Sitting in a La Quinta Hotel in San Antonio thinking about life and cameras.

Leica R series (film) with 180 Elmar f4

I'm 77 miles from home and light years away from when I started in photography. I came down to San Antonio from Austin today to visit my father. He's not doing well and I'm thinking I'll be sticking close to home and close to my phone for the next few weeks. We had a good visit - between naps and him picking at lunch. 

But I'm booked in at a local hotel because I have a full day of scouting to do with an ad agency here tomorrow and it just didn't make sense to drive back and forth between Austin and San Antonio on two consecutive days. Last year I would have stayed in my parent's empty house but I sold it last Summer for my father. It feels strange to be back in the city I lived in during high school, and in which my parents lived for nearly 48 years, and to be in a hotel. I could stay with my brother or my in-laws but it's just easier to be an anonymous traveler sometimes....

Tomorrow we have a scouting adventure that should take a good part of the day. It's for an eight to ten day shooting project on which I'll be photographing while my friend, James, shoots video for b-roll.  Most of the locations are interior workplaces but there's also data centers and even a bit of retail involved. I think scouting is good; we get to identify problems before they become...problems. Is there a quiet place to shoot interviews? Is the interior lighting so wretched that we'll need to bring lots of our own? Do the locations need to be "improved"? Should the ad agency think about additional propping? Do we have enough time scheduled between locations to actually get from point "A" to point "B" in time to set up and do the work?

Sometimes the scouting provides clear insight into how the actual job will proceed. If everyone on every location we scout seem surprised and annoyed to see us that's probably not going to change profoundly on the actual shoot days. If the agency and client are happy and organized then I'll go home and pour a glass of post-scouting Champagne because it presages a smooth assignment in the near future. 

It's late afternoon here and like most Texans I've turned off the heater in my hotel room and set the air conditioner to 68 degrees. Why own a sweatshirt if it's never cold enough to wear one...?

While sitting here  chilling out and preparing for a long day of smiling and nodding tomorrow I've been looking around the web to gauge the response of forum-tographers to the Olympus product launch for the OMD-EM-1X. The mantra among everyone for whom the camera was never intended is pretty much uniformly contained in two questions: One goes like this: This camera doesn't make any sense at all because small sensor cameras only exist to be tiny and pixy-like. Why is it so big? And the other often asked question is: "Who the heck would ever buy this camera? Aren't all good photographers required to shoot with full frame cameras?"

The response is par for the course. Everyone seems to think in terms of absolutes. Either/or. 

At some point I started imagining the maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe we should all agree to do everything in unison. Make everything uniform. Make everything match the mean. Hew to the median. We could agree on one car and we could all buy it. We could all wear the same tacky Adidas warm-up pants with the twin, glow in the dark stripes down the side. We could all wear disgusting athletic jerseys instead of real shirts. And we could all shoot with a Canon 5D. We'd all own three lenses. They'd all be a wide zoom, the 24-105L and the 70-200mm f2.8 L. And we'd all be required to shoot in raw format. Our portfolios would be filled with cute cats and chubby girlfriends/boyfriends.

As if our goal as photographers is total homogeneous assimilation. Right?

This led me, before I left Austin, to the gear box in the studio where I selected the camera most counter to mainstream choice: the Panasonic GH5S. A camera rejected by most for several reasons: "The sensor is too small!" "The megapixel count (10 megapixels) is too low." And, "The camera doesn't have image stabilization." I pulled three lenses out of a different drawer and two of them are also not image stabilized. The trio consists of the 15mm, the 25mm f1.7, and the 42.5mm f1.7. The GH5S and this group of lenses are my choice for this evening's photo walk through downtown and also for my scouting adventure tomorrow. 

So, what is it about the GH5S (not the "stock" GH5) that motivates me to use it so frequently? It's pretty easy to explain. First of all the camera is the perfect size for my hands. It just fits so nicely that I never have to think twice about how to handle it. Then there's the fact that this camera is (as far as I know) the only micro four thirds camera that outputs (not just shoots but also outputs) a 14 bit raw file which makes color grading and photo processing more rewarding. It's also the m4:3 camera of all the two families of m4:3 cameras I've played with that has the best looking color and tonality. The physical control interfaces are really perfect (especially so when it comes to the top right three buttons for ISO, WB and exposure compensation). The only knock against the GH5S I can agree with is that some people might want, or even need, more resolution for certain kinds of work.

