I don’t think I am the only one among photographers and non-photographers experiencing this in the face of the image overload of the digital/Internet age. What’s your experience?

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

If I told you there was something artistically significant about this photo, would you be able to convince yourself of this, and even come up with a reason why?

I’d like to hear from you in the comments….about this photo in particular and/or about fine art photography more generally!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I have used the Lightsphere, mostly for weddings. It actually performs quite well. The main drawback is that it’s not exactly light and it doesn’t collapse into a nicely flat object. But if you’re going to have it on your flash the whole wedding anyway (which would be typical for me), that collapsible aspect isn’t that important.

In an attempt to make this blog actually profitable in some way (so I can spend more time writing posts), I’ve been on the lookout for a supplier of photographic products that I could recommend and sell. Well I’ve found one. I ordered two products and tried them out first. One of them was a spherical light diffuser that comes with a inverted white dome *and* an inverted amber dome. I purchased the one that fits Canon 550EX/580EX/580EX Ⅱ. There is also a size that fits Canon 420EX/430EX & Sony F36AM, one that fits Nikon SB800/SB600, and one that fits Nikon SB26/27/28, Sony F56AM & Sigma EF500.

The fit is quite snug, but this is good for making sure it doesn’t fall off of the flash unit. (You can apply some double-sided tape to make the attachment even more secure.)

Here are some photos of it on a Canon 550EX flash (click to see them larger):

To help support this blog, I’m selling this spherical diffuser–which comes with both the white and amber inverted domes–for only $34.95 (shipping is included). Make sure to specify your flash so I make sure you receive the correct sized diffuser. Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.

Flash Model

Canon 550EX/580EX/580EX Ⅱ Canon 420EX/430EX,Sony F36AM Nikon SB800/SB600 Nikon SB26/27/28, Sony F56AM,Sigma EF500

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

$1000? $5000? $10,000?

And what does a “life-changing” photograph look like?

One thing I’m pretty sure of: it’s probably not posed.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

I addressed this question in a previous post, but I would like to list specific recommendations based on the camera or cameras you own. Unfortunately, I will only be doing this for Canon DSLR equipment, because that’s what I own and am most familiar with. If you’re a Nikon (or some other brand) camera user, you may still be able to find and use the equivalent lenses that apply to your camera.

When I think about lenses for wedding photography, I like to break the typical wedding day up into the separate stages: i.e., getting ready, pre-ceremony, ceremony, post-ceremony, group formals, and reception (I sometimes further break reception down into early and late). Also, it makes a difference whether the ceremony and/or reception is indoors or outdoors.

As I start composing this post, I realize there are a *lot* of considerations I could list based on the specific circumstances of the particular wedding you’re shooting. But I don’t have the time to write “that” tome right now (maybe an e-book later on??).

So, I’ll go with a more general guideline sort of post.

Outdoor Ceremony and Reception
If it’s an outdoor ceremony and reception, and you’re not taking any “getting ready” shots, this is the easiest scenario there is. You just need a good quality zoom lens and it doesn’t have to be particularly fast (i.e., it doesn’t have to have a large maximum aperture). If you’re using two cameras and one of them is a full-frame (e.g., a Canon 5D), put a 24-105 f/4 IS on the full-frame camera and a 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS) on the other camera and you’ve got great outdoor coverage!

If you’re looking for an inexpensive combination that still gives decent quality, using a 18-55 IS and a 55-250 IS lens (these are inexpensive, but good quality plastic EF-S lenses) on one or two Digital Rebels or Canon 20D/30D/40D/50D series cameras (these are all 1.6x crop factor cameras) can work quite well.

