I bought an OM-1 MD from KEH the other day. $60 with 50 1.8 lens. Cosmetically, it’s a bit rough, and there’s some dust in the finder, but it’s still a damn nice camera. Big, bright viewfinder with a screen that clearly shows focus. Small size. Interesting, but incredibly well thought out ergonomics; putting the shutter speed dial on the lens mount means both exposure controls can be adjusted with out chaning your hand placement. And a great lens. The lens draws more like a really good RF lens instead of like a bargain Japanese lens from the mid 70’s.



In some ways, this shouldn’t be surpising. The OM-1 was originally called the M-1 until Leica made them change the name. Despite being an SLR, the influence of the Leica M is clear particularly when you compare the little OM against it’s Nikon contemporaries. The small size of the body and the emphasis on an excellent viewfinder were both intended to seduce Leica users looking for an SLR option. As a companion to an RF, the OM gives you access to some of the benefits of an SLR without saddling you with a huge brick or compromising your ability to see your subject.



If the el cheapo 50 is any indication of the rest of the lens line, the lenses were designed with a thought towards the RF user as well. The 50 1.8 really does draw like a classic RF lens with moderate contrast, great resolution and pleasant bokeh. But it also focusses much closer than an RF could ever hope for. With the current bargain basement prices of many OM lenses, I’m planning on seeing if this holds true across the board.



If you are looking for a bargain camera with great imaging potential, the OM-1 is worth a look.

I lost the eyepiece to one of my Hexar’s yesterday. Unlike a lot of cameras in which the standard diopter is just a clear piece of glass, the eyepiece of the Hexar forms an integral part of the RF. Without it, you can’t see through the viewfinder. Of course, only Hexar eyepieces fit. And of course, since the Hexar RF is a long out production camera originally made by a company that’s changed hands a few times now, locating a replacement part is a pain in the butt.

This is one of the downsides to using abandonware. When it gives up the ghost, you are pretty much on your own. I’ve emailed Greg Weber, the only recognized Konica repair resource in the states and asked on photo.net where, oddly enough, somone else had just lost the same piece off their Hexar. I’ve also bought up KEH’s supply of corrective diopters for the Hexar thinking that if those don’t work for me perhaps I can trade them.

If the Hexar RF didn’t have such completely brilliant ergonomics, it wouldn’t be worth the trouble, but it’s the best designed camera I’ve ever used, much better than an M in many ways. The other day I was looking over Sean Reid’s review of the new M8 and thinking how much they could have improved its ergonomics by adopting the shutter speed dial off the Hexar. Using the Hexar’s exposure compensation dial would have been a good idea as well. Heck, why didn’t they just stuff a sensor into all those Hexar bodies that Sony has got sitting in a warehouse in Germany? But that’s a topic for another day.

Update: Folks looking to replace the eyepiece on their own Hexar RF, should look at this post, in which I detail building your own replacement eyepiece. With some tinkering this could also be a good way to get diopter correction or an increased mag VF. For those wanting to buying a diopter, check out KEH and http://www.photostop.net/Hexar.html.

There’ve been a lot of questions on photo.net the last few days regarding the B&W capabilities of the D80. Although the general consensus seems to be that real men shoot RAW, that seems to me a little too much like the digital hairshirt equivalent of using stainless steel reels in changing bag. I’m not convinced of the general superiority of RAW, and I’d rather get it right in camera, which preference has nothing doing with a luddite tendency, but rather is mostly an outgrowth of laziness and impatience on my part. I’d rather not process raw files on a laptop. A demonstration of the filtering effects follows:


B&W mode, no filter applied

B&W mode, green filter applied

B&W mode, orange filter applied

B&W mode, red filter applied

B&W mode, yellow filter applied

There’s also a contrast adjustment to be played with, and over the next few days I’m going to be looking at using a custom curve in camera.

Q: What’s B&W and Vibrant All Over?

A: JPEGS from the D80.

Not at the same time of course, but the options are there. In camera JPEG processing keeps getting better and better. The D80 - and a lot of the other recent DSLRs - are offering far more options than they used to, or at least more predefined sets. In the case of the D80 you get predifined settings for B&W, Portrait, Vivid and More Vivid (I think that one goes to 11). There’s also a custom setting that allows you to define your own sharpness, saturation, hue, and color mode. Of these, I’m finding the B&W mode to be the most interesting. In B&W mode you can choose sharpening, tone compensation (contrast) and Yellow, Orange, Green or Red filtering. Those filtering options are particularing interesting. When combined with the contrast settings this gives you a lot of control over how a scene is rendered. I’m currently shooting with Green filtering and Medium Low contrast; it’s a lot like Delta 400 or TMY.

