on the problematic 40mm

Ask me what my favourite lens focal length is. You know, the one that you could go out on a limb and say something like  "do a world trip with this alone" if only one, or the one you find yourself gravitating towards most often, usually with a high success rate.

Ta da.....the humble 40mm (full frame or equivalent).

Ok, that was easy. I did not even have to think about that answer.

Only one problem though.

The selection of 40mm lenses has been a constant frustration for me. Timing and availability, issues with the lenses mechanically (never optically) or an unwanted camera platform have managed to foil me at every turn.

My first 40mm was the Voigtlander 40mm f2. The focus ring was old school silky smooth, the depth scale accurate, the build and sharpness excellent. The big "but" though was manual focus on an AF SLR. Standard focus screens on AF cameras are calibrated for f4-5.6 viewing and make accurate shooting with MF and wide apertures nearly impossible, especially at closer distances. Canon provides replacement MF focus screens (laser matte or split) for some of their models, but not the 5d mk3. Reluctantly I let it go. It did spoil me however for MF again.

Voigtlander 40mm, zone focussed at f8, 5D mk2.

The Canon 40mm (or their nearly identical 24mm for crop frame) came a bit late.  Honestly, if the very stable 40mm Canon had come out a year earlier I would have probably stuck with FF Canon. In many ways I am glad I did not, but I reckon I would have, all things considered (kit, FF24mm, CF24mm, 40mm, 70-200 f4L with a FF and Crop body = 24, 40, 40/65, 70-200/100-300, yep I think about it). Would I buy a Canon to use this lens? No, but if I did buy a Canon it would be the first lens I would buy, (Canon had some rebates this Christmas with the 6D with any accessory over $200- coincidentaly the price in Australia for the lens!).

The Panasonic 20mm (first edition) is a razor sharp lens, a bit prone to flair, but really sharp. The AF on my Olympus cameras was a bit tardy, especially when compared to the Oly 17mm and the MF is stiff, sluggish and uncomfortable, again beaten by the silky and clever 17mm MF application. This is also the only one also that breaks the F2.8 limit on an AF lens.

OMD and newer 20mm.

The second version of the 20mm handles flair a lot better, has a slightly different sharpness sweet spot (more even apparently, if less brilliant in the centre, not that I noticed), but handles much the same.

The Fuji 27mm is much the same story as the Panasonic. Optically above reproach, but cramped, a bit flimsy (mine died when a friend took it to the beach) and missing the aperture ring. If it was made as well as the 18mm f2 and a bit bigger allowing an aperture ring, it would have been a keeper.

Xe-1 with 27mm 

What do these all have in common?

1) They are all optically excellent. The Canon flogs their 50mm offerings, The Panasonic set the early bench mark for M43 lenses, the Fuji is a serious competition for their super lenses and the Voigtlander was better than any Pro zoom made at the time of it's release.

2) They are all tiny*. All are proper pancake designs with the Canon sitting level with the cameras flash housing, making big cameras small and small cameras pocketable.

3) They are all the perfect balance between the 35mm wide/normal, rendering pretty much distortion free "environmental portraits" and the 50mm, short portrait focal length, allowing you to carry just one lens. 

4) They are all, one way or another a fair pain in the ass, for me anyway.

*Good hoods for these lenses are stepping down rings like the 52 to 49mm for the Canon or 46 to 37 for the Panasonic.

What to do?

I am getting used to the 17mm (35mm equiv) focal length and partner it with the 25mm (50mm e.). One of the advantages of M43 is carrying both is no drama, even attached to a 2nd camera body. Having the two, more distinct focal lengths is actually better in a lot of ways, but my heart still yearns for a 40mm. 

On changing Expectations

1940's "Oh that is spectacular (insert enormous print of the American Midwest from a large format negative, painstakingly taken and processed with ground breaking, cutting edge and often hand made gear). The tones, the location and the light, amazing."

1960's "I really like the spontaneity of the picture (insert slightly blurry, grainy black and white image of Paris street life), the way it shows me the emotion and the way people actually are".

1970's "The colours are so vibrant and true to life skin tones (insert any National Geo portrait of people in a third world country taken on Kodachrome. Note all other colours are muted). This photo makes me want to travel to the far corners of the world and make a difference".

1980's "Now we can finally do wilderness photography in colour (Insert Fuji Velvia large format to 35mm slide printed as a Cibachrome print) the way it was meant to be seen. The greens and blues are amazing".

1990's "Is there anything more to do to create the perfect image (insert studio portrait or product shot taken on medium format film, printed on a bill board or as a fine art print, viewed from the correct distances)? I don't think so!".

Early 2000's "The digital image is ok for its size (insert 3mp image printed on early A4 photo paper with a home printer because a lab can't print it), but the film image is so much better. Maybe digital will get there some day, but it has a ways to go yet".

Mid 2000's "This is all we need to replace film (insert a 6mp image printed in a film lab)!"

2010's "The high ISO performance and sharpness of the image (insert ISO 3200 image from a 12mp full frame file, slightly noisy and sometimes over sharpened) are better than anything we have seen before, this a game changer".

Mid 2010's "I love the grainy look and the contrast (insert any image from any camera/phone processed with a film simulation programme, usually too grainy and contrasty, posted online). The film look really takes me back and gives the image an original style". 

2020's "Oh that is spectacular (insert enormous print of the American Midwest from a 100mp SLR file, easily taken, processed and printed with the latest ground breaking, cutting edge and expensive gear of the time). The tones, the location and the light are amazing".

Only took us 80 years for the cycle to repeat but we got back there in the end.

On real image quality needs

A lot is written about camera gear and the ever increasing reality envelope they offer, but have we lost sight of what we really need and that we probably already have it.

Recently my business (a book shop) hosted a camera release night for the OMD EM1 mk 2. As you may already know, I have a clutch of trusty EM5 mk1 cameras and a new Pen F, so it was with a fair amount of forced denial that I hosted, but did not get too caught up in the event. The reality is though, new cameraitis set in a bit. I know the new camera will not take a noticeably better image than the ones I use and that is because I also know (not too deep down either) that what I need is easily fulfilled, but it is undeniably a slicker machine.

Lets help me and possibly you overcome this most recent GAS attack (Gear acquisition syndrome) and continue on happily with our own, owned gear.

First up, a little story that has been shared previously, but I will go into more detail.

While testing a new lens (23 f1.4 Fuji) on an old camera (XE 1) and comparing it to the 17mm on my OMD, I stumbled upon an old friend, the image quality reality check, purely by mistake.

The OMD was set up as usual for RAW, but the XE 1, a less used camera, had been set to low res JPEG for some posting images and I had not noticed. The whole morning I shot side by side comparison shots with both cameras, came home and loaded them (went off for a coffee while they loaded and did not notice that the Fuji images fairly zipped into upload). Then I started to process them side by side. The simple test was to determine two things. The first was to see if the 23mm fit my needs (I did not buy it in the end as it was too big and expensive, no sharper than the excellent 27mm and indeed I got out of Fuji not long after). The second was to see how close the simpler, more literal images of the Olympus could get to the more delicate Fuji jpegs in colour and "pop" (pretty close and as I learn more, even closer).

While processing I immediately noticed that the 100% views of the Fuji images were only jumping up about half again from the screen image, roughly enough to fill the 29" screen on my Mac, but they were delicate, super sharp and full of quality. On checking, I discovered the size issue and would have been mightily pissed is it were not for the quality I was seeing. How quickly we forget! These images were 2400x1600 pixels, about 4 mp and had more than enough for a glorious 11x14 inch test print, which I did for many.

There was something humble and pleasant about an image that was perfect to the eye, to a reasonable size, but denies an unnecessary close an examination. When looking at the Olympus images at 100%, they became far too technical and intrusive an examination. The lesson here is don't look at your images at 100% as it has little relevance to the end product.

A small jpeg from my XE1 with the 23mm f1.4. This printed perfectly to 11x14"

Ok, so what do we really need;

Pixels (resolution).

For galley quality images up to 12x18 prints, carefully used 6mp's will do. More can give excellent colour depth (more a camera generational thing) and render some more detail at 100% on a screen, but no one will complain that your images are sub par due to quality issues, they will not be able to tell (plenty of blind tests have been tried including huge differences in print resolution etc, so check the interwebs if you want). Landscape shooters will have issue with this no doubt, but these same image makers used lower res cameras for many years successfully. If you look at this the other way, doubling your pixel count or even tripling it will not change the way your prints are perceived unless maximum size at closest viewing distance is your only criteria. Why do we look happily at an image on a screen bigger than the print size we intend, like what we see, then look at 100% and get depressed by the slight fall away in quality when we cannot even print it out? Do we look at our food under a microscope when preparing it and if we did would change what we tasted?

Sharpness

If sufficient in quantity for the viewing size, pixels have nothing much to do with sharpness. Image sharpness is determined by many other factors, pixels only add resolution, not sharpness. Like contrast, they are different animals. Sharpness comes from good technique, good sharp lenses at usable apertures, correct focus and depth of field and file quality enough to hide any unnecessary, introduced issues. Over sharpening and over saturation are the single biggest culprits for modern image quality short comings, not a lack of pixels or unsharp lenses (we have plenty of these). Mike Johnson on the Online photographer blog shows us a great examples in his posts "The Color Disease" and "Are you Real".

Noise.

Like pixels, this one is in the top few "must fix" categories for the tech heads and has become apparently unacceptable on any level recently, but like pixels, it is not that big of an issue. Like a perfectly made blanket, we are now picking on every very minor imperfection or flaw in the fabric and risk missing the cosy comfort it offers. As an example, OMD cameras are known to have some noise at base ISO, but if you print TO SEE IT, it can be hard to find. Much like film grain, tight, clean noise can become a part of the texture and character of an image, with as much right to be there as colour or tone. Indeed black and white film shooters used grain as an element in their imagery deliberately, which is why grain engines are deliberate ADD IN options in digital film simulations. I do not mean to mushy, smudgy poorly exposed/processed looking faux grain common in some film simulations, but fine, textural grain that enhances the perception of edge acutance and tonal transition.

If we think like a printer (i.e a realistic large image maker), the camera we have will usually exceed our needs as indeed cameras have always somehow provided for, but if we spend our days splitting hairs over the slight differences between camera "X" or camera "Y", we will never be satisfied. This continual quest for better is a cycle that will never stop and hides the fact that we have usually past sufficiency for most needs. 

Just for fun, see how good an image you can produce with your worst camera-file size/lens combo, but best technique. The though crossed my mind that I could shoot 4mp jpegs, use 2Gb cards and a 100GB hard drive for all of my images.

on depth of field traps

"M43 lenses cannot render (enough) shallow depth of field" I.E. Bokeh.

It does not take long to find that little pearl on the internet, searched for or not. Talk to a professional photographer about their fails and near misses and focus miss/too shallow depth of field are often the culprits.

Last evening I was chatting with my father in law on his back deck and taking some useless snaps as the light changed. Something hit me on viewing the images. I have been falling in the trap of thinking that the ample depth provided by M43 lenses allows me to be careless, using wider and wider apertures just because I can.

