And so surely a mirrorless camera, already less bulky than a DSLR, will prove a better bet than a smaller sensor incorporating point-and-shoot compact? Even if one will fit into my swimming shorts and the other most definitely won’t. A fair assumption to make, right?

However, assumption is not always born out in practice.

If I’m not looking to make wall sized prints from whatever I’ll be shooting and it’s more about preserving a memory of people and place than creating something the National Portrait Gallery might want, a compact snapshot would seem the clear winner. With the bonus that it doesn’t immediately identify me as a ‘professional’ photographer, or the owner of expensive gear that may prove a lure for local pick pockets.

A recent trip to Pollença in Majorca found me capturing the colourful scenes and fruit at the local Sunday market. The two 16MP cameras I had with me on my travels were the decade-old Olympus PEN E-PL7 mirrorless with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 compact zoom and, by contrast, the point-and-shoot Stylus TG-870, otherwise known as the Olympus ‘Tough’, with its own internally stacked 5x optical zoom. It can survive being dunked in the sea or used by teenagers, plus it’s also less obvious and intrusive.

Only when I brought my mirrorless camera out to capture the façade of the church in the square did a local biker perched on the front wall suddenly show an interest, waving me away with a furrowed brow and indicating he didn’t want to be included in any shot. Would I have got the same reaction with gear that instead suggested ‘happy snapper’?

So, another thing to bear in mind on my travels is people are much more wary and suspicious when it comes to street photography in this digital age, how images may be used and where they might end up – even, it seems, in a busy tourist location. Cartier Bresson’s decisive moment has become a moment of possible tension. In such circumstances an unobtrusive snapshot or smartphone becomes a plus, a more ‘obvious’ high end camera becomes a con.

E-PL7 · f/11 · 1/1000s · 42mm · ISO1000

That said, whether there are people in my scene or not, a larger sensor, in the case of the E-PL7 a Four Thirds 17.3x13mm CMOS chip, remains an advantage. Not least in giving me the ability to crop the image and still preserve a good amount of information and detail. Whereas cropping an image from a 1/2.3-inch sensor, as found in my TG-870 ‘Tough’, will potentially result in visible degradation of the image when viewed 100% – but not always. Naturally it depends on the size of my crop.

TG-870 · f/5.1 · 1/200s · 12.6mm · ISO125

Traveling anywhere with a camera runs the risk of damage in transit, the lens getting elbowed in a busy throng, or worst of all, stolen. For these reasons again a compact camera, more affordable than a compact system camera / mirrorless, gets another tick, with a ‘toughened’ compact, like the TG-870, the most sensible choice of all. It’s not like I feel I’m missing out in terms of handling. After all, more recent compacts, though thinner on the ground than a decade ago, feature Wi-Fi, touch screens and typically 4K, 30fps video capture alongside 16MP or 20MP stills.

But I feel I’m being cleverest when I pair the above with a compact and lightweight mirrorless like the E-PL7 that is neither much deeper in profile – save for the addition of a compact, removable zoom lens – or a great deal weightier overall. The E-PL7 is a manageable 357g without lens, compared with 221g for the TG-870.

In which case it simply comes down to my pulling the mirrorless out of my rucksack when I’m feeling artistic and want to capture as much detail as its sensor and glass gives me. And then using the point-and-shoot snapshot for when I’m at the beach, by the pool, or simply want something I can sling in the rucksack and go about my business stress-free.

So, to sum up the pros and cons of each, while I feel the mirrorless camera is giving me better image quality and more manual control, the compact snapper provides greater portability and, in generally being much cheaper, there’s less concern during transportation – in that it’s not as much of a gut punch if something happens to it.

Yes, I can’t change the lens on the point-and-shoot, but its short focal length zoom is adequate for everyday snaps and achieving wide-angle landscapes, group shots or close-up selfies.

Fine quality (least compression) JPEGs straight out of the compact reveal well saturated colours, even if, when scrutinising enlarged sections, they’re a little less well defined and lacking in contrast compared with my mirrorless, which has maintained shadow and corner detail much better.

