The Two Lenses You Need For Animal Photography

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

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

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

Devilish light, but needs must.

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

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

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

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

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

Test Thoughts Continued.

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

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

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

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

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

So, soft conclusion after test round 1 is;

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

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

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

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

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

Also I found this excellent site today.

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

The Bag To End All Bags?

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

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

Yep, all the stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

Expensive?

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

What do you get?

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

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

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

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

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

So, what will fit in it.

In the lower section;

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

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

The top section;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Carry All My Stuff mk3.

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

The Curse Of The 50MM?

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

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

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

Does a few millimetres either way really make a difference?

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

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

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

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

Taken with the equivalent to a 60mm, I always feel this lens makes a difference to a standard 50, but does it really? Possibly the specific lens ads more opinion than the focal length alone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shit, I could even use a zoom………..***

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

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

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

Some Test Results

Ok, testing has started.

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

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

First question.

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

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

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

Second tests

Are the two Sirui 24mm Anamorphics as good?

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

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

Test 3

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

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

Test 4

Which lenses stand out in my full frame kit.

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

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

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

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

At about 300% there is good detail.

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

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

Test 5

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

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

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

Conclusions after round 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In full frame however it becomes both easier and harder.

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

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

My safest bet is the S-Prime Panasonic set.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Has Never Been More True

This is a reality;

Gear is getting dearer, but not necessarily better.

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

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

A developmental spiral of death.

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

Another opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When It Does Not Seem To Make Sense, But You Still Want To Do It.

Sometimes things do make sense, but they still refuse to leave you alone.

1

The BMPCC4k is an old camera by todays standards. It has been matched by the GH5s (also old), BGH1, slightly newer, over taken in some ways by various newer M43 cams, even their own and other full frame options, but there is a magic there, a unique look that has been baked into the visual memory of so may makers and viewers.

It has recently been updated to ProRes Raw capable, making it one of a handful of cameras that can do B-Raw and PR-Raw and all for the price of a last gen second hand camera!

AF is crap, stabilising is software based (decent), battery life needs sorting and the thing looks 80’s style plastic-fantastic, but it is a genuine high quality image maker and comes in at about $500au more than just buying a BMVA 5” 12G, which also lacks an XLR input. If you go up to the 7” VA with XLR inputs, you are only $200 odd away from the camera.

I have decided to skip this for the final time, sticking with the BMVA’s and Pana cameras for consistency and because I have done this to death and know there is little real difference.

2

DZO Vespid 40 T2.1 series 1.

This is a dream lens for me. 40mm, which is ideal, beautiful rendering, solid build, decent price and some optical magic. With a pair of PL adapters I would have no fewer than four different focal lengths (Full frame 40mm, APS-C 60mm, MFT 80mm and on the 1.8x crop GH5s a 70mm), a full kit in one lens.

It has been superceeded by the Vespid 2’s, or has it?

The Thypoch Simera-C lenses are well liked super small versions of the Vespid 1’s, but come with some small lens issues (distortion, focus breathing and vignetting), but the Vespid 1’s do it a little easier and in Australia, they seem to be the same price ($1300au).

The Vespid 2’s however render like the Arles line, but miniaturised, so cleaner, sharper more neutral.

A reviewer of yesteryear (literally last year as the V2’s are quite new), might compare the Nisi Athena, IRIX cine and Vespid 1’s, the three “budget” genuine cine lens makers as different ways to skin the same cat (sorry cat lovers).

One is clinical (IRIX), one is smoother but still quite clinical (Athena) and one was decently corrected and sharp but more importantly, character-filled.

The Vespid was a little soft wide open, has some mild fringing and very mild focus breathing, but bags of character and tends to win out often over the other two because it’s competition really just looked a little like high end stills lenses with no character.

The Vespid 1’s have the secret sauce, the cinematic edge and more importantly, a 40mm. The new Vespids are better by most technical measures, but does that make the 1’s obsolete or just different?

This is also now in the too hard basket, the price creeping up with adapters etc and to be honest, I have a ton of under utilised cine glass already.

3

Domke bags are old fashioned, sometimes retro cool, then old again.They are a little out of date at the moment and hard to find in some places, but they don’t care, they just work and are built to survive many fashion shifts, decades even. I bought my first one in the 1980’s and still have it.

My last bag, the 810 is a giver as are my F2, 3x, 4AF, 802, 804, 217 roller etc. Indeed the only Domke bags I regret are the ones I let go.

I am not looking for any more Domke bags, but still keep an eye on the options and Japan often spits out a surprise.

Some Resolve And Clarity

This whole last two weeks has been a mess, driven by sales, looming holidays and that Christmas spending impulse. I did some sensible things, then contemplated some dumb ones, then came back to sensible, with a touch of grumpy.

My video restlessness had reared its head again, lots has been written, some about to be reinforced and some might seem to be contradictory.

I am sick of the unreal, the teal and amber, soft-sharp bullshit that is taking over TV and the movies. The English and Australian stuff in particular disappoints, as do lots of Vloggers, some commercials even. It seems even the BBC News cannot resist heavy filtering, super shallow depth and an amount of “Netflix glow” that is simply following a fashion for fashions sake. There even seems to be a propensity for artificially softened edges, a “miniature mode” look.

This is not natural lighting, but we accept it, emulate it, worship it.

Just because you can, does not mean you should.

So fake, so disingenuous and a product of many factors, none of them driven by genuine need.

I do not like it and I do not want to copy it.

No gimmicks needed if the content is strong enough.

This makes my video selections a lot easier. My previous need/want post has devolved into don’t really need or want.

The DZO Vespid is now off the table, as well as the 50mm Sirui anamorphic, a lens I have ordered and cancelled twice. These are perfectly fine, but part of chasing the same tail as the industry.

I bought the 24mm Sirui lenses in MFT for a reason. They are natural rendering “normal” lenses and of the lenses in the range they avoid overt anamorphic side effects (flare, oval Bokeh, distortions) as much as any anamorphic lens can, so I get the normal-with-wide perspective I like, you know, wide screen, but nothing else.

What is wrong with clarity, natural rendering and reality?

The Hope lenses are clean, the Spectrums pretty good also, my stills lenses are excellent and the Panasonic cams render a natural looking image, if sometimes a little sharp, but not so much I need a strength 2 Black Mist! If I want a wide screen tele, I will letterbox some 6k spherical stuff.

I shoot my stills normally, which is to say I do not add any styles or artistic opinions to them, so why am I always fighting the perceived need to with video?

I try to be an informed and aware content creator, one who may follow a look or fashion for a job that requires it, but I really do not want to slavishly do as the rest do. Innovation comes from bucking the habit of conforming and timelessness comes from quality, not just chasing the current look.

