What the EM5 mk1 (the original OMD) has taught me

Coming in to another year and the dawn of another landmark OMD, I have been reflecting on the journey so far with both Olympus and mirrorless.

The EM5 mk1 was enough to get me to abandon a 30 year odyssey with Canon, as well as abandon mirrored cameras all together. The early part of the journey was a little rough. Difficulty getting colour I liked and struggles with the camera’s operation did not dampen my enjoyment enough to cause regret, but there were days…

My EM5’s taught me to process better and to see things from a less “over the top” Canon and Fuji colour perspective to more grounded colour. Perhaps if I had come from Nikon, I would not have felt so out of sorts early on, but The Canon colour palette, for all it’s extravagances is addictive. Fuji only made it worse, until one day, purely out of a need to decide on a single format, I chose M43. This was a brave move at the time, because I did not like the colour out of the EM5 as taken, but through trial and error, I became adept at finessing it to a better place. I now look back at some of my earlier work and am horrified at the over the top colour. With the newer cameras, the base seems to be more neutral and cleaner, but the end product is the same and I am happy my colour addiction has been tamed.

When I push colour now, I have a less biased approach. Olympus colour lacks the “deep tint” base of Canon or Hyper film look of Fuji, but it feels more real.

They allowed me to get off the camera hamster wheel. The EM5 not only looked old school, but it seemed to create a feeling of timelessness for me. It did not hurt that Olympus and Panasonic changed little IQ wise in the following generations, making M43 adherents face the pixel crunch head on. I succumbed to the call of more with the Pen F, then to the performance benefits of a top end camera with the EM1 II, but I still use the EM5’s without fear of their dated images being out classed and irrelevant anytime soon*.

They allowed me to rediscover old techniques I had let go rusty. Yes an EM5 mk1 can shoot sport. Even tough sports like indoor basketball. The EM5 has no ability to focus track, but it does have lightning fast and accurate first acquisition focus and a high frame rate. Ironically the speed and accuracy of the camera’s AF came with increased (actually useable) manual focus operation. SLR cameras come with eye pieces calibrated for AF operation. Their manual focus application is limited to the point of being useless. Later cameras increased this even more, but the EM5 offered manual focus on par with older film cameras. I have also learned to appreciate waist high operation, format change and mono preview. Things that modern SLR’s either lacked or were never previously offered.

They gave me the unaccustomed feeling of total familiarity. My time with digital Canons did have a strong feeling of brand familiarity, but never a deep seated feeling of specific camera familiarity. This is heightened by the immediacy and control the OMD and mirrorless cameras in general offer. I did not ever hang on to any Canon for more than a few years and I tended to have a few slightly different cameras around at once (5DII/50D, 5DII/550D, 550D/450D/1000D etc), so full immersion never came. I had not felt this way since the manual focus film era (F1n, I can still remember it’s heft and solidness and that reassuring mirror slap).

They have taught me humility. They are small and un-assuming, and so are their files. There are few bragging rights other than the “giant killing” reputation they gained in the early days, leading to a slight smugness form their users. Committing to only using these cameras asks the question of sufficiency. Are they enough, what is enough, will others take them seriously, can I take them seriously, what can/can’t they do that my big ‘ol SLR could do? Personally all of these questions have been answered, but i will not claim to days completely free of troubled thoughts. The newer cameras have confirmed and cemented my confidence and there is no substitutive for jus taking images to calm the jitters. When advising others of the merits of the system, I am aways careful to qualify my remarks, as I do with every class of camera.

Still going in their 7th year, all three of my EM5’s are being used regularly. The look they give is unique even amongst Olympus cameras and it is a look I have grown to love.

I will miss them when they are gone.

*Looking at old reviews (a good way of re-loving your old camera), I am reminded just how good the EM5 was when released. Imaging Resource compared it to several cameras with similar or higher specs and even it’s high ISO performance was surprising and I have seen it’s ageing sensor still worthy of comparison to many new cameras in real terms.

