Jeepers Creepers, Where'd Ya Get Those Peepers? Part 3.

EUREKA!

Quick show of hands: how many of you use protective UV filters on your lenses?

I'm going on 45 years of using interchangeable lens cameras, and have bought the old saw that it's better to break a filter than the front element of your lens, and there is no degradation caused by a filter.

Right.

Except with a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO DG HSM telephoto at full zoom.

To recap (more here and here): I had some unexpected results when comparing a micro four thirds camera (Olympus OM-D E-M10) and an APS-C camera (Sony A77II). All I wanted to know was, how much difference is there between MFT and APS-C. I was surprised that the smaller sensor E-M10 images appeared to be sharper than the larger APS-C sensor images (more on sensors here). But, I was trying to recreate a realistic shooting environment by handholding and using a fairly fast shutter speed. I decided that I needed to be a little more disciplined if just good image quality was my sole objective.

So, I repeated all my tests using a tripod. With image stabilization enabled. And, with image stabilization disabled (as recommended by the manufacturer). And, using the self-timer to further reduce the possibility of causing camera shake when pressing the shutter release. And, oh, my, did I ever get some weird results with the A77II. There were some kind of strange artifacts present when stopped down to f/11. Like a double exposure or something. And, it got worse at f/16! The mystery deepened.

I was ready to blame the lens and throw it under the bus, figuratively speaking. Then, in the middle of the night, it hit me - there was one other variable: the freaking "protective" UV filter that cost all of about $5 sitting in front of my almost $1,000 lens. I know, I know, it is so close to the lens it should cause no discernible degradation of the image.Well, surprise, mateys. It does. And, here's the proof:

Without Filter and With Filter

I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes. Multiple times. After doing some research, I've found that you can pay close to $100 for a "good" filter, so maybe that's my problem - a $5 Tiffen just isn't a match for a Hoya or better. In the mean time, however, I think I'll just go filterless.

And, I can get back to comparing MFT to APS-C!

Aye, lassies an laddies, we've uncovered t'culprit, an 'is name be Tiffen...

Jeepers Creepers, Where'd Ya Get Those Peepers? Part 2.

The saga continues...

Previously on Jeeper Creepers: A young lad in North Dakota discovers the allure of photography when he finds his father's Kodak "Pocket" camera and learns about aperture and shutter speeds by opening the back of the camera and watching what happens when the shutter release is pressed (more here). Later he graduates to a Brownie Hawkeye, then a 35mm rangefinder, and then a SLR with interchangeable lenses. He is hooked...

In my last post, I described some unexpected results when comparing a micro four thirds camera (Olympus OM-D E-M10) and an APS-C camera (Sony A77II). It might be fairer to say I am comparing lenses, namely, the Olympus M.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II MSC ED zoom and the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO DG HSM. All I wanted to know was, how much difference is there between MFT and APS-C. I got more than I bargained for...

In my earlier comparisons I was surprised that the smaller sensor E-M10 images appeared to be sharper than the larger APS-C sensor images (for more on sensors, click here). But, I was trying to recreate a realistic shooting environment by handholding and using a fairly fast shutter speed. I decided that I needed to be a little more disciplined if just good image quality was my sole objective.

I tried a number of things, with use of a tripod probably being the most important. Although, quite frankly, with the image stabilization built in to both the E-M10 body and the A77II body, I'm not sure it really made that much difference, particularly when using shutter speeds of 1/500 sec and faster. Still, using a tripod took the camera shake variable out of the picture (pardon the pun). Even with a tripod, however, there are a couple of other considerations, which we will explore as we go along.

First let's agree on some fixed constant. Most photographers would agree that the best image quality should be at some aperture other than wide open (subject to spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism) or closed down to the minimum (diffraction reduces sharpness). It's simple physics. A lens can not be optimized across its entire surface, so in almost all cases the optimum image quality is somewhere in the middle aperture range, in fact usually one or two stops smaller than the maximum in order to allow the most light possible while providing the optimum lens corrections. For example, here is the difference between f/6.7 and f/11 on the E-M10:

Olympus 75-300mm f6.7 vs f/11 @300mm (100% crop)

F/16 looks marginally better, but interestingly f/22 is less sharp. As the lens approaches its smallest opening diffraction rears its ugly head and IQ suffers. For our purposes let's stay at f/11.

