The EM1x, Possibly The Best Sports Camera You can Buy (For The Money Anyway)

The EM1x is a curious beast and a beast it is.

Made to be the ultimate flagship for Olympus prior to the Tokyo Olympics, unfortunately cancelled due to COVID, timing proving to be a b*tch there, is was the physical equal to a Nikon D6 or Canon 1Dx, could actually out-strip either camera in buffer and frame rate, match or exceed them in resolution and other performance parameters, while providing the MFT advantage of small, but very powerful lenses.

Size.

At launch, the big sell of MFT was size, or lack there of, so a camera as big as a full frame SLR (technically not, but similar to look at), for a system of small everything else seemed to be an odd fit. Ironically, as the mirrorless = smaller myth has started to shift, the EM1x style cam is back in fashion.

Depends who you ask on that front I guess.

Handy.

As a medium to large hand sized male, one who dislikes clutter and has come to loathe cameras with poor interface options, the EM1x was and is a revelation.

It is the most comfortable camera I have ever held (the G9 was the previous winner). The grip is perfect for any hand that has tried it, that I have seen, even smaller ones.

Balance with a decently heavy lens (40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 etc) is perfect, required even. With smaller lenses it feels like a solid base, a concrete pedestal to place a fragile vase on, even a tiny lens like the 17 f1.8. Ironically, the extra size means you rarely encroach on the lenses view, something I tend to do with smaller cameras.

Intuitive.

The layout is devoid of clutter and every button seems to be in the right place (for me anyway) and that is compared to many cameras that have come before. The previous king there is the G9 Mk1, but that camera lacks the performance of the EM1x.

If you add a battery grip to another EM1# cam wouldn’t you have the same thing?

Not by a long shot. Adding a grip means duplication of buttons, you have to remove the grip to get the camera battery out, the combination is no smaller than the EM1x and I have found there is a difference in handling and feel, especially the second shutter button.

Focused.

AF is the pride point of the Em1x, the choices in shape and speed being the two big ones. I can configure the EM1x’s AF to almost any shape I would want, certainly enough options, so I can have varying AF clusters, with varying group locations.

For example, for football I do not rely in the always hard to control face detect system (which face???), but instead set a cluster of three single boxes stacked. This creates a shape about the size of a human or their torso if closer.

I then select five columns across the frame for these to land in, so a middle, mid left/right and far left/right. This means I can flick it across the frame in one or two movements of the thumb nubbin, something I can do instinctively as I compose. On the EM1 Mk2 for example (a tough example, but the one I have), you have to engage the four-way pointer and push it 2-5 times, moving the far less ideal 5 point cluster.

There are many other AF options including subject tracking etc, but for me, the ability to pin point my subject and track them without hesitation is all I need.

Responsive.

They are fast. Fast to accept commands, fast to turn on, fast to focus and fire. The whole process can seem like an extension of yourself. The AF and shutter button (on all three I have) are soft, but sure to touch. I did try a second hand one recently and the tell that it was close to clapped out was sticky buttons.

They fire like a hair trigger rifle, with just a thought it seems and the buffer, not that I use it, is bottomless.

No buffer? Yep, they are so fast and sure of themselves, that I fire single shots only, no need for bursts.

I get annoyed when I miss shots, but not with the camera, always with myself. The camera is faster and more accurate than me. I have taken shots that went from noticing their potential, turning on the camera while raising it to my eye and taking in a bit over a second. That fast. An EM1 Mk2 has a slight delay turning on, a G9 even longer.

Tough.

They are tough. The build is reassuring, like an old Canon F1 reassuring (without the weight), the shutter is rated at 400k fires, but I have over 1 million files each out of my two EM1.2’s which are rated lower, so I doubt that will be a thing. The electronic shutter is almost always usable, banding and colour shifts almost never occurring*

Weather proofing is an Olympus speciality, so it is fair to assume, and I have proven this only recently, that heavy rain and their flag ship cam will not be an issue.

Relevant.

Is 20mp enough for most jobs?

Yes it is. I remember a while ago a Nikon rep telling the news paper photographer pool that the big advantage of the Z9 was the ability to crop down to 20mp (ish) in APS-c mode, acting like a 2x teleconverter for their very expensive 300, because “anything over 20mp is wasted on print or web media”. Expensive way to get a cropped 20mp, 600mm I thought, with basically the same sitting in my bag not ten feet away.

I have cropped my images, even “stressed” ones taken in poor light at higher ISO’s down to 25% their original size and filled a back page of the paper. No complaints or even comments on the quality (which far exceeded the medium).

Taken on a hand held 600mm equivalent.

Cheap.

A pro grade sports camera for $1k? I have three of these, the total butchers bill, including the full price one bought on release, is $5k au, or less than the price of a second hand Z9. That means I can have one glued to my 300mm, one for shorter lenses and a third mated to my new 100-400, each learning their role (their second processor is for learning AF, lately called AI), so each is specialist camera for its role, setup to succeed.

When I shoot most sports I use 2 cameras, maybe a third in a bag with a wide angle lens (a G9 usually). Thanks to the size of the lenses (the real size benefit), I can run in full frame terms a 600 f4 + 80-300 f2.8 (field), or a 150 f1.8 + 50 f1.8 or 80-300 f2.8 + 24-80 f2.8 (indoor), or a 600 f4, 80-300 f4 and 16-35 f2.8~4 (event), with less to worry about than a full frame shooter with a single monster tele.

It is no exaggeration to say you could kit yourself out for all sports with multiple bodies for under 10k au.

Far end of the court is no problem with a 40-150.

And near end a moment later with a 12-40. Thats 24-300mm coverage at f2.8.

Nasties.

No noise of consequence up to (a well exposed) ISO 6400. The math of that is f4-2.8 in almost any realistic lighting with a shutter speed of 1/1000th shutter speed without resorting to extreme processing, which is the real hero here. With said processing 12,800 is perfectly usable, but again don’t fall into the trap of under exposing.

The MFT advantage of course is cheap and excellent quality (ff equivalent) 400mm f2.8, 600mm f4, 150mm f1.8, 300-800 f4.5. For many of us, this a real 2 stop advantage dollar to dollar compared to full frame options, which balances out their math of dearer cams and slower lenses.

A hand held 600 f4 at a poorly lit local pool at ISO 6400. The finger prints may well hold up in court?

Video.

Nobody used Olympus cams for video, but they really should. The EM1x at one time sported possibly the best hand held AF and stabe of any hybrid on the market (Sony had slightly better video AF, Pana similar stabe, but neither had both), while exporting organic looking ProRes RAW out to a Ninja V.

Yes it has small video packets, a micro HDMI and other annoyances, but it can do good video, even internally (if you use C4k, the 1080 is rubbish).

Negatives.

Dynamic range and white balance can be a little twitchy at ISO 6400 and higher (compared to full frame), something that requires more processing care than some (not all) full frame files. I have found that Olympus’s own jpegs are actually better some times, so shooting both often gives me a workable short cut. This is also helpful when I need to send files directly to my phone.

The eye cup is as hard as a cat’s head. Really uncomfortable after hours behind the camera. An easy fix is to ditch it when it bothers you.

They are not available new, but they tend to come up as mint “amateur used” second hand. The original buyer was rarely the intended customer, the camera abusing pro sports photographer, so like a SUV only used in the city, buying one second hand and actually using it hard is like setting it free. The going rate seems to be $1kau with a low shutter count. A bargain really.

It is getting on by modern standards which seem to date things quicker than in the past, but in most important ways, the things that actually matter, it is still cutting edge. You have post action Pro-capture, stacking, high frame rates, silent shutter application, hand held composite high res at current standard (only star tracking is missing), AF and responsiveness that is the equal of any shooter, reliability and usability up to the a standard some newer cameras do not reach and decent video at a bargain price.

*I remember being surrounded once by Nikon Z9 users complaining about the LED running board around a local football ground messing with their view finders and adding banding to their images. I was not getting those issues anywhere near as much.

Running With My Luck

The big question of whether to buy the 100-400 OM or the Lumix 100-500, turned into a larger look at my system, the things that need addressing and how.

The OM lens was bought, a special magically arriving in my lap, even from a local dealer, so a return option. Lucy, my lovely Lab/Pointer cross decided we liked the lens (before I had even tested it) and ate the box.

Bit random, but a thing and as it turns out, all good.

Pondering the 100-500, I came across the 70-200 f4, an older but well respected lens, and probably a more logical addition to my full frame kit than a slow supe tele, especially if that meant not getting the more practical OM lens.

The two Lumix 70-200’s were never on my list because they were simply too dear for what they offered in a kit aimed mostly at video. The Sigma maybe, but not the Pana’s. It was however, at a price that surprised me ($1200au).

Long story short, in a little over a week, I have managed to fill two holes for a little more than the big Lumix, or less than “little white”, the Oly 50-200.

Fears of “dud” lenses are pushed aside by taking many nice images, where the OM and Lumix have already impressed.

The OM lens matched to my newest firmware EM1x (Green Goddess) is in the league of my other professional lenses, maybe not on par with the 300 f4, but not much is. The stabe makes a difference as the lens feels lighter than the 300 by size and not much fun without the stabe or a tripod (800mm is vastly different to 600).

My Oly sports kits are the Green Goddess above, Old Yeller (EM1x and 40-150’s) and Big Blue (EM1x and 300), all sticker identified (and rarely separated).

The AF on the Lumix was a surprise.

The S5II is nothing like an EM1x, that is know, but this lens with it’s dual motors is actually very smooth and fast, probably better than my 85mm. It does not “snap” into lock from cold, sometimes it can be just stubborn about shifting from an error especially in close (and the close focus is a little ordinary), but when you have a clean grab, it holds it and drifting around things at similar distances is smooth.

The other thing is, it is gorgeous. Tight, smooth, solid feeling. This is my best made full frame lens outside my Vespids, no doubt.

When the box arrived, it was huge. I opened the outer and found a similarly massive Lumix black box, which on inspection took away my suspicion that it was the 2.8 model by mistake.

I opened the Lumix box and found…. a neat little lens, a little larger than my Oly 40-150 f2.8. One third of the box length and most of its width was the hood!

This thing is sharp, corner to corner, both ends of the zoom range!

That lovely Panasonic light and bright colour, great fine contrast, super fine detail.

Really frikkin’ sharp.

I hate buying new lenses, but it seems I have lucked out on two lenses with rare but real cases of copy variation.

