The Relative Merits of the EM-1

A colleague was offering to trade my EM-1 for a small kit (EM5 mk2, 3 lenses).

The trade is tempting as the EM1 is over kill for me and puts pressure on me to service it with better lenses (AF speed mainly). The EM5 would give me the basic upgrade from the old work horse cameras, offing electronic shutter and high res, without changing the basic dynamic of my kit (same batteries even).

I have been hard on the EM-1. It takes a lovely image and offers a point of difference.

One area it always surprises me is the quality of it’s jpegs. I am not yet convinced that it has better jpegs than most or that the camera does a better job of processing it’s files than Lightroom.

Top row, RAW with my basic preset

Bottom row jpeg again with a very gentle pre-set.

The naturalness of the sharpening is appealing. Fuji did a brilliant, almost completely invisible job of sharpening on their jpegs, something I was drawn to, but Olympus generally over sharpened and obviously.
The Pen F has sublime RAW files, full of micro detail and contrast, but the jpegs can be a little too “perfect”, almost plasticky.

What the EM1 seems to have is a very good application of all of the Olympus “good stuff’, I guess making the working day of the professional shooter easier. The RAW files do not do it for me. The Pen runs rings around it for very fine detail and the old EM5’s beat it for perceived “snap”, but the noise is better tamed (probably where the resolution difference lies) and the files are smooth-lush, much like Canon files.

EM-1 75-300

I do have a pre-set for jpegs. It is basically a very mild version of my usual treatment (slightly brightened white channel with tamed highlights, slightly deepened black channel with a corresponding highlight boost).

EM-1 12-40

To my mind, the difference is much like the difference between the 12-40 and 12-100 lenses.

The bigger zoom is “hard” sharp, very punishing of imperfect subjects , but rewarding at pixel level if some peeping is going to be a reality. The sharpness seems to defy you viewing too close until you actually hit the pixels. On the Pen it excites me with it’s potential. Compared to the EM-1 and 12-40 it is like shooting a medium format film camera, a little harder to do, but predictably better results.

The smaller zoom is “nicer” if that makes sense. It has a more forgiving nature, great Bokeh and a pleasing gentleness, ideal for general work. On the EM-1 the pair can produce lovely images, especially at normal (not 100% on a screen) distances.

Ironically, the two lenses swapped roles would probably even things out, but the EM-1 suits hand held use and the Pen is better on a tripod.

On the cameras, I really should not ignore the feel the cameras have.

The delicate Pen F, beautifully, but not ruggedly made, makes me feel like driving a new Land Rover in the wilds. I really do not want to scratch the paint work!

The EM-1 is just asking for a tough life.

Melbourne Steel and Glass

Just found a bunch of images I forgot I took of Melbourne last winter. Brisk day, low light, lots of moody reflections and strong contrast. Each one probably deserves a little more room, maybe even printing (especially the middle one), but the “block of blocks” will do.

Stupid Mistakes and Living with them

We all do stupid things, but lately I have really been on form.

First mistake was some kind of massive brain fart. I wanted to take the hood off my 12-100 to change filters. I have not used that lens much and especially not much lately. For some reason I tried to force it off (there is a little release tab on the opposite side to the one I was looking at).

No excuses. The room was dark, I was distracted and a little unfamiliar with the lens. I did not do the really dumb thing and try to force it off without bracing the lens, but I still put way too much pressure on it. To add context, I hate lens movements and wobble. It goes back to the manual focus days where movements = broken.

Since then, the lens is (maybe not?) “rattling” a little more than when I bought it, but I really cannot be sure.

Can I live with that? Well I did it, so I guess I will have to live with it. The 12-40 was purchased to be my walk around lens (no rattles in sight, which is a change from the early production ones), so the 12-100 is really a bag to tripod to bag lens dedicated to fine art/landscapes with it’s mated (married by now) Pen F. The only issue is alignment and performance.

Still dead accurate,

and sublimely, delicately sharp,

even off centre.

The second mistake was discovered when testing the above. I walked outside and discovered my old Ricoh twin lens 35mm camera was left out for 2 days in the weather after the tutorial post about DoF (they really should not let me out without a handler). It was dry, but it’s grape vine ceiling dripped sappy blobs all over the screen and camera top. I never intend to use this camera again for actual photography, but still a disrespectful way to treat an old friend.

These things come in threes, so we will see.

A Lesson in Contrast

I am on record repeatedly as saying the little, budget 75-300 Olympus lens punches well above it’s weight.

Recently, testing for something else, I had a chance to compare it to the 12-100 at the same focal length.

The goos news for me is the perceived sharpness compared to the excellent 12-100 is good (these are 900x700 crops). What stuck me most though was the difference in contrast. The #5 looks to be basically the same in both images, but look at the tarnish marks on the panel. They look like they were shot in different light, but they were not.

The cheap zoom is sharp and pleasant looking and is possibly more contrasty in a basic, more global sense, but you literally do not know what you are missing.

The dearer lens is sharp and very micro-contrasty, rendering the leatherette panel better and revealing the surface tarnish.