So, how much difference does a tripod make? When I compare the Olympus handheld shot at 1/2000 sec against a tripod shot at the same f stop but a shutter speed of 1/500 sec, I see virtually no difference at max zoom (300mm). I would hope I never shoot at any less than 1/500 sec except for extreme cases. However, for the sake of argument, let's compare the shots on a tripod. Oops. We already did. The comparison shots above were taken on a tripod.

Next comes the argument that shooting on a tripod can be worse UNLESS you disable the IS (image stabilization) feature. I have seen some pretty extreme examples - supposedly any movement is picked up by the IS and an anti-movement adjustment mechanism goes into a loop, picking up the movement caused by the mechanism. I don't see this with these two cameras.

So, we are down to lenses, or more properly, the Sigma lens. Here is just the Sigma compared at max aperture (f/5.6) and close to optimum (f/11):

Sigma 120-400mm f/5.6 vs f/11 @400mm (100% crop)

There is some kind of strange aliasing going on in the f/11 shot. Like a double exposure or something. And, it gets worse at f/16! The mystery only deepens...

Any suggestions? The only thing I can think to do is get my hands on another 400mm and see what kind of results I get.

Jeepers Creepers, Where'd Ya Get Those Peepers?

No, I am not a peeping Tom. A peeping Chuck, perhaps.

Yes, I am in danger of becoming a "pixel peeper". A pixel peeper is someone who magnifies photographs on a computer screen to critically evaluate image resolution at the pixel level. However, it is commonly used as a derogatory remark as explained in the Urban Dictionary.

Late in April, shortly after receiving my new Olympus OM-D E-M10, I was doing some comparison of image quality and came up with the following shocking sample. Note that the sharpest image seems to be from an old Canon SX50 with a 1/2.3" sensor, not the APS-C Sony A55 or the new Micro Four Thirds Oly. (SX50 on the left, then E-M10 and A55 - you may have to click on the image to see the difference) A fluke, you might say. I might agree. Unfortunately I didn't have time at the time to pursue the issue (closing up in Florida and heading back to KC), and now the SX50 is gone (took an unfortunate dip in the lake) and the A55 is also gone (upgraded to an A77 M2). So, back to the drawing boards

It is just too weird to think that a super small sensor could yield images comparable to APS-C or MFT, so I decided to concentrate on a comparison between the E-M10 and the brand spanking new A77 M2. Results have been different from my first attempt, but are still puzzling. Even though having a smaller sensor than A77 (MFT is 61% the size of APS-C), the E-M10 appears to have significantly better sharpness. What the heck?

 I started by setting both cameras up to what I considered to be a typical configuration for sailing or birding shots: shutter preferred and fairly fast (1/1000 or faster), medium ISO (greater than 200 but less than 1,000), which would probably mean shooting most of the time wide open, maximum aperture. I ended up using a shutter speed of 1/1600, ISO 400 and max aperture on a Sigma 70-400mm (f/5.6) and the Olympus 150-300mm f/6.7. And, this is what I got:

Again, you may have to click on the image to see the difference, but just look at the window frames and I think you'll agree that the E-M10 images are sharper. So, thinks I, lenses typically aren't at their best wide open, let's stop down a couple stops. And this is what I got (f/11):

Not much difference, is there? Note that I cranked the ISO up to 1600 in order to stop down and from a noise standpoint there isn't much difference compared to the original ISO 400 shots.

Oh, dear. What can the matter be? Well, we all know that zoom lenses are not at their best at maximum zoom, so I backed both lenses down to the 35mm equivalent of 300mm (instead of 600mm). Results? Not that much different:

What is left to explain this phenomenon? A 300mm vs a 400mm lens? Brand name lens vs independent? 

My plan is to clamp these babies on a tripod even though I probably won't do that very often in reality. Any insight into this dilemma will be greatly appreciated... 

Update: I failed to mention that the images above were 100% crops of these windows.

Why We Photograph

Why do we photograph? Is it the process? Or is it the results? Personal use? To share with the world? Profit? Recognition? A way to kill time? Capture memories? What is it for you?

