The Random Photographer

Kit lenses Pt 1 - So what makes a good kit lens?

2012-01-31T07:36:00.001-08:00

Well this is a very subjective opinion but based on my own experiences of good and bad I'll list the criteria that work for me. Before that, let me clarify one point, when I talk about kit lenses I am referring to your bog standard 18-55 or 14-42mm (max aperture between F3.5-F5.6) that is sold with just about every small system camera or DSLR. I am not referring to kit lenses out of this type of range or high end lenses which are sometimes sold as kits with more expensive cameras. The one exception is the Sony 16mm F2.8 prime, which is slightly different and deserves a mention for reasons which I will come onto later in the series. So onto my criteria:

Sharpness/Resolution - Sharpness is something I'm pretty particular about, if a lens isn't decently sharp then it's no good to me. I like detail in my shots, a lens with poor resolution is as bad as it gets for me. I can always reduce sharpness (for portraits for example) but having to increase it too much just reduces image quality. I need a kit lens to be sharp wide open at both ends, or least within one stop of maximum aperture, so by F5.6/F8 as a minimum. I shoot wide a lot so a kit lens that is sharp at F3.5 is very good for me. Similarly I like it to be sharp at F5.6 at the long end, many kit lenses struggle with either, and sometimes both. In terms of edge and corner sharpness obviously the sharper the better but I expect some fall off wide open with the edge sharpness improving incrementally when the lens is stopped down. At F8 I expect very good performance across the frame.

Colour and contrast - As a minimum I expect average colour and contrast at the widest apertures with improvement on stopping down. Colour and contrast are easy to improve on post processing so it's not a huge issue but it's a "nice to have" if it's better than average.

Distortion - A lot of kit lenses have fairly heavy barrel and pin cushion distortion which is corrected by the camera or in software. I can live with that, I don't care how it's done as long as it's dealt with. A kit lens which has low distortion from the start is an exceptional kit lens (if it's ticking the sharpness box as well).

Consistency of performance - Most lenses in general have one or two sweet spots at certain focal lengths and apertures. A lens which is more consistent in performance is easier to use and more versatile. The more consistency throughout the range the better the lens as far as I'm concerned. A kit lens with reasonable consistency i.e. fewer weak areas is what I look for.

Vignetting - Most lenses suffer from some degree of vignetting or "fall off" wide open, getting progressively better when stopped down. Vignetting has never been an issue to me, it's easy to deal with so I don't worry about it. It would have to be extremely bad for me to worry about it, I have yet to use such a lens.

Chromatic Abberation - Most lenses suffer from this to a greater or lesser degree, especially kit lenses. Nowadays software correction is very good at removing most of it but some lenses can be pretty bad in this area. If it shows up in average lighting this is not good, even on a kit lens. If it tends to only appear on heavily backlit surfaces then I can live with it/deal with it.

Coma - Kit lenses are more prone to it than higher quality lenses but usually it only appears on the far edges, I can live with that it if things improve upon stopping down.

Close-focusing - Kit lenses often have very good close focusing capability, sometimes better than more expensive lenses. This can be good for semi-macro shots, the closer focusing the better.

Bokeh/shallow dof - Because of their speed kit lenses aren't really that good for shallow dof unless you are on top of your subject at F5.6 and the far end of the range, on an APS-C sensor you are about 1 stop better for shallow depth of field as opposed to an m4/3's sensor ( which would need to be at F4 and the same focal length to be able to create the same effect and obviously wouldn't be able to ). Some kit lenses are capable of decent bokeh ( when you can obtain shallow dof ) and smooth out of focus transitions with circular highlights are what I look for. Foliage in the immediate background is usually a good test for bokeh and some lenses can get very ugly in this scenario, even pro grade lenses (The Zuiko 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 for example). Generally it's another "nice to have" but not essential for me.

Build quality - These are kit lenses, they are cheap and I don't expect exceptional build quality. Build quality better than average is a bonus. A metal mount is also a nice bonus, they will always wear better in the long run. Some manufacturers don't supply lens hoods, this doesn't impress me, it's a basic requirement, they are cheap to make, don't rip us off by charging silly prices for an "accessory" you should have supplied in the first place.

Size and weight - smaller and lighter is better, and to be honest, most of them are. If I want a big and heavy lens then I'll buy a pro grade lens and be done with it. A well built, small and lightweight kit lens is the optimum, not too many tick both boxes although things are getting better.

Sample variation - Probably one of the biggest issues with kit lenses and the reason why there are so many conflicting opinions on them. I believe manufacturers take a "stack 'em high and flog 'em cheap" approach. Some manufacturers have a better approach to quality than others. My threshold is to try two separate copies of a kit lens. If one is poor and it's replacement is still poor then I'm done, I consign them to the "tried it and didn't like it" category. There may be better copies out there but I'm not going to waste my time looking for them, manufacturers take note.

Price - They usually come with a camera, they're not called "kit" lenses for nothing :). However, they do add to the cost of a camera and can be bought separately. They are cheap to make and mass produced. When done well they are an absolute bargain, done badly and they don't even make good paperweights and are worth nothing.

Kit lens series.....Intro

2012-01-31T05:15:00.001-08:00

I've noticed that nothing seems to provoke as much debate as the humble kit lens. Are they good enough? are they fast enough, "this kit lens is crap", "this kit lens is excellent" etc etc. I will attempt to demystify the humble kit lens based on my own experiences of them, in a series of posts that might help someone in sorting the wheat from the chaff. I'll tell you what to look for and what to avoid and I'l give my opinion on the kit lenses I've used ( and some I still use ) and give my opinion on the relative merits of upgrading to a "better" class of lens. I can't guarantee you'll agree, it's just my opinion, but I'm over that already ;). Watch this space......

