This group were a lot of fun, but highlighted to me the cultural gap between us.
After the first group set, the main subject was coy to say the least. Striking a deliberately “wistful” pose, he then shifted into something more dramatic.
It went how we both wanted I guess?
Still fun.
Most subject were quite formal at first. It was explained to me that this was mostly out of respect for me and the process, but I persevered.
It did not take long for most of my subjects to warm up to the process and let their inner happiness show through.
This subject (I have no names as the group largely spoke little English and they in and out quite quickly) is one of the elders of the community and a really good example of a how keeping a smile on your face keeps you young.
In what would have been quite a comical exchange, I tried to get her to shift her stance a little side on and my hand gestures were interpreted as “will you dance for me as you have previously at events?”. Either that or she was just having some fun with me.
Either way the end result was perfect.
The next image is of a person who has always stayed on the fringes of the larger group. We all have a story and I bet hers is more “interesting” than mine.
I like this more relaxed one, something I feel is rare with this subject.
This is the more formal early image showing also, the versatility of the grey backdrop.
I love my Pen F.
I hardly ever use it.
Probably a good thing as it is as near to a modern collectible that you will probably find.
Short of leaving it in its box and selling it “mint” for more than I paid, I have chosen from day one to use it for myself, which as it turns out is the only logical application for it. Actually, I bought it and my 40-150 when I came out of hospital about five years ago, inspired to get back into photography after a period of creative malaise and look where that led.
It was the only 20mp Olympus at the time with high res, an electronic shutter and “pro” grade build. I could not see past that at the time. Not long after I started work again at the same camera shop and the EM Mk2 and G9 were released, both more practical options.
This Jekyll and Hyde camera has two distinct personalities, which when combined tend to make it quite powerful, but highly specialised.
In the following ways, I consider it no better than my EM10 Mk2’s or even the ageing EM5 Mk1’s, with the added issues of more weight and preciousness. These include;
Contrast detect only AF, slightly better than an EM5 Mk1, but only just. Plenty for most uses but it precludes any serious sports or action applications.
Poor electronic shutter banding at relatively low ISO settings. Really bad at 1600 under almost any artificial light and hints at 800.
Rudimentary high res performance. First gen so as expected, just wish it was more refined, i.e. a later application.
Average high ISO performance. Past 3200 I get the jitters and generally stick to 800 or lower even with C1. It does however share the EM5’s tight film grain look.
An odd sounding shutter, especially in vertical orientation, where it sounds almost broken. Just me probably, but it sounds flimsy compared to an EM5 Mk1.
The battery and card share the same space under a regular grade door located on the bottom. This is just crappy, diminishing an otherwise jewel-like camera.
No weather proofing. This is a beautifully made camera with no external screws from a brand known for weather proofing, but lacks any sealing? Ironically the bulk of the lenses I use with it don’t have any either, so problem solved I guess.
The stabiliser is good, but only EM5 Mk1 good. The weight of the camera (it is a dead weight), does help.
Video is an after thought with no mic port which is a shame as it is quite nice. Not a priority for the designers, especially eight years ago. I would have almost preferred they not bother and use the space for other things.
Things it does badly compared to any camera I have;
It is quirky in handling with a roughly ridged front dial. The dial is workable in short doses and the over priced grip partly reduces the problem. Otherwise it feels less comfortable than most of my cameras, it’s weight being the only handling plus.
It favours jpegs. Odd considering it’s top end customer, but also logical as it mimics a film camera’s dynamic. If you are a jpeg only shooter, it is probably one of the few cameras that can “bring it”, out of camera to the Fuji range.
The screen is hard to open out. The design heavily favours an old school film camera vibe, so the nearly invisible, textured panel when folded in fits with that, but it is the only one I struggle with.
The dedicated exposure compensation dial needs two fingers to turn. I use this all the time and instinctively, so this just pisses me off.
Things it does that remind you how special it is;
The image quality is a rare combination of mature colour and a larger format look (not that m43 generally lacks that, but there is something else here), a filmic look maybe, but medium format film. It is a neutral-cool base (Kodachrome like?) with effortless biting sharpness and detail. There is a depth to the files.
Part of this is the sensor development stream. Rather than using the new phase detect hybrid in the early EM1’s, it is the end of the EM5 contrast detect only development (except maybe the EM10 Mk4). In a way it is the best of the first generation and avoided the compromises made by phase detection being shared on the sensor.
The shutter button has an old fashioned mechanic connector. This makes it an ideal landscape camera and almost all of the above issues disappear when that is the case. I originally mated it to the 12-100 as a one camera, one lens landscape kit, but lately it has been used with the 12-60 Leica.
It is truly beautiful. Of all the cameras I have ever owned, it is most likely to be a display-piece even when it is long dead.
So, a very special camera, but probably a victim of being released a year or two too early and bought again, a year or two too early. The Pen F was the best of its type for a short while, but most of the new tech was unrefined, meaning video, high res, electronic shutter were crude and other aspects hardly improved over older models. For me, a quieter, normal shutter, no tricks and gimmicks, or video and more attention to user functionality would have been better.
Lenses.
The hard sharp sensor behaves differently with different lenses.
The 12-60 Pana-Leica offers a good combination of sensor balancing warm, bright colours and high sharpness. The images above were all taken with it today.
The often “kitted” 17mm f1.8 is nice, but equally the Pana-Leica 15 adds something delicate and brilliant. In fact, I think I like the 15mm more on this camera than any other.
The Oly primes from 25 to 75 are all a good fit.
It seems to like the kit 12-60 and 40-150 for some reason, maybe matching their muted colour, hard-sharp look, even though both feel a little “under done” on the heavy body.
A last ideal fit from my kit is the Leica 9mm, again another strange handling dynamic, but with excellent output.
I really do intent to use it more, but to be honest, the weight and preciousness put me off making it a daily carry (Pen mini does that), as does the mind shift needed to master it. I am already juggling Panasonic and Olympus functionality on a daily basis, so another camera, slightly out of sync with either is a “holiday” task.
I have recently had cause to question what makes a photographer a professional.
There are a lot of things that could be seen as basic expectations, but for me is the very real issue of depth. You have to get the shot.
If you need something, then no matter how good or reliable it may be, professionally you need two or more. Shit, as they say, happens. This comes up time and again.
Twice recently, I have covered events with my backup cameras. Regularly I need a second or even third flash and/or battery change and as often as not, that lens I threw in last minute as a “just in case”, ends up being the work horse of the day. I have got to start trusting that little voice more.
Down stream, more cards and camera batteries, easily sourced accessories like light stands, even filters can all be needed at short notice and when they are, they are.
Minutes after arriving at this school formal, I was faced with the EM1 Mk2, my workhorse daily camera, not firing my YN560 flash (for some reason, most of them are playing up on EM1 and G9 cameras, then fire fine on the EM10’s and 5’s), but oddly the dedicated remote works on all of them). The little EM10 Mk2, thrown in as an option, ended up doing the whole night.
