APhotoContributor

zodiac friends

I’ve had my little friend Taurus since April in one form or another through many iterations of firmware.  I lost count of how many times I had to re-do my settings.  Each version got better and better … and … better.  There’s a kind of thrill taking an “experiment beta” on a real job.  If you’re not nervous, the client’s not nervous.  It’s nothing a battery pull can’t remedy.

Having freshly come off the Fujifilm X-Pro2 it was nice to get the camera in my hands I really wanted to use.  The Fujifilm X-T1 had become my go-to “B” camera 70% of the time and my “A” and “B” camera about thirty percent of the time.  There weren’t many jobs I couldn’t complete with just X-T1’s.  Most of those jobs including the need for flash.  I’m so used to the consistent results I get with Nikons that it’s hard to fully pull away from them.  I’d probably not feel the same way if I were still shooting Canon.  Hey, Canon, it’s 2016:  Isn’t time you did as well as Nikon in the flash department.  I still remember being told by Canon people back in the day, “Maybe you’re doing it wrong.”  

“That’s funny it’s always worked flawlessly with Nikon.”  They're both full of arrogant staff.

I have a feeling Fujifilm will get there with flash, although I primarily used it with slaves and studio strobe and not with an on-camera-type flash.  When I do use it with flash, though, I put a Nikon SB-910 on manual and it does pretty well.  What I’d love, though, is for Fujifilm to do as well as Nikon’s TTL flash does.  I think they’ll get there.  I’m looking forward to seeing how good the (new flash) is.  I’d love to dump all of the Nikon gear. :)

Although the X-T2 is bigger than the X-T1, you can barely notice it except in the front grip.  The new accessory grip configuration fits my hands really well.  Having three batteries on-board is almost as good as one D4s battery, which have given me more than 2,000 frames.  With any Fujifilm you need to have a lot of batteries if you’re hammering through assignments.  I don’t think I’ve shot the X-T2 without the grip at all.  If I want a smaller footprint, I just use the X-Pro2.  Having shooting controls on the grip is a welcome addition.  Having the extra batteries on-board and using an electronic shutter on boost mode allows up to 14 fps.  It also allows you to use boost mode, which brings the EVF up to 100 fps.

The EVF on the X-T2 is beautiful and one of the best I’ve seen.  No, I don’t use Sony stuff but know they’re great, too.  You can’t be a gear whore and get to know any one system exceptionally well.  Since you’re just “shooting for the blog,” though, one would think one could get to know them more than tacitly.  I love the way the X-T2 — and the X-Pro2 for that matter — render what I'm looking at.  The higher magnification of the X-T2 is better for me and its refresh rate is spectacular.  

It’s funny that I’ve heard people say that the X-Pro2 is “better for prime lens users” and street photography.  Um, really?  They’re both equally good for using primes AND for street.  I don’t know how people come up with that stuff unless they’re just “looking for something to say” because they’ve “only tacitly gotten to know the platform.”  Dunno why but the X-Pro2's EVF looks different than the X-T2's.  It was explained to me that the X-Pro2's is/was a TFT and the X-T2 is an OLED.  Guess that explains why.

Even though I know the X-T2’s rear screen has less resolution than the X-Pro2, it rendered files to chimp beautifully.  I’ll give up whatever the minuscule difference is to have a rear screen that articulates, too.  It’s one thing I really missed having used the X-Pro2 for so long.  I guess if you have an articulating screen you have to give up a little reso because it has to be inherently thinner.

While the X-Pro2 focuses better than the X-T1, the X-T2’s AF is better than the X-Pro2.  Even though I’m not a sports-guy I found AF-C focus tracking to be as good my Nikon D4s.  No, I don’t have a D5; I have no reason to ever buy one.  I’m sure they’re lovely.  I’m over the whole full-frame (whatever that really means) vs. APS-C debate.  If you’ve enjoyed anything Hollywood has put out for the last while, it’s more than likely shot on an Arri Alexa, which has a sensor size very very close to APS-C (within a millimeter).  If it’s good enough for those kings of visual schlock, it’s good enough for me.

Bigger costs more.  It’s not any different in the sensor world.  Bigger sensors cost more money.  I’m not sure spending $6500 on a Nikon D5 is going to do anything for me except waste valuable resources.  Editors nor clients have ever said, “the quality isn’t good enough.”  Actually, much to the contrary.  Clients love the skin tones that come out of the Fujifilm X-T2.  I just heard about a client that actually wanted “the look” of what Canon does so the photographer had to get a whole Canon kit Fedex’d because he is a Nikon shooter.  Like they say in used car sales, “There’s an ass for every seat.”  Perhaps that client needs to be introduced to lovely Fujifilm files?

While there is a slight difference in unscharfen bereichen — another word for bokeh, a word I refuse to use — or out-of-focus areas when shooting wide open between full-frame and APS-C, I don’t think it really matters.  It hasn’t hampered me from shooting gigs and assignments.  Zack explains it the best.

When you hold the X-T2 in your hands you can feel the quality that goes into building it.  Wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about the little push button locks on the shutter speed and ISO dials but learned to love them.  Not only that but the detents on things like shooting modes and compensation are much stronger.  I don’t think I cursed at it once for going into "Toy Camera" mode.  I’ve also dropped one of the X-T2’s several different times.  Once its strap was tangled with a Nikon and it went from the seat of a car to the floorboard to the curb to the street.  Another unfortunate time it went from the dashboard bouncing off the gear selector to the floor board.  That time I saw some weirdness in the EVF but it’s almost as if it self-healed.  The last and least graceful crashes to the ground involved me tripping in an airport and the X-T2 dropping to the carpeted floor and sliding a few feet.  It’s still going although I’m using another one that’s less “pre-production-y.”

I’ve found all of the Fujifilm digitals I’ve used to be extremely durable.  I don’t mean to break things; it just happens.

I’d hate to be in the camera blimp manufacturing business because those are all but irrelevant unless you’re a total dinosaur.  In electronic shutter mode they’re absolutely silent.  Was walking around DTLA one day and was stopped on the sidewalk so they could shoot a take.  When I looked for the A-Camera I saw the unit shooter using his Sony without a blimp.  Although I didn’t shoot the X-T2 on a film set, I did happen to use it during a live performance at the St. Louis Opera Company.  I was told I was the only one in twenty-plus years to do that.  When I showed the director how quiet it is he didn’t believe I actually made any frames.  A Leica sounds like an explosion compared to the X-T2 or even the X-Pro2 in electronic mode.  Another way -- besides their old sensors -- Leica is completely behind the times, especially for a manufacturer that claims they're so silent. 

Love the fact that the card slot door is so much better than the “flappy thing” used on the X-T1.  Having dual UHS slots is really nice as well.  

I know people bitch about the camera not having a GPS radio built in but hopefully those in the U.S. military find out because they actually require the cameras they use NOT to have onboard GPS capabilities.  Perhaps that’s why I’ve never seen a U.S. Air Force-guy with a Canon?  Fujifilm’s government sales should take note.  I still use the Fujifilm app on an iPhone for GPS tagging when I need that.

