Video Quality, Real Needs And Perceptions

I have been doing a lot of reading and watching lately, had some concrete ideas that have disintegrated into sand and reform, only to do it again, but within all that, I have noticed some things that, when I chose to listen, have managed to enlighten me.

1)

The images I see that I like have little to do with codec, camera, or lens. They are generally contrasty, sharp and realistic, something that was the norm prior to the current regime.

2)

Cameras and lenses can look different to each other, which makes us question what we have, try more and buy more, but they can also, more often than not look the same. Most reviews “normalise” to the point where we are only looking at the most basic level of their output. Yes brand or camera “X” is slightly sharper looking than “Y”, but in the hands of a decent colourist, “Y” may end up looking better or at least the same. There are too many variables to know from a simple test.

3)

You need to chase what you want and when you do, when you know what you are actually trying to achieve, gear and process concerns fall away.

4)

Listing to that little voice that says “I am seeing a lot of this, maybe time to shift direction” or “I am sick of that flat, washed out, overly soft look, so maybe everyone else is?” and change your processes until you like what you do.

This is a super sharp image taken with a video lens on a video capable camera. Why cant modern video look snappy and life like?

5)

Read and research less, look and learn more. The grass is not always greener nor the sky bluer elsewhere and even if it is, is greener always better?

Basically, fight back, change perceptions evolve and drag the rest of us with you, don’t let analysis paralysis stop you, don’t be a follower.

On a practical level, where this post started but quickly got de-railed, I am noticing that often V-Log footage looks as good as RAW, sometimes even a rec.709 codec can. My desire to expand my B-Raw capabilities has been reduced after some close calls, now looking at V-Log as my norm, B-Raw as my “safety net” and personal indulgence.

My recent lens purchase has helped me put some things into perspective. Yes the Vespid 40mm is the best video lens I own, no doubt, but my cheaper or less specialised glass is also pretty close.

The S-Primes, Hope series and others can produce, I just need to get better at it myself. More RAW capable cameras for 3-4 cam interviews would be overkill, because in those controlled situations, even Standard mode could be enough.

Time to produce, not prepare. Time to practice what I just preached.

A Temptation, Or A Reality Check.

I always have a shall (large?, hard to tell anymore), shopping list of “practical things I might need in the future”, which is the boring version of the “things I just want” which the Vespid was on.

One list I obsess over, the other I just collate, ready for the inevitable need to replace.

The OM System 8-25 F4 is on the list, the boring list, as it is a replacement for several lenses, the 8-18, which is fine but has been dropped twice and is a little short as an “all-rounder”, the 12-40 f2.8, still ailing from a trip to a sandy beach, a “lumpy” zoom the result and my 12-60 Leica, that has decided lately to do the “AF shuffle” every time I turn it on, even if AF and stabe are off.

All are working, all do their jobs as expected, all act as backups to the other, but the 8-25 does offer an overlap that possibly reduces the need to carry two lenses and frees up the 8-18 for video duties (or the other way around). An 8-25 and 40-150 has no noticeable gap, an 8-18 and 40-150 do, meaning I often carry a fast prime as a filler as I find 25mm (50mm equivalent) to be the perfect small group portrait lens.

The actual lens is a friends bought mint second hand and he will sell it to me “right” if I take it, otherwise he will list it.

Great performance across the frame, as expected.

Every lens has a “feel” and for me, this lens screams “get in close”, which it does really well.

Close focus is good, but this little guy was so small, it still took some cropping.

It also screams less loudly, “get it all in”.

Flare was interesting, that is to say ugly. I have just been doing stress tests on cine lenses and the only time I got anything like this was an off-angle with a huge matt box ND filter mounted.

Pleasant enough Bokeh, nothing that detracts anyway.

Just to be a little unfair to it, I threw in a Vespid shot from yesterday.

To be honest, I am blown away by this lens, the images it creates and the experience of using it. It surprises me how much it has affected me, I was gearing up for disappointment and possible regret, even returning it, but it has won me over quickly. Making a great stills lens requires a set of criteria are met, but when dealing with genuinely good cinema glass, a more wholistic approach is taken to the only thing that matters, various image qualities.

Timing is a thing. The fact is, this lens sits below the tiny 12-45 f4 on my to get list, even below the auto buy of another 40-150 f2.8 if I need to.

My other list, the one that makes me happier has the DZO Vespid Mk1 25mm on it, a lens to match the 40 as a 25/38 and 45/50 option. The Hope 25 and 50 do its job now and may for ever, but we will see.

Replacing work horse lenses is a business expense, one I am not forced to make right now.

The Vespid is a thing we do it for, a personal choice, not needed, but wanted.

Rushed Test, Because The Light Was Great

After a couple of gloomy and wet days, we had a cracking morning here, well for a while at least.

In the week we were away, autumn has rolled through with a vengeance, the unturned leaves have turned, some trees gone to bare in no time it seems, but plenty to find when it presents.

I grabbed the Vespid, GH5s (hand held, no stabe in a bulky rig, not pretty) and mounted the Neewer 5 stop ND and matt box.

The footage was shot in 4k, Q3, B-Raw, a basic power grade applied then curves adjusted as needed, more to make up for my exposure misses than anything.

I used mostly T4, a little T2.1 for the flare test and ISO 320-800 on the GH5s.

The top leaf is stunningly sharp, but my takeaway is, the whole image looks harmonious and focus was very easy to find.

Some mild flare from off axis sunlight, but still sharp and if I wanted to, it was fully adjustable.

A little dark and as shot, this was subtle and contrasty on screen.

Just a lovely image. In the footage I rolled through from front to back out of focus, the result felt effortless and natural, no obvious breathing, nice Bokeh throughout.

It occurred to me a little later that this would be a good time for a Vespid-Hope comparison.

