Category Archives: Photography

Improved Capture

Fisherman casting net on Gibb's Beach, Barbados. Developed with Capture One 7
Camera: Canon EOS 40D | Lens: EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Date: 23-04-2008 21:58 | Resolution: 3233 x 2155 | ISO: 200 | Exp. bias: -2 EV | Exp. Time: 1/40s | Aperture: 20.0 | Focal Length: 17.0mm (~27.6mm) | Lens: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Following on from the last post, I thought I’d pop up an example to highlight the improvements possible through just the right choice and use of software. The picture above was taken back in 2008, on my old Canon 40D. As soon as I’d taken it I knew that I had a great latent image, but the very high dynamic range was a real struggle. The original in-camera JPEG is long gone, but the following version with no adjustments shows the problem: the sun and its reflections are completely blown out, and the automatic metering has substantially under-exposed the darker parts of the scene:

My original development using Bibble 4 was a partial success. I could recover some of the colour in the sky (although obviously not the sun itself), and I could reveal some of the shadow detail, although the fisherman himself was never much more than a very dark silhouette. However, this was at the cost of substantial colour noise in the mid-tones, such as the breaking waves, and some very odd banding around the sun:

Onscreen this image works fairly well, but I could never get a satisfactory print, and it was rejected for stock use because as a thumbnail it just looks like a dark splodge. Successive versions of Bibble didn’t do much better, so much so that I’ve kept the Bibble 4 version as the best compromise.

Enter Capture One, and with relatively little effort I get the results shown at the top. I much prefer this version: you can see some detail even in the darkest area of the fisherman’s body, and the overall feel is not so markedly “low key”. There’s also very little noise. I haven’t tried printing it yet, but I suspect there won’t be many problems.

Oddly when I showed these to Frances she still preferred the Bibble version, because she felt it portrayed the mood better. However, I’m definitely going for the Capture One version. Which do you prefer?

View featured image in Album
Posted in Barbados, Photography, Thoughts on the World | Leave a comment

What’s More Important: Hardware or Software?

Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall - May 2013
Camera: Canon PowerShot S95 | Date: 17-05-2013 21:55 | Resolution: 2498 x 1405 | ISO: 800 | Exp. bias: 0 EV | Exp. Time: 1/50s | Aperture: 4.9 | Focal Length: 22.5mm | Lens: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

We live, as some of you might have noticed, in a digital age. The displacement of older technologies by digital versions has been accompanied and largely enabled by rapid, substantial advances in technology. Yet a couple of recent experiences suggest to me that we may be reaching a point in many areas where further hardware change is of less importance than improvements to the supporting software.

This has most clearly been brought home to me in respect of cameras. My older, larger, cameras and lenses work by delivering high quality optics coupled with relatively straightforward processing of the captured image from the sensor. The newer, smaller cameras make some dramatic compromises on optical accuracy, and then correct the errors in software. This works surprisingly well, but introduces the challenge that if you want to shoot in RAW format and develop the shots yourself, you need RAW processing software capable of reproducing the same, or better, corrections.

That’s been a problem for me, as the software I was using (the former Bibble, now Aftershot Pro) didn’t have adequate support for my new Panasonic GH2 and its diminutive lenses. Also new owners Corel seem to be determined to kill the software through negligence, which makes the prospect of improvements unlikely. (That’s another story, to follow…)

This week I got a bit disheartened, fearing that I was becoming “locked out” of both new cameras and fully developing my work with the GH2, and finally bit the bullet. I didn’t buy a new camera, I started evaluating alternative RAW processors. After a couple of false starts I have settled on Capture One from Phase One. The results so far are very promising: it not only corrects the distortions of my Micro Four Thirds lenses, but it delivers silky smooth output from my larger Canons at ISO 3200, and does a remarkable job of highlight recovery. The shot above was taken at ISO 800 from the back of the Royal Albert Hall with my tiny Canon S95. (BTW, Eric Clapton was excellent!)

But the big surprise has been applying Capture One to some of my older images. The following was taken on our 2007 visit to the Southwest USA, using my original Canon 350D. I was never really happy with the Bibble version, which struggled both to recover the blown highlights and to pull some usable shadow detail without excessive noise. The difference using Capture One is dramatic. It’s almost like revisiting the scene with a new camera.

