I have used, and continue to use, micro four thirds equipment. My usage goes back to 2006 when I purchased my first digital ILC, an Olympus E-300 four thirds camera. It was part of a kit that came with Olympus’ 14-45mm and 45-150mm four thirds lenses. I got a lot of use out of that camera, eventually gifting it to a then-college student. I would eventually purchase a number of Olympus four thirds bodies and lenses, followed by micro four thirds bodies from Olympus and Panasonic. When I consider all I’ve purchased over time, even heavily discounted, I’m a bit shocked and ashamed at all the expense.

Lately I find I’m being “coaxed” to spend more money — a lot more money on shiny new gewgaws that in no way can improve my photography. For example I’ve received a number of emails from B&H exhorting me to purchase what I’ve had my eye on (yes, I like to window shop a bit). It’s a good thing those feelings of shame are there to help me avoid spending that kind of money. Even when equipment is on sale, it’s still well above my financial comfort level. And the latest shiny new toys go ever higher in price. Consider that it’s not just the camera body you’re purchasing, but eventually a set of lenses. Unless of course you spring for a ‘kit’ zoom to go with that body; the kit zooms will add another $1,000 or so to the base price of the body. And then you should get at least one extra battery, preferably made by the camera manufacturer, and of course at least two rather expensive solid state memory cards, because that’s the only way you’ll be able to pour 30 frames/second of awesome photography into those cards. And then there’s this and that, especially if you bought it to also do video. And you want to process RAW from that camera, or grade video? Then you’re going to need a powerful enough computer to do that, as well as backup storage to hold everything. And so it goes…

A little history: I’ve purchased seven high-end micro four thirds bodies since 2010. They are the E-P2, a pair of E-M5s, a Pen F, an E-M1 M2, a Panasonic GH4, and a Panasonic G9. I paid full price for the E-P2 and the first E-M5. The second, sold as the E-M5 Elite, was a freebee with the purchase of the 2.8/12-40mm PRO (which you can see mounted on the G9 above). The only thing Elite about the second E-M5 was the better paint job and exterior cladding. Other than that it was the same E-M5 camera. From that point I picked up my collection of bodies heavily discounted by at least half their original MSRP. Granted these purchases were spread out over many years, but still, the money was spent and I would only get a fraction of any of that back if I decided to sell any of that kit today, in part because of the “micro four thirds is dead” doomsayers, and in part because a digital camera body, like a car, immediately looses half its value once it’s sold to you and is no longer in the store. I may as well keep all that gear, using it when the mood strikes, giving it away to a worthy soul (whom I would deem worthy) who’d like to try any of it out.

And then there’s all the lenses…

Right now I’m waiting on Panasonic to release a new firmware upgrade for the G9 on 9 June 2021, a week away. There’s nothing notable about the update, as the really useful firmware update was 2.0, released back in 2018, that bestowed quite a bit of GH5 functionality on the G9. Once it’s released I’ll take my time and let the more adventurous try it out. The firmware level on my G9 is 2.3, and it works quite nicely.

The best I can do right now are photos of my cats, dogs, and various flowers in my back garden. I’ll take a body and lens with me when I drive, on the off chance I might find something to stop and photograph, but I never do. It’s been years since I went on a photo walk-about. The gear I own might be old, no longer manufactured, but its potential still outstrips my own meager talents. It always has. With that rather harsh self-judgement, there’s no reason for me to purchase anything new, even if what I have eventually stops working; and none of it has so far, not even the E-P2.

So I’ll keep on using what I have.

Fujifilm recently dropped the price of their flagship camera, the X-H1, for the second time, down to US $999. The X-H1 is the largest camera in Fuji’s X-series APS-C camera line. It’s fully weather sealed, has five axis in body image stabilization and what appears to be very good video recording features.

The X-H1 was introduced in early 2018 for the rather princely sum of US $1,900. It used the same sensor as the X-T2, but with some additional processing tweaks. It was seemingly being pitched as the ultimate X series ILC camera, physically a step above the X-T2/X-Pro2 cameras. And it should have been. In addition to even greater mechanical quality and robustness, the X-H1 has a larger, deeper grip and an LCD status panel on the top deck where the ISO compensation dial is on the X-T2. That last item annoyed the Fuji purists who wanted all the mechanical dials. The problem with the larger grip isn’t the size, it’s the fact that the X-H1 still uses the same battery as used in the X-T2, which gives the bigger X-H1 a reputation for chewing through batteries while out in the field.

