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

There is a thing called a Node Tree.

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

I did not get it for a long time, partly because I am a stills shooter and tend to work in a pretty linear way, because I do things in a set order from RAW so as to reduce too much messy over working of the pixels in my files and to stay consistent.

If you do things in the right order, do them well and complete them properly, you will get consistent results and minimise file damage.

Layers are the same. They are each separate so that each job can be done properly then combined and there is a best order of business to use.

Nodes are basically layers.

They separate each task so that maximum cleanliness can be achieved and the best order applied.

Nodes in DaVinci Resolve were not my thing, but they have become a must do for me because;

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

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

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

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

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

My previous process was similar to my RAW processing, but I was wrong and it showed. I would process B-Raw manipulations for exposure and white balance, then do the three-wheel dance of Lift/Gamma/Gain, which was then supplemented by LOG Shadows/Mids/Highlights because I read that these were cleaner and more logical.

This then became a switch to Linear Gamma, which allowed me to more gently control all the above with one wheel and a less twitchy one at that. This was a breakthrough for me, because it allowed me to process by eye and more intuitively. This, combined with properly setting up my project settings, looking at colour better (Colour Slice and HDR Channels), were helping.

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

I needed a Node Tree and it turns out there are a lot of opinions on this and I have found, the strength of power grading (not just applying LUT’s), is also the perceived weakness in that at some point you have to balance applied knowledge with personal preference.

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

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

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

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

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

0. Project settings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnNqjPbfIG8 .

1. Colour Space Transform Node. This is the input transformation Node to tell Resolve what camera took the footage, what codec was used, what color space is going to be used to process the file, preferrably an expanded one. Black magic film gen 4/5 > BM film gen 5 > DaVinci wide gammut > DV Resolve Intermediate). This tells the

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

3. Exposure and Contrast Node. This can be done with the above wheel, but is better done in LOG setting. Apparently the effect on shadows is cleaner and more logical. LOG > Global wheel > exposure, and the second part is putting some punch into an image. LOG > Shadows/Highlight wheels > contrast.

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

This is the end of the core manipulations

5a*. (Parallel Node) Saturation-Specific. This is also a Cullen recommendation, to use Colour Slice for more specific saturation and density changes. The common trend here is to use newer generation tools that work cleanly and more precisely than older, more global tools. > Colour Slice.

5b*. (Parallel Node) Power Windows. This is a little beyond my pay grade just yet, but I will be using it a lot I hope. It is the ability to locally effect an image area with masking, picking etc.

6. Reflection Node. This is the node where last touches can be made or possibly and preferably even re-visiting the previous ones to fix any issues. This may, should even end up as a spacer

7a to x. Textures and Effects. This is where the little extras are added like noise reduction, de-blur, filters etc, because they are destructive if used too soon (crude and heavy handed tools I assume) and tend to slow down my computer (especially blur and noise reduction). As desired or needed.

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

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

9+. Audio Balance and Effects. My choice here as it is not mentioned in other trees, but by now I have heard the track a lot, the and fixes tend to be like above, heavy and destructive, so late in the picture makes sense.

So, basically 4 core Nodes which should produce a finished base file, 3 secondary ones for effects, fixes and deeper repairs and an export Node.

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

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

Getting Into A Groove, Setting Targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is gear related to some extent.

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

It is basically down to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A perfect game?

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

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

A Conversation

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

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

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

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

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

(Tog 1) Advantages?

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

(Tog 2) Example?

Ok, what is your favourite lens and camera combo?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and a flash.

(Tog 1) Why two cams?

Because I prefer to change cams than lenses.

(Tog 2) Dust an issue?

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

(Tog 2) Never?

Never. I just find lens changes take twice as long as switching cams an I can set up a cam and lens combo better.

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

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

Yeah, not the same.

(Tog 2) Not possible!?

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

No seat or monopod?

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

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

Can you crop that little sensor?

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

Have you?

Yes, and you have seen it.

Really, when?

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

…………… oooohh….kaaaay.

So the perfect system?

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

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

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

Just about perfect and not even wide open.

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

Do you use flash much?

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

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

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

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

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

*Olympus, but I used Oly and Pan combined.

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

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

Reality Check

I had a great time the other day with my new lens.

Full frame for me has been a journey of reluctant and conditional migration with a feeling of “I have no excuse, I can do anything I need now”, so a new and moderately exciting lens in the fold a lens bought to fix a perceived problem, that did, was a find.

Pretty photos of back-lit leaves, a lovely Autumn blush captured relaitvely easily and with needed quality…….. so where am I going here?

Looking out the back door the other day, locking up to go out n a job, I saw some lovely light on the last of the leaves for the season.

I grabbed the camera at hand (EM1.2 and 40-150 f4) and shot these, thinking at the time they were easier to take than the full frame ones and just as good. If anything, they are a little more brilliant and vibrant.

The reality is, in good light* I actually prefer M43 format for all the reasons i have said before. It is faster, easier to use, has all the needed quality and is much easier to get into the field. The secret is in the lenses and the mathematics that empowers them.

In poor light and if I make a mistake, full frmae is better, but sometimes only just.

*ISO 6400 or lower, natural or artificial light that is not too weird.

The Little Lens The Could (But I Forget To Let It)

My 17mm Oly, the pedestrian f1.8, not the very special f1.2, was once my “one lens” answer. It along did probably half my Japan images over 7 trips, was my video/daylight flash lens mated with an ND filter for the paper and if I was travelling very lite*, it and one of my 45 f1.8’s would be the kit.

Lately, the Panasonic 15mm has been doing more duty in that role for two fairly lame reasons. The Oly has very occasionally failed to AF, which may be down to the click-back option getting loose and the Pana all-too-light aperture ring being fixed (literally-with a bit of tape), making it the more useable option (a real role reversal).

The two are similar but different.

The Pana/Leica has a modern Bokeh rendering, quick to transition to softer, making the sharp look sharper, while the Oly has a longer and more natural transition, ideal for handling street shooting in iffy light with either AF or zone focus.

