Equipment Review: Peak Design 'Cuff' Wrist Strap

I hate wearing camera straps. Especially the ones that come with the camera and are designed to go around your neck. They are never comfortable, never practical (the camera bumping and jumping around your mid-section as you walk), and slip easily off your shoulder if you try to sling the strap over just one arm. “I hates them precious” (using my best Golem voice).

But I use them. Or at least variants of them. Because as much as I hate using them, I hate the idea of a camera slipping out of my hand and onto the concrete even more. My ‘best’ solution with most of the camera straps is to not carry it around my neck, but twist the strap around my wrist a few times and hold the camera one-handed. Then if the camera does slip from my grasp, hopefully the weight from it dropping will apply enough force to tighten the strap wrapped around my wrist so that it stops falling? Good in theory at least. Fortunately, I haven’t had to put it into practice. The only time I’ve ever dropped a camera, I went with it as well and we both ended up in the river L

I’ve tried to find better solutions – usually gravitating towards the anti-slip varieties that I can sling over my shoulder. Yet I don’t really trust them 100% and usually end up just wrapping it around my wrist again anyway.

Then there’s the newly developed ‘gunslinger’, shoot-from-the-hip style camera slings that are all the rage at the moment. If you’ve got one of those and it’s working for you – great! They are a good idea, especially if you are carrying a really big DSLR rig and a lot of weight. But for me – well, to be honest they look a bit too ‘pretentious’ – a bit too ‘look at me I’m a hot-shot (rootin’ tootin’ gunslingin’) photographer for my liking. I think I’d just feel a bit silly using one. And conspicuous. And pretentious…. But that’s just me.

When I moved to the Olympus micro four thirds system, which is smaller and lighter than the DSLR kit I was used to, I decided it was also time to have another look at strap options. I stumbled, somehow (probably a Google search) across the Peak Design Cuff System, and I knew all my prayers were answered.

The Peak Design modular strap system is ingenious. It’s based around Anchors that connect to your camera, and then click firmly into a strap of your choice. Got a small camera – then choose the wrist strap that I now use (and love).  Got a bigger DLSR – choose their version of the sling style harness strap. Or have both. That’s the great thing about a modular system. It’s, umm, modular.

The wrist (called the Cuff) strap design is extra clever in that, when not attached to the camera anchor, can double as a bracelet for quick access if you put the camera away for a while (if, say, you’re traveling for ten minutes to your next destination). The strap is made of a very soft (yet very strong) nylon material, and the anchor points themselves are virtually indestructible! They lock into place with a very audible ‘click’, and have to be pushed reasonably firmly down and back to release. There really is no likelihood of them coming apart on their own.

This level of security, however, also happens to be my only slight criticism with the system (and I really am being picky here). I have found that with gloves on, or if my hands are particularly cold, then it can be quite difficult actually pushing the button in and back to release it from the strap. If you wear gloves a lot, or work in very cold conditions, this ‘may’ be an issue. But for 90% of the time, it works like a charm.

For me, the Peak Design Cuff Strap is the perfect solution for carrying my OM-D E-M5 Mk2. I couldn’t be happier and would highly recommend it to all who are looking for an alternative carrying solution for their mirrorless system. 

4.5 out of 5 Stars.

A month shooting Jpegs

I'm going to try a little experiment.

Early this week, I gave a talk on portraiture at my local camera club. It went very well, and there was lots of discussion during and after the presentation on various aspects of taking portraits. But one of the members, at the very end of the night, asked me a question which was slightly 'off topic', but that strangely I had been thinking about myself just recently.  The tired(?) old subject of Raw vs Jpeg.

Jessie. Olympus 17mm f2.8. 1/60th @ f3.5 ISO 400

When I first started shooting digital images, the mantra was "Shoot Raw, Shoot Raw, Shoot Raw". Raw is 'lossless,' Jpeg is 'lossy'. Raw is the digital negative, Jpeg is just a poor copy. Raw is unedited data, Jpeg is baked-in and fixed. Only 'real' photographers shoot Raw - amateurs and newbies shoot jpeg.

All of the above is true - except maybe for that last one. But even if not completely true, it's certainly the predominant view amongst photographers. Real men shoot Raw.

But in the discussion I had with a fellow photographer the other night, we both agreed that the camera manufacturer's Jpeg engines in their cameras are now so good, that the jpeg straight out of the camera is certainly 'good enough' for most use cases. In fact, they're not just 'good enough'. In most instances, they are amazing!

Are you shooting predominantly for your blog, the web, or for a camera club to be viewed on a monitor? A few posts ago I made the comment - "who prints anymore"? I certainly don't. Most of the images I take are intended for the web, to illustrate this blog. If I do end up printing them, then I can make beautiful 8x10" prints from well exposed jpegs. What do I need the Raw file for?

To make matters worse for Raw, I can't even read the .ORF (Olympus Raw Files) files I take on my E-M5 Mk2. My version of Photoshop and Lightroom don't support them. Yes, I could use Olympus Viewer... but no thank you, I think I'll pass. My work-around to convert to .DNG has been going well, but it adds a lot more time to the workflow. And is it really time well spent?

