Again I am moved by the easy contact Japanese people share.
Both 17mm f2.8 on an OMD
Looking at looking
Japan has many wonderful places to get married. Unfortunately, they are also tourist meccas.
OMD 45mm f5.6
Partly out of respect for the wedding party and partly from a people watching reflex I turned to the crowd.
One vs many
Like the cold, dead eye of the fish, I framed, shot and walked on. Their day was very different.
A 17mm Olympus mini review, In defence of the decent.
There has been a lot written about the importance, or not, of sharpness and other quality measures of lenses. The ridiculous thing about this is often only measurable differences are discussed, rarely actual real world differences. Reviewer who shun test charts have to take a different direction when reviewing, often feeling they have to be excused for their less than technical methods.
A case in point is the 17mm Olympus lens. I have been a grudging user then a fully converted fan of this lens. Like many others, I find the using of it far more satisfying than reading it's reviews. Are there better lenses? Always. Are there lenses more suited to the tasks this lens is intended for? Not many.
First lets put the quality issue into some context.
Wide-open lens performance is a much loved and measured characteristic of the modern era. With M43 lenses it is more relevant than other formats, because offering more depth of field than any larger formats at an equivalent focal length, the format tends to have it's wider apertures hammered.
There are technically better lenses than the 17mm when a wider aperture is used, no doubt. Is it atrocious? No, but it is soft on the outer frame and suffers from some obvious CA issues. I also find the lens tends to wash out highlights, lowering contrast a bit at wider apertures, especially on the EM5.
Wide open with a little post processing.
So, what does this really mean?
If you shoot wide open in the corners and print very large prints, you will have to do some selective sharpening and CA removal. That's it. How much better or worse would lens "X" be to this? Hard to say and the only way a viewer could possibly know is if you placed two of the same print taken with different lenses side by side. Not a real world scenario. This is another case of "Go find me a problem. Now find me a real problem".
Ok. This is as bad as it gets. Still acceptably sharp after basic processing for a large (A2) print at normal viewing distances.
Is there a bright side to it's performance?
Yes there is. The transition from focussed to out of focus with this lens is extremely coherent, or elongated (?). In practical terms, you can shoot wide open when you need to, with the image holding on to out of focus detail better than many "modern" bokeh lenses. Modern bokeh, as I call it, is a lens design that exaggerates smoothness and fast drop off for good portrait separation, very "on trend" at the moment and ideal when relevant. In a wide standard lens it is not really relevant.
The proper use of this focal length is environmental portraiture, not head shots. With an environmental portrait, coherent surroundings, even if they cannot be fully in focus due to other considerations is far more important that smooth mush without story telling potential.
Possibly one of the benefits of the slightly softer, lower contrast rendering wide open is it does not highlight out of focus regions against in focus ones too obviously. Remember, the Japanese have long worshipped the German lens makers of old. Many modern Japanese designs emulate or copy styles and principles of older lenses for good reason. The old joke used to be the Japanese design lenses for us, while they use lenses made by Germans.
Taken late evening (darker than it looks here), so wide open out of need. Focus fell on the man's Kimono, but the story can still unfold because the bokeh is neither too fast/strong in fall off nor too irregular to bear. There is still a snap to the man's back, but the eye drifts to the woman and then further into the image. I feel this makes a more complicated and usable image.
Sharpness stopped down evens the field. When needed for landscape or deep street scenes, from f2.8 to f8, the lens shows much the same characteristics as it's major competition (Leica 15mm, Lumix 20mm and 14mm, Sigma 19mm).
Taken this morning with the EPM2 and 17mm at f5.6.
Top right corner with a little added post for some micro CA that appeared around the holes. I know from printing that this level of detail tops out an A3+ print and nobody looks that closely at the corners of an image unless they are looking for technical faults.
It is important to remember, that many of the best M43 lenses are less than perfect here.
So, to sum up, is it really any good?
EPM2 17mm f2.8
It is nearly ideal for the task it is designed for. The designers took a risk with this one, hoping, I feel, that the public would get what they were aiming for and not let the test bench brigade beat it up too much. The big risk is the review reader jumping at another lens and finding the measured optical benefits are a poor substitute for the excellent handling and practicality of the design.
Lately I have taken mine off the Pen F and mounted it on an EPM2 body. The camera uses the same sensor and processor as the EM10 mk1, offering quality as good as any in the first generation of 16mp Olympus cameras, i.e. plenty. The handling suits the lens perfectly. The camera can be in my off hand (left) and I can turn it on, focus and shoot without making the operation obvious.
Taking Stock, with more detail.
Both of my two pro zooms have gone to people who need them more than I and I hope they serve their new owners as well as they did me.
Where does this leave me? The same place as I was two years ago, except for the Pen F body.
