redundant, and the Fujinons primes are excellent, light and autofocus. I have tested my 200mm and 600mm, but both are heavy, clumsy and not easily focused. I have also tested my 28mm PC-Nikkor shift-lens that works fine, but I have never used it on a shoot. Nice to be able to draw upon these lenses if the occasion arises, but they are not going to be frequently used.

The 60mm is my most used lens, or very close to it. The close focus is great, but it is an all-around excellent short telephoto. Using its compression, I have found it excellent for panoramas, either stitched in the camera or in Photoshop. Distant details are greatly enhanced.

Yes, that is the routine. It is great for using zone-focus when you are shooting street or action. Given enough light, stop the lens down to get a reasonable depth of field, use the button to focus on some object in the middle of the zone and then go ahead and shoot. The advantage is that there is no lag while the lens is focusing.
 
When the f/2.4 60mm came on the market, many people in forums declared it was only useful for static subject matter. Any subject movement at all and it was a complete failure. I expect a lot of people actually believed this and passed up a superb optic. They were too inexperienced to realize that a macro lens has a vast focusing range and a bit more anticipation is needed while it seeks focus. However, it also works great with zone focusing. 
 
A couple of years ago, I found myself as a houseguest in a far northern town. The son of the family played hockey in a Peewee league (10-11-year-olds), and we all trooped down to the local skating rink to watch him play. Upon arriving, I focused on the goal and did a test shot at f/2.4. The boards opposite my position were somewhat out of focus. Another test at f/4.0 and they were sharp. The foreground was sharp up to the point the players over-ran the frame. The OVF showed a considerable area outside the frame, which made the X-Pro1 remarkably good for covering the sport. One could instantly shift the frame to cover developing action just outside. 
 
The results were superb. The contrast was low, so I was able to underexpose by a stop, giving me a shutter speed of 1/1000th without any loss of shadow detail. Thus set, I was able to ignore camera operation and nail peak of action after peak of action. Not one single frame was culled because of softness. See:
http://larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/hockey/ 
 
The same technique works equally well when shooting candid on the street or when pursuing a ballistic toddler. An added bonus is  that most lenses are at their peak of sharpness between f/4.0 and f/8.0. While f/11 may show a bit of fall-off due to diffraction in the optical lab, it will not be noticed in real-world photography.

Yes, that is the routine. It is great for using zone-focus when you are shooting street or action. Given enough light, stop the lens down to get a reasonable depth of field, use the button to focus on some object in the middle of the zone and then go ahead and shoot. The advantage is that there is no lag while the lens is focusing.
 
When the f/2.4 60mm came on the market, many people in forums declared it was only useful for static subject matter. Any subject movement at all and it was a complete failure. I expect a lot of people actually believed this and passed up a superb optic. They were too inexperienced to realize that a macro lens has a vast focusing range and a bit more anticipation is needed while it seeks focus. However, it also works great with zone focusing. 
 
A couple of years ago, I found myself as a houseguest in a far northern town. The son of the family played hockey in a Peewee league (10-11-year-olds), and we all trooped down to the local skating rink to watch him play. Upon arriving, I focused on the goal and did a test shot at f/2.4. The boards opposite my position were somewhat out of focus. Another test at f/4.0 and they were sharp. The foreground was sharp up to the point the players over-ran the frame. The OVF showed a considerable area outside the frame, which made the X-Pro1 remarkably good for covering the sport. One could instantly shift the frame to cover developing action just outside. 
 
The results were superb. The contrast was low, so I was able to underexpose by a stop, giving me a shutter speed of 1/1000th without any loss of shadow detail. Thus set, I was able to ignore camera operation and nail peak of action after peak of action. Not one single frame was culled because of softness. See:
http://larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/hockey/ 
 
The same technique works equally well when shooting candid on the street or when pursuing a ballistic toddler. An added bonus is  that most lenses are at their peak of sharpness between f/4.0 and f/8.0. While f/11 may show a bit of fall-off due to diffraction in the optical lab, it will not be noticed in real-world photography.

Yes, that is the routine. It is great for using zone-focus when you are shooting street or action. Given enough light, stop the lens down to get a reasonable depth of field, use the button to focus on some object in the middle of the zone and then go ahead and shoot. The advantage is that there is no lag while the lens is focusing.
 
When the f/2.4 60mm came on the market, many people in forums declared it was only useful for static subject matter. Any subject movement at all and it was a complete failure. I expect a lot of people actually believed this and passed up a superb optic. They were too inexperienced to realize that a macro lens has a vast focusing range and a bit more anticipation is needed while it seeks focus. However, it also works great with zone focusing. 
 
A couple of years ago, I found myself as a houseguest in a far northern town. The son of the family played hockey in a Peewee league (10-11-year-olds), and we all trooped down to the local skating rink to watch him play. Upon arriving, I focused on the goal and did a test shot at f/2.4. The boards opposite my position were somewhat out of focus. Another test at f/4.0 and they were sharp. The foreground was sharp up to the point the players over-ran the frame. The OVF showed a considerable area outside the frame, which made the X-Pro1 remarkably good for covering the sport. One could instantly shift the frame to cover developing action just outside. 
 
The results were superb. The contrast was low, so I was able to underexpose by a stop, giving me a shutter speed of 1/1000th without any loss of shadow detail. Thus set, I was able to ignore camera operation and nail peak of action after peak of action. Not one single frame was culled because of softness. See:
http://larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/hockey/ 
 
The same technique works equally well when shooting candid on the street or when pursuing a ballistic toddler. An added bonus is  that most lenses are at their peak of sharpness between f/4.0 and f/8.0. While f/11 may show a bit of fall-off due to diffraction in the optical lab, it will not be noticed in real-world photography.

