Olympus EPL2. Final Installment. Kirk's Definitive Opinion.

When I head out the door to shoot I usually have a Pen camera configured like this.

The VF-2 electronic finder is not an optional accessory to me.  It should be part of every package.

It's  small, light and unobtrusive.  Perfect for the street.

This is a fun camera.  But before we get to the meat of the matter I'd like to lay down a few ground rules and make a few disclosures.  Everything I write here is my opinion.  You may disagree with me but I won't post your comment unless you disagree in a courteous and helpful way.  I may profess undying love for this camera and, if I do so, please understand that it's the passion of the moment and next month a new camera may come along that I love more.  This is not a marriage, it's a fun job that changes quicker than a model at a runway show.  When I make a declarative statement I generally mean that this is how something applies to ME.  Not to everyone.

Ergonomics.  When you read through this keep in mind that I'm five feet, eight inches tall and have medium sized hands.  If the camera feels just right to me it probably won't matter to you if you are six foot, six inches tall and have hands like big baseball gloves.  Go to a store and handle it yourself if you know your build falls outside the general norm.  Some people like big cameras and some like small cameras.  If you are considering the EPL2 I hope you've sorted yourself into the second category.

A word about payola and full disclosure.  What did I hope to get out of writing this review besides a little ego boost and the chance to decide whether or not I want to buy one of these before everyone else? Well......I want Olympus to give me a Porsche and it's okay if they put their logo on the back bumper.  As long as the logo type is no bigger than twelve points.  In the real world the best that I can hope for is Olympus to give me a hearty handshake, perhaps a mousepad or a pen and the vague promise to let me review something in the future.  I'll have this camera and lens boxed up and back in the Federal Express to them this coming Friday.  Ultimately I hope you'll like the writing and be predisposed to buy a book or two of mine in the future.

Another happy benefit might be that you click thru a link to Amazon and buy something.  If you click thru from my blog I'll get a small amount of money and you'll pay no more or less.  But for all intents and purposes I'm putting this out there for free and that's the extent of my disclosures.  I make the bulk of my income from photography assignments and I can't think of very many clients who come here to read about the latest cameras.  I wish.  So enjoy.  Let's get started.

I passed on the EP1 camera, the first of the new Pens, for one reason:  No electronic or optical viewfinder, and no provision to add an electronic one on.  I've spent decades looking through viewfinders and I can't get used to using a rear screen as a focusing and compositional tool unless the whole deal is locked down on a tripod and I've got a loupe with me to block out the surrounding light.  I bought the EP2 because it had the EVF and it was very beautiful.  Of all the Pen cameras it feels the best in my hand, and, truthfully, it's the one I like to shoot with the most.  Here's the rub:  While the EP2 is the best designed and has the right heft the EPL1 obviously has a better sensor implementation.  It's sharper and cleaner (in the image files) than the EP1 or the EP2 and it was priced so well I couldn't help myself.....I snapped one up.  And less than a year later, along comes the EPL2.  Styling that looks more like the EP2 but performance like the EPL1.  Throw in a better screen and........?

Well.  Let's start at the top and go thru this step by step.  First of all, what is the EPL2?  It's the latest distillation of what Olympus has learned from making this family of cameras.  The camera is one of the family of Micro Four Thirds cameras which use a sensor that is about 20% smaller than an APS-C sized sensor used in a Canon Rebel or 60D.  Sounds scary but the sensor is six times bigger than the sensors in cameras like the Canon G 12 and the Lumix LX-5 from Panasonic.

The smaller sensor means that the lenses have different angles of view relative to what fussy old timers are used to from the 35mm days.  Ostensibly, smaller lenses are easier to design and manufacture so that should mean good glass at a lower cost.


Why did Olympus create the Four Thirds and then the micro Four Thirds standards?  Because in the early days of sensor design and manufacture it was ruinously expensive to make bigger sensors because the failure rate in manufacturing was so high.  The catering analogy is caviar.  You might get some on your deviled eggs or on your sushi but the unit cost would break a restaurant if they decided to chunk a few ounces on every plate.  A bigger sensor is still more expensive and it still requires bigger optics but now we have choices again.  Just like the film days we can choose a day in day out format that works well for everything that will go into electronic media ( the smaller than 35mm frame size) or we can choose cameras with sensors that are the same size as a frame of 35mm film and now more or less take the place of the medium format cameras of the film era, or we can take the bitter and frightening plunge and grab for all the gusto of a medium format digital system (for around the price of a nice car) and have the ultimate in resolution and dynamic range.  80 megapixels anyone?

But the thing that attracts me to smaller cameras is

Olympus EPL2: Is the video good? Do we care? Do you care?