Lake Brunner Boats. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk2 Jpeg

So yes, I'm going to do a little experiment. I'm going to spend a month shooting only in-camera jpegs. If it goes well, I may even give up on shooting in Raw as my 'default' position?

I want to see if I can truly minimise the time spent post-processing images - to practically zero, by getting exactly what I want from the jpeg engine processed in the camera. To this end, I'm starting off with the camera in the 'Vivid' setting (since I almost always increase saturation in Lightroom), and I've increased sharpening to +1 - again since I almost always do some sort of overall sharpening later on. I may find this is too aggressive and I have to dial it back to 0? But ultimately, I would like to get the images to where I an happy using them straight out of the camera, with no Lightroom or Photoshop processing necessary.

It's only because of the E-M5 Mk2 - and more specifically its EVF, that I am seriously considering switching to shooting jpegs instead of Raw. As much as Raw is touted as the 'best' file you can get from your camera, I also think it is used by many as a security blanket (I know I do). If you blew all your exposures by two stops - either over or under - she'll be right, you shot Raw didn't you? We'll fix it all in Photoshop/Lightroom later. The stress of shooting weddings is alleviated to a great degree with the comfort of knowing that all but the most horrendous mistakes in exposure and white balance can be sorted out in post processing if you've shot in Raw.

Reach for the Sky. Te Kinga, Moana.

In many ways, the Raw vs Jpeg debate is very similar to the Negative vs Slide film debate - except maybe in reverse. What do I mean by that?
Well, in so far as Raw is called a 'digital negative', you have the flexibility to 'process' it in almost any way you want after the fact. Need to 'push' or 'pull' it to get a better exposure - no problem. Raw has that latitude that negative film has. As such, negative film was looked down on by many photographers as 'amateur' film. It didn't matter if the newbie got it wrong, the lab could fix it later.

Slide film, however, was for the 'serious' photographer. You couldn't get slide film wrong. You had to nail the exposure, so you had to know what you were doing. If you got it wrong - it was horrible! 36 unusable frames. But - if you got it right... wow! Amazingly crisp, clear, vibrant images that you didn't have to do anything with. Kinda like Jpegs. Except, of course, nowadays Raw is seen as pro and jpeg is seen as amateur. Go figure...

Getting back to the E-M5 Mk2 and its EVF - it's the 'nailing' of the exposure before taking the photo that's got me so jazzed about the possibility of seriously shooting jpegs. I've already said (in other posts) that my shooting style now is to have the camera's lcd turned around and shut against the back of the body so it looks and acts more like a film camera. I use the EVF with the live histogram to confirm that the exposure is exactly what I want before I take the photo, so there really are no surprises - and no need for 'chimping'.

So that's what I'm going to do for a month - maybe longer. Shoot Slides (Jpegs) rather than Negatives (Raw). Olympus (and Fuji) are well known for their amazing jpegs straight out of the camera. For the next month, I'm going to put that to the test. It could be very illuminating.

The 'Holy Trinity' of Micro Four Thirds lenses

Great things come in threes. Three is a very lucky number in various cultures. It’s balanced (think of the rule of thirds in composition) and just feels ‘right’ for some reason. Photographer’s often talk about the ‘holy trinity’ of lenses – which varies slightly depending on manufacturer. The ‘holy trinity’ of Canon pro zooms, for example, is the 16-35mm f2.8L, the 24-70mm f2.8L and the 70-200mm f2.8L. Another (slightly cheaper) alternative might be the 17-40mm f4L, the 24-70mm f4L, and the 70-200mm f4L. With Nikon, it will be slightly different. Their ‘holy trinity’ of pro zooms consists of the 14-24mm f2.8G, 24-70mm f2.8G and 70-200mm f2.8G.

For the Micro Four Thirds system to be a real contender with working pros and serious amateurs, Olympus needed to address this ‘holy trinity’ in their M43rds zoom lens line up. With the release of their pro body, the E-M1, they also released their first ‘pro’ lens, the 12-40mm f2.8 (24-80mm f2.8 equivalent). This was followed up by the 40-150mm f2.8 (80-300mm f2.8 equivalent), and now finally we also have the 7-14mm f2.8 (14-28mm f2.8 equivalent). All fast (f2.8) pro level glass with solid metal construction all the way from 14mm to 300mm in three lenses. The M43 ‘Holy Trinity’ of Olympus zoom lenses.

The Zoom Trinity. 7-14mm, 12-40mm & 40-150mm f2.8 Pro's

Again, it is slightly different if you are a Panasonic shooter – although of course you can use the Olympus lenses on your Panasonic bodies. If you want to shoot with Panasonic’s own lenses however, then the holy trinity will look something like this; Panasonic 7-14mm f4, Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 and Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8.

