Look, See, Reflect, Do: 2014

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Options in uploading photos in Google+

Extensive information on Google Plus Photos by +Jaana Nyström
http://www.gplusexpertise.com/2013/06/google-and-your-photos.html

You can also import Google+ Photos to your Windows desktop PC

Sunday, 26 October 2014

Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Thursday, 18 September 2014

First quick shots with the Olympus 40-150 M.Zuiko

Sunday, 31 August 2014

If you look at a photo and all you see is High ISO Noise, Chromatic Aberration, Eyes Not In Focus, Motion Blur, Curvilinear Distortion or Background Too Sharp, it must have abysmal content or you're missing the point....

Monday, 25 August 2014

Quick Notes on Olympus RAW and Lens Profiles in Lightroom

Here's a verbatim copy of a post to a FB group when we were discussing Olympus Lens Profiles and Lightroom. I'll update this when I get feedback, corrections and so on.

The Adobe Lens Profile issue is potentially confusing. Let me note the points and hopefully people can add / discuss.

1. ORF - the Olympus RAW or any camera model raw needs to be understood by the raw processing program. New camera models are released every few months, the third party companies like Adobe have to scramble to get their programs updated. Sometimes, the sensor is the same but the EXIF signature is different e.g. my E-PM2 file is similar to the OMD E-M5 but some old programs refuse to load the E-PM2 raw. If I use an EXIF editor and change the camera name, presto, the old program reads the file.

2. Adobe has a habit of deciding that a certain version of LR or ACR will no longer be supported by them - they make money by selling new versions - they don't get income by supporting their old programs for new cameras. Adobe is not the only company that does this. The Adobe blog will have announcements on which version of LR or PS a certain new model starts getting supported.

3. The Lens profile is not related to the sensor data of raw - it describes vignetting, fringing, curvilinear distortion. Since last year, there have been additional lens info being stored - e.g. the lens bokeh / out of focus info - Panasonic uses this for super fast focussing in the GH4. Olympus uses it for when rendering the JPEG in the camera or Olympus viewer. If the program can read the raw, it can produce an image on screen and for JPEG, it just doesn't automatically correct for the lens behaviour.

4. Olympus from Four Thirds lenses era (1990s) stores this data in lens firmware. Panasonic does similar. That PhotoHelpdesk article claims that Adobe LR reads that and uses MFT lens data from the raw file. I don't know the truth of that claim.

5. For other brands of camera and lenses, or for manual focus lenses, Adobe or users can run the Adobe Lens Profile Creator program and produce separate lens profile files - many of the other brands lenses are automatically installed with LR - hence you can see them in the screenshot of the menu above. If you download the Lens Profile Creator software, you can also run a menu item that grabs Olympus Four Thirds DSLR lens profile files from Adobe and installs them into the LR subfolder.

6. In LR 5.6, I have tried "Enable default lens correction" on a raw but I don't see the image wriggle if the lens name is not identified. If the lens name is identified, I see the image wriggle once - I think this means the lens correction has taken action.

7. This lens correction data is typically in raw metadata because we assume that the file is clean from the camera. It is not stored in JPEG because the JPEG is normally "baked" or "cooked" already. Certainly software can correct the JPEG but the industry hasn't catered for that aspect.

8. If you shoot SOOC JPEG in an Olympus body, it is corrected for vignetting and curvilinear distortion. The Olympus RAW is not corrected but it contains the data. If you shoot SOOC JPEG of a Panasonic lens on a Panasonic body, you also get correction for fringing (CA).

Friday, 18 July 2014

Style is a Vision, not just Technique

Sunday, 6 July 2014

Being One with the OM-D EM-1

Preamble

Although I'm quite used to the Olympus line of E-series cameras, each time I buy into a new model (usually several years in-between), I'm pleasantly surprised with the modern conveniences and technology improvements give me.

This time, it's the OM-D E-M1 - the top of the line Olympus. I've not ever had a top of the line Olympus - I was too late to appreciate the E-1, the E-3 felt old, the E-5 I dreamed about but could not afford. There was no E-2 or E-4.

Two things I really like - the feature of having a creative Photo Studio within the camera, in the field. I shoot both raw and JPEG - I prefer the immediacy of the JPEG and I like the Olympus JPEG signature - warm, yellow friendly, nice blues in the skies, highish in contrast, fairly reliable automatic White Balance. I like having the raw for tough shots or shots that need creative post processing.

The Photo Studio

Olympus has been evolving their Photo Studio idea with a strength of purpose.

