We can all assume there will be no Canon 5D Mk V. I’m wondering if Canon will release any new pro-caliber DSLR cameras ever again. It’s safe to assume we are at the end of an era. Many photographers will be happy to see them go. Who wants to bother with AF fine-tuning. Pro caliber DSLRs are big, bulky, noisy, have limited frame rates, and ugggg — optical viewfinders.

I for one am sad to see them go. There’s a lot to be said for optical viewfinders and the very best control layouts on some. The replacement R series cameras are very good. The mirrorless replacements’ performance advantages are clear. The R series in general are well done from a size, feel, and control layout perspective.

With more than enough perspective, all of those “advantages” in performance don’t seem to manifest themselves in the vast majority of still photography circumstances. I’ll venture to say that most are irrelevant beyond arguing in forums which camera has better specifications.

My 5D series saga is a tale of an on-again, off-again relationship. The original launch way back in ’05 caused an earthquake in the digital camera market. I’ll admit, I was one of the bah-humbug crowd as I was not a Canon shooter at the time. Secretly, I lusted after the 1Ds… and of course the 5D. I was sure the other guys would catch up and surpass this one-off from Canon any minute. Then came the 5D Mk II which was mind-blowing. I had to see for myself, I had to have one. Like countless others, I took the plunge and bought the kit. You know, the 5D Mk II bundled with the now ubiquitous 24–105mm f4L.

I wasn’t fully committed to the 5D series at this point. In retrospect, I should have been. This era of digital was extremely volatile, every year there were bigger, better, stronger faster cameras. I was on the fence given I had only two lenses for the EF mount and a gaggle in F-mount. Then a strange thing happened; A now typical “Canon thing”.

As we all waited for the next universe-altering 5D iteration, speculating on its wonders we waited, and waited, and waited. It seemed like an eternity during those heady times. After four endless years, the 5D Mk III was here. The camera-buying audience was not pleased. Instead, everyone was confused. What the hell? Were’s my more megapixels? It’s like the same camera as before but way more expensive. How the hell can Canon do this to us? Like many others, I did not jump at the 5D Mk III.

Instead, I embarked on a multi-year camera and system swapping mission that even the most crazed camera review lunatic would shake their head at. Never satisfied, mostly disappointed over various quirks, little things, and having way too much grass is greener mentality. I even went so far as to buy a 5D Mk III, just to see. I liked it, maybe even loved it but only kept it for a short while. I still had that 24–105 lens along with one prime. The 5D Mk III was getting “old” and there were other shiny objects. I stupidly continued my quest for perfection. I built a Fuji system, I tried to like my Nikons, I messed with Sigmas, etc.

During this quest, after selling the Mk III, I used one again. Not mine, it was a participant’s camera at a workshop I was hosting. Then it hit me. I loved the 5D Mk II and the 5D Mk III. All of the other dalliances were far less satisfying. The best I ever felt was neutral, most of the time I hated what I was using for various reasons. That was it, the breaking point. It just so happened that Canon announced the 5Ds and 5DsR. I bought one and one more “L” lens at the same time.

In 2021 I have to say I still love my 5DsR, I love my 5Ds. I love them so much I have nothing bad to say about them. Like the 5D Mk III before them, they are not exciting and new. The newer 5D Mk IV is passé at this point. Exciting and new is more lust than love. Exciting and new is fueled by ones imagination not grounded in reality. With all of the 5D series cameras I have owned one word comes to mind; Satisfied.

On the whole, I submit the entire 5D series are “classics”. I’m sure others will have differing opinions. I’d bet that whatever camera they are arguing is more of a digital classic is a one-off rather than a closely related series that has been a staple and a workhorse across an entire spectrum of photographers for more than 15 years. What other camera can one name where the very first model is still used and loved by thousands of photographers? Hell, many new photographers are rediscovering the wonders of the 5D now; At bargain basement prices.

The defining 5D in the line is the 5D Mk III. That’s where the maturity, refinement, and general combination of components, features, durability, and performance made the whole greater than the spec sheet. That particular camera, the one that didn’t seem to have the “wow factor” that was expected was the camera I should have bought the day it was out. I could use one today and be happy. In a way I do. The 5Ds and 5DsR are everything the 5D Mk III was only better in every aspect. I could use the Mk IV and say the same thing. For my use, the 5Ds/5DsR are the ones but in reality, those three cameras are the same. Differences are niggles.