The images above show how the extended depth of field that the M43 range gives can disguise the slight focus miss of the shot, but on close inspection, the yellow lanterns in front are a little out. Two things are at play here: (1) The focus miss is not terminal. Even on a large print a little clarity enhancement would probably hide it and (2) depth of field is still a real consideration, even on a moderate lens (75mm) when using a wide aperture (f1.8) even at about 10 feet.

Another example, this time at about 20 foot distance.

The weather gauge looks ok, but the focus is hitting the cup at the back. Both images are displaying the non firmware updated OMD back focus tendency.

The other extremes can also be a bit surprising

This is at a full frame equivalent of about 350mm at f16 (174mm f8)

and...

Full frame equivalent of 24mm at f11 (12mm f5.6). The roof, cloud, foreground headlight and far guard are still soft.

So, on a purely practical note, there can far too easily be a lack of expected depth of field, even when all the cards are stacked with you.

On Limitation removal

The entire photographic industry is trying to grow their business by offering the next big thing to its potential customers and who can blame them, it's business. Some of the things they are offering are genuine improvements, but some are just "fluff" designed to create their own perceived need and seldom make any difference to real photography. 

Recently I did a little job for a local school photographing their school play. Not being familiar with the location I packed everything I felt I may need for the job;

2 OMD EM5 mk1 bodies, lots of batteries and cards,

45mm f1.8, 75mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8 and my 75-300 fslow zoom just in case.

The reality bouncing around not too quietly in my head was that if I needed a long and fast lens, I was pretty much screwed. Everything I knew about photography told me that small sensor cameras, slow zooms, poor light and movement are a recipe for disaster. 

As the universe often does, the worst case scenario presented itself. Distance and mixed to poor light, and plenty of movement! With no choice but to soldier on I did.

Images on the rear screen were encouraging, but can be misleading, so it was with minimal confidence I started editing the files in Lightroom. To my surprise I found them colourful, sharp, relatively smooth and the hit/miss ratio was better than 75%*.

ISO 1600 OMD 75-300 at about 200mm and f5.6 (400mm on a full frame!), hand held at 1/125. There are lots more, but they show the faces of students.

The moral of the story? We have come a long way in short time, so look for real solutions where they were not found before. Limitations in ISO, focus, stabilisers and mediocre lens quality are no longer real issues as they were not very long ago.

For the greater part of my photographic life, these limitations have been set in stone, but each year the photographic industry breaks down more barriers, giving us all enough power, its just a shame these benefits are often hidden behind a cloud of useless fluff.

*It did not stop me buying a long f2.8 zoom though, just in case!

On not pushing the shutter button and self exploration

When discussing the differences between film and digital shooting, many photographers who have done both, will say they thought more before shooting when using film, simply because they had to. Often the limitations imposed on a process create a natural balance that when removed take away more than just a perceived inconvenience. 

I have noticed something in my photography that I have always been suspicious of happening. I have become a shooter first, then a (limited) thinker after. I have reduced my thought processes to post processing rather than pre shooting considerations. The reality is that much of digital photography requires "pre visualising" as Ansel Adams would say. That is to photograph with the full process and end point (print) in mind. Digital allows those who fall into the trap of clattering away, never truly forming a clear idea of the image, to fall into the trap of assuming Photoshop will fix it. Even those who once had to save up all week to get 1 or 2 films processed and buy replacements can fall into this trap, indeed we may be the worst offenders.

On one hand my street photography looks to have benefitted from the shoot fast and instinctively, think later approach, but I cannot remember the last time I used a tripod and took my time to create a deliberate image. Patience has always been my short coming, but the limits of film definitely slowed me enough to be a benefit creatively.

Ming Thein, on his blog has talked about the 4 (or later 5) things that make a good photograph. I will not repeat (or copy) his words here, but put forward my own thought process and look at the areas I feel I fall short. 

Let me introduce the 4 C's  

Concept. Be it capturing a fleeting moment or a determined process, you must have a strong concept. This is often based on the subject and its surroundings, in context to your intended image and gets stronger with experience and planning. Sticking to a vision benefits consistency and output.

Taken with the intention of creating a series based on ordinary Japanese street corners. Partly mimicking the early 20th century American urban landscape photographers in tone and content and its contrast to the ordered chaos of modern Japan. 

Composition. Our choices in focus, perspective, depth of field and subject placement are all parts of the process of composition. Primarily technical and often habitual or systematic, composition is the most creative, but potentially the most limiting of the three C's as it is in essence just photographic technical skill. 

Using colour for mood and controlled depth of field (and depth) containing static and non static elements, this image has many of the compositional elements I respond to.

Connection. The chances are if you connect to your subject, your audience will connect with your resulting image. Timing the critical moment, showing empathy, humour or surprise and a sense of compositional harmony all contribute to your and your viewers connection to the image. A technically poor photograph with strong emotional connection always trumps a technically strong, but unconnected image.

The Japanese are a deeply complicated race with a simple, respectful veneer. Occasionally they "take a moment", revealing their true state. 

Completion. What was the above all for? The completed image, be it a print or a screen saver is why that we do it. Post processing should not be the bulk of the process, but it is an important element, that should add the final elements to the already strong image. No image in the digital era (or the film era for that matter) can be said to be perfect without the smallest bit of tweaking. The camera formed jpeg image is in camera processing and the RAW image is effectively un processed, so nothing can be said to be able to stand "pure" of any input.

A challenge for you now. Look at your own processes and ponder your strongest and your weakest of those mentioned above. It may help you grow as a photographer.

On The Pen F in Japan

Here are my thoughts immediately after the trip to Japan on the Pen F. This is written before the the bulk of the images are processed and is more about the experience using the camera for street photography than the results it produced. The camera was purchased for the two improvements in real photographic situations that it offered, not gimmicks of techie features.

I wanted to see some better technical benefits for landscape images through its electronic shutter and extra few pixels and some nice features for street shooting in the EVF and quetier nature of the camera.

I will 'fes up here and say that the reason I took the untried Pen rather than an OMD was not based on anything other than the lure of a tax break offered by the Australian tax office for people travelling overseas. No one really understands this process, but for years I have been claiming small items purchased near departure. This time the (self confessed) confused staff at the airport tax counter pretty much put the kibosh on that, so the whole exercise was wasted.

Never the less, the trip gave me the chance to push the Pen F into the role the OMD cameras have been filling for the last couple of years.

The good

   It was quiet. Both the normal and the electronic shutter were silent or near to and the shutter was gentle to press.

   Nothing failed or went wrong, always a concern with untested gear.

   The EVF is better for manual focus even without the aids engaged.

   The buttons had no mushiness like the OMD, but the camera is also not waterproof.

The same

   The AF was about the same speed and accuracy except the finer spot focus helped in some situations and would be a welcome improvement to the OMD EM5 (never gonna happen).

   The slight lags that the OMD has seemed no better. Turning on, lifting to the camera to the eye usually had a (minimal) wait for the EVF to fire up and the camera to respond, but I noticed it regularly. The EPM2 used as a backup felt faster! Note I used the EVF with the Pen not the rear screen and inverted the screen to make the camera less distracting-more old school. The EVF did not seem to speed up in that configuration as the OMD does with the auto EVF/Screen switch over disengaged.

The bad

   The shutter noise. The OMD shutter has been described as being like "a Bentley car door closing". The Pen is more like an Elf sneezing. I found it misleading when gauging the length of the shutter fire by ear. Where I can instinctively tell from an OMD how fast it has fired in Aperture priority, this was not the case with the Pen. It also seemed to vary at different shooting angles.

   The stabiliser. Either the cameras' weight, handling, the shutter or a combination of these affected my confidence with the stabiliser. It is meant to be better, but I was was not expecting leaps and bounds of difference, but at least as good. There seemed to be fewer "hail Mary" shots coming of, especially with the longer (75mm) lens to the point where I found myself taking more wasted multiples as I used to with Canon gear. 

   Handling and habits. For some reason I kept turning it off. The handy on/off dial proved too handy and I missed shots often because of this. Spooked by reports of short battery life, I think I started this early on, even before the trip, but could not get a handle on it. Other handling could have been improved with the optional grip, but I got by fine.

The exposure compensation dial is too stiff (just like the XT-1), requiring two fingers to turn it accurately as one finger tended to need too much force, offering too little control and the dial would often jump 2-4 settings rather than 1. I use this control a lot as the "what you see is what you will get" viewing promotes it. The OMD allows it to be placed on either the front or rear dials with just the right amount of resistance and it can be set to turn in either direction as you choose. Cameras need to be as invisible as possible in use and this one was a deal breaker for street.

There will be a follow up to this on the image quality, once I have played a bit more.

On sticking with Olympus

As you are probably aware from previous posts, I have made a commitment to M43 and specifically Olympus for my photographic gear. Working in a camera shop for almost 10 years allowed me to try out pretty much anything I wanted to and this freedom resulted in some choices I would not have expected at the beginning of the journey.

A through and through "Canon man", my money (a lot of it) chased the Canon bandwagon for 25 years, from manual focus film to full frame digital pretty much without a break. I felt a bit like I was trapped on a hamster wheel. New camera, slight improvement, but same ol' same ol'. Even jumping from crop frame to full frame (twice!) only showed benefits in ISO and dynamic range performance to relatively small degree and only in comparison to each other. Indeed one of my favourite periods was the "good lenses and cheap cameras" period, where I realised the cameras were not making that much difference, but the benefit of prime lenses was substantial (except for the day I carried it all out to do landscapes and quickly regained a strong desire to get a couple of zooms for tripod work). Change was in the wind.

Part of this new direction was due to weight, part boredom and part excitement at their being things better and new ideas out there. A couple of fast prime lenses and a pro camera or two was simply more than I was willing to carry when travelling. A 450D and 35L had good balance and reasonable weight and a second body with a 135L gave me my second option, but it was still big and heavy enough to be cursed by me, with aching shoulders on many an occasion. 

When Olympus came along with the OMD EM5 mark 1, I was well versed in the benefits of size, weight, lens quality and speed, having had a Pen EPL3 for a while as a snap shot camera and being a champion of the Olympus DSLR system. At first I went with a part Canon and part Olympus set up. Not practical, but the Canon safety net was hard to part with. After a while (as many others have said happened to them), I noticed that the SLR was being left at home more and more. The images out of the Olympus were more often than not better, easier to get and painless to process.

Going all Olympus was not this straight forward though. The job in a camera shop is a double edged sword. Sure you can try before you buy, get the inside skinny and soak in the feel and presence of the cameras, but it is easy to be tempted, especially armed with too much information. At one point my kit comprised of Olympus/Panasonic, Fuji, Sony and Canon. Why? Because at that point there was no perfect answer.

Fuji offered beautiful JPEGS, Sony had an unsharp lushness from a huge pixel count crop frame sensor (especially in mono) and the Canon provided the sports AF kit. My loyalty was still with the responsive M43 system, but there was a lack of lenses and/or confidence in the future direction of all of these brands for one reason or another.

Leaving the shop, I wanted to be lean and mean. There was no Canon or Sony at this point, but Fuji was still around, confusing things a bit. It went leaving me with an all Olympus kit. Things got a lot simpler then.

