2014 - A Year in Review - Part I

2014 has been a year of gear shuffle.  For the last few years, I shot mirrorless cameras alongside the Canon DSLRs. The ratio tipped to the mirrorless as the years went by, and in 2014, I have pretty much stopped using Canon cameras and sold my 5D Mark II, which I thought I would use quite often, but I didn't.  Instead, I bought an Olympus E-M5 to replace my aging Panasonic G1 to cover the M4/3 and the Sony A7 to replace the full frame 5D Mark II.  I still have my Canon 1D III, for now.  My plan was to have a camera to cover a specific sensor size: M4/3, APS-C, and full frame. This plan is working out quite nicely.

Photography -- I am happy to say that I did take a lot of pictures this year; more than I thought I would, and there were few pictures that I quite like too.  The Sony A7 clocked about 18,000 pictures since May of this year; 5D Mark II, less than 700 in 2014 and about 8,000 between 2013 and 2014;
Olympus E-M5, about 6,000 shots in 2014; for NEX-6, it was roughly 3,000 (essentially the first 4 months of 2014); Canon 1D Mark III, about 1,000; Canon 20D IR, 1,500. There were almost 30,000 pictures taken this year with various cameras, averaging 80 pictures a day.  Of course, only a very small percentage of them were usable.  As it has always been, most of these pictures were taken on my way to work, or coming home, and around my workplace or my neighbourhood.

Surprisingly, I find myself stopped lusting over faster lenses. My focus has shifted to more non-standard lenses.  I scouted the camera shows and antique markets for the slower, invariably German made, but much more interesting lenses from folder cameras, non-interchangeable lens cameras, rangefinders, large format lenses, etc.  All these lenses require some work to mount them on some sort of focus helicoid, but the effort is worthwhile.  I really enjoy the rendering from most of these lenses. There are challenges, of course, in mounting and using some of these lenses.
One of the challenges is the use of very long lenses. For example, the Dallmeyer Dallon is 12 inches (around 300mm). Finding tubes that long to fit the lens has been difficult.  I was using lens barrels like that from the Vivitar 200mm 3.5, 135mm f2.8, etc, with glasses removed from the lenses, but the problem is that the openings at the rear is too small and restricts the mount of light going through, therefore the lens would vignette very badly.

I have found a solution by using extension tubes. There are very cheap 3-section extension tubes with NEX-mount for around $8 each.  The length of one set is about 50mm.  I bought 4 sets of these, but unfortunately the mount is of very low quality.  Too much play when mounted.  I converted them to use a much better mount and they are now excellent tools, which can be combined and be long enough for lenses up to around 300mm or even longer, when focus helicoid is added to the length of the tubes. I have already used it on the Schneider-Kreuznach Symmar 210mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 210mm f4.5, and even the Dallmeyer Dallon 12 inch (300mm).  All seem to have worked well.  I look forward to using these lenses when the warmer weathers roll around.

To be continued...

Withrow Park - Sony A7 & Kodak Ektagraphic 76mm f3.5 Projection Lens

Is Digital Full Frame the Holy Grail for the Masses?

I am no stranger to full frame, analog or digital. I shot 35mm film camera from early 1980s for almost 20 years, and have owned a few full frame digital, including the Canon 1Ds, Kodak SLR/c, Canon 5D, and currently 5D Mark II.  In the last few weeks I have been thinking about why, it seems, that digital full frame is the ultimate goal for a lot of people. Aside from a larger sensor that mates to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses 1:1, thinner shallow depth of field, and marginally better image quality, what makes people want to upgrade to full frame?

I have to ask myself that same question. Other than what's listed above, I can't think of any other reason. After using different (and concurrently most of the time) sensor formats, I am so used to adjusting myself to see and capture pictures through the viewfinder, regardless of what size the sensor is; Point & Shoots, Micro 4/3 (and 4/3), APS-C 1.5 (Sony), APS-C 1.6x (Canon), APS-C 1.7x (Sigma, yeah I had an SD-9, but it suffered from electrical problems so it was short lived), APS-H 1.3x (Canon 1D, 1D II, 1D III). I am as comfortable with a 50mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera as a 50mm lens on full frame. When I look through the viewfinder, my mind automatically compensates. I can't say I prefer shooting with full frame over APS-C or M4/3, although I have a preference to what lenses go with what camera.

Big Tree - Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f2 & NEX-6

So, do people just want full frame camera because it's full frame, and they can say I shoot with a full frame camera?  In most shooting circumstances, the size of the sensor is all but irrelevant, given the right lenses. I can't deny there is a certain amount of influence of that, but the most important reason has been image quality. Full frame back then was the pinnacle of digital sensors, but how times have changed.

Even the M4/3 format sensors have achieved amazing image quality not possible just a few years ago. The Olympus E-M5/E-M1 sensor is as good as most APS-C sensors and may even be better than some 18MP sensors that's been around for more than five years from a certain manufacturer. But the most amazing low light sensor is in the Fujifilm X-E2/X-T1. If you compared the RAW output (on dpreview), it's on par, or even better than the Sony A7 full frame sensor. I am always attracted to weird and unique features and that's why I had a Kodak SLR/c and Sigma SD-9.

For the last few weeks, it has been a struggle for me deciding which camera to upgrade to. The Sony A7 is my top of my list with great image quality and using all the legacy lenses as they were designed is an alluring feature.  Then there is the Olympus E-M5/E-M1 and the Fujifilm XE-2/X-T1. These two cameras keep distracting me from firmly committing myself to the A7.

The E-M5/E-M1's In-Body-Stabilization is something I have always wanted, and I want to replace my dying Panasonic G1 so that I can start using those wonky c-mount lenses again. The Fujifilm X-E2/X-T1 for its amazing image quality, especially high ISO. Besides, the sexy look of the X-T1 gives me wet dreams; I can not shake its image off my mind! This is a camera with retro done right.

So, full frame digital is not the ultimate and the end all of camera quest. To some, unique features like in-body-stabilization is more important than full frame. If I get any camera other than the A7 in the near future, it also means full frame is not as important to me as other camera features.