Shooting with the 65:24 custom ratio - XPan images on the Lumix S5

I can't afford a Hasselblad XPan  - who can nowadays? Here in New Zealand they can go for as much as $7000.00! But hey - that's with a lens buster! If, that is, you can find one. Rare as hen's teeth they are. People just don't want to part with them. And that's because they are:

1. A Hasselblad
2. An XPan - a camera that managed to be something not many other cameras are - truly unique.

I'm fairly sure I'll never own one, and for a long time I wasn't sure I wanted to (but oh, I do!). Because the XPan's image ratio is what sets this camera apart from most others (certainly in the 35mm film space). Its 65:24 'panorama' view could almost be seen as a gimmick. Or just plain weird. And that's what I thought when they were first introduced in the 1990's - the love-child of Hasselblad Sweden and Fujifilm Japan. The camera you didn't know you needed, until you saw one.

How many photos do you want to shoot at an extreme 65:24 aspect ratio? Isn't a bit of a novelty isn't it? A bit like a fisheye lens point of view. Get's old real fast. Am I right?

Nelson Waterfront. Lumix S5 in 65:24 aspect ratio with S 20-60mm . f/8 @ 125th, ISO 100

Nope. Turns out I'm wrong! Dead wrong. It looks like those clever Swedish/Japanese engineers knew what the hell they were doing when they designed the XPan. Shooting in the 65:24 aspect ratio is not only a whole heap of fun, but amazingly helpful when composing an image. And fortunately for me - even though I don't have an XPan, I do have a Panasonic Lumix S5, which just so happens to shoot in the 65:24 aspect ratio (amongst others).

In a recent trip to Nelson, my wife and I took a stroll along the waterfront in the early evening, hoping to get some half-decent photos of the boats and wharf. It was a lovely evening, with some very nice light. BUT, there wasn't much in the way of cloud action in the sky, or foreground action either. I shot for a while in the usual 3:2 aspect ratio, and wasn't digging the results. But then I thought to myself - 'self, what would it look like if I got rid of the foreground and bland sky, and shot XPan style'.

Boatshed Cafe, Nelson. Lumix S5 in 65:24 ratio with S 20-60mm . f/8 @ 1/50th, ISO 100

Boom! Instantly better photos! Well at least I think so. The Panoramic-style format has not only allowed me to get rid of the bland sky and foreground, but it also suits the horizontal composition of the building jutting out into the water. It 'accentuates' to horizontality (is that a word) of the subject - and I love it. And far from being the 'only' composition I could use it with, the opposite seemed to be true. Everywhere I looked there were images crying out to be 'XPanned'!

Fishing off the Wharf, Nelson. Lumix S5 in 65:24 ratio with S 20-60mm. f/8 @ 100th, ISO 100

Now I know what you're thinking. These aren't really 'XPan' images. They're just full frame 3:2 images 'cropped' in camera to produce the look of the 65:24 ratio. And of course, you'd be 100% keerect. But when you look through the viewfinder of the S5 in 65:24 ratio, that's what you see. And you can compose accordingly. A bit like when you switch the camera to shoot mono and you get to 'see' in mono through the viewfinder. It elevates the user experience in a way that 'pre-visualising' can't.

And just like shooting in monochrome, as long as you are also capturing a RAW image, then you are still retaining a colour 3:2 full-frame image. Actually - that's just given me an idea.... How about using the 65:24 aspect ratio and setting the camera to monochrome, for that truly old-school film shooting feel. I hadn't thought of that! (Note to self...)

Boat at Dusk, Nelson Harbour. Lumix S5 in 65:24 ratio with S 20-60mm lens. f/8 @1/25th, ISO 100

Sure, it means that you are 'throwing away' about half the megapixels in the image - but with a full frame camera and 24MPs they still end up being a decent size and have plenty of detail to work with in post.

And speaking of 'post' - I've made a huge change recently to my post-processing. I've dumped my Adobe Photography subscription and moved to something else for all my RAW processing and photo editing. What did I go with? I'll let you know in the next blogpost.... 😉

Serenity. Panasonic Lumix S5 in 65:24 ratio with S 20-60mm. f/8 @ 1/60th, ISO 800

I loved photographing Nelson Waterfront in the 'Hasselblad XPan' 65:24 aspect ratio. I had an absolute blast. And it proved to me that the 65:24 aspect ratio isn't just a gimmick. It's a bona fide choice for really strong compositions - with the right subject.

