Micro four thirds and ISO noise. What's the big deal?

If you've ever even vaguely considered changing to the micro four thirds system, you will have composed a list of pros and cons. If it's an Olympus OM-D system like the E-M1, then on the pro side you might have listed features such as; weight-saving, excellent Zuiko optics, 5-axis ibis, weatherproof, evf, etc...

Then on the cons list, there's probably things like; smaller sensor, poor low-light ISO performance, limited video capabilities, larger depth of field (compared to bigger sensors), smaller printing sizes.... stuff like that.

Seems like a genuinely accepted list of pros and cons when weighing up the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds system to other systems and sensor sizes.

Except it's not. Not really. Because when it comes right down to it, most of the 'features' listed above - both the pros and the cons, are purely 'subjective'. And yet most photographers, reviewers and 'influencers' (naming no names) speak about these things as if they are objective truths. They're simply not.

Even the OM-D 'faithful' constantly feel the need to apologise for the 'poor low light performance' of micro four thirds. I think I've heard the phrase 'poor low-light performance' in relation to micro four thirds used about a dozen times this week on Youtube alone. And that's from confirmed Olympus users. Why all the constant apologising over the noise quality from a micro four thirds sensor? Is it really all that bad - objectively? Or, is it purely subjective? To quote Shakespeare - "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 25mm. f/5.6 @ 1/125th, ISO 12800. Noise reduced in LR

When I heard the 'poor low light performance' line trotted out again today as a 'matter of fact', this got me thinking. A lot. Because to be absolutely truthful, I've never - and I do mean never - thought that my E-M1 had poor low light performance. And that's a fact. But, it's also subjective.

I'm not stupid (honestly), or ignorant. I realise that the phrase 'poor low light performance' is made in comparison to full frame sensors. So it's relative. And yet, when it is constantly used as a 'con' of the micro four thirds system - a negative aspect of the system as a whole - then it makes prospective owners or potential users of the system stop and seriously question whether to even bother or not.

From the dawn of digital photography we've been 'taught' to fear NOISE in our images. It's to be avoided at all costs. And, to be fair, some of the very early first-gen sensors were pretty awful above ISO 400. But that was 20 years ago - an absolute age in technology. Today's sensor 'noise' isn't even close to what it used to be when noise was a dirty digital word. Somehow (don't ask me how), manufacturer's have managed to make digital noise a lot more 'organic' looking - more (dare I say it) like film grain that hi-fidelity noise.

And besides which, noise is one of those 'features' that is highly subjective. Some photographers don't mind it. Some embrace and use it (much like people embraced and used grain). And some will delete any image that shows even a hint of it! As I've already said, I've never looked at any of the images I've taken with my OM-D cameras and thought they were too noisy. Or suffered from poor low light performance. Just never.

But I have also come from a film photography background. Where ISO 800 film was crazy-fast, and shot only rarely. This kind of thinking around ISO's has been ingrained into my photography. Even with digital. You could hand me a Nikon D3, or a Canon 1Dx with crazy low-light performance, and I'd still only shoot it at an absolute maximum of 3200 ISO (and probably only up to 1600 if I'm honest).

Back in my film days I tried an ISO 3200 Ilford black and white film once. Just once. It was horrible. And I mean horrible! Grain the size of golf balls. The prints I made from that film didn't look like photographs - more like those black and white sand drawings that do the rounds on Youtube. Compared to that, ISO 3200 on my E-M1 micro four thirds camera is practically grainless! So does micro four thirds have 'poor low light performance'? Yes - and No. What are you comparing it too? And what is your individual tolerance for noise in an image?

Above is a comparison of the ISO performance of my OM-D E-M1. I know it will be difficult to tell from this image on the web, so I'll just give my synopsis of what I see at 100% on my computer screen.

With a well-exposed image (exposing for the right), ISO 800 is very clean. Not noise-free, but so close as to not be an issue at 100%. The same is true of ISO 1600, and maybe even 3200 - again depending on your proclivity for noise in an image. While noise is apparent at ISO 3200, it would clean-up very easily in the noise-reduction programme of your choice - so I still don't see it as an issue.

As far as I'm concerned, you can stop right there. A relatively clean, eminently useable (for social media and A3 sized prints) image at ISO 3200 is an amazing result for micro four thirds if you ask me. I'm a happy camper. So no, I don't concur with the 'poor low light performance' appraisal of micro four thirds - at all.