Don’t buy into common internet wisdom or worse, Canon marketing. The 5Ds and 5DsR are not so so specialized that you’d be better off with a 5D Mk III or a 5D Mk IV. I think Canon wanted to sell photographers two cameras at the time where one would do the job.

The Canon 5Ds, one of the versions of the much-maligned 24–105L, and one large-aperture prime suited to your use is the ultimate budget still-photography kit in 2021. Want to spend even less? Go for a Mk III but believe me when I say the 5Ds is better in every single way and cost about the same if you are diligent. The 5Ds specifically is a dark horse. You don’t see as many around and my guess is Canon sold far fewer. Last year I saw them being blown out everywhere around $900 brand new. I already had one, yes I had a 5DsR as well.

Right now? The 5Ds is crazy expensive even used, it’s hard to touch one for under $1600 unless… You sit on the Canon refurb site and wait. If you look every day, eventually you’ll see a 5Ds show up for about $1000. These cameras are actually new with a new warranty. I just bought one, another one. Why the hell would I do that? Well, last year when they were being blown out at Amazon, and B+H, and Adorama, and everywhere else I implored a few photographer friends to grab one while they lasted. They didn’t and missed it. I was sorry I didn’t grab one at $900.

This time I did. What will I do with it? I don’t know yet. I may offer it to one of those guys/gals that missed it the first time around. Maybe I’ll turn a profit on eBay? More likely I’ll keep it for when my other one will die. Or… maybe I’ll do some sort of contest here and give it to a worthy party.

Grab a classic-crappy double sided poster, all profits go towards my coffee fuel fund and possibly pay for part of my hosting bill. So more or less a good cause, I guess.

Originally published at https://camera.fashion on September 2, 2021.

If you’re reading this hoping for the forty-thousandth tutorial on manipulating images in Photoshop or the newest magic push-button solution for making your images epic, stop reading now.

I am using an older sense of the word “editor”. Choosing what images to use, how and where to use them, and how many will do the job. The edit can be excruciatingly difficult, especially with your own images. I find the task more vexing in the digital age. It’s too easy to pile up mountains of unused, unseen, and un-curated photographs. I’m guilty. This is the case for every photographer I’ve ever known when it comes to personal work. Jobs, as in commercial jobs, are much easier. Jobs have goals, deadlines, and direction.

Here’s an open secret; Not all constraints are bad. The right constraints can make you more creative, more productive, and improve your enjoyment of the photographic process. I’m sure you’ve heard dozens of variations on this. Use one lens and one camera, use one light, photograph one subject for a month, make one good picture every day for a year, make one good portrait every day for a year. These are all constraints, many of them are helpful if you’re lost in the weeds. I want to focus on the other end of those pictures made. What happens after you make them?

I’ll suggest that you stop treating your pile of images as your own personal stock agency. I’ve noticed everyone does this now. Everyone meaning photographers, non-photographers, and every cell phone wielding individual on the planet.

A big pile of pictures stored away in an invisible archive to be retrieved when a situation prompts digging a particular picture up. Typically the end result is a two second display on a cell phone. The photo-sharing sites and services are no better. Instagram is an ever-scrolling mess of random pictures you can search through. This is what stock agencies do. A giant pile of pictures to search through with the editorial voice and selection left to you.

Physical portfolios, albums, and books are magnificent constraints. I was reminded of this over the last two months as I set out to survey a 2021 “lay of the land” for book printing services. The first decision was defining what to produce.

Here’s what I came up with:

Why these parameters? I wanted parameters common across many print service providers. Letter-sized pages are common, 50–100 pages would satisfy minimum page counts handily, and I wanted to compare color accuracy and consistency. Softcover vs Hardcover? I wanted to keep it cheap, some services don’t offer hardcover. I wasn’t looking for expensive binding options at this point in my research.

The last one and the most important; I wanted to compare the mass-market providers by the end of August. Without a time constraint, projects tend to go on forever with no tangible results. Decisions are deferred, countless revisions are made, one project morphs into something completely different, or a new shiny object comes along to distract you.

Those constraints weren’t completely arbitrary but could be if you chose. It doesn’t matter what factors drive the box you build around producing something. Make them up if there’s nothing that occurs naturally. The important part is I now had a size and shape. I also had another constraint, the images had to be color. I had only one suitable pile of images made recently.

As part of my post-COVID anti-funk efforts, I forced myself to take evening walks. I had to. I needed to get off my rear-end and out of the house. I needed a habit. Luckily, I made part of that habit to take a camera with me.

