The $200 Dollar Spider

Well, thats something you don’t see every day.

Scared the Cr%@$ out of me, but he (assumed by the size of the abdomen) is on the inside. He seems to happily living between the rear eye piece and magnification prism. If I adjust the prism, he reacts and changes size.

Scared the Cr%@$ out of me, but he (assumed by the size of the abdomen) is on the inside. He seems to happily living between the rear eye piece and magnification prism. If I adjust the prism, he reacts and changes size.

I always knew Olympus cameras had a special sauce, but I did not realise it was Internal engineering support!

My guy is a little lost. My fear is he will wander off, language barriers aside, he has no visa, is not COVID tested and has no idea where he is, not to mention the mess he would make of the local eco system.

Seriously though, how do you explain an image or some footage was ruined by internal saboteurs!

Googling EM1 mk2 break down has produced nothing and the housing seems impervious to my meddling.

What to do?

Call the embassy?

I will sit it under a plastic box with the battery door and front cap off and hope that he wanders off on his own (the box will contain him so I know). My hope is he is a jumping spider (looks like), so wandering comes naturally. If not I will have to deal with possible webs and other issues. Not much room in there.

Many years ago, I had a Canon F1 with “shutter bugs”, on the finder (small mites). This was as a result of vegetable based adhesive or lubricant used at the time spawning them in humid weather, but in a modern camera I doubt there is much to eat.

If not, then I guess the $200 disassembly bill will become a reality.

ed. Gone, don’t know where and don’t care.

Bits And Pieces

Some quick little things.

The little Zoom H1n mic, has so far gotten me out of trouble twice. Running it separately, it has recorded sound for main and B roll footage, that replaces the main footage sound I did not manage to get! Still getting my act together here, I had some issues with pressing the shutter button and stopping, not starting recording (already was, didn’t see it). Sound is good enough to fool many.

At the school singing comps, the H1n managed to be the only continuously recorded sound of the whole event. Live streaming failed to be consistent, no other sound was recorded and my camera mics/Rode shotgun were well out of comfortable range. The H1n on a little stand up front handled it all. The limiter in particular is very efficient. Apparently the recorder is best used higher than “5.5” on the dial to avoid increased floor noise and the limiter is very good at natural clipping control (thanks Julian Kraus).

I got the Neewer CM-14 today ($24au) and I swear, the thing is better to my ear than the Rode Videomic mini (3 times the price). It seems to have more resonance, crisper high end, less handling noise and a cleaner sound floor, where the Rode is a decent mid range mic (both plugged into my H1n). If the two had a love child (one can only hope*), it would have the perfect range. It also came with several accessories and fits the Rode ones as needed.

The Neewer picks up a little more peripheral sound than the Rode, making the Rode better as a longer range, directional shotgun mic and the Neewer a better boom or interview mic, especially if I place it between two people or a small group.

The Neewer’s only short coming, the semi soft shock bracket, is eliminated by the cheap Smallrig boom bracket, which the Neewer mic is ideally long and symmetrical enough to fit in. The Neewer seemed less handling sensitive when I tested them together (Neewer best>Rode>H1n), so maybe that bracket is ok.

The Neewer’s only short coming, the semi soft shock bracket, is eliminated by the cheap Smallrig boom bracket, which the Neewer mic is ideally long and symmetrical enough to fit in. The Neewer seemed less handling sensitive when I tested them together (Neewer best>Rode>H1n), so maybe that bracket is ok.

Every decent mic has it’s uses. The Rode would be better for a woman’s voice, avoiding too much high end and unnatural resonance, where the Neewer sounds great with a male voice. Neither is objectively “right”, although the Neewer impresses most, especially for the price. The H1n is in a different class, with different strengths. I feel now that I have several options available, which is cool. Ironically, If I had bought the Movo as intended, I would have two deeper sounding mics, which would be less versatile.

The whole rig. The Rode goes in the day bag, the Neewer in the full kit as the boom/backup option to the H1n. There are 1, 3 and 10ft cables, spare AAA Eneloop batteries for the H1n and various other bits. The dead cats are segregated to avoid shedding (breeding?). If needed the Smallrig bracket (above) comes along attached to a small boom pole.

