1000 steps Lockdown Challenge

Like a good portion of the world's population, here in New Zealand we are currently in Lockdown (as I write this) due to the Delta variant of COVID-19. It may be a few weeks more until regulations are relaxed enough for the general population to start mixing and mingling again. Until then, we stay in our 'bubbles', work from home, and go out only to get groceries, or exercise in our own local area.

Shipwreck at Sunset. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f/11 @ 3secs, ISO 400 with ND64

Under the guise of 'exercise', I decided that this time around I would complete a challenge that was circulating a year ago, during the first COVID worldwide Lockdown. Called the '1000 Steps Challenge', it's pretty self-explanatory. Take 1000 steps from your front door, and wherever you end up at the end of those 1000 steps is where you take a photo from. Simple.

At the end of 1000 steps. Photo: Joanna Lorimer, iPhone SE

My wife and I walk around our neighborhood almost daily, so I had a pretty good idea where I might end up after 1000 steps. There is an old shipwreck that emerges on our local beach depending on the weather, tides and time of year. I've seen it from a distance the last few weeks, so I knew that enough of it had emerged to make a good photo. And, if my calculations were right (they were), it would take me about 1000 steps to get there. All I needed were the right weather conditions (outgoing tide and a clear evening) and the challenge was on!

In my last post I wrote about getting my OM-D E-M1 back from repair. I was very excited, and very keen to start shooting with it, using my newly acquired Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 12-35mm f2.8 Power OIS. So that's what I took along with me on the photo walk challenge, right?

Nope. I decided, instead, to use the Sony a99 that I still have 'on-loan' from a friend (thanks Stew). I took this for a couple of reasons. First, I loaned it with the intended purpose of trying it out, and I haven't yet done so. I've only really used it a couple of times. So I thought it was time to actually start getting to grips with the a99 in a real 'out-in-the-field' type landscape test.

And second, I thought that I might like to go quite wide (turns out I was wrong), and use the Minolta 17-35mm f3.5 G lens on the a99, at the wider 17mm end. Since the a99 uses a full frame digital sensor, I was going to be able to utilise the full 17mm ultra-wide focal length of the lens. It's also considered a very sharp, premium landscape lens for the Sony/Minolta system. What landscape photographer in their right mind wouldn't want to try that kind of combination out?

So that's what I decided to take with me to complete the 1000 Steps Lockdown Challenge. And I'm glad that I did, although I didn't end up shooting at the ultra-wide 17mm end of the lens. In fact, due to the level of the outgoing tide, I shot almost exclusively at the 35mm end of the lens - something I could have easily done with my E-M1. Oh well, nevermind....

Abandoned Ship. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm f3.5 G. f/11 @ 1.3secs, ISO 400. ND64

How did the Sony a99 and Minolta 17-35mm f3.5G combination perform? In a word, outstandingly. It is, as I've already suggested, a fantastic landscape photography kit. I'd be more than happy to lug it around with me to capture all of my landscape photography. It's a superbly capable system, that captures detailed images, with some features that I really appreciate.

First the lens. The Minolta 17-35mm f/3.5 G was one of Minolta's premium pro-level 'G' lenses. Something I guess Sony continued with their 'G' master range of premium lenses.

As a pro level lens, the 17-35mm has; a constant aperture of f/3.5, uses internal focusing, has aspherical lenses and uses anomalous dispersion (AD) glass elements to control distortion (somewhat), comes with a large (plastic) petal lens hood, and is solidly constructed. Autofocus on the a99 is decently fast - certainly more than fast enough for an ultra-wide landscape lens, and seems very accurate from the images I have taken with it so far. The lens also has a focus hold button, which can be re-programmed to a depth of field button if you would prefer. Filter size is 77mm - fairly large, but fortunately a filter size that I have a decent selection of filters for. The front element does not rotate when focusing, making it ideal for using polarisers or filter systems. All very positive.