My OM kit is deeper and more versatile, my full frame stills kit now feels complete, covering 20-200 with zooms, macro and speed.

Temptations And Realities (Or "An Odd Thing Happened On the Way To The Camera Store")

I have felt for a while that (my) MFT kit is falling behind a little. Not the format as such, as it seems to be in some quarters picking up momentum, but my kit is at its limits I feel and it is time to look at the future.

I decided to have a look at what was around, be brave, question processes and choices of the past and to some extent look past some recent prejudices regarding formats, brands and gear.

To be clear, I sold all brands of cameras for the best part of 20 years, have used them in a variety of forms for 35 and have no actual problem with any brands or formats, I have just been very comfortable with Micro Four Thirds for a while, only straying recently into some full frame for video.

I have discovered things by exploring a little wider and I am a little surprised that opening this can of worms, produced, well….. the expected, but pretty ordinary worms.

1) Software is moving faster than camera hardware. A year in software upgrades can be like three in cameras.

2) To match the quality of MFT in long lens territory costs a lot and the returns are not always obvious. This I knew, but felt the reality had softened with new mirrorless designs, a shift towards small, lighter, faster, but after looking with an open mind to change, I am not so sure.

There are options, but each has a catch.

The EM1x’s are still very capable and compelling cameras, but they are can be (relatively) stressed in poor light due to their smaller, older sensor design, which means in this time of zero tolerance for digital noise (clients are less concerned and nobody but we photographers look that close, but more on that as we go), that my older MFT cams by comparison are struggling… well, maybe.

What is the tolerance?

1/1000th of a second is needed for most sports and my ISO limit is 6400. I can go higher with deep noise reduction applied, but tend to think in volume and speed. I can achieve that with an f4 lens in most daylight or good lighting (600mm full frame equiv), at f2.8 in gloomy daylight (300mm or shorter), less good flood lights or well lit indoors, f1.8 in poor indoor light (150mm or shorter). I can often use a lower ISO, but these settings will work.

I looked at Canon, its 100-500 is very good and on the R7 the reach is ideal (160-800). The lens and camera come in at roughly the same as the OM 100-400 and an OM1.3, just reversed, but both are needed up front and I am not convinced adding another brand would be sensible.

A funny thing happened when looking at other brands.

I kept coming across birding sites where long lenses area an obsession and as often as I found great comments and images on various Canon and other brands, I just as often was drawn to threads on OM system options. To be honest, if I was a newbie starting out, I would probably go that way. Reviewers like Duade Paton, who has all brands available to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MmwS_8PCw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwTtVbbpCWk

The reality is though, software is making more difference than evolutionary camera improvements.

First question is I guess after poking around is, do I actually need to buy anything for Olympus (OM systems)?

The EM1x’s are dated, but that seems to mean less and less as time goes on and I have three in “early life” condition. Sure the OM-1.3 will have a newer sensor design, more powerful processor and other refinements, but the EM1x’s get the job done, as a multitude of cameras in the past have. Improvements are incremental and sometimes when you have a balanced offer, it is best to milk that for as long as you can rather than break it up.

This quality is fine.

My 40-150 f2.8 is ten years old and has developed some minor looseness in the barrel which occasional screw tightening seems to fix for now ($1500au to replace new). Minor looseness and play after ten years of heavy use is being a little picky. Considering the Nikon 400 f2.8 the paper issued me had its hood taped on, I guess my gear is near mint by comparison.

The 300 f4 has been sodding wet several times and it is likely my imagination, but I feel I can hear minor operation noises that may or may not have been there before (service at maybe $300 to ???). The reality is, if it is compromised, it should have died by now.

My newest sport lens the little 40-150 f4 is fine, but has some obvious barrel rattle and a dry-raspy zoom (since purchase), which does not seem to be affecting it (in fact it continually blows me away), but it can be distracting ($1000 to replace, $300+ to service). When I was a hobby-ist, any little thing used to annoy me, like a lens with different cosmetics, but now that I use them for work, I am amazed what does and does not actually bother me. Every day without a hitch is simply a win and my Oly/Pana kit has given me many of those.

This little lens (40-150 f4) has caught some of my favourite images.

So, no I do not need to replace anything yet and I am still running original firmware on most, so in reality, I have upgrades at hand (especially if I want to get the 1.4x in to play more often).

Could I improve my options?

My initial plan was to add the 100-400 Mk2 ($1600au) as a useful field sport lens for cricket and good light AFL (which is most of it), which I have done. I sometimes I have needed a shorter 4-500mm or longer than 600 for large AFL and Cricket grounds which can be a real paddock.

Shots like these are a 50% or more crop regularly. I often crop images from the 300 down to 25% of their original, but when stressed, I am pushing the 20mp sensor pretty hard.100mm more reach would be useful. This is a problem of my own making, the desire to shoot through the entirety of a game strong enough to push even on the widest grounds, when many other shooters, some using 45mp full frame cameras just wait until the action comes closer.

My only qualm was some mixed reviews on the lens, many cite it as near enough to the 300mm as to not matter, but a few have had real trouble with it, something to do with the stabiliser module. The one I bought as sourced locally with a return option, but my dog took a liking to the box and removed that option. It seems to be a good one.

I could then later add a then 4 model newer OM-1 Mk3 when it drops or a Mk2 on sale if there is nothing revolutionary on offer.

I feel comfortable with MFT and I have depth in it.

The 100-500 Panasonic ($2.5kau on sale) was an option, however on my S5.II, I am less enthusiastic about for sports, so it realistically would lead to a S1.II, another 3k+ purchase. I can make the S5II work, it has before, but is it adding anything?

I would gain better high ISO performance, off-set somewhat by the lenses speed (or lack of). In depth of field the 500 f7.1 and 600 f8 (equivalent) are pretty close, so I would get another long option, but in a zoom and the camera can crop more and shoot at 12,800 like a MFT at 3200, so I am slightly ahead all around, except for focussing.

I would love to boost my full frame kit, but sometimes the S5II is like driving a basic 4 door sedan compared to a MFT racing bike (even if mine are the last gen).

This became the 70-200 f4 (pending), to flesh out the kit more sensibly and considerably cheaper. This seems to feel right and opens the door to some better indoor options, where the camera shines.

The ISO thing is interesting.

My cap of 6400 and 1/1000th is not that limiting, I have the lenses I need and rarely have to push harder, but I am there, at the edge and I am aware that other systems handle this scenario better.

This is based on straight Capture 1 processing, often in poor light quality***, with a f2.8 or faster lens. The worst light I come across requires f1.8~2 for that 6400 for 1/1000th shutter speed and I can still crop into 25% of the original with little issue (just don’t under expose!) and I have found white balance is often the key as colour can get twitchy.

One reviewer showed a clean and sharp file shot at ISO 20,000 from an OM-1 Mk2! This is possible with good processing anytime, not just a fluke!

The reality is, in my recent research, many users of Topaz, DXO and the like are regularly shooting high ISO’s with little or no compromise in image quality.

$129 software? Really? looks like.

The answer to my concerns likely rests closer to hand than I thought.

Spending less than the Canon 100-500 has netted me a lens of similar length in a format I know, as well as a shorter full frame zoom and no camera is needed yet. It pays to look around, as much to settle your fears as to add solutions.

*The realities of sport are most bad light sports are indoor, so shorter faster lenses ae fine, but occasionally you get that dimly lit field sport. To put that into perspective, lighting follows the money, so if a premium organisation at a state or national level calls, lighting gets better. When light is rubbish, you are usually dealing with a local club amazed at what you produce, becasue their own enthusiast shooters are on a hiding to nothing. One of the great ironies of this trade is the higher the level (generally) the easier the image making.

** Depth of field is similar 600 f8 (MFT to FF equivalent) vs 500 at F7.1, so it comes down to ISO performance (light gathering of F4 vs F7.1), and the S5II at 12,800 is fine, better than 6400 in MFT.

***flat, shitty, low contrast light with a colour cast.

The OM 50-200, What I Would Do.

The OM 50-200 is an excellent lens, no doubt, but it is somewhat lessened in its legend by its own stable mates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmxtXnj6j0

Lots of comparisons, lots of opinions, but the consensus seems to be consistent.

Compared to the 40-150 ($1500au), 100-400 ($1600au), the 50-200 ($3500au) + the two TC’s, to make it a complete story ($750au), it is expensive, but many find it worth the outlay.

Here is what I would do.

The 40-150 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper and effectively identical in real terms. The 50mm (100mm full frame equiv) loss is not really a great deal in the field and to me the slightly less capable teleconverter compatibility is also irrelevant, as will be explained below.

These shots taken on the shorter lens are too important to ignore, so a zoom is ideal to cover both.

There is cropping power, the reality that most subjects fall into short, medium or long lens territory, so a little more is rarely enough to cover all situations (hence the TC’s) and it’s black, which I prefer as it does not scream “look at me”.

These images are often a strong crop on my 300mm, so if I can add (ff) 200mm of reach and at least match the quality of a cropped 300 (600), then I get a larger file out of it. If the quality goes up a little, even better.

The 100-400 (f5-6.3) is the equal of the 50-200 with 2x TC (f5.6) optically as several tests have confirmed and beats it in AF performance, at about the same size and again, it is black. The problem is the almost mandatory 2x TC in a 50-200 only kit is a compromise even with a lens designed to take it. That does not change. AF is slower, resolution and contrast take a hit and the extra reach over the 1.4x is barely worth the pain compared to cropping.

They are all weather sealed.

The other advantage of the two lens kit is depth and versatility. You can use the long zoom on a tripod and have the other in hand on a second body (partially paid for with the difference in lens costs). If either met with an accident, they are cheaper to replace and the other can fill the hole for a while.

There is no mucking around with TC’s. I and others have compared my 40-150 with the TC to the kit 75-300 and they come close, which means adding more cost to a dearer lens nets nothing more than a cheaper lens designed for the job. You could still also buy the 1.4x TC for occasional use and gain even more reach (and still have a cheaper kit).

When does “little white” win out?

When you might need to take both the other two lenses at the same time and weight is an issue, the 50-200 then wins in both weight and size (but not cost), but for me, and I am only talking my use case, that would rarely be an issue as I do not climb mountains with lots of gear or if I do, I rarely need bth reach and speed.

