I’ve been doing a bit of non-photography reading around process lately and not surprisingly some of what I have read can apply to photography. In my research on process improvement, I came upon a quote that said: “Don’t waste time learning the “tricks of the trade”. Instead learn the trade.” This is a great piece of advice for photographers no matter where you are on the path to learning photography.
When I first picked up a camera with the intent to learn photography, I studied the exposure triangle and used manual mode for the longest time. It was only when I fully understood how aperture, shutter speed and ISO were related that I moved to using Aperture Priority and Exposure Compensation. These days new photographers start out on Program or Automatic Mode or even Aperture Mode and they come to fully understand exposure only later. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, I do see the advantages of starting out learning the trade as it were, rather than the tricks of the trade. Light is the raw material with which photographers use to make photographs. If you understand its properties and how to manipulate it at a fundamental level using your camera, you will make more meaningful photographs much more quickly. That’s the paradox of taking time to do the hard work to learn this craft. Sometimes the longer route is actually the shortest way to get there. Here are some other suggestions that might be useful for you.
Buying New Gear
Temptation lurks ever present for us photographers as camera manufacturers continually upgrade gear in an attempt to dominate the market. The fact is you don’t need to buy new gear to make good photographs. If you like to create HDR images, you were perfectly able to create your images before they added that feature on to the latest cameras. The more technology takes away from our thought and hands on process, the more distant we are from this being a craft in the truest sense of the word. Leica might be one manufacturer who understand this. In a recent announcement Leica will create a new camera with just three settings: aperture, shutter speed and ISO. And no LCD screen at the back. You don’t need to buy this camera though to buy into the notion of less technical distraction and more mindful presence when making photographs; just go out and make pictures with what you have.
Using Presets and Actions
Presets and actions can be a great way to learn post-processing techniques. I am just not convinced that they are a good place to start and they are certainly not a good place to stop in terms of learning this craft. Photoshop actions can be challenging to learn and to create on your own but instead of spending money on buying them from other photographers, spend money on a Lightroom or Photoshop course. You will learn about the power of Lightroom and Photoshop beyond just presets and actions and it will help you work more effectively with the software. If you do have presets and actions, take a closer look at them and try to figure out how they work. Explore what will happen if you change the position of the sliders or if you turn off one of the layers. There is no substitute for a eureka moment when it comes to learning.
Learn to Evaluate Your Work
This is one I struggle with myself because it is human nature to be our own worst critic. All the great photographers I have become acquainted with through their work and writings have an acute sense of what is a good image. It is not something they outsource to others to decide and certainly not on social media. We need to learn how to evaluate our own work, to be able to look at a set of images and decide which are the strongest ones to include in a story, series or portfolio. We must be able to articulate why we choose one image over another for inclusion. Certainly we can get input from others especially as we learn the editing process but do not be tempted to rely on the opinions of others to know and understand the value of your work.
Building Your Portfolio
Group workshops are a great way to meet other photographers who share your interests. Many photographers also use them as a way to add to their portfolios and from an economic point of view it makes sense. Someone makes all the arrangements for you, hires models, shows you how to light and might even set it up for you. It is an excellent way to learn but in my opinion, it is not the way to add to your portfolio. I’ve seen similar images made at the same time by different photographers. They show up on their websites and are submitted to magazines and competitions and it is difficult to take that work seriously because it doesn’t feel real. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on a tour, look for interesting things to photograph close to home or head out on the road on your own. Here’s a series from my friend Eric Kruszewski who spent 14 days traveling across America. It was a change from living and traveling abroad traveling to 26 countries over five years. Today Eric is an editorial photographer whose work is represented by National Geographic Creative. He didn’t get there through any tricks but by being one of the hardest working photographers I know.
At the Bangkok Photo School, we are committed to teaching the trade. Our November class is now full but you can add your name to the wait list here. If you’d like to know when new classes are announced, sign up for our newsletter. You can also email us with your enquiries or suggestions.
