Digging up my Mac past

I've been on Windows since spring 2018 and it hasn't been all that great.  It smoothed out until update 1809 and 1909 was even more rocky.  The most recent updates managed to eat my drive data.  Even after a visit to a repair service, I ended up with a reset all the way back to factory.  At this moment, I can't really use the machine and it's a shame with all those games.

For two years, I haven't had my music or a recent backup of my music, which has led me to some frustration.  I also left some projects undone and I just wanted to get an inexpensive Mac that would allow me to revive things.  I've been searching a very long time.

On OfferUp, I wasn't sure whether the machines were stolen or not but the prices weren't all that good for the damged look of some of the machines and the distance I'd have to travel.  Apple, of course, has only machines three years old or newer, which would be too much money for minimum wage me.  Newegg has had machines, but they often have third parties with poor ratings, and I'm not very trusting.

A couple of weeks ago, I came across a mid-2012 quad core i7 with a GeForce 650M, almost like mine--one step down.  The price was acceptable, but the 4 GB of RAM left me unsure as to whether it would be able to restore my final backup, although the 500 GB 5400 rpm disk drive was sufficient.

I ordered it on a Sunday night.  By Tuesday, they had finished packaging and its status was "Label created".  It stayed that way, even after it arrived several days later.

The machine looked almost new.  The display hinges are a little weak, but since I've got my (dead) machine, I can probably have those switched.  The machine has only 512 MB of VRAM, in contrast to my machine having 1 GB.  It probably doesn't matter a lot because how many games are available for an 8 year old machine?  GOG has some, though.  What's more important is using that GPU to speed up photo and video processing.

Getting the machine up and running was a struggle.  It complained about the backup being from a newer version of the operating system.  Sadly, the Mac App Store pointed me to the current, rather broken, Catalina/10.15.4.  I didn't realize that it was completely 64-bit, so nothing 32-bit would run.  I complained about Apple not doing this in the past, so it's amusing that it was such a kick in the pants.

Loading Catalina wasn't awful.  The 500 GB hard drive had to be converted from HFS+ to APFS.  It didn't take long to be downloaded.  The installation wasn't horrible, either.  Trying to boot it with a hard drive from 2012 and only 4 GB of RAM was difficult, at best.

Once it was running, I was tossing out software and hoping that upgrades would be simple.  Several upgrades were extremely expensive and I'm considering them still.  Those things purchased through the Mac App Store didn't come with upgrade fees.  However, getting things to run was almost impossible.  Firefox would initially run and would fail, apparently because of the 4 GB of RAM restriction.  It displayed some sort of dialog box, but I couldn't manipulate it to see the contents.

There were some system functions that were running constantly, possibly because the hard drive was converted from HFS+.  It disabled the machine for all intents and purposes, especially with a file system that wasn't happy on a hard drive and a system with a shortage of RAM.

Enhancements Matter

I bought a 1 TB Western Digital SSD (2.5 inch) and 16 GB of RAM.  Considering that eight years have passed, the total for the enhancements was negligible.  I remember that the Other World Computing 6G Extreme SSD was something around US$500 for 480 GB and the RAM might have been about the same price in early 2013.

Just inserting the RAM made a huge difference in performance with macOS Catalina.  I wanted to get an external enclosure in order to clone the drive and the enclosure had not arrived at that time.  I ended up finding a compatible enclosure and macOS did all the cloning, once I could get the SSD partitioned and formatted properly.  There was some error at first, which isn't a surprise with 10.15.4.

Making sure the SSD was set to be APFS made a positive difference.  When I booted from the drive, the previous system tasks from when the hard drive was present were not taking over the system any longer.  The system seemed about as fast as my Windows 10 system with the 7th generation quad-core i7 and 32 GB rather than the Mac from 2012 with a 3rd generation quad-core i7 and 16 GB of RAM, just as my other machine had been.  Obviously the GeForce 1050 GTX versus the GT 650M difference is really displayed in applications which use hardware acceleration.

