High Fidelity Compacts

Fuji X10 firmware 1.03 - white dot fix?

2012-02-19T16:55:00.000-08:00

As this example shows, the latest fix from Fuji doesn't seem to help much with the white dot syndrome... There is still blooming around highlights at low ISO. While this very rarely pops up in my real images, I have had a few shots where specular highlights became 'orbs' and basically ruined the shot - at least for anything bigger than web size.

While minor in many photos, it has to be a thorn in the side for Fuji, and killing good press on an otherwise fun camera to use.

The left side of the 100% crop below in Lightroom shows how the lights (in this case) are completely white. ISO 100 on the left and ISO 400 on the right. The higher the ISO the less the problem. Here you can also see how the one light 'cut' by the bar on the chandelier is bloomed over by the light.

Pinhole photography

2012-02-08T21:48:00.000-08:00

I got a pinhole lens cap for my birthday with an equivalent aperture of f/222. Here is my first shot with it - I took the opportunity of the long exposure to ghost myself into, or out of, the image...

Olympus OM-D E-M5 announced, along with new lenses

2012-02-08T19:37:00.000-08:00

The recent announcement of the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds body has certainly generated some interest on the web, along with the new Nikon D800 and so on. But aside from the usual woo-hoos that one can expect when a long anticipated product is announced, I find the real story is articles like this one from Kirk Tuck. It is about how these small mirrorless cameras really are good enough for most of our uses. Naturally there are applications where they don't cut it, but the same can be said for APS-C, or 35mm 'full frame', etc. What I keep coming back to with Micro Four Thirds is just how much fun and interest in photography it seems to generate. People pull out old legacy lenses and mount them with a satisfied smile and then take some pictures!

It sort of hit me as I was reading the announcement about the OM-D that really the GH2 was ahead of its time. It has clearly been equalled and surpassed at this point, but it is truly the 'good enough' camera that I'd been looking for. I don't need more frames per second. The EVF is nice. AF is fast. I don't know about 'fastest in the world', but it beats my Canon 7D in a fight with most lenses I own. Lots of direct controls. Flip out screen. Hot shoe, microphone jack AND a built in flash (take that OM-D). And finally there is the 16MP multi-aspect sensor. It is a very unique and useful idea... Plus the video is great :) I'm not trying to say that the OM-D wouldn't be nice to have (it is likely to trump the GH2 in almost every aspect) but I am saying that we've hit a place in photography where I'm now upgrading digital equipment because I can afford to have some fun, not because I need to. We've finally caught up with where we were in the film days - a new body might make things easier, but was unlikely to improve your images.

This release is another example of why MFT has a bright future - all those nice lenses that Olympus (and others) keep making will work very nicely on my Panasonic body :) I'm not sure why I can't get my head around owning an Olympus body - but I'm happy to see them advancing the format...

Keep your eyes open

2012-02-04T20:26:00.000-08:00

This shot was taken behind an ice hockey arena near our house while I was taking the kids for a winter bike ride (me walking, them riding around). While the kids were doing laps around the park I found this pile of waste ice from the Zamboni machine...add in some frozen water on the parking lot behind and bingo - transported to Alaska!

GH2 Color

2012-01-31T05:11:00.000-08:00

I must confess that I often think the color out of my GH2 is a little harder to work with than my Canon dSLR. I'm not sure why, and even when using a colorchecker it still seems a little off. The odd part is how finicky it seems when I'm post processing in RAW, and then how nice they look when printed or looked at later. I mentioned in an earlier post I have a surprising number of favorite shots of the kids taken with my GH2 or older GF1 and the 20mm pancake. Here is a shot with the pancake that has some nice color in it:

Killing time in the car wash

2012-01-29T20:27:00.001-08:00

While my wife speedily washed the car, I waited and snapped a few shots with my Fuji X10:

Birthday fun

2012-01-29T19:32:00.000-08:00

Apparently the kids were as excited as I was to see the Dennis Hopper book unwrapped at my birthday! I've been trying to move more towards getting books with photographs in them, rather than books on technique... At some point you need to start thinking about what you like in others' images as well as your own.

MFT just fun to shoot with

2012-01-23T06:18:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I grabbed by GH2 and 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic prime lens for a skating on the Bowness lagoon with two of my sons and their cousins. My feelings upon reviewing the images of the day were much in line with this post by David Taylor-Hughes on his SoundImagePlus blog. There is just something about the size, the lens, the system that just is fun to shoot with and produces images you are happy you took. When I look around my walls in our house a surprising number were shot with the Panasonic 20mm prime. Almost none are with a compact of any type. Whatever else I can and have said about MFT, I do like the images I take with it... I am always surprised by the images I get with the 20mm lens - as it feels quite wide, yet seem to encourage more intimate portraits with a depth you don't get from a telephoto. Should be the same as shooting with my Canon 7D and 28mm prime - and yet it never seems that way. Maybe it is the ability to shoot with the LCD that makes the difference - the photographer doesn't feel quite as close (as the camera is):

On this same thread is another view, perhaps, from Mark Dubovoy called Everything Matters. The gist of it as it applies to my post here is that there is more to it than just specs and MFT curves. Some lenses just draw nicely - and that is the problem with my Canon 28mm. The 28mm doesn't render out of focus areas very well. So while it looks great when there is enough separation between subject and background, it can look horrible when you can see the transition between subject and background. In the end, it is why I named this blog 'MFT' Adventures - that 20mm Panasonic lens keeps pulling me back in :)

I also really liked the point on the 'unseen' - I think it explains people's attraction to razor thin depth of field as much as having everything in focus. This is where compacts fail - their great depth of field just doesn't deliver because they don't have enough fidelity to make it count. I never look at a print from my old G12 or Fuji X10 and say 'wow, I can see detail in every leaf on that tree in the background'. That is why compacts (and MFT for that matter) can be good enough for what we do as photographers, but they will never amaze with detail like a large sensor with fine lenses and tilt/shift. Hence the focus on thin depth of field - much easier to wow with a unique perspective when you are going for a blurry background!

In fact, this whole idea is very interesting to me. I often get hung up on trying to do something no one has ever done before - in the sense that it is unlikely I'll ever do something first and get found out! You see people who do an amazing 365 day long exposure - but once done it just becomes a technique and they become a 365 day specialist :) I really want to try to get a little bit of this idea into my images of my kids - I want to show them in a way that captures a little bit of something special or otherwise 'unseen' moments that I am privy to. That is what will make my images special to me and my family in the years to come. In the shot above, this was a frame taken just after I'd got a shot of my son intensely watching other skaters on the ice - unposed, natural, and a moment I'll always enjoy going back to (and not an image I feel I need to share in this blog among relative strangers).

Goldilocks and the three cameras

2012-01-21T13:38:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while I look at my collection of camera gear and wonder why I have it all. If money were no object I would have a lot more! Part of photography being my hobby is just getting to play around with new technology. It bring out the side of me that went into electrical engineering in the first place. Like many I didn't end up designing audio equipment or cameras, but ended up in software instead. Still - playing around with the latest creations of other engineers is fun stuff.

Looking at my cameras I often consider what place they each serve, and whether I'd be better off selling something and getting something else, or using what I have better. Here is a quick list of what I like about each camera, and why I hang onto it:

1. Canon 7D. This is the best camera I've ever owned. There really isn't a photo that I look at and think that some other piece of gear would be better. I'm the limiting factor. The only real disadvantage is that it is big, and carrying lots of lenses is even bigger. If I have all three cameras around and want to get a shot, this is my first choice.
2. Pansonic GH2. I got this camera with the hopes it would replace my 7D and a compact and merge everything into one system. The GH2 body is truly up to the task (for me), but the lenses hold it back. If I put my Canon lenses on it (sans aperture or focus control) I can barely tell the difference between it and the 7D. However, the panny kit zoom just isn't sharp through the zoom range like my 24-105mm f/4 Canon. The macro from Panny is so expensive I can't justify buying it to try out. I don't want to buy another flash system so I work with my Canon flashes in manual. But the main reason I keep it is that it is the only camera I have that does video at eye level. The EVF is fantastic for video.
3. Fuji X10. Really there are a bunch of compacts that would do fine, the Fuji is just the latest that I'm getting along with. I like the fast lens and the manual zoom a lot, and the viewfinder is a lot bigger than that found in the Canon G12. Still, if it had an EVF I could probably lose the Panny. Hmmmm...maybe Nikon DOES have it right with their 1 series!

Reading Kirk Tuck's posts on the Nikon, I really do think it is what I'm looking for, and could replace my GH2 and Fuji X10 - but I'm in no hurry. Sensor is large enough. Lenses interchangeable. Video better than Olympus. Good, fast AF. EVF available. My only complaint is that it doesn't have a fast zoom. Apparently there isn't a perfect camera for me yet :) I'm going to stick with what I have for as long as I can - and hopefully take a lesson from Kirk and try to find what each camera does well, rather than focusing on the one problem area for each!

Things you can only do with a small sensor camera

2012-01-20T19:41:00.000-08:00

There are endless debates on the various photography forums about how small sensor cameras don't give you the freedom to be creative. Typically this means you can't get depth of field as shallow as with a larger sensor camera. The opposite argument doesn't usually hold water: that a small sensor camera gives you lots of depth of field. People will say that everything being equal the full frame camera has to be shot at f/8 to match the depth of field of a micro four thirds camera at f/4, for example. In low light, some say, the MFT camera has an advantage. But in the end it doesn't, because the full frame camera can be shot at two stops faster ISO and makes up the difference by having a lower noise chip. It seems the laws of physics conspire to level the playing field.

One area that a compact sensor camera seems to rule in is closeup/macro work. Almost every camera I've owned that is small has had a very nice macro mode that gets you REALLY close. But while that is cool, it only takes an extra lens on the dSLR to get nice macro capability as well. But what I find I just can't do with my dSRL is get shots like this:

Not that this is a stunning shot that you'll want to ditch the 5D mkII to be able to do, but you just can't get this kind of super close shot with lots of depth of field in tight quarters. I always shoot macro/closeup type stuff to sell with my 7D and 60mm Macro, but when the shooting distance is short and I want lots in focus, a compact camera just can't be beat - especially one with a hot shoe for flash :) This particular shot was taken with a Fuji X10. I mean who even sells a 20mm macro for a dSLR that has a close focus distance of 1cm? Sure you can reverse your old manual focus 50mm lens and get that close, but getting the ears in focus? With AF? Of a moving subject? This is a creative option you REALLT have to work to get with a full frame dSLR :) So it isn't all bad - I would argue that most dSLR buyers in the world (you know, the ones that don't read this kind of blog) are unlikely to ever buy a real macro lens. But all those P&Shooters usually get an awesome macro lens for free...

One subject with Fuji X10, Panasonic GH2 MFT, and Canon 7D

2012-01-16T08:28:00.000-08:00

Fuji X10

Here are three shots of my son taken with three very different cameras: the Fuji X10, Canon 7D w/ 28mm f/1.8 lens and the Panasonic GH2 with 20mm f/1.7 lens. Ultimately they are all very similar images and I'd be happy using any of the three. The Fuji has more of the background in focus. The GH2 is a little less pleasing for some reason (maybe just that it is a little further away?). The Canon blurs the background nicely. The Fuji was the only one of the three to offer built in IS, and in some ways it was the easiest to get a sharp image from, but it also offer fewer megapixels so once you downsample the 7D or the GH2 and actually print it is all very similar.