Same camera, same filter etc, slightly different light and the extra 10mm made handling and focus slightly tougher.

Also very sharp, the duller look may be down to me, not the lens.

Off axis flare on this lens is either absent of there, less of a creative tool than the Vespid.

Ok, not a fair comparison, because the light was harder, but still some gut feelings to go on with.

The Vespid files look more delicate, more open and gentler. Flare was full image area veiling, mostly fixable, but pleasant enough and a tool, not a problem.

The Hope files are less punchy, but again, maybe the harder light and I did apply the same power grade, which may have suited the Vespid more. They are as sharp when the comparison was fair. I found the Hope harder to work with, but I was rushed, it is longer, the light was harder and close focus was also longer.

In fairness to the Vespid though, I had never used it before, so it feeling very natural is a good sign. I was using the GH5s set up for tripod work, not hand holding (my G9II was not rigged for B-Raw), with a cheap slightly loose adapter, but I still found the whole experience pleasant.

The Hope, given a fair chance, is capable of producing quality enough to match Vespid footage. The difference in cameras will likely be more telling. The Hope 25 on the G9II and Vespid as a 40 on my S5 will probably handle similarly, the Neewer filter was excellent except for possibly some nasty purple flare I noticed when shift location on the Hope.

The Vespid is also delicately sharp enough to slot in well with the Sirui anamorphics.

The only way to make any sort of determination about a lens is to use it for a while, so time to do just that.

I also got a chance to shoot some stills with the Vespid on a G9.1. A 6k test I guess. I missed focus a few times, but mostly got what I expected.

Love this lens.

Might get another when the dust settles, probably a 25 (giving me a total range of 25-80 across all formats).

It's Over I Think.

No more street shooting for me, well no obsession for it, maybe just a little as it arises.

Another issue is the mobile phone “shape”, basically changing street photography from capturing life to capturing our screen obsession.

People as more of the scenery are more appealing.

Or just none at all.

Japan Kit, After Action Report

So, what did I actually use on the trip?

It looks like my days of street shooting excitement are over (more on that to come), but I did do some this trip never the less.

My interest has shifted to places people frequent, but sans people it seems. part f this is a consciousness that people are more aware and wary of a middle aged dude with a camera and I am ok with that.

Tokyo is tall and busy, that sums it up decently, tall and busy. Height needs a wide zoom, busy needed some reach to compress and tidy up compositions, the “everyday street corner” habit I developed needed something in the middle, so the 12-60 lit lens did most days.

Harajuku

I did try to use the primes, but unless I needed the speed, the 12-60 kit was plenty. Set to AF, central focus point (notched one box down to catch more, at f5.6. I did not miss many and at that aperture, Bokeh was irrelevant.

Kagurazaka or “little Paris”

The 45 was used in tandem with the 17 one rainy night in Harajuku, then I put both away. The 9mm was never used (no vast temple interiors), the 15 was used a little more and the 40-150 was usually packed just in case, used for about 15% of the files, especially in parks etc. My one day of trying the 15 and 40-150 was a day of lens changes, mind changes and more lens changes.

One slightly faulty EM10.2 did the bulk of the trip.

Tight cropping in Shinjuku

The second one decided to ignore requests for the back screen for viewing only showing the info screen (seems the info button was dead), which on top of its quirks with screen angles (both of them will give me the back screen only at 45 degrees, not at horizontal or vertical), it was just too much to bother with and the Pen Mini was used once, then the lack of a tilt screen and its annoying habit of selecting and shifting exposure comp without me realising, got it shelved.

A little reach in Kanda Jimbocho. This is effectively the length of a block on the 40-150.

Batteries were excellent, shooting over 1700 images over one day with a little over two batts out of four at hand. I used about 40-50gb of card memory spread over several cards for safety.

Koishikawa Korsakuen Garden.

Once I got myself sorted, it all went brilliantly and my day bag, a canvas tote with camera insert, down vest, rain coat and stuff, weighed about 2-3kg all up.

The Vespid Has Arrived, With a New Friend

On our last day in Tokyo, a day of filling in the hours before our over night flight, we decided to revisit the Ueno Market and walk back to our hotel and the airport limousine station in Ningyocho.

I discovered ne of few camera stores, a special one, dedicated to film era gear.

Thanks to a translation device, I managed to avoid a Pen half frame 42 f1.2 with a lazy aperture (fine for stills, just not video) and picked up the 28mm f2.8 AI Nikkor.

The later 8 element AI-S version is a legendary lens, probably the best Nikkor wide of the era, but the 7 element AI version was decent enough to create a legend to better it.

It is mint, as in, like a new one mint, pretty good for a lens that came out when I was seven (a long time ok, don’t be rude). For $135au, I got a lens worth taking a chance on, a reliable classic. I have a cheap Nk > EOS and EOS > MFT adapter (what a mess), so this can be tested before I get an L-mount one as I intend to use it as a 40mm equivalent in the APS-C setting of the S5.

Slightly bigger than the Hope and just noticeably heavier (both are hefty, but the Vespid is the denser feeling lump, the S-Prime feeling like a “fake sampler” lens in comparison.

The Vespid 40mm which came today can also be tried out on an MFT body if I switch it over to EF mount, but I have already ordered a Nisi PL-L adapter (well made, considered a decent match and considerably cheaper than the Vespid one). If it works out, I will get the Nisi PL-MFT also, but the 40/60 combo is the main application I have planned.

Comparing it to my Hope lenses, the 50mm in particular (after I changed the mount to EF), has stirred up some fears to be honest.

What if this legendary lens is no better than my Hope glass?

If it is equal, that would be ok as I have decided to mostly make it a full frame/APS-c companion to those.

This is my Hope 50 at T4 (I missed focus at T2.1), but a preferred aperture anyway. Clean, sharp and still some snap even though the subjects are 4ft away and about 2” apart, staggered. I did match colour on this one as it was originally a little warm-green. Colour matching is probably going to be the biggest issue, the 50 is cooler than the 25 Hope, so a huge difference to the Vespid.