These are the things that lead to that decision;

Size and weight (and price). It is possible to carry a 2 camera 4 prime lens kit in a small (non photographic) satchel. Not even Olympus's own mini SLR's could pull that off. To replace the Canon 135 f2L I bought the Olympus 75 f1.8. One of the few lenses possibly sharper than that Canon, it is half the size, 50% cheaper, faster by a stop and slightly longer due to the crop factor. The 5d can produce a slightly bigger file with less noise at high ISO (and good sharpness with a premium lens), but the in body stabiliser, better DOF at the same or a wider aperture (with more accurate focus) and extreme sharpness of all of the Olympus lenses wide open often nullify the need for those high ISO settings and finally I cannot afford a printer that out resolves my OMD much less a full frame Canon.

Lenses. This was what got my attention from the beginning. All the lenses are good. Even the kit and early maligned 17mm are good. Often reviewers will be able to find fault with almost any lens, but when the rubber meets the road, all M43 lenses are good enough to do publishable work, although some are clearly better. Part of this comes from the very sharp sensors, some from the sensor size allowing easier lens design, but either way, it was pretty obvious from early on that they produce clarity and detail we were not used to seeing. Steve Huff compared an early Panasonic 12mp camera with the 20mm Pana lens to a Nikon D700 full frame and a 50mm prime with truly surprising results. The lens resolution figures for M43 lenses are often higher than the numbers on other brands with the same pixel count (see Lenstip and Photozone) and early adapters such as Ctein, who will suffer no limitations in their art, have proven through their own printing, that these guys give you the goods.

Taken with the kit lens at 42mm wide open.

The Files. This will be a bit contentious, but in Lightroom, with a standard work flow, the files show more resilience than any Canon crop frame file and often better than 6D/5D mk2-3 files. Noise is rendered as fine black specks, like good film grain and Lightroom NR is very effective (Topaz or Noise Ninja are even better). Sharpness stays even after NR and artefacts like the water colour look are well controlled. I find ISO 3200 usable, but rarely needed and anything lower is fully workable. As I mentioned above though, high ISO's are rarely needed. Highlights hold together better than Canon files (full frame shadows are very good on Canon, but their highlight retention, as of writing were a poor). The Sony sensor armed cameras (pretty much everyone else) have similar performance and most beat out the canons here also. Olympus is using a Sony manufactured sensor, but they have used some minor magic on it, turning some of it's shortcomings into benefits. 

The before and after of a file taken, as you can see from the darker one, effectively at night.

Colour. This is a surprising one for me, but the Olympus colour is now my preferred look. Being a Canon user I grew used to their vibrant and contrasty colour palette. Indeed many of my images during this period were crafted the way they were because of the smooth, rich and glowing colour that Canon cameras produce. Fuji gave me a similar feeling of deep, mysterious colour depth, especially the JPEG's. Olympus on the other hand looked flat, too "real" and a bit un inspiring. One of the problems for me as well at that time was that Canon had gone and Fuji was a limited and not fully efficient kit. I persevered with the Olympus files, sometimes loving them and other times feeling I was deluding myself that they gave me the satisfaction the other brands gave me. Two things happened together that broke my fixed perceptions.

A trip to New Zealand allowed me to use the Fuji and Olympus kits into the field at the same time. My initial impression was that the beauty of the Fuji images gave a truer interpretation of the NZ autumn than any other camera brand could and that the Olympus images better suited muted or more industrial situations. When I got home things changed. The Fuji files had the "painterly" effect often talked about in irregular patterns such as tree images and the colours were so (too) strong that most peoples response was that it looked fake. The Olympus images on the other hand sat better with most viewers and I must admit I did not have a good handle on processing them at the time.

Then a second simple test that I put a Fuji, a borrowed Canon FF and my OMD through. The test comprised of taking the same or similar images of a variety of subjects in different light and of different colour palette with the intent of making all of the files match the one I felt was the best to my eye. Even though the Canon or Fuji often had more punch than the Olympus Raw files out of the camera, I was able to match (or if not get very close without forcing any "Hollywood" into the files) with the Olympus. The glow, brilliance and rich, smoothness were all there, but the Olympus engineers had set up the cameras to render a more natural image file first, with plenty of room to fiddle in reserve.

The chosen image above, to match was the Canon which is third. The second (Olympus) and last (Fuji-sorry about the inconsistencies in framing, but I had to redo the file a bit later) were processed to match or better the Canon. The first file is the very natural, but flat looking Olympus RAW without processing. It is actually closest to the original scene, but not the most dynamic. Something I have learned to respect with my Olympus files is that they refuse to let me go into the realms of fantasy with my colour as they go from strong to garish very quickly and each colour should be dealt with individually, not holistically.

There is still plenty of room to be creative, but they fall of the cliff if you go nuts. Whites can look warm and almost tinted on the file, but a little work and they brighten up well. Mono images actually benefit from the above with very film like curves and layers of gentle and smooth highlight detail (like FP4 or Tmax), where the Sony mono files that I really liked were more like Tri X or HP5/Delta, with more mid tone crunch and therefore more contrasty looking shadows and highlights. 

This test was followed up by a comparison test between the awesome 23 f1.4 on a Fuji XE-1 and the 17mm Olympus on the OMD. Same idea, walk around and shoot the same things then try to make the Oly images match the brilliant Fuji JPEG's. The Fuji was set by mistake on S JPEG and I did not even notice until I went 100% on screen and they hardly enlarged. This means it is possible to do a perfectly good 11x14" print off a small jpeg file. I tried this with the Oly later and the same was true (and maybe the small files were sharper?)

Olympus (processed) on the left, Fuji (OOC) on the right, again sorry for the framing inconsistencies that, it turns out they were in response to the two cameras' handling characteristics and viewfinder rendering. There are differences in contrast and there is a slight feeling of more delicateness in the Fuji files (ignore the colour differences as the Olympus files can be changed to match perfectly, but I like them as is). One thing I find that increases the deeper, more mysterious and cleaner feel of Canon and Fuji images when compared to Olympus is white balance and tint. In particular they can look more brilliant, but often a slight twitch of the Oly files into blue/green colours, away from their natural magenta/yellow brings out the same look as Canon of Fuji. On processing to my preference, I found the Olympus files gave me what I wanted and were very flexible, even if they did not always match the Fuji colours or their glassier look*. There is no doubt there is a magic in the Fuji files, but (at the time I was using them) camera responsiveness, processing, lens size and handling, cost and weight compared to M43 put me off. Also the files could be a little fickle with the limitations of JPEG shooting and RAW file processing issues.

The other important thing to investigate here is software. Lightroom is a good workflow solution and has some pretty powerful processing tools, but systems like Topaz for NR and Photo Ninja have been shown to bring out even more in these files, pretty much equivalent to a camera upgrade.

What have I learned? 

My memory of colours is flawed. Each time I second guessed Olympus and compare their files to other brands, the differences are only minor, easily fixable and often mostly in my head. Other issues often came up in favour of Olympus such as clarity, file flexibility, accuracy of colour and metering.

The Camera is only the start of a complicated workflow leading to the end image. The whole system and many other issues need to be addressed when purchasing a camera before worrying about sensor size and pixels.

One brand is infinitely simpler. It is better to learn to get what you want from one brand rather than only using the obvious and often simplistically stereotyped characteristics of several brands. No brand is perfect, nor incapable of working as needed.

Every benefit or flaw has an opposite. The DOF issues of the smaller sensor are to me actually ideal and much misunderstood or misrepresented. It gives me more choice of usable apertures (f1.8 renders at f2.8), not "desperation" or creative look only apertures (who really takes a persons serious, formal portrait at f1.8/1.4 on a full frame?). Small sensors allows a small camera in a different form, cheaper camera, easier lens design, better stabiliser performance etc. and have little effect on sharpness or realistic enlargement limits these days.

If buying now from scratch, the choice would be harder. Canon has produced a lovely little 40mm (and 24mm for crop) that would have suited me well, making the FF or crop frame SLR much smaller, Fuji has ironed out their camera issues for the most part and also produced some smaller, cheaper f2 lenses and Sony FF is close to a perfect system for some. I am glad that I (1) no longer work in camera shop and (2) I have committed to a system.

*To truly mimic Fuji on Olympus you find yourself using too much noise reduction and sometimes un sharpening! Close inspection of Fuji files finds a lack of true resolution in favour of a smooth and glassy look.

On using long lenses for street images

In a couple of weeks my wife and I are going to Japan again for our third trip on a couple of years and I have been struggling to define my look and style. I really want this body of work to be coherent over the three trips, so I want investigating. Looking at the previous collections, trying to reverse engineer my work method and compare it to my favourite images. I also have the problem of weight and endurance as I am still recovering from a case of Swine flu/Pneumonia that put me in hospital for 2 weeks. 

If you ask the all knowing internet "what lens is best for street photography?", the majority of posts will lead you to the debate between 35 or 50mm (full frame) focal lengths, although the smarter ones will promote thinking outside the box or point out that the difference between two focal lengths so close together is a pointless argument. Some shooters go wider and accept the distortion that will be part of their images and a smaller minority will admit to using the odd longer focal length.

It occurred to me recently that I am in that minority.

There is a stigma involved when talking about long lens users and I am going to look at this in some more detail now.

"Early in your street shooting journey you may use long lenses to combat your fear of peoples reactions". This is in some cases true. The problem with statements like this is that it robs the photographer of a powerful tool in their creative arsenal, especially if you want your images to look a bit different to the flood of images coming down the internet "pipeline".

When my wife recently asked me for some prints of Japan to put on our walls (she is a blindly supportive and beautiful person), it occurred to me that our mutual favourite ones were all taken with longer lenses. Is this because I have not matured yet as a street shooter? How do I measure that anyway?

I suppose part of the story here is the in the definition of what makes a street photographer or photograph. What frame work do street shooters confine themselves in and why do they feel the need to? I am a bit sick of the "you must use this lens" or "mono only" crowd. This type of thinking helps to define a genre, but also tends to limit it.

OMD 75mm lens

Personally I have always responded most to the tight, semi abstract and emotionally charged detail shot. My favoured photos from classic image makers are often that very tight detail shot. Examples of early influences are McCurry's "Afgan Girl"  and many of his India images or William Albert Allard's "Benedetta Buccellato Sicily" images. Even Sam Abel, who produced the bulk of his work on a 28mm made some images on portrait lenses that are amongst my favourites and Saul Leiter admitted to using a longer lens on his medium format camera with "some interesting results".

I also find myself drawn to the painterly quality of the slightly compressed perspective of longer lens. They show all things on the same plane as equals and background or foreground elements as a soft and naturally blur creating distinct layers. This is something that I have done in landscape photography also. Never being a big fan of sweeping valleys and big skies I selected out details, both large and small. Often when I like a wide angle or normal lens image, it is a tighter and slightly compressed looking image. 

All of the above were taken with the OMD and 75 or 45mm lenses

Do I hide in the shadows with my long lens? No I don't. Some images are taken from as close as 2-3 feet, but with a shorter lens would require permission to invade the subjects personal space for the detail I am after, not to mention the distortion rendered by the lens.

