new gear

Lens hoods • click to embiggenWhile searching for a lens hood for the new Zuiko M 45mm lens, I also found lens hoods for my 20mm and 17mm lenses. So, for a mere $24.00US (total), I purchased all 3 lens hoods. Now, all of my lenses have lens hoods.

I'll never understand why lens makers don't include what must be a $3-4.00 item with their $400.00US+ lenses. Or why, in the case of Olympus*, even if they do offer them as an accessory, they cost $50.00US.

That said, how important for you is the use of lens hood?

*Olympus does include lens hoods with their more pricey "pro" lens.

Update on Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 10:24AM by gravitas et nugalis

PS I was looking at the specs for the M. Zuiko 12mm f2.0 lens, a $799.99US object which can currently be had in the $700.00US neighborhood, and, of course, no lens hood is included. I noticed an Olympus brand lens hood for the lens which was available for $89.99US - that's more than 10% of the cost of the lens. Good grief.

civilized ku # 2044 ~ business is war

Coast Guard Cutter ~ Inner Harbor - Baltimore, MD • click to embiggenSpeculation is running high, re: the likelihood, in the very near future, of KODAK filing bankruptcy. As a 25 year resident of Rochester, NY ('59-'85), this news, while not exactly unexpected, has an otherworldly / surreal aspect to it for me.

It's difficult for me to come to grips with how this came to pass - the world leader in all things picturing for the better part of a century is going down the drain like exhausted fixer. And, even if KODAK manages to restructure, that process will primarily focus upon continuing what is now considered to be their core business - printing. Not picture making, but picture printing.

In truth, my coming-to-grips difficulty aside, the ultimate reason for this debacle is simple - mismanagement and lack of vision on a spectacular and colossal scale.

KODAK did not face the challenges of the emerging digital era as a cash strapped company. In fact, for decades after they invented the first digital camera in 1975 (and nearly a century before) they were cash rich on an unbelievable scale. In addition to cash, KODAK also had some of the finest and most generously funded corporate R&D facilities and staff on the planet - a part of the reason why KODAK was able to make the first digital camera and introduce the first commercially available DSLR camera in 1991.

However, somehow - someway, KODAK management and, to a certain extent, its shareholders (with a big nudge from Wall Street) found a way to turn shine-ola into shit.

To drive this very point home, almost to the very day on which the KODAK bankruptcy speculation started to emerge, FUJI announced their most recent line up of new digital cameras. FUJI - the same company which in 1975 (the year KODAK invented the first digital camera) was little more than a bit player (relative to KODAK) in the world picture making market. FUJI - the same company which in the early '80s, thanks to another management screw-up at KODAK, secured the film sponsorship rights for the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics and used it as a springboard to go on and grab big chunks of KODAK's share of the film market. FUJI - the same company which continues to innovate and, this week, is about to introduce a photo-"enthusiast", potentially class(mirror-less / interchangeable lens / large sensor)-leading camera - the FUJI X-PRO 1 - while KODAK's camera offerings are little more than me-too, lost-in-the-crowd pablum.

FUJI - the same company which, from a far less cash-rich position, faced all of the same coming-into-the-digital-era challenges which KODAK faced ... and won (Business is War).

The whole business is just sad. Sad on so many levels, re: the current state of economic affairs here in the good 'ol USofA. The sad true is simple - despite the Faux News / right wing trumpeting of "American Exceptionalism", the good ol' USofA , except when it comes to bombing the crap out of much lesser countries and worshiping at the altar of consumerism, is sliding down the path to also-ran status.

civilized ku # 2046 ~ minimalist

Corner with chair and light fixture ~ Cherry Hill, NJ • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 2045 ~ amazin'

Red croquet ball ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenIt once was lost but now am found - I was blind, but now I see it.

decay & disgust # 45 ~ peppers and bread

Peppers and bread on hand-pounded silver tray ~ in my kitchen / Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggen

civilized ku # 2043 ~ hot color

Radio City Music Hall ~ NY, NY • click to embiggenAs everyone must know by now, I really dislike neon color in landscape pictures but ..... when there's actual neon color in a scene, I say "let 'er rip."

