Why 35mm Film Isn’t Dead Yet

26 Wednesday Aug 2009

I, like many others, thought it no longer made sense to make or use 35mm film.

It still made sense that photographers would buy medium and large format film because–unless you had $20,000-$40,000 for a medium format digital camera–shooting medium and large format film is still a cost effective way to get really rich and detailed images, whether you scan the film or just print it. (I know that some would argue that 35mm full-frame digital SLRs give you as good or better images than medium format film. Maybe. Maybe sometimes. Regardless, you can easily spend thousands of dollars on a good full-frame DSLR setup…).

But why would anyone shoot a 35mm film negative or slide when: 1) you have to keep buying more film, 2) pay to process (and probably ship) that film, 3) wait for it to be processed (and probably shipped back), 4) film scans often need to be “cleaned up” due to dust, scratches, and/or chemical residue, 5) film scans–especially if higher than 100 ISO–often show a lot of graininess..??

I’ve come to realize the reasons why 35mm film isn’t dead yet:

Compact digital cameras with “full” (DSLR) sized sensors have not been perfected yet. Sure, you’ll see some offerings from Sigma (DP-1 and DP-2) and Olympus (E-P1) out in the market; but these cameras haven’t reached the level of performance (e.g., in terms of auto-focussing and lens quality) achieved by the compact 35mm film cameras of the 1990s–e.g., the Contax Ts, the Leica Minis and Miniluxes, the Ricoh GR1s, the Yashica T4/T5, the Olympus Stylus Epic, and so on.
Compact digital cameras with their typical small sensors have very little pleasing bokeh–which is the thing that provides the selective focus and 3-D “depth” that most people like in a good photo…especially when the subject matter is people.
With all its drawbacks, film can still provide a rich, classic, and artistic “look” that digital photography doesn’t have (i.e., it’s the difference between a digital and analog aesthetic).
Film cameras allow you to get different types of images by simply changing the film you’re using (e.g., black & white versus color; grainier versus finer grain; different grain structures–Kodak Tri-X has a different look than Ilford or Fuji B&W films…or even other Kodak B&W films; smooth versus contrasty; etc…)
Most people now shoot digital due to convenience and price. Want to make your work stand out more as a photographer/photographer-artist? Shoot film…your work will automatically look different than 95% (or more) of the images being produced these days. (I think less than 95% of people own digital versus film cameras; however, it’s clear a vast majority of the images produced and displayed on the web came from a digital camera.)

Even though the market for 35mm film has become smaller and smaller, I think it’s here to stay a while. There’s a certain level of 35mm film user die-hards I don’t think are going to go away anytime soon. These die-hards are partially motivated by nostalgia; but it’s not all nostalgia. The reasons I listed above are legitimate, “practical” reasons why 35mm film is still around and still fills an important niche.

As long as there are people/consumers out there wanting to use 35mm film, someone is going to make it for them…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Terry Richardson Bought My Point-and-Shoot Film Camera

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary

≈ 11 Comments

I recently sold a point-and-shoot 35mm film camera on eBay to someone named Terry Richardson in New York City. I asked (via email) whether this was *the* Terry Richardson–the fashion photographer who famously uses compact “point-and-shoot” 35mm cameras to do his high-paying fashion photography…? Well, I didn’t get an answer.

Of course, this leads me even more to believe it’s probably him…(!)
(Update: He did eventually email me back. His message: “Hi,yes its me…love that camera its awesome for street shots..and fits in my pocket better then the yashica. keep on clicking…thanks Terry”)

Terry Richardson is renowned for shooting with a compact 35mm film camera that is no longer manufactured: the Yashica T5/T4 Super. As a result, Yashica T5/T4 Supers now sell for more used than they did new in the 1990s!

It would make sense that he would have to buy more used Yashica T5s/T4s on eBay when they wear out because they’re no longer made–or even, probably, serviced–by Yashica. (Does Yashica even still exist as a company?)

But that is not what he bought from me.

Terry Richardson–this one in New York City–bought a compact, point-and-shoot camera from me that was not made by Yashica. It was another relatively famous point-and-shoot 35mm film camera that was manufactured around the same time as the T5/T4 Super.

