"Micro 4/3 is the Big Kahuna"

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/09/micro-43-is-the-big-kahuna.html

Basically everything I was planning to write about the Nikon 1 and how m4/3 is the best mirrorless system for me is in this excellent article by Mike Johnson at the Online Photographer. I agree with every word.

Here we go again!

"M43:

For Pro's: NO

I think this system has matured in terms of lenses etc. but this is not the system for pro photographer (commercial work). I won't elaborate on this."

 From an internet forum.

There's an incredible arrogance I think, in telling people what they should use. Also in attempting to come up with sweeping statements based on no evidence. I've written often enough in the past, if you make your living from photography, the camera you use is virtually irrelevant. When people pay for photography they are interested in one thing only, the photograph. 99.9% of clients care nothing about what camera or lens you use. The vast majority wouldn't know the difference if you told them anyway.

You may have read these before, but for those who haven't a couple of anecdotes.

David Bailey shot a Vogue cover in the early days of digital, on an Olympus E-10. (3.97 MP) He sent them the file (10.8 MB) They said "We can't publish this, the file is too small" He then printed out the image on an inkjet and sent that to them. They duly scanned and published it.

The editor of Professional UK magazine once did a job for Russian Vogue. During the session he took some shots with a GF1, in addition to a "Pro" Canon. Of the 8 shots printed in the magazine full page 3 were from the GF1.

I have a pretty flexible attitude to cameras. I use "Full-frame" - Leica, APS-C - Nikon and m4/3. I pick whichever I think will be best suited to the job in hand and suited to how I am going to approach it.

If I was to classify my most "lucrative" camera system, it would be m4/3, because I use it the most.

So the question of "m4/3 for Pro's?"

If a "Professional Photographer" can't shoot a front cover, an A3 spread or a billboard Ad campaign on a m4/3 camera, then he probably won't be "professional" for long.

There really isn't any correlation between the size of your camera, the size of your sensor and the size of your income.

The only people who seem to be convinced that m4/3 isn't a "professional" system are "amateurs"

The same people who probably think more about what camera they are seen with, than actually "seeing" some pictures.

I, and many of my colleagues, quite happily shoot fashion, weddings, editorial, portfolio, social and advertising photography on whatever cameras we think appropriate (including m4/3) without giving it a second thought.

We've heard it all before. 10 x 8 is better than Medium-Format, Medium-Format is better than 35mm, 35mm is better than Digital, Full-frame is better than APS-C, APS-C is better than m4/3 ad infinitum.

Personally, I use my eyes to decide how appropriate a camera is for what I need to do with it.

I've never once in this blog told anyone what they should use. I've never once said that if you want to be a "Professional" photographer you should use x rather than y, and I never will.

Photographers who are serious about what they do, wish to be judged by the pictures they take and not by the cameras they use. As "professionals" we know that is the case and that is what will happen.

If we know a camera / lens etc. will do a job for us, then we use it. Of all the photographers I know and have talked with, it's often the "Pro's" who are the flexible / curious / experimental ones and the "Amateurs / Hobbyists / Enthusiasts with aspirations who come up with the dogma and the rigidity. 

The more you rule out, the less opportunity you give yourself to be creative.

Olympus 12mm again - m4/3 thoughts.

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2 lens

Following on from yesterdays test shots with the E-PL1 I was so impressed with the raw files conversions from the 12mm f/2 lens on the E-PL1 that I took that camera out yesterday and left the E-P3 at home.

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2 lens 

Once again very impressive results. I wrote in my review of the 12mm lens that I had obtained sharper results on m4/3 with other lenses. I was at the time referring to m-mount lenses. Having the possibility to work with raw file conversions from this lens in Photoshop ACR, now I'm not so sure. I'm hard pressed to think of any other m4/3 compatible lens I've used that is sharper than this.

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2 lens  Multi-image panoramic stitch.

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2 lens  Multi-image panoramic stitch.

Olympus E-PL1 12mm f/2 lens  Multi-image panoramic stitch.

I have also been using a Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar over the past couple of days as my telephoto option, in addition to the 12mm. That gives pretty impressive results too.

Olympus E-PL1 Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5 Heliar lens  Multi-image panoramic stitch.

In a review of the E-P3 I saw recently, I read this. 

