my GF-1 (a rumination on why do I like it?)

I'd like to be clear on why I keep pulling out my GF-1 to use but for the life of me I can't.

I mean it lacks so many things in comparison to my GH-1 (or indeed almost any modern micro43 camera) but for one reason or another when I go out for a walk its the camera I take with me most of the time.

paired with the humble 20mm f1.7 (which it was originally released with and who's release coincided with little GF-1) it makes for a fantastic walk around camera who's simplicity somehow is its strength.

As a photographer who goes into "harsh" climates I am pissed off when tech fails because of temperature. Touch screens shit me to death so much for a number of reasons, as too cameras which I have to take my gloves off to use (like the phone I shot this above picture with).

A look at the specs will not leave you gasping, nor a look at the "feature list" of what modes or whizbang wanking it has. Its just a plain simple camera which you can operate with glove on and take pictures.

Perhaps its because I'm an old guy I grew up with cameras before there were electronic cameras. I prefer being able to set things with a dial rather than dig through a menu or worse try to use a fucking touch screen which 1) can't be used with gloves on 2) can't be relied upon when its cold.

I like being able to pick Av or P (my two main modes of operation) without needing to power up the camera or squint to see what the menu is displaying when its bright.

Yet these are features that my GH-1 also has ... so this does not actually answer my question.

On my walk today at -15°C I just carried it along with me and took a couple of shots I liked:

and

the quality and sharpness of these images is exemplary, for instance lets look at a 100% crop of the above image and you can see the ice crystal shape of the snow flakes sitting on the cap of the grass

you just can't ask for more hand held ... so if you're thinking the images you get with your 20mm f1.7 are poor then go to the bathroom and look in the mirror to see your problem. (and no, I didn't take a bajillion shots and picked the keepers, I took one of each and they both worked)

When the GF-1 was first mooted (before they were more than a substantial rumour) I was interested in this camera, this was back in 2009 and at that time I already had a G1 (it being released first, then the GF-1 then the GH-1). From the day I picked one up in a shop I was somehow even more attracted to it, but somehow I just couldn't really justify it. I mean

• it wasn't much smaller than my G1
• it wasn't cheap
• I already had the G1
• it had no OIS in the 20mm nor sensor shift

One day however I stumbled across one on eBay that was priced at under $100 and ... well I just had to buy it. Naturally I immediately started looking for a 20mm f1.7 as the logical lens to have with this camera.

Soon I bought the 14mm f2.5 and then soon after that the GWC-1 adapter (to make the 14mm a 11mm) and then soon after that the small Olympus 45mm f1.8

Somehow this outfit despite all my ability to rationalise otherwise has become one of my favourite walk about outfits. I've taken it everywhere from parties to trecking and just love it.

Because its somehow an unassuming camera, with a simple interface I can take it to a party and comfortably hand it to people (who often forget to zoom cameras now being used to phones) and get reliable well focused shots. In party situations OIS makes less significance than does simply shutter. Sure the high ISO performance isn't great, but with face detect selected I know I'll get keepers even if I'm in front of the camera.

Given that my GH-1 produces "better RAW files" and has numerous benefits (the pivoting and tilting rear screen, an excellent EVF, works well with telephoto lenses, feels better to use with the 14-45 lens...) but that I still reach for the GF-1 makes it clear to me that I don't actually crave that. Thus I believe that none of the newer cameras will offer much more for me (oh, and having tested against other cameras and having access to the GH-4 at work too).

Of course when I do tripod work or know I'll be in a situation where I really need OIS (such as on a 2009 trip to Rome where I was amazed with the ability of OIS) which is only in my "larger" lenses, then suddenly the GH-1 is my go to. As well, having either the EVF or the articulated screen really helps when the camera is held by a tripod (not my hands). This image was hand held at 1/5th of a second ... and is just as sharp as could be expected.

So I'll reach for the GH-1 where the more "SLR" feature set comes in handy. That the GF-1 and GH-1 share the same battery is of course a great bonus (and another reason why I've not upgraded). I need only shove the GF in the pack too, take a battery in each body and a single spare and I'm usually good for a few weeks on a trip.