Do you want to display on a TV. Post online? Print? 4x6 inches? 4x6 feet? 

I can not answer these questions completely. A little bit of everything perhaps? The reason I am even asking the questions is that I'd like to concentrate my photo time on one camera system, and right now I have three.

First there is the Canon SX50, basically a point-and-shoot, but with a 50x optical super-zoom lens. An incredible 24mm-1200mm equivalent. Unfortunately autofocus can be very slow and the sensor size is miniscule, just 3% the size of a full-frame 35mm sensor.

Recently I acquired an Olympus OM-D E-M10, a mirrorless DSLR-like camera. With a 600mm equivalent telephoto, this system weighs about half as much as an actual DSLR, even an APS-C sensor size. The Oly has a Micro Four Thirds sensor which is 26% the size of a full-frame 35mm sensor. Still not very large, but much larger than the sensor in the SX50.

My first DSLR was, and is, a Sony SLT-A55, upon which I usually have a Sigma 120-400mm zoom (600mm equivalent). Its APS-C sensor is a little less than half the size of a full-frame 35mm sensor.

Three powerful systems. Three completely different size sensors. And, of course, three completely different uses.

Now you may have a glimmer of understanding why I'd like to answer the question: why do I photograph?

SX50

If the answer is to just post photos to be viewed on a computer screen, or perhaps make 4x6 or 8x10 prints, the Canon SX50 is probably all I'll ever need (although Sony has a 63x optical zoom!). Here is an example of what the SX50 is capable of. Hand-held, 1/640 second, 1200mm equivalent: 

If portability with maximum image quality is the goal, then the E-M10 is the camera of choice. 

If the absolute maximum image quality is the priority then the A55 is the choice, unless, of course, I go out and get a full-frame camera!

Questions, questions, questions, and so few answers...

In my next post I give some possible answers.

When The Moon Hits Your Eye...

like a big piece of pepperoni pizza pie, it is Blood Moon Eclipse time. Actually, this was the first of  a lunar eclipse "tetrad": a series of four consecutive total lunar eclipses that happen at about six-month intervals. The next one is due Oct. 8, followed by blood moons April 4, 2015, and Sept. 28, 2015, unless, of course, you believe Texas televangelist pastor John Hagee, who sees the four blood moons as evidence of a future "world-shaking event" that begins to fulfill End Times prophecy. In which case, too bad. No more eclipses for you.

Blood Moon Eclipse, April 15, 2014

While I have more to say about sensors, we interrupt this blog to bring you the Blood Moon Eclipse of April 15, 2014.

First, my disclaimer: while I do own a tripod, it is not a very good one, so I don't use it very often; to compensate for this I took all my photos at 1/1000 of a second, which was fine until the full eclipse (more on this later); I used three different cameras, with three different sensors, ranging from the 1/2.3" Canon SX50 to the Micro Four Thirds Olympus OM-D E-M10, to the APS-C Sony SLT-A55. The SX50 has an amazing 50x optical zoom, giving the equivalent of a 1200mm telephoto in 35mm terms. Both the E-M10 and the A55 had the equivalent of 600mm teles

The image quality of the results with all three cameras was unexpected, and a little disappointing. The small sensor won, hands down. Maybe not in other situations, but for this particular experience, it was the better camera.

To check image quality (IQ), I used ACDSee Pro 7 and its Compare function to place images side by side and then magnify them. Generally I compared just two images in order to get the most magnification, but occasionally I'd do three or four at a time whenever I had a bunch of images that were more or less the same. Below is an SX50 to E-M10 comparison.

Remember that the E-M10 sensor is a little more than 8 times the size of the SX50. One more disclaimer: since the SX50 maximum optical zoom is 1200mm and the E-M10 max is 600mm, the E-M10 image is magnified twice as much. Still, with a sensor that is 8 times larger I expected a noticeable difference in favor of the E-M10. Not to be. The SX50 image has more apparent grain (noise), but to my eye is definitely sharper. Last disclaimer: all images were jpg format, no post processing sharpening. Some day when I have nothing better to do, I may try post processing both files. Right...

So, while I hate to become a "pixel peeper", the results of this experience were discouraging. I even (gasp) considered returning the E-M10 and saving my money for a full frame DSLR.