This also applies to plans. Many a time I have had an idea in my head, a pre-visualisation, only to be faced with a totally different situation or a random call mid trip to turn around and cover an unscheduled event requiring gear at the other end of the spectrum.
If I even think something may be an outside chance, then I need to make sure I cover it.
My daily bag has two ways of tackling each situation.
I use two cameras, because one just seems…….disrespectful of my client or employer. For every zoom there is a fast prime, for every fast prime there is a lighting option, for every lighting option, there is another, for every modifier there are more. Everything that relies on something like cards or batteries has backups either in or near the device.
I even carry four pens.
Ok, here is a challenge for all of us, me included.
What is your limit. How fast, dark, big can you handle?
Before any of us buy anything new, we really need to find out how much we have. I am as guilty as anyone here, often “upgrading” unwisely, sometimes even managing to go backwards while thinking I was going forwards.
So, using your best technique, software and lens, how dark can it get before you need to take “serious” measures (tripod, long exposure etc)?
How fast can you focus or more to the point how well can you capture a really fast subject?
How tightly can you crop your files that have the best subjective quality, which will help indicate how big you could print if you had the means and then ask the question, “do I ever need to”?
All have levels from lens quality, technique, software and processing, so explore the options.
Sport has been shot with single frame manual focus cameras. People have hand held medium format film cameras in near darkness at ISO 64, billboards have been made for Times Square adds off 8mp jpegs from older APS-C sensors.
You may surprise yourself.
I have the very special privilege of sharing some images I took for the Migrant Resource Centre on Mothers day.
These were quick and dirty portraits in a cramped room with a mottled or plain grey backdrop. The mottled was the Manfrotto/Lastolite Pewter which was the preferred one, but it quickly became obvious that the individual shots I had in my head were actually going to become groups, families and more, so I switched to the bigger plain grey, my work horse.
The 2.4m wide backdrop (hung sideways) filled the small room and still was not always enough, but we managed.
A mix of several nationalities from Bhutanese to South Asian to Eritrean, they all had some things in common, being an inner glow and accepting humour.
I will work my way through some of them a few at a time as they deserve some room to be appreciated.
This is the first time I have used the Pewter backdrop and I have to say, it is perfect for my needs. Textured, but just enough to avoid being “flat” (see below), not over the top.
Not sure what was funny, but it sure was funny. Even (grand?) dads rigid stance relaxed. This one was the bigger backdrop, less interesting but necessary.
One of my favourite families. The shoot went pretty much this way with most. The occasion was assumed to be formal so was treated with due respect by all, but after a little while, with little English shared, the walls came down, then the faces relaxed and the real people came out.
The boring technical stuff was simple, because simple works.
I used a single YH560 IV speedlite shot “butterfly style” (down from above) at about 1/64th through a 42” Godox brolly with a little home made reflector* underneath to fill shadows. This allowed me to shoot subjects of varying heights and as it turned out, group sizes.
Most of these images are vignetted slightly and each is processed to its merits, so lighting coverage was much wider and flatter than it looks.
The backdrops here held on a Neewer 2.4 metre stand with the Manfrotto magnetic arm.
Camera was the G9 with the 12-60 Pana-Leica lens or Olympus 12-40 f2.8 usually at f4. I love the skin tones from the G9.
More to come, just as special.
*Half of a wind-shield cover silver side up.
The 600mm lens is about the sweet spot for serious long lens photographers. If you bird, chase field sports, or surfing, even shoot the moon, the 600mm is considered the minimum needed to do professional work, but also not so long that it precludes general use.
What does often limit its use is cost, size and weight. It is simply not an option for many people or situations.
My 300mm on an EM1x compared to the issue 400 f2.8 and D750. It only took a moment to decide :).
These days, it is easy enough to achieve. There are plenty of zooms available that get there or longer cheaply and with a decent form factor in most formats, many of these are excellent even at quite affordable prices. They are however, not quite “pro”.
The things that make a true pro lens are;
Weather proofing, because often the best shots come in the worst weather, no excuses.
Tough build. Same as weather, the best shots are often hard to chase down.
Compatibility with teleconverters without obvious optical compromise. A top tier lens should still be better with a converter than a zoom of the same reach.
Premium quality results through the best glass, handling, stabilising and focus.
Most importantly, decent light gathering. F4 is the benchmark and even though sensors and software are making huge in-roads here, there is still a benefit to having more lens speed. Most cars can do 150kmh, but a true sports car does it more easily, is safer and gets there faster.
In full frame terms this usually means a monster optic with a nice second hand car price tag, but if impressions make a pro, they do double duty.
For most of us, if full frame or a brand that best serves full frame format is your ride, then usually a decent zoom is the best entry point. Something like the excellent Tamron or Sigma 1XX-600 zooms, the top end 80/100-400 branded lenses on a crop body or even a decent shorter prime.
My old “trade secret” was the much missed Canon 400 f5.6L, which gave me over 600mm on a crop body or near enough to it with a 1.4x converter on a full frame. It had all the above benefits except lens speed for decent money and size. When I was shooting with Canon, the slower lens was limiting, but if I had held onto it, it’s ideal “time” is probably now.
After committing to the Olympus and Panasonic M43 twin systems, I lifted my game for sports to the EM1x and wanted a better lens option. I had the 40-150 f2.8, which I luckily managed to purchase back from a friend I had sold it to, but even with the 1.4 tc it was only a 400mm+. The little 75-300 Oly punches above its meagre weight, but lacks most of the other features listed above.
Every eyelash.
Contenders were the 100-400 Oly, new on the marked and well liked, the Panasonic Leica 200 f2.8 with matched 1.4 tc (560 f4, but also 400 f2.8), but I was aware of possible auto focus compromises on an Olympus body (I feel this was not the issue I had feared, but at the time I had little experience with newer Panasonic on Olympus and did not have a G9) or the 300 f4, a lens I had been aware of for a long time, but had not previously considered due, ironically, to relative price. Even at a decent $2-3000au over its life in the shop, the price was out of my comfort zone at the time.
On the day I went to get the 100-400, the 300 had become an option that very morning. I was walking the dogs and remembered the shop I was going to, the same one I had worked at, had a very early model of the lens that had been there since day one. They had little chance of selling it due to a small market and a niche brand/format (and the plethora of other M43 options), but I had played with it often and it was good.
The crunch time came and I did the most rudimentary of tests comparing the 300 to the 100-400 in shop and even just with a few images taken down the street. I could see a difference and that was with original firmware in the 300. This stuck out to me because I knew I could get great results from even the budget 75-300, so I had doubted there would be much to see.
So, a dud 100-400 or simply a better all around lens in the prime?
A decent crop from a 75-300 + G9 experiment. Nice quality, mixed AF results. Could I get much better?
The reality is of course, Olympus over-made a very easily to make 300mm f4, something most brands have in their lineup, because of where it sits in their range. It is their 600mm f4, so it has a no holds barred, best we can do thinking applied. This is a flagship, the sort of lens that is designed to attract new customers or keep old ones.
This may seem at odds with the small and portable ethos of M43, but is it?