Getting back to the original topic of this post, I’ve also seen the same software-led effect elsewhere. Support for a proper stylus aside, there’s not much in hardware terms between an iPad and my 10″ Galaxy Note, and some might prefer the Apple hardware. However the dramatic differences in software capabilities are a real differentiator. (See my various reports for details.)

I don’t want to belittle the impressive work of digital hardware engineers, and we’ll continue to take the benefits of further advances, but we need to recognise that the efforts of frequently unsung software engineers may be just as, or sometimes even more key to the hardware’s exploitation.

View featured image in Album
Posted in Micro Four Thirds, Photography, Thoughts on the World | Leave a comment

Review – Olympus TG2 “Tough” Camera

There’s a salutory lesson here about not jumping to premature conclusions. Based on my first impressions of this camera I had mentally started drafting a review based on praising the hardware, but with some criticism of the software and firmware. I even had a great tag line: “A camera for adventurers who want a few pictures, rather than photographers who want adventures”. That was before the snorkelling trip…

For many years now if there’s been the prospect of either snorkelling or diving on holiday I’ve taken a Canon PowerShot S-series or G-series camera with its waterproof housing. I’ve had at least three generations of that solution, which have been utterly reliable and produced some good results. However they are a bulky solution in these days of reducing baggage allowances, and somewhat slow and clumsy in operation.

This year, therefore, I decided to try a different solution, and opted after some deliberation for one of the new “ultra tough compacts”. While Canon and Panasonic both have a comparable solution, after some deliberation I went for the Olympus TG2, based on a combination of its looks and spec.

This is supposedly a very tough piece of kit – waterproof to 15m, drop-proof to 2m, crush-proof to 100kg and with a large operating temperature range. The downside is that this is a market where the competition is intense but based on point for point feature matching, with a focus on improving things like nominal depth protection rather than the photographic features.

That meant that even before use in anger there were some compromises: none of the cameras in this class do RAW, even though Canon, for example, support this fully on their smaller high-end compacts like the S95. to make things worse the TG2 also lacks many of the some other fundamental tools to control exposure such as automatic bracketing (despite a very high frame rate which would support it well), or shutter priority.

The lack of these features is a complete mystery to me, when these cameras are allegedly designed to be used in conditions where the lighting as well as the environment will be challenging…

Early trials did suggested that the camera does have accurate, fast autofocus (which was something I particularly wanted), and makes a decent job of auto exposure in most cases. Picture quality is OK, but the noise levels rise rapidly at ISO 800 and above, the JPEGs have a somewhat “overprocessed” look, and there’s some noticeable pincushion distortion on underwater shots, even at medium zoom. These are presumably all the result of the tiny sensor, which is significantly smaller than in compacts like the Canon S95.

So, off to Barbados and into the water with the turtles. One immediate observation was that the display is very difficult to use at snorkelling depths (where there may be quite a lot of ambient light from above/behind you), and the tiny font becomes illegible for a user like me with ageing eyes. A “high contrast” option on the display, and a large-font “quick menu” option (like on all my Canon and Panasonic cameras) would be useful.

However, a few minutes into the snorkelling session I noticed a much more serious problem: the camera kept on switching itself off, and the battery level was dropping almost as I watched. I managed to snatch a couple of shots, but the camera was really misbehaving, and I had to give up.

Back on the boat the problem was immediately apparent – the camera had sprung a leak presumably through the cover for the USB port, as that had evidence of water inside it. However, instead of being limited just to the port section, the water had spread rapidly through the camera with the result that the lens was misting up and the electrical problems were getting rapidly worse. Although I tried drying the camera out and recharging it, it’s now completely dead. Fortunately I had invested in a waterproof SD card, so I managed to rescue a few decent shots, but otherwise it’s a write-off.

This is an extremely poor design. As you have to charge the battery in camera (using the proprietary USB cable – another peeve), there’s no option of just sealing the camera for a complete trip. You would also think that the camera would have some measure of “double sealing” so that in the event of a leak into the port or battery/card openings the water wouldn’t permeate quickly into the rest of the electronics, but this is clearly not the case.

This camera is completely inadequate for its intended use. Fortunately my suppliers (the excellent Wex Photographic) have promised me a full refund. I will not be spending it on Olympus equipment.