I certainly appreciate the X-H1, at least on paper. And when others began to buy the X-H1 at the first discounted price and reported their findings, they were generally good to very good, which reinforced my initial good vibes about the camera. In particular is Kirk Tuck’s use of the X-H1 for his work, both stills and video. Except on occasion he has written how he misses the micro four thirds Panasonic G9 with the Olympus PRO 12-100mm f/4 zoom, calling the two the best travel camera ever. That’s what he was using before the Fuji’s. That’s the micro four thirds combo I have and will stick with until it dies or I die first.

Right now the X-H1 is selling for $999 for the body, the vertical grip, and two extra Fuji batteries (three batteries total if you count the one for the body). Sounds like a great deal, and I’m sure that it is, if you’re already invested in Fuji equipment. I’m not, so even if I decided to get one, I’m still going to have to invest in at least one lens to make the body useful. Then there’s the old adage, more or less, that half too much to pay is still too much to pay.

And before you say I should invest in full-frame, think again. Today’s cameras without exception, from smartphones through 1” sensors on up to 24mm by 36mm, are all excellent cameras. As I keep harping, there are no bad cameras any more, just bad photographers. It’s what the entire camera system can help you as a photographer, not how many pixels in the sensor nor the sensor size. At this point in time sensor resolution and size should be the last two criteria you consider. If it’s the first, then you’re a fool wasting your money.

I’m turning 66. I come from a time where pretty decent 35mm film cameras were mere low hundreds of dollars for both a body and a 50mm lens. My first 35mm camera in the early 1970s, the Yashica Electro 35 GSN, was $125. It came with a fixed mount Yashinon 45mm f/1.7 lens. It was a rangefinder with autoexposure (hence the Electro name). I enjoyed using it, especially with black and white Plus X (ASA 125), which was the cheapest film and printing combination at the time.

My next ‘serious’ 35mm camera was a Minolta SR-T MC which I purchased from J.C. Penney, back when Penneys had a dedicated camera section and sold cameras made by Nikon, Minolta, Kodak, and Polaroid. When I worked at Pennys during that period, I got mine on employee discount. It came with a wonderful Minolta 50mm f/2 normal pancake lens. I loved that camera. After discount it cost all of $150 new.

You see the pattern here. I kept my basic camera costs at $200 or lower, the lower the better. I didn’t see such low prices in digital cameras until Olympus decided to stop making it’s E-PL1 and E-PL2 cameras and thus sold them at tremendous discount to clear them out. When that happened I picked up both at around $150 each (at different times) and that included the kit zoom lens (14-42mm f4/f5.6).

I have to be careful extolling the virtues of prudent camera buying. I’ve always tried to spend as little as possible, especially in this day and time, but even though my last few cameras were very heavily discounted, they were still expensive. It would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise. In spite of my past excesses (or perhaps because of) I can’t afford the X-H1 body because I can’t afford investing in the Fuji X system, which would have to include the purchase of new Fuji lenses to make the X-H1 useful at all. As much as I love Olympus, even with all their current discounts on Olympus gear, I can’t afford anything from Olympus either.

One question that keeps being asked is why Fuji marked the X-H1 down so far, so fast. The answer is that it didn’t sell as well as Fuji management wished at the original MSRP, so they cut it to US $1,200. Panasonic did the same thing, to the same price, with their G9 (I know, I got one at that price). Then Fuji cut it again to US $999. That’s because Canon, Nikon and then Panasonic introduced full-frame mirrorless to compete with Sony earlier this year and started causing problems for the X-H1 as collateral damage. Canon, Nikon, and now Panasonic have in turn discounted, sometimes quite heavily, prices on these new bodies. That’s because they can’t sell their new cameras at the prices nor at the quantities they would like to. Those discounts don’t make them any more affordable to folks like me; remember to add in the cost of those even more expensive lenses to use on the bodies.

