This time I think the judge was right

Last week at my photo club, the judge for our monthly "salon"  (fancy word for contest) commented on the composition of three of my images. 

The "rule of thirds" is a general rule of thumb that keeps the main subject of an image out of the center thereby providing a more pleasing and balanced composition... generally.  Just like all rules of thumb in photography, however, there is nothing wrong with breaking the rules.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. 

I find the rule to be a great starting point for most pictures, and I thought I had done so in both the Buck's Harbor Pier image and the Hibiscus image. But upon further examination, perhaps the main subject was indeed too centered in the frame. 

The judge suggested that a closer adherence to the "rule" would improve two of the images.  So, when I got home, I re-cropped to see what I could do. 

The Pier image was an easy project, as I merely cut off some of the top by switching from a 3:2 aspect ratio to the more square 4:3 ratio.  This put the red building in more of a 1/3rd position and moved the horizon to exactly the 1/3rd position.  The difference is subtle but I think the re-cropped image (below the original crop image) is better.

The Hibiscus was more problematic as it had already been tightly framed when I shot it.  But I was able to get more of the "weight" of the flower into the lower right side by rotating the image slightly.  This also put the stamen in a stronger 1/3rd position.... I think. 

I do like the result.  Below are the two images, "before" on top and "after" below. 



The final image is that of a yellow camouflaged spider.  Here the suggestion was to crop out some of the green at the bottom which the judge deemed as unnecessary and distracting. I agree.  The solution was easy: go to a 3:2 aspect ratio horizontal crop.  I think the second crop is stronger.





Olympus 45mm F1.8 versus Olympus 50mm F2 on the Panasonic G2

In an earlier post I wrote about the use of lens adapters on the Panasonic G2 that provide for the attachment of "legacy" and other non-micro four thirds lenses.  One evening I tested several "portrait" lenses:

• Olympus 50mm F2 macro (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Nikon 58mm F1.4 (with Cowboy Studio's Nikon-to-m43 adapter)
• Rokinon 85mm F1.4 in 4/3 mount (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Olympus 45mm F1.8 (this lens is a m43 lens and did not need an adapter)

In this post I will compare the Olympus m43 45mm F1.8 lens and the Olympus 43 50mm F2. 

CONCLUSION FIRST

I will state my conclusion first, then show some sample photos. 

I found the new m4/3 Oly 45mm to give essentially identical image quality to the older, regular-4/3 Oly 50mm macro, when images were taken at F2, F4, and F8. With the 50mm I stepped back from my subject slightly to provide a similarly framed image to what I captured with the 45mm.  The images were taken indoors under limited light, because that is how I mostly use fast prime lenses.

The Panasonic Lumix 43-to-m43 adapter

With both lenses, there was excellent sharpness in the center and excellent sharpness at the edges. Color and contrast seemed identical as well.  I did not use a tripod, as that would not be a "real world" situation for me; however, the slowest shutter speed I used was 1/320th so there should be not camera shake. I shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom 3 at default settings.

I compared both images taken at F2, then both taken at F4, then both taken at F8.  I compared by viewing at up to 300% on my monitor.  If I were forced to pick the sharper lens at F2 I would pick the 50mm, but only when viewed at 200%-300% and only in the center.  At 100% I can't see the difference.  I also printed at 8x10 and couldn't see a difference. At F4 and F8, I would have to flip a coin.  (Let me make it clear that I was only comparing F2 versus F2, F4 versus F4, and F8 versus F8.  I was not comparing F2 versus F4 versus F8.)

For all I know, if I shot additional samples, I'd get different comparative results.  But I really don't care, as both lenses are sharper than I am.  Every day I shoot with lenses less sharp than these two, and I am perfectly happy.