If you want to see it bigger (full res but with compression artifacts around the edges....go here: http://gallery.me.com/kirktuck#100264

I can hear it now.  A certain percentage of readers will grouse about "having to pay" for video they'll never use.  And I get the sentiment but the reality is that the inclusion of a tiny, crappy microphone and an extra button probably added about $2.50 (USD) to your total camera purchase price so you might just want to get over it.  The rest of you have heard the call from Canon shills like Vince LaForet and you're thinking you might just want to see what all the fuss is about.  Bottom line?  The EPL2 is a nice, clean video platform.  I'd hate to have to sit thru stuff that was made handheld but if you put it on a tripod it's nice and clean, and sharp.

I almost hate to get into this but........it's not full on HD.  It's 720.  That means the frame is 1280 by 720 pixels.  Full bore ultimate HD is 1920 by 1080.  Will it make a difference in the final product?  Yes and no.  My use for video coming out of these cameras is for interviews and programming that will be part of websites and blogs.  A typical commercial use would be a medical practice where a physician walks you thru a procedure that you might have scheduled.  The highest imbedded res is probably going to the be one in this embedded video which is something like 640 by 360 pixels.  That means that when we shoot at the highest res we're always going to throw some pixels out.  Anecdotally, I've heard that Disney used a bunch of EPL1's as second unit cams in a feature film and that noise had to be added to the video frames and they had to be downsampled as well because the video looked better than the first unit film.......

I looked at the footage pretty carefully in FCP and I think it's sharp and pretty much noise free at ISO 400.  If you are shooting with the intention of creating programming for HD television you might be aiming a bit high using this camera as a production tool since everything else in the chain, including some connecting cables, is probably going to cost more.

Here are my gripes about shooting "movies" with this camera:

1.  It's easiest to view, compose and focus with the VF-2 finder in place....BUT....with the VF-2 finder in the one accessory slot you won't be able to plug in the external microphone adapter.  The solution is to do what everyone does with the DSLR's,  use the back LCD with a Zacuto or Hoodman finder strapped on and keep the port ready for external mic'ing.

2.  You don't get a lot of video configuration choices in video.  You can choose standard SD footage at 640 by 480 or HD at 1280 by 720.  Both settings lock you into shooting 30 fps.  Would I like more?  Sure.  How about 24 fps or 60 fps to help with slow motion effects?  But it keeps things simple.

The only other choice is microphone on or off.  I'd just leave it set to "on", that way I'll never forget.

3.  It's too light.  This is a silly gripe and it's one I could level at just about any of the small cameras on the market.  The lens and body are just to light to hold steady if you are shooting hand held.  One cup of coffee will separate the men from the SteadiCam rig.....  But that's a trade off of all hand held cameras.  If it's not shoulder mount it's only as good as your jangling nervous system.

But here's what I like about it:

1.  Olympus actually thought about how we'd use the camera and gave us a microphone port.  That's pretty darn cool.  It's true that you'll need to buy and adapter to accept the 1/8 stereo plug and interface with the proprietary plug but it's not expensive.  Once you've got that piece the sky is the limit for microphones.  I get good results from the middle priced Rode microphones intended for amateur video production.  My favorite is their Stereo VideoMic.  It runs on 9V batteries, it's what Ben and I used to do sound for this video and, with the supplied "dead cat" windscreen, it even looks professional.  I like the way it sounds but I wouldn't be too quick to judge it from my room's acoustics:  It's kind of "bouncy and bright" in here.

2.  It's easy to focus the lens between takes and even during takes a half squeeze on the shutter button will drive the lens to re-focus and, in my experience, quickly and accurately.

3.  The combination of the camera, the new 40-150mm zoom and the mic adapter is so light and small there is never an excuse to be without a capable video camera.

4.  It's really so cheap that you don't need to fret if you are doing commercial work and the client wants to put the camera somewhere dangerous (strapped to a car, or under a moving car, bolted to a skateboard or in a shooting war).  You break it and you can always get another one.  If you don't make a living with your cameras then it might be better to not hot glue it to a helmet and go bungie jumping......

5.  The image, within the constraints of the format, is very, very good.  And the sound is as decent as whatever microphone you stick out there (and how good your mic'ing techniques are.....).

6.  With inexpensive adapters you can use the complete line of Olympus E lenses or with a Nikon or Leica adapter you can use maybe 60 or 70 years worth of legacy lenses on the front of the camera.  Want a nice, compressed shot with lots and lots of "bokeh"?  I'm sure you can find an old Nikon 300 2.8 that will do the trick quite nicely.

The camera is not the limiting factor for most video projects and it certainly won't be for this unit either.  What you'll really need as you polish your "reel" for commercial success is a good script, good story boards, good direction, good lighting design, good acting and good sound engineering.  The Olympus just makes the actual shooting easier...