Maybe I will do some black and white?

The Haunting Of A Restless Mind

Some things just will not go away.

I am not a professional movie maker, not even a pro video maker really, just someone with a fractured, passionate vision and burning ambition to get better at the cousin of what I do better, stills shooting.

Commercial work is the justification, but there is something else.

All I need to get the job done, well, the job as others define it, is a 1080 Log or Flat profile/IPB capable camera (not even that quite often), some decent lenses, capable, versatile sound, a little lighting and in some situations, AF.

Basically this.

Something like a G9II or S5II with cage and handle, a standard zoom, something fast (all leftovers from my stills kit really), a decent shotgun mic (MKE-400), a wireless Lav mic kit (M1 or M2 Larks) and a 60w portable light (Smallrig 60B) with soft box on a small stand.

Well I have all that, multiple times as it goes, so how do I explain the following;

• Multiple cameras capable of B-Raw, or ProRes HQ with extended endurance.

• No less than four sets of cinema or cinema hybrid lenses over two formats and dozens of stills options including some legacy glass and anamorphic.

• 7 COB lights of varying power and energy sources, multiple LED panels, modifiers, stands, backdrops, etc.

• Over a dozen mics, hundreds of feet of cable running to a variety of interface and recording units, more stands, more bits.

• Bags, cases, a trolley, a dedicated computer with panels and controls.

• 5TB of storage in a variety of forms.

• Finally, a hunger for more, things like the Vespid 40mm or Sirui anamorphic 50mm a Black Magic camera.

Obviously I have a passion driven hobby as well as a job, but sometimes I get the two confused.

Why do we buy anything?

We need it or we want it, both valid to a point, but if you justify one thing with the other, you may buy too much, the wrong thing, not enough, inefficiently and never quite getting where you want to be.

I have always preached “if you know where you want to get, go there in a straight line, don’t get distracted by compromise steps that waste time and money”. Wish I did that more often, but it does not take in to account that slow burn of an interest turning into a hobby then a job.

Ok, sermon over.

The Vespid 40mm cannot be justified by need. I have a ton of gear to get my basic video requirements sorted and some of it even nullifies any argument I can put forward for “creative benefits” or even “something seriously cool looking”.

My order of video quality priorities is;

Codec choice. The choice of codec is important, but it only needs to be balanced with the needs of the job. Some of my favourite footage was taken in Standard mode on a G9 mk1, but B-Raw has been a revelation.

Process and processing. The unbroken link of good processes from tripod use and stabilising, focus, lighting, exposure, sound, all through to supporting processing and grading.

Gear quality. This is last because if you get all the above right, the gear matters less and less. iPhones are being used to make movies, but it is not as simple as committing to a lesser form of camera, it needs the user to prove their mettle, to apply their skills in all other areas of film making and accept compromise.

The Pyxis 6k was in the frame as was the BMPCC4k, but balance was threatened.

I have codecs covered, process and processing are both ongoing, as they should be (this year has been a massive upturn for video processes), gear is sorted in a variety of ways, but there is still a want. An unjustifiable, personal want.

The Vespid 40mm.

It has some benefits, like a mount that can be used with basically any camera I may ever use, the perfect two focal lengths for me (40 and 60) on a full frame and also useful MFT lengths (70-80), a look that is seriously pro level, impressive presence, even some legend.

The down sides are cost ($1300au, which is not too bad), the need for adapters which are at a minimum $100au for a dumb EF mount, or as high as the value of the lens for a better PL. This brings up the ugly reality that I would be getting a pair of PL adapters for a single lens, which knowing me would end up being another lens to justify the process.

It is also heavy and large, but that is part of it and the old version of a lens yet unmade, the Mk2.

The camera would be the S5 most likely, which is not fully rigged. The reality is, I have a pair of 35mm lenses that, with a little stabilising added are 40mm lenses.

The money would not get me much else I may actually need*, the Sirui 50mm anamorphic is less than half the price, it is better justified, but also less desired.

The 50mm Sirui anamorphic is a different beast. The pair I have only fitting MFT and they are the same (deliberately), but a full frame camera used with a faster, slightly longer lens does make sense for the whole kit.

I have liked the look of the two I have, but have felt a little constrained.

*BMPCC4k, BMVA 12g 5”, 24 S-Prime, part of the 24-70 Leica or 24-60 2.8, 100-500 Lumix etc.

Beautification And Reality

We are in a habit of beautifying visual media at the moment, which in the movie and entertainment sphere is fine, it is a reality of entertainment that tastes change as tech changes.

The shift that I have noticed is this is creeping into all things visual including news media.

BBC and ABC (Australia) news, commercials even documentaries are all getting the “treatment” and the problem is, they are no longer showing the world as it really is. Not since the era of black and white has the world as we see it been represented in a less realistic way.

One commercial, for a charity no less, made starving children look like they were in a Netflix drama. It not only looked commercial, but possibly deceitful as the whole thing screamed “professional set”.

A lot of footage from Gaza was far too pretty. The place and people should not look soft, bright and warm, it does them no favours to look so sanitised, so…..ok. I remember seeing one old man explaining he had nothing and nobody left to live for, all the while looking good enough to star in a TV drama.

Not the best example, but still, too good to be true?

Fashions come and go, but at what point are we perpetuating a world of make believe when we should be looking at the world with ever more realistic vision?

Digital needs filters to take the “edge” off, but how strong should they be?

ARRI colours are the industry bench mark, but are they always needed?

Shallow depth of field is in fashion at the moment, but does it give a sense of place?

Light is needed, but does it need to be over done?

There are a lt of recent opinions on this, so it seems to be a thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XptD8ohC77w

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-MB0Sej9tQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRX1FQI3Fys

Ok, So One Lens To Rule Them All?

I have plenty of lenses, some stills, some cine and some legacy, but there is still a desire (need?, maybe not) for one lens to be “the” lens in my kit.

The 45mm IRIX wuld make some sense to match my 150, a Nisi Athena even, but both are close to $2000au at the moment (my 150 was picked up on clearance for half that).

I have for MFT the Hope 25/50 pair, a supporting 12mm Vision, matching pair of Sirui 24 anamorphic, plenty of M43 glass (9, 8-18, 12-40 are stars) and the odd legacy option.

The Hope lenses are strong in most areas.

In full frame there are the two Spectrum primes (35/50), a trio of S-Primes and a kit zoom covering 20-85 and the excellent 28-70 Sigma. I also have the IRIX 150 macro, an impulse sale buy that does double duty in my video and stills kits.

How do I add something to this that will be of value, cover several roles and keep the other lenses valid?

The Vespid 40mm could be effectively eight lenses in my kit ranging from the perfect “one” lens to several portrait lens lengths. Why not change camera instead of lens, even change brand in future?

