Tag Archives: recommendation

Reader Question: About the Canon 5DsR

From time to time I share answers to question from blog readers, since I think that the answers might be of broader interest. Here is one from Gareth, who writes:

Hi Dan, I’ve been reading your reviews on the canon 5DSR (big help) and just wanted to ask you, if your were buying a full frame camera today would you still buy this camera for landscape photography? Just to add at present I use a GH5 with metabones adaptor, great camera but I want to do large fine art prints, I also have a range of canon lenses. You thoughts would be much appreciated, Many thanks Gareth P.S. wonderful images you have done.

Thanks Gareth.

A few years ago my answer would have been pretty straightforward — basically, if you wanted a high resolution full-frame camera for landscape photography and potentially rather large prints… the Canon 5DsR would be an obvious choice, especially for someone already owning Canon lenses.

It still is a fine camera for this purpose, and it works admirably for this purpose and many others. The 50MP sensor is capable of producing highly detailed images, and the camera works especially well on the tripod for landscape photography. I’m still using mine, and I have no plans to replace it at this point.

However, the market has changed since I got mine and the market is still undergoing changes that will play out in some significant ways in the next year or two. So, while the 5DsR still works great for the purpose your describe — and is probably available for lower prices, especially on the used market — it may be worth thinking about some matters of timing if you aren’t in a hurry to get something.

Back when I got my 5DsR, this camera’s 50MP sensor provided the most sensor resolution then available in a full-frame body. The nearest competitors at that time were the 36MP sensors from Sony found in their bodies and in Nikon cameras. But since that time other brands have come out with higher resolution sensors, such as the 60MP Sony A7rIV. In truth, the difference between 50MP and 60MP doesn’t really amount to much, but it is a competitor.

Perhaps of more interest to a photographer owning Canon lenses, it is quite likely that Canon will introduce a higher MP mirrorless body successor to the 5DsR before too much longer. We don’t know when that will happen, but it is virtually certain that it is coming. Rumors suggest a 75MP (or possibly a bit higher) sensor resolution. The Canon mirrorless bodies work with the existing EF lenses via adapters.

Is it worth waiting for this? The answer is quite subjective. For me, as a person already owning a 5DsR, I’ll happily keep using that and see what comes from Canon in the future before I make any moves. My 5DsR is not holding me back in any way, but if the new camera is compelling enough I might consider getting it.

Of course, it will likely cost more. And it really is designed to use the newer RF lenses, so there would be pressure to get some of them, too — and this leads toward some fairly hefty costs for upgrading.

So, where does that leave you?

If you want a camera now for landscape photography, you plan to print large, and you want Canon… the 5DsR is still fine choice and it works very well for a landscape camera. If you aren’t in a hurry and you aren’t daunted by potentially higher costs, you could wait and see what the high MP Canon mirrorless body brings.

Good luck!

Fujifilm X-Pro2

Fujifilm just released their newest camera, the X-Pro2. Since I have been relying on an earlier Fujifilm camera (the original X-E1) for over three years — and liking the results a whole lot — it seemed like time to move up to the newer, more refined body. My new X-Pro2 arrived a few days ago, and so far I’m quite impressed. (My time with the camera has been limited thus far, and I’ll share a much more detailed report once I have had a chance to use it extensively.)

Fujifilm X-Pro2
Fujifilm X-Pro2 with the new XF 35mm f/2 WR lens

The Fujifilm “x-trans” sensor cameras are appealing for a number of reasons:

  • Small, light mirrorless designs offer an alternative to larger DSLR systems.
  • The x-trans sensor produces excellent image quality and uses a photo site layout that is designed to minimize aliasing without using anti-aliasing filters.
  • The Fujifilm lenses are truly top-notch, from primes to zooms, and there is a complete and diverse selection of available lenses.

Until now all of these cameras have use 16 megapixel (MP) 1.5x cropped sensor designs. 16MP is plenty for almost all photographers, and I make beautiful 18″ x 24″ prints from the files. One of the main updates on the X-Pro2 is the addition of an optimized 24MP sensor. If anything, this sensor improves the low light performance and dynamic range of the 16MP versions, and it provides a bit more resolution.

The X-Pro2 also improves on many of the ideas behind the original (and now a bit long in the tooth, though quite inexpensive) X-Pro1. Both cameras use a hybrid viewfinder that incorporates both an optical viewfinder (OVF) and an electronic viewfinder (EVF), both of which have advantages in various situations. The OVF works beautifully with many primes, eliminates shutter blackout, and allows the photographer to see what is going on just outside the borders of the image. The design overlays an electronic display on top of the optical image. These features are very useful to those doing street photography and similar things.

The EVF works well with all lenses, from ultra wide to telephoto and especially with zoom lenses. It can be advantageous in very low light, such as night street photography. It also shows the precise frame edge lines and can display even more image data than the OVF.