"But the big question is IMAGE QUALITY! How does the E-P3 compare to the other cameras? Well, in all reality it is up there and close but you will still get better overall image quality from the X100, X1, and Ricoh GXR.”

Actually I disagree with this. I've owned an X100 and X1 and yes they are pretty impressive. But when I put a top quality lens on a m4/3 camera the results at low ISO's look just as good to me. The Voigtlander I mentioned above, my Zeiss 50mm f/2 T* Planar and yes the 12mm f/2 give me results that I haven't seen bettered. The Olympus 12mm for example looks sharper to me wide open than the Fuji lens on the X100.

Regarding the Ricoh GXR. I looked at some of the samples in the Dpreview article on the m-mount module for the Ricoh GXR. 

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/ricoh-gxr-mount-a12-preview-samples

Yes, they look nice, but I'm getting results just as good on m4/3 with my quality lenses. Plus I'm getting a lot more versatility. As I indicated yesterday I went out with an AF Olympus lens and a MF m-mount lens. When you think of the possible combinations of lenses I could have gone out with, you begin to see the advantages of m4/3.

Of all the digital cameras I've ever used, and I've used a lot!, the best image quality I've ever obtained comes from a Leica M9. However second to that is m4/3. No matter what other reviews say, no matter what DxO come up with, for my uses i.e low ISO outdoor work, I prefer m4/3 (with good lenses of course) to any other system other than the Leica. That includes Nikon and Canon DSLR's and yes the Fuji X100 and Leica X1. 

This is why I keep using it, and keep coming back to it, no matter what else I use. As I've written before, I've been having eye problems and thought that I would have to stop using cameras with non-optical viewfinders. However I've been able to find a solution. My desire to come up with this solution was, to a large extent, to enable me to use the E-P3 and 12mm. 

While I'm very pleased with the Nikons (Cameras and lenses) I've been using recently, m4/3 is still my preferred option for landscape and location work, when I want to use AF lenses (and often when I'm using MF too) Part of this is because of the lightness and size, but its also about the IQ too. I've often talked about the "glossy" look that I think m4/3 has, and certainly I love the sharpness I get and the colour which I think is superb.

I do take account of the lesser performance at higher ISO's, though that is not much of an issue for me, and the reduced dynamic range, though I do think that is overated, but for my uses m4/3 works very well. The depth-of-field advantages, the weaker AA filters, the absence of dust spots all contribute to the usefulness of the system for me. By combining images I can produce very high resolution files and I've had many of my m4/3 images used for large-scale reproduction, advertising campaigns and all manner of other uses. 

The people who buy my pictures have no problems with it whatsoever. They don't read reviews, look at graphs or debate on internet forums. They just use their eyes. I've had m4/3 shots used as A3 double-page spreads, on the front covers of glossy magazines, and on billboards. I've seen them used on TV programmes, for advertising in magazines, newspapers and on the web. I, and others I know, have used m4/3 for events, weddings, fashion, landscape and almost every other use you can imagine. I'm far from the only professional photographer who uses the system and to imagine we all just use Canon and Nikon DSLR systems is far from the truth.

I actually get quite angry when I see m4/3 described as some kind of amateur, hobbyist system, which is inferior to APS-C. I've never thought that, and the first time I looked at the results from my G1 just a few short years ago, I realised that there was something special here. I still think that, and since buying that G1, m4/3 has, by some distance, been my most used system. 

I wrote yesterday (somewhat light-heartedly) that the Sony NEX-7 (if the specs. are correct) would be all I need. That may be true, but it doesn't mean that I would buy one (though I probably will!) and it certainly doesn't mean that I've got any plans to abandon m4/3. 

Come back in a few years time and I'll probably be writing very similar articles to this.

Can m4/3 be used professionally?

In answer to a question on a forum about using m4/3 as a professional, I wrote this:-

"I've used m4/3 professionally ever since it came out. Stock photography, weddings, events and educational and industrial jobs both for stills and video.

One of the important things about earning your living from photography is that you make the decision on what to use based on how well it will get the job done in any given situation.

If m4/3 does the job for you then use it, if not use something else. If people pay you they expect results, and they expect those results to be consistently good, what they are looking for and worth the money they paid you to get them. If you know, and I mean really know, that m4/3 can do that then there's no problem.