One feature I like, is the ability to tailor the gamma transformation curve (a.k.a. The Curve) with several degrees of Highlight and Shadow Adjustment. This feature first saw the light in the OM-D E-M5 and it has been implemented in all subsequent PEN and OM-D models. It's definitely available on the lowest model E-PM2 (although it took a non owner on G+ to tip me off).

The new feature, first implemented on the E-M1 is the Color Creator - it has been subsequently implemented on the E-M10, E-P5).

Using the features

Note:

These adjustments only affect the standalone JPEG and/or the embedded JPEG in the raw file. The raw file will contain metadata about the adjustments you have chosen so that you can run Olympus Viewer software on the computer to cancel or further adjust.

This is a pink rose on a cold, overcast Melbourne winter's day. Yes, the highlights have a soft pink hue, but that empathic vibe, to me, complements the rose.

My +David Washington moment - the browns are anemic without some Color Creator warming.

You could throw more light on these leaves, to darken the background. Or you could post process a vignette and darken the background. Or just use the Shadows Curve Adjustment in the Camera.

In closing

My early experiences with the combination of Color Creator and Shadows / Highlights Adjustment are simply that - early experiences. On the E-M1, there buttons and dials to access these two features without making Magnify and Depth of Field Preview difficult.

The amount of adjustment can be more dramatic or more subtle - there is a fair amount of control for most tastes.

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Ananda’s Olympus EM-1 button and Dial Preferences

This table has been moved to the E-M1 Site

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

Lens Cleaning

dpreview.com is shutting down their user articles section. This is something I wrote September 29, 2011

A fair number of people exhale on their lens surface. Zeiss or some german brand says it's ok. Nikon in one quote says that the exhalation has acid (actually, your saliva is alkali but you may have acid from food or stomach) and is not good for their nano coatings. I used to use Kodak Lens Cleaner, now use some pocket spray from a UK optical company but not directly on the lens, on the cloth. I don't mind exhaling in an emergency when I don't have these liquids.

Mostly I use air blower or soft brush end of a Lenspen first. If there is a smudge, I use the Lenspen - it has a powder coated felt that aggregates the smudge without the need for fluid, then brush off.

Further links

Navigate to:

LensRentals.com article on Lens Cleaning
Recent forum discussions on Lens Cleaning

The Mirrorless Camera

dpreview is shutting down their user articles section. This is something I wrote September 29, 2011

The Name

It's a new camera type. We could and have called this class of camera the Interchangeable Lens Camera - Mirrorless (ILC-M) and we could call the other well known type of camera DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex). Whatever we call these things, the names come from common useage, from popular perceptions. There is no science to these names, there's no right or wrong to these names, they evolve and happen.

The Preamble

Prior to these ILC-M, the commonly and popularly known type was and is the DSLR. During the days of film, there was the SLR and when digital came about, these became known as the DSLR. A story for another day.

For a long time (well the phrase is relative), people asked why there was still a mirror (the R means Reflex Mirror) inside the camera. Why not dispense with it and simply keep the idea of a camera where you could take the lens off the body and replace it with another lens. It was a matter of time before one of the companies jumped into this and made one that worked.

What motivated the design of this type of camera? Why didn't Canon and Nikon, the two largest companies in terms of market share, make this type of camera first? My answer is that they have the "don't rock the boat" attitude - they have healthy lines of DSLR, good income, good sales, why rock the boat?

So it was left to the companies that weren't making headway in DSLR sales. Companies like Olympus, Sony, Samsung, Ricoh, Pentax. They had a chance of making a product that would have less competition, that would not be dominated by the big market share of Canon and Nikon. So they did.

What are the current design aims?

Most of the companies making these cameras would aim for the following in the ILC-M they make

A quick return of investment to prove that the product can viably sustain itself against the traditional types of camera - the DSLR, the Bridge/Ultrazoom and the Compact.
Don't go overboard in R&D Costs otherwise the product would not be able to pay for itself.
An interest to make the camera small. If the camera were big, as big as a DSLR, then the DSLR would be more attractive as a purchase.
Take care not to rob sales from their existing Ultrazoom on one end and their DSLRs on the other end. This varies depending on the brand - Olympus and Panasonic did not have much to lose, Nikon would.
Take advantage of more electronics and less of mechanical - optical assembly. In modern manufacturing, electronics is easy to improve, mechanicals are always expensive to assemble.
Make the camera better for HDTV - DSLRs are clumsy in the mechanism for movie shooting, a camera that does not have a flipping mirror (moving parts) is easier and cheaper to make for movie shooting. And in this world, there is not clear demarcation between shooting stills and shooting movies in the minds of the man-in-the-street. Their iPhone does both.
It would be hard to convince the pros who use DSLRs to switch to another class of camera, one that is still a ways to go in performance improvements. So firstly, aim at the easier customers - those who are growing up from their camera phone, from their Compacts.

