Flickr

Folks constantly asked me about any publicly available "work" of mine...
Yes, I do have a public flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/112430055@N06/
If that represents "work", I am not too sure about...
Anyway... there it is.

Is MFT (m4/3) Dead?!

Lately, some folks posted videos declaring the death of the MFT (micro four thirds) system. Well, I do have a different opinion on that.

The usual arguments:

• MFT got a smaller sensor than other camera systems
• MFT has not developed any further
• neither Olympus nor Panasonic provided a break-through lately

Guess, what, I do agree with the above statements. However, I don't care about those either. To understand what I am coming from, I do shoot with APS-C systems too: Samsung NX and Fuji X. Followers of my blog might already know that...

Here are some of my reasons why I believe MFT is just at the beginning, rather the end:

• a smaller sensor means that lenses can be smaller too, not only in focal length, but also in dimensions
• shorter focal lengths allow for wider apertures at equivalent focal lengths
• focal length scales cubic for volume, i.e. bag space - MFT lenses are so much smaller, you average bag will hold a lot more fast primes that in any other system (despite the Pentax Q)
• if it ain't broke, don't fix it! ISO400 in 16Mpix MFT is just fine, use ISO400 135 film will get you a granularity of about 4Mpix
• does Mpix count really matter?
• Olympus offers in-body stabilisation on all bodies, Panasonic on some, maybe Panasonic can improve here (thinking old glass)

Surely, the 2 other systems I favour have an edge beyond the MFT system.

The Samsung NX1, which is the best mirror-less camera out there presently, is just as big as any Canikon Pro DSLRs. With an APS-C BSI 28Mpix sensor, it actually (b)eats any Canikon system in its price range. The lenses a superior too, however, the price, weight and size are premium too. My NX1 with the standard S-zoom rarely moves beyond the wall of my house, due to the bulk and weight.

The Fujifilm X system is somewhat lighter and smaller. The X-system competes in the market of fast primes. However, there are only a few interesting lenses available, and due to the larger sensor, the lenses are bigger too. So, less will make it into a bag, for a higher price however.

Consequently, I do believe that many hobbyists will appreciate the form factor of the MFT system. There is no other system out there to provide that many possibilities (options) in a portable setup whilst maintaining as much quality.

Lenses in MFT are small, lightweight and relatively cheap. And that is the success factor of the MFT system over any other system presently available.

High Contrast Cityscapes

When photographing in a city, often the photos looks somewhat dull. Often the culprit is a blueish haze. Such haze also lowers the contrast of a scene.

So, here are a few Lightroom settings, which can turn dull photographs into a picture having a little more punch. Please note that this settings (as a preset) are only a starting point. Depending in the photo, one will have to alter one or the other parameter.

Basic:

• Exposure +0,45
• Contrast +37
• Highlights +46
• Shadows +35
• Whites 0
• Blacks -59
• Clarity +36
• Vibrance 0
• Saturation -54

HSL (saturation):

• Red +59
• Orange +78
• Yellow +18
• Green -54
• Aqua -74
• Blue -74
• Purple -46
• Magenta 0

Color Photos

The following photo was shot with the Samsung NX mini (ISO800, f/8, 1s/125, 27mm).

original (RAW) exposure

above settings applied

B&W Photos

original RAW converted into B&W

settings applied before converted to B&W

Fingers crossed that blogger does not "correct" the differences away...

Take the Photo When You Want

This must be a generation thing... I heard about "shutter lag" first only a few years ago. At that time, I had a hard time understanding what the actual problem was. Mind you, my photographic experience originates in a fully manual SLR-cameras, which always released the shutter when I pressed the release button.

Finally, it all was clear to me, the complaints about shutter lag was caused by fully automatic settings, in particular auto-focus, of "modern" generation automated photographic equipment.

Being used to manual focus, my habit was to set the cameras to all manual, in particular for focusing. I never trusted any camera to know what I wanted in focus.

