A year of LensRentals

For 364 days this year, I didn’t buy a new camera.

It’s not that I didn’t want to. I misplaced my Canon S100, which I enjoyed using. And my other digital system is a Panasonic G1 with a small collection of Micro Four-Third lenses. I like the G1, but it’s over five years old, which may as well be fifty in digital sensor years. It’s time to move on.

However, for a variety of reasons, I’m having trouble deciding what should take its place. And because you can only learn so much from reading reviews online, I’ve been leaning on Lensrentals all year to get more hands-on experience with a wide variety of gear.

What follows are some brief impressions of all the toys I played with in 2013.

Before starting, I’ll fully own up to dilettantism here. A week or two is not nearly long enough to truly judge any camera or lens, particularly with how I was flitting about between brands and formats. And the smarter use of my time would be to just use the stuff I already own. But it can also be quite a bit of fun—even inspiring—to try something new or uncomfortable every now and then. And it (usually!) doesn’t hurt to know what else is out there.

This is also something of a fool’s errand as exciting new cameras are being released faster than I can try them all out without quitting my job or selling my dog.

Finally, Google overlords be damned, I’m not putting any hyphens in product names. I’ve had to look up where they go in “OM-D E-M5” or “X-Pro1” for more often than I'd prefer to admit. It’s gone too far. I’m tired of it. I’m fighting back.

Zeiss ZM C Sonnar 1.5/50

What Matthew said.

I’m having a bit of a love affair with 50mm at the moment, and this may be the most romantic 50mm lens you can buy.

I didn’t spend nearly enough time with this one.

(Although, in my heart of hearts, I think I might be more of a 2/50 Planar type of person.)

Panasonic G5

I went long about the G5 on this very site and concluded:

The G5 checks a lot of boxes but it does so without a lot of pizazz, like an above-average PowerPoint from the accounting department.

Michael Johnston recently called it “very capable but quite bland but very capable”, which is exactly right.

The newer G6 appears to address some of my nits with the G5: the EVF got an update, you can finally (I’m told) disable the toggle button on the command dial, and the camera’s updated look is snazzier – like a mini Leica S2 instead of Frankenstein’s camera. It doesn’t look so much like the bargain that it is.

If you want an EVF and the cost of an EM5, EM1, GH3, GX7 or EP5+VF4 is a bit dear, the G6 looks like a screaming deal.

Fujifilm X100S

The adulation this camera receives is mostly justified. It looks great, feels great, and the autofocus, menu system, and control layout are light years ahead of the original X100.

Image quality is astonishing. I spent a lot of time in Lightroom gobsmacked at the detail and lack of noise at ISO 6400. The 35mm equivalent f/2 lens is well matched to the sensor. It’s also more or less my ideal walk-around setup, but that’s maybe because I’ve been walking about with a Zeiss Ikon and the 2/35 Biogon for a few years.

The aperture ring has firm whole-stop clicks that feel much nicer than the mushy third-stop clicks on the 35mm XF lens I used.

As with the XPro1, fumbling between viewfinders is still a point of friction for me. I had more fun if I forced myself to use only one and lived with its limitations. I’m also certain that with more experience I’d better be able to predict when I’m about to brush up against those limitations.

I lusted after this camera so badly … right up until I tried a Ricoh GR.

Fujifilm XPro1 & Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4

I wrote a longer review of this pair. I'd call it tough but fair.

I would like to give the XE line a try; with only an electronic viewfinder my suspicion is that the XE will be slightly easier to use—if slightly less fun without the optical viewfinder, also.

Olympus OMD EM5

I understand why people adore this camera.

It’s a lot of camera packed into a tiny space. The pictures online can mislead you into thinking it’s the same size as any other DSLR, but hold one for yourself and you’ll probably be as astonished as I was.

The specs are great. The pictures are wonderful. The new stabilization system is a miracle worker. You can customize nearly every aspect of its operation. Everything is super responsive, with a “yessir!anythingyouwantsir!” zippiness. It’s built like a fine precision instrument: quality and choice of materials is top-notch everywhere.

Again, I totally understand why people love the little thing.

But …

(here come the emails)

… together with our oversize brains, our hands have kept us humans on top of the food chain for two million years. So it is with some alarm that I report that our hands have a new enemy: the OMD EM5.

I could not get comfortable holding it. I don’t mean it like “well the corner pokes a little” (it does) but rather much worse: it outright hurts to hold it for longer than a minute. I didn’t find the textured area on the front sufficiently grippy, the thumb rest forces your hand into a cramped position, and it’s an awkward reach to both command dials, especially the rear one. The angles are just all wrong for my hands.

(Your mileage on this will vary, but I was relieved to find out that I’m not the only one that feels this way.)

The HLD6 add-on grip helps some. But if you determine that you’ll need the grip, you might as well buy an EM1. You’ll even get a bigger, more awesome viewfinder as a bonus.

All this to say: definitely spend a decent chunk of time holding an EM5 (or any camera!) before you drop a grand on one.

Panasonic GX7

My initial impression is that this is the current Micro4/3 sweet spot in balancing handling, advanced features, customizability, performance, image quality, size, and price.

I still want to take the GH3, EM1, and maybe a G6 for a spin, but unless they really impress me I think the GX7 will be the next system camera I buy.

Pentax K5 & 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

I wasn’t sure such a camera existed: the K5 has all the physical controls I want in exactly the place I want them.

This includes the Pentax-specific “Green”/“*” button, which powers the ridiculously named but seriously powerful Hyper-Program and Hyper-Manual modes. Lemme tell ya: every semi-serious photographer should take those modes for a spin. Hyper-Program is your basic Program mode but with instant access to Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority, no mode dial required; Hyper-Manual gives you the stability and predictability of full Manual mode but with vastly less needle-chasing. Either might totally change how you shoot. I can’t believe other brands haven’t copied these.

The camera is solid, heavy, and reassuring for those times when you need a bigger dick to swing around. But it’s still a soft touch: the shutter and mirror are shockingly quiet for a DSLR.