I’ve used Canon cameras for as long as I’ve been a photographer. The first camera I used was a Canon FT-QL, a tank of a camera. The QL stood for “quick load,” a Canon innovation that made it easier to load a new roll of film into the camera. We got that FT-QL at the PX in Bangkok in 1967 or so.
Even then, Canon and Nikon were the big two of the camera companies. The others, Minolta, Olympus, Ricoh, Yashica, etc were playing catch up to the CanNik juggernaut. Leica was always in a league of its own.
Through the years I’ve flirted with other systems.
In the 1980s, one paper I worked at issued me Olympus OM bodies and lenses. The lenses were excellent and the bodies nice and small, but I stayed with Canon for my personal gear. In the late 1980s, another paper I worked for issued me Nikon gear, FM2 bodies and a selection of Nikon lenses. They were okay but (and this might be heresy to Nikon fans) they didn’t offer me anything the Canons didn’t, so I stayed with Canon. (Although I have to admit the Nikon FM2/FE2 are arguably the best looking 35mm SLRs ever made. Nikon nailed the aesthetics of those.) While the Olympus gear was substantially lighter than my Canon gear, the Nikon gear weighed about the same.
When the digital tsunami swamped the photo world I made the decision to stay with Canon. Digital cameras and lenses are so expensive and complex that the switching systems is not done on a whim (unless you’re exceptionally well heeled or enjoy the support of a camera company).
When I make the decision to switch cameras it’s a big deal. Maybe not in terms of global politics or curing Ebola but certainly in terms of my personal work.
I’ve been plagued by back problems the last few months and it’s just not practical for me to carry the ridiculously heavy 5D Mark III bodies, four lenses, flashes and various doodads. I’ve been very happy with the image quality and reliability of the Canon gear, this is a decision based purely on health and weight (my health, the cameras’ weight).
I’ve been using Micro 4:3 cameras since 2010 and I’ve written about small cameras several times. But my back problems forced me to take a hard look at what I was doing and the gear I was carrying.
Let’s do the math (the weight of the gear is taken from the manufacturers’ specifications pages):
5D Mark III body: 860 grams (x2) = 1,720 grams
24mm f1.4 lens: 650 grams
50mm f1.2 lens: 545 grams
100mm f2 lens: 460 grams
200mm f2.8 lens: 765 grams
580EX2 flash (with batteries): 475 grams
430EX2 flash (with batteries): 430 grams
ST-E2 flash controller: 100 grams
Total of Canon gear: 5,145 grams (5.1 kilos = 11.3 pounds)
Olympus E-P5 body (with VF4): 420 grams (x2) = 840 grams (less than the weight of one 5D Mark III body)
12mm f2 lens (roughly a 24mm lens): 130 grams
25mm f1.8 lens (roughly a 50mm lens): 135 grams
45mm f1.8 lens (roughly a 90mm lens): 116 grams
75mm f1.8 lens (roughly a 150mm lens): 305 grams
FL300R flash: 100grams
Total of Olympus gear: 1,626 grams (1.6 kilos = 3.6 pounds)
(I don’t have to carry a separate flash controller for the E-P5 because it’s built into the body. I also have only one flash for the E-P5.)
The Olympus gear I carry weighs about 1/3 what the Canon gear weighs. That’s a lot. The Olympus lenses are excellent and almost unbelievably tiny. The 75mm f1.8, in particular, is outstanding. I think it’s as good as Canon’s 135mm f2 or 200mm f2.8.
(In the interest of full disclosure, the weight of the camera gear is only a portion of what I carry. There are also notebooks, ponchos, light meter, and misc bits of stuff. The weight on that extra stuff hasn’t changed, so I am probably still carrying more than I should.)
