Another Black and White, Sunwapta Falls

After posting a few black and white images the other day (prior post), I found this shot of Sunwapta Falls in Alberta, Canada in my summer vacation folder and decided to convert it to black and white.  I like the result. 



I do wish the fallen tree in the middle weren't there.  My photoshop skills aren't at a level where I can remove this, though I might just for fun see what the "content aware" tool in Photoshop CS5 will do.

The fallen tree at the bottom has more character and does not interfere with the main part of the waterfall.  Or, does it?  Maybe it, too, is distracting?

I dislike having that first tree in the middle so much that I created a second crop where I was willing to nearly eliminate the bushier tree at the bottom just so I could at least move the top tree away from the center of the image and into the 1/3 position.  I find it less distracting there.



Nevertheless, I haven't decided which of the two I like better.  Note that the first image is a 3:2 aspect ratio image and the second one is 4:3, just a bit "square-er".

Either way, I do like the exposure.  I haven't mastered the "soft" waterfall look mainly because I don't like tripods, and a very slow shutter speed is required.  However, in this case, using shutter priority I set the camera at 1/15th second and held the camera on top of a wood railing on the bridge on which I was standing.  Base ISO on this camera is 200 and the camera chose F22.  If there had been any more light, I would have been out of luck as F22 is the smallest aperture on this lens.  I do have a Neutral Density filter but not for the 67mm threads on this Olympus 14-54mm lens. 

A neutral density filter would have allowed me to try an even slower speed, such as 1/8th.  Thinking back to this scene, I should have tried 1/8th anyway.  Though it would have resulted in a slightly overexposed image, the various adjustment sliders in Lightroom might have helped me pull back the exposure of the brightest areas.

A few black and whites from the Canadian Rockies

I've been trying to find some photographs from our Canadian Rockies trip last June that will convert nicely to black and white.  It is very hard for me to determine what will look good... until I try.


Biker's Solitude

"Trying" is easy in Lightroom.  First I make sure that the "Navigator" feature is open.  It is located at the top of the left hand panel.  Then, below the navigator, is the "Presets" feature. I hover the cursor over the various "Lightroom B&W Filter Presets" and watch how the image in the Navigator changes. If the image has potential, I then create a "Virtual Copy" of the original color image and click on the preset to apply it to the virtual copy.  You can then tweak the various sliders on the right hand tool panel to see if you can improve on the preset defaults.  Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

The Vermilion River, Kootenay National Park, British Columbia



I think all of these images were taken on  rainy, cloudy, and/or foggy days.  It is my experience that dramatic skies come across well as black and whites.  Another thing about drab days is that the colors are rather muted (boring?), so converting to black and white makes sense.



A Rainy Day Around Banff

All of these were taken in RAW format with either a Panasonic GH2 (since sold) or an Olympus E-M5.  The lens was always the Olympus 14-54II attached to the camera via a 43-to-m43 adapter.

Pyramid Lake, Jasper Alberta

Bow River, Jasper National Park, Alberta

David Thompson Wilderness

Near Athabasca Pass, Canadian Rockies

Bow River, Jasper National Park

NEX-6 v. Olympus E-M5: which is better for legacy macro lenses?

I've recently been shooting macros with a Nikkor Ai-S 105mm micro lens, fitted with separate adapters to fit the Sony NEX-6 and Olympus E-M5. 

Bottom line: My clear preference for this legacy macro lens is the Olympus E-M5 body.  This is not because of any difference in image quality, as they both do a great job.  But the preference is because of what I believe is Olympus's better handling characteristics, at least when shooting macros.



Sony NEX 6 and Olympus OM-D E-M5 both with Nikon adapters
to attach Nikkor 105mm micro lens.





I'll start my comments with the Sony NEX-6:

The NEX-6 has only a couple of potential advantages as I see it.  First is "focus peaking" which helps the process of manually focusing a lens.  But when shooting flowers up close it works inconsistently.  I find it works well when focusing on the edges of petals.  But not so much when trying to focus on the stamens of a flower.  The petal edges usually have sharp edges against a blurry background.  Here the focus peaking works.  But mid-tone yellow stamens, for example,  against a background of mid-tone green petals makes the peaking ineffective.