Americanisms.....why use normal words when you can make up a new and more irritating one.....

2012-01-30T11:22:00.001-08:00

Now I have no problem with our transatlantic cousins, I've served with them and they're like any other people on the planet, there are good ones and bad ones. However, there is one habit they have which drives me crackers, it's inventing new and pointless words for words that already exist. Is there a "Department for new and irritating words" in the US government? I understand that language evolves over time and I have no problem with new words and phrases to explain new ideas or concepts. Unfortunately this seems to be an increasingly common phenomenom, or maybe I'm just noticing it more, here are a few examples of what I mean:

Soccer - I know this is an old one but it's my pet hate, it has even started to pervade the British media. It's not "soccer" it's football! It's the biggest participation sport on the planet, it's the only team game played with your feet (that I'm aware of) and it's been around for hundreds of years and has always been called football. So here's the problem, you call your own national sport "Football" even though it's a game in which the ball is carried and thrown - with your hands! am I missing something here? So please don't steal the name of the greatest game on earth, think of your own, perhaps "timeout" would be more appropriate.

Burglarized - erm.... it's burgled, it already exists, it's shorter and easier to spell, why invent a new word for one that is already perfectly acceptable?

Educator? - what? where did that one come from? what's wrong with Teacher? Everyone has been happy with that one for thousands of years. This word is so cringeworthy I couldn't bear to utter it personally.

Use-case - now this one is slightly different in that it's used in the IT world, I can live with that, but I saw a post today in which someone used the expression "A use-oriented review", what!!! don't you mean a "user orientated review" aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgh!. What is wrong with the word "user" ? that's the correct term, that's the one everyone understands, that's the term everyone else uses!

I have had to suffer american corporate words for years, they have appeared randomly in the corporate environment at regular intervals, words such as "synergistic" and "stakeholders", it even spawned a game, wank words bingo. The participants go to a business meeting and stealthily tick off a list of these horrendous buzzwords as they are trotted out by mindless corporate borg who have been assimilated.These are just a few examples of what I lovingly call "Americanisms". There is one word that some Americans should familiarise themselves with, it's called "Irony", no need to change it either!

RAW vs Jpeg.....dogma versus results...

2012-01-30T03:41:00.001-08:00

This is an age old argument that has exsited since the dawn of digital photography. Now is the time and place for me to be clear about this, I use both. Now there is a dogma that persists in digital photography that says you shouldn't shoot jpegs because you are discarding too much data and you will always be able to get better results using raw. Well yes and no in my opinion, it very much depends on what you are trying to achieve and how quickly you want to do it. My methodology is to shoot both simultaneously and then process them in Lightroom. Often the jpegs I obtain are of a good enough quality that they may need just a slight tweak of curves and levels and that is it, no need to push and pull the shadows or anything else. However, if I am shooting a scene that contains a lot of highlights and shadows and the camera is struggling to obtain the correct exposure, then I will happily use the raw file. Also, if I want to heavily post process the shot I will use the raw file.

I have a significant number of presets in Lightroom and often I hover over them when I'm trying to find the look that I want. I use these as a starting point and often tweak them a bit further. The jpegs I get from my E-P3 are very high quality in terms of colour and contrast. It is very easy to just drop a preset on them, tweak them slightly, job done. I tend to test a preset on both the raw and jpeg and often the jpeg looks closer to what I am trying to achieve because they have more contrast by definition. In this case I will happily use the jpeg and be done with it, it saves me time messing about with sliders to get pretty much the same effect with the raw file. The other point to note is that Lightroom uses non-destructive edits, this means that I am not losing quality from the jpegs as they are not being saved and re-saved every time I edit them, the quality essentially remains the same. If I need to process them a bit further in another programme I can export them as a tiff file, again, no loss of quality. It's not often I do this as I would usually use a raw file for heavy editing, but it does happen occasionally.

Ultimately, whether you use jpeg or raw is largely irrelevant, it's the result that matters. I have posted many of my images on the internet for critique and never has anyone asked whether the original was shot in jpeg or raw, not once. I have also asked certain protagonists to tell me which was which from a set of images, no-one has ever been able to differentiate, or even bothered, that tells me all I need to know. So I would say to anyone, shoot whatever suits you best and don't worry about what anybody else thinks, until they can actually tell you which is which on a blind test it really doesn't matter, what matters is the end result and whether you are happy with it.

I'm back......

2012-01-30T02:16:00.001-08:00

My blog has been dormant too long so I'm resurrecting it from the blog graveyard. I often post on DPreview and am frequently misquoted so this will be my place for putting the record straight amongst other things. I waste so much of my time repeating stuff that I though I was pretty clear about in the first place so this is the ideal place to be unequivocally clear without the white noise....watch this space....

Pentacon 135mm 2.8 vs OM 135mm 3.5 vs ZD40-150mm 4-5.6

2010-07-10T12:53:00.001-07:00

I've been looking for a cheap 135mm 2.8 prime for a while now. The reason being that I wanted an affordable fast prime with a longer focal length for event/concert shooting in lower light. Now there are lots of 135mm 2.8 legacy primes in existence, but the key point for me, is that whatever I chose needed to be sharp enough to be used wide open. Many legacy lenses suffer from blooming and softness wide open, which means you have to stop down and lose the speed advantage. For my requirements this is pointless, I don't mind if the lens is not the sharpest when stopping down but it must be usable and reasonably sharp wide open, most lenses improve when stopping down anyway. My other key requirement is price. My chosen lens will be used for a rather niche application and spending large amounts on a lens that will only see occasional use, was not an option. It needs to small, light, at least 2.8 wide open and useable at that aperture.