So, what do you get on the market?

A camera that has an lens that you can take off and swap.
A camera that is smaller than a DSLR but bigger than a Compact.
A camera that has a bigger sensor than a Compact or an Ultrazoom - this gives benefits in better high ISO performance, potentially shallower Depth of Field visuals than the Compact or Ultrazoom.
A camera that is not conservative because it is a new type of camera, and the class is quickly evolving in technology. This means a classic DSLR from Canon or Nikon would conservatively retain more value in the lenses you purchase.
To keep the camera small, the camera may have no in built viewfinder or in-built external hotshoe. If both are present then body gains weight and bulk.
Because some of these cameras don't have a built-in viewfinder or even have no way of attaching an external one, holding the camera up to the eye and bracing the lens with your arms against your body is not possible. This affects the successful use of long telephoto lenses.
Because the whole package is designed to be small, you may not find a bright, big, fast focussing tele lens for this type of camera.
A camera that has smaller batteries and relies a lot on the LCD panel on the back and/or the Electronic Viewfinder - this means you should always have more than one battery for a day's shooting.

As you can guess, if you are very conservative, this is not the camera for you. If on the other hand, you are the type to Seize The Day, this is as good as any camera to enjoy for the moment.

"Is there only one Mirrorless? Can I fit a lens from this brand to the other?"

There are several different brands of ILC-M. They are not interchangeable.

The Micro Four Thirds is a closed standard agreed upon by Panasonic and Olympus.
The Sony NEX (E-Mount) series of bodies.
There are the Samsung models
There is the Nikon 1 series
There is the Ricoh model.

Several third party lens companies make manual focus lenses with custom mounts to fit some of these cameras.
Several companies sells low cost, manual mechanical adapters that will take an old legacy manual everything lens or a modern manual everything lens and fit them onto some of these cameras.

"Will Mirrorless take over from DSLRs?"

Who knows? If anyone knew, especially the camera companies, they would bet the whole house on them.

"Should I buy a Mirrorless or DSLR, I know they are different but...."

Yes, that question gets asked often. Here are my perspectives:

You CAN'T have BOTH your cake and eat it. You can't have conservatism in holding price value and combine that with a higher risk / faster depreciating model like an ILC-M
Cameras are about compromises. A compromise means you can't have everything in the one camera.
Buy a smaller ILC-M if you like a handier less conspicuous cam for general carrying around everywhere or nearly everywhere. Buy a DSLR if you want the works - a camera that can fit long lens and that you can hold with less handshake, that you can use for sports with reliably flast Auto Focus. Buy both if you can scrounge enough money or permission from your spouse.

And no, we can't make up your mind for you. And no, we can't magically take away the agony of decision and take bits from each camera type, combine them into one with all the plus features and none of the negatives.

Further Links

Navigate to:

Mirrorless in Forum Discussions

The UV Filter

dpreview.com is closing down their user written articles system. This is an article I wrote October 6, 2011
Beginners continually ask whether they should buy and fit a UV filter. It's like they feel their iPhone needs a rubber skin or case. Here are some points. I'll add more as discussion continues.

A few points

Photo gear shops make good money on UV filters and bags. It's stuff they can sell in addition to the camera. Or give away as an enticement.
Digital sensors are unlike film. We used UV filters (light yellow tint) and Skylight filters (light pink tint) often. While film was sensitive to UV light, digital sensors are not and hence do not need UV filters in even bright sunlight
Manufacturers STILL MAKE UV filters - they are not lens covers, lens protectors (I think there is one) - they are filters - that means they are not designed to be impact resistant or super strong - they are designed to filter light. If they were designed to be lens protectors, they would be designed strong.
UV filters add two glass/air interfaces into the optical path.
1. Every glass/air interface means there is just one more way to cause reflections and flare. That's why the better and more expensive filters are multi-coated.
2. Every glass/air interface means there is more risk to collect dust specks, stray hair, smudges.
3. Every glass/air interface means there is the possibility that the glass is not perfectly flat. Unflat or rough glass reduces sharpness. How much, well that is what the debate is about and the reason why better filters cost more money.

