There is a very nice lady I know who has recently had a baby. My personal opinion of all babies is that they should be locked away in a cupboard until they are old enough to control their bowels and maintain a civilised conversation; but I appear to be in the minority. Most people like to take their babies everywhere, so that all may share the endless drooling and frequent howling; and this requires a substantial support system including a pram, nappies, food, post-poo change of clothes for baby, post-vomit change of clothes for mummy, towels, headache pills and goodness knows what else.
Oh, and a camera. It is important that every moment of baby’s life is captured, especially the embarrassing bits, so that the photos can be used to amuse future boy/girlfriends.
And my friend had a problem. In fact she had two problems but she only expressed the first one; “how can I take photos of my baby and have the background out of focus?”
It’s good that she asked me this question because one along the lines of “when do you think he will start teething?” would not have elicited a response. But throwing a background out of focus is something I know a little about.
I explained that she needed a lens with a wide aperture, around F2, so that she could have a narrow depth of field and therefore a blurry background (don’t understand? Go here). And then we looked at her camera. She has a chunky black DSLR with an even chunkier monster telephoto lens stuck on the front. The aperture was F5.6 and worse, which is why her backgrounds were more sharp than she would like. But one had to wonder what the point was of carrying round this substantial piece of kit just to photograph her child, when her arms were already full with baby and the attendant life support system. And that was her second problem; she was stuck with a heavy sports camera when all she needed was something light to take baby photos.
I had the answer. “You need a portrait lens with an F stop of F2 or better.” “I do?” “And the lens you need is the Olympus 45mm F1.8. Small, light and perfect for portraits” “Sounds great, I’ll get that!” “Just one problem.” “What?” “You will need a new camera to stick the lens on.” “Oh.”
Still, her interest was piqued, her husband was listening, and he took me to one side and gave me a pile of cash to go shopping. I made my choice and she got this for Xmas:
Photo taken with Panasonic GF1 and Voigtlander 25mm
It’s the Olympus EPL-3. Smaller than the EP3 and bigger than the EPM-1, the EPL-3 has a fold-out screen and a decent set of control options. With the 45mm attached, it’s a fraction of the weight and size of the DSLR monster, and will knock out much nicer photos. Excellent choice by me. Baby can thank me later, when he is a teenager and his mother is showing pin sharp photos of nappy rash to his girlfriends.
Another convert to the micro four-thirds format. I have actually lost count of how many I have swayed to the path of light; but those bastards at Panasonic and Olympus should at least have sent me an Xmas card.
Comments 🔗
2011-12-26| Pattaya Ghost saysActually, you might have another convert, if I simply understood what “Micro 4/3” was.
Also, as I already have a few thousand dollars in Nikon lenses, can you recommend a camera that will work with these?
2011-12-26| Spike saysMaybe I will write an overview of Micro 4/3 one day; meantime there is this thing called Google.
You could do with your Nikon lenses as I did with all but one of my Canon lenses; eBay.
2011-12-26| Bob saysReally? Sold them? Wow, didn’t know that one!
2011-12-27| Spike saysEvery one, apart from the one that makes me money. Instead I now have cheaper, lighter M4/3 lenses that give me equal, or better, quality images.