After a long day on location photographing a wedding, concert, or event, the last thing most shooters want to do when they get home is sit in front of the computer and spend the next few hours sorting the images to narrow down their selections. Wand by PostPro AI is designed to help creatives save time by doing that tedious process for them.

Arguably, culling images is the most disliked and dreaded portion of any photographer’s workflow, so the ability to skip that step and save time on top of it is a tantalizing offer.

According to the company, the $12 per month ($145 annually) Wand plug-in for Adobe Lightroom Classic enables automatic culling of photos for event and wedding photographs and is aimed to reduce frustration, shorten turnaround times, and free up more time for the photographer to enjoy their work. The plug-in was made specifically with these types of photographers in mind and is designed to be run at the first stage of import before any manual culling or editing has been applied.

In the simplest terms, the Wand plugin will create a quick collection for your files with Accepted and Rejected images from the set, with the rejected images being flagged and rated “Purple” for easy identification.

How It Works

While the developers state it is meant to be run at the very first step of the import process, users can still run the plug-in at any time they choose during their workflow on a small selection of photos or the entire catalog. While it can be run on nearly any image files including JPEG, the plug-in works its best when applied to RAW unedited files, and like most current “AI” applications, this plugin also requires a stable internet connection for it to work.

The plug-in uses the internet connection to “export and upload” a small version of the images to the PostPro sever where the actual culling process takes place, which keeps your own system from being bogged down during the process. Once the system finishes, the final results are sent back to the local machine where the color labels and Collections are created and the remote files are deleted from the PostPro servers. The plugin will go through all the images in your catalog and analyze the metadata and image content to look for similar images within a sequence, find closed eyes, and further analyze the facial expressions to identify the “bad” images to be flagged as rejected from the set. It also looks for low-quality images that have blown highlights or shadows with excessive clipping.

Login And Installation

The first step is to try out the plugin is to create a free account on the PostPro website and then download the Wand plugin from the newly created user profile page. Once the plugin has been downloaded, open Adobe Lightroom Classic and go to plugin manager and click “Add” at the bottom left of the panel and then select the Wand plugin. Next click login to enter the details used on signup and click login again.

Now, the plugin is ready to be used. The plugin “options” are located under the “plug-in extras” menu item where users can choose to run the plugin on import, selection, or entire catalog.

Using Wand And Understanding The Results

The plug-in, regardless of the method chosen to run (Import, Selection, Catalog), can potentially take a while to complete depending on the number of files in the selection. Once the plugin has finished doing the process though, a popup will notify you of the job completion and you can then view the accepted and rejected files in the catalog from the Collections section of the Library tab or by looking for the purple ranked images.

From here you can browse through the selections to confirm or change any of the approved and rejected images Wand has created. Keep in mind, the plugin does not delete anything — it simply flags images it feels are repetitive or “bad” based on the series of similar images in the set. So if you intentionally shot something blurry or extra bright or dark, it may be rejected by the algorithm. Keep that in mind when browsing through the results and just adjust or change the rankings as needed.

Since event work was pretty much non-existent over the last year, I was given access to a full wedding catalog to test the plugin. For the most part, I was impressed with the results the culling tool returned.

It was very good at identifying closed eyes or less-than-ideal facial expressions in images with people in them. There were still a few images I would have personally added to the reject list and conversely some I would have removed from the rejects, but since the culling system is still new and with most “AI” tools like this, it should improve the more it gets used and more feedback is provided to the algorithm.

If there are any “creative” images in the set, the culling app is very likely going mislabel and reject them as they stray too far outside the norm of what the AI deems as “good.” While that may not be perfect, the system is meant to help you save time, not do everything for you from start to finish. Artistic and creative choices with out-of-focus shots, odd framing, skewed perspectives, and other unique style choices will likely have to be found and added back to a set manually from the rejections category.

I ran the plugin against one of my older fashion and portrait sessions and the results just further stressed that point. Since the set had already been rated and sorted, I wanted to see how the system would do, and it was surprisingly consistent. At first, I was surprised to see some of my 5-Star selections in the rejected folder, but once I opened them up I realized those files had missed focus (eyes/face), some not-ideal facial expressions, or odd highlight and shadows. There were only two to three shots in the rejects section that I had actually edited previously and those were more specialized creative shots that, in most cases, would have been skipped.

After several catalogs and image sets, I found myself trusting the accepted folder more and would quickly going through the “rejects” section to double-check its work.

Great for Some, Less So For Others

As useful as this plugin is, there is still room for improvement though, since the application doesn’t do a great job with creative or artistic photos and will register images with an unusual framing composition, an excessive amount of out of focus space, or those with blown highlights or deep shadows as rejects even if those were conscious choices by the photographer. Those image types are frequently flagged, so users will have to filter through the rejects to find their creative shots to re-approve before editing. Because these are often also major characteristics of “bad” photos, it will probably prove extremely difficult for an AI to differentiate when such images were done on purpose and when they are an actual mistake — it might not be something that can be trained at all with current AI technology.

Another issue is the requirement for a stable internet connection. This dependence on cloud computing may be an occasional frustration point for some and an impassable barrier for others. It would be interesting to see how much on-device processing power is actually needed if the image analysis was done locally. If it isn’t so intense as to brick a typical editing rid, I would have preferred this be a toggleable option for users.

A Solid Culling Assistant for High-Volume Photographers

The Wand Plugin from PostPro AI is a useful and affordable tool for anyone who shoots large quantities of images in the event, wedding, product, and nightlife spaces. Arguably, it is actually useful for any photographer that shoots hundreds or thousands of images per set regularly. The AI tool can recognize “bad” facial expressions and closed eyes pretty accurately and will filter out an excessive number of identical images and will do so all from within Lightroom Classic. The Accepted and Rejected images are also easily viewed separately in the smart collections or together in the library folder, whichever is easier and preferred for your workflow.

Its issues aside, I still believe PostPro AI’s automated culling is at least worth using trying (there is a free trial option) for most in the event and wedding space since it does have some serious usefulness. Additionally, the more people use it, the smarter it will become over time.

Are There Alternatives?

There are a growing number of plugins, services, and stand-alone applications that provide automated culling for photographers. Apps like CullAi, Canon’s Photo Culling, and Optyx all provide culling on different levels and platforms, and services like shootdotedit provide similar services but with a human element attached (as well as a higher price).

Should You Buy It?

Maybe. The $145 per year plugin is definitely useful for wedding and event photographers but could be beneficial for anyone who captures hundreds of images (or more) per session. The main objective is to allow photographers to spend less time behind the computer and more time creating those photographs, and from that perspective, The Wand achieves that goal.

I used to view digital Leica cameras as a classic example of style over substance. Surely this is a perfect example of a company developing a luxury brand on the back of their, admittedly wonderful, history and heritage.

In a world of ever-increasing sensors, rapidly improved autofocus, and seemingly endless technical innovations to assist the photographer, to my mind Leica appeared to have fallen behind the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Sony.

That being said, I have long admired the history of the company and the pride it takes to produce beautifully crafted cameras, upholding the long-held belief that design and excellent craftsmanship are of paramount importance irrespective of the impact this will have on cost.

As a lover of mechanical watches, I fully understand why many can see no sense in spending thousands on such a watch when a mass-produced quartz watch will perform the same function, in most cases be more accurate, and usually have many more features. For me, that misses the point.

I am attracted to, and buy into, the history, precision engineering, design, and finally the knowledge that my watches will still look and perform as well as they do today in decades to come. It is this aspect of my character that kept me interested in Leica and, despite my reservations, why I could never dismiss them completely.

Having made the transition from Nikon to Fujifilm and built up a collection of prime lenses I started to look for a fixed lens “grab and go” camera for those days when I wanted to have a camera on me but wasn’t actually going out to take photographs. The obvious choice at the time was the Fujifilm X100F but Leica was still an itch that needed scratching and the Leica Q was proving hard to ignore.

Eventually, I followed my heart and made the investment in the Leica Q-P. It certainly was an investment, given that it cost more than 3 Fujifilm X100F cameras!

Within minutes of unboxing and taking a few test shots, any doubts I had were cast aside and so began my Leica journey. When I hold a Leica the quality and attention to detail are immediately apparent and there is no doubt at all that this is a premium product. This is even before appreciating the images these cameras can produce.

I have been using my Leica Q-P alongside my Fujifilm equipment for 2 years and during this time, as with all Leica fanboys, it has resulted in an ongoing fascination with all things Leica.

The Leica M range has long been a bit of an anomaly in the world of modern digital cameras. A manual focus rangefinder with limited technical specs and significantly more expensive than many of the offerings from the other leading brands. Then there is the cost of Leica lenses to add to the equation. Given the success of these cameras, I was interested to know why people happily spend thousands on a Leica M when you can get a higher resolution, feature-packed camera for less money from any other manufacturer.

I was fortunate enough to borrow an M240 and subsequently an M10. Apart from my observations above regarding the feel of a Leica, what I immediately bought into was the change in user experience. When using a manual focus rangefinder I am forced to slow down, think more about the composition and what I want to capture. I accept this is as much to do with my aging eyes as my unfamiliarity with the rangefinder!

With my Fuji X-Pro3, I can walk the streets shooting all day and know that nearly all of the images will be in focus and perfectly exposed. Later, in Lightroom I can manipulate these files to my heart’s content, changing the color grading or converting to my favorite aesthetic of black and white. This knowledge inevitably leads to me overshooting with the result that I take thousands of photos that are technically sound but the end result is a small percentage of “keepers”.

What I find when using the Leica M is my approach to capturing moments is more considered. Also, there is the feeling that I am more connected to the camera, and rather than taking photos I am making them. The end result is as much down to my input and abilities as the technical wizardry of the little box I am using. Essentially, it presents a different challenge for me as a photographer and therefore I enjoy the process even more and get greater satisfaction from the final image. I also take significantly fewer photos but the percentage of “keepers” increases significantly.

Clearly, this is not something that will appeal to everyone. If you are only interested in the final image and you prioritize a camera that will do a lot of “heavy lifting” for you over the user experience and process, I would suggest that a Leica M is not for you.

Having enjoyed using both the M240 and the M10 it was inevitable that I started thinking that a Leica M would be a welcome addition to the camera bag. Additionally, given that black and white photography is a passion of mine, the unique Monochrom came into consideration. This in itself raised the next question, does it really make sense to spend all that money on a camera that can only shoot black and white images?

My good fortune continued when I was able to borrow an M10 Monochrom for a few days. Having read countless articles and watched endless reviews on the benefits of a black and white sensor, I was curious to see if the images were significantly different and/or better than the images taken on the X-Pro 3, Leica Q-P, the Leica M240, and Leica M10 and converted into black and white in Lightroom.

From my perspective, the short answer is no. But that proved to be the wrong question for me.

I am able to create the look I want in Lightroom irrespective of the camera used. Whilst I agree there is a “Leica look” I would almost certainly be deluding myself that given a selection of images, I could say with 100% accuracy which ones have been taken on a Leica Monochrom. What I have found with the Leica Monochrome is that the images taken require little or no post-processing and therefore I can spend more time behind the camera rather than in front of the computer.

I have already mentioned the different user experience with a Leica M. To add to that, when using the Monochrom I find that knowing I can only capture black and white images has a significant impact when I am on the street. Instead of being distracted by color, my eye is drawn to subjects in the right light as well as by contrast and texture. This ultimately results in capturing more of the type of black and white images I enjoy.

The questions I realized I should have asked are; is the act of taking the photos more enjoyable; is it easier to achieve the desired look and probably most importantly, does it change the subjects I look for or notice, knowing I can only shoot in black and white? The answer to all of these is an emphatic yes.

Having returned the M10 Monochrom the decision was made to add to the camera bag, again! Budgetary constraints dictated that I opted for a used M246 Monochrom. Luckily I sourced a “like new” copy and for the last few months, this camera and the 50mm Summarit f/2.4 have been glued to my hand.

The purpose of this article is not to convince the Leica skeptics that they should swap brands and seriously diminish their bank balance by purchasing what are unquestionably very expensive cameras and lenses. It is merely to explain why as both a photographer and someone who has a weakness for beautifully designed and manufactured products I have bought into the Leica world and happily fallen for the charms of the unique Leica Monochrom.

Thanks for reading and keep on enjoying your photography irrespective of what you shoot with.

About the author: Maurice W Webster is a documentary and travel photographer based in Sussex, England. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can find more of Webster’s work on his website and Instagram. This article was also published here.

Tamron recently released its longest-reaching lens for the Sony E-mount camera system with the 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD. After two packed weeks of glorious bird photography, there’s a lot to be said for this new telephoto zoom.

This may technically be the first of its kind for Tamron, but the company does have a history of similar zoom lenses for DSLR mounts. We’ve seen the popular 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens released in 2013 with a well-received second-generation model launched in 2016, plus the 100-400mm F/4.5-6.3 which was introduced in 2017. Now, Tamron hopes to take what it learned from those past successes and make a next-generation telephoto zoom for the most popular full-frame camera system on the market.

Design and Build Quality

My first impression of the 150-500mm is that it’s a great-looking lens. I appreciate the black semi-matte finish on the plastic exterior which blends in much better than the off-white that is not uncommon for these focal lengths. The removable tripod collar is metal and has a texture that matches extremely well with my trusty Sony a7R III camera, which I used for this review.

This lens does extend physically as it zooms. At the short end, it’s 8.3 inches (209.6 millimeters) long and all the way out its 11.1 inches (283 millimeters). In total with the tripod collar included, the lens weighs 4.1 pounds (1.86 kilograms). Overall, it has a comfortable balance and throughout my shooting time with it, it was only used handheld (aside from aperture tests). Even more modestly-sized camera backpacks should be able to fit this in with the hood reversed and camera attached.

Taking a closer look, I noted a number of interesting features in the design and functionality that are worth discussing.

Zoom Ring

Starting at the outer end of the lens, there’s a large, rubberized zoom ring that can move from 150mm to 500mm in a 75-degree twist. While there is a zoom lock switch on the side for 150mm, what is less noticeable is what Tamron calls the “Flex Zoom Lock.” By just pulling out the zoom ring, it can lock at any focal length.

This might be my favorite feature of the 150-500mm. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve inadvertently nudged the focal length out of where I intended it to be with my Sony lens. Before I know it, I’m missing out on over a hundred millimeters of zoom that I now have to recover with cropping. With my Sony lens I made a workaround where I overlap two pieces of neoprene to give the zoom ring some added friction, but what Tamron has done with the Flex Zoom Lock is very smart and extremely handy.

Another great aspect of this zoom lens is the impressive variable aperture breakdown. My testing shows that from 150mm to 237mm, the camera displays f/5, from 238mm to 386mm it’s f/5.6, from 387mm to 479mm it’s f/6.3, and only in the final 20mm of 480mm to 500mm is it f/6.7. This makes the 150-500mm some good competition to the standard 100-400mm lenses that break down similarly but only zoom so far.

Switches

Aside from the zoom lock switch I just mentioned on the righthand side, there’s a panel of switches to be found on the left. These include a focus limiter switch, focus mode switch, vibration compensation (VC) on and off toggle, and a VC mode switch. The switches on this lens are the best tactile experience I’ve had when compared to any Sony or Canon lens. Because of the perfect tension and size, even the three-stage switches easily set to the middle without accidentally skipping to the next setting.

I’ll go over vibration compensation in a more detailed section below, but right now I want to point out the focus limiter. Most focus limiters I’ve seen have three modes: One is for the full focus range, one is for infinity to a certain distance, and the last is for close focus to a certain distance. In contrast, the Tamron 150-500mm forgoes that last close focus option for a second infinity-to-distance mode, which means it offers the full range and either infinity to 15 meters or infinity to three meters.

As a bird photographer, focus limiters are a tricky matter that I don’t ever really use for a few reasons, but paramount is the fear I might miss something spontaneous. What Tamron has done here — I believe — is a nod to sports photographers who always have absolute certainty where their subjects will be. If they’re shooting from the sidelines of a game, they will likely need to be back at least three meters for safety. If they’re shooting from the stands, that’s a guaranteed 15 meters away. These are just a couple of easy examples, but taking away a close focus limiter speaks to the type of photographers the company either worked with closely while designing this or the type of shooter it envisioned using the lens.

Focus Ring

Moving toward the lens mount, there’s a focus ring that I have a couple of negative feelings about. First is its thinness. The least Tamron could have done about that was to make the ribbing on it rubberized and more pronounced, but sadly it’s even flatter than the zoom ring and plastic.

Secondly, it is not a smooth operator. It has a cheap glide like there’s sand in it, and at times in the rotation, there are high notes of crunching that make me question if there literally is debris trapped. It makes its use more finicky than it should be.

Tripod Collar

Closest to the lens mount is a removable metal tripod collar that needs to be acknowledged. Tamron has already been doing it in previous telephoto lenses, and this one too features a built-in Arca Swiss tripod plate on the foot. Nothing is more insulting than when lens manufacturers skimp on this and instead ship out a completely useless foot.

On each side of the foot, there are also loopholes for attaching a carrying strap if desired.

Image Stabilization

The Tamron 150-500mm does have an image stabilization mechanism — Tamron calls its technolgoy Vibration Compensation — and offers three different modes that are controlled by a switch on the side of the lens.

Don’t skip this part because these are not exactly the modes you might be thinking they are.

Traditionally, Mode 1 would be full compensation vertically and horizontally, Mode 2 would be for panning and compensates only for vertical movement, and then Mode 3 only activates horizontal and vertical stabilization at the moment of capture and does not compensate until only then.

With this lens, Mode 2 is unchanged and is still the mode to use for panning shots. Modes 1 and 3 are different, and a little strange. Mode 1 acts as described above, however, its strength of compensation is not very impressive, especially when shooting at 500mm. I think of it as a soft image stabilizer that allows for a lot more play with the lens and doesn’t tie you down to always making sure you’re in the right mode for the shot.

Mode 3 gets really weird. The level of compensation in both directions is extremely good. It’s much, much better than Mode 1. However, it’s active all the time. Even without half-pressing the shutter or using back-button autofocus — without touching the camera at all — it’s on. As you can imagine, this is not ideal for a long-lasting camera battery to be walking around with the lens in Mode 3, but as noted it’s also the mode to be in for the best compensation. So, generally, I used it. Ideally, I would like to see Mode 3 only active when I’m ready for it.

One last note is about the constant noise of this lens. Many stabilized lenses have some sort of hum that is produced once that image stabilization kicks in. Oddly enough, the Tamron 150-500mm is noticeably whirring away all the time and only quiets down a touch when it’s stabilizing. After two weeks of getting used to it, I’ll admit it’s a little less obnoxious now, but it was almost unbelievable when I switched over to this lens initially.

Image Quality

Inside, the lens uses 25 elements in 16 groups including one extra-low dispersion element, five low dispersion elements, and two hybrid aspherical elements. There’s also Tamron’s BBAR-G2 coating. In all, it’s a concerted effort to control aberrations, ghosting, and flaring while promoting edge-to-edge sharpness.

Upfront, I can say that the Tamron 150-500mm image quality holds up beautifully for real-world use and my proof of that is in the photos littered across this review. I did not encounter any sort of aberration or flaw that became an issue in the field or that needed any sort of labored correction in post-processing. Below are a couple of backlit shots with high contrast and there is no dramatic color fringing. The very little I see is either unnoticeable in the full photos or can be solved with a one-click fix in post-processing.

As a telephoto lens, vignetting is certainly something that exists. Personally, I embrace it, but it’s always good to know where to expect an even exposure across the frame. Shooting at the 150mm end, I find f/7.1 shows vignetting only on the edges of the frame, and then by f/9 it’s around the corners only, and at f/13 it’s largely under control. On the 500mm end, f/9 is when it encroaches the edges only, f/10 it’s just around the corners, and by f/16 it’s under control.

Sharpness

Overall, I’m very satisfied with the sharpness of this lens for my bird photography. It has the resolving power to achieve fine feather detail and allows for considerable cropping without the photo falling apart.

Peak center sharpness at both the 150mm and 500mm ends is at f/8, according to my comparative testing. It’s worth mentioning to other wildlife photographers that there is no steep falloff of sharpness shooting wide open at 500mm, and in fact, there’s not much difference at the center between 500mm f/6.7 and 500mm f/8.

At the corners, the lens does need some more room to right itself if the details there are important to you. At the 150mm end, peak corner sharpness is at f/14. At the 500mm end, peak corner sharpness is at f/11. To simplify my findings between its vignetting and sharpness, I’d just remember to shoot the lens around f/11 if I wanted the best compromise of edge-to-edge image quality for landscape photography and the like.