If I need the two, I am likely using one of the other based on light and need, for example the football finals the other day, which could have been done with the long zoom for 80-90% of the time, then a switch to the 40-150 for late evening (which I basically did, even though the f4 300mm was coping fine). I could even use the 12-60 Leica on my second camera and fill the gap (24-800 in two lenses with a gradual creep from f2.8 to 6.3).

The other outlier here is the 40-150 f4, an excellent lens, really worthy of comparison to the others and a great way of taking this quality anywhere. This is my day bag lens, but deserves praise as a compelling choice in this space.

A stellar performer that has taken more good sports images than I realise.

So, me, I would go with the two lenses, or even just one if I had a more limited need.

The OM 100-400, Purchase, Interesting Events And Rethinking

So I bought the 100-400 on sale and it looks to be a good purchase.

Based on a shop test, I jumped while the sale was on.

The AF is not as fast and smooth as the 300 f4 or 40-150 f2.8, but is on par with most other MFT lenses. I am hoping the versatility of the lens will out weight the difference to my usual 2 lens option.

I shot the set below in the shop, which is actually a reasonably controlled space for me as I tested lenses out this door for years. It is nice in the hand, smooth and tight, but so far I only have the aged rear screen of an EM1x to crimp.

I bought it locally with a return option, but then a “funny” thing happened.

My wife and I went out for a quick dinner, a Friday night tradition and returned to a lounge room full of shredded card board. It seems one of our dogs took a shine to the box, totally randomly, but not without precedent.

Dodgy phone photo, but I was not going for prize winning quality, barely able to take it actually.

Looks like I am keeping it.

Good thing it’s sharp.

It seems to excel as a 200mm (400mm) macro!

The only thing I was concerned about once sharpness was confirmed is AF and stabiliser performance. I went OM over the Lumix long lens because of AF, so it needed to be better.

In the shop it seemed fast enough and did not bother me, but at home there was a slight hesitation on long transitions. I had mounted it on the EM1x I use for most long lens work, but it is my oldest one and I have never upgraded the firmware (because it just works!). I switched back to the EM1x I had with me when I bought it in the shop, a newer firmware model and it was much snappier.

The stabiliser also seemed a little twitchy, so I switched from auto to mode 1 (all direction) and it settled down, again likely a firmware thing. The stabe makes a huge difference to the long end, a lens length I have not used much before. This pairing now feels like it is in the same league my EM1x/300 f4 and I know that over time they will get even happier with each other.

I have now colour coded the camera and lens combo “green” (with small stickers), the same as my 300mm and it’s mate (blue) and the third EM1x with my two 40-150’s (yellow). The EM1x’s have learning AF (a term used before AI became all invasive) and I have seen the benefits of mating kit over extended periods.

In a way, Lucy, my Pointer~Lab hound actually saved me from myself. I have not been able to buy new glass for a while now without second guessing my choices and chasing problems.

In almost every case, a little settling down time fixes any qualms (with two real exceptions that were evident from the start), but that does not stop me from self destructing. The old saying “he who looks for trouble invariably finds it” comes to mind.

This is the type of thing I do;

• Hand hold shots in poor light at too slow shutter speeds.

• Fail to pay attention to technical things like ISO, minimum focussing distances.

• Pixel peep to ridiculous levels, like 800% or on a camera screen. Enough said here. Any file breaks up under that much pressure, especially when you add all the other elements covered here*.

• Fail to remember anything I have seen over the last few years, months or weeks even, so my comparisons seem to be against impossible scenarios. This includes shooting over 2 dozen sports finals recently, where I wold have had good and bad images, good and bad light, lots of variables and I would have adapted and not blamed my gear.

• Look for trouble, not the good bits, which can even go so far as stubbornly look at the centre of an image, not where the focus actually fell or shoot in flat light. This is directly at odds with real use where you chase the good bits and hero them, ignoring the misses and not-so-goods.

• Forget the brief and parameters of the purchase. I am not looking for a lens better than my current kit, but one that can do their job when they are overkill like good light low tier football, cricket, or occassional birding, saving them from unneeded ware and tare.

Basically, I become a poor photographer and a poor judge empowering the “inevitable” failure to launch I am assuming.

I remember a shot taken on the freshly bought 40-150 f2.8, a lens I trust implicitly now, taken in late afternoon light off a shiny surface in blue shadows that had a “milky” look. It was flare produced by a really crappy set of choices, but it produced a moment of buyers regret that I have clearly remembered, but not because it mattered in real terms, just because I remember it and it became irrelevant.

This was the best of three, but the one where focus fell where I wanted and you should always judge an image by its best results, but only if you can achieve them consistently. Some interesting “ringlet” highlights to the left, otherwise nice blur.

…. and this is the original.

So, taking all that into account, I like the images it makes and when given a half a chance, it can show itself to be sharp and consistent.

Nice Bokeh and blurring.

Even when I over crop.

The other lens in the mix was the 100-500 Lumix, a long lens for a camera that does not fill me with as much confidence in this space (S5II), but has shown to be solid when its true strength is required, low light performance. It has 2-3 stops more grunt in that end of things compared to the EM1x.

The dual barrier of high cost, slow speed and limited real benefit in reach and AF meant I might end up with a massive compromise and just use my MFT gear as I do anyway.

Now that I (well, Lucy) have settled on the Oly lens, this still leaves me with the untapped potential of the Lumix. My 85mm f1.8 is great, but does not have the reach for most sports. While cruising the net, the 70-200 f4 at $1200au popped up.

I have always avoided the 70-200’s as last time I checked, even the f4 model was $2k+, but it seems Lumix have adjusted their lens pricing down across the board, so the f4 is affordable and maybe a better long lens for the camera as a serious option.

I know I am already happy with ISO 51,200 on that camera if needed and 6400 is streets ahead of MFT (as much due to the dual ISO nature of the camera as the sensor), but the math of the slow 100-500 made that advantage less effective than a faster/longer lens on MFT.

The short 200mm has the S5II’s cropping power and cleaner high ISO files make it viable and affordable for indoor or night sport and if needed a teleconverter is an option. Longer lenses are the province of the MFT format.

It seems that my forced hand with the OM lens may be a dual push in the right direction.

It is also a much more logical every day lens to round out that kit.

I can now go out the door with a full frame kit with wide, standard, portrait, macro (IRIX) and long lens options covering 20-200.

Both lenses would cost about the same as just the 100-500.

Thanks Lucy.

*One file I was stressing over was (1) hovering around the focus limiter minimum setting of 6m, (2) hand held indoors at maximum reach, (3) at ISO 5000, (4) 1/125th of a second (5) of a gently moving subject, (6) in cool and flat light! Deserve what I get I guess.

A (Long) Day At The Footy

Northern Tasmanian Football Association (NTFA) finals this weekend and I had the pleasure of covering all four matches, although it turns out, I did two for free (need to check my roster closer).

I thought it would be a great time to talk about processes, expectations and results.

Gear and settings.

I have a pretty well oiled process these days of an EM1x with 300 f4 on a Black Rapid strap (hangs across my body on my right side) an EM1x with 40-150, the f4 in good light, f2.8 in mixed lighting, on a camera strap on the other shoulder facing into my body, so it sits lens down, not lens out. I could walk a 10k with this rig and often do.

I have just bought a 100-400, hopefully I will be able to shoot slower and lower grade sports with that and save the kit above from unnecessary abuse.

From here I can switch between them in the time it takes for a kick to leave a boot and be marked at the other end (either way).

In a small bag I have a third camera, usually a G9 with a wide or standard zoom and extra batts and cards etc. If I need a laptop, I use a Domke F802 or backpack instead.

A camera for each lens? It is ten time faster to change camera than lenses on the same camera and each is set up for it’s respective job. There is no excuse in this space to not duplicate cards, batteries etc.

How do I shoot?

AF on the long lens is set to continuous with a slim stack of three focus points with the central one prioritised and aligned to five “bands” across the frame. a quick flick of the control nubbin and I go from centre, centre left/right or far left/right. More columns only slows things down and to be honest I rarely stray from centre row for AFL or field sports. This is orientated to both horizontal and vertical formats, vertical is handy for centre bounces on small grounds.

The main game of the day required this as the total height of most shots exceeds 15’ so using a 600mm equivalent is a little cramped, it’s a chance to practice my timing and get lots of shots of the taller players. Not much variety admittedly and money for jam, but needed.

I can then pick out a single player from a group or see past intervening players. I find face detect etc, which has been excellent on Olympus cameras for a decade now, is useless for this type of sport because there are too many faces and I hate automation that fights me. Also, notice how face detect examples are often of single people, like baseball pitchers.

The second camera is set to a diamond shaped pattern with a central bias, which allows for fast grabs up close of groups, the thin stack being a little too tight for that type of shot, especially when quick-changing cameras.

The third camera is used for non game grabs is set to body/face detection for quick wide shots of packs and huddles, which makes the most of M43 depth of field, deep enough to cover whole groups at f4~5.6. I find the G9 Mk1’s to be excellent in this configuration.

Even sideline grabs.

I will not go below 1/1000th of a second for action shots unless panning, but the wide lens camera can work down to 1/250th.

I tend to shoot in Aperture priority or manual (metering off grass or similar) with a fixed ISO in most light with the lenses wide open to make the most of their speed and maximise background blur. I rarely shoot on beautiful grounds, so blur is good.

If the light is low, I will switch to Shutter priority or manual set at 1/1000th and auto ISO, to guarantee motion freezing speed.

I shoot RAW and always will, because we all make mistakes and sometimes you are handed a plate full of pain.

Towards the end of the day strong late afternoon light would cut through deep shadows (about 4 stops difference). This is what they pay you for.

This can make quick transfers difficult, like getting shots submitted without missing parts of the game, so I will run spare cards while processing, just in case and clean card sets for each game so I am not reloading whole games each quarter to find a few fresh files.

At the end of the day, the massive second card in each camera is loaded, the mess of switch cards ignored unless needed.

I do not, for field sports (except cricket*), and this may seem odd I will admit, shoot bursts.

I shoot single frames, usually in electronic shutter mode and find the EM1x’s so fast that I get what I see, or more to the point what I would see if I did not clip it. The reality of this game is, you don’t want to see your shot in the view finder, because if you do, you have missed it.

I find the burst comes down to timing and anticipation and then a loss of connection as the frame blacks out or flickers and the camera hungrily absorbs gigs of data. I prefer to shoot single precise files, even if they are close together. It is a contradiction that I have cameras that can shoot 18 fps with a near bottomless buffer, but all I care about is responsiveness.

