Are the days of the SLR numbered?

Posts from Scott Bourne  and Trey Ratcliff singing the  praises of these next-generation cameras coincided with the recent announcement of the Fuji X-Pro 1 system, and showed that the exciting action in the camera world at the moment is not happening with DSLRs.

Even Nikon’s release of the scary-good D4 hasn’t attracted that much attention (at least partly due to the scary-high price).

The Fuji system is carefully aimed at all the serious photogs who would love a Leica M9 but can’t or won’t pay the money for it (and the very spendy lenses). Fast primes mated to a small discrete body with a big sensor inside is the sort of stuff that gets our attention very quickly.

But with the Sony NEX series, the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3rds environment, the NIkon 1 series and the new Fujis we’re now looking at 4 different standards. Steve Huff, who definitely know what he’s talking about, maintains that none of them are the perfect choice right now, and that sounds about right.

But even if, as Trey Ratcliff argues, the days of the SLR are numbered, it seems  to me that it’s still too early for a lot of us to jump ship from our SLRs. From where I sit, surrounded by some Canon gear and some Micro 4/3rds gear, these are the things that are making me pause:

No clear comprehensive upgrade path

With the SLRs, Canon, Nikon and to a lesser extent Sony, you can choose one system and know that in three-five years you’ll still likely be with that system. I started with Canon because I inherited an old film SLR and lens from my mother in law. The body went almost immediately when I bought my Rebel XT, and the lens not too long after that.  But six years, 3 bodies and eight lenses later, it’s still Canon in my bag.

Right now with the mirrorless options, there’s so much new stuff emerging so quickly that you can’t know what the next best step is, let alone what will happen in three years’ time. My micro 4/3rds Olympus EPL-2 and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is a great combination, but I’m not even sure I’d get a single new M4/3rds lens or body now. The lens choices are good, but the sensors in the Sonys and new Fuji look much better.

On the other hand, while the Sony bodies look good, the lenses are pretty big and there aren’t that many options. And no-one’s even shot the Fuji, so it’s too early to say (although there’s a lot of love for its daddy, the X100).

Lots of money for less absolute quality

What you like about a camera isn’t just its potential image quality. Some of your other priorities might trump IQ – size, focus speed, lens choices, ergonomics . . . but for the same money as you’d spend on any of these mirrorless systems, you could get some really good SLR gear, that would perform better in absolute terms under quite a few real-world situations (so long as you had the camera with you – which is of course one of the great appeals of the smaller systems).

Depending on what you shoot, 90% of it could potentially be covered by the mirrorless setup you choose, and there is the ineffable appeal of something small enough to slip into a (albeit pretty large) pocket. But to me, there are enough limitations of all the systems currently that I couldn’t sell my 5D II, (even if I didn’t shoot video with it).

Limited depth of field control

Given the physics of using smaller sensors than the full-frame SLRs, and the limited number of extremely fast lenses, there are a bunch of shots that you just couldn’t get with these mirrorless cameras that you can with SLRs. I borrowed both the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.2  last year, and while I wasn’t completely sold on the 85mm, the 35mm f/1.4 just sang. And the creative options that both gave me, not even counting their low-light performance (which I’m charitably suggesting might be repeatable by some mirrorless in-camera ISO magic), is currently impossible for these mirrorless cameras to reproduce.

But since the Fujis and Sonys already have APS-C sized sensors, it’s quite possible we’ll see full-frame size sensors in the not too distant future, without the Leica price tag.

Where are Canon in all this?

I see they’ve released the G1 X, with a much larger sensor (which was always the Achilles heel of the G-series cameras before), which is good to see. But to stick a slow medium zoom on it makes it clear it’s not really for serious enthusiasts.

Maybe they’re afraid to cannibilize the sales of their DSLRs, but they’d be better to cannibilize those sales themselves, than see the money head off to Fuji or Sony. A small Canon mirrorless body with a big sensor and an EF-lens adapter would be a great thing to see – maybe the G1 X sensor (larger than a Micro 4/3rds) will be the basis of some interchangeable lens action in the future.

Pick your poison

I don’t want to sound like I’m dissing the mirrorless cameras (although I agree with Trey Ratcliff that ‘mirrorless’ isn’t a great name for them).  I just submitted a portfolio to get a place on a documentary photography workshop with Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Deanne Fitzmaurice, and realised that around half the images I submitted were shot with my EPL2.

