I mentioned several reasons that full frame cameras are more versatile in a prior post, but I also missed an important issue with micro four thirds when compared to Canon/Nikon cameras.

According to USA Today,  the m43 (micro four thirds) format is extremely unpopular in the United States.  According to the article, "Of the 1.8 million cameras shipped in the Americas (not just the USA) in April, a measly 38,843 of them were mirrorless — 2% of the total."


Also, Olympus received a large investment from Sony last year, so it is easy to speculate on how long they will be in the business of making these cameras.  If they decide to drop m43, it would leave Panasonic as the only company making m43 cameras.   For those investing in Olympus lenses, this would leave them without image stabilization because Olympus puts stabilization in their bodies rather than their lenses (unlike Panasonic).  


I should mention that I am a big fan of the format because of the small lenses and camera sizes.  Also, the cameras and lenses are often cheaper than the other formats.  The ability to add an adapter and use these cameras with most any lens ever made gives them even more appeal.


However, with so many questions about the longevity of the format, it makes it a tough decision on whether I should invest money in the lenses.  Yeah, my EPL5 (my initial impression are here) should work for a long time, but as I mentioned in my other article, there are plenty of improvements that need to made.  I currently have 3 lenses and I would like to add a few more, but they aren't exactly cheap.

The popular thought on DSLR lenses is that they are worth the money because they can be used on new camera models in the future and they will usually continue to hold a lot of their value.  This allows a consumer to feel justified in spending money on lenses.  They are investment for now and in the future.   My mindset is that the Canon 100mm, that I bought for a 20D about 8 years ago, will still be in my Canon kit in another 8 years.  I worry that the m43 lenses will only work with cameras bought today and in the near future and will not work on cameras down the road.  This, in theory, makes the purchase of an m43 lens more of a gamble compared to a DSLR lens, unless you only care about using it today.

My plan is to wait a while before buying any new lenses.  I currently have m43 lenses the cover 28-300mm and 20mm f1.7 for low light.   When I need something else (which will be rare), I am going to just rent the lens for now.  Luckily, there is a lens rental company near by, so I can save on shipping.

I should mention that I may decide that using the camera now with great lenses outweighs the question of future use and buy a couple more lenses .  I just can't decide how much money I want to spend on this format right now, which is a major problem for the format if others are asking themselves the same question.  

I really do hope the m43 has a future and that the current companies making bodies will continue to improve. I just wonder if the market for these cameras will grow.   The smartphone cameras are getting better and better, so the market for the intermediate, small camera could continue to shrink, while a great portion of serious photographers will continue to buy full frame DSLRs because of their many advantages.  I guess time will tell and I certainly don't have a crystal ball.

Since buying an Olympus Pen E-PL5 (that I reviewed here), I have been reading a lot about micro four thirds cameras to learn more about them.  

While doing research, I have run across a few articles about why some photographers are completely switching to micro four thirds (m43) for their work.   A couple of these photographers are professionals, which seems to lend extra weight to their articles.  (Keep in mind that most m43 articles are positive toward m43.  Many full frame shooters have never considered switching, so they don't write articles about it.)

As has been said, the photographer is more important than the equipment.  As an example, there are pros using the iPhone as their main camera.  Therefore, it goes without saying that a pro can use an m43, a fixed lens camera, an iPhone or just about anything else that takes photos and still make a living.  The question is whether your photography is more stylized with a fixed lens or requires the flexibility of a full frame.

One article mentioned several myths of the difference between full frame and m43.  Included in this list is "the low light argument".  The author agrees that full frame (FF) is better than m43 in low light, but he apparently doesn't believe that this type of feature is a benefit.  After all, he says photographers haven't be concerned with low light capabilities for the majority of the past "100 years".   While this may be true, people survived without running water for 100s of years, but we still like the benefit of technology that allows us to do things we could not do in the past.  

Of course, if you always shoot with a flash, other lighting, or outdoors in great light, I guess you don't care about getting better, low noise pics in lower light?  I would guess that most amateurs and many pros, would care, but apparently that idea is not totally universal.