Indoor Getting Ready & Pre-Ceremony
Once we move indoors, I find it necessary to have at least f/2.8 constant maximum aperture lenses. Also, you want to be able to go quite wide (at least 24mm, full-frame equivalent). A 24-70 f/2.8 lens on a full-frame camera or the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens on a 1.6x crop factor camera will cover these shots quite nicely. I’m particularly fond of the 16-35 f/2.8 lens (on either a full-frame or 1.3x crop factor Canon 1D series camera), but then you’ll probably want to make sure you have a second camera with a lens somewhere in the 50 to 100mm range (e.g., a 85mm f/1.8).

Indoor Ceremony
You should be prepared for the indoor ceremony location to be dark. If isn’t, you’ll be fine with lenses that can handle a dark indoor setting. The reverse (being prepared for an indoor setting with ample light, but then finding out it isn’t so), can be quite problematic!

Now, indoor ceremonies can occur in anything from large, palatial churches to small conference-sized rooms. In almost any scenario, the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) lens is your friend! You’ll also want to get some wide shots with your 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 or 17-55 f/2.8 IS lenses. I always shoot ceremonies with two cameras and two lenses. However, you could get away with just a 24-70 f/2.8 (on a full-frame camera) or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS (on a 1.6x crop factor camera) if the ceremony isn’t occurring in a huge indoor facility…*or* if you’re able to move around very freely without disturbing the wedding officiant or the rest of the ceremony audience.

Post-Ceremony (Indoor and Outdoor)
After the ceremony, there may be a receiving line; and this receiving line may or may not occur outdoors (depends on weather and the ceremony facility’s particular configuration). This is another case where it’s best to be prepared for low light conditions, though you may end up outdoors with great light. The lenses you used for the ceremony will usually work fine here.

Group Formals
The main consideration here is to be able to go quite wide in case you’re taking the formals in cramped quarters with a large group. You’re going to want to use a relative small aperture to keep everyone in focus; so a f/2.8 lens here isn’t necessary. However, since the formals often happen right after the ceremony, using the 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, or 17-55 f/2.8 lens that is already on your camera should work quite well. (Note: the full-frame equivalency of 17mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera is 27.2mm; this may not be wide enough for the very largest group in a cramped indoor area. You may want to carry a very wide prime lens for such instances if you’re only working with 1.6x crop factor cameras.)

Indoor Reception
Indoor receptions tend to occur at night in dark rooms with low lighting. In addition, you’re often photographing people moving around (e.g., dancing) in this darkness! Until it gets truly dark at the reception (sometimes receptions begin with lots of light streaming in through windows or with all the lighting turned way up)–or if you don’t mind relying on flash or off-camera lighting–you can often get by with the lenses you used for the ceremony (i.e., 16-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, and/or 70-200 f/2.8).

Though I use flashes and off-camera lighting for some of my reception photos, I don’t like taking *all* of them with “superficial” lighting I have generated. As the evening wears on and it becomes totally dark outside, I take out some large maximum aperture prime lenses to capture some indoor, existing low light shots. There are many to choose from. Some typical choices: 24 f/1.4, 28 f/1.8, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 or f/1.4, 85 f/1.2 or f/1.8, 100 f/2, and 135 f/2, to name a few.

The *really* expensive lenses here ($1200 and more) are the 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2. Personally, I hate having too much money wrapped up in one fixed focal length; there’s no one focal length that I use enough to justify the cost of these lenses. I think the 50 f/1.4 is a good buy and a good lens to have around. The other fast primes I listed are more affordable, but are a matter of personal choice.

Whichever fast prime lenses I decide on, I start putting on the camera as the reception wears on. I think it’s important to keep one relatively wide zoom lens around for any wide-angle photos you may need to take with flash or off-camera lighting, like the tossing of the bouquet across the width or length of the dance floor. I try to offload the 70-200 f/2.8 lens to my car if possible because who needs to be carrying around all that weight!

Overall Recommendations
If you’re like me, you own a bunch of these lenses and you choose a different combination to bring to each wedding, depending on the particular circumstances of that wedding. For me, my main challenge is to choose the most efficient combination of lenses for each wedding that allows me to take all the types of photos I’ll want to take without having *all* of my lenses with me!