Once a week I’d look at the photos I made. I’d rate a few as “not so terrible” and move on. That’s probably what you do with photos you make. Take a look, mark a few that speak to you, maybe post a few on social media, and continue down the road of making more.

Aside: I’m a terrible landscape photographer. My local area is notoriously difficult to make pictures that make any sense at all. Those two things combine to produce a bonanza of terrible pictures waiting to happen.

With the daily walk images selected as the pile and a vague local theme established, I started to layout a book design. Nothing complicated but informed by the fact that it would not be text-heavy. The picture layouts I toyed with were driven by the proportion of horizontal images versus verticals that were in my rough selects.

I leaped in, placing the not so terrible pictures into the layouts. As I did this the seeds for an editorial voice emerged. That voice in turn helped me make judgment calls on sequence and juxtaposition. The constraints I defined at the start took on a clear shape, some pictures wanted to be big. Other pictures wanted to be small. I might have a story and rhythm now…

My self-imposed deadline was approaching. Time to stop foolin’ around with re-re-re-arranging things, I liked the layouts I did a week ago better. I did the captions, wrote a brief introduction, and a nobody-cares epilogue with techno-crap and other detritus. You know, things that cause anxiety where you feel compelled answer questions nobody will ever ask.

Done! Except for the cover. Pages uploaded to the first provider, everything ready to go. I procrastinated slapping together a cover for two days. I finally got sick of thinking about it and slapped the world’s worst cover together in the format demanded.

A few days later the hard copy proof was on my front doorstep. I briefly hesitated to open the box the way I might if I was submitting work to someone else’s publication. Nobody wants a rejection letter. The other less evolved side of my brain couldn’t wait to see and touch the object inside. That side won. I opened the box immediately.

I hated the cover but not as much as I did when I made it. The cover was fine, who cares. Now for the content… I loved it. A couple of normies 1 I showed it to loved it more. I didn’t shove it on them, they saw the cover and asked to see it. Does anyone ask you to see the pictures on your phone? Ahhhh, the power of print.

Can you see the difference a few constraints can make? The big constraint is the production of a physical object.

Producing finished work is how you become a better photo editor. Reading this essay or “knowing” this doesn’t make you a better photo editor, a better photographer, or more productive. Yet another post-processing treatment on the same image you’ve already done a dozen times is not productive. Producing a finished piece of work and putting it out there is productive. It’s easy to forget this. More accurately, delaying a finished body of work indefinitely is common for personal work.

Let me know if you’d like walk-throughs of the layout process, detail about the editorial decisions I went through, and all the ugly fat of it included. Share your successes or failures from an editorial perspective, or publicly put a stake in the ground in front of all of us if that helps you get something done.

Originally published at https://paperarts.substack.com on September 1, 2021.

Real Film, Film Emulation Presets, Etc.

We can’t discuss classic cameras without mentioning the one thing required to use them — film. I’ve had the luxury of using color negative, slide film, and black and white in just about every brand, type, and format made in large quantities since the late ‘70s.

As I transitioned to a digital workflow I continued to use a ton of film. The vast majority of black and white I’ve used was I developed and printed myself, I still do. On the color side, I’ve always relied on someone else to do all that work. Part of the great thing about color film is that it’s easy, especially color negative film. Shoot it, and somewhere between an hour to a few days later you get fantastic pictures back from the lab. If you choose the right lab the results are fantastic, it’s like outsourcing all of the color correction and post production of your RAW files to an expert. Looking at it that way, film is dirt cheap if you put a monetary value to time spent in Lightroom, Capture One, or whatever software you use.

Since the ’90s color, negative film was always a hybrid analog-digital process. After development, most labs scanned the film for digital corrections and printed from that scan. It’s funny given that when you send a digital file from your brand new state-of-the-art camera to a mass-market lab to get a print it’s the same process used since the ’90s to get a print. Digital file projected onto an analog photo paper and run through color paper developer, a C-print.

I shoot a tiny amount of color film compared to the copious amounts pre-2005. On average I’d guess one roll a month. There have been countless occasions where I’d use film and digital cameras on projects where I needed to match up the results. I still do here and there but not nearly as often.

