Choosing the right camera for the job

 I've been around quite a while.  I sold cameras in the 1970s, photographed sports, did graphic design, and made videos at skate parks.

How do you choose the best camera for you?

• Decide what you want to do with it.
• See if there are lenses within the system that will do what you want.
• Choose must-have features and decide what other features would be helpful, but not necessary.
• Decide how much you can pay for equipment and software to support the equipment.
• Find videos on equipment both positive and negative.
• Don't fall in love at first sight.
• Don't be swayed by brand fanatics. 
• Who needs the latest and greatest?

Decide what you want to do with it

  If you're not sure what you want to do with it, you'll be wandering in every direction.  If you mostly want to take video, you shouldn't buy a dSLR because a mirrorless body will be more flexible.  If you want a great dSLR for stills photography, there may be several bodies within a brand that will meet your needs.

See if there are lenses within the system that will do what you want

 You must check to see if the best lenses for the job are available.  If you want to do wide landscapes, you'll want lenses with lower numbered focal lengths and bigger format sensors.  If you're trying to photograph wildlife, smaller sensors will help you cut the effective distance.

Choose must-have features and decide what other features would be helpful, but not necessary

Do you really need 8K video?  Can you live without In-body Image Stabilization?  Do you need 50+ MP?  Do you need weather-resistance?

Decide how much you can pay for equipment and software to support the equipment

You always have to look at every part of your workflow, not just the camera body.

If you're concentrating on stills photography, you'll need a good raw developer.  My favorite is Capture One Pro.  I've been using it since version 3.0.  Some people swear by Lightroom, which I tried when it was new, but like most Adobe software, I swore at it.  If you need something less expensive Affinity Photo by Serif works both as a raw developer and a Photoshop alternative. 

For video, you'll need something that will accept your camera's files.  You can use Da Vinci Resolve, Hit Film Pro, Premiere Pro, Vegas Pro.  Remember to figure the cost of your plug-ins, also.

Great lenses aren't cheap, either.  You'll have your lenses longer than your camera bodies.  Also, if you need to capture video and stills, you might want to have two less expensive bodies that can handle each function separately.

Find videos on equipment both positive and negative

Since there are so many video reviews, it's best to see what can be done.  Don't automatically trust them, though.  View them from a variety of sources.  Don't be surprised if they differ quite a lot.  Be suspicious of overly positive or overly negative outcomes.  I used to see magazines compare technology whether computers or cameras and they would complain about several problems and the product with the most advertising in the magazine would always win. 

Don't fall in love at first sight

It's easy to go into a store and find a camera body or lens presented in such a way that you cannot deny how great it is, even if it doesn't fit your needs.  Six months later, you could be regretting spending the money.

If you already have equipment, try it with something you own.  Capture photos or video on your own card.  Think before rushing into buying.

 Don't be swayed by brand fanatics

 I used to hear something like "My dad's cousin's niece's college roommate's boyfriend's dad uses CaNikon, so you should, also."

I've been to a few stores where I got "Oh, we don't know anything about those.  We only use CaNikon."

When I was selling cameras, I always explained the system and why the bodies were best for certain functionality.  I've met a few sales people who didn't know what they were selling.

Who needs the latest and greatest?

Who hasn't seen the latest technology and wanted it, not because it was necessary, but because it was new?

You can save yourself headaches and money by using something that's been in use for a while and has all the firmware updates to make it reliable.  If you're making money with your equipment, reliability is so important.

Lightly used equipment is also a good idea.  You won't likely have the manufacturer's warranty but you'll have the satisfaction that someone else was using it successfully.  Buy from a reputable company.  In the U.S.A., I can recommend Adorama, B&H Photo, Roberts Camera (Indiana), Mike's Camera (California and Colorado).

Remember that your choice is correct for you

Find what is the best for you and make the most of it.  Try every setting and learn from failure.  Keep the equipment manuals on your phone.  I've seen a load of people who will sneer at you for not using their brand.  Wedding photographers are like that, but hobbyists are worse.  Those who are ignorant of all the choices tend to sneer.  Just keep going and outdo them with better photographs.

Portrait lens: 85mm f/1.2 and equivalents

Since the recent announcements of the FujiFilm and Panasonic/Leica 85mm f/1.2 equivalent lenses, I thought I'd take a look at such lenses from the camera makers themselves.

I'm not taking a look at the (usually ridiculous) Depth of Field argument.  I'm more interested in trying to understand why these lenses work and why anyone but a professional would buy one.  My gut feeling is--if you complain about the price, you don't know how or don't have a way to make money with the lens.