I’m not going to sugar coat this and say both systems are equal. That is not the case. My Canon lenses are the very fast, very expensive and very heavy L series lenses. They are some of the best lenses made. The short Olympus lenses are about 1 stop slower (my Canon 24 is f1.4, my Olympus 12 is f2, my Canon 50 is f1.2, the Olympus 25 is f1.8) but the longer lenses are the same speed or faster (the Canon 100 is f2, the Olympus 45 is f1.8 and the Canon 200 is f2.8 while the Olympus 75 is f1.8).
The Olympus gear is Micro 4:3, or a 2X crop compared to full frame. This is great from the weight and portability perspective, less good from the ISO, depth of field perspective.
Larger sensors have better high ISO characteristics because the photosites on the sensor are bigger. This gets into engineering, physics, math and a lot of stuff I don’t understand. But across camera lines, larger sensors have better high ISO characteristics. Canon full frame is better than Canon APS sized sensors and Nikon full frame is better than either Nikon APS or Nikon 1 Series cameras (which have a postage stamp sized sensor).
But, and this is important to remember, I think that for many people high ISO is over rated. That’s not to say it’s not important, it is. However, I use ISO100 a lot more often than I use ISO1600. I seldom go over ISO3200 and can count on one hand the number of times I’ve worked at ISOs higher than 6400.
I’m old. When I started photographing in color back in the early 1980s, ISO160 was considered a high ISO. Seriously. High Speed Ektachrome was the fastest available color transparency film. It was an E6 film and could be pushed one or two stops. It was bad at its base ISO of 160. It was dreadful pushed. “Normal” speed film then was Kodachrome 64 (ISO64) or Kodachrome 25 (ISO25) or Ektachrome 64 (ISO 64). Now, most digital cameras don’t even go down to ISO 64 and I don’t know of any that go down to ISO 25.
Our high ISO black and white film was either Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP-5, base ISO of 400, pushed to 1600 and developed in a witches’ brew of homemade chemicals. Photographers then didn’t sit around talking about which sensor was better. We traded secrets for push processing film. (This is predating Kodak’s T-Max 3200.)
(This was early in my color photography days. Color films got a lot better at high ISO pretty quickly, but even at the end of my color film photography days “high” ISO meant 800 pushed to 1600, so we’re much better off now than we were then.)
Clean high ISO is important to me but the high ISO of modern digital cameras is amazing. I have no problem going to 1600 with the E-P5 and 3200 is usable with noise reduction in Lightroom. The 5D Mark III has about a 1 to 1.5 stop advantage at high ISO, I just don’t routinely need those super high ISOs. High ISO of modern cameras, including the E-P5 and Olympus bodies, just blows away anything we could coax out of film back in the day.
It’s important to know what kind of photography you do. If I did a lot of sports or worked at high ISO a lot this would be a bigger deal to me.
Finally, Olympus’ in body image stabilization is excellent and makes up for some of the high ISO deficit. I can handhold the Olympus cameras at shutter speeds that would either force me into using a tripod or higher ISO on the Canons.
The other big difference is depth of field control. I really like working with my Canon lenses at f1.4 or 1.2 or 2, “wide open” or close to it. The shallow depth of field and large sensor create a great look that I can’t equal with the Olympus, which has a smaller sensor.
Because of the math, f1.8 on the Olympus 25mm has about the same depth of field as the Canon 50mm has at f3.5. F3.5 might be a wide f stop for some photographers, especially zoom users, but for me it’s the middle of the pack. I still work at f1.8 or f2, I’ve just had to get used to not having the same super thin depth of field I had with the Canons.
The glass is half full take on this is that I have more photos in focus. As good as the autofocus is on the 5D Mark III (and it is very good), working at 1.2 or f1.4 means missed focus by only a few inches can throw your picture unusably out of focus. There’s a greater fudge factor with M4:3 because it has more depth of field at the same f stop.
Those are some of the tangible issues with using Micro 4:3. There’s also the intangibles. When I use the Canons people the people I photograph react differently to me. They are stiffer, more formal. When I use the Olympus, probably because it’s so much smaller and less intimidating, people don’t take me as seriously, which I prefer.
