Why I Do It

I had a great chat with a customer today about the merits of various mirrorless brands from the perspective of a landscape and/or travel-street shooter. This is the stuff I turn up to work for.

Keen on seeing if the Sony range suited (no real lens size relief), as he was a full frame user, then the Fuji range, then to both of our surprise, looking at the M43 range (interested).

Using a Pentax K-1, he is well serviced in the full frame arena with a camera/brand that is a bit of a sleeper in Australia, but well love in other parts of the world, but weight is a consideration when traveling (his kit maxes out the carry on limit) and for hikes to out of the way places when the elements are against him . Like many of us he is not a full time photographer, so has to make the most of his precious time.

I gave him a few sites to look at to reduce his jump off jitters (been there) and included my own site to their more esteemed company.

So, Hi Scott from Ulverstone if you are reading, here is a crop from a recent shoot from a purely qualitative perspective. The cameras and techniques were (unless otherwise stated), the EM1 or Pen F, with the 12-100 f4 hand held, with normal resolution Raw to jpeg Lightroom, minor processing, mostly a gentle pre-set and a little brush work on the centre. No doubt a better Photoshop exponent could do more.

The “A3” size crop

The “maxed out” crop.

And another of my muse Miss Daisy.

original 12-100 and EM-1

Crop from the standard res version.

Crop from the high res 50mp jpeg version.

Hope this helps.

Fickle winds of change (or make up your mind!)

Looks like the 60mm macro is going back. It is still in the 14 day exchange window we have at work and it is just not winning me over.

As a portrait lens it is good, though redundant, but as a macro, I actually prefer (for my needs) the two handy zooms and 25mm prime. The 12-40 has nicer and more consistent Bokeh, the 12-100 a longer working distance and 1:3 is ample. I cannot help thinking that a little extension tube on my 25mm would probably do if I ever need anything closer.

I tried to justify it’s existence as a filler between the 12-40 and 75-300, but that is at odds with the 12-100’s role as landscape paragon.

Likes;

• small, lighter than the 75 and longer than the 45.

• weather proof (as are the two zooms)

• true macro.

Dislikes;

• bland rendering with no “X” factor

• iffy Bokeh (quite geometric in shape)

• annoying design (focus range lock)

• one lens too many in an already over crowded space.

Speaking of one lens too many, based on my last couple of posts, I am looking to possibly get the 25 f1.4 Leica again. This lens, although repeating a focal length for the 4th time has a couple of features I like.

Even though the 20mm is a little more consistent and has nicer Bokeh, and the Olympus 25 (2x?) is mechanically better, optically more consistent and smaller, there is a certain something that I really miss about that Panasonic/Leica look. This is the lens I often site as the one I miss the most when I culled miscellaneous brands*. The Pen and EM-1 have added that more delicate look back into my kit with lenses like the 45mm, so maybe the subtle difference would be redundant and we are talking about a portrait specific application, which I seldom do. I am not sure I am paying into the 3D/flatness thing, yet (although ironically that may be the macro’s issue). I am not a denier, but I am not sure it bothers me that much. I get that some lenses do have a flat and lifeless look, but within reason, the lenses I have are solid and likeable, and I am not using the super fast-over corrected type Yannick Khong has talked about, even by his own measure. I even find the Oly 45 has a similar in feel to the 85mm Canon that he rates much higher.

Also in the mix is the 7.5mm Laowa. Not a huge user of wide angles, let alone super wides, this may open some creative doors for me with landscapes. It is funny that a super wide angle appeals to me more than a regular wide. The tiny little lens has a filter thread, which most super wides do not, it is very good by all accounts when stopped down, but sharp enough in the centre wide open, so some weird street could be possible and it is corrected, not fisheye. This feels a bit forced. If I have no need now, would this be much the same as the macro, a filler or “just in case” lens outside of my comfortable work flow.

Option three is the Pana/Leica 15, which I have always lusted after. This lens could make my much loved 17mm redundant, but i think they are so different I could find a use for them (the 17 is a little heavy handed in flat light, the 15 a little washed out in bright light?). It is small enough to be added to the kit as needed and has genuine edge to edge sharpness for landscapes, but so do both of my zooms!

Option four. A new printer, which seems like the boring, practical but most logical option. Mono files printed on archival matt paper are the weakness of my current printer, which could be easily fixed with a Pro 10s Canon or even the monster Pro 1000. The 1000 would also allow me to print bigger. Ed. I went with this, ordering the Pro 10s.

The fifth option is to hold on to the money and wait to see what the long lens landscape coughs up.

*There are images I have taken with the lens, especially with the harder sensor and processor of the EM5 that had a delicacy and deepness that I lost when I sold it. Sure it had an annoying chinking sound as the aperture blades shifted on an Olympus camera. It was a little big and the hood was huge, but there is a hard to define presence to the lens that, rather than a pedestrian macro, will add something to my kit and my frame of mind.

I do not think I will be chasing those illusive legacy lenses with all of their potential magic, but I will be looking to expand my range of rendering options within reasonable bounds.

My edge.

Looking into a new year, free of (much missed) complications like our ailing dog Jack, I have resolved to become more focussed (!) on landscape photography.

Tasmania is as much over serviced by landscape shooters as it is over blessed with visual stimuli. Within 40 minutes of where I am sitting, there are genuine mountains, coast with all variety of beaches and rocky out crops and several native forrest areas ranging from temperate rain forrest or genuine bush. Add to this some attractive rural landscape and there is eye candy aplenty. Drive for an hour and a half and you can be in the midst of some of the wildest country in Australia.

So, the question is, how do you make your mark amidst all of this.

Firstly, don’t give up and do not loose faith that effort, preparedness, skill and an open mind will reap rewards.

Secondly, look at the state of play, looking for an area I am interested in that has relevance, is enjoyable and is not over saturated.

Start, experiment, modify, continue.

The other option (and possibly the best) is to just do it for myself and ignore all outside influences.

The thing I have noticed in the local photographic landscape currently is a lack of fine art black and white imaging, from the top end of town anyway. There is a lot of colour in our landscape, from the beautiful gums, to rich, lush rain forest, but little attempt to capture it in mono. I also feel that with the demise of film, black and white has been in a state of confusion. Well known truisms have become mystical arts, simple procedures are often seen as lost secrets.

When film was either colour or black and white, things were simpler. We all wanted the best quality we could get and the medium gave us boundaries. Remove those boundaries and analysis paralysis sets in. What is right? How will the world judge my choices? Should I use one of those film pre-sets or explore the limits of purely digital black and white?