What is noticeable is how different the interfaces are. While all three cameras offer a mode dial, and were thus easy to set to shutter priority, I found the Fuji to just be a little slower to make sense of what the dials were in terms of setting the shutter speed. Further, the Fuji could not really be used with the viewfinder for this type of shot. I could not rely on getting focus where I wanted it, and focus was clearly slower than the other two cameras. The Fuji is also the slowest at selecting an AF point. One of my least favorite things is that the controls on the left side of the Fuji are used for shooting. I find that annoying as you must choose between buttons and the zoom with the left hand. The Panasonic and Canon offer no shooting controls on the rear left of the body - so all settings can be done without removing the left hand from the lens, or even the camera from the eye. The Panasonic wins on having EVERY control available to the eye thanks to the EVF.

Why do I do comparisons like this? Really I am trying to convince myself that MFT can do it all. In almost every situation I find myself in MFT offers enough resolution and low enough noise. Further, with the right lenses it also comes so very close in size to something like the Fuji X10. When I take shots with my Canon macro on the GH2 via an adapter it shows just how much difference the lens makes - it is so close to the Canon 7D in those cases. Much of the perceived differences between my GH2 and 7D are really just differences in how the lenses behave.

Canon 7D with 28mm f/1.8 lens

The one area I find that my GH2 doesn't perform is in a specific studio case - that is taking image of subjects on a white background where the background is lit. I just find that there is some veiling going on that drops contrast too much. I've got to play around with that scenario and see what I can do about it - I only really hit that scenario once a year for Christmas photos for friends and family, so it is hard to justify the larger (and expensive) kit for that one case. I could get a lot of nice glass for my MFT system if I sold all my Canon gear :) Flash is another area that is weaker in the Panasonic realm - but truly I end up shooting studio in manual anyways so I could move to some Vivitar flashes and a cord for a lot less money than Canon 580EXs and so on.

The problem is this - every one of my three cameras has a scenario where the camera (or me operating the camera!) fails to live up to my expectations. This is fine when I own three systems - I can pick the right one for the job. However - it isn't like any of the three always nail focus, or is always free of noise, etc. The problem is that if I get rid of two of the three system I see myself remembering a hypothetical Canon 7D that never failed to compare to :) Seller's remorse ? LOL

Panasonic GH2 with 20mm f/1.7 lens

SLRGear.com has 14-42mm Panasonic Power X OIS lens review up

2012-01-15T10:01:00.000-08:00

SLRGear.com has a review up of the new Compact Power zoom from Panasonic (ASPH Power OIS Lumix G X Vario PZ) plus some studio samples. At first I thought this lens wouldn't find a way into my kit, but the more I play with the size of the GH2 with 20mm prime the more I think this could be a very handy 100g to carry around! The power zoom isn't my favorite feature, but the fact that it is sharper than the existing kit lenses and comes in a lot shorter in the pocket make up for it...

SLRGear review

Also take a look at their review on the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 - another very promising lens for MFT: Olympus 45mm f/1.8 . The Online Photographer called this their lens of the year!

Pondering f/2.8 MFT zooms

2012-01-14T15:42:00.001-08:00

Given the likely release of two f/2.8 zooms and the chatter on the DPReview forums about how the full frame equivalents are f/5.6, it occurs to me that the equivalent DOF of these two zooms with be identical to my f/4 Canon L lenses on APS-C :)

Fast zoom lenses for MFT

2012-01-11T20:59:00.000-08:00

Panasonic is finally showing fast zoom lenses for micro four thirds at the 2012 CES show: Concept lenses

They aren't confirming max aperture, but they are saying they will produce fast 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses in the 'X' lineup. Exciting stuff for MFT. Right now MFT shooters are sort of stuck with slow zooms (that all seem to start at 14mm!). This will really complete the lineup if the lenses are sharp. This 24-70mm equivalent will really beat a Canon for size, but naturally won't blur backgrounds as much...

Street photography?

2012-01-11T08:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I used a shot of a concrete barrier at the ocean to illustrate the blog (a shot from my Fuji X10). Here is another from the same time that got me thinking about street photography:

I took the first shot of the concrete (later converted into black and white) and a cyclist paused to let me get my shot, not that he would have been in the picture at all. When I got my shot he asked if I was done taking pictures. I said yes, thanks, and said he could ride through since he wasn't in my photo anyways. He started riding and I starting to take this shot of my daughter. He stopped riding and started shouting at me, and questioned why I said I was done when I was still taking pictures! I was a little surprised, and it quickly became obvious he didn't want to be in my photos! Now everything I've read about street photography tells me that I have the right to take photos of ANYONE in a public place and basically do whatever I want with those photos editorially (like illustrate this blog). There seemed little point in arguing with him since I didn't want him in my shot anyways, but I got me thinking again about street photography.

Kirk Tuck has an excellent blog on the subject here: Approval tacit or implied. I like that he tries to make a connection with the people he is photographing. I think photographers need to use this right with responsibility. You have have the right to do something, but if it is abused people will take offense. If you are getting compelling image for a news story it is one thing, but if you are just trying to showcase your new 85mm f/1.4 Nikon lens don't intrude into people's lives for the sake of a nice bokeh shot ! Knowing what I know about photographers' rights, I don't know how I'd feel if someone had walked up and started shooting images of my daughter in this situation. I know they would have the right to do so, but it would still bother me. If the photographer introduced his or herself as a Times Colonist photographer I'd feel it was totally acceptable, if they said they were taking shots to post on Flickr or Facebook I'd think it was weird and intrusive.

How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and someone was taking images of you in public, without your permission? How about your kids? As photographers we have the right, we should use it to make real images - not test shots of new equipment... I would also object to taking images that push the boundaries of what is legal just for that sake - push the boundaries, but at least have the intention of making a nice image as well :)

Here are a few more links to some discussions on street photographer:

On street photography
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/street.shtml
http://www.street-photographers.com/category/blog

Fuji X-Pro1 released

2012-01-09T15:07:00.000-08:00

Wow! The Fuji X-Pro1 (hello 'x' and '1' again appearing in a camera name!) is quite the different camera. I'm sure many will debate its appeal against other products, but I'm really starting to love Fuji as a manufacturer - they are really taking some chances with their products. Who these days releases a camera with 3 primes and no zoom???

I'm not lining up to buy one of these, but it is nonetheless a very interesting addition to the camera world: http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/en/

This is the camera I wish I would buy :)

Canon 7D Microadjustment

2012-01-09T12:45:00.000-08:00

I haven't had a lens that really needed microadjustment, but recently I started playing around with my 50mm f/1.4 lens again and noticed it didn't seem optimal. A quick check using live view proved the point. I could focus with the camera's phase detect AF (flips mirror down, focuses, then flips the mirror up again) and then by manually tweaking the focus ring get it a lot sharper.

I spent a few minutes and ended up at +3. Here is a quick example of the difference. It is surprising to me how much of the low contrast, flare, and noise are actually caused by things being out of focus a bit...

Left is with +3 adjustment, right is without. Link through to Flickr for the full size comparison.

Canon Powershot G1X versus Fuji X10

2012-01-09T08:46:00.000-08:00

Is Canon going to make waves with this new camera?

Canon has released a new Powershot G1X with a larger sensor than in previous G series compacts. While I've waited years for Canon to release a large sensor compact this arrives a bit too late for me, and really doesn't seem to offer anything unique to the marketplace. Here is why this camera doesn't really appeal to me (image quality aside - since I obviously don't have one):

1. The body is larger than previous G series cameras, as one would expect, but it is larger than a Panasonic GX1 (how about a camera with 'X' and '1' in the name everybody!) and you don't get interchangeable lenses.
2. DPreview has a preview: CanonG1X_Preview and in it they talk about getting similar depth of field control to a dslr with kit lens. Whoopie! I don't know about anyone else, but this isn't exciting. I can get that with my Fuji X10 or the Panasonic/Olympus compact with fast lenses. The beauty of the MFT or dSLRs is that you can get more depth of field control by adding cheap lenses. For $800 in a compact I don't want 'kit lens' features.
3. One of the treats of MFT or a dSLR for me is the manual zoom ring. It is something I love about the Fuji X10, and the GX1 doesn't offer it. A shame, really. Note that power zoom is handy for video, but see point #4.
4. The optical viewfinder is a mistake, in my opinion. If Canon had released this with a nice EVF I'd be impressed. It is so handy for video. No GH2 killer here... This is a sign that Canon is just embracing large sensor, not the ethos of 'mirrorless' cameras.
5. Price. This is a fine line for a camera when it approaches dSLR size and price. This camera is pricier than an entry level dSLR and very close to being too big to make any difference in portability.
6. Control. It was a shame to lose the ISO dial which was a unique standout of the G12. The twin control dials and the like are nice, but I tend to use a compact camera differently than a dSLR for the very reason that depth of field control is better done with subject/background distance than aperture. Thus I rarely tend to shoot in manual and with an exposure compensation dial you really only need one dial to control things. I've owned the G12 and now the Fuji X10 and rarely use twin dials for shutter and aperture. Not to say I don't like twin dials - just that I see the loss of the ISO dial as a disappointment over the G12.
7. The lens. This is the main disappointment to me. The Fuji X10 shines versus MFT in my tests because it is two stops faster on the lens at moderate zoom levels. With MFT you can add a fast prime to best the X10 but there is still no fast zoom to compete. So in the very conditions where you want better low light performance out of the larger sensors you lose two stops of ISO. In my experience this equates MFT and the X10 in those conditions. The G1X offers no option to add a fast prime, and thus gives up the advantage.

The DPReview article is a bit balanced, mentioning the three fast lens cameras and stating that they'll be pretty similar in quality and depth of field in many situations. My experience these days is that compacts are pretty good if you don't want to print really big (though they can do that too with enough light), but really there isn't much between them if you are just blogging and printing photo books.

Sorry Canon - I'm sticking with the X10. Glad to see you are getting into larger sensors, though. If this is a precursor to a mirrorless with interchangeable lenses and a slighter smaller sensor, though, then I'm very excited :)

Fuji X10 and Panasonic GH2 in real life...

2011-12-20T23:09:00.000-08:00

Here is a quick comparison of the Fuji X10 and the Panasonic GH2 of my son. Really good example of how if you don't need to push the resolution limits there really isn't much between cameras. Both images would work great for personal projects... Also a good example of a regular shot with highlights not ruined by the white dot syndrome (WDS) :)

Lightroom support for Fuji X10?

2011-12-12T21:09:00.001-08:00

I opened up Lightroom tonight and the 3.6 release claims to have support for the Fujifilm X10. Hooray! Lightroom 3.6

Kids in motion

2011-12-10T20:41:00.000-08:00

One of the key areas that I find a compact falls down is shooting kids playing. The Fuji X10 has a couple of things going for it that really help out. Key is the combination of the wide dynamic range EXR mode and the ability to use fill flash at any shutter speed. I shot this at 1/950s with fill flash. Now it is a very tiny fill flash - but the fact is that with fast shutter speeds and wide apertures you can make more of the fill flash than you would on a camera where you had to shoot at f/11 to keep the shutter speed down to 1/160s (Panasonic, are you listening?).