The camera feels light but also solid and well-constructed, and it recalls classic rangefinder cameras.

I got mine with the new XF 35mm f/2 WR lens, one of five newer lenses that are optimized to autofocus more quickly on the X-Pro2 (and, presumably, future X-series cameras). It is also weather resistant. I can report that it focuses quickly and accurately in a wide range of situations. Since I also have my older XF 35mm f/1.4 lens, I haven’t yet decided whether I will end up valuing the extra stop of the f/1.4 lens enough to give up the faster AF and smaller size of the new f/2 lens.

That’s all I’ll say for now, but expect more in the not-too-distant future as I gain more experience with the camera. For now, I don’t see any reason to not recommend it.

  • Fujifilm X-Pro2 digital camera body — $1699 at B&H or Adorama
  • Fujinon XF 35mm f/2 WR lens — $399 / $299* with X-Pro2 at B&H or Adorama (*limited time offer)

(If you find this website and posts like this useful and you are going to get one of these products, consider making your purchase through links on this site. Your price will be the same, but the purchases help support the operation of the site. Thanks!)

Also see:  Taking Stock of the Fujifilm X-E1, X-E2, S-T1 Mirrorless Cameras


G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | FacebookGoogle+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email


All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Taking Stock OF Fujifilm Mirrorless Cameras

Turret Skylight, SFMOMA
Turret Skylight, SFMOMA (San Francisco) – X-E1 with 14mm f/2.8 lens

NOTE: Since I first wrote this article, Fujifilm has released additional X-trans sensor camera bodies and more lenses. Fujifilm has been very aggressive about continuously improving the line as reflected in the release schedule and their frequent firmware updates to add and improve camera functions. From time to time I will add updates to the beginning of this article to incorporate information about the newer equipment. The main original article continues below the “updates.”

If this article helps you make a purchase decision, I would be grateful if you would use the links found here to make your purchase. Doing so help support this website and it does not increase your costs at all. Thanks!

Update Early Summer 2019

As mentioned in an earlier “update” (see below) I now use the Fujifilm X-Pro2 (B&H | Adoramaa 24MP rangefinder style interchangeable lens body with a unique hybrid OVF/EFV design. I also have a few more lenses. While I have not updated all of the information below on Fujifilm bodies (much of which has become out-of-date since originally written in 2013), I have updated lens information to reflect newer lenses I have purchased or otherwise used.

Update Early Summer 2016

I now have the 24MP Fujifilm X-Pro2 (B&H | Adoramaa 24MP rangefinder style interchangeable lens body with a unique hybrid OVF/EFV design. I also now have a copy of the 55-140mm f/2.8 IS zoom (B&H | Adorama). 

Update 2/23/14

In addition to the cameras mentioned elsewhere, Fujifilm has now also introduced the XT10 mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. This camera is similar to the XT1 in many ways — for example having the same sensor and the same viewfinder design — but at a lower price point.

Update 2/23/14

During the time that I’ve used a Fujifilm X-trans sensor camera, I’ve wondered about what level of print quality I might get – in particular, I’ve wondered how large I could print and still obtain excellent results. I have made some prints at 12″ x 18″ size, which is my usual size for proof prints, and they look great. A while ago I printed the “Spring Trees, Waterfall Mist” photograph (seen below in this article) at 15″ x 20″ with very good results. This past week I made an 18″ x 24″ print of a busy Manhattan “urban landscape” – and it really looks great! Detail is excellent, tonal quality is beautiful, noise is a non-existent issue, and the 16MP files, carefully post-processed, produce wonderful quality.

While there is no question in my mind that prints from full frame cameras can, all else being equal, be successful at larger sizes than those made from cropped sensor originals, there is also no question in my mind that the Fujifilm system can produce prints that are as good or better than those from any other cropped sensor system. (Unfortunately, there is no way to show you an actual print in an article on the web… ;-)

Update 1/28/14

Fujifilm has announced their new X-T1 Mirrorless Camera. (It is available now, but I’ll leave the original wording here.) The rumors regarding this new camera have been rampant for the past few weeks, and here is what we now know:

  • 16.3 MP X-trans 1.5X cropped sensor
  • ISO 100-51200
  • 8fps continuous shooting
  • Improved hybrid AF system incorporating contrast- and phase detection methods
  • Improved manual focus with digital split image and focus peaking
  • Faster, higher density, and larger electronic viewfinder
  • 1080p HD Video
  • WiFi
  • Expanded manual control dials for shutter speed, +/- 3 EV exposure compensation, ISO,  aperture (on many lenses), and more.