Now, you may ask what’s the point of using these JPEG modes. Why not use RAW? It’s a valid question, and at the moment one of the main reason I’m using JPEGS is curiousity. Certainly camera manufacturers wouldn’t include them if they weren’t useful? Right ;-)

Apart from curiousity, I think there’s value in anticipating your post processing - and comitting to it - before you actuate the shutter. I know this is a radical idea in the world of RAW shooting, PhotoShop, highlight recovery etc etc etc, but it’s one that I’m fairly comfortable with. For years I’ve made these choices with film. The limitations have made me a better photographer, and I’ve still got a ways to go. I’m not ready to throw them off yet. Luckily the D80’s JPEGS are pretty much entirely free from artifacts.

1. A certain amount of noise can improve the performance of non-linear systems. This sounds like nonsense, but it’s not when you stop to think about it. For example, B&W photographers have long known that a grainier image can often look sharper than a grainless one. If you are interested in the science behind it, this guy has written some articles about noise that are entirely over my head. His book, which was discussed on Science Friday recently, sounds like its more my speed. He also has some challenging thoughts on the diminishing importance of the comma.
2. Although a lot photographers seem to be pursuing noiselessness, noiseless photos fail to satisfy me on some deeper level. I can appreciate the technical mastery, or least the amount of money, involved in creating a noiseless image, but I don’t find them particularly interesting. I’m not the only one, but I’d argue that as a group, photographers don’t know nearly enough about the roll noise plays in the success or failure of a photograph. For example, can you to a certain extent hide blown highlights by adding the right amount and kind of noise?
3. I’m pretty happy with the noise qualities of the D80. You can check out a whole bunch of test shots and comparisons over at Dpreview. I haven’t used the D80 at 1600 all that often yet, but I’m pleased with the results so far.

As a side note, this is the first DSLR I’ve owned whose AF system functioned well enough in low light that it could actually take some advantage of the available high ISOs.

Take it as hyperbole if you like, but I see life through a camera’s viewfinder, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. We all have ways of structuring our reality. Some folks have religion. Some have Nascar. Others barbeque on their back deck every weekend. The viewfinder is my way, so it’s really dissapointing that they keep building these digital cameras with such crummy viewfinders.

The D80 is supposed to have a pretty good VF for a cropped frame DSLR, and from having used the competition, I’d say the D80 is pretty much the state of the art. But that’s not saying very much. Even the full frame 5D has a VF that would have never made it into a basic manual focus SLR from the late 70’s or early 80’s. Those were pretty good cameras in a lot of ways. Nice big viewfinders. Although not as big as something like an F2, they were pretty good. They still are pretty good. If you haven’t ever picked up a Canon AE-1, a Minolta X-something, a Nikon FE or best of all an Olympus OM-1, don’t do it. You’ll hate your DSLR viewfinder. Pick up a good rangefinder, and you’ll be seriously depressed.

How much difference does this make? It’s hard to say. On a psychological level, this is pretty big hurdle to get over. I’m used to the disconnect between vision and print coming at a much later stage of the photographic process. With film, if the end result doesn’t match my vision, it’s usually due to bad processing. It’s not something I’m aware of at the moment of taking the photo. With digital, the bad viewfinder puts the disconect right at the moment of photographing. Making the most of that disconnect is going to be the most challenging aspect of digital for me. The rest of the chain is cake by comparison.

It’s just before noon on Friday . . . My D80 arrived sometime early Monday afternoon . . . I’m still on the original battery charge . . . Almost 96 hours later and the battery still shows 22% (220 shots) left. That shot counter may be a little optimistic for my usage since I only took 250 shots with the first 78% of the battery, but that’s still some pretty incredible longevity. I like my cameras to be ready to go whenever, hung over my shoulder, waiting for something good to come along. The previous gneration of DSLRs couldn’t support this kind of use. Even if they could shoot 400 or 500 shots on a charge, that meant continuous shooting over a short period of time. The battery wouldn’t always last through a day of off and on shooting. At 4 days and counting, the D80 seems up to the challenge. And it’s a good thing too, since EN-EL3e batteries are still out of stock at B&H ;-)

If you follow Leica stuff at all, you know by now that Leica’s first digital RF, the M8, is now real as in you can look at pictures and video of it on the internet. I’d love an M8, two actually. While the price tag ($5000) is pretty reasonable compared to other pro digicams, it’s way out of my league given other goals I have at the moment - like getting into and paying for Salt next spring.

