Cameras

The R6, which I have, is full frame. With card and battery it weighs 680g. It doesn’t feel heavy when working with it. If you are going our specifically to shoot then it’s OK, but if you are just going out wandering then you are going to notice it. It is not so light you can take it with you without finding yourself weighing up whether you want to carry that weight.

The Ricoh GRIII is so easy to carry that you really can forget you have it with you. But it doesn’t have a viewfinder. I’ve got a TTArtisan viewfinder that slips into the hotshoe but it is hit and miss because you have to line it up very carefully to make sure you are actually pointing it at the subject.

Most of the time I work off the rear screen and that works OK except when the sun is shining on the LCD. When that happens I am shooting blind and just judging by eye where the camera is pointing. That’s not as easy as you might think although I have more hits than misses now I have done it enough times.

Still, I like a viewfinder.

The R50 weighs 375g with lens and battery, And the lens throat of the R50 is the same size as the R6 and all the R range of cameras. So any lens that fits the full frame R6 will fit the R50 even though sensor on the R50 is APS-C.

Here’s a test shot. 1/1600 second at f1.8 and ISO 200 with the RF 50mm f1.8 STM lens with evaluative metering and auto white balance. The image links to the image file so you can see it bigger when you click on the image. And then see it bigger still when you click again.

What Do I think Of The Camera

• The camera feels heavy for its small size (it’s very small) like a little heavy lump.
• The grip is small but the camera feels reasonably secure held in one hand.
• The dedicated ISO button to the right of the shutter button is so flush with the body that I have to lift my eye off the viewfinder even to see where it is. And it is not easy to press, and I do not have sausage fingers.
• I like the flippy-out screen and the ability to turn the screen to the back of the camera so the screen is protected.
• The viewfinder doesn’t feel small or pokey – that;’s a big plus for me.
• I could probably get more out of the settings if I sat down with someone who knew the menus inside out. I’ve had the 50mm on it for a few days and now the 16mm and both feel comfortable on the camera. I wouldn’t put a 28-70mm on it though.
• I charged the battery when I got the camera and I have shot 164 shots and the battery info says it is still fully charged. I tend to review shots in the viewfinder, and not every shot. So the LCD isn’t getting much use for image reviews. That may be part of why the battery is doing well. Of course, it might suddenly go to zero, and it is does I will update this.
• The images are a bit different to the R6, a bit more compressed. But then I am shooting compressed RAW. I’ll try an experiment with that if I get time.

Would I Keep It

The answer is no, and not for any of the reasons for and against that I enumerated above., What I missed, and didn’t know how much I would miss it until I reviewed the photos I took under ‘stress’ conditions, is in-body image stabilisation (IBIS). I found that I really need it.

Maybe if I were to get my hand in with a lot more shots I might do better, but I feel like I am battling against something that doesn’t need to be a problem because several small cameras do have IBIS.

Maybe with the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 IS Macro STM lens or the Canon RF 24mm F1.8 Macro IS STM lens because they are image stabilised. But then I would cutting down my lens options to just a couple of choices.

There are longer lenses that are image stabilised, but the body can’t take big lenses comfortably, in my opinion. And there are RF-S lenses designed for the DX sensor, but they don’t have big open apertures.

Bottom line is the IBIS is good because it opens up a whole world of stabilised shooting. So no to the Canon EOS R50. I wished it were otherwise because the camera is so small and light. But no.

It’s the latest in a line of X100 cameras, but with a higher megapixel sensor and in-body image stabilisation. So what is not to like?

The problem with experience is that once you have it, you can’t un-experience something. And I had experience of the X100s, that I took everywhere with me.

It was, for me, the almost perfect travel camera because it was almost two dimensional. Instead of a big lens sticking out, the lens was almost flush with the body.

Plus, it had a dedicated leather case made by Fuji. With the camera in the case it was a neat package one could put in a travel bag knowing the camera was protected.

So with that history I bought the Fuji X100VI as a go-anywhere camera. Now I am wondering why on earth Fuji changed the design of the leather case.

First, you may have read that the case for the V fits the VI.

The Fuji site on this page says that it fits. It says ‘Compatibility X100VI / X100V’

And on this page for the VI it says the VI is compatible with ‘Leather case LC-X100V’

And it is true that the Fuji X100VI fits the leather case. That is, you can slip the camera into the lower part of the case and it fits.

