A Matter Of Trust

Trust is a funny thing. It needs to be earned, but allowing it to be earned means taking a chance on someone or something to see if, yes, they can be trusted.

Sound for video for me is a constant battle.

I have options, lots of options, but sometimes I just do not have the answer.

The hole in my game as a lone shooter, is when I need two reliable sound recordings (to guarantee one) with a moving or distant subject. I have to control composition, focus and sound, so doubling my sound streams at the camera end is just too much to juggle.

A shotgun mic needs proximity and direction, which limits shooting options. If it is the sync track it’s no big deal, but if it is to be the “A” track and the subject drifts or turns away, you a left with massive level variance, or nothing at all.

I have two wireless LAV options, the Hollyland M1 (white) and M2 (black) mics, but they are consumer grade and I have been caught out once or twice (range, wind, clarity, volume), so I have trust issues. They do also need watching and have limited and vague controls (3 sound levels, one requiring a -/+ button with no indicator).

So, control, quality and reliability (range and signal) without on-the-go attention.

32 bit Float fixes control. Basically anything that can be heard can be picked up, without distortion or degradation within reason, many 32 bit float units lack a volume control at all.

To get superior, i.e. reliable wireless LAV transmitter would require the Sony or Sennheisser units that are relatively bulky thanks to their antenna, still have to be plugged into something at the receiving end and often are not 32 bit. Not to be ignored is the $1000au cost per unit.

The easiest fix is a 32 bit float, body worn LAV recorder.

Float fixes the control issue, body worn removes wireless range and signal reliability concerns and also effectively make range irrelevant (you could shoot a person behind a closed window). This means I only need consider good battery life, screw in mic connectors, a locking mechanism and easily worn/hidden.

The Zoom F2 recorder has always been on my radar, but the cost of a single unit has usually been prohibitive ($350au per unit). I just picked one up new (in white) for $175au and it is the Blue Tooth version. The provided LAV mic is fine, not spectacular, but that can be fixed later with a Diety or similar (Sanken Cos-11 would be the premium, but pricy). I also have a black mic from an F1 kit.

Not the Blue Tooth version, which I probably would not have bothered with, except it was free.

The main thing is control and reliability are sorted, quality is workable.

I have the Zoom F1 already that could also be used as a worn LAV recorder, but annoyingly the battery door is broken and my fix, a magnetic power pack, is not wearable and it is already twice the size of the F2 . It is also not 32 bit float, so I would be nervous until the results were “in the can”.

It is however one of my best shotgun options as it can record internally, it has an analogue volume control, the excellent SSH-6 mid/side shotgun capsule, small footprint and excellent shock mount, so it is probably best applied that way.

My second LAV option, probably worn by an interviewer, so a more clued in wearer, is my H1n or I guess any “H” series depending on space.

This might be the missing link, the reliable and easily used LAV I have been waiting for to support my already strong on-or-to camera mic range.

Swords With Two Edges, The Puzzling World Of Budget Cinema Lenses.

A cheap cinema lens is a little like a cheap sword.

A cheap sword can hurt, even kill, it just sometimes lacks finesse.

Equally, a masterwork blade in the wrong hands is more likely to hurt the wielder than the intended target.

A cheap cinema lens is not a weapon, but the comparison stands.

They look the goods, do the job more or less, but what are the pitfalls, what are the catches.

I own a few, quite a few.

I have some 7Artisans Hope, Spectrum and Vision, Sirui anamorphic and Nightwalker lenses and a lone IRIX tele-macro. All were carefully chosen from many offerings to better match each other than even their actual set-mates often do, which is part of the reason for this post.

It has not all been perfectly smooth sailing, but a fun voyage.

I have returned one Hope lens due to poor mechanical and optical performance, which can happen to any lens offer and as I have said above, another reality of buying cheap lenses.

So, what are they in reality and how do they hold up compared to dearer glass?

The premise is, cine glass is allowed some “character”, does not need modern mechanical refinements like AF or complicated zoom construction, does not need to be light or compact and super fast lens speed is often considered excessive.

Mechanical consistency is important and these have that potential by design, but it is often more than just intent that is needed.

I have found that they are not reliably consistent in focus or aperture ring resistance nor mount tightness.

Some a delight, genuinely, some have issues enough that I need to be aware of what they will not do for me.

These are my favourites to focus pull without a speed focus attached.

The 35 Spectrum is quite tight compared to the very nice 50, the 50 Hope is slightly heavier to pull than the near perfect 25, the IRIX is professionally damped-near perfect (a little tighter than the Hope 25) as I will assume all of their lenses are, the Sirui anamorphic is slightly heavier than the Hope 25 similar, the 12mm Vision a little lighter, the Sirui Nightwalker so light it almost feels broken.

I guess I should also include the Lumix S-Primes in this group, a set of semi-matched lenses with stills/cine features. Mechanically, they are excellent, but need to be on a Lumix cam to give you long throw.

Lens mounts have on the whole been good, with only a few exceptions. I can handle a slightly loose mount as long as the lens is light in other respects. The Hope 16mm failed here, tight to focus, but loose on the mount, making it genuinely compromised. The thing actually made a slight clunking sound and shifted when used, not ideal for a video lens.

My Vision 12mm, Sirui anamorphic and Spectrum 35 are loose on some mounts (S5II, G9II). The 12mm is the loosest, but it is so light to focus pull and so wide, I rarely care.

The rest are more or less tight depending on the camera (my S5 and GH5s have tight mounts).

In comparison my stills lenses that are most often used for video, (L-mounts, 12-60, 9mm Leica), lack longer natural focus throw, manual apertures and take a follow focus without attaching a separate ring, but on average are about as consistent mechanically (the 20-60 and 28-70 are also slightly loose on the S5II’s mount).

Optics.

This is difficult to clearly measure.

Cinema lenses are usually extraordinary in some ways, but also often quite poor in others. They have character, which can also be labeled “workable flaws”, especially anamorphic and legacy glass. These obvious flaws are embraced, but have to (1) fit in with the creators vision and (2) not stand in the way of that creation.

Below are a some test images recently taken with my Hope 25, an example of a “heart breaker” budget offering. this lens is a pleasure to use and could easily slip into my stills kit.

Flare is acceptable until it is not, distortions also. Sharpness needs to be “transparent”, so the lens does not show itself as the hero of the shot. Soft edges can be accepted even sought after as can distortion, chromatic aberration and flare. Contrast and colour is often flatter to allow for wider dynamic range capture, more can be added later.

The stills lens paradigms of razor sharp, super high contrast, super saturated, super smooth Bokeh, perfectly corrected and flare free need to be ignored in favour of a smooth rendering, predictable flaws and a more natural look.

Distortion? Sure, we have plenty and for top end directors like Wes Anderson, they become signature, taking a short coming and making it part of the process.

Some top end cine lenses are actually near perfect, because sometimes that is wanted, but even then, they are capable of rendering moving stock differently to highly corrected stills lenses.

This image taken with my Sirui Nightwalker at minimum distance and wide open at T1.2 is beautiful, but falls short of being usable in most situations.

They have that special something.

This is the key to it really, a cine lens needs to add beauty in some form without distraction, or if it adds distraction, it needs to be intended and still beautiful. Cinematographers often chase a distinctive look, but that look needs to be transcendent, spectacular, not just crude gimmick.

The reality is, to get the very best, the cutting edge control of aberrations and clarity, but also some magic, the best lenses are needed. I recently googled the lens used by the makers of The Bear and was stunned, but not surprised by the $38,000u.s. price tag. I guess if you want both quality and character, it costs.

Probably the thing that stands out with cheaper cine glass, even the IRIX, is a lack of a mature confidence, that feeling that “you will know it when you see it” quality. They are often good at some things, but fall short somewhere.

My Hope and IRIX glass is reliable, clean and well controlled. They are surprisingly well corrected, sharp, clean, smooth rendering and relatively problem free, but they are not adding that signature look, just reliable quality. They are the start of the road, but it is long.

The IRIX 150 is a favourite lens for any use.

My Spectrum and Nightwalker lenses are more character heavy, with some more obvious short comings, the Sirui anamorphic is also a good performer, ironically in a class of lenses renown for their fickle attributes.

At the level of of the IRIX ($2000au) each, there are lenses gaining a reputation for true cinema magic, like the Thypoch Simera-C and their stable mates the DZO Vespids, but the IRIX range leans more towards well corrected, slightly boring purity and lenses at this level still fall foul of the optical consistency gods. They are stills grade, but not yet perfect cine grade.

For more character, you can go super cheap, like legacy glass such as the Helios 44-2 or the TTArt 35 f1.4 for under $100au. It has bags of character, looking for all the world like an anamorphic lens without the wide frame, but is only really an option for art projects.

Super sharp in the centre, but obvious distortion, swirly Bokeh, soft edges, just like an antique anamorphic, all for chump change. It even gets “better” is you use it on a full frame and split the difference in cropping. Its tiny form factor gets it zero marks in the handling department.

Seriously, this is from a major Marvel production, complete with edge weirdness, CA and distortions galore.