I must confess to doing a lot of mono film work, but seldom getting what I waned out of it. Wastage, smelly darkrooms, lack of personal vision and far too much experimentation made me a minor walking catalogue of facts and figures but a poor practitioner. Ironically, I find digital black and white a great release from the criminal wastage of curiosity and indecision in the darkroom.

Semi abstract, black and white landscapes will be my core.

1. This offers flexibility with light/weather, where colour is more demanding (I am often time poor). This may not stand up in the field.

2. It uses textures and small, mundane subjects and can stand detail shots without falling into cliched leaf study work. Semi abstract or detail work has always drawn me, whether I am in the Tarkine or my back garden.

3. Mono is less restricted in colour fidelity (obviously) and pure quality. It relies on texture, tone and composition and an tolerate some creative interpretation.

4. It is timeless and reasonably free from the funk of fashion and gimmickry.

5. Processing can be fairly aggressive within traditionally accepted bounds.

6. Colour images may come from it relatively easily and naturally in the deep, muted, mysterious style I favour, meaning i generally get better colour results when shooting for mono than mono from colour, but the mono work would be consistent regardless.

7. It is less common locally,

8. It is more generalised rather than being location specific.

9. It is, apart from what I have said above, out of my comfort zone, forcing clarity of vision and growth.

Struggling with the colour this image naturally revealed, I eventually settled on the mono as the printable file.

“Chasing the money” is not my intent, nor is chasing fame (is that was the case I would do a lot more reviews). I simply want to find a comfortable place to work that is also capable of making my work worthy of others notice. My fear is becoming just another colour landscape shooter in a place where (some times) everyone you meet claims to be one.

The only genuine issue I have is my printer, that is not ideal for mono printing (it is an earlier model Canon with only one black/grey ink, using coloured inks for bulk), but this can be addressed as the need arises.

Imperfect perfection

A; I got a new lens the other day. It is an old one a friend had from their film camera.

B; Is it any good?

A; What do you mean?

B; Is it sharp wide open corner to corner, free of distortion, vignetting and “CA”?

A; Ah…don’t know, but I like the photos it takes!

B; Probably not worth bothering with. Best get your self an ART series Sigma or the like.

A; Will they make my photos better?

B; Sure they will. They are state of the art designs. None of the old stuff is any good for digital.

A Oh..ok, I will bin this one then. Shame. I really liked the images.

Common thinking, although thankfully, there is a little glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

Perfection is as perfection does. If all was perfect, all would be ordinary and perfection would offer no variety, character or choice.

Cars, modern camera lenses and computers are all going this way, but people are not (Gattaca anyone?). People come in all shapes and sizes. We vary greatly in capabilities, some excelling at some things and not at others, many just being ok at a lot of things, but the important thing is, we are all different.

Imperfection is the basis for variety. Once perfecting something is possible and full control of it’s creation process is gained, then we loose the desire for imperfection, but loose so much in the process. Even gross imperfection has it’s charm and occasional uses (penicillin came from poor cleanliness).

When selecting lenses we all tend to use the same criteria.;

a recommendation from a trusted source,

duplicating the results of another who uses said lens (or one like it),

a need to fill a range or capability short fall, sometimes limited by the options available,

convenience.

fashion (seriously).

Sharpness and other objective characteristics are the measure used, usually to allow us to move on happy that we have made a sound choice.

Bokeh has become a popular characteristic of lenses in the last twenty or so years, even though it is sometimes miss understood and hard to measure. This is probably the first time in modern history that a character type has been singled out as a qualitative measure.

From early on, I was drawn to M43 for the quality of the lenses. They are sharp thanks to the design freedom the makers have and the sharp (especially for their time) sensors. When the new, no or low AA filter sensors emerged around 2012, they came as a revelation in a in a period where the major makers were applying ever stronger filtering on their cameras to combat the pixel count they felt compelled to increase. I remember running a budget 1000D Canon on a multi thousand dollar Tilt and shift lens (for multi stitched images) because the puny 10mp sensor had very light filtering compared to the 15-18mp models they were doing at the time.

In hindsight, I was very quick to jump on to the band wagon of sharp over all else. For the next couple of years, especially before I got on top of the EM5 sensor, the struggle was to get back some of the smooth, lushness that I had lost moving from Canon.

(Miss tagged originally as an image taken on an old Zeiss 50mm), this was actually taken using the Canon 85mm on a full frame, but the point remains. This depth and smoothness was what I missed.

And with a little processing finness, I found it.

Very early on, I was more satisfied with my camera choice as my lens arsenal included a clutch of ancient Zeiss glass from Contax, a couple of modern Panasonic Leica lenses, a couple of Sigma’s and some old (to very old) Nikon Ai/Ai-S glass. They added both distraction and fixes.

What I had was variety, warts and all.

Then came the clean out. I sold the Zeiss to a friend for his Fuji, the Panasonic lenses went for a variety of reasons (mostly not thought through, minor Oly/Pana niggles) and the other bits and pieces all found homes. I remember a feeling of unease as the Leica 25mm went. A feeling I had “lost a foot”.

What I gained was a clean and logical kit, with matching, consistent rendering. What I lost was choice. I lost character outside of the one character type I had chosen. Don’t get me wrong, I like my brand of choice for the most part, but no one brand is perfect at everything.

Terribly over processed as a reaction to the lenses lower native contrast and my tastes at the time (the original is lost to the great crash of 2012), but taken on a Canon with a legacy 70’s era 200mm Nikon lens.

The future of photography, I believe, is going to be less about pure quality and more about subjective “qualities”. The lens adapter will become common place as serious shooters look for any difference, a way of standing out from the pack. I strongly feel that the modern shooter will be as loyal to a camera brand as needs allow, but will be lens brand agnostic.

Adapters will rule!

No longer the ugly necessity, adapters will become the smart shooters magic bullet. Why limit your self to one brand or even one generation of glass? I have a feeling, the value of older glass is about to go up as these ancient jewels start to show their value as the difference to trend, not the conforming same.

A blast from the 60’s. This is my only legacy lens now, an original Pen 25mm. Love that five bladed aperture.

Might look up that friend with the Zeiss lenses.

Lens Character and the hidden 20mm.

I have been thinking a lot about character of lenses and cameras lately.