Are there things I don't like about the lens? Well, for a start, it's definitely a full-frame lens. Not that it won't work in APS-C camera bodies, because it certainly will. But why would you, when on an APS-C camera it has a fairly limited 25.5 to 52.5mm focal range (in full frame terms)? I would never consider using this on an APS-C camera as a general carry-around lens. Because of the limited focal range just mentioned, and because of the other negative factor of this lens - its weight.

At 600grams the 17-35mm is a bit of a chunky-monkey. Which is not really surprising considering it's large front element, metal construction and solid build. It's also not weather sealed, which is a bit of a glaring omission for a lens that was most likely targeted at landscape photographers. For an extra few dollars in manufacturing costs, I can't for the life of me understand why Minolta didn't weather-seal this lens? Especially since it was rather pricey when it was first released (over $2200US in today's dollars).

It is also said to have very soft corners at all focal lengths wide-open at f3.5. I say 'said to have', because I haven't tested this myself. As a landscape lens, I don't imagine I'll ever shoot it wide open. And at f/8 to f/11, where I would most often likely to be with this lens, the corners look plenty sharp enough for me.

The other area where the lens is often reported to have a few 'issues' is in flaring and ghosting. With a 77mm filter thread, there's a lot of real estate on that front element, so it may not be surprising that flare can be an issue with the lens.

Having said that, the image opposite (and several others on the night) was obviously taken directly into the sun (something I really don't do all that often) and stopped down to f/22 to produce the starburst. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the results. And these were taken with no lens hood attached. Yes, there is a little ghosting in the image - but this is a pretty extreme example, and I think it actually handled ghosting extremely well. And as for flaring? Again, not so much. I'm more than happy with the results, shooting directly into the sun - again, not something I do often.

These results may, or may not have anything to do with Minolta apparently updating the front element coatings on later models of this lens. Earlier models are said to have an orange tint, while later coatings were more bluish? My copy of the lens actually looks more orange than blue, but it's also difficult to tell. But be that as it may, I'm not unhappy with either flare or ghosting from the results I've seen using this lens thus far. On the whole, I'd give the lens 4 out of 5 stars (on full frame).

Skeletal remains. Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f/11 @ 2.5 secs. ISO 200 ND64

And finally, thoughts on the Sony a99.

I've talked a little about it before here, but basically it's a beast of a camera, with a beautiful 24.3MP full-frame sensor housed in a very rugged (and weather-sealed) magnesium alloy body. It is part of Sony's SLT line, which stands for Single Lens Transparent. Unlike traditional SLR digital cameras that use a prism mirror and optical viewfinder for viewing, the Sony SLT system has a semi-transparent pellicle mirror and electronic viewfinder. The semi-transparent fixed mirror diverts a portion of the incoming light to a phase-detection autofocus sensor, with the remaining light passing through to strike the digital image sensor placed directly behind. The image sensor then feeds a signal to the electronic viewfinder, so that changes in exposure can be seen 'real time' through the viewfinder.

Unlike many 'traditionalists', I actually prefer an electronic viewfinder. The amount of information it can relay, and the benefits of seeing the exposure change while composing the image, more than outweigh any perceived negative viewing experience from an optical viewfinder.

The other visual aid that I love (and I mean LOVE) on the a99 is its amazingly flexible articulating screen. There's almost no angle that this thing can't put itself in, and is certainly the most adjustable rear LCD screen I've ever used. I wish the rear screen on my OM-D E-M1 was this adjustable.

I also appreciate the ISO range of the a99, from ISO 50 all the way up to 25600. Again, I wish the E-M1 sensor was as sensitive, instead of the lowest native ISO 200.

Button placement is excellent on the a99, with a plethora of switches, dials and navigational aids placed in very convenient places. Minolta placed a lot of control of their cameras on the outside, at the photographer's fingertips, and Sony have carried this tradition on in their SLT range. I prefer this approach to camera design. Nikon also has this design philosophy with their DSLR's. Canon not so much... 