If I was the sort of photographer that spend more time measurbating about specs I'd probably have ditched it by now, but somehow I'm more into taking photographs. Somehow its not about having a camera with better specs ... its about having a camera I like to work with. 

For reasons I don't fully understand even myself ... its clear to me that that's the GF-1

Autumn in Finland

Well not much profound to say today, just been wandering around the local area and taking images as they appeal to me.

Doing a lot of walking lately, which I feel good about. Just 10Km today. Out to the mouth of the river here in Joensuu, past the boats being stored for winter:

I got out to the end of the river (on the town side of the bank)

I'm finding that working with the phone and processing on the phone (this is written on the PC and the images transferred to the PC from the phone) is quite liberating ... as I can process in the field and see which ones I like ... makes it somehow more "right" to see and check against what's there.

Winter is surely on its way ...

The Panasonic GF1 has been my other camera for when I see something which I want the more "normal" angle lens and shallower DoF (and greater dynamic range)...

Its nice to watch the first things start to freeze ... and the delicate edges of the ice advance

New Years and meeting new people

I was at the house of one of my good friends (may I say "adopted family") of many years standing had his brother over with his new son to join everyone for New Years. So I snapped this shot of the young woman with the Oly 45mm f1.7 on my GF-1

Turned out well I think ... which is just as well, as there were quite a many that didn't because the camera seized upon the background ...

As you can see the camera picked the pillow (which was actually within the bracket which had the babys face) ... although it had not latched onto face detect.

Which brings me to my side point ... if you want to take reliable photographs of kids, use an SLRalike camera where you can focus and confirm focus visually ... back of camera screens are just not sufficient, especially if you happen to crave "fast lenses".

Well it was nice to bring in the new year out on the balcony and enjoy nice time with friends and new family.

party camera

I took my GF1 along to a party recently with just the 20mm f1.7 and the 45mm f1.8 ... I wanted to remain discreet (not look like I'm carrying a brick). I dislike flash so I like the GF for its "larger sensor than compact cameras" (meaning better low light high ISO) and experience has shown that this setup is great.

As expected I was able to get some great shots.

and the images were acceptably clean at 1600 ISO which still gave me 1/60th (which stops enough motion). I dislike OIS in these situations because people move (no matter if the camera was on a tripod or had top shelf stabilisation).

And (it being simple) I can hand it off to people and know I'll get good results back:

Again, background separation is good ... dueling photographers

But his is much bigger than mine (as we know that size matters).

So my 5 year old micro43 GF1 is still pulling good shots while some people struggle with their "superior" SLR cameras.

and others snap away with their phones... (its a miracle that we see people holding the camera in portrait here)

its sorta clear to me why the SLR market is diminishing as phones are getting pretty good results these days (well the top shelf phones anyway). Actually its good to point out that if you don't want to spend a thousand bucks on a camera (well my GF and lenses is about that even used) that for party use spending those bucks on your phone will not be a bad suggestion (although lets see how well your phone is working 5 years later)

None the less I'm not about to trade in my GF any time soon as there is no way the phones can capture stuff like this:

with that sort of subject DoF isolation ...(again, hand held, 1600 ISO 1/160th)

Happy Birthday mate!

the Rabbit Proof Fence

In the early days of the settlement of Australia some idiot released rabbits into the landscape. There was great damage to the environment and indeed great financial losses to the pastoralists and graziers of the day. In an effort to stop the spread (before eventually technology allowed biological methods were employed) a rabbit proof fence was built in many parts of Australia. This one is just near me and passes through the rain forest in the mountains near Killarney

Its a lovely region to go exploring (with the camera too). The mosses which appear on the rocks and branches are actually a lichen.

and grow on everything which they can get onto ... its extraordinarily beautiful in the mists that are common there.

Its right on the edge of the plateau there, and quite rugged terrain. Walking around the edge of the plateau is tough going as is getting up there ... for years there were only a few places up onto the range from the eastern side.

The view to the east (and the Pacific ocean) is spectacular ... and even though the elevation here is about 1000 meters the ocean is still behind a few more mountains yet.