As for the 35mm Macro, no one makes DSLR lenses like the Pentax Limiteds anymore. It backs up the forged good looks with excellent image quality and almost no flaws. It even has a built-in hood, which is handy. Shame it’s not weather-sealed to match the camera.

This mostly confirms my suspicion that Pentax makes the only APS-C DSLRs worth looking at.

Ricoh GV2 28mm viewfinder

It’s tiny! But I had difficulty seeing the entire frame with glasses on. So it’s not very fun.

Also you’re missing out on the toy-camera good looks of the larger GV1 viewfinder.

Pass.

Ricoh GR

Matthew’s recent ongoing praise is not even a little out of line: The GR is the smartest, best thought-out digital camera I’ve ever used. It treats an advanced photographer with respect instead of ambivalence or (too often!) hostility. Because I haven't used any of the GR's predecessors, I'm so astonished at the design and usability that the huge image quality packed into a tiny box is almost the least impressive thing about it.

A major flaw is that I don’t think I see well with a 28mm-equivalent lens. I could learn.

In fact, I better: I ordered one for keeps on New Years Eve and it showed up yesterday.

Elsewhere on the Web: Diverse and Varied Advice of Dubious Consistency

Now on Blogbeebe: my 99-point list of diverse and varied advice of dubious consistency. Naturally, it's mostly to do with cameras and photography, with just a bit of art thrown in as well. It's a slightly random summation of my observations and lessons from my first ten years as a photographer, including five as a camera salesman, as I've travelled the roads of equipment-aqusition and picture-making.

Certainly not all of the ideas are original, and many of the ones that are won't be correct, but these are the things that I wish I had known sooner.

For example:

"More Zoom" is never the correct answer to any question.

Ken Rockwell is a troll. Never associate with a photographer who doesn't realize this.

The top of the camera is a terrible place for a light or a microphone.

Using a film camera occasionally is good for you.

Focus shift is not a defect. Accept it or move on.

Birds are horrible creatures, and should never be photographed.

Photos of the important people in your life will be worth more to you in the future than any other photograph you can take.

If the first comments about a photo are on its technical merits, it's a miss.

Work in series, create projects, have themes.

Use a font that makes your name look good and stick with it.

The full list can be found here.

last updated 17 aug 2013

Brief Impressions: Ricoh GR

Concept: TBA
Execution: TBA
Yeah, but: More to come when I know anything useful.

Counter Opinion: Today I spent a brief amount of time with the New Ricoh GR, and I'm as determined as ever to buy one. True, my hands-on time was less than twenty minutes, but when I had a chance to try the 'Coolpix A' I set it back down after just a fraction of that, impressed at the concept but uninspired by its execution. Button-and-dial EV comp? No thanks, I prefer to spend my time taking pictures.

The GR that I used, like all of the ones that people have been writing about so far, was a late preproduction unit without final firmware. Unlike some bloggers, I'm not about to attempt a definitive or comparative analysis of image quality and performance, especially as its DNG raw files are still waiting for proper profiles from Adobe. However, as a newly-minited Ricoh GR Digital owner nothing I saw made me unhappy.

The GR is slightly longer than the GR Digital IV, but that's an improvement, not a demerit. There's more finger room around the front grip, and the camera feels better than the Girdiv in my average-sized hands. It remains a small camera, and isn't bigger-enough to make a practical difference for carry; while the camera is also a little thicker than the previous model, it can still be tucked in a back pocket when it's not in use. Finding a good case might be a challenge, but it's one I'm happy to accept.

The lens has only one extending section versus the GRD-IV's two, and seems less point-and-shooty when the camera is powered on. But rather than looking more 'serious', a la Fuji X100, I think the look is more reminiscent of an unthreatening film camera. I could absolutely see bringing the GR as my only digital camera for my annual summer-starting trip to New York City, should I be lucky enough to own one by then.

The biggest operational difference between the GRD-IV and the New GR is the macro mode. While the GR isn't bad – nothing at all like the Canon G1x – because the two cameras look and feel the same I kept trying to get too close for the new kid. As a result I can see an Eye-Fi equipped Girdiv becoming my camera of choice for easy product review photos, such as these ones, while the GR does the real work.

In terms of speed I couldn't feel much difference between the IV and the New GR / GRD-V models, with AF being pretty snappy on both. The GR seems like a bit of an improvement in pretty much all areas, and I have remarkably few complaints about the old one, so that works just fine for me. I'm looking forward to having this camera to call my own.

Quick links to the other chapters in the GR saga:

Ricoh GR: Travel

Ricoh GR: Preface

Ricoh GR: Buttons

Ricoh GR: Experience

Ricoh GR: Quality

Ricoh GV1 Viewfinder

Ricoh GR Brief Impressions

Ricoh GRD4 Review

Counter Opinions are quick "sales counter" product reviews.
As always, viewer discretion is advised.
Last updated 10 may 2013

Ken Kirkwood on the Fujifilm GX680

I recently received an email from UK-based photographer Ken Kirkwood about his experience with the Fujifilm GX680 family of cameras, of which I had previously reviewed the Mark III version. I have to say that reading his letter makes me want to get out with my camera again, so it's time to pull some film out of the freezer.

With his permission, I'm including it in its entirety here. Ken has also been kind enough to provide these sample photos.

It was with great interest that I recently read your excellent review of this fabulous camera.

As a professional here in the UK working mainly on location shooting architecture and interiors (amongst many other subjects) I have used the 680 since 1990. I started with a Mark 1 (obviously as that was the only one available then!)

In my view it was the 'perfect' camera for the work I was doing, not that there is such a thing as a 'perfect' camera.

I found that it combined many of the useful/essential features of a view camera with the mobility of a medium format kit. Obviously the word mobility is used in the context of it being quicker and easier to handle than a Sinar or a Linhof, both of which the 680 replaced. It is still a lump to carry round. My assistants used to say it was a Hasselblad built by Tonka Toys, which sums it up beautifully, I suppose!