Shot from the same spot and cropped to match the shot above, the Vespid at T4. Colour left alone. I am seeing a slightly less clean, more natural looking file.

Hope on the left, looking cleaner, but that is after being quickly balanced from warmer-murkier.

And even tighter. They seem pretty close in sharpness, so it is a look thing only, which I knew already. On very close inspection, I will give the gong to the Vespid at T4, by a hair, but the Hope at T4 is sharper than the Vespid wide open.

Now the Hope at T4 vs the Vespid at T2.1, mostly to compare sharpness.

And again for sharpness. The Hope has a slight edge, but I knew that the Vespid wide open has a softer character.

When I bought this lens, it was partly because the one I was first interested in became the only one on sale at the right time in my thinking, but also to “scratch that itch”, but I had a mild suspicion it would make little difference in comparison to the excellent S-Primes, Hopes and various other budget cine options I have.

As an example the IRIX 150 macro is excellent, but so is the Spectrum 50 and they are in turn little different to the S-series Panasonic lenses.

So, what have I achieved?

A Hope grade lens for my S5 that has that special something?

The Hope lenses are enough for MFT, saving me (for now) buying an adapter.

A single lens that can be used on all of my cameras (with a $300au mount-I have chosen Nisi PL adapters) with a set of focal lengths that to be honest cover all I use for video. It has a good reputation, especially for a characterful look and one that impresses on sight.

I had a lot of that already, but I also had a need to be sure and felt that fate was guiding me (gets me in trouble some times fate, costs time and money).

Like the BMPCC4k, I knew it would likely not change much, but we will see.

This is the end of the line for my purchases until I have a genuine need for something that will make a definite difference, not a “head worm” compulsion.

That Beautiful Light You Find In Big Cities

Reflected light is something photographers and cinematographers often chase or create.

It adds brilliance that an overcast day removes while retaining a soft and even illumination that direct strong light cannot.

Hibiya

Tokyo is a prime example of the “big” light that many shiny and clean glass buildings can produce on a good day, especially Shinjuku and Hibiya.

Hibiya

Glowing flag poles Hibiya

Shinjuku

Hibiya

Shinjuku, the “melting ice block” building.

Hibiya

Hibiya

I find that it is the most useful of light types, there is always something happening from one direction or another and even the most mundane buildings can take on an other worldly beauty.

Shinjuku, channelling a little “Stephen Shore”.

Shinjuku

Shinjuku

And Just Like That, It's Over.

It has been a while since out last trip to Tokyo, pre-COVID to be precise, so it is to be expected we would miss-remember things, get scales wrong and generally get wonderfully lost as we wind our way, but the things that we discovered, suburbs that blew our minds and the pleasure of discovery through walking cannot be over stated.

My previous memory of Shinjuku consisted of a train stop, emerging outside of a BIC camera (more on that in a moment), a wander under the train bridge to the “crazy” side, then back. It was late in the evening, a cooler time of year and one of our first trips.

This time we came at it from the Harajuku direction, on a brilliant sunny day and the business area, a zone of massive buildings and pristine streets, bisected by the little commercial side streets all Japanese cities need to survive was mind boggling in scale, especially when you take into account it is only a part of a bigger whole.

BIC camera was a slight dissapointlemtn. No Domke bags! I picked up a F3x in olive rugged ware in Tokyo, never have I seen one anywhere else, other limited edition bags also, now it is a dissapointing offer of PD, some Mind Shift and generic Japanese brands.

Day 5 People, People, People

We did the Sunday gauntlet of Shibuya, Harajuku, Shinjuku, back to Harajuku.

Lots of km’s lots of people, lovely day.

Big eye opener was Shinjuku. We had been once before, but came up from the underground late one evening on the “Godzilla” side. The shiny commercial district, which we totally missed was a real eye opener.

Day 4, Best So Far

A long trek today, 15km roughly from the old Jimbocho book district to Tokyo Dome, the
Koishikawa Korakuen gardens there, through the Kagurazaka French quarter then to the Palace, along the exclusive Marunouchi Naka-Dori Ave shopping strip then into Ginza.

The whole day was shot on the EM10.2 and 12-60 (mostly) or 40-150 kit zooms.

Still blows me away there is a whole amusement park in the middle of Tokyo.

Well, Sometimes Things Happen, They Just Do!

I have slowly gone cold on the BMPCC4k idea.

It may happen, but I am leaning towards an all Panasonic family tree, with or without B-Raw.

The camera would provide me with beautiful footage I have no doubt, but it would not necessarily match my other cameras and the G9II really could be upgraded for less, or maybe I will just sit on what I have.

My email feed did tempt me though with something I chose not to resist.

The DZO Vespid 40 T2.1, on special for $920au (only this lens of the set, the one I originally wanted, the “one” lens), so I jumped as I had also been paid by several clients in the same email batch. Basically I have saved enough to pay for an adapter.

The real deal?

This is my 40/60 and 70/80mm on various formats*, basically all my favourite focal lengths for video in one lens with two adapters (I have a cheap EF-MFT adapter, so we will see).

I know the Mk2’s are technically better, but I am not spending $2000au on a lens and I have a need for a smooth-sharp cine lens, nothing sharper as I have sharper, so the older set appeals more.

Crazy?

Probably, but I also tend to go with big fat obvious signs when they are delivered.

What this purchase may do for me is;

  • Put the rest of my lens stable, cine and not into perspective. Try as I might, I cannot find a comparison of the Vespids to cheaper cine lenses like the Spectrum or Hope glass or even the Lumix S-Primes.

  • Give me a format and mount proof investment lens, any mount any brand. “Marry the lens, date the camera (brand)”.