Battery life is decent, although with any modern digital camera, I'd carry a couple of spares with me as a matter of course. And, as befitting a flagship model, the a99 has dual card slots (SD), shoots at 10fps, a top shutter speed of 1/8000th (and down to bulb), 1200 zone evaluative metering (as well as spot), and a host of other features. Oh, and yeah, it shoots Full HD video (don't care).

What lurks beneath? Sony a99 with Minolta 17-35mm. f/11 @ 1.3secs, ISO 400. ND64 

So what's not to like? Well a few 'niggly' things stop me from falling completely head-over-heals for the Sony a99. First is the size and weight. At 733 grams, body-only, it might not be the heaviest camera ever made, but it's far from the lightest either. Add the Minolta 17-35mm lens and you are looking at 1,333 grams. Add a battery, lens hood and filter and you're probably looking at 1.5kgs. Not the end of the world, I admit. But when compared to micro four thirds there is a noticeable weight difference.

Second is the autofocus spread of the a99. It's not that great. There are 19 focus points, and even though Sony calls it a 'wide' focusing area, in reality they are all very centrally located. It's certainly nowhere near as impressive as the latest mirrorless focus offerings, where almost 100% of the viewing area is selectable. Place your subject roughly central and it won't be an issue. But forget selecting focus at the edges of the frame.

And finally, the system as a whole just feels a little bit 'clunky'. Turn the camera on, and the lens clicks, whirs and bangs into life. The same thing happens with older Minolta autofocus film cameras, since the focus motor is built into the body of the camera and comes to life every time you turn the camera on. Focus isn't what you would call deadly quick either, and it certainly isn't silent. It just feels a little 'old-school'. Which I guess, since it was simply ported across from the Minolta camera technology, is exactly what it is.

Would anything that I've mentioned above stop me from using, and enjoying the Sony a99? Of course not! At the end of the day, when you get home and download the RAW images on the computer, what you really should care about are the images it can produce. And as I hope you can see from the photos above, the images it can produce are just beautiful.

It may be a bit 'old-school', it may be a bit clunky, and it may be a bit on the 'heavy' side (please, no fat-shaming here). But everytime I use the Sony a99, I enjoy the experience immensely. In fact, I may have to stop using it. Because I think I might almost be at the point of seriously questioning my choice of camera system! 

Olympus OM-D E-M1 fixed

Horray! My E-M1 is back from being repaired, and is fully functional once again! Yay!!! I'm super excited to have it back (can you tell?).

Homeward bound. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8.  f/6.3 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

I'm even more excited to have it back so that I can now, finally, use it with the Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 lens that I purchased recently. The lens arrived while my camera was away getting repaired, so I haven't been able to shoot with it yet. But that all changed yesterday (as I write this), when we made an emergency trip back home to Greymouth from Christchurch. 

Emergency trip you say? Yes, I do. Let me explain...

My wife and I had traveled to Christchurch the previous weekend, to meet our beautiful new baby grand daughter, Arabella. I had planned to stay for a week (and had taken the week off from work), while my wife was going to stay on a bit longer to help our daughter and her partner with looking after their two-and-a-half year old as well as the new baby.

But then COVID hit New Zealand again. And we went into a nation-wide Lockdown. The Delta variant of the virus was picked up in Auckland, but the people had traveled extensively, so the whole of New Zealand went into Lockdown.

Southern Alps Panorama. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

Initially, the South Island where we live, was placed into Lockdown for three days (until midnight Friday), with a 48hr window of opportunity from the Tuesday when Lockdown began for people who were away from their places of residence (that would be my wife and I visiting in Christchurch), to get back home.

Adding to the urgency (if that wasn't enough), was the fact that it also happens to be winter in New Zealand. The roads that we needed to travel on to make it back home are often closed due to snow and ice. A quick check of the long-range forecast indicated that more snow was indeed likely over the next few days, so we had a very narrow window of opportunity to return home - or remain in Lockdown at our daughters in Christchurch! Most people think that this is only the beginning of a larger, extended Lockdown period. So we made the decision to pack-up immediately and both head home.

