Tuesday 26 July 2011

The rangefinder experience: what I have learned from using the Olympus 35 SP (Part II)

PROS:

1. It’s very quiet


Some people I know (sadly), would set their DSLR into burst mode just to hear that CLACK CLACK CLACK CLACK sound, likening it to a mating roar of an African lion. I guess in their minds, that would get the lioness to pay attention to them and ask them for a hump. Pardon the stupid analogy (if it’s even correct), but God, I don’t want to be seen OR heard while shooting that beautiful woman across my table drinking a glass of Cabernet Sauvignon. That would get me splashed with the said glass of Cabernet, or worse, being beaten up by her rich boyfriend.

2. It’s small and light


In a period where your photography is measured based on the size of your e-penis (how big your lens and DSLR body is), it feels kind of weird to be seen carrying a camera the size of 2 cigarette packs glued together. But is bigger necessarily better? Heck no. If that was the case, Henri-Cartier Bresson and Nick Ut would be carrying their gear on donkeys while traversing Paris or Southern Vietnam. Their timeless pieces were all shot using small and unassuming black boxes. Discretion is the key word here. Unless you have some insecurity complex, who would want to be stared at while taking a picture?     
           
3. It looks great


I bought the 35 SP purely on it’s looks. There, I said it. I can’t afford an M4-P or Ikon ZM, so what else could I go for? Even a Voigtlander Bessa R3M is way out of my budget, so what better way to learn using a cheap, good looking contraption like Olympus’ finest?


CONS:

1. It’s not easy to compose            


Some people (especially those who grew up using a DSLR and digital compacts from the get go) may not know that a rangefinder’s composing method is very different and will screw up your shots if you’re not aware of how it works. An RFs composition is represented by a box with gridlines, and within that box, is ANOTHER box with it’s own set of gridlines. Depending on how far you are from the subject, you need to be careful on which box you need to place your subject. In the 35 SP’s case, if you’re standing between 0.85 – 1.2m from your subject, you need to compose within the inner box. Anything from 1.2m – infinity, that would be the larger box. This is due to a phenomenon called parallax error, where the overall composition of a picture will change depending on  your distance from it.

See what I mean now? I’m aware that some people have no issues with this sort of focusing method, especially the veterans who grew up with the Leica Ms. Remember, the SLR was invented  way after the rangefinder, and it made a hell of a lot of difference in the way we shoot today. As they say, practice makes perfect and you’ll eventually grow into it. But for now, I’d rather stick to the SLR’s split grid focusing, thank you very much. It’s much faster and accurate for me.  

The biggest problem for me, however, is that as mentioned above, the 35 SP requires you to stand at least 0.85m away from the subject to properly get them in focus. In an era when every digital camera can focus as close as 0.25m by default, this is somewhat of a ‘cultural shock’ to me. No close-ups, no pseudo macro shots. This really limits the type of subjects that you can shoot with, so you have to be aware of this before investing on a rangefinder. Ignorant fools need apply, cause some will assume that a rangefinder works like any other type of camera, and invest into a Leica or Voigtlander system only to find that it can't focus close enough for their needs.

2. It’s not easy to focus


In my personal experience, I normally don’t have an easy time while trying to focus using the patch method. This is due to not just a physically smaller viewfinder, but also that the patch is not very clear especially in low light conditions. I’ve seen worse, though (especially the way older Voigtlander Vitessa, which made me squint my eyes like crazy). Maybe I overestimated it, but I don’t really have anything else to compare with. I often read that the patches from Leica and the gorgeous Zeiss Ikon ZM are very clear, but I’ll reserve my judgment until I see one. One thing for sure, focusing with my OM-1n MD’s viewfinder is far sweeter and easier. Just look into the humongous prism to see what I mean (pun intended).               