Like the X-Pro2 I loved seeing that I could control the AF focus areas with a joystick.  Such a great addition.  My Nikons have it but my Nikons are significantly more expensive than this “little $1600 camera body."

Coming from using several X-T1’s as my secondary — and many times primary — bodies I didn’t think there was “much to fix.”  They worked perfectly for me in every situation where I didn’t have to use some behemoth of megapixels such as my D810 or Phase back.  Of course, there were the dials that moved a bit easily, the mode buttons that would move over to “toy camera mode” a bit too much or the card doors that were a little flimsy.  None of those problems precluded me from making the photos I needed to make.

Fujifilm made the next iteration of the X-T1 even better in my opinion.  Not to mention the fact it’s so much lighter than the behemoth Nikons I shoot.  My shoulders appreciate it.  Oh, yeah, that little diopter control dial on the left side of the “prism bump” (which doesn’t have a prism) could use stronger detents.

Having the lovely joystick that controls the AF point just like my Nikons is great but the one thing that some of my Nikons have and the X-T2 does not … is … voice tagging.  Besides the need for a powerful on-camera flash I also need voice tagging to help editors (and myself) with the captioning part of many of my assignments.  Writing stuff down is so 1999.  You guys have done it before so it can’t be that tough.  

The “big guys” will see that as a shot across their bow and it’s going to be funny as hell when they realize a company they “never saw as a competitor” is taking some of their market share.  Mirror boxes are not the future yet I don’t think they’ve “seen that memo yet.”

Another reason I “kept the Nikons around” for was video and motion photography.  Normally, I just put it on 24p and forget about it because I hardly needed to over crank.  If I really needed it I’d use 50p and then slow it down another 40% in Final Cut.  Would I like to have 96p to make over cranking that much easier?  Sure.  It’s kind of a shame that Fujifilm hasn’t put out some kind of video-centric grip together like the Panasonic GH4 has with the YAGH interface unit.  Although I didn’t shoot anything I’m going to show here, I did make some test videos and they look amazing.  

The AF focus tracking also worked very well in video mode.  I was kind of shocked.  I could never imagine any of my Nikons working that well.  Having a friend walk down the street as I used the joystick to nudge the AF point in the direction they were walking nailed focus every time. 

It’s great to see that Fujifilm isn’t just relying upon their past successes and becoming complacent.  They’re continually moving forward and giving us better and better stuff.  I don’t know of any manufacturer that works so hard at newer and better firmware making our jobs/hobbies that much easier.  

Oh, wait, how about dual battery chargers?  The big guys won’t like seeing that either.

Really don’t need to talk about ISO performance as I believe I covered it when I talked about the Fujifilm X-Pro2, which I loved.

How about some photos?  I've processed these very minimally.  In fact, all of these were shot as in-camera JPG files.  I know ... everyone talks about how good Fujifilm JPG's really are.  They are amazing.  Yes, I prefer to work on RAW files but I don't mind working their JPG's coming out of Fujifilm cameras ... nor should you.  I just had no time to process RAWs. :)

Nick Jonas Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

"Things will be fine" Dinosaur, Los Angeles Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Frank Jackson doing Frank Jackson-things.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

There were giant inflatable rabbits all over DTLA a while back.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

People actually brave the stench of stale urine and go to DTLA.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Also

Where you can find a Cavalier King Charles, surprisingly.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Always airports.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Salman Rushdie at The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Did some product-y stuff, too.  Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro (if you're easily triggered, just scroll past)

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.8 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.8 Macro (Battle Arms Development take-down pins are amazing)

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro (that Surefire P3X Fury is ridiculously bright)

Another great cup at Copa Vida. Fujifilm X-T2 and 23/1.4

Baby pinot noir.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Things you don't see in California.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

If you say so.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Burbank.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Smoke and cars.  Summer in L.A. Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Makes the summer better.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Girl boss.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The closest I get to shooting sports.  AF-C did nice!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

They're actually pretty fast. Ish.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

She's always the fastest!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

One of those nights I suppose.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Ubiquity.  You don't need full-frame for lovely unscharfen bereichen.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Whenever you fly in a Robinson and live it's a great day!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4+polarizer

Teenage pinot noir.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

More teenage pinot noir.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

More lovely late-day light on teenage pinor noir from Wädenswil clones. Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

A moment and a sun star.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Waiting for customers.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Those lovely pinot noir grapes grow up to die for us.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Old glory.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

When one is in the PacNW one drinks coffee.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Lovely sour cherries are found up there, too.  FujiFilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

"But rent is really expensive now."  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The incomparable Ryan Muirhead, his empty taco (vege) bowl and his tattoo.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Just a dude playing piano on a street.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Met my dog's litter brother in an airport.  Small world.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Time to bail. Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Moses invests.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

I'm sure he'd rather have been taking my finger off.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

Pretty Los Feliz sunset.  Fujifilm X-T2.

Thoughts.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

More thoughts.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

And more thoughts at the Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle (amazing) at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle at AAnnenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8 (some LED-type lighting and the electronic shutter don't play well together)

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Yes, indeed, you can tell that I love the 35/2.0.  If you don't have that particular lens, you should buy it.  I mean it's almost free.  I used it along with the venerable 50-140/2.8, the 23/1.4 and 16/1.4.  All of those are very similar focal lengths to what I normally use for work with the Nikons.  I can definitely see the day when I don't use Nikons any longer because these Fujifilm digitals (X-T2 and X-Pro2) are fantastic. 

They're not just fantastic for work but also for just walking around doing some street or when you travel.  The thought of ever bringing a gigantic Nikon D-SLR on vacation or travel (unless it's work) makes my shoulders hurt just thinking about it.  Taking the grip off of the Fujifilm X-T2 makes for an extremely capable platform that can make any photo that's in front of you.

Cannot wait to see what they do with the 23/2.0.  I think, though, I'd love for Fujifilm to do another iteration of their 23 and 35 in 1.4 with faster focusing motors.  I have a feeling they're pretty busy.

With more and more newspaper staffs laying off employees, wires firing staff and such I think that the day of the $6-7K D-SLR flagship is coming to an end.  For the price of one body a photographer can get an X-T2 and several lenses and be ready to shoot.  Honestly, I think wire services are going to wise up soon, too.  There's no need to spend $20K to outfit any one photographer.  While Nikon and Canon rest on their laurels companies such as Fuji and Sony are just killing it. 

A lot of people were waiting with anticipation for this camera and I see why:  It's fantastic.  Again, well done, guys!  You continue to make my shoulders thank you.

***This post, its text and photographs, is not intended to be included in posts by ANY aggregator site unless specifically authorized in writing.***

my friend leo.

I’m not going to go to the blog and see the last time I updated.  I’m betting it’s been at least two years.  Audiences require daily content; I don’t have time for that.  There’s a huge difference writing about photography playing to an audience than actually making photos for clients. 

I prefer to post on IG.  It’s so easy.  You don’t really have to reply to comments; you just tap to like.  One of the reasons I stopped blogging or posting on dA is that I couldn’t keep up with the comments.  Blogging was a hobby; shooting for me is not.  Not being able to comment back and look like a jerk got old.  On dA I could get 1000 comments a week on journal or photo posts.  That’s full-time job to keep up.