But as you can also see from above - the E-M1 doesn't stop there. ISO 6400 is also useable when cleaned up - as is ISO 12800, remarkably! I'd stare clear of ISO 25600 - but there's no surprises there. The highest ISO setting on practically all cameras is only there for marketing purposes. ISO 25600 sounds good, so it's included as a selling point. That you would never shoot that high is irrelevant.

I did the same ISO test with my E-M10, and the results were identical, so I haven't bothered including them here. Based on what I see in these images, I would have no hesitation in shooting both cameras at ISO 3200 - and even 6400 if I had to.

Hand me a camera - any camera - and I'm always going to shoot it at its lowest native ISO, if I can. If I can't, then I will either use a tripod, add some light into the scene, or start to increase the ISO. Most of the time, for even the most extreme low-light scenarios I shoot, my ISO will never get past 1600 if I'm hand-holding. That's why I have a fast f1.7 prime in my bag. But usually I'm shooting from a tripod if I'm in very dark conditions. And then I can stay at ISO 200. 

You're mileage, and shooting scenarios, might vary. I get that. You might be a coalmine photographer who 'needs' to shoot clean images at ISO 2 million? If that's the case, then no, micro four thirds might not be right for you on those occassions (although it still might make for an excellent travel kit when you go on holiday with your family). 

The most common scenario I hear is wedding photography. "I shoot weddings, so I shoot a lot in low light. So I can't use micro four thirds" is the general gist of the conversation. I'm not here to dismiss their experiences, but I also often wonder if this is said by people who have ever even tried micro four thirds? I shot weddings for years, in churches, without flash, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so now with my E-M1 at ISO 3200. There are plenty (and I do mean plenty) of wedding photographers using micro four thirds who aren't being run out of town by angry clients who are unhappy with the amount of noise that are in some of their images. 

Let's face it. Who cares about noise? Really? It's us - isn't it. Photographers.Photographers who have been told, from the beginning of the digital era, that noise = bad! And so, because micro four thirds might be a little (yes, a little) bit more noisy that APS-C or full-frame sensors, then micro four thirds = 'poor low light performance' = bad. And while this might be 'objectively' true in terms of test charts, formulas and the laws of light and physics - 'subjectively' I don't see noise as an issue with micro four thirds. Period.

Sorry this has been such a long post/rant. But I felt it was an important topic to address, since it's high on the list of 'cons' given against using any micro four thirds system. The next time you hear someone talk about micro four thirds 'poor low light performance', please don't take it as the gospel truth. Try the system for yourself. Do your own ISO tests, and decide what level of noise you feel comfortable with.

For me, I'm happy to go as high as I would with any other camera system. Poor low light performance with my E-M1 and E-M10? Nah. Don't think so.

Create a time lapse with Olympus cameras. Easy Peasy.

Time lapse videos are all over the interwebs. And why not? They are very effective - usually quite short - video clips that cleverly show the passage of a long period of time in a short space. Sometimes they can be very long periods of time. You know the ones - time lapses of seeds germinating into flowers, or healthy fruit decaying into fungi (just do a Goggle search).

Canon TC80-N3. 'Only' $320 NZ!

In the 'good-old-days', you needed some fairly special kit to create time lapses. This usually consisted of an 'Intervalometer' that you would plug into the camera so that the shutter could be timed and controlled remotely. Not surprisingly, these specialist bits of kit weren't cheap.

For example, the Canon TC80 Intervalometer that would work for my previous Canon gear is 'only' $320.00NZ! Crikey! No wonder time lapse photography was quite a niche area. Although with the proliferation of Chinese products flooding the camera market nowadays, these have come down considerably in price and are still a viable option if required.

My last Canon camera, the 50D, was also able to be 'hacked' so that it could do time lapse shooting from the menu. By downloading and installing some extra software onto a memory card, you could add extra features to the 50D (even video) which included a built-in intervalometer. These firmware 'upgrades' are made by a company called Magic Lantern, and can be used to 'unlock' all sorts of features and upgrades to existing cameras. But beware. They are, of course, not recommended by the manufacturer, and if anything were to go wrong with your camera with this 'upgrade' installed, it would void any existing warranty.

My first time lapse was achieved through using the Magic Lantern upgrade on my 50D, but it still felt a bit clunky in operation, and I was never really comfortable with hacking a camera - even an old one well out of warranty. So my foray into time lapse never went very far. If you are interested, I documented the occasion on my Youtube channel - here. 