If we switch our attention to prime lenses, then it gets a little more subjective. Some consider the Olympus 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8 and 45mm f1.8 to be the holy trinity of primes for micro four thirds. Or, on the Panasonic side, we have the Panasonic 15mm f1.7, Panasonic 25mm f1.4 and Panasonic 42.5 f1.2 which gives a decent spread of fast primes. But it all depends on the focal length you are after.

The Olympus Prime Trinity. 17mm, 25mm and 45mm f1.8 primes

Other options include the Olympus 12mm f2, 75mm f1.8 or 300mm f4 Pro, and the Panasonic 14mm f2.5, 20mm f1.7 and 30mm f2.8 macro. Not to mention some amazingly fast 0.95 (manual focus) lenses from Voigtlander. The 17.5mm, 25mm and 42.5mm f0.95 lenses make up their own ‘holy trinity’.

Of course, the great thing about the micro four thirds system is that you can mix and match lenses from the various manufacturers who support the lens mount (including Sigma, Tamron and Tokina). My prime lenses at the moment are the Olympus 17mm f2.8 and the Olympus 45mm f1.8. I’m not quite sure which lens to add to the mix to make my own trinity – I’m torn between the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 or the Olympus 25mm f1.8. The 17 and 45 give me a wide standard (34mm) and reasonable telephoto (90mm). Do I want to go wider still with the 14mm, or more ‘standard’ with the 25mm? I’m not really sure.

I will probably eventually gravitate towards the ‘classic’ 17, 25 & 45mm combo – although there’s nothing that says you only have to have three lenses J   

Adding primes to my Olympus Micro Four Thirds System

When I first decided to jump into the micro four thirds format, I immediately gravitated towards Olympus. Not that there's anything wrong with Panasonic mind you. It's just that, rightly or wrongly, I think of Panasonic as a video camera company, and Olympus as a stills photography company. And largely, I think that's how it's playing out.

Olympus OM-2 body

Of course, as a stills guy who started on film, Olympus's redesign of the classic Pen and OM series was very hard to resist. I owned an OM-2 and several prime lenses and absolutely loved using it. In fact a few years ago, on a film blog, I wrote that if Olympus could put a digital sensor in the back of my OM-2 I'd be a very happy photographer!

And while they didn't quite achieve that with the OM-D E-M5, I think they've produced the best homage they could to the original OM, while still developing a photographic tool for the 21st century.

So now that I have the OM-D E-M5 Mk2 (and am loving it), I have started building a system around it that can cover most (if not all) of the shooting scenarios I can throw at it. I have the 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 EZ kit lens, the 40-150mm f4/5.6 telephoto zoom, and the 45mm f1.8 portrait prime. What I'm really lusting after though, are the fast 'Pro' lenses - the 12-40mm f2.8 and the 40-150mm f2.8. But therein lies my problem.

17mm f2.8 Pancake

Currently, there's this romantic notion of the 'street' photographer in stealth mode, with one body and a prime lens - capturing the 'decisive moment' (a-la Cartier Bresson). The camera is usually a Leica rangefinder (in the movies) and the lens is a 35mm to give a wide to normal angle of view. 'Street' shooting with mirrorless cameras and a prime lens has become incredibly popular over the last few years. I hadn't even heard the term 'street shooter' ten years ago.

One of the major selling factors of mirrorless is to 'go light', with just a camera and a lens - and in the case of the lens, the smaller the better. Enter the Olympus 17mm f2.8mm 'pancake' lens. With an equivalent focal length of 34mm on a film camera, and its tiny size, it would seem to be the ideal companion for any photographer engaging in stealth mode.

But here's the thing - and getting back to those 'Pro' lenses - I'm not really a prime kinda guy. Sure, I love the idea of shooting with primes. And most of the time I even love the results when shooting with primes. But I must confess to loving the sheer convenience of shooting with zooms. Maybe I'm lazy?

Yet I too have been seduced by the 'micro' in micro four thirds. I am enjoying the benefits of smaller and lighter (although not too small or too light - there is a tipping point). So I am seriously considering getting a used 17mm f2.8 to add to the 45mm prime in my bag.

The Oly 17mm on a Pen. Almost pocketable.

I fretted about buying the 45mm f1.8 prime, even though many micro four thirds users claim it's a must have lens. And I'm sure I will use it. But will I use it enough?

Same is true with the 17mm f2.8. It's the ideal walk-around lens for the system - as close as it is to the classic 35mm focal length. It's the goldilocks of prime lenses - not to wide and not too tight. Just right :-)

There is also an f1.8 version which, not surprisingly, is optically better - at twice the price. And that brings me to my final point with these prime lenses - the price. For a small, light, reasonably sharp and reasonably fast lens, these are a real bargain. They are so much cheaper than the 'Pro' f2.8 zooms (not to mention lighter - obviously), that it just makes sense to get them and use them - at least in the mean time.

I will probably still have the 12-50mm kit lens on the E-M5 Mk2 80% of the time. But maybe, as a walk-around lens, the 17mm f2.8 prime might surprise me. I think I might have to get it and see?