Matching digital RAW files to color negative film results from a good lab can be frustratingly difficult. It’s not so bad when the scenes are different across a bunch of different lighting conditions but can be mind-numbingly complicated when shot side by side. Given how long I’ve been at this I’ve developed my own way of doing it, then evolved that 1,000 times. I’ve sought out shortcuts. Through sheer curiosity I’ve acquired just about every film emulation filter, preset, and secret profile ever conceived. How did that go? About as expected…

Without casting shade on all the purveyors of these products or anyone in particular let’s take a look a just one solution. In the piece I wrote about the Olympus OM2s I included a couple of random examples I’d made recently with that camera. The example at the top happens to be Fujifilm 400H pushed one stop. It’s also massively overexposed to the tune of 3 stops or so. The numbers work out as 400H exposed as if it were ISO 50 then processed as if I shot it at ISO 800 Why? I just wanted to see what massively overexposed 400H looked like with a one stop push (over development). Yep, Fuji 400H goes pink in the highlights when you expose the hell out of it.

Let’s take a look at something a bit less abused shot at ISO 400 and pushed one stop on the same roll. With a shot made on a Canon 5DsR and 50mm 1.2L at the same time. Both versions of the digital were tweaked to match the 400H processed by the lab.

So… what do we have here? One of the digital renditions is using Mastin Labs Fuji Pushed pack 400H+1 and the prescribed workflow to “match the results”. Apply the preset, adjust the exposure slider, fork with the white balance for color correction, then apply one of the “tone profiles” modeled on the way the Fuji Frontier scanner works for adding or reducing contrast and highlights/shadows. The other one is default OOC RAW processing in Capture One with less than ten seconds of exposure, highlights, contrast, white balance, then one tweak to the greens to make them bluer.

I used the new Capture One speed edit controls. If I spent another few seconds messing with the blues as I did the greens it would be closer. Neither of them matches but I’d get closer with less time spent on just doing it myself than the $100 preset pack.

Maybe this is worst case right, let’s change it up to something with fewer hues. Maybe the Mastin workflow will work if it’s not trying to deal with greens, pinks, blues, neutrals, and all that.

Here we have 400H+1 from the Mastin film pack and another default Capture One conversion but this time I spent less than five seconds as I didn’t bother skewing any specific colors. The default conversion has a few speed-edit tweaks, white balance, contrast, exposure, and saturation. Hmm, I’m not sure this is working out in the self-proclaimed king of accuracy, true to film, ultimate film emulation’s favor. I spent far longer diddling with the Mastin workflow and the preset. What do you think? What the hell…

Snake oil? Complete rip-off? A scam? Not by intent and sure Mastin as well as every other seller of film emulation presets in one way or another kinda-sorta attempts to provide a set of looks that mimic a very broad set of tendencies of particular films. These guys cannot even make the same “emulations” look remotely similar on the same file between Capture One and ACR/Lightroom. What chance is there that these emulations can match film?

I’ve tried to come up with recipes for a very long time. If I take some set of control pictures, I run the scanner and post-processing on the film, I shoot the film I can definitely “match” the results within reason and come up with a recipe and a few pre-baked tweaks that do something similar to what I did with scanning the film. Are they going to hold up across varied shooting conditions, lighting mixtures, exposure differences? Nope as I am never ever going shoot film side by side in all those conditions and then scan it with the intent to match digital so that my “presets” work.

That last sentence might be confusing because you may not look at it the way that actual film processing and scanning works. I just called out the giant elephant in the room. When you are scanning the negative it’s not to some standard that’s the same every roll or even every frame on a roll. The tweaks made during the scanning process are completely different all the time. Sure a quality lab doing 10 rolls of film from the same photographer, a knowledge of that photographer’s preferences, the same people, and similar scenery on all 10 rolls will definitely make tweaks to provide consistency across those negatives.

When a commercial lab scans prints on a Fuji Frontier or similar scanner there’s some level of stuff that’s automatically applied to the negative. For illustration’s sake just think of it as an auto levels/auto color balance. From there the scanner operator will tweak the density (dark/light) with “K” (black levels). After that, the operator will probably tweak the CMY (cyan, magenta, and yellow) for additional color balance. At that point, they’ll use one of a couple of options to mess with contrast in the highlights and shadows.

How can you preset that? You can’t. Do certain films have certain broad tendencies? Sure but those broad tendencies aren’t really the dominating factors in look, the scanning is far, far, far more influential. This is very similar to the thought process of buying the same camera as another photographer will give you the same output. Not even close, one person’s RAW processing vs. another using the same camera is worlds apart. That RAW processing is far more influential in the look than the camera.

