Third Party CANON RF Mount Lenses! | Nikon - More Firmware | New Pentax Film Camera &More Matt Irwin
#Creatingnews #canon #sony #nikon
This week in the news round up we take a look at Canon's latest decision around third party lenses, new firmware from Nikon, Sony and their firmware, new lenses and more
The poll is here
/ @mattirwinphotography
The article is here
www.dpreview.com/articles/592...
70% off your first year of Audiio Pro (bringing the price down to just $59!). This means unlimited music + SFX downloads for virtually any use!
Use 'MATTIRWIN' here
audiio.com/mattirwin
To grab 10% of at Nikon Australia
www.nikon.com.au
'Matt10' use at check out
T & C's apply
00:00 CREATING NEWS
00:25 Headlines CANON / SONY ? NIKON
01:20 Canon RF mount now open? Third party lenses coming
02:35 Sigma for Canon RF
04:00 Will we see more lenses for the RF mount?
04:30 So many third party options
06:00 Ricoh mew Pentax film camera coming !!!
06:30 FILM POLL / YES - NO will you shoot film again?
08:15 7Artisans new T/S Lens
09:00 NEW NIKON FW for three cameras
11:34 Sony further firmware updates - discussion
13:12 No Sony A1 this year, flagship release rate discussion
14:45 What are the major innovations from mirrorless, will the speed of innovation be maintained
16:10 Touching on what was the most important release from each camera company
16:48 Don’t forget the poll?
17:00 Your turn to comment
17:20 BYE !!!!
Check out my social media
INSTAGRAM / mattirwinphotography
FACEBOOK / mattirwinphotography
WEBSITE www.mattirwin.com
TWITTER / mattirwinphotog
After several decades of film photography, and around 30 000+ slides in various draws round the house, I have no interest at all in returning to these pre-historic days - great as they were and so much a part of the essential photography learning process. Having progressed through DSLR's to Mirrorless, why would I abandon all of these advantages. BUT - if you have never used 35mm film, then you need to !! Photography is grounded in the film era
Recently had my Pentax Spotmatic refurbished. Purchased the camera when I was stationed in Turkey in 1970. Found some Fuji film (3-roll package $32 US). Need to finish the film and have it processed, but have been housebound with a broken ankle. Looking forward to seeing the photos soon.
Hi Matt. Once again an interesting and informative video - superb! With reference to your section about the appearance of a new film camera I offer the following reminiscence. Buoyed up with the knowledge that going back to film was a sure-fire way of slowing down the frenetic pace of modern photography I set off for a holiday in west Cork a few years ago armed with a pair of 1967 Nikon F bodies, one with a NIKKOR 35mm f/2 and one with a NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4 lens fitted, and ten rolls of Kodak colour negative film. I savoured the familiar feel of my old Nikons, forgotten for many years as I raced from Fs and F2s and thence to Nikon F4s and F5s before converting to DSLRs and then to mirrorless. Like old cars they smelt different and had a reassuringly solid heft in the hand. The brass showed through the black enamel in places, evidence of hard use. The original Nikon leather straps, whilst thin by modern standards, proved ideal to bear the weight of bodies with short lenses fitted. I didn’t take any sort of meter with me, partly because I wanted to be unencumbered but mainly because I wanted to prove that I could still judge exposures to a high degree of accuracy. Before leaving I ‘calibrated’ my eyes against a meter and found that I was still within half a stop - which was reassuring. One of the first things that I learnt as a young photographer was how to judge distance and how to judge the light. It was drummed into me by my first boss that to be ready for anything one had to have the lens preset to around twelve feet and have a constant eye on the light, readjusting the camera settings as the light changed. I found that I could still do this after 50 years, with over 30 years of using autofocus cameras and built-in meters failing to block out the old core values. Loading the cameras was an easy job with that gorgeous smell of new film emulsion filling the still air. It brought back many great memories as only aromas can do. Real leather camera straps and cardboard film boxes all had their scents then as a total part of photography. I felt comfortable with these old friends and found that I was really looking forward to shooting at a different pace. The last time I had shot any sort of film was in early 2006 when a client insisted that only film could achieve the results that he desired. This was conveniently overlooked when he chose the digital files that I shot alongside the film. That was it for me - the end of an era that started for me with my Kodak Box Brownie in the early 60s. I found that I still had an alarming number of rolls of transparency film lurking about the place, but I thought that perhaps I should shoot colour negative this time. I could get good black and whites if I wanted, the exposure latitude was reasonable if, for some reason, my personal calibration failed and I could also get them scanned as part of the whole package. There’s just no escape from the digital element any more. All the elements were in place for a truly