One lens to rule them all?

When you settle on a system you like as a photographer, and you become even a little bit serious about the images you produce with said system, then your attention will eventually turn to the age old question: 'what lens shall I get next'?

More often than not, your camera will come with a standard 'kit' lens. A variable aperture (f/3.5 to f/5.6ish) zoom, with a medium-wide to medium-telephoto focal range. This is a great lens to get you started with. And in today's age of computer-designed optics, even the humble kit lens can give some fantastic results.

The Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ comes in two variants - a standard and a pancake style lens. It also comes in two different colours; black or silver - depending on the body style of the camera you want to match it to. It is an excellent choice for a walk-around, do it all, first lens. As is the Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ if you want a lens that goes slightly wider and slightly longer in terms of focal range. But every system has similar offerings in their line-up, which they either bundle with a new camera, or sell quite cheaply.

Often the next lens to consider is something with a bit more 'reach'. A 'longer' telephoto lens that lets you get closer to the action. This is also occasionally bundled together as a complete kit with a camera purchase. Something like the Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6, or a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6. And once again, these modern lenses are often ultra-sharp and very good optically. Check out my mini review of the Olympus 40-150mm f4/5.6 zoom here.

The only real issue with these kit lenses tends to be their slower, variable aperture - and the fact that they are not as solidly constructed as their more expensive alternatives. Both the standard 14-42mm and 40-150mm Olympus lenses are constructed entirely from plastic - even down to the lens mounts (as are the similar offerings from Canon and Nikon). They also don't feature any type of weather-sealing. But having said that, they still use optical glass lenses, and modern plastics have proven themselves sturdy and reliable enough over the years that this compromise is more than adequate for the average user. 

Still, there will come a time, once you become serious about your photography, where you will begin to yearn for a slightly higher quality of optic to place in front of your image sensor. Usually this results in 'faster' glass for shooting in lower light, or for a shallower depth of field (blurry backgrounds).

If you are on a budget, the first lens that often gets suggested as a 'step up' from the kit-lens is a fast 'standard' prime lens. A fixed-focal length lens like the nifty fifty Canon 50mm f1.8. The Canon 50mm f1.8II is also an all-plastic affair, which helps to keep the cost down. But at f1.8 it has a fairly large aperture that lets in a lot of light - perfect for low-light shooting. Being a prime lens, it is also more simple to construct than a zoom, and therefore has less distortion or other lens issues in its design.

You can, of course, spend more money to get even faster, and better constructed, lenses. Manufacturer's fortunately have lens offerings to cater for all budgets. But it also tends to get very expensive very quickly, with only a minimal jump in aperture speed or image quality. Only you can decide how much you are willing to spend, and whether the dramatic increase in value is evident in the end result (I would argue many times that it isn't). For example, would I pay over twice as much to get a 50mm f1.4 over an f1.8? No, I wouldn't. I don't see the dramatic price increase reflected in the overall image quality. You will need to decide these things for yourself.

The last time I owned and used the micro four thirds system, I ended up with the 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3EZ, Lumix 25mm f1.7, and Lumix 45-200mm f/4-5.6 as my lenses. A good spread, and almost exactly the path I've described for most general photographers listed above. 

As a 'serious' enthusiast, and someone for whom photography has also been a career, I have a 'desire' to own slightly 'better' glass. Most pro photographers will advise you to 'invest in glass, not camera bodies', and this is wise counsel. But it's also easier said than done if you're struggling to pay the bills. And yet, good glass (i.e. more expensive lenses) does make a difference to the kind of images you can create, and will hold their value far more than any camera body will. 

What I decided to do last time I used micro four thirds, was to sell all the lenses I owned to purchase just one, pro level lens. And that lens was the staple in all pro photographers bags - the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro.

The Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro is the micro four thirds equivalent of the Canon/Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 (although the Olympus extends the telephoto range out to 80mm). Every pro photographer worth their salt has a 24-70mm f2.8 'standard' fast zoom in their arsenal (unless they are prime-only shooters). There are probably more images taken every year with a 24-70mm f2.8 lens than all others combined, and I don't mean that as an exaggeration. It's the perfect swiss-army knife of lenses. Reasonably fast constant aperture of f2.8, combined with a perfect wide-angle landscape view of 24mm, up to the ideal portrait length of 70mm. With this one lens, you really can 'do it all'. 

So with that in mind, I've decided to do the same thing again. Sell all my existing lenses, for just the one, pro lens. Only this time, I'm swapping the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro out for the even better value Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 G. The 12-35mm focal length on micro four thirds equates exactly to a 24-70mm full-frame lens - the ideal lens. 

The Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 pictured here is the version 1 lens, which is the one I'm getting (second hand). There is a version 2 of this lens, which sells for around $1,500.00NZ brand new, and which has slightly updated weather sealing and slightly updated image stabilisation - with the same optical configuration. Since I will use the EM-1's superior in-body stabilisation, and I don't need extra weather proofing (I think they've simply added freeze-proofing down to -10), the Mark 1 version of this lens - second hand - at one third of the price - will most definitely do me.

