I'm very encouraged by the new Olympus EM5 Mark 2. It seems to be a well thought out upgrade but it gives a certain comfort to current EM5 owners as well. I'll explain.

Image from the Olympus website. OM-D EM-5 Mark II

I'll get to the last point first. I dug through everything I could find about this new camera on DPReview (where they'll had the camera for a good while...), the Olympus websites around the world and in conversations with people who were familiar with the camera in advance of the launch. The one little nugget that I came away with was this..... for all intents and purposes the image quality from the sensor in the new camera is identical to the image quality in its predecessor. There might be slight tweaks or changes in output but nothing that can't reasonably be matched up in post processing. 

That means no matter how much the reviewers salivate over the new and improved model the people who are only concerned with the quality of the images they get out of their camera system won't have that nagging feeling that they could do better if they just spent a bit more money and jumped onto the newer boat. When it comes to conventional file quality they'll all be docking at the same time. That's a big deal because it really means that the usability of our existing camera purchases is quality equivalent and it assuages the fear that somehow the latest technology has once again left us behind (not that it ever really did). 

So, Olympus upgraded the OMD EM-5 and created a camera to compete in 2015. To their credit they didn't make wholesale changes that would affect the feel, haptics and usability of the camera for current EM-5 users. All the stuff they added (with the exception of wi-fi) makes a good camera even better and also introduces things like a high resolution/sensor shift feature as well as seriously upgraded video capability.

The feature that first caught my attention was the multi-shot/high resolution/sensor shift mode. I think when reading about the 40 megapixel files people will get excited but in reality only a very few will consistently make use of the feature and probably for the wrong reasons. Most people will play with it and then go back to conventional camera settings for the basic reason that it requires the camera to be locked down on a good tripod, aimed at a subject that won't move (at all) for a while, and can only be used at f8 and under. This feature works by taking eight exposures and moving the sensor between each exposure. That takes time. And it generates 100 megabyte raw files. Ouch. 

While everyone will focus on the perceived advantages of the increased resolution I think the color engineers had a different benefit in mind. Here's why: the first four exposures have the camera sampling each color at each sensor element. That gives you 100% accurate color instead of Bayer interpolated color. That's what the Foveon fans react to in their cameras. It's the accuracy of reading all the colors at all places that makes the color magic. It also eliminates aliasing and weird color shifts. And even within a 16 megapixel output it means more accurate fine detail. While landscapers and studio still-life shooters will credit the higher res of their files in their assessment of quality it's probably really the true color nature of the files that subconsciously makes their brains happier when they see these kinds of files. 

While this technology has been available in brutally expensive, medium format Hasselblad bodies it the first time it's ever been available in a consumer body. And a consumer body at such a comparatively low price point!!! Would I use the feature? Every time I put my camera on a tripod and shoot product for clients. The consideration in this kind of work will also be whether or not the lenses are up to the resolution task. But I would argue that the pure color without artifacts is the more important benefit so if you like what the lenses you have for this system do now you will still enjoy the real benefit of the feature. Good job, Olympus!!!

Moving on there are lots of other features that I don't really care about. I don't think any of us will see a difference between 9 frames per second and 10 frames per second. While the 1/8000th of a second is nice to have the 1/4000th of a second top speed of the previous camera was rarely an issue. Wi-fi? Yawn. If I can't use the camera to get my e-mail and stream Angry Birds then why would I care if it has wi-fi? Just more stuff to suck the juice out of batteries... And I can never get my wi-fi to work in the Sonoran Desert or in Big Bend Park so who cares. Oh, that's right---now wi-fi is critical for firmware upgrades.  Sure.

Here are some features I really do care about on the camera in general (we'll hit video in a second): 

The new camera takes the same battery as the previous model. I just stood up next to my desk and cheered. You see, I have four of the older camera and probably eight of the batteries for it. Now I can consider the new body without the agony of buying a couple more $50 batteries. You will need more batteries though since the camera is now rated for 300 shots instead of 360. That's the wonderful wi-fi's fault, I'm sure. 

I like the flipping and tilting screen. I wouldn't care if I just use the camera for stills because the new EVF is supposed to be at least as good as the one in the OMD EM-1 (which is incredibly good) but I do look at cameras like this for video as well and sometimes that screen mobility is just what the director ordered. 

Both screens (the EVF and the rear screen) have been much improved for resolution and I presume response time. 

So, to recap the photo benefits: Better screens, higher shutter speed, new high res mode, same batteries, same great imaging and color, same camera handling. These are all good. And they are somewhat compelling reasons to upgrade if you use your camera in a day-in, day-out professional capacity. But as I mentioned, if you are shooting for image quality then you may be happy right where you are (presuming you own the original EM-5). 

But to paraphrase Rene Zellweger in the movie, "Jerry MacQuire,"  "You had me at video...."

I know that many here don't give a rat's ass about video but I do and I think a few VSL members do so let's talk about where Olympus really updated this camera. It's mostly in the video capabilities. And I can tell this was top of mind for them when I look at the accessories. But we'll get to that in a second. 

