Labor Day weekend festivities do NOT include a post on Monday. That day is for swimming and running. See you on Tuesday morning, bright and early. There will be a test on camera stuff. Come prepared and bring your own coffee.

 Lara Wright as Akela, leader of the wolf pack.

In the ZachTheatre.org production of JUNGALBOOK.

My big plans for the weekend start in an hour (6pm). I went to Whole Foods grocery store today and got a couple of "bone in" Rib Eye steaks to offset the pervasive vegan influences wending their way through the web like an opportunistic virus. I'm pulling out the big, cast iron pan to cook them with. I fire it up pretty hot and sear the seasoned steaks for about 90 seconds per side and then slide the pan into a pre-heated, 425 degree oven. The cooking time for a moderately thick cut, assuming medium rare, is about 12-18 minutes. It's not exact so you have to perfect your technique of poking the steak with your finger to see how much "give" or "spring" it offers. The springier the steak the more "well done" it is. But friends don't let friends or family eat well done steaks. Especially not organic, grass fed, free range beef. YMMV but I won't be cooking your steak well done no matter how plaintively you ask...

I'm also making a roasted, multi-color, fingerling potato side dish that's simple and fun. The only ingredients beyond the potatoes are olive oil and sea salt. Yes, I'm also making a salad and will be making my own balsamic vinaigrette dressing. 

I'm taking my turn to cook dinner tonight because I see it as an enticement to get Ben over to the house for a visit. And studio dog really likes a nicely done ribeye. It's her favorite cut. 

I only hope I raised the boy well enough so that he'll bring a decent bottle of red wine to share. If not, we still have lots of the Stag's Leap Merlot left....

Please, don't worry about my diet. I'll choke down a handful of Lipitor pills before bedtime to offset the big dose of saturated fat. I'm sure everything will work out just fine.... After all, what could go wrong?

I was talking to a swimmer friend yesterday, we were discussing the very, very spartan diet plan one of our famous swimmers has written extensively about. It requires that adherents reject anything with meat, fat, including nuts, oils, and, well, anything else fun. Recent, large scale studies show that adherents to the plan "might" live about 90 days longer than the general public. If they don't die from gustatory boredom beforehand. At any rate, my non-compliant friend mentioned that he thought any diet that had to be forced on humans and animals, in general, was highly suspect. He tossed out this: If you threw a big, fresh head of broccoli into your backyard one evening you would be able to go out and retrieve it the next morning and find that it would be no worse for wear; untouched by the woodland animals. Not even surveyed by ants. He also say that you may notice that no one has to fence kale plants off from the multitudinous deer here in central Texas as they won't touch the stuff unless it's the last green plant in the ecosystem and they have no other choice. 

But hey, toss a burger onto the back lawn and the possums and raccoon will square off over it....unless the hawks get it first. But they all better use dispatch because the ants are surely heading that way in force. 

Before you go into full attack mode,  please be aware that I'm mostly just kidding around and offering a different opinion from another more popular photo blogger turned health food maven. Belinda and I eat meat very infrequently and are prone to eat kale more often than I would really like. I'm actually researching single origin kale in order to start a whole line of kale-based coffees, which I think will take the world by storm. (again, kidding).

On the other hand I guess I should stick to the two things I know anything about: photography and swimming. I guess I'll leave the diet debates to the cardiologists and the nice folks at Archer Daniels Midland...

I met a tiger on stage yesterday. Thank goodness she wasn't hunting photographers at the time.

 Amber Quick as Sherakhan in ZachTheatre.org's JUNGALBOOK

I don't know if it's me or if it's the people picking productions at Zach Theatre (I suspect that I really only like fun, happy uplifting plays and get quickly bored with bitter sweet or message-y dramas) but lately I've really enjoyed watching, photographing and doing video of the kid's plays much more so than the "grown up" fare. The kids are just so darn good at acting and dancing and having fun. And, by extension, infecting their audiences with a sense of joy and good energy. 

That's exactly what I experienced yet again at the dress rehearsal of JUNGALBOOK at Zach yesterday. I went to the early swim workout so I wouldn't have to rush to make it in time for the 11 a.m. start of the dress rehearsal. I was packing three cameras and three lenses and I'd read the script this time, trying to script engineer how the play would unfold in front of me.

