On Friends, travels and a natural eye

This post is a review of a photographers work. The photographer in question would not consider herself a "true" photographer, but I do. In a time when titles and labels often mean more than they should, she is a prime example of the true meaning of a gifted amateur.

I have known Peta Frost for a long time. She was a work colleague and friend of my wife's on and off for more than 20 years, and has always kept in touch.

Now semi retired allowing her to succumb fully to the effects of her travel bug, Peta is showing a natural photographers eye, curiosity fuelled and sensitivity moulded. A natural eye is a great gift. My wife also has a great eye, possibly tainted by too much exposure to me, but strong none the less.

My first contact with Peta's image making came in the form of a little Canon compact camera, purchased from the shop I was working at several years ago. This went to Morocco, a favourite destination and came back laden with great images. She stretched that little camera as far as it would go and then some. It was clear to me, she had more potential than the camera could service, an ideal situation really (I have sold plenty of cameras over the years that are never going to be fully stretched or even fully understood by their owners). 

This is often a tipping point for active photographers. Many a time, a customer or friend would upgrade from the camera that gave them so much satisfaction, only to be disappointed that their flash new camera not only fails to make their images noticeably better, but that added complication has stolen their comfort zone away**.

Very National Geographic 1960's, this image has been processed to bring out the mood and depth it showed, using the cameras short comings to full advantage. A great example to me of what emotion and character can do more powerfully than sterile perfection.

Very National Geographic 1960's, this image has been processed to bring out the mood and depth it showed, using the cameras short comings to full advantage. A great example to me of what emotion and character can do more powerfully than sterile perfection.

The next trip would be to Norway in the winter, pretty much semi darkness at best. This would be beyond any normal compact. Peta was in luck though, as I was just starting to come to terms with a one brand kit, choosing Olympus, primarily because of the size of my investment in their gear and the work flow I had developed. The best Fuji I owned was actually the cheapest (XA-1), so we made a mutually beneficial deal. I found a good home for the camera and Peta got the ideal upgrade.

The Xa1 is the little camera that could. It does not have the unusual and problematic (at the time of production especially) Fuji sensor and processor combination, but rather the normal Bayer type. The Fuji colour was intact, along with the sharpness, but no strangeness in processing. It was also ridiculously good in low light. I still wonder why Fuji pushed their more exotic sensor so hard, when this more conventional one delivered everything the other could, without the quirks?

Peta now had a camera that would allow her to express herself with fewer limitations*, so after a couple of brief lessons on how to get the most out of it (mostly the use of exposure compensation for best utilising the "what you see is what you get" benefit of mirrorless cameras) she was away.

I have to admit to being surprised at the quality of images coming back. The compositions were mature and those of a photographer, not a tourist. Peta's photographic interests tend to follow story telling images, often devoid of clutter (people) or with people included if that is the compositional element that is intended. 

The little camera came up trumps also, getting out of the way and providing clean and colourful images in some challenging light.

I think this one was taken from a moving vehicle!

I think this one was taken from a moving vehicle!

We processed some of the top images together in Lightroom, but they did not need much work. The Fuji jpeg files really are spot on. 

Then off to Morocco again, but this time with the Fuji.

The thing that stands out to me about Peta, when she talks about her images is the emotional connection she shares with her subjects. Refreshing after all of the tech talk.

The thing that stands out to me about Peta, when she talks about her images is the emotional connection she shares with her subjects. Refreshing after all of the tech talk.

_DSF5178.jpg

The above images were mined from her impressive library. Some have been gently processed in Lightroom, some by Peta in a different, more generic programme and some are as shot.

Peta has taught (re taught?) me, to appreciate the results and the story, not to obsess about what took the image, but more the why and who of the image. Part of me wishes I could unlearn a lot of what I know, releasing some pressure of expectation and the restrictions often inherent in accumulated knowledge (sometimes called analysis paralysis), expanding my ability to see freely, with an open and generous eye.

I am grateful to have shared Peta's journey a little bit and helped in some small way to contribute to it. David Vestal, one of my favourite photo philosophers once said something along the lines of "You can't teach someone to be a good photographer, you can only guide them on their own path". Pretty sure that is not word for word, but you get the idea.

 

                                                                       *

 

* The more I talk about and use cameras, the more I come to realise that a camera does not have the capacity to expand a photographers ability to see images, only to hold it back through technical limitations. Camera limitations have always been the hard ceiling that photographers have had to combat, so much so they often determining fashions in image making and viewing (National Geo and Kodachrome for years were the look of colour images). The current crop of cameras are lifting that ceiling, freeing us all to express ourselves without having to learn the "secret sauce" just to get the job done.

**I remember once having a customer in tears after stuffing up a wedding with a brand new 5D mk3, set in the wrong AF setting for the whole day (continuous servo with the left hand focus points only activated, fiddled with because they had read how fast the AF was, but could not work out how to undo their settings), sporting a new, fast zoom, left wide open for more bokeh (grrrr), shot in RAW without any upgraded software loaded or any understanding it was even needed (frightening when your wedding images wont open and you don't know why).

The perfect back up (old faithful crop frame body, a 500D if I remember with a simple AF system and slower lens-providing lots more depth of field) had already been sold off to a friend, leaving the customer with the new monster to fight and no plan B. The traps of upgrading had been fully explained before purchase, but like a dear in the headlights the new camera promised the customer improvements unmeasured. Well done that marketing dept.!

On the influence of other photographers part 1.

We are all influenced by our surroundings. The choices we make and the paths we follow almost always have a precedent in our memories, otherwise the very idea of taking an image with a camera would probably not occur to us. 

On a superficial level, deciding who your "hero's" are (hate that over used and often in appropriate term), can help you decode the why of your own technique. It is never helpful to simply copy others, but it is nearly impossible to be inspired by someone else's work and then completely remove those memories from your mental library when working your self.

I am going to, as a mental exercise for myself, look at those image makers that I like and try to de-cypher their influence on me. 

Sam Abel

The work of less well known, quietly spoken National Geographic photographer and editor Sam Abel came at a formative time for me. He arrived fully in book form, mentioned I think in a magazine article (popular photography some time in the '80's?), way back before the internet anyway. The article talked about his method of composing from "back to front", making sure that all of the elements of an image work toward the whole (see my book review also). At the time, the term bokeh was not (invented) in our photographic consciousness, but the back-front thing started me looking at the frame as a whole, reaching it's logical fulfilment when I became bokeh aware (or, maybe like most image makers, I was already, I just didn't know what I was responding to).

Maybe a bit Abelish? No real attention to the back ground except to make sure it was in focus enough to contribute and an awareness that depth of field was compositionally required or desired.  Definitely not as deliberate, but the "filmy" colour and location remind me of his work a bit.

Maybe a bit Abelish? No real attention to the back ground except to make sure it was in focus enough to contribute and an awareness that depth of field was compositionally required or desired.  Definitely not as deliberate, but the "filmy" colour and location remind me of his work a bit.

Lots of depth, but no real strength in subject. Not really Abel?

Lots of depth, but no real strength in subject. Not really Abel?

His quote "I believe in the staying power of the quieter image" became a sort of mantra and a confirmation of my own philosophy, that quiet observation and minimum intrusion is the path I am most comfortable in taking and that it gets the images I like the most.

What have I learned from him; His use of light and depth to make simple looking, but deeply complicated compositions definitely influenced how I see and how I think between shoots, but I cannot confess being a master of his technique. I am aware, more than ever after writing this, that I need to re visit his philosophy as my own style has drifted towards the shallow depth of field portrait style to my own detriment. Backgrounds are key and often forgotten.

Michael Kenna

Michael Kenna came to me later in my early years, towards the end of the film era and after the influence of the classic American greats (Adams etc) and the National Geo "big book" photographers (Art Wolfe and Jim Brandenburg). What he shows us is that anything can be photogenic, even the ugly and mundane. A bit of stone path, the stacks from a power station, a swing set, a lone tree in the snow or a wooden fence, taken sometimes after dark or in strong mist with long exposure technique, using what ever grain and character is provided by film. He only works in black and white 35mm or medium format film with mechanical cameras, but can make a work of art out of nothing really. Ugly and boring are no excuse, look harder with an open mind.

His style has been copied a lot in the film and digital eras, especially in the last few years due to advances in digital cameras, so his work can look to some like just another in a crowd of many, but consider this; I bought his 20 year retrospective book over 20 years ago. When he emerged, there was nothing like his work except much older images taken with view cameras on glacially slow film stock through necessity. The most notable of his contemporaries is Michael Levitt, who uses a similar style shot on large format film. 

Not in the same league and technically flawed (see my previous post about sharpness), but taken with lessons learned from his work.

Not in the same league and technically flawed (see my previous post about sharpness), but taken with lessons learned from his work.

What I take from his work is; simplicity (emphasis on minimalism in composition and tones), clarity of vision, not accepting technical limitations, but embarrassing them and then doing the work required to hone these can make a great image out of almost anything. he stresses the value of post production in the darkroom, so in a way he is the natural grandfather to the photoshop era. Many (not all) of the colour photographers of his day shot slide film stock and very few processed their work, leaving it to lab technicians and printers, but the black and white masters were the ones who followed the process all the way through, like we do today.

Probably a bit more along the lines of creative manipulation. Taken as a bright and sunny day image.

Probably a bit more along the lines of creative manipulation. Taken as a bright and sunny day image.

So endeth part 1.

On sharpness and reality

I am as guilty as any blogger of using the words sharpness, resolution and detail too many times in a week. Part of the obsession some of us have with quality, that is perceived, numerically or visually measurable quality, comes from the it's elusiveness in our early years.

Photography went from "weird science" to controllable hobby in a relatively short time (if you call a human generation short), but it went off like a bomb when it did take. All were in agreement; the technical side of photography was as much a part of the whole as any other part, allowing gear nerds, working pros, experimental or classical artists and enthusiasts to share the same journey, if taking different paths.

The second great wave of quality obsession came with the digital emergence. Starting from scratch, but with a  pre determined quality bar to aim for and tools readily available for determining value, we jumped in with both feet, measuring micro differences between lens X and sensor Y, until the differences needed better equipment than our own eyes to even see those differences.

So, what is sharpness and is it that important?

Photographically, sharpness is the ability of the end product to convey a perception of clarity and definition using true edge and/or micro contrast (Canon's Lens Work publication explains this best, showing the differences between contrast and resolving power).

All sharpness is an illusion. The flat surfaces used to view images have no actual sharp edges, you cannot cut yourself on them (ok, a smashed screen or a nasty paper cut can disprove that point). The impression of sharpness comes from the clarity and strength of contrast used to show transition from one tone or colour end point to a neighbouring one. 

In a dark room, this was called acutance and was often a chemically created phenomenon, so I guess it had actual substance, but even if digitally created the effect is the same. The sharpening tool in your processing suite is simply exaggerating the strength of the transition point between two areas, which is why over sharpening looks so bad as it is creating a clearly false (oversized) edge rather than a better defined edge.

How do we see sharpness?

Simply put, we are tricked into seeing it. Viewing distance is important, display media and viewer expectations also, but trickery is the name of the game. If you decide that "perfect' sharpness is your goal, that is sharpness so pure and definable, you cannot perceive the point where it is no longer sharp, them you have to stop looking before you exceed your point of maximum acceptable perception. That is, you must decide when you no longer want to look any further (closer), because eventually, if you get close enough, you will see the point of un sharpness.

Very big prints from 50mp full frame cameras will have a realistic resolution limit, that is not far past 16mp m43 sensors in real terms. Neither is perfect, but either is capable of producing fine art work to reasonable sizes. The reality is, M43 is not a revolutionary "catch up" leap to bigger sensor size quality through some exclusive, advanced technology. There is no magic juice. What has happened is a new wave of very sharp* sensors and supporting lenses has coincided with "already enough" quality and is acting more like a reality call than a real quality shift.

*Anti aliasing filters removed or reduced from the sensor path, increasing perceived sharpness.

Ming Thein did an exercise a couple of years ago where it tried to get unrealistic and impractical "loupe viewable" sharpness on a print. The process needed 36mp's, perfect technique and multiple passes of very fine ink droplets from a pro printing press onto carefully chosen paper to render that much detail and even then paper size was limited to small gallery sizes only. In his own observations he basically said no one will care except other photographers interested/obsessed by quality. It is all about viewing distance, expectations and delivery.

Example; look at your TV. look at it from across the room. Decide there how sharp the picture looks. Then get closer and closer, until the actual pixels making up the picture are more obvious than the picture itself. Some time in the middle, you will feel the image has become possibly sharper, but gradually unsharp. Next the actual pixels start to look sharp, but as you get even closer, those pixels loose their sharpness also. A couple of times on the journey you are happy with your perception of clarity and a couple of times not.

Another example, closer in relevance to the subject at hand.

