What Is A Cine Lens And What Makes It Budget?

In this age of perfection and the illogical push to reduce it, what makes a cinema lens and why are some considered budget, when others are the price of a house?

I have gone into the basics of cinema lenses in previous posts, such as mechanical structure and consistency across the range, so this is more about the why of the huge disparity in lenses.

I have watched a few comparison videos lately and my main take away has been, even the experts cannot tell from raw images alone unless (1) they are overly familiar with the look of one lens over the others or (2), depth of field or other factors give them away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TSkj1AK8qs

Another good video on a lens set comparison, and much dearer ones than the Hope lenses is this, especially the colour matching etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blkaxl78FGk

Sharpness.

It is accepted that moving pictures are not as needy as still pictures when it comes to sharpness. The movement to add mist or glow filters to even the dearest lenses is proof that as things get sharper and more detailed, we crave the more realistic reality that we personally do look at things that critically unless we are forced to.

Our eyes are amazing (truly), but even perfect vision does not match in reality what we can be delivered on a huge, high reslution screen and when we do, to what end? I can be blown away by a scene with every pore sharply rendered, but I d not need to see that and when I do, does it distract from the story itself?

Sharpness and a very good filter do add something, the ability to perceive high sharpness under a veil of smooth unsoftness is like the effect of a sharper image in news print. You could tell, even if mathematically the print is the limit. A less sharp lens and/or poor filter do not look the same, but they look a way of their own that is also acceptable, which is why many old lenses are being used in modern productions, be they re-house Russian stills lenses, or ancient cine glass. Is it just a very expensive exercise of two steps forward and one back?

A tight crop from a IRIX 150mm cine-macro image. Too sharp, too contrasty?

The reality is sharpness in moving stock only needs to be non-distracting as the fact it is moving at 24 fps will rob you of the ability to see high detail anyway. Freeze the frame and you can see it, revealing that too much and too little can both be bad. A decent budget lens can be sharp, a stills lens, even a kit one can be sharper. The key seems to be “perfect” sharpness balanced with other factors.

Contrast.

Sharpness and contrast often get lumped together as a more-is-more-is-good thing. Contrast, even more than sharpness needs to be cinematic, which is to say, controlled. Moving stock often lacks the dynamic range of a stills image or if not, it lacks the controls and in the field control. The camera will determine the theoretical dynamic range, but the lens can also help determine the contrast coming down the lens.

Another reason mist filters are used is to add a stop or two of DR, by blooming highlights and lifting shadows. This both reduces contrast and makes the retrieved information nicer to look at.

Cinema lens “magic” is often found in contrast. Smooth highlights, open shadows, “softer” colours are all cinematic signatures and make the crafting and watching of the medium easier.

Can a budget cinema lens offer contrast that makes a difference to just using a stills lens?

Ironically, lower contrast is easy to achieve. Whether it is special or not comes down to a lot of other factors, but theoretically, there may be a cheap lesna out there t match the look of a much dearer one.

The mid tones are where cine lenses need to do most of their work as highlights are often controlled or avoided, shadows lifted or crushed. If the story cannot be told in the mid tones, it is lost. Maybe this is why older glass cuts it. Older lenses needed to get as much as they could out of the fairly rigid film media.

Colour.

This is not really down to the lens as much as many other factors, the camera most importantly, but the lens can contribute a temperature, contrast (see above) and flare control (see below). Probably more important here, budget lenses do fall short with lens to lens consistency, but sometimes dearer glass is less than perfect also.

The colour of this file is to my eye clearly less punchy than many of my stills lenses, which for video is ideal.

In the making if “The Creator”, famous for using consumer grade cameras, the lens, a rehoused antique Kowa 75 Prominar anamorphic was used the bulk of the time. This is a professional lens but nt a cutting edge design. They use multiples of the same lens, to match perfectly, an easy fix and in these days of multi format mounts and cameras and high resolution, it is even possible to get different focal lengths out of on lens.

I bought two Spectrum lenses (35 and 50), that do not match in colour. I could have in hind sight bought the same lens twice (the warmer 35), used one as a 35 and the other as a crop frame 50.

Distortion and vignetting.

This is an odd one. Cine lenses are as often as not chosen for their distortion characteristics, especially anamorphic lenses. Just look at Shogun (shot with Hawk and Vantage anamorphic) or any Wes Anderson films to find odd, even broken edges and corners of the frame and bent horizon lines.

Vignetting, like flare and distortion is often used for it’s negative effects as much as avoided.

That old TTArt 35 again, with all it’s faux cine lens goodness.

Are budget lenses too well corrected? Are they lacking a distinctive feature?

Flare.

Like distortion, flare can be a more is more, less is more or different is more thing. Generally there is a limit to how much can be accepted, but the shape, colour and proliferation of flare is an art form in and of itself. In the making of “Saving Private Ryan” for example, uncoated lenses were used to mimic the older glass used at the time, exaggerate flare, reduce colour and contrast.

Even when I tried to break my budget 12mm, it managed to produce this.

Most stills lenses treat flare as the enemy, making us look to older glass or software to get that “vintage” look. Cine lenses are more of a balancing act of some effects to taste, hopefully without loss of contrast and control.

Again, many cheaper cine lenses actually have their own flare signature and more recently they are reliably controlled. Better or worse? Up to the viewer I guess.

Rendering.

A bit of all of the above, rendering is a subjective and often ambiguous thing. Bokeh, colour, contrast, “draw”, distortion, sharpness all contribute along with other factors. This is probably the base line of what makes a better lens better, something that is hard to put into words, but easy to put a price tag on.

This scene, regularly shot be me, is rendered gently by the Vision 12mm. The Bokeh is pleasant, contrast strong enough without looking like a stills image and the shadows are open, the sharpness is more than enough for moving stock, distortions are visible, but in video, so what?

In testing I have seen a clear difference between my stills lenses and my budget cine glass in rendering. The cine glass is usually gentler, smoother and more controlled, less punchy and “hard” sharp. Is that difference enough of what we need?

The rendering of a $400au Hope 50mm. Ignoring all the other elements that can effect an image, is this decently rendered? What exactly does that mean and when does it mean more than the subject itself?

So, can a cheap cine lens be justifiably called cheap?

Cameras make more difference, true cinema cameras giving smoother footage and the application of a skilled and experienced crew cannot be under estimated (see the add for the iphone 15 making a movie).

Is the main thing against budget lenses, the fact that as budget lenses, they do nit get the best rides. Are they perfectly valid, just so cheap, they are not given the best treatment overall? Some (most) do not even come in the right mounts, like PL for the best cams, so I guess it’s impossible to test. Any car can drive at the speed limit, so if the speed limit of “cinematic” viewing is the viewer, what is the speed limit.

Could the most basic of budget lenses actually be technically better than many of the older lenses used in film making, which are in turn re-housed for modern works? Could “Ryan” have been filmed with cheap glass for much the same result?

A $75k Arri with a $400 lens? Seems crazy, but would anyone really notice? A consumer FX3 and an antique Kowa fooled many and I would argue that was the wrong way around.

From a technical perspective, many of the things that make a stills lens measurably cheap are irrelevant, even contradictory. AF is absent by design, visible flare and distortion are often sought out, reduced colour and contrast desirable or retro fitted. Even the mechanics are easy to do, with designs often clones of classics, consistency is desirable but there are work arounds.

So why is one lens, a mechanical monster with no electronics, probably a simple design, little thought put into weight or size limits or even materials and modern needs often reduced and then controlled by reduction devices like filters, a steep $15k or more, and another with very similar performance only $400?

Relativity

If you watch a lot of Tv, YouTube and even movies with a critical eye, something becomes apparent after a while.

What you are told to do and what you see can sometimes be a long way apart.

Take for example the shower curtain.

If a DP wants to reduce light in a scene from a window or other strong light source, they will use a lot of tools to get the job done. A multi hundred dollar sheet of balanced white cloth to a cheap shower curtain. Can you ever honestly say you could tell the difference.

The internet is full of examples of people jury-rigging or even flat out cheeping out on gear to show it can be done, but they probably still spent hundreds on the “real” thing.

Lenses are amazing, even bad ones. Every lens has a point of use-ability, better lenses have more, last longer and in the video world tend to come in matching sets, but if the film is shot, the look accepted by the viewer and the elements sharp enough, do we care beyond that?

I still find it bizarre that the better our lenses, cameras and processing techniques are becoming, the stronger the reflex is to reduce that contrast, sharpness and overall quality to emulate a more organic, less perfect look.

White balance is another tricky one.

There is perfect white balance, where you make the scene look “right” or more specifically to match a sheet of white paper for example look accurately white, but how often do you see perfect white balance in cinema, documentaries or even adds. Getting it right aides processing, but that processing these days seems to be aimed at a distinct look, often the “teal-amber”, glowy look or a washed out one that defies not only natural light, but also superior sharpness and contrast.

The most important thing is skin tone. They must look right to the eye in the light they are in.

This file looks yellow, but the room is, the light was and the mood it invoked really was. I could have balnced it to a more neutral colour, but would that have been accurate or more to the point would it have looked how I wanted it to?

Light is light, white balance is in the eye of the colourist, lens quality is elastic, perceptions are the realm of the viewer.

