The Little Voice That Refuses To Go Away.

I am still jonesing for a serious video-cine lens, a single lens that can be adapted to any camera (PL mount), that is in the serious budget bracket and that has a know amount of “X” factor.

The mount is important because out out of one lens (a 35mm), I would have a standard wide (full frame), standard 50mm (Super 35 or APS-c), a long standard 63mm on the GH5s and 70mm on MFT. I could even throw it on a Sony like the ZVE-1, FX30 or a Canon of some type.

The lighting was poor on my part, but the 24mm anamorphic lens surely suited the task.

The DZO Vespid 1’s are the sentimental favourite, striking for many the perfect balance between professionally sharp and characterful. These seem to still stand out in the pack even when compared to more clinical lenses, even their own Vespid 2’s. The 35 is considered a slightly better lens than the 40 I was originally drawn to and a more sensible “one lens”.

The Nisi Athenas have never appealed for some reason, but in Australia their price is off putting. They sit above the Vespid 2’s here and I feel the V2’s are better all-rounders.

I have an IRIX 150 in L-mount, so a 30mm in PL would expand that palette cnsiderably (30/45/55/60), but they are like the Nisi, very clinical, very clean a little sterile. This works for the macro, but I am not as keen for video. They are also hard to track down, huge and the most expensive.

I want clean and sharp, but not at the cost of an organic, classic vibe.

The Vespid 2’s are probably the perfect balance of all factors. They compare to the Arles, are cheaper or the same as the Nisi.

The wild card, and I hate early reviews because they smack of the early marketing push, are the 7Art Infinte (not Infinite). These look to be comparable to the Nisi, maybe a little more organic (not as perfect-sterile), cheaper than all the rest and I can in some ways see a direct line between these and the Hope series by the same brand. I really like the Hopes, but they are APS-c limited and come in a single mount.

Having a sinlge lens that can fit multiple cameras makes sense, except that I cannt use these cameras at once, so it would add consistency of look to the process, but only at the lens level. The four formats would be shared over a minimum of three different cameras and these are all a little different to each other (even if I only use Panasonic).

Could it be that I could actually match different lenses to specific cameras and get a better level of consistency, while using up to three cameras at once? I have already matched the cool Spectrum 50 to the warm toned S5II, the cooler S5 getting the warmer Spectrum 35, with some success. InV-log I could actually match them up using the cameras fine WB controls.

I need to consider also (especially considering the last paragraph), lenses I have like the Spectrum 50, Hope 25 and 50, my three anamorphic Sirui (2 MFT, 1 L-mount), Panasonic S-primes (35/50/85) and several MFT lenses that are not rubbish by any means.

The reality is, the lenses are important, but they are nt as important as other factors. For example; Vulhandes made a great video about the Vespid 1’s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2mzAT2xuc , but he makes great footage, so I could argue he could have made that with most lenses (and seeing as some shots have them all in frame, I guess he did use others).

Story Driven Thomas did this on the Sirui anamorphic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8S4ioLDlLk which in many ways influenced me to buy them. Again, great art video, so lens or maker?

Mark Wiemels made an excellent video on the Infinte https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTwDUHEwm50 , and while technically competent, the video was made to be a sample video, not an art piece, so hard to compare.

There are a lot of contradictions at play here and the internet does not help. Do you want perfection in a lens and add effects after, are you after character in lens, need AF, use filtering, like legacy glass, are ok with anything because you will control the best bits in other ways (lighting etc)? Which, if any or even all of these apply to you?

The reality is, Roger Deakins wants the best, most clinical, spherical glass you can get, effects added later, while Zack Snyder used an antique Canon range finder 50 wide open at 0.95 on an 8k Monstro sensor. Neither is subjectively “right”, they both produced professional work.

Maybe I am putting too much stock in specific glass, caught up in the hype. maybe my secret sauce should come from somewhere else, like the little Pen half frame 25mm I seem to like? I have to recognise, my choices are often mood based, such is the softness of the topic.

For me, I want smooth sharp, not “hyper” sharp, like the 8k Sigma to Sony look. I want smooth footage, with invisible technical effects, a creative transparency that lens choice should not be the primary or even a major source of (something I know only really effects the initiated).

I will use mild filtering if I have to, but would love it if much of that smoothness came from the lens. Lenses that I feel do give me some of that now are the S-Primes, my Oly 12-40, the Hope and Spectrum lenses, m anamorphics and the add legacy lens.

Do I need more?

Basically what I am saying here is, there are so many factors at play, I may be over stating the importance of a lens as fulcrum of my process and under estimating the value of good technique.

Quick And Dirty Comparison

A friend James loaned me the Olympus holy trinity, the f1.2 17, 25 and 45 lenses. He is a relatively recent convert to MFT coming from Sony.

Our journeys are different, his a serious hobby, mine is purely making a living these days (evinced by me gifting him my A3+ fine art printer and 400 sheets of fine art paper, a hobbyists thing needing an enthusiastic passion, just more work for me).

He came from Canon to Sony via Fuji and some others, picking up a OM-1 very right and seeing the light. His collection of lenses is impressive.

My journey also started with Canon (MF, AF and digital), some Oly MF, then most early digital mirrorless (Fuji, Sony, MFT). I settled on Oly early days as it was basically the only workable system at the time, skinny as it was. I re-entered full frame with Panasonic mostly because of video, but it sees occasional use for stills.

I was reluctant to try them to be honest, because I know they are exceptional, format myth busting actually, but I cannot afford or justify them.

I loaned him my “fast” Sigma 30 f1.4, my low light champion, a lens I do not use much as I dislike its habit of flattening the subject with its in-fashion sharp-soft look. Not a fair trade, but it is what it is (we have most other MFT lenses in common).

At a quite short 30mm, this lens can look more compressed than my 75. This can be fine sometimes, but something I am becoming less keen on.

My obvious comparison point, and I will do a better job of this later, is with my trinity of S-Prime Panasonic lenses.

Now to be fair, the Oly lenses are weatherproof, considerably faster in most respects, all metal, have a very nice manual focus clutch, are as sharp as a vipers fang and surprisingly compact, but they are dearer than the S-Primes (I do feel the S-Primes are still a little over priced) and the format should balance out the depth of field difference at their maximum of f1.8.

The 45 wide open vs the 85 at same. Every effort was spared to be consistent….. obviously.

The Panasonic is on the right.

Takeways were;

• The Pana made me back off a bit, maybe a full frame thing and the 85 does have a longer minimum focus distance. The whole thing feels clumsier to be honest.

• The Oly was faster and more accurate to focus, but I will admit that the S5II is not set up for action like the EM1x. It is very much a matter of a specialist camera I am very familiar with compared to a less sure footed hybrid camera relatively new to me.

• I prefer the colour and brightness of the Oly combo in three of the images, but that is also possibly camera based.

• The Pana seems to hold better highlight detail in the bench shot, but again, no consistency of process (or processing), see below for more.

• I think the head shot is a wash due to the different focus distance used, the Pana was closer and it shows.

• The Oly lens seems to retain some three dimensionality, the Pana is flatter. This is tough to measure as the lens is magnifying the subject by the same amount but is using a shorter focal length to do it. Not sure what that actually means.

• Full frame at f1.8 seems shallower than f1.2 in MFT (for better or worse), even with a less impressive close focus distance and when I was fair to both.

• The Bokeh quality, a priority of the Oly glass, seems to be just fine on the Panas.

• The Oly lens and camera combo seemed to produce more consistent results, but they could be camera set up, the slight depth of field advantage and possibly better close up performance, the statue images being the most obvious.

• The Pana combo looks biased towards yellow/blue, the Oly leans magenta/green.
  

After a bit of processing (the left image got more, mainly highlight recovery), the pair are hard to split for detail. Pana lens is on the right. The Pana seems to hold more high end detail, but on closer inspection it is a mixed result.

It is sobering to remember the difference in formats.

Some Things About Lenses You May Not Know.

There are a lot of opinions around about lenses and many of them are based on the same opinions we have had for ages, perpetuated by the makers and some purchasers through ignorance or sometimes deliberately.

Lets look at some of these myths.

1) Fast (wide aperture) lenses are better than slower ones.

This is not automatically true, in fact in the past slower lenses were often considered more stable and reliable, faster ones had to go to extreme measures just to be as good, while delivering the special feature they were bought for.

Early Olympus and Leica for example made no distinction between their faster and slower primes, each lens was made to do a job up to the same standard, just different jobs.

Hollywood set-like lighting captured with the kit 40-150 Olympus. At f8, which was needed for the correct depth of field, no other 40-150 I own would have made the image any better.

If you need a fast lens, then get one, but don’t buy a big and expensive super fast prime lens to get your landscape passion off and running. Most lenses are near identical at smaller apertures and once you are over the uber-blur look, you may rarely use the very wide aperture that cost you so much.

Few professional photographers rely only on fast lenses and wide apertures and the look they produce, these images simply do not tell a story or add context.

Sports, wildlife, indoor and portrait shooters may lean towards them, but often out of need. Shallow depth is only one type of image and not so long ago it was considered to be a side effect of low light shooting. It is not a coincidence that fast and accurate AF and the fashion of very shallow depth imaging came hand in hand.

More important for you may be the rendering of a lens at a middle aperture for landscapes or environmental portraits, something a super fast lens may not be very good at. Look at the bulk of the work shot for National Geographic or similar documentary works, there is little shallow depth imagery and when there is, it is often driven by need.

An early image taken on the Sigma 30 f1.4, a lens known to produce super sharp images wide open and creamy Bokeh. Since purchasing it, I have rarely used it, possibly responding to the flat, very modern rendering or maybe the large (for MFT) form factor? The reality is, I like context in my images, something this lens is designed to blur away and because of that, it’s a bit of a one trick pony. I would hate to be forced to shoot with only this type of lens.

2) Bigger and more expensive lenses are inherently better than smaller, cheaper ones.

Any lens, if made to the needs of its design concept, does not need to be any bigger than it needs to be, which is to say, that monster chunk of glass up front, might not be an image improver, it may simply need to be there equalise the lens with it’s lesser stable mates.

Designers go to great lengths to make their flag ship designs their best lenses, something they may find challenging as lesser lenses pretty much come together effortlessly.

