Digital Alternative to the Olympus XA2?

I had it all planned when I purchased an Olympus XA2 camera. My only preparation was to learn how the simple 3 position focus system translates to distance in feet. An online search helped with that information. I have a roll of Fujicolor 200 ready for when the camera arrives. 

The camera arrived and tested well. The shutter worked, flash fired, and looked fine cosmetically. Ready for a stroll around the neighborhood to shoot a test roll with the Fujicolor film. 

Only one problem-I cheapened out! I got the hair-brained idea to use a compact digital camera and PRETEND that I'm using the Olympus XA2 with these rules.

• Don't shoot anything closer than 3 feet away
• Leave the camera at the 35mm focal length (equivalent)
• Try finding subjects at various distances to practice estimating which of the 3-position focus settings on the XA2 I would have used
• Shoot subjects that I would have taken with the XA2 on this neighborhood stroll
• Post process the way I would have for scanned film

I decided to use a Canon S100 custom set to the 35mm equivalent focal length which turns out be 7.49mm on this camera with a 1/1.7" size sensor. 

Similar sizes, but I do miss out on the OVF 

The Canon S100 photos were shot in RAW and auto exposure with auto white balance.

When the images were imported into Adobe Lightroom the photos did not look as if they were shot with film, but I made some edits to the tone curve, reduced the sharpening, added grain, and set the white balance to daylight. From these values I created a film preset. I liked the preset results better anyway. A bit more grain was added on the black and white conversions. 

I don't know what shutter speed and aperture the XA2 camera would have used, but many of the Canon S100 photos were shot at ISO 80 and f4 with the differing shutter speeds depending on the light. As I write this article, I notice the final color shots probably resemble Ektar 100 film more than Fujicolor 200.

You can perhaps visualize which one of the three focus settings you would have set on the XA2 for these subjects,

Minolta Freedom Escort First Roll Review (Riva Mini).

Let's get started with the least obvious feature of the Minolta Freedom Escort, the function of the green light in the viewfinder.  A steady green light indicates you're good to go with focus, and it also indicates that the shutter speed or auto-flash is fast enough to give you a sharp picture. A steady blinking light indicates the shutter speed may be too slow to hand hold or you should turn on the flash. A rapidly blinking green light indicates that you are too close to your subject or the camera cannot find focus. 

The Minolta Freedom Escort is a clone of the Leica Mini II. I would have liked testing the Leica Mini II, but the only advantage of the Leica Mini II is that it has B (bulb) setting. Aesthetically, the Leica looks more refined, but I did not want to spend $200 more for those attributes. 

The Minolta Freedom Escort has most of the point and shoot features that I like. I can manually control flash, the lens is a four element prime, I can lock the focus, and the shutter speed range is quite broad. It would be a perfect point and shoot for me if it had manual ISO capability instead of just DX. 

The first thing I noticed when playing with the camera is that turning the camera on extends the lens, but the sound it makes is a bit annoying and it moves out rather slowly. No big deal, but I'm surprised it was not a smoother "turn on" experience. I decided when I go out shooting I would leave the camera on and set the flash to off because once I turn the camera off and on again the flash defaults to double flash, yuck! Leaving the camera to the on position will hardly drain the batteries and it is not too different from pulling out the lens on a Rollei 35 so that it's always ready to go. 

The Test Roll

On day one with a roll of Fujicolor 200 24 exposure film loaded in the camera we decided to walk one of the trails in The Presidio. Photos are from that walk. One thing I learned about the camera is that it shuts off automatically after about five minutes and the lens retracts. So my idea about leaving the camera on and always ready like a Rollei 35 did not pan out. I just had to remember to set the camera back to my preferred "flash-off" setting every time I turned on the camera. The image of the toyon berries was shot with forced flash, all others were flash off.

Frame #1 was to see how accurate the auto focus
 is on close subjects. The subject is sharp and
the background is blurry - as it should be.

No flash

With flash

The following day photos are from a walk in Noe Valley, a photogenic neighborhood in San Francisco. I became more comfortable with the camera on day two. The rhythm and sound of the focus and shutter experience felt better than day one with the camera. Although I later realized that I messed up one shot and did not take the photo because I thought the flashing light was for out of focus range, but it was the steady light for low light, not the rapid flashing light.  

Technical Specifications

For whatever reason the instruction sheet tech detail section does not indicate that the lens is a four element lens. The Minolta Freedom Escort was released in 1991.

Final Thoughts

Lightweight, pocketable, affordable full frame 35mm point & shoot cameras with high quality prime lenses are missing from today's digital cameras. There are a few compact digital cameras with excellent prime lenses, but only three of them have full frame sensors, Sony RX1, Leica Q2, and Zeiss ZX1. All wonderful cameras, but quite heavy and expensive compared to most premium 35mm compacts.