Fortune smiled, as it often has with M43. Occasionally I have questioned my commitment to the smaller format, but the results are the cure. The 300mm has never disappointed and seems to be getting better through a combination of my skill improving and the EM1x’s learning AF.
The three images below, all taken on the same morning, show the versatility of the lens.
True long lens reach and snappy compression,
spectacular sharpness, insane hand-hold-ability and a form factor that does not intimidate,
and it’s a friggin’ macro. Macro is often best with a little room to move, so 600mm of room makes it very handy.
I have owned an embarrassingly large amount of gear over a long period of time and I can list my very best lenses easily. The Canon 135 f2L, 100 macro (various, possibly the old F4 FD was the best), 50mm macro EF, Bronica 75mm, Oly 90 f2 OM Macro, Fuji 60mm Macro, Oly 75 f1.8 and this 300 are the best I have ever worked with. Plenty of the other lenses come close and most are professionally useable, even the little 40-150 Oly and 12-60 Pana kit lenses, but some are just transcendent.
The good.
It is very, very sharp, but natural looking with it and can also take sharpening well, so if a file is a little movement soft or out of focus by a hair, Capture 1’s sharpening applied, usually with a brush tool brings it back to ball-stitch perfect.
Cropped a little, the focus of this shot landed on the girl behind the main subject, but a little brush work and it is sharp down to the ball stitching. I have used mostly images from games I shot yesterday afternoon and last weekend from a huge back catalogue, because to be honest it does not matter. Any day, any game, all good.
It has the reach of a 600mm full frame equivalent, but the depth of field of a 300mm, so you get a little wriggle room (basically F4 acts like F8 on a full fame 600mm). Chasing high speed sport in iffy light is a skill set that takes practice, but razor thin depth of field can make a two person deep composition impossible regardless. The image above was made possible by enough depth of field to allow for retrieval sharpening.
Colour and contrast are perfect for good light or poor. The 75-300 is well suited to strong light, which is where it is best applied and the 40-150 seems to have low light enhancement skills, but can run a little “hot” in bright light. The prime handles both well.
The light at this hill shaded ground on a cloudy late afternoon in winter (yesterday) was less pleasing to the eye than this image suggests. I used to shoot here with the 75-300, using an EM mk2 and Lightroom and regularly hit the reality wall at about ISO 3200 and 1/500th. The combination of the f4 aperture, superior contrast and sharpness, put through Capture 1 and to a lesser extent the EM1x allows me to shoot comfortably even if “available gloom” is the norm.
The dual stabilising and focussing are amazing. I can hand hold this lens on and off for hours with perfect steadiness. Add to this a silent electronic shutter and instant AF and the shooting process is a series of instant, silent, considered grabs, more like sniping than machine gun hammering.
My usual camera AF setting for sports is a stack of three boxes on one of five spaced vertical rows (linked to both orientations), which allows me to be single person precise, centred, off-centre or hard left/right at the flick of a thumb nubbin. I also have three horizontals, some clumps and the usual suspects, but the three stack is the most used. Sometimes I actually forget the thing is focussing. It just seems to be seamlessly “in” all the time.
Where my skill comes in is hitting the right point, so when I miss is the only time I see anything wrong (although something is always in focus). In the games pictured, I would expect at least a 90% hit ratio, with the misses down to me. As I have stated before, I shoot single shot, sometimes in sequence, but shot by shot by considered shot.
It is small enough to fit into a “normal” camera bag, takes normal filters and goes largely un-noticed*. It will go into my F802/804 Domke bags with a camera mounted or the little (often too little) Pro Tactic 350 with the 40-150, 1.4 tc, 75, 8-18, 12-40 and 2 pro bodies. That is pro grade 16-840mm coverage with depth in a bag that I often complain holds too little.
Weather sealing is top flight, an Olympus speciality. Use it in salt spray and wipe down with fresh water. All good.
The magical F4. No matter how much other factors improve, a brighter lens will always have an edge which is why they still sell $10,000+ full frame models. The fact that it is identical in performance at all apertures does not hurt.
Handling is ideal. I can carry it all day on a cross-body strap, never needing a monopod. I can change angle, run, lie down, use a second camera and lens with it, which all contribute to a lens you want to use, rather than one you need to use. This is particularly handy for group huddle shots at half time. I can jog between both teams and grab a series of head shots in a quarter time break.
From one spot I got this close to both teams. The light weight lens allows me to circle the whole team if needed.
When the other two photographers go out to do sport, they take their monster 400 f2.8’s often with a 1.4x TC on, mandatory mono pods or tripods and a single camera. They are limited in angle, movement and versatility. I take a one or two camera set-up and never break a sweat. If the light is anything other than semi darkness I will even use it with the tiny 40-150 f4, another giant killer.
Most of us can afford it. If you take your sport/wildlife photography seriously, you will likely spend at least a decent amount on a semi pro camera and decent long lens. With this system you can spend the same and get a seriously pro kit. A second hand EM1x and 300mm combo, can be had for under $3000au or new for under $6000. That s half the price of a Pro camera from the big three or less than half the price of their 600mm f4’s. Total saving is several trips or the car to far away places to use it. For me it was simply a matter of having it or not.
Anything less than perfect?
Flipping the 300 as a 600 thing, the lens lacks the ability to blur the background out as well as a full frame and 600mm at the same distance. The reality is, this is relative and subject to many other factors, but it is true that a shorter lens cropped to longer does not have as soft or smooth blur as the longer lens un-cropped. The trade off of more useful depth over softer blur is I think in favour of the Oly lens, but in direct comparisons it is often noted as one of the few differences.
Snappy subject still, but the background is a little too coherent. I have no problem with that as there are ways around it. It is not a massive issue and sometimes some context is actually better. The quality of the lens still adds that certain something that long pro lenses have and at the end of the day, you have the shot, so processing can be applied.
Bokeh could be better. Pursuant to above, the blurring can sometimes be a little nervous. the semi-macro shot of the flower above is the best news, but it can be messy if the background is relatively close to the subject and very busy. I have found the sharpest Oly lenses tend to do that with the exception of the Bokeh master f1.2’s and the 75 f1.8.
So, to sum up, if you want a seriously pro-reliable and pro-performing, affordable, convenient go-anywhere, versatile long lens, this may very well be the best kept secret on the market. I use it with the EM1x, but the OM-1 is technically two generations newer, so the future looks bright.
As further incentive, how about a sub $1000 150mm f1.8 or a 300mm f4 pro (FF equiv) at the end of a zoom that can go into a pocket, or even an 18mm f1.7 that weighs less than 150grams? The lens above may be the answer to your needs, but the system as a whole needs to be considered also.
*A couple of weeks ago I remember hearing someone in the background at a footy match say something like “he won’t get much with that little lens”, while I was thinking it was a little long for the smaller than average ground! Often for Cricket, I actually find it too long especially considering the cropping potential, so I sneak the 75-300 along as well.
The game I shot late on Saturday was eventful, so I have to go back and check if I missed anything.
Bit annoyed this one slipped through.
Seems #6 from Clarence had a good day, but I was concentrating on the other team.