I have faith in my cine lenses for their reasonable consistency across both M43 and FF*. They are solid, look great (i.e. impress clients) and work as indicated. I do not feel they are a compromise optically compared to my stills glass, sometimes they even have more pleasant Bokeh and a better video image overall (I am keen to try the Hope lenses in the studio), some even have effectively no focus breathing, but I also realise there are very special lenses out there with long and proven pedigrees and eye watering price tags to match.

Mechanically they vex me slightly, but it seems the bar is set quite high there.

In a nutshell, they do act like cine lenses and can produce professional looking results, just don’t be too picky when comparing one lens to another.

The IRIX macro is a mid range cine lens, my dearest by a wide margin, but still not in the top tier.

So, mechanically less than perfectly consistent and optically strong but boring or just ok, with character?

Even some mid range glass can be accused of the same, so still great value.

Subjectively measuring and comparing top end with budget lenses is largely pointless. Even if they cost ten times more, it is still possible a budget lens can beat them in some way.

The fact they often only come in mounts to suit the very top cameras, is always going to give them precedence. Hard to compare Arri Alexa footage on lens “X” to FX-3 footage on lens “Y”, when they cannot be or are just not ever directly compared.

As for the many AF super stills lenses around?

The trade off of using “best practice” manual focus and aperture selection has to be weighed against the advantages of touch screen AF. They both have their place.

On the plus side, the whole collection of 8 lenses, often bought on sale has cost me sub $4000au or to put it another way, about the same as a single mid-tier cine lens**.

If I went again, I would likely have bought the IRIX 150, 30 and something in between (65) at the insane sale price I found the 150 ($1100au), but in E-F mount and used them on all my cams with an adapter. The 30mm could then be a 30, 45 or 60 depending on the format used.

Of course lens selection is only one part of a complicated and inter-dependent web of factors, but it is no less important for that and if you ask a cinematographer, the matching of the right lenses to the right camera is the foundation point of the process.

My current process is;

Use the GH5s and S5’s (using B-Raw) which have the less reliable AF with cine glass and support rigs (various) for static and more serious work, especially personal projects.

I then use the G9II and S5II as “B” cams with the same or as my movement cams, relying on touch screen AF and in camera V-Log to keep the rigs small, I use stills-hybrid lenses.

If the G9II and S5II are used as “B” cams with their format mates, I will match lenses.

My most used lenses for a variety of reasons are the Hope 25 and 50, Sirui anamorphic 24, the 35, 50 and 85 S-Primes, 12-40 Oly and Leica 9mm in AF and increasingly for hybrid run and gun, the Sigma L-Mount 28-70.

*The Vision and Spectrum series are mostly consistent in ring placement, but vary wildly in rendering, wide open performance and colour temperature within their own sets, so I have “cherry picked” from these. The Hopes are closer, but still vary slightly in temp. The two Sirui lenses are both warm and similar in rendering even though they are different by design, closer than their own stable-mates.

**If I had my time over I would have simply gone the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 Pana zooms in M43 (only) and/or the full set of Lumix S-Primes for full frame, but then I may have missed out on some fun glass.

Spring Has Sprung, IRIX Time.

The IRIX 150 macro has become a stills macro lens even more than it is a cine lens. My other desire with it is to try portraiture, but not yet, more macro for now.

Bokeh time!

The 150 macro struggles to get deep depth when used as designed. This is a macro thing. You get this close to stuff and your f5.6 depth goes from meters to millimeters.

Is the IRIX sharp?

Yep, at macro and normal distances.

The Bokeh and colour depth are truly beautiful.

It is also a great portrait lens, if a little hard to use.

The IRIX is a clinical lens, but it has a lovely clean and vibrant look.

Sirui-ously?

I gave the little Sirui 24mm Night Walker a run today. Similar circumstances, bright, low wind, same subjects.

I had high hopes, because this lens has been used before to good effect, but I struggled to get excited.

Sharpness.

Not convinced in comparison with the Hope 25 or 50.

At f2, with clear focus confirmation, this is the best of four attempts.

Extreme manual close focus accuracy, hand held is always problematic, but this was doable yesterday with both Hope lenses.

I backed off a little and used a friendlier angle. Nice Bokeh and colours.

Still not convincing up close. It is likely the lens is not happy this close.

A more normal range.

Better at slight distance, nicely “cinematic” as they say. This is much the same as the lack-lustre 16mm Hope I sent back, that feeling of being near, but never on target until you realise you have been trying too hard for too long and other lenses just get there.

This from the Hope 50 is sobering. The light is slightly better, but still, the Sirui is not a macro champion.

Handling.

This lens has very, very light in focus and aperture rings. It is the only lens I have that requires a focus pull rig to help give it some resistance!

The aperture ring is so light, I do not trust it for fast application. The combination of the super fast aperture (T1.2 of f1.1) and no ability to turn your back on it (it seems to shift on its own some times), means it is only really good for calculated work, not run-n-gun. Taping it down at f2 or 2.8 is an option I may need to apply.

The lens is otherwise light and tight and pleasant to have on the camera. I really want to like it and nearly bought the 16mm when the Hope failed based on that feeling, but I am glad I held off (and there were none around) and went with the anamorphic.

Bokeh.

Blurring is gorgeous, but that has to weighted against sharpness.

It has more “character” than the Hope lenses, for better or worse. There is a feeling of excitement, but not one of control.

For video, where smoothness, contrast and good transition trump sheer sharpness, it is pleasant enough.

Wide open it gets “impressionistic”, which is cinematographer code for mostly useless.

3D pop.

There is lovely separation and a feeling of snappiness at normal distances, although the Bokeh is a little Ni-Sen (cross-eyed) looking in the branches.

For video and even stills, this is great visually, which I guess is all that really matters.

Flare.

Like the two Hope lenses, it handles flare well.

Hello Sun, my old friend.

Nice control of this hellish situation. No clue why the leaves top right corner are sharper than most of the rest of the out of focus frame?

I think a fair test needs to be at distance as this lens performs poorly in close, but seeing as it will be used as a letter-boxed pseudo-anamorphic portrait lens (roughly 48mm width and 70mm height) to compliment the true Sirui anamorphic, it may be fine.

The Hope pair are seriously good lenses, reliable, resistant to issues and pleasant to use.

The Night Walker is less so all around, it is more of a character lens, reliable within limits, but it will have a place in my kit, especially when whimsical uber-Bokeh is wanted.

Why Anamorphic Is Different

Anamorphic lenses are becoming better known and more widely applied by people other than top tier movie and TV producers.

They have become quite affordable and the support from cameras and software also more common.

They have several characteristics that are often actually perceptual evolutions of forced compromises, such as oval shaped Bokeh balls, horizontal highlight streaks and other odd optical behaviours, but they exist for a reason and that reason is wide screen.

A recent cast interview of the school version of The Cursed Child shows the full potential of anamorphic lenses (it looks a little flat after screen shot-ing). Oval Bokeh is largely absent, there is only a hint of a streak on the right side and there is a little bowing on the edges, but none of these are so extreme they preclude me using the lens for real world jobs.

To be honest, when I bought the 24mm anamorphic, I was expecting to use it rarely and only for my own projects. It turns out, the lens is a lot more useful and empowering than that.

The shot above was taken with the 24mm Sirui on the GH5s, my “A” cam. The focal length is equivalent to a full frame 45mm in height, so a very natural perspective, but almost 30mm in width, meaning that with little effort, I managed to get the entire stage area of the theatre in from half way down the aisle while keeping the perspective and magnification natural.

This is the key take away. It is not extra width you are chasing, any wide angle can do that, it is width without the side effects which are stretched perspective, ever shrinking backgrounds and unwanted distortions.

The 24mm specifically was chosen because it is a normal lens in M43, but also because it is a well controlled anamorphic. Streaks, oval Bokeh and other oddness is kept within relatively normal bounds, or can be exaggerated when wanted. It is a “clean” lens by anamorphic standards.

Will I use anamorphic lenses a lot?

Probably not and I need two to do dual cam shots.

More Hope

The 50mm now.

First up, my initial thoughts on these two lenses were that they were slightly different siblings, but from the same family for sure.

I lost an hour of light, but this is for fun, not science.

Sharpness.

It looks sharper than the 25 to the eye, much like my 40-150 f2.8 looks sharper than the 300 until you look closer. More micro contrast, more contrast overall maybe, but the un-sharpened files can look over sharp.

Easy to attain sharp focus, thanks in part I am sure to the longer minimum focus distance.

Handling.

Slightly tighter focus ring, but much the same otherwise and identical feel on the camera. I did find focussing easier, especially close up, but while it is longer, it does not get as close, so more DOF. The lack of good close focus is not an issue for its intended use (interview b-cam), but for general use it could be frustrating.

Bokeh.

Interestingly, in close-up comparisons anyway, the inability of the lens to get as close does reduce observable Bokeh compared to the shorter lens.

Still very nice, but that snappier contrast creates a slightly different dynamic. My work method with these two lenses is to put a mild 1/8 Glimmer-glass on the 25 and a stronger looking 1/8 Black Mist on the 50, which seems about right.

Very clean separation.

This clarity is on par with my IRIX 150 macro.

Flare.

Like the 25mm, the 50 can handle some stress.

Again straight into the sun.

Lower contrast maybe, but again, not a fair comparison. Basically no CA and great flare control. No issue having a light in frame with these two.