So what’s the point of this unique wedding of old fashioned RF technology and brand spanking new digital hotness? Having used the D80 for a couple of days now, I think I can enumerate a few points where an RF is still superior:

1. Size: while the D80 is pretty small for a DSLR, it’s nothing like an RF body. When you get to lenses it’s game over. The RF allows for considerably smaller lenses.
2. Speed of operation: I’ve now used DSLR’s from all the major manufacturers, so I think I can make a pretty broad statement here. In comparison to an all manual camera, DSLR ergonomics suck. Aperture rings on the lens, shutterspeeds on a thumb actuated dial ala Hexar RF, and a highly refined manual focussing system whoop the pants off Multi-badass 10000 AF modules, command and sub-command dials, reprogrammable buttons etc etc etc.
3. Lenses: you can do cool things when you don’t have a design around a big flapping mirror.
4. No VF blackout: being able to see your subject at the actual moment of exposure gives the RF user a better sense of timing and the ability to handhold at slower shutter speeds.

If I could buy a digital RF for the same price as a D80, I would. But I can’t, so I’ll make the most the of the advantages the D80 offers. AF is definitely nice for things that keep moving.

I’d also take one of Michael Johnson’s DMDs. Think Hexar AF with a digital sensor, built in A&S and a few other goodies. Heck, I’d even pay $1000 for one. I will not however, pay any amount for a Richoh GRD, no matter how many posts Mitch makes about it on photo.net. Mitch seems like a pretty decent guy, and the GRD a pretty decent camera, but 28mm lenses just don’t float my boat, and I know that I require something a little faster to keep my frustration level at the right level for photographic production.

My D80 came Monday afternoon, so here’s my first thoughts. It’s a lot like the N80 I owned a couple of years ago. The metering and the af are better. The ergonomics and the build are pretty similar. I like the reprogrammable AE/AF lock and Func buttons. I set my Func to spot metering and my AE/AF lock button to AF On; I like keeping my metering and focus seperate. It does seem kind of weird that the Func default allows you to display ISO but not set it.

Battery life is good. Thirtysix hours and a couple hundred photos later the battery meter only shows one bar down. My 7D ate batteries like a contestant just kicked off the Biggest Loser, so this is a nice change for me.

Image quality is impressive, although the default image parameters are a little agressive on the contrast and sharpening. I changed that in the image parameters pretty quick. Fine JPEGS look really good. High ISO noise doesn’t seem out of line, but I don’t plan on using anything above 800 that much. If it’s that dark the Hexar RF focusses faster than any AF I’ve ever used, and Neopan 1600 keeps the mood right for dark scenes. Auto WB seems close enough.

Picture Project is junk, so I’ll be looking for something to process raw files. Right now I’m shooting RAW + JPEG Fine, so I’m just working with the JPEGS. I’m working on a laptop, so I don’t have a lot of processing power available for decoding RAW files. Given that, I’ll probably mostly work from JPEGs unless something goes wrong.

Enough with the talk. Here’s some photos:

I’ve tried DSLRs before, namely the Canon 10D and the KM 7D. Both were pretty decent light tight boxes, but, man, they were crummy cameras. You couldn’t argue with the image quality in most situations, the typical digital highlights issue aside. A camera’s a lot more than a light tight box though, or at least a good one should be. Squinty viewfinders, short battery life, long start up times, wonky AF systems, and generally bad human interface issues do not make for a good camera. Given that a lot of photography depends on issues not even vaguely related to technical quality, a camera with useability issues is like a ferrari with steering wheel covered in porcupine skin, quills included. I was pleased when the D200 was announced. I’ve always liked the controls on Nikon’s AF cameras. They’re almost as good as a manual camera. And the D200’s viewfinder seemed to address one of the other major issues; the issue of battery life and start up times seems to have been resolved in most of Canon’s and Nikon’s recent models. The price of the D200 was on the upper edge of my spending limit though, and it’s a little too big for day to day use. So when Nikon announced the D80, I thought, hmm, I might get one of those in a couple of months. Well, when I saw them in stock on B&H’s website yesterday, I ordered one immediately without really think about it. Blame the jet lag - I’m still recovering from the 24 hours in transit from Korea, not to mention the 14 hour time difference. My D80 will be here in a couple of days, along with a 30mm F1.4 sigma lens and 2gb card. If I end up liking it, maybe some of the hexar gear will end up for sale. If not, anybody interested in a 20% discount on a barely used D80?