  • Hopefully give me the special something, or not.

Along with the L-mount IRIX 150, I can cover 40-225mm, so if successful, I may look again at the 25mm, or not.

*Fullframe, APS-C, 1.8x MFT, 2x MFT.

Japan Kit

So the actual Japan kit became;

2x EM10.2’s, both with screens that are faulty (will not work flat or horizontal, but ok in between at about 45 degrees).

Usually just one of these in a bag will have the alternate to below, so a 12-60, 40-150, 9 or 45mm.

1x Pen Mini 2 on a shoulder strap with 17mm attached (street grabs).

Nothing extravagant, nothing precious and nothing heavy. Does the job.

First morning and cranes are a thing it seems (all images 45mm).

Multiple building projects, some with as many as eight of these monster cranes.

So much construction going on, always busy, always organised.

The results can be spectacular or at least interesting.

Why I Won't Be Buying "Little White"

“Little White as some have called it, the OM System 50-200 is gorgeous, but I will not be buying one, in fact if I had a need, I would replace what I have now.

I reluctantly looked at a few reviews lately. Side by sides with various lenses, with and without teleconverters, some scientific, some field.

A quick grab of a long time spectator. Could it be any sharper and if so, who would care? EM1x, 40-150 f4.

The general consensus is, yes, it is superb, but so are the 40-150 f2.8 ($1500au new, $1000 s/h), 40-150 f4 ($1100au/ $700 s/h) and 300 f4 ($3800au/$2500au s/h) and yes, I have all of these and they serve me perfectly well.

The reality is, to split them is to split the proverbial hair, so value for money wise, it is a poor direction for me to go. The reality is, a camera upgrade would probably do as much.

Taken today at a NWFL match. Cropped to about half no issue.

My standard process is to shoot with the 300 on one shoulder, a 40-150 (chosen by light) on the other. I will hold to the 300 until the subject is impossibly close, then switch to the shorter lens and 150 is about right to get the subject and their surrounds, both models providing images so sharp, I can crop easily to 1/4 the original for most uses (nobody has ever complained).

Same as above. Most reviewers have found that all of the lenses, with or without teleconverters, even some of the cheaper zooms are all much the same, which is to say excellent and more than enough for most uses.

Hope that the new lens could replace both in one is valid, it could, especially with the matched teleconverter, but can it do a visually better job or be more versatile?

Not really, not enough for me to spend enough to buy an OM-1 and replace my 40-150 f2.8.

I just realised, my last two post were concerning a brilliant new lens I don’t want and a dated old camera I do. We are here folks, gear is now a matter of taste again, not a creeping need.

The Itch To Scratch, The BMPCC4k

So this one will not go away, but I feel that maybe I am being steered this way by a universe intent on me getting it right once and for all.

The Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera 4k (4k from now) is quite possibly the biggest giver of all the available video options right now.

Big statement in the era of power house cameras.

On release, it did not have B-Raw, but now it does, Resolve did not and it seemed like it never would support ProRes RAW, and now it and the camera both do. This thing just keeps getting better.

It does add several things I do not have while at the same time giving me that third B-Raw capable camera (I like to do interviews with a left, right and wide option).

Even years after release, it is still more than relevant.

I get a real BM screen and interface, a 1080 B-Raw recorder (not an option with HDMI RAW out cameras which are always 4-6k), better BM integration and implementation (ISO, highlight recovery), for a price in the same class as the recorder alone.

The HDMI could then be used for a small screen, like the Portkeys PT6 I have laying around.

Logic would suggest I buy a third BMVA, 12g 5” for $900au, so my third Lumix (the “movement” G9II) is consistent with the others. What puts me off that a little is the price when compared to other options and the reality that apart from consistency and depth, I would not be bringing anything new to the table and possibly messing with my best and cleanest portable camera option. I can use the G9II with a BMVA like any other Lumix, just not with all my other cameras at once.

Same look, same slightly messy dynamic, just dotting an “i” really.

To put this in context, I have been looking for the cinematic “one lens” lately and I have looked at a lot of comparison videos (as you do), trying to decide between lens “a” and lens “q”, but then something hit me.

I was often responding more to the cameras used and how they were applied than the lenses. I have good lenses, great ones even, the camera seemed to make more visible difference, making choosing lenses a nightmare!

examples;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz02W93nVC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXdo1Tqvm4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O4qMsrPieM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmtjW6gt6Eg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djRfHF-gI54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k858DITfNMk

Maybe then, the shortest route to a more “cinematic” look for me is the camera, not the lenses and from a practical perspective, what is the point of adding anything if it does not support and expand what I have now?

Reasons to go with the 4k;

  1. I seem to need to scratch that itch, to be able to compare the difference while increasing my offer and not straying far from my B-Raw “patch”. My unanswered question is does adding a dedicated cinema camera and/or a serious cinema lens make a visual difference.

  2. Even if I change my mind, turning it around would lose me maybe $400, so less perilous than a bad lens choice.

  3. For only $300au more than a BMVA 7”, I get a 5” BMVA with a camera built in, no clutter or excess cabling outside of choices I make. It also has an mini XLR audio in and I am going to assume less fan noise, so a mini 7” by default.

  4. A new camera also frees up the G9II for stills work, so an upgrade in that space.

  5. I can even run it with a BMVA for backup or my little PT6 screen.

  6. B-Raw is better realised in a dedicated BM camera, especially ISO control and highlight recovery.

  7. It brings all my cameras into line with each other (3x B-Raw capable models).

  8. I would have a ProRes RAW capable camera.

  9. It can operate without clutter unlike a Lumix+BMVA.

  10. I have the infrastructure, lots of battery, screen and rigging bits to draw from. All I need is a D-tap cable for a V-Mount.