3D Pop.

About the same at the same magnification.

About the same 3d look as the 25, just twice as far away.

Looks soft, but it is shallower depth of field on the long lens.

Some foreground Bokeh, just because I found it so easy.

Sharp, really sharp.

Super sharp.

I am aware there is a slight colour temp shift in these two, but to be honest it is about the same as the difference between my camera sensors, so a slight shift of angle, a different filter or a micro shift in processing is as much. The look of the two is harmonious, but not identical and that is not down to the difference in focal length alone.

Time For Some Hope

Really tired at the moment, for the right reasons (lots of work), but tired and cannot remember the last time I had a day off*.

Time to play.

Hope 25mm time, revisiting a lens I liked the day I got it and apart from the hiccup of the sub-par 16mm (bad copy, not bad lens), I like the series.

What am I looking for?

Good behaviour, a lens that gets out of the way, is invisible or at worst only adds nice things.

Sharpness.

Beautifully sharp. Like my 300mm, the sharpness holds down to micro levels, but can seem elusive on first glance. Smooth, mild contrast super sharp.

For video, this is lovely, heck for stills it is sublime.

Handling.

Silky smooth ring movement with a touch of resistance, tight mount, decent heft but balanced. I am finding hand held, wide open near macro shooting is hit and miss, but the peaking on the G9.1 is possibly not fine enough.

Bokeh.

Oh yeah.

Smooth, well behaved with a little character.

Nothing to dislike, which tends to be the Bokeh thing. It’s fine or you notice it and don’t like it.

Flare control.

In the image below I am shooting straight into the sun with only a small spring leaf between the lens and old Sol. Some of my best stills lenses would struggle here.

Seriously good performance.

There it is, peaking through.

3d “pop”.

A bit subjective here as “pop” and good transition can be at odds, but for this lens and it’s intended use (interviews), a lovely amount of separation. The shot below also provides a decent check on vignetting and distortion.

My ideal here is when your eye drifts from the sharp to the soft effortlessly, then jumps back to the sharp point without jarring, something I first noticed with some Leica film lenses. What I do not love is a massive step between the two, a real sharp/soft-no transition dynamic.

For some reason I have always struggled to get super sharp Silver Birch trunk images, but there you go.

Not just a good cine lens, but a great lens in any role.

The 50mm next.

*being a day free of camera use or processing.

Micro Four Thirds, It's All In The Lenses

M43 format has it’s fans and detractors.

The fans cite small size, value for money, sharp and fast. The detractors give maximum quality potential a fail and hero extreme performance.

Extremes?

I will admit there is more quality in a full frame file, measurably and occasionally visually (usually only by direct comparison and again, in extreme cases), but is M43 simply a physical manifestation of an exercise in wishful thinking?

The secret of the system, as the designers realised, is in the lenses.

The lenses enable the true benefits of the system to flourish. If you buy into M43 and skimp on lenses, say stick with a couple of slow kit lenses, then yes, you are not on an even playing field.

Low light.

The full frame high ISO advantage is real, by about two stops in my world*. This two stop advantage can, in some cases, most real world situations, be countered by the lens advantage.

The standard working pro kit, the 24-70 f2.8 on a full frame body can be matched by the f1.7 Leica zooms. These are similar or smaller in size than a pro f2.8 zoom, cine grade sharp, video optimised and provide a range over the two lenses of 20-100 (full frame equivalent). These two added stops of light gathering, do not come at a cost in depth of field, as M43’s f1.7 is roughly the same as FF’s f2.8 in depth rendering.

The M43 advantage is on show here, fast apertures made practical by workable depth of field.

This then extends into other super fast lenses that have either more reach than a full frame equivalent (a humble 75mm f1.8 for example acting like a super speed 150mm), a super light and sharp 9mm f1.7, relatively small f1.2 primes and other lenses either much bigger, dearer or sometimes completely absent in FF arsenals.

A lens that will not make my list of stand outs, the 17mm Oly is never-the-less a firm favourite.

They are always sharp and well corrected, thanks in part to the designers choice of formats. The reality is, it is easier to make lenses when the format is smaller and squarer.

When do I appreciate full frame?

When I have reached the extreme edge of M43 performance, which is rare, then I have a little more up my sleeve to deal with extreme exposure and colour balance horrors.

We are talking ISO’s over 6400, often under exposed or otherwise stressed, apertures at the extreme end like f1.8 and needing shutter speeds of 1/500th or higher in often really poor, flat lighting.

This is not conducive to quality images, but also not as rare as I would like, so we are talking bad light in a bad location, no prep, no other options, otherwise known as desperation photography.

M43 at ISO 6400 is droppable to a high standard, plenty for on line or print and small, light 600 f4 lenses are possible.

Ok, so back to the real world.

Within the umbrella of M43 lens options there are standout lenses, lenses that punch even further above their weight and often bridge the gap between formats.

I do not have many of them, but I do have some of the best glass I have ever owned in this format.

The 75 f1.8 is one of the few lenses I have owned that actually makes an image so good to the eye, it can elevate it above its own technical limits. I have never had a lens that has captured so many hero images, impressed so many people, myself included. My old champion was the excellent EF 135 f2, bettered in many ways by the Olympus and one of the reasons I dumped FF Canon and went fully into M43.

An early street grab using an old EM5. Colour, Bokeh, sharpness, speed. It’s got it all, except weather proofing, which is a shame.

The 300 f4 is an empowering tool like few others. A hand-holdable, easily carried, super sharp, super fast, tough, semi macro, 600 f4 lens with an insane stabiliser. This lens handles like a 300, produces results like a 600.

The reality is, a super fast wide and full frame 600 f4 would be out of most peoples price range, ridiculously big and heavy and likely no better.

This file is not cropped, but the from this lens I regularly crop to 20% of the file and nobody ever questions the quality.

The 9 and 15 mm Pana-Leica primes are both exceptional in their sharpness, rendering and control of nasties, with a little extra quality to boot. The 9mm in particular has much in common with the 300, being a semi-macro, optically superior, highly usable and handy example of an extreme lens. These make the oddballs so much more usable than most.

An old favourite, the 15mm reliably makes such a beautiful image almost always wide open.

The 40-150 trio. The f2.8 is superb, I feel slightly faster than it’s f2.8 rating, has high contrast, is tough and zippy. Perfect for tough weather, low light sports shooting.

The f4 version loses nothing in optical quality, but halves the heft.

The only reason I would not use this lens is if light is poor or an unknown, otherwise I will run this lens over the f2.8 most of the time. Technically I do not love it, the barrel has a slight wobble and the zoom feels “dry”, but it is extremely weather proof, sharp and has even better Bokeh than the f2.8.

The kit version can actually hold it’s own and is so light I can add it to a bag with little thought. It is plastic, but tightly built, nicer even than the f4. This goes into my bag when I do not think I need a telephoto, just to be safe.

Kanazawa Japan was a stand out day for us and this little “junker” was my go-to. “Hollywood” light all day, no fear or qualms.

Sigma makes a trio of wonder lenses, of which I only have the 30mm, but it is a stand out. The extra speed is nice, the quality wide open even nicer. I do not love the lens, but I respect its awesomeness.

Singling out a few seems unfair as there are so many amazing lenses I use every day, but that I guess is the point. Lots of excellence, some transcendence, little effort or expense needed.

M43 is not a compromise unless you compromise. It can handle most tasks with little difficulty and for me, quite often I choose it over full frame because I prefer the handling and ease of use, but there are also times when it is the only logical choice, but it is always in the lenses.

Looking At Processes, Studio Portraiture

I did a job last night that allowed me to reunite with a friend, an ex student at the school I work with and try some studio techniques, limited though they were.

For consistency, I shot the cast of the pending school musical the same way.

A single strobe into a silver reversed Westcott brolly, the Manfrotto Walnut/Pewter collapsible background (Walnut side) for a background.

The 45/45 angle is safe, but a little moody for these, so I went slightly more straight on and for some subjects, it was magic. Bright, clean, colourful and ideal for small programme shots.

A mild hair light was added from a window catching some reflected sunset warmth.

For some though it washed out features and failed to “sing”.

I would then try a stronger angle and sat a white brolly to the side for some fill, but it was harsh.

Charlotte is an ex student and wardrobe coordinator for the show. We had a little time, so we used it to finesse her image and as crew, she could use an image that did not match the cast shots.

I ditched my first attempt at Charlottes portrait, because the lighting above washed her out so badly it did not make it past first review.

I felt the image above was fine, but not ideal for her. The background excited me, but the shadows were too harsh. More fill, a hair light or becasue I did not have anything at hand, change the main light angle.

When limited to a single light and a makeshift (weak) reflector, there are only a few options available.

“Butterfly” also called “Hollywood” light, uses a single light directly overhead (slightly above and forward), a reflector is then used to bounce some light back up to fill shadows.

My reflector, a hand held white brolly was a little hopeful, but better than nothing. When the subject has fair skin, but strong facial features, Butterfly lighting is a good option. The slight blue shift I applied to the background manages to highlight her brilliant red hair without overpowering her complexion.

The reality is, you only have to shift your light a little bit to get a strong range of effects.

So, back to the heading.

