|
Note:
Current subscribers can click on the header above to log in, if
desired. The link to renew a subscription
or to check when it expires is near the bottom of this page.
The Reid Reviews article
index gives a listing of stories published to date.
For suggestions about how to get the most out of the site see our site tips.
Reid
Reviews'
normal business hours are 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST Monday through
Friday
(excluding holidays) and any problems with subscriptions,
responses to e-mail, etc. are normally handled
during those business hours. I am, however, sometimes away
photographing during those hours and
appreciate your patience if you need to wait for a response to your
e-mail. If subscribing, please be sure that the
full name you provide exactly matches the name on your PayPal account.
On November 11 I
published a set of studio vignetting and resolution tests which compare the Leica Q2M to the
Leica Q2 and Leica M10 Monochrom (with M 28/1.4). This is the second article in a four-part series.
On November 10 I
published a review of the Leica Q2 Monochrom including studio tests which compare
it to the Leica Q2 and Leica M10 Monochrom. This is the first article in a four-part series.
On October 31 I
published a 75 mm studio lens test of resolution, color drift and vignetting comparing
the
Leica M10-R to the M10 Monochrom, M (Typ 240) and SL2.
On October 20 I published a review of the Fuji X-T4.
On October 6 I published Fuji Fast Fifties. This is a review of Fujifilm's new XF 50/1.0 WR as compared
On September 17 I
published a 50 mm studio lens test of resolution, color drift and vignetting comparing
the
Leica M10-R to the M10 Monochrom, M (Typ 240) and SL2.
On August 31 I
published a 35 mm studio lens test of resolution, color drift and vignetting comparing
the
Leica M10-R to the M10 Monochrom, M (Typ 240) and SL2.
On August 13 I
published a 21 mm studio lens test of resolution, color drift and vignetting comparing the
Leica M10-P, M10-R and M10 Monochrom.
On July 30 I
published an extensive 28 mm studio lens test of resolution, color drift and vignetting comparing
the Leica Q2 with the Leica M10-P, M10-R, M10 Monochrom and SL2. This article covers a lot of ground.
On July 24 I published a color studio comparison test of the Leica M10R and SL2.
On July 18 I published a B&W studio comparison test of the Leica M10R, M10M, M10P and Q2.
On July 16 I
published a color studio comparison test of the Leica M10R, M10P and Q2. There will be eight
more articles coming up in this series which compare the M10R to, in various combinations, the M10M, SL2
M-240, M10P and Q2. Included will be a series of lens tests looking at comparative resolution and vignetting
for these cameras paired with various lenses.
On July 16 I published a review of the Leica M10R.
On June 30 I
published a review of two older Nikkor manual focus lenses, the AIS 28/2.8 and AI 28/3.5,
which were tested on the Nikon Z7.
On June 11 I
published a studio comparison test of the Cosina Voigtlander 21/4.0 Color-Skopar lens on the
Leica SL2, Leica SL, Leica M (Typ 240) and Panasonic S1R. The CV 21/4.0 is an excellent "litmus test" lens
that can give us a good sense of how each of these cameras performs (especially off-axis) with challenging
rangefinder lenses.
On May 20 I
published a full review of the Pentax HD 21/3.2 DA Limited as tested, in the studio and
in the field, on the Pentax KP.
On May 12 I
published a test of the Nikon Z7 paired with the Cosina Voigtlander 21/4.0 Color Skopar.
This is an excellent "litmus test" lens to see how well a given camera body might perform with a wide
range of challenging rangefinder lenses. Coming up next will be tests that look at how well three other
cameras perform with this lens: the Leica SL2, Leica SL and Panasonic S1R.
On May 8 I
published the results of my studio tests of the Nikon Z7. These tests look at rendering, color
accuracy and noise levels at various ISO settings.
On May
1 I
published a detailed review of the Leica APO-Summicron SL 35/2.0 ASPH
and
Sigma L 35/1.2 DG DN Art lenses tested on the Leica SL, Leica SL2 and
Panasonic S1R. This extensive
article, which is based on both studio and field tests, includes more
than 120 illustrations.
On April
15 I
published Framed: The Leica Q2,
One Year Later. This article, part field report and part
essay,
is based on my field testing of the Q2 in 2019 and 2020 but also looks
at the broader subject of framing and
at some of the ways in which the edges of a picture affect the way it
is structured (composed) in drawing,
painting and photography.
