Gene Fama's photostream  

Check out what Flickr calls my most "interesting" shots here.

Update 24-5-10: Decisions, Decisions...

We're lucky when we shop for something and our choice is limited to two options. Such is the case with micro fourth-thirds cameras. The format has been around for at least forty years, but digital micro four-thirds is new. The format appeals to photobugs because it represents a good compromise between the image quality of consumer SLRs and the size of compact cameras. The image sensor is only a third smaller than that of an SLR, but nine times the size of a typical compact camera. Since sensor size is intimately correlated with goodies like background blur ("bokeh") and lower color noise, along with the fact that pictures taken with bigger sensors are deeper and more accurate, micro four-thirds is a boon. With a compact prime ("pancake") lens attached, it's not too big for a coat pocket. Add to this that the lenses are interchangeable and the format is friendly (via adapter) to every imaginable lens mount --- including legacy manual-focus classics often available inexpensively on eBay or molding away on your old film SLR body. This all adds up to an irresistible proposition for the early adopter whose neck hurts from hauling around a big hunk of metal and glass.

But as mentioned, there are two: The Olympus Pen (in this case we'll look at the E-P2) and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1. Which is better? Like so many things in a competitive economy, it's a set of trade-offs—the two cameras excel at different things. The best choice likely depends on your picture-taking. Let's compare the two, feature for feature.

1) Looks. When I first saw the Olympus E-P1 in silver, I fell in love with it. It's a beautiful camera. Soon the E-P2 came along and, though it's a far better camera, until recently it came only in black. Okay, it's not exactly black but more of a metallic dark grey in the body and black in the extremities. Personally, I don't like grey and black together. You might. Notheless, I thought the black Pen looked better than the Lumix so I bought it. Later, I got a closer look at the Lumix. Now I believe the Lumix is every bit as retro and handsome as the Olympus, but in a more Leica-ish, rangefinder-y way. This only makes sense since Lumix is a sister company to Leica. For looks, I'd say if you like silver the Olympus wins, if you like black the Lumix wins.

2) Fit and finish. The Lumix is built like a brick shithouse. You can squeeze it hard and there's no "give." Not that the Olympus is chintzy, it's just not as solid. Lumix wins.

3) Autofocus. This is critical. If you shoot action or have any other reason to use faster AF, the Panny wins hands down. If you use old manual lenses it couldn't matter less, but if your primary goal is to shoot kid soccer games using modern kit lenses, the faster AF is a decisive advantage for the Lumix.

4) High ISO. The Olympus measures at significantly lower noise in lowlit, high ISO situations (which is a good thing because the camera has no built-in flash). If you're allergic to flash photography and like indoor portraiture, this could be a significant factor in favor of the Olympus Pen.

5) Flash. The Panasonic has a built-in flash and, as mentioned, the Olympus doesn't. The outboard flash designed for the Pen system (FL-14) will set you back an extra hundy, and though it looks very cool and retro, it tends to blare a bit. It also can't be tilted to "bounce," off ceilings, and only has limited exposure compensation. If you need flash for parties and bad Facebook shots, Lumix wins.

6) Electronic viewfinder (EVF). The Pen balances out the flash disadvantage here. The base kit ships with an outboard viewfinder. The Lumix requires you to to buy one for more than a hundred bucks. More importantly (since this is photography so money ain't a thing) the Olympus viewfinder is better, brighter, and more adjustable than the Lumix. You may not even think you need a viewfinder until you try an EVF on a micro four-thirds camera. If you want to use manual lenses it's absolutely crucial. Both the Lumix and the Pen have manual focus assist so if, like me, your eyesight sucks, a press of a button will temporarily zoom you in so you can manually adjust focus on, say, the subject's eyelashes. It then pops back to normal so you can compose the shot. The keystrokes to accomplish this are more involved when you use old manual lenses. In the case of the Olympus, you have to put the camera in a specific mode to make MF assist engage with one keystroke. It then stays zoomed until you repeat the same keystroke, which can be awkward. The Lumix zooms itself back out automatically, even with legacy glass, but it requires two keystrokes to zoom in, so there's the same amount of button pushing. To me it seems more intuitive to have the MF assist self-cancel (unless I'm still struggling with finding focus when it does). In spite of this slight advantage, and that the Lumix has a higher-resolution LCD, the viewfinder on the Oly is included, and it spanks the finder on the Lumix. And no, they don't work mounted on each other's bodies. Olympus wins

7) Menu system. The Pen takes a lot of heat for having convoluted menus. To my mind these complaints rendered invalid by a simple setting whereby virtually every menu item is available in a single screen-view that you can navigate to with the touch of a convenient scroll wheel whereupon you can change any setting pretty much instantly. You almost never need to navigate the formal menus. I'm not sure if a similar feature exists on the Lumix, but it seems likely that if you have a Leica D-Lux 3 or 4 (Panasonic LX-2 or 3) you'll like the Panasonic better for its familiar menu system. In truth, this is likely a tie.