Large lenses also mean bigger filters and they require better flare controls (lens coatings and hoods).

The lens that took this (17 f1.8 Oly mk1) is not overly special on the test bench, nor impressive to look at. It has soft corners wide open (often a field curvature thing that flat charts cannot measure, which means nothing when used in the field), average overall measured sharpness (not visual sharpness, which is excellent), a very small front element and form factor, mediocre Bokeh by modern standard with a modest aperture, but it consistently takes some of my favourite images. The designers wanted a good street photography lens and made just that.

3) The lens mount does not matter (when do we even think about that?).

The lens mount determines the stress placed on the lenses design. The Sony mount for example is quite small, the sensor is actually bigger than the mount itself (hides the corners), meaning the effort made to make wide lenses for it has to be both clever and extreme resulting in some massive, complicated and heavy glass.

Nikon on the other hand have made their new Z-mount so big, they could almost accommodate a larger format sensor with it. This makes some aspects of lens design like super fast and fast-wide lenses significantly easier and they can over engineer a lens, knowing the extreme edges are not needed.

The larger mount also results in about one stop less perceived depth of field, so a modest f4 lens acts like an f2.8 visually.

4) Lots of glass makes for better lenses.

Again, like points one and two, more glass and glass with exotic lettering (LD, SLD, Asph etc) is not there to make a lens better, but more likely just to make a lens possible*. If you make a lens faster, longer, wider, or a zoom (possibly many or all of these), it gets harder to achieve good results so extreme designs with lots of special glass and lens coatings become necessary, even mandatory, resulting in that heavily corrected “perfect” look.

A common theory floating around is that lots of highly corrected glass tends to render a “flatter” 2D looking image, one that looks less realistic and satisfying to the eye unless you accept the paper cut-out sharp-soft look as normal. Whether that is true or not, there is a look some modern super lenses have that to be honest I am not a huge fan of (see the Sigma 30mm image above).

I am reminded of the three EF tilt/shift lenses Canon made. Two were not so hard to make (45 and 90) so they got no exotic glass and no red “L” ring. The more difficult 24mm needed extreme effort, so it got the works over two models. Perception was the L lens was better by default, which was erroneous as they were all basically identical, the others just suffered from Canons odd “L” class segregation policy (only lenses with exotic glass got the L designation).

Ironically, more glass increases the chance of lens miss-alignment, introducing flaws. This is less common these days, but as Lens Rentals revealed in their testing of multiple zooms, not completely solved.

5) Sharper is always better.

As any cinematographer will tell you, there are types of sharpness and sometimes down-sides to too much sharpness or contrast. There is more to a lens that it’s sharpness, in fact of late many reviewers tend to hand wave away sharpness as “we have plenty these days, even in kit lenses”.

The selection of a lens needs to match the needs of the job.

Sharpness is like vehicle speed performance, it needs to be viewed in balance with other elements like handling, comfort, brakes and economy. Is a straight line speed racer a better car than a road tourer?

I have personally come to class lenses as hard sharp, simple-smooth sharp, or micro-contrast sharp and have found that the type of sharpness is often connected to the out of focus rendering with my sharpest lenses not always rendering pleasant Bokeh**.

None is better than the other, but each does it’s intended job.

Super sharp corners wide open with perfect field flatness are basically a waste unless you shoot perfectly flat subjects wide open all the time and quite often, there are other factors that effect sharpness or it’s requirement.

Taken on a $100 plastic fantastic kit tele lens, this is not only sharp enough, but “perfectly” sharp to match the subject and look I was after. I have three 40-150 lenses used as the light requires, the biggest and heaviest being the fastest, but in this situation would it have taken a better image? I am often grateful that I had that lens on that hot day in Japan as it captured a dozen of my favourite images without unnecessary weight, bulk or aperture speed.

6) Test charts are needed to determine quality.

Lens tests are a basic form of categorising a lens in direct comparison to other lenses using the same test processes and the user needs to be aware of the process and it’s limitations.

No more, no less.

The lens test has always been a good place to seek justification for a purchase or feed the lust for a future one, but they must be taken in specific context to their process and the reader needs to be aware that there is a lot more to a lens than test data.

Examples of confusion I have witnessed are different cameras being used, sometimes in different formats then the results directly compared, or the top 20% of MTF charts compared, ignoring the reality that both lenses filled the first 80% effortlessly.

The real question is what does the image look like?

I was once told by a Leica technician that lens test procedures are important to some extent, but the only way to find out if a lens suits your needs is to use it for at least two years. The modern equivalent is to look at all the images taken with a lens in situations similar to your ideal.

Are the images it makes all same-ish, do they look flat or two dimensional, are they too boringly perfect, lacking life or character? That lens may test very well, but is that enough?

Designers always have a goal in mind, but more recently that goal seems to be to make the “perfect” test bench lens, no matter the cost in other areas.

The only way to really get to know a lens is to use it doing what you do, how you do it.

7) More Bokeh is better.

For a start that is a regular mis-use of the term.

Bokeh just is like the weather, it is not a measurement like rain fall. You can have different Bokeh, more or fewer out of focus elements in your image and the effect can be exaggerated or avoided as needed, but more blur is not fundamentally a measurement of better Bokeh.

This is an often very real reason for buying a super fast lens or two. The ability to loose a background to soft and beautiful blur is however only one photographic option and assumes that the subject in context to their environment is not wanted. This is rarely the case in the real world.

You can’t tell a story with a super shallow depth of field image, only a part of it. If you intend to tell stories, you will find that the lenses ability to render harmonious semi-soft backgrounds is more important than it’s silky soft blurring of everything.

Any image, unless taken of a flat surface will have an element of Bokeh because depth of field is a measurable thing, so when buying a lens, look at it’s rendering and how you react to it in all circumstances, not just up close-wide open.

Taken with the 17mm lens mentioned above, a lens that has such expanded and coherent Bokeh transition that I call it my “never miss” lens for street photography. I even have images that are misses, but the lens makes them acceptable. It can be shot at f2.8 with manual focus set to 5ft and is sharp-seeming from front to back of the image. I can even safely use it wide open with similar results in low light. This image that could be called “Arrows of confusion” is a good example of one that requires more depth to tell the whole story.

Lenses I have come to respect, even love over the years are a mix of those known to be spectacular and some very modest lenses. The right lens for the job is all you need***.

The Olympus 17mm f1.8, featured a couple of times above is one of my most used street and travel lenses over the last twelve or so years and more recently a video favourite. It became a favourite not because it was bought to be a hero lens, in fact I struggled to commit due to iffy reviews (but there was not much choice), but once I started using it, the doubts simply went away and it became a compulsion not a choice.

More than a few times it has surprised me, excelling in areas I had assumed it weak and it is fair to say, it taught me a little about lenses.

A staple of ten trips to Japan (possibly the only lens that has made every trip), it and the more impressive looking 75mm f1.8 are responsible for more than half of my favourite images.

They are an example of two very different lenses, one forgettable on paper, the other with a stellar reputation, complimenting each other perfectly.

I appreciate it’s more forgiving, elongated Bokeh rendering, not usually a modern Bokeh enthusiasts go-to, but ideal for street imaging, it’s resistance to flare and handling of strong light, it’s tiny form factor, super reliable AF, manual focus clutch (basic but workable), perceived micro-contrast sharpness and natural organic colour.

It has become an unlikely landscape favourite, a core street champion and I even like it’s shallow depth Bokeh-when I need it.

My 15mm Pana-Leica is similar in many ways, but seems to be better at dull day brilliance and snappier sharp-soft shallow depth images, so they can act as a the perfect pairing.

The technically stronger 15mm Pan-Leica is a nice foil to the 17mm justifying both in my kit, but if I had to choose, the 17mm would be it. I can speculate with some surety that the image above taken on the 17 would be slightly warmer-more organic looking, less delicate-sharp and the people in the background slightly more coherent and smoother with less of that foreground “snap”. Same-same but different.

If I owned the f1.2 version of the 17mm I would probably appreciate it for paid work when stresses not of my choosing come into play, but when stopping it down to f2.8 or 4 for street and general travel, it’s images would likely be no different.

I am not saying the 17 f1.2 is not a very special lens, but for my needs, it is overkill and provides nothing my more pedestrian Panasonic 15 or even the full frame 35 f1.8 cannot, which thanks to the full frame sensor has similar depth of field, better low light performance and lighter weight.

For my more recent trips, the 9mm Pana-Leica, basic 15, 17, 45 and kit 40-150 Oly with the kit 12-60 Panasonic lenses have been more than enough for my needs and in total weigh less than my Oly 40-150 f2.8 or Sigma 28-70 f2.8 while adding depth and options.

Very often an f4 version of a professional zoom matches a f2.8 one at shared apertures, but costing and weighing half as much. Which would you take on a long hike for landscapes?

Also cheap f1.8 primes are often excellent and very stable (and enough), low glass count lenses can have very good 3D rendering and low flare.

There is no shame in buying the lesser lens, sometimes it is even the smart move, so before getting blinded by the hype, look to actual users reviews, people who have been around the block a few times and ask yourself “what role will this lens fill in my kit”, before just buying the dearest and heaviest option.

A second opinion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFAZOXxie4w

*There are many cases of lens spec creep over the years that have not bettered the optical quality of a lens, only retained quality after a feature is added and compensated for. An example is the Canon 100mm Macro lens. The very first FD lens was not AF, internal focussing, stabilised or overly fast at f4. By the time Canon had improved it over 3-4 models until the last EF 100 f2.8L IS, with internal focus, was produced it was not made appreciably sharper (macro senses tend to be near reference perfect by design). All the special glass and clever design had managed to make a faster, heavier, dearer and more complicated lens that was the visual equal of the much easier to design original from 30 years before.

**In my Olympus kit the 12-40, 75-300, 45, 75 and 40-150 f4 are smooth sharp with pleasant Bokeh. The 40-150 f2.8, 300 and 12-100 f4 are extremely hard-delicate sharp with often busy Bokeh, the 17 and 40-150 kit are micro-contrast sharp, Bokeh a mixed bag, but sometimes elongated or more coherent in transition style.