I am keeping the Canon gear for the time being, just in case I have to cover an event that’s a bad match for the Olympus kit (sports for example) but now when you see me on the street I’ll be working with the Olympus gear rather than the Canon gear.
I recently photographed the first day of funeral rites for Apiwan Wiriyachai, a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Thai parliament. It’s always a good idea when you’re using a small flash to get the flash off the camera. Properly done off camera flash makes the light more interesting and more natural. That’s pretty much impossible with the small popup flashes that are on top of most cameras these days or when you’re working in a media pack.
Apiwan’s funeral was a big media event. There were probably 30 photographers gathered around the body photographing as people paid their respects. Most of them were using flash, almost all of them either the small popup flashes built into their cameras or large accessory flashes but all of them, every single one of them, had the flash on the camera.* Most had the flash pointed straight ahead but a few were “bouncing” their flashes off the ceiling. I was working exclusively with available light.
The room was lit by fluorescent tubes and combining fluorescent and flash creates all sorts of color balance issues. I’ve found it’s much easier to edit and do color correction if there’s only one light source in the photo. The base exposure at ISO800 was around f1.8 at between 1/60th and 1/250th (depending on whether people were looking up or down) and Apiwan was covered in a shiny white shawl so I was comfortable working with available light.
As I was working I could see that I was going to have a lot of unusable frames. Other photographers’ flashes were going off with machine gun like rapidity.
A couple of times the flash was just discrete enough that I could piggy back off of it.
It’s impossible to predict at the moment that you’re making pictures what effect other people’s flashes will have on your photos. There are a lot of variables.
With the exception of a couple of motion blur photos I made, I was working at f1.8 to f2.2, wide open, or close to it, all day. It doesn’t take as much flash to expose at f1.8 as it does f8. If the photographer whose flash I was piggy backing off was shooting at wider apertures (and putting out less flash) I ended up with an interesting picture. If he (they were all male) was working at f11 or blasting away with the flash, I ended up with a blown out frame.
I could see the flashes going off around me and I knew from experience that I was going to have a difficult time editing. It’s impossible to predict when another photographer’s flash is going to help you and when it’s going to wreck your photo. I made a lot more frames than I normally would have because I was I trying to work around the photographers’ flashes.
* There’s a protocol when you’re working in a media scrum like this. Normally, a professional photographer would get the flash off the camera and either put it on a light stand or hold it out at arm’s length (or ask a nearby civilian to hold it for you). But you don’t have those options when you’re in a scrum. If I hold a flash in my hand and then stick my hand out to get the flash off camera I’m going to end up blocking another photographer’s view. The idea in a scrum is to make yourself as small as possible so you don’t block other photographers.
The answer is yes, but the bigger question is “how many megapixels is enough?” That’s a much more complicated question to answer.
I’ve been working with digital cameras since 1997. The first event I covered with a digital camera was the 50th anniversary of the UFO crash in Roswell, NM. The camera I had then, the EOS DCS3, was a loaner from Canon. It came with a whopping 260 megabytes of storage on a built in internal hard drive and shot 1.3 megapixel pictures that measured 1,268 horizontal x 1,012 vertical pixels. I had to hook the camera up to my laptop with a SCSI (pronounced “scuzzy”) connector because the storage was not removable from the camera.
Once you got past the cool factor (no need to process film or scan negatives) using it was a pretty miserable experience. Your exposures had to be perfect. Overexposed highlights had a god awful and uncorrectable magenta color cast. Blocked up shadows had so much digital noise (grain) even an ISO200 photo looked like it was made at ISO3200.
And then there was the file size. 1.3 megapixels: 1,268 horizontal x 1,012 vertical pixels. Most newspapers were printing color photos at 200 dots per inch. A medium sized photo that was eight inches wide needed to be about 1,600 pixels wide (200 X 8). We had to upsize most pictures just to get them to the resolution needed to run them at the size the newspaper wanted. Cropping meant more upsizing, which led to image degradation.