Shot wide open at f1.8 (not sure why), it is hard to pin point the exact point of focus and the transition to the fully out of focus areas. You get the sharpness of the sharp subject (near bike), but only when your eye lands there. The whole seems harmonious and natural, then “wham” the sharp bit hits you. Notice the end of the street is still slightly coherent, you can almost read the writing on the awning or the number plate. In the Pana image two samples below, the background quickly becomes busier and messier and that was shot at f2.8.

Another image showing the duality of natural transition and snappy subject grabs. Try to pick the point where razor sharp becomes incoherently soft. It’s hard with this lens, even the top of the building in the far distance is recognisable.

The 15mm has a more defined sharp/soft feel making it seem like a longer lens, but also making the image look flatter. Being wider, it often feels longer than the 17, a handy feature when you shoot groups and do not want that unflattering semi-wide look.

A favourite image and one I can identify immediately as made with the 15mm (at f2.8) over the 17. The 17 would have rendered a less bright image, slightly muted colours and more natural-longer transition to the background, but a little less “pop” on the subjects. The Oly has a more “glassy” film look, the Pana is more digital-perfect.

A similar aperture, showing deeper transition and more natural colour. I feel often, more so now that I know what to call it, that it renders very “cinematic” images.

The 15 has that Panasonic image lightness and brightness, the colours leaning toward lime greens and orange reds. This is nice on Oly cams, adding some brilliance, while the more “organic” looking Oly handles strong light very well and adds some body to Panasonic files.

The lens “shines” so to speak in brilliant light, adding film-like highlight roll off.

Finally, the Oly is empathically sharp in focus (for stills, there are some issues with video), while the 15 is occasionally unreliable on Oly and sometimes even Pana cams. It to is poor for video AF.

Something I regularly underestimated with this lens is its ability to shoot landscape images, even wide open, at night, hand held. The above shot was taken at f1.8 where all it’s “flaws” should be evident.

Razor sharp, even though many early reviewers gave it mediocre technical reviews. This and the Canon 28 f1.8 USM, another lens with mixed reviews, but users including me loved it, first opened my eyes to the reality that reviews are no replacement for actual field use.

It loves shiny surfaces, metals, brightly lit city scenes, wet leaves etc.

Hard to find technical fault.

It is not perfect, no lens is. The corners wide open are apparently poor, but that may be field curvature as the Bokeh tends to make that very hard to see.

Stopped down to f2.8 and there is little to complain about corner to corner and with its forgiving transition, you rarely need to stop down further, meaning it is an ideal low light scenery or street lens.

The Bokeh is far from perfect as the modern measure suggests, yet it is so very creatively conducive (f2.2), allowing you to think-shoot and see what you got later. There is a feeling “stage setting” in its rendering.

Flare is ok, nothing to write home about especially wide open, but it also natural looking. It seems to like daylight flare well enough, but if it gets too messy, the lens produces an image with neutral shortcomings, more overall veiling flare.

The modern habit of shaping flare and artefacts is missing, it just does or does not get it done, but it rarely adds anything odd. Very rarely I see a little purple or green artefact, very rarely.

My 8-18 Leica for example can be relied upon to add a little something and my 9mm offers some very magical flare cones when you push it, but this lens will rarely.

Blown highlights are gently lost to pure white, again transitioning from light, to very light to lost white, but gradually. I actually think the gentle veiling flare helps with that.

The 15 and the 9 Pan/Leica lenses have more interesting, even beautiful flares, but they are introduced and sometimes distracting.

You can throw it into almost any lighting situation and it will come out with an image, but it may have some added character.

Contrast is strong in the mid range, micro contrast I guess, highlights are muted and shadows open, so a soft S-curve, a little like Tri-X film stock developed in Rodinal, an old favourite.

Under the hoop is a regular use, although I have shifted to a 25 for more safety room, but it did well. The blobby little lights are fine, natural looking and nothing else is added. Again the long transition Bokeh allows for zone focus with plenty of safety. The Dehaze slider in Capture 1 is a good friend of the lens.

Mine is worn, grubby and forgiven for its random and mild indiscretions, but to replace it now means a new version, which I am not sure about. The other lens in the mix is the 20mm f1.4, a lens that theoretically betters it, or even the 17 f1.2. Maybe, maybe not.

Even if it becomes AF un-viable, I will still use it in MF and be happy I have it at all.

If pushed to describe an “invisible” lens, I would start here. The lens sees like an eye, it renders similarly. It never feels like the opinion of the lens influences your view of the world, it just looks like it looks.

Colour is neutral to warm, but I have noticed this lens handles mixed light better than some lenses. Not sure why?

All of the above lend themselves to great mono performance, no wonder it and the Pen F with it’s mono pre-sets were packaged together.

This post was sparked by using my video dedicated laptop, cleaning out some old files in Capture 1, something I might need to do more often.

*My usual travel kit is the 12-60 Pana and 40-150 Oly kit lenses for versatility, the Oly 45 and 17 for speed and size. The whole lot with a pair of smaller cams come in at about 1.5kg. Pretty powerful and versatile. If I know I am going into confined spaces, the 9mm may be added, only adding 120gms.

Domke Bags, A Running Review From A Dedicated User.

It’s not all Domke around here, but it is close.

Pick the gear*, then pack the bag is the routine and most often, I choose a Domke as the only real choice.

My stable is probably at it’s best ever right now. Some have come and gone, some even come back again, but overall, there are very few days I cannot pack to suit the needs of the job and if I make an error, it usually involves a non-Domke bag choice.

The surprising little F-810 is the main crush at the moment.

This super little bag feels like it was designed for me. It has several of the best elements of other bags without their annoyances (no, nothing is perfect, not even Domke). A recent and I guess a tentative one, I accepted the substantial price ($250au), colour (black, when I was chasing something softer) and even based on slim reviews, I jumped and was surprised how good it was.

A neat and unassuming little hauler.

A pair of perfectly sized, flap secured front pockets, an organiser pocket split into a full width and two half width pockets, a cover flap that covers them and two small flap pockets, but does not cover the bag top, which does have a zip opening main compartment that each hold a decent sized camera and lens combo, a double lens divider between them (not the 4 compartment it came with) and finally a rear pocket big enough for an Ipad, that can be zipped open to slip over a suit case handle (see the F-7 below for a very different dynamic to that).

