Quick HHHR test

So what do you do on a cold windy day in summer?

Pick up your longest lens, newest camera and try the most unlikely of things.

Hand Held High Res. ISO 400 1/20th F4 300mm (!) lens. Raw, no extra processing from C1. This arrangement was about 20 feet away.

Closer

And closer until pixels are showing.

A different JPEG shot, ISO 1600 1/90th. Basically no noise!!!

One of the reasons I stuck with Olympus, despite it’s possible demise and the possible limited potential growth of the M43 sensor, is the clever tech they are offering now, that may stave off obsolescence* for a while.

Think about the above scenario in Cannon, Sony or Nikon terms;

A hand held 600mm f4 with 2 stops less depth of field, that costs $10,000au+ mounted on a 45+ mp camera (another $5,000au +), at 1/20th ISO 400? A lot of money for a cute exercise in Bokeh management. Up the ISO to engage the Full Frame advantage (and mitigate it’s disadvantages) and the HHHR may still beat it for noise!

HHHR is a likely candidate for indoor group portraits. The higher ISO will effectively triple available lighting** power, which when added to the DoF benefit I have with M43 (2.8 being equal to 5.6 full frame) gains another two stops, giving me a 4-5 stop advantage over a full frame rig.

In the right circumstances I will have both better ISO noise control and higher resolution than some of the best cameras on the market, all for a dirt cheap $2500au total (EM1x Black Friday special and any decent standard lens). To top it off, I then have a top tier sports camera to boot.

With some light processing to the RAW. Loving C1!

*Real world obsolescence, not reviewer scorn.

**No flash in HR modes as it cannot fire with multiple captures, so LED’s or ambient will have to be it.

Gear Retrospective Or An "In The Bag"

After a short year of working in a professional environment with M43 gear, I feel like doing an “In the Bag” style recap of what has worked and what has not.

Personally I have always loved these, usually found in magazines, since I started this journey (in the ‘80’s) and find the little details are sometimes the one thing you the reader may want to know, or not.

Cameras

EM1 Mk2 (x2)

Love the AF (even original firmware). For someone who has shied away from completely trusting AF, Olympus/M43 first opened my eyes to the potential of amazing one-shot speed and accuracy. When I tentatively dipped my toe into the full AF tracking world, even with a lens only slightly better than a kit lens (see below) and an older firmware prime (75), I was not expecting such a high hit to miss ratio.

Excuse the hurried images, not my best work. The Front Row including the new EM1x.

If you get yourself sorted, it gets the job done almost flawlessly. I now have a new body with 3.0 firmware, which seems to be more sure footed again and on a par with the EM1x that arrived this week. Combine these with the 40-150 and the new 300 F4 Pro and I am looking forward to an even more exciting year.

EM10 Mk2 (x2)

My “shutter savers”, picked up new on clearance for $700au total. Each time I push the button on one of these, used primarily for lower stress situations, it saves a wasted frame from a more powerful camera. They are fast, accurate and pleasant to use. If they take 100k shots between them, they have paid for themselves over and over.

I like to use them in classrooms or for social events, where the smaller form factor tends to relax people and the gentle shutter is quiet enough if the electronic one is not practical. I would love it if the electronic shutter was usable at higher than ISO 1000, but that is really all. Add a nice prime for a perfect combination.

My intention is to keep adding cheap 10, 5 series or mid-range Panasonic bodies as fillers over the next few years, again to save unwarranted use of 1 series bodies.

Pen F

This one is really kept for personal use, but it is wheeled out when I am doing a portrait specific job. There is something about this camera and a 45 or 75mm lenses. It’s just magic. I do believe it takes the sharpest files I can produce at lower ISO’s (EM1x not yet compared), but there is something more. It’s like this is the ultimate iteration of the original OMD’s sensor (probably down to having no phase detection on sensor).

EM5’s (2 ok, 2 a bit dodgy) and Pen Mini

It is truly a luxury when you can claim to have 5 older cameras lying around for personal projects, but that is the benefit of choosing to flog older cameras to death rather than off loading them earlier.

Effectively worthless now and all nursing one issue or another, they have earned their semi retirement. If we get to go to Japan again soonish, I will be tempted to use them one last time, but if not, the last five years of trips there with these little cameras can reach a logical and fitting end point.

The front two are still useful, the rear ones a little “twitchy” and the Pen, a street favourite as no-one takes it seriously, is hardly used (in comparison). The middle one is the most trustworthy, but lost a strap lug, surviving a 3 foot fall! The original silver one is on my 60” Gordie strap.

It is amazing to me how often they still produce the goods. On a couple of recent jobs where the second body was not necessary or was in one case effectively a sacrificial option while climbing, they got a go and have actually taken the best files on the day. Truth be told, if they weren’t so old and twitchy I would use them even more.

Lenses

Primes (4 or 5 if you count my second 45)

The f1.8 primes covering 17, 25, 45 and 75 (35-150 equiv), are reserved for low light or shallow depth of field as necessary. The 45 and 75mm’s get the most use, but the 25 is starting to get more as I am reminded of it’s specialness each time I use it. To be honest, there are times when only these lenses will do the job. I am often restricted to silent shutter, no flash available light indoor work and these lenses used wide open (remember that is equal to f2.8 on a full frame), give me sharp, accurate and beautiful results.

The only one that does not get much use is ironically my favourite lens for personal use, the 17mm.

My only real failure this last year was a series of shots taken in a large school gym at an awards ceremony, where a combination of bad backlight light, an older EM5 and the 17mm created some files I would only show as decent black and whites, due to fringing, muddiness and poor colour.

Notice the lack of original hoods. Cheap ebay metal ones are way better and way cheaper.

The Pro Zooms (2)

The 12-40 and 40-150 are my work horse lenses. Where would I be without them? Probably not working as a successful photographer. The longer lens in particular, the one I procrastinated about buying back is just getting better and better for me the more I use it. I miss the 12-100 I sold at a low point, simply because it was a cracker simply because it was a good lens, but getting the 40-150 back has made all the difference.

I have only used it once, but the recently added 8-18 looks like a winner, giving me a wider range and a good standard back up to the 12-40.

Oh look, two has turned into three and a super tele! Only one ringer hood here, which is sometimes used inside the collapsible one for handling convenience and internal reinforcement for the original.

The Other Zooms (3)

The 75-300 has done me (and Olympus) proud. That lens effectively carried the can for me for all outdoor sports, performing better than I thought it should. The EM1 mk2 with it (both early firmware) caught more than they missed, occasionally fighting failing light and poor weather. I have moved up in the world, but the little 75-300 will still be grabbed confidently on those occasions when the big bruisers are not needed.

The two kit lenses, good enough that I would happily do a paid job with them (in decent light), have paid for themselves many times over. Reserved for travel, gear dangerous jobs or for packing light, both can mix it with the best when used sensibly. I will use them until they break, which may be longer than I expect.

More cheapo hoods.

Bags (7, because no bag is perfect)

The Domke F802 is my main bag. It will take two lens mounted cameras (any combination without battery grips), several more lenses and any amount of accessories in the two huge pockets and optional pouches. On my review page, this bag shows how it not only swallows gear, but rides well also.

The Filson Field Camera Bag. I love this bag, but I use it sparingly. When full it tends to sag in the middle, making it difficult to extricate gear. It is often worn when only small kits are needed.

The Filson Field Bag. Not strictly a camera bag, this one is my “dressy” bag. The capacity is fine and it is practical enough (pockets are small but secure), that when working “gear out” it makes a comfortable and ignorable extras holder.

The Domke F2 Original. My wife hates this bag and I must admit, it is looking a little ratty, but I cannot deny, when nothing else works, I go to the F2. It is especially good for bulky rigs like a camera with flash and modifier fitted or camera with grip and long lens. Like the F802, it has generous pockets and seems to hold a serious amount of kit with a reinforced base (no sag).

The Domke F3x Rugged. This one has a dual role as my “hip hugging” low profile bag or best weather proof option. I have several bags that are weather proof, but I trust this greasy skinned one the most. I felt that it’s big SLR and lens holding design had lost relevance, but it has proven otherwise.

Think Tank Turnstyle 10. This is my sports bag. I arrive camera and lens in hand, with my second option and accessories in the TT, which is my most “invisible” bag. It can hold a small kit, I Pad and lots of bits, which still surprises me. I almost grabbed a TT 20L recently, but may hold off as the design seems to make the most sense smaller, other bags doing the bigger way better, but we will see.

Low Pro Pro Tactic 350 (original). I have a love-hate relationship with this one. This is my “getting there” bag especially useful for aircraft travel. The rigid body makes it a good head or foot rest, a useful lens support when lying down and it holds bigger lenses safely on or off camera (as well as pottery purchased while travelling).