The image below was taken with care a few years ago with a crop frame SLR, sporting plenty of pixels, a solid wood tripod and a better than average lens. 

Eos 550D 15-85mm at 85 f8, at about 30 seconds. Important to remember here that in print, this looks sharper as the paper texture and physical ink work together. 

Eos 550D 15-85mm at 85 f8, at about 30 seconds. Important to remember here that in print, this looks sharper as the paper texture and physical ink work together. 

Up to reasonable sizes (11x14 inch) and equally reasonable viewing distances the image looks sharp and contrasty in print, especially on more precious, heavy matt-fibre paper. Viewers have responded well to this series of colour and mono images, but the dirty secret is, none of the images were very sharp.

Their response was to the colours and tones, the location and the composition. If I had managed better technical quality would it have really mattered to the average viewer or would that simply have made me happier with the image?

I have narrowed the culprits down to vibration from the quite heavy sea crashing on the beach at the feet of the tripod (amazing what a long exposure can hide), possibly combined with the tripod very slowly sinking into the soft sand and maybe a less than brilliant lens (some obvious CA issues), but either way, the whole evening was less satisfying than desired. At first I thought I had left the stabiliser on. Never a good idea when using a tripod, but that would have been too easy.

A crop of the above.

A crop of the above.

Technique was tried and tested, gear should have been ok, but the images lacked any real "bite" at 100% on a screen, so most of the perceived sharpness came from added contrast, print stock selection and by limiting size.

Another example of perceived sharpness compared to actual sharpness below.

Taken with an ancient Pen 25mm from the 1960's, shot wide open, where it's not at it's best, the image looks soft and muddy.

The second image has had contrast added to it globally (clarity and darkened blacks) and specifically to the camera body (the brush tool with slightly increase clarity, de hazing and contrast). All of the clarity you see comes from applied contrast. Reasonable sharpness was there, just hidden. The lens actually showed a little more 3D pop than the newer lens it was compared to and slightly unusual (old school) bokeh.

The lesson learned here is; actual sharpness is only part of the story.

Olympus and Panasonic M43 cameras are very satisfying in the sharpness department. What I used to think was pretty good is now base line and exceptional has become the norm. So what? The elusive smoothness I loved from my Canon cameras and the glassiness of the Fuji's, turned out to be less fine detail resolution with contrast increasing perceived sharpness.

The newer raft of sensors are very clear, but Fuji and Canon in particular are aiming for a more holistic quality. What the Olympus cameras can supply is a choice between ridiculous sharpness for it's own sake or a deliberate scaling back, allowing other factors to come forward. The choice is great, it just took me a while to get over the "sharpness at all costs" thinking and use it.

An example of lush smoothness, brilliance and biting sharpness from with an EM5 and 75mm. Yes, you can have it all if you are careful.  

An example of lush smoothness, brilliance and biting sharpness from with an EM5 and 75mm. Yes, you can have it all if you are careful.  

M43 users have a tendency to be a bit defensive of their little sensor, revelling in the many comparisons done, often between full frame and M43 cameras. They usually show little practical difference between the formats in real terms, but we need to stop obsessing and concentrate on the whole process more. It is true, that the gap has been bridged, to the point that M43 users need to look over their shoulder at the surprising 1" sensor pack nipping at their heels, so move on and create with what ever camera is your chosen poison, it does not matter.

What does it mean to me?

When image quality was a far less controllable thing, image makers used all of the short comings of the medium to their advantage. A little movement blur, well crafted grain patterns, controlled colour failure, deliberate cross processing or processing errors and many other stretched technical realities were embraced (I remember first looking at Robert Capa's processing ruined images of the D-Day landings, thinking how he really got emotion and chaos across. I wonder if more perfect images would have had the same impact?).  

EPM2 45mm f1.8 1/20th f8

EPM2 45mm f1.8 1/20th f8

It is a shame that I feel I am running the risk of losing my feel for image imperfectness. The image above was a mistake (a street grab using city landscape settings). It is also my favourite of hundreds taken on my last trip to Melbourne. Ironically, if I had managed to capture it as I intended, it most likely would have become another of my many so-so street images.

On one level, I am grateful for the wonderful quality available now to all of us for relatively little cost, but I am personally at a cross roads. Do I want to loose what is left of my experimental, curious photographer brain, concentration on perfection always or do I need to stop upgrading, settling for my almost perfect cameras, but allowing some small hint of the wonder of miss-takes in. Maybe a compact pushed too hard, a film camera (oh the expense!), use the old manual focus Pen 25mm lens moreor even use a down graded model sometimes, just to keep up the hunger and awareness of how lucky we are.  

I  just sold my EPM2 and kit lens. They are excess to needs and produce much the same images as my other gear. They were basically too good and did not add anything different to my kit. Even cheaper alternatives can lack a point of difference. Maybe I should ?

Sharp images are a thing no doubt.

Sharp images are not the only thing.

 

On Colour and preferences

I have stated before, many times, that I like Canon colour. My early years were spent with Fuji Velvia slide film and then Canon in digital. The transition seemed natural to me. Strong, clean and vibrant colours make my heart sing. Can they go too far? Yes, easily as it turns out, but given the choice between cool and dull or bright and brilliant I will go as for to the latter as is realistic.

Olympus cameras (EM5's in particular) produce strong colours no doubt, but they lacked the depth and mystery I was used to in Canon camera's files and could look a bit dark and dull. Sometimes the very discovery of how the Canon's interpreted colour was a revelation. Deep purples in shadows, cold blues contrasting with warm and "happy" reds, yellows and oranges, lush greens and blues sharing the image almost aggressively. 

Sometimes hard to control, but never dull (let me say though, the RAW files are as flat as flat, but the colours that come out when pushed are what we are talking about).

I experimented with the files from the OMD's over a couple of years, but never really felt that the under layer of colour was there. Sure, if the image started warm and had strong and contrasty colours it could look fantastic, but was it as fathomless as the Canons?

The break through!

The bottom of Lightroom's development panel has a section I had never really looked at. It is the Camera Calibration section. I suppose in hind sight, the hint was in the name.

Camera calibration allows you to fine tune the colour palette of your camera's files to best suit your preferences, by adjusting not the saturation or vibrancy of the surface colours, but the base layer of the colour. It is in effect the ability to but a "tint base" into paint, rather than a "white base".

How do you use the sliders? Well I cannot explain technically (too lazy to find out, I am sure someone can break it down) , but here is what happens. If you push the Blues slider up to about +20-40 saturation, the file gets warmer (highlighting yellows). Not warmer like white balance warm, but it adds contrast and enhances the perception of the yellow/blue difference. If you do the same for the Greens slider, orange and green hues do the same.

The images below are identically processed except the one on the right has +20 green and +40 blue added. The feeling I get is one of more exciting colour, without over saturation or white balance shifts. Contrast and definition seem to be enhanced also.

 

Testing this again with an image I posted the other day (the left one), I only added +15 green and +25 blue to the right image, deepening the skin colour warmth, making the blue jacket stand out and putting some warmth in the dress. The red light in the back ground is also richer and the white/green ones have more colour in them. basically, the shot is snappier, warmer and more pleasant to view. 

The beauty of this control setting is it has the same dramatic, but subtle and natural effect as using the brush tool to sharpen, not the heavy handed global slider.

I have not had much luck with the Red control, but Olympus files are strong their and I also have not played with the hue controls, but with just a little touch in the green and blue channels, the "Canoniness" has come out.

I should say though, that the Pen F is not needing the same treatment. The jpeg's it produces are pretty close to the same, even a bit over the top without care taken. It is the EM5 and the early 12mp sensors in the Pen cameras that need the above work.

On getting off the hamster wheel

Reviews. I have been reading camera and lens reviews for over 30 years. Before digital it was a three pronged attack, camera/film/lens, now it is a different fork, just as pointy,  sensor/lens/ programme, but the rhetoric is still the same;

You will be able take better photos than you do now with camera "X".

You will be able to take (by inference) the same images as photographer "Y" with afore mentioned camera 'cos he uses one.

All previous images are sub par, because they were not taken with super camera "X" (by however small the improvement).

How do they make their case, proving beyond doubt that their conclusions are indisputable? Numbers. Lots of numbers. On graphs, charts and sometimes just floating out there on their own, unqualified. How many of us actually do the following when looking at these numbers; know what they mean technically, know what they mean in relation to other numbers representing other cameras etc. or know what they mean in real terms, in the field and off the printer?

The problem is the language never changes. 

I have been around cameras for a long time. I have seen AF take over from MF, Fuji slowly dominate Kodak (in film) and digital take over from film. Has everything that has come before been for nothing? Is everything from here on only good until the next great thing? Obviously not as the only images that can excite us, the only images that can teach us, are the ones taken on "old" cameras and formats. I would even go far as to say that images taken before the turn of the century, almost all on film, are the most influential available. In fact, I am constantly surprised at how many new books are about old photographs, processes and photographers.

I have purchased 3 or 4 books in the last few months on the photographer's work that inspires me and they are all retrospectives dating back to as long ago as the 1950's. Even new works by the best, most influential and current fine art photographers were more often than not shot on film (example tome Thames and Hudson's Image Makers Image Takers, full of the greats of contemporary fine art photography, very few working exclusively or even at all in digital). 

I will confess my hypocrisy. I have been taken in by the image quality of the Pen F, but not from a numerically quantitive way, but simply "by eye". It has a quality that comes easily to it that I find similar to some older digital cameras and some film images I have used, not something I have never seen before (The EM5's remind me of 35mm and the Pen F of medium format film). It can take an image easily that is in a style I like, but it will not do it better than Canon Full frame cameras or medium format film cameras I have owned or even (likely) good compact cameras of the near future. It simply takes an image I like for reasons different to the ones I also like from the EM5's, Fuji "X" series or various Canons.

Pen F 45mm. The Pen has a "quality is not an issue" look like medium format film had.

Pen F 45mm. The Pen has a "quality is not an issue" look like medium format film had.

EM5 mk1 17mm. An example of the more "organic" look of OMD files. Almost old fashioned film looking, but with added digital smoothness (if you want).

EM5 mk1 17mm. An example of the more "organic" look of OMD files. Almost old fashioned film looking, but with added digital smoothness (if you want).

I am glad I have the pen as it has added another arrow to my quiver, easing some of the limitations my "one look" forced on me, but it has also strengthened my appreciation of the older cameras and their role in the future.

I must admit, I still sometimes childishly bristle at uneducated and often biased statements claiming that bigger sensors and only bigger sensors are capable of high quality results (the same statements were made when they only sported 12mp sensors which was apparently tons of quality when it was all that was available). Even top end compacts can now match pro cameras from only 5-6 years ago in image quality and direct comparison of the much loved Nikon D700 to even an early M43 camera is very revealing. I am not going to defend my weapon of choice, but simply say it is more that enough for me and my image needs and the needs of most others (if not, how did we function in the past?).

We must stop this bland and sterile "quality" hunt, because we are loosing sight of real quality. It is not in the technology. That just lets the ideas out in a form that is close to what we visualise, which in turn is based on our expectations of what any device can realistically produce. Sure there was a time when good quality was not assured (sub 1mp cameras with poor/slow handling and features), but that time is long past and if you stuck with film, your "bar" never changed. The measurable differences between cameras "X" and "Y" are now so slight, that it would be nearly impossible to show them (after judicious processing) on something as simple and as relevant as a large piece of quality printing paper. 

To be able to tell, we must be equipped with better internal measuring devices, perfect memories and blessed with perfect judgement. We are not, so even experts have to compare huge prints, or 200% screen grabs of test charts, just to see the fine differences. Ask yourself which images move you the most, then look at them critically. Are they perfect in every way?

Ironically, one of the articles that caught my eye recently was published by a printing expert why compared prints measured in feet, not inches taken by M43 and full frame cameras. His conclusion was; you can (always) tell the difference if you look hard enough, but that in itself is often self defeating. There will always be a better camera, but often enough camera is close to hand. Keep chasing better and you will never be satisfied, because it will always be coming tomorrow.

The same qualifications, measurements and conclusions are repeated, time after time since the latter part of the last century. Newer is always better and you must have it. Nothing from the past can be considered. Here is an eye opener for you. Grab a copy of American Photo mag or similar from the 1990's. Look at the adds and compare the language, the images and tone to a current add. Rubber stamp copy most likely except in the specific technical terms.

Reason for rant?

A couple of articles on some blogs I follow, who are still falling into the review trap got me un settled. Not gear unsettled, but industry. Fine, talk about cameras, but not in dry, better or worse numerical values. Maybe in more or less suitable to a particular task or what the user liked/disliked. My fault for looking. There are plenty who do review without test values etc, but the reality is, the most visited sites are the number crunching ones.