Nah, too damn heavy for an old guy like me. Gotta figure out how to make the E-M10 work for me, one way or another (or, just use the SX50!)...

May your nights be cloudless and bright.

Making Sense Of Sensors

Well-behaved CMOS

The heart of the digital camera is the sensor, the device that converts an optical image into an electronic signal. Currently used types are semiconductor charge-coupled devices (CCD) or the very well-behaved complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor (CMOS) or N-type metal-oxide-semiconductor (NMOS, Live MOS). You're probably wondering how they work, and even if you aren't you're going to find out anyway. From Wikipedia:

The n-type MOSFETs are arranged in a so-called "pull-down network" (PDN) between the logic gate output and negative supply voltage, while a resistor is placed between the logic gate output and the positive supply voltage. The circuit is designed such that if the desired output is low, then the PDN will be active, creating a current path between the negative supply and the output.

Could it be any clearer?

Sensor Sizes and Crop Factors

Hardware and engineering issues aside, what is the big difference among sensors? Pixels, you say, and you'd be partially correct. Size, says someone else, and THAT is precisely the issue I have been wrestling with the past few months.

Below are the five sensors of most interest. Full frame refers to the size of the old 35mm image. There are larger sensors, but they cost $8,500 and up (body only). Even the FF cameras cost $1,500 and up. Let's focus on APS-C and smaller (well under $1,000)...

	Area in mm	% of Full Frame	% of APS-C	% of MFT
Full Frame	864
APS-C (Sony A55)	370	43%
MFT (Olympus E-M10)	225	26%	61%
1" (Nikon 1, Sony RX10)	116	13%	31%	52%
1/2.3" (Canon SX50)	28	3%	8%	12%

My first digital SLR was the Sony SLT-A55 which has an APS-C sensor. This sensor is 43% the size of a full frame sensor. Quite a bit smaller, but we've got a long way to go.

The Nikon 1 and the Sony RX10 use a 1" sensor for their mirrorless interchangeable lens type cameras. This sensor is only 13% the size of a FF sensor, but we STILL got a ways to go.

The Canon SX50 and many point-and-shoot cameras use a 1/2.3" sensor, which is about the size of your little fingernail. This sensor is just 3% the size of a full frame sensor, 8% the size of an APS-C and 12% the size of Micro Four Thirds. Yet you can make decent 16x20 prints from the results and the images are fine for web viewing, particularly if uncropped.

Finally, because that is where I am headed, is the Micro Four Thirds sensor developed by Olympus and Panasonic. This sensor is 26% the size of a full frame sensor and 61% the size of an APS-C sensor but over 8 times the size of the Canon SX50. MFT allows for lighter and smaller equipment all the way around. A nice compromise in my view.

By now your mind is probably reeling, as is mine. Discuss among yourselves and we'll continue in the next post...

Triptyching the Light Fantastic - Part 2

First things first, "tripping the light fantastic" commonly, and quite literally, is to dance nimbly or lightly, or to move in a pattern to musical accompaniment. However, it is sometimes used to refer to just plain having fun or, back in the day (60s) it could refer, again quite literally, to tripping, or using some sort of hallucinatory substance (I know you know what I'm talking about). 

So, bite me if the first thing I thought of when I thought of triptych was this phrase. And, now that I look at it, perhaps I am talking about "light" in the photographic sense. It really doesn't matter. It is a "secret about a secret" (Diane Arbus).

But, I digress. Back to the triptych...

Separate images, variants on a theme

A triptych is a work of art (usually a panel painting) that is divided into three sections, or three carved panels which are hinged together and can be folded shut or displayed open. The triptych form arises from early Christian art, and was a popular standard format for altar paintings from the Middle Ages onwards. A triptych may consist of separate images that are variants on a theme, or may be one larger image split into three, or may be the same image captured at different times.

Same image,
different times

I first though about a triptych or at least some sort of multiple photo image while editing some shots from the North Shore of Hawaii. In order to catch a wave at its peak, splash, droplets and all, I did some continuous shutter release or burst mode. While I got the peak, I also got other interesting aspects of the wave approaching and breaking. To convey all of that I combined the shots into one photo. And, I liked it. Same spot, just different times. Oh, and I liked it both horizontal and vertical. Your choice.