Let me elucidate.

Being a PL/EF mount lens, I can buy two adapters (MFT and L-mount to PL or EF), for a total of four focal lengths (40/60/70/80) depending on the camera used. The lens also has two personalities, something the clean new Vespid 2’s, IRIX and Nisi Athenas do not.

The Vespids are smooth-soft wide open, character filled and gentle. This has often been the thing that swung reviewers and buyers towards them. Luc Forsyth for example in a blind test comparing Cooke, Nisi, Vespid and Sigma primes kept picking them as the Cooke 4’s.

The other personality is a clinically sharp lens from T4-5.6 on, much like the competiton. The sweet spot is possibly T4, even balance of both personalities.

So, eight lenses in one?

Currently, they sit in a reasonable price at about $1290au (+ $300 for a Nisi adapter and I do have a cheap EF/MFT adapter already). My fear is, they will run out with the Mk2 available and I will miss out on one.

The other option is the 50mm Sirui anamorphic, which would add to both my L-mount (APS-c) range and my anamorphic coverage. This tempts me and is less than a third the price (no adapters needed).

Ok, taking stock.

The Spectrum 50mm is a favourite. I like how it handles, the rendering, it is perfectly sharp for stills, so plenty for video, it is a tight mount fit and I got it very “right” at $220au in the sales a couple of years ago.

Rich, contrasty, sharp (but I did miss focus using only the camera screen). What more do I actually need?

Nice rendering, smooth and pleasant as I have come to expect.

Character, which many fall back on with these as an excuse for them not being technically perfect.

Good detail and the rendering/Bokeh hides the transition from sharp to soft quite effortlessly, ideal for a video lens.

Try as I might, I could not get it to flare obviously.

Just a really pleasant lens to use. The lens tames contrast, a very cine lens thing to do and it results in well controlled photos.

Ok, so I have a decent 50mm for full frame video, the IRIX 150 needs no consideration and the S-Primes are excellent and consistent.

A screen grab of some V-Log video. Nice rendering.

The 7Art 35mm Spectrum is an issue however. It is a lot warmer than the 50, a little loose on the mount and a little tight to focus, so not as pleasant to use, but fine on a rig I guess. It is a stretch to say the pair make a pair in real terms.

I would love the Vespid but feel it may unbalance my kit. I also feel drawn to the much cheaper anamorphic to deepen that offer, but overall, do I actually need anything at all?

Balance is the key.

My quality peak is B-Raw via a mirrorless Panasonic (several on hand). This is realistically too much for most clients who would not be able to tell the difference between raw and a standard profile. I am happy that these cameras offer much the same quality as their Black Magic equivalents, which is to say base level pro quality.

My lenses are either sharp and contrasty stills lenses, the Olympus and Pana S-primes are well suited to video, or budget cinema glass, all carefully chosen for their quality more than their price.

I could make an indie movie I guess, but for commercial clients I usually take the road of least resistance (S-Primes/MFT stills glass), the cine lenses are for the most part just for me, which brings us to the question “do I want another cine lens enough to over ride a need, which is hard to justify”?

Choices Made.

I decided to go with the bits that make your job better, the boring things that become so important when you are working and something that may increase my creative options.

Something I have noticed and something I need to fix for next year, are my processes.

For stills, I have well ingrained habits, bullet proof enough to trust and yes, I do get caught out occasionally, but I adjust on the fly and usually nobody but me knows.

Video is a lot more “technical”, it has more moving parts, more links in the chain with fewer points of forgiveness. Mistakes can and have been made, usually stupid little mistakes with disproportionate effects like leaving a small screw adapter behind on another mic, so I cannot mount the one I have to a stand, then having to use a LAV as my main mic, not my backup and the user turning it off by mistake because I failed to lock it. About three things had to go wrong together and they did.

The BMVA 7” is big and heavy, so a cage like the one I have for the 5” is needed. The VA is not blessed with a guide pin locator, but the cage has, so a more secure connection and hard edge for protection. The shade will be handy, but the cage itself makes me feel like I am taking the recorder seriously and all contact points will be more secure.

Something small but annoying thing to fix is my new Smallrig screen mount has a locking lever on the side that makes attaching a C-mount cable (for an SSD) on the bottom of the 7” recorder nearly impossible. The cage may (yet to be confirmed), give me a little more room and does have a locking screw.

I needed another SSD to enable the G9II. I am happy that the G9II is best used in ProRes V-Log, which needs an SSD for its best settings. The GH7 can do this internally, but the cost of a high speed 1TB SSD ($170au) is acceptable, a similar internal card is closer to $500, so no advantage there.

I bought cables, brackets etc and had about half of my allocated funds allocated for a BMVA 5” or a part of the BMPCC4k. These would also have needed some or all of the bits I bought anyway, the path travelled had changed little, just the order of things.

What I almost did commit funds to was buying a Sirui 50mm 1.8 (APS-C) in L-Mount. This would add a fast short telephoto (75mm on the tall side), with standard lens width (50mm equivalent) to complement my 24mm’s in MFT format (about 45-48 x 32-28) and allow me to use three cameras in anamorphic format (A & B interview and a “floating” cam etc), but I will hold off, because I do have the option of “letterboxing” my excellent MFT Hope 25 or 50mm’s or a full frame lens for much the same result.

The original and one of the smaller, lighter ones (the 24 is a brick).

I felt when I went with the 24mm for MFT that another tighter lens might be in the pipeline, the shift to L-mount making sense. The 24 is a well controlled lens and the standard for MFT. The equivalent for APS-C is the 35, but that would be the same, so I went slightly longer, faster and more flare and Bokeh aggressive.

I still have 60% of the funds needed for a BMVA 5” if I go that way (or a Vespid 40mm with adapters), and now I have all the bits needed to make that happen.

Checklist;

• Three cameras that can provide at least V-Log/ProRes HQ, All-i or B-Raw quality.

• Three cameras that have extended endurance (LP or V-mount power and SSD’s).

• A variety of lenses for different roles from anamorphic to cinematic to commercial.

• Protection and security for the monitor/recorders I have.

• Clear pathways forward with a little left over.

Some More Video Thoughts (And Some Common Sense Maybe?)

I had settled on the BMPCC4k as my logical path forward, the prospect of a dedicated BM video camera with B-Raw and ProRes Raw, the potential of freeing up an existing hybrid cam for stills work and to be honest, the fun of exploring something new were all at play and for a little more than a BMVA 7” 12g alone, it made sense to wrap a camera around a new recorder.

Looking at my current kit however, I may pull the pin on that.

The logic was based on a recent experience as a sole operator, needing three cams at once to do a large concert. I only used two because that was all I and a friendly assistant could attend to.