I ask, when will it stop? Camera makers want to sell cameras, but the industry has reduced itself to comparison of numbers to help qualify more abstract ideas and with anything, when short cuts are taken, they become habits of convenience. I don't think the manufacturers are overly happy about it, but they are dancing to tune of reviewers (The Nikon D5500 is an example of a perfectly good camera with nothing new to offer forced into a world of new is better). 

Why have mobile phones taken over 90% (or more) of photography for the common man? Because they are fun, they show a strong quality increase each generation (like DSLR's a few years ago), they are often enough and they are always with you. 

Camera makers need to give us a reason to buy a better camera. Added complication is not that reason. One thing I passively hate about the Olympus cameras, that I find otherwise so affirming, is their ridiculously over loaded menus. Massive and largely useless feature sets with their need (like all of the others) to offer that "one unique thing" each model. How is it a camera can offer lots of new, but never really get on to of the noted problems of previous models? Problems with button placement and feature depth can often be solved with....less.

I often wonder how much easier teaching photography would be if the camera sold stuck to the basics. Training often requires as much advice about what to turn off/ignore as what to use and how.

Many years ago I sold top end Hi Fi gear. It came in two types. Very simple and beautifully crafted Euro style, sometimes with only 2-3 dials and buttons or the super complicated, all the bells and whistles Japanese monsters with far too many things that can go wrong with them. The Japanese often mimicked the European models in asperations, but could never leave out the swathe of extras that lost the point of the exercise..listening to the music. Guess which type I preferred? Oh for a simple and pure NAD style camera (mobile phone/TV/etc.)! I think it was called the Pentax K1000.

Are there better cameras out there than mine? Technically yes, there always will be, but in proportion to camera history, very few as it turns out.

Are there good images made by less advanced cameras? The majority were.

Are there better photographers out there than me? Oh yeah, lots and lots.

Is there anyone better at being me, where I am am, with my camera than me? No, never.

On being real

I look at a lot of street photography. It is the thing I am most interested in, generally speaking, when I go looking for inspiration.

I am exhausted. Exhausted by clever framing of people in front of well placed signage, oddly composed angels, tricky geometrics, stern third world or homeless people's, portraits, subjects looking down the lens, a little off centre with a crusty wall behind and I am tired of rainy windows, shadows, silhouettes and reflections. I loved these looks when I first saw them*, but that was a while ago and all those that came after just fall flat with me. 

Street photography is a broad and hard to quantify art form, but it must not fall into a sameness that will tarnish it's value.

In my last post, I stated that my "style" was often based on interactions of people. I will go a bit further and say, that my style is actually just humble reality. It is an image that transcends trickery, ignores fads. It is timeless, but of time. I want to see real interactions, not cold abstractions of people glancing off the composition. I want life in it's true form or the beauty of simple things seen honestly, quietly. I want happiness, not despair and I want to see the genuine humour shared by two people, not the observers ironic humour stolen from their actions. I don't think it is necessary to interact personally with my subject, in fact I prefer not to, but I need to see their humanity.

Pen F 17mm

Pen F 17mm

One of the reasons a lot of the huge crop of current street photographers were not included as examples when I posted "On (pre) visualising foundations", is because they do not inspire me to match or better them (once, but not any more!). I don't think I am better than these guys, I just do not see any point in doing what they do as it does not satisfy me. The better exponents of the end of last century and some contemporary artists who quietly observe, understand and treasure their subjects are the ones I respond to, but please, no more copy-cat juxtapositions. 

What am I going to do about it? Try my hardest to ignore these image making habits and see higher than the base grab or the "set and wait" shots, so hungrily hunted by others. I want to see first and foremost the people I am photographing doing real things, not their abstract impression inserted into an environment as tools for humour and/or coincidence. Heaven forbid I do it just to show how clever I am.

This look will not last. It is a style of it's time and destined to be tagged as such. Just like the aged Polaroid look or cartoony HDR it will fade. Apart from that, the simple act of clever, reflex image making is going to take a huge hit soon. When technology nullifies skill**, only subject relevance and respect for that subject will matter. 

There are no cliche's in honesty.

Had enough? Fair cop, me to.

Travel well.

*Saul Leiter, David H Wells, Jan Meisner, Sam Abel etc.

** There are already 6K (18mp) cameras shooting at 30fps and "reversing to the previous # of seconds", buffer capture cameras already available and this only going to become more common. Editing will be the future push.

On finding your voice

I have little to say specifically on how you should (or not), find a style or a look that is identified as you. It is not that I do not believe in a personal style, but i do not believe in forcing or faking it.

Whenever I have touched on the subject, it has always been with the caveat of natural evolution and inspiration as the key.

Basically, you will develop a style or a look, by doing, not by intending to do.

If I look at my own work and try to find something that is mine, not mine only, just mine at the exclusion of other things for me, then I guess it is human interaction, often positive, but not always, in my street images.

I like and am often amused by the coincidental images of wall art framing a foreground person cleverly, or lines ending on one plane and continuing on another, or colours forming strong collisions of shape and the knowing portraits of third world people against a ragged wall but I cannot confess to wanting to emulate them. The thing that constantly draws me and this shows in my image library, is human interaction.

Japan is a great source of inspiration. On our first trip, I must admit to having made many assumptions based on stereo types that were on the whole wrong. As expected the people of Japan are private, polite and respectful, but they are also generous and very demonstrative around friends and family. Even quirky.

Not sure. Flirting? Maybe a bleeding nose (or maybe one on the way)? A failure in many ways due to terrible framing, but a good example.

Not sure. Flirting? Maybe a bleeding nose (or maybe one on the way)? A failure in many ways due to terrible framing, but a good example.

Recurring themes from the first trip to Japan were umbrellas and laughter. On subsequent trips, light hearted and playful images became the norm. The people are affectionate and genuine and this hits a chord with me every time.

Possibly not Japanese, but the theme is the same. The compositional imperative for me was the emotional content. The girls, shoulder craving head came first, then the stronger friends support and later I noticed the contradictory happy face in the back ground to add some irony.

Possibly not Japanese, but the theme is the same. The compositional imperative for me was the emotional content. The girls, shoulder craving head came first, then the stronger friends support and later I noticed the contradictory happy face in the back ground to add some irony.

Even this image, with no overt interaction, hints at other emotional connections, through a positive phone conversation, worry, possibly due to being lost or unsure and a contemplative, controlled and serious face for work. Without these emotions, they are just three (slightly misplaced) visual pillars.

Even this image, with no overt interaction, hints at other emotional connections, through a positive phone conversation, worry, possibly due to being lost or unsure and a contemplative, controlled and serious face for work. Without these emotions, they are just three (slightly misplaced) visual pillars.

Is this limited to Japan? No, of course not, but I have found that different environments force a different dynamic. In Melbourne for example, my images are often based on light and geometry, less about people and I find that irony, even negativity become visual tools. there are exceptions, but the emotion often comes from assumptions and hints rather than being laid bare.

The ease of shooting locally nets a few interactive images. We are more aware of cameras, but are also gentler moving at home. The markets at Evandale and Salamanca in Hobart often give me similar images to Japan, full of "small town" familiarity.

Plenty to laugh about here apparently.

Plenty to laugh about here apparently.

There is interaction at home, even with clothing.

There is interaction at home, even with clothing.

Being a stranger in Japan gives me a naive ability to "steal" away shots without having to understand them. At home I tend to shy away from overt emotional displays as I often find it too intrusive to watch/photograph or, due to my over familiarity, I do not see in the same way the connections the Japanese show.

What ever the reason, happy or sad, loving or not, emotion and connection fuels my eye when shooting street images.

That is my style.

On kit upgrades.

I promised myself I would not be thinking about gear this year. Maybe if I get stuck in, it will go away quickly.

My problem (as I see it), is that my best "work" camera is simply not the camera I want to waste on work, and my work horse cameras are better suited to the street photography I do for myself.

The Pen F is beautiful and clearly designed for street and cultural photography. It's looks must be weighed against the lack of weather proofing and the manufacturing detail is also at odds with the lack of knock around robustness (like a top end SUV, you bought it to use, but really don't want to scratch it). The camera offers smoother low ISO results and about one stop of real improvement over the EM5 in the high ISO range. The electronic shutter also provides a real benefit for landscape work. The biggest improvement for me though is in the jpegs. They are very good and offer the colour palette my main client likes, making work flow and consistency better.

Simply put, it provides the upgrade I would like in file quality for a work camera, but it is a shame to waste it on work. It's like driving my hobby, retro car project to work.

The EM5's on the other hand are the ideal workhorse cameras as there are three of them and they are built to take (and have taken) a knock or two without ruining their average beauty. The silver one probably looks a little cooler with it's scars.

What they are best at photographically for me, is street and travel. The slight file quality increase is mostly irrelevant to this style and the handling/size/speed is fine (the on/off switch under the shooting thumb is better than the left hand dial on the Pen). I also like the old school "film contrast" look they can give and there is the not insignificant factor of street photography damage. The fast and loose style can lead to drops, things banging together and even other peoples aggression. I also connect better with them, probably through familiarity, but I really do find the shutter and feel, more to my liking.

Do I get an EM1 mk2 to add focus tracking and the ruggedness a work camera needs (with the possible benefit of working exclusively in jpegs also) or just use the Pen in the work role and use the OMD's as street shooters?

Can I really justify using the Pen for Portraits and landscape only, EM5's for street/travel and a Mk2 just for "other" work?

Can my work flow incorporate the OMD's more into work without loosing the convenience and quality the Pen offers?

Do I really want to have a surplus Pen and/or 3 redundant OMD's in my kit when the EM1 Mk2 takes over all of their roles?

After a couple of days using the kit extensively, the answer came easily. The Pen is my portrait and landscape camera (as purchased). The look and operation, combined with the primes is perfect. All other duties can be handled by the newer OMD EM5 and the older two for street.

Pen F 45mm at f2.2

Pen F 45mm at f2.2

On (pre) visualising foundations

What do we think of when we photograph? I don't mean the process, but what are the base, the foundations of our expectations when we point a camera at a subject.

Nobody alive became a photographer without some awareness of other images. Every image in our visual history either fades, becoming part of their "culture noise" or they stick and become the louder voices, the voices that drive and inspire them.

Do I know and can I express my "base" to my satisfaction? Not sure. 

The guiding thing(s), that is the first things that come to mind, even before the "composition*" stage of image making and I guess it is probably the root of recognising "connection*", must be the goal of "completion*" and be there before even "concept*", the little flash of base inspiration (that often abandons me when I am nervous) that makes you photograph in the first place is;

Memories of organised, clean perfection of a subject done beautifully.

Here are some of the examples that will come to mind in different circumstances, giving me clear constraints, expectations and I suppose limits. 

Example 1;

The National Geographic, documentary style "real life scene" with perfect light and balanced composition. Always showing real people doing real things, highlighting a time and a place with interaction and perfection in compositional timing, these images are to me the pinnacle of real and relevant photography (as long as their reproduction does not become fanciful). They are what it was always about, capturing history, but with compassion, relevance in place and time and style, avoiding fashions and falsehoods. I tend to prefer colour, often with strong contrast, but there are exceptions. There are many, many examples in my physical and mental library (fewer now that some have come clean about their habit of setting their images up!). Bill Allard's "Benedetta Buccellato", Sam Abell's "Riders from Cornwell Ranch" and Fred Herzog's "Man with Bandage" as well the works of Nathan Benn, Ernst Haas, Peter Turnley, Kate Kirkwood, Ken Tanaka, Saul Leiter and Jan Meisner (etc. etc.). Technical perfection is relevant, but not all important, as the subject should transcend the process, indeed most of my favourites were taken on early colour film.

Only used in comparison because of the colours and feel. Not in the calibre of those mentioned.

Only used in comparison because of the colours and feel. Not in the calibre of those mentioned.

 

Example 2;

The perfect natural, rural or urban, semi abstract, landscape detail. Tightly framed and often black and white and sometimes produced in square format to further constrain cleanly, even rigidly. All of these measures are helping to define harmony in chaos. An example of this would be the works of Adams (especially in colour!), Michael Kenna, Michael Levin, John Sexton or Cole Thompson. Technical competency is important here as every tiny detail will be noticed and it should be.  

Again showing only my weakness in this demanding area. I do not pay anywhere near enough attention to this form, but the images that swim in to my head as I go to compose are surely there to do more than just frustrate!?

Again showing only my weakness in this demanding area. I do not pay anywhere near enough attention to this form, but the images that swim in to my head as I go to compose are surely there to do more than just frustrate!?