***Some past favourites include the 180 and 28 f2.8, 50 and 90 f2 macro OM Olympus, Canon FD 24 f2.8 SSC and 100 f4 SC, EF 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L, 400 f5.6L, 35 f2 and 50 f2.5 macro (old models), 28 and 85 f1.8 USM’s, Olympus 17, 45 and 75 f1.8’s, all three 40-150’s from the kit to the f2.8, 75-300 kit tele and 300 f4. A mix of premium and more ordinary lenses. My most commonly useful and impressive lenses have been macro’s but curiously I do not own one now.

My 5.11 CAMS Bag, No War Zones, Just A Quiet Life.

The 5.11 CAMS (Carry All My Stuff) bag is designed for tier 1 operators to haul their war fighting gear across the world. It is roomy, smartly designed and tough as nails.

Looking for a photo/video bag that can take stands, large tripods, a mountain of other gear, it was constantly the only bag I found that could fit the bill. It is really hard to find a one bag solution for 40” (1 mtr) long items, with both tall and long camera rigs, lots of extras from lighting, sound gear etc.

One bag, not a trolley of bags, not a backpack, two shoulder bags, a roller case and something in the hand combo or several trips to the car.

One bag……with wheels.

So, I have it now and what does it hold?

In the under compartment, which is the secret to it working at all, it holds the huge AD-01 tripod (the depth of the bag is only just enough at 5”), another tripod for the B-cam or to use with the tele-prompter we sometimes employ, 2 large and 2 small light stands.

That new Smallrig tripod is the longest I own, so perfect timing.

There is also room for some brollies, clamps etc. If I carry my big tripod separately (or strap it to the top), I can put 4 smaller tripods in there. I can even squeeze the foot for my C-Stand in.

The main compartment holds the equivalent of 6 camera bags*, even the bags themselves.

The black one is a Domke F810 bag, enough for my usual day kit, the grey one is a dog car seat cradle…..

No kidding.

I put my 217 Domke roller next to it and looks like a lunch box (I could put three of them in it)!

I have added a few matching camera inserts, a multi pocket bag liner and a…… padded car seat dog cradle, which is ideal as a “big rig” video camera protector. There is still room for a camera bag with a full stills kit*.

It is so nice to be able to have at hand some lighitng and sound options, rigged cameras and organised accessories.

Perfect?

There is one issue, but not an insurmountable one. When full, it can take 60+ kg’s of gear, but it becomes hard to handle at that point. I simply won’t load it up that much and the under compartment is hard to access when the bag is heavy-full. I have decided to carry cameras in a separate bag, using the 5.11 for everything else, as cameras/lenses/batteries are the killers.

*F810/F2/F3x Domke, Filson Field camera bag, the average Crumpler etc.

Video, I Think I Did It Wrong And Still May Be.

I have been reading sporadically, “The Little Book of Ikigai”. I read books like this, instruction books in a sporadic fashion, because I hate reading serious instruction books and self help books count in that class.

Welcome a a small window into the reality of being me.

On the back is a little blurb that sums up the contents, as far as I have read so far anyway.

Start small

Find your flow

Discover your passion

Look for joy in the little things

My stills journey did this quite organically.

Starting slow was a given. There were few places to gain knowledge quickly and when and where I lived it.

Most of the books I bought in this period (no internet yet-anywhere) were either purely inspiration or general “how to” books, with a few genuinely useful biographies or deeper technical dives, which when mixed with monthly mags built a slow but solid base for learning.

For example it took me years to “get” apertures, depth of field, the quality and qualities of various films and processes, decipher lens design and the best way to handle a camera.

Mentors were few and often all on the same path (weddings etc). I am not saying there were no mentors for me to draw from, there were some, but they were also on a pathway of learning and busy, obsessed by their own work.

Finding my flow and passion were also relatively easy, because I was inspired by the things around me, limited to those things only and my visual inspirations supported that. The weird juxtaposition that is a library of books hoarded on the classic American landscape and wildlife palette or National Geographic magazines and applying that to their Australian equivalents aside, I knew what I wanted to shoot without question, I just needed to work out how to do it.

Don’t want to loose my head.

Some context.

There were not many images around in those days in the 80’s to 90’s. Compared to now, a relative drop in the ocean and they were hard to capture well. Getting the shot was often the win, a better shot the province of our betters.

Slow slide film, with the week long processing wait and cost, or black and white and darkroom processes (nobody serious shot in colour neg film) and thin information pathways, all contributed to glacial paced growth.

Professionals were the people who had their film paid for or were lucky enough to have a strong group to share with.

It is not a coincidence that the greats of the early 20th century American art movement often lived close to each other.

The joy in little things is I guess the library of wins I have filed away, the awareness of what makes a difference and knowledge I was doing them well enough.

Sometimes it is there to see, but only you can find it.

Video was a very different process.

Start small was a processes of acceleration from a stills knowledge base, a flood of incoming info from various online sources, learning how to get more and better results from gear I had or improving it and learning more (if I had decided not to bother, I may well have been happier).

From curiosity to the beginnings of a new skill set has been too fast I feel. The settled and solid knowledge of fewer but better and more reliable sources to draw from has eluded me. Too many opinions, some erroneous, many circuitous pathways, some genuine confusion, all resulting in time, money and sanity wasted.

The thing that comes home hard is the lasck of curation of opinion. The inability of noted authorities in the field struggling to use correct terminology for depth of field is vexing (”more of a depth of field” is not actually a thing guys) , but only the tip of the iceberg.

Find your flow is probably the key one.

I never really have and it is only recently, when suspecting I would be better off by reducing my expectations, processes, or focus, that I realised I was wearing too many hats, reacting to the ideas of others and forgetting myself completely in the process.

Video is a raft of skill sets from lighting to sound, cinematography, editing, writing, directing. Photography on it’s biggest day is half of that even if you print your work.

Discover your passion was the bit I completely rode rough-shod over.

My passion and my commercial needs have been mostly at odds, but I put commercial needs first, mostly I think to justify my investment. I occasionally get the chance to do something close to my ideal, but not often and when I do, the creative process is rarely in my control.

Is video maybe better as a hobby for me? My stills journey started as a hobby, that was how I learned by being passionate and obsessed, never counting the cost, just enjoying the ride.

Looking for joy in the small things. This is hard to do if you ignore the above.

It is the Ikigai ideal to take joy from all the small parts of the greater thing, elevating that thing from a mundane chore to a form of personal life-art, a study in coordinated perfection, but you do need to identify the what and why first.

I did early on, then I let the doing of it control me.

Is it possible to undo this, or even better to have avoided it in the first place?

Doing things the old way is pointless, those days are gone, but lessons can be learned. There are many more pathways to knowledge, especially in this world, but greater restraint needs to be applied. I need to be more discerning and patient.

I am intending to pull back, to try to find my feet and regain control of this mess.

A couple of take ways from this retrospective of my journey are;

Don’t be a slave to the physical camera, codec, rigging and ergonomics of the process. I tend to make rigs around my Video Assists, but prefer to shoot at eye level, so two incompatible processes battling each other. I do not for example have to frame and focus using a screen, I can use the eye viewer and simply record to the BMVA.

Less is more when chasing information. I can spend a wasted day trawling the internet jumping from one video to another, often contradicting each other. Find valuable, consistent and professional sources that align with my world view and don’t get distracted.

Do more, read less. This is the most valuable lesson from my past. The internet is best at finding the answers to the questions you need answered, at it’s worst answering questions you did not even know you needed to know, or why. Watching videos does not get any work done.

Do not spend a penny more. I have more than enough gear to produce a decent Indie flick, commercial work or personal project, I just need to use it better.

If it does not fit in my life or work, cut it loose. Do what you do well, avoid time wasting traps. I need to be aware of my role in all this. I am a decent cinematographer, have a working understanding of lighting and sound. I am not a wizz at editing and have limited interest there. I will make a three camera capture make sense, colour grade, clean up nasties, but I will leave clever transitions and special effects to the experts. These people are often not “front end” interested, so each to their own.

A good start?

I hope so.

Stocktake Time (aka Finding Reasons Not To Buy Another Camera)

There is always a little push to add gear, even when you are a hobbyist, but at the moment, I feel the options have gone next gen and I am using older gear on the whole.

This is I know an illusion, something I can easily coach someone else out of thinking, but can I do for myself and should I?

Looking at my kit critically, camera by camera, role by needed role, looking for holes, looking for possible overkill, looking for an excuse?

The EM1x (x3) is my main sports camera. The lenses that support it include (FF eq) 16~600 at f2.8 or f4 in zooms or primes and a range of 18~150 in fast primes, all “A” grade optics. The cameras are as fast as I need, faster than me basically and always a surprise. I am at one with them, something that cannot be under estimated.

Empowering a $100 lens to great heights, these are as good as I need. They are capable of empowering even my most basic lenses, so they actually expand my options.

The only thing I could want from them is slightly better low light performance, but considering my MFT lenses and their benefits, it would have to be found in another MFT camera, something I am not sure is worth the cost and I may already have it anyway (see below).

MFT as I have it handles noise well enough up to 6400 and a little noise is always ok for a gritty sports image, but dynamic range and colour suffers at ISO 6400 and gets worse above that. I can produce a usable image from a 12,800 file, but avoid it if I can.

Hand held 600mm at f4, 1/750th and ISO 6400 at my favourite dingy aquatic centre, something I am fully used to, but can I go better?.

Fixes possible are to shoot with a slower shutter speed accepting some lost files, or to use shorter, faster lenses (the MFT advantage), making sure to over expose and pull back, not underexpose and try to lift (it is always better to over expose ISO 12,800 than underexpose 6400).

There is no denying that full frame in exactly the same situation (magnification, aperture, ISO etc) does offer better quality at the cost of shallower depth of field. I just cannot justify a full frame 500 f4 or 300 f2.8, slower lenses mostly squander the format advantage and the available cross-over points are few (35-85 f1.8, 28-70 f2.8 and if I bought one, 70-200 f2.8).

Improving on these might be the G9II I already have, maybe an OM-1, but not “little white” the 50-200 which would add little in real terms. A 135 f1.8 or 150 f2 would be nice though :).

The G9II may be that camera, but to be honest I have never tried it.

It fills a lot of roles. It is my best video camera out of the box, meaning as is, or with only an SSD added, it is the most capable in almost every way except very poor light (it gets complicated).