The reality is, perfection is easy, character hard. Yannick Khong, on his blog has been (in his words) recently obsessed with the 3D vs flattening effect of some lenses and more recently the fickle dynamic of “work capable” or fully corrected lenses and character filled or “X” factor lenses. Many lenses are “perfect”, but lack that dark side where beauty hides, while the more exciting lenses can often lack “safe” or predictable enough characteristics to be trusted for pro work.

I thought, as a little exercise to try out 4 lenses in the same (!?) focal length*, settings (all f4) and light. All lenses were focussed manually with magnification on the robot’s body as the glass might fool the AF.

First lens, 25mm G. Zuiko for the 1960-70’s Pen cameras on a Fotodiox adapter.

Second lens, 25mm M Zuiko f1.8

Third lens, M Zuiko 12-100 Pro

Fourth Lens, M Zuiko 12-40 Pro

There is a subtle difference in rendering

Same order left to right as above.

Not much of a difference in the real world, but maybe plays out to my instinctive reaction to the lenses.

The old 25 exposes about a half stop darker, so I lightened it up for better comparison, then it showed lower contrast and less vibrant colour. It is also hazy (though sharp) at f2.8. At f4 it is almost in the same sharpness class as these lenses. It possibly (as Yannick’s blog theorises) has more 3D snap, but this is (as he also often found) at the expense of less smooth Bokeh and other optical compromises.

It is also obvious to me that the two 25’s are for different reasons the slightly flatter and less exciting images of the four. The 12-40 looks nicest to my eye.

The newer 25 (21!) and the 12-40 are similar in rendering and contrast, which fits with the less micro contrasty, modern portrait Bokeh “feel” I get from them. The green ipad speaker blobs are a little less coherent in the new 25/12-40 images, but the book text is slightly smoother also. This makes them ideal for portraiture.

The old 25 and 12-100 seem to have more in common here. Their rendering of the blob is slightly more coherent**, but equally the text edges are a little less smooth. It is hair splitting between the two zooms, but the two primes are quite different in character.

Just for fun, a little more post to the old 25’s image. Not bad for a lens older than most of us and this was not one of the stand out lenses of the range! That Bokeh is a little nervous looking, but the subtly 3D and old school look of the lens adds another arrow to my quiver.

What have I learned?

1. The lenses as assigned in my head are best suited to their purposes or it makes little real difference in practice.

2. This micro analysis only proves out known facts and in this case they are minor considerations (the lenses are more alike than they are different).

3. Olympus has made three premium lenses with very similar performance (at these focussing distances anyway), but could manage a good lens over 50 years ago, so that should come as no surprise.

4. I have a secret 20mm, or at least a wider than 50mm equivalent.

5. The old lens may have a use in the future.

6. I need to be a little more careful when doing these tests (see * and **).

I really need to compare the two zooms at longer distances, to make sure i am on the right track for landscapes. When I tested the 12-100 at about 50m, it left all challengers in it’s dust, but there was not a 12-40 available at the time to compare.

*OK I messed up the focal lengths. It turns out that the two 25’s are not in agreement. I was a bit sloppy with matching the first and second images, but I adjusted the third image to match (roughly) the coverage of the second one and the lens showed 21mm in Lightroom (no way to tell on the barrel except to say it was backwards of 25mm). I then adjusted the fourth shot to match these as close as I could be bothered and again got 21mm! It looks like I have a 20mm after all.

**It appears I made a slight focussing error with the 12-100. The finger prints on the front of the glass are sharp (not on the others), where the robot is a little less so. This makes the slightly more coherent background blob even a more interesting.

Next trip

All booked and ready (very ready….oh the waiting) for our next trip to Japan.

We have been before and will undoubtedly go again, so this trip a little experimenting with kit.

Usually the kit comprises of;

2 EM5 bodies (one in the left hand and one on a long strap,

17, 45 and either 75-300 or 75mm long lenses with the 25mm thrown in just in case.

This allows me speed and range as well as being low profile for street shooting.

The kit more or less for the last few years.

Technique is usually Aperture priority with the ISO set to what ever is reasonable for the light or automatic, with the range limited to 1600. MF set on the 17mm for zone shooting and single point centre focus for the 45mm or longer lenses.

This usually goes into either the Tokyo Porter sling bag or Filson Camera Field bag.

This time;

EM1 with the 12-40 mounted in the left hand fired by left thumb or right hand as needed,

EM5 with the 75-300 or 75 (not sure yet),

17 or 25 as back-up for night shooting.

Technique will change to Shutter priority, auto ISO. AF set on both cameras, with the EM1 using face detect and wide area centre biased focus area. This combo has proven to be almost impossibly fast and seems to choose the right target more often than not. The likely back up plan is to use zone focus like the 17mm or even the 17mm if I take it.

Another option is the 12-40, 60 macro and 75-300.

The bag this time is the Think Tank Turnstyle 10 (review coming). I have been looking for a more comfortable way of carrying gear for a while. My wife and I are walkers. It suits us and I think we see more interesting, simpler things when travelling this way, rather than jumping from one tourist hot spot to the next.

The Turnstyle range and sling style bags in general have always intrigued me, but the foot dropped when the new V2 version in charcoal arrived in store. Love at first sight.

They really are deceptive in their capacity. The Peak Designs Everyday Sling is similar and genuinely weather proof without a separate cover, but I like the straight-drop down tear-drop shape rather than the more top-strap messenger design of the PD. After a moment of indecision between the 10L and 20L (a 15 would have been perfect!), I went with the smaller, as the point is to keep the kit and bag profile down.

The probable kit.

I am sure this will change a little over the next couple of months, but the thinking I like and the bag will accommodate.

What makes a professional.

What makes a photographer a professional?

I work in a camera shop. I am lucky to be in an environment where the bulk of my customers are long term locals and many confess to being semi or fully professional.

I often wonder what the real or honest definition of professional is.

• Is a professional someone who has a lot of gear and is obsessed by stats and performance figures?

• Is a professional someone who carries more gear than they need everywhere “just in case”?

• Is a professional someone who is an expert in one field, but unaware of all others?

• Is a professional a refined crafts person, who goes unnoticed and earns nothing from their photography?

• Is a professional an expert self promoter, maybe even paying more attention to their business model than their skill?

• Is a professional simply someone who turns up to a job with more than one camera?

I suspect the best fall somewhere in the best parts of all of these.