Why some people use them

Some people leave the plastic wrap on their new car interior. Some people buy a sleek, sexy smart phone and immediately get a silicone rubber skin or a mock leather case. So when they buy a camera, they buy a UV filter. Naturally.
Some people are surrounded by little dears with greasy hands that love to touch things. Easier and less worrying to clean the filter than the camera lens.
Some people live or work in the desert, near salt sea spray, love to shoot in light rain. Or in dirty industrial environments spitting chips and stuff. Makes sense.
Some people are just clumsy. Some lenses just attract smudges.
Some people want to protect their investment. That's number one. Who knows, they might sell the lens pretty soon and they have kept the box and all the wrappings and they can write on their eBay ad "always fitted with a UV filter from day one"
They feel that if they see "flare" or unwanted reflections, yes, they'll take it off.
They have seen evidence or they have themselves whacked the front of their lens against a tree, the concrete floor and the filter has broken in sacrifice to the lens. Yay! Point proven.
They have shot thousands of shots and have never seen shots that needed throwing away just because of the UV filter.
Some people keep losing their lens caps in the heat of shooting and when they chuck the lens back into the bag, capless, hoodless, there is the risk of abrasion of the front element by fretting with other gear in the bag. The UV filter sacrifices itself instead of the lens front element. Easy way to burn money as the filters need replacing sooner or later. Hey, it's your money.

Why some people won't use them

They like "bare". Really.
They want purity. Putting little bits of glass in front of their lens just gives them the irrits.
They believe that they won't always be alert - I mean, here are you are shooting away, in the heat of the moment, will you suddenly pause and ask yourself - "I wonder whether there is a light veiling right now". These people would rather not take the risk.
They don't live in the desert, near the sea, live in a factory and don't have little ones - IF they venture into these environs THEN they will fit a filter.
They're into resolution numbers, lab tests and really, they can see / measure the degradation, no matter how slight.
They don't feel they are that clumsy. If they do have moments of clumsy, they would rather use a lens hood.
They actually fit their lens hood the right way round.
They've seen evidence or experienced evidence of shards of broken filters cut into the front lens element coatings.
Their lens isn't that expensive but has a large filter diameter. A premium priced UV filter of that diameter could cost another lens or part of a lens.
Their lens is pregnant and has no filter ring or won't take a filter.
They have seen examples where the AF worked badly and shots were degraded because someone fitted an el cheapo UV filter.

Ok, I get it but I still want to buy a filter. Which one? Is A better than B?

Have a look at lenstip.com - http://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

Further links

Navigate to:

Recent DP Review discussion threads on UV Filter
Ming Thein, often intensely analytical, weighs in.

Footnote: I'm amazed how this article I wrote long ago is the top Google Search hit for UV filters.

To Format or To Delete

DPReview.com is shutting down their user articles section. I wrote this Sept 30, 2011

Once in a while, we have Beginners ask about the best way to make their flash media card ready for next use in the camera.

They wonder whether they should delete the photo files using the delete menu of their camera vs delete feature of their computer.
They wonder whether they should format the card on their camera or format their card on their computer.

Here are some points to consider

Deletion does not re-draw / re-initialise the FAT

The File Allocation Table and the Directory Table are what what photo files are made of. If the FAT is somehow corrupted by mishap, one or more files are affected.

Deletion marks the relevant filename entry(s) in the Directory Table as "killed" but does not necessarily flush the filename nor the FAT entries. As you write files onto the card, these entries will be over-written.
Formating re-creates the file system. This ensures that at this point in time, there is no corruption of the FAT or the DT.

Implications

You can "Delete All" using the camera and still have files that the camera does not understand or know about on the card. You could put music, office documents, whatever, on the card and "Delete All" from the camera might be blind to that.
If there was accidental corruption of the FAT / DS, deletion does not attempt to repair the corruption.
Deletion of all files is slower because it marks each entry laboriously, one by one. Quick Formatting simply wipes the FAT and DT.
In some scenarios with some computer operating systems, there is additional information that the computer stores on any media. A hidden Recycle Bin folder could be one. Mac OSX file structure forks could be another. The camera may be blind to these files and structures and deletion or operations by the camera would be blind to these structures. Meaning that your card could have hidden stuff on it taking up space and the camera would not be able to manage that without a Format
If you are prone to mishaps and every photo file has been deleted on the card using "Delete", there is a high possibility that computer recovery programs can undelete / undo / recover your photo files. The ability to recover after you have carried out a Format is much lower. For more reading, see Data Recovery

The Format command on the camera is likely a Quick Format

See High-level Formatting and Reformatting vs Low-Level Formating

From the short time it takes to Format a card using the camera menus, the camera is likely to carry out a Quick Format - a wipe and re-layout of the file system structure rather than a Low-Level Format

Implications

Data Recovery might still be possible to some extent if the same card has not seen new files, has been formatted on the same camera.
A Camera Quick Format shouild not contribute to wearing out your card or damage your card.