3. It’s not very practical


As I mentioned in the 1st point, it’s not easy to find an RF system that allow close up or mcaro shots. And the same applies to medium or long range telephoto. To the best of my knowledge , the longest focal length available is 135mm, which is just nice for  real portrait photography (as per the standard set). Anything beyond that, you’re better off with  a DSLR. There are ultra wide lenses available for the M mount by Voigtlander and Zeiss, yes I know. But that would also require you to change your view onto a hotshoe mounted viewfinder, a separate accessory altogether. I also know that this sort of ‘inconvenience’ comes with the territory, but if you can live with changing your field of view through 2 different devices (namely the mounted viewfinder and the internal one), that’s great. 

And did any of you guys also realize that there are practically no zoom lenses for RF cameras, that only primes are commercially available today? It may not be much of a problem to some of us who are prime worshippers, but you can never deny the convenience of having multiple focal lengths in a single unit at times.


The rangefinder experience: what I have learned from using the Olympus 35 SP (Part I)


There will be some point in time as a photographer, when you hear the following comment: “ If I had a Leica, my pictures will be better”. In my POV, this means that better pics can be obtained very easily by shooting with a rangefinder. Well, as a person who likes to try something hands-on to learn the truth, I toddled off to eBay and got myself a great condition Olympus 35 SP. I can’t get a Leica by default as I don’t have as much pocket change as Warren Buffet, so I looked for the most affordable and closest alternative. Luckily enough, I found it in the form of this damn pretty  rectangular box. This part will serve as a short introduction to one of the most revered rangefinders from Olympus and  how it basically works.


For the benefit of those who don’t know what the 35 SP is, this is a compact rangefinder made by Olympus Tokyo back in 1969. Unlike the Leica Ms, it is a fixed lens rangefinder (RF) using a really sharp 42mm G.Zuiko 7 elements lens (G being the 7th alphabet). I kind of like this focal length, as it’s a representation of the best of both worlds, smack in between the ubiquitous 35mm and 50mm focal lengths. It was also one of the 1st ever RFs to utilize a spot metering system, activated by pressing a button at the back of the camera (I never used it even once though, as the metering is pretty much accurate out of the box). What I really loved about the 35 SP, though, is just how magnificent it looks. A representation of the bygone eras when cameras LOOKED like cameras. It sounds like one, feels like one, and shoots exactly like one, unlike our iPod generation devices that take pics by pressing on the LCD. The 35 SP also used a Seiko FLA shutter that is unusually quiet, but that’s stating the obvious, since almost all rangefinders I know of use leaf shutters that are located within the lens. The benefit of it, compared to using the conventional mirror box in DSLRs, is that the shutter sound is very quiet and nearly inaudible in some cases. A vital element in candid street photography.


One additional note I’d like to point out (a very good one indeed), is that the 35 SP is a fully mechanical camera. Meaning? It can shoot, at all speeds and all apertures, without using a battery. Indeed, it’s a bloody  godsend compared to today where we’ll be left helpless once our cameras run out of energy. This is similar to the Olympus OM-1, my first film SLR that also happens to be fully mechanical. No chargers, no wires, no bull. Although the 35 SP has a battery chamber, it’s only meant to power the TTL light meter. I practically shoot all the time in manual mode without metering anyways, so the lack of a battery is just a small inconvenience at times when I have to shoot in tricky lighting.


Onto how a RF works. As most of you would already know, Leica M rangefinders focus using a patch in the middle of the viewfinder. What this means is that everytime an object you’re focusing on is out of focus (OOF), you will see 2 separate rectangles in the viewfinder. The 2 rectangles will have a ‘cloned’ image of the object you want to focus on. In order to focus, you simply have to align the two squares until the overlap each other as one single entity. Sounds easy enough right? Actually, no. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages to using such a method to compose, and I shall explain why later on. Please bear in mind that my experience of using an Olympus RF may not necessarily translate to that of using a Leica M. I’m basing my opinion only on the similarty in function between them. They both use patch focusing, they both use film, they both look like rectangular boxes yada yada…………you get the dirft. But I won’t be making direct comparisons since a Leica M is a Leica M, and everything I know about it is based purely on literature. I shall explain the actual experience in Part II of this article, by highlighting the pros and cons at the same time. Thank you for reading.