This to me look right when we shot a promo video for the school. Pure white, slightly cool, but it suits the space that I am familiar with and what the white card reading coughed up.

This fits the common teal-amber look that can be all pervading. If you look at it for a while, you can and will normalise it.

This is what I submitted as it looks nice, if not accurate. If you stuff up your white balance too badly things get tough, but if you land close, even in a fairly restrictive base colour mode, there is room for some opinion to be added.

I guess where this random thought is going is, get your technical stuff sorted to the point you need, but do not ever let an obsession with technical considerations hold you back or dominate your vision.

Right is right, but it is also subjective.

The Importance Of The 7Artisans Hope Series Of Cine Primes

My first of two, maybe three Hope prime lenses arrived today.

Early tests look to prove out what I hoped, that it is a very well corrected cinema lenses at a very nice price.

How good are they and what does it mean?

I fully expect to start to see some comparisons to the DZO, Nisi Athena and IRIX lenses and for these to be surprisingly close. A $400au lens vs a $2000au lens?

How else would you do it? They are already showing a better pedigree as well corrected cine lenses than their cost aligned competition, even their own stable mates the Spectrum and Vision series, so they need to be compared with better glass.

The Hope lenses are not perfect, but cinema lenses tend to shun absolute perfection. Sharpness and contrast deliberately controlled, even some flaws like distortion are rarely deal breakers, sometimes these are even pursued.

They are however often well corrected in all the ways you would want them to be for a solid “pure” enough base to work from, unless the maker is after a truly slanted look at the world.

Most budget cine glass suffers from inconsistencies between lenses in the same set in colour, tone or look and even T-stops and mechanics (the last two of which are unforgivable). This can be problematic as rigs, post processing and handling speed all benefit from these and time as they say, is money.

Usually they also have a specific weakness in poor chromatic aberration control, obvious focus breathing, a lack of sharpness, vignetting, poor build or sometimes a little of all of these, but not always across the range, sometimes different lenses have different flaws.

These can still make for excellent lenses, but often the user needs to be aware of these inconsistencies or they may even avoid certain lenses in a set if they are too weak or too different. The 7Artisan Vision lenses for example have a 25 T1.05, that is liked or loathed for it’s soft and dreamy character, something that the 35mm in the same range does not share.

These lenses are budget, beginner or curiosity lenses, especially the re-purposed legacy glass. Their character is less meant, but is more a result of price compromise and acceptance of that for cine use, than engineering intent. but if used well, few can tell which took what (in cinematography, most flaws and quirks are assumed to be intended).

The heaviest of this group by feel alone is the Spectrum 50mm, which just feels like a stumpy little lump of metal and glass. The Spectrum is a good lens, decently sharp and corrected. The Hope is next upgrading looks and adding balance across the board it is just solid and reliable. The Sirui feels lighter in all ways by comparison, making it the best run-n-gun option. The Sirui has more mood, more speed and a little funk.

The next tier, the semi-pro glass, the likes of IRIX, DZO or Nisi, as well as the cine-hybrid versions of Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Sigma glass, are usually where the true movie maker and serious commercial shooter meet.

They are very good, usually consistent enough to buy and use in sets and still manage some personal creative space of their own. The IRIX are clinical, the DZO and Nisi have some character and the re-housed stills lenses are often super (over) sharp, but nothing a filter cannot fix.

Cost is their biggest strength and weakness. Out of the range of the hobbyist, they are also seen as a budget option by top tier shooters, so often they are considered “transitional” lenses, a commercial shooters creative option, a video school’s best choice or for the well heeled studios as muck-arounds. I would guess most are in the rental sphere.

The Hope lenses are important here because they are the closest budget set made so far that share these second tier lenses traits. Almost invisible chromatic aberration, distortion, flare, focus breathing and decent, although not perfect colour matching (4 match, one is slightly warmer, one slightly cooler), as well as exceptional close focus all at the low end of the budget range. These are very similar traits to the dearer glass in the next category up. Very close.

This is achieved by keeping the T-stop in the more realistic range (T2.1), only covering crop frame (S35) formats, applying all the lessons learned in the several series before and I feel a genuine attempt to lift the class to heart breaker level.

A lift from some video tests on an old G9. Very nice to use and the results are as good as stills lenses.

It may well be evident in the future to users of these compared to other glass that they lack character (i.e. beautiful flaws) , but character is available all around, stability is elusive for less than three or more times the price.

$75 buys you character. Thankfully “character” is not holding my veranda up!.

The widest aperture of T2.1 is perfect for me. An adherent of the T4 (full frame) as perfect the cinematic depth aperture, I will use T2.8 on an APS-c lens, T2 on M43, which is where these lenses are employed and they are fully functional there. If I need faster, I have options, but in their space, the “no excuses” space, they are just perfect.

Sharp wide open and just the right amount of depth of field.

It will be interesting to see what the competition do in response, even the higher end makers when the inevitable comparison video start to come out.

Balance, The Eternal Struggle.

My commitment to M43 for stills is known. I have full frame but rarely see the need or have the desire to shoot with it.

I get what I need with M43, I get what I know I will want to get and can visualise the process of getting there. Full frame, even thought it was my main format for the bulk of my photographic life (about 70% up to now), never feels as safe, unless ISO ridiculous is required.

In video, I muddied the waters with my full frame purchases over the last couple of years. I worried for a while that it may herald the beginning of the end for M43 in both formats, but far from it. Full frame has given me the peace of mind that the larger format offers when dealing with very low light video (if I use a fast lens), but that is really it.

Remember, Hollywood still uses S35 formats often, some very expensive cameras and lenses are dedicated to it and S35 is APS-c or M43 adjacent, not full frame.

I fleshed out my full frame kit easily and reasonably logically and my M43 video kit was relegated to a support role (2 excellent but limited G9 mk1’s). I toyed with a lot of pathways before and after the full frame purchases, but with little idea of how much video would accelerate in a short time and the release of the thing of amazement that is the G9.II, a camera that did make me regret slightly my full frame divergence.

The Hope lenses helped me flesh out my M43 lens kit, not so much because I needed to, but they excite me more than the Nightwalker or Vision series of lenses (I have one of each) and that is sometimes enough.

So, now I have a huge selection of M43 stills lenses and a decent set of video glass, but realistically only one camera to use them on. The G9.1’s are good as fillers, but shooting them alongside the G9.II means holding that camera back to match them.

Part of me wants to stay on the pointy end of the M43 format to support it, but the reality is, if it wa abandoned tomorrow, I would simple spend big on clearance gear and have enough to see it/me out. Thoughts of moving to full frame leave me cold, but if it has to happen and I am still in this game in 10 years or so, then it will likely be the way.

I have a decent tax return pending thanks to paying top tier tax at the beginning of the financial year, then dropping hours and eventually leaving that job. I do need a new computer (a desktop for video processing, because Resolve gets crowded on a 13” laptop).

Options*.

Get over the added cost of two cheap Hope lenses I cannot use at the same time together and move on (but of course I can, just with a G9.1 or Oly cam).

Upgrade one of the G9.1’s to V-log-L with the key (about $100au), which also gives me waveforms I think and maybe some other stuff. I use Flat mode on the other bodies, but Cine-D or HLG on the G9’s, or even Natural or Standard with reduced contrast blend in well enough. It would be used in controlled conditions, not run-n-run.

It is easy to ignore this camera, but the reality is, before the G9.II, it was as relevant as most other Panasonic cameras offering 10bit/422/4k with a few limitations of codec and 30 mins recording time. As the “C” or even “D”: cams of my kit, that is a decent trade off.

Upgrade the G9.1 (any cam) with a Black Magic 12g video assist 5”. This would add B-Raw (which would mean getting a several TB of storage and clients that care), give me a Resolve Studio upgrade, allow me to upgrade any of my cams from the EM1x’s to the S5’s to this work flow and an excellent monitor. Several of these over time would give me no less than 8 cams available with BRaw.

The only real issue is I cannt get implicit confirmation that the BMVA will work with the unlisted G9.1. I don’t want to get one then find it only fits the cams that do not need it.

Buy an older M43 camera that is more video capable than the G9.1’s, like a GH6 (cheaper than G9.II and most of the GH7 features except AF), GH5.II with video streaming, All-i and unlimited recording, a GH5s for low light, or a dated BMPCC 4k, for the BMVA benefits in one cam, but with that “cinematic” look.

Get a GH7, which although tempting, is overkill for me. The internal ProRes Raw eats up 1 TB of memory in little time (about 20 mins), the XF card thing is annoying and much of the reason I avoided a GH6. SSD’s fix it but they also work on G9.II’s.

Most of the GH7’s real world features are covered by the other cams. AF/stabe (G9.II/S5.II)), low light (S5’s or super fast M43 glass) or fan cooling (S5.II), so yes a clean slate and plenty of hind sight would have likely ended with a GH7 and G9.II backup, but we are where we are.

Another G9.II. Enough, more than really and about $1000au cheaper than when I bought my first one. This also has the benefit of being a stills upgrade, my backdoor relevance saver.

Scenarios;

• Multi camera, multi angle recording. Use a mix of M43 and full frame cameras with either cine or stills lenses. The G9.II may very well be the primary camera.