The whole rig. The Rode goes in the day bag, the Neewer in the full kit as the boom/backup option to the H1n. There are 1, 3 and 10ft cables, spare AAA Eneloop batteries for the H1n and various other bits. The dead cats are segregated to avoid shedding (breeding?). If needed the Smallrig bracket (above) comes along attached to a small boom pole.

Using the AEL flip switch function three on the EM1’s (thanks Robin Wong) to toggle between video and stills is brilliant. First day I found out about it, I adapted immediately and it made life so much easier.

Finding out I should only be using mechanical shutter for higher ISO shooting to reduce noise and get rid of the green caste is also a revelation. I had put it down to the funky light at the respective venues, but apparently it is part of the electronic shutter process. Again thanks, Robin Wong. ed. I do not see this issue with any of the EM1’s.

Tried to set up some specific AF patterns on the EM1 and they seem to be really making a difference. A double line would be great, but I went with a 1x5 line (for birds), 4x1 tall line (for things in tree lines or crowds), 3x7 wide rectangle (cars etc) and a 7x3 tall rectangle (football players). Always jealous of the G9’s options and now I have them with Olympus AF.

The Neewer mechanical Gimbal is good. It took a few minutes to balance (mostly involving reducing the weights to match the camera), but the MS-1 setting on the EM1x is probably even better and easier to control.

*although I would like to avoid a tribble like multiplication of the dead cat’s I have accumulated.





Close, But No Cigar

DXO ProLab 4 has been given a shot. A more detailed analysis would be great, but time is pressing.

The advantage of ProLab is the one stop shop programme. This has turned out to be a bit of a double edged sword.

Not as intuitive as C1, but not horrible, it has lots to like and I am in the mood for a change.

The tools are deeper again than C1, each has their own “page” and some are much nicer to work with (the horizon tool is a favourite). Files imported with auto processing are good, almost perfect and the ability to off-set the processing time for Deep Prime or Prime noise reduction until export seems like a time saver, but I am struggling with Dropbox at the moment (very slow and consistently keeps doing things I have asked it not to, like “do not sync” if I miss a short window before it starts to).

Add slow processing to slow uploading and I might as well walk the files over to my employer (about 500m).

The reality is, C1 with a right click out to ON1 as needed, is faster to work with and fits my processes perfectly.

Results were interesting. Deep Prime seems to sometimes create slightly unnatural looking edges and textures, that ON1 either avoids naturally or the slightly less aggressive processing mitigates. Several times, hard pushed files showed nasty, artificial looking shadow to highlight transitions, that ON1 smoothed quite well, with similar noise and sharpness control. ON1 also has more fine controls at the NR level and allows C1 edits to be made before or after noise reduction.

Now here is an odd thing. I have recently switched from long term Lightroom use to C1 and had to adjust my eye to different colour and slider responses, but I feel my tastes have not altered drastically. See how the DXO files (right side) are all darker? Can’t explain that. They were processed at the same time, in the same place with the same screen. Maybe Deep Prime darkens the files?

The top one looks like a win to DP, but that is contrast. The issues show on closer inspection. The DXO file, when viewed way too close, is visibly more contrasty but “crunchier”, especially in the slightly out of focus areas. I can push the ON1 file a little and the files seem to respond, but I don’t see the need. The DXO files seem to need some backing off from even their own auto processing setttings to avoid this.

Shame really, as DXO promised a lot of benefits at the best overall price.

Japan POTD #12

Our favourite platform in Kyoto station, located on ground floor “around the back” on the Arashyama line.

EmptyName.jpg

Far from being a daily thing these are still coming.

White Noise

I have new computer.

Breaking with tradition I went lap top, likely due to he time of year (winter), for comfort and practicality.

The Mac book Air has the new M1 chip. This looks able to handle enormous loads, so, using cloud storage and asking less than Scorsese level movie needs, I went with the base model and so far everything is going great.

The double edged sword is, now I can load up all those better versions of the programmes I want.

I started with Da Vinci Resolve for movies, then Classic Lightroom, C1 and trial versions of DXO Pure RAW and Prolab 4. Last, but it turns out, not least, I loaded in ON1 NoNoise.

The last one came from a desire to tackle noise in a work flow friendly way.

Lets re-wind to the beginning.