Would I be remiss if I didn’t say I missed photoblogging?  For sure-ish.  Making my living, though, from affiliate sales and hot linking makes me sick to my stomach.  Time is time.  I get more inspired by looking at my feed on IG.  Isn’t that what it’s all about?  Being inspired by photography and not being inspired by “new gear” (ironic this post is about a new camera)?  Instead of chasing gear I think someone who truly wants to be a better photographer would just pick a platform and commit to shooting instead of commenting on some blog.  How does that make you a better photographer?  It doesn’t.  

But I'll bet it makes you a "super commenter." The only blogs with really high rates of clicks are those that talk about gear.  I know that personally:  Anytime I just posted about gear the views went though the roof.  Most of the people I know who make photos for a living rarely change their gear.  I think that’s left for IT weekend warrior-types who tend to post the most on the “gear review sites.”  

I still shoot D4’s, D800/810’s, Leica for 35mm film, Contax for medium format film and medium format digital — I’ve shot these same platforms for years and 10’s of TB’s for clients.

I moved from the Fujifilm X-Pro1 to the X-T1 because I liked the way it focused and wrote to cards faster.  Never really got into the X100/s/t because I don’t like being forced into a focal length.  I have an iPhone for that.

Recently, I did some drive/RAID maintenance and saw that I’d shot about 18 TB of Fuji files over the course of a few years.  The more and more I shot the X-T1 I really liked the fact I didn’t need some heavy mirror box to make photos.  Sometimes I’d just bring one as an ambient body while still having the D4-beast on another shoulder.  Wanna guess which shoulder hurt more after four or five hours of shooting?

For some assignments where I wasn’t expected to use flash I’d just take a few X-T1’s.  There hasn’t been one client or publication yet who’s said the deliverables were “too small” or not “high-quality enough.”  I did hear a couple times “Is that little thing good enough?”  They don’t realize that it’s about the same as the D4 file size-wise.  It’s not their job to know that.  When clients were surprised that they’d see images appear as a text on their phone all I heard was, “Our social media team loves that you can get us photos almost immediately.”  Couldn’t do that with the Nikons.  
Can't wait for the X-Pro2 to work with the app.

My shoulders appreciate it so much when I leave the "mirror boxes" at home.  Slinging two D4’s is torture now that I’m used to having one and sometimes two Fuji’s for a gig.  When I was first checking out the X-Pro1 what I really wanted was something to replace my Leica M9’s.  I know I know I know:  It’s heresy to suggest anyone could make any real photo with anything less than a Summilux or Summicron.   After using the X-Pro1 for a while I got used to the autofocus.  I still think most people don't know how to use AF properly.  Fujifilm engineers made it better and better with subsequent firmware upgrades.  I don’t really remember Leica doing anything like that except to try and correct numerous problems with their platforms not to mention sensor glass that liked to crack.  To be honest, I didn’t even really pay attention to what Nikon did with their firmware upgrades because they usually nail it right out of the gate.  

Getting better and better with both hardware and software tends to happen when you have beta-testers who are actually guys who work with their gear and not just fawn about it on forums.
  
I haven’t been blown away by a camera since the X-T1.  Yeah, cool, I can put two XQD’s in the new D5 but I probably won’t be buying D5’s.  12 frames per second.  Don’t do much sports so that aspect doesn’t matter much.  I get the shot in three frames.  Six and a half grand for a camera body just seems so stupid when one considers that’s almost approaching the glorious world of medium format digital.  I'd be surprised if they actually sold a lot-a lot.  Hopefully, Fuji gets "voice tagging" integrated before my D4's die.

Not only that but it’s only 20mp.  I mean I guess it’s a game of give and take when you’re designing a camera but still having a noisy mirror flopping up and down and all of that extra unnecessary weight just doesn’t seem to go the way the camera industry is going.  Yeah, I know:  It’s full frame.  These days who cares.  There hasn’t been one client who’s ever said, “Yeah, but can you shoot a full frame camera, please.”  Not one.  I’ve never had a deliverable rejected because the file wasn’t good enough or a client having said, "I was really hoping for that full-frame look."  Not once.

That’s not to say I would have liked to have had “a bit more file” to work with when shooting the X-T1.  Well, I may not have gotten the replacement to my X-T1’s but I’ve been shooting the X-Pro2 (codenamed “Leo”) for the past few months.  The first thing I noticed was it was so much “snappier.”  The focus was just crisp and super-accurate.  I’m not saying the X-T1 isn't good I’m just saying this is better.  Files processed through the X-Pro2's image engine were amazingly fast — at least two times faster and probably faster than that.  Whatever this new Sony sensor is doing it’s doing it much faster than the X-T1 does  and exponentially faster than the old venerable X-Pro1.

I asked why this sensor was better and was told that its architecture stems from conductivity using copper instead of aluminum giving it much more speed.  That speed isn’t just limited to recording the image but the readout speed, which effects the EVF refresh rate, AF speed and all sensor functions.  Because the internal architecture is based upon copper the general thickness of the sensor is greatly reduced the gaps between the pixels all but disappears.  All of those aspects are hard to quantify as an end-user but I saw way less noise in the mids and shadows.  Fuji confirmed that this new sensor has reduced noise as well.

The 64gb SDHC Class 3 UHS-II prototype Samsung memory cards along with the 16gb SDHC Class 3 UHS-II Toshiba cards I was using with the X-T1’s write so incredibly quickly.  I never hit the end of my buffer.  Then again, I rarely hit it with the D4’s, sometimes hit it with my D800/810’s.  

I’m not sure what the throughput on the Samsung cards was but I know the Toshiba’s were 260/240 mb/s.  Much faster than the dinosaur workhorse CF cards and on par with the XQD’s I put in the D4’s.  Why live in the past by using old CF cards when there’s new technology available? 


It’s also got two card slots one being for the UHS-II cards and the second for normal SD cards whatever those are because I don’t use them.  I know people love to put RAW files on one card and cooked JPG’s in another or write sequentially but I don’t really see why people really want to do that.  Whatever.  If it helps your workflow, all good.  I normally have a TB of card space on hand so it’s never really been an issue.  Not only that but I rarely touch my workflow as I have editors who handle it.

One thing I love about using SDHC Class 3 UHS-II and XQD’s for that matter in the D4’s is that they also download A LOT quicker.  Any amount of time I don't have to be editing photos or waiting to edit photos is a good thing.

Fuji added a cool little joystick on the back to select the area you want to use for AF.  Love this feature because it’s one of the things I love about my Nikon’s.

  Although I normally have “Single Point AF” selected for 90% of what I do, the “Zone AF” worked exceptionally well with little spaniels running at me.  Unsure how it’d do for sports but at least the target would be bigger than a “little dog.”

Single Point AF is extremely snappy and focuses on just about anything I pointed it at.  Where my Nikon’s contrast detection would hunt this little camera just locked and let me get the shot I wanted.

I noticed that the XF 35/2.0 seemed to be extra-snappy. Dunno why but that lens was on the body most of the time -- you'll see below.  I tend to use the XF 23/1.4 the most.  Really enjoyed that XF 35/2.0 as it seemed very Summicron-like to me.  