I have never found it very comfortable (maybe it’s too small), but it is just barely more comfortable than other options so it has had a stay of execution a few times. This one is still up for review as I find it is a little small, especially with the new tele, so a bigger Neewer heavy duty back pack (a bargain at $80au) that gets great reviews is on order to replace it. I will keep the Pro Tactic for travel haulage. The Neewer came up in some comparison videos with Flipside 400 Lowepro’s and the like and did well as well as one review that pretty much proved it was the same as a 3x dearer Polarpro model.

Other Stuff

My various tripods have had no use. Who knew. I will investigate this though as I feel that separation from the camera while organising people is a good thing.

My extensive, but not expensive Yong Nuo based lighting kit is itching for a another go after the school ball and I intend to use it whenever I can. Batteries have been an issue, so I bit the bullet and ordered some Eneloop Pro cells (30) and charger.

The TTL Godex has proven useful and I do need to use it more often, but old habits….

If I get more call for heavy jobs I will invest in either Godex 60w, Neewer 960 LED wall/batt powered or Godox AD200 portable lights. Ed. turned into an 860 Godox and Neewer 660 LED.

Basic cards have done fine so far (the benefit of not shooting video).

My intention this year is to be far more organised.

Better card discipline, 2 16gb cards per day marked “Monday, Tuesday etc. which are only cleared the next week and stored in one of those 7 day pill organisers, which will fix my perilous daily scramble for a clean card. A set of older “spare” cards always carried and 4 high speed sports/video cards. I rarely need speed for most work, even sports as I try not to blaze away with massive bursts, relying more on timing, so basic 16gb U1 cards are fine and dirt cheap.

A charging station (done) has already fixed the multiple dead battery embarrassment I suffered once.

Finally, some work on my processing work flow. This includes introducing Capture 1 pro and expanding my Dropbox storage, both sorely needed and will likely be the most beneficial changes made this year.

The looming year of the Ox is unforgiving of the disorganised and unfocussed, so I will be more diligent than usual.

My Core Work Kit

On any given day, my likely kit will be;

EM1 Mk2 (no grip) and 2 batts for longer lenses (EM1x if low light),

EM10 Mk2 (hand grip) and 2 batts for shorter lenses,

1 card for each (see above), with a set of reserves,

12-40 or 8-18 depending on potential width needed,

40-150 Pro or 40-150 kit or 75-300 depending on light and reach needed,

75 and 45 or 25 portrait lenses always,

Godox 860 flash, 176 LED, Godox off camera controller, mini tripod, flash small reflector & flagging foam

All packed easily into my F802.

or

For sport;

EM1x and 300 F4 (outdoor) or 75 (indoor)

EM1 Mk2 with grip and 40-150 or 75-300 or other depending on subject.

12-40 or 8-18 as needed,

faster cards, lots of batts.

Carried in a Neewer Back pack or TT Turnstyle 10 with EM1x out if no travel is required.

EM1x Angst Solved By Capture 1 Bliss?

So I have an EM1x. Lovely camera, so far poor files.

Lightroom (updated as far as it will go on my 7yr old Mac) will not open the RAW files and the JPEG’s so far have left me with mixed feelings. ACR will open them, but that adds a another level of annoyance to the process.

When choosing where to put my money recently, I made a lot of choices based on blind processing assumptions, although I did question that occasionally, I failed to follow through until my hand is now forced, well after the choice was made. Fuji and FF Canon both had a look in, but I stuck with Olympus/M43, placing faith in the system that got me here in the first place. The major issue was noise, which I felt confident the EM1x would reduce slightly, even if jpegs had to be used. I spent too much time ignoring my little voice that was saying “the camera system is not the only factor here”.

For a while I have been feeling that maybe Adobe alone is not the best fit for my Olympus system. Too much noise at even base ISO, and sometimes just flat-mushy higher ISO files. This is a good thing though, as processing is a modifiable step, not a technical foundation such as a poor sensor or format choice.

Time to look at the options.

The two that floated to the top (as usual) are DXO Lab 4 (winner for best noise reduction) and Capture One 21 (better base RAW conversions, but similar workflow to a Photoshop/Lightroom love child (looks like a built in layers option to a Lightroom work flow).

I am trialling C1 first, with a likely option of DXO for higher ISO noise (or not) and NIK suite for options.

Elusive little bugger, the EM1x at it’s best.

Basic import with a layer (brush) of some more clarity and some global shadow work. This is beyond print sharpening needs and over-done (trying to find the file again to re-work it :) ), but it’s a finer rendering regardless. From a slightly underexposed ISO 400 RAW file, no noise at all with no noise reduction used. Wow.

Ok. I am just getting the feel for it (used it for 10 mins and I am a computer dummy), but already I feel like I have upgraded my whole kit, even my perspective on quality.

Is my 300mm sharp?

You betcha, I can finally breathe easily there.

Is the EM1x or any Olympus camera capable of sharp, noiseless files at regular ISO’s?

You betcha, up to 800 as standard.

How about sharp and clean files at ISO 3200+?

Looks like!

The natural looking noise is closer to bigger sensor camera rendering in Lightroom (almost identical to some ISO 6400 test files I made in Lightroom with a D610 Nikon). The noise is there, but smoothed and natural looking. The odd colouring in the in focus portion of the image below is my poor processing.

Quick observations. It seems to be a “sharper knife” than Lightroom, with more and more refined tools to use. I could not find Noise reduction, so I right clicked on the tool bar and 30+ more options appeared, including the Library organiser!

Some tools are the same, some better (halo suppression in sharpening that I noticed too late to fix the above!) and some exist where they did not in Lightroom. I am looking for something I will miss, but so far….

A cleaner and more natural version than the Lightroom one.

Now all I need to be truly happy, is a similar work flow, which it looks like they have when I can work the catalogue out. The free 766 page manual is….helpful!?

Olympus Till I Die! (well...mostly)

I started a gear retrospective the other day, you know a “what works and what doesn’t” look at the last half year, for me and others to learn from.

Before that though, some new stuff has entered the stables.

EM1x. The second EM1 mk2 was to be the specialised sports camera, freeing up the older one (hardly broken in yet) to be my work horse for low light and fast shooting day to day. An EM1 and a lesser camera (EM5 mk1 or EM10 mk2) are fine for most things, but I felt thin in the top end for sports or major events.

Buying the EM1x effectively doubles the life of my kit and adds further useful features such as hand held high res (including very good noise control) and learning AF. Hopefully there will be a slight step up in JPEG quality for high volume work*. It also represents a commitment to Olympus and M43.

So far I am semi impressed by the JPEG’s, but very impressed by the camera on the whole.

The thing is a beast!

Faster in all ways (menu and button navigation, as well as shooting), slightly bigger and definitely more solid feeling, it weighs surprisingly little in the hand.

*

The 300 f4 (with 1.4 teleconverter).

This is a handful in more ways than one.

So far I have had mixed success with it, for which I will take the lions share of responsibility, but also the lens I bought was the demo one from where I worked, so the firmware is out of date. It looks like there have been at least two more updates, both mentioning AF speed and accuracy.

At first I thought I had a dud (only looking in front of the camera, not behind!). Fast shutter speeds, but not fast enough and poor placement gave me a patchy return from a short stint at the Cricket. The files were soft and “blotchy”. Part of this may be the lens-focus, but part the camera’s settings (new camera in JPEG).

The EM1x and 300 are meant to be my ace team, but nothing much good came from it first time out.

Testing time. I won’t bore you with all of the files, but I am satisfied it is as sharp as any lens I have and noticeably sharper than the excellent 75-300 at 300 (where it is needed). For the files below I used the tried and true EM5 mk1 in Lightroom because I just know what to expect.

The next day, I repeated the same process at the cricket with the same results (definition of stupid comes to mind). Then I changed my shooting angle. No longer was I chasing a fast front on image, but following a wider target side on. Success! Lots of keepers (some I can show below as there are no student faces).

Every bowler, batsman and the keeper were well represented, including a catch (bottom), a bowled (top set) 2 stumpings (1 in the second set below) and a run out. I cannot show the bowling images due to faces showing, but they are sharp and crisp with a gorgeous flattened, but layered look.

What I do know though, is it is hard to use well. AF is going to have to be top tier as well as technique. The depth of field at 300 f4 (600 f8 equiv) or 420 f5.6 (840 f11) is very shallow especially at small bird distances.

Bokeh is a little busy and even acting as a 600mm it is still only a 300mm in FF terms so background separation is not going to be as buttery as a full frame combo (which I cannot justify and do not need), but it is clearly better than the 300 f6.7 I have been using.

No room for error, especially at close range.

