The following images are from a family of cable/wire balancing artists that were performing during the weekend. It wasn't just a one-off performance but a series of performances during the two day event. Must have been exhausting because the concentration needed during a performance must have been tremendous. Really exhausting! They were very good too.
The 35-100 f2.8 lens turned out to be a blessing during the performance because I could get from the nearest point to the far side of the cable fixing point. The square was very crowded and moving about to get the best shot wasn't an option, you just couldn't move at all. So all the following images were taken from a static point which was a real shame. I could see where I needed to be but just couldn't get there.
There won't be a lot of text in the following posts, I just want to show how the lens performs.
This was taken at 100mm full zoom. Again I just made a few exposures just to make sure I managed to get a sharp image. I'm sure this feeling of not being able to hold this combination steady will dissipate with time. Well I hope so anyway. I did manage to get most of the images sharp with the first exposure, it's just that the combination is so light to hand hold. The OM-D with the Panasonic 14-140 f4.5-5.8 is a lot heavier and easier to handle.
What I found interesting were these cranes all over the city, just hoisting these huge cages full of people up and down all day long. As you can see from the image above, they proved to be popular. People who didn't managed to get tickets to visit the skyscrapers used one of these to see the city from high up. And believe me, they were quite high.
Not a lot of text with this image. Just showing the quality at the shorter end, namely 35mm.
When something was happening on stage, you couldn't move past it because of the crowds. On this particular day, there was a million people walking around the centre of Frankfurt. It was the "Skyscraper Open day" again.
I've left this image as I saw it. It's just been converted from raw with default values in LR4.4. Look carefully at the crane cables and the cage itself. It shows clearly how much CA I'm getting in these images from the G5. Normally I would remove this but what I'm trying to show here is that you have to spend some more time on each image. Do this on a few hundred images it adds up.
When I took this image I had a feeling that the camera wasn't at all stable in my hands and I took about 5 exposures to how they all turned out. All images came out fine but just the feeling that the camera wasn't stable had me hesitating about using this system in the future.
What I did try out was the OM-D with the original Panasonic 14-140 f4-5.8 and there is a lot of CA in the images that really needs eliminating. I'll be posting those images (with CA removed) at the end of the month (or thereabouts). The problem with that lens is that it is heavier than most lenses in the Panasonic stable (and Olympus for that matter). I bought the lens to do video but my enthusiasm for video hasn't really been great so far. That has to change however, as it is becoming part of being a photographer. It's expected these days and if you say to your clients that you just can't do video, my feeling is that client will look elsewhere for an allround photographer.
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100 f2.8 Power O.I.S HD
This is a combination I really haven't tried much. Don't ask me why because I think it's a great lens that gives the images a certain pop and is very sharp, even at f2.8. When you consider the size of the full frame 70-200 f2.8 zooms you really appreciate the size and weight of these newer m4/3 lenses. They don't come close to the size and weight of those, and as everybody keeps mentioning, it's at the end of the day that you appreciate it when your back and arms don't complain and you still have enough energy to something else.
Partner this up with the 12-35 f2.8 and the 25 f1.4 (which I do) then you have the Holly Trinity of Panasonic m4/3 lenses. You are covered from 24 - 200 in 35mm terms with the 25 f1.4 for low light work. All of the above mentioned lenses are sharp with great micro contrast. That focal range will cover everything a photographer might need when going out on a normal working day. I have read of people putting these lenses on an Olympus body and they seem to work fine. I just have one reservation on this; CA. On Panasonic bodies the CA should be removed in camera automatically but it is not on an Olympus body. No problem you say if it's removed automatically but in my experience is that CA is not removed completely. Maybe I'm wrong here but since I'm a raw shooter I was under the impression that this is also done to those raw files. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Now, if I'm getting CA when using it on a Panasonic body then what's it going to be like on an Olympus body.
Only one way to find out and I'm going to be testing all 3 lenses on an Olympus OM-D. When I don't know, but the sooner the better as I would like to know this myself as soon as possible. If it's not too bad then I will be using these lenses with a mix of Olympus and Panasonic bodies. The reason for that is that I feel the 30-100 f2.8 would handle better with a bigger body than the G5. Maybe a GH3 would be better because of the grip and it's a little bigger than the G5. The G5 just feels too small and light to me with this lens mounted as I don't think it's quite stable enough. I have the grip for the OM-D and it's a little heavier than the G5 and that would work too. I just have to go out and test it. The 12-35 f2.8 handles ok on the G5 and I have no problem using that combination.
This is a composite of the graffiti images I took the other week. Since I didn't have another lens with me at the time and I couldn't back-up any further because of some fencing the lens was really a little too long for this purpose. As I was there three more photographers came up and started to take photos as well. These weren't in a group because they came at different intervals. Some were professional I believe because of the gear, and it was during a normal working day. I could be wrong but that is the impression I got.
Not a lot of text today, just another image with the 55-200 f4-5.6. I think people looking for information on lenses etc look ore of how the images look rather than long descriptions. Again a lot of CA removed from this image but it's not a drastic flaw in lenses these days. I think the newer lenses with their ED glass are really excellent but I don't think that CA can be eliminated completely.