The two frame below were consecutive, but not a burst. The first is the recognition shot, the second the refined shot.

Given frame rates available to us these days, the images above could have been connected by 10-15 more files (a ball bounce), but why and would I have even seen the second one if I just “left it the camera” to do?

If you ask a soldier what they are more afraid of, a sniper or a burst of machine gun fire, they will always say the sniper. Be a sniper, not a chain gun.

This means I tend to get better at timing as the season goes, keep more connected to the game, get more keepers and less dross to comb through and tend to see things developing in a wider scope than just hammering one scene and hoping for the best.

One photographer next to me was shooting bursts of 10-20 over a second or so, sometimes to little effect as the anticipated action failed to take shape. If they got the action, they then needed to sift through and choose the winning shot. I can guarantee you that if your gear allows it (speed comes in many forms, reaction time is the most relevant to me), try single frame capture and see, you may never go back.

Over 4 games I shot 1670 files with my primary long lens camera and about 800 on the short lens backup and 100 on the wide lens camera and I followed all of every game. Of those 1670, I submitted 500 (about 800 in total) that all fit one of the categories below and about half of the total could have been used if relevant to do so (it can be handy to have a shot like, but not the same as another).

This also allows me to follow the game and shoot as I watch, quickly and quietly, all very Zen.

I am aware it does come down to gear. My EM1x’s are near instantly reactive, silent and light to the touch using either the main or vertical shutter button (another EM1x advantage).

Shot types.

The hero shot.

The hero shot is the sort a writer will want for an article about a game, player or team that is flattering, noble and gives ascendency to the central player. These are never “defeat” images, always shots of winners, with ball control, or at least neutral.

If the shot features an injury or unjust outcome, then it becomes one of the other types below.

They are reasonably easy to get, you can even stalk specific players if required, just wait for some clean play and ball possession or a leadership moment.

The drama shot.

The drama shot is the back page of the paper, score line eye catcher or facebook filler, the hook.

Drama comes from a question. What will or is about to happen, who will win, what is actually going on? They can be serious or even semi comical, but either way they need to be a point of contention, an unresolved moment or contact.

Drama shots are all about timing. My preference is for the point just before or after contact.

These are the same two players as above one or two frames later and both files could serve as a hero shot, but they have more to them and the secondary figure may be the point of interest.

A drama shot can have defeat or loss, even comedy is ok to a point (but avoid shots that make a player look goofy).

The finger-tip ball is a favourite. It is the focus of all attention, but nobody has control as yet which is where the drama comes in.

This type of pose does not suit a hero shot. I basically ask myself “would this be a football card image”?

Of course with AFL football the clean catch or “mark” which gives the successful catcher uncontested possession is the high tide mark.

Sometimes, the ball is even compressed slightly.

Eyes to the ball, fingers just making contact. Perfect.

If contact is made, there is usually a point where it could go either way.

The story teller.

The story telling image ties the game together and gives us connection to the event. Big moments, big players, layers of information and poignant moments.

The celebration is more if you can add some push back.

Dejection and elation. Layers of meaning.

Number 3, who was player of his match and over represented in my submissions is the key here.

Some need to be connected for maximum effect, like this moment when a key player is taken off the field and the realisation that their season is over.

It can be an injury, be about the elements, weather or location, the leadership inspiring the players, or several of these at once.

Leaders in particular will tend to rise to the top here. This shot specifically could fit anywhere, being a moment of elation for the captain/coach, maybe even a front page if the game is big enough.and they won (which they didn’t).

From another game day, this was the result of 15mm of near horizontal rain.

Even before the game a single image can portray commitment and the season just gone.

Sequences.

As I said above, I do not shoot bursts, but I will shoot a sequence. If the action keeps happening, I keep shooting.

Of the sequence below I submitted the first and third files.

What gets submitted?

Generally a shot must have the ball and clear faces to be of use, but there are exceptions.

This player was man of the match and a possible future draft pick. The mark was taken, but I failed to get it cleanly, so this shot was submitted.

Messy shots can be handy, lots of faces etc, even if some are obscured.

Some files just have a good shape.

The file below would often miss the cut, just too messy and shapeless, but the players in it are all recognised and worth adding for “just in case” moments.

This shot from moments before had more forward pointing faces, more tension and drama. It’s almost remenissant of a Renaissance painting in pose and drama.

Cropping.

The file below shows the benefit of cropping the file above, but this can be tricky. Sometimes you feel you need to apply it to remind the future editor that the file has potential, but if you do, they cannot make that choice later, meaning the cropped file may not fit the intended need, have room for text or a page fit or bias too much away from a specific player.

Cropping, even heavy cropping is permissible as long as quality holds at least for on line or print use (which is about 2mp).

This file is sharp enough, has good crowd density and a player group that covers some of the respective stars of the teams.

Unlike the original.

It was a great day if a little long with me not reading the roster, but when I was called regarding that in the second term of the first game after submitting my 1st quarter posting shots, I decided to go with my run of luck and it paid off.

In the end I submitted about 800 files, plenty for any use and hopefully many will be seen by someone, but regardless, I shoot for all the “what-iffs” of media needs and with the players in mind, no hard feelings if only they and I see the files.

Spectacular late afternoon light. Catergory? Story telling I guess.

*For cricket I intend to start using Pro-capture, a MFT speciality. This allows me to buffer several seconds of images and if something happens, push the shutter and capture the previous few seconds for a period of time and frame rate of my choosing. Great for a game where dozens of balls can pass without anything happening, then you miss the split second the stumps are knocked over or a catch is taken.

Remembering The True Hero

As cinematographers and videographers, we need to remember who the real hero is.

Cinematographers are enablers, supports, realisers, but we are not the hero.

The hero of any good film or clip is the story, as related by the characters and the location.

Lighting, sound and cinematography all support and record that, simple as.

Yes, you can win an Oscar, but no, you will not be a house hold name.

There is a trend at the moment however of choosing to hero the process over the subject.

Subject is all, but process is an ever changing series of cans and cannot’s that usually limit us, but sometimes exceed our needs and then tend to be reigned back in, in an often futile effort to re-find lost balance.

When we have had an abundance of procedural problem solvers at hand for a while, a generation or so maybe, the up and coming shooters may learn to use what they now can as “standard” not extraordinary, that standardisation then contributing to formulaic norms that were not so very long ago, extremes.

Some things should stay in the extreme camp, because over use blunts their relevance and often makes them a little obvious and obnoxious.

I am referring to a couple of my pet hates, things that have empowered a new generation of shooters, but may also have hobbled them to destructive cycles and worse, made the process the hero at the expense of the subject.

PH 1 Overly shallow depth of field.

Very shallow depth has its place. It is perfect for the very intimate “inside the head of'“ shot, the shot that says look at, even into, me and share my emotional weight. It should not be used for basically every shot you do.

Shallow depth of field was for most of the history of photography and cinematography the enemy, the suffered consequence of low sensitivity film and insufficient or inefficient lighting. Creatives learned to embrace it as best tehy could, but on the whole, very few photographers liked it, lenses were not corrected for use wide open.

The general assumption was, the viewer would get nothing from it’s use, they would be slaves to a look imposed on them by an unkind physics equation and their ability to see the subject naturally, the way the eye sees would be the first victim. Deep depth of field was for many the holy grail, but without extreme efforts, often impossible to achieve, so a middle ground was the norm, F5.6-8.

Not natural folks.

The advent of near perfect face detect AF with now visible shifting, just sticky retention allowed us to use ever wider and sharper (because of it), photo lenses for video. This was great, a real problem solver, until it became an epidemic of kids with new toys all conforming to the same look.

Ironically, the new thing seems to be go into legacy MF glass and shot wide, accepting that for all its failings.

Telling a story well requires layers of depth in every sense. Exceedingly shallow Depth of Field can be replaced by focussing on points in the deeper plain of focus, not having that done for you by the cinematographer.

The key here I guess is that a process has to emphasise the emotional connection the viewer already has to the subject. If you are aware the subject is distressed, then a tight, shallow depth closeup is a support to that, it connects the viewer with the player on an instinctive level. If it is not supported by that connection, then it just becomes a gimmick, a cheap trick that fools and worse engages nobody.

It goes both ways. You need to support that scene of heightened emotional stress with something extreme, like an odd angle, a wider or closer lens, maybe a little hand holding, an effect of distortion, or the weight of the shot falls entirely on the player and they might as well be on stage, but it, like anything, is diminished if you over use it.

Many (most) great movie scenes were shot with depth, often some width and stillness, the power of the scene and the acting carrying the shot.

PH 2 Too much movement.

Like shallow depth, hand held gimbals, costing less than a kit lens have enabled anyone to “walk and talk” basically, to use movement as their creative crutch, to throw away their tripod.

Hollywood has always had movement, the more difficult the move, the more impressive it can be, but Hollywood has also known when to call it, when to let it go and remember that movement, like over use of shallow depth can draw the viewers attention to the process, not the story.

Some Tests, B-Raw And Other Oddities

Been testing some gear for an upcoming video job, formats, focus breathing “look” etc.

The results have been good. *:1 and 3:1 B-Raw, Vespids on GH5s and BMPCC4k, Hope on same, some interesting results.

The main things that came from the tests were;

No focus breathing on the Vespid 25, 40, Hope 25. Nada.

The quality of both sets of lenses was excellent, but slightly different.

If I said the Hope lens (only tested the 25, but the 50 is effectively identical), is like very fine China. Clean, reliable, solid and impressive.

The Vespids are more like Chrystal. Clear and sharp, maybe better micro contrast, but the look of sharpness is much the same, but the lenses have a more complicated character.

It is hard to bother the Hope, it resists bad things and has in most other respects, very fine performance. handling in particular is a pleasure, I feel the 25 may be the nicest of all of them to actually use.

The GH5s and Hope 25 are matched so the Hope lenses warm cast is balanced by the cool-magenta GH5s sensor rendering.

I did this transition several times, transfixed by the smoothness and clarity of it.

I drifted from the tiny strand of web to the leaf behind with effectively no visible lens breathing. The Bokeh is a little busy, but less so than some Vespid renderings.

The quality is gorgeous, Bokeh pleasant, in-offensive even and even when pushed into this cool scene, the lens adds a little warmth.

The Vespids are also consistent with each other and they can be applied to a job with a mix of solid reliability or a nose for trouble if you want. Flare, which can be funky, can be milked and has proven to be interesting to the point of out of control, but if you want to avoid it, you can. Sharpness is sublime, contrast also.