The lighting was contrasty and peppered with deep pools of shadow that switched almost at will to spots of bleachy brightness. It kept me guessing and had my fingers glued to the aperture ring so I could constantly make on-the-fly adjustments as actors moved through the space or lights dimmed or brightened. 

My favorite lens and camera combo of the day (the camera won by default since it hosted the favorite lens) was the Fuji X-T3 coupled to the 56mm f1.2 APD lens. I tried to use it mostly at f2.5 but occasionally I weakened and gave into the lure of f4.0 with its promise of safety in the form of more depth of field. 

I kept the shutter speeds up around 1/125th and above to mitigate potential camera shake and, with this camera and lens combo, I was shooting around ISO 640-1250. 

When I got home and looked at the images I was very happy. Happier still that the play was so good and so immersive. Amber Quick is one of a small cast of adults in the play and she matched the kids for sense of humor, energy and sheer acting chops. 

Okay, the kid's play restored my interest, passion and delight in live theater. The adults are now on notice. 

Why would a working photographer want (need?) three identical camera bodies?

Cases and cases and cases of gear. No, it's not mine.

This particular blog post isn't really aimed at all you photographic artisans who are not consigned to making a client other than yourself happy. You can go on shooting with one perfect camera body and one exquisitely well chosen lens and be as happy as a clam. No penalty involved, in fact the "one camera/one lens" mindset is a wonderful way to hone a vision, and set of pre-visualization skills, that most working professionals will envy. So much envy. No, this particular post is just an explanation of why a commercial photographer, and especially someone who does both theatrical photography, event photography, and corporate reportage might actually need three cameras bodies. And, the more "identical" the bodies the better. 

Some of this thinking (on my part) was triggered as a result of Michael Johnston's acquisition of a Fujifilm X-H1 and lenses. Several people, myself included, left comments on his blog that more or less say, "if you like a camera body a lot you might consider buying a few extras..." On one hand we were making light of the idea that there is "one" perfect camera and it exists only in this one form and  only be available for a limited time before being replaced by something that's not quite as nice or quite as beautifully realized. 

If that is really true then it does make sense to buy up a few more and not suffer the opportunity loss as cameras age and become irreplaceable. This may have made good sense back in the days of film cameras but with imaging sensors being the core differentiator in modern cameras, maybe not so much anymore. But on a different level I guess I was subconsciously channeling what I see as a real advantage to professionals who need to work quickly, juggle different focal length lenses and who also need redundant back up equipment in case of loss or failure of a critical component while on the clock for a paying client.

It all came back clearly to me as I packed for yesterday morning's photo assignment at Zach Theatre. I was heading out to photograph a production of "JunGal Book" (I swear I didn't misspell the title; it's a variation of the Rudyard Kipling story, with a young woman in the role of Mogli, and a title that's familiar enough to potential audiences but doesn't cross the Disney Copyright "We own JUNGLE BOOK" Boundaries. 

At any rate I knew I'd want a fast, standard zoom (cue the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8) and a fast longer zoom (cue the Fuji 50-140mm f2.8) and I also thought it would be handy and fun to have ready access to the super fast Fuji 56mm f1.2 APD lens. If I tried using all three lenses on one camera body I'd have to work frantically; switching lenses (in the dark) over and over again as the play only lasts for one hour and the action moves quickly. I'd probably miss about half the shots I needed during the lens transitions. Just the thought of it reminds me of the one triathlon I tried; the hardest parts were changing "gears" between swimming, biking and the running. Jeez. How many times does one want to change shoes, clothes and equipment to do one race???

The solution for me, as usual, was to put each lens I intended to use on its own, dedicated camera body. I set up each body to be identical in terms of selected menu items and overall settings. Yesterday, with no ability to pre-scout the show, I depended (for a change) on the additional latitude of raw files across all three cameras. Since there was no audience for this dress rehearsal I was able to put one camera on the seat to the left of me, the other camera on seat just to the right and then one in my hands. If I anticipated a wider shot coming up I could exchange cameras immediately and all I'd need to do in able to get off a quick series of shots with the new camera would be to fine tune the exposure and then get after it. Dance scene completed? Ready for a close up of the main actor from across the stage? I grab the camera in the other seat; the one with the longer zoom, and blaze away. 

