I was invited to a brunch with friends. We sat in their garden in Klagenfurt, and just before I left, I noticed this beautiful lantern. I asked about its provenance, but they couldn’t tell me. It just had “always been there”.
Alternatively I could also call this post “The Fisheye” 🙂
It’s interesting: I don’t use that lens very often, but I use it regularly. Sure, this image was taken more than five months ago, but I’ve used my new fisheye every once in a while in between.
I had one on the Nikon D300, and there it was more of a novelty. I used it for some time and then almost never again. It seems, that in the meantime I have found my way of working with this lens.
Most of the pictures you’ve seen lately were still taken with the Olympus PEN E-P5, an extremely competent camera of the same generation as the OM-D E-M1. The optional electronic viewfinder VF-4 has the same magnification and the same overall quality as that of the E-M1. This camera now sits in a cabinet and waits to be sold. I’ve replaced it with the PEN-F, a camera with a built-in EVF of less magnification, but with a higher resolution sensor and overall even more pleasing aesthetics.
The OM-D E-M1 is also waiting to be replaced by the E-M1 Mk II. Sometime last year, mine has fallen to the ground while we were in Aix. I had to replace the sunshade of the 12-40/2.8 and the camera suffered some scratches. No other damage was done, but of course that devaluates the camera.
The new one will cost 2000 €, and when I checked today, I found that E-M1s are currently traded at around 400-500 €. That’s less than a third of what I paid two years ago. Sometimes I think I should not sell it at all and instead use it as a second body. Only that it would actually be the fourth, and that in reality even two cameras are an overkill for my needs.
What I do now is, that I either travel light with the PEN-F and a triple of silver primes, or I use the heavier pro equipment with the E-M1. Would it make sense to carry the E-M1 and the E-M1 Mk II at the same time, one with the 12-40/2.8, the other with the 40-150/2.8? In certain situations, yes. Would I do it? Almost certainly not 🙂
But then: sell such a beautiful camera for almost nothing? Or not upgrade at all? Well, even first world problems are problems 😀
This is typical for what happens when I use a macro lens for macros 🙂
It’s not that I don’t know how one would theoretically approach those subjects, but it’s the same as with continuous autofocus and sports photography: I’m not really interested in it, I lack any practice and therefore I also lack any skill.
Funnily enough, I always buy macro lenses and of course I end up using them for different purposes. Next time it won’t be so easy though. A week ago I’ve ordered a cheap Mitakon 20mm f/2 4.5X Super Macro Lens. Ultra high 4.5:1 magnification ratio, but on the other hand it does not focus to infinity. I have no idea what I will use it for. Heaven knows, I may end up using it for real macros, because that seems to be the only way that lens can be used at all 😀
“Kellerberg? Kellerberg?”, did I ask myself, “where is Kellerberg?”. I had to ask Google, and they told me it’s north of Villach, maybe 10 kilometers away.
Not so this time. I checked if the church was open, went in, took a few photos, and in the evening I added “Kellerberg” as a keyword in Lightroom. Then I forgot about it 🙂
I think I’ve mentioned it when it happened: I’ve bought a fisheye. It’s not the fancy over-the-top Olympus 8/1.8, but instead a manual Walimex 7.5mm f3.5 lens that was on sale at Amazon.
These and yesterday’s wall are some of the first images taken with it. I don’t expect to use it very often, but at times it’s funny. The extremely short focal length makes it pretty “fishy” even on Micro Four Thirds. The subject? A forklift in a factory building.
This is a little bit odd and actually surprising. Exactly ten years ago I’ve posted “1 – After Grandma Has Gone“. Ten times 365 plus three days from leap years, in my book that makes 3653. Somewhere along the line we’ve lost five posts, have we?
Maybe not. I can’t be sure that I haven’t missed a post or two, although I deem it unlikely. Five posts? No way!
The most likely explanation is, that I’ve re-used the last number five times. It happens. I’ve caught myself doing it, and so far I have assumed that I’ve caught myself every single time that it happened. I may have been wrong.
Anyway. This blog is ten years old and I pretend it has been daily. I’m not going to look for the errors and renumber a few thousand posts 🙂
When I began, I found my numbering scheme a little pretentious, but I decided to do it anyway. I saw it as kind of motivational, and really, it was. Next target: 4000 in little less than a year.