But viewed standalone, if you know you’re going somewhere with plenty of natural daylight and mostly bright blue skies, and aren’t aiming for creative shallow depth of field or bokeh style effects, then a compact snapper will do just fine for family holidays. Even if I’ll still be tempted to reach for the mirrorless when I know a scene or a subject is potentially a ‘keeper’ and so want to capture it in the best quality available to me ain that moment

Ultimately, accepted photographic wisdom dictates that the best camera for the job is the camera you have with you. Even if, for 90% of photographers, that ‘camera’ is neither a dedicated compact nor mirrorless, but a smartphone.

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Compact camera versus mirrorless – which should I take travelling? appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

• I review iPhones for a living – these are the best iPhones for photography

Being the thinnest of the bunch with less room for internal components, the iPhone 17 Air could feature a single 48MP rear camera and will therefore be less versatile than the two or three camera lens designs found in previous iPhone iterations. Though all iPhone 17 models are said to have a new 24MP front facing camera which has twice as much resolution over the iPhone 16.

For the base iPhone 17 there’s not a whole lot to report on as it appears to use the same tried and tested rear camera setup as the iPhone 16 and is even reported to use the same A18 processor. Instead, users should benefit from a larger display, new 120Hz ProMotion panel for smoother scrolling, higher resolution front camera and faster charging.

It seems that the substantial camera upgrades have been saved for Apple’s iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max which could be the first iPhone to make use of three dedicated rear lenses all with large 48MP sensors for brilliant image quality whether shooting ultra-wide or telephoto. It’s also rumoured to use Apple’s latest A19 PRO chip which is said to deliver a 5% performance boost and up to 10% better power efficiency – though we’ll have to wait to find out the exact details on this.

So these are the specs we’re likely to see, but I’m less sure about the following features – consider this more of a personal wish list.

The iPhone 17 could be the first time we see 8K video recording capabilities; it could also be the first time that we see a variable aperture installed in each of the camera lenses. The latter I’m less convinced about as the variable aperture would add extra bulk and Apple already does a brilliant job at artificially reducing depth of field for blurry backgrounds in Portrait mode. I think a built-in ND filter would be more likely for reducing light flow if that is an issue Apple wants to address.

Optical Image Stabilisation (OIS) was introduced with the iPhone 6, and it wasn’t until the iPhone 12 Pro Max that we saw sensor stabilisation (IBIS) in an iPhone. The iPhone 17 could be the perfect opportunity when Apple combines both of these systems together for even smoother stabilisation for buttery smooth video and sharp still photographs.

If the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max are getting the new A19 Pro silicone it’s going to be more powerful and efficient so we may see more AI features via Apple Intelligence. I’ve already been enjoying the ‘Look Up’ feature in the iPhone 16 which allows you to tap on an image to find out more information about an animal or food dish in your photo, as well as the Clean Up tool which uses AI to effortlessly remove unwanted people and distractions at a finger press. Perhaps we’ll see new AI features, or improvements to noise reduction and image upscaling on September 9th.

Apple completely redesigned its Camera App with the iPhone 16 and added a new shutter button so I think it’s safe to say these won’t be changed with the new release. I would however still love a Pro mode to be added so that the shutter speed can be adjusted without the need to install a third-party app.

Related reading:

• iPhone 16 Pro review: small screen, maximum zoom
• iPhone 16 Pro Max Review: Gonna need a bigger pocket
• Apple’s iPhone 17 event is official: here’s when the next iPhone will arrive (Stuff)

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post The upcoming iPhone 17 – what I want to see next for photographers appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

For a shooter willing to embrace third-party lens offerings, new companies like TT Artisans, 7 Artisans, and Thypoch offer wide aperture lenses at substantially lower costs than what was available in the past. Another option for achieving this look is to use a smartphone with computational photography technology, which uses software to simulate the look of a fast lens. This rendering doesn’t stand up to pixel-level scrutiny, but it works fine for posting on social media platforms. Despite the shallow depth of field look being available to so many non-professional shooters today, there are professionals like me who continue to embrace the look.

My main camera is a Leica M10 with a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux lens shot wide open. This combination produces images that I love, but it is not the best choice for much of my corporate photography work. My professional workhorse is the Nikon Z9, but the camera is usually paired with zoom lenses that open to f/2.8. I’ve been considering adding a fast prime to the Z9 for the few occasions when a zoom lens is not mandatory.