8) Kit lens. I prefer prime lenses and to date the finest prime created for the digital micro four-thirds format is the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/2. It's a jewel, and works on both cameras. Even if you have the Pen you'll want to buy it. Yet it ships in the Panny prime-lens kit. On the other hand, if you like or need zoom lenses, the Oly zoom lens that ships with their zoom kit is better than the zoom that comes in the optional Panasonic kit, if only because it's retractable, making the camera pretty compact for having a fairly long focal range. Keep in mind that the micro four-thirds "crop factor" means that the effective length of a lens in this format is twice the actual (1:1) length of a lens. So the Lumix kit's prime 20mm is actually equivalent to an old-school "normal" lens. As a side note, not only is lens shopping cheaper in micro four-thirds thanks to old manual lenses (just don't develop a jones for Leica M-glass) but the 200% comparable focal length means you can get by with fewer specialty lenses. That 400mm white-ass golf lens that sets you back $8 grand and gets you punched by Sean Penn, in four-thirds format is accomplished by a little 200mm brand-x lens. But if you like prime lenses: Advantage Lumix. If you like zoom lenses: Advantage Pen.

9) Image stabilizer. Now this was the overwhelmingly decisive factor for me. I take natural light photos in some pretty dark places. Great legacy lenses and even the better optics in the modern world tend not to have their own internal image stabilizers. The Olympus has great in-body image stabilization. The Lumix doesn't. This means that any lens, no matter how old, is image stabilized on the Pen body. You not only don't have to buy stabilized lenses (which in many cases can be a $1K upgrade), but you can buy slower lenses. Combined with the strong high ISO performance, instead of a maximum aperture of f/1.4, you might be able to get away with a max aperture f/2 or even f/4. Look up Leica 50mm lenses and compare the price of the f/4 with the f/2.8 and the f/1.8 and finally the f/.90. Opening the aperture a few steps can add thousands faster than Nancy Pelosi's bar tab. And in the case of most manufacturers, at its most open aperture settings, the lens with the smaller maximum aperture outperforms the more expensive lens (that is, at f/5.6, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 beats the Canon 50mm f/1.2 in term of sharpness and distortion, and for less than a tenth of the cost). What this means in practice is that you should always buy a fast lens for the way it renders at its widest setting. If an in-body stabilizer effectively widens that widest setting by allowing you to increase your shutter speed in low light, it may very well negate the need for extravagant glass (or better yet, allow you to buy slower glass from an extravagant manufacturer). Big win: Olympus.

Which brings us to the skinny: The Olympus E-P2 and the Panasonic Lumix GH1 test as indistinguishable in image quality. They both take great pictures, share the same lenses, and are fun as hell.

If your thing is portraits, flowers (ugh), still-lifes, pets (ugh) and landscapes, and you don't shoot a lot of action, the Olympus wins for its in-body stabilization and high iso performance.

If your thing is action, hyper kids, sports, and other chaos, and you're hard on your cameras, the Lumix is better. It's also better if you need a flash—for instance if you bring cameras to dark parties or tend to shoot in Auto Mode.

You really can't go wrong either way.
______________

Update 8-7-08: It might make for shit results, but I'm reaching for something right now. Let me explain. My natural tendency is to lean on the familiarity of motifs, the "branding" and such that drives everyone I love nuts but creates a weird touchstone that gives me emotional and artistic shelter. But now I feel the pull of random and mundane things, though in truth I think it's just an attraction to a directness I've never developed and still don't have, hung up as I've always been on technique.

In other words, bear with me, please.
______________

Update 7-2-08: Having spent time with the 24mm f/1.4L I'm getting comfortable that it's a good copy. At first I thought maybe the optics were off. I always wonder what they do with copies really picky folks return after a few days in the original packaging. I now realize sharpness isn't what it's all about and that's okay because it isn't what I'm all about either. I actually miss the old film days and seeing Canon analog prints come off the enlarger in the 70s—that little bit of noise and the unfocused thing that caught so much more documentary a feel. The 24mm gets sharp with a gun to its head anyway, and its colors are juicy. I also picked up Noise Ninja and have been finding myself opening the external editor in Aperture, which in my case is the hated Photoshop with its byzantine and arcane maze of solutions for every professional problem under the sun but most of which I find completely opaque (why call sharpening "unsharp mask"? And why doesn't it already have a "Noise Ninja" among its infinite tools and tricks?). But high ISO is a breeze with NN and the Auto Levels, Colors, and Contrast in PS amend most problems introduced by low natural source lighting. So what's next?
______________

Update 16-10-07: After struggling with different settings, I'm starting to like the Canon 40d better than my old 20d (stolen by airplane cabin cleaners). It's pictures are more painterly, seemingly due to smoother gradation rendering and fewer hot highlights. High ISO performance is less noisy. The colors are strong but I might have the saturation up a little high. In any case, if you're a 20d or 30d user and want the skinny on the 40d feel free to drop me a line—or check out my post-40d shots and tell me if you see a difference.

Policy note: I regret blocking people but if you collect pictures of girls and have no profile or photos available to me, I'll probably block you. Multiply times ten if you collect pictures of children.




create your own visited countries map