  11. The camera may well upgrade all my lenses, while a lens (for similar money), may not make a huge difference.

  12. No latency, an issue with Pana cams running out via HDMI.

  13. It would be the first camera I have bought since my Pen-F that would be for me as much as my business needs.

  14. App support.

  15. Complete power needs can be supplied from mains via one cable.

  16. It will make me a better film maker, i.e everything will be harder for better results, which is good.

But…………..

For $2500au (i.e $1000 more), I could go into a GH7.

The issues are of course, basically a lone wolf, capable of ProRes RAW with an expensive CF Xpress-B card, which is again not a compatible codec with anything else I have, the option of ARRI Log as a paid option (same issues as previous), the same V-Log, AF, Stabe and RAW-out of the G9II.

It is a power house camera no doubt, but does it bring to me anything other than new complications? If I could only have one camera, this would be it, but the thing is I have other cameras.

A $2000au G9II body would do the same in this case and the difference would mostly pay the needed BMVA 5”.

Back to the BMPCC4k, as it provides all of these benefits, without the issues or extra costs and what it does not do exceptionally (stabe, AF), I do not actually need as I already have other options.

Ok, curve ball time.

The BM Micro G2 studio camera.

A tiny, more battery friendly, live streaming capable BMPCC4k variant. It needs a screen (I have one and the menu to generic screens is ok, just different to the BMVA’s), but a Pyxis screen gives you full BM interface on a compact 5” screen for less than a 3G recorder.

So, dearer than the BMPCC4k, or is it?

The 4k needs to be attached to a battery option (only 20-30mins with the internal), which means a V-Mount/NP plate, or the grip for 2x NP 570’s. Life is then 2-5hrs depending on which, but assumes the already wide camera can also go deep and heavy.

The fixed screen is also a problem as the likely battery placement would be behind (not buying anything else), so the screen would be partially obscured or you get the grip and end up with a monster SLR configuration.

The G2 is one of the smallest of the box cameras, smaller than a BGH1, with a light weight screen on top, a big battery conforming to the back plate of the camera and a cage (lots around) if needed.

If I want a (1) third static B-Raw capable camera, (2) something smaller and lighter (3) possible streaming option (my BMVA 12 can also, making a network) this might be it. It is not perfect, it has different needs to the 4k, not better or worse, just different.

The bare cost is basically the same as the 4k, needed accessories ranging from $0-600*, but the 4k could cost me nothing more than the camera, maybe a half cage, work arounds are assumed.

If I bought the G2 only, I would be rigging it out with a Portkeys PT6 screen, V-Mount plate, some type of handle (various) and end up with a smaller and lighter cam than the 4k with a thin shape and fix the battery blocking the screen issue.

The 4k on its own is fine, the NP and V-Mount battery options could be reserved for static use (several LP-E6’s are cheap enough), the screen is integrated, so a wide but optionally shallow camera. With the grip, I could use my many small NP batteries for something useful.

In static use, it makes little difference, the difference is in handling and that is really a Lumix speciality anyway.

*The norm is a cage and Pyxis screen, but the reality is I have everything.







Possibly A Reason Why Current Photos Are Less Satisfying

If you take time to look at the work of past photographers and cinematographers, people just like us, who were slaves to technical limitations and the trends of the time, something becomes evident and it may help to explain why modern “big hit” images and scenes have little lasting power. Images made with the simple majesty of Stephen Shore http://stephenshore.net/photographs.php , or Michael Kenna https://www.michaelkenna.com , the story telling of Sam Abel https://samabell.com/new-index/ quirky humour of Martin Parr https://martinparr.com , emotive and tragically beautiful Salgado https://www.icp.org/browse/archive/constituents/sebastião-salgado , timeless Saul Leiter https://www.saulleiterfoundation.org and meditative Harry Gruyaert do https://www.harrygruyaert-film.com .

That missing thing is the use of deeper depth of field.

The subject of this image would be ok I guess if cut out from a blurry background, but context would be lost for no benefit.

Not that more depth of field equals better images by definition, but in this highly ironic time of not needing wide apertures any more, but seeming to be addicted to them, many have fallen back on the sharp-soft look as a visual crutch.

Many images need only sharpness from front to back, selective blurring would do nothing but confuse the visual clarity of the image.

Some images need deep depth of field by definition, like landscapes or architectural, because the subject is the environment, it’s all important, but sometimes nothing can become something, simply by seeing that potential.

Stephen Shore is probably one of the best examples of seeing the ordinary without the needed main subject. His images do not have a hero, they are anchored by colour or shape, sometimes relevance to place. The stage is the hero, not the actor.

From a series of Japanese street corners, a project that needs attending.

Two faces are important in theis shot, one near, one far. neither would hold as much interest on their own.

Sharp front to back is an important tool becasue even though our own eyes have immense depth of field, we only focus on what we look specifically at, but in a still image, that attention can wander.

Every element of the image must serve to impart information or support the information provided.

Depth of field does not have to be perfectly sharp, just coherent enough to show shape and help form a story. The main gesticulating in the background is the subject, every other element draws you there, but not immediately.

Depth allows for multiple shapes to emerge and allow all things to have their place.

One of the reasons deep depth images are used less, is because they are often hard to get right.

You have to balance all the elements, even be a little lucky sometimes. Colourists need to balance the eye catching elements like reds and yelloews, mono shooters have to balance tones and textures on a “flatter” palette.

First you see red, then the individuals become evident, lastly (to me) blue and yellow play a part.

When the very front and far distance are equal in all areas, the image sits harmoniously, it breathes and relaxes.

The secret of course is comprehension. There is more to see, more to explore, more to reveal as you look, it is not a sugar hit of beauty, something we grasp instantaneously, then file away and move on from, it is layered, complicated (even if it is simple) and it puts us in its moment.