On the BMPCC4k, the Vespid 25 is sublime and the cooler rendering of the Vespid Mk1’s mixes well with the warmer colour of the BM camera. Bokeh is a mix of “interesting” and buttery smooth.

Cool reflected light is handled effortlessly by the BM cam and lens.

I feel now, that I have some strong matings in play. Between the two Hope and Vision wide angle and the Vespids, with a little input from the S-Primes when needed, I have options that seem to blend together well enough for even my skills to match.

My “A Team” is the GH5s with the Hope 25 (Static endurance), the BMPCC4k with the Vespid 25 (same) and the S5 with the Vespid 40 (Full frame or APS-C as needed-hand held option), all in RAW, all rigged differently for different applications. Supporting these are the G9II in ProRes Log, the OSMO 4P in D-Log, the S5II in Log.

The BMPCC4k has not revolutionised things, it has proven to be a solid investment in knowing the difference, then once known (which is that B-Raw is all pretty close regardless of the source), providing a third B-Raw camera and the handling dynamic of false colour 5” camera screen and light weight focus screen is more comfortable to use sometimes than the reverse on my Video Assist rigs.

The Nobility Of Human Endeavour.

I guess my biggest issue with AI and I do have issues with AI on the whole, is not that it can make things “better” more easily, but that it will likely make things so easy human endeavour will fall away.

Human endeavour?

I am talking about achievement through effort with genuine the fear of failure.

Courage, commitment, vision, all the things that make us human are hard, they take….well, the words at the front and lots of them and sometimes, most times failure is present in some part. Many would argue that failure is actually required to achieve anything of value.

The problem of AI is that we will remove fear, but also remove the ability for special people going to great effort to follow their dreams to stand out.

If someone creates something amazing, instantly others can mimmick their efforts using AI. What is the reward for effort in the immediate future?

Have you ever noticed that when DVD’s (videos) and CD’s (tapes, records) were your only way of accessing media, you owned and watched them, you enjoyed the experience and felt privaleged you had them and did not have to wait for your TV channel to replay them. Now we can have anything when ever we want, but are often unable to find anything to watch.

This usually leads to apathy, the excitement bubble bursts, the need to connect is gone, there is no urgency, but also no preciousness.

This is the culmination of generations of care and learning. Is it so invaluable to us that a mass produced copy should be accepted as equal?

AI will take that to the next level. It will generify things, create increasingly bland and unimaginative answers to age old questions. AI will remove the desire, the bulk of the process and the fear. It will make so many things unchallenging, the challenge ironically will be to find something that is not AI generated, to fight back and create against the flow, becasue that, as has been proven so many times in the past, is how real creatives work.

Behind every great story there is a story, one that is more compelling than “AI write me a script”. Do we really want to lose those stories?

As an example, I was listening to the radio recently, the programme covering tech and AI development generally and one guest, a university expert with experience with many Chinese students said that in China, copying and improving are their focus, nt innvation. Innovation requires failure, failure is not acceptable and to some that he spoke to, unfathomable. They would rather let the west try and fail to create then improve on that creation once proven.

AI is very much like that. It will reduce waste, it will avoid embarrassment, but it will also remove urgency, excitement, fear, learning from failing and it will reward some people who simply would not have made the effort once.

At first glance, daffodils look perfect. On closer inspection they are all slightly different, so which is the most perfect? In various stages og their lives they are more or less perfect for their various uses, but if made by AI how would you measure this and how can a human instructing an AI ever hope to match natures perfect imperfection?

We crave perfection, but as any true master of creation will tell you, perfection is not a worthy end point. The journey is, otherwise what are we even here for?

So what is important?

People (and animals etc). I have seen a lot of movies and series lately that have failed to excite with their bland, soft and colourless shallow depth look, because for all their special visual effects they lack soul, story and connection.

The film that really moved me, one that sat with me for days after and still comes to mind was Train Dreams, a film with almost no CGI (some was used for the larger fire sky scenes), had a small cast, no real plot, no on trend “look” to fall back on other than an ironic nod to the old, squarer stills images of the time. What it had was a deep connection to people, the place and the time, something that “special” visual effects would likely only have diluted.

We need to stay connected, to see through the veil of fakery we seem to be assaulted by more and more often. Bad things are happening, but good things also, so be part of the world around you and when you record this still amazing world, be less focussed on effects applied and more on the subject.

These things are timeless and you may be one of the few voices pushing back against a “lost” period of our history.

Magic Combinations.

When you use gear a lot, certain combinations tend to stand out, shine above all others and become, whether you are aware of it or not, your go-to or reflex kit.

S5 and Vespid 40mm.

When I got the Vespid 40mm, I took a chance that a lens would make a difference to my video in a crowded space. It did and it goes very well with the S5 mk1 and BMVA 5” as my “on the go” or hand held rig. I have to shoot in 6k to access full frame 40mm, but the 60mm option is also a comfortable fit.

EM1x and 300 f4 for field sports.

Not a surprise I guess, but the difference is, the EM1x I am using has been mated to the 300f4 most often and the camera has learned (early AI) what to expect. The result is a pairing that seems to read my mind.

G9 Mk1 and 15mm Pana-Leica and it’s mate the 17mm Olympus.

It took a long time, but I recently started to trust the G9 mk1 and 15mm as a body tracking action combo. I have always had success with this set for static images, the pairing makes nice work from poor light and adds glow when needed. I recently gave it a crack with some dance performances and it surprised me. Surprised because I had little time for the G9’s DFD focus and the 15mm always seemed to be a step behind other lenses, but together, they seem to sing.

Bright, crisp and snappy, very Pana-Leica. This combo highlights lime greens, light sky blues and cherry reds. hey look folks, a wide angle on MFT and some depth of field snap. Who knew.

The only problem is, the Olympus 17mm f1.8 is also an excellent mate with the G9. The 17 is as fast focussing, the lenses incredible AF compensating for any cross-brand reductions and the look is a lovely balance between Panasonics bright and light colours and the more organic Olympus tones.

The 17mm has a rendering that is not only beautiful, but also eminently practical. Wide open it has very coherent, old school transition, so I can use it that way for light gathering, not just shallow depth effect. On the G9’s light and bright Panasonic sensor there is an added touch of depth, an organic palette.

2x EM1x, with 25mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 for indoor sport.

Not many full frame shooters can use the equivalent to a 150 f1.8, but that is the MFT advantage. This combination gives me the very best performance I can achieve for basketball or similar indoor small court sports. It does so much else, but basketball in particular suits it ideally. The focal length is enough for the far end of the court (just, a 200mm equivalent would be better), perfect for mid court approach shots and even decent for tight images right up to the 3 point ring, then I switch to the EM1x and 25mm in vertical for the rest. Like the 300 above the two EM1x’s are learning their roles, the 75mm armed one also being my 40-150 lens for out door sports.

Some Pondering's.

Looking into the future, assuming I need to do anything at all (waiting for something to die naturally, break or get lost), I have a few things that need addressing.

A new standard lens for my MFT cameras.

Contenders are the 12-45 f4, a light and small option that would allow me to also bring small primes along without any real effort and to be honest in MFT f4 compared to f2.8 is close enough, you need f2 or wider to achieve true shallow depth in this range, and I have those.

The 10-25 f1.7 Panasonic is always on my mind, but as a standard lens it is a hard sell for me, lacking any real reach and the 25-50 has the same issue backwards. A 14-35 f1.7 would be excellent, but there you go. For video it is ideal, wide enough to compensate for the forced crop of stabilisation, but for stills, I would struggle (maybe).

The 12-40 f2.8 Mk2, because considering all the above, they are excellent and well priced. I have the Mk 1 and it is great, but the zoom is clogged up with sand from a few years ago (one of those things I am waiting on to fail on me). This does not really bother me except for video.

Do I need it?

The old 12-40 still works and I use it. The more I use it, the better it feels, until it feels “dry” with heavy use. I could get it serviced, but that would likely cost a large chunk of a replacement.

My 12-60 Pana/Leica has developed an aggressive “chugging” action when turned on, like it is testing its AF or stabe or similar and it is quite disconcerting, but again, I can use it until it dies and I will.

The 12-60 kit is also a great lens and gets use when speed is not important (see below). Between the three and primes I would always be able to pack something, even if one gives out.

A very obvious option is to mate the 8-18 Pan on the G9 with an Oly and a telephoto. This is basically how I run anyway. The Oly 8-25 comes to mind, but I have the Pana now.

I also have two full frame standard lenses and I am quick to say I can make do with primes, I even prefer to.

Landscape photography is starting to talk to me again after a break of 20+ years.

For gear, landscape is easy. You do not need fast, or even expensive glass. Landscape shooters use small or middle apertures, where most modern lenses are excellent. Tripods need not be heavy or large, thanks to electronic shutters and mirrorless cams (no mirror slap). So, small cameras and excellent kit zoom lenses are plenty. If high resolution is needed, most of my MFT cameras can provide.

My personal kit would be a G9 Mk1, my 9mm, 12-60 kit and 40-150 kit covering 18-300 in full frame terms. This kit weighs less than 2kg, the lenses adding up to about 600g of that. The camera has high res, something I will probably never use and I have a half dozen batteries.

The 9mm can do macro, the 12-60 very close to that and both are weather sealed. The 40-150 is not, but I will just be careful. Filter sizes are a handy 58mm or smaller.

Tripods are still a thing, but with light weight and well stabilised MFT cameras, I do not need a large one or often one at all. I have an old Velbon Sherpa that weighs about 1kg. Plenty.

Hand held using a EM1x and 40-150 f4, on a swinging suspension bridge with people walking on it and the 5 stop ND applied.

Low Light.

I feel I am falling behind in low light sport situations. Not badly, but a bit. There is a lens advantage in MFT, but that gap is closing compared to full frame cameras with new light weight slower lenses (not buying a 600 f4).

The obvious fix is full frame and I have a S5 and S5II, which armed with a good lens like the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would do most things, but to get the same sort of performance I am used to with the EM1x’s I feel the S1.II is needed, which means that and a lens (70-200) maybe 2 (100-500 Lumix), could be north of 9k au all up.

The OM1-III is also pending and most reports have it packing a newer sensor with at least 1 stop better low light, which if you consider I am jumping from EM1x’s to the OM1-3, a camera four generations newer, should mean something substantial. My EM1x’s will remain my workhorse sports cams, the new one would just be a low light fix.