However, the hinged flap at the bottom of the leather case should allow access to the battery/card compartment cover. It doesn’t because the leather case was designed for the V, and the VI is a tiny bit bigger.

So the leather cases does not allow one to open the compartment because the bottom of the leather case covers a couple of mm of the end of the battery cover.

To change battery or card one would have to take the leather case off. That’s not good but it’s not the end of the world.

And if that were the only problem I would put up with it.

On earlier X100 series cameras, the top of the case was attached to the lower part by two press studs. When one opened the case, the top part hung down. It didn’t obstruct anything and it was securely fixed in place.

When you wanted to close the leather case you just flipped up the top part.

But Fuji changed the design, and the top is not connected to the bottom part at all with this new case design.

Are you getting this? Do you see what the problem is?

Let’s suppose you are out with the Fuji X100VI (or the X100V) in its leather case. You don’t have a camera bag or any other kind of bag with you. You are just out walking and you have your camera with you. It is a summer’s day and you are in your shirt sleeves.

You come across something you want to photograph. To actually use the X100VI camera you have lift off the top part of the case. Then you have to think of somewhere to put it. And where exactly? Shove it in a pocket? It’s too big for that.

An important part of why I was attracted to this camera is that it is a good camera, has a viewfinder, and it has a lens that hardly sticks out.

And it has a case, which would mean I could carry it anywhere protected. But for some unfathomable reason, Fuji changed the design and ruined a perfectly good system.

I have searched reviews and forums for people discussing this huge design flaw, and I can’t find any mention of it. I am mystified. Am I the first person to have ever noticed this?

Of course, maybe a lot of people don’t even want to use a leather case. That’s OK – it takes all kinds to make a world. But I do like a case.

When I am carrying a more substantial camera like my Canon EOS R6, I carry it in a Billingham camera bag.

And if I am carrying a small camera like the Ricoh GRIII, I have the Ricoh leather case. It really does mean I can slip the Ricoh in a pocket. The case even has a belt loop, so I can carry it hands free and pocket free. Still, the camera only weighs 277g.

Back To The Fuji

The bottom line is that because of the design fault in the leather case, I returned the camera. and I am wondering what to do next. My head is all over the place. With a Canon R50 or R10 I I could put a small prime on the camera and that would be a tiny package. Or I could go for an Osmo Pocket Three or even use my phone. Or get some Fuji goodness with an X-T30.

As someone once said to me when I was trying to decide between two options, it’s a good question and it’s a choice between good and good.

On the Canon EOS R6, if like me you wondered how to find the single shot vs continuous shooting setting and couldn’t find it, read on.

Use the Q button to bring up the menu items. The shooting setting is fourth from the left on the bottom row. Tap on that and now there are options, including self-timer options, Slow Speed Continuous, High Speed Continuous, and High Speed Continuous+

Not surprisingly the difference between High-Speed Continuous and High-Speed Continuous+ is their maximum shooting speeds.

High-Speed Continuous+ shoots up to 12 fps with the mechanical shutter and up to 20 fps with the electronic shutter.

High-Speed Continuous shoots at 8 fps with the mechanical shutter. In fact, High-Speed Continuous mode is only available with the mechanical or first-curtain electronic shutter. With electronic shutter, the only high-speed option is H+.

High-Speed Continuous suits me because 8 fps is already a shock even when I am expecting it. Plus, it is supposed to have more reliable AF tracking than H+.

Time was when film compacts had to have a swirl and a curve in the design. I hated them. As far as I was concerned they were old fashioned and didn’t do anything to enhance the functionality of the camera. Here’s a Nikon with a curve to show you what I mean.

High End Film Cameras

What I said about curves only applied to point and shoot compacts. High end cameras didn’t look like that. In fact you could tell they were high end just by the look of them, like this Contax.

Digital

When digital cameras came out, the whole idea of digital was that they were functional and so the designs were much more minimalist and straight lines. Like this Canon. The only nod to the old is the slight curve at the end of the body.

Except Mju

What I said is mostly true, and some curvy cameras were a lot worse than the Nikon. But one film camera that was kind of curvy but still looked good was the Olympus Mju II. Olympus were known for svelte design. And somehow despite the curve, the camera looked the business.

I owned one at one time, but before I got to own one I had a go at owning one that didn’t come off. What happened was this.