I later added a Mark 2 then finally a Mark 3, which was an improvement on a camera which I thought could not be improved on!

To say I used it a lot is an understatement! For example just ONE of roll film backs' exposure indicated shows 150,000+ exposures on that back alone!

Whilst it is bulky to transport and carry around it didn't seem to matter too much as I was shooting mainly interiors in offices, hotels etc so on location we usually transported the camera kit plus lighting on trolleys. Outdoors it was a different story but it was still possible to move around with the Fuji so long as it was not too far! I was very interested to see your solution to carrying it on location.

If I had to move/shoot fast or over some distance I resorted to the Hasselblad kit.

We literally transported the beloved Fuji all over the world from Hong Kong, the Middle East and the Caribbean by air freight. In Europe it was just case of throwing all the equipment (in big Peli cases) plus lighting and grip kit in our van and just set off.

None of my 680s ever once let me down on any shoot anywhere. The only problems we ever had—and these were minor and easily overcome by using spares—was with the roll film backs and this was just because of amount of use to which they were subjected! They just wore out!

The image quality of the lenses was incredible—but that I suppose is subjective. I have never been a nerd that had to feel better knowing how may lines per millimetre a lens could deliver. That is chimera in any case, in my view, as any superiority any lens might in theory display eg a Zeiss Biogon is nullified when an image is reproduced in print in a brochure. That is the reason I was shooting so when the images went through the four colour reproduction process they were normally only printed using a maximum screen process of 360. So it was not possible to detect what lens was used to deliver the final image!

Because of the subjects I was shooting my most used lenses—possibly my favourites, too!—were initially the 65 and 80 mm. I could hardly wait until the fabulous 50 mm came out! I loved that lens even more.The front standard movements, rise, fall, cross and tilt made the camera unbeatable for interiors whilst with the shutters being in the lenses it meant that flash sync. was not ever a problem. Long exposures were easy and accurate, this was essential because I was using tungsten lighting or available light almost exclusively.

Because of the rail extensions and front tilt it made the 680 an ideal camera when shooting food on location as we often had to do in hotels. Sometimes we had two 680s on different tripods setting up a food shot on camera and shooting another dish on the other as it was prepared. So we could move FAST and more than often had to! Clients loved the quality and resolution of the 680 as well as the format as well as the mobility and speed of use of the camera itself. My time was their money so I always worked FAST.

My total lens kit comprises 50, 65, 80, 180, 210, 300. 500 and the HUGE zoom—what a lens that is! Both it and 500 each had be supported on a special extended plate before attaching to a tripod! I also have several 120/220 roll film backs, bellows, extension tubes, finders, etc plus batteries and chargers. Almost as soon as we arrived at a location we would plug in a charger, just in case, because we would shoot a LOT of roll-film 120 and 220 per day using Kodak EPP, or Fuji RTP, or Provia films as well as the excellent Fuji Instant film. I never shot much, if any, Velvia which I could never get on with. But we hardly ever had a flat battery even after a long day's shooting.

The ability to rotate the magazine was also a terrific bonus but perhaps the best feature of this camera was the format 6x8 cm. It is almost on the same diagonal as 35 mm, 6x4,5 and 5x7". And it is an almost perfect fit on A4 paper. A win-win situation.

At the same time as I was using the 680 I was also using the other Fuji masterpiece: the 6x17 panorama camera, with three lenses.

Sadly these days the beloved Fuji (or the FOOJ as my assistants used to call them!) is hardly used. Lack of work and the cost benefits (to clients at least) of digital medium format has rather made it unnecessarily redundant. I know it is possible to use my Sinar Eyelike digital back on a 680 body with an adapter but its' 645 format negates the benefits of the 680 format. Also, the widest angle lens the 50mm is nothing like as wide on the 645 format so all my lenses immediately would become 'longer'. How very sad. I miss it so much and it breaks my heart to see this fabulous kit unused but there is almost no second-hand market for it especially in the UK. But there is no way I could just dump it all…

I just think that this fabulous camera should be more appreciated and have—and should have had—a better press. That other photographers never accepted it or even investigated it is their loss. Years ago a pro dealer I used in London, when I asked about ordering a Fuji 680 item said 'I don't know any photographer, especially of architecture, who would ever use that camera'. I said 'How about me?' He investigated it and lo, and behold he stocked it and sold it!

I used the camera to photograph the work of some of the best known architects and interior designers in the world. It was not uncommon for us to return home at the end of a shoot overseas, in Europe or the UK with literally hundreds of rolls of film. Almost all shot without instant film/Polaroids. I knew I could rely on the 680 and it NEVER let me down. EVER.

In terms of cameras I have owned and used almost all the Big Names in medium and large format: Hass, Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax, Linhof, Sinar, but none of these ever came close to the Fuji 680. The optimum compromise. As near perfect as a camera can get, in my book. I think the man in Japan who conceived, designed and then manufactured it deserves all the credit and accolades he should have. So does Fuji Photo. But he will always be an unsung hero. How sad. What a shame, too, that they no longer manufacture it.

What also made it so great was the format: 6x8 cm which is wider than 6x7 but not so wide as 6x9 and the added 'hidden' bonus was the fact that with 9 frames per roll (or 18 on 220) it was easy to bracket three exposures per shot without having an odd image at the end of a roll of film.

I understand that it had a greater appreciation in the US and obviously could attract a much bigger customer base there. But you have already discovered just how good it is. Great news.

Sure, it takes a little getting used to to really appreciate its' qualities but that also applies to another Great Lump: the fabulous Boeing 747! They are both in the same league in my book: big, brilliant, unequaled work-horses.

I just thought you might like to share my Fuji 680 thoughts. If any have any contacts interested in purchasing a Mark 1 or Mark 2 body please put them in touch.

But again thanks for an excellent and justified review, I agree with every word you wrote—and then some!

Ken has vastly more experience with the GX680 than I ever will; while I do cherish it, mine mostly lives in its purpose-built storage unit and only comes out to play a couple of times a year. But Ken's experience rings true for me as well. If medium format film ever becomes scarce, my 680 is the camera that it will be dedicated to.