The GH5s + 7”/12g as the usual static endurance cam, the G9II + 5”/12g as the mobile cam (using dual anamorphic lenses-another thing to address). The S5, my low light specialist was not used.

The main reason the S5 was not used was because I did not have anyone to watch it, so I simply did not take it. I actually did have a need, but with only two BMVA’s, 2 SSD’s and 2 anamorphic lenses in MFT mount how would I have managed it anyway?

Looking at the G9II, I have to admit, full V-LOG in ProRes HQ out to an SSD is not to be sneezed at. The bit rate is high (up to 237 MB/S max), processing should be easy on a Mac (ProRes is an Apple codec) and the clean usability of an unencumbered G9II with an optional light weight Portrays 5” screen may be ideal for its role as mobile cam.

I had some trouble handling the G9II with the BMVA 5” on it when moving and mounting-unmounting it from a tripod.

The elegant perfection that is the G9II, bare bones. With the BMVA 5” mounted, it is not as easy to run.

A ProRes HQ-shooting G9II would have to have white balance, sharpening etc baked in, but it would also be able to apply its full range of internal support settings and dynamic range. It would be the camera in hand, so getting these things right would be easy enough and it is my most capable video camera in many ways.

It may seem odd, but sometimes I have felt connecting it to a BMVA was a waste f its otherwise excellent capabilities, unlike the GH5s and S5 which both benefit from the upgrade.

I would always have the option of adding a BMVA with it if needed (2 cams is often plenty) and have to ask the question, how often would I actually need a third Raw capable camera?

Most interviews would be an A and B static cam, the floating third cam could be the G9II in ProRes. If I need a 4th cam, the S5II can only shoot V-Log and my 5th and 6th (G9Mk1’s) can only do Natural profile, so there is always a point of compromise.

I could also drop both ideas and swing a cage for the 7”, maybe a Sirui anamorphic for L-mount (making three overall) or the Vespid 40mm.

Getting the BMPCC4k camera would likely mean using the G9II without a VA anyway (the GH5s and S5 are best supported by the BMVA’s). The BMPCC4k would effectively mean I would have three static cams, the G9II still filling the role of movement cam, possibly with no B-Raw option. I could end up with a Panasonic doing nothing.

A third SSD, maybe an anamorphic lens and other bits are more important and I am finding the 7” a handful on it’s mount, so something a cage could help with.

*

So, adding a BMPCC4k would add another B-Raw capable camera, but not change the G9II’s role unless I want to do three MFT cams. Adding a third BMVA 12g may equalise the G9II with it’s mates, but would it loose it’s mobility, be a bulky load and do I need to spend $1000 for a rarely used extra?

By dropping a third B-Raw option (for now, always time later) and making the most of the G9II’s form factor and special capabilities, I could round out my anamorphic offer to three lenses that match my cameras with three different focal lengths* (2x 24mm’s on my 2x and 1.8x MFT crops cams and a 50mm on APS-C* or a 50/35 for MFT), then sort the third SSD I need regardless and a cage for the 7” monitor.

Cine glass is my Achilles heel, something that keeps calling me because it is not only practical, but fun. The Sirui is gone now, fallen away as just one too many options.

First thing tomorrow, I will test the ProRes HQ codec vs B-Raw on the G9II and see if it is a thing or not.

Ed. Test done (a set of streamers blown by a fan). The ProRes HQ and All-i V-Log files held up well, They did not have the colour depth of Raw, but were more than enough to get the job done. The B-Raw versions, 8:1 and Q5 were also plenty.

*(GH5s +24 ) 43/28 + (G9II +24) 48/32 + (S5 +50) 75/50 or (G9II +50) 100/66 ~ (GH5s +50) 90/60 or (G9II +35) 70/45 ~ (GH5s +35) 65/40 depending on MFT camera used. The main question is, do I want to use three cameras at one time or just support MFT?

A Third B-Raw Option?

A third B-Raw camera may seem extreme, but for a single shooter and one who likes to get all the angles in one go, it may be a must (see; “Holidays, With Some Tests To Be Done”)?*

I am a B-Raw convert, not simply for the quality and versatility, but the work flow in Resolve (same family, same genes). V-Log is also excellent, especially with All-i implementation, but B-Raw opens up a different mind set. The camera goes from “making the footage look good”, to “when making it look good, how else do I want it to look”.

Options;

I have three Panasonic cameras that can feed RAW out to a B-Raw or Atomos recorder (GH5s, S5, G9II) and three that can shoot out to ProRes HQ (2x G9, S5II) also into a Video Assist, but I only have 2 BMVA 12G’s**.

I did my research here and am satisfied the GH5s is the equal of the BMPCC4k in most respects, only differing in colour (that B-Raw mostly fixes), while providing a more naturally coloured and video-sharp file, the S5 is basically the equivalent to the 6k L-mount with benefits and the G9II is the next gen and far superior to a BMPCC4k in handling and other features.

The logical thing would be to add a second 5” video assist to fully enable all three of my Raw capable cameras. At about $900au, it is reasonably priced, but unexciting (may be a looming sale).

The G9II is possibly the best of the three based on (not much else I can find), the implementation of B-Raw in the other newer cameras (S5IIx is closest), but that cam is also probably my best All-i/V-Log shooter and if kept light for movement using AF, the BMVA becomes a “thing”.

Upgrading the S5II for $300au is an option, so a 12G and upgrade for $1200au, but still boring and my S5II is a decent stills hybrid using V-Log only.

If I were to get into a BM camera, there are two logical roads.

The 4k Pocket is only $1450au or so and may have a sale coming this season (nothing yet). Looking at that sideways it is a 5” BMVA 12G with a built in camera for another $500.

Even has the lens I would use.

The camera that cemented BM in the indie pro-am cinema world is not to be ignored. Is there another sub $1500au camera that can shoot ProRes and B-Raw internally with those lovely BM colours? With XLR sound input it is actually closer to a 7” video assist and only a little dearer.

A BMVA can also be used to record ProRes HQ as backup while providing a monitor, so either a third cam or a primary with a backup. I have 2 matching sets of M43 cine lenses and tons of stills glass to support these. It can be matched to the GH5s I have (that I originally chose over it). It would also allow me to shoot three M43 cams or two and a full frame and free up the G9II for other duties.

There are issues with the 4k, such as batteries, fixed screen, AF, storage, etc, which was why I went for the GH5s, but none that I do not have an answer for now.

This would effectively be a mess-less M43 Raw rig, I may not even need a cage.

The other is the Pyxis 6k for about $3500au.

There is a lot of fuss about the S1II at the moment, but the Pyxis has some advantages. It does not need an assist, just a monitor (optional), it has cinema grade connections, is native to B-Raw, full frame, a genuine cinema option and is cheaper than the S1II body alone.