Example 3;

Strong, clean, (smooth) sharp images of small, unimportant items that are shown as they are rarely seen. This is anything from simple still life images of real things, to events and some landscapes. They all have one thing in common, they must be real, not studio set ups as these leave me cold, falling into the realm of advertising. These are the considered or "quiet" images, in contrast to the busy, people fuelled images from example 1. Sam Abell's "Straw Hat", "Hagi Japan" and Okefenokee Swamp", Eggleston's "Untitled, Glass in Aeroplane" are some that come to mind when the process starts. Technique is important here, but not extreme technical perfection, as they retain some of the "found" subject feel of the images in example 1, allowing the viewer to pay into the story.

Well, something like this.

Well, something like this.

Nobody's story is the same. This posting has helped me to recognise the real and specific images that come to mind, often automatically (habitually?) and usually unbidden when I choose to take an image. I have found that often the act of taking an image for a client can undo this process as pre conceptions are destined to disappoint, but I think what happens is your image catalogue grows and includes both images from your "love" collection and your "required" collection, allowing a good working compromise. At least I hope this is what happens.

Do these images restrict my growth as a photographer, stereo typing my style or are they all individual stairs in a journey, each supporting the next as I rise? 

*The 4 "C's" highlighted in a previous post.

On my thought processes when choosing lenses for the day

This is going to be an odd post. It is not a lens test, nor advice for choosing the right lens for the job, but rather my own thoughts about a lens when I pick it up and use it. 

These are honest thoughts. As honest as I can be with myself about a crucial part of the creative process. I will rate them from 1 to 5 for results/confidence.

Starting from the wide end.

12-40 f2.8 Pro. This lens leaves me in two minds.                                                                            

If I am using it for landscape work, I have no issues with it what so ever. I know it is a good performer into the corners and across the range and can produce "A" grade images with care. Stopping down is good for depth of field, but not overly necessary for sharpness. The lens post processes well, supplying a feeling of an un moulded image, waiting for finessing. 4.5/4            

Old school sharp and clear, like medium format film.

Old school sharp and clear, like medium format film.

As a work or general lens, I like it at the long end, but have little practical use for the wider end. I have a problem with wide angle lenses, use them sparingly and always feel they add too much clutter to a composition. 17mm (35mm) is my usual wide limit, but you never know when your client will ask for a group shot at close quarters. This lens still gives me the jitters a bit. I feel focus issues are more common with it (feel, don't know for sure), especially on the non firmware updated OMD bodies (yeah, I know..) and the bokeh it displays, pleasant enough for portraiture, exaggerates these misses. It looks to wash out some images when shot into the light, but I may be being harsh. I also feel it is sharper at close distances, but that tends to go for many lenses due to atmospheric conditions etc.  3.5/3.5

Edit. It turns out that the images I have liked most from this lens have been jpegs taken on the Pen F. The built in corrections for the lens look to my eye to be near perfect and I will be using jpeg/RAW files together until I am sure Lightroom can do as good a job as the Olympus engineers.

Sharp, smooth, colourful and good blurring. Nothing to complain about, so why no connection?

Sharp, smooth, colourful and good blurring. Nothing to complain about, so why no connection?

17mm. Great for the job it is designed for.                                                                                        

For street photography, where composition, timing and subject relevance outweigh sheer quality, this lens is ideal. I would like it to be a little better performing across the frame for landscapes, but I am sure I would manage (it's a lot better than my Canon 17-40L). The lens "feels" sharp in it's rendering, especially in the way it's bokeh transitions, a lovely mix of micro contrast snap with good coherence. It's accurate and super fast in focus and smooth in operation and the MF markings are a must for zone focussing. It took a while, but I am more than comfortable with it, indeed it is one of the three lenses (all primes) that I rely on. Part of my need for the above zoom comes from this and the 12mm lens's supposed weaknesses in the corners.   4/4.5

Harmonious and consistent depth of field rendering, even wide open. Notice how the case stands out sharply when you look at it directly, but the out of focus areas still hold their own in harmony with it. This is very old fashioned and competent bokeh rendering, much like many Leica lenses have.

Harmonious and consistent depth of field rendering, even wide open. Notice how the case stands out sharply when you look at it directly, but the out of focus areas still hold their own in harmony with it. This is very old fashioned and competent bokeh rendering, much like many Leica lenses have.

25mm. The must have?                                                                                                                      

This one is a confusing lens. I feel like it should be more than just the stable "nifty fifty". The focal length is just not used much unless I make myself. I often go out with it alone, deliberately trying to become comfortable, even reliant on it, and it tends to be my "one lens" option. I must confess, if I lost it I may not replace it or I may go back to a Leica 25mm that I feel has more character (flaws) and perceived snap (micro contrast), but then I would most likely get the Pana 20mm (but I have the 17mm..oh crap, too confusing). It is very sharp at all apertures (with a little CA wide open), contrasty, has some genuine sparkle and a good close focus, so I should not complain and I even feel the slight regret at selling the Leica is wholly unfounded as the lens has less erratic behaviour. It is most often used as a faster backup for the 12-40 for work or as the fourth and least used lens in my all prime street kit (i.e. not used enough). My wish is to use this lens instead of the 17mm as I feel the 50mm equivalent is more dramatic for street, but the 17mm is so good at getting the image. I do however always use it for night shooting, because of it's contrast and brilliance. I think it is good enough that I would not bother with the 25 f1.2 super lens for 5x as much. 4.5/3.75

A sparkle filled, "glowacious" lens, versatile, capable and....not used as much at it should be.

A sparkle filled, "glowacious" lens, versatile, capable and....not used as much at it should be.

45mm. This is my warm-fuzzy.                                                                                                            

I love this lens. I cannot even say I use the focal length that much, but I love this lens. A bit like the 25mm, the focal length tends to one that I make myself use, but I never regret when I do and it is a no brainer when used with the 17mm on another body for street shooting. If I could only have one portrait lens, this would be it. It shares both the warmth, lush colour and contrast of the 75-300 zoom and the genuine and very grown up sharpness of the better Olympus lenses. I also find the focal length more versatile and cleaner (more decisive) to use than the 25mm, which often leaves me neither close or far enough away. My only wish would be for better close focus like the Panasonic. 4.5/5

Bright, brilliant and lush.

Bright, brilliant and lush.

40-150 Pro. My reliable work horse.                                                                                      

From a rocky start (re boxed and siting at the door for return), this lens has recovered to become my work horse lens. It was originally purchased for landscapes and will regularly do this work, but as a low light tele for sport and stage work it has really come into it's own. The shock of strong CA at the wider end and a strange "fuzzy" softness that shows up in strong light (possibly focus-Bokeh related) are being accepted in light of it's lightning fast AF, overall sharpness and versatility. I do not like the slight "ringlet" bokeh in all circumstances, but that gives me a reason to use my primes. 4/4  

A bit of old school micro contrast at ISO 3200!

A bit of old school micro contrast at ISO 3200!

75mm f1.8 This is my "hot" spot.                                                                                                          

I never regret using this lens. Some say it is a little long to be useful. My wish would be for it to have been slightly longer (100mm f2?), allowing me to get away without the big pro zoom. There is nothing to criticise, except it's habit of making me unsettled with other lenses (like Hi Fi gear, the whole tends to be judged by the possible performance of the strongest, but is limited to the actual performance of the weakest part). The 17mm is supposedly far below it in objective performance, but I think they make a good pair, the 45mm renders quite differently giving me options in look and the 25mm is technically close, often accompanying it as the fast support to my zooms when working. When I tested sharpness against the big zoom at 75mm, it was too close to pick, but the bokeh, speed and size of the 75mm makes it my preferred option. 5/5

Luxury shot with luxury, at f2.

Luxury shot with luxury, at f2.

75-300. The slow poke with some real punch.                                                                                                  

How is it, my cheapest zoom, and nearly my cheapest lens, with such extreme specifications for it's pricing is one of my favourites? it is so cheap that I have sold and re bought it without feeling gutted (a similar story to my 70-200 F4L Canons, I had 3!). It has terrific perceived sharpness and is in real terms very sharp at the short end through to 200mm and pretty good at the long end. It is really long, pulling of shots, I have never been able to do without a monster lens and even though it is slow in aperture, it has good bokeh rendering and beautiful colour. There is not really a weak area in the package except average grade build quality.  4/4.5

Seriously? From a cheap zoom.

Seriously? From a cheap zoom.

14-42 kit (manual zoom type). Not rubbish.

I like this lens. I like that it promises nothing, but delivers plenty. If I am travelling really light, it gives me a decent wide angle to go with the 45mm as the fast long option.

Wide open at the long end, no crop.

Wide open at the long end, no crop.

Lenses are funny things. You buy them intellectually and/or lustfully, but only after using them for a while can you really tell if you like them. I am generally happy with the balance of my kit for the first time in a long time. It is not perfect, but it is probably as close as I can expect from one brand alone (something that I could not do with Canon in 2013, but could do now) and is more than I need really. Unlike my Canon days though, I feel no guilt about my excess as nothing cost more than it should (except maybe the 25mm?), it can all be carried and all lenses deliver.

So, how do I rate them in my head as I go out the door?

Will only leave behind if there is really no use for it (landscape); 75mm.

Will only leave behind if using pro zooms for work/landscape; 17mm and 45mm.

Always taken for work/landscape otherwise left behind; 12-40 and 40-150.

Will leave behind unless needed specifically; 2575-300, 14-42.

 

What could I survive on, if it was just for me?

The 75, 17 and 45 would get me through (and maybe the 25). This is the 1 camera mated to 1 lens kit (Pen F + 17mm, OMDn + 75mm, OMD + 25mm, OMD + 45mm each set up for best use of their respective lens).

 

And what would I buy if money was really no object?

The primo kit would be 12mm Leica, 42.5 Leica, 75 and 300 primes. 

 

 

 

On workflow and software choices

I would like to share my thoughts on sticking to Lightroom, after a year of research and occasional experimentation with other programmes.

Software is now an equal partner in the photographers image making process. Once, your choice of film medium decided whether you would share the image making with a darkroom (black and white) , a lab (print film) or accept the end product as taken (transparency film). There were exceptions, but they were at the pointy end of the business.

Processing is now the second step of an interconnected two step process. If the photographer does not post process, they are either committed to jpeg shooting, which is not impossible given the excellent processing engines now found in most cameras, or they are ignoring the elephant in the room. That elephant is the inescapable fact that a RAW image is designed to be processed. Until processed it is a half baked cake or in film shooters terminology it's a roll of exposed film, without the development choices being made and processing completed.

Sometimes an image is only viable after heavy post processing and sometimes the images only needs the slightest push to be considered finished. If I were to put a numerical value to my images from capture to processing, it would go something like this.

image grade 1. Ouch. Off to the electronic bin. Poorly conceived, executed and deleted on sight.

image grade 2-4. Not a good effort, but maybe the best that I could do at the time. Poor technically, but may have some value after a lot of work. Rarely is the work done and the image is usually dumped after import unless it is an important or unrepeatable file. If the image is worth the effort, requiring Herculean efforts and some out of the box thinking, it may still be bordering on gimmicky effects.

image grade 5-6. Close, but far from perfect. An average image. Good subject matter with some cropping or exposure manipulation to get it close. Post will make something of this, maybe something good.

image grade 8-9. Great subject supported by everything coming together, a good day at the office. This is as good as I can do and is vanishingly rare. Post processing adds icing to the already good cake. 

image grade 10. Never happens. History has provided us with many of these and they are often less than perfect technically. What they do have is context and composition that transcends all other factors.

What post processing must do is bring an image, no matter where it sits in the food chain up to at least a 6. 

My feelings on the difference between Lightroom, Pro 1, DXO (assuming they are well used) is that certain images can vary by maybe a full 1 value, but often it is less and to get that full 1. To get the benefit, all of them must be used in the same work flow. Not practical.

What I found is that work flow is the difference between bothering or not. Lightroom fills me with excitement and anticipation because everything I need, including features I rely on that the others do not offer, is in one place or is a direct plug in to Lightroom. it is a comfort thing, but when I asked myself what could I live without, Lightroom had too many things that I rely on.

Below are some examples with values attributed based purely on my own perceptions.              I obviously don't use this rating system as I go, but if my more abstract thinking was to be numerically graded in retrospect, these numbers feel pretty close.

A poor 2, only saved by the subject matter and the difficulty of returning to the location.  After post I would give it a 6 in the right circumstances, say as part of a series.

As above, a poor grade 3 image, lacking contrast and connection to the subject. After processing, maybe a 6 for effort or to some people, especially on seeing the print an 8.

Lots of promise here, maybe a 4-5. The image is slightly soft, but the framing was the best of a set. After post, a strong 8.

With memories of the American mid 20th century masters in mind, I rated this series as probably a 6 in my head. The resulting images (as a set) probably got a 7 over all. Cliched, but consistent. Good office adornment.  

Part of the above set, but my favourite. the original is a good 6 and I was torn between a colour or mono edit. To fit with the rest, it got the Silver FX treatment and maybe shifted to a 7. 

