TOPIC: CAMERA
EVF or OVF?
22nd December 2019In photography, some developments are temporary fads, while others create enduring changes. Special effects filters and high dynamic range techniques generated excitement before their usage became more restrained. The same applies to most image processing techniques, as good taste eventually prevails. Some developments, however, signal more substantial shifts.
The biggest example of the latter is the move away from film photography to digital image capture. There still are film photographers who largely depend on older cameras, since very few are made any more. While my own transition came later than others, I hardly use film any more, and a lack of replacement parts for cameras that are more than fifteen years old only helps to keep things that way. Another truth is that digital photography makes me look at my images more critically, which helps me improve.
Also, mobile phone cameras have become so capable that the compact camera market has shrunk dramatically. In fact, I gave away my Canon PowerShot G11 earlier this year because there was little justification in hanging onto it. After all, it dated back to 2010 and a phone would do now what it once did, though the G11 did more for me than I might have expected. Until 2017, my only photos of Swedish locations were made with that camera. If I ever was emotional at its departure, and I doubt that I was, that is not felt now.
If you read photography magazines, you get the sense that mirrorless cameras have captured a lot of the limelight, and that especially is the case with the introduction of full frame models. Some writers even are writing off the chances of SLR's remaining in production, though available model ranges remain extensive despite the new interlopers. Whatever about the departure of film, the possible loss of SLR's with their bright optical viewfinders (OVF's) does make me a little emotional since they were the cameras that, so many like me aspired to owning during my younger years and the type has served me well over the decades.
Even so, I too have used mirrorless cameras and an Olympus PEN E-PL5 came into my possession in 2013. However, I found that using the screen on the back of a camera was not to my liking and the quality of mobile phone cameras is such that I no longer need any added portability. However, it needs to be remembered that using a Tamron 14 to 150 mm zoom lens with the body cannot have helped either. Wishing to sample a counterpart with an electronic view finder, I replaced it with an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III earlier this year and have been getting on fine with that.
The camera body is compact, yet handles like an SLR. I turned off the automatic switching between viewfinder and screen because I found it distracting. I prefer to switch between them manually. Getting used to the electronic viewfinder (EVF) took some time, but adding a spirit level overlay proved both useful and educational. The camera produces images with strong greens and blues, which suits me since I like both colours. The 16.1 megapixel sensor creates smaller files that upload quickly to back-up services. My Tamron lens works flawlessly, and keeping this lens was a key reason I stayed with Olympus despite a shutter failure on my previous camera. The repair was done efficiently and at a reasonable price.
Despite the quality of the new Olympus, it has not replaced my Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Pentax K5 II SLRs. The Olympus has a much smaller frame. In January, I bought a new Sigma 24 to 105 mm zoom lens for the Canon after my older lens developed a fault that could not be fixed. The new lens performs well and produces impressively sharp images. However, the full frame Canon setup is heavy, even when used handheld. This is why the Pentax remains my choice for travelling abroad. Both the Canon and Pentax offer brighter viewfinders, which I value. Therefore, the OM-D complements rather than replaces my other cameras.
Although I can work with electronic viewfinders (EVF's) if single-lens reflex cameras (SLRs) become obsolete, I plan to use mainly SLRs for now. Canon recently launched a new enthusiast model, indicating ongoing interest in SLRs. Canon appears to envision a hybrid approach where using the screen on the back of the camera might provide faster autofocus or other functions, while the optical viewfinder (OVF) allows traditional operation. This makes me wonder if future cameras might include viewfinders that switch between EVF and OVF modes. This idea might be both far-fetched and fascinating, but other unforeseen possibilities might exist. One thing is certain: we live in a time of rapid change.
A display of brand loyalty
12th July 2013Since 2007, I've used a Pentax K10D DSLR as my main camera. It has travelled with me extensively, capturing over 15,000 images and serving reliably. Though its autofocus isn't the fastest, this doesn't matter for my typical subjects: landscapes, architecture, flora and transport (stationary buses and trains, for instance). Any slight underexposure in photos can be easily fixed since I shoot in DNG format, which preserves all raw image data. The camera has performed so well that I've found it difficult to justify buying a new SLR.
Lately, I have been looking at processed photos and asking myself if time has moved along for what is not far from being a six-year-old camera. At various times, I have been looking at higher members of the Pentax while wondering if an upgrade would be a good idea. First, there was the K7 and then the K5 before the K5 II got launched. Even though its predecessor is still to be found on sale, it was the newer model that became my choice.