Now, if you’ve got a limited budget for camera equipment to be used for photographing weddings (which even I have, but sometimes don’t admit to myself…;-), here’s what I would recommend buying:

1) You pretty much need one or two f/2.8 maximum aperture lenses, unless you *never* photograph indoor weddings.

If you’ve got a 1.6x Digital Rebel or 20D/30D/40D/50D series camera, buy the kinda expensive but high quality 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. If you’ve got a 1.3x crop factor 1D series camera, buy the 16-35 f/2.8 lens. If you’ve got a full-frame 5D series or 1DS series camera, buy the old standby 24-70 f/2.8 lens. You can buy these used if you need to save money (I do this sometimes).

I really like the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, and would recommend you buy it whether you’ve got a full-frame, 1.3x, or 1.6x camera. However, this is an expensive lens. For a less expensive “work-around”, consider the 100 f/2 or 135 f/2 prime lenses to be your “go to” telephoto lenses. The 100 f/2 is cheaper and probably a better choice if you have a 1.6x crop factor camera (the full-frame equivalency is 160mm on a 1.6x camera).

2) Get the 50 f/1.4 prime lens. It’s the only f/1.4 lens you can get for under $1000 (it’s less than $400!). And it’s a very flexible focal length: it’s a “normal” lens on a full-frame camera, it’s the equivalent of 65mm on a 1.3x crop factor camera, and it’s equivalent to 80mm on a 1.6x crop factor camera.

With these 3 lenses and your 1-2 cameras, you can do a very nice job photographing most weddings, indoor or outdoor.

When/if you start to get more money to invest in lenses, you can start to branch out to some of these other potentially very useful lenses. For example, a good one for general outdoor, one camera use is the 24-105 f/4 IS L.

That’s it for now. Good luck!

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Well, one thing you’re not selling–at least not in an “exclusive” way–is the ability to generate photos or digital images; almost anyone can do this now. And even some of the lower-end digital SLR camera models can generate quite usable images for stock, weddings, and/or portraiture.

And since digital makes possible immediate and/or almost immediate review of images taken, even amateurs can be quite sure whether they’re getting good, properly exposed images or not. So, it’s more difficult to make the case that you need a professional photographer to make sure the camera equipment is producing images that look good from a technical standpoint. I’m pretty sure no one would want to hire a true novice in this regard, but the learning curve has certainly flattened out.

Now, being able to “operate” the equipment does not assure great photos, right? I don’t think anyone would argue with this. However, having equipment that is better than a compact/point-and-shoot digital camera can certainly help *anyone* make better photos….especially if they’re photographing moving targets or photographing in places with low light; it’s in these two areas that compact/point-and-shoot camera often come up short.

One area that I think still requires quite a bit of technical mastery to get right is the use of flash and external lighting for indoor–especially dark indoor–photography. Purely “natural light” practitioners will often run into difficulties at dark, nighttime and/or indoor receptions.  Having a professional for such events can make a significant difference in the quality of the photos.

Now, even though I’ve downplayed the importance of equipment, the more expensive professional equipment does make *some* difference in terms of image quality, focusing speed, and ability to take photos in lower light. This is especially true for indoor events. The more expensive equipment *will* yield a higher percentage of “keepers”, all other factors being equal.

Okay, now for the sake of argument, let’s say the event is purely outdoors and the difference in image quality and focusing speed between the consumer camera equipment and the professional equipment isn’t significantly noticeable to the client. What’s left?

It’s that “photographic eye” thing, right? That thing that tells the photographer what to take a photo of and what the client sees as the intangible “thing” that makes a photo good and/or pleasing, right?

Well, the trouble is that many budding photographers have–or claim to have, or maybe their friend or spouse claims they have it–that “photographic eye”. This is not exclusive to professional photographers. In fact, some professional photographers may have lost that “eye” because they’ve taken too many hundreds or thousands of photos and have become “desensitized image factories”!