It offers All-i, ProRes/HQ/V-Log without anything other than the SSD, or B-Raw with a BMVA 12g. It has the best stabiliser, the best video AF, most frame rate options, then it is also my highest res stills camera and it likely matches the EM1x’s in stills AF with possibly better high ISO performance (in colour and dynamic range).

I think some tests are in order.

In “full noise” video mode recording 4k or high speed 1080 V-Log in ProResHQ, but am I wasting it?

The only mild weakness is high ISO video (compared to the rest of my dual ISO video cams), video AF on some of the older MFT lenses and the big one is, I only have one. I feel that this is the stills upgrade I might need, but it is cemented into my video kit as the “movement” specialist. If I only had one camera for everything I do, I feel this would have to be it.

All my video options work with either standard SD cards or to SSD’s direct to or via a Video Assist 12g. This was deliberate and has saved me effectively a camera body or both my BMVA recorders in card costs alone. B-Raw is my end point, cameras that offer internal ProRes Raw with expensive card and high storage needs are of no interest.

The S5II is currently my “super hybrid”, the S5II gets a lot of filler work in both my video and stills kits and is my best out of camera V-Log option. It lacks SSD or RAW-out without the paid firmware update, but I keep resisting that as I have other many options.

For stills it is the low light fix, but is limited to a 20~85mm range, something that does not bother me overly. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is often floating around in the background as a sports option, but my main indoor sport is Basketball, something the 85mm or MFT 75 f1.8 are more than enough for.

I struggle with the size of full frame for my day kit, only justifying it if the video or low light stills are very real possibilities.

At this point in my stocktake, the G9II in this role probably makes more sense, but then the S5II then becomes the odd one out.

The S5 is one of two dedicated video cams. With RAW-out, a slightly less digitally sharp rendering than the S5II and decent enough stabe and AF if needed, I like it with the BMVA 5” as my hand held or B-cam.

It could be used as a fully capable stills cam, but I like it more in video.

An ungainly looking rig, it works well for run-n-gun held held or static work.

In this role, I see little reason to replace it, in fact with Panasonic sharpening up their recent video options, I might even buy one of these in this role now in preference or the BS1H, or maybe skip full frame all together with a BGH1.

My GH5s was bought specifically to be the MFT video champion, mainly as a cheaper way to get full frame-like dual ISO performance. It lacks internal stabilising and AF is “old school” like the S5 and G9’s, but it was bought to be a solid, no frills video specialist, a static A-cam, nothing more or less.

As the core of this rig, anything more like the G9II or S5II would probably be wasted.

I bought it over the BMPCC4k at the time because it was actually cheaper (rare), I already had the BMVA 7” and if needed it could be pressed into service as a stills cam, something the P4k cannot do.

I would not replace it as it is in a role it was designed for and does it perfectly well. B-Raw is my maximum video quality end goal, 4k/50 my maximum in that space, so the lure of ProRes Raw is of no interest (V-Log is enough for most projects, ProRes is an option, B-Raw is better again).

The EM1.2 (x2), the long lens half of my day kit (with a G9) are old, beaten up, occasionally “twitchy”, but reliable enough for most jobs. The AF is plenty for sports with better lenses, the low light decent enough, they are solid without being exceptional these days, but solid gets most jobs done.

To be honest I do not really treat them any differently to the EM1x’s when I am working, but I find them slightly “laggy” compared to the X’s from off to ready to shoot, but they are still faster than most Panasonics.

If these were my high water mark, I would be ok. The demise of one will likely mean regularly using a spare EM1x as a day cam, but both would mean chasing up another new gen stills cam like an OM1 or second G9II.

The G9 (x2) is the wide angle day cam in partnership with above. These are maybe slightly better than the EM1.2’s in many ways, closer the the EM1x in low light, handling and general feel, but the DFD focussing makes for an odd experience with sports (no Pana long lenses), and video AF is slightly unreliable.

Video is lovely, if limited to non-Log profiles (I like Standard), although I have not looked closely into their HDMI output to the BMVA 12g (which they do). Maybe HLG or Cine-D in ProRes would be worth a look?

The only thing that could be improved here would be hybrid video, and video/sports AF, i.e. a G9II. I will not replace a worn out one with the same, but I will miss them.

EM10.2 (x2) the “shutter savers” are my usual third cameras, because it is easier and faster to change a camera than a lens and these are sure footed enough to use as short telephoto snipers.

I usually have one in my bag with a lens I might need, like the 9mm or a 45mm. Both have twitchy rear screens, so I usually use them to the eye, normal for longer lenses.

When used up, they will go and I doubt I will go this way again, but who knows. They are useful, have good enough image quality to mix it with the others and run for ages per battery.

*

So, improvements in video are really not needed.

I do not lust after codecs I have no intention of supporting or storing (4k B-Raw at 5:1 already eats up massive amounts of storage), I have state of the art AF, stabilising and several endurance options as good as I would need (in multiple options) and basically as good as I can get. Maybe another BMVA 5” would be added as a backup and to upgrade the G9II, but then I loose it’s small size portability, so more likely a cheap BMPCC4k, freeing up the G9II for stills.

An S1mkII or GH7 bring unwanted internal ProRes Raw, have expensive card needs, give me nothing above what I need and the S1 adds possible over heating issues. The G9II matches the AF and stabe and if V-Log is enough the S5II comes close enough as well. If I feed out to a BMVA 12g, what have I really gained?

In stills, the only thing that worries me slightly is low light sport, but I may have the answer already (G9II) and nobody is complaining. I can usually use the 75 f1.8 or shorter for basketball and netball, the f2.8 zoom when needed and even occasionally an f4 lens in some venues. I fear nothing really up to ISO 6400, f2.8, 1/500th, plenty for most venues.

Full frame for very low light is tempting, the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 the best option there ($1800au), but again 24mp and the super sharp 85mm S-prime does most of what I need and I get maybe two jobs a year where it matters (most top end sports have good light, the low end ones don’t expect miracles).

The ultimate would be the S1.2 with the 100-500 (Pana) and 70-200 (Sig), but I am not getting the work to warrant it.

Shopping list options;

A second G9II for stills ($2000au+). This would give me possibly a stop better low light sports performance, the extra pixels would also allow for the f2.8 zoom to be used more and cropped.

Firmware upgrading the S5II for video ($250au). The G9II then becomes the possible hybrid option (see above) adding power to my sports kit and the S5II becomes the movement cam (which it basically could do now in V-log). The G9II is no smaller than the S5II, but the much smaller lenses are shared with the stills kit.

Adding a 70-200 Sigma to the FF kit ($2000au+). Tis gives me reach when needed for tough indoor sports, elevating my kit to match some top end shooters.

So, the answer to the question “do I need to upgrade” comes back with a soft, “when I can, if I need”, no rush.

Odd Companions Or Fated Friends?

I have a lot of gear, some top tier, some “kit” meaning cheap, lightly made, with the assumption of sub par optics and junky handling.

I tend to pack for the job. I may take relatively basic gear, an older camera, maybe even an unreliable ones to a low stress job where multiple cameras are ok or a less impressive lens needed. A time when contingencies can be applied in the field if needed (an MFT advantage is more choices).

Nothing wasted, nothing under or over estimated. Everything used.

Actually looks pretty neat, just don’t use it in the rain!

Sometimes, a combination surprises.

I had a job held outside on a sunny day, no high speed sports, no lighting nightmares. The camera I chose was the EM1x, a choice I have been shifting towards lately because my EM1.2’s are ageing and are sometimes not as reactive when I need.

The AF is fine, but turning them on and off tends to add a short lag before shooting, some controls are stubborn. Time to give myself a break. No point in nursing better cameras (I have three) waiting for some time in the future. Use what you have when you need.

The lens was the compromise, the Olympus kit 40-150 f4~5.6. This lens is sharp, can be fast focussing if the camera is good, has very good bright light contrast, i.e. lower than some pro lenses (something it shares with the 75-300) and for most purposes the results are indistinguishable from dearer glass.

The extra depth of field of the relatively slow lens on MFT is not always an issue. Shallow depth is nice, but to be honest as a record keeper for school events I prefer to use more depth when possible. More depth equals more people sharp, wider interactions included and often, smoother roll-off to out of focus areas.

Basically depth of field becomes basically irrelevant or visibly so, not a tool, not a cool trick.

Gorgeous clarity, nice Bokeh, a gentleness that suits the scene. On close inspection, even with a 20mp camera, detail is retained down to individual hair level.

Another workable combo is the same camera with the 12-60 Panasonic kit. These two are my travel kit along with some light weight primes, used for low light and shallow depth of field.

An Odd Kind Of Balance, But Balance None The Less.

My video kit is a little odd when I look at it, but somehow it seems to work for me.

It’s a matter of balance, something that settles me in many ways.

If I look at it theoretically I have this capacity, in order of best to worst;

Best AF (if used and with select lenses)

1. G9II (phase detect, MFT depth of field advantage)

2. S5II (phase detect)

3. S5/GH5s (late gen contrast detect, not trustworthy enough for some things)

The 2’s are pretty close but the more forgiving MFT depth of field and one or two lenses give it a slight edge, the 12-40 Oly interestingly seems to have a perfect balance of fast but smooth AF.

Best stabiliser

1. G9II (latest gen, MFT smaller sensor advantage)

2. S5II (latest gen)

3. S5 (previous gen, excellent for static hand held)

4. GH5s (rig weight and lens supplied)

Best processing range (colour depth, dynamic range, flexibility)

1. S5 (BRAW)

2. GH5s (BRAW)

3. G9II (LOG in ProRes/HQ)/S5II (LOG)

The full frame cams have higher dynamic range naturally (14 stops), but the BRAW cams are more pleasant to grade. ProRes on the G9.2 bridges the gap somewhat to the S5II in basic LOG. I know that the S5II in BRAW is probably the very best image quality I could achieve and the G9II may also be a wasted resource, but if I upgrade either of them to BRAW, I loose their portability and in the case of the G9II, it’s excellent internal codecs.

Best low light performance.

1. S5/S5II (full frame dual ISO)

2. GH5s (dual ISO)

3. G9II (expanded ISO)

The full frames again, but the lens options available to MFT do make a difference also. Some glass is only available to me or only as fast as it is relative to the focal length in MFT, but assuming F1.8 for both, then the Full Frames win (in some more compressed formats it is quite impressive).