Autofocus

First introduced in the 70-180mm f/2.8, the 150-500mm also uses Tamron’s VXD linear autofocus motor. Throughout my review period, I found autofocusing to be snappy and largely reliable for tracking birds in flight. Due to vignetting, autofocus does become less responsive as subjects move towards the extreme edges of the frame. For typical rule-of-thirds style compositions, however, this did not become a noticeable issue.

The minimum focus distance at the wide end is 23.6 inches (0.6 meters) and all the way zoomed in its 70.9 inches (1.8 meters). Considering the lens itself is 8.3 inches, that means at 150mm the subject can be a little more than a foot away and still sharply focus.

Below you can see two full-frame shots of a skipper butterfly that was about the size of my fingernail, one at 150mm close focus and one at 500mm close focus. As you can see, both produce a subject that is very comparable in apparent size although it is slightly larger when close focusing at 150mm than close focusing at 500mm.

Thoughtful Ideas, Thorough Execution

The more I think about it, the more I realize that Tamron made something special with the 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD. It bridges the gap between 400mm zooms and 600mm zooms and is still relatively portable and lightweight for a telephoto. There is no hiding any sort of poor light-gathering performance behind the variable aperture numbers, though it is actually only f/6.7 for the last 20mm of zoom and can do f/5.6 almost all the way to 400mm. The Flex Zoom Lock feature is a very welcome addition and I wish every telephoto zoom had it. Other little things about the lens were great to see as well — such as the built-in Arca Swiss tripod plate — that shows the company is willing to take those few extra steps to make its products stand out.

My main complaint is the stabilization mode inconsistency, with smaller quibbles with regard to the focus ring and constant noise the lens makes. In the grand scheme of things though, minor stuff.

Are There Alternatives?

Based on the features of the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7, the priority on compactness in the design, and its aperture breakdown in the focal lengths, the lens is most closely related to the Sony 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS and Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary.

The Sony 100-400mm is in the premium G Master line of lenses and costs $1,000 more than the Tamron. Compared to Sony, Tamron loses 100mm at f/4.5 but gains an extra 100mm at the longer end at the cost of some more light loss. On the other end of the zoom, Sony is f/5.6 at 400mm whereas Tamron is neck-and-neck, able to do f/5.6 up to 387mm. The bonus here is that Tamron keeps going, something that users of these mid-telephoto lenses are sure to value a great deal. The $1,000 difference is going to primarily show itself in higher-quality optics and better autofocus performance.

The Sigma 100-400mm is the low-cost option of the three, and costs around $500 less than Tamron is asking. The Sigma’s benefit is that it’s a pound lighter. The Tamron blows past the Sigma in terms of light gathering, though, where the Sigma is already down to f/6.3 at 235mm when Tamron is still wide open at f/5 at that point. Once again, Tamron’s added benefit is that it keeps going after 400mm as well, which makes a big difference for photographers putting in the effort to carry larger lenses like these.

One question I initially had, which I’ve noticed is shared among those who ask online, is why Tamron cut off 100mm from the 150-600mm DSLR lenses it makes. They question why we are losing 100mm and paying more for the privilege.

I’ve found that this is a flawed comparison. I really don’t think Tamron made this as a mirrorless version of the 150-600mm, and it’s also not a direct competitor to my all-time favorite lens, the Sony 200-600mm. In fact, what Tamron has done is added 100mm to the traditional 100-400mm lenses and made the resulting optic its own thing, then understandably charged more for that. The company has made similar adjustments to traditional zoom lengths before such as the 24-70mm becoming the 28-75mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm becoming the 70-180mm f/2.8. Obviously, this is more than a tweak of a few millimeters, but Tamron has a history of thinking outside the box when it comes to zoom ranges. Heck, I believe it was Tamron that pulled off of the 150-600mm first too, years before Sigma and Sony did versions of it.

Should You Buy It?

Yes. Tamron manages to make a highly sharp and reliably fast autofocus lens in the 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD. Overall, my experience was positive and there’s considerable attention paid to much of the lens’s design. This is one worth checking out.

The idea of a Leica camera with image stabilization, a built-in EVF, Wi-Fi, 2 card slots, and endless more features may seem like a very foreign concept for legacy Leica shooters. However, this is exactly what Leica has made in the SL2-S.

The camera is very easy to glance at and think “well, it’s just an overpriced Panasonic.” Or maybe even from the other side: “it’s just an SL2 with an outdated sensor to drop the price by a grand.” These impressions are definitely accurate. But the way I see it is: it’s a camera to bridge the gap between old style to new. For film shooters who have no need for high-resolution images and who have already had their fulfillment of M, this is another perfect option for them! Let me explain…

Build

I’ll start with the build quality. Over the years I have been fortunate enough to use and own other high-end photo equipment. I used to own a Canon 5D Mark IV as well as a Fuji X-Pro3 and have shot extensively with the flagships like the Canon 1D X line. The SL series is a different breed in terms of build. These machines are made to last.

By no means are the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Sony badly built cameras. It’s more that when you pick up an SL for the first time, you know you’re holding something special. I had the same feeling holding a 5D Mark III for the first time — that cold-to-touch feel that I’m sure a lot of photographers are familiar with. My X-Pro3 was a tank. A go anywhere, do anything type of machine.

I’ve recently played around with the awesome Canon R5 as well, and that feels great. I have no doubt that any of these cameras could withstand the same level of abuse that an SL could. However, when you hold an SL and comprehend how each part is hand-assembled, it’s hard to go back to anything else!

The body features an IP54 rating, and to save the geek talk, this will mean you can just about do anything and go anywhere with this beast. Spray it with a hose? No problem (not that I’ve tested this but the bold boys down at Leica Store Miami have certainly done it!).

My initial justification for this build was “oh, well of course it’s built like this, just look at the price”. I bought mine for £3,975 (~$5,500). We could all go back and forth with production budgets and shipment quantities from bigger companies when comparing this to the likes of the Canon R5, which sells for $3,899. Oh, and let’s not forget the Sony a1 at $6,498.

Okay, okay, not a fair example, I know. The specs are nowhere near the same. But if we ignore that for a moment and only focus on the build, the SL2-S is two-thirds of the price of the a1 and features infinitely better build quality. I’ll circle back to this when comparing some of the SL’s features later.

Design

When studying Leica’s design language, I think it’s fair to say that the general consensus is that the products are absolutely stunning. Maybe that’s just my subjective opinion coming through, but they have to have done something right to inspire design gods like Jony Ive and Steve Jobs? While most adore the design of these cameras, their functionality is a more controversial topic. I could go on and on about why I love manual focus and rangefinders, but today, we’re talking the SL line.

The SL2 introduced the 3 button layout to bring the SL series in line with the M10, Q2, and CL. Aesthetically, the SL2-S is almost identical to the SL2. The only change is that the lettering on the front of the body is now blacked out, a change that I welcome as a street photographer. I find the design is as simple as it is practical.

The joystick is a dream to use, and it’s the same one they used even on the original Typ 601. The function buttons are all within reach and for my use, have more than enough features. If you’re used to a flagship Canon/Nikon, then this may restrict you. However, I found I can access all my focusing modes, focusing areas, ISO, WB, timer, PASM, and Wi-Fi settings very easily. And if a button wasn’t set to it, the quick menu works great with the touchscreen.

I also love the deeper indented grip they introduced on the SL2. Given the weight of the body, this makes the ergonomics much better. And while I can rave all day about the build quality, it does result in a significant weight difference. The body is just under a kilo (32.8oz), which is a lot — there’s no easy way of looking at it. And if I paired this with their native SL zooms or even their primes, this would be a real problem for me. This was a big reason why I moved away from my 5D Mark IV. I want a fast, light camera for my street photography. I’ll explain how I achieve that very soon!

IQ

Image quality is in no way the biggest feature of a camera for me. There are at least a dozen aspects that come before this for me when I choose a camera. However, this is a big reason why I love and will continue to adore the SL2-S. Now, it’s easy to get confused — I’m not talking resolution here. Yes, at 24MP, it’s half the resolution of the 47MP SL2 and much lower compared to other high-end camera bodies, especially ones of this price.

What I’m more concerned about is how the sensor performs with various lenses, old and new, and how it renders images. Leica’s chief lens designer, Peter Karbe, said once that “there are two cameras in the world best to use M lenses on – M and SL”. And I think that’s what I’m getting at here. I always used to adapt my M lenses onto my Fuji’s and while I was extremely happy with the results, it just wasn’t the same. Leica fit lenses (yes, even third-party lenses) are designed for and around to work best on Leica sensors.

The sensor architecture is delicate, functional, and beautiful… and maybe a little outdated. Let me explain. My M-P Typ 240 from 2014 has a 35mm 24MP sensor, so far the same as the SL2-S right? However, the technology at the time meant that a sensor of this caliber in a body of that design results in some shortcomings — things such as poor low-light performance and slow image transfer. But I along with many others, even today in 2021, are prepared to look past this in light of the image renderings, color, and overall IQ.

The lenses, even my old Summicron 50mm Dual Range Rigid from almost 70 years ago, still work great on my SL2-S. It has character and feel, and a life to images that I just can’t obtain from any other camera system out there. And I understand how $5,000 for a 24MP camera is a lot! Especially now you can pick up a 20MP Canon R6 with far superior AF for $2,499 or a Panasonic S1 with almost identical features for $2,499 or the smaller S5 for $1,999. You could even get a Panasonic S1R, almost identical again to the SL2, for only $3,699. Or maybe even the Sigma Fp L with EVF Kit, which has 60MP (higher than any camera mentioned here!) for $2,999 — $2,000 less than the Sl2-S!

I want to preface this with, the SL2-S is not for everyone! If you want specs, reliable autofocus, and 3 million frames per second, go buy a Sony or any of these cameras mentioned prior. However, if you’re of the 0.0001% of photographers like me who, for god knows what reason, are obsessed by the feel and act of taking a photo, try the Leica SL2-S or any Leica from the past 100 years. This is a company that loves photography, the cameras they build, and better yet, the photographers who use them.

I am in an unbelievably lucky and fortunate position where I can pair the SL2-S next to my M-P or even my film M6 and bounce from feel to function while maintaining a high level of love and enjoyment for all our shared passion.

Color

I promise not to go too deeply into the topic of color and Leica as I know this is quite the notorious topic when it comes to these cameras. A topic that Leica fanboys and fangirls across the world use to justify spending (let’s be honest here) way too much money on these machines. Why do I know this? Because I am one of these so-called Leica fanboys.

So if you’re happy with the color output from your camera, be it a Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic…even that other one begging with “O”, then carry on scrolling and happy shooting! But for me, unless you’re shooting 3 stops overexposed Portra, there aren’t any better colors, tones, and overall fidelity out there!

Low Light

I’ve been itching to talk about the low-light abilities of this monster. Now, while we’ve seen a lot of 24MP sensors over the years, this is in a league of its own. A first for Leica, this is their first-ever backside-illuminated sensor. So while the overall architecture is very similar to the Typ 601, the color calibration and now the BSI, make this a significant upgrade.

I’ve pushed the SL2-S way past 25,000 and onwards to 50,000 ISO while still getting very usable images. The processing power alongside this technology must be performing witchcraft somewhere between the shutter button and SD card because I’ve never seen low light like this. I remember being blown away by the 1D X Mark II and III, and equally so with the a7S III, and while these are still incredible, they’re only 20MP and 12MP — the SL2-S is 24MP.

Is this a realistic measurement? No. Can you tell a difference at 6,400 or even 10,000 ISO? No. But, is it nice to know and feel safe with leaving the camera in auto ISO and never have to worry about another grainy or blurry photo ever again? Absolutely. I set my auto ISO parameters to a max ISO of 50,000 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/250. That way I never have a blurry photo (especially with this IBIS) and I never have to worry about grain.

Aperture priority, exposure compensation set to the rear dial, that’s it. Quick, easy, and very dynamic. These are the settings I use on every camera — when I took the Sony a7R III on holiday, when I owned the X-Pro3 for travel, and even when I shot weddings on my 5D Mark IV. The only difference now is that I don’t have the stress of a photo being too blurry or too grainy. And to quote Josh from Leica Store Miami: “I’d rather have a grainy photo than a blurry photo I can’t use”.

AF

Remember when autofocus was only contrast-detect back around 2016? Brilliant, now add fancy algorisms to make it 10% better. That’s how the AF performs on the SL2-S. Don’t get me wrong: it’s better than the SL2 (marginally) and much better than the 601. So for portraiture, landscape, editorial shoots, it’s great. And coming from my Ms, it is a dream.

However, if you’re looking to do sports, compared to the likes of Sony, Canon Dual Pixel, and Fuji, in my experience – forget it. Not to say that it can’t be done, I’ve seen some extraordinary sports photos taken on SL. Specifically when paired with 9fps burst and 25fps with the electronic shutter. On paper, it looks amazing. In my experience, while I’m certainly no wildlife or sports photographer, I only found it to be adequate and usable rather than extraordinary.

A note worth taking, though: the native SL primes (with exception of the Summilux 50 SL) work much faster than their zooms. Notice on the image below how the 24-90mm just missed focus on the deer walking towards me using AF-C and Field AF method.

Usability and Compared to M?

In conclusion, I’ve always loved the SLs and I love my SL2-S. They’ve had their quirks, but I feel they’ve been getting ironed out over the years through software updates, new lenses, and alliances with Sigma and Panasonic. The price has almost halved since the 601 while competing brands have only ever gone up in price.

The AF, while still not perfect, has improved significantly. The low light went from outdated, even back in 2015, to the best I’ve ever seen. The battery life… well, there’s always room for improvement.

I started this review by saying how this is the camera to attract M shooters, and that’s exactly how I see this camera: a companion to the M. For me, I use this 99% of the time with M lenses. It makes the body smaller, lighter, and, believe it or not, faster. The lower resolution, while keeping up with that gorgeous, close-to-real-life EVF, makes for a manual focus experience I can only describe as M-Like.

For when I want the moment, I will always gravitate to my M bodies. However, now when I look for the big detail photos I know an M just couldn’t keep up with, I trust the SL2-S to be right there alongside. It takes up no extra space, weight, or time while delivering the best image quality for me at no extra expense for experience or enjoyment.

If you’re an M shooter, digital or film, I urge you to try the SL2-S. Feel the build, look through the cinema screen of a viewfinder, and try the manual focus experience.

About the author: Ben Webster is a street and travel photographer based in the south of England, where he also works as a sales assistant at Park Cameras. He regularly shoots with a variety of Leica cameras—ranging from the old M3 and M6 TTL to the digital M-P typ 240—as well as the Fuji X-Pro3. You can find more of his work on his website or by following him on Instagram. This post was also published here.

Lighting is one of the most complex topics in photography. There are literally hundreds of light shaping tools and countless scenarios they apply to. No wonder many photographers are reluctant to learn lighting, despite it being one of the core skills any photographer should have.

One of the best ways to learn to light is by far getting in the studio and experimenting. Albert Warson recommends starting with a bare bulb and a friend on a chair. There’s a lot a bare bulb flash can do. Yet, true creative freedom comes only when a photographer is well versed in all light shaping tools.

Being able to recognize and apply the exact light shaping tool that’s needed is paramount to a successful image. Of course, that knowledge can only be created by experiencing the light shaping tool over and over again. While some have access to rental houses that store everything from a Profoto Hardbox to a white umbrella, others may not.

One way to learn light without going to great lengths is by 3D visualizing it. set.a.light 3D is a program for both Windows and Mac that does just that. However, does it live up to what it promises, and are the visualizations really accurate? I took the trial version of set.a.light 3D for a spin and found out.

Features

1. Ability to control flash output
2. Adding custom lights(incl speedlites and permanent lights)
3. Creating a custom studio space
4. Reflectors, flags, and diffusion fabrics
5. Different camera+lens combinations
6. More than 50 different light shaping tools (incl gobo effects)
7. Color gel effects
8. Color temperature effects
9. Different model posing options.
10. Ability to build sets and develop complex studio settings
11. Exporting light setups for real-world use

Getting To Grips With set.a.light 3D

The UI is quite complex and there are a lot of different features to pay attention to. However, there is a trove of YouTube videos that its developer, Elixxier, made that show how to setup up. With their help, after a few rounds, it becomes quite intuitive to use set.a.light 3D.

Upon launch, you can choose to name your project and where to store it. Afterward, you’ll be prompted to pick a studio space you want. The ability to create custom studios is very helpful when it comes to pre-visualizing results and checking if that particular studio has enough distance and space for everything that’s needed.

Given that wall colors can cause a tone shift in the whole photo, there is even the option to select different color walls in the studio space. Sure enough, a red ceiling will shift everything towards red. The ability to control small intricate details such as that is a huge benefit to photographers looking for accurate pre-visualizations of their light for a job

Models

Once you’ve set up the studio you can move on to getting lights, models, and the set ready.

When it comes to models there’s a selection of different ages, skin tones, and nationalities.

Afterward, there are over 25 different hairstyle options, a few hair color options, as well as different outfits to choose from. To top that off, eye color, skin hardness, tone, and makeup are also present. Overall, there is a lot of control over how the model looks. Anything from what underwear they have to how closed their eyes are.

The posing mode allows to dial in the exact pose the mode should take. Each joint has a 3D control option plus there’s a different mode where you can select a body part of the model and move it as desired, this mode will also move relevant body parts making for a much more natural pose when compared to the 3D-joint movement.

Light Shaping

Plenty of light shaping tools are available. They can be used in combination with grids and gels. What is more, softboxes can have their inner and outer diffusers removed. The parabolic modifiers that are available don’t feature a rod moving function rendering them a little unnecessary as the main benefit of parabolic light is the ability to focus it as desired.

You can also cut, diffuse and reflect light with tools available in the Helper section.

Different permalight options are available with plenty of branded lights to choose from: From a small ring light or Spekular tube to Arri M90 9000W light.

Performance and Optimization

Here is the computer setup I tested set.a.light 3D on:

• 15-inch 2019 MacBook Pro
• 2.6Ghz 6-core Intel Core i7
• 16GB 2400 MHZ DDR4 RAM
• Radeon PRO 555x 4GB
• The feed is shown on a Dell U2720Q 4K monitor at 60HZ 30-bit.

Here are normal CPU loads with Word and a few other programs running in the background

Once set.a.light is opened, that changes

Overall the program is a bit laggy on the current setup, once you are a few lights, props, and more, it tends to slow down. Although it’s nothing unusual it still suggests that you may want a very powerful computer in order to run set.a.light 3D seamlessly.

Real-life Comparison

set.a.light is feature-packed and those features are very useful. They claim that radiation behavior is emulated from the real-light data that they developed. However, how well does set.a.light simulate what real-world results look like?

I used 3 different light shaping tools to test that: A 3’ Octa, a bare bulb flash, and a large white umbrella.

Bare Bulb

This test is a bit odd, mainly because there is no bare bulb option in set.a.light. This does come as a surprise to me, as bare-bulb flash is often used on location and in-studio when bouncing light for the soft quality.

The shadow edges are very well reproduced, with little differences between them. The major difference is however in shadow depth. Having used a white background, albeit mine is more reflective, I was still expecting some bounce back to the model. Instead, the shadows are pitch black on set.a.light. Naturally, when using a white background, there is color cast from it. Take this for example:

3ft Octa

The 3ft octa gave very similar self-shadow edge quality as well as the thrown shadow quality. The thrown shadow or the one you see in the background is diffused and egg-shaped as would be expected. The columella shadows have the same quality as well. As for catchlights in the eyes, they are accurate, albeit the nose shape altered it.

165cm Umbrella

I like to joke that I don’t own enough light shaping tools. I clearly don’t. There is only a 180cm and a 150cm white umbrella. I chose the 180cm version, as it is closer to the truth in my opinion. The greater the size of the modifier the less difference there is. For example, a 165cmm and 180Cm umbrella will produce similar quality light when compared to a 60cm and 75cm softbox. The percentage difference between the two values is smaller.

The thrown shadows are quite different, which leads me to believe that set.a.light is not too great in this single case. The penumbra(shadow edge) width is also considerably wider with set.a.light. Although one can claim that this is simply due to size differences, I would disagree.

Who is set.a.light 3D for?

set.a.light 3D is overall a great app that delivers mostly accurate results. I see myself using this for pre-visualization for certain commercial assignments. This also comes as a great teaching and coaching resource.

Often, when I converse with photographers on light, art, and more, I end up showing my work where instead I would prefer to show a real light setup, break it down and really dive deep into how it works. set.a.light is also for beginners, it allows to play around with different lights without taking too much effort or time.

Closing Thoughts

Overall, I had a positive experience with set.a.light and this is something that I will be adding to my fleet of nifty photography apps. I suggest picking up the Studio version as it has more capability than the normal one. set.a.light clocks in at $183, making this a chunky but worthy investment.