Artist as Technician as Artist

Photography is inherently a technical pursuit. Similar to music, you can only truly be free in it’s application when the photographer has enough technical control to ”know what not to play and when not to play it” as Dizzy Gillespie once said. No photographer has to be an expert at all things (although working in a camera shop comes close), but even if highly specialised, the better the skill level, the better the technical application.

Artist on the other hand seem to work best when not hindered by overly complicated processes. This allows them to master their own creative process without too many limits.

As photographers, we need to be aware that the more we obsess about camera gear, the less we achieve.

I speak from personal experience here and would not dare assume others are the same, except that in the job I do, I get to meet lots of technically obsessed photographers and occasionally a few artistically obsessed ones.

Ansell Adams is often cited as one of the more technically competent photographers to come out of last century. He invented processes and terminologies that are still used in the digital age, but he also managed to make his artistic vision come through, almost as .

Brett Weston, a friend and contemporary of Adams was notorious or his intuitive, almost anti-technical processes. He would rib Adams with good natured humour that he could be set up, shoot and pack up before Adams had even finished light metering. Some of his negatives were so bad, his sons (capable photographers themselves) almost destroyed them by mistake when clearing out his estate.

Who was the better artist? That is entirely up to the viewer.

I am personally awed by Adams majestic landscapes and clever nature studies, especially his early colour work, but I am equally aware of Weston’s Pepper images.

Back to the point.

As I have stated before in related posts, the technical side of photography, be it digital of film, is obviously important. It’s importance can be easily over-stated though. The beginning photographer is actually shielded by their technical ignorance. They are free to “point and shoot” and the balance of creativity to technical concerns is well in favour of the former. The steps after this can stifle, rather than release.

Technically sound enough to pass as “fine at”, but a little boring.

As we develop our skills, an awareness that the odd, sometimes contradictory, technical nature of photography can be controlled, allowing us to get closer and closer to the images in our minds eye, spurs us on, but here we reach a tipping point. Everyone is different. We handle learning and growth differently. Some are quick studies of instructional pamphlets, others learn by doing, but the one casualty of technical advancement is often creative freedom. As soon as a parameter is placed on something, it is limited by definition. The artist in us either gives ground to this, assuming the technical side has dominance, or it fights back, breaking through these barriers.

There are plenty of photographers who can spout off facts and figures (it is part of my job), but they are not necessarily as productive as they are knowledgeable. In fact the productivity to knowledge ratio rarely lines up.

I know all too well how easy it is to get caught up in the vortex of comparisons and opinions. It is something I have to fight every day, as close to the industry as I am. I can honestly say, there is not a camera in our shop that is not fully capable of doing what it says on the box and brand preferences aside, I could happily use any (a game I often play is “what would I buy if this was my brand?”). Even the weakest mirrorless or DSLR is better than anything we had 10 years ago in purely technical terms. It always amazes me how a little bad press can make a camera dead wood to the buying public (“Z” Nikon and “R” Canon for example), when it is a technological marvel in it’s own right.

There are no bad cameras, just bad reviews.

Technical control came into the creation of this image twice. The first time was an awareness that the technical side was flawed and ignored (the wrong settings). The second was applying some post processing to retrieve something from an intriguing file. On the bright side, my artistic desire to capture this scene over-rode my technical “brakes” and with some luck, one of my favourite images of the day was captured.

Personally, this has to be a conscious effort to go against the far more comfortable path of conformity. I am plagued by poor memory when trying to learn something I find dry and boring, but blessed with a reasonably good ability to pick things up as I watch them being done or even to self teach*. This also seems to help me dispel hard jargon, to explain things in plain English (how I understand them), which in turn allows me to share concepts easily. It would be easy to hide behind technical terminology making myself seem far cleverer than I am, but that helps no one.

In my day job, I speak to a lot of people at various levels of skill. The key words I look out for, the things that excite me are when the customer talks about their favourite subject, or the prints/books they have made. I am always in awe of someone who creates high art with low gear**. Conversations that come down to pixels, or edge to edge, wide open lens sharpness measurements from site “X” compared to “Y” leave me cold these days. Conversations I enjoy most are about the process of doing, rather than the processes of doing. The reality is, if you cannot get the creative to dominate, the rest does not matter.