My kit is really settled now and I am starting to feel the creative flow return;
I have either an all primes kit of; 17, 25, 45, 75mm f1.8 lenses, ideal for street or portraiture.
or a travel/event Kit of 17, 45, 75-300.
There is no true wide angle as I do not use them (not a fan of obvious lens special effects*) and the fast, long or both tele options make both lenses equally useful and fully complimentary. I could have just as easily kept the pro 40-150 instead of both these two, but in-hand size is the main constraint for me at the moment.
Looking at the lenses specifically;
The 17mm is perfect for street scenes. Exactly what it was purchased (and designed) for. I have toyed with a 15mm Leica (sharper wide open in the corners and a lovely cool-brightness), but the Panasonic adds a more modern, fast fall off and "softer" bokeh, less useful for street and the 17mm stopped down is equally sharp for rare landscapes. The same goes for the 20mm Panasonic, with added focus issues.
Fast and responsive.
Good colour with in an old fashioned feel.
Good, coherent bokeh for less than ideal depth situations.
*
The 25mm still vexes me. I need to make it my friend and stop thinking of the Panasonic 20mm. My heart is still drawn to the 40mm equivalent focal length and the main strength of the 20mm is it offers a very different look to the 17mm, but the 25mm is the more logical and practical choice (AF speed, MF lightness to touch, rich Olympus colour, a more logical focal length in a 17/45 kit, better compression, more natural perspective and very good close focus). It still feels like a short telephoto without any power, but maybe that's ok as apparently I like tele lenses. I must admit, I struggled to find any images taken with this lens, let alone a series.
All three of the above images were taken on a brassy spring afternoon in Osaka. The width of the streets suited the 25mm well. The harsh editing was my look at the time. I really have to re visit them.
Something the 25mm does really well is give me the lush, rich look Canon used to supply.
*
The 45mm, like the 17mm, is ideal to purpose. It is for me the perfect balance between compression, without obvious flattening and sharpness, without harshness. I like it so much I have 2!
A good working distance, natural perspective and inclusion of environment.
A tight crop showing good quality with gentleness at the magic f2.2.
Natural details in high relief.
Relaxed and comfortable feel.
*
The 75mm. This is a tougher one. Lots of subjective quality. As for "a quality", it can be a little too perfect and can flatten* subjects a bit. This is the same dilemma I had with the Canon 135L f2, technically perfect but lacking something gentle. The 200 f2.8L was on the other hand loaded with character. The temptation with this one is to go to it's happy place all the time (wide open and compressed). The reality is I like using it, but it rarely takes images that people comment on and the habits it forms can be hard to break. To me the 17mm and 45mm are the "character" lenses and the 25mm and 75mm are the technically superior, but more creativelychallenging ones.
Strong, compressed perspective
Great for abstract detail pulling and almost surreal quality.
Again a powerful tool, giving M43 the depth of field versatility it is often considered to be lacking. There are faster and shorter lenses in M43, but this is the best power to price/weight lens.
*
The 75-300. This lens just keeps on giving. Soo many of my favourite images come from this lens, far too many considering it's price point. The slow aperture tends to force more depth into images I would probably shoot with a wider aperture and this is a good thing. Often this extra depth, with pleasing bokeh from the lens, makes an image stronger and less telephoto gimmicky.
A literal flick of the wrist grab shot. Nearly binned, but it grew on me. The slightly missed focus is mitigated by the consistently pleasant bokeh.
One of over 100 keepers taken in two hours, granted in ideal conditions. When editing these images it is easy to forget the lens is the cheapest bit of kit I own.
One of many zoo images taken on less than ideal conditions. This lens pulls off near miracles regularly.
If pushed, the 17/45/75-300 could probably do me, but the 25 and 75 are still in the mix, for the moment. The Panasonic 20mm would give me an alternate rendering in the semi wide standard range, but the 25mm would have to go as their jobs would be too similar (being a foil for the 17mm).
*I might be just getting old or maybe I have seen too many photos, but obvious, exaggerated perspective or "special effects" as I now call them are just not interesting to me. When a photographer falls back constantly on a look provided by that very wide or very long lens, a little voice in me screams "break free of gimmicks". I know wide angles are needed to cover some subjects, but that can be done subtly (I prefer normal perspective panoramic's) and obviously long lenses have their uses, but again, strong flattening of perspective can be boring also. Think about how many truly great images have been taken with relatively normal lenses (35-90 equiv) and how many super wide or long, (non specialised needs exempt) images you see that have reached similar greatness?
Taking Stock
Well, the long pro zoom has gone.
Looking at my lens options now (more on that later), I took the 75-300 out for a spin in the garden this morning.
OMD 75-300 at about 200 wide open.
There is that niceness the cheap zoom has. Great colour, more than adequate sharpness, surprising bokeh and good accuracy.