Anyway, this has been my first trip out with my 20mm on my GF, and I must say that I find this focal length (of ever so slightly wider than normal) to be quite attractive. Better than I'd expected. Perhaps my time with SLR's spoiled me from the once more common 44mm and got me into a slightly tighter view.

I like it :-)

newer bigger better faster

Sometimes you can't have everything (well, where would you put it?), and just like my title of 4 words you don't always get all togther.

As mentioned in previous posts I like my compact camera to be compact. Sometimes when I'm out and about I like to have another lens around in case the opportunity arises and my compact 14mm wide angle is not what is needed. With the GF series cameras I like that lens to be small too, something in keeping with the cameras philosophy.

Sometimes bigger isn't better and newer isn't always better either. My case in point today is a small review of my newly purchased Pentax 110 70mm lens. Introduced by Pentax sometime in the late 70's early 80's this little lens is perhaps the best of the 110 series lenses in terms of manufacture quality and feel.

One thing is true this lens sure isn't newer.

In this post I'd like to show the lens to those who may not have seen it, discuss the lens handling and feel and then examine some images made with it. This is not a review in the normal modern manner. There'll be no shots of brick walls to show its ability to hold a square, or MTF curves ...

The lens is made of a mixture of metal and plastic. The lens barrel is metal and the focus grip is beautiful to work with, its rubber which is still looking good more than 30 years later ... I can't say the same of my kit 14-45 (which is an optically good lens btw). The focus turns nicely and with a sense of precision.

Sat beside the more modern more plastic feeling (not that that's any sort of problem for me) Panasonic 14-42 zoom we can see that the little Pentax is quite compact.

Please excuse the softness of this shot it was taken with my FD50 f1.4 on my GH camera, wide open because I was too lazy to get better artifical lighting .... None the less it shows that the lens is really small. This is in my view quite in keeping with the philosophy of the micro 4/3 system compact concepts.

Interestingly the 14-42 zoom extends quite a bit when zooming. Even though it only gives a focal length of 45mm (significantly less than 70mm) it ends up looking like this when zoomed:

With that lens on the camera it starts to look like more of a big lens on a small camera than a than a compact camera system.

To me its looking decidedly less compact ... but then I guess thats what people want ... bigger compact things, because it couldn't possibly be any good if it was small right?

Personally I feel that the GF series cameras (as distinct from my SLR alike GH series camera) benefits from a more compact lens ... and actually the little 70mm looks and feels really nice on the GH too. The Pentax 110 70mm lens is actually not only a compact lens, but a high quality lens that follows the philosophy of small cameras with big image quality.

Faster

so what's the fuzz with faster. For reasons I don't really know people seem to get all confused about this. Well I think that the simplest way to understand this is to do something no one does anymore, and that's look at my light meter. For a given exposure an f5.6 lens will need a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second while the f2.8 lens will snap the shot in a mere 1/125th of a second (that's 4 times faster).

So not only is this little guy faster he's way faster.

But wait, someone says:

Oh who needs speed I can hand hold at a 30th with OIS 

 well sure you can, but if you're photographing people they just might move...

The lens is not only nice to hold but has a very smooth damped feel to the focus and (importantly) a long throw. This means that you have to turn the lens more to get a change in focus. When you're dealing with wanting shallow depth of field smaller movements make it much easier to get exactly what you want in focus.

Portraits

When taking portraits one wants to be a little further away (to not intimidate the subject) and get a smoother rendering of their face. In case anyone is still of the "zoom with your feet" school of thought I would argue that there are differences in portraiture. This shot was done in just such a manner with the subject staying in exactly the same spot and me just 'zooming with my feet' to show what mild telephoto VS wide angle in closer does to a persons face.

so if you want your friends and family looking like the portrait on the right, go on using your iPhone and stop reading this post now ;-) (and yes that's my shadow in the image on the right)

Noone volunteered for being subject on this lens test so sorry to say you won't be getting any people shots with this lens. None the less there are two things I look for in a portrait lens ...

• shallow Depth of Field
• soft out of focus rendering

So I thought that I'd explore this with some images. First this one:

shot in available light (because setting up lighting is just so spontaneous) and hand held at about the perfect framing for a head head and shoulders shot. Background is quickly out of focus and yet at the critical point of focus the lens is sharp. A segment of that image shows this.