COMPARISON

Note that the Oly 50mm, because it was designed for regular 4/3 bodies, requires a 43-to-m43 adapter.  The adapters made by Panasonic and Olympus provide electrical connections between the lens and body.  Either will work fine.  They are expensive, so buy whichever is cheaper.  Either adapter will allow the 50mm to use many of the automatic features offered by the G2 body, such as autofocus (albeit, as slow as molasses), and automatic exposure.  The autofocus is so slow and noisy with the 50mm, that I use manual focus.

G2 with Olympus 50mm F2 macro, connected with Panasonic 43-to-m43 lens adapter

The 45mm is specifically designed for m43 and has screachingly fast and very quiet autofocus.  With a maximum aperture of F1.8, it has a half-stop advantage over the 50mm F2.  But you need to give up the macro capability of the 50mm.  It is very small in size; but I disliked using it on the G2.  Frankly, it looks ugly on the G2 (little silver lens attached to a black body).  More importantly, I don't like the ergonomics and balance of this small lens on the G2 because I can't comfortably hold the lens barrel with my left hand.  Probably with more time, I would get used to holding the camera body with two hands like a point and shoot as there is no (or limited) need to use the focus ring and there is no aperature ring. 

G2 with Olympus 45mm F1.8. Even without the blue plastic packing tape this combination is ugly and the ergonomics unenticing

I ended up returning this lens.  Its value to me would be the fast autofocus.  But because I already own the 50mm, I decided that it just wasn't worth the money for my needs.  If I ever buy a smaller m43 camera, like a silver PEN, it is possible that I will re-purchase this lens.

WHICH ONE WOULD I BUY?

If I didn't own either lens and could afford to buy only one, which would I'd buy? 

Actually, for me the answer is neither.  That's because they are expensive at $450 (50mm) and $385 (45mm).  And I suppose if I didn't already own the $100 Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter, that would completely put the 50mm off limits.  The thing is, I am currently having fun covering the same territory with two old Nikon lens:  My nearly 50 year old 58mm F1.4 (inherited in 1975-ish from a friend of my dad's; according to the serial number it was built about 1963) gives me a portrait lens and my 55mm F3.5 micro (from eBay for $100) gives me macro capabilities.  I don't mind that everything is manual, including flash settings.  It's actually kind of fun, and I think it makes me a better photographer... or at least more focused (clichéd pun intended).

Digesting what I just wrote in the above paragraph, it seems that I ought to consider selling the 50mm.  After all, I just wrote that I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already own it.  Hmmm.

SAMPLES

Six images (two each at F2, F4, and F8) are viewable as downsized images and can also be downloaded as full size images on my Zenfolio-powered site here:
http://www.peterfraileyphoto.com/oly45mm50mm

David Noton: Memory Loss - Page 2 | PhotographyBLOG

I've never before re-posted from another blog, but these words from famous British landscape and travel photographer David Noton gave me chills.  I was reading David's article in photographyblog.com this morning and decided I would re-post a portion of it here.  The article describes many of the mistakes he has made through his career as a photographer, and on page 2 of the article he describes a couple of mistakes others have made... like this one:

David Noton: Memory Loss - Page 2 PhotographyBLOG: Spare a thought for the late, great Robert Capa; one of the most accomplished war photographers ever. On D Day he waded ashore with the second wave of troops assaulting Omaha Beach. It was the most fiercely resisted landing of the Normandy invasion and Capa was an eyewitness. As the American troops striving to get off the beach took withering fire from the well dug in defenders Capa exposed 4 rolls of film as a defining moment in history played out all around him. Of those 4 priceless rolls of exposed film 3 were lost in processing as a lab technician at Life Magazine set the dryer too high and melted the emulsion. Of the fourth roll just 11 precious frames were salvaged. All those pictures of a crucial turning point in the Second World War that were captured at such risk were lost irretrievably. I can't even begin to contemplate how Capa felt when he discovered the faux pas.