Is it enough to make me want a Hasselblad XPan? Yeah - it kinda is. It's certainly shown me that it wouldn't just sit on the shelf gathering dust. Will I ever use one 'for real'? Nah. Probably not. It's a bit like the Leica conundrum. Yes, I'm sure they are nice. But for that price, I'd rather have a couple more lenses for my Panasonic and change left over! Dreams, however, are free.....

A Tale of Two Cameras (and Fuji Superia 200)

In recent posts (here) and (here), I've talked about starting to shoot film again - with a Minolta Dynax 7 and a Canon EOS 300V. I've been able to put a roll of Fuji Superia 200 through each camera in the last month, and recently had the film developed during a trip to Christchurch. Let's have a look at the results....

Cobden Lagoon. Minolta Dynax 7 with 35-70mm f/4 (@ 35mm). Fuji Superia 200.

First things first - both cameras work! Yay!! Of the two rolls I shot, under varying lighting conditions, the exposures were bang-on. So that's the first hurdle out of the way. Two fully functioning camera bodies.

Second, how do the images actually look? And again - no problems there. All the photos are sharp (or at least sharp enough for 35mm film scanned on a flatbed scanner) and have good colour rendition. In terms of the colour, I did find that all the photos tended towards a blue tint with the Fujicolor Superia. With almost all of the scans I removed some of the blue from the midtones and shadows to get the colour a bit more 'neutral'.

Lagoon Reeds. Minolta Dynax 7 with 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 (@100mm). Fuji Superia 200.

Since having decided to shoot some film this year, I have been thinking about how to digitize the negatives. As mentioned above, the photos here have been scanned on a flatbed scanner (Epson Photo V700). I just happened to have one, and so that's what I have used to digitize almost all of my 35mm negatives. But there is a lot of buzz on the interwebs about using your digital camera and a macro lens to 'scan' your negatives. This is, they say (whoever 'they' are), the better - and quicker - way to go.

I just happen to have a full frame 24MP digital camera, and a Sigma 105mm macro lens. So this is definitely something that I will be giving a go in the near future. I may even do a 'comparison' with the flatbed scan and the digital camera scan.

Brunner Mine Bridge. Canon 300V with 28-80mm f4.5-5.6mm (@50mm). Fuji Superia 200.

If I'm honest, I'm not quite sure of what I think about scanning 35mm film with a digital camera? You might argue that if you are going to do that, why not just shoot with a digital camera in the first place? And you might have a point.

But (playing devils advocate), if you want to show your photos on a digital platform, then you are going to have to digitize your negatives at some stage. So why not use the best re-productive system available to you? And if that happens to be your digital camera, then so be it. Having used a film scanner over the years, I have to say that they are a bit of a faff to use, and don't always produce the sharpest results - especially with 35mm.

Cobden Pigeons. Canon 300V with Canon 28-80mm (@80mm). Fujicolor Superia 200

Speaking for myself, the 'fun' of shooting film is in the actual process - and in the cameras I get to use. I enjoyed using both the Minolta Dynax 7 and the Canon 300V. Both very modern cameras - and yet both very different shooting experiences. The Minolta has a more 'pro' feeling about it - with a rugged magnesium-alloy body and lots of dials, whereas the Canon 300V is certainly a more consumer-grade shooting experience.

I didn't really 'prefer' one over the other - although if I'm honest I liked more of the photos I shot with the 300V. But that probably has more to do with the places I went to photograph rather than the camera's themselves.

Taylorville Bus. Canon 300V with Fujicolor Superia 200.

Thoughts of scanning aside, my first rolls of film through my two film cameras was definitely a success. I got images that I really liked from both cameras - enough to want to repeat the experience. I have a trip away to Nelson for a holiday coming up, and I'm deciding whether to shoot it all on film or not. The only thing that really gives me pause is the film stock situation. I have a lot of black and white film, but no more colour. I'm not sure I really want to shoot everything on black and white, so I may end up just taking the digital and leaving the film cameras at home until I can find some more cheap colour film? Anybody know where I can get some cheap colour film from?

Creating custom Photo Styles on the Lumix S5

In my last post I said that I was going to have a play around with making my own Photo Styles for my Panasonic Lumix S5 - a bit like the Fujifilm 'recipes'. When I shot with the Fujifilm E1 and E2 (excellent cameras and I rather miss them), I spent a lot of time creating my own film 'recipes' and then shooting them in either RAW + Jpeg, or sometimes even Jpeg only. I decided to try and replicate them in my S5, just to see how close I could get, and whether the results would be worth it or not.

