Some time ago I joined both Flickr and 500px.
I could not choose right away which one to go for so I took an account on both to test them out. After a year I have renewed the 500px and left Flickr [I'm still using the free version though].
The absolutely horrible layout of Flickr was the biggest issue I had with them. But the 500px community of photographers is also much better than Flickr's…

I've added 2 pages to the site that show the latest images from 500px and also the 20 latest images from my Flickr stream. As I still have the free Flickr account I thought it might be interesting to just use it to upload some of the latest images I took. Could be anything, doesn't matter… just the random stuff that passed by my lens!

Often I have spoken about less is more in terms of camera equipment. Bringing less. Less weight, less lenses, less overall stuff to haul in and about. But the same is actually true for photography as well!
Upfront, I'm not speaking for all types of photography, but just as an observation in general.

When I started out with my first digital SLR back in 2002 something I had a single 1GB memory card. Back then I decided to shoot RAW which left me with room for 84 images. That is not much considering a day's worth of shooting.
But back then I just came from shooting film/slides and was still used to bringing only a handful of rolls of 24-36 exposures. I was happy I didn't need to switch rolls anymore, felt that was an improvement already.

I remember going out on a day trip to a beautiful abandoned location, big enough to allow for many hours of exploring and shooting.
I was taking my time everywhere, contemplating what exactly to shoot and how. I had only 84 shots and a whole day ahead of me. I filled up the card at the end and of those 84 shots, I got exactly 84 keepers. That's right, not a single image deleted afterwards. The reason is I was using my LCD extensively on location to really check if the image just taken was indeed what I was looking for. Probably the biggest novelty and improvement back then coming from film, instant feedback. I knew already when going back home that I had all good images with me and I just needed to do some PP to ad some extra spice, convert to BW etc...

Fast forward a couple of years, it is 2011. I go to a location now, enter a room, look around and see some opportunities. I go snap, snap...snapsnapsnap... and go to the next spot. I still analyze the scene before "snapping", but it's just not as thorough as it used to be. And I take more shots, many more than years ago. Cheap storage and multiple cards of 4-8-16GB have had their effect clearly on the way I approach photography now. It would almost be a shame NOT to use that storage, it bought and paid for so it would be a shame never to use it right?

I just realized when looking at images from my latest holiday in France how many ordinary snapshots I took, how many images I shot thinking at the time "I'll short them out later and keep the best one only". Problem is that you end up with many hundreds of images to sort through, some so similar that it takes too much time to make decision which one to keep, which to toss. I'm very bad at making quick decisions in this area.
But at the same time I feel like I don't have that many wow shots compared to the total nr of images. So clearly the evolution of shooting way too much last couple of years has led to more mediocre photography and way too much time spent sorting, pondering wether to keep or delete, too much PP for images I should toss right away actually.

Time for a change. Better to have a diskette full of great photography than 1TB of snapcrap. Time to be more contemplative when out in the field.

I realize I'm probably writing stuff that's common sense right? Who could disagree? But yet even if it's so simple it surprises me I still got caught up in the snap frenzy. Slowly but surely.

So I have been playing with the GF1 since a few weeks and taken it on some phototrips. It's a very capable camera indeed, but for me personally there was something missing. A something that is hard to explain but that results in using the camera less than you would like to. When I was shooting with both my Leica M8 and the GF1 in the bag, the latter stayed inside 99% of the time. I couldn't put my finger on it and it bugged me slightly.

