Gower and the Mumbles

We have just returned from a stock photography shoot in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park in West Wales. On the way we stopped off at the Gower Peninsula and The Mumbles near Swansea. The light was very flat to begin with, so we used the Samsung NX10 for its warm high contrast jpgs.



On a Gower beach we found beautiful red and pink wild flowers amongst the sand dunes and in the absence of strong sunlight, concentrated on these using shallow depth of field.





The Samsung NX10 and the three lenses currently available, produce great richly coloured images that can be very "over the top" in bright sunny conditions, but can give a real lift to images taken on dull days. It is possible of course to tweak the jpg settings on most cameras, but we have never found anything approaching the Samsung for such intense colour saturation.


The requirement to produce commercial images that people find attractive and want to publish is very much the prime consideration in travel and landscape photography. Some people seem to object to photographs that do this. Back in the days of film there was a split between users of films like Fuji Velvia and Kodak Panther (A very short-lived yet beautiful film) and other less saturated emulsions. There was some notion of "photographic purity" that was often cited as a reason to use more "conservative" films such as Fuji Provia.


The truth of course was that no film was ever 100% "accurate" In the same way that no sensor in a digital camera reproduces "reality" Considering that we all see colour in a different way, there's not a lot of point to this anyway. The primary consideration with us is, have we produced an image that we are happy with? Also do we think that others might like it too and be prepared to pay to use it? Whether other photographers think that we over-saturate images or use too much photoshop manipulation, is not really of any concern to us. It makes as much sense as criticism of photographers such as Ansel Adams who worked out elaborate systems of exposure and development and used extensive "burning and dodging" techniques to produce his beautiful, yet often "unrealistic" images.


Whatever your photographic "philosophy" or personal preferences there is no "right" or "wrong" way to produce an image. Thankfully we have a wide variety of ways of taking and producing images, and choice and experimentation is always preferable to uniformity.


Our experience of the world through our eyes (the best lenses ever produced), is 3D, capable of incredible dynamic range and colour differentiation. The world is full of intense saturated colour, and it is often very difficult to produce a photographic image that does it justice.


Returning to the Welsh trip, the clouds did eventually lift late in the day and we able to get some dramatic shots of the Gower (Top Image) and the Mumbles Lighthouse (Below)


D & A

Eco Nonsense

I was told many years ago by a picture library owner that they didn't carry many pictures of landscapes with oilseed rape in them because they didn't sell. Newspapers and magazines wouldn't publish them as when they did they got a string of complaints. I remember when these yellow fields started to proliferate across the country, there were dire warnings about how they would repel birds and insects. It appears that this last fear is unfounded, and in fact the opposite happens. Oilseed rape fields attract more birds and insects.

In the UK there is a natural conservatism towards change and the environment. There are cries of "anti-nature" from people about genetically modified food and nuclear power. Often from the same people who are prepared to let countries like Nigeria disappear under an oil slick to provide fuel for their 4x4's. There is also an assumption that "nature is our friend" Its not, its just nature, and will just as likely kill us as cure us. There are also "evil scientists" and "malevolent multi-nationals" out to rid us of our money and health in order to enhance their reputations and make profits. Funny how the more chemicals we ingest, the less "natural" our lives, the more healthier we get and the longer we live. People seem to forget that leprosy, malaria and the black death are "natural" and existed long before we started to manipulate the environment.

I'm an ex-member of Greenpeace. There was a time when I was convinced by many things that they said. But their constant desire to return us to some modern day feudal society, where nobody moves more than 5 miles from where they were born and has to spend their whole life knitting clogs by candlelight never really appealed to me. (OK I'm exaggerating!) The final straw was when they had a spokeswoman who lived in France and "commuted" to the UK on a regular basis. If ever there was a case of "Do what I say, not what I do" that was it. When Jonathon Porritt then went off to work for Prince Charles (a man who flies off to enviromental conferences in a private jet!!!) I became almost apoplectic in my opposition to this cosy, class-riddled, "know your place" vision of the world, promoted by a series of millionaire drones with too much time on their hands. (Moving your money to some tax haven can't take that long!!) Add in the fact that the "environmental lobby" has stated very clearly that its aim is to shock and over-estimate the dangers (and lie through its teeth it seems) and you have a situation where when the wolf really does appear we will ignore it as just another cry from a bunch of "tree huggers"

Anyway back to oilseed rape! There are many threats to our environment, and often from sources who are supposedly there to protect it. Seen some farms these days? Many make the local rubbish tip seem attractive. As someone who lives in the countryside I am as concerned as anyone about what we may loose if we don't have some belief in trying to avoid harming our environment. However this has to be achieved without distortion and misrepresentation, and some proper studies and facts in place of hyperbole and propaganda wouldn't go amiss.