The 2nd thing is the virtually zero shutter lag which allows you to time things perfectly. This is more important that you think - compacts or cameras using contrast AF tend to have poor focus tracking, and so for this type of shot it is simple to just pre-focus on the jump. But shutter lag might take you a few tries to get right. With the Fuji you just take the shot exactly when you want it! No need for super high frames rates when timing is easy...

The manual zoom was great - compared to a G12 or other motorized zoom, you can get right to the zoom level you want on startup. One thing I always hated about the G12 was starting out wide every time you power the camera on and off - and with the motor getting exactly where you wanted to be was slower than a manual zoom.

Rounding it out, though, are two things I didn't like about this little compact camera:

1. Startup time. While the lens ring turn on switch is slick, it does sometimes fail to actually turn on the camera! Not sure if it is me or the camera, or the low battery that was flashing, but I did find I had to turn it off then back on more than once. This is a lame issue to have to work around, and should be addressed.
2. The second or so it takes to get the exposure down to where you can compose is annoying. Initially, on a bright day, it starts up wide open and the screen was just white until it sort of kicked in. Easily solved by leaving the camera on, but my battery was low :)

Fuji X10: firmware update coming for WDS, Lightroom support

2011-12-06T20:49:00.000-08:00

Fuji apparently is planning a firmware update in response to the 'white dot syndrome' (WDS). Personally, I've found little to no evidence of it in my 'real' shots, but can easily reproduce it. Kind of like the Olympus red dot issue shooting into the sun :)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/07/fujifilmplansfirmware

Also, Reid Reviews has put out a review of the Fuji X10 and in it he uses a beta version of Lightroom with X10 support. Nice to know it is coming!

Bubbles trapped in ice

2011-12-04T12:44:00.000-08:00

There is something about getting really close macro shots that helps you discover a world that is invisible to the naked eye. I could tell that I'd get something cool out of this bit of ice that formed on a tarp on my deck, but I had no idea how neat the bubbles in the ice would look up close. I shot at f/18 on my Canon 7D to minimize the light from my off camerea flash (which was very close). The built in wireless trigger is handy for this kind of stuff, though a $32 cord would have done just as nicely.

I don't usually post my shots from my 'larger' camera given the intent of the blog - but hard to resist a shot I just can't stop looking at!

Test or comparison?

2011-12-02T20:33:00.000-08:00

Maybe I'm getting hung up on semantics, but people like me seem interested in doing comparisons, while the internet pundits seem to want tests. To me they are a world apart. When I compare how my cameras compare I'm looking for similarities and differences. I'm not looking to hold them up to a measureable standard of reference. I don't care so much that the comparison is rigorous, and I often want to see how they compare when I'm not being rigorous. I'm more interested in how two options might compare in a specific scenario (i.e. the kids soccer game, the studio, closeups, traveling light, low light, etc.) and not so worried about ONE overall test scenario.

That is where the sites like DPReview and DXOMark fall short, and why I enjoy reading people like Kirk Tuck. DPReview puts cameras head to head in a very specific scenario where you can compare the results of the test very closely. But it is only one scenario, one test. What if at low ISO you only care about web sized images? How do they compare then? Super sharp with high contrast sounds great, but what if that is only achieved using manual focus in live view with one of the slowest system lenses around for AF (I'm thinking all the micro four thirds bodies they test with the 50mm Olympus Macro)?

There are a million valid comparisons that can be done, and the results are usually useful at least to the one doing the comparison. If it doesn't apply to your photography, feel free to ignore the comparison. Or better yet, do your own and add to the discussion!

Depth of field and sensor size, subject distance

2011-11-30T19:57:00.000-08:00

Here are a couple of shots I did to illustrate the depth of field difference between different sensor sizes.
My first comparison was done between a shot (middle) with my 7D and 60mm marco at f/2.8. The 2nd shot to the right is the same lens and camera, but where I backed up and then cropped the center of the image to get the same size subject. This is effectively the same as moving to a smaller sensor camera with the same lens. My point was to see how noticeable the act of enlarging a crop was in terms of the apparent depth of field change where focal length and aperture were constant. Predictably (agreeing with all the pundits) a crop of a sensor enlarged has more in focus. Of note is that while the effect is there (and akin to comparing a APS-C and micro four thirds) there will be shots like this where it doesn't affect the shot much. Note that the train itself gained more clarity on the back end, the table edge off in the distance is relatively unchanged. In other words, if the background is far enough away, your smaller sensor may blur it effectively.

The Fuji was added to the mix to show an even smaller sensor. Again - the train gains some clarity, but the background is still effectively blurred. It is starting to show the line of the table edge, though.

No huge point here - I was just thinking that when someone shoots with a 'full frame' camera and then crops they are effectively shooting with APS-C - but no one ever looks at a full frame photographer's work and picks apart the cropped images :) When you read forums you sometime get the impression you can't get subject isolation with smaller sensors. Takes more effort and awareness the smaller the sensor gets (or the smaller the max aperture), but you work around the tool at hand.

For some reason when I go between APS-C, micro four thirds, and the X10 I often think about the impact on depth of field. But when I crop an image I rarely, if ever, consider the impact on depth of field!

Fuji X10 Pro Focus

2011-11-29T20:04:00.000-08:00

Another quick shot using the super macro mode plus the Pro Focus mode to get a shallower background without having a wider aperture. I'm happy with how the X10 fares shooting into the sun!

Black Rapid Strap - RS4

2011-11-29T19:58:00.000-08:00

I am a bit of a hand strap fan when it comes to holding my dSLR. In fact, I haven't had a strap other than the hand strap on my camera since the time I caught the strap on the arm of a chair and it ripped my camera from my hand as I was taking it off the table and walking over to grab some shots of the kids. Since I got the hand strap I've loved it for indoors - it is nice and stable without danging off counters for my various babies to grab over the years.

However, it acts as a bit of a inpediment to taking my Canon 7D with me, and in part has led me to pursue smaller cameras. Enter the Black Rapid strap. Since it uses the bottom lug, I can put it on and off without removing the hand strap. Further, it really does allow the camera to hang in a better way without the lens sticking straight out of your belly making you look like you really do think size of lens matters :) Better yet, I can switch the strap fairly easily between cameras (easier still if I buy two more lugs). Another neat feature is the way it slides up and down the strap rather than requiring you to slide the strap on your shoulder - that means you could wear it under a backpack when hiking, etc. and not have to shift the strap all the time. Bottom line, I'm loving it - has a memory card zippered pouch, too !

Olympus Pen Mini E-PM1 Review up

2011-11-23T19:12:00.000-08:00

DPReview has their review of the Olympus Pen Mini online: DPReview E-PM1

This is of interest to me as someone who tried the camera and returned it. Would they find similar issues to me? One large area of concern to me was the image stabilization. I was eager to try it with my Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 which offers no stabilization on a Panasonic body. Would my ever so slightly blurry photos of the kids as slowish shutter speeds sharpen up? Alas - I found otherwise. Now DPReview seems to agree. Especially with the movies. The Pen Mini video was basically unusable in my opinion with the electronic stabilization. Optical stabilization appears to reign over electronic when it comes to Panasonic versus Olympus's take on IS.

Page 10 - IS

Of note in their sample with IS turned on is that it isn't that sharp. They say it is acceptable for 'all but the most critical uses'. Well I guess I am critical! It isn't that I necessarily expect amazingly sharp details by simply using IS. It is that the way you hold the camera I would contend costs you two stops of detail, which basically can possibly be made up for by the IS. I saw no improvement using the Pen Mini with IS, versus my GH2 with a viewfinder. This was a point in favor of the Fuji X10 for me. Not only did it have a faster lens, but a mostly useful viewfinder that would help counteract shake.

It is also worth noting that on my Canon 7D with IS lenses I do actually find the IS helps a great deal. But naturally any dSLR also gains an advantage by having a viewfinder to help steady the camera.

On page 14 of the review they talk about the anti-shock feature needed to get critical sharpness. They say that about 4s was very useful at increasing sharpness. That sucks! Who want to shoot with a four second delay? I also found that if I used the 2s timer and held the camera to my face I could get results a lot sharper than holding the camera at arms length.

Overall I found the Pen Mini just too fiddly to get sharp results. I went for the X10 because of:

1. Direct controls, handling. The Pen Mini just had too few controls. You couldn't tell what mode you were in without turning on the camera, and then had to use the screen to change it.
2. Slower zoom on the Oly had more bulk and at two stops slower negated the larger sensor advantage (by requiring higher ISO settings).
3. Zoom lock plus power on was a double step to get the camera working. Fuji's solution is much neater.
4. No viewfinder and slower lens meant no real world advantage to the sensor shift IS. Fuji has the viewfinder, faster lens AND IS.
5. Video quality with IS was very odd looking. Since my pocket camera is often what I have for video of the kids this was a deal breaker for me.

Three sensor sizes - Fuji X10, Canon 7D, Panasonic GH2

2011-11-22T20:26:00.000-08:00

This is a true comparison, not a test in the sense that I'm just comparing the images to see differences and similarities when shown in web size. I've tried to give each system a chance, shooting with primes where possible (Canon 28mm f/1.8, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7), and using all three at the same ISO, shutter speed, aperture and flash setting. The results agree with what I normally find:

1. All three systems can produce a nice image, with a similar look. I'd be happy with any of these as a quick shot of my son.
2. Color is strikingly different between systems. I white balanced all off the same point, and used jpg modes on the Panasonic and Fuji and RAW for the Canon to get them closer. The Fuji image is very pleasing, while I'd put the Panasonic color rendering last.
3. The Fuji clearly has more depth of field at the same aperture. I doubt I could tell the Panasonic and Canon apart. This is a fine example of how razor thin depth of field doesn't really change the image much. Though the larger sensors have thinner depth of field, and there is a close background, it hardly detracts in the Fuji image.
4. Detail wise, even at 100%, there really isn't an obvious edge, though the higher resolution sensors do have more detail.

Canon is above, Fuji middle, and Panasonic bottom.

Fuji X10 360 Panorama mode - only so good

2011-11-18T12:27:00.001-08:00

I love the sweep panorama mode pioneered by Sony in their compacts (first I heard of it, anyways) and the FUji X10 has a similar mode. It allows different angles of view and I tried one at the airport in 120 degree mode.

It doesn't do a perfect job of stitching, but fun for the web. The problem is that the resultant files aren't even as large as a single shot. This one ended up being about 3,000 x 1,000 pixels. I support the hieght (width since i went vertical) is limited to the video mode 1080 pixels, but still - not a very big file to work with compared to stitched files. So good for fun, but still need to stitch 'properly' if you want great results. Note that it did a nice job considering I'm sweeping a camera in low light :) Real estate for web seems like a great application - good results and the viewers aren't terribly demanding...

Stuck in a hotel...playing with Fuji X10

2011-11-17T20:48:00.000-08:00

Sometimes you are stuck in a hotel - well there is plenty to take photos of if you have the Fuji X10 and its super macro mode! I loved how the moon and two birds aligned in the hotel shot (on purpose!).

In other news

2011-11-16T20:19:00.000-08:00

In other news, things are looking up: my blog was mentioned on Kirk Tuck's amazing and prolific blog today: Visual Science Lab.

