Olympus E-PL1 and Photoshop - "Correct" Exposure

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

While I've been very impressed with what Capture One Pro from Phase One can do, I am unsure as to whether I'm going to buy it when my trial period runs out. Firstly its expensive, though they are offering a 30% discount until 28th August. Secondly, its more complicated and takes longer to process images than Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. Thirdly, its not really how I like to work. I prefer a simpler raw conversion that lets me do the majority of the work I want to on a file in Photoshop, rather than in the raw conversion software.

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

The trial I have downloaded also lets me try out the Express version of the software, though the nice thing about the Pro version is that it lets me open the files immediately in Photoshop.

I have tried most of the raw converters on the market and as I wrote yesterday this version of Capture One is the best I've ever used. The question is whether I want to go for the extra "complication" of stand alone software, even though it does integrate with Photoshop.  It is very tempting, since some of the files I've produced are very impressive and it does do a very good job with m4/3 files.

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

However, using Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw works very well too. All the files in this post were processed using that combination. I wrote yesterday about the need to expose and "develop" carefully with m4/3, in order to get the best out of it. While I think the criticisms regarding the more limited dynamic range of m4/3 are often overstated, there is no doubt that it is more prone to blown highlights than other larger sensor formats. Particularly when it is also the case that the default metering settings of all the Panasonic and Olympus cameras that I have used have a tendency to over expose for my tastes.

I generally have all my m4/3 cameras set to - 0.7 in terms of exposure compensation, and this, more often than not gives me the exposure that I find most accurate. In fact, I do this with most of my cameras. It happens with both my Nikons and there has been a lot written in forums about how the Nikon D7000 has a tendency to over-expose slightly. While I can understand doing this in point-and-shoot compacts when the users probably won't make any adjustments to the file after taking the shot, it does seem a little strange in cameras that are aimed at a different market.

I'm not advocating deliberate under exposure here, I'm actually talking about getting the exposure correct. There is this theory that with digital cameras, you should expose to avoid having to lift the shadow areas, because thats where noise can be generated. However that does assume that you get the exposure right in the first place. Also using the new Sony 16MP sensor in the NEX-C3, Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5 etc. there are far less problems in exposing for the highlights, as that sensor allows shadow areas to be lightened quite dramatically with no or very little increase in noise.

I wrote a piece on it here:- http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2011/01/pentax-k-5-three-lenses-low-iso.html and this image, taken with a Pentax K-5, shows what you can do.

Pentax K-5 15mm F4 lens

Micro Four-Thirds is not quite as forgiving as this, though here's an example where I've lifted the shadows with no great increase in noise.

The other great advantage of continuing to work with Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, is familiarity. I feel that I've only begun to scratch the surface with Capture One Pro, and the question is do I want to allocate the time to learning all its possibilities. I have no doubt that this would be a worthwhile exercise but whether I decide to do that remains to be seen.

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

Olympus E-PL1 14-150mm

Finally - is this the right combination?

 

Ever since the Sony a850 arrived I've had this feeling that I may have finally put together the right combination of cameras and lenses. Certainly the a850 feels very much like the missing piece of the jigsaw. 

I'm always reluctant to keep cameras and lenses that I don't use, or have to make a special effort to use. Also, though I make a decent living, its not enough to be able to keep everything, much as I'd like to. There is therefore a lot of changing things around.

Since a disastrous European trip when I managed to dump one camera in the sea, roll one down a mountain road and was left with my "spare" spare that had a faulty winder I've always worked on the principle of 3 cameras minimum and 4 if possible. In my film days I ended up working with a Rolleiflex 6x6, A Pentax 645 and two 35mm cameras, a Pentax MZ-5 and MZ-50 for a number of years. At the current time I'm planning to go with a Leica M9, Sony a850, and Panasonic GH2 and GF1.  Thinking about it, it does seem to be quite similar to that film outfit.

This gives me the right mix of quality and convenience, with two cameras that shoot video. The a850 and the GH2 when combined with fast lenses can cope with my low light requirements, which currently are not many. The m-mount lenses for the Leica can double up on the m4/3 cameras, so its a flexible outfit as well. Through all the chopping and changing I've hung on to the lenses that I really rate. The Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and PanLeica 14-150mm zooms have been around for some time. Its taken a while and a fair amount of money to put this together, though the constant selling of fairly new gear on ebay for decent prices and the various tax concessions have made this fairly painless.

My only ??cameras are the GF1, which I might consider replacing with a Fuji X100 and one I haven't shown which is the Pentax K-5. I spent yesterday photographing it for ebay.