My real point is that while the turbulence in the high-end digital market is exciting, it makes it hard to know where to spend your money next. I think there’ll be even more fragmentation for the next while, before things settle down.

Some people (mainly enthusiasts, I’m guessing) will take the money they would have spent on an SLR and some lenses, and put it into a mirrorless system that will be their only camera. There’ll get almost all the performance they would have got, and take more photos because their system is smaller and easier to lug around.

Some pros will stick solely with the big bodies because they’re too invested in the systems, don’t need the benefits the mirrorless cameras and/or shoot the kind of work that can only be done with full-on DSLRs – sports, wildlife, some portraiture.

Other folks (pros and wealthy amateurs) will run both sets of systems in parallel, choosing the right setup to leave the house with as the job or mood dictates that day.

I’m already in the third group, which is bad for my bank balance, but it’s exciting for the range of options now open to me and the rest of us. If only I could decide what my next step will be in the mirrorless arena.

We take photographs of our children for one main reason – to capture memories of the people we love. Images help us remember what they were like when they’re all grown up and living half a world away (like me – sorry, Mum).

Most of our memories get spun into stories – “Remember the time, when . . .?’ we ask each other, and the story we tell puts our loved one in context, as their actions reveal more about them.

And so while photos are a great way to trigger these stories, there are other techniques that can incorporate photos and also deepen the experience as well. Recently, I’ve been thinking more and more about different types of digital storytelling.

Just looking at individual photographs on our screens doesn’t fulfill all the potential current technology offers, and we don’t get a narrative flow that adds up to more of a story. Printed albums work because the images build on each other, and have a rhythm that is more rewarding for the person looking at them.

Digital productions with images, music, voiceovers and video can have a similar and even richer effect, and are becoming ever easier to do. There’s not even a good word for what these things are – slideshows, multimedia pieces . . . but whatever you call them, I’m becoming increasingly convinced they are a valuable tool.

A while ago, I produced this video of my daughter answering some questions, interspersed with some images. It was simple but I think it worked pretty well.

I’m still finding my way in producing these, but as another experiment, this time I went out with my daughter on an ‘explore’ in the arroyos and hillsides in our neighborhood. Where normally I might just grab the camera, shoot some stills and let them sit on my hard drive or post a few to Flickr for the family, this time I was intent on shooting some video as well as stills, and putting it together into a little package – that you can play above (if you haven’t already).

The video I shot is pretty ropey – the 5D Mark 2 produces excellent quality, but it’s only as good as the shaky-handed poor-focussing person holding it, but for something casual like this, I’m not too fussed. For real paying work I’d have it locked down on a tripod with a good microphone attached.

There are new skills to learn in creating this sort of work, of course. Some are technical – importing and editing video, dropping in music and stills – but the harder skills involve getting a sense for pacing and balance. How to tell a story well in this new medium.

But I can see plenty of uses for this approach – from children and family shoots, where you include some video too, through to commercial sessions, where you’re building a welcome video for the client’s site with some interview footage, music, video and stills.

Let me know your thoughts on this type of package, especially if you’ve tried it yourself. I’d love to see some good examples, too.

Attentive readers (hi, Mum), will perhaps recall that around this time last year, I tried out a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM  as a replacement for my able but unloved Canon 24-105 f/4 L.

The copy of the Sigma I received front-focussed badly, and since I had only the Canon 5D at the time as my main camera, I couldn’t use any micro-adjustments (even if that would have worked).

Sigma offered to calibrate the lens with that body, but I declined, as I wanted to it work on all the cameras I might potentially have, not just one. The lens went back.

With some regret, I must say, as I liked the feel and size of it (especially compared to the larger Canon 24-70 f/2.8 aka ‘the brick’), and liked some of the images I shot with it.

A year later, and I still had the 24-105mm largely gathering dust on the shelf, but now I also had a 5D Mk II to complement the older 5D. B & H had a (temporarily) good price on the Sigma ($799 instead of the usual $899 in the US), so I took the plunge again. And as this review shows, I’m glad I did.

This copy out of the box just worked. Sharp and fast, with none of the front focussing issues of the other copy. So why did I get it, when I’m normally such a proponent of prime lenses?

Studio-type work

Given my two-camera approach for paid sessions on location (a 35mm f/2 on one camera and and 85mm f/1.8 on the other), I wasn’t thinking of using this much on regular shoots.