Al E. Gator

Then on to this week and Mr. Al E. Gator. I struggled to get something of interest from a single shot, and at first ended up with a close crop of just the head, and then a black and white transform to better show the details of the jaw and bumpy skin.

But I wanted to show the whole gator, but in a new way, hence - gator triptych. The thing is that now you can kind of focus on one part at a time or gather in the whole gator. I like it. How about you?

One image, split into three

For a real trip, try reading Ed Kashi's comments regarding his book, THREE. Okay, okay, an true artist has passion, but sometimes Ed gets a little carried away for my taste.

In the next post we'll get back to the amazing OM-D E-M10, although I am perplexed. Actually, a little disappointed although I'm not done exploring the subject, so to speak, quite yet...

Triptyching the Light Fantastic

Okay, one more little timeout from the exploration of the Olympus OM-D E-M10...

I had to "work" yesterday, which for me consists of riding a golf cart around a beautiful golf course, interacting with the (mostly) happy golfers and admiring the views. Since this particular golf course (Serenoa Golf and Country Club) literally has water on every hole, there is a vast variety of wildlife, from gators to ospreys, eagles, herons, egrets, ibis and the occasional white pelican.

I fixed up my lunch "cooler" into a nice little camera storage container so I always have a camera near by. Yesterday there was a good sized alligator sunning itself on the left side of number 12. Since it was a fairly light day customer wise, and no one was coming up the fairway, I stopped and grabbed a few shots even though I currently only have a 12-50mm (24-100mm 35mm equivalent) lens (75-300mm/150-600mm should be here today - yay!).

I was able to get within about 10 feet before I saw some sign of movement. I quickly set my shutter release options to Sequential L (low speed, 3.5 frames per second) in hopes I could get a series of Mr. Al E. Gator either going into the pond, or coming after the crazy guy with the funny black box in his hands. In a twinkling he (or she) was gone and I was left with nothing but this...

Now, believe it or don't, but gator shots are pretty much a dime a dozen (or, less) in Florida, so I started thinking about how to make this shot something special.

My first thought was a close cropping, thus ---

Still much to common an image for Florida, although you can now easily see those chompers that rest outside of his mouth, and see how knobby his skin is.

My next thought was --- BLACK & WHITE. Oh, yeah. Better, but still left me wanting. Somehow I wanted the whole body in the image in order to convey all aspects of being a gator. Before long I thought of trying a triptych, and now that you see where we are going, we'll explore that subject in the next post...

Gadzuiko! Or, WTF (What The Focalplane) is a Zuiko?

We are going to take a little timeout from the amazing OM-D E-M10 to talk about the Olympus brand of lenses, the Zuiko line. As an aside to an aside, the word Zuiko loosely translated means "auspicious optics" or "auspicious light". Auspicious, indeed.

M.Zuiko ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ

I opted for the M.Zuiko ED 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 EZ lens to go with my E-M10. Since the MFT crop factor (more on this later) is two, this is the equivalent of a 35mm 24-100mm zoom. The EZ means the lens has the option to use electronic zooming instead of ring-twist. Did I mention it also has a "macro" mode?

In short, I'm as impressed with this lens as I am the E-M10. 

The zoom ring normally twists to accomplish the 4.2x zoom. Slide the ring forward one click and viola! Now it is an electronic zoom, perfect for videos. Press a buttom on the side of the lens and slide the ring forward another click and presto-change-o, you have a 43mm macro lens! Oh, and the lens is also weather proofed - nothing other than the zoom ring, focus ring and mode buttons move on the outside of the lens body.

I can't really speak to the IQ (image quality) too extensively, but to the casual eye this is a heckofa lens. Only downside: no built-in WiFi.

Maybe some sunshine today. I'll be chasing the light...

Olympus OM-D E-M10 First Impressions, or You Say PASM and I Say PAY-SAM

Wow.

How's that for a first impression?

From the size and weight, to the controls and features, this is one heckofa camera. 