Looking at the specs the number one thing Olympus did to upgrade the EM-5 into an EM-5 type2 was to vastly improve the codecs available to video shooters. Most importantly then increased the bit rate of the files and offered a "All-I" codec that takes up a bit more space in memory but makes editing easier and better.  Instead of shooting a around 20 mbs one can now shoot at 60+ mbs. I'm sure the quality difference will be obvious to all. If you need even more imaging quality in video the camera is set up to output uncompressed and clean video from the HDMI port into a 4:2:2 space. That means you get files that you can do a lot of work to in post processing without having them fall apart on your screen like and Oreo cookie that's spent too much time dipping into the glass of cold milk. 

Another new feature is a dedicated microphone input that doesn't foul the EVF. There was an adapter that fit into the original EM-5 accessory port but the cord management was blah and the connector stuck into your forehead if you tried to use the EVF for anything. In addition to the dedicated microphone input you can also adjust the audio levels manually----even during recording (Hello Nikon!!!! ever shot video with your own cameras???). 

One port that's missing on both the old and new models is a headphone jack. This is the reason I say that Olympus designed the new camera to be a much improved video camera. Not because of the lack of a jack but because the jack for the headphones is now built into the part of the two part battery grip that is closest to the camera. That moves the jack and the cable out of the way for the operator and means that if (when?) you take a hit to the headphone jack and break it the solution is to just buy another grip part; you won't have to send away the body for surgery. The grip system is now available in two configurations: you can buy just the piece closest to the body (with the front handle and control wheel) to gain the headphone jack while using the bottom part (the house of the extra battery) from your existing set-up. This, plus the continuity of the battery type, tells me that Olympus is learning to really value their current customer base. 

The next feature on my list to praise is the focus peaking during video. That's a wonderful thing for people who like to use manual lenses and do focus pulls during video. 

But considering that there are better video cameras out there when it comes to set up options, more varied and powerful codecs and the ability to do 4K (hi! Panasonic GH4) why would someone actually want to buy an Olympus EM5 2 to create video? The best answer comes right down to the awesome image stabilization built into the camera (and across their system of cameras). I've experimented with handheld video shooting using the existing EM5 and while the overall image quality isn't on par with other cameras there are lots of situations where being able to use the camera as a handheld unit with really good stabilization allows it to shoot images that are smoother that other cameras planted on handheld rigs. Sometimes just getting the shot is more important that trying to make the technical parameters of the file perfect. The new unit ups the ante by giving us a reasonably good (much better than before) video file while giving us the enhanced mobility with smoothness. 

It's like having a mini-SteadiCam in your hands but without the ruinous costs, months of training and enormous weight to deal with. I'm predicting that many sliders and jibs will lie fallow while a handheld craze sweeps web video. Mostly based around the handheld advantages of this new camera. 

In the end it all boils down to this: Do you need this camera? If you are happy with the still image quality of your EM5 or EM1 I would say no. They'll continue to provide great still images that are close to what the new camera provides (if not identical). If you plan to shoot exclusively video and use this as your primary video camera I would also say no. The Panasonic is a better moving image file generator in every respect except image stabilization (and most people who do video all the time know that the tripod is still the ultimate image stabilization tool). 

So who's going to end up buying this beside people venturing into the system for the first time (as opposed to upgrading...)???  I can see the owner of a Panasonic GH4 who shoots a lot of video adding this camera as a "B" camera. You could use it concurrently for second angle to the primary camera or you can use it instead of the GH4 when you want to imitate SteadiCam shots and create very smooth handheld moves with footage that matches up better than footage from the last generation. 

If you are primarily a still shooter and use the Olympus cameras as you primary tools this body goes a long way to move your further into the (profitable) video world by keeping you in your system of lenses and accessories while adding more audio solutions and better imaging quality (for video).  If you currently shoot primarily with an EM-5 the new camera becomes your primary camera and the older camera becomes your back-up. 

The beauty of this entire class of cameras is the combination of high image quality with high portability. The ultimate market for this camera is the photographer+videographer who is constantly traveling and documenting, interviewing and intercutting stills and video into programming. You can fit a production studio in a small case. With two really good f2.8 zooms that cover a huge range, along with a couple of microphones, a set of headphones and sack of batteries you can carry everything on to even the smallest commuter planes and be able to hit the ground and work---in both media. And you could do with the effective minimalism of a one person crew. 

Which finally begs the question----Will I buy one? You already know the answer. Whether I buy it the day it's available or wait until the middle of the product cycle I will get one. Why would I want one with all the other stuff I have floating around here? For the same reason I currently have four, nice shiny original EM5's----they punch far above their weight, are fun to carry and use and now I can add adequate video with handheld capability for those times when I want to be mobile, responsive and unencumbered by rigs and fluid head tripods. 