• Multi camera interviews with only one format (controlled light). Use either full frame or M43 with the lesser cam as the “B” cam (G9.1 or S5).

• Run-n-gun. Use one cam, probably G9.II or S5.II.

• Hypothetical making of a movie, but with n extra budget. S5’s and G9.II mixed as needed, lenses drawn from cine kit.

• Hybrid video on the go, using my stills kit. G9.1 with stills lens or the Sirui.

A quick test roll using the G9.1 with the Hope 50. Highlights lost, but I was not worried so much about that at the time. Standard as is, idynamic on Standard, 422/10bit/1080p. I guess you can either live with the blown highlight (which looked right to my eye-blown that is), modify them or expose for them, which I did not.

Ok, it is a known thing that RAW or LOG video will save your highlights at the expense of shadow noise or pushed ISO exposure levels. Standard profiles, including Flat or LOG-like profiles tend to have better noise control, can have other effects added like idynamic and be flattened in contrast as well to aide with recovery.

Below is an underexposed file, bought back up.

Lovely, and it handles well. The G9.1 still has some of the best stabilising around, especially the static mode. The 50mm is literally a handful, my limit I feel, but doable and after watching series three of Breeders last night, the “almost still” hand held look is about the same. The Hope 25mm was a no-brainer, the 50mm a more considered risk, but I am glad for it. The 35 felt safer, but to be honest, not powerful enough.

Shot as seen with Standard profile, -5 contrast and idynamic on high, this file still defied shadow lifting, but is this how I would work? I have seen this style from Arri cams by choice, so if it fits……..

With only the back of a 10” white balance checker panel for bounce of the window light this can be lifted and would be. We put a lot of stock in “worst case scenarios”, then pore over videos of how to avoid them, basically, just avoid them. This is also without resorting to Cine-D, HLG, curves or the flatter Natural profile. (the tighter crop is due to the panel left of frame).

In a controlled space, in the scenarios I would be using it, the G9, allowing for highlight and white balance control, which are key, can produce more than adequate second or even primary camera footage.

At this point, I am happy to play the “wait and see” game. I might look at second hand GH5 and 6’s etc just to see, but otherwise my $800 investment in some stable cine glass is, at this point not wasted, just slightly unbalanced until I settle my processes.

*I am not interested in crazy high resolutions or dynamic range off the charts or unlimited recording, although I have several cameras that already offer that. Even 4k is often over kill for my needs. The new lenses are MF, so nothing lost there, I just need matching, controlled light 1080/10 bit/422 base line quality in a “B” cam that takes M43 lenses in case I want to use the two Hope’s at the same time.

First Anniversary

It was about this time last year I got the IRIX 150. I had fun then and some fun today.

This lens sits in an odd spot in my world. I bought it as a video lens, but it gets as much use as a stills macro lens and tends to sit in my S5.2 kit along side the Lumix lenses.

The first thing I remember is the very shallow depth of field. These were mostly taken at T5.6-8.

A closer look of one of the crops above.

Still excites me, even if it’s utility is limited.

I Like M43 Except....

How often do I hear this, even from MFT lovers.

Always excuses, always a feeling of inadequacy, always a feeling of falling short and having to payback somehow for the formats short comings.

Smaller is apparently less. Tell that to a virus.

I have asked this before and I will again, is a turbo charged sports car less of a car than a monster truck or is it simply a better car for the role it plays?

Too big, is ironically a common complaint.

The EM1x cops a lot of hate (which suits me fine as it makes them cheap and easy to source), the G9II is “disappointingly” the same size as the S5 series, the G9.1 is “as big as an APS-C DSLR”. So what?

Ok, how big is an adult human hand?

How big is a professional lens in any format?

How small is too small?

The assumption seems to be, size of sensor and size of camera have to be a trade off. It seems if you are willing to “compromise” on your sensor size, then you have to do the same with your camera’s real estate.

A camera, sensor size excluded, has a “perfect’ size for most hands. Larger and smaller hands may dissagree, but even in the time of small 35mm film cameras, half frame and APS-C cams, they all fell within a range of comfortable to portable. People it seems, are still the same size.

I found the diminutive OM4Ti very comfortable in the hand, except when I used large lenses, which is when I added the motor grip. The T90 had one built in, so all good or bad I guess if you wanted pocketable.

The EM1x is perfectly balanced on any decently sized pro M43 lens (40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 etc). A camera any smaller is an issue, then adding a grip to a smaller camera, apart from adding cost, also adds redundant buttons and clutter.

The EM1x is spacious, relaxed, clean, all sealed up and uncluttered. The perfect professional handling dynamic. If you compare it to the cameras it was aimed at when released (for the stalled Tokyo Olympics), the Sony A1, Canon 1Dx and D6 Nikon cameras, it holds up very well, then the weight savings are found in half sized lenses.

The G9.II is the same size as the S5 series. About right regardless of sensor. Could it have been a little smaller and lighter? Yep, but not by much and why? Tiny little cameras are cute and great for tourists, but tend to have short runs.

Actually it is really great as I use both and do not have to stuff around changing rigging gear and handling “hats” when switching between the two. The G9.II ironically gains some useful buttons that the S5 lacks due to the larger mount, so you could argue by comparison, the S5/S5II’s are maybe too small and the looming S1H mk2 will prove that out.

The G9.I is simply the most comfortable and ergonomically balanced camera I have ever owned-period. It has a top screen, buttons for everything and fits my (and most other) hands perfectly (some of it’s biggest . Add in comprehensive customisation and tank-like build and you have a classic, a classic people seem to forgive its “oversized” footprint.

Smaller handed people have had to put up with over-sized cameras for most of their lives, but now apparently, just because the sensor is smaller, some cams are faulty by design.

The image quality thing is only a thing in the imaginations of the unaware.

The ISO thing is real, but balanced by lens design, speed and greater depth of field (that is more depth of field, which is a good thing sometimes), resolution handled for many situations by hi-res modes, stabe a cut above and more.

Even in video, MFT falls closer to S35 than full frame, which in Hollywood is a lot rarer than we often realise.

The image quality is good……. .

The “but” is a thing that really rankles and I am sick of thinking abut it, but still do unfortunately. A bigger sensor can offer better high ISO performance, but that is not the whole story. Lens options, extra DOF, better stabilising and less obvious movement blur all shorten the gap.

The bigger sensor and/or more pixels can theoretically provide better maximum potential image quality, but I am yet to reach a point where M43 cannot do the job.

Sharper? Clearer or “finer”?

People respond to the superior “quality” of some of my images, quality that sometimes steals the show, quality that instills confidence, provides legitimacy, heartens my soul. This quality is not “great with some caveat” , just great.

If you look at what makes a decent image, light, techniqiue, DOF selection, lens quality (and “qualities”), subject and composition are at the top of the list, what sensor size you use is not.

What is quality in an image? Is it pixel counting, Bkeh that blurs the background until it looks like a zoom blur screen, or the impulsive need to qualify the technical parameters? No, image quality is the response of the viewer to the subject, no more no less. Want to blow it up to fill a billboard? Mine have been, several times and cropped as well. The above imafg was a G9 Mk1, 12-40 f2.8.

This is partly me I hope, not the tools, but I am not held back or limited by the system any more than other system. I had and compared Fuji, even nearly mixed my systems (again), but a head to head proved to me nce again that M43 was it’s equal.

I have full frame, even newer full frame than the bulk of my M43, but only use it for video and even then I spend more time stressing the depth of field issues that it brings than celebrating the extra image quality.

A shot of the Prime Minister picked up by our largest ACM paper the Canberra Times, which is situated in the nations capitol where they have plenty of opportunities, so my M43 offering was obviously ok (EM1 Mk2, 40-150 f2.8).

The quality of lenses (easier to make for the format), their easy availability (double the length for the size/cost/speed), the added accuracy and depth of field provided by the format and the inherent quality of the sensors is plenty for any need, excessive usually. Sometimes it seems like haters are comparing a toy to the real thing, when really it is a 4 cyl sports car compared to an 8 cyl heavy hauler.

Faster, better, more efficient? No.

Different? Yes.

I have some full frame gear and I thought it may create a full frame shift, but to be honest, I often forget I have it and the extra bulk often limits it’s utility. I may get a lens like the well liked 24-105 S to add some versatility, but if I do, I am using a slow lens on a full frame sensor, so what is gained?

I would rather actually get the more than stellar 10-25 f1.7 MFT lens.

On lenses, the new Hope series from 7Artisans look good. $400au for a near perfect 25mm MFT cine lens? Yep, looks like a bargain.

So, I do like M43, so excuses, no exceptions.

Forcing An Issue.

My full frame cine lens journey has been one of luck and excitement, the MFT one though has felt forced and less blessed.

I am hoping that will change soon.

The 35 and 50 Spectrums were a dead-set bargain at less than half price, the IRIX also on clearance gave me a lens that I would not have otherwise even looked at.

I needed a MFT lens to make the format cine relevant so I went with the Sirui 24 and it is fine, but did not feel like the hefty Spectrums, so it left me feeling a little under done. AF seems to be the logical direction with MFT, the G9.2 to be specific and the Sirui has been floating around for a while looking for a B-cam job (which it has done).