I will be selling my Olympus 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3EZ, Lumix 25mm f1.7, and spare Olympus E-M10 camera body to get the $$ together to buy the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. Absolutely, totally 100% worth it. Especially since I'm hoping to be able to keep my Lumix 45-150mm f/4-5.6 telephoto for those times when I just need a little extra reach. But if I have to sell that too, then I will. Just to get the 12-35mm f2.8. 

Because it really is one lens to rule them all. One lens to cover probably 95% of what I'm likely to photograph. And one day - maybe - I'll also manage to get the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 - the 35mm full-frame equivalent of a 70-200mm f2.8 lens. And then I really will have it all!?

I will definitely blog about it when I have it in my hot little hand. Can't wait! 😁

Dynamic Range and micro four thirds. How bad is it really?

I've written a couple of posts recently debunking some of the persistent myths that surround the micro four thirds system. The first was on high ISO noise (which you can read here) and the second was on creating shallow depth of field, or bokeh (which you can read about here).

In both of those posts, I tried to show that the micro four thirds system (specifically my Olympus OM-D E-M1) isn't anywhere near as bad as people make out it is. And that if you do choose to go with the micro four thirds sensor, you needn't necessarily feel inferior to APS-C or full-frame.

But there is one final myth that needs debunking. And that is the myth surrounding dynamic range. Or, more specifically, the 'poor' dynamic range you will experience from a micro four thirds sensor!

This is a bit like the low light noise argument I looked at earlier. You will hear the same tired old phrase used whenever dynamic range is talked about - micro four thirds sensors have 'poor dynamic range'.

If you're read my previous posts (go on, way you go), I'll try not to sound like a broken record in this one. But as in my earlier investigations on noise and bokeh, the same fundamental questions remain. 'Poor' dynamic range compared to what? And is 'poor dynamic range' somewhat subjective?

First image: unprocessed RAW file. Second image: with highlight recovery in ACR

Above is an example of the kind of highlight recovery possible with a micro four thirds sensor. The image as it first appeared as an unprocessed RAW file looked like the highlights had blown out. There seemed to be no detail in the white of the crashing waves, or in the sky. 

And yet, although I have exposed to the extreme right, the histogram is not showing any highlight clipping - so we know that there is still detail there. 

A slight lowering of the exposure (by half a stop), some highlight recovery, and a little Clarity and Dehaze applied, and we suddenly have detail back in the whites and a much more centered histogram - as can be seen in the second image.

Breakwater, Cobden. Olympus OM-D E-M1. f/5.6 @ 1/250th, ISO 200 

This sort of highlight recovery is easily possible with a micro four thirds sensor, just as much as it is with APS-C and full frame. And just to be clear - no matter what sensor you are using - highlight recovery depends on there being information there to recover! If you 'clip' the highlights (so absolutely no information is recorded) then it doesn't matter what sensor you are using. You won't have any highlight information left to recover. So proper exposure - and shooting RAW - is crucial if you want to recover detail in post-processing.

First image: unprocessed RAW file.  Second image: Shadow recovery in ACR

Of course the same is also true for shadow recovery. You can recover shadow detail, as long as there is information left in the shadows to recover. If you 'block up' the shadows there will be no information there to recover, no matter what sensor you are using.

The above image, while appearing dark in the initial RAW file, was very carefully exposed so as to retain detail in both the shadows and the highlights. It was also shot at the lowest ISO of 100, so that any details recovered from the shadows later in post would be as noise-free as possible.

These are the kind of decisions that you, as the photographer, need to make in the field when taking the image. A clipped highlight or a blocked shadow is unrecoverable no matter the sensor size you are using.

Mine Track Waterfall. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 10secs, ISO 100 

'Yeah, ok. This is all very well', I hear you say. But APS-C and full-frame sensors capture more dynamic range than micro four thirds sensors do. And that's the point - right?

Well yes - that would be the point. If it were true. But is it true? 

Love them or hate them, DXO have been testing (and rating) camera sensors almost since the beginning of the digital photography age. And guess what - they also happen to test a sensor's dynamic range. If the 'hype' is to be believed, surely there will be no APS-C sensor, or - heaven forbid - no full-frame sensor with less dynamic range than a measly micro four thirds sensor? Right?

According to DXO, the sensor on my Olympus OM-D E-M1 can capture 12.7 stops of dynamic range. To put this into perspective, that's about as much as most modern 35mm films can capture (around 13 stops). Larger APS-C camera sensors will be way better, surely?

Ok. How about the Canon 7D Mk2, a flagship Canon APS-C camera. Don't hear many people complaining about Canon's 'poor' dynamic range, do you? Well, what if I told you that the 20MP Canon 7D Mk2 has a DXO dynamic range sensor rating of 11.8! That's basically one stop less than the E-M1. The Canon 80D fairs a little better, with a dynamic range score of 13.2 - about half a stop more than the E-M1. Half a stop. Does that really qualify the E-M1 with 'poor' dynamic range?

