Wallace Koopmans Artlog

Heavy on the style and epicness.  This was a camera that sold very well for Olympus, in the millions, so there are many out there to be enjoyed and they really should be.  At it’s core it is a 35mm 4 element f2.8 lens that is very sharp without a lot of distortion, but with a bit of vignetting.  It is a point and shoot and therefore doesn’t offer many overrides, primarily control of the flash but it focuses well and the exposure is almost always spot on.  It is a very small camera which easily slips into a pocket.  The fact that it turns on by simply opening the clam shell makes it easy to prepair for use without needing to look at the camera to locate the on button as is the case with many other cameras.  The Stylus Epic out performs it’s current cost ten times over and deserves it’s cult status. 

More samples shots from the Olympus Stylus Epic

This morning Pentax has released a new camera the K-01 which is the first “mirrorless” camera that takes full size DSLR lenses without an adapter.  One thing about this camera that is sure to draw controversy is the fact that it has no viewfinder.  It relys solely on its 3″ rear LCD for image composition, this is a foreign concept for many people. Essentially the camera will be held with two hands out in front of your face, very much like a point and shoot.  Having used both types of cameras for at least the last 8 years I can say that the usage is so different that many current DSLR users will not be willing to use this camera because of it’s lack of a viewfinder.  That said when you are comfortable with that method of shooting it seems quite natural.

On the what’s different side Pentax has added the ability to shoot in multiple aspect ratios at the time of capture rather than needing to compose with a future crop in mind.  The available ratios are (4:3, 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1) .  I like this idea very much as I do like to compose mainly on the spot.

Here is the link to Pentax Canada’s information for the K-01 http://pentaxcanada.ca/en/digital_slr/K-01/

Did I mention it comes in yellow! 

and now for the rest of the original post……

While the Pentax MV is an SLR with a mirror and the ability to change lenses it really performs like a manual focus point and shoot.  What I mean by this is that there is little user control.  Yes you set the aperture and it selects the shutter speed but beyond that you must rely on the camera to get the exposure correct.  For most of this roll of film I mounted the Pentax SMC A 40mm pancake lens which together with the body makes a very compact camera all things considered.

I used outdated film and got what I deserved but converting it to B&W gave me some results that I’m happy with.

Not to be confused with shooting a Red Rider BB gun.  When you use a lot of older rangefinder cameras they do seem to meld into one after awhile.  After all the form did not change in any great amount for decades and they were manufactured by many more camera companies than exist today.  So it’s difficult to really see something that makes one stand out from the pack,  you may be thinking OK what makes this one stand out Wallace, and the answer is nothing particularly.  Produced in 1959 It has a 48mm f 2.8 lens certainly not the fastest, and a selenium cell metering system that is not coupled.   The aperture, shutter and focus are all nicely built with smooth precise movements.  Even the film advance has a wonderful ratcheting sound that reinforced the quality of the camera.  So while it doesn’t stand out from the pack it certainly is nicely built and operates accordingly 

These sample shots were done on a wet overcast day using Kodak Ektar 100 I’ve played around with the colour extensively which is possible with the amount of raw information recorded with that film. It really produces scans that can be manipulated much like a digital capture.  Update I almost forgot to mention this roll of film was saved after the film leader was sucked back inside by my Fuji DL500 which is another story altogether.  Thanks Duncan from Lens and Shutter for pulling the end back out without anyone having to resort to inserting wet film to grab it.

Back in olden times, when surfing the Internet was preceded by the squelch of a phone modem and required you to know the URL of the sight you wanted to go to, film manufacturers decided to make things more convenient.  Not for the Internet, they didn’t see that coming, but for handling film.  What they came up with was APS film and what it addressed was the loading and storage of the film.  The film stayed inside the cartridge completely until loaded by the camera and was stored inside the cartridge again after being developed.  People using APS film never actually saw the film itself.  In creating the cartridge though they did one other significant thing and that was reduce the film size as compared to 35mm film which was and is the film size that most people are familiar with.  The side effect of this reduced size is also a lowering of picture quality, especially evident when the images are enlarged beyond a certain size.  Because most of these pictures where never printed larger than 5″x7″ this largely goes unnoticed. 

