MFT just fun to shoot with

Yesterday I grabbed by GH2 and 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic prime lens for a skating on the Bowness lagoon with two of my sons and their cousins.  My feelings upon reviewing the images of the day were much in line with this post by David Taylor-Hughes on his SoundImagePlus blog.  There is just something about the size, the lens, the system that just is fun to shoot with and produces images you are happy you took.  When I look around my walls in our house a surprising number were shot with the Panasonic 20mm prime.  Almost none are with a compact of any type.  Whatever else I can and have said about MFT, I do like the images I take with it...  I am always surprised by the images I get with the 20mm lens - as it feels quite wide, yet seem to encourage more intimate portraits with a depth you don't get from a telephoto.  Should be the same as shooting with my Canon 7D and 28mm prime - and yet it never seems that way.  Maybe it is the ability to shoot with the LCD that makes the difference - the photographer doesn't feel quite as close (as the camera is):

On this same thread is another view, perhaps, from Mark Dubovoy called Everything Matters.  The gist of it as it applies to my post here is that there is more to it than just specs and MFT curves.  Some lenses just draw nicely - and that is the problem with my Canon 28mm.  The 28mm doesn't render out of focus areas very well.  So while it looks great when there is enough separation between subject and background, it can look horrible when you can see the transition between subject and background.  In the end, it is why I named this blog 'MFT' Adventures - that 20mm Panasonic lens keeps pulling me back in :)

I also really liked the point on the 'unseen' - I think it explains people's attraction to razor thin depth of field as much as having everything in focus.  This is where compacts fail - their great depth of field just doesn't deliver because they don't have enough fidelity to make it count.  I never look at a print from my old G12 or Fuji X10 and say 'wow, I can see detail in every leaf on that tree in the background'.  That is why compacts (and MFT for that matter) can be good enough for what we do as photographers,  but they will never amaze with detail like a large sensor with fine lenses and tilt/shift.  Hence the focus on thin depth of field - much easier to wow with a unique perspective when you are going for a blurry background!

In fact, this whole idea is very interesting to me.  I often get hung up on trying to do something no one has ever done before - in the sense that it is unlikely I'll ever do something first and get found out!  You see people who do an amazing 365 day long exposure - but once done it just becomes a technique and they become a 365 day specialist :)  I really want to try to get a little bit of this idea into my images of my kids - I want to show them in a way that captures a little bit of something special or otherwise 'unseen' moments that I am privy to.  That is what will make my images special to me and my family in the years to come.  In the shot above, this was a frame taken just after I'd got a shot of my son intensely watching other skaters on the ice - unposed, natural, and a moment I'll always enjoy going back to (and not an image I feel I need to share in this blog among relative strangers).

Goldilocks and the three cameras

Every once in a while I look at my collection of camera gear and wonder why I have it all. If money were no object I would have a lot more! Part of photography being my hobby is just getting to play around with new technology. It bring out the side of me that went into electrical engineering in the first place. Like many I didn't end up designing audio equipment or cameras, but ended up in software instead. Still - playing around with the latest creations of other engineers is fun stuff.

Looking at my cameras I often consider what place they each serve, and whether I'd be better off selling something and getting something else, or using what I have better. Here is a quick list of what I like about each camera, and why I hang onto it:

1. Canon 7D. This is the best camera I've ever owned. There really isn't a photo that I look at and think that some other piece of gear would be better. I'm the limiting factor.  The only real disadvantage is that it is big, and carrying lots of lenses is even bigger. If I have all three cameras around and want to get a shot, this is my first choice.
2. Pansonic GH2. I got this camera with the hopes it would replace my 7D and a compact and merge everything into one system. The GH2 body is truly up to the task (for me), but the lenses hold it back. If I put my Canon lenses on it (sans aperture or focus control) I can barely tell the difference between it and the 7D. However, the panny kit zoom just isn't sharp through the zoom range like my 24-105mm f/4 Canon. The macro from Panny is so expensive I can't justify buying it to try out. I don't want to buy another flash system so I work with my Canon flashes in manual. But the main reason I keep it is that it is the only camera I have that does video at eye level. The EVF is fantastic for video.
3. Fuji X10. Really there are a bunch of compacts that would do fine, the Fuji is just the latest that I'm getting along with. I like the fast lens and the manual zoom a lot, and the viewfinder is a lot bigger than that found in the Canon G12. Still, if it had an EVF I could probably lose the Panny. Hmmmm...maybe Nikon DOES have it right with their 1 series!

Reading Kirk Tuck's posts on the Nikon, I really do think it is what I'm looking for, and could replace my GH2 and Fuji X10 - but I'm in no hurry. Sensor is large enough. Lenses interchangeable. Video better than Olympus. Good, fast AF. EVF available. My only complaint is that it doesn't have a fast zoom. Apparently there isn't a perfect camera for me yet :) I'm going to stick with what I have for as long as I can - and hopefully take a lesson from Kirk and try to find what each camera does well, rather than focusing on the one problem area for each!

Things you can only do with a small sensor camera

There are endless debates on the various photography forums about how small sensor cameras don't give you the freedom to be creative. Typically this means you can't get depth of field as shallow as with a larger sensor camera. The opposite argument doesn't usually hold water: that a small sensor camera gives you lots of depth of field. People will say that everything being equal the full frame camera has to be shot at f/8 to match the depth of field of a micro four thirds camera at f/4, for example. In low light, some say, the MFT camera has an advantage. But in the end it doesn't, because the full frame camera can be shot at two stops faster ISO and makes up the difference by having a lower noise chip. It seems the laws of physics conspire to level the playing field.