I certainly see no harm in these bright yellow fields that liven up often drab landscapes.

D

Images by D & A

Taken using a Leica X1 and a Samung NX0 + 50-200 zoom

Samsung NX10 on Location

While not quite approaching the Leica X1 in terms of image quality, this first opportunity to use the Samsung NX10 for a prolonged period over several days, proved just what a useful little camera this is. Once again the kit zooms proved their quality. They really are very good. We really can't think of any other comparable lenses we have used that betters them. Considering the package price for the camera + 18-55 and 50-200mm lenses this is remarkable value.

The NX10 system is closer to a conventional DSLR outfit in terms of size and weight than micro four thirds for example, but is still smaller and lighter. As has been stated here before, we prefer the NX10 over m4/3 in terms of handling, colour, dynamic range and overall image quality. Having previously been somewhat suspicious of Samsung as a brand, due to previous experience, its been a genuinely pleasant surprise using this camera. It is a little gem, with its ease of use and quality results.

Images - D & A

We do like to be beside the seaside

Anyone who knows the British will be aware of our tendency, when anything resembling summer approaches, to rip off our clothes and head off to anywhere, no matter how scruffy, beside the sea.

Speaking as someone who currently resembles a patchy lobster I can testify to the attraction of that! A few pictures from our recent glorious weekend, when for a few days Britain impersonated the Cote d'Azur.

D

Samsung NX10 Panoramas

Samsung NX10. Multi-image panoramic stitches created in PTGui, Edited in Photoshop CS5.

Images D & A

Samsung NX10 - Evesham

A glorious spring day in the Vale of Evesham, with the Samsung NX10 plus the 18-55 and 50-200 zooms.

A long day involving a lot of walking, great light without a cloud in the sky all day. A good chance to make an assessment of the camera + the two zooms.

Plus points.

Light & Small, though the 50-200 zoom is a bit "chunky."

Kit zooms are really good quality - especially the 18-55 which is an excellent performer. Nice bokeh too.

Zooms are sharp from edge to edge.

Lenses are well made. One got dropped and is undamaged and unmarked.

Images are great out of the camera. Very little processing needed.

Colour. Not to everybody's taste but we love it.

Very "punchy images"

Very little CA on images. One of the best camera lens combinations we've used for this.

Amold screen not perfect but better than most in bright sunny conditions.

Reasonable operating speed. Not great but adequate.

Nice handling and good layout.

Battery life is excellent.

Minus points.

EVF dark and murky.

AF a bit slow - particularly the 50-200 zoom.

Raw files are too big. Plus .dng files would have been a much better idea.

Dust spots starting to appear.

Amold screen gets very dusty and smeared. Needs constant cleaning.

Using the camera for a long day gave us a good opportunity to make an assessment of it. This was in the main very positive. The most important consideration is always image quality & it does perform really well. The zoom lenses are very good especially the 18-55 zoom which is one of the best kit zooms we've ever used. The 50-200 is not as good but still performs well. To give you an idea, we like the Samsung 18-55mm better than the Lumix 14-45 or Olympus 14-42 for m4/3. We like the 50-200mm more than either the 55-200mm Canon lens we have or the Panasonic 45-200 we used to have.

Overall we prefer the Samsung to m4/3 for landscape stills work. The files are sharper, punchier and bigger and need less work, apart from these worrying dust spots. It compares very favourably with the Canon 550D which beats it in terms of resolution, but not by much. Its not in the same class as the Leica M9, but then nothing we've ever used is.