OM-D E-M10

I'm still working on the basics, switching through all the PASM modes (Program, Aperture Preferred, Shutter Preferred, Manual), and figuring out which of two control dials control what. Viewfinder displays make it very clear which mode you have set, and the "rear" control dial controls the aperture or shutter depending on which mode you have set. In addition to the "mode" being displayed, the function to be set is highlighted. Interestingly, the rear dial can also be used to override the shutter speed while in Program mode, providing quick way to customize your shot, but only by increasing the time and not by decreasing. Huh?

The "front" dial almost always controls exposure compensation, but I was confused initially because the display seemed to indicate I had some kind of dynamic exposure compensation going on. Then I realized I had a similar indicator running vertically along the right side of the display. Camera level indicators, dodo. Horizontal and vertical. Why not eliminate that straightening function in post-processing by getting the horizon straight to begin with? Cool...

I've also been through the Super Control Panel, just a one button click away. So, with one click you have access to: ISO sensitivity, Flash mode, Flash intensity control, Sequential shooting/self-timer, White balance, White balance compensation, Picture mode, Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation, Gradation, B&W Filter, Picture tone, Color space, Button function assignment, Face priority, Metering mode, Aspect ratio, Record mode, AF mode, AF target and, whew, Image stabilizer options.

Did I mention built-in WiFi for full remote control, geotagging and sharing?

And, if all that is too much to handle, or you're just feeling lazy, there is always iAuto.

Anyway, we're hoping for some sunshine tomorrow. I'll post some pics from today but everything is pretty flat.

In the mean time, may the sun always be at your back, unless...

Olympus OM-D E-M10

Sony SLT-A55 with Sigma 120mm-400mm zoom telephoto (180mm-600mm 35mm equivalent): 4.96 pounds.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 with Zuiko 75mm-300mm zoom telephoto (150mm-600mm 35mm equivalent): 1.80 pounds.

Need I say more?

Yes, the sensor size is 30% smaller but 5 times larger than my Canon SX50. I can't tell the difference at 100% magnification. Bite me.

Two customizable control dials.

Two customizable function buttons.

Tiltable touchscreen viewfinder.

Adaptive brightness and eye sensor viewfinder.

81-point AF grid that covers the whole frame, autofocus tracking function, group and spot AF, Focus Peaking for accurate manual focusing. Oh, and how about this: focus on left eye, right eye, or nearest eye!

Did I mention built-in WiFi for full remote control, geotagging and sharing?

Most of the features found in the two pro-level OM-Ds, the E-M1 and E-M5. Lacking? Weather proofing. Not a major deal for me.

Just getting started. Much more to come. Excuse me, I need to go photograph...

95 Years of Surviving and Thriving - Olympus Corporation

There have been many great names in camera history: Kodak (1888), Leica (1913), Olympus (1919), Rolleiflex (1928), Minolta (1933), Fuji (1934), Canon (1936), Argus (1939), Hasselblad and Nikon (1948), Contax (1949), Pentax (1952), Yashica (1953) and much later, Sony (1996) but more significantly in 2006 when they acquired Konica Minolta and rebranded it to Sony. Sony also has a majority share in the Olympus Medical Solutions Inc.,  a joint venture to develop new surgical endoscopes with 4K resolution (or higher) and 3D capability. There are also rumors that some of Sony's lenses are rebranded Olympus lenses.

In case you might have forgotten, George Eastman invented roll film, although there are some reports that he purchased the patents from a guy from North Dakota! I've even read that Kodak is a variation on Nodak although there is no confirmation.

In 1913 Ernst Leitz developed a prototype of a camera that used 35mm film, and the photographic world was changed forever. Rolleiflex developed the first practical reflex camera. Minolta (Mechanism, Instruments, Optics, and Lenses by Tashima ) is perhaps best known for making the first integrated autofocus 35mm SLR camera system. Fuji was primarily a film and printing supplies company until it figured out, unlike Kodak, that digital was the wave of the future. Hasselblad is of course the creme de la creme of medium format cameras and was used on all the Apollo missions.

Nikon - with its full line of interchangeable components and accessories is generally regarded as the first Japanese system camera (remember the F series?).

Contax - first pentaprism.

Pentax - the first practical quick-return SLR mirror. 

So, what is the Olympus claim to fame?