Formatting / Data mishaps on the computer could cause issues

Although there is the general concept and even standard on what the FAT and filesystem is, each type of computer and camera may approach the implementation in different ways.

FAT is just not FAT - there is FAT16, FAT32 and other lesser known FAT standards.
The Olympus / Fuji xD cards had digital signatures in on the card. If these signatures were unexpectedly wiped by formatting on the computer or you had an accident with premature removal of the card from the card reader etc..., you could have card that was physically able but the camera would refuse to recognise it.

This risk has caused the community to encourage formatting and/or deletion with the camera, not another device.

Storage Media are not Forever

Although flash memory is not a mechanical device with moving parts like a hard disk, flash memory wears down. To counter this, flash memory is produced with wear levelling controllers.

Some people rightly say, buy memory from a respected, premium brand. This will imply that the brand / model closer quality assurance tolerances, a higher lifetime expectancy and an established warranty / return policy. In large part, that is good advice.

But there are few absolute guarantees in life. You might still encounter what we euphemistically call "a dud" despite the best quality assurance efforts. You might be paying for the brand's higher profit margin instead of higher specifications.

At the end of the day, it's your choice.

Further Links

Navigate to:

Monday, 16 June 2014

The Wonder of Pricing

I’m in the midst of engaging with a new camera. It’s the Olympus E- M1. Body only - I can barely afford just that. I’m amazed at the price level though. It was in 2007 when I purchased my first DSLR - the Olympus E-510 kit with two lenses. As I matured my perceptions, I would looked enviously (but could not aspire to attain) the pro level Olympus E-5. It’s a wonder how much progress has allowed consumers to purchase the pro level EM-1 body at a price level similar to an entry level E-510 two kit lens of 2007 or the latest people’s OM-D, the E- M10. Psst, if you are in Australia or New Zealand get onto the EOFY 2013-2014(End of Financial Year) Cash Back at Olympus.com.au in combination with major discounts by select volume retailers.)

There are also substantial retailer discounts and cashbacks on the OM-D E-M5 if you prefer that price/features balance.

Sunday, 8 June 2014

My personal settings for the Olympus E-PM2

I feel that one sweet feature of Olympus Interchangeable Lens Cameras is the MySet feature– it asllows you to set up several profiles and switch between them quickly as the situation changes. I evolve my preferences over the years and often forget why or what I have chosen. One thing that might improve the menus for me is if we could change the labels from MySet 1 to General Use or phrases like that.

MySet 1 – For general use

Feature	Setting	Rationale
Metering	ESP	ESP is an intelligent matrix pattern – and each model improves on this smart scene assessment of exposure.
Face Detect	Off	When pointing the camera at a crowds, the camera cannot know which face to give priority focus to.
AF Points	Single. Centre	I like shooting shallow DOF for tele and I like to choose which subject is more important for wide views.
Fn button assignment	Magnify	The E-PM2 does not have many Fn buttons to assign. So I use the only Fn button for LCD magnification when using manual focus lenses.
AEL / AFL	S2/C2/M2	For S-AF – Press Half Way S-AFPress Fully lock exposure calculation and trigger the shutter
Record Button	Starts Movie Recording
Full Time AF	On
Back Dial	Normal Operation

MySet 2 – For “Split Focus and Shutter Trigger buttons” – emphasise focus control

Feature	Setting	Rationale
Metering	ESP
Face Detect	Off	When pointing the camera at a crowds, the camera cannot know which face to give priority focus to.
AF Points	Single. Centre	I like shooting shallow DOF for tele and I like to choose which subject is more important for wide views.
Fn button assignment	Magnify	The E-PM2 does not have many Fn buttons to assign. So I use the only Fn button for LCD magnification when using manual focus lenses.
AEL / AFL	S3/C3/M3	For S-AF – Press Half Way – lock exposure calculation Press Fully – trigger the shutter
Record Button	AEL/AFL	Initiates S-AF
Full Time AF	Off	I don’t want the camera to focus by itself.
Back Dial	Locked

MySet 3 – For impromptu portraits

Feature	Setting	Rationale
Metering	Centre Weighted	I want to give the face exposure importance.
Face Detect	Face and Eye Priority	Sometimes I just want the camera to pick the face accurately, assuming I have only one subject.
AF Points	Single. Centre	I like shooting shallow DOF for portraits
Fn button assignment	Magnify	The E-PM2 does not have many Fn buttons to assign. So I use the only Fn button for LCD magnification when using manual focus lenses.
AEL / AFL	S1/C1/M1	For S-AF – Press Half Way – lock exposure and initiate S-AF Press Fully - trigger the shutter
Record Button	Starts Movie Recording
Back Dial	Normal Operation