I shot some night hockey in some of the worst Light I have encountered. ISO 6400+, f2.8, 1/250th with a hideous yellow-green caste kind of stuff. M43 is very capable, but that was stressing everything beyond my comfort level. I switched to my 75mm f1.8 for half the game, just to feel like I had something decent to show.

Not satisfied with the files, I decided to try DXO Pure RAW. This is a pre-processing programme, designed to tackle noise, lens and camera corrections all at once. The Deep Prime NR is amazing, but it took 5 hours to load up and process 600 images. I did it wrong, doing my vetting after processing not before, but that in itself is problematic. I want to select and process using C1, not by eye before and the difference is enough, that images I may normally dismiss can be usable after DXO.

Sure I am missing something obvious, but the time is still an issue.

Several comparisons included a new-comer to the fold. The usual DXO vs Topaz fight now includes ON1 NoNoise. No Noise, did not seem as powerful at first, but I think I missed the subtlety it offered and I failed to do direct comparisons.

What makes it more powerful to me is, it is a right click “edit with..”, a few seconds to render a single image (or proportionately more if you want several), then you can usually just hit done and save. The results are astounding, realistic and controllable (as are those from DXO and Topaz), but they are fast and easily intertwined into my standard processing work flow.

After trying LR and C1 as the test bed, the processed images look similar, but the unprocessed ones are a different story. I had forgotten the “marbling” noise in LR, especially with sharpening and NR applied at higher ISO’s.

A set of ISO 6400 and 12800 (!) test images later and I have a decent, reasonably bullet proof work flow set up. Import to C1, select candidates that need some help (most images at ISO 3200 or more), export to ON1 as TIFFs (tried DNG, but see little difference and the TIFFs seem clean and powerful), save back to C1, usually after little or no change to the auto settings applied, then complete my C1 editing. I then export the original RAW and TIFF into storage and the processed jpeg’s to the client.

Why C1 over LR?

Several reasons, some I needed to be re-acquainted with to really appreciate.

  1. Better base file processing, meaning many images do not need any more work and those that do, don’t contrast obviously with the untouched ones. A few ISO 6400 files were good enough straight out of C1, but were clearly too noisy in LR.

  2. The file sent to ON1 is better. The end product from both work flows looks similar, but why not start with a better file (surely the ON1 processing is gentler if the parent programme has done a better job). If I was using Pure RAW as a pre processor, I would likely stick with LR as the rental is significantly cheaper and I like the Adobe colours, but the genuine pain of pre-processing is a deal breaker.

  3. More choices when exporting to ON1 and saving back to C1. LR only seemed to offer .psd export files, C1 had several options. I settled on TIFF’s for universal convenience and I read somewhere that C1 does not love (Adobe) DNG’s.

  4. Much faster work flow generally (for me). The right click>select colour tagging is embedded now, much faster than LR’s left click>scroll>select.

The other concern that always lurks in the mind as much as speed, is cost. ON1 is $77 au at the moment, DXO PR $180au, PL4 $270au.

The first set of images below are ISO 6400 shots taken wide open with my 25mm f1.8.

So, a pleasant enough portrait at normal sizes of Lucy, my reluctant muse.

So, a pleasant enough portrait at normal sizes of Lucy, my reluctant muse.

Clean, sharp, relatively noise free at high enlargement size.

Another, this time at 12800, an ISO I would not even contemplate using previously.

_8144372.jpg
Still sharp, clean and vibrant. The Lightroom file was very mushy and unsharp at this level, but looked ok at normal size (often noise/grain can add to the perception of sharpness at distance, but detract from it closer in).

Still sharp, clean and vibrant. The Lightroom file was very mushy and unsharp at this level, but looked ok at normal size (often noise/grain can add to the perception of sharpness at distance, but detract from it closer in).

Another at ISO 12800.

Another at ISO 12800.

Notice the detail on the nose (point of best focus-the eye is slightly out) and the lack of noise behind. These have not been extensively processed in C1, just exposure and contrast levels, with a little sharpening just to see what would happen. I have found the files are pretty robust, but little is needed to be done.

Notice the detail on the nose (point of best focus-the eye is slightly out) and the lack of noise behind. These have not been extensively processed in C1, just exposure and contrast levels, with a little sharpening just to see what would happen. I have found the files are pretty robust, but little is needed to be done.