Nikon offers several fast lenses, including a Nikon Z 50mm f/1.2, but the lenses of most interest to me are the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.2 and the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena. Of the two, my preference would be to shoot with an 85mm focal length so I can be closer to my subject. And while an 85mm f1.2 lens will undoubtedly produce a pleasing, soft background effect, the Nikon Plena lens is marketed with an emphasis on how beautiful it renders the out of focus elements in an image and I was curious to see if the performance gain would be worth the downside of having to be farther away from my subject than I would like to be. Both lenses are big, heavy, and share a similar design, but oddly, the 85mm is the larger of the two. Both balance equally well on the Z9.

To compare these lenses, I shot a variety of wide-open images of a model named Rachel in NYC’s Meatpacking District. I photographed Rachel from a variety of shooting distances, positioning her both near and far from background elements. I often changed my shooting position so that the composition would be similar between the 2 lenses. The images are provided here straight out of camera (unless otherwise noted) so you can draw your own conclusion.

In my review of the images, it was clear to me that the background blur was pleasing from both lenses, with Rachel’s eyes appearing tack sharp and the background being blurred beyond recognition at times. This look is desirable when you want the viewer’s attention to be drawn to a single aspect of an image rather than the image as a whole. In a city like New York that tends to be crowded, using a shallow depth of field can help you isolate a subject on almost any street corner.

A photographer cannot rely on a fast lens to magically transform every random corner into a prime shooting location. At one point, I positioned Rachel near the most unattractive element I could find, which was a small forklift. I wanted to see if the background blur might render this vehicle unrecognizable. Unfortunately, this was not the case, and despite the forklift being blurred in the photograph, it was still recognizable as a forklift, making the image suitable only for the trash bin.

The blurring effect of any fast lens works best when the subject is far from the background and the photographer is close to the subject. As you position yourself farther from the model, the blurring effect is lessened, making the background more discernible. It is safe to say you should pay attention to the background elements no matter what lens or aperture settings you have selected.

Determining which of the two lenses produces a more attractive rendering is subjective. Both lenses produce great results, and modern autofocus technology all but ensures that you can create sharp images even when shooting wide open. As someone who loves shooting with a 35mm focal length, I didn’t like having to be far away from Rachel to compose with the 135mm Plena. The problem exists with the 85mm lens, but to a lesser degree. It is difficult to communicate with the model when she is far away.

Had we been shooting indoors in a typically small NYC office or apartment, I might not have had the space to move far enough away from her to compose as I desired. These problems would have a negative impact on the usability of the 135mm lens for my shooting style. If I were to make a purchasing decision based on which lens I preferred shooting with, it would be the 85mm lens.

However, in reviewing photographs after the shoot, the differences between the images taken from the 85mm and the 135mm were subtle, but the 135mm lens lived up to Nikon’s hype and had the more pleasing rendering of out of focus elements. Therefore, I would purchase the 135m Plena, despite it being a specialty item for me, which would be useful in only a few situations.

It is great for tight portraits where the subject’s head is cropped and excellent for capturing shots of eye makeup or fingernail designs when shooting fashion. And while the lens can be utilized for 3/4 or even full length portraits, I don’t think a 135mm focal length is the best choice for these shots because of the aforementioned issues that come with being some distance away from the person you are photographing. The lens would be good for concert photography in situations where your shooting distance just happens to be right for a 135mm lens, but you don’t always have control over where you will be taking photos.

Many people choose cameras and lenses that are versatile. When paired with a 24-70mm zoom lens, my Nikon Z9 is well suited for in shooting any genre of photography you can name. Still, there can be artistic benefits in using photography tools that are more limited in their functionality. The small, retro-styled Nikon ZF isn’t as versatile as the Z9, but it would be my first choice if I were using a Nikon for street photography. If I were photographing fashion, I’d rather have a fast 85mm lens than a slower 70-200mm zoom. Today, any smartphone is capable of taking a great photograph, and there isn’t much need for a specialized lens for general image capture.

But if you want your images to have a look that is unlike most other photographers, you might need to consider a tool like the Nikon Z 135mm Plena that excels in only a few specific areas of photography.

Related reading:

• Complete guide to Portrait photography and portrait types
• Best cameras for portrait photography
• 13 quick portrait photography tips

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Nikon portrait lens face-off: 85mm f/1.2 vs 135mm f/1.8 Plena appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Granted, recent AI enhancements to auto focus, when it comes to locking onto and tracking with a subject, have almost enabled photographers to get the shot with their eyes closed. But that’s not the full picture. Literally.

