Olympus E-PL2 Panoramas - Where is m4/3 headed?

Where is Micro Four Thirds headed?

With the upcoming GF3, heavily leaked this weekend, Panasonic seem to be slowly coming towards a coherent product line that will provide different models for different kinds of photographers. With a range that includes the GF3, G3 and GH2 there are now cameras that will provide for both point and shoot upgraders and DSLR users wanting to downsize without loosing quality.

Though there are still inconsistencies, such as when you add a kit zoom to a GF3 it suddenly gets a lot bigger (though this doesn't seem to be a problem for the Sony NEX), this does seem to be settling down into a more balanced selection of cameras. Panasonic also seem to be quite ruthless in their determination to succeed with this, with the axing of the only recently released GF2.

From all available information, it seems Olympus may be going the same route too.

So we have a range of cameras, and between the two companies a pretty decent set of lenses. The soon to be released 25mm f/1.4 from Panasonic and the probable? 12mm f/2 from Olympus will add more high quality primes to the collection of (mostly) very capable zooms. Panasonic have also proved that they can get excellent results from a 4/3 16MP sensor.

All of this is good news. When the system first appeared, there were basically several versions of the same camera. In a month or two I suspect we will see much more choice, from the very small and pocketable to the more well-specified, but all retaining the idea of small and light without compromising on image quality.

I don't think anyone as yet is in a position to know where this is going to go next. Panasonic and Olympus no longer have the field to themselves. Sony and Samsung are already taking a slice of the market, and others may be preparing to give it a go as well.

To a large extent this will depend on the answers to some questions.

Can Panasonic push the sensor even higher? Sony are obviously ambitious to get their MP count higher for APS-C, and whether they succeed, we'll see soon. So can Panasonic keep up pro-rata? If Sony do produce the rumoured 24MP APS-C can Panasonic come up with a 20MP 4/3 sensor?

Will cameras like the GF3 and the rumoured Olympus "Mini" make serious inroads into the compact point and shoot market? Will Panasonic / Olympus keep the "enthusiasts" happy with their ever diminishing camera design?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then we may expect a bright future for the system. If no then we may get a marginalised product line similar to what 4/3 has become.

Both the m4/3 companies are now in a very real game of leap-frog with their competitors, and they can surely no longer just go their own way. They have to respond to what other manufacturers bring out. This competition will hopefully push them to better products for us all to enjoy. Ultimately, unless we're shareholders in the companies, we can just select what's best for us from whatever is available, and to a certain extent it may not matter whether the system survives or slowly fades away.

If its m4/3 or APS-C does it really matter?   

Sharpening

While working with the Nikon D5100, I came up with some sharpening parameters in Photoshop Adobe Camera Raw that I liked. I've been working on this and trying something similar for other cameras. The idea is to get some nice crisp sharpening without increasing the luminance noise significantly.

Olympus E-PL2 + Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Fuji X100

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Panasonic GH2 + 7-14mm

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Nikon D5100 + 18-55mm

No Sharpening

Sharpened in Photoshop ACR

Heres the Adobe Raw Settings I was using in the main. Depending on the file I would change these slightly, but most are very close to this.

Sharpening is quite difficult to guage. The commonly held view is that you sharpen depending on size and use. However, sending off files to stock libraries its impossible to know this. Many libraries ask for unsharpened files, but I've always sent them sharpened. 

Firstly, for any other camera except a Leica, all files do need sharpening. Secondly the assumption that the client will always sharpen the files is wrong. Many don't, and now in the days of Microstock, images are being bought and used that never go through a repro house and by people who know nothing about sharpening anyway.

A good rule is to sharpen at full size, even with this if files are reproduced smaller, particularly in published print, they will always need to be sharpened further, though often this doesn't get done.

I'm pleased with what I've come up with, and it makes the files look crisper on the screen. Since the majority of my images have to go through a selection process at a picture library anyway, it makes them look good on a monitor. In all cases, for every camera, these converted and sharpened raw files look better than the camera jpg. Crisper, clearer and more attractive. They are not oversharpened, indeed with this level of sharpening they look about the same as an unsharpened Leica M9 file. See below.

Low light with Olympus E-PL2 and Summilux 25mm f/1.4

Some test shots to see how m4/3 can cope in low light. Using an Olympus E-PL2 with its image stabilisation and a Four Thirds Leica Panasonic Summilux 25mm f/1.4 wide open at f/1.4. As you can see from the various shutter speeds, it does actually work very well. All pictures are taken hand held, indoors with natural light, mid afternoon on a dull day.

I have sold the lens, but am waiting for the Panasonic m4/3 version.

1/80th sec ISO 250

1/40th sec ISO 200

1/15th sec ISO 200

1/13th sec ISO 200

1/25th sec ISO 200

1/200th sec ISO 200

1/250th sec ISO 200

No Mirrors, No SLR's.