MySet 4 – Monochrome – street scenes and portraits in general

Record Button

Feature	Setting	Rationale
Metering	ESP
Face Detect	Face and Eye Priority	Sometimes I just want the camera to pick the face accurately, assuming I have only one subject.
AF Points	Single. Centre	I like shooting shallow DOF for tele and I like to choose which subject is more important for wide views.
Fn button assignment	Magnify	The E-PM2 does not have many Fn buttons to assign. So I use the only Fn button for LCD magnification when using manual focus lenses.
AEL / AFL	S3/C3/M3	For S-AF – Press Half Way – lock exposure calculation Press Fully – trigger the shutter
Record Button	AEL/AFL	Initiates S-AF
Back Dial	Normal Operation
Picture Mode	Monotone	Sharpness +1 B&W Filter: Yellow Curve Adjustment- Shadows: 2

If I had a MySet 5

For my manual focus Samyang 7.5mm fisheye, the enormous angle of view seems to fool the body Image Stabilisation – I must remember to set IS to Off and even then, set the IS Focal Length to 8mm. Watch out for some odd lenses – there may be some shutter shock coupled with the resonant vibration frequency of these lenses and using the back LCD, hands outstretched, I encounter image shake / blur even at fast shutter speeds of 1/200th sec. Having IS on confuses the issue – try it Off.

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

The Issue of Equivalence

The Preamble

Long ago, the size of the film was large. So large that you did not need an enlarger - you just placed the negative film in contact with paper (hence the process called Contact Printing) and you produced a paper positive that was ready for display. Later on, Oscar Barnack invented the 35mm film - a dimension of 24mm x 36mm and it became the most commonly used and known film size by the general public.

When digital was born, the manufacture of sensors was difficult and expensive, so the common digital cameras for consumer used sensors smaller than this 35mm film (now given the name "Full Frame" - even though there are now digital sensors with sizes larger than this 24 x 36mm). Any digital sensor size that is smaller than this Full Frame is called a Crop Sensor.

Usually, the minimum diameter / size of a lens is related to the Coverage Circle that the lens throws onto the sensor. That being the case, comparing two sensors, the bigger sensor requires a bigger lens diameter.

To bring some real cases into this discussion go look at a 70-200mm f/2.8 Canon L lens and a Full Frame Canon 5D DSLR body. And then go look at at 35-100mm f/2.8 Panasonic X lens and a Panasonic GH-3 MIrrorless body. There is quite a difference in size and weight isn't there? And if you chose carefully, there might be a big price difference in favour of the smaller camera as well.

Now, let's look at points and questions that plague the enthusiast community - whether they be serious nerds or casual shooters.

The Q & A

Q: Is the Canon 70-200mm lens the same as the Panasonic 35-100 lens?
A: No, of course not. They are not the same, one is so much larger and heavier.

Q: Is the Canon 70-200mm lens equivalent to the Panasonic 35-100 lens?

A: Yes and No. Used with their respective camera bodies, they cover the same angle of view. That is, you can stand at the same distance to your subject and get the same framing of your scene. They are also both f/2.8 lenses if you used an external light meter, setting the same f/no and the same ISO, you would get the same image brightness. In other aspects, they are completely different.

They don't have the same background blur. They don't have the same Depth of Field.
They don't deliver the same amount of light to the sensors. (Think of different size buckets collecting rain)
They don't cover the same sensor dimensions in their Circle of Coverage.
Depending on the specific autofocus mechanisms in the lenses and the bodies, they don't focus the same way or with the same speed or track moving objects the same.

So, if these two lenses are not 100% the same, why would retailers market them as equivalent?

Focal Length Equivalence

To give the consumer a reference point, a "handle" to understand the distance where they stand and how bright a lens was in regard setting f/no and shooting in dim light, manufacturers relied on focal length equivalence and f/no equivalence. It's a classic and traditional reference point when switching between different film size cameras. In fact, the 2x Crop Factor yields understandable focal lengths - like 12mm (equivalent to 24mm). When we discuss the phone camera or the little pocketable digital cameras, the lenses are down to 3mm or 6mm - it just boggles the mind. So manufacturers refrain from even mentioning the real optical focal lengths.