The menu system on the body has been fully revamped and much more intuitive to me.  Before I just “got used to where everything lived” but with the X-Pro2 the moment I launched the menu I figured out where everything was almost immediately except for formatting.  

Since this is the X-Pro2, there’s that rangefinder-ish window that allows you to see your photo optically as well as the lovely EVF.  I’ve gotten so used to the EVF using the X-T1 to make 100’s of thousands of frames that it’s something I really like and it's the mode I use the most.  The EVF on the X-Pro2 is even better.  Fuji explained to me that the OLED EVF is .48” with 2.36M dots vs. the one in the X-T1 which is .5” and 2.36M dots.  It’s also a much newer generation screen with a big feature that in its high performance mode it runs at 85fps rather than the 56fps refresh rate we find in the X-T1.

Along with the EVF one of the things you’ll notice first is the larger monitor on the X-Pro2. Instead of 1.04M pixels this one is 1.62M pixels.  Does it tilt?  No.  Would I prefer that it did?  I’d be lying if I said I didn’t.  I get why it doesn't, though.

No, there’s not 4K video.  That really doesn’t bother me because I don’t use this platform for video.  When I shoot video I use D800/810’s.  I’d like to experiment more often with the Fujifilm platform for video, though.  It does have 60p at 1080, though, which is a nice tool to have.  Would love to see a poll of how many people have actually edited 4k video, though.

  Like the X-T1 it has electronic shutter up to 1/32,000th of a second which means I don’t have to carry ND filters as much as I have in the past.  Another lovely thing with the electronic shutter is that it’s totally silent (if you turn off the sounds, of course), which allows me to shoot on set without a camera condom AKA “a blimp.”  I’ve now seen three other guys “lose the blimp” because technology is your friend and you don’t need to shoot like it’s 10 or 15 years ago. I'd hate to be in the blimp business.


Leicas aren’t even this quiet.  I do tend, however, when silence isn’t a total issue to use the mechanical shutter because I’m old and I like the positive feedback of hearing a frame recorded.  And for shooting street this camera feels sneakier to me than the X-T1 does.

Living in sunny California I normally shoot when it’s nice outside.  It’s always nice out.  We get the occasional rain but that doesn’t happen very often.  Except for now at least thanks to our friend “El Nino.”  No, I’m not looking up the tilde version of the “n.”  I would expect a camera to work well in nice weather.  

I was able to shoot an assignment with some cattle ranchers in Northern California in the middle of December of 2015.  Driving toward the ranch from my hotel in the tiny little town I watched the temp gauge in my truck start out at 32F (0C) ... then ... 22F (-5C)  … then 18F (-7C) … then 14F (-10F) and then 8F (-13C) when I got to the ranch.  Since I’d never used this camera in these kinds of environments, I was a little apprehensive.  Not only … it’s a prototype as well.  It’s close to production but it’s not production.  The firmware was pre-production as well.  I was used to my Nikons and Canons (back in the day when I was forced to shoot Canon) not being very happy in similar conditions when I shot as an official Sundance Film Festival photographer in the winter ... in the Utah mountains. 

I expected the battery to drain faster because of the frigid temps as it did.  I didn’t get as many frames as I would have on a temperate day but this little camera performed as well as anything I’ve ever shot in the same conditions.  It kept going and going.  Instead of perhaps 230 frames per battery I got about 200.

Interestingly, when I got off one of the horses I didn’t look down — trying to make sure I didn’t drop any gear — and inadvertently stepped in a hole that was full of slushy sloppy muddy cold-ass water with my right leg up to about my calf.  I’d shot for about 10 minutes.  I think it had warmed up to 14F (-10C).  When I told one of the ranchers/cowboys that “I couldn’t really feel my foot” his response was “Have a donut.  You’ll live.”  I think that glazed raised was really what helped. ;)

Being on both a horse and riding shotgun in a 4-wheel drive Kawasaki Mule keeping a hold of the camera wasn’t as much of a challenge because the new X-Pro2 has a handgrip-thingy built into the body.  So happy I didn’t drop/break any gear on this gig.  We rode all over a certain portion of the 12,000 acres which had obstacles everywhere. Yes, I know how to ride a horse.  I didn’t just jump on one blindly.

  That said, yes, I was sore for the next day.  

What else?  Film simulation mode!  I love the “classic chrome” setting.  It reminds me of Leica M9 files, which I thought were some of the loveliest to come out of a digital camera (under 640 iso, of course).  The “Acros” setting was also very nice for monochrome but I almost never shoot monochrome JPG files.  I like to use VSCO vis-a-via Lightroom or my own settings in PS CC and Capture One.


Although I was provided with an advanced version of Silky Pix, I never used it so I’ve actually never even seen a RAW from the X-Pro2.  I’m set in my ways and prefer to process RAW files with Capture One or if I have to I’ll use Lightroom.  Given that I was very conscientious of how my highlights were coming out given the exposures I chose.  Surprisingly, there’s pretty good latitude in the cooked JPG files coming out of the X-Pro2.  That said, I’m looking forward to seeing what RAW’s look like!

In the few months I’ve used Leo I’ve fallen in love with it.  If you’re upgrading from an X-Pro1, you’re definitely going to love what you’re going to get in the X-Pro2!  I have no doubt.  Given what they’ve done with the first Fujifilm digital camera that the world fell in love with they did an incredible job.  It even feels better in my hands.

ISO performance is as good as I expected.  I RARELY go over 6400 with any platform.  I mean I guess there's a need but I've never really seen any examples that are of those stratospheric speeds that a desk editor would ever accept.  Dynamic range is lovely as well.  I was told to put the dynamic range on auto, though, a while back and it seems to work just as well on the X-Pro2 as it does on the X-T1.

Don't get me wrong:  ISO is important.  My first digital camera, the Nikon D1, is fresh in my mind (15 years ago?) with its horrible dynamic range and ISO performance.  What I really want, though, is a camera that is as comfortable for me doing street and going straight into an paid assignment.  The M9 was cool until you got past ISO 400.  The X-Pro1 was a bit slow for work.  The X-T1 did both very well ... as ... does ... this little beast.  It's so damn snappy.  Focus locks whether I've got a 23/1.4 or even the 50-150/2.8 (even with the 1.4x converter), which is used as recently as this past weekend.

Although I’m not sure what the X-T2 will feature, given what I’m seeing with this camera, I can’t wait to see!  I know I hope that it includes the ability to “voice tag” so my editors can listen to the tags to speed up their workflow.  Did I mention voice tagging already as a friend at the AP also mentioned to me today?

In addition to “voice tagging” I’m also looking forward to a competitive on-camera flash solution from Fuji.  When that happens I’m pretty sure that I’ll be saying goodbye to mirror box cameras for the majority of my work.