OMD 75-300 wide open (f6+!) at about 10 feet.
Something I still under estimate with M43 and long lenses is the lack of depth of field at closer focussing distances. The image below is sharp in the centre of the flower, but the stamen is a little soft! Even as slow as it is, this lens does not guarantee enough depth of field always.
A crop of above
Down sizing (or OMG what am I doing!)
Part of my journey to photographic recovery, is down sizing my kit. Although I have a strong preference for telephoto lenses, I still have too many of them. Chasing the "one bag kit" has been my bane for years. I get there, add something I feel I need, then lament the over complication of it all.
The main area of over abundance is in the medium tele focal length range, about 75mm or so.
A friend is in the process of choosing which he would like to buy and that has me waiting, pondering my options.
The problem is, I have a "perfect" 75mm prime, a pro zoom that hits it's sweet spot around the 75-100mm area (although it does not loose anything much longer or wider) and a cheap tele zoom that is very good in the 75-200 range also and offers a surprisingly good 100mm more.
The cheap zoom at full bore, showing real world quality similar to my much loved Canon 400 f5.6L
The 75-300mm zoom
The cheap lens always surprises. It is the star of a large school advertising montage, has produced some of my favourite long lens images, is cheap (replaceability being nearly as useful as "nearly indestructible"), and it is surprisingly usable. I have pulled off stage production and some indoor sports shots, dark zoo enclosures and lots of reactive snap shots whilst travelling. It also shows surprisingly good bokeh, considering it's length and speed, better in some circumstances than the 40-150. Realistically, for me, this lens, combined with a fast 45mm, covers all of my long lens needs.
The rendering of this lens is really pleasant and smooth. It asks the question of our real sharpness needs. I can compare it directly to a "better" lens, but without direct comparison, there is often no easy way of knowing which is which*. Can this lens create an A2 enlargement that is sharp enough? Or rather does it avoid a lack of sharpness that would detract from it? This is really the role of a lens, to not let any obvious failing (lack of sharpness, obvious distortion, uncontrolled aberrations etc.) detract from the image while capturing it. Truth be told, more sharpness usually goes unremarked, but a chronic lack of it when not appropriately applied, is an issue.
The 75mm prime
Really sharp wide open with powerful separation, but sometimes not as characterful as similar images taken with the humble 45mm. Maybe the longer focal length compresses enough to give the image a flatter look, but the 45mm often just looks more "3D".
This one is quite simply the best lens (technically anyway) I have owned. It knocked off the 135L canon from top spot and has been reliably stunning whenever used. The speed is good, but the focal length is a bit in between for me. Not long enough for stage work, but too long for portraiture and it is the most guilt inducing lens. It was not cheap, nor was it ridiculously dear for such a great bit of glass, but the reality is, it has fallen into dis-use (see below).
The Pro 40-150 zoom
This one is the reason for the prime not getting much use. At 75mm and above it is near to faultless. The short end has some obvious CA in the corners from F2.8-5.6. Not terminal, but there, so the small and handy 45mm tends to get used if off centre framing is important, simply to reduce post processing.
The only real issue is size. Shooting easily with the equivalent of a 300 f2.8 puts the relative weight into perspective, but the size is an issue for street shooting. Not only do I draw attention even just nursing the lens in the crook of my arm, but using it rarely goes unnoticed. I have even found the 75mm a little too big to slip by, but the zoom is just too obvious. Not how I work.
For pro work it is perfect, but I am not intending to do that again, so it's role now looks to be events (not common and the 75-300 is capable here), landscape (even rarer) and spontaneous images around the house, which is a bit like swatting flies with a shotgun.
The main point I have gleaned from this train of thought?
I can probably function perfectly well, and possibly more contently, without either of the two premium lenses above.
Why?
Firstly; I have always liked lesser gear that punches above it's weight. When I shot Canon, my most satisfying purchases where; The 35 f2 EF (old), 28 f1.8 usm, 70-200 f4L non IS, 85 f1.8 and 400 f5.6L non IS, mounted on crop frame "100" series cameras for the most part (see a pattern there?). None of them were technically the best in their class, or the most advanced designs (all date back to film era designs), but each of them produced images every bit as good as lenses twice or more times their price. What I love about the newer gear is this is even more pronounced. Yes, the latest wonder cameras and lenses are, well, wonderful, but the most basic modern kit is streets ahead of even some premium gear of the past. I am surprised how many of my favourite images have been taken with my cheaper glass and on older cameras.
Secondly; I have been having an almost anti sharpness reaction lately**. One of my favourite image makers when starting out was a fellow named McDuff Everton. His signature look was a simple and clear vision and equally clear images. Usually leaning toward panoramic travel/landscapes, his shots took the viewer to the place, but the thing that really stuck with me was the lack of "Ansel Adams" like super sharpness. His images lost nothing in their power by being smooth and gentle rather than brittle or too obviously sharp. That is not to say the gear I will be using is not capable of razor sharp images, but none of the lenses with distract me with thoughts of hunting supreme technical heights. They will simply provide pro grade images with minimum fuss and bravado.