It seems that posting a GH2 versus Fuji X10 has brought in a number of visitors to my humble corner of the world :) Feel free to also follow me on twitter if you want updates on this blog and other photography related goings-on... @PhotoSquared

Last signs of autumn - Fuji X10

2011-11-15T19:02:00.001-08:00

Sadly, we are getting well into winter in Calgary. We've already had a couple of snowfalls - but in between I got this shot of a leaf with the Fuji X10:

Fuji X10 Pro Focus example

2011-11-15T18:53:00.000-08:00

Like any new camera, the Fuji X10 has some tricks up its proverbial sleeves. In the Fuji's case it offers a few special 'advanced' modes. After setting the mode dial to Adv. you can select from Panoramic 360 (and other angles), Pro Focus, and Pro Low Light. I was impressed with the Panorama mode (as long as the subject isn't too close), so I tried out the Pro Focus mode tonight.

On the left is the Pro Focus shot, and on the right a standard shot in aperture priority. Both were exposed at f/2. Pro Focus chose ISO400 and 1/80s, while I chose ISO100 and 1/25s. The background is much nicer in the Pro Focus shot, but I do notice that the cup itself ended up with rather large blur spots. How much was pro focus and how much was the higher ISO I can't say - but the spots seem due to the Pro Focus mode.

It also crops a bit to take the image in Pro Focus. Not sure why - and creates a smaller jpg as well.

Another Fuji X10 sample macro image

2011-11-14T19:12:00.001-08:00

Here is another example shot from the Fuji X10 showing some nice detail and color:

Closeup of flower with Fuji X10

2011-11-11T20:23:00.000-08:00

The macro mode on the Fuji is a bit tricky to use, as you tend to have to shoot at the wide angle. That is good or bad depending on how busy the background is. It will be very nicely blurred, but you still need to try to avoid distracting elements... Here is a nice close shot:

One minor annoyance is that you cannot use a flash in the hot shoe when in super macro mode. MACRO still gets you pretty darn close, but SUPER MACRO is even closer and would let you eliminate some background objects.

Two Fuji X10 depth of field examples

2011-11-10T18:57:00.000-08:00

Here is another look at the X10 and Micro Four Thirds. On the one hand, I would contend that a micro four thirds camera with a 14-42 kit lens (f/3.5-f/5.6) is little better than the Fuji X10 at creating shallow depth of field. Still better than most compacts with their f/5.6 telephoto, but not terribly amazing at creating shallow depth of field.

Naturally, the beauty of Micro Four Thirds is that you can change lenses - here I've thrown on the Panasonic 20mm lens at f/1.7 to give an idea of how the ability to blur things out compares to the Fuji X10 in a similar situation. The 20mm lens does a much 'better' job of isolating the one can.

I've shown the Fuji at both ends of the zoom - the wide end chose to get similar framing and distances to the GH2 + 20mm. Quite a difference. The GH2 + 20mm lens isn't all that much bigger, either. More of a hump on top, but depth and length are actually pretty close. The GH2 + 20 WILL fit in a similar sized pocket to the ones I get the X10 in.

So why the appeal of the X10 for me? Well, at moderate shooting distances the 20mm doesn't tend to blur backgrounds much, unless your subject is very close and the background far. With a fixed prime your ONLY choice is to move closer if you want to fill the frame with your subject. Not always an option - say at the soccer game or kids play. The trouble with micro four thirds is that first of all you need to own the extra lenses ($350-$700 each for fast system primes), and you need to carry them with you. I view the X10 as a replacement for a P&S that can stretch a little closer to what I expect out of MFT. A very fun one to use, too!

Do I like the Fuji better than my GH2 + 20mm prime? No - but it is more flexible for those times when I don't want to carry a bag and don't know what kinds of situations I'll run into.

Here is another with my 7D and 24-105mm zoom and the Fuji zoomed in at f/2.8. Again, the larger sensor makes a big difference, even though it is a stop slower than the Fuji.

Should we evaluate high ISO the same was as low?

2011-11-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

One thing that keeps nagging at me when I read forums (like this one on DPReview) is that when real photographers (like Michael Reichmann and Kirk Tuck) review equipment they do it differently than when professional reviewers review equipment. They review it for how they use it. When a professional reviewer reviews it they try to cover a wide gamut of uses - which really means turning it into a nitpicking adventure into 100% crops.

When Kirk and Michael review they show us pictures they took that they like, ones they enjoy taking. Then they tell us how they found the camera for their purposes and how it compares to others they've used. Most importantly, the lesson you get from their reviews is that they can make a camera work and get pictures out of it.

After a roundabout start, my point is this: when you read a review on DPReview, they evaluate High ISO performance in relation to how it looks at low ISO, or compared to other cameras. But personally I don't use high ISO images the same way I use low ISO images. If I need an 18MP closeup of wood to sell for stock, I'm not shooting it at ISO1600, I'm setting the lens to where it is sharpest, the ISO low, and ensuring shake is at a minimum. But when I'm getting shots of the kids skating, or playing soccer, I know I'm going to print those at maybe 6x6 or 8x8 in a family album, or post them on my blog - and nowadays incorporate them into a DVD quality video. That's it! So my needs at high ISO are very different. If I have camera with lots of detail at low ISO that 'destroys noise' and 'crushes the black' (as they say in the forums) I'm OK with it if it produces a pleasing blog photo at 600x800.

The bottom line is that when reading reviews, you have to consider how close the reviewers photos techniques and needs are to yours. The problem with the big review sites like DPReview is that their reviewers are basically anonymous - you have no idea what they shoot, and the photos they take to illustrate the camera are boring and bland. Kirk Tuck can get nice colors and punchy fun images with the new Nikon - surely that is what most people want out of such a camera? I've never heard my Grandpa, who is experienced with film slrs, complain that his Canon SX130 can't blur the background or crushes the shadows - he says 'the zoom is incredible!'.

You get what you pay for...sort of (Fuji X10 / Canon 7D)

2011-11-09T19:52:00.000-08:00

This is an example of the difference between the Canon 7D, an APS-C sensor camera and the Fuji X10. The Fuji shot is very nice, but really can't come close to matching the larger sensor camera at this magnification. It is a bit moot when you are posting to a blog, or printing a small print - but there is no question that if you need the resolution and print large the larger sensor camera will deliver more detail. Since I shoot for stock, I pull out the 7D on those occasions. Still - the Fuji X10 will serve enough detail in those cases where I don't want to carry the 7D and see something interesting.

The reason I say you 'sort of' get what you pay for is that it is tough to say what is equal. Clearly a 7D costs more than the X10 and delivers more, but the cheaper Canikon dSLRs aren't that different in price from the Fuji and boast the same sensor as the 7D. So there are bargains that can really deliver detailed image quality, and then there are cameras like the Fuji that are a bit of a compromise in image quality (compared to an SLR) but a step up in build quality. In the Fuji X10 case you aren't really getting value - but you are paying for something of worth: a well made package that is enjoyable to use. That matters more than you think...

Urban Scenic - Vacuum

2011-11-08T21:04:00.001-08:00

One of my first real shots with the Fuji X10:

Influx of interest plus X10/GH2/7D

2011-11-08T12:44:00.000-08:00

Like Kirk Tuck and his Olympus review before me, I'm sorry to say my most exciting picture/post ever is a quick comparison between the Fuji X10 and the Panasonic GH2. If that is what it takes to jump from 10 views a day to 2,000 then I'm on my way! I didn't think anyone paid attention to my Flickr stream :)

Apparently someone posted the link on DPReview and the hits were on their way! Someone commented that I should let real reviewers do the testing... What people fail to realize is that the online reviews are predictable and don't really tend to tell you what is important to you - and how the camera will work in your hands, for your subjects, in your environment. What better test for me that to see how my X10 and GH2 will compare at higher ISOs in my house with my kids. Why do I care, now, in my basement? Because I have 4 kids and when they are asleep I get to play ;) Plus - why not find out now, instead of finding out at the kids' Christmas concert!

So with that in mind, here is another 'real world' scenario - a shot of my baby at breakfast. High ISO was needed, and I left the Canon 7D, X10 and GH2 to their own devices in the shutter speed/ISO dance. The GH2 choose poorly, lowering ISO but dropping the shutter speed to 1/20s to make it work out. Bad call - since I can only hold an 60mm lens so steady even with IS. The Canon and the X10 chose similar speeds (1/80s and 1/90s) but they also had f/2.8 lenses to work with. Even so, they went for higher ISO with a better choice of shutter. Much clearer than the GH2. The GH2 would obviously do better with a prime (I don't own a tele MFT prime) or with a faster shutter speed and higher ISO. Here is a 100% crop of my son's eye for comparison. You can see the X10 doesn't come close to being able to distinguish an eyelash, like the Canon 7D does, but not bad and totally acceptable for my blog - and as good or better than any ISO800 film image I've even taken :)

Also, the X10 had better color and exposure - but that is a little bit of luck of the draw. Light and background were changing a bit.

Panasonic GX-1 - what is it all about?

2011-11-07T13:32:00.000-08:00

For anyone seriously considering micro four thirds small bodies these day, I can understand the confusion. It more and more seems like an option that isn't needed - unless it is your ONLY system. The latest Pansonic GX1 is a case in point. It is bundled with a remarkably small 14-42mm lens, and has a nice small form factor. But where does it fit into the big picture? Who is it for? I used to think it was for someone like me who owns a higher end DSLR with large lenses and is looking for a pocketable or smaller camera to carry with decent IQ. But does it deliver? I own a GH2 and it is very nice for video, though Sony with their SLT design has come close.

Note that I haven't tired the GX1, and I'm sure it will take fine pictures - but my point is that so will a compact. To get the GX1 or other compact MFT bodies to shine I'd argue you need lenses beyond the kit. Seems obvious, why get an interchangeable lens system with only one lens? The point is that you could end up like me with the larger body with integrated viewfinder, and be looking for a compact option. If you consider the GX-1 you HAVE to get the pancake zoom with it to make it small - if you don't use the pancake lenses then just carry the moderately larger G3, GH2, etc.

Compared to a camera like the Fuji X10, the new GX-1 plus kit zoom is only so much better for IQ. Here is how I shake it out:

1. Sensor size. Obviously the GX-1 wins for sheer size, but when you factor in the lens all is not so obvious. I'll take the Fuji X10 at f/2 and ISO400 over the E-PM1 or my GH-2 at f/4 and ISO1600. I can't comment on the GX1 sensor or the new zoom, because I haven't tried them, but they would have to be fantastic for me to get better images out of them at the sizes I print. Depth of field control is very similar unless you add lenses to the GX1 system.
2. Camera size. Micro four thirds is all about size. If size doesn't matter why not just take your DSLR? So then, how small is the GX1? Well, compared the Fuji it is very similar with the kit lens. But the Fuji has two stops on it and goes to 112mm rather than the GX1's 84mm. You just can't get that kind of versatility on the GX1 without a pocket full of lenses. Granted, with lenses like the 14mm and 20mm pancakes and Oly's 45mm f/1.8 you can eke out more quality and shoot in lower light - but that is a lot to carry and swap out on the fly. If I'm going to carry a bunch of gear, I'm willing to take the GH2. And see point #3.
3. Viewfinder. The Fuji has one, the GX1 doesn't. Easy as that - unless you consider dropping another $250 for the viewfinder, but then the camera isn't so small anymore :) That is how it is with MFT. Small, until you really start trying to use it and you realize all the compromises (IQ is naturally the compromise on the X10 option).
4. Volume. It seems a minor point but the X10 is silent. Really! Just a little 'snip' of a sound when you take a picture or focus. The GF series and my GH2 have a noticeable shutter noise, and some lenses make noise when you focus. The E-PM1 I tried seemed to almost blur the pictures with its shutter action.
5. Controls. I think the GX1 has a similar number of direct controls, but crucially the X10 has exposure compensation as a dial where you can see it. Even if powered off. I love that. Not only do I have to power on a GX1 to see where it is set, but the method to change it differs from mode to mode. I don't love buttons marked Fn1, Fn2, Fn3, etc. - nice that you can map them but if you have more than one body you have to remember what they all mean.
6. Sync speed. Micro four thirds seems system limited to 1/160s. I can sync on the X10 at 1/1000s and higher. Very nice in outdoor light when you want some fill flash and wide apertures.
7. Color. So far I like the X10 better than my GH2. People say you can setup color to your liking, but I shoot RAW and have a colorchecker and still struggle to get color out of my GH2 that I'm truly happy with. I can get files I'm happy with out of the GH2, but I just seem to always have to work them - whereas with my Canon dslr I do not...
8. Macro. You can shoot down to 1cm with the X10! Adding macro to a GX1 takes $500 to $900 dollars for a system lens.