Digital photography has made me more productive, so I cannot complain too much, but for a while I let it change me into a math obsessed analyst. The technical side, as much as I feel I need, is fairly straight forward. I will never be a graphic designer, nor a digital artist, but from a purely photographic stance, I am happy enough. I will admit to having an aversion to too much manipulation and trickery, but that was always the case. A darkroom purist, I was never keen to create an overtly fake reality. The trick is in meshing the digital and analogue sciences with the technically agnostic artistic urge.

Think of your artistic side as the performance, the technical side as the support team.

Always let your inner artist lead from the front.

*I have noticed in myself a strong capacity to learn by opening a book to a random point, read it intently then try to fit it into the bigger picture. I quite literally read what catches my eye, no process that I can see, led by intuition only I like to hope. If I read something from the start, the introduction usually puts me to sleep. This may come from years of learning from magazines with their precise and specific short articles, then transitioning to the internet’s short bites.

** I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with a customer who, after looking at her work (massive full-school group portrait images printed A1 size), stated she felt they needed a new camera as the one she had was not up to it any more. On enquiring it was revealed that the tool in question was a 7D. Arrogantly I assumed a 7D Canon, a current pro model at the time, but that the all too common need for an upgrade regardless of actual need had set in. I questioned the need to change, but assumed a full frame was the direction we were heading in. She relented, admitting that the image was always more important than the camera, so instead she asked for a new battery for her trusted war horse, an ancient 7D Minolta! I always try to remember this before making assumptions.

Fighting the square.

Lots of images that I cannot make square, but only because i did not shoot them that way.

USA day car show

A bunch of images taken with the budget 75-300 and EM5.

Window wedding dress

Another square find.

Square secrets

The trick to the square, is to shoot for a square, but (in RAW) have the ability to do slight adjustments in post.

Both of these images were improved with a very slight framing adjustment. Framing in square seems to be easy, but the fact is I think i still have my 4:3 hat on. Neither of them are better un-cropped.

Sensor size, printing and hair splitting

Hi there. Me again, attempting to defuse some of the rhetoric surrounding sensor size and photography myths.

Sensor size is becoming the new “megapixels” selling tool in the camera industry. It is the logical place to be looking for answers, because it is the defining difference between camera formats, lens magnification factors (and depth of field0 and pixel density (not quantity, density).

The old measure, megapixels gave us an equivalent to “cylinders in an engine” measure, but it failed to qualify that with any concept of engine size. many people, persuaded by the industry that it was the only true measure, accepted that a 40mp mobile phone camera was “better” than a 12mp full frame camera. Fair cop. The industry subscribed to that form of comparison, so it copped both edges of the knife.

Now with the development of better and better phones, even they are talking sensor size, because it is the only way they can improve their product in a tangible way and they need to tell us so.

The irony is, it matters less and less as time goes on. The fall-back argument from every sensor format is generally “It is bigger than the one below, therefore more powerful”. All of these companies then state, with some foundation in truth but hypocrisy ignored, that they can effectively match the format above, or even higher in “real” terms (it is funny that Nikon has never made a big deal about the slight size increase they have over Canon, but M43 cops it from both). The reality is, there are really only three true formats that make enough difference to matter. The micro levels in between are close enough that small advances in technology can swing the balance either way at any given point.

An example of this is the EM5 mk1. On release it was good enough to intrigue a lot of disgruntled users of full frame cameras across. It’s giant killing capabilities were, at that time in history, truly ground breaking. D800 or 5D mk2 vs EM5 tests were everywhere and often proved one thing. They proved that even is a sensor is half the size of it’s competitor, it can be found to match or even exceed it if technology, timing and circumstances are right, but just as easily, the tide will turn back again in the favour of the deposed champion.

