View allAll Photos Tagged weakness
Our rocky coasts are always endlessly upended, eroding waves crashing cliffs and forming caves. The question is always how deep they'll dig before collapse. I'm not so worried about their sturdiness in passing. Any real crumbling is bound to wait until the sea returns full force – unlikely on any of my low tide visits. This little gallery is working through from both sides, a small passage connecting two openings. It might grow through the decades to a charming shelter, or simply shatter down in some massive storm surge. It's a good reminder to appreciate what's changing, so I'll never catch me craving the same beauty endlessly. Our hearts only thrive on loving what is when we're finding what's new. Given nothing but old sights seen and misty nostalgia, we suffer a sort of emotional dementia, a weakness of heart. If I go a month without seeing somewhere I've never been, it's a sad stretch. Show me those unknowns.
January 31, 2025
Victoria Beach, Nova Scotia
Year 18, Day 6291 of my daily journal.
bluesky | etsy | facebook | instagram
substack | threads | tumblr | youtube
You can support my work
get things in the mail
and see everything
first on Patreon
You are my weakness, you are my strength
Nothing I have in the world makes better sense
Cause I'm the fish and you're the sea
When we're together or when we're apart
There's never a space in between the beat of our hearts
Cause I'm the apple and you're the tree
One day at a time is all we do
One day at a time is good for you
You are my woman, I am your man
Nothing else matters at all, now I understand
That I'm the door and you're the key
And every morning I wake in your smile
Feeling your breath on my face and the love in your eyes
Cause you're the honey and I'm the bee
One day at a time is all we do
One day at a time is good for us two (you too)
Depression is more than just sadness; it is an illness.
It is the leading cause of disability in the US.
6.7% of the adult US population (ages 18 and over) suffer from depression.
Depression is not a weakness.
It could be anyone. It could be you. So don't judge.
Fake news is a real scourge but half-truths are more insidious.
Every other day you get articles of photogs switching from FF to M43 all in the mould of man bites dog simply because the move from m43 to FF can never be news. Some are exceptionally talented, by focusing on the strengths of the system while steering clear of its weaknesses, they make a good case even though it’s not a balanced view. Bear in mind that these pros are paid to do this and their opinions are not entirely unbiased or independent.
So there’s another one of these articles very recently but the points for m43 are so stretched, it becomes misleading. Just to be clear, I like my m43 system and I still shoot with it.
List of misleading half-truths;
1. IBIS is so fantastic you can shoot handheld up to 3-5s exposure
I can never achieve this on my EM5, EM1 Mk2 IBIS will have to be significantly better for this to happen and I have my doubts. Also, 5s exposure at m43 7mm is nothing like 5s exposure at m43 45mm but of course they won’t tell you this. The m43 IBIS is certainly very effective and allows you to shoot at lower shutter-speeds to largely mitigate the weakness of the smaller sensor but this mostly only applies to stationary subjects and not at telephoto focal lengths.
2. Noise penalty can be cancelled out with faster Prime lenses
Yes but how much is that Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro lens again? Is there a m43 12mm f1.0 lens out there to compete with say the Nikon 24mm f1.8G nevermind how much more you’ll have to pay for the m43 alternative? If you delve deeper and examine the T-stops of m43 lenses, it is even worse. I won't elaborate on color depth.
Let's not forget that FF is not devoid of fast Primes either.
3. FF lenses are heavy
Olympus 300mm f4.0 Pro is often stated that at 1,270gms, it is 1/3 the weight of DSLR 600mm equivalents. The Olympus is a 300mm lens that allows you an FOV of 600mm on the m43 sensor, it is NOT a 600mm lens. The Nikon 300mm f4.0 PF VR is also a 300mm lens and this weighs a mere 755gms. You can reach 630mm with a 1.4TC on an APS-C sensor with this Nikon lens, even though you’ll end up at f5.6 vs f4.0 on m43, the larger APS-C sensor cancels out the 1-stop advantage in aperture on m43. Olympus EM1 Mk2+300mm f4.0 Pro is 1,844gms vs Nikon D500+300mm PF VR+TC14 with 1,805gms, so which is heavier now?
For completeness, let’s look at the very wide end. Sony A7RII+FE12-24mm f4.0 is 1,190gms vs EM1 Mk2+7-14mm f2.8 Pro at 1,108gms. The FF Sony combo is a mere 82gms heavier but you get to go much wider by 2mm!
Overall, it is misleading for instance to compare m43 f2.8 lens with an FF f2.8 lens simply because you can't use that m4/3 lens on an FF body. The m43 f2.8 lens on an m43 body is essentially similar to an FF f5.6 lens on an FF body.
So even in the standard focal range nifty-fifty Prime lens, not only is the Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro lens significantly more expensive than the premium Sony Zeiss badged FE55 f1.8, the m43 lens weighs in at 410gms vs 281gms for the Sony!
4. Comparing older gen FF sensor against latest m43 sensor
EM1 MK2 sensor noise compared against Canon 6D is just wrong, the Canon is from 2012, 4 years older camera and possibly much older sensor tech. The 6D is on a much lower price bracket as well.
Comparing the EM1 Mk2 AF vs the Canon 6D is even worse, the 6D is not even a sports oriented camera and hence not equipped with more sophisticated AF system. The correct comparison should be against the Nikon D500 but of course this will not happen because the half-truth then goes up in smoke.
From experience, shadow details and noise of m43 sensor cannot be equal to those from larger sensors. You have less latitude in m43 files, period.
In one of these misleading articles, the comment that took the proverbial cake for me was “Even at wildlife I can shoot at shutter-speed of 1/X instead of 1/Xx3 in case there are no moving subjects”. Wildlife that does not move, can you imagine that!?
The list above is by no means exhaustive.
All these cross format comparison articles that swamp cyberspace these days are downright misleading and does a disservice to the true attractiveness of the m43 system. Focus should be on the real pluses of m43, keep it real and you get to keep your loyal customers instead of attracting new users with half-truths which will result in disillusioned users over time that will forsake the m43 system.
Bottomline is to shoot with whatever that works for you. M43 is a great system, it has certain advantages but like every other system, there are also disadvantages and it is important to understand all these. Not easy to do unless you shoot across format and by “shooting”, it’s a lot more than just pointing at a subject and squeezing the shutter button.
America used to make some fabulous machinery, thoughtful details were everywhere if you cared to look.
The graduated inner ring dial and the scale are satin chrome for non-glare easy reading.
The knurled knob locks and unlocks the graduated ring dial so you can set it to zero, or ?
The table and ways are beautifully scraped which guaranties a flat surface, and adds oil retention.
The finish on this machine is amazing considering it is 53 years old,, and just a "tool".
If Satin Doll(s) are your weakness, go here, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrytKuC3Z_o
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
it's so cold outside.
i decided to clean my room, listen to music and take pictures.
i'm so uncreative lately. bleeeeh
© eva.photography all my photos may not be blogged or used in any way without my written permission!
I have a weakness for juvenile prints. I don't use them for anything because I don't make a lot of kids items, and the thought of a kid dragging them through the dirt or throwing up on one of them is horrifying to me. And this is one of the best ever. the style and color are perfect.
I have a big plastic bin full of vintage fabrics waiting to be displayed in my real grown up house.
Photograph taken in the magic of The Golden Hour around sunrise at 06:20am on August 27th 2011 off Bevan Avenue and 1st Street, beside the wooden fishing pier in beautiful Sidney by the sea on Vancouver Island, British Columbia,
In 1993, the Town of Sidney envisioned a fishing pier for the people of Sidney to enjoy. The ninety metre long Phase I of the pier was finished in 1996, and the 100m long phase 11 a year later.
.
.
Nikon D700 18mm 1/100s f/5.0 iso200 RAW (14Bit)
Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED IF. Manfrotto 055XPro carbon fibre tripod & Manfrotto 327 magnesium pistol grip ball head. Nikon MC-DC2 remote shutter release. Nikon MB-D10 battery grip pack. Two Nikon EN-EL3 batteries. Hoodman HGEC soft viewfinder eyecup. Nikon GP-1 GPS.
.
.
LATITUDE: N 48d 38m 51.85s
LONGITUDE: W 123d 23m 34.19s
ALTITUDE: 15.0m
RAW (TIFF) FILE: 34.60MB
PROCESSED FILE: 4.36MB
Everything we imagine to be infinite, and all that we fought a lot.The weaknesses mean, evil, anguish, was all for trás.The relentless pursuit of balance, fulfillment, the complete mastery of emotions, the power of intuition, the sabedoria.Places like this, where time passes quickly, and feel it is worth remembering, reliving, look back and realize that something is still there, the ability to face obstacles and thrive, learn even if it's trivial, and leave everything bad hand and win!
O triunfo da luz
Tudo que imaginamos ser infinito,tudo que passamos e lutamos significa muito.As fraquezas,o mal,a angústia,ficou tudo para trás.A incansável busca do equilíbrio,a realização plena,o completo domínio das emoções,o poder de intuir,a sabedoria.Lugares como este,onde o tempo passa rapidinho,é bom lembrar e sentir,reviver,olhar para trás e perceber que algo ainda está lá,a capacidade de enfrentar obstáculos e prosperar,aprender mesmo que seja o trivial,e deixar tudo de ruim de lado,e vencer!
Todos os direitos reservados, sendo proibida qualquer reprodução ou divulgação das imagens para fins comerciais ou não, em qualquer mídia ou meio de comunicação inclusive na WEB, sem prévia consulta e aprovação, conforme LEI N° 96.610/1998, que rege sobre o Direito Autoral e Direito de Uso da Imagem.
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
This ice cream is the best !! I have to buy it in these little containers and limit myself to one - it is soooooooooooo yummy ! My internet has been down and is not working at full speed this morning - I will try to get around to everyone today, but if I don't you will know why. Have a blessed Tuesday - Smiles and hugs from, Nana ! We are in Florida on vacation - will be back next week - my computer died - it is in the shop :) ! ~
Arthur Louis Aaron VC
On 12th August 1943 during a raid on Turin, Italy, Flight Sergeant Aaron’s bomber was hit by gunfire (possibly from a night fighter, but may have been friendly fire from another Stirling). The Stirling was very badly damaged; three engines were hit, the windscreen shattered, the front and rear turrets put out of action and the elevator control damaged, causing the aircraft to become unstable and difficult to control. The navigator, Canadian Cornelius A. Brennan was killed, other members of the crew were wounded, and Flight Sergeant Aaron’s jaw was broken and part of his face was torn away. He had also been hit in the lung and his right arm was useless. Despite his terrible injuries he managed to level the aircraft out at 3,000 ft. Unable to speak, Flight Sergeant Aaron urged the bomb aimer with gestures to take over the controls. The crippled bomber made for the nearest Allied bases in North Africa.
Aaron was then assisted to the rear of the aircraft and given morphia. After resting he insisted on returning to the cockpit where he was lifted back into his seat where he made a determined effort to take control and fly the aircraft although his weakness was evident and he was eventually persuaded to desist. In great pain and suffering from exhaustion he continued to help by writing directions with his left hand. Five hours after leaving the target fuel was now low, but Bone airfield in Tunisia was sighted. Flight Sergeant Aaron summoned his failing strength to successfully direct the bomb-aimer in belly-landing the damaged aircraft in the darkness. He died nine hours after the aircraft touched down.
He was buried with full military honours in Bone War Cemetery. On 3rd November 1943 the London Gazette published the official citation for the award of a posthumous VC to Arthur Louis Aaron. For their parts in the action, Allan Larden was awarded the CGM, and Mitcham and Guy each received the DFM. On 25th February 1944, Aaron’s parents received their son’s VC from King George VI at Buckingham Palace, and shortly afterwards Benjamin Aaron was present at a mass parade of ATC cadets in Wellington Barracks, London, where the ATC Commandant, Air Marshal Sir Leslie Gossage read out the VC citation of their ex-cadet.
Two years later, in August 1946, Aaron’s parents’ home was burgled and all of his medals stolen, but after a police appeal the medals were returned anonymously in the mail. In December 1953, Benjamin Aaron presented Arthur’s medals to the Leeds City Museum for a permanent loan.
victoriacrossonline.co.uk/arthur-louis-aaron-vc/
He was one of three Jewish VC's of the Second World War - the others being Tommy Gould, RN and John Keneally, Irish Guards - real name John Leslie.
George Sanders
George Sanders was the son of Thomas and Amy Sanders. He received his education at Little Holbeck School and after completing his time there was indentured as an apprentice fitter at the nearby Airedale Foundry. George enlisted for service on November 9th 1914 and was drafted to the 1/7th Battalion as a corporal, West Yorkshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's Own), British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 1 July 1916 near Thiepval, France, during the Battle of the Somme, after an advance into the enemy's trenches, Corporal Sanders found himself isolated with a party of 30 men. He organised his defences, detailed a bombing party, and impressed upon the men that his and their duty was to hold the position at all costs. Next morning he drove off an attack by the enemy, rescuing some prisoners who had fallen into their hands. Later two bombing attacks were driven off, and he was finally relieved after 36 hours. All this time his party had been without food and water, having given their water to the wounded during the first night. After receiving his Victoria Cross, 18 November 1916 at Buckingham Palace, from the King, he returned to the front.