Lately, some cameras had a real impact on me, cameras that could be told which distance to focus at and stay at that distance.

First to mention in that context is the Fujifilm X-Pro1 with adapted legacy glass. Some of my older M42 lenses are rather sticky in the focus department. Set the lenses' apertures to f/8 and adjust focus according to the distance scale. Done! The metering of the camera is fast enough to adjust the shutter speed in an instance. However, if one wants to be rally be assured of the fastest reaction of the camera: choose ISO and shutter speed (according to sunny 16) manually. Great to have a dial for shutter speed selection.
The camera should have lost all the shutter lag by now.

Second choice: Ricoh GR (version V) or GR-II. Ricoh understood that auto-focus causes the greatest delays in automated photography. So, Ricoh decided to add the "snap focus distance" feature to their GR camera. With the camera in AF mode, half-press the shutter release and AF will start. However, when focus is not yet achieved but the shutter release is fully pressed, the focus defaults to a predetermined distance. Brilliant! Again, depth of field by the aperture chosen helps to determine the preset zone.
The Ricoh GR is extremely compact and fits in pockets, however, operation is very much menu-based.

Next: Leica X2 (Leica X-E, same camera, different color scheme). The Leica allows for decent manual zone focusing. The focus distance can be locked in, so it can't accidentally knocked off. That is really great for zone focusing with a predetermined DoF. The Leica also offers manual aperture and shutter speed dials, which is great for fully manual exposure settings.

Only at my 4th place: Fujifilm's X100 series. I love those cameras, no doubt! The manual focus scale displayed in the OVF is magnificent. However, the focus ring is very loose, I knocked it off bu accident several times, which ruined the shots. I wished there was a feature to lock the manual focus.
The X100 series sports manual aperture and shutter speed dials, which is really great!

5th (1st) place, solely for the reason that the other cameras are doing so well when stabilisation is not required: Olympus MFT bodies. Those cameras employ in-body image stabilisation, which is great for low light situations. When in any low light environment, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 is my prime choice! With adapted legacy glass, the Olympus still stabilises the image by sensor motion.


The above ranking is certainly not carved in stone! The differences are pretty subtle.

The most important message I wanted to convey:

1. shutter lag exists when shooting in AF
2. shutter lag disappears almost completely when focusing manually
3. setting exposure parameters manually cannot harm

Conclusion: Remove as much automation as you are comfortable with, you'll be rewarded with a more timely photography.

Battle of the Street Cameras - Part 1

Leica, the world leader in photo journalism, documentary photography and street-photography?

True of false? Not sure!

Here are some thoughts...

What's the deal with the hype about Leica cameras? Of course, the company Leitz Wetzlar changed the way of photography forever, in particular what mobility was concerned. But, how much of the legacy is still alive?
Lately, on Dutch broadcast: Eddy van Wessel, winner of Zilveren Camera 2015. Eddy van Wessel uses a Leica with 135 film.

Back to the digital world: one of the local retailers put on of the cameras on sale for a price worth spending, I did just that... and bought a Leica X-E (re-branded Leica X2).
What convinced me?

1. small package
2. the price of €699.- rather than €1499.-
3. leaf shutter (quiet, 1s/2000 sync speed)
4. I own an Olympus VF-2 which works with the camera
5. all manual dials

Performance-wise, I will compare the Leica X-E to the Fujifilm X100S and the Ricoh GR. Said cameras were designed roughly around the same time. All sport a 16Mpix sensor (2 have a Bayer array, 1 an Xtrans array).
None of the camera's employs optical image stabilisation, while all are equipped with similar prime lenses and APS-C sized sensors. Also, the cameras employ leaf shutters.