This one came out of the can with an excited 6 as the capture did not do the actual event justice (I was a second or two late to get the best natural light). The edit jumps it to maybe an 8 and is closer to my perception of the light as I saw it just seconds before. Maybe something between the two images would be better on comparison as the subtlety in the clouds is lost.

What I am getting at here, is that any post processing will add substantially more to an image than the differences between similar programmes. Sometime you will want the noise reduction of DXO, or the in built upload corrections of Pro-1, but if any of these programmes is used to the best of their capacity, then real differences are minimal. Workflow on the other hand is crucial to get right as it directly effects productivity and circumvents future issues.

When reading reviews, I would often find myself screaming at the reviewers comments on one feature or another as they completely overlooked an available fix provided by the programme and focussed on a simple comparison of a single slider. In fairness, most pointed out that there were other options available and an experienced user would know some tricks to get things done, and many stated that any of these programmes would do the job, but blanket statements based on initial upload "looks" were pointless and misleading.

On organising luck

I have a confession.

When shooting street photos, I rely on luck as much as control.

Most street photographers will identify with this, the thrill of everything coming together in layers that cannot be planned, but can be planned for. cameras do not go out and take images themselves, but there is only so much the photographer can do. Like sport photography, you can control the framing, the shutter fire and other creative steps, but not what will happen.

I once wrote a post on the difference between "making and taking" a photo. The two styles both require preparation and practice, but they both also rely on luck to some extent. Sometimes my efforts are rewarded more than others. I used to put this down to just good and bad days or to the results experiments with different gear configurations or technique. I do not know.

These things must have some bearing, but luck comes when I just let it flow.  I honestly cannot say that I have known the results of many of my stronger shots until after a shoot when the are uploaded. I can also say with confidence though, that my compositions have a level of conscious control, being aware of a "middle distance"* view of the elements coming together, forming a balance that triggers an intuitive need to push the shutter button.

Some compositions have hidden additives that make up the extra layer depth that sets them apart, others are very much the sum of their parts, no more, no less. I am getting better over time, so practice is definitely a contributing factor.

Very much deliberate, this is the third in a fast set, that failed to net the decisive composition before one lady dropped her arm. The composition that caught my eye had all three women shading their eyes, but two were obscured. In response to the women converging and loosing the original composition, I rebalanced automatically with the two men on the left. It still kind of works on a basic level, but lacks the clarity of composition needed. 

Very much deliberate, this is the third in a fast set, that failed to net the decisive composition before one lady dropped her arm. The composition that caught my eye had all three women shading their eyes, but two were obscured. In response to the women converging and loosing the original composition, I rebalanced automatically with the two men on the left. It still kind of works on a basic level, but lacks the clarity of composition needed. 

When luck adds the extra element, you must take it humbly. No, you did not fully understand what you had, but you made it happen by controlling everything up to that point. Maybe on some level intuition does add awareness, like the moment you catch a ball. Do you really think about every micro movement that makes up the catch or, just let instinct take over?

This image was captured for pleasing shape the two adults gave to the framing of the girls face, on a morning of better than normal good luck. The T-shirt, adding the extra two sets of eyes looking at the girl, making everyone look as if they are waiting for some profound decision, could not have been planned.

This image was captured for pleasing shape the two adults gave to the framing of the girls face, on a morning of better than normal good luck. The T-shirt, adding the extra two sets of eyes looking at the girl, making everyone look as if they are waiting for some profound decision, could not have been planned.

I believe if a photographer is well organised, always looking for solid compositions and shoots with freedom and instinct, then they will often reap the rewards of any good luck coming their way. I have noticed that if I am a bit rusty, or too excited about my location, there is little the cosmos is willing to supply. It is only when I can relax and simply see in an environment that is rich with subject matter, that the rest falls into place. Self consciousness tends to drop away also when you are in "the zone".

Much as the image above, the line of active people caught my eye, offering possibilities. The timing of the shutter fire was deliberate with the look a dash of luck.

Much as the image above, the line of active people caught my eye, offering possibilities. The timing of the shutter fire was deliberate with the look a dash of luck.

Organisation is partly getting your gear sorted and partly getting your head sorted. If you have a too many things going on at different distances and with different compositional tools (cameras or lenses), you will see lots of images forming, but never get them in time. There is little more unsettling than thinking of images forming in front of and having the extricate a lens from the bottom of a bag, or turn on a camera and change settings. Cap off, hood on, camera on standby and all settings sorted first. Composition and shutter release are all you will get time to do. Think ahead and learn to anticipate what is changing around you.

The best I can do is a camera on a strap (preferably with a flip screen for waist high viewing), a manually pre focussed, 17mm lens and settings that are capable of giving good results with one hand operation and without hesitation. A second body is in my left hand set to centre point AF with a 45 or 75mm attached. I would be lying if I said these can be controlled equally and that my thoughts/vision/attention is truly double barrelled, but as the environment changes I can adapt without loosing flow, using one of my two preferred techniques (close and layered or tight detail). I will sometimes deliberately switch to the other camera/lens combination to look differently at things, but usually I let the world in front of me determine what feels right.

The above images were taken within minutes of each other using the "two cameras" technique. The first is with a 17mm at waist height, using the flip screen to compose, the second is with the left hand body up to the eye using a 75mm and the last, back to the 17mm again. This particular afternoon I had a high success rate, getting over 20 images that I genuinely like. In the tighter side streets, the 17mm ruled, but out on the wider boulevard, honours were even.

You must decide on your own needs, but remember the most important thing. Be able to take your image instantly. If you cannot, you will be limited to slow moving or static subjects or posed images.

* A martial arts term for being calm and seeing all, but nothing specifically, by looking "in the middle distance" between you and what is around you.

On Lightroom practice part 1

Lightroom has become my "all I need" programme. Are there better programmes for certain image manipulations? Yes, absolutely, but there is no programme that I am more comfortable with (not a big computer nerd, I do struggle sometimes), or one that is more complete as a work flow or that overall handles my Olympus files any better.

I thought I might share my work flow with interested readers as I know the learning curve for all of these programmes can be slow and frustration. The things I will talk about will be Olympus biased, but are applicable to all cameras, just a bit differently.

I am not an expert, but get what I want/need out of the programme, always learning as I go. Things marked with an * are often used in a series of presets and applied on import or in batches sometimes after, although I am tending to start from clean, unprocessed images or my "gentle" preset more these days and use the more aggressive pre sets only to try different looks (to add your own preset just process how you want it, then hit the "+" symbol at the top of the presets bar).

From the top, but in the order I use. Note; the surrounding area of the screen around the image is set to black for web processing, but white for print processing, do a right click to change it as suits.

The (Quick) Global controls.

Temperature and Tint. Adjust these as needed, remembering to also use them creatively, not just as correction tools. The cool Fuji look and Canon colour brilliance can be achieved with a very small little bit of blue (but there is a better way).

Colder tones usually do not sit well with viewers, but can add mood and mystery.

 

Exposure and Contrast. The relationship between the exposure, contrast and the more specific tonal controls below them is important. My usual habit with Olympus files is to adjust the finer controls first, using the exp/cont controls to balance these, unless the image is in need of drastic repair.

*Highlight and White controls. I adjust the white control up a bit (+30/50) as this brightens colours and increases vibrancy over all and the Highlight control is then applied to control the blow out (as low as -80). I love the Fuji brilliance and this helps give me that look as opposed to the more natural and muted Olympus highlight look, when appropriate.

*Shadows and Blacks. Like above I tend to drop the Blacks down to increase depth and richness of both the dark regions and colours, compensating by increasing the Shadow control (+20-50), then the Exposure and Contrast is looked at to better balance any inconsistencies. the blacks slider is also a good control for "de hazing" a flat image, but now they have a specific de haze slider. the effects are slightly different however. I find that the combination of the Black and White sliders go a long way to the Canon look/colours I am used to.

The image below has deepened blacks, increased whites, with reduced highlights and a little blue added in camera calibrations (see below).

Clarity, Vibrance and Saturation. These are usually left alone, with the occasional push or pull of the global Clarity control and maybe a +10-20 Saturation as needed. I used to use these more, but prefer to use the brush control or specific colour controls now.

*Split Toning Control. I did not use this much before unless I was doing a mono image, but recently I was shown the benefits of a gentle shadow or highlight tone control to change the density and feel of the image's base colours. warming or cooling down shadows and highlights is one of the more powerful tools when changing the fundamental look of the image, adding depth to the colours. I find Olympus images can sometimes look a bit thin and clean, where Canon often adds depth in highlights. The Canon look benefits from cooler shadows and warmer highlights.

The Precision Controls. These controls are more precise, cleaner and less file intrusive (I.E. better), but more time consuming and harder to use properly.

Tonal Curve. For more precise tonal controls, the tone curve tool can be used, but I find often that the extra effort is not warranted. It is said by Lightroom experts that the Tone curve tool is cleaner and more precise, so if you are wanting the very best, use this and not the global fixes above.

Colo(u)r Sliders. Anything is possible here! Want Canon Reds or Purples, Fuji Skin tones or Olympus Blues, they are all found here. Other side of the same sword though is too much choice. I use a lot of pre sets here, starting with them if I am after a certain look, otherwise adjusting a bit (+/-10-20) is plenty, using both Saturation and Luminance controls in tandem. be aware of the difference though between the camera calibration colour sliders and these. The calibration settings will fundamentally change the base colours, often enough to make the image look like it is from a different camera brand, where the colour sliders allow you to tweak specifics better. Olympus files need little in the way of colour if the above controls are used as the Whites/Blacks/Contrast sliders tend to control colour "pop", but changing one Colour slider can make a huge difference and does not effect other colours. if you want to guarantee the colour you are adjusting is correct, use the little bullseye spot (top left of the colour box) and actually pick the colour out on the image, using the mouse to increase/decrease the setting.

The Brush tool. About now or sometimes earlier I will use the brush tool to increase the "snap" of the image. The brush tool is your ultimate control for very specific, localised manipulation. Noise, clarity and sharpness, saturation and many other features allow very powerful, repeatable and controllable changes. The big advantage of the brush is that it allows editing on an area without forcing the same editing on the rest of the image. Starting with a gentle +05-20 in contrast, clarity, sharpness and a little vibrance (occasionally - exposure also), I will brush over the eye catching parts of an image. It is like a veil has been lifted. I then might do the reverse to less important parts of the image that I want to drop away. This controls the look of DOF (Bokeh), the focal point and increases micro contrast, making small sensor cameras look like full frame ones.

*Lens Corrections and Transform. Rarely used, you know when you need to. The CA control used to be better (easier), but is good enough to get rid of any and all CA that my lenses occasionally cough up. I have started to use the de fringe setting on the brush tool here also as it looks to be stronger and faster.

Sharpening. This is low on the list because it is not often needed with Olympus or Fuji images, is capable of being destructive if over used, is not as good looking as the brush tool and is often not that important to image quality when other manipulations are completed. The sharpening tool is powerful, but easy to get wrong. Less is more. The radius and masking sliders are less well understood, but are the key to natural looking sharpening. Use the Option/Alt key when applying sharpening to help gauge the effect (the screen turns negative grey and highlights just the effected areas). 

Effects. I usually use a touch of vignetting to constrain the edges, but again less is more. if the image is a portrait this is a good emphasising tool.

Camera Calibration. This one is a bit of a revelation to me. When hunting for the secret mixture to get my Olympus files to look like other brands files, I discovered two things. The camera calibration settings, especially the blue saturation slider and split toning colour images controls. these are very powerful on a deeper level than normal manipulations. Increasing the regular red colour slider compared to the red calibration slider is like garnish on a meal as opposed to changing the base recipe. The calibration controls will change the fundamental colour palette of your camera.

The blue slider will add pop to portrait images, by intensifying the contrast between cooler and warmer tones, making the warmer tones look stronger.

The above images are firstly the base image with a preset called "gentle" with only basic noise and sharpening settings, the second image has added blue through the camera calibration slider, notice the added warmth in the skin and finally the blue adjusted only in white balance giving the image an overall cold look.

The above image shows a basic work flow. A preset called "Olympus Bright" was first applied, that generally lightened and brightened the image using more exposure, whiter whites and deeper blacks and adding camera calibration blue with a little sharpening. The brush tool was then used to first, remove some unwanted detail in the shadows that the preset exposed and then it was applied to for extra clarity and contrast to faces. The boy in front looks slightly sharpened by the application of clarity.

Don't be afraid, or ashamed of post processing. It is as much a tool as any camera setting and allows you to show your vision as you want it seen. Where you stop is entirely up to you, but don't think that the path of the purist does anything but sell you and your images short. Even Ansel Adams spent hours in the dark room to perfect his images. Nothing came out of the camera magically perfect.

On Kits

Recently my kit settled down into two supporting outfits, designed to purpose.