To make things better or possibly worse, I bought the Vision series 12mm as a cine-wide angle, because at the time (pre 14mm Spectrum), it was the only option and it gave all three cams a matching cine lens at once.

The lens came at a reasonable $400au (about what I paid for the two Spectrum lenses together). I got that 7Art heft and it felt good. I mounted it on a G9 and noticed the mount was quite loose. Tried another, same deal, maybe a little less and when removed it caught slightly like some lens adapters.

I toyed with returning it, but it did not seem to effect the lenses optics or functioning such as they are, so I decided it was a reasonable compromise buy in a possibly poorly planned direction and in a little bit of a funk I cut it a hole in my cine lens case and moved on.

Buying two Hope series lenses, I decided to give it another go, maybe tighten the mount, maybe shim it and also really test it properly to see if it is the all-purpose wide angle I need in a serious MFT kit. I am suspicious that it is incorrectly attached, so I might fiddle.

The Hope series has a 10mm, that is too wide for my needs and is the only lens in the range that gets some mixed reviews (seems it is not as fast as it says it is).

The Vision series are a mixed bunch. Some are stable lenses (35), some have “character” in abundance (25 and 50). The 12mm seemed to be more like the Spectrums, reliable, stable and well corrected like the 35. The light above is late evening and warm overhead, so no colour cast at play. Close focus is meant to be excellent.

Sharp, little CA and at 7cm’s it is to do those creative close-expansive shots. It seems to be very easy to focus and focussing does not make the mount rock, even on the loosest camera mount, only the tighter aperture ring does a little.

The edges above are interesting, but not unpleasant.

Really nice wide open at T2.9.

Sharp centre, smooth background, but a little distortion.

Nice colour, muted and gentle like a cine lens should be.

Lovely sun stars stopped down. The edges are now pretty good as well.

Same T-stop (T5.6) and close focus with all the effects. Well controlled, good contrast in a difficult situation and decent flare. Overall very exciting results. I like a lens you can push, that does not fall apart and behave erratically when you do.

So, a good lens, maybe even a superior budget cine lens, much like the Spectrum or even Hope lenses. A keeper and enough I feel in this space. I may still add the Hope 16mm to the set as there is a big hole to fit it in, but maybe not.

If I get another lens it may even be the 35 T1.05 Vision.

F8 And Be There.

I cannot remember when I herd this much loved axiom first, probably some time in the early 80’s, but it is still as relevant today as it was then.

the “F8” bit is of course referring to the catch-all f8 aperture that in full frame will do. It is not perfect for deep landscape images nor shallow depth portrait shots, but it was at the time the sharpest and most logical aperture choice if you were not sure or in a hurry.

Lenses it must be remembered were not the icons of perfection we use now. they had character, which is photographer code for flaws. They were rarely super sharp at wider apertures and diffraction effects the sharpness of all lenses at smaller apertures, so f8 was often the place reviewers tested for the best a lens could offer.

The other bit is timeless.

Photos do not take themselves and no time is the perfect time for an image. The more you take, the luckier you get, simple as that.

Mr hypocrite here, sitting on the couch and blogging this, but it is true. I am improving all the time, adding to my portfolio and getting “luckier” because I am working more.

It is apparently easy to say no, but say yes.

I know from travelling, that waiting for the perfect weather to climb that mountain is a recipe for disaster or worse, apathy. It will never be perfect, but it will always be something. Also, perfection can be fleeting. Even the worst day can produce moments of amazement you could not even have imagined.

This day, as with every other time we have been to Himeji was perfect. This house that we dubbed the “face house” though was found in a back street and the sun in this case was thankfully blocked by other buildings. The poor crop came down to several cars in the foreground, but you get the idea.

That’s right, you had to be there.

If you go out fixated and expecting to get a specific shot to happen as you visualised, you will likely miss other shots that are there for the taking or worse, turn your back on the many other ways the shot could have been taken.

maybe the right way to approach all forms f photography is how we do sport or street photography. You turn up, rain hail or shine and make the most of what you get. The place, people and event are going to do their thing regardless, so you do yours.

When “F8 and be there” was coined, likely the 1940’s when 35mm cameras were first available to the masses as well as early photo journalists and the sentiment makes sense to those shooters, there were few controls or manipulations available so the advice was hopeful, even heroic, but now, even f8 can be stretched.

Be there, do it, see what comes.

The flip side is regret, fear, apathy or worse., so let’s go for gold.

The (Many) Advantages Of Using M43 For Sport

When I went to the news paper I was issued with the holy trinity (wide, standard and tele f2.8 zoom lenses) and a monster 400 f2.8.

To be honest, it left me cold.

I had a decent portfolio of photo successes, from social events to candid travel to sports of all kinds.

I felt tsome pressure from regressing to DSLR cameras, heavy full frame lenses, vision black-out and lag. I gave it a decent go, testing my gear against the issued kit regularly and found to my surprise, the following.

When compared to the EM1x, the DSLR’s (D750, D500) felt slow and unreliable in focus aquisition, in part down to older, but not old lens designs, in part to the limitations of DSLR tech. They were perfectly usable, I was just aware of the process (slight lag, some noises) and missed occasionally used advantages like face detection were absent.

The lenses were sharp as expected, but head to head, my M43 lenses matched them, usually beat them in the corners wide open, which makes sense as Olympus and Panasonic/Leica are no mugs and the M43 format was in part chosen to make lens design easier.

The 300mm in particular is possibly the best 300 on the market, because Olympus knowns it will fill the role of the FF 600mm. It is the flagship, not just the medium grade filler of other ranges.

With football (any type), I could hand hold my 600mm, switching easily to my slung 80-300, or even a wide angle if required from a handy sling bag. With one camera and lens across my body on a Black Rapid strap and the tele zoom (40-150 f4 or 2.8) on a second body on my shoulder, I can cover the kick and the resulting mark either way it goes.

The flip side of this story is I have easy access to lenses the full frame users do not. The 150 f1.8 (75mm) that I can drop into a pocket is all I need for small court sports.

Cropped from a 75mm f1.8 image at ISO 3200 in the gloomy school gym (gets enough natural light for viewers so they leave the lights off).

The sensor sizes is where most assume the gap will widen.

Not so.

Within the parameters of what is needed in real world situations, assuming sports events are not held in coal mines with lights out, or situated half a km away, even the relatively dated EM1x sensor can always provide sharp, clean, colourful files, enough to match the full frame shooters, or at least come within the “same-same” range of other variables.

My comfortable working range is up to ISO 6400, higher is possible with an extra post processing step using ON1 NoNoise and to be clear, I am aiming for noiseless, clear, sharp and colourful images.

Not a sunny day in the tropics, this was a gloomy indoor aquatic centre on a lousy day (my regular challenge), hand held, shot between the legs of the officials standing on the blocks at ISO 6400, 300mm f4 about 1/500th.

Another from the same day.

The math of 1/500th or more at ISO 6400 with ISO 12,800 usable using f1.8 to f4 on 150-600mm lenses and still with a decent crop allowance, is the outer limit of what is ever needed. If my sensor is pushed, the lens magnification advantage often evens things out.

Sitting next to a full frame Nikon user with 500 f4, I managed to dodge the sprinklers that came on randomly, help him move when it rained and could travel from one end of the ground to another with little issue. He was seated and not moving (unless getting wet). The submitted file above was already a 50% crop from an ISO 3200 file, the one below was also possible.

I ran it through ON1 No Noise (2022), but nothing else.

The 40-150 f2.8 at national grade basketball. I have dozens of these, all bright clean and sharp.

At the near end, the 12-40 f2.8 is plenty.

The flip side of the sensor is weight, or more specifically, the lens speed to magnification to weight ratios. It did not go unnoticed by the other togs at the paper that I was mobile and angle versatile, able to react to changing conditions, shift positions, lie down, climb up, run after, work long stretches and avoid the dreaded seat many use, while matching them for results.

Which means when the action gets close, I do not have to find a home for my monster 5-600mm FF tele, I can even run the side line or go infield during breaks without putting anything down. The reality is, often these togs just leave their multi thousand dollar brute unattended while they chase shots across the field.

The system, both brands, offer a wide variety of lenses, no less than ten lenses in the mid-tele range, all decent, some spectacular.

Caught on a normal day, with only my little 40-150 f4 and a well worn EM1 Mk2, I had little trouble capturing the images needed, even getting a rare front page for sport. The one above happened within seconds of walking in the gate.

Reach speed and quality all in a daily carry lens.

At the other end of the range, the ridiculously light 9mm Leica, held one hand and manually focussed at about 3 feet and f2.8 captured plenty of crisp detail from the back of a moped.

Getting the wicket was easy enough, capturing the batsman with the full innings relevance came down to a hand zoom on a second camera.

I remember one of the other togs amazed at raindrops captured by his kit. How about sweat droplets?

Being light and fast allows for many random candids.

I could even get into pit lane and mingle without attracting attention.

Other advantages more aligned to just the brand and the cameras themselves are instant feedback and reaction time. I shoot single files, never bursts, because well, I can. I see what is coming, shoot to miss the best moment and get what I expect.