Something I’ve been guilty of myself is making the lens I use a secondary consideration.

The sensor in the camera might be incredible, but without sufficiently high-quality glass to match and enhance its capabilities, it’s all for nought. Photography is light, and the lens is the means via which we capture and direct it.

So maybe rather than believing ‘buying the latest and shiniest new mirrorless camera will take my photography to the next level’, while slavishly reading rave reviews to convince myself I need it, I should instead start by considering what it is I want to photograph, the conditions I’m shooting in, then which lens is best suited to capture my subject.

Is my priority a wide-angle lens for landscape shots, a macro lens for close ups, a lens for portraits with attractive ‘bokeh’, or a super long telephoto for bringing the faraway up close and personal, typically essential for both wildlife and sports photography.

Or would a standard adjustable zoom be better than a prime lens for spur-of-the-moment everyday snapping, when I’m not quite sure what I’m going to encounter?

As regards my chosen system, instead of just Nikon, I will now be thinking of Nikkor, instead of Fujifilm, I’ll be considering which Fujinon, and rather than grabbing the latest OM System cameras, I’ll be prioritising OM Zuiko. Plus, there are many thousands of vintage lenses that can be re-enlisted for service with today’s cameras.

If you’re lucky enough to own several bodies – with most contemporary interchangeable lens cameras, whether mirrorless, DSLR or medium format, delivering a competent, consistent and repeatable performance – then selecting the lens before choosing the body makes even more sense.

Beyond that, if we’re seeking to shoot with available light, prevent blur or narrow depth of field, the buck stops with our f-stops. Something to think about the next time I automatically reach for that camera body before considering which lens to pair it with.

Because, when it comes to creativity, I believe salvation really can be found in the bottom of some ‘glass’.

It’s just as intrinsic to the outcome as the sensor we’re placing it in front of.

Of course, there’s a school of thought that it’s not about the gear, it’s all about the idea. What’s going on in the photographer’s head when the photograph is taken – and a connection with the subject – is more important than the device, or lens, in hand. But I’ll leave that for another opinion piece.

Related reading:

• Best Canon RF mount lenses
• Best Z Mount lenses for Nikon
• The best Sony lenses
• Best Fujifilm X-mount lenses
• Best Micro Four Thirds lenses

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Why 80% of photography gear advice is wrong… and the one thing I’d recommend instead appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

But for every successful revolution, there are a litany of failed ones. Here, we’re looking at the camera experiments that bombed and failed to change the market. You can laud the ambition here; many of these cameras are nothing if not brave swings, attempts to shake up the status quo and do something different. Ultimately though, all of them became cautionary tales. 

So, let’s take a look back at some of the camera industry’s biggest missteps – the camera experiments that failed to change the market…

1. Nikon 1

It really could have worked. A high-speed mirrorless system with phase-detection autofocus and 60fps shooting, in the year 2011 – it could have been the runaway hit that changed things forever. But the Nikon 1 system, while prophetic in some ways, ultimately made a number of fatal design errors that ensured it was consigned to the dustbin of history (a.k.a. eBay).

The system initially consisted of the Nikon 1 V1 and J1, two diminutive cameras that used their own proprietary lens mount and a new bespoke sensor size – a 13.2 x 8.8mm sensor that Nikon called ‘CX’, and was about a quarter of the size of APS-C. ‘That sounds incredibly small,’ you might be thinking, and you are correct. It was. The small sensors may have been fast to read, but they were incredibly noisy, and this wasn’t helped by the rather pedestrian kit lenses the system launched with.

Part of the problem was marketing. DSLRs were still the big game in town, and rather than pitching the 1 series as a replacement or even a complement to a DSLR, Nikon went around telling people that the 1 series was aimed at people who didn’t want a DSLR at all. And it turns out that ‘people who want a camera, but don’t want the current most popular format of camera’ is a pretty small slice of pie to bet an entire system on. While the 1 series wasn’t an immediate failure – it limped on until 2014 – Nikon ultimately relaunched its mirrorless bid with the far superior Z system.

2. Android cameras

I remember it felt like a glimpse of the future when the Samsung Galaxy NX arrived at the AP office, with Android pre-installed as its operating system, and even a free copy of Lightroom thrown in for good measure. Samsung had already tried it once with the Galaxy Camera, but this felt like a much more serious product. Soon, surely all cameras would be like this, able to download and use apps just like our phones could?