Soon after shooting that video and time lapse, I sold the 50D and eventually made the move back to micro four thirds and the Olympus OM-D's (via Fujifilm). The Canon 50D was released in 2008 - the Olympus OM-D E-M10 in 2014. A lot had moved on in the intervening 6 years between models (mirrorless technology not withstanding), and this saw manufacturers adding a lot of features that had traditionally been left out of cameras. And yes, this included a built-in intervalometer mode. 

Olympus included a Time Lapse setting with the OM-D EM-1, and all subsequent OM-D's have this feature (among others) built-in. On the right you can see the relevant screens that allow you to access the Time Lapse mode on the OM-D E-M10 - but it should be very similar (or identical) for other models.

Shooting Menu 2 is where you turn the Time Lapse function 'On' (it is set to OFF by default). Turning it On will then allow you to access the Time Lapse settings screen, where you can change Frame (how many images you want the camera to shoot), Start Waiting Time (when you want the camera to start), Interval Time (the time between each shot), and Time Lapse Movie (whether you want the camera to automatically create an AVI movie from the shots taken - or not).

The E-M10 only has the one Time Lapse video setting: HD 1280x720 @ 10fps. The E-M1 and subsequent models lets you choose the video quality of the camera-generated movie from 4k down to HD, at various frames-per-second.

I think this is a fantastic option, and really lets you create a Time lapse movie with the absolute minimum of fuss and effort. You can create a video with all of the files you've shot later on in Photoshop, or video editing software - but it's a whole lot simpler to let the camera do it for you on-the-spot. It does a great job of it too - as long as you follow a few simple time lapse 'rules'.

The Greymouth 'Barber'. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 1/2500th, ISO 200 

Firstly, set the camera up on a tripod. Yeah, I know - duh! Pretty obvious if you're going to take hundreds of images and you want them all to have the same composition. Although you can do a moving time lapse with a video slider - on a tripod. But I digress. For now, let's just stick to a single composition. And remember, if the camera is on a stable tripod, you can turn IS (image stabilising) off.

Then you should set the camera into full manual - and this includes choosing a white balance. Don't leave anything on auto if you want image number 1 to be consistent with image number 600! Set the exposure, white balance, and focus all manually. That way the camera won't get fooled into making automatic changes in colour, focus or exposure throughout the series of images. 10 seconds of time lapse video can take 10 minutes of shooting in 'real time', and a lot can change over ten minutes. So full manual control is the answer to consistent colour and focus throughout your time lapse video.

All you need to decide now is what duration you want between images, how many shots you want for the time lapse, and what that will mean for the length of the resulting video. Once again the Olympus OM-D cameras make this super simple for you. If you have chosen to let the camera create a video for you afterwards (why wouldn't you), then a handy time-stamp indicator appears at the bottom right of the screen to let you know how long the resulting video file will be. If, however, you decide to create a video yourself later on (and you still can, even if the camera creates one for you), then it's pretty easy to calculate.

For example; if you choose to shoot 300 images, every 2 seconds, it will take 10 minutes to shoot. 300 x 2 seconds = 600 seconds. 600 seconds divided by 60 (60 seconds per minute) = 10 minutes of shooting time. To halve the time it takes to shoot, simply take an image every second (rather than every 2 seconds), and it will now take 5 minutes to shoot 300 frames.

Then, if your final video frame rate is 15fps, divide the total number of shots taken (300 in our case), by the frames per second rate, to come up with the eventual video time. So, 300 divided by 15 = 20. Hence, your final time lapse video will be 20 seconds long. 

As I said earlier, if all this math is a bit too much, don't worry. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera (and subsequent OM-D's) does all the calculations for you.

Above is the final time lapse, shot with all the numbers described above. 300 images, taken at 2 second intervals, with a final camera-generated 15fps FHD video.

One final word about shooting time lapses. If you are going to let the camera create the video file for you, and you don't want/need the resulting 300 images, then shoot in jpeg and simply dump the images later and keep the video file. If, however, you want ultimate control and will be creating your own video afterwards, then shoot in RAW. You will then be able to process one of the RAW files in Lightroom, and sync the edit across all the other 299 images for consistency. I've done this before, but now I keep it as simple as possible, shoot jpeg, and let the camera create the video for me. Up to you...