Fast forward several years and we are now searching the Internet more effectively but not yet Googling.  At this point digital photography’s is skyrocketing and film use is plummeting.  APS film being the weaker of the film formats with a much smaller user base was the first to be left behind.  A lot is happening within digital photography at this time, point and shoot cameras actually suck and produce inferior images and cost large sums of money.  Digital SLR’s are only just becoming available and also cost large sums of money.  Most DSLR’s then as now came out with either a sensor the same size as 35mm film often referred to as “full frame” or the smaller APS-c or “cropped sensor”.  Why would manufacturers even bother with producing sensors the same size as the failed APS film you might ask.  The reasons are mostly down to the cost of manufacturing the sensors and as it turns out the full frame ones are a lot more costly relative to there size.  So in order to create a market for DSLR’s camera makers needed to bring the costs down to a point that enough people could afford them, how else could they sell lenses.  I remember it was a big deal when the first sub $1000 DSLR was released in around 2006. 

From day one it was clear that full frame sensors were better than APS-c ones as it had been between the two film sizes.  Manufactures helped to make this clear also by putting full frame sensors in their big rugged professional cameras and APS-c sensors in their consumer offerings.  And that is how it’s been for about ten years, but the thing is that sensors have been steadily improving with each new iteration and the gap in image quality between full frame and APS-c has narrowed.  This may be as much a result of companies putting resources to where they feel they will get the best return. After all they are not out to produce the best camera with no concern for cost they are competing hard to stay ahead of each other in the market place.  There are many more things going on in digital photography including other sensor sizes and camera forms but within the DSLR world it’s mostly about full frame and crop sensors.

So if full frame sensors result in better image quality in general then what if any advantage other than cost do crop sensors provide?  Well because of there smaller size they record a narrower field of view from the same focal length lens.  This is often referred to as the crop factor.  This “crop factor” is roughly 1.5 times for most APS-c sensors.  The result is that for example a 100mm lens on APS-c provides the same field of view as a 150mm lens on full frame.  This relationship is true for any focal length so that a 300mm lens becomes equivalent to a 450mm lens on full frame.  In this case it’s clearly an advantage for people wanting a long telephoto lens.  The opposite is true for wide angle where what was a wide 18mm becomes equivalent to a 28mm lens on a full frame camera.

So why did I title this post revenge of APS?  Well it’s been a long road but we are at a point where some of the most recent APS-c sensors can perform at the same level as full frame sensors.  This may not be a universally held belief but it’s pretty easy to argue that the difference isn’t nearly what it once was.  It’s true that “full frame” cameras provide a shallower depth of field, but may not be the be all end all of photography.  I find myself again on the side of the argument that ends with the question. If the viewer of an image has no idea how it was made does it matter how it was made?

In a future  post I will time travel back to 1996  and compare two otherwise similar cameras having the key difference that one took 35mm film and the other APS.

I’ve always assumed that other people used the Program mode on their cameras as I have but recently I’ve come to realize that there is some derision associated with using Program mode.  An amusing anecdote relayed to me was how someone misunderstood the P to be for Professional and they couldn’t figure out why they didn’t get better results with it.

Some people may tell you that you need to shoot in aperture priority or shutter priority or even manual mode if you are a serious photographer but I disagree.  If you are using a modern DSLR from almost any manufacturer you are using the most sophisticated metering systems that have ever existed.  I’m not advocating slavishly setting the camera to Program or some Auto mode and letting it do all the thinking but there is no reason not to take advantage of Program mode. 

Minolta X-700 Mode dial

My first SLR I bought for myself was the Minolta X700 which was also my first introduction to Program mode.  At the time it seemed wrong to turn over so much to the camera and I tended to use the camera in Aperture priority instead and only used the exposure compensation when I felt a scene needed it.  Now though I use Pentax DSLR’s and use them almost exclusively in Program mode.  I have the camera set to use what is called the MTF program line, what this means is that the camera attempts to select the apertures that give the best resolution results for the lens that is mounted on the camera.  I consider this the starting point, pointing the lens at a subject and metering, the camera will give you feedback about what aperture and shutter would give an average exposure.  Changing either shutter or aperture at this point results in a corresponding change in the other in order to keep the exposure the same.  If you think that there needs to be an adjustment to the exposure then a change to the exposure compensation will move the camera settings  to create an exposure that differs from the program line by the amount you select.  After taking a picture or when evaluating a scene for exposure you can then review the image and look at it’s histogram to see if your happy with what is essentially the data that you just captured. 