My move to Pentax in 2007 was a case of brand disloyalty, since I had been a Canon user from when I acquired my first SLR, an EOS 300. Even now, I still have a PowerShot G11 that finds itself slipped into a pocket on many a time. Nevertheless, I find that Canon images feel a little washed out before post-processing, and that hasn't been the case with the K10D. In fact, I have been hearing good things about Nikon cameras delivering punchy results, so one of them would be a contender were it not for how well the Pentax performed.
So, what has my new K5 II body gained me that I didn't have before? For one thing, the autofocus is a major improvement on that in the K10D. It may not stop me persevering with manual focusing for most of the time, but there are occasions the option of solid autofocus is good to have. Other advances include a 16.3 megapixel sensor with a much larger ISO range. The advances in sensor technology since when the K10D appeared may give me better quality photos, and noise is something that my eyes may have begun to detect in K10D photos even at my usual ISO of 400.
Some features will not get used, though. While I rely on Live View with my PowerShot G11 due to its poor optical viewfinder, I rarely use it on the K5 II with its bright, sharp viewfinder, especially after noticing unreliable autofocus when using it (though manual focusing should work fine). By default, the screen stays on constantly, which irritated me as an optical viewfinder user, so I consulted the manual to turn it off. Similarly, I quickly abandoned the image level display. However, I've kept the horizon autocorrection feature enabled, as it helps fix the crooked horizons that often result from handheld shooting.
The K5 II may have a 3" screen on its back, but it has done nothing to increase the size of the camera. If anything, it is smaller than the K10D, and that usefully means that I am not on the lookout for a new camera holster. Not having a bigger body also means there is little change in how the much camera feels in the hand compared with the older one.
In many ways, the K5 II works very like the K10D once I took control over settings that didn't suit me. Both have Shake Reduction in their camera bodies, though the setting has been moved into the settings menu in the new camera, when the older one had a separate switch on its body. Since I'd be inclined to leave it on all the time and prefer not to have it knocked off accidentally, this is not an issue. Otherwise, many of the various switches are in the same places, so it's not that difficult to find my way around them.
The K5 II includes other changes, like a mode dial lock, but I'm familiar with this feature from Canon EOS cameras, so it doesn't feel like a downgrade. The exposure compensation button has been relocated to the top of the camera, making it easier to find and use; I'm using it more than I did on the K10D. Since I also use this feature on my G11, I'm applying similar experimentation to the K5 II. Next to it is a new ISO button, which I plan to test to see how it performs.
My main criticism of the K5 II is its cluttered menu system. The K10D's long scrollable lists have been replaced with multiple tabs that eliminate on-screen scrolling. However, I think this fragments the interface too much and makes navigating settings more intimidating for less technical users. Essential settings remain accessible; I continue using RAW DNG files as usual, though JPEG and Pentax's proprietary RAW format are also available. After initially forgetting to set the date, I quickly fixed this. Similarly, I disabled the default setting that stores files in date-based folders, instead directing everything to a single PENTX directory to match my workflow. Recently, I discovered the option to add photographer and copyright information to image file metadata. This seems particularly useful given proposed U.K. legislation that would weaken automatic copyright protections, even though most photographers oppose these legal changes.
A camera's true value lies in the quality of its images, and I'm pleased with what the K5 II produces. The larger file sizes mean fewer images fit on a memory card, though increased SDHC capacities help offset this, even as I avoid excessive shooting. While using the camera, I was surprised to find apertures like F/14 and F/18, as I was used to values like F/11, F/13, F/16, F/19, and F/22. Most traditional values remain available, so there's not a complete departure from convention. Similarly with shutter speeds, I noticed 1/100 and 1/160 where I expected only 1/90, 1/125, and 1/250. These additional options provide more flexibility and potentially make achieving correct exposures easier, though what constitutes "correct" should be determined by the photographer, not the camera's algorithms. So far, I've mostly used ISO 400, except for some evening woodland testing shortly after getting the camera.
While I've been meaning to share my thoughts on the K5 II since acquiring it a few months ago, I needed time to organize my ideas. Initially, I felt overwhelmed by how much there was to say, even more than what you've read here. There are still features to explore, like white balance adjustments and their effect on image quality. After discovering its shake reduction was switched off, I'm also reconsidering my K10D, especially since this might explain the quality issues I mentioned earlier. Using my tripod more consistently would be another improvement. Clearly, I have many more photographic explorations ahead.