Some of that “eye” thing may be related to the amount of enthusiasm the photographer still has for the art of photography. Beginners often have lots of this enthusiasm and it sometimes can make up for what they lack in photographic experience.

In actuality, professional photographers often go through fluctuations in enthusiasm; it’s usually not a static “have” or “not have” commodity. It comes and goes like it does with any long-term activity pursued by a human.

Really, I think it’s *not* the photographic eye, per se, that you’re paying the professional for; even a good amateur should have that. With a professional, what you’re paying for, is a well-established photographic vision. Whereas an amateur photographer is typically experimenting with different styles, viewpoints, post-processing, etcetera…a professional has found his or her strength and developed it to a high degree.

When you hire a professional photographer, the photos s/he delivers will be *very* similar to the sample portfolios and galleries s/he has shown you. There’s a consistency in vision that the photographer has carried out over and over. You, as the customer, know and can be sure of what you’ll get when you hire this photographer. This photographer has shown s/he will deliver consistently and what the end product will look like. If you, as the customer, like what you see, you can be quite sure you’ll get the results you want when you hire this photographer.

So, photographers, what are we selling? A well-established photographic vision.

Does this mean a professional photographer can’t experiment like an amateur can? No, I don’t think that’s the case. Even the professional’s “experimentations” will carry his or her signature vision or style. S/he can’t get away from this vision or style; it’s who s/he is as an established photographer…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

As promised, I’ve finally assembled some photos I took at the annual fashion show in my area. Because of the number of photos included (around 80), I decided to finally figure out how to embed a flash slide show into my blog. It took some doing, but I got it to work! Click the “full screen” option in the lower right corner of the slide show applet to get the full effect…:-).

As I mentioned in my previous blog post that featured photos from the actual show (“Fashion Show Photography: Even more lessons learned“), I find the back stage photos more interesting and fun to take. This is where all the “work” is happening, all the emotions (excitement, worry, boredom) are evident, and where hundreds of different activities–and photo opportunities–are all happening simultaneously.

At this annual fashion show that I photograph, the back stage area is a huge, open indoor recreation building. Combine this with the fact that I’m trying to get candid expressions and situations, and I find myself using a 70-200 zoom lens for 90% or more of these shots. This year I had my 70-200 on a 1.3 crop factor Canon 1D (Mark IV), so the effective field-of-view was that of a 91-260mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Because this is a big, open room with *very* high ceilings, I didn’t use my camera flash at all. Since it’s also quite dark, I found myself taking plenty of 3200, 6400, and 12,800 ISO shots with the lens wide open (f/2.8). In years past, I didn’t have a camera that could shoot at 6400 or 12,800 ISO, and it limited the shots I could capture. I have a 135 f/2 lens; but I prefer using the 70-200 zoom because it enables multiple, variously framed shots within seconds.

I also had a Canon 20D with a 28 f/1.8 lens at my side for any wide angle shots that might appear without notice in front of me. This worked like a charm!

So, I would not hesitate to follow this very same strategy again next year. In fact, I’m considering spending *all* of my time back stage taking candids next year and having an assistant set up out in the auditorium to take the show shots…:-).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Rather than fear such questions (which you might if you’re a photographer or interested in being a photographer), I think it’s good to embrace and explore them–i.e., I think it’s a healthy exercise. You can see the participants’ initial written responses to the question here.

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

So I shot my annual fashion show…the one I’ve been doing the past 5 years. It’s always in early Spring, so I tend to use it as a warm-up for wedding and portrait season, and also to test new equipment. I titled this post “Even *more* lessons learned” because I’ve blogged about fashion photography lessons learned in a previous post.

Honestly, my favorite part is capturing back stage candids (my *next* blog post will feature my back stage photos and lessons, so stay tuned…). Photographing the show is mostly a matter of workin’ the equipment: bam, bam, bam! Sure, this machine-like gun operation of my camera and lenses is a relatively good way to see what the equipment can and cannot do, but it’s not particularly creative. That said, I do tend to look for something other than the straight on, one model filling the frame types of shots; it makes it more interesting for me.