A little dark (noticing a difference between the screens on my 8 yr old iMac and the new Air).

A little dark (noticing a difference between the screens on my 8 yr old iMac and the new Air).

lightened a little. Another ISO 6400 image. I would be more than happy to print this to the same size as a ISO 400 image. To it’s credit, C1 did an ok job of this one, but the fine detail was a little mushy.

lightened a little. Another ISO 6400 image. I would be more than happy to print this to the same size as a ISO 400 image. To it’s credit, C1 did an ok job of this one, but the fine detail was a little mushy.

A final one at 6400

A final one at 6400

Nice to be able to do fine art grade work at higher ISO settings.

Nice to be able to do fine art grade work at higher ISO settings.

DXOPR ISO 6400 file. Lots of colour correction needed and applied (one end of the ground was yellow, the other blue-green and the middle an unholy mix of the two).  Something I found problematic with DXO Pure RAW was the lack of fine controls. Some files just looked a little “plasticky”. Still, impressive results, but any better than ON1 or worth the extra time? I also have DXO ProLab 4 to try out. This would be to replace all of the above with possibly one clean work flow, except my old iMac cannot load the current version, so not sure what to do there and the time issue is still real.

DXOPR ISO 6400 file. Lots of colour correction needed and applied (one end of the ground was yellow, the other blue-green and the middle an unholy mix of the two). Something I found problematic with DXO Pure RAW was the lack of fine controls. Some files just looked a little “plasticky”. Still, impressive results, but any better than ON1 or worth the extra time? I also have DXO ProLab 4 to try out. This would be to replace all of the above with possibly one clean work flow, except my old iMac cannot load the current version, so not sure what to do there and the time issue is still real.

Further refining and testing is likely, for example, I am not sure if exposure/contrast adjustments should be done before export or after or if ON1 is best for these (It does more than just cleaning up noise).

So, how useful?

I can now handle ISO 100-1600 files natively in C1, handing off ISO 6400+ (!) files to ON1 as needed. The slightly slower flow is more than made up for by the vastly more pleasant files on offer.

This has the same effective high ISO benefit of shooting full frame and processing with C1, but keeps the benefits of M43 in all other respects. Sure a full frame camera could even go further, but no practical need. I can now use my 300 F4 in poor indoor or outdoor night lighting at ISO 6400+, 1/500th, which tops out my needs. More impressively, I can set auto ISO to 6400 without fear, instead of a very conservative 1600.

Microphones.....Geez.

So if I wrote a book on ways you can melt your brain right out your ears, I think microphone comparisons might be at the top.

Token image of one who could care less. Jealous much?

Token image of one who could care less. Jealous much?

I have ordered the Zoom H1n and I am happy with that purchase. Universally respected and incredibly versatile, this is a good recommendation for any sound recordist in any field. At a pinch it can be any mic I need, but one feature that is begging to be used more, is that it can make another mic even better.

I have also, mistakenly, ordered the Rode Video Mic Micro, as it seems specifically googling the Movo VXR 10 pro, does not exclude a local retailer’s paid commercial for the Rode coming up in the first couple of entries. Looking identical and possibly fatigued from looking at too many reviews, I pushed go, paypal shot the order directly through and only when I got my email confirmation did I see my mistake.

Annoyed?

Yes.

End of the world?

Probably not.

After another day of listening to comparisons has led me to this conclusion (bared out by many good reviewers), that this field, much like imaging comparisons, has far too many variables, post production controls and listener subjectivity to make internet comparisons matter past a realistic point.

Just like image comparisons, comparing sound devices, without addressing every variable applicable to you and your circumstances specifically, is usually only a rough guide at best. Most cameras can produce nearly identical images with enough processing applied. Total pixels, lens quality, processing, handling and the subject all contribute as much to image quality as the camera and the same is the case for sound and mics.

If the mic is not totally crap, then something usable will come of it, especially if used well and appropriately.

Tammy Sypniewski points this out clearly in her excellent review comparisons, but another clue was the lack of commitment from most reviewers. They are keen to let you make up your own mind, not as keen to be too overtly opinionated, because they know it to. I appreciate this, but it took a while for me to get it.

If the retailer cancels my order (they did not), then I will get some of the options on my wish list below. The H1n will likely improve their already excellent sound and noise floor and give me long range control.

