My First Date With The Fuji X-S10

  For a compilation of the morning walk images, click here.

Order yours here.

As a photographer, I am a serious hobbyist, not a professional. As such, the equipment I purchase cannot be deducted as a business expense, so I will acquire new equipment only if there is some feature that can have a positive effect on the quality of my images. I've been very happy with my odd collection of Fuji bodies, starting from my X-E1s through my X-Pros and ending with my X-T bodies, which I consider my first line cameras for most of my assignments.

I had read the early reports on the new X-S10 body, and was immediately drawn to two important features: The fully reticulated LCD panel and the In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS). The latter feature really got my attention because my primary business lens is a 16-55 F 2.8 zoom that lacks image stabilization. I reasoned that if I mounted it on an X-S10 body, I could actually enjoy IS with my three business lenses. That would be a definite upgrade.

I asked my friends at Fireside Camera about the expected delivery date, and they promised to call me when one came in. Low and behold, their first one was delivered about a week ago, and within a day of their phone call, I was in the store examining my new purchase. It had a different feel, due in part to the changes in the body configuration made to accommodate the image stabilization hardware, but I felt that, over time, I could get used to it. Before I left the store, I was warned that the camera controls were designed for an enthusiast and not for the control freak my other Fujis had allowed me to become. I believed that once I selected the control settings I preferred, all would fall into place. I was wrong.

When you update to a new piece of hardware, you notice what is missing, rather than the features that have been added. This is logical, since you can't miss what you never had. Some of things I missed immediately were the lack of an external Focus Mode Select Button, the haphazard (to me) placement of key controls, and most importantly, the "shutter speed dial" that was now an "mode select dial". Gone were the individual shutter speeds engraved on the dial. Instead, there was a selection of exposure modes (Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, etc.), very similar to the settings found on a digital single lens reflex.

Fuji X-S10 (top) vs Fuji X-T4. Not 100% to scale, but close.

Here is a comparison of the X-S10 (top) and the X-T4 (bottom) top plates. You can see that all of the exposure controls of the T4 are clearly marked, while those of the X-S10 are not. When a lens is mounted, the X-T4 (lower image) will tell you everything you need to know about the current exposure settings (ISO, shutter speed, and exposure compensation, if applied) and the locations of the dials remains consistent across the professional and "prosumer" platforms. If numbers don't scare you, you can easily identify your desired settings. In the case of the X-S10, those unmarked command dials have different functions depending on which mode you select. In fact, the function of the X-S10 resembles an entry level DSLR, which may have been intentional. 

Still, the cost is a major factor (MSRP X-S100 = $1000, X-T4 $1,700) when all I really wanted was the IBIS. I understand the video capabilities are well above any of my other digital cameras, but until I actually need them, the purchase was an investment that has yet to  provided any major dividends. 

Familiarity Breeds Contempt: Truer words were never spoken, especially when it comes to something as straightforward a camera. Heck, it was a Fuji, and after working with them almost exclusively for several years, I felt confident in my ability to wing it in the field. So when an indoor assignment came due, I decided to bring the X-S10. After all, it's a Fuji. What could possibly go wrong?

Ooops! Big mistake here. While I was preparing to make this shot, I started making adjustments as I normally would, but because of the unfamiliar layout, I started changing shooting modes rather than adjusting exposure times. I somehow wound up in one of the programmed modes, which restricted my access to some critical controls.  I proceeded to adjust the exposure the only way I could: flash output adjustment. After a half-dozen shots and some well-disguised nervous babble, I thought I had an acceptable shot. Glancing at the LCD, I could see that my images were indeed suitable for publication, so with a show of practiced self-confidence, concluded the session and thanked my subjects. As I walked back to my car, I repeatedly previewed my image, almost afraid it would mysteriously vanish at the will of my petulant camera. Luckily for me, the hadn't. When the photo was properly captioned and sent to my editor, I started to breath again, calming my nerves with a double ration of ice cream.

Stress Test: Call it what you will, but taking a new camera on an assignment will really challenge your notion of how well you know your equipment. I admit to being out of practice since the assignments stopped coming during the pandemic, and should have taken more time to familiarize myself with the new X-S10. Still, I got my image stabilization and my fully reticulated LCD panel at a reasonable cost, with my pride being the only casualty of my embarrassing lack of familiarity.

Fact, Truth, And Filoli At Night

"Archeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall..." 

Indiana Jones, from "The Last Crusade".