Posted in Photography, Reviews | Leave a comment

Photographing Waterfalls

Gullfoss, Iceland, up close and personal
Camera: Canon EOS 7D | Lens: EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Date: 23-08-2011 11:02 | ISO: 100 | Exp. bias: 1 EV | Exp. Time: 1/100s | Aperture: 5.6 | Focal Length: 85.0mm (~137.7mm) | Lens: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the received wisdom that waterfalls should be photographed with long exposures which capture the flow as a sort of silky mush. That might work for gentle trickles in dappled glades, but if you’re looking at something like Iceland’s mighty Gullfoss you (or at least I) want to somehow capture the power of the flow. However, just setting a fast shutter speed, pointing the camera straight on and freezing the motion doesn’t always work either.

I took around 100 shots around Gullfoss. I’m only really happy with a handfull, but yesterday I discovered this one which I think really works. Although I’ve labelled it “up close and personal” it was actually taken from further away than some of the others, but I like the pattern of flows and rocks revealed in the portrait orientation. I also think that the 1/100 shutter speed gets a pretty good balance between “flow” and “power”, although it’s a lot faster than some would go for. What do you think?

View featured image in Album
Posted in Iceland Travel Blog, Photography | Leave a comment

USA 2012 – Technical Review

Fireworks at the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta 2012. (Genuine single exposure - only slight crop and exposure adjustments applied.)
Camera: Canon EOS 7D | Lens: EF-S15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | Date: 13-10-2012 20:05 | ISO: 200 | Exp. bias: -2/3 EV | Exp. Time: 8.0s | Aperture: 11.0 | Focal Length: 22.0mm (~35.6mm) | Lens: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM

Or, “What Worked and What Didn’t”

As usual, I tried to take a few notes regarding the more “technical” aspects of our holiday, which may be useful to others planning a similar trip.

One spectacular success was having Laurent Matres’ Photographing the Southwest in Kindle format, with a synced copy on my Galaxy Note phone. On our previous Arizona/Utah trip I missed a couple of the “best shots” because I didn’t refer to Matres’ notes, and at other times we did follow his directions but it was a bit painful lugging quite a heavy book around. The Kindle version solved both those problems, and the Galaxy Note is sufficiently large to be quickly readable, and to render the book’s images clearly and attractively.

It was definitely the right decision for us to hire a convertible. I drive a drop-top in the UK, and we both loved buzzing around with the sun on our faces and the wind in our hair (well, OK, that’s maybe more one for Frances to comment on… :)). However, we seemed to be in a tiny minority driving a soft-top in New Mexico and Colorado, and the rental choice was not good. I’m not sure of the reason, whether the locals are afraid of getting too much sun in the Summer or insufficient weather protection in the Winter, but of course that doesn’t stop us in wet, windy Britain…

We eventually went to Dollar (whereas my first choice would usually be Hertz), and got a Ford Mustang. I can’t fault Dollar’s friendly, efficient service, and would use them again. I can find some fault with the latest-model Mustang, which seems to have definitely regressed compared with the versions I previously drove in the mid-naughties. In particular luggage space seemed to be smaller than I remember, there was very little in-cabin storage, and the CD player wouldn’t play files in WMA format, which put paid to a lot of our music. However, the worst failing was a weird speedometer display cramming an optimistically large speed range into the top half of a small dial, with the result that it can’t be read to an accuracy better than about 5 mph. That doesn’t fit well in a country where a 5 mph error is often enough to earn a speeding ticket. Useless.

Complaints aside, the Mustang did the job, and helped bring us back with a decent tan.

Another trick which worked again was raiding a Radio Shack on the first day and purchasing a can of compressed air. The worst equipment challenge in the American SouthWest is dust, and being able to blow everything clean each day is a real boon. Now all I have to do is find out if I can do the same in Morocco this year…

Cameras

Including our phones we took five cameras this year, which may seem excessive, but each found a genuine use playing to its strengths, and justified its place in the luggage. As usual, the real workhorse was the Canon 7D. Out of a total of about 2050 exposures,1652 (or over 80%) were on the big beast. I have eventually mastered its ergonomic shortcomings, and extensive practice means that its operation is now quite intuitive. I know and can confidently predict its results, which are still better than those from the Panasonic GH2. OK, it’s still an enormous lump and the 15-85mm lens is not the sharpest optical tool, but it works.

