Photonic Shunkan

When I first started shooting with an interchangeable lens camera, I chose a Canon and considered myself a Canon shooter for a long time. These days I shoot more Fujifilm, both the X and the GFX Systems. I have kept the Canon EF mount system because there are so many lenses you can't get for Fuji mounts. Today, I would discuss how the field vs studio camera difference  that we previously discussed comes into play in practice. Of late I have been shooting a lot of macro work after making friends with Kiki the neighbourhood brushtail possum! They are encountered often in suburbia here in Australia. Here's a little link to the story on Instagram . Kiki is quite the Fujifilm fangirl. When she sees my camera, she comes rushing down from the treetops to say hello. She is fascinated by the Fujifilm camera and goes right up to it, sniffing it and touching it with her hands. There were issues I had with shooting this scene. The biggest one comes from the fact that poss...

This is a bold prediction, but Canon (and Nikon) will reintroduce the pellicle mirror into their DSLR line camera systems some time within the next 4-8 years. The last pellicle mirror camera released by Canon was the EOS-1N RS introduced in 1995 and only discontinued in 2001: A semi-translucent pellicle mirror replaces a moving reflex mirror that lifts up to capture the image. The key prediction being made here today is that the pellicle mirror will return to a 1D equivalent camera some time in the next 4-8 years. Nikon, in the more distant past, has also had pellicle mirror film cameras like the Nikon F2H from 1976, and they too will introduce a pellicle mirror digital single-lens translucent mirror (DSLT) camera with an electronic viewfinder (EVF) replacing an optical viewfinder. Canon tends to be more conservative than Nikon but in this instance Canon appears to own recent patents relevant to pellicle mirror cameras, whereas no DSLT relevant Nikon patents have be...

A field system is for sports, wildlife, reportage, and street photography. A studio system is for more methodical use in ideal light situations where portability is less of an issue. As with all dichotomies, the margins are always blurred, but I see this as a good thing. For some, the field is the studio, and Ansel Adams did take his large format camera out into Yosemite. I still find the term "field" vs "studio" camera to be a useful distinction for the purposes of discussion. The most interesting phenomenon today is that we can squeeze much better quality out of much smaller formats. The basic field camera in everyday use today is the phone camera. Today, M4/3 and APS-C cameras are maturing into remarkably highly resolving field systems. It used to be that 35mm format was considered a low resolution field system that compromised on image quality for ergonomic gain. You could even buy a disposable 35mm camera at souvenir shops at tourist spots (and nobody t...