On April
3 I
published a review of the Acer BM320 which is a 32" 4K monitor
designed for photographers
and other visual professionals.
On March
31 I
published an extensive field report on the Leica M10M, Fuji X100V and
Fuji X-Pro-3 which I
tested side by side at Daytona Bike Week earlier this month.
On February 29 I published a test of the Nikon Z7 paired with a Leica M 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH.
On February
26 I
published Into the Shadows: Leica
M10 Monochrom which that looks at that camera's
shadow recovery noise levels at ISO 160 and ISO 320.
On February
10 I
published an article that looks at the highlight headroom and
estimated native ISO of
the Leica M10 Monochrom and M Monochrom (Typ 246). This article might
also be interesting to
photographers who are hoping to see other monochrome camera models
reach the market in the future.
On February
5 I
published side by side lens tests of the Fuji X100F and a
late pre-production Fuji X100V
running
firmware 1.oo.
On February
4 I
published side by side studio tests of the Fuji X100F and a
late pre-production Fuji X100V
running
firmware 1.oo.
On February 4 I published an in-depth review of a late pre-production Fuji X100V running firmware 1.oo.
On January
18 I
published an article which looks at side by side studio resolution
tests of the M10 Monochrom
and the M Monochrom (Typ 246) with two challenging rangefinder lenses
and side
by side studio vignetting
tests of those two cameras with four rangefinder lenses.
On January
17, 2020 I
published a review of the Leica M10 Monochrom and an article which
looks at
side by side studio tests of the M10 Monochrom and the M Monochrom
(Typ 246).
On December 18 I published a very detailed review of the Fujifilm X-Pro 3.
On December
3 I
published my review of the Panasonic S1R.
On November
22 I
published the results of studio and field tests of the Sigma
45/2.8 DG DN on the Leica SL2.
For simplicity, these test results have been added (as new pages) to
my earlier review of the Sigma 45.
On November
14 I
published a studio comparison test of the Leica M 28/2.8 ASPH
(Pre-2016) lens on the
Leica SL2, Leica SL, Leica M (Typ 240) and Panasonic S1R.
On November
10 my
Leica SL2 Field Report was expanded with a table that shows
approximate auto-focus
speeds for seven L mount lenses tested on the SL2, SL and Panasonic
S1R.
On November
10 I
published side-by-side studio tests of the Leica SL, SL2 and Panasonic
S1R. These look at
converted raw file quality, color rendering, noise levels at various
ISO settings and color moire.
On November
6 I
published the first of several articles I will be writing about the
Leica SL2. This first story
looks at my impressions of the camera having worked with it in the
field this fall.
On October 28 I published a full review of the Fujinon GF 63/2.8 R lens based on studio and field tests.
On October
7 I
published a full review of the Sigma 45/2.8 DG DN lens tested on the
Leica SL and
Panasonic S1R.
On September 7 I published a field test of four compact wide-angle rangefinder lenses on the Fuji X-T3.
On August
30 I
published a studio test article that looks at the highlight headroom
and native ISO of
the Leica Q2 and Q.
On August 22 I published a full review of the Fujinon GF 23/4.0 WR lens based on studio and field tests.
On July
25 I
published a test of two compact 28 mm rangefinder lenses on the Nikon
Z7.
On July 19 I revised and expanded my review of the Nikon Z7.
On July
16 I
published an
extensive review of the Nikon Z7. This is our site's 500th article.
Coming up will
be tests of various rangefinder and manual focus Nikon lenses on the
Z7. I will also be doing formal studio tests
looking at the ways the Z7 renders color and performs at various ISO
levels.
On July
3 I
published the results of studio tests done to compare the color
rendering and file quality
(at various ISO levels) of the Ricoh GR III and GR II.
On June
28 I
published an extensive review of the Hasselblad
XCD 45/3.5 lens
based on studio and field tests.
On June
19 I
published the results of full studio tests done comparing the
performance of the lenses used in
the Ricoh GR II and Ricoh GR III.
On June
12 I
added new pages to my Ricoh GR III review based on working with the
camera at Laconia
Bike Week.
On June
7 I
published an
extensive review of the Ricoh GR III. Coming up will be articles based
on studio tests
comparing the GR III to the Ricoh GR II.