No. There were other attempts, like the Nikon Coolpix S800c and more recently, the Zeiss ZX1, but with Samsung long since out of the camera game completely, it is safe to say that Android-enabled cameras have not caught on.

Why? Well, once you get over the initial excitement of Android on a camera, it’s just not clear what problem it is actually solving. A camera’s touchscreen, it turns out, is an awkward and fiddly place to do anything other than operate a camera. Sure, I could use the Maps app on the Galaxy NX to find my next shooting location – but I could also do that much more efficiently on the phone that I carry everywhere with me, which would also prevent me from accidentally ending my day’s shoot by running down my camera’s battery. Switching between my camera and phone just isn’t particularly a hardship, so the trade-off of a buggy camera system that hogs battery and simply loves to crash is not worth it.

(Also, having Lightroom installed on your camera is the sort of thing that only sounds cool to someone who has never actually tried to use Lightroom on a camera.)

3. Sony QX

These days, smartphones and cameras have reached something of an uneasy stalemate. In the 2010s, however, the prospect of everyone having a serviceable digital camera in their pocket was causing the photo industry to have a not-entirely-unjustified existential crisis. This caused manufacturers to take a few wild swings, some of which, we can now admit, were very funny. Step forward, Sony QX.

So, this. What is this? Well, it’s a screen-free camera that physically clips to your smartphone, and connects to it wirelessly. Essentially, it’s an absurdly bulky upgrade to your phone camera, one that is fiddly to attach, slow to connect, and prevents your smartphone from fitting in your pocket. Sound good? No? No.

I actually owned one of these – Sony gave them away free to journalists at the launch, which isn’t what you’d call a sign of robust confidence in the product. I took it on a trip, and the people I was with found it extremely funny that it took me several minutes of fiddling every time I wanted to take a single photo. I think that was the point I knew the QX was doomed. 

4. Lytro Light Field cameras

Lytro’s ‘light field’ technology was another one of those inventions that felt apocalyptic at the time. Somehow, this little camera that looked like a tube of lipstick was able to capture a stunning level of rich detail from a scene, and thereby enabling you to radically change the focal point of an image after it was captured. Surely, this meant photography as we knew it was over? Why would anyone need to learn how to focus a lens again?

However, the first Lytro camera almost immediately foundered when photographers learned that it produced images with a paltry 1.2MP of resolution. It looked and felt like a toy, but still came with a price tag in the hundreds, and it just wasn’t clear who exactly that would appeal to. Plus, with autofocus systems constantly improving, nailing the correct focus on an image increasingly just wasn’t that difficult, meaning the Lytro wasn’t solving some burning problem. 

Lytro attempted to course-correct with the Lytro Illum, which looked and felt a lot more like a proper camera. However, it came with a correspondingly hefty price increase, and the images were still limited to 4MP, which felt paltry even for 2014. The company attempted to pivot away from consumer cameras and into VR, but to no avail, and in 2018 it ceased operations.

5. Lifelogging cameras

In the early 2010s, there was a palpable sense that ‘lifelogging’ was going to become the new hotness. The idea of constantly worn cameras recording a person’s day-to-day existence, by taking photos at intermittent intervals, had a certain cachet among tech startups, and several companies sprung up to meet the perceived demand. 

A Swedish startup called Narrative developed the Narrative Clip, a little clip-on wearable camera. Another company called OMG Life developed a similar device called the Autographer. And tech giant Google muscled in on the action with its long-awaited Google Glass smart glasses, which included a 5MP camera.

Ultimately though, nobody managed to make fetch happen. Even setting aside that the image quality from all of these cameras was pretty poor, lifelogging cameras never solved their two most intractable conceptual problems:

1. Most people’s day-to-day lives are not that interesting.
2. Most people spend their day-to-day lives surrounded by other people, who don’t like being constantly recorded.

Google Glass was roundly mocked, and was discontinued in 2015. Narrative and OMG Life both ceased operations in 2016. 

Of course, while it’s not exactly the same thing, Ray-Ban’s Meta Smart Glasses have drawn comparisons to Google Glass. We’ve also seen more attempted camera revolutions, most recently the AI-powered Rabbit R1, which doesn’t exactly seem poised to take the market by storm. It seems if there’s a lesson here, it’s that gimmick cameras don’t tend to change the world as much as their hypemen say they will.