The 600mm only technique has it’s moments.
I know I can crop in from the far side of the ground with enough quality to print to decent sizes.
But what about the other end of the compositional “stick”?
Often you are just too close.
But the super tight compositions are compelling.
Even if they make little sense.
Sometimes, they make their own sense.
Well, usually.
Like random cut-outs of a Caravaggio painting, they are quite thought provoking, brave and emotive.
Revealing even.
From this point, I will consider myself “there” when I can get these complete, ball and all.
My single shot system relies on good timing.
I refuse to shoot a dozen frames to saturate the subject “just in case”. I want the shot I go for, hit or miss. Sometimes, I get good images, but they lack the important element of the ball.
Athletic ability, intent, everyone looking the same way and the tension of the act to come, but no ball. The next shot was binned at the time because the ball deflected away. This shot says “potential super mark”, the reality was far from that.
The fact is, if the ball was in frame, the image would be different.
As cool as these are, the have two problems. They are almost always the same two players (the Rucks) and they are pretty much a carbon copy of each other.
The ideal is the ball just hovering in front of the hands. The issue is, this is often at the expense of a clear face.
More like this.
This is ball perfect and the numbers are easy to see. perfect really, except no faces.
This one was probably shot for the off ball action, the ball was a bonus. He was not actually punching the player, but 600mm of compression can be deceiving.
I was tasked with getting this player on the weekend, which I did a few times. The shots with the ball in were not great.
There is a simple answer.
Get the face, with the ball, but that means so many shots get wasted.
Sports photography for me seems to be leaning on extremes in both gear and expectations.
Gear wise, I am tending to use only my most extreme lenses for the sport in question, be that the longest I can get away with…..
A 600mm from the side lines can be too long for the near quarter of the ground, but the results can be revealing.
..or the widest…
Super close, intimate even may not work for most sports, but for some it can be very cool.
….or the longest I can work with in the space.
For netball and basketball, I pretty much only use the 75 f1.8 (150mm FF) or the 15 or 9mm under the net.
For expectations, I have found myself looking at new angles, even maybe pushing things a little too much.
The closer you get, the more unique the image becomes.
Each frame becomes part of a story that does not have to be dramatic by nature. The drama comes from the intimacy.
Sometimes you get both.
Recently at badminton, I set myself next to the net, shooting with a 25mm. I actually got clipped twice, but got some very intimate shots. My 17mm would have been better.
Basketball also gets some wide or very wide images close to the net, if I can.
The short end of one zoom or the long end of another (40mm). Actually got sprayed with sweat this game.
If you cannot get close, push the lens length again.
I have only been doing this for a year, but already the usual is getting boring. Some sports, like motor sport, horse racing etc, are not appealing, but the ones that are need some re-inventing.
This guy just made. Avery bad call, the type that will affect his immediate future and he will regret. I was only 20 odd feet away with a 600mm. My instincts would have been to go wider if possible, but then I would have missed out on the intimacy a long perspective offered.
I am not being arrogant here saying I have “knocked” these sports, but just doing the same does not seem to be the road ahead.
Like most things, the closer you get, the more compelling the result.
Oh, and winner of crop of the day……
Decent quality for the paper or a larger print……
…from this. Love the combo of the EM1x and 300 f4.
Work has a habit of sorting things out.
Before I used my gear for actual work, I spent far too much time thinking about the what’s and wherefore’s of everything, analysing, theorising, but when you just do something day in and day out, things just tend to settle themselves down.
I have a large kit. Far too large for a hobbyist, possibly not refined enough overall for a pro, but I get by.
Bags;
My main bag is now the Dome F2 Ballistic. This bag is the everyday work bag. Basically if it does not fit into this bag, it is not part of my daily kit. Quite a bit fits.
For Sports, I use the Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 (old model). I do not love this bag, but it has possibly found a use that suits it and me.
The big Neewer backpack and Domke Roller 217 are used for video and commercial jobs.
Filson Field Camera bag is the place holder for a variety of cameras bags, so we will call it this for now.
Cameras;
2x EM1x. Reserved for sport, event and long lens work. Sports.
2x EM1 mk2. Every day editorial cameras are the two well used EM1’s. F2.
2x G9. The colours and operational sweet spot for these cameras seems to be commercial, landscape, studio, or as video backups. Video or Filson.
S5. Video, studio and commercial backup. Video.
2x EM10 mk2. These are my lucky event cameras especially when “little” is preferred. Various.
Pen F. Just for me, street, travel, landscape and a little studio. Various.
Pen Mini. Street and travel “distraction” camera. Various.
2-4x EM5 Mk1. These tend to just be around for personal stuff.
Lenses;
8-18 Leica. Sports, event, commercial, video, this lens gets far too little use, but delivers when needed. I rarely need the 8mm over my 9mm for work, so it does basically everything else like video, landscape, sport, commercial. Sport bag or with a G9.
9mm Leica. Editorial wide. This adds speed with very wide and it also reduces weight. F2.
12-40 Oly. Editorial standard. I do not use this often preferring primes, but is I just need one lens for a fluid situation, this is it. F2.
12-60 Leica. Video, commercial. The replacement for the lens above, it is filling in, waiting for its time being used as my main video/commercial standard lens. With a G9.
12-60 Kit. Travel. A great bit of glass, its main advantage is super range, while being super light. Intended for use with the 17, 45 and 40-150 kit, it makes a super light travel and street kit. Various.
14-42 EZ Kit. Handy grab lens. If I carry a camera with me “just in case”, this is the lens. On an EM5 Mk1 or Pen Mini.
15mm Leica. Editorial standard wide. This is the core lens of my work kit. It’s annoyingly light aperture ring is disabled on my Olympus cameras, so it does not….annoy, and the delicate sharpness and colours suit the Oly cameras. Usually on EM1.2 in the F2.
17mm Oly. Travel, street. This is my favourite street lens, especially with the manual focus markings, so it has been saved from work. On EM10, Pen mini or Pen F.
25mm Oly. Sport, commercial. I must admit, this one is a bit at a loose end at the moment. It is a brilliant lens and the focal length, (actually closer to 45mm full frame), is a favourite, but it just sits in a useless space for me. Every time I use it, it is in place of a wider lens and it is too tight. If I take just one lens, it is perfect, but if I take more than one, it is never one of the few. Various.
30mm Sigma. Video, commercial, studio. Like the 25, this is also a neglected lens (not a standard lens guy it seems?), but I do like it for super shallow depth video interviews, an area the S5 and 50mm cover now. On G9.
45mm Oly. Editorial or personal, travel, street. Spoilt by having two, there is always one around, but a bit like the 25 and 30, I do not use it enough. One in F2, the other in various.
75mm Oly. Sports, low light editorial, super Bokeh stuff. This is my main poor light sports, powerful portrait and possibly my sharpest lens overall so it tends to be shared between my day bag instead of the zoom (below) or my sports kit. In F2 instead of 40-150 f4, or sports bag.
40-150 kit Oly. Travel and street. Part of the super little giant killer kit. Part of me wants to use it for work one day, just for kicks. Various.
