Street? What’s that?

[KLaban]

I think that Fuji may be going off piste with their latest Mk VI.

They originally had a camera that caught the eye of a section of the buying public, began to iterate like mad, yet versions later, still don’t offer a real manual focus system (focus by wire is the best that it does) and the lens failed to come up with depth of field scales. To the kind of person who does what the thing is supposed to be for, street, setting focus before framing takes place is a common technique (zone focussing) that requires scales that are visible without resorting to graphics on a screen.

I wonder why they feel obliged to start going with more megapixies? That can only drive up costs and addresses none of the non-af focus problems. Street’s not about silken images - in fact, many people add grain just because of the subject matter. Could it be that they are thinking of starting to compete with the Leica Q variations? I suppose that if you do drive up prices you might also drive up the expectations of the buyers… real rainproofing comes to mind.

However, having just castigated Fuji for not offering a proper dof  scale on the lens, let me mention Nikon: pretty much a career-long Nikon user, I have to admit to total confusion with its dof scales. Coloured lines instead of numerals is a cheap, lousy cop out, in my opinion, and next to worthless, especially in the heat of the moment.

Off topic...

The Q cameras have fairly comprehensive and readable DOF scales and even have an additional sliding "Macro" scale for closer focus. The focus is silky smooth.

One thing that was putting me off getting into the Nikon Z system was exactly that, an absence of DOF scales on all of their native Z lenses. However third party manufactures offer a selection of wonderful manual focus lenses in Z mount and even more via adapters. Voigtlander gets a special mention here, superb build quality, optically outstanding and great bang-for-buck.

My Z7 bodies are comparatively long in the tooth now at five years old but meet all my needs and are more compact than recent Nikon bodies. The Q3 43 is almost identical in size to the Nikon Z7 with a similar focal length Voigtlander lens.

Very happy with the combination.

Sadly, bananas are bad for my heart.

  

   

[Rob C]

Yes, we have no bananas either.

Now and again, I buy a couple, and if eaten within two days, all is serene. On the third day, should one remain, over the hedge it goes into the field, where I hope some wild creature can consume and enjoy. Nothing lasts. I suspect they are months old, live in freezers, then get unleashed unto the innocent public. Even on the racks, they lie there, turning black. I wonder what becomes of them when they can’t be sold? The same happens with lemons and mandarins - and the darned things grow here! No, those don’t go black - they just turn into mould.

My first cardio told me to avoid bananas: too much sugar in them.

[Manoli]

The Q cameras have fairly comprehensive and readable DOF scales …

Keith, Rob

I’d be surprised if those Q3 DoF scales are usable. Leica, on SL / S series glass, don’t have any DoF markings primarily because they’d be inaccurate. The M class have them but it’s cosmetic and a throwback to their heritage (although still useful on their latest film cam revivals). Modern sensors render film era dof calculations, based on 30 micron CoC, pretty much obsolete on cameras using sensors with a pixel pitch of <4 microns.

A longtime Lula member, Anders Torger, wrote an excellent DoF calculator, Lumariver DOF, available on iPhone / iPad (link below). Incredibly versatile - strongly recommend having a look.

https://www.lumariver.com
Intro & discussion thread on GetDPI

Happy new year, boys - health & serenity!

[KLaban]

Manoli, yes, the DOF scales are inaccurate, but they have been so for years, particularly when modern CoC calculations for digital sensors are taken into consideration, to be taken as a guide rather than wahrheit. Only used when all else is impossible. Certainly wouldn't rely on them unless stopped down considerably. That said, I'd rather have them than not.

Thankfully the Q3 43 focus aids are brilliant, I've not missed critical focus yet even wide open.

Happy and healthy new year to you and yours.

[KLaban]

...too much sugar in them.

...and potassium.

[Rob C]

Keith, Rob

I’d be surprised if those Q3 DoF scales are usable. Leica, on SL / S series glass, don’t have any DoF markings primarily because they’d be inaccurate. The M class have them but it’s cosmetic and a throwback to their heritage (although still useful on their latest film cam revivals). Modern sensors render film era dof calculations, based on 30 micron CoC, pretty much obsolete on cameras using sensors with a pixel pitch of <4 microns.

Happy new year, boys - health & serenity!

Greetings to you, too, Manoli.

I think I’ve mentioned here in the past that, personally, I’m of the opinion that dof is a bit of a hope, rather than a fact, that there is only one truly sharp plane, and that’s the one where you've focussed the camera.