As other photographers have pointed out, going back a few years we were using cameras that are nowhere near as good in terms of IQ, speed and usability as current m4/3 cameras. Indeed I was shooting weddings and studio portraits with a Fuji S2 Pro in 2003/4 as were many of my colleagues. A GH2 is a vastly superior camera to that in almost every way.

The most important thing isn't what gear you use but how well you know it and can get the best results from it. You also have to be sure that it can do the job, you can operate it so that it can do the job, its reliable enough to do the job and the results will justify your fee.

If you think it might do the job then thats not good enough. When I use m4/3 for "pro" jobs I am sure it can handle the demands of those jobs because I've tested, I've used it before etc. If I have a job where I'm unsure if it will do it or not I use something else that I'm 100% sure of. Even then I'll make sure I have backups for everything.

Being professional is more about what's in your head rather than what's in your bag."

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?   

m4/3 > leica?

Interesting thread at Dpreview.  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37619202

Here's something I posted.

Without wishing to get into the usual Leica debates about price, value, etc. there are a few factors that contribute to how much they cost. Since this seems to be the basis for much of the criticism that is levelled at the camera and its owners. I too used to be skeptical about the whole Leica idea, and during my film days, despite being in a position to afford one, always stuck with my Nikons. There are Nikon and Canon cameras which cost the same as a Leica but they and their owners seem to attract less criticism. 

Leicas are hand made in Germany. This increases their cost significantly. Also because of the size of the company, its pretty small compared to most camera maunfacturers, they are never going to mass produce either cameras or lenses. The M9 was introduced in September 2009. Its taken until late last year for them to catch up with orders. As a consequence of this there is apparently a shortage of lenses, at least in the UK. Add to this that all cameras and lenses are individually tested before being released and the cost per unit rises again. Also with the M8 and M9 you get an unconditional warranty. For the M8 its 2 years, for the M9 its 1 year. When I had my M8 I dropped it, smashed the screen and the camera didn't work. This was entirely my fault. I returned it to Leica, they rebuilt it and returned what looked like a brand new camera to me, no quibble, no charge. So there was probably not a lot of profit on that camera. 

You are also paying for longevity. Until recently I used a Leica 135mm lens that was manufactured in 1968. It was optically and mechanically perfect, and produced very sharp images with no distortion or CA or fringing. Though there are problems occasionally with cameras and lenses, Leica will usually fix or replace with them under their warranty. They also make it possible, in certain circumstance, to transfer this warranty if you sell the camera or lens. 

Yes they are expensive and I would be very happy for them to lower the prices on their lenses and cameras. But I do realise that I'm buying a product that uses the best materials they can afford, rather than trying to keep costs down at every stage of manufacture.

Whether you think they are worth the price is a question that can only be answered individually. I think my M9 and Leica lenses are worth it, but not everyone may agree. I do however have the advantage of tax concessions as photography is my job, and I also make an income from the pictures I take with, so the real cost to me is somewhat less than others.

I would love m4/3, or indeed any camera system to come up with the same quality that I see from my M9. Try as I might to convince myself that I have found something that equals the sharpness and resolution, I always have to admit that nothing does. It would save me having so much money tied up in the system, would stop me treating the thing like its fragile beyond belief (My unconditional warranty has now run out!) and would probably be easier to use. There's no doubt that often its a PITA to use, and for that reason I do use m4/3 a good deal of the time. Its a much more user friendly system.

I enjoy using m4/3 and I enjoy the results it gives me. In many of the situations I work in, using the Leica would result in lots of missed picture opportunities, and if I could only have one camera and lens I would probably choose the GH2 and 20mm f/1.7 lens. 

Its perfectly valid to say a system is not for me. Its also perfectly valid to say I'd love that but can't afford it. I can't afford many of the Leica lenses I would love to have, and having used Voigtlander and Zeiss I do feel that many Leica optics are seriously overpriced. However I'm not sure its valid to say I can't afford it therefore it must be not worth it / no good anyway / a waste of money / only bought by idiots with too much money / just male jewellery for people to pose with etc. etc. 