Most of my portrait work is done with a portable studio rig that consist of 1-2 basic $100 strobes (YN 560 IV or Godox 685 which are plenty strong enough), a flash controller, 1-2 flash brackets, 2-3 stands, a Westcott silver 42” brolly, a pair of white shoot-throughs and sometimes a 110cm reflector. I also take a sheet of diffusion cloth to soften light further. Most of this fits into a single Neewer “golf” style bag.

The kit I use most often including bag probably comes in at $400au.

This gives me a main light, a hair or fill and a reflected source.

My background is either what ever I find, something hanging or a Manfrotto black/grey or Walnut/Pewter collapsible background requiring a stand and magnetic support arm. The colour is irrelevant, but the texture is not.

The Walnut background has a great texture, the colour can be changed as easily as applying white balance changes to a background mask.

Cameras are usually an Olympus of some type (I seem to have disproportionately good luck with EM10’s), sometimes a Panasonic G9, lenses range from 12-40 f2.8, 12-60 Leica, 45, 75 or 25 Oly primes. I am yet to try the S5’s as so far I have not needed to. The controlled environment of studio photography really suits M43. Lenses do not have to be super wide aperture or exotic, just smooth-sharp that render pleasantly. My 45 is a favourite, but the 12-40 gets the bulk of the work.

If I have the luxury of time and space, I would set up several lights with their own flash each for a large soft box and larger 72” brolly and switch between them as needed.

If you want super soft, it can be as simple as bouncing a flash onto a surface then through diffusion, called book light.

The big 72” brolly can even be used directly behind you, creating a light similar to a ring light, but without the odd eye reflections.

Looking At Processes, Where Do I Turn For Sport

My kit is a mixed one, because my needs are varied.

It has stills and video elements, two brands and formats, kits of varying shapes, because I do a lot of different things and sometimes the same things different ways. So, what do I do, what do I use, when and why.

Outdoor sport.

This has been a staple lately, something I am extremely comfortable with and my kit is becoming so very intuitive.

EM1x + 300mm (cross body black rapid lens strap), EM1x 40-150 f4 or 2.8 by light (cross body camera strap), with a 25, 8-18 or 12-60 in a small bag if needed for teams shots and other angles depending on the sport and job dynamic, with a third body (EM1.2, EM1x or G9) if speed matters more than compactness.

Occasionally, for bright light, low speed sports like cricket, I will use the capable 75-300 or 40-150 + 1.4x (the fixed 300 can be too long on some grounds). If the game is on a small field like tennis, the 300 will just be left behind.

The full frame equivalent of 80-300 and 600 is about perfect for football.

Indoor sport.

This falls into two categories, bad and decent light (rarely good light).

In poor light, which is most of my basketball and netball, I will use a EM1x + 75 f1.8 for the far ends of the court and second and the 25 f1.8 for the close end. This varies little. I can capture most of a basketball or netball game from the mid point with the 75 (150mm ff-e), but that is not always possible, often the court end is all you have, so the duet is more practical.

If the light is good, I will switch to the 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 pair.

A location capable of all light types depending on the level of sport. National grade basketball is indoor sunlight, local netball, very much reduced.

Sport is all about getting the job done, not much else. You can be as creative and prolific as you wish, once you can guarantee the shot is captured sharply and cleanly. My limits on M43 are ISO 6400, 1/500th lens wide open at f1.8-2.8, which can handle anything people are expected to watch.

Better is always better of course, so when 1/1000th is reached, the ISO comes down. One advantage of M43 is the extra depth of field gained for a focal length. At a given magnification you have effectively 2 stops more depth, so f1.8 = 2.8, f2.8 = f5.6 etc. A 600mm lens (full frame equivalent) is a 300, so wide open at f4 (f8), there is plenty of depth to play with for the amount of effective light gathering which is not affected.

Sometimes there is a little too much background info, but post processing can always reduce that, it cannot add in missed depth.

The format’s prime lenses are universally sharp wide open, so no issue there either.

A Short Trip To Adelaide Produces Some Nice Surprises

With Japan on hold for a while for a variety of reasons, Meg and I decided to go to Adelaide for a short week.

South Australia is a little like home mixed with most Australian tropes, but unlike Perth it is not the “big dry” and it avoids the feel of the faceless metropolis Melbourne or Sydney can give me. The people are generally friendly and real, the places worth going are quite accessible and the city itself is surrounded by hills similar in climate to here.

I took my habitual light weight kit with an old G9 instead of the usual OM10.2, which added weight and was mixed in capabilities (more on that to come).

Glenelg

Lenses are the 12-60 Panasonic and 40-150 Oly kit lenses, combined weight negligible with the 25 f1.8 for speed if needed. I carried the lot over in the Crumpler Muli 4000 bag, then tried to switch the day gear to a small satchel, but the G9 proved to be a little big, so I kept using the Muli with laptop etc removed.

Hahndorf

The nice surprise was the lenses, yet again producing the goods.

Hahndorf

No sharpening added, in fact not much processing at all and some really fine art quality results.

Glenelg

The weather was generally poor, great for a draught stricken state, but not so much for a tourist.

Glenelg

Photo opportunities came down to a day in the Adelaide hills, a trip to the zoo and a morning walk in Glenelg where we stayed.

Adelaide Zoo

The only negative was the combination of the G9 and 40-150 for moving subjects or low contrast quick grabs. It missed some and stubbornly refused to let go of the background. User error possibly, but not a combo I would trust for sport.

Adelaide Zoo

Glenelg

Aldgate

Glenelg

Adelaide Zoo

Kit lenses can be oddly satisfying. Their light weight reduces mechanical sloppiness and increases drop robustness (they don’t hit the ground as hard), even can even be weather sealed (12-60 is rated as such). They are often sharp, distortion and flare resistant thanks to unambitious design parameters. They are by far the best performer you can get for the money and can be eminently replaceable (never buy a camera without one).

Strathalbyn

Adelaide Zoo

Adelaide Zoo

Adelaide Zoo

Both lenses produced great results as usual, the 12-60 kit cementing its place with me as my core travel lens, the 40-150 was already a known thing. The bulk of the kit’s weight was the camera.

Adelaide Zoo

What They Pay Me For And Other Headaches

Video is back on the table with my clients, buoyed by the new sense of control in my work flow and some clarity in the roles my cameras play.

The G9II is the movement cam, limited to V-Log, but otherwise not limited at all, the GH5s is the static cam with the big rig and B-Raw and the S5 is the hand held, semi-static, semi-movement cam, again in B-Raw.

You cannot control some things though and that is what they pay professionals to deal with.

When they can.

I had to record a rock group the other day, junior kids, but a springboard programme to the next level and a special thing in the junior campus.

I was excited, I felt ready to nail this one after minor disasters last year.

Boy, can things go wrong, even when you know the space, the people and the job.

Like previous jobs in this space, things have a habit of changing from booking to brief to actual performance, even if that is only a day or two.

I turned up with the GH5s ready to do the band and a second camera to do cut aways (S5) I knew I would likely be stuck in place, so I needed to be able to control angles in other ways.

A 7 person ensemble, it has a fairly small footprint, but also expected to have little room to move. The light was going to be adequate at best in the space (school gym). It was likely to be flat and poorly directed as the lights are for a gym, not a stage and there is a screen a great big screen.

It turned out that at the last minute, i.e that morning, it was decided the entire yr4 and 5 choir was added, taking up the entire space, the band was then squashed into a dark corner, so flat, poorly directed and as it went, not much of either. As a bonus the choir was backed by the huge screen with a white page projected on it!

Two nightmare scenarios for the price of one.

This I can handle with stills processes, accepting compromise as part of the deal, but I am still getting the hang of it with video. The light was flat and dingy, the cameras pushed, all my experience tapped.

Flat, low, non directional, mixed value spill light from crappy overheads on the band, about ISO 3200 and 3400k (some older globes were warmer), or silhouettes against a screen and even the 12mm on my GH5s (21mm equivalent) was not wide enough to get them all in, and that is even if a wall of tiny kids would be acceptable. I was planted about 8-10 metres from them and no way to set up differently.

The other nightmare, poor front light, even worse behind. Both images EM1.2 ISO 6400 f2.8.

Choose your pain, we had plenty.

The solution on the spot was point camera “A” at the band as planned, use the movement or “B” cam to include the rest of the kids, all while taking stills.

I had it covered I felt. B-Raw into both cams, both are low light comfortable, focus etc were pretty easy. All good.

When I got the footage into Resolve, it hit me. It is not for nothing that lighting is probably the first thing on a cinematographers mind when setting up a shot. I can handle most things with stills, but still recognise the signs when expectations and realities collide. Flash for example is most often used to pretty things up, not just make them take-able.

This is what they pay me for, to choose when and how to add that extra something needed to take an image from merely recorded to well recorded.

In video, it is even more important, because you have fewer options in post and as moving footage, it has to work as a cohesive flow.

Where is the problem rooted.

With me basically. This, as the title says is what they pay me for.

In my years of stills shooting, much more in the last ten or so, making the bad better or even good has been an automatic assumption on a daily basis. When shooting for myself and occasional other jobs, I used to place jobs into ideal where I controlled the when-where-why and desperate where the situation controlled me categories, I now have a sliding scale with ideal as a rarity, almost a luxury. The reality is, when everything is easy* anyone with a phone can do it.