Back in 2009 I published this.

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2009/10/g-series-pro.html

A few weeks ago my camera shelf looked like this:-

As of today it looks like this:-

I posted my Sony a850 off, finally, to its new owner a few hours ago and for the first time in my serious photographic life I have no (D)SLR.

It was a close run thing. Right up to the last moment I almost bottled out and kept the Sony. What if Vogue phone up? How can I be a professional photographer any more? I don't have a big camera. Thoughts like this kept running through my head. The fact that I can be at my local Jessops with a credit card in less than 15 minutes, didn't seem to register!

It does feel strange, I will admit that. I definitely have the sense that something is missing. So what do I have left.

Leica M9 50mm Zeiss T* Planar. One lens, no dust spots, amazing quality.

Fuji X100. Great quality. Wonderful Viewfinder. My low light camera.

Panasonic GH2 and Olympus E-PL2. Panasonic 7-14mm Zoom. Olympus 14-150mm Zoom. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 Macro. My "Pro" outfit. 

Its what I've wanted to do for a long time, and I've decided its time to try it. The X100 filled in so many pieces of my "gear jigsaw". A small, light camera thats great in low light was something I've been looking for for ages. It's not perfect, but it works for me.

There are (were) a couple of DSLR's I might (have) been interested in. The Sigma SD-1 was one but at £6200 I think I'll pass! The other is the Sony A77. I'd like to think I will go with whats above but there's still that little nagging voice that says "You're not a real photographer without a DSLR" I'll see if it persists or fades away.

Interesting times ahead!

Serious colour with the Olympus E-PL2 and 20mm lens.

After my test comparing the Fuji X100 with the Olympus E-PL2 fitted with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 I took the latter out on a trip to the local garden centre. With the jpg setting on "VIVID" I was able to capture these amazing colours. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic Pancake is an amazing lens.

Fuji X100 compared to Olympus E-PL2 plus Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

Tweet

Here's a comparison between images shot with the Fuji X100 and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. 

As before click through to flickr for larger files.

These are a lot closer in terms of sharpness than with the Zeiss 18mm. Showing just how good a lens the 20mm f/1.7 is. These are out of camera jpgs with no adjustment whatsoever. The Fuji is on its Velvia setting and the Olympus is set to Vivid. There is still a different look to the images and the Fuji seems smoother and cleaner to me but there's so little in it as to be relatively insignificant. I also prefer the Velvia colour but thats personal choice. 

So does this mean that the the 20mm lens is better than a Zeiss 18mm costing 4 times as much? Well the answer is probably yes for m4/3 cameras. If I had shot at higher ISO's then the Fuji would have produced better files but at base ISO there's very little in it.

I'm not giving up m4/3 and in particular the 20mm lens any time soon. Its still an excellent system for what I use it for and interchangeable lenses is obviously a terrific advantage.

"Focus free photography" with Olympus E-PL2 and Zeiss 18mm

Using the hyperfocal distance or zone focusing with the Zeiss 18mm lens produces an incredible amount of depth of field. At f/8 everything from 2.5 feet to infinity will look in focus.

Here's how it works.

Using this technique its possible to just set the lens and shoot away without refocusing. 

All of the above were shot using this technique with the lens set to either f/8, f/11 or f/16. 

There's a couple of things to remember. Firstly you probably won't get your primary subject in sharp focus. This "zone focusing" produces "acceptable" focus. The sharper the lens the more the difference between the actual point of focus and this acceptable zone. Secondly not all lenses have the infinity marker set at infinity. Its assumed that m-mount lenses like Leica and Zeiss do have this accurately set, however thats not the case. Also when using an adapter this can move it. In the case of the Zeiss when moving the focusing ring all the way round until the infinity mark is at infinity and won't move any more it is slightly "beyond" infinity when using the adapter. However there is a lot of latitude with this lens.

This technique is used extensively in both street photography and landscape photography. I used to use it all the time when shooting film with manual focus prime lenses. Its also a something that photographers who use rangefinder cameras like Leicas employ a lot, as it saves having to re-focus for every shot. For hand holding and walking about it works best with wide-angle lenses (its useless for telephotos) and obviously good light helps as you generally want as small an aperture as possible. 

Just as a final note, focusing with the Zeiss using the magnification feature on the Olympus isn't easy. Wide angles in general make it very difficult to see when you are in sharp focus unless you use the widest f-stop. This can result in a very time consuming and fiddly process. This zone focusing is much easier and results in virtually focus free photography. However its not 100% infallible and not every image works.

On a different note the Zeiss on the E-PL2 plus leather case is a very aesthetic combination. It looks great and also feels great. So to finish a bit more camera porn.