Like many images in this post, this was taken with the 17mm f1.8. Unlike most of the others, this one was shot wide open in “available gloom”. A very special feature of this lens is its ability to hero a focus point, while including the whole of the image for context, sometimes even wide open (focus was on the man in the white shirt and suit jacket).

“Reservoir Dogs” Osaka, an image with a dozen stories, shallow depth of field only reducing their effect.

If an image has a hero element, the temptation is the exaggerate that, but sometimes the strength of the main player is increased in context.

A lone subject front and centre, active and red and white even for impact, but there is more to see.

Cut away cleanly, this mans story is one of quiet loneliness. With a supporting cast of detached, searching people, his place in the tableau shifts to one of calm, like a rock in a stream.

Following lines, literal and of the eye, with a cinematic brilliance. Seemingly infinite depth of field is often a benefit, not a curse.

If there is a sharp to soft transition, it does not have to be fast or dramatic. The eye can see many ways, but lens tricks that defy then only draw attention to themselves.

No single face here is compelling on its own, but with depth four different stories are told.

As I continue my journey in this craft, some things are becoming ever more strongly evident.

I like naturalness and seek invisibility in my image making.

This means normal focal length lenses from 28 to 90mm (ffe), because I am really growing to dislike photographic tricks such as over use of shallow depth of field (it’s not Bokeh, just an exaggerated form of it), image flatness and compression, wide angle distortion, poor technique resulting in motion blur passed of as “art” and compositional laziness.

One of the things that strikes me about the work of many of the greats of documentary, street and real life photography is their images are devoid of obvious process, of technical constraint.

They are the result of their camera capturing what they saw so your eyes can see the same thing.

This is not creative interpretation, it is literal interpretation, something only photography can do.

I am very glad I have found this clarity of vision on the eve of another trip to Tokyo. Part of it came from thinking about gear, which led to images made and eventually to here.

I work as a photographer, which it seems may have put my personal processes in peril. My need to get the image at any reasonable cost has to be discarded when I am away, my love of story telling depth re-embraced.

Perfect timing.

Japan Kit Sorted!

Had a thought the other night, one of those lying in bed late at night (early morning) thinking too hard about things that do not matter. I was distracting myself with better things, trips away and time off.

Japan, what to do?

When I last travelled and enjoyed the experience photographically, what did I do?

Melbourne, two years ago, Pen Mini, 17mm lens. Sooo many pictures, total freedom, light and fast, I remember only deciding to take anything at all at the last minute, but was so glad I did.

It was like the early Japan trips, an EM5, the 17 or the 45, simple.

I intend to take, and I am already packing then because I don't use these for anything else much, both Pen Mini 2’s and an EM10.2, four batteries, the 9, 15, 17, 45, 12-60 kit and 40-150 kit.

All three have quick release strap lugs and I have a selection of straps to use.

The first Pen Mini (the black one) will have the 17 on as my “from the hip” shooter. This will basically be there all the time, manually focussed to about 5ft, aperture set to 1.8~4 depending on light. I will take the 15mm also for a lighter and brighter rendering when needed on dull days.

The second Pen Mini (the red one) will have either the 12-60, 15 or 9mm on as needed. This will be the hand cam, the alternate and in some ways the spare. I will use central cluster with face detect AF with this one.

The EM10.2, ailing slightly with a screen that only works when slightly raised, will be the “eye” camera with a long lens, either the 45 for lower light, or the 40-150 kit for range.

This will have spot AF set, for fast and precise eye focus, my preferred way of shooting with longer lenses.

Love the sharp subject and coherent background of the 17mm.

The whole lot, three cameras and 6 lenses, will weigh about the same as an EM1x and 12-40.

Every image in this set was taken with an older and often “lesser” camera. I like the older 16mp sensor and trust the cameras to do what they respectively will be assigned to. The Pen Mini’s I have found are ideal for street, the custom options aligning perfectly with my needs.

Depth, speed, small and ignorable form factor, variety and clean application with low preciousness.

The reality is, many of my favourite Japan images were taken with just these cameras and lenses or similar.

The lot will go over in my least favourite, but useful to put your feet on bag the Lowe Pro ProTactic 350 (old model), also handy to bring back delicate pottery and takes a lap top. the M1 Mac Air laptop will weight more than the kit.

When there I will use a yellow canvas shoulder bag with camera insert that I bought in Himeji last trip.

Japan 10!

I owe myself a book, a big juicy coffee table book called “Japan 7”, referring to the seven trips my wife and I took before COVID and the life span of my passport at the time.

Coming, don’t rush me.

Geez!

Soon we are making our tenth trip there. A bit surreal that, a place I was intrigued by as a child, then pushed to the back seat for most of my adult years, then rediscovered through an aborted trip with a friend (earthquakes, what you gunna do), which led to a re-purposed ticket used with my reluctant wife, who is now a Japan tragic.

Gear, the eternal question.

I want to do either something like I usually did, but have lost touch with, to capture the earliest feelings we had (OM5 Mk1’s, 17, 45, 75-300 etc) or something completely new (video?).

This is our first trip alone since 2018. Our last trip before COVID was shared, the two since were the same, which is great, except it is different. Meg and I tend to just wander, to lose ourselves in the little things, we are not “big ticket” people and tend to avoid the tourist traps, which even when showing others our Japan, tend to be assumed.

We fully intend to spend more time travelling with all our various travelling groups (friends and family), but for now, we just want us in Tokyo, doing us.

This one is owed to my wife in particular, reserved for her 50th in 2020, planned but shelved during the pandemic.

Option 1, traditional.

Panasonic G9 Mk1, EM1.2, 12-60 kit, 17, 45 and 40-150 kit, possibly a Pen Mini.

The G9 in hand with the 17 could do the bulk of the street, switching to the zoom for scenic day trips, the smaller EM1.2 for a longer lens in my bag, probably used about 20% of the time. This is basically my working day kit now (or an EM10 in the bag), with another EM1.2 on the shoulder.