Having all three cameras within easy reach and ready to go was the best way to handle this shooting situation. The only thing that would have yielded a higher hit rate would have been to put three photographers into the mix and assign each one a different focal length range. They could all shoot the entire play and never miss a shot because they would not be busy grabbing a different camera. (No. We're not going to do that because the (non-profit) theater doesn't have the requisite budget....).

If I were disciplined enough to work only with prime lenses (in order to squeeze out the very last vestiges of quality....) this three camera motif would be even more logical and sensible. Any number more than three cameras becomes a bit unwieldy but anything less than three would limit my flexibility too much. 

Much the same happens when I shoot corporate events. I might need to go from getting a tight head shot of a speaker on an expansive stage to getting a wide, establishing shot of the same speaker while showing the entirety of a one hundred foot wide stage, followed by turning around and getting a crowd "reaction" shot with a faster lens. Many times I can make do with just two cameras and two well chosen lenses but I would still want to have that third body close by. 

If you are working a business showcase that is three days long there are so many "opportunities" to have someone destroy a camera body, or lens. I still remember the sad photographer who was sitting down and changing the lens on his mirrorless camera body when, with the sensor fully exposed, he involuntarily sneezed. Right into the open lens mount of his camera. Rendering it useless until such a time as he could get the sensor professionally cleaned (I hope). I also remember putting down a camera to dig something out of my bag, a few years ago, when someone spilled a pitcher of ice tea over it. That camera and lens were never quite right again.... and that was mid-job. Woe be unto the working stiff that doesn't come with extras!!! Then there was the time an assistant accidentally dropped a Hasselblad body onto a concrete floor..... and the time we had two cameras die as I was trying to shoot on a super dusty baseball field for a large hardware store chain. Lucky we had on more camera in the case. 

You've heard it all before, and the reasons to have multiple, identical bodies at photo assignments remain as valid today as they've ever been. There are different points of failure now but there are failure points nonetheless. Being a Boy Scout or a commercial photographer it's good to know the scout motto: BE PREPARED. 

But wait, there's more. Now that we've added video to the repertoire we've added more layers of complexity to the mix. The falling price of cameras has led to the rise of the "two and three camera" shooting strategy. In the days of super pricey video and motion film cameras a production could rarely justify having a second camera in the mix. If you wanted to shoot a tight shot, a wider shot and a reaction shot in an interview setting you'd do it sequentially, serially. Shoot the tight shots and then move the one camera, or change the lens, to get a tight shot and then move the camera again and get reaction shots. With the advent of much less expensive (but still highly capable) cameras which come complete with outstanding 4K video, productions can save tons of time (and time = $$$$$) and get all three shots simultaneously, using three cameras. But, of course, this is predicated on having three (or more) cameras on hand. The best case scenario is to have all three cameras of exactly the same brand and model and all calibrated and color corrected to the same targets to make blending the footage together in post production that much easier. Which means we're back to "needing" (wanting?) three (or more) cameras in the cases...just in case. Four, if you want a back up in case of failure. 

Considering that my first (and only) 16mm movie camera cost more than a car back in the 1980's and that one can currently buy three Fuji X-H1 bodies (which are very, very good video cameras!!!) for about $3,000 (total!) the duplication I've outlined is actually not wasteful but, indeed, a smart strategy. 

Some folks scoff about the need for back ups against failure in "modern" digital cameras but I think they vastly overestimate the resiliency of the actual imaging sensor bundle. While most dust is easy to clean off I had to change lenses in the field this year and one drop of moisture hit the exposed sensor and bonded with some sort of evil, otherworldly dust to form a spot (visible in any file shot at f5.6 or higher) that even my wet swab cleaning skills could not eradicate. That body had to go in for service and was out of inventory for the better part of two weeks. This in-field-failure didn't hamper our project because we still had two more bodies in the bag, but I did start changing lenses in the car with the windows closed.

Finally, I think there is a very valid point to locking in continued access to cameras you've come to enjoy using and which you know backwards and forwards. There are so few things in consumer life that deliver on their implied promises. When you find a product that seems custom made to fit the way you like to work, and the way you want your user interface to function it seems logical (and ultimately comfortable, psychologically) to want to ensure some ongoing continuity with that product; especially if it's a tool you depend upon to make your living. Every change in process tends to reverberate throughout your workflow and even little changes and differences can disrupt your smooth flow. 