Deceptively large as it goes.

It’s strengths lie in all the things other Domke bags do without the oversized nature or sometimes omitted features of my other bags. The pockets are all ideal for real gear, like phones, batteries, cards and the internal space fits full sized mirrorless cams with pro lenses (S5II with standard zoom, EM1x with 40-150 f4). The flap is not in the way when working and their is not a wasted panel or space. This is in contrast with basically every other bag I have, great as they are.

It swallows gear. Full sized cameras and lenses are not an issue and the divide hold even a decent sized zoom. Above G9+8-18 and S5_28-70 Sigma, 9, 40-150 f4 and 45mm

My most common working method is a shoulder slung cam, two in the bag with lenses and spare bits as needed.

On top of all that it is smart (the bag I was chasing at the time) and seemingly small. It stands up when full, sits lightly on the shoulder (I rarely use the amazing shoulder pads), it is lined, has hard feet (only Domke I have with) and the big zip is smooth and soft enough to avoid wear and tear, something that worried me before I bought it, but quicker and quieter than negotiating velcro flaps.

Negatives?

The rear pocket zip head can rub on my leg, so I have adjusted how I carry it.

It does not come in any other colour (I wanted my only casual Sand coloured bag) and the Ballistic (J series), that would have looked even smarter is long gone.

It is out of production, but can still be found new (Photovideo Extras in Australia for example).

By it’s nature it is not as weather sealed as flap-lid models, but it is small enough to go under a coat.

Optional end pockets would be perfect and are technically available, but not a perfect fit.

In comparison;

The F-2 (ballistic black) was my main squeeze at the paper.

A classic inside and out.

Capable of holding much the same load as above, except it’s boxier shape limits the size of fold down reflectors and accessories, and it is less dextrous in crowded spaces, but it does hold 1 or 2 more lenses, has two large end pockets for flash etc. and an inner lid pocket for precious items.

The end pockets are the key to this having more capacity overall than the 810, but the 810 wins with bulky items.

It is not a tie though, the F-810 suits my needs better most often, but it is close and the F-2 is genuinely water resistant, something I need to consider.

The F-7 “Double AF” bag (faded black) is a mixed bag so to speak. It is big, basically an F-2 with F-810 height which should be a good start and yes, it can hold a few larger items like my 40-150 f2.8 standing upright, but it is frustrating.

Odd design choices like a 4-point top handle, that only works when the lid is buckled down (replaced by the 2-point handle from the F8-4) and the useless for anything other than as a giant belt loop, back panel spoil an otherwise roomy bag.

With all it’s volume, it lacks a single long pocket option. The back panel is reserved for a supplied belt support and there is no inner pocket like the F-802/804, nor even a gap between internal liner and bag frame. So, no provision for anything like a small reflector, flash mod, small tablet, large writing pad or book etc.

Inside, it has three discrete compartments, all large-ish, but often less than ideal. Sometimes I can squeeze something in between the internal dividers (making the inside more friendly), but not much, really annoying.

I often use it for fast working jobs, then get frustrated by the inner workings that fight fast camera change overs, especially with full frame cams. I found this quite limiting at the paper and when I eventually realised this I went back to the F-2.

No, it cannot handle the “double AF” SLR kit with lenses on it boasts (2 large bodies and small primes or smaller cams with medium lenses maybe), it struggles with bigger lenses generally (the F-810 can actually hold larger combo’s), although the 40-150 f2.8 does fit in standing up. It seems determined to squander it’s extra space.

Occasionally it hits a purple patch of usefulness, but not as often as I would like. I am hoping that by purchasing a decently sized full frame standard lens (Sigma 28-70), I will be able to mix formats, something that at the moment eludes me (2x S primes basically fill it)

F-802 (worn-in olive) was my original pro-bag, the first bag that held bigger kit. I have since empowered my work flow with smaller gear options (9mm instead of 8-18, 40-150 f4 instead of f2.8), hence smaller bags are employed, but it still has one perfect use-case.

The capacity of these four pockets is truly massive, I mean clothing sized items.

No fewer than four laptop sized compartments. Decent width, very deep.

When I need to shoot field sport and process at the event it has the ability to take my 300, 40-150 f2.8, wide zoom and laptop with water, food, reflector vest and rain-ware or a sun hat. It has two of the biggest front pockets in the line and I have the two end pocket options (a 901 and 902), so big items like a rain coat are possible as well as a kneeling mat for hard or wet ground. It is tall and just deep enough for bigger cameras like the EM1x mounted on a long lens. The slimline form is also good for negotiating crowds.

An EM1x and f2.8 tele are no issue.

No bag is useless, but many are used sparingly.

The F-804 has fallen into limited use as a hauler, but the 4 section divided from the F-810 has made it more useful and the Neewer backpack is the same. The 217 roller and 5.11’s are video dedicated, the F-3x (rare olive rugged) and Filson Field Camera bag (rarer caramel rugged) and many other bags get very occasional runs when I have time and little real stress or their very specific benefits suit.

Sport is a whole other thing.

I usually wear two combo’s the EM1x + 300 and EM1x + 40-150 (aperture speed as needed) for field sports, or the same with a short tele (75, 40-150) and standard (25 or 12-40) for indoor, with a small bag (Mindshift sling or Crumpler shoulder) and wide angle, occasionally a spare camera and/or flash. The F-802 is used only if a laptop is needed.

When travelling, this all goes out the window, the bag chosen first filling the role of comfy travel companion, the camera gear chosen to suit it.

*Usual kit; EM1.2 + 40-150 f4 or 75 (strap), G9 + 15, EM1.2 or EM10.2 + 45, 9mm. Flash if needed may push the point for a bigger bag ((F-7), longer lenses or a laptop also (F-802). Expected future kit; S5 + 28-70, G9 + 9, EM1.2 + 40-150 f4 or 75, which is pressing the point.

