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! 

Long exposure iPhone images with Spectre

When I wus lad (he said, using his best cockney accent) there was a hair cream advert on TV that used the catch-phrase "I never thought I'd see the day..."

Fast forward forty years, and this phrase is playing over in my head as I sit to write this post.

I've written previously, probably many times in this very blog, about my dismissal of the iPhone (and mobile phones in general) as a 'serious' image capturing device. Nevermind that the weight of popular opinion would suggest otherwise. Flickr's 2017 data has the iPhone as the most used camera with 54% (over half) of the top 100 cameras used by photographers. Canon is next with 23%, and Nikon is 3rd with 18%.

Now granted, Flickr probably isn't the powerhouse photography app it used to be, and probably only a tiny fraction (if any) of those statistics relate to professional photographers. But still, it's a very impressive win for the iPhone in the 'every-day' photography category - which we all know makes up the bulk of today's plethora of image taking.

Does that mean, therefore, that my opinion of using an iPhone/mobile phone for photography has changed? Well yeah, it kinda does. And actually, it changed a couple of years ago when my daughter got her new iPhone 7Plus. The dual 12MP rear cameras (one 28mm wide and one 56mm telephoto) are capable of taking stunning photos. So much so, that the iPhone 7 was the 'camera' Emily used to create her Yr13 Photography portfolio.

I have an iPhone 6, with a 8MP rear facing single camera (about 30mm wide), so it's not as good (not surprisingly). In good light it's not terrible, but it's also no Canon 5D Mk4 (although neither is the iPhone 7 to be fair). Yet if we look at mobile phone companies like Huawei, who are partnering with Leica to produce a 40MP camera on their phones, then it's quite obvious that it's only going to get better and better. Will the camera phone seriously challenge the DSLR eventually? Probably.

Spectre iPhone app - an AI powered 'long exposure' app

Where am I going with all this? (Yes, for heaven's sake, get to the point man)! All that is to say that 'yes', I am using my iPhone more for taking photos (and certainly for capturing video). And a perfect case-in-point was just the other night when I went to my local camera club's monthly meeting. I was there to push (err, I mean discuss) my 'advanced' photography workshop running this weekend (as I write this). But it just so happened that this coincided with a hands-on practical session photographing dancers.

I didn't have my camera with me (big shot advanced photography teacher who doesn't bring a camera to a photography club gathering), but I did have my iPhone (of course). The lighting in the hall where the meeting was being held was tricky (some spotlighting, some dark shadows, some bright colours), so I decided to shoot long exposures on my iPhone using a recently acquired app - Spectre. Yeah, I know, sounds very cool - right? Very James Bond. And it is very cool - for an iPhone camera app.

Dancers. iPhone 6 with Spectre app. 3 second long exposure.

The app is actually designed to help you create long exposure shots of waterfalls and such so you can achieve that silky smooth smokey water effect or long light trail images. You can choose between 3, 5 and 9 second exposures, and can even get away with the 3 second exposures hand-held if there's enough light around. Pretty impressive in theory, but I'd never actually used it in practice.

At the Bar. iPhone 6 with Spectre app. 3 second long exposure

Because there definitely wasn't enough light around, I knew I was going to get a lot of blurring in the final images. So I chose a 3 second long exposure time and tried to use the blurring of the dancer's movements in my favour. Using the app was as simple as choosing the 3 seconds on the dial, pushing the shutter button, and watching while the image blur built up on the screen. Very cool.

If there was too much subject and camera movement, the final result was almost unrecognisable. But if I timed it so that there was a short period of static pose before movement, then the resulting image seemed to make more sense.

Twirling Dervishes. iPhone 6 with Spectre app. 3 second long exposure

I'm a huge fan of ICM (Intentional Camera Movement) photography, so this was right up my alley. I wasn't worrying about taking sharp, clear images - in fact just the opposite. If there was a lot of movement happening in front of me, then I just held the camera reasonably steady and captured the movement of the dancers. If the scene was more static, then I moved the phone itself to create the motion blur.

Ethereal Dancers. iPhone 6 with Spectre app. 3 second long exposure

I love this last image, especially converted to black and white. It has a beautifully spooky yet graceful quality to it. Could I have taken the same shot with my DLSR? Yes, of course I could. You might even argue that it would have been even better, since I would have had even more control over shutter speeds (you're limited to just the 3, 5 and 9 with Spectre). And yet, looking around the room at the other images taken that evening - all on DSLR's - there weren't any that looked quite like the ones I'd managed to capture on my iPhone using Spectre. There were some great images, don't get me wrong. But mostly they had gone for telephoto, close-cropped, sharp results. Everything I couldn't do on the iPhone 6, even if I'd wanted to.

Using Spectre on the iPhone was also just a whole heap of fun! Far too often we, as 'serious' photographers, disregard the fun factor. I know I do. The simplicity of whipping out your phone, clicking on an app, and creating beautiful images in seconds - with the minimal of fuss and gear - is also quite liberating and can't be stressed enough. It was actually being limited by the gear that I was using that forced me to think differently, and thereby craft images that I might not otherwise have considered taking.

So maybe it isn't the iPhone that's going to revolutionise photography or our images going forward? Maybe it's using the tools we have at our disposal and then thinking creatively, outside the box, to craft images that stand out from the crowd, no matter what we're using to create them with? Just a thought...

