Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Monday, 18 February 2019
Old Homestead
Back in the early Pioneering days of Australia people were poor (yet somehow managed to not be impoverished) and made do with what they had, often building and then adding to their houses in stages. Now everyone "gets in deep" with million dollar loans (even that word has lost significance) and has to "have it all and have it now".
Sometimes I like to immerse myself in that for a little while and reflect upon that to understand it. Which is why I'm drawn to older (often abandoned) buildings.
As I currently live in a rural area, and so there are always old homes left on properties as people either "sold and moved on" or (often the kids) just built another home somewhere else on the property. My eye was caught by this lovely old place on a ride the other day, so I thought I'd share a little of it.
I don't like the stark and contrasty light of mid day so I chose to go out there in the late afternoon with the sun barely over the horizon (and falling fast as it does here). Accordingly I like to adjust the images that the camera gets to fit how I saw it with my own eyes.
I love the obvious stages of a veranda on the front (right side) and then added an annex on the left.
Back then it was most common to have the bathroom / washing room in a different place (so as to keep the floors from getting rot from water inevitably splashed around (having redone a bathroom in a modern house a few years back I think its something we could learn from, as waterproofing is still a big issue ...).
note the construction of the sink and the simple drain (out into the yard). Given how bloody dry it is here most of the time and given how little water people used (probably a tenth of today) for washing it was obviously quite a satisfactory arrangement. Having a concrete floor was clearly a sign they had some money too.
My Mum grew up in such a place (and Dad's wasn't too dissimilar although he was a city boy) and she applied the same principles in the gradual addition to building of our house (where I grew up). Mum was very much of the Stoic School (although having been infected with the mental virus of Christianity at the hands of Nuns at boarding school may not have known it). I believe that mum operated by the view
Thanks Mum
Lastly, as is pretty obvious to any reader of my blog photography is one of my passions, so too is motorcycling, so I may as well share how I got there to take these photos with you too.
My trusty T-Max (its my second now) and while they're not common in Australia (but are in Europe) they are a great highway cruiser and very handy practical (500cc) bikes. They are a bit sketchy on dirt roads tho ...
:-)
Sometimes I like to immerse myself in that for a little while and reflect upon that to understand it. Which is why I'm drawn to older (often abandoned) buildings.
As I currently live in a rural area, and so there are always old homes left on properties as people either "sold and moved on" or (often the kids) just built another home somewhere else on the property. My eye was caught by this lovely old place on a ride the other day, so I thought I'd share a little of it.
I don't like the stark and contrasty light of mid day so I chose to go out there in the late afternoon with the sun barely over the horizon (and falling fast as it does here). Accordingly I like to adjust the images that the camera gets to fit how I saw it with my own eyes.
I love the obvious stages of a veranda on the front (right side) and then added an annex on the left.
Back then it was most common to have the bathroom / washing room in a different place (so as to keep the floors from getting rot from water inevitably splashed around (having redone a bathroom in a modern house a few years back I think its something we could learn from, as waterproofing is still a big issue ...).
note the construction of the sink and the simple drain (out into the yard). Given how bloody dry it is here most of the time and given how little water people used (probably a tenth of today) for washing it was obviously quite a satisfactory arrangement. Having a concrete floor was clearly a sign they had some money too.
My Mum grew up in such a place (and Dad's wasn't too dissimilar although he was a city boy) and she applied the same principles in the gradual addition to building of our house (where I grew up). Mum was very much of the Stoic School (although having been infected with the mental virus of Christianity at the hands of Nuns at boarding school may not have known it). I believe that mum operated by the view
“Don't explain your philosophy. Embody it.”So while she never told it to me, I believe I have understood that an embodied it myself.
Thanks Mum
Lastly, as is pretty obvious to any reader of my blog photography is one of my passions, so too is motorcycling, so I may as well share how I got there to take these photos with you too.
My trusty T-Max (its my second now) and while they're not common in Australia (but are in Europe) they are a great highway cruiser and very handy practical (500cc) bikes. They are a bit sketchy on dirt roads tho ...
:-)
Sunday, 17 February 2019
Samyang 35mm (and a comparison to the P20 f1.7)
It turns out to be an excellent combination (well unless you have ultra-unrealistic ideas of how fast AF should be or how far you can pixel peep the corners at f2.8 on a lens which costs this little).
I was tempted into buying this lens because while I've historically been into wider than 35mm (indeed perhaps 28mm being where I like to start) over the years I've changed.