Most of my cricket images including dismissals are a matter of “if I do not see it, I caught it”.

I remember many years ago shooting single frames with a manual focus film camera (no winder). It was a matter of anticipating what was gong to happen in about a second from now. These days it feels more like a nano-second.

My last day at the paper had me at a local cricket final. Under time pressure the game was slow and painfully one sided, but I still got the decisive moment thanks to responsive and powerful gear.

Then there is the very real advantage of extra depth of field.

M43 adds two stops of depth for the same reach as full frame which is to say, a 300mm behaves like a 300mm, even if it has the reach of a full frame 600mm. Sme complain about the lack of super shallow depth of field in m43 images, but it is rare to find a sports or news shooter who would turn their noses up at more depth for free.

Silent shooting and light weight (kit grade) lenses I can carry all day help with some sports. The face and club head are sharp even wide open.

I have heard all the arguments for full frame over M43, but the reality is, the savings in weight (about half), cost (about a quarter), versatility and comfort well outweigh the negatives of perceived small sensor short comings, that are mostly fictitious.

Processing is bridging gaps, real world needs are more easily met than hypothetical maximums and even when given the option, this photographer is more than happy to stick with M43 even to cover national grade events (and I own full frame gear now).

My New Anamorphic Lens.....Well Kind Of.

So, what do you get when you take a $75 Chinese super budget lens with known flaws that only covers an APS-c sensor and shoot it full frame, then add a budget (no name ebay buy) “dirty” blue streak filter, that when compared to a Moment blue cine streak is about twice as “responsive”.

I have to confess to leaving the camera on 3200k from a previous job, which was just a silly mistake and only really possible thanks to my expectation of some odd behaviour, but after some light grading, this is about as bad/good as it gets.

This behaviour is however quite interesting. Massive blue haze-flaring/CA, but again 3200k in daylight, lovely star and streak at f5.6, some funky fall-off and very sharp in the middle. Even with a cheap filter on and the wind shifting the trees, there was no frame that was completely lost to blown out flare.

No streaks because no point light source, but some pretty cool Bokeh stuff going on.

Letterboxing to follow the shape (I had no guide lines activated), this is wide open and again 3200k adjusted. The vignette is a bonus for this look.

It is not a true anamorphic (obviously), but to be honest if I had one, it would only be wheeled out for art projects and personal gigs, so this is probably more relevant in my world and has that “wet weekend” experimental feel rather than a more serious commitment of dollars into a new range.

The next lens to try if the antique 25mm Pen half frame lens on M43 (or maybe get a full frame adapter?).

Cinema Glass. Too Many (Great) Budget Choices.

Cheap cinema glass, something that has shifted from a contradiction in terms to a reality is moving fast and the benefits are many, but choices!

Too many choices.

They are getting better.

The point of cine lenses over stills lenses is a mix of things, some practical, some visual and some are maybe personal or even mental.

They should in a perfect world be matched in colour, draw, handling, mechanical connections and rendered look, but the cheaper ones sometimes do not always hit all these marks.

Colour consistency in particular seems beyond them, but oddly, if you mix brands you often can get it done. My Sirui 24 and a Vision 35mm are close in colour and look, the Sirui 35 and Vision 25 are also close.

They also use T-stops as aperture measurements, which are in theory more accurate and consistent than F-stops and are usually slower (i.e.T2 is often equal to F1.8).

Top end cine lenses should also have minimal chromatic aberration, superior flare control, distortion control, sharpness, have low focus breathing (which is where the lens effectively zooms when long focus throws are employed) and all the above mentioned characteristics. Some may be for anamorphic formats (often with unique and less than pristine visual qualities)

They do not all do everything perfectly, but when not, they provide a special something that is much loved by the knowledgeable user.

A mix of a mid range IRIX and two budget Spectrum lenses, the budget ones bought at half price, so super budget (all bought for less than the IRIX’s usual retail). I cannot see a difference in real terms.

Often the mid range cine lens (2k-ish) are close to a highly corrected stills lens from the same brand (Sony, IRIX, Canon) packaged in a cine-friendly form factor. These lenses provide high levels of good qualities, but sometimes these are too clinically perfect for some.

Usually cine lenses at any price are deliberately restrained with smoother Bokeh, slightly softer than “hard” stills lens sharpness, interesting flare control and generally an eye towards video needs over stills. This often means if you have a photo and cine lens option, you can have two looks to choose from.

Some ranges are less reliable than others, the 7Art Vision series for example which has very different looks across the range from super “filmic” soft to relatively hard sharp, while the same brand can make the Spectrum and Hope series that are quite consistently stable lens to lens.

My lens set or sets as I have two formats, defies one of the big tenets of cine lenses which is consistency within a set. It is a bit of a mess, but to be honest, it is workable, excellent value and overall has cost me less than my 300 f4…… in total.

The decision to go into L-mount pre G9.II release, the camera which would have probably stopped me especially with the GH7 following, was rewarded by some bargains last year. I got the S5, a decent kit lens, the Lumix S 50mm, a pair of 7Artisan Spectrum lenses and the IRIX 150 macro for under $4k au.

I then added a Sirui 24 Nightwalker and 7Artisan 12mm Vision for M43 (the 12mm is a good Vision lens, the Nightwalker range offered nothing at all wide). These, along with some legacy glass and plenty of stills lenses have given me plenty of choices, although the M43 set is a work in progress (see below).

Choices.

So many.

So, what do we need?

Handling is important.

A cine lens gives you smooth and click-less apertures, long throw manual focus, consistent (within a set) in ring placement for easy swapping.

Sharpness and contrast.

The general feeling in cinematography circles, the great contradiction it seems, is that as the cameras and lenses get sharper and offer higher resolution, the desire is to reduce it for a more “filmic” look, which seems to be getting stronger at the moment. It is hard to see anything produced at the moment with less than a Black Mist 1/2 strength between the lens and the viewer.

You can add filtering, use old film lenses, making the most of the good-not good qualities of that “legacy” glass or you can go to cinema lenses.

That certain something, the “X-factor” that makes your footage stand out. This is the bit where it gets interesting. It is possible, I know because I have done it, to end up with a dozen 50mm equivalent lenses* that all offer something different and suit their own projects.

Cine lenses sometimes cost a packet to be character filled over perfect or rarely both. There are clinically perfect lenses, but there are many that are easily identifiable to the initiated.

Have a look for example at a scene from the current iteration of Shogun. The frame lines are often bowed, the edges more or less blurred, the outer edges even weird looking. The use of very expensive anamorphic lenses does this and more (including strange oval Bokeh and streak flaring), which adds to the end product in the eyes of the maker.

Your take may be different and even by calling it out I may have forced you to recognise something you may have ignored otherwise, but it is real. I still remember noticing anamorphic effects on the new Star Trek movies, something I had not noticed before, but cannot un-see now.

Anyway, long way round, but back to the point.

There are so many good cine lenses out there at the moment.

At the very budget end ($0-250au), many of the budget brands below also do non-cine manual focus glass with heaps of character (i.e flaws), like the $75 TTArt 35mm f1.4 I have that looks for all the world like an anamorphic when shot full frame and heavily letter-boxed (it is not a full frame lens), or my ancient 1960’s F series Olympus half frame 25mm saved from the junk box at the shop I worked. These are almost all manual focus by design and “interesting” optically.

$75 well spent or a pointless paper weight?

Cropped to 16:9 in full frame, this lens is sharp in the middle even wide open, weird around the edges with a heavy vignette and “swirly” Bokeh, very anamorphic characteristics in the Wes Anderson camp.

The next level ($400-800), where this post is aimed, are the true “budget” cine lenses, the indie film makers entry level option, that once was a qualified choice, but now, not so much.

The 7Artisan Spectrum lenses for full frame are a consistently good choice for that cine-sharp semi retro look getting praise from many videographers like Caleb Pike, Matthew Dangyou, Anton & Co, Victor La Forteza, Dustin Abbott, Josh Sattin, Josh Cameron, Caleb Hoover, Pav SZ and more.

They are pretty stable, except for very strong colour shifts between lenses. The 35 and 50mm are noticeably different, the 50 leaning a little magenta, the other very warm. I tend to use one lens and crop to a second focal length rather than muck around in editing.

A follow focus employed using the built in gearing (the gear can be changed out for different throw). You can also control the aperture ring, or add rings to other lenses, but the one thing all the sets offer (to themselves), is identical ring placement, so you can quickly change one lens for another without changing rigging.

The Vision range is less consistent or if you like, more “character” filled.

Their new Hope range is closer to the Rodger Deakins “perfect lens” (he will then add effects later), with nearly ideal performance in all areas for the cost of a stills kit lens, except unfortunately they are still not perfectly colour matched. To be fair, my stable of Panasonic camera sensors vary as much as these lenses, so no point is being too picky, just aware.

I have the Hope 25mm T2.1 coming in M43 (and the 50mm as of a few days later). It was a no-brainer as it seems to be the best of its type, something I felt my M43 kit needed. This lens is slightly warmer than the rest of the Hope range, but my G9.II is neutral-cool in rendering like my S5, (my S5II is warmer so it is what it is).