Another potential advantage is the larger 16 megapixel.  The APS-C sized 16 megapixel sensor on the Sony is larger than the m43 16 megapixel sensor on the Olympus.  (It is commonly believed that both sensors are made by Sony.)

A larger sensor usually translates into better high ISO image quality. I am usually shooting macros at a shutter speed of 1/200th and at F8 or F11, and this often requires higher ISOs (such as 1600).  But to be honest, I just don't see a difference in image quality between the two cameras.  Perhaps a difference would be noticed in very large prints, perhaps over 20", but with macros I don't think I've ever printed anything bigger than 12" on the long side.



Now let me move to the Olympus:

I own the accessory battery grip for the E-M5, and this helps immensely when shooting with the 105mm lens.  That's because the lens with adapter weighs 21 ounces.  With the grip, you can hold the camera body with all four fingers (not just three fingers like on the NEX-6, or the E-M5 minus the grip). 
I also feel an extra level of camera stability with the E-M5 because the EVF is in the middle of the camera body, while it is on the left (rangefinder style) on the Sony.  I realize that the center EVF causes me to press the camera against my nose, but this makes for a more stable platform.  (Note: I have a big nose!)

And finally, with regard to stability, Olympus has an in-camera stabilization system that will work with any lens.  Though I generally shoot macros at a safe shutter speed of about 1/200th second, so far I have left image stabilization "on".  Don't forget to make the in-camera adjustment necessary to let it know the focal length of the legacy lens being used.

Shutter Priority:

When shooting at apertures and shutter speeds that will generally require higher ISOs, I prefer to use Shutter Priority on both of these cameras with this lens.  Because you are setting the F-stop with the ring on the lens barrel, setting the shutter speed in Shutter Priority essentially gives you Manual exposure control, in that neither the shutter speed nor the aperture will change unless you change them.  For me, that is often 1/200th and F8. 

Now, here is where Shutter Priority pays off.  And that's because I have a preference for Auto ISO.  I want to pick the shutter speed and aperture with this lens and then I'd like the camera to give me an accurate automatic exposure by adjusting the ISO accordingly.  When it works well, I can move around the scene at different angles and the camera will give me a nice exposure by moving the ISO up or down as the light changes.  The reason I wrote "when it works well" is because I believe both cameras have trouble with finding the correct exposure in shutter priority mode with old lenses.  But this has been more the case with the Sony, as I find I nearly always need to use EV compensation, sometimes 2 or 3 stops.


EV Compensation in Shutter Priority:

First, with both cameras, and with legacy lenses attached, the Shutter Priority forces EV compensation to effect ISO only.  It has no effect on shutter speed or aperture.

Unfortunately, adjusting EV compensation is not an easy process on the Sony.  I have to hold the camera away from my body so I can look at the buttons.  The EV button is the "down" button on the 4-way controller.  This takes you to another screen without a histogram to watch.  The new screen shows the EV choices in 1/3 stops.  You then rotate the rear dial to add or subtract exposure.  It will change the ISO, as I mentioned above, but you do not have a histogram to view while making the changes.  (This I understand is not a problem on the NEX-7.)  After inputting the EV compensation amount, you can half press the shutter button to get back to the original viewing screen.  Only then will you see the effect on the histogram. 

I much prefer adjusting EV compensation on the Olympus because you never need to take your eye away from the EVF because the adjustment dial is the front dial that surrounds the shutter  button.  As you turn the dial with your first finger, ISO is adjusted and you can watch the change right there on the histogram shown on the EVF.  (That assumes you have the histogram activated in the menu... I always have mine on.)

The Advantage of Olympus's Smaller Sensor:

For macros where you want more depth of field, the smaller Olympus sensor has an advantage. Using the same 105mm macro lens on the smaller-sensor Olympus and the larger-sensor Sony means that to similarly compose the same image,  I have to stand a bit further back with the Olympus.  This is because at the same focusing distance the Olympus sensor would only capture the center (approximately 3/4th) of any image that would be fully captured on the Sony sensor.

So how does this effect depth of field? 

We usually think of the depth of field being determined by the F-stop.  But it is also determined by the magnification.  More magnification means less depth of field, while less magnification means more depth of field.

