One camera to rule them all...

It seems like everyone is super excited about what the Olympus OM-D can do. I decided instead of buying the camera, I would simply forge my own ring that would turn any camera I use into an OM-D. I melted down several cameras of other brands and created this powerful ring to allow me to absolutely destroy any other camera's jpg engine's color rendering! With this ring on I can stand on any surface and stay stabilized. I'll never fall off a merry-go-round again!  Even the Fuji X-Pro1 can focus in low light with this baby on!

I know - I had to resort to using a GH2 to take the photo. If I took it with the ring on my EXIF data would show it as an OM-D :)

Flickr Favorites

One of my favorite features (pardon the pun) of Flickr is the ability to mark images as your favorites.  Over the years I've apparently marked 111 images a faves.  Here is a quick look at my Flickr favorites gallery:

My Flickr Favorites

I'm trying to decide on a common theme.  Generally I have more color than black and white, but hard to say if that is similar to proportion people shoot them in.  I do think that most have something special about them, and more to the point have an element that I want to understand and learn from.  Something I don't know how to do, or need to be more aware of when I'm out and about with a camera.

MFT DOF comparison, beef bulgogi

Here is a shot of my tasty beef bulgogi at the airport. To me this is an example of the sweet spot of MFT. Less depth of field would be too little, while more in focus would give you too much to look at. One of the common points people raise is that with Full frame you could take this shot at f/2.8, raise the ISO to 640 and it would look just the same. My point is that while that is probably true at some level, I am someone who likes to shoot at low ISO. While I COULD do that with full frame, there is something to be said about operating a camera in its sort of 'normal' range.  Stopping down a lens to f/2.8 from f/1.4 introduces the aperture blades into the picture and affects the quality of the in focus to out of focus areas.  I've never owned a 50mm f/1.4 lens for Canon that was this good wide open.

A true comparison of MFT versus full frame DOF: I'm bored and at the Incheon Airport in Soeul, so what better time to do a comparison? I've use one camera and two lenses that roughly approximate what happens when you crop a sensor (i.e. from full frame down to 1/4 size - MFT). On the left is a shot 'full frame' with a 45mm lens at f/1.8. On the right is a shot from the same position, with a 20mm lens. In the middle is what happens when you shoot with MFT - you effectively get the middle of the shorter focal lenght lens. I've taken the center out and resized it up (on a real crop camera you would of course only get the center in the first place) to match the 45mm lens FOV. You'll note that the perspective is the same (as they keep telling us) but the DOF is greater. But note that it isn't exactly super sharp. This should be the equivalent look to shooting the 45mm lens at f/3.6... My point here is partly that you can see while there is MORE DOF, it is still a blurred background. My other point is to do this comparison with one body, rather than trying bring in equivalent lenses in different systems - the concept is exactly the same...

Micro four thirds DOF comparison with APS-C and Full frame

Here is a quick DOF comparison. I shot my 45mm Olympus f/1.8 lens at f/1.8, f/2.2 and f/3.5 to show the visual difference between what people say the MFT equivalents are. Frankly there is little between APS-C and MFT. 

 I would argue the equivalent isn't quite right either, as the format size difference doesn't take into account aspect ratio at all. We all know that a full frame camera can achieve thinner depth of field, but when I keep reading in message boards that the 75mm f/1.8 is 'only' f/3.5 in full frame DOF terms they make it sound like it has DOF to infinity. So here is a visual example. You sort of need to think of it as MFT on the left, APS-C in the middle, and Full Frame on the right. Much more important to me is the lens you have with you. When I shot APS-C I'd bring my f/4 24-105mm zoom with me, since I could carry that on a strap while the larger primes I had didn't slip into pockets (more weight and volume). It isn't that I couldn't carry them in a pocket - the point is that I DIDN'T. With MFT I'm much more likely to actually have a fast prime with me, so in many ways MFT gives me a lot MORE DOF control that APS-C. Full frame is another story, but I've never considered getting into $3,000 bodies and L series fast primes. What is possible, and what you can afford are two different things.