Though this thread is refreshingly free of much of that, I have seen such remarks voiced frequently. We can all say what we think, and I will admit to voicing much of the same in the past. However actually using Leica gear changed my mind and I'm prepared to make a few sacrifices in order to own it. Thats my choice and one that I'm happy with.

m4/3 with Pentax lenses - 2 plus the versatility of m4/3

m4/3 with Pentax lenses - 2





This is a Panasonic GH2 fitted with a Pentax 70mm f/2.4 limited lens.








Really good results from this lens, even wide open. Its the best lens for image quality on my Pentax K-5 and it produced very sharp files on the GH2. Nice bokeh too.

















So yet another option for m4/3. I now have M-mount, Panasonic & Olympus 4/3 and Pentax lenses that I can use on my Panasonic G series cameras. More than I need however. I had hoped to reduce my gear but ebay is a bit sluggish at the moment, and most of it is still here. I'll probably re-list what I don't want  a bit closer to the Spring. Obviously just after Christmas is not a great time to sell.


The versatility of m4/3


I was thinking yesterday about this when the Fuji X100 samples appeared and disappeared again. I have used a Leica X1, Samsung NX10 and Sony A55 and all of them have gone while I still continue to use m4/3. All the cameras had their virtues but for me didn't have enough of them to persuade me to use them rather than what has become my core system.


The advantage of an APS-C sensor is somewhat overstated as far as I'm concerned. Particularly for someone like me who uses anything higher than ISO 200 very rarely. I also find the handling of m4/3 cameras suits me well in terms of size and weight. The GF1 for example is a small camera but its not that light & it feels very solid in my hand. The GH1 and GH2 are excellent cameras to use in the field and I've really grown to love the GH2's handling. 


I love the idea of the Fuji X100 and there's no doubt that it's a very sexy camera. However the samples I saw yesterday have given me something to think about. Apart from the excellent high ISO performance I saw nothing to get me that excited. Like a lot a people I really want the X100 to produce great results and it still may be capable of that.


Most of all I love the ability of the m4/3 system to accept literally 1000's of lenses. My real enthusiasm for it started when I began using Nikon lenses via an adapter. I got some extraordinary results from my 50mm f/1.1 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. From there I started using M-Mount lenses, 4/3 lenses and now Pentax lenses. The posts last week where I was writing about using the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar and Leica 90mm f/2.5 Summarit-M on the GH2 were an account of a real turning point for me. The results were so impressive and did indeed surprise me with the levels of sharpness and clarity, that I've only ever seen bettered by the Leica M9. 











Also where else would I get to be able to use the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens, which is rapidly becoming my favourite lens of all time. It seems I'm not alone in this as the first production run has apparently completely sold out across the world.


So no matter what else I try I seem to always be coming back to m4/3. Here in the UK we seem to have embraced it enthusiastically. I gather those of you in the US are encountering the same supply problems with the GH2 as with previous Panasonic items. Figures seem to indicate a lower take up of m4/3 there, though whether this is due to the difficulty of actually buying it or other factors is unclear. 


Its not a system for everyone, as many photographers would find it completely inappropriate for their needs but I think there's no doubt that a lot of the innovative technology created by m4/3 will spin off into other camera systems. The removal of the SLR mirror has possibilities that are only just beginning to be explored.


So whether I try a Fuji X100 remains to be seen. The answer is probably yes as I doubt I'll be able to resist it! Whether it stays long term is another story.


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Things to do when I can't take pictures

The weather has been very frustrating lately, dull and wet. There's a promise of something better today and tomorrow and I may finally get out to use the Pentax K-5 for longer than 1/2 an hour.


In the meantime I haven't been idle. But its meant a lot of time in front of a computer screen.


EDITING PICTURES.

I've managed to edit, caption, keyword and upload 1600+ images in the last week. This is probably a record. Some of these go back to May 2010. Apart from anything else I got to look at some pictures taken in better weather. All of these were uploaded to one library website, which provided me recently with a couple of big money sales. I was beginning to think this was a thing of the past, with most of my sales coming from microstock these days. I'm quite happy to either have a few sales at high prices, a lot of sales at low prices or any combination thereof. Its the final total I'm interested in, so I'm not really concerned as to how its made up. 

WEDDING ALBUM LAYOUT.