Credits: Model: Nkoli Mireille, agency: Face Model Management Hungary, hair and makeup: Karina Jemelyjanova, retouch: Zahar Bakutin, and styling: Emese Nagy.

The LargeSense LS911 is definitely a camera that is not for everyone. It is well-suited to individuals who want to thoroughly explore large format photography or who already have experience working with large format camera systems. Either way, the venture depends on having a large budget.

That said, what it lacks in portability and cost, it more than makes up for in sharpness, clarity, and razor-thin depth of field capabilities. Images pop off the screen and the pixel peepers will see tack-sharp edges, flawless bokeh, and smooth noise that looks more like film grain than digital noise.

Why carve out a new market of people who don’t know they want a product produced under tight design constraints and on an extremely narrow profit margin? Why isn’t this an unreasonable risk?

Simple: Size matters! Especially in digital photography.

If the technical and financial caveats haven’t scared you away, strap in. Our experience with the LS911 and the end product has been unlike anything in the photography world.

We were able to connect with Charbonnet when we picked up the camera directly from LargeSense in Santa Clara, California. He’s a quirky, tech-savvy guy who offered whatever personal support we needed to get up and going. We drove the camera up to our studio in Seattle and got to work.

LargeSense LS911’s Notable Specifications:

• 9×11-inch monochrome CMOS sensor
• 75-micron pixel size
• ISO 2100 or ISO 6400
• Electronic shutter range from unlimited to 1/30 second
• 14-bit RAW, DNG or TIFF output
• JPEG shooting is possible (untested)
• 3888×3072 native resolution, files will be 3889×3073 with the interpolated line and column
• Up to 30fps in video, full 14-bit RAW
• Video saved as TIFF’s, DNG’s, CinemaDNG, JPEG’s or h.264 at 8-bit
• Built-in WiFi hotspot for remote control
• On chip pixel binning at 1×1 or 2×2
• Monochrome with no AA filter and no on-chip micro lenses
• 3.5mm jack for external cable release
• Rolling shutter
• Access to uncorrected sensor AD data (if you are into that sort of thing)
• 40 pounds
• 16x16x10 inches with no accessories

Since Nick has a background in large format photography, we were able to adapt his lenses and slide-mount assembly for use with the LS911. Because of our custom setup, it was easier to mount the unit upside down on the slide.

The camera itself is heavy and has a good clean build quality. All the buttons are sleek and the interface is intuitive.

There are significant features that other (even traditional) camera systems lack, like on-chip pixel binning and the ability to capture dark frames and flat fields for extremely clean images. Shutter speed, iso, image size, image format, the total number of exposures (for video), and a few other settings are available all on the main screen.

The histogram is configurable and the image preview can be adjusted for contrast and brightness. You can optionally connect a tablet or mobile device to control the camera. The controls on the app are thru a sort of web interface but function well and have the same capabilities as the screen on the camera. It was nice to be able to add notes, focal length, etc. to the metadata while shooting. We would like the option to zoom while shooting video for doing critical focus work and have faster shutter speeds than 1/30 of a second. LargeSense says these features are coming in the newer firmware, so we’ll see how they perform when they get released.

The LS911 has a CF card slot, a thumb drive USB port, and an internal one terabyte SSD capable of shooting at full 30 frames per second until you run out of space, though we only tested this out to about a minute. An important note is that the on-screen preview only updates two or three times a second so you don’t get a live 30 frames per second video preview on the camera.

The camera does require a 120v power source, so you’ll need an extension cord, inverter, or the like. The camera itself pulls about 300 watts when running and we were able to run it for an hour or so on a small 12v with an inverter.

The camera ships with an option for an on-chip IR cut filter or plain glass if you want the ability to shoot in infrared. We simply went with plain glass as we have pretty good stack of filters for shooting in different light spectra from UV through infrared.

The sensor itself measures 9×11 inches which is assembled in four pieces. According to LargeSense the software interpolates one row and column of pixels in between the four smaller sensors. It’s hard to tell by looking at the files but you can see the stitch line in certain situations if you look closely. Pixel peeping also reveals occasional faint horizontal lines when shooting high-contrast subjects. The phenomenon doesn’t seem to be consistent, and it also isn’t noticeable at full size.

The flash sync works well for triggering a flash via hot shoe or sync cable and syncs all the way up to 1/30 sec.

We took the LS911 out to do some night photography and we were very impressed. When we set up it was pitch black with no moon. We were excited to see clean images with short exposure times. You can even see the live view clearly at night which we’ve never been able to do with other camera systems without long test exposures.

We have used many camera systems, and our consensus is the cleanliness and clarity of the RAW files from night shots is hard to stop staring at. It’s almost dreamy. Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be a maximum exposure time. There is the expected minor salt and pepper noise with long exposures but it seems significantly better than smaller camera systems with similar exposure times.

You can also stack images in-camera, so you get one final long exposure from many short exposures. We did some tinkering to see if there was any gap between shots, but it appears to be completely seamless so you won’t get any dotted lines on moving objects.

Charbonnet was very tight-lipped concerning testing and what is coming down the pipeline from LargeSense, but we know the following:

Future LS911 models will be “significantly lighter” and LargeSense is currently testing a color sensor that uses a unique color filter design that doesn’t use dyes for the color pixels. Charbonnet wouldn’t say if it was three layers like the Foveon or something else, but he did say they are testing out the color 4×5 now. LargeSense also has a monochrome 4×5 camera for purchase as well as, of course, the 9×11.

Pros:

• Produces images with clean and deep tonality, even at night that is not possible with smaller formats because of the large capture area.
• Capable of rendering shallow DOF to achieve the in-camera “vintage” look.
• A true black and white sensor.
• Outputs slightly better than 4K RAW video.
• Connecting to the camera via wireless using a phone or tablet is simple and handy.

Cons:

• There is no doubt about it, the LS911 is heavy and expensive (current model is $106,000, Gen II will cost $85,000)
• The model we got is about 40 pounds, although newer models will be lighter.
• Shooting is all manual: no autofocus, no auto exposure, no auto ISO.
• Must have a 300W 100VAC-240VAC source
• Currently, the fastest exposure time is 1/30 of a sec.

Overall, the LS911 is big and bulky to be expected but functions well and produces beautiful RAW files. It is exciting to shoot with and we haven’t felt limited as on some other camera systems. Everything fits together nicely even without our modifications and the interface is intuitive.

If you have experience shooting with large format or have always wanted to and have a decent budget, this camera is definitely for you. We wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing this used for high-end cinematography. With a 9×11-inch mirrorless sensor available to consumers, we may see bellows and vintage glass parading in parks and cities around the world very soon!

About the authors: Richard Brown is an American Photographer whose roots are steeped in film. In his early childhood, Richard lived in Chinhae, South Korea near a US Navy base. His first camera was a 35mm point-and-shoot which he used to capture one of the 88′ Olympic torchbearers. In high school, Richard was placed on yearbook staff and worked in the darkroom. He was gifted a briefcase Russian enlarger which he used frequently in his free time. In 1995 on a UK trip, Richard challenged himself to use an Argus brick the entire trip. He also traveled and photographed in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and across the United States. Richard then became a cast member at Walt Disney as a Photographer. Richard continued with his photography passion as a manager of a photo lab at Eckerd during the film SLR changeover. Richard has used many camera formats over the years. Richard continues his journey through the many changes that technology brings and considers himself an Apprentice of the Arts. Richard enjoys traveling with his gigapan and capturing the natural beauty of the PNW.

Nick Spiker is an American professional landscape photographer best known for incorporating invisible portions of the electromagnetic spectrum into his work. Nick’s passion for photography began as a child as he accompanied his father on various photography expeditions, including many shoots for National Geographic Adventurer. His mother cultivated this passion by providing Nick with access to the first editions of Adobe Photoshop. He dissected photography—both analog and digital—to its basic roots, becoming a master of light and color dynamics, optics, perspective, and perception. Nick uses his creations to reveal a world filled with beauty and clarity by using a precise balance of contrast and color in his images that can only be achieved by carefully selecting various spectral filters. Nick captures near-infinitesimal detail in his images and reveals the unviewable by translating infrared and ultraviolet channels to the visible spectrum. Nick will traverse any terrain in any weather at any time to capture the perfect image. Hiking 40 miles in subzero weather under the night sky with custom camera equipment is when Nick feels the most alive and inspired.

Cup of Joe Photography is a Seattle-based partnership that focuses on unique capture methods and special effects. Cup of Joe proudly supports the LGBTQIA community. Richard and Nick enjoy tinkering with anything photography-related. Richard and Nick are very serious when it comes to coffee — both Richard and Nick roast their own beans every morning.

Acclaimed food photographer Joanie Simon, known as The Bite Shot on YouTube, has published a video that details why food photographers will love Nikon’s new 105mm f/2.8 Macro Lens.

Joanie Simon is a commercial and editorial food photographer whose work has seen the covers of cookbooks, to website banners, to social media content. She is also a YouTuber and educator and has been active on the platform since 2017. Her channel, called The Bite Shot, is where Simon focuses her efforts on teaching the ins and outs of professional food photography.

Simon says she was elated to finally see a 105mm macro lens come to the Nikon Z-mount system. In the detailed, 20-minute video, she explains why she likes it and thinks so many who photograph food and similar subjects will be drawn to the lens.

“As a food photographer, the details are everything and this lens doesn’t disappoint,” she tells PetaPixel. “The 105mm / 100mm macro lens is an essential tool for a food photographer so having used this type of lens for years, the superior sharpness and clarity are apparent in this new release. And as a self-proclaimed narrow depth of field fanatic, the soft velvety bokeh expresses atmosphere beautifully.”

To see how the lens performs, Simon decided to photograph strawberries for a couple of reasons. One, they were in season at the time of her test, and two, the details of strawberries sounded like something that she would be able to beautifully capture with a lens which such close focusing capability. Rather than just photograph the berries though, Simon photographed a full recipe that utilized the berries: strawberry shortcake.

The full video is full of Simon’s opinions on the lens as well as a look behind the scenes at how she stages, styles, and photographs food.

“It was an absolute treat to get to test drive this new lens because my only reservation in moving to the Nikon Z system last year was a lack of the 105mm macro lens at the time. My collection is officially complete… for now,” she says.

For more from Joanie Simon, make sure to subscribe to her YouTube Channel as well as check out her food recipes at her blog, The Dinner Bell.

Image credits: Photos by Joanie Simon and used with permission.

The $449 Petzval 55mm f/1.7 Mark II Bokeh Control Art Lens from Lomography is the first Petzval lens designed specifically for full-frame mirrorless camera systems like the Nikon Z, Canon RF, and Sony E. It’s also fantastic.

Much like the Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 lens I reviewed previously, the 55mm f/1.7 Mark II Lens was created with discerning photographers and filmmakers in mind and designed to allow full creative flexibility, with its seven levels of Bokeh Control and Dual Aperture system. According to the company, the 55mm lens features an improved design and a maximum aperture of f/1.7 that produces a “subtle, almost painterly” rendering when shooting at larger apertures.

After using the lens for a few weeks now, Lomography described the bokeh delivery of the lens quite accurately.

The lens is available in three different color options with the Brass and Black Aluminum options priced at $449 and the Black Brass priced at $499. Also just like the 80.5mm DSLR version, this mirrorless 55mm lens has the ability to control the amount of swirly bokeh effect in the images through an integrated Bokeh Control Ring which has seven settings, where level one is barely noticeable and level seven grants maximum bokeh.

Even though this is a new lens designed for the most recent camera systems on the market, it still holds on to its “steampunk” vibe that the Petzval lenses are known for, especially since the body of the lens is all-metal and the operation is entirely manual.

Build Quality and Design

While the two black versions of the 55mm Petzval lens look the same as any other lens, the brass version that I tested will definitely stand out and draw some eyes. The layout of the lens is similar to its 80.5mm sibling with its clickless focus, aperture, and bokeh intensity ring. All three controls shift smoothly and have enough tension in them to hold their zoons without having to worry about any drifting issues while shooting. That being said, when shooting with a system like this, it is always a good idea to double-check your settings before taking any important shots, just to be sure nothing got bumped or inadvertently adjusted.

Aesthetically, while the brass lens is rugged, it felt much easier to scratch and scuff than the black versions, and dust, hair, and smudges are very quick to appear if you are not diligent in keeping the lens body clean. When you have a lens as shiny as this one, you want to keep it sparkling clean to truly show it off and as a dog owner, I had to reach for my lens pens, air dusters, and microfiber cloths far more than usual — a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things since the brass version of this lens really looks great.

Despite the great look of the 55mm Mark II lens, it lacks any true weather sealing or protection like the rest of the Petzval lens lineup. This lack of sealing and the drop-in bokeh pattern inserts it offers leads me to believe you should be extra cautious when using this lens outside in the “elements” just to be sure no water gets inside of it, and definitely make sure you have it insured.

The 55mm Mark II f/1.7 Bokeh Control lens has a built-in lens hood and a 67mm filter thread inside of it, making it quite difficult to get on, and off should you choose to use them. From conversations with other Petzval users, you can pretty much count on covering the filter in fingerprints while adding or removing them, so keep those microfiber cloths handy. I didn’t have any need for the ND filters during my testing, but I can absolutely envision situations where an ND filter would come in handy shooting wide open with a lens like this.

Focus and Aperture

The lens has a dual aperture system with eight blades capable of a range of f/1.7 to f/22 with a secondary “waterhouse” plate aperture system for special bokeh effects that include a sun, snowflake, heart, star, and the default circle. While shooting at f/4 to f/22 (and the bokeh set to minium), the lens shot and behaved like any other manual 50mm lens on the market with just the smallest tell-tale signs of the swirly bokeh design on the very outer edges of the frame.

But while you can use it as though it is just like any other lens, why would you? This system is meant to be shot wide open to take advantage of the dreamy, painting-like swirls.

Shooting at f/3.5 or shallower, you start to see where this lens truly stands out, and unlike its 80.5mm sibling, the difference between the bokeh increments is much more noticeable. That includes a subtle “zoom” as you go deeper into the bokeh application.

I appreciate that the lens is capable of being used like a “normal” lens as well as providing some rather extreme bokeh effects though. As I said in the 80.5mm review, the fact it can be either adds value and usability to the lens since you are able to flip back into a “normal” lens should you be in the middle of a shoot and need to capture something a little sharper and less dramatic.

Also of note, thanks to the design of the optics, focusing is achievable from about two feet (0.6 meters) away, which lets you get a little closer to your subjects and creates some different perspectives.

As you might expect, when using the lens in its bokeh-rich modes, the “safe zone” for your subjects is pretty much dead center of the frame. Even if your camera shows you a focus peaking value that is in focus, if the subject is in the outer edges of the frame, the actual finishe dimage will be blurry or soft when you open it up on your computer. Be prepared to take lots of extra safety shots if you have never worked with a lens like this before, as there is going to be a pretty steep learning curve when it comes to controlling the bokeh.

Like the 80.5mm version, this lens equally threw my composition game for a loop. I will admit that there were a lot of deleted shots in the review process. Since I wanted to treat this like a vintage-style lens and get the most out of the bokeh I could, I shot at f/1.7 and dialed the bokeh dial all the way up to seven.

The Petzval lens forced me to throw the conventional training for composition completely out the window and start center focusing on everything I wanted to capture. You need to forget the “rule of thirds” and ensure your subject is dead center in the frame since the borders will be filled with swirl and bokeh. Once you let go of the rules, you will start to have an actual blast while working with this lens capturing everything from plant life to people in the street.

Image Quality

As mentioned above, if you do decide to shoot with this lens at f/4 or higher, it will return results similar to any other 50mm lenses at that aperture do with just minimal swirls on the very outer edges of the frame. Once you start to dial up the bokeh, you can see the swirl start to show up and become much more pronounced starting along the outer edge.

As long as you nail your focus, the image will be sharp. Much like its sibling, the colors from this lens come out of the camera a little bit on the cooler side than normal, but that is easily compensated for in post if you want to warm things back up. Check the images below to view the patterns you can get when using the different bokeh inserts at different intensities from the mid-range to the maximum.

As you can see from the above examples, the difference between the bokeh levels in this lens is pretty extreme and personally I definitely love the look of photos taken at the extreme end. Just remember to always shoot with this lens focusing on the “center mass” in order to actually be in focus. If you do this, your shots will be swirly, dreamy, and full of incredible bokeh.

Sample Images

>

A Portrait Photographer’s Secret Weapon

At $450, the Petzval 55mm f/1.7 MKII Brass lens isn’t particularly expensive, and that price puts it somewhere around the middle to lower end of other “normal” 50 to 58mm lenses on the market. The price feels more than fair, even if the lens lacks autofocus.

For portrait and product photographers, this lens can be an amazing “secret weapon” to have tucked away in your gear bag. It’s not the kind of lens you would necessarily use for an entire session, but it is one that will give you a few results to include with the rest of your set that will very likely delight portrait clients.

Are There Alternatives?

The Petzval lenses are a niche style with the only real rival for something else as unique and interesting as the Lomography lenses would be the Lensbaby lineup. While Lensbaby has some incredibly fun and interesting products, I don’t believe they have anything that truly competes or compares to the Petzval bokeh patterns, nor this lens’s flexibility or sharpness. Additionally, you could try finding some older 19th-century lenses from your local camera shops or auction sites. You may even get lucky and find some for incredibly cheap, however, you will still be left searching for a compatible adapter to use on modern mirrorless systems.

Should You Buy It?

Yes. Maybe it was the gorgeous brass design, maybe it was the fact it was easier to focus manually on my Nikon Z6 body than the 80.5mm Petzval, but either way, the Petzval 55mm f/1.7 MKII Brass Lens is useful in both professional and creative situations. The vintage-looking lens is a great conversation piece and just a ton of fun to shoot with on both sides of the camera. I actually enjoyed working with the 55mm f/1.7 MKII Petzval lens for mirrorless so much, after finishing the review I ended up ordering one for myself.

Profoto recently announced a revamped version of its Camera App and with ample new features and a new file format, it certainly sounds promising for smartphone photography.

I recently shot a swimwear editorial with it, both in-studio and on-location. Does the app live up to the descriptors? In short: yes.

Phones are among the fastest-evolving technologies to ever exist. Naturally, various accessories tend to evolve with the device too. One of the main improvements that phones seem to have from generation to generation is the new camera, and many people have already asked if iPhones have a future in replacing cameras. Although opinions differ, one thing is for sure: phones are much more popular than traditional cameras.

Most people these days likely start dabbling in photography by using a smartphone. Lighting, being a core aspect of photography, is naturally a focus for many photographers, so Profoto introduced a new technology, AirX, that lets photographers sync flash to their phones directly.

The Profoto Camera app’s new update brings smart TTL as well as Profoto RAW. I took it for a spin in a studio and on-location environments to see how it fairs as an image capturing device that promises to deliver fast results and an uncompromised light-shaping experience.

Features

Features included in the Profoto Camera app include:

1. Two modes: Smart-TTL and manual mode. The smart mode takes control of everything, all you need to set is how dramatic you want the light to be as well as your desired color temperature. Manual mode, on the other hand, lets you control your phone like it’s a camera. This means full manual control of not only exposure but also flash — it’s pretty much like your phone has a built-in flash remote.
2. Profoto Raw format. Profoto describes this as a format that uses DNG files. The Profoto RAW (DNG) files are 5-8 times larger than the usual JPEG. On paper, this allows them to capture more detail, therefore offering more post-production possibilities. In essence, this is just a DNG file.

UI Experience

Perhaps one of the things Profoto is famous for is its Swedish simplicity. As renowned photographer Albert Watson put it: you plug it in and it works. Profoto Camera holds to that tradition. Selecting Bluetooth on compatible lights and then connecting to the app is very simple. Pairing requires you to press the test flash button, but after the lights are paired, they will connect automatically to the app. I never experienced any connectivity issues on the app either.

As for the rest of the GUI of the app, it is easy to understand as there are labels and names on everything, making the learning curve very shallow.

Field Performance and Real-Life Experience

To truly test out the app and how well it works with lights, I chose two different settings: studio and on-location. The idea was to shoot a summer swimwear editorial that would encompass these looks very well.

The experience shooting with the Profoto Camera app can be described as slower than I’m normally used to. Having worked with cameras for much of my career, I felt really slow when working with a phone. It took a moment to adjust, a moment to fire, a moment to do everything else. This may work with some photographers’ shooting style, but it could also possibly limit photographers from working faster and more seamlessly.