April 1918: The Germans launched their "Spring Offensive". Sanders unit, the West Yorks, were at Mount Kemmel. Heavy fighting ensued and acting Captain Sanders was awarded the Military Cross. He was taken prisoner of war (POW) on 25 April and listed as wounded and missing with injuries to both his right arm and leg, last seen carrying his revolver in his left hand. Sanders was interned at the Limburg POW camp. In July he managed to get a letter to his father telling of his capture and captivity. On 26 December Captain Sanders was sent back to England, and he was discharged March 1919. After the war he attended a victory party (June 1920) and a Victoria Cross reunion dinner on the tenth anniversary of the end of the war (November 1929) both at Buckingham Palace. George Sanders VC MC died in Leeds on April 4th 1950 aged 56. His funeral was held at the Cottingley Crematorium in the city. It is believed that George's son Kenneth Sanders still lives in Leeds and retains his fathers Military Cross and Victoria Cross.
David Philip Hirsch
He was 20 years old, and an Acting Captain in the 4th Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own), British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 23rd April 1917 near Wancourt, France, during an attack, Captain Hirsch having arrived at the first objective, although wounded, returned over fire-swept slopes to satisfy himself that the defensive flank was being established. Machine-gun fire was so intense that it was necessary for him to be continuously up and down the line encouraging and steadying his men. He stood on the parapet, in the face of machine-gun fire and counter-attack, until he was killed.
see homepage.ntlworld.com/bandl.danby/040Bn1917.html
Edward McKenna
He was 36 years old, and a colour-sergeant in the 65th Regiment of Foot (later the 1st Bn, York and Lancaster Regiment), British Army during the Waikato-Hauhau Maori War, New Zealand when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 7th September 1863 near Cameron Town, New Zealand, after both his officers had been shot, Colour-Sergeant McKenna, with a small force, heavily outnumbered by the enemy, charged through their position with the loss of one man killed and one missing. The colour-sergeant's coolness and intrepidity amply justified the confidence placed in him by the soldiers brought so suddenly under his command. For this deed he also received the rank of Ensign. Grave/memorial at Buried at Terrace End Cemetery, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Presbyterian Block II. Plot 65.
His Gravestone reads: Edward McKenna, V.C. late ensign, 65th Reg, also N.Z.R., died 8 June 1908 aged 79; also Elizabeth Gordon, wife of the above. R.I.P. In October 1865 his regiment was recalled to England, but Edward had grown attached to the colony, he sold his commission and remained. He joined the New Zealand Railways as a clerk and soon rose to be Station Master at Kaiapoi, Ashburton, Invercargill, Gore, Greatford, Halcombe and early 1880s Palmerston North. He eventually retired to Palmerston North where he later died. Edward McKenna and Elizabeth Gordon had 13 children between them and today there would exist a large number of relatives throughout New Zealand.
William Boynton Butler (VC, Croix de Guerre (France)) (20 November 1894-25 March 1972)
Bulter was 22 years old, and a private in the 17th Battalion, The West Yorkshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's Own), British Army, attached to 106th TM. Battery during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 6 August 1917 east of Lempire, France, Private Butler was in charge of a Stokes gun in trenches which were being heavily shelled. Suddenly one of the fly-off levers of a Stokes shell came off and fired the shell in the emplacement. Private Butler picked up the shell and shouted a warning to a party of infantry. He then turned and put himself between the party of men and the live shell, holding it until they were out of danger, when he threw it on to the parades and took cover. The shell exploded, damaging the trench, but only confusing Private Butler. The Victoria Cross, campaign medals and commemorative medals awarded to Private William Butler, 17th Bn, West Yorkshire Regiment, have been acquired by the Michael Ashcroft Trust, the holding instution for Lord Ashcroft's VC Collection. The William Butler VC group will go on display in the Lord Ashcroft Gallery in the Imperial War Museum.
Medal entitlement of Private William Butler, 17th Bn, West Yorkshire Regiment
Victoria Cross
British War Medal ( 1914-20 )
Victory Medal ( 1914-19 )
King George VI Coronation Medal ( 1937 )
Queen Elizabeth II Coronation Medal ( 1953 )
Croix de Guerre ( France )
For the award of the Victoria Cross
[ London Gazette, 17 October 1917 ], Near Lempire, France, 6 August 1917, Private William Boynton Butler, 17th Bn, West Yorkshire Regiment, att'd 106th Trench Mortar Battery.
For most conspicuous bravery ( East of Lempire, France ) when in charge of a Stokes gun in trenches which were being heavily shelled. Suddenly one of the fly-off levers of a Stokes shell came off and fired the shell in the emplacement. Private Butler picked up the shell and jumped to the entrance of the emplacement, which at that moment a party of infantry were passing. He shouted to them to hurry past as the shell was going off, and turning round, placed himself between the party of men and the live shell and so held it till they were out of danger. He then threw the shell on to the parados, and took cover in the bottom the trench. The shell exploded almost on leaving his hand, greatly damaging the trench. By extreme good luck Private Butler was contused only. Undoubtedly his great presence of mind and disregard of his own life saved the lives of the officer men in the emplacement and the party which was passing at the time. William Butler was invested with his Victoria Cross by King George V at Buckingham Palace on the 5th December 1917. William Butler died in hospital on the 25th March 1972 and was given a full military funeral on the 29th, the bearer party being drawn from senior NCOs and members of the Royal British Legion. He was buried in Hunslet Cemetery, Leeds. The grave was originally unmarked, but this was rectified in 1996 where a local firm of monumental masons offered to provide a headstone for the grave free of charge
www.pro-patria-mori.co.uk/barwickandscholes/id96.html
www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=10044767
Jack White
White was 20 years old, and a private in the 6th Battalion, The King's Own (Royal Lancaster) Regiment, British Army during the First World War when, on 7/8 March 1917 on the Dialah River, Mesopotamia, the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. This citation was gazetted on 27 June 1917: War Office, 27th June, 1917. His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Non-commissioned Officers and men:— No. 18105 Pte. Jack White, R. Lanc. R.
For most conspicuous bravery and resource. This signaller during an attempt to cross a river saw the two Pontoons ahead of him come under heavy machine-gun fire, with disastrous results.
When his own Pontoon had reached midstream, with every man except himself either dead or wounded, finding that he was unable to control the Pontoon, Pte. White promptly tied a telephone wire to the Pontoon, jumped overboard, and towed it to the shore, thereby saving an officer's life and bringing to land the rifles and equipment of the other men in the boat, who were either dead or dying.
Frederick McNess
He was 24 years old, and a Lance-Sergeant in the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.
On 15th September 1916 near Ginchy, France, during a period of severe fighting, Lance-Sergeant McNess led his men with great dash in the face of heavy shell and machine-gun fire. When the first line of the enemy trenches was reached, it was found that the left flank was exposed and that the enemy were bombing down the trench. Sergeant McNess thereupon organised and led a counter-attack and although he was very severely wounded in the neck and jaw, did not give up. Finally he established a "block" and continued encouraging his men and throwing bombs until exhausted by loss of blood. He later achieved the rank of Sergeant.
His Victoria Cross is displayed at The Guards Regimental Headquarters, London, England.
Laurence Calvert
Laurence Calvert (1892-1964) was born on 16th February 1892 in Leeds, West Yorkshire. His father, George Calvert, who died in 1895, was in business for many years, in partnership with his father in Great Wilson Street, Hunslet, Leeds, as a tinsmith. His mother Beatrice was a daughter of the late Mr Robert Stevenson; who for many years was landlord of the Sir Robert Peel arms, Dewsbury Road, Leeds, and his grandmother Mrs Stevenson later kept two other well-known Hunslet hostelries, the Rose and Crown and the Blooming Rose Inn.
Lawrence Calvert was educated at the Roman Road Board School and at a well-known Leeds higher grade school called the Cockburn school. After leaving school he was for some time employed as a van boy. By the Midland railway company at Leeds. This employment did not suit him, and he forsook it at the first opportunity. In a sense, he ran away from home, for one day his mother found a hurried note left on the table. “Dear mother (it said), I’ve gone to work at a place called Cadeby.”
However, he obtained employment at Cadeby in 1910, and were there for some time. Then he moved on to the Maltby Colliery, but did not settle there. During the Cadeby disaster he presented himself at the Cadeby Pit once more and asked to be allowed to go down and assist in the work of rescue. As, however, he was not employed at the colliery, and was not a trained rescue worker, is offer was not accepted.
Soon after he returned to Cadeby, and obtain work as a haulage hand. He was in that employment, when war broke out. In the previous April, he had joined the Denaby company of the Doncaster territorials, the gallant, 1st/5th K.O.Y.L.I., whom local headquarters was then the premises which are now the mining offices.
He was i camp with the Battalion at Whitby when war broke out and he was mobilised. He went out to France in April 1915, with the 49th division, one of the earliest territorial divisions to see service at the front. He took part in the second battle of Ypres, when the German´s tried burst through the channel ports with the surprise use of poison gas.
In September he was hit in the arm, and was invalided to a Brighton hospital. He quickly recovered and was back in the trenches early in 1916. During the hottest of the fighting on the Rheims front, Sgt Calvert was able to do great execution with a machine gun, and when his post was visited it was found that he was the only survivor of the machine gun crew, while ranged before the gun were piles of dead Germans, silent and eloquent evidence of the coolness and steadiness with which the gun had been operated. He was awarded the Military Medal for this action.
On 12th September 1918, at Havrincourt, France, when alone and single handed, Sjt. Calvert, rushing forward against the machine-gun team, bayoneted three and shot four. His valour and determination in capturing single-handed two machine guns and killing the crews thereof enabled the ultimate objective to be won.
Following the award of the VC and MM, he was also awarded the Belgian Croix de Guerre, £500 worth of War Bonds, in addition to a sum of £35 raised by a village collection at a special ceremony. After the war Calvert moved to Dagenham, Essex when he was offered a job as a commissionaire for The National Provincial Bank in London.
Calvert died on 7th July 1964 in Dagenham, and he was cremated at the South Essex Crematorium, Upminster, and his ashes were scattered in Rosebed 32 of the Garden of Remembrance. His medal group including the VC and MM were purchased privately by Michael Ashcroft in 2004 and are displayed in the Ashcroft Gallery, Imperial War Museum, London.
Laurence Calvert VC MM (February 16th 1892- July 6th 1964) He was 26 years old, and a Sergeant in the 5th Battalion, The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, British Army during the First World War when, on 12th September 1918 at Havrincourt, France, the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. The full citation was published in a supplement to the London Gazette of 12th November 1918 (dated 15th November 1918): War Office, 15th November, 1918. His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Men: — No. 240194 Sgt. Laurence Calvert, M.M.. K.O.Y.L.I. (Conisbro'). For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty in attack when the success of the operation was rendered doubtful owing, to severe enfilade machine-gun fire. Alone and single-handed Sgt. Calvert, rushing forward against the machine-gun team, bayoneted three and shot four. His valour and determination in capturing single-handed two machine guns and killing the crews thereof enabled the ultimate objective to be won. His personal gallantry inspired all ranks. He was also awarded the Military Medal (MM), and the Belgian Order of Leopold (with palm), in the grade of Chevalier.
Wilfrid Claude Edwards VC
On 16th August 1917 at Langemarck, Belgium, Private Edwards, without hesitation and under heavy machine-gun and rifle fire from a strong concrete fort, dashed forward at great personal risk, bombed through the loopholes, surmounted the fort and waved to his company to advance. Three officers and 30 other ranks were taken prisoner by him in the fort. Later he did most valuable work as a runner and eventually guided most of the battalion out through very difficult ground.
He received a card from his Commanding Officer congratulating him on his “fine behaviour” but he wrote to his wife in frustration: “Men in my battalion keep getting honours, but I have not heard a word about mine.” His wife was besieged by reporters following the announcement of his VC, but insisted she knew no details of his action. The VC was presented to him by King George V in the forecourt of Buckingham Palace on 26th September 1917. He was nervous about meeting the King, and forgot to salute, which caused the King some amusement.
After the war, Wilfrid returned to mining, although assessed as 60% disabled. He then worked for Leeds Gas Department showrooms in Leeds, as did William Butler VC. Wilfrid died at St James’ Hospital, Leeds on 2nd January 1972, the last surviving KOYLI VC. He was buried in Upper and Lower Wortley Cemetery, Leeds. In addition to his VC, he was awarded the 1914-15 Star, British War Medal 1914-20, Victory Medal 1914-19, Defence Medal 1939-45, War Medal 1939-45, George VI Coronation Medal 1937 and Elizabeth II Coronation Medal 1953. In his will he left the VC to York Castle Museum, but the other medals are on loan to the King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry Museum, Doncaster.
victoriacrossonline.co.uk/wilfrid-claude-edwards-vc/
Albert Mountain VC Croix de Guerre and Medaille Militaire (France) (19th April 1895 - 7th January 1967).