I could do the whole thing with the G9/17 and might, packing just the tiny 45 as an alternate.

The G9 mk1 is chosen because of my older cams, it has the best performance for close in grabs (face/body detect), or turning low and poor/hard light pretty. Japan in spring can be fickle, so Pana’s bright and light colours blended with the more organic Oly glass are well suited.

The EM1.2’s are light weight and work well with fine AF point tele work to the eye. I can also use it’s more controlled bright light performance for street grabs.

The Pen Mini can hang off a shoulder and be ignored, ideal for street grabs.

Pen Mini and 17mm in bright morning Melbourne light. Still one of my favourite trips.

The little kit 12-60 and 40-150 lenses have nothing to prove. I have no qualms using these “plastic fantastic” lenses even for precious work.

Easily good enough for a 12x16” fine art print.

Option 2, radical departure.

The G9II and 24mm Sirui anamorphic with IRIX ND and shoot the whole trip in clips.

Yeah right, pretty out there. Hard to share, harder possibly to actually do with any real point to it, but what if?

I guess the loose plan is to take a dozen little clips of each location, but like a stills or cinematic shooter, keeping it simple, no “cutesy” sh*t just solid docco level footage, 5-10 second locked down clips, blended into a set of quiet little contemplative travel-meditation things (in V-Log or Flat, because I think the SSD would drive me mad). A video diary if you will.

This could be (1) a genuine look into us and how/where we travel, a window into Japanese day to day life and a break through for me, or (2) a big waste of time.

I would need clear vision and organised application and might be keener if I had a BMPCC4k.

Option 3, both, but specialised.

G9.2, 24 Sirui, G9.1 with 17, 45, 40-150 kit.

G9II for video, G9.I with 17 and 45 (to keep weight down) for stills. The anamorphic weighs more than almost anything else, so a heavy option for maybe a big risk, but also maybe a big reward. They share batteries, feel similar and have dual card slots, I can even use them as supports for the other and at a pinch I could leave the G9.I behind on the day and use the G9.2 as a hybrid.

Option 4, both but simpler and lighter (or analysis paralysis wins)

G9II, 8-18, filters for, G9.I 17, 45, 40-150 kit.

I could just use the G9II and any of the stills lenses, basically using it as a backup stills/hybrid and apply letterboxing later. This could mean using the 8-18 on the G9.2 as an all-rounder (with filter options), switching to the 9mm for walking, the 45 for something different and low light etc.

Straying from the cinematic look of anamorphic may defeat the purpose.

Option 1 is appealing most at this point.

Leaving soon-ish, so probably need to get on with this.


Are Some Focal Lengths Becoming Redundant, Or Does It matter Anymore?

Back in the days of yore, the days when 35mm film was the bedrock of photography, your choice of lens was set into stone-like focal lengths. Zooms were rare, often not trusted and sometimes they did fall short in some way compared to zooms*.

The focal lengths made and used were fairly consistent, in part because the format was consistent, but also in part because of long formed habits, expectations or conformity of need.

18mm or wider. Rare and difficult to make, often fish-eye by design. Usually reserved for specialist and when used, they often justified their use by extreme look alone even if edge sharpness was unlikely.

Now super fast, super small, perfectly corrected super wides are a reality.

20-21mm the widest practical length. These straddled the fine line between coverage and obvious distortion, something we were once more sensitive to.

24mm the most common wide angle. This was considered a normal wide, covering a decent area, but without necessarily showing obvious distortion (it could if you wanted, but did not have to). I guess the demise of this as a specialist lens was the 24-70 zoom.

I may be a product of my generation, but for me, anything wider than 24mm rarely appeals, longer lenses are used only by need, rarely for their highly compressed look. My range of choice is interestingly found in a single lens I once owned, the 12-100 Olympus (24-200 equivalent).

28mm the focal length that could not make up its mind if it was wide or not and probably only exists because of the constraints of range finder cameras which limited wide and long options due to parallax and viewfinder constraints. Again, lost in the zoom shuffle.

Some shooters, like Sam Abell of National Geographic used this as their standard, being less prone to distortion than the 24 (although he widened his range in later years).

The Olympus 17mm, a 34mm lens equivalent feels right and natural, but the 15mm, a 30mm equivalent does just as well.

35/40mm the wide-normal, low distortion, un-opinionated, the 40mm is the mathematical true normal (42mm). The 35 became the journalists standard, usually mated with a short tele, the 40mm became a rare novelty, a throw back. The 40mm is the only lens that has neither compression or wide distortion effects, a true neutral point.

50/55/60mm the common standard lens the “nifty 50” is actually the first of the portrait lenses, a little tighter and more compressed than the true 40mm standard. The 50mm became the documenter of people in their world, its very natural perspective (slightly more eye-like than the 40), easily handled most situations and was easy to make well. These perfect design parameters made it the first lens for most, bought on the camera, but also considered boring by many.

75/85/90mm the true portrait lens. This one has a small spread, but like the 50mm, they are very easy to make well, so some stellar lenses came from this range. You are now consciously compressing the subject and can easily blur the background. these and the 100mm were of ten the preferred focal length for insect chasing macro lenses, often doing double duty (not that the average model wanted macro level sharpness).

The Olympus 45mm, a 90mm equivalent is a very capable and natural feeling lens.

100/135mm. The 135 was the longest lens a range finder camera could take normally, so it became a standard short tele by default. Odd length for any other reason than that really, a bit like the 28mm, not one thing nor the other and absorbed into the 80-200 zoom. I have put the 100mm into this class as it is noticeably tighter feeling than the short portrait teles.

180/200mm the most common true telephoto, a bit like the 24mm as a wide angle. Amazing to think this used to feel long to most and in a world of slow films and no stabilisers, I guess for many it was and compression has now become a creative tool or hard to avoid reality.

there is a reason the 70-200 zoom has become the professional bedrock, because all the focal lengths it covers were also.