Fun with Filters

As a serious landscape photographer you'd think that I'd have an equally serious arsenal of filters. A polarizer, LEE Big & Little Stopper (-6 and -10 stop neutral density filters), plus a good selection of hard and soft graduated ND filters - at the very least!
 

Cokin 'P' Series Holder with Graduated ND filters

Well yes, I do have a polarizer, and a 0.9 (-3 stops) soft grad - both of the Cokin 'P' variety. But that's it. And if I'm honest, I don't even use them very often either! And that's generally down to laziness. Yes folks, I admit it, I'm a fairly lazy photographer. If I can get away with it, I won't use a tripod. I won't use a filter. Heck, I will even try not to use any accessories (like remote releases). I won't even use a polarizer even when I know it would be beneficial for the final image! Why not? Because, well, it's just too much of a hassle. You've got to get it out of the bag, set up the filter holder, fiddle around with adapter rings, etc... You get the point.

Laziness aside for a moment, the 'other' issue I have with filters is the expense. Have you seen the price of the LEE Big Stopper! Over $200NZ for one filter! Buy the Big Stopper, Little Stopper and a couple of hard and soft grads, plus the filter holder and adapter ring for your lens and your looking at well over $1000NZ. And I'm not just picking on LEE. Filters from Cokin and NiSi are similarly priced. When we start talking that amount of money, I start thinking of lenses not filters.

Yet having said all of that, I've been thinking very seriously lately about using filters a lot more in my photography. Why the change of heart? Well, it has a lot to do with the landscape photography vlogs I've been watching on Youtube lately. They all - and I mean ALL - make great use of filters (as well as tripods and cable releases), and I'm beginning to think there might just be something to all this fiddling about before you taker a photo (I jest - but just a little).

So I'm turning a new leaf this year. No more lazy landscape photographer. I've already got a Polarizer and a soft grad ND, so I'm halfway there with the filters. I'm seriously considering getting a 10 stop ND filter to go with them, for long exposure photography (probably a Cokin 'Nuances' 1024), but in the meantime I've dipped my toe in the water already with a recent internet purchase.

A whole set of 'ND' filters for the Cokin P system

If you use the Cokin 'P' (for Professional - I kid you not) square filter system like I do, then you will find a lot of cheap Chinese rip-off filters for sale on the interwebs. You will, of course, get what you pay for. And for practically a tenth of the price of the 'real deal', you can't really expect much. But then again, they must do something - right? If I'm going to pay $200+ for one filter down the road, then I'm going to damn well make sure I like using it! So what better way to practice than on the cheapy stuff first. And you can't get much cheaper than $25NZ for 7 no-name ND filters that a guy was selling recently on Trademe. I snapped them up, knowing full well that they were going to be flimsy, plastic (the more expensive filters are made from either resin or glass), horribly inaccurate in terms of neutral colour, and probably worse than useless. But I also figured that if I enjoyed using them, and wished I had better ones, then I would know that any serious money spent down the track would be well worth it. That's the theory anyway.

Long exposure with ND16 + ND8 + Polarizer. Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm EZ. 30secs @f11, ISO 100

Long story short - I've only had them for a couple of days, but I'm having a blast! And surprisingly, the results actually aren't half bad (with a couple of caveats). The above image is a 30 second exposure made in the middle of a very bright day, and the cheapo plastic ND filters combined with my Cokin P circular polarizer have done a decent job. And the colour cast is actually pretty minimal - especially compared to a 'Tian Ya' ND filter I also have which has a horrible brown sepia cast to it.

Cobden Beach at Midday. OM-D E-M1 with Zuiko 12-50mm f3.5/6.3 EZ. 1/250th @ f11, ISO 100. No filter

Above is the 'control' image - the shot of the beach with no filter. This gave a reference point for how the colours should look once I started adding filters.

With Polarizer. 1/60th @f11. ISO 100

Simply adding the Cokin circular polarizer improves the image dramatically. It also has the added benefit of slowing the shutter speed by 2 stops.

With ND16 (-4 stops). 1.6secs @f11, ISO 100

Adding the ND16 neutral density filter has again slowed  the shutter down, now to the point of blurring some of the movement in the waves. In terms of a colour cast, it's introduced a very slight magenta tint to the white clouds, but overall not too bad.

With ND16 + Cokin 0.9 (-3stop) soft ND Graduate. 1.3 secs @f11. ISO 100

Adding the Cokin 3 Stop soft grad has helped to lower the density in the highlights, especially in the clouds (obviously) - but hasn't effected the overall shutter speed too drastically. Again,colours are looking pretty good.

ND16 + ND8 + Polarizer. 30secs @f11, ISO 100

Remember that caveat I mentioned earlier. Well, here it is in all its glory! That's some pretty serious flare spots. And they were present on quite a few of the images I took using the plastic ND filters. A lot - but not all. This was a very extreme torture test, in very bright conditions, at the time of day that I wouldn't normally be shooting at. So the nasty flare stuff doesn't really surprise me at all. Also, on closer inspection, lots of tiny bits of fluff and lint had adhered themselves to the plastic filters which probably didn't help matters.

Same as above, yet without the strong sun flares....

A quick clean, another shot done with the same settings - and viola, a different result. To be honest, I did clone out one lone flare spot in the sky, and a few are creeping into the top of the frame, but it's nowhere near as bad as the previous shot - with a simple clean!

So did I have fun with my new plastic ND filters? You betcha! Will I use them again? You betcha - can't wait. Except next time I won't try them under such torturous conditions. This lazy photographer may be turning a new leaf. Watch this space...