|
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
10 I
published
studio tests
that look at
the highlight
headroom and
estimated
native ISO
of the Fuji
X-T5 and X-T4.
On October
20 I
published a
full field and
studio test of
the Pentax HD
FA 43/1.9
Limited.
On September
27 I
published
Part Two of
my
review of the
Pentax K3 III
Monochrome.
On September
16 I
published
Part One of an
extensive
two-part
review of the
Pentax K3 III
Monochrome.
On August 9 I
published a
full field and
studio test of
the Pentax HD
FA 31/1.8
Limited.
On July 31 I
published an
article that
looks at how
the Leica M11M
and M10M
respond to
color filters
which
are used to
change
tonality.
On July 18 I
published
studio tests
that look at
the Leica Q3's
highlight
headroom and
estimated
native ISO.
On June 16 I published a studio comparison test of the Leica Q2 and Q3 which looks at color rendering
On June
1 I published an
article based
on studio
tests which
compare the
Leica Q2 and
Q3
in terms of
resolution,
vignetting and
color drift.
On May 25 I
published a
full field
review of the
Leica Q3. This
is the first
in a series of
articles
about the new
camera.
On May
17 I published an
article that
looks at the
highlight
headroom and
estimated
native ISO of
the Leica M11
Monochrom.
On May 12 I published an
article
covering side
by side studio
tests -- of
the M11M, M10M
and M11 --
that
look at
resolution and
vignetting
with a
challenging 21
mm and a
challenging 28
mm lens.
On April 14 I published an
article
covering side
by side studio
tests -- of
the M11M, M10M
and M11 --
which look at
spectral
sensitivity
and overall
rendering as
well as noise
at various ISO
levels
(and file
dimensions).
Next up will
be tests of
resolution and
vignetting,
for all three
cameras, with
four
rangefinder
lenses. In a
separate
article, I'll
also be
testing
highlight
headroom and
apparent
native ISO.
Other articles
in the series
will look at
high ISO
theater
photography
with the M11M
and
the camera's
tonal response
to external
color filters.
On April 13 I published a
full field
review of the
new Leica M11
Monochrom.
This is the
first in a
series
of articles
about the new
camera.
On March 29 I published a full field and studio
test review of the Canon 35/2.8 LTM
lens tested on the
Leica M10 Monochrom and M (Typ 240).
On March 16 I published an article which is part review
and part essay. It looks at the
performance
and rendering of the Canon 28/2.8, on the
Leica M10 Monochrom and Leica M (Typ 240),
in the context
of a larger discussion of lens drawing and
of this particular lens' influence on the
look of many photographs
made by Garry Winogrand.
On February 15 I published an essay about seeing and
focusing the subject with a rangefinder
camera.
On
February
3 I
published a very
extensive article based on side by side studio
tests of the Fuji X-T5
and X-T4. This is the first time that I have
done formal tests of Fuji's 40 MP APS-C sensor
and the
results were quite interesting.
On January 19 I
published a full review of
the Fujifilm XF 30/2.8 LM WR Macro based on field
and studio
tests done using the Fujifilm X-T5. Some of the
studio comparison tests were also done using a
Fujifilm
XF 33/1.4 as a reference lens.
On January 10,
2023 I
published my review of the
Fuji X-T5. I've simultaneously been working on two
companion articles which are coming up next. The
first is a review of the Fuji XF 30/2.8 Macro and
the
second is based on side-by-side studio tests of
the 40 MP X-T5 and 26 MP X-T4. Those tests will
look at
resolution, color rendering, noise at various ISO
levels and moire.
On November 30 I
published a full review of the
Pentax HD FA 21/2.4 Limited DC WR based on studio
testing
on the Pentax K1 II and field testing on the K1 II and
Pentax K3 III.
On November 10 I
published an article based on
extensive studio tests of the Pentax K1 II and K3
III.
These tests look at color rendering, performance
at various ISO levels, highlight headroom and
rendering in "Pixel Shift" mode.
On October 20 I
published a review of the Pentax
K3 III and K1 II tested side by side. This is the
first in
a new series of Pentax articles which will also
include full side by side studio tests of these two
cameras
as well as full studio/field reviews of the Pentax HD
FA 21/2.4, 31/1.8 and 43/1.9 lenses.
On August 31 I
published a full review of the
Fujinon XF 33/1.4 LM WR as compared to the
Fujinon XF 35/1.4 R.
On July 8 I
published an article about
working in B&W with digital camera raw files. It
first looks at the
topic in broad ways and then moves through some
examples of my own conversion steps when working
with monochrome and color source files. It also looks
at ways in which color channel blending, when
creating B&W files, can affect noise.
On June 2 I
published an article based on
studio tests of highlight headroom (and estimated
native
ISO) for the Leica SL, SL2 and
SL2-S.
On May 17 I
published an article based on
studio tests of highlight headroom (and estimated
native
ISO) for the Fujifilm GFX100S and
GFX50S II. This article may be of interest to any
serious digital
photographer who cares about useable dynamic range.
On
April 28 I published an article
based on full studio tests of the Ricoh GR IIIx's lens.
On March 26 I published an article
based on studio tests of highlight headroom (and estimated
native
ISO) for the Leica M11, M10 Monochrom
and M10-R. This article may be of interest to many serious
digital photographers (working with any brand of camera)
as it looks, in some depth, at the nature of
"useable dynamic range", the relationship of that to
various colors and color channels as well as other
related topics.