Lovely.

I have all the battery, lens, storage and even monitors I need covered, so a body only and I am done. It can also shoot with a BMVA as backup/monitor. The S1II would be lovely, but I still need another recorder (+$900), so closer to $4500 au and still not a true BM camera.

At this point I am waitng to see what the sale season coughs up. A BMVA 5” or BMPCC4k for a couple of hundred under retail would be the way to go short term or just save up for a Pyxis.

After my testing, I may even find I don’t need anything.

*It may very well be that 2x B-Raw (GH5s, S5) and 2x V-Log cams (G9II, S5II) are more than enough if I can match their footage, I just need to test that. Maybe some more SSD’s and power packs are all I need.

**There is also one that can shoot ProRes HQ to an SSD (G9II), which means in ProRes HQ I have 3 cams.

Holidays, With Some Tests To Be Done

I have had a some wins in video this year and even my misses have been within my scope of understanding to an extent.

Unlike stills, which I do almost by instinct now, mixing camera “X” with lens “Y” for an anticipated result, video and all its combinations (far to many as it goes) is still cursed by tentative growth.

I need to know more, I need to accelerate the process.

These summer holidays, summer being a loose term this year it seems as the weather refuses to break through, I will be testing a lot of things, defining processes and generally just getting on top of what works best.

First, I need to define my goals. What am I looking for, what style, quality base and work flow is ideal and flexible enough for my needs?

There is a fashion at the moment for silky and brilliant, the “soft digital” look, but also a need for flexible and timeless results at the core. My tastes run more towards naturalistic and clean, but my clients will want what they want.

Question 1

Shoot 4k or 1080 for 1080 output?

Nobody I shoot for needs or wants more than 1080 as a rule as almost everything is going on line, but is it still better to capture and process in 4k (or higher) for lower output and have bigger in reserve. Also, can I really see the difference anyway and is there a sweet spot that I am not aware of (more on this below).

Question 2

V-Log, Flat or B-Raw and then, in what compression?

I have had some lovely results with V-Log this year, even Flat profile for very controlled and low stress shoots and the work flow of an OOC format is as simple as it gets, but B-Raw is a revelation and can even run small enough to make little difference to my storage and work flow.

This was a V-log file I shot recently (S5, 28-70 Sigma). It was fine, but the five I shot for the project were all in very different light and locations so matching them was harder than it would have been with B-Raw.

The big issue is one of choice, or to be more precise, so many choices. The common consensus is Q5 (constant quality) or 8:1 (constant bit rate) are enough for most professional projects, Q3 or 5:1 reserved for higher quality jobs. These qualities are considered “TV broadcast capable” according to Black Magic.

12:1 compression is too small for quality work (detail gets lost in movement and shadows).

Q0 and 3:1 are over kill for most uses and I have recent experience with exactly that*.

The quality was lovely, but too much for a small screen.

Constant quality or “Q” settings are better for subjects with a mix of movement and detail as they keep files smaller if there is little to record, but can go higher if needed. The catch is, Q5 in particular can drop to such a low bit-rate for static scenes, it causes problems of its own.

For example 4k/12:1 runs at 34 MB/s, while Q5 ranges from as low as 21 to 58 MB/s, while 8:1 sits on 51 MB/s, so always near the top of Q5, but never lower than that set rate.

So, 5:1 is roughly the average of Q3, 8:1 is roughly the average of Q5, which all make sense, the thing to be aware of is a Q setting will “go to sleep” a little when bored and may spike above the write rate of your media when stressed.

Given that, I will hypothesise it would be best to use Q3 over 5:1 for mixed situations (Q3 can be as little as half the load of 5:1), but probably 8:1 over Q5 because the bottom of the Q5 offer is less than 12:1, although for busy scenes, Q5 is probably still ideal.

We will see.

The constant bit rate formats also tell you accurately how much recording time you have, which may be safer for some jobs like long performances.

In the first two questions I hope to find out things like; if I limit a job to on average say 35 MB/s but still want decent resolution and detail, am I better off using 2k/3:1 or Q0 or 4k/12:1 or for better quality at say 50 MB/s should I use 2k/Q0 or 4k/8:1?

Question 3

Which camera and lens combinations sing and which ones disappoint?

This is something I usually find out as I go with stills, but with video there are fewer times to find out, a lower threshold for error and only a relatively small safe “core” to fall back on.

My best results so far seem to be from the Sirui anamorphic (but I have not compared my now matching two for consistency), the S-Prime Panasonics, Hope 25 and the Sigma 28-70, the latter two pressed into “hybrid” service, so seeing more action.

The 50 Hope, 12 Vision, Spectrum lenses and the IRIX have taken some lovely stills and test footage, but I have not used them “in anger” for serious work. I need to know if there is any real benefit head to head to using them over more convenient lenses.

So, do I need better lenses, do filters make a difference, are some combos easier to use than others (noticed this with the Nightwalker and Hope test, sold the NW), what other qualities do I need to know about (flare, distortions etc), things that often rear their head when in use?

Something that I have also found difficult to find on the web is B-Raw performance from the G9II. In theory it is equal to the S5IIx (same generation cameras), but it is hard to find concrete evidence. Comparing it to the S5 and GH5s will be interesting and will likely determine if I need to upgrade the S5II, go with a BM camera, a S5IIx or S1II (which is the same price as a Pyxis 6k!).

A third Video assist is on the cards if the G9II cuts it.

Still a favourite shoot, this one failed to make it into anything useful, partly because I was concentrating on stills, so there was no coherent plan and partly because I left it too late.

Question 4

How can I speed up my processing and turn around, which in some part comes down to all of the above and my understanding of Resolve.

Question 5

Based on the above, what three rigs should I move forward with?

My ideal and how I am set up now would be the GH5s in the RigidPro rig and BMVA 12g 7”, the G9.2 in All-i V-Log and a light 5” Portkeys monitor for mobile run-n-gun and the S5.1 and BMVA 5” for B-cam support to both. All three can be run for over 2 hours with decent power supply options.

I am open for this change however, which is the point of testing. It may be that the GH5s or S5 have the best V-Log results with their older and less hyper-sharpened sensors, the G9.2 the best B-Raw-out with it’s newer implementation and the Raw can soften it’s output or do I need to upgrade the S5II to Raw-out (or get an S5.2X, BS1H or S1.2).

Finally, should I get a third BMVA 12g (5” for the G9.2)?

Question 6

Does it work as intended?

Do I have my rigging, mounts, attachments, power, sound, lighting and storage needs covered and fix what falls short? Do my three specialised kits all do what they should?

The process.