FYI, no saturation added.

PS I mentioned in the civilized ku # 2035-40 entry that my 45mm lens, with its slightly "compressed" perspective, renders city/urban-scapes as I "see" them - close compacted space. Likewise my 20mm lens, with its slight wide-angle "diminishing" perspective, when I'm looking up in those same city/urban-scapes.

civilized ku # 2041-42 ~ like holding a baby with a wet diaper(?)

Dolphins ~ National Aquarium - Baltimore, MD • click to embiggenDolphins and handlers/trainers ~ National Aquarium - Baltimore, MD • click to embiggenRe: using the Zuiko M 45mm f1.8 lens, John Linn wrote/asked:

....you have written in the past that you detest electronic viewfinders, so how do you compose images with the 45mm lens? Your clip-on optical finder is probably only good for 20 or 25mm (50mm equivalent). Are you using the rear panel? Someone described using the rear panel was like holding a baby with a wet diaper, and that has kinda stuck with me. Often not an ideal way to frame an image.

To be accurate, I never wrote that I "detest electronic viewfinders". What I did write, if memory serves correctly, was that I didn't need no stinkin' EVF. Which, I admit, could be understood to mean that EVFs are stinkin' useless. However, I do believe EVFs do have their uses and one of those uses could be when using a tele lens on a mirrorless camera, or, as some might think, when using any lens on a mirrorless camera.

IMO, EVFs are not a piece of gear which is required for making pictures with a mirrorless camera. And, in fact, even though I do have an optical VF on my E-P1 for use with my 17mm and 20mm lenses, I use it only about 10% of my picturing time - most often when I am using a very slow shutter speed and I want the additional security (in addition to IS) of bracing the camera against my face. I also use it when making pictures of fast action subjects.

When it comes to the 45mm lens, out of current necessity (I don't have no stinkin' EVF), I use the LCD to compose and make pictures, to include the dolphin pictures in this entry.

Using the LCD was actually, IMO, an advantage in the making of the dolphin pictures. Holding the camera away from my face, allowed me to see the entire venue and all of the action therein. What this enabled me to do was to pre-frame and pre-focus on areas of the pool where I anticipated an action would be happening. When that action actually happened, I was able to make an exposure at just the right moment to capture peak action because I was seeing the actual event rather than the event on the LCD or, worse yet, through the tunnel vision of a viewfinder (electronic or not).

One of the disadvantages of using the LCD for picture making, any picture making, is the fact that many in the picture making crowd think it makes you "look like an amateur". To which I would respond, "Get a life." Who cares what you look like as long as you get the picture? Hell, I mean, if I cared what I look like when making pictures, I'd cut my hair, trim my eyebrows, and lose a little weight - all of which would be cheaper than buying an EVF.

All of that said, I may end up adding an EVF to my E-P2 but can't really say at this point. I haven't yet encountered a situation where I felt the need for one, which is not to say that I won't. In any event, I'll be adding a lens shade first.

And BTW, John, I hope you get over the "holding a baby with a wet diaper" thing soon simply because using a mirrorless camera, as opposed to a DSLR, is such a joy. They are light weight and very portable. Fast primes, again small and light weight, are becoming quite common and are relatively cheap. And currently, there are great deals to be had with previous model cameras - $299.00US + free shipping for an Olympus E-PL1 w 14-42mm lens at Samy's Camera (E-P2s - manufactorer refurb - w the same lens can be had on eBay for $369.00), and, $345.00US + free shipping for a Panasonic Lumix GF2 w 125-42mm lens at Amazon. I'm not saying those deals are chump change, but if you're at all curious about mirrorless camera picture making, the cost of entry is really low - less than decent lens for a DSLR.