On March 22 I published an article
based on studio tests of resolution, luminance vignetting
and color drift
which compare the Leica M11, M10 Monochrom and M10-R using
a compact 28 mm lens and a compact
21 mm lens.
On February 28 I published an article
based on studio tests of resolution, luminance vignetting
and color drift
which compare the Leica M11, M10 Monochrom and M10-R using
two apochromatic 35 mm lenses.
On February 9 I published an article based
on Black & White studio tests which compare the Leica M11,
M10 Monochrom and M10-R.
On January 18 I published an article based
on detailed color studio tests of the Leica M10-R and M11.
This is
a 14-page article that looks at color rendering, noise levels
at various ISO and DNG settings, color moire and
infrared color drift resistance/color neutrality.
On January 13,
2022 I published my review of the
new Leica M11. This is the first in a series of six articles
that will
be looking at this camera in detail -- including many studio
test comparisons with the Leica M10-R and M10
Monochrom.
On
December 7 I published a full
review of the Fujifilm GF 50/3.5 R LM WR based on field and
studio tests
done using a Fujifilm GFX100S and a GFX50S II.
On
November 23 I published a
detailed comparative 18 page field and studio review of the
Fujifilm GFX100S
and GFX50S II.
On October 31 I published what
is essentially two articles in one. It is a detailed full
field and studio review of
the M-Mount Cosina Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 35/2.0 ASPH. Woven
into that are new field tests of the Zeiss
ZM 35/2.8 Biogon C as well as side-by-side studio tests of the
CV 35 APO, the Zeiss ZM 35/2.8 and the Leica
M APO 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH. This is a 16 page article with
more than 110 illustrations.
On
September 28 I published a full
review of the Pentax HD DA 40/2.8 Limited based on field and
studio tests
done using a Pentax KP.
On
September 15 I published a full
review of the Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S based on field and studio
tests done using the
Nikon Z7.
On
August 31 I published a
comparison test that looks at the resolution seen from the
Leica SL, SL2 & SL2-S when
paired with a Leica M APO 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH. It also looks
at the luminance vignetting and color drift
seen from the Leica SL & SL2-S when paired with that same
lens.
On
August 12 I published a
comparison test of resolution, vignetting and color drift for
the Leica SL, SL2 & SL2-S
when each was paired with a Leica SL APO 35/2.0 Summicron
ASPH.
On
July 30 I published a
short review (based on field and studio tests) of an older
Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS tested
on a Nikon Z7.
On
July 15 I published an
extensive review of the Fuji XF 18/1.4 based on field work and
studio tests
comparing the new lens side by side with the Fuji XF 18/2.0
(on a Fuji X-Pro 3).
On
June 29 I published a
short review (based on field and studio tests) of an older
Nikkor-Q 200/4.0 tested
on a Nikon Z7.
On
June 10 I published a full
review of the Sigma L Mount 35/2.0 DG DN based on extensive
field tests done
using the Leica SL2-S and studio tests (done using a Leica
SL2) which were done side by side with a Leica
SL APO 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH. The Sigma 35/2.0 DG DN is also
available in Sony E Mount.
On
May 21 I published tests of the
highlight headroom and estimated native ISO levels of the
Leica
Q2 Monochrom, Q2 and M10 Monochrom. This article may be of
interest to any digital camera photographer
who is interested in careful exposure and usable dynamic
range.
On
May 7 I published my field review of
the Leica SL2-S tested with the Leica M APO 35/2.0 Summicron
ASPH
and Sigma L 35/2.0 DG DN.
On
April 29 I published a full review of the
Cosina Voigtlander 21/3.5 Color-Skopar ASPH based on field
testing and studio tests done, side by side with the
Voigtlander 21/4.0 Color-Skopar, using a Leica M10
Monochrom and M10-R.
On
April 12 I published a full
review of the Sigma L Mount 24/3.5 DG DN based on extensive
field testing and
studio tests done using a Leica SL2. This lens is also
available in Sony E Mount.
On
March 25 I published a full
review of the Pentax HD DA 35/2.8 Macro Limited based on
extensive field
testing and studio tests done using a Pentax KP.
On
March 17 I published a full
review of the Cosina Voigtlander 35/2.0 Ultron ASPH based on
extensive field
testing and studio tests done side by side with the Leica M APO 35/2.0
Summicron ASPH and Leica 35/2.0
Summicron ASPH.
On
March 4 I published an
extensive (21 page) review of the new Leica M APO 35/2.0
Summicron ASPH based
on field testing and full studio tests. For the latter, I
tested the new lens side by side with the current Leica M
35/2.0 Summicron ASPH and current M 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. The
core test camera was an Leica M10-R
but I also did resolution tests using the M10 Monochrom and
SL2. The field illustrations in this article were
made using the M10-R and an SL2-S.
On
February 19 I published my
studio tests of the new Leica 50/1.2 Noctilux Aspherical used
on the Leica
M10-R, M10M and SL2.
On
February 8, 2021 I published an
extensive field review of the new Leica 50/1.2 Noctilux
Aspherical tested on the
Leica M10-R and SL2. Up next will be full studio tests.
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 $49.95 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 $49.95. 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. |