It’s the reason so many photographers then worked with both film and digital bodies. Film for most of our work, digital when we knew we had to turn it around right away.
When I was issued a Canon D30 (not to be confused with the 30D. I mean really, what was Canon thinking when they named their cameras?), with its 3 megapixel sensor I thought I was in heaven. Three megapixels meant we could actually do a little cropping and didn’t have to upsize every single photo.
The first digital camera I bought for myself (as opposed to using cameras issued to me) was the Canon D60 (not to be confused with the 60D). It weighed in at a whopping six megapixels (3152 x 2068 pixels) and was the first digital camera, that for me, came close to achieving what I could with film. The negative scanner I had at the time (for my film cameras), was a Nikon LS-2000 Super CoolScan. It output files that were 2700 pixels on the long dimension which was a little smaller than the files from the D60.
Canon, and other camera companies, kept upping the megapixel ante. The EOS 20D was an eight megapixel camera (3520×2344 pixels) and offered enough file size that we could comfortably crop pictures if we needed to.
The Canon EOS 5D was a 12 megapixel (4368 x 2912 pixels) and for me this was the first camera that caused me to ask – “how many megapixels is too many megapixels?”
One of the advantages of coming of photographic age in the days of color transparency film and early digital cameras was that you had to have strong technical skills, the ability to fill the frame when you shoot, properly expose the picture and working within the parameters of color balance and color temperature. The better your original exposure, the less work you had to do to the digital file and that almost always translated to a better picture in the newspaper.
With the tremendous latitude of the 5D raw files and generous size of the files you could make a lot of mistakes and then fix them on the computer.
I was covering an event in Yuma, Arizona, for a wire service and after I transmitted my photos, the editor in Washington DC complimented a specific frame but said it was a little too loose. He asked what camera I was using and when I told him I had the 5D he told me to crop the picture by about 40% and send it again. When I hesitated he said something like, “come on, that’s a 12MP file. It can take it.” I would not have been able to crop that file if I had made it with my old three megapixel D30.
Canon has held steady at about 22 megapixels (5616 x 3744 pixels) for a few years now (both the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III are basically 22MP cameras). But Nikon and Sony have stormed the megapixel gates with 36 megapixel cameras. Both cameras use sensors made by Sony.
Even smaller cameras, like APS format cameras and Micro 4:3 are raising their megapixel counts. Nikon’s APS cameras are about 24MP and Canon’s right around 20MP. Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4:3 cameras are 16 megapixels (4608 x 3456 pixels).
You have to ask yourself, do you need 36 megapixels? For most people I think the answer is no. There are real disadvantages to these megapixel behemoths.
The first one, and one that a lot of people don’t think about, is that all that resolution really stresses your lenses. It’s no coincidence that Zeiss and Sigma are both coming out with very high grade lenses that in most cases test better than the Canon or Nikon lenses (even the high end pro grade lenses from Canon and Nikon) they compete with. Older and inexpensive kit lenses are out resolved by the bodies they’re marketed with.
These pro level lenses are very expensive. Canon’s 24-70 f2.8 L zoom is about $2,100 (US). Canon’s 85mm f1.2 L prime lens, a legendary lens, is also about $2,100, which seems cheap compared to the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 which will you set back an astonishing $4,500.
The second drawback is storage. I can get about 270 full resolution 22MP files onto an eight gigabyte card. Doing the math, the 36MP Nikon and Sony files are about 36% bigger than the 5D Mark III 22MP files (give or take). The eight gig card in my 5D Mark III, that holds 270 images, will only hold about 190 images from a 36MP camera.
Now extend this throughout your workflow. How many files can you get on your two terabyte hard drive? Divide that by ⅓. If you plan to get by using one 2TB hard drive for your images for the year (what I am on track to use this year) you need to buy at least a 3TB drive.
How long does it take to import and edit your files in Lightroom? It’s going to take longer, in the case of importing files, a lot longer, to do the same work if you’re shooting 36MP files.