The interesting thing one quickly figures out in video production racket is that the "one camera" mentality of the still photographer is inefficient in the motion realm. Multiple cameras make good business sense. Not just as back-ups for each other but to use concurrently. And not all of them need to be of the ultimate quality. The primary camera should be great but second cameras that are moving can be "just good." I'm hoping that in the real world the video from the EM5-2 will be really good.  Shooting multiple angles during one take means getting a lot more done in a day. In the old days where shooting all revolved around one camera a crew needed to do multiple takes to get reaction shots, wide shots, establishing shots and close up shots. They also need to get cutaway shots. With only one camera it required moving from angle to angle and doing the scene over and over again. It sometimes becomes a continuity nightmare.

The last couple of times I did video interviews I used one camera on a tripod to the front of the interviewee, one camera 90 degrees to one side on a slider and a third from a rear angle. In post production I could go from camera to camera in editing and it worked really well. With a camera like the EM5-2 I would lose the slider and have the second camera operator shooting handheld. The more assets you have when you fire up the editing software the better. That's why we have (and use) more than one camera.

If you don't have a camera and you are a candidate for m4:3 format equipment you need to look long and hard at this one (the EM5-2) and the GH4. They are both incredible tools. They each do something different. It's okay to own both. 

If you want more info there's a good video from The Camera Store TV: Right Here


Added in the afternoon: Think maybe this time around Olympus is interested in video? Check out this commercial they made for the video side of the camera, it rocks. Olympus Action Commercial

Added at four in the afternoon:  A really good review of the camera as a video production tool by an Australian Cinematographer who mostly does feature films. He's a long term Olympus fan and he's got good samples to show. John Brawley's Blog about the EM5-2

A quick advertising note: Craftsy is offering a bunch of course at up to 50% off. It's a good way to learn new stuff. You might want to browse their photo offerings. I'll be looking at the cooking classes.....   Here's the link!

A long week of photography and some thoughts about the winners and losers in the camera bag.

And the winner of "Kirk's Favorite Corporate Event Shooting Camera Shoot Out is...." No drama or build up here: The GH4. Love EVFs and fast focus and good low light AF and great files? Stop reading, get the credit card out and go to town.

I've been out working since Sunday at a conference about finance, real estate and the process of taking 80,000 single family houses into a corporate portfolio, re-habbing them and then, ultimately securitizing them. The conference is by invitation only and the attendance is limited to the kind of people who wear really nice suits to the office, every day.

The event took place at the W Hotel here in Austin and also at the Moody Theater. The Moody Theater is where the filming is done for Austin City Limits and the "A" list of musicians who have performed there is...amazing. I was there for the registration and social events at the theater on Sunday and then spent 12 hours a day in the Moody and W on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday photographing every speaker, panelist and keynoter to hit the stage. I also worked in very low light to get audience reaction shots and I worked from the balcony to get wide stage shots to show off the amazing (mostly LED and arc) lighting for the wide stage set. I did "classic" social photography of the dinners and cocktail parties.

I wore a suit and tie and shoes that had been polished within the last 30 days. It was the complete package. I can't show the work from the show or discuss exactly what was discussed (NDA) but what I can do is pick apart what worked photographically and what didn't. And since I am crazy enough to try out three different camera models all within the same show I can say what worked for me and what worked less well. I was surprised actually and what I found out made me reconsider almost everything...

Yesterday's Historic Assignment. New camera, old artifacts.

This image of a Berlin street is included solely for blog decoration. 

It has nothing to do with the content below. 

I shot it with the quirky Samsung Galaxy NX camera

and the solid little kit lens.

I like the pretty colors.

I've said recently that we've been busy over the last two weeks. Last Weds. I spent a full day making wonderful available light portraits for a software company in a downtown bank building. I spent most of the next day doing the necessary post production and also having phone meetings about upcoming video production. Yesterday I had the good fortune to spend most of the day on an assignment for the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum. It was a straightforward job but one that was almost meditative and very satisfying. 

The museum has a constant influx of artifacts that need to be well documented and I've been providing photographic documentation for them throughout this year. Since nearly every object must be kept on the museum grounds and can usually only be handled by a curator wearing gloves we definitely do each of these assignments on their turf. All of the artifacts are photographed on white backgrounds and during post production I create very detailed clipping paths so they can drop out backgrounds where necessary. 

Yesterday I loaded up the Airport Security case with the Nikon 7100 camera. A 35mm lens, a 50mm lens, a 55mm f2.8 manual focus micro lens and the wild kit zoom. I had a back up battery and, in case of catastrophic system failure, I had a Panasonic GH4 with assorted lenses in reserve. I also brought along a flash meter, gaffer's tape and some black wrap. Always black wrap. As an afterthought I tossed in two Yongnuo slave-able flashes.

In another case I had four Elinchrom moonlights with cables and speed rings and accessories. In the stand bag were a couple of soft boxes, a few umbrellas and my little, Benro tripod. Riding along with no case was a stout, tall C-Stand with an arm. It was joined by a thirty pound sand bag. I also brought along assorted chunks of white foamcore and black foamcore which is wonderful when you need to add or subtract light from a composition. 

I wheeled the case in right at 9am and we got set up with a white background sweep table in one of the big work rooms on the first floor. I used a medium sized (3 feet by 4 feet) soft box on the C-Stand's side arm (using it as a boom) and positioned it directly above the set. I used this light for almost everything, repositioning it and fine tuning it to match the subject matter. 

