Panasonic's micro Four-Thirds (premium) lenses

I'm a bit uncomfortable since I bought my Panasonic GH3 body and Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 lenses.  I expect a certain level of image quality but the image quality of the set is uneven.

While the GH3 is great, the lenses are not all that great.  If you've seen my previous blog entries, the image of my Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds equipment together should be familiar.  You'll notice right away how the 35-100mm lenses differ greatly.

This is the problem.  The Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 (US$2499.99) has a graduated housing and optical elements with a filter size of 77mm.  The Panasonic X 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) has a completely cylindrical housing that only differs in the exterior materials for the zoom and focus grips with a filter size of 58mm.  While one has (probably) no compromise, the other is all about compromise.  What else would you expect from a company that makes small electrical appliances and electronics equipment, plus broadcast video equipment for the professional market?  If I remember correctly, they got an Academy Award for their firmware tricks in fixing optical problems before post production.

GH3 with 35-100mm f/2.8, E-5 with 35-100mm f/2.0

After reading this link about the X 12-35mm lens, I searched Lens Tip for the X 35-100mm lens. I can't say that I was shocked but I was more disappointed after I read about the problems they encountered, such as visible flare even though the bright light source was not in the frame.  (I have been assured by Panasonic's repair facility that this is normal behaviour, along with a salesperson from the company who sold it to me.)  I expected it to take after the behaviour of the Canon and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses since Panasonic are targeting Canon.  I expected to have to stop down the aperture to f/5.6 to get maximum sharpness, unlike the ZD which is sharp wide open.  Considering that my GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, stopping down in bright light would be required anyway.  (Thinking back to my early film days, 1/1000th of a second was the premium shutter speed.)

Panasonic 35-100mm flare creeping into the frame

Panasonic 35-100mm flare well into frame, lens hood used

Panasonic 35-100mm angle adjusted to avoid flare

Olympus 12-40mm minimal flare

Olympus 12-40mm direct sun, minimal flare

Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8

In my experience, it's performed well enough for what it is, but it doesn't deserve the price (US$750 seems appropriate) they're demanding.  I guess that's why I got it US$100 cheaper.  I was considering the 12-35mm f/2.8 simply because I don't have a native wide angle lens and I have nothing below 14mm (effective 28mm in 135 format) at all.  Being that micro Four-Thirds, like Four-Thirds effectively doubles the focal length for compatible 135 format numbers, it's great when photographing things at a distance with an easy, effective 600mm with 300mm equipment, but getting wide angles is a problem.

There are 7-14mm f/4.0 lenses for Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds.  The Panasonic version is about half the price of the ZD SHG (Super High Grade) version but lacks the weather resistance although the build quality is good.  The Panasonic 7-14mm possibly has less distortion than the 12-35mm at 12mm.  That's unfortunate for the 12-35mm.  Panasonic had a clear choice in the design and chose a huge compromise with a premium lens.  Mind, the Olympus M.Zuiko 12mm f/2.0 is quite good but at US$799.99 is quite expensive for a single focal length that isn't weather resistant.  (Update: the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is US$999.99 and performs quite well.)

I think my choices are good with my current selection of lenses.  When image quality is critical, I mount a Four-Thirds lens on the adapter on the GH3 and focus carefully.  When I'm indoors and need auto focus and image quality is going to be compromised by low light anyway, I can use the Panasonic lens.  It works well enough. Oh, and the 45-200mm?  I'm glad I only paid about US$100 for it.

Update 2014.04.20: I didn't update this after sending the 35-100mm f/2.8 for repair.  Panasonic returned it to me with a note from the technician that there was no problem.  That the lens flare was typical.  I'm not sure he saw the photo I included.  A Lumix Luminary thought that it looked awful and suggested that I send it for repair.  Besides that, the repair facility does not seem to answer calls and I only got a response to an e-mail as the lens was being packed for its return to me.  I heard from the people behind the sales and information part of the web site that the repair facility's computer system was being upgraded, so they might not be able to respond.  However, reviews on Yelp would lead me to believe that the computer system and phone system upgrade was happening for more than 1 year.

Update 2015.01.23: Panasonic has finally updated the 35-100mm f/2.8 Power OIS' ability to improve stability during video, which is apparently a longstanding problem.  While I think they have made so much money on the lens that they should be improving it constantly, apparently that is not their thinking.  I seriously doubt that they've been working on the fix for over two years.

Update 2015.09.14: In the last week, I got the Panasonic GX8 with the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens in a US$300 off deal.  That's the best way to buy premium equipment, isn't it?

