The "Golden Age"

Maybe it's because I've just experienced the almost perfect sports weekend.. First; all my schools/teams won: Friday night, both North Forney and Forney High, then Saturday, the Ags win at Tech, followed by the Sooners (my brother-in-law's team) beating those jackasses from down in Austin (who are really responsible for the demise of the Big 12), then the Rangers beat the Justin Verlander led Tigers despite a 2+ hour rain delay! .....Oh, and it RAINED, here in drought-strickened North Texas, dropping the temperatures into the 80's in the process!!! Or maybe it's because I just came home from a "once-in-a-lifetime" trip to Taiwan and Hong Kong during which virtually all my acquired technology came into play.....and worked flawlessly. So it feels like that Heineken commercial from last year, "Golden Age" is playing repeatedly in my head.

Anyway, what's my point today? It's that in today's world, the previously unobtainable can be had by us mere mortals with regular jobs and families. Basically, I have 3 main hobbies, and although, they are all different, they can all function together. There's photography/cameras, computers, and audio/video. The ultimate concept would be that the convergence that all of us "of a certain age" (around 50+or-) has been seeking since we first watched The Jetsons not only has occurred, but can be had if planned out and acquired properly.

Let me start by examining how NOT to do it. If you make the fatal mistake of buying at retail and becoming Best Buy's best customer (like many people), here's what would have happened to you to get to where I am today:

• "Nice" notebook computer that's light enough to carry around and powerful enough to do some minor photo editing on the move: $1500 or so. Yes, I know you can buy a decent machine around the $1000 price-point, but remember you are trying to replicate my $3000-3500 ThinkPad X300. I ended up paying around $200 for this after selling my previous machines that it replaced. Not to mention getting onto the internet in random places like Hotels in Taiwan and airports in Japan.
  
• High-end desktop computer with 2 large (1 22", and 1 20" hi-res LCD monitors) for around $1200. I built mine for about $800 total, over about a year, to handle the heavy duty photo-editing after the pictures are all dumped.
  
• Nikon D300, $1800, and 18-200 VR lens, $950, MB-D10 vertical battery grip, $250, for obvious reasons. I picked all this up for right around $1200 total.
  
• A/V computer connected to my main system; I'd guess-imate to run around $800 for a machine of similar capabilities. I built mine for around $200 of accumulated parts. Although my main TV at a less then HD resolution is a lot more fun to view the pictures on at 41" in the living room than crowding around my the monitors in the office.
  
• Home server, which replicates my 4Tb+ WHS should run around $600 and it cost me about $300 to build. Of course, this serves up the files and protects them by duplicating the folders.
  

I'm not even going to get into replicating my main A/V system. So roughly, "Super-Best Buy-man" would have spent $7100+ to purchase all of my various hobby pieces. And I'd say that someone could easily spend at least the $3000 or so to get an A/V system together pushing everything up over $10,000! Holy Smoke, that's a lot of money! I'm not saying that the roughly $2700 that I've spent using "Frugal Propellerhead" methods aren't inconsequential, but a $4400 differential is HUGE. I am confident in saying that it's enough of a difference that in all probability that I wouldn't be able to have/do some of the things I have/do now, or if I did, it would be with far inferior equipment!

It's kind of hard to remember when I'm out on vacation somewhere shooting pictures with the D300 with 18-200mm attached, reviewing and dumping the pictures onto the X300, backed up on to an 80Gb iPod, then bringing them home to edit on my big desktop workstation and storing them on the WHS file server, then pulling them up and displaying them on the big TV in the living room. When I think about all this in retrospect, I'm both grateful for what I have and a little overwhelmed by what can be accomplished today for the costs.