The finder is superb, the response of the system is lightning fast and the battery life is DSLR-like.

And all of this is before one even actuates the 4K video and gets to work in motion. 

I'm heading out the door to do some walking in San Antonio. I'm going with the GH5S and the 15mm to start. I'll keep the other two lenses in a small jacket pocket. The whole package is able and unobtrusive. 

I get that people love image stabilization. If I need it I select lenses like the Olympus 12-100mm or the Leica/Panasonic 12-60mm. But really, if you watch your exposure and practice your camera hold image stabilization becomes more of a luxury than a necessity. And I'll go so far as to say that image stabilization may harm some images. I know for sure it has a tendency to make some photographers lazy enough to scrimp on practicing good techniques....and bad habits tend to multiply. 

I'm not saying that everyone needs to rush out and buy a non-stabilized, 10 megapixel, small sensor camera but if you think it's the camera holding you back from achieving your true stature and prominence as a photographer you may want to reconsider. Some of my best work has come from the oddest and least capable cameras. Maybe the cameras' perceived weaknesses were a foil that forced me to pay more attention and to up my game. The real game: imagining images and capturing them.

The images below are from a wide range of cameras; from full frame to one inch sensor cams. I like the all. Cameras need to fit in your hands and follow your (sentient) commands. That's all. 

One Inch.

6cm by 6cm film.

Canon 5D.

Panasonic GH5S

Sony something.

Samsung APS-C

G9.

4K video still from GH5S.

Minox 35mm.

Leica M4, 50mm Summicron

Fuji something.

Sony 1 inch.

G9

GH5S

Fuji XE3

Sony 1 inch.

Fuji XE2

Pentax 645. Film

6cm X 6cm Film.

My thoughts on the Olympus camera announcement...

I may no longer be a good, mainstream reviewer for people who have stereotypical ideas about cameras. You know, the idea that a camera must be full frame to be a professional imaging tool. Or, that all mirrorless cameras should be tinier than a year end bonus for convenience store workers...

I also feel pretty strongly that one CAN use a micro four thirds camera system for professional work.

So, I guess it was yesterday when all the announcements happened over at Olympus. They released/announced/debuted/showed off the new Olympus OMD EM-1X camera. Given that every reviewer gushed over the provided lens (the Olympus Pro 12-100mm f4.0) I feel a bit vindicated for my lens preferences... But here's the basic camera story:

The camera has the same imaging hardware (sensor) as the previous (and continuing) model but has been upgraded with a permanently attached battery grip to shut up all the people who resist carrying extra batteries. It also has two high speed processors instead of one which means the camera can process images faster and with more image file structural nuance. But the rest of the story revolves around features that will mostly appeal to photo industry outliers, wrapped around one feature that might ensure healthy sales: world class, leading edge image stabilization in stills AND video.

With the aforementioned 12/100mm lens the folks at Olympus are suggesting/stating that you'll be able to get up to 7.5 stops of image stabilization when using the new camera in conjunction with the 12-100mm lens. That equals the ability to handhold a five minute exposure with the expectation of perfect sharpness (hyperbole alert...).

Most people are focused on the size of the camera body. "Oh god!!!! It's way too big for mirrorless!!!!" But I think those folks are ill informed folks who don't get that Olympus was trying to design and produce a "no holds barred" professional camera that could compete with everything at the top tier of the market. If they want a small camera Olympus makes a large selection of them.  I personally think cameras shrunk too much and this is the swing back of the pendulum to a point in time where ergonomics were taken seriously and cameras were made to feel comfortable and secure in the user's hands. The bigger body, and the relocation of most of the battery power to the grip, will also help with thermal distribution and heat sinking which should mean that the camera never overheats; even when pumping out lots and lots of 4K video.

The increased surface areas of the new body also means better placement and access to physical buttons and dials.

The camera is big and bulky but not unmanageable, and certainly nowhere as big as the top pro models from Canon and Nikon. Really, if you have trouble carrying this new Olympus around you need to get to the gym more; or buy a set of weights for your studio.