Adding “little white” would also help, but I can replace my 300 and 40-150 f2.8 second hand for the same money.

The gimbal thing.

I am bothered by the creative options I do not have access to especially for commercial work by shunning gimbals. An actual gimbal as such is not that tempting, but a similar fix is.

The Weebil cinepeer or DJI RS3 Mini are cheap, more than capable of taking my G9II or S5II kits, but the OSMO Pocket 4P is also very tempting. It is four times the price, but 1/3 the size of a gimbal, requires no balancing and unlike the gimbal, I can run, jump, hang upside down with it or hand it over to another to use and it is operationally fully integrated.

My OSMO 1 still has a use, it is the under water or “stupid places” cam, because I have the housing and can seal it in and leave it or bolt it to something, but the 4P can actually mix in with my main cams with normal footage.

It also seems to have cheaper accessories than the older ones (a single filter for the 1 cost $100), lots of power (3hrs), internal memory (100gb), twin lenses not just a faux zoom and is small enough to pack in a video kit like a spare battery, not as a whole other thing and need I mention D-log 2 with 17 stops of DR!

It is not perfect, but as the very recent firmware update release showed, they will improve it and well, nothing is perfect, you have to ask yourself “does it do what I want”, not “what could it have done” in these situations.

Yes the dynamic of the two sensors is a pain for some, but I have other cameras to do many of the things it cannot, so basically, nitpickers, thanks for your thoughts, but I am ok with a perceived 85%-er.

“Almost perfect” is actually better than almost any other bit of gear I own!

It feels like for all my needs the Ronin 4D just got smaller and cheaper.

I was watching a Scott Secco https://www.scottsecco.com vid the other day, possibly the king of creative movements in his field and could not help but think he could do so much with the OSMO 4P, and much more easily. I imagine the “dropped from a tree shot” in the rain could have been done with the 4P in a plastic bag and a length of climbing cord.

It can be with me always, can go places, be mounted on things and shoot from angles no mirrorless would be used for, I can even run (or swim with a housing) with it.

A gimbal like the RS3 with some deep compatibility with the Lumix cams for only $299au is also very tempting, but gimbals leave me cold. Just dedicating a cam and balancing it out (without cage) is a major consideration, not something you want to do on a whim and the USB cable I need to link the G9II to it is already used by my SSD for ProRes recording (The S5II with/without half cage and 20-60 locked at 20 would likely be the one, no cable needed and no SSD, but it is a thing).

To be fair, the S5II as a hybrid cam, could have the plate permanently attached and the gimbal balanced for it ready to go, so this is not a big one and the S5II is one of the linkable cams giving me face tracking etc.

I do not trust the S5II as much as the G9II for straight hand held simply because the lens options are larger and the full frame depth of field makes focus and stabe less effective. The G9II on a short pole (ironically a gimbal extension arm) works really well.

Sure they can do a lot with existing gear, but a G9II alone does some of that with almost gimbal level stabe and I even have a mechanical steady cam (a cheap one) which gets it a lot of the way, so its a 4P or nothing for me.

I guess the big question with gimbal work is what shots do you want and how smooth do those need to be?

A smooth pan around a subject, a move in or out from them, a follow shot, or a long dolly move.

I have a mechanical gimbal, slider, great internal stabe and tripods with pan heads. Do I really need anything more?

So;

Option 1 use the G9II and mechanical gimbal if needed, the existing OSMO 1 for silly ideas and tripods/sliders/hand held for other movements. $0au

Option 2 get a cheap gimbal and increase my options somewhat, but with some stuffing around, extra weight, learning curve and having to dedicate gear. $300-350au

Option 3 get the 4P* and add even more options with minimum fuss and maximum application of existing (option 1) gear. $1000-1200au.

I went with the 4P (in an Ultimate kit with the decent Freewell ND filters, some other bits and a micro SD card and high speed reader that I will likely use in anther camera), because most of the rest of the things I might do with a gimbal are covered, but there are things this will allow that I cannot do now. Between it and the OSMO 1, I can go under water, into small spaces, hang off handle bars etc.

Ranking My Video Cameras

Ranking gear can be interesting.

If I ask myself “what do I go to automatically when I…..” this is the hierarchy.

My best video cameras if limited to non RAW in-camera codecs, V-Log, V-Log-L, Flat, or Standard;

1. S5 has a slightly more natural look than the S5II with 14+ stops dynamic range.

2. S5II with full frame range.

3. G9II as a new generation MFT.

4. GH5s an older generation MFT (which has it’s moments).

5. BMPCC4k, an even older MFT camera, sharing the same sensor as the GH5s.

6. G9I (x3) which only has Natural or Standard with reduced contrast, V-LogL is a paid upgrade and I have not gone there.

Best camera exporting out to a RAW recorder or shooting RAW internally;

1. BMPCC4k, because it not only records internally, but can also record ProRes RAW if needed (need to update the firmware, but easy enough). It needs to be used in 4k to retain its quality, but there is quality, tons of it.

2. G9II has the best integration with off board B-Raw and the best overall specs, but usually does not get used with a BMVA (see below). It lacks the dynamic range of a full frame but does get the benefits of later generation Black Magic support, like highlight recovery.

3. S5 is my most used B-Raw cam, simply because it is a great all rounder, but it’s output options are limiting (only 6k in full frame).

4. GH5s is enabled by B-Raw, it runs long and cool and lives in my “big rig” with the large 7” VMVA.

5. The rest cannot without paid firmware upgrades, but can export to ProRes.

Best static endurance camera;

1. GH5s which seems to handle 2 hours+ with no issues. Simple camera, low pixel count sensor, lower res screen, video centric design I guess.

2. BMPCC4k basically set the same as above.

3. S5 which does well with NP’s but better with V-Mount.

4. The rest. These all do ok and the S5II/G9II can run off external power with few issues.

Best camera for movement (camera and subject);

1. G9II MFT gives this a slight edge in depth of field (AF), stabilising and lens weight. The Leica 9mm is the enabler here.

2. S5II is very close, really only lens bulk is against it.

3. S5 is a hefty carry with my current rig, which with its very good (read better than most) stabilising is enough for professional results

4. G9I’s which are no slouch, just amongst strong company.

5. The BMPCC4k with its gyro stabe, which is ok, but no real threat to the cameras above and the body is very light and oddly shaped, reducing its effect.

6. GH5s has no stabe, although with the heavy V-Mount rig, it does that edgy “hand held” look really well.

Best camera for special effects and range;

1. G9II with All-i and high frame rates in camera is by far the best

2. S5II is good enough, just not a G9II (which is closer to a S5IIx)

3. BMPCC4k for its small sensor dynamic range, ProRes RAW and ISO performance.

4. GH5s with All-i and decent frame rates.

5. S5 is less happy here, but still capable

6. G9I is showing its dated hybrid pedigree, although it can do 4k/60 in short bursts.

Best Hybrid

• S5II is limited in many ways, but is by far my most relied on “fall back” video camera.

• G9I cannot be underestimated and are really only used this way. I shot a quick clip recently in Standard and if you avoid highlight clipping, the results are very decent out of camera, enough for me to carry a mic and ND filter for. The camera is capable of more, but not as used as a stills cam.

• G9II with SSD gives me better potential quality enabled for ProRes V-Log, but it is more fragile and bulky, not really a hybrid, because I do not use it (enough) for stills.

• S5 out of its rig is just ahead of below. De-rigging it is not an option in the field, but in an extreme situation, I might press it into service.

• GH5s, my most video-centric camera, was in part bought over the BMPCC4k because it could be pressed into service as a stills cam. 10mp, no stabe, but otherwise a perfectly capable option.

• BMPCC4k, which cannot take stills, so it fails here unless you lift frames from its 4k.

So, no clear winner.

The S5II is less used as a video cam, but my first choice to go “bare bones”.

The G9II is the most capable on paper and clear leader in several areas, but its superior capabilities in B-Raw are neglected in favour of its strengths outside of that.

The S5 is settled as my primary static-mobile video option, my BMPCC6k with perks and in its role as a B-Raw, cine lens platform, it is nearly ideal apart from limited RAW output options and that pesky little micro USB port.

The GH5s or my “mini full frame” in its big endurance rig is my ideal static camera. It is not as good in low light as a full frame, but ahead of the G9II and in its role, it is safe and reliable.

The G9I’s, a trio of well worn and much loved stills cameras are the platform that launched me into video and with a few different choices, they might have carried me through (V-LogL firmware upgrade, RAW to off board recorders etc*). If needed, out of camera Standard with reduced contrast produces footage that will fool most.

The BMPCC4k was bought as a clearly better value option than another BMVA 5” off board recorder and to add better Resolve integration (and because I needed to know). I had all the many bits you need to make it work, but without those, I would have nearly doubled its second hand price, so a situational win.

Matching these together is possible.

The GH5s, G9II and S5 share a cooler colour palette, so they match decently, about the same difference as switching lenses and even when mixing B-Raw and ProRes V-Log, I can get a harmonious look.

The S5II is warmer rendering, but the differences in codecs and sensor are mostly irrelevant in its role as a hybrid and oddly, the footage matches quite well with G9I footage, it’s likely partner in that role.

The BMPCC4k in B-Raw is different to my other cams, but reasonably close in real terms and a good point of reference.

If I need to run all 5 cameras together, I will use a mix of V-Log, ProRes, or Standard profile, which tends to grade closely and in that codec, I can adjust the colours in camera to match close enough.

*The thing that mostly blunted this approach was information. I could not get clear direction about B-Raw, good V-Log examples etc and most users relied on its OOC capabilities. Turns out I can record ProRes on a BMVA, but as is, from only HLG, Cine-D or a Rec 709 codec.

An Interesting, If Possibly Flawed Quick Test Of G9II Noise

A question I needed to have answered and it is far from it, but early tests have opened the door, is whether I am silly not to use my G9II for more stills shooting, specifically low light sport where the full frames are ok, but lens limited and my MFT champions (EM1x for me) are stretched.

At higher ISO’s noise is not an issue, up to 6400 without extreme effort taken, higher with deep NR applied, but white balance is touchy. I cannot usually tell which ISO has been used by eye except that at 6400 white balance errors are harder to refine.

My tests was quick and rough, relying on my instincts rather than direct and scientific comparison, but this is my space most of the time and I know it well.

