FujiFilm X100S Test Drive in Istanbul with Zack Arias

Chris Dodkin

Chris Dodkin

West Coast Correspondent
Zack has been given the X100S to test drive, and headed out to Instanbul for a few days to see how it performed.

[video=youtube_share;SlbaWP3mVVA]http://youtu.be/SlbaWP3mVVA[/video]

Great to see his street work, which I've watched for some time - X100s comes out looking very tasty as well

- - - Updated - - -

The image gallery from the video/shoot is here: http://500px.com/zarias/sets/fujifilm_x100s_gallery
 
Can't argue with that - and very personable as well

He's taking quite a risk giving the personal endorsement he does on the video - he'll get a lot of flack for that I'm sure
 
Chris Dodkin said:
Can't argue with that - and very personable as well

He's taking quite a risk giving the personal endorsement he does on the video - he'll get a lot of flack for that I'm sure
Click to expand...

Yes. It has already started in the usual places.

The thing for me is that he clearly has a sense of fun. In his bar scene post he really pokes fun at the pixel-peepers. All of which is good for traffic to his material. Underlying it all though is some very useful information. You can really find out how a camera behaves in that environment. All of which is backed by his clearly apparent skill.

Did you ever see the DigitalRev TV episode where he had to shoot randomly with a very, um, weak camera? That's a real skill test. Funny and instructive. Or maybe it's just me...

Zack Arias, Cheap Camera Challenge (Pro Tog, Cheap Cam)
 
That was great. I spent some time studying music in Istanbul, six weeks or so, every day. Wish I'd been into photography then!

So, the DSLR is dead?
 
Rob MacKillop said:
So, the DSLR is dead?
Click to expand...

It still has a few years left in it, and I expect that CaNikon will continue making them for quite a long time. There has always been a segment of photographers who strongly resist change, and will continue to buy them long after extremely high resolution electronic viewfinders are common.

I have no intention of selling my D700, in spite of it no longer being my go-to workhorse. If I am traveling in unfamiliar territory by vehicle, the weight of the kit is of no consequence. With coverage from 114° to 8° with two zooms, I am prepared for anything awaiting capture around the next bend. Best of all, it has a GPS that feeds coordinates directly into EXIF metadata, so I can see where each exposure was made on a map, upon opening the folder in ACDSee Pro. This is specially appreciated for shoots done some years ago.

If the X-Pro1 also allowed GPS metadata, the D700 might well fade into history.
 
Rob MacKillop said:
That was great. I spent some time studying music in Istanbul, six weeks or so, every day. Wish I'd been into photography then!

So, the DSLR is dead?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Two reasons come immediately to mind
- Market presence. Big names, lots of money, retail support (online and offline), vested interest, and familiarity in brand and type. Plus, they do an excellent job
- Specialist roles. They do some things very, very well.

Arias has a very specific viewpoint. My understanding is that he uses MF for his studio work, and the excellent quality and versatility of these smaller cameras enables him to ditch DSLRs for other work. That currently isn't the case for everyone.

It's fun to watch transitions like this one.
 
Yes, well put. People (including myself) tend to get tunnel vision about photography, relating to how they do it and assuming it's the same for everyone. But there are very different specializations in photography. Some fashion photographers have now switched to HD video cameras, and they just pull stills from that. The quality is good enough for covers of magazines. They would argue that MF is dead...

But basically, it's a bit like saying you have a hammer, so you don't need a screwdriver anymore.
 
Last edited:
Darren Bradley said:
No rangefinder or other compact format is likely to ever replace a DSLR or MF camera for architecture photography.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I rarely used an SLR for architecture though I do have the 28mm PC Nikkor shift-lens. It was bought for a specific assignment where slides were specified, and paid for itself on the first day of a seven-day shoot. After that, it was mainly used for environmental portraiture.

When I was not using a view-camera, I used my Brooks Veriwide 100 for countless architecture gigs. Shot for top architects, developers and magazines out of Dallas, TX. No reflex viewing, not even a rangefinder. Focus by distance. Built-in 47mm SuperAngulon over a 6×10 format. Similar cameras were available from Alpa, Linhof, Graflex and Horseman until recently, and they may still be being made. I have not checked. In any case it was a superb camera for architecture, with almost nothing in common with a SLR. While it is entirely possible to shoot architecture with an SLR, it really offers no advantage.

Brooks-VeriWide100.jpg

At this point, the X-Pro1 at any given ISO has a slight edge over the D700. Slightly lower noise, and no AA filter so very high edge-sharpness. While view-camera movements can be applied after the fact in Photoshop, a tap on a button brings up a grid in the viewfinder for matching lines in a building. It also has an artificial horizon visible in the EVF, OVF and LCD as needed. A 14mm lens (21mm FF field of view) with extreme linearity and lack of distortion and CAs has recently come on the market, and should be ideal for architecture. Zeiss will be shipping a 12mm Distagon f/2.8 next month, which also should be highly satisfactory in this role.
 
Naturally, an LF or MF camera have traditionally been the cameras of choice for architecture- especially in the film days. Now, those who can afford it and who can justify the expense are using technical cameras like a Cambo Wide or an ALPA... with a Phase One digital back and independent movement with a Schneider or Rodenstock lens. That's the ultimate these days.

Runner up would be a DSLR with tilt-shift lenses to get some independent movement for shift/swing.

Everything else would be a distant third. Could you do architectural photography with a different set up? Sure. Some do. And you can correct in PP. but you lose a lot in resolution and it often looks less natural. And non-arch lenses often have more distortion, which is harder to correct in post, as well.

Yes, there are plenty of examples to the contrary. When I don't have a hammer, I sometimes use the handle of my screwdriver to pound a nail. It works, but perhaps not the best tool for the job.
 
Last edited:
Darren - any thoughts on T&S for Blad at all?
 
Chris, There are certainly those that use them, too, but it's not the ideal choice. The reason is because for the amount of money you're shelling out, you're better off with a technical camera. Hassies function much like a typical DSLR in that the sensor is stationary and the lens shifts and swings (assuming you're using a tilt-shift lens or adapter). While better than a stationary set-up, this is not the ideal configuration for architecture because of the parallax effect inherent in that design. With a technical camera, you can make it so that the sensor moves and the lens is stationary. So when you go back later to stitch frames, there's no parallax effect and it lines up much better than if you were using a Hassie or a DSLR (where by moving the lens, you've changed the angle of view slightly). Does that make sense?

So bottom line is that a Hassie will cost as much or more than a technical camera, but it won't work as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Nice X100S Video
Replies
1
Views
581
Pete Askew
Pete Askew
Chris Dodkin
Fuji x100s Follow Up Review :: Life Without DSLRs - Zack Arias
Replies
5
Views
1K
Larry Bolch
Larry Bolch
Chris Dodkin
Is This Why Fuji 'get It'?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Dave Young
Dave Young
Back
Top