Street Shooter: Part 2

The last post was all about how I came to the conclusion that I needed another camera (go figure), and what that camera should be..... This time, I'm actually going to talk about that camera, in-depth (more or less). Of course the camera is the E-330, the fourth of Olympus' digital offerings after they decided to get into the interchangeable lens DSLR game. Of course they had already been involved in DSLRs for some time with the very well thought of, E-10 & E-20; however, the marketplace was passing them by in terms of features, convenience and price. High-end/professional DSLRs had been around for some time pioneered by the Nikon D1, but it was when Canon dropped the Digital Rebel XT (350D) bomb in 2003 that the lower end of the market exploded. Then, Nikon answered with the D70 in January of 2004, the full-on interchangeable lens DSLR wars were on....and has raged unabated ever since.
These cameras defined the "entry level" of the digital imaging market. They didn't have the high megapixels, plethora of features or the outrageous magnification capabilities of the "Super-zoom" cameras, but what they did have was outstanding images, combined with an ease of use that had every other soccer mom/dad out there (who in the old days would have never bought an SLR) using them. Sure, corners were cut: porropisms (vs. glass pentaprisms), no anti-shake control, plastic bodies/lens mounts and lower resolution. However, this last difference turn out to be one of the major reasons why they were so successful. When you take the much smaller sensors used in the "point & shoot", as well as "superzoom" cameras, crank up (crowd lots of photosites) megapixel on them, they actually performed worse than the often less expensive DSLRs with a lower resolution! So you had Nikon D40s and Canon Rebel XTs selling for $5-600 at Walmart (with kit lens) out performing $1000 "superzooms"!
Now, everybody wanted to get in on that market segment. Although the profit margin was nowhere near the high end multi-thousand dollar professional and prosumer cameras, they sold a whole bunch more of them! This drove and has continued to drive the market ever since, with Pentax, Minolta/Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and everybody else jumping in. After all, there's only so much money that can be made by selling "point and shoot" cameras in the $50-150 market space!
So Olympus stood at a crossroads in the early part of the 2000s. As nice as the E-20N was at the time of it's introduction in 2001, it was pretty evident that they needed to respond to what was happening in the market. The first order of business was a professional/prosumer model in the E-1 of 2003, but that certainly didn't address the high volume and increasingly lucrative segment of advanced amateur camera that was gaining steam seemingly on a daily basis. Olympus introduced their answer in November of 2004 in the form of the E-300.These two were the first efforts in the use of the "Four-Thirds" standard that Olympus pioneered along with a consortium of other manufacturers such as Kodak (maker of the original 4/3 sensors), lens maker Sigma and eventually Panasonic partnered with Leica. A year after the introduction of the E-300, came the E-330 AND the much more conventional looking E-500 so that Olympus could tap the entry segment of the DSLR market. Ultimately, it was this design direction that ended up killing the E-3xx line making the E-330 the last of it's breed.

OK, now that you've had a quick rundown the Olympus history in the DSLR market, we can talk more about the E-300/330 model. The fact of the matter is that, although they were highly acclaimed by reviewers, they just didn't sell very well. This can be confirmed by a virtual trip to eBay or Craig's List to do a quick search. You'll find WAY fewer E-3xx camera for sale at any given time than their market contemporaries such as Canon Digital Rebels/XT, or the Nikon, D40/50/70. I would suspect that a lot of it has to do with the psychology of the consumer in that market space. These were often first time SLR buyers; film or digital. So, if they were going to spend the extra money it took to upgrade over a point & shoot, they wanted everyone to know what they were using. That certainly wasn't a DSLR that didn't look like one, no matter how it performed!

However, on the flip-side, look at what the E-330 was offering in 2006 in terms of features compared to its market dominating rivals (Canon Digital Rebel XT/350D or Nikon D70S) at the time of it's introduction. The E-330 had a 7.5Mp sensor which was marginally lower than the class-leading Canon's 8Mp, but we all know that in the reality of the DSLR world, small resolution differences aren't really relevant. However, the Olympus offered not only an ultrasonic sensor cleaning function that didn't become an industry standard for several more years, plus it offered their second generation of sensor-shift/anti-shake compensation that virtually no one else had. Then throw in the two features (Live View & Articulated LCD) that nobody else had at all(and wouldn't for several years); you end up with a DSLR that was well ahead of its time. Of course this is not new for Olympus which is a company of engineers, led by engineers. Back in the early 70's, they introduced the OM-1 which was the first of the "compact" SLRs on the market and started that trend. This was followed by the OM-2 which introduced full-blown electronics to that segment of the market as well as through-the-lens flash metering.