To me the mark of a professional photographer (in the more philosophical sense) is someone who takes the results they produce more seriously than lesser considerations like branding, image or format. Unfortunately, these photographers are often poor self marketers. They go undiscovered or completely unnoticed by all but their closest friends or relatives, lost in their time, sometimes forever. One of the most professional photographers I have even met was a one time professional with all of the excesses and vices that came with, but later in life became a true master craftsman, working in semi retirement on commissions, custom modifying cameras and dark room equipment or teaching. To me he was a true professional. His care, attention to detail and desire to better his own work constantly, set a bar of excellence that all photographers should take note of.

Some of our customers regularly come in to the shop asking for tips and tricks to help them improve. They will profess to not being professional, but to me, their desires and attitudes are more professional than some who do make a living from the industry valuing trends, self promotion and self image over self awareness and growth.

The above images were taken by a fried on holiday with her compact camera. Her eye, intention to capture “better” images and desire to experiment netted her these and many more like them. She would never claim to be a professional, but I think she has the right eye, attitude and desire to be called one.

Are you a professional? Are you basing your answer only on your lack of photographic earnings or lack of a business name?

Why the past is important

I sometimes feel that I could be perceived to be stuck in the past.

I know that the current technology has freed me up to do the sort of photography that I love and to share that love with others, but my roots are in last century. It is historical fact, not an attitude or perception, just fact.

The reality is, I have still shot film for more than twice as long as I have been using digital (I will be about 60 at the tipping point). I saw the dawn of AF, then digital and may even see the end of photography as we know it.

References to the past are inevitable. All memories, even fresh ones are drawn from your own history, just sometimes very recent history and all stories, old or new are connected directly.

Teaching relies on the past in the hope of a creative and more aware future, basically catching the new generation up with truism known to previous ones and even the photo industry is aware that the easiest way to a customer’s heart is through comfortable familiarity.

Being up to date is important, but so is being aware of what has come before. Fashions and techniques tend to go through cycles (ever faster it seems), often created by necessity or imposed limitations, then come back in homage to their “retro” look and feel.

The reality is, little i photography is truly original. Also true is that no image ever taken is identical in subject, circumstance or relevance to any other. So if nothing is original, equally everything is original. This gives us the opportunity to visit the work of others and apply their principles (in principle) to our own work, without fear of directly plagiarising, but still relevantly.

Most other art forms are dependant of more tactile factors, making even a single brush stroke or sculpting mark original and singular in it’s own right. Maybe the master painter uses the same gear as the student, but that is where the similarity ends. In photography, many tools will produce identical results in the same circumstances, but the personal vision of the photographer, the reason for their efforts, their why is going to be different.

An image made specifically with “retro” 70’s film colours and contrast in mind.

Where is this going?

If the future of photography is to be strong and open to change and most importantly free from technological controls, it must stay aware of the past.

We as a race always make the most of what is at hand, ingeniously coming up with solutions to every obstacle. It seems to me we are at or best when we have the most against us. Where do we go when most of the limitations are removed? Ansel Adams once had to use a hole in his roof as a contact print enlarger. Anyone in the modern world with a mobile phone has more power than that to process their images, so why are there not tens of thousands of Adam’s out there? Was he only relevant because he was one of the first, or would he still float to the top of the pile now, just differently?

Many of the images taken before have effectively “done” a subject, so awareness of what has been achieved is needed to do it better, differently or at least with humility and honesty.

Personally I have the same struggle most have I am sure. Doubts about anything being original or relevant, fear of repetition and bad conceptual/perceptual habits, lethargy and lack of inspiration.

What I do to try to keep the ball rolling;

• keep shooting,

• change style/subject/technique (more or less),

• do a series or project, preferably out of my comfort zone,

• travel,

• talk to others,

• peruse my all too big book connection,

• think on it,

and finally, if none of these work, walk away for a little while until inspiration strikes (I have other hobbies).

The reality is I am a professional only by intent and attitude, not to make a living, so I can cut myself some slack as needed.

All of these techniques owe some small part of their effectiveness to my memories and experiences, i.e. the past.

Micro Four Thirds Depth of Field

One of the common criticisms of M43 is the formats in ability to produce really shallow and dreamy Bokeh or the common interpretation of what shallow depth of field (DOF) is.

If the designers of photographic gear were to start from scratch (as the consortium responsible for Four Thirds and then M43 basically did), ignoring their legacy of 35mm film format (itself a format born of convenience only), then their choices are many. None are perfect, all have strengths and weaknesses.

The right amount of DOF is subjective. Many modern portraitists are interested in very shallow DOF as a modern fashion and strong creative tool.

Like a lot of fashions, this is in direct opposition to past techniques in the same field. Many early photographers, right up to the 2000’s regularly cursed shallow DOF limitations forced on them by slow films, cumbersome lighting rigs, mediocre fast lens performance and far too finicky focussing requirements (and sometimes the needs of even larger formats). Many top portraitist would call f8 dangerously shallow DOF!

Personally, I more often than not struggle to get the required DOF in many of my images, even with the perceived benefit of extra DOF when using M43. What I do appreciate, is the usability of all of the apertures available to me. Even with M43, I prefer f2.8 to a wider aperture.

All images EM5 mk1.

Taken from fairly close distance of a 12” figure with the 45mm at f2.5 (f5.6 or so on a full frame). For me this is the ideal amount of DOF in this image. The subject is separated from it’s background, all of the subject is sharp, against solid but still coherent blur. There is enough information to tell the story. Even though I had to open the lens up to combat the poor lighting, it did not force me to go into a compromisingly shallow DOF zone.

The same lens again at about f2.2 (f4.5 ish on FF). If the DOF was shallower, the subject would be beautifully separated from a more strongly blurred background, but the important situational details would be completely lost (although the distracting tonal merge of the lamp may be reduced, Doh!).

The new Olympus (and older Panasonic Leica) f1.2 lenses offer comparable DOF to f1.8 lenses in the same effective full frame focal lengths, so are still usable for more than semi-gimmicky super shallow “Bokeh monster” ff 1.2 lens and can therefore be used at their maximum apertures on a more regular basis. Olympus has even gone to great lengths to make the background even more cohesive and inclusive by furthering their practical application of “feathered” Bokeh.

My longest, strongest Bokeh machine without resorting to close focus, the 75mm f1.8 at f2. The duality of the composition is retained, but two clear planes of focus fully established. Would more blurring benefit the image, or maybe less?

The 45mm again at f2, telling a story in layers, not just the planes of in/out of focus.

Even using a wide angle lens on the format you can come unstuck. This is the 17mm at f2.8. Due to the relatively close distance, it is impossible to get all of the main subject sharp even with the wide lens and format bonus, but possibly more beneficially the full scene is still conveyed.