If the order is not cancelled, I will likely stick with the Rode, as the mount, dead cat and cable are very good and the mic is an industry standard, with plenty of people using it and the H1n together successfully. No harm, no foul and I can still stretch to the Takstar and probably the Neewer anyway, just out of curiosity (another thing taken from above is that all decent mics have their relative strengths and weaknesses).

Got the mic and it’s fine for the job it has to do.

Is the mic deep and resonant enough?

That can be added in and all reasonable mics sound great if used close to the subject and equally all tend to sound poor at a distance, but some are a little better (like with image noise, some cameras are better, but avoiding it is best). I tend to like deeper sounding mics, which it turns out is more about subject to mic distance, environment and processing. Excessive depth at the mic end may hide other problems.

Is the mic crisp and clear enough?

That is a tougher one to fix if lacking, but improving the pre amp (H1n) or “boosting” the mic to turn down often mediocre camera pre amp noise can help (this last needs a powered mic). Rode’s tend to sound deep and rich, but this can also hide an excessive noise floor under that depth, which is harder to clean up than just adding bass. Sennheissers on the other hand can sound higher pitched or thinner/crisper. Extra bass can be added easily enough and their base noise floor is lower, which is better.

The H1n fixes many feature deficiencies in cheaper mics, such as low noise filtering, improving pre amp quality, which reduces the noise floor (especially when compared to in camera amps) and other features like effects, so the base mic is all that is important. From that perspective, the best of the cheap ones seem to be the ones to go with for now.

The only things that actually matter it turns out are the practical things like price, accessories and fittings. Is the mic properly stabilised (for example the otherwise excellent Deity D4 has a poor shock mount, the Neewer CM14 and Takstar effectively lack a real one), is it powered or not, effecting features onboard or, is it sold without the needed extras like a dead cat (the Takstar does not even have one available).

Something that also became evident is the pricing. Most super cheap mics in the U.S. are actually not that cheap here. The Movo is meant to be 20-30% cheaper than the Rode, but in Australia it is comparable ($79 au Amazon), which is part of the reason I thought the cheaper Rode was a Movo. Most mics that are 30-70% cheaper that the Rode in the U.S. and Canada end up being only 10-30% cheaper or the same price here, making the Rode less odious to get (the one I ordered was actually $1.95 cheaper than the only Movo I came across). The exchange rate looks about right for all except Rode, who are comparatively cheaper here.

Short list;

Neewer CM14 mini shotgun ($25au). Excellent sound, poor accessories. If I end up with the Rode, then I will have two ways of tackling the same situations, with the accessories from the Rode used with both.

Takstar SGC 600 is very good ($50au), compared, in several accredited blind tests, favourably with the seven times more expensive Rode NGT in sound (not build or features), but like the Neewer it lacks needed accessories like a true dead cat option and real shock proofing. It is a powered mic with good range, so a good camera mount option. I am also struggling to find a legit one for a decent price.

Neewer CM15 which looks excellent ($?), but is hard to get at the moment. This mic fixes most of the accessory issues I have with both the above.

Some type of cheap LAV mic, but I have not tackled that monster yet.

Less likely;

Sennheisser MKE 200 ($150au), which is as dear as all of the above together, but has excellent form factor and the best wind proofing and handling.

Sennheisser MKE 400 ($300au) is probably the premium mic I would go for, offering better form factor than equivalent competitors.

Rode NT5 pencil mics ($500+/pair). These would be ideal for studio and music/event work, if that becomes a thing. Not realistic, but hey, a bloke can dream.

Another H1n maybe?

The Rode VM Micro ($75au) which I may be getting, has build, sound, mount, dead cat and cable quality on it’s side with good support, so it will be perfectly fine. If this comes, the MKE’s will not, but I will likely pick up the top two. The Movo VXR 10 pro was my preferred option here, but steep pricing in Australia and mixed feelings about the real sound benefits (subjectivity at play) compared to the Rode have pushed it back. My only real issue with the Rode is price compared to other options. It will not be a bad mic, just dearer than needed.



The Elephant In The Next Room Is Invited Over.

Video…….

Not interested!

Some things can only be told with a frozen moment, some not.

Some things can only be told with a frozen moment, some not.

Or should I be……?