Sharp enough to see the threads ... Now I have not added any sharpening or contrast control here, so you have room to do some local area masking and selective sharpening also. Ultimately this is not bad for hand held and shows the advantages of that faster lens (so I suppose this means I look for 3 things in a lens then ...)


So next I'd like to answer two questions:

• is it sharp on the edges
• is there any point in going from 45mm to 70mm as they're both tele (and how much tele do you need?)

To answer both these questions I took the following shots with the focus at the edge of the image (probably further to the edge than you'd realistically put a portrait) and also use the 14-45 at the 45 end (which btw isn't really fast as its f5.6 at that length) the 70mm in question and for the heck of it a 50mm 110 lens which I also have which at f2.8 is much faster than the 45 end of the zoom while not being that much more telephoto. I wrote a little bit about the 50 in a few pages, for instance in the last blog post here and quite a bit more back a few years ago here, where I compared it to the kit 45 and an OM 50mm f1.8.

So, anyway rendering of depth of field (how it looks). It could be said that because one is in closer with the 45mm that even though its slower that f5.6 may give a similar rendering to the 70mm further away *(since we know that as you move away from the subject DoF around the subject increases)

Now in all these shots I moved back from the position that one needs to be in for the 45mm to see keep the composition of the portrait the same and to see what happens to the image. My focus in all images was the white wooden edge of the house.

The 45 @ f5.6

The 50mm @ f2.8

The 70mm @ 2.8

I think its pretty clear that the DoF between the images varies remarkably and focus is more keenly had on the place where I wanted it. 

I included the 50mm f2.8 to show that even with its more shallow depth of field that by moving further back and using the more telephoto did indeed give a better out of focus effect. Personally I very much like the rendering of the 70mm to give good background / subject separation.

Lets look then to edge sharpness.

The 45mm

The 50mm

The 70mm

Personally I reckon that the edge sharpness (the white board) is plenty, probably more than is needed for portraiture (when the ladies will be asking you to use some Photoshop 'love' to cover the wrinkles and any skin pores).

Conclusions

So there you have it the Pentax 110 70mm from a time long gone does a great job on the micro 4/3 (which is the same size sensor as the  110 film area was BTW) and makes a great lightweight compact lens to add to your micro 4/3 kitbag.

Now I know that Olympus makes a very similar lens (75mm f1.8) which is actually a native lens. This means it will have:

• auto focus
• a working aperture
• better optics
• is slightly faster at f1.7 (consulting our light meter about double, so 300th)

why not just get that one?

Sure ... if you feel like putting down $1000 for the Olympus I'm quite sure you'll be very pleased with it. But this lens cost only $50. Yes that's right fifty dollars vs a thousand dollars.

I'm a hobby photographer ... so for me if I get 90% of the benefits for 5% of the costs thats only good right? I don't have clients to impress, just family. Of course if you were a business photographer probably you'd be able to build a better business case for the returns on investment on the Olympus 75mm f1.8

Even if you were thinking of getting the Oly, but you weren't sure, well you could try the Pentax and see if you are actually getting much use out of it after a few months.

Won't cost you much ;-)

keeping my compact camera compact

One of the reasons I moved to the micro 4/3 in the first place was that it gave me a quality of image equal to my Canon 20D brick but without the weight. There seemed to me to be few compromises and so I ended up (after some time) selling almost all of my EOS stuff and have gone over to micro 4/3. 

 As I started my micro4/3 with the G1 the absolute pocketability of the camera was not my main prioity, and even though that camera was a 'SLR-alike' form factor it was still much lighter on the shoulder than the EOS DSLR's

Liking manual focus (well having grown up on it) I reveled in the availability of low priced Manual Focus legacy lenses (such as Olympus OM or Canon FD) and found the G series (I'm now using a GH1 instead of my trusty G1) to be perfectly suited to it. For some time however I gazed over at the GF series and wondered ... would I benefit from the more compact camera.

Initially I was suspicious feeling that the lack of EVF (and my getting older and needing glasses for anything closer) and the lack of compact lenses would mean it had little benefits for me. When the GF was released there was only the (gosh that's expensive) 20mm pancake. So other than that it was down to using the 14-45 zoom.