The Canon 550D’s main role is as a backup body, offering the same sensor and lens compatibility as the 7D for half the price and weight. However, it came into its own for our balloon trip, where I wanted to carry a lightweight kit which still supported my beloved 70-300mm IS lens. The 550D, 70-300 and 17-85 did the job beautifully. As a result the 550D took 221 shots.

We also carried the Panasonic GH2 and its three lenses. Its main role was as Frances’ camera when she wanted to take her own shots, but I also used it as a lightweight “carry and forget” camera to have with me during shopping trips, evening sorties and similar. It has to be admitted that the 550D and a single zoom lens could also do this, but with less ultimate flexibility and at a higher weight. Having the GH2 along also provided further redundancy should my Canon long or wide zooms pack up, always a consideration given last year’s two lens failures. We took 172 shots on the GH2.

On a less positive note GH2 battery life is not good. A charge is genuinely only good for about 100 shots, and to add injury to insult Panasonic now effectively prevent the use of anything other than their own full price batteries, at £50 a pop or higher. Neither Canon suffers either limitation. It’s not a critical problem, but does place some boundaries on the Panasonic’s role.

We both took a few shots on our phones as well (I took 4 on the Galaxy Note), mainly of things we wanted to share immediately with specific friends. However, I certainly wouldn’t advocate one practice I saw – a lady whose husband was having the “trip of a lifetime” in the cab of the Silverton-Durango railroad, and she was trying to capture his arrival using just the camera on an iPad!

The Gitzo tripod paid its fare with the low light photography at the balloon fiesta, but otherwise saw very little action. I rely more and more on the combination of modern cameras’ performance at medium-high ISO, and the effective combination of my steady hand and Image Stabilisation. As the Americans say, “your mileage may vary”, but I now just assume that I will work hand-held if the sun is up or I need to move around.

Given the extremely photogenic subjects, and a lot of fairly friendly lighting, my hit rate was pretty high, especially for the more static subjects. After an initial edit I still have about 1200 frames worth processing, and I expect to end up with about 200 worth showing to someone else. Cutting this down to about 100 which find their way to my blog and tablet may be a challenge.

Overall a wonderful trip, and very successful source for photography. Roll on the next one!

 

A very Happy New Year, and all the best for 2013!

 

View featured image in Album
Posted in Galaxy Note, Photography, Travel, USA 2012 | Leave a comment

The Back of Beyond

"The Back of Beyond" - scene from the Fjallabak region, Iceland
Camera: Canon EOS 7D | Lens: EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Date: 24-08-2011 10:48 | ISO: 100 | Exp. bias: 0 EV | Exp. Time: 1/100s | Aperture: 11.0 | Focal Length: 80.0mm (~129.6mm) | Location: Einbúi | State/Province: South | See map | Lens: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

I haven’t posted any photos since the end of our USA trip, but I have, finally, got back to sorting out my Iceland photos from last year. I thought, therefore, I would share this shot with you. It’s from an un-named spot in the Fjallabak region. Fjallabak (pronounced fiat-la-back) means “back of the mountains”, which is delightfully literal in this case.

I love the various circular swirls which are a recurring feature in this image. I’m not sure whether they all have a common geological cause.

I also did an HDR version of a similar shot, which brought out more of the sky detail but reduced the nice smooth feel of the mountain shapes. However, the black and white conversion looks quite dramatic, and with a slightly different crop works quite well:


I need to do a bit more work on the HDR version – at full resolution there’s a bit of odd “banding” in the sky – but I think it looks promising.

Which do you prefer?

View featured image in Album
Posted in Iceland Travel Blog, Photography | Leave a comment

Are There More Bricks or Photos?

Recently on The Online Photographer, I saw that in 1976 a leading commentator on photography asserted that “the world now contains more photographs than bricks.”

While I hate to be contrary (no I don’t! :)), I’m not convinced that the assertion about photographs and bricks is correct, even today. Regular readers will know I can’t resist an estimating challenge, so here goes…

Most estimates of the number of photos taken each year comes out somewhere near (but typically a bit below) one trillion, 10^12. As this number is growing exponentially, to get a total number of all photographs ever taken we can focus on recent years, and something in the range 5-10 trillion would probably cover it. However, we don’t retain all our shots. I dump about 50%. I don’t know how typical this is, but let’s use it as an estimating basis. So this gives use a number of “existing photographs” of a few (2-5) trillion.