Yeah, but I'll bet full-frame stomps all over the E-M1 right? I mean, full-frame is where it's at for dynamic range, isn't it!? Let's look, then, at the mighty Canon 5D Mk3 - the epitome of a landscape photographer's camera. With a 22MP full-frame sensor with bags of detail and barrels of dynamic range for sure! DXO tested the Canon 5D Mk3's full-frame sensor and gave it a score of 11.7ev - even lower than the 7D, and again, a full stop less than the E-M1. What!? No - that can't be right. Can it?

Hey, don't blame me. I didn't do the test. 

Ok. All ribbing aside - yes, of course you can find full-frame, and APS-C cameras, with better dynamic range scores than the Olympus OM-D E-M1. For example; Nikon and Sony sensors (both Sony manufactured) seem to exhibit better dynamic range than Canon's do. The D7200 APS-C camera from Nikon has 14.6 stops of dynamic range, almost two stops more than the E-M1. Whereas the full-frame Nikon D850 has almost 15 stops of dynamic range - as does the Sony A7II. That's some impressive numbers.

First image: Unprocessed RAW file.  Second image: Highlight recovery in ACR

Hopefully, what I've tried to show with this post, is that the 'poor dynamic range' performance of micro four thirds has been somewhat - 'exaggerated' shall we say? As with any sensor, on any system, if you are careful with your exposures, and don't clip the highlights or block the shadows, then any information is recoverable later on on post (if you shoot RAW).

Yes, the more dynamic range your sensor can handle, the greater the latitude will be between clipping highlights and blocking shadows in a single image. But photography is always about compromise. And as a photographer, it's your job to recognise when the dynamic range of a scene you are capturing falls outside your sensors ability to render it in one image. If it is too great, then you have some choices to make. Do you expose for the highlights and let the shadows go black? Do you take two or three exposures and create a digital blend later on? Or do you use filters in the field to try and reduce the dynamic range back down into a single exposure? These are all options you will need to consider at some point, no matter what sensor you are using.

Rapahoe ripple. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/11 @ 3secs, ISO 200

So does the E-M1 (and subsequent micro four thirds cameras) have 'poor dynamic range' compared to other sensors, cameras and systems. No, I don't believe it does at all! It may not be the 'best' in class, but it is by no means the worst either. So again, I say to you - dear reader - don't take anybody else's word for it (mine included). Have a look, and try it out for yourself before believing some naysayer, full-frame worshipper, or paid Youtube influencer.

'Poor dynamic range' with Olympus OM-D cameras? I think not...  

Olympus OM-D E-M1 rear control wheel update

Epic Clouds over Greymouth. OM-D E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/6 @ 1/100th, ISO 200

In my last post I discussed an 'issue' I am starting to have with the rear control dial of my E-M1. Unfortunately, this is a known issue with the camera (although it was news to me), and really needs to be 'fixed'. Yes, you could work around it maybe, and simply not use the rear control wheel - but what a pain in the a** that would be! As customisable as the E-M1 is, I use the rear control wheel constantly as a way of changing the exposure compensation. Not being able to use it would drive me crazy! As crazy as it would drive me if it didn't work properly...

So I have contacted the camera store I purchased it off in October last year (second hand), to let them know that I have started having the issue. As I mentioned in my previous post, the camera is definitely out of any limited 'warranty' that comes with secondhand goods - so the camera store are certainly under no obligation to help me out in any way. 

And in my email to them I didn't suggest that they do. I simply told them the issue I was having, reminded them of when I purchased (thereby acknowledging that it was out of the warranty period), and asked if they had a camera repair service on-site.

The reason I buy from a reputable camera store - and why you should to - is because they are 'invested' in looking after their customers. If the store is any good (and this one is), they don't see you as a one-off sale, but as a life-long buyer who will be loyal to them if they are loyal to you. So I knew that if I explained my situation to them, they would a) care, and b) want to help to do something about it. And that's exactly what they are doing.

Greg (the owner of the store) got back to me immediately and said two things straight away that illustrate my points above. First he said - yes, of course I remember selling you the E-M1. And then he said - we will certainly help you out with the repair. And that, good people of the internets, is why you shop 'local'.

Long story short, they do have a camera service center they use, they don't expect it will cost a lot to repair, and they are willing to go 50/50 with me in the cost of said repair. I can't really ask for better than that...

So yes, I'm going to get the E-M1 repaired. As I also said in my previous post - I do love using it, and don't really want to change systems (ironically for me). When I was considering what they had that I might change to, nothing really jumped out at me - not even the Nikon gear. The more I mulled it over, the less happy I was returning to a fixed screen DSLR with no EVF (and very poor live view implementation). Seems like such a huge step backwards!?

Now I just have to be able to afford to send the camera off to them, and then pay my share of the repair bill. I'm 'guessing' it might be around $100NZ? But that really is just a complete guess. I'll be happy if it's cheaper - and not too thrilled if it turns out to be much more? But I guess it will be worth it as long as I get the E-M1 back in 100% working condition. I'll keep you posted.

Wild weather, second thoughts and possible issues...

The South Island of New Zealand experienced a major weather system this weekend (as I write this), with rain levels reaching red alert. To put this into perspective, this was only the third red alert warning the weather authority had ever issued - with flooding, slips, road closures and evacuations expected. All of which occurred.