Mountain won his VC while serving as a sergeant in the 15/17th Battalion, The Prince of Wales's Own (West Yorkshire Regiment), British Army. The citation for his VC reads: On 26th March 1918 at Hamelincourt, France, when the situation was critical, Sergeant Mountain with a party of 10 men attacked an advance enemy patrol of about 200 strong with a Lewis gun, killing half of them. The sergeant then rallied his men in the face of overwhelming numbers of the main body of the enemy, to cover the retirement of the rest of the company - this party of one NCO and four men held at bay 600 of the enemy for half an hour. Sergeant Mountain later took command of the flank post of the battalion, holding on for 27 hours until finally surrounded. His Victoria Cross is displayed at The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire Museum, York, England.
Albert Mountain (1895-1967) was born on 19th April 1896 in Leeds, West Yorkshire. He was baptised on 7th May 1896 in the Wesleyan Chapel in Richmond Hill, Leeds. His address at the time was 151 York Road Leeds. His father, James, was a native of Leeds, and his mother, Mary Ann (nee Swales) was from Ripon, and had previously been married to John Cowling.
By 1901, when Albert was six, his parents were running the Alexandra Hotel in Hurst Street, Ripon. Albert had a half brother from his mother’s first marriage, and a brother and three sisters from his mother’s second marriage. By 1911, at the age of 14, Albert was now working in a coal mine as a hurrier. Sadly, his mother had passed away and his father was now a canvasser for sewing machines.
When the war broke out in 1914, he joined the Leeds Bantams before transferring to the Leeds Pals. The 15th and 17th Battalions amalgamated on 7th December 1917 to become the 15/17 West Yorkshire Regiment. On March 23rd, 1918, Sergeant Mountain was in command of a rifle squad during the Battle of the Somme, in actions at Hamelincourt, France. When the situation was critical, Sergeant Mountain with a party of 10 men attacked an advance enemy patrol of about 200 strong, killing half of them. He then rallied his men against the main body of the enemy, to cover the retirement of the rest of his company. With only four men he held at bay 600 of the enemy for half an hour. Sergeant Mountain later took command of the flank post of the battalion, holding on for 27 hours until the enemy finally surrounded. For most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy, he was awarded the Victoria Cross on June 7th, 1918.
Three days after the announcement of his award, he was presented with the VC ribbon by his CO, Major T G Gibson at a parade in the field in France. He sewed the ribbon onto his uniform. He was presented with the VC by King George V at Buckingham Palace on 29th June 1918. During the following year, he was discharged and became a chauffeur for the Lord Mayor of Leeds. He also married Ethel Smith on 27th September 1919 at St Agnes Parish Church, Leeds. They went on to have three daughters and a son.
Albert then became a timekeeper in Burton’s clothing factory in Leeds. In the 1920s he attended a couple of VC functions and was present on 21st March 1930 at a dinner in honour of the West Riding VCs. In November 1929 he attended the funeral of John Crawshaw Raynes VC and in 1950 would attend the funeral of George Sanders VC, another Leeds VC. He was also a close friend of Thomas Young VC.
In 1953, Albert became the landlord of the Miners Arms, Aberford Road, Garforth, near Leeds. In 1956, he attended the VC Centenary Celebrations in Hyde Park. Albert died at his home on 7th Januarry 1967 after a long illness. His funeral was at Garforth Parish Church, where his regiment was represented and a bugler from the 1st Battalion played the Last Post. Captain Wilfrid Edwards, another Leeds VC, attended the funeral. His body was cremated at Lawns Wood Crematorium. His VC was presented by his son to the curator of the West Yorkshire Regimental Museum in 1967 and is now held in the York Army Museum. His other medals include the Croix de Guerre and the Medaille Militaire.
www.pro-patria-mori.co.uk/barwickandscholes/id96.html
Alfred Atkinson VC (6th February 1874 - 21st February 1900)
He was 26 years old, and a sergeant in the 1st Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own), British Army during the Second Boer War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 18th February 1900 during the Battle of Paardeberg, South Africa, Sergeant Atkinson went out seven times under heavy and close fire to obtain water for the wounded. At the seventh attempt he was wounded in the head and died a few days afterwards. His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Green Howards Museum, Richmond, Yorkshire, England.
Charles Ward
Ward was 22 years old, and a Private in the 2nd Battalion, The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, British Army during the South African War (Boer War) when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC: On 26th June 1900 at Lindley, South Africa, a picquet of the regiment was surrounded on three sides by about 500 Boers and the majority of them were either killed or wounded. Private Ward volunteered to take a message asking for reinforcements to the signalling post about 150 yards away. He was eventually allowed to go, although it seemed certain that he would be shot, and he managed to get across through a storm of bullets. Having delivered his message, he returned to his commanding officer across the fire-swept ground, and was severely wounded, but his gallant action saved the post from capture.
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/pandp/people/...
Citation London Gazette 28th Sept 1900 "On 26th June 1900 at Lindley, a piquet of the Yorkshire Light Infantry was surrounded on 3 sides by about 500 Boers at close quarters. The two officers were wounded and all but six of the men killed or wounded. Pt. Ward then volunteered to take a message asking for reinforcements to the signalling station about 150 yards in the rear of the post. His offer was at first refused owing to the practical certainty of him being shot, but on his insisting, he was allowed to go. He got across untouched through a storm of shots from each flank and, having delivered his message, he voluntarily returned from a place of absolute safety and re crossed the fire swept ground to assure his C.O. that the message had been sent. On this occasion he was severely wounded. But for this gallant action the post would certainly have been captured."
Charles Burley Ward's grave, following his death in 1921, was originally marked by a wooden cross which had been remembered by David Clark, a member of the Glamorgan Family History Society, before it disappeared. For some years there was no indication of the burial place. Eventually John O'Sullivan a South Wales Echo and BBC Journalist and a recent resident in the Parish, carried out extensive enquiries in tracing records of the VC and his history. Charles Ward was decorated with the Victoria Cross by H.M. Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle 15th December 1900. His was the last Victoria Cross to be presented by the Queen before her death the following January.
As a result of considerable effort by John O'Sullivan, the British Legion, Whitchurch and others, a series of events were arranged to mark the unveiling of a War Grave Commission style headstone to the memory of Sgt. Major Charles Burley Ward. Following a processional hymn, National Anthem, citation, lesson, address and prayers, the headstone was unveiled by Major General P.E. de la C. de la Billiere, CBE, DSO, KC., General Officer Commanding Wales. Also present were Mrs Susan Williams, Lord Lieutenant of South Glamorgan, Capt. Lloyd-Edwards, OSt.J, RD, DL, RKR(Rtd), former Lord Mayor of Cardiff, Councillor Y.P. Herbert, Deputy Lord Mayor, Rev. Canon F.G. Turner, Vicar, Mr Eddie Chapman, VC. Another VC of South Wales, Lord Justice Tasker Watkins was unable to be present due to another engagement. About twenty members of Ward's family including a daughter Mrs Edith Chapman from Australia were present. Mr Ward was a widower when he married a second time. At the time of his death he was living at Soberton Avenue, off Whitchurch Road, Cardiff. After the ceremony in St Mary's churchyard, there was a march past led by the Light Infantry Burma Band, followed by Standard Bearers and Escorts when the salute was taken by General de la Billiere. In the evening there was a reception and entertainment at the Royal British Legion Earl Haig Club, Whitchurch, when a portrait of Sgt. Major Ward VC by Llanrumney artist Ray Chick was unveiled.
www.northeastmedals.co.uk/vc_victoria_cross/charles_ward.htm
John Pearson
Pearson was born 19 January 1825 in Leeds, Yorkshire, England; died 18 April 1892 in Lion's Head, Eastnor Twp., Bruce Co., Ontario. He married firstly Selina Smart in the General Baptist Church in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England on 6th April 1851. At that time he is shown as age 25 a Private in the Eighth Hussars, living in the Barracks in Trowbridge, the son of Stephen Pearson, a gardener. Selina Smart is shown as age 20, a Spinster, a Feeder by Profession, living on Stallard Street, the d/o Edward Smart, a Spinner. He was 33 years old when he gained his medal, and a private in the 8th Hussars (The King's Royal Irish), British Army during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.
On 17 June 1858 at Gwalior, India, Private Pearson - together with a captain (Clement Walker Heneage), a sergeant (Joseph Ward) and a farrier (George Hollis) - was in a gallant charge made by a squadron of the 8th Hussars when, supported by a division of the Bombay Horse Artillery and the 95th Regiment, they routed the enemy. Charging through a rebel camp into two batteries, they captured and brought into their own camp two of the enemy's guns, under a heavy and converging fire from the fort and town.
Charles Hull
He was 25 years old, and a Private in the 21st Lancers (Empress of India's), British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC.
On 5th September 1915 at Hafiz Kor, N.W. Frontier, India, Private Hull rescued an officer from certain death at the hands of the tribesmen. The latter's horse had been shot and Private Hull took the officer up behind on his own horse, under heavy fire at close range, and galloped away to safety.
Corporal Charles Hull
Harrogate Herald - 7th February 1917
Very small extract out of a very long and interesting letter by Private D T Wilks from India
Our camp is not far away from my old comrade, C Hull, but up to now I have not got into touch with him, though I did hear, from one of our YMCA friends that he had been acting as "best man" at the wedding of the officer whose life he saved when he got the VC.
Harrogate Herald - 8th January 1919
W H Breare letter
Trooper H G Smith, of the Dragoon Guards, one of the seven Harrogate men in the same regiment, was in the Army at the outbreak of war, and is on Christmas leave from his depot. His time was up two years ago, and he shortly expects his discharge. His sister, Miss Ivy G A Smith, was one of the first Harrogate girls to go on munitions, and has been presented with a shell in recognition of her full services. [See photograph in this issue] Her eldest sister was also on munitions. Trooper Smith joined the Regular Army at the same time as Harry Petty, one of Mr and Mrs J R Petty's six sons, who quickly rallied to the Colours when the war broke out, and was in the same class at Western Council School as Charley Hull, the Harrogate VC, who is in India.
Harrogate Herald - 12th November 1919
The Harrogate VC, Corporal Charles Hull, of the 21st Lancers, son of Mr and Mrs John Hull, of Albert Terrace, reached home on Monday night, after being away some nine years. His arrival was totally unexpected by his family, as, though it was known late in the day that the ship In which he had crossed had docked at Portsmouth on Saturday, the messages he had sent from the ship were delayed in transit, and he was still believed to be in the South. As a matter of fact, Corporal Hull had journeyed North on Sunday night, and the train on its way to the Ripon Dispersal Camp ran through Harrogate early on Monday morning. The VC kept a sharp look-out at Harrogate to recognise friends and acquaintances, but at half-past six o'clock there were very few people about, and none that he knew. He was busy with kit matters at Ripon during the day, and in the evening he came to Harrogate and pleasantly surprised his parents by his appearance. Corporal Hull looked the picture of health after the Indian campaign, and has grown and filled out after the nine years abroad so much that his acquaintances have to look twice to recognise in the stalwart soldier the man who went away. He has nearly twelve years' service in the Army, and is on a month's furlough, at the end of which he is taking leave of the Army. Corporal Hull was a postman in Harrogate before he joined the Colours. His father is an old employee of the Harrogate Corporation.
Corporal Hull won the VC in the 1915 operations on the north-west frontier of India by gallantly going to the rescue of Captain G E D Learoyd, who had been unhorsed, and was surrounded by his enemies, and who would have been killed but for the behaviour of Corporal Hull. The Harrogate soldier got his officer up behind him on his horse, and carried him to safety from amid the native enemy. Captain Learoyd died in Risalpur about a year ago. He was suddenly taken ill with influenza, and this turned to pneumonia, to which he succumbed in hospital.
Corporal Hull, in addition to the VC, was awarded the Croix de Guerre by the French.
The father of Captain Learoyd presented the Harrogate VC with a handsome gold watch and chain, suitable inscribed.
The parents of Corporal Hull received the following letters from Captain Learoyd's father :
Launds Abbey, Leicester
Dear Sir, I have only just become acquainted with your address, and hasten to congratulate you and Mrs Hull on your son's well-earned VC for his very gallant and brave action in saving my son in the action at Shabkadir. You may well imagine how grateful Mrs Learoyd and I and all our family we feel towards your son, and look forward to the day when we may thank him personally. I also intend coming to see you sometime, but shall have to postpone the pleasure some time, as I am not very well at present. With our kindest regards to you and Mrs Hull,
Believe me, yours very sincerely,
A E Learoyd
Dear Mr Hull, I am very sorry I could not find time to come over to Harrogate to hand you the watch and chain for your gallant son, so I decided to send it you by post. Again I should like to say how grateful my family feel towards your son, and how sincerely we congratulate you, his parents, in owning such a splendid fellow for a son. May he soon come to you safe and sound.