I also had to laugh when I read Ken's characterization of the Hasselblad as the system he would resort to when he'd need "to move/shoot fast or over some distance". That's exactly why I bought my 500c/m – the idea of a `blad as a small, convenient camera is something that makes perfect sense to people who use the GX680. The Fuji has a dedicated Kata 210 backpack and wooden tripod that also needs its own bag, while the Hasselblad can slip into my usual Billingham Hadley Pro and fits on a tripod that can be hand-carried. But I'd still only use the little Swedish camera when that added mobility is more important than image quality.

While many photographers are just being reintroduced to Fujifilm through its retro-styled "X-series" digital cameras, to me the GX680III will remain their greatest achievement. There may not be a 'perfect' camera, but the 680 remains undefeated.


Ken Kirkwood can be reached at
ken at kenkirkwoodphotographer dot com.
His website is kenkirkwoodphotographer.com.

last updated 13 june 2012

A Specific, Detailed Program on The Online Photographer

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: To be determined.
Yeah, but: Running out of ink scares me.

The Long Version: Today Mike Johnston wrote an interesting article on The Online Photographer, lovingly (and perhaps provisionally) titled "A Specific, Detailed Program for Absolutely, Positively Getting Better as a Digital Printmaker". Essentially, the Specific, Detailed Program is a daily exercise that's intended to become a self-guided course in making and examining inkjet photo prints, and should last for months or more.

Interesting.

Becoming a better printmaker is one of my big goals for this year, so this immediately piqued my interest. I'm also 70% of the way through another daily photography project, so I'm already in the habit of being in the habit of an ongoing task. Finding another fifteen or twenty minutes a day seems like an attainable target.

I'm committing to starting this no later than the beginning of June, and running it until at least the beginning of September.

I've decided to keep my prints on letter-size paper, both out of space and cost concerns. Somewhat countering the second point, I'll probably stick with my two favourite "for real" papers, even though they run about seventy-five cents per page. Saving sixty cents per print by putting ink on cheap plastic feels like it won't teach me as much about printing what matters to me.

I'll keep this post updated as the process goes on.

last updated 18 may 2012

Elsewhere on the Web: Buying Cameras

The Long Version: Bill Beebe has been kind enough to let me post a few articles about buying cameras on his own site. Part One is about buying that first "serious" camera, while Part Two – really, part one-and-a-half – looks at building it into a system. The final instalment, which is possibly my favourite, is what I go through when I'm tempted to buy something new. I'm not famous for my impulse control, but I think it works out okay.

Of course, I could be wrong.

last updated 4 dec 2010

Elsewhere on the Web: Anthony's Camera Considerations

The Long Version: Anthony, the writer and photographer behind the popular website Motojournalism, has an article looking at the differences between three superficially similar cameras, and how to choose between them. So if you're interested in the LX5, GF1, or X100, or simply curious about the factors that matter when choosing a camera, check it out.

last updated 19 mar 2011

Chicago: What Worked

The Long Version: In my last post - now updated with a camera bag contents photo - I was looking at my preparations for a weekend trip to Chicago. I'm writing this in the assumption that people have already seen the post below this one, which is a quirk of the blog format; click back if you haven't seen it already.

In a way it's too soon to do a full retrospective on the trip, since I haven't had time to really look at the results or hear the audio, let alone actually create something out of it. But getting a finished A/V work will take many weeks, and having proper perspective on the photos will take months or even longer. Who has time for that these days? The internet is all about immediate gratification.

So I've been trying to answer one simple question: if I was to do it all again next weekend, what would I change?

Chicago is my kind of town.

The first shortcoming to leap out at me was a lack of reading material. I knew I'd face a four-hour layover in night-time Detroit, but my preoccupation with weight and minimalism left me with nothing to do. Normally if I find myself bookless I would surf or play games on my Blackberry, but I was trying to conserve battery power, so that wasn't a great option. I should have brought something slim to read that I could jettison once I reached Chicago. To keep me lightly entertained, it should be something full of technical details, equipment talk, and field reports, with lots of pretty but unchallenging photos - perhaps a Golfing magazine, if anyone publishes such a thing.

Equipment-wise, the biggest thing that I had to learn should have been obvious: I'm not going to do anything different just because I'm somewhere else. I've used my Sony D50 audio recorder before, of course, but this time I thought I'd attach a couple of small microphones to my bag and use the wired remote to start and stop the recorder. My goal was partly stealth, but mostly spontaneity: it would keep me ready to catch interesting events thanks to the five-second pre-roll buffer. (For the record, capturing intelligible words in field recordings is a problem, not a goal, for reasons both legal and artistic.) But like Barrett Tillman said, "You won't rise to the occasion, you'll default to your level of training." My setup turned out to be too complicated and not particularly practical. I'm also not nearly good enough to be able to mix the sound from different capture devices seamlessly. Keeping it simple would have saved three-quarters of a pound and not changed my results.

And while I was at it, I should have let my audio recorder run longer for each take. I had some pressure to keep moving, but it always seems like the take ends just when something interesting is about to happen.

I brought out my little Manfrotto 345 tripod only a couple of times. Once was for recording audio, and the other was for some video clips. Next time I probably wouldn't bring a tripod at all, and just make do with impromptu supports whenever possible. I'm not convinced that I'll ever be good enough to capture stills, footage, and audio in a single day, since each has a different language and needs a different mental space. Even combining stills and audio have conflicting-enough requirements that I've never managed to do both well at the same time; I'd love to hear Keith's thoughts on this.

Incorporating Newman's "The Beginning".

I used my Colorchecker a few times while I was wandering around the city, but since the profiling software doesn't work with the GH1's distortion-correcting DNG files (lenses via adapters create profiles with no difficulty), it was strictly a white-balance reference. I could have used a smaller piece of my cardboard grey card, but the legitimate opportunity to take a photo of a Rothko painting demanded the most reliable colour balance I could get. While I wish I could have used my heavy iron, the GH1 with the bright 20mm f/1.7 did quite well, letting me accomplish a major goal for the trip.