From the standpoint of just purely a camera,the E-330 has plenty enough pixels to be effective. Remember, I've been using a Nikon D70S at 6Mp for some time and it's done a creditable job any time that I have. This camera at 7.5Mp is more than enough for a second camera.Although it's size really isn't much smaller than the mid-sized Nikon; the E-330 5.5" x 3.4" x 2.8"/1.4lbs, vs. D70 at 5.5" x 4.4" x 3.1"/1.3lbs, that middle dimension of 1" less by eliminating the pentaprism hump is significant. It's my opinion that this is true both in terms of actual, and perceived bulk, but also what a live subject senses when the camera is aimed at them. When combined with the use of the articulated screen (although it's only on a vertical plane) and Live View, the ability to photograph candidly is greatly enhanced. I don't have anything to prove this hypothesis at this point, but I'm as sure of this as I can be....at least until I get my hands on one and try it.

To complete the concept, you throw on the very small 25mm/f2.8 (Angle of view same as 50mm on 35mm camera) that Olympus introduced in early 2008; you have a light, relatively compact camera with full DSLR capabilities configured to be almost ideal for "street shooting". Sure; I get that I could go out and buy the Olympus EP-L1 in the mirrorless "Micro-Four/Thirds mount for a similar price-point. Although we are talking a significantly smaller (probably pocketable) camera built on the same sized, but higher resolution sensor, That camera is designed as a step-up for folks moving from the P&S and thus has way too much automation for the way I like to shoot. And yes; there are others of the M3/4 cameras that offer what I want in terms of control set, but at this point, we are still talking in the north of $500 range that I can't justify.
So, for now, the E-330 will be the next "target of opportunity" for me. So stay tuned and I'll update when I've actually gotten my mitts on one of these curious beasts!

Street Shooter: Part I

Not that kind of “street shooter”, I mean with a camera. For some folks, it’s “what they do” as a photographer. The most famous, and often considered to be the “father” of “street photography” or what he called “real life reportage”, was French Photographer Henri Cartier Bresson. He specialized in candid photography shot as he walked around in various places. Now, this isn’t really my specialty per se, since the vast majority of my day-to-day photography is simple family candids chronicling the comings and goings of our little family on a daily basis. I strongly suspect that it’s what most folks do with their photography and videography as well.

However, I recently got a taste of candid street photography on our trip to Taiwan and Hong Kong. These are places so different than what we Americans experience as our norm that I was fascinated by everything I saw around me. I’ll admit, that a lot of it probably has to do with the fact that I’m Chinese and was born in Hong Kong, but having left at an early age; it was really rather interesting to me. So, what does this have to do with budget techno-geekism?

OK; Taiwan and Hong Kong could be considered the epicenter of the modern technology world for everything from design, manufacturing and the consumer products on sale there. But, as crazy as this sounds; I didn’t spend a lot of time in those aspects in either of those places. There was the trip to the “Digital Plaza” in Taipei to find a new MP3 player for my son, but I’ll have to commend myself on a remarkable amount of restraint in looking while at the famous Nathan Street, electronics shopping area of Hong Kong.

What I did spend a lot of time, and effort doing was shooting pictures with my newly acquired Nikon D300 DSLR. To say that, it is an outstanding camera would be an understatement. However, I will have to say that it’s going to take me a long time to learn it would be an understatement as well. I did find out one thing though….and this isn’t a complaint about the D300, as it’s commentary on virtually all cameras of its type. They aren’t for candid street photography. They are large, heavy, professional devices, or at least equipped like mine is with the vertical battery grip; it’s roughly the equivalent of a D3, then add a relatively large “do-everything” lens like the 18-200 Nikkor, you have a pretty intimidating piece of artillery! It’s certainly not something that you could call “unobtrusive”. I’ve now learned why this type of photographer has generally preferred small, light and simple cameras. In Bresson’s day, the camera of choice was the Contax with Zeiss lenses. As a poorly paid photojournalist, all he could afford was the lesser brand of Leica and one lens (a 50mm). Ultimately, he shot with this camera and lens for the rest of this life. This probably had something to do with why he got so good with it!