For the colour styles, I wanted a classic film look (similar to the Classic Chrome film simulation of the Fuji's), as well as a more punchy 'Velvia' style. Above is my 'Classic Film' Style next to the Standard Panasonic picture profile, and my 'Velvia' next to the Vivid picture style that comes with the camera.

The 'Classic Film' style certainly has a slightly de-saturated film look compared to the Standard profile, since it's based on the L. Classic Neo photo style. My settings for the Classic Film look are:

Base: L Classic Neo

Contrast 0

Highlight 0

Shadow -4

Saturation +3

Hue +2

Grain Effect: Low

Colour Noise: On

Sharpness 0

Noise Reduction 0

For my Velvia photo style, I started with the Vivid base, and then ramped it up a bit more:
Base: Vivid
Contrast +2.5
Highlight 0
Shadows -1
Saturation +4
Hue -2
Sharpness +2
Noise Reduction -2

For the monochrome styles I wanted two contrasting styles - and these I've called Acros and Tri-X.

Acros is based on the standard Monochrome Picture style and is not a huge change, although it does add grain and a yellow filter. For my Acros style I used:

Base: Monochrome

Contrast 0

Highlight -1

Shadow +1

Tone 0

Filter: Yellow

Grain: Low

Sharpness +1

Noise Reduction +2.5

And for my grittier Tri-X style I used:

Base L. Monochrome D

Contrast +3

Highlights +1

Shadows -3

Tone 0

Filter: Red

Grin: High

Sharpness +1

Noise Reduction -2.5

Does the end justify the means? Is it worth all this fluffing about - especially when you can achieve all of these results with just the one RAW file in post?

If I'm honest, it's probably not really worth the hassle - and I basically came to the same conclusion when shooting Fujifilm. Unless you are a Jpeg shooter only, who wants their images to have a particular look and feel SOOC (straight out of camera). Then all this picture style stuff really does make sense.

The only picture style above that is markedly different from Panasonics own offerings is the gritty, contrasty Tri-X style. But even then, I discovered while playing around with picture styles that there are also 'Filters' that can be set as well (although not in conjunction with Picture Styles). Most are just gimmicky (sepia, fantasy, stars etc), but a couple of them might be worth using. Especially the Dynamic Monochrome which gives results like (you guessed it) Tri-X! 

I've got the above Picture Styles programmed in now, so I may as well keep them there. But will I shoot with them? Maybe. Just maybe....

Exploring the Panasonic Lumix S5 Photo Styles

In my previous post I talked about getting back into film photography. And on that note, the film I ordered from AliExpress, that was due to arrive in about two months from that slow boat to China, actually only took a couple of weeks. Excellent! If I like the look of the 400 ISO Lucky film, I may have to order some more....

But why, in this day and age, would anyone want to shoot film (I hear you say)? And that's a very good question - thanks for asking. Well, one of the main reasons to shoot film relates to what I just said about the Lucky film from China. It has to do with the 'look' of the film. Its rendition of colour (or monotones). Its grain structure. The way it handles contrast - mid tones, highlights etc. 

It's the reason film photographers have favourite film stocks. Some like the 'look' of Portra, while some prefer Velvia. Which of course, also speaks to the Fuji vs Kodak debate. Fuji tends more towards greens and blues, while Kodak tends more towards reds and warm colour tones.

Film shooters will argue that they get to change their camera's 'sensor' every time they change their film stock. Kodak for portraits, Fuji for landscapes, and TMax for moody black and whites. Whereas a digital sensor is just an electronic device capturing 1s and 0s in a predictable and repeatable manner - right?

Cobden Lagoon. Lumix S5 with S20-60mm. L Classic Neo Photo Style + Low Grain.

Well, actually, digital camera manufacturers have gone to great lengths to reproduce colours from digital sensors in very specific ways. It's why two manufacturers can use the same digital sensor, and yet the images that they produce will be very different in the way they render colour. Very much like film shooters preferring a particular film stock, you will now hear digital photographers talk about preferring a particular 'colour science' from one brand over the other.