It is a very real alternative to a DSLR. Giving very similar performance in a smaller lighter package. The zoom lenses, and the 30mm F2 pancake are excellent. If nothing else these mirrorless cameras are leading to the production of some very decent standard zoom kit lenses. Canon in particular should take note. Their 18-55 is pretty poor in comparison to what Panasonic, Olympus & now Samsung have produced.

As ever this is a personal commentary and is not intended to influence or criticise others choices and personal preferences.

NX10 Tests - some thoughts

Often you get a "gut reaction" about how a camera or lens performs and its interesting to see whether those reactions are accurate. We have been doing extensive tests on the NX10 to see how our initial impressions stood up to some more thorough testing.

After reading David Clapps article on his use of a GF1 as a light, small, tripod mounted landscape camera http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/reviews/43-panasonic-gf-1-in-the-landscape.html we were interested in exploring the possibility of something similar. We had a couple of reservations about using m4/3 however. One was the size of the files produced and the other was the dynamic range of the m4/3 sensor. The Samsung NX10 seemed to offer advantages on both counts while still offering the size and weight bonus. This being very important when a tripod is carried around. Initial use of the NX10 gave encouraging results, though this was only on the basis of jpgs. Now that we are able to use and process raw files via our preferred option of Photoshop it seemed a good time to do some testing.

Since getting the NX10 the most used lens has been the 30mm F2 pancake lens. Its size and weight being very attractive. However for the purpose in mind the 18-55 zoom would be a more useful option. With this in mind we tested the zoom at 30mm against the 30mm prime.

We certainly expected the 30mm to perform better and were pleased and surprised to find that the zoom was virtually indistinguishable in terms of results. It also has a slightly "warmer" look to the results. A bit like adding an 81A filter in front of the lens. Used on the tripod it produced sharp results and overall performed well.

We tested the 50-200 zoom on its own, including stopped down to f22 and again were pleased to see an excellent set of images. Again excellent sharpness was observed, including images shot at 200mm and f22.

Our conclusion was that both zooms will be "up to the job" and give us files that can be interpolated to 48MB with no problems.

A final test was carried out comparing the NX10 + 30mm F2 to a Panasonic GH1 + 20mm f1.7. Though having different focal lengths we felt it would be a good test as these lenses are regarded as the stand out optics of their respective systems. Initial viewing of the results seemed to indicate that the GH1/20mm files were "punchier". They certainly seem to have a warmer look. However closer examination showed that the NX10/30mm files were slightly sharper * to our eyes. There is very little in it, however bearing in mind that we will be enlarging the files, this was important.

(* Our suspicion is that that the Samsung AA filter is weaker than the Panasonics. Certainly there is a little more luminance noise visible)

Two final thoughts. The Samsungs colour balance is quite "cool" when the files are processed via Photoshop. (In contrast to the jpgs which are certainly more saturated) How much this has to do with this first attempt at NX10 files on Adobes part, we cannot say. Certainly they have made no announcement that ACR 5.7 works with raw files and neither the Lightroom 2 update or the Lightroom 3 beta will recognise NX10 files, leading to the suspicion that there may be more to come from Adobe in terms of NX10 raw conversion.

Secondly, we preferred the layout of the Samsung. Having always found the layout on Panasonic cameras a bit fiddly, the NX10 is laid out well. Manually focusing the lenses, for example, involved less button pushing. The AMOLED screen is also much better to use outdoors in sunlight. While still not perfect its a lot clearer than the Panasonic, whose articulated screen becomes less of an advantage when you can't see it!

Whether the NX10 sells in enough quantities to keep Samsung interested in it remains to be seen. At the moment its a system with only three lenses, though all seem to be good performers.

Whether using 3rd. party MF lenses becomes an option we cannot say. However there is somewhat waning enthusiasm for the whole MF lenses + adapters scenario for stills round here currently. Still it would be nice to see how our Nikon lenses perform with the NX10.

Hopefully some decent light in the next few days will allow a good "real world" test of zooms + tripod.

N.B. it is still our intention to post the raw files from the NX10/GH1 comparison test. However there's 500MB+ of data to upload to facilitate this and we need to find a time when we are not uploading images to stock sites, which is currently most of the time!

As ever this is a personal commentary and not intended to influence or criticise others choices and prefereces.