Now bricks. This is more tricky. I estimate the number of bricks in a typical British family home at around 15-20,000. That provides shelter for an average 4-5 people, but we also spend time in other brick buildings (work, hotels, communal buildings), so let’s say 10,000 bricks per person in a “brick rich” environment like the UK.

But not everyone lives in a “brick rich” environment: for all sorts of economic, environmental and cultural reasons many buildings use other materials. So let’s assume that 10% of the world’s buildings are brick.

10,000 (bricks per person) x 10% & 7 x 10^9 (people) = 7 x 10^12 bricks. That’s still a couple of times greater than my estimate of the number of photos…

Now obviously as the numbers are (surprisingly) so similar and the number of photos is growing exponentially, the roles will soon be reversed. But I don’t think it was true in 1976.

Posted in Photography, Thoughts on the World | Leave a comment

MFT: Formula, What Formula?

In a discussion with Phil Harvey of exiftool fame, it became apparent that the first problem I have to solve in respect of Micro Four Thirds lens correction is to understand the formula, or formulae, being used to apply the correction.

Most image processing software supports geometric correction via three parameters labelled a, b and c. These are the parameters in the following formula:

Ru = scale*(Rd + a*Rd^3 + b*Rd^5 + c*Rd^7)

In this Rd is the distance of a point in the image from the centre in the distorted image, and Ru is the distance it was in the undistorted image. The model is that distortion is radially symmetric, and has the effect that concentric circles of image points move either closer to or further from the centre than they should be. This translates into the more recognisable types of distortion when straight lines in the image cut across these imaginary concentric circles.

There’s a couple of useful pictures here.

There are several variants on this formula. Wikipedia has a much more complex looking version which appears completely different, as it allows for the effects of off-centre lens elements and different profiles in different directions, but if you ignore these effects then with a little bit of factoring it boils down to exactly the same equation. Bibble, for example, switches the labels a and c, and other versions factor “scale” into the individual parameters, but the basic formula is the same.

The problem is that if this is the formula used in MFT in-camera corrections, then the data isn’t the right shape. We should just see three or maybe four fractional values, and the rest should be zeros, or maybe constants for a given lens/camera combination. While in some cases you can select values from the MFT data which work, it’s inconsistent and there’s no explanation for all the other data.

We know that MFT cameras also correct in-camera for chromatic aberrations. Maybe this could explain the other data points? The trouble is that this doesn’t work either. CA correction formulae work in one of two ways. They either provide a pair of shifts for the different colour channels (requiring two further parameters in addition to the three or four for geometric correction), or you get three sets of geometric correction parameters, one for each colour channel, as per the following taken from a DNG file using one of Raphael Rigo’s tools:

r : 1.000168 -0.128185 0.052356 -0.005116 0.000000 0.000000
g : 0.999694 -0.127995 0.052335 -0.004995 0.000000 0.000000
b : 0.999967 -0.127973 0.052642 -0.005050 0.000000 0.000000

While this might explain the number of values, you’d expect to see three sets of very similar values in the MFT data, and that doesn’t happen.

There are other ways of doing geometric correction. There are other formulae, but they don’t seem to be in common use. There’s also a non-linear approach (see http://paulbourke.net/miscellaneous/lenscorrection/ again), but this would need either a series of small values with the same sign (for a cumulative curve), or a progressive sequence (for an explicit curve). Of course, there could be some sort of complex differential version, but that’s cheating!

I have to assume that the model is capable of interpretation, especially since for some lenses a simple mapping works pretty well. However, it’s clearly not as simple as we’d hoped.

Posted in Micro Four Thirds | 2 Comments

The Micro Four Thirds Lens Correction Project

Although most Micro Four Thirds (MFT) lenses are tiny,  the cameras produce great JPG files with apparently little or no geometric distortion. They do this by applying corrections in camera,  and the correction parameter data is also stored with the RAW file. Unfortunately this data is only useful if you can read it,  and most RAW processors can’t.