Given my history with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, you might wonder why I would buy the 12-35mm f/2.8.  I recall everyone mentioning what a wonderful lens the 12-35mm has been.  I even remember Zacuto asking why the 35-100mm lens seemed so cheap, which confirmed my feeling about it.

With the discount, the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens was roughly US$600 off the original price of $1299.99.  That's a good discount for a premium lens.

Also, with the GX8's new Dual I.S. functionality, it might be good to have another O.I.S. laden lens.

The 12-35mm does seem to have a better quality of build than the 35-100mm.  It feels too small, but then, Panasonic was designing these to be used with the GX1 and later bodies, as well as the GH3 and later bodies.

Optically, I don't really care for it.  It's not horrible and at the price I paid, I don't feel cheated again, as I feel about the 35-100mm f/2.8.  It just isn't up to the level of Olympus' 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

Since December, I've done a lot of video, mostly with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, but also with the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, and the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.

I used the 35-100mm f/2.8 to get video clips of a skate park competition back in March and it seemed to stutter a lot--after applying the firmware fix that was supposed to fix that problem.  I also used it about a week ago, and it worked better for me, but If I'd had the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, I probably wouldn't have considered using the Panasonic lens.

The 12-35mm with the GX8 has been good.  I'm not sure the Dual I.S. functionality helped much because there was a lot of visible shake at times.  Since the camera body's firmware version is 1.0.0, I expect fixes of all sorts.

On the other hand, the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 is both surprisingly good and charming.  Strange, that last part.  The lens is quite good, despite the very tiny opening in a much bigger lens casing.  It would be easy to guess that the quick AF motor is taking up the extra room.

The only problem with it is all the fiddly parts.  The rubbery lens cap for the lens hood has been lost for ages.  The original lens cap and the little ring that holds it there are in storage, probably never to be used again.

Panasonic knows how to make great camera bodies.  I wish that they would do the same for their lenses.

Disappointed with Olympus' micro Four-Thirds lenses? 2014, 2015 much better

I don't know how not to offend the fanboys with this one.  I'm really disappointed with Olympus' lenses for micro Four-Thirds cameras.  While I can appreciate the desire for small equipment, compromise is better left to other companies that have more fanboys.

This may seem nonsense to someone who had never used the Four-Thirds High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  Their standard series was, shall we say, sufficient for many people.

I'm not a snob about equipment, but I'd rather not risk my equipment on weather or dust.  When I originally bought my Olympus E-1 in April 2004, Olympus only had weather-sealed lenses for Four-Thirds.  I bought the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  Those aren't huge maximum apertures but they worked well enough, and the lenses used a 67mm filter.  I used the 50-200mm during three of the four hurricanes in 2004 and never bet against the seals.  I shot, I dried and repeated as necessary.  The lenses work quite well to this day, and so does the E-1.

The only Four-Thirds lens I have that is not weather-sealed is the fairly expensive Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4--the normal lens.  You figure US$500 for a normal lens with an f/1.4 maximum aperture and twice as much for one that can be used wide open, unlike those from Canon and Nikon that have to be stopped down to get good sharpness.  This one comes around US$1000 and works well wide open, as do the HG and SHG lenses from Olympus.  It works as expected, except that I'm concerned that it might rain.

Now, with my journey into micro Four-Thirds, I have to pick lenses much more carefully, as though I was shopping for Canon or Nikon equipment.  I prefer simpler choices.  Currently, Olympus offers a great 60mm macro lens and the craptacular 12-50mm zoom.  Yes, I get it, at 12mm any lens will distort more than a lens at 14mm.  You have to use a more expensive lens design to get around it.  The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Four-Thirds lens distorts apparently terribly but they were more concerned with the focusing speed than the optical characteristics, it seems.

Panasonic offers two weather-sealed lenses at the moment: the 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) that I have and the 12-35mm f/2.8 that I don't need.  Both are rather expensive for the plastic-y bodies, Made in China, compromises that they are.  (Supposedly, the 12-35mm isn't a Made in China product but are they all from one country or the other?)  As I've been saying, the 35-100mm doesn't really seem too much worse than what you get from Canon or Nikon--you stop down the aperture to get good sharpness.  Since many people are switching from those brands, they'll probably be okay with the compromise.  Given that the sensor in the GH3 is better than the one in the E-5, I can live with that under low light circumstances.  However, compared to the ZD SHG 35-100 f/2.0, Panasonic's lens is not very good at all but then, I don't really have much faith in the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm either, though my opinion of the Nikon lens is more positive.