Look 1

A 1970s-inspired look with a badminton racket. It was shot against a white background which was made blue by a large 2×3 softbox with a blue gel inside. The key light on the model was chosen to be hard to mimic sunlight, which was done with an OCF beauty dish. A CTO gel was added to warm the light up and give it sunlight-like quality.

Using the Smart-TTL mode has shown to be slightly hard here, as it didn’t quite understand the setup I was going for. The key light was overpowering the background gel, so I chose to use manual mode instead.

Syncing lights and setting them up was done, one by one, as usual. Shooting with a phone felt extremely strange, but the app was easy to use and I had the lights set up in manual mode in no time. One drawback was not being able to assign groups, but instead to having guess which light was responsible for what.

Look 2

The second look was designed to show the swimmer about to jump. Here a three-light setup was used. A 2×3 softbox was replaced with a much larger 165 Cm umbrella to allow for more even background light. The key light was chosen to be a 2×3 softbox with the same CTO gel. I wanted much more even illumination, and using a hard reflector would make that more challenging. Lastly, a small A10 was used to light the apple box the model is standing on and create the gradient. Unfortunately, the app didn’t quite recognize this setup, and I once again resorted to manual mode, as the app was trying to light the whole scene without balance between lights.

Look 3

The goal was to create a smooth gradient on the model while keeping the background the same color as in the last images. For that, a bare-bulb light with a 20deg grid was used. The camera app lets me control the lights seamlessly, with the experience being not too different from an actual camera. The app lets me control features such as modeling lamp, intensity, modeling lamp temperature (on B10 and B10+ lights)

Look 4

Using the camera app on location was a different story. With only a handful of things to take, the versatility of the app was quite fantastic. I had to take an A10 starter kit (available in certain regions only), which came with a small softbox, grid, as well as an OCF adapter for the A10 flash. I threw the kit on a light stand and shot away in the auto mode setting the light to soft. This enabled me to not worry about camera settings and focus on getting the shot.

At first, there was little understanding between the crew on when the picture was taken as there were a series of pre-flashes. However, the app was not missing the mark and got all the photos exactly as I imagined. This leads me to believe that the app is geared towards smaller light setups, such as just one softbox or a key with a fill.

General Testing

One feature I was interested to try was the possibility of controlling how dramatic light is. This can be done in Smart-TTL mode just by changing the slider. This is an interesting feature that performed surprisingly well. Usually, one would have to move their light or change the modifier, but the camera app takes multiple exposures combining them into one big one.

A drawback for potential users would be when it comes to shooting moving objects in smart mode. To operate, the smart mode needs to make a series of flashes and exposures, which requires the subject to be more or less still.

Speaking of the Profoto RAW format, there are no options to edit the pictures in the app. If speed is of the essence, there is rarely time to process raw files. There are more options with the DNG files that Profoto Camera captures, but they are nothing extraordinary. When editing, I found that although there is more latitude, it’s nothing like with other raw files, like CR2.

A Gateway Drug to Portrait Lighting

Profoto is perhaps ahead of its time with the Camera App, as many photographers may be puzzled by why exactly it exists in the first place. However, the app allows for much faster image capture and social media publication — something that traditional cameras can’t do.

Those who will probably gravitate towards Profoto’s new camera app pool are photographers who are not new to taking pictures, but perhaps new to lighting. Many iPhone photographers could potentially benefit from the ability to use a familiar device with sophisticated lights.

When it comes to whether the Profoto Camera app should be used in large-scale productions, I doubt it. I believe phones are just never going to reach the quality that a proper camera offers.

That said, I don’t think the Profoto Camera app is competing with high-end cameras — that would be a silly fight to pick. The camera app is simply offering a much more compact solution to allow for the capture of images on the fly. I see event shooters being interested in this, too, as it would allow them to carry much less while letting the camera mix flash and ambient as well as expose the whole image.

Pros

1. Fast results straight from your phone
2. Light control in simple situations
3. More control over light settings when compared to the remote
4. Ability to shoot with any light shaping tools

Cons

1. No power setting on the back of the light unit screen
2. Light names unclear on the app. No ability to assign groups
3. No ability to process DNG files in the app.
4. Limited ability to work with fast-moving subjects.

Should You Use It?

Yes. A previous argument against iPhone photography was that syncing lights is impossible, yet now with good light, I am more than happy to take my iPhone photography to next level. A family portrait session or anything of that nature is perfectly suited for the Profoto Camera App. I draw the line there personally, but someone else may prefer to ditch their camera altogether for the iPhone given the functionality here.

Overall, the Profoto camera app is very useful, especially when capturing images on the fly is a priority.

Within a few months of each other at the beginning of 2021, both Sony and Sigma announced 35mm f/1.4 lenses for full-frame Sony E-mount cameras. They were just begging for a comparison to be made.

This is not the first foray into the 35mm f/1.4 landscape for either company. Sony had the Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZA available for full-frame mirrorless cameras since 2015. On the other hand, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART lens has an E-mount but functionally is the older DSLR design fitted with a non-removable converter. In both cases, the new lenses compared here are not updates, but completely original designs. Let’s take a closer look at the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G Master and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art to determine which new lens comes out on top.

Design and Build Quality

Looking at the lenses side by side, the most apparent difference in form would be that the Sigma is longer. In practical use, the extra length was never a problem in finding a spot in my bag or with handling. If you run a very tight photography setup with limited space and an extra half-inch here means taking away a half-inch of gear elsewhere, this might be a problem. For most of us though, it’s not a deal-breaker.

The same goes for the weight, where the Sony is a quarter-pound lighter. Like with the slight difference in size, the weight is not enough of a difference that I find could influence any purchasing decision on its own. I respect that the Sony lens achieves these marks, but at the end of the day, I can’t say it’s extremely important comparatively. We aren’t talking two inches and almost two pounds of difference like the Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM versus Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM.

Continuing the theme of non-difference makers, both lenses share 67mm threading for filters, meaning one won’t have any extra hidden ownership cost over the other in this area.

Both lenses feature the same set of controls including the focus and aperture rings, aperture de-click switch, focus hold button, and focus mode switch. The aperture ring can either be set to specific f-stop numbers manually or be controlled through the camera using the “A” setting.

Surprisingly, it’s Sigma that goes a step above here with the addition of an aperture locking switch. This prevents the aperture ring from moving off of the “A” setting, which avoids the scenario where the camera doesn’t want to respond to aperture changes and the photographer only later realizes the ring had mistakenly moved to manual. Points go to Sigma for thinking of this because it’s not uncommon for the aperture settings to get twisted while mounting the lens to a camera or throughout use when my hand works in that area while shooting.

Spending a couple of weeks with the lenses is not going to paint the full picture of build quality, but I did my best. Throughout my time on the island of Kauaʻi, I dealt with plenty of dust, rain showers, sand, wet surfaces, humidity, and sudden temperature changes. Even after the most trying conditions, there were no apparent ill effects on either lens. This is not to say nothing will develop over time, but they both seemed trustworthy enough to not baby around as far as my limited time could tell.

Image Quality

This is what it all comes down to. When I think about the differences between the Sony and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and why someone would pay $500 more for the Sony, these are the three main reasons I can come up with.

Distortion

The very first thing I noticed when shooting identical frames with both lenses is the distortion differences. In the example below, I’ve drawn a line above the horizon to more plainly see that the Sigma exhibits barrel distortion whereas the Sony is very well controlled.

Of course, barrel distortion is not the end of the world and can be automatically corrected while importing images to RAW processing software. I can spin an “advantage” to the Sigma in that it also gives more field of view to a scene over Sony. Say I’m photographing in a forest with no easily identifiable horizon line; it may be welcome to have more of the scene in my composition at the cost of distortion that no one can even tell is there.

Sharpness

Both the Sony and Sigma lenses have enough apparent sharpness that crosses the threshold of being good lenses to being great lenses. However, at the extreme edges of the frame with the Sigma, there is more of a drop-off of sharpness with photos taken wide open compared to Sony. The Sony lens keeps things together remarkably well. When stopped down to f/8 in the example below, both lenses are identical in sharpness.

Related to lens sharpness, I’ll add that when I compared vignetting, flaring, and color fringing, I found that all of these are equally well controlled. Jumping to the section below, you’ll find some ghosting and aberrations crop up in the Sigma f/1.4 and Sony f/8 images.

Bokeh

I also compared the out-of-focus qualities of these lenses. Both feature an 11-bladed circular aperture, which for quick reference is a step up from the 9-bladed aperture that their predecessors I mentioned at the beginning of this article used. More aperture bladed should mean even more perfectly circular bokeh with less noticeable straight edges, and that’s exactly what we get.

The difference I see is how defined the out-of-focus edges are. With Sony, the edges of the bokeh balls melt away and into each other. Sigma on the other hand has a more distinguished shape and each ball holds up as its own rather than smearing.

Honestly, it’s two different looks and I wouldn’t necessarily say one is better than the other. It depends on personal taste. If you like to shoot with out-of-focus lights in the frame, the Sigma might actually have more pop and more of a “wow” factor. That said, Sony’s lens will likely be a touch better at blowing out unsightly backgrounds into indistinguishable bokeh pudding and for that, I would consider it the more traditional winner in this area.

Autofocus

Neither lens totally blew me away in autofocus performance at f/1.4 when paired with the Sony a7R III. Both are perfect for less demanding autofocus needs like face tracking a person around the frame or Animal Eye AF for pet portraits, but when it came to tracking anything faster, neither performed well most of the time.

After tinkering away with my camera’s tracking sensitivity settings and seeing if the Sigma and Sony were just a little finicky on their preferences, I deemed both lenses equal in their autofocus performance when paired with the a7R III.

It’s a Good Year to Buy a 35mm Lens

At the beginning of this comparison, I wrote that the size and weight were nothing that distinctly made a winner, but throughout testing it was clear the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM always had as slight of an edge as it did in those two physical categories. There was never any single area that instantly crowned it a winner, but Sony holds an edge nonetheless. It’s after compounding everything I threw at the two lenses that the slight edge-case wins added up.

Sony is the winner of this comparison, and I think it’s worth spending the extra $500 for it considering the lifetime of lens ownership.

But wait! It needs to be said that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is not bad by any means. I’m sure there will be some of you who will compare these two lenses and decide for yourself that the Sigma is still the better value, and that is completely reasonable. The Sony is my winner, but there was no loser.

The last few generations of iPad Pro were already powerful enough for serious photo editing, but the benefits of such a small and versatile device have never quite outweighed the cons of a tablet-based workflow. The 2021 iPad Pro — with its M1 SOC, up to 16GB of RAM, Thunderbolt support, and mind-blowing miniLED display — makes the best case yet for ditching your laptop. But even with all this power under the hood, it’s clear the iPad is still an accessory, not a laptop replacement.

We’ve never reviewed an iPad on PetaPixel, but with the release of the 2021 iPad Pro it seemed like Apple was sending a message. The latest iPad Pro has the guts of a powerful ultra book, so surely iPadOS would follow suit with a major update that would unleash all this power. Right?

Not quite. Apple has indeed created the most powerful iPad ever — by a lot. Even compared to last year’s blazing fast model with A12Z Bionic, the 2021 iPad Pro is 30 to 40 percent faster across the board and more capable than ever. But after watching this year’s WWDC to see what Apple had in store for iPadOS, and using the iPad Pro to write, edit, and illustrate the review you’re reading, it’s clear to me that the iPad is now, and will continue to be, an add-on.

But oh my, what an add-on.

Tech Specs

On the surface, the 2021 iPad Pro looks no different than the 2020 model. It’s imperceptibly thicker and can now be paired with a white version of the magic keyboard but, otherwise, it looks unchanged.

But looks can be deceiving.

Apple has given the guts of this iPad Pro a huge overhaul, making an already powerful device downright ridiculous for a tablet. Both the 11-inch and 12.9-inch versions now come with Apple’s M1 SOC—the same chip that powers the latest 13-inch MacBook Pro and 24-inch iMac. They also allow for up to 16GB of RAM, 2TB of storage, and support for proper USB-4/Thunderbolt devices. If you opt for the 12.9-inch model, you get the other major update: one of the most beautiful LCD displays we’ve ever used.

These two changes, along with a few other tangible updates coming in iPadOS 15, make this a more compelling product for photographers than any other iPad that came before it.

The Display

The new miniLED display — or as Apple calls it, “Liquid Retina XDR” — in the 12.9-inch iPad Pro is a showstopper, with 10,000 miniLEDs arranged into 2,596 individually controlled local dimming zones. To put this in perspective, the 32-inch Pro Display XDR that costs $5,000 (without a stand) has a total of just 576 zones.

In every other way, the iPad Pro’s display equals the Pro Display XDR. Color gamut is a full 100% coverage of Display P3, it can hit the same peak (1600 nits) and sustained (1000 nits) brightness as the Pro Display XDR, and thanks to local dimming, blacks are truly black. This performance is obvious the moment you watch or edit HDR content—the display is truly stunning.

There is still a little bit of blooming — which is somewhat unavoidable unless and until Apple makes the jump to OLED — but thanks to the 2,500-plus local dimming zones, it’s very minimal and not remotely noticeable in real-world use. Set the new iPad Pro next to last year’s model, and the difference is kind of shocking:

This hasn’t affected color accuracy either. We tested the color gamut of the display manually, using an i1Display Pro Plus to analyze two different test charts patch-by-patch and found the gamut coverage was ever-so-slightly improved over the 2020 iPad Pro, with blacks that did indeed hit true black: 0, 0, 0 in the CIE L*a*b color space according to our colorimeter.

There’s no denying it: this is the nicest display in the Apple ecosystem.

That doesn’t mean it will stay this way. It’s rumored Apple will bring miniLED technology to the Mac with the release of the anticipated 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pros later this year, but honestly, I feel like this display makes more sense on the iPad — first and foremost a media consumption device — than on a laptop computer meant for productivity.

Most photographers will rarely use the HDR capabilities as part of their editing workflow, but anybody can appreciate this incredible screen by using it to watch Dolby Vision content. I just wish Apple had put a similar display in the 11-inch model.

Finally, it’s also worth mentioning that you can hook up the iPad Pro to an external display, just like last year’s model. But sadly, you’re limited to mirroring your iPad’s screen, making this feature (in my mind) totally useless for most applications. There are a few apps that will let you take advantage of the full secondary display to make some part of the app full screen — Filmic Pro lets you view the video preview window this way — but for the most part, you’re limited to a weird, letterboxed mirror of your 4:3 aspect ratio iPad screen.

The M1 Chip

The other major change from 2020 is the upgrade to the M1 chip, which is definitely overkill for a tablet that isn’t able to — and probably never will — run a desktop operating system. Still, power is power, and the 2021 iPad Pro comes with plenty of that.

Thanks to the M1, the iPad Pro can now be configured with up to 2TB of storage and 16GB of RAM, and it also allowed Apple to equip this iPad with a proper Thunderbolt/USB-4 port. That means no more frustration when you try to connect a Thunderbolt SSD or add more ports with a Thunderbolt dock. This is particularly relevant for creatives, who may be uploading thousands of photos using an SD card reader or backing up high-res footage to an SSD.

In terms of performance, Geekbench 5 scores prove that this is exactly the same chip you get in the M1 Macs, with the same single-core and multi-core performance. Apple isn’t under-volting it or otherwise hobbling the CPU in any way. But as we found out in testing, that doesn’t mean the iPad Pro will perform on par with a proper M1 Mac.

Our review unit came with 1TB of storage and 16GB of RAM — same as the Mac mini and MacBook Pro we already reviewed. But when we ran our usual Lightroom tests, the iPad Pro performed noticeably slower.

When importing and exporting 100 Sony a7R IV and 150 PhaseOne XF RAW files in the Lightroom mobile app, the 2021 iPad Pro is a few minutes slower than the M1 iMac across the board, and it wasn’t able to match my 2020 Intel-based 13-inch MacBook Pro either:

Of course, the tablet was using the iPad version of Lightroom CC while the Macs were using the desktop variant, but the two programs look and act very similarly and I don’t think this affected overall performance very much. The decrease in import/export speed is likely due to two factors:

1. The iPad Pro has no active cooling
2. Apps on iPadOS are limited to using 5GB of RAM max

That second note is the most likely culprit, and one reason why this new iPad confuses me. The “entry-level” version comes with 8GB of RAM, and the 1TB and 2TB versions come with 16GB of RAM. And yet, for whatever reason, Apple released this iPad before getting rid of that 5GB limitation. It’s a waste, and something that I hope will be fixed in iPadOS 15, but none of the developer previews thus far have mentioned it, so I’m not holding my breath.

Moving on from Lightroom, one of the biggest limitations on my ability to use the iPad Pro in my workflow was actually Photoshop. Lightroom CC is pretty fleshed-out at this point, but the Photoshop app is woefully under-featured. I wasn’t even able to benchmark performance, since heavy-duty tasks like Panorama Merge and most Adobe Sensei features haven’t yet been ported over.

Worse yet, basic features are missing. There’s still no Pen tool, no smart sharpening, no RAW file support, most filters are AWOL, magnetic guides are missing, and you can’t even scale or crop images by choosing the size or aspect ratio.

There’s no question that the 2021 iPad Pro is equipped for serious photo and video editing, now more than ever. You just can’t take full advantage of that hardware. This makes it a no-go for serious retouching, even if Lightroom is just about there for standard photo editing.

For now, using the M1 iPad Pro to edit the photos for this review felt like being given the keys a Porsche and then being told you couldn’t shift out of second gear. Whether it’s Adobe’s apps, Apple’s operating system, or some combination of the above, I couldn’t help but feel cheated, and more than a little frustrated, by the whole experience.

iPadOS 15

Ever since the 2021 iPad Pro was announced, the tech world has been buzzing with hope for a “total overhaul” of iPadOS that would allow the new tablet to take full advantage of the new SOC. Last week, Apple quelled those rumors (and angered many) when it revealed a relatively meager update with no professional apps, few professional workflow enhancements, and no indication that MacOS will ever be allowed to run on this machine.

Still, there are three updates coming to iPadOS 15 that are worth pointing out.

Universal Control

Announced during the MacOS Monterey portion of this year’s WWDC keynote, Universal Control will allow you to use your Mac to control a nearby iPad or even drag-and-drop files between the two operating systems without any sort of setup or secondary app. This is not Sidecar, it’s seamless. As long as both devices are on the same iCloud account, they will use Apple’s handoff technology to “sense” that another device is nearby and begin sharing the trackpad and keyboard.

You can see it in action in this demo:

That’s really cool, and a game-changer for creatives who want to use the iPad Pro as a portable add-on to a beefier iMac or MacBook Pro. You could start editing a photo on the iPad using the Apple Pencil and then drag it directly to your computer to finish it up or take advantage of a feature in Photoshop that the iPad app is still missing. With Universal Control, there will be no need to upload it to the cloud or plug in a thumb drive — you can just drag-and-drop.

Improved Multi-Tasking

Multi-tasking on the iPad itself is also being improved, which is a huge relief. Currently, if you’re using one app and you want to use another either in split-view or by having it “float” over your current app in slide-over mode, it needs to be accessible in the dock. The controls are also not intuitive to newcomers, and there are no buttons for quickly switching between modes — you just have to learn by trial-and-error or look up a tutorial.

The updated version fixes most of this and makes multitasking on the iPad much more intuitive. There are really four major updates.

First, there is now a set of three buttons at the top of the screen that allows you to toggle between full screen, split-view, and slide-over mode for any given app. Second, if you select split-view, the app will automatically move out of the way so that you can pick any other app—not just an app from your dock—to open up alongside it. Third, you can actually drag-and-drop apps onto one another in the app switcher view, creating multiple split-view configurations on the fly. And fourth, if you’ve opened up multiple instances of a single app like Files or Safari, they’re all accessible via an intuitive App Shelf that pops up at the bottom of your screen.

This is one of those situations where showing is much easier than telling, so check out this video from MacRumors for a great, speedy overview of the new multitasking features:

The whole system feels much more like opening up virtual desktops in Mission Control on the Mac, and should make switching between apps or using them alongside one another a lot easier once iPadOS 15 is released. This is especially relevant for M1 iPad users because the additional RAM makes it possible to run many apps at the same time without ever pushing anything out of memory.

Updated Files App

Finally, one of the smaller, but still important, updates coming in iPadOS 15 involves the Files app. In its current state, Files includes a few little annoyances that are particularly painful if you’re moving around large folders or switching between multiple machines. For instance, there’s no progress bar when you’re transferring files onto the iPad, file grouping is missing entirely, and NTFS format drives are not supported at all.

The progress bar thing is particularly annoying. Instead, you get the app update animation which only updated once when I transferred 30GB worth of photos from an iCloud folder, and disappeared after I switched apps. It turns out the transfer was still going, but I had no way of knowing that.