This brings us to two of the most contentious philosophical questions in street photography. Privacy and spontaneity. 

Privacy, or the ability to intimately connect with your subject without annoying or upsetting them by going unnoticed. Street photographer community is divided on this one. Some believe you should be seen to be doing what you are doing, sometimes going to the extremes of grabbing the "surprise" moment the photographer creates. Other image makers (old school?), of which I am one, would rather get an image that passes quietly and anonymously, a part of life as seen, but not disturbed, as Sam Abel said "I believe in the staying power of the quieter image". This divide is probably the result of circumstances, your formative time in photographic history, your mentors and inspirations (mine were NGS story tellers, while more recent equivalents are social media driven) and your surroundings or subjects. I am a set up portrait photographer by trade, but not when shooting street.

Spontaneity is part in parcel of this. Why introduce yourself and set up a photo when what you are looking for is the natural interactions of life watched and remembered. There is a growing movement of street portraitists, and that is perfectly fine, but it is only one way of skinning the same cat and not for every one. Don't feel you must "get over your fear of approaching people" and start setting up images if you don't want to photograph them that way anyway!

All of the above images were taken with the 75mm Olympus (150mm equiv). 

The reality is, if I went to Japan with just a semi wide or normal lens, I would be removing my most personally creative and to large extent most fulfilling side of my photography. Sure I need a wider lens for busier and more complicated street compositions, but there (for me) must be a longer lens option handy.

Follow your gut over your head. Do what comes naturally and don't let the opinions of others make you second guess yourself.  

On Finding Balance

Which is more important, photographic technique, the gear used, vision or presentation?

The answer, as with many things in life, is none and all.

Technique is the delicate balance between learning what you (technically) need to know, but applying it in a way that allows you to still express yourself artistically. This is an area that many new photographers struggle with. Their naive and unlimited eye early in their hobby can produce lovely images, partly through chance but mostly because of the freedom to see without worrying about technical issues. These images are the fuel that powers the desire to get better, but with that comes the reality that taking more control requires knowledge, knowledge requires commitment in time and effort and while this is happening, sometimes, the creative urge wanes.

I remember a story I once read about Ansel Adams and his friend Brett Weston, taking the similar photos in the same location. Adams was known for his technical prowess, inventing systems for exposure and work flow that are still relevant even today. He did his usual, well practiced and precise measurements and calculations. Western on the other hand would wave his light meter around (often without a battery in it or with it still in its closed case), in gentle mockery of Adams and then basically guess the exposure, setting the camera with a dramatic flourish. His negatives could be so bad that his sons (photographers themselves), when going through his estate almost destroyed some of his best work as they could see so little detail in these "bullet proof" negatives. Some would say that his work had more empathy and soul than Adams (not an argument I wish to enter), but regardless, his end output was beautiful, even if his process was technically sloppy.

I know in my own work that some times the image you want to delete in the field can be a hidden gem.

OMD 75-300 at about 150 shot from the hip. Sooo close to deleting this one and even weeks later it got little love, but it grew on me.

Gear ties into technique and can sometimes even dictate technical limitations. Getting to know your camera and the strengths of its lenses will benefit you much more than changing constantly to "better" gear. There are many photographers out there who have made a name for themselves with surprisingly basic equipment. Kate Kirkwood was relatively famous before moving on from a basic, entry level, Nikon SLR with kit lens and lets not forget that most of the images that influence our perception of photography were taken on film cameras last century.

The most important thing about your gear is to make sure that its weaknesses do not directly relate to your needs. No point in lugging a big, heavy and noisy full frame SLR with a monster zoom lens around for street photography. It would likely do more harm than good. Equally, there is no point in paying for fast F2.8 zoom lenses if you only want to do landscape work as there is almost always a cheaper and lighter option.

I recently bought a Pen F camera body in denial of my reliable and capable clutch of  OMD mk1's. Did I want more pixels, faster this or that or just a sexy little new camera? No (mostly- it is sexy), but I was drawn to the silent and vibration free electronic shutter and iphone remote release for long lens landscape work. This as vexed me for years (5d mk2 and 200mm F2.8, on a wooden tripod with huge head was my most frustrating fail) and finally the answer is (hopefully) here.

Buy the super camera and the fast lens if it is relevant to what you do, but think about the options. If you decide you want a 70-200 f2.8 ($2500au) for portraits, maybe a 50f1.8 ($200au) or 85 f1.8 ($400au) would actually be a better choice as it will do a better job of that specialist task and is much less in every good way. When asking the internet for the "best" choice, follow this up with "best option to" the champion lens it spits out. Very few people will bag out the monster lens they just purchased for the price of a small car and often there is little need to, but it is usually the case they went straight to the "full noise" top model without checking for a better tool for a specific task.               You can buy a 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 and macro lens and a decent second tier 75-300 for well less than a 70-200 f2.8 and you will have a choice of lighter weight if travelling, faster aperture, closer focussing, longer range and more depth in individual parts (more choice of lens character and more easily replaced) on your side. It can also be nice to not buy the big, often white, complicated and stress inducing top of the line model so when the new "best" lens comes out in a year or two you don't feel gutted. You can also take more pride in your photographic wins as they are more about you and less about the gear. 

Taken as a OOC JPEG with the 75-300 "Budget" lens at 300 f6.7. Sharp enough? Good enough colour?

Vision is the both the easiest and the toughest. The beginning photographer sees everything, photographs everything and keeps everything. Over time they often become more discerning, but can find their more limited scope of interest reduces their output. I have found in myself a lack of motivation sometimes, even though my photographic interests are varied. It is important to keep shooting something, because this often generates interest. Even boring jobs can stimulate creative juices, so keep shooting!

The quality of your vision, being the quality of your photographic "eye" will improve and change over time. It is without doubt the single most important element to your photography because without vision/a vision you will not produce anything of greta importance, but let it come naturally and let it lead. Don't fight it. It is the only thing you bring to the party that is completely yours. 

Presentation is the final part of the equation. Poor output spoils everything that has come before. Whether it is a well presented web site, share site or prints on the wall, the final and most satisfying element to the process is presentation. The best advice here is just DO IT! Get something out there, get feed back and learn. Don't expect everyone to like it, don't expect everyone to be kind. Don't care about this as worrying about what others think is a good way of stunting your growth as a photographer, but learn from feedback when it is well intentioned and knowledgeable.   

Get out there, but leave some of that enormous kit behind.  

On Minimalism

Less is more? Often said and often miss quoted. I would like to put myself forward as a pretty standard hypocritical minimalist.

When packing for a trip I do try to take only what I need, which often requires me to think, pack, re think, re pack and then turn it on its head and start again, but the intention is to take as little as possible.

Why?

Apart from the obvious weight and organisation issues that come with too much equipment, there is the gradual (insert trust issues here) realisation that less is actually more.

1 camera, 2 lenses equal 2 choices. add another 2 lenses and you have 4 choices and probably another camera to save time. Add a flash, a tripod and even more lenses and filters and you have even more choices. The reality is, and I say this in all seriousness, a good image maker can probably get the job done with a randomly selected lens and any camera they are familiar enough with. 

Photography that requires fast thinking and reactions are anathema to an over equipped photographer. Apart from the time taken to think through your options, there is the time needed to change camera or lenses to create the visualised image (that is still only in your head). Many images are fleeting in street, sport, reportage and candid portraiture. There is often not even time to zoom, just point the camera and shoot the composition that presents itself.

OMD with pre focussed 17mm at f5.6. No time to second guess lens choice.

Studio and location shooters have the luxury of creative "hours", but often, even they keep it simple and they have assistants.

Present someone with too many options and they will get confused, lack focus and hesitate. Present them with one choice of tool, but complete freedom in how they use that tool and watch them come up with dozens of clever ways of using that single perspective creatively.

There are many other techniques that can speed up image capture (but all of them come to nothing if you are caught flat footed by indecision). 

1) Leave a good gap between the "perspective" rendered by different lenses. One of the easiest ways to get caught up is to have lenses of slightly different focal lengths, but which render similar perspective to the subject. An 85mm lens and a 135mm lens have slightly different magnifications, but can produce images near enough to the same as to make choosing between them pointless. The 135mm may get you a little closer and the 85mm may include a bit more, but at the end of the day, the real difference is minor. I used to joke that my ideal canon kit was (in full frame values) a 24mm for landscapes, a 35mm for street, a 135mm for portraiture and a 400mm lens for sport and wildlife, but really, that is all I would need. I almost changed some of my olympus lenses for 4 "perfect" primes (Leica 12 and 42.5, Olympus 75 and 300) of effectively the same focal lengths just recently, but size/weight/cost and wife stopped me. Use lenses that give you a clearly wide, semi wide, natural and compressed perspective and avoid more than one in each category. Perspective is more important than magnification when choosing and using lenses lenses.

2) Use pre focussed lenses for street grab shots. That is, focus manually to about 2 metres and disengage the AF, set the aperture to about f5.6 with a wide or semi wide lens. This will allow for point and shoot without focussing. Set the ISO high enough to guarantee 1/125th or faster shutter speeds.

3) carry only as many lenses as you have hands/cameras. My standard method these days is to have a camera on a long strap hanging on my waist, with a 17mm lens pre focussed at about 5 feet at f4-8 and another camera held in my left hand with a longer lens at the ready. the second camera will be used at the eye, so it needs to be responsive, but the strap camera only needs to pointed in the right direction and the shutter fired. If you wish to carry more lenses, make sure to follow the rule above about being a genuine change in perspective, no "filler" focal lengths.

4) Use primes. This one is a matter of taste and to some extent existing habits. My old "light" kit was a 17-40 and 70-200 f4L Canon lens kit and one body (or a full and crop body combo to allow for slight the variation in lens focal lengths). These two lenses and the occasional addition of a fast prime, made me feel pretty bullet proof, but after years of using this or a similar combination, I realised that I often used only one or two focal lengths regularly and was frustrated when the lenses were set to something else and I was unprepared. The 70-200 was almost always on around 135mm or occasionally 200mm on a full frame (often wishing for more) and the 17-40 became a favourite on a crop body at about 17-20 (28-35mm equiv). My own preference for primes comes from being better at composing quickly with a pre determined focal length, rather than the mental "clutter" of composing by zooming, then shooting. If you trust yourself to pre set your focal length and leave it, then I guess you can have the best of both worlds.

EPM2 45mm lens. Not normally ideal for street, but it worked well on the day.

5) Be organised. No lens caps or reversed hoods (I use screw in metal ones for rigidity and never take them off). Lenses on cameras, camera in hand or close to. Have your camera on any time you may come across an image (carry more batteries if you need to) and set your camera correctly for the likely image you will capture. It is better to have a larger camera bag, allowing for quick dumping of one camera or lens in an empty space and equally fast retrieval of a the next bit of gear and remember empty space weighs nothing. If shooting landscapes, put your polariser filter on the lens and leave it there.

6) Don't hesitate. More images gives you more to choose from, more practice and more chance of grabbing the fleeting nano second that can make all of the difference. Timing is still important, but if in doubt, shoot.