memorable time. However, after a day I realised exactly why I had relinquished my hold on film. Having to plan my life around blocks of 36 exposures was a pain. Always having slow film in the body as the light started fading, meaning that one had to make the choice of either sacrificing the remaining frames (always more than half a roll in my experience) and reloading with a faster film, or having a spare body loaded with faster stock ready to hand. I revisited the worrying stage of getting near the end of a roll of film and then wondering if the next sequence would require five or 25 frames. Always sacrificing film was a constant drain on a photographer in those days. I look back now at the hundreds of thousands of rolls of film that I have archived and realise that so many have great lengths of unexposed stock at the end. What a waste and what a cost. Even taking a mere ten rolls of boxed film with me illustrated the space that had to be put aside for these bulky items. I remember reusing 35mm slide boxes that Kodachromes were returned in to fit four cassettes of ready-use film. This reduced the space requirements, but taking 50 or so rolls of film each time I went off somewhere meant that I had to spend £400 or so on stock and then around the same amount again to process it. Well today £800 will buy you a great digital camera kit, or a good secondhand NIKKOR lens or a laptop (not a MacBook Pro obviously), so why on earth would any sane photographer want to spend this sort of money? And of course that’s only half the story. Rolls of film still need to be printed or scanned before they can actually be of any real use. Colour transparency film, long the professional standard when repro was required, had to be scanned at some stage in its life if it was to be reproduced. Either the client did it using an alarmingly expensive high-end scanner like a Howtek Scanmaster at more than £100k or, increasingly, we bought desktop scanners from the Nikon or Flextight ranges at more modest prices. Scanning takes time and skill - a great deal of each. Even then the image is not ready to be sent to a client as it has to be retouched, graded, colour balanced, profiled and captioned. Suddenly the photographer had to become the master of other new skills if he or she was to sell material. Being a photographer has evolved from merely taking some shots, devving the film and producing ten by eight glossies to becoming a digital lab technician working with expensive kit in a high pressure environment. Why on earth would you want to go back to film, when shooting digital means that the client can have the images relatively quickly and with far less pain for us? To coin that old favourite, nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. The more film that I shot on my Irish trip - and I didn’t shoot very much I confess - the more that I longed for digital. After a couple of days I couldn’t think of one good reason why anyone in their right mind would want to shoot with film. Many photographers seem to have lost sight of the reason why they are shooting pictures. Surely it’s only the end result that matters - the final image? The route that we take to get there is irrelevant. Young photographers can learn so much more quickly if they use the modern cheap equivalent of Polaroid to assess their progress. Experienced photographers can now spend so much more time creating and testing - and playing - with images to get just what they want, without it costing a penny. What can possibly be better than that? Surely we express pleasure and delight in most forms of progress? Who would want to walk to the bottom of their garden on a freezing winter night to use the outside toilet? Who would want to check their distributor cap every week and grease their suspension points every month in their car? Who would say that there is nothing to beat VHS tapes, or gramophone records or chunky 12” CRT monitors? There will always be those who relish the old days - until they actually have to live in them! Look at the plethora of TV programmes on UK TV that hark back to the delights of the Edwardian Farm, the Victorian Hospital or the Iron Age Village to realise that we love to look back whilst wearing a smug grin of satisfaction on our faces, but living that life again - never! Photography has progressed and whilst I am happy to keep reminders of my life on the shelf, gathering dust, I now find that I am quite content to leave them there as I’ve moved on. My children may look at them in 20 years time when I’m gone and wonder what on earth it was all about. And what about my shots from Ireland? Well, the local processing lab completely ruined them by using out-of-date chemicals. Luckily I also packed a digital Nikon and two lenses as well - just in case!
As someone from the "digital generation" I love film for certain things. It can be a cool experiment to change the pace and put more effort into every single shot rather than taking 100+ pictures during a 30 minute walk. Color film is too expensive (film and lab), but black and white film is relatively affordable and easy enough to develop at home. Ruins of old factories just tend to look even more characterful on grainy film. Also, thanks to my vintage Minolta XD7/11 I'm now considering the Nikon Zf as my next main camera.