300mm the realistic maximum for most. The f5.6 or f4 versions were the enthusiasts tele, f2.8’s for the professionals.

Now just the long end of a decent zoom, 300mm was once my “dream” lens.

400+ the longest lenses, rare and precious.

We can now carry around 6-800mm equivalents effortlessly.

There were some older focal lengths, often made to do the job then measured like the 58mm, or the 40-45mm, but these had mostly gone from common use or in the case of the 40-45mm, popped up as pancake curiosity lenses.

In the current era, lens focal lengths have become less set thanks to zooms, or multiple formats often creating new ones and even some older ones have crept back.

The zoom messed up expectations to some extent, giving us fluidity through the range. Primes became specialist tools either fast, small, macro or extreme (sometimes many of these). Zoom users do become aware that they often gravitate from one end to the other, so effectively just avoid lens changes.

It is true to say, where you to look, you may find that you end up setting the lens to maybe an odd focal length quite often (personally I often find I have chosen something around 28-35 on a standard zoom when I bother to check and it occurs to me, the focal length as marked means little these days with stabiliser cropping, various formats and sensor shapes), that maybe investing in a prime would be a good direction.

The MFT format is squarer, so in some ways, no lens has a direct equivalent in 35mm/full frame, but also, the makers have gone “off grid” to some extent. The 15mm, a 30mm equivalent or the 75, a 150 in full frame. Both f these lenses still feel odd to me in focal length, but the reality is, I use them unconscious of the written values and logic says they are even more legitimate than the 28 or 135.

Generic makers also gave us some oddities, often in an effort to make something useful on multiple formats. The 30mm Sigma is a 60 or 45mm equivalent depending on format, none of which are “normal”.

Add to this are ever more common cinematic lenses, always a mess of choices with multiple formats, anamorphic stretch and more accurate measurements required, often resulting in weird measurements.

The reality is, the mechanics of lens and camera design have always told us what can and cannot be done, but as these limitations reduce, we can make and use what ever is practical.






*A curiosity from this period is the Domke bag range. The original bags (F2) were designed for relatively small-flat cameras (F3 Nikon or F1 Canon, sometimes with motor drives, sometimes not) and a kit of prime lenses (20~24, 28~35, 50~55, 85~90, 180~200). They had relatively flat camera spaces, thin lens compartments and pockets. The big AF then digital camera era, the F4/EOS 1 and big zoom period up until the end of the DSLR’s reign, made many of these bags less useful and new ones were designed (F4 Double AF, F3x). In the mirrorless period, the older bags are back in vogue as cameras and lenses are getting smaller again.

Putting Something To Bed (Maybe?)

I keep talking about the 3D vs modern flat look.

Time to see if I can show in a more scientific form, what I feel I see in use.

It may be a hopeful delusion, but even if so, there may be something to it, because without looking for it, I did notice something in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UAqVYfWLg . In the outside head shot comparisons, especially around the glasses, I noticed something, a feeling of three dimensionality and depth, or maybe I had too much coffee.

This test, like many is flawed. I shot most at close distances, I was not super precise, I did not measure anything or set anything in stone, I just shot and ran it through C1 with a slight adjustment for a sloppy angle.

At F/T2 below and a closeup for sharpness comparison (same-same, but I back focussed a little on the Spectrum, the statue is a little sft, so compare the twigs). T-stops are arguably wider than f-stops, so I should have used f1.8 on the Pana. Pana is on the left.

Now at T/F 4. There is a difference in T to F stop, because the shutter speed varied.

Ok, maybe not super ground breaking other than revealing once again that a Chinese made and designed cine lens can match a plastic-fantastic modern prime worth twice as much.

The Pana is more consistent maybe, but character lies in the unpredictable, the aberrant.

Ok, something more circular now, F/T 4 at top, F/T 2 below, Pana on the right. Colour does not seem a mile apart.

I think part of it might be cooler colour and contrast, the Spectrum lens having a tiny bit more punch in the micro contrast thanks to strong blues in the shadows. I do feel it may also be better corrected for distortion.

Ok, job not done. Lets try the Sigma 28-70 f2.8, possibly a better exponent of the modern camp.

Sigma on the right at f2.8, Spectrum on the left at T3.4. Interestingly, the Sigma is cooler again.

Same but different, maybe the Spectrum’s Bokeh is nicer, smoother.

The look I have reacted to has often shown up at medium distances, so I went outside and did some tests.

Spectrum on the left (consistently lighter images) at T4/f3.4, top one focussed on the small plant and T5.6/f6.7 lower focussed forward and back.

Ok, maybe in the top pair there is a slight feeling of depth to the Spectrum image (look from the small plant to the tin behind in both), but this may be exposure, otherwise the only thing I am seeing is nicer Bokeh and a lighter, more open image from the Spectrum, more contrast and saturation from the Sigma and the 50mm marker on the Sigma does not match the Spectrum (slightly tighter).

Sharpness is much the same (Spectrum on left) in real world situations, the Sigma’s main advantage is a tendency to underexpose slightly, something the S5’s like. Notice the slightly less flat looking rendering in the Spectrum file or I may be dreaming it?

Looks like I have a pair of cine lenses that serve no other purpose than different handling to my S-Primes and Sigma zoom, with a slightly different rendering of Bokeh, colour, contrast and at middle distances maybe a slightly more natural rendering of perspective?

Of course it goes deeper than that. A lens and camera combo have a dynamic that is harder to put into words than simple “nice” or “harmonious”, especially when talking about manual focus, throw length, heft, dampening, rotation direction etc.

They work or they don’t and I feel with the Spectrum lenses there is a benefit to how they handle, their weight and solidness, a mindset they impart.