7) Only buy and use what you need, but get the best lens you can afford in that class. If you love wildlife photography, but never take landscapes, why buy a wide angle, when the money could get you a better long lens. Too many photographers starting out try to cover the full range of focal lengths, often with multiple overlaps. They will eventually whittle their kit down, but too late to avoid the clutter and cost of doing it the long way round (talking from experience here). 

My own kit?

Street and travel. The "strap" body with the 17mm and the "hand" body with either the 45 or 75mm. Occasionally the 25mm instead of the 17mm. On long trips I may pack a shadow kit as replacements for lost or damaged gear.

Portrait work. One body (a spare in the bag if working) 25, 45 and 75mm (or 40-150 possibly from now on)  just for coverage of smaller or larger groups. I always head toward the longer lens unless it is not possible.

Landscape. Pen F (electronic shutter) with the 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses. These lenses break one of my cardinal rules of not needing fast zooms for slow work, but their edge to edge sharpness and weather proofing as well as the ability to frame tightly (relevant for the time rich landscape shooter) make them the best choices for an Olympus user.

Stage work. The 40-150 and occasional 75 for very low light. Occasionally the 75-300 that is surprisingly useful if the light is good and maybe a 25mm for whole stage shots.

So, less is more? Yes please. The clean, creative freedom of the uncluttered and organised image maker for me. Never again the bags of gear, packed safely but uselessly away, struggling in the hot sun and cursing my hobby.  

On the benefits of not upgrading.

This post is a lot easier to write now that I do not work in a camera shop. Selling and being around cameras was once my dream job, but I must admit, the ridiculous pricing pressures, the dominance of improvingdigital technology and gimmicks over the importance of the human eye (good "seeing" followed by strong editing and then good presentation) and then the worshipping of these gear improvements rather than user improvement have taken away my satisfaction with the industry and especially the sales side.

For the last 3 years (!) I have used, with some drop ins and drop outs, pretty much the same cameras. Not the same format, or even just the same brand, but the same cameras. The critters used are the Olympus OMD EM5 (the original one).

Are they perfect? Not by a long way. The buttons are "squishy" due to the weatherproof membrane under the outer shell, some of the buttons are in just stupid spots (although the ample customisation of the camera fixes many of these issues) and the the performance, although good is a little laggy in places, but they are more than ample in so many ways that they are worth persevering with.

EM5 mk1 and 75mm 

The benefits with sticking with the same format/brand/model are many. In the film era cameras changed little and less often. the user became so familiar with their camera, they could often change all settings without looking at the camera and the number of buttons, dials and switches were kept to a minimum allowing for fewer mistaken settings. The DF Nikon is an example to me of a camera created by a generation unaware of the expectations and hopes of the previous generations, expectations often rediscovered by the next generation who embrace old film cameras.

To me the camera looks like a thing made by a group of people who are aware of the "ancient" machine it is mimicking, but have only seen a photo of one and are then locked away in room to re invent the wheel.

It is;

Too big (have they never seen an FM2 that also had to accommodate a roll of film?).

Too fiddly (far too many locked off buttons and dials and it feels odd in the hand).

Too light for its size (why so big then so light, from the company that worships stupid heavy=quality?).

Too expensive and looking more so every month (D4 sensor, in a relatively cheap body only goes so far).

The reality is the Fuji XT1 (and the newer Mk2) ate this one's lunch!

When I purchased the EM5's, the mirrorless world was just starting to mature and it showed. the OMD was one of the first breakthrough cameras of its type, heralding a bright future. It offered a vastly improved sensor, faster (by some measures) AF performance than most other cameras and a camera that appealed to the lost generation of film camera owners who just liked the way it looked and felt (the OMD sold consistently and at good prices for over a year and surged again towards the end of its life with some great deals, in that time Canon and Nikon went through 2 full model changes, with sales slow at first and the prices quickly dropping). 

What has changed since? Lots of little things, but if I looked at from a RAW file quality perspective, very little until the GX8/Pen F upped the pixel count. I had until recently the luxury of comparison with any camera you could reasonably imagine and drove myself mad trying to find a more capably kit, but to no avail. The little OMD's always came up with the best balance of camera size/weight, image quality and lens selection. They constantly surprise me with the things they can pull off, that I have come to rely on and these things can bite me big time if I switch to another brand or format for a while. 

I would love the silent shutter, slightly improved viewfinder/stabiliser/AF of the Pen F, but really do not use it. Recently I started a project photographing natural portraits in a school environment. The light was mixed, often poor, the children always moving at least a bit and distances were often longer than ideal. I found myself shooting hand held with a budget 75-300 SLOW telephoto, and at higher ISO settings than desired.

OMD EM5 mk1 75-300 at 300mm F6.7 (wide open) ISO 1600

There were misses, as always, but there were a lot of wins that even surprised me as I processed them. I cannot show you any with the children in them for legal and ethical reasons, but believe me when I say, when stretched to its limits, this little system pulled of images that would have been only recently in the realm of the big cameras and super priced lens. 

EM5 75-300 at about 100mm ISO 800

"Counting every eyelash" used to be a bit of a un official quality gauge. It has now become an expectation from even the most unlikely of situations. As I shot, I knew the limits and believe that that certainty allowed me to get on with the job.

Since then I have photographed two stage productions for the same school, with the 75/75-300 combo and have been amazed by the results.

The problem with upgrades.

Knowing your cameras strengths and weaknesses is key to performing with your gear. How do you milk the best quality out of the cameras and your work flow unless you have experimented in many situations, failed and succeeded at the edge of the reality envelope and come up with the most effective work arounds. If new cameras actually removed problems the world would be a better place, but they only mitigate them by ever decreasing amounts, bringing with them a series of other small differences that have to learned and sometimes avoided.

When shooting Canon, I had a love/hate relationship with the 450D slr. On one hand the camera had a poor screen and low pixel count compared to many new cameras (which felt important at the time) and it felt cheap and plasticky, but the files were nearly bullet proof for their day and the shutter just kept on going. Shooting street in mixed lighting can produce some pretty crappy files, often 2-3 stops out, but the 450 files often gave me a workable image (recently I went into the archives to find an old image use in this blog and hanging on the wall and missed it repeatedly because the original file was so poor!). When I shifted to the newer models, full of hope for vastly better images I was met with poor highlight recovery, bigger files and less "sharp" looking images in much the same body. Only full frame satisfied and the difference was not as much as you would think.

One of the above images was taken with the 450d the other with a 5d mk2.

I suppose what I am trying to get across is; when buying a new camera, be aware that the actual benefits will most likely be less obvious that the perceived benefits. More pixels rarely make any difference (unless you are going from 12mp on a crop frame camera to 36mp on a full frame), are often far to many and create storage and computer processing issues. Faster is sometimes important, but in most modern cameras the difference is not much, i.e. all things that were missed before will not be automatically be captured with a new model. Fuji is the one brand that has really had to work on this and recently have gone ahead, a lot, but they are the only major brand with big issues to fix. 

So, before buying a new camera, maybe you should look at a specialist lens, a superior software programme (Adobe is not always the best) or time spent travelling/taking lessons will make more actual difference to your image quality.

On Beauty and Perfection

The Artistic world has always been aware that technical perfection and beauty are different animals. All art has suffered from and been strengthened by the battle with imperfection.

The woman in the image above evokes a reaction in me to want to know her story. I am interested in her hurried and busy look, her naturalness and vulnerability. I feel close to her. 

If the image was "better" technically, my attention may be drawn to other elements of the image such as clarity of certain details or colour accuracy and focus/background blur. The photographic process may overpower the content. A viewers perception of an image is very much a programmed response and photographers tend to be the most programmed.

I have noticed in myself sometimes a different "viewer", set free by imperfection.

Why do art based courses often promote the use of "toy" cameras like the Holga? It is because they set the user free from the tight limitations of technique forced on them by the technology obsessed camera industry. Perfection comes later, after a clear vision has emerged.

The modern camera is becoming increasingly capable of easy perfection. This is natural of course as the early cameras enticed us with their magic but there was plenty of room for improvement. The drive for better has been relentless until we have reached near perfection, certainly enough for our actual needs.

Some of the latest releases can make a joke of concerns such as correct focus, exposure and timing with features that literally allow you to shoot fast and loose and edit in these factors later, and that does not even count the high res video side that could (will) completely change the street photography and journalistic movements as we know them. There are cameras now that effortlessly shoot images with extremely wide exposure range (HDR) and enormous pixel counts (5Ds, A7r, Pen F). Cameras that allow focus and even capture retrospectively (G7, GX8, Lytro) or to be lifted from video (any 4/8k, large sensor model) and some that shoot so fast and quietly, you would have to point out to someone they were even being photographed (most new mirrorless).

Science fiction until recently, these features barely have time to mature before the next break through emerges. One of the ironies of the modern world is that to give us this easy perfection, cameras are becoming increasingly "fluff" laden and complicated.

True creativity rarely comes from easy perfection. If something becomes too accessible and easy, then it's preciousness is lost. Many of the greatest images of the past are great for the very same reason they are rare and unique. They were hard to take, required maximum skill with some hard earned luck, were the first or best of their kind. They often showed a level of accepted, beautiful imperfection and this became their signature.

Many of my favourite images are, in my head, near to perfection. When I revisit them, imperfections are visible. It's funny how the mind wraps the things we like in a blanket of protection. The work of Sam Abell (National Geographic Society) is a good example of film era excellence. It does not take much to find some grain, or relative softness, but at the time of their taking, they were good enough to meet our perception of "perfect" and still hold up today.

Reactions against easy technology are happening. If you look at the film movement for example. These people are deliberately making their lot harder because they want to be able to say "I used film" as a creative badge of honour. They will site a lot of reasons for their switch back to old processes, but maybe a main one is that they know respect for their work is as secure as that of the past masters, while respect for the digital shooter decreases and is always in flux.

Is skill going to be a victim of technology? Is beautiful imperfection going to have to be deliberately manufactured (VSCO and the like) or will our expectations simply change and accept it's loss. Grain was, for a long time a visual element, expertly used by some, but for digital "noise" there is little tolerance. Is this because we had no patience for it and knew that technology would remove it soon enough or was it the lack of a tactile nature so we could not relate to it. Either way, noise is anathema, grain was creative.

Olympus, faced with slightly higher noise than other, larger sensor cameras chose to make their noise more film like and workable. A similar work around to film era thinking.

The future photographer will be a master editor, story teller and presenter, rather than just a shooter, processor and printer/uploader. The taking side could be like a saturation bombing run and the real skill will be in sorting out the mess (probably an app for that). Most film familiar photographers agree that digital has the potential to make us lazy, taking 10 quick shots instead of one considered one, but maybe the next evolution will be literally what we see, rediscovered after the fact. Complete recall style photography, natural, instinctive and free.

Imagine coming home and plugging in your day to an app that will sort out usable images based on your preferences.

There is always a place for perfection in photography as in any form of art, but there is also a place for "beautiful imperfection" as originality (humanity?) may be reduced without it. In the immediate future how will we create it and in the longer term future will it even matter?

On Rewards and Accolades

I have never been one for competitions, or even competition. I know it is meant to make us stronger, hungrier and more aggressive, but that's just not me. My greatest challenger is me. I think everyone, even if they square up against others for top prize, is actually competing with themselves and their own expectations first, the difference is I have never cared much what others think.