40-150 f4 Oly. Editorial and sport. This one is the main tele for my work kit unless I know I am going into a poor light situation, then I swap it out for the 75 and sometimes I switch it out for the sports f2.8 if the light is good, in tandem with the 300. F2.
40-150 f2.8 Oly. Sport indoors, or small area sport and event. My premium mid range tele, sometimes the extra speed helps and it goes well with the tele converter. Sport Bag.
300mm Oly. Sport, event. Nothing to say here. This is a cracker, an enabler and a powerhouse. Sport Bag.
20-60mm S. This one came with the S5 and is much the same as the 12-60 kit, but possibly even more useful (20mm over 24mm equiv). Technically a kit lens, it is sharp, nicely made and has good close focus. This goes with the S5.
50mm f1.8 S. Same as above, but my shallow depth, super low light lens. Clean ISO 8000 and f1.8 are pretty powerful, but rarely used for stills. This goes with the S5.
Also in the Domke F2 bag;
Godox 860 flash and remote trigger, small LED, 60cm 5-in-1 reflector, note pad, phone, pens, face mask, spare bits, flagging foams.
Optional extras; Godox 685 flash and foot, 26” double baffle modifier with handle.
Also in the Pro Tactic 350;
Knee pad, reflector vest, note pad and pen.
Domke Roller or Neewer backpack;
Matt boxes, screens, Mics, filters (lots).
Flash comes in two flavours.
The first is TTL which means “through the lens”, referring to metering that is done by the camera and flash as one unit. This sounds great, but has its issues and the units themselves are more complicated, brand specific and like for like, more expensive.
TTL sounds ideal, but like camera metering it can be tricked and some times even be at odds with them. It fires a series of pre-flashes off the subject surface and decides, based on the average 18% grey rule, what the correct exposure is. Just like camera exposure, high reflectance, or a mostly dark or light subject can force the camera or flash to make poor decisions.
This is still automation of the highest level and sometimes it is the best option. It is ideal if you are in a hurry, unsure what to set, have a fluid situation to deal with, only get one chance, or want to experiment. It does however lack consistency.
This inconsistency is where it fails most often. If you need to shoot, then adjust and shoot again, you may as well use manual, which then avoids having to do it again.
TTL worked well here as I was juggling a modifier held by my journalist, with time pressure and felt the flash would not be tricked by anything in the scene. Reflective surfaces are the tricky bit, especially very light or dark ones. Shooting across like this is pretty safe and the subject was not moving, or in strong light or a long way off.
Manual, as the name suggests is a throw back to the original days of flash photography, but in the modern world it is oh so much easier.
Instead of having to set all your camera settings around fixed light, you have levels usually ranging from 1/1 ratio to 1/128th in increments of half or a third. This is a lot of fine control, probably more than is actually needed.
Instead of having to fire off Polaroid test shots, even if that was possible, or even pre-test, then develop film and note down the needed exposures, digital gives us instant feed back. This leads to empowered intuition, which comes from experimenting and experience, i.e. getting to know your gear.
The other main advantage of manual is power drain.
The easiest way to kill flash batteries is using TTL and/or high speed sync flash, because to flash has to file multiple times per activation to do its job. HSS, needs to fire multiple pulses*, TTL does also for metering. I do not know the technical details here other than to say my usually well behaved YN560’s and Godox 685/860 units only ever obviously warm up in these modes or Multi flash mode**. There is often a more obvious “popping” sound from the flash fire also.
On the other hand, a single set of batteries in a single YN560 did for me, over 1200 fires using 1/8th to 1/32nd power last Saturday and still had full bars at the end.
Butterfly light from a shoot through brolly above at 1/64th and a silver reflector below. I would guess that probably 5-6000 flash fires would be possible with these settings.
My road to manual flash has come from necessity and a little foolish bravery at first. It is now a well settled process, so here are my take aways.
If I use the same base camera settings, which are f2.8, ISO 400, shutter speed to suit ambient light, then I can rely on my units working usually in the range of 1/64th to 1/8th with bounce, modified or even direct flash. This is a little fluid, but the more I do it, the more I get it right or nearly right the first time.
As an example, my standard setup is one upper right convex (shoot through-main) 42” brolly and one lower left concave (reflected-fill) 42” brolly at about 2m to the subject with the above camera settings, which is almost guaranteed to be 1/16th first go. If not perfect, it falls well within processable parameters. If I do change, it is now only in full steps as any more precise is pointless. Basically after a single test shot, I am in the ball-park next frame.
This image was shot with a slightly high shutter speed (for dance floor moves), so the background has dropped out. In this case it was fine, but normally I would go with more ambient at a slower shutter speed. There was still a nice feel to the background lights.
Another example is I shot the school dinner the other day with the same camera settings, shifting the flash power between 1/32th and 1/8th and the aperture from f2 to 2.8 all night by feel. If a shot was a little under or over, I adjusted until the same happened again, but did not lose a single frame to irretrievable exposure error, except the very first fired at 1/1 because I did not check.
Ok, the basics.
Set your camera to manual exposure (same, but different to the flash).
Set your aperture to the widest workable setting which for M43 is f1.8 to 2.8, FF might be f2.8 to 5.6. This is dependent on the needed subject depth (f2.8 on M43 and a semi wide lens guarantees a multi row group) and distance to subject as the ISO and aperture will effect the flash power needed.
For ISO, usually 400 is fine, but do not be afraid to use higher settings as flash cleans up exposures nicely. I use 1600 often with M43 expecting “A” grade results even on older cameras.
These to are now the determining factors for your flash power setting. They have almost nothing to do with ambient light, just flash power.
If you are using bounce flash, these settings will likely be good for most closer distances (6-20ft), but if you are using direct flash, which is linear by nature, meaning it will drop of dramatically over distance (the inverse square law), you may need to adjust the aperture, ISO or flash power to compensate, or switch to TTL, which is more useful here.
Set the flash setting to any setting (1/16th is my starting point), and fire it off as a test. This is the bit where experience and intuition come into play. After a while you will set a power value that you will likely not have to adjust. It comes with experience and there is flexibility.
Now look to your shutter speed. The shutter speed has a special role here. It controls the ambient light recording, which is to say it determines how much light you will record without flash and this has two very important effects.
The first effect is controlling the naturalness of the background. If you want a black background, set a high shutter speed, if you want a more harmonious one, use a lower setting, but be careful of subject movement.
Subject movement was “staged” so not too hard to capture, allowing for plenty of ambient light in the frame. The effect is ideally invisible flash enhancing the image naturally.
If there is enough light recorded to capture subject movement without flash, but it is at a slow enough shutter speed to blur that movement, you will get a “ghost” image overlayed on your “frozen” flash subject.
Flash when used, effectively becomes your shutter speed and it is fast, at lower power settings super fast, like 1/4000th to 1/20,000th or even faster on smaller units. Ambient shutter speeds of 1/60th to 1/90th are not. If they share the same image, you will see the effect of both like a badly registered 3D image.