One area that a compact sensor camera seems to rule in is closeup/macro work. Almost every camera I've owned that is small has had a very nice macro mode that gets you REALLY close. But while that is cool, it only takes an extra lens on the dSLR to get nice macro capability as well. But what I find I just can't do with my dSRL is get shots like this:



Not that this is a stunning shot that you'll want to ditch the 5D mkII to be able to do, but you just can't get this kind of super close shot with lots of depth of field in tight quarters. I always shoot macro/closeup type stuff to sell with my 7D and 60mm Macro, but when the shooting distance is short and I want lots in focus, a compact camera just can't be beat - especially one with a hot shoe for flash :) This particular shot was taken with a Fuji X10. I mean who even sells a 20mm macro for a dSLR that has a close focus distance of 1cm? Sure you can reverse your old manual focus 50mm lens and get that close, but getting the ears in focus? With AF? Of a moving subject? This is a creative option you REALLT have to work to get with a full frame dSLR :) So it isn't all bad - I would argue that most dSLR buyers in the world (you know, the ones that don't read this kind of blog) are unlikely to ever buy a real macro lens. But all those P&Shooters; usually get an awesome macro lens for free...

One subject with Fuji X10, Panasonic GH2 MFT, and Canon 7D

Fuji X10

Here are three shots of my son taken with three very different cameras: the Fuji X10, Canon 7D w/ 28mm f/1.8 lens and the Panasonic GH2 with 20mm f/1.7 lens. Ultimately they are all very similar images and I'd be happy using any of the three. The Fuji has more of the background in focus. The GH2 is a little less pleasing for some reason (maybe just that it is a little further away?). The Canon blurs the background nicely. The Fuji was the only one of the three to offer built in IS, and in some ways it was the easiest to get a sharp image from, but it also offer fewer megapixels so once you downsample the 7D or the GH2 and actually print it is all very similar.

What is noticeable is how different the interfaces are. While all three cameras offer a mode dial, and were thus easy to set to shutter priority, I found the Fuji to just be a little slower to make sense of what the dials were in terms of setting the shutter speed. Further, the Fuji could not really be used with the viewfinder for this type of shot. I could not rely on getting focus where I wanted it, and focus was clearly slower than the other two cameras. The Fuji is also the slowest at selecting an AF point. One of my least favorite things is that the controls on the left side of the Fuji are used for shooting. I find that annoying as you must choose between buttons and the zoom with the left hand. The Panasonic and Canon offer no shooting controls on the rear left of the body - so all settings can be done without removing the left hand from the lens, or even the camera from the eye. The Panasonic wins on having EVERY control available to the eye thanks to the EVF.

Why do I do comparisons like this? Really I am trying to convince myself that MFT can do it all. In almost every situation I find myself in MFT offers enough resolution and low enough noise. Further, with the right lenses it also comes so very close in size to something like the Fuji X10. When I take shots with my Canon macro on the GH2 via an adapter it shows just how much difference the lens makes - it is so close to the Canon 7D in those cases. Much of the perceived differences between my GH2 and 7D are really just differences in how the lenses behave.

Canon 7D with 28mm f/1.8 lens

The one area I find that my GH2 doesn't perform is in a specific studio case - that is taking image of subjects on a white background where the background is lit. I just find that there is some veiling going on that drops contrast too much. I've got to play around with that scenario and see what I can do about it - I only really hit that scenario once a year for Christmas photos for friends and family, so it is hard to justify the larger (and expensive) kit for that one case. I could get a lot of nice glass for my MFT system if I sold all my Canon gear :) Flash is another area that is weaker in the Panasonic realm - but truly I end up shooting studio in manual anyways so I could move to some Vivitar flashes and a cord for a lot less money than Canon 580EXs and so on.

The problem is this - every one of my three cameras has a scenario where the camera (or me operating the camera!) fails to live up to my expectations. This is fine when I own three systems - I can pick the right one for the job. However - it isn't like any of the three always nail focus, or is always free of noise, etc. The problem is that if I get rid of two of the three system I see myself remembering a hypothetical Canon 7D that never failed to compare to :) Seller's remorse ? LOL

Panasonic GH2 with 20mm f/1.7 lens

SLRGear.com has 14-42mm Panasonic Power X OIS lens review up

SLRGear.com has a review up of the new Compact Power zoom from Panasonic (ASPH Power OIS Lumix G X Vario PZ) plus some studio samples.  At first I thought this lens wouldn't find a way into my kit, but the more I play with the size of the GH2 with 20mm prime the more I think this could be a very handy 100g to carry around!  The power zoom isn't my favorite feature, but the fact that it is sharper than the existing kit lenses and comes in a lot shorter in the pocket make up for it...

SLRGear review

Also take a look at their review on the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 - another very promising lens for MFT: Olympus 45mm f/1.8 .  The Online Photographer called this their lens of the year!

Pondering f/2.8 MFT zooms

Given the likely release of two f/2.8 zooms and the chatter on the DPReview forums about how the full frame equivalents are f/5.6, it occurs to me that the equivalent DOF of these two zooms with be identical to my f/4 Canon L lenses on APS-C :)

Fast zoom lenses for MFT

Panasonic is finally showing fast zoom lenses for micro four thirds at the 2012 CES show: Concept lenses




They aren't confirming max aperture, but they are saying they will produce fast 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses in the 'X' lineup.  Exciting stuff for MFT.  Right now MFT shooters are sort of stuck with slow zooms (that all seem to start at 14mm!).  This will really complete the lineup if the lenses are sharp.  This 24-70mm equivalent will really beat a Canon for size, but naturally won't blur backgrounds as much...