The Minolta Freedom Escort is not in the same class as any of these prime-lensed digital cameras, but if you are looking for a lightweight, pocketable camera that is fun and relaxing to use, the Minolta Freedom Escort produces consistently well exposed and sharp images. 

APS-C vs Full Frame. Examples and Comparisons.

So far, the digital camera I want does not exist. I would like a small lightweight full frame digital camera about the size of the Fuji X100 series cameras, or better yet, smaller and lighter. The interest is there because the best small 35mm film compacts are selling for $200 to over $1000 for a used camera. And it’s more than just the film-only crowd that are paying $1000+ for a used Contax T3. Gorgeous camera by the way.

My favorite walk-around prime lens focal length is 35mm or 40mm on a full frame camera.  When using a camera with an APS-C size sensor the equivalent focal would translate to between 22mm to 24mm to match the full frame's angle of view.

My conundrum is do I really need a small, lightweight full frame digital camera when there are so many APS-C, MFT, and 1.0 inch sensor cameras that are the perfect size and weight for me?

I'm sheltered at home because of the COVID-19 directives, and it's raining outside. What a great time to test and compare APS-C to full frame sensors when used with my favorite semi-wide angle focal length lens.

The equipment that I used...
APS-C sensor: Fuji XT-1 with the Fujinon 23mm f2

Full frame sensor: Nikon D750 with the Nikkor AF-D 35mm F2

The subject is a Heath Ceramics coffee mug. Sorry, my model couldn't make it over here.

I'm testing for the overall "look", out-of-focus appearance, noise, as well as noting highlight and shadow detail. Not a scientific test, but an observational one. The images are unedited RAW files which is why the color and exposure are different from each camera. (There is one image example where I exposure matched the other camera.)

Fuji 23mm @ f2 ISO 800

Nikkor 35mm @f2 ISO 800

Fuji 23mm @ f4 ISO 800

Nikkor 35mm @ f4 ISO 1250

Fuji 23mm @ f8 ISO 3200

Nikkor 35mm @ f8 ISO 3200

Here I edited the Fuji exposure in Lightroom to try to match the Nikon original.

Nikkor 35mm @ f4 ISO 1250

Fuji 23mm @ f4 ISO 800

Predictably, the larger sensor has less noise at ISO 3200, and as far as the "look" is concerned, the full frame image has a "smoother" look, or should I say the smaller sensor has more micro-contrast?

Both of these systems produce wonderful images, and if I had used a Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Canon, Sigma, Ricoh, Pentax they would also be as good or better. So, do I still want the small, lightweight full frame digital camera that does not yet exist?

Yep.

THE Ultra Ultra-wide Prime Lens

Venus Optics recently announced their Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D rectilinear lens which is available in Nikon, Canon Sony, and Pentax mounts. Considering that the lens has an f2.8 maximum aperture and covers a 35mm format (FX), it is quite small and weighs about 600g.

I use Nikon in both DX and FX formats. Along with my DX camera and the 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses, the 12mm lens becomes a super-wide 18mm f2.8 (FX equivalent), and does not take up much room in my bag. The perfect small outfit for travel!

Back in the 1970's Nikon made a 13mm f5.6 rectilinear lens which is very rare now and sells for about $20,000. Not only did I save $19,000, the Laowa is a 2.8 lens and half of the weight of the Nikon 13mm.

"SLR" IS SO 50'S

I just finished reading an article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "You don't need a separate camera with these phones". The author Anick Jesdanun compared the cameras on three brands of new smart phones. The author acknowledges that "a phone is never going to replace a full-bodied, single-lens reflex camera, otherwise known as an SLR".

What the author of this article did not mention is that in addition to "full-bodied" SLR cameras, there are also small bodied SLR's, and even smaller "mirrorless" cameras. If you don't want to bother with interchangeable lenses, there are some wonderful fixed lens zoom cameras that are extremely compact. 

The first commercially available interchangeable lens 35mm SLR camera the Contax S was introduced in 1949. Asahi improved the SLR design by adding the instant return mirror in 1954 with model Pentax IIB. 

Nikon, Canon, and Pentax are using this same SLR design today. For example, the latest Nikon entry-level DSLR is the D3300. When the lens is removed, you will see the mirror (which reflects a nice, clear image on to the focusing screen). Nothing wrong with that, but so 1950's.

Check out the new interchangeable mirrorless cameras which also go by the acronym MILC, ILC, and CSC.  (Sounds confusing, but your local camera retailer will help you simplify the choices.)

If you enjoy taking photos, these are some of the features lacking on a smart phone, but available on a dedicated camera:

1. Larger sensor size
2. Ability to use longer lenses
3. Ability to use wider angle lenses
4. Ability to use RAW capture

Larger sensor size

This is a big deal. The sensor size on an Apple iPhone 6 smart phone camera is 4.89 x 3.67mm.