With the lenses, we can observe the first difference. While the Fujifilm 23mm EBC got an f/2.0 aperture, the Leica Elmarit APSH 24mm opens to f/2.8 only and so does the Ricoh GR's 18.3mm lens.
To me, this difference in aperture is negligible, in particular since I usually use f/5.6 and slower for increased depth of field in street photography. Also, the X100S shot wide open tends to be a bit soft for my taste.

One of the criteria I mentioned above was sync speed. The X100S syncs with f/2 at 1s/1000, an aperture not available with the X-E. However, when using flash with 1s/2000 shutter speed, the X100S is usable with f/2.8 only, thereby being equal to the X-E. Despite having a leaf shutter, the Ricoh GR does not do fast sync.

Concerning manual focusing, the cameras have their pros and cons. While the X100S (even more so the X100T) provides great manual focusing aid, the X-E is relatively hard to focus manually.
However, when walking in the streets, the X100S is easily knocked out of focus, should one accidentally touch the focus ring. In contrast thereto, the manual focus of the X-E can be dialed and locked in, similar to the "snap focus" of the Ricoh GR.

In terms of flexibility, the X100S/T clearly wins. Fujifilm offers adapters, so that the field of view can be made either normal, or a wider.
I love the wide lens of the Ricoh GR. Despite the 28mm equivalent, Ricoh offers an attachment that gets the field of view up to 24mm in 135 film terms.
Leica does not offer any changes in the field of view for their X1, X2 or X-E cameras.

Viewfinders: obviously the field of Fujifilm, with their unique OVF/EVF combination. Leica's X2 and X-E offer the possibility to add an EVF to the hot-shoe (the Olympus VF-2 works just fine!), while Ricoh allows for an add-on OVF only. Then again, doing candid photography, how important is a view-finder anyway?

In a further part of the series, I will compare the image quality of the in-camera JPEGs of the X100S/T and the X-E (only), since those camera share the same field of view.

Mirror-less System Lenses

Friends of mine indicated that they have difficulties to understand why I favor fast wide primes for mirror-less systems and somewhat bash on "long" fast primes. Well, the question arises, what is long and what is fast....

In a previous post, I was drawing a comparison between the Oly 45mm f/1.8, which I is loved by so many, and the Cosina Cosinon 55mm f/1.4 (which very likely is the better lens, despite being fully manual). 

I wish to continue the discussion on "long" lenses for mirror-less systems vs. legacy glass of normal length. The Cosinon was just one example. More comes to mind, e.g. the classic 35mm f/2.8 wide angle, found in every camera bag 20 years ago. For APS-C bodies, this would be a decent normal, for MFT, such a focal length reflects a mild telephoto lens.

A 28mm was rather extreme in the days of 135 film. Those lenses are found less often in camera bags, however, those are still pretty cheaply available 2nd hand. While in MFT, 28mm transfer into a normal, in APS-C creates a field of view of a mild wide angle lens.

Here comes the advantage of adapting those old lenses to modern systems: being designed for 135 film, i.e. "full frame", those lenses produce very little distortion on crop size sensors. The prize of which being larger dimensions of the lens-barrel (and manual operations). 

Back to the initial remarks about my friend's comments. When buying lenses for my various systems, I do focus on wide angle lenses for those systems, since the stock of legacy glass I own covers normal to tele-photo already. So, why would I spent more money for getting the same for a higher price?! Does not make much sense, eh?!

Here I am, having a decent collection of manual legacy glass, which suites me perfectly for normal to tele-photo, while wide-angle for the mirror-less systems is simply not available from legacy stock.

How to Create the Weegee Look

Weegee? You might ask... well, this would refer to Arthur Fellig. Not sure who I am talking about? Have a look at wikipedia to find out.

Old days

Weegee's was best known for nighttime photography of crime scenes. His technique involved the use of flash bulbs, giving a very harsh look to the pictures. There is usually a hard shadow cast on the left side of the subject, which is a "dead" give-away that the flash used was on the right side of the camera; very common to large format press cameras.