All of this (and more) will change with iPadOS 15.

In the new Files app, you can now track the progress of large file transfers with a proper progress bar, the “Get Info” menu for a photograph includes more EXIF data, NTFS drives are finally supported (read-only), and you can group files by kind, date, and size. It’s not a proper update to a full-blown “Finder” or “File Explorer,” but it should make life a little easier for professional workflows.

The World’s Fastest Tablet is Still a Tablet

There is an old New Yorker cartoon by Charles Barsotti that reminds me of this iPad. A cowboy is sitting at a bar wearing an absurdly large Stetson, and one of the other patrons says to a third: “All hat and no cattle but, my god, what a hat.”

I couldn’t put it better if I tried: My god… what a hat.

Pros

• M1 SOC is incredibly powerful
• Up to 16GB of RAM means nothing ever drops out of memory
• Up to 2TB of storage
• Incredible miniLED “XDR” display (12.9-inch only)
• USB-4/Thunderbolt support
• Phenomenal design and build quality
• Apple pencil is one of the best pressure sensitive stylus you can buy

Cons

• iPadOS limitations are frustrating for professionals
• M1 gives this iPad more power than it can use
• Individual apps can only access 5GB of RAM (fixable through software update)
• 11-inch version is missing the new miniLED display
• As expensive as a really nice laptop
• NOT a laptop replacement

When I started this review, I set myself the challenge of creating the entire thing on the iPad itself. Research, writing, editing photos in Lightroom, creating the header image in Photoshop, formatting the post inside our CMS—I tried to do it all on the iPad to see if it could replace my laptop in a pinch.

I was able to do it (with a few workarounds) but the process was frustrating. The mobile version of Photoshop is missing basic features I rely on, the file management system needs a little work before it can be used for serious photo and video file management, and if the tasks get really heavy, there’s the frustrating limitation that no app is ever allowed to use more than 5GB of RAM, even though the 1TB and 2TB models put a whopping 16GB at your fingertips.

And yet, if you can afford to purchase this product as an add-on to your current laptop or desktop computer, especially if you use a Mac, you will love using it.

There’s no question that this is the most powerful tablet on the market, and a joy to use alongside my MacBook Pro. It has the nicest display in the entire Apple ecosystem, Apple Pencil support makes many photo editing tasks more enjoyable, and the thing never stuttered or froze, even when I was exporting 150 heavily edited 100MP PhaseOne files. It’s still “just” an iPad, and suffers from the same “I wish it could run MacOS” syndrome that plagued last year’s iPad Pro, but thanks to the sheer power of this latest upgrade, and the gorgeous miniLED display, I found the trade-offs a lot easier to swallow.

If you don’t like Apple and/or iOS, this isn’t going to magically convince you otherwise. And the number of people who can afford to drop two grand on an accessory is probably limited. But if you’re going to do any kind of creative work on a tablet, there is no competition. Not even close. With this update, Apple made the best tablet on the market even better… but it’s still a tablet.

Are There Alternatives?

In terms of Android alternatives, the Samsung Galaxy Tab S7+ is probably your best bet, but there’s really no competition when it comes to performance. The last generation iPad Pro was already more powerful than anything else out there, and the upgrade to an M1 chip only lengthens that lead.

Another obvious alternative is a Windows 2-in-1 like the Microsoft Surface Pro 7+. This will give you a full Windows 10 operating system to work with, which is a huge plus, but even the most powerful Core i7 model falls short of the M1 in classic benchmarks, and the fanless version of the Surface Pro 7+ uses an even slower Core i5 or Core i3 processor. Plus, it simply can’t compete with the iPad’s miniLED display.

Finally, the most obvious alternative is an M1 MacBook Air. The Retina display in the MBA can’t compete with the Liquid Retina XDR, but it uses the same M1 processor, is actually lighter than the iPad Pro, comes with a proper keyboard and trackpad, and, most importantly, it runs MacOS. In many ways, the M1 iPad Pro is just an M1 MacBook Air with a nicer screen, a touch-based operating system, and a bunch of limitations.

Should You Buy It?

Yes, but there are a few caveats. If you are in the market for a tablet and you don’t own last year’s iPad Pro, the jump to the M1 processor is worth it. It earns you a ton of performance, Thunderbolt support, more RAM (see above for limitations), and — if you go with the bigger screen — an incredible HDR display.

If you do own last year’s model, I would only upgrade if you’re using your current iPad for lots of heavy-duty photo editing and even then, I don’t think it’s worth it unless you get the 12.9-inch with the Liquid Retina XDR display. M1 plus Liquid Retina XDR is worth the upgrade, but only if you actually use your iPad regularly for something other than Minecraft and watching YouTube.

Finally, if you’re deciding between an iPad Pro and one of the M1-powered MacBooks, go with the laptop. A 12.9-inch iPad Pro with an Apple Pencil, Magic Keyboard, and 1TB of storage will cost you almost $2,300. An equivalent M1 MacBook Air is $1,650. Unless you really need the touchscreen functionality or HDR editing capabilities, there’s no reason to spend more money on a heavier setup that’s lacking basic functionality.

DxO’s new Nik Collection 4 comes with several new features and upgrades but still retains the familiar workflow and film simulations fans are looking for. The subtle changes make for an easy transition for long-time users and are bound to attract new interested photographers, too.

Although Nik Collection has exchanged hands several times — from Snapseed to Google, to most recently DxO, which released Nik Collection 3 in 2020 with the new Perspective Efex and non-destructive Lightroom Editing that retains a larger TIFF file which can be revisited — the software hasn’t had a drastic overhaul that would turn away long-time users and fans. That remains the case here in the latest update that launched in early June, Nik Collection 4.

It comes with well-known plugins — such as Analog Efex Pro, Color Efex Pro, and Silver Efex Pro — in addition to Viveza which allows for manual editing that is akin to what you would expect from a less feature-filled Develop module in Lightroom. It also includes Dfine for noise reduction, HDR Efex Pro, Perspective Efex, and Sharpener Pro, as well as several improvements and UI changes.

Overall Usability and Design

Long-time Nik users will notice that the software has still maintained its familiar core and is easily recognizable. For newcomers, it’s important to note that Nik has never been a bulk-edit tool nor does it have a top-speed performance. Instead, it is more suited for individual edits, although the “Last Edit” function does speed up editing multiple images.

Nik Collection 4 works well in conjunction with Lightroom and Photoshop, PetaPixel’s David Crewe noted when it was announced, but it can also be a great stand-alone editing tool. However, users will have to swap between the plugins if, for example, they want to first work on correcting the perspective in Perspective Efex or sharpen the RAW file in Sharpener Pro, followed by image adjustments in one of the other plugins. This isn’t the best workflow because it takes time to swap between the two or three plugins. On the flip side though, it keeps the plugins lean by not automatically including features you don’t necessarily need. It’s a double-edged sword.

Because Nik boasts over 250 presets across the collection, it can be easy to become overwhelmed with the different creative directions that you can take. However, because the plugins are broken down in eight separate ways, it can make it easier for inexperienced users to work their way through the collection and become accustomed to the different looks that can be created in each one of them. So while it might not be as tightly integrated as some might like, that does have its benefits.

The UI for all plugins is similar and brings continuity throughout, although with the latest update some of the sections in the right-hand-side panel can be difficult to navigate at times due to Nik Collection 4 opting for a dark minimalist design, which comes with small icons that can be hard to see or find.

Color, Analog, and Silver Efex Pro

Where Nik Collection has always stood out as a unique tool is its large number of presets, film simulations, and filters that cover both color and monochrome images and can be found across its three core plugins: Color, Analog, and Silver Efex Pro. Each one of them brings something different and you will find yourself gravitating towards certain filters or sections of each plugin that suit your editing style.

Color Efex Pro

Color Efex Pro, which aims to bring a variety of filters for different types of photography from architecture to weddings and nature, is the weakest one out of the trio in my opinion, especially when it comes to being user-friendly. All three plugins offer a library of filters but Color Efex is the only one that doesn’t let you them in the main filter library which can make the editing process longer than it needs to be.

Instead, users have to click on a small icon right next to each filter’s name in order to reveal several other filters within that category, which do have previews, and keep going back and forth until settling on the final one. It’s tedious and time-consuming.

With such a large number of filters available, it appears that Color Efex is trying to be a plugin that does it all but fails to deliver quality. Many of the filters are unsuitable for either natural or artistic applications, and I found myself trawling through the long list but struggling to find one that fits, even with all the modifications that are available within each filter.

The plugin now also has “Recipes” — a section below “Filter Library” — which contains 35 additional presets which can be previewed. This instantly makes editing easier, and each individual recipe can be further modified. For example, the “Blue Monday” recipe, below, allows you to adjust the type of tone used as well as the cross-processing which gives additional creative options.

Generally, I would not consider Color Efex Pro to be a sophisticated portraiture editing tool by any means. I think it is more suitable for landscape, street, or still life work. However, even then, the time it requires to go through each and every filter section to find an applicable one is not worth the effort it asks of you.

It is likely that an everyday user would forego this plugin and go straight to Viveza for manual editing or Analog or Silver Efex Pro for film simulations and presets unless they are able to pinpoint several favorite ones in Color Efex Pro early on. At first glance, it may seem that Color Efex Pro has a lot to offer but after some time spent editing, you will quickly see its shortcomings.

Analog Efex Pro

Primarily focused on film simulations, this plugin delivers a good choice of both color and monochrome filters as well as a choice of frames, bokeh, double exposure, dirt, and scratches. It also gives “photo plate” options for a look that resembles damaged film and wet plate and can quickly turn a digital photograph into an interesting piece of art.

You can choose a ready-made preset or build your own “camera kit” by mixing and matching all of the features available. Equally, within each preset — same as with Color Efex Pro — you can adjust the settings, such as filter strength, film type, basic adjustments, and more.

In this release, the UI of Analog Efex Pro remains largely unchanged as do the filters themselves, with the exception of the newly added section “En Vogue,” which features 10 new presets. For monochrome photography, you have a choice of nine more traditional monochrome presets under the “Black and White” section or the more artistic presets found under the “Wet Plate” section.

So far, after around five years of using Nik Collection and its older versions, I still haven’t exhausted the options that come with Analog Efex Pro. Although the presets haven’t largely changed over the course of time, I’ve found them to fit well for portraiture, street photography, still life, landscape, and even to be good enough for an exhibition where this plugin was exclusively used for editing the final prints.

Although some presets may initially appear too strong for some applications, it is possible to strip it down to the minimum or simply start from scratch if that’s preferred, especially when combined with Photoshop for more precision. The build-your-own option should not be underestimated because it gives almost as much control as manual editing.

For beginners or those who don’t want to spend as much time manually editing in Photoshop, this plugin can give a good base for achieving unique looks with plenty of customization options. Replicating film and wet plate looks manually can be difficult, but this particular plugin does it with ease.

Although it is the most usable plugin by far, especially because it gives good color and monochrome options all-in-one, I’m disappointed to see that the light leaks still lack a good level of customization. The “Control Points” do give more choices to modify them, but you are still unable to flip, rotate or resize them, unlike in Adobe Photoshop or Affinity Photo.

These light leaks can be adjusted to appear subtle and visually pleasing — unlike ones I’ve tested with other editing programs — so it’s a shame that DxO hasn’t expanded the options in this upgrade.

Silver Efex Pro

Solely dedicated to monochrome enthusiasts, Silver Efex Pro has received a more sleek UI and a new tool ClearView, which removes haze and enhances local contrast in a more subtle way than the Dehaze tool found in Adobe Lightroom. The preset options range from high-key to contrasty, moody, and grainy looks, making the plugin usable for different types of work be it gritty street photography or softer portrait work.

Same as Analog Efex Pro, all presets show a preview on the left while in-depth customization tools are located on the right. The selection of these tools is likely to cover most aspects to create a good monochrome image; even dodging and burning can be replaced to a certain extent by using the control points that add selective adjustments.

The plugin still offers a good choice of toning options, as shown in the example below, which is useful for those who don’t want to use additional editing software for this. Giving a choice between warmer and cooler tones, they can be added to any of the monochrome presets. It is easy to overdo toning at times, but Silver Efex Pro gives plenty of options to adjust the balance, hue, and more, to achieve a refined look.

Toning options have now been placed into a compact dropdown selection, and although I understand DxO’s choice to opt for a cleaner look, the previous versions laid out all tones which made it easier to visually evaluate which option to go for.

Nevertheless, Silver Efex Pro remains just as strong a post-processing plugin for monochrome work as it was before, and even with the changes of the new UI, it delivers. Whether you choose to go for a quick preset with hardly any changes or want to dive deep into perfecting the final image, it works well for both.

In fact, both Analog and Silver Efex Pro are capable of producing powerful monochrome images and both should be considered for this type of photography. The more time is spent editing with the two plugins, the easier it becomes to decide which one to launch for each particular image.

Diamonds in the Rough

There are a lot of options in Nik Collection 4 and not all of them are worth your time. It’s overkill to attempt to make use of the entire collection just because it’s there or because you think you have to. So much might have been included to give buyers a sense that they’re getting more for their money, but I argue that the value of the really great parts of the collection is already worth the cost of entry.

Even if you leave a large amount of the collection rarely touched, the ones that you will use are reliable and won’t waste your time by streamlining you towards that desired finished photo. Simultaneously, the option to use more is always there. This collection and its past versions have proven themselves to last through the years so far — even though editing trends may change over time — and this one is no exception.

Are There Alternatives?

So far, I haven’t come across any plugins that provide so many quality presets to work with. Nik Collection 4 is not a replacement for the industry-standard Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop or Affinity Photo and has never meant to be — it works as an enhancement to the experience. But, as a collection of plugins that can work also as stand-alone suites and give you post-processing, sharpening, noise reduction, and perspective adjustments, there is no other collection like it.

Many of the in-depth features can be left untouched by beginners, too, which makes it suitable for newcomers, while professionals can utilize the seamless integration of Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop workflow.

Should You Buy It?

Yes. Even if you don’t intend to utilize everything that the collection offers, for the one-time purchase price of $149, Nik Collection 4 is worth it.

While reviewing the Leica 24-70mm f/2.8, I was able to spend some time with a lens from Sigma that has been accused of being the exact same lens in a rehoused body. But is it?

Editor’s note: The following evaluation is meant to be viewed after reading the full review of the Leica 24-70mm f/2.8, as most of the information below focuses on showing how the Sigma lens performs in comparison to those results and is written from the assumption that readers have familiarized themselves with the same assessment of the Leica lens.

Special thanks to LensRentals for providing the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN for the purposes of this comparison.

Side by side, the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens is very similar to the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN Art Lens: the focus and zoom rings appear to be practically identical. The main visible differences lie in the shape and material of the lens hoods, the shape of the barrel near the lens mount, the presence of an AF/MF switch that is only found on the Sigma, and the solid metal material that is unique to the Leica.

As mentioned in the Leica 24-70mm review, when using the Leica lens on a Leica system, you can simply override the autofocus by adjusting the manual focus ring which arguably removes the need for the AF/MF toggle switch. Even if the optics are the same as both lenses, the Leica version does have a slight advantage in the durability department that comes from having a metal housing, but that makes it slightly heavier than the Sigma version as a result.

The Sigma lens weighs about 100 grams less than the Leica version, and while this isn’t really a significant difference, it does at least seem noticeable when hand-holding the camera, since the system is just that much less front-heavy. As for the comfort and ergonomics, both feel very much the same. Sleek, responsive, smooth to the touch, with both versions of the lenses focus and zoom rings responding at nearly identical speeds.

Visually, it does feel like more of the “status symbol” when shooting with the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL version mounted versus the more subtle Sigma lens. Even though the camera was always the Leica SL-2, the system as a whole felt less flashy when I used the Sigma Art lens. There is just something about seeing the yellow text on the side of the lens that stands out.

Before We Test…

To test these lenses, I used a Leica SL-2 and found that, effectively, the images from both of these lenses were incredibly similar to one other, but there were some noticeable performance differences when using the Sigma lens on the Leica SL-2 body that I will get to in a moment. It is also worth noting that for the purpose of this comparison, no lens-profile adjustments were made to the images shown in this post, so the corner behavior can be plainly seen from lens to lens. I also want to mention that in my testing, simply applying the lens profile for the Sigma lens in post-production makes the RAW images look nearly identical to one another.

Performance & Bokeh

As far as image quality, colors, and sharpness are concerned, both lenses perform incredibly well with nearly identical images coming out of each lens. Where they differ, however, is most noticeable while actually shooting. While the autofocus on the SL-2 is nowhere near as fast as the new generation of mirrorless systems From Nikon, Sony, or Canon, there is a significant performance difference between each of these lenses on a Leica camera.

For instance, if for example, an autofocus task were to take 0.5 to one second to lock on to an object with the Leica lens, the Sigma lens would take 1.5 to 2.5 seconds in the identical situation. This behavior was consistent regardless of the environment or lighting.

The images all came out sharp and clean in both cases, but the time to autofocus with the Sigma lens always took noticeably longer. On a Leica SL-2, this delay made using the Sigma version almost unusable when I attempted to shoot a moving subject wide open.

I also noticed that the camera was slower to boot up when I used the Sigma lens versus the Leica lens, which leads me to believe these issues are caused by firmware that could, theoretically, be adjusted by Leica in the future. Additionally, the Sigma lens does have very noticeable distortion and vignetting present (on the wide focal lengths) in the RAW files when compared to the same shots using the Leica lens. These issues are quickly and easily removed with the built-in lens profiles in editing applications like Capture One and Adobe Lightroom, but the issue definitely stands out when you compare the RAW files side by side.

While the bokeh patterns appear very similar between the Leica and Sigma lenses, what is also apparent is that there is a difference in the “bokeh zone” between these two lenses. Below is an example of a photo shot at the minimum focus distance at f/2.8 with both lenses with the (camera left) eye as the focal point. You may notice the Sigma lens is a little more front-focused.

Beyond this short list of differences, as noted the lenses are otherwise quite similar.

Additional Sample Images

Strengths and Weaknesses

Both of the lenses score well in the overall image quality department in my opinion. However, the Leica outperforms the Sigma lens significantly in autofocus speed on the Leica SL-2 system. This is probably not an issue that extends beyond Leica camera bodies, though. Even though both lenses have “slower” autofocus performance than other full-frame mirrorless systems on the market, if speed is important to you, then the Leica version is definitely the winner here if you plan to use it on a Leica camera.

If you use these lenses on an L-mount system other than Leica, the ability to quickly change the AF/MF mode using the button(s) on the Sigma lens is a definite advantage.

One thing is clear though: as much as the optical formula appears to be the same on both lenses, they certainly have some notable differences that make it difficult to label the Leica just a “rehoused” Sigma. While optically identical, there are other factors to consider.

Sigma Strengths

• Slightly less weight
• Costs significantly less money than the Leica lens
• More subtle than the Leica lens for travel/street photography
• AF/MF, Lock, and programmable button available on the Sigma lens

Leica Strengths

• Leica’s metal lens looks and feels better than the Sigma plastic version
• “Lens Profile” seems to be applied automatically with the Leica system
• Looks and feels more professional than Sigma version
• Works better on Leica cameras

The Same, But Different

Over the course of testing these lenses, other than the physical differences (since we can compensate for the vignetting in post quickly), the only real variations between these lenses seem to be the prices and the autofocus speed performance on Leica cameras. Another big difference is the price: the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN Art Lens for Leica L is available for just $1,099 while the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70 f/2.8 ASPH Lens is $2,795. If you’re shooting on Leica, that might be worth it for superior autofocus speed. Everyone else will find very few reasons to select the Leica over the Sigma, especially when the latter is available for almost three times less.

The Verdict

While the Sigma lens may have a few additional features with the AF/MF switch and button, the lenses have basically the same performance. Optically speaking, the images are nearly identical with only very subtle differences when shot at the lens’s respective focal and aperture extremes, so you won’t be making a bad choice either way. In the end, you’ll just have to make your decisions based on personal preference, the intended use of the lens, and how much you want to spend.

A decade into the E-mount camera system and Sony has become well-versed at making 50mm lenses for mirrorless bodies. The company’s latest effort, the 50mm f/1.2 G Master, is the most ambitious as well as the most satisfying.

For as many 50mm lenses that Sony has released, surprisingly, it hasn’t been until now that it has declared a design worthy of the “G Master” moniker and outfitted it with the highest-grade glass elements the company can produce. Good things come to those who wait, however, because unlike early G Master lenses with dated autofocus motors and chunkier builds, the 50mm f/1.2 GM lens is compact for its class and has the internals that future-proof it for years to come.