Neither is better generally speaking (the reduced micro-contrast lens has it’s uses), but I feel they are well designed to purpose. The 12-100 is for professional landscape and general shooting, the 75-300 is aiming at keeping the serious amateur content.

I checked several images, fiddled with settings and processing, but the difference stayed the difference.

The 12-40 seems to land somewhere in the middle.

It looks like the design of the 12-100 is similar to the excellent 12-60 for the 43 cameras (very high micro contrast and very fine detail).

The 12-40 was designed, as Olympus have stated, to be a little less focussed on fine detail rendering, aiming for a gentler, more pleasant look, probably in response to the sharper sensors they are offering.

The 75-300 is aiming at the more achievable and probably more relevant to a cheap tele, high contrast, but not high micro contrast rendering.

The original from the 12-100 “Mamiya on a bedrock of Trek”!? The tarnish is still visible.

New printer time

There is a new printer in da house.

The lop sided ink usage and limited paper choices of the Pro 9000mk2 finally persuaded me to upgrade to the 10s (actually, the successful clear out of my old cameras gave me some cash to splash, which helped get the ball rolling).

The new machine has several benefits;

It is cheaper to run by at least 30%. The tanks cost $18 au. as opposed to $33 au for the older one. It will also likely use the inks in a more balanced way. The useless Red and Green tanks in the Pro 9000, that make buying full sets of ink a wasted benefit* have been replaced in the newer printers (2 greys in the Pro100 and grey and chroma optimiser in the pro 10).

*I still have 3-4 of each and go through photo magenta and cyan like it is leaking the stuff!

The trusty Pro9000II above, (now relegated to general printing and back up), 10s below on a wheeled trolley and some of my stock pile of 500+ sheets of 12x18 photo rag/fine art matt below. Space is an issue, so the little trolley allows me to function normally when not printing. The mess in front is the ink. Still not gotten around to setting it up yet.

The 10s may print faster (no real issue), but it prints on my favourite fine art matt papers and is archival.

An A2 would have been nice, but realistically A3+ is as big as I would print myself and where would I fit it?

Haiku #56 Bamboo

Example of a Haiku for above.

A message of love

A message of self explained

Waiting silently.

A Note about the Haiku posts and Haiku #54 Kyoto

The Haiku posts are simply a triptych of images that may spark a Haiku like sequence of thoughts. Most have a theme hidden in them (sometimes a title if provided that may hint at that), but it is only relevant to me, so your mileage may vary. The point is for you to create your own, non rhyming, three line poem in the form that inspired them.

Assessing the square a month later

After a month of clearing out my library and applying the square as appropriate, I am starting to feel better about the process, it’s limitations and benefits.

landscape. The square generally suits my style. The semi abstract, tight and neat crops I like are ideal for square. If I were a regular wide angle user, I do not think it would work for me, but as a landscape-portraitist, it is usually better to crop square than not.

The balance of the single tree, sloping lines and tones really fit in the square. In a normal rectangle, this image is too loose.

Semi abstract “found things”. This format and style are made for each other. The chaotic nature of the subject, often perceived as tones, textures or patterns really suit the rigid neatness of the square.

I have always had trouble with this stand of lilies. The square allowed a more ordered and tighter interpretation. I cannot see myself moving away from this style in the short term at least.

Street. This is the odd one out. The reality is, many of my street images look stronger in square, but often they loose the “eye wandering through the frame” images I like to try to capture. This may be because they were not shot this way, but it looks like they just do not swing unless they are effectively portrait images. It looks like I will shoot street 4:3 and crop to match the needs of the image in either 1:1 or 2:1. Either suits.

Tight and to the point.

Maybe more indicative of a man lost in a crowd?

The square is a time proven winner for portraiture, so no issue there.

The Future of the Camera Industry?

Looking at the most recent releases and talk from Nikon, Panasonic and Canon I am even more confident predicting the future camera market. Here is my take on the 3-5 year plans from the big guns and the rest of the markets response to them.

The bottom end.

Phones will effectively eliminate the basic compact market. The few genuine classes (long zoom/1” sensor/under water) will slowly become even more specialised gear as their offer looses popularity (I am not saying they will be irrelevant, just suffer the fate of going up against the more desirable option much as film did with digital). 1” sensor models will become more “real” as this has always been the desire of the designers and customers to have (or have the illusion of) a genuinely capable camera.

The small (smart?) sensor category.

The M43 and 1” sensor category will become a specialised “small” sensor market, appealing most to the hybrid video market, the people stepping up from the limitations of a mobile phone and those who are genuinely conscious of size and field specific benefits of the smaller sensor. The compact camera as we know it will cease to exist, being replaced by these 1”+ sensor cameras. Their design will be varied, almost made to measure. Many (not all) of the limitations of the sensor will be overcome by clever technology, but this very same tech may be also used by the full frame+ category to further enhance their offers.

Olympus

Olympus will continue to offer a valid, though limited alternative to larger sensor cameras. Their choice may well be validated as the other brands go fully into full frame territory at the expense of supporting smaller sensor format (sensor cropping option on a full frame excepted), but they cannot afford to fall behind in any other areas*.