Whichever way you choose to go about it, there's no doubt that the process got a whole lot easier when cameras like the OM-D E-M1 (and others from different manufacturer's) included a time lapse feature built-into the software. It really is easy-peasy. 

Quick sunset shoot - OM-D E-M1

Having recently purchased a back-up OM-D E-M10, I've been concentrating on setting it up for my shooting style and trying it out (see previous post). But I certainly have no intention of relegating my E-M1 to the back of the camera bag. So with that in mind, and a small window of clear weather, I took it out the other night to capture the sunset at my local beach.

Cobden Beach, Greymouth. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 1/640th, ISO 200

There's on old saying that goes 'Make hay while the sun shines'. You certainly have to follow this advice if you live on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand. It's 'lovingly' referred to as the 'Wet Coast' by some (not me, honest) - with very good reason. So when the weekend's forecast wasn't looking too flash, I decided to make the most of the decent weather and head out after work on a week day - not something I usually do. 

The previous two nights had seen beautiful colours at sunset - clear skies and an intense variation from golden orange through to deep blues. I was hoping for the same on this particular evening, and early indications were promising. 

Sunset, Cobden Beach. OM-D E-M1 with 12-50mm EZ. f/11 @ 1/10th, ISO 200

To show off the clear skies with intense colour, I wanted a very simple, mainly silhouetted foreground. This photo was going to be all about the colour in the sky.

So I headed out to my local beach, to capture the rocks a the end of the tiphead that stretches out into the Tasman Sea. It's a scene I've captured many time before and I like the simplicity of the composition I can get from this view.

But to my horror and disappointment, as I was driving out toward the area I intended to use as my foreground element, I discovered that the road was cordoned off! It seems that the local council are doing some redevelopment of that area, and a rather large digger was working right where I had wanted to park. That's not good. On to plan B.

Beautiful evening for a surf. OM-D E-M1. f/11 @ 1/4sec, ISO 200

For Plan B I decided to stay in the same area, but move further along the beach so I could use the tiphead itself, jutting out into the sea, as the silhouetted focal point. To be honest, I think I actually prefer plan B to my original idea. It's still a fairly simple composition, but a few more elements come into play to make it a more interesting photo.

I normally leave the image format of the camera set to the native 4:3 aspect ratio - knowing that I can always crop later in post. But on this occasion, I actually set the screen on the back to the 16:9 wide screen view, as this was how I was visualizing the scene anyway. Since I always (well, mostly always) shoot in the RAW format, all the aspect ratio crops can be changed and altered after the fact anyways. Only if you're shooting in jpeg is the aspect ratio 'set' into the final image.

In the above image Beautiful evening for a surf, I love the way the composition is broken roughly into thirds. The bottom thirds consist of the waves and surfers (who positioned themselves perfectly), the middle third is the silhouetted tiphead itself and the orange band of colour on the horizon line, and the final third is the dark strip of cloud with the blue of the sky. So even though the horizon itself is almost exactly in the middle of the image (usually a compositional no-no), the actual effect of the overall image still reads visually in layers of thirds.

Sunset Strip. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/8 @ 5 seconds, ISO 200

The final image was taken in relative darkness, well after sunset. And yet the sensor, with a 5 second exposure, has still managed to pick up some of the remaining orange glow on the horizon. This photo also has the three distinct layers, although this time it is more traditionally composed with the horizon placed on the lower third.

Overall I'd say the shoot was a success, although the evening never quite matched the display of the previous two nights (of course - Murphy's Law).  

Fantastic images were to be had at all times of the evening, although I think my favourite is Beautiful evening for a surf. All the elements came together to make a strong photo. This includes the most intense light, the surfer's in the water, the silhouetted landform (with digger making an appearance), and even, if you look very closely, a fishing boat coming in for the day - also placed perfectly on the right hand third of the horizon (directly below the puffy cloud). Thank you God. Your timing, as always, is perfect.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 initial thoughts

It's mid-winter here in New Zealand as I write this, and on the West Coast of the South Island where I live that usually means cold and wet - very wet. Not ideal conditions for taking your newly acquired (non weather-sealed) camera out for a test run.

Fortunately, some decent weather was forecast for the weekend just gone. On Sunday afternoon I managed to get out for an hour and go for a walk with my wife, and friends of ours, on a local beach. Not ideal weather conditions (middle of the day under bright sunlight), but good enough to make a few 'test' images on the OM-D E-M10.