Just a reminder how lucky we are  OMD 45 f1.8

Am I scared of failure, or even success? Not sure....maybe. Am I driven to do better as I define better to be, yes definitely.

Standards are important, accolades are not.

Standards allow you to strive for and attempt to reach a point you feel is the best you can do on your journey to do better. Being happy, but restlessly unsatisfied at the same time is a good thing. If you ask the world's top image makers if they have reached their maximum potential, or if they have stopped learning, most will tell you no.

Accolades are other people telling you have reached their required standard or at least have done the best out of a limited group of offerings, within a limited envelope, in their view. This is someone else applying their expectations or the limited expectations of the task given, to your work, not you.

How often does the best work fall short because it is a bit left of centre of the brief or the expectations of the judges. How many of the greatest images in history would fail to get a mention at the local photo club competition? A couple of years ago HDR images ruled the photo competition world (if I see one more rusty old car with cartoon HDR...), now it's a guarantee of competition failure. 

We all make simple choices every day based on our instincts and experience, but how often do we let others tell us what to think when the stakes are higher? The opinion of others can be constructive, but it can be equally destructive.  I remember when a friend won a photo competition and we all thought we knew which of the submitted images was the winner. When it was another "filler" image used to make up the numbers, it left us all with mixed feelings. Winning was great, but winning with an image that almost did not make the cut was confusing.

How many times do you see a sports person have a really great year, then crash out the year after? Maybe they have lost sight of what got them there in the first place, and when that solid ground crumbles, when the fear of not doing their best is replaced by misplaced confidence, overthinking or bad habits, they have nothing to support them. Often a team is running on that winning feeling, then a couple of setbacks come along and the unbeatable team turns into the easy beats, because they lost sight of the work needed to hold onto top spot.

If something is worth doing it is worth doing well regardless of the reason. 

If you have little confidence in your own images, then use that to drive you to do better, trust that little voice of doubt, but make it a little voice compared to your bigger voice of determination. Other peoples opinions are fine as far as they go, but they are either pumping up your ego or making you to question your work. There is no middle ground here and both are a distraction. Take all criticism with open eyes and the same for accolades, be capable of seeing what others see, but keep a steady path, be true to yourself and move on. The same goes for inspiration. The photos of the greatest photographers help to set a standard in your own head, but that is their standard not yours, be firm in your vision.

If you do not trust your own images, no one will.

The message? Do your work to your standard, set your expectations as high as you can imagine and try to reach them. Anything less is selling yourself short. If you find yourself asking the question "I wonder if this will sell?" or "I wonder if others will like this?", you are already compromising your own standards. If you find yourself asking yourself the question "Is this what I am after, or can I do better?" you are on a better path.

Accolades and sales may come, but only if you stay true to the path that lead you here in the first place.

On Shooters Block

Every one at some point or other suffers from creative block, be it artistic, at work, in the kitchen or just a feeling of inspirational void. It is usually fuelled by your own self doubts and can be quite depressing. It can sometimes be avoided or at least mitigated by a gentle shift in perception and attitude. Here are some of the tricks I have used or good advice that has been given to me that may help.

Change scale.

We are often attuned to a subject or style that may limit our perceptions. Looking "larger" or "smaller" can both increase our compositional tools and give us some stimulus to get out of a rut. Rather than shooting wide angle street scenes, try to pick out defining details or abstracts or go even wider/closer. This also applies to working in weather conditions or lighting that are not your norm or different compositional styles. My own limited landscape work is usually based on semi abstract details, close or distant. I rarely do a standard wide angle landscape shot, but if it occurs to me to try, they are often worth the effort.

"Harajuku promise" taken during a street photography "binge" OMD 25 f1.8

Change style or subject.

Do something that you have never done before. If you usually use a tripod, go free hand and pick a subject that suits. If you are a landscape photographer, try some street (street landscape?) or portrait work. Obviously avoid forms of photography that you are not equipped for and those you are completely disinterested in, but hopefully there is another form, removed enough from your main passion, that is comfortable for you. I guarantee you will learn something from other styles that can be applied to your standard fare or at the very least you will appreciate your usual methods more. A sports shooter may try some long exposure landscape work in their off season and discover a few tricks to expand their sports portfolio. I remember being blown away by a slow motion photo of the Ferrari F1 team pit crew at work many years ago when every other shot on the day was probably taken at 1/1000 of a sec or faster (a dead still car with red and yellow movement streaks coming from the engine and wheels). Another F1 shot, a drivers' cockpit portrait, taken on an medium format camera for a Pentax ad.

Change your work flow.

Turn your usual flow on its head, breaking habits and repetition. Do a series of photos on a theme or specific subject or photograph to populate a story you have written (start a blog!), that is, make the photos the support for, rather than the main act. Make the photos different in style to your usual method, such as grainy black and white or muted, old fashioned colour (but try to avoid gimmicky looks that will fall out of fashion). Create or return to a project of connected images, its a good idea to have one or more of these up your sleeve as they can grow into a major work. An examples is the "Travellers" series. This really only started as "filler" or warm up shots taken while getting from one place to another. Many would not take in colour, so they became mono and film like to better suit their mood (1 of these is actually a film image...guess which). 

"The Discovery" Tokyo subway OMD 17 f1.8

Look Harder/slower.

Slow down, observe and see new possibilities. After travelling I often find home a bit boring, but if I slow down and really look I start to see things on a different level or a different way. Some of the greatest works in photography's long history have come from a very limited geographical area or subject matter, for example the work of Gregory Crewdson, William Eggleston or Michael Wolf.  This often comes with the realisation that in a target rich environment I may have only been skimming the surface of possible compositions and viewpoints! This can also improve your photography, increasing you depth of perception and awareness of more worldly (non photographic) things and your understanding of your subject. Remember that some of the best known photos in history look deceptively simple and often are, but come from a deep understanding of the subject through patience and involvement. When asked, most of the great National Geographic or Magnum photographers will say that the most important part of what they do is along the lines of interaction and understanding, not gear or technique. One trick is to go somewhere without a camera and just look. I bet your shooting finger will itch pretty quickly or, as a less risky option, take just one small card to force good shot selection and a more watchful eye (or use a film camera).

Abstract detail of a chair in a Perth shopping mall. OMD 25 f1.8

Reduce your gear (just for now).

Look at your usual kit and pick out one camera and one lens. Go for a walk and see how many opportunities open up with this limited kit. This is probably how you started and may add some level of comfort and familiarity, lost to a larger range of kit. If you are a minimalist now, borrow or buy something you do not have, but nothing too serious, in fact something a bit silly is good like a "toy" or retro "legacy" lens adapted to your camera or even a novelty camera or an exotic and unfamiliar bit of kit. I have a clutch of old film cameras. Using one allows me several of the above tricks and is a good rest from more serious photography.

Print.

It sounds too easy, but printing previous work can get the creative hunger back. There is something about committing to print that changes the way you see your own work. Personally I find photographing to print far more productive than just shooting with the intent of only posting or storing. Sometimes just looking at your older images will bring something to life.

Read and look.

If you have a library of photo books, now might be the time to browse them. If you do not, the internet may provide or a good magazine (not photo specific necessarily) may help. Looking at the work of others may help you see the simple things that are all around us. My own library "is not going to move with us again" says my wife, as books are my weakness, but they never fail to inspire.

I hope this helps you when the creative river runs dry.

On those throw away remarks that confuse us all.

If you have been around photography for just a little while, you will have heard at least one of those comments that are (to the maker of the statement) cast in concrete and indisputable.

Usually based on the statement makers own loyalty to some brand or process, they often do more harm than their intended good.

Black and white is better than colour

Lets face it, some photos are better in mono and some are better in colour. Few photos are great in both forms, and fewer still are restricted totally from one form or the other. At the time of composing, the photographer will usually have one in mind, so it stands to reason that an image taken to be black and white or colour will be best reproduced that way. There is no doubt that an image changes "shape" when converted from one to other as the depth preceptors and focus triggers change. Colours draw the eye and create mood using colour intensity, temperature and placement where mono relies on tone and texture and can be more two dimensional and intimate. Notice the effect of red shoulder and shoes and the warm yellow road markers as focus indicators, the colder, deeper looking background forming two planes of composition and the effect of soft pink for contrast to the harder colours in the image below, compared to the placement of the less dominant two other women and the glowing tones in the dress and umbrella in the mono image.

Very few photographers are good at both, but I believe no one should shut any doors unless they have given both a try.

Film is better than digital (Nikon is better than Canon etc.).

Who cares. Any photo taken well and with feeling is a winner, from a digital compact, mobile phone, ancient film camera or state of the art camera. Have you ever noticed that any photographer who has the talent to take a good photo does not have to limit themselves to "The one and only" camera or format that works, for them anything will work. For every successful exponent of one format or brand there is an equally successful contradiction (and plenty of us capable of taking rubbish no matter what we are using). Use what you want, it does not matter as long as it works for you and the process gives you satisfaction. If you need validation for any argument, it won't be hard to find.

What is Bokeh and who cares.

Bokeh is a thing, but it's a bit misunderstood, it's as real as lens sharpness and megapixels, but is more subjective and a bit of a support player. There is no way to measure Bokeh, although the Japanese have various names for the Aji or flavour of different blur. Every lens, at every focus distance and aperture combination is different. One persons' smooth and creamy will be another's mushy. I find it frustrating when a reviewer reacts overly to the Bokeh of any lens, especially based on tests, as the viewer of the end image can really be the only judge. 

Bokeh is not just a 300 f2.8 or a 50 f1.4 wide open shooting out of focus night lights! Bokeh is the quantity, quality and form of the transition from the in focus to out of focus zones of a photo. This happens at nearly any aperture on any lens, so telephoto lenses at their widest aperture are an exaggeration of a normal phenomena, but it is present in nearly any photo (indeed, an image fully in sharp focus from front to back is technically difficult). Mike Johnson and John Kennerdell, who between them revealed and coined the term Boke-Aji or "Flavour of blur" * in the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques (a real photo mag), actually cited wide angle lenses at smaller to middle apertures in their articles and focussed more on lens personality than just sheer blur. Getting really close or using long lenses will always give you lots of out of focus blur, but Bokeh is a term for the look of it not just the quantity. The article on The Online Photographer blog called "In defence of depth" is the best I have seen at explaining this.

Getting to know your lenses or learning to recognise what it is you are probably already responding to, is the key. Some lenses can actually look more or less sharp because of their Bokeh rendering (an old Leica trick) and some blur is so "busy" that it can be a distraction to the main point of focus. Some lens Bokeh is so unusual it actually becomes much sought after such as the old Jupiter lenses. Do you have a lens that should be the ultimate portrait lens but leaves you cold, or a zoom that does not have the credentials to impress, but produces images you really like? It's probably the combination of the Bokeh and sharpness rendering of the lens. In the old days, aficionados would state confidently that they could pick lens "X" from lens "Y"  just by looking at otherwise identical photos. The giveaway was in the sharpness rendering or Bokeh. You may never use it intentionally as a creative tool or even care, but it is there, like it or not and can be made as relevant as any other part of photography. 