Having used the Fuji X-H1 cameras for the better part of a year now; almost daily, I've learned them and their "personalities" very well. I can pick one up and start shooting without hesitation. It's entirely possible that a Nikon Z7 or a Panasonic S1 might give me a better image, or even better video, than the X-H1 but would the small margin of difference actually be discernible by the clients (or even myself)? And would that difference be enough to offset the requisite learning curve I'd have to live through to get up to speed on yet another new system? My belief is that, for most work where we are not flirting with the ragged edge of the envelope of shooting parameters, nearly every current camera, from micro four thirds models right up to medium format, is more than adequate and each comes with their own sets of compromises; from investment to portability, from color profiles to lens availability. 

To duplicate my current working set of three X-H1s and one X-T3, as well as a drawer fully of genuinely wonderful lenses, I'd have to spend appreciably more money in another system with no guarantee that my results would be any different in the final outcome. So much of the quality of a photography assignment depends more on lighting, composition, styling, casting, and point of view than the final output of one or another camera sensor. And people seem to always forget that.......

So, when I suggested to Michael Johnston that he get extra bodies I was actually conflating two different ideas: one based on the needs of current commercial image makers who shoot certain kinds of assignments, but also the idea that having a "perfect" camera comes (for some of us) with the fear of not being able to buy the same camera or duplicate the same experience at some time in the future. 

Of course, some of you are more conversant with imaging tech than others. I'm fascinated with the people who seem to know every line of the Olympus menu system or the Sony menu system and can get their cameras to operate in wi-fi within seconds. Those people have a gift of knowing almost intuitively how to make digital cameras work. They are probably able to transition from system to system without much more thought than is required to go from one rental car to another. 

There is a different set of photographers at the other end of this largely imaginary spectrum who resist change, hate having to re-learn stuff they were comfortable with in one system and see changing systems as exacting a huge friction of trade. This is who I have in mind with my advice to buy three of anything you love. Be it shoes, cameras or lights. You'll be so happy to have extras when the product you really liked much more than other, comparable products vanishes from the market, replaced by a new model with a flimsier build, a cheaper set of materials but a newer sensor and some inane electronic feature you'll never learn (or want to learn) to use. 

I think I'll go out today and buy one more set of Tyr swim goggles. The pair I have is the best I've owned in the course of 50 some odd years of swimming. And, when I get them I'll be sure to photograph them with one of the Fujis.....

Above and below: a three camera video production with Taylor Holland. 

Edited in multi-cam mode. Fun with multiple camera angles!

The wide shot. Not possible with my 70-200mm equivalent zoom lens.

But imminently possible with a 24-85mm zoom on a second camera.

A tighter shot from mid-house. The perfect use for a longer focal length.

The Sony RX10IV or III solves the "lens change" issue nicely

but introduces its own compromise of sensor geometry and the 

need to have a second, identical camera with lens for back up.

(above and below).

Yes. We have back up meters.

The wider shot. 

The tighter shot.

Digging in a bit more with the Pentax HD 28-105mm WR lens and some new shoes.

A brand new building, just to the right of center. 

When the heck did this one land? 

I tried a little experiment yesterday which I actually enjoyed. After finalizing some estate paperwork I rewarded myself by going out for a nice, long walk through the city but this time, instead of reprising my usual role of "control freak" and habitual route follower I made some changes to my routine. It's kind of crazy but hear me out. 

I've been having fun with the Pentax K1 and the 50mm's but I've shied away from really using the zoom lens. I think I had a misguided prejudice against the lens since its fastest aperture at 105mm is f5.6. I've been effectively acculturated to believe that only fast, expensive lenses, used at f2.8 or so, are worthy of consideration for daily photography. But, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. 

I've already spent the money on the lens and I wanted to figure out a strong case for keeping and using it. I think it's time for me to get over the prejudices of the film days and embrace the good things about modern lenses. With this in mind I was determined to use the Pentax K1 and the 28-105mm together in their most optimum settings for each situation but the one thing I made consistent was the aperture of the lens. I set that at f8.0 (the sharpest setting according to lab tests) and left it there for the afternoon. The camera was set to ISO 100, using the DNG raw file setting and I kept the camera at ISO 100 until I hit a few situations in which I just flat ran out of enough handhold ability to make a nice image; then I'd raise the ISO, but throughout I kept my hands off the aperture setting. I guess, for a change, I wanted to see what images looked like when most of the stuff in them is reasonably sharp. 