Each lens in my bag will have character over all other considerations. The 17mm renders very natural looking street images. The 25mm is the versatile "one lens only" lens, with useful close focus. The 45mm is for "bokeh" heavy portraits or low light and the 75-300mm has reach. There will also be a useful little 14-42 hanging around just in case. This kit also sits well with my current disinterest in gear and photographic over analysis.
In a day or two, the buyer will make up his/my mind for me. Until then I can run scenarios through my head, but I think I know where I am going. Less is actually more.
*
*The fact is, when looking for sample images from these three lenses, I often had to check their meta data to be sure I was representing them accurately!
** Working part time in a book shop has been eye opening for me. Tasmania has a lot of great landscape shooters, many with decades of experience. The trend lately, not just here, is to print books with obvious digital over sharpening and equally over saturated colours. I have seen horrifyingly over worked images from local photographers all the way to the later printings of books like "Ansel Adams in Color", a book I have a superior 1980's version of and the work of others such as Steve McCurry. Not always their fault, but even if down to the printer, the trend is worrying.
A Bad Slump and some Spark Joy
I am coming out of the worst photographic slump I have ever been through. Over the years there have been down times, even a complete rejection of the art during the digital switch over, but never before have I wanted to find reason for doing it and been so wanting.
This is my third attempt at sharing this. The first was a desperate, bordering on wallowing cry for help, a need for understanding, but with some small hope.
The second post was far more despondent. I actually wanted to to let everything photographic go. Sure there was that little voice that warms us against rash behaviour, but the tug of war was a close thing. Funny thing though. As I explained my 30+ years of history, avid collecting of photographic books and magazines and obsessive reading of blogs (not to mention writing one), I started to see some glimmer of clarity, of resurrection.
A couple of hard truths came to the surface (denial being the water they were immersed in).
The first is that my obsession with gear has been equally as strong if not stronger than my love of the end product. It was almost a hobby all by itself* and it has to stop. My full attention needs to be on the end product, not the micro details of processes of getting there, which in my case goes for a lot of things. I no longer visit review sites. I have found them uninteresting for awhile now, even resenting the harm they can do to the very art they claim to support.
The second is that most of my interest lies in areas that are either "historical" or fringe. Neither of these are bad things. History has a habit of repeating, trends are short term, but core beliefs and tested processes are reasonably timeless in the same context. My own stubborn inability to follow what I call "flash trends", such as HDR or bad mono simulations will, I hope spare me from the creative time stamps that come with them. I can honestly say that my intent photographically has stayed true for most of my artistic life, even if the process has changed.
The fringe interests are both a tenacious holding on to the base values of street image making and at the same time an interest in new directions it can go, without falling into simplistic habits and again "flash trends". Street photography (broad definition) is the only form I can lay any claim to still loving. I will also proclaim a simmering hatred of the form as it is evolving, or not evolving and a matching inability to empathise with simplistic and derivative work. Yeah, I am a grumpy old man, don't let me near the young and impressionable, I may scare them off!
I am influenced, just like everyone else by those who have come before, but watch out which gods you worship. Set your standards high and don't follow low ideas like sheep. There is a massive tsunami of copy cat, excuse ridden work out there masquerading as good "street" photography.
The roots of street photography come from two distinct, but similar paths. The documentary shooter, capturing real life in the most invisible and natural way and the genuine street photographer, effectively doing the same thing, but with different motivations.
What does a lot (not all) of the newer work often lack that the older shooters felt was at the very foundation of their work? Empathy with their surroundings, genuine contact and understanding, respect of subject, patience to see deeper, relevance to time and place, originality through compositional excellence and an ability to tell a story. Like disconnected mobile phone users, these anonymous image takers drift through a scene grabbing tid-bits of often technically poor work and passing all their mistakes off as "part of the art".
Let me be clear, before this becomes too rantish, there are many good shooters out there who understand and immersed themselves in their subject (Kate Kirkwood, Jan Meissner, John Kennerdell, Fred Herzog, Martin Parr and William Eggleston immediately come to mind). There are also many who, just as we do in many things in modern life, glance superficially over things without deeper commitment, but through social media gain notoriety above their deserved skill. They may put in a lot of effort, but it is not commitment. Treading the pavement for hours, hoping for a lucky coincidence or trick of fate is not always enough.
Still your mind, watch and wait for as long as it takes, shoot when all the elements have aligned, repeat.
Do I do this?