Having designed and manufactured cameras since 1936,  their first innovative camera series created by Olympus was the Pen, launched in 1959. The half-frame format, allowing 72 pictures of 18 × 24mm format on a standard 36 exposure roll of film, made Pen cameras compact and portable for their time. The Pen system design team, led by Yoshihisa Maitani, later created the OM system, a full-frame professional 35mm SLR system designed to compete with Nikon and Canon's bestsellers. The OM system introduced a new trend towards more compact cameras and lenses, being much smaller than its competitors and presenting innovative design features such as off-the-film (OTF) metering.

In 2003 the Four Thirds system standard was created by Olympus and Kodak (and later Panasonic) for digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) and mirrorless camera design and development. Unlike older SLR systems, Four Thirds was designed from the ground up to be entirely digital.

Many lenses are extensively computerized, to the point that Olympus offers firmware updates for many of them. Lens design has been tailored to the requirements of digital sensors, most notably through telecentric designs.

The size of the Four Thirds sensor is significantly smaller than for most DSLRs and this implies that lenses, especially telephoto lenses, can be smaller. For example, a Four Thirds lens with a 300 mm focal length would cover about the same angle of view as a 600 mm focal length lens for the 35 mm film standard, and is correspondingly more compact. Thus, the Four Thirds System has crop factor (focal length multiplier) of about 2, and while this enables longer focal length for greater magnification, it doesn't aid the manufacture of wide angle lenses.The image sensor format, generally intermediate between those of larger SLRs and smaller compact cameras, generally gives levels of cost, performance and convenience intermediate between those two classes. 

Ergo - one Olympus OM-D E-M10 on order.

Oh, excuse me, I think I hear the doorbell...

The State of the State of the Art

State of the Art: The highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time.

State of the Art - 1900

Full disclosure: I get a new camera at least once a year and sometimes twice a year. So, bite me. Sometimes I get new golf clubs every year. Bite me again. 

I know some of the "state of the art" products are little more than a new paint job (yes, I'm talking about you, Taylormade). On the other hand, a very good golfer once told me, if you think you need a new putter, you may as well just go ahead and get one. So, it is a thin line we walk between newness just for the sake of newness, and actually getting something of value.

Let's talk about the "state" of my art. I feel like I've made some progress in my ability to make a good photograph. I feel like I understand composition beyond the rule of thirds. When to go large and when to go small. When to break the rules. I'm beginning to come to grips with Photoshop and photo editing software in general and layers and levels and luminosity, oh, my. I've got three workhorse cameras, a Canon SX50 for quick shots and crazy telephoto (1200mm!), a Sony NEX-3N with a 24mm-75mm (35mm equivalent) for wide-angle work and to experiment with mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC), and a Sony SLT-A55 with a Sigma 180mm-600mm tele for sailing and nature shots. And while Gordon McBride has encouraged me to take some photography classes and just get out there and shoot, I'm afraid there are issues to be resolved.

The "issues" I've been dealing with the past few months are these: 1) to shoot or not to shoot in RAW format (that'll be a separate post), 2) what photo editing and organizing software do I like (another post), and 3) what sensor size is best for the photography I want to do (you guessed it, another post). Oh, and as long as I'm at it, maybe I'll do a little "state of the art" updating!

The jury is still out on RAW format. I'm not convinced it buys me enough to justify the extra storage and post-processing. Time will tell. More work to be done.

I've settled on a combination of Windows Live Photo Gallery, Picasa and ACDSee Pro for importing, organizing and post-processing. More on that later.

State of the Art - 2014

The big news is the soon-to-arrive Olympus OM-D E-M10. Although its appearance is much like an SLR, in reality it is a MILC. In addition, it uses a sensor size that only Panasonic also uses. Smaller than APS-C, but significantly larger than my Canon SX50, it is called Micro Four Thirds, or MFT. Using this sensor allows the camera and lenses to be substantially smaller and lighter than APS-C or full frame cameras. And, oh, the features:

• 16MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor
• Twin control dials
• Built-in flash
• 8 fps continuous shooting
• Tilting 1.04M dot LCD touchscreen
• 1.44m dot LCD viewfinder
• Wi-Fi allowing remote control and file transfer to smartphones
• Focus peaking
• '3-axis' image stabilization

State of the art, indeed.