Since that time however Panasonic has also released a 14mm pancake (at a more attractive price than the 20mm was) and a compact power zoom (too expensive for my tastes at the moment) making it more attractive. So last year I decided that the only way to know was to do it, so I bought a GF-1 to try it out. I bought one with the 14mm pancake lens (because that's obviously the most compact) and had a go.

I loved it. The GF was slim enough with out the screen / eyepiece / grip to slip into my backpack side pocket, even if it didn't fit into my pocket

However, as expected, as soon as I put my 14-45 lens on it it stopped being compact.

It wouldn't fit in my bag and generally showed how (as I have said before) the micro 4/3 are failing to deliver compact lenses to make an advantage of the compact bodies. Even with the zoom 'retracted' you can see that the zoom tiself is much thicker than the camera. This image (compiled from the great site Camera Size) makes it clear how much bigger the zoom is on the GF series camera.

Bye bye compact ...

In practice it is every bit as non-compact as it looks in that computer generation ... for when you use it at anything but 14mm the end extends out of the zoom ...

So the camera that could previously slip into my backpack side pocket now wouldn't without taking the lens off and on. Not always wanting to use the 14mm pancake, I wanted a bit longer focal length from time to time.

Well having a few legacy lenses around already I thought I'd try some of them.

I had in the past tried the Pentax 110 lenses on my G1. While they were incredibly compact with the G1 camera the form factor didn't seem to give any benefits to using those lenses. In fact the regular 35mm film lenses actually felt better.

But with the GF camera suddenly the size difference was important.  You can see here between the Olympus 50mm lens (for 35mm film) and the Pentax 110 camera 50mm lens (the large-small one on the right) are significantly different in size.

Particularly in light of the size of the adaptor needed for the 35mm SLR film lenses (which were designed for a much greater flange distance) adding to the overall size of the effective lens. Here is the same situation with the Pentax 110 50mm lens...

Well as you can see above suddenly the camera + lens is small again. Also this lens being a 50mm has a slightly better telephoto reach than the kit zoom (which is still only 45mm even when extended as in the further above shot) this shows in the image difference of perspective.

I also have a 24mm which (is a normal focal length) is even more compact than the 50mm is ...

So this gives me a 14mm, a 24mm f2.8 and a 50mm f2.8 which are really compact to use on the compact body, giving me a compact camera system!

As you can see the 50mm is quite small in diameter as well as not being much higher than the 14mm Panasonic lens. I think it looks quite good on the camera too...

Ok ... so now we've got a versatile camera system that is compact ... but can it take pleasing shots? Personally I think it takes excellent shots. Here is one from the 50mm, which being a f2.8 lens is quite a fast lens with a pleasingly shallow DoF and quite nice Bokeh.

and for the pixel peepers who have to know will it tolerate 'enlargement' below is a 100% pixel crop from the image ... so the answer is in my view:

YES! In this above image you can see how shallow the DoF is around the center of that play yard toy. While in the upper image you get a good idea of the out of focus rendering as well as the lenses contrast.

Its a sweet little lens that you can add to a walk around compact outfit and even if you mainly use the 14mm for its excellent purpose in snapshots with the advantages that a native lens has (like AutoFocus) for not much space in your pack (or pocket even) you can add a great lens to your outfit with bloody little money.

Perhaps it is not as perfect in quality as the native Olympus 45mm f1.8 but then again its not as expensive either. Similarly the 24mm can produce some nice images too.

Oh ... money ... that's right. These little Pentax 110 lenses are really cheap and so are the adaptors. I paid something like:

• $30 for the adaptor,
• $40 for the 50mm
• $20 for the 24mm

Which is much less than any native possibility you can name.

Sure its not for everyone, but for a photographer who wants to play around a little with creative photography and not spend a fortune its a compelling option.

Enjoy :-)

GF1 - rumor no more

Its out

and man it looks exactly like the leaked images

So toddle over to your favourite review site and check out the facts.

I'll be getting one in a flash with that 20mm lens that I can use on my G1 it makes the price of a spare body a peach.