When we arrived at the church, it was actually closed. By chance a nun cleaning in the interior saw us, opened the door, invited us in, gave us lots of background information and finally showed us the baptistery, a room normally closed even at opening times. That’s where I made this image. It’s not only a lucky one, it’s also one I’m proud of 🙂
I have no idea why I used DxO to process this image. It certainly wouldn’t have been necessary. Fact is I did.
As to the camera: both images, yesterday’s and today’s, are extremely clean and have a lot of dynamic range. I think this camera has more dynamic range than any other Olympus camera and it is extremely sharp as well. 20 megapixels and no low-pass filter make for tremendous image quality. You have to be careful with moiré, but that’s normally a very local problem and easy to fix in post. At least I’ve never had an image that was ruined by unfixable moiré.
Of course I wouldn’t have needed the OM-D E-M1 Mk II, but isn’t it fine to have both cameras with the same resolution?
At that time I had the intention to sell the E-M1 Mk I and the E-P5, but so far I still have both. Why? Well, the prices are ridiculously bad and I didn’t bother. Of course it’s stupid and I should sell them, because what good is it to have them in a closet?
Anyway. This is not the first image taken with the Mk II, but it’s one of the first and it’s the first worth publishing. More to come.
This is St. Henry and Cunigunde, a church that was closed. I could only take the image through a lattice. It was extremely dark inside and this is the result of a long, handheld exposure at ISO 200. Not tack sharp on pixel level, but very usable indeed.
This is one of two last churches that I visited on my way out of Prague. The fisheye effect is not immediately visible because I took the image straight up into the center of the ceiling. I couldn’t exactly remember the church, but using Google Maps and Wikipedia, I found out it was the Church of Saint Giles.
These images were taken with a relatively cheap, manual focus Walimex lens – or Samyang or Rokinion, depending on where you buy it.
I bought it when it was available for 30% off on Amazon. Normally I would probably have bought the expensive and super-stellar Olympus 8/1.8 for between two and three times the price. Would it have been worth it? Probably not. This lens has plenty of sharpness, and most of the time focusing is not necessary at all. The Olympus would have given me some extra greatness, bought with extra size and extra weight.
As it is, the fisheye is always in my “Big Travel Bag”, along with the three PRO lenses. I don’t have to remember packing it, it’s just available when I need it and that’s surprisingly quite often. Had I bought the Olympus, I would have been forced to buy a bigger bag (NO WAY!!!) or alternatively I would have been forced to choose between the 7-14 and the fish. You see, better sometimes can be much worse 🙂
There is a museum in the upper story of the cloister. That’s where the stairs lead to.
Not so here. The distortions give me an effect that strongly reminds me of Dali’s molten realities.
Ok, I’ve played around a bit with DxO and Lightroom. For your reference, here is yesterday’s image again.
If we ignore the different colors and looks, what remains is an effect that I find quite pleasing. Yes, we lose a little bit on the sides and at the top, but the result does indeed look much more natural.
Is it worth it using the fisheye along with DxO and some extra treatment in Lightroom over, say, the rectilinear 7-14/2.8? Well, probably not, but then, if we see it as just one more tool in our set, I think there’s nothing wrong with it. And yes, of course all those software tricks cost you some ultimate sharpness, but so do in-camera corrections. Do I care? Nope. Not at all.