Every digital camera you buy offers 'Picture Profiles' (some call them 'styles') with titles like Landscape, Portrait or Natural (to name just a few). These give you different 'looks' to your photos - if you shoot Jpegs. If, however, you only shoot RAW, then these picture profiles are basically redundant (although they will be what you see through the viewfinder and on the LCD screen when you review the image).

Perhaps the manufacturer who has taken these picture styles to the extreme is Fujifilm. With a rich history of 'film' (duh), they offer styles called Velvia, Acros and Eterna (among others) that get baked-in to the jpeg and simulate their film stocks. An entire community has been created around photographers coming up with new 'recipes' that simulate film stocks for Fujifilm cameras. But they aren't the only players in the game...

Photo Styles from the Panasonic Lumix S5.

Above is an overview of the 15 Photo Styles (plus one with grain added) available in the Lumix S5. It may be difficult to pick up some of the subtle (and not so subtle) nuances in each style, but they are certainly different from each other. Many of the styles are 'as advertised', in that Natural is quite 'natural' looking, Vivid is more 'vivid, and Monochrome is - you guessed it - 'monochrome'. Others, like 'Landscape' or 'Portrait' are also fairly self-explanatory.

But then there are also options like L Classic Neo, L Monochrome D and Cinelike V2 which are a bit more out of the ordinary. L Monochrome (Lumix Monochrome - or Leica?) has been added to Photo Styles with the S series of cameras, together with Monochrome D and monochrome S. D is a more punchy b&w - more suitable for architecture and landscapes, while S seems tailored towards portraiture? That's how I would use them.

L Classic Neo is Panasonic's attempt at simulating colour negative film. The colours are intended to have a more nostalgic and gentle colour film look. And to be fair, it does a pretty decent job of it (see the first photo in this blogpost).

Another example of Photo Styles.

The final row of Photo Styles are more geared towards video shooting, although you can produce still images using these profiles. The final, V-Log is a very flat profile, ideal for colour grading of video, and not really useful if you are purely a stills shooter. I did, however, quite like the colour rendition using the Like 709 style on the landscape image above, so there's no rule that says you can't use these video-centric style for your photography. But again, remember these are for Jpegs only, so the resulting style will be 'baked-in' to the final image.

Greymouth Wharf from Cobden Lagoon. L Monochrome D + Grain High.

Almost all of the above examples are of Picture Styles using the default settings. Each individual Photo Style can also be 'tweaked' to create your own style (or 'recipe' to steal the concept from Fujifilm). The S5 allows you to programme a further 4 custom styles of your own making for quick recall. 

Adjustments such as contrast, highlight, shadow, tone, hue and sharpness can be set by adding or subtracting values and will vary depending on the picture style (you can't set hue and saturation in the monochrome styles for example). For Monochrome (and Classic Neo), you can also add grain structure in 3 settings (low, standard or high), as well as adding yellow, orange, red or green filter effects. The options are almost endless! With a bit of trial and error, I'm sure you could dial in something resembling your favourite film stock.

Grain can be set at either Low, Standard or High for that extra film look.

And if this wasn't enough, the latest Lumix S cameras (not my S5 unfortunately) can also accept LUTs - colour profiles that are usually used at the post-processing stage by videographers to simulate different colour gradings or film stocks. Fujifilm eat your heart out!

Photo Styles (or film recipes - call them what you will) were something that I played around with a lot when I was shooting Fujifilm cameras. It seemed like a natural thing to do when you were starting out with styles called Provia. But there's really no reason why you couldn't do the same thing with Lumix cameras like the S5 using their Photo Styles as a base. 

If you enjoy shooting jpegs, and trying to get a particular 'look' to your images SOOC (straight out of camera), then have a play with Photo Styles. I'm going to have a play with some of my own, and I'll share what I've come up with. Can I get Kodak TMax 400 and Fuji Velvia out of a Panasonic Lumix S5? Why not....

The film journey continues...

I have run a roll of Fuji Superia 200 colour film through my Minolta Dynax 7 over the last couple of weeks, but haven't processed it yet. I will probably wait until I have a few to develop all at once, since I will dev-only and then scan the negs myself.

Since my last post talking about getting back into film this year, I have purchased a few more items to add to my Minolta and Canon film kits. One is a Minolta 75-300mm f4.5/5.6 D lens. Yes, I know I already have the 70-210mm f4.5/5.6. But it was a great price ($40.00NZ), and I wanted to see if it was worth getting the extra reach over the 70-210mm.

