Wolfgang Lonien

After having borrowed a Pen camera with the VF-2 electronic viewfinder at Photokina two years ago, it didn’t last too long before I bought one. For Mitchie, and for her E-PL1. In silver.

Then I got an E-PL1 for myself, additional to my E-520 DSLR. The reason? The smaller lens mount of Micro Four Thirds allowed for even more compact lenses than the one of Four Thirds, and there was this incredible 20mm Panasonic lens. Super nice and sharp, and with an aperture of 1:1,7 – nothing like that existed for my camera. A welcome extra was that I got one of the last E-PL1 sets with kit zoom for some 240 Euro, new. That was less money than you had to pay for a premium ‘compact’ with their tiny and comparably noisy sensors, while the sensor in Micro Four Thirds cameras is of exactly the same size like the one in my DSLR. An incredible deal.

I had borrowed Mitchie’s VF-2 viewfinder several times, just to try it out, but never got one for myself. Only after I also got an old Olympus OM-2N film camera (estimated age: some 35 years at least; that was also an incredible deal), and looking to its gorgeous big and bright optical viewfinder, going back to my E-520 was like a shock. Now I understood what people meant when they talked about ‘tunnel view’. Mitchie’s VF-2 was way better, tho nothing compares to an OM camera, except maybe other full frame cameras.

But there’s more to it. There are people who love electronic viewfinders, like Kirk Tuck for instance – read his take on T.O.P. about them – and then there are people who say no, they’re not there yet, optical ones are still better. I can see and understand both sides. Electronic viewfinders (EVF) have the one great advantage that they give you an exact idea about exposure, white balance, plus lots of additional info (like on the rear display of any digital camera) even before you click the shutter. Optical ones on the other side are far better for studio work with flash.

Outside, in bright sunlight, an EVF is a godsend. You see lots more than on any rear display, and you see it before. That can make all the difference.

To make a long story short: I knew that some day I’d have to get one, so I ordered one (just before reading Kirk’s take), and today it arrived. And I played around a bit with what is now my own one on the veranda.

It’s wonderful, really. I took this:

And that is exactly what I saw in the viewfinder, before making that exposure. And that is also exactly how I wanted it to look. I could have brightened up the shadows, and I would also have seen that prior to shooting, but that wasn’t what I wanted. I pointed the camera not only at the last sunlight, but also at darker corners, and it’s really nice what you see.

Another advantage: it tilts up, so you also have the possibility to look down into the viewfinder at angles up to 90 degrees. So I put the camera with the table tripod down to the ground, tilted up that EVF, and took this:

Again, this is exactly what I saw, and how I wanted it to look. With my DSLR, I would have had to guess, and/or to “chimp”, as they say. Cool.

After I was back in again, I did use my good old E-520 to take a photo of my Pen camera with its new black viewfinder, just like I had used it minutes before:

Recommended, that VF-2 viewfinder. Try one if you haven’t looked through any of those.

Thanks for viewing and reading.

I took some photos with the E-PL1 again today, most of them with its kit zoom at the wide end at 14mm (28mm equivalent). First I saw this motorcycle with its nice retro touch, a Kawasaki W800. It’s special because of its upright shaft:

Later – during lunch break, to be more precise – a group of colleagues joined me for a smoke, and Pedro saw my camera and started to pose. So I couldn’t resist and took his photo also with 14mm (which is kind of new for me because I rarely took portraits with a lens that wide to avoid distortions). His skin looked a bit too orange because of that canvas roof, so I changed the photo to black & white in post production, simulating a red filter in front of the lens to get his skin a bit lighter as well:

Thanks for viewing.

I don’t know what to say, or what to write about this one – just look at his page, that will answer everything. You know a master, or an artist if you see one…

The widest lenses I have are the kit lenses of my DSLR and the Pen, which both have 14mm. Together with the crop factor of 2 of the Olympus (Micro-) Four Thirds sensors, that is equivalent to an 28mm lens on a 35mm film camera. Just what I had some 30+ years ago with my analog Canon camera. Today I decided to use the Pen with its kit lens at this wide end.

The first photo I’ll show here was taken during lunch break between the buildings opposite of the ones where I work – so these are not my colleagues. Arno was standing beside me, just outside of the frame:

Of course using a wide angle lens means that we were much closer to these people than it looks here. That’s the “problem” with wide angles: you have to get real close. Not everyone likes that.

The second one shows Arzu at work (I’ve made portraits of her before). The reason why I show this one here is that I have no idea why her left eye – and only her left eye, plus some wood in the foreground are in sharp focus, and the rest is most probably blurred because I wasn’t steady enough. The only explanation I have is that Arzu possibly moved in exact the same direction like me, and that direction was somehow parallel to the wood…

Strange but fascinating, this thing called photography, isn’t it?

Thanks for viewing.

This Kodak Ektar 100 Samplr on Flickr is mighty impressive, both the squares (from medium format I suppose), and the rectangular ones (35mm?). Have to try that film, which, according to the brothers Wright, is better than a Canon 5d Mk2…

Today I shot mostly on film again. Oh, I did take some digital photos with the Pen, but produced mostly crap. I find that I’m using those digicams too much in a snapshooting style, not really caring about the result – and I have to change that, I know.

What I did with the 35mm camera was to use it at the hyperfocal distance of its 50mm lens, which I had to explain to both my colleagues Udo and Arno.

In case you don’t know that term: it’s explained in the Wikipedia article to which I linked above, but the short “executive summary” is: each lens, and each film (or sensor) format has – for a given aperture (f-stop) – a distance which gives you everything in focus from about half of that distance to infinity. You can simply calculate that distance for your lens and for your intended f-stop with the Online Depth of Field Calculator, or check what I write here with it.

For my 50mm lens on my 35mm film camera set to an aperture of f=8, that distance is about 10 and a half meters – which means that if you use these settings, you’ll have everything from just over 5m to infinity in acceptable focus. If you use an aperture of f=5.6, that hyperfocal distance would be almost 15 meters. And so on.

This is the way many street photographers work, because with a shorter focal length of – say – 35 instead of 50mm, that depth of field becomes even larger. Which means: you don’t have to focus at all. Just take the camera up and: click. And maybe that is why Weegee said: “f8 and be there“, when asked for his secret.

So I shot fast today, which I had to explain to both Udo and Arno. Can hardly wait to see the results, but like I mentioned already: waiting for a film to get filled, and developed, is a Zen-like thing in itself. So refreshing.

Ok; here’s one from this evening – and no, this was at f=4.5 and 1/160s, using my studio flash bounced over the ceiling. The E-520 was on autofocus, and the white balance was set to a reference (gray card) in camera. The alarm clock in our dining area shows some 17.5 degrees inside – while it’s still 20 degrees outside. A thunderstorm is approaching, according to the forecast:

Thanks for viewing and reading.

Taken today in the company. My question on Flickr is:

- We have a couple of interesting and strange trees in the company. Could these be from the cercis siliquastrum (Judas Tree) or, in German, Judasbaum family?
- any help with ID would be appreciated – thanks!

Thanks for viewing. Double thanks (in advance) for commenting, here or on Flickr.

Update: Looked it up and compared it in the company again – and Zuleikha and me, we were right: it’s the “Judas Tree”.