This Football Thing

I have been shooting little else lately and that is fine as it is the national game and Tasmania is (may) be getting a team in the National league soon.

As I have said before, I am no deep-grain fan of it, but I also like to shoot it and so many people I know are involved in the community. There are growth paths, including one I had a discussion about recently, so even now at this stage in my career, there may be a future. Who knew?

It does get tedious as most things do, eight straight hours of juniors yesterday for example, but the recovery time, that is the time that needs to pass before I am keen again is surprisingly short.

One of the best aspects is the growing female involvement. Instead of just being the engine room of most clubs doing the thankless tasks that are needed to make it happen, girls and women are now fully accepted competitors.

The play is engaging and the commitment unquestionable.

Off Topic, But Important.

The Trump regime is blatantly and arrogantly working for itself over anyone else.

Any of the smallest transgressions of the last few months or even the term before (especially the blatantly mutinous end), would have toppled any President of the past.

Seasons come and go, but it is an illusion of normal.

It is like some type of (bad) dream time, similar to the environmental blindness we are showing. Media swings from a cursory over view of another unprecedented natural disaster with hundreds lost, or a human hate tragedy leading to even more lives forfeit, to far too much time on a demonic celeb fallen from grace. We waste time and attention on these idiots while Rome burns.

When will America wake up to the reality that when he is faced with a setback, a reversal that he needs to face down or lose power………..he will, what ever it takes. His “army” will be all the loathsome people he has bought, pardoned or given air to.

His enemy will be all the people who should be able to stop him, but have been disenfranchised. It is clear the only people he respects are similar power monsters.

America is coming off as a selfish “what you gonna do for me” state, even more cynical and untrustworthy than the real villains of the world.

For me, the mid-terms will be key as the lethargic masses wake from their slumber and the missing 35% vote, but if he is going to suffer a big defeat, how far will he go to keep power and who will be left in a position to stop him?

The clock, or clocks are ticking.

A Great Game

Sometimes, the stars align and you get a great game to cover, which is to say, great action, some meaning to it and great light.

The indigenous round game between two tough clubs, Georgetown and Rocherlea, both hard working class clubs, had all that. Both clubs had members with a vested interest, both had something to prove.

One was justifying their top of the table and power house dynasty status, the other the younger player’s aspirations and for both the mantle of the “hard men” of the league.

The skill level was high, but not much went uncontested.

Aerials were strong except the main two in the ruck had poor timing much of the day.

They did however produce my favourite shot, even without the ball!

A telling last frame of the day with the score heavily n favour of the veteran team, still holding on to the mantle of league leaders with legendary status.

Last quarter huddle for the losing side. We all knew it was not their day today.

For me, this about ideal.

The levels above (Northern rep, State rep then National League) are all cleaner and faster, but often lack the heart of playing for and in front of your people on the boundary. At lower levels, like the 10 junior matches I covered the next day are great and necessary to grow any sport, but lack the skill and commitment.

This game is up there with one of my favourites, all from about this level.

Some things are larger than sport, but sport can often and simply be the point of commonality needed to open conversations.

New Lens Happiness

It is not a new phase or even a questioning of known realities, but my new Sigma lens is very very good.

It is technically sound, which I knew (hoped) it would be, but more than that, it actually makes me excited to use it.

We have had a great Autumn and our garden is maturing nicely.

My full frame journey was based pretty much completely on video needs.

I felt I needed long recording capability and a better codec. Better low light, AF and sound handling were all in the mix, but not as much.

A gentle blue tone in the shadows and warm highlights.

the S5 mk1 was simply a better buy than a GH6 for me at the time (cheaper, easier to feed, better low light results and potentially better “short cut” quality). It did cause an un-needed rift in my kit, something waiting a few months for the G9II mated with f1.7 zooms would have avoided, but who knew the G9II with phase detect AF, unlimited record, excellent sound, better stabe, full Log/Pro-Res to SSD etc would be a thing.

I then landed some bargain cine glass, including an IRIX macro for half price which seemed to validate the choice, then a couple of decently priced S Primes at prices I have not seen since further solidifying it, which led to wanting another body and getting an S5II on sale.

Repeatedly, full frame was the go, even though I did buy the G9II anyway.

A little split toning (warm highlights like Sepia and cool purple shadows like Selenium, without the toxic fumes). Lovely tonality.

Video has become less utilised lately forcing me to re-purpose some of my dedicated video cams and ironically it was the full frames that have been switched.

The S5II lacking RAW output to a BMVA, the S5 being the less capable RAW shooter compared to the GH5s and G9II or more to the point, the more useful stills cam as the other two have plenty of competition, meant that my stills kit gets a useful poor light boost, but lenses were lacking.

A good standard lens was needed and with a little research (I had kept an eye out and this was regularly mentioned as a well priced option), I jumped and have found a little sleeper.

I am finding the Bokeh very pleasant if a little “modern” for my taste.

The last time I was this excited about a new lens was the IRIX 150 Cine-Macro, a lens that got back into old and exciting thinking.

The excitement comes simply from something new that gives me a reason to take photos, something I do all day every day because I have to, not just because I want to.

I have been a little unkind to this lens, accusing it of being a little “on trend”, but there is little wrong with that, just a feeling of sheepishly following the pack and not thinking outside the box (which is part of the problem).

It can be a little busy, but never ugly.

I think I can deal. This is a great, reliable and understated lens with a lot to offer.

The reality is, many of these images were taken in sharp and contrasty light, but the other realities are that light like that is what we chase and a lens handling that light is not a given.

Happy days.

Winners And Losers

Sport photography is a combination of story telling and record keeping.

The better you cature it, the more compelling the image, the more likely you will be to create an audience and keep it.

At first, any in focus, reasonably dramatic and interesting image is considered a winner, but as you get more practiced, the ok, the good and the better images start to become clearer.

These are fine, but they are a dime a dozen (I got 17 of them in this game alone) and they are a poor shape for print. Still impressive to see the heights reached though.

The running hero shot is a must. These need to be noble, uncluttered (un or victoriously contested) forward facing and clean. Used as stock images for player based stories, the more of these you get, the better, but they are rarely compelling.