So, would I buy the EPL2 just for it's video chops?  No, probably not.  Unless I was on a low budget and I could make movies without expectant clients hovering around.  Would EPL2 movies be as good as movies from all the other under $1,000 cameras out there?  Yep.  The only place you'll see a difference is on the shots that require high ISO.  It lags at least a stop behind the Canon 7D and two stops behind the Canon 5D2.  But isn't that why we have lights?  Finally, is it a step up from the EPL1 for video?  Well, the LCD screen is nicer but the image quality seems about the same.  So....not really.

That's it for the video part of the review.  The review of the actual camera comes Monday.  Stay tuned.
Have you visited my website yet?  It's here:  www.kirktuck.com

Thinking about art while swimming. How I like to do portraits.

I don't get why photographers aren't really excited about working with new stuff they can't wear around their necks.  I've been warming up to LED lighting panels since late Summer and I'm having a blast with them.  Look what you can do at a fifteenth of a second!  You can actually capture movement.  So cool.  I think we're way oversold on the idea that everything needs to be sharp and every photography has to have scads of detail.  I love getting it wrong because somewhere on the other side of wrong is cool.

One of the drills we do in swim practice is to swim with tennis balls in our hands.  Means you can't spread your hands and fingers out like water sails for maximum propulsion.  But it sure teaches you to do everything else right.

A quick note.  When I wrote a post a while ago comparing swimming and photographing someone suggested that the comparison was stupid and that they could go months and months without touching a camera and then, in a flash, pick one up and create a masterpiece on demand.  I thought about that for a long while.  Stuck it in the part of my brain that just chews on stuff.

I've been shooting non-stop, for myself as well as for clients, since Christmas.  I'm making fun photos to show off concepts for a book.  When I'm not on assignment lately I've been walking around in the afternoons and the evenings with the new Olympus EPL2 just getting a feel for it and seeing how it reacts to all kinds of light.  And now I've decided on a reply for the person who thought that people didn't have to actively and regularly practice and bond with the process(es)= Bullshit.  

Moving on.  I thought I'd take a minute to describe my process of shooting a portrait of a pretty girl in the studio.  I've watched photographers show off their public shooting face at tons of expos and seminars but I think the way they handle portrait sittings with an audience is largely a fictional parody of what happens when you get right down to the way most real shoots work.  I can't imagine doing the kind of work I do with an audience.  I can barely stand to have an assistant in the room, much less gawkers.  Clients are always welcome.....especially if they bring a purchase order or signed contract.

When I'm shooting something for a technical book I'm writing I still want to get some fun stuff I can put in my portfolio and my models still want stuff they can use in their marketing as well.  Most bookings are spur of the moment things.  I don't spend a lot of time looking at Model Mayhem or face books from talent agencies.  I'll usually run into someone and in the moment I'll notice how much I like their face and their energy and I'll introduce myself right then and there and ask them if they have any interest in working with me on a project.  I hand them a business card and leave the next contact up to them.  Gives  people a chance to research who I am before they commit.  Then we'll set up a date to shoot and talk about what kind of look I'm going for and what kind of wardrobe we might mutually want.

The day before the shoot I'm usually a disorganized mess because I realize that I really need to go into the shoot with SOMETHING in mind.  I'll look at my backgrounds and I'll play with different lights and modifiers.  Then I'll set up a lighting design in earnest.  I keep telling myself that if I just get one good look I'll be happy.  Just one look.  If I think the model is magic (like the last three I've shot) I'll get so nervous that I'll drag Ben or Belinda out to the studio just to do some tests and make sure I don't have to make any big changes.  If I plan on using a new camera, like the EPL2 from last week I always make sure to back it up with an existing, proven camera system.  In this case the Canon 5Dmk2.

When the model shows up on the day of the shoot I've got cameras and lenses on top of a rolling tabaret and they are all ready to go.  Batteries charged and memory cards formatted.  I think it's embarrassing if a  model has to wait for me.....

Invariably they come in with arm loads of clothes and we stand around the studio sipping tea and picking potential outfits.  I'm not a fashion guy.  I'm looking for something organic that offsets the model's face and her personality in a cool way.  Obviously I love the look of black and deep gray with most faces.  I like long sleeves but, good luck in Texas.  Even in the winter.  I'm sure that all the talent has been to my website and seen the kind of work I do but even so they always bring lots and lots of shoes.  It's a rare day when I get a pair of shoes in a portraits.

I worked with Fadya on a commercial job last year but I really didn't get to know her.  The schedule was hectic and the crew was pretty big.  The art director keep us on an ambitious schedule and she was on and off the set in less than an hour.  So the first thing we do is get make up out of the way.  Send any sort of assistants or "hangers-on" out of the building and we strike up a conversation.  A wide ranging conversation.  I remember reading an article by writer, Lionel Tiger, in which he described a portrait sitting he had with photographer, Irving Penn.  He said that once the "giant wall" of lights was set and illuminated all the people in Penn's studio left the shooting studio and the rest of the sitting was done in strict privacy.  He and Penn talked about novels, writing, art, world history and so much more.  The sitting lasted a long time and, only after a sort of sleepiness overcame Lionel, and he had exhausted all of his usual social defenses and started becoming quiet he finally dropped his defenses and stopped self-consciously posing.  That was when Penn started shooting and quietly suggesting small movements and little modifications.  Tiger said that when he asked Penn his secret for shooting great portraits the reply was that Penn "waited until a kind of drowsiness arrived."  Then he knew he'd be photographing a more sincere portrait of the real person.