This will require a pain staking set of tests with all the relevant lenses on all possible camera mounts in all the core formats because each camera may well perform better in different codecs. I am fully expecting some to be the champions of V-Log, others to be the better B-Raw-out supports and some, like the older G9’s to have a place also.

I need to be organised, methodical and comprehensive.

The first step is a test location (my storage garage down stairs) with movement, spaced objects lights, etc.

I need a flare point, some depth for Bokeh tests, some busy and fine movement (a fan and something that it pushes), enough contrast to test noise and DR and details for sharpness.

If I do this, I will go into next year with more confidence in my video processes.

*Shooting a one hour concert recently in 4k 3:1 on one camera (GH5s static) and 5.6k Q5 on the other (G9.2 moving), which netted me 600gb+ of footage. The G9-Q5 combo actually produced the bigger files. I did this to make sure the video was as good as I could produce within my storage limit, but went too far due to uncertainty.

I Shoot Wide Open, But I Do Not Often Like Super Shallow Depth Of Field

A bit of a contradiction, but it is true and one of the realities of M43 format, one that I only recently realised is nearly perfect for my shooting style.

Micro Four Thirds format renders deeper depth of field than larger formats at the same relative magnification, because it uses smaller/shorter lenses to reach these magnifications.

A wide angle 25mm lens on a full frame camera is a normal lens in M43. This is physics, it is neither good nor bad, just a reality.

On the flip side, M43 with its smaller sensor has a faster quality drop-off at extreme ISO settings.

Because of these two factors, more often than not, I find myself shooting with my lenses wide open. I use fast primes for low light, fast zooms and slower primes in intermediate light and slower zooms in good light.

This look right to me, wide open on the 75mm in M43 format.

M43 lenses almost without exception perform well wide open or near it and generally they render their Bokeh (out of focus areas) well enough also. This balance of (ff equivalent) f2.8-4 depth is just about perfect if you want natural looking files.

When I purchased full frame for video, I feared the inevitable slide back into all things big, cumbersome and expensive, but something interesting happened. It turns out I really have little practical use for the super shallow depth of field of a fast full frame lens.

This is the other extreme, a full frame 150mm up close and wide open at f2.8. Lovely, but limited in practical application (I used it to show how even the ugliest stand of pest grass beside a building can be beautiful).

Sure, in really low light, a fast lens and large sensor are a genuine benefit and they are effortlessly beautiful in rendering, but I have to be careful how I use it, both creatively and practically. The reality is, most professional photographers will use super shallow depth of field sensibly, even sparingly. Some may not use it at all.

They want and need to make images that have depth, that tell a story, that place the viewer in the frame as an observer, not just an observer of a technical phenomenon.

Shot wide open on a 15mm lens (acting like a semi wide in M43), I have enough depth to avoid a tell tale drop off point on the subject, but a subtle shift away from the candle to avoid it being the central focus. It 1.8 on a full frame 35mm, I would have a sharp face only, so I would stop down to f2.8 or 4, to emulate the M43 physics.

This is not a revelation to me, but it did go unnoticed until I got some full frame gear again and it really hit home with video.

It seems I have an aversion to unnaturally shallow depth of field in video or stills, This super shallow look is in fashion, but I prefer f4 in full frame (f1.8-2 in M43, 2.8 in Super-35) for a more natural depth transition, more like our eyes actually see. The thing is, in M43 that is wide open, so win-win.

This depth allows focus transitions and visual clarity to be obvious and malleable, without making shallow depth the only thing you see, it also lets a lens be at its sharpest and cleanest, helps manual focus, reduces breathing etc.

This is f4 on the 7Art Spectrum full frame 50mm, just about the perfect balance of depth to de-focus and very natural to the eye (at this distance)

This extra depth of course means good blocking, decent story quality and acting and properly setting the scene, heaven forbid.

Favourite combinations in my kit are;

The S5 Mk1 with 50mm Spectrum at T4.

The S5 Mk2 with 35 S-Prime at f2.8 (and AF) in auto focus.

The GH5s or G9 Mk1 (limited codecs) with 25 and 50mm Hope wide open at T2.1.

G9 Mk2 with 9mm (stabe crop is handled well)

For stills the Olympus 12-40/40-150 at f2.8 or 17/25/45/75 at f1.8, Sigma 30 at f1.4, Leica 9/15 at f1.7 and so on. This is even ok in AF mode with the 9mm.

If I use full frame I rarely set wider than f2.8-4. Just because we can, does not mean we must.

I have never been a conformist, it seems to be anathema to me, but in some things I will happily conform to what makes sense, what is right and what works and fight newer trends, no matter how cool they are.

The “modern” look of super silky smooth, artificially perfect lighting and CGI baked in is repelling me these days. I just want reality, not fake reality and over time these things fade anyway. When you look a little deeper, the best at this trade, the biggest names and ones we try to emulate are also resisting it.

Fashion is its own nemesis by definition.

Being true to your self is never fashionable.

Trying To Get My Head Around Cinema Quality And The Real World

So, what is the difference between high end video and cinema grade footage?

I can tell when I am looking at one or the other, but have had a hard time working it out.

The main difference is the realistic look film or film-like cinema footage has, but how is that achieved?

This is what I see (or often don’t).

A three dimensional fullness, enough depth of field to look like the eye sees, a perception of lots of sharpness even if it is disguised by other factors and micro sharpness is missing and no flatness in tones or subject rendering. In other words realistic and beautiful.

Really shallow depth has its place, but it needs to have natural looking fall-off, not forced razors edge stuff, which is a video tell tale. Few pro cinematographers use unnatural looking shallow depth, because it looks like a lens trick. F4 in full frame (f2.8 in Super35 or f2 in M43) is far more commonly used than f1.4 and if 1.4 is used, it is often in context with distance, so the effect is less obvious.

This scene from Barry Linden was shot with a super fast lens to emulate genuine low light interiors from the period, but greater working distance and the lens has rendered the subjects naturally to the eye. If really shallow depth of field, with unnatural flatness are used, they need to true to the eye. In this shot we feel like we are looking from across a room.

This shot from The Bear is beautiful, but it pushes reality. The perspective, compression and depth of field are an obvious technical manipulation that we accept in context, but are aware of because this is something our eyes cannot do. Unlike the shot above, we struggle to put ourselves in this space naturally, but accept that it is a part of modern cinematography.

This depth is dreamy to match the need of the shot, but it is not how we see naturally with too much compression and far too shallow rendering of depth of field at this viewing distance.

This is even less natural, showing strong lens compression and magnification and less than natural to the eye Bokeh.

It needs to be sharp like reality, but not bitingly sharp like video perfection. It has invisible roll-off and no tell tale sharp/soft point, which is part of the previous point, the look of clarity over visible sharpness.