Over the years, off-camera flash moved to the left side of the camera, in particular when flash brackets are used. Many point & shoot cameras of today have their flash mounted on the left side, the reasons of which is totally unclear to me. Anyway, the on-camera flash is too close to cast any meaningful shadow at regular photographing distance.

Modern age

So, here is what we need to do to create the typical look of the illumination typically used in Fellig's crime scene photograph:

• mount a speedlight on a flash bracket
• 1 foot to the right of the camera lens
• 1 foot above the camera lens

For the flash bracket, I got myself one that looks essentially like this one. Everything is adjustable with the bracket...

Having the bracket on the right of the camera is a bit awkward, since cameras are designed for right hand use, with the shutter button on the right, which is, where the bracket is now. That of course means, that the camera now will be operated by the left hand.

What the shutter release is concerned, there might be an option: a shutter release cable, with the button fixed to the flash bracket (I guess, I will build something alike in the near future).

Digital solution

Obviously, the above is all nice in theory, but, what about putting this into digital reality?

Here is my setup:

• Fujifilm X-M1
• Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-f/5.6
• Fujifilm EF-20
• flash bracket as mentioned above
• flashgun cable for Canon by PIXEL Inc.

Now to the technical settings, which are different from my usual way of configuring a camera:

• AF illuminator ON
• flash exposure compensation -1
• exposure compensation -1
• red eye removal off

Here is why. With flash, there is not stealth photography, so, there is no reason to not use the AF illuminator. Flash bulbs were not that strong and weaker flash allows for a wider open aperture (see below). Further, lower flash power shortens cycle time of the speedlight. Also, we are still talking nighttime photography, despite the use of flash.

And the "artistic" settings:

• RAW+JPEG
• film simulation B&W (obviously)
• highlight tone +1
• shadow tone +2
• sharpness +1
• noise reduction -1
• auto ISO limit 6400
• f=30mm
• f/4.7 (i.e. as wide open as possible)

This will need some more detailed explanation, I figure.

Highlight tone +1 gives medium hard highlight details, resulting in slightly more contrast in the highlights.

Shadow tone +2  results in very hard shadow details, enhancing the black feel of the JPEG image.

Sharpness +1 in combination with N.R. -1 obviously adds some noise, similar to film grain. This effect could be further enhanced by forcing the ISO up.

My present setup employs a kit zoom lens. 4x5 press cameras are usually equipped with a 135mm, slightly wider than normal primes. On an APS-C system, 30mm comes pretty close to the angle of view that a 135mm would produce in 4x5 LF. Using the XF 27mm f/2.8 (considered on of the best lenses in the Fujifilm system) could the solution.

Finally, the aperture. Due to the long focal length of a large format "normal", the depth of field is pretty shallow. 

In absence of any corpses in front of my house (thanks God!), I took two photographs of a bollard on my front yard. Both pictures are JPEG straight out of the camera. 

Despite using the AF illuminator, the camera struggled to auto-focus. Anyway, I hope that the images prove that a Weegee-look is possible with the equipment listed above.

When using an X100, X100S or X100T, obviously, one might want to use the TCL-X100 for the normal perspective, which would allow for f/2. The 23mm (35mm equivalent) would not be too far off, so any of the series would still be OK w/o the conversion lens.

Conclusion

Weegee used a flash with a relatively large reflector. Although I feel that the initial results look pretty decent, I will experiment to add a soft component to the flash, as to mimic the large reflector.

PS

Shooting with flash requires re-thinking of your exposure parameters, I am aware of that. Exposure for the flash is usually done by the aperture. Distances of 2m to 4m would suggest relatively closed lens, even with lower ISO sensitivities. The creative choice of shooting wide open therefore seems counter-intuitive. Since this look is not affected by ambient light, shutter speed is entirely irrelevant, so the faster syncs speed found on the X100 models won't help. However, the X100 models have a built-in 3 stops N.D.-filter, which could help expose correctly with the lens wide open.