To that end, I carried out some research and found out that the Pentacon 135mm 2.8 seemed to have a few fans. This lens was manufactured in East Germany and comes in two main varieties. The 15 blade aperture earlier version known as the "bokeh monster" and the later, 6 blade aperture, auto. No prizes for guessing which one sells for a higher price! Fortunately, the newer version was reputed to be sharper wide open. I checked ebay out and found plenty of the newer versions available, although the price does vary quite a bit. There is also a Prakticar version of the newer lens but I was unable to confirm if this is as good as the one made in the GDR. I finally made my move for one, and bagged it for £26, it might be a dud, but worth a punt for that price I thought. I also ordered a cheap M42 to 4/3's adaptor for the princely sum of approx £4.

I now have both the adaptor and lens and thought I'd do a quick comparison test with an OM 135mm 3.5, and just a quick check against the ZD 40-150mm (A bargain lens if ever there was one).

I took all the shots on a tripod, using manual focus on my EPL-1 (with evf). They are jpegs straight out of the camera, set at natural mode, with sharpness set to -1 and saturation set to +1. There was no PP in lightroom including zero sharpening, so what you will see is straight out of the camera.

OM 135mm 3.5 at F 3.5

100% crop

Hmmm, not great from the OM, lets try F5.6.

If anything it's marginally worse! I was so disappointed with these results that I reshot at both apertures but the results were pretty much the same. Lets try the Pentacon 135mm at 2.8.

Now that looks promising, lets look at a 100% crop.

Bingo! Exactly what I was hoping for, not razor sharp but definitely good enough, no blooming and nice contrast and colour, bokeh is pretty nice as well. Lets have a look at it at F4 100%

Slightly sharper, so lets try F5.6.

Yep, that's sharpening up nicely now, not a huge difference but it's there. Last but not least, I zoomed the 40-150mm as best I could to 135mm, as it turns out it was 127mm but it's close enough.The widest aperture at that range is F5.4 but I thought it would be interesting to see what the differences are.

Looks nice and sharp, lets look at a 100% crop.

Whoa there! did I mention this lens was a bargain! That's as sharp as you could want. Pretty impressive for a kit lens, and bear in mind that this is a 100% crop, granted the colour and contrast is a little more muted but that's easily dealt with in PP. I'll take the sharpness everytime.

So what do I conclude from my little unscientific test?

The OM 135mm 3.5 was probably perfectly acceptable on the OM series of camera's. On digital it doesn't really cut it, probably ok for portraits but the focal length is too long really. It does have nice colour and contrast and if you don't print large sizes it will be fine, personally I wouldn't recommend it for digital use, not based on my copy anyway.
The Pentacon 135mm 2.8 SMC auto is exactly what I was hoping for, decently sharp wide open, with nice colour, contrast and bokeh. It doesn't really get much sharper until 5.6 and will no doubt improve there onwards but that's no big deal for me. It's wide open where it matters and it doesn't disappoint in that respect. It will be ideal for my purposes and if you want a lightweight, fast prime with a 270mm equivalent focal length, you will struggle to beat this lens at current prices.
Last but not least, the humble Zuiko 40-150mm, it's not fast, and colour and contrast are not on a par with more expensive options, but if you want a tiny, light, and very sharp lens, then it will not disappoint. Surely the best bang for buck medium telephoto in DSLR land.

There was a light summer breeze blowing for these shots, and although the shutter speeds were definitely fast enough, If I took the ubiquitous brick wall shots there might be some tiny variation. I think these shots are pretty representative of what I thought I might get and I did reshoot the OM135mm shots because of the differences, so I'm confident the results are pretty accurate.

One other thing I noticed with the Pentacon, is that it is very easy to manually focus. It seems to be quite generous with the amount of play on the focusing ring, between being in and out of focus. I found the OM 135mm to be the opposite, very sensitive to tiny movements making it very finicky to get exact focus. This may have some bearing on the results from the OM but I was using the evf fully magnified, so if that's not good enough I'm not sure what is.

The real benefit of using the E-PL1 - real time exposure.

2010-06-27T06:31:00.001-07:00

Now I'm making this camera specific, as the E-PL1 is the only m4/3's camera I have owned and used, but this may apply to others, in particular the M4/3's Olympus Pen range.

Many people cite that the main reason for choosing m4/3's camera's is for size and portability. Now whilst this holds true to a certain extent, is an m4/3's camera really much smaller than an Olympus E620 or a Pentax Kx with a compact zoom or prime lens? Well you can't put any of them in your pocket, maybe a coat pocket but there isn't a huge size advantage to my mind.

No, the real benefit, the one that very few people mention, is the ability to "see" your shot before you take it. Let me elaborate. When you shoot with a DSLR, you meter for the correct exposure based on what the camera is telling you and personal experience. Now you may get the exposure spot on (Modern DSLR metering is generally very accurate), but you will have to check the image in playback to confirm this. If you got it wrong (usually because the scene has elements of bright and low light) then you have to tweak exposure or change metering mode. This can sometimes take several attempts before you get the best exposure you can (within the camera's limits in terms of dynamic range, noise, white balance etc). This is where the E-PL1's killer feature comes in.