Because I need to be further from the subject when using the 105mm on the Olympus, this actually decreases the magnification and therefore increases the depth of field.  This makes sense when you think that the smaller sensor in effect increased magnification (by cropping the outside of the image when compared with the larger sensor on the Sony) when focusing at the same distance, and the only way to make things "equal" is to compensate by decreasing magnification by moving further from the subject.

A specific example is that if I am shooting F8 on the Sony I can get the same (approx) depth of field on the Olympus using F5.6. Again, its because if I want to achieve the same composition on the Olympus viewfinder as on the Sony viewfinder, I have to be slightly further from the subject.  Because increasing the focusing distance increases depth of field, to get an image equivalent to what the Sony captures, I must compensate by decreasing the depth of filed by way of providing a one-stop larger aperture (ex. use F8 on the Sony and F5.6 on the Olympus).

What then is the advantage?

The advantage is that the Olympus is letting in twice as much light at F5.6 as it would at F8.  This then allows me to shoot at one-stop lower ISO (If the Sony needs ISO 1600 at F8, I can shoot the Olympus at ISO 800 at F11).  All things being equal, lower ISO will result in a higher quality image!

On the way home

As I was driving home from work yesterday afternoon I found it hard to keep my eyes on the road as I watched this sky color develop.  It was very close to sundown.  I kept looking for some place to pull off the road, but I could find nowhere where I could get a clean shot.  I wanted to capture not only the blue sky but to capture the cloud bank with its very abrupt demarcation line.

When I couldn't stand waiting any longer, I pulled off into a boat landing along the Concord River and captured this shot.  I shot vertically to capture the sky.  There's a bit of ice on the water.

The image was taken with the Canon S90.  It's not my favorite point and shoot camera but it's small and I keep it in my briefcase.  As they say, "the best camera is the one you have with you."

Canon S90 1/250th, F4, ISO 80

Splicing together two kodachromes from 1966 (thank you Photoshop!)

Photoshop CS5 is so awesome.  I am almost entirely a Lightroom man, but I do go into Photoshop for three things: (1) panorama stitching, (2) the content-aware tool, and (3) cloning.  The first two features are not available in Lightroom and the third feature, cloning, is far superior in Photoshop in my opinion.

So, here is today's story:

Last weekend I was "digitizing" some of my dad's Kodachrome's from a trip to Europe we took together in 1966.  He used a Kodak Retina IIIC rangefinder camera.  With just a 50mm F2.8 lens, and film rated with an ASA of 25,  many today would view his camera as "limited" in the images it could create.  On the other hand, neither of us knew anything different, so it was quite adequate.

Visiting the Cathedral at Chartres, France we actually thought it was pretty cool that the structure was so large and tall that he couldn't get it all into the viewfinder.  I remember enjoying the slide show we created that first showed the bottom half and then showed the top half. 

When I saw last weekend that the two slides had significant overlap, I was hopeful that I might be able to splice them together into one vertical image. I didn't let myself get too hopeful about the outcome, however, once I noticed that the bottom picture was in horizontal orientation and the top picture was in vertical orientation. 

So... without doing any editing to the images, I decided to challenge photoshop.  I exported the images from Lightroom to Photoshop.  Photoshop did all the rest, automatically.  Below are the two original images and the result from Photoshop.





Next, to create a finished product, and since I couldn't crop the bottom half to fit the top half, I used the "content-aware" tool to fill in the sky in the top half.  It just took a minute or two.  I am happy about the photoshop "content-aware" tool, because I know nothing about layers and all that other good stuff that most power-users of photoshop know.

At this point I still had some fill in some additional sky.

Lastly, after saving the file as a .tiff and bringing it back into Lightroom, I made some other adjustments, such as a slight rotation of the image and some color adjustments.  I am sure more can be done, but the final image below is good enough for me (and my Dad likes it too!)

Olympus E-M5 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: samples

Two posts ago (here) I showed a few samples of macro flower shots taken at our nearby botanic garden using the Sony NEX-6 camera body plus a very old Nikon lens, the Ai-S version of the Nikkor 105mm F2.8.  Today I am posting what I believe are equally sharp macro images using the same lens on an Olympus E-M5. 