  In most of my prior blog posts I interlaced photographs into the text.  This time I decided to put them all at the end…

Los Angeles - After I got it out of the box and wanted to see it work. :)  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8

Los Angeles - Then I picked on the dogs. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

The Los Angeles - The dog before doesn't really like to look at cameras.  This guy doesn't care.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - 'tis (was) the season -- everyone is always so happy.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Bishop - Almost. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 35/2

Round Valley - It's as cold as it looks.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 35/2

Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I was more just hoping I didn't fall off with all of my gear ... and a prototype named Leo.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

12,000 acres at the foot of the beautiful Sierras.  Fujifilm X-Pro 2 and XF50-140/2.8

Not only was I cold but I was dusty as hell, too. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8

Works with cattle every single day. "Cows don't know it's Christmas."  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I remember having gone to a country bar once and seeing a guy with spurs.  I asked him, "What kind of horse do you have?"  He told me to f*ck off.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I think even they were cold.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Hasn't run for a couple decades-ish.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Their winter home. It's 15 degrees warmer up here ... or wherever we were.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Works harder than 99% of the people I know.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Round Valley - Absolutely love this area of California - Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Bishop - Later that day. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Dinner by LED.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

St. Louis - Afternoon tea.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Agoura Hills - I asked him if that's the way he really felt and he said, "They should stay in Williamsburg." Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - We used to have to wait a week after going to Fotomat but now it's instant.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Finally, it rains.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2.0

Los Angeles - Hula girl in an old VW van. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Beverly Hills - Window shopping.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Downtown Los Angeles - Surveying the new Broad museum. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Pretty princess. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Downtown Los Angeles - Caught in nice light.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Downtown Los Angeles - Contemplation over a drink at happy hour. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Santa Anita Race Track - Opening day.  Homie was rocking an M6, too. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Los Angeles - Coquettish daughter. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Santa Anita Race Track - He acted like an alien.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Downtown Los Angeles - "Yo, you should get some of those to shoot street, man."  "Nah, I just try to blend."  And he does.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Las Vegas - Or how I spent my New Year's Eve weekend.  Vegas.  For the umteenth time.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF90/2

Las Vegas - Nicki Minaj and I'm still trying to figure out how she's talented.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - She doesn't look anyone in their eyes.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Quiet moment in chaos. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Las Vegas - Chris Brown before he allegedly smacked someone else.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Las Vegas - He's very proud of his "talent."  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Some people pay huge $$$ for the privilege.  I look out into the crowd and see hell.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF10-24/4

Las Vegas - Next up was The Weeknd.  He definitely had a semblance of talent.  Crowd loved him. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Surprised that the X-Pro2 focused better than my D800.  I'm also surprised that so many people think mobile phones are going to provide great photos and video.  People don't just enjoy concerts anymore?  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

***All Photos ©2015/2016 Chris Weeks***

opinions are like...

Well you know what they're like.  Everyone has one.  I think some have more than one, actually. Whatever.

As more and more of the traditional media gets decimated by the internet it seems as though the best place we have for information about whatever topic interests you ... is the ... internet.  cnn, cnbc, the big newspapers ... they're all owned by giant corporations that pick and choose what they want "us" the mindless consumers to read.  Television is a complete waste.  Magazines are advertiser-centric and fast becoming as irrelevant as their newspaper cousins.  We can't tell the difference between editorial and advertorial any longer.  Even photojournalism is pr-machine-generated and pretty much dead.

Besides Vanity Fair and a couple cinematography magazines I don't subscribe to much anymore.  In fact, even ol' PDN has gone to the wayside for me.  I can find much better information on the 'net.  Yes, I'm capitalizing.  Please don't have a heart attack.  I think I'm even punctuating.

I've never really tried to publicize my blog on my own.  Uber's (RIP) execs did a bit through a couple camera give-aways. That's about it.  I know who my readers are for the most part.  They like that I say it like it is and that's totally good with me.  I'm actually a working photographer who doesn't have to use his blog to supplement his income.  Yeah, there's a B&H link but I don't think the commissions are enough to finance my monthly coffee budget.  If publicizing your blog by posting a link to your wall on Facebook is considered publicizing, then, yes, I guess I do that, too.

When I want "real information" I talk to my friends who get the equipment way before anyone else because of the outlets and wire services they work for/contract with.  When I wanted to use a Mark IV I asked friends to borrow them.  When I have a question as to how something is related to something else I make a phone call.  

Not everyone is a working photographer -- defined as making more than 80% of one's income by photography.  Sadly, that also means the random-ass "boulevard portrait photographers" are also considered "working photographers" even though they haven't changed their lighting schemes since they "got them from their dad."  Most interested in photography can't call someone who's won a Pulitzer.  They don't have contacts who have tested "this or that" for the last month on a REAL ASSIGNMENT, not just walking through some park in Toronto.  It's also helpful to know that a certain wire service was contemplating switching systems.  I bought one of the bodies to make sure I knew everything about them in anticipation of the switch.  When the actual switch happened and I got a whole new system I was way better prepared.  Funny than within the last year another switch happened but I didn't switch.  I mention names when I can.  ;)  I can't this time.  

Photo aficionados also have forums for information.  Thing is about forums is that they're filled with theorists rather than those who practice.  I'm generalizing, of course, but I wouldn't rely on what I see posted in forums especially given 90% of the galleries I see associated with the posters.  They're more interested in their "comment count" than anything else.  And, honestly, I know zero working shooters who either post in forums nor get information they need from forums.  The working shooters I know are very busy and I can totally see how "other types of working pros" could have time.  Our genre ... no.

No, my friends are not paps.  For the clearly uneducated or misinformed not everyone who shoots primarily editorial entertainment in Los Angeles and New York City are paps.  If you live in Wisconsin and are wholly irrelevant in the real photo world, then, yes, you could probably make that mistake.

I look at like 4 sites regularly and about 8 photo-related sites semi-regularly.  For whatever reason I found that monitoring many more through RSS just became too much.  Of the content I regularly read I wondered what other's thought, too.  Made a couple of phone calls to people who pageviews are life and death and found out that Alexa's pretty good, Quantcast, too and also Compete.  Of these three I found that the publicly available states given by Compete were pretty good.  I would suggest signing up for their free service to get a couple more stats. 

I'm not really reviewing popular online photo sites, I'm just going to give what I think of them.  Some I think more about than others.  To provide some baseline, though, I checked each of them through Compete.com.  I also provided other sites that whilst I'm not "reviewing them" but putting them in the list for a sense of scale.