I took my first photos on the family's Box Brownie in the late 1950s, and still have them in the original envelope from the long-defunct camera shop in my home town. Spent may years with various film cameras, with the last one being a Praktica MTL 5. Had a couple of point and shoot digitals before buying a Nikon D5600 and some lenses - right at the start of the mirrorless revolution. Couldn't afford full frame. Now shoot mostly digital, but every now and again I'll have a film-only day with a F100 or F80, or perhaps the OM 2000 I inherited (yes, I know it's not a real Olympus), developing B&W film myself and scanning the negatives. The short answer is yes to film, but for nostalgia as much as anything, and certainly not exclusively. Now, if anyone has a lazy Pentacon MC 50mm f/1.8 I could resurrect the Praktica. Fungus no problem as I can clean that, but when I went to unstick the diaphragm I broke a blade. 😞
I've got four working film Nikons and lenses from 20mm to 500mm. I've developed and printed tons of B&W. I've printed some Cibachrome slide to print. I enjoy touching and feeling all these relics. Never going back! I am glad I can use my modern, mirrorless Z cameras and lenses to copy film to RAW. Great Monday morning video, Matt. Thank you.
I grew up with film cameras, and thanks to my dad who was the crew photographer in the 1950s Australian outback, I dived into home processing and printing of B&W film. So glad I was able to experience and learn from that. However, I can't imagine going back to film now; less control and far too expensive. The closest I'll get back to film is scanning the thousands of old family negatives I've inherited to revive those memories in a digital format for future generations. Hats off to Nikon for continuing to support older cameras with firmware updates. A company with integrity. My jump into the DSLR market with the D90 was a great decision. My D850 keeps me happy but I think there's a Z8 in my future.
I attended Nikon Uk q&a on Thrursday with Ricci and wifi password updates is due to new EU requirements for defaults passwords to be unique per model still being sold.
Good morning, Yes I would use Film, 4 x 5 Black and White only.
Nice news update Matt! -PD
I shoot digital and film. I have multiple working 35mm film cameras. I get beautiful color photos (Kodak Portra) and nostalgic B&W photos. I am currently shooting a roll of 35mm color film. I find that film photos, even when digitized, have a look that is aesthetically different (and pleasing), from a photo captured digitally. What I appreciate about film is that the colors are baked into the photo, which means I do less post processing when I shoot film.
I used film from the mid-1950s until 1999, when I got my first digital camera. Learned a lot from film, but I'm not interested in abandoning all the advantages now of mirrorless digital. Don't believe I'll be shooting film again.
G'day Matt! Hopefully I spelled that correctly😃 Yes, I have a film camera or two with at all times, but just for the nostalgia of it. I'd never go back to shooting it professionally.
Yes to film, still shooting the Mamiya 645. Film rolls need to get more affordable, new (hopefully good) hardware coming out may be a good segway.
Yes I still shoot film, it's certainly not dead in fact since the 2019 bc (before covid) I started collecting Nikon film cameras and now almost 5 years later I've got most Nikon's from the Nikormat FTN right up to the F6. And all the higher end autofocus Minolta'sfron the Dynax/Maxxum 7000 to the Dynax 7 and the 9000, the 9xi and 9. Then there's the older German folding medium format 6x6 and 6x9 from Zeiss and Voitlander and last month I went and got a 4x5 large format. But my next purchase is going to be a Z8. Film isn't dead it's very much alive.
A 4 year cycle is fine for me. I am not in a hurry to replace my A1, as my new A9III is so good. I will only upgrade to the A1II, if it has a GS.
Did you ever use the Nikon F6, or did you switch to digital after the F5? I can see people shooting film every now and then for fun or as a hobby. If there are labs whose developing/scanning results you like and trust, that would make it easier. I can see professionals shooting film for some projects if there was that specific demand from clients (like wedding photographers).
Yes, to film! Had a plastic point & shoot when I was a kid in the 90s. But been shooting 35mm film (both color neg and B&W) over a year now with a Nikon FM2n and Nikon F100. Even got into home developing, started this month..."sous vide" and everything. Lol STILL a digital shooter too. #HybridShooter
I do like shooting film occasionally ... and I like the anticipation that we used to accept as part of the experience (unless we were shooting polaroids to check lighting, etc.) as well as results. I must admit though it's been a couple of years since I loaded a roll into one of my existing film cameras (including Nikon F90X and FM). I have a couple of packages of ID11 developer in the cupboard and a bag of assorted film in the fridge, so ....
No to film …thanks for all of the news and updates Matt, good day to you
As a former vivid Pentax user who just recently switched to the Nikon Z system and its fantastic Z8 (with absolutely no regrets at all!) I wish them really all the best for their future, but I am absolutely not interested in going back to film!
Matt, what is the name of the shoulder harness that you use that holds 2 cameras at you shoulder,s please? tnx
Yes to film, but not as a replacement to digital. I like to shoot film for the fun of it, but not too much. I do like the idea of a new pentax film camera, what features would it have?