The camera's secret features (at least to the size and weight reviewers) revolve around its computational capabilities such as the multi-shot, hi-res imaging. Now you can use a camera in a handheld capacity and get 50 megapixel files from a blending of eight exposures (moving the sensor between each exposure). You also get still photography features like in-built, computational, neutral density filtering. The video specs are as good as the previous flagship but no better....

The guys (Chris and Jordan) from DPReview did a video about the new camera and at the end Chris asked, "Who is this camera for?"

I'm here to tell them that it's not for the orthodontist who is hell bent on getting a full frame D850 from Nikon. It's not here for the portrait studio owner. It's not the right tool for most street photographers. It's not even really here for wedding photographers. At $3,000 (body only) it's not a general audience camera either. So, who do I think it's for?

This is a camera for the serious filmmaker who dislikes the learning curve (and the weird postures required) for using handheld gimbals but who needs a very, very stable frame in 4K video which can be inserted into projects. People in this field (video and film making) should flock to this camera in order to save money on full fledged SteadiCam effects. It's the magic sauce --- a handhold able, small and light Steadi-Cam rival for $3,000. What does a full on Stead-Cam rig go for? Think $5,000 and up with no camera and the need for additional accessories. Film makers should flock to this rig for special effects, walking and tracking shots and much more. It will replace sliders, gimbals and SteadiCam rigs. And it will do so at a much lower price, lower profile and much less mass. All of which means it will be easier to learn and to work with in the field.

While it may seem counterintuitive I would also say that this camera and lens system represents an alternative to traditional camera systems for sports work. The high frame rate and fast auto focus should make for a formidable challenger to much bigger and heavier full frame sports cameras and shift the balance by making it easier to get through the day, stay steady and make sure you've nailed everything ---- courtesy the EVF for concurrent review and feedback as shooters work.

The basic imaging specs aren't "state of the art" but they don't need to be. Not every camera can be the absolute best image producer in every field. If I were in the market I'd choose one with "good" (meaning: client acceptable and photographer happy) imaging characteristics but one with "great" handling and throughput.

I've come to be a big fan of the Panasonic G9 because in many ways it's the predecessor of the new Olympus camera. The G9 is weather sealed, incredibly solid, a great photograph generator and it's fun to shoot. Part of that fun is the availability of fast frame rates coupled with instant feedback.

I know $3,000 sounds excessive for a small sensor camera but keep in mind that the target audience is the working photographer who may use his or her camera every day in all kinds of conditions and with multiple use scenarios. It would also include someone whose assignment sheet might include getting the "money shot" at an event and then, minutes later also doing a video interview with the winner. The sting of the price will be forgotten soon after successful content comes rolling out; consistent and more than adequate.  A good shooter will become profitable with this kind of camera just after the first few assignments...

It may not be the camera for you or me but it is at the perfect camera for someone. And if Olympus had gotten the EVF implemented as well as the ones in the Fuji XT3 and the Panasonic GH5S it may have appealed to even more of us.

Disclosure: I have not handled or shot the new Olympus but I've read the specs, watched trusted reviews and disagreed with many. Your mileage will certainly be different. Make sure your mental tires are properly inflated. Proceed with caution.

One of my favorite clients: Esther's Follies. A forty year Austin theater tradition. The best comedy in all of Texas!

The current cast of Esther's Follies. 

Humor. Magic. Political Commentary. Beer. Mexican food. Brilliant acting. Austin Weird Fun. 

If you were coming to Austin to try and find some of those old Austin traditions that helped create our city's unofficial motto: Keep Austin Weird I'd make one of your first stops Esther's Follies on East Sixth Street. The building is covered with amazing mural art by Kerry Awn and others. The interior is all old Austin. It's amazing fun. 

I've been photographing for the folks at Esther's for well over a decade and it always seems like we're just getting warmed up. This is from our January 2019 shoot, last week. Three big lights in umbrellas and a fast shutter. All fun all the time. 

At the end of every photo shoot at Esther's Follies they toss everyone together for a cast and crew shot. 

I was curious to see if the Fuji XT3's eye detect AF would work well with the 60mm f2.4 macro lens so while I was on a location assignment I tested it.

So, here's the scenario: you're on location with your motley collection of lights and modifiers, stands and cameras and, after you've roughed in the lights (in this case one electronic flash with a sheet of diffusion on it for the background and one electronic flash with a 48 inch octabank) you want to see if your ratios and exposure are in the ballpark so you'd like to have someone sit in for a few test shots. Then you realize that there's no one around to use as a guinea pig so you decide to make good use of that expensive self-timer built into your camera and use yourself as a stand-in. 