Google (Compete Rank# 1) - 143,648,839 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Flickr  (Compete Rank# 36) - 20,272,058 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

BBC.co.uk (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 6,486,545 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

People.com (Compete Rank# 196) - 5,656,047 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Reuters.com (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 5,404,486 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

PC World (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 4,349,261 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Gawker (Compete Rank# 383) - 3,653,909 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

AP (Compete Rank# 748) - 2,142,180 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

deviantART (Compete Rank# 373) - 1,570,019 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Canon.com (Compete Rank UNRATED) - 1,201,776 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Photo.net  (Compete Rank# 1,911) - 960,995 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

MacWorld (Compete Rank# 2293) - 809,129 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

DPReview (Compete Rank# 3,151) - 603,692 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

US News & World Report (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 593,338 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

GettyImages.com (Compete Rank UNRANKED) - 468,731 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Kenrockwell.com  (Compete Rank# 8,848) - 225,836 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Luminous-Landscape (Compete Rank# 15,810) - 135,851 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Popular Photography (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 103,861 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Shutterbug (Compete Rank# UNRANKED) - 50,946 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

RobGalbraith.com (Compete Rank# 52,924) - 39,917 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

FStoppers.com (Compete Rank# 54,167) - 38,944 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

PDN Online (Compete Rank# 55,956) - 37,576 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Rangefinder Forum (Compete Rank# 69,485) - 29,672 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Canon Rumors (Compete Rank# 69,684) - 29,597 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

MagnumPhotos.com (Compete Rank# 70,562) - 29,183 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Philip Bloom's Blog (Compete Rank# 74,613) - 27,418 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

LeicaCamera.com (Compete Rank# 89,166) - 22,249 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

TOP (Compete Rank# UNRATED) - 19,335 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

APhotoEditor.com (Compete Rank# 139,957) - 13,324 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

SteveHuffPhoto.com (Compete Rank# 165,553) - 10,949 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Vincent Laforet Blog (Compete Rank# 172,639) - 10,430 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

l-camera-forum.com (Compete Rank# 245,086) - 6,920 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

LeicaRumors.com (Compete Rank# 331,373) - 4,865 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

DigiLloyd.com (Compete Rank# 349,203) - 4,581 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

Overgaard.dk (Compete Rank# UNRATED) - 2,660 Compete Unique Visitors (Unknown Date)

ReidReviews (Compete Rank# 1,330,478) - 976 Compete Unique Visitors July 2010

(when unrated last monthly page views used for order)

I know that there are other sites that do web statistic compilations, however, I wanted to use the same service for every search term to maintain some kind of consistency.  I also know that certain websites use proprietary programs and services to accurately compute their own statistics.  I just used these for my own edification to give some scale.

The above rankings are pretty interesting, though.  Clearly, a place where people at least post PHOTOS rather than their amazing theorizations is more popular than forums.  That's cool.  A weekly from the United States is more popular than true news-gathering organizations.  Scary for sure.  DPReview is more popular than one of the oldest best regarded weekly news mags.  Less scary for me than the fact the wires were beat out by people.com.  I think it's funny that the two paid reviews (digilloyd and reidreviews) sites are so unpopular.  Longtime APhotoEditor.com is barely more popular than upstart Steve Huff.  The LuminousLandscape guys must be pissed that KenRockwell is almost twice as big as they are.  I laughed the hardest at that actually.  TOP didn't surprise me that they only got 19K.  Rockwell's numbers are better than PopPhoto.  I doubt they're as pissed as the Luminous guys.  It's gotta kill TOP that pedestrian Rockwell is does more than 10 times their numbers.  An upstart like CanonRumors doing almost as much traffic as longtime RangeFinderForum?  Really?  LeicaRumors being irrelevant is pretty much par for the course.  DSLR-centric sites aren't doing the numbers of their still counterparts.  I thought they'd be bigger.

Would also appear to me that given audience size a site's popularity is affected by how much they post. Further, I think that the more gear-centric your site is ... the more popular you are.  It's no surprise that sites that center on Canon and Nikon are way more popular than any other brands.  

I don't spend a lot of time on every one of those sites but ... I'll give my opinion about some.  I mean ... I'm entitled as much as the most over-posting troll on a forum, too, right?  We'll start with the top of the list:

Flickr (Affiliation:  None except for having account there)

When this site first came around I thought it was just another "hosting site" like photobucket or the nefarious imageshack.us.  Now, since they redid how we can browse photos, I really like their site.  I don't post a lot there yet I usually meet pretty nice people.  I still think I see more talented work on deviantART, though.  

Gawker (Affiliation:  None)

It's one of the first sites I check after waking up.  The have a cadre of young writers grabbing traditional media by the short ones.  It's not Huffington-rehash.  If any of you wonder what style of writing I like, go there and check out some posts.

deviantART (Affiliation:  Friends with C.E.O., have account, admin of group)

It's always seemed to me that the people here are less gear-centric and more art-motivated than other sites.  Some of the most talented people I've met all over the world I met through this site.  I've helped younger photographers from this site get syndication gigs and jobs more than any other site i've frequented.  

Photo.net (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer:  UNK

Never paid much attention because it seemed as though the most frequently posted subject was landscape.  Landscape bores me.

DPReview (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographers:  They say so; I doubt it.

How many people actually reading DPReview would actually buy a Leaf back?  Zero.  Why do they even mention anything beyond point and shoots?  Isn't that what their editor knows best?  How they scammed their way into the numbers that they have is seriously one of the biggest mysteries of the internet.  I mean how the hell did their editor ever get a book deal with this gallery?  So if your editor-in-chief is the best, what does that say about the rest of them?

Some of the worst photos ever made with an M9 were made by their "founder."  A founder whose bio's first line is  "... has been in the internet business for about 15 years."  Um, really?  The first line should be "... has been a photographer..."  The "honorable genre of test photo" on this site brings photography on the internet to a new/old low.

Why anyone would EVER get information from this site is BEYOND me.  The content is the most pedestrian that one could ever want to see.  

Well, ya' know, pedestrian but with the occasional mention of us$40K gear none of their readers could ever afford or have a use for.  Their audience is the point-and-shoot crowd evidenced by the content their editor is known for producing.  Funny thing is that the point-and-shoot crowd would be better served going to Rockwell's site.

KenRockwell (Affiliation:  None except for being i-acquaintances) 

Working Photographer:  UNK

Back in the day I made fun of Ken; he called me a paparazzi, which I told him was the plural of paparazzo and he corrected it even though I told him he had no idea what he was talking about.  Again, anyone really in the non-consumer photo world knows there is a difference between "pap work" and entertainment editorial.  Bygones.  Thing is about Ken is that his information is pretty good.  He doesn't claim to have been some ex-professor of photography or edited a failed photo magazine.  He's a regular guy who loves photography and tells it like it is.  What's funny is that in a photo-centric world his numbers are trumped only by Photo.net.  Ken knows his audience.  He also doesn't try to talk to the "pro audience" some others THINK they have but, in fact, it's dubious if they do. I find those kinds of sites rather pretentious.  Ken's definitely not pretentious.

Honestly, there hasn't been much I've read on Ken's site that wasn't pretty close to the truth. Good for Ken and his numbers that trump so so many others.

Luminous-Landscape (Affiliation:  Have an account I've used for lurking probably won't for long)

Working Photographer:  I'm sure in their minds they are.

With more page views than both Pop Photo and Shutterbug I'd kind of expect better content than the I-use-a-view-camera-and-know-more-than-you-do guys.  Was so funny to see whatever his name is put out some 5dm2 video pretty soon after Vincent Laforet did.  It was so baneful and visually painful to watch it was laughable.  Yeah!!!!  Jump on the D-SLR bandwagon!  That will get you page views.  

In Hollywood there are actors-with-a-capital-A, clearly, in photography sites there are photographers-with-a-capital-P.  These would be them.  If you don't use a Leaf back or some nice 8x10 velvia to make your landscapes; you're way beneath us.  There's also some of the I-can-afford-to-shoot-in-Antartica-because-I'm-a-retired-engineer-and-it's-closer-than-you'll-get-to-shooting-for-Nat-friggin'-Geo in this site, too.  