The 17mm at f2.8 again. Notice the lamp is not fully sharp.

Shooting with the 17mm wide open at f1.8 in low light. The transition is natural and forgiving. The full frame benefit of better high ISO performance allowing for a smaller aperture would make the difference irrelevant, but the temptation of a wider aperture may ruin the naturalness of the image, making the process more obvious.

On the flip-side, even the M43 advantage can sometimes not help enough. My 300mm f6.7 slow zoom regularly surprises me with how little error room I have.

This is my 75-300 at 300mm “wide open” at f6.7 (that is almost f16 on a full frame!). I still missed perfect focus of the eye for heaven sake.

Would I like the DOF of a full frame again after using m43?

No, not really. Actually, no thanks.

For portraits, I prefer a more gentle transition than the fashionable fast drop off look. personally, I find smoother and slower transition far less distracting and limiting than faster DOF drop off. It seems that most of the portrait images I grew up appreciating had more DOF than I realised. We associate f1.8 on a portrait focal length with good portrait technique, when many working pro’s would seldom use a wider aperture than f4.

The wide aperture style also tends to create flatter looking images and to further increase Bokeh, subject to background distances are often increased, reducing environmental connection. Often the most moving images of people I have witnessed included more than a little situational context. Lack of context equals lack of story, equals a subject without support or connection. Far too many portraits (for my tastes anyway) have become head shots with pleasantly blurred but irrelevant back drops.

For landscapes, there is no practical difference in the field. My f11 is the full framers f22, but that allows me shorter shutter speeds at identical ISO settings.

I can even resist the lure of super fast lenses, although I would like a little more speed at longer focal lengths (a 200 f2.8 maybe?) and I do miss my 40-150 Pro a little bit sometimes.

In low light, I have no fear of using the widest apertures available to me. This gives me a 2 stop (shutter speed/ISO) DOF advantage over the full frame user (who has other high ISO advantages), often evening out the equation, except a M43 lens is effectively twice as long.

Add to the above, the accuracy of mirrorless focus and the seemingly effortless wide open quality of M43 lenses and the DOF advantage of full frame cameras can seem less enticing.

Getting there

A little better than the previous attempts, but I feel lacking the abstraction I am looking for.

EM5 mk1 60mm macro.

Previously I touched on some of the things that can effect Bokeh. This image totally changed Bokeh character when saturation was increased, with the green and blue out of focus areas ballooning slightly.

what to pack for....

Ok. The street bag was fun and easy.

Now to this years projected primary bag.

“What if I were a day tripping Landscape photographer, what would I pack?”

Landscape photography has a few advantages over other types of imaging. Lens quality is important, even more important than in less scrutinised forms, but you have access to the best settings a lens has to offer, often evening out performance. The super fast, sharp when wide open prime is usually a pointless waste of money and weight if used at f8+. Some are even poor performers stopped down due to all the corrections being weighted to the more open apertures.

Although I am a fan of prime lenses for most of my work, zooms also really come into their own for tripod work, offering a minimal or no crop work flow. Get it right in the field and there is no wastage of precious pixels in processing.

Occasionally a lens comes along that offers the same quality as a premium prime with zoom versatility.

The Olympus 12-100 f4 has revolutionised my thinking for landscapes.

I remember all too recently shooting with a Canon full frame, top end “L” primes and resolving to do some serious landscape work. Heavy bag (very), shutter vibration reducing monster tripod (that still failed to tame my 200mm even with precise and unforgiving technique) and lots of wasteful cropping, made for a very uncomfortable, expensive and frustrating process.

Skip on a few years and I can now match that set-up pixel for pixel with an electronic shutter (read; no noise-no vibration), edge to edge sharp, all-in-one super zoom that also has the benefit of amazing stabilisation if a tripod is out of the question and the cropping factor DOF advantage (f5.6 = roughly f11 on a full frame allowing a 2 shutter speed/ISO buffer).

The lens covers 24-200 full frame equivalent, which is all I need as I am more of a tight abstract, rather than big sky style shooter. It is also a decent semi macro for my artistic close-up needs.

The camera is a Pen F, which I find well suited to tripod work. Ironic really as it is designed for street and travel shooting, but the mechanical cable release connection, Arca style tripod optional grip and general operation all point me towards tripod rather than hand held use. I can, though rarely, use the high res mode as I find a “perfect” 20mp is actually more than enough for big prints and processing/storage are lighter.

I still remember the first time I tried out this set-up. I was hopeful, even confidently fatalistic about the results, but still surprised at the ease of getting that quality out of the camera regardless of the lens and with (by my standards) sloppy technique. The images below were taken within seconds of conception and my then make-shift tripod set-up was clumsy to say the least. It almost felt like cheating.

Pen with the 40-150 pro. Much the same quality is possible through the whole Pro range (and many of the non Pro lenses as well).

Crop from above. The sort of quality I could have dreamed of in the film era (top end medium format maybe?) and so easily printed. This lens was really too big and heavy for landscape, so the added range of the 12-100 is kit changing. The 75-300 is nearly indistinguishable from the 40-150 at middle apertures over the same range with the added bonus of more reach when needed.

The Pen also seems to have a very slightly cleaner/sharper sensor at lower ISO’s than the EM1 mk2 (not scientific fact, just my observations).

The only down side is the lack of camera body weather proofing. If this is really a consideration, I switch out the Pen for the EM1 or carry a back-up EM5 mk1.

More than enough for my fine art printing needs.

For filters, I use a polariser and a 10 stop ND that is enough to create silky water in daylight. I do not find weaker ND filters of much value.

The 75-300 makes into the bag for the occasional wildlife or extreme distance shot (only made possible by the gentle camera), also with matching filters.

The bag is a modified Lowe Pro Inverse 100 (review posted). The modification is cutting out the bum bag “wings”. This allows the bag to be used as either shoulder bag with the supplied strap or to be threaded onto the front of a real* back pack’s waist belt using the massive, padded “wing storage” rear loop.

It holds a surprising amount of gear and acts as a handy work bench in the field.

The camera’s gentle operation also allows me to carry a small to medium tripod. My current one is a basic Manfrotto 190 that I have had for ages and a new Pro Master ball head or I can chance a light weight Velbon Sherpa and mini Gitzo ball head I picked up a few years ago. For expeditions I can even carry both easily in case of mis-hap, chopping and changing heads as desired.