So what is appealing about micro four thirds these days?

1. Video. Taking video with a live viewfinder is very nice, and something I can't do wtih the X10 or my DSLR. The GH2 is amazing - but there again the GX1 doesn't seem to have as many options...(why no 24P or MJPEG Panasonic?).
2. Lenses. The mount opens up a huge amount of legacy glass for use on the bodies. Personally I'm not that great at manual focus, and for what I shoot (kids!) I need faster focusing. To me this is the deal breaker that either puts you off MFT, or makes it your favorite system. If you have a lot of manual focus glass it is a great choice.
3. Travel/landscape. MFT seems to be a great choice for landscape and travel work - as the total weight of a similar system is less (compared to dSLRs). And this is even more apparent if you compare quality of lenses - a high end lens for Canon like the 35mm f1.4L is a whole lot bigger, heavier and costlier than the 20mm f/1.7 Panny lens. For travel you don't need fast zooms, and having a range of tiny pancake lenses with great quality is appealing.

As it stands with the GX1, GF3 or Pen Mini, the small body option just doesn't make sense to me. I tried it. To get the most out of it and beat a compact like the X10 you need to add lenses beyond the kit. As soon as I start adding lenses, the size difference between the GX1 and the GH2 become moot, in my opinion.

The real problem with it all, as usual, is too much choice. Most cameras out there will take photos that will stand up to moderate enlargement. The question is if you LIKE the photos you get out of a camera, and if you ENJOY using it. My money is on Fuji right now - it is just fun to use and hold.

Two Fuji X10 Reviews, mine to come

2011-11-07T10:03:00.000-08:00

I'm still working on the details of my review, but here are two to have a look at:

Photo Life's
Luminous Landscapes

I think the main story here is that everyone is paying attention to what Fuji is doing right now. They seem to be getting the fit and finish right, and delivering nice images, too.

Fuji X10 versus Panasonic GH2 (Micro Four Thirds)

2011-11-07T08:54:00.000-08:00

I think the note on Flickr say it all - I'm very impressed with the little X10 at high ISO. Note that the GH2 does better with a non-kit lens (say the nice 20mm), but unlike the Fuji you can't have it all with the GH2 - no fast zoom. Plus, if you like the new X zoom, I still prefer the range, aperture and manual zoom of the Fuji X10!

I should add that while I like the color of the Fuji in general, and find it more pleasing than my GH2 jpgs, I must acknowledge that the GH2 is more accurately rendering this scene.

Fuji X10 image

2011-11-07T08:51:00.001-08:00

I couldn't resist a shot of this oil in pan with my new Fuji X10:

The amount I'm enjoying my X10, I'd better reconsider my banner image :)

Fuji X10 and APS-C Depth of field comparison

2011-11-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick comparison between the X10 and my Canon 7D. I set the 7D to 55mm at f/5.6 to test the claims on DPReivew that the X10 beats APS-C cameras for depth of field with their kit lens (I don't actually own the 18-55 so I used my 24-105mm set to f/5.6). When using the 3.94 conversion to 35mm terms the X10 was set to 73mm, where as the 7D's 55mm works out to 88mm. While this make the example slightly 'suspect' - I think it is actually a pretty good example. It is tricky to work out a comparison due to the different aspect ratios, etc. In reality - this is a good example of me trying to get similar framing. In any case you can see the background blur is similar. I certainly wouldn't put the X10 miles ahead! I also did a test where I zoom all the way in on the X10, set to f/2.8 and backed up to get similar framing - the background was actually a little less blurred, in my opinion. I think it is fair to say you can get similar background blur with this camera compared to a kit lens APS-C camera. Of course - you can put a fast prime on the APS-C - but at the same time you can't get an f/2-f/2.8 28mm to 112mm equivalent, and it certainly won't fit in a pocket.

Anyways, the difference between the X10 and an APS-C compact seems minimal to me. I would say, though, that my 7D with lens stopped down had smoother blur than the X10 - but still pretty nice looking on both cameras.

The books in the background, along with the abacus get progressively further away as you look to the right.

Fuji X10 Sample

2011-11-05T20:29:00.000-07:00

I did indeed get an Olympus E-PM1, but after a week or so it just wasn't growing on me. There is a lack of direct controls and the video was terrible unless I held the camera very steady - but mainly I was unimpressed with the noise characteristic and IS. It isn't that either were bad, but I didn't see the benefit over a compact. So I returned it within for a full refund. Enter the Fuji X10. Metal. F/2-f/2.8 lens (so I can shoot at ISO 100 where the E-PM1 needed ISO400 with kit lens). Small size. Manual zoom ring. Dials, buttons, controls! Optical viewfinder that isn't half bad. In short - potentially my ideal compact camera. It wasn't available two weeks ago, and thus I didn't really consider it - but they showed up in town and I took a look.

Here is an example shot from it - the link is to Flickr with a full size there if you care about that sort of thing :) I'll post my initial comments in a few days, but can't really make solid recommendations until Adobe gets a RAW codec for Lightroom (anytime, Adobe!).

Olympus E-PM1 Max Sync speed 1/320s ?

2011-11-01T20:04:00.000-07:00

Everything I've seen about the Olympus E-PM1 says that the max sync speed is 1/160s. That is OK, but a higher sync speed lets me kill the ambient light more - or use a wider aperture with fill flash on a bright day.

Tonight I was doing some testing and noticed that I wasn't restricted at 1/160s when using my Canon flash. Maybe it doesn't recognize a flash is attached when using an off brand, but surprisingly I was able to fire off a shot at up to 1/320s and still get a full frame. I had the flash at 1/16 power (Canon 430EX II) so the may vary a bit with power. Nevertheless, this opens things up a bit in bright sun. It lets you go higher than that - but I started to see the curtain fill part of the frame - you can still use that to your advantage depending on where the curtain falls and where you put your subject...

Nice! Finally a manufacturer doesn't just hard limit things and lets you play around with settings and alternative equipment...

Lightroom tip: recent import location

2011-11-01T19:59:00.000-07:00

Ok, when I see how easy this is I'm kicking myself - but for the longest time I was always frustrated with Lightroom because it always reset to the flash card or drive location. My workflow consists of running a tool to rename and backup my files to a specific named folder that varies with the year and month (\2011_10).

Usually, you can start software in a default folder, etc. and when you browse for files it is the folder that is used. I just couldn't figure out how to get it to default to my preferred folder. Finally, I clicked on the part that says "FROM:" and lo and behold it has drives plus a recent history. Voila! One click and I'm in my folder and I want!

Image Stabilization

2011-10-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

One of the things I was excited about when I got the E-PM1 was image stabilization built into the body. Suddenly I have IS with my Panasonic 20mm - at f/1.7 that should be a low light killer combo! However, I'm not really seeing a lot of benefit from the IS. In fact, it seems more often than not that it makes things worse - at least in my hands. Below is a pair of shots - left is with IS on, right is with IS off and the camera smushed against my face. Composing with a camera with no viewfinder smushed against your face isn't easy, obviously, but I think it shows that a viewfinder would be more effective than IS. I was hoping for better than this; to me the shot on the left is typical, and useless... I shot several like the one on the left, but the one without IS was my first attempt. I'm not expecting to stop subject motion at 1/13s, but I've take 200mm telephoto shots that are sharp enough at 1/15s using my 70-200 f/4 Canon lens with IS... Should be no trouble at all with a 20mm focal length and a static subject.

Fun with the Pen Mini (E-PM1)

2011-10-28T13:59:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure why, but I usually find that when I get a new camera I suddenly do things I don't normally do. Why I got the urge to shoot an out of focus mug I'm not sure, but I like the shot. Abstract but enough form to understand the subject... Here is one of my kids' fun paintings, taken with the Pop Art filter:

Airborne Pen Mini

2011-10-25T22:25:00.000-07:00

Usually I find I can't get a nice photo out the window with my G12, but now that I've moved up to a Pen Mini I find it is moderately interesting! I've been noticing that the stabilization on the mini E-PM1 doesn't help much in the 1/20s to 1/80s range - until I noticed that if I use the 2s delay timer it works great. Need to play more with that...

Opposite argument - E-PM1 from Olympus

2011-10-24T06:26:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I argued that the lack of fast zooms was a problem with micro four thirds. But there is another way to look at it - with micro four thirds, the larger sensor compensates for slower zooms by allowing higher ISO. But if you aren't shooting wide open, they you suddenly get a lot more quality by being able to match the ISO of the smaller sensor.

With this in mind I took a look at the E-PM1 from Olympus. After spending a few minutes with it, I think Olympus has really hit a home run with this camera. In the end, I decided to go for this tiny camera. Here are some reasons why:

1. It is quite small for what it is. With the kit zoom it is just small enough to get in a large-ish pocket. Put on the Panny 20mm prime and it is very pocket friendly.
2. Speed - it focuses fast, shoots fast, etc. I really like the solid and responsive feel when you take a photo with this camera.
3. Depth of field control. As discussed, it is really no better than a compact with a fast lens for depth of field control with the kit lens. But I own and can put on a fast prime and it takes off from there.
4. Price. Same price as a G12 but more versatile, better IQ.
5. Bonus: Oly colors, Art filters add some fun, and it adds image stabilization to my Panasonic Prime lenses. People rave about the VF-2, and the Mini supports it.

What I don't like so far:

1. The flash isn't built in. I prefer that it includes a hot shoe, and am unlikely to need the little flash. But there will be times I want a little pop for fill and don't have it with me.
2. Kit lens doesn't seem that sharp, or image stabilization isn't as effective as they claim. Can't put my finger on it yet, but either I am very shaky (which could be at arm's length), or I'm not using the IS right. I should be able to shoot a 20mm lens at 1/80s with IS, shouldn't I? :)

Interesting take on depth of field

2011-10-21T20:54:00.000-07:00

One of the things I struggle with in smaller cameras is that lack of depth of field control. In my G12, it has a nice wide f/2.8 aperture. Trouble is that it is only at the wide end of the zoom, and by the time you zoom in you are at f/4.5. Add that to a tiny and it is tough to get background blur behind a subject unless you have a lot of distance between your subject and the background.