*Pronunciation is "Bo" as in bone and "ke" as in kettle, the "h" was added to help with correct pronunciation and the Aji dropped.

OMD 45mm at f4. A good example of a Bokeh efficient lens doing what it does well.

Olympus 75-300 lens at about 150mm f5.6. An example of a Bokeh "suspect" lens doing OK.

Street (landscape, sports, portrait etc.) photography should to be done (this) one way.

Do what ever works for you. Look to your mentors for ideas and tips, but never limit yourself just because someone else says there is "only one true way". Most photography evolves from the limitations of equipment, social constraints and fashions, but new rules are made by those who power on regardless of convention and learn to reinvent. If you spend more time trying to do as do or others say, you are not being true to yourself and will never grow.

Mirrorless beats SLR's or SLR's beat mirrorless.

Nope, they are similar but different. SLR cameras are still generally better at tracking focus (for now) and their view finders are clear glass, which some prefer. Mirrorless on the other hand can be quicker, smarter and lighter and can be reinvented to get around some technical limitations (face detection, video and electronic shutters etc.). SLR's have the two biggest names in photography behind them and the tradition and history that entails. Mirrorless are more innovative and interesting, but can be a bit thin in options. Time will only blur the differences more until it matters not at all what you choose, and that time is close.

You need full frame to be a professional.

This one is just crap. Lets look at it logically. The cheapest SLR on the marked today takes a better image than the best pro camera of 5-6 years ago. Each generation of cameras adds more of everything, but few in the industry want to ask, or answer the question "how much is enough?" as this will stunt sales. If you go back to the release of the D3X Nikon a few years ago, people paid $10,000+ for a full frame 24mp camera that did not even have a sensor cleaner! The current base model D3300 can match that camera for pixels, come close in low light performance, cleans it's own sensor and shoots video. Don't even get me started on print requirements! Ok, so while we are here. In a recent test a photographer showed two large (A1?) prints to a number of passers by (remember 95% of the people looking at your work are not photographers, but "passersby"). One was printed at 72 dpi and the other at 300 dpi. (industry standards suggest that if you do not print at 240 dpi+ you will not get gallery quality images). Nobody, not even an actual teacher of photography picked the difference between the two images. Luminous Landscape has a revealing article comparing the 50mp 5DS to the old 8mp 1DS in direct print comparisons, they are not as different as you might think. Ming Thein tried on the other hand to produce a print that held more detail than the human eye could see without assistance. He hired an industrial scale printer to do multiple, micro fine passes over the carefully selected paper to max out the resolution of a D800. He could only manage 11x14" paper before the test ran out of steam. The prints sold for many $100's to cover costs and in his words the whole exercise was pretty pointless, but revealing. Finally Pekka Podka has an interesting article on his blog comparing the OMD to the D800. So, to create gallery quality images at a reasonable size, you need...... a crop sensor camera of about 10-12 mp. We know this because people used to do it and still do.

What makes a pro photographer is actually pretty simple, know your process and HAVE A BACKUP!

More pixels make a better camera.

As above, the evidence says otherwise. Sharpness, light and composition are not controlled by pixels. More pixels technically make a bigger file and that should allow a bigger print, but that is only if the above considerations are met. Colour depth and "lushness" can be improved with more pixels, but so can detail smearing and image "noise". For more resolution to be achieved better technique and lenses are required and remember, resolution is not the same as perceived sharpness.

When a mobile phone has more pixels packed onto its tiny sensor, the pixels get smaller, gather less light, resolve less real detail and produce more noise through pixel failure, but still produce bigger files! The most important feature of a camera is the size of the sensor as this determines the size and density of the pixels and their effectiveness.

There is a reason that full frame sensors are just hitting the 40+ mp mark when phones have been offering this for a while. That reason is marketing. The marketing people control the sales of phones and small digicams and have two weapons; zoom ratio and pixels. These are easy numbers to identify with and the industry has trained us all well to respond to them. Better cameras are controlled by marketing also, but photographers know that balance is far more important, so the marketing/camera design appeals to other needs.

For a serious photographer there is no point in having a small sensor/high pixel/long zoom camera if the thing becomes useless in poor lighting and does not produce the images it promises. Most top of the line pro cameras are full frame with less than 20mp (the flagship 20mp D5 Nikon has just been announced). This is because if you want the very best performance in all other important areas (low light noise/grain control, processing speed, accuracy, image quality), the number of pixels still have to be controlled. So if you put pixels first, what is being compromised?

You need to cover "all the bases".

In the "5 stages of the photographer" the third stage (?) is collecting all the gear you can carry. No one is good at everything. Work out what you are interested in, get good at it and produce work. This will save you a lot of time, money and frustration. I know this because I have been down this road many a time. What you actually need is usually not much, what you think you need is probably more. I carried a macro lens around in my kit bag(s) for years. Switch brand or format, better get that macro. Turns out I hardly ever used them, so "just in case" did not ever really happen. My father in law on the other hand would use a macro or similar more often than not (the man actually likes spiders). Any reasonable close focus lens would do enough for me. I learned that one 6 lenses too late (bit slow, but I get there). By the same token, don't cut out lenses just to go with convention. Many landscapers use longer lenses and sports shooters find a use for wide angles and some dog photographers even use a fish eye lens. If you look in camera bag of most experienced photographers you will usually find only a couple of favourite lenses in preferred focal lengths, often specialist lenses and primes not zooms. They have worked out over time what works for them and that's all they carry. Try a day out with just one non zoom lens, surprise yourself.

Maybe this one is true;

No method, camera brand, opinion, technique or personal vision is better than another unless it pertains to you and your needs only. Be your own mentor, make your own rules.

On New Camera Releases

This morning I awoke to the actual release of the Fuji XPRO-2 and the leaked images of the PEN F Olympus. Working in the industry until recently, I was aware if their existence, but the rumour mill made sure everyone else was pretty close to. Effectively in direct competition as the latest and best from the leading formats of mirrorless or CSC cameras, the next few months will be interesting.

All the buzz is of course about the levels of "better" that the cameras are offering and in respect to the Fuji there was plenty of improvement to be had in every area except image quality. I am still amazed how much Fuji users (my self included) will put up with to get that legendary, if a little over blown, image quality. 

The only important question to answered with the new flagship camera releases is whether the image quality is better. Not just bigger, but better,

A while ago I owned a Canon 450D/1000D combination after getting fed up with the weight of full frame cameras, not to mention the (for me) stress of having too much expensive and expectation tied up in my camera. Weight was also exaggerated by my preference for heavy and fast prime lenses. They were great for the times I actually used cameras seriously, usually for travel and they produced what I expected, clean usable images from flexible and forgiving files. Indeed the 1000D had some of the sharpest files I have ever seen as it apparently had a very mild AA filter. The temptation to upgrade was always there, but borrowing a 5d2 for a car show and comparing the 11x14'" prints put paid to that. Not even a visiting rep from Nikon could tell the difference.

This file had the difficult combination of underexposed foreground and blown out background

Flush with a successful transition, I resolved to stick to the bottom of the line cameras, but use them with the best prime lenses. When the urge to upgrade came, with a lot less guilt as my cameras were well used and the jump was relatively small. I purchased a 550D and expected what I had, but better. Pretty soon the bubble burst. This was my first, but not last, realisation that newer technology, in a field controlled by the constant need to be perceived to improve as fast as possible, is not always better or at least not better in every way.

The 550D's screen was gorgeous, way better that the 450D, the camera was a little faster, better laid out and the files were bigger. Were the files as flexible or "bulletproof"? Were they sharper ? No. They had lovely Canon colour, had some more resolution, with all the problems that entails including to possibility of smeared sharpness (I never really got on top of that satisfactorily) . The noise was smaller as the pixels were smaller, but the 450D and 1000D cleaned up better (It was always a mystery to me that Canon kept the maximum ISO setting on those cameras so low as they did a good job, even by todays standards), the files from the 550D had strange colour response in reds and purples if a little over exposed and pushing the colours went wrong, really wrong, very quickly. There was nothing basically wrong with the camera, but it failed to reach the basic standards I had become accustomed to from older cameras. The temptation now was to return to full frame where I could have more, but without the down sides. "Better the standard V8 than the turbo charged 4 cylinder" I would say. This almost happened, but the OMD EM5 appeared at that time and I took a leap.

OK up to 8x10" prints, but this image is not sharp. Repeated attempts failed, but previous images, with older cameras were achieved without issue. 

This was the first awakening. The second came with my "bowl of allbrands" period. 

Unsure that the Olympus "look" fully satisfied after Canon colour, I got a little bit back into Canon, tried some Fuji and added a little Sony into the mix. This period is the first period of true advancement for mirrorless cameras, The EM5 proved that speed could come with good IQ, the Sony NEX 7 had the highest pixel count on any crop frame sensor by a long way, the Fuji magic was becoming established and with their 18-55 zoom, the cameras finally had acceptable responsiveness. SLR's still ruled in system depth and AF tracking, so I felt I could justify a "camera for every mood/need" kit. 

The NEX 7 in particular showed me that the extra pixels added a lush, largeness to it's image files, but never produced the sharpness or balance that the Olympus or Fuji cameras effortlessly delivered. Great with their 50mm as a portrait option, but nothing else was fully acceptable. The camera was ironically an ideal fit for my multi pronged kit as it provided a look different to the others (sort of soft medium format film), but would have been disappointing to me if it was my only port of call.

Looks good enough this size, but closer inspection shows smeariness and mottled noise, not what an Olympus or Fuji user is used to.

My hope with the two new offerings from my two favourite camera companies is that they give us more, without compromise or at least some more of some things without going backwards in other areas.  Most pleasing is the 20mp sensor in the PEN F as this is already known from the GX8 and looks to be un compromised. 

The message here is "look before you leap". Wait until the test results have come out, but be wary of purely studio tests as these are a long way removed from actual use. Make sure the upgrade does not undo the things you like about the camera you have and balance is maintained*. It does not hurt to wait, the cameras and a better perspective of their place in the world will be here in the near future. If you have money to burn, get a new/better lens. They are a better long term proposition and make more difference. 

* It is for a reason some people stick with their old XPRO-1 over the newer XT-1 or prefer the older EM5 to the newer models. I preferred the handling of the XE1/2 to any other Fuji I tried (The XT had a very stiff exposure comp dial-not my cup of tea) and found the files from the bottom of the line XA1 (different sensor and filter array) less prone to smearing landscape images than it's dearer siblings. The EM5 MK1 cameras are not perfect, but they are like a second skin to me now and that is priceless. The image quality in RAW is nearly identical to the newer cameras if a bit more contrasty.

On the Relativity of Quality

Photography specifically, and Art in general, have always struggled with the tension of "quality" (being the subjective technical quality of the process) vs "A quality" (being the viewers acceptance of the artists attempt at communicating their message).