But I might try it in place of the 35mm f/2, so I can go wider still – there’s a big difference between 24mm and 35mm (much more obvious than, say, the difference between 70mm and 81mm).

I can also see other professional uses for the lens, mainly in studio-type shooting. The times I have used the 24-105mm professionally have been school class photos (where I was shooting at f/8 and on a tripod), and the indoor portrait sessions, where I used off-camera flash. In other words, work in a controlled environment where the flexibility of the zoom was more important than narrow depth of field, and the lens was in its sweet spot as far as sharpness was concerned.

Soon after the Sigma arrived, I volunteered my time (with fellow photographers Minesh Bacrania, Charles Kiyanda and Henrik Sandin) to work on Santa Fe’s Help Portrait – we shot portraits for the growers, farm workers and vendors at the Santa Fe Farmers Market. We shot hundreds and hundreds of frames using the 24-70 in a studio-type setup with backfrops and off-camera flashes and it did really well.

Low-light walkaround

To me, wider aperture offered by the Sigma at f/2.8 was the single biggest reason for replacing the 24-105mm f/4 – to create the most useful walkaround lens when I’m only using one body. Unless I’m under the sort of circumstances described above, I live under f/4, partly for the narrow depth of field and partly for manageable shutter speeds indoors.

On a full-frame camera, the Sigma vignettes a little wide at f/2.8, but that’s easily correctable if you don’t like it, but otherwise it’s sharp, contrasty and fast to focus. I’ve not tested it myself, but from reviews the vignetting understandably isn’t such an issue on smaller sensor cameras.

See the vignette against the white wall on the left? Canon 5D II w. Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM at 55mm. f/2.8, 1/1000, ISO 800. Some levels and contrast adjustments - so the vignette wouldn't be so noticeable straight out of camera.

If I’m carrying one camera around, and want it to be more flexible than the Olympus EPL-2 and Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 duo that’s almost always with me, then the 5dII with the Sigma 24-70mm is now my go-to choice.

Early (very early) on Christmas morning, that was the setup I grabbed to photograph Miss F opening her presents. I still adhere to the idea that if you’ve got 2 cameras to hand, a wide prime and a tighter prime offer the best combination for ultimate quality. But when you’re bleary-eyed and only want to have one camera around your neck, then this fast zoom really shines.

I could get the wide establishing shots, and the capture-the-details tighter images without any bother, all while blurring the background and keeping the shutter speed fast without jacking up the ISO too much.

Downsides

• While it’s lighter and shorter than the Canon 24-70 and has a lens hood you can turn round on the lens and still put the camera down, it’s still pretty chunky. To me, its size and weight are an advantage compared to its competitors, but it’s a lot more substantial than most primes.
• It’s not weather-sealed like the Canon L lenses, and it takes crazy wide 82mm filters, which you probably won’t have to hand from your other lenses.
•  I got a good copy this time, but had a dodgy one before. For this much money, you’d like Sigma to get the quality control right, so there’s no messing. So I’d recommend buying it locally or from someone with good returns policy so you can check it out well.

Upsides

•  Great image quality – sharp, with good contrast
•  F/2.8 for good low light and narrow depth of field options
•  Cheaper than the Canon alternatives
• Built like a tank (except for the weather sealing). So it will take a beating, just don’t take it out in a downpour or sandstorm.

Conclusion

I like this copy of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM . To the point where the Canon 24-105mm went off to eBay, and if you offered me the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM in its place, I don’t think I’d take it. Just make sure you get a good one.

As snow and cold weather embrace Santa Fe this week, how about a reminder of what a gorgeous autumn we had?

This shoot for Laura and Rick and their children Merrick and Milana took place on a lovely Sunday afternoon, and featured Merrick’s signature red hat.

Sometimes the ‘correct’ thing to do for the shoot – it’s easier to photograph someone when they’re not wearing a wide-brimmed hat – isn’t the right thing.

Merrick wears his hat all the time, its’ a part of what makes him hime right now, and that needed to be shown in the session (I also shot some without the hat).

The session went really well, and some of the images were made in a lovely accordion folding holiday card – see below.

A piece I wrote and photographed for New Mexico Magazine has appeared in the December issue – and getting the shots was a bit more intrepid than the work I normally do.

Back in March, I went up to a snowy field beside the Brazos Pass in northern New Mexico to talk to and photograph Stuart Penny, who teaches snowkiting – a fast-growing and exciting winter sport.