Think of film emulation presets more as some amount of various color negative tendencies smashed together with a particular film shooter’s tastes in scanning. A lot like any photographer’s presets of any type. I’m not picking on Mastin at all. I do think those presets as well as a bunch of others tend to exaggerate those tendencies for the sake of making each film look as different as possible.

I’m generally agnostic regarding post processing software in general. I favor and advise that people use what works for them to get the look they want. Use what’s easiest, makes the most sense to you, and you are good at using. Sure use presets if they help you to get a look you like. Don’t imagine presets will match results you get with film sent to a lab unless you have a lot of control on both ends with the intent of consistent results out of the gate.

Two Faced Olympus Poster

Coda

I do think it’s amazing a camera from 1984 with a lens from the ’70s can produce broadly similar results to a Canon 5DsR and 50mm 1.2L under the same shooting envelope and output intent. Yes, I blew the focus completely on the OM2s picture of the shirt, I probably took a breath between focusing and hitting the shutter button. This close at f/1.4 a breath is all it takes.

https://camera.fashion/two-faced-olympus-poster/#!/

Originally published at https://camera.fashion on August 26, 2021.

The Practical, unappreciated, black sheep, of the OM professional bodies

Earlier in the year, as I surveyed my vast inventory of irrelevant 35mm film cameras, one called out to me.

“Use me, use me, I’ve been sitting here for years. You’ve never bothered to load a roll of film. Use me!”

As you might observe, the OM2S above is certainly not pristine. A previous owner used the crap out of it. That use was in no way abusive. The use was with care and love. It’s easy to see evidenced by the soft patina around the shutter button and the wear marks on the edges. This takes a lot of handling. If the camera pictured were an OM2, the OG that this model replaced, even a trace of black paint would be difficult to find. The top part of the camera would mostly be brass rather than the matte black finish. But wait, you say, that camera looks shiny, not matte. It sure does, that’s what happens before you eventually see the brass underneath.

The OM2S is a strange camera. It’s got a hodgepodge of features that don’t seem to make any sense looking at the OM professional line of cameras at the time of introduction. It has spot metering. It’s got manual, programmed, and aperture priority exposure control. The camera is obviously marketed as the next-gen OM2. How’s that strange? The answer lies in the camera lineup for 1984.

The 1984 Olympus OM Lineup

• The venerable OM1
• The OM2S was the brand new model
• The OM3 introduced the year before
• The OM4 also a brand new model

So, in summary, we have the beloved manual exposure, center-weighted OM1 in that’s the same as it’s been since 1972 with a few minor upgrades and improvements along the way. Then there’s the very new OM3, a fully manual camera with a fancy multi-spot meter that operates in a lot of different modes. Apparently, that’s the OM1 “replacement”, which never happened. So much for that plan. The OM2 (a very popular camera in the OM line) is gone, done, outta here.

The two brand new fresh off the assembly line cameras in 1984 seem to both be candidates as the OM2 “replacements”. The OM4 has aperture priority automation, fancy-schmancy multi-spot capability, and manual exposure. That fancy spot metering works in manual and aperture priority auto. The OM2S has spot metering but it only works in manual exposure. What’s more, is that manual mode is also how spot metering is turned on. Switch the lever to manual and spot metering it is, they are one and the same. Auto and programmed exposure are served by center-weighted metering, again controlled via the manual/program/auto lever on the top.

I don’t get it. We have OM1->OM3 upgrade path but the OG OM1 is still on sale. We have the OM2->OM4 upgrade path but instead of the OM2 we get a strange love child of the OM2 and kinda OM4 that’s called the OM2S? Was this an internal political battle within Olympus on how the replacement for the OM2 should work? So they decided to do both and let the best camera win? To force would be OM2 buyers to make the choice they eliminated the OM2 that same year? I like the mechanical manual only team’s plan a bit better. Here’s a new idea but if you like the old idea we still make that one as well.

The OM2S gives us the new style black finish, the only option now, no chrome. It’s more durable, it’s not painted but a coating of some sort. Leica started this a bit earlier. Not nearly as pretty as black paint when new and in my opinion doesn’t wear well from a purely aesthetic view. Mostly the coating just develops shiny spots that look more like greasy fingerprints on the matte finish. With rare exceptions as shown, it eventually will be mostly shiny spots and just a tiny bit of underlying metal. The point between new and what you see here is most of the camera’s lifetime; Not a great look.

