Hi everyone,

Back in the 70’s when I got my first serious camera a 35mm Olympus OM-1 manual film camera with the then pretty much obligatory 50 mm f.1.8 lens the one thing that I remember above all is the fun of having a one camera one lens lightweight setup which felt so natural in one’s hand and was a joy to use. Sure over time I bought other and more specialised lenses as I have with my modern gear but there’s something liberating and fun about that kind of gear.

So, trying to dismiss any feelings of nostalgia and being objective, I’ve decided to do just that all over again with one of my favourite cameras and lenses , my Olympus OM-D E-M5 II and my Lumix 20 mm f/1.7 (40mm equivalent) lens. I will also take my tiny Lumix 14-42 mm II zoom, a very capable lens in it’s own right, as it weighs next to nothing at 3.9 ounces! (I love plastic) 🙂 and it’s there if I feel that I need it but it is my intent to try and stick with the 20mm as much as possible. The other reason for taking the zoom is that, mobility-wise I cannot zoom with my feet like I used to and my opportunities to get out and take photographs have become quite rare and I really want to be covered if I’m somewhere when I need other focal lengths but not at the expense of lugging heavier gear around.

I know from years of experience that this focal length range feels the best and most natural for me with the sweet spot more or less right in the middle at about 20mm thus I almost certainly should be able to capture just about everything that I want. One thing is for sure it’ll be a lot of fun and, when it’s fun, it not only feels better but like as not ends up with some of my favourite “keeper” shots. Photography is as much about state of mind as it is anything else.

Kind regards,

Leigh

Hi everyone,

Not what you may be thinking from the title of this post, I’m referring to travelling light. Without labouring the point, as many of you are already aware, my mobility problems have caused me to continuously rethink my gear choices, I’ve been a long-term fan of lightweight gear and this has exaggerated things further. There maybe some compromises to be made but I really don’t care or think that, in terms of image quality, they are very significant especially so if one is prepared to invest some time and effort in processing one’s images.

Most of my photographic gear has been purchased second-hand, at least two-thirds of my lenses and all but one of my cameras and that makes the budget-friendly gear options especially regarding lenses even more financially satisfying. Whilst waiting to get out hopefully tomorrow I have decided to make a few changes to my intended gear for the outing. I have changed my camera choice to my Olympus PEN E-PL8 + EV4 electronic viewfinder camera which is lighter and smaller but still does everything that I require and my choice of telephoto zoom lens to my Olympus 40-150mm R f/4-5.6 whilst keeping with my Lumix 14-42mm II and 20mm f/1.7 lenses all in one of my small Manfrotto camera bags.

I always take gear reviews with a healthy pinch of salt, that’s if salt is regarded healthy these days 🙂 but if one reads around it’s difficult to find bad reviews of these lenses, optically and value for money wise, they’re all sharp and punch well above their weight and are great choices when putting together a versatile, lightweight travel kit. I am very much guilty of not using my longer lenses very much, something that I’m very keen to put right. One can pickup the 40-150mm lens new or split from a kit for a laughably cheap price, let alone second-hand, if I remember correctly I paid about £80 new for mine, possibly less 🙂 . when compared to the cost of it’s PRO series equivalent , constant aperture f/2,8 lens which costs an eye-watering circa £1200 and weighs in at 760g (without tripod adapter / 880g (with tripod adapter) . I’ll let you form your own conclusions as to whether the price difference is reflected in their relative optical performance. Sure the Pro lenses have weather sealing, undisputedly better build quality are faster and are optically better, (at least on laboratory test charts) but they are, by comparison, a hell of a lot heavier and extremely expensive. If, and it’s a very BIG if, I had the funds, health, transport and my photographic interest were different, would I buy them, maybe so but, for my every day on-foot requirements certainly not so. I’ll leave the pixel-peepers and gear-heads to their devices, I’d much rather be out taking pictures. 🙂

Never once have I been asked which camera or lens I have used for a shot. As we all know, it’s not the gear it’s the image, if it appeals then it appeals, if it doesn’t it doesn’t and let’s face it, the quality of imagery that modern camera equipment is capable of producing is extremely high and certainly better than the gear I was using years ago but the principals remain exactly the same and there is, as the saying goes “no substitute for experience” whatever one’s choice of gear.

Kind regards

Leigh