Using "legacy" lenses on the G2

One of the really cool capabilities of the micro four thirds (m43) cameras built by Olympus and Panasonic is the ability to use old manual lenses from almost any maker via inexpensive lens adapters.  The design of the m43 cameras makes this possible by removing the traditional optical viewfinder (OVF), mirror, and mirror box found in SLRs and dSLRs.   This makes the cameras smaller.  In the case of the Panasonic G-series and GH-series the removed items have been replaced with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), representing a significant net space savings.

Another result of the m43 design is that the distance between the sensor and the lens-mount is shortened and the cameras are thinner.  By using an adapter ring to "add back" the distance required by old manual lenses, often called "legacy" lenses, we are able to get these old optics to (generally) focus correctly on the new bodies. 

For example, so I can use my old Nikkor lenses, I purchased an adapter ring sold by Cowboy Studios via Amazon for about $20.  EBay is another good source for these inexpensive adapter rings.  The length of the Nikon-to-m43 adapter ring is 25mm (about 1").  It's nothing fancy.  Just a black metal tube with a m43 lens-mount on one end, and a Nikon body-mount on the other. You can find adapter rings for nearly every brand of lens.  Each will be sized little differently.

Nikon-to-m43 adapter from Cowboy Studios

I think the results with my Nikkors are very good, but I have read many reports of soft images, especially with other brands.  It must be remembered that these old lenses were built to be used with film.  They are not optimized for digital.

Some G2 camera features are disabled with the legacy lenses.  Because the lens adapter ring provides no electrical connections between the camera body and the lens, you will need a legacy lens that has an aperture ring.  You will then switch the camera to Aperture-Priority Mode.  After you manually set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens, the camera's metering system will then pick the speed required to get the "correct" exposure at the ISO you've selected for that image.  The G2 also seems to work well with AutoISO, which I have set to a maximum of 1600.  I notice some underexposing, sometimes 2/3 to 1-stop, in lower light situations when using smaller diameter apertures like F8, so watch the histogram and be prepared to use some EV compensation.

One disadvantage of the G2 (and all Panasonic m43 cameras) is that there is no in-body image stabilization.  Meanwhile, Olympus builds image stabilization right into the m43 body.  This means that any legacy lens you attach to an Olympus will be image stabilized.  On the other hand, Olympus has yet to make a m43 camera with a built-in EVF; though there are rumors of one being announced this year.  If they build one, I'll buy it.

In the meantime, I don't view this Panasonic disadvantage as a big deal, at least for the legacy lenses I own.  My four Nikkor lens have focal lengths of 55mm, 58mm, 85mm and 105mm.  The G2 appears to maintain a minimum speed of 1/125th before bumping up the ISO.  This works for me, as I feel I can satisfactorily hand hold the 55, 56 and 85 at 1/125th.  And since these lenses are used primarily for candids, a speed of 1/125th is about as low as I would want to go, even if I had image stabilization available. 

Panasonic G2 + Cowboy Studios' "Nikon-to-m43" adapter ring + Nikkor 58mm F1.4 circa 1963

The 105mm F2.8 is a different story, but I am still happy with the results.  It is a macro lens (Nikon calls it a "micro").  Theoretically, to get a sharp image I should shoot an unstabilized 105mm lens on a 2x crop factor camera at a shutter speed of 1/200th second.  Coincidentally this is my preferred  lens speed for this lens, and would be my preferred speed even with image stabilization.  That's because I use this primarily for flowers outdoors, and without a flash.  Because even on calm days I believe there is some subject movement, I am happy with this shutter speed even if it requires ISO1600, though admittedly I might follow up such a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125 and lower ISO (1250?), as it's always preferable to use the lowest ISO possible.

A final cool feature that will help you with your manual focusing is the magnified view offered by the EVF.  I don't use it all the time, but when you do need it, just press the thumb dial (it clicks "in" like a button) to get a magnified view of the subject inside the single-point focus box.  As a second step, your magnification can be increased further by turning the thumb dial wheel one click to the right. You can also move the focus box to any other area of the viewfinder using the four-way pad.  When using the LCD you have the added choice of using the touchscreen feature to relocate the focus box. 