This was a keeper, but many others like it were not. Notice the slight fringe around the girls face and dress edge? The background subjects, lacking as much flash are mostly just blurred. This is the blurred ambient exposure sharing the same space as the perfectly frozen flash element. The picture is effectively a double exposure, one part caught perfectly by the flash at probably 1/6000th of a second or so, one part blurred at about 1/90th.
This bit is up to you and may need some caressing on a case by case basis. The desire to add ambient light for balance is strong, but a random movement can look odd or ruin a frame. You can use HSS with manual, but again flash and battery power both suffer.
*
So to sum up, my working method for roving candids would be something like this;
I set ISO 400 at f2.8 and a flash with a “white foamy thing” mod bounced off the ceiling would likely at about 1/16 to 1/32 power on a YN560 flash. If flagging the front of the flash relying only on bounce, the higher setting is usually chosen, for forward fire, the lower, but ceiling height/reflectance and other factors may come into play. If I am struggling with a high and/or darker ceilings or distant wall I will push the ISO up or open the aperture before raising flash power.
I set the shutter as needed to bring out ambient light, slower is fine for posing groups, but for dance floor images I will usually set 1/250th to (a) freeze motion better and (b) allow the dance floor lighting to do the work. If this fails I will resort to HSS, staying at the lower end around 1/500 to help the flash out.
If you are using warm background lights and flash together sometimes the flash is colder and bluer, making the subject look a little at odds with the background. A CTO correction Gel can be used on the flash, or in my case I use the EM10 mk2 and a Panasonic lens and a soft white foamy thing, which seem to balance things to slightly warmer. Also as flash units age, they tend to warm up, so avoid using brand new ones. For static shots, creamy white brollies have the same effect.
If dealing with differing distances such as red carpet arrivals shot in the open with no bounce available, which makes the flash output very linear, I will use the aperture to adjust output (front dial), simply because it is easier to do quickly. For the red carpet on Saturday I switched between f1.7 (other end where interviews were held) and f2.8 (close end posed shots), which effectively changed flash power by 1-2 stops. There were a few that were a bit off, but most were fixed easily enough in post. TTL would have likely been easier her, but it also may have had the odd miss (reflective surfaces, black background and movement) and likely killed a set of batteries.
*High speed flash or HSS is used when you need a faster shutter speed than the cameras maximum flash sync speed (usually 1/180-250th). It fires a burst of flashes to guarantee coverage of the sensor, allowing you to use very wide apertures or shoot in strong light or both. It severely reduces flash range and drains batteries, so another way is to use an ND or neutral density filter to reduce the light getting through without straining your flash.
**Multi is where the flash fires multiple times in a second during a single exposure. A technique I am keen to master, it is a flash/battery killer, the instructions of most units even warning against repeated use without a rest.
Some more examples of the AFL crop.
My processes for AFL have simplified greatly. I used to shoot a 300 and 40-150 in tandem, but have dropped the 40-150 as too messy unless I am really pressed for time.
This means my shots are all taken at a full frame equivalent of 600mm. I also shoot wide open (300 f4, what the lens actually is, or 600mm f8 equiv.), using single shot with electronic shutter and a single line of three vertical, centred focus points.
I can stand mid ground with 60% of the ground in my sweet zone.
Sometimes this means you crop in camera.
Sometimes you crop really close. Another annoyane of captioning, the tackeler (#8) was identified by number, but not on the team sheet.
The power of the lens and sensor make the rest of the ground realistic.
I do love the freedom of sport, but the captioning thing is frustrating. In this game, the North West team only had back numbers. Annoying, as I was mostly after the Northern players who had two numbers, but had to get all the names, so it was a matter of shoot, then chase.
Below are the usable crops from the far side of the game.
I had 20 minutes for the game, got 50 odd images that worked just fine, but had to shoot 200 more to get numbers. I still missed some or decided not to bother with probably another 50 decent images. Without the need for captions, I could have taken 200 better shots.
I need to get back to the free thinking I had last year, when I was after the best shot period, then take my cahnces with number etc. It had a better hit rate, but slower and less streamlined processing, with more “lost” files.
I often compare M43 to Full Frame, not APS-C, something I am not alone in.
Why?
There are a few of reasons I guess.
First up, it is the only consistent format to compare to. The “ugly” 3:2 compromise format, it has become the base line all are measured against.
The second is that the difference between M43 and APS-C is one of degrees, in other words, there is no upgrade to be had that way. Both have a smaller sensor than Full Frame, Both therefore have advantges and disadvantages when compared to that format, but APS-C is in the middle ground, closer to M43 than the bigger format (especially Canon at 1.6x crop).
Much of what is said about M43 can also be applied to APS-C, and equally the differences to FF are similar. The M43 to FF comparison though is a fair comparison of the two extremes.
The thing should be the priority, not the thing that captures it.
A last factor though is no other maker other than Fuji treats their smaller formats as their “end game”. Fuji and Panasonic/Leica do offer bigger formats, but their smaller format offerings are taken seriously. Their best glass and cameras are available in the smaller formats, their larger format versions are often the same but different, sometimes less refined or more specialised.
Canon, Nikon and Sony are all guilty of under-attending their smaller formats. Canon refuses to make “L” glass for theirs, although of course these can be used with APS-C at different focal lengths and oddly, many of their plastic, non “L” APS-C options are optically identical to their professional siblings, some even better at their launch than their aging full frame predecessors.
One of their best SLR lenses that got very little attention was the 17-55 F2.8. It was big, sharp, fast, but also over priced for a plastic lens and had no red ring of “specialness”. The 10-22 was also a more stable lens than the first 16-35L it was modelled on, possibly being the reason it was upgraded. I owned the 15-85 USM and it ran rings around the 24-105L mk1 (just not red rings).
They were basically saying you need FF to be a pro, and stubbornly feed smaller formats with “scraps”. My biggest bugbear was the lack of decent dedicated primes, something they started to address just after I left the system.
Most rely on the trickle down effect from their larger format options, paying little attention to holes in their range. Ironically, I actually got used to this with Canon. No decent options for years in dedicted primes, wide angles, specialist lenses like tilt/shifts and macros, often forced on me a longer full frame focal length, that it turned out I actually preferred.
I did though have to buy a longer, heavier and dearer lens than I wanted, but that often got around the soft corner issue that plagued early Canon glass (check out any test of the 17-40L wide open at 17mm just for a laugh).
I realised at some point that about 28mm was actually as wide as I personally wanted and 40mm was my perfect standard, so my 24 and 28mm lenses became standards and got a lot more use and the less than perfect 17-40 became a very useful 28-65. Even to this day, I only own wide angles for other peoples needs, not my own.
One of my favourites was the sublime 24 T/S L mk2, that became a perfect 40mm. It allowed three shifts to match a 16mm’s coverage, but it was more natural, better corrected and a much bigger file. Others were the 50mm Macro (80mm), 35 f1.4L ( 55mm), 400mm (640) and 85 f1.8 (135mm).
Olympus has all its eggs in the M43 basket, Panasonic comes close to matching them, before adding FF and that, up till now, has been mostly for video. The two brands combined with a few off brand makers make anything you need.