Now I’m inclined to keep it a secret so that the price on this gem doesn’t get as inflated as it’s become on the Yashica T5s/T4s. However, if someone guesses it, I’ll come clean and tell you what it was.

Note: anyone who posts a “Who Cares!” comment has become too jaded for their own good…;-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy?

13 Thursday Aug 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Wedding

≈ 3 Comments

First, let me say when I photograph a wedding I rely heavily on zoom lenses. I find that too many things are happening too fast to rely on having to reposition myself for shots or on changing my lens to a different prime. Also, I don’t want to have to do a bunch of post-wedding image cropping when the lens I was using was too wide for the shot.

When it comes to my wedding photography, I have made a conscious decision that it is more important to catch as much as is potentially interesting as possible than to:

use a prime lens for the ultimate in optical quality (a difference professional photographers might notice but many clients wouldn’t and/or don’t care about), or
cut my shots down to *only* the premium artistic and emotional shots and become *really* good at properly positioning myself for them knowing I have the limitations of a fixed focal length (prime) lens on my camera.

Now, I should mention that I reduce the impact of issue #1 by using Canon’s very best and most expensive zoom lenses; it’s not like I’m using consumer grade zoom lenses..!

Issue #2 is more interesting to me.

There is an award-winning wedding photographer in the UK (whom I’ve mentioned before: Jeff Ascough) who believes that “less is more” and takes an astoundingly small number of photos during a wedding, even though he’s using a digital camera and could easily shoot more at no additional financial cost–it’s not a financial consideration. I just checked his blog and it appears he shoots with two cameras plus four prime lenses. He seems to be a good example of someone doing #2 above.

I believe that successfully doing #2 would require some transition time…and I’m certainly not going to “experiment” on weddings for which my clients have paid me to produce the same type of work they’ve seen demonstrated on my wedding website using my usual wedding shooting practices!

The thing is, there are significant differences between doing fine art/street photography versus wedding photography:

a client *pays* you to photograph a wedding; no one (yet) has paid me to go out and do some street photography…though I’m certainly open to offers..:p
there are no “must have” shots when you’re doing fine art/street photography; it’s pretty casual and purely up to your artistic choices
fine art/street photography can be as slow-moving or fast-moving as the photographer desires; a wedding photographer–especially a photojournalistic-style wedding photographer like myself–has little control over the pace of events at a wedding
in street photography, “missed shots” can be a disappointment for a photographer, but there are always more shots to capture (it’s all part of the fun); for a one-time (well, it’s supposed to be…) dynamic event like a wedding, a missed shot is a “hole” in the wedding coverage that the paying client may be very disappointed about and can’t get back
the higher optical quality of a prime lens actually makes a difference in fine art photography because the audience for fine art photography actually notices that sort of thing (they’re usually very “into” photos and looking at them in terms of quality); better quality also can make a difference when making large prints, which would be more typical in fine art photography

Let me address one other issue that someone might bring up about using prime lenses for wedding photography: prime lenses typically come with larger maximum apertures making existing light photography more feasible in dark conditions versus zoom lenses. I often switch to using some primes during a wedding reception once it really gets dark. But this works well for me for two reasons:

I still keep one zoom lens on a camera with a flash because sometimes flash is the best choice and I might as well have a zoom lens that covers a good range starting somewhere wide, like 24mm or 16mm.
Even though there are “must have” shots at a reception, I usually have plenty of time to ready myself for them (the DJ or wedding planner usually lets me know they’re about to happen); otherwise, shooting at receptions is quite casual and relatively easily covered by fixed/prime lenses on my second camera

I’d like to step out of the wedding versus fine art photography discussion for a moment and briefly discuss the use of a fixed/prime lens for my fine art/street photography versus using a zoom lens.

We went on a family vacation during which I decided to shoot some of my leftover film using my Canon film SLR (an Elan 7). I decided to use my Canon 24-105 f/4 L lens with it as a good general purpose zoom lens. I generally enjoyed shooting film as a change of pace from shooting my usual digital; it helped me practice “waiting on” good shots, which I think is becoming a lost art now with the prevalence of digital photography.