Like all the mirrorless models, both cameras can accommodate old lenses as long as the appropriate lens adapter is attached between the camera body and lens.  There are no electronics connections, so aperture must be adjusted on the barrel of the old lens and manual focus is required.

Reviews of the performance of old lenses originally designed for film cameras show that there are great variations in image quality depending on model, brand and/or focal length.  But I have been very happy with this old Nikkor Ai-S model 105mm F2.8.  (If you are interested, I see they sell for about $350 on eBay.)

On a full frame Nikon this lens is a 1:2 macro, but on a m43 camera with its 1/2 size sensor (half the diagonal of a FF camera) you get a 1:1 macro.

I've been recently comparing the image quality of this old lens on the Sony NEX-6 and the Olympus E-M5. There are differences in how the Olympus and Sony handle the old lenses.  A primary benefit of the Sony is what is called "focus peaking".  As you bring a subject into focus, areas in focus turn yellow along lines of high contrast (you can also select red or, I think, white).  Unfortunately this works inconsistently with macro shooting. 

One advantage of the Olympus is that there exists in-body image stabilization.  This results in stabilizing even old legacy lenses like this old Nikkor.  On the other hand, when shooting flowers outdoors (perhaps my primary use for a macro lens)  I like to use a shutter speed of about 1/160 to 1/250 because even in a windless day there is air movement that can create slight amounts of subject motion.  At these speeds, using a 105mm lens (with an effective reach of 160mm on the Sony and 210mm on the Olympus) I can hand-hold the camera without noticeable camera shake, without needing image stabilization.

So, perhaps the main benefits of each system (focus peaking on the Sony, and in-body stabilization on the Olympus) aren't that significant (to me) when using this lens.

There are other differences in operation which I expect to elaborate on in a future post; but first I need to shoot with both cameras and this one lens a few more times.

As you can see below, the results from this old-technology lens on a new-technology camera are very nice.  Perhaps new lenses are sharper (though nothing is currently available for Sony E-mount and Oly/Pany m43), but I doubt I would notice the difference at a normal viewing distances.  What I can say about the pictures below is that they are sharp enough me.

These were all processed in Lightroom 4, from RAW files.

[Click on the images to see a larger image, up to 1600 x 1200 pixels depending on your monitor size and resolution.]



I focused on the yellow stamen tips. Any blur is a depth of field issue,
even though I shot at F8.  Shutter = 1/200.  ISO = 2000.

 

I think I was focusing on the center of this flower (i.e. the brown stamens). Most likely shot at F8.
Shutter speed = 1/200. ISO = 2500.

 

Focus was on the red stamen tips, and they are sharp.  But likely I was using wider aperture like F5.6 or F4  than I
was using on the prior two images.  Shutter = 1/200. ISO = 1250.

 

The view from atop Sulphur Mountain, Banff, Alberta, Canada

The submission of the panorama below (the third picture below) to my photo club's November Salon caused me to go back to my pictures from June of this year to look again at the images I took atop Sulphur Mountain. 

It had rained the previous day and through the night.  But in the morning the clouds began to break apart and we could see that it had snowed at the high elevations.  As it turned out, the top of Sulphur Mountain had about 3 inches of fresh snow.

We took one of the early gondola rides to the top, as we worried that the clouds would return.  Fortunately, we had plenty of warm clothes.  We knew before arriving in the Canadian Rockies that June could be a cold month and that snow should be anticipated.

[Larger Images: click on any of these images to see as large as 1600 x 1200 depending on your monitor.]





The panorama below was spliced together from four individual images.  If you look carefully you can see the Canadian flag on a flagpole next to the gondola station.  The pictures for the panorama were taken about half way along a very nice boardwalk that connects the gondola terminal to an observation building. 

 

In two of the images below you can see the town of Banff. The river that runs through town is the Bow River. You can't tell from the pictures, but the Bow River was raging well above its banks. Rains had been heavy but this is also a time of snow melt in the mountains.  You can easily see the brown color of the water.