Pentax K-7 Mode dial

So what does this all really mean?  Well I see it as working together with the camera as apposed to believing that I always know what is best.  You should always be aware of what shutter speed, aperture and ISO are set at but there is no reason for general photography to not allow the camera to get things started.  Of course there will always be exceptions like when controlling depth of field or the shutter speed is of primary importance but even these can be done within Program mode.  With practice in what ever mode you choose will come the confidence to make changes and the freedom to create art without dwelling on the technical.  This should be the ultimate goal, to attain a level of proficiency so that the act of  photography doesn’t intrude into the image making.  If Program mode (I’m not referring to any sort of Auto mode) allows you to create good images then that is OK, after all it’s all about the results,  no one looks at a print and says “I think they had the camera on Program”.

P.S. It’s a good thing WordPress has a spell checker I need that more than I need a light meter.

Part of the fun of photography for me is playing around with different cameras so I often have more than one with me.  A side benefit of this is that I regularly have similar images from two different devices to compare.  Sometimes the difference can be striking and you think maybe I’ll just make this one disappear other times it leaves me with the quandary “Just what is good enough?”  If an image will never be printed and it contains all that you want to convey then is say, a cell phone camera good enough?  I think the answer is yes but how do you know that at the time? 

What if you come across something that you want to print and you  are restricted by the camera.  Let me be clear, cell phone cameras have some serious limitations at this time.  One they don’t have an optical zoom or any way of altering the focal length other than expanding the image digitally which looks like crap to put it mildly.  Another is they have limited dynamic range, you are  just not going to get any detail in shadow areas without over exposing the highlights.  Also a major frustration for me is the shutter lag, or the time from when I actually tell my camera to take a picture and it does.  It’s horrible with my HTC Evo 3D I’ve had to develop a one second anticipation plan.  See the motion, feel the motion be the motion press the shutter,  crap I missed it.

I see it this way, cell phone cameras are ideal for social media and online sharing.  They do not replace a dedicated camera for all things but compliment them.  Why not when you see something really cool take a picture with a “camera” and then share your experience with a cell phone.  Maybe I’m taking this too seriously but I know I won’t feel that way when I really want to take a picture and I have the right tool to do it.

Here is where for me good is good enough.  One is shot with my Nikon P7000 and one is with my HTC Evo 3D, not necessarily in that order.

As the Canon Classic and the Pentax 24EW (pronounced 2-4-EEEEEeeeewwwww) fought it out to be the supreme irrelevant the Olympus mju III was waiting for it’s moment. In a move reminiscent of Doc Brown it has vualted forward from 2003 and staked it’s claim to be the preeminent irrelevant camera from around the turn of the last century.  It’s 37.5-150mm (really 1/2 a mm wider you coun’t have rounded?) lens is something to behold.  That’s 150mm in a Point and shoot!  I’m not aware of any PS film cameras that had a longer lens.

So why wouldn’t it just win hands down, it’s lens is the longest?  The reason is that it lacks much of the control that the Pentax and Canon have such as exposure compensation and that neat feature of automatic zoom for portraits.  Features like that really help when your trying to be the best of the abandoned.  And the Olympus is champagne coloured, please that is so 2000.  The Canon and the Pentax are a “real” camera colour silver, which isn’t really a colour because it’s just a reflection….. 

So how did it perform?  It took some getting used to because it seemed to want to use the flash all the time every time.  This was annoying and required me to poke at teeny little buttons until the flash symbol was off every time I turned the camera on (camera on-flash off-camera off-flash on-camera on-flash off)  I think you get the idea.  The one feature it has and luckily is useful is the spot metering.

The results though were good, again if good had stayed the same since 2003 but good is better now than it was then, (flash-off)  After all this which one would I choose you might ask if you cared.  The thing is they all have a certain charm.  The Pentax for it’s control and 24mm wide lens, the Canon for it’s looks and image quality and the Olympus for it’s 150mm long lens.  If you thought choosing a camera a decade ago was hard it’s far worse now.  There are more categories of cameras and more cameras in each category and new one replace old ones at a rate that even the all mighty internet can’t keep up with. 

I hope you’ve enjoyed this little blast from the resent past, and take a moment to reflect just how much has changed between 2003 and 2013 (note if it isn’t 2013 when you read this ignore that)

If you’ve been waiting to find out which point and shoot camera you should have bought ten years ago, your prolonged wait is over.  PreviouslyI posted about the Canon Sure Shot Classic and the Pentax 24EW and now that I have the film back and scanned I was able to make a results comparison.  Well the Pentax wins hands down from 24 to 38mm but considering the Canon starts at 38mm that isn’t praise.  In almost ever picture under the same conditions the Canon produced a better result, both through exposure and image quality.  As I used the same sensor (Kodak 400) it really did come down to the cameras.  Here are some of the shots in a side by side.  If it’s wide you want though the Pentax is the one.