This is precisely where micro four thirds is supposed to come to the rescue. The problem is that if you want a compact micro four thirds camera, you can't have a fast zoom. When you compare micro four thirds to a P&S with a fast lens they turn out to be quite similar. Take the Olympus XZ-1 - it has an equivalent 112mm lens versus a 90mm on the GF3 kit. It's aperture when fully zoomed in is f/2.4 ! That compares to the f/5.6 on the GF3 kit lens. Here is a very interesting link to a DPReview on the XZ-1 comparing it to the GF3 and a Nikon DSLR with kit lenses...

I realize that you could put on a fast prime - but the only suitable option to compare with is the Olympus 45mm prime. This is not a tiny lens, either and costs almost what the XZ-1 costs. So when I consider getting a MFT 'pocket' camera, the kit pancake from Panny is the ONLY option. Everything else is larger or single focal length. As I mentioned on my post a few days ago, I'm more and more thinging that a P&S like the XZ-1 or Fuji X10 is the best bet for me. The new Nikon system might be compelling, but again no fast zoom.

Fall leaves

2011-10-21T07:51:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick shot taken on my walk home from the kids' pre-school yesterday:

Taken with my GH2 and 20mm lens, I was impressed with how the fence boards are out of focus with the leaves in focus - pretty shallow depth of field. I find it interesting with micro four thirds: you seem to get nice out of focus backgrounds when close to your subject, but at any reasonable distance you don't. Perhaps the Oly 45mm would help with that. With a compact (Canon G12) I find you almost never notice an out of focus background in shots, with my GH2 and kit lens only when working close to a subject, and with my Canon 7D almost all telephoto shots have nicely blurred backgrounds and many close shots, too. One major difference is that for my 7D I have relatively fast lenses compared to my GH2. My zoom is a 105mm f/4 versus my GH2's 140mm at f/5.8. At the wide end the GH2's lens is 14m with an f/4 aperture - not very capable of out of focus backgrounds unless the subject is close and the background far.

Funny X10 video review and features

2011-10-20T08:28:00.000-07:00

TheCameraStore in Calgary has yet another video review up, this time done in the style of DigitalRev reviews - super funny :)

I personally find the Fuji X10 to be quite compelling as an alternative to things like the Canon G12. These are interesting times, and as usual the problem is really too much choice. I like micro four thirds a lot, but they have yet to release a fast zoom, and any fast zoom is likely to be large-ish for a pocket. A Key advantage of MFT is the sensor size, especially its higher ISO performance next to a compact camera. But without a fast zoom you lose some of that advantage. The Fuji X10 (and Nikon 1) have a 2/3" sensor, larger than the G12 and smaller than micro 4/3.

Take the GF3 and the compact X 14-42mm zoom as a comparison point (not available yet either):

Size - pretty similar in size. Few mm here and there.
Screen - same, both non-articulating, 460,000 dots. Not sure how the X10 does, but I hate how Panasonic uses a tiny jpg to preview RAW files. Can't see if they are sharp.
Quality - the X zoom has a range of f/3.5 to 5.6, the X10 is f/2 to f/2.8. That is almost 2 stops faster for the X10 across the range, with more telephoto. That means 400ISO on the GF3 compares to 100ISO on the X10. Plus - the X10 allows faster shutter speeds at the same ISO. Keep in mind that the Fuji has 1/4000th top shutter but it drops to 1/1000 at full aperture. On the other hand, Fuji allows sync up to the 1/1000! Take that, sun! Check out the comparison between the Nikon V1 at ISO100 (same size sensor as the X10) and the GF3 at ISO400. Fuji by all accounts makes a sensor with more dynamic range, so I won't be surprised to find very good results when you take into account aperture range.
Focus - the X10 actually wins in my books as the new Panny lens has power zoom. X10 has manual zoom with a nicely integrated switch.
Hot shoe - not only does the GF3 not come with a hot shoe, it has a low sync speed as well (1/160). I don't carry a flash with my compact except when on work trips. This gives me more options...
Close focus - the Fuji will win here for sure!
Build - the Fuji is way ahead on this point with metal construction.
Controls - unlike the older GF1, the GF3 actually loses a lot of controls. In the same size body I'd prefer the X10's dedicated exposure compensation dial and other dials.
Price - the X10 is going to be less than a GF3 + X lens.

I've really been struggling with what to get as my 'small' camera. When I think about it the only time I'll take a GF3 over my GH2 would be when I am just taking one tiny pancake lens in a pocket. Thus, a compact has more appeal in many ways. The GF3 doesn't have an EVF, so the X10 video should be more stabilized by using an optical finder. Essentially I am looking for a compact with high fidelity (my blog title!) with zoom. The GF3 gives me the advantage that the lens could be used on my GH2, and that I could take it out with the other pancake lenses. But I won't - as soon as I take more than one lens, I have enough room to take the marginally bigger GH2.

As you can tell, I'm very excited about this new offering from Fuji - there is much about the GF3 that I wasn't loving...

Nothing but net

2011-10-17T19:44:00.000-07:00

This is a crop of a full size shot, but I was still surprised at how easily I was able to capture a shot of a basketball falling into a new with my GH2 and 20mm lens. Especially since my 6 year old was doing the shooting :) Luckily for my stock destined version, he even managed to rotate it in the air such that no logos were visible - couldn't have planned it if we'd tried!

Concrete abstract

2011-10-17T11:26:00.000-07:00

I took the kids downtown this weekend and while walking back to the train though the Century Gardens at 8th and 8th grabbed this abstract:

Fujifilm X10

2011-10-14T19:24:00.000-07:00

Fuji brought out their lovely X100 which appealed to many people's sense of style and function, and added a great fixed lens and unique viewfinder to the "compact" camera world. It fits nicely into my definition of a high fidelity compact with its APS-C sensor and small size. Now, they have brought out an even smaller version with a 2/3" sensor larger than most compacts (same as Nikon 1), but with a fast f/2 to f/2.8 manual (!) zoom lens. It looks very interesting to me, and they have some sample images that look great for a compact camera.

Fuji is keeping things interesting! With these two cameras and their soon to be released mirrorless interchangeable lens system (which they claim will rival full frame!) they are pushing the other manufacturers to keep up.

Shoes

2011-10-14T17:29:00.000-07:00

Here is a shot of my daughter's shoes, using a bi-color filter to get the cool/warm look...

Detroit building abstract

2011-09-29T17:36:00.000-07:00

Here is a fun shot of the GM building in downtown Detroit... Processed using Nik's Silver Efex Pro.

Urban abstract

2011-09-27T16:12:00.000-07:00

When in an urban centre, what is there to do but take urban abstracts? Here are a few more from downtown Detroit, again processed in Lightroom with the new filters in Nik Software's color efex pro 4. I like the way you can see into some of the windows in the third shot...

Nik Color EFex 4 Update

2011-09-27T05:22:00.000-07:00

The new Nik Color EFex update arrived yesterday, and so far it looks great. I like the new thumbnails that show various effects before you apply them (similar to how Silver EFex works) and the ability to stack layers is very nice if you use Lightroom. I used the new Vintage and Border filters to create the above shot of the bridge between Detroit and Windsor...

Early morning sunrise

2011-09-23T10:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a crazy sunrise in Calgary this morning, taken with my GH2 and 14-140mm lens... I underexposed, upped the ISO to 640, and used a cloudy white balance. The cloudy white balance makes it more orange, but it truly looks how I remember it !

Abstract mirrors

2011-09-12T18:39:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick shot in my hotel room. It had a very interesting mirror with a large number of faces at different angles. I converted to black and white, then added the red color... Taken handheld at ISO320 with ambient light in the room...

Driving through the prairies

2011-09-09T11:04:00.000-07:00

It is tempting to just continuously post about 100% crops (he says sardonically), but they are truly uninteresting once you've bought your camera and moved on to actually taking photos. I recently got an eBook on Black and White photography, and it inspired me to spend a bit of time on this image, doing some selective brightening and darkening (dodging and burning are the correct terms but I certainly didn't do anything other than move my mouse!), plus bringing out the detail in the trees. The trees on the left were basically a dark blob in the original exposure. This image is quite a bit more appealing to me than the original image in color (though I planned to take it to black and white).

I used Lightroom and the SilverEfex2 plug-in from Nik Software for this type of thing...

GH2 High ISO and Lens sharpness

2011-09-08T15:49:00.000-07:00

I didn't really think the lens played much of a role in high ISO images; after all - isn't the complaint that the noise reduction smooths away details? Well, it turns out there is a HUGE difference on my GH2 with a sharper lens (not to mention that using a noise reduction in camera of NR-2 makes a difference in RAW files).

These are two 100% crops, the first with the 14-140mm kit lens, and the second with the brilliant 20mm pancake. The zoom was shot stopped down to f/5.6, and the kit lens stopped down. Not a 'fair' comparison, but I wouldn't be using the 20mm wide open at 1600 in this case :) That is a different topic!

So here they are - notice how much muddier the zoom lens it at 1600. The 20mm shot looks fantastic for ISO 1600:

And here is a crop from my Canon G12, just for comparison. It holds up quite well against the kit lens, but not the 20mm prime (and of course I could shoot the prime a few ISO levels lower):

And my 7D:

Panasonic GH2 with Canon EF-S 60mm Macro

2011-09-01T11:51:00.000-07:00

I was curious to see how well my Canon 60mm macro worked on my GH2. I have a Canon EOS to MFT adapter, and it works for the EF-S lenses just as well as with the EF. I took a shot of an object using my 7D with the 60mm macro set to f/8. My 580EX flash was fired at half power, bounced off the ceiling. I set the Canon to ISO 160 just so keep the exposure identical. Here is the shot:

Then, I mounted the macro lens (being sure to remove it from the 7D with the depth of field preview button pressed down to keep the aperture set to f/8) on my GH2 using an adapter. It fits snugly, which is reassuring! I set the GH2 to the base ISO and the shutter to 1/160s and without changing focus moved the camera until it was sharp. That gave me an idea of the identical position; with the smaller sensor it naturally filled more of the frame, and provided more detail than the 7D showed.

I then moved the camera back to the watch filled about the same amount of the frame. This is the useful comparison to me - I want shots of object to mostly fill the frame. I then normalized the exposures and color balance in Lightroom. The end result was both what I expected (that the 60mm lens would perform nicely on the GH2), but also unexpected (the bokeh seems very similar despite the GH2 shot being taken from further away).

In contrast to my previous post on the 20mm versus 28mm, this is an example where the same focal length was used a different distances and effectively cropped. I can hardly tell the two images apart...that is all the matters in my books.

This is a good example of why I'm all over MFT! If I'm printing in a photo book or posting to my blog, and even printing 12x12s for my house, this is little to choose between the two other than body ergonomics, size and price. The MFT options come out ahead in most of the comparisons I care about. I'd lose the 7D except for studio/portrait shooting -

One more APS-C comparison

2011-08-31T12:48:00.000-07:00

This time I'm comparing my GH2 with 14-140mm lens (at 140mm) and my 7D with 24-105mm lens (at 105mm). I've scaled up the 7D image to match, and frankly there is little between them. The GH2 is on the right, and the 7D on the left. This is different than your typical comparison in that I'm really trying to understand how the 7D with the zoom I carry compares to the GH2 with the zoom I carry. In other words, when I'm at the kids' soccer game am I losing something with the smaller sensor camera that is much lighter to carry and easier to use for video? Yes, a Canon 70-200mm L lens would outperform the GH2 - but in practice I'm not seeing a difference in the size prints I use it for. If the Canon were that much better I should be able to crop and do better than micro four thirds. To me that is the key and why MFT fits the bill - if I do stock photography I can put on a high quality lens with lots of sharpness like the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, but when it comes to family events it is all overkill... The difference is that at the family events I'm more likely to have the high quality lens around simply because it is all that much smaller.