I'm not Irving Penn but I've come to know that spending less time with a subject sure doesn't help the photos.  All people come in smiling.  I don't really want a smile.  Unless it's from the subject's eyes.

What I really want is a curious or self assured presentation.  And by "curious" I mean the subject seems interested and that look is reflected by the camera.  Slowing down and working at a relaxed pace makes the process a lot more fun.  I've watched to many shoots that have the affect of cooking over easy eggs.  The photographer is frantically demanding a lens from an assistant with an air of panic in the voice as though one misstep will lead to disaster.  Hardly the way to get the looks you need or want.....

My biggest issue is that the fiction of TV fiction fashion sessions where a "photographer" works with a "model" always shows the set in a constant state of movement and kinetic chaos.  The TV models move from pose to pose to pose every time the flash goes off (probably another good reason to use constant lights).  But that's antithetical to what I want as a portrait photographer.  I want to work up to the right look, hold on to it for a while.  Perfect it and capture small nuances before going off in another direction. I may be looking for just the slightest tilt of a person's head.  The barest parting of lips.  The kindest look in the eyes.  And so my biggest job is to slow people down.  To change their expectations about the process.

Feedback is also critical.  If I see something like the beautiful expression and gorgeous eyes in the photo above I make sure to feedback what I'm seeing to the subject.  But I don't do it in a general way by yelling,  "Beautiful baby! Now....pout for me and I'll make you a star!"  Instead it's more like,  "That look is great.  Can you hold that and just tilt your head a tiny, tiny bit?  Like this."  And then I show them what I want.

I never assume the role of the "all knowing expert".  All good portraiture is a warm and connected collaboration. Mutual respect and mutual trust are the real "secret weapons" of all the portrait photographers I have known or read about.  Understanding just how exposed and self conscious even the most beautiful person is in front of the camera goes a long way toward figuring out how to find a happy bridge between the experience of the photographer and his subject. The real measure of how well you did is not whether or not you win awards or get tons of comments from other photographers.  It's when you model or portrait subject says, "That was such a fun afternoon. Call me anytime you want to do photos!"

We ended up shooting for about three hours.  We mostly used three big LED panels thru a big (74 by 74 inch) diffusion panel over to one side.  We also went downtown to shoot with some smaller panels in the streets and we wound up at the local Starbucks.  But even when we stop for coffee or snacks the camera comes along for the ride and we keep playing.  Truth is a portrait session, done well, is a wonderful experience for everyone's ego.  I make the model look as good I can.  She does the same in return.

Tech notes.  The black and white images were done with the new Olympus EPL2 camera and the 40-150mm lens.  The camera was shot Jpeg/monochrome.  The color images were done with the Canon.

The portait just above was done with a new light modifier I bought from Fotodiox  (Thanks, Mary and Steve!!!).  It's their version of the Elinchrom Octabank.  The Fotodiox version is a pain to set up but the light is really nice and the price (under $100) is just what the chief accountant likes.  The octagonal shaped softbox is 70 inches in diameter and has two diffusion baffles.  I love it.  I'm leaving it set up in the studio.....it's too big a hassle to tear it down and take it on location.  Unless I have assistants in tow. Maybe.

Here's one last image from Fadya's shoot (below) we did it when we stopped for coffee at the end of the shoot.  It's done handheld and lit by one little battery driven LED panel just wedged onto one of the shelves next to the table at Starbucks.......simple as can be...

Warning:  I've been told that you can only get an out of focus background and a sharp foreground like this with the Canon 85mm 1.2 lens.  I cheated and use the 1.8 version.  

FRANTIC FRIDAYS!!!!!

In the quiet days of 2009 and 2010 I'd forgotten what it was like to be busy all the time.  Now assignments are rushing back as though a dam broke somewhere upstream.  Too many executives decided they couldn't put off being successful anymore.  More people decided to defend their marketing turf.  Maybe they just got tired of looking at the same old stock photographs they got for a song.  Maybe they really needed to differentiate the service they sell from every other competitor in their industry.

Whatever the reason it seems like were back to those busy Fridays where the kid needs delivered to some event, the clients would like to see everything we shot.  Now.  And the book is just tantalizingly out of finishing range for the moment.  And of course, masochist that I am,  I promise camera reviews on Monday.