Anyway, I got the film processed and scanned to disk. I was pretty pleased with the results; though it was difficult to know whether the photos that didn’t come out very well were more due to the camera or the out-of-date film I used!

Shortly after that vacation, I got a hold of some compact 35mm film cameras with high-quality, fixed focal length lenses (Leica Mini II, Yashica T4, Ricoh GR1s) because my Elan 7 with the 24-105 zoom lens wasn’t very compact; plus I had to worry about it (due to the relatively high cost of the lens) when I set it down to swim in the pool or whatever…and my wife absolutely hates having to keep an eye on my camera equipment!

Well, I was pleasantly surprised by three things:

the quality of the photos was as good if not better than the quality of the photos I got with the expensive Canon “L” lens attached to the relatively large Canon SLR!
the fixed focal length lens forces me to be more strategic and move around more to get a shot….and because of this, I’m getting photos I like better!
I forget this sometimes, but one of the reasons I like photography is being outdoors and running around (I like this much better than spending hours at a computer)! I really like the fresh air and exercise…and bonus: this too usually improves the quality of my photography…:-).

Essentially, I’m using Jeff Ascough’s “less is more” strategy in my fine art/street photography with some real success. I will have more on my experiences with the compact (point & shoot) film cameras in future blog posts.

So, what about the question in my blog post title: Do Zoom Lenses Make You Lazy? Here’s my current answer: zoom lenses are a “crutch”.

They help you make fewer decisions of a strategic nature when you are photographing; they cover more so you’re giving up less when using them
They smooth over time/place “crunches” caused by dynamic events with simultaneous photo opportunities
They compensate for either the inability or unwillingness to move around more physically

I think the unfortunate thing that can happen is that you use zoom lenses even when you really don’t need them. This *can* lead to a certain amount of photographic laziness that really can start to erode the quality of your photography.

If you feel like your photography is getting stale and you’re relying a lot on zoom lenses, try changing things up by using some fixed focal length lenses and forcing yourself to see the world in an interesting way through that one focal length. You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find…:-).

Note: If you’re interested in purchasing one of these high-quality lens, point-and-shoot film cameras I refer to, take a look in B&H’s Used Store; there’s nothing like them that you can buy new anymore…:-(.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Still a Place for Film?

28 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary

≈ 1 Comment

So, recently I decided to shoot some film because I realized I still had a bunch of it in a refrigerator, and also, I was curious how it might affect the way I took photos (compared to using a digital camera). My main question: Is there any reason to still shoot film…especially 35mm film?

Look of Film

First, I have to say, there are shots like these that only film can “pull off”. This type of shot just looks crappy with digital cameras…DSLRs or otherwise. I think the dynamic range of print film and its “organic” grain structure make something like this work somehow. Sure, the digital camera makers try to emulate the looks of different films; but they’re still just that: emulations, not the real thing.

Scarcity Breeds Scrutiny

Buying, developing, and scanning film isn’t cheap in terms of money or time. When you’re shooting film, you think twice before pressing that shutter release button. It’s going to cost you something to take each shot; it better be worthwhile! I think there’s something valuable about scrutinizing each shot carefully before taking it; the process engenders critical perception and evaluation, which seems to be an important part of growing as a accomplished photographer. Every once in a while I could kick myself for not triggering the shutter and thereby missing a possibly good shot! But more often than not, I’m glad for the discipline of framing and then resisting a pointless shot.

Creativity and Sensor Variety

Every time you put a different type of film into your camera, it’s like putting a different sensor into your digital camera! How’s that to stimulate creativity?! You get to decide on whether to have a color or black & white sensor, how it’s going to handle highlights and shadows, color saturation, what sort of grain structure the image will have, and so on. If you don’t like the “look” of the images you’re getting, try a different film! What a great way to get a large variety of different types of images from one camera…:-).