So far the files are very good on the eye, crisp and brilliant, especially after a light touch with the clarity brush. To be honest they are more than is needed for school reproduction work. I would like them better still and more consistent, but that is going to needed some firmware updates and fine tuning. I would have no issue cropping the JPEG files heavily or blowing them up big.

The teleconverter at the moment is only exaggerating my issues with the big lens, especially AF (and makes it too long for most applications), but it sits well with the 40-150, which I am beginning to really love as a pairing. This gives me a genuine 400 f4 equiv, filling the gap between the two lenses.

All of the left hand files below are the 40-150 with TC vs the 300mm on the right showing the difference in reach, contrast and sharpness (nearly identical). The final shot is to show it is not just good up close (the trampoline is in our next door neighbour’s yard).

Notice how quickly the DoF falls away in the top image from the 300mm.

First up, I am not a birder.

The images below were from a walk this morning with the EM1x (JPEG) and 300 with converter (840mm eq). Hard combo to use, surprisingly quite often too long, but comfortable to carry. I had about a 10% success rate, often missing shots I felt I had due to very shallow depth.

On close inspection, I do not like the JPEG harshness and crunchy noise reduction except at high ISO’s where it is much the same and better than RAW’s, so it looks like RAW still for the very best quality, although for many applications, that will only bother me.

Something I have to get used to is the different dynamic. My 75-300 would sometimes pull off some real Hail Mary shots, but the shallower depth of this lens gives me little room for error, even with all the help it gives.

*

The Panasonic-Leica 8-18.

This one is my one ringer. Had to happen eventually.

It is such a practical choice compared to the Olympus 7-14, that it just had to be. It takes 67mm filters, not a “rig” of expensive square ones, it is about the same size as the 12-40 (with metal hood) and it covers both super wide (rarely used, but occasionally mandatory), but also a decent standard wide 18mm (36mm FF). I felt a little thin in both these areas with only the 12-40, so some overlap is comforting.

This lens was not bought because I wanted it, but because I felt I should round off my options, but I can already feel it will be a favourite. It also does not hurt that it offers a slightly different colour palette and contrast.

Wouldn’t you know it, the first day I had it, I needed “as wide as you can go”, so my rarely listened to little voice saved me. It is sharp and pleasant to use, as long as you remember to zoom the right (wrong) way.

*Turns out I shot the bulk of the big end of year event in L/SF JPEG by mistake on the newer EM1 mk2 with 3.0 firmware. They are good enough that no one, including myself noticed at first.

Balance and Predictions

Making decisions can be tough. It is a first world problem I know. I am lucky enough to be able make choices, which is the definition of freedom, but I still find them tough.

Warning; this is a self indulgent work-through post, but it may be helpful to others, so here goes.

I have come into a little money (an inheritance), which though a (mixed) blessing, has come at the best/worst time with literally one day of the Black Friday-Cyber Monday sales left.

Looking at where I am now.

Balance;

I just purchased an EM1 Mk2 on pre BF sale, which has given me balance in my Olympus kit.

Balance is good, balance is important.

2 EM1 mk2’s for action, 2 EM10 mk2’s for static (shutter savers I call them , for when an EM1 is over kill), a Pen F for portraits (‘cos it’s magic at that), 2 ok reliable EM5’s (see EM10’s) and 2 twitchy EM5’s for testing etc and a near new Pen Mini 2, just for me. Probably 1,000,000 frames there with maintenance and enough to see through this vein of good fortune with photography.

My lens stocks are nicely balanced with my cameras. 2 Pro f2.8 zooms covering 24-300 equivalent (work horses), 4 F1.8 primes (very low light/shallow depth from 35 to 150e.) and 3 trustworthy light weight kit level zoom lenses including a long option.

Now first up, I have to say, the school I work for has NEVER complained about the technical quality of my images, but I have personally been “too close” to them and have struggled with the results from some higher ISO work, which tends to be common when I want to shoot silently (= no flash).

If I do not pixel peep, or even if I just give myself a little cooling off time, things are fine. The schools needs are mostly for online, small print or the occasional big print/sign, which is the result of either controlled effort or selecting an already outstanding image.

So the question is;

Will I feel stranded in a few years, lamenting my choice as other’s grow and grow, or is this enough to go on with?

ISO 800 and 75mm f1.8. “Beige” light and flat surroundings come up fine at this viewing distance.

Closer inspection is mushy and lacking detail, but does that matter to anyone but me? Too picky? In these days of clean ISO 3200, maybe I can do better or would the exercise just end in an expensive mathematical impasse. Some softness may be from subject movement also.

Now if you do the math, I would have to increase high ISO quality by at least 2 stops, preferably 3 before it makes a any real difference, because the ability to use a faster lens aperture without losing practical depth of field (f1.8 on M43 = f2.8 on a full frame) is one big advantage of M43.

The second contributing element is the immediate future of Olympus.

Do I put more money into a possibly “dead” system*, or do I start a migration into another system, assuming I will be working in this industry long enough for it to matter?

*

So, the options.

Option 1 stick with Olympus.

Get an EM1x at BF prices ($2500au-so cheap). This would effectively double my working kit’s life (400K shutter fires), increase my overall capabilities slightly, adding hand held high res, slightly better again AF and better high ISO sharpness** and more of everything useful like batteries and chargers etc. It would also allow the addition of the Oly 100-400 or maybe a premium prime and still retain that precious kit balance. Probably the most important thing, often forgotten, is the very real advantage of practiced familiarity.

If stretched, this combo should be able to give me fully useable, high quality ISO 3200 files at f1.8 (thanks to better af speed and accuracy), which is as enough to deal with the worst light I will encounter. Maybe these files will even be acceptable to me on a pickier level.

The issue of kit longevity would largely go away for me, even considering the unknown future for Olympus. Lots of shutter life, especially in the critical fast af camera class, enough quality and control to do anything I realistically need and full cross compatibility.

Another area I have not explored is processing. My blind adherence to all things Adobe is likely reducing my maximum potential quality, so maybe a specialist noise processing programme like Topaz would sort this anyway. Maybe even more familiarity with Photoshop, not just Lightroom would help.

All of the images above were shot at f1.8 on the 75mm at ISO 3200. The top pairs are jpegs (LSF with low noise reduction), the bottom ones are lightly processed RAWs. The second images would be as big as needed relative to enlargement format (high for smaller prints, low for posters and signs etc).

Acceptable?

Option 2 move partially to Fuji.

Fuji does give about two levels of high ISO cleanliness, especially in jpegs files. I have always responded well to Fuji “glassiness”, which is to my eye the geometric opposite of an Oly file. One gives a sometimes gritty, but detailed sharpness, the other a glassy smoothness. Another thing I have noticed is their ability to make ordinary light look good which when you come down to it, is the the problem.

Fuji is cheap enough to get a full “mirror” kit together in many forms within my budget***, adding depth, creative options and (hopefully) growth through future camera upgrades. The XT4 (cheaper than EM1x on special) is newer, has more pixels, a 1-3 stop ISO advantage, realistic jpeg workflow, great colour, a 300k shutter and is an excuse to do the same differently.

The down sides are not to be ignored.

Two sets of menus and handling interface, two sets of choices at bag level (even mirrorless gets heavy eventually), no cross-compatibility, forcing/adding duplication, some size issues and lastly, ironically too much choice. I have also had some difficulty adjusting to Fuji view finders and handling is a mixed bag.

*

So….I went to town to my friendly local brick and mortar and played with all of the options (buying blind online to save few bucks is crazy, you need to see and feel to truly know). I was leaning towards Olympus, but the 100-400 failed to impress me (even on my own camera). Maybe a bad copy, which does not seem to be a thread with these, but the long range images seemed to be a little soft especially down the left side. Closer, things were great. The lens also did not sit nicely on the camera, showing a little play (a first with an Olympus lens for me).

So I gave the Fuji a go. The 100-400 was nice but really big, so I gave the 50-140 a go.

It felt great on the camera. Looking at the jpegs I have at home, the difference in quality is not mind blowing. The Oly RAW images from the EM1 mk2 are a little flat as I have become used to, something that the helpful drab shop light, similar to my tough light at work helped provide. The jpegs from the Fuji were fine, but the Oly ones were not bad either and that is from the EM1 m2 not EM1x. In truth I had no real control over the Fuji, using it set as it was, I found the files did not have that “glassy” brilliance I remember from my previous Fuji experience.

In shop jpeg’s from Olympus with the 100-400 at 265 f6.1 ISO 2500 vs Fuji (XT3) at 140 f2.8 ISO 3200. WTF! I like to Oly more! The Fuji is smoother, but the Oly seems to have more punch and visual sharpness and that was with a lens I liked less. An EM1x would be even better?