A number of features get my attention. My Fujifilm X-E1 works well at high ISO values, but this camera appears to take the much farther extending the lowest ISO from 200 to 100 and the highest all the way to 51600. The specifications and early reports on the web suggest that the AF system has been significantly improved, even beyond those improvements on the X-E2. The added manual controls are going to help a lot for the sorts of photography that many of us do with this sort of camera, where we need to change settings quickly and without going through menus. There are lots of other improvements, large and small, too numerous to mention here.

I’m very interested in this camera. My X-E1 is a wonderful little picture-making tool that complements my larger DSLR system – and the X-T1 sounds like it has been designed to significantly improve on this effective concept. (I have since upgraded to the X-Pro-2.)

The camera is available at site sponsor B&H:

Update 10/22/13

In October 2013 Fujifilm announced an updated version of the X-E1, the X-E2, with availability scheduled for sometime in the second half of November 2013. (You may pre-order the new camera using links near the end of this page. Update on 11/21/13: Some versions of the camera are now shipping. Check the links for more details.) I have not had a chance to use the new body as of this writing, but here is some information about the new x-E2, along with some thoughts about it relative to the prior X-E1.

 There is a perception that some camera manufacturers are slow to incorporate new technologies into their cameras or to make updates to improve the functionality of existing models. Fujifilm, on the other hand, seems to take a very different approach. They have frequently improved and updated the earlier X-series bodies by way of firmware updates that have offered significant improvements and added new features. This seems to carry over into the introduction of new models as well, and the X-E2 appears to incorporate a number of useful and important updates. Much of what follows is, as alluded to above, based on specification sheets and other writing about the camera since I have not used it as of this date.

  • The camera’s physical design appears to be very similar to that of the X-E1 – a casual observer might not notice the differences. A few control buttons have been moved, and there are now separate AF and AE buttons. The display is a bit wider.
  • The camera continues to use a 16MP 1.5x cropped format X-trans sensor, which I find to be a fine performer – the marketing material now refers to the “16.3MP APS-C X-Trans CMOS II sensor,” but time will tell whether the fundamental image quality is significantly different. Fujifilm says that image processing has been improved to include a Lens Modulation Optimizer function that compensates for image issues such as diffraction blur at smaller apertures along with other sorts of image aberrations. It will be interesting to see how the diffraction blur reduction software performs, as this becomes more of an issue with cameras with small sensors.
  • An improved (e.g. faster) “EXR Processor II” is said to improve camera performance in many ways – quicker startup, shorter shutter lag, burst mode shooting, and more.
  • The video performance has been improved. Video was not a strong point of the X-E1, but the X-E2 supports higher frame rates and more formats including 1080p video.
  • Fujifilm reports that the AF system has been significantly updated. It is said to use both contrast-detection and phase-detection systems (each of which has advantages in various situations) to improve AF performance  – this is said to help with both low light  conditions and moving subjects. This is an important area since mirrorless camera AF systems generally do not perform as well with moving subjects. 
  • The camera incorporates a “digital split image” system for manual focus, which seems to recall the old split-image systems of film cameras, along with a focus peaking – both of which can assist with accurate manual focus.
  • The camera has built-in wifi connectivity. Fujifilm says this will allow connectivity to “Android or iOS mobile device[s]” to browse images remotely and to transfer images. It is unclear whether this works with other devices such as laptops.
  • The X-E2 uses the same battery as the X-E1, which might be an important issue for anyone considering an upgrade or using the X-E2 along with other X-series cameras.

And now, back to the original article about the X-E1, much of which is still very relevant whether you are looking at X-E2s or one of the newer bodies… especially the extensive discussions of lenses for the X-series system, functional aspects of the smaller camera as a general concept, and more. Enjoy!


Asian Styles
People in front of a San Francisco storefront at night

Until recently I have photographed almost exclusively with DSLR gear – full frame for perhaps eight years, cropped sensor before that, and 35mm film back in the prehistoric era – with a varying set of lenses, a large tripod, and others bits and pieces of support gear. This gear works very well for me, but it is not small or light. With the prospect of a three-week overseas trip ahead of me, earlier this year I decided to look at smaller and lighter options that might work for the specific purposes I had in mind. My basic criteria included:

  • Excellent image quality. While I was willing to consider some of the excellent four thirds systems, I was more inclined to get an APS-C cropped sensor format body. In addition, I needed a system that would provide excellent lens quality across a range of focal lengths.
  • Small size and light weight. Because our intention was to limit ourselves to carry-on luggage, weight and size of body, lenses, and associated gear were an issue. My goal was to be able to carry my entire kit in a small messenger bag with room left over for other equipment such as a small laptop, a small hard drive, chargers and adapters, and other gear.
  • Good functionality and reliability. The camera and lenses needed to be of high quality and to cover the range of needs that I might have in terms of focal lengths and apertures. Interchangeable lenses would be necessary. The gear needed to be reliable and relatively quick and easy to use. Since I would be shooting almost exclusively handheld, something with the responsiveness and simplicity of a street photography camera would make sense.