When you meter a shot using the E-PL1's LCD, several things come into play. Firstly, you have a 100% view of what the lens is seeing. You also have the ability to see all of the important camera settings used to get the correct exposure and composition. Ok, nothing groundbreaking there, some DSLR's have 100% optical viewfinders and all will show you the important settings in the OVF.
That's just what we expect. No, the real bonus is the ability to change your exposure settings and watch the impact of that, in real time, on the LCD. In a nutshell, what you see is what you get. So if I want to use exposure compensation, I can adjust it and watch the effect it has on my exposure as I do it! The same applies to white balance, the histogram and highlight and shadow indicators.
This is extremely useful if I want to avoid blown highlights or black shadows, or I want to do something creative with the exposure. I can also change to black and white and experiment with that by using different filters and changing the exposure to give me more or less contrast. How good is that! In my opinion the single most important aspect of using my E-PL1 is the ability to "see" before I shoot.
This also works when you fit an old legacy lenses to the camera and turn the aperture ring. The camera will automatically adjust to the correct exposure (according to it's metering) as you do it. Another useful function of this, is when you change the metering mode, from say centre weighted to spot metering, and you can visually watch the impact this will have on the exposure. As for depth of field preview, you don't need it either, if you auto focus using a half press of the shutter button then you will see the depth of field that you will capture.

Now, I have read on DPReview that some M4/3's camera's adjust light automatically on their electronic viewfinders. This is something different and related to maintaining the image brightness for composition purposes. This will not affect the exposure. What I am referring to is purely exposure related. This leads to me believe that not all m4/3's camera's can do what the E-PL1 does. I suspect that all the Olympus Pens do and some, maybe all, Panasonic's don't. Please let me know if you have further information on this, for accuracy I'd like to know and put the record straight if necessary.

So, when I hear m4/3's camera's being referred to as "toys" and people complaining that there is no size benefit against a small DSLR, forgive me if I break into a wry smile, because they have completely missed the real benefit of a camera such as the E-PL1 - real time exposure confirmation. Could there be a better reason for owning one?

A Parting of the ways

2010-06-16T00:10:00.001-07:00

Dear E-30,

I thought it only fair to tell you now that I think it's best if we part company. I hope you understand, it's nothing personal, we just don't get on. It's taken me time to realise this and I thought it only fair to tell you why.

From the start it looked so good, you offered me so much, but sadly you left me disappointed too often. I loved your body, everything seemed to be in the right place and you had lots of tricks up your sleeve. I thought you'd be focused and reliable and I also thought you were a bit of a night time girl. Sadly I was mistaken.

We went out everywhere together and I really tried to make it work between us, but you let me down in a number of ways. You weren't as reliable as I thought and often lost focus on what we were trying to achieve. I couldn't trust you to do what I wanted, most of the time you were ok but that's no good for me, I needed to rely on you all the time. I mean old 510, she never lost focus, she always did what I wanted. Ok, she didn't move as quickly but she always got there in the end. Even E-1 could do that, and let's face it, she's no spring chicken.

I also got fed up with your noise, I expected it in the evenings but even during the day you were too noisy for my liking, both E-1 and E-510 were better than you in the daytime. Ok, they weren't night owls but they never pretended to be. You promised to be better, and you were a bit, but not enough. To be honest that wasn't the real problem for me. The real problem was when we got home, you were a real let down. You just never lived up to my expectations. E-1 and 510 always gave me what I wanted when we got home but you just flattered to deceive. Those two always made me happy but you just bored me and were never clear about what you wanted to give me. I know this will offend you, but you were never the sharpest tool in the box either. Ok, E-1 isn't exactly razor sharp but she always brought colour to my life. As for 510, she was pin sharp and you just couldn't live up to her. I guess she spoiled me. I also gave you some nice things to wear, how about 50-200 and 14-54? For some reason they just didn't work well on you, 14-54 was fantastic on 510 but wasted on you, it's such a shame.

To be fair, I did defend you when other people told me you were wrong for me, I really did try to make it work ( nearly 8000 times by my calculations ).

You knew it had to end, I was always being unfaithful. I used to sneak off with E-1 and have a much better time and I think you knew deep down. Then PL1 turned up and the writing was on the wall for you. I know she is younger but she is just so damn sexy and she's got a few tricks up her sleeve I can tell you!

It hasn't all been bad, remember some of the positions we've gotten into! I shall miss that. I shall also miss your lovely body, you were always so responsive in many ways. Don't be too disheartened, you'll be free to find someone who appreciates you more than I do, we were just never meant to be. I know it can work for you with the right person, it's just not me. You have many friends who will support you I'm sure so don't worry. I'm going to spend some time with E-1 and PL-1 now, I know they'll keep me satisfied for while and PL1 can stay up longer than E-1 and she's not so noisy so I'll be happy.

Farewell E-30, it's been nice knowing you.

Mirrorless Vs DSLR

2010-06-06T06:13:00.001-07:00

Now I've had my E-PL1 for a few weeks I've had some time to contemplate on the relative merits of each format and what the pro's and cons are. I've read many posts elsewhere on whether someone should move from a DSLR to one of the Panasonic mirrorless cams or an Olympus Pen so here is my take on the what the benefits and pitfalls are so far.

DSLR's +

Optical viewfinder - usable in any light.
Fast automatic focusing.
Vast choice of lenses.
Larger choice of accessories.
Wider choice of brand.
Greater range of specification.
Weatherproofing availability.
Greater high ISO performance (dependant on model)
Pro specification and support.
Larger sensor availability.
Better flash support.
Better telephoto capability with greater range available.
Shallow depth of field capability (dependant on sensor size).
Larger sensor sizes (dependant on brand/format).
Better high ISO performance (dependant on sensor size).
Better Dynamic Range (dependant on sensor size).
Better HDR capability ( As per DR )
Faster frame rate

DSLR's -

Size.
Weight.
Poor liveview implementation.
Video ( although it is improving and becoming more widely available ).
Highly visible/indiscrete.
Cannot match a MILC for pre-shot exposure/effects checking.
Manual focus accuracy generally more difficult than a MILC. (Depends on OVF size to a certain extent).