ISO 3200 Lsf jpeg from the new firmware 3.0 mk2 as a follow up test at home. Maybe the answer to my low light woes lies in the jpeg processing from Olympus. Basically what I would have used with Fuji.

And a closer look, clean and sharp. I should have tried the firmware 3.0 jpegs before I got too excited about new horizons. What an afternoon! This would print at 12x16'“ cleanly.

The plan as of writing is to grab the EM1x at the sale price then sit and watch. Pana lenses work well with Olympus cameras (but not as well the other way around), so there is no need to rush a lens purchase. Ideally I would like the Oly 100-400, but a better one than I played with.

The 200 F2.8 Pana is also tempting (x1.4 extender included) as it is considered to be the best telephoto available for M43, even with the converter very close to the 300 f4 in performance. This would give me F2.8 from 24 to 400 equiv and F4 at 560 equiv and even 800mm f5.6 with the 2x.

*

*This is a poor term to use I guess, because there will be millions of Oly cameras and lenses around for years to come, but there may not be much advancement unless Panasonic does it, which is still problematic because of the patchy AF compatibility Oly lenses have with Pana cameras.

**Looking at (too many) reviews and comparisons, the EM1x with dual processors does seem to retain better sharpness at higher ISO settings and also has better dynamic range. The mushy EM1 mk2 high ISO RAW files, partially fixed in jpegs by firmware, are a known issue for me, but the EM1x seems to share the original OMD’s ability to retain sharpness/detail at high ISO’s allowing for noise reduction to taste. Part of me wishes they had retained the 16mp sensor for this one and increased noise reduction capability.

***XT4 and 16-55/50-140 f2.8, or XT4 18-55/100-400/90, or XT4 18-55/14/100-400 etc.

Just Use It!

So I did a couple of jobs today, determined to just use the 40-150 as needed and what do you know. In the field the lens proved again how good it is to use.

Taking out the odd flaring (?*), the lens shows the usual qualities of an Olympus lens, high sharpness, good micro contrast and an ability to render a nice image. An image that suits the design ideal of the specific lens.

A few things need to be kept in mind before you go down a dead end path like this.

1. The effect of depth of field, focus errors and atmospheric conditions are easy to underestimate even with M43. A 150mm f2.8 is a shallow depth rendering instrument, especially at closer distances, in any format.

2. The end product will rarely be scrutinised by anyone as closely as you will when “testing” gear.

3. You will tend to find what you are looking for, especially in the short term, so don’t trust those observations when they come too easily. You need your observations come and in their own time before you are sure. In the mean time, you get your images taken.

*The problem, if there is one may lie with a damaged filter, the same one it has had on since day one, which seems to have a light smudging or smokiness on its surface.

The Enigma That Is the 40-150 Pro

I must admit to a love hate relationship with my 40-150 pro.

This stems from the dual problem of buying it untried (which I don’t usually do, often purchasing when working in the industry) and some troublesome early results.

My first professional use of the lens resulted in some oddly “hazy” sunny day files and nervous Bokeh. The Bokeh was my issue, as no one else cared, but the haziness sewed a seed of doubt.

I put it down to a new lens on an older camera, sometimes missing focus combined with iffy Bokeh transition. Not a complete answer. My greatest fear is a lens with a de-centring or focal length specific issue that is hard to predict, so equally hard to control. It seems very sharp across the frame when stopped down a little and can perform well at it’s extremes (where I need it).

Subsequent images went a long way to reducing this doubt and I sold the lens confident there was nothing wrong with it and I even bought it back based on reviewing some of my old files.

The problem;

The two images above are both roughly 300% crops of the same subject at a similar angle, facing the sun at the same time of the day. The same settings (150mm at or near wide open). The distances are different and the shutter speeds are also very different (the focus point is the same). The left image falls into the normal range (1/4000) at about 10m. The right hand is 1/16000 electronic at 50m.

Maybe the electronic shutter is the issue although my first images were taken on an EM5 with normal speeds? If the issue is electronic shutter related, then the answer is easy. Don’t use it.

Two parts of the focal point of the same image, not pointing at the sun. There was a lot of smoke haze also, but nothing obvious in this image. Again a high electronic shutter speed at higher ISO.

At pixel level (medium format thumbnail?). Still sharp at a high ISO wide open and at 150mm and very clean at normal sizes.

I have replaced big hood, because i think it is either the electronic shutter or flare where the issue lies. The only reason I removed the hood was because of it’s fragile nature. I have an early one, prone to breaking.

I replaced it with a screw in metal one for a couple of reasons;

• The metal one allows the lens to go nose first in a bag without retraction or removal.

• The screw in one allows a polariser to be used, rotating the filter and hood together.

• The metal hood is smaller helping the lens fit (on camera) into a couple of bags, that the retractable one is either too fat for or needs a cap also and makes the lens look a little less obvious.

  The solution for now is to leave the metal one on for the robustness it offers and the retractable one also, which fits around the outside. The metal one allows safe storage, it reinforces the plastic Olympus one and gives me the option of removing the bigger one if needed without any fuss.

The third variable is distance. Most of the poor images are of subjects at over 50 meters. This is a real issue if it is the problem , because I bought the lens to do field sports.

Again wide open at 150mm and almost pixel level (400%+). The subject is a chimney two houses down the road. Contrasty and sharp enough to max out 13x19” print’s resolution and a good distance for sports.

Of course, longer distances may have atmospheric considerations.

More testing required.

Ok…..back from some quick tests.

The reference image left, then a processed RAW, then a LSF jpeg just for comparison. The Raw file has more fine detail, but the jpeg looks fine at normal size or up to 100%. The Raw was a little hazy (dull overcast day?), but a little clarity and de-haze brushed on fixed that. I think I have a 85-90% copy, which is fine for what I need.

I think that the reality is, I have a good enough lens, even a spectacular one in some circumstances, but it does have a slightly erratic nature in as yet undefined circumstances. Do I trust it? I have already for a couple of jobs and it has done as needed (with few exceptions).

For pro work, as odd as it sounds, my standards are less strict. For almost all applications the lens takes a very nice looking image suitable for publication, enlargement for the occasional sign or poster.

If used carefully I know it can bring home fine art grade files, but so can most of my lenses.

Another Raw jpeg comparison at 150mm f2.8. In this set the added colour and cruder, but effective sharpening of the jpeg (right) do make a difference. Again, some slight softening in a hazy direction, fixed by the Lightroom sliders.

The simple solution may be to avoid electronic shutter for now, and set up a preset for the lens to apply as needed with a little clarity, de-haze and deeper blacks.

Am I being too picky?

Probably. Bad habit pixel peeping that should be avoided early on with new gear because “he goes looking for trouble usually finds it”. We (I) should let a lens first show it’s best, not look for it’s worst.

Cycles

For many spring is a time of new growth, release from the hardships of winter and anticipation of the warmth to come.

For some it is the all too brief, ending too soon with their failing to grasp life.

A few days later, this little one was host to a myriad of other creatures only born because of it’s death.

There are often reminders of the fragility of life around spring time and through to summer.

Flowers come and all too quickly go, newborn animals that don’t make it, leave sad reminders for us in their wake.

I have always been drawn to this cycle, aware of it or not.

Everything is slave to cycles. Nothing stays the same.

We can embrace that rhythm or fight it, but it goes on regardless.

This also takes the form of growth triumphing, but as part of the cycle of decay for something else

I think photography has given me a tool to deal with this cycle of life, when I may have avoided it otherwise.

Things Are Starting To Hum

I really appreciate the work I am currently doing.

Being a part of something, especially something that potentially effects so many people, then being good enough at it to pass muster gives me a greater sense of completeness than I have felt in a long time.

One of the things that excites me so much is the variety of work on offer. I cannot think of any other environment or line of photographic employment other than maybe newspaper work, that gives you the opportunity to do so many different types of photography, all under the one umbrella.

Of course the onus is then on the practitioner to be all of those photographers, but that is the challenge that makes it worth while.

*

Today I did a quick portrait of a work colleague and friend*, needed for her winning entry in a graphic design competition. This shoot and another I did recently for the school leadership group, reminded me of two things;

Firstly, I need to remember that even with all of my newly re-kindled artificial light technique, natural light is always the best starting point for a successful portrait.

I have shot with natural light only for the majority of my time behind cameras. This entire site is the product of a “no artificial preservatives added” ethos, but the reality is, when working in a semi commercial environment, you need to be able to use lights, because you cannot control everything. The trick is knowing when not to.

The second point is that being prepared makes the work seem like fun, which in turn increases everyone’s feeling of success.

Portrait sessions can be huge fun, or they can be a strain for all involved. The main things the photographer can do to help things run smoothly are nailing the technical side (know your processes and keep them simple) and location control, which often go hand in hand.