Here on the West Coast, the town of Westport in the Buller Region (where I grew up) was the worst hit, with thousands of people evacuated from their homes by the NZ Army. Many of those homes were flooded, and so now the long - and expensive - rebuilding process begins.

Fortunately, for us here in Greymouth, the rain didn't cause any major flooding. The town has a history of flooding from the Grey River, since the town was originally designed around the wharf area. In 1986 the Grey River flooded the town twice in as many months, and the town had finally had enough. A 'floodwall' was erected, which has since been heightened, and the town hasn't flooded since.

Blaketown Breakwater. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/250th, ISO 1600

That's all very interesting, I hear you say. But what's it got to do with photography? Very good question. And although a weather event such as the one I've just described would certainly create some compelling photographs, I didn't go out and take any (although some did). I've mentioned a few times on this blog that I'm not really a 'go out and take photos in the pouring rain' type of guy. And I'm not. As the relentless rain pounded on our town, I stayed as warm and dry as possible inside. So did my camera gear.

But.... after every good storm, there is always a calm. And that's when I like to go out and photograph. The calm before, and after, every storm gives the most amazing light if you are a landscape photographer. I'm not a photojournalist who wants to be out where the action is. I'm a landscape photographer who chases the light. And fortunately, true to form, the sunset on the Sunday night once the storm had passed, looked like it was going to be impressive.

Sunset after the Storm. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/500th, ISO 1600

Of course, after such a massive storm event, the other thing that's going to be impressive is the surf. So when my wife suggested I go out and take some photos of what could turn out to be an impressive sunset (thanks honey), I knew that I wanted to return to the Blaketown Tiphead. Not only does this give the perfect vantage point for sunsets at this time of year, but there would be plenty of wave action to capture as well.

And as you can see from the images that accompany this post, I wasn't disappointed.

Unfortunately, there is another aspect of the evening's photography with which I am, very much, disappointed. And it has to do, sadly, with my camera!

Sight Seeing. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/80th, ISO 1600

No, it's not the fact that I've done it again and inadvertently shot all these images at ISO 1600 (although that does hack me off and I really need to remember to check before shooting)! Unfortunately it's a little more serious that that. But let me back-up a bit first before I explain my problem...

Over the last week or two, I've been considering selling my micro four thirds gear and going back to a DSLR. Yeah, I know. Surprise, surprise. But hang on, because there is method to my madness.

I'm not going to go into detail, but my wife and I have been struggling financially over the last couple of years. We've gone down to only one income, have bills to pay, and it would be quite nice to eat as well. Our money worries have lead both of us to sell off a few items, just so we could afford groceries for the week, and it doesn't look like getting much better anytime soon.

I've never been afraid of using 'old' tech when it comes to cameras - although I recently made the decision to sell all my film cameras and old film stocks. Film is just too expensive when you are on a very tight budget - and we needed the money. But I have also said repeatedly on this blog and other channels, that the digital cameras we drooled over ten years ago (and that cost a small fortune back then), don't stop working just because a newer model comes out. Yes, we do make impressive advancements from time to time. But mostly it's just incremental upgrades. And we certainly don't need all the tech that these companies tell us we do to create great photographs.

I've also stated over the years my love for Nikon. Especially some of the 'older' cameras like the D200, D300, D90 etc. It just so happens that you can get these cameras now for almost nothing. In fact, these older digital cameras are cheaper than most secondhand film cameras! I kid you not!

I already happen to have a Nikon D70 - a 6MP Methuselah of a camera from 2004, with a Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens. For around $200 I could get a Nikon D90, or D200 body to go with it - and for another $150 could probably get a 55-200mm kit lens as well. So for about $350NZ I could have a Nikon DLSR kit with lens coverage from 18-200mm. And If I really wanted to splurge, I'm sure I could pick up a Nikon Speedlight for about $150 as well.

You can probably see where I'm going with this?

Watching the Waves. OM-D E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/30th, ISO 1600

And that's exactly where I was going. Until I had a quick rethink, and a slight change of mind. Yes, we need the money. And yes, if I sold all my Olympus gear and picked up some Nikon gear instead I could probably have around $500NZ left to live on for a few weeks. But I really am loving using the E-M1 (or was, hold that thought) and really don't want to have to change.

To make matters worse (or better, depending on how you look at it), towards the end of last week somebody posted on an NZ Facebook group I belong to, that they were selling their Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens. At a ridiculously good price. I messaged them, and long story short, he is holding the lens for me for a couple of weeks while I get the money together. 

So yes, I am selling some of my Olympus gear - but not for the reason I originally intended. Although if everything I've put online sells, then I will have some money left over that we can use to live on for a week or two. So that's it then, right?

Groundswell. OM-D E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/11 @ 2 secs, ISO 200. ICM

If only it were that simple... (it never is).

I said above that I'm loving using the E-M1. And I am. But...(sigh), recently I've noticed that the rear control dial seems to be less responsive than I'd like. It seems to be 'sticking' or missing some clicks, so that when I go to change the exposure compensation (which is what I have it set to) it will miss a few clicks before it starts to respond and change the value. Damn!