When comparing M43 to FF you have the natural math of x2, and with M43 being a finished format, it makes sense to compare. It is as much a comparison of formats as brand philosophies.
For me the advantages in depth of field (that’s right, advantages) which increase flash power and light gathering and the size, weight, reach and affordability of premium lens designs all add up in the real world to more than the disadvantages of theoretically more noise and reduced enlarge-ability that the top full frame cameras can provide, because I know what is actually important to my clients.
I have never, ever had a client complain about the subjective quality of my images, quite to opposite usually, with the sometimes embarassingly out dated and under muscled gear I occasionally employ* making me, the weakest link, look good.
*I have shot the Telstra Board, major social events, even the Prime Minister with no more than $4000 worth of gear, often a lot less, which is about the price of a single FF body or Pro lens and even the AFL or NBL gets no more than $6000. I always have what a professional needs, which is options and backups, so no issue.
My sub $1000au event kit at work.
Enough?
Neil Van Niekerk opened my eyes to the benefit of one of the most useful and accessible flash modifiers you can use.
A sub $1 bit of 2mm black foam, about the size of a paperback, a hair band and you have a flagging panel.
This means you can shoot an on camera flash like a modified studio light.
How?
It works like this.
Flash light (i.e. light) is linear, which means it is stronger closer, proportionately weaker as you get further away (this is the inverse square law). This means if you photograph a row of people, front to back, you will likely get the middle well exposed, nearer ones over exposed and further away ones under exposed. This can range from nuked white to cave black over a relatively short distance.
It also casts shadows if fired straight which can cause problems with deeper subjects.
The black foamy thing (BFT), allows the flash to fire away from the subject, with only the light bouncing back being used (combined with ambient light), the flag panel blocking the unwanted “bleeding” of light on the subject. Bleeding means that the bulk of the light is bounced, but often too much (maybe 20-40%) still goes straight causing the problems outlined above.
The environment becomes one enormous, directional light modifier. Directional and big are both good.
This image shot with straight flash would be a mess of blown out forground subjects, or underexposed background and have a sharp drop-off, meaning the background would be effectively black. So blown-out white, to ok, to deep black. Not attractive or even predictable. The image above has nice feathered drop-off.
The balloon in the foreground could have undone this image if the flash was fired straight. If the camera and flash had metered off them, the boys would have been lost to darkness. If the boys had been properly exposed, the balloons may have blown out un-recoverably to become a blob of distraction.
There is a problem though.
Sometimes the bounce you have to just go with, has to come from above as there is not anything beside or behind you to bounce off or there is something blocking the bounced light. Bouncing from above can cause deep shadows under brows, so you get black eyes with bright noses and hair (it does give nice cheek bone structure though).
This is effectively “butterfly” light, which often needs some fill just for that reason.
A decently exposed image, but a little heavy around the eyes.
For on-the-go photographer who cannot set up modifiers on stands etc, there are two fixes for this.
For this dinner on Saturday, I used a white foamy thing, sometimes as a front flag, which seesm to work the same as the BFT, but often I used it as a normal front bounce.
Obviously a no-go for above bounce.
Open and bright, which is much more pleasant than the heavier look. If you get the ambient light right, there is often free “hair” or “rim” lighting on hand.
Normally I would have used the front flag here, but the white surrounds filled in the whole group, making the image balanced. There is a hint of shadow cast on rear subjects, but the width of the WFT, which is about 6-8” across*, seems to see around corners quite well.
The second fix is to get the flash off the camera, using a hand held unit fired remotely from the camera. This extra flexibility allows you to shoot the flash from further away than the camera, around an obstruction or even off the floor, thus creating a better angle.
Other factors come into play, such as ambient light balance, which is controlled by the shutter speed. Most of these used 1/60-90th which gave me a warm backdrop, slightly darker than the flash lit foreground, but for dance floor shots I used 1/250th to help arrest “ghosting” which is where there is enough ambient light to create a movement blurred exposure around your sharply captured flash image.
A classic flash issue with fringe blurred movement (girl in white). The 1/250th ambient exposure (maximum flash sync), was not fast enough to fully freeze subject motion creating a soft fringe around the much faster flash exposure. I actually like it sometimes, but it does not always work.
Finally a call out to the magnificent little EM10 mk2, which was my backup on the night, so it was called into service when my 2x YN560’s both failed to fire on the EM1.2. This seems to be a thing as the single contact pin units will not fire on the G9’s either, but the dedicated remote unit works fine on all of them?!
I did the entire night with one amateur grade camera, the Leica 15mm or 12-40 both wide open, with a YN560 IV manual flash and a $2 modifier. The flash and sensor combo gives me a couple of workable stops if I miscalculate, so about 1/64 to 1/16 power at ISO 400 is my workable range. The average is 1/32 power at 1/90th, f1.7 or f2 at ISO 400 or ISO 800 at f2.8 as a starting point.
When you get the hang of it, manual is much more reliable than TTL in this type of environment and much lighter on batteries because TTL, especially with high speed sync uses multiple flash pulses to measure and meter, where manual just uses one. consistent blip.
Concerns about cold white light against a warmer ambient background were swept away by the lovely warmth of the EM10 sensor and Leica lens combo. This is just one of those winning pairs, which combined with the 12-40 Oly, 45 and 75mm’s give me an any event kit.
No battery changes, no miss-fires, no over heating issues and at the end of the night, the Eneloop Pro batteries were still showing all bars! One day if I have time, I may test the Eneloops, but at working strength of 1/32 to 1/16 power settings I am guessing I will have to waste 2-3000 flash fires before they fail.
I missed about 50 out of 1200 due to slight focus misses, something I could have avoided if I had activated the focus assist light, but supplied 435 shots, enough to get all 500 students one way or another.
*The BFT and WFT panels are bought in large sheets of soft 2mm foam, sourced from any costume, stationry or fabric shops and cut to size/shape to suit. I usually cut mine into 6x8” rectangles, then trim the short sides with a fairly gentle corner trim, helping me attach the panel to the flash. The foam is flexible with reasonable “shape memory”, so you can flare out or close in the cone as needed. Two together can even make a snoot. For hairbands I use bigger, softer ones, often with a thin one as a safety. Other options are to cut some holes in the panel for more light escape.
I used to do a lot of landscape imaging.
One of my favourite haunts was “The Gorge”, about 30 mins walk from the middle of Launceston and a surprise to most who visit it.
First you encounter open parkland, then more closed in, semi-wilderness.
My processes involved the mandatory tripod, often as heavy as I could bother with*, some type of timer delay, filters, various lenses etc. I was not Robinson Crusoe here, packing much the same as the rest, only variations in format made any real difference.
Oh how things have changed.
Today I went with;
G9
12-60 Leica
…………
Yep, that was it.
All the images were taken at f5.6 to 7.1 (about f11-16 in full frame), all hand held at 1/5th to 1/200th with ISO’s of 100-400 and the full range of the lens was employed.