When things come together, it just goes to prove the point.

Kate deserved the services of my personal camera, the Pen F and the proven 75mm at f1.8, both specialist at portraiture. One camera and lens, one subject, nothing else.

The shot above was pre-visualised in the days before the shoot. The location was scouted** as the best place to get depth, a clean enough, yet interesting background and reliable light. On the day, we had plenty of light, but near gale force winds to deal with (hair, what hair?).

The first location tried was outside on the sheltered and shady side of the building and worked well enough. We could have walked away, but I felt there was an element missing.

Two minutes later and the gantry of a new student building had that element.

Light.

A large window lighting a dark indoor space, especially on an overcast day, offers gentle and controllable contrast.

This could have been manufactured using artificial light by underexposing the ambient light and using strobes for fake side-sunlight, but if it can be pulled off without, all the better.

I need to remember that the choice to use artificial light must make a shot better, or it should not be used at all. The habit of going to lighting gear first, outside of a studio situation, is a trap. After-all aren’t strobes simply trying to replace natural light?

The other image that made my cut. In studio terms this is “split lighting” , meaning the face is 50/50 light and shadow. The image above is “short” side lighting, meaning the light is on the side of the face facing away from the camera.

This does not mean a wholesale reversal away from artificial lighting for me. It just means that my process has been better defined, first falling back on reliable old techniques, but keeping a mind to newer ones.

*Thanks Kate for letting me use these images.

**A few weeks ago, I took a walk around the campus and made a photographic record of any possible locations. This then has notes made about best light or as importantly light and times of day to avoid. When Kate asked for this image, I went to my location bank and chose three spots, one for each possible circumstance we might encounter. This has been a godsend for me, as I am personally so much more relaxed when this side of things is taken care of.

The Perfect Camera Bag

Seriously? No such thing.

I have been reminded by necessity, that there is no perfect camera bag, but, their is often the perfect bag for a specific situation.

My bag stocks are embarrassingly large.

Even after years of selling of and gifting, I still lay claim to a dozen or so real camera bags and thanks to M43’s size factor, several non camera specific bags that do the job.

What do I Use?

No single one. Not even a small selection. I use anything at hand, depending on what I am doing (purchasing back my 40-150 Pro has also forced a re-think).

If getting there is more difficult than being there;

LowPro Pro Tactic 350 AW (1st edition). Not my favourite bag to wear (I find it too small and uncomfortable), but great for travelling or simply hauling a decent amount of gear from here to there. I often use this for stage photography, placing the bag in a handy location, because I tend to use several cameras with primes on them, which is impractical with any other bag except maybe the F2. It also goes on a plane with me (remember those?), because it is quite rigid, making it ideal as a foot rest or occasional pillow on lay-overs. (Not reviewed yet)

If being there is as difficult as getting there;

Domke F820 Satchel. This one has just been promoted back to my every day bag. The 40-150 pro, on a smaller camera like an EM10 or 5, fits perfectly in a ready to go configuration (with screw in metal hood fitted). The 12-40 fits on another and with a few other bits (or as many as I like with the extra pockets fitted), and I am ready for most situations. This bag has that magical ability of taking weight and making it feel relatively lighter. Some bags actually feel heavier than they are, this one, with its all around strap, postman’s shoulder pad and semi-rigid top does not. Testing the theory, 2 huge add-on pockets can be attached and the thing can take a ridiculous amount of gear. My only complaint is that it will not comfortably take a bigger camera like the EM1 with grip and a larger lens. (Reviewed).

If being there is more difficult than getting there;

Domke F2 (original). 35+ years old and going strong. This one most often takes odd shaped kits like a camera with flash and modifier fitted, a camera with grip and big lens or lighting gear. It is still a classic, made by a professional, for professionals and it shows. Gear has changed over the years, but this bag, sporting a new insert and strap just works. My wife hates it (it is a little ugly) and I must admit the ancient grubby-chic look has worn thin with me also, but when nothing else works…. . (Reviewed)

If being there is about moving fast and light;

Think Tank Turnstyle 10. When shooting sports, I use this in conjunction with a slung camera. It holds a second camera and lens option, spare bits and my phone in a “get out of the way” configuration. Invisible and low profile until I need it, this thing holds an amazing amount. It also takes a water bottle pouch in the strap without effect. (Reviewed)

If it is important to blend in when you are there;

Filson Camera Field Bag. This a sentimental favourite and my favourite bag when something a little nicer is called for. It has a flaw (fixable if needed), in that it sags in the middle when packed tight. This tends to make it annoying when working fast from the hip. A rigid base would help or careful packing, but that rarely works in the heat of the moment. If I am travelling with a small kit and other things, it is nice and if my kit needs are minimal it works fine, but no Pro lenses or multi body kits. (Reviewed)

Domke F3x Rugger Wear (olive-very rare). Great when it is wet and I need to keep working, the F3x Rugged is ideal. It hugs my hip and the flap sits properly covering the main compartment, meaning it actually does keep water out. It smells a little (oil), looks 80’s style Army disposal-worn out, but like the F2, it does what it is designed to do. Many of my other bags are weather proof, but usually with a catch. The other Domke’s are not as water proof (they make this line), the TT and LP need their water proof sleeves, making them impractical and the Filson, made of a similar cloth, is not as good at wrapping up it’s insides. (Reviewed)

There are many others that fit into to this anti-camera bag niche (Filson Field Bag, Timbuk2 satchel, Tokyo Porter tote, Crumpler satchel etc), but these are the “A” team for work.

Could I work with only one or two?

One only; A Domke (someone else would probably have to choose though).

Two; As above and the Pro Tactic.

Three; As above with the TT.

Old Friend Revisited.

After much soul searching and flip-flopping, I have decided the easiest path to kit completion (for now), is the buy the 40-150 Pro back.

As I have said before, the lens is not demonstrably better optically than my current lenses, in real world terms anyway, but it does offer several fixes to my current options.

Compared to the 75mm F1.8 it is longer and reasonably fast. F2.8 and 150mm is in reality the “dream” lens from my past (a 300mm F2.8 equivalent). There are times, especially when I am looking to get images of all of the children in a class from limited locations, that 75mm is too short and my longer lenses are too slow.

This is a relatively rare situation, but common enough to feel like I am short changing my current employer.

From a personal perspective, I made my peace with the limitations of my kit a while back, but this is different. This is the world of professional expectations. No excuses territory.

The other two lenses I have (40-150 kit and 75-300 kit+) always punch well above their weight. Comparing them recently, only the obvious things are relevant.

A lack of aperture choice, weather proofing and durability are why the big pro lenses are bought over well performing lesser options. AF on the 75-300 surprises, so that one will be used in good light for field sports.

At 75mm I have four lens choices, almost indistinguishable in sharpness. Well done Olympus. Looking there is pointless.

Indoor sports are, I have found, easier to do with the 75mm and the extra reach of a longer lens is better for field sports, but that is when light allows. The 40-150 is the ideal other option in both situations. It also has the classroom, stage and court sports range nailed.

The ability to stand off and separate subjects is core to it’s application. Bokeh is usually pleasant with occasional ni-sen or “cross-eyed” look, but reliable enough.

The lens impressed in the past, providing some really sharp files stopped down or wide open. Early on I accused it of being a little patchy sharpness wise, but……

on closer inspection.

The QC team found it was often user error and unusual Bokeh transition of near misses rather than actual lens softness to blame. Even with M43 format, F2.8 can be unforgiving.

A JPEG from the almost too sharp Pen F at F8. Recovery of highlights is easier with this lens than some others I own.

The sleeper though, is contrast. Shooting Football on a dull day highlighted the crisper and generally brighter look of the images. In good light I actually prefer the 75-300’s smoother and gentler rendering, but when it counts, the Pro lens is designed to, and does deliver.

The contrast, or more likely micro contrast of the lens allows for many genuine keepers where other lenses may lose the ability to impart impact.

At ISO 3200 and 6400 on an EM5 mk1, I found the micro-contrast produced sharper looking files, allowing for noise reduction to be done to taste rather than in desperation. The 75-300 on the other hand is a poor performer in low light as much for it’s smooth and gentle (read; post-plasticky) files, as it’s obvious slow aperture, which forces heavy handed processing more often than not.

On even closer inspection…..

Seriously, I live with goofballs!

I have found the lens offers very finely detailed and flexible files. Olympus weaving their magic? Maybe so.

Regardless, the files are ideal for a working pro who appreciates occasional brilliance, but needs dependable goodness.

A lens that will produce this type of pleasant and beautiful image in any circumstance is a blessing. Comparing it to too many other lenses, in far too many and different circumstances, really is a recipe for unsettled dissatisfaction. Take it for what it offers and move on.