Mirrorless Interchangeable lens Camera's (MILC's) +

Smaller form factor.
Lighter.
Smaller lenses.
Ability to check exposure and effects pre-shot.
Discrete and unobtrusive.
Can be used at venues where DSLR's would be banned for the general public.
Stylish design.
Ideal for travel.
High image quality in a compact design.
Better video implementation.
Video available on all current and forthcoming models.
Quieter shutter sound.
Ideal for manual focusing.
Compatibility with legacy lenses (using an adaptor).
Compatibility with all 4/3's lenses.
Can be used as a digital rangefinder for street-shooting.
Expanding selection of fast primes.
Deeper depth of field wide open (both a disadvantage and an advantage depending on what you are shooting).
Best quality jpegs available from any camera ( Olympus Pens ).

MILC's -

Limited lens choices ( This is rapidly improving ).
Lens cost ( Still expensive but I expect this to fall as they become more popular ).
Slower FPS.
Slower auto focusing ( Generally improving with newer models ).
No OVF ( Newer models now have the capability to attach high quality EVF's though ).
No weatherproofed options.
Lack of external controls ( Not an issue for me but might be for some ).
Lack of telephoto options at longer focal lengths.
No fast zooms ( although all the zuiko fast zooms can be used with slower AF performance ).
Some IQ disadvantages against higher end DSLR's ( Dynamic range and shallow dof ).
Less leeway to process in raw ( Due to less DR ).
Less flash capability ( Although this is getting better with wireless flash support as in the E-PL1 ).
Most LCD's more difficult to use in bright light than an ovf.
Bodies are not cheap ( although prices are now starting to drop ).
Accessories are expensive ( Prices are now starting to fall though ).

In summary, both formats have their advantages and disadvantages and the MILC's are not a full replacement for the speed and versatility of a DSLR....yet. I expect that this will change in time. I use mine more as a supplement to my DSLR's when I want a small discrete package which produces excellent image quality. There are some things that the MILC's do better than DSLR's i.e. pre exposure shot confirmation, video and manual focusing. They are also great fun to use and people do not look twice when you are using one, compared to the suspicious look you will often get when wielding a DSLR with large telephoto lens attached. This is positive bonus if you want to shoot discretely at events and in public. They are also a positive boon for travelling light yet maintaining the ability to get DSLR quality images.

Which one is best for you very much depends on what you want, for me, they compliment each other and whilst the MILC's steadily rise in popularity I don't expect the demise of DSLR's any time soon. There still many things that a DSLR can do better ( sports and low light ) and will do for many years to come. The best bit is that we have a choice and many people will be more than happy with what a MILC can provide whilst professionals will continue to use DSLR's for most of their work. It's all good.

E-PL1 - First Impressions

2010-05-24T12:44:00.001-07:00

Unless you live on another planet you can't have failed to notice the emergence of the mirrorless micro 4/3's camera's. After watching their progress with interest, I finally succumbed after receiving a promotional offer for a free MMF-1 lens adaptor from Olympus if I bought one of the Pen range. This means that I can mount all my full 4/3's lenses on a m4/3's camera. This is a saving in the region of £130 and seemed to good an offer to refuse so I duly purchased an E-PL1 with 14-42mm kit lens. After a week of waiting it finally arrived and although I haven't had too many opportunities to use it I can summarise my initial impressions.

Build Quality

The E-PL1 is the cheapest version of the current Pen line-up but it is built to the usual Olympus quality standards. It's very sturdy and has a re-assuring heft to it. It is no pocket camera per say but could easily fit in a coat pocket or small carry case. The kit lens has a very clever design in that it is collapsible and held with a catch while not in use. I find the kit lens to be reasonably well constructed and in line with Oly's other kit lenses in the 4/3's line-up. It has a plastic mount but feels and looks reasonable, you can't ask for much more in a cheap kit lens (apart from optical quality but I'll come on to that). The LCD on the camera is recessed and a decent size (2.7 inches) and feels quite durable and well made. All the buttons on the camera are of a decent quality and the mode dial is sturdy and virtually impossible to knock off of it's setting by accident ( a common complaint with many smaller camera's ). Placement of the buttons is pretty standard and functional, nothing to complain about here for me. Overall, very nicely made with a decent retro look, happy with that. here are some shots for size comparisons alongside a couple of 4/3's lenses.

Front view of the PL1 with 14-42mm Kit lens.

With 4/3's 40-150mm lens

With 4/3's 9-18mm

Functionality

There have been quite few people complaining about the lack of external controls on the PL1. If you are a long time Olympus user this may not be a problem to you as it has the Super Control Panel found on it's larger DSLR cousins. This is great for me and now I feel completely at home with it's interface. You must enable the SCP in one of the settings menu's but it's easy enough to find and you only have to do this once.

Super Control Panel enabled.

By pressing the "OK' button and the "info" button you can pull up the SCP and adjust settings away to your hearts content. Personally I find this the best way to adjust key settings and it's perfectly natural for me after using the E Series 4/3's cameras. If you prefer you can use the default method of submenus along the right hand and bottom edges of the LCD by pressing the info button again (pressing the info button toggles between the two modes). I'm not keen on this method but it's perfectly usable. I won't go into great detail about what the four rocker switches around the ok button do but suffice to say they control key settings like exposure compensation, shutter and aperture settings as well flash and focus points. It all works very well for me and I don't find the lack of buttons a problem as it is all pretty intuitive. I think Olympus did a good job of setting up the camera to work in this way.