For candids, I like to move the focus box so it is centered horizontally and down 1/3rd from the top, because typically the subject's face will be in the 1/3rd  position.  As far as I can tell there are no settings to make this selected position "sticky", not even within one of the Custom Settings modes.  So you will need to reset it every time your turn the camera on... so, if you are not using a tripod, perhaps its will be easier to leave the focus box in the absolute center and just focus and recompose....

In the future, I plan to compare some "old" lenses and some "new" lenses.  Generally, I think the old lenses are fun to use if you already own them.  I'm not sure, however, if it is worth buying old legacy lenses.  It seems that the price of old lenses has increased dramatically as owners of m43 bodies and now Sony NEX bodies have discovered them.

What do judges know anyway?

I definitely understand how important it is to have thick skin when allowing one of your photographs to be critiqued or judged.  After all, judging is very subjective.  I find that some judges have very strict self-imposed guidelines as to what makes a "good" image; while others can more  fully appreciate how different styles and approaches can be very effective.

The image below is one of my favorites from this past summer.  And it was a little tough to have a judge criticize if for being "two images in one".  She felt that it would be a better image if cropped horizontally to eliminate the top half.  Basically, she thought the patch of blue (top half) was one image and the storm edge and orange sky (bottom half) was the second image.  Of course this left me wondering where it was written in the laws of the universe that two-for-one was a bad idea.  This is actually one reason I like vertical landscapes and scenes.  I enjoy capturing an interesting sky by turning the camera vertically.  We should all look up more often.  Why does there need to be just one main subject.  Why not two main subjects; or a main subject (blue patch of sky amid dark clouds), secondary subject (orange horizon at the edge of the storm front); and even a tertiary subject (the moored lobster boat).

Your mileage may vary, of course.  Fortunately, I have a day job and photography is a hobby.  That means the only person I need to please is myself! 

So what is the value of a judge or critic?  Well, I guess I have learned to listen to them and (1) accept ideas and notions that appeal to me and (2) reject whatever doesn't appeal to me.

The first image is the one I submitted.  I like it better.  The second one is based on the judge's comments.  I don't like it as much.  You may prefer it.  I think a lot has to do with what size it is printed. 

Whatever.  I now have it on my hard drive both ways.



January 2012 print salon entry. Title:  Coastal Storm Front.  Score 26/30. (I'd give it 28.)



My new Panasonic G2 is beating up on my Olympus E-620

I have been happy with the Olympus E-620, and the purchase a few months ago of the Panasonic G2 was a spontaneous purchase prompted by one of those one-day deals on Amazon... body only for $290! Both cameras are built with the small "slr-look", and they share (I have read) the same 12mp Panasonic sensor. The E-620 is a 4/3 format (43) and the G2 is a micro 4/3 format (m43). The biggest difference (for me) is the optical viewfinder (OVF) of the Olympus versus the electronic viewfinder (EVF) of the Panasonic. The fact that the Oly does not shoot video is of no consequence to me.

I do not yet have any m43 lenses for the Panasonic, so I found myself comparing the image quality of the two bodies using my Oly 14-54II. On the Panasonic I needed a 43-to-m43 adapter to use this lens. I purchased the one made by Panasonic as it was a bit cheaper than the Olympus adapter. As I recall, the price was under $100.

Using my 24" computer monitor with HD resolution, I found that even at 100% magnification there was very little difference in image quality and noise levels between the G2 and E-620. However, I found this only to be true after I realized each camera "rounded" their ISO measurements differently. For example, F5.6 @ 1/100th @ISO400 on the Oly gave the same exposure as ISO200 on the Pany. Otherwise, if you shoot at identical ISOs you will assume the Panasonic is noisier. This conclusion was confirmed by the measurements at DXOmark which showed that both cameras would actually be shooting at ISO300 in the example described above. Each camera rounds its ISO numbers in opposite directions!