On May 16 I published a short review of the Sony A9 used with a Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit Aspherical.
On May
14 I
published a
review of and guide to using Adobe Lightroom's new integrated Flat
Field tool for
correcting color drift and luminance vignetting. This piece is part of
a small group of articles which are available
to read without a subscription.
On May
1 I
published an extensive review of the Pentax
HD DA 15/4.0 Limited
lens based on studio and field tests
done using the Pentax KP.
On April
25 I
published an extensive review of the Fujinon XF 16/2.8 WR lens based
on studio and field tests
done using the Fuji X-Pro 2. This article also looks at the very
interesting affects software distortion correction
can have on color fringing.
On April
11 I
published a full review of the Pentax KP based on extensive field
testing and studio testing.
Between March 8 - 11 I have published several updates to my review of the Leica Q2.
On March
8 I
published a 14 page review of the Leica 28/1.7 Summilux ASPH fixed
lens on the Leica
Q and Q2 including full studio tests. That article also covers a lot
of ground and includes many example
pictures made with the Q2’s lens wide open at F/1.7. A third article
based on working with the Q2 at
Daytona Bike Week and Daytona Beach is in the works.
On March
7 I
published a very detailed review of the Leica Q2 based on extensive
field testing in many
locations as well as controlled studio tests comparing the new model
to the Leica Q.
On February
22 I
published a review of five small format rangefinder lenses tested on
the Fuji GFX 50R.
This article, which includes over 130 illustrations, looks not only at
these camera/lens pairings but also at the
larger question of mixing lenses and cameras of different formats.
What are the possibilities here for medium
format square pictures? What happens if we decide to intentionally
embrace the semi-circle created by this
hard vignetting as well as the off-axis resolution losses (which
function in ways that can be related to depth
of field)? This is a test article but also one that looks at some
larger questions about photography itself and,
in particular, the ways in which we think about the frame.
On January
31 I
published an extensive review of the Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.2 M
Nokton Aspherical based on
field and studio tests including side by side comparison testing with
the
Voigtlander 50/1.1 M Nokton. This
review includes over 70 illustrations.
On January 22 I updated my review of the Sony A7R III.
On January 15, 2019 I published a full review of the Fuji GFX 50R.
Every
writer naturally brings his or her own experience and
perspective to the articles he or she writes. My
writing is heavily influenced by my experience working as a
professional photographer for more than thirty-five
years. I'm primarily interested in cameras and
lenses as tools for drawing, as I believe that photography
really is a branch of drawing. As the photographer Henri
Cartier-Bresson once said in an interview, "My
photography is just an instant drawing...I never quit
drawing. The camera is a way of drawing." I'm also guided by the photographer Andre Kertesz's observation, "I see the thing, I feel the thing, I make the thing". So when I review a camera or a lens, I look primarily at how it presents the world to the photographer (via the finder), how it works as a tool in the hands, and how it draws the kind of picture we call a photograph.
"Quite simply, I think your sections on 'drawing' and and on 'sunny day lenses' are the best writing about photographic lenses that I have read - whether in magazines, journals, books or the various sources online. Few professional writers about photography ever attempt such a full consideration of the range of lens performance characteristics and the different ways in which they are photographically significant. Some discussions in photographic communities online circle around the subject, but don't achieve the focus, rigour and articulacy that you have managed here. Your article is what all writing about photographic lenses ought to be like, yet it's astonishing that next to none of it is. Interesting though Irwin Puts Leica lens book is, it would have been so much more interesting, and so much more appropriate to its subject matter, if it had been written as you have written here...I found the article incredibly useful and interesting. A great help in clarifying and firming up what I have experienced and half-understood about how different lenses work." -
Simon Pulman-Jones, England "We all owe you a vote of thanks for such a massive and thorough piece of work. What a concept-- a "lens test" that is really about the pictorial effect of how lenses draw their images. Lines per millimeter and MTF graphs have their place, but your article really gets to the heart of the matter in the way that photographers can relate to instantly." - Peter Klein, USA
- Jim Watts, USA
-
Mikiro Mori, Japan "...a very informative, even enlightening, work. It not only provides visual evidence of comparative lenses' performance, it also gets right to the most important factor of lens evaluation - how the image looks to the photographer. Long ago I stopped reading test charts of lenses since none of my clients ever published any. It is always the look of the finished image that counts." -
Richard Weisgrau, USA "I hope your tests become a benchmark for other reviewers to pay more attention to the real needs of photographers..." - Phil Fogle, USA
- Bill Marshall, USA
Example
Articles ReidReviews.com accepts no advertising. A subscription is currently $39.95 per year. To get a sense of my writing style and approach you may want to read any of the freely accessible articles linked in the Read Without A Subscription section of our article index. And, of course, that index includes every article on RR so you'll be able to see just what content can be found here. As of late November, 2017 there were over 450 articles on the site, most of them quite extensive. All of them are reviews or essays.