Second, the article's second myth is "the shallower depth of field argument". He makes the argument that most pictures do not need shallow depth of field, and that when you do need it, you can shoot with one of the f1.8 prime lenses or add blur in Photoshop.  Keep in mind that Canon makes a 50mm f1.8 that costs $125 and they also make a 50mm f1.2 that cost $1400.  Obviously, Canon sells quite a few of these much more expensive lenses for a reason.  People want the ability to shoot in low light or blur out a bad background.  While even the inexpensive iPad Snapseed app has a feature to blur background, this can be time consuming and nearly impossible if you have a background that is similar in color to a subject's clothing or hair.  Also, many photographers want to take a more photojournalistic approach with less editing.

The  so called "myths" above are often the main difference in the price of lenses.  If you want a fast lens, you can pay a lot more money for it.  The other issue is that the m43's f1.8 lenses do not blur background the same way an f1.8 lens does on a FF camera.  It would require an f 0.9 to get the same depth of field.  Keep in mind, that f1.8 on a FF is a lot cheaper than an f1.2, so good luck finding an f0.6 lens to get a DOF similar to an f1.2.

This is my main issue with the m43 system right now and why I plan to keep two systems (FF and m43).  If you want a fast zoom on m43, you currently need to spend over $1100 on a Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 or $1300 on the 35-100mm f2.8.  These will get you the same DOF as a f5.6 on a FF.  I don't mind the blur difference between f2.8 and f4 for the major difference in price and weight, but going to f5.6 will definitely make a difference.  

While I don't disagree with many of his other arguments, I do believe that the higher pixel count on many FF cameras make up a lot of the difference in the 2x crop factor for telephoto lenses.   The best m43 sensors are currently using around 16 megapixels vs the 36 megapixels on the Nikon D800.  With more than double the megapixels, a nature photographer could easily crop down a photo to make up for the difference in "crop factor".  Also, many photographers, obviously not the author of the article,  prefer wider angles than 24mm.   There is a reason that Canon has the 16-35mm f2.8, 17-40mm f4, and a 10-22mm (APS-C).  Panasonic makes a well reviewed 7-14mm m43 lens, so I am not sure why the author believes there is an issue with wide angle photos on m43, but I thought I would respond to this argument.

While the author of the "myths" article apparently doesn't care about shooting with high ISOs, shallow DOF, or ultra wide angles, my guess is that many photographers do care about these differences.  In many ways, a casual photographer needs more flexibility in their lenses than a pro photographer that mainly shoots a specific type of photo.  As an example, a person could be a pro and only shoot in a professionally lighted studio with subject matter that doesn't move and have a staff of editors that apply "enhancements".  For the casual photographer, most of us want tons of flexibility.  In one trip to New Orleans, for example, I may want an ultra wide lens for shooting inside a church, a fast lens for blurring out backgrounds to isolate a subject in a parade or on the street, or need to shoot at high ISOs in a jazz club.  These needs are different from a professional still life photographer.  Also, I have to edit my own photos, so I would rather get the photo as close to "print ready" when I take it.

While I do love the ability to stuff a camera in a jacket and have it with me, I am still not anywhere close to selling my Canon equipment to switch to shooting with m43 all the time.  For one reason, the main benefit to m43 is the size and weight and Canon is already making a small APS-C camera that doesn't lose autofocus with their regular lenses (while using an adapter) and they also make a few small lenses to work with it.  If they continue to make and expand on these small lenses and progress in several areas that they are lagging behind the m43s, I would rather go that direction.   It would allow me to keep my current Canon lenses, give me more time to switch to smaller lenses, and also give the benefit of using the larger lenses with a smaller or larger camera and not lose autofocus like you do with m43 and an adapter.  For me, a larger camera is often easier to balance, has more dials and buttons, and feels better in the hand (I have big hands).   Many times, I would pick the larger camera even if the performance was the same.  

For now, I am happy with what I get from m43, but it is no where close to the capabilities of FF.   Here is a feature comparison of the OMD EM5 (which is the m43 mentioned in the article) vs the 5D MarkIII.  I have an E-PL5, which is even lower rated than the EM5, so the difference is even bigger.  That doesn't mean it won't take great pictures, but it is currently not as flexible as a full frame.  