The snow was really deep – one step the crust on top would support you, but the next you’d be post-holing up to your crotch in the white stuff.

Stuart was teaching a class, and I hung out for a while watching him instruct his pupils on how to harness the wind to have them zooming across the the snow.

When the class was over, we talked about the sort of shots I wanted and how to get them. I wanted some wide establishing shots to show what the sport was about (both in landscape and portrait formats to give the designers options when it came to layout), some close-up portraits and then some shots of him in the air.

I’d not shot snowkiting before, so beforehand I’d checked online to see what other photographers were doing with it. This gave me a sense of some of the issues I’d face, and helped me visualize what I’d be looking for. One of the ideas I liked was getting the kiter in the air with the sun in the shot, too (shown here in the upper of my two beautiful sketches).

One question was that for the activity to make sense to people who’d not seen it before (like most of the New Mexico Magazine readers), I needed to show the ground, Stuart and the kite – shown in the lower of the two sketches.

Shots of him in the air without the ground or the kite would work well as supplementary images, but wouldn’t tell the whole story. I knew that this piece was likely to run only on one page (two if the images were good enough), so the establishing shots and portraits were the must-haves.

So with all this preparation, Stuart and I quickly came up with a plan. Based on the direction of the winds, he showed me how he’d go aways a little, turn around and then come straight at me. He said he’d stay on the ground for a couple of passes, before going round again and getting airborne.

‘I aim to go straight over your head,’ he said calmly. ‘I probably won’t hit you, but just in case, be ready to get out of the way quickly.’

This could be a problem, as running wasn’t an option. I figured if I had to, I could just fold myself over face down in the snow.

Stuart nailed his passes, and as he flew over my head I racked my 24-105mm lens as wide as I could and kept shooting (click on any of following images for a larger versions).

The snow acted as a great reflector throwing light up into his face, so even with the sun behind him, the images worked well.

Not a normal day at the office for me, but one I greatly enjoyed.

Here’s what that sketch of a snowkiter airborne with the sun turned into:

And I like this one with Stuart looking at us with snow coming off the back of his board.

And finally, the man on the ground:

The text of the article is here.

And you can learn more about Stuart on his site.

Shooting older children can be more tricky in some ways than, say, preschoolers – the older kids are more self-conscious and (wisely) more suspicious of a bloke with a funny accent showing up with a bag of cameras.

It’s my job to try and make people feel comfortable, which I do in a number of ways. Some of it is just personality, and I talk to children pretty much as I’d talk to adults, which seems to go down well whatever age they are. I also start slowly, learning a little more about the girl or boy, and assessing their temperament.

I tend to meet them where I find them – if they’re quiet and subdued, I’ll be quieter and smaller in my gestures and suggestions. If they’re energetic and full of beans, I’ll be running around with them in no time.

Here are some images from a shoot earlier this year, where the subject Heather (I’m not using her real name, at her parents’ request) tolerated me very graciously. She’s funny and open, and loves dogs – we got on well.

Shot in her yard in the early morning, we picked spots where the angled light would be attractive but not too harsh, and I used a reflector both to bounce light up into her face when she was backlit, or to diffuse some of the harsher light in other spots.

I got stains on the knees of my trousers from kneeling down to capture Heather playing with her dogs, but only an idiot wears light trousers to a photoshoot, so I got what I deserved.

I was talking to Heather throughout the whole shoot, and a couple of times she had this great look as she thought about the silly question I’d just asked her. I was very glad I caught it:

The dogs were friendly and keen to play, so I spent a little time getting their portraits too.

After seeing the photographs, Heather’s mum said, ‘you have a wonderful way of making people feel comfortable, especially children. [Heather] was very open with you and that was reflected in the photos.’

I couldn’t wish for better feedback.

Why do we why find it so hard to do the things we know we should do? I don’t even mean exercising or eating the right things here – I’m just thinking about taking photographs.

As keen photographers of whatever stripe, you’d think we’d be out the whole time firing off shot after shot, especially now there’s no immediate cost to shooting one more digital image.

But I’ve found that unless I have a paying job, the cameras might stay in their bag from one week to the next. And the longer this goes on, the more grumpy I get.

So I came up with a two-fold plan to counteract this. The first stage was to buy the Olympus EPL-2 (part of the PEN series) and the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens and leave them in my laptop bag, so I’d always have a camera with me.

This stage wasn’t completely necessary, but I did leave the big lad at home more than I’d bring it, unless I was going out to shoot something specific.