Canterbury hills dusting. E-M1 with Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8. f/6.3 @ 1/320th, ISO 200

In one sense, this is very bad timing. I still had three days to go of my time with our new grand daughter, and my wife was intending on staying longer. But in another sense (getting back to my camera), the timing was perfect. I had an email from Greg at Photo and Video on Monday afternoon telling me that the camera was back from repair, and was I still around to collect it. Of course I jumped in the car and went straight there, delighted that it had been repaired and I just happened to be in Christchurch to collect it. And the very next day, the country went into Lockdown. If I'd decided to wait until the next day to collect it, then it would have been too late.

One-lane Bridge ahead. OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/200th, ISO 200

Of course I would of rather had the camera, been in Christchurch for another few days, came back when originally intended, and not been in Lockdown! But going into Lockdown knowing that my repaired camera was in Christchurch, just sitting there, and couldn't get to me, would have been torture! Fortunately that's not the case.

The repair slip from A&E Electronics states that they 'dismantled removed and replaced rear encoder dial', which is exactly what I thought they would do. Total cost of repair - $250.87. Photo & Video split the costs with me (which they didn't have to do) so I payed $125.00 NZ for a repaired rear dial on an E-M1. Fingers crossed that it stays repaired, and that I have no more issues with it.

I am thrilled that I have it back. I am delighted that it's now repaired. And I do love using it. But now there's that little niggle....

Lake Pearson, Winter. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 12-35mm. f/6.3 @ 1/320th, ISO 200 

I had assumed that I would get to try out the Panasonic Lumix lens in Christchurch, with portraits of my grandson and grand daughter, at the f2.8 range. Which it would have been brilliant for. But again, the best laid plans...

Instead, I got to use it on the trip home to the West Coast, through Canterbury, and some stunningly beautiful evening landscapes. And I ain't complaining! On a good day (which fortunately this was) the landscape in winter is simply spectacular. The light isn't too harsh, the white mountains are crisp and clear against the blue sky, and the views are gorgeous.

I think the photo above - 'Lake Pearson, Winter' is my favourite from the trip. I love the play of light and shadow through the hills, the way the lake glows blue from the sky, and of course the white dusting of snow on the surrounding hills, perfectly lit by the early evening light.

Alpine glow. OM-D E-M1 with Panasonic 45-150mm. f/6.3 @ 1/250th, ISO 200

Most of the images shot on the trip home were taken with the Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8. For one, I wanted to test the lens out for the first time. And two, the scenery fits the wider 24mm end of the lenses focal length. But for some - as in the image above - I needed to zoom in closer on the distant mountains to achieve the composition I was after. For this, I used the only lens that I kept when I was selling lenses to buy the 12-35mm - the Panasonic 45-150mm f/4-5.6. With the 12-35mm and the 45-150mm I have an excellent combination of small, light (relatively speaking) lenses with a focal range from 24 to 300mm (basically). I would like to get the 35-100mm f2.8 Panasonic Lumix at a later date, as it's the prefect compliment to the 12-35mm. But that's probably a lot later down the track. If I stick with micro four thirds?

It's too early to give a definitive answer on whether I like the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 or not, and whether it was worth selling almost all my other lenses for. Early indication of IQ is very promising, although I don't think I enjoy using it as much as I enjoyed the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 pro. But as I said, it's very early days.

Now that I have my E-M1 back from repair (woo-hoo), and some time to really try out the 12-35mm f2.8 (thanks to Lockdown), expect a further analysis of this lens soon. Thanks for reading, and stay safe everyone.

Oh, and by-the-way... Happy World Photography Day! 📸

The limitation of 6 megapixels

I am still waiting to hear back from the camera store about my E-M1 repair (what, me impatient? Never!). I am really hoping that it coincides with our upcoming trip to Christchurch to meet our new grandchild because a) it would be very convenient to pick it up then, and b) I really want a camera to photograph the new edition to our family! And to make matters worse (or better I guess, depending on how you care to look at it), my Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 G lens has now arrived. Yay! Except I don't have a camera to try it out with. Aarrgghh!