Anyway, this year I decided to shoot the whole show (well, OK, I was only there until the first intermission) with one lens and one camera. In previous years, I’ve shot with two cameras, one connected to a 24-70 zoom lens and the other to a 70-200 zoom lens, and stood about 8 feet away from the end of the runway (i.e., quite near it) with 20 other photographers.

My plan this year was to stand further back on a small step ladder with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens attached to my new Canon 1D Mark IV that I wanted to test out. I placed the ladder adjacent to the corner of the stage where in years past, the models came for their final poses before returning back up the runway.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 500 ISO, 1/400 sec

Unfortunately, the show organizers decided to switch things up; they decided to have models end up at the “other” corner of the stage before returning back up the runway. I, of course, didn’t realize this until the show started and I saw what was happening.

So, lesson learned: talk to fashion show organizers each year about the planned “traffic pattern” on the catwalk because it may not stay the same from year to year. It’s not always easy to find a fashion show representative who actually knows this sort of information; but it’s worth the effort. Also, if you see a designated show videographer in some optimal, cushy location near the stage or on an elevated platform, you can be pretty sure *he’ll* know!

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

Anyway, I didn’t want to stay at the transition corner; I wanted to be at the final posing corner. So I moved my step ladder in the aisle toward the other stage corner. Well, wouldn’t you know that someone in the audience was pretty darned annoyed at where I was standing on my ladder and told me so.

Because I didn’t really want to be yet another annoying photographer getting in everyone’s way, I crouched down the rest of the show (well, the rest of the first half of the show) and took many photos of the models on the stage with audience heads creeping up ever-so-slightly into the bottom part of the photos, sometimes obscuring the model’s feet. This wasn’t optimal, obviously, but some of the designers and models still bought my photos; so it wasn’t a total wash.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 2000 ISO, 1/400 sec

What worked and what would I do differently next time?

First, I still like standing back further from the stage–than the other 20-30 photographers taking close-ups of the models right *at* the stage–and using one camera and one long telephoto lens (for me, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS). This allows me to more easily get photos of the models almost anywhere on the stage and they don’t all of to be close-ups. I noticed one photographer was sharing the stand the videographer was on, which was in a perfect location of my one telephoto lens strategy. I’ll have to do some sucking up to the videographer next year…:p.

Compared to last year, instead of shooting in manual exposure mode with a fixed ISO, I shot using auto ISO. The lighting on the runway is quite uneven; so a fixed manual exposure doesn’t work too well, unless you’re only taking photos at the end of the runway. Even then, there are differences depending on where the model is standing. I’ve noticed when I’m shooting with a longer lens, the camera does a better job with exposure because no one part of the scene–which may be quite a bit darker or lighter than the rest of the scene (this commonly happens when the model is wearing white or black clothing or has particularly pale or dark skin)–dominates the frame as it does when you’re close up.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/2.8, 1600 ISO, 1/400 sec

I should explain a little more about my camera setting: I was using a Canon 1D Mark IV, which allows you to put the camera in manual mode, but with the ISO set to Auto. The great thing about this is that you can put the aperture and shutter speed at some fixed settings (e.g., f/3.2 and 1/400 sec) and let the camera adjust exposure by raising or lowering the ISO. In effect, it’s like you’re able to shoot in both aperture priority and shutter priority simultaneously. I found that keeping the aperture relatively large (f/2.8 – f/3.5,  mostly to keep the ISO from going too high) and the shutter speed relatively high (1/200-1/400 sec, especially when photographing the models *while* they moved down the runway) worked out quite well.

70-200 f/2.8 lens, f/3.2, 640 ISO, 1/400 sec

If I didn’t have a camera that does auto ISO in manual mode, I’d probably shoot in aperture priority mode and keep the shutter near it’s max…again, if I’m using a relatively long/telephoto lens.