I'm inclined to state, Mikey-like, "Try it. You'll like it." In fact, with the addition of the 45mm lens to my µ4/3 system, I am getting very close to selling my Oly E-3 body + 3 Zuiko lenses and my Pentax K20 + 2 Pentax DA lenses. At this point, I'm just keeping them around so, whenever the need or desire arises, I can look like a professional.

civilized ku # 2034-40 ~ all of a piece

Tension ~ Baltimore, MD • click to embiggen
Deli ~ Brooklyn, NY • click to embiggen
5 Av ~ Brooklyn, NY • click to embiggen
Roly Poly / bus stop ~ Baltimore, MD • click to embiggen
Snowfall ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
Jersey Casa ~ Merchantville, NJ • click to embiggenLittle did I know that, when Santa left me the Zuiko M 45mm f1.8 lens, he was leaving me the TOP Lens of the Year 2011 - a very subjective ranking, to be sure). However, it's certainly gratifying to know that my wanter is functioning at such a high level.

That said, after a short time and a little bit of use, I can state that I really like this lens. It looks nice, feels good (the focus ring), and it performs as expected. The "as expected" qualification comes from my experience using my old MF Nikkor 85mm f1.8 lens inasmuch as the Zuiko is the 4/3rd equivalent of that lens. POV wise, the 2 lenses are nearly identical so there are no surprises there.

However, there is an unexpected surprise which has arisen from my initial use of this new lens. As mentioned previously, I wanted this lens because I had a very vague notion of wanting to use it for making pictures of people. The only specificity, albeit also rather vague, connected to that vague notion was the idea of making portrait-type people pictures. And while that use mostly likely will come to be, I have yet to employ the lens in that picture making cause.

The manner in which I have come to use it - and herein is the surprise - was totally unexpected. As evidenced by the pictures in this entry, I have been making pictures with people therein which would mostly likely be labeled as street photography, although ...

... here's the interesting bit - none of the above urban/street pictures were incited by and consequently made because of the people pictured in them. In fact, the pictures came into being for precisely the same reason virtually all of my pictures do - my eye was attracted to and my sensibilities were pricked by relationships of color, shape, form, and light as randomly and serendipitously observed during my any-time out-and-about-ness. In every above case, my initial attraction was the buildings / facades - the people were, in a sense, just there.

That is not to say that I was not aware of the people but I was most definitely not looking/waiting for any particular relationships or activities thereof. When their position(s) within my frame, as dictated by the buildings / facades, looked "right", I made the picture*. I kept it as simple as that.

I didn't wait for the runner in the Deli picture although I really like his position in the final picture. The people in the Roly Poly picture were just waiting for a bus. While I did wait for the foreground figure in Tension picture to reach the corner, when I made the exposure, he just happened to turn his head toward another figure across the street who seemed to be lurking and looking back at him. And, the guy at the rear of the UPS truck in the 5 Av picture had just moved into the frame as I was about to make the picture.

In each of those pictures, the people add an element of life to what could have been more cool and detached views of the buildings/facades. I really like the results of including people in these scenes and I can certainly foresee a body of work (streetscapes? - making me the Streetscapist) along these lines.

That said, I'll still be looking for, as is my wont, relationships of color, shape, form, and light as found in street environments which are dominated by interesting buildings / facades. However, I will, from this day forward, be at least a little more attuned to the people therein. Which, in fact, might lead some to see the pictures about people pictures even though I would consider them to be people/place tableaux.

Could I have made these pictures without using the 45mm lens? Sure enough, but what I like about the lens is the slightly "compressed" perspective it produces. A look which brings the people and the buildings / facades into close visual proximity. The fact that I see (and feel) cities as "compressed" space is most definitely well served by the moderate tele "compressed" perspective of the Zuiko 45mm lens (90mm, 35mm equivalent).

The compressed look, to my eye and sensibilities, puts the people and the buildings/facades on the same 2D plane on the 2D surface of a print thereby emphasizing neither and creating a visually more "integrated" yet complex whole/tableau. I find that "integrated" look refreshing and rather different from the dominate wide-angle MO most often employed to make street photography pictures.

FYI, a picture making fact: I did not employ the motor-drive approach to picturing these scenes. The pictures posted in this entry are the result only 1 or 2 exposures made of each scene.

*One of my all-time favorite movie makers, Stanley Kubrick (an accomplished still picture maker), was known for creating an establishing shot and letting the action move about the scene rather than letting the camera move about the scene.