Build Quality

I use the word compact, but by comparison to all lenses that may not be the word you’d use. What I mean is that both Nikon and Canon have already debuted 50mm f/1.2 full-frame mirrorless lenses, and both the Canon and Sony are much smaller than the Nikon, and the Sony is slimmer than the Canon but also slightly longer at 3.4 by 4.3 inches (87 x 108 millimeters). As far as weight, the Sony is the lightest of the bunch at 1.7 pounds (778 grams).

It’s a new era of camera lenses, and Sony figured out a way to clip away all the unnecessary material around the optical design and autofocus motors to make the lens fit casually into most spots you already stored your typical lenses. I took this lens with me to Hawai‘i inside both a Pelican case on the plane and in a Shimoda backpack on the ground, and there was no special concessions needed when I placed it it in spots already carved out for an average-sized lens. I have a feeling the same could not be said about the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 behemoth.

As far as the handling of the lens goes, it’s a comfortable fit that’s not very heavy with a few different tactile buttons and rings to manipulate. There is a large, smooth focus ring at the front and behind that, there are focus hold buttons, a focus mode switch to toggle between autofocus and manual focus, and an aperture de-click switch. Nearest the lens mount is the physical aperture ring that runs through the entire f-stop range in a quarter turn if you find that to be of use. Otherwise, it can be set to “A” and the camera takes back control.

The copy I had did have a problem I’ve come across countless times with rented Sony lenses, and that’s the lens hood was a bit of a stiff, grinding mess to put on. The bayonet mount goes bad either from accidentally putting the hood on crooked or trying to take it off without holding in the release button on the side. Sony did add a nice touch of grippy rubber to the outer rim of this hood, so at least we have that.

Image Quality

The 50mm f/1.2 GM features three XA elements which are only found in Sony’s G Master lenses, plus the latest Nano AR Coating II. The optical performance of the lens is stellar with both distortion and vignetting well-controlled and no hints of color fringing throughout my real-world testing. Sharpness appears to be on point throughout the aperture range. All lenses typically have some “gotcha” to be aware of, but after using this lens for a couple of weeks there was nothing of the sort that developed in the back of my mind when I took it out.

Its performance is solid, and that continues with the reliable autofocus system. Even at f/1.2, the Sony lens combs through the focus range with urgency to hunt down the subject thanks in part to the four XD linear autofocus motors inside driving the focus group front and back.

As you can imagine, autofocus tracking with such a thin depth of field is an all-or-nothing pursuit. For the most part, I used the lens paired with the Sony a7C, which wouldn’t be the first choice by anyone for the fastest autofocus performer. Still, the lens was able to hold onto moving subjects through focus tracking at even the shallowest depth of field.

The close focusing distance of this lens is 15.7 inches (40 centimeters), and while this is nowhere close to macro with a 0.17x maximum magnification, the ability to obliterate the background does sell the effect of isolating smaller subjects even in cluttered environments.

Photographers will utilize an ultra-wide aperture for many different reasons, but it’s undeniable that the pleasing “bokeh ball” characteristics are a strong selling point for many. With the Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM, there is an 11-bladed circular aperture and below are comparisons of the out-of-focus characteristics shot between f/1.2 and f/8 at the lens’s close focus limit. The top photo shows the full frame at f/1.2. Under that are shots that are the full-frame vertically and the left half of the frame horizontally.

Wide-open at the f/1.2 aperture, the cat-eye effect near the edges of the frame are at their most prominent, but hardly a distraction or enough to qualify as “adding character” to an image. By f/2.8, we see nice, even circular bokeh across the frame. The entire aperture range is free of onion ring effects inside the bokeh balls or any kind of pronounced impurities. Some might consider it sterile, but it’s hard to argue it isn’t impressive.

A Chef’s Kiss for Sony

It’s hard not to eye roll when Sony announces a new 50mm after the FE 50mm f/1.8, E 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/2.8 Macro, 55mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/2.5, but clearly the company was ready to make something truly stand out with the 50mm f/1.2 GM.

It feels lighter and smaller than it should in the hand, only further adding to the impressiveness of its performance of image quality and autofocusing. And after paying the Sony premium for years, at $2,000 it’s actually the least expensive 50mm f/1.2 full-frame mirrorless option when compared against Canon and Nikon.

Are There Alternatives?

No. As far as a 50mm f/1.2 full-frame lens for Sony E-mount cameras, this is it for the time being.

If you have a crop-sensor Sony camera, there are alternatives as far as number matching goes in the $280 Rokinon and $100 TTArtisan 50mm f/1.2 lenses, but I’m sure these companies would also admit they aren’t meant to be competitors going head-to-head against a $2,000 Sony lens.

Is the f/1.2 aperture the most important component on the specs sheet for you? If so, there’s a full-frame Sigma 35mm f/1.2 lens that could possibly work as a substitute for $1,500.

However, if it’s a fast 50mm lens you’re after, then there are more options when losing a half-stop at f/1.4. Sigma makes the $800 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens, Rokinon has a more budget-friendly option for $450, and in the Sony family, there’s the Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA for $1,500.

Should You Buy It?

Yes. The specs are unmatched in the Sony system, there are no disappointments with the image quality, and it’s a lens that has utility wherever you go. It’s an easy choice.

This morning, Adobe unveiled the long-awaited version of Lightroom Classic that is fully optimized for Apple Silicon devices, and we had a chance to test it out before release. Our hopes were high for a program so famously sluggish. Could Apple’s M1 processor deliver a hefty performance boost for photographers? In short: yes. The latest version of Lightroom Classic was up to 25 percent faster on the M1 than on our more expensive Intel-based Mac.

Our experience with Apple Silicon-optimized apps from Adobe has been 50/50 so far. When Lightroom for M1 was released in December 2020, we found meager performance gains above and beyond what M1 could already do via Rosetta 2 emulation of the Intel version. Photoshop, on the other hand, experienced a massive performance uplift when it was optimized for Apple Silicon, blowing us away with its GPU, Filter, and especially its Photo Merge scores in Puget Systems’ PugetBench benchmark.

For Adobe, the stakes are particularly high with Lightroom Classic. Most enthusiast and professional photographers prefer Lightroom Classic to its cloud-based sibling Lightroom CC, and Capture One 21 — Lightroom Classic’s biggest rival — showed significant performance gains in almost every category with the release of Version 14.2 optimized for Apple Silicon.

In other words: this had better be good.

The Test

For this comparison, we timed the import and export of 110 Sony a7R IV photos and 150 PhaseOne XF images on three versions of the software and two different machines¹:

• ARM-optimized Lightroom running on an M1 iMac with 16GB or RAM
• Intel-optimized Lightroom running on the same M1 iMac via Rosetta 2
• Intel-optimized Lightroom running on a 13-inch Intel MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM

The imports were configured with 1:1 previews, all other boxes unchecked, and exports were performed in two flavors: sRGB JPEGs at 100 percent, and AdobeRGB TIFFs at 16-bit with no compression. Note that these tests are a little different than previous benchmarks we’ve run, where we used Standard previews at import. Switching over to 1:1 previews allows us to ignore changes in screen resolution/default preview size, and since 1:1 previews take longer to create they give us a better basis for comparison.

The results are presented as the average of at least three consecutive runs to compensate for inconsistencies, although we didn’t see a major change from run to run in any of our tests.

The Results

In the import test, the ARM-optimized version was about 13.5 percent faster than Rosetta 2 emulation for both Sony and PhaseOne files, and 20 to 24 percent faster than the Intel version running on an Intel chip. A pretty good start for Adobe:

And the good news kept on rolling across every test we ran. Exporting 61-megapixel Sony a7R IV files and 100MP PhaseOne XF files as 100 percent JPEGs was 10 to 12 percent faster than Rosetta 2 emulation, and about 24 percent faster than the Intel Mac.

The larger 16-bit TIFF exports saw an improvement of nine to 13 percent compared to Rosetta 2, and a huge 22 to 25 percent improvement compared to the Intel version running on the Intel Mac.

Here are all of the exports side-by-side, so you can compare them on the same scale:

We’ll be honest: we did not expect this much of a bump. After the lackluster performance of Lightroom CC for Apple Silicon, we thought we might see a five to 10 percent improvement at the most. But these results paint a much more impressive story. Sure, Lightroom Classic for Apple Silicon isn’t two or three times faster than its Intel counterpart running on similar hardware, but ask yourself this: when was the last time Adobe released a new version of Lightroom Classic was 25 percent faster in any category?

To the best of our knowledge, the closest we ever got was a meager 11 percent jump in 2018, and that benefit was only available if you had a relatively powerful multi-core processor and at least 12GB of RAM.

By comparison, today’s update applies to every Apple Silicon Mac, including the extremely affordable M1 Mac mini that we dubbed the best Mac for most photographers. And when we finally get to test this on the rumored 14-inch or 16-inch MacBook Pro with a 2nd generation Apple Silicon processor, we expect these numbers to get even better.

When Companies Compete, Photographers Win

We weren’t sure what to expect when we fired up the ARM-optimized version on our M1 iMac, but these results leave no doubt in our minds: Adobe owes Apple a thank you note.

If you’re already using an M1 Mac, you’ll see a 10 to 12 percent improvement across the board compared to the Intel version running via Rosetta 2 emulation. Already good news. But if you’re sporting an Intel machine like our quad-core 13-inch MacBook Pro (which, by the way, has twice the RAM¹ of our M1 iMac and costs $700 more than an equivalent M1 MacBook Pro) you can expect even bigger gains — a whopping 20 to 25 percent improvement in import and export times.

That’s nothing to scoff at, and Adobe’s own tests show an even bigger jump in performance when the two machines are more evenly matched. When comparing an M1 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM against an Intel MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM and a Core i5 processor, the company found a 54 percent increase in performance.

The release of the M1 SOC has allowed Adobe to show the biggest performance gains in Photoshop and Lightroom that we’ve seen in several years and paves the way for similar gains (we hope) for ARM-based Windows computers.

This is good news for Adobe, great news for Apple, and bad news for Intel… but that’s not why we’re excited by updates like this. We’re excited because major performance gains from any corner of the industry inspire innovation and competition across the whole. And that, dear reader, is great news for photographers.

Footnotes:

^{113-inch MacBook Pro: 2.3GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, Intel Iris Plus Graphics, and 32GB of LPDDR4X RAM.
24-inch iMac: Apple M1 SOC with 8-core CPU, 8-Core GPU, and 16GB unified memory.}

Just over a year ago, Lomography launched the 180th Anniversary Edition of the Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII Bokeh Control Art Lens which promised a bevy of improvements over its 85mm predecessor. It looked as though it would put a historic lens back in the hands in creatives at an affordable $549 price. So does it?

The 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII Art Lens with Bokeh Control was in development at Lomography for about seven years and is finally available for Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. While the “basic version” is available in three different colors, the bokeh control model that I reviewed here is only available in black aluminum.

Besides the color limitation, the real difference between the basic and this bokeh control version is the ability to control the amount of swirly bokeh effect in the images using the Bokeh Control Ring which goes from 1 (barely noticeable) to 7 (maximum bokeh). I do feel like making the scale go to eleven was a missed opportunity but, we can let that slide for now.

The original Petzval lenses from 1840 were previously only adaptable to large format cameras until Lomography started rebuilding them for digital systems in 2013. In doing so, the company sought to bring back the old “romantic” aesthetic from early portraits. Even though this particular lens was meant for the Nikon F mount, adapting it with the FTZ mount made it quick and easy to use on the Nikon Z mirrorless system without any issues.

Since the lens only weighs 440 grams, it is easy to balance on a gimbal which could make it quite a fun lens for videographers to use as well. For the purposes of this review, however, we’ll focus on the lens from the perspective of a still shooter.

Build Quality and Design

The 80.5mm Petzval lens doesn’t look all that different from any other manual lens aside from the built-in lens hood and the metal lens cap. It does have a couple of notable differences though: the bokeh control ring located at the end of the lens and the “slide plates” you can insert to change the shape of the bokeh, should you decide to go that extra step.

The focus, aperture, and bokeh rings each have a good amount of tension in them that I noticed when making adjustments, so you shouldn’t have to worry about any drifting due to gravity or positioning. However, since all three of these rings are the “clickless” style (meaning there is no noticeable click when you make changes), you should double-check your settings if you are about to take an important shot to make sure no ring has slipped.

I found that when I shot freehand it was easy to accidentally bump one of the three rings slightly while moving around. Outside of that cautionary moment, the lens handled well and overall felt great to shoot with. Aesthetically, the lens is rugged, too. Even the paint on the barrel of the lens and the lettering felt almost impossible to scuff up. It is clear that the team at Lomography took their time with the quality presentation and look of this lens.

Something that does concern me about the longevity of this optic though is the lack of weather sealing or protection. While the lens seems to be designed quite well, the fact that there is no mention of weather sealing on the official website and that lens has a drop-in bokeh pattern insert leads me to believe you should be extra cautious using this lens outside in the “elements” just to be sure no water gets inside of it.

It is also worth noting that the bokeh control version of this lens is not able to easily have an ND, polarizer, or any other threaded filter type mounted to it. In my testing, I didn’t have any need for it, but I can absolutely envision situations where an ND filter would come in handy. Maybe in the future, this could be something that could eventually be re-designed into the drop-in section for the bokeh control. The basic version of this lens lists a 62mm thread for filters, and reportedly the Bokeh control version has a 67mm thread (at least on the Canon mount), but in both situations, they are not easy to place or remove.

Focus and Aperture

The lens has an aperture range of f/1.9 to f/16 and each of those stops looks as expected from a quality standpoint. That said, with a lens like this it’s kind of hard to imagine why you would want to shoot it at anything more than wide open, as it detracts from the whole purpose of having it the more you close that aperture down.

When taking photos at f/4 or higher and with bokeh control at its minimum, it honestly looks like any other 80mm lens. When you are at f/3.5 and shallower, that’s when the true nature of the lens starts to shine. Still, I can see the advantage of a lens that has the ability to offer wildly unique visuals while also is able to transform into something more “normal.” It does add to the usability of the optic.

When you shoot wide open, you will be met with a soft focus and distorted vintage feel, which is likely the whole reason you would pick up something like this lens in the first place. With that in mind, be prepared to take a lot of extra shots to be sure you’ve nailed your focus as it can be easy to miss. That brings me to my next note about a learning curve — The Bokeh Control.

I have never used a lens like this before and, at first, it really threw my composition game for a loop. As I learned how to use the lens, I will admit that there were a lot of deleted shots in the review process. Like I mentioned above, the bokeh control lets you shift through seven levels of bokeh, with level one being pretty much the same as you’d see on a standard f/1.9 type lens and level seven pushing out the maximum bokeh effect. Since I wanted to treat this like a vintage-style lens, I shot at f/1.9 and cranked the bokeh dial all the way up to seven.

What I discovered is with a lens like this, you have to throw your conventional training for composition completely out the window.

To get things “in focus” at those settings, you effectively need to ensure your subject is dead center in the frame. Even if your camera tells you it is in focus near the edges with focus-peaking, once you take the shot, the borders will be filled with swirl and bokeh. When I treated the Petzval 80.5mm like any other portrait lens, I messed up a bunch of the early images until I managed to compensate for this.

Once you shift your compositional thinking, taking photos with this lens can get quite fun with the 80.5mm’s soft focus and incredibly swirly bokeh patterns.

Image Quality

If you do happen to use this lens at f/4 or higher, it behaves and returns results like any other prime lens of that focal length on the market except for the very outer edges of the frame which will still show a small amount of tell-tale bokeh swirls and vignetting the Petzval lenses are made to produce. I did take a fair amount of shots at that f/4 to f/16 range and they were all very similar to the sample image below.

As long as you nail your focus, the image is sharp. Colors come out of the camera a little bit on the cooler side than normal, but that is easily compensated for in post if you want to warm things back up.

As you can see from the above examples, the difference from “normal” to “true Petzval” is pretty extreme, and I have to say… I kind of love it on the extreme end. The thing to keep in mind with this lens is if you use it the way it is meant to be used, only your “center mass” will be in focus. When you do so, your shots will be soft, dreamy, and full of incredible bokeh.

Additionally, if you want to get a little more creative with your bokeh patterns, the lens allows you to insert bokeh slides with some pre-cut shapes in them, shifting the patterns from the soft oval/circle to something entirely new. In the package I reviewed, the lens came with three inserts that allow you to add a star, diamond, or heart pattern to your shots as seen below.

Sample Images

A Wonderfully Enjoyable Lens

After nearly a year of not really shooting due to the pandemic, not only did working with this lens force me to adjust my subject framing mindset, it actually got me incredibly inspired to get out and shoot more as a whole. I found myself capturing more images of things I would have never even looked at previously as subject matter, all because of how the bokeh patterns can do such wild and interesting things.

The Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 MKII SLR Bokeh Control Art lens is available from the Lomography shop for $549, placing it somewhere around the middle of other “normal” 85mm lens prices that range from $200 to $800.

Things I Liked

• The ability to control the amount of bokeh is interesting and fun
• Solid metal body and lens hood
• Smooth and stable aperture, focus, and bokeh rings
• Sharper than I expected when shooting f/4 to f/16
• Small and Lightweight
• Useful for video
• Affordable price given the niche market
• Clickless rings work well
• Paint seems to be very scuff-proof

Things I Didn’t Like

• Rather significant learning curve
• Unable to easily mount ND or other filters
• Focusing can be exceptionally challenging, especially when shooting wide open
• No weather proofing

Are There Alternatives?

The Petzval lenses are a very niche style with the only real rival for something else as unique and interesting as the Lomography lenses would be the Lensbaby lineup, and while Lensbaby has some incredibly fun and interesting products, I don’t believe they have anything that truly competes or compares to the Petzval bokeh patterns, nor this lens’s flexibility or sharpness.

Should You Buy It?

Yes. The Petzval 80.5mm f/1.9 is suitable for both professional as well as creative reasons, and — perhaps most importantly — it’s just a blast to shoot.

Leica recently introduced its $2,795 Vario-Elmarti-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens, the latest zoom lens for L-Mount systems. It’s not what most would call “cheap,” but it certainly is inexpensive compared to the rest of Leica’s lineup. But does that mean a dip in performance?

The 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has always been one of the most popular zoom lenses because it happens to hit many of the more popular wide to mid focal ranges. As such, it is only natural that Leica would launch one for its own L-Mount system. The closest the company had come before is the 24-90mm f/2.8-4 variable aperture lens which, while sharp, is not able to reach f/2.8 at anything other than the widest angle.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 joins the Sigma and Panasonic 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms for L-mount and puts fans of the system in an unusual place for photographers: they have an abundance of choice at the same focal lengths for the same mount from the three first-party companies that support it.

Leica’s offering is by no means “cheap,” but it is one of the least expensive lenses that carries the Vario name. Leica has stated that this lens has an “excellent price to performance ratio” that provides Leica enthusiasts an opportunity to upgrade to the SL system. It is worth noting that like the other two 24-70mm f/2.8 options, the Leica 24-70mm has no image stabilization (IS) built into the lens; all three companies seem satisfied with relying solely on sensor-shift stabilization with this particular zoom range.

The benefit of not including the optical IS means that the weight of the lens is reduced (it weighs 856 grams or 1.9 pounds) and, as noted, it should not be much of an issue since most of the L-mount systems have stabilized sensors (IBIS). Leica fans might note that the lens has a “Made in Japan” note etched into its exterior, while the rest of the SL lenses have all been “Made in Germany” along with most — if not all — of Leica’s other L-mount and M-mount optics.

Side by side, the Leica 24-70mm is very similar to the Sigma 24-70mm with the focus and zoom rings appearing to be practically identical. The main visible differences lie in the shape and material of the lens hoods, the shape of the barrel near the mount, and the solid metal frame used in the Leica lens. Sigma also offers customizable buttons on its lens, which Leica does not.

The visual similarities have led to speculation that this is just a re-housed Sigma lens, and while this is certainly a discussion worth having, we think we’ll save that for a separate “PetaPixel Compares” story. For now, we’ll focus on the merits of the Leica lens alone. Even if the optics are the same as within the Sigma lens, the Leica version does have a slight advantage in the durability department that comes from having a metal housing. It is also slightly heavier than the Sigma lens as a result.

Build Quality and Design

Speaking of the metal exterior, its inclusion makes the 24-70mm f/2.8 look just like the rest of the SL zoom lens lineup, is weather-sealed, and has a metal lens hood. The other L-mount zooms from Leica all have plastic lens hoods, so its inclusion here is a nice touch. The Vario-Elmarti-SL lens doesn’t have any buttons or switches that many have come to expect on zoom lenses for autofocus and manual focus switching, focus lock, or zoom locks. Instead, the lens can simply override the autofocus by touching the manual focus ring. This is a nice feature while mounted on the SL2, however, when mounted on non-Leica L-Mount systems, the lack of AF/MF control could be considered a missing feature.