Panasonic

They will split their focus between running second fiddle to Olympus in M43, playing the role of video specialists and with their full frame (+) range where they will have ambitions of knocking off Sony in full frame video. if their S1 takes a chunk of Sony’s market then I see them going heavily that way, but I doubt they will abandon the m43 format in the short or even medium term and even if they do, much of their tech may end up in Olympus cameras anyway.

Fuji

Fuji is the odd one out here, offering something solid on either side of the full frame format. Their medium format offer will likely come down in price to make it more competitive against full frame and their APSC format range will likely add some muscle at the top end of the M43 category, although their sensor tech is often compared to full frame. (Pentax may go the same way).

The next market segment is the Full Frame or bigger group. For the customer in this category, there will never be too much.

Canon

Releasing a full frame mirrorless in the budget category, before they hit us with a pro model, has confirmed to me that they see (have stated in the past as always seeing) crop sensor format as an entry point option only (why the F#%k did they use another mount for their crop sensor mirrorless making it effectively a separate range!).

I can see another 1D model with a mirror, but it will really be a hybrid, with the mirror kept until everyone’s nerves settle. The next will be a full mirrorless. They will probably offer a 1D “C” upgrade without a mirror (why put a mirror in a video camera?) and the following model will merge the two. I will go out on a limb and say there may not be a mirrored 5D again, as their next release will likely be that very camera, but maybe they will feel the need to fight the D850 with a 5Ds/5D cross over in the short term.

Sony

Sony has been conspicuous in their lack lustre support of crop sensor models, aiming them clearly at the vlogger market, so again, I see them continuing as they have with the crop sensor models only as long as there is a perceived need or until full frame pressure from their competition forces then out. They do have a meagre range of crop format glass and full compatibility with their full frame range so it will probably not hurt them to keep one or two models around.

Nikon

Nikon has no showing in smaller mirrorless formats (no, I do not count the stalled V/J 1” models), so to me they will be looking at replacing the D5 with a mirrorless model and try to become the “kings of mirrorless” in their following generation. The D850 is the best full frame (non video specific) camera on the market at the moment, mirror or not, so it will hold them true for a while. Their track record as leaders is poor lately, but maybe the need to ascend will be impetus enough to try and lead rather than follow.

Both Canon and Nikon have release 3 year lens road maps, which is a good sign and each have taken the road of “full frame needs big lenses, but mirrorless can offer better big lenses”, rather than the “mirrorless is always smaller” B.S. they (all full frame makers) have tried to sell. There is a slight chance they will re-invent their 1” cameras to compete in the smaller sensor market, or maybe that will just quietly go and they will try the more conventional 1” compact direction.

Adapters

Adapters will become standard practice. Growth of cross pollinating primary brand and after market lenses, even legacy options will make the adapter the smart option rather than the compromise it is currently seen as.

Lets see how that pans out.

*Personally, I do not think that M43 has run it’s race, but I do think that it is a tipping point. The next stage (advanced tech) needs to be rolled out quickly and efficiently or they will loose precious market share (perceptions are everything).

ed. After a night with Nikon, looking at their “Z” series cameras, I am even more sure of their commitment (they have to really), but less enthusiastic about the cameras themselves. Lovely mount, brilliant lenses, excellent sensors, very well made cameras, but 3 year ago AF performance. They will get there, but it is funny how they can convince themselves they are on track, just like all of us early adopters did a few years back (Fuji X100 anyone?).

Hobart for the Weekend.

Due to a family illness, we spent the week end in Hobart (only just, as it was 97% booked out).

Between hospital visits, we wandered through the city on a lovely, gentle Sunday morning.

Trying to be more discerning, but still binning 80% of the images.

Still unsure about the Em1, over the two days I had resolved to sell it (there is an EM5 kit on offer at work in near unused condition). Re-thinking that at the moment, but it is still a camera that feels out of place in my kit/life (too heavy, too big, faster than I need and uses different batteries, that are not that much better in performance to the Em5’s and require a different charger).

After a couple of days of light shooting I came to several conclusions;

I do not like flip and rotate screens for street. Flip up are better,

The shutter button is fudgy when filed with my thumb at lower angles (but lovely with my normal shooting finger). This is annoying as I often shoot with my left thumb when in close to people.

The batteries are not all they are cracked up to be.

The Em1 and 12-40 are not a comfortable hold for long periods. I am a healthy bloke, but the dead weight of these two for hours on end is a fatiguing distraction. The 2 EM5’s, one on a strap and one in hand are much more comfortable for full day shoots.

Not dealing well with the files (they seem lack-lustre and flat which is me I am sure). They react differently to the Pen F or EM5’s and lack the fine edge snappiness I am used to, but different is good as long as it has it’s use. I feel the files in the other cameras have a strong opinion, where the EM1 files are little more flexible, but maybe more wishy-washy. It took me ages to get control of the Em5’s files, where the Pen’s were just a revelation. The EM1 files make me feel like I am having to come to them again, but differently.

On the good side, the files seem to be pretty robust and noise is well controlled.

AF is better. No misses.