So why am I posting yet another installment of the blog?  Because, in the interlude between making client web galleries and uploading I stopped and lingered on a shoot I did for fun.  I liked this portrait so I messed with it for a minute or two.  And I came to the conclusion I've come to so often before:  The magic that happens in photographs isn't about some soulful camera or magic lens.  It comes in spite of our tools.  Our tools interject.  It's as though they are part of the Heisenberg Theory.  They become intertwined in the process of seeing and subtly change nuances of intimacy and revelation.  Some more, some less.  Our goal should be to nullify their impact on our vision.  Because that's when we step over into art.  And I damn sure don't want the breeze from a shutter actuation in Belgium to create stylistic hurricanes here in Austin if I can prevent it.

Cameras blow in the breeze.  Tethered by your own sense of style.

Bikers meet Olympus EPL2

    Barbara and friends down at Buffalo Bills in a promo shot for an upcoming production at Zach.


Leaving behind the "red dot" imbroglio for a now,  I took the EPL2 (with the EP2 as a back up) when I went to shoot some production shots for an upcoming play about Molly Ivins, today.  We took a series of shot in front of a red curtain with a large LED fixture as our main light and then we headed down the street to a bar called Buffalo Bills where we met our group of volunteers.  They all brought their own Harleys but the director, David, though this one would be the signature bike.  I was going to light the scene but it was a beautiful day, we were in open shade and the open shade setting on the new camera seemed just right.

I was happy to be able to shoot black leather jackets so I could see what the noise looked like in a every day kind of shot.  This was shot at ISO 200 which, like the EPL1, is the Olympus "recommended" ISO to shoot with.  It's supposed to be the best combination of dynamic range and low noise.

The camera, with the VF2 is actually a very capable production camera.  Set on continuous it bangs out frames quickly and it takes a while for the buffer saturation to slow down your shooting speed.  I tend to shoot in burst of three and four frames so with my method I rarely ever have to wait for the camera.  It's usually waiting for me.  It probably wouldn't be a good sports camera because the view finder tends to black out for too long after each shot in single frame and the buffer does fill up quickly in raw.

We went back over to the theater and shot some other production shots against a white background.  I used the larger LED (two for the background and one for the main light) lights and the camera, on auto white balance, nailed a perfect white in the background and great skin tones.  And I needed that.  Since there's no RAW conversion for this new camera in Lightroom I was shooting jpeg and depending on proper technique to ensure good results.  No "save it in raw" here.

When I looked at the files I was happy.  I'd probably stick to 800 and under for print production photography but then, as a measuring method, understand that I try to keep my Canon 5Dmk2 at 1600 ISO or lower for the same kind of work.  The bigger, sharper screen was a big help when it came to sharing previews with the production team.

There were no red dots but there were red boots.  I swear they were that way in real life.  I didn't change a thing.  This file is straight OOC.  I should mention that I used the two kit lenses for everything.  The bike shots were done with the 14-42.

Fun shoot.  Should be an even funner play.  EPL2 does it's first, full, solo, real life job.

For the nosy foodies,  I went to Artz Rib House with my friend, Mike, today.  We both had the regular order of baby back ribs, double beans, no potato salad, yes cole slaw.  For my money, the best BBQ ribs in the city limits.  Nice.

Walking around, looking for trouble.

These are all handheld images taken this afternoon (after a long day of commercial shooting) with the Olympus EPL2 and the kit lens or the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens.  This is what I do to relax after a day at work.....

I knew I would get in trouble when I posted this afternoon's blog.  Apparently, I just didn't understand that, while the red dot might not affect me personally, it would render the EPL2 ineffective for skyline shots at night.  This is the Frost Bank Tower.  At twilight.

And this is the Frost Bank Tower about 35 minutes after sunset.  Wicked flare from the street light....

Funny what you'll find in a typical parking lot in Austin, Texas.  Kit lens.

I love the clouds in the winter and I love the view from the pedestrian bridge.  You could tell we had a nice 60+ degree day in Austin because the downtown hike and bike trail was packed with runners, walkers and bikers.  Sorry, no HDR....  Just good timing.

We Austinites are fascinated with high rise buildings.  Especially condo and apartment towers.  I guess it's because we had so few in the city until recently.

 I tried some more dot photos.  I didn't get the red dots but I froze the pigeon near the center in the bottom third of the frame.  That's gotta count for something.

Someone questioned my last test with the sun over to the side.  "What would happen if the sun was in the center of the frame?"  they asked.  This is what it looks like with the sun in the center of the frame.

Pretty Sky.  Softlight.  Fresh Cookies. Sumatran Coffee.

 Gosh.  I couldn't even get the street light to misbehave.

I've lost my chance to show the red dot at sunset for today.  But I was already out walking and the camera felt so good around my neck I just kept going.

 There's so much energy in downtown Austin these days.  The W Hotel just opened and everyone is hanging out at the bars.  I dropped by to get a Bloody Mary but it was too bloody crowded so I decided not to stay.

 The IS has its mojo working.