Around the same time it dawned on me that I'd really never taken advantage of the eye detect AF in the Fuji XT3 I was about to use to photograph six different doctors. I didn't want to try it if its performance was spotty. I set the self-timer to ten seconds, walked back to the little portable bench I'd brought along for my subjects, and waited for the shutter to go off and trigger the flash. I'd set the AF for continuous to make sure it would lock onto me once I was seated. 

Wow! It worked. I was happy since the room we were shooting in was lit only by the 150 watt modeling light stuck behind a couple layers of diffusion in the octobank. I tested it five or ten times (and also used these tests to adjust light levels). 

The 60mm f2.4 has had a reputation for being slow to focus but I didn't find that to be so. Could be that the latest firmware update (3.11) improved the performance, and since I am late to the Fuji game I've dodged some earlier performance issues....

As you can see from my self-inflicted (and very dour looking) samples the camera nailed focus on my right eye, which was marginally closer to the camera. The menu allows for left or right eye selection or auto. I chose auto. In a series of tests, and then 260 shots with client subjects, the camera nailed all but a few shots. 

Now the real question: Why did I look so glum in these photos?

At the point in time when I took this photo (all three shots are different crops of the same frame) I'd already been up to Round Rock, Texas at 6 am to make a few executive portraits, we spent the middle of the day doing paperwork and supervising Studio Dog's ever important agenda. I left the studio around 3:30 to drive north on the dreaded Mopac Expressway, arriving at Austin Radiological Associates' business offices around 4:30 pm (Yes, nearly an hour to go about 12 miles on an "expressway.") to unload my gear and be set up and ready to photograph by 5:30. 

I was scheduled too tightly. I needed to have this job finished by 6:45 pm so I could wrap everything up, get all the gear back in the car and be at Zach Theatre (opposite end of town)  by 7:30pm to be ready to shoot their season premiere, from 8 to 10 pm. With a little rain in the forecast, and the tendency of people to arrive a bit late for appointments, I figured I'd have a white knuckle/mario andretti journey back my side of town.

I needn't have worried as everyone came right on time. In fact, my last subject was ten minutes early so my margin of safety grew from "yikes" to "comfort zone." 

I don't normally book multiple shoots that close on the same day but I shot the technical rehearsal of the play a few nights before and felt comfortable that if I didn't get the first 15 or 20 minutes of last night's production we'd still have more than enough good content to cover it. As it played out everything worked. I even had time to grab a bottle of water before the show. 

Yes. I think Fuji's ancient 60mm macro is a fine lens, and sharp.

By the way, the play was good. Well lit. 

That's what I notice most as I'm photographing...

Test your gear before you embarrass yourself.

A brief and happy review of the FujiFilm 55-200mm f3.5 to 4.8 Aspherical. Works well with a long reach for theater photography.

Dress Rehearsal for Hedwig and the Angry Inch at Zach Theatre, Austin, Texas

Fuji 55-200mm at 200mm. Wide open aperture.

As a working, professional photographer I sometimes feel almost duty bound to buy only zoom lenses that have the specification: "f2.8" in their names. There seems to be a pervasive belief in the minds of photographers and lens reviewers that a faster lens is always a better lens. There is an additional corollary to this which is a more expensive lens is always a better lens. I think this is mostly the false construction of a last gasp barrier to entry by people who feel like their chosen careers are in jeopardy of being overrun by the unwashed. I feel duty bound to inform such folks that the barrier-to-entry train left the photo station more than a few years ago....

My experience has been that some slower lenses perform as well or better than their faster and more expensive peers; at least for the things for which I use lenses. A case in point is longer zoom lenses. I've been photographing stage shows for a long time and have used the 70-200mm f2.8 lenses from Nikon, Canon and Sony for some of this work. All of them have been good enough when used wide open and as sharp as you'd want at f4.0 and beyond. Had I imagined I was going to burrow into Fuji's X system as quickly and with as much gusto as I have I probably would have reflexively bought the faster and more expensive 50-140mm f2.8 but, then again, I may have still made the same choice and selected the 55-200mm instead. 