The “player in control” shot is the other version of above.

No amount of athletic awesomeness makes up for the players facing the wrong way (for me) or the ball missing or cut in half.

This image has a dramatic contest, tight, strong and emotive. It is not mobile enough though, looking too much like the break down of play (which it was).

I love these, but they often fail when faces are lost or if the angles are too tight.

The “eyes on the ball” shot is full of intent, but this one lacks a feeling of direct pending or contested contact, it only has intent (and the focus is a little off).

Timing is the key to this one, a little contest and some mild drama, but not quite enough of the latter. I feel I am “on” when the ball is caught just on the tip of the finger or surrounded by hands that have not yet taken it (I do not rely on burst shooting which I find time and time again breaks my feeling of connection). I feel as yet unrealised potential is more compelling than actual contact.

Like any story, an image needs a hint of a journey and a destination or an overcoming victory, all encompassed in one frame, generally using several of the these elements at once.

The strong mark is a reliable winner, but like the centre bounce or boundary throw in, it is a predictable staple and needs to be above average or contextually important, like a game winner, or just better than the usual. It is also a good hero shot if you can marry the right player to the right action.

This is getting there. Drama, a feeling of desperation and a player breaking through to free play in front of a gallery of concerned allies are all decent themes, the level of action though is a little pedestrian.

So, what makes a winner for me?

For me, an image needs drama, timing, a strong feeling of action and momentum, with context and that special something, usually to do with eyes on the ball.

This one has the important connection point, the player’s eyes on the ball, the ball seemingly floating and the “breaking free” feeling of the file above, but with more desperation. Even the ball is the right orientation and the player starred on the day, so a hero shot for spotlight articles etc.

This is my favourite from this match, but fails slightly by being a little remote and the late afternoon light is a little too contrasty. The angle is ok, but slightly more forward facing would be better, or even directly face-on would have been spectacular. Timing is spot on, the feeling of avalanche-like momentum also, so nearly there. It is hard to over stress the importance of eye on ball.

It is stronger tighter, but the first file was already cropped (I was following the action with a shorter lens), this one is pushed to the “news print only” level.

When you go looking, with tight cropping you can find more like the above, but there is a limit.

Every game I find myself pushing for better images, rejecting many I would have once called acceptable.

Shooting for the paper was easy by comparison. All you needed was a back page winner, maybe a small gallery of 3-6, possibly a specific player called out or an event that stopped play etc. With a lose and small remit, a ten minute stint will usually get you the job done.

Shooting whole games for one side or an organisation can be harder, because you have more time, but you have to fill it. I usually aim for 100 usable files from one hour of shooting, but with sport, where one hour may be the whole show, I chase more like 2-300. Editing is then the tough bit.

Next Day, More Good

A little excited I have added some genuine utility to my kit, I took the new lens for another wander this morning.

Determined to get on top of the close focus performance, something I had read was average wide open in most reviews, I needed to find it’s peak and where it is strongest.

Same scenario as yesterday, but AF set to be more precise, which is needed.

This is soft light, so you get soft contrast, but sharpness is there.

Something that struck me today is how much easier it is to get some of these images with M43 gear and the quality is often indistinguishable.

As soon as you get into that portrait range, it starts to really shine.

Rich and contrasty, nice blur.

Accuracy sorted, getting what I want when I want it, which is the important thing for a working pro.

At the wide end, it holds up well, maybe needing to be at it’s very close minimum focus before it falls apart.

Edges are fully usable.

I would not want a stable of these perfect but bland lenses, but it sure is nice to have one.

In mono, something I find tends to make or break a lens, the high micro contrast and lack of brilliance is handy a bit like the films I used to like and reminds me of my old NEX 7, which did great mono if not much else.

Gentle highlight roll-off is a nice feature for a mono shooter.

This image (from above) is a good example of the ability to open up a contrasty scene in mono without it looking pushed.

Here is my reminder. At f2.8, at even a decent distance, the close background is still soft, so no wonder my semi-macro’s were too shallow and twitchy to be useful by far.

The Sigma Has Arrived, Time To Stress A Little, Then Hopefully Relax.

The Sigma 28-70 f2.8 Contemporary has arrived. All a bit rushed and done before I even had a chance to get my head around it, but it felt like the right fix for the right problem at the right time.

First impressions;

• Tight and true, very solid feeling.

• Heavy and reasonably long but slim, which is what I was after. It will effectively replace three primes with the footprint of a large M43 lens.

• Sharp? Still testing (see below).

My main take away after having it for only minutes is, it is a good fit on an S5/S5II, balanced and well proportioned, but to be honest, boring as bat sh&t.

Just a bit….bleagh.

Cannot help but say it, but there is nothing about this lens (cosmetically) that excites me. It is exactly what it needs to be, but on first sight, that is a lot dull. As a working tog, I know how little that matters, but still….. .

Using it, the real test.

AF performance is quick and quiet. I was not sure how good, but after trying the kit zoom straight after, it is as good for stills.

Optically, well, I must admit to being a bit of a dick here.

Armed with cameras I am not as familiar with using as my usual, intuitive kit, shot wide open and close up in a format I use rarely (how soon we forget the lessons of decades), at high ISO’s hand held inside and on a windy day outside. The light was mixed, some soft, some cool, some bland.

Nothing was sharp! I had a dud! De-centred to hell!

“How is my luck so bad” I asked myself (after the poor 16mm Hope and soft down one side 35-100 Pana a couple of years ago), but I also know that first impressions can be strange and misleading.

I was convinced years ago that I had a bad 40-150 f2.8, a lens I now consider one of my most reliably awesome.

I got some wins, but had to search for them.

Twitchy was the name of the day, but I knew that, using the settings I had chosen, or I should have.

I went back and processed todays work images and then with a slightly more realistic frame of mind, tried again.

The shot below and a far side crop was taken at F6.3 and yes, it is very, very sharp.

Back to f2.8, but not a semi-macro this time, more the sort of thing I bought it for.