The smallest sensor size on an interchangeable lens mirrorless camera is 13.2 x 8.8mm. Here is a visual comparison of the sensor sizes. For web use or email the smart phone camera sensor is large enough, but if you plan on making prints, anything larger than 4"x6" shows "grain", lack of detail, and excessive contrast.

full image (from iPhone) 

I made full image 5x7 prints from both the iphone file and a Panasonic GX1 mirrorless camera which has a 17.3 x 13mm sensor. These are scanned images of a cropped portion of the 5x7 prints. The difference is obvious in the sky.

Panasonic GX1 with 17mm lens (34mm equiv.) - cropped from a 5X7 print

Apple iPhone 4 - cropped portion of a 5X7 print

Longer lenses and wide angle lenses
Smart phone cameras generally come equipped with semi-wide angle lenses. The angle of view is great for taking a variety of photos. It is the Instamatic camera of this generation. The lens is equivalent to having a 30mm lens on a full frame camera. However, a DSLR offers lenses from 8mm to 800mm (equivalent to full frame). An interchangeable lens mirrorless camera offers lenses from 14mm to 600mm (equivalent). Even a fairly large sensor, compact fixed lens camera like the pocketable Panasonic LF1 and Canon G7 X has a 28-200mm and 24-100mm focal length lens, respectively.
Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are available from most of the camera manufacturers, but Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and Leica offer the most choices of lenses at this time. The Sony and Leica MILC are available with a full frame 24x36mm sensor, and are about 1/2 the weight of their SLR competition.

RAW capture
Most DSLR and mirrorless cameras have a feature that allows you to photograph in RAW or Jpeg or both. The smart phone cameras do not have a RAW option, only Jpeg. The RAW file is great for printing your images because with RAW you can change the white balance, exposure, highlights, shadows, and more with no loss in image quality. This editing is possible to a degree with a Jpeg, but the final results will not be as satisfactory.

The title of the Chronicle article is misleading. A better title would have been "Do you need a separate camera with these phones?" The answer is... absolutely.

"Why do I need a camera when my smartphone has a camera?"

Why do you need a dedicated camera? To answer that question, I took a walk in my neighborhood with my iphone and a small mirrorless camera, but the following camera photos also show what you could expect from a smaller camera with 20X zoom.

All photos shown are from the original jpegs with no editing. The iphone lens' field of view is the equivalent of a 34mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera.



The first shot is a front yard with some healthy looking rhododendron blossoms. I would have liked to get closer with the iphone, but as you can see, that would have been destructive to the property.
With the zoom lens on my camera, I was able to "get closer" to the blossoms.

 iphone image

 camera image (90mm equivalent)

I noticed some people on top of the hill on my next photo and liked the silhouette effect. On this photo the iphone camera is useless for the image that I had in mind.

iphone

camera (264mm equivalent)

Smartphones do a pretty good job with closeups. You can officially put your Minox to rest if you are a spy. Here is an example of a yellow lupine taken with each camera. I have not altered the jpegs, but the zoom camera shot is a little dark, and I would lighten it if it were printed or displayed on flickr.

iphone

camera image (136mm equivalent)

To be fair to the iphone, here is the same image, but cropped and darkened to match the zoom camera photo. It is close to a dedicated camera image, but lacks the out of focus background.

iphone - cropped and darkened

Let's say you are in the real estate business, want to impress your girlfriend who thinks you only watch sports programs all day, and you need to email a photo of the house that you just sold. The smartphone camera has a semi wide lens, but on a narrow street you cannot stand back far enough to get the entire house. The zoom camera has a much wider lens and shows an improved photo of the property.

iphone

camera image (22mm equivalent)

Conclusion. Ansel Adams started his picture taking on a Kodak Box Brownie. The Kodak Instamatic might have been the first camera for many successful photographers. The smartphone users of today could become the famous photographers of the future. Also, the smartphone camera is a huge improvement compared to the mass market film cameras of the past. However, it has limitations.

For the person who does not want to carry an extra camera, but understands the advantages of having one, there are a number of small, lightweight cameras with zoom ranges from 12X to 30X which fit easily into a pocket or purse.

Please visit your local specialty camera store.

My first blog

Period. Don't tell anyone, but I googled "blog" before starting this series.

Photography is my hobby, and it is also my profession. Pretty lucky. I was inspired to start a blog because I am hoping that some of these articles, photos, and ideas will get folks to start thinking about specialty cameras stores.

When I started repping during the 1990's, there were about 200 camera stores in Northern California. Los Altos, a small upscale town, had 4 camera stores! Hanford had one; towns that you probably never heard of had camera stores. Today, I call on about 20 specialty camera stores in Northern California and Northern Nevada.

It is my contention that the majority of smart phone camera users do not go into camera stores. If they did, the entrance door ringer would ding about 100 more times each day. Which brings me to my first non-introductory post, "Why do I need a camera when my phone has a camera?" Stay tuned and thanks for reading.