It's taken some time to update applications to current versions, but everything runs quite well.  Most games are not possible because time has left the 650M with 512 MB in the past, and those games that could run need to be converted to work under 64-bit operation.  I tried to get The Witness to work, but it got just past the graphics settings and died.  The Epic Games Launcher seems flaky.  Steam won't run even though it's the 64-bit version and ran once.  GOG Galaxy 2.0 runs occasionally.  MacGameStore can run.  Obduction runs, if a bit glitchy!  Things are running somewhat better and I've found more games.

Thankfully, the Affinity suite by Serif seems fine, along with Capture One Pro 12, Luminar 2018, Swift Publisher 5 and more.  I was concerned with being able to retrieve projects, photos, and music.  My music is up to date on my phone, but it's been tedious getting Finder (not iTunes) to sync things.  My TV and movie downloads are currently not on the phone because Finder had them removed.

I didn't think that a machine from 2012 would be so useful in 2020, but for graphics work, it seems quite capable.

Update 2020.05.01: Is it sad that a mid-2012 MacBook Pro with flaky 10.5.4 is more stable than a late-2017 Omen by HP laptop computer with the latest Windows 10?

Luminar (2018) is the quickest way to huge edits

I've used a few raw development applications by now:

Phase One Capture One Pro
Ichikawa Software Labs Silkypix DS
Olympus' free Viewer
Adobe Lightroom (original beta)

I started with Capture One 3.x way back in 2006.  Good raw development application software was difficult to find.  Thankfully, Olympus bodies produced fine JPEG files.  If I had been using Canon or Nikon, I would have been in more of a hurry.

When Luminar became available on Mac OS X, I had already been using the company's Creative Kit 2016, which had a single application for a major functionality.  Luminar put those together in a simplified way.

Thankfully, Apple created CoreImage functionality and that took away some of the complexity, especially when dealing with raw files--if Apple got it right.

The company's software gave me a reason to experiment and it made it quick and interesting.  With Luminar, many transformations became so quick simply because I didn't need to switch from application to application.  I could have dramatic results within minutes.

If you look at Capture One Pro or Silkypix DS, they both support saving a group of settings to give photos a certain look quickly.  Those in Capture One Pro especially tend to be holding to a less dramatic upheaval than Luminar.  Given the target type of photographer, that might be appropriate.  I appreciate some restraint, but I'm learning that my audience may want a bit more spice.

Now that I'm using the Windows version of Luminar, things are less certain than on the Mac but just as interesting.  They have many things planned but I would just like to be able to switch quickly between a number of files within a folder.  I photograph sports, so I might end up with hundreds (or more) of photos from a meet or tournament.  I can't guess at which one is which, especially when Windows doesn't support the raw files.

At this point, I will have Capture One Pro open and switch to Luminar for special edits, which is difficult to do with the current 8 GB of RAM.  (I'm working on that, but don't know whether I will be okay with "only" 16 GB or need 32 GB, especially for video projects.)

Left-original, Right-altered

I'm looking forward to more experimentation with Luminar.  Hopefully, they can provide a healthier interface to files, so it's easier to use in a professional workflow.

Update 2018.11.02: The company released the AI Sky Enhancer filter.  It's supposed to only work on sky and clouds.  I'm not certain how wonderful it is because I have yet to make extensive use of it.

Included is a side-by-side sample of a fairly busy sky at sunset photo to show the differences.  This may be a bad example but it does show differences.

Update 2018.12.06: Skylum have announced that the update to Luminar that adds Libraries will be available on December 18th.

Update 2019.01.08: For anyone interested, I've been trying to use Luminar 3, with the updates, and it is miserable.  I am certain that everything will be much better in time, but I don't even feel it's worth using at this time.

The first time I started it, it took forever, as if it was an early (alpha/beta?) release of a product.  It asked what I wanted to have in libraries.  What I selected was completely duplicated, but with a current date, so that it made a mess of searching and use of the Photos application.  After the fix update, I tried a few photos and with each style I tried, it created an image.

They have a great many things to handle.  Until they get them under control, I will use Luminar 2018.

Update 2019.02.19: Luminar 3.0.2 is out.  I updated but will continue to use Luminar 2018 because I don't have to guess at how it will work.

Update 2020.01.22: Luminar 3.2.0 is out, even though the company has moved to version 4 of the software, featuring Artificial Intelligence sky replacement and portrait enhancement.