With the lens basically set in a fixed mode and with the wide latitude of the K1's raw files I used the camera in the aperture mode and only occasionally corrected the camera's exposure setting with a little nudge in one direction or another of the exposure compensation dial.

I also spent less time in the jungle of (familiar) downtown buildings and more time exploring the north shore of the hike and bike trail around Lady Bird Lake (the part of the Colorado River that runs through the center of Austin). 

The first thing I realized when I went to post process the images was that the raw files don't automatically impart profile corrections for lens geometry or vignetting the way the Jpeg engine does. It's pretty revealing to click on the "profile correction" control in Lightroom and watch the image flatten out, un-curve itself and brighten the corners. The software is doing a lot of work. No more than I imagine is done for other camera systems but it's still a bit surprising to watch. 

The main thing I realized while out walking and shooting is how much different images look when I let focus extend deeper into the frame than I usually do. The lens achieves a very high level of performance at f8.0, regardless of focal length, but that shouldn't surprise anyone knowledgeable about photography. One benefit that adds to the greater lens performance is the nearly complete assurance that the points you most want to be in focus will generally sit within the f-stop's critical zone of sharp focus due to increased depth of field. It just means you have a better shot at getting the parts you want sharp to be sharp. 

After decades of shooting longer lenses and shallower apertures I was a little surprised at just how much more "three dimensional" the images looked when shot both at wider angles of view but also at smaller apertures. A revelation to someone who only really valued depth of field when clients presented comps that needed lots of stuff to be in focus....

Within the constraints of more limited depth of field control I found the 28-105 to be a great lens that is small, feels great in my hands (dense and seemingly well made), and delivers high sharpness and detail. It just doesn't deliver fast apertures. Compromise, compromise. 

After my assessment of the images I can see that the zoom is going to try to edge out the primes whenever possible. It's nearly a universal tool --- unless you want to shoot big apertures in low light. But there are other lenses and cameras for that. As in the Fuji primes. 

But I sure like the look the Pentax system delivers when puffy clouds show up and show off....

For some strange reason these railings remind me of 1973. 

Don't know why. They just do. But then some numbers look like colors to me 

so what do I know?

I have absolutely no idea what this concrete slab is all about but I'd love to have three or four walls like this at my house. They'd be fun to rappel down and you could hold off hordes of invaders with enough of them. Lord of the Rings stuff, for sure. 

I was handholding the whole rig at around 1/30th of a second and when I looked at the flower back at the studio I was pretty impressed by the sharpness and detail in the center of the flower. Click on it to see it larger....

I'm calling this the Pentax Cloud Effect. I love it. 

I hope to see clouds like this out in west Texas 

they'd make a nice top of the frame for some desert landscapes....

All fun. 

A special thanks to that reader (you know who you are) who sent along a case of wine as a "thank you" for my ten years of blogging. Nicely played. Drop by and share a bottle.

A perk for life spent writing about photography. 

When we talk about wine at swim practice someone always calls it, "French Hydration." I gently remind them that the Californians are very much in the game. To my knowledge no one, yet, in our swim program has come to workout with anything other than water, coffee or some strange (non-alcoholic) sports drink in their water bottle. I'm not about to give wine a try at swim practice. There's a time and place for everything. 

For looking at Avedon photo books it's always Champagne. For everyone else's work there's Merlot. 

Thanks again! KT

Pre-acquisition impressions review.

I just adore the "first impressions" reviews on the big gear site. They tell me almost as much about a new camera or lens as the public relations press release that the camera maker sends out to everyone in the industry. In a "first impressions" review I can read a synopsis of all the specifications listed in the release and I can look at photographs taken of the gear by people who are clearly advanced amateur photographers! If I am lucky the "first impressions" reviewer will also include images of various scenes that were taken at a press event hosted by the manufacturer. Mostly, the images are exciting examples of set up, quasi-fashion shoots with (mostly) women in silly outfits who pout and stand around with their chins down, but occasionally there will be a fake sports scene; especially if the camera maker is intent on sending the message that, "Now! For the first time ever!! Our cameras!!! Can focus.... on quickly moving objects!!!! Better!!!!!"