No small thing is the lenses performance on my “lesser” cameras. In the early days of owning it I successfully shot indoor sports and swimming with old EM5 mk 1’s. Remember, these cameras have no tracking capability. The lens and camera combo was quick enough to get near instant first grab keepers at f2.8 (just do not hesitate).

I am looking to add a camera to the mix soon (another EM1 mk2 or EM1x) partly to handle my current and future volume and to deepen my pro camera stocks. This lens will likely jump again in capability and help finalise the Olympus journey for me. The 100-400 is still in my thoughts, but is now really a luxury item.

Getting to Know New Dogs

Both of our girls are over 18 months old now.

Daisy is a bit of a mystery to us. She has many Smithfield traits, such as an independent streak, strong herding instincts and is a very visual communicator. She swings from brave protector of our property, tenacious herder of her sister and others when out running, to timid wall flower, with triggers we do not yet fully understand.

She has taken recently, to sitting in our Agapanthus plants. It is cool (she likes that), hidden (likes that to) and allows her to keep an eye on a likely exit point, the side gate, which is much like her habit of laying in the hall near the front door (another very Smithy trait, old Jack shared).

I often think of dogs as coming in two broad forms; complicated and simple (not dumb, just simple and easy to read).

Daisy is very complicated.

Sometimes knick-named “help yourself”, Lucy is on the other hand as straight forward as they come, just ask her.

Both show bullet proof tendencies, bottomless loyalty to us and each other, and are very affectionate. After playing together full-on for an hour or more, then are then found cuddling up together, but they do see life very differently.

The Further Adventures of "Flash man"; Resources Stocktake

This flash thing has taken off some. From very humble beginnings (a pair of Yong Nuo flashes and two circular mini soft boxes “just in case”, it now boasts enough power to cover large groups or a constant production line of subjects.

It has come to the point where I need to take stock of my capabilities and what to add (if anything) from here.

Flash Units

• 4x Yong Nuo 560 IV’s These are the work horse units, about the same strength as the second to top units from Canon etc (GN 50+). Having 4 means I always have 2-3, with the ability to double or triple mount them in modifiers as needed. They can also act as controllers if my TX dies. Two of these and 2 brollies managed to handle a school ball where 500+ shots were taken with groups as wide as 15 people.

• 1x Yong Nuo TX Controller for all the YN units.

• 1x Yong Nuo 560 III. This unit can be slotted in to the above, but is set up (easily changed) as a slave for hair or splash light. The III’s can overheat, so I use this one more gently.

Modifiers*

I will rate the modifiers from 1 to 5 (5 being best/strongest) for softness (coverage without strong shadows) and control (control over light spill).

• 72” White umbrella. 5/1 Shoot Through, or Reflected. Big and heavy but the softest light by far. Needs 2-3 units to fill evenly. Great as a single light for medium groups.

• 2x 40” White umbrellas. 4/1 shoot through or reflected. The work horse group shot units.

• 43” Umbrella soft box. 4/2 reflected only.

• 43” Reflector/Diffuser panel. This can be used for a variety of purposes, like adding gold (warm) reflectance.

• 3x 33” Silver umbrella. 3/3 reflected only. A little more controlled, efficient and brilliant than the white ones.

• 37” Soft Box. 4/2 . This is the most controllable soft modifier, but is a relative pain to set up quickly.

• 24” Soft Box. 3/2, 3/4 gridded. More directional and with options (baffle/Grid), this is a creative light.

• 8x36” Soft Box. 3/3. A mighty pain to assemble, this one allows for angled light, like mimicking an open door or window.

• 7” Cone with Grids. 1/4-5. Ideal for spot lighting or selectively lighting a background with gelled colour.

• Flagging foam and bag of hair bands. 1-3/1-3. Used to flag a flash head more or less, these can selectively control or snoot.

• Gels (2 packs, 6x silicone holders) for colour correction or creative lighting (especially back grounds). With a grey background, I can create any colour or shade from white through to black.

Utilities

• 4x 8’ Neewer heavy weight light stands (actually heavy, not just “heavy duty” as all stands claim to be). The thinnest stem of these is thicker than the widest on a regular light weight stand and I confidently use then in light wind with a soft box mounted. These can also take a backdrop.

• Neewer Grey Muslin 6x9 backdrop with home made pole. May get some “Kate” microfibre textured ones also.

• 3x 6’ Neewer light weight light stands. Good for small side lights, reflectors, travel or just in case. At a pinch they could take a muslin or microfibre backdrop..

• Double, triple and single cold shoe umbrella mounts.

• 3x Neewer Bowens S-Mounts. These are faster mounting and much more stable than the ones above, but cannot do multiple units.

• A medium sized Velbon tripod with tilt head, which can be used for any purpose.

• Clamps, mini tripod, adapter threads, multi tool, mini flash light, duct tape etc.

• Optionally Heavy Manfrotto tripod with Pro Master Arca Swiss head.

• Various bags (1 for flash units, 1 for utilities and a $12 K-Mart duffle to carry it in). I do need a Cricket or Hockey bag for the bigger light stands.

Believe it or not, the whole lot cost less than $1000 au.

*The over zealous collecting of modifiers is simply due to curiosity and a bit of creative depth, after all this is all a bit new to me.

I feel reasonably capable now (in gear, not necessarily skill), so I tend to say yes and work out how later. Could I light 100 people evenly if four rows deep or a full stage? Yes I could. The flash units would be working pretty hard, but they could manage (the Godex as a 6th slave unit is also an option).

There is potential for stronger lights to be added (60w Godex continuous), but to be honest, the 560’s are cheap enough, that I could add a few more for a lot less than one Photopro or Godex studio unit.

A Camera in the Hand...

I tried a 90D in shop on Saturday.

Not a contender I am afraid. The af through the view finder (a simple near-far test) used with a last gen. 70-400 F4L was slower than I am used to. The tracking af is likely better at a fixed distance, using predictive phase-detect, but I was surprised at how laggy it felt after my Oly gear. The live view focus was good, but certainly no better than anything I have now and not it’s natural state.

To check my feelings on the matter I tried a 5D4, which was noticeably better in view finder af and an XT4 with 100-400 which is still in the mix, but the 90D is out. Shame, as it ticked all of the boxes.

It is also good sometimes to remind yourself where you have come from and how you got there. EM5 mk1, 17mm F1.8

Moving Forward, Retro Style

As a confirmed mirrorless user, serious contemplation regarding my next purchase, an SLR may seem odd.

The reality is, I love the mirrorless work style, but I am not blind to the benefits of SLR’s. Even when happily using mirrorless cameras, my mind often switches to the things I miss about SLR cameras.

Battery life.

In their natural form, SLR’s are up to three times more battery efficient. At the moment, a major sports event where I work, is a three battery affair. With an SLR, it would only be one.

Applying a photographic brain.

This one is really odd. An SLR gives you less feed back, making you think more “photographically”. Exposure and jpeg effect previews are all second hand with an SLR. In effect you have to predict rather than see and react. This to me is a major selling point for an SLR. I know my own photographic thinking has been blunted by the “what you see is what you get” feed back loop of a mirrorless.

The feel.

I miss the feel. The bigger form factor, the glass only view finder and specifically the Canon curves are all things I miss for some applications. It occurred to me recently, while teaching a student how to use their SLR, how much I liked and missed the Canon SLR interface.

The best of both worlds.

The reality is, the latest generation of Canon SLR’s are (will) be effectively true hybrids. Ironically this comes at a time when mirrorless cameras have reached SLR like performance, so I guess the hybrid is coming from both directions. Like a very economical petrol powered car or a noiseless magnetic tape, the revolution has maybe come in the form of a too little-too late package, but for a short time, there is a window where the best of both worlds intercede.

The 90D specifically has floated to the top of my soon to be filled wish list as the best all-round camera solution for my current kit.

It offers several needed things;

The better battery life (1500-2000 shots) in SLR mode.

Sports capable af system in two forms, both roughly equalling the EM1 mk2. Canon eye focus tracking in live view mode, which seems to be as good as any current mirrorless (basically the same as the latest RF series) and full phase detect af in SLR mode. The 90D has been positioned as a replacement for the 80D and 7D in a shrinking SLR market.

Lenses that are top tier, especially in affordable telephoto options (a short fall in the Nikon and Sony ranges). The 70-200 f4 or 200 f2.8 are proven winners for under $1000au, the 100-400 is best in class (possibly tied optically with the Fuji, but better made), and the 70-300L is a gem. Not to be forgotten are the older, but still better than Nikon’s offerings for most of their lives, affordable short teles, the 85 f1.8, 100 f2 and 135 f2 primes. the reality is, these excellent and proven lenses are sometimes being bettered by new mirrorless designs, but not by much and at a premium price.