I hold out hope that Canon will continue to improve on the EOS M and I won't ever need to give up on their lenses or make a switch....I prefer expansion over a burn it down and start over approach.  I only have three m43 lenses, so I could change over to EOS M with very little effort.  Right now, I am getting by with the combination of both camera systems and an adapter that will allow manual focus on the E-PL5 with my current Canon lenses.  I know this article sounds like I am bashing the m43, but I am mainly just pointing out the differences and why they matter to me.  I bought the m43 because it will fit in a jacket pocket and the 5D won't.  In other words, the m43 still has one major benefit over FF.    

***I forgot to mention that the Continuous Autofocus on the FF (I have a Canon 5D Mark III)  is much better than the Continuous AF on the E-PL5.  I guess the author of the "myth" article can't explain that away.  I really do hope that M43 catches up in the areas that it can because I do like the idea of a small system, but it just isn't there yet.  As I said, this doesn't mean you can't get great shots with m43, but there are compromises that will need to be made for certain types of shooting.  For me, it is worth having both systems right now.

Last year, I put together a list for my top ten tech.   As with last year, my list will consist of some things that have been around longer than this year, but I have now paid enough attention to buy it or to add it to my wishlist. 

Canon 5D Mark III - This was my favorite new device in 2012.  While there were cameras that came to market with many more megapixels.  This camera has better low light performance, faster frames per second, and is just a better all around camera, in my opinion and for my needs.   Popular Photography also named it their camera of the year.

Big Green Egg - I have wanted one of these forever and finally got one in 2012.  Whether I am making a steak, pizza, smoked turkey, pork butt, etc...  The Egg never lets me down.

Black Rapid RS7 (with Carry Speed Mounting Plate) -  When I found out that I had a pinched nerve in my neck, I knew I needed to find a way to carry my camera without adding more stress.  The black rapid hangs over the shoulder and makes it a lot easier to carry a camera.  I also bought the Carry Speed Mounting Plate since it allows a tripod to be attached without removing the strap.

iPad with Retina screen - I bought an iPad 3 earlier this year.  The main reason I updated from my Original iPad was the retina screen and LTE.  Apple has already updated the iPad to the 4th version and it would be my pick if I did not already own the 3.  The retina screen makes text, video and photos much better than the original iPad.

Eye-Fi Pro X2 - Since my camera now has a CF and SD card, I send a RAW file to the CF card and a medium jpeg to the Eye-fi.  This allows me to send photos from the Eye-fi to an iPhone/iPad without a computer.  I really like this for updating Flickr or other websites when I am on vacation.  Since buying it, I usually leave my laptop at home and travel with an iPad only.

Maverick ET732 - These are for remotely watching the temperature on your grill.  There are two probes..one for the grill and the other for the food.  I used mine all summer and it was nice to be able to keep an eye on things while sitting on the couch.

Geotag Photo Pro app - This is an app that works with an iPhone or Android device that can be used to Geotag photos when you shoot with a camera without a Geotagging feature.   

Google Nexus7- While I have never owned a Google device, this had to be on my top ten list this year.  It costs $130 less than the iPad mini and has a better screen.  While I have no need for this size of a device, it is hard to ignore a tablet that costs less than $200 with the ability to run so many apps.   As I mentioned before, if you have a ton of money tied up in Apple apps already, it may make the difference in price more acceptable.  Personally, I would get this or wait for Apple to put a better screen on the mini.

Logitech Wireless Speaker Adapter for Bluetooth® audio devices - While I prefer Airplay when I am on a wifi network, sometimes you get outside a network and still want to wirelessly handle audio streaming.   I bought one of these for our sunroom and it works great.   I simply hooked it up to an amp (t-amp) that feeds a pair of outdoor speakers.  Then I paired my iPhone or iPad to it and it worked like a charm.  

Weebly web hosting - While I don't know that  I have ever mentioned my web host, I thought this would be a good time to do it.   It makes setting up a website extremely easy and their customer service is simply fantastic.  Before I was on Weebly, I was using a competitor and getting them to help with anything was a waste of time.  However, I had an issue this year that I needed help with and Weebly told me the steps I needed to do and they did the rest.  (I pay Weebly the same as everyone else with a pro account, so I am not saying this because they pay me).

Of course, there are some things I didn't mention...Photoshop CS6, Lightroom 4, Flipboard app, Splashtop Win8, VM Ware Fusion 5, Phillips Fidelio Airplay speaker, iPhone5,  etc..  but there are always cuts that need to be made.