I would have preferred it in L-mount as a 38mm in crop format (40-45mm are my true perfect focal length), but it’s not available yet. I may add the 16 and 50 also, but we will see as the other option is the L-mount 25 if it comes, matching perfectly, with two different focal lengths.

This means I have yet another 50mm equivalent, but they really are all different*.

The 50mm, a lens I tend to avoid in stills work, fits well in video. I am not keen to show the world with a bias, no introduced strangeness, overly obvious perspective effects etc. A 50mm is considered the boring middle of the lens world, a slightly portrait leaning neutral perspective, which in video means what you do with everything else matters, the lens will not save you or fight you.

Sirui has the Nightwalker range which were probably the most respected crop sensor range until the Hope series, but if you want super fast, they are still a strong contender. They even offer relatively stable anamorphic lenses for many formats. They are not “dirty” lenses, maybe too clean for some anamorphic fans, but they are ideal if you want some anamorphic benefits without painting yourself into a corner.

Different brands, but similar ideas at play.

Other budget brands I do not have, but are doing compelling options are Viltrox, Iron Glass, Rokinon/Samyang, Mieke, Vespid, Laowa, Mitakon etc, although the Sirui anamorphic range is tempting.

In the mid range ($1-3kau each), outside of the range of this post are the IRIX, Nisi, DZO, Sony, Canon, Sigma, Panasonic etc, that also often offer the same glass in stills form cheaper, but with less cine-convenience. These are closer to the “real deal” and for many enough, but seem to me to be neither one thing or the other.

To me they seem to be a compromise that is relatively pointless considering the recent boost in cheap options and the reality they still fall far short of top tier cine glass.

Many of the issues the cheaper Hope series deal with are still very real at this price point as reviewers like this have found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEiStRQxBTk

My concession to this level are the cheaply bought IRIX macro and the Lumix S prime lenses designed to be true hybrid lenses and so far have proven to be. They are perfectly good stills lenses, but have some cine lens characteristics, like similar size, weight and filter size and can be programmed in camera to matching cine lens focus throw.

Sam Holland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4UAqVYfWLg chose the Spectrum and Lumix S 50mm’s to ask the question “do they make a difference” and found them surprisingly close, but that was by design (ironically, everything he said about colour would have been flipped if he had chosen the respective 35mm’s).

A Sigma Art prime or Sony G Master and Spectrum lens may have shown a stronger contrast in design ideals.

Sans gear rings, they are a decent option for hybrid lenses, bettered by some stills only primes like the Sigma range https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5143042409/sigma-vs-panasonic-24mm-and-35mm-shootout and not as solid or smooth to use as cinema-built lenses.

If the Hope are as good as hoped (!), I will look at that range to go forward in both formats (M43 and maybe L-mount APS-c if available).

No matter your real needs, there are now options aplenty. Films like The Creator have shown that cheap cameras can make full Hollywood grade movies and that crew used a few relatively cheap classic 75mm Kowa and Atlas Mercury lenses, as well as some Soviet Iron Glass rehoused antique stills lenses, proving also that budget lenses are also an option.

*my 50mm options, a focal length I seem drawn to.

1. Olympus 25mm which is stable and lush, actually closer to a 45mm in reality.

2. Olympus antique 25mm f2.8 half frame with muted colour, funky Bokeh and flare.

3. Olympus 12-40 f2.8 at 25. A nice organic looking lens and a good match to a Pana sensor.

4. Panasonic 12-60 Leica. A slightly brighter and more modern-cleaner version of above, my best AF/stabe option for video.

5. Lumix 50 S slightly warm and modern stills/video balanced.

6. Lumix 35 S (as crop frame 50), cooler but similar to the 50mm.

7. 7 Artisans Spectrum 50 neutral colour and cinematic smoothness.

8. 7Artisans Spectrum 35 (as crop frame 50) warmer coloured version of above.

9. Pentax 50 f1.4 SMC which although legendary is an odd one for me.

10. Helios 58-42 in L mount. That old pearl. Mine has oil on the blades but works fine. This is one of the stars of the Iron Glass range.

11. TTart 35 f1.4 (for crop frame, but used on full and not a cine lens), a decent anamorphic clone when heavily letter-boxed. This one needs a follow focus as its focus ring is tiny and hard to reach and the 37mm filter size is a pain (looks hilarious with a mat box on).

12. 25mm 7Artisans Hope series, probably my best “clean” cine lens option outside of another IRIX, but unseen as yet.

13. Sirui 24 Nightwalker, a very fast and decently corrected cine lens, probably beaten by the Hope lens above for quality, but faster and different in rendering.

14. Several other zooms, but no standouts in either M43 or full frame.

The Problem With YouTube.

YouTube is probably the main source of information available to the majority of us these days.

The printed book, weekly or monthly magazine I drew from is a thing of myth (bought a copy of “American Cinematographer” the other day out of the blue and enjoyed it, but at $17au, I can see why relatively free YouTube wins most of the time).

This has a ton of issues.

YouTube is like Wikipedia.

There are no information police, no true editors, little awareness or enforcement of standards, so you get good and bad information (often at the same time), terminology that can be misleading, lies told, good information lost in the roar, agendas championed.

YouTube is an open forum powered by popularity algorithms, presentation and the illusion of correctly understood information being shared, but it is not fact checked. I worked in retail for a long time and the reality was, the best salesmen were usually not the best educators or the most morally adjusted of us.

My pet peeve at the moment is the miss-use of depth of field/aperture terminology. I cringe when the raft of popular videographers in particular use depth of field terms incorrectly (like using the term “more (of a) depth of field”, but actually meaning “more more pronounced shallow depth of field effect”, when more depth would actually mean well… .more or deeper depth of field). Saying “stop down to a smaller aperture”, because of misidentifying smaller aperture numbers as being smaller, which are actually wider aperture holes etc. It is getting so bad, I feel the actual physics of it are semi-redundant and the new terminology is taking over*.

This image displays the effect of “shallow depth of field”, not “more of a depth of field”, which is actually not a thing.

The big issue here is they all listen to each other in a loop of self justifying error so the inaccuracies become lore and the poor confused viewer then reads something like an actual instruction manual and gets the other (true) version, making the already tough to understand near impossible. Is it right that the more popular face on YouTube will often win out over the cold hard truth in text?

*

You need to “play the game”.

The presenter is forced to play the “catch word” game to get noticed, using clever terms and trigger words. If you do not play the game, if you use literal or information based titles, your video will never launch. If you use the promise of easy gain, the fear of impending doom or simply entice with clever confusion, you will do better than relying on truth.

“Ten must do tips”, “You are doing this wrong”, “Why you are failing” or “How to guarantee success” and many, many other over the top pseudo-headlines may get you hits and grab the attention of viewers, but you had better follow that up with something real and true or be aware of the harm you are causing.

This is always a part of something, but as speed of adoption and retention equals income generation, the reality is you need a big hook to catch a lot of little fish. No decent book was without a title and even catchy cover picture, but the correct assumption from the buyer should be all books would at least be proof read, fact checked and edited to some extend. They were expensive to produce and taken seriously, so needed some standards. Even magazines are/were accurate, concise and informative.

There are many good presenters and I personally learned a lot from them, but there is also a huge trap of personal opinion, flawed testing regimes, parroting innacuracies, paid sponsorship and bias.

I am lucky in that I have a long back story of learning from accurate and reliable sources and sometimes teaching these to fall back on, but this does not help much when half a class of students want to argue the point, citing a bunch of more popular than me “experts” on YouTube, who, legitimised by the format clearly, apparently know more than me and those I learned from, when most were not born when I learned it correctly.

I do not “play the game” so I have no skin in the information dissemination world. I just have to see physics bastardised, photography and video terms twisted and changed to suit an often uninformed presenter’s use.

*

It is limited, unfulfilling and hard work.

The format is limited in time, attention holding and completely reliant on the care factor and honourable intentions of the presenter.

As well intentioned and informative as many presenters are, they still have to “give a crap” enough to do the work. It is hard and often unrewarding, which is a shame as the presenters with the most to give often cut and run when the reality of it all settles.

I get it, I often stop blogging for long periods because other things get in the way or I simply have nothing to say, but for YouTubers, often under pressure to produce, even pressure from sponsors, it must get dark and heavy some times and it takes a lot more to do.

No wonder so many good YouTubes fall away. Integrity, genuine pride in their work and a desire to get it right are all swimming against the tide.

It is an ever tightening funnel of limited perspective.

I am always surprised how a format with almost unlimited potential for input growth often has little of use to say on an important subject. I guess I need to ask the right questions and accept the answers given? Even in my other hobbies it is often easier to dredge up an old magazine article than search the web.

The sad fact is, gear reviews get the most hits, but often tell us the least. On this blog, my Domke and Filson bag reviews are by far my most viewed and cynically, even though I generate no income from this site, I did post them to address the shortfall of information I found myself and to get more hits.

Staying the course of truth and avoiding bias, when it is built into the system is hard and often pointless.

*

I am left to wonder where are we headed?

Fake news is the norm, words for money are standard, greed over generosity always a threat, with few if any other options to turn to. Are we tainting a generation of talented young replacements, bending them to a will and perspective they do not even see as tainted, or does it even matter. If they use the wrong terms, but get the right result, is it any different to someone using a second language incorrectly, but getting the idea none-the-less?