A big plus of MFT is that you can get a very compact body to add to the system for less than $400 new, or in the $150 range used. No such choice in Canon/Nikon land.

 Don't even get me started on equivalence - of course Full frame gathers more light and has less noise, but does it make a difference to your photos? If yes, then consider full frame, if not then be happy :) I see so many people arguing how important these differences are that can't even get a sharp photo, let alone something with pleasing composition and an interesting subject. Whether I do is kind of besides the point - I'm arguing that we can be happy with cheaper, smaller cameras not that everyone needs Full Frame (or bigger).

It isn't necessarily a good thing, in and of itself, that MFT offers less ability to blur backgrounds, but the reality is that we work with the tools at hand.  There is no question that one can get creative photos with MFT cameras.

Is the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 too expensive for an 'f/3.5 full frame equivalent'?  Who knows?  We each have to look at the benefits and the price and weigh them over.  If it isn't of value to you, then don't buy it!

Olympus 75mm f/1.8 lens pricing announced

 

Olympus announced the pricing for the 75mm telephoto prime: $900.  Reading comments online it is pretty shocking to me how many full frame shooters descend into message boards to try to convince people that this lens is really the equivalent of a 150mm f/3.6 lens.  Why do they bother?  Do they feel they are saving us MFT shooters from something?  When they say this lens is expensive, do they realize the 5D MK III is over $3,500 ?  And still cheaper than a 135L.

What they fail to realize is the power of using what you have.  What attracts me to micro four thirds is not that I think it is as good as a dSLR, it is that I'm willing to accept some of its weaknesses (dynamic range, noise, speed) in exchange for some benefits (synergy of video and stills, portability, etc.) - without giving up too much on the weaknesses.  Some of these benefits have effects that go further than they should on paper.  For example, because the prime lenses are so small I take them with me instead of a zoom.  I never carried multiple primes when I headed out of the house with my Canon system.  So in the end I've got f/1.4 and f/1.8 primes with me instead of an f/4 zoom on an APS-C body.  That dramatically influences my images. I don't feel so obvious with a smaller camera, so I bring it with me when I grab dinner on a work trip away from home.  Etc.

The announcement of this pricing is a bit disappointing for me, though not terribly surprising.  I wanted this lens the same way I wanted a 135L Canon lens - but I may have to admire from a distance like I did the Canon.  But you never know :)  The difference with Canon was that there are much cheaper options, some basically the size of this lens (100mm f/2, for example).  MFT only has this one telephoto prime - so if I want one this is it.

The photo is a shot of a store sale sign in Korea.  For some reason I love a good found translation - and it kind of ties into the manikin missing his head :)

Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 Lumix G X Vario reviewed !

DPReview has a set of sample images (from a pre-production lens) and comments on the fast zoom.  It is the first f/2.8 zoom lens in the MFT system.  On the one hand it is merely like a f/3.5 on a crop sensor (I've never shot full frame digital so why would I compare to that?) - but for me the draw is the fast constant aperture for indoor use, as well as a useful size and zoom range for studio work and portraits.

Trouble is - I'm really starting to love my pair of primes :)

Also a link to a full review with MFT charts on dslrmagazine: Review  From their charts it certainly seems to have good center performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6, especially zoomed in.

Holy cow - another review on this lens: SLR Gear

This is one of those lenses I'd love to win - but have a hard time justifying.  How much better can it be than the kit lens stopped down?  What would make me bring this lens over a pair of primes that give me the option to shoot wider apertures?

Travel kit

 

This is my first trip abroad where I only brought two prime lenses and no zooms, no flash.  I usually carry the flash to play around in the hotel - but never end up using it.  The zoom is great, but I wanted the focus of just having two fast prime lenses.  I am finding that it is really a great way to travel.  The 25mm f/1.4 lens by itself would be great, but adding in the Olympus 45mm (used above) and you have a very nice little kit.  The GH2 is the biggest MFT body out there, but it is still light and compact compared to a dSLR.  I'm loving it.  I'm also not just snapping pics, I'm considering each shot and am very happy with the results...