I didn’t set out to buy an Olympus Mju II. But I was in New York, on Broadway and looking in camera shops. The store was narrow and deep with a counter running all down the left side. Maybe I asked for a Mju II or maybe the conversation went in that direction. Whichever it was the man got one out and I looked it over. Did I start to haggle or did he just start to come down in price to see at what price I would bite?

It was obvious to me and to him that I was hesitating, and then the price got crazy low. I didn’t know how to ask him without offending him. But this was Broadway, known for cheap goods and probably a lot of knock-offs and fake brands. So I approached the subject in what I hoped was the gentlest of ways. With the price being so low, I asked, do you think there is any possibility that this is not a genuine Olympus?

He didn’t answer me. He just picked up the camera and threw it down the length of the counter to the back of the shop. It was a long throw and he plainly didn’t care whether the camera survived.

I was shocked, disappointed, relieved. My bargain had slipped away. But would it have been a bargain? Now I didn’t have to think about it.

I am English and I was a tourist in New York. The man who served me was maybe Iranian or Iraqi or Egyptian and so his behaviour wasn’t as unexpected as it would have been if he had been from Middle England.

He didn’t order me out of the shop or any anything like that, but I felt my time in the shop was up. I kind of admired the man for not giving a sh*t about offending customers. And then I was out of the shop and laughing.

And to round out this look at curves, here I just one more photo of a curved design in a film camera, this time the Tronic MiniCam KH35

Comparing the specifications of three iterations of the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 lens

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

• Release Date September 1999
• Image Stabilization (IS) None
• Optical Construction 16 elements in 13 groups
• Minimum Focusing Distance 1.2 meters
• Maximum Magnification 0.21x
• Aperture Blades 8
• Filter Diameter 67mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
• Weight 705g
• Additional Features Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for autofocus; no weather sealing.

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

• Release date November 2006
• Image stabilisation up to 4 stops
• Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups
• Minimum focusing distance 1.2 meters
• Maximum magnification 0.21x
• Aperture blades 8
• Filter diameter 67mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 76mm x 172mm
• Weight 760g
• Ring-type USM for autofocus
• Weather-sealed construction.

EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM

• Release date June 2018
• Image stabilization up to 5 stops
• Optical construction 20 elements in 15 groups, including 1 fluorite and 2 UD elements
• Minimum focusing distance 1.0 meter
• Maximum magnification 0.27x
• Aperture blades 9
• Filter diameter 72mm
• Dimensions (diameter x length) 80mm x 176mm
• Weight 780g
• Enhanced weather sealing
• Improved autofocus with a new CPU
• Fluorine coatings on front and rear elements

So if we are looking at just the second two iterations, then how much better is the latest version compared to the previous version?

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM has a 5-stop Image stabiliser with three modes: a mode for general stabilisation for still subjects; a mode for panning; and a mode that activates stabilisation only during the shot. The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has a 3-stop image stabiliser with two modes: one for general stabilisation and one for panning.

If I am looking at the lens for use on a Canon EOS R6 or any of the R cameras with in-body image stabilisation, it is on all the time in the camera, so whether it is on on the lens only during the shot seems a redundant consideration.

So then the question is only whether the Mk II lens has better autofocus. How to find out? If it is better, how much better? From reading several reviews I think the difference is not that great.

To get back to the camera I would be using, the obvious question is why not go for the RF mount version. It weighs 695g, so that isn’t enough to sway me one way or the other.

It comes down to money. The Canon RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM is £1,600 new.

A new EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM is about the same price. but a second hand lens from a reputable dealer sells for about £650.

It’s even more dramatic with the earlier EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. It is only available used because it is no longer made, and from a reputable dealer it is about £375.

Of course I would have to buy an EF to RF adapter, which are £119 new at the moment., so add that to the cost.

But if I opt for the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM then I am looking at no more than £500 overall compared to £1,600 for the RF lens – a third of the cost.

If I was buying a workhorse lens and I knew I would be using it for a long time, then maybe I would go for the RF lens. But for an experiment in working with a long lens on full frame it’s a good option.

Alternatives

To muddy the water, Ken Rockwell thinks the Canon 70-300mm IS II is a better lens because it focuses faster (actually instantly), zooms 50% longer and only costs half as much. The 70-300 is also a little lighter and a little shorter.

Ot I could call it a day with Canon and buy a Nikon.