Above you can see the Pentax can get a little closer for a zoomed macro and bellow the difference between 24 and 38mm is pretty clear.

 This crop shows both cameras at there maximum zoom  120mm (Canon) vs 105mm (Pentax)

 This detail crop really shows the difference.  In all these pictures I’ve made no effort to deal with the grain of the film or optimize the images beyond trying to scan them accurately.

This just in Olympus has joined the conflict with the mju III 150 (circa 2003) with it’s 8 element ED 37.5mm to 150mm lens, stunning the competition, and again causing the Pentax to faint.

What we have here are two very good compact film cameras from that awkward time when the digital megapixel race was to get to 1.2 Million.  Digital wasn’t quite there or in the mainstream and people were still wanting to take pictures of their cats.  So If you wanted a good quality camera around the turn of last century (I always wanted to say that) these were two top choices.

They are well built cameras with very good optics.  The Pentax 24EW has a 24mm to 105mm zoom which is very wide considering most others point and shoots of the time started around 35mm.  The Canon on the other hand has a 38mm to 120mm zoom which gives a bit more reach while giving up the wide end.

One interesting feature that both cameras posses is the ability to automatically zoom to frame a portrait.  If you select this mode on either camera and then give the shutter a half press they will change the zoom setting to take a head and shoulder shot of your subject.  That may not be amazing for a digital camera but don’t forget these are film point and shoots, from the turn of the last century.

The Canon is considerably heavier than the Pentax which may be a detriment in some cases but allows it to remain standing even when fully zoomed.

You can also see in this picture that the Canon flash has popped out of it’s side bay door.  It does that when ever the camera is turned on whether needed or not.  Pentax you are now forgiven for drooping.

I recently shot a roll of Kodak 400 through each of them and should get the negatives back this week, at which time I will post the comparison results.  See isn’t film fun, the suspense is harming me severely.

While playing with the Pentax Q I allowed myself to mostly forget about the technical and pretend that I don’t know much about photography.  Some might argue that would be quite easy, but taking this position allowed me to experience the Q how I think it is intended.  Pentax seems to have broken most of the rules that have governed digital photography.  The last ten years have seen incremental advancements in technology making each new camera slightly better than the last.  With the Q Pentax appears to have said OK things in the world of cameras are pretty good lets start over.  What I mean by this is that as people are agonizing over whether to choose a camera with a slightly smaller sensor to get a smaller camera, Pentax has just said forget about the sensor size you want small this is what it takes.  Nikon has done a similar thing with their new 1 system cameras the j1 and v1 and used a sensor much smaller that APSC but which is still 4 times the surface area of the Q’s sensor (116mm vs 28.5mm).  The Internet is rife with information and arguments about how sensor size affects high ISO low light performance so I won’t bother with that but just present where the current state of the art appears to be, all be it in a very tiny camera.

So here are some examples of the high ISO performance with details, I haven’t applied any luminance noise reduction to the images but have left the color noise reduction of Lightrom at the default 25 for the RAW files.  I also haven’t done any distortion correction correction to the RAW images.

ISO 1600 f3.5, 1/40 sec RAW and a 1 to 1 crop

This one was shot as a jpeg with no further processing.  ISO 3200 f2.5 1/60 sec, and the 1 to 1 crop follows

ISO 6400 f4.5 1/60sec RAW again no luminance noise reduction applied and the 1 to 1 crop

So what are my conclusions from what has to be admitted as a very short 3 hours with the camera.  It’s smallness defines it.  I don’t think that I was able to show how small it is through pictures which seems odd.  You would think you can just put it beside something of a known size and there you are, but it isn’t quite that simple.  It changes the measuring stick of small.  I’m not entirely sure how to define this camera because there is a trade off with the size and I think that is in the absolute image quality.   Perhaps I’m not able to pretend hard enough to let the tech geek in me forget about the image files and only see the pictures.  I’m not sure that the Q will attain main stream acceptance but I’m also not sure that was what Pentax was going for, the build quality of the Q is extremely high and it just looks cool.