Taken with an EM5 mk1 and “budget” 45mm lens hand held. This can be enlarged to 20” square and every fine detail scrutinised at far to close a distance. There are cracks that do not even show up until enlarged. I can only guess what a Z7, 5Ds or A7r3 could reproduce in the same situation, but when it was released, this was a revelation for me, a Canon full frame user. A Sony RX100 or Fuji medium format camera would probably match the quality at the same print size, so an even bigger print would be needed to split the field.

For years Canon had an almost 2:1 advantage in pixels over Nikon in full frame cameras, but the Nikon faithful hung in there, then the tables turned, and in reply the Canon legions generally held firm. Most of the movement went in the direction of mirrorless, not chasing pixels but just wanting a change (indeed, many of the mirrorless migrators went down in pixels).

The three format groups are;

Compact camera/Video/most newer mobile phones. These tiny sensors can produce convincing 12x18” prints, but “stress” easily, have too much depth of field to make traditional portraiture viable without gimmicks and cannot handle too much manipulation.

The new 1” sensor super compacts up to full frame (and some future mobiles?). All of these sensors can fool the same viewer with huge prints, in fact it usually takes close scrutiny on a screen to see any difference. Each sub-format has advantages in depth of field, ISO performance etc., over the others and equally has it’s own weaknesses, but at the end of the day, ever since the first 6mp APSC sensors, professionals have been able to function and artists able to impress with these formats. The internet is rife with comparisons between “X” and “Y”, so the proof of the pudding is in the eating. No single format in this range has been able to convincingly win the format wars and the split hairs are getting ever finer. They are all relevant and they are all needed, or they would go the way of true APSC film (a true photo Dodo).

I believe we will be getting some more clarity in this area as the full frame and 1”/M43 segments become more defined, with APSC (except Fuji) becoming largely redundant with Sony/Canon/Nikon/Pentax. These formats have never been taken seriously by these brands. Look at the shelf life of their 7D and D300-500 cameras, covering over a decade between two models, when their full frame cameras can change two to four times over the same period. Add to this the lack-lustre range of smaller format dedicated lenses (20+ years before either made a dedicated 50mm equivalent).

The third format grouping is the medium format or bigger segment. There is a genuine increase in colour depth, pixel pitch and pixel density here and a corresponding decrease in depth of field. Becoming more affordable and eminently more user friendly, they will become the professionals choice in many fields, much as they were in the film era.

Outside of these yawning chasms of size difference, there is still too little between formats to make any real difference.

Can any m43 through FF camera do modern pro work?

Yes.

Can some do some things better than others?

Yes.

Do most people buy more pixels than they need?

Yes.

Do you need to love and trust your camera (what ever form that is) to get the best from it?

Yes.

In others words, don’t sweat the small stuff.

Gear. The more things change....

Lately, my gear has settled really well. Little improvements I desired have effortlessly come to pass, bigger things are promised on the horizon.

Looking back at my kits of the past, I must admit to seeing a pattern. Sometimes the very same gear gets bought, sometimes the same role is filled with similar variations and sometimes an actual improvement, a better application of an old idea is achieved.

For example,

In my “L”/primes only phase my landscape kit looked something like this;

5D body, 24 T/S, 35L, 50 macro (the only sensible one), 100 macro (swapped out for an 85 f1.8 if not doing landscapes), 135L, 200L, 400L, 1.4x extender, 25mm ext tube, filters in three sizes with stepping rings, all stuffed (some how) into a Lowepro Flipside 400. This required a monster tripod (Berlebach, Manfrotto 058) with an even bigger gauge head (029 Manfrotto). Results were mixed, with the 200mm never settling down fully even on the wooden Berlebach tripod.

Pride over common sense 9/10 productivity 4/10

This became a more realistic and sensible* kit, by repeating some past purchases.

5D body, 17-40 f4L, 50 macro, 70-200 f4L, extender, tube, filters in two sizes with stepping rings etc and the 400L as an option. Same bag and tripod, smaller head (the little magnesium 460), but less stuffed, allowing me to carry non photographic items. I still owned the primes, but saved them for more logical applications.