I appreciate that they went further to fix version 3 a bit, but I'm still not ready to move to version 4.  Luminar is a great tool for huge edits BUT is in no way essential to my workflow.  Until Luminar 2018 becomes incompatible with a future Windows 10 update, I will continue to use it when I feel the need for more stylish editing.  I would say that they're fighting Adobe Photoshop Elements, which is using AI in their latest version, but it seems multiple applications are trying AI at some level.

By the way, Affinity Photo, Publisher, and Designer all work together quite well, if you're looking for a light suite of applications that tackles quite a lot, but is rather inexpensive.  They all work with Windows, Mac, and iPad.  I haven't been tied to Adobe since 2006 and don't like that they pile on enhancements without fixing bugs first.  The people at Skylum seem to be doing that with Luminar, but they're not entrenched as Adobe are.

Update 2020.02.17: I receive e-mails from Skylum practically every week.  They apparently need me to purchase Luminar 4.  I'm not interested.  They'll be sad.  I'm sad that I paid for Luminar 3.

The best way for them to make money now is to make all those Mac-only apps into style packs and sell them.  They did a set for the black and white application that I used to use and those styles helped me recover part of what I had felt I lost.

I appreciate that they want to move into AI, as did Adobe, but I'm not that interested.  I haven't even bought the latest Phase One Capture One Pro update.  It has a lot to offer, especially since the year ago version, but I'm not really in the mood and I don't photograph nearly as often.

Enhancing photos: How much is too much?

I'm a person who likes the truth.  What I photograph is what was there.  I don't add things to enhance the image.  I don't go for tricks, though I probably did that when i started.

While the Nikon D7200 has 14-bit raw files, I'm not sure whether the image quality and dynamic range actually have a huge advantage over micro Four-Thirds bodies in real life.

So, with all that in mind, the following photo has been enhanced by Macphun's Intensify application for Macs.

I'm not sure how I feel about the over the top enhancement, but it conveys what I was feeling, even though it is too much.

Tried this again, via Styles in Phase One to give an older, film look to the photo.  It's not bad, but I'm not sure how I feel about the manipulation.

Update 2017.01.01: I'm still messing with Macphun products, including their new raw development environment Luminar.

Original photo

Using Blue Sky filter

I have to experiment a lot but some of these filters, techniques provide useful results, allowing the viewer to see what is often hidden.

OS X Mavericks now, Yosemite later

I've had OS X Mavericks for a week or so.  Since Mac OS X, I've taken it a bit more slowly with my updates, upgrades.

When I went from 10.2.x to 10.3.0, things went awry.  It took until 10.3.4 until most everything worked again.  It seemed with every release, it took until 10.x.4 until it was stable enough for all that I did, so I waited, even though I had used the beta test versions for testing and programming purposes.

When Avie Tevanian left Apple, Mac OS X seemed to become even more sloppy.  I still have a PowerBook G4 on 10.5.8 and it really could have used some bug fixes.  Thankfully, they produced a number of security updates since then, and some of those helped stability.

Since 10.6.8, Apple provided (Mac) OS X on less and less media until it was only available for installation over a network connection.  When I got my mid-2012 MacBook Pro, it got 10.8.0, which required updates while connected to the internet.

So, I bought a new version of Phase One's Capture One version 8.  The only problem was that the software didn't work on 10.8.x and I didn't see anything about the system requirements ahead of the purchase, which seemed odd for them.  Obviously, I wanted the new version of the raw development software so much that I was not thinking as well as I should have.

Having spent the money, I needed the update to OS X 10.9.x.  The nearest Apple Store was okay with installing the update for me.  If there was physical media, I would have installed it myself.  Actually, I was expecting to occupy a corner of the Genius Bar with their internal network connected to my computer and I would install the update myself.  They had a local installation image of the update and they used that.

They managed to e-mail me when they finished the update, but they didn't use the phone number they confirmed three times.  Since they had my computer and I expected a phone call, I didn't check my e-mail.  I returned to the store about 45 minutes before the store would close, just hoping that they had finished.