The Panasonic GF1 vs the Olympus PEN
Hence we come to this point. Last week I got a chance to buy a new Oly PEN E-P1, yes the first model. A few months ago had to choose between these two models, because these were the only 2 M4/3rd cameras anyway. So I started out checking some online reviews etc to get an idea of both camera's. I ended up with the GF1 because in practically every review it came out as the better camera, it had better specs in most departments [better AF, higher resolution screen, better video capabilities, built-in flash, etc...]. But as I said when shooting with and holding the camera I feld like something was missing. Hence I became curious about the PEN. When I held the PEN in my hand for the first time I immediately feld this was way better than the GF1, it's also has a very high quality finish.
But the proof is in the pudding as they say and this weekend I got an chance to go shooting again for 2 days. So of course I took the M8 and the PEN this time. In short I can say this: I'm won over... I just sold the GF1 after only a few weeks. For me the PEN feels much more natural to shoot with, the controls are better IMO and frankly I don't care that much about all the negative points the multiple reviews mentioned on the PEN. I think the LCD is actually very nice to work with and due to my preference for 4/3 ratio instead of 3/2 the screen is actually more suitable than the GF1. I found out the lower resolution is not a problem at all. The AF is not a bit bad, with the v1.4 firmware the speed is comparable to the GF1, maybe a flick slower, but who cares? Especially me who also likes to focus manually using the Leica. And almost equally important to mention: the IQ of this camera is simply amazing. This is one point in which all reviews were unanymously agreeying upon: Oly has probably the best JPG rendering engine of any camera out there to date. The images that I get out of the PEN at the end of the day are really of excellent quality. This is a point where I had a problem with the GF1, I needed to shoot in RAW because I did not like the JPG color rendering most of the time, especially with people's faces in the picture. On this level the PEN just whipes the floor with the GF1 [and most of the other camera's I have used in the past].

So it just shows: although the numerous review sites on the Internet provide a wealth of in-depth information on so many camera models, it is easy to loose oneself in the numbers game, to starting thinking as an engineer and start comparing number by number and bits 'n bytes, thus reaching your final decision on what camera to buy. But in reality a good camera is about more than pure numbers in the datasheet. It's how all elements come together and how it fits in your workflow, how it connects with you while you are shooting. This is something that cannot be poured into a datasheet or measured as a number, but it is equally if not more important that all the values in the datasheet...
So I would have never guessed about a year ago, but I did end up with a PEN and really like it!

Panasonic sells a converter that allows me to use Leica M-glass on my GF-1 [or any M4/3s camera in general]. It's a hefty 200€ though but I found a cheaper version online and bought it. It just got delivered today. Of course it has a big sticker on it "made in China". You always get what you pay for so I hope I'm not going to regret skimpin' on some euro's here. But time will tell. I did notice that there is some slack between the leica lens and the adapter once fitted, I'm sure it's not supposed to be there but that's probably already those saved up euro's coming to bite me :)

I thought I would use it to connect my Nokton Voightlander to the GF-1 this way what would result in a 80mm f/1.4. Would make for a nice portret lens I figured. Below you see what it looks like once mounted:


2 quick testshots in terrible light due to my utter laziness... you can see the very shallow DOF even with the smaller 4/3rds sensor. To my surprise it was not that difficult to focus manually this way on the GF-1, in fact it is easier since you're manipulating the lens directly and not using a focus-by-wire as used in the electronic Lumix lenses...

A while ago we went on a short getaway with the family and I had to choose what photo equipment to bring. I decided to go light and brought the Lumix LX2 and the Ricoh CX1 that I bought a short while before. So armed with two pockets in each pocket of my pants I was ready to go :)

In the end I have been pretty pleased with the results. I didn't miss my DSLR at that time, in fact I think it would have bothered me more if I had taken him with me since I would have left the whole package/rucksack thing more in the cottage than hauling it along for evening strolls etc... Instead I ended up with some great family snaps I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. During an early morning I forced myself out of bed and was welcomed with a beautiful sunrise above the lake near our cottage. A very curious swan came by to "make" my image. I didn't do much actually, just to be there and push the shutter button. Following the first rule of photography: be there :)

With compacts you don't have much leeway with your exposure, highlights and darks are more quickly clipped. In order to get the mood for the lighting in your scene just right you have to expose more carefully during the shot itself and tweak very carefully afterwards. But when everything comes together it can make for great images as well. To prove the point I posted some images [click for a larger view]:

Please indulge me writing down some thoughts here... I think it is important to elaborate a bit about pixel peeping, it's one of those new verbs brought to us by the digital photography revolution, and it has a profound impact on photography these days.

According to online dictionaries pixel peeping is the act of examination of digital imaging with maximum scrutiny often down to the very individual pixel level.