Kit 1  

Landscape

Lowe Pro, pro tactic 350 back pack for day trips or an Inverse 100* if using a proper back pack.

Pen F set to (C1) lowest ISO, electronic shutter with delayed, touch release. C2 is set up for high res imaging. This is the ideal for longer lens work so it usually has the 40-150 f2.8 attached. This lens is as sharp as I have at f4-8 through its range and across the frame. The standard collapsable hood is used because of it's convenience when using filters etc. The resulting files are as big and robust as 5D mk2 files, with the bonus of a much gentler shutter release, longer range and lighter weight.

The 12-40 is in the bag or optionally I add;

OMD EM5n (later firmware) set to (myset1) lowest ISO and delayed anti shock which is enough smoothness for the attached 12-40 f2.8. Both lenses have excellent close focus, allowing me to skip a macro lens. This body supplies weather proofing. Myset 2 is set for sport.

ND 10 stop for the 12-40 and ND 6 stop for the long lens, a stepping ring to use them both on the 12-40 and Polarising filters for both lenses. A small TTL flash is added for macro or fill work.

Both cameras have their ideal landscape/tripod work settings set in their custom settings allowing me to set and forget, use other settings and jump back as needed.

My tripod selection these days is a shadow of my past with an incomplete Manfrotto 190/small Gitzo ball head and a light weight Velbon Sherpa, but they are plenty for these gentle little cameras. I am not totally convinced these tripods can do the job in high res mode.

So simple and effective. Note the lack of a macro lens as both lenses have good enough close focus performance.

So simple and effective. Note the lack of a macro lens as both lenses have good enough close focus performance.

*

Work (add to the above)

A Domke F802 satchel and Tenba insert (holds everything!) with or without external matching pouches.

Add a second OMD EM5 in place of the Pen F, the 25 f1.8 and 75 f1.8 lenses and a pair of Yong Nuo flashes with controller for a quick studio option. This OMD is set up for flash (myset1) and sport (myset2) . The 40-150 gets a fixed metal hood to allow it to be "at the ready" and stand on it's own on the ground or in the F802 bag.

Looks a lot, but when loaded the whole rig just looks like a slim lap top bag with full pockets.

Looks a lot, but when loaded the whole rig just looks like a slim lap top bag with full pockets.

Kit 2  

Street

Filson Camera bag (pictured) in winter or Domke F3x in summer, both bags are waxed for weather proofing and there are plenty of other options for this small kit.

EPM-2 with the 17mm f1.8. ISO is either set to automatic with 400-1600 as default range, shutter priority used and the lens set to MF/5 foot. This one is on a 30" Gordy strap as the walking grab shot set up. This camera is small, unassuming, has better shut off's than the other cameras making it hard to bump and the on/off button is on top so all functions can be used by thumb.

OMD EM5 (Silver-less serious looking than black) set (myset1) as above mounted with the 45mm f1.8. This one has a left hand wrist strap and is the candid portrait camera, often using the rear screen at waist height.  

Basic, but effective. The bag is too big, but it is not just for camera gear.

Basic, but effective. The bag is too big, but it is not just for camera gear.

*

Travel (add to the above)

The Tokyo porter (pictured) or Filson bag is used, the Filson for a more travel, less photo or winter trip, the Porter as a summer/street bag. The Porter has a little strap clip to hold the camera's leather strap in place that can also be put on the Domke.

The 75-300 is always taken and the solid 14-42 thrown in as a wide angle option just in case.

Note the small strap clip that holds the camera strap secure and straight. This bag hold heaps, so it is ideal for shopping day trips.

Note the small strap clip that holds the camera strap secure and straight. This bag hold heaps, so it is ideal for shopping day trips.

Too much? probably. The fact is I could function (and have) with either kit for most tasks, but the OMD cameras in particular are a resource I have grown fond of and want good longevity out of. I also like my kits to be set up and ready to go for specific tasks (nothing freaks me out more than pulling a kit together at short notice). The Pen Mini, that cost me $200 S/H is a bonus as each frame it takes, saves me one from the EM5's and the Pen F was bought for a needed feature set. The butchers bill for all of my cameras, with reductions, second hand and swaps is about $4000 au. As for lenses, well, what would I sell? I hate letting good glass go and each has it's place (I just don't carry it all at once).

The future is probably an all purpose EM1 Mk2 to go with the Pen F, but not for awhile.

* The Inverse has it's waist straps removed (unpicked), allowing it to be attached to an actual back pack's waist belt.

** This kit is stored in the pro tactic, which is also used for travelling on a plane as it is an excellent foot rest.

On why autofocus sucks (sometimes)

Got your attention?

Ok, it is a great tool, but like a lot of tools it can be relied on to do things for you when maybe you could or should do them better.

The story of the handsaw.

I used to work in a department store. Part of my job evolved into the planning and implementing of store moves, which sometimes required the modification of fixtures. The problem was, I did not have the qualifications needed to use power tools in the shop and calling in a carpenter to cut a couple of shelves was crazy. When my circular saw and hand drill had to be replaced by a hand saw, hammer and manual screw driver I thought it was a joke, but no. This was the loop hole, no power tools.

It did take me a few tries to get the hang of it, but I got there. Funny thing. No noise complaints, my slight allergy to wood shavings went away and the edges of my melamine shelving cuts did not have that chewed away look (and were often straighter). I was going slower, more carefully and never had to worry about finding power, charging batteries or cutting off my fingers. I became the quiet, calm and measured "Mr Fixit".

Auto focus is similar to the power tool quandary. It was once a curiosity, not taken too seriously. Early advertising was realistic and measured, extolling the benefits of being able to shoot one handed whilst climbing etc, or to help the semi blind or new and untried, but rarely promising to better the speed and accuracy of a practiced photographer. 

Over time this changed as the AF feature became more sure footed. Some exaggerations were caught out, but generally the AF equipped camera could do as promised in skilled hands. Pro's still trusted their own ability first and foremost, seeing AF as another arrow in their quiver, not the whole shebang. The Eos 1 heralded the new age of AF maturity with contributions from Minolta and to a lesser degree Nikon and Pentax. Olympus stuck with MF, as did Leica.

We now live in an age where auto focus is accepted as the first choice for focus, but at what cost to our creativity?

Are we sometimes actually composing images based on the limitations of our focussing options?

My big issue with AF is when you want to use the entire viewing area compositionally, the camera cannot read your mind. The "Canon shuffle" where you see journalists focussing then recomposing then re focussing* is a reality of AF life. To their credit, the makers have been working on fixes for this, like Canon's brilliant, now abandoned "Eye Control", but you can't escape the reality, that truly empathic and creative focus is still a manual thing. You cannot (yet) talk to a machine faster than you can instinctively just do it.

Sure there are times when AF is a boon, like field sports or rodeo images where the speed to just grab anything will effectively get everything important, but not when creativity is key. The images I am talking about are the grab shots of fleeting moments, those that come from deeply immersed viewing and interaction with the subject, where the camera must be an extension of the user, but also completely invisible to them.

A point of focus has to be achieved obviously and the camera makers are coming up with ever more ingenious ways of giving us back control of what we always had control of such as touch screen and moving focus point selection, but are any of these any better than simple look-focus-shoot? Newer Olympus cameras allow you to use a thumb in the back screen while looking through the finder but owning one, I just use manual. It's easier.

5d mk2 35L at f1.4, manually focussed using a laser matte focussing screen fitted (full frame image).

5d mk2 35L at f1.4, manually focussed using a laser matte focussing screen fitted (full frame image).

It does not help that a lot of modern cameras are not providing the minimum requirements for successful manual focus. Most SLR's have screen that show an F4-5.6 view of the world, assuming you want to see more depth of field to see while auto focussing, making manual focus at wider apertures a guessing game. If they offer a screen replacement to assist with MF, it usually comes at the cost of another feature, like accurate AF or view finder brightness. I returned the 5d mk3 when the in built screen could not accurately MF and Canon supplied no option to replace it as they did with the 5D mk2.

One of the biggest frustrations when selling cameras to new users or people coming from older, non/poor AF models, was clearing away the confusion with AF. Metering and exposure are tough enough, but AF is just a nightmare for the new. The OMD, one of my favourite cameras (big surprise), provides the new user with many inventive ways of having a melt down. The options are many, the control options even more prolific and the instruction barely comprehend able (ALL manufacturers have to stop giving people the equivalent of a car users manual in the box and look at providing a "how to drive" manual). Is it any wonder people often prefer their compact cameras!

My OMD's are on centre point, with MF override on the video record button and full time SaF-MF set unless I am shooting street, then they are used in MF, using the zone focus technique. They are not ideal for MF as the screens offer no assistance, but they are better than an SLR as the view can be accurate to the shooting aperture and the depth of field is naturally deeper. The Pen F is a revelation, providing focus peeking (assigned to the front finger button), but I rarely need it, as the eye piece is clearer and larger than the OMD's.

No perfect focus point here, but it was still nice to choose for artistic effect using intuition and emotion rather than technology. The frustration of letting the camera choose, often re choose and then miss all together takes away a lot of the craft. 1Ds mk2 400 f5.6L

No perfect focus point here, but it was still nice to choose for artistic effect using intuition and emotion rather than technology. The frustration of letting the camera choose, often re choose and then miss all together takes away a lot of the craft. 1Ds mk2 400 f5.6L

My perfect manual focus application? A bright full frame SLR or equivalent view finder with a laser matte type screen, allowing the actual focus plane to drift across the area of view and also show (intuit) the Bokeh rendering at the actual taking aperture. The only contender I have used recently was my 5D mk2 with the optional laser matte screen fitted, but without the DOF assist. No "jump up" 100% views, no multi coloured peeking fringe, no little indicators to say you are/are not in focus, tugging at your metaphorical trouser leg like a bored five year old, but a completely non distracting, immersive, clear (read empty) window to the world. Oh and while we are at it, no visible stabiliser motion please!

In a nutshell, I don't like it when the camera's functions distract me from the important part of taking a photo by second guessing me. That is to say, I am more willing to accept my misses than the cameras.

Yeah, so there.

Yeah, so there.

The answer is of course coming. Full time, high res video capture is only a few years away, bringing with it the headache of editing a days capture frame by frame for that odd, probably still rare winning image. Great photographers of the future may just be adventurous watchers and equally patient editors.

* A good trick for SLR shooters and something I miss with the OMD cameras as the needed button is not well placed, is to take AF off the shutter button and place it under the thumb (use the "*" button on Canons). With a little practice you will be focussing and firing as two independent, but linked actions.

On olympus lenses part 3

It is about time I completed my three part Olympus lens overview , finishing with the two pro zooms, the 12-40 f2.8 and the 40-150 f2.8

The 12-40, the talented work horse.

I must admit to still not connecting with this lens, but that is personal, not through any short comings of the lens. Originally bought (mint second hand from a former customer), with an OMD EM5 mk1 body for a very reasonable rate*, the lens sat around a lot waiting for a time to shine. The problem was I do not use wide angle lenses often and as a standard lens it was too big and had stiff competition from my clutch of fast primes. On a full frame camera, f2.8 is a god send, but on M43 it does not easily produce super shallow in depth of field at normal working distances, so it is not as fast as you can regularly get away with using. For M43 shooters, f1.8 is f2.8 with bells on.

I mainly had landscape photography in mind, deciding to use the 75-300 and probably the 60mm macro as the complete kit. When regular photography work started happening, I also had the safety net of a wide angle and a fast working zoom for on the go situations, so it grew another foot as the work horse.   

On a tripod, the zoom is a real bonus. 18mm f7.1

On a tripod, the zoom is a real bonus. 18mm f7.1

Some things that have emerged with regular use. Pekka Podka mentioned in an early review (on his now defunct blog), that the lens was designed differently to earlier 4/3 designs, being less about super fine resolution and more about visual smoothness and sharpness. This lens renders very nicely. The Bokeh is extremely smooth, great for portraiture and the lens sharpens well. At first I was disappointed that the lack of "snap" I was used to from the fast primes, but what was happening I think was I was reacting to the less shallow depth and the smoother rendering. There is nothing wrong with the images this lens produces, even if the 100% views look a little less sharp before processing than the 25 or 75mm. 

OMD 40mm. Turns out this file is a jpeg taken with the Pen F. The auto corrections that the camera adds really add smoothness and snap. Possibly this is the secret.

OMD 40mm. Turns out this file is a jpeg taken with the Pen F. The auto corrections that the camera adds really add smoothness and snap. Possibly this is the secret.

The lens also has a very good close focus feature. Not true macro, it is more than enough for my needs (this is the first time I have not owned a macro lens**)

OMD 40mm. I love the focus drop off this lens offers. Also a jpeg from the Pen F.

OMD 40mm. I love the focus drop off this lens offers. Also a jpeg from the Pen F.