Saturday 2 July 2011

The ultimate street weapon: Panasonic LUMIX LX-5


If any of you had the opportunity to own at least one of Panasonic’s premium LX line compacts, you can probably understand the meaning of this entry. Back in 2009, Panasonic released the ground breaking LX-3, a compact so damn good, it took the photography world (especially in Penang!) by storm. I remember walking into several shops to ask for the LX-3, only to be told that there was a 3-4 week waiting period. Yes, it was THAT popular. I was a quiet fan of the LX series, but never got to buy the ones preceding the LX-3, only because they lacked RAW shooting, and that was very important to me. That’s why when the LX-3 was announced, the spec list ticked enough boxes to make me want to REALLY buy it. Never mind the fact that we could finally shoot in RAW, but it was also well designed. Most of all, it had a lens that not only sounded sexy but also delivered the goods: the Leica DC Vario Summicron f/2.0. Frankly speaking, I was pretty much blown away just for the fact that such a small compact could fit in such a bright lens. Pardon my ignorance, but until recently, I didn’t know that classic digital cameras back then already had lenses that bright (e.g. Leica Digilux I, Olympus Camedia C8080, Canon Powershot G2). That’s why the LX-3 was a revelation of sorts to me.


At that time, despite my reverence for the LX-3, I never got to buy it as I didn’t see the need for it. Yet. Fast forward 2010, and it’s successor, the LX-5, was announced. I knew that THIS TIME, there would be no more waiting. I headed straight to Komtar the moment I heard it was on the shelves. Tried it for several minutes, went home to think about it, and I came back the next day with the cash. This was one of those moments when you know that some things are so worth it, you don’t even need to think about parting with your cash for it.


The reason for my enthusiasm towards my personal ‘best compact ever’ was simple. Although the LX-5 was in no way a paradigm shift from the LX-3, it did improve on several things that were already so good in the 1st place. Wisely enough, the magnificent Summicron lens maintained the large f/2.0 aperture. This time around, they increased the focal length from 60mm on the LX-3 to 90mm. As if no one would appreciate the extra FL! The initial concern was that the large starting aperture and wide angle of a pretty useful 24mm would be changed. But thank God it didn’t.  Another thing that was immediately apparent was just how much faster the autofocus speed had gotten. During the roadshow in Gurney Plaza when the LX-5 was launched, I compared the LX-3 and LX-5 side by side for an AF speed test. The LX-5 won hands down, even at the maximum focal length. Design wise, they still look pretty much the same (in a good way), with a slightly redesigned grip which made the overall experience much better. 


On to the sensor. What shot in RAW at up to ISO400, it can really hold it’s own against most entry level DSLRs. Virtually noise free and packs plenty of detail, that’s how I’d like to describe it. Coupled with the aforementioned superb Summicron lens, and you’ve got yourself one of the best enthusiast compacts money could buy. In fact, some of my most favorite pics were shot using that innocuous looking thing. There’s just something about street shooting with a discreet compact camera that helps to bring out the magic in street shooting. No wonder a lot of the greatest street photos were shot using small and unobtrusive Leicas and Rolleis back then. Just look at Henri-Cartier Bressons’ works to see what I mean.


As perfect as I make the LX-5 sound, it really isn’t. The most ironic thing is that while it’s capable of giving great outputs in RAW (I need to emphasize this point), the JPEG results were really terrible, even borderline unacceptable. Almost anything shot was devoid of detail thanks to the aggressive noise reduction algorithm. I also didn’t like the white balance performance under artificial lighting, and if there was a person in the picture as part of the subject, their skin would look like they got jaundice. Now, I did say that I was a RAW shooter at heart. But there are those times where I would have loved to cut the workflow and just use JPEG and post process them a little bit. Sad to say, the LX-5 couldn’t produce the JPEG output that matched my expectations. It also didn’t help for me that Panasonic included the quirky Ichikawa Software Silypix software for RAW editing. I found the interface unusually clunky and hard to navigate. Olympus’ Studio and IB software, in comparison, was much more sparse and simplified compared to Silkypix. But at least I could navigate and understand the tools without enduring too much frustration.