For more great guides to cameras, including good cameras that actually did change the market, have a look at our latest buying guides, or the latest reviews. Or check out our list of the Worst Digital Cameras ever released.

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Five camera experiments that completely failed to change the market appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Fujifilm is making a habit of churning out brilliant cameras at the moment, all with drop-dead gorgeous design and fabulous image quality. Earlier this year we had the unique fixed lens, 100MP medium format GFX100RF, while last year, we saw the fabulous X100VI and X-T50. Quite simply, Fujifilm is producing camera after camera with a winning blend of style and charisma, in a fashion that no other manufacturer can quite match. 

With its recent models, Fujifilm has added some welcome features, too. Most obviously, the firm has been making a point of giving users more direct access to its signature film simulations, via dedicated dials on the X-E5, X-M5 and X-T50, and a fabulous faux ‘film window’ touchscreen on the quirky-but-fun X half. The X-E5 also introduces ‘official’ film simulation recipe support, along with the ability to scroll through film modes using the front control dial.

On the GFX100RF and X-E5, you also get the option to set the aspect ratio quickly and directly (previously it was clunkily included within image size selection). The X-E5 introduces user-customisable AF areas to the Fujifilm line, too.

As an owner of an X-T5 and X100VI, though, there’s one thing I can’t help but notice. Once upon a time we’d have fully expected to see these features roll out across the rest of the firm’s current line-up via firmware updates. But as yet, that just hasn’t happened. And now I’ve used those new models, my cameras just feel uncharacteristically left behind.

And here’s the thing – Fujifilm used to be famous for its firmware updates. You could buy a new camera and be confident it would end up being better featured and slicker in operation a few years later. Indeed, this was one of the big attractions of buying into the brand – and it helped customers feel valued.

In part, Fujifilm’s previous approach was borne out of necessity. On early mirrorless cameras, there were plenty of things that could be improved. Technology was developing fast, and every round of firmware updates kept its models competitive relative to newer rivals from other brands. But Fujifilm’s cameras have now reached a level of maturity where there is, perhaps, less to be gained from this approach.

To be fair, Fujifilm still rolls out regular firmware updates, but now they mostly seem to be bug fixes. So while my X-T5 is on firmware version 4.31, arguably the only significant new feature that it’s gained is the Reala Ace film simulation. There have been some autofocus system tweaks too, but it’s not clear whether they’ve helped very much. Both the X-T5 and X100VI have also had a complete overhaul of how they connect to smartphones over Wi-Fi, which I file under “probably very worthy, but unexciting”.

And the thing is, I can see several easy ways to make the cameras better. On mine, I tend to use the analogue dials to change the exposure settings, and most often in aperture priority mode. This means that on both my X100VI and X-T5, the front and rear electronic dials don’t really do anything. I’d really like to be able to use them to set the film simulation mode and aspect ratio directly. I’d also love to get the fabulous 65:24 ‘XPan’ aspect ratio that’s on the GFX100RF, but not on X-series cameras.

There’s a really annoying operational feature/bug I’d like to see fixed, too. When you’re using subject detection, if you switch on face detection using the top-plate button, and then switch it off again, the camera drops back to the conventional multi-point AF system. I’d like to have it revert to whatever mode you were using previously.

More generally, I can’t help but think there could be a far better way to configure that button, so you could access both face detection and subject selection more easily. I’d make it so that a quick press toggles face detection on/off, as now, but holding it down for a second would let you scroll through face/eye detection options using the front dial, and subject detection options with the rear dial. That would make Fujifilm’s slightly over-complicated approach quicker to use.

I’m well aware that this may all sound rather entitled – after all, my cameras still work every bit as well as when I first got them, indeed probably a bit better. But equally, I think the firm has all the same benefits to gain from delivering more significant feature updates, in terms of customer loyalty and satisfaction, as it did before. So how about it Fujifilm, please throw a bone to us users of (slightly) older cameras, and let us have those nice new features, please.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Fujifilm only makes stone-cold classics now – but has it forgotten what it used to do best? appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

Ultimately though, the Q system failed. Reviewers near-universally agreed that a 1/2.3-inch sensor was simply too small for serious image-making (the larger 1/1.7-inch sensor in later models did little to solve this – but let’s put a pin in that). The arrival of the full-frame mirrorless Sony A7 series in 2013 also meant that mirrorless cameras no longer needed to market themselves so heavily on portability and convenience, as they now had the quality to compete with DSLRs. Tiny mirrorless cameras went out of fashion; the Pentax Q was discontinued and all but forgotten.