I've done some research (online obviously), and it would appear that this is a 'thing' with the original E-M1. And it will probably only get worse over time, until the wheel ceases functioning altogether. Double damn!

I purchased it secondhand, last year (October) from a very reputable camera store - but even so, I'm fairly sure they only give a 3 month 'warranty' with their secondhand goods (which is fairly standard). So I'm way out of the warranty period. I did email them last night and let them know I was having this issue, that it's a known fault, and that I purchased last October. I also asked if they have a repair guy they use, and how much they think it might cost. I'll see what they say when they get back to me.

I don't expect them to honor a warranty that has already lapsed - but I do know that they just happen to have another secondhand E-M1 body in stock. Maybe - just maybe - they might consider sending me that unit instead if I return mine?

But then again... if it's a 'known' issue with the E-M1, is it likely to happen to the other unit as well? And if so, how comfortable will I be using the camera if I'm always expecting the rear control dial to one day give up the ghost!? Triple damn!

And that get's me thinking again - back to my original thoughts. Because I also know they happen to have a Nikon D90 body and a couple of D200 bodies, going cheaply. Would they consider swapping the E-M1 out for one of them? The more I think about it, the more my head starts to hurt. And since they don't actually have to do anything to help me from a legal point of view, I may end up with an E-M1 that I'm not happy using? Quadruple damn!

Because this is a known issue, there are people online who have 'fixed' it themselves. This, of course, requires taking the camera apart a little to access the control dial in question, and then apply a good dose of electrical lubricant. Those who have performed this surgery say that it has worked really effectively, and that it isn't as difficult as it looks. I guess if it came down to it, I'd give it a go myself. But I'd rather not have to.

I'd be happy to move back to Nikon - I really would. But I'd rather not have to. But I'd also rather not use a camera that had me on edge every time I used the rear control dial. Which I use a LOT. So I guess I'll wait and see what the camera store's reply is before making any decision going forwards? In the meantime, I do have a lot of my Olympus gear up for sale, so that I can afford to get the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. The timing is, perhaps, prophetic?

Mid-Winter magic light

Winter on the West Coast of the South Island where I live, isn't as cold or extreme as it is in other parts of New Zealand. You have to travel about an hour to the east to see any snow, or about six hours south towards Wanaka, Queenstown and Otago (where it can get very extreme). At home we can get the occasional hoar frost in the coldest months (July/August), but that's about as rough as it gets. And I ain't complaining.

What we do often get on the coast in these winter months, is crisp, clear days and intensely colourful sunsets. There seems to be less cloud around at this time of the year (don't as me why), so the intense colours at sunset are unobstructed - seeming only to add to their intensity.

Rock glow. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

I understand that photographing beautiful colours at sunset is not every photographers cup-of-tea. I get that... kind of. And then again, I kinda don't? Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to be too chocolate-boxey or obvious. Maybe they think that pointing your camera at a landscape lit by glorious colours is too easy? Or maybe they believe that if you've seen one sunset, you've seen them all?

I don't agree (obviously). I've never shied away from chocolate-box subject matter - although I'd like to think that I still bring my own unique 'eye' to the resulting photo? But even if I don't, what's wrong with a photographer wanting to capture jaw-droppingly beautiful light? Isn't that why we are encouraged to shoot during 'golden hour'? 

Rapahoe Rock. OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 45-150mm. f/5.6 @ 3.2secs, ISO 200. ND filter

The mid-winter light doesn't get much more golden than last evening (as I write this), at one of my favourite places to shoot - Rapahoe Beach. I had been to the beach with friends during the day a few weeks ago, testing out my newly acquired E-M10 (see the post here). We went to an area of the beach I hadn't really explored before, and so I made a mental note to come back during the evening, at low tide, with good light. I didn't have to wait long. A few weeks later and the conditions lined-up. I left work about half an hour early, and was out at the beach before sunset to see what I could capture.

Mid-winter sunset, Rapahoe. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/9 @ 1/3rd sec, ISO 200

Sunset coincided almost perfectly with low tide, which was a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because I wanted low-tide to expose the rocks that would otherwise be submerged, thereby creating some foreground interest to the composition. But it was a curse because at extreme low tide the shoreline recedes a great distance out from the beach, so most of the rocks I wanted to use were meters away from the water.

As you can see from the image above, I did manage to find one lone rock, that I could place in the foreground and play with some movement in the water. But I would have preferred to shoot higher up the beach where there were dozens more rocks. So as it turned out, the extreme low-tide wasn't really when I wanted to be there. I will need to go out again on the turning tide, maybe a couple of hours after high tide as it's moving into low tide? That way I should  be able to reach the rocks to photograph them, but there will still be enough water around to make for interesting compositions. That's the plan anyway...

Let there be light. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/16 @ 1 sec, ISO 200

Having established that the conditions weren't exactly how I wanted them, and having taken a few images that I thought captured the feeling I was going for, my mind once again flipped into ICM (intentional camera movement) mode.