Not sure where this came from, but the other day, I was photographing the school production of Shrek and it just felt right that I try some video.

When covering these events, I often find myself repeating similar images because I am there and do not want to waste the school’s time and money, but sometimes I get bored with the repetition required to stay busy (move around you say, try new angles you say-true but not always possible). I always want that better shot, but sometimes you just know you have it and the third time the scene is repeated does not need to be covered as well as the previous two.

I gave it a go and managed five decent short clips with C4k, but I forgot to turn the sound on, because I set up the camera intending to just shoot “stock” footage with voice over or music added later (turns out we do not have the ability to broadcast sound anyway with our license, so I lucked my way out of that one). The recoding levels still show even with sound disabled. First lesson learned.

The EM1x is a decent video rig and I use the term “rig” deliberately, because it is more than just a decent video camera. The EM1x is likely the best “free hand” mirrorless video camera available as of this time (maybe the EM1 mk3 matches it), because it has awesome stabilisation and unlike the EM1 mk2, good face detect auto focus for focussing on approaching and receding subjects. So, a decent foundation, fixing two of the four things that need addressing, which are video quality, stabilisation, sound (see below) and lighting.

The reality is, after you get all excited about lighting, story boarding and capture rates, sound is actually more important than footage captured.

Mediocre video can survive if good sound supports it.

Poor sound kills otherwise excellent video.

I did the three day crash course similar to my lighting explorations, which consists of countless videos and reviews of X vs Y, then spoke with some friends who are more experienced at this than I. This led down ever more divergent paths until I felt I had some sort of handle on it.

Super Cardioid, WAV, recording floor and high pass filter are all old friends now.

Close to pulling the trigger several times*, I have finally settled on the core of my “beginners” kit.

The ubiquitous Zoom H1n ($170au, $220 with most needed accessories) seems to be the most versatile item available. It and can open up doorways that to be honest I do not fully understand yet. I have to buy a stabiliser for it at some point, but basically, I am ready to go.

  1. It can be a clean pre amp and power source for another mic (Modo XVR 10, Rode or LAV).

  2. It can act as a direct to camera, or computer mic.

  3. It can act as a free form satellite mic for hand held work.

  4. It can be a good enough on camera mic (better than say the Rode VM Go or micro).

  5. It captures a wider area than a true Super Cardioid shotgun mic, which is good for some subjects (but can be made more focussed using another mic or by getting closer).

  6. It can be the independent mic that several cameras sync to or to allow you to use a longer lens.

  7. It can dual record with the camera giving you a backup track.

All this with decent 96khz 24 bit WAV sound. This means you can get cordless options of boom or LAV mics cheaper than buying a cordless option of either (just needs synching-which looks easier than I imagined) and run them at the ideal distance to subject, not the camera (closer = better quality). If I upgrade my shotgun option, then it is still a useful “B” mic or power source/pre amp.

The Movo VXR 10 Pro ($80au) looks to be the best “bang for your buck”, cheap-end shotgun/boom mic available (with some optional versatility and help from the H1n). It looks to be superior in most reviews to the Rode VM Go and VM Micro and equal in some situations to their dearer options**. It is also cheaper than any of these and comes with the most accessories. It helps also that this little mic can boom off of a very light weight pole, mono pod or clamp. The Diety D4 Duo is also an option and the Sennheisser MKE 200 with it’s awesome wind buffering but I will see how the H1n performs first.

As of this writing I have ordered a Rode VM Micro by mistake (stupid google search ad priority and my not double checking the order), which I may keep or return. Decent enough option I suppose and one vlogger has a good sample of the H1n pre-amping for one, which sounds great.

This will would fit in a small organiser bag (supplied with the XVR), then slot into a lens sized space in any bag I use, or it’s own bag with lights etc.

I may add the Rode LAV Go later, but maybe not as the boom option for the XVR offers deep and warm sound.

Lighting is already sorted (Neewer LED 660 bi colour as main, 480 rgb as fill and 176 as hair light), but I may add a 30w 10.6 or 45w rectangular “soft” panel later and the EM1x effectively negates the need for a gimbal (for my needs).

*I bounced off the cute little Sennheiser MKE 200/400 (best wind proofing and form factor), Rode VM Pro, Pro+ and NTG (the industry standards) and various other Tascam, Zoom and Movo options, but these two kept floating to the top.