Olympus recently created a second generation of a 75-300mm lens that needs very bright light to be useful.  The maximum aperture is f/4.8-6.7.  If I was using it to photograph birds, I'd hope that they'd be out in the open sunlight.  More likely, I'd be using the ZD 50-200mm lens with the 1.4x teleconverter and the E-5.  I just don't understand where Olympus is going.  Several people have brought up the point that Olympus is no longer including lens hoods.  Most of their fanboys probably won't need them, even though they should be using them.  I don't carry the 35-100mm f/.0 lens hood with me because I need another bag for it and for the lens hood for the 14-35mm f/2.0.  They're that big.  I'm actually carrying both in the lens bag for the 35-100mm since I don't dare use it for the lens.

If Olympus would deliver the 12-40mm zoom lens (September 2013 announcement?) for which a patent was recently shown, and the aperture was sufficiently large, I would likely buy it, given that it was better than the 12-50mm they already have.  I've seen professionals do good work with that lens, but getting around its flaws may be too much work for me.  The 12-40mm is a larger range to my current ZD 14-35mm but if they stick to their "small and light" philosophy, it will have too many compromises, most likely.  Should you pay over US$1000 for compromises?

Update 2013.07.08: DxO does testing on certain lenses to help with their raw development software.  They just profiled the m.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens.  As many reviews have already stated, it's not very good, but it's nearly half the price of the great lenses.  It's somewhat better than the 17mm f/2.8 lens but that was really horrible from what I've seen.  If the Chromatic Aberration is so strong that you don't have to look for it to find it, that's a lens that should never have been made--Quantaray, anyone?

I guess that makes me think about a new Four-Thirds body or at least one that will use the lenses to full capacity.  It's been rumored to be announced and/or available in the autumn of 2013.  I'll keep hoping.

Update 2013.08.20: How about a craptacular, tiny, Frankenstein's creature of a camera body for Four-Thirds users?  I'll look at the E-M1 but at this point, I cannot see wasting money on something that will not be well-balanced with my 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.  I'm not asking for something the size of the E-5, but the size of the GH3 or E-1 would be appropriate, not the size of the E-M5.  I'm not looking to replace an E-410 or E-510, or E-620.  They were too small and they weren't meant for what I do.  They were casual camera bodies, which is why they were replaced with micro Four-Thirds.  Those people seem pleased with the performance.  I wish I could be.  The GH3, like the E-M5 is good enough for professionals, who aren't in a serious hurry.  Still, with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, things are looking up.

Update 2013.10.30: Looking back on this, I need to say that I'll have a 12-40mm on order.  The E-M1, while good, was not a replacement for my E-5 or my E-1.  Yes, the image quality is wonderful, but the handling is completely wrong for me.  It's about the same size as the GH3 but the grip was completely uncomfortable and it's not enough to easily allow me to use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.  I can't take a tripod or monopod everywhere I have used the thing handheld.  The E-M1 looked better in person than the original photos I saw that seemed to show something cobbled together out of the parts bin.  If they'd put the goodness in the GH3 body, they'd have a sale.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 gives me hope for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was wonderful. 

Update 2014.04.10: I got the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 not quite two months ago, and it has been attached to the Panasonic GH3 almost all the time.  I have been quite happy with the combination, and it has given me hope that Olympus has found their way again, and that the GH3 is good for still photography.  The color of the 12-40mm is much better than Panasonic's problematic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I also own.  I'm sure I'll be replacing the GH3 as soon as I can trade it for the GH4.  I have two Four-Thirds bodies and don't wish to repeat this with micro Four-Thirds.

The only problem with the "PRO" model lenses from Olympus is that they'll be slow in delivering them.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 will arrive later in 2014, but the 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 will arrive in 2015.  That still leaves a hole for a 150-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I would truly like to have--a lightweight 2x zoom with a lot of reach.  It could be the sharpest lens Olympus will have made for micro Four-Thirds, somehow looking toward the Four-Thirds 90-250mm f/2.8 but without the down-payment-for-a-house price.

Update 2014.11.14: As the 40-150mm f/2.8 is available, along with its 1.4x teleconverter, things are moving along.  In previous years, I'd be buying this lens, and possibly the combination of the two, very early to support photographing swim meets.  I haven't been photographing typical high school sports this year, but have been at skate parks.