The camera and 35mm f2.4 lens are now for sale, though as is often the case, the moment I put it on the ebay site I wondered whether I should keep it. As I've written often enough I've got quite an emotional attachment to Pentax and I do like the K-5 and the lenses I have for it. Its also a very good camera. Unlike the Olympus E-P2, which I kept for so long mainly for aesthetic reasons, despite many reservations about the menus, operation and image quality I have no such problems with the K-5. Its a fine camera and produces excellent images. It is however a duplication of what I have already. Plus if I do buy an X100, selling the GF1 won't pay for that. Also the 4-year old MacBook I'm using to write this is in dire need of replacement. Again its a situation where I'd love to keep something, the K-5, but the sensible option is to sell it. We'll see whether my heart or head wins out!

UPDATE

Shortly after writing this the K-5 sold on ebay which made my mind up for me. However there is a limited edition silver one coming out soon!!

________________________________________________________

Finally on a completely non-photographic topic I received a rather nice birthday present with the football team I've supported since childhood, winning their first trophy for 48 years. Somewhat unexpected but many thanks and congratulations to Alex and the boys. Its not easy being a Birmingham City fan and success is usually measured by the club not being relegated. Fans of other more successful teams will wonder what all the fuss is about, but us "bluenoses" at last have something to celebrate.

EVF - useful tool or work of the devil?

I read a particularly luddite article by a photographic commentator in a UK magazine a couple of weeks ago, saying how unspeakable EVF's (Electronic View Finders) were. The author was someone who thinks any camera made after 1950 is the work of the devil and digital is a passing fad, but this was a particularly crass example of the "Everything was better in my day" philosophy.


I find EVF's VERY useful. 


In the link I posted yesterday Michael Reichmann talks about the EVF on the Panasonic GH2.
He says:-


"Potentially the most controversial aspect of the GH2 is its electronic viewfinder. The way that MFT cameras with viewfinders achieve their small size is by substituting the usual mirror box and prism assembly for an electronic viewfinder – essentially a small video screen similar to what one finds on a video camera.
Digicam EVFs tend not to be of very high resolution or brightness, but the one on the GH2 (and the GH1 originally) is very good indeed. In fact, I would say that it is an many instances preferable to the dismal (meant literally) and small optical viewfinders found on the smaller and usually inexpensive DSLRs.
The EVF on the Sony A55 is also very good (though I haven't had a chance to do a side-by-side comparison), and similarly I would prefer these any day to a small and dim optical reflex system, especially those on cheaper systems that use pentamirrors instead of true prisms.
No – these EVFs are not as bright and clear as a good bright reflex system, especially one on a full-frame body. But, the trade-off in size and weight is considerable. Also, the ability to have display overlays, such as a live histogram, goes a long way to making this new alternative viewing system attractive.
Frankly, the writing is on the wall. It won't be more than a few years until the vast majority of new camera model with viewfinders dispense with prisms and mirrors and replace them with EVFs.
Get used to it. It's not that we as photographers are necessarily asking for this (though EVF display technology is getting better all the time). It's just the pressure of industry economics. Price competition is fierce. Moving mirror assemblies and glass prisms are expensive to manufacture and assemble. High quality EVFs are not exactly inexpensive at the moment, but as with all high volume silicon based products, prices will inevitably fall. When that happens mirrors and prisms will be relegated to only the high end, where users are willing to pay for special capabilities.
About 90% of the time I am not displeased using the GH2's EVF. It's even possible to forget that there's anything different going on. But in low light things get a bit weird. With a fast lens (like the remarkable Nokton f/0.95) the view actually becomes brighter than reality and the final result not what one expects."





While some EVF's are far from perfect, and anyone who has tried to focus a manual lens using the Panasonic one for the GF1 and GF2 will know this well, they do have many advantages over the murky tunnel vision of many APS-C DSLR's.

When done well, such as in the Panasonic G series cameras they are a great help. They are still far from perfect, and while I appreciate their brightness in low light, the cranking up of the video gain often makes the image somewhat difficult to decipher. They don't like fast movement much either. However the alternatives create their own problems.



If you've ever used a bolt-on viewfinder like those on rangefinder cameras and cameras like the X1, you'll know some of the problems. These are supposed to help with the framing. However because lenses change their field of view when you focus them, they are only accurate at one setting. Leica viewfinders, and indeed the frame lines in their cameras are apparently set for a distance of either 2 or 3 feet. What this means in reality is if you are taking a picture when you are focusing further than this, you will get more in the picture than the viewfinder indicates. I've learned to adjust for this, but mark this down as yet another little "difficulty" Leica users have to put up with.



The Voigtlander 15-35mm Zoom finder is a bit more helpful, as I can adjust it to compensate for the framing discrepancy. If I use a 20mm lens for example then I set the finder at 18mm and that gives me a much more accurate idea of how the picture is going to turn out.