Again, lots of batteries, spare cards and snacks etc.

What would I use if not this? I guess, if just for landscape work, I would look at full frame, probably a FF mirrorless Nikon (Z7 and 24-70/70-200 f4 rig as available or Canon (R? 24-105 and up coming tele or adapted 70-200 f4). I could not come at an SLR rig at this late stage unless I was prolific enough to justify the expense and/or would be happy with adapted lenses in the future. If pressed for time and cash, the D7200 Nikon (still a resolution demon, matching the D750 pixel for pixel) with the 16-85 and the new 70-300 “P”. As much as I am happy with the Olympus outfit, I would probably fail to resist the siren call of more pixels and greater dynamic range even though I know it will not greatly effect the quality of my images or work flow.

*lets be honest. If you are going any real distance, a photo style back pack is pointless. The camera component of your rig needs to be accommodated alongside a real trekking pack, not in place of it (otherwise you will not sleep/eat/survive etc.).

Still fun to do, more on the way.

What to pack for.....

This is a fun and totally self indulgent set of posts, basically about me thinking out aloud about different applications for my embarrassingly over sized kit. There is nothing scientific or even that useful about these posts, but they take me back years to when I perused magazines looking for any little insight into the lives of the photographers I followed (in the buy the book, read the magazine sense, before the internet).

First up;

“If I were a street photographer, what would I pack?”

This is an easy one, because I already do this.

Now a pure street kit s a little different to a light travel kit because you are probably nearer your base of operations and you are also very target specific. The trick with street shoot (I have found), is to keep it simple and comfortable. I would rather two primes mounted on cameras set up best for each lens than a zoom, simply because it keeps the focus on specific, known view points, not a larger range of more confusing compositional options. The be a little clearer, I would rather have to compose within the limits of a lens’s single coverage choice and perspective than add in the slower and more particular option of “perfect” composition. There is simply not much more time often the see/recognise potential- raise/compose and shoot. Adding zooming for best fit would rob you of precious seconds in the process.

I suppose this is still possible with a zoom (and I will probably try it next trip to Japan), but there will need to be some self imposed restrictions on zooming to a known focal length before, not during the shot.

See-point-shoot. All done is a split second. Adhering to the “life in motion/invisible observer” school of street photography, stopping, zooming and framing are simply impossible. Ideally i go completely unnoticed, or at worst the subject(s) may be aware of my presence, but are not offended by my intent and most importantly, I get to see the “unguarded moment”.

The simplest of kits.

2 OMD EM5’s as much out of operational comfort as loyalty to their efforts over the years. The flip up screen is vastly more useful than the flip and rotate type when shooting from lower angles and the AF is still top notch. They also owe me nothing, so risk is minimised.

Camera “A” would be on a 60” Gordie strap and hanging cross-body to my right hip (I am right handed), ready to be grabbed and used at any height. It would be set to Manual focus and about 2m, Shutter priority (1/250 or higher as light allows) and limited auto ISO (400-1600), with the 17mm attached.

This lens has a known Bokeh benefit, rendering better/longer transition for street grabs, making it useful even at f1.8 in low light using “guestimation” focus or it’s lightning fast AF. This is as wide as I like to go with street lenses. It allows for good coverage without too much distortion, especially when shooting from lower angles.

I am very comfortable with this lens in every way and can now usually get the angles and coverage right by judgement.

I have experimented with the 25mm in this role and some of my favourite images have come from using it, but the tighter coverage more often than not cuts something out and the Bokeh is very in/out or short transition in the modern way, so it punishes focussing mistakes. It is small, light and sharp, so it usually ends up in a bag just in case, but for street it has become an emergency lens only.

Two rare occasions where the slightly tighter and more compressed 25mm worked well, on Osaka’s wide main streets.

*

The “B” body, with a 45mm mounted is in the left hand, with a left hand wrist strap, leaving the right hand at the ready. It is set for centre point/face detection AF. I can literally raise it and shoot in one action (yep they are that quick). It’s perspective and magnification are very natural to the eye, so you get what you expect. I even find it excels at wrist-flick grab shots.

If distances are greater, or respect for privacy is more crucial, I switch the 45 out for the 75mm. Although a little long for street, this lens never ceases to surprise. The extra separation is a double edged sword (the 45mm is gentler with it’s transitions as well as naturally less aggressive in it’s perspective), but as a candid portrait lens it has few equals.

The bag* , needs to be comfortable, low profile, easy access (no zips or velcro) weather resistant and understated. The bag is really only important for getting from a to b, as gear readiness is at a premium when doing street photography, but if the need arises for packing up and moving fast on or a quick gear change, there is no time to fiddle.

*usually an olive rugged-ware Domke F3x at home* or a Filson Field Camera bag or Tokyo Porter sling bag as the occasion/gear requires and there is a Think Tank Turnstyle 10 on the horizon.

Lots of batteries, a note pad, spare cards, a snack bar and water if warm, then all is done.

That was fun. I love looking through other photographers bags and hearing their techniques and hard learned pointers, so sharing mine I hope helps someone else.

What would I use if not this kit? This is a tough one. With access to most cameras at the shot, I would, if pressed, probably just go with the Panasonic equivalent (2x GX#, 15, 42.5 cheap, 35-100). The other option would be Fuji (2x XT100 because the sensor plays nice with Adobe and I think from memory the screen flips back, not out., 23 f2, 45 f2, 90 macro).

More to come.

Forgotten techniques

When testing my two zooms for their macro capability, I forgot one of the basic principals of macro shooting.

Manual focus removes one of the many variables and it also guarantees the minimum focus distance is adhered to.

Tooling around in my in-laws garden last evening, I re-discovered this technique. Low light and a slight breeze required reduction of one of the afore mentioned variables (subject movement/own movement/AF jumping).

All images EM1 mk2 hand held at 1/30-90th (ISO 400-800) with the 12-40mm at 40mm and manually set minimum focus. A tripod would have offered better DOF, but I am still pleased with the high keeper rate.

Not a healthy bee. He was out too late and not moving well.

The point of focus is perhaps 2-3mm deep at f2.8

What value is a specialist macro lens?

60mm macro used much as above. This was about 2 inches across. This is not as close as the lens can focus, but it is as close as I could get hand held.

Bokeh Explorations

Bokeh, or it’s perceived quality, is dependant on a lot of factors.

The viewer and their tastes (up to you).

The lens selected and it’s magnification on the chosen format (Oly 60mm M43 acting as a 120mm FF lens).