The Black Rapid RS-7 is a camera strap that replaces the strap that comes with your camera.  It hangs over one shoulder and goes across your chest and the camera hangs near your waist.  Below is a picture from Black Rapid's website that shows how it hangs:

A month ago, I went to the zoo with my Canon 100-400mm hanging around my neck on the Canon strap that came with the camera.  When I got home, my neck was killing me.  I had been diagnosed with a pinched nerve in my neck several months before hand and carrying a camera started to be part of the problem. I needed to find a better way!

I started researching some new solutions since I was unaware that there was a market for this type of thing.   While there are cheaper straps on the market, the many positive reviews for Black Rapid caught my attention.  

Also, I noticed that Black Rapid had some storage solutions that could be attached or removed depending on the situation.  While they do make a strap that has storage built in, I prefer the ability to remove it when I won't be needing it (like when I have a camera bag with me).  I ended up buying their "Joey-3" storage solution.  It can hold and iPhone and a couple memory cards:

Another  selling  point was how it would fit.  I am 6'4 (or so) and they actually make an extender for tall folks.  I figured that I could order it if I needed it.  Thankfully, the strap fit fine, but this type of attention to detail says a lot about the thought that went into making this strap.

I did have one major issue with the strap.  The way it connects to the camera does not leave a way to connect a tripod.  Therefore, anytime I need to use  a tripod, I would have to remove the strap.  Not really something I want to do!

Luckily, Carry Speed also makes straps and had a remedy.  Instead of using the Black Rapid ConnectR-2 to attach the strap to the camera, I am using the Carry Speed Mounting Plate (you can see it on my camera at the top of this review).  I bought two of them and may buy a couple more just in case they are discontinued:

The other benefit of this plate is that the camera connects to the side of the camera, rather than in the middle.  For me, this allows it to hang steadier and closer to the body.  

So, how does it perform?  Fantastically!  With the weight being distributed on my shoulder and chest, rather than my neck, I can carry everything easier.  Even my 3 pound 100-400mm lens is a lot easier to manage.   Also, the camera is at your side, rather than the middle of your chest, so it is more stealthy for street photos.

Finally, this is one one of the best additions to my photography kit that makes it easier to carry around a camera all day.   When it comes to photography, being able to comfortably carry your camera means you will take the camera with you more often and in return you will have more opportunity to take photos.  Nothing is really more important than that!!

As I have mentioned, I got a new camera, and unfortunately, it does not include GPS data with the photos.  Of course, Canon has a nice solution for you....however, it costs over $250 and attaches to the  flash hot shoe.  From what I can tell, you can't use a flash while using the GPS (GP-E2).

I was preparing for a trip to the Smoky Mountains and decided to try out a cheaper solution.  The iPhone has several apps for GPS tracking, but I went with Geotag Photos Pro ($3.99) after reading some reviews online.   They do have a free version, but I did not try it.

When I arrived in the mountains, I opened the app, synchronized the time with my camera and started a "new trip" and began recording.  Since I was not getting a signal from AT&T at the location, I was wondering if the app would actually work.  To my surprise, it had no problems.  

The iPhone battery does burn down faster than it would in sleep mode, but I got through a day of shooting with about half the battery left.  We weren't in my vehicle, so I was unable charge the phone during the day (note to self:  buy a car charger).

At some point, I gave the app my email address and then I uploaded the logged data.  When I got back home, I setup a password on their website and downloaded their desktop app.  Once I had the app installed, I opened it, chose the folder with the photos and had it attach the GPS data.  

After several hours, it finished attaching the GPS data to my 1300 or so RAW files.  I am not sure if it takes less time with smaller jpegs, but you may want to keep this in mind if you need to work with your folders quickly.   Also, I made the mistake of importing my files into Lightroom before attaching the GPS information.   The GPS data did not automatically attach, so I had to remove the photos from Lightroom and reimport them.   The GPS data was now there and I was able to click on the map and see the location of the photos.

Since I have so many photo files, I can't say for sure that all of them have correct data, but with the several files I have checked, the location seems correct ( I was in the mountains, so it is a bit difficult to pinpoint the exact location of a photo.  I would like to try it in the city before saying for sure).