Sony NEX-6 plus old Ai-S Nikkor 105 micro: Samples

My best guess is that this Nikkor Ai-S lens is 20 years old.  They just don't make them like this anymore:  metal construction;  useful markings;  manual aperture ring; mechanical focus.  On the other hand, the lens plus Nikon-to-Sony adapter weighs 21 ounces.  I am likely not the only one to find this creates a balance issue when attached to the 12 ounce NEX body.

Pictured below, the old Nikkor 105mm Micro lens is attached to a new NEX-6 via a $20 adapter. One end of the adapter fits the Sony E mount.  The other end fits the Nikon mount.  There is no electronic or mechanical connection between the camera and the lens.  The adapter simply creates the necessary space between the sensor and the lens to allow correct focusing.

Due to the cropped sensor (2/3 the diagonal dimension of a sensor on a full frame camera), a 105mm lens has an effective field of view of about 160mm (105 is about 2/3 of 160).  I need to get a little closer to the subject with this combo than I do with this lens on my Olympus EM-5 because the Olympus uses a sensor that is 1/2 the diagonal of a full frame sensor, so there is more magnification. (Therefore, you don't need to be physically as close to the subject with the Olympus.)

The pictures below came out nicely.  However, in the field this lens is too big and heavy
for the diminutive NEX 6 body. Perhaps that's because the body weighs 12 ounces
and the lens weighs 21 ounces.

I spent about 30 minutes yesterday shooting with the lens indoors (hand held, natural light only) at a nearby botanic gardens.  Being November, there's not a lot going on yet.  But I did find a few blooming plants.  I have read all kinds of things about these old, non-concentric lenses not working so well on the new cameras.  That's not been my experience with this Nikon micro lens.  I think these images are definitely sharp enough.

I can't remember the f-stop I used, but it was either F8 or F11.  Unfortunately because the aperture is set manually on the lens, there is no record in the image file as to what f-stop was used.  To maintain a 1/focal length shutter speed I shot these at 1/160th. This was fast enough to eliminate camera shake and subject movement.  Had I been outdoors I would have opted for 1/250th.  Even on calm days there is likely to be air movement.

I used Shutter Priority and auto ISO.  Frequently, I did have to use the EV compensation button to get the desired exposure.  For some reason the Sony exposure meter frequently wanted to underexpose the images.  Sometimes this was as much as three stops.  EV compensation changed the ISO, which is what I wanted, because I did not want to change the aperture (F8 or F11) or shutter speed (1/160th). 

 



Sony NEX-6 versus Panasonic LX5: Some final thoughts

For the past few days I have been comparing the image quality of the Sony NEX-6 and its kit 16-50mm zoom against my Panasonic LX5, an "advanced" point and shoot camera.  The posts I wrote based on these comparisons can be found below today's post.  (Or enter "NEX-6" in the search tool.)



The Sony pretty handily beats the Panasonic for image quality, both in the center and at the edges, at the three comparable focal lengths I tested.  That shouldn't be surprising because the sensor on the Sony has 8x the surface area of the Panasonic.  But since most of my travel and landscape photos with the LX5 have been at low ISO (rarely as much as ISO 400) where sensor size is not as critical, and since I have always thought the images coming from the LX5 were "good enough", I thought I would use the LX5 as a "good enough" benchmark.  The Sony 16-50 beat my benchmark!

I like the Sony a lot. Especially with the pancake zoom it balances nicely and feels very comfortable in my hand.  I can even operate it with one hand, just like I do with point-and-shoots.  But, I'm not exactly sure how it will fit into my style of photography (which includes the Olympus OM-D as well as the LX5).  I'm thinking I might take it when I would otherwise take the LX5; however, the Sony is about 60% heavier. The LX5 fits in the pocket of my jeans, while the Sony fits in a jacket pocket. Lots to think about.

My next experiment is to compare the 16-50 image quality against my Olympus 14-54II.  The 14-54II is supposed to be a step above a standard kit zoom.  It's also a bit faster, perhaps by one stop overall.  I would expect it to sharper, too. But you never know.  You can buy the 16-50 for $350.  The 14-54II sells for about $600.