A benign statement in itself, but as I hinted in the title I think it has a profound impact on how a new generation of digital photographers now looks at their images. And also how a whole industry is actually taking advantage of it to their economic benefit! Let me explain:

In the old days the only way images were seen was on the paper they were printed on, or on the wall where the dia positive was projected, this was the case at least for most amateur photographers. So you ended up in fact with a complete overview of the picture and as such the images were also judged.
Digital photography in combination with computers and software changed all that. Now it is possible to zoom in to the individual pixel of the 24 million that are present in the file from a high-end camera. It has changed the way we view and judge images now profoundly: when examining a photograph I have not encountered a single person who does not use the magnifying glass, at least to zoom in to 100%. 
There is a whole group of "technophobe-photo-enthusiasts" out there populating the Internet photo community sites and fora who love testing and comparing different equipment by the technical quality of the images made with it at the pixel level, in the process the actual image itself is not that important anymore. Things like chromatic aberration, noise artifacts, pixel sharpness etc has become so important at these pixel levels, while viewing the picture as a whole they are completely unimportant. When browsing these fora, you get the feeling it's not about photography itself at all anymore, it's about technology.

It's also a great way for manufacturers to sell more camera's and other equipment! How do they do this? Simple: by playing along with the technology hypes in a handy way. Take a look at how many different camera models they now produce, the differences between subsequent models are mostly not that earth shattering. But they feed on the eagerness of those who lust after the best equipment they can get. Pixel peeping plays an extremely important role in this: by having the ability to examine at 100% you can see the improvements at the pixel level from the newer vs the older camera. In all fairness though when you take 2 identical pictures and look at them as a whole there is in most cases no difference at all to be seen. You have to go into zoom mode to start detecting differences... and thus the craving for the newer machine becomes a reality. So it has become much easier for the manufacturers to introduce new equipment multiple times a year, each time with marginal [sometimes bigger] improvements and continue to... sell and sell.
If the only way to look at our images would be the paper print from the olden days, there would be no compelling reason to buy new equipment, the images would still look practically the same using the 6-year old camera. Put the image on a 24-30 inch monitor though and you get a whole different story: whip out that wallet and buy the latest and greatest because look at these differences!!!

Now for the manufacturers it's also a double edged sword. Remember the case when Canon introduced the new 5DMarkII and on all those pixel peeping forums 100% crop images popped up showing what looked like a defect in the rendering of the image next to very bright spots -> you got a black spot... This is a 21Mpixel camera, so when viewing the image in it's own this hardly showed, if it did at all [and also only in certain circumstances] but that was it, the message was out and the fora and bulletin boards were full of it and more and more examples cropped up. I bet Canon would have cursed those pixel peeping Tom's at that moment ;)

The whole pixel peeping tendency is also fueled by the magazines of course [online and in print] by their frequent "battle of the camera" articles where they put different manufacturers head to head. Of course documented with the imperative 100% crops from all contenders... look at how these pixels differ from camera to camera. Of course it would be pointless to show the complete image in print because there would not be much comparing to do. 

I personally welcome the extremely high granularity in which we can alter and fine tune our images now using the digital darkroom techniques. But at the same time I grew to dislike the "push" in the market for getting newer equipment all the time, something that only became possible at this level now that everyone is looking with a giant digital magnifying glass at their [and each other's] images.

Who of you knew that actor Jeff Bridges also is an avid amateur photographer? He mainly shoots film and not just with any camera. He owns a Widelux, which is a very old mechanical panoramic camera. It takes pictures by exposing the film over an almost 180 degree viewpane. Instead of a normal shutter, there is a 'slit' which slides across the camera to sequencially expose the film. With slow shutterspeeds you can make some interesting images, for instances with the same person on the frame twice, by running quickly from one side to the other :)

Here is a recommendation for a website to visit often if you are interested in history, photography and black and white in particular:
Shorpy. On this site they continuously make hi-res scans of very, very old photographs. Most of them taken at the turn of the last century. So we are talking about images almost 100 years in age!
Here is what I found astonishing:

• apparently these old shoeboxes with lenses without any kind of coating in front made damn good and sharp pictures.
• some of these images have an immens feel of depth in them... and remember that these ppl did not have photoshop to play with!
• look at the following image for instance... sharp, good contrast etc. AND it dates back to 1921. Think someone will be able to read our DVD within a 100 years? I consider myself lucky if it’s even readable in 5!

Found this site when doodling on the Internet: http://ellisislandghosts.com/
Urbex photography with a professional touch to it... nice.
[it certainly does help when the place you're visiting has this rich and "loaded" history as this one.

Proof that Beringen Coalmine is a dangerous place to wander about... I guess we don't need it anymore. Over time more and more news bulletins mention people falling through ceilings etc... whether they be urbex photographers or just plain old copper thieves.