Another of my goals for Chicago was to take photos for reviews of the Panasonic 7-14 and 20/1.7, so I was making an effort to use those two lenses. Even still, I was surprised at how rarely I used the 14-140, and it contributed only about 10% of the total images. While a few of its photos used the middle of the zoom range, most were either at the long end of its reach - where it's weakest - or were reasonably close to 14mm or 20mm. I was ambivalent about bringing it with me, and if I was to do it again next weekend, I'm still not sure if I'd tuck it in my bag. At one point I wished that I had my PC-Nikkor 35/2.8 shift lens, which would make an interesting substitution for the superzoom. Perhaps that's what I'll do next time.

Over the course of the trip, I used three batteries for the GH1. I exhausted the first one, and then switched the second prematurely, which is the opposite of how I usually work. I had marked my fresh batteries with a strip of electrical tape over the contacts, with a flap folded over for easy removal. One set of batteries was ample for my audio recorder, which was what I expected, and I even used my ND filter on the 20/1.7 for some photos and video. So while there are a few things that I could have done without, I did use everything I brought with the exception of a few spare SD cards. Not too shabby.

Departing the Toronto Terminal.

At just 9.5 pounds, my camera bag wasn't my enemy. Leaving out the easy stuff - microphone, tripod - would bring it down even more. The Hadley Pro bag itself was as flawless as its slightly overstuffed condition would let it be, and I finally came to appreciate the zippered back pocket for holding my passport, tickets, and maps. It's a good traveling companion, and since I always keep my camera bag with me, its compactness and discreetness was a real strength. It's going to be great for carrying around New York this fall.

Overall, I have to say that the trip was a huge success. Almost everything went the way I expected it to, and the Chicago excursion was a much more positive experience than my trip to Ottawa even though it lasted twice as long. I nearly filled a 16GB card, and captured almost a gigabyte of audio recordings as well. Even allowing for my vanishingly low 'keeper' rate, there's almost certainly something decent in there. None of the equipment failed or ran out of power, nothing limited my shooting, and my travel itinerary worked well. In fact, the only negative from the whole weekend was that someone stole my hat when I was in Detroit. I was using it to mark my place in line, and the Windsor-Toronto route boards from the gate next to the payphones. I can't say I was surprised - it was a nice hat - but since I bought it for the trip I suppose it's fitting that it remained behind.

I'm still going to buy another one, though.

Chicago: Preparations

The Long Version: I really like the idea of road trips. There's a long tradition of photographers getting into cars and driving all over America just to see what they could see. There's Robert Frank, Steven Shore, and William Eggleston, to name just a few. But I'm a working photographer - at a day job, like the vast majority of us - and I can't just head down the road to places unknown for as long as it takes me to get there. And even if I could wander for months, I have a family that I'm not willing to leave; there's also the practical matter of my never learning how to drive.

So instead I take the bus, and go for the weekend.

Last fall, I did a 24-hour round trip to Ottawa, which is about six hours away from Toronto. That was a test run, like doing a 5K before attempting a marathon, and now I'm using what I've learned to prepare for my next endeavor. This weekend will be the true challenge: sixteen hours to Chicago, incoporating a 4 hour layover in beautiful late-night Detroit, nineteen hours in the city, and then back on the bus for twelve hours to get home. While I'm there, I want to ride the "L", take an architectural tour or two, and visit the Rothko painting and William Eggleston exhibition at the Art Institute. And, needless to say, I want to take a lot of photos, capture some video, and record enough audio to create a couple of A/V works from my time there.

Hit the ground running way too early in the morning after a lousy night spent barely sleeping in a cramped and uncomfortable seat. Spend the day trying to make the best use of my time without having a clear objective or knowing enough to make informed choices. Plunge into a situation where I need to perform without knowing what tools I'll really need, and having to carry everything with me all the time. What's not to like?

I've been debating and deciding what to bring for at least two months, so here's the list:

• Camera: Panasonic GH1, 7-14, 14-140, and 20mm lenses. Several extra batteries and 32GB of memory cards. A 46mm ND filter for the 20mm lens. Manfrotto 345 tripod, Colorchecker Passport.
• Audio: Sony PCM-D50, Rode windscreen. Giant Squid powered omnidirectional stereo microphone. RM-PCM1 wired remote.
• Extras: Leatherman S2 flashlight, Blackberry, iPod Classic, Fuelcell booster battery, and earphones that will also be used with the audio recorder. Maps printed on 4x6 photo paper with interesting addresses on the reverse. My skinny new Mighty Wallet. Peanut M&Ms, and 8oz Stanley flask for water.
• All of this will fit in my Billingham Hadley Pro, which is small enough that it won't need to be checked at the art gallery.

So that's where I stand right now, thirty-eight hours before I leave - or eighty-five hours before I'm back. Ten of my named items have already been written up; I'll be using four different things that I expect to write reviews for. Chicago will be the proving ground for my Panasonic 7-14mm lens, like Ottawa was for my Nikon 105VR, and I'm also hoping to review some of what I see while I'm there. And as soon as the travel trauma wears off, I'll be writing a 'what worked' recap of my trip to give a general overview of what I discovered about the concept and execution of the entire weekend.

See you next week.

Elsewhere on the Web: The Polished Penny on Etsy

The Long Version: My favourite client, The Polished Penny, has recently opened a shop on Etsy. For those unfamiliar with the site, it's a marketplace for all sorts of things handmade. It has occasionally been compared to eBay without the auction clock, but I think of it as the Flickr of product photography. Penny specializes in silver earrings and pendants; as a photographer, I'm always impressed by her ability to create something entirely from raw materials.

The photography that I've done for The Polished Penny spans a healthy range of time and techniques. The image above was shot with a D700 and strobes, which lets me keep decent depth of field while working hand-held for a variety of angles and options. Other times I'll work with natural light with the camera on a tripod, typically with my GH1 for the greater convenience of the flip-out screen. There'll always be more jewellery and more photos, so check it out from time to time.