With my video, the issues have been the same, but the tools less known to me and I have hidden behind various excuses, but the reality is, I need to up my game, take more control and responsibility and lower my self-criticism threshold when I know I have been beaten by circumstances. With video there is often more of a need to control the space, or you will face tougher post processing fixes (well, I do anyway), or face the reality or compromise.

*good light, no magnification or exposure issues, no movement and a conducive subject.

The Best That We Can Do Needs The Best Tools We Have.

When we asked to do the best that we can, we tend to instinctively go to certain thing, gear, resources, processes, that we know will allow that to happen. These are the things where the heart, head and gut all intersect.

A random snap taken while waiting for a job to become something.

For me, one of those things is the Olympus 75mm f1.8.

In a place lenses and cameras feel strained, the 75 empowers, acting as a full frame equivalent to a 150mm f1.8, with (2.8 depth of field), the perfect indoor sports lens.

It might be used on a G9 to allow it to be warm and generous, or an EM1x as my most powerful indoor sports lens, or any other Olympus as a natural, crisp and saturated, but what ever the camera, this lens produces over and over.

Through a sun flared window.

It probably gets my vote as “most likely to be replaced if lost”, “most commented on” (images not physical lens as it is quite ordinary in hand), and “most likely packed as a safety net bit of kit”.

Is it so unique that nothing else could do what it does?

I have other excellent prime and zoom lenses from Olympus, Pana/Leica and Sigma also (the 56 f1.4, I lens I do not own is meant to be sharper!), the Pana 85 f1.8 on my full frame impresses, but this lens is the full package being top tier quality, long and bright, while also being small and affordable.

I often categorise my lenses as hard (30 1.4) or smooth (300 f4) sharp, modern (15 f1.7) of old fashioned (17 1.8) Bokeh, warm or cool colour tone and high (40-150 f2.8) or low (40-150 kit) contrast, but this lens seems to defy those camps, managing to be all of them at once, a chameleon.

It is not perfect.

On cold days the freezing metal body can fog for ages on a hot camera body, so reliably in fact I always carry a plastic 45 as a backup.

It can have a “flattening” effect on subjects like a lot of longer lenses, which I guess is both good and bad.

It has the tiniest bit of chromatic abberration wide open in extreme circumstances, but it goes away easily.

This was the first shot I noticed it, a little fringing on the name tag.

Even with massive cropping potential and the best reach to speed ratio I have, I sometime swish it was a 100 f2, then I could leave my heavier zooms behind. This was the dream at the paper, to go all primes* with this as the longest, but a 100mm (200mm ff/e), would have been perfect.

So, how would I rank it in my kit of tricks?

At least as high as the 85mm S-prime on a full frame camera as my shallow depth, low light with reach, lens.

*9, 15, 25, 45, 100, covering 18-200 in full frame all f2 or faster.

Sometimes, I Love This Time Of Year!

So, the anamorphic is back on the table. I was contacted today regarding some owed funds for a project I did a few months ago that came up in the end of year review. I would have been ok with it being a volunteer job, but at the extreme as it pushed me for time and extended my resources.

The results were as good as I could do at the time (better now though), using the two full frame cams in LOG, my Pana primes and a shotgun/LAV combo for sound (which I failed to nail in any of the six interviews, managing to find a different problem each time), although I did nail the music performance in the last one using the LCT 240 condenser into the H8.

I would now use B-Raw (I only had one BMVA at the time), the GH5s and S5 in combination and overhead mics, as well as the improvements in Resolve 20 for audio processing.

Anyway, this deserves a small reward, so the 24mm Sirui anamorphic will be purchased, if for no other reason than to scratch the curiosity itch.

The logic of buying a single anamorphic lens into a purely spherical landscape and why that lens?

I am after a dynamic that is fun, has something out of the ordinary, because the rest of my process if deliberately ordinary. I want cine gear for cine thinking, not regular gear for standard work, but also, I want to be able to use it for the less edgy stuff also.

Apart from the MFT anamorphic benefits in format shape and overall usability, the lens itself is the pick of them I feel for an MFT user.

The 24mm compared to it’s stable mates has the most flare control, best close focus, stable sharpness through it’s range (which starts at 2.8), has a warm tint (see below) is the standard-wide focal length I favour and finally, it may well fit into my existing kit seamlessly.

The 24 will force a wider angle of view (about 2.4:1 or about 21.6:9) with what you would call a “standard” or un-opinionated lens for MFT.

It has the same image height as a 48mm full frame equivalent spherical lens which is to say, the vertical focal length remains unchanged. On the GH5s it is nearly my ideal 40 (43mm) with its slightly bigger sensor.

The width or horizontal coverage however is equivalent to a full frame 36 or 28mm depending on camera.

This is the “perfect” normal-but-also-wide look I associate with anamorphic**. Longer lenses, to my eye, tend to loose that broad staging as they both naturally compress the subject and reduce depth of field, both characteristics that largely hide the expansive look I am after. They are intimate lenses, that tend to blur the destinction. This is from looking at a ton of sample videos where I can see it with the 24, but not so much with the others.

I like normal lenses, tending to hover around the 35-70 range. Apertures, rendering and lens handling provide plenty of options, but the overly wide or long look often does not appeal

My logic is a pairing of the Sirui 24mm anamorphic and the spherical Sirui 24mm Night Walker I already have, which should share a similar overall look in sharpness, warm colour etc, is I that will have the ability to crop* the 24-NW in to about a 55-65mm height equivalent (depending on specific camera, need to do the math-or not) with the same image width as the anamorphic at 48mm equivalent, but also keep the compression about the same as normal.

A slightly longer spherical lens cropped.

So a matching pair of standard lenses with different characteristics that best suit their use (I prefer circular Bokeh and the more compressed look of the spherical for longer, tighter lenses, the anamorphic look for wide, but the 24 is tame that way anyway).

The 24-A has very clean flares, something I can match with my Moment flare filters. The NW is faster (T1.2) for shallow depth, which suits it.

Another spherical lens (30mm Sigma) cropped to about 2.4:1. I would have dropped back a little if using the 24-NW for this (a heavy crop from 4:3), but still retain the slightly more compressed look of the spherical lens.

So, oval or circular Bokeh, standard-wide or compressed-standard coverage, blue streaks that can be controlled or even removed, shallow depth with compression, or natural looking deep and wide from the same distance, from two matched (kind of) lenses and the lone NW now has a purpose.

I struggled to commit to a semi wide because as much as I like the focal length for stills, it pushes the scene away, loses intimacy and connection. The 24-A does not.

With the two sensor sizes available in M43, I can go as wide as 28mm coverage or as long as (about) 65mm magnification and compression or 35 and 55 depending on cameras, even more crop with stabe, which covers basically all I need. My gut says the Anamorphic will end up on a standard M43 cam (G9II) as a 48/36, the spherical on the GH5s as a 55/43

The bit I will need to see to fully understand is the normal-that-is-wide and tight-that-is-normal dynamic I am forcing. Might be I just have two useful lenses with different skill sets, but I hope there is more than that.

The Hope lenses are the “straight” guys, the safe interview lenses, no frills, no introduced character. The Sirui lenses are the edgy, cinematic pair with lots to work with or control if needed.

*Currently I am shooting RAW out but to a 1080 work space so heavy cropping is not an issue.

**I do love a wide set, characters moving within it in long takes.

Oh, I Hate This Time Of Year!

So, the anamorphic bug has hit again, thanks mainly to some really cheap offers at the moment.

The Sirui anamorphic lenses for MFT/APS-C are all about $500au or $299 US, which is a good 60% under original retail and 40% under the current street price (about $799au-when I can find them).

What are the perceived benefits?

You get (on the 24mm with MFT), a lens with the same image height as a 48-50mm full frame equivalent (i.e. normal), but the width or angle of view of a 32mm, or if I went with the 35mm, a 70mm equivalent in height and about a 45mm width (which is similar to letter-box cropping a spherical 24mm).

2.4:1 is a lot of screen width to fill, but also the easiest way to increase the perceived “cinematic” intentions of a lens. I do not think I would want to wider than “scope”.

The specific lenses in question however have other things I need to consider. Previously, all I wanted was the 24. I had done my research and it ticked all the right boxes.

The 24mm focusses closer, has slightly better controlled flare (cleaner, sharper, not less), but is slower at f2.8 (the 35 is 1.8). Reviewers have said it tends to squash close focus subjects a little, easily fixed in post if I notice it.

It has zero focus breathing but some mild edge “character” on MFT (more on APS-C), well controlled flares and the weird “waterfall” Bokeh is there, but not distractingly so.

The 35mm can drop the depth of field out and is of course faster, but a regular lens letter-box cropped can also do that, so I guess I have answered my own question. Focus breathing is slight, distortions less pronounced, flare a little messier.

They are both sharp, but apart from that normal considerations come into play, like what is my ground zero in lenses? I have a lean towards the standard 50mm or slightly wider, about 40-50mm ff equivalent.. A 48/32 or 43/28 on the GH5s is about perfect.

Or is it?