I mentioned earlier about some of the problems of APS-C viewfinders. My Panasonic L10 is particularly bad. When raised to the eye the viewfinder image is both very distant and dark. In low light its virtually useless.



Newer cameras like my Pentax K-5 are better but still not perfect.

EVF's will undoubtedly improve and indeed we see them getting better all the time. Even with their current limitations, I still prefer them over optical viewfinders. I'm also finding that I'm getting quite frustrated that my DSLR's don't have continuous live view. I've got so used to using cameras like the GH1 and GH2 where the live view runs all the time and when I raise my eye to the viewfinder it switches the image to that. Its a great system and why every camera doesn't do it, seems crazy to me.

It's going to be interesting to see how the hybrid viewfinder on the Fuji X100 works. By offering both electronic and optical options it should in theory be very versatile. Fuji certainly seem to have shown other manufacturers that its possible to get a decent viewfinder integrated into a small body. Whether it does the job well, I'll report back on when I get my hands on one.

Zeiss 18mm f/4 Distagon

It probably comes as no great surprise that a Zeiss lens on a  Leica M9 body takes great pictures. There would be something wrong if it didn't. The 18mm f/4 Distagon is a superb lens. I liked the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 I had but this is sharper, with a great colour rendition. 








I tried zone focusing with it, using the depth of field scale, and it did work. Infinity is Infinity on this lens so the depth of field markers are accurate. However with lenses such as this the point of focus is so sharp that I prefer to focus on my main subject rather than just let the depth of field have everything more or less in focus. There's a couple of articles on this below.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field


http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20how%20zone%20focus.html








All of the raw files for these pictures were run through Cornerfix, which sorted out the vignetting. 





For me an M-Mount lens is just as liable to get used on a m4/3 camera as on my Leica. Trying it on my GH2 it was again very impressive. These below were tripod mounted shots at f/11 and the originals are very sharp indeed. The colours are absolutely spot on as well.

















Even at this small web size you should be able to see just how sharp this lens is in this last picture. Also its ability to render the various shades of green.


I also took some shots outdoors with the lens set wide open at f/4. 

















Again, even at these small sizes the definition in these shots should be apparent. f/4 is not a particularly fast aperture, but the wide open performance was still very impressive. It was sharp across the frame which is not always the case with wide-angle lenses like this.


So another excellent Zeiss lens. I was pleased with it because my last experience with a Zeiss 18mm wasn't so good.





The 18mm Distagon SLR lens that I used in my Nikon and Canon DSLR's and m4/3 was a very disappointing lens. I bought it despite reading quite a few negative reviews and after using it for a while wished I'd taken more notice of them. It did produce quite soft results, and had very poor edge definition even when stopped down.


This time the reviews I read of the 18mm M-mount were much more positive, and the lens has proved to be as good as they say. 


I first encountered Zeiss lenses some years ago when I used a Contax film camera. With only the one exception I have found them to be excellent. This 18mm Distagon is one of the best.


I'm pleased with it because of the difficulties I've had finding a really good wide angle lens. Many I've used have performed well stopped down or had good centre performance but have proved less good wide open or sharp across the frame.


One example of this is the Pentax 15mm f/4 limited lens I have for my Pentax K-5. While it gives excellent results stopped down, at f/4 its very soft at the edges, while being sharp at its centre. For some pictures that often doesn't matter but it can be a problem.








I do like the lens, and it has a really nice colour rendition, but getting a wide-angle right, even with a prime lens doesn't seem to be as simple as you would think. However Zeiss have done a good job with the 18mm f/4 Distagon.


Words - David
Images- David and Ann

Pentax K-5 Black and White

Pentax K-5 15mm f/4 limited lens


A stormy afternoon with moody light inspired me to shoot some video and stills in black and white. Not something I do often. However it seemed appropriate for a gloomy day with only brief glimpses of sunlight. 









All pictures - Pentax K-5 15mm f/4 limited lens


The video was hand held again. Considering the strong wind and my cold hands, the combination of the K-5's IS and iMovie's stabilisation software worked reasonably well. Not the easiest subject matter for hand holding a movie camera but its OK. Some of the footage is a bit shaky and having to hold the camera in a position to see the screen doesn't help. I'm not a great fan of video accessories as I've said often enough, but the Sony HDMI screen would be a useful addition for this.

Is this my new m4/3 wide-angle?