Hi Matt, I would use 120 film may be not 35mm I have 35mm Minolta cameras still
you could have a 'three-level-poll' perhaps: do you have nostalgic feelings about shooting film? yes- no? and if 'yes': is it likely that you actually will do it? i guess that for a lof of people its digital thats relevant, but for me i sometimes is nostalgic about both shooting b/w and processing it in a darkroom - but I actually hasnt done it since the 1990s :)
The Sigma CEO also said (I think in an interview with Phototrend) that the reception of their Nikon Z APSC lenses had been less enthusiastic than they’d hoped. Since their RF lenses are already ones they manufacture for most other mounts, I wonder if they’re being cautious?
Ricoh should make a film/digital hybrid camera.
Yes I am staying away from both the firmware updates for my A1, and my A9III. There are still bugs arising that Sony needs to fix. My A1, A9III, A7RV are working fine without the updates. Sad that Canon only is allowing APS-C autofocus RF third-party lenses, but not fullframe. In E-mount there are over 160+ fullframe third-party lenses available. Canon is still applying its cripple hammer. Trying to keep all their fullframe RF lens revenues is hurting their fullframe R camera sales. Sony and Nikon have learned that allowing both fullframe and APS-C mirrorless lenses from third-party makers does help their fullframe and APS-C camera sales. Cheers
A while ago, Thom Hogan, addressing this for Nikon, said, basically, the more lenses that are available for a camera (and breadth of choice does mean third party as well) the more cameras a company is likely to sell. I don’t know whether that’s entirely true, but poring over CIPA figures and some quarterly or annual company results, it does look as though it’s cameras that make the greater profits. Canon, it should be remembered, is still flogging a range of DSLR’s, unlike the other big two, and I do wonder if that is putting a brake on broadening the RF lens offering. They weren’t just late to mirrorless, they have this DSLR albatross hanging round their necks, which I somehow doubt is really adding to their profits. In fact their last financial results suggest as much.
@@Photo-opinion of course it is true that you will sell more camera bodies if more people can afford lenses for it, and that means affordable third=party lenses. Canon just doesn't get it and their lagging behind Sony in fullframe Mirrorless body sales proves the point. Cheers
@@6gwilliams Well Canon claimed they were ahead, Sony (unusually going public about it) said they had the same numbers from the same source and Canon wasn’t. No-one got to the bottom of that.
@@Photo-opinion if you look at the published current sales lists from the top camera stores in Japan, far more Sony models are in the top ten of sales than Canon, that should tell you which to believe. Cheers
No film, not ever. I used to travel with 50-70 rolls of film, that was a 'horror' at every airport, the attempt to prevent putting the film through the x-ray scanner. All the slides which I collected show some signs of aging and deterioration. Digital image is sky high superior.
Dear Matt. Firmware Updates. At great risk of going off subject....I apologise. The Nikon Z8 gets this very quick follow-up firmware update. Yet the Nikon Z9 is still not receiving the 'Pixel Shift' facility. I have emailed Nikon Support to ask if this is due to a Z9 hardware issue. Naturally they have not responded to this and I can fully understand why. As a Z9 owner I am chomping at the bit to have Pixel Shift. Very frustrating as I cannot justify purchasing a Z8 or a ZF in order to achieve this. Your thoughts will be appreciated and any reference to this on a future video will be absolutely brilliant!!!!! Sorry to ramble!!!!!
I shoot film in several formats. I wanted to buy an old Pentax ME Super for nostalgic reasons, it was my first ever SLR in 1981. All of the ME Supers on e-Bay were so obviously beat to hell. They did not age well. So a new Pentax film camera might be of interest to me, depending on what they make. They are starting with multiple point and shoot cameras, which don't interest me at all. Will they make a fully mechanical SLR? Seems doubtful.
Funny, for me, I’m done with film, but I know two people decades younger than me are digital and film camera users…would be curious if they would replace their 2nd hand film cameras with a new Pentax
Sigma need to bring to Nikon the 50 1.2 and 500 5.6!!
Given the current interest in film I am glad to hear PENTAX/RICOH, a major (slightly tongue in cheek”) or at least storied manufacturer, is creating a body in that space. I think it is too small a market for larger manufacturers, but big enough to be profitable for Pentax. Though I am glad film is an option for others, I am unlikely to ever go back to using film. I’d rather spend money (required for film processing) on mirrorless lenses and bodies. At this point, I don’t think film offers a net advantage over full frame digital (mirrorless or DSLR).