I have also branched out and made my very first purchase on AliExpress! As a hobbyist getting back into film, I shudder at the prices being asked for film here in New Zealand. One roll of standard Kodak Gold 200 is about $40.00NZ in camera stores - $40.00!!! Bugger that. So after a quick look an AliExpress, I purchased 5 rolls of Lucky Black and White 400 film for just under $48.00NZ delivered. That's basically five rolls for the price of one! 

I'll see how it goes shooting and developing it, but at that price, you can't really go wrong?

And speaking of what can go wrong.... you know that Canon EOS 5 I purchased (see last post) for $35.00? Turns out there was a very good reason for it going so cheaply. Yep, it doesn't work. Pop a fresh battery in, turn it on, and press the shutter... and nothing (except a very weird electronic grinding noise). Oh well, it was worth a shot I guess. Although having said that, these EOS 5's seem fairly dodgy, reliability-wise. All sorts of things can go wrong with them (a very weak command dial for a start). So that's it with me and the EOS 5. I'm done with them.

That's not it for me and Canon though. Far from it! Canon and me go way back with film. In fact, when I think of film photography, I really think in terms of Canon. My first camera was a Canon T70, followed by the Canon T90, and then a procession of Canon EOS cameras (100, 10, 50, 30, 1), until I changed to digital in the early 2000s and switched to Nikon. I only really shot film on Canon cameras, so to not have a Canon now that I'm giving film a serious look again would be sacrilegious!

The EOS 300v is one of the last film cameras Canon produced (the 300x was the last), and is jam-packed with modern features and up-to-date autofocus from the digital era. It's a bit of a plastic-fantastic (although it does have a metal lens mount), and because it's not a trendy, all mechanical, traditional-looking film camera, it tends to be ignored by the hipster film community. Suits me. I'm old, and so are my eyes. I need all the help I can get. So modern auto-focus with modern EF lenses will do me nicely thank you. 

It's also a bit of a love it or loath it looking camera. And actually, I quite like the look of it. If you are going to go modern, then by Jove's go all-out!

At the moment I have an early production 35-70mm EF to go with it, but I hope to rectify that in the not too distant future. It will take all Canon EF lenses (including L Pro glass), although of all the brands, Canon's EF lenses seem to retain their value the most. So it might take a while to get some truly decent glass for it.

Fun in the Snow, Arthur's Pass. Kodak Gold 200.

I thought I would finish this post with a photo shot on film - taken about 20 years ago! I don't remember what camera I used, it could have been any number of different options - but to me it brings back so many memories, and has the unmistakeable 'look' of film.

For our kids 21st, my wife and I put together photo albums of their life for them (up to 21yrs obviously). We looked through boxes and boxes of negatives and prints to fill the albums, and probably 95% of the images we used were shot on film. Yes, that's partly because digital only really became viable around 20 years ago, so a lot of their early life was documented on film. But it also had to do with how easy it was to go through them and choose the images we wanted to use. We didn't have to find x,y or z old hard-drive and go through hundreds (if not thousands) of files to find images. We literally picked up a box and flicked through the prints.

Archiving of memories is very important. And I think it could be argued quite seriously that the best way to archive images is with film. How many of us have 'lost' photos to corrupt cards/drives/computers? And how many will continue to do so? Every digital photographer will tell you it's a matter of when, not if. Sure, you can 'loose' film negatives. But baring fire (heaven forbid), if they are kept in a box in the dark, they will last forever. And will print up as good as the day they were taken. Worth thinking about...

2025 - The Year of Film!?

I love black and white photography. Always have. It's what I cut my teeth on when I first started learning all about photography (way back when). It's classic, the images often have a timeless feeling and there's something 'evocative' about monochrome that color doesn't match.

Perhaps that's why I enjoyed shooting the Fujifilm cameras and playing around with the film recipes so much? At least half of the recipes I programmed into the cameras were black and white (mostly trying to replicate Acros - my favorite b&w film). And shooting with all these 'film stocks' on a digital camera was a heap of fun (and a huge rabbit-hole it turns out).

Aailyah. Lumix S5 with Panasonic S 50mm f1.8. 1/60th sec @ f2.8, ISO 100. 

Shooting black and white with digital is a simple matter of choosing a monochrome profile instead of color. Then, if you shoot RAW, you get a b&w image in the viewfinder (if you're shooting with a mirrorless system), but the RAW image still has the color information attached if you change your mind.