One proposal is that instead of using focal length as a reference point (because it doesn't embody what some people want to infer), that manufacturers use the Angle of View. That's might seem to be worthwhile. But we have two handicaps with that idea:

Do you know the Angle of View of a Full Frame 50mm lens on a Full Frame Body? Some do, most people don't have a clue.
What happens when you take a Full Frame 50mm lens and fit it on a Crop Sensor camera like an APS-C body or a Micro Four Thirds body? The Angle of View changes

For these reasons, the manufacturers decline to use Angle of View. So they keep using the Equivalent Focal Length.

f/no Equivalence

The smaller lens, the 35-100mm Panasonic lens, is f/2.8 - that's the correct, physical optical ratio. The 70-200mm Canon lens, is f/2.8 - that's the correct, physical optical ratio.

The whole aim of designing both lenses as f/2.8 is to create an image of the same tone on their relevant bodies,

But the two lenses produce different visual images at f/2.8. Yes they do. But those are implications that we weave - the background blur amount, the impact on image noise and so on. We don't even have to think that hard to baffle brains. One lens is huge and heavy. The other is not. They can't be the same. But isn't that the reason why people want a smaller camera and body? And others want a bigger lens and body?

Saturday, 15 March 2014

What Makes The Difference

Amidst all the Gear Acquisition Syndrome, the Pixel Peeping, the High Dynamic Range ubiquity, the ennui, I'm searching for self, for the why.

From the dpreview interview with Benjamin Von Wong

"I have a story of a guy who quit his job, who embraced this idea of living a dream and traveling and inspiring; and I speak, I communicate. I am an entertainer as much as I am a photographer. I have the ability to do more than take pictures. I can write, I can shoot, and I can direct, and I can do videos. That's what makes me unique, not my photography. Everyone has this experience that they can sell, they just need to figure out how to package it all together - and then you can sell it to somebody."

I'm not (yet?) into money from photography, I'm just seeking myself.

Monday, 24 February 2014

What’s the Key?

There’s been a spate of new Mirrorless Interchangeable Cameras released the past few months. The Olympus OM-D EM-1 made the news. Flagship, milestone camera – superfast autofocus, fastest in the Olympus family. A nice bunch of classic and current model lenses with more to come. Then Sony rumbled with the Sony A7 duo – full frame (wow!, the words just excite by themselves, Full effing Frame – pardon the lapse in language). You’d think that the gear lust-ers had reached their ultimate nirvana. Rest and chew the Lotus, and all that. No. No. Just announced and being released, the Fuji X-T1 – it’s not Full Frame, but suddenly, what’s the joy in that huh? It looks like a classic Contax RTS. Hardly have time to the drool off the screen with ry with a micro fibre cloth. Ditch the Sony. Get this. Get on the Gear Acquisition Syndrome train. Get on it before the months pass. Before the next must-have-better-than-the-last model appears. Either that or find a Life Expert.

Saturday, 15 February 2014

Understanding basic electronic flash modes on Micro Four Thirds cameras and TTL Flashes

Purpose

A good friend asked for a work-together on figuring out his Olympus XZ-1 (pdf) and Nissin Di 466 TTL flash (pdf). It was confusing the heck out of him and after some early surprises, I was wondering about how it was supposed to work as well. So, this is for the beginner. If you are not a beginner, pass on this and visit Joe McNally, David Hobby, Mark Wallace to name a few gurus.

Approach: Auto Flash

Exposure Modes on the camera body

Typically there are following exposure modes – iAuto, Program Mode, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Manual Exposure. Remember that without the flash, the camera in iAuto, P A or S mode will measure the scene light and adjust the f/no, shutter speed and ISO (if that is Auto ISO) for a standard exposure. With the flash fitted and both flash and camera switched on, even the M mode with Auto TTL flash will use calculations by the camera.

Flash menu icons on the camera body

Look for the Lightning Bolt (text describes this as Fill-In) – there is an implication to the description. It means

the flash will explicitly fire
the natural light of the scene will be measured with the camera’s chosen shutter speed, f/no and ISO settings.
will fire to top up the light..

Settings on the flash itself

Set the flash to Auto-TTL mode - on the Nissin Di-466 this means the Mode LED is unlit

What to set

To reiterate – put the camera on iAuto, P A S or M and the flash on Auto TTL. The camera will automatically calculate how much flash light to use to top up the available light.