In the menu system there is the usual plethora of configuration options and if you've ever used an Olympus E-30, E-3 or E-620 you will be instantly at home and recognise most of the options instantly. There are some neat features such as the option to configure the red video button to carry out other functions such as switch to manual focus (and back), set white balance etc. The function button also has the same options so you can setup the camera how you want to (within reason).

In shooting mode you will see something similar to the image below depending on how much information you want on the screen.

A couple of useful things you can see are the liveview histogram and the ISO setting (when set to Auto ISO it will change as you move the camera around and the metering adjusts - neat!) You can also view a number of different grids and also four smaller squares of the scene showing the differences exposure adjustments will have, very useful. You cycle through these using the info button. Any adjustments you make on exposure are naturally shown in real time and if you use any of the art filters you will see the effect on the screen prior to taking the picture, again, very useful. If you set up the function or red video button for manual focus you can switch to manual automatically, by hitting the zoom button you will zoom straight in on either 7x, 10x or 14x zoom for easy manual focusing. You can decide which is best, I prefer 10x at present. This is a great feature to use when using legacy lenses which will only focus manually.

Overall I find the functionality and configuration options to be excellent on this camera, again, kudos to Olympus for making it all very easy to use. I have deliberately left any mention of the video capability out of this mini-review. Mainly because I haven't tried it yet. I didn't buy it for it's video capability but I have no doubt I will use it at some time and possibly review it at a later date.

Flash

The little pop up flash is very well implemented. Whilst it is not especially powerful (GN of 7meters/23 ft at ISO 100) it is very useful for fill-in, small group shots and controlling of camera flash. The FL50R and FL36R can be remotely controlled using the onboard flash. To pop the flash up you push the switch seen above to the right. You can also use your left finger to hold the flash back and use it for bounce flash if you want. The flash does not pop up automatically at any time. It has a max sync speed of 1/160 second and has the usual flash settings such as slow, red eye, second curtain etc. You can adjust the power from full to 1/4, 1/16 and 1/64. In use I found it to be very good for fill in and for close range low light shots, it's certainly worth having.

Image Quality

I did a quick comparison of the E-PL1 and E-30 raw files and here are a couple of images to show the difference. They are straight forward conversions to jpegs in Lightroom 2.7 with no PP except the very weak default sharpening setting of 25 on both. They are rough crops but you can clearly see that there is a difference.

E-30 with 14-54mm Mk1 at 5.6 ISO 200 43mm

E-PL1 with 14-42mm kit lens at 5.6 ISO 200 42mm

There is a slight difference in exposure with the E-30 shot being a touch underexposed but the difference in resolution is clearly seen when looking at any part of the image. Bear in mind that the E-PL1 was using the humble kit lens while the E-30 was using the high grade 14-54mm. That being said I find that the kit lens is very sharp and a decent performer, very much like it's 4/3's cousin. I'd point out that any differences in exposure will not effect the overall resolution.

It can be seen that the E-PL1 resolution is clearly better than the E-30 and it is obvious in any comparative shots that I have taken. Dynamic range is a different matter and the E-30 wins on that score by about half a stop in my estimation. Whether these differences can be attributed to the stronger Anti alias filter in the E-30 I cannot say for sure but I suspect that this may be the case.

Conclusion

This a very rough and ready review purely from a users perspective. It is neither prescriptive nor conclusive just my general observations having some considerable experience using Olympus digital camera's of one genre or another. There are still other tests and comparisons I will be making at a later date such as focusing and high ISO performance.

In my opinion Olympus clearly has a winner on their hands with the E-PL1, it is a fun camera which is easy to use and produces very nice images. It will never better a camera like the E-30 overall but can certainly best it in a few key areas. If you need focus speed and ultimate control then a DSLR is still a better option. If you need a lightweight, capable camera with high IQ then you won't go far wrong with the E-PL1. One last thing, yes the review could be considered a bit random, but I am the Random Photographer after all ;o). There's more to come when I get the time!

Challenging Yourself....the end.

2010-05-24T10:23:00.001-07:00

Well, due to circumstances beyond my control my 90 day challenge ended prematurely. I've just been too busy. The good news that even in the short period I tried it I got some reasonable shots and learnt a bit in the process. Would I do it again? Of course, but probably when I retire! I managed the grand total of 16 days before work took priority. Here are a few of the shots that I preferred from the 16.

Challenging yourself...

2010-04-02T05:24:00.001-07:00

I recently decided to go for a 90 day "Picture a day challenge" (365 Projects are so last year!). It's been pretty interesting so far, I've been so busy that most of my shooting has been in low light at the end of the day. I've done 6 days so far and it really is a challenge to try and find something interesting to shoot. I'm not the most creative person by nature so it's a good test for me to come up with something different every day. I seem to be stuck in "mono" mode at the moment but that is enjoyable in itself as I enjoy shooting black and white. The light has also lent itself more towards b&W. Today doesn't look any different so far!
Of the days I've shot so far this is my favourite image. Watch this space for more 90 day madness.

Retrograding....you know it makes sense!

2010-03-24T12:06:00.001-07:00

I've never bought into the "more megapixels means better image quality" argument. As a result of this I keep my eye out for mint condition older cameras with great reputations. One such camera is the Olympus Camedia C-770. With a zoom range of 38-380mm and an F2.8-3.7 lens, it's pretty impressively specified. It has full manual control and an electronic viewfinder as well as a (rather small) LCD. I was drawn to this particular camera when reading frequent forum posts about people bemoaning the latter generation of Olympus superzooms. This is in comparison to the much loved Camedia Series. I had a search on Flickr and was impressed by the IQ of the C-770 shots I have seen.