For me, the the 16 -22 megapixel files from the Olympus or Panasonic Micro 4:3 or current Canon cameras have emerged as the sweet spot. I think they’re a good choice, especially for photographers who know what they’re doing, what Thom Hogan, who recently wrote about this, would call an “optimal” photographer.
By that I mean photographers who would consider themselves intermediate level or higher. They understand the principles of filling the frame, they have the right selection of lenses and they use their equipment to its full potential. (Lens selection is not universal and depends on what you photograph. A sports or wildlife photographer needs long fast lenses, a street photographer needs lenses in 24mm to 100mm range, in full frame terms, and someone who photographs bugs and flowers needs macro lenses.)
It’s interesting that both Nikon and Canon have, for the time being, held their high end professional cameras (the D4S and 1D X) to under 20 megapixels. These are the cameras they sell to their most discerning customers.
A lot of this depends on what the final use of your photos is. If you’re photos are mostly going online, whether on a personal blog or Facebook, I can guarantee you that 36 megapixels is overkill. Heck, the 16MP of the Micro 4:3 cameras is overkill for those uses.
If you’re printing your photos, it depends on the size of your prints.
Sixteen megapixels can be printed to at least 15 inches on the long dimension (at 300 dots per inch – 4608 ÷ 300 = 15.36). With careful editing and resizing you can easily print 16 X 20, assuming you don’t crop too much.
American Frame, one of the many online print vendors, recommends a minimum print resolution of 130 dpi (minimum meaning the lowest recommended resolution, not the best resolution). At that resolution, a 16MP camera will allow you to make a 24″ X 36″ print. That’s a big print. A full resolution file from a 36MP camera at the same resolution can be printed to 30″ X 45″, which isn’t really that much bigger. A photo I made with my Olympus E-P5, a 16MP camera, was turned into a mural 5 feet wide (1.5 meters) and hangs in the BMW North America headquarters. They didn’t come back and ask for a bigger file (although I did send them the original raw file so their printer could upsize to their specifications).
What 36 megapixels does give you is wiggle room. If you’re photographing something that requires a 400mm or 500mm lens, for example, and all you have is a 300mm lens, the extra resolution of your 36MP camera means you can comfortably crop in to a view you would get with that longer lens. If you regularly find yourself in the position of having to significantly crop your images that drastically you should either buy a longer lens or refine your technique.
There are some people whose work requires the 36MP or higher cameras. They’re high end commercial photographers who work for the most discerning clients and have the cash flow to support those cameras.
Not everybody, not even all professional photographers fall into that category.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about using Micro 4:3 cameras and how we were moving past the one size fits all era of digital cameras, into a time of different digital formats for different purposes. The 36MP cameras from Nikon and Sony represent that trend. Those cameras, although they accept lenses designed for traditional dSLRs, really compete more with medium format cameras, like the Pentax 645D. I’m comfortable with 22 megapixels from the 5D Mark III and 16 megapixels from the Micro 4:3 cameras.
I photographed the annual Ganesh Festival at Shri Utthayan Ganesha Temple in Nakhon Nayok over the weekend. I ended up using my Micro 4:3 gear for almost the whole thing.
Back in the day, when photographers used film, I used to carry Canon FD and Leica M cameras and lenses. Most of the telephoto work was done with the Canons, while I used Leicas for wide angle or street photography. Being a newspaper photographer, I needed the flexibility of the SLR, with lenses from 20mm to 400mm, motordrives, flash and professional support and I used SLRs for most of my work. But the Leicas were smaller, lighter and more fun. They also challenged me in ways that the Canons did not because they didn’t have light meters (until the M6 came along) and they were “finicky” to load and unload. (The motors for the Canon New F1 had an automatic rewind function – hit the last frame and the camera would rewind the film into the cassette. At the time I thought that was very cool.)