However, observation does point to the reality that an impression of sharpness is available on both sides of that plane, the more so the smaller the stop you are using, defraction notwithstanding. Also, there appears to be more of the gift behind that point than in front of it. In that sense, scales are useful as indicators of where you might want to place your bets. The other rough ‘n’ ready method was to focus about a third of the way into your image. Hence, available dof scales do provide a sort of guide to where your hopes of a useable image may best be assured. Again, a lot depends on just how big you show the image: the smaller the image the greater the impression of dof captured. In today’s world, where it seems fewer and fewer people are prepared to invest in printing, it might be thought that we are back where we started, regardless of the number of microns squatting on the head of our particular pin.

[Chris Kern]

. . . I’m of the opinion that dof is a bit of a hope, rather than a fact, that there is only one truly sharp plane, and that’s the one where you've focussed the camera.

I don't think that's only your opinion: it's objectively true: although, as you point out, there's some wiggle room if you stop down:

. . . observation does point to the reality that an impression of sharpness is available on both sides of that plane, the more so the smaller the stop you are using, defraction notwithstanding. Also, there appears to be more of the gift behind that point than in front of it.

However, I suspect a technical fix could be available just around the metaphorical corner if any camera manufacturer wanted to invest in developing the software (firmware) for implementing it.  We now have plenty of camera bodies that can fire off a remarkable number of frames per second, as well as those that will, on command, automagically adjust focus between frames in order produce a series of images that can be stacked in post.

Combine rapid snapping with automated focus-stacking, and it should be possible to produce images that merge a series of those "truly sharp plane(s)" with a result that exceeds anything that could be achieved optically in a single frame.  Probably wouldn't work for sports or other action photography, but probably would work for everything else.

[Manoli]

Thankfully the Q3 43 focus aids are brilliant, I've not missed critical focus yet even wide open.

I was sorely tempted by that camera but in the end went for the SL3 so I fully second your experience!

[Manoli]

I’m of the opinion that dof is a bit of a hope, rather than a fact, that there is only one truly sharp plane, and that’s the one where you've focussed the camera.

A lifetime of occasionally discovering that the tip of a nose or ear instead of the eyes were critically focussed (more so in the DSLR days) resulted in my having no hesitation in moving to mirrorless!

[KLaban]

I don't think that's only your opinion: it's objectively true: although, as you point out, there's some wiggle room if you stop down:

However, I suspect a technical fix could be available just around the metaphorical corner if any camera manufacturer wanted to invest in developing the software (firmware) for implementing it.  We now have plenty of camera bodies that can fire off a remarkable number of frames per second, as well as those that will, on command, automagically adjust focus between frames in order produce a series of images that can be stacked in post.

Combine rapid snapping with automated focus-stacking, and it should be possible to produce images that merge a series of those "truly sharp plane(s)" with a result that exceeds anything that could be achieved optically in a single frame.  Probably wouldn't work for sports or other action photography, but probably would work for everything else.

A matter of pressing the button and leaving Mr. Nikon, Mr. Canon, et al to do the rest.

Where's the fun in that? I'd rather miss the focus.

[KLaban]

A lifetime of occasionally discovering that the tip of a nose or ear instead of the eyes were critically focussed (more so in the DSLR days) resulted in my having no hesitation in moving to mirrorless!

Hi Manoli, agreed, mirrorless is game changing in so many ways!

[Rob C]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zos7BopFaRg&feature=shared

Sometimes, I wish I lived in such a place. Then, I ask myself: how would you finance that at your delicate age, and still enjoy a comfortable life? The underside of a bridge does not qualify.

I have often suggested that film people (movies) have a better - or at least more developed eye - than those of us stuck in the stills department. Staley seems to substantiate this notion video after video.

Enjoy.

[RSL]

As is the case with landscape and any visual art, or for that matter any art, there’s good indifferent, and bad art. So it is with street. A classic example is Cartier-Bresson’s picture of a well-dressed woman disapproving strongly of a younger woman with a very short skirt. I’ve forgotten the title, but you can google it and find it easily. Had Hanri simply made a picture of the girl, it would be pretty bad art. Had he made a picture of the well-dressed woman, it would be indifferent art, but by showing emotion he made what I’d consider good art. Street is far from dead, but I agree with Rob that it’s fallen on hard times.

Russ Lewis