These are the reasons why I decided to sell off the LX-5 when the XZ-1 was announced. I prefer the Olympus software for my editing needs, instead of having to use ACR and Photoshop Elements to edit my RAW files all the way. While I also use Elements all the time, it was just for adding some final touches to the images. I couldn’t stand having to edit the LX-5 RAWs in ACR, THEN editing it further in Elements. But despite all this, I still consider the LX-5 to be one of the best compact cameras out there. If they had been able to at least match the Olympus in terms of JPEG output, and making life just that little bit easier, I would have strongly stuck by its side. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it again though, because after the XZ-1 was reviewed, it also had some shortcomings that the LX-5 did not (e.g. the missing AE/AFL button, dumbed down adjustment ring, unable to use preset focal lengths). See? Life will never be perfect. The XZ-1 merely inches ahead because I’m always an Olympus user at heart, and given a choice, I’d work with anything that has their name on it.

The Olympus E-1: what it meant to me



If I were to talk to a non-camera buff today about  how  I ‘upgraded’ from the entry level E-520 to the very origin of the Four Thirds system that came 5 YEARS before it, it would make for one hell of a conversation. Let’s count the ways:

       -Going from 10MP to 5MP (yes, that’s HALF of what I used to enjoy)
       -No pop-up flash (let alone one that allows me to remotely trigger external flashes)
      -No Live View (even as a DSLR user, I swear by Live View as in some cases, it helps me to compose and use manual focusing more effectively)
     -Going from a modern Panasonic Live MOS sensor to an ancient Kodak CCD chip that makes your pics look like the insides of a pepper mill if you go anywhere past ISO200

It does go on and on, but these are the so-called major disadvantages I faced by moving the E-1. Well, obviously we all do something bizarre for a reason, so here’s why. The E-1 to me, is a camera that is so pure, it basically takes everything that don’t really matter about photography, scrunches it up and throws it out the window. It had no fancy menus like different levels of noise reduction and 1/3 stop ISO levels. If anything, almost every option was just a choice of YES or NO, and the ISO values were all in 1 stop measurements. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because the simpler a device is, the more time you have to actually enjoy it for it’s intended purpose. With the E-1, you just turn it on and start shooting without having the ‘luxury’ of fine tweaking this or that parameter, unlike a modern DSLR.


Because the E-1 was designed form the ground up as a professional system, it sported some of the best things that make the overall package just more enjoyable. It had one of the toughest bodies sculpted from magnesium alloy, made it weatherproof (!) and was so well designed, it was widely acknowledged as one the best cameras in terms of ergonomics. Pleasantly enough, even as the 1st of the series, it had a bright 100% optical viewfinder (though I must say it’s not as incredible as the ones from the newer  Canon or Nikon prosumers like the 7D or D300s). Compared to the pitiful excuse of an OVF on my E-520, however, it’s a real treat for the eyes. The mirror clap of the E-1 was also really soft, and I really appreciate that since it’s not as distracting as contemporary DSLRs (like the obnoxiously loud Sony Alpha 200, which sounds like hitting two wooden planks together).


What I truly love about the E-1, however, is that it produces the best low-ISO image quality of any DSLR I’ve ever tried. With the old Kodak CCD, the color is noticeably more vibrant and crisp, and it has a certain ‘soulful’ feel to it. Reds and blues are saturated but not overdone. This is probably where people have coined the term, Olympus Blue. While I think that a lot of DSLRs these days are capable of producing accurate blues, the Olympus rendition is a little bit better and more pleasing. The dynamic range of the sensor is also pretty good, considering that the photosites are larger than a 10MP one, since it has only 5MP to squeeze in the same area.