This is the range I would actually use the lens at and it has all the elements I wanted, fast drop-off blurring, sharp, contrasty, ideal for “cutting out” subjects in scenarios like the ball arrivals the other night.

I will admit it to all who are reading. I am not a huge fan of modern “perfect-but-flat” rendering lenses, but sometimes it is exactly what I need. That super creamy Bokeh and almost green screen-like cut away look is useful when you need it.

I have to give it to the lens, it is boring on the outside, but the images are quite beautiful, if lacking a little brilliance.

Lovely feathery Bokeh interesting without being distracting.

Nice foreground Bokeh

Again, nice background Bokeh and rich contrast.

Lovely contrast and snap against a smooth background. Overall, a very harmonious look.

So, what am I seeing?

Strong contrast, very modern Bokeh complimenting high sharpness, good colour, nice balance if a bit predictable and slightly muted brilliance. A workhorse commercial lens.

A bit like the Sigma 30mm for M43, it is technically very sound, has some charm and does the expected job perfectly.

I usually like other types of lenses more, old fashioned lenses, lenses with some character and three dimensionality, but I need perfect lenses like these to get some jobs done as only they can.

The rendering is like the 15mm f1.7, but with versatility that I could only get with a M43 10-25 f1.7 at twice the price (and not as useful a range, meaning buying both) and it looks a little like the S Prime 85 f1.8, the lens it will be regularly partnered with.

The range is ideal. I have the 85 for true compression and avoid anything longer than 70 or wider than 28mm for “normal” images. I have 20-24 covered in the kit zoom when I need.

Full Frame Developments

I will admit, when things do not go to plan, sometimes full frame is just better to have to get you out of trouble.

Good light, no real difference (all else being equal) and the benefits of M43 shine, sometimes enough to do better in poor light even (like stupidly fast/long lenses not possible in full frame).

In low light, there is a slight quality drop, but not one that prohibits M43 from being used professionally, again the lens thing makes a lot of difference.

In very bad light, meaning mixed colours, poor light levels and high contrast, the sort of light where things just go wrong without flash or other lighting, full frame is capable of holding about 2 more stops of “life” in your files, even with the trade-off of less flash power*.

You do need to use decent glass to see a real difference, but even with a crummy kit lens, it can still be there. Sometimes, I just push M43 too far and know that full frame may have saved me in a far from ideal situation.

I did a big school ball the other day, the arrivals alone took two hours, shot with flash in pre-winter darkness. I wanted Panasonic colours, but the G9’s are not as AF reliable as Oly M43’s (I have found) and the G9II is rigged for video. So, S5II it was.

I shot them with the S5II and 20-60 kit lens because I was cramped-up and the cars were inconsistently placed on arrival. I had to work fast and precisely while providing all the flexibility at my end. It is easy to stand flat footed and zoom in these situations, so I needed to keep an eye on going too wide (28mm was the widest).

The background could get quite messy at F5 with cars stacked up, stragglers wandering past and the support staff in some shots.

The S5II and kit lens did not miss a shot, which was amazing as the lighting ranged from direct headlight glare to basically nothing but flash!

The focus hit every time, flare was handled as well as I have seen and the shots were sharp and controlled, even the ones that were taken a little wider than I would have liked.

I was also shooting at ISO 4000 to save flash battery, something I need not have done, as it mattered little, both the battery and the ISO were well within their respective comfort envelopes**.

I am sold on the specific camera (S5II) for these types of jobs, the G9II also would have done it I guess, but that cam is doing duty as my movement video camera where it’s RAW out and slightly better AF/Stabe are at their best.

The problem on the night was, I was using manual flash with a variable aperture lens and the depth of field of the lens (usually about f4.5 at 35mm, f5.6 soon after), was deep enough to force me to create a background mask to add blur and reduce exposure for all 150 arrivals shots, something my old laptop struggled with. Processing went from tens of minutes up to about 3 hours.

I had fast primes, but not room or control of composition enough to trust my widest (35mm) to be wide enough, nor did I want to miss the opportunity to use the more natural rendering that comes from 50mm or longer.

I am looking at a future where full frame will be my night and event core cameras, M43 for daylight and action (both supporting the other).

The second issue is more practical.

I am struggling to fit a full frame and several lenses in a bag, especially if my backup is an M43 kit. Even the oversized F-7 bag struggles to take two S series lenses, two cams and some M43 glass. A single standard zoom would sort the full frame, the M43 for the long end.

So, if full frame is drifting towards stills, a workhorse zoom is a must, the size of the lenses forcing it, but the variable aperture kit lens, as stellar as it is, is not that lens. I guess I should also point out that if this was an M43 lens (in depth of field terms) even the kit lens would be equivalent to an f1.8~2.8 zoom, but light is the issue here as much as depth of field otherwise I may as well use M43.

A full frame lens with a fixed f2.8 aperture would have blurred the background enough to fix most shots with safe depth of field and saved me a half a working day of processing as I would only have needed a little brush work on distracting lights***.

So, decent quality, a fixed aperture, not too big or expensive and not at odds with what I have already.

Options?

First, the 62/67mm filter thread options (to fit most of my filters).

Tamron VXD G2 28-75 f2.8. No L-mount available, or this would be the one. Cheaper than the Panasonic 24 prime alone, it is an improvement on a lens that basically matches it’s competition already. Not yet or maybe ever?

Tamron RXD 28-75 f2.8 is available in L-mount and this is the one that matches most, but I would rather wait for the G2 to come out, unless I get one at a ridiculously good price. Not the G2.

Sigma 28-70 f2.8 is the cheapest and smallest of the lot and well liked, sharper than the Panasonic 24-105, about the same as the RXD. Strong option and the best priced around.

These all fit well with the 20-60, which is strongest wide, the 85 prime and IRIX 150. I am happy with a kit zoom for wide applications and a manual focus macro/portrait tele, it’s the working middle I need to concentrate on.

Now the rest.

The Pana-Leica S Pro 24-70 f2.8, which is a monster in dimensions and price, but has a reputation for that Leica “X” factor and is built like a tank. It is older than most here, bigger, more expensive and now has some genuine Panasonic competition. It also lacks a stabiliser for video, although the weight alone would help. Too big and expensive.