Quick Thoughts on Lenses for Micro Four Thirds Cameras

The Long Version: This is a quick look at the various lenses that can be put on a Micro Four Thirds camera. It's inherently incomplete, since they are able to wear just about anything, but it will be quietly updated from time to time. While I've had the opportunity to use all of these lenses on at least one m4/3 camera, my experience generally isn't much deeper than what anyone could get in a helpful camera store. I just happen to spend a lot of time in one, and I have a blog.

For a more general guide to lens selection, don't miss the exceptional article "The Uses and Application of 35mm Lenses", written by Mike Johnston.

GF-1 and 14-140, photo by GH1 with Olympus 17/2.8

Panasonic 7-14mm: An amazing lens, the equal of the D.Zuiko Olympus 7-14 but half the size. Highly recommended if you have a dusting cloth. (compared and reviewed)

Panasonic 8mm Fisheye: A pancake fisheye - it's a fishcake! Just as useful as a regular fisheye, but it takes up much less room when left in the camera bag.

Olympus 9-18mm: While the focal length isn't as stunning as the 7-14mm, it's more practical. The box it comes in is smaller than the Panasonic ultrawide, but in use they're similar lengths; the collapsing design means that the zoom and focus rings are a bit crowded.

Olympus 14-42mm: Compact when it's carried, large when it needs to be - what's not to like? Perhaps it's not as sharp as the Panasonic equivalent, but that's not really its point.

Blue and Red, GH1 with Panasonic 20/1.7

Panasonic 14-45mm: Longer but not as wide - physically - as the M.Zuiko 14-42, the G Vario is still deceptively small and very good. It has quick and quiet AF, but it also extends a lot through its zoom range.

Panasonic 14-140mm: A heavy lens that takes a bit of torque to get moving, it's the best of all of the superzooms for any format, for what that's worth.

Olympus 14-150mm: The difference in build and weight is enough to tell this apart from the 14-140 while blindfolded, but the biggest difference is that it isn't stabilized. Buy it to match an Olympus body, but try to save for the 14-140 for a Panasonic body.

Olympus 17mm f/2.8: I'd be really afraid of losing this lens in the padding of most camera bags. It's tiny, which is even more exaggerated by the ultra-slim tail cap and front cap that Olympus uses. Optically, compared to the Panasonic 20/1.7, at least it's much smaller. (reviewed)

Panasonic 20mm f/1.7: Sharper, faster, with less distortion and less chromatic aberration than the M.Zuiko 17/2.8, that lens would have been much more popular if this one hadn't come along. Perhaps a little over-hyped, but still the better of the pair. (reviewed)

GF1 and 45-200, photo by GH1 with 20/1.7

Panasonic 45mm f/2.8: This is an interesting idea: a macro lens with internal focus and no distance or magnification scale. It's not a good idea, but it is interesting. There's absolutely no way to tell where it is in its long focusing range. Otherwise, it's a great lens that shows its Leica influence by being twice as expensive as it should be.

Panasonic 45-200mm: A generous minimum focusing distance makes this a surprisingly practical lens; someone much smarter that I am hasn't been impressed by the effectiveness of its image stabilization.

Yonge Street Rain, GH1 with Nikon 50/1.8

Via adapters:

Olympus 12-60mm: An interesting alternative standard zoom, but since it's bigger than the 14-140 and won't autofocus on a Panasonic body, it's a solid second choice.

Nikon 35mm f/2.8 PC-Shift: An older lens that's designed for manual focus and stop-down metering, it's perfect for the smaller format. The 'sweet spot' crop and live-view focus and exposure solves almost all of the traditional problems of perspective control lenses. A great option, if a 70mm-e field of view shift lens is your kind of thing.

GH1 and 35/2.8, photo by Olympus E-1 with 50/2

Nikon 50mm f/1.8: The Voigtländer adapter is about the same size as the lens, and costs more, too. As an f/2.8 lens with an emergency low-light setting, its performance is good; definitely worth getting if you already have the adapter. (reviewed)

Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux: If you can afford this lens, you might as well buy a m4/3 camera just to give your M9 a rest. Nothing's in focus anyway, so have fun.

Zeiss ZM 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar: A quirky lens, its size and manual focus design is a perfect match for the m4/3 cameras. Stop it down to at least f/5.6 for sharp results, or leave it wide open for more fun.

Olympus 50mm f/2: Definitely worth getting the adapter if you already have this lens - it's the best macro option by price. The fly-by-wire electronic focus works well for fine macro adjustments, and the auto-stop-down and auto-focus-magnification of the electronically coupled lens is much simpler than the manual options. (reviewed)

Olympus 50-200mm (mk I): A nice, bright telephoto with auto-aperture and auto-MF-assist on the GH1, but no autofocus, and I miss the image stabilization of my E-3. If I really needed this lens, I'd buy the 45-200 instead. I could happily live with the slower lens in exchange for the modern conveniences.

Lensbaby box, photo by GH1 with Lensbaby Composer

Lensbaby Composer: Yes, but why?

Lensbaby 3G: As above, but harder to use. (reviewed)

Nikon 85mm f/1.8: A wonderful lens, fast and sharp, and not too big for the GH and G series Panasonic bodies. A $450 170mm-e fast telephoto with a five-year warranty - if it wasn't manual focus, we'd happily spend twice as much for it. (reviewed)

G1 and Nikon 85/1.8, photo by GH1 with 14-140

Nikon 80-200mm: A very tempting idea, but verges on the ridiculous in actual use. With a tripod it becomes useable, but it's still ridiculous.

Tamron 70-300mm: This seems like a joke. In Nikon mount, the lack of an AF motor keeps it off of the cheap bodies, and the lack of image stabilization makes it a bad choice for anyone who can afford better. A highly undesirable lens, even though it sells for about what the 50/1.8 costs. But for us, it turns into a 600mm-equivalent f/5.6 ultra-telephoto. Sure, it needs to be stopped down and put on a tripod, but set up next to someone with a 600/5.6 on a full-frame body some time. Surprisingly good for the price.