Forward compatibility for an eventual migration to RF.

200,000+ shutter fires or so (Canon’s have generally exceeded their quoted count, some by a great deal. My old 50D for example, went to a sports shooter who retired it at half a million+ frames). This is not as many as the quoted 400k of the EM1 mk3, but the camera is considerably cheaper and has other advantages.

Great price. The 90D undercuts the G9, EM1 mk2, is nearly half the price of an EM1 mk3, is cheaper than anything full frame except the budget Canon mirrorless and is more advanced than many. It also offers weather sealing, which for a Canon is a new low price point. The reality is, the last generation of Canon SLR’s (?) are great value. Much better than most other options.

IQ. Added to the beautiful Canon colour, that I have always used as a standard, is the real benefit of more pixels, and with added cost compared to it’s earlier models. Canon is just measurably a little behind some others in dynamic range and high ISO performance, but they are ahead of M43, where I am now and that is still excellent. The higher pixel count means that the exhibited noise is relatively smaller or aggressive cropping is possible. From a sports perspective, this gives me several advantages. The first is smaller, shorter and faster lenses can do more and secondly, shooting wider, then cropping after is more realistic.

To put it another way, the camera effectively has a 100% cropping factor benefit over an R6, between it’s native format (1.6x) and pixel count advantage (1.5x) and a 50% advantage over my current 20mp maximum and/or can perform at a full ISO setting higher (at least) for the same quality.

Would Full Frame be better in low light? Of course, but again, just as when compared to M43, that would be at substantially higher cost and weight in camera, lens and depth of field.

For example R6 would easily beat it in low light, but the base camera and lens (100-500) come in at about $8500.

The 90D with both a 200 f2.8 and 100-400 would end up at $5500 (just with the 70-300L at $3500), with better battery life, better handling, more depth of field for more keepers (+1 stop), more reach (400=640) or a faster lens (200 f2.8 = +2 stops at 300 equiv.), 50% more pixels and the hybrid advantage.

Other minor considerations are;

My M43 gear is still fully relevant. The Canon does come with the downsides of a big, sometimes noisy and always very obvious SLR. The M43 gear would be used for most other work, especially with children in close, as backup for sports and for indoor work. This may sound counter intuitive, but the reality is, the fast glass and stabilisers from Olympus still have an edge.

Not as easy to achieve with a big, serious looking camera and lens.

I would like a different brand in my kit. No brand does everything well.

Peace of mind for the future. The lenses can go forward to RF and the brand has much less of a shadow hanging over it.

The future (inspired in the past) awaits.

The Keeper of Records

Why do we photograph?

After a couple of years of loss (both parents and two dogs), I understand more than I once did how important documenting the now is, for the future.

An image of my mother when young (she died recently at 80 years). From her perspective, the dog, long gone now, would have been the focus of her memories kept safe in an image, and maybe also the time and place. For me it was the first time I had seen the image, produced for the funeral. My grandfather was a chemist and avid photographer from the 1930’s on, which makes my family luckier than most I guess.

After we lost our two older dogs, I did albums of their lives. It helped us cope and move on.

Our two young dogs, it has recently occurred to me, have not had as many images taken of them. Is this because they are young, or maybe in reverence to their predecessors, or possibly I am just not ready.

Maybe the lunacy is just too much to deal with? Lucy (left) has no puppy images, being a rescue, Daisy has some, but not heaps and precious few printed.

I know that I took more images of the older two towards their later years, so presence of mind to take photos may be in direct proportion to our awareness of mortality. Luckily though, I got lots of images of them young.

Ironically, in an age of torrential photography, with more and more of it focussed on life’s mundanities, we run the risk of losing our memories through a lack of long term thinking. The image at the top of this post is 60+ years old. It was one of many found in an old album, not in the best condition, but stable and (other than creases), in salvageable condition. This “shoe box under the bed” reality is disappearing in the digital world.

Our digital memories and even our cheap prints done on poor quality ink jet paper will probably not outlast our cameras (5 years on average). The Cloud is a help, as long as you (a) remember the image exists (b) can access it (c) allow others to see/access it (d) do not drown what is important in a sea of crap.

Is Facebook going to be our “box under the bed” for the future? If so, who will take the time to preserve.

More Pondering's On My Camera Future

With the imminent change to the Olympus camera brand, then the possible change to Panasonic, depending on their take in the future, Micro Four Thirds is in a bit of a funk with me and I am sure many others.

Taking stock, I have plenty of cameras to support my clutch of excellent portrait/low light lenses, so most of my work will stay unchanged. High speed EM-1’s and Pro glass are not needed or even wanted in many of these circumstances*, but high volumes of work (45gp last month), and the likely need for a longer and maybe faster sports and event lens may be an issue.

With Olympus at a “point of sufficiency”, thoughts turn to areas that could be improved.

Sports performance. The EM1 has been a surprise packet and even has more to offer if I can be bothered with the pesky firmware upgrade, but I would really like too up my game sports wise.

The contenders in descending cost order are Canon (R6 with 100-500), Olympus (EM1 mk3 and the 100-400), which would both add a level of af performance, Panasonic (G9 teamed with their 100-400 or 50-200), which are needed to make their excellent DFD focussing work.

Fuji and the crop frame Canon have fallen away.

An interlude image. This year has been one of upheaval and change. This Dogwood had never flowered before. Just one of the good changes that have come forward this year.

My Head;

Says get the Canon as a secure pathway to the future. It is dearest, but with sales looming, maybe now is the time. Olympus will still do 90% of my work and personal/travel imaging, but the Canon would be a genuine problem solver in it’s needed role and is future proof brand wise. It will even handle indoor sport with it’s big lens, shooting ISO 6400 cleanly.

My Gut;

Says get the Panasonic. Good value, good results and balance of a “living” system with current kit compatibility. Probably the weakest upgrade overall, it gives me plenty of room to adapt, a second feature set and all without a dramatic outlay (the G9 is a little over half the price of an EM1 mk3 and their 100-400 is also cheaper). I can also justify a wide angle lens (8-25 Oly or 8-18 Pana).

My Heart;

Says stick with Olympus. The EM1 mk3 and long lens would make me effectively done with the system and probably for the duration of any future paid photo work. The comfort and loyalty factor involved with staying the course are also not nothing.

If funds prove to be tight, the 90D and a Canon 200 f2.8 or 70-200 f4L are a good option at $2500, allowing me to still go Canon RF later.

How To Be A Content Micro Four Thirds User Part 2

Following on from the previous post, lets look at another factor

Be realistic about your (and everyone’s) output needs

Be careful what you think you know here. The internet is full of opinions about image quality* but here a few things to ponder;

Almost no one prints to the maximum size their camera can accomodate and if they did, most of their demons would disappear. A well realised print, taken with any camera capable of reaching the medium’s maximum resolution, has worked well enough since the 19th century.

Pixel peeping does not translate into image quality directly. Image quality comes from strong vision, translated with equally strong, but sensitively applied technique, into a realisation of that vision. Technical considerations have always been lurking in the background, but have never stopped us before, so how is it we are so easily convinced that older is no good and newer/bigger is necessary?

EM10 mk2, hand held with a wide open 12-40, cropped from the original (below) and down sized for the web. Good enough for a large wall print, probably exceeding print resolution, which is surely the most it will ever be needed for.

If your work is only going to make a screen, you will likely down size it, to protect it from pirating, or at best only need to match a 2 or 4k screen (about 8 mega pixels).

I remember a pro once telling me, his editor demanded he shoot with at least 24MP for his magazine (at the time the Nikon and Canon flag ships only boasted about 16). He said he would comply, but continued to shoot with his 20mp 5DII and 10mp 40D, with no after effects. He even admitted to down sizing many files without anyone complaining.

The reality is, only a very few photographers, with specific high-res applications actually need the top end of high resolution cameras, but the majority of these sell to people who feel they need the bragging rights. A more important measure is the quality of the image hitting the sensor. Reduced noise, dynamic range, lens contrast, judicious sharpening, accurate focus combined with depth of field control and enough (shutter) speed to control movement blur are all important to image quality, always. Mega pixels are only important to commercial or fine art printers.

That is why top tier sports and journalism cameras only pack 20mp even now, because for a working pro, getting a good shot “in the can” is vastly more important than maximum possible output..

M43 has advantages that in most cases out weight it’s disadvantages. The small sensor is (all things being equal), going to be noisier, but with a 2x reach and depth of field advantage and generally more efficient stabilisers, you can usually regain the 2 ISO short fall and often with smaller, cheaper gear.