The reality is, if I upgraded the S5II to BRAW capable, it would be my most powerful camera, but at the moment I have four options that all balance out in comparison.

The G9II is weakest in low light and grading range, as well as creating some monster files in Log/ProRes or LOG/PreResHQ, but has the best on paper specs (frame rates, and internal codecs) and it is the handiest, most reactive, steadiest and fastest. This is the cam I put in a sandwich bag to shoot on a small boat or in a stills bag just in case. Potentially it has the best in camera recording options, an advantage lost if I run it out to a RAW recorder, so I don’t, I just use the SSD out option. This is also possibly the most under appreciated stills cam I have, but that is another story.

My smallest rig, this one has the option of going onto a shoulder rig using AF and a wide angle (9mm), a tripod or a mechanical gimbal.

The SSD upgrades it to ProRes, so a small price to pay. If I had a GH7 with internal ProRes, I wuld likely still use an SSD as they are larger and cheaper than XF cards. The SSD holder is a Neewer, which I like more than most.

The GH5s is the camera that bridges MFT to full frame capabilities with good low light/dual ISO, the MFT lens advantage and excellent BRAW interface. Lacking stabilising, it is the “big rig” for static or careful hand held work, relying mostly on weight for hand held stability and that classic semi-steady look (although the 12-60 does add some real stabe). With the 7” BMVA, it is sound central and always the A-cam on sticks. Without BRAW, it only has V-LogL, but does have All-i codecs with a fast sensor and can even function as a decent low light MFT stills cam (something its closest competitor the BMPCC4k cannot).

The endurance rig, so the A-cam in interviews. Everything runs off the V-mount for a couple of hours at least.

The RigidPro rig (the S5II/G9II model), neatly holds the SSD on top of the camera, all cables are connected at multiple points or go through the rig. Very clean and simple. The screen mount and handle are a new configuration, replacing a nato rail handle and flexi arm, which were messier and made the rig hard to pack. Balance is a little forward depending on lens, but not too bad.

The S5 is the second endurance and BRAW camera (5” BMVA and V-Mount), giving me a decent stabilised and AF option, but I treat it more like the GH5s, using a heavy duty shoulder strap to aid stability and take some weight (works like a cine-sac without the bulk). The colours out of the GH5s and S5 are close, so I have my full range of lenses to pick from in an A-B pairing.

This one looks a little ungainly, but it is extremely well balanced, meant to be used from chest to hip height. The strap is my small and elegant solution to the cine-bag quandary.

The cabling is a little less controlled, something I will work on, but it is a simple rig. The BMVA 12G 5” is run by a large NP on the rails, with two smaller ones on the unit itself. The camera uses a standard battery as it is rarely employed for long shoots and if it is, I either use a V-Mount mounted under the rails or use it as a B-cam, so battery changes can be handled during the shoot.

The S5II is potentially the strongest cam, but without the paid upgrade it is actually the weakest. G9II level AF and stabe are counter balanced by the needs of full frame (shallower depth of field, larger sensor to stabilise), the low light is equal to the S5II, in LOG it has the equal best dynamic range and all things considered, it mixes it well just as is, no RAW, no ProRes, just native LOG. The extra bulk of lenses is a consideration, but unlike the G9II, it does not need an SSD bolted on, so same-same really.

Balance.

All cams are capable of excellent results, they just get there differently. All are rigged to do their role as well as I need with static/endurance, semi mobile/endurance, mobile/static and purely mobile rigs. Any can do another role, but as is, they are each best suited.

I can hand hold the GH5s, I can use the G9II as a static B-cam or in low light with fast glass, the S5 as a run-n-gun or the S5II as any of these roles, but no one camera is the perfect answer to all roles.

For a light weight interview setup, the two S5’s in LOG work fine. For run and gun the G9II is king, the S5II the ideal hybrid and for maximum impression made, the GH5s in the RigidPro rig and cine lens looks the biz. I can run three anamorphic lenses at once and if needed trust two cams to their own devices in AF.

Could I make a single super camera or cameras? Sure. The S5II with 7” BMVA and RigidPro rig would be the “A” game, but then other cameras as well suited would be sidelined and their strengths, poorly applied, would not enough to balance things out.

The only option missing as I see it is the BMPCC4k, which would add a third BRAW camera, with no off board recorder needed and some more recording options, but do I need five cams?

Something Special?

A cheap little lens has intrigued me for a while.

The TTArtisans 35 f1.4, a $75au budget lens (in L-mount), designed for APS-C and MFT cameras came into my life a few years ago. It was one of those times I was looking for something a little out of the box, something different, for video mainly where I was keen to get away from the usual. I do lament the many wondrous lenses I let go over the years. I hope they are being used by other shooters.

Shooting stills with an S5 means cropping after the fact, because this is an APS-C lens, no doubt, but I have shot full frame video with it and “letter boxed” the crop like an anamorphic and cropped square for stills and the coverage is fine.

Even square there is a hint of vignette.

Sharpness is the expected mixed bag of central sharpness decent to dreamy wide open, razor sharp stopped down and the corners fall into the “character” camp.

At f2.8 it is as sharp as I would ever want for 4k video.

Sharp with smooth rendering. No processing applied.

Wide open, it is lovely, with obvious vignetting.

Not super sharp, but attractive. Between wide open and 2.8 I have effectively two different renderings.

Wide open again at a longer distance, so maybe sharpness varies at different distances?

A nice 3d rendering.

My main application for this lens would be video, a lens with a retro vibe shot full frame and cropped to suit. I have done this and it works.

Train Dreams

I just deleted my Netflix account, but ended on an unexpected note of exceptional, emotional pain and bliss in equal measure.

I have never been so strongly effected by a movie or series.

It finished and I started to uncontrollably sob. I do shed the odd tear, usually to animal or feel good stories, but this let something out I feel may have been hiding for a long time.

Nothing to do with it, just a favourite place.

Life is, simple as that and Train Dreams celebrated that in every way possible.

Loss, love, time, hope, dept, connection.

I hope they get a lot of recognition for bringing this beautiful and shattering story to life, but a part of me feels the makers have already had their reward.

The takeaway for me, not that it matters I guess, is how lives lived often go undocumented and may seem pointless in the eyes of all except those who live or share them.

I wished that for Robert, a fictional character, but so very real as a representative of many like him, that there would be a record made of who he was, what he did and who loved him (which of course I was watching), but with the deepest sadness I realised that Robert, was representing the bulk of us, the incredible sea of lives lived and so soon forgotten.

Even if a record is made, like a photograph (like the one sadly lost in the fire), or a written record, that time would be the final arbiter of its importance.

Anything any one does for their own immortality is pointless in the long run, the only thing that matters is the effect we have on people here and now. If life is ultimately pointless, then the only thing that matters is how we live it. Anything we do to impress or subjugate others is also ultimately an untruth to ourselves.

Even mountains die, as do suns and even gods. The only part of history that matters is the bit you are living in now.

Watch it or not, I am just happy that I have, against my better judgement to be honest, to know it exists like the remains of our natural world are out there, whether we see them or not.

No more words.

How Much Quality Is Needed?

There is a revolution happening and it is moving fast.

Once, not that long ago, to make quality content, you needed a camera and lenses that most could not afford. People became cinematographers by going to school to access these cameras and the people who know how to use them.

You can now walk into a camera shop and spend under 10k and have enough gear to create a scene from many top tier movies. People and other resources are needed to copy anything that is thrown at you and of course the reality of CGI or AI is often an element, but at the core, the base line of it all, a good camera and lens, so good in fact you may need to reduce its inherent hard-sharp quality, are available to all of us who want them.

The Creator for example was filmed using a Sony FX3 with an antique Kowa anamorphic lens out to an Atomos recorder. This entire kit, in multiple, fit into a single plastic box. As Oren Soffer said in an interview (roughly) “If the camera gives us that basic quality we need, then done, move on, many other factors will matter more” and “All that matters is you have the right tool for the right job”.

Using that as a base line means any of the new range of hybrid cameras can record internally or externally the codecs and quality needed. Examples are the Nikon ZR with Red RAW, the S1II Panasonics with ProRes Raw internal and ARRI colour, or anything going out to an Atomos Ninja or Black Magic recorder like the FX Sonys.

What do you really need for top end quality?

Codec.

The minimum you should use would be LOG, almost universally available in a modern hybrid camera. It will open up the full dynamic range of the camera and is usually well supported by third party and software makers. You can get away with a lesser codec like Cine-V or HLG, but dynamic range or support is usually reduced in favour of out of camera ease, a poor trade.

DR is important, probably not as important as good lighting and exposure, but if a camera offers it, you may as well access it. Great work can be made with less than 12 stops of DR, but if you have access to 14+, then take it.

Minimum; LOG, preferably RAW

If your camera can feed RAW data out over an HDMI (or in some recent releases even intenally), then you should look at an off board recorder like the Atomos Ninja V or BMVA 12g. Most modern bodies will feed out to one or the other. The files will be huge, but that is the reality of it, big quality comes from big files.

Access to 10 bit/422 or better colour depth is also ideal. Recording LOG in ProRes will expand this depth. This depth will pay back in spades when colour grading. Off board RAW recorders will increase your bit rate to 12 or even 16 bit, maybe even get you to 4444 colour. The more colour depth the better.

Minimum; 10 bit/422, preferably 12 bit+

The Black Magic option talks empathically to Resolve, a programme I struggled with early on, but the higher up the codec food chain I went the better that experience became. You will have huge files, but they will be the quality you are chasing.

I have found that generally LOG and RAW formats are supported by users far better than out of camera codecs, which makes life easier and ironically, the bigger the file you record at the front end, the easier the editing after (less unpacking of highly compressed files). This means I can process massive 4k BRAW files on a base model Mac Mini.

A note on editing. Learn to power grade, which is to say, try to avoid buying someone else’s LUT’s, aim to know how to get your own look, save it (power grade) and apply as desired. LUT’s are a cheat and you learn little.

Camera and lenses matter less than above, so choose the camera that gets you to where you need to be in a form and price point that works for you. Loom to recently replaced models and second hand, but there are also deals available in new like the BMPCC4k for $1700au (with built in BRAW and ProRes RAW with nearly any lens adaptable to the MFT mount.