Current Articles A
list of current articles on Reid Reviews can be found at the
site's article
index.
Our
Policy
On Advertising As
many
readers know, RR has always been an independent site in many
senses of that word. We hope that our readers can appreciate
the value of this approach. As a society, we are barraged with
advertising (on the web, on televison, on radio, on buses,
streets, etc.). Reading Reid Reviews is, we hope, an oasis
from that. We have never accepted advertising and we never
will. We also have never taken sales commission from any
business. The Reid Reviews system is simple: we create the
content and our readers, and only our readers, pay for
it. For a humorous, but also very perceptive, take on where the line between journalism and advertising seems to be heading, for some publications at least, see this John Oliver video. I highly recommend watching it. Article
Viewer Options
The new site offers six ways to view Reid Reviews content. Click the image below to read about these. 
Article
Viewers
Click
on
either image below to get a sense of what our main HTML 5
pages look like on a 1920 by 1200 pixel monitor. Our mobile
viewers are simplified and more compact. The grey dots you see
on each page are clicked to open or close the side panels (an
article list panel on the left and a search panel on the
right).
Site
Tips Useful tips on using the Reid Reviews site can be found here. That page is worth reading and will be updated from time to time.
Subscribing The one-year subscription rate for the site is $39.95. Once your username and password have been issued, the subscription amount is not refundable. The best way to sample my work (to decide if you'd want to be a subscriber) is to read the freely accessible articles linked in the Read Without A Subscription section of our article index. Pay Pal customers can pay for their subscriptions using their Pay Pal accounts and people who are not Pay Pal customers may make a one-time credit card payment to Reid Reviews via PayPal. To make a payment by check please follow the instructions listed on the "subscribe" page which is linked below. Reid
Reviews'
normal business hours are 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST Monday
through Friday (excluding holidays) and any problems
with subscriptions, responses to e-mail, etc. are normally
handled during those business hours. I am, however, sometimes
away for medical appointments during those hours and
appreciate your patience if you need to wait for a response to
your e-mail. If subscribing,
please be sure that the full name you provide exactly
matches the name on your PayPal account. If they
don't match there's a good chance the system will not be able
to start your subscription automatically. Reid Reviews is a high-bandwidth site full of high quality JPEGs that, intentionally, are saved with minimal compression so each picture file is quite large (given its dimensions). Preserving the thoroughness and technical picture quality of the reviews requires that the included JPEGs be only lightly compressed. When you choose your user name and password *please* record them in a safe place for future reference. If you misplace your user name or password please click on the "Log In" link and follow the instructions there. Paypal
should automatically confirm your payment so that your
subscription begins immediately. Due to the mysteries of
PayPal, however, this sometimes does not happen for a small
percentage of new subscriptions. The most common reason
for Paypal subscription problems is entering a subscription
account name that does not exactly match the name one provides
to PayPal. If you've made a subscription payment but
do not yet have access to the site, please contact us to
manually confirm your subscription. I am a working
photographer, however, so I'm not always at the computer and
your patience is appreciated. That said, I do my best to
get accounts activated as quickly as possible once I know that
manual activation is needed. When you subscribe, please enter your name exactly as it appears on your PayPal account (if you have one) or credit card (if paying without a Paypal account). Doing so can help to prevent problems with a subscription starting automatically. Name mismatches are the primary reason new subscriptions do not activate automatically. Again, if the name you enter for your subscription does not match the name on your PayPal account (or credit card) there's a very good chance that your subscription won't start automatically. If you have questions, please e-mail me.Subscribe Now Log-In (Remember, you can also always log in by clicking the header at the top of this page). Renew or check how long you have left on your subscription Our privacy policy can be found here. |