You can also choose to shoot in RAW + JPEG, in which case the jpeg will have the b&w profile 'burnt' into the file, while the RAW will still retain the color. The best of both worlds. 

I don't shoot Fujifilm cameras anymore, having moved to the Panasonic Lumix S5 full-frame camera. But when I did shoot with Fujifilm, I would often only shoot in JPEG - meaning that the resulting image would only be monochrome. No color info - no going back. It was a bit like shooting film, but with digital. 

Some are very happy with this work flow - creating 'pretend' film images on digital. Heck, you can even add grain to the image at the point of capture to further enhance the film look. 

Say 'Cheese'. Lumix S5 with Panasonic S 50mm f1.8. 1/60th sec @ f2.8, ISO 100.

The portraits in this post were all taken on the Lumix S5 using the Monochrome S profile. The S5 has a variety of monochrome profiles you can choose, with the 'S' profile seeming to give the best rendition of skin colors. But since they were all shot in RAW, they were infinitely 'tweakable' in post-processing anyway. And as much as I do like the final look, there is a part of this jaded old photographer that thinks to himself "If you want the film look to your images, just damn well shoot film"!

Storytime with Grammy. Lumix S5 with S 50mm f1.8. 1/60th sec @ 4.5, ISO 1000.

So that's exactly what I've decided to do in 2025. Shoot some film.

Early last year, a very good friend gifted me a Minolta Dynax 7 film camera body (thanks Stew) and I've meant to shoot it ever since. The time for thinking is over, and it's time to get doing! 

First step was to actually get some film for it. Given all I've said in this post so far, I was only going to be looking at monochrome film - for two reasons. Firstly for all the reasons I've given in this post 😁(didn't I just say that?), and second - the cost. B&W film is cheaper to buy and, if you have your own processing tanks and chemicals (which I do), cheaper to develop. Much cheaper. 

I brought some Rollei APX 25, 100 and 400 ISO film, and then actually scored some cheap expired color film online, just for giggles. Don't know when I'll use the color (especially since one of them is a slide film which is horrendously expensive to develop), but it's there just in case.

I then decided to get a 'standard' lens for the Dynax 7, and I knew just which one to get; The Minolta 35-70mm f/4 macro. It's a lens I've owned before and used with Sony A-mount digital cameras. It's a great performer, very sharp wide open, with a constant f/4 aperture.

The 35-70mm f/4's come up reasonably regularly, and are a fairly cheap price for such a good lens. The one I bid on was actually attached to a Dynax 7xi, so I got another film body as a back-up to the Dynax 7.

When Stewart gifted me the Dynax 7 it came with a 50mm f2.8 macro lens, so I decided my new film kit would be complete with a telephoto lens. Enter the Minolta 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6. I had actually purchased a 70-210mm f/4 'beercan' but had to send it back because it wouldn't focus to infinity! Damn... I might get another one later, but for the meantime the f/4.5-5.6 will do.

With the Minolta in the bag I thought I was now sorted for a film kit. Turns out I was wrong! Since I was looking through all the listings for film cameras on our New Zealand auction site (TradeMe), I was seeing other cameras that were catching my attention. I had my eye on a Canon EOS5 body that looked like it might go cheaply, so I put in a 'low' bid and left it at that. And yes, I won it (for the princely sum of $35.00NZ).

Film cameras (and film) have experienced something of a resurgence in the last 5 years, which has seen the prices go up considerably. Film itself is eye-wateringly expensive (which does give pause when looking at getting back into shooting film), while old film cameras that used to be given away (or thrown out), are now going for more that older digital camera bodies. Crazy...

But there are still bargains to be had (can't complain about $35.00NZ for a Canon EOS5) if you look out for them and are patient. Strangely enough, it's the older, more manual film cameras that are the most popular. The more 'modern' looking film cameras tend to go for cheaper prices. Suits me.

I'm looking forward to getting a bit more 'hands on', a bit more 'tactile' with my photography this year. Not in a hipster, 'look-at-me-aren't-I-cool' sort of way (I'm middle aged, bald and fat - hipster I ain't) - more in a photography as 'craft' kind of vibe. I'll let you know how it goes....

OMG! - A Macro lens for my S5!

It's no secret that I've been struggling with photographic motivation over the last few years. My image production, and time spent out and about doing photography, has reduced insanely!