Back to comparing the NEX-6 and LX5.  Here are a few final thoughts:

I love the focus peaking feature of the NEX-6.  I have five old Nikon lens that work beautifully with the NEX-6.  (You do need to buy an adapter, however... about $20 on eBay.)  And, while using old manual focus lenses,  I like the implementation of the manual focusing and magnification feature on the Sony better than the Olympus.  Yes, I know that Sony has no in-body stabilization but all my Nikon lenses are of short focal lengths where I would use a shutter speed of 1/focal length anyway. I don't really need stabilization with them.

The histogram on the NEX-6 easily surpasses the LX5.  I use the histogram all the time and appreciate the RGB color channel histograms that can be reviewed after each image is taken.  A big plus with the NEX-6 (and one of the reasons I didn't jump for the 5N or 5R) is the EVF.  Another reason for buying the "6" instead of the "5" is the addition of a built-in flash.  It is not particularly powerful but I like the fact that it can be pulled back to bounce the flash off the ceiling.

The LX5 has some pretty advanced features, too.  I am surprised that the ones I like and list below are not also in the Sony.  The LX5 has an size-adjustable single focus point.  It can be made much smaller than the fixed size on the Sony, which I find very helpful for closeups.  And speaking of closeups, the macro at 24mm is a very helpful tool on the LX5.  Other great features include setting a minimum shutter speed (in P-mode) and being able to use Auto ISO in manual exposure mode.

One final note is that at this writing the new NEX-6 plus 16-50mm lens retails for about $1,000.  You can buy the two year old LX5 for $250 at Amazon.  And the new LX7, which seems to be sharper than the LX5 and has a faster lens, is selling for $449.

Sony NEX-6 plus 16-50mm v. LX5 at 70 mm equiv.

This is my fourth post about the Sony NEX-6 and the new pancake 16-50 kit lens. In the previous posts I compared it with my beloved Panasonic LX5 at 24mm-e and 50mm-e. So far, and as I had hoped and expected, the 16-50 kit lens on the NEX-6 provides sharper images with less noise than the LX5, at the focal lengths tested. 

This conclusion comes from pixel peeping, usually at 100%.  But at normal viewing distances I don't think the difference really makes a difference.  Just for fun I expect to print a few of these comparative images to see if there is a difference in small or medium sized prints, again when viewed at normal distances.  Of course, as the print size increases past, say, 10" x 15", I would expect the Sony to be noticeably sharper.

Also, with lower light levels, I suspect the Sony with its much larger sensor will begin to put the LX5 to shame, in spite of the LX5's faster lens.

In the prior posts I compared the two at 24mm and 50mm equivalent. 

Today's images

The images below were taken hand held at 70mm equivalent. At this setting, the LX5 is at its best at F4. The 16-50 at 50mm-equiv seems equally good wide open at F5.6 or at F8. For the comparison, I chose to use the F5.6 sample.  I used the lowest ISO: 80 for the LX5 and 100 for the Sony. I shot RAW, used Aperture Priority and Auto White Balance. What you'll see below is that the Sony is sharper than the LX5.

Post Processing

I imported the RAW files from both cameras into Adobe Lightroom 4 (LR4). I used the default Adobe color profiles. Unlike my experience with the Sony RAW file at 24mm-e and 50mm-e, I did not correct for any distortion at 70mm-e, as I didn't notice any.

I added sharpness and clarity to both images. The Sony took more sharpening than the Panasonic without looking crunchy, so the Sony got a bit more sharpening. I also using the CA tool to get rid of the purple fringing in high contrast areas of the LX5. I saw no CA in the Sony image.

Finally, I downsized the Sony to the size of the Pany and created JPEGs at the 100% quality setting. That meant a pixel width of 3776. The JPEGs were brought back into LR4, and I used the X-Y comparison tool in the LR4 Library module to view the images side-by-side at 100%. These are screenshots of those comparisons.

The comparative image. The Sony is on Left.
Click on image to view BIG.

 

 

Center tiles.  Sony (left ) is sharper.
Click on image to view BIG.

 

Upper left.  Sony (left) is sharper.

Click on image to make BIG.

Upper right.  Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

 

 Lower left. Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

Lower right. Sony (left) is sharper.
Click on image to make BIG.

 

Conclusion:  At 24mm-e, 50mm-e and 70mm-e, the Sony provides sharper images which are also clean of noise.  Even at base ISO, the LX5 shows noise, which you may or may not find bothersome.