The reason I learned about it was because of a painfully bad M9 review.  Not that they said anything bad about the camera but ... because the photos were banal.  Then again, I'm sure the audience wouldn't know a "fresh look" to save their lives.  I have a feeling this is where many learn the "noble genre of test photos."

If you want to see another landscape photo, go here, this is your place.

RobGalbraith.com (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer:  YES

Seems as though there was better content back in the day than there is now.  Also seems like now it's just regurgitation of other site's information and links to "best of" galleries by Reuters.  

Thing is ... this guy is an actual working photographer so it's easier to believe the information on his site. It's practical and not theoretical.  I used to look at his CF memory card comparisons when I cared about that information.  Now, dunno ... I guess I just look to look because it used to be worthwhile.

FStoppers.com (Affiliation:  None)

I first found this site because of a viral video circulated on FB a while back.  That video was seen 440,000+ times.  Marketing lesson:  Don't ever underestimate the viral video to pimp your site's numbers.

Honestly, I had no idea South Carolina had a fashion industry.  I kinda thought that there needed to be a fashion industry to be called a fashion photographer.  Makes sense, right?  When I went to the FStoppers youtube page it looked like the iPhone video has over forty times the loads/plays than anything else they've posted.

I think it's cool that a site that has roughly half original content does twice the numbers of TOP. ;)  I'm surprised compete ranks them higher than their HD-SLR God Bloom.  Odd.  

Neither of the authors have style that jumps out and says look at me but they look like competent commercial photographers for sure.  Surely, their opinions are better than those who either a) have never been hired or b) haven't been hired in 20+ years.  Surely.

PDN Online (Affiliation:  Subscriber and been mentioned a couple times)

I'm actually surprised that their rank is so low.  Emerging photographers would totally benefit by checking out even the before-the-pay-wall information.  You'll find out what staffers make on average, what the stock sales industry is doing and what markets are doing instead of how ISO 1250 looks like on a G10 when you shoot your lawn furniture in the winter.  I wonder when a better organized magazine is put together and distributed on something like the iPad will happen.

Rangefinder Forum (Affiliation:  Owner is a friend)

Working Photographer:  N/A

I was quite surprised that the numbers for this site are better than l-camera-forum and leica-camera.  I think that hyphenated domain names are stupid (see: luminous-landscape).  Anyway ... RFF is a great place to learn about rangefinders.  Rangefinder photography?  Honestly, not so much.  Most of the people on this site don't photograph but they sure love to post.  They don't like me much, either, I don't really care.  If you don't have work to back up your opinion, you're nobody.  Just FYI.  You know who you are.

Seems to me that the least talented are actually the moderators for the most part.  That is true, though, of almost any forum.

Canon Rumors (Affiliation:  i-Acquaintance)

Working Photographer:  YES

My opinions of "rumor sites" are pretty well-known to those who follow my blog or get my updates on Facebook.  I haven't found ANY of them to be even mildly reliable.  Having been involved in a project that required an inch thick NDA and watching certain forum posts by "rumor mongers" it was laughable how people who said "my really good source" were wrong every friggin' time.  Laughable.  Rumor sites are the result of rumor mogering on forums.

I'm quite surprised Canon Rumors gets such high numbers but ... the site's well done ... when there are "test photos" they're competent.  In my correspondence with the guy he's genuinely nice and loves photography.  I think he would have done better with a name not implying he's rumor-centric.

Philip Bloom's Blog (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer/Videographer:  YES

Seriously, there is NO ONE better at marketing himself on the web.  I don't think ANYONE took the D-SLR to it's current heights after Vincent Laforet published Reverie better than Bloom.  I will admit that I've definitely learned some technical things because of reading Bloom's blog.  I'd say three things.

I don't think you'll learn much creatively there.  Rather, if you need technical information, how to make a time lapse, how to use a motorized slider to make a moving time lapse or how a British accent and some nice visuals are a way to make yourself a force to be reckoned with ... Bloom's your guy.

I attended a Bloom-workshop to kinda "gauge things" as it were.  Did I learn anything?  No.  Was it interesting?  For sure.  Watching a hundred fanboys gander at their God?  Priceless for sure.

TOP (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer: NO

"I never did take a workshop myself—I sort of skipped right from being a student into being a teacher..." My problem with sites like this is that, especially when you look at compete.com's numbers, it's really not that popular.   I love that Ken's numbers are 10 times the size of TOP's.  I don't think Ken's provenance is anywhere close to what these guys have.  When I read the editor's history all I could think was the high school quarterback who used to be pretty good and then ... the majors ... well ... ya' know the rest of the story.  

Ol' pedestrian Ken with an audience that kills them 10 times over.  Must make some curmudgeons not feel so fanciful.  Sites like this have a little squadron of "regulars" who tow the line and make the head curmudgeon happy.  

At least Ken shows his work.  It's very hard for me -- as it is for a lot of who email me -- to take someone's opinion, whether it's a poster on a forum or a "publisher" of a popular blog, who doesn't show their work. Seriously, so the fuck what your work is on neg.  Scan it.  A lot of us scan our work.  Put it out there.  Let people comment.  Don't be afraid.

Is it that you don't think you HAVE to show your work because of some sense of entitlement?  Let's see some of the work you did after you were a student or when you were a teacher!  How about after that?

When I was primarily working for magazines I worked with writers who could do a bang-up story about cat food and the next day ... about high-end audio gear.  Just because one is a good writer doesn't necessarily mean they're good at anything they write about.

Entitlement is a funny thing.

Another funny thing is having an ad for buffalo hides with a naked baby posing and then an ad for "joyful nudes."  Just sayin'.

APhotoEditor.com (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer:  N/A

I like this guy's real world perspective.  He doesn't theorize.  He's been in the world of which he writes.  

SteveHuffPhoto.com (Affiliation:  A mention and he's an iAcquaintance)

According to compete.com this site has better numbers than THE leica forum and both paid review sites? I'm not sure the compete-laforet numbers are wholly correct, tho.  Not bad for someone who's only had stats since late last year.  I hope a guy like this overtakes something like the alter of entitlement.  

Okay.  There's one thing.  There's this unboxing video.  Why do this?  Who started this phenomenon? Unboxing videos should stay something you keep to yourself.  They really make me want to die.  Why would anyone want to watch such a thing?

Unlike others who depend upon contributors for relevance, Steve's blog has a few very competent contributors who don't just shoot banal landscapes.  You don't need an internationally known PJ to have good content.  

Each of his reviews contains really nice original photographs.  "The honorable genre of the test photo" can also be a good photo; it doesn't have to be of a tree or of an ill-composed dog photo.

I can attest this guy isn't an FB-Overposter and doesn't really market like so many others I know.  You know who you are.  You can call me "closed" and I can quietly think of you as a spammer.

I'd check out Steve's site to see what he thinks.  I mean ... he's better than any of the PAID review sites. Okay, that is unless you like pedestrian wedding photography or landscape that anyone taking a Rockwell-led workshop could do.

One last thing:  Quoting leicarumors.com ... you're better than that, man. ;)  way better.