 I’m not going to kid myself by saying that the E-1 is perfect.  While the color rendition is really excellent, it’s also marred by bad noise performance anything up from ISO200. I regularly shoot at ISO400, which is one stop above the limit that most people think the E-1 is capable of, since I can accept the noise pattern and reduce it a little via post processing. What this means, however, is that you won’t really get noise free images unless you shoot at ISO100 or 200. No big deal, since this is pretty much what you can expect from a 7 year old DSLR.  The Kodak sensor is notorious for bad shadow noise and being a hot pixel machine if you shoot at slower shutter speeds. I’ve gotten many images that have hot pixels even at ½ second in low light. A great annoyance to say the least. The E-1 was also known to have a rather thick anti-aliasing filter to reduce the moirĂ© and inadvertently reduce the overall sharpness, but if you’re a RAW shooter like me, you can conservatively adjust the sharpness to acceptable levels after shooting.


All in all, I still think that the E-1 is the finest and most engaging DSLR I’ve used (so far).  Sure, it doesn’t have built in stabilization or Live View like it’s successors, but in exchange, you get a really tough and weatherproof body, a 100% OVF and most of all, a sensor that renders color and dynamic range unlike what you get with modern Olympus cameras, giving it a pseudo film-like look to the images. It doesn’t have much that will get in your way of the entire experience, allowing you to just pick it up and start shooting. I do wish that Olympus would go back to it’s roots and create something in the spirit of the E-1. Maybe they can start off by talking with Kodak about producing sensors for them again. But for now, I just hope that my E-1 will last as long as possible. Maybe get myself another one as a backup once finances are a bit better.

My camera collection

Below are the list of cameras I’ve owned since 2008, and what they meant to me:

1.    Olympus SP570 UZ – my 1st serious camera, and one that practically changed my entire view of Olympus and made me a devoted fan until today. Sold it to a friend 4 months later to fund the E-520

2.    Olympus E-520 – my 1st DSLR. I already had a good impression of Olympus ever since I used the 570, so graduating to another Olympus camera is pretty much a no brainer. I practically bought it the moment it arrived on the shelves, and felt the time was right since I’ve gained enough interest in photography to become serious

3. Olympus E-1 – my current full time DSLR. So good, I practically live with it’s shortcomings and enjoy it’s film-like and pleasantly rendered images. The E-520 is now my backup, only brought out when I want to carry a lighter package

4.   Olympus OM-1n MD US – my 1st film SLR. I’m still very happy with it, and actually enjoy it more than my 35SP since I still haven’t gotten used to a rangefinder yet. A fully mechanical SLR that doesn’t need batteries to work, so it’s all good
 
5.    Olympus 35SP rangefinder – my 2nd film camera and 1st experience of owning a rangefinder. Not as sweet of an experience as I’ve expected, but at least I can finally claim to have owned and used one.

My non-Olympus cameras:

1.    Panasonic LUMIX LX-5 – my second most preferred camera after the E-1. It was, to me, a true street photography machine that produced high quality pics to rival that from a DSLR (albeit at < ISO400). Sold it off after several months of use as backup funds for the upcoming XZ-1 or E-PL2. Never got to buy any of those eventually as I was pretty much satisfied with my E-1 and my film cameras. I shall miss it so as it made life a whole lot more convenient and the image quality was truly excellent for it’s size

2.    E-mook Clover San toy camera – this was technically my 1st ever film camera. Very small and adorable, but I never enjoyed it much as it was impractical (you can only shoot at ONE shutter speed, and ONE aperture!), which is what I already expected before buying it. It’s only good as a camera for having fun, since you just need to look through that tiny window and snap. I still use it though when I’m bored and the day is sunny. Bought it in Kinokuniya KLCC just for kicks and to feel what it’s like to shoot with a cheap plastic toy. 

3. (UPDATED) Canon AF35M II / Autoboy 2 (Japan) - I found this while rummaging through my drawer full of trash one fine day. It was given to me by my aunt back in high school, but I left it lying in the dark as I wasn't into photography at all back then. Much to my surprise, after more than 10 years of languishing, I popped in 2 AA batteries and it ACTUALLY FIRES UP! It's loud as a mortar cannon, that' for sure, but I'm not certain if it's due to it's old age (produced back in 1983). Currently testing it with a roll of film and see if it's REALLY working.