 If you want skies to do this neat color thing then chuck the AWB and keep your camera on "daylight" as the sun sets in the west.  It's really cool and warm at the same time.

I thought I got it.  I thought the dot showed up.  See the street light on the left?  Look about one third down from the top and the same amount to the left and there's a soft, white dot.  On further inspection it's really the light on top of the moon tower in Clarksville.  Foiled again. But nice OOC black and white...

I walked from 5 to 7:30pm and then it was time to go home.  Dinner.  An interesting one.  Lentils and rice with a yogurt sauce and grilled onions.  A salad of fresh avocado and grapefruit slices with a drizzle of oil and vinegar dressing and fresh shallots.  

Can we talk very frankly? About the serious, red dot issue????

I walked in the door a few minutes ago and set down my stuff.  I've been shooting photographs for an oral surgery practice again today.  Yes,  I shot a model released patient having a procedure done.  Yes, there was a little blood.  Yes, I'm squeamish about blood.  Yes, we took lots of frames to get the angles and relationships between the surgical team just right.  I shot most of it with can big, heavy Canon camera but I shot some of it with the little Pen EPL2 because I'm trying to keep it in my hands all week.  It's the only way I can write a review about it.  Anyway, the first thing I find when I hit my mail box (sorry, I'm not the kind of pro that can keep his head in the game and still instantly respond to e-mails and texts.....) is a growing hysteria about the alleged Olympus EPL2 RED SPOTS CATASTROPHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Otherwise sane readers are on the edges of their seats, eager and anxious to know more about the red dots/spots dilemma.  Well.  That stopped me cold.  I've looked at the red dots on some sample photos from the middle of China and I've tried shooting the camera with the sun in the center third of the frame and I'm not able to replicate the problem.  At least that's the answer I posted a couple of days ago.

But that wasn't good enough.  People implored me to shoot:  "With the sun peeking around a building." "Directly in the middle of the frame."  "At 4 pm."  "At noon."  "With all the Pen lenses."  "Wide Open."
"Stopped down to f16."  "Surrounded by naked women."  "In a Klingon Null Force Field Containment System."  "While riding in a black helicopter."  And much, much more.

I have no doubt that you can make the Pen cameras create red dots.  Really.  Not disbelieving the possibility.  But chances are I have a Pen EPL2 in my hands and you don't.  I've pointed it at the sun, and a house lamp and an LED lamp and you haven't.  So,  to increase your anxiety or put your mind at ease (depending on which side of the fence you are on.....) I want to give you the straight scoop.

Now, before I do I need to let you know that ALL the camera and lens manufacturers are trying desperately to keep you in the dark about this.  I'm breaking all sorts of NDA's to tell you this.  But I think you have a basic, All American, All trans European, All Asian (etc.) right to know this......

Here it is:

SINCE THE DAWN OF COLOR PHOTOGRAPHY YOU'VE HAD THE POWER TO MAKE RED DOTS WITH ANY CAMERA!!!!!!!  It's nothing more than abusing an optical system.  It's like oscillating your Siemens centrifuges back and forth over their red line.  It's like driving your car at red line for hours and hours and waiting for the engine to smoke.  The red dots are no doubt coming from lens flare.  Here's the scenario:  Take a small sensor camera with a reflective sensor surface and shoot it at f16 (the system is already diffraction limited at about f5.6, at most, f8).  Point it directly at a point light source many times brighter than the surrounding area.  Watch the lens flare.  Watch the collimated light hit the sensor and bounce back against the rear lens element.  Watch it ricochet off the lens element and restrike the sensor. Repeat ad nauseum.

But here's the special, secret part:  You've been able to do this with any camera you can think of.  And pretty reliably too.  Just shoot stupid.  Of course the manufacturer warns you not to point the camera directly at the sun.  Of course every lens manufacturer warns you not to include a bright light source in the frame for fear of flare.  Guess what?  If you go it your own way, all independent and self-reliant and what not......you'll likely get some sort of flare.  Could be repeating patterns of the lens diaphragm.  Could be general light source smear, could be red dots.  But if you use any tool outside its proscribed parameters you get to deal with the......artifacts.  Or the blown engines.  Or the flare.

But......I would not give up on my personal search for the EPL2 red dots because I know how important it is to everyone out there considering a full featured, interchangeable lens, 12 megapixel, still / HD movie camera with included optical zoom to have a camera and lens that is more flawless than camera systems costing 100x more.

Well.  In my testing I could make a Leica M9 flare like fireworks with a $5000 lens on the front and I wanted to get the same performance from my $100 lens and, frankly,  I started to despair.  Perhaps my technique wasn't all I thought it was.  Did I have a defective system?  And I remember being able to ably elicit flare and red dots from the Phase One camera I tested a few years ago.