I know that these kinds of photographs must be very good and very well done because I see (basically) the same kinds of photographs on nearly every equipment review blog in the photo-blog-universe. I still smile with fond memories of the jet ski demonstration photos that graced every review at the launch of the Sony A6400..... Amazing work. Amazing camera. And all it really takes to get that kind of promotional coverage is a bit of swag, a few plane tickets and an open bar. Drink up guys. Drink up Kitty.

I know that my reviews are small potatoes by comparison but I thought I'd try something a bit different, maybe lead the pack, and do a "pre-acquisition" review. That's a review of a product that I am either thinking about buying but have not summoned up the energy to actually order, or it's a review of a product that I did order but which has yet to arrive here. In a way, it's more fun than reviewing a product that I've already paid for and have in hand because I can imbue the review with magical thinking about all the ways the product will improve my photography! And it allows me to use more exclamation marks!!!!

I thought I'd start out with an easy one and do a pre-acquisition review for a new lens that I have actually ordered but which will not be here until Friday (at the earliest, if my mailman has anything to do with the delivery....). 

The lens is the current 100mm f2.8 Macro WR lens for the Pentax system. I wanted something that was in the portrait focal length but also something that uses autofocus and is reputed to be sharp (but I'll conjecture about that in a few sentences... First some hopeful predictions and impressions of a lens I've never seen or touched in person. 

I'm thinking the lens will come with a hood and I'll be neutral about the hood's build quality and fit. Oh, I will have friends who will let me know that they think the hood is a cheaply done piece of shit but I really don't care enough about lens hood, per se, to get all agitated about the quality of this one. I think I can see from various photographs on the web that the front element of this macro lens is recessed enough to make the hood largely vestigial in nature. 

We're pretty sure that the lens, having been made exclusively for Pentax cameras, will fit on the front and lock on without any real issues. I do have a can of WD40 standing by in case the fit is a bit problematic. A few sprays of the "miracle lubricant" should ensure that I can get the lens mounted to the body --- I just hope nothing gets sprayed into the open throat of the camera as I do my spraying. If needed. 

One thing I am certain of is that the lens will have plenty of bokeh. Probably even an excess of bokeh. I'll test it at every aperture and focal length and try only to shoot in the "sweet spot." And, if the bokeh is less bokeh-ish than I'd like then I can do this trick I like to do and turn the focusing ring on the lens until the background is totally out of focus. Of course, this is a compromise as the foreground generally gets a bit out of focus as well. Such is the nature of making aesthetic choices. 

I am already certain that I'll like the color of the lens as it is black and most lenses are, indeed, black. I would have ordered a different color but, sadly, there were very few choices. I'm presuming that this one is very much a neutral black and I think that will work for my purposes. 

So, let's talk "performance." Based on 40 years of experience with macro lenses I believe that this one will focus pretty close to the subjects I'll be photographing. I'll go out on a limb and say that it will probably focus closer than my regular 50mm lenses and that a cup of hot, medium roast coffee will probably fill the frame with no problem. I also think, again, based on 40 years of experience, that the lens in question, being an autofocus model, will focus anywhere from life-size to infinity in ten seconds or less. 

After using it for a few days I'll probably say something like, "This is one of the sharpest 100mm lenses we've tested." And then I'll search for a caveat or two (also called a "con") to toss in to prove to the rubes that I am not on the take from the camera company and that I am a legitimate reviewer. Something like, "What we were not so fond of was the tendency of this lens to make some of the subjects we chose to photograph look vapid or boring. Even our closet full of cats was less charming than when photographed with some of the 1200mm lenses from Canon and Nikon." 

Finally, when I do move from my "pre-acquisition" review of the 100mm f2.8 WR Macro lens from Pentax to my "first impressions" review and then to my "hands-on" review, and then to my full review I can assure you that there will be many advertising links for you to click ,and many small ads peppering the blog in order to try to manipulate you and attempt to drive you to spend lots of money you'd rather not part with to buy a lens that doesn't even fit on the system with which you are currently shooting. 