No, not really, or at least not lately. If I am going to work my way out of my personal slump, I need to revisit my roots and rediscover these timeless truisms. One of the reasons I have cut landscape photography out of my work is I have known for a long time I no longer have the patience to do it well.
As for my investigation of new directions? There are those who, staying true to the core needs of documentary/street photography, have managed to stretch it's boundaries. They are not changing the definition of process, but rather the subject matter. Sam Abel, Kate Kirkwood and many others take the same values that make a good body of street work and apply them to non stereo-typical subjects. Kirkwood's "streets" for example are country lanes, her buildings are a cows back in abstraction and her people are often farm animals. Abel's work crosses the boundary between true documentary and street imaging, becoming quieter, deeper than most street images and Meissner creates a stage from the streets of New York, passing people as the actors.
What is my Spark Joy moment? I am looking at all of my processes, external influences and habits and questioning them. Anything not productive or useful is going. This goes for gear, images and books.
End of (hopefully a not too negative) rant.
*Ironically, it was often gear hunting that spurred me on when otherwise photographically disinterested.
No flashing please.
Meg and I visited to the Aardman exhibition in Melbourne. The staff were very keen to tell us to "photograph as much as we want, but no flash".
The catch was, of course, the light. The room was very dark, with "mood" (read contrasty) light employed on the models and sets. I shot wide at or near wide open (F1.8-2.8) at ISO 800-1600 and often -1 to -1 1/2 exp comp. I wonder how all of the mobile phones fared?
Some personalities above and below, some of the sets.
The figures ranged in size from a few inches, to almost a foot tall and the pirate ship model was six foot tall and eight foot long!
The figure behind the wheel is about 20cm tall and the ship is complete from stem to stern.
Above miss-exposure is an example of the ability modern digital cameras have to retrieve information from their shadows and why you should always lean that way when in doubt. Lost highlights are often gone, but shadows hold on, although it is often at the expense of image noise. The OMD cameras were ahead of their time at production and are still holding their own today. I especially appreciate their black spot "film grain" noise, that holds detail better than more destructive colour noise.
In the above image (also retrieved from the dark), the first crop has a small amount of colour noise reduction to remove the (rare) "fruit tingles" noise. The second has +60 luminance noise reduction and +50 detail. In large prints, the slight loss of detail is often irrelevant and can be re applied with localised clarity with the brush tool. Having said that, the noise often smooths away in printing, so a lower noise setting of +30 would do. I don't mind a bit of grain myself.
It is best to get where you want in as few steps as possible (all processing is destructive to the original file), so weigh up extra manipulations against doing and undoing in different ways, if one process, less heavily applied will do the job.
unsettled and indulgent
Some people are never happy.
Looking at me here.
I stopped the pro side of my photography, because I felt it was simply a waste of my creative energy, gear and time for little reward. I did not charge enough by choice, but it was more the lack of creative input that I found wasteful. I usually had to comply with fairly strict constraints, which is how the commercial world works, but not how I work best. The other frustration was not being able to share my images.
The best images (by far) that I do are the un staged ones, basically I am a found things/people photographer and always will be. The "umbrella" brief of end product needed, do it how it comes to you, not the stand here, we have a shape that needs recording style definitely suits as my stage and sport work proved. I think the school in particular will most likely find that anyone with a camera of above average specs will be able to supply the posed shots. It is in the difficult light, moving action area I excelled, which is why I was so effective on the junior campus, when left to watch and observe, capturing the "decisive moment".
I must confess, that without work coming in, however inconvenient it became balancing my permanent and very tolerant day job, my image making has hit an inactivity wall. It is winter here, which should be my happy hunting ground, but not so much.
Maybe, as my style has developed and my tastes changes, there is simply not as much that stimulates me to photograph? Maybe a major gear culling coming.
As part of a "Spark Joy" trend I have been on lately it has been tempting to sell everything that does not give my a feeling of satisfaction personally, but is only owned because I think I (may) need it. I remember thinking that a likely image I would be taking for the school was a wide shot from the balcony of their chapel, so I always kept a 12mm handy. That shot eventuated, I took it and it worked well. I also remember thinking I kept that lens for just that pre visualised image and that was one of the very few the focal length was used for.
The tele zoom creates a different problem. I have tended to not use my other prime telephoto lenses, even though I know they are superior in some ways (bokeh and DOF control). When ever I have used them I have been reminded how good they are and how each has a character that shows through, while the zoom just feels like a very competent tool. I can tell just by looking which of the primes was used. The combination of focal length, contrast and bokeh each (25/45/75) renders is apart of their utility. The zoom, as all zooms do, makes the choice less intuitive. It is harder to apply the character of a lens that has differing traits at the flick of a zoom ring.
The quality of this image has both smoother bokeh (at f2.8) than the tele zoom and more bite than the standard zoom. A beautiful combination. The small size of the lens also helped with the "drop in", casual portrait situation.