I suppose I'd better get this done and over with. Adobe Photoshop CC. Right now I'm using CS3 and I was going to upgrade pretty soon. Now, there's no way I'm going to increase my monthly basic costs; on the contrary I'm trying to reduce it and reduce it I will. That means I'm going to have to make some decisions that I'm not going to like making. Do I stay with the present version or am I going to look elsewhere for something a little more basic. I have to admit, I don't use 90% of the functions available in Photoshop but it does what I do. I've used it for so long (albeit an older version) I know what I'm doing and it takes me a few minutes to finish off an image for web or print or for a stock site. I've got all my actions, plug-ins and whatnots in there and I know what they are. I'm not looking forward to re-learning another program and I'm sure that my plug-ins won't be compatible with the other programs. Why? Because Photoshop is the standard program out there and every image has been "Photoshoped", even if Photoshop hasn't been used for post processing.
Lightroom: Yes I have Lightroom and I've just updated to the latest version and I do a lot in Lightroom nowadays but I like finishing my images off in Photoshop. I guess I just hate change. That's bad because if you don't change, you lose. A lot of functions have crept into Lightroom in the last few upgrades that it nearly, but only nearly, gives me all the functions that I require. There are still a few things I still do in Photoshop. As Google released the full Nik suite for something like €150 I jumped on it. That is now incorporated into Lightroom and I've just purchased a couple of other donation ware software that I hope it will help me get weaned off Photophop. I'll let you know how I get along.
Other photo editing software: I've been looking around the Internet for a substitute to Photoshop and I'm not really impressed with any on them really. It's like learning another language and I'm tired of doing that too.
I looked at this many years ago and I just didn't like it. Had too much of the Linux look for my taste but I've just downloaded the latest version and installed it. One major point it's got going for it is that it's free. Now that's what I call a good deal. Seems to have improved a lot since I last installed it so Gimp will be looked at a little further.
I haven't bought any OnOneSoftware packages, and I just didn't like the look of this suite. Going to get binned and I'm not going to consider it. It might be a very well thought out program and works wonderfully, but not for me.
I even bought the earlier version of this software and started using it in earnest. However, it was soooooooo slow I gave up in the end. I don't think I'm going back to this suite. I suppose it's a "Once bitten, twice shy" situation.
The Lightroom plug-ins I bought were from this site: Photographers Toolbox. I donated some money to keep the site going and they might supplement my Lightroom workflow. Now that LR5 incorporates the straightening tool (Upright), Radial Gradient tool and the Advanced Healing Brush that eliminates a lot from Photoshop. It just gets better with every release.
That's all I'm going to consider. Any more and I would lose interest in it all. It's not something I like doing (testing software) although I have been ion the industry for some time, which might just be the reason I don't like doing it.
There's a good article on TOP (The Online Photographer) that reflects my thoughts exactly. Photoshop is too complicated for what I do and Lightroom just doesn't do enough at present. I want the same software product that he does, something not too complicated, easy to learn, does just enough to eliminate Photoshop altogether and doesn't cost too much. Wishful thinking on my part.
Why did I bring all this up in this post? Well, it's partly because of the image above. Cycling through Frankfurt a few weeks ago I came across a building site and the outer perimeter was covered in graffiti. It was excellent stuff and the image above is just one photograph I took of the entire wall. I was wishing I was that talented but I have to revert to other methods to get my creativity going, hence Photoshop and my dilemma.
If anyone has any other ideas or programs they use, I would appreciate some feedback or recommendations.
This is one image that needed a lot of CA removal especially at the top edge of the building. At this focal length (140mm) there isn't a lot of distortion with this lens but there certainly is at 55 and 200 settings. The DT 55-200 f4-5.6 will not be one of my favourite lenses of all time but it is quite useful on these Nex cameras as the Nex lenses aren't up to much at present. The 18-55 f3.5-5.6 kit zoom isn't all that bad and I quite like the output but it is quite short for my liking. I also have the 55-210 f4.5-6.3 but I just can't get along with it. I think one of the reasons for this is when I received the lens and I tried to get the hood on, and found it extremely difficult to match the hood to the lens. This is carrying on to this day. I took that lens out with me on a short walk a week or two ago and I'll be posting images from that lens mounted on the Nex-7. I have seen some remarkable images posted on some forums and I still wonder how they managed to get that sort of quality from the lens. Maybe, just maybe I have a Monday morning lens. Meaning of course that's it's a lemon of a lens.
The great thing about the two lenses mentioned above is that both incorporate Sony's OSS (Optical Image Stabilisation) and that, for me, is a major plus. I think cameras can only be made so small before they get too small to handle successfully. What I mean is they are really too light, no weight in the hand and the whole thing becomes unstable. Anything smaller that the Nex-5N is really too small for me and I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Sometimes a 55-200 zoom can be a little long. The angle of view at 55mm is equivalent to 82mm in 35mm terms and I just managed to get this building in the frame. My fault of course as I only had this combination with me at the time. My Think Tank Retrospective 5 didn't have enough room for another camera and I didn't expect I'd need a shorter focal length lens. Next time I'll just take a bigger shoulder bag so that I can get 2 cameras in there.
Architecture has always interested me and it really is amazing how these architects get the ideas for all these different buildings. Not only that, they also have to be built so how does that work? What comes first the chicken or the egg? I sometimes roam to places that I don't usually get to and that's the first thing I tend to do, just photograph the buildings. You never know, they might not be there next year or the year after that. I just like keeping these images for posterity so to speak. I'll be looking at these when I'm old and remember how it looked then. Isn't that what taking photographs is all about anyway, to document how things were or looked like in the past?