Long story, long, I've updated and my computer is still working.  Mavericks is slightly better than Mountain Lion, so I feel okay about the changes.  I'm not finding any interesting or odd behavior.  I'm glad I did the update when I did, so that I wasn't forced to Yosemite.  The only Yosemite I want close right now is the national park.

Update 2014.10.30: Some Yosemite users are reporting WiFi connectivity problems.  That's a surprise!  (Did your sarcasm detector max out there?)  Every new release of Mac OS X in recent memory has had WiFi connectivity problems, and many iOS releases have also.  Do you wonder why I wait to update?

Apple stopping development of Aperture raw development application

I'm not surprised that Apple are quitting on this application.  They were really developing it early, and slowed their enhancements quickly, sitting on their laurels.

I saw the app when the released it, and it wouldn't run on my then current machine.  The system requirements pushed desktop machines, and my older desktop machine wasn't a match for my laptop computer.  Aperture made great use of graphics through OpenGL and few of their machines were capable of giving it enough.

Apple has a terrible habit of producing good hardware or good software but rarely produces good matches on the desktop.  It's as though they don't communicate with themselves.  If you look back at the early PowerPC machines, they were very powerful, yet Mac OS 7.6.x (or Mac OS 8.x or Mac OS 9.x) didn't take advantage of them properly.  When I installed BeOS on my PowerPC 604e machine, I was shocked at the display of power--power Apple were wasting.

In photography in 2004, there weren't good raw development applications.  Thankfully, Olympus' JPEG engine created really good JPEG files, and the E-1 also created TIFF files, which were definitely useful in business.

Time passed, and I was part of a discussion that led to the Silkypix raw development application.  I downloaded it and tried it.  I found it to be odd.  It wasn't Japanese odd--I'm Japanese.  It was like so many programmers' projects--great on the inside, lousy on the outside.

I tried Adobe Camera Raw through Photoshop.  I really don't believe that Adobe ever understand that their applications should work with you, not against you.  They just don't seem to want to fix anything, and it shows up when you're trying to finish work.  I got some beta trial for Lightroom and that was interesting, but didn't encourage me, as it was extremely buggy.

At some point, I had an offer for Capture One from Phase One, version 2 or 3.  I downloaded it, and tried to use it.  It was a bit of a pain.  However, it produced reasonable results.  As the versions have come and gone, the application has become as important as the camera body to me.  Version 7 has been on a bumpy road, with the integration of media storage, but it now is easy to use and has produces high image quality, likely second to none.

Their version 7 imaging engine has even given me better quality from older images, at least, with the E-5.  Noise doesn't seem to be a factor, unless you're working in really low light.  That said, current digital sensors all seem to be better than the best film, and many have come to have a grainy look when they produce a lot of noise toward their limits.  That isn't much different than film.  (At this point, I don't even need Photoshop, as Capture One does so much, especially with additional Pro version features.)

In any case, I'm sad for all of the Aperture users who will not be getting upgrades.  I think it speaks volumes about choosing Apple for applications.  Will Final Cut Pro go away?  Did they make a deal to keep Adobe applications on (Mac) OS X, killing Aperture?  It seemed that Adobe responded very, very quickly to the announcement, as if they already had plans.

2012 Refurbished MacBook Pro, One Year Later

It's difficult to believe that it's been a year since I ordered this MacBook Pro.  After three years of daily use, my 2009 MacBook was showing its age and lack of capacity.  Today, I bought an AppleCare extended warranty, just in case.

My main photo raw development software, Phase One Capture One 7, was pushing the system.  6 GB of RAM just didn't seem to be enough, and it would grind away at the hard drive swapping processes' information, leaving me with a few Megabytes of free working memory.  The 750 GB 7200 rpm hard drive was still too slow to really do a great job when I handed it a basketball game with 1000 photos.  The transfer of images over USB 2.0 didn't help.

I'd been watching the refurbished machines for a while.  I choose refurbished machines from Apple because they've been through a bit of trouble and repaired and checked again.  The prior two machines (late 2004 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4 and 2009 2.13 GHz MacBook worked quite well as my main machine, and they still work well), so buying another refurbished machine was the best way to go.  I didn't mind the savings, either.