The ideal would be:
Pen F 17mm* (best for up to the eye manual focus, something I have been working towards, the silent shutter is good for close quarters, has the best meter when given a wide area to calibrate and the higher pixel count allows for more cropping). OMD 25mm (set up for AF macro/portrait work). OMD 45mm (set up for AF portrait work). OMD 75mm (set up for AF street candid portraits). This one would also be used with the 75-300 if needed.
* I have a second 45mm that would go with this if I only took the Pen and the Pen mini could take the 17mm also making up a two camera kit again and adding two batteries of endurance. Or maybe a 14 or 12mm for the little mini or just it's 14-42?
The idea is to have (while they last), matched lens and camera set ups. No lens changing*, no changing of camera set ups, just work a camera's settings as best suits the lens and intended application.
I would then sell my two pro zooms with matching filter sets, netting enough to take a trip and keep the 14-42 and 75-300 lenses just in case (my day trip and zoo lenses), or just keep them for landscapes.
One of my constant frustrations with (any) cameras is the multi mode nature of them that often has to change to suit a lens change. In a nut shell, I hate using zooms, but I hate even more changing lenses. It is a luxury, but not a ridiculous ask to have a camera/lens pairing and is surely one of the benefits of the small Olympus cameras. This was very common in the early days of documentary photography until bulky cameras and zooms became the norm, but even then the pro shooter often used a two camera rig.
On a personal note, I also find zooms distracting to use. Putting a camera to my eye with a fixed lens is a priceless working habit, even expectation, that choosing a "floating" focal length on a zoom steals away. You may think that you will never have the perfect framing tool with a prime lens, but actually, unless you have time to think, you will never have the perfect framing tool with a zoom. Putting the camera to the eye and adjusting framing with what (you eventually know) you are going to see is faster than making framing choices between the raising/zooming and shooting points. Some people say they can do it, but not I. Yes you can pre choose your focal length, but then you miss out on the smaller, faster, application specific option.
Would I miss the zooms? The bokeh on the tele I can occasionally find problematic, the smoothness and bokeh, but lower micro contrast of the 12-40 is pleasant, but lacks the bite I am used to from the primes and their weight and size is less than ideal (my biggest prime is smaller than the smaller of the two). Another thing to ponder is, the two budget zooms I have (14-42/75-300) are very nearly as good at middle, or landscape apertures, so why lug the monsters for the odd landscape that the primes can do as well or better with the cheap zooms as support as needed? Who could honestly tell which lens I used? Ctein is on record as saying, that after some field testing, the standard kit lens is fine for his needs, that is to say he would not take it off the camera for another lens, so it would well do me also.
OK quality from a "junk" lens.
What would I achieve in real terms?
The holy grail of a 1 bag kit.
Less maintenance from finger prints and dust.
Always ready and no dual role gear.
A commitment to style, ignoring extreme looks in my images.
No waste. I hate having things I do not use.
* Almost all of my minor lens accidents have involved lens changes or lenses loose from cameras. From dropping a discarded lens into a bag onto another lens (ouch!), caps coming off, dropping bits, putting finger prints on rear surfaces while changing or having them end face up in a bag with keys etc somehow finding their way to them. These things happen, but with me tend to only happen to lenses not on cameras. I do not use lens caps etc, only back caps, but even then, I have lost some protective filters and things always slow down.
still working well
After a pretty lazy autumn, I have started to get out in winter. First stop, the Cataphract Gorge, in (yes in) Launceston. My old stomping ground. Using the technique I tested early this year (now that I can set up my landscape kit without having to have the bulk of it ready for work), I very easily grabbed a few images the other morning. I must admit to loosing the light too soon, but in a packed hour, managed a few keepers.
Pen F 40-150 12 second exposure. A 6 stop ND filter was fitted.
Taken a few minutes before, in less brilliant light.
and a quick mono conversion.
The technique is startlingly simple. Place the camera, set to the pre set C1, on the tripod (very light tripod that is). Compose and touch the screen where you want focus. Two seconds later, the silent and perfectly inert shutter fires, delivering a very sharp image. How much has my life changed in the recent past from the bad old days of wrestling long lenses on SLR cameras? More than I care to think. I NEVER managed to fully settle a 5D down with a 200mm or longer lens, no matter how heavy the tripod or how clever the tricks I used.
Pen F 40-150
After the stream, I visited a little spot in the scrub on the way back to the car park.
A little crop of the above image (lower right) using normal 20mp resolution.
All with moderate Lightroom processing from RAW.
Pretty happy with that. I just need to get out more.