I guess another way to say all that is sharpness needs to be invisible, or the effect of it at least. It needs to look like reality, not hyper-reality.

This image is sharp and has shallow depth of field, but the right amount to look natural and the colour, a product of the film tech of the period is also acceptable representing dust, sun and the arrid landscape.

This scene is shot with a wide angle lens and a fast aperture, giving us the feeling of being too close, while also being too shallow in depth rendering. It is hyper sharp, then softened by filtering and the colouring is warm to match the sun shine, but unnaturally so (teal sky?). It looks cinematic, but only because we have been conditioned to accept it as that.

A lot of current shooters using top end digital cine cameras and lenses use filtering to remove the hard-sharp digital look, but this is less appealing than film and has become a look unto itself. The reality is the age of technology reaching a point of perfection that surpasses reality is here.

Ok, funny thing happening here.

I started writing this to try to articulate what made a “film” level image, but seem now to be comparing the old and the new styles of doing that.

The irony is, all of the quality available to film makers these days is often squandered, meaning they could have used almost anything to make it. Super sharp becomes deliberately dreamy, huge exposure range becomes murky, infinite depth of field becomes a slice of un-reality and perfect lenses are flared.

The experience of the movie or TV show has become the experience in itself, more than the attempt to tell a story that has to stand on its own merits.

A rare case from 1917 of something looking “right” using the best gear available, by limiting the shoot to eye-normal lenses and deep depth of field. This is how we see, choosing what top look at in a scene, not having the majority of it taken away from us with tech.

It is up to the director and DP to draw our eye to the important elements using light, blocking, acting and writing, rather than relying on tricky focus and shallow depth of field to do it.

Paul Thomas Anderson, Roger Deakins, Kurasawa, Hitchcock, the Cohen brothers, Wes Anderson, Tarantino and Spielberg all know this, so we should remember it also.

The process is taking over the story.

The irony of course is, artificially created scenes often adhere to realistic needs to help fool us, while real scenes are manipulated to look unrealistic.

This probably explains this better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwPKBXEOKE

ed. The new Coke add, heavily slammed by the majority, is a sign of what is coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PfWzHpT_Kw

The trend of a $100k ARRI with a $25k lens in front being softened by a $300 filter is responding to the look and feeling we have lost from the film era clumsily re-captured. When digital and photoshop arrived, the push was to make it “realistic like film”, the same with the CD after the record, all new things that fully failed to replace the old, needing to find their own space to be useful.

AI will have its uses, but the things that matter, things that people make for people consume will survive because otherwise, what is the point of any of it? A manufactured work of drab perfection in a self destructive creative death spiral will run out of steam sooner rather than later, it always does.

We are constantly looking for ways of winding back the clock and rediscover that special something we have lost. We also need to stay relevant.

Lenses, The Eternal Torment

Lenses are a thing that constantly distract me, cinema lenses most recently, affordable cinema lenses in particular.

They make a difference in many ways, visually, mechanically, mentally, but which ones and probably more importantly why?

In L-Mount I have a small set of Panasonic S-Primes (35, 50, 85), a pair of 7Art Spectrum (35, 50), an IRIX 150, Sigma 28-70 and a Panasonic 20-60 kit. Bit of a mess I know, but there is some form to this chaos, even if it took a while to see it. All of the above have either 67mm filter thread or require a mat box.

The S-Primes all share the same handling, filter size and overall rendering, but are slightly different in colour (the 50 is warmer). The look they have is clean and smooth. They are sharp, but not hard-sharp, with good, but not obsessively controlled CA, distortion and focus breathing. They are true hybrid lenses and provide a safe place to start most projects.

The 20-60 kit which is comparable and provides a decent wide angle (with the M43 options below). My need for a wide is infrequent enough that I did not bother with the 18 or 24mm primes.

The 7Art Spectrum lenses are more cinematic in look and handling** with matching focus rings and filter thread and are similar in weight (double the S-Primes). They are sharp enough and add some character and cine-funk.

They are far from a perfect set however, the 35 is so much warmer than the 50, it is almost in a “class” of it’s own.

The IRIX is a clean budget cine/macro lens. This is my macro go-to for anything serious and it is genuinely good, but as a cine lens it is too long, very clean and sharp. Colour is neutral and the rendering is close to the 50 Spectrum or S-Primes.

The little 28-70 Sigma has been a surprise. It is just a super little all-rounder with only a slight caveat. The lens AF is good enough on the S5.2, but on the S5 it is unreliable. Colour is neutral.

In M43, the choices are easier but fewer.

I have a matched pair* of Sirui 24mm Anamorphic lenses. These obviously match each other as they are the same. I did have a 24mm Night Walker I intended to use as a letterbox cropped faux-anamorphic tele to match, but sold it recently.

The Hope 25 and 50 are both excellent optically and mechanically, tight and true. The 25 is a bit warmer (matches the Sirui anamorphics), but not by much and these match the GH5s and G9.2’s colour difference (GH5 + 25/G9.2 + 50). I had hoped to add a 16 to the set, but my first one was a poor copy, so I have decided to cut my losses.

They have a decently matching 7Art 12mm Vision, probably a better match here than in the hodgepodge that is the Vision range. This is far from a tight mount fit, but is light and smooth in focus, so it works well enough and actually matches the ring placement of the Hope’s reasonably well.

The stills lenses I have for M43 tend to lean towards the more organic 17, 12-40 and 45 Olympus lenses, or sometimes the Panasonic 8-18 and 9 for AF-hand held. None of these excel in handling with the 9mm coming closest to decent.

Filters for these are all over the place from 46mm to Mat-box only.

A set?

The working kit in order of common use;

GH5s (RigidPro rig) as the primary static camera

• 25 Hope (matches well with the 50, 35 Pana or Spectrum 50)

• 12-40 Oly for general purpose

• 24 Sirui if anamorphic is wanted

• 12 Vision wide angle

S5 as the low light or B-Cam

• 35 S-Prime (crops to 50)

• 50 Spectrum in B-Cam role to GH5s and Hope (crops to 75)

• IRIX 150 for macro and super shallow depth (crops to 225)

G9.2 as the M43 as movement cam

• 9 Pana-Leica (fast, small and light and crops well in stabe mode)

• 8-18 Pan-Leica (same as above but slower and more versatile)

G9.2 as B-Cam to GH5s

• 50 Hope as the B-Cam to the GH5s

• 24 Sirui as anamorphic movement and B-cam to above

S5.2 (Log only) as the hybrid run-n-gun full frame option (usually in stills day bag)

• 28-70 Sigma mounted by default.

• 50 or 85 S-Prime as B-Cam to S5 (in V-Log)

The extreme ends, both capable macro lenses.