It's odd that this quote, taken from a movie, could help me come to grips with an ethical problem I have with a photo I made for the Journal. You see, since the advent of Photoshop, photographers have been forced to adhere to high ethical and professional standards. As such, we are tasked to make images that are a reflection of what was actually before us, and that the viewers of our photos can be assured that what was pictured actually happened. Photojournalism, like golf, has but one golden rule: Tell It Like It Is.

David Hobby, formerly of the Baltimore Sun and creator of Strobist.com, has contributed more to understanding the proper use of flash than anyone else, save Joe McNally of the Nikon Tribe. As a former photojournalist, Mr. Hobby was acutely aware of photography's power to misinform since the advent of the digital camera and post-production applications such as Photoshop. During the transition to digital, he made a simple rule that addresses truthfulness in imaging. In essence, he stated that if you limited yourself to darkroom techniques available to the black and white film photographer, you would remain within the limits of ethical documentary imaging.

Being a practicing black and white processor and printer since the early 1970's, I've taken this to heart. Since film was the only medium available, everybody was anxious to improve their images during the printing process. Dodging and burning, the standard darkroom techniques, have their Photoshop counterparts in the 21st century. Perspective control? We learned to tilt our easels (frames that kept our photo paper flat) to correct converging lines, But in all cases, the negative was essentially incorruptible, a moment in time forever preserved in a microscopic cluster of silver crystals suspended in emulsion.

Advanced technologies, both in the equipment and in post production processing, have radically pushed the boundaries between accuracy and truth. Affordable lenses, high ISO sensitivities, and Photoshop magic have managed to alter our acceptance of what is real and factual. An article written by Ed Elliot and posted on his blog  catalogued, in great detail, the many ways our images can persuade, intentionally or not, the viewer into drawing a conclusion that may be factual, but not entirely truthful. I present a case in point.

Filoli: The world famous Filoli Gardens and Estate were preparing to debut their winter decorations for the holidays. A press-only event had been scheduled to give us a chance to speak with the staff, take in the sights, and go forth to write our stories. My first job was one make a photo to accompany a story about the floral coordinator of the estate - a environmental headshot if you will. The second was to make a shot illustrating some of the lighting and to encourage  attendance in the event.

Shot #1: I decided to make the shot in the Gift Shop, choosing a majestic tree as my background. My editor had a better idea - Why not place her in front of fully decked with ornaments and standing beside a mountain of gifts? Her solution was brilliant, and this shot was quickly made with an on-camera flash bounced off the ceiling and built-in bounce card raised for some additional sparkle.

There are some important qualifications about this photo that need to be made. First, it is obviously not a candid because the subject is looking straight at me. Second, she was in the gift shop at our request, since it was raining outside and the message of "Christmas" was as important as her job as Horticulture Manager. And finally, there was some "crime scene manipulation". I moved a stuffed horse to the left so that the "S" in "Santa" was clearly visible. All in all, it's not a tour de force in artificial lighting, but it got the job done within the looser constraints of community photography. Fact, yes. Truth, meah...

1/8 second, F 5.6, ISO 3200, Cloudy white balance

Shot #2: I'm  conflicted with this one. It was meant to illustrate what a person might actually see if they joined the nightly tour. These trees, plus the lights draped about their limbs, formed a natural bower leading to the main entrance to the mansion.  When I encountered one of the publicists rejoining the docents inside, I thought there might be a photo here, so I framed the shot and asked her to walk toward me from the house until a suitable balance between the subject and the background was achieved. By selecting a shutter speed of 1/8 second, I was able to get the detail in the trees and the cobblestone walkway. I had my subject look up slightly so she could be lit from above. I did use a tiny bit of fill flash, directed up to prevent burning out the immediate foreground. 

1/15 second, F 5.6, ISO 3200

Nice photo Tom, so what's the problem? In reality, only an owl could have seen as much detail as you see here. Through the miracle of high ISO settings, I've presented the viewer with a scene no human could have seen unaided. 

If you look at the sample on the right, you'll get a better idea of how the scene actually appear. Here, the individual lights are properly exposed (no highlight blowout), but there is little detail in the midtones, and none whatsoever in the shadow areas. Clearly the exposure boost of a full stop completely transformed the image and made it printable, if in theory, less accurate.

In short, it all comes down the conflict between fact and truth. The technology gives me an effortless means of recording the facts, down to the smallest detail. But truth, the final interpretation made by the viewer, can still be manipulated to promote an idea. Luckily for me, the community photography venue allows for promotion of a social agenda, one that allows me to always present the bright side of truth.