Pretty much every lens in a focusing mount has an adapter available. Some work very well, like my f/1.8 105mm Nikkor or horribly like my f1.8 50mm and f/2.0 90mm Canon Serenars. Both Serenars have flat rear elements, and while they worked very well with non-reflective film, clearly they reflect the light back and forth between the sensor and rear elements. With the Metabones Speed Booster, the 105mm performs beautifully, keeping its 105mm relative field of view and performing as a f/1.2. Using just an adapter gives me the FOV of a 157.5mm f/1.8.
 
I bought the chipped, removable lens hood version of the Samyang 8mm in a Nikon mount, so it is usable on both the D700, and the X-Pro1 with an adapter. The f/4.0 28mm PC-Nikkor can also serve as a shift-lens on the Fuji. While I have other lenses for the D700, these are the most useful. I do have some zooms and long lenses including an old solid glass 600mm built by Perkin Elmer, of Hubble fame. They work but are big and heavy for hand-holding. 

The downside is that they are all manual focus, aperture control may not be ideal and they lack the connections for writing to the EXIF metadata. And yes, these cameras are about superb Fujifilm glass. The Samyang is the only lens I carry all the time. The 105mm is carried when I plan to do head-hunting in low light. I have not actually used the shift-lens on a shoot, only tested it to see if it works. My 14, 18, 35 and 60mm Fujinons are my core kit. Even though I have those focal lengths covered with other lenses, I would not even think of using them in place of the Fujinons.

At this point, medium-format is a bit of a misnomer. In film sizes, nothing under 6×4.5cm was considered medium format. 6×6, 6×7 and 6×9 were the common formats, while Fuji built a magnificent 6×8 SLR and a 6×17 panoramic camera. Current MF sensors are in essence half-frame versions of 6×4.5—roughly 4.5×3cm. The ratio between full-frame and medium-format is about the same as between APS-C and full-frame. (Note: Sensor size not only varies from brand to brand, but from model to model in the case of the Hasselflex.)
 
In 2012, The Camera Store in Calgary did a video comparing the Nikon 36MP D800 with a 40MP Hasselblad. While the Hasselblad had an edge, it was remarkably small for the difference in price and the size of the sensor. 
 
https://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk
 
Fujifilm built some wonderful medium-format film cameras, and certainly has the resources to do so in the digital realm. However, the market is small and the cameras such as Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya and Leica are well established. An actual medium-format sensor would be one way to distinguish an identity, but unless they went to a company like Teledyne DALSA for a custom part, the part just does not currently appear to exist. Even using the current 3×4.5cm sensors, the price would cause considerable sticker-shock among consumers who feel that an X-T1 is expensive. Of course, a larger sensor means bigger and heavier lenses and camera bodies to handle them. Don't expect f/1.2 to f/1.8 lenses. Few have apertures wider than f/2.8 and they are priced accordingly.

At this point, medium-format is a bit of a misnomer. In film sizes, nothing under 6×4.5cm was considered medium format. 6×6, 6×7 and 6×9 were the common formats, while Fuji built a magnificent 6×8 SLR and a 6×17 panoramic camera. Current MF sensors are in essence half-frame versions of 6×4.5—roughly 4.5×3cm. The ratio between full-frame and medium-format is about the same as between APS-C and full-frame. (Note: Sensor size not only varies from brand to brand, but from model to model in the case of the Hasselflex.)
 
In 2012, The Camera Store in Calgary did a video comparing the Nikon 36MP D800 with a 40MP Hasselblad. While the Hasselblad had an edge, it was remarkably small for the difference in price and the size of the sensor. 
 
https://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk
 
Fujifilm built some wonderful medium-format film cameras, and certainly has the resources to do so in the digital realm. However, the market is small and the cameras such as Hasselblad, Pentax, Mamiya and Leica are well established. An actual medium-format sensor would be one way to distinguish an identity, but unless they went to a company like Teledyne DALSA for a custom part, the part just does not currently appear to exist. Even using the current 3×4.5cm sensors, the price would cause considerable sticker-shock among consumers who feel that an X-T1 is expensive. Of course, a larger sensor means bigger and heavier lenses and camera bodies to handle them. Don't expect f/1.2 to f/1.8 lenses. Few have apertures wider than f/2.8 and they are priced accordingly.

Look at the charts of a great many lenses at http://www.photozone/ and a trend emerges. Very fast lenses increase their center sharpness until about f/4.0 with slower lenses hitting their peak in the range of f/5.6 to f/8.0. Almost universally, f/11 shows some drop-off. By f/16-f/22 the drop-off is terrifying. No matter now widely absolute numbers may vary, the charts follow the same pattern.

Oddly, it does not show much difference when actually making photographs—without pixel peeping. Even in the optical lab, the difference between f/8.0 and f/11 tends to be quite minimal. This holds true for pretty much every lens they have tested, no matter the focal length. For your own information, shoot the same shot at f/5.6 and at f/16. Make prints and compare.

Not my first fisheye, so I think it will continue getting considerable use. The reason, is that I am not using it to shoot typical "fisheye" shots, but much more as a superwide or panoramic lens that has curvature which I don't emphasize. I have tested it using the X-Pro1's sweep panorama, and stitching worked! I have also tested stitching in the new version of Adobe Camera RAW with dramatic results.

I find it does very nice interiors with all four walls, when shooting from a corner. Landscapes are quite dramatic as well. Photoshop CC has tools that can pretty much straighten everything, but for the most part, I don't bother.