The options

Fortunately, we seem to be at a point in the development of digital photography equipment where the manufacturers are starting to move beyond the two primary choices of either DSLR or point and shoot (albeit “glorified” point and shoot in some cases). Recently quite a number of small and high quality digital cameras have become available from a variety of manufacturers. They range from so-called mirror-less systems with electronic viewfinders (EVF) to small DSLR-style cameras, with a bunch of interesting variations in between. Some use the smaller four thirds sensors, some use the APS-C “cropped sensor” system, and we are starting to see some (very expensive!) with full frame sensors.

(Some might wonder why I didn’t just look at the smallest Canon – since that’s the DSLR brand I use – APS-C DSLR cameras such as the t-series bodies or the newer Canon EOS Rebel SL1. These could be fine options, but they are still larger than the mirrorless options, and they would require me to use my rather large DSLR lenses. Even the smaller DSLRs plus their larger lenses are heavier and bulkier than the alternatives.)

In the end, I probably looked most seriously at systems from Olympus, Sony, and Fujifilm. To make a set of broad generalizations – the Olympus system may have initially been the best designed (I held an OMD and was very impressed with the feel of the thing), Sony may the most innovative, and Fujifilm seems to take a sort of “retro” approach that ties more closely to the old-school film rangefinder cameras. Any of the three could have been fine options, I think. In the end, I decided against the Olympus because I prefer the larger APS-C sensor, and against the Sony because I wasn’t as comfortable with the quality of the then-available lenses, and for the Fujifilm system on account of the larger sensor, the high quality lenses, and the comfortable old-school design.

The choice

This meant that my remaining choice was between the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and the X-E1. (There is also a fixed-focal-lenght X100s, but that wasn’t on my list since I want to use interchangeable lenses. Fujifilm has now also released the smaller X-M1, a camera targeting the “consumer” market and selling at a lower price.) The “X” in the names of these cameras refers to the so-called “X-trans” sensor design. While most sensors on current digital cameras use a repeating matrix of four photo sites (in groups containing one blue, one red, and two green sensors), the X-trans sensors use a different layout that covers a large area before repeating. Although it is been erroneously said to be “random” and more like “film grain,” this isn’t really the case, though it is true that the inevitable repeating photo site pattern has a more complex pattern. Continue reading Taking Stock OF Fujifilm Mirrorless Cameras

The Economics of DSLR “Protective” Filters

The subject of whether or not to get so-called “protective” UV filters for DSLR lenses comes up a lot. I used to respond to the question frequently – so frequently that I eventually gave up and just wrote a post on the subject that I could refer people to when they ask.

However, during a recent weak moment I wrote a new response to the notion that ‘protective’ filters provide good value for all photographers. As I do from time to time, I’m sharing it here:

Someone wrote: … would you rather pay $150 on a filter that *might* compromise your shot or spend $150 on replacing the front element and have *no* possible risk of image degradation from the extra piece of glass?

I replied: This is essentially an insurance question. Obviously, if we knew that our lens would certainly be destroyed in a way that was 100% preventable by using a filter we would almost certainly get a filter. But that is an imaginary scenario that is far from reality.

Most lenses will never be damaged in any serious way. My hunch is that this is actually the fate of a very small percentage of lenses – probably far less than 10%, and I would bet closer to 1%.

Of those that are damaged, only some will suffer a blow to the front element. There are many other modes of failure – a dropped lens that breaks the mechanism, something crashing into the side of the lens, water damage, etc.

Of those that suffer a blow to the front of the lens structure, only some will result in contact with the front element. Of those in which contact with the front element occurs, some would not cause any damage or any significant damage. Some would damage the front element, but would be violent enough that the filter would not have prevented the damage. A few that might not have damaged the front element will send glass shards from the broken filter into the front element and damage it. In some subset of cases, all of the variables might line up just right and prevent damage.

At this point the user would have to replace the broken high quality filter at a cost that varies depending on a number of factors. Let’s use a figure if $100 for an expensive L zoom. The owner has now invested something on the order of $200… which is not much different from the cost of replacing a front element, as I understand it.

In terms of the probability of damage, the cost of the filter, the likelihood that the filter would save the day… the filter is probably one of the worst insurance investments you could make.

Am I unalterably and completely opposed to the use of ‘protective’ filters? Almost, but not quite. While I do not think that it makes sense to automatically stick such a filter on every lens for general use – see the link above for more on this topic – I can think of one sort of situation in which I might use one. I would consider a filter if I were shooting a sealed-body camera (such as a Canon 1-series) and was working in conditions that were truly dangerous to my equipment (and not just a bit of mist or ocean spray) and I was using of the small number of L lenses that become sealed (and not all do) with the addition of a filter.

Other than that? No.

G Dan Mitchell Photography | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.