The aperture selected (f2.8).

The distance to the subject (roughly 10cm).

The subject (Agapanthus buds- a favourite).

The distance to the background/foreground (1/2 meter).

The background (and foreground) form (mixed leaf and stem background).

The light (shaded on the subject, mixed on the background).

Processing (Basic very mild EM1 pre set with a touch of contrast and clarity added)

Miscellaneous such as the interplay of tones and colours, atmosphere or flare (as you see).

Some interesting, but possibly too distracting Bokeh “balls” in the background. This reminds me of the Canon 200mm f2.8 prime, which had interesting hexagonal shaped highlights, but gorgeous lush colour.

A different feel in colour.

There is little that is right or wrong when talking about Bokeh, it just is, like the weather.

It is (almost always) present in some form, no matter how mild as long as there is any small amount of the image that is not fully in full focus.

Defending the un-defendable

Micro Four Thirds or M43 is my format of choice.

So what?

Sometimes I feel I need to justify my choice, sometimes I feel like I know a secret many others have to learn and sometimes I am simply ecstatic that I have a set of image making tools that are so close to perfect for me that I should never question them in any way.

Is my kit perfect?

No, of course not, none are.

Is my kit more than I could ever need?

Probably not, but also usually yes.

Is my kit better than all others? No and yes depending on specific criteria.

Do I dream of switching to “X” or “Y”?

Sometimes, but it takes little to remember that I have been down most roads and always come to the same conclusion. The gear does not matter unless it restricts.

The kit you use only has to allow you reasonable freedom to express yourself. It is unreasonable to expect all kits to fit all purposes, or for any to be perfect, even at the task they are designed for. The reasonable expectation is that your vision is not un-reasonably held back or curtailed by your gear, especially in relation to other tools available.

There have always been technical limits in photography. These limits have often created styles or specific looks over time as photographers overcome and work within them as best they can. We have fewer technical limits than ever before and ironically, like a person who can choose anything, many are paralysed into indecision and often unhappiness. Creativity is then equally paralysed

What I mean by that is, it is much easier to create a look or style when you have fewer choices and more to over come, but (I think) harder when there is not much that is not achieved easily.

Years a go, one of my mentors used paper developer to develop their medium speed film, giving them amazing super sharp grain and clarity. This combined with a bespoke enlarger set-up rendered stunning (even more so at the time), super clear and sharp mono images with grain so acutely rendered that he could actually focus through it. His compositional eye was better than many and very experienced*, but the technical limitations he overcame also gave him a signature that was unmistakable. The perfect blend of out of the box technical thinking and application. I used to use Rodinal at 1:200, with minimal agitation with super slow film trying to get medium format results out of 35mm, succeeding sometimes, but it would have probably been easier to just go into MF. Each to their own.

What can we do now that circumvents the technology we have to rely on? The choice of editing software is as much debated as the best brand of camera, but at the end of the day the technical limit envelope is set by the software creator. This is likely why many art based photographers are happier with film?

The only tool of difference we have is our own eye, our effort and our dedication, supported by excellent tools available to all. A 1” sensor compact camera now takes a better image than a 35mm film camera and more easily. M43 can match 6x7cm film format and full frame+ enlarges as well as large format film. The camera shows us what we will get either before or immediately after the shutter is fired and pesky things like noise/grain are becoming more of an annoyance than a forced creative element.

With this relative technical freedom comes creative paralysis. If everyone is using the same tools, then aren’t we all playing on the same predictable field? How do we stand out? What is our signature. This is of course the ideal, where only skill in communicating ideas with images count, not tricks, but realistically, many fall to one side out of apathy and an inability to make their mark. Photography (not graphic imaging) is probably doomed as an art form in it’s own right, but artistic communication will still use it to purpose.

It frustrates me that photography has for many come down to a constant micro comparing of tools. Think about the number of sites that are dedicated to gear reviews and the amount of traffic they get. Then compare that to the number of sites that promote only creative photography, especially the format or technique agnostic ones. Unfortunately, the reality is most website hits come from reviews. My most read posts are bag reviews!

A token image. I do not like a words only post. The unique Bokeh comes from a window panel reflection of the same door.

These generate revenue for some bloggers and guarantee constant traffic which promotes the desire to keep posting. The reality is most bloggers would rather talk about photography as a whole, not just gear, but that as they say “does not sell papers”.

The point?

Take the best images you can and keep on taking them. Take them for you with what ever gear is at hand. Do not compare your technique/gear/results to others or past equivalences as you cannot and should not (there is just too much out there to compare to). Sure, learn from others, but be you, not someone else. The only things that are yours are the when/where/why of your image and your interpretation of it. In that context, the gear used is a minor foot note, a marker in time only, not the defining characteristic.

*He won more prizes in a prestigious international mono imaging salon than some countries and more than all of the other entrants from Australia combined.

Texture

Western Australian textures. Three of these were taken on the same street.

Impossible Horizons

I liked this image from first perception, into the camera and on later viewing. It has to me an Alex Webb or Harry Gruyaert colour palette and simple beauty.

The issue when processing is with two competing horizons. The umbrellas force an artificial horizon through the frame, completely at odds with the real horizon visible on the left of frame (relatively straight in this image, making the umbrellas look crooked). Fiddle as I might, there is no fix except cropping, that looses some of the natural image balance.

EM5 25mm lens

This on the other hand has no horizon challenge, but it lacks an element such as a road marking, or a seagull or similar to break it up.

Wide View

For a long time, I have limited my self to a single, not very wide lens in my kit (17mm being a 35mm FF equivalent).

Now I have two excellent wider and probably better ones. Coming in at the equivalent of a 24mm on a full frame camera is still only in the real, but not extreme wide category, but for me that is plenty wide enough.

I have never really liked the extreme perspective and distortion wider lenses offer, limiting myself in the part to a 20mm equivalent at most. I also find the images they make too similar to each other.

Mr wide angle composer going absolutely nuts obviously. Look at that self control going out the window!

Just a hint os distortion in the top corners, but that is what comes with the territory, especially when you are not well practiced with this perspective.

Macro Land

Ok, so it turns out I do want a macro, just not the one I originally bought.

The 35mm lens is an ideal technical macro. My father-in-law will use it to it’s maximum potential, with his spider studies. I found it too limited creatively.