Minimum; A camera that provides the above with good ergonomics, handling and battery life.

Lenses only need to provide the look you are after.

This rig has changed constantly and still is, but it does the following; It records RAW (with the BMVA 12g, not mounted), it records for a long time, it is pleasant t use, it produces the look I want. A small bonus is, it looks like more than it cost ($4000 total), being basically a S5 Mk1, BMVA 12g 5” (absent), V-Mount RigidPro rig, Spectrum 50mm, handles and cable.

Cheaper anamorphic glass can add a professional look cheaply, re-housed legacy lenses are not only cheap, but actually preferred by many top flight cinematographers, budget cine glass may make life easy or add some character and even semi-pro cine glass is getting cheaper. Cropping a legacy lens and adding a streak filter can even fake anamorphic (something I have done for under $100).

Zooms are convenient, but a small set of primes are better.

Lenses I like for film making are my Hope and Spectrum primes, my TTArt 35mm, Sirui anamorphic, antique half frame 25mm, select AF lenses (12-40, 17, 45 Oly, 12-60, 9 Pana, 35, 85 S-Primes). None of these are overly expensive, some are dirt cheap.

Minimum; A decent zoom, or preferably a small set of primes.

An Ongoing Commitment And Revelation.

Most of videography and cinematography is starting to look the same. Derivative creation, a contradiction in terms is the norm.

If you say I saw an ep of the latest hit programme or movie and described it as “you knoe, the desaturated, soft, glowey one with the dramatic back light”, well, you are descibing them all really.

The technical reality is digital footage has a look, something decidedly un “filmic” so measures are taken to address that, ironically, un-sharpening the sharp, reducing high resolution and flattening contrast of high dynamic range, high acutance footage.

The result is predictable and unexciting.

Time to break some rules.

For my own personal journey, the answer to my anti conformist reaction is to look at the field I have been working in for the last 35 odd years.

Rule 1

Compose a video frame as I would frame a stills image. It sounds simple but as I will explain below, I seem to have forgotten everything I have learned already as if it is irrelevant. It has never been more relevant. This also means controlling exposure, white balance and focus with the same ease I do for stills.

Rule 2

Use more natural light. Not exclusively, but as much as possible. I do use flash in my stills work, but only when the situation requires it, basically when there is no natural light, but when I do, I aim for natural or at least invisible.

Simple natural light, all I normally use.

Rule 3

Soften only to reduce the video look of my footage, no more. This may be with a filter, in camera, selection of a lens, or maybe in post, but only soften towards a natural look and un-digitise, not a stylised trend.

Rule 4

Avoid cliche traps, be original. There are so many pervading formula around that are very easy to fall into as safe habit and this is ripe for simple AI replacement. AI preys on the accepted trend, not the bespoke or unpredictable (yet). Only originality and effort has any legs now.

Rule 5

Remember where I came from and how I got there.

Without yet mastering many current habits, I find I am already pushing back against many of them. This video thing has seemed too hard sometimes, but I realise I have ignored my instincts in favour of slavishly adopting the wisdom of others. With still photography my style developed in a relative vacuum. I was inspired by images I saw in books and magazines, conversations with people who knew more than me, reverse engineering, learning by doing. This is something my video journey has lacked.

With video, my learning tends to come from Youtube, which leads to opinion, misinformation, a lack of personal experimenting, no internal growth. I don’t work that way, never have.

This does not mean inventing a new framing like that weird subject jammed into on the short corner thing or rejecting needed tech, it means chasing a better shot, not just a better execution of the same-same. If the remit is “build a better race car”, then you need to conform to the needs of the race, but if the remit is “just get there faster”, then maybe a 4WD and going straight line across country wins or even learn to fly.

Rule 6

Make rules for consistency of vision and its delivery, but these rules must hero simplicity and quality over gimmicks and they may/must break some current rules that do not suit.

Rule 7

Be authentic. In a world where illusion is the norm, be authentic to your subject and your self. There is no other way to be taken seriously and in some way, relatively time-proof.

Rules are important, but they are only a guide, not a coral. I am sure I will bend, break or modify these to some extent, but the journey matters. The journey however needs to be taken and the clearer the destination, the easier it is to execute.

End Of The Year Retrospective

Another year done and summer holidays to look forward to.

So, what went well and what failed to launch?

Another year of amazing young people entering the world of adulthood. EM1x 40-150 f2.8

I have a more solid client base, with AFL Tas, two schools and some sports associations to fall back on, but not enough to call a real job yet.

My sport is in a good place, plenty of experience, gear is sufficient to get the job done and feeling confident. Football and basketball are the two big ones, low light my only minor concern, but overall I am pretty happy. I may get the new Panasonic 100-500 to expand my full frame reach, but we will see.

Grass roots sport is important to me.

Events are solid, my school needs also. I have processes that I know I can rely on.

Video is still a heavy load, but I am in a good place with it from a basic processing perspective, my grading and consistency are where I want them to be, I just need more practice putting things together.

Gear that has proven itself again and again;

The EM1.2 and original G9’s have survived another year. My four work horses have over 3 million frames up between them, so anything from here is gravy baby!

My Godox 860 flash is a hard working beast that can do over 2000 shots in a night without breaking a sweat and regularly does.

The Black Magic 12G recorders providing B-Raw and studio Resolve have cemented my video capabilities and the GH5s/S5 combo seems to work. I am a B-Raw convert, even if that means limiting myself to two cameras, but ProRes 422 HQ (G9II) is a decent filler codec.

The G9.2 is making its presence felt as the “gimbal” cam I need, getting better results every time I use it. The current winner is a handle on either side, but it varies.

The S5.2 and Sigma 28-70 have become my low light problem solvers.

Hope Cine lenses. Two of many in the crowded mess that is my cine lens stable, but also my happy place that I go to more often than not. On the GH5s they are 45/90mm, so perfect,, on the G9II they are 50/100, so I have combinations.

I only wish they would do them in APS-C L-Mount so I could get another 25 that is a 35 equivalent.

My 300, 40-150’s, 12-40, 15, 9 are heavily used and showing it, but still have legs. The rest of my M43 lens kit needs to be used more and the 30 Sigma, 8-18 and 45’s are getting some.

The EM1x’s, which do the hardest jobs I do, do them perfectly well. Faint praise? I would love maybe a little better low light performance (6400 tops them out, 3200 is better). They are as fast in focus aquisition as I can compose, i.e. my misses are almost always mine, so I do not need faster.

The Sennheisser MKE-600 is fast becoming my go-to mic, especially with the F2 recorder attached or connected to the BMVA 7”.

The RigidPro rig and V-Mounts have totally changed how I deal with all things video. One power source for all my rig, a professional looking and acting camera setup.

The Lewitt LCT 240 Pro is also a little wonder, recording some big spaces with decent presence. I hardly use any of the other mics, but they are there.

Domke F810, F2 and F4 bags and more have all done as asked.

the 5.11 Range Ready and Patrol Ready bags, both handle my video gear and combined, cost less than a true video or camera bag.

Possible future purchases or directions.

The 5.11 CAMS roller case is in my thoughts. This one bag is 40” long, has a semi rigid base section, a large top section and can I feel, carry all I need for any job in one bag. I have tried a lot of different configurations fro several bags, trolleys clever packing, but this bag, a $500 purchase on its own could be (do I dare use the over used term?), a “game changer” (there, I said it).

It could comfortably hold new and my large AD-01 Tripod, several light stands, some large brollies, a soft box, several mic kits (in hard cases), two or three full camera rigs (in ready to go configurations), backdrops, tools etc and have room for clothing and stills gear. The only issue is to get to tripods etc, I have to lift the main compartment, but I think I can work that and by that stage, the cameras would be out anyway.

The alternative can be anything up to five bags and cases on a trolley, something that is a movable feast to be honest.

The Two Lenses You Need For Animal Photography

There are two lenses you need for nature photography, anything to do with critters specifically, a long lens and a macro.

The beauty of one lens I have, is they are the one in the same.

In a recent school camp, I pressed my 300 f4 into service from minute one (literally). Straight out of the car, about a half hour before the main group arrived, I grabbed the 300 and had a poke around.

Devilish light, but needs must.

Sparrows, Bumble and regular bees, some flower heads and abstracts, all hand held, all without changing anything except the focus limiter on the lens.

Sometimes I did not use it when I should have (did not have it), like the little snake above, shot with a standard lens! Not clever as these can be lethal, even when tiny.

From 4” to 4’, this one required more common sense, but without the 300, I pressed the 150 IRIX into service.

A much neglected lens, the 150 IRIX was also used, but compared to the 300, everything was harder.

I managed to get a bee in flight, but compared to the 300, this was more luck than AF assisted fun.

Test Thoughts Continued.

I have poured over the test shots I did, look very close at the clips stills and it looks like 8:1 is mostly indestinguishable to 3:1 with one major exception.

When everything is going well, they are almost impossible to split. I have looked at 400% detail clips of both and the fine details, especially when sharpened are so close as to make comparing further pointless, but, prompted by a forum post, I looked at the things that did not go perfectly.

The post said something like “12:1 has mushy details and more noise”. which made no sense except that noise may be a form of detail I guess, so I looked at the clips again and in the noise holding shadows and out of focus areas (where I had placed a busy back drop deliberately), there is a difference in rendering. The 8:1 footage looks less well defined and the combination of very mild noise (ISO 640 and well exposed), smudged detail and slight out of focus areas, did look less clean.

It is in the detail to the left between the hat and light that the 8:1 footage looks less clean and defined, but not by much. I needed to check that for focus, so did a second set of stills until I was sure and there is a very slight difference, in a clean clip.

Multiply that by 10 in a more noisy clip and that may well be an issue, especially when sharpening is needed or other effects applied. Bad tends to multiply bad.

So, soft conclusion after test round 1 is;

1:8 is perfectly good when things are done well, but 5:1 and 3:1 are better when the same quality needs to be extracted from potentially less than perfect footage.

This possibly explains why some people are happy with 12:1. They are either shooting in clean environments or exposing extremely well for their subject and could care less about the background, possibly blurring it out anyway with shallow depth or filtering.

Fixed bit rate footage guarantees expectations at the cost of potentially wasting storage for static subjects, but static subjects are generally in controlled spaces, so quality will be better.