After keeping my eye on ebay for a while, I bagged an absolutely mint C-770 which has hardly been used, for £60 all in. Judging by the settings I think the original owner bought a bit more camera than he needed. I've had a little play with C-770 (not really had a chance to get some serious shooting done) and it's a fun camera to use. I took the shot below a few evenings ago and am hoping to get do a test against the TZ6 soon. Bearing in mind that 4mp will give you decent prints up to 10" by 12" I think these cameras are a steal. This makes a nice pairing with my old Oly C-5050, another great buy if you can find one in good condition.

So, don't write off some of these older camera's, they can still outshoot some of the newer breed in reasonable light and they're great fun to use.

Just Killing time.....

2010-03-24T10:50:00.001-07:00

It's been a while since I've been able to shoot, what with work and everything else that life throws at us. I finally managed to spend a couple of hours in the late afternoon/early evening whilst away on business in Ipswich. I travelled down to Shotley Marina to see what I could find.

The light was flat grey so it was quite challenging to find anything worth shooting. I was shooting with my E-30 and zuiko 50-200mm and finally managed to get some decent light at sunset. I enjoyed the couple of hours wandering about and managed to get some reasonable shots, despite the chill wind. Sometimes killing time turns out better than a planned shoot, you just never know....

Why I always carry a camera.

2010-01-14T06:09:00.001-08:00

I travelled to London yesterday for an internal job interview. As it happened we had snow the night before and it looked like the journey was going to be a struggle.
With that in mind I left much earlier than normal for such a journey to ensure I got there on time. I took a rucksack and threw my E-1 and TZ6 into it just in case I got the chance for some impromptu shooting. As it happened, once I had made it onto the train I had a trouble free journey to St Pauls and arrived by 11.15. My destination was a very short walk from the tube and I had just over 2.5 hours to kill before the interview.
I decided to have a wander and look for some photo opportunities. The light was very flat and I was struggling to find something to shoot, until I noticed that the pavements were all wet due to the snow having melted.
I also saw some narrow alleys with interesting reflections and shadows.
I took a few shots and also experimented with zooming while pressing the shutter, something I haven't tried before. I successfully killed the time and had some fun doing it, happy days.
Here are a few of the shots I liked.

So, getting back to my original point, this is why I carry a camera whenever possible, even if it's just my Point and shoot. There is almost always something worth shooting, you just have to find it.

N.B I also got the job...woohoo!

Why Point and shoots are best for landscape photography...

2010-01-10T14:01:00.001-08:00

Ok ok, I went a bit Rockwellesque on you there for a minute. But hang on a minute I may have a point. What is one of the key tools in the armoury of the Landscape photographer? Yep....deep depth of field. Now your purist Landscape photographer will probably use a full frame camera with as many mega pixels crammed onto the sensor as possible,a mega expensive wide angle lens stopped down as far as possible, mounted on a tripod that a thermo nuclear strike wouldn't move. Alternatively, a medium or large format film camera the size of a small family hatchback, mounted on the same tripod.

Now what about us mere mortals who want great landscape shots printed to A3 size max? Here's where the humble point and shoot comes into it's own.
Landscapes are all around us, the light changes, weather fronts move in, events happen. Who carries FF or large format camera's on their person on a regular basis? Arnie Shwarzenegger the photog, that's who. The rest of us keep it cheaper and lighter.
My personal weapon of choice is the Panasonic Lumix TZ6. It has a 25-300mm zoom lens which is sharp and good for ISO 800 max (not that I'd use it as a rule). It's intelligent auto mode is superb and gives very accurate exposures. It has a semi manual mode for any other tweaks I might need like exposure compensation. It also has very effective optical image stabilisation.
So what does this all mean? Well I can travel light for a start, I can shoot both wide and telephoto landscape shots without changing lenses. I don't need a tripod unless the light is lower, in which case I can use my gorillapod (massively smaller and lighter than any tripod) in most scenario's.
But here's the clincher, I do not need to worry about aperture, the camera will select it for me and the dof will be deeper than the continental shelf. Wherever I focus I will have enough dof (short of going into macro mode). So whats the catch? Ok, dynamic range will be lower, ok, I'll bracket if I need to and sort that out later. What about filters? How hard is it to hold a filter over a small lens? not ideal but doable. So what are the images like at 100% magnification? Who cares! I don't look at images with my nose pressed against the photo frame. I have 10 mp to play with so if I go to 50% and print from that I've got enough for a big print (A3) with no noise, great dof and detail.
So really there is no catch for me and the added bonus is that I can carry my landscape setup with me on my belt at all times. How does the cliche go again? "The best camera is the one that you have with you" I seem to recall.
So to recap, if I was a professional landscape photographer printing billboard sizes, then I'd probably use gear my own size and weight, costing more than the GDP of Latvia. I'm not, and nor are the majority, so rejoice in the fact that a £200 point and shoot can very easily fit the bill for a hell of a lot of scenario's. Ain't life great :o).

Taken with the Panasonic TZ6 using zoom to compress the perspective. This is not a composite.

The most versatile piece of kit that no-one carries...

2010-01-10T09:03:00.001-08:00

for photography, except myself as far as I know (but could be wrong, it's been known). Let me explain. If you take landscape photographs, and don't mind trekking and getting down and dirty to get your images, I'm going to recommend a piece of kit that will make things a lot more comfortable for you. This is the humble Poncho, what is it and why would I want to carry it? I hear you cry.
Its a waterproof nylon sheet approximately 7ft by 4.5ft, it has a hood in the centre and eyelets on the corners and is usually camouflage in colour. It is lightweight and folds into a very compact size whilst being very durable. It is standard issue in the British army.
So what can I use it for? Consider the following reasons for carrying one:

1, As a sheet to kneel or lie on for low down perspectives.
2, Using the hood, wear it as protection from the rain.
3, To cover or rest your equipment on and protect it from the elements.
4, Add a few bungee cords and tent pegs and it can be used as a hide for wildlife shooting.
5, It can be used as a makeshift lean-to for protection from the elements, both sun and rain.
6, In emergencies it can be used as a makeshift stretcher.
7, Drape it over your camera and tripod to protect both you and the camera whilst shooting if it rains.