This is, I suppose the main difference between the main macro styles, creative or technical. We, like most image makers view our styles differently. John likes his street/travel images to be portrait style, I need mine to be documentary or unposed, he needs his macro to be technically sound and repeatable as he has a scientific application for the images, where I like mine to be creative, i.e. abstract and technically useless.

You could (I hope) make a book of pretty flower photos from my image bank, but not a useful book on plant recognition, where John has written a book on spider recognition!

The 60mm macro is longer and faster, giving me the more appealing Bokeh monster I like to use. I really felt that the 12-100/12-40 zooms could fill this space, but after clearing out my old film camera stocks, I had some money kicking around and the macro was the only (genuinely) useful addition I could think of for my kit.

Pushing the bounds of abstract and far from the perfect application of it’s talents, this is the style I am looking for.

The Bokeh weirdness in the images above intrigues me and adds to my options.

It is also a useful light weight and weather proof portrait lens, falling in between the 45 and 75mm prime lenses and the 12-40 and 75-300 zooms.

What a goof ball.

The magnification is genuinely better. The left hand image is form a 12-100 “macro” image, the right one is from the macro (not necessarily the very closest focus distance for either, but pretty near).

2 new primes that turned into a zoom.

Feeling a bit flat this week. Loosing jack, then my wife’’s work finishing up for the year with a couple of her friends leaving, has given us both a heavy feeling of things ending.

I bought myself a couple of toys, in the vein of new beginnings for next (this) year and to distract me for awhile (new gear always leaves me unsettled, something I will use to hep me move on).

Firstly an old friend, but previously a problematic lens for me also. The 20mm Panasonic (Mk2). This one lost out against the 17mm Olympus because it suffered from both poor manual and auto focus application. The MF ring on this one (bought blind) is lighter than any I have used before, which is good and the AF on the EM1 or Pen F is better also. To put that into context, the 17mm on an old EM5 mk1 still whips it on the EM1 mk2, but it is at least useable.

Peaking on the new cameras in MF helps to.

What it brings is a focal length I like and have missed. From memory a lens with a snappy sharp/soft dynamic and Panasonic’s colour and contrast as an option to Olympus’s rendering. I could live without it, but just at the moment, while filling a hole our boy has left, I choose not to deny myself anything that will keep me occupied.

It looks to be a good one.

The second lens is more of a tool/toy. The 30mm macro is a lens that I have always been intrigued by, but have had difficulty deciding on having enough need for. Traditionally there has always been a macro in my bag. Equally traditionally they do not get used much.

Edit…

The 20mm did not sit well with me. I am not sure if it is me moving on to better and more sure footed lenses (the 45, 14 and 20mm’s were my first keeper lenses for M43), or maybe my memory of it’s performance on the older EM5’s is at odds with the EM1’s performance with it now.

The focussing still sucks on a camera that is a true speed demon. To give you some idea, the 20mm on the Em1 mk2 is noticeably slower and noisier than any other lens I own mounted on a non firmware updated EM5 mk1!

I have also not been overly blown away by the image quality in light of many of the lenses I have been using since I last had one. Maybe I just had a special one. I was hoping for the unique* organic and old fashioned look, but the end product was comparable (therefore no different) to the 17mm, which has it’s own benefits and the 25mm Olympus that is it’s superior in every other way (except at being a pancake 20mm).

The macro was fun for about 5 minutes, then it fell into that familiar malaise of “I should have a macro just in case”, knowing it will rarely get any use and I found it a little intimate for my preferred subject (flower details). Both of the standard zooms I have give me good close focussing, which to me is macro enough.

The macro found a home with my father-in-law who is an accomplished arachnid photographer (happy birthday John) and the 20mm went back to the shop.

What did I get with the credit?

An old friend, that I am not worthy of as I had one for a while and did not appreciate it as I should have.

The 12-40mm Pro. This is doubling up on the 12-100 I guess, but the two lenses are so completely different in handling and image look, that, in light of a trip to see family in the big west (Western Australia), it just felt right to get it again. The other option was the 15mm Leica, but again, for nearly the same money, nothing really to be gained.

Boy was that a good call.

The smooth and generous look of the 12-40 is a good fit in my kit. The smaller form factor (than the 12-100) makes it genuinely more comfortable and the faster aperture sits better with me for general walk around shooting. I also feel that maybe the Bokeh/rendering is nicer for general shooting and portraits than the 12-100. This one and the newer ones I have seen seem to have also removed the barrel wobble most of the early ones had.

40mm f2.8

A crop of the above image showing that even M43 renders very short DOF at semi macro distances.

“Milk storm sailor” 36mm f2.8. Sharp, smooth Bokeh drop off, but pleasing and “bigger format” looking. This is what happens when you do not use eye detection AF!

The bigger zoom was bought for landscapes, where it excels, the shorter lens as an ideal core standard.

The 12-100 at f4. It looks to get a little closer and with a longer working distance. The Bokeh of this lens often looks a little more nervous than the 12-40, but nothing significant either way and the added magnification often adds back in practical smoothness.

The longer zoom (at least with my copies) looks to be slightly crisper or “hard” sharp*, where the shorter lens makes beautiful smooth-sharp images. The sort that you may prefer for general shooting.

I am really happy with this dynamic. The smaller, faster standard lens mounted on the EM1 is the better choice ergonomically and it’s rendering is very pleasant for general purpose imaging (bold and rich, a lot like the 25mm f1.8*), where the longer lens (and the Pen F camera it is mounted on) is the less comfortable in-hand unit, but seems ideally suited for tripod use.

The 12-40 is also a logical partner to the 75-300, which is (for the moment) my long lens option, where the 12-100 has unneeded overlap, but not enough reach to leave the longer lens at home.

What started as a misguided attempt to freshen up my kit, filling holes that either did not need to be filled or were not significantly different enough to gear I already owned, turned into an unlikely revisit to a previously unsatisfying space and an ideal choice.

So much for mister “primes only”.

*My Olympus lenses seem to fall into two rendering groups. Smooth/rich sharp (12-40, 25, 45, 75-300 with the 45 being the stand out, blurring the distinction) or hard/micro contrasty sharp (75, 12-100, 17, 40-150 pro when I had it - the 75 managing a good bit of both). This is just my observation from my own results with my work flow, but these intuitive (not scientific) impressions are often the best guides to help properly apply the right tools to the right job. The former tend to make generally more pleasing images more effortlessly but the latter shine brighter when the hit the mark. Interestingly, the sensors of the EM5 mk1 and Pen F also have harder, crisper sharpness, where the EM1 is smoother, but slightly less snappy.