Light levels were dropping rapidly, so I was able to get exposure times upwards of 1 second with apertures of f16. With no clouds in the sky at all, and bands of colour stretching along the horizon, my immediate instinct was to pan quickly across the scene to accentuate them. This worked really well, with the resulting images still having a landscape/seacape feel while capturing that abstract ICM quality.

The Duplicity of Light. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/8 @ 2.5secs, ISO 200

But the mere nature of experimentation with ICM photography is that you can create the unexpected. The above photo - The Duplicity of Light -  is my favourite shot from the evening. It looks almost like a double exposure, but it's not. At least not in the truest sense of the meaning. What do I mean by that?

Well because, by using the ICM technique, it is in some ways a double exposure image, as I intended it to be. It's just a double exposure taken with a single image! Let me explain....

The exposure time was 2.5 seconds, which is quite a long time when you're hand-holding the camera. I knew I wanted a close-up of the rock with the orange glow on the horizon, but I also wanted the waves on the beach to be included. I simply started the exposure on the rock for the first second, then wriggled the camera down so it was pointing more at the beach and waves for the last second. Even though it was taken in one frame, it was really conceived of as a double exposure. And this is the sort of fun imagery you can play around with and achieve through intentional camera movement.

Twinkle twinkle...  f5/6 @ 1/2sec, ISO 200

However it was achieved, I love it. And it's certainly the kind of photography that I'm getting excited about producing going forward. Yes I can, and will, continue to capture the more 'realistic' (call it chocolate box if you like) landscapes of my region, since they too inspire me to get out and take more photos. But it's the abstract ICM images that are really 'floating my boat' creatively at the moment.

Finally, just a word on the intensity of colours that all these images display. They are all true-to-life and exactly what I was seeing with the naked eye on the evening. Of course I've lightened and darkened (dodged and burned) some areas of some of the images for creative effect - but I haven't increased the saturation in any of them. In fact, with my favourite image, The Duplicity of Light, I actually decreased saturation by about 15% because I thought the original was just too much!

Yes, decreasing highlights and adding clarity and dehaze (all of which I have done) will tend to increase the saturation of colours in the image - but that's where I've left it. And it really was as colourful to my eyes as it appears in the photos. Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone was thinking I had cranked the saturation up to 80%! I haven't. Not that I'm not allowed to mind you. They're my images and I can do want I want with them in post-processing. But that's another blog post for another time...

If at first you don't succeed, try again...

I wrote a couple of posts ago about going out with my son to photograph a sunset. Unfortunately the sunset never really eventuated that evening, but I managed to turn lemons into lemonade (metaphorically speaking) and came away with some ICM (intentional camera movement) images that I really liked (see here).

Josh is going back to Uni this week so we decided to give it another try, since the weather has been consistently good while he's been home (clear, crisp winter days). We gave ourselves a little more time for this trip, and headed out to our location a good hour before sunset. Due to the current position of the setting sun, we figured our best bet was to go to the Blaketown Tiphead.

FYI: Tiphead simply means the end of a long and narrow point - in this case the road that leads out to the end of Blaketown and into the Tasman Sea. This area is also sometimes referred to as the Southern Breakwater, with its companion the Northern Breakwater (or Cobden Tiphead) forming the mouth of the Grey River as it enters Greymouth from the Tasman Sea. It can be very rough and treacherous for fishing boats coming into Greymouth when conditions are rough - and can make for some spectacular photos. I've yet to photograph this, since as stated, the conditions are usually less than ideal. Not the kind of weather I think about taking my camera out in. Even though the E-M1 and my 12-50mm EZ lens are weatherproof. Still....! Maybe oneday?

Who you lookin at? Olympus OM-DE-M1 with Lumix 45-150. f/6.3 @ 1/125th, ISO 200

With plenty of time to look for the composition I wanted at sunset, when we arrived at our destination my attention was immediately caught by the seagulls that perch on the rocks surrounding the Tiphead. There was some lovely evening light as the sun was sinking behind a bank of clouds (more on those later). The seagulls, who were extremely chill and very used to having humans around, were posing politely (mostly) for us, as we snapped away from a very close distance. You can often get within a few feet of them, so very close-up and detailed images can be had.

Seagull silhouette. E-M1 with Lumix 45-150mm. f/5.6 @ 1/3200th, ISO 200 

Seagulls are scavengers, and can get quite aggressive with each other if food is around. If you happen to be eating anything near one, you will most likely suddenly find yourself surrounded by dozens and dozens of them. But if you don't have any food, they do tend to leave you alone (thankfully). Because of this scavenger reputation, they aren't one of the most popular birds to photograph. And yet they can be quite beautiful, with their bright white body feathers, grey wings and red beaks. And, of course, if you manage to capture them in silhouette like I have in the above image, then it's hard to tell what kind of bird it is (unless you're an avid bird watcher of course). 

Taking the Shot. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/160th, ISO 200

As the sun began to set, it became obvious that we were once again going to be thwarted by a large bank of cloud on the horizon. As you can see, there was still a strip of golden light, and this was giving us some colour in the sky, but not really what we had hoped for. Still, undaunted, we began to set up our tripods - me on one side of the road and Josh on the other.