You will respond with a "measured silence" which I will interpret as apathy and I will whine about not getting any comments on my lens reviews. Oh boy, something to look forward on Saturday or Sunday. Yippee. Well, here's hoping Friday is a banner day for deliveries and the the lens delivers all the joy a used, $350 lens can deliver. 

An "after action" report on the now ancient Pentax K1.

Photo not exactly related to this post except that it was done with the Pentax K1...

Where to start? I'll do the short history first. I've owned one other Pentax digital camera; the K-01 concept camera, which made great files but was a bear to use and didn't have an EVF or the facility to add one. I have owned and shot extensively with both of the Pentax medium format film systems; the 645 and the 6x7. I bought the Pentax K1, used, on a whim and I quickly found myself loving its potential to crank out beautiful files at the drop of a hat. 

The camera is a 36 megapixel, full frame, DSLR in the traditional fashion. It has a big, bright optical viewfinder and tons of physical buttons with which to change commonly used stuff like focusing modes, ISO, AF areas, color profiles and much more. It's a camera that attempts to allay the anxieties of people who hate jumping in and out of perplexing and poorly designed menus. It is also big and heavy. Really heavy. The reason I bought it was that I liked the idea of it. My motivation was as simple as that. Oh, and the fact that it features in-body image stabilization and a host of other interesting and eccentric features!

I'm no stranger to cameras like this one, having been immersed in the Nikon full frame D800, D800e and D810 cameras, which I am told, share the same underlying sensor. But what I didn't think about when I tossed down the plastic for this adventure was that the K1 was the first full frame (35mm style) camera Pentax made since the film days and while the Pentax inventory of lenses is ample for APS-C cameras it's downright sparse for larger sensor cameras.  I looked everywhere for lenses and finally settled on the new-ish 28-105mm FA HD lens. (The FA indicates full frame while the HD indicates "designed for digital sensors..."). I supplemented the zoom (which is a variable aperture, f3.5-5.6) with a fast AF SMC 50mm f1.4 (which I like a lot) and also an older, manual focusing 50mm f1.4. I've yet to discern if one 50mm is sharper than the other but I'm not really so much of a "pixel peeper" to care mightily...

I think I'd like a fast, prime lens in the 85-105 range but I haven't found the right one yet at the right price. Many well meaning Pentaxers have pointed me toward the 77mm lens but I've read the test charts and on a full frame digital body the corners and edges just flat out suck. I'm thinking of getting a Rokinon 85mm f1.4 but I'm not sure I really want to keep sinking money into the system the way I have with the Fuji stuff. I'm worried with this particular brand that I'm buying into a system this time that will be cruelly orphaned in a year or so....

If I had more money than good sense (and that statement in and of itself speaks volumes...) I'd just pick up a second body (cameras, like rattlesnakes, want to travel in pairs) and pull the trigger on the 70-200mm f2.8 lens that Pentax makes for the system and then just rest my wallet for a while.

But, at any rate, that brings you up to speed about the "what" and "why" so let's jump into my contemporaneous experiences with the new-to-me mini-system. 

I've been shooting the K-1 around town and, frankly, I've been enjoying it, with the exception of the need to constantly "chimp" to make sure that what you thought you were shooting really ended up in the files in pretty much the same form as you conceptualized it. The weight of the camera doesn't bother me, and I've marched around town with it even on the hottest days this August (we are currently having a heat wave and a moderate drought in central Texas). 

The shutter is well damped and not too noisy and the mirror slap (at least physically) is all but absent. While the 28-105mm lens has turned out to be sharp, contrasty and well mannered; even when used wide open, I find myself gravitating to the 50mm f1.4 AF nearly all the time. After days of familiarizing myself with the operation of the camera, and after having watched Tony Northrup's tutorial about the features of the camera, I felt confident enough to start bringing the K-1 along on photo shoots (which I still do--photoshoots for clients that is, thank you very much!) and shooting it in and around the Fuji cameras and lenses (which I seem to be using as "lifeguard" cameras). On Friday night I took it with me to photograph a panel discussion at Zach Theatre, which took place after the performance of "ANN." I started by taking long shots of the panel of politicians and the actor with the Fuji X-T3 and the 50-140mm f2.8 but almost immediately recognized that getting closer and wider would be more impactful. 