So what will one cost me? Well they can be had for around £15 on ebay or similar from an Army surplus store. I don't go shooting without one, it's one of my most used pieces of kit. To sum it up in a nutshell, any fool can be uncomfortable.

The British Army issue Poncho....don't leave home without it.

High ISO obsessing

2010-01-10T03:26:00.001-08:00

One of my recent bug bears is the frequent advice I see given to people asking for help on what DSLR to buy on photography forums. In a large percentage of cases, one of the first pearls of wisdom given is to choose a camera based on its high ISO performance.
Now I'll add a couple of caveats in here, if you have a specific need (i.e concert photography or weddings) then this is sound advice. I'd also add that if you are a Pro Photographer then again it could be crucial. In these instances (and assuming you can afford it) the only route to go is a full frame camera. No arguments here on that one.
What I am specifically referring to here is the amateur or hobbyist photographer.

First we need to understand that virtually all new APS-C or 4/3's DSLR's can shoot at ISO 1600, with the odd exception that can comfortably shoot at ISO 3200 with reasonable IQ. Now I don't know about you, but I can count on the fingers of one hand when I've actually shot at ISO 1600. For 99% of my shots I can get by with up to ISO 800, occasionally going to 1000. Not because I can't go higher but because I don't need to.

The second thing we need to consider is the degradation in image quality that occurs when we start moving to higher ISO's. Colours can become erratic, correct exposure becomes more critical to avoid banding issues (on some camera's) and detail gets destroyed. Some manufacturers craftily manipulate noise, (even on raw files) but this usually results in smearing and artifacts. Camera manufacturers have even resorted to tweaking the tone curve in-camera, to boost high ISO performance at the expense of low ISO performance, just to meet this high ISO obsessing.

Haven't we been here before with the Megapixel race? Now we have some common sense thinking that says, that for all intents and purposes, 10-12 megapixels is more than enough for the majority of people.
When are we going to reach this stage with high ISO performance?

I can think of half a dozen criteria a prospective buyer should seriously consider before high ISO (above 1600 is my benchmark for high). These are (in no particular order):

1, Reliability and build quality of the camera
2, In-body image stabilisation
3, low ISO performance (100-400)
4, Ergonomics of the camera
5, lens lineup and quality
6, Viewfinder suitability

These are just the ones that initially spring to mind. I think those are all self explanatory really. High ISO is a "nice to have" but for the majority of casual shooters and hobbyists, it really is smoke and mirrors. So why are so many people using it as their base criteria for camera choice? (that and shallow dof which is entirely a different subject, to be covered at a later date).
If you need to shoot in lower light, use faster glass, a tripod/monopod or flashgun. These are all options which will maintain your image quality and can get you the shot. Like I said, high ISO is useful but don't make it your key criteria for camera choice, unless you absolutely have to. Every camera is a compromise and you may be sacrificing something that you really need.

Landscapes....the long view.

2010-01-08T12:36:00.001-08:00

So let the randomness begin...

I went out early yesterday morning to catch the sunrise. Why? because we have had an unusual amount of snow in the UK and the forecast was clear and bright, perfect for glittering snow capped landscapes. An opportunity not afforded most photographers in these parts for many years.

I packed both my Olympus E-30 and E-1 DSLR's along with 9-18mm, 14-54mm and 50-200mm zuiko lenses. I took the 50-200mm in the hope I might spot the odd bird opportunity and intended to use the 14-54mm for most of my shots.
I trekked for a couple of miles to a hilltop which I knew would afford me decent views of the picture postcard countryside.
By the time I reached the top and relaxed for 5, the bitter cold was already making its presence felt. Time to crack on. I started with the 9-18mm, nope, I wasn't feeling it, too wide with nothing to draw the eye so I switched to the 14-54mm. It still wasn't happening, all I'm seeing is a big old expanse of white. Then it occurred to me - compressed perspective, lets give it some telephoto, lets have some layers. I switched to the 50-200mm on the E-30, now I'm getting it, full zoom, I'm seeing layers of countryside, spongecake scenery.

So what's the point of this? Well conventional wisdom tells us that all landscapes should be shot on tripod with a stubby wide angle, go wide young man is the clarion call in the magazines and on the forums, telephoto's are for birds and planes and indiscrete street. I beg to differ, if you've never considered it try long for landscapes, go narrow with depth, you might be pleasantly surprised.

all taken with the 50-200mm, first one on the E-30, next two on the E-1.

So why am I blogging....

2010-01-08T12:05:00.001-08:00

I know, it's all old hat now and everyone is busy Tweeting these days. I resisted the temptation to blog for a while, mainly because I couldn't see the point. Well now I have a purpose and it seems like a good idea so here's my thinking.
I've been into Photography as a serious hobby for a few years now so I know my aperture from my shutter speed and can take a reasonable photo. I also think I now know enough to have a rational opinion on a lot of photography related issues and conundrums. Couple this with a desire to have some sort of diary and espouse some views and here I am.

Ok so I'm no david Bailey or Cartier Bresson but I'm a trier and things can only get better. I also think I have amassed a reasonable amount of knowledge that might be of benefit to people just starting out.

Ultimately it's all about opinions and this blog is just a vehicle for me to express mine. I guarantee not everyone will agree but hey, that's life.