There are times when I need a longer lens.  I have occasionally used my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on my Olympus E-5.  (It's too much for the E-M1 and even for the Panasonic GH3 or GH4, which handles many Four-Thirds HG lenses well.)  Using the 40-150mm f/2.8 could be useful when not able to move from a spot but it's not all that a wide angle.  Using either the Olympus or Panasonic 35-100mm lenses, I find that there is no perfect lens for what I'm doing.  Are two small bodies hanging from my neck a good idea?

I'm even more interested in the 7-14mm f/2.8 that's supposedly coming in 2015.  I'm not a landscape type of photographer, but there are several occasions when I don't have enough of an angle to get everything.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 has been good but it's not always enough.  My typical thoughts were to buy a camera body with a larger sensor for occasional needs such as this.  How many occasional needs will I have that I should spend US$4000 for a 135 Format combination or even US$3000 for a FujiFilm X-Mount combo? 

In any case, Olympus has finally come to the table with some better than good options.  Similar to the Four-Thirds days before the E-5. 

Panasonic 35-100mm focal range debate

I've been seeing some talk that the Panasonic premium micro Four-Thirds lens, the 35-100mm f/2.8, does not in fact reach 100mm.  I have the Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 also and the shots I've taken are similar, but I don't use or even have a tripod, so my test is hardly so accurate.

Olympus ZD 35-100 f/2.0 on Panasonic GH3 using MMF-3 adapter

Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 on Panasonic GH3

Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 on Panasonic GH3

Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 on Olympus E-5

The odd thing about the Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 on the GH3 via the Olympus MMF-3 adapter is that 100mm is reported as 95mm.  I checked carefully to make sure than the lenses were each set to 100mm.  I was not checking the shots of a week or so earlier but I generally leave the lenses at 100mm unless I'm shooting and the action is much closer.

I'm not sure whether to believe that there is an actual problem.  My only real problem is the price of the lens and its manufacture in China, give that the body is made of plastic and/or polycarbonate pieces.  At that price, it should have been made of metal, at least in part.  Is it using more expensive lens elements than the larger, great ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5?  I don't see the greater glass.

Nikon Opportunities?

I was thinking about equipment options and whether I should give up the ship and switch to Nikon.  The D600 (and D7000) have given me two good options.

I keep reading about how wonderful the variety of lenses are for Nikon bodies and how I could find anything I want and they're inexpensive, also.  I'm accustomed to dust and splash-resistant lenses, so I expect to pay more.  I also want my lenses to be able to be used wide open, not stopped down.

I was browsing the Sam's Club website, which has the D7000 for US$999, a bargain, yes?  The 24-120mm f/4.0 looked good and at US$1299.99, it wasn't a bad price for a premium lens, if it could fulfill my needs.  It could be used on either the D7000 or the D600.

The reviews I've read suggest that it has problems.  Now, I realize that it has a 5x zoom and that's 1-2x more than I usually find optimal.  I current use a 4x lens and a 3.85x lens that aren't priced that high and are quite good wide open.  They're dust- and splash-proof, so I can use them in hurricane weather, which I have.

So, I went to look at other lenses and I was startled to find that most of the premium lenses don't seem all that premium and have many compromises, except for the price.

I was interested in Panasonic's GH3 with the 12-35mm and 35-100mm lenses but the 12-35mm had compromises I didn't like.  I'm finding that they're no worse than Nikon or Canon have done.  Besides that, the size is much smaller, so I can carry them more easily.  I could also have one body each and have them both at the ready.

I still would like to have a 135 format-sized body but only for the really wide angle work and maybe, Panasonic's 7-14mm would be enough for me.

I punted and ordered a refurbished version of Olympus' excellent 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.  It's about US$500 cheaper than retail.  It's only about 1.5 times the weight of my current 50-200mm and the f/2.0 should help with swimming photos since the pools appear bright but are quite dark, so I won't likely have to use flash at all.  It's also somewhat faster than Panasonic or Nikon versions covering that range.

As you'll be able to see from the photo, the 35-100mm is slightly bigger than my trusty 50-200mm, and the tripod collar seems permanently attached, although I can loosen it.  The filter size is a whole 10mm more at 77mm.  Update: I just added the excellent 14-35mm f/2.0 as well.  It's amazing how large it is.  It makes the E-5 body look smaller, especially compared to my original "kit" lens, the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5.

Surprised by the Olympus E-M5

I'm jaded and cynical and anything else that would lead you to believe that I don't believe much anymore.

So, Olympus brings out a new series of camera bodies to supplement the PEN series: OM-D.  Yes, sure, the OM-system was amazing.  Olympus shocked Nikon into making smaller camera bodies.  You only need compare the Nikon F2 with the Olympus OM-1 to see why.