**In a couple of blind tests, the XVR had the same raw sound quality as the Rode NTG in ideal circumstances (indoor boomed). The Rode and several other models below it blow the XVR away for features, but the H1n can help here adding filters and effects and for $80au it’s a steal.



Unexpected Problem

I have written often about my deep respect, love even, for my 75mm f1.8.

My Bokeh king, low light champion and portrait master, this lens is one of the core 4 lenses* I use daily.

But……

This winter I am having regular and annoying issues mounting the often cold lens onto a warm camera body. My day usually consists of moving from a warm space, through a cold one, then back to a warm one, and sometimes, such as a recent shoot of the school production, a humid one.

Hard to convey in a blog file, but this file will max out my A3+ printer resolution with plenty to spare. It was shot near wide open.

Hard to convey in a blog file, but this file will max out my A3+ printer resolution with plenty to spare. It was shot near wide open.

The 75mm invariably stays colder than the other lenses, being all metal, and lacking weather proofing, it fogs up on the rear element more often than not. I dismount it, let it clear, remount it and within seconds, fogged up again. It is quite nice “70’s” style soft focus, but not practical.

The pro lenses are sealed and most of my other primes are either plastic bodied or not employed in these situations, so no issue. I have started replacing it with a 45mm in the winter months. The plastic barrelled lenses do not seem to suffer as much from this issue.

If I do need to use the 75mm, I will endeavour to temperature stabilise it, but that is not always possible.

*Core kit is the 12-40 and 40-150 Pro with 25 and 75 “fast” lenses. Sometimes the 12-40 is replaced by the 8-18, but only if the light is predictable or the space restricted. In bright light, I may also switch to the 75-300 kit over the pro lens to save weight.

Japan POTD #9

One of the many ceremonies or festivals to be found in Japan. Apparently there is one slated for every day of the year somewhere in the country.

EmptyName 2.jpg

Another of many images taken with the 40-150 kit.

Japan POTD #7

Hedgehogs, always popular in Japan, come in many sizes. These are 3-4ft tall. Perfect for the tiny doorways they have there!

EmptyName 18.jpg

A Good Lens

I hate buying new gear.

I especially hate buying expensive gear. I have been in this field for far too long and it has given me a jaded view of manufacturing consistency, unrealistic expectations and general gear satisfaction. This is mostly unfair, as Canon, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic have rarely if ever let me down, but too much knowledge……

I especially, especially hate buying lenses. Cameras are fine. They work or they don’t, but lenses are one of those things I am suspicious of, usually for too long and usually my suspicions are proven to be unfounded.

My 300mm is a case in point. I bought it at the beginning of the year from the shop I worked at for 10+ years. I know for a fact it had been there since release, being the first we ordered when they came out. It sat and sat, suffering the fate of many top end lenses in a small shop in a small city, weathering price drops and rises until one day I had money and a need (but no longer worked there).

It offered me the one thing I demand of a lens, the ability to try before I buy.

I knew I would likely stay with the supplied firmware (really do not enjoy the Olympus process). I also knew that the lens was an early production model, often cursed with first batch gremlins until things settle down (like the 12mm f2). I used it, it worked well enough and I bit the bullet. Annoyingly, the shop got a new one in to replace it, which I would have liked to have had the chance to purchase, but honestly I did not think they would go for one again.

Months have passed (so fast), leaving me busy enough to just use it and not think too much about it.

ISO 1600 bite, hand held in a gloomy auditorium.

ISO 1600 bite, hand held in a gloomy auditorium.

ISO 3200 at a notoriously gloomy swimming pool

ISO 3200 at a notoriously gloomy swimming pool

Nothing is more satisfying than an image that surprises even you, the taker, for it’s sheer quality in trying circumstances.

That super crisp, contrasty snap that is the province of top tier telephoto lenses.

That super crisp, contrasty snap that is the province of top tier telephoto lenses.

Focus is excellent giving me as many if not more keepers than the 40-150 pro. I often hold on too long, chasing subjects that are almost on top of me, rather than change to a smaller lens, sometimes with surprising results.