I really wanted the 15.4 inch display but with the 1680x1050 resolution and anti-glare display.  I missed buying the PowerBook with the 1440x960 display to save a bit, and with photo resolution becoming larger all the time, I could use a denser monitor.  However, finding the higher resolution and anti-glare property at the same time was difficult, and the extra cash made me think twice.  Still, it has the nVidia GeForce GT 650M, which is used by OpenCL to aid in computational math, a feature than Capture One Pro 7 uses.

As my photo processing was taking 3-4 times as long, I decided on a 2.6 GHz i7 MacBook Pro with the typical 1440x900 resolution and the glossy display.  Inexplicably, the company chooses to use a 5400 rpm drive, and 750 GB or not, it's not fast enough for work or games, really.

The day after I ordered it, I placed an order with OtherWorld Computing for two 8 GB RAM sticks.  They were "only" about US$100.  Contrast this to 1993 when I bought a 72 pin SIMM with 32 MB of RAM (for the Quadra/LC/Performa 475/476) for $1040, or 3 rebuilt 16 KB Atari RAM cards (for the Atari 800) for $108 in 1983.  16 GB was the most the model would support and I wasn't going to be held back by the hard drive speed.

Apple managed to push me from Snow Leopard on the MacBook to Mountain Lion on the new MacBook Pro.  It was very, very broken, and it was a pain in the ass because I had to download it all over again to put it on another drive, a 750 GB 7200 rpm drive that I'd been using in the MacBook.  Thankfully, I was able to use the connection of a repair shop that was convenient, as I was familiarizing them with Apple technology.

When I'd got the thing running correctly, I noticed that my batch processing of photos was driving the machine to over 100 degrees C, with all four processor cores running, along with the extra 4 virtual cores.  It's still close to that but under 100 degrees C these days.

After a month or two, I changed to a 480 GB SSD, which fixed a lot of the speed problems.  Not only was photo processing much quicker, but games were loading reasonably well, and even Valve's games weren't stuck with "LOADING" long enough for me to get a drink.

Seeing the recent, new Retina-only models made me think that I'd bought the correct machine for me.  I still need an optical drive.  The nVidia 650M is strong enough for me, at the moment.  Being forced into OS X Mavericks/10.9 doesn't seem like a good idea, enhanced battery life or not.  Thin may be in, but Apple's machines become hot too easily.  This one is indicating 40 degrees C and it's actually chilly to the touch.

I'm hoping to get 3-4 years out of it before I need to buy another machine.  By then, photo resolution may have increased again, depending on the ability to miniaturize, and I'll need a stronger machine.  I might even be on 10.9.x by then, because I know that they won't have fixed 10.8.x further.  Maybe, they'll have the Mac App Store fixed by then.

I wonder if we'll even have typical laptop computers by then, or whether they'll mostly be hybrid tablets with keyboards at that point.  In any case, I'll be sticking to a slightly older, 100% guaranteed to be refurbished machine, and I'll be happy with it because it will work well.  Hopefully, this one will still be happy by then.

If you're wondering, I'm still using the 2004/2005 PowerBook G4 and the 2009 MacBook.  They work just fine but they're not exceptionally powerful for photo processing.

Update 2015.08.15: It's getting close to three years that I've had this computer.  It's still what I use daily.  It's been through a lot, including having flipped into the air and it landed upside down on the floor.  It's more several months since then, and it's fine.

In November 2014, I had the closest Apple Store update it to OS X 10.9.5 and it has been reasonable.  I need to have it updated to 10.10.5 now that it is available.

Making videos with it, it seems to struggle a bit.  I looked for a computer running Windows, but they were running about the same amount of money for similar resolutions and power.

I gave away the 2009 MacBook to someone who had helped me set up my apartment but it wasn't extremely powerful with those nVidia graphics.

I keep looking at the recent MacBook Pro models and I have to go with a Retina model to get something current.  They're not easy to customize after the sale.  It's better since they've been out a while, and OWC has had time to figure out some options.  It still seems a guessing game as to what Apple will do next.  The latest 15.x inch MacBook Pro models haven't had a good CPU upgrade for a while.  Since the Back-to-School sale is in progress, updates should be out soon.

A few hours with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and E-M1

Today, I had the chance to extensively use the Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, alone and with an Olympus-chaperoned group on a photo walk.