Years ago cameras were things of beauty. The Leica M in particular was a wonder to hold and use, but even the Canon New F1 and other Canon film bodies (not to slight peeps who used Nikons but I’ve been a lifelong Canon photographer). Cameras and lenses were much smaller than they are now. Ergonomically, controls and dials fell into place naturally. Some manufacturers went down different paths (Olympus OM line I’m looking at you) but they made sense in their own way.
Things changed with autofocus and other electronics. Now manufacturers had to find ways to build micro-computers in their cameras. Cameras got a lot bigger and heavier. Lenses exploded in size.
Digital bodies, especially professional ones, are huge and outrageously heavy. A Canon New F1, their top of the line film body in the early 1980s, was a large camera for its time but it is positively petite compared to the EOS 1DX, Canon’s current top of the line camera
For years I’ve been looking for a smaller option to my Canon bodies. For a long time I used Canon G series “point and shoots” alongside my dSLRs. They were okay. Image quality was okay (actually pretty good considering the small sensor) but they were slow. Autofocus was slow, shot to shot time was slow and shutter lag was bad. Press the shutter button to make a photo and the camera would fire pretty much when it wanted to, not when you wanted it to. Decisive moment photography was a challenge.
Then I discovered Micro 4:3 cameras.
For a long time, Olympus has been a sort of an also ran in camera circles. Their products are excellent. Their lenses every bit as good as anything from Canon or Nikon. Their camera bodies are very good but their camera designers march to their own beat and while they were always cult favorites, they were never really able to generate much traction against the CanNik juggernaut. (Pentax and Minolta, two other storied brands had the same problem and eventually disappeared.)
With digital, Canon and Nikon have built a certain amount of backward compatibility into their digital SLR lines but Olympus threw out the rule books and started from scratch.
While Canon and Nikon pursued the holy grail of full frame, Olympus and Panasonic went the other way and collaborated on a smaller sensor. They came up with 4:3, a sensor that is 18mm (wide) by 13.5mm (tall). A full frame sensor, in comparison, is 36mm wide and 24mm tall or roughly twice as big. The 4:3 line didn’t sell very well and eventually Olympus and Panasonic modified it and came up with Micro 4:3 (M4:3). The sensor is the same size, but by redesigning the cameras and going away from traditional SLR design they came up with much smaller cameras (and lenses).
My first M4:3 was a Panasonic GF1. It was a great little camera. It was nowhere near a replacement for my Canons but it was small, had good quality and was fun to use. Noise was a problem over ISO800, autofocus was slow (but reliable) and it was, in general, a slow camera. But it became my go to small camera pushing my Canon G cameras out of the bag. It was generation 1 of M4:3 and with any new technology generational improvements are huge.
M4:3 sensors have gotten much better with every generation. My current M4:3 camera, the E-P5 is a huge improvement over the GF1. ISO1600 is no problem and ISO3200 is usable with some noise reduction in Lightroom. It’s got almost as much dynamic range as my full frame cameras and it’s really fast. Not 5D Mark III or 1DX fast, but considerably faster than my 5D Mark II.
Is M4:3 as good as full frame? In absolute terms, probably not. There are inherent advantages to large sensors, like broader dynamic range and lower noise (digital grain). Depth of field control is also more precise with full frame bodies. But the differences, instead of being deal breakers, are more like the differences between medium format and full frame. In other words, it’s all a part of a choice you make and not a corner you’re forced into.
M4:3 has been my go to carry around camera for a couple of years. Something I would take with me when I was out and not intending to photograph but wanted to be ready just in case. Now I’m using my M4:3 for more and more of my work.
I photographed a recent Chinese opera with it and I covered Ganesh with the M4:3 almost exclusively. (I used my 5D Mark III for a couple of photos because I needed a 200mm lens and the longest lens I have for M4:3 is 90mm.)
I used to tell people that I could use the GF1 and early M4:3 for about 60% of my work but that when I hit the wall with it, it was a hard stop and I had to use my Canons. Using M4:3 meant using full frame and M4:3 side by side. Now I can use M4:3 for about 90% of my work and when I hit the wall, it’s a low wall easily gotten over or around. More and more I leave my Canons at home and go out with just the M4:3.