Now, fast-forward to 2025. More images are taken every day on 1/2.3-inch sensors than all other sensor sizes combined, since this is the most common sensor size for a smartphone. As such, many big tech firms have invested heavily in making images from these sensors look as good as possible. Full-frame mirrorless cameras, meanwhile, have ballooned in size, resolution and price, putting many of them out of reach of the average hobbyist, who is also feeling the pinch of increased costs across the board. Cheap, pocketable compact cameras are back in vogue, with a new generation of users treating their digital scuzziness as a feature rather than a bug. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Pentax were using digital filters long before film simulations came along

I believe that a refreshed, re-released Pentax Q system could be an absolute slam dunk in the 2020s. The cameras still have their share of devoted fans, who love them as daily drivers for their convenience and in particular the pop of their colours thanks to those creative digital filters (which pre-date Fuji’s Film Simulations, by the way). A refreshed version, maybe with a sprinkle of 2020s image processing, could be a huge hit with the kinds of people who’ve flocked to the Camp Snap, who love Instax prints, or who buy old X100 cameras on eBay. And with a set of cute little lenses you can keep in your pocket, it’d offer something those cameras can’t, especially as the Q has a real pop-up flash built-in.

I do have one word of warning, however, to any Pentax-Ricoh executives reading this and starting to get those cartoon dollar-signs in the eyes: you have to make it affordable. You have to. I appreciate that it’s not going to be a $65 Camp Snap, but it also can’t be an $849 Fujifilm X-half (and frankly I think you were cheeky with the Pentax 17). Price this right, and it could sell in droves. Get it wrong, and it could start to feel like 2014 all over again.

Related reading

• What are the best small mirrorless cameras?
• Best compact cameras – pixel perfect point and shoot cameras
• Vintage digital cameras you should actually buy

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Now is the perfect time for the Pentax Q to make a comeback appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

I have been capturing landscapes, street scenes, and portraits for more than a decade now. Although my photos often appear “perfect” on the camera screen during shoots, there are many instances when I am disappointed after viewing them in Adobe Lightroom for editing. There are the obvious reasons for post-processing that need little elaboration, more than saying it is an essential part of the creative process to edit one’s flat raw images. This process is art requiring tender loving care, and it transforms snapshots into experiential images.

However, I want to touch upon another benefit of learning these skills that is more overarching than just the images you work on.

Today, for example, I have just returned from a photoshoot and noticed, to my frustration, a rookie compositional mistake on my screen at the hotel. While my subject was carefully placed in front of the waterfall, my high vantage point resulted in only her upper body being silhouetted against the smooth, glistening white water, but her legs blended into the darkness of the rock beneath her. A lower tripod angle could have avoided this. It is only in the very post-processing that I realised my mistake while shooting.

So, we can see here how one’s deficiencies in shooting are highlighted by the methodical and mindful process of editing and examining one’s work in detail during the editing process.

The very process of scrolling through your images and critically evaluating them draws attention to the camera settings and techniques employed – whether it be filters, focus, sharpness, or composition, which then provides negative feedback from which one learns to improve.

I realised that post-processing is in fact “reverse engineering” and a critical aspect of photography that teaches us valuable lessons, providing insight into our shooting process.

Editing is naturally where the pros shine. Even when they capture images without any seeming flaws, they are methodical and careful with their post-processing. The amateurs, by contrast, spend the least amount of time editing, rushing to upload to social media, missing their photos’ true potential.

I recommend three measures to improve your post-processing:

• Firstly, practice, practice, practice – to improve your compositional and camera techniques while shooting.
• Secondly, invest in a high-quality monitor and a PC with specifications that meet the requirements of the photo editing software you will be using.
• Thirdly and importantly, upskill yourself with tutorials from professionals and learn how they edit.

The first question beginners usually ask after my workshops is, “So what camera should I buy?” Discussions further revolve around the choice of lenses, but no one asks about editing software or the editing process itself. It is my job as their teacher to emphasise the profound power of editing, without which one will never achieve truly great images, both through the editing process itself and through the learning curve for taking better photos.

