www.dennismook.com
"Go Big or Go Home" is a phrase I often hear when it comes to doing things or making purchasing decisions. Be bold! How does that philosophy agree with your personal philosophy when it comes to buying, carrying and using your photographic gear? Do you have to go big to get professional results? Do you have to go big to get respect? Do you have to go big to feel professional? Do you have to go big to be serious about your photography? Some feel they do. Others not.
I shot film from 1970 to 2001 when I bought my first digital camera. It was a Canon G2 and I loved the smoothness of tone and the apparent grainless results. I haven't shot film since, with the exception of occasionally for experimental or for a very special reason.
Even though I have owned and used about every type of film camera there was, I found the 35mm SLR to be the easiest, most convenient and most versatile system to use. However, there was one problem I found with 35mm SLRs. I didn't think the image quality met my expectations. So, I concentrated for many years on using medium format, which was bigger, heavier, slower, more expensive and much less versatile. Then you have to throw in a larger, more robust tripod to handle the extra weight involved with the larger camera and lenses. There were no lightweight, carbon fiber tripods back then. Aluminum was as light as I could go. It was not unusual to be carrying 30 to 40 lbs. of gear on trips.
But the results met my needs, expectations and standards for image quality. After using a number of medium format systems, I settled on the Pentax 6X7 system. I used the body, prism finder without the meter and 4 lenses and a heavy Manfrotto tripod. I carried that kit all around the U.S. for about 20 years. For the most part, all that weight and bulk was never a game stopping issue.
Funny thing happened. As I got older, I swear that Pentax got bigger and heavier. I started to dread carrying it around. I started looking for excuses not to take it with me when I went out to photograph. But I always did, since I hadn't found anything better that fit my style or subjective image quality standards.
I started wondering if there was a 35mm system that would meet my needs that was also lightweight and smaller than the Pentax. I bought into the Leica rangefinder system with 4 or 5 lenses, which was a huge monetary investment! After all, arguably, there are no better lenses in the world than Leica lenses (Zeiss is right up there also). I tried and tried, but it came down to the recording medium--the 35mm film--that let me down. When I used that little and primitive Canon G2, I thought to myself, "Gee, these images look like medium format!" I started seriously looking into digital.
So, my dive into digital commenced with the same "Go big or go home" philosophy that I had adopted for film. Surely, a small, compact digital camera could not give me the results that I demanded. And, they didn't, Then.
After the Canon, I bought an Olympus Dimage A1, a fixed lens camera which was pretty well thought of at the time. The results were similar to the Canon but the Oly had a more versatile lens. It also had a very primitive EVF which was almost unusable. So, I continued to experiment.
As I got more and more immersed into digital photography, I tried making some of the same kind of images under similar circumstances as I had with 35mm film. I soon found out, that as nice and smooth the images seemed, 3 or 4mp tiny sensor cameras didn't give me the resolution and detail I wanted.
Since I had several older Nikon AF lenses from my Nikon days, I soon bought a Nikon D70. I loved the results and the camera body was relatively reasonable in size and weight. The lenses were the same size and weight as in the old 35mm film days. I was pleased with the resulting images I made with that 6mp camera. The larger sensor made a big difference over the Canon and Olympus and the other small sensor cameras I had used. I thought that I would need to stay with the larger sensor DSLRs to get the results with which I would be satisfied.
As time passed, sensor technology improved, as we all know. I went from the D70 to the Nikon D200, then D300, then D700. Each time, I remembered saying to myself, "this is the finest camera I have every owned!" And it was, considering all parameters. I now have a D800E and I am saying it again. The quality far exceeds anything that I have used before. My 4X5" negatives are pretty close but I like the quality of the 36mp images I make from the D800E a bit better.
But time marches on and my age continues to increase and size and weight are, again, "weighing" (pun intended) heavily on my mind as I travel about with 2 large DSLR bodies, 4 lenses and various converters, batteries, charges, filters and other accessories. That bag, again, seems heavier and heavier as I get older.