Stability, with or without the in-lens option is excellent. I often disengage all stabilisation when shooting fast sports (one less thing for the camera to deal with and irrelevant at 1/500th+ anyway), and just as often I forget to turn it back on for snap shots during and after the game. Rarely have I had a major problem down to 1/100th hand held, no help. This was something I also found with my old 400mm F5.6L Canon. Sometimes a lens is just well balanced.

To set the scene. I had walked from home down “Heart Break Hill”, a couple of hundred 40 degree meters to the school sports grounds, then had to go back home quickly, gear in tow, to fix a shoe blow-out (teach me to kick a soccer ball around at my age), return quickly to shoot two games of soccer (at the same time), then on my way back up said hill, I took this hand held snap. Imagine what a not tuckered out photographer, with a solid tripod supported, teleconverter matched lens, in high res mode could do!

To set the scene. I had walked from home down “Heart Break Hill”, a couple of hundred 40 degree meters to the school sports grounds, then had to go back home quickly, gear in tow, to fix a shoe blow-out (teach me to kick a soccer ball around at my age), return quickly to shoot two games of soccer (at the same time), then on my way back up said hill, I took this hand held snap. Imagine what a not tuckered out photographer, with a solid tripod supported, teleconverter matched lens, in high res mode could do!

Sharpness is deceiving. The lens looks less crisp or brilliant on the surface image when compared to the 40-150 pro, enough so that I can usually pick their respective images by eye easily enough. Look inside the image though, down to shirt texture or ball stitch level and you will see much more than you expected. I believe it is sharper than the pro zoom, but less overtly contrasty. This is likely the effect of greater micro contrast vs higher contrast. The files process very easily and handle strong light well.

The 300mm is better in strong light, the 40-150 better in poor, low contrast light. Perfect really.

The shot below was are cropped to 440x330 pixels (the original is of 2-3 players, taller than head to foot, much like the one above, but school rules do not allow a before and after with faces). This level of quality gives you lots of cropping options.

Weatherproofing has also proven itself several times.

Is it perfect?

Nearly, but there is a niggle.

The Bokeh is plentiful, but like I have found with so many other high sharpness, high micro contrast Olympus lenses, it is a little jittery in the background highlights. It actually looks less smooth than my 75-300 kit lens, which is a stop and a half slower.

So, where does it fit in with my over abundance of good tele options?

Number one choice for anything involving distance unless outright shutter speeds are an issue, then I will switch to the 40-150 and then the 75 f1.8 as needed. I have successfully used it indoors at pools and under lights, but at some point, around ISO 6400, I trade reach for speed.

Number one choice if reach with low speed hand holding are needed with a semi static subject as the lens stabiliser and overall balance do make a difference.

Last choice for light travel. The 40-150 and 75-300 kit lenses are much, much lighter, more versatile and surprisingly sharp.

The other win, uncharacteristically bought sight unseen at the same time, was the Leica 8-18, which is a little cracker. Not as worried about a wide angle or a lens bought solely for work, I think this one will change how I see wide angle lenses.

Japan POTD #6

Family and friends are very important to most Japanese. A common sight while visiting popular spots are locals doing exactly the same thing.

EmptyName 10.jpg

Japan POTD #5

This image is a favourite. Such a simple, perfect space.

Simple elegance of form

Simple elegance of form

Japan POTD #4

A day out on the weekend, no effort spared. The Japanese always make the most of their spare time and like to connect with their past.

EmptyName 36.jpg

Japan POTD #3

The contrast of old and new is a common theme in Japan, not because of it’s irony or rarity, but because of it’s commonality.

EmptyName 1.jpg

Japan POTD #2

Oops. Already behind.

It is hard to express, from an arachnophobes perspective how big these are. Try size of your palm, assuming you are a full grown adult. Beautiful, placid, generally left alone, but big.

Shot with the amazing little 40-150 “anti-pro” kit lens.

EmptyName 14.jpg

Japan. POTD #1

In light of my last post and the reality of our travel situation, I have started the book/print project.

A side effect, or maybe benefit of this is a rediscovery of many files that will never make paper of any sort (or maybe the odd one will), but still have something about them, maybe nostalgia, maybe longing.

So, lets start a little project “photo of the day” or “postcards from Japan”. Something like that anyway.

No guarantee it will be reliable, but a pretty solid guarantee the images will only have one thing in common.

EmptyName 3.jpg

Greeting from Japan.