Yours very sincerely,
A E Learoyd
It would be in accordance with the fitness of things if the townspeople were given an opportunity of publicly welcoming Corporal Hull back to his native town.
Harrogate Herald – 30th June 1920
Wednesday Gossip
Among those present at the King's garden party to winners of the VC, were Mr and Mrs Smith Bell and Mrs Donald Bell. "Don" Bell, as he was popularly known, made the great sacrifice shortly after the award, but had he lived the day would have been the happiest in his life. Mr Smith Bell was struck by the simplicity and humanity of the party, and speaks in high terms of the King's great interest in the men. Corporal Hull, who was also present with his parents, is now a policeman at Leeds. His mother was delighted that His Majesty should remember the circumstances under which her boy won his VC, and speaks highly of the welcome they received.
Harrogate Herald – 6th October 1920
Mr Charles Hull, VC, of Harrogate, who won the bronze cross as a shoeing-smith with the 21st Lancers on the Indian Frontier in 1916, and who is now a constable in the Leeds Police Force, was married at All Hallows' Church, l, on Saturday afternoon, to Mrs Eliza Ann Brown, of Rosebank Grove, Leeds.
The ceremony was performed by the Vicar (the Rev A B Fisher) in the presence of a large congregation.
Harrogate Herald - 4th July 1956
"In Proud Memory" - Lieutenant Colonel G E B Stephenson is pictured as he unveiled a plaque in St Peter's School, Harrogate, on Friday, in memory of the school's two holders of the Victoria Cross, the late Second Lieutenant Donald Simpson Bell, of the Green Howards, and the late Private Charles Hull, of the 21st Lancers, who won their awards in 1916. on the left is the Mayor of Harrogate, Councillor Edwin Pickard.
from www.harrogatepeopleandplaces.info/ww1/soldiers/h/hull-cha...
www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=13160007
"Police Constable 375 Charles Hull VC had previously seen service with the 21st Lancers (Empress of India's), a British Army Cavalry Regiment as a shoeing-smith with the rank of Private. On 5th September 1915, while under attack by tribesmen at Hafiz Kor he rescued an officer from certain death on the North West Frontier, for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross. His citation published on 3rd March 1916 reads '1053 Private (Shoeing-Smith) Charles Hull, 21st Lancers. For most conspicuous bravery. When under close fire of the enemy, who were within a few yards, he rescued Captain G. E. D. Learoyd, whose horse had been shot, by taking him up behind him and galloping into safety. Shoeing-Smith Hull acted entirely on his own initiative, and saved his officer's life at the imminent risk of his own'. In 1918 Hull was awarded the Croix de Guerre and mentioned in despatches for bravery. He joined the Leeds City Police on 6th February 1920 rising to the the rank of Serjeant and serving for 23 years. Ill-health forced him to retire on 4th June 1943 and he died on 14 February 1953 aged 63 years and is buried at Woodhouse Cemetery, Leeds." David Cosstick.
Harry M. Daniels VC MC
(13th December 1884- 13th December 1953) Harry Daniels was the 13th child of baker in Wymondham, Norfolk. He joined the army at a young age and served abroad in India. He was 30 years old, and a Company Sergeant-Major in the 2nd Battalion of The Rifle Brigade (Prince Consort's Own), British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 12th March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, France, his unit was ordered into an advance on the German trenches across no-man's land which was covered by machine guns and strewn with barbed wire. Daniels and another man, Cecil Reginald Noble, voluntarily rushed in front with cutters and attacked the wires They were both wounded at once, Noble dying later of his wounds. For further activities on the Western Front he was awarded the Military Cross. He later achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Royal Green Jackets Museum at Winchester, England.
John Crawshaw Raynes
The link takes you to the gentleman's life story and includes photos
www.chrishobbs.com/johnraynes1915.htm
and
www.chrishobbs.com/johnraynes131108.htm
and also see
www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbraynes.htm
Wilfred Edwards VC
(16th February 1893 - 4th January 1972) He was 24 years old, and a private in the 7th Battalion, The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 16th August 1917 at Langemarck, Belgium, when all the company officers were lost, Private Edwards, without hesitation and under heavy machine-gun and rifle fire from a strong concrete fort, dashed forward at great personal risk, bombed through the loopholes, surmounted the fort and waved to his company to advance. Three officers and 30 other ranks were taken prisoner by him in the fort. Later he did most valuable work as a runner and eventually guided most of the battalion out through very difficult ground. Throughout he set a splendid example and was utterly regardless of danger. Edwards was commissioned a second lieutenant in December 1917 and was demobilised in June 1919. He re-enlisted in the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry (KOYLI) when World War II broke out and rose to the rank of major. His medals are currently displayed in the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry Museum, Doncaster, England.
Arthur Poutler
He was 24 years old, and a private in the 1/4th Battalion, The Duke of Wellington's (West Riding) Regiment, British Army during the First World War when the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. On 10th April 1918 at Erquinghem Lys, France, Private Poulter, who was acting as a stretcher-bearer, on 10 occasions carried badly wounded men on his back through particularly heavy artillery and machine-gun fire. Two of the wounded were hit a second time whilst on his back. Again, after a withdrawal over the river had been ordered, Private Poulter returned in full view of the enemy and carried back another man who had been left behind wounded. He bandaged 40 men under fire and was seriously wounded when attempting another rescue in the face of the enemy.
text from this member
www.flickr.com/photos/seant_25/
and also from
see also
www.projectinspire.kk5.org/#/leeds-victoria-cross/4536243310
Arthur Poulter (1893-1956) was born in Kilgram Bridge, four miles east of the village of East Witton, North Yorkshire on 16th December 1893. His father, Robert, was a farmer, and Arthur was one of nine sons, all of whom served in the war, and lived on their home farm until 1908, when he left to become a farm servant.
At the age of 19, he moved to Leeds, West Yorkshire, where he gained employment as a drayman with Messrs Timothy Taylor at their maltings at the Gelderd Road depot. He then changed his job and worked for Mr T Rochford as a cartman and used to deliver firewood in the New Wortley district of the city.
In 1916, he enlisted with the West Riding Regiment and was described as a man of fine physique. He would become the eighth man from Leeds to receive the VC. On the 9th / 10th April 1918 the 1/4 West Riding Regiment ( Duke of Wellington's ) moved into the area at Erquinghem and were to cover a crossing of the River Lys to stem the German advance. On the 10th the Duke of Wellington's C Company assembled near the top of the Rue Delpierre while two officers and three NCOs went forward to reconnoitre. The ground was swept by machine-gun fire and one of the officers assumed the original objective could not be reached and decided that the line of a railway should be held instead.
He returned to his company in order to inform them of the change of plan. However, men were already being hit while waiting for their officers and losses mounted, the company stretcher-bearers becoming very hard pressed. Soon there were just not enough stretcher-bearers and helpers to cope with the high number of casualties and it was during this time that Arthur Poulter earned his Victoria Cross. He tended the wounded for hour after hour and also somehow got them to safety as well. In Arthur Poulter's own words:
“Gradually all the stretcher-bearers in my company were killed or wounded and I was left to 'carry on'. How I got through the first day alone I do not know. It is a 'wonder' to me. The enemy artillery and rifle fire was directed at us from a range that could not have been much more than 50 to 100 yards, and each time I went out a hail of shrapnel was falling around, the artillery and machine-gun barrage was terrific. The first day I went out ten times to bring back some our our wounded and had to carry them a distance of 400 to 500 yards across a bridge over a river to where the RAMC men were. I carried them on my back, and two of them were hit again before I could get them to the rear.”
Following the gazetting of the award on 28th June 1918, he spent the remainder of the War in various military hospitals, finally ending up in Croydon War Hospital. He was later presented with his medal in the Ballroom at Buckingham Palace on 13th December 1918. He was discharged in 1919 and was fit enough for work again. First he worked in the Leeds Transport Depot and was later employed by Price (Tailors) Ltd. He became a popular local figure. In 1953 he was involved in an accident when he was hit by a police car and had to be taken to hospital. He stopped work with Price in February 1956 and became seriously ill, dying six months later on 29th August 1956. His wife Ada had died two years before. He was buried in New Wortley Cemetery, Leeds. His family placed a new headstone on his grave in 2010.
In December 1956 Arthur Poulter's Victoria Cross and other medals were handed over to the Leeds City Museum on an indefinite loan. However, in June 1999 the Poulter family decided to donate the VC and campaign medals to the Duke of Wellington's Regiment Museum located in the Bankfield Museum in Halifax, Yorkshire, where they are still on display.
Charles Burley Ward (1877-1921) was born on the 10th July 1877 at 5 Tulip Street, Hunslet, near Leeds, West Yorkshire, the son of Mr George Ward. He was educated at Primrose Hill School in Leeds, and on 29th April 1897, he enlisted in the 1st Battalion, Yorkshire Light Infantry (the old 51st Regiment of Foot), and served with this battalion for two years, joining the 2nd Battalion whilst in Wynberg, Cape Colony, South Africa at the beginning of the Second Boer War.
Due to the wounds he would receive in his Victoria Cross action, Charles only received two clasps to his Queen’s South Africa Medal for Cape Colony and Free State. His Victoria Cross action was gazetted in the London Gazette on 28th September 1900 and described his gallantry three months previously at Lindley, Cape Colony.
On the 26th June, 1900, at Lindley, a picquet of the Yorkshire Light Infantry was surrounded on three sides by about 500 Boers, at close quarters. The two Officers were wounded and all but six of their men were killed or wounded. Private Ward then volunteered to take a message asking for reinforcements to the Signalling Station about 150 yards in the rear of the post. His offer was at first refused owing to the practical certainty of his being shot; but, on his insisting, he was allowed to go. He got across untouched through a storm of shots from each flank, and, having delivered his message, he voluntarily returned from a place of absolute safety, and re-crossed the fire-swept ground to assure his Commanding Officer that the message had been sent. On this occasion he was severely wounded. But for this gallant action the post would certainly have been captured.
Ward’s wounds were so severe that he was invalided back to England, where he was the last man to be invested with his Victoria Cross by Queen Victoria on 15th December 1900 at Windsor Castle. Ward was forced to be discharged from the Army as medically unfit, and he was presented with a testimonial and £600 by the people of Leeds. He was also presented with a commemorative medal in gold by Mr William Owen.
Charles’ later life was tragic. He moved to live in South Wales, but was deeply troubled by his experiences in South Africa, and by the early 1920s, he had been admitted as an in-patient into the Glamorgan County Asylum in Bridgend. Sadly, he died in the asylum aged just 44 on the 30th December 1921. He was buried on the 2nd January 1922 in St Mary’s Churchyard, Whitchurch, near Cardiff. His grave is marked with a new headstone in 1986. His medals are privately held.
"Jack White V.C. (born Jacob Weiss; 23 December 1896 – 27 November 1949).
White was born Jacob Weiss in Leeds on 23 December 1896 into an immigrant Russian Jewish family. After finishing his education, he joined the family business, a waterproofing company. When the First World War broke out, he returned home from a business trip and volunteered for active service with the King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster). Originally assigned to a battalion destined for France, he missed the battalion's deployment while home on compassionate leave to attend the funeral of his father. Instead, he was transferred to the 6th (Service) Battalion, King's Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster).
The 6th Bn was attached to the 13th (Western) Division. Originally ordered to Gallipoli, he remained with the battalion through the Gallipoli campaign. Eventually, he and his unit were ordered to join the Tigris Corps, attempting to relieve the Siege of Kut. After the failure of the relief effort, White's unit participated in the counter-offensive in 1917. It was during the 13th Division's crossing of the Diyala River that he earned the Victoria Cross.
Details
White was 20 years old, and a private when, on 7/8 March 1917 on the Dialah River, Mesopotamia, the following deed took place for which he was awarded the VC. This citation was gazetted on 27 June 1917:
War Office, 27th June, 1917.
His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officer, Warrant Officer, Non-commissioned Officers and men:
No. 18105 Pte. Jack White, R. Lanc. R.
For most conspicuous bravery and resource.
This signaller during an attempt to cross a river saw the two Pontoons ahead of him come under heavy machine-gun fire, with disastrous results.
When his own Pontoon had reached midstream, with every man except himself either dead or wounded, finding that he was unable to control the Pontoon, Pte. White promptly tied a telephone wire to the Pontoon, jumped overboard, and towed it to the shore, thereby saving an officer's life and bringing to land the rifles and equipment of the other men in the boat, who were either dead or dying.
He was also awarded the Italian Bronze Medal of Military Valour.
Freemasonry
He was initiated into Freemasonry in Lodge Montefiore, No. 753, (Glasgow, Scotland) on 2 June 1919. The records show the following entry: 'Jack White (Weiss) VC, Waterproof Maker Commercial. Age 23.'