Variable Sensor Resolution
I’ve recently been on a mission to get a compact camera with 35mm full-frame resolution. There have been some initial forays into this area by a couple of digital camera manufacturers (Sigma, Olympus), but there are issues with these preliminary offerings…and prices are at a premium.

There are some great compact film cameras (many of them no longer in production) from companies like Leica, Olympus, Yashica, Contax, Ricoh, Konica, etc that take 35mm SLR-quality photos with true 35mm full-frame resolution and beautiful bokeh on 35mm film. And that film can be scanned at various resolutions to yield almost any resolution digital file you need. I like to get my film developed and immediately scanned to digital files (I think most film processors now offer affordable scanning when you develop the film with them). And if you get a really great shot that you want to print large, you can always go back to the film frame and get it scanned at a different/higher resolution.

Light as Film
One thing that struck me about film cameras is how much lighter they are than their digital counterparts. Once you jam in an LCD and the rest of the electronics that go into a digital camera, it starts to get a little heavy and–often–bulky. Film cameras don’t require much electronics (some have none); and if you make the camera body out of lightweight materials (e.g., various plastics), a compact film camera can weigh a matter of ounces. And since film consists of paper, thin plastic, resins, and a bit of thin metal, a “loaded” film camera weighs little more than an empty one.

Persistence of Analog
There are a few things I find unsettling about having most of my photos exist as digital entities only:

I’m sure that someday, my computer (or whatever it might end up being called) will no longer be able to read information off of today’s CDs and DVDs. Today’s CDs and DVDs will become yesterday’s floppy disks. There will be a window in which I’ll have to copy all of my images to some other storage medium, or I can just say goodbye to my archives of digital images.
I try to be good about backing up the images on my hard drive to other media. But this does not always happen. The spectre of losing images due to the failure of technological devices (which happens all too often) occasionally enters my consciousness…and is certainly a real danger.
I keep hearing about how the quality of digital images on storage media degrades over time. I suspect film degrades some over time as well. I’m not sure which degrades faster; maybe I don’t want to know…(!)

In any case, having photos on both an analog medium like film and also as digital images provides the ultimate in flexibility, accessibility, and safekeeping. There’s some comfort in knowing you’ll always be able to view, enlarge, scan, and print from an analog format like film regardless of what happens with digital/computer technology.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Alternate Way to Get a Compact Camera with a Full 35mm Frame “Sensor”

16 Thursday Jul 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary

≈ Comments Off on Alternate Way to Get a Compact Camera with a Full 35mm Frame “Sensor”

I’ve been wanting to have a compact camera with me sporting a high-quality lens that could take “publication” and “stock” quality photos. Most of the digital compacts have somewhat second-rate zoom lenses with puny & noisy sensors. The few exceptions (Sigma DP1/DP2 and the soon available Olympus E-P1) either have usability issues (Sigma) or aren’t yet available and will be quite pricey (Olympus). The other issue with these cameras is that they don’t come with optical viewfinders (though they’re sometimes available as an expensive accessory)…which may not be an issue if you prefer using the rear LCD to frame shots anyway. I don’t particularly like using the LCD because:

I prefer using a viewfinder for some reason
Having the LCD constantly on really drains the battery quickly
Even having an LCD adds quite a bit to the weight of the camera (any of you camera manufacturers considered a lightweight digital camera without an LCD? I think it would be interesting, because it would be more like shooting film where you don’t see the results until you’re done shooting…:-).

So, I’ve decided to try some highly-rated 35mm film compact cameras. I’ll shoot the film and have it developed and scanned right to digital–like having a compact digital camera with a full 35mm frame sensor. My first acquisition: the Leica Mini II. It has a fixed 35mm f/3.5 lens. I will also be trying the highly rated Ricoh GR1s. Cost for the Mini: $90.

I’ll publish results of my “experiment” in future blog posts.

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

The Mentality and Economics of Digital Photography

14 Tuesday Jul 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Commentary

≈ Comments Off on The Mentality and Economics of Digital Photography

I recently took a vacation with my family, during which I took photos using a 35mm film SLR camera. It’s going to cost me $125 or so to get the film developed and scanned to digital. (The cost of film processing without the scanning would be about $70.)