Anamorphic to me is a broad canvas format, a full scene with all its elements and the 1.33x squeeze, gives you that width, that grandeur. The 24 is “normal” enough to be used as a medium-close portrait lens, wide enough to include scenes and can do details.

It’s the whole scene, the story of the place and subjects placed in it.

If I get the 24mm I could later add the 35 or 50 later as the accompanying lens, or use it as the wide lens with the 25 and 50 Hope lenses as the long options (with cropping).

The Sirui 24 Nightwalker may also be the perfect foil for it, it’s half-sibbling or creative foil, giving me a super fast lens that when letter-boxed in post would be effectively longer and more compressed, cropped in top to bottom to fit the width needed from the same place.

Both 24’s have warm colour tone, so matching them should not be an issue (I would shoot the spherical with 2.4:1 grid lines to aide framing, something the Panasonic cameras provide, they even have edge shading) and the Nightwalker also has the super shallow depth option.

A harmonious pairing?

I am aware that compressed, shallow depth of field imaging is easily over used. The wider frame forces me to create a stronger scene, better composition and smarter, tighter interactions, which appeals to me as a fan of the “long take”. The tighter lens has a different dynamic.

There may be a reason I have never managed to fill the semi wide angle range with my kit or finish the Nightwalker set. Maybe I do not want a semi-wide, I want a wide that is also a standard? Maybe fate has made this too hard to fix for a reason. The 16mmNW has been impossible to source lately, the Hope 16mm disappointed after the previous two (just that specific copy).

I feel for videography, a true wide is pointless as the main subject will be pushed away, the anamorphic wide-that-is-close option fits better.

Ok, what are the real benefits.

I have lenses with lots of character (TTArt 35 f1.4, 1960’s Pen half-frame 25 f2.8, 7Art Spectrums), I have flares via more versatile filters (gold and blue), can do wide screen (17:9 C4k or 6k cams cropped) and could care less about the Bokeh. Both the flare and bokeh are double edged swords as far as I am concerned.

The reality is, when I see a movie made with anamorphic lenses, I often only ever know by the flares (which I sometimes find over the top and may have been added in post anyway) and the Bokeh (usually when I look for it to confirm the flares). From the inside, we are obsessed with this at the moment. On the outside, the average viewer may or may not respond to the anamorphic effects. Hard to say and when you pint them out, the experiment is broken.

The actual characteristic I really like, wide screen, is sometimes impractical commercially and often too wide anyway, although the 1.33x squeeze of these lenses (2.35:1 or about 21:9 equivalent) is about right.

So, what do I really want?

I would only apply flares to certain dark or bland subjects, the Bokeh is irrelevant, perspective also (evinced by the fact I cannot decide if I care).

I only really want wide screen at about 2:1 ratio or slightly wider or 18-20:9 and to be honest, an anamorphic would only force this on me, not facilitate it.

2:1 ration (or 18:9). Plenty of “cinematic” feel achieved with a spherical lens and a practical format. I can of course always undo this if needed.

Personally, I feel the choice some top directors make when they adopt anamorphic lenses is more based on the characteristics of the lenses themselves and this is often drawn originally from a desire to have that “movie look” or emulate a favourite film or directors legacy, which, like a lot of things is in turn based on old forced habits, adaptions made to fix problems.

The need for the movie industry to chase wide screen to combat TV, when limited to film stock, evolved into anamorphic lenses with oval diaphragms (that squeeze more on to the frame), which in turn led to linear flares, oval Bokeh and perspective changes, only one of which can be seen as an actual benefit to me and none are mandatory for film making.

Ironically, it is only with digital cameras that whole thing is available to average folk and they have effectively removed the need in the first place.

Like black and white film or the SLR mirror, it was not originally a choice, but a work around that then gained “elite” status and a creative signature, because well, the early movie makers had no choice, although here was choice within the forced element. You think of a creative work and you automatically accept the look it has, because the two are directly linked.

Nostalgia and forced habits create expectations and acceptance.

Like those forced realities, not having the need anymore does give us a choice, so what to choose?

Get one, have some fun and wedge it into an otherwise spherical work flow, scratch that three year itch, or go “Roger Deakins” and shoot clean, then add effects after? Maybe a little of both, using spherical glass and the occasional filter or funky lens.

Probably no, as I have once again managed to talk my way through this.

Third time now, must move on and save my money.

Irony Ignored, Solution Found.

So, I have been trying a lot of different rig setups lately.

The G9II is the problem, in that it is the most powerful hand held camera, but attempts to attack it to the BMVA 12G 5” have been problematic (fixed now though*).

While experimenting, a lot, I have tried all sorts of no-gimbal fix and this, “The Swaze” is the best and by far the simplest.

Cute isn’t it! No, well that depends on the hours you have invested in testing and finding it I guess.

The simple solution to the problem was arm freedom, body angle and down force.

Every other system I tried was decent, but always came down to finding the perfect balance between rigidity and softness, then practice my smooth walking.

Walking it seems is better, easier and more consistent if you stand straight and keep your head still, like they used to teach in deportment school, often with a tea cup and saucer on top of the head! Do not bend your knees, don’t lean over, and avoid anything you cannot sustain.

All you need to do is arrest the rocking motion of walking, the rest is acceptable to an extent.

The problem is videographers are usually stooped to view screens or camera focus rigs, so I ditched the BMVA for this rig and just use the flip screen for focus checking.

There is no doubt, Sony’s ascendancy over the last short decade or so came from their AF being reliable enough to be used with a gimbal and in turn gimbals becoming realistically within reach.

Before remote focus pulling became reasonably affordable, it was the only option. Poor colour science, a slim range of lenses, bland cameras that seemed to change but not improve each model were all fine as long as you got results.

For a while there you were mad if you did not use a gimbal/Sony combo, weren’t you?

This can be said of most major brands now and with that comes options like the world’s best mirrorless stabe.

The handle above allows you to stand straight, can be used from the top or bottom (or on the side I guess, need to try that) and is intuitive to use. A second hand supporting the base and applying thumb to screen focus control and you are sweet.

The lens is the 8-18 that not only preserves some wide angle when using high stabe, fits my main filter pack and stays the same length, but also seems to do a better job than the dual stabe 12-60, but that is only my gut feeling.

The irony?

It is an extension handle for a gimbal!

My next step is to try it with a video head and handle.

Full Frame For Stills? Jury Is Still Out.

I decided a while ago to concentrate on only using M43 for video and my full frame kit for stills.

The logic was sound enough.

My two “best” video cams are the G9II and GH5s, one because it has the highest specs and capabilities (best stabe, AF, BRAW output and internal codecs), the other because it is a dedicated video hybrid (dual ISO, lots of video stuff, BRAW out).

The S5 and S5II both have issues for me with video. One is older and not a great AF option (neither is the GH5s, but it is the “static” cam), the other lacks BRAW-out without an expensive firmware upgrade.

For stills, they add that golden promise of super high ISO performance, but I have found there are plenty of other issues.

Lots of nice Autumn files this year, good testing for the new lens……………..

……..and this from M43, which is technically it’s equal (at least).

The first issue I have, partly me and partly me underestimating my M43 gear, comes from the real benefit of higher ISO performance and depth of field in full frame. I have found I can drastically under expose a file shot at ISO 6400 and still get back a clean file, but over exposure is less certain. I have little fear of a shot 2-3 stops over in M43, but do not like the S5’s files I do the same with. If used at ISO settings ver 6400 (my M43 limit), over exposed files turn to s$#t and underexposed ones do run out of legs.

Using M43 in super low light, lenses wide open with a little extra post applied, as well as the beneficial difference in movement blur, depth of field and knowing my cams, makes me feel a lot more comfortable with M43.

S5II, 85mm ISO 6400 f2. The human AF was pretty good, usually picking the most centred, forward facing person, but not always.

EM1x, 75 f1.8. More a matter of grab and move on, no lag, no uncertainty. The colour is different, more down to my handling of Olympus and Pana files (the G9’s also give nice indoor colour). Funny that the M43 has shallower depth from the same place with basically the same depth of field and lens length math!

Issue two is handling. I shot some sport the other day and to give the camera (S5II) it’s due, it did not miss many, but the shutter button was squishy, the processes laggy and the whole thing felt detached. I have felt this with old G9’s, but they have DFD AF, so an excuse, but the S5II just feels like a poor fit for sport. I switched between the S5IIK and an EM1x and the difference was massive.

To add to that, the G9II did a bit of light duty the other day shooting some sport while my video subject was off court and it felt for all the world like an EM1x with a nicer screen! So, my best video cam is my logical future replacement for my stills cams, maybe even the right one now for indoor, low light jobs.

Issue three is banding. The two S5’s are my worst cams for banding. I have been caught a few times in familiar locations I thought to be ok. Banding in video is an easy fix, shutter speed and frame rate are built around it, but for stills, I now just go “noisy” shutter more often than not. I work close and in sensitive environments. My subjects have learned to ignore me, but noisy shutters on big cameras with big lenses (see below) may undo that.

Issue four is lenses, they are huge and really, really limit my bag and work flow options, often for little benefit. I have stopped packing a single full frame cam as a low light handler, the M43 f1.8 lenses do it well enough and are much smaller. I had hoped the 28-70 would fix this, but it is still similar in size to taking a M43 cam with 40-150 f4, which I do, but struggle with two bigger cams.