I'm not a portrait photographer, though I've tried modeling-type photography, and I've done many what I'll call quick portraits.  When I'm photographing high school sports, it's often easy and desirable to get a quick portrait of the athletes.  I often do this with either of two lenses which have effective 135 format ranges of 70-200mm for one and 100-400mm for the other.  Using them at about 1 meter/3.3 feet works well.

The 135 format has had an 85mm lens for portraiture for a while.  Canon has an f/1.2 lens and Nikon has an f/1.4 lens.  Barely touching on Depth of Field, we don't want it so thin that only the nose is in focus, unless we're working in reconstructive surgery, of course.  Of course, at a distance, it's less likely that we'll isolate facial features and likely that we'll just isolate our subject.

I'd suggest that any of these lenses are going to do the job, although I wonder which will do it best.  It's becoming more difficult to find really bad lenses, unlike 10 years ago and earlier.  For those who really feel that they want to pick up a 30 year old lens because it was great, you might want to re-think that.  I'd suggest that any lens was great because it was better than other available lenses from the time and had a photographer been given current equipment, he'd likely never go back.

• Canon 85mm f/1.2 US$2199.00
• Nikon 85mm f/1.4 US$1699.95

• Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 US$899.95
• FujiFilm 56mm f/1.2 US$999.99
• Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 US$1599.99

Besides these few, there is also the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85mm f/1.4 lens that generally (there may be a Nikon version having a focus confirmation) has no electronics with an exceptionally low price, US$349.99, I believe.  This one exists for many mounts.  It's not likely to be used as a backup for a wedding photographer's main system, just because it has no electronics.

The prices of the Nikon 1 system, FujiFilm X-system, and Panasonic/Leica micro Four-Thirds lenses are quite high, but they do have a rather large maximum aperture at f/1.2.  Shooting in natural light will be enhanced, as you'll be able to shoot at more difficult times.

It's a bit surprising that the Panasonic/Leica lens is somewhat larger than the FujiFilm lens, but I'm hoping that the companies have put more effort into resolving optical anomalies optically, rather than through software tricks, even though Panasonic was recently given an award for their software tricks.  Is FujiFilm's lens too small to be optically amazing and will it need tricks to correct for optical problems?

Obviously, the Nikon 1-system lens is the odd man out.  I don't expect professionals to be using the system, but it could be handy.  That said, US$899.95 is a large price for "handy".

If I were leaning toward buying a combination at the moment, I'd buy the FujiFilm X-E2 with their lens.  While my first guess is that the Panasonic/Leica design is better (to go with the price), the GX7 is too small and the GH3 isn't good enough photographically to make use of the lens.  Of course, there is the Olympus E-M1 and it is much better than the GH3 and rather a bit larger than the GX7.  However, the FujiFilm combination ($2399.98 X-E2 vs $2999.98 E-M1) is less expensive and the sensor has much more to it (ignoring size, concentrating on the filter pattern), especially if raw development software can take advantage of the advantages it offers.  At roughly US$4100, the Nikon Df and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens would be a high image quality alternative, with the sensor and the image processor of the D4.  It all depends on how little depth of field you really need.  See what I wrote here.

Of course, a wedding photographer is probably already equipped with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII and won't need another system but it would be useful to keep another focal length at the ready, without much weight involved.  I often keep the Panasonic GH3 around my neck while using the Olympus E-5, so I can cover telephoto and wide views.

Update 2014.03.16: I've seen a few people rate the FujiFilm and Leica/Panasonic lenses and they are both rated very well.  I wonder how they would be rated if they were switched to the people who rated the other brand well.  For US$999.99, I'd feel a bit better if there were imperfections because finding imperfections at a full price of US$1599.99 would make me unhappy.  I guess that explains why I have two lenses worth more than US$2000 each.  They're practically flawless.

I bet the E-M1 and Leica/Panasonic lens would be amazing and matched well.  Equally, the X-T1 and the 56mm lens would be matched well.  The lower density sensor with FujiFilm bodies would equal better image quality, but which lens is actually better.  In any case, who needs a dSLR to get those special wedding photos now?

Update 2014.03.19: FujiFilm lens review here and Leica/Panasonic lens review here.  The Panasonic lens seems to be the slightest degree of better (except vignetting wide open), but is it US$600 better?

Update 2015.05.21: Recently, Panasonic introduced a budget portrait focal length lens: 42.5mm f/1.7 with Power OIS.  At roughly US$400, it should be a good deal for the majority of users who don't need a more razor-thin depth of field.

Further back, FujiFilm introduced a different APD-version of their 56mm f/1.2 lens that produced a more pleasant bokeh.  It's priced about the same as the Panasonic/Leica lens.

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.