But if there is one genre that has pulled me slowly and inexorably back into the picture taking process, it's been fungi/macro photography.

Over the last two or three years, whenever I've posted on my blog (and no, dear reader, that hasn't been frequently), it's mostly been about macro/fungi photography. Therefore, not surprisingly, whenever I've gone out to take photos, it's to do fungi photography. I've even kept a Sony A99 around to shoot with because it has a specific 100mm macro lens. If I was going out fungi hunting I would leave my S5 at home, since I only had the 20-60mm 'kit' lens and standard 50mm f1.8.

That was, until very recently.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art

I had always hoped that I would one day get an L-mount macro lens for my S5, but given the price of them, I thought that 'one-day' would be a long way off! I had been keeping an eye on the Panasonic 100mm macro lenses on the second-hand market here in NZ, and a good copy is going for around $1300.00NZ (and about $1850.00NZ new). Yikes!! Too rich for my blood!

Fortunately for the L-Mount system, Panasonic (and Leica) aren't the only game in town. Sigma is also part of the L-Mount alliance, and bring another option to the table. And with their 'Art' range of lenses Sigma produce some of the best lenses in the world. As a third-party manufacturer, they also tend to be 'slightly' cheaper than the maker's own lenses. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8, brand new, is around $1100.00NZ - some $700.00NZ cheaper than the Panasonic. This is definitely a savings, but still a lot of money for a poor boy like me.

But recently, while looking through a New Zealand second-hand photography Facebook group, I came across the bargain I had been waiting for. A used Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Art Macro L Mount lens, at a very reasonable price. It was, in fact, for about the same price I thought that I could get for the Panasonic GH3 kit that I had sitting around unused. I'd purchased the kit at the start of the year when I thought I was going be doing a lot of real estate videography, but this never actually happened (don't get me started).  

Long story short, I sold my GH3 kit to a local photographer, contacted the seller of the Sigma on Facebook, and a few days later I was the very excited owner of a mint/like-new 105mm macro lens! It would be a month later before I would have the chance to get out and shoot with it, and pickings were slim this time of the year, but I did manage to find some fungi to shoot in my local area.

Coal Creek Fungi. Lumix S5 and Sigma f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art. f/18 @ 0.5 sec, ISO 400

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art is a beautiful lens -both in its construction and in the images it produces. It is packed with all the latest technology - as opposed to the Panasonic version which is very much a bare-bones offering. Both lenses have a focus limiter (fairly standard for macro lenses) and a MF/AF switch, but the Sigma also adds an AF lock button, an aperture ring, an aperture ring click switch and an aperture lock switch. The Sigma also has a dust and splash resistance structure, with water and oil repellant coatings.

Fade to Black. Lumix S5 with Sigma 105mm macro. f/11 @ 0.6sec, ISO 400.

Although it is a reasonably hefty lens at 715grams (over twice the weight of the Panasonic), it still balances well on the S5. The front half of the lens consists of a ribbed soft-grip to aid in manual focusing (important for a macro lens). The lower half is mostly smooth metal with aperture ring (yes, an actual aperture ring), and the aforementioned buttons. It's an elegant and practical design, making the lens a joy to use.

As well as being twice the weight of the Panasonic, it is also twice the height, especially with the provided lens hood attached. Despite this, the front element filter size is smaller than the Lumix offering (64mm for the Sigma and 67mm for the Panasonic). This, for me, is the only unfortunate thing with the Sigma. It would have been ideal if the filter thread was the same as the Panasonic so that I would only have to carry one set of filters. I do, however, already have a 64mm polariser - which is probably the only filter I'll need to use on a macro lens - so in the end its not a huge issue.

Stand out from the Crowd. Lumix S5 with Sigma 105mm. f/18 @ 1/6th sec, ISO 400.

As a first outing with the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art lens, I'm very happy (ecstatic) with my purchase. From the moment I got the S5 and decided it would be my 'forever' camera, I've wanted to get a macro lens for it. I thought it would take me a lot longer than this to get one if I'm honest, so I am very grateful that the planets aligned and I was able to make it happen sooner.

I've still got a few technical 'tweaks' I want to make to the S5 when shooting macro images (I'm not sure I've set it up to make optimal use of the manual focusing aids the camera has to offer), but I've got a couple more months to get this sorted before fungi season really kicks in. 

At least my first outing with the lens was a great success! Bring on autumn and more fungi fun!