So don’t be afraid to embrace the journey of post-processing. It’s a game changer.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Here’s why you must learn post processing editing… appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

In a world full of AI fakes and an insistence on sharing every moment of your waking life online, instant film photos could be the perfect antidote. When I’ve taken an exposure with my Polaroid 1000 Land Camera or Supercolor 635, I often think “there’s no need to share this photo, this one is just for me”.

They are a completely unique one of a kind limited edition print.

The stunning hazy washed out glow and unique filmic colours make them perfect for a couple’s engagement shoot or guestbooks when I’m photographing weddings, too.

It’s no big secret that you pay a premium for this – in fact my most recent purchases of Polaroid 600 Colour cost $24 / £18.95 for a pack of eight, making it about $3 / £2.40 per picture. With my SX-70 film it’s more expensive at $35 / £24 per pack of eight, so $4.40 / £3 for each press of the shutter. It has always been an expensive format however and adjusted for inflation likely isn’t that much more expensive in the modern age than it was in its heyday during the 80’s. Though the Polaroid and instant cameras themselves may have gone up in value since then due to becoming collector’s items and pretty ornaments to put on a shelf – I’ll freely admit I use them for the latter when they’re not being used.

It’s also worth noting that instant cameras like the Fujifilm Instax Mini 12 use the smaller image size of 46x62mm which is about half the size of the full-fat Polaroids and is therefore more affordable. We’ve also seen the rise of digital instant cameras like the Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo and the Canon Zoemini S2 which are both digital cameras that have a printer built-in. This borrows some of the DNA of those older instant cameras, but for me they can’t match the washed out hazy vintage feel of the real thing.

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Film may be expensive but instant cameras have a magic that is hard to beat appeared first on Amateur Photographer.

The introduction of mirrorless cameras, and the introduction of YouTube (now the World’s second-largest search engine) are two significant factors, that revolutionised the content creation world. Photographers are becoming more interested in making videos to express themselves, gain popularity, teach, and grow their network and earnings.

This has led camera manufacturers to create hybrid cameras that cater to both photography and video. It also resulted in the term “hybrid-shooter” because many photographers realised that instead of having two sets of cameras and lenses, and a dedicated person for videography, they could just use one camera and do it themselves. A picture might tell a thousand words, but moving images and sound are an actual journey.

Photography is thus becoming more of a traditional “art”, while videography is popularly lapped up and consumed by eager eyes and fast scrolling fingers. Everyone with a cell phone is a photographer.

So, in this content-hungry modern world, an aspiring professional photographer must cultivate both photography and videography skills to thrive and stand above the rest. Here’s why:

Business Mindset:

• Expanded Marketing Reach: Even if you are primarily a photographer, video content is crucial for effective online marketing. Platforms like YouTube and social media prioritise video, making it essential for showcasing your work and reaching new audiences.
• Client Requirements and Competition: Clients are increasingly expecting low-cost dynamic content, often requiring both still images and video for their marketing, events, or personal use. Many of my inquiries request same-day photo and video coverage, necessitating hiring an on-site video editor to collect and edit footage. Mastering both skills enhances your competitiveness.
• Social Media Trends: The dominance of video-first platforms, such as TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts, means that engaging with these trends is crucial for brand growth.

Personal Journey:

• Leaving a Richer Legacy: Combining photos and videos enables a more comprehensive and immersive record of events, places, and people, adding a sense of “being there”, creating a more powerful and enduring legacy.
• Teaching platforms: With teaching through video becoming the norm, you needs skills to create compelling tutorials and offer online courses, thereby opening up new revenue streams and establishing oneself as an industry expert.

Photography has an undeniable place in society, and the medium cannot be replaced. Learning video doesn’t mean that we are deprioritising photography; in fact, it’s the opposite. It’s photography that drives us and takes us to the places, but video, with its components of context and sound, helps alleviate the pressure of recording experiences perfectly in still images. With its greater revenue potential, being adept at video allows us to practice the less lucrative and more purist art of photography, which we so love, with less demand.

Related reading:

• How to start monetising your video content
• The best video editing software
• If you’re new to video editing, DaVinci Resolve is your best bet

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk

Follow AP on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The post Why aspiring photographers need to master both stills and video in the modern world appeared first on Amateur Photographer.