Nikon 50/1.8 on Voigtländer adapter, photo by GH1 with 20/1.7

Nikon 80-400mm: Not nearly as bad as I expected from the reviews that I've read, either on a D700 or m4/3 camera. For the micro bodies, though, its VR is an unnecessary expense and the lens only makes sense if there's also a Nikon AFD-compatible camera in the family. However, it is one of the very few lenses this long with an aperture ring.

Nikon 105mm & 135mm f/2 DC: The Defocus Control lenses are interesting ideas that are a little tricky to use, but the counterpoint is that the added complexity of fully-manual operation doesn't make it that much more difficult. Big for the camera, but sharp, fast, long lenses that will really suit some specialized photography.

Steel Building, GH1 with 35mm PC-Nikkor

Nikon 135mm f/2.8: An older non-AF lens, it has a tremendously long focusing throw and is surprisingly compact. Not as sharp and contrasty as modern lenses, older designs give a different look to the photos that can be quite appealing. But if pure optical performance is your thing, then this isn't it.

Nikon 180mm f/2.8: This is a very tempting lens - a 360mm-e f/2.8 telephoto that can still slip into a small-to-medium bag. Optically it's very nice, with good sharpness and low chromatic aberrations; the built-in hood is a nice touch. Its manual focus throw is extremely long (almost 180 degrees around a large barrel) and surprisingly refined.

Sigma 180mm f/3.5: A macro lens with a lot of working distance, this one is great for stacking with extension tubes and getting 2:1 magnification, or even more. It's a very different animal than the D.Zuiko 50mm f/2, and don't expect to use it as a 360mm-e lens for hand-held photography, but once it's on a tripod it's very powerful. Too bad about the chromatic aberration, though. (reviewed)

Last Updated: 19 August 2010. 

Thewsreviews: Year Number Two

Concept: _ out of 5
Execution: _ out of 5
Yeah, but: It's still too early for a retrospective.

The Long Version: This website turned two yesterday. It's been a big year: we've gone to a new design, a new URL, and gained a new author. In the past twelve months, we've had another thirty-seven thousand hits, and sixty-five thousand page views. This is post number one hundred and eighty, so we're averaging about two posts per week. The word cluster at the top is generated from just the 27 reviews posted so far this calendar year.

Of course, a lot hasn't changed. Camera gear remains the most popular subject, getting the most interest from regular readers and search engine patrons alike. The Olympus 35-100mm review is a medium-size fish in a small pond, accounting for about a tenth of the site traffic. My first look at the Xootr Mg scooter, written exactly two years ago and currently the first result on google.ca for 'xootr review', remains very popular even though its traffic has been eclipsed by my 2009 writeup of the Xootr Swift folding bike. In honour of that bike, which I just brought out of winter storage, here's a photo of it that has never been published before:

If nothing else, that photo shows that there is a minimum quality standard that needs to be met before I'll use it. I do enjoy taking photos for these reviews, and I take far more than I've used. Some were ideas that never quite blossomed into prose, others were ones that didn't add anything to the review. Sometimes I'll write an entire review simply because I want to use a particular photo, but usually the idea comes before the illustration.

In the past year, I've stopped using most of my Olympus equipment, and even sold both the 35-100/2 and 7-14/4 lenses. (That still astonishes me.) I've added two entirely new camera systems, four new cameras, and ten new lenses to my collection. Some of those have been mentioned here before, and some are still on my 'to do' list. I continue to look for interesting things to review, and more importantly, keep trying to write about the things that interest me instead of trying to anticipate what will get more traffic. After all, I first thought of writing this blog as a personal creative outlet, and never imagined that anyone other than family and friends would ever read it. (For the record, absolutely nobody in my family reads it. Apparently I have a very healthy ego.) So even though I know that nobody's likely to care what I think about dishwasher detergent or a light switch, I'm going to keep writing about them and things like them. When I initially thought about the concept behind the blog - while riding the Spadina Streetcar - I thought I'd eventually review a day of the week. Tuesday's been on my shortlist for a while, but it hasn't happened yet.

So, for everyone who reads this, thank you. You've taken the effort to include my thoughts in your day, which just completely blows my mind. Thanks also to Keith and Bill, my co-authors who add so much to this site and keep it from being completely self-indulgent. This is far more fun than I had any right to expect.

Comparison of the 7-14 Ultrawides: Olympus v Panasonic

Olympus: 4 out of 5
Pansonic: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: They're both excellent.

The Long Version: I've been using the Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 for ages; I reviewed it over a year ago, and gave it pretty good marks. I've only gained the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 quite recently - my full review of it is now online here - and for just a few moments I had the chance to compare both of these awesome lenses. I was looking at four different things: sharpness, distortion, flare, and build quality. The Olympus lens was mounted to the E-3, and the Panasonic was attached to a GH1 shooting in the 4:3 ratio. And no, before anyone says that I should test something else or do something differently, I can't do a re-shoot. I don't own both lenses any more.

Build:
The first difference between the two lenses is huge: the Olympus is a hefty, imposing lens; the Panasonic puts the micro into Micro Four Thirds. The Olympus is something that really needs to be experienced - it's an awe-inspiring sight. In the hand the lens is absolutely solid and quite heavy, and the build is as good as anything I've ever tried. Even the metal lens cap demands respect: the lens seems destined to produce greatness. The Panasonic is petite by comparison, almost verging on 'cute', with a mostly-plastic construction and smaller lens elements that puts it a full pound lighter than the Olympus. It's an amazing difference, and it's even more incredible to consider that they're both constant f/4.0 zooms feeding the same sensor size.