Since the first words were printed, sharing of accurate information has been possible and created the world we now live in (well some of us), but it has never been for free and it has always had it’s falsehoods. Nothing written or read has ever been completely without bias or a required perspective, much of it is outright lies, so maybe we just need to hope that the best of us will rise above it as we have in the past.

*More depth of field is deeper depth of field i.e. more depth of field or in focus area which is a smaller number, which is also less light, which is also called stopping down, or closing the aperture. Not a suggestion, fact.

Video Avalanche!

Well, not really, but stuff happening.

Well, careful what you wish for.

The school junior music faculty asked the other day if I could do a multi cam, multi mic performance of their year 5’s as the school gym is out of action when needed (a casualty of a major building project), so the fairly large group needs to be projected on screen. Three groups at once, same space, different locations, so handy or fraught depending on how you look at it.

I get a practice day so sound mainly, maybe even a safety track, then stills for camera angles.

I have the cams (the two S5’s and one G9 mk1 will be static, the G9.2 moving).

I have the mics, probably paired (or single) Lewitts per group, the LCT 240 or 040 match condenser for vocal/overhead and the MTP 440’s for ‘harder’ instruments. There will be a “modern” group, a Xylophone group and vocalists.

The H8 will get the lot, but I will backup the whole room with the SSH-6 mid-side shotgun into the F1/H5 (or the H8) as a safety net (RAW audio so easy to adjust).

This job is not about lighting, it will be what it is, but sound and putting together a 4 cam monster will give me plenty to do.

After getting my head around the first true multi camera, multi mic job that finally justifies my purchases and plans for these, I got a short notice repeat of a jb I did a few years ago to video some boarding house students.

Lighting has been on my mind.

Luc Forsyth recently posted a video on the difficulty of mimicking that “Netflix” doco light https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2opzk8PAIE and I noticed something that had been on my mind and was coincidentally followed up by a documentary, a very slick “Ken Burns” style one that used soft light against a very deeply black/grey background. The thing that got me was the “flatness” of the softness.

In the Forsyth video, after over four hours of working on the scene, he realised the main difference between his work and the supplied samples was one if brilliance, even to the point of hot spots on the subjects. It gave then a liveliness and brilliance that made them stand out.

He used a large soft box, the originals look like large LED panels, possibly bare as the hot spots are clearly rectangular.

I have options, lots and lots of options, lots and lots of ideas, but I need to test some stuff and now, because I shoot tomorrow.

Very quick and dirty test using the “great white hope”, my Smallrig lantern md on the front of a 80w lamp at 50%. Big mod on a big arm, C-stand and weights etc. Nice result considering a shitty set-up (I put the rest in place in my mind). The cam is at ISO 3200, f1.8 1/125th, so stills settings, not video. I feel this will work well for a pair of subjects, a little further forward and a bit more grunt.

Getting more realistic, as I have 5 bags to carry already, this is the same light, same settings into a Westcott bounce brolly.

My old fall-backs, that to be honest seem to do 70-80% of my work, the Godox white shoot-through (or bounce) brollies. Cheap as chips and my oldest mods, these just give. Obviously at the same settings, too hot, but less power means less heat.

Normalising the camera to video settings (50% light, ISO 800, 2.8, 1/50th), I think the cheap and simple shoot through gives me good open colour, but also some brilliance. I will use a warm hair light motivated by a warm point light behind, some other fake lamps etc, but otherwise a winner and it only needs a light weight stand, can be a little further back and is very efficient. For two people, I will bring the light closer to straight.

With a direct comparison below, the bounce brolly has more “bite” and seems to open shadows (behind) more, but it is also closer as you can see in the handy TV reflection. I may take both, just in case, the refelctor having the advantage of self flagging with a solid backing.

Ed. It happened, it worked and the system was superb.

The single brolly modified light maybe needed some flagging or the reflector model used with feathering to darken the background, but apart from that, the lights (1x 80w Selens COB on 50%, that did not even get warm over an hour, 2 little tubes that were still at 80% battery after same, some little christmas lights and a Weelite RB9 as hair light (motivated by the little tubes), were also on near full battery after an hour of 50% power.

Comfortable subjects, consistent light and processes.

The S5 in 1080/422/10bit/Flat, with 7Artisans 35mm in APSC crop (50mm), Neewer 1/8 mist filter on the mat box, Sennheisser MKE-600 on a low ifootage stand in front into my little Zoom AMS-24 interface and then the camera, all worked faultlessly. The S5 runs neutral-cool in colour, the 35mm is warmer, balancing both out (The S5.II and 50mm do the same backwards).

Over 1hr of footage needing to be broken down to about 15 mins, then a few minutes for a promo video, but plenty to work with. Focus, using the eye cup extender was a little difficult to be sure of out to the edges. I actually thought it was the lens, then realised it got better as I moved my eye around and recording on a tripod I was not super keen to push in too close, so maybe I need to look at that.

Oh and I missed that the mike tip was visible in the lower foreground, disguised by the first sitters dark pants, then I had to leave it for the next two pairs, so a mild crop to start proceedings.

So, How Many Cameras?

In answer to a friend’s question and my own curiosity, but subject to memory limitations and in no particular order (* means I still have them), here goes;

• It starts here, Canon T80, 1980’s retro abomination, AF on an FD mount, with super dumbed down (T50) style camera. Surprised I stuck with it actually.

• Canon T90 (3), ground breaking super cams. Fixed every hurdle the T80 offered.

• Canon F1n, the “brick”, complete with 12 AA battery motor drive and several prism screens.

• Canon F1 old model (2), the other bricks that did not need batteries and had a softer shutter than the new one or the T90’s with mirror lock, I was going backwards looking for simple perfection.

• Canon AE-1. Bought cheaply with some glass.

• Canon A-1. Same.

• Canon EOS 50e (2), my AF switch.

• Canon EOS A2 (the American EOS 5 without eye AF).

• Canon EOS 5.

• Canon 10D (my first digital).

• Canon 450D (2), my little work horses and an attempt to prioritise lenses over cams for weight.

• Canon 550D. The above with more pixels.

• Canon 50D. More serious.

• Canon 60D.

• Canon 5D Mk2.

• Canon 5D Mk3 (had this for a week, before switching to a second EM5.1)

• Canon 1Ds Mk2 (2), lovely cams and great sensors.

• EOS 100D (2), tiny little cams, a bit of a favourite, but unwieldy with larger lenses. My last DSLR’s.

• Olympus OM4Ti (2), twitchy electronics, but like the T90’s, ahead of their time.

• Olympus OM2.

• Olympus Pen (original half frame). Bought from a friend, who wanted it back later.

• Olympus OM10, bought with a couple of sweet lenses.

• Bronica 645, my first medium format all of my own.

• Bronica 6x6 motorised, a later purchase in the digital era.

• Bronica 6x6 basic.

• Fuji 6x9.

• Pentax 67, a local legend’s cam, his other went to the state museum. Beaten to crap and bought too dear, I sold it to break even.

• Pentax ME Super (3), castoffs from a disgruntled film shooter, later sold in the film revival, paying for a Pixma Pro 10 printer.

• Yashica 6x6.

• Rollei 6x6.

• Minolta SRT 101, like Leibovitz.

• Yashica 35 fixed lens. Great lens, mostly horrible camera.

• Contax 167, bought for the lenses mounted on a Fuji, the camera was past it.

• Olympus Pen 3, my first M43.

• Panasonic G6. Bought for the 14-140, but both sold to friends.

• Panasonic GH2.

• Panasonic GM1. Tiny, but maybe too small.

• *Olympus EM5 Mk1 (4), two still going, two retired. My commitment cam in M43.

• *Olympus EM10 Mk2 (2), still working and owe me nothing.

• *Olympus EM1 Mk2, one close to terminal, one going strong.

• *Olympus Pen F, just for me.

• *Olympus EPM-2 (2).

• *Olympus EM1x (3), my super cams of today.

• *Panasonic G9 Mk1 (2) mostly stills, but ok for video.

• *Panasonic G9 Mk2 for video and stills.

• *Panasonic S5 for video.

• *Panasonic S5 Mk2 for video and stills.

• Panasonic LX-5 great little compact.

• My grand fathers home made 5x7 (he was a local photo pioneer and chemist)

• Several antiques gifted by friends etc

• Nikon 28 Ti. Had this twice and let it go cheaply both times.

• Nikon FM2 (2), my dream cams of the 80’s, ended up being gifted to and from me in the last decade.

• Nikon F2

• Nikon F100

• Nikon D2h, as a curiosity and door stop, fallen from grace by cruel time.

• Fuji XE-2 (2). Crappy AF, difficult RAW files, nice JPEG’s

• Fuji XA-1 (Fuji colours without all the sensor weirdness)

• Fuji XT-1. Short term serious commitment to Fuji, until M43 won out.

• Sony NEX 5n.

• Sony NEX 7, the first 24mp crop frame, hooorrible menus, lovey mono files.

• Sony Alpha A77, won as a prize and sold to a friend.

• Olympus E620 DSLR bought with an amazing kit of lenses.

• Mamiya 35mm cam (forget the model).