I bought a 28-70 f2.8 Sigma so I could have zoom flexibility with decent background blur for scenarios like the one I faced last month, a cramped red carpet arrival shoot with a slow zoom that rendered way too much ugly background. The range was ideal, the speed good and the lens has been satisfying, if not mind blowing.

This was the night I decided to buy the Sigma (or similar) after needing to mask out the background of every single file with my slow kit lens. Would the extra flash grunt offered by M43 with an F2.8 aperture have been better? Most likely. I was impressed by the S5II’s AF, not a miss recorded, but the G9II would at least match that.

Issue five is depth of field. Some of the benefit of the full frame high ISO performance is lost when fast apertures are applied. The reality is f1.8 is often too shallow on a full frame. On a M43 cam, it acts like f2.8 (by magnification) and I use them wide open as needed, f2.8 zooms in good light, f1.8 primes in low. With FF, I am struggling to find a usable balance and if I lean towards safe depth, the benefits are largely lost. This also effects flash use, the ISO benefit vs more actual power in M43 (from wider aperture).

Issue six is the reality that if I switch more to FF for sports, my next long lens will be my dearest or if not, may not add much at all. The 70-200 f4 Pana or 100-400 Sigma are both good options (both bigger than my 300!), but slow and short in reach by my current standards and with the S5II camera’s lack lustre performance for action, I can see myself drifting back to M43 when I can.

Regrets?

As I have written before, the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 zooms on a pair of G9II’s with maybe a Sirui anamorphic set would have been the ideal video hybrid kit in hind-sight, cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, but that option was not on the table at the time.

The S5’s are good when I need a simple V-Log pairing, they are easy to use and if it were not for the BRAW thing, I would be tempted to use them for video only and all my M43 for stills (GH5s for low light?).

I am tempted to list the full frame kit, but I know that they do offer potentially better extreme low light and are both capable video cams (with known exceptions). I have the boxes, the gear is spotless and I got some bargains, so no massive loss. High ISO is a genuine benefit in video, the GH5s only offering one option (but enough?).

A re-configuring of my video kit would be to go back to the GH5s/S5.1 combo, the S5 being a decent hand held cam (the OSMO gimbal as backup) but enough. Both are BRAW capable, both less useful as stills cams, they share the same batts etc, then use the G9II and S5II as hybrids. It all feels a little pushed, but makes some sense.

I must admit, I feel having a foot in full frame land feels right, but M43 is not dead to me by any measure. If anything, it is stronger by comparison.

I may just upgrade the S5II, which would make it and the GH5s the logical pairing, the G9II then gets released for stills and the S5 mk1 as the hybrid?

A mess that can be fixed, I just need to see the path.

I Am Going To Plant, Lovingly Tend And Then Use A Special Tree.

There is a thing called a “Node Tree”.

Not this sort of tree, but this type of file.

I did not get it for a long time, partly because I am a stills shooter who tends to work in a pretty non-linear way, which means I tend do things in no set order from RAW, which is not great as I tend to be messy and over work my pixels and I am not consistent. I am getting better, but slowly and have only become more efficient by eliminating steps.

If you do things in the right order, do them well and complete them properly, you will get consistent results and minimise file damage from “over working” pixels.

Layers add the next level. Each separate one is discrete so that each job can be done properly then combined in the best order.

I felt Nodes were like layers in Photoshop, which I do not use.

Nodes are basically layers, which are separate processes that can be applied in a set order.

Video needs order more than stills.

My previous process was similar to my RAW processing, but it was wrong and it showed.

I would process B-Raw manipulations for exposure and white balance, then do the three-wheel dance of Lift/Gamma/Gain, which was then supplemented by LOG Shadows/Mids/Highlights because I read that these were cleaner and more logical. I often felt there was simultaneously too much to do and too little control. There was little consistency.

After a lot of research, became a switch to Linear Gamma using the gain wheel only, which allowed me to more gently control colour with one wheel and a less twitchy one at that. This was a breakthrough for me, because it allowed me to process by eye and more intuitively. This, combined with properly setting up my project settings and looking at colour better (Colour Slice and HSV Channels for saturation), were helping.

The whole thing was becoming more on point, but was not yet more organised.

Nodes organise.

Nodes are, it seems, are exactly what I need.

They separate each task so that maximum cleanliness and efficiency can be achieved.

Why?

• I want to do as little as possible to my files with maximum effect.

• I want to do the right manipulations the right way.

• I want to do them in the right order (this is very important).

• I want to be consistent, especially when different cameras and codecs are used**.

• I also want to make sure I remind my self of the options available.

I needed a Node Tree, something I never thought I would use and it turns out there are a lot of opinions on this. I have found the strength in power grading (not just applying LUT’s), which is also a perceived level of complication in that at some point you have to balance applied knowledge and skill with personal preference, not just trust to a bought Lut to do the work

No, there are no “one answer” rules here, but there are cleaner and stronger ways of working.

My sources are Cullen Kelly and Darren Mostyn with a little help from the excellent “Write and Direct” site. These three are all reliable, knowledgeable and accurate, but they also vary in answers such as;

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

My Node Tree is based on Cullen Kelly’s latest with some mild changes to suit my (realistic) work flow, because some things he covers are still beyond me.

This assumes the use of B-Raw in some form to Da Vinci Resolve.

0. Project settings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnNqjPbfIG8 . If you choose custom, you can set the whole project up with the same in and out puts as a CST node, but simpler and the reality is, you still need to visit project settings to change tags and check other settings for your project, so why not do it all at once? The choices are also quicker with only a combined in and out to select rather than four.

or

(1). Colour Space Transform Node. This is the input transformation Node to tell Resolve what camera took the footage, what codec was used, what colour space is going to be used to process the file, which is the same as in custom project settings.

I am going to use the project setting route because I need simply choose the input type from pre-set project setting list and then apply any one of several Node trees as desired. With CST’s I can visualise each step on the tree, but two less Nodes makes for a cleaner work flow and I will not make mistakes, because I can see them on the clip. All I have to do in project settings is switch the project from B-Raw to Panasonic V-log input when I use it and select either Rec 709/2.2 or Cineon Log if I want to apply a film look. You cannot ignore project settings, other changes need doing anyway, so why not do it all at once. There will be four, two for B-Raw, two for V-Log, one each to Rec 709 2.2 and Condon Log for applying film looks.

1. Colour Balance Node. This node is before the one below (exposure) but will be used after it. This is the one wheel instead of three fix that pro colourists use and was a game changer for me. With a single wheel (Gain), I will be able to balance colour and white balance by eye with a gentle and precise touch. Right click > Gamma > Linear > Gain tracking ball (replacing lift/gamma/gain).

2. Exposure and Contrast Node. This can be done with the above wheel, but is better done in the HDR > Glodal window than the Primaries > Offset. The effect on shadows is cleaner, more linear and better separated. HDR > Global wheel = exposure, and the second part is putting in removing some punch in an image. HDR > Shadows/Highlight wheels = contrast.

3. Saturation-Global. This one I will just do as Cullen does. HSV > Colour space > (turn of channels 1 and 3) channel 2 only = Saturation.

This is the end of the core manipulations.

4a*. (Parallel Node top) Saturation-Specific. This is also a Cullen recommendation, to use Colour Slice for more specific saturation and density changes. The common trend here is to use newer generation tools that work cleanly and more precisely than older, more global tools. > Colour Slice.

4b*. (Parallel Node bottom) Power Windows. This is a little beyond my pay grade just yet, but I will be using it a lot I hope. It is the ability to locally effect an image area with masking, picking etc.

My intention is to have a basic and advance tree, the basic tree will drop 4a and 4b.

5a to 5x. Textures and Effects. This is where the little extras are added like noise reduction, de-blur, filters etc, because they are destructive if used too soon (heavy handed tools with high system drain), so tend to slow down my computer (especially de-blur and noise reduction). Nodes added as desired or needed.

I do not need this one below, but if I had used a CST-in then;

(7). Colour Space Transform Out. This is where the wide gamut colour space is transformed back into a more deliverable form. So you have gone from opening up the work space to now delivering something standardised. DV Wide Gamut > DV Intermediate > Rec 709 > Gamma 2.2 (because my monitor is not reference standard or I would use 2.4).

• This may be changed to DV Wide Gamut > DV Intermediate > Rec 709 > Cineon LOG if I want to apply a pre-loaded Resolve film stock look.

So, basically project settings, 3 core Nodes which should produce a finished base file, up to 3 secondary ones for effects, fixes, deeper repairs and then other stuff like audio afterwards.

*A parallel Node is used when several Nodes are of equal importance coming from a previous Node and no linear contamination is wanted.

**By using consistent project settings I will be treating B-Raw and V-Log files the same way, but still getting maximum quality from each. Technically B-Raw files have their own window and settings, but using Pana cams, not all of these are fully enabled, so for consistencies sake, using the same project settings and node tree is faster.

Getting Into A Groove, Setting Targets.

I have decided to not only embrace my current role as “AFL photographer”, to try to perfect it, make it my Ikigai if you will, my point of practice towards perfection.

Already making some gains and that is mainly just by choosing to.