Since it was a panel discussion and not a play the shutter noise was inconsequential. I mostly used the 28-105mm and ISOs as high as 3200 and was rewarded by sharp and nearly noise-free images. I also used the Fuji X-Pro2 and the 35mm f1.4 and was equally happy with those shots. The Fuji was much more discrete but it's hard to hide the fact that you're there photographing in earnest from the people around you when you have one camera hanging on the right shoulder, a camera with a long zoom on the left shoulder, and a big, honkin' Pentax hanging around the neck, resting on one's chest. 

When I looked at the files I quickly discerned that the Pentax Jpeg files (regardless of chosen profiles?) are much punchier and contrastier than the more "mannered" Fuji files. I ducked into the parameters menu and came up with the following formula for shooting well behaved Jpegs with the Pentax camera: color profile = natural. Saturation = minus 3 (out of five negative steps). Contrast = minus 2 and sharpness = minus 1. When the camera is set up this way the images look more like real life and less like a 2007 HDR fan's technicolor yawns.

Yesterday I took the Pentax, the 28-105mm and the 50mm f1.4 (AF) with me to a graduation ceremony at an Episcopalean seminary in central Austin. I photographed the matriculation ceremony, the installation of new faculty, the (very nice) reception afterwards, and also five portraits of new faculty members outside in the oppressive and brutal afternoon heat. To be clear, all the events except the portraits took place indoors; the marketing director was trying to match a look we did outdoors with previous faculty but the photographs of the first group were done in early Spring when the weather was...better. 

The Pentax and the 28-105 did a fine job on the outdoor portraits even though the highest flash sync of that camera is 1/200. The slower sync speed was offset by having ISO 100 as the lowest marked ISO for this camera. The flash came from a Godox flash unit in a 32 by 32 inch soft box and ambient light provided the fill light and balanced, tree-filled background. 

Where the Pentax actually delighted me was in photographing the reception. It was "flash on camera" with the flash pointed at the white ceiling and the the camera and flash set manually. The OVF made taking interior flash images fun again and since the light was consistent and the exposure was consistent the only heavy lifting the camera was doing was focusing;. I was using the 50mm lens and setting it at apertures like 2.8. The camera focused quickly and with no errors (it's incumbent on you, the user, to wait until the AF box turns green before mashing the shutter button) and no missed focus. 

Most of the files I shot across the two systems were fine right out of camera and only a few needed to be "spruced up" with a judicious application of shadow slider. For the record, no one asked about either camera. No one seemed to notice the cameras at all. No one cared. And that's how it should be. 

This morning I needed to make a series of portraits of a new hire at one of the non-profits I do work for. I got all courageous and took only the Pentax and the zoom with me. The only plausible back up at all for this shoot was the new iPhone I had in the car. I shot around 400 photos with the Pentax the night before but the battery indicator still shows at least 2/3rds power. Ever vigilant I tossed my one extra battery into the bag. I needn't have bothered.

Our portrait session was outside at 10 am, well before the blast furnace wind was fully wound up and engaged. It was a pleasant 89 degrees and muggy when we started. I used the same flash system I used the day before. It worked well. 

I must admit that the sensor in the Pentax camera is pretty darned good. Nicely detailed raw files, and the system, given the way I use it, nails focus well. This, of course, got me thinking about all the possibilities in the market today. The combination of a full frame sensor, the built-in image stabilization and the robust build of the body caused me to start thinking about a "step up" from this which, to my mind, is the Panasonic S1. I think I'll borrow one and test it out. It adds everything I liked about the Pentax but the cherry on the sundae is that the S1 also has a state-of-the-art EVF. 

Could it be the ultimate, ultimate camera? Let's find out.

But wait. Back to the Pentax. What's my assessment? Well, if you can find a "like new" body for around $900, and you like hunting for lenses, you will have just bought yourself one of the best image generators on the market, extant. Yeah, the mirrorless stuff does away with a lot of chimping. And some of the newer cameras shoot faster frame rates. And the video is no where near competitive. But if your goal is to make beautiful, quiet, slow photographs you won't find a camera that's much better in the real world. And certainly not for that kind of price!

I'm taking the week off from commercial work to learn how to relax, to swim more, to futz around with estate attorneys, and to enjoy life. Blogging is included in the program. Please come back and read more.