The second step was to set myself a challenge to post eight images every week to a new Tumblr site I set up, called 8 Days a Week. A photo project was born

I thought that I’d be likely to fail if I made myself shoot every day, but I still wanted to make taking photographs into a habit, so delivering eight images every Monday seemed reasonable. That way, if there were three or four good shots from one day, and none for a couple of days, my system was flexible enough to deal with it.

I’m into my fourth week now, and it’s amazing what a feeling of obligation can do for you, even if it’s self-imposed. Our dog comes to the office with us most days, so I grab the camera while she’s getting her lunchtime walk, and at other times too I’m looking for images in a way I wasn’t before.

No Pressure

Most of the time I’m not thinking about whether the images are good or not, I’m just getting them in the camera, and I’ll worry about quality later. That way, there’s no pressure on me to produce – I can just follow my nose.

And coming up with only 8 images each week that I’ll be sharing with the world doesn’t seem that frightening.

Often it seems I don’t have the willpower to make myself do things when my internal resistance tells me that I have to work or that there’s no point taking these stupid shots anyway.

But I am a creature of habit, and if I can persuade myself that I’m just messing around anyway, I can sneak in some shooting before the resistance knows what’s happening. That, and it’s fun.

You can see all three weeks’ work here, or on the Clearing the Vision Facebook page

Do you have routines or customs that get you out shooting when you otherwise wouldn’t? Let me know in the comments section below, I’d love to hear them.

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about what children’s photography is actually about. You’d think it has a simple answer – it’s about taking photos of kids (duh).

That’s what we do, but that’s not why we do it, whether we’re professionals or taking photographs of our own children. Clients of mine say they want the photographs for a number of reasons – for holiday cards, to send to the grandparents, to mark a birthday, but I think what they really want is to tell the story of their child at a particular time in their life, and (even more importantly) to show how much they love them.

That’s certainly why I do an annual photo session with my own daughter every Fall (here are some images from 2009′s session). We use the same place – our kind neighbor’s lovely garden – and over time these images will build up to an ongoing record of her as she grows and changes.

We want her to look good in the photographs, of course, but more, we want to look authentically like her which is a little different. When I’m showing clients the photographs from their sessions, I can sometimes predict the images they’re going to love, but just as often they see in some of them something about their child that I can’t see (because I don’t know them well enough). It might be a facial expression (‘that’s so him’) or an activity, but it’s something that means more to them than I could have predicted.

Which is why I don’t shoot in a studio and pose the children – I want them to be really them, not to be little models for the afternoon, so they look like themselves when the images come off the camera.

Deepening the Experience

If parents want to tell the story of their child, then still images are definitely one excellent way.

But I’ve also been looking at incorporating video into the mix too. So for this year’s shoot with my daughter, I asked her a few questions on camera, and edited her answers together with some stills.

The real value is not so much in her answers (though these will be nice to have in a few years’ time), but in watching her answer them. Hearing her voice, seeing how she moves – these are the things that bring her to life. The video elements, together with the stills, tell a richer story about her than the stills alone.

Not Hard to Do

This approach is something you can do easily – I shot the video on my Canon 5D II, using an external microphone (that wasn’t quite close enough to my daughter), but you could use any number of video shooting devices for it – iPhone, Flip, whatever. So long as it’s locked down on a tripod or something else similarly stable, you’ll be fine.

As with still photography, look for a spot where the light is relatively even and where the subject will looking out from shade to a brighter area, to get some catchlights that will make their eyes twinkle.

I edited it on iMovie on my Mac, using a free music track sourced from the great Vimeo music library.

I thought about stripping out the voice track and running her answers over some more photographs, but her facial expressions and reactions to the questions were so good that I just kept the audio and video together for the answers, and ducked the level of the audio track up for the photographs, and down for the video.

The grandparents completely loved it, and Fionnuala enjoyed the video session too. Definitely something to do for next year too. I’ll still be taking any number of still images, but I’m happy with the way the impromptu video session came out.

And if you’ve got some examples of a similar hybrid approach you’ve made yourself or seen elsewhere, I’d love to take a look at them.

This time, I look at the pros and cons of mirrorless cameras. The article begins:

Up until recently, there were two main paths you could take when choosing a digital camera. As we know, point and shoots offer affordability, small size and convenience, but the trade-offs are limited manual options and constrained image quality.

You can read the rest of the analysis over at Digital Photography School.