I used an OM-1N for years and it was quite good and the results were amazing.  I was more than pleased with lens quality, even though I didn't have the best of the best.  When the OM-1N failed and couldn't be repaired, I settled on an IS-series camera and it was adequate, but as a Zoom Lens Reflex (ZLR), it had to be everything to everyone and it wasn't.  Now, we have those SLR-like superzoom cameras that follow Olympus' lead.  The IS-20DLX that I had took photos that were good as snapshots.  It had scene modes and it was pleasant to use but it was a snapshot camera.  Ugggh.

Olympus even transitioned those into the digital world with the D-500/D-600, C-2500L (the first with TruePIC), and the E-10/E-20 pair.  The add-on lens was an interesting way to add capabilities, as long as you followed the rules.  Otherwise, you ruined film or had a digital shot to delete but you might have gotten a bit closer, hand you done things correctly.

When Olympus introduced the E-1, they said goodbye to the ZLR, and exclaimed that they had entered the world of the SLR again, after a long hiatus from the OM-4Ti.  I was so enthusiastic that I bought an E-1, the 50-200mm and 14-54mm lenses a few months after release.  (Version 1.0 isn't for me, generally.)

I was surprised that it worked so well.  I had tried various dSLRs and they were sluggish and gave poor photos and didn't seem worth the trouble.  In 2004, there just wasn't the software for processing raw files and Olympus' JPEG files were the envy of every camera maker.

Today, we have the E-M5.  It's about as close to the OM-4Ti as could be possible.  Unfortunately, they couldn't stuff a 24x36mm sensor in there.  Fortunately, they didn't have to do that.  Reading review after review, it seems that it works quite well.  In fact, for a lot of shots, it works better than the E-5 "professional" camera body.  This bothers me to no end because I bought an E-5 in November of 2011.  (Yes, yes, get over it.  I know.)  Of course, I just have to shoot sports and I realize that I'm not having a bit of trouble with the E-5.

I have a few reservations about the E-M5 for sports photography:

• it's slippery like the OM-series
• the lens quality is lower than what I have
• the ISO sensitivity values are apparently not close to accurate

There is an add-on hand/battery grip, just like the OM-4Ti had, so even if it's slippery or unbalanced, that hand grip will help.

The lens quality issue isn't going away any time soon.  Olympus was (and is still) knocked for the size and weight of the High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  They've gone small with the micro Four-Thirds lenses and that means lower quality and smaller maximum apertures.  That doesn't work for me.

The ISO sensitivity values are apparently far from what they should be.  I've forgotten how far, but 6400 may only be 4000, as a non-factual example.  What I recall was much further off.  I've been complaining about ISO 1600 with the E-5 and if its calibration was off like the E-M5's is and I was seeing ISO 1000-quality shots for ISO 1600, I'd probably be thrilled, until I learnt the truth.  (I'm still not happy with ISO 800 on the E-5.)

Few people seem to have reservations and a lot of people have ordered.  Apparently, so many that Olympus are struggling to make and ship enough, for the first in a very long time.  Congratulations to them!  I'm glad for their success.

They've been talking about a professional micro Four-Thirds camera body for a while.  I'm listening for any news about it, but they have to provide lenses and somehow keep the detractors from saying "huge", "heavy", and "pricey" while providing the amazing quality that we've come to know from the HG and SHG lines.  I'm looking at Nikon every day and wondering if I'll take the plunge and switch.  Nikon hasn't proven anything much to me, though.  The D300S doesn't look much better than the E-5, especially considering the lens choices.

Maybe, the E-M6 will arrive quickly, or maybe, it'll be an E-7 since the bit about some quick changes to the E-5 in 2011 still haven't happened.  Maybe, Nikon will get with it, ditch the 1 system, and provide a blow out mirror-less system camera but that's not their way because it's not safe.

Update 2014.01.10: The time has come for the E-M5 to be replaced.  Supposedly, the replacement will be the E-M10.  As the name implies (think OM-1, OM-10), it will be slotted under the E-M1.  The E-M5 got some awards, including Camera of the Year from the most unlikely source--DPReview.  Hopefully, they'll fix the mushy buttons and replace the viewfinder with something similar to the excellent unit used in the E-M1.