Why? Well, I had the idea that most of Fuji's lenses were pretty good. Better than average; at least. At the price of $699 ( I paid retail at a bricks and mortar camera store in my own city) I figured it was sure to be a cut above the mostly plastic, mostly slower kit lenses (you know, the 18-55 + the 55-200 variety) offered by the big two camera makers. I also trust my local merchant and if the lens wasn't up to my expectations I knew they'd take it back, no questions asked, as long as I hadn't tossed the packing materials for the lens, or filled out any warranty cards. The store is good that way.... But the biggest reason I chose the 55-200 f3.5-4.8 over its faster sibling had to do with the extra reach the slower lens offered. 

But that's where a bit of trepidation seeped in. I kept reading in online reviews that the lens was really good for the most part but scraped its knees a bit at the longest focal lengths. One reviewer estimated that one would need to work with the lens at f8.0 to make it "acceptably" sharp. I cringed when I read that. But then I tested the lens at a couple theater productions and all the angst of the web failed to materialize; failed to match my reality. If you live in the real world you can use this lens wide open through its range of focal lengths and get very good sharpness and contrast. The data is right there in the files if you know how to handle your camera, how to focus accurately and how to hold your camera system still enough to eliminate user-inflicted issues. You can stop reading here; that's the gist of my review. 

But, of course, I have more to say about the lens...

The 55-200mm is a dense lens and is heavier than it looks. It offers image stabilization so it's a good choice for Fuji camera bodies like the XT2 and XT3 which don't have IBIS. The promotional material indicates that you'll get about 4 stops of stabilization when using the lens only but about 3.5 stops of stabilization when used on an XH1 body. The camera menus allow one to select whether the image stabilization is on all the time (continuous) or just works when you click the shutter. I tend to work with it in the "just when you click" mode for normal and shorter lenses but always use the continuous setting with longer lenses because I believe the additional stabilization helps the camera to focus quicker/more accurately. That may or may not be true but the stabilized viewfinder certainly helps me do a better job composing...

The lens has a 62mm filter diameter and a huge, long lens hood. I won't complain about that because I value what lens hoods do; kill flare, increase overall contrast and help increase image saturation. 

Do you walk around with your lens hood reversed on your telephoto zoom lens and even actually shoot that way? You are under-informed and need to correct that bad habit. Use a lens hood for every shot. You'll like your images better. Also, you won't look like a dork.

I shot about 1200 images with the 55-200mm lens last night at the dress rehearsal of the musical/play: Hedwig and the Angry Inch.  I found that using the smallest focusing square in AF-S mode was the best way to always nail focus in the exact spot I was aiming for. I did shoot the lead walking toward camera and walking across the stage using AF-C, and the entire frame of focusing sensors, and the XH-1 I was using locked on and nailed focus even though half the time I was shooting with fog on the stage, and with lots and lots of backlighting. I don't shoot a lot of sports but imagine that in good light the continuous focus would be even more tenacious. 

With the XT3 and XH1 (with battery grip on the XH1) cameras you can enable a "boost" mode which speeds up focusing, increasing the read speed for the LCD/EVF and, in general, makes those cameras feel more responsive. This increase in performance worked for me; I had very few frames ruined due to focusing issues. For calm, slow photo days I turn off the boost and that makes my batteries last 25% or more longer. 

So, the lens works well and even wide open I can see the texture of the actor's skin and the granularity of his make up, not to mention individual, well defined blonde hairs, with the lens handheld at 1/125th of second, at 200mm, at f4.8, shooting at ISO 1600 and 3200. But, in reality, it's never the lens alone doing all the work, without a good camera all the great optical performance is mostly meaningless. I like the handling of the XH1 bodies a lot. I've yet to see a big difference in image quality between the HX1 and the XT3. It may be there but if a difference exists I suspect that we'll see it mostly at the base ISO. 

A wider view of the stage at Hedwig, taken with a Fuji 18-55mm, also used wide open. 

Another handheld 55-200mm shot, wide open at 200mm. 

You might not see it in a file that's 2048 pixels wide but 

in the original 6000 pixel wide Jpeg image one can see the striations in 

the actor's iris and amazing detail in the eyelashes. 

I wouldn't ask for more from a lens. 

Comments? It's Ray for the win....

Inside joke. No real content here. Sorry. But here's some favorite old photos to while away your time with.....