My first impressions of the lens are that it’s quite amazing compared to any other micro Four-Thirds zoom lens and as good as the 14-35 f/2.0 and 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 lenses.  It’s well worth the US$999.99 that they’re supposedly asking for it.  The manual focus clutch mechanism was as odd and brilliant as it is on the the 12mm f/2.0 lens.

It should be in my camera bag before the end of the year.

Update 2013.12.29:  I read the account of one person (and there are others apparently) who has had a serious problem with the 12-40mm lens.  It broke apart, where the mount separated from the lens, not unlike the initial 18-55mm kit lenses that came with the Canon 300D so many years ago.  Those lenses had a plastic mount, though.  Apparently, Olympus was saving weight by using plastic or nylon screws and other parts.  This is disturbing, especially considering the abuse my 14-54mm and other lenses have seen.  My ZD SHG 35-100mm f/2.0 and E-5 fell from a seat to a pool deck and I continued to use them, and they're just fine nearly a year later.  How would the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 survive?

The E-M1 is not as clearly or easily great.

Yes, it’s very fast.  There is no half-press of the shutter release.  I got a photo every time, mainly because the button is mushy.  Those coming from the E-M5 will understand.  The Super Control Panel is different than what is on the E-5 but still amazingly useful, easily beating my GH3’s Quick Menu, for me anyway.

Holding it is uncomfortable.  Rather than the curves on the grip of the E-5 or GH3, it has angles.  This should not be a problem with the micro Four-Thirds lenses, including the 12-40mm f/2.8 because they’re so incredibly tiny and light.  I can see it as a problem using my light (for Four-Thirds) 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  I hold my current camera bodies one-handed by the grip at times.  I don’t think that would last long, as the angles would work into my hand.  I can appreciate that they wanted to make the body as small and light as possible, but professionals will be using it for hours on end, most likely (and they could use a larger battery to go into that larger grip).  It shouldn’t be designed as a casual tool.  It was sufficient to be tried with my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and ZD 14-35mm f/2.0.  They worked well enough.

Olympus E-M1 in hand, barely big enough

GH3 to the left, surrounded by an E-M5 and 2 EM1 bodies

That brings me to the next issue.  The rear display seems to be on most of the time, and of course, it’s not fully articulated, so you can’t turn it inward.  It would show me the photo I just took, even though that drains the battery and isn’t what I would want.  The clarity of the display is very good.  The EVF is much, much better than the EVF of the GH3.  Since I wasn’t able to photograph sports, I don’t know if it’s fast enough for manual focus in that situation.  I suspect it will be okay, whereas the GH3’s EVF is not so good.

The controls are not exactly easy to understand, coming from the E-1, E-5, or GH3.  The exposure compensation was not at zero when I was handed the E-M1 and it took some time to be able to change it with the unmarked button.  Sure, taking time to acclimate myself to it would do wonders, but it’s not intuitive, as the E-1, E-5, and GH3 are.

Live View worked well, and it was actually the first time I used Live View for more than an experiment, even though the GH3 and E-5 support it well with the fully-articulated displays.  The E-M1's display tilts but it was enough to get a good shot from a very low angle.

Since Phase One Capture One doesn’t yet support the E-M1, I only shot JPEG files and I find them to be quite good.

I added a photo album here: https://picasaweb.google.com/bousozoku/OlympusAtRoberts20131003?authuser=0&feat=directlink The photos were not corrected in any way.  They were re-sized for the album by Picasa and renamed, due to a problem with switching cards and the camera body not starting from the next sequential name.  To add to the problem, Picasa does not sort by name, only by the order in which it imported the photos.  Who knows?

E-M1 Pros

• Better than a casual camera body
• Great image quality
• Super Control Panel still excellent
• Phase detection AF allows AF with Four-Thirds lenses and tracking with micro Four-Thirds lenses

E-M1 Cons

• Uncomfortable
• Too small to be used effectively with larger SHG lenses handheld
• Worse than a professional camera body, even though it can be used for professional work 
• Mushy shutter release makes half-press difficult
• Phase detection with many Four-Thirds lenses not very good.
  

Olympus' GH3 workalike coming?