• Nikon D750 and D300 issued by the paper, but never used by me.

• Canon XTb, the non-pro old F1.

• EOS 620, for a fleeting moment of early Canon EOS AF, but I had better cams.

• (Used for my first job) A 4x5 Sinar, do not remember the model, maybe a P2.

• (Used for my first job), several Hasselblad cams, including a 500 series, a focal plane shutter 2000 model and fixed wide angle SWC, almost owned the wide angle.

• (Used for my first job), Nikon F4, F5, F90.

This is subject to psychiatric analysis and future editing as I recall more. The only ones that actually died on my watch are two EM5’s and soon an EM1 Mk2.

Favourites?

Old F1’s, T90’s, EOS 1Ds Mk2’s, EM1x’s, G9 Mk1’s.

Cams I missed out on?

Contax S2 which I still consider the near perfect camera, Nikon FM2’s when I needed them, the Hasselblad SWC, Fuji 6x8.

Lenses?

No way, not enough time or memory space for that one, but fair to say, lenses often drove camera purchases one way or the other.

Road Paved With Silver.

The Silver Temple or Higashiyama Jisho-ji is at the starting point of the Philosopher’s Path Kyoto.

It is one of the most photogenic of all the temples I have visited.

Enough words, just images now.

Any Regrets?

Leaving the paper was for me, a necessity. The only time I have not enjoyed my photographic journey, apart from the odd bit of fatigue that we all get, was at the paper.

The combination of poor integration, zero feedback, self doubt, imposter syndrome even, fuelled by choosing to just not fit the “mould”, missing my previous life at the school and little connection to either the paper or the subject matter meant leaving or giving it all up totally.

There were fun times of course.

I enjoyed the sports team and they were different to the general editorial pool to work with. The subject matter was generally more interesting, the work routine more natural to me and some specific sports would become favourites. Oddly, those sports were often not the ones I would choose to watch, which turned out almost universally to be boring to shoot.

The JackJumpers games in particular were a highlight both photographically and a decent representation of my work. The other togs were keen to have me only shoot what they called the “minimum required” and get out early, which was an ongoing theme.

The sports team on the other hand were hungry for images, as we in the state’s north only got a few games a season and the resulting images needed to last us the season, or as it turned out when we won the national championships, the whole year.

Great games, great atmosphere and I actually learned most of the names, so a captioning no-brainer.

It is still cool that even a year after leaving and eighteen months since my last game, my images still pop up regularly in the paper. Reward for ignoring the advice of the other jaded togs and taking and captioning dozens of images, not just a handful.

I did however, have mixed feelings when the team visited the school today.

Will Magnay, JackJumpers and Australian Olympic rep.

I miss little from the paper, but I do miss some of the sport, the JJ’s in particular.

No regrets though, I have done that, been there and have plenty to do now.

I also firmly believe sports and all other passions are worth documenting at any level. These people at the top get the attention they deserve, but how much effect can an image of a similar calibre have for a young budding star, or even an on-the-fence try hard looking for a reason to keep going.

Shooting at the top level gives you national attention, but gets lost in the tidal wave of content. Getting a decent shot of that 3rd division under 13 battler, or the second row from the back extra in the junior school production genuinely affects that person and those close to them.

I think I actually prefer that.

Of Orange Gates And Tourists Hoards.

I am a tourist like every other foreign traveller with no real vested interest in the places I visit.

We can delude ourselves we are special, more caring, less selfish, more in tune with the place and maybe after nine trips to Japan, I am a little more attuned to the people and place, but with this comes an awareness of the massive understanding gap that still exists.

Our first day in Kyoto was weather compelled, which forced a late change to our plans, our intended first day (Tofuku-Ji temple and Fushimi Inari shrine) were instead tackled on day two. Still wet, still hot, but time to crack on.

We caught the start of the high season, which tends to be Spring and Autumn thanks to the beauty of blossoms or turning foliage and avoiding the excessive heat in summer or bitter cold of winter, so lots of tourists were not a huge surprise, but the numbers on this less than conducive day were still a surprise.

Umbrellas effectively double everyone’s footprint as well, not helping the crush.

We all have a right and I did feel for the local travellers, their connection to this special and holy place must have been under strain to some extent.

Tofuku-ji, not featured in this post, was about what we expected, with plenty of wedding couples, some tourism shoots and actual tourists, but a large and gentle place, so room for everyone.

Not sure of the dynamic here, maybe a pre, post or actual wedding day shoot, maybe a modelled sample or simply a tourism shoot, but either way the party showed great patience and generosity sharing the space, not that they had much choice.

So, how do you tackle a location.with a massively focussed visitor pool and limited space?

First, you need to be realistic and patient.

The lower parts were crowded, claustrophobic even, the crowds all clambering for that elusive tunnel shot, most with little idea of what to expect.

If you cannot avoid people, then take what is on offer that may actually add to the place.

Be open to all options available.

At one point, the tight crowds are split into two paths, so shooting from one side to the other allows some decent shots.

You can also pick out details, something I always find natural and exciting.

The different stages of maintenance help certain poles “pop”.

As the crowds thin out, inevitable in the heat as the climb is decent and the numbers below off-putting to many, there are rare opportunities to get empty pathway.

After the second section of larger gates, the main cemetery is reached and the crowds become small knots of people interspersed amongst cold stone monuments with contrasting orange features.

At the top, the view is decent, but not overly photogenic.

The cleverly placed guide shows the way to the true top of the mountain only a short walk away, otherwise, it is back down again.

Go forth……or not.

And finally, some more detail and context shots on the way back.

Quite happy with the optical qualities of the kit Panasonic 12-60, Bokeh may be a little Ni-Sen (cross-eyed), but admittedly a torture test shot.

As Spielberg found with the making of Jaws when the mechanical shark failed to cooperate, sometimes a little is more powerful than a lot.

The pride of oiur gardens tends to be just another plant in it’s native habitat.

As a final note, I found the 2:1 and 1:2 formats helped a lot. The usual formats usual in modern cameras (2:3, 4:3), tend to retain too much information to cut out unwanted clutter. Several of these shots have ugly high or populated low elements that were avoided. My other favoured format, square, may also have worked.

Maybe going in winter or high summer would allow more room, but with these come other issues, so as I find myself saying more and more as I get older, “it is what it is”, no more no less.

Don't Forget, Everyone Is Afraid.

Seriously, greed, aggression, hatred, suspicion are all driven by fear. If you have no fear, then the root cause of these drivers goes away. Greed comes from a fear of powerlessness or irrelevance, hatred and suspicion also come from fear of the unknown. Aggression is the implementation of one way of fixing these percieved problems.

When you next meet someone who rubs you up the wrong way, derides you or disrespects the things you hold dear, try to remember their base instincts, their “Lizard brain” is driving them.

Fear creates monsters, often where they do not exist.

Understanding that frees you from their grip.

Seeing it in others, helps understanding and grants compassion.

Knowing that should not be abused.

This post has been hanging around for a while, just needing some gentle images to complete it.

Himeji, The Land Of Rock And Sunshine

Three trips to Himeji and three perfect days. I guess it must rain there, but it seems almost fanciful to us.

It is hard to fail with this place, a truly perfect castle and grounds.

The true gems lie in the details of this truly magnificent working monument.

Especially the gun ports, a favourite subject of mine.

It is however a place of contradiction, the ultimate old meets new flag bearer for Japan.

The parade ground being prepared for a massive rock concert.

No escaping something was going on.

Not the view of their ancestors. The end of the boulevard in the distance is the train station, making this a no-brainer to find.

What Is In A Shape.

What is in a shape?

In photography, the shape of an image tends to be forced on us by sensor shape or printing limits and is accepted by us as provided, even to the point of miss guided ideals espoused like “never crop” drawn from it.

My question is, why?

The shape you choose should be based on the way you see your subject and the way you want it to be seen, nothing else

For Japan this time, I chose to shoot 2:1 “cinematic”, occassionally 1:2 “wall hanging” shapes.

Shooting my images in RAW meant of course, all the images were 4:3 format, so to enforce the continuity of the process, I imported them with these shapes as pre-sets and shot with the excellent crop preview on the G9.

I have faith in my original compositions and intent to hold the course. I do see other shapes in some images, but it is interesting how few are equal or better with more. Even more interesting is the few times I am tempted to break the consistency is to use square format, the “other” true format.

Part of my thinking is linked to the desire to blend cinematic shot composing with stills composition, because they are linked and add to the quality of both.

The shape was easy to compose with, with the added benefit of cropping out unwanted foreground elements (often tourists heads) and refreshed my take on the well frequented locations we visited.

With the 2:3 ratio. 35mm film shape dominating the last half century, we have been pandering to that less than ideal shape along with older, squarer formats for printing, but ascetically, wide screen suits our two eyes better and square is the most equitable and versatile of formats for print.

Another small benefit was horizon alignment, an issue of mine. I was more aware of it, because basically, I had to set my horizontals firmly.

Still not perfect, because sometimes the subject isn't, but better than my usual effort.

Placement is also interesting. I felt keener to break or bend compostional rules a little, the "golden mean" meaning little.

What is in a shape?

What ever you need it to be, even if that is the abomination that is the vertical 16:9 “reel” format.