Greymouth wharf from Cobden. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

In the meantime, though, I am still using my wife's Nikon D70. And I'm still enjoying shooting with it. I used the camera for a few years when I switched to digital in the mid 90s, so when I pick it up now a certain amount of muscle memory kicks in, and I find it very intuitive to use. Yes, there are a couple of things that 'annoy' me (exposure compensation +/- is flipped around from what I am used to now), but overall the shooting experience is still very enjoyable. And the images still hold-up, even at 6 megapixels. With one exception... cropping.

White Heron. D70 with 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

Most weekends, my wife and I like to go for at least an hours walk together. This usually involves taking a stroll through our local Cobden Lagoon - an estuary that is home to numerous bird life. If we are lucky, one of those birds will be a beautiful white heron.

I usually take my camera on these walks, on the off-chance that something catches my eye, and I'll wan't to take a photograph of it. Most of the time the camera stays draped over my shoulder (or carried in my hand) and I never use it. But sometimes I get lucky, and a white heron (or some other worthy subject) presents itself.

That's what happened last weekend on our walk. We spotted it from across the other side of the lagoon, and from where it was wading I could tell it was very close to a bridge that we would cross eventually. Actually, it's the same bridge from which I captured the image 'Swan River' from my last post.

As we made our way over to the other side of the lagoon, and approached the bridge, I spotted the Heron again - in almost exactly the same position as when we had first seen him. He had hardly moved at all. And because we were slightly elevated up on the bridge, he seemed not to really even notice that we were there. Or if he did, he didn't seem to mind. He was only about 15 meters from us, probably the closest I have ever managed to get to a heron. And would you believe it - all I had was a standard 18-55mm lens!

The smaller image of the white heron, seen above, is the uncropped image - as close as I was able to get with the full 55mm end of the lens. As you can see, even though this was the closest I have ever got, the bird is still relatively small in the frame.

The larger image is cropped from the original. And while the bird is now a bit more prominent, it's still not filling the frame! But this was as close as I could physically get. So I knew I would have to crop in on the image later if I was going to get anything even half-way decent.

And in doing so, we run up against the D70s limiting factor - the 6MP sensor if you need to crop heavily into your image.

Curious Horses. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

Unfortunately, it didn't only happen once, but twice, on this particular walk. Heading home from the lagoon, we passed a paddock with some horses that I hadn't seen in there before. The lighter coloured horse especially caught my eye, and I went over to take a photo.

This scenario was even worse than the heron, since as you can see from the uncropped image at right, the horses were even further away from me, and they weren't that keen to get any closer!

So once again, I took the shot anyway - at the 55mm end of the lens (around an 80mm full-frame equivalent focal length) - knowing that I would have to crop out a lot of the image to feature my subject.

In both images, I've probably only kept around a third of the image, cropping out two-thirds. That's left me with file sizes of around 1MB - not great in terms of resolution. Enough for a sharp 5x7 print, but probably not much more.

Does that mean that the D70 is no good as a camera? No, of course it doesn't! If you don't crop the 6MP files, then you can easily print up to A3 sizes. But, if you do need to crop - heavily - then resolution (and print sizes) will suffer. Dat's a fac u'all.

Bus Barn. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/1000th, ISO 200

So what to do? Well, if I was going to be shooting a lot with the D70 (I'm not), then I would invest in a zoom lens. Something like the Nikkor 75-300mm. Then I wouldn't have had any problem filling the frame with the heron, or the horses, and I wouldn't have had to crop-in later. Thereby taking advantage of all those 6 million wonderful pixels! Easy....

And to be honest, the same should be true no matter how many megapixels your camera has. Yes, it will be easier to do a super close crop of a bird from a 50 megapixel sensor and still be able to get a decent A4 print. But should you? There is a reason why bird, wildlife and sports photographers carry around those massive 600mm lenses with them (and newsflash, it's not just to look professional). They need to get as close to their subject as possible, and fill-the-frame so they don't have to crop later on. This gives them the absolute best IQ they can get. I'm sure there is certainly some cropping going on later in post. But they certainly don't all own 100 megapixel cameras and shoot with standard lenses, thinking that they'll just crop-in super tight later on! And neither should you or I. 