Later life
White later achieved the rank of lance corporal. Although a Victoria Cross holder he was not permitted to join the Home Guard during World War II because his Russian-born father had failed to naturalised as a British subject.
After his service, White returned to Manchester and undertook an apprenticeship as a trainee pattern cutter in a local factory. He went on to become General Manager and then Owner before fading health forced him to relinquish his interest and he died in 1949 aged 52.
He was the subject of a comic strip in The Victor published in 1987" wikipedia
"David Philip Hirsch VC (28 December 1896 – 23 April 1917) Born 28 December 1896 to Harry and Edith Hirsch of Westwood Grove, Leeds.
He was 20 years old, and an Acting Captain in the 4th Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own),British Army during the First World War. On 23 April 1917 near Wancourt, France, he performed a deed for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross. He died in action that day.
Citation
2nd Lt. (A/Capt.) David Philip Hirsch, late York R.
For most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty in attack.
Having arrived at the first objective, Capt. Hirsch, although already twice wounded, returned over fire-swept slopes to satisfy himself that the defensive flank was being established.
Machine gun fire was so intense that it was necessary for him to be continuously up and down the line encouraging his men to dig and hold the position.
He continued to encourage his men by standing on the parapet and steadying them in the face of machine gun fire and counterattack until he was killed.
His conduct throughout was a magnificent example of the greatest devotion to duty.
— London Gazette.
His Victoria Cross is displayed at the Green Howards Regimental Museum, Richmond, North Yorkshire, England." wikipedia.
Edward McKenna (1827-1908) was born on 15th February 1827 in Leeds, Yorkshire. He enlisted with the 65th Regiment of Foot (later York & Lancaster Regiment) on the 15th January 1854 at Leeds, at the age of 17 years old. His profession was listed as a wire worker, and he was described as “5ft 6 inches tall, of a sallow complexion, with grey eyes and brown hair”. On the 1st March 1860 he was promoted to Corporal, then Sergeant on 1st July 1862, and later Colour Sergeant in May 1863. His Army career was mostly spent in Australia and New Zealand, where his service spanned from 1856 to 1863.
On the 7th September 1863, at Cameron Town, New Zealand, Colour Sergeant McKenna would perform supreme gallantry when after both his officers, Captain Smith and Lieutenant Butler had been shot down, he charged through an enemy position where he was heavily outnumbered. He managed to take the position with a small party of just two sergeants, a bugler, and thirty-five men over rugged country, with the loss of just one man killed and another missing.
McKenna was gazetted for the VC on 16th January 1864, and was presented with his medal on 18th June 1864 by the GOC New Zealand, Lieutenant-General Sir D A Cameron at Te Awamuta Camp. Sadly, his original VC was stolen sometime in 1868, and he purchased an official replacement. He retired from the Army as an Ensign, and lived the remainder of his life in New Zealand. He died on 8th June 1908 in Palmerston North, aged 81, and was buried in Terrace End Cemetery. By his own wishes, his widow presented his replacement VC, other medals and revolver to the Auckland Institute & Museum, shortly after his death.
John Crawford Raynes (1887-1929) was born at Longley, Ecclesall, Sheffield, Yorkshire on 28th April 1887. His father was Stephen Henry Raynes, a railway clerk from Liverpool, who then became landlord of the “Sheaf View Hotel” in 1886 and was also an auctioneer’s clerk. By 1911, he had become the painter. His mother was Hannah Elizabeth Crawshaw and they married in 1886 at Wortley, near Leeds. John had three siblings: Francis “Frank”, Mary Hannah and Elizabeth Winifred Raynes.
John was educated at Heeley Church School, Sheffield and was a member of the Boys’ Brigade. Heee worked for Mr T W Wood, a coal merchant, and also for his father as a decorator until he enlisted in the Royal Garrison Artillery on 10th October 1904. He transferred to the Royal Field Artillery on 1st June 1905 and was posted to 42nd Battery on 19th July. He extended his service to complete six years on 29th September 1906 and was awarded a Good Conduct Badge on 10th October. He was promoted to Acting Bombardier in May 1907 and Bombardier in 1910. Having transferred to the Section B Reserve in October 1910, he became a policeman in Leeds.
John married Mabel Dawson on 24th April 1907 at Leeds Registry Office, and they went on to have four children. Two of the children died in infancy, and the surviving children were called John Kenneth Raynes and Tom Crawshaw Raynes. John was recalled on 5th August 1914 and was promoted to Acting Corporal on 10th October and acting Sergeant on 31st March 1915. He was an instructor at No 2 Depot RFA at Preston and was offered a commission, which he refused. He volunteered five times for active service before being posted to A/LXXI Brigade on 19th June and went to France as a Corporal on 27th July.
On 11th October 1915 at Fosse 7 de Bethune, France, Sergeant Raynes went to the assistance of another sergeant who was lying wounded. He bandaged the injured man and returned to his gun, then, when the battery ceased firing, carried the wounded man to a dug-out and when gas shelling started, put his own gas helmet on his injured comrade and, badly gassed himself, went back to his gun. The next day he was buried, with others, under a house which had been shelled. As soon as he had been extricated he insisted on helping to rescue the others, then, having had his wounds dressed, reported for duty.
The VC was presented by King George V at Buckingham Palace on 4th December 1915, and he was promoted to Acting Battery Sergeant Major and returned to Britain on 1st January 1916. A number of postings followed – 5B Reserve Brigade in Edinburgh, 393 Independent Battery in Canterbury, Recruiting Training Centre in Southern Army and No 2 RFA Officer Cadet School at Topsham Barracks in Exeter. He was discharged on 11th December 1918 as no longer fit for service and was issued the Silver War Badge on 3rd January 1919. During his service, he was Initiated into Freemasonry at Saint James’ Operative Lodge, No 97, Edinburgh on 24th January 1916.
He returned to the Leeds Police as a Sergeant, but his health deteriorated and he was transferred to work in the Aliens’ Registration Office. In March 1924 worsening spinal problems forced him to give up and the Leeds Watch Committee recommended him for an annual pension. Unfortunately, he was forced to leave his home due to his ill health and Sir Gervase Beckett MP initiated the “Sergeant Raynes Fund” through The Yorkshire Post, which raised £700 by 8th November. It was used to purchase a new bungalow in Chapeltown Road, Leeds.
John suffered paralysis for the last three years of his life, during which time his wife was nursing him. He was unable to attend the VC Dinner at the House of Lords on 9th November 1929. The other Yorkshire VCs sent him a telegram expressing their regret and promising him a memento. John became very depressed over his inability to attend the Dinner, and he suffered a relapse and died at his home on 12th November 1929.
His funeral was attended by eleven VCs, of whom eight from Yorkshire (George Sanders, Wilfred Edwards, Fred McNess, Charles Hull, Albert Mountain, Frederick Dobson, Arthur Poulter and William Butler) acted as pallbearers. He was buried in Harehills Cemetery, Leeds, and the Prince of Wales sent a letter of sympathy to Mrs Raynes. The grave was renovated and re-dedicated in November 2008.
In addition to his VC, he was awarded the 1914-15 Star, British War Medal 1914-20 and Victory Medal 1914-19. On 26th September 1973, the medals were presented by his daughter-in-law, Mrs Margaret Raynes, to Major General Geoffrey Collin, GOC North East District, on behalf of the Royal Artillery at a ceremony in York. The medals are held by the Royal Artillery Historical Trust though are currently in storage following the closure of the Royal Artillery Museum in Woolwich.
George Sanders VC MC - www.vconline.org.uk/george-sanders-vc/4588160751
On 1st July 1916 near Thiepval, France, during the Battle of the Somme, after an advance into the enemy's trenches, Corporal Sanders found himself isolated with a party of 30 men. He organised his defences, detailed a bombing party, and impressed upon the men that his and their duty was to hold the position at all costs. Next morning, he drove off an attack by the enemy, rescuing some prisoners who had fallen into their hands. Later two bombing attacks were driven off, and he was finally relieved after 36 hours. All this time his party had been without food and water, having given their water to the wounded during the first night. George was employed as a foreman at Meadow Lane Gas Works under Leeds Corporation after the war, as was William Butler VC. George attended the funeral of fellow VC, John Crawshaw Raynes on 16th November 1929, together with ten other VCs. During the Second World War, he was a Major in 8th West Riding (Leeds) Battalion, Home Guard, from February 1941.
George died at St James’ Hospital, Leeds on 4th April 1950. He was given a full military funeral before being cremated at Cottingly Crematorium, Leeds, where his ashes were scattered. In addition to his family, the service was attended by four VCs (William Butler, Albert Mountain, Wilfred Edwards and Charles Hull). #vc #victoriacross #victoriacrossonline
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
I tear my heart open, I sow myself shut
My weakness is that I care too much
My scars remind me that the past is real
I tear my heart open just to feel
Drunk and I´m feeling down
And I just wanna be alone
I´m pissed cause you came around
Why don´t you just go home
Cause you channel all your pain
And I can´t help to fix myself
Your making me insane
All I can say is
[Chorus]
I tried to help you once
A kiss will only vise
I saw you going down
But you never realized
That your drowning in the water
So I offered you my hand
Compassions in my nature
Tonight is our last dance
[Chorus]
I´m drunk and I´m feeling down
And I just wanna be alone
You shouldn´t ever came around
Why don´t you just go home?
Cause your drowning in the water
And I tried to grab your hand
And I left my heart open
But you didn´t understand
But you didn´t understand
You fix yourself
I can´t help you fix yourself
But at least I can say I tried
I´m sorry but I gotta move on with my own life
I can´t help you fix yourself
But at least I can say I tried
I´m sorry but I gotta move on with my own life
suena: scars - papa roach (8)
A new meaning to narcissim, highlighting misery, pain, frustration, jealousy, effort, hardwork, beraking down, strength, weakness, love, loss, pain, gain... the list of emotions and feelings one carries is endless.... aur na jalaaye koi....
Album for the night- Maachis
Currently listening to- Paani Paani re
Yeah yeah! Tagged! so here goes-
1- right now all i want is sleep sleep and some sleep!
2- hate (hate is a very strong emotion) but i hate people with prejudices they arent ready to give up.
3- i hate myself too when i develop them.
4- i am calmly in love with a wonderful man!
5- water, rum and black coffee are the liquids to live for!
6- i can crack the hardest nut but havent been successful in opening up a closed mind.
7- i just figured that one needs guts or the dont give a damn attitude while putting up such a picture!
8- couldnt care less about my sad state.it's a flickr worthy picture and that's all that matters!
9- i loved the way he said "love you" today :) :) :)
10-i keep having debates in my head over instrumental music vs music with lyrics.
11- i owe Vishal Bharadwaj big time!!!
12- would love to elope but i love my parents too much for them to not witness the apparent sacrement!
13- can weave a lot of emotions into the Flavors of Manali.
14- thinking about the past and future make the present very pleasant! (oh well, sometimes!)
15- thinking......
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
This cross was carved with a skull and cross bones above four symbols of the weakness and guilt of humanity. These from left to right are the cock, reflecting the betrayal of Jesus Christ by St Peter, a pillar symbolising his scourging, a serpent reflecting the fall from grace of the garden of Eden and finally the crown of thorns.
The high cross also has a carving of a whip on each corner.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
Several folks have tagged me. More than I recall at this point because I was too busy resisting.
Finally, after the last two three tags, I have relented. They were from:
Jennifer Morrison: bestuff.com/stuff/jennifer-morrison
Jennifer Aniston: www.imdb.com/name/nm0000098/
Elisha Cuthbert: bestuff.com/stuff/elisha-cuthbert
Sixteen Things About Don Iannone
1. Born in Appalachian coal-mining country (Martins Ferry, Ohio) and spoke with a "twang" until the age of 10. (If you don't know what a "twang" is that is one less burden for you to bear in life.)
2. Childhood Fantasy: Grow up very fast to become an adult.
3. Adult Fantasy: Duh! Become a child again.
4. Best Known For: His economic development consulting work across the United States and internationally.
5. Least Known For: He co-discovered the Internet with Al Gore and several others.
6. Interesting Family Fact: His father was a published poet and passed along the "poet gene" to Don.
7. Worst Hangover: On Bacardi 151 rum during his freshman year in 1969 at the University of Arizona. (Still recovering!)
8. Next Career; After becoming a world renown photographer, become a monk in Tibet.
9. Secret Nobody Knows About Him: Are you crazy? If I tell, it would no longer be a secret!
10. Career His Mother Chose for Him: Hell, fire and brimstone preacher.
11. Retirement Plan: Travel around the world, take interesting photographs, and eventually buy Flickr (That is if the stock market gets rolling again over the next eight years).
12. 2009 Top Priorities: Make the best of this "sucko, sicko" economy, finish my thesis, publish my third book of poetry, and write a book about wisdom work.