Time
I have time on my hands. It is cold. Cold but extraordinary, clear and brilliant. The voice in my head is telling me to go out and make the most of it, except the master voice that says stay inside and be with your dogs (where I would go, they cannot come). Our Jack is 14 and burdened with maladies. He has bad hips, little or no hearing and two replacement knees. What he teaches me is life can be full of "best things ever" like walks or trips to friends or it can be spent quietly, just enjoying "the now" of it all.
Each day is as is, no pressure, just appreciate.
Strangely, "Time" by Hans Zimmer and "The Days" by Ludovico Einaudi played consecutively on random, cementing my mood.
Insurmountable problem
As you probably well know, I have strong feeling s about bokeh (or Boke Aji) and it's best application with my various lenses.
Yesterday I used the Pen F and 12-40 for some street images and re discovered why I usually do not use that kit, that way.
Both of the images were taken at 14mm with focus fixed at a little over 1m (nothing between 1 and 5 meters, so it's hard to tell), f7.1 (thats about 28mm and f13 on a full frame!) and there was enough light to guarantee a reasonably fast shutter speed. The focus drop off is so fast with this lens, that even subjects slightly out of focus are soft. After using the 17mm for a while now, this is really off putting. I know that at f2.8 the 17mm will give me a gradual and acceptable focus transition. It gives me confidence and allows me to take images that would otherwise push the camera impossibly. It looks as though I have two lenses at the extreme ends of the range when it comes to focus draw.
The issue may be incorrect barrel markings on the lens, and the markings are a lot sparser than the 17mm's, but even so, the drop off is severe, but nice for portraits.
This snap of a dejected Jack as we were leaving is at f2.8 (af lock on) and 35mm. Pleasantly the DOF looks to be from a bigger camera, but his eyes are a little out and three previous images were unusable.
Another taken at f7.1 and 38mm (f13 and 75mm full frame). The subject was about a meter away and the image is not cropped. The foreground and background leaves are all slightly out of focus. The ones in the middle where focus landed are nice and sharp. Not crazy 75mm sharp, but smooth sharp*.
Is this a problem?
It is something to aware of and explains why I have had a luke warm reaction to lens. Between very unforgiving focus drop off and a pleasant but not biting sharpness in it's sweet zone, the lens can frustrate. I am intending to use it for landscapes, as a second to my 40-150, that will get a lot more work and should be able to work well enough with it, but for street, I cannot be bothered with better options (17mm and 14-42 kit) available.
On the bright side, Olympus have been able to supply a f2.8 pro lens on a larger sensor look, and real f2.8 benefits at the same time.
*Another thing to ponder is the sharpness types Olympus have offered in their range.
The pro zoom has a smoothness that is ideal for it's type, giving both the lens and the camera the benefit of it's rendering. The 17mm is more "gritty" sharp and simply clear, using lots of micro contrast to (possibly) help it's bokeh and to suit it's street subject matter. The 75mm is just razor sharp with great drop off for portraits.
Moving on
As of this month (end of financial year), I have decided to discontinue my active pro work. My main client is quiet at the moment, giving them the chance to fill the spot before it gets busy again.
The work has been fine, much of it fun and I have met some nice people, but the work itself has put pressures on my photography that I did not foresee.
1) Gear pressure*. My OMD EM5 cameras have continually surprised me, but I am starting to resent the use they are getting for work that few ever see and I cannot use personally. On one hand I feel the call of an EM1 mk2 upgrade and on the other, I do not want one just for work and cannot justify it/do not need it for myself. All of the hundreds of images I make get chosen for the odd publication, face book etc., but the quantities do not match the volume taken. The Pen F, one EM5, the 40-150 and 12-40 are pretty much kept in reserve for work only, but I actually wanted them for landscapes where they get little use.
2) Storage. Some jobs can really chew up the space on my hard drives. I have maxed out a couple of drives keeping multiple copies of the original images and my drop box storage is always groaning. I like to run cleanly, but working professionally has forced a shift in my habits, well away from where I want to be, keeping a lot of so-so images just in case. Lately it has been costing me as much to buy storage/drives as I seem to be earning.
3) My interest is flagging. Rather than anticipating my next excursion or trip, I am finding myself inwardly groaning at the thought of another job and my gear sits around in "ready to go" bags, untouched unless a job is on. Please keep in mind that my income comes mostly from a part time retail job, a job that has shown amazing flexibility when needed for my photography, but it is always one sided. The proof to me came on receipt of the half yearly school magazine, filled with my images and with due credit given (a bit too much as it turns out as some of the images were not mine). It was not as fulfilling as I thought it would be. Be careful what you wish for.
4) I don't and never have liked the dynamic of working in photography for money. I would prefer to have someone love my image or purchase a print they like than have to work towards an idea that I have little or no creative input in. As a job I would much rather work to a wage, but those days are gone. I will admit to having little idea of my value photographically and one of my problems stems from not charging enough for my time, not causing resentment as such, but rather a feeling of getting behind, not ahead.