G9II with 40-150 f2.8 Olympus, the lens that will shoot most sports for me in poorer light.

AF was……. annoying to be honest (my bar is the EM1x and this was not that experience, my “worse case” is the G9 Mk1 with some Oly lenses, it was in between). There is decent tracking, but if it got lost, and it did get lost, I found the wait for the combo to catch up was longer than I could bare in the field.

To put it into context, using the S5II with 85mm S-prime took a little adjusting, but it worked fine when I did. This combo had no “warming in” period, it just would not do.

Mixing Oly and Pana gear can be like that, but that is what I have, simple as.

On top of that there is no way to set my preferred focus shape (a small-tall cluster in the centre, far too much reliance put on subject detection for my liking). It had a horizontal/vertical grouping, but it was full screen width. I want my focus to go where I put it, that is what works for me.

Noise and stuff.

I was hoping the newer camera would make a real difference in the high ISO space.

Noise is not the real issue these days, I get clean 6400 when I treat the cameras I use right, but dynamic range and white balance can be “twitchy”.

If I give the file plenty of light (always better to slightly over expose at 6400 than under expose at 3200), get white balance roughly right (blue-yellow WB, cannot fix magenta-green tone in cam), then I am most of the way there.

The G9II files had good white balance, looked decently sharp and were tonally alive, but they were noisy.

At 6400 this looks decent at first.

Closer in, I was surprised how noisy it looked.

I am not looking for problems (or a fight), I am chasing solutions for a growing problem (new dull LED lighting in some venues), but at this point, I see little reason to push this camera into service in this role. The same money spent on a Panasonic lens for the old G9 would likely have the same benefit (and I am not buying both), or getting a decent longer lens for my full frame cams.

I sometimes feel the G9II is the “lost child” of my kit. It is my most powerful hybrid cam in many ways, but it does not get serious video treatment with a BMVA because it is the camera that is best suited to go it alone. It is not a preferred stills option because it has a video role to play and it is not noticeably better it seems in poor light than older MFT stills or dual ISO video cameras or any full frame option and it’s superior stabe and AF are only preferred over the S5II because of it’s other video features (ProRes and All-i).

The role best suited to the G9II (in my kit) it seems is light weight and small footprint run-n-gun video cam in AF and with hand held stabilising, matched to Pana glass and SSD mounted.

An OM-1 would be the better stills cam in this space, but I can pick up second hand EM1x’s for less and I like how those run.

The reality is, I have seen more advancement in software (and firmware) over the last few years than in hardware. Not to say hardware has hit a wall, but the differences have become less obvious in all areas other than video and even there, we are for all realistic needs, there.

You need to jump at least two generations (EM1x to OM-1) to see any difference in some areas and even then, I have seen at least that much improvement in Capture 1’s relevant processing capabilities over that time, so assuming AF is enough, what else is needed?

So, I Scratched That Itch Finally.

The BMPCC4k (short name), not bothering with more, we all know what it is, has been bought from Japan, second hand bare bones (don’t need the license etc), in good condition and cheap at $850au (with some sort of 15% off Japan and Korea special).

Why would anyone buy this relatively ancient and to be honest ugly little camera with few of the latest conveniences, when they already have several newer options at hand.

The reality of this camera is;

• It still holds up against cameras a lot newer and dearer in the one true measure, image quality.

• It will give me a BM base line to align other cameras to (and to finally see the difference). That itch needed to be scratched.

• It is a dead steal at less than $900au, not much can come close. If you buy new for $1350au you get a full Resolve license worth about 40% of the cameras cost, so probably a better buy, but not if you already have that.

• It has a mini XLR port, which my BMVA’s also have, but none of my other cameras do.

• It is one of very, very few cameras that can record in B-Raw and ProRes Raw internally, not that I will use the heavier format, especially with internal memory*.

• I have all the bits needed to make it work properly (universal cage, rails, 1TB SSD, a V-Mount battery). Turns out, all I needed was a D-Tap to BMPCC power cable ($30au).

• It is the same price as adding another BMVA 5” to an existing camera and keeps that camera (G9II) free for mobile use and stills. The G9II gets lots of use as a run-n-gun hybrid, my low stress gimbal in effect.

• It provides more Resolve integration.

The reality is, if I accept that all else I may need (AF, stabe etc) are covered by other cameras, then all that is really lacking is a lighter and cleaner B-Raw option. To be honest, I am struggling to see the relevance of anything else for me.

Newer Lumix mirrorless are great, but their improved internal capabilities require expensive memory cards, are in ProRes RAW format*, or cover ground I already have covered, so they would be over priced and spec-ed repeats.

ProRes Raw is nice to have, but its footprint is massive and unnecessary. Upgrading another cam to B-Raw would be another BMVA, so more cords and cables, the same cost and I would still not have true Resolve integration.

Another BM camera is going to give me the BM look, but what if I want a repeat camera to match it, do I spend another $3k+? Another BMPCC4k could be had for less than $1k, so I could even run three for less than any other option.

My need (want really), was for another B-Raw camera option to bring me up to three, preferably without messing up what I have put together already or costing a bomb;

1. A light weight movement camera (G9II in Log/ProResHQ with an SSD), usually on a short pole (ironically a gimbal extension pole, sans gimbal. This one could be upgraded to B-Raw, but at the expense of portability.

2. An endurance static rig (GH5s in a RigidPro rig with V-Mount and BMVA 7”).

3. A second option to either of those, or my hand held rig (S5 with BMVA 5”).

4. A handy hybrid (S5II in V-Log) used mostly for stills, but has shown itself to be very capable.

I have now added a second static B-Raw endurance rig, a third B-Raw option as well as a fun weekend creative camera.

The reality of video is this;

If you want to go beyond cameras that can record internally, not out to cost efficient SSD drives, that are not “limited” to 4k or 6k at a stretch, that shoot PR-Raw, not (just) B-Raw, then everything jumps up into places you had better be aware of.

Memory alone can cost more than cameras or lenses, but to what real benefit as many content hosts are themselves limited to 1080p or 4k output.

B-Raw into SD or SSD memory, even limited to 4-6k and 60p with output at 1080p does not need a PR-Raw camera work flow, but can match it with little extra effort at B-Raw 3:1 or Q0 for occasional use. Even at matching quality settings, B-Raw has the size edge.

If you go out of PR-Raw into ProRes HQ or lower formats, formats that do add better colour depth to Log (or non-log) footage, the sizes are comparable to B-Raw (4k 5:1 B-Raw is 81 MBs, but 4k PRHQ from Log is 117 MBs).

For more on this check this out;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaMJ27qIMS4

For rigging, not something I will be doing for run-n-gun handling, because I do have other cams for that (see above), I will use an old Camvate universal half cage, some rails, a V-Mount and SSD adapter plate and maybe a separate Portkeyes screen for focus, maybe not. The issue of where to mount the V-Mount and still use the original screen is not nothing, it is a common problem with Pocket Cams, but as it is only a static rig**.

The Frankenstein’s Monster that is my BMPCC4k rig. Only one thing bought for it apart from the camera, the rest sourced from excess bits. Cabling is a little messy, but not much more so than a Video Assist rig and the power cable, SSD and HDMI out are all actually optional (nothing stopping me from using an SD card, LP-E6 batts and its own screen unless long term endurance are needed). The cage is an old Camvate universal half cage, part of the top hot shoe mount removed and a rubber washer added for grip. It is stable enough for a top handle, the little top handle mounted on the side is to help stabilise and protect the cabling.

The camera has advantages over a Video Assist, one being the three function buttons on top for quick application of false colour etc, then having false colour on the main screen and a smaller and much lighter focus screen, an excess Portkeys PT5, is ideal.

The V-Mount does not obstruct the screen, but better still, it acts as a movable counter weight depending on lens used (the weight difference between my Pana/Leica 9mm and Vespid 25 are more than the camera body). I went with the direct to camera D-Tap cable for power, in hind-sight maybe the dummy battery option would have been cleaner and slightly more robust, but that is only $30 away from being done.

This rig is lighter than my others, about as power efficient and as robustly set up, which considering it is a static unit, makes it more than enough.

*The weird reality of video is many recording formats and colour codecs are large, including internal 4k Log All-i, or ProRes 422/HQ etc and do not offer the depth or flexibility of B-Raw. B-Raw is not only a better editing space (a no brainer in Resolve), but often actually smaller, easier on your computer (less compression to unpack) and more streamlined.

**Meaning tripod, moving rail, hand held.

I May Never Buy A New Camera Again

Ok, probably not, but I will need to be persuaded.

My need for new stills cameras is really more of the same, the G9 Mk1 and EM1x being favourites. Both do more than I need, so as good condition second hand ones come up, I will jump, well to a point as they are also reliable.

In video, there is also little I need past 4k/10 bit/422 inV-log, ProRes or B-Raw which several can handle*, often down sampled to 1080 anyway. Newer cameras would only add versatility in internal recording and memory options, not quality. Ed. A used BMPCC4k has been aquired, proving the point.

I remembered this today, a clip I meant to get back to and forgot;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyj4d6fQ2U8

So, I have cameras, plenty of cameras and they do lots of cool things, but what do have in lenses?

Set 1

DZO Vespid 25 and 40mm with MFT and L-mount adapters and an L-mount IRIX 150 macro. These are my premium cine lenses covering 25-80mm and 150-225 in various formats. The Vespids walk the fine line between quality and character, the IRIX is just clean perfection with reach and genuine macro.

This image took my breath away while testing. The 40mm shot as an 80mm on MFT.

Set 2

Sirui anamorphic 2x 24‘s in MFT and a 50mm in L-mount. The most “cinematic” lenses I have, anamorphic and still sharp. I rarely think of these, but to be honest, every time I use them I get a buzz. The matching 24’s were a deliberate choice to match a pair of lenses, the 50 was a whim that paid off and bought my L-mount cameras into play with a longer lens.

Anamorphic is not an every job option, but when you do commit, it adds so very much more.

Set 3

35, 50 and 85mm L-Mount Panasonic S-Primes , a Sigma 28-70 as well as my 9, 8-18 and 12-60 Pana-Leica and 12-40, 17 and 45mm Olympus MFT lenses. My AF and hybrid set, all very capable with stable and clean optics (but different looks). I use these more than I probably should, because they are just so convenient. I have no doubt I could do most of my commercial work with them, but I am also glad I have options.

Stills glass has its place. The Sigma 28-70 is possibly my most under used video and stills lens.