Just as I used to carry Canons and Leicas and other photographers had 35mm, medium format and large format (or view cameras) I think we’re now entering a time when photographers will have multiple digital formats.
M4:3 (or other mirrorless camera) for work on the street and carrying around. Full frame when they need that bokeh, high ISO or lighting (both Canon and Nikon offer a lot more options for flash and supplemental light) and medium format when they need a huge number of megapixels.
I covered the first meeting of Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) last week. It was a frustrating experience.
When I was working for newspapers, my bread and butter was covering politics. Photographing the first day of the NLA was a bit of a throwback to those days. Back then I would have been covering the first day of the state legislature and I had access to the newspaper’s inventory of long lenses. I would photograph the early stuff – the parliamentarians meeting with constituents, protests in front of the legislature and features with my short lenses, like my 24mm and 50mm (I don’t use zooms) but I would cover the stuff inside the legislative chambers with long lenses, either a 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8, Canon’s ridiculously expensive (the 400mm f2.8 is about $12,000 US) L series telephotos. These weren’t the most interesting photos of the day, but they were important photos of record.
Since leaving the world of newspaper photojournalism, I don’t need those lenses. I don’t photograph sports much and the work I do is much closer and more intimate. Even when I use my longest day to day lens, a 200mm f2.8, I use it as more of a macro lens than a traditional telephoto. The opening of the NLA is the first time since I left the paper that I really needed something longer than my 200mm f2.8. But when you need a 400mm lens, you need a 400mm lens. I ended up using my 200 and 1.4X teleconverter (for an effective focal length of about 280mm at f4).
Using the teleconverter in the dimly lit Parliament was a challenge. With the 200mm lens I could get away with working at ISO3200. But with the teleconverter, which both takes one stop of light (my 200mm f2.8 becomes a 280mm f4) and requires a faster shutter speed (because the longer lens is more prone to camera shake) so I ended up working at ISO12,800.
I was checking my work on the camera’s back screen and I was not impressed with what I was getting. The pictures I made across the room required a lot of cropping and digital noise, from the high ISO, was apparent even on the camera back. When I thought it was over I hurriedly left. That was a big mistake and somewhat out of character for me. My normal routine is “be the first to arrive and the last to leave” because I always thought the best pictures came at the beginning or the end.
When it was over, the newly elected leadership stood in the middle of the chamber with their hands clenched over their heads in a victory pose. And I wasn’t even in the room. It wasn’t a very good picture (none of the photos from the day were really very good pictures) but it was THE photo. The one everyone used from the day.
The only good thing to come out of the experience was the knowledge that I can work at ISO12,800 and still get usable images. I still remember the old days of film, when ISO800 (for color) was a big deal. Those low ISO habits are hard to break.
One of the things many photojournalists find annoying about SLRs, both film and digital, is the noise they make. As camera technology advanced and motor drives got built into cameras they not only got bigger, they got significantly louder. The whisper quiet click made by Leica M series cameras is one of the reasons many photojournalists used Leicas for documentary work.
I think one of the most overlooked features on the Canon 5D Mark III is the Silent mode. Put the drive into the S mode and it dampens the sound so it’s barely audible. It slows the camera down a little, including slightly more shutter lag, but I think it’s worth the small trade off when you’re trying to be discrete. The 5D Mark III doesn’t sound like a cannon when it makes a picture, but it’s pretty loud. It’s much quieter in the Silent mode.
I use the silent mode a lot when I’m working in a temple, mosque or church – when I’m covering something spiritual and I don’t want the camera’s noise to disrupt what’s going on. There’s more on manipulating the 5D Mark III on Canon’s Quick Start Guide.
The silent mode isn’t something I thought about when I bought the 5D Mark III and I don’t think it’s a deal breaker, but now that I have a camera with a stealth mode, I find myself using it more often than I ever thought I would.