If you are a regular visitor to the Lightweight Photographer site you may be aware that I like to solve people’s photographic problems if I can. One of the problems that seems to crop up with some regularity on Forums is that when shooting with the LX5 using the Dynamic Black and White setting the images come out in colour but the colours look odd. Here is an example below.
The answer is relatively straight forward in that the user is shooting in RAW format. As RAW captures the image data but doesn’t apply any processing the images from a colour sensor will be in colour. If you want the Dynamic Black and White appearance for your image then you will need to capture your images in JPG format or at least RAW and JPG.
But why then the odd colour?
Well it helps add punch to the image when it is converted. The approach chosen by Panasonic is to bump the colour temperature up the maximum, shifting it to the warm end of the colour spectrum and reduce the tint settings for the RAW file (-95) so that the image is also shifted towards green. The internal processing of the camera then applies a digital filter and the result is a higher contrast image with greater tonal separation than a straight conversation. Here is the resulting file Dynamic B&W file.
Don’t however be lazy; lightweight yes but never lazy. Processing your colour images into Black and White will give you much greater creative control. The example at the top of the page was a conversion using Nik SilverEfex Pro 2 and took me around 3 minutes. I think that’s a good investment of my time.
I recently posted an article discussing how micro 4/3 cameras could achieve good depth of field at relatively wide apertures. This also stressed how the common advice to stop down the lens to a small aperture was misleading and probably resulted in poor lens performance and loss of image sharpness. Well, now it’s the turn of the LX5.
The LX5 is a compact camera with an oversized sensor and a great Leica lens that’s the equivalent of a 24-90mm lens on a full frame camera. Despite its oversized sensor, this is still much smaller than the Micro 4/3 cameras, which gives the LX5 a much greater depth of field at the same aperture.
I can only describe the lens on the LX5 as extraordinary in terms of sharpness and its ability to resolve detail, even in distant subjects. It has an aperture of f/2.0 at its widest to f/8.0 at the smallest. The f/2.0 can only be achieved with the lens set to the equivalent of 24mm. At the other end of the zoom range the widest aperture is f/3.5.
From my observations when using the LX5, the camera produces good images at any aperture and is certainly usable wide open (f/2.0). If I stop the lens down it start to hit its sweet spot by f/2.8 and performance begins to drop off after f/4.5. The question then, is how much depth of field do you get with f/2.8 and the lens set to 24mm (I am assuming here that you like I spend most of your time photographing landscapes)
To answer this question I am not going to resort to a depth of field phone app as I did before, but use a feature built into the LX5 which not only shows me the depth of field but allows me to set the hyperfocal distance. In case you’re not familiar with the term hyperfocal distance, this is the theoretical focus point that gives the maximum depth of field for your aperture/lens right the way to infinity. Here are the steps:
Select the Aperture Priority mode (A) on the top dial of the camera.
Switch the camera to manual focus using the switch on the side of the lens. When you are in Manual Focus, MF will appear in the bottom right of the screen.
Press the rear adjustment dial on the back of the camera (top right) until the MF is highlighted. This is the dial that allows you to adjust the aperture and if you keep pressing it in you will cycle through aperture adjustment, exposure compensation and manual focus settings.
Rotate the dial to the left and right. As you do this you will see a depth of field guide appear on the bottom of the camera screen with a solid yellow line that moves left and right. This line represents the zone of focus at the aperture and focus length selected.
Move the dial left and right until the yellow line just touches infinite focus on the right hand side. You have now set the focus to give the maximum depth of field at your aperture and focal length.
To give you some idea of how much depth of field you can achieve at 24mm and f/2.8, you will find the closest point in focus is just over a meter away and the zone of sharp focus extends to infinity. Now the other benefit of shooting at f/2.8 is that you will achieve a very fast shutter speed and can hand hold even in poor light as well as reduce the risk of camera shake.
By way of an example, the night shot above was taken from the top of the Empire State Building hand held using ISO200 and f/2.8. Its pin sharp and prints beautifully at A3+. I have even passed it off at various presentations around the UK as being shot with a 5D MKII. I do always own up later as its great fun to see people’s faces when they realise it was shot with a compact camera.
I don’t ordinarily like to pass comment over what’s happening in the photography industry but I actually think things are getting a little “interesting” at the moment. In recent months the idea of Lightweight Photography has really grabbed people’s imagination and camera manufacturers have responded with a glut of new offers. We have seen multiple camera releases from the likes of Sony and Fuji and even Canon has joined in on the game with the new M series compact. Innovation is rife with most manufacturers trying to squeeze more megapixels into the sensors and even larger sensors into the cameras. Just the other day Sony launched the first full frame compact camera which is indeed a great achievement.
Is there a downside? YES – Have you seen the price of these things? I suspect companies are trying to recover their entire R&D bill with the first model they release and that smacks of short term profiteering to me. The pace of change has accelerated and the lifespan of cameras is getting shorter. With it the risk for the camera manufacturers has increased and I don’t think they like that so they pass the risk and cost on to us the consumer. I think this will result in lots of new gimmicks being released regularly as well as an increase in prices as manufacturers ask us to buy more often and pay more for our cameras whilst trying to recover R&D costs more quickly.
My suspicion (and I think we are seeing some of this) is that we will be told (brainwashed if you like) that all the existing cameras/sensors are no good and we need to upgrade to the latest, newest fastest, highest quality camera. I don’t know about you but I have limited funds to spend on replacing my equipment and I like to get good value from it. I do hope some of the manufacturers read this and realise we the consumer are passionate about photography. They can just keep thinking about making money for shareholders; they need to give something back to the enthusiast also.