Sony Alpha Rumors first mentioned ‘a couple of readers’, and then others joined in. I think one must take this with a certain amount of salt: one at least quoted Sony charging 1000 dollars to replace a motherboard: well, I’ve had a camera motherboard replaced by Sony (for a fault they diagnosed that I didn’t have any idea about before it went in for a service) and the charge was £250 including parts and labour. (I don’t, and I doubt anyone outside Sony does, anyway know whether the Bluetooth/wifi unit in Sony cameras is a plug-in board or would need the motherboard replacing.) I don’t see why a firmware update that diagnoses a hardware problem is at all strange; it’s better than an anonymous ‘Error XXX’, even if it’s going to be a bit upsetting if you get it. After all, cameras do ‘diagnose’ if a lens isn’t connecting properly, if not necessarily specifically or helpfully, i.e. mechanically or electronically, don’t they? This kind of fault’s also, apparently, happened in some Canon cameras too.
I think Nikon has done an awesome job of introducing new professional cameras and lenses in the last several years. So for the most part they have caught up to their competition, in some cases exceed their competition. Great for the professional photographer who are Nikon loyalist. But for the amateur/hobbyist photographer (market) they done a poor job of introducing new APSC or mid-range cameras. You can argue that the ZF camera target this market (not a fan of retro cameras). But done nothing in the APSC camera market (I am Z50 owner). So a new APSC camera with IBIS, similar AF of the ZF/Z8 and better battery life (to compete with Canon R7 and Sony A6700), is well overdue. So I applaud Canon (smart move) in allowing Sigma to introduce new APSC lenses. This will strengthen Canon position in the APSC market. Who knows, Canon may be working on a R7 mark II. In my opinion Nikon doesn't seem to have an interest in competing in the APSC market. As a Nikon loyalist and APSC camera user, I have been waiting for Nikon to introduce new APSC cameras. But to be honest, I am getting little impatience with Nikon, it may be time to switch brand.
I have collected 5 film cameras all in reasonable condition because I didn’t want them to be lost in time but admit no interest in using them despite buying two rolls of film.
O shoot film weekly
I shot film for 3 decades. Went digital 20 years ago. A few years ago I tried again, but nope. I am thoroughly entrenched in the digital DARKROOM. No nostalgia for film photography AT ALL for me.
Yes to Film. I still have my F4
I have no, absolutely no, intention to return to film cameras. I've shot huge amounts of film since '78 when I started taking pictures seriously. But I know many of the younger photographers find it hugely exciting to shoot film, but that's probably because they grew up with digital cameras, and the way of taking pictures with film is new and different. But us "older people" have the analogue way of working deep in their minds, and see no advantage in returning to film, unless it is for nostalgia's sake. Or that's the way I see it, at least I can't see that there would be any technical or photographic reason for it, unless you develop yourself and make the finished image yourself in the darkroom.
No absolutely not!!! At this time digital is better cheaper and you can shoot 1 photo at ISO 100 [or less depending on the camera] The next at ISO 100,000. and both can be excellent. Digital photos historically cost less to have printed. and you can do the editingyour self on a laptop and printer in minutes instead of hours to days/ weeks. Again NO WAY!!!
I don't think Sony can afford to iterate new models every 18 months anymore; that has to have been costing them a small fortune. Coming from a consumer electronics mentality, I suspect it was probably a strategy they employed in the beginning as they attempted to gain marketshare quickly. But they probably can't justify it anymore in a contracted camera market. I think it was always pretty clear that Sony would settle into a more conventional product cycle with cameras. Meanwhile, Nikon and Canon have now more than caught up in mirrorless, and the game has changed. It will be far more difficult going forward for Sony to gain any further marketshare, and I actually expect they will begin losing some of that share back to Nikon in the next few years.
Film again - no way.
Film you say? Thanks but no thanks, I had my lot in the days. And, by the way, Nikon apsc offer is way too long in the tooth.
If I had the time and money I'd dabble with film again if that meant having a wet (b&w) darkroom -- that was a big part of shooting film's fun. That said (and I promise I'm not a conspiracy theorist with aluminium foil lined underwear chafing as I type this), I have actually found myself thinking about putting a film camera in my life again given the threat of a major solar storm (let alone geo political mayhem) reducing our digital existence to the dark ages for awhile; analog photography might be the only way to exercise the hobby during any possible digital 'interruption.' Hopefully in that eventuality I'd be able to find a print shot not completely digital LOL
I don’t think I would shoot film. I would have to buy a film camera to try. If I don’t like the results then I wasted money. So no, I don’t think I would shoot film.
no to film
No to film
Film? NEVER! Why? Makes no sense to me. Like you, I shot and processed many, many rolls of film in the years leading up to digital. Boring at best, and the quality of the images was poor compared to what we can get from digital. Forget film. Move on.