Although there’s no obvious reason why not,  Panasonic and Olympus have not published the specification for this data.  That leaves those of us who want to use a RAW processor other than LightRoom or SilkyPix struggling to get decent results with our MFT images.

Building on some excellent work done by “Matze”  (thinkfat.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/dissecting-panasonic-rw2-files.html)and Raphael Rigo (syscall.eu/#pana) I decided to have a go at implementing a parser in my CAQuest plug-in for Bibble/AfterShotPro. However although getting the raw data is fairly straightforward I have discovered that the algorithm is more complex than we thought,  and seems to vary from lens to lens.

I have therefore decided to open up the exercise to a “crowd-sourcing” model to try and get several eyes on the problem. As we uncover algorithms which work well for one lens or another I’ll publish them here,  and also build them into CAQuest.  Over time we may come to completely understand the complete MFT algorithm,  and our work will then be done.  Of course,  if one of the MFT partners wants to help by publishing the algorithm,  that would also be perfectly acceptable :).

The project pages are here: www.andrewj.com/mft/mftproject.asp, with a discussion hosted at the Corel AfterShotPro forum.

Read the full article
Posted in Code & Development, Micro Four Thirds, Photography | Leave a comment

A Case for Extreme HDR?

Interior of The Church of St Lawrence, Ludlow
Camera: Canon EOS 550D | Lens: EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM | Date: 11-06-2011 17:25 | Resolution: 4968 x 3427 | ISO: 800 | Exp. bias: 0 EV | Exp. Time: 1/50s | Aperture: 6.3 | Focal Length: 28.0mm (~45.4mm) | Location: River Corve | State/Province: England | See map | Lens: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

I’ve just been processing the shots from my steam train trip to Ludlow last year. Most are quite disappointing: the light was very poor, and you actually can’t get many pictures of a train if you’re travelling on it, and getting on and off at any stop other than the final one.

However, I was quite pleased by this shot of the interior of Ludlow’s St. Lawrence’s Church, an HDR combination of three originals. What was interesting was that I normally make strenuous efforts to achieve as natural as possible a result when I have to use HDR to overcome lighting challenges, but here for the second time in a couple of months I’ve tried subtle, and then gone for something more extreme. (See here for my attempt to emulate the great Dutch masters!) This was generated using some of the most extreme settings in Photomatix Pro, but I think they produce a good result.

I was also pleased to find that my geotagging process had worked. I wasn’t sure of the church’s name, but from my image browser I opened a Google Map at the geotagged coordinates, and could immediately confirm the location as St. Lawrence’s.

Sometimes things work better than you expect!

View featured image in Album
Posted in Photography | Leave a comment

Finally, Something Smaller

Detail from the side of Shakespeare's birthplace, Stratford-on-Avon
Camera: Panasonic DMC-GH2 | Date: 27-06-2012 19:24 | ISO: 400 | Exp. bias: 0 EV | Exp. Time: 1/1300s | Aperture: 8.0 | Focal Length: 42.0mm | Lens: LUMIX G VARIO PZ 14-42/F3.5-5.6

First Impressions of the Panasonic GH2

Regular readers will know that technology miniaturisation has been on something of a negative trend chez Johnston. My most recent TV, desktop, main camera and most notably laptop purchases have all been significantly larger and heavier than their predecessors. Even my latest phone, purchased a few weeks ago, is rather larger than the previous one, although there’s no real weight penalty.

However, I’ve finally bucked the trend. Recovering from knee surgery (which limits my carrying ability), and thinking about my next holiday under the cloud of increasingly challenging airline luggage limits, I’ve taken the plunge and invested in an EVIL camera (“Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens”:) ), in the shape of a Panasonic GH2. It’s funny how several influences came together:

  • A very good Panasonic cinema advertising campaign featuring a professional taking great shots in Yosemite, using a Panasonic G3,
  • Rave reviews of the new OM-D,
  • A growing desire on my part to get a new toy and kick-start my slightly stuck photographic activities.

I had a look at the OM-D, but it just didn’t fit my hand. Oddly the Panasonic G3, almost identical in size, felt fine, but came up short on spec. A bit of research suggested that the GH2 would be a better match for my needs – a similar package, but closer to my Canons in capability. However, what really swung it was a review by Michael “Luminous Landscape” Reichmann, a man who apparently thinks nothing of spending £10k on the latest medium format wonder, who used a GH2 as his main camera for a six-month stay in Mexico last winter. Sold!