Panasonic S 24-60 f2.8. For about $1000au less (but still way too expensive), this modernised gem is as sharp as the S Pro, but may lack that special something a Leica approved lens has and also it’s build quality, but it is about the same size as the 20-60 kit lens! This is probably best bought with a camera as the kitted lenses tend to be way cheaper, but I don’t need a camera. To expensive.

Panasonic 24-105 f4, this lens is the sort of lens that can realistically do almost all your work to a decent enough standard. A fixed, semi-fast f4 and sharp with the best range here as well as genuine macro. It is older so easily found second hand. In one lens I could have a reasonable indoor sports option, a better wide angle and a decent enough fixed aperture standard zoom. A kit bargain is also possible. Needs to be the right price.

A Sigma 24 f2 or f3.5. These would give me both a premium prime and a smaller lens than the Panas, for (in Australia) about 60% the price of the 24mm S and cheaper than any zoom. I could even use it as a dual focal length video lens in APS-C mode. Not sure this does anything.

The Tamron 24 f2.8, which is less than half the price of the Sigma 24’s, is a macro and very small and light. On a second body, it could have been the fix for the above scenario, but then again, so could have the the 20-60 kit on a second cam with the 35 on the main one. Maybe in addition to a 28-70?

There are others, like the 24-70 f2.8, 24-45 f1.8, 28-105 f2.8 Sigma’s, but all are really overkill for the need to be addressed.

Leaders at the moment are the solid and versatile 24-105 Pana at $1500au and the slightly better, but less useful 28-70 Sigma for about $1k au.

There is a risk the 35 and 50mm S primes and the 7Art cine lenses may be made redundant, but there is always room for specialist glass, once you have the basics covered.

Ed. So I bought the Sigma on sale with the Australian Sigma supplier with a free SD card and overnight freight for under 1k. It was impulsive, but felt right, was a bargain and hopefully will be covered by my tax return. The Pana was scarce in deals without a camera. I feel the Sigma is not ideal for video (but no slouch), but I am not buying for video.

*M43 gives you about 2 stops more depth of field which means you can often shoot groups “wide open” at f1.8 or f2, which means 2 power levels more flash grunt or less battery drain.

**Battery of the Godox 860 still showed 80% after these and about 500 more shots inside and the images are clean as you would need.

***the excellent Panasonic 10-25 f1.7 would have also, but at $2.5k au if I had gone this way full frame would not even be in the picture.

Football, My Bread And Butter (But Not My Cup Of Tea)

I am not a huge fan of the Australian game of football. Nothing personal, it just was not appealing when I was young and as I got older other sports grabbed me like Test Cricket and Rugby Union.

I do however, love to photograph it.

Few other sports are as easy to get good images from as Ozzie-rules footy.

Sometimes called “Aerial Ping-Pong”, the game tends to have plenty of tip of the finger moments.

The game has handling rules, like having to hand-ball, kick or punch the ball, but not throw it, you have to bounce it after a few steps, not tuck and run, but there is no off-side, so other than that, it is fairly free form and fast, meaning the play can come to you at any time.

A running game, a tackling game and above all a fast game.

At higher levels, the play is very open and fast, a bit like Basketball (my next favourite to photograph), at lower levels it tends to be more “scrum” like and the fickle oval ball kicked, punched or passed will always yield some unexpected results.

Drama is plentiful at any level of skill. In this game the strong home side dominated, but the nature of the game is still evident.

Unlike most other winter sports I have shot, it is not rigid, has no defined “front line” of action and each contest is a dramatic 1 to 1 tussle.

From a players perspective you can contribute no matter your size. There is room for the strong, the fast, the agile, but of course at the top level, all of these are expected.

It’s little wonder basketball players also make good AFL players, as speed and height (natural or post-jump) are both mandatory.

I am never going to be a full blown footy fan, but I will also never turn down a chance to shoot it.

So, This Is My Life Now?

One day recently, I walked into the den of the “enemy”, well not the enemy as such, more a competitor in a shared space, but a little drama boosts the story maybe?

I shoot the bulk of the stills images for the school that is my main employer, another, much more professional organisation shoot the video and stills when it is necessary for their needs and sometimes, my video ambitions aim at their space.

Realistic?

For much f what the school needs, absolutely and it was my intention to grow into that space and save them money, earn me some more and avoid the over kill that can happen when a specialist is called in to do little jobs.

Well, if I could not beat them, I decided to join them.

Impulsively, I walked in to their business and pressed my case as a possible video option and I guess maybe stills.

Stills, the thing I do while I think about video.

I cannot think when was the last time taking stills was something that I stressed over or even gave much thought to. Get the job, pick the gear, select a bag that go. Adaption is often needed, so adapt I do.

What came of the exchange was a surprise.

The company concerned has the contract for AFL Tasmania. AFL (Australian Rules Football) is the national winter sport, although these days there is a lot of competition.

They are video specialist, so often stills work is freelanced out. I am one of those it seems and it looks like their options are slim.

Anyway, I have next few weekends booked and the standard of games like yeserdays is only one level below national. Massive gallery below, but no apologies, I enjoyed it.

The 300 as usual shone, as did the 40-150 f2.8, making heavy crops possible.

Not sure where this is going, but I will ride it until it is done and no, I am not complaining.

The Past Revisited And Depth Increased....Maybe.

I have been offered a few bits of older Oly gear and testing has begun.

First up, an EM1 (mk1).

As a long term EM5 user (professionally even) the Em1 was a nostalgic revelation.

I bought into the M43 system on the release of the EM5 Mk1 and found the focus acquisition was fast enough to capture some sports, but the EM1 had phase detect AF, the holy grail of sports focussing systems, the system all SLR’s used. This was not a first for mirrorless (though close), but it was a first for M43.

I sold plenty of them, used them and was keen on one, but the cost and my contentment with the EM5’s saw me putting it off. The Mk2 came out with improvements across the board and when I was more ready and I jumped. That camera and the one after have done nearly 2 million frames between them and are still ticking.