The same lens/lenses I use on my 35mm film SLR camera also work on my full-frame, 13 megapixel digital SLR. And being a wedding photographer, I have enough memory cards to store thousands of images, even if shot in raw format. For another $55 (bringing my total cost to $180), I could have gotten the developed 35mm film scanned to yield 16 megapixel-equivalent image files. But the $125 I’m paying only gets me 6 megapixel-equivalent scans.

So, you may be asking: “Why the heck would you shoot 35mm film when shooting with the digital SLR would be FREE since you already own the digital SLR and memory cards??”

There were three main reasons for my 35mm film folly:

I have a bunch of leftover, out-of-date 35mm film (refrigerated) that I don’t think I could sell for much anyway.
I thought this out-of-date film might end up giving me some interesting artistic effects.
I was curious how I might shoot differently knowing I was shooting film.

I haven’t gotten the film back yet, so I don’t know how the photos came out yet. (I’ll speak to this in a follow-up blog post after I see the results.) But my shooting style was definitely affected and it got me thinking about how digital photography has changed photography.

One of the main things that stood out for me was how much more scrutiny I gave the image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button.

With digital, one tends to “shoot away” if anything even close to a possibly compelling image enters one viewfinder. I’ve seen some photographers take random shots without even looking into their viewfinders in hopes of luckily catching an interesting shot. (They check their LCDs and delete most of these…only keeping a few serendipitously interesting shots.) I’ve been “guilty” of such random shooting at wedding receptions when I’m holding the camera over my head to give it a view of the dance floor I don’t have in hopes of catching something good.

From an economics point-of-view, “shooting away” with your digital camera makes sense: each additional shot gains another possible “winner” without any additional per unit cost (assuming you’ve got plenty of room left on your memory card/s). Sure, there was some additional cost involved in buying the digital camera and memory cards in the first place; but once this cost is absorbed, taking additional photos cost nothing financially.

Now, there is a “cost” involved in having to store and go through additional images *afterward* to find the good images and weed out the bad ones. But digital storage just keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and there are now services a photographer can employ to help him or her edit and adjust the thousands of images they’ve taken per photo session or event.

I considered making the argument that the money you would save by not having to keep updating your digital camera and computer equipment each year and not having to send your images out to one of these image editing/processing services would more than pay for all the film and film processing expenses (including having the film scanned to disks for proofs) you would incur. I’m not really sure how it would ultimately work out, and it would probably vary quite a bit from photographer to photographer, depending on the type of photography they specialize in, number of events per year, etcetera. However, I think this consideration is a good thing for all photographers to evaluate individually.

So, back to the issue of the added scrutiny I gave each image in my viewfinder before pressing the shutter button…does it matter?

There’s a successful UK wedding photographer (Jeff Ascough, selected as one of the best wedding photographers in the world by various publications) who only shoots 200-300 images per wedding, even though he’s shooting digital. In his blog post titled: “Less is More“, he says: “For years I’ve worked on the principle of getting one exceptional image to tell the story of a particular moment, rather than lots of average pictures. If you cover a wedding with this mindset, not only does the photography improve, but so does the consistency of the coverage.”

Here’s my take: I think the added scrutiny you give a shot before pressing the shutter button *does* matter, in at least three ways:

It helps you keep your photography “eye” critically trained. If you’re “machine gunning” away, you’ve at least partially absolved yourself from judgements of quality of the images you’re shooting.
More scrutiny of the images you’re capturing keeps you more “in the moment”…which should help keep you in closer touch with what you’re photographing…which should, ultimately, lead to better images.
You’re not swimming in hundreds of mediocre images afterward, which I really think *has* to erode your judgement of images. With so many images, I find–at some point–it’s difficult to evaluate what’s good anymore. (Interestingly, I find it much easier to make these quality judgements if I wait some number of weeks after a wedding before looking at these hundreds or thousands of images.)

Now, it’s not necessary to shoot film in order to implement more scrutiny and judgement in your photography. However, it can be an effective means for bringing your mindset back into the mode of more intentional and mindful photography to see if you notice a difference in the quality of the images you get.