What Wind? Olympus OM-D E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/5.6 @ 1/800th, ISO 200

First of all, let me just remark on how small this camera is. Because it is. Tiny. Weeny. Itsy, bitsy. Petite (you get the idea).  Is it too small perhaps? (Oh no, here we go...). 

Well, umm, yeah. Actually I think it is a wee bit too small. For me. The controls - especially the two top control dials that incorporate the shutter button, feel just a little too cramped for my liking. And I only have medium-sized hands for a bloke. So rather than the camera molding comfortably in my hand (like the E-M1 does), I find myself clutching at the camera with almost a claw-grip. Not something that I think would be overly comfortable - or even sustainable - for a long period of shooting.

Handling is improved with the ECG-1

But hang on. Before I give the impression that I've dismissed the E-M10 already, all is not lost.

Because, together with the E-M10, I also managed to pick up the Olympus ECG-1 grip, made specifically for the E-M10. And as you can see in the photo at left, the size of the grip, and the camera itself, is significantly increased with the grip attached.

Does it solve the cramped handling issues entirely? No, it doesn't. It's still certainly nowhere close to E-M1 comfort. But it does help. And for me, at least, the addition of the ECG-1 turns the E-M10 from a no-go, into a small, light and useable camera.

I do realise that the small size is actually a bonus for many people, and for a lot of users the addition of the ECG-1 would be a rather pointless exercise. And that's what makes these type of grips such a good idea. Get it, and use it, if you want to 'bulk' the camera out a little - or don't.... The choice is yours.

I'm actually very impressed with the way Olympus has engineered the ECG-1. Many other hand grips that screw into the tripod mount at the bottom of the camera need to be removed constantly if you want to replace the battery and or memory card. Either that, or they simply machine a very large hole in the base of the plate so the grip doesn't cover the battery door (my Fuji XE-1 grip was like this). Olympus have cleverly gotten around this by creating a latch that lets you unclip the main part of the grip to expose the battery/SD compartment, and then simply snap it back into place once you've finished. It's such a simple, yet ingenious solution. To me, it's yet another example of a camera being designed by photographers rather than engineers.

Rapahoe Beach. E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/7.1 @ 1/400th, ISO 200 

So with the grip attached, I can live with the ergonomics. And the rest of the camera is fine button-wise. I probably wouldn't want to wander around with it in my hand for hours. But then again, I'm unlikely to. When I use it as my 'travel' camera, it will more than likely sit in a camera bag for 90% of the time, and I'll just take it out to shoot a few images and then pop it away again. It's how I tend to 'roll'.

In terms of using it as a 'back-up', or in conjunction with my E-M1, it's absolutely perfect. The menu system is practically identical - a very seamless control and set-up between the two. And the IQ (image quality) is darn near identical (in fact it probably is). Which means I'm more than happy with the dynamic range, colour, sharpness and clarity coming out of the E-M10's files. And when you get right down to it, isn't that the ultimate point?

Wave forms, Rapahoe. E-M10 with 12-50mm EZ. f/6.3 @ 1/2000th, ISO 200

So I've got no complaints with the actual images this camera produces. And I can live with the ergonomics with the ECG-1 grip attached. All pretty positive stuff. 

And that's where I'll leave my initial review - on a positive note. Because it is - on the whole - a positive experience shooting with the diminutive E-M10. Even having said all that I have about it's small size and cramped feel, once I started shooting with it, all that nonsense went away, and I just immersed myself in the process of taking pictures.

Sure, the 1.4MP EVF is a noticeable step down from the 2.3MP EVF on the E-M1 - but is it unusable? No, of course not. And the E-M10 may have 'only' 3 axis image stabilization - but so what? I never rely on IS for sharp images anyway - even the 5 axis magic in the E-M1. It may 'only' shoot at 1/4000th top speed (compared to the 1/8000th of the E-M1), and top out at 8fps. But so what? I ain't using it for sports anyway.

Out for a walk. Olympus OM-D E-M10 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. f/7.1 @ 1/400th, ISO 200

At the end of the day, what the Olympus OM-D E-M10 is, is a superbly crafted camera that can capture beautiful images in a small, compact form factor. Ideal for travel and on-the-go photography. And it's also the personification of the micro four thirds concept. A 'big enough' sensor, in a 'big enough' body, that takes more than 'good enough' images.