Then, my dog reminded me of a new and better way to get the red dots.  Photoshop's filters menu.  Apparently many of you think of Photoshop as only a tool to get those wonderful and sought after HDR files.   But, it's also a great tool for red dots and all kinds of flare effects.  Just go to Filters.  Then to Render.  Then to..............lens flare.  The possibilities are endless.  And they represent what photographers have seen from real world camera and lens systems for decades!!!!

Cameras and lenses are not yet computers.  They are tools.  They have limits.  No one camera system has a lock on flare.  Get over it.  I'd worry more about this:  I measured the self timer performance of the camera, with a fresh battery and at room temperature.........the ten second increment on my unit is fast.  It goes off in just 9.85 seconds.  Wait till they hear about that over on the forums.  Olympus will never be able to sell another camera.......... (for the achingly literal:  The last sentence is not true.  I have no way and no intention to test the self timer on any camera....).

Common Sense and Buying Compact Cameras.

Olympus ultra compact interchangeable lens EPL1 with zoom 

This camera will not fit in the pockets of my tight Italian jeans.  And it might not fit in yours either.  But it's not much larger than the Canon G12 or any number of extended range point and shoot cameras on the market.  And it will fit in a the pocket of my favorite LA Axis sport coat.  Last week I was looking around Amazon with the vague idea of seeing what compact camera I might like to sport about.  Something to take to the opera or out clubbing or whatever it is that all of you profess to do with your "pocket" cameras.  And I came to the conclusion that you either buy a pocket camera or you don't.  And when I think pocket camera I'm thinking (and I think most rational people are thinking....) something like the Canon S95.  Something you really can cram into a pocket and forget about for a while.  I'm not a pocket camera guy.  And I would ask the majority of you.......Isn't that why you have a camera on your iPhone?  My current phone is a Nokia that I got from Cingular (remember them?)  It doesn't do camera.  It barely does phone.....

But if you want something a little stouter, something with a bigger sensor, something with more tools (like a hot shoe) the days of the premier point and shoots, like the G10's and G11's I carried around in years past,  seem temporarily gone.  The LX-5 and the G12 are just the same as the cameras that came before them.  And in the case of the Canon line the S95 uses the same chip and processor as the bigger brother camera so what's really the point?

During my search and coinciding with my sudden interest in the EPL2 I stumbled across the product page for the EPL1 with lens and I was stunned by the price.  You can pick up a camera and zoom lens for around $400.  Less than the companies own recently announced, fixed lens "super" camera and less than the Canon G12 or the Panasonic.  And what do you get when you "settle" for a slightly bigger camera?  Interchangeable lens capability.  A much bigger sensor.  Really nice Jpegs.  The ability to add the best eye level electronic viewfinder on the market and entry into a world of legacy lenses and inexpensive adapters.  For the same price or less.

I can guarantee you'll have better low light performance.  And if you throw my current favorite lens (the Olympus 40mm 1.4 for the original Pen half frame film cameras) or the Panasonic 20m 1.7 on the front of this camera you'll be able to exercise much, much control over depth of field and maybe even that mysterious function called bokeh.

You know why the price has dropped.  Olympus is about to throw the new upgrade on the market.  But the upgrade is little more than the addition of a dial on the back and a few less buttons.  Nearly everything I like in the EPL2 is already on the one.  The sensor is purported to be the same (and the nearly the same as that used on the new e5).  You can use the same VF-2 eye level viewfinder.  It already has the incredible jpegs and the unbeatable blue sky mojo.  So, what does the new camera buy you?  A nicer body design.  A slightly faster interface.  The ability to use the groovy new PenPal.  And......did I mention the nicer body design?

If you were about to pull the trigger on a super compact I'd like to make the point that this represents a great gob of what we've been professing to love about smaller cameras along with features we asked for for nearly ten years and at a selling price that matches some slightly smaller, much slower, much less adaptable, and less handholdable cameras for the exact same price, or less.

If I did not already own one..........

I have three little Pens in my bag right now.  The EP2 (the prettiest and slowest), the EPL1 (the cheapest body with the biggest interfacial learning curve) and the EPL2 which is as fast and sharp as the EPL1 but better looking and slightly faster to use.  I'll probably buy the EPL2 because it's a good camera.  I haven't decided yet, though, because when I look at my files I'm not seeing that much on sensor improvement over the EPL1.  I haven't done my high ISO tests yet so some stuff remains to be seen.  But you'll be the second to know.

But I'll tell you this, with cameras this good at this price, I'm not giving much love to the super compact category of fixed zoom lens cameras.  And I'm pretty sure that's a good thing.

Finally,  I shot the EPL2 alongside the Canon 5Dmk2 today.  If you were banking on getting close on high ISO performance you'll need to stop smoking whatever you've been lighting up.  The Canon is still the undisputed champ of low light in my camera bag.  But everyone in the medical practice thought the Olympus was cuter.  I don't have a metric for that.

I love this review of my blog by quotidian photography.....