The Incestuous Love Child Of The OM4 and OM2

Unfortunately, the OM2S inherited Daddy’s looks. Wonder in awe at the black chrome. No, don’t look at it just read the marketing verbiage as to better-ness. To distract us from its lack of beauty we’ve escalated the plastering of the model and feature set on the front of the camera as large as possible. Don’t worry folks, that gets worse as time goes on. Even Nikon succumbed to this with the FM2 and FE2. We get the more squared-off prism but unlike the symmetrical light pipe on Daddy, we get an odd placement above the marketing billboard. We’re also treated to the ugly electro-mechanical big round self-timer that’s extra gaudy in use.

Mom’s DNA gave us few positives. Best of all we get simple operation and no button clutter. One lever that sets the camera operation and the most appropriate meter mode that comes along for the ride. It doesn’t get any simpler than this. Manual means I know what I am doing and want to set the camera a certain way taking what I meter into account. Bingo, manual mode with spot metering, done. Nothing complicated here, I just want to set the aperture and let the camera figure out the shutter speed. Again one flip of the lever and done, shoot away. Don’t worry the camera will warn you in the finder and beep if no shutter speed will work. Then there’s the “I’ve been partying, I don’t know aperture from a toilet” mode. Flip the lever and we’ve got programmed mode.

What I am sure the marketing department wanted you to think is that the OM2S was inferior to the mighty OM4. They did a good job in cahoots with the engineers. I don’t blame the engineers, they’re naive. The engineers thought they were giving their blood, sweat, and tears for the greatest invention and feature set since the bread that comes sliced.

Hell, with no marketing guys in sight just reading the OM4 manual will convince you that the OM4’s variable spot that works in automatic is everything you’ve ever wanted in a camera. The holy grail of exposure systems. It’s fast and deadly accurate no matter what shooting conditions you may be facing. I even thought it was a great idea. I still do… intellectually.

Then the real world happens and nothing beats simple. If you use an OM4 what happens is you either end up using it a lot like an OM2S. Selecting this manner of real-world operation makes you a member of the screw-it faction. Others might doggedly insist on using all the features as designed only to be slower, more error-prone, and never realizing the beauty of simplicity. These people are the but-it-should-work-better faction. Eventually, they delude themselves into it-is-better Lala-land. It’s not.

The OM4 is a great camera, the OM2 is the same camera in real-world use. Well, it’s the same camera but has way more buttons crowded around the shutter release. And then again theirs the extra step of activating and clearing the spot meter in some situations. Or… there’s the crap the spot meter cleared itself issue when you take that next shot in auto. Without further beatings of the horse, the OM2 suffers a mild case of what all modern cameras suffer. Lots of features and buttons that do everything, at any time, given any circumstance or subject. The OM4 is a very early step in the all things to all people all the time school of camera design.

You can tell me, I’ll keep it a secret, you know you only use the same focus mode and either aperture priority or manual. Of course, you do. I don’t know anyone that uses the 27 ways to expose, 44 ways to focus, or any of the other junk on their cameras. Even the customize the 22 buttons and dials guys don’t ever actually use those buttons to change stuff. When they do, they forget how they set it up.

What appears to be some sort of product planning mistake happens to be a very practical and useful iteration within the OM professional camera line. Olympus only made the OM2S for four years, which makes it the shortest manufacturing run of any of the OM pro cameras. The OM2S stopped being made in 1988. The OM4 soldiered on and continues to be a popular and highly regarded camera. A great camera but it’s a mistake to think an OM2S isn’t just as good in real-world use.

I’ll close this out with the thing everyone likes to talk about; Battery sudden death syndrome. The talk goes something like this… The OM2S eats batteries and if you look at it funny it will, unexpectedly, without explanation, die. The truth of it is that the “auto-off” meter operation doesn’t seem to turn everything all the way off, as in hard-switch disconnected. If you are used to cameras like the OM1 where the meter battery will last for years, the OM2S will last for months.

The other issue is the warning beeper and the meter backlight. These two things seem to be huge power sucks along with the “battery check”. Don’t use them and avoid constantly turning the meter on via shutter press with the over-exposure beeping constantly. The battery life is fine given the provisions outlined. Carry two with you, problem solved. You will never ever, never ever, never ever, use a fresh pair up in a week let alone a day. If you leave fresh batteries in there for two years, hmmmmm, that’s another story. Replace them and move on.

Originally published at https://camera.fashion on August 20, 2021.