That's 'good enough' for me.

My OM-D Family increases

As I start to enjoy getting back into the Olympus OM-D micro four thirds system more and more, my desire for putting together a more nimble 'travel' kit has increased.

Now don't get me wrong, the OM-D E-M1 is by no means a bulky or heavy camera. But I prefer to shoot it with the grip attached. Which does add to the bulk and weight. When I'm about to leave the house for a stroll around the neighborhood, reaching for the E-M1 with grip attached and carrying that around just on the 'off chance' that I might get an image, isn't all that appealing. Yes I can (and do) take the grip off and go without - slimming down the camera considerably. But it's a bit of a faff when I just want to grab-and-go. So I end up not taking a camera at all.

Hence my desire for a more nimble travel/walk-about kit.

In the past, this would have meant looking at something like the Olympus Pen E-P3. I think I've owned this camera twice in my photography career, and I have a love-hate relationship with it. I've written about the E-P3 before on this blog - the last time was here and here. 

I love the look of the Pen series, and especially the E-P3. It's just a gorgeous camera. Beautifully designed and crafted. A joy to own - which is probably why I've had two of them. The E-P3 is also the point at which Olympus got the autofocus on the Pen series right. Prior to the E-P3, the contrast detect AF of the Pen series was fairly slow. With the E-P3 they sorted that out well and truly.

But (isn't there always a 'but'), I really dislike shooting without a dedicated viewfinder. And that's putting it mildly. Having to use the LCD screen to compose and shoot on the Pen's is a real killjoy to the way I like to shoot. Sadly. But there it is. So as much as I am attracted to the aesthetic of the Pen series, I don't find them much fun to shoot with. Small, and light, and great for travel. but not much fun.

Having said all that, I still considered getting one. For two reasons. a) the aforementioned size and weight, ideal for compact travel shooting. And b) the price is right. Nice, minty Pen bodies come up fairly often, usually for a very good price (the exception being the digital Pen F).

But just as I was considering my next Pen purchase, I saw an online auction for a mint condition OM-D E-M10, at a fantastic price. Why hadn't I considered the E-M10 before? It is, in fact, the perfect solution to my desire for a smaller OM-D 'travel' camera. So yeah, I got one 😁 

I didn't pull the trigger right away though. I 'ummd and 'arrrd' for a few days while I mulled the decision over in my tiny brain. Why the hesitation? Well, I know I'm about to contradict everything I've just said about wanting to get a smaller travel camera. But I hesitated because I was worried that the E-M10 might be a bit too small? Yeah, I know, I'm a complicated creature...

But one of the things I've learnt about myself over the years, is that I don't like cameras that are 'too' small. On the one hand I want small and light. And on the other I want something chunky enough so as not to be too fiddley! Told you I was complicated.

So what made up my mind about the E-M10? Simple. I brought the extra grip attachment, the ECG-1 for it before I even brought the camera. And I'm hoping that this will be the difference between having a 'useable' small travel camera, and it feeling too small as to be not enjoyable to use (for me).

I know the OM-D E-M10 is a small camera. That's the point. That's what I'm looking for. But I also know that my tolerance for 'too small' on a camera is fairly low. For me, the OM-D E-M5 was too small, until I attached the grip. And then it was just right. And yes, I know, the E-M10 is even smaller. Hence the ECG-1 grip.

I have, however, in the last few years, redefined my definition of "too small" in a camera system somewhat. Before moving back to the Olympus OM-D E-M1, I was rocking a couple of Fujifilm XE rangefinder-style bodies (with the Fuji grips attached), and really enjoying them. I didn't find them too small at all. Although I think they might actually be a bit bigger than the E-M10? (Actually, I've just Googled it, and it's so close as to be negligible). So my definition of 'small' in a camera my be evolving somewhat?

In any case, the addition of the ECG-1 to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 will be crucial in my enjoyment of the camera, and I wouldn't have purchased it without the grip as well. Even Robin Wong, in his review of the E-M10, claimed that the ECG-1 grip was an essential, must-have accessory for better handling. If it's good enough for Robin, it's good enough for me!

As for the rest of the specs associated with the E-M10 - well, they tick all the right boxes for me as far as I'm concerned. Same 16MP sensor and processing engine as in the E-M1 - check. This means there will be consistency of images between both cameras, if I end up shooting them together. The E-M10 also has the same menu system (which is good as far as I'm concerned), has 3-axis IS (good enough for me), the same tilting LCD screen as the E-M1, and more than good enough AF, sequential shooting and video (not that I'll use the video features). In most respects, it is exactly what it's meant to be - a baby E-M1 with the same image quality that will slot in perfectly with my existing kit. What more could I have asked for?