It was at this point that I discovered a problem. I'd left my tripod mounting plate at home on my office desk! I had taken it off the tripod head to attach it to the camera prior to going out - to save time in the field. But I had obviously been distracted at that crucial moment (I'm getting old), and had forgotten to attach it! Doh!

Surprisingly though, shooting into the light and letting the foreground go to a silhouette, I was getting very hand-holdable exposure times. I had switched from my Panasonic 45-150mm telephoto to my Olympus 12-50mm EZ lens, and at the wide end of the range I was easily able to take pin-sharp images hand-held at exposures of around 1/160th to 1/200th of a second. The ibis (in body image stabilisation) on the E-M1 is fantastic, but even so, the shutter speeds I was getting were fast enough for it not to be a concern.

Cobden Tiphead at last light. E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 1/2sec, ISO 400 

But eventually, the light did drop significantly enough that I had to start relying on image stabilisation to get sharp images. The above image was taken at half a second - obviously with image stabilisation turned on - and is tack sharp! Just amazing.

I know that the very latest ibis in the Olympus E-M1x and E-M1 Mk3 is even better, with people hand-holding for over 2 seconds and still getting sharp results. But for an old fella like me, who comes from the film days when tripods were a necessity if you shot below 1/60th, hand-holding and getting a sharp image at even half a second is mind-blowing.

I don't try to push my luck with image stabilisation - preferring to work from a tripod or follow the focal length rule for hand-holding as much as possible (shutter speed = or greater than the focal length of lens). But in this instance, I had no option, since I had left the tripod mounting plate at home. 

Breakwater blur. E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/20 @ 2.5secs, ISO 200 

Although I was successfully getting half-second exposures, I know when I've reached my limit. For the last few images of the evening, I switched back into ICM (intentional camera movement) mode, and captured some abstract photos of the waves coming in.

Once again, these happen to be my favorite images of the evening. They just resonate with me emotionally and creatively. I'm sure there are some who might look at them and think they're just blurry, out of focus photos. While others may even question whether it's a photograph at all?

But I simply adore them. And I think I'm going to be doing a lot more of them in the future. I already have the urge to get a collection of them together and have an exhibition somewhere. It's been a long time since I put together an exhibition of my work, but I've been mulling it over a lot lately. I guess I wasn't really sure what the exhibition might be about - but now I think I do. So yeah - hopefully an exhibition is on the cards. Don't know where, don't know when (apologies to Vera Lynn) - but I will definitely post about it on the blog when I do.

Micro four thirds and bokeh - no problem.

Bokeh - a Japanese word that refers to the quality of the out-of-focus areas in an image. The word is also commonly used to talk about the 'amount' of out-of-focus areas as much as the 'quality'. And the photographic community has gone absolutely bokeh crazy!

This obsession with producing out-of-focus areas (bokeh) in an image, is also what's fueling the full-frame sensor madness we find ourselves in. Because the bigger the sensor, the more bokeh you can create in your photograph. And, as we all know, the more bokeh your photo has, the better it is - right!? Full-frame sensors rule for bokeh, therefore everyone has to go full frame, or your images are going to suck! Apparently.

I don't want to start a conspiracy theory (honest), but the camera manufacturer's must love this train of logic. Not just because full frame cameras are (a lot) more expensive to buy, but also because the lenses required to produce the 'best' bokeh (the f1.2 and f1.4 types) are crazy expensive. I'll give you a 'for example'... 

The Canon nifty fifty 50mm f1.8 is a good, cheap lens, that at f1.8 produces some lovely bokeh. Brand new, the updated STM version of this lens is about $280.00NZ (as of June 2021). But why would you want f1.8 when you can have f1.4! The 50mm f1.4 Canon lens is currently $595.00NZ - that's more than twice the price. And, what's more, it's a notoriously poor performer wide open at f1.4 - so should probably be stopped-down to f1.8 anyway. But I digress.

Canon's RF 50mm f1.2L

F1.4 still not good enough for you (for some it's actually not)? Then you'll have to go for the ultimate 50mm Canon bokeh monster, the 50mm f1.2'L' lens. And why not? It's an absolute bargain at $2270.00NZ! I kid you not. Think that's crazy? Well how about getting the latest 50mm f1.2'L' for the mirrorless 'R' system. Got a spare $3800.00NZ!? Man, I knew photography was an expensive hobby, but that's kinda ridiculous in the extreme - don't ya think? 

But, if you're desperate for the most bokeh you can get, so that your photos are hip, trendy and cool, then the f1.2 is the must have lens for you. You can see why I think the manufacturer's are doing nothing to dissuade the 'bokeh is cool' argument.

I'm not picking on Canon. All the manufacturer's have similar offerings - for a similar price. Except the micro four thirds versions are considerably cheaper. The Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro lens (50mm full frame equivalent field of view) is $1550.00NZ, a LOT less than half the price of the Canon RF lens.