I did two matches on Sunday, both regional junior representation games, so fast, high quality games, especially the U17 girls game that was at least a match for the great game I attended last weekend.

I came away from the first day with about 1500 files over about 3 hours of play, which seemed restrained, but on processing about half were misses*, the other half split into “keepers”, “secondaries” and “don’t submit, but don’t trash”, the last three all go into the master file backup.

I was happy overall, but the processing time was still excessive and I felt there was plenty of fat to trim off the bone.

The field was wet and muddy, soon to break up, but the girls game defied that and was fast and flowing.

My favourite of the day. This is a more than 50% crop off the 300mm, so full ground coverage.

There is no doubt that luck plays a role, but only after you create a conducive space where you can exploit it.

The boys however produced a scrappy game, with rare points of acrobatic action and a matching low-end score.

On Monday, I was determined to be more precise, more surgical.

I do not use consecutive fire, taking singles only, so it is all about anticipation, timing and judgement. I feel the sniper nets more efficient results than the machine gunner and certainly stays more engaged with the game and saves time in processing.

This is gear related to some extent.

The EM1x in silent mode with the stabilised 300 or 40-150 (f2.8 or 4) give me a gentle experience, I am a silent viewer, slicing out moments with speed and precision and thanks to the reactiveness of the camera, the AF speed of the lenses and plenty of practice (plus the afore mentioned luck), it feels instantaneous and intuitive.

It is basically down to me.

I can get better and the gear limitation envelope is deep enough to cover me as I improve. It is down to my skill level, I doubt the gear will top out, which is reassuring.

Two games again, U14’s this time and the roles slightly reversed. The girls game was good, probably close to yesterday’s, again defying the ever more stressed surface and to add to the mix, we had even more rain over night.

The boys game however was more like the fast and flowing game I was hoping for the day before.

Just after a few of us on the sidelines had been discussing the poor judgement of seagulls as to where to settle, they contributed to this file. Kind of sums up provincial football.

The second day was matched in every way, but with under 1000 files total.

Many of these are the mandatory team and pre-post game shots, the rest are action captures or events (I avoid player embarrassing moments, but document injuries etc, a habit from the paper) and I try to get every player doing something “heroic”, but know I fail too often.

A perfect game?

Maybe 200 files a game, all useful, every person and all image “shapes” covered, but I have a long way to go.

*Misses are basically useless for my needs, not always out of focus or even poorly composed, just lesser files to the better ones or suffering “intruders” cutting across the view as I took them.

A Conversation

My utilisation of M43 format is a choice made eyes wide open. When I started at the paper, the two long term togs there were either in one case curious or in the other dismissive of my choice, which led to a conversation that went something like this (roughly, from memory);

So, why do you use that format and brand* rather than the kit we have for you**?

The size and weight are far better and I like the lenses (results).

(Tog 2) But the little sensor must be a compromise in quality?

It is only a little smaller than the APS-C sensor in the D500 and has it’s advantages and remember, you hired me based on a portfolio made with it..

(Tog 1) Advantages?

Size, depth of field, sharpness, stabilising, AF accuracy (mirrorless over SLR’s).

(Tog 2) Example?

Ok, what is your favourite lens and camera combo?

(Tog 2) My 20mm f2.8 Nikkor on a full frame, which never fails to deliver. and can fit in my pocket (not issue kit)

Ok, I have a Pana/Leica 9mm (18mm FF) f1.7 that will be sharper, especially wide open, focusses closer, is weather sealed, even lighter, faster focussing, quieter and two stops faster, but has the same depth of field as your lens wide open.

(Tog 1) My 70-200 f2.8 on my D500, making a 300 f2.8 and really sharp.

Sure, my 40-150 does the same, but is faster focussing (on an EM1x), smaller and lighter. I have compared the one you gave me and that combo (on a D500) and it is not as sharp as mine.

(Tog 2) Yeah but in low light, the bigger sensor cams are better!

Ok, when we do National League basketball, what do you use?

(Tog 2) My D750 with 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8’s.

I use much the same on two EM1x’s, but get more depth of field wide open and for that we do not need to go over ISO 1600-3200 in that light, so quality is basically the same. How about in the crappy light at the local basketball centre?

(Tog 2) Same gear, but I like to keep the ISO down to 6400, so my shutter speeds suffer.

(Tog 2) I use my fast 85mm sometimes (also not issue), but still use the zooms as needed.

Yeah, I often switch to my 150 f1.8 (I switch to FF terms there) for one end and a shorter 50 or 35 f1.8 prime for the other.

(Tog 2) 150 f1.8? Never heard of that one, must have cost a bomb!

Ok, bit naughty there, in M43 it a very sharp but fairly normal 75 f1.8, but same-same.

(Tog 1) So I could use my 85 and crop?

Yeah but I am shooting with no crop, you are now shooting 10-12mp (which is plenty for paper use, but I can still do the same for I guess a 300 f1.8).

(Tog 2) Ok, what is the limit you will use?

I have never needed higher than f1.8 and ISO 6400 to get 1/750th or higher for indoor sports, so the limit is comfortable, the format makes the lenses more powerful and the reverse also. If I do need to go lower, it is not as bad for me with shorter actual lenses than the equivalent on a full frame.

(Tog 2) Yeah, I had to push into ISO 12,800+ the other day with f2.8 and 1/500th, which was not pretty. I should have carried a faster prime in case, but I do not carry one normally and it would be this (holds up a massive 85 f1.4-not issue).

I do carry both, because they are smaller, but also, the format needs it. I usually carry a pair of zooms, a 24-80 f2.8 and 80-300 f4 (in FF terms) and fast 18, 35, 90 or 150 primes and 2 cams (G9 and EM1.2), so range and speed.

(Tog 2) In that?! (pointing at my Domke F-2).***

Yes, and a flash.

(Tog 1) Why two cams?

Because I prefer to change cams than change lenses.

(Tog 2) Dust an issue?

Never. Olympus have the best sensor cleaners. Never had to clean one.

(Tog 2) Never?

Never. I just find lens changes take twice as long as switching cams and I can set up a cam and lens combo better (Oly for long, G9 for short).

(Tog 1) Ok, how do you shoot football?

A 600 f4 on one body and one with 80-300 f2.8 and a third cam with a wide zoom if needed in a small bag (talking FF equivalents again).

Yeah, not the same.

(Tog 2) Not possible, that would kill my back!

Ok, a white lie again, I used full frame equivalent focal lengths. For me that is a 300 f4, 40-150 (f4 or 2.8 depending on light) both on EM1x’s and shoulder slings and my 8-18 on a EM1.2 in a small bag. The whole lot weighs about the same as the D500 with 400 f2.8 alone.

No seat or monopod?

No. I walk around a lot more and can run if I need.

(Tog 2) That’s handy. I am always looking for somewhere to leave my long lens and other bits when I go into the middle or the change rooms.

(Tog 1) Can you crop that little sensor?

Down to about 20% without anyone noticing. Remember, the pixel count is basically the same as your cameras as long as the image that it captures is as good,

Have you?

Yes, and you have seen it.

Really, when?

Yesterday’s back page (decent crop of a footy shot roughly the same as below).

…………… oooohh….kaaaay.

So the perfect system?

No, like anything there are compromises, but for what we need, none that I cannot find an answer for.

You say there is more depth of field, so how about shallow depth of field?

When was the last time you took a news paper shot with super shallow depth of field by choice, like a 50mm at f1.8 in close, unless you needed the aperture for super low light? The reality is, I use my lenses wide open most often and have about the right amount of DOF for subject separation and story telling background. Much the same as you use your 2.8 zooms wide open.

Just about perfect and not even wide open.

(T1) True, f2.8 is usually my limit and only if I have to or want the effect.

(T2) Do you use flash much?

Yes and the bad news guys is, my flash is effectively two stops more powerful thanks to the depth of field thing (f1.7 = f2.8). I do need an ND filter for daylight fill with shallow depth as the advantage flips then, but I have a dedicated lens with one fitted for video anyway (I produce my tiny 17mm f1.8 with 5 stop ND from a little pocket). I forgot this one, add it to the list in my day bag.

(Tog 1). I will think of you when I use my 400 f2.8 next! This tog grabbed a Z9 with both hands when issued and loves the ability to crop the 45mp sensor so his massive 400 is a 6-800mm, but then I broke it to him, that is basically what I am shooting with, for less than half the size and a quarter the price.

(Tog 2). Not convinced but interesting I guess. Shame you are letting that gear go to waste (I had already swapped out my new 70-200 with Tog 1 who was using an old push-pull).

I was there for 18 months and Tog 1 was always open minded to the benefits of new gear and my work process and I learned a lot from him. Tog 2 was intransigent, a Nikon SLR shooter through and through. The same tog pushed for D6’s over Z9’s until Nikon set him straight that they do not make them any more!

My replacement, who was actually the guy I replaced when he got sick, is a Fuji shooter, so I guess he will have to go through it all again :).

*Olympus, but I used Oly and Pan combined.

**D750, D500, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8’s and 400 f2.8 if needed, all well “worn in”.

***One tog has the biggest bag I have ever seen and tends to use the boot of his car for storage, the other often limits himself to what goes on a shoulder, so few creative options once on the job.