Once this was understood, I found that image quality was similar (all shots were in RAW and processed in Lightroom) when one adjusts for the different ISO rounding. I say "similar" and not "exact" because I found the 14-54II to result in slightly sharper images when mounted on the G2. I was expecting just the opposite; but my guess is that my results were due to the less aggressive anti-alias (AA) filter on the G2's sensor. That's just a guess based on what I have read on the Internet; in reality the difference may only be due to camera sample variations. Nevertheless, when printed as 8x10s I didn't notice the difference... well, maybe I noticed a slight difference, but it was only because I knew there was supposed to be a difference!

With the 14-54II attached, the E-620 is a pretty nice combo, as the Olympus body has image stabilization built into it. Panasonic body's lack image stabilization.  On the other hand after a one week vacation with the lens attached to the Panasonic I never found any shots out of focus. In my preferred P-mode or A-mode, the Panasonic nicely kept shutter speed at 1/focal length and I set maximum auto ISO at 1600. In the travel shots I took, the ISO remained at 400 or less perhaps 90% of the time. The lens itself weighs under 16 ounces and balances well on either camera. Anything heavier in my opinion would result in awkward ergonomics.


What I like about the E-620 that is missing in the G2

1) Auto ISO is enabled in manual exposure mode. I love this feature when shooting nature shots such as butterflies. With my Oly 70-300 I typically pick a speed of 1/250th and an aperture of F8. With auto ISO you can still get an automatic exposure, as the camera will pick the ISO required for a good exposure. This is a great feature now that most cameras provide ISOs in 1/3 stop increments and high ISO is getting better with each new generation of sensors. I don't understand why this feature is not available in the G2. I know its available on Nikon and Canon dSLRs, and I even have it on my Panasonic super-point-and-shoot, the LX5.

2) Camera build quality. The Olympus feels like it was built by a camera company. The Panasonic feels like it was built by a computer company.  For all I know the Pany is sturdier, but it has more of a plastic-y feel to it (to me). The Oly feels like quality.

3) Shutter sound. Oly's shutter sounds nice to me. Like a precision machine. The Pany has more of a "clunk" to it. The Pany sounds cheap to me, though I am getting used to it.

4) Vertical Grip. I have this. I like having a place for my pinkie finger to go, rather than having it curled up under the body.  The grip helps the ergonomics overall, because I shoot a lot of vertical landscapes. It is also helpful with the heavier 70-300.

Olympus E-620 + vertical grip + 70-300mm zoom

5) Presets. The E-620 has two "presets" that can be programed through the menu system.  Unlike custom modes on the G2 which are accessed through the command dial, presets on the Olympus require diving into the menu.  I counted 9 clicks of either the 4-way arrow pad or the "OK" button to access a preset.  Terrible.  On the other hand, it does have an advantage, and this is why it is listed here.  A preset can be programmed with all your preferred settings, and when accessed, the preset preferences can be used in any mode on the command dial (P, A, S, or M).  (Note:  with the custom modes on the G2, you need to program whether it will be operated specifically in P, A, S, or M.)

What I like about the G2 that is missing on the E-620

1) Viewfinder. The G2's electronic eye-level viewfinder (EVF) is larger than the optical viewfinder (OVF) on the E-620 and I find this a huge advantage. The difference is especially noticeable to me because I wear glasses. This results in my eye being further away from the viewfinder, rendering it smaller. With the G2's EVFEVF and the 3" LCD when shooting or for playback. One big advantage of this EVF is that you can magnify your image (there are actually two magnification levels). This is very helpful when focusing manually, and manual focusing is required with legacy lenses (see #5 below). On the other hand, you do give up clarity. The EVF is nowhere near as sharp and crisp as an optical viewfinder, because an OVF allows you to view your subject directly through the lens, rather than on a little television.