I've wondered for the longest time why Olympus doesn't give their professional model the newest and best of everything.  After the E-1, it took 4 years for a replacement and the company's more budget-conscious models got an 8 MP Kodak CCD, a 7.5 MP LiveMOS (NMOS, I believe) sensor from Panasonic, and then a 10 MP Kodak CCD.  Eventually, in 2007, the E-3 got a 10 MP LiveMOS sensor.  Not long after that the E-30 got a 12 MP LiveMOS sensor, and in 2010, the E-5 got that same sensor.  Odd, isn't it?

A buddy in Singapore was telling me that files from the E-3 needed more manipulation to reach the look that Olympus gave us with the E-1.  When I bought the E-5 body, I noticed the same, even if it took supposedly less work, they didn't come from the body nicely.

I've been noticing with Capture One 7 Pro that the fixups help the E-5 photo files much more than the E-1's files.  It could be many aspects of the photos but could just be that more time has passed.  My E-5 files come out looking about as good as those of the E-1, thankfully.  The Phase One people have worked some sort of photographic magic with their new imaging engine because the old engine wasn't so good.

If you've been reading my blog entries, you'll know that I'm thrilled (and sometimes, annoyed) with the Panasonic GH3.  What really bothers me is that Olympus didn't bother with their own model.  They could be trying to salvage the E-5's sales or they just don't agree with the shape and believe that the fanatics will turn against them.  Certainly, a lot of people were upset with the GH3, even though it's a good tool for professionals--with adjustments.

The GH3 has a funky white balance issue and I know that I can set it and remember to set it each time I start to photograph something different, but I'm so depending on Olympus' auto white balance to pick a great number.  By the way, the E-5 is nowhere near as good as the E-1's AWB, but I say that about just about anything.  :-D

I'm looking to the E-5 replacement to fix everything for me.  Yes, I'm delusional--hopefully, not.

An E-M6 could have a great sensor, and it doesn't have to be a higher resolution than the one used by the E-M5 and GH3.  It doesn't have to shoot video or have Live View, although I know it will.  I'm really looking for a great stills camera body.  Image quality and equipment balance are my main points.  I want to attach my overly big, overly heavy 35-100mm lens and not feel as though it's going to slip out of my hands.  i.e., give it a big grip, and while that's available, give it a big battery.

Even more so, make it a great tool that I can use without taking my eyes off the scene.  An LCD display would be great, but not to the exclusion of dials and buttons.  An articulating display is great but if it takes up valuable button space, make it smaller.  I use the Super Control Panel on the E-5 to make some quick adjustments because they're all in one place.  Panasonic's Quick Menu isn't as helpful, but as I become more familiar, it may be good for me.

What bothers me about the GH3 is that Panasonic obviously consulted with professionals on what they wanted--they just didn't implement the body as though it was to be used by professionals.  I can pick up the E-5 easily and the E-1 more easily and just shoot, but I have to think about using the GH3.  It could be just time and acclimation (or brand) but I think there is more to it, such as the settings as shipped.

I hope that Olympus comes to my rescue but once again, 2010 to 2013 is a long time to wait and the E-5 was only so-so by the time they delivered it, as was the E-3.  We want a home run, not a single.  (I was supposed to photograph a baseball game today but it was cancelled.)

Update 2013.09.15: There has been some time to digest the information about the Olympus E-M1.  It is as close as Olympus will come to a GH3 type of camera.  Video is not their priority and they don't want to upset Panasonic who are very important in micro Four-Thirds.  Olympus have put out a great new camera body, which of course, is especially good for stills.

It's obviously to me that Olympus have got their micro Four-Thirds act together.  I'm not pleased with their Four-Thirds action but it happened.  I'm hoping that the GH3 replacement will take better photos because it really is a well-designed camera body.  (Yes, I was finally acclimated to it.)  If Olympus had just modified the GH3 body with the E-M1 bits, it would have had a great camera all round, so hopefully, Panasonic will take us to a similar point with the GH5.

I had a few hours with the E-M1 and it felt like a great body for micro Four-Thirds lenses.  It was uncomfortable for me with Four-Thirds lenses, as the grip was angular, rather than rounded like the E-5 or GH3 bodies' grips.  The photos were good.