I'm not advocating that we all shoot with 6 megapixel cameras and resolution be damned! Of course not. But... we also probably don't need as many megapixels as we think we do either - and we certainly shouldn't be going out with the intention of cropping out two-thirds of every photo we shoot because we couldn't/didn't get close enough. Wildlife photographer's know they will be shooting nervous animals, from a long way off, so they invest in super telephoto lenses. Comes with the territory I'm afraid. 

I'm not a wildlife photographer, and never intend to be. I do know, however, that on the odd occassion, I will want to take a telephoto image or three. That's why the only lens I kept when I was selling all the others to get the 12-35mm f2.8, was my Lumix 45-150mm. A while that's not super-telephoto by any stretch, it does equate to 300mm focal length on a full-frame system. And boy, could I have used a 300mm lens last weekend when I was photographing a white heron and some horses. Maybe next time...

Taking the Nikon D70 for a spin in 2021

While my Olympus OM-D E-M1 is away getting repaired (see earlier post), and my E-M10 is packed up for its new owner (yay), I thought I'd take the opportunity to use an old friend. The Nikon D70.

Who, me? Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

The Nikon D70 was my first ever DSLR - back in 2004 I do believe? That makes this a 17 year old digital camera (in 2021). It's a 6.1 megapixel beast with a 'massive' (kidding) 1.8" 130,000 dot lcd screen. It takes the somewhat outdated Compact Flash cards, has 5-area focusing, and shoots at a blistering 3 frames per second. Not flash specifications by today's standards I guess?

Cobden Beach High Tide. Nikon D70 with Nikkor 18-55mm. f/5.6 @ 1/5000th, ISO 200

And yet, this is the camera I used for my first year as a wedding photographer. With excellent results. Because it is a damn fine Nikon camera, with excellent ergonomics, and excellent IQ. So what if it's only 6 megapixels? So what if the lcd screen is only really an indication? As long as it shows the histogram overlay (and it does), do you really need to 'chimp' your images after each shot!? (That would be a 'No' by-the-way).

When I first purchased the D70, it was streets ahead of the all-plastic Canon offering (the 300D?) - with better handling, superior specifications, and just an all-around better user experience. And really, that's still the case all these years ago. As a photographic tool, the D70 handles like a dream.

Swan River. Nikon D70. f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

I don't need to go into great detail about the D70. I've written about using it on and off in this blog over the years. And I've championed using 'older' cameras and not upgrading 'just because' you want to have the latest and greatest.

But hey, I'm also not here to tell you that the D70 is going to be my main digital camera going forward. Because it's not. Although it could. But it's not.

Because I'm also not going to deny that advances in technology are helpful. and useful, and also sometimes just plain fun. I'm very much looking forward to getting my Olympus OM-D E-M1 back from repair. I love that thing, and it's full of crazy-good tech! But it's also not the latest and the greatest in the OM-D line either.

Flax reflection. Nikon D70. f/8 @ 1/13th, ISO 200

I've said it before (and I'll say it again), nobody really makes bad cameras. Probably haven't for a very long time. We consumers (fueled by marketing hype) get hooked up on X, Y and Z. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter much what you use to take a photograph. And that goes for film as well as digital.

We are, as a species, quite tribal - sometimes in the extreme. We like to cheer for our team. Unfortunately, sometimes this gets out of hand, and we loose perspective. Can anyone say dual card slots?!

YouTube is rife with 'Is 'X' camera still good in 2021' type videos, and I have to say that they 'do my head in'. The answer, in ALL cases, is YES! Every camera is still good in 2021 - depending, of course, on your use-case. The D70 will be no good for a sports shooter in 2021. But it was also no good for one in 2004. There were better choices then, and there are better choices now. Just use some common sense people! Please!!!

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.