Micro four thirds and APS-C depth of field

2011-08-30T16:08:00.000-07:00

Forget about the non-stop talk about how micro four thirds and APS-C sensors are different in depth of field terms - here are two shots from the same camera position using my Panny 20mm f/1.7 at f/2.0, and my Canon 28mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 on a 7D. Virtually the same in almost all respects. The bottom line is that you can achieve similar results, it all depends on the lenses you actually own. Sure, I could get a more blurred background out of a Canon 35mm f/1.4 - but it costs more than my GH2 and 20mm together!

I won't even bother to say which is which, but the aspect ratio gives it away. I should add that my 28mm f/1.8 Canon would look terrible in bright sun like this shot wide open, so f/2 on the Panny versus f/2.8 is really what I have to choose between.

Overdone, but still fun...

2011-08-26T22:01:00.000-07:00

It may be over done to add borders, convert to black and white, and add grain, but I still like the result of this shot of a seagull circling overhead. [GH2 with 14-140mm lens]

GH2 in action

2011-08-26T21:58:00.000-07:00

Tonight I had the GH2 and 14-140mm lens out at the park with the kids. It is really great to carry around, and this is an example shot of the kids drinking and filling up water guns at the outdoor fountain...

Panasonic Launches Lumix X Vario 14-42mm lens

2011-08-26T08:40:00.000-07:00

Panasonic has announced a new micro four thirds lens, the 14-42mm Lumix X Vario. At first I didn't think there was much in this lens for me, but after thinking about it a bit, it does seem interesting:

1. It is hardly different in size than the 14mm pancake, and less than a stop off but supports OIS. Since I tend to use a wide angle for landscape/architecture, the OIS is useful. So at one level it is very similar in size and function to the 14mm pancake. Practically, I think it could replace that lens for me.
2. It adds a zoom to the mix in a very compact package. I'm a lot more comfortable handing over a small camera like the GF3 with a zoom than a fixed length prime.
3. The power zoom could be quite nice for video. I'm not a huge fan of it for stills, and like what Panasonic did with their other new lens, the 45-175mm with power and manual zoom.
4. Olympus has released the 12mm f/2 wide angle. I didn't like the idea of having to get the GF3 with a 14mm AND own the 12. They just aren't different enough, and the 12mm on its own isn't compact. This new lens from Panasonic adds a nice choice to the GF3 kit.

This is another example of why I like the MFT approach to things. With Sony, a new kit lens like this for Nex would not be usable on their DSLR bodies. With MFT I can put this on my full featured GH2, AND have a compact zoom for a small body.

Update - samples from these new lenses up on Panasonic's site.

Vincent LaForet on CreativeLive

2011-08-25T17:22:00.000-07:00

CreativeLive has posted some free clips on their website. Here is a short clip of Vincent LaForet giving an example of where Micro four thirds has some advantage in video due to the extra depth of field at a given aperture. Or looking at it the other way, the fact that you can't get a thin a slice in focus as a 35mm sized sensor camera isn't that big a deal...

Will Canon and Nikon go mirrorless?

2011-08-22T12:51:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of online chatter about whether Nikon or Canon will go mirrorless, and pros and cons of both. I'll be surprised given their reluctance to build lenses for their crop sensor cameras. If you look at the pro level performance of the 7D Canon seems very willing to capture dollars in the body market. However, they only have a handful of EF-S lenses and none are pro-spec. The best are the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 60mm macro, but basically Canon expects you to get L series full frame lenses.

Sony seems to be the same way. A very revolutionary mirrorless system but stuck with mostly large full frame lenses.

I think that Canon and Nikon should adopt micro four thirds with their own adapter to adapt to EF/Nikon lenses, and they could make bodies with extra pins on the mount to control their legacy lenses, while still working with standard MFT lenses.

Then, they wouldn't need a new line of lenses but they would be available. As a Canon user I would definitely buy such a body and a couple of 3rd party lenses rather than getting invested in a new lens lineup. One issue all the majors have to deal with (and even Olympus has struggled to get to this point) is that their lenses are all optimized for phase detect autofocus, and for still photography - for that reason they don't do contrast based AF as well, and the lenses aren't quiet when it comes to stabilization, focus and aperture...

In the same way that fans constantly argue about getting full frame or APS-C, whether it is worth getting L lenses with their wasted image circle and different crop field of view I can't imagine Canon and Nikon are excited about yet another image sensor size. Canon has yet to make a pro spec APS-C camera, so it will be a long time before they make a really nice body with an even smaller sensor - in my opinion.

GH2 Operation

2011-08-22T12:09:00.000-07:00

One thing about the Panasonic GH2 that I miss from my Canon 7D is the top panel LCD. This was an issue on the Rebel series cameras too. This means I can't really tell at a glance how my camera is set, and I can't dial in some exposure compensation without looking in the viewfinder or at the rear screen.

However, there are a number of things I can do with my GH2 that I can't with my 7D at my eye:

1. Video!
2. Change modes. The mode dial on the 7D doesn't provide any display in the viewfinder. In fact, it actually stops the display in the viewfinder. You can't tell what mode you are in without changing a setting... The GH2 has the full menus in the viewfinder, so naturally anything can be set with the camera to your eye. But even just the static display at the bottom that you see when taking images has the 'A', 'S', 'M', etc displayed at all times.
3. Change White Balance. Not only can you change White Balance at eye level, but it updates the display at the same time to show the effect. Pretty slick. Sure I shoot RAW and this doesn't matter in the end, but there is nothing wrong with gettng the WB close up front from a preview perspective.
4. Change the aspect ratio and/or view in Black and White. When I only had my 7D I would argue that aspect ratio doesn't really matter, I can always crop after the fact. However, with the GH2 you actually get a wide field of view in 16:9 and 3:2 so there is a difference. Plus the 1x1 format in B&W is really fun to compose in. If you are a purist, you want to get the composition right in the viewfinder...
5. Digitally zoom to focus! Try that with an optical viewfinder...

GH2 Silent Mode

2011-08-21T13:03:00.000-07:00

A lot of people are excited about the mirrorless designs for the ability to shoot silently - only to discover that it still has a shutter! It turns out the GH2 has the ability to get rigged for silent running - you just have to accept a couple of compromises. If you set the continuous drive mode to the super fast 40fps mode, you only get JPGs at 4MP. However, the shutter is not used (similar to shooting a movie at 30fps at a shutter of 1/1250). Just be careful not to hold down the shutter or you may get the 40 jpgs!

If you are a JPG shooter you'll be used to it, but you will need to tweak your JPG settings to optimize it. 4MP is enough for me when I'm attending a friends wedding and want to bang off a couple of shots without disrupting things. With the EVF you don't even have to light up the room, either...

I don't think it is a true global shutter, though, still just a rolling shutter... Nice and quiet though. One thing to point out is that it is only possible to shoot in this mode at 1/40s and higher due to the intention of the high speed mode - to capture a large number of frames in one second!

Love the GH2

2011-08-20T20:47:00.000-07:00

This photo is a perfect example of a shot I get with my GH2 that I'm very happy with!

Luminous Landscape video on Cinematography

2011-08-17T19:33:00.000-07:00

I regularly follow the articles on Luminous Landscape, and recently odered and watched their video called Cinematography for Photographers. It was well worth the few dollars to get it, and was a quick introduction into a number of aspect of video making that photographers like me often don't have a clue about. From my work I'm very familiar with video encoding, but the CCTV industry is just getting into HD video, and things like interlacing and color encoding don't even come up.

Sound, camera motion and so on are also topics they cover, dropping useful tidbits of information that you only get by talking with experienced people. What I love about this site, is that on the one hand they are out of my league in terms of equipment like medium format digital and so on - but they are not above being very interested in the new formats like micro four thirds and readily admit that these formats have a lot to offer the hobbyist or advanced amateur.

Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 detail

2011-08-17T19:08:00.000-07:00

The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 lens is much talked about for good reason - here is a center crop (click to see full size) of a random shot in my office. It has an amazing amount of detail on the GH2, and is better than my 28mm prime on my Canon 7D. To me, this is the lens that makes micro four thirds viable - a really sharp, fast, prime at a useful focal length. I'm looking forward to new additions to MFT like the Olympus 12mm and 45mm primes (click here for a decent review of what the 45mm can do), though I doubt I'll spring for the 12mm. 12mm is a focal length I don't use enough to justify spending twice as much as the Panasonic 14mm... On the portrait focal length side I'm going to give my old manual glass a try before I commit to a new lens. I'm more tempted by the Panny 45mm macro - simply because I use a macro a lot, and the Oly doesn't have OIS. Expensive though. If it is in the same league as the 20mm I'd be tempted to grab one.

The 20mm also gets high marks for its compact size. The main negative is relatively slow autofocus - and no continuous AF tracking. Those two are why I'm tempted to add the 14mm in the form of a compact GFx kit in place of my P&S.

Panasonic GH2 Tips and Tricks and Video

2011-08-14T19:47:00.000-07:00

I've been using the GH2 for a week now, and have to say it is doing for my photography exactly what I'd hoped.

Overall I'm getting shots with greater range and better selective focus than with my P&S, and I've got it with me and get better video than with my 7D. All in all a very worthwhile investment for the money earned from selling a bit of gear I rarely use.

Here is a sample video with photos and movies from the GH2:

In my last week, I've found a few secrets of the GH2 that confused or annoyed me until I figured them out. Here they are:

1. Review in the EVF. I like my viewfinder to go right back to live view when I'm taking pictures, and then alternately like the review displayed from time to time. A quick way to toggle between is to simply switch from single shot to the continuous shot modes on the drive mode dial. In continuous it jumps right back to the live view, in single shot you get the review if configured. Don't forget to use the 3 fps mode to get live view at the 2nd to highest drive speed.
2. AF point centering is made easy - when in AF select (I've got it mapped to one of the fn buttons) simply hit the trash button to center the focus.
3. AF focus area size. In the first few days with the kids I thought I was getting soft images, but it turned out that my AF area was large, and it can sometimes focus on a point behind the subject, but still in the AF box. I've since sized it down to the smallest size.
4. ETC - I like the ETC mode to add a 2.6x crop in video. What confused me is that since I shoot RAW I can't select it, so when I hit the REC button (as opposed to the movie mode on the dial) i don't get the ETC crop. I've setup C3 on the mode dial to have it set to jpg with the ETC option so I can quickly go for telephoto movies. Handy, and doesn't leave me in jpg after the movie...

Keep shooting...

Viewfinder specs

2011-08-11T23:00:00.000-07:00

One of the least advertised specs for a camera is the apparent size of the viewfinder. There are a couple of factors that go into it:

1. Sensor size. All things else being equal, the smaller the sensor, the smaller the viewfinder.
2. Magnification. The finder has some magnification factor - usually equal to 1 or less for an optical finder. The Canon 7D has a magnification of 1.0, while the GH2 has a magnification of 1.4 (being an electronic finder).
3. Coverage. Some viewfinders cut off the edges so that they have a less than 100% view of the subject. Electronic finders do not do this (unless there is an engineer somewhere who really missed the memo on viewfinder design!).