The entire classical camera industry is undergoing major shrinkage now, shrinkage which began at the start of the 2010s. As we head into the 2020s, the downward sales pressure is only accelerating. I personally am no longer in the market for any camera equipment from any manufacturer, and I’ve heard the same from many local colleagues. I can’t afford any of it because it’s now all priced outside of my “discretionary” budget. The prices keep going up, and when they come down due to discounts and sales, they’re still too high to justify.

I predict that over the next three years a lot of cameras and possibly their makers are going to disappear from the market. I suspect that Panasonic, both in full frame and micro four thirds, will shrink heavily if not pull out completely. I also expect the same to happen to Olympus, as they’re micro four thirds only. As for Canon and Nikon I expect Nikon to shrink rather drastically. I can’t think of a single manufacturer who will come out of this unscathed. The world can no longer afford to buy such expensive gear anymore, let alone to upgrade it on a regular basis.

This is a US$2,000 camera, body only. I’m going to get a copy.

I’m going to purchase a copy because it does everything that a professional body does, especially in the critical features of auto focus and focus following. And it does it in a body that doesn’t need a friggin’ oversized, and overpriced, 35mm sized sensor (what is euphemistically referred to as “full frame”, for a film size that was originally called miniature because of its size compared to medium format).

I’m heavily invested in the µ4:3rds system, including the 12-40mm zoom shown on the body. I have a number of primes, and look to invest in a few more, such as the 1.2/25mm. I’ll concede I already have the Lumix 1.4/25mm, but I want that lens with the extra half stop. And the incredible performance. I might even break down and get the 4/12-100mm. You’ll note the pattern here. These are all PRO lenses. Am I going pro at the tender age of 63? I doubt that, but I’m a stickler for the technical side, and before I’m forced to retire and can’t afford these any more I want to finish out my system. I’ll still have the three E-M5’s I’ve picked up over the last four years (one at full price, the other two heavily discounted, including an Elite Black body for $400).

Folks will tell you that you can get a better deal by buying the Nikon D500 or the Canon 7D Mark II. The problem with this is replacing all that glass I have with equivalent Nikkors or Canon EOS lenses. No thanks. The E-M1 .2 is a highly refined Olympus camera, both for the brand and the camera system in general. It’s overall operability is second to none. With the very fast glass and the enhanced IBIS good up to at least six stops I don’t have to worry about having astronomically high ISO requirements. I’ve seen photos hand held up to 15 seconds that’ve come out sharp and high quality, and in the sizes I like to view and print, they’re indistinguishable from any other camera, including the much more expensive “full-frame” DSLRs.

I’ve waited a long time for this camera. I’m ready to purchase my copy.

About a month ago I wrote a glowing post about the as-yet-to-be-released Fuji X-Pro2. Looking at the photos of the X-Pro2 with the Fujinon 2/35mm, I couldn’t help myself being drawn into the system by the overall look of the camera and lens combination. And then Olympus released it’s new Pen F to great acclaim on the various camera web sites, such as Andy on ATMTX (here and here) and Steve Huff (here). And then I did something that I always do when new gear comes out that strikes my fancy; I pull out my trusty old calculator and start adding up how much it would cost to replace what I already have in Olympus Micro Four Thirds gear. Most of the time I stop at that point, but not this time

This time I was inspired to go out and purchase, from B&H Photo and Amazon, another Olympus E-M5 Elite body and a 12-40mm Pro lens, respectively. The E-M5 was on clearance and the 12-40mm was on sale. Their combined price was less than what I would have paid for just the Pen F if it were available, and considerably less than what I would have paid for the X-Pro2 body plus 2/35mm lens if the X-Pro2 where available. And therein lies the tale of modern digital photography: the great expense divide.

I now have in my possession three E-M5 bodies of varying vintage (January 2013, mid-2015, and February 2016). I also have an E-M10 body. All of those bodies were purchased at heavy discount, the E-M5 Elite at considerable discount (roughly 1/3 the cost of the E-M5’s initial release price). I’ve now got four bodies, three of which are identical, the other nearly so, and various Micro Four Third lenses.