Image Quality

The image quality from Leica Vario-Elmarti-SL 24-70mm F/2.8 lens is top-notch. It is quite sharp from minimum to maximum apertures and focal lengths, with a minimal amount of fall off around the corners.

Focus and Aperture

Autofocus was quite a pleasant experience with the Leica 24-70mm, and as a bit of a teaser to our comparison to the Sigma lens, I found that every aspect of Leica’s lens responded faster than Sigma’s on the SL2. Leica told us that it expected performance to be better with a Leica to Leica interaction, and while I admit I wasn’t quite sure I believed that then, I certainly believe it now.

Still, even with the faster performance on the Leica 24-70mm, I will say that the contrast-based autofocus system that Leica uses on its SL2 makes it unsuitable for capturing high-speed motion like other full-frame mirrorless systems. It’s speedier than other options, but the camera is simply limited by the contrast-only autofocus.

That being said, the minimum focus distance of just 7.08 inches (18 centimeters) is quite nice, and it allows you to get quite close to your subjects for some gorgeous bokeh and fall off when shooting wide open.

One last note on using the lens: while the optics seem great, I struggled with the accuracy of the camera system. Perhaps I’m spoiled by the excellent autofocus capabilities of Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Fujifilm, or even Olympus, but the contrast-only system on the Leica felt more like it was fighting me than helping. I had difficulty nailing focus where I wanted it and that may be evident in the sample images below. Some people really like this system, but I struggled. Even in our review of the camera which was overwhelmingly positive, statements about the problems with autofocus were very clearly mentioned.

Sample Images

Best for Leica

I am just as surprised as many of you reading this to report that yes, the Leica Vario-Elmarti-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens does actually perform better on Leica cameras than other L-mount lens options do. While we will delve deeper into the differences between this lens and the Sigma at a later date, this fact alone may be enough to prove it’s not simply “rehoused.”

Even though the “Made in Japan” on the barrel of the lens may be a slight deterrent to some Leica purists out there, the quality of the images, superb build, and faster autofocus than other options make it worthwhile to add to your kit. Video shooters will also find great value in this lens with its constant aperture and useful focal range, which allows for the creation of some unique focus/zoom pulls that cannot be achieved when working with prime lenses.

What I Liked

• Solid metal build feels sturdier than the competing lenses
• Decently fast autofocus, and an improvement over Sigma’s on the SL2
• Colors seemed natural and accurate requiring minimal (if any) adjustments
• Weather sealed
• Great image quality at all focal lengths and apertures for both landscapes and portraits

What I Didn’t Like

• A tad bit weighty despite no optical stabilization
• While more affordable than Leica usually is, it’s still expensive compared to the field
• Missing AF/MF and Zoom/Focus lock buttons.

Are There Alternatives?

If you are looking for a non-Leica 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens for the L-Mount, the Panasonic LUMIX S PRO 24-70mm F/2.8 Lens ($2,198), and the SIGMA 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art ($1,059) are available and both offer some significant savings. In 2020, we tested both models against the field of 24-70mm options and found the Sigma and Panasonic to be exceptional, so you can rest easy and know that both are solid options.

If you are considering this lens because you currently shoot Leica and want to know if it’s worth the extra money, I want to reiterate that I found the autofocus performance on Leica’s 24-70mm to be superior to Sigma’s when used with a Leica camera. That may be enough of a reason to stick with Leica, but it is really up to you if the faster autofocus and metal build are worth the $1500 price difference.

Should You Buy It?

If you already own an SL2 or SL2-S, yes. Let’s face it, if you already have a Leica system, you are not going to think twice about paying a little higher than “average” to stick with lenses and accessories made specifically for the camera. In this case, you have a practical reason to do so beyond just aesthetics.

All other L-mount fans might want to go with the more affordable Sigma or Panasonic versions.

Editor’s note: Special thanks to Lensrentals for providing PetaPixel with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art for L-Mount for the purpose of this review and forthcoming comparisons.

If you own an iPad and an Apple Pencil, there are several ways to pair them with your computer and transform them into a high-quality pen display for photo editing. There’s Apple’s own Sidecar feature, the popular app Astropad, the hardware-assisted option Luna Display, and the “made by ex-Apple engineers” Duet Pro. I wanted to see which of these options offers the most features and the best experience for the photographer on the go.

Not that long ago, editing your photos with a pressure-sensitive pen on a high-resolution display meant shelling out thousands of dollars for one of Wacom’s Cintiq Pro products. Even now, with more affordable, lower-resolution options available from Wacom and several of its competitors, you’re still coughing up a significant amount of cash for a unitasker of a product that is often too bulky and inconvenient to take with you to a coffee shop or set up on the tray table in an airplane.

From that perspective, an iPad feels like the perfect alternative. It’s small, it’s lightweight, it boasts a high-resolution screen with good color accuracy, and it offers a great pen experience thanks to the Apple Pencil.

The question is: how do you do it? If you’re a Mac user, is Apple’s built-in Sidecar feature good enough? What about PC users, what can they use? And is Luna Display—the only option that uses a hardware dongle to “trick” your computer into thinking the iPad is a true blue second screen—miles better than the competition? We got our hands on all four options to find out.

When Apple introduced Sidecar in June of 2019, a lot of people watching thought it was the end of third-party options like Astropad and Luna Display. Why would you pay someone else for a feature Apple was now including free of charge? As it turns out, there are a few good reasons why you might want to do just that.

Firstly, if you’re a Windows user, Sidecar is out by default — the feature is only available on Mac.

Secondly, you need a relatively new iPad and a relatively new Mac in order to make it work… something I found out the hard way when I wanted to try Sidecar on my mid-2015 Retina MacBook Pro. You need a MacBook Pro released in 2016 or newer, a MacBook Air released in 2018 or newer, or an iMac released in late 2015 or newer. You also need an iPad Pro, a third-generation iPad Air, a fifth-generation iPad Mini, or a regular iPad that’s six-generation or later. You can find a full breakdown of compatible hardware here.

Finally, while Apple did nail the basics with Sidecar, as you might expect, they locked it down pretty tightly after that. The shortcut keys on the sidebar can’t be modified, there is no control over pen pressure curves, you can’t program your own shortcuts, and there are only a few basic gestures for pinch, swipe, and zoom. True, the iPadOS text editing gestures for undo and redo aren’t limited to text, but they’re not well suited for photo editing: both are three-finger swiping gestures, so when I tried to use them in Photoshop, I ended up sending my canvas off-screen by accident at least 50 percent of the time.

If these things aren’t deal-breakers, Sidecar is admittedly a pretty sweet deal. After all, it is free, and since it’s a part of Apple’s walled garden it performs flawlessly whether you’re plugged in or connecting over WiFi. In fact, of the options I tested, it’s the most stable over wireless. It’s just limited by Apple, for Apple, and that’s going to be a pain if you really want to customize your photo editing experience with additional shortcuts, advanced multi-touch gestures, or other useful features like pen pressure curves.

Pros

• No setup required: included in MacOS and iPadOS
• Best wireless connection of the bunch
• Full Apple Pencil support
• Pinch, zoom, and swipe support
• Can be used to mirror or as a secondary display
• It’s free (if you own compatible hardware)

Cons

• Little to no customizability
• Poorly optimized multi-touch gestures for Undo and Redo
• No pen pressure or other nice-to-have drawing features
• No Windows support
• Not supported on older iPads and Mac computers

Astropad is the maker of two of today’s third-party alternatives. There’s Luna Display, which we’ll talk about in a second, and the company’s namesake app Astropad.

Astropad works just like Sidecar. There is no hardware dongle necessary: just download the Astropad app on the Mac and on your iPad, and you can connect over WiFi or over a USB cable. As of March, you can also download the public beta of Astropad for Windows, code-named Project Blue, which makes this our first cross-platform option.

Unlike Sidecar, Astropad is not free. You can pick up Astropad Standard for a one-time fee of $30, or Astropad Studio (which is what we were testing) for $80 per year or $12 per month.

This is very much a “good news, bad news” situation. The good news is that Astropad includes a ton of additional gestures, unlimited shortcut sets that can be customized by app, the ability to create custom pressure curves, and much much more, all incredibly useful and user-friendly. The bad news is that you’ll have to subscribe to Astropad Studio to get most of these benefits.

Astropad Standard lacks pressure curve customization, support for unlimited shortcut sets, “Magic Gestures,” on-screen keyboard, and external keyboard support.

Losing Magic Gestures is particularly painful because they’re so useful. These gestures allow you to set one, two, and three-finger taps (and holds) to various useful shortcuts like Undo, Redo, Eraser, and “Hover”—an extremely useful feature that lets you move the mouse around with your pencil without activating the click at the same time.

Both versions use the same intuitive user-friendly UI with useful shortcuts that change based on your app, and both use the same tech to connect over WiFi or wired in over USB. Wired in, the latency is rock solid at three to six milliseconds. Over WiFi, it ranged from a best of nine milliseconds to a max of over 150 milliseconds when the connection faltered or there was a lot going on. The average danced around 30 to 50 milliseconds, jumping up to slower speeds when you tried something new and then settling in between 10 and 15 milliseconds whenever there was less action on the screen.

Neither version can be used as a secondary display: even if you shell out for the Studio version, you can only mirror your display.

Finally, both versions of the app are more broadly compatible than Sidecar. Astropad works with any Mac running MacOS 10.11 El Capitan or newer and allows you to use slightly older iPad hardware as well.

In short: Astropad Studio is leaps and bounds better than Sidecar, with way more customizations and the best UI of the bunch. But at $12 per month or $80 per year, these benefits come at a steep price. Astropad Standard, meanwhile, is a hard sell unless you have an older Mac that isn’t compatible with Apple Sidecar. I do still like the UI better than Sidecar, but without the useful Magic Gestures and/or the ability to create customized shortcuts for various apps, I’m not sure it’s worth the $30.

Pros

• Seamless setup and connectivity
• Works wired or wireless
• Intuitive UI
• Support for older Macs and iPads
• Support for Windows (currently in Beta)
• Customizable pressure curves (Astropad Studio only)
• Useful “Magic Gestures” for things like Eraser, Undo, and Hover (Astropad Studio only)
• Support for unlimited shortcut sets (Astropad Studio only)

Cons

• On screen menu “dot” can get in the way
• Mirror mode only, can’t be used as a second display
• Astropad Standard offers very little to justify upgrading from Sidecar
• Astropad Studio is very expensive

Also made by the folks at Astropad, Luna Display is the only option on our list that uses a hardware dongle instead of relying exclusively on WiFi or a USB connection. It’s been available for Mac for some time now — in USB-C and MiniDisplay Port variants — and is currently available for pre-order for Windows as USB-C or HDMI.

On the one hand, this allows Luna to “trick” your computer into thinking it’s using a real, secondary display. The dongle receives a display signal from your iPad or another computer and communicates that signal over DisplayPort protocol. On the other hand, it gives you one more tiny dongle to carry around and potentially lose in the bowels of your backpack or camera bag.

Personally, I didn’t mind the dongle, and the extra tricks that it enables make Luna the most versatile option of the bunch. Not only does it allow you to turn an iPad into a second display with full touch and Apple Pencil support, it can also turn another Mac into a second display, or use your iPad as the main display for your Mac mini in what’s called “headless” mode.

The same features will be available on Windows once that variant of Luna is ready to ship.

I also found that the experience — whether wired in with an extra cable, or wireless over WiFi — was equivalent to Astropad Studio… which is to say, good. I still experienced some stuttering when performing heavy tasks over WiFi, but had zero problems on long photo editing sessions when I plugged in the iPad over USB. The downside here, of course, is that I was already sacrificing one USB-C port to the Luna Display dongle itself, so plugging in the iPad meant giving up another precious port.

For photographers, the main downside of Luna Display is that Luna was designed first and foremost as a way to turn an iPad into a second display. As such, pen and touch capabilities take a backseat. It doesn’t feature any of the shortcuts you’ll find in Astropad Studio, no Magic Gestures, multi-touch support is limited to pinch-to-zoom and swipe, and customizability is pretty much limited to display arrangement and resolution.

Astropad apparently knows that this might be an issue for some users, which is why you can actually use Astropad and Luna together if you’re fortunate (or loaded) enough to own both. Plug in Luna and turn on Astropad, and you now get Astropad’s intuitive and full-featured drawing UI on your iPad as a second screen, using the Luna dongle to essentially bypass Astropad’s “mirror mode only” limitation.

That’s great, but I can’t sit here and recommend that you purchase a $130 Luna Display and pay $80/year for Astropad Studio, even if that does provide the best photo editing experience on an iPad. It’s simply too much money. As it stands, I’d recommend Astropad over Luna, and both of them together over anything else, but I can’t tell you that it’s worth $210 plus $80 per year for as long as you both shall live.

Pros

• Quick and easy setup
• Works wired or wireless
• Available with USB-C, MiniDisplay Port, or HDMI dongle
• Windows version available for pre-order
• Support for older Macs and iPads
• Support for “Mac to Mac” and “Headless” modes, not just iPad to Mac
• Can be used in tandem with Astropad
• Can be used to mirror or as a secondary display

Cons

• Limited gesture support
• No shortcut support
• Hardware dongle is easy to misplace or lose
• Using it wired means giving up two ports
• The most expensive option at $130

Duet Display is the last entry in our roundup, and it comes in three flavors: Duet, Duet Air, and Duet Pro.

Duet and Duet Air are limited to using your iPad as a second display or remote desktop (Duet Air only), with no proper Apple Pencil support. As such, they’re not considered here. Our contender is Duet Pro, which will cost you $30 per year and includes all of the important drawing features we’re looking for like support for pen pressure and tilt, line smoothing, and multi-touch gestures.

Duet Pro is like Astropad Studio if Astropad Studio could turn your iPad into a secondary display. Like Astropad, it offers lots of useful gestures, lets you customize your pen pressure curve, and is optimized to work with photo editing and illustration applications. Unlike Astropad, it’s not limited to mirroring your computer’s screen. It’s also the only option that already offers full support for Windows and has for some time—no betas, no ‘pre-order,’ you’re good to go.

Of the four options tested here, Duet Pro was probably the least reliable for me. It threw the most glitches, stuttered the most over a wireless connection, and once froze my computer solid when I tried to adjust the resolution from System Preferences instead of the Duet desktop app. Don’t get me wrong, most of the time Duet Pro worked flawlessly, but I have to mention the few glitches I experienced because the other three options were all so stable.

Minor issues aside, Duet Pro matched Astropad Studio and Luna Display step for step in terms of the smoothness of its wired and wireless connection. I opted for wired most of the time for the sake of mitigating latency but could use it wirelessly in a pinch with no problem.

As far as customization and UI, it’s not quite as full-featured or user-friendly as Astropad Studio. You can still change the pressure curve, and there are some useful shortcuts and gestures like two-finger tap to undo and one finger hold to hover, but the app’s menu is sort of “hidden” and the UI takes some getting used to.

The one place where it beats Astropad outright is compatibility. Duet Pro is compatible with Macs running anything from MacOS 10.9 onward, and any iPad running iOS 10 or later will work; and, as I already mentioned, it’s already fully compatible with Windows as well.

Overall, Duet Pro is a good option if you’re a Windows user and/or can’t stomach the cost of Astropad Studio. At $30/year, it’s certainly a lot cheaper than AstroPad. But the features aren’t quite as polished and the UI isn’t on the same level, making it a harder sell if you have access to Sidecar or you’re willing to wait for Astropad to release the full version of Astropad Studio for Windows later this year.

Pros

• Easy setup
• Fully compatible with both Mac and Windows
• Works wired or wireless
• No hardware dongle required
• Can be used to mirror or as a secondary display
• Customizable pressure curve
• Useful multi-touch gestures
• Cheaper than Astropad Studio

Cons

• More glitchy than Astropad or Luna Display
• UI can be a bit confusing
• No custom shortcuts
• Subscription only

And the winner is…

Best Overall: Astropad Studio

For the most full-featured experience with the best support for photo editing and illustration with the Apple Pencil, choose Astropad Studio. Duet Pro can’t match the sheer customizability of Astropad, and if you wind up getting a Luna Display down the road, you can use the two together for the ultimate photo editing experience on an iPad.

There’s simply no comparison between using Astropad Studio and using Apple’s Sidecar or even Duet Pro. Astropad’s commitment to creators is evident. It’s baked into the DNA of this product through and through and now that it’s coming to Windows, I have no good reason to tell you to choose another option.

I just wish they’d sell something similar as a one-time purchase instead of asking us to pay $80/year for the foreseeable future. That structure should encourage Astropad to keep improving the app year-in and year-out, but it also means that it’s only worth the cost for those photographers who are willing to integrate the app into their professional workflow.

For everybody else…

Best for Most People: Apple Sidecar

For most people, Sidecar is good enough. It has the smoothest performance of the bunch when you’re connected wirelessly, can be used as a mirrored or secondary display, supports full pen pressure and tilt, and gives you the bare-bones shortcuts and multi-touch gestures you need for enthusiast-level photo editing on an iPad.

In other words: it gets the job done.

The customizability is lacking, compatibility is limited to new-ish computers and iPads, and it will never be available to Windows users. If that disqualifies you, consider spending the $30 on Astropad Standard or checking out Project Blue. But if you own compatible hardware and you don’t consider yourself a power user who plans to use the iPad for serious photo editing, stick to Sidecar. Your wallet will thank you.

I shot the photo above during a visit to Zermatt in October 2020. It was my fifth time there, and the second time the weather had been clear enough to allow me to see the famous mountain. The first time I saw this scene, in May 2019, I knew immediately it was a photo. I mean, I knew immediately it was an interesting photo.

I’m attracted to this kind of landscape photography, which I feel is a lot more grounded in the reality of the modern landscape than traditional landscape photography¹.

I only had my iPhone (5C) with me the first time, so I took a photo to make a note of the scene assuming I would come back to it at some point with a camera designed for shooting scenes like this.

That turned out to be 18 months later, resulting in the photo you see at the top, and I had a dedicated camera with me and not just my phone.

Is all that necessary though? If you’re (mis)representing what the landscape really looks like does it matter what you take the photo with? If I had shot this with an 8×10 large format camera with Fuji Velvia slide film and the image included the verification borders would it be more meaningful? Or would that be way too meta?²

It took about 20 minutes to shoot the above image, as I waited patiently for the steady stream of other photographers and tourists to leave the scene. Each one of them wandering up to the edge of the concrete barrier to get a view of the mountain unpolluted by all that concrete. Unobstructed, free from distractions, free from the truth of what it really looks like at the Gornergrat top station.

What I’m trying to express is that, like nearly all photography, most landscape photography is a lie. When I shoot landscapes my first priority is the composition, and if that should happen to include man-made elements then even better. Because, as is probably self-evident, that’s what most of these landscapes actually look like. There are millions of photographs of the Matterhorn, most of which are taken from this place, or a short walk from the train stop one below this one. Yet 99.9% of them feature no discernible evidence of human involvement.

Whenever I’m out shooting landscapes I’ve always got a scene from Takahata Isao’s “Only Yesterday” in my mind; in which Taeko, wanting to escape the city and get back to nature, comes to realize that the “natural” landscape is entirely man-made and man-managed. It is no more natural than the city she was trying to escape, she had fallen for a type of learned idealism about the countryside. Call it nostalgia perhaps?

Hasselblad

Nostalgia can be a powerful thing, and of course extremely lucrative. Hasselblad’s latest camera, the 907x + CFV II 50c, has nostalgia written all over it; from the limited edition fifty years on the moon edition, to the ad campaigns for the standard edition featuring an old guy, his record player, vintage car, and 501cm – a camera body that hasn’t been manufactured in over 15 years.

Watching that I can’t help but feel like it’s screaming TARGET MARKET at me, as I sit here in front of my ever-growing record collection, with my MINI downstairs in the garage, and my 202FA and 203FE Hasselblad cameras in the other room – those not having been manufactured in 18 and 16 years respectively.

Anyway, I thought about this for a while, and given that Hasselblad staggered the release of the camera, it gave me time to think some more. I’ve written about the quirks of using Hasselblad cameras previously, and this camera is not cheap. $6,399. That’s a lot of money to spend on something that will be full of compromises from the offset. It’s a lot of money to spend on anything. I wasn’t going to purchase this thing. It’s too expensive given the compromises. However, I ended up making quite a large profit on, ironically, selling a load of old film. That covered more than half of the cost of the camera, so I figured why not.