Set 4

MFT mount Hope 25 and 50mm, and Vision 12mm. My backup clean MFT cine lenses for more stable, less interesting performance. These three are all very stable, very consistent and handle nasties well. Whenever I want that cleaner, safer option especially with flare, I go this way over the Vespids.

In various tests compared to the Vespids, the Hope lenses performed well, sometimes even better especially when stressed.

Set 5

L-Mount Spectrum 35 and 50mm, my backup full frame cine lenses. These are more about character than the Hope glass. I see little space for these now, but will hang on to them rather than sell them cheap and regret it. The 50 is a clean and sharp lens with a cool lean, the 35 is more of a “dirty” and warm character lens. I picked these up for half price, so no harm, no foul.

Hard to discount these lenses, but the Vespids are a safer bet.

Set 6

My legacy glass including a F series 25mm half frame Olympus, Nikkor 28 f2.8, Pentax 50 f1.4 and possibly a Zeiss 85 f2.8, which is a loaner for now. I also consider my Olympus MFT lenses part of this set as they render a very organic, timeless look.

50 year old Nikkor and other glass still gets it done. There is an undeniable look to older glass.

Character(s), safe bets, some creatives, some spectacular and lots of versatility.

Do any stand out?

The Spectrum 50, Vespid 40, Hope 25, Sirui 50 and 35 Panasonic S-Prime are all favourites of their respective sets. If there could be only one, the 40mm Vespid would be it (with 2 adapters over 4 formats for a 40/60/70/80 range).

*Ed. Since writing this I have bought two cameras, one a second hand BMPCC4k, the second a second hand G9 Mk1, combined age since release of about 15 years.

BBC Getting Too Much, But So Is Everyone

The BBC seems to be one of the lead offenders at the moment of “beautifying” their news.

I just watched a BBC story on heat in the UK, the reporter saying “as you can see it is beautiful here” and “as measuered by the facility behind me” while being shot at f1.4 (ish) on a longer lens. She honestly looked like she was being shot against a green screen background.

Apart from the unnecessarily shallow depth that avoids the first rule of news footage, which is context, the over beautification of serious subjects helps nobody. You have to wonder why she even went there if the depth of field makes the background irrelevant.

I watched the whole broadcast and pretty much every story was an exercise in shallow depth videography for its own sake.

Take a look at this set

https://documentaryfamilyawards.com/project/environmental-portrait-photo-awards-fall-2021/

Notice the common technique, which is deeper depth to tell a story.

We really have to stop folks, this is getting ridiculous.

Rare Air, The Mysterious World Of Deep Depth Of Field

Wide open apertures are on trend at the moment, so much so, I have started to hear the term “Bokeh fatigue”, which is a misnomer as Bokeh is present in almost every image ever taken to some extent, so lets just say wide aperture, shallow depth imagery.

The look, once discovered can be addictive and for a while, it might seem you have the “magic sauce”. In the World Cup, there are a lot of fan closeups with Sony G-master primes wide open, the background only a smeared hint, but totally unnatural looking. It’s a thing if that is what you are into, but fashions come and go.

There are genuine advantages to this style, like the cleaning up ugly backgrounds, the glow it adds and hero-ing the subject, but it does not tell a story, it does the opposite in fact. We live in Narcissistic times no doubt, everyone obsessed by their self image, their 15 seconds of fame, but I feel there is still room for some context, some grandeur.

This one subject only thing is small, limited, overly intimate, it is also quite lazy.

Most of the images that move me from the long history of photography have depth. Very few have an obvious termination point, let alone an exaggerated one. Deep depth of field is tougher to get right, it has more elements, there is more to go wrong, but isn’t that the challenge, the reward for effort?

Look at all early street photography, some National Geographic documentary work, even most portraits of the 1990’s or earlier and the super shallow depth thing is absent, but ironically with slow film and a reliance on prime lenses, shallow depth would have been easier and safer.

This is because depth is often better.

Depth is not the enemy, it is not a punishment, it is the making of many of the great images of our history. Without depth these would lack story, relevance and staying power.

Sam Abel, one of my favourite photographers of the last 50 years uses depth not only as a tool, but a necessity. He shoots back-to-front, with the background anchoring his foreground compositions. Without depth, he has no voice.

Even at f1.8, MFT format can render a natural looking image without calling attention to its in-to-out of focus transition. You find yourself looking around the frame, it has depth in more ways than one. The modern trend is a sharp line of focus on the bike rider, everyone else blurred out. That does not appeal on any level.

My main stills format, Micro Four Thirds has a secret.

Deep depth of field is easier to find, it is almost always accessible, because the format adds over two stops more depth for its equivalent magnification to full frame. A 17mm lens sees like a 35mm, but with the depth of a 17mm, so i f5.6-6.7 depth at f2.8 or f2.8-3.4 at f1.8. Many see this as a negative, but I do not.

At f2.8, this image has some “snap” on the main subject, but he is still in context. This is story telling balance leaning on the shallow end, but it is a good and safe threshold.

F4 in full frame would have made the focus point very important. In MFT, it is basically a landscape aperture.

Shooting wide open at night, I still get enough depth to create a story image.

The two girls in front are the anchor for this image, but you find yourself drawn to other stories, even the mans turned head between theirs. I could have shot this at f1.8 on a full frame, but to what purpose?

Many images only work with depth. I could have made the central man the only sharp element, but that would have felt like chasing an on trend gimmick, not capturing what was important.

Personally, I am finding an obvious transition point less and less appealing. My 17mm Olympus lens is a favourite, because it almost always hides the transition point even at wider apertures.

This image has equal emphasis on all of its layers. Looks natural to me.

Maybe it is time for this shallow depth for its own sake thing to be shifted away from?

Are We Over It? I Am.

Realism or Escapism?

The super soft, amber-teal look is starting to be noticed by even the most un-aware of viewers and I think the bubble is about to burst.

Some things creep up on us, we absorb them and float along accepting this slow change, oblivious to their effect until one day they are seen and cannot then be unseen.

The soft focus trend, a reaction to over-sharp and digital looking footage seems to have settled in mainstream TV anyway as full strength Black Mist as its base. The BBC and ABC (Australia) are there, some cameramen are pushing back slightly, but the new generation coming through are there boots and all.

I can understand it and even accept it to some extent, because it has come from a need, into a habit, then a preferred look until we forget what things looked like before it. Even re-runs are getting the “glow” look.

This can be achieved also with old glass, but even then, the “vintage” look is augmented with filters.

It does seem odd though, that in an attempt to emulate film or the very best digital cameras like the ARRI 35 that do a good job of that, we seem to be falling well short in our mimicry, mocking our goal with our clumsy and simplistic techniques.

The cheaper the camera it seems, the stronger the reaction, although it seems there is nothing stopping cinematographers using 100k+ cameras, with $50 flea-market lenses and stacked filters.

Seems counter-intuitive.

Film does look different and the way many emulate this is……. with film or at least a film based technique. The last Indiana Jones movie as an example had a film grain overlay added to its digital capture to match the past films. It does not look exactly the same, but it is close and apart from the extra effort taken, probably a good work around, but the best one could have been to “just use film”.

Worked for a century.

The other half of this is the teal-orange look or lately the “no colour-colour” look.

This is getting out of hand. It seems the difference between mainstream TV and “cinematic” series or movies is either a highly compressed and dark colour palette (Harry Potter series, The Odyssey, Wicked II, basically everything on Netflix) or the strong but weird colour camp, where skin turns orange, shadows look like they are filled wth blue neon and it is hard to tell whether you are watching daylight or night. There are of course examples of both.

The final link in the chain, unnaturally shallow depth of field enabled by full frame AF digicams and super bright lenses (both old and new), which exaggerates both of the above and creates a look that is so far from natural, it must be accepted only as an on-trend “gimmick look” over-serving a habit developed from a perceived need.

An antique super fast Canon 50mm set wide open on a Red Monstro with I assume some BM filters and graded with the “there are only two colours, dull and duller” LUT. Looks natural…. not.

Mix these together and you get something that would have been once used for a”dreamscape” sequence.

Seriously, ever been in a plane that looks like this or with people this colour?

Way to date your work.

Pushback against the new Harry Potter* and Odyssey** releases seems to be zeroing in on the “no colour”, “too dark”, “flat and weird” or “more Hollywood dross” vibes, and this following the fallout from Wicked II, a movie with sumptuous and colourful sets, which were then blurred into de-saturated, out of depth of field oblivion and that coming from audiences that have either been unaware of this trend or are finally realising it is getting out of hand.

So maybe the end is near, or as things can go, maybe we are only just getting started.

Maybe the reality is I am being unkind, that this is the modern equivalent of early film escapism, designed to distract us from other issues, but maybe we should not let it enable our self destructive ignorance?

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHpw7q0tm6U&t=463s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqqXGfvjqU0

**Other issues with this one are common across any “historical” work, too many American accents, over done action scenes, and generally speaking liberties taken. Names like Matt Damon in the lead are often a key indicator here (remember The Great Wall?).

Getting In The 25mm Vespid Habit

The Vespid 25mm in its 45-50mm role on MFT is a thing.

Very happy.

It has the same character and feel as the 40mm, maybe better controlled under stress, maybe not.

In the name of not giving a lens a decent chance, no hood, and a Glimmerglass 1/8 filter on.

Foreground and background Bokeh, crucial for a cine lens, is very settled.

Off axis flare wide open is easy enough to tame.

Stright into the sun, the blobs are mostly from filters, so I might take them off for this type of shot, were I to try it in real situations.

Lovely video coiour and contrast, keeping in mind the GG filter..

Yep, happy to call this the MFT standard or optional full frame wide.
I am slightly tempted to get another Vespid, but to be honest, covering 25-80 across my cameras, I cannot think what camera I would like.

What do you want from a cine lens?

• High levels of sharpness without hard sharpness

• Bokeh and focus breathing that support front and back transitions, make the lens invisible.

• Contrast that can adapt to the needs of the shoot, punchy when needed, smooth and mild by default.

• Consistency across a set (of 2).

• Cinematographer grade handling.

Stills glass can give oyu sharp and contrasty, but lack subtlety and gentleness. They call too much attention to themselves. The Vespids have all of these characteristics in balance.

Maybe a Simera for a different look?

The Triple Triptych

A three by three of Japan’s Meiji Temple. Camera EM10.2, lens 40-150 Olympus kit.