A new acquisition
16th January 2010Back in the early days of this blog, I mulled over the idea of having a high-end digital compact camera to complement a DSLR that then was delivering very dusty images; that Canon EOS 10D was cleaned since then and comes in for occasional use to this day. That was nearly three years ago, and a first generation Ricoh GR Digital was the item that then was catching my eye. At the time, I failed to justify spending that much money on such a thing and ended up acquiring a new Pentax K10D DSLR instead. The question that rattled about my head was this: what was the point of spending DSLR money on a compact camera? It is one that never really went away and comes to mind when you see the prices of interchangeable lens compacts like Olympus' Pen and equivalent offerings from Panasonic and Ricoh (there, it's interchangeable lens units rather than actual lenses).
The strongest counterpoint to the cost conundrum is the little matter of size. SLR (film or digital) cameras are sizeable things, and there is a place for having something that drops into a pocket. It is that which has propelled me into taking delivery of a Canon PowerShot G11. It may need a good-sized pocket but, unless you are going out with no jacket, it shouldn't be a problem most of the time. For those shorter sorties when I don't fancy bringing an SLR out, it is well-built and looks the business, though some acclimatisation is to make the best of the knobs, buttons and menus. Nevertheless, the included manual will help with this process (there's a paper quick start guide and more detailed documentation on CD).
The camera hasn't seen extensive use just yet, so here are a few early impressions. Firstly, there's the matter of size: it's even smaller than the first camera that I ever bought (more than fifteen years ago) and that was a Ricoh 35 mm compact film camera. That comparison is even more striking when you consider the feature sets. The Ricoh was a fixed 35 mm lens affair with things like date and time stamping, ISO choice and a nod towards scenic mode selection. In contrast, the much newer Canon is loaded with the sorts of things that normally are found almost exclusively on SLR's, starting with its effective 28-140 mm focal length range.
Exposure modes such as manual, aperture priority and shutter priority complement scene-based modes and another for movies (not a concern of mine, it has to be said). As if that weren't enough, there's exposure compensation too. It came as a surprise to me to find a form of manual focussing included, though it is not as convenient as turning a focussing ring on a lens. While you can see the inbuilt flash above, there's also a hot shoe and a place to attach a tripod too. Settings like white balance and file format are accessed using the Function/Set button, with the lever underneath the shutter release button controlling the focal length of the lens. In addition, there's also image stabilisation, and that's important when you're using live view to compose a photo. Spot metering and focal point selection are other things that find their way into the package. Some may be excited by other things, but exposure and focussing are essential for any photographic efforts.
An optical viewfinder is included, and it has diopter settings too, but my first impressions are that live view through the rear screen trumps it and I see no need for such things on SLR's. That also flips out from the camera body and can be rotated either for self-portraiture or for folding back in on the camera body for use like a non-articulated screen. Another use is with those occasions when the subject means holding the camera in positions that would be impossible with a conventional screen; holding the camera over your head or down low on the ground are the sorts of situations that come to mind.
Of course, there's more there than those features that I have listed, and the specifications on the Canon website are as good a place to start as any. So far, my only testing has taken the form of cursory checks and to make sure that the thing works properly. Still, this has given me more of a feel for the camera and how it operates. As you'd expect, high ISO settings are noisy, only for a bigger surprise to be that the smallest aperture setting is f/8. Being used to SLR's, I was expecting to get the likes of f/16 on there, but a spot of internet investigation indicated that I should have been taking the size of the sensor into account with my expectations. Any trials so far have been in dull weather, so I'd need to use it in a wider variety of conditions before giving it the sort of wider appraisal that you'd find in the likes of Outdoor Photography (who liked it, it has to be said). For what it's worth, I have found no major criticism so far, though I cannot see it usurping my SLR's not as if that ever was the intention anyway.
A tale of two reviews
21st June 2007
Recently, I encountered two very different reviews of the newly launched Olympus E-410 DSLR, in Which Digital Camera and Practical Photography, respectively. The review in the former was a positive affair, though it was a first look at the camera, but the impression formed by the latter reviewer was lukewarm in nature.
The camera features a live electronic viewer on its back, a carry-over from digital compacts and a feature that I may never use. While that might be the unique selling point for the camera, good image quality and the fact that it possesses a cleaning mechanism for its sensor are of much more interest to me.
Ironically, the Practical Photography review spent most of its time talking about the very feature of the camera that interests me the least, with only a scant mention of quality; to be frank, I didn't find it a very useful appraisal even if the electronic viewfinder may not be all that it's cracked up to be, and it's picture quality and camera handling that ultimately matter to the photography enthusiast.
In contrast, Which Digital Camera seemed to give a more rounded view and proved to be of more interest, and I'd be interested to see what the likes of Photography Monthly and Amateur Photographer might have to say. Incidentally, I also shall be awaiting the Which Digital Camera appraisal of Ricoh's Caplio GX100 in their next issue.