To prove the point, I have recently been answering some questions for one of our readers who was considering buying a new GX1. I found myself playing down the quality of the images from the GX1 as it didn’t quite measure up to the quality from the 5D MkII which is a full frame, 21Mpixels DSLR with L series lenses. I then printed the image above and realised I was being drawn in by the marketing machine.
The image was shot on a GX1 with an Olympus 9-18mm lens. I printed it at A3+ and even pressing my nose right up to the print it looks good. No, I will rephrase that, it looks amazing; even in the areas that I thought were a little suspect on the screen (at 100%). I now know I could print this image much larger if I wanted to and still get a fantastic print. Why then would I need to upgrade my camera to an “even better” model?
What I have come to realise is the old advice of investing in the highest quality lenses in preference to buying a better camera is now true again. At the start of the digital revolution this wasn’t the case as cameras and sensors needed to catch up with film. Now we can produce super quality huge prints from tiny cameras the old adage has kicked in again. I for one would like to see the manufacturers put as much development into their lenses so that we can have tiny lenses that resolve huge amounts of detail, have fast constant apertures and are super sharp for a reasonable price. Unfortunately I can’t see this happening any time soon as that’s not where the money is to be made. As always I am interested in any other thoughts on this subject.
In the past I have received quite a bit of correspondence from people wondering why I changed my camera from the Sony NEX-5 to a GX1. There is also a fairly regular flow of people wondering what I think of the GX1 or the Panasonic system in general and is it worth investing in. Since I started publishing the Light Weight Photography blog in addition to my Lenscraft website the volume of enquiries has accelerated. It seems many people are considering going light weight but just have some doubts. I thought therefore I would take a little time to outline how my journey has brought me to the Panasonic GX1 in the hope that it will help anyone facing this decision. If this raises any questions, add them to this blog posting below and I will do my best to answer.
Firstly I would like to say that I won’t recommend anyone reading this make a decision based on what I like and what suites me. Selecting a camera is a very personal choice and one that each photographer has to make for themselves. I will however outline why I have made the choices I have.
My first serious “light weight” camera was a Sony R1. This had a 10Mpixel sensor and a fixed Zeiss lens which was the equivalent of 24mm-120mm. The camera produced good images that I was very pleased with but the resolution really became too small for what I wanted to do with my work (mainly stock and fine art). The sensor was starting to show its age with poor low light performance (due to noise) and the entire camera was still the size of a small DSLR. (By the way I still miss this camera.)
It was these limitations together with the launch of the NEX-5 that convinced me to sell the R1 and buy the NEX-5. My hope was that the NEX-5 would perform similarly to the R1 with a higher pixel resolution (14Mpixels), better low light performance, all in a smaller package with a more complete coverage of focal lengths. To go with the NEX-5 body I purchased the pancake wide angle prime 16mm lens, the kit lens which I think was an 18-55mm and the very large 18-200mm super zoom. At the time this was the entire range of lenses although there were regular rumours of new lenses.
Initially I was happy with the camera and impressed with some aspects such as the excellent sensor and small size. I soon became aware however of new limitations and that my decision to purchase the Sony had been heavily influenced by the performance of the R1. I had reasoned that Sony had produced such a great camera in the R1 that the NEX-5 had to be better – but for me it wasn’t.
The body and kit lens together were still too bulky and the 18-200 lens was simply huge. The prime 16mm and kit lens whilst tiny suffered from diffraction and left my pictures a little soft (not a lot but enough to frustrate me). Corner focus on all lenses ranged from acceptable to dreadful and I was having my images regularly rejected by Stock libraries as a result. Worst of all for a landscape photographer was that the widest lens equated to 24mm on a full frame camera and I needed at least a 20mm.
For a while I considered a lens adapter with the NEX-5 but I still couldn’t get the lens quality and focus length I wanted in a compact, lightweight package. It was this that caused me to switch to a Panasonic GF1 which was starting to show its age at that time. This was a 12Mpixel camera and I purchased a 14-45mm lens, a wide angle 9-18mm (equivalent to 18-36mm) and 45-200 lens. This was a great outfit with quality lenses in the focus lengths I wanted, all in a small package. The image quality was good and I never had an image rejected from this camera.
I have to admit that I loved this camera due to its design, build and size (my daughter now has it). The limitation was that the sensor wasn’t quite as good as I would have liked. I could see a little too much noise and at 12Mpixel it was still a little too small. It was these limitations that encouraged me to purchase the GX1 body with its 16Mpixel sensor. The lenses I have kept because I think they are excellent in terms of image quality, build, size and weight. The 9-18mm in particular is amazing.
I think the GX1 produces great pictures but it’s probably not the end of my journey. Ideally I want a 20Mpixel sensor with better low light capabilities. I also find the GX1 sensor still has a little too much noise for my taste (you may think otherwise) so I often apply light noise reduction even at ISO100. I should mention to put this in perspective that I can often see noise patterns in my 5D MKII even at ISO100. The size and lenses are however spot on and I can only see myself adding to these. In fact I have also added the Panasonic 20mm prime and Olympus 45mm prime which are both first rate.
I think my view has now shifted to make lenses my most important factor when choosing a camera system (providing its small and light) and I accept that I will upgrade my camera body from time to time. I hope from this explanation that you can see my journey and reasoning and that it will help you. As I mentioned above, if anyone has any questions post them here and I will do my best to answer.