Occasionally I wanted to supplement the top light with fill from a spot near the camera position. I grabbed a Yongnuo flash, set it to "slave" mode and aimed it into a 42 inch white umbrella with a black cover. Being able to dial the power levels up and down and to not work about radio triggers or cords was efficient. 

As I intended I used the D7100 and the 55 macro lens for just about everything. I wanted to see if the combination of a "known" great lens and the 24 megapixel sensor with no anti-aliasing filter would give my images some sort of extra mojo. Having now imported everything into Lightroom I can see that the images, shot at 100 ISO with the lens at f5.6 to f8.0, are sharper than what I had previously gotten with good lenses on the full frame, 24 megapixel Sony a99 camera. Score one of the APS-C, next generation. 

My working method was to set the camera to the live view mode, zoom in to 8x or so to fine focus and then shoot a single frame, chimp the hell out of it, make whatever course corrections were necessary and then shoot two more frames: one to use and one as a safety. 

This shooting method ameliorates any battery advantages of OVF cameras and, as expected, I ate up 50% of the battery charge getting about 125 shots done over the course of five hours. I was also surprised to see, already, a dust bunny appear when we started veering toward f11.5+ to get more depth of field in shots of really small objects. I haven't seen dust on the sensor of a Panasonic or Olympus camera in.....forever. 

I did take time to shoot several of the images with the Panasonic GH4 and the 12-35mm lens. I wanted a direct comparison I could mull over. Here's what I found: The Nikon D7100 has a resolution advantage and the files seem more color correct right out of camera. If you were going to make huge paper enlargements the judges would immediately side with the bigger sensor-ed camera. But, at our final delivery size the advantages disappear (or are equalized by the common denominator of size).  From a working perspective I will probably switch back to micro four thirds for the next round of artifact documentation at the museum. There is a distinct advantage to the additional depth of field at the same angle of view when you are working in tight with a subject. 

Also, cameras that are designed to be in permanent "live view" via their EVFs are much more facile in operations like this with much faster focusing. Finally, I've gotten spoiled by the touch screens. Being able to touch the screen at the spot at which you'd like to see the focusing point is wonderful.

In DXO, up to the full native resolution of the Panasonic files there are few discernible quality differences. Certainly the trade off between a perceived small increase in shadow noise in the GH4 at 100% is handily offset by its ability to generate files that don't show dust spots....

You read a lot about the "overwhelming" superiority of one system or sensor class over another and even the most level headed among us can succumb to moments of doubt as to whether they've made good equipment choices. That's why I feel it's important to test things out first hand. To see what the reality of a comparison is. The nature of writing and blogging leads writers to exaggerate small differences to provide more exciting contrast in the written content. Nothing sells like bold statements and controversy. But once again I've found that careful lighting and technique are far more important than camera attributes and, that at conventional working sizes, the cameras and their files are less different than the fans and the manufacturers would like you to believe. 

Tonight I'm diving into the Nikon flash system. That may be an area where real differences make themselves known... But we'll see. Objectively. 

Hope you have great day.

Work flow thoughts from a job for architects. The hero of the story is the Panasonic GH3. Not 4. 3.

Portrait Machine Part.

Earlier in the year I got a phone call from the marketing director of a well known and very respected architectural firm here in Austin. I'd done a portrait of one of their principals the year before. They liked the portrait and kept my name on file. Now they were interested in getting a bid to make portraits of their full staff and their partners. The really nice thing for me is that they wanted to do environmental portraits that looked as though they'd been made with available light and they wanted to make the portraits in locations all over their offices. They were not interested in having people stand in front of seamless paper and endure the same light in frame after frame. The second part of the job was to create scenarios of people in the offices working collaboratively on projects. That was not very difficult to set up since they seemed to work collaboratively all day long whether I set them up or not. My main job in this part of the project was just to gently turn them toward the good light.

While we were looking for an available light aesthetic I knew that to make portraits of the quality we all wanted I'd have to supplement the light coming in from the windows and create fill light for the locations that were lit with over head fluorescent lighting. In order to get the look they wanted, which included defocused backgrounds I needed to shoot with very fast optics that were still sharp near their wide open settings and I would need the ability to focus with precision. 

At that time in the continuum I had not yet jettisoned the Sony full frame cameras and I had not yet bought the fast zooms for the micro four thirds cameras. I spent an evening weighing each direction and in the end I decided that I was a good enough photographer to work with the cameras that were the most fun so I tossed the Panasonic cameras and Olympus Pen lenses into the snake pit to see if they would walk out alive. 

There were three lenses I used for the entire project; these were the 60mm 1.5, the 40mm 1.4 (both older lenses for the manual focus Olympus Pen half frame cameras from the late 1960's and early 1970's) as well as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 Summilux, a modern lens.  I brought along two Panasonic cameras and a light meter as well. Just to cover myself for impromptu group shots I brought along the much maligned but actually pretty good, Olympus 12-50mm kit lens.