Last November I also picked up the 14-150mm II zoom lens when it went on sale. With the 2.8/12-40mm Pro zoom I’ve now rebuilt the Four Thirds system I had stolen in August 2012. This includes grips for two of the E-M5 bodies. The focal lengths of the M.Zuiko lenses don’t match the older 50-200mm and 12-60mm Digital Zuikos, but they don’t have to. The M.Zuikos are considerably lighter, the image quality is noticeably better, and the cost through prudent shopping allowed me to build the system I really want to own going forward, a system that travels around the world a lot lighter than in 2012. That’s what happens when new gear is released; gear from one to two generations back gets heavily discounted in an effort to clear the shelves. And I have learned to be ready for the deals.

There’s absolutely nothing at all wrong with the new stuff, just like there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the older stuff. All of it is far better than I am as a photographer. My ego isn’t tied up in the kind of camera I use, and i hope it never is. With my style of photography the older stuff is more than sufficient.

I’ll use what I have and enjoy using it. Just like I’ll enjoy what everyone who owns an X-Pro2 or a Pen F does with their cameras. I’ll always keep in mind that every time I see good photography using the newer gear, it’s that a talented photographer just happened to be using a certain brand and model when they took that photograph.

Fuji has been making this series of rangefinder-style cameras for the past five years, starting with the fixed lens X100 and its 23mm f/2 Fujinon. With its APS-C sized sensor, that’s equivalent to 35mm lens on a 35mm film camera. Fuji continued to evolve the X100 series, to the X100S and finally the X100T. Starting with the original release of the X100, you’d have thought that the X100 was the second coming of digital photography (and many users still feel that way). For me the hype built up so far, so fast, that my hype alarm tripped and I steered clear of the camera. Its introduction at a rather lofty $1,300 also gave me considerable pause.

To Fuji’s credit they didn’t rest on their laurels. Not only did they continue to evolve the X100 series, but they introduced an equivalent, mirrorless, interchangeable lens version called the X-Pro1. At an even greater MSRP it introduced the world to a digital rangefinder design that Leica itself could have taken notes from. Still, I waited, content with my Olympus Pens. Along the way Fuji introduced several more lower priced bodies in the X-Pro1 design, then they introduced their version of the mirrorless SLR, the X-T1. Every time they put out a new camera the social networks went into a frothing frenzy of hype.

Now Fuji’s introduced their update to the X-Pro1, named rather obviously the X-Pro2. Based on the X-Pro2’s specifications (24MP sensor, weather sealing on the body, improved auto focusing, etc), it looks like the latest is very interesting indeed. Interesting enough, in spite of its introductory price, to get me to finally break down and contemplate purchasing one.

Truth be told I like the design of the X-Pro series because I like the rangefinder design. I always have. It’s just that the only rangefinder left in existence up until Fuji’s entries were the Leica (yes, I know about the Voigtlander Bessa, but nothing digital). Leica is just totally unaffordable for me. Fuji is certainly cheaper by comparison, but it’s still expensive enough that it’s not something I would consider an impulse purchase.

What makes the X-Pro2 interesting now is the Fujinon 35mm f/2 weather resistant (WR) lens that Fuji released last year. The X-Pro2 body is also weather resistant. The body and lens thus make a reasonably weather resistant package I wouldn’t worry taking out into the Florida heat, humidity, and rain. Weather resistance is one key reason I own a pair of Olympus E-M5 bodies and equivalent WR Zuiko lenses. Oh, and that 35mm lens is an equivalent 52.5mm on a 35mm film camera. I like the physical design, I like the sloped design of the lens. I just like the way the whole system fits together.

It’s obvious that I need to hold the camera and give it a try. To that end I’m toying with the idea of renting a body and that lens to try out. Renting for a week is a whole lot cheaper than buying that body and lens and then having buyer’s remorse if, for whatever reason, the purchase doesn’t work out. I’ve a lot more interest in this camera than, say, the newly released Nikon D500 or anything from Canon.