13. Favorite Cocktail: Manhattan with Maker's Mark bourbon whiskey.
14. Something I Talk About and People's Eyes Roll: Consciousness, inner reality, and the causal nature of consciousness (See I told you it would!)
15. Major Weakness: Also my major strength.
16. Major Strength: Also my major weakness.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bv 316 was a tailless twin jet fighter designed by Blohm & Voss as a replacement for the Me 262 fighter. The design of the Bv P.216 was begun in the summer of 1943 and was intended as an overall improvement to the Messerschmitt Me 262. The biggest weakness of the Me 262 were its unreliable and weak Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojets, delivering only 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each.
Whilst the Luftwaffe took the Me 262 into service, an improvement was direly needed. Messerschmitt responded with the P.1099 design, and in 1944 the High Command of the Luftwaffe came up with the Emergency Fighter (Volksjäger) Competition, which challenged engineers to invent a new, light and simple aircraft.
Nevertheless, heavier types with longer endurance were needed, too, so Blohm & Voss’ designer Dr. Vogt proposed a twin jet development of his versatile family of tailless fighter concepts (ranging from pusher propeller designs through a light fighter for the Volksjäger competition up to a heavy, three-seated night fighter design) that would fall into the Me 262’s weight class, but take advantage of the Heinkel HeS 011, a new jet engine which was being under development for aircraft of various classes and sizes and offered 150% of thrust.
The engines were mounted in a pair at the rear of a short, tailless fuselage, breathing through a bifurcated nose intake. The pilot sat above the air intake in a pressurized cockpit, with a dorsal fuel tank behind him. More fuel was carried in the wings, which were swept 40° at quarter chord and featured fins on short outriggers at about 2/3 of the wing span. A fully retractable tricycle landing gear was fitted, the front wheel turned 90° to lie flat under the air intake while the main wheels retracted inward and also lay under the engine bay. Armament consisted of four compact MK 108 30mm cannons in the nose section.
This aircraft received the internal project number P.216. Since it already incorporated advanced wind tunnel research for the innovative layout and the swept wing design, Dr. Vogt received an official Go from the RLM.
Construction of three P.216 prototypes began in May 1945, followed by extensive flight and structural tests. The first aircraft (A-0 pre-production series) made its first flight in August 1945, and after a minimal test program, the P.216 was cleared for production in October 1945, receiving the official RLM service code number 316.
The production aircraft (Bv 316 A-1) differed only marginally from the prototypes, since there was hardly any time for refinement. Most visible changes included a simplified canopy (instead of a more rounded bubble canopy), and external hardpoints under fuselage and wings for a wide range of ordnance, which made the Bv 316 eligible for fighter bomber duties, too. A plumbed central pylon also allowed the carriage of a drop tank, which extended range appreciably. Less obvious was better armor protection for the pilot and the fuselage tank. Overall performance was slightly better than the Me 262’s, the most significant advantage was the dramatically improved reliability of the HeS 011 engines and a much better turn radius due to the lower wing load.
Luftwaffe pilots were sceptical at first, but found the Bv 316 to be a trustworthy weapon platform. The first machines were allocated to bases in southern Germany and Austria, where the fighters helped to protect oil fields in Bulgaria in mid 1946.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 1/4 in)
Wingspan: 11,40 m (37 ft 4 1/2 in)
Height: 3,49 m (11 ft 5 1/4 in)
Wing area: 29,11 m² (313,4 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.046 kg (11,125 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.894 kg (15.198 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18.152 lb (8.234 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Heinkel HeS 011A turbojets, each rated at 12,01 kN (1.300 kg/2.866 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1.006 km/h (625 mph, 548 knots)
Stall speed: 200 km/h (124 mph, 108 knots)
Range: 2.400 km (1,522 mi)
Service ceiling: 15.100 m (49.600 ft) at combat weight
Rate of climb: 45,72 m/s (9.000 ft/min) at sea level
Wing loading: 236.7 kg/m² (49.4 lb/ft²)
lift-to-drag: 15.1
Thrust/weight: 0,42
Armament:*
4× fixed 30mm MK 108 cannons in the nose
Underfuselage and wing hardpoints for a total ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.303 lb),
including bombs of up to 1.000 kg (2.202 lb) caliber, drop tanks or unguided rockets
The kit and its assembly:
I wonder why this conversion stunt has not been done before or more often, because it's such an obvious move?
There had been several tailless Blohm & Voss designs, ranging from a small jet fighter (an alternative to the He 162, which was chosen as Volksjäger) to a heavily armed, two engine, three seat night fighter with 14m wing span. If you take a look at sketches of these aircraft, the overall simlarity of the later F-86 is obvious, despite its conventional layout. So I thought that a whiffy B&V design on this basis should be easy - and it actually is!
The basis is the vintage Matchbox F-86A from 1976, chosen because of its simplicity and basically good fit. The major steps include cutting off the tail just behind the wings' trailing edge, as well as a part of the dorsal section and the wings outside of the flaps.
In order to create a more dynamic look and stay true to the original Dr. Vogt designs I attached the wings with a slight dihedral, while the recessed outer wings received a recognizable anhedral - mounted on slender pylons that are actually pieces of sprue.
On top of that some donation parts were added:
* The fins are stabilizers from an Italeri A-4M Skyhawk
* The F-86's bubble canopy was replaced with the canopy and cockpit section from a Revell Me 262
* An Airfix pilot was added
* The engines come from a Dougram mecha kit (a 1:48 hovercraft!)
* The landing gear struts belong to a Hobby Boss Me 262
* The main wheels come from an Italeri IAI Kfir
The new canopy was added for a more "German" and less modern look. It meant massive body work, but it blends in well. The are behind the cockpit had to be sculpted anew, too, and creating a good transition to the two jet exhauts from above and below was not easy.
The F-86 air intake was also modified: the characteristic upper lip with the radar range finder had to go and I implanted a vertical splitter inside, plus a wall of dark foamed plastics that blocks light from the cockpit and sight onto the lead that was hidden around the cockpit.
For armament I filled the original six 0.5" machine guns and drilled two pairs of new, bigger openings for MK 108 cannons in the same place. Later, pieces of hollow steel needles were added as cannon muzzles. As an extra I added an underfuselage pylon for a drop tank and attachment points for eight scratched WGr 21 launch tubes.
Painting and markings:
How to paint a Luft '46 aircraft? The color spectrum is limited, and I wanted a "different" look. Dedicated ugliness was intended. So I came, after some browsing, across an obscure and heavily debated color for the lower sides, called (more or less inofficially) RLM 84. It's a greenish grey, much like the RAF Sky, that was used on some late Luftwaffe aircraft - maybe a primer color, or a field mix? Anyway, it would yield that odd look that I was looking for, and I used a mix of Humbrol 90 with some RLM 02, slightly darker and greenish than Sky.
In order to emphasize the overall strange color effect I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a uniform RLM 81 (Braunviolett), and add field camouflage in the form of patches/mottle in RLM 81 and RLM 02 on the flanks and on the wings. RLM 02 was not in use as camouflage paint in late WWII anymore, but I am certain that it was still around, and it matches the overall greenish look of the aircraft well.
For an even more field duty look I added details in different colors/tones. The slats' undersides received a grey primer finish, while the flaps and rudders were painted RLM 76 from below and in a slightly different shade of RLM 81 from above (Humbrol 155), as if they had been replaced or the aircraft had been built from different components and jostled into service.
All interior surfaces were painted in very dark grey (RLM 66), and various shades of Metallizer were used around the exhausts, the cannons and under the wings where the WGr 21 launch tubes are located.
After a light black ink wash and some shading the decals were applied - puzzled together from various sheets and in a minimalistic style.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The Bv 316 was a tailless twin jet fighter designed by Blohm & Voss as a replacement for the Me 262 fighter. The design of the Bv P.216 was begun in the summer of 1943 and was intended as an overall improvement to the Messerschmitt Me 262. The biggest weakness of the Me 262 were its unreliable and weak Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojets, delivering only 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each.
Whilst the Luftwaffe took the Me 262 into service, an improvement was direly needed. Messerschmitt responded with the P.1099 design, and in 1944 the High Command of the Luftwaffe came up with the Emergency Fighter (Volksjäger) Competition, which challenged engineers to invent a new, light and simple aircraft.
Nevertheless, heavier types with longer endurance were needed, too, so Blohm & Voss’ designer Dr. Vogt proposed a twin jet development of his versatile family of tailless fighter concepts (ranging from pusher propeller designs through a light fighter for the Volksjäger competition up to a heavy, three-seated night fighter design) that would fall into the Me 262’s weight class, but take advantage of the Heinkel HeS 011, a new jet engine which was being under development for aircraft of various classes and sizes and offered 150% of thrust.
The engines were mounted in a pair at the rear of a short, tailless fuselage, breathing through a bifurcated nose intake. The pilot sat above the air intake in a pressurized cockpit, with a dorsal fuel tank behind him. More fuel was carried in the wings, which were swept 40° at quarter chord and featured fins on short outriggers at about 2/3 of the wing span. A fully retractable tricycle landing gear was fitted, the front wheel turned 90° to lie flat under the air intake while the main wheels retracted inward and also lay under the engine bay. Armament consisted of four compact MK 108 30mm cannons in the nose section.
This aircraft received the internal project number P.216. Since it already incorporated advanced wind tunnel research for the innovative layout and the swept wing design, Dr. Vogt received an official Go from the RLM.
Construction of three P.216 prototypes began in May 1945, followed by extensive flight and structural tests. The first aircraft (A-0 pre-production series) made its first flight in August 1945, and after a minimal test program, the P.216 was cleared for production in October 1945, receiving the official RLM service code number 316.
The production aircraft (Bv 316 A-1) differed only marginally from the prototypes, since there was hardly any time for refinement. Most visible changes included a simplified canopy (instead of a more rounded bubble canopy), and external hardpoints under fuselage and wings for a wide range of ordnance, which made the Bv 316 eligible for fighter bomber duties, too. A plumbed central pylon also allowed the carriage of a drop tank, which extended range appreciably. Less obvious was better armor protection for the pilot and the fuselage tank. Overall performance was slightly better than the Me 262’s, the most significant advantage was the dramatically improved reliability of the HeS 011 engines and a much better turn radius due to the lower wing load.
Luftwaffe pilots were sceptical at first, but found the Bv 316 to be a trustworthy weapon platform. The first machines were allocated to bases in southern Germany and Austria, where the fighters helped to protect oil fields in Bulgaria in mid 1946.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 1/4 in)
Wingspan: 11,40 m (37 ft 4 1/2 in)
Height: 3,49 m (11 ft 5 1/4 in)
Wing area: 29,11 m² (313,4 sq ft)
Empty weight: 5.046 kg (11,125 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.894 kg (15.198 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 18.152 lb (8.234 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Heinkel HeS 011A turbojets, each rated at 12,01 kN (1.300 kg/2.866 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1.006 km/h (625 mph, 548 knots)
Stall speed: 200 km/h (124 mph, 108 knots)
Range: 2.400 km (1,522 mi)
Service ceiling: 15.100 m (49.600 ft) at combat weight
Rate of climb: 45,72 m/s (9.000 ft/min) at sea level
Wing loading: 236.7 kg/m² (49.4 lb/ft²)
lift-to-drag: 15.1
Thrust/weight: 0,42
Armament:*
4× fixed 30mm MK 108 cannons in the nose
Underfuselage and wing hardpoints for a total ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.303 lb),
including bombs of up to 1.000 kg (2.202 lb) caliber, drop tanks or unguided rockets
The kit and its assembly:
I wonder why this conversion stunt has not been done before or more often, because it's such an obvious move?
There had been several tailless Blohm & Voss designs, ranging from a small jet fighter (an alternative to the He 162, which was chosen as Volksjäger) to a heavily armed, two engine, three seat night fighter with 14m wing span. If you take a look at sketches of these aircraft, the overall simlarity of the later F-86 is obvious, despite its conventional layout. So I thought that a whiffy B&V design on this basis should be easy - and it actually is!
The basis is the vintage Matchbox F-86A from 1976, chosen because of its simplicity and basically good fit. The major steps include cutting off the tail just behind the wings' trailing edge, as well as a part of the dorsal section and the wings outside of the flaps.
In order to create a more dynamic look and stay true to the original Dr. Vogt designs I attached the wings with a slight dihedral, while the recessed outer wings received a recognizable anhedral - mounted on slender pylons that are actually pieces of sprue.
On top of that some donation parts were added:
* The fins are stabilizers from an Italeri A-4M Skyhawk
* The F-86's bubble canopy was replaced with the canopy and cockpit section from a Revell Me 262
* An Airfix pilot was added
* The engines come from a Dougram mecha kit (a 1:48 hovercraft!)
* The landing gear struts belong to a Hobby Boss Me 262
* The main wheels come from an Italeri IAI Kfir
The new canopy was added for a more "German" and less modern look. It meant massive body work, but it blends in well. The are behind the cockpit had to be sculpted anew, too, and creating a good transition to the two jet exhauts from above and below was not easy.