2) Direct Bracketing Button. To bracket with the E-620 you have to go into the menu and set two parameters: the sequential shooting speed rate and the bracketing desired. This is a real pain. The workaround is to use the "preset" function (see #5 above) but this must still be accessed through the menu, and about nine clicks.  Then nine more clicks to turn it off. On the other hand, the G2 has a slider (not actually a button) on the top plate with bracketing being one of the choices. I have it set for 5 shots at 1 EV intervals. I bracket a lot of my landscape shots, so the G2's slider is a real bonus for me.

3) Custom Modes. On the control dial on the top plate there are three Custom modes available. The Olympus has none. I have C1 set up with settings I prefer when using an external flash (fixed ISO, flash WB, A-priority, and center-weighted metering, for example). C2 is set up for my preferences while shooting legacy lenses in aperture priority.

4) Better automatic exposure settings. (This conclusion is based on my preference for P-mode or A-mode, and auto ISO.) I like the fact that the G2 exposure programming protects a speed of 1/focal length. For example, with a 100mm lens, the camera will maintain a speed of 1/100th sec. even if it needs to increase the ISO to the maximum you have set it for (my maximum is set for ISO 1600). Yes, I know about image stabilization, but I prefer to shoot at 1/focal length and not less, and would rather have the ISO increase than have the speed decrease. The E-620, on the other hand, will drop the shutter speed before maxing out at ISO1600. I don't like that. Other folks do.

5) Legacy Lenses. Using the appropriate lens adapter (my Nikon to m43 adapter was about $20), you can use all kinds of old manual focus lenses. You just need to be sure that the lens has an aperture ring. Because of the EVF, even if closed down to a small diameter aperture, the viewfinder will "gain up" to provide the brightness needed to see your subject. And the magnification feature can be very helpful with manual focus. I have loved using my old 5.8cm (58mm) Nikkor F1.4. This lens was inherited from a friend of my dad's back in the early 1970s. Based on the serial number it was built in Japan in approximately 1963. That makes it nearly 50 years old! I have had so much fun with this system (camera-adapter-old lens) that I've now bought three other old Nikkors on EBay: 50mm F3.5 micro, 105mm F2.8 micro, 85mm F1.4.

Panasonic G2 + Cowboy Studios lens adapter + Nikkor 56mm F1.4 circa 1963

Final Comments:

There are plenty of differences between these two camera bodies, but the above are the main ones for me. If I had to pick just one camera, it would easily be the G2. However, I have kept the E-620 for use with the 70-300. With a lens that big (21 ounces and 5+ inches closed) I want the image stabilization provided by the Olympus body. Interestingly the lens actually focuses faster on the G2. But without image stabilization, the G2 body is not the best solution for this lens.  I own the vertical/battery grip for the E-620 which makes using the 70-300 delightful. On the G2, this lens is a bit heavy. Also the ability to shoot with auto ISO in manual mode is a big help to me with the E-620/70-300 combination when shooting flowers and butterflies. That's because I can get an automatic exposure while at the same time determining manually my desired shutter speed and desired F-stop.

There's lots of new stuff coming out from Olympus and Panasonic, and I am looking forward to lusting over all of it!

Harsh Light versus Soft Light

While going through this years crop of photos from Maine, I came across these two of basically the same scene.  The first was taken in harsh mid-day sun (2:30 in early July), while the second was taken toward the end of the day (4:30 in October).  The light was much lower in the sky for the second image, and there was cloud cover to diffuse the light. 

The first shot has more of a blue color cast to it, while the second has more amber.  The harshness of the light in the first shot is made obvious by the dark shadows on the ramp and the very bright, perhaps even overexposed, areas such as the ramp itself.

One advantage of the second image is that it is much easier for the camera's sensor to capture the different tones when the light is softer and more diffused. There are lots of mid-tones with not too much in the way of very dark or very light areas.  Conversely, in harsh light it is very easy to have areas of both overexposure and underexposure.

Which is better?  I think the second image is helped by the clouds in the distance.  But even without the clouds I think I prefer the second image.  YMMV.