I feel 1080/8:1 would be plenty for most interviews. 4k reserved for large screen footage.

Fixed quality (Q settings) are yet to be confirmed in this space, except to say, I could barely see any difference between the GH5s’s All-i/ProRes and B-Raw Q5 codecs, so for movement I actually have several options and recent comments have made me Leary of using lower Q settings for static work as the bit rate drops very low.

Also I found this excellent site today.

https://sproutvideo.com/blog/pixel-perfect-understanding-image-quality-for-video.html

The Bag To End All Bags?

I have been on the hunt for a decent (i.e. problem solving) bag for a long time, especially since my video offer has grown.

Bag is a loose statement as the solution could have come from any direction, but the ideal is something long enough to take my bigger light stands, the recently arrived AD-01 tripod (37” long, 5” deep closed down), my video rigs made to go, some stills gear, lighting, sound, power etc.

Yep, all the stuff.

My current solution is a series of compromises. I put up to five cases and bags onto a trolley, which cannot go up stairs, needs packing well with support straps, is problematic when negotiating rough ground, curb edges and takes some packing and unpacking, struggles with long things and is not weather proof.

The biggest issue with it is that I tend to compromise my gear, leaving some things behind, taking too much (whole mic kits in their safe hard case, not just the bits I need) and some smaller items are still problematic, which includes things being forgotten, lost, or messy on arrival.

I am sick and tired of doing jobs and thinking “I have a solution to that problem…..at home”, or worse, discovering that I had it with me, but with inconsistent packing and processes, I clean forgot.

A one bag/trolley/teleportation device is what I need that has things in the same place, always packed, no surprises, immune to brain fades or other excuses and one that I can comfortably handle.

I found the bag a while ago the CAMS* 3.0 from 5.11 gear, but at $500au, I felt it was a little expensive.

Expensive?

It is about the same price as a Billingham or ONA shoulder bag and only twice the price of most Domke bags, so by photographic standards, it is “ball park”, but this thing is military grade. To put it another way, it is about half the price of all the other things I am currently using inefficiently now, some of which I bought after discovering the CAMS bag, so my bad**.

What do you get?

A bag in two parts, the lower part capable of taking a 40” long, 5” deep Tripod, or light stand and several of each (like my yearly video gig at the school that requires 5 tripods). The upper section is 15-16” wide (not 20 as the official site says-possibly including the outside pockets), 8” tall (not 10) and 40” long as advertised.

It has two solid dividers, but can take any of my camera bags, the insert from my Domke 217 Roller length ways across it (the whole case even side ways), the insert from my 5.11.Range Ready bag, several small hard cases and more.

The choice of colours was Black or “Kangaroo” brown and I surprised myself going for the brown, a bit sick of black bags.

The bag is semi-rigid, the lower section reinforced (it is for guns and stuff), the upper section has a collapsible fibre glass frame to allow it to even stand up and it has military grade wheels, sliders, corner guards etc. It is rated at 60kg +, so easily my gears weight.

The outer pockets can take my small hard cases (my little lights, LAV mics, OSMO kit) or even large backdrop cloths.

So, what will fit in it.

In the lower section;

Smallrig AD-01 Tripod, Manfrotto 190 Tripod (better fit for the teleprompter we use), two Manfrotto Nano stands, 2 super light weight Neewer stands, a reflector panel (or two) and a bag of various connectors. It will even take my 72” brolly on a slight angle or the Smallrig lantern.

It will not fit my C-Stand bar or my 120cm slider, but they can strap onto the outside and it can take the C-stands foot and Manfrotto backdrop magnetic holder.

The top section;

It can take the Domke 217 insert with 2-3 Video cameras in full rigs and filters, a camera bag of stills gear (Domke F2/F810/F804), my small hard cases with Zoom kit, Shotgun mic kit, some lighting (various options, but at least the 60B Smallrig up to the 220RGB and power cable) and modifiers (soft box, small brolly).

So, sound, lighting and video covered in the main compartment.

The full length side pocket can take brollies or other flat stuff, a mono pod, maybe even another set of tripod legs.

The small outside pockets will take the small hard cases I use for the OSMO kit, my small lights, LAV mics and the two larger outside pockets can hold anything else I might need for the job, like rigging gear, filters, power packs, mat boxes, tools etc.

If I need to move fast, the already packed 5.11 Range Ready (video cameras), 5.11 Patrol (sound) and Domke 810 (stills) with a light or two can simply be dropped into the larger bag.

If I need anything else, I can still accomodate a back pack, strap long things to it and it is secure enough (padlock zips and bike lock it to a stage etc), to make a quick second trip, I could even stand it up on my existing trolley and add more cases.

My four big jobs last year were the StPats Team images (2 days, lots of lights etc), and the Scotch Junior School performance (5 cams) and the photo camp (all my stuff), which are easily covered, but it is the little-big jobs I do regularly, the ones where two video cams, some stills, maybe a little rigging, lighting and some sound options, a decent tripod with a backup and some stands could come into play, that up until now I have tended to under pack for, that will be easier and generally better.

I talked recently about my 3 cam, 3 light, 3 mic kit, that to be honest needs to be my minimum carry for most jobs.

*Carry All My Stuff mk3.

**As I always advise others, if you know where you want to end up, just go there, skip the distractions and time wasters in the way.

The Curse Of The 50MM?

It looks like everywhere I look, the 50mm focal length is my centre point, my home base with the 35mm close behind. The 35 is more commonly used, but not the lens I seem to have in ridiculous numbers.

From a series of images taken at 35mm, the right lens for the job.

I have always wanted the 40mm to be my “one” lens, because “all great cinematographers/street photographers use them”, which is a wild exaggeration borne of chasing and finding what I wanted to hear. There are a lot of cinematographers that use various forms of this not wide nor long 40mm lens, but there are also lot of reasons for that, not least of which is realistic lens choice available to them ana habits borne of early influences.

Does a few millimetres either way really make a difference?

My lens testing for video has revealed what I probably already knew, that the Spectrum 50, Panasonic 50, Hope 25 (MFT 50), Sirui 24 anamorphic (50 tall~35 wide on MFT) and cropped or not Pana 35 are all exceptional. I have other options, but 50mm seems to be the fulcrum of my search.

Problem is, I feel I like the 40 to 45mm for general purpose shooting finding 50mm a little tight, or does it really matter? The 1.8x crop GH5s turns the Hope 25 into a 45 equivalent, the Olympus 25 is actually wider than marked, so its then a 40mm-ish on the same cam and a 35 L mount with some stabilising applied is close to a 40, but to be honest I rarely notice.

This could all be in my mind and possibly an experienced shooter should be immune to minor lens restrictions and make what they have work. I always claim to.

We can adapt to what we have, I do it all the time when I miss judge a job, so is the need for a few millimetres wider or longer a thing and considering I use several different formats and shapes with varying levels of stabilising etc applied, is it mostly a pointless expectation anyway?

Taken with the equivalent to a 60mm, I always feel this lens makes a difference to a standard 50, but does it really? Possibly the specific lens ads more opinion than the focal length alone? The rendering of this lens is quite flat, a modern thing.

Maybe, instead of chasing that “one” perfect focal length with a desire to restrict myself, to identify myself by it, I could be the “any lens will do” guy?

The 40mm is the true, mathematical* standard lens on 35mm format, but lenses rarely hit their focal length number perfectly anyway. The true measure of a standard lens is a lens that matches your vision best.

I am suspicious I am a short tele user by preference in anything other than street photography, where I tend to sit on 30-35mm and the 50 as a long option, which is the very bottom of the portrait range. It suits many video shooters and in video in particular the frame is more controlled, so the exact focal length can be attended to. All you really do through lens choice is choose your compression and distortion, the framing is more user controlled.

Logically, if I am working toward interview and documentary work, a 50 and something much wider make more sense? The 40mm with its more relaxed look may sit in a space that is neither one nor the other.

So, are the 35 and 50 better combined especially if 2 or more cams are usually used and true wide angels can be employed for fluid work?

If I am honest with myself, 50-60 and 28-35mm probably sit better with me, the one lens thing is needlessly restrictive.

A desert island one lens only kit might suit the 40mm, but the reality is I would choose a two lens kit if I had the choice and I do.

Maybe this is the failing of the 40mm, it cannot be a faux wide or long lens, only a wide standard. Maybe because of this, it risks being irrelevant?

So, what do I have if I use a 50mm over a 40mm?

Framing, usually based on frame width, which is more a format thing anyway, is basically the same, just slightly more naturally compressed, has a hair less depth of field and more working distance, something MFT format changes anyway.

If I use the 35mm, there is the possibility of the mildest wide angle distortion, a touch more depth and less compression but otherwise same-same.

So, two ways of getting the same shot, both close to the same as 40mm, but more obviously different to each other.

This brings up the other thought, that if the 40mm becomes ground zero, but is then not perfect for every desired shot, where to from there? Is a 40 and 60 or 28 ideal? This suddenly starts to look like a three lens kit. I noticed when the Vespid 40 was on my radar, that the 21mm was also softly included in my thinking** and the 40’s saving grace was the 40/60/70/80 combo on various mounts.

Taken with a 30mm equivalent, wider than usual, but I realise I use it like a 35.

Maybe the right answer, the one I have been using for years and the one that fate seems to be pushing me towards, even if I think I know a better answer, is the 35 and 50 as my perfect one lens. Ironically a full frame camera and 35mm crops perfectly to 50mm in APS-C, and a 1.33x anamorphic 24mm on MFT is a 50/35 combination (45/30 on the GH5s), a lens I have two of, so a pair or more of the one-lens-that-are-actually-two option.

On top of all this, we all respond to certain lenses differently to others!

Shit, I could even use a zoom………..***

*The measured diagonal of the sensor area (42mm).

** The logic was a 40mm for full and MFT format, then several other focal lengths between the various formats from 21 to 80mm. So much for the one lens ideal.

***Turns out when I use a standard zoom, I tend to hover around 28-30 and 60-70mm!

Some Test Results

Ok, testing has started.

First thing is, my testing processes are lax, but workable, especially if I work towards specific answers to specific questions in tight groups.

The still grabs are a little milky looking, not what my screen was showing but I guess a result of grabbing not properly exporting.