I shot all the images in the raw format. For images mostly illuminated by window light I supplemented the light by filling in with large, white or silvered reflectors. I put theses on stands with adjustable arms so I wouldn't have to have an assistant tagging along in the crowded space. For the images that were predominantly lit by fluorescent lights I used multiples of the Fotodiox 312AS LED panels (with adjustable color balance). By the end of the day I was very proficient in getting reasonably good matches between the panels the artificial light of the fluorescents as well as getting a very good match between the LED panels and the diffuse, open shade, window light. With four LED panels at my disposal and twice as many batteries as units we made it through the day with power to spare. 

I probably don't have to tell you that everything I shot started with a camera well anchored to a favorite, old wooden tripod. I know that IS is magical but nothing beats really working in one's composition and having it stay during all the expression permutations of a portrait session. I shot hundreds of frames that day; maybe 650 in all. That might seem like a lot to people who don't photography real people for a living but what it really means is that even with the shyest or most difficult portrait subject I had a number of selections that would work well for the client's end use---marketing. 

After a long day of shooting portraits, small work groups, two person teams and an "all hands" working session in a large conference room I headed back to the secret underground processing laboratory of the Visual Science Lab. I ingested the images into Lightroom, did quick edit, then a series of mini-global color and exposure corrections before exporting a folder of images that I burned to a memory stick for delivery to the client. The client is very computer savvy and preferred to have galleries on their system rather than a web gallery. 

Not all clients are in a rush and not all clients need their stuff right away so several months passed between the time I delivered the images and the moment at which they sent along an e-mail with their 72 selections. I sat down yesterday morning to continue the process of making and delivering the final files. In between the time shooting and then receiving their selections I added DXO Optics Pro to the workflow. I thought I'd share yesterday's process. 

I sat down with the list of images to be delivered and opened Lightroom where I located the images and exported them as original raw files to a folder. I brought that folder into DXO and let the program run automatically for all the files. Then I went through, file by file, to see whether I agreed or disagreed with DXO. Since two of the lenses I used don't have modules all the program could do was assess the original file, coupled with the camera sensor information and make corrections based on that. All of the images were improved in one way or another. I made a few tweaks and changed to a "portrait" profile for some images, not for others. Then I exported .dng files to a new folder. 

I opened every file in PhotoShop CC and fine tuned where necessary. Then I sent selected files to Portrait Professional for some light handed retouching. Nothing like what you see in their ads. No giant structural changes to face shapes, no mono-textured plastic skin. Just a little help with rough skin tone, blemishes and small wrinkles. All of these files were output to Tiffs as were the files that didn't need to go through a final step of retouch. I took the folder full of full size Tiff files and, in PhotoShop, used image processor to make a set of high quality, full size Jpegs. The final deliver to the client will be a set of two folders; one with Jpegs and one with Tiffs. 

Again, I'll deliver on an eight gigabyte memory stick at a cost of less than $6. 

The one thing I wanted to discuss was the color I ended up with. I was struck with how accurate and pleasing the color of the portraits was. There was no global cast or global "feel" to the colors. They seemed separated in a way that I don't always see color from digital cameras. And not always from film cameras either. I don't know how to describe it other than to say that there was not a subliminal cast holding all the colors in a bounded camp. The colors were individually distinguished in a way that added depth to the files. In the moment I was quick to assign the credit to this to the Panasonic GH4 camera, which I've come to respect a great deal. But when looking at the metadata I quickly remembered that this shoot predated the GH4. 

Interestingly, the firm I was shooting for added some new employees and hired me to come by again and make portraits in the same fashion to add to the roster. On this outing I used the (new to me) GH4 and mostly the 35-100mm f2.8 X lens. In the course of processing the files alongside the GH3 files I found the same basic, non-globalized, color rendering of the previous camera. The main difference overall in the files was the use of the new lens. It is in the DXO modules and adds another layer of overall correction to the files. 

I am on my way out to deliver the images to the client. I am old fashion and still like to deliver the work into their hands and say, "thank you" personally. I may end up having to leave the package with the reception person but I'll be sure to thank her as well. 

What I learned in this job is that careful use of known, good lenses and the subsequent use of state of the art processing tools goes a long way to ameliorating any advantage or disadvantage between cameras. While the Sony cameras would have given me a different look it would not necessarily have been a better look. I am of the belief that color accuracy will emerge as the new metric for those of us obsessed with measuring the toys we shoot with. I also believe that Panasonic is doing something very right with their implementation of color. That, and the very sharp, detailed files certainly made my day of post processing pleasant and straightforward and I am sure the client will be pleasantly surprised at just how much better the images look than the proofs we started them out with. 

Ahhhh....

How much is quality determined by your camera's sensor and how much is determined by your software?

I have tried DXO Optics Pro on several occasions. The last full, elite download I did was version 4.2. DXO is now on version 9.x. I used DXO back in the days when we were shooting with a Nikon D2xs (12 megapixels) and it was the sharpest camera you could get your hands on unless you ventured into the rarified area of medium format digital. At the time I bought that version we were doing an ad campaign for a multi-national technology company and we were shooting people in clean rooms. It was important to use a very wide lens (at the time a 12-24 Nikon lens), get perfect geometry and perspective, shoot without supplemental lighting and control noise in the files. While the PhotoShop of the time did okay the trial of DXO I downloaded pretty much blew me away and clicked off every checkbox on my list of needed file improvements.