When I get my film back, I’ll let you know if the noticeable change in the mental part of my photography led to any differences in the actualy images I captured!

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Photos from a New York Wedding

03 Friday Jul 2009

Posted by mgm in Wedding

≈ Comments Off on Photos from a New York Wedding

When I started this blog, I intended to post more images than I have been. So, for the July 4th weekend, I’ve decided to put up some photos I took at a wedding in Upstate New York. When I do my “high-end” wedding photography package, I do extensive image processing in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, in which I apply various treatments to create images that stand out more than the sometimes “flat” images that come out of the camera. My wedding clients really seem to like this added processing…enough so that many are willing to pay the additional $1000+ to get it.

After doing the image processing for thousands of wedding photos, I’ve developed a number of presets (much like Photoshop Actions) that make the processing go faster. Also, having a library of presets makes it easier to find the best treatment for a particular image. If you haven’t used Lightroom, you should know there’s a “preview” feature wherein you can hover your mouse over your presets and see a preview of what the image will look like after applying the preset! This is both an incredible time-saver and helps to find the absolute best preset for the image.

Sometime soon, I plan to offer some of these presets for sale at my blog for a relatively nominal fee. So, keep a lookout for those…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Brief Review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 (similar to the Leica D-LUX 4)

22 Monday Jun 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on Brief Review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 (similar to the Leica D-LUX 4)

This is a short follow-up review of the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3. In a previous blog post, I described my decision to purchase a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 in great detail. Now that I own one–and have used it for more than a week–I thought I’d give my impressions of it so far…

As when I tested the Canon 5D Mark II, I had high hopes for the auto ISO. What photographer hasn’t suddenly gone from a dark indoor setting to a bright outdoor setting (e.g., from inside a dark church to the bright sunny summer day just outside the front door of the church) and forgotten or not had time to switch the ISO down to a much more appropriate setting? I either shoot aperture priority or manual about 98% of the time, and it was a major disappointment to me that the 5D Mark II doesn’t allow you to specify a minimum shutter speed. In fact, the shutter would go down as low as 1/20 sec for an indoor shot rather than bump up the ISO and take it at a more appropriate shutter speed. Other photographers have confirmed for me that there isn’t a minimum shutter speed setting on the Canon 5D Mark II (as there wasn’t on the Canon 5D before it).

So, when I put the Lumix DMC-LX3 on auto ISO, it too chose lower shutter speeds than I ever would have, especially to photograph moving people (I mostly use the Lumix DMC-LX3 to photograph my children and they hardly ever stand still!).

Well, it turns out that the Lumix DMC-LX3 has a lot of customizable and flexible options, especially for a compact camera. So, I dug down into the menu system, which took a while to get familiar with. However, it paid off. I found my perfect combination of ISO/exposure related settings: 1) set the ISO to Auto, 2) set a maximum acceptable ISO (I specified 1600 because I find 3200 pretty bleak), and 3) set a minimum shutter speed of 1/60 sec.

Even though there are situations where I might want a lower maximum ISO or a slower minimum shutter speed, the combination of the 1600 and 1/60 is ideal for me 80% or more of the time. So, I just put these settings into one of my customizable programmable settings (C1 and/or C2, which you can choose with a turn of the dial on top of the camera) and start there each time. If I need to change anything, I just get into the menu and change things for that photo session. The next day, when I start the camera up again, it’s back to my saved custom settings. Works like a charm!

A nice feature of the Auto ISO setting is that it makes available finer ISO gradations than are available with setting the ISO manually. For instance, you can manually set the ISO to any of the following: 80, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. However, in Auto ISO mode, additional ISO settings in between these become available (I’ve seen the camera select them): 125, 160, 250, 320, 500, 640, 1000, 1250, 2000, etc. It’s really nice to have some ISO settings between 400 & 800 and 800 &1600 because 400 to 800 and 800 to 1600 are significant jumps in digital noise. So, it’s beneficial to “ramp up” the ISO more gradually to keep that noise down as much as possible.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 80 ISO, f/2.5, 1/100 sec, 9.3mm (44mm)

The other ISO-related issue I should emphasize is that since the Lumix DMC-LX3 has such a large maximum aperture of f/2.0 (wide) – f/2.8 (telephoto), this too helps to keep the required ISO down.