My GH5s and S5 are the core of my video kit, both running cool-ish sensors out to B-Raw unless the G9.2 is used as a movement cam. I am keen on adding a third 5” BMVA 12g***, so I can run three B-Raw cams and reduce rig changes. These cams all share a similar look, so the lenses chosen are key.

The 35 Spectrum is overly warm, loose on the mount (common in the range, but my 50 is tight) and tighter to focus (-the 50 is smooth and loose), making it less pleasant to use and grade than the 50. There is little point in trying to use it as part of a set. This lens will hang around for now and may get used for specific jobs, but not as part of a working set.

Below; top row Spectrum 35 and 50, bottom row S-Prime 35 and 50. The two 50’s I can live with as a nearly matched pair, the Pana 35 also as they all render a more or less blue wall, but the green tinge of the Spectrum defeats me (the light outside was changing constantly so the bright patch in the Pana 35 shot is an inconsistency).

As an aside these were all shot at “cinematic F4” on the same camera then cropped to match to see if they render differently. My favourite is the Spectrum 50 for it’s cinematic Bokeh, the S-Prime 35 for clarity.

The Panasonic 50 is also warmer than its mates, but not by much and is a good match to the Spectrum 50. I do not use it much, preferring to mount the 35 and crop to 50 as needed. The look is obviously consistent (same lens), there is little quality loss cropping and on the S5 using B-Raw out 5.9k is full frame, 4K is a forced APS-C crop, so a forced choice anyway.

The Pana 35 and Spectrum 50 are not perfectly colour matched, but neither are my cameras, the subtle differences in the four when combined well are pretty close to perfect (S5 + P35/S5.2 + S50). I guess really, the Panasonic lenses are a sweet matched set, the Spectrum 50 manages to fit in with them, the 35 does not.

So, what lenses still call to me?

DZO Vespid 40mm is the perfect focal length for a one lens L-mount (PL adapted), 40mm full frame, 60mm cropped and with another adapter to M43 an 80mm. It is now an “older” semi-pro cine lens from the period that helped bridge the cheap-pro gap (with Nisi, IRIX etc), but the Mk2 set is better still and according the Ed Prosser after close examination https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7WGG0drXJ0 , more of a light weight version of the more expensive Arles range. The mk2 range does not have a 40mm which just sucks.

The IRIX cine 45mm possibly in PL mount again so I can use it on any cam as a 45/65/90 lens, or native L would match my 150. This is also available in a Dragonfly non-cine version for less, but no L-Mount. The temptation of getting the 30mm in M43 mount is there, but too limiting (not sure why they even do M43 in these as the widest only just make it into wide territory).

Typoch Simera-C are like the Vespids in compact form (pattern spotted Cimera-C > Vespid, Vespid Mk2 > Arles), but around here they are not super cheap or easy to find. They also only make a 35 or 50 option, no 40mm.

The 7Art Infinity range are interesting, but too new to be front runners and again, no 40.

The Arles 40 T1.4 is the pinnacle, but too expensive, complicated and massive.

The aging Panasonic Leica 24-70 f2.8 has a special something as well as being a premium stills lens. I bought the Sigma as a light weight stills hybrid more to reduce weight in my bag than anything, but the Leica does have an X-factor that is hard to beat and has swung some back away from the better value Sigma Art lenses. If I wanted a top end video-hybrid lens, this would probably be it.

The smaller and cheaper 24-60 S series is also interesting, but the Sigma fills that role. It is the “special” looking Leica or nothing else here.

The 50 f1.4 Pana-Leica S-Pro is probably the top of the hybrid range, but prohibitively expensive, large and limited (another 50!).

The 1.7 Pana-Leica zooms for M43 are also in the mix, but less so now I have a mixed kit. If I had stayed with M43, these would likely have solved most of my issues.

I think that as things stand, I will probably wait and see what happens with the Vespid II’s, IRIX and the aged Leica 24-70 or just hang tight. The S-Primes are solid, my budget cine lenses a mixed bag, but some genuinely good ones and at the end of the day, nobody else cares.

No matter how unlikely, my kit feels balanced at the moment, which is not nothing. Any thoughts of spectacular lens upgrades, always a diminishing return, need to be weighed against my realistic capture scenarios (B-Raw, mid to low res, 1080 output).

*Not perfectly matched as the two cams I use have 1.8x and 2x crop sensors, so a 45 and 48mm equivalent pairing, which is good.

**lower contrast, smoother and less “perfect”.

***or possibly a BMPCC4k for a little more.

A Humbling And Satisfying Experience

The school’s year 10 photography camp, completed a few weeks ago went well enough.

We learned a lot, all of us, me especially when it came to how to interest 15 year olds in what was often their “soft” choice (the only camp that paid the loosest attention to the camping bit) and also how to deliver it in a form that holds their tenuous interest.

The girls in the group were invested early, the boys, with one exception took a while to get interested, video and sport photography sparking something.

They produced some great work on the most part and several students even discovered a latent talent.

One student in particular, Will an identical twin, the junior one I guess as he seems to differ to his brother often, but in a show of personal growth, he attended this camp on his own, a first and I feel part of a larger thing as he matures and moves away from co-dependence.

Will was a teachers dream. Attentive, keen and compliant to the needs of the course. Enthusiasm is great, but skill does not always follow.

There were signs of macro and possibly longer lens interest shown by some, so with little gear available (mine basically), some effort was made show those keen enough a taste of the birder or bee-chaser experience.

No high expectations were held as time and opportunities were limited.

On the last morning Will and I took the arduous track to the boat shed on the campus dam (all of about 50 metres from the main building!), where I had discovered two fledgeling swallows on the first day.

I was pretty happy with my grab that day, especially considering bird photography is not something I practice.

We set up in a pretty obvious spot in the middle of the road, no camouflage available, the 300mm and an EM1x on a tripod at standing height about 10m from the little dock where the nest is located.

Will took a few shots, we chatted about process for a while. The conversation got pretty involved in potential and technical stuff, the birds largely ignored. We were about to pack up when Will and I noticed some action developing as the two fledgelings started to play fight.

He was closest to the camera and went for it by reflex.

He responded to my “did you get it?”, with “I think so?”, a look of wonder on his face, which slowly became a beaming smile.

Yes, he did get it, “it” being a series of shots, all but one in perfect focus.

Happy to be trumped by a young enthusiast, especially when he commented later “I think I have found my thing”, we headed back.

The heart breaker (there is always a heart breaker), was image two, inexplicably slightly out of focus in a tight sequence (no sequential shutter mode, single fires in sequence).

Probably the most dramatic and the tightest composition, but three out of four ain’t bad.

If that one moment is significant enough to justify the camp, I will take it.