Yes, I bought this camera. It’s not a loaner. I intend to keep it. I wanted to use this camera for at least six months before coming to some sort of opinion on it, rather than rushing any sort of “review” out for clicks. Medium format cameras take time to get comfortable with, to get used to working around those compromises. It’s now been almost a year so I thought I should explain what those are.

So yes. A seven thousand Swiss franc camera. What will its quirks and annoyances be? What is the reality of using this new old tech?

Working Fast

Fast here is relative. I mean, if you’re used to shooting with a modern camera from just about any other manufacturer this camera is not fast. Not at all. It is slow to compose with due to its awkward ergonomics, slow to focus, slow to process, slow to navigate with its largely driven touch screen interface. But on the flip side, if you’re used to shooting with a large-format camera then all of those slow things suddenly seem light speed. So it’s all relative.

The fastest way you’re going to use this camera, and the most seamless way, is with a dedicated X lens. I held off on getting one of those for the first six months of having this camera but came to realize that the compromises in using it with other lenses were too much for some approaches (see “Slower” below). There are some times in which having that autofocus, higher ISO, and flash capability is necessary.

The X lenses start at expensive and go up to silly prices, but they do add features you won’t be able to get when using this camera with other bodies/lenses. Autofocus (shock!), flash synchronization up to 1/2000 due to their leaf shutters, much more modern rendering, and so on. None of that is really compelling.

What is compelling is that this combination gives you a small, (relatively) lightweight, high resolution, medium format camera, with all of that and is designed to allow you to use it with other camera bodies and lenses when you want to change up your approach. You can also hook this combination up to a computer for tethered shooting for precise focus control/stacking and all that kind of stuff.

I’d been using my older Hasselblad a lot in the local jazz club but was struggling due to the nature of the lighting in there. Pushing my film to 6,400 and shooting wide open at f2 or f2.8. Consequently missing a lot of shots and wasting a lot of film, because that will happen under those conditions. I plan to take along the new camera when the club finally reopens, but that might not be for a while yet. I assume the camera will allow me to work in the same way, shooting low down to isolate musicians against the ceiling – not being a distraction myself to the audience or the musicians. Having enough depth to blur backgrounds.

Also, the highlight and shadow recovery possibilities of this camera are up there with the best, even though the sensor itself is effectively old tech – I can’t remember exactly, but it’s the same as in the first iteration of this back, which was released several years ago. In the above image, I can get all the detail back from the shadows, although I find that doing this looks weird and removes ambiguity. Often you want areas of little or no detail, but it’s nice to have a choice. When I am pushing film to 6,400 I don’t have the option to recover those shadows, here I do.

As a walk-around camera, the camera is… OK. It hangs a bit awkwardly over your shoulder due to the odd balance. The touchscreen is nice at first but in reality a faff, and changing settings with a prod/touch/swipe becomes annoying if you’re working in changeable light. Maybe it’s best to stick auto ISO on and a minimum shutter speed to avoid having to change those all the time? No built-in viewfinder makes precise composition difficult. No worries though, frame loose and crop in post since you have a lot of resolution to play with. It feels most a lot like an SWC.

In a mid to low light setting this combination is fine. Take it out into bright daylight and you’ll soon discover the biggest weakness; the screen is absolutely terrible in bright light, shadows will look three, four, five stops underexposed, even completely black, until you check the histogram after taking the shot to learn the exposure was spot on.

The screen in bright daylight is the biggest flaw in this setup I find, and you’ll be trying to emulate having a dark cloth so you can see the composition, focus, and exposure correctly in many situations. If Hasselblad eventually releases an electronic viewfinder attachment for this camera I would deem it essential when using this combination.

Working Slow

Slow here is relative too, of course, and this is where the nostalgia starts to kick in. The CFV back is designed to allow it to attach it to almost any of Hasselblad’s legacy V bodies. Some of these cameras are now seventy years old. The one here is a mere twenty years old, it comes from the period when Hasselblad was trying to add “modern” features to their V line:

Most of the time I don’t bother with a tripod when using the above combination, and the body being a 200 series gives me built-in metering. This is about as close to point-and-shoot as you can get with a Hasselblad V series camera – assuming you want accurate exposures. All of the work you see on the front page of this site, with the exception of the panoramics, was shot with this camera – none of it studio-based. And when you use this combination with the new digital back you quickly start to find the compromises.

The first is obviously the crop factor of the digital back. The V cameras are “6×6”, about 56mm x 56mm. The back is 44mm x 33mm. So a) no longer square, b) cropped enough to make your standard lens now a telephoto lens. Eh, that’s not a big problem. Want square? Crop the crop. Need a wider angle? Walk back a few dozen steps. You will need a crop guideline for your focusing screen, and that is included with the CFV, or you could buy a replacement screen for a few hundred more Swiss Francs. Or you can take my low-tech approach and use a marker pen.

On the subject of focus screens – get yourself one with a split image (optional micro-prism) feature, if you don’t have one already, as that will help significantly. The slightest misfocus with the camera will be obvious in the recorded images, such is the nature of an SLR camera with parts that can ever-so-slightly go out of alignment, waist-level finders (which aren’t really supposed to be used for critical focus), and age-related eye issues – the aforementioned old guy almost certainly doesn’t have perfect eyesight anymore.

There’s a reason why mirrorless is becoming the norm with high-resolution digital sensor cameras. When you have a big flapping piece of metal/glass right next to the sensor it turns out that can be bad for sharpness. This is quite evident when using the CFV with a V camera. Combine that with the focal plane shutter in the 200 series bodies and you have even more large moving parts that add vibration.

I quickly discovered that, with the high resolution of the digital back, I need to approximately double the focal length when using the camera handheld to account for mirror vibration. This means with the standard 80mm lens I need 1/125, or better 1/250 minimum. Yes this was always an issue even on film but no you didn’t see it due to the inherent differences in the medium (film has grain, it increases apparent sharpness); and yes there will be those who say they can handhold down to 1/15 and still achieve sharp images because they’ve perfected their technique and blah blah blah but no they’re talking nonsense: there is a great big flapping piece of glass in this camera when you fire the shutter, no amount of technique can negate that.

Stick the camera on a tripod and use mirror lock-up, or live view with the electronic shutter, and you reduce that requirement significantly. Live view will allow you to confirm accurate focus as well. Of course, that is not how I use this combination 90% of the time. It also has other limitations we will get to later.

The final issues are not really issues but worth mentioning: dust. You would think moving from a film to digital workflow would cut down on that but no. It’s probably about the same since these old cameras are in no way sealed enough to prevent dust from getting in them. If you’re switching and swapping the digital back around you’re going to make the problem worse. Most dust can be dealt with trivially by a rocket air blower, more stubborn dust with a sensor cleaning kit. At worst you fix it in post.

The quality of the older Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses? A lot of photographers will use euphemisms to describe them, like “character”. I’ll call it as it is: most of them are nowhere near as good as newer dedicated lenses. The old ones are not optimized for a digital sensor, show chromatic aberration, color issues, aren’t that sharp, can have contrast issues in difficult light, blah blah blah, it doesn’t really matter anyway. They’re good enough for 99.9% of use cases, and that other 0.1% is probably someone shooting MTF and color charts then posting the images at full resolution in forums and blog posts to argue over the differences. Nobody cares. Really. Nobody.

There’s a couple of final quirks in using this back with the 200 series cameras – the back recording an image is triggered by a pin in the camera linked to the shutter button. The same button can be used to take a meter reading without firing the shutter, so you can end up with lots of blank frames if you work that way (which I do). Also, the 200 series meters only go up to 6400 ISO, whereas the back can go to 25,600 meaning if you’re shooting at that you need to also set the 200 series body to underexpose by 2 stops. There is no electronic synchronization with the 200 series bodies, so changing ISOs can, again, be a bit of a faff (back and body). Minor issues.

Slower

If you don’t want to attach the CFV II 50c back to an existing Hasselblad camera, or any other camera for that matter (which we will get to) and you don’t want to purchase one of the dedicated X lenses, which are quite expensive, you can keep the 907x shim and put a lens adaptor on the front.

Hasselblad is making these adaptors for their own existing lens range, XPan, V, H, and you can pick up third-party adaptors for many other lens brands. I’ll leave you to find those, just know they exist. The prerequisite is that the lens you are attaching has a large enough image circle to cover the 44x33mm sensor, which generally shouldn’t be too much of a constraint – the sensor isn’t that much bigger than a full-frame 35mm sensor.

Since I have an XPan I picked up the XPan lens adaptor, which goes for one-tenth of the price of the cheapest dedicated X lens. You can see how this might be a compelling use case for the camera if you have more than a couple of lenses.

The lens doesn’t even need to have a built-in shutter, which the XPan lenses don’t, as using the camera in this way requires you to use the electronic shutter of the digital back. That itself results in some restrictions: your maximum ISO will be 3200, you won’t be able to use flash, and the scanning nature of the shutter means you won’t really be able to shoot anything moving faster than a walking pace.

The main issue you will perhaps see using older lenses is the same as I’ve already mentioned – their quality may not be up to what the 50MP back can capture. Again, do you care? Again, probably not, if you do then pick up one of the dedicated X lenses. A lot of the issues are fixable in post anyway, at least to some degree.

I ended up using this combination, the back + shim + an XPan lens for the first few months with the camera, as I didn’t see the need to purchase an X lens. I had 45mm and 90mm XPan lenses and they seem to work very well. The above image was shot on the Col de Planches, after one of the best years for autumn colors in a long time.

Then I managed to capture the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, with an eight-minute-long exposure. This image is cropped for the panoramic format but also cropped more for composition, as the 90mm was too tight and the 45mm was too wide. Despite the heavy crop, this photo printed very nicely at 60cm on the long edge, that resolution proving its worth.

The biggest compromise in using the camera in this way, with old lenses and an adaptor, is the focus flow and shutter scan speed. Since you have to use manual focus, you need to use the 100% view on the screen to confirm focus, or you need to use focus peaking, which may not be good enough for you. So: zoom to 100%, focus, focus, focus some more, zoom back out, compose, shoot. A little cumbersome.

One last image shot after dark, in the rain – the camera is not weather-sealed so I went with a plastic bag. It seemed to do the job. I probably wouldn’t want to use this combination in anything more than very light rain, and not without some sort of protection:

The shutter scan speed is more of a problem. The electronic shutter takes 0.3s to scan across the entire frame, meaning moving subjects are difficult to capture. If you’re using this combination handheld you’re probably going to see artifacts from that. Really you want to put this on a tripod, and as I’ve already said I don’t really work that way. Although to be fair it seems I am increasingly working that way…

Slowest

The CFV II 50c harkens back to the beginnings of photography and the camera obscura: It’s just a thing that can display and optionally record an image. If you can attach it to something that is light tight with an opening on the front, and that something on the front can focus, then you can use it.

That light-tight thing in this case happens to be my Toyo-Field 45AII, a large format camera. These tend to be cumbersome to transport and use, although that depends on your approach. Here I am out snowboarding having taken the camera, tripod, and all the other necessary stuff to shoot an image with this thing. With the exception of the tripod, all this stuff fits in the small green backpack you see. So cumbersome is also relative.

To attach the back to the camera you need an adaptor – in this case, a Graflok compatible adaptor that features an in-built shift control. This is quite nice, since using movements is 99% of the purpose of a large-format camera for me. You focus and compose on the ground glass, get your movements in place, and then replace the ground glass with the adaptor. Unfortunately, the back is slightly recessed so you end up having to refocus: Compromise number one.

And you are only getting a small section of the frame you composed – the back’s sensor is about one-tenth of the area of the 4×5” frame. So your effective focal length is significantly increased. A wide-angle 4×5” lens (say 90mm) becomes a telephoto with the digital back: Compromise number two.

But you can gain some of this back by stitching together images. The image below is made up of nine frames, shot with my 150mm lens and then stitched in post. This is trivial to do with software these days.

The coverage of the frame even with stitching still doesn’t come close to the full 4×5” frame, it’s about 75%: Compromise number three. Note that since the image is stitched the resolution is significantly increased. Not that you really need more resolution here, but there it is.

Stitching seems like a nice solution until you do start to pixel peep, at which point you might find that subtle movements in your, er, movements can lead to changes in the plane of focus and you end up with a final composition that has sharp and unsharp sections. Here’s a 100% crop from the above image, can you see the problems? Where one frame from the stitch was ever so slightly out of focus? This is the problem in using this back with a traditional large format camera, there is enough play in the mechanisms such that when you rise/fall/shift you can introduce subtle errors in focus.

Given the above, you may have realized that getting a wide-angle shot with the back on a 4×5” camera is difficult, and worse is compounded by a final issue – even if you do have wide-angle lenses, and even if you can get enough movement to stitch enough frames to claw back enough of the frame, you’re going to have color fringing issues. 4×5” wide angle lenses are not optimized for digital sensors, it’s pure physics. If you want to have true wide-angle, you will need to purchase digital optimized lenses: Compromise number four. This is correctable in post however, so not a big one.

Oh, and I haven’t yet mentioned diffraction reducing sharpness if you stop down to more than about f/22. Compromise number five.

So yes, it seems using this back with an adaptor on any existing film 4×5” kit you have is going to be one long list of compromises. So will I continue to do it? Almost certainly. Using a 4×5” kit with film is already a long list of compromises, not least of which is the ever-increasing expense in shooting film. A box of 20 sheets of Velvia is now selling for about $100+. If I save ten boxes in using the back here I’ve already covered one-third of the cost of the Hasselblad setup³. That is pretty compelling.

So What Next?

I will probably shoot far less film than I used to, although this has never been an issue. The camera to me is a tool to inform your approach, the medium it records on is not really important. The approach with this camera is different from others, and that is the reason to use it.

There will be many who don’t see the point of this camera, and state that any of the above images could have been shot on another with far fewer compromises and far more advantages. Well yes: just look at the top image in this blog post and then the one I link to in the second paragraph, which was shot on an iPhone 5C. The same place, the same composition, the same idea. In fact, I think the photo shot on the iPhone is better. If you don’t understand why then you’re probably more of a technologist than a photographer, you’re looking hard but at all the wrong things.

The reality of using this setup is one of the compromises. Lots in some ways, few in others. But it’s another way of seeing, and that should be embraced. Another reality of that this setup is the huge benefit if you are already invested in a Hasselblad system (V/H/Xpan/X), a view camera, or some other system that would work with it. Or if you plan to be invested in one of those. If you’re not invested and don’t plan to be, then the compromises don’t outweigh the benefits and you probably want to look elsewhere.

I will still happily burn through an entire roll of film, at least in smaller formats, in a couple of minutes on a single shot if necessary; like the one below, when we returned to Zermatt for a sixth time in March 2021. I was snowboarding around Zermatt’s pistes, with my XPan around my neck – something I’m not quite ready to do with the 907x/CFV II 50c…

^{1 Originally I had the word “traditional” in quotes here, trying to emphasize that I’m referring to what most people think of as landscape photography. The landscape has changed significantly since the time of Adams, et al, and the photography of the landscape should probably reflect that. Even Adams would occasionally include human elements in his photographs.}

^{And of course a lot of that changed in the 70s/80s with Shore, Sternfeld, et al, who shot the landscape with large format, intentionally included many human elements, even visiting the places Adams had to show what they now looked like. You can’t shoot this kind of photo now without referencing them, who in turn were referencing those who came before.}

^{My maths isn’t bad here: 20 sheets of Velvia: 100 Swiss Francs (where I live). Cost of developing 20 sheets: 124 CHF. That’s 224 CHF (~$250) in total. So the cost of this camera is (currently) equivalent to about 600 sheets of 4×5” Fuji Velvia + development costs. A film that’s probably going to be much more expensive soon, if not discontinued.}

About the author: Lee Johnson is a photographer and software developer based in Switzerland. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Johnson has been a contributing photographer to several print and online magazines in the past and is now working on a few long-term photographic projects. You can find more of his work on GitHub, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. This article was also published here.

Image credits: Header photo “Concrete Chocolate Mountain, Oct 2020. Xpan 45mm/907x”

Since Apple launched the M1, software developers have been racing to release new versions of applications to take advantage of its new architecture, with the most recent update coming from the Capture One Pro team. But just how much of an improvement should be expected from native support?

According to the product release notes, Capture One Pro version 14.2 promises significant improvements to performance with the optimized native software with imports up to two times faster and asset management time improved by 50-percent. The company also states that generating previews, editing, and processing “has the capacity to be up to 100-percent faster.”

After rigorous testing, I can confirm this to be mostly true.

The Test

To test the various promises that Capture One Pro says its new version offers, I gave the program a sample set of 100 Sony Alpha 7R IV RAW files and 150 Phase One medium format RAW files (Phase One XF with the IQ3 100-megapixel back). These were used in a series of imports and exports in both session and catalog settings on Capture One Pro version 14.1.1.63 and 14.2.0.136 and were run on a late 2020 model M1 Mac Mini with 16 gigabytes of RAM and a 2 terabyte SSD Drive. Every benchmark is the average of at least three consecutive runs to adjust for any inconsistencies.

The Results

First up was the export of 100 Sony a7R IV files in 100-percent JPEG and 16-bit TIFF output, and the results were impressive. On the previous, non-native version of Capture One Pro, that export of the Sony files took 412.5 seconds, while the new native M1 version did the same export in just 304.7 seconds, for a difference of 107.8 seconds.

The TIFF export test for the Sony files produced similar results, with the previous version of Capture One exporting 16-bit files in 371.1 seconds and the M1 version exporting the same files in just 282.5 seconds for a difference of 88.6 seconds.

After multiple rounds of testing, the Sony file exports averaged an improvement of between 30 and 35-percent, which is pretty close to what the company claims in the release notes.

With the medium format Phase One photos, I found similar results. Exporting 150 100-percent JPEGS in the previous version of Capture One resulted in an average export time of 1,360 seconds when the M1 version did the same job in just 1,008.6 seconds for a difference of 351.4 seconds. The 16-bit TIFF export test on the previous version of Capture One completed in 1,236.2 seconds and the M1 version finishing in only 934.2 seconds for a difference of 301.99 seconds.

Once again, after multiple rounds of testing, the medium format file exports averaged an improvement of between 30 to 35-percent. From my perspective, the operations were looking pretty consistent throughout the rest of the application and general editing. As the company claims, operations feel faster and smoother in the latest Capture One Pro…

…that is until you look at import and preview generation speeds.

Importing images in Capture One has always been impressively fast compared to other RAW processing engines, but in a notable twist, the background preview generation for our test files in the M1 version of Capture One Pro did not go as expected. Where every other aspect of the app seems to have improved quite significantly — with an average of 30-percent or more speed improvement — preview generation actually got slower.

Over the course of dozens of import and preview generation tests, we were able to consistently see an increase in preview generation time of about 30-percent for both the Sony full-frame RAWs and the Phase One medium format RAWs. You can see the results of these tests in the chart below.

It should be noted that with Capture One, preview generation is categorized as a “background process” that has next to no impact on a photographer’s ability to work with their files. Just like the previous version of Capture One Pro, file imports appear nearly instantaneous, which lets you get to work on them almost immediately. However, the drop in speed of that background process of preview generation had me concerned. Seeing as this behavior was in contradiction with the performance improvements in every other section, we reached out to the Capture One Pro development team for an official statement to be sure it wasn’t just our results seeing this.

“We have seen in our performance tests that while import is faster in Capture One 21 (14.2), preview generation produces mixed results compared to v14.1,” Senior Product Manager Alex Flemming said. “This especially hits images of super high resolution. While preview generation is a background task separated from importing and shouldn’t affect the performance once the images are imported and visible in the browser, it’s still one of the areas where we can improve the general performance in future releases.

“As this is our first version of Capture One with native M1 support, we are still working hard on further enhancements to fully utilize the power of the new ARM architecture the M1 machines are built on. Just like we have improved the codebase for Intel machines over many years, ARM-based machines will also receive improvements in the years to come.”

To summarize, once the images are imported, photographers can just close the progress bar — if it is open — and start working immediately while the preview generation process continues working in the background. While it is slower, many likely won’t notice.

Faster Where You’ll Notice

The comparison of the two versions of Capture One Pro software on the same M1 Mac Mini provided consistent results and showed that, overall, the performance has been significantly improved with the native version of the editor. In testing, we saw an average of between 30 and 35-percent faster speeds in almost every task thrown at the program and can confirm that overall operation of tasks feels smoother and more responsive.

While this version is a welcome and improved update, there is still some room to improve though, as the speed of preview generation took a big hit. Capture One promises to continue to refine the software over time and hopefully resolve this issue as well as continue to improve the speed of the rest of the platform.