OMD 40mm with a little on camera flash.

OMD 40mm with a little on camera flash.

The lens is better in the corners by reputation than the 12mm f2 and my own tests confirm that it is sharper (especially corners), though different in rendering than the 17mm, about the same as the 25mm at comparable apertures and slightly less contrasty than the 45mm, but still very pleasing. During my testing I did note however, that the visual difference between 40 and 45mm is a lot more than you would think.

The other lens in the mix was the panasonic 12-35 f2.8. I must admit to a soft spot for this lens. I genuinely like to use it and the smaller filter size (58mm) was an attraction, but I picked up both the Olympus and the OMD body for less than the 12-35. Most reviewers are highly complimentary of the two lenses, but the thread I picked up on was, the Panasonic could be the better lens occasionally, but the Olympus was the more consistent through the range, especially in the corners where I need it. Colour and handling consistency were also considerations. Both are excellent, so go with what ever suits.

OMD with Panasonic 12-35 at 12mm f2.8

OMD with Panasonic 12-35 at 12mm f2.8

A final small thing about this lens. They usually have slight inner barrel movement at the front end. Mine does not, but that was just dumb luck as almost all of them have (while selling them it became my obsession to find one that did not, but I had to buy blind to get one!). If your has a small amount of movement, it is normal.

The 40-150 F2.8 the big ol' hunting knife.

I have posted a lot about this lens. Purchased with a wave of good will to all after a time of sickness and a bit of photographic rebirth My normal new gear jitters then went into over drive. Initial tests showed a very sharp lens even when compared to the excellent 75mm. At the same apertures and off centre the two produced test shots that were almost impossible to split. Recovering from illness, I did a shoot with it on an EM5 with original firmware and something went wrong. the images mostly were in focus, but they were overly bright, soft and almost impossible to correct. I nearly returned it, but thought I would give it one last go. Again it produced beautiful, sharp and clear images. The problem came down to lack of practice, old firmware and using unfamiliar gear. Like anything, the more you like and trust what you use, the better your results.

Through a dirty window. 100mm f2.8 OMD

Through a dirty window. 100mm f2.8 OMD

The twin roles it is intended for are indoor stage/sport work and landscapes, offering good wide open and excellent stopped down, edge to edge sharpness.

40mm at F2.8 from my front garden before a thunder storm.

40mm at F2.8 from my front garden before a thunder storm.

150mm f2.8 on a non firmware updated EM5 mk1. Most of this set were in focus using single shot AF aimed at the water just in front of the subject (and with no shooter hesitation). the local paper published some images taken with a D4 and 70-200 f2.8 combo (issued) that look almost identical.

150mm f2.8 on a non firmware updated EM5 mk1. Most of this set were in focus using single shot AF aimed at the water just in front of the subject (and with no shooter hesitation). the local paper published some images taken with a D4 and 70-200 f2.8 combo (issued) that look almost identical.

The focussing of this lens is brilliant. After a 6 day shoot, capturing 200 or more 3 to 10 year olds in class room conditions with no flash used, I had a fail rate of less than 1 in 20 over 2000+ images, and that was using the older OMD's.

At the swimming event above, with little recent practice shooting sport (none with Olympus), it managed sequences of single shot AF grabs. Many of my best images were made using older MF techniques, but I was pleasantly surprised when it pulled off images like the one above.

I am now fully confident with the lens. It has shown the reviewed CA issue in the edges at 40mm. No problem, I have other options if this is to prove an issue. It performs better on the updated EM5 and the Pen F than the older two (really need to get those updates done), but not by a great margin. It will probably be responsible for a drop off in use of the 75mm and the longer zoom from now on.

The CA issue can also be eliminated using Pen F jpegs that show a lot of promise.

I really appreciate it's micro contrast at higher ISO settings. ISO 3200 OMD EM5, 150mm f2.8

I really appreciate it's micro contrast at higher ISO settings. ISO 3200 OMD EM5, 150mm f2.8

Like it's little sibling, it is also very versatile. The spider image below was quickly shot while I was covering the above event. It is heavily cropped, but that only shows the lens's optical prowess. 

OMD 150mm f5.6

OMD 150mm f5.6

The lens has been responsible for the purchase of a new bag due to it's size (but that's never a bad thing!) and the extra weight is noticeable after using light primes or cheap zooms. It feels about the same as my old 70-200 f4L Canon and has the same tight and solid feel. The weather proofing is a bonus, the MF clutch is handy and all operations run smoothly.  I also like the easily retractable hood for landscape filter use, but have a rigid metal screw-in one for every day use. What is not to love?

* In Australia we had a last runout of the special edition EM5 mk1 and 12-40 kit for $999, $150 cheaper at the time than the lens alone. A customer and friend bought one off me, but asked to swap it a month or two later for one of my Fuji XE-1's with 18-55 as he loved the idea of using only jpegs!

** I always owned a macro for close focus (obviously) and for their supreme optics, (I can reel off 9 I owned that come easily to mind) and most were favourite lenses, but no more! I do not need serious macro, just good close focus in the 1/2 to 1/4 life size region. The 12-40 provides this.

So here is me, mr "no zooms here" relying on and happily using a pair of zoom lenses for work and pleasure. 

Late edition.

The 14-42 kit lens. The humble little giver.

Not a lens I purchased on it's own, nor a lens I particularly wanted to own (it was a regift when I traded my mother in laws Pen mini for a compact camera). The 14-42 kit lens (later, non electronic zoom) has been a little surprise packet. I have only used it three times, but each time it has come up with some really usable images. 

At the long end.

At the long end.

This had a little gentle post.

This had a little gentle post.

If the subject is strong enough, the only thing the lens can do is reduce it's power. No problem here.

If the subject is strong enough, the only thing the lens can do is reduce it's power. No problem here.

Luscious colour.

Luscious colour.

Nice bokeh transition and some gentle, old fashioned contrast. The last four images were all taken within 30 minutes of each other.

Nice bokeh transition and some gentle, old fashioned contrast. The last four images were all taken within 30 minutes of each other.

It is not amazing in any way, but it is not rubbish either.

On our reliance on the tech and not ourselves

When you have been around something for a while, you see changes happening. It is inevitable and is what makes our world turn. 

My time with cameras spans from manual focus, manual exposure and manual wind on to now. All of the modern advancements are a boon, but I got along without them fine before.

This was bought home to me two days ago, when I was asked to shoot an indoor, high school swimming event. My first reaction was "I am not equipped for this like I used to be when I used SLR cameras". This is the bugbear hanging over me at the moment. Most mirrorless (any that I have used) have poor (read no) actual focus tracking.

The problem stems from the on sensor contrast detection focussing. The sensor has to be able to see the image formed to focus on it and cannot predict what or where that will be. Phase detection (SLR) auto focus system allows the camera to focus independently of the sensor, so they can literally be shooting one image and focussing the next at the same time. The advantage of contrast detection in mirrorless cameras though is their speed and accuracy, including face detection when acquiring the first focus hit.

Newer mirrorless cameras have advanced here adding phase detection or similar into the mix, but none of mine have it.  

The event went well enough. The OMD with the 75-300 managed plenty of slower moving or distant subjects, even in the poor lighting and the non firmware updated OMD with the 40-150 managed to grab a few good single images of faster, nearer subjects, and I had no trouble with side on subjects who stayed in the same focus plane. Even without focus tracking, the old OMD cameras are still fast at first bite.

Hopefully ok to use this as the subject is as well disguised as your average comic book superhero. Single shot AF aimed at a point in the water just in front of the subject, about the edge of the wake. 

Hopefully ok to use this as the subject is as well disguised as your average comic book superhero. Single shot AF aimed at a point in the water just in front of the subject, about the edge of the wake. 

The big problem was the wastage. It took far too many image to get some good ones. That is mostly down to lack of practice, time constraints, getting the feel of the event and needing to be better organised, but could a better AF tracking camera have helped? The research treadmill started straight away. EM1 mk2, EM1 mk1 with latest firmware (dirt cheap), a Panasonic with their DFD focus or another SLR, just for sport? I noticed some familiar feelings surfacing. Auto focus, no matter how fast or clever cannot read your mind* and it reduces good timing skills to tracking speed and frame rates. Literally anyone with a steady hand and a good enough camera can now shoot field sports. They will get better with practice, but the starting point is "competent". My fear was that relying on AF fully would mean the finishing point would also only be competent.

Lets get back to my steely eyed perceptions of the "good old days".

When I started out I used to hang around with a newspaper photographer who could, at the drop of a hat, shoot the front grill of a moving car, three out of three times with manual focus. It was so quick, I could not ever believe I could learn that and in truth never really did, but I did get a lot quicker. Armed with a motor driven Canon F1n or T90 and Tokina 300 f2.8 (really sharp with a very light focus ring), I could follow a seagull in flight or switch from near to far action pretty quickly and slowly learned to trust my timing and instincts. I new that as long as I practiced with my gear, I could beat any early AF system (at least of any camera I could afford) and got to choose the when and where of the image capture, not leave it up to the randomness of AF. This netted me a front page and several back pages of the local paper and plenty of "show off" images for family and friends. Incidentally, manual exposure control also became an art form at this time. These skills were a necessity of being a capable photographer, not an option for the curious.

Even with an Eos 50D or 1Ds mk2 I preferred to use predominantly MF. The hit and miss magic of AF did not feel like it was me. Sure I was a hobbyist with nothing to loose, but still, my go to was full control. Motor sport, canoeing, football and tennis were all possible with MF. Plenty of great and classic images were taken before AF and that was with the limitation of film.

Nothing beats the feeling of the perfectly timed image, that came down to skill.

A bit over processed, but the original is long gone in the great computer melt down of 2010. 50D and 400 f5.6 manually focussed. Most of the images that day were ok to good, with a few misses and a few crackers and no AF.

A bit over processed, but the original is long gone in the great computer melt down of 2010. 50D and 400 f5.6 manually focussed. Most of the images that day were ok to good, with a few misses and a few crackers and no AF.

So when did I wimp out and decide I needed tracking AF to shoot sport? About the time I switched to M43 and I became aware of the perceived weakness these cameras had with tracking (A lay off from sports photography also helped to muddy my perceptions). I had not needed it before, but suddenly I did not have that safety net. All sports photographers will tell you that practice, timing and "reading the game" are their most important skills. A really fast camera makes some shots possible more often, but the fail rate, even with the latest and greatest is still too high to allow laziness in the photographer.

Will I buy a new camera for sports?

No. The EM5's have tons of legs left, allowing me to practice (without wasting film!) and their very high frame rate is helpful for those must get shots. High school sports are not the toughest assignment I have had, so I will make do.

*Another AF issue is with off centre focus choice. One of the reasons I left SLR's behind was the difficulty of focussing them in the corners using the peripheral of my vision, especially at wide apertures. Most modern focus screens are calibrated for f4-5.6 viewing, assuming AF use. This makes near instant, wide open, edge or corner focus difficult. The Pen comes closest to this with the "up to the eye" rear screen touch focus option, but MF is still the best way.

There is no way intuition for a composition can be added to an AF system except, possibly with eye control AF (Canon again? Anyone else?).

On the return of the jitters and a reality call

The other day I did a little job, photographing a group of 3 and 4 year olds. The job was a bust completely. After 30 images, not one had all of the little sweethearts looking at the lens. Lots of photoshop or a reshoot. 

The worrying thing though was some severe (pink and green) CA in the left lower corner at 40mm f5.6 on the 40-150 pro. How bad? The subjects were in direct sunlight, wearing striped blue and white tops, so the issue will appear here if ever. After post the problem was mostly gone, but it worried me I had a lens that was sub par.

The processing was done, the poor choice of images sent in for rejection and the worry set in. For two days, distracted by thoughts of a lens issue, I attended to other things, but I knew the only answer was to research both the lens and the web for answers.

It turns out that the lens has an issue with CA at 40mm until f8 (thanks slrgear). It is also a little soft in the corners, but not too much and that clears up sooner than f8. My copy may bat above average though as it looks to be only a left corner issue, showing much less CA  and softness in the right corner.

The test.

Setting the OMD to the lower left corner focus point, then the right then the centre, I hand shot the Ricoh camera pictured. Hardly scientific, but field equivalent.

The set of images above are the 40mm setting at f2.8. The first is the uncropped image (processed), the second is the cropped but unprocessed image and the last is the cropped and processed image. The crops are sized to show the real issue at a normal print size (12"x18"), not the 200% micro analysis possible, as this is what matters to me in real terms. You can see it at this size and you can fix it at this size, but equally if you go looking for trouble you can always find. The chair arm is also a great CA torture test. remember this is the worst setting the lens has, 40mm in the corner wide open.