After having so much success with the M-Mount manual lenses. I've been thinking about what to do about a wider lens. The only alternatives that are really wide enough for m4/3 are the Voigtlander 12mm and 15mm. I was thinking this over and then suddenly realised that I may have another option. I already have the Pentax 15mm f/4 limited and Novoflex make a Pentax K > m4/3 adapter which has aperture control on it. This would give me a 30mm (35mm / full-frame equivalent) for the GH2. The difference is shown below:-

The red rectangle indicates what the Pentax 15mm would cover on m4/3. The Whole picture is what it covers on the Pentax K-5 with its APS-C sensor.

Certainly a cheaper option than buying a new lens and it would be interesting to see how all the other Pentax lenses I have perform. The 70mm f/2.4 limited would be very interesting.

I'll order an adapter tomorrow and see what results I get. Now that means I could use the Pentax 31mm, 43mm and 77mm limiteds on m4/3 (I knew I shouldn't have thought of this!!!)

Pentax K-5 Video

Its obligatory these days for new cameras to include HD video, and the K-5 is no exception. Its full 1080 HD too. However its not great. After using Panasonic GH1's and the GH2 and Canon 5D MK II, 7D and 550D its a bit of a disappointment. There's very little control over the output and the footage is somewhat soft. Reminds me a lot of the video from Olympus m4/3 cameras. Like Olympus, Pentax have little experience with video, and it shows. It seems almost tacked on as an afterthought. These days I would have expected more.


David

Pentax K-5 - Three lenses, Low ISO performance.

A second day of bright sunshine and a further chance to work with the Pentax K-5. This time alongside the River Severn at Bewdley. I took the 15mm and 70mm lenses as yesterday, and also took along the 35mm f2.4.


In the Dpreview review of the K-5 there's a line in the conclusion amongst the plus points. "Exceptionally low shadow noise in RAW files at low ISOs" Reviews and discussions of cameras these days seem to concentrate on what a camera will do at high ISO's and how much noise there is at ISO 3200 etc. Often the performance at ISO 100 etc. is either ignored or assumed to be OK. However, for those of us who rarely use anything over ISO 200, it can be quite important. The importance of Dpreviews comment can be seen below.





The top image is the out of camera jpg. The shadow correction option is turned on, but the  foreground with the motorbikes is still too dark. The bottom image is after some work in Photoshop, and I have lightened the foreground substantially to show the bikes. This would normally generate a fair deal of noise, but in this case that hasn't happened. The bottom half of the image is very "clean" and shows no colour noise and only a very slight increase in luminance noise.


Here's another example.





I've never seen such "elasticity" in a camera before. The K-5 has an excellent dynamic range but its ability to produce files where shadows can be lifted to this extent without generating noise is incredibly useful. The fact that it can do this while still creating a very "punchy" image with terrific colour is a real bonus. Here's a couple of further examples of what it can do with little post shooting work on my part. These are taken in very bright sunlight.








This is getting very close to reproducing what we see with our eyes. 


Here's a sample of what happens when I lift the shadows in an image using a camera that has high shadow noise at low ISO's. This is from a Canon 5D Mk II at ISO 100.

This has always been a problem with this Canon sensor. So "full-frame" doesn't always have the low-noise advantage. 


For the K-5 to produce results like this is very impressive. One thing it lets me do is to expose for the highlights, knowing that I've got a good chance of recovering detail in the shadows, without generating extra noise.





In fact the files that I am creating from my K-5 are probably the best I've seen. I tried a few in Rawker,  the dcraw based raw conversion software I use to see what raw files are like without the software "fixes" that manufacturers add to their software. They came out very well indeed. Very clean, with no noise and very little CA and fringing. Excellent sharpness also. 


It seems that Pentax may have done very little to tweak the the sensor output. In an interview with Chris Pound from Pentax at Dpreview he said the following:- "When asked about how much input Pentax had into the design of the (Sony-built) sensor in the K-5, Pound explained: 'we had less input than we did in the previous generation, where we worked with Samsung.' He went on: 'Sony controlled the development [of the new sensor] but they have a very good history of that kind of design and it has proven very successful in the K-5."





Using the K-5 in these real-world shooting situations has led me being even more impressed with the camera, than I was before. It seems almost designed for me personally. Small, light, great colour, terrific low-ISO performance with good dynamic range, fast accurate AF, high quality lightweight lenses, producing sharp images. Everything I want really. I was beginning to think that I would never get this in a DSLR, and its been a pleasant surprise that I can.





On the lenses, the 35mm f2.4 is also a great little lens. For a Pentax prime its actually very cheap. The savings have obviously come in the construction, as its plastic through and through. However its excellent optically.





So a very successful couple of days. Firstly that I managed to get out and shoot some pictures and secondly that the Pentax K-5 lived up to, and in many ways exceeded, my expectations of it. I enjoyed using it, and looking at the results. The first of many such experiences I hope. 


Words - David
Images - David and Ann