This is not a strict review of that lens instead it is an oblique look at the angle of view difference between 35mm on (so called) Full Frame and 20mm on micro 43rds.
One of the things which changed me is the little Panasonic 20mm f1.7, which works fantastically on a compact m43 body to give great renderings (indeed the above shot was taken with the 20f1.7 at f4 (because I like my subject to be clear to allow you to look at it, not a personal WankFest on how shallow my DoF is). This is a picture of the P20f1.7 on my GF-1
As a lens its almost the same dimensions as my Samyang.
Now an interesting thing is that the Panasonic GH-1 has a "multi aspect sensor" meaning that if you set 3:2 you don't just get a different crop, you get a slightly wider angle of view (read my post on that over here).
The P20f1.7 somehow always felt it made my GH-1 feel a little chunky (even though its still a very light and compact camera)
Very similar cameras when you have them in your hand for weight and size.
So I was interested to see (and that's what this post is about) what would the difference be between them in "angle of view" when I set my GH1 to 3:2 ratio. In the following I've made no effort to adjust the pictures, they're Straght Out Of Camera JPG. Camera on tripod and unmoved between images.
Well ... just about identical isn't it.
Just for "shits n giggles" I'll throw in a shot taken at 16:9 which I often end up cropping to anyway (well not with the GH1, but other cameras), which shows wider again:
GH1 & P20 @ 16:9
which works out to be a bit wider doesn't it. This is something I've observed a few times here (example), and it gets wider again if you use RAW files and don't do the lens corrections.
Also I found that the differences in sharpness and available detail (when looking at 50%) aren't so huge. I wouldn't call it double and unless you're intending to make super huge prints (I mean really, not just in your dreams of when you take that winning shot) that there is really nothing amazing to be had in the Sony A7 from that perspective.
I still like my m43 system (despite its age) and wonder if the Sony is worth having (for my needs and desires).
The experiment of ownership continues ...
I was tempted into buying this lens because while I've historically been into wider than 35mm (indeed perhaps 28mm being where I like to start) over the years I've changed.
This is not a strict review of that lens instead it is an oblique look at the angle of view difference between 35mm on (so called) Full Frame and 20mm on micro 43rds.
One of the things which changed me is the little Panasonic 20mm f1.7, which works fantastically on a compact m43 body to give great renderings (indeed the above shot was taken with the 20f1.7 at f4 (because I like my subject to be clear to allow you to look at it, not a personal WankFest on how shallow my DoF is). This is a picture of the P20f1.7 on my GF-1
As a lens its almost the same dimensions as my Samyang.
Now an interesting thing is that the Panasonic GH-1 has a "multi aspect sensor" meaning that if you set 3:2 you don't just get a different crop, you get a slightly wider angle of view (read my post on that over here).
The P20f1.7 somehow always felt it made my GH-1 feel a little chunky (even though its still a very light and compact camera)
Very similar cameras when you have them in your hand for weight and size.
So I was interested to see (and that's what this post is about) what would the difference be between them in "angle of view" when I set my GH1 to 3:2 ratio. In the following I've made no effort to adjust the pictures, they're Straght Out Of Camera JPG. Camera on tripod and unmoved between images.
Sony A7 & Samyang 35
GH1 and P20 set to 3:2
Well ... just about identical isn't it.
Just for "shits n giggles" I'll throw in a shot taken at 16:9 which I often end up cropping to anyway (well not with the GH1, but other cameras), which shows wider again:
GH1 & P20 @ 16:9
which works out to be a bit wider doesn't it. This is something I've observed a few times here (example), and it gets wider again if you use RAW files and don't do the lens corrections.
Observations
Interestingly even with these SOOC JPG's its pretty evident that the Panasonic is a bit brighter looking in its image. This is something I've observed with every shot I've taken with the two cameras side by side. I'm not sure why, but I assume that Panasonic biases its exposure a bit more to boost up shadows (same goes for my GF-1). Its not a concern of mine, because I like the images both produce. But its an observation.Also I found that the differences in sharpness and available detail (when looking at 50%) aren't so huge. I wouldn't call it double and unless you're intending to make super huge prints (I mean really, not just in your dreams of when you take that winning shot) that there is really nothing amazing to be had in the Sony A7 from that perspective.
I still like my m43 system (despite its age) and wonder if the Sony is worth having (for my needs and desires).
The experiment of ownership continues ...