The good news for me is the 70-150 settings, where the lens will earn it's keep are free of the CA issue and to a large extent any sharpness drop off in the corners and the lens is within "reviewed" tolerance. When I first got the lens I compared it's corner performance to the 75mm and found them to very close, but I did not look at the 45mm for comparison. 

F2.8 at 150mm un cropped, unprocessed and gently processed. Note, the "66" is slightly out of focus.

The end result is that, yes there is an issue with the 40mm setting in this corner, but no others and it can be fixed with a bit of global CA and sharpening and/or a little brush work with some CA control, added contrast and clarity. A little annoying, but this focal length is also covered by the excellent 45mm and the 12-40, that is slightly less sharp in the corners at 40mm, but has less CA.

One of the things I find less alluring about zooms is they are much harder to get a handle on than primes. One quick test or a few images with a prime and you have a good idea of it's capabilities. Maybe different focal distances or conditions will show different reactions, but generally the norm will prevail. Zoom lenses add a huge group of variables due to different performance through their range. They are harder to make and harder to design, so variation will be more prevalent and perfection less likely (I think zoom manufacturing consistency is about where primes were 20 years ago), but what do we want. Roger Cicala on the excellent lens rentals blog recently wrote at length on this and my simple finding bear out his points; it is there and it seldom matters.

The two zooms were purchased with landscapes in mind, but are increasingly being used for general work. If needed, the tiny 45mm can be added to the bag for piece of mind or the whole thing can be simply ignored and fixed in post as these things are usually too minor to effect a good image!

Remember, post processing is there and will always be part of the making of a digital image, either in camera or on a computer/device. The need to use it is no less relevant than the desire to use it. 

Another thing to consider is that the high res mode in the Pen F (jpeg version) allows the lens specific corrections in the newer cameras to be applied. Olympus, I am sure have included fixes where able to mitigate these issues. Something to look into.

 

P.S. the same lens was used to shoot the follow up images and they are fine. I am happy that I know more about my lens and what to expect than being blissfully ignorant.

On Why Some Lenses Are So Expensive

Ever wondered why some lenses are a lot bigger, more expensive and often on paper less impressive than other lenses. For example why is one 70-200 mm lens over $2000 and a 55-300 lens can be as cheap as $400? The cheaper lens has a wider and longer range so it stands to reason it would be dearer.....right?

It all has to do with onions! Well "Onion Ring Theory" anyway. 

Onion ring theory (to be honest, up front, not really a thing) states empirically that "each level of complexity (each onion ring out from the middle or base) added to a base formula multiplies the cost and other relevant factors of the item exponentially". Sounds logical, so it needed a name.

Lens designers must compromise with every lens design they make. Some lenses are designed to a price or have a specialised use rather than being more generically useful. Some lenses are "Pro" grade and others just good without being overly showy, or are simple, easily designed and often unchanged in design over long periods. Even if a lens is considered "no holds barred", it will come with other issues such as an extreme price and/or size.

For ease of writing, all lenses focal lengths will be full frame, so you will need to convert to your flavour of crop sensor equivalent.

The first onion ring is the humble 50mm f1.8 or the "nifty" fifty or sometimes the 40mm pancake lens (an old fashioned favourite making a comeback). Their original, more versatile use is a bit out of date on most smaller sensor SLR cameras as they are now a true portrait lens rather than an all rounder on a full frame camera. Always blisteringly sharp (even old ones and cheap ones!), they are so simple in design that size, price and weight are  insignificant. Owning a 50mm f1.8 lens or the like gives the user two things, but takes away one. They are "fast" in maximum aperture, letting in up to 16 times more light down the barrel than a standard zoom and they can provide very shallow depth of field at the same time. What they loose is a zoom function (although they are a great tool for learning composition by moving your feet). The other type of lens in this class is the much maligned standard or "kit" zoom, including the most basic of short telephoto zooms. Optically stable if unexciting, many a modern image maker has kicked a goal or two or started a career with one of these simple wonders.

The second ring introduces the added complication of zooming or making the lens a bit wider or longer in focal length, faster in maximum aperture, wider in zoom range such as the 18-135 or maybe adding close focussing or macro. Sometimes a lens is just optically better. This usually adds substantially to the price, size and weight of the lens and sometimes compromises other features. For example, macro lenses usually only offer f2.8 as their maximum aperture, but in turn many fast portrait lenses have poor close focus capabilities. Some lenses add their own inherent benefits, such as zooms usually having better close focus capabilities than primes, but generally for the extra "onion ring" there is only one benefit offered. 

The third ring is when the lens displays two of the above features. Usually not too crazy, these are the seriously good, but not unfeasibly difficult to make lenses such as the 85 or 28mm f1.8, F2.8 standard pro zooms or the moderately extended range wide angle and long tele zooms . Because the lens is now a premium price bracket and increasingly difficult to make, it is usually better constructed than its cheaper counterparts. Often the best value "semi pro" glass resides here and many brands such as Canon are making lenses such as the excellent 16-35 f4L IS as an option to the dearer 16-35 f2.8L IS.

The fourth ring is the realm of the super lenses. Here the lens can have three or four "rings" of features such as being super wide angle, fast aperture wide and long zooms, long and fast telephotos or just super fast/super sharp wide and short tele primes. Pro build tends to the norm, offering a level of robustness and often weather proofing that matches their high optical talents (and price). Thanks to never ending lens wars, top end zoom lenses have caught up with most regular primes in sharpness (but not maximum aperture and the best primes are still superior in consistency) and lenses unthought of 20 years ago are now readily available. There has even been, thanks to high pixel counts on camera sensors, a push to increase the optics of already good lenses beyond levels seen before. Lenses worthy of mention at this stage are all of the f2.8 pro zooms, the Zeiss and Sigma ART ranges and the very best, long, wide or fast primes from all camera makers.

Note; stabilisers were once considered an "onion ring" of benefit, but are now pretty standard in many lens designs. Makers who put their stabilisers in the camera do however offer this to all lenses where in lens stabilising is not included in many prime lenses.

The thing to remember here is that very good optics are often available in the first to third onion rings. The lesser offerings in many ranges often only compromise lens speed by about one or half of a stop and provide excellent optics in a small, cheap and light package. Some are even better than their dearer stable mates and often with fewer compromises common in more specialised lenses. An f1.8 lens on a Full frame camera will give you the same depth of field as an expensive f1.2 lens on a micro 43 camera and conversely f5.6 on a 17mm (acting as a 35mm in m43) has a lot more depth than f5.6 on a 35mm full frame camera, so also consider the format when working out your lens needs.

The Canon 85 f 1.8 for less than $500 is very sharp, focusses faster than the 85 f1.2L at $2500 and is tiny compared to its "door stopper" cousin. The same goes for the 50mm f1.8 at $149 against the Canon 50 f1.2L at over $2000- the f1.8 is often said to be as sharp or sharper at smaller apertures, but the faster lens has better "Bokeh" and more wow factor.

Some of the very best lenses can be found at reasonable prices also. Olympus and Panasonic are using the smaller M43 sensor size for a variety of reasons, but the first and most important is lens design. The Olympus 75 f1.8 (relatively easy to make well in any format) is equivalent to a 150mm f1.8 on a full frame camera (nearly impossible to make- 135 f1.8 or 200 f2 are the historical maximums). This allows Oly/Pan to create some very powerful lenses without having to break the laws of physics.

Left to right; A first ring 45 f1.8 (the nifty fifty on full frame or short portrait lens of crop format). The second ring (FF), easily corrected and average fast short tele/third ring (CF) fast medium tele 75 f1.8. The second ring 'bit better than basic kit 75-300 F slow zoom (all formats) and the fourth ring 40-150 f2.8 pro grade tele zoom.

Left to right; A first ring 45 f1.8 (the nifty fifty on full frame or short portrait lens of crop format). The second ring (FF), easily corrected and average fast short tele/third ring (CF) fast medium tele 75 f1.8. The second ring 'bit better than basic kit 75-300 F slow zoom (all formats) and the fourth ring 40-150 f2.8 pro grade tele zoom.

A sample kit based on the conventional wisdom for a working pro;

Canon 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 100 f2.8 macro and 70-200 f2.8 "L" series lenses. Cover super wide to short telephoto with a constant f2.8 aperture. Cost $8000 au. approx and weigh about 4kg.

or

Canon 17-40L f4L , 70-200 f4L, 85 f1.8 and/or 135 f2, 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8, and macro extension tubes or two element macro filter. Covers the range just as well and can be one or two stops faster where it is needed with a pancake lens for light street shooting. if used with a crop and full frame body combination it covers 17-300mm. Cost is $3000 au and weight (if all is carried) is 2kg roughly. 

What you choose is of course up to you, but before going nuts and getting the top of the line lenses (people who own these lenses always crow loud and clear that they have the best, but you would to if you just spent $1000's on that wonder of engineering and had nothing to compare to).

On appreciation of the EM5 mk1.

A thank you letter to my EM5's, penned after a photo project involving active young children in natural indoor light with a less than 2% image file fail (exposure/focus) rate.

OMD 12-40 at 40mm f2.8. Still sexy.

OMD 12-40 at 40mm f2.8. Still sexy.

To my trio of giant killing OMD cameras.

I would just like to write and express my appreciation for your loyal and consistent service, your excellent, often surprising image quality and pleasurable user dynamic.

You were the camera's that stopped my revolving door habit of Canon SLR's, my constant second guessing of lenses and the continuing problem of size/weight ratio to performance. You have also allowed me to indulge my second hobby of camera (or not) bag collecting, always accommodating my many choices. 

I love your waist level viewing, stabiliser, small form factor, focus options and quiet shutter. These things make many images possible where they once would have required compromises.

Lightroom likes you and I like Lightroom so processing and work flow is ideal.

You have run cleanly. I have only ever noticed one early dust spot on any of the images made by my 6 Olympus M43 cameras* and that disappeared immediately. (A friend has a D750 that has been cleaned twice a year for two years and that replaced a bad D600!)

Your focus has been ground breaking and speed of operation as good as I have used. There have been some frustrations such as the odd placement of the on/off switch and the lack of a suitable button for taking AF off of the shutter button (a favourite Canon trick), but the fixes for these things are now habitual to me, negating their impact. The one dial top that came off (reattached with some double sided tape) has not happened again and no other dial, button or switch has failed (except the sub par grip that let you down, sorry, but that is gone and forgotten).

Averaging 60,000 frames each so far, I expect the three of you will have another few years left before any of you must be replaced and I promise to retire you respectfully. All that I ask is that you continue to serve me as you have for a while longer.

Is your sensor too small or your depth of field too deep? No, not in real life. How big do I need to print (40" at full frame quality as tested by others is bigger than I need), how shallow is too shallow (every aperture provided is practical to use). Even your high ISO performance is acceptably good (taking into account how seldom it is actually needed with your stabiliser and extra depth of field) even five years after your release.

Praise must also be given to the lenses that support you as they have been the most consistent and reliable group of lenses that I have ever had the pleasure of owning and the reason I initially went down the M43 path. No duds, no odd behaviour, or at least none that could not be put down to the user or fixable with firmware and no "don't go there" settings that most lenses suffer. I must not also forget the petite size they all offer for their focal power. Even my new gear jitters have been calmed. I look forward to next time I use any of them, indeed choosing is the problem. No qualms, no misgivings only anticipation.

Would I look at other brands? Once maybe, but not now. If I play the "what if" game, all roads lead back to you. No other brand has all the answers to the questions I would pose (size, quality for price, consistency of performance, lenses, character and handling). If I had more money, maybe Fuji would be in the bag as an option, but I would bet that as last time, I would rely on the Olympus kit most of the time.

Nikon is flagging world wide, Canon is still a slow thinking leviathan, king of the SLR's now, but for how long is that the pinnacle? Both brands can only offer full frame as a temptation. Sony is too inconsistent with their lens and their cameras have no soul, Pentax is an old favourite, but has much of the thinking of Nikon with the range patchiness of Sony.

Fuji is the most alluring, but really it is only the jpg engine cheat and some of the expensive, too large lenses that tempt. I have been there before. Their Lightroom processing issues, evolving form factor and the disconnect I felt when using them (twice now) have put that to bed.

Panasonic, your running mate is of course always in the mix. Maybe some lenses in the future, or not. Heaven forbid I need video, but if I do, I will look to home first before wandering.

The new leader of the pack (the Pen F) is not in spite of you, but because of you. It to is a seminal camera, the first of it's specification and bound to be a classic. Welcome it as I have as a sign of my commitment to you and your kind. There may be an EM1 Mk2 in the future, but that is simply to fill gaps you were never designed to fill.

On a final note, I do hope you find the JB grips comfortable, as I certainly do.

Thank you again, your grateful owner.

* 3x OMD EM5 Mk1, EPL3 (gifted), EPM 2, Pen F (also GH1, GF3, GF2 Panasonics)