I’ve been pleased with the auto-focus on this camera; I’ve even been able to get it to lock onto moving children. Having a choice of different metering modes–including spot!–has been a pleasure. The tiny flash has been a nice surprise; it’s more powerful than I thought it would be.

Being able to choose whether the camera uses an AF assist light is great; when you’re trying to take photos without your subject being aware of you doing so, you don’t want that red light signaling your intentions! The auto-focus works quite well even without the AF assist light.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3, 640 ISO, f/2.0, 1/60 sec, 5.1mm (24mm)

It’s not all peaches & cream with this camera.

Let me make it clear that the quality of the images from this camera cannot match my Canon DSLRs, not even the Digital Rebel 400D I have. Even though the Lumix DMC-LX3 and my Digital Rebel 400D are both 10.1 megapixels, the digital noise and image quality are hands down better with the Digital Rebel. And even with the large maximum aperture on the Lumix DMC-LX3 (f/2.0 – f/2.8), the bokeh or background blur is significantly better with a f/2 or f/2.8 lens on my Digital Rebel. Really, the main benefit of having the f/2.0 – f/2.8 aperture range with this camera is enabling low-light shooting and keeping the ISO/digital noise down as much as possible. The bokeh isn’t going to knock anyone’s socks off.

Also, the DMC-LX3 doesn’t come with an optical viewfinder (this is a “not cheap” accessary you have to buy), so you have to compose everything on the rear LCD…which ends up wearing the battery down relatively quickly. It is a little easier to catch people unaware by composing things with the LCD (which you can hold down low and away from your face while composing), but it’s nice to have the option of using an optical viewfinder sometimes.

Even though you can record fairly nice videos with this camera (Quicktime MOV), you can’t zoom in or out once the recording begins.

Finally, this camera has a 35mm full-frame equivalent zoom range of 24-60mm. I really like having 24mm on the wide end…sometimes, I’d like to have more! The 60mm limit on the telephoto end can certainly be a little limiting sometimes; but I knew this before I bought the camera and still prefer the tradeoff of limiting the telephoto range in order to keep the maximum aperture up to a nice large f/2.8 at the telephoto end.

So, after using this camera for more than a week now, I would recommend it to anyone looking for a compact camera that:

fits into a large pocket or small pouch
can take photos in dimly-lit indoor settings
has a nice wide-angle reach of 24mm (35mm full-frame equivalent)
is able to keep ISO relatively low in most shooting situations because of the lens’ large apertures
has to have good image quality, but not necessarily as good as a digital SLR
can be customized to fit the photographer’s shooting style and/or subject matter
can take photos of active children
doesn’t have to zoom out beyond a 60mm telephoto range
has enough megapixels (10 mp) to make relatively large prints when desired

If a camera with these features sounds pretty good to you, buy one! If you love Leica, buy the Leica version; it’s more likely to be in stock. Either way, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Awesome Outdoor Coverage: 17mm-350mm (35mm full-frame) with Two Lenses

10 Wednesday Jun 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on Awesome Outdoor Coverage: 17mm-350mm (35mm full-frame) with Two Lenses

If you follow this blog at all, you know I recently purchased a Canon 35-350 L zoom lens for use with my full-frame Canon 5D. The 35-350 L is no longer manufactured by Canon; it’s been replaced by the 28-300 IS L. But you can still get a 35-350 L in great condition (around $1100), and they’re only about half the cost of the 28-300 IS L (around $2200).

The 35-350 has turned out to be a great lens for me on a full-frame camera. I’m still blown away by the fact that this lens has the farthest reach of any of my lenses, yet includes a respectable wide angle focal length of 35mm. It would be nice if it had a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range (rather than f/3.5 – f/5.6), but then it would be unbelievably heavy, I’m sure!