That’s it for now. My next blog post (within the next week) will feature my back stage photos and lessons. In the meantime, I’ll finish this post with a few more shots of the show (click on the thumbnails to see them larger).

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His fine art website is at http://www.michaelgracemartin.com/ and his main commercial/services website is at http://www.mgm-photography.com/.

Well, the funny thing is, I keep finding myself in situations where I want to take some photos (mostly while with my children) and the only camera I have available is the one in my cell phone. First, there was the one in my Blackberry which wasn’t very good, but at least it was 2 megapixels. Now there’s the one in my current phone that only takes 640×480 images and you can’t even get them off of the phone without paying to send them to yourself via email (it’s a prepay phone)! Trying to take a decent photo with a cell phone has *really* lowered the bar on what’s acceptable in terms of features and even–to some degree–what’s acceptable in terms of image quality.

I was noticing that the form factor of my cell phones was making it *way* easier to have them with me than any of my cameras, digital or film. Also, people out in public barely even notice if you pull out a cell phone (or something that looks like a cell phone) to take a photo; practically everyone is carrying around a cell phone or an mp3 player that is rectangular and looks like a pack or cigarettes or small deck of cards.

My first thought was to get a good camera phone (like an iPhone) and just use it as a camera (forget the actual cell phone plan, I’m not giving up my cheap prepay plan). But camera phone manufacturers need to make compromises to fit a camera along with a phone into a small rectangular space. Sure, there are camera phones with decent digital cameras, but if you buy a dedicated digital camera, you’re bound to get a much better camera for the same price.

So, I figured I wanted a relatively thin, rectangular device without large, protruding parts that I could use to take reasonably good digital photos costing less than $200, so I could carry it around everywhere and not have to worry about damaging an expensive ($400+) piece of electronics.

I had a Panasonic LX3 for a while that I mostly liked. What didn’t I like?

1. I was hoping for quality and performance that would rival my Digital Rebel but in a more compact form. I discovered compact digital cameras simply can’t compete with digital SLRs.
2. The lens on the LX3 sticks out pretty far and makes it not very pocketable.
3. It’s a relatively expensive camera (around $500), so I couldn’t have it banging around in a coat pocket or small camera bag or whatever without having to worry about it more than I would want to.

I also owned a Canon S90 for a couple of months. While it was definitely slimmer and more pocketable than the LX3 and its images had much less noise than the LX3’s at high ISOs (800-3200), I was quite disappointed in its focusing speed and accuracy–definitely not as good as the Panasonic. And again, I was carrying around a camera that was pretty expensive ($400+), so I had to worry about it more than I’d like to.

Another thing I’d like to mention about these compact cameras with large maximum apertures (both the LX3 and S90 go as large as f/2, and this large aperture tends to make them more expensive) is don’t expect to get the sort of shallow depth-of-focus you can get with a digital SLR; the sensors are just too small in comparison to achieve a nice bokeh. The nice thing about large apertures on compact cameras is they help to keep ISOs lower; they don’t do much for shallow DOFs…unless the subject is *very* close to the camera.

So anyway, after getting over this fantasy that a compact camera could perform anywhere near a digital SLR in terms of things like shallow depth-of-focus or focusing on moving targets, I’ve come to realize there’s still a place in my photographic life for a compact digital camera. And the requirements have finally become clearer:

• Small enough to fit into a shirt or front jean pocket (1 inch or less in thickness)
• Flat and smooth with no large protruding parts; something like my Blackberry or an iPhone
• A flush lens. Even though there are many cameras with lenses that are flush until you turn the camera on (then the lens zooms outward from the camera), once that lens zooms out, it functionality as a camera is pretty obvious to everyone around you. The one thing–maybe the only thing–I like about the camera in my cell phone is no lens sticks out and so it’s less obvious that you’re using it to take a picture.
• Reasonably fast and accurate auto-focusing on non-moving subjects: still objects or children sitting or standing still…or at least not moving too fast.
• Less than $200. My cell phones have been worth less than $200, so I don’t have to worry so much about having them with me in all sorts of environments and weather conditions.
• Reasonably fast and wide lens. To me, a f/2.8 lens is as fast as I need; f/4 gets a little slow and f/5.6 is definitely too slow for indoor settings. I liked the 24mm (full-frame equivalent) on the wide end of the LX3’s zoom range; however, I find that 28mm is sufficient in 90% of the situations I find myself in. Even 35mm isn’t a deal-breaker; I have two compact film cameras with fixed 35mm lenses that I’ve used with quite satisfactory results.

With these requirements in mind, I did some research on the web and found a compact digital camera I’m quite pleased with: the Panasonic DMC-FP8. I found and bought a new one for a mere $160.  I think I was somewhat influenced by my mostly positive experience with the Panasonic DMC-LX3; even though its quite different in many ways from the LX3, the FP8 is similar enough to the LX3 in terms of features and performance that I have found it a comfortable and somewhat familiar photographic ally.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8

Here are some specs for the FP8:

• Camera Effective Pixels: 12.1 megapixels
• Aperture: F3.3 – 5.9 / 2-Step (F3.3 – 10 (W) / F5.9 – 18 (T))
• Focal Length: f=5.0-23.0mm (28-128mm in 35mm equiv.)
• Lens: LEICA DC VARIO-ELMAR, 10 elements in 8 groups, (5 Aspherical Lenses / 1 ED lens)
• ISO Sensitivity: Auto /100 / 200 / 400 / 800 / 1600 (High Sensitivity Mode : Auto(1600 – 6400) )
• AF Metering: Face / Touch AF/AE Tracking / Multi (11pt) / 1pt HS / 1pt / Spot
• Viewfinder: No
• LCD Monitor: 2.7″ TFT Screen LCD Display (230K dots), Field of View : approx. 100%
• Built-in Flash
• Power O.I.S. Image Stabilization
• Weight(lbs): Approx. 0.29 lb; Approx. 0.34 lb with Battery and SD Memory Card
• Dimensions (H x W x D): 2.35” x 3.77” x 0.80”

The lens is made by Leica and it’s a “folding lens” that is flush with the outside of the camera; it never protrudes past the surface of the camera even when zoomed out to 128mm. The maximum aperture on the lens is f/3.3. This is slightly smaller than f/2.8, however it’s only about one-third of a stop different (f/4 is a full stop slower than f/2.8) and its noise at 800 ISO is actually slightly better (based on my memory) than the LX3’s was; so the better performance at higher ISOs helps make up for the ever so slightly slower than ideal lens.

I haven’t had the camera for long, but I can tell you the focusing speed and sharpness of the lens–especially at 28mm f/3.3–has impressed me. And the image stabilization seems to do a very nice job at slow shutter speeds.

DMC-FP8, 125 ISO, f/3.3, 1/40 sec

DMC-FP8, 80 ISO, f/3.3, 1/125 sec

I’m still experimenting with the different menu settings, but so far, I like what I’ve seen. The FP8’s performance when the lens is zoomed out past 28mm seems less good to me; but I like having that extra zoom range in special instances…it could come in handy.

So, if you find yourself with similar preferences and requirements to the ones I’ve described for myself here in regard to a compact digital camera, I recommend you check out the Panasonic DMC-FP8 for yourself!

(Note: the Panasonic DMC-FP8 has actually been discontinued, but you can still get it new online. This is one of the reasons you can get it so inexpensively! The only way to get this same lens in a current model is to buy the $300-$400 DMC-TS2.)

Michael Grace-Martin is a professional wedding, portrait, event, stock, and fine art photographer based in Upstate New York. He is also the author of this blog. All images and text are (c) Michael Grace-Martin Photography. His main website is: http://www.mgm-photography.com/.