The couple from the final wedding that I photographed with Ben got in touch about their digital story book album. This has been nearly 4 months since the wedding. They were very complementary about the pictures and said that they were unable to make the decision as to what to choose and left it up to me. This has been fun and I've come up with a layout that uses a large number of images. Doing this almost makes me think I'd like to do it again. Almost!! Looking at the edited images, I sometimes forget the stress and fatigue involved in getting them. This final wedding was a very easy, happy event and the couple were really nice people. However its not always like that, and when they are bad they can be really bad. It is however going to be a good one to end on.

VIDEO EDIT.

Also got round to finishing a large-scale video edit of some of some of the industrial footage we shot last year. I've been using this as a learning experience with Adobe premiere elements. I've been experimenting, so there's lots of split screen and swirling boxes!! The finished file looks great but its 11 minutes long and just under 5GB in its full HD version. I'll reduce it in size and upload it to YouTube in the next few days.

FAR TOO MUCH TIME ON PHOTOGRAPHIC INTERNET SITES.

Sitting in front of the computer all day I often take a break by looking at some of the rumour sites. I'm particularly fond of 43rumors, mostly because its usually pretty accurate and has some great links. Two interesting posts in the last couple of days were firstly Olympus's multi-coloured E-PL2's - http://www.43rumors.com/olympus-e-pl2-in-color-looks-damn-cool/  and the possible imminent release of two new lenses from Panasonic
http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-panasonic-is-preparing-a-12-50mm-f2-5-3-3-zoom/ 
These are reported to be a 12-50mm f2.4-3.5 zoom and the often mentioned 25mm f1.4. 

LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS

I've also had some time to look at photographs. I've decided to do an occasional post featuring images from photographers I like. The first is from Ric Seet, one of my contacts from flickr. Ric is from Singapore and he does some wonderful nature images. I really like his bird and flower shots, and I've put a post featuring some of them here. He also has some great close-up insect shots, but I'm a bit squeamish about them, so if you want to see those, follow the link. The ones I've featured were taken with an Olympus E-5.

I have a couple of other people I'd like to feature, and I'll see if they will agree to let me link to their images. If they do I'll post more like this in the future.

So, I've not been wasting my time, but I'd really rather be out taking photographs. I don't really count testing as the "real thing" and I'm hoping the weather forecast is right. There's some promising patches of blue in the sky, so we'll see.

Words - David

Images- David, Ann, Ben and Ric Seet

Micro Four Thirds investment.

As can be seen I have a substantial investment in Micro Four Thirds. After some consideration I have decided to keep it all for a while at least. I make no great claims about "needing" it all but I like using it and see no point in selling off bits of it when I don't need to. When my GH2 eventually arrives that may change how I feel about various elements of this. 


In the meantime a bit more "camera porn"








N.B. A little explanation as to why I seem to produce so many images of cameras. As you are aware I'm constantly testing camera / lens combinations & if I'm unable to get out because of the weather I work indoors. Being a self admitted "camera junkie" I often use my other cameras and lenses as "models". In the absence of Kate Moss popping round for a few snaps (She was busy!) I make do with photographing my gear. 


However, my use of soft focus on them is a bit worrying really!


I can still handle it.

Panasonic & m4/3 - where are they headed?

A thread has been started here:- http://www.flickr.com/groups/lumixlovers/discuss/72157625405830370/ by one of my friends from the flickr site. My response is quoted below.



"I am also concerned about the direction that Panasonic seem to be headed towards. The system with its well-specified cameras attracts all sorts of users and it is possible to use m4/3 for a variety of purposes and at a number of different levels. 


Those of us that use the cameras to earn our living are always looking for high quality lenses. While the 14mm, 20mm and 45mm are appreciated it seems a pity that I have to look elsewhere for my really fast primes. My recent purchases, the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95, 35mm f1.4 and 75mm f1.8 do an excellent job with my GH1 & GF1, but they are all manual focus lenses and for many situations AF is required. 


I realise that the system is only just over two years old, and in many ways still developing, but I was surprised that  fisheye and 3-D lenses were given priority over a fast wide-angle prime or fast portrait lens.


I was also surprised that the GF2 wasn't the upgraded GF1 that I was expecting, but a camera aimed at a different market. The GF1 is now a "orphaned" camera and seemingly abandoned in favour of a super compact. 


By starting the m4/3 system in the first place, with its interchangeable lenses and high specification, Panasonic raised expectations as to what the system could provide. Many of us championed its use and praised its virtues. We would like to see a continuation of that development and promise with the addition of lenses that take advantage of those virtues and take the system forward. 