It’s been in my hands a few days now, and so far I’m very impressed. In terms of functionality, it’s closer to my Canon 7D than anything else in my fleet. There are proper knobs and switches for all the major functions, but also a comprehensive set of custom functions and buttons (the lack of which is one of the things which would make the Canon 60D a poor replacement for my much-loved 40D). Handling will take a little getting used to, but it all makes sense and with a bit of practice should work by feel with the camera up to the eye – very much my preferred mode. The electronic viewfinder is very clear, now I’ve got it focused at a point which works for my eyes with glasses either on or off!

The camera is rich in features with some, like the ability to change the aspect ratio in camera, potentially very useful. However, it has to be said that neither Canon nor Panasonic have made any progress against my list of enhancements we really need in DSLRs. Let’s hope the next generation do better, and in the meantime I’m off to investigate the growing phenomenon of GH2 “hacking”…

Image quality is really very good. Despite the smaller sensor noise levels are similar to my Canon 7D, certainly up to ISO 1600. I haven’t played with the really high ISOs yet. Beyond that is the performance of the 14-42mm “power zoom”. This comes in a package which when switched off looks like one of Panasonic’s tiny “pancake” primes, but extends when powered up to provide a useful zoom with 28-84mm range (in 35mm equivalent terms). It’s pretty sharp throughout its range, and chromatic and geometric aberrations seem to be almost absent. This conflicts sharply with the Canon EF-S mid-range zooms: the 17-85mm suffers very bad CA, the 15-85mm has very noticeable geometric distortion for a large part of the “wide” end, and neither is very sharp at the edges of the frame. Admittedly the Canon lenses have almost twice the zoom range, but I’d much rather have a really good 15-45mm “L” zoom, if only Canon made one… 🙁

All this comes in a tiny package. The camera is just about as small as it can be and fit my hands. Powered off, it’s about 3″ deep. And the body plus standard zoom is less than 500g. That’s about 40% of the weight of the Canon 7D + 15-85mm combo, or less than that lens alone. I suspect a “three zooms plus fast prime” lens set will probably still weigh less than the 7D and standard zoom lens, and not cost much more.

Now I don’t know how reliable it will be, or how it will stand up to regular use. The current version couldn’t compete with the 7D for fast action, or in very low light, although the gap is narrowing with each generation of these new mirrorless, smaller sensor cameras. Whether there’s a case for the 550D is more questionable. Will I dump my Canons for the GH2? Not yet, but it feels like the writing may be on the wall…

Update, September 2012

The apparent excellent performance of the tiny MFT lenses is due to in-camera correction of the JPG files. The RAW data shows the geometric challenges of such lenses in their full light. If you are prepared to use either SilkyPix or Adobe LightRoom as your RAW processor, then it will automatically read the correction data and re-apply it, but this is not available to users, like me, of other RAW processors. I’m becoming slightly obsessed by this problem, and now running a project to try and get to grips with it. However, I thought it worth updating my original post with this note. If you shoot JPG, then the MFT cameras are little short of amazing. If you shoot RAW, be prepared for a bit of a challenge…

View featured image in Album
Posted in Micro Four Thirds, Photography, Thoughts on the World | Leave a comment

Album Update

HDR detail - Van Gogh eat your heart out!
Camera: Canon EOS 7D | Date: 19-08-2010 14:43 | Resolution: 5108 x 3405 | ISO: 200 | Exp. Time: 1/249s | Aperture: 10.0 | Focal Length: 33.0mm (~53.5mm) | Lens: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM

For those dedicated (or deluded?) souls who follow my photography, I’ve just posted a number of updates to my online album, particularly in the Action, Europe and Barbados sections. Take a look if you have a moment, and let me know what you think.

I was rather pleased with this shot. Although I use HDR quite frequently, I normally make strenuous efforts to achieve as natural as possible a result. However, when I experimented with different settings on this shot from Bruges a more visibly processed “look” seemed to match the Flemish location and Flanders light beloved of Van Gogh and others. Sadly the modern postbox and other street furniture give the game away! Oh well…

View featured image in Album
Posted in Photography | Leave a comment