Pride over common sense 7/10 productivity 7/10

Current kit;

Pen F (or EM1 depending on weather), 12-100, filters. This fits in either an Inverse 100 bag or Turnstyle 10 sling. The tripod is a small 190 Manfrotto with Promaster 425 head (no plate required for the Pen F with grip). This also allows the kit to be carried with an expedition back pack not instead of (backup gear included). The lens covers my needs for macro, long, wide and sharp.

Pride over common sense 2/10 productivity 9/10

The results out of each kit were potentially the same, but the consistency of anticipated results got better as I went along. From concept to photo to pack-up with the first kit, could take 2-10 minutes always employing a tripod. With the latest kit 3-5 seconds hand held or 15 seconds to 2-3 minutes with a tripod and filters.

The “five stages of the photographer” cite as (I think) step 2 or 3, the “gear hoarder”. I have repeated this one at least twice, I even think I am in a mini re-run now***. This comes from the feeling that you can now control all elements of a photographic situation as long as you have the wide/close/long/fast/sharp aspects all covered. The gear is king, because the photographer is not yet.

Now here is the thing.

If you were presented with a subject rich photographic environment and any reasonable camera and prime lens combination (from a plastic film camera to a medium format monster) and were asked to exhaust the photographic opportunities within that environment, you probably never could, especially if time was not an issue.

Having more options covered with gear is a false safety net. Just to get anything done photographically, a decision has to be made using your perceptions and drawing from your memory. This is limited and flawed. You are not a computer, so save your sanity, your mind makes the available options limited to those that fit with your acceptance of what makes a good image and habits of the past. The opportunities offered will vary with each subject, but most likely your responses will not.

Preconception of an image, based on experience with your gear and memories of images that inspire you** will usually take over, unless you deliberately choose to experiment and go outside of your comfort zone. If you have a lot of gear, you have a lot of choices to make, but those will likely each become more limited due to option overload. Possibly this means you can work one subject to death with all of the options at hand, so a 10 foot hike may be possible! I used to get untold variety out of a garden we had, but more lenses, less travel is not ideal.

A product of a predictable technique and years of repetition. I could do this over and over using the same lens type, technique and perception of light, but am I missing other opportunities with different approaches? On the other hand, should I leave these up to others to do and stick to what gets results for me? This was taken in a road side bramble bush.

A seasoned photographer who has gone through this process at least once would be able to say (not arrogantly, just realistically), that they could take an image with any lens/camera in any circumstances and possibly even, an image to their liking. They are not saying they would take the best image or even the one they would like to take, but an image none the less, because the available photographic options in any one place, even with only one perspective available are almost unlimited and an experienced shooter should know how to find some with any kit.

As you grow as a photographer, your ability to see images through more lens perspectives will grow, but most likely, your lens needs will become more defined and reduce naturally. Many experienced and specialist image makers can even function with a single lens for an entire photographic situation.

Look at the work of any photographer you admire. Chances are they have limited their gear and technique options, so they can concentrate on the subject. Many of my favourites use a single prime (2-3 at most) and a semi fixed style, to free their senses and in turn their creativity within these limits. They know if they tried to cover every eventuality, they would most likely lose this deeper connection to their creative side.

What would I tell my past self? A 24-105 zoom would do for landscapes, add in a fast 35 and 135 for street and maybe a 300mm for events and all would be done, but that would be cheating!

*Landscape photography is an exception to my own rule of “no zooms because they introduce too many speed reducing variables”. Time is on your side, so heavy cropping and rushed compositions are not needed. This is when a zoom is brilliant. I also never see the value in f2.8 zooms for landscape shooting. The widest aperture will never be used, the quality is the same, but they weight and cost twice as much.

**There is nothing wrong with this, it is all part of the process, but it needs to be recognised for what it is. Ansell Adams coined the phrase “pre-visualisation” to describe the process of deliberately seeing the end product in in your head before taking and processing. Trying to predict out comes. This is not possible if you do not limit variables.

***I think I am in an advanced form of this where I feel I need to cover all of the types of rendering lenses can offer. This includes 3d look, Bokeh and that “indefinable something”.

Wedding day

Meiji Castle wedding. The photography looked to include a cast of many.