First question.

How sharp is my Hope 25mm (used as a test base line)?

Very sharp. I have not compared it to my stills glass yet, but super duper sharp (GH5s, 3.7k, 8:1, B-Raw). Lovely contrast, nice smooth sharpness and very well behaved in all other respects.

This lens has a lovely presence, separation and an ease about it. It is micro sharp, but not overtly hard-crisp looking (but can be made to be).

Second tests

Are the two Sirui 24mm Anamorphics as good?

Just a hair behind but still fine. The Hope looked a little cooler and more clinical, but smoother and less pushed. I did notice a very slight colour shift between the two from just warmer, the “Blue” (a sticker I use for ID) being the most neutral and “White” slightly more magenta (might change that sticker to Red), but like I said, not perfect processes.

The Siruis at minimum focussing distance needed 1.25x stretch not 1.33, something I was aware of from another reviewers comments. They are contrast-sharp, not bitingly detailed, which for video, especially anamorphic “cine” video is fine.

Test 3

Can ProRes HQ 422 stand its ground against B-Raw Q5 and 8-1. These tests were about movement (streamers blown by a fan) and the stills were far from useful, but yes, I could see no difference between the Q5, 8:1 and PR HQ or even the high bit rate All-i footage from the GH5s. All produced elements of detailed sharpness mixed with movement blur.

There were differences in colour and overall look, the PR files looking cleaner and more processed, because they were by nature, but I could get colour and overall look very close even with my rudimentary skills. This means I have three cameras of much the same standard, even if only two are shooting B-Raw.

Test 4

Which lenses stand out in my full frame kit.

The 35 Pana, even when cropped to a 50 is a cracker of a lens. The two Panasonics have an effortless and gentle sharpness and contrast filling their roles as stills-hybrid lenses perfectly.

Smooth sharp, delicate and well controlled. I really like this lens.

The Spectrum 35 did not impress. Apart from the 4-600k warm colour shift, it is less sharp, but is it useless? It cannot be mixed in with my other glass realistically, but it can be used for a more “stylised” project, something that might fit its warmth and slight softness.

The Panasonic 50 is much the same as the Pana 35, I felt slightly sharper, but it was also shooting full frame and the difference if any was minimal. It was very slightly warmer, but unlike the Spectrum 35, not by much.

At about 300% there is good detail.

The Spectrum 50 was a revelation. I have always liked it more than the Spectrum 35 mechanically and prefer a cooler rendering, but it is possibly even crisper than the Pana 50 and close to a match to the Pana 35. Ironically, this is possibly the sharper stills lens and the matching interview lens to the Hope 25 and 50.

This was in my testing space (5600k main light), about perfect and lovely to handle as well.

Test 5

Does 3:1 massively out resolve 8:1 in 6k?

I thought it did, then I realised the section of the 8:1 clip I was looking at was very focussed very slightly behind the same point on the 3:1 clip. When matched, the detail in the hat rim was nearly identical at 200% or more.

There is a small hair over the left eye that looked on very close inspection to be about the same at both resolutions.

Conclusions after round 1

My best lenses (so far) are the Hope 25, Pana 35 and 50, Spectrum 50, which can be used interchangeably, although the Spectrum 50 is probably the hard-sharpest, so it may be the one to put a stronger filter on.

Looking for my “one lens” for each format the Hope 25/50 and Pana 35/50 are a good matching set. I now need to test the Sigma and Olympus zooms in this mix.

The 35mm will be reserved for a special project, something warm, smooth and cinematic.

The anamorphic twins are equally good, with a unique look, strong contrast over pure sharpness and the slight colour difference between the two can be matched to different cameras (the neutral one on the GH5s). I have a 50mm coming in L-Mount, so the next raft of tests will look at the three in concert.

The visual difference between 4-6k, 8:1 and Q5, ProRes HQ, All-i and 3:1 is irrelevant for most of my needs, so 8:1 it will be used unless I cannot, then All-i or ProRes can be selected without fear of a noticeable quality shift. V-Log ProRes HQ needs to be used more in fact and even All-i Log for that matter.

I did do a clip of ProRes 422 vs HQ (forgot to do a still) and could see a slight difference in detail in the busiest areas, so HQ will be the minimum.

A Lens

I have been looking for “a” or possibly “the” lens for video.

The lens I am looking for is going to be my baseline or bedrock lens for my full frame and possibly MFT video cameras, my first stop interview lens and my pivot point for all else to revolve around.

The Vespid 40mm was in the mix, but it pushes my funds at the moment and unbalances my kit, it is also possibly bettered by the new version of itself or the Nisi Athenas and also possibly matched by the new 7Artisan Infinte range for less.

The IRIX 21 or Vespid 21 in ARRI mount would also do, giving me a 42/37/30/21 range on my four formats, but again, money I do not wish to spend.

Also, if I go into a base level pro cine lens, then everything else I have makes little sense.

The other issue is, I have two formats to feed and make choices around. The Vespid and IRIX have the advantage of fitting on all mounts making a total of four focal lengths, but only one at a time. I need a pair of lenses to make an interview set, a third option is even better.

MFT has the excellent Hope 25 and 50mm for interviews. These are lovely and certainly enough matching the raw quality of my stills primes with cinematic mechanics, a lovely look and some decent presence. I have two B-Raw capable cams in MFT, so a matching pair matters if that format is used exclusively.

I could also use my matching 24 anamorphic lenses, or my Olympus and Panasonic stills glass, but at the end of the day, the Hope lenses are my simplest fix.

In full frame however it becomes both easier and harder.

I have a pair of Spectrum lenses, a 35 and a 50, which with APS-C cropping can be combinations of 35-50 and 50-75, but these actually do not match each other brilliantly, having the largest colour cast difference of any two lenses I have. The 50mm is in what I would call my workable kit range, the 35mm an aberrant unit. The 50mm does fit decently with the Hope lenses.

There is also the IRIX 150, a long option, but strong for it. This lens is my best cinema lens by cost and reputation, but it has no mate, unless it comes close to the lenses I have.

My safest bet is the S-Prime Panasonic set.

Of these, the 35 is the special one, it may be the core lens I have been looking for, right under my nose the whole time. It is rumoured to be Leica glass re-housed, but true or not, it is a cracking good lens.

The 35 S-Prime and Spectrum 50 actually share similar colour and are both fun to use, so an odd pairing, but workable, but that is a mute point really as I only have one full frame camera that shoots B-Raw/ProRes HQ at the moment, the S5.

I have taken a chance on some well researched lens sets and mostly benefitted, but some have shone above others.

So, a full frame and two MFT cams with potentially “full noise” B-Raw or at least 4k/10 bit/422/ProRes/HQ, making for a three lens “ideal” set.

As things stand, for a pro interview kit I would go with;

• S5 + 35 S-Prime (or as APS-C 50mm) or 50 Spectrum (optional 75) as A-Cam.

• GH5s with the Hope 50 (as a 90mm) B-Cam.

• G9II with the Hope 25 (as a 50mm), 12mm Vision (24mm) or a stills lens for AF as mobile/C-Cam.

Do I need a “super” lens, a lens that goes into that base level pro cine lens space or will these do? If I did go into one, would I see the difference and would it lead to more and more?

It Has Never Been More True

This is a reality;

Gear is getting dearer, but not necessarily better.

Sponsored reviewers are pushing the same old body wearing a new outfit and no brand is excepted. Feature shuffling is not advancement.

Part of the problem is makers are hitting a wall of realistic sufficiency at the same time as the market is softening and tech is topping out, which is reducing funds and incentive for research at the same time as living costs are increasing and AI threatens the whole point of it.

A developmental spiral of death.

In other words, fewer people need fewer new things, but brands need to push product forward to survive and grow, even if all they can do is regurgitate the same old things re-dressed.

Another opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gvXPuqLzZc

Is there really a need for growth from a users perspective?

Stills photography has reached a point of sufficiency for most needs, but video does have some rough edges to smooth out.

We have enough now, have had for a while and client realities often lower our own expectations for us but the push is for professional movie making gear at a premium and to be honest, we are getting closer right now than we possibly realise.

A brand suffering a lot of recent criticism for releasing improved versions of all their work horse recorders, with 32 bit float (a good thing usually), but with interference, questionable firmware, hardware and handling choices, creating a chorus of “just buy the old one, it’s better” from reviewers and users.

I am running a few Panasonic hybrid cams, all recently purchased, but not all are new (GH5s/S5), because looking at them in direct comparison to newer cams, they still hold up, indeed in some ways they are better. Often a camera line is perfectly balanced at some point, but need or perceived need for improvements tend to break that balance.

Do we need 6k, 4k 300fps, super-super sharp sensors, lenses and screens, that then get softened by ever more aggressive filtering.

I remember years ago having the chance to compare a 1970’s ring-lock Canon FD 100mm f4 macro to the latest EF 100 f2.8 USM-L. What struck me was the image quality difference. There was none to any appreciable measure. The new lens was the fifth in a long and prestigious line of pivotal lenses in a well respected range. It was the third f2.8 model, second with AF, the second mount used, second internal focus model, but all those handling improvements did not add one thing to the quality of the image. All the advancements were simply to accomodate handling and selling based improvements.

Makers at the moment seem to be following poor advice drawn from self defeating algorithms, chasing happiness ghosts in effect and not improving the things that are most important, if less exciting.

Cooler running cams with better battery life, cleaner, smoother images with lower noise, clearer view finders, menus and layout are all wanted, but instead we get a patchwork of some of these at the expense of others and often just a feature rotation.

The Canon “cripple hammer”, Sony same-same, but different reinvention training and others are a thing, so research not just the fluff, but the history and its relevance.

Processing and codecs is where you should look. My S5 and GH5s are Raw output cameras, which make them automatically better than the newer S5II (the S5IIx would match them, but for as much as both together).

The BMPCC4k is a prime example of a camera improvement done right.

This now relatively ancient camera offers B-Raw and ProRes Raw in a proven form factor, it is still capable of more improvements and the image is beautiful by any standars. All this is bought new for less than the price of a second hand A7III, S5, EOS R, etc, none of which have it’s capabilities out of the box (or at all).

An interesting trend around here is the older Panasonic cams seem to be holding their price, another sign that older ain’t necessarily bad.