The only downside of the program back then was the excruciating slowness in processing images on the computers of the day. (No 64 bit, no multi-threading, less RAM, single core processors, etc.). The trade-off wasn't important in the situation at hand because there were things I just could not control. I had to shoot without lighting. I had to ramp up the ISO past my usual safety settings and I had to count on a lens that needed some help on the edges and in the corners. But after we successfully completed that job the slowness of the program took its toll and I gradually stopped using it while the Adobe products continued to improve.

Last Thurs. I did a job in the studio for two ad agencies. The shoot required me to photograph a very good actor, on a white background, in a series of funny outfits and with fun props. The shots were from head to toe. I used my GH4 and the 25mm 1.4 Panasonic. I chose the lens both because it is known to be a very good performer and it was also just the right focal length for the project. This was an important job because I was working with a new ad agency for the first time and also working with a second agency that is one of my all time favorite Austin shops. Everyone loved what we were seeing on the screen and we all patted each other on the back for how smooth and trouble free the project had been.

As the agency people were packing up the props I asked my main contact how they wanted the files. I am certain we had discussed that the images would be used mostly on the web. They were also doing the masking so I just assumed that they might want to wait around for twenty minutes or so and I would hand them a memory stick full of images and be largely done with the project. And that's when it happened.

The head honcho from the front agency casually mentioned that they should probably just make selects from a web gallery since the final files needed to be big. (Big? Really? for the web?). It seems that in the time between talking to me about the job and finalizing it everyone decided that it would be really great to do a series of four posters with the shots. Not small posters either, but real 24 by 36 inch posters. Of course I smiled and told them I'd get right on that web gallery. I waved as they all drove away and then I had a crisis of confidence. Had I royally screwed up by switching to the smaller system? Would the files have been remarkably better had I stayed with the full frame cameras? Yikes. Creeping anxiety. What was I thinking when I made the "all or nothing" plunge into the smaller sensor cameras? And what would I tell my blog audience after having strutted around like an expert espousing the charms of the Panasonic GH series cameras?

I looked at the files in Lightroom 5.5 at 100 % and, while it may have been my over active imagination they did look a little soft to me. Maybe a bit less detail than I had been used to with the files from the Sony a99. I fretted about it all day yesterday. I went ahead and did the web gallery and it looked great. Of course it did, the files were 2000 pixels on the long side....

Then, this morning at swim practice the letters "D" "X" "O" popped  into my head and I relaxed just a little bit. I'd go and down load the program and see if it was as good as I remembered it. I reconciled myself to the expenditure of another $269 to get the new version and I pulled out the credit card. I logged in and hit the "buy" button for the Elite Version and the menu told me that as a previous purchaser I was eligible to upgrade for only $69.

I couldn't hit the keys fast enough. Once I had the program and the modules for the Panasonic camera and lens loaded I went through the whole image fine tuning process with one of the raw files. Once the process was completed I was looking at a file that was much sharper, smoother and happier than the full frame files I'd been pulling from the Sony cameras in Lightroom. The GH4 files yielded absolutely wonderful files that stood up well at 100%. Clearly better than previous generations of cameras I'd owned.

The final test was to output the improved file from DXO and to open it in PhotoShop so I could res it up to 9000 pixels on the long side and see how that looked. I tried several different resizing protocols and all of them were more than satisfactory. I may investigate some other enlarging programs but I am very happy with the look and feel of the file and will sleep well tonight.

DXO is not a program I'd want to use to process batches of images. It's still just too slow on my computers. But once a client narrows their take down to the top five or ten images the amount of control in the program is amazing. The images I put through were significantly better than what I was seeing in Lightroom and Photoshop. While I'm sure there are people out there who are such PS masters that they could replicate the look I am also certain it would take a lot of time and effort. Much more than the investment of $69 and a half hour learning curve.

I am even more satisfied with my GH4. I feel as though the camera can handle literally any photo job I come up against with the right handling in the right software.

Now, this is not to say that running the files from a Nikon D800 or Canon 5Dmk3 wouldn't result in even better images. But if I am happy with poster sized photographs from my camera of choice then the software engineers have done their job and the Panasonic folks have done their job by providing data files with enough information potential that, once unlocked, makes the camera wonderful.

Just an observation on a Saturday afternoon.

A Total Immersion Week with the Panasonic GH4. Or, Kirk Does the Math.

It would seem that the big news around here is the launch of the novel, The Lisbon Portfolio. But as much as I wanted to sit behind the computer and send e-mails to everyone I knew announcing it, the day after our publication on Amazon's Kindle Store I was on a Southwest Airlines flight heading to Denver Colorado to work as the event photographer for what has become my favorite show. It's the RLM Math Conference at which Inquiry Based Learning is discussed in depth by math teachers and professors from all over the country. I spent Weds. through Saturday soaking in the math gestalt in a wonderful building that was designed by the architect, I.M. Pei, back in the 1960's. And I'm not kidding, I had a blast.