The day was not ideal. The best days there are high overcast after rain, employing a polariser to cut glare. I got patchy cloud after a short dry spell. Kinda cool to think this is only 5 minutes drive and 10 minutes walk from the centre of the city.
The stream bed these were taken in was obviously damaged last flood season. A lot of settled, open woods were literally washed away, or smashed up, trees fallen, then pushed into clumps.
A good season for moss has helped.
Higher areas were mostly untouched.
The under growth was healthy.
Some classics were revisited.
Hard to believe how far we have come. I remember once toting six Canon “L” primes up to the same spot one balmy spring day. What a sweat-fest. Straight after I repurchased the 17-40L and 70-200 F4L lenses, just for landscape.
Yes it is lazy and a tripod does have the advantage of slowing me down, but is that actually an advantage? I have found over the last few years, that speed is important. See-shoot can be handy in other environments other than just for street. Often I “work” the frame far better and more easily than when I employ a tripod.
Once, the thought of hand holding at 1/13s and f6.7 for this type of image would have been a bad joke, but with all of the advantages available now, it is more than possible, sometimes to the point of realistically nullifying the need for more.
Detail is retained up the a level I need for fine art printing.
This redimentary kit can even be used for some basic wild life.
Leica 60mm crop.
*I used to rate my tripods by range. Studio only, near the car, a short walk, a long walk, an over-nighter.
I often mention the importance of knowing you gear.
Handling a camera confidently, using flash effectively, learning the minimum focussing limit of a lens, how it handles flare etc are all part of that, but the next layer is where the art is.
Take for example, my pair of 45mm f1.8 Olympus lenses.
One of the first M43 lenses I purchased, because it and the Panasonic 20 and 14mm lenses (first editions), were the first wave of “game changers”, so it became a staple. I at one point owned three thanks to early kit buys as well as two 14’s. Apart from having the best AF, especially on Oly cameras, it was also the most stable and probably the most powerful, but it sat in a funny place for me.
Intellectually it was a must have, but habitually, it got neglected.
High enough quality to crop massively without issue. The fact that I often crop it heavily probably means it is not long enough.
This was a longer running habit than just this story. The Canon 85 f1.8 suffered much the same fate as did the amazing 90mm f2 macro Olympus before it and so on. I tended to like the 85mm lens a lot more as a 135 f1.8 on a crop frame and can only imagine the Oly 90 would be as exciting as the much missed Zeiss 85 f2.8 with an M43 adapter.
I have actually forced myself to use the lens, because of two important factors.
The first is it is optically hard to find fault with, exhibiting a nice 3d effect.
Secondly, it is surprisingly useful, even if I tend to gravitate either to the longer 75mm or shorter to semi-wide normal lenses. In tandem with the 40-150 f4 it sits in my bag as the Bokeh/low light option.
Super sharp wide open, with enough Bokeh to use creatively or to fix problems.
My street kit for example is officially the 17 and 45mm f1.8’s, a pairing that seems to make sense and works. The lack of other options gives the 45 some room to be relevant.
I think the problem mostly lies in the focal length’s role in my kit. I have three 40-150, three 12-40/60 and two 14-42 lenses. This means I have no less than ten, 40-45mm options. When I use one of the zooms, it often occurs to me I am at an extreme end and wanting to go longer or wider. Actually choosing that length seems a compromise.
What is good though, is that I can carry an f1.8 lens in this range, that weighs and fills the same space roughly as a spare camera battery or a roll of film.
This is a perfect example of a file that surprised me it was taken with this lens. The depth of field should have given it away, but I still had to check.
Unlike the 17mm, a lens that is an automatic go to and one that I strongly identify with or equally the powerful 75, the 45 tends to get used only because it is always there (plan works), the only one in my work and personal kits.
I still tend to lose connection to the images and they often surprise me when I find that this is the lens I used.
The problem here is, I know the 17mm intimately as I do the 75mm and even the newer Leica 15mm, but the 45 has a void where an equally deep understanding should be. It is after all the oldest of the bunch and surprisingly often used.
What I do know for sure is it is completely trust worthy, no matter which one I use. What I should know though is more about the draw, the character, colour palette and general nature.
Is it organic or snappy? Is it brilliant or contrasty? Is it natural or overtly sharp?
Creamy skin tones, gentle colours and smooth transition.
I think the hint is in the problem.
The lens is seemingly “invisible”.
It has an inoffensive excellence that does not make you overly aware of it. Like the 17mm it has a natural character, but unlike the 17mm it was not a surprise, running with expectations, more of an assumption that has passed muster, so maybe taken for granted.
Bokeh, is easy to find and use, but it is less perfect and powerful than the 75mm, although it also avoids the flatness of field the 75 has. There is a natural perspective that does not call attention to itself, a perfect compliment to the 17mm.
Brilliance is again less pronounced than the 75mm, but it also avoids a signature look, being just fine at what it does, elegantly capable, humble.
Without the deserved arrogance of the 75, the 45 often punches just as hard.
Colour is less punchy and bright than the 75, again leaning towards the 17mm’s more natural and slightly heavier look. I have many images that have an old fashioned look, all taken with one of the 45’s and it handles skin tones wonderfully. These two are the polar opposite to the light and bright Leica lenses.
Channelling Eliot Porter or Sam Abel.
Sharpness. It is sharp, I mean really sharp, capable of being used wide open and then cropped in very tightly, even off-centre. Like so many M43 lenses feeding the smaller, squarer sensor, I just do not question its edge to edge sharpness at any aperture. They picked the sensor for a series of reasons and lens design was one of them.
This file highlights everything good about the lens. Natural colour (this is colour, just off white colour), beautiful tones, invisible transitions, it is sharp edge to edge with fine detail down to pixel level. Most importantly, it is not a show-off, just a competent performer.
Chromatic and other aberrations also seem negligible. The 75mm does have very slight fringing wide open, easily fixed, but the 45 is devoid of any as far as I have ever noticed.
The 25mm is based on the design of the 45, but has a very different look. The 25, 75, 12-40 Pro, 75-300 and the Leica’s all have a similar, modern look. They tend to look lush, brilliant and are fast to drop off into creamy Bokeh.
The 45, 17 and 12-60 and 40-150 kit are close in character, being natural, very organic (that word again, but I struggle to find another) with that “invisible” character. These make the core of my travel kit.
It occurs to me there is a new way to categorise my lenses.
Invisible lenses with natural and organic character and more pronounced specialist lenses with modern Bokeh, more brilliance and obvious perspective effects.
Weaknesses?
It is plastic (all three have lasted for years without issue), not weather sealed (does not fog as often as the 75, probably because it does not get as cold being plastic), does not have a brilliant minimum focus (see below) and requires tiny 37mm filters (I step it up to the more supported 46mm, including a metal hood).
The Panasonic 42.5 f1.7 has better close focus, something than often gives it an edge in comparison tests, but from the above file heavy cropping is possible. If it has this one weakness, something that many other lenses like the 25mm, most M43 zooms and even my longest and widest lenses can address, then I will forgive it.
Easily fixed.
So, I guess I do know the lens has deeper layers. They are just obviously not obvious.
One down……..