Vincent Laforet Blog (Affiliation:  None)

Working Photographer:  Duh

I've never thanked him but when I saw Reverie it unlocked something in me. I should thank him. Prior to seeing what the 5dm2 could do -- even with auto-aperture other bullshit Canon didn't forsee being a big deal -- I'd always wanted to do something in motion.  The thought of deep-focus bullshit video cameras did not pique my interest.  Seeing Reverie did.

There's no other photographer in the D-SLR fad-world that inspired me more.  Vincent's still photography is beyond belief as well.  

If you want to see what's REALLY going on with D-SLR's, go to his blog.  I have no idea how compete does it's numbers but I'm going to suspect that his blog's/site's numbers are a somewhere north of where they're reported.  They have to be.  Then again, Vincent doesn't overpost.  He doesn't seem to be quite the social network/media whore that most are.  

Why is that?  He's a real working photographer/cinematographer.  He doesn't have time.  He's not trying to sell every product under the sun or fill his calendar doing workshops ... he's working ... in the real world.  I'd suspect his workshop would kill it over most of the others who are popular D-SLR workshoppers.

Always looking forward to seeing what he's doing next.

In the words of Robert Rodriguez: "You don't have to be technical; you can learn technical.  Technical people, though, aren't creative.  That's where creatives win every time."  Impressing the fanboys is one thing ... impressing agency clients is quite another.  ;)

l-camera-forum.com (Affiliation:  Have an account where I've posted 106 times in over five years)

The best thing I learned here was from some guy who posted about what to do about the hood for the Noctilux from the 80's.  The hood design sucked.  Homeboy suggested buying a B+W hood and a step up ring.  

Otherwise ... well ... this is another place where the number of posts you have gives you streed cred. You'll also find many entries of the "noble genre of the test photo" and find posters from the "paid reviewer genre."  Those hawking workshops like to post in places like this as well.

The one other thing that this site has over others is disposable income.  I don't know for sure but I'll bet the demographics for this site kick some major ass.  Thing is ... just owning a Leica doesn't mean anything more than "you own a Leica."

LeicaRumors.com (Affiliation:  Referenced on site)

Although I'm sure they have better numbers than me, when I look at this site i ask myself "is this what happens when you just buy a domain and regurgitate information that you see on forums?"

Indeed.  I remember talking to this guy on FB and asking him if he owned a Leica.  He said he had a D-Lux.  In as much as I love myself some D-Lux sometimes ... um ... does that really qualify you to provide original content to a blog about Leica?  I mean, really?

In as much as I should have been nicer to whatever his name is when he told me he was "getting an M9" and I said "cool, let me see the photos you make with it."

I never got a response ... ya' know ... like the one I did from Craig at CanonRumors.

There really is no difference between a site like LeicaRumors and a celebrity regurgitation site ... but not like the 2nd regurgitation ... like the 8th.  This isn't just sloppy seconds.  This is just sloppy.

No one should quote this site.  Under any circumstances.  Perhaps I could change my mind if I ever got to a) know the guy's real name (why hide behind an alias, mate) and b) see his work.  Something tells me, though, that never happens.  Besides, the guy published one of my private photos on FB.  Loser.  Go get your own content.

Overgaard.dk (Affiliation:  Referenced a couple times, infrequent contrib here and friend)

Working Photographer:  YES

Finding stats with Alexa, compete or quantcast was difficult for Thorsten's Leica Compendium site.  I'm sure he'll correct me with some stats for his alter to the God of Leica.

If you want to know anything Leica, this is probably a pretty good place to start.  If I ever wonder if a certain lens exists, I search here.  Somehow this Dane sniffs out anything Leica.  

Thorsten's also one of the best at marketing himself through social networks and commenting.  He's referenced in a book as he described on FB "Interesting book for any photographers and other artists wanting to use internet and social media to create network and reach their goals. I'm in it as a case, written by Lindsay Adler."  You can find the book here.

The Paid Review Sites of Reid and DigiLloyd (Affiliation:  None, thank God!)

Working Photographers:  I'd be so surprised

If you want to learn how to shoot boring landscapes, see the luminous guys.  Unless you buy a video you can probably find everything you need for free.  If you want to see what nice wedding work looks like, look at some of Steve's stuff.  You don't need to pay for it.  How homeboy can base a subscriber-based review rooted in wedding work ... well ... I guess someone would want to pay for it.  Funny 'cause I just looked at Steve's stuff again and immediately looked at Seans:  Steve kicks Sean's ass in the wedding genre in one post.

I know that both of these guys would make the argument "Magazines charge for reviews."  Yeah, well, I doubt either of you shoot for magazines.  I'm shocked with all of the great information out there that these sites could get subscribers.  The compete.com numbers are very interesting.  I think.

Wonder who would need to hire someone to do photo consulting?  

I wrote this because, honestly, I just wondered myself which sites were more popular (according to compete.com, of course) than others.  In so many ways I was pretty shocked; in other ways I wasn't.

It's also interesting -- even based upon my own private stats -- that whenever you post about gear your stats spike.  It's not interesting, actually, it's sad.  Seems as though people want something that can possibly make them a better photographer yet they default back to gear fanboy.  There are so many priests of gear that have no problem finding a alter boys and a flock.  

If you want to make better photos, look at better photos.  You're not going to get any better by talking ad naseum about gear on forums or making comments on blogs.  Won't happen.  You can get more popular with other gear-loving time lapsers by making endless comments, though.  This has been proved time and again.

You get better at photography by making more and better photos.

Find content-centric sites for information.  Guys who do original content that isn't the same over and over again -- unless they like to shoot a theme, of course -- are much better to watch than guys who have opinions and then try to support their opinion by allowing great contributors to post.  Never get your information from regurgitation sites.  You're better off lurking a forum than reading those.  You're getting the same information.  Regurgitation sites are probably started mostly by the same guys that write "first post" when commenting on a popular blog.  

Frequent sites written by guys who put there work out there for you to see.  If you respect their work, you can respect their opinion.  

I wish a lot of my talented friends would blog.  Because they're staffers and can't or because they're too busy and it's not going to make them any more money ... they don't.  In fact, they probably think I'm the overposting self-promoter.  Over-posting about gear, visiting forums and claiming to know this or that is proven to make you more popular for sure.

Thing is ... I've had about the same readers when I started journaling (the precursor of blogs) at dA that I do today.  I'm cool with that.  I've been able to get a couple web properties to give away a Leica M7 and lens, a Canon 5D and a lens and a nice Bessa and lens to a lucky kid in Amsterdam, Berlin and, um, Russia, I think.  Can half of the big number guys say they've done anything like that?  I'll post it if they have.  What I like about the readers I have is that they're all good photographers and want information that isn't some theorization.  I work in the real world and beyond a BH Photo ad bump they get real information based on my real world observations of the gear I use day in and day out for some of the biggest clients/brands known to man.

I guess that's why one could probably tell I'm biased towards guys who actually work as photographers.  

Well ... that's the way I see the web in terms of photo-centric sites.  I know I'll take a lot of flack and get messages from friends-of-friends saying "so-and-so is really pissed you said that."  Well ... so what. If any of you post your work and think I should change my opinion because of your practical work instead of your theories, please let me know when you post it.

Cheers!

-C