The F-86 air intake was also modified: the characteristic upper lip with the radar range finder had to go and I implanted a vertical splitter inside, plus a wall of dark foamed plastics that blocks light from the cockpit and sight onto the lead that was hidden around the cockpit.
For armament I filled the original six 0.5" machine guns and drilled two pairs of new, bigger openings for MK 108 cannons in the same place. Later, pieces of hollow steel needles were added as cannon muzzles. As an extra I added an underfuselage pylon for a drop tank and attachment points for eight scratched WGr 21 launch tubes.
Painting and markings:
How to paint a Luft '46 aircraft? The color spectrum is limited, and I wanted a "different" look. Dedicated ugliness was intended. So I came, after some browsing, across an obscure and heavily debated color for the lower sides, called (more or less inofficially) RLM 84. It's a greenish grey, much like the RAF Sky, that was used on some late Luftwaffe aircraft - maybe a primer color, or a field mix? Anyway, it would yield that odd look that I was looking for, and I used a mix of Humbrol 90 with some RLM 02, slightly darker and greenish than Sky.
In order to emphasize the overall strange color effect I decided to paint the upper surfaces in a uniform RLM 81 (Braunviolett), and add field camouflage in the form of patches/mottle in RLM 81 and RLM 02 on the flanks and on the wings. RLM 02 was not in use as camouflage paint in late WWII anymore, but I am certain that it was still around, and it matches the overall greenish look of the aircraft well.
For an even more field duty look I added details in different colors/tones. The slats' undersides received a grey primer finish, while the flaps and rudders were painted RLM 76 from below and in a slightly different shade of RLM 81 from above (Humbrol 155), as if they had been replaced or the aircraft had been built from different components and jostled into service.
All interior surfaces were painted in very dark grey (RLM 66), and various shades of Metallizer were used around the exhausts, the cannons and under the wings where the WGr 21 launch tubes are located.
After a light black ink wash and some shading the decals were applied - puzzled together from various sheets and in a minimalistic style.
A good thing continues
Some six months ago, I posted almost 100 images and a few thoughts I felt were missing from the many existing RX1 reviews. The outpouring of support and interest in that article was very gratifying. When I published, I had used the camera for six full months, enough time to come to a view of its strengths and weaknesses and to produce a small portfolio of good images, but not enough time to see the full picture (pun intended). In the following six months, I have used the camera at least as frequently as in the first six and have produced another small set of good images. It should be noted that my usage of the RX1 in the last six (and especially in the last 3) months has involved less travel and more time with the family and around the house; I will share relatively few of these images but will spend some time sharing my impressions of its functionality for family snapshots as I am sure there is some interest. And let it be said here: one of the primary motivations to purchase the camera was to take more photos with the family, and after one full year I can confidently say: money well spent.
The A7/r game-changer?
In the past six months, Sony have announced and released two full-frame, interchangeable lens cameras that clearly take design cues from the RX1: the A7 and the A7r. These cameras are innovative and highly capable and, as such, are in the midst of taking the photography world by storm. I think they are compelling enough cameras that I wonder whether Sony is wasting its energy continuing to develop further A-mount cameras. Sony deserve credit for a bold strategy—many companies would have been content to allow the success of the the RX1 (and RX1R) generate further sales before pushing further into the white space left unexplored by camera makers with less ambition.This is not the place to detail the relative advantages and disadvantages of the RX1 versus the A7/r except to make the following point. I currently use a Nikon D800 and an RX1: were I to sell both and purchase the A7r + 35mm f/2.8 I would in many ways lose nothing by way of imaging capability or lens compatibility but would pocket the surplus $1250-1750. Indeed this loyal Nikon owner thought long and hard about doing so, which speaks to the strategic importance of these cameras for a company trying to make inroads into a highly concentrated market.Ultimately, I opted to hang onto the two cameras I have (although this decision is one that I revisit time and time again) and continue to use them as I have for the past year. Let me give you a quick flavor of why.
The RX1 is smaller and more discrete
This is a small a point, but my gut reaction to the A7/r was: much smaller than the D800, not as small as the RX1. The EVF atop the A7/r and the larger profile of interchangeable mount lenses means that I would not be able to slip the A7/r into a pocket the way I can the RX1. Further, by virtue of using the EVF and its loud mechanical shutter, the A7/r just isn’t as stealthy as the RX1. Finally, f/2 beats the pants off of f/2.8 at the same or smaller size.At this point, some of you may be saying, “Future Sony releases will allow you to get a body without an EVF and get an f/2 lens that has a slimmer profile, etc, etc.” And that’s just the point: to oversimplify things, the reason I am keeping my RX1 is that Sony currently offers something close to an A7 body without a built-in EVF and with a slimmer profile 35mm f/2.
The D800 has important functional advantages
On the other side of the spectrum, the AF speed of the A7/r just isn’t going to match the D800, especially when the former is equipped with a Nikon lens and F-mount adapter. EVFs cannot yet match the experience of looking through the prism and the lens (I expect they will match soon, but aren’t there yet). What’s more, I have made such an investment in Nikon glass that I can’t yet justify purchasing an adapter for a Sony mount or selling them all for Sony’s offerings (many of which aren’t to market yet).Now, all of these are minor points and I think all of them disappear with an A8r, but they add up to something major: I have two cameras very well suited to two different types of shooting, and I ask myself if I gain or lose by getting something in between—something that wasn’t quite a pocket shooter and something that was quite a DSLR? You can imagine, however, that if I were coming to the market without a D800 and an RX1, that my decision would be far different: dollar for dollar, the A7/r would be a no-brainer.During the moments when I consider selling to grab an A7r, I keep coming back to a thought I had a month or so before the RX1 was announced. At that time I was considering something like the NEX cameras with a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and I said in my head, “I wish someone would make a carry-around camera with a full frame sensor and a fixed 35mm f/2.8 or f/2.” Now you understand how attractive the RX1 is to me and what a ridiculously high bar exists for another camera system to reach.
Okay, so what is different from the last review?
For one, I had an issue with the camera’s AF motor failing to engage and giving me an E61:00 error. I had to send it out to Sony for repairs (via extended warranty and service plan). I detailed my experience with Sony Service here [insert link] and I write to you as a very satisfied customer. That is to say, I have 3 years left on a 4 year + accidental damage warranty and I feel confident enough in that coverage to say that I will have this beauty in working order for at least another 3 years.For two, I’ve spent significantly less time thinking of this camera as a DSLR replacement and have instead started to develop a very different way of shooting with it. The activation barrier to taking a shot with my D800 is quite high. Beyond having to bring a large camera wherever you go and have it in hand, a proper camera takes two hands and full attention to produce an image. I shoot slowly and methodically and often from a tripod with the D800. In contrast, I can pull the RX1 out, pop off the lens cap, line up and take a shot with one hand (often with a toddler in the other). This fosters a totally different type of photography.
My “be-there” camera
The have-everywhere camera that gives DSLR type controls to one-handed shooting lets me pursue images that happen very quickly or images that might not normally meet the standards of “drag-the-DSLR-out-of-the-bag.” Many of those images you’ll see on this post. A full year of shooting and I can say this with great confidence: the RX1 is a terrific mash-up of point-and-shoot and DSLR not just in image quality and features, but primarily in the product it helps me create. To take this thinking a bit further: I find myself even processing images from the RX1 differently than I would from my DSLR. So much so that I have strongly considered starting a tumblr and posting JPEGs directly from the RX1 via my phone or an iPad rather than running the bulk of them through Lightroom, onto Flickr and then on the blog (really this is just a matter of time, stay tuned, and those readers who have experience with tumblr, cloud image storage and editing, etc, etc, please contact me, I want to pick your brain).Put simply, I capture more spontaneous and beautiful “moments” than I might have otherwise. Photography is very much an exercise in “f/8 and be there,” and the RX1 is my go-to “be there” camera.
The family camera
I mentioned earlier that I justified the purchase of the RX1 partly as a camera to be used to document the family moments into which a DSLR doesn’t neatly fit. Over the past year I’ve collected thousands and thousands of family images with the RX1. The cold hard truth is that many of those photos could be better if I’d taken a full DSLR kit with me to the park or the beach or the grocery store each time. The RX1 is a difficult camera to use on a toddler (or any moving subject for that matter); autofocus isn’t as fast as a professional DSLR, it’s difficult to perfectly compose via an LCD (especially in bright sunlight), but despite these shortcomings, it’s been an incredibly useful family camera. There are simply so many beautiful moments where I had the RX1 over my shoulder, ready to go that whatever difficulties exist relative to a DSLR, those pale in comparison to the power of it’s convenience. The best camera is the one in your hand.
Where to go from here.
So what is the value of these RX1 going forward, especially in a world of the A7/r and it’s yet-to-be-born siblings without an EVF and a pancake lens? Frankly, at its current price (which is quite fair when you consider the value of the the body and the lens) I see precious little room for an independent offering versus a mirrorless, interchangeable lens system with the same image quality in a package just as small. That doesn’t mean Sony won’t make an RX2 or an RX1 Mark II (have a look at it’s other product lines to see how many SKUs are maintained despite low demand). Instead, I see the RX1 as a bridge that needed to exist for engineers, managers, and the market to make it to the A7/r and it’s descendants.A Facebook friend recently paid me a great compliment; he said something like, “Justin, via your blog, you’ve sold a ton of RX1 cameras.” Indeed, despite my efforts not to be a salesman, I think he’s right: I have and would continue to recommend this camera.The true value of the RX1 going forward is for those of us who have the thing on our shoulders; and yes, if you have an investment in and a love for a DSLR system, there’s still tremendous value in getting one, slinging it over your shoulder, and heading out into the wide, bright world; A7/r or no, this is just an unbelievably capable camera.
Sony RX1 User Report.
I hesitate to write about gear. Tools are tools and the bitter truth is that a great craftsman rises above his tools to create a masterpiece whereas most of us try to improve our abominations by buying better or faster hammers to hit the same nails at the same awkward angles.
The internet is fairly flooded with reviews of this tiny marvel, and it isn’t my intention to compete with those articles. If you’re looking for a full-scale review of every feature or a down-to-Earth accounting of the RX1’s strengths and weaknesses, I recommend starting here.
Instead, I’d like to provide you with a flavor of how I’ve used the camera over the last six months. In short, this is a user report. To save yourself a few thousand words: I love the thing. As we go through this article, you’ll see this is a purpose built camera. The RX1 is not for everyone, but we will get to that and on the way, I’ll share a handful of images that I made with the camera.
It should be obvious to anyone reading this that I write this independently and have absolutely no relationship with Sony (other than having exchanged a large pile of cash for this camera at a retail outlet).
Before we get to anything else, I want to clear the air about two things: Price and Features
The Price
First things first: the price. The $2800+ cost of this camera is the elephant in the room and, given I purchased the thing, you may consider me a poor critic. That in mind, I want to offer you three thoughts:
Consumer goods cost what they cost, in the absence of a competitor (the Fuji X100s being the only one worth mention) there is no comparison and you simply have to decide for yourself if you are willing to pay or not.
Normalize the price per sensor area for all 35mm f/2 lens and camera alternatives and you’ll find the RX1 is an amazing value.
You are paying for the ability to take photographs, plain and simple. Ask yourself, “what are these photographs worth to me?”
In my case, #3 is very important. I have used the RX1 to take hundreds of photographs of my family that are immensely important to me. Moreover, I have made photographs (many appearing on this page) that are moving or beautiful and only happened because I had the RX1 in my bag or my pocket. Yes, of course I could have made these or very similar photographs with another camera, but that is immaterial.
35mm by 24mm by 35mm f/2
The killer feature of this camera is simple: it is a wafer of silicon 35mm by 24mm paired to a brilliantly, ridiculously, undeniably sharp, contrasty and bokehlicious 35mm f/2 Carl Zeiss lens. Image quality is king here and all other things take a back seat. This means the following: image quality is as good or better than your DSLR, but battery life, focus speed, and responsiveness are likely not as good as your DSLR. I say likely because, if you have an entry-level DSLR, the RX1 is comparable on these dimensions. If you want to change lenses, if you want an integrated viewfinder, if you want blindingly fast phase-detect autofocus then shoot with a DSLR. If you want the absolute best image quality in the smallest size possible, you’ve got it in the RX1.
While we are on the subject of interchangeable lenses and viewfinders...
I have an interchangeable lens DSLR and I love the thing. It’s basically a medium format camera in a 35mm camera body. It’s a powerhouse and it is the first camera I reach for when the goal is photography. For a long time, however, I’ve found myself in situations where photography was not the first goal, but where I nevertheless wanted to have a camera. I’m around the table with friends or at the park with my son and the DSLR is too big, too bulky, too intimidating. It comes between you and life. In this realm, mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras seem to be king, but they have a major flaw: they are, for all intents and purposes, just little DSLRs.