Jump to the newest digital sensor and software technology. The era of the smaller, equally capable digital camera has finally arrived. With the advent of the Micro 4/3 format and the associated cameras from Olympus and Panasonic, the smaller APS-C cameras made by Sony, Fujifilm, Samsung and others, I think that one can expect results as good as one would get with large DSLRs.
Go big or go small? You will have to decide for yourself. But I know now from personal experience that I can go small and be very satisfied with the images that come out of that computer with a lens.
I had been waiting for a high quality, physically smaller & lighter camera, with smaller, high quality lenses, that had a good viewfinder. I didn't care if it was an EVF or optical, I just can't get used to holding a camera out in front of me, looking at the LCD and making an image. For one, thing, that is a very unstable position and secondly, I have to put on my reading glasses to clearly see the LCD. Not acceptable.
I purchased the Olympus OMD E-M5 a year ago and have been shooting with it extensively. Also, I purchased 3 Panasonic zoom lenses to go with it. Why Panasonic? They had the glass, the zoom range and the tested quality I thought fit my needs. Olympus makes even better glass and I would put their glass right up there with Leica's. But what they offered in zoom lenses at the time, didn't necessarily fit my needs. As I get more into Micro 4/3, I will pick up some Olympus prime lenses.
So what have I learned over the past year? I have used the E-M5 in every circumstance that I have used my D800E. The only place I find it inferior is in focus tracking moving objects. Not slow moving objects, but fast moving objects such as birds in flight or cars moving fast. The contrast detection focusing system just can't quite keep up with fast moving subjects. But it will soon, I suspect. The other area in which it is different from a full frame sensor is the almost unlimited depth of field. But that is a product of physics, which, optically, little can be done. Fujifilm, in their new X20 point-and-shoot camera, has devised some sort of software solution to attain very limited depth of field. I predict this method and other similar methods will expand rapidly to other manufacturers.
Where does the Oly excel? Even though it is not as clear as an optical prism finder, I like the EVF. That will improve rapidly with time. But I find the histogram in the EVF invaluable for adjusting exposure compensation before making the exposure. I also find the focus dead on every time. These Micro 4/3 cameras focus right off the surface of the sensor, not as a DSLR does off focusing mechanism that is in the mirror box. Additionally, I find the sensor has a very similar dynamic range as the D800E, excellent color reproduction, a maximum 9 FPS (albeit it won't refocus in between shots). I find the lenses are more than sufficient to meet my demanding standards. All in all, the Olympus OMD E-M5 is the first sub-DSLR that fully meets my expectations for image quality. I am very happy with it. The bottom line is it just feels good in my hands and I love the image quality.
During my recent 23-day road trip, I found myself picking up the Olympus more and more as the days wore on. The camera has more controls and more ways to customize settings than any other camera I have ever used. I was somewhat uncomfortable with it for a long time. Before the road trip, I spent considerable time getting to know it better--reading the user's manual again, adjusting the settings, experimenting, etc., until I now feel very comfortable with it. I can find any setting immediately and make changes forthwith--as fast as my Nikons.
So, is it Go Big or Go Home? Only you can decide for yourself. But, if it weren't for the fact that the stock photo agency with which I have a contract wants the largest files possible, I would sell the Nikon gear and move fully to Micro 4/3. That is how impressed and comfortable I am with the camera and lenses. In a few years, when I am done shooting stock, I will make the move. Or, it may even be sooner as the stock agency will accept files from the E-M5. I have sent many into them without identifying the camera and their editors have fully accepted and embraced them as the quality is high enough to market to their clients. I may make the jump sooner rather than later.
Go Big or Go Home? Or Go Small & Light and Be Comfortable? It is truly a viable choice now for all but a few specialized photographers. You decide for yourself.
Thanks for looking.
Enjoy!
Dennis Mook
No comments:
Post a Comment