The Joys of a Fixed Focal Length Lens

A few months ago, I bought a new Four-Thirds format lens: a Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4.  As it has the Leica name, it goes for a premium, but since it also has the Panasonic name, it's a discounted premium.  It's roughly US$1000, which is probably double what Nikon and Canon charge for their normal f/1.4 lenses and about half what Leica charge.  Of course, for Four-Thirds, you have two choices for fixed, normal lenses: the abysmal 25mm f/2.8 Zuiko Digital pancake or the superlative Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4.  The latter has been in short supply for many years and I'm glad I finally got one.

When I was young, you didn't have much of a choice, you generally used a fixed focal length lens and you learned to walk to get the photo you wanted.  Zoom lenses were bulky, expensive, and quirky.  They generally had small apertures and weren't much good in low light situations.

The other day, I took the 25mm out for a ride and I started shooting.  I would start to shoot something and would go to turn the zoom ring and it wasn't there.  I needed to foot zoom.  As I was thinking about what I was shooting, I turned the exposure setting to manual for the first time since using the Olympus E-5 body.  (It's not very convenient because there is no PASM dial.  However, it's not a choice you're going to make frequently.)

I started to think more about everything in the area, including reflections and shadows and my perceptions.  I was almost drawn to thinking about using Ilford HP5 black and white film again.  Amazing stuff, that.  (No, I didn't say "stuff that".)

When I first worked with 135 format, I had a Fujica ST605.  Then, a Minolta SRT Super.  The ST605 was a very basic, economy body with only 1/750 top shutter speed but it was small and light like the Olympus OM-1N of the time.  The SRT Super was a clunker.  It was the opposite of super, actually, and really wasn't as good as the ST605, except that the top shutter speed was 1/1000.  Minolta was always the choice for people who didn't know anything about cameras but since it was a gift from my friend's father in Japan, I couldn't say much.

For years, I used the ST605 with just the 55mm f/2.2 and a Vivitar 135 f/2.8 that had much better image quality than the kit lens.  I was intent to buy the Fuji Super EBC 50mm f/1.4, but it was 3 times or thereabouts the price of the ST605 at US$500.  If I'd been using the ST801 or ST901, it might have made sense, but an enlarger and a better body seemed more important than the 50mm f/1.4 lens.

For several months, I'd been selling cameras at a department store and tried everything Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, and Minolta had to offer.  We didn't have much Nikon equipment because it took up so much room.  Olympus fixed that with the OM-system being so tiny.  Canon had the craptacular, gimmicky AE-1, while Pentax had the ME/ME Super.

Years later, I got an Olympus OM-1N and was reunited with what felt like manual camera heaven.  The controls and the viewfinder seemed just right and the images were quite good.  I look back on the image quality of the 1970s and wonder how the lenses were actually good when chromatic aberration, etc. were fairly common, even with Olympus and Nikon.  It's just a good thing that film was so flexible and resilient.

In any case, I stepped back into those days, thinking about the scene, the distance, the surroundings, and the settings.  The heft of the camera body and lens did nothing for the photography and remembering the Nikon F2, I would be hard-pressed to have found it enjoyable when being creative.  It belonged on a tripod in a studio.  The fact that I was using something not entirely tiny came to linger in my mind.  If it didn't weigh so much, I wouldn't need to have image stabilisation, would I?  If I needed a slow shutter speed, I could stand against a tree or a wall to steady myself.

Al of this took me back to Olympus' new OM-D series that's begun with the E-M5 body.  It's slightly smaller than the OM-system bodies.  It's also very light.  (Why they can't fit a 135 format-sized sensor in it is beyond me.  They should find a way.  Of course, it would double the price.)

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd like to have a simple performance camera body.  I don't want to make movies and I don't care if I have Live View.  I could do without the image stabilisation, also.  Give me great ergonomics, an above average sensor that doesn't have to be huge, and some fine optics.  That's where I was in 2004 with the Olympus E-1, but it's 2012 and nothing has all 3.  If I had Olympus working for me, they'd take the E-1 body, put the 16.x MP sensor from the E-M5 into the body with the latest TruePIC VI processor and be done with it.  I could slap the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4 on it and go.  Of course, for my sports shooting, I'd still need my 50-200mm but too many gadgets have spoiled photography.  Let us be free and enjoy being creative again.

Oh, I was amused to see the TIPA awards for 2012.  They included the micro Four-Thirds 12mm f/2.0 lens as "Best CSC Fixed Focus Lens".  Please, laugh with me.  The judges are supposed to understand photographic terms.  The lens is a fixed focal length lens, but has variable focus.  I certainly wouldn't pay US$799 for a fixed focus lens, even if NASA built it.