To determine the magnification relative to full frame, on must take the magnification and divide by the ratio of the sensor size compared to full frame, and then multiply by the coverage. So taking the Canon 60D as an example:

0.95x * 96% / 1.6 = 0.57x

The Canon 5D Mk II:

0.71x * 98% / 1 = 0.70x

The Panasonic GH2:

1.4x * 100% / 2 = 0.70x

Olympus VF-2:

1.15x * 100% / 2 = 0.58x

See this comparison on DPReview for a graphic look at how well the GH2 compares to full frame cameras in a tiny body... Further the viewfinder can display aspect ratio on the fly, and actually gets wider when you switch to 3:2 or 16:9...

Photo challenge: motion

2011-08-10T19:41:00.000-07:00

I challenged myself to get a shot of something in motion within my not so exciting hotel room. This is what I came up with... I was trying to get just enough information on me in the chair to make it interesting to try to guess what is happening, without losing the sense that there is a person doing something in the image.

HFC, not EVIL, MILC, or Compact System Camera

2011-08-10T12:31:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that the search for a useful acronym for the new mirrorless cameras seems to be headed in the wrong direction. Here is why I don't like the choices people are using, and what I would propose:

1. EVIL. Electronic Viewfinder with Interchangeable Lens. In my line of work we use acronyms all the time, and generally you should be able to replace the letters with the words and use it in a sentence. To me this one is just awkward to use. It also ignores large sensor offerings like the Fujifilm X100 and the Leica X1 that don't have interchangeable lenses, or all the Olympus and Panasonic cameras with no built in viewfinder. To me a viewfinder is for the eye up close, and the screen is viewed from a distance.
2. MILC. Mirrorless-Interchangeable Lens Compact. Again this doesn't consider the Fuji/Leica options, and tries to make use of my pet peeve: defining something by what it is not, rather than what it is. Kind of like calling an electric car a 'gasless' car. Precedent isn't on my side as we did use 'horseless buggy' for a while, but that name didn't stick for long.
3. CSC. Compact System Camera. I don't like an acronym that includes the word 'camera'. I think people like to be able to use 'camera' along with it for people who don't know what you are talking about. You want to say 'I have one of the new CSC cameras' - but you've just said camera twice! I had the same issue in University with the Student Union Building. I would always call it the SUB Building... The Pentax Q would have to be included here, yet I would hardly call it anything other than a P&S with interchangeable lenses.

I think there are two key features about these cameras that are important as a group. Here are my main points that I think a name should cover, and three they shouldn't.

1. Fidelity or image quality. This is the overriding feature that ties all these cameras together (and the part of the name that would exclude the Pentax Q).
2. Size. The second most important feature is that compared to 'most' cameras or 'typical' designs, cameras in this category are more compact.

That is it! Therefore I propose the term: High Fidelity Compact (HFC).

Things I don't think should define the category:

1. Mirrorless. The Sony SLT-33 and SLT-55 and Nex cameras are good examples of how Sony is trying to redefine the SLR. The two SLT cameras are examples of how Sony is trying to address the issue of focusing using a phase detection system, not about making the camera smaller. Thus nothing to do with this new class of smaller cameras. The NEX on the other hand, is all about small. Getting rid of the mirror isn't enough, you also need to shorten the flange distance - size is the key.
2. Interchangeable lens / system. A Canon G12 offers a lot of user interface control, seemingly enough to make the enthusiast happy - but the sensor size limits what depth of field control you have. A max aperture of f/8 means aperture priority mode is almost pointless. You can get an out of focus background by using camera/subject/background distances. Thus, the sensor size is what makes the Pentax Q out. Further, something like the Ricoh GXR system where lens is mated to sensor means that as a system it can't be classified - put on the small sensor module and it drops to P&S status, put on the prime lenses and it is an HFC ! I think the Fuji and Leica cameras are interesting alternatives and shouldn't be ruled out of a new category of cameras just for having a fixed lens.
3. Viewfinder. Since no Olympus MFT camera comes with a viewfinder except as an accessory, and Sony NEX don't even have the option I think viewfinder should stay out of it. The Fuji X100 is a good example of offering both electronic viewfinder and optical. Not a dealbreaker for my HFC category.

GH2 with some post

2011-08-10T11:51:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick after and before pair of shots from the GH2. The first is after a minute or two in Lightroom, the 2nd is how it looked with the defaults in Lightroom. While my grass may be a little green, the point is that stuff can look pretty muddy 'straight out of camera' if you don't spend a little time getting Lightroom tweaked to make things pleasing on import...

Panasonic GH2 focus selection

2011-08-09T20:10:00.000-07:00

One common complaint that you read in forums is that the Panasonic touchscreen option to select a focus point cannot be turned off. Thus, you may find that the next time you go to take a photo the focus point is not where you left it. There are several ways to deal with this, and while not as good as just being able to turn it off, I find it minimizes the problem to the point that I haven't noticed it:

1. Turn the camera off between shots. I pretty much always do this when walking around just to save battery. Anyone who complains about the battery life and turns it off between shots shouldn't also complain about the focus point moving...
2. Turn the LCD inwards. Another way to eliminate the problem is to turn the LCD in, effectively disabling any focus point selection. I have Fn2 setup to do focus point selection so I find this works nicely when I'm using the EVF. Since the screen is not as useful in bright sun, I often find I work this way when I'm outdoors and walking with the camera.
3. Reset before shooting. One could setup one of the custom mode settings to have the focus point in the middle, and thus it will keep reverting to that point. What I do is hit Fn2 and then the 'garbage can' button which reset the focus point to the middle. On my GF1 it always bugged me that I had to kind of fiddle to get the focus point back in the middle - I'm sure I could have just used this handy button to do that. Pays to read the manual!

Panasonic GH2 Initial Impressions

2011-08-07T20:56:00.000-07:00

I am coming from a long line of Canon prosumer bodies, with the most recent being the Canon 7D. While it is a marvelous tool, I find I often have to compromise on what I bring, or leave it at home in favor of a P&S. I own L series zooms so if I want wide angle to telephoto coverage I need to bring along two heavy lenses. In reality, for personal use, I usually just pick a lens for the day. This is actually quite freeing, and means I can focus on using that lens by moving around rather than trying to pick the right composition by selecting the 'right' focal length.

I view the Panasonic GH2 as sort of a compromise camera, but one where what I give up are those features that I don't take much advantage of (llike 8 fps shooting). When it comes to features, good enough may be all you need. It needs to handle well enough that you enjoy using it and aren't frustrated by the user interface. It needs to be high enough quality to meet your needs for printing, viewing or selling, but anything above that is likely money wasted.

Here is my initial take on some feature of the GH2 after using it for a couple of days with the family:

1. Speed of operation. This was my biggest concern coming from the 7D - would the GH2 seem slow? Turns out it is really quite good. Focus is very fast, even in indoor lighting. I won't say faster or slower since a lot depends on the lens you compare to, how far out of focus it is, etc. But I haven't missed any shots due to slow focus. The shutter is fast, and if you set the continuous rate to 3fps (with Live View and no after shot display) the live image comes back very fast indeed. No worries there. Overall - fast enough for me with one exception. I find the camera takes a while to write a RAW file to the card, to the point that you often can't recall the shot you just took without a short wait. Maybe a better card would hep with that?

2. EVF. One much talked about loss is the beautiful optical viewfinder on the Canon 7D, and most DSLRs. So far I'm impressed with the EVF. It is not as enjoyable as an optical viewfinder, but does come with some tricks up its sleeve. One advantage is that you can frame at any aspect ratio (and the GH2 shine there by using an oversize sensor to get more horizontal angle of view in 16:9), another is live depth of field preview, another is overlay of all shooting parameters, plus you can shoot video and review in the EVF in bright sun. I do miss the top panel display with aperture, shutter, and exposure comp - if the GH2 added that then you could see settings at a glance without wasting batteries.

All that said the main thing I love about the EVF is that when I'm shooting still photos I can immediately jump to a movie without removing the camera from my eye. This is a huge difference, and one that adds some steadying of the camera as well. Big plus for the GH2. In my first two day I snapped a lot of quick clips of my kids. The 7D just doesn't make that easy, especially on a bright sunny day.

3. Image quality. The 7D has a higher res rear screen, and images truly look better on the back of the camera. The GH2 uses a low res image for the review (in RAW at least) and they look terrible when zoomed in more than 4x. Back at the computer, however, the files hold up very well to the 7D in the kinds of situations I find myself in. I did a bunch of tests with similar lenses and the GH2 is capable of excellent image quality. Like my 7D, high contrast images look great when I get back to the computer where they may look poor (no shadow detail) on the camera screen.

4. Video. The video output from this camera just looks great!

5. Controls. The GH2 control layout is one I'm familar with from the GF1, so it didn't take long to get back in control. There are a few annoyances, like the control wheel reverting to the mode (i.e. if switched to change exposure compensation it reverts back to aperature control after some time). I find I rarely have to go into menus with this camera. Really the only time I did was to setup the Function buttons (I have the top one set to aspect ratioo, left pad set to focus area) and to try to figure out the extra telephoto option for video. That was confusing as it isn't an option if you are shooting RAW - makes sense for images, but not when it comes to the top panel record button.

6. Depth of field control. Frankly, with the kit 14-140mm zoom there isn't a whole lot of out of focus background action. But it isn't that different from my Canon with smaller aperture lenses either. It is still a step up from a P&S, though. Put on a fast prime lens and you can really blur away the background if you like. The beautiful part is that you can easily slip the 20mm f/1.7 in your pocket for such an occasion.

7. Color. With the GF1 I had trouble with skin tones and color, but I have since acquired a Passport Color Checker and it helps a lot. It produces much more pleasing color that the Lightroom defaults.

8. Noise. I don't find the GH2 to be much noiser at base ISO than my 7D. It does have some grain character to skies, etc, but you just have to deal with that in Lightroom using the excellent detail controls. Bottom line - don't sharpen the heck out of flat areas like skies!

In short, it is exactly what I hoped for - a camera I take with me, one that has a good set of controls, high image quality, and fun to use.

First post, GH2

2011-08-06T19:35:00.000-07:00

Here is my first post, but 2nd attempt with the micro four thirds format. I really go back and forth between my Canon system and something more compact. The bottom line is that while I feel there is a difference between my 7D and what a micro four thirds cameras can produce at a pixel peeping level, it doesn't translate into much in my prints, blog photos, or my photo books. For my stock photos, I find it hard to believe a buyer decides based on camera type, and if I can get my P&S photos approved I don't think I'll have a hard time with MFT. Fact it, the shots I did with my GF1 have done well...

I had a GF1 when they first came out, but I found the lack of viewfinder hard to live with. I wanted a body with built in EVF (I like lots about Olympus, but not the clip in EVF) and flip out screen, and the 14-140mm zoom lens. The problem with that lens is that if you buy it in a kit with the GH1/2 you save $500. So I sold the GF1 a while back and waited for the GH2 to come out and finally got one this week.

Today was my first real day with the camera at my side, and here is an example snap of my son:

So far I find many operational differences from my Canon, but few that translate into differences in photos other than in a good way. I'll elaborate on some of those in posts to come. Naturally, there are some advantages to my Canon 7D - operational speed being one of them. How much that affects my actual photos is unclear. There is no question that I enjoy the GH2 more than a compact P&S, even a G12...