Well, actually, it would have been nice if they had shared the same battery, but I understand why this isn't the case. Smaller body, smaller battery - still same number of images per battery. Fair enough.

I'm very excited about adding the Olympus OM-D E-M10 to my micro four thirds family. I think it will work in perfectly with the E-M1, and I can't wait to shoot with it. Expect an 'initial thoughts' post on this blog when I do.

Super Flower Blood Moon Lunar Eclipse with Olympus OM-D E-M1

Last Wednesday (as I write this) the world witnessed an astronomical phenomenon (wow, that's two big words put together) when a 'Supermoon' in May (also referred to as a Flower Moon) coincided with a total eclipse. The total lunar eclipse represented a rare 'trifecta': a full moon, a blood Supermoon, and a total lunar eclipse occurring simultaneously.

How rare was this event? One figure I heard was that this specific event won't happen again for another 40 years. There will be another two total lunar eclipses in 2022 - one in May 16 and one in November 8th. But it will be another 12 years before we see the next total lunar eclipse with a Supermoon (October 2033 according to NASA). So yeah, it's rare enough.

Start of the total lunar eclipse. E-M1 with Lumix 45-150mm

With such a rare event I was, of course, going to have to try and capture it. Now this may seem obvious, but even though it was going to be a Supermoon, and therefore closer to the Earth than normal, it's still a very, very, long way away (approximately 360,000 kilometres). So I was going to have to use my longest lens (biggest zoom). Which just so happens to be a Panasonic Lumix 45-150mm f4/5.6. Not very 'long' at all. But it's the best I've got, so it'll have to do.

We were very lucky here in New Zealand, in the Southern Hemisphere, as we were scheduled to have ideal weather conditions to watch the event unfold. This itself is nothing short of miraculous on the West Coast of the South Island where I live. We get a lot of rain - and clouds - so a completely clear night for star gazing is something of a rarity. Fortunately, on this occasion, we were blessed. Clear skies, no clouds, and not too cold (since we are coming into winter here in the Southern Hemisphere).

Blood Red Flower Moon. E-M1 f/5.6 @ 2.5secs, ISO 100

Having established the 'what' (camera and lens), the next consideration was 'how'?

It was always going to be tripod mounted - that's a given. And since it was also likely to be difficult lighting conditions, I also decided to shoot full manual - and manual focus.

As stated earlier, the moon is very far away, and so was quite small in the viewfinder. Despite this, it's also surprisingly very bright. With the camera set at its largest aperture (f/5.6 at 150mm), there was more than enough light to keep the ISO at 200 (or even the 'Low' 100 setting) - which was something of a surprise. The shutter speed ranged from a couple of seconds to only half a second - long enough to get enough light on the sensor, but short enough to keep the moon sharp.

Since the camera was on a tripod, I turned Image Stabilization off, and also set the camera to a 2 second self-timer release so I wasn't touching the shutter at the moment of release.

So the camera settings were fairly straight forward. What was a little more of a struggle was the manual focusing. For some reason, I really struggled to get the moon focused manually? I'm not sure whether the high brightness areas were making the lens struggle or what it was? I wouldn't have thought that it would make any difference if you were focusing manually? Maybe the 'throw' for manual focusing on the Lumix 45-150mm wasn't good enough for critical manual focusing work? It's not really a manual focusing lens to be fair. But whatever it was, manual focusing on the 45-150mm was difficult.

I did get there in the end though, And I'm very happy with the final blended montage I created of the eclipse.

Flower Blood Moon Lunar Eclipse montage. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Lumix 45-150mm

So why does the moon appear red? Blood Moon isn't a scientific term, but in recent years has been used to refer to a total lunar eclipse. A total lunar eclipse happens when the moon travels through the Earth's shadow (umbra) blocking all direct light from illuminating the Moon's surface. Some light still reaches the Moon's surface indirectly via the Earth's atmosphere, bathing the Moon in a reddish, yellow or orange glow.

However it happens, it's pretty cool to watch - and photograph. And I'm very glad that I stayed outside in the cold night air to capture a rare and spectacular phenomenon.