The Visual Science Lab I didn't really understand this blog when I started reading it. It's a bit all over the place. When I started reading the author, photographer Kirk Tuck, was obsessed with Olympus cameras and I really couldn't relate, not owning nor even wanting particularly to own an Olympus. But what gear he's shooting with is really beside the point. He is an incredibly prolific writer, spinning out endless essays about the worth of various parts of the photography business and process as a whole. What I love about him most is that he changes his mind almost every week. Yet I wouldn't characterize him as wishy-washy or indecisive. He's just a bit quicksilver, unpredictable. Always a good read. Even when you don't particularly care to purchase or even try the equipment he's talking about.


From Quotidian Photography (blog)

Early Adapters and what that entails.

Can you tell what camera I used for these shots without looking at the EXIF data?  Can you tell when they were shot?  Many people think of themselves as early adopters of digital technology because they started shooting with a Nikon D1x or a Canon 30D.  Others consider themselves to be early adopters because they were using a film scanner to bring images into the fold.  I recently looked thru a folder that contained images from my third generation of digital cameras and it actually holds up very well.

Starting back in 1996 we used a FujiFilm DS300 camera for some of our event work.  It was only 1.3 megapixels but I remember pressing it into service on a Motorola shoot.  We were doing all the documentation with 35mm film but we needed to print and deliver 100 11x14 inch prints over night.  They were going to put the prints on a kinetic display that attendees would walk thru on their way to the first meeting, the next day.

My assistant and I did 100 portraits and we tried to limit our shooting to five shots per person because editing was slow going back then.  Few real image management programs were available then and the ones that existed were glacial and prone to crashing.  We had two of the Epson wide carriage printers.  I can't remember the model number but it might have been the 1200.  The old camera and printers did the job.  There was no preview LCD screen on the back of the DS300.  You shot it on faith.  And you definitely used your flash meter.  Just to repeat:  There was no preview screen on the back.  I love the PCMCIA memory cards we used.  And at $600 for 64 megabytes we were careful not to lose them.

The job above was done for Tivoli Systems back in 1998 or 1999, in Madrid.  We were using film cameras for most of the work but the webmasters insisted that we try to capture and send a generous handful of images everyday for a web display.  We also used digital for quick press release images.  Since digital was an afterthought and I would be carrying a bunch of film gear, and film,  I decided to take the brand new Nikon Coolpix 950 along.  I cobbled together a corded hot shoe for flash and I bought both the wide angle and the telephoto attachable accessory lenses for extra width and extra reach.

Did the wide angle distort?  Just look at the stage shot.  But the telephoto adapter was good.  Just look at the CEO on stage just above.

I shot 800 images with the digital camera over the course of the week and spent my evenings downloading to the brand new Apple Blueberry laptop and burning CD's with a 4x CD burner.  The joy of it all.  At least that camera had an LCD on the back.  And from what I remember it was pretty good, but pretty small.  Amazingly we did a ton of work with that little camera.

But being a very early adopter (Fuji DS300) means finding your own work arounds for everything that pops up.  From computer incompatibilites to card corruptions.  There was very little trouble shooting software for memory cards back then, much less recovery software.  And since about 400 people in the U.S. owned the camera (maybe fewer) there wasn't a big network on the web to consult.  But good technique counted double back then.

A few years later I shot my first website project with a Canon G2 and the food images from that are still great at websize today.

I bring all of this up because I've lived on such a roller coaster over the last year.  I got the Canon 5D2 for its high resolution but most of the images end up on the web or in show productions where 1080i standard is par for the course.  I've recently started working with the Olympus EPL2 which is a consumer camera, one step up from a point and shoot.  People loved the two images I posted from it yesterday.  That camera is cheaper than all of the cameras I mentioned above by a factor of 2 to 5X and yet the images are striking.

Do we buy the new cameras to assure ourselves or because we really need them for work?  I guess we do both.  But if I didn't do this for a living I sure would have thought long and hard about giving up some of the early cameras to upgrade.  The Nikon D200 wasn't much of an actual upgrade over the D100.  The Fuji S5 didn't blow the S2 away and the Olympus e3 sure didn't wallop the e1.  In some regards the user is still more important than the camera.  But so much depends on the intended target for the images.  A Nikon Coolpix 950 against a Nikon D3x for a 20 by 30 inch enlargement is the obvious comparison but below 8x10 inches things look like more and more shades of gray.

Review Notes: I'm working on my EPL2 review but I want to manage your expectations.  If flare rears it's ugly head, I'll talk about it, but I won't go out shooting into the blazing sun looking for it.  Ditto red spots.  I'll slap on a 40mm 1.4 and shoot some high ISO stuff but I won't be doing the DPR thang where I shoot a boring still life set up at every single setting.

I'm shooting the camera and the two lenses they sent along just the way I'd normally shoot a camera and that's what I'm going to talk about.  So far it seems promising.  Takes a day or two to get in the groove.