But to stay on photo topic part of my reason for being happy was that this was my first chance to deeply immerse myself in shooting a full on event with my completed Panasonic GH system. I shot well over 4,000 images and the bulk of them were done with the new GH4. The rest were created on two different GH3s. And I will say that spending a cumulative 20 hours with one type of camera in your hands is a wonderful way to find out what you like and what you don't about the system....

But first a photo that the Panasonic marketing people should really enjoy:

Kirk With Cameras.

Image ©2014 Stan Yoshinobu

Used with Stan Yoshinobu's permission.

The image above is a fair representation of how I equipped myself for my time in Denver. Three cameras with three different lenses, extra batteries and a small flash in the pockets of the jacket. Totally equipped without a camera bag in sight....

Let me set the stage: The project was to cover a conference about Inquiry Based Learning in Mathematics. My brief was to document all the "main tent" sessions, the dinners and the social components of the conference. But the most time intensive part of the job was the need to photograph presenters presenting in five different locations, concurrently. An almost continuous cycle of parallel sessions that lasted almost all day long each day. 

The conference took place in the I.M. Pei Building of the Sheraton Hotel complex is downtown Denver, Colorado. That's nice for me since Denver is quickly becoming one of my favorite destinations in the country. It's only two hours from Austin by direct Southwest Airline flights and the idea of embracing 50 degree weather each morning with coffee and a warm croissant in hand is enticing. Especially when the humidity and heat kick in for the Summer here in Austin...

All photo jobs are different and all the parameters are different as well. For about eight hours each day the conference ran the parallel sessions which lasted about 40 minutes each. The classes, filled with academic mathematicians were spread out all across one large area of the conference center. I would start the cycle by photographing the speakers and activities in the main ballroom and then move on to classroom A, the B, then C, and finally classroom D. I shot a lot of frames because I was trying to capture good expressions in which  subjects' eyes were open, hands were gesturing in a natural way and peoples' mouths looked as though they were caught, mid-sentence, saying something really bright and insightful. The important idea here is that I did this circuit, from ballroom to class to class a dozen or more times each day and I packed gear with a conscious thought to keeping my load of equipment as light as possible.

I did the same conference (here in Austin) last year with the Sony a99 and Sony a77 cameras along with some giant lenses (the five pound 70-200mm 2.8 comes to mind as a particularly painful thing to sport around on the front of a camera...) and a large camera bag packed with all kinds of stuff with which to support the "full frame mystique." The gear was heavy and many times the limited depth of field worked against me as I attempted to shoot in a documentary style using available light for small groups of people.

This year (as you can see above) I brought two Panasonic GH3 camera bodies and one GH4. (I wish I could wave a magic wand over them and convert all the cameras to GH4's....). For most sessions I actually carried only two cameras: the GH4 with the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 X zoom lens and a GH3 with the 12-35mm f2.8 X wide angle zoom lens. With one camera on each shoulder and a third sometimes draped around my neck (GH3 with 25mm f1.4) I barely noticed the weight or the bulk of the gear. 

Two things to mention here: I was happy to shoot wide open with any of the three lenses as they perform very well at their respective maximum apertures. This is something I was rarely able to do with my previous cameras since the edges and corners of the lenses for the larger formats were never as well corrected when used at their maximums. Lens designers have pointed out for years how much easier it is to design well corrected lenses for smaller formats----at least theoretically. 

The images I'm seeing today in Lightroom are sharp and well constructed and the extra DOF, even with the lenses wide open, is welcome. This selection of lenses really does prove to me that the smaller geometry of the sensors was quite welcome. It meant that, in most cases eyes and ears were both in focus but I could still drop backgrounds out of focus with the longer focal lengths of the 35-100mm lens. 

One of the way I kept the file management manageable was to shoot high quality Jpegs instead of Raw files. My take on the real, current reason to people prefer Raw files is that most people don't take the time to do really good white balances while they are shooting! Seriously, if you shoot without getting the color right--in Jpeg or raw-- correcting in post after the fact makes a huge negative difference in both noise and exposure accuracy. 

While the effects are evident in both kinds of files (in my experience) it's obvious that there is less potential to make large corrections in Jpeg files because each color correction step introduces complimentary color shifts somewhere else in the spectrum (or usually at multiple points along the color distribution) as well as causing non linear shifts in each of the three color channels.  And some of those non-linearities are not correctable. 

Food shooting at Asti with an exhilarating lens. Yummy sharp.

Ravioli. Asti. ©2014 Kirk Tuck

First of all I'd like to thank everyone for the comments and e-mails congratulating my family on Ben's graduation. It was heartwarming to read all the good wishes for us. He's looking forward to one last, action packed Summer in Austin and then off for new adventures. 

And speaking of new adventures I wanted to give you a quick look at some food images that we did on the fly, during our video shoot, at Asti Trattoria here in Austin, Texas. Chef and owner, Emmett Fox does a fabulous job turning out wonderful food and we've got a handful of SD cards with many beautiful, moving shots of the beautifully plated food. Close up motion pictures of food is one area where I don't believe a slider can be over used....