This will be satisfactory if you are happy enough with the resulting exposure and don’t want to calculate or test anything.
If you find the resulting exposure is a little darker than you prefer (for example a person’s skin tone appears too dark), either

use the camera’s menu for flash +/- compensation to adjust brightness

use the +/- buttons on the flash body to adjust brightness

Reasons not to use Approach: Auto Flash

Even using the +/- compensation, the camera controlled flash is not outputting the full power of the flash. Remember, the camera first calculates the scene and then the human intervention is applied as an adjustment of the calculation.

Approach: Manual Flash

Set the camera body to M for Manual Exposure Mode.
Choose some starter settings for the camera body. For example, f/4, 1/100th sec shutter speed, ISO 200.
Set the flash to non TTL - full manual mode. On the Nissin Di466, that means the Mode LED should be showing a red colour.
Set the flash to medium power say 1/4 power. On the Nissin Di466 that means press the +/- buttons to light up half the power status LEDs.
Aim and shoot. Chimp, decide whether you want darker or lighter and adjust the

flash power
ISO
flash distance to subject
bounce or direct with diffuser

Rinse and repeat (no, not literally)

Reasons not to use Approach: Manual Flash

You can't afford the time and effort to chimp and adjust until satisfactory
Approach: Flash Auto is working fine.

Monday, 3 February 2014

The Use of Style to Convey a Narrative

I'm usually not conflicted in deciding between a Monochrome vs Colour interpretation in my photos. I prefer natural or visually believable colour to preserve the essence that colour conveys. I choose a Black and White interpretation when colour is intrusive or detracts in conveying shape and texture. This is one instance, when I think either works because they do convey different messages.

The Monochrome Version

Straight Out Of The Camera JPEG from the Panasonic G2 set to Dynamic Black and White Profile

I feel the texture of the fabric and the back of the Dragon Head's puppeteer, the exaggerated stance of the guy holding the cymbals and the frozen-in-time women are emphasised by this treatment

The Colour Version

Processed from raw through Adobe Lightroom 5.3 with highlight recovery and tonal adjustments then the Nostalgia - Agfa RSX film emulation filter applied.

The colours have been grossly saturated in the film simulaiton - it gives me an old-time feel of the organic, mixed colour structure of film. The reds and yellows convey the Chinese New Year sentiment and again, the people in the scene are frozen in time for eternity, taking part in this photo.

I initially thought that this would be one of the forgotten shots but now I've got two to show.

Wednesday, 1 January 2014

And that was Film for Me

We see people - old hands who shot film or new kids who were born in the digital age and absorbed the vibe of old photos - hankering to make film more than it was, more than it is. There are all kinds of scientific differences (some people read it as "superiority") between Film and Digital:

Film is low volume (12, 24 or 36 shots per roll) - so you think more before you shoot, making each shot more worthy
Film is more expensive, so again, you don't machine gun (people forget those bulk rolls strapped to the pro SLRs).
Film colour is all mixed in and "organic" unlike the cold, antiseptic nature of the initial clean RGB digital image.
Film grain is prettier than digital noise (yeah, they forget ASA 400 Fuji Neopan pushed in Fujidol to ASA 1600 with golfballs of grain)
Film emphasised shallower Depth of Field and bokeh because 35mm film is Full Frame (don't forget the Hassies, Mamiyas, Zenza Bronicas, Rolleiflex TLR). Digital is so pedestrian at sensor sizes one quarter or smaller in area than 24x36mm
Film asymptotes (rolls off, in daily parlance) over exposed highlights in a gentler fashion than the brutality of Digital level 255 (full white)
Black and White Film and Halide Paper have that deep, tonal black that Digital Screen Media (which projects white) doesn't have.
The Darkroom smell of D-76, Acetic Acid and Sodium Thiosulphate has that soak through the fabric scent that Digital will never have.
Film was shot with leather covered, fashion strapped, all metal cameras with shutters that go ka chunk louder than that pansy sound that the Sony A7 that some people are horrified about.
You sight Film through real glass, unlike the TV looking electronic viewfinder.
You have to be real good guestimating how the result will look like - none of that wimpy chimping every few seconds of shooting.
Real film photographers take an Ansel Zone V with their hand rather than rely on that 49 segment matrix TTL exposure meter that Digital demands.
You choose the type of film for indoor or outdoor, none of this Digital Automatic White Balance thing.
You actually scrawled on the back of the print, rather than rely on the ubiquitous EXIF metadata in the image file.

So, clearing out stuff from my room, notably, old books, I came across this bookmark. I made it so long ago.1978 in fact. My scrawl on the back said Fuji ASA 400. It would have been (if memory serves me right) my Minoltat XE-1 SLR with 135mm f/3.5 lens. Maybe.

Yes, I know it's blurry. And that was film for me.