Once upon a time, I owned a Canon 7S rangefinder which was a nicely made copy of the Leica M2/3. That was many moons ago and it didn’t fit my photographic style or inclination at the time, but I did learn that these cameras were extraordinarily fast and quiet in use. In retrospect though, I can certainly see why a camera like that would be just the thing for what I was trying to do in Hong Kong and Taiwan! Does that mean I’m going to run out and sell my D300!?! HECK NO!!! That camera is “all that and a bag of chips”! It’s the do everything heavy duty SUV of cameras.

So, now you’ve figure out the point of this whole discussion…..I’ve found an excuse to get another camera…… So how does that fit into the Frugal Propellerhead philosophy? Well, I guess I’ll have to find a camera that’s a better fit for quick, unobtrusive candids without spending much money. I guess that pretty much leaves a digital Leica out of the discussion then; which finally brings me to the real subject of this post…..the Olympus E-330 DSLR…..of 2005/6.

I know; that’s really random, right? So, let me explain how all that Frenchman Photojournalist stuff led me to a rather odd, market failure for Olympus. Saying Olympus and odd in the same sentence is almost redundant. They’ve always been a company that’s pushed the envelope and we all know, that’s sometimes begat failures in the marketplace. In this case, the E-330 was a brilliant piece of engineering which gave excellent results for the time (2005/6). It was the follow on of the E-300 as well as the end of that particular design line, and as you can see from the picture below, there’s a reason why.

It isn’t so much ugly, but when you consider that it’s a DSLR, the shape is odd, and I suspect that had a lot to do with why it didn’t sell well. It certainly wasn’t the mechanicals or the capabilities! It was first to market with a number of technologies that none of the “big boys” had at the time. Some of them include: Live View, a CMOS 7.5Mp sensor when everybody else was still using CCD, articulated 2.5” LCD display, and ultra-sonic dust removal for the imager. And despite that shape it was in fact a DSLR but deployed a side-swing mirror system and 2 sensors so that it could have both mirror-up Live View and mirror-down Live View. These are pretty nice specs NOW, much less 6/7 years ago! Unfortunately though, consumers found it too odd and expensive for their taste and Olympus shot itself in the foot with the less expensive and more conventional looking E-4xx/5xx series which live on today.

So, this little bit of oddity is the crux of my essay on Street Shooting? We’ll, no; there is something else. The reason for even having thoughts on a non-Nikon (since that’s what all my lenses are mounted for) is that about 3 years ago, Olympus came out with a 25mm/f2.8 “pancake” lens. I’ve always been a little bit obsessed with these little oddities and think that paired up with a small(ish) digital camera would make the perfect Street Shooter as well as carry anywhere lightweight camera. Then “why not get a Nikkor” you ask, since they are the originators of this concept with the 45mm GN of 1969. The issue is that, this lens is so old that it won’t even meter on the small lightweight Nikon DSLRs like the D40 or D50 and of course they are manual focus, plus it would have to be modified before mounting since its pre-AI/AIS. There is a later 45mm”P” lens that Nikon released which even has the contacts and chip to talk to modern DSLRs, but it’s out of production and astronomical in price (over $400) since the collectors got ahold of it.

Since Nikon was eliminated, I started looking around at other companies that had small/lightweight DSLRs AND a “pancake” or similar lens. This came down to Pentax, Panasonic/Leica, and the various Micro Four-Thirds/Mirrorless DSLRs like the Sony Nex, Samsung, etc. I’d love to be able to buy a Panasonic (Lumix) GF-1 with the Leica 17mm/f1.7 “pancake”, but if I could afford that, I wouldn’t be writing this blog, would I? So, virtually, all of these were eliminated due to the lack of compact normal/mildly wide lens or lack of appropriate camera body to fit it.

It came down to either the Olympus or Pentax. They are both iconic companies who have kind of gone their own way in the industry. Of the two though, I’d say the Olympus has been the more innovative….and that’s coming from someone who used Pentaxes for year! But mostly, Olympus has the product (E-330) that is a pricing anomaly for its capabilities. The bottom line is that for whatever reason, I’ve seen them sell for less than $150 with a kit lens (14-45mm DZ zoom). Combine that with the 25mm/f2.8 pancake lens that can be sometimes be had for less than $200, you get a sub-$350 compact/lightweight DSLR that’s very compact and unobtrusive.