My camera needs are shifting as I get older. If anything I’m going back to my roots, the kind of 35mm film equipment I owned and used back in my 20s, which consisted primarily of several Minolta bodies and three prime lenses. Those lenses were 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm. With Fuji they’ve got the equivalent to 50mm covered. I’m hoping they’ll introduce equivalents to 28mm/35mm, such as a WR 18mm or WR 23mm, and at the long end a WR 90mm. With the latest sensor in the X-Pro2 they can all be f/2 or even f/2.8 maximum aperture. I’m not a speed freak, and wide apertures at f/1.4 or faster add inordinate cost to a lens that for the most part can’t be justified except as a bragging point. I also have no use for exotic focal lengths or zooms. All I want are the solid basics.

I believe that 2016 is going to be a real watershed year for digital photography. There are truly no bad cameras anymore with regards to image quality. Now it’s all about usability and specific focal lengths, and how it all works in my hands with my mind and eye.

Spend enough time online at any of the photography forums and you’re going to run across stories, usually every quarter, about the declining sale of interchangeable lens cameras (ILCs) that include DSLR and mirrorless. The reasons offered are numerous, but the two biggest reasons as I see them are cost, coupled with how quickly new iterations of the same camera are marketed.

The chart just above is from a website called Personal View and is derived from CIPA (Camera & Imaging Products Association) data. The chart shows both the monthly volatility of the ILC market, as well as a long-term steady downward growth in units shiped. Even someone as stalwart as Thom Hogan uses the chart when he talks about the continuing decline of camera sales. Thom has an interesting article, published in May 2013 (How Steep Was the Decline?), comparing the equivalent rapid sales decline in film bodies with digital. A key fact from this article is that the peak year for digital sales was 2010.

It’s my personal opinion that the reason for the decline of ILCs is due to the very high cost if purchasing any of the cameras, specifically the bodies, coupled with the yearly introduction of ever newer models at the same or higher price point. Consumers, such as myself, pay the top dollar, only to read to their dismay when the next version is released before the new is even properly worn off the current model they own. And they’re told, subtly by the makers and bluntly on the forums, how your current model is immediately obsolete and oh so inferior. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

To a certain extent everyone is right. Your current body is inferior to what always comes next, especially where it truly counts; the sensor and the processor. Technology in those areas, especially the sensor, relentlessly moves forward. The way that the whole industry currently works is, if you want the latest imaging capabilities (more exposure latitude, higher ISO sensitivity without detail destroying noise, etc, etc) then you purchase an entirely new body, instead of just replacing the bits that really matter. Gone are the days of film when you changed film to get a different or better look (or both). When you bought that film body you had a good five or more years, or even longer (such as with Leica) of guaranteed solid use.

It doesn’t take long before a lot of people get tired of it. $1,000 cameras (body with a lens) are expensive discretionary items for lots of people. They justify the expense because they want to document some part of their lives. College kids and twenty-somethings want to document the wilder side of their lives. Marrieds, especially with children, want to document family life. When those kids are grown, then those older parents want to turn around and document their adult children. And therein lies a further complication of the sales problem with the camera industry.

It doesn’t take long before the “real” photographer shows his or her talent in the family. It’s that person who becomes the designated family photographer for the important photos, usually for a number of decades. Everybody else uses their smartphone. The family designated photographer spends the cash for the expensive ILC, along with any number of accessories. That cuts down considerably on the number of units that the camera industry can shift over time, resulting in the huge backlog of older models being sold at discount. The only problem is that marketing keeps saying how the older models are inferior to the current models, not matter how deeply discounted. And so a lot of potential customers who might have bought the older kit on discount wait and the old hardware grows older, increasingly clogging every seller’s inventory.

The camera at the top of this post is an example of introduce high and discount low 12-18 months later. It’s an Olympus E-PL1 with the older 17mm f/2.8 pancake prime. It’s a great camera and the lens does quite well. When the E-PL1 was introduced early 2010 it cost $600 and included the plastic-mount 14-42mm Zuiko kit zoom. When I got it 18 months later it had dropped to $140, body only. I got the prime when it was also discounted at $180, about half its introductory price. The combined camera plus 17mm cost me $320, a little more than half the introductory price. You can’t find the E-PL1 anymore, and the price of the 17mm pancake as actually risen since then. But with that purchase, I learned an important lesson: wait for the price to drop. A lesson taught by Nikon and Sony and Pentax, and even Canon. Wait long enough and the camera you want right now will be affordable. And that puts an even further brake on selling cameras and hurts the manufacturer’s bottom line. Nobody comes out a winner, not the manufacturer or the seller. As for the buyer, low prices like that are a short-term and short sighted gain. In the end manufacturers either stop making cameras because they’re out of business or close to it.