Anyway, 35mm on a full-frame DSLR meets, probably, 90% of my wide angle needs. But every once in a while, I want to be able to reach 28mm, 24mm, or even a little wider. Now, granted, my desire for 28mm or wider is usually an indoor phenomenon. However, there are situations outdoors (e.g., next to a tall waterfall) or semi-outdoors (e.g., on a open boat for a cocktail cruise) where I could use some “serious” wide angle capability.

Well, it turns out I own a Canon 17-40 f/4 L lens which gives me true wide angle coverage to 17mm on my 5D. I don’t use this lens a lot; but when I need it, it *really* comes in handy. (New 17-40 f/4 L lenses can be purchased for around $700.)

I’ve got a *mostly* outdoor wedding coming up (some of the reception will take place inside an actual building; otherwise–weather permitting–everything else is going to be outdoors), and it occurred to me that with my 35-350 on one 5D and my 17-40 on the other 5D, I’ve got an awesome focal range of 17-350mm using professional Canon L zoom lenses! Total lens cost: $1800.

Now, matching the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L with the 35-350 would also work (and pick up another 1mm on the wide end), but a new 16-35 f/2.8 L is about twice the cost of the 17-40 (about $1400). The total lens cost of uniting the 35-350 with the 16-35 f/2.8 would be $2500.

Of course, you could buy just the 28-300 IS L for $2200 and only have to deal with one camera and lens. However, you would be cutting off some of your coverage range at *both* the wide and telephoto ends (you would lose 16-28mm or 17-28mm and 300-350mm). You’d also miss out on the nice added capabilities of having an ultra wide-angle zoom, which can really come in handy.

Because the 35-350 is a bit slow aperture-wise (f/3.5 – f/5.6) and reaches 350mm (total overkill for most indoor situations), I would never recommend it as a good indoor lens for weddings. However, combined with the 17-40 f/4 L, you’ve really got an amazing outdoor wedding lens combo for $1800 or less (if you can get some good used lens deals), that could capture practically any shot you could throw at it! (Note: For you bokeh lovers…even with the relatively small maximum apertures of the 35-350, you can get some really nice bokeh in a large portion of the telephoto range: 150-350mm.)

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!

Having Problems with the Camera Strap getting in the way for Vertical Shots?

29 Friday May 2009

Posted by mgm in All, Reviews

≈ Comments Off on Having Problems with the Camera Strap getting in the way for Vertical Shots?

Have you ever had this problem? You’ve got your DSLR camera hanging in front of you on the neck strap. You grab it and turn it on its side to take a vertical/portrait shot and this happens…

…the camera strap goes right in front of the viewfinder so that you have to shove it out of the way with either your hand or the side of your face?!

I’m not sure why, but this little annoyance only recently struck me…probably because I didn’t have a vertical grip on my camera previously and so could easily use the thumb on my right hand to keep the strap out of the way of the viewfinder (since my hand was already on the horizontal shutter release button near the place where one end of the strap attaches).

I think the other reason I’ve noticed this problem is that I’ve been using a Black Rapid R-Strap for the past year.

The R-Strap attaches to the bottom of your camera (to the tripod screw hole) and keeps your camera hanging at your side. (Follow the link I provided to a Black Rapid R-Strap demonstration video in the previous paragraph to see it in action.) When you grab the camera and bring it up to your eye–in either horizontal or vertical orientation–the strap is nowhere near the viewfinder! It really works well.

Up till now, I’ve shot with one DSLR hanging from a neck strap (this is the camera I put the flash on) and the other hanging at my side on the R-Strap. However, I’ve noticed that having a hotshoe flash on the camera hanging upside down at my side doesn’t appear to be a problem. If you have a big or flimsy flash diffuser attached to it, maybe you’d have a problem. But I’m not a big fan of exotic flash diffusers–like the LightSphere–anyway.

So, if you find yourself having a problem with the neck strap getting in the way of the viewfinder when you go to take vertically-oriented shots–especially if you have a vertical battery grip–take a look at the Black Rapid R-Strap. I’ve been quite happy with mine…:-).

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!