Okay, okay - I can hear you screaming at me already. F1.2 on a micro four thirds system is not equivalent to f1.2 on full-frame, since you double the depth of field when using the smaller sensor (effectively). So it's more like f2.4 in terms of its rendering of bokeh. Okay - fair enough. My reply might go something like this.... "so what"? Really. So what? This desperate need to create bokeh in every image is just a trendy phase, just like every other trendy phase we've been through. 

But, more importantly, the f-stop value of the lens you have is only one factor that determines the out-of-focus rendering in an image. And it's actually not the most important factor. Ideally you need three components working together to create creamy bokeh. Focal range (telephoto is better than wide angle), subject to background distance (the further away the background the better), and finally aperture value (wide open on the lens is better).

Of those three, you could argue that the aperture value is the least important. If you have your subject placed flat up against a brick wall, and you photograph them with a wide angle lens at f1.8, then the bricks will still look like bricks. If, however, you move your subject 20 meters away from the wall, change to a 200mm telephoto lens, and set the aperture to a respectable f4, you'll have bokeh coming out your ears!

Why is this important? Well, it just so happens that probably the number one reason that people give for not trying the micro four thirds system, is because they've been told you can't get decent bokeh using it. In our current 'give me bokeh at all costs' climate, this is an immediate turn-off for anyone thinking about micro four thirds cameras. And yet in reality, it's complete nonsense!

Bokeh bird. E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm at 150mm. f/5.6 @ 1/200th

If the above photo of the seagull on a rock doesn't have enough creamy background bokeh for you, then you're a bit of a lost cause. There is background behind the bird, but it's about 2 miles away, and I placed myself carefully so as to have as few background distractions as possible. If you do this, then even f11 will give you background bokeh to die for! 

I do get that you can't always place your subject with a very clean background 2 miles away - but then again, you often do have some control over where you place your subject - especially with portraiture.

Above is a series of portraits taken on the Olympus OM-D E-M1 with a Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7 lens (it just happens to be the fastest lens I currently own). Josh, my son, is about 5 meters in front of the nearest trees in the background. You can see the background detail increasing as the aperture values decrease, which is to be expected. But, at f1.7 (or even f2.8), the background is sufficiently out-of-focus so that Josh 'pops' forward in the image. No - granted - it's not as out-of-focus as it would be with the same f-value on a full frame sensor. But it's also not non-existant in the way many would have you believe using micro four thirds!

Here's another one, this time with the Lumix 45-150mm lens at 100mm and 150mm focal lengths (200mm and 300mm full-frame equivalent). It's a cheap kit telephoto zoom, so only goes to f5.6 at its widest opening at 150mm. But even so, it still manages to create some background bokeh. 

Josh's distance to the background hasn't changed at all, but my position and field of view in relation to him has. And yes - again - it would be even better with a full frame sensor. But, it would also have been even better if I could afford the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro lens and had shot with that at f2.8. That would create more than enough bokeh for me. And if I wanted even more, I would simply move Josh even further away from the background - which I could have done had I chose to do so.

Finally, here's a comparison with what I used to use with an APS-C DLSR, and what I have now with micro four thirds. And as you can see, they're not a million miles away from each other. In both images, subject to background distance is similar (which is why I choose them to compare).

I never felt inferior when using an APS-C DSLR (although some will still argue that even APS-C isn't 'good enough'), and I don't feel inferior using micro four thirds either. If you know how to create bokeh, then you can create it whatever system you are using.

If I was serious about bokeh (I'm not), then I would invest in some fast micro four thirds portrait lenses. Something like the Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro or the Sigma 56mm f1.4. I may end up getting the smaller and lighter Olympus 45mm f1.8 one day, it's a cracking lens and can be picked up reasonably cheaply second-hand.

And yet for me - as a landscape photographer - the flip side of all this micro-four-thirds-can't-do-bokeh nonsense, is that I can get 'greater' depth of field using the same apertures as full frame sensors. And this is a huge benefit for micro four thirds. If f/5.6 on micro four thirds is the same as f/11 on full-frame (for example), then I can let in more light by staying at f/5.6, not have to boost my ISO as quickly when the light begins to fade, and get as sharp, if not sharper results.

In the end, you need to decide what is important for you in your photography (don't let anyone else tell you), and maybe even more importantly, how much you're prepared to pay to achieve it! If you absolutely love the bokeh look, are mainly a portrait photographer, and want smooth, creamy backgrounds to be your style, then get a full frame camera and a whole series of f1.2 lenses. But don't ignore the other two factors in the blurry background equation. And make sure you nail focus at f1.2, or you will have some disappointed clients.

If, however, bokeh is only something you want/need to achieve occassionally, and you still don't mind having a hint of the background environment rendered in an image, then you can totally achieve this with micro four thirds. Heck, if you want creamy backgrounds that look like soup, you can achieve this with micro four thirds - with the right lens, and more importantly, the right technique!

So, while micro four thirds may not be the absolute best choice to achieve the bokeh look, it's not a no-go either. And yet all these camera reviewers and 'influencers' immediately dismiss the system because you "can't get decent bokeh". What a load of bokeh balls!