There's no objection here to cameras like the GF2, but I'm certainly not alone in feeling that it should have been a different product line, with a different evolution. With the GH2 Panasonic have clearly shown that they can challenge the DSLR and many of us who are tired of carrying around heavy and bulky systems are encouraged by this. 


When m4/3 first appeared I saw a high-end, quality orientated system that could provide a very real alternative to the DSLR, for beginners, enthusiasts and professionals alike. I hope that there isn't a lowest common denominator approach beginning to surface in the face of competition from elsewhere. Panasonic held the high ground here and it is to be hoped that they don't abandon it in favour of what they see as a more populist approach, and loose many of the people who were so enthusiastic about the system in the first place, along the way."

Panasonic GH1 20mm f/1.7 50mm f/2

I wanted to try the Olympus 50mm f/2 macro on my GH1. So I added my 20mm f/1.7 and yesterday headed off to my favourite old ruin, Witley Court in Worcestershire.





The Olympus 50mm doesn't AF on the GH1 but it wasn't as much of a problem as I imagined. As soon as I  touched the focus ring, the view magnified in the viewfinder and it was then easy to focus. A little slower than AF but I did get a 100% success rate, something I've never achieved with this lens and AF before.





The results were even better than on my Olympus E-P2. I can't remember seeing anything sharper than this and that includes images shot on the Leica M9. To my eyes the GH1 has the best sensor (so far) of all the m4/3 cameras. It doesn't have the colour richness and depth of the M9, but at low ISO's the clarity and resolution are very impressive. Something most of the DSLR's (and other cameras) I've used have struggled to produce. The 50mm macro f/2 is the best lens I've ever used. The Nikon MF 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss 50mm f/2 M Mount are terrifically sharp but the Olympus wins because of its performance wide-open which is the best I've ever seen. If Olympus can make a lens like this, why have they never produced a camera with a sensor that does it justice? Maybe the E-5 with the right raw development programme could produce a true reflection of its quality, but none of the samples I've seen so far shot with this lens come close to what I was getting yesterday.





The 20mm f/1.7 also performed extremely well. I realised when editing these pictures that in all the time I've had the GH1 and 20mm lens I don't think I've ever used them together for stills on a "serious" photographic shoot. I've used the combination for video and I did shoot some test shots with it for various comparisons, but never on a stock shooting trip. B used the lens on his GH1 for the last wedding we did, and I said at the time that I was impressed with the sharpness of the images, now I know why.





Above is an image shot with the 20mm. It wasn't wide enough to get everything in so I shot four images and combined them in Photoshop. 100MB + and staggeringly sharp.


I enjoyed using the camera and lenses enormously, it was a very light, small combination that produced incredible results. 


I read a few comments over the weekend on various forums and in a magazine that should know better, that again asserted that m4/3 and 4/3 in general can't produce results as good as even a "low-end" DSLR. Its a commonly held view. But then I even saw a letter in the same magazine recommending that someone starting out in stock photography should use film rather than digital because it was "better". Theres no real answer to these kind of views. They are as laughable as they are inaccurate, and usually the result of ignorance and prejudice purporting to be informed opinion. 


From my point of view:-


The images I shot yesterday are amongst the best I have ever taken in terms of sharpness and resolution. I blew several of them up to 56MB and they still looked great.


I prefer them to anything I've ever shot on a DSLR (excluding the NIkon D3X)


By using the best lenses I can, shooting raw and processing in Photoshop I'm able to produce files that are close to the quality that I get from my Leica M9.


My images shot on m4/3 sell just as many (if not more as I shoot most of my output on it) as my images shot on DSLR's.


Its a much more enjoyable photographic experience for me because of the reduced size and weight.


While m4/3 may currently suffer from some speed and robustness issues, for most of my work this is something I can live with. The GH2 may address the first point and to be honest I've yet to encounter problems with my m4/3 gear, though I do know people who haven't been so lucky.








Yesterdays experience has made me even more impatient for the GH2. I can't wait to try the Olympus 50mm on that camera. If its only the same quality as the GH1 within a 45MB file I'll be pleased, if its better then that will be a real bonus.





Words - D
Images D & A

Photographers and smaller cameras.