But what I really wanted to show off was the 35-100mm f2.8 X lens for the Panasonic G cameras. When I made my switch over from the full frame Sony cameras I had a few concerns that I might not be able to get the same, luscious, shallow depth of field and biting sharpness that I used to take for granted with the 70-200mm 2.8 lens. I was wrong. If anything I think the lens for the Panasonic cameras is a much better optic, overall, than the aging Sony lens. It is discernibly sharper, wide open and the colors are wonderful. Especially welcome when you consider the differences in camera sensors. 

These images were all shot at either f2.8 or at f3.5. They started life as large Jpeg files and I've done very little post processing to them. If I were highly proficient at PhotoShop I'm sure I could do lots of little magic steps to make every image look just a little better but I am happy with the almost untouched files. What did I add? A little contrast and a tiny bit of shadow lifting. That's it.

I feel like I hit the jackpot with the 12-35mm and the 35-100mm lenses. They cover a great range, have the same look and feel, operate in the same way and even offer good, solid image stabilization. 

With the recent addition of the 7-14mm I am a bit disappointed because there are so few new toys to lust after. I guess when people bitch about a camera system having a limited range of lenses they aren't complaining because there is some sort of image they are unable to shoot, rather they are making a statement about how disappointing it is not to have more things to buy. 

While the GH4 is not a perfect camera (a bit too much noise as we move up the ISO ladder) and I'm sure I'll be first in line for the GH5, I am delighted with everything that's come out of the lenses. 

Finally, there is an old myth that says all food that gets photographed is doused with motor oil, burned with torches and covered with glycerin and food coloring. Happily that is never the case in my work on in casa de Asti. When Chris and I finished photographing this food we munched on it with happy abandon before moving on to our next shots. It was delicious. But we could see that through the lens.....

I should call images like this: Stuff we shoot between sliding the cameras.

Seafood and Risotto. Asti. ©Kirk Tuck

Ravioli, v2. Asti. ©Kirk Tuck

Seafood and Risotto v2. Asti. ©Kirk Tuck

Carpaccio Salad. Asti. ©Kirk Tuck

Jaston Williams as "Maid Marian" for an upcoming Zach Theatre Production.

All material ©2014 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.dom  If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on an unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.

Jaston Williams in costume with boots.

I love working with Jaston. He's funny, brilliant and amazing. The first time I saw him perform was in the famous play that he co-wrote and in which he co-starred, Greater Tuna. I've watched him as Truman Capote and in a number of other roles in which he was uniformly superb. But I've rarely laughed as much in a marketing photo shoot as I did when he played it up for me as Maid Marian. It's a wildly comedic role based on someone from Jaston's past.

And now for something completely different: The 85mm Samsung NX lens on the new-ish NX30 camera.

I was weighing one final equipment change for now. I wanted to pick up the 7-14mm Panasonic lens (I've borrowed one on and off) to add to my GH4 system. I think at that point I'll feel a sense of (at least) temporary completion and stasis with my new m4:3 system. I'll I have equivalent of the holy trinity of zoom lenses that professional photographers always seem to amass for Nikon and Canon system. High quality zooms that effectively cover the range from 14mm to 200mm (in 35mm speak). But I'm being cautious with cash and to make the final acquisition and achieve temporary system stasis I feel like I need to peel off more excess gear. The orphans around the studio now are the Sony a850 and a few attendant lenses. 

I had some hesitation about letting that stuff go because (I rationalized) there may still be times I crave that very narrow depth of field that larger sensor cameras do so well. While I was pondering and dithering about the whole roundabout deal a thought slammed into my consciousness: Would I be happy with the performance and the look of a fast, longer lens on APS-C? Especially the look and performance of a lens I already have; the Samsung 85mm 1.4? So I grabbed the Samsung NX 30 APS-C mirror free camera body (20 megapixels, at least as nice a noise profile as the bigger Sony) and headed out the door to see what's what.  That's what these images are all about. 

The camera is not image stabilized and though a number of the Samsung zooms feature I.S. the 85mm 1.4 SSA does not. The trade off is, of course, a very fast max aperture which goes a long way toward delivering higher, more handhold-able shutter speeds. I shot with the lens wide open and the center 2/3rds of the frame are very sharp while the outer areas are more typical of the fast primes from other makers. 

I stopped down to f2.8 and the lens got very sharp and very well behaved. I think that when it comes to zero depth of field portraits the camera and lens are a very good combination. Having done this test makes me a bit more confident about moving on from the Sony full frame Alpha stuff and into the ever bubbling pot of micro four thirds. The 85mm+the Samsung NX30 will be hanging around the edges like a bokeh lifeguard for those moments when nothing will do but eyelashes in razor focus with earlobes soft and fuzzy. 

One more step forward in the world domination by m4:3s, with the Samsung 85mm as an ally in the wings...

Oh goodness. An almost total immersion into micro four thirds. I may have to give up my Professional Photographer's Decoder Ring...