Photography suffers doubly in this argument due to its heavier reliance on technical needs. Every painter knows their medium, but the technique they develop is very personal, limited only in vision and practice, where the photographer has to effectively "break" regular photography to get outside of the limitations of the process. In many ways these two processes are no different, but in reality the preconceptions of their practitioners are. Photographers are forced to comply to rules that seem more numerous and limiting than a paint palette and brush. Any child can draw, but when handed a complicated camera they are more likely to damage the tool than produce art (or the beginnings of art before even more complicated processing). Conversely, a camera promises much, where the paint palette needs all of its magic extracted from something very basic.

"Magnolia Silk" Canon 1Ds mk2 100mm macro

These technical constraints can overshadow the simple needs of the image, to simply please the viewer. I believe many photographers create their images with other photographers as their "bar" of quality. Indeed many blogs and forums are servicing other camera lovers who should make up a minority of their viewers, not the vast majority.

How different would a photo blog (this one for instance) be if the only audience was the regular person, not the "photo blog surfer/photographer". We all look to the things we are interested in for inspiration and entertainment, but does this cause a closed loop of thinking?

The photo below is a favourite of my family and visitors to our house. A version of it (slightly different composition) hangs on our wall, a privilege few of my photographs get, but it very nearly did not make it past its first viewing as the "technical" quality is quite poor. Hand held Canon SLR almost 10 years old with no stabiliser, poor (by current standards) high ISO capability with a good but not great lens used wide open and heavy cropping conspired to create a shot at the very edge of "OK" and not at all satisfying in processing. The reality though, when I moan to my wife or take positive comments with a half hearted response from well meaning friends is that I diminish the value of the photo. The value is in the simple viewing, no more, no less.

Canon 450D 35mm "L" lens

What would have happened if I could recreate the same conditions with a newer, more capable camera now or even every five years and compare. I would be more satisfied with the processing and close inspection would reveal less in the way of "nasties", but to everyone else, the result would be the same. They would like it or not.

The whole camera industry is hoping that the perpetual motion of upgrades will continue for ever, but the reality is we have in many ways passed the point of need and are now just running on want. Recently I dug up some old Camera & Darkroom mags (90's-2000's- old...really...ouch) and discovered something quite unsettling. The adds for film and camera/lens quality and the articles showing great works of the recent and past masters were not diminished by the aged equipment used or dated print presentation (indeed Camera & Darkroom was a high point in magazine presentation, rarely matched today and no over sharpening to be seen). The only thing that dated the magazine was the liberal use of the word "film". It's a reality that most of the master photographer's retrospective books feature film work.

When I started using digital equipment I knew that the quality was not there in some ways, but it had conveniences that re energised photography for me. At some point from then to now we have forgotten that for much of its history, the content was all important and the means secondary. I am as guilty of that as anyone.

On Being a Landscape Photographer

One of the most universally popular and timeless forms of serious amateur and professional photography is the noble landscape image. I do not confess to being an obsessed landscaper, but have dabbled and assisted other, more focussed photographers (living in Tasmania kind of makes you a landscape photographer by default), so I hope I can impart some limited wisdom on the subject.

Personal visions vary immensely, but landscape work is consistent in what it requires and what it delivers.  

"Pastel Hills" Arrow Town, New Zealand Fuji XE1 18-55 

Gear.

This is the one area of digital photography that can genuinely benefit from more pixels, but only if used carefully. Enlargements tend to be on the bigger side, and lots of small details are the norm. Technique is the key here though. A good tripod and an understanding of the many ways to arrest micro movements during exposure will be of benefit. Terms like "mirror lock", anti shock, self timers or cable releases, tripod collars around long lenses (for better balance) and "weighted" tripods are commonly used terms amongst the initiated.

An important thing to do is look at images taken for landscape competitions such as the "AA" British Landscape Photographer of the Year awards. These are a bit of an eye opener, first for their amazing content and then for the gear used (especially in the kids and compact camera sections). One class winner created a photo using a full frame camera and multiple stitched images. A runner up in the same section, created a similar image from the same place, with the same lens, but with a single capture from a crop frame 10mp camera! Up to A3 size, the difference would be minimal, but bigger sizes would show more detail in the larger file.

The camera does not have to be a monstrous speed machine, on the contrary, size and weight are important also as the destination may be well off the beaten track (weatherproofing is handy though). Full frame cameras are not as important as in other styles as the photographer will usually have plenty of time (to find and take the image), so high pixel counts do not have to be balanced against poorer low light performance (the benefit of a full frame is better high ISO performance). By contrast, smaller sensor cameras have depth of field benefits and can often match their full frame counterparts in file size (24mp is the current overlap). A gentle shutter action can be the difference between a poor scenic camera and a good one. Some consideration should also be given to the new "super" compacts sporting sharp lenses, 20 MP 1" sensors, electronic shutters and tiny body form as they exceed the performance of even recent DSLR cameras.

In a nutshell; small, light, smooth shooting, reliable and mid to high pixels...easy. 

"Past Lillies" Kamakura, Japan OMD 75 f1.8

More good news is that lenses can be selected from a wider range as the landscaper will often "stop down" their lens aperture for good depth of field and sharpest settings, giving all lenses a fighting chance and reducing the differences between "Pro" and middle of the road lenses. Even kit lenses used well will be able to resolve the bulk of detail available on the camera's sensor. Have a look at lens testing sites such as slrgear.com and compare the best premium offerings to the middle of the range zooms at f8-16. There is often a huge difference at extreme apertures and focal lengths, but in the middle apertures the numbers are usually pretty close. In the field much of this does not matter.

So, well researched "middle" grade lenses, not super fast and heavy are ideal. Good examples are the Canon 70-200 f4L (non IS) and 17-40 f4L. Super sharp at most landscape users settings, sub 1kg/$900 au, loosing one maximum F stop to the top lenses (up to twice as heavy and three times as expensive) and no stabiliser (which is useless on a tripod anyway).

Another factor to consider when kitting up with your landscape lenses is your focal length choice. Many assume that a wide angle lens is the staple for most landscapers, but that is often not the case. Some use longer lenses more often than not, looking for details, compression and "order out of chaos" in their images, others use standard or natural perspective lenses and stitch together panoramic photos rather than the usual, distorted perspective, wide angle lens normally used.

"Well Worn" Boat Harbour, Tasmania Fuji XA 1 16-50 kit zoom

As some small proof of the above statements, the above photo was taken with a $599 camera and lens combo (Fuji XA-1 and 16-50 kit lens). It can enlarged to gallery sizes, is sharp edge to edge and shows no other signs of being stretched too far. It is also a 16mp jpeg.

Technique

As stated above, the important thing in landscape photography (all types, but especially landscape) is solid, organised technique. In the days of 35mm film, the photographer was effectively stagnant in possible quality growth as new film and developers, lenses and cameras can along rarely (Fuji Velvia when it was released literally changed landscape photography and dominated it for 20 years; Kodachrome owned the previous era). When they did come, they changed little in real terms. Quality came down to good equipment used with good technique. The expert was organised, pragmatic and focussed (no pun intended). It was often confusing to the newcomer why their photos did not come up to the standard of their idols when they used the same gear (not too hard to achieve then either as choice was more limited). These days we assume the "better camera" was the reason, but the successful photographer knows better. Technique is still king. If this was not the case, we would be seeing a constant increase in visible quality and older photos would not be able to compete. This is not the case. The colour work of Ansel Adams from the 1930's is sublime, bullet proof to technical criticism and he did not even like to shoot colour! Admittedly he used a large format camera, but so could anyone else with equal effort.

Time  

This is the big one and where I personally fall down.

All landscape photographers learn the true importance of time. This comes in a lot of forms from getting up before, or staying out after the sun, trekking to the distant locale and being patient when there or just revisiting the same locale until the magic happens. Often the difference between a good landscape photo and a great one is a couple of minutes, but it can be a couple of hours. Getting back to technique, it's really important to be organised and prepared so you can be ready to get that fleeting moment. There is no point being in the right place at the right time and having to set up your tripod, put the tripod foot on your camera, reverse your hood, take off the cap, change a neglected battery, put on/take off a filter (removing the hood again), find and attach a cable release, change mode and look up.....the light is gone.

Be ready for your next shot after your last. This includes on your way back home. Film shooters often left one "in the can" just in case. Organise your camera bag to be able to place any configuration of lens and camera you may want so as to reduce unwanted fiddle just to fit things in.

I hope this helps.

On Walkers and Watchers.

After the previous post on "Takers and Makers", I got to thinking: street photographers tend to fall into (at least) two broad subcategories. I can only say this with any confidence because I can clearly see one dominant type in my own photos, so it follows there is enough difference in technique to call each out.

Let's have a look at these two curious beasts in their native habitat.

The Walker.

The Walker will stay fluid, moving, looking, not loitering often or at all. These "streetogs" are elusive, reactive in the extreme and usually footsore at the end of a day's shooting. Sometimes resorting to the "spray n' pray" method they may be prolific, but as they gain experience the number of misses decrease and their compositions tighten up. The Walker glances off events, usually using a wide lens (24-35 equiv), which allows them to see a comprehensive scene as it unfolds, grab it and move on to the next. Longer lenses can also be used by some, with increased difficulty. Their favoured technique is zone focus, as accurate auto or manual focus is nearly impossible to do consistently (but, conversely easier with longer lenses). The "clutter" of composition is too great to analyse, compose, focus and capture nearly instantly. Instinct and opportunism are their friends rather than method and thought. The Walker will benefit from an increase in camera power, with higher ISO's and increased quality allowing them a more elastic envelope to work with. Kudos to the past masters working on the fly with ISO 25 film, average lens quality and clunky, nonreactive cameras (we really do not know how lucky we are). The recently discovered Vivian Meier is a good example of the Walker in action. She would spend breaks from her job as a nanny, wandering amongst people on city streets, quietly capturing intimate portraits of the everyday. It is possible she would switch to the Stalker method, as her use of manual focus, a longer than usual focal length and on a medium format camera would have taken some considerable skill, but her works seems to lack the repetition of place and distance of that style.

Sand In My Shoe, Kamakura Japan.  OMD 75 f1.8

The Watcher.

The Watcher is more methodical in their approach. They like a pre set stage for their actors to enter and will often frequent the same locations repeatedly. Watchers have greater control of their light and the backdrop than the Walker, but still rely on the "instant of perfect interaction" to create the image. My favourite exponent of the Watcher style is Jan Meissner from New York. Jan's work is based on setting a beautiful stage (backdrop, light and composition), then waiting for the elements to come together. Some of the images look staged, but they are not, just the result of patience and vision. A bit like the Maker of the previous post, the Watcher has some control of the elements of their image, but not complete control. Watchers may favour longer lenses or zooms to allow them to stand off, study and compose, but as with all street photography, there are no hard and fast rules.

Fish market corner #1 or "Six directions", Tokyo OMD 17 f1.8

Fish market corner #2 or "Everyone is lost but one", Tokyo. OMD 17 f1.8

What do they share?

Both styles are reliant on the decisive moment, interaction, light and composition, but the Watcher is first location aware, where the Walker is subject aware.

There is no right or wrong here. Anything that gets the result you want is ok for street photography, but maybe analysing your own style will help clarify your equipment needs and methodology. Equally, knowing what you don't do now may open up some creative doors.

Happy walking and watching.