Tomorrow I'll look at the Olympus company and their reputation in the imaging world...

A Little Background

Young children begin exploring their surroundings as soon as they are mobile, and I was no exception. In an old cardboard box shoved way back in the corner of a closet I discovered photographic print trays, a film developing tank, a contact printing frame, and some yellow paper wrapped chemicals. I never did mess with the chemicals - the developing tank and the printing frames were enough to keep me busy. At this point in my life I can't recall what in my imagination those things were, but I spent hours happily playing with them. And the seed was planted.

Later my dad begin explaining to me shutter speeds and apertures on a Kodak "Pocket" folding camera, complete with bellows. I loved the aperture click stops and releasing the shutter with different shutter speeds and the remote shutter release cable. Composition was done via a tiny little viewfinder that you had to flip up to fold up the case. Dad let me load and unload the 620 film, making sure to get the tab all the way into the take-up reel, and then making sure to rewind the entire roll until you heard it flapping around inside before opening the back, and then carefully licking the adhesive band to make sure it didn't unroll on you.

In other words, I go way back.

I had my share of Brownie Hawkeyes growing up and I can remember having to buying flash bulbs (Sylvania Blue Dots). Just ask my mom! I have many great "candids" of her, with really nice surprised expressions on her face. In high school I negotiated a reasonable price on a Kodak Retina that the local drug store had in a display case for heaven knows how long, and I had my first 35mm camera.

After my son was born I thought the occasion warranted a "real" camera - an SLR. And, while writing this, the name of it popped into my head - a Petri FT, which can still be purchased on eBay for less than $50. I eventually bought an an enlarger and my own print trays and developing tank. I even loaded my own film for years.

Fast forward a few years and my wife and son and I have moved to Kansas City. The Mechanical Eye in Crown center becomes my favorite camera store and I go through a progression of Minolta and Nikon cameras. Joined the Wyandotte Camera Club. Joined the Photographic Society of America. Became President of the Wyandotte Camera Club. Assisted the Hallmark Photography Boy Scout troop. Started entering photo contests. Won a few (after many, many submissions). Sold all my SLR equipment (three Nikon bodies, multiple lenses) and darkroom equipment. Opted for a Pentax IQZoom while on vacation to Lake Tahoe and realized I have to have some kind of camera. Began the progression of digital cameras. Blah, blah, blah.

Which brings us to today. An Olympus OM-D E-M10 is on its way and should be here before next week. Which is a story all its own, and will be another post.

May the light always be at your back (unless you're taking silhouettes)...

The Mechanical Eye

If you lived in Kansas City during the 1970s, and particularly if you worked at Hallmark Cards and had any interest in photography, you knew about a camera store in the recently developed Crown Center across the street from the Hallmark Headquarters. The name of the store was the Mechanical Eye and they had everything from Nikons to Kodak Instamatics (remember those days?), darkroom equipment to One-Week photo finishing. (Just kidding about the one week business - sometimes you could get stuff back the next day, but there definitely wasn't any One-Hour processing.)

I bought my first name brand SLR there, a Minolta SR-T101, or maybe an SR-T102. Minolta was the first to have a camera with through the lens metering, "... but unlike its competitors it did this at full aperture. Where other manufacturers were struggling with systems where the photographer would have to stop the lens down to check the metering, the Minolta SR-T101 enabled metering to be conducted with the lens wide open. This meant that the meter reading in the viewfinder was always clear and bright, and that the photographic process could be more about inspiration, not perspiration." [from The Rokkor Files]

Eventually I moved up to Nikon, first getting an F2, then an FM and finally an FE. Of course the store had all the accessories, and for Nikon that is a LOT of accessories - right angle viewfinders, motor drives, gazillions of lenses. I had to buy a Domke camera bag just to haul around all that stuff. Three bodies, a 24mm wide angle, a 50mm 1.8, a 105mm macro, 135mm and 200mm teles. I finally sold the whole lot and bought a Pentax IQ Zoom 160, one of the first point and shoot fixed zoom lens cameras. It was so good, however, that I shot my brother's wedding with it and got great results.

I'm not sure when the Mechanical Eye closed its doors, but a great camera store with lots of good memories was lost. The title of this blog is my little homage to that wonderful store...