My 75mm f1.8 (150mm f1.8 eq) is one of the best lenses I have ever owned, allowing me to shoot indoor basketball at ISO 4-800. Matched to my EM1 mk2 it handles indoor sports (a tough assignment) very well. Would a D5 Nikon and 70-200 f2.8 be better? Yes it likely would, for three times the price, weight and size. Ironically the resolution would be roughly the same.

If you ask yourself honestly how big and how often you want large file potential, the answer is likely well within your current or even past camera’s potential.

I once shot a full morning of lens comparison images between an Olympus EM5 and Fuji XE-1. Only after I got into the virtual darkroom did I realise the Fuji had been set to small JPEG for some images (vs RAW on the Oly) I used for ebay. I did not notice this at all on a 29” screen until I went to pixel peep and images only jumped up about half again. The files were beautiful, just small. I remember thinking how nice it would be to shoot small JPEG’s for a blog or website, without any consideration needed for big prints.

Mistakenly taken as a 2-3mp image. Every droplet is sharp and clear. The files were still good enough for me to decide about the lenses.

*Reviewers like DPreview can show you the micro differences between camera “A” and “B”, but you need to be take into account here that when the best quality print is needed, most images come down to a balance of original file and good post processing, which can easily increase size, sharpness and impact, making the differences between various cameras irrelevant. As an example, look at some good works done using the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D mk1 full frame cameras. Then compare these to the RX100 Sony 1” sensor compact camera. Does the clear resolution difference make any of the work produced on one of Canon or Nikon’s most loved pro cameras less relevant?

Building a Portable Studio Flash Kit

Hopefully this will help any readers looking to add flash into their lives.

As an ardent flash avoider over the years (partly artistic preference, partly just plain chicken), I can recommend adding lighting into your tool kit. Apart from it’s practical benefits, it is a good distraction and creative outlet.

Where to start.

Get two flash units and a cordless controller. You get more power and constant charge from plug-in lights, but no portability. I would recommend Yongnuo 560 IV’s and their controller (or similar such as Godox or Neewer). This should set you back about $200-300 au. The reason these excellent flash units are so cheap, is they are not TTL (smartypants-talk-to-camera) units. They are manual, which is generic (will fit any brand) and can be made in huge quantities. The give away is a single contact pin on the flash’s base. A note here, do not mix brands of multi pin flash units and cameras!!

Why manual? because with a studio set-up, that is what you need (control and consistency), not photo-trickery smarts.

Next add 1 to 3 cheap, light weight Neewer or similar 6.5’ light stands, each with an S-clamp (the big round ones often called “Bowens” style, not the thin little flash/umbrella clamps that are a colossal pain) and white shoot-through umbrella. Rough cost from $80-120au a set, but multi sets are much cheaper (there is currently a set on Amazon with two stands and 6 brollies-but the little clamps-for $80au!).

This set-up can be used either as an efficient shoot through, or less efficient, but slightly softer reflector (as shown). You can use a dedicated controller, a second or third flash as controller or an on-camera flash for fill/catch light and to fire the unit as a slave, which is fiddly as you need to go to the flash for changes, but if you are organised, no big deal (and you can change aperture or ISO at the camera end in stead).

The S-clamp or Bowens clamp, allows for quick flash removal, a stronger hold, safe battery changes and rotation of the flash body to better “see” the triggering controller. Each unit has stickers marking it’s group, so I can see without going to the flash and the black hair band is for securing the flagging foams. The Bowens clamps also open up a few more modifiers, than an umbrella only clamp.

You can now photograph a small sports team, a car or family portrait.

*

Now to controlling light, which is where the fun starts.

For maximum area coverage, but with little or no control (i.e. light focus), bigger shoot through umbrellas or soft boxes are the way to go. The bigger the surface area relative to your subject, the softer the light. A 72” shoot through umbrella will cost $40-50 au but smaller 43” ones will go 2 for $50.

For more control and added brilliance, silver reflector umbrellas are great. 2 of these at $30 will allow you to focus your light to within 180 degrees and add a little more drama than the shoot-throughs. I recently used a single one, with on-stage down lights to do some drama class portraits, which worked well.

Even more control and softness comes from various soft boxes or umbrella diffusers. The smaller the area, relative to the subject, the harder and more focussed the light. If you get grids for your soft box, you can focus the light even more precisely, without reducing light softness. I have a 24” square gridded, 38” octagonal and 8x36” rectangle, that cost in total $120au. Some of these fit/come with Bowens mounts, which is one reason for getting those (above).

Want fine control? Add a 7” metal diffuser dish (fits the Bowens clamp) with a set of 3 grids, that will give you semi to fine spot light control. $30.

Flagging flash (blocking light to some directions only) is pretty much free, using black soft foam sheets cut to size, held on with rubber bands or hair bands. Two pieces can make a snoot, which is the most focussed light. $2.

Light colour, either for balancing flash to match ambient, or for creating background mood is done using gels, placed over the flash heads. 2 sets with 6 holders, $25.

A good problem solver can be a 43” or bigger 5-in1 diffuser/reflector and clamp for a light stand. $50

I carry the stands and modifiers in a K-Mart duffle ($12) and the flash units, now up to 4, with gels, controller etc in a Neewer tote bag ($29).

My Basics For Using Flash

Turning up to a photo shoot location blind can be daunting, especially if you need to use flash on some level, preferably with a touch of creativity.

In my very short tenure as a working flash photographer (0.000001% of my total photographic life), I have gained enough knowledge to work in a “lets see what we get”, rather than a “Oh sh#t, oh sh#t, oh sh#t” frame of mind.

The basics.

Use Manual.

Manual flash has four active exposure controls and one passive one.

The active controls are; Power (1/1 to 1/128th power), Distance (subject to flash-not camera), Aperture and ISO chosen. The passive control is Shutter Speed, which does have an effect on ambient exposure, but not flash.

The more of these you can control from the get-go the better.

Working for only a month with my rig, I am now comfortable setting up a 1-2 flash outfit and shooting nearly straight away, but I need to control the environment.

I know that if my flash to subject distance is about 3 metres, zoom on the flash at 28mm, my aperture at F2.8* and my ISO set to 400, then 1/32 +.3/.7 to 1/16th power through a shoot through brolly, or 1/16th from a silver reflector brolly are going to be in the ball park. Note that where I stand is basically irrelevant. The flash to subject distance is critical, the photographer to subject distance is not.

Similarly, most ceilings in modern event halls will work with a flagged flash at about 1/8th power at 2.8* and ISO 800 and the flash zoom set to 105mm. This gives me even coverage This is also a good starting point for bouncing flagged flash.

If shooting for fill light outdoors, I will often start at 1/1 power and work for balance. This one is still a work in progress, but a test or two and I am good to go.

These known values (with my flashes), are a starting point I can rely on.

To change these I have a wireless controller on camera that can run three groups separately and is a dream to use (choose the group and increase or reduce the power). If this fails, any one of my 560 IV flash units can step in as a controller.

Shutter speed is chosen based on how much ambient light there is and whether I want to add it in for atmosphere or cut it out to capture movement. At slow camera shutter speeds, you will still capture subject movement sharply as long as you overpower the ambient light , because the flash effectively becomes your shutter. If there is too much ambient light though, you will get subject ghosting as the flash’s fast light and the ambient slow shutter speed light share the exposure giving you one sharp and many blurred versions of your subject. Using a higher shutter speed is not going to capture the movement, but it will cut out ambient light allowing the flash (possibly shooting at up to 1/20,000 of a second), to effectively be your shutter.

As I add more modifiers and make up more complicated flash configurations, I record them in a note book. This allows me to go to an idea with a workable base, then modify as I need.

The reason I do not use TTL is simply because I prefer to control things as shown above. It sits in my head better. TTL uses a totally different set of controls.

The basic strength of TTL is it’s ability to set most of the above for you. It’s weakness is that it bases it’s choices on subject reflectance. Shoot a dark subject without flash and you will usually need to set “-” exposure compensation on your camera. Flash needs the same compensation. It rarely falls outside of a workable-fixable range, but it cannot be relied on to be consistent.

Even though I shoot this way normally (Aperture priority with exposure comp), TTL flash often confuses me and works against my wishes, trying too hard to make flash invisible, then jumping to being too overpowering. It also makes judging battery drain harder. You can control the camera with manual mode, but the flash will still react to it’s environment.

No flash used, just enjoying a great spring.

*One huge advantage of M43 is f2.8 aperture gives me plenty of flash power (the wider aperture reduces the amount of power needed), but still provides a decent amount of depth of field (equal to f5.6 in full frame). A full frame camera at f5.6 would need either more flash power or a higher ISO setting. Flash on M43 is effectively two stops stronger.