Even beyond the difference in camera mounts, there's such a massive difference in the physical size and build that they're going to appeal to different audiences. If you want the smallest possible kit for the best wide-angle photography, there's no question that the GH1 (reviewed) and Panasonic 7-14 is the best choice. If you need something that will survive harsh conditions then get an Olympus 7-14 and E-1 or E-3. In fact, this might be the single biggest difference between them, so if size or weatherproofing is most important factor in your choice, skip the rest of this review and just buy the appropriate one.

Flare:
Both lenses share an essential characteristic - big heads and little arms. Getting that huge field of view takes large, protruding front elements, and there's not much that the built-in hoods can do to shade them. This makes both lenses inherently vulnerable to flare, but the Olympus lens does a better job of suppressing it, and it's less prominent when it happens. It's still hard to miss, but not as bad as it easily could be. The Panasonic lens isn't as good, with its flare being brighter and more prominent in the frame.The Panasonic is on the left, and the Olympus is on the right: flare control is a clear win for the bigger lens.

What surprised me the most in the comparison was a problem with the Panasonic: the front element attracts dust like spam to a gmail account. With both lenses sitting upright, caps off and side-by-side, and the Panny would have specks of dust on the lens while the Oly element remained clean. It's possible that the majestic dome of the Olympus just sheds dirt through the force of its sheer awesomeness, like an ultrawide Henry Winkler, but I've also noticed that my cleaning cloths don't slide very smoothly across the Panasonic. Its coating is 'grabby', with problematic results.

Every little speck of dust, when caught in the wrong light, becomes a source of flare. In all of my time shooting with the Olympus, I'd never noticed this as a problem; with just a week with the Panasonic, it was obvious. With the flare test samples I never wondered which camera I was looking at, while for most other issues I'd have to check the metadata to be sure. Even in these tiny sample photos, dust spots are visible at the edges of the frame.

Distortion:
Optical distortion control has also been a traditional strong point for Olympus, and is one way that it's clearly superior to the newer Nikon 14-24/2.8. With the Micro Four Thirds format distortion is corrected on-the-fly within the camera, and Adobe Camera Raw adjusts the raw files automatically. But while the new m4/3 format has finally made it practical, it's not a new idea. Compact cameras have been doing it for some time now, and it was also part of the original 4/3 standards. With the Olympus E-1 the processing power needed for in-camera 'shading correction' made the camera unusably slow, and the distortion correction needed Olympus's own raw converter, which simply wasn't worth the effort.

As a result of the combined optical and electronic approach, the Panasonic is almost perfect for almost all of its zoom range. The Olympus needs a maximum '3' value in photoshop's Lens Correction filter, although the actual amount will change depending on the focusing distance and focal length. That's still an excellent result, but the Panasonic has the undeniable advantage of youth.

Sharpness:
With the Olympus 7-14 review, the only strong optical issue that stood out was a certain amount of corner smearing on the ground when I'd shoot photos from a very low perspective. It's not quite corner softness: imagine a lens traveling through perspective distortion at warp speed, and that's about right. Whatever the actual source of the aberration - I'm absolutely nothing like an optics expert - the Panasonic seems to have less of it. Usually. When it comes to corner softness at more traditional distances, the Panasonic has a slight but slightly more definite edge. (Below, GH1 on the left, E-3 on the right.) That suggests that the amount of software tweaking that's being done to correct lens distortion isn't causing problems elsewhere. When looking at central sharpness, once again the Panasonic wins, but this time it's definitive.

There is a huge caveat with the sharpness comparison, though. The Panasonic camera has a slight resolution advantage, which was fairly easy to equalize for comparison, but the true test for sharpness would have had both lenses on a GH1. All that this comparison really shows is that the Olympus camera and lens wasn't showing as much detail as the Panasonic combination once the images had been processed in Lightroom 2. Panasonic bodies have a reputation for delivering more detail than Olympus cameras, and while this test is far from proving that true, it's also far from being a true test of the optics. If someone ever does this test with an adapter to put the lenses on the same body, believe those results instead of mine. I'm always happy to be wrong.

Finally:
I'm going to do something that's very unusual for me: pick a winner in a direct comparison. The Panasonic 7-14 is the better lens, or to be more accurate, the GH1+P7-14 mostly beats the E-3+O7-14. Yes, the Panasonic 7-14 gives up the weather sealing and the 'I am a god' feeling that comes with picking up the Olympus lens. Yes, the Olympus E-1 and E-3 are better cameras than the GH1, even if the newer Panasonic produces better photos. The m4/3 kit comes across as a bit of a toy, a hobbyist's amusement, when they're set side-by-side. But the Panny still wins.

It's taken me four days to write this conclusion, and it's not the one I expected to reach. My reasoning behind it is that the Olympus 7-14 is mostly better at things that should be avoided anyway. Weather sealing doesn't include windshield wipers, and worse flare isn't that much worse than regular flare. So while the need to carry a Swiffer for the Panasonic is an annoyance, it's weaker in a situation that all wide-angle photographers already need to be wary of. In exchange, the Panasonic 7-14 is a full pound lighter, possibly sharper, and has zero distortion for everything except the ends of its range. It's also cheaper enough that it'll buy half of a GF1 or Olympus Pen. Naturally, if you're happy and/or heavily invested with Olympus cameras and lenses, their 7-14 remains an exceptional choice.

But there is another nagging little issue: competition. Nikon has the 14-24/2.8 for its full-frame cameras, which snags the high end of the market away from the Olympus. There's also the inconceivably awesome Canon 17mm TS-E., which takes the very high end away from Nikon. Coming up soon will be the Sigma 8-16mm lens, which will give a 12/13mm equivalent lens to the great unwashed hordes of APS-C cameras. Unless it's a real lemon, people who really need 114 degree ultrawide coverage won't have any special reason to buy either Panasonic or Olympus cameras - unless they want the small size that's still only possible with Micro Four Thirds.

Just three years ago there was absolutely nothing that could match the Olympus 7-14mm for any digital camera system. We live in interesting times.

You may also be interested in the thewsreviews' illustrated collection of observations on a wide assortment of lenses: "Quick Thoughts on Lenses for Micro Four Thirds Cameras".