As I mentioned above, I have an interchangeable lens system, why would I want another, smaller one? Clearly, I am not alone in feeling this way, as the market has produced a number of what I would call “professional point and shoots.” Here we are talking about the Fuji X100/X100s, Sigma DPm-series and the RX100 and RX1.
Design is about making choices
When the Fuji X100 came out, I was intrigued. Here was a cheap(er), baby Leica M. Quiet, small, unobtrusive. Had I waited to buy until the X100s had come out, perhaps this would be a different report. Perhaps, but probably not. I remember thinking to myself as I was looking at the X100, “I wish there was a digital Rollei 35, something with a fixed 28mm or 35mm lens that would fit in a coat pocket or a small bag.” Now of course, there is.
So, for those of you who said, “I would buy the RX1 if it had interchangeable lenses or an integrated viewfinder or faster autofocus,” I say the following: This is a purpose built camera. You would not want it as an interchangeable system, it can’t compete with DSLR speed. A viewfinder would make the thing bigger and ruin the magic ratio of body to sensor size—further, there is a 3-inch LCD viewfinder on the back! Autofocus is super fast, you just don’t realize it because the bar has been raised impossibly high by ultra-sonic magnet focusing rings on professional DSLR lenses. There’s a fantastic balance at work here between image quality and size—great tools are about the total experience, not about one or the other specification.
In short, design is about making choices. I think Sony has made some good ones with the RX1.
In use
So I’ve just written 1,000 words of a user report without, you know, reporting on use. In many ways the images on the page are my user report. These photographs, more than my words, should give you a flavor of what the RX1 is about. But, for the sake of variety, I intend to tell you a bit about the how and the why of shooting with the RX1.
Snapshots
As a beginning enthusiast, I often sneered at the idea of a snapshot. As I’ve matured, I’ve come to appreciate what a pocket camera and a snapshot can offer. The RX1 is the ultimate photographer’s snapshot camera.
I’ll pause here to properly define snapshot as a photograph taken quickly with a handheld camera.
To quote Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, “Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” So it is with photography. Beautiful photographs happen at the decisive moment—and to paraphrase Henri Cartier-Bresson further—the world is newly made and falling to pieces every instant. I think it is no coincidence that each revolution in the steady march of photography from the tortuously slow chemistry of tin-type and daguerreotype through 120 and 35mm formats to the hyper-sensitive CMOS of today has engendered new categories and concepts of photography.
Photography is a reflexive, reactionary activity. I see beautiful light or the unusual in an every day event and my reaction is a desire to make a photograph. It’s a bit like breathing and has been since I was a kid.
Rather than sneer at snapshots, nowadays I seek them out; and when I seek them out, I do so with the Sony RX1 in my hand.
How I shoot with the RX1
Despite much bluster from commenters on other reviews as to the price point and the purpose-built nature of this camera (see above), the RX1 is incredibly flexible. Have a peek at some of the linked reviews and you’ll see handheld portraits, long exposures, images taken with off-camera flash, etc.
Yet, I mentioned earlier that I reach for the D800 when photography is the primary goal and so the RX1 has become for me a handheld camera—something I use almost exclusively at f/2 (people, objects, shallow DoF) or f/8 (landscapes in abundant light, abstracts). The Auto-ISO setting allows the camera to choose in the range from ISO 50 and 6400 to reach a proper exposure at a given aperture with a 1/80 s shutter speed. I have found this shutter speed ensures a sharp image every time (although photographers with more jittery grips may wish there was the ability to select a different default shutter speed). This strategy works because the RX1 has a delightfully clicky exposure compensation dial just under your right thumb—allowing for fine adjustment to the camera’s metering decision.
So then, if you find me out with the RX1, you’re likely to see me on aperture priority, f/2 and auto ISO. Indeed, many of the photographs on this page were taken in that mode (including lots of the landscape shots!).
Working within constraints.
The RX1 is a wonderful camera to have when you have to work within constraints. When I say this, I mean it is great for photography within two different classes of constraints: 1) physical constraints of time and space and 2) intellectual/artistic constraints.
To speak to the first, as I said earlier, many of the photographs on this page were made possible by having a camera with me at a time that I otherwise would not have been lugging around a camera. For example, some of the images from the Grand Canyon you see were made in a pinch on my way to a Christmas dinner with my family. I didn’t have the larger camera with me and I just had a minute to make the image. Truth be told, these images could have been made with my cell phone, but that I could wring such great image quality out of something not much larger than my cell phone is just gravy. Be it jacket pocket, small bag, bike bag, saddle bag, even fannie pack—you have space for this camera anywhere you go.
Earlier I alluded to the obtrusiveness of a large camera. If you want to travel lightly and make photographs without announcing your presence, it’s easier to use a smaller camera. Here the RX1 excels. Moreover, the camera’s leaf shutter is virtually silent, so you can snap away without announcing your intention. In every sense, this camera is meant to work within physical constraints.
I cut my photographic teeth on film and I will always have an affection for it. There is a sense that one is playing within the rules when he uses film. That same feeling is here in the RX1. I never thought I’d say this about a camera, but I often like the JPEG images this thing produces more than I like what I can push with a RAW. Don’t get me wrong, for a landscape or a cityscape, the RAW processed carefully is FAR, FAR better than a JPEG.
But when I am taking snapshots or photos of friends and family, I find the JPEGs the camera produces (I’m shooting in RAW + JPEG) so beautiful. The camera’s computer corrects for the lens distortion and provides the perfect balance of contrast and saturation. The JPEG engine can be further tweaked to increase the amount of contrast, saturation or dynamic range optimization (shadow boost) used in writing those files. Add in the ability to rapidly compensate exposure or activate various creative modes and you’ve got this feeling you’re shooting film again. Instant, ultra-sensitive and customizable film.
Pro Tip: Focusing
Almost all cameras come shipped with what I consider to be the worst of the worst focus configurations. Even the Nikon D800 came to my hands set to focus when the shutter button was halfway depressed. This mode will ruin almost any photograph. Why? Because it requires you to perform legerdemain to place the autofocus point, depress the shutter halfway, recompose and press the shutter fully. In addition to the chance of accidentally refocusing after composing or missing the shot—this method absolutely ensures that one must focus before every single photograph. Absolutely impossible for action or portraiture.
Sensibly, most professional or prosumer cameras come with an AF-ON button near where the shooter’s right thumb rests. This separates the task of focusing and exposing, allowing the photographer to quickly focus and to capture the image even if focus is slightly off at the focus point. For portraits, kids, action, etc the camera has to have a hair-trigger. It has to be responsive. Manufacturer’s: stop shipping your cameras with this ham-fisted autofocus arrangement.
Now, the RX1 does not have an AF-ON button, but it does have an AEL button whose function can be changed to “MF/AF Control Hold” in the menu. Further, other buttons on the rear of the camera can also be programmed to toggle between AF and MF modes. What this all means is that you can work around the RX1’s buttons to make it’s focus work like a DSLR’s. (For those of you who are RX1 shooters, set the front switch to MF, the right control wheel button to MF/AF Toggle and the AEL button to MF/AF Control Hold and voila!) The end result is that, when powered on the camera is in manual focus mode, but the autofocus can be activated by pressing AEL, no matter what, however, the shutter is tripped by the shutter release. Want to switch to AF mode? Just push a button and you’re back to the standard modality.
Carrying.
I keep mine in a small, neoprene pouch with a semi-hard LCD cover and a circular polarizing filter on the front—perfect for buttoning up and throwing into a bag on my way out of the house. I have a soft release screwed into the threaded shutter release and a custom, red twill strap to replace the horrible plastic strap Sony provided. I plan to gaffer tape the top and the orange ring around the lens. Who knows, I may find an old Voigtlander optical viewfinder in future as well.
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
"The Church must support its strength in its human weakness, in the folly of the Cross (scandal for the Jews, foolishness for the Greeks), and its hope in the resurrection of Christ. Deprived of all worldly power, persecuted and daily put to death, saints arise, who have the grace of God in clay vessels, who live within the light of the transfiguration and are led by God to martyrdom and sacrifice, not to violent establishment in the world of a self-styled State of God. Its saints are not simply social workers or philanthropists or thaumaturges. They put the human person in communion with the person of Christ, they lead to the uncreated Divinity the created man, they cause in him not a simple improvement or moral improvement, but an ontological change of the
nature of man. Therefore the hope of the Orthodox Church is not found in this world ".
Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
We grow stronger with the more punches thrown at us, but nothing hurts as much as the first hit. Once you gain the stregnth to resist, the first hit finally seems like nothing and the next few just keep on coming but only tickle
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
Volkswagen campers is my weakness!
If you like this MOC make sure to check my Lego Ideas projects:
Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers - ideas.lego.com/projects/c5e0de2d-6837-46fd-82ee-16a1a0d56bc2
Lifeguard's Shack - ideas.lego.com/projects/93574c09-16cd-4076-98c1-996224fa7e9c
Through lifes trials we are tested. Our patience is tested, out strengths and weaknesses are tested. As my kids grow older and they are learning they have a voice, they use that voice on me and god is testing my limits. The older they get the more I realize how easy it has been. Nothing is easy but I thought the past 9 years have been hard. I am noticing more and more it just gets harder. Through this parenting journey We always dream about this wonderful journey before we have kids. Dream how perfect we want things, how put together things will be. Well, the reality of it all is, its not perfect. There's a lot of hard times. There's fights and tears and tantrums and madness and anger and messes and more messes and theres nothing you can do about it. We dream of perfection. we want a clean house. we want my kids to listen perfectly and not fight with their siblings. We want there to be no testing of my patience right. We just want it to go perfect. When we say no kids say ok mom. When we say clean kids say ok mom, when we say go to bed kids say ok mom. We all know it doesn't happen like that now that we are in the reality of it all, right? We are being tested. Every day of out lives. Its a test. How much can we take, how much will we take. Will we break, will we fall, will we get back up?Let's face it. Parenting is HARD shit. I have 4 kids. All at a very close age. ITS HARD. I cry, I get angry, I get sad, I feel alone, I wonder if things will get easier, I wonder if this is normal, where did I go wrong, Do other parents go through this with their 8m 9 and 10 year old? Could I have done better. Right? Thats how we think as parents. When we are being tested, its hard not to.
I am learning to let go, let go of perfection. Just like I did with photography. I had to stop thinking everything was going to be perfect. It is life, its not perfect. Theres hard times, bad times and amazing times. Flow with the punches. I have learned things are suppose to happen as they are meant to. Sometimes, I just have to have faith that things will fall into place at the right time and then I will understand why things were the way they were. Letting go will be much easier for all of us. Less harder on all of us. My kids, me my husband.I try so hard to make everything perfect I just get so angry and upset when things aren't what I pictured them to be. So sometimes I just have to close my eyes, rest my head back and say have faith. Let it go.....
]Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010
Mirit Ben Nun: Shortness of breath
'Shortness of breath' is not only a sign of physical weakness, it is a metaphor for a mental state of strong desire that knows no repletion; more and more, an unbearable glut, without repose. Mirit Ben Nun's type of work on the other hand requires an abundance of patience. This is a Sisyphean work (requiring hard labor) of marking lines and dots, filling every empty millimeter with brilliant blots. Therefore we are facing a paradox or a logical conflict. A patient and effortful work that stems from an urgent need to cover and fill, to adorn and coat. Her craft of layering reaches a state of a continuous ceremonial ritual.
This ritual digests every object into itself - useful or discarded -- available and ordinary or rare and exceptional -- they submit and devote to the overlay work. Mirit BN gathers scrap off the streets -- cardboard rolls of fabric, assortments of wooden boards and pieces, plates and planks -- and constructs a new link, her own syntax, which she alone is fully responsible for. The new combination -- a type of a sculptural construction -- goes through a process of patching by the act of painting.
In fact Mirit regards her three dimensional objects as a platform for painting, with a uniform continuity, even if it has obstacles, mounds and valleys. These objects beg her to paint, to lay down colors, to set in motion an intricate weave of abstract patterns that at times finds itself wandering the contours of human images and sometimes -- not. In those cases what is left is the monotonous activity of running the patterns, inch by inch, till their absolute coverage, till a short and passing instant of respite and than on again to a new onset.
Next to this assembly of garbage and it's recycling into 'painted sculptures' Mirit offers a surprising reunion between her illustrated objects and so called cheap African sculpture; popular artifacts or articles that are classified in the standard culture as 'primitive'.
This combination emphasizes the difference between her individualistic performance and the collective creation which is translated into cultural clichés. The wood carved image creates a moment of peace within the crowded bustle; an introverted image, without repetitiveness and reverberation. This meeting of strangers testifies that Mirit' work could not be labeled under the ´outsiders art´ category. She is a one woman school who is compelled to do the art work she picked out to perform. Therefore she isn't creating ´an image´ such as the carved wooden statues, but she produces breathless ´emotional jam' whose highest values are color, motion, beauty and plenitude. May it never lack, neither diluted, nor dull for even an instant
Tali Tamir
August 2010