5) I am feeling the relevance of photography wane. This goes back to the reasons I left the camera shop. The industry is tanking, going back to levels of the late 1990's where serious only photographers are buying specialist gear, the vast majority are happy with phone images, the equivalent of compact camera images of the past and don't care to see a difference. This is fine and expected. I am under no illusions that photography is loosing it's preciousness, but I like it and I want to continue doing it, I just don't see the value in doing pro work, for me anyway. My goal was never to work professionally, just to take the images I want and if that led to a job, than ok.
Yay. Free to do things my way again.
I feel a great sense of relief at this decision. I am still available at the junior campus of the school where my wife works for some free jobs to support her and the school. That is where it all started and where it will end.
* I fully expect my current crop of cameras to see out traditional photography for me. I would be very surprised if I buy another serious camera body as I have the quality I need (artistically and commercially), and hundreds of thousands of frames of life left in them (4 bodies), but not if they get hammered for jobs.
Analysis paralysis
I used this term a couple of posts ago and it came to mind again just now. How much time do some of us waste theorising about things to the point of in action.
One thing that using my gear more, without the stress of working around it (yes stress, not pleasure, pleasure would be owning it or being able to use what ever you want when ever), or the time to worry about it, by working professionally, is that gear very quickly falls into the category of usable, usable with provisions or not usable.
Use it as is because it does what you expect, use it in certain situations due to it's character or limitations or don't use it, because something else at hand is better.
Collectors and hobbyists can, by choice, think too much about things. These things take on a preciousness, a life of their own based on imaginings and intellectual processes.
Users of equipment also imbue their tools with a life and some loyalty, earned from companionship and shared experiences. Like simple, well worn jeans, they wear their scars with pride not fashion forced self consciousness.
My old EM5's are carrying a few dings, and they are sometimes so known to me they bore me, but something happened a while back. Instead of boredom equalling selling, I became content with them in a relaxed way, a surety they will serve as needed and rest until then.
Effectively killing off new camera lust and replacing it with an impatience with new things, this thinking is much closer to contentment than the whirlwind of acquisition and resell I found myself in a few years ago. It has just dawned on me that my personal purchasing of gear has slowed to film era rates (one lens and one camera last year and less the year before).
I think this is a sign of the times. Progress of technical things has slowed in a retail sense. No longer do lines spread around the block on the launch of a new device and when one fails dismally and in large numbers, the effect is simply one of customer shift, not shock. The camera industry in particular is in for a tough future. Phones have effectively replaced the compact camera market, taking away the connection between burgeoning photographers and camera shops. Cameras are better than ever, but fewer and fewer people need what they offer as phones are perceived to be enough.
No more the stress of what to get.
How long will my old stalwarts last? How long does anything really. Probably long enough to see out photography as we know it, especially as I have decided to move on from the pro work I have been doing and use them artistically only. They will each pass as things should, after fulfilling the potential given to them from design to manufacture, not growing mould in a ward robe.
They will then deserve a place in a display cabinet as a good horse is put to pasture.
like a rock against the flow
Sometimes you cant fight it, you just need to let it wash over you.
All images taken from the same spot with an EM5 and 17mm at f8.
Memories of stars
One of my early influences, John Shaw once took and shared an image that had a strong effect on me. The image was of leaves on a still pond, with under exposure turning the water jet black. He likened it to stars in a night sky.
That example of exposure control and the composition stayed with me from then on. I cannot take an image like it without thinking of him, over 20 years ago.
My image is not as "stellar" (excuse the bad pun), more early landscape style like Elliot Porter maybe?
EM5 45mm
Human connection
There is nothing great about the image below. It is a focus miss, due to bumping the focus ring while on manual/zone focus, but serves as another example of the 17mm lens bokeh. It is dark and gloomy and it is poorly composed.
There is something that caught my eye though.
Human connection? Human mystery?
Simply put, I cannot dump it or rejoice in it, but I can share it in case it does the same for you.
EM5 17mm
The image below is another near delete. It was/is a lesson to me to not make editing decisions in the field (but maybe be more brutal when in front of the screen) and trust my feelings, not just my eyes. I have never managed to process this one successfully though.
EM5 75-300 at 75mm. A speculative flick of the wrist image.
Threes
Japanese women and girls of all ages often travel in threes. Not sure why, but maybe two is too intimate and more than three is impractical? Just guessing.
They don't practice perfect timing I am sure.
EM5 17mm
EM5 17mm
EM5 17mm
All of these images were shot on the same morning in, or going to Nara.
tourist spotting
It is rare that excessive human noise gets your attention on Japan. The little ones above managed to get the attention a fair few tourists in the back streets of Kyoto though. The little one in blue was quite raucous and pretty cheeky, bailing up knots of intrigued wanderers. Too cute.
EM5 45mm