Long term there are no winners.

The one photo of the X-T1 that caught my eye was the one above. The camera is cradled in a pair of human hands. In an instant you gain an understanding of the camera’s overall size and placement of the controls. The camera isn’t “retro” by any stretch. It’s classic in the type of controls it provides on the top deck as well as their overall placement. If anything, that view of the X-T1 is more Olympus OM film body-like than Olympus’ own OM-D series. Especially that big, wide faux pentaprism hump.

This is the type of camera that Nikon should have made when they made their Df. The X-T1 has a clean, chiseled look like the OM-D E-M1. Not a single extraneous line or stamping anywhere. The Fujifilm X-T1 harkens back to classic times when primes were the rule, not overly expensive zooms. Just grab two or three primes (28mm, 50mm, and 85mm equivalents) and a body with a half dozen 36 exposure rolls and you’re off to experience the world. And I most certainly like the breadth of the X lens series.

Speaking of controls, one of my favorite features (so far) of the X-T1 are its dials: shutter speed and ISO on top, and with the right lenses, aperture on the lens barrel where it belongs. Want to go all auto on any setting? Simple. Just spin the dial to the ‘A’ setting (for automatic) and the camera just does it for you. That’s what film cameras had going back to the mid 1970s. I know this to be true because my Minolta XE-7 and XD-11 had this capability. And they weren’t the only ones. Having a PASM dial on today’s digital cameras is an acknowledgement by the camera makers that once upon a time photographers used a simpler way to tune automation on their cameras. As for all the other superfluous features on a camera, such as  scene modes or art filters, I can do without. One other superfluous feature I can do without is the top deck LCD. We have those on other cameras because we need visual feedback on how the camera is configured. With analogue dials you don’t need a top deck LCD. And if you reclaim that expensive real estate, you can afford to make your dials big and fat and a joy to handle, with easy to read numbers.

It won’t be here until sometime in February. When it does arrive it’ll come with a kit lens that’s a cut above every other kit lens of its type out there: an 18-55mm f/2.8-4 zoom lens. A kit lens that’s a half stop to a full stop faster. Olympus and Panasonic equivalents (14-42mm) are f/3.5-5.6, and even the APS-C equivalents in those focal lengths aren’t as fast. Fujifilm understands that what photographer’s want (at least this photographer) is the fastest possible lenses we can reasonably afford. The only lens that comes even close to the Fujifilm 18-55mm is the Olympus FourThirds HG 12-60mm f/2.8-4 zoom. I loved that one lens and miss it still. I doubt the person or persons who stole it really appreciate what they got out of my car.

I’m at a cross roads of sorts in my photographic life. At $1,300, body only, this is an expensive camera. I’m thinking I’ll get one more camera before I give it all up and “retire.” But the cost puts it right in the competitive thick of it, against Olympus (E-M1), Pentax (K3), Samsung (NX-300), Canon (70D), and Nikon (D7100). I’ve held them all and have enough test shots to know that they’re all equivalent. Ergonomics are pretty much a non-issue with me. The real bargain in that group is the Samsung at around half the price of all the rest. Quality body, quality lenses, and surprising features. I didn’t include the Samsung Galaxy NX because I’ve held it and can’t stand it. The Samsung NX30 is something of  a dark horse that may be another competitor in that group, one that I would consider. And Sony I don’t consider because they’re all over the place with ergonomics and a paucity of native lenses for their E-mount cameras, both APS-C and 135mm.

I’m not rushing out to place a pre-order. I’m content with what I have. I’ll continue to use it until such time as the cameras all break or someone comes out with something truly revolutionary and reasonably affordable. My E-M5 is my “big gun” camera, while all my other µFourThird cameras are my artistic, carry around cameras. I’m set and don’t need to buy anything else for the time being.

Updates

[Darth Vader voice] The force is strong in this one…