Club "Salon" entries for November 2011

These are my five November entries in my photo club's monthly "salon".  The first two were submitted as prints.  The black and white was taken on top of Cadillac Mountain in Acadia National Park in Maine.  A dramatic sky like this was a hint that it might make a reasonable black and white print.  The butterfly was photographed in a local butterfly house.

The final three images were digital submissions.  The Ladyslipper was in the "nature" category. In the spring I had found a patch of these in pine woods on town conservation land.  This was a real find, and I went back several times to get some good light.  The other two images were entered in the "open" category.

View from Cadillac Mountain

Glasswing Butterfly on Lantana Flowers

Lady Slipper

Maine Morning

Old Truck Hood

The Panasonic LX5 shines in Maine, beats my dSLR 85% of the time.

During a two week vacation in Maine this summer, I brought along my little Panasonic LX5 and my bigger Olympus E620 dSLR.  I was quite surprised that of the 660 images I have decided to keep (hard drive space is cheap these days!)  that fewer than 100 were taken with the E620.  That's less than 15%!

[A few trip pictures are included below.  I have posted about 35 images on my Website, here: www.peterfraileyphoto.com/mainevacationjunjul ]



All pictures were taken in RAW + JPEG, and both cameras have full manual controls.  When it comes to one important feature for me, the LX5 is better: it has a broader f-stop range for 3 shot exposure bracketing. You can bracket up to 3-stops, compared with only 1-stop on the Olympus. And it is easier to get to the bracketing on the LX5 because you are able to program the function button for that purpose.  The Olympus takes a lot more clicks to get into the bracketing. 

Another nice feature of the LX5 is the 24-90mm equivalent lens. I prefer this over the 28-108mm equivalent lens on the E620. 

When I say that the LX5 beats my Olympus E620 85% of the time, I am not talking about image quality.  I am talking about usability.  Especially for landscape and travel photography. As a tool, I picked the LX5 85% of the time during this trip.  This wasn't planned, it just happened.  It wasn't because I expected better image quality.  It was based on a subliminal mental formula: (camera to carry = image quality + size of camera + convenience + ease of use +  fun factor.) 

The image quality piece of the formula was not on this trip as important to me as it might be to others.  That's because I realize that 98-99% of the images I keep on my computer will never be printed. Nor will they ever win any contests, no matter what camera was used.  They will be seen at no wider than 650 pixels on this blog (about 1/3 of a megapixel), or no wider than 1550 pixels on my Web site (about 1.5 megapixels) or no wider than 1920 pixels (less than 2 megapixels) on my 24" monitor or an HD TV.  For this purpose everything I get from the LX5 is "good enough."  Actually, for these images, I usually keep the JPEG and dump the RAW.

Some of the LX5 images from this trip have already been posted previously. No one has told me that I should have had a better camera for any of these. That's not to say these images could not have been improved upon; but improvement has nothing to do with the camera.

As far as printing goes, perhaps 12 images (2% of the 660) might be printed.  At 9" x 12" or smaller it is hard to tell the difference. To be honest, as much as I like the LX5 (obviousy), if I knew which 12 images would turn out to be the best, it is for those shots that I would want the Olympus.

I have posted larger and more pictures (about 35 images) on my Website, here: www.peterfraileyphoto.com/mainevacationjunjul

I just added a "Flowers" gallery to my Web site

I created a new gallery on my Web site for flower photos, and have just today uploaded 80 or so images .  These were taken with a variety of cameras, even a couple of point-and-shoot cameras.  But perhaps my favorite technique at the moment involves hand-holding an Olympus dSLR with a 70-300 zoom lens and shooting at about 1/250th second to eliminate any subject motion from even the slightest amount of wind. 

At 150mm with this zoom lens there is a 1:2 macro setting which basically fills the viewfinder with a 3" flower at a focusing distance of about 33".  Since many of my flower images are taken in public gardens it is important to stay on the marked paths.  This Olympus lens gives me the reach I so often need.

Here's a direct link:

www.peterfraileyphoto.com/flowers