An article by David Muench - Landscape Photographer.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/natural-connections/stormlight.html


A quote from National Geographic and Magnum Photographer Steve McCurry
"I continually see photographers walking around with huge camera bags on their shoulders and I just wonder how can you stop and smell the roses and observe life when you have a 20-pound bag hanging off your shoulder. It just mystifies me."


A quote from another photographer:- 
"don't try and tell me that a smaller sensor is superior to a larger format! Because that isn't, and never will be, true."


We're into another of those photographic controversies about new v old, small v large. The 35mm versus medium format and digital versus film debates of the past have been replaced by a small camera versus large camera debate. In all of these there is one theme. Can something that makes our life easier as photographers give us comparable quality to something that is more difficult to use? As ever there are people who embrace the new technology, and those who resist it.





It goes without saying that when two cameras give the same performance the smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative becomes very attractive. But what about when thats not the case? A Nikon D3X has incredible resolution, will do virtually anything that a camera can, is built like a tank and produces image after image that will satisfy the most demanding of users. So why when I had one, did it sit on the shelf most of the time? If I am serious about my photography, and I am, then why didn't I use it all the time? As has been written here many times, the answer is that it was way too big, and way too heavy for me to use for any length of time. 



Mercantour National Park, Provence, France. 35mm film.


Its interesting, but no surprise, that landscape photographers are in the forefront of this move towards smaller, lighter cameras. Those of us that make our living doing it have been carting huge amounts of equipment around for many years, and in my case are starting to to suffer the consequences. In my own case I have a body that has to be "managed" rather more than it used to be. Hauling a medium format camera, lenses and a tripod up hills is no longer an option I can consider, and my enthusiastic embracing of camera systems such as micro four thirds is a matter of self preservation above all.



View from the Quiraing, Isle of Skye, Scotland. 6x4.5 film


The photographer quoted above is correct when he indicates that a larger sensor is superior to a smaller one. There is no doubt that my D3X produced images that were of a higher quality than my m4/3 cameras in almost every way. But the fact is that I would never have carried the D3X the distances that I can carry my m4/3 cameras, or indeed my Leica M9, which certainly can stand comparison with the Nikon.


We all make our decisions based on what works for us at any given time. I'm no longer prepared to have my photography become an endurance test. It seems more and more photographers are coming to the same conclusion.


D



Chartreuse, Alps, France. 6x4.5 film

Panasonic GH2 - The blurring of the boundaries?

The above is from the 43rumors site. The following is written on the assumption that this is true.


Of all the new camera announcements and rumours before the upcoming Photokina show, the one that excites me the most is this one. As an enthusiast for micro four thirds and having used it extensively for all my work over the last 18 months, this camera, if the rumours are true, is pretty close to a perfect camera for me. 


It could well signal the end of DSLR's for me. Particularly after hauling a Canon 7D around a wedding yesterday.

My co-photographer was carrying a GH1 as a second camera and produced some great images with it.

All above images - B

We've been using m4/3 cameras as video cameras and back-up still cameras at all our weddings for the last year. They work just fine. With the rumoured GH2 improvements, 16MP > 45MB files, improved AF speed, burst speed of 5fps, high ISO up to 12,800, this is top of the range DSLR performance from not so long ago. Its also a further blurring of the distinctions between cameras. After all, the reasons these cameras are so small and light is the lack of a mirror, not because they are inferior in terms of image quality, something their critics seem to overlook. Sure m4/3 has a smaller sensor, but look what Canon can do with APS-C, there's no reason why Panasonic can't do the same. 

If the GH2 does what 43rumours claims it will, then I have no reasons left to torture my back carting around 1.5-2kg of DSLR equipment. I only use this stuff for events anyway. A pleasure its not! To become my primary camera for this kind of work m4/3 needed to improve a few things, it seems that may just have happened. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Tuesday. Hoping that the 43rumours intelligence network has done its job. 

Just to finish off by saying that if people are happier and more comfortable using a DSLR then there's nothing wrong with that. Its just that personally I'm desperate to shed this bulk and weight from my photographic life. I've eliminated it from my stock and landscape work and to have this lighter, smaller yet quality option available for my commercial and event work would be bliss. 

I await the GH2 announcement with anticipation and optimism. Don't let me down Panasonic.

D