After attaching the GPS, I still had issues uploading the information to Flickr from Lightroom.  However, I exported the photo to Aperture and didn't have any issues with the GPS information being attached.  Click the picture below to see the map (on the right of the photo):

As you can tell, I like this app.  For $3.99, it is a bargain!

I have been looking for a camera bag that looks a bit more like a typical travel bag.  I ran across a cool bag called a Belstaff 556 messenger bag.  It has been in "I Am Legend" with Will Smith and has a nice rugged look.  It appears that there are a lot of copies and it is hard to tell what is legit and what isn't.  I found one place in England that appears authentic, but it cost $418!  I like the bag, but not that much.

I decided to check out eBay and ran across the BBK series of bags.  They have a similar look to the Belstaff, but have inserts for cameras.  Also, the BBK4, the largest version, was less than $60 with the insert.  Seemed pretty reasonable and I may actually buy a smaller version of the bag if this one holds up for a while.

While I will mainly carry this with a 24-105mm, 70-200mm, and an 85mm with a camera body, I decided to load it up to see what I could fit if I needed to:

The pic above shows:

100-400mm (with case)
5D Mark III
The Pod
iPhone (for Eyefi card if I want to store pics on the 64GB iPhone)
iPad (if I want to see photos on a larger screen)
microfiber towel
85mm
24-105mm
1.4x and 2x teleconverters
50mm

The case comes with a piece of padded material that can fold over the inside of the case for added protection.  It also has a couple internal and 4 external pockets. 

As you can see, everything fits okay, but I will rarely have it packed so tight.  I prefer a backpack for long trips that I want to pack a lot of lenses.  I guess the main question is whether the bag will hold up to a lot use and how long it will take before it falls apart.  It seems pretty sturdy when it is packed really tight, so I am guessing it will hold up pretty well to my normal use.  Only time will tell.  

To update or not to update, that is the question...

Over the past 8 years, I have been using a Canon 20D for all of my DSLR needs.  The 20D was an amazing revelation at that time.  I was using a 4 megapixel Canon point and shoot (still have it with a case for underwater photos) and I decided to step up to something better since I was committed to a "picture a day" on a website called Pbase.

Over the past couple of years, the 20D started to feel more and more out of date.  However, I never really saw a new camera hit the market that didn't feel like I was making a compromise.

The Nikon D800 hit the market in recent days.  It has a gaudy 36.3 megapixels!!  Wow!  The amount of detail you can get with that kind of sensor would be amazing.  

At the same time Canon came out with the Canon 5D Mark III which is a more expensive 22.3 megapixel camera.  At first blush, it sounds a bit ridiculous to charge more for a camera with 14 fewer megapixels.  However, as with all things, purpose sometimes outweighs everything.  For example, if you need to haul lumber, you might go with a pickup truck over a Toyota Prius even if the Prius gets much better gas milage.  

Since I am a one camera kind of guy, I needed a camera that could do everything I needed without a lot of fuss.  The main thing that has been holding me back is the fact that full frame cameras have had slow shutter speeds in the consumer market.  I wanted something to shoot fast moving pups, bees, birds, horses, etc.   

The 6 frames per second speed of the Mark III was a  meaningful step forward.  The D800 can also produce 6 frames per second if you use the $415 (Amazon's price today) Nikon Grip (which brings the price closer to the Mark III).  Also, even with the grip you would need to  have a lot of battery power left to get 6 frames per second.  However, you can't produce full RAW photos.  From what I understand, you have to use DX mode which is equivalent to 15.3 MP.  Also, the buffer is said to be slower, which would slow you down after you took your initial shots.  Personally, I don't want the extra weight of the grip all the time and the DX factor would kill the one main stat that makes the D800 so special.  

That being said, if I had Nikon lenses, I would have gone that route.  The fact that I have Canon lenses and did not want to sell everything was a major decision in my choice, as well.  Also, my dad shoots Canon, so losing access to his lenses also made the choice easier.

As you can tell, I ended up buying the 5D Mark III.  Since I only buy a new camera once every 8 years or so, I felt it was worth the money, even if I think it is a bit overpriced compared to the Nikon D800.  Also, I can sell some of my APS-C (only work on smaller sensors) lenses to help pay for it. Personally, I think it is a better "all around" camera than the Nikon and that was my main consideration.  However, if I was mainly shooting landscapes, I would have had a harder choice to make.