The EM1 in question has had a gentler life. Petite compared to the later cams, a single card slot and the EM5’s old battery are interesting (handy also as the only other cam I use now that takes the 6 I have, is the Pen F) and it comes with an unused grip.

AF is fast in single shot mode, faster than the old EM5’s and close to as fast as the Mk2, but obviously slower than the EM1.2 or EM1x with tracking, but I knew that. Olympus raised the bar with the Mk2, one of the reasons I jumped and improvements since have been incremental.

It is worth remembering, the EM1 only predates the EM1x by 1 to 2 models, not a massively long time, even in early digital (although dual sensors in the EM1x give it ten times the image processing).

Image quality?

Basically the same as the EM5.1 which is plenty for most uses, solid and predictable. The first phase detect sensor was known to be noisier than the older, simpler sensor, another thing the Mk2 improved on, but there are signs of the good imager it is known to be.

I used the 45 f1.8 to test it, probably my most “known” property and a lens that actually pre-dates it. The first image below is actually one of my most satisfying of a regular inspiration.

My gut feeling on this one is the files are very slightly less smooth and simple than the EM5.1’s, a little pushed and processed, likely in response to the phase detect pixel strain being compensated for, but that solid performance of the older cams is there and something I do like about these sensors is their robust handling of low/mixed light.

I noticed a few years ago that the EM5’s handled bad lighting very well compared to some newer cams that seemed “busier”. They may be a little noisier, but did not produce ugly or looking stressed files and a test with ON1 No Noise 2024 produced surprisingly clean and workable files at ISO 6400 and above.

A crop from above and yes, good enough for most (really any) real world uses.

Next, the lens that came with it is the 14-54 SLR lens (first model) and the adapter.

Glass was the strength of the Oly SLR range, spectacular glass, ironically held back by a low pixel count sensor. The lens was the first professional lens followed by the 12~35 f2 and the 12~60 2.8~3.5, both excellent, but the 14-54 was not a compromise and sold when new for $1000au, which was the later 2000’s, so not a “kit” lens, although this one is the older model, not the SWD version.

On the EM1x with adapter, the zoom mechanism makes a strange electro-mechanical sound almost like a “burbling”, but that is the adapter not the lens (see below). AF is solid and reliable, not going to blow minds, certainly not up to sports capture, but accurate.

Quality is good from these basically unprocessed files with a simpler early digi-cam vibe like my EM5’s or Canon 10D. I like the near-far Bokeh (last two files).

So, old camera with new lens, or old lens on newer camera?

In this test, a poorly controlled one I admit, using familiar subject matter, the older camera with native lens wins for sure.

Finally, the camera that originally came with the 14-54 and one that I lusted after for years, the E-3. Way out of my price range at the time, the camera that was the pinnacle of the E series, anointed to support such paragon lenses as the 90-250 f2.8 or 35-100 f2, the E-3 is a solid and hefty beast sitting between the legendary E-1 and improved upon by the more sure footed E-5 before the range was dropped in favour of the M43 platform.

Like an EM1x squashed down and deeper. It has proper battery latches etc, but I do have to consider the media. XD and CF cards, the CF being the only viable option and I do not have a reader (the cam dropped the files down ok via a cable).

As expected, the view finder is tiny and dim, but quite clear. It is smooth and fast in operation, AF being surprisingly snappy and accurate for single shooting. The lens is performing much more happily here than on the EM1x with adapter and no weird sounds when zooming.

Image quality?

Focus was accurate as was exposure, once I re-adapted to the SLR way of working, and the results robust and clean at ISO 400-1600 and the files responded to sharpening and noise reduction well.

You could produce professional quality results easily enough especially in controlled circumstances like a studio. The second image is a crop with some highlight retrieval.

The left crop as shot, the right one with applied sharpening (hard to pick actually). This performance reminds me of old arguments about visual and measurable quality, something we moved past soon after into the “pixel peeping” show, but is still a valid one, especially as this quality matches most phones.

The EM1 is a working proposition for me as another “shutter saver” like my pair of ailing EM10.2’s or even older EM5’s. I could see myself using this regularly as my second or third camera and the accurate low light focus would make it a good flash cam.

I must admit, I also like it in the hand. The slightly more petite form factor is pleasant, almost an anti-EM1x option.

The lens-on-adapter would only have one viable application and that would be as a video standard lens, freeing up my Leica 12-60, except for the audible mechanical sounds it makes when zooming and poor AF, the first is not an issue on the native camera.

This is not a realistic option, but does produce nice images.

The E~3 with lens on is a curiosity. A decent working proposition, even professionally, but not something I will be throwing any real money at, but if it was mine, I would likely still be using it occasionally. Yes, a nearly 20 year old camera can take good enough images to fool most.

The local shop has the 50-200 and 12-60 SWD pair in their S/H window for $800au, again worth looking at maybe if the E~3 and/or adapter were mine already, but for the price of some of the M43 glass around and my deep arsenal, maybe not.

ANZAC Day, But Not For The Paper

Since leaving the paper, my photographic habits have fallen into a better place.

I have let the pressures of captioning and time go, I have become me again, an image capturer a s visual story teller without distraction.

So, I covered the ANZAC day parade today and fell strangely into the same old habits. I kept going to grab shots of interesting people, then decided not as I would need to caption more, then remembered I would not have to, then realised I was not shooting for anyone other than the school, then realised, I can shoot what I want for what ever reason I want!

Full circle, resulting in job done for the school (a speaker and marching corps), shots taken for me and nobody else.

Something I did realise though, was the way I approached the job with the paper was harder than it needed to be. I would grab too many shots, get too many names, lament too many shots I would not use.

The march first.

I had just taken a shot of the two journalistic togs walking past me and this little guy spontaneously walked out into the street before the march. Front page stuff.

Then on to the podium presentation.

The freedom of not shooting for the paper is still liberating.

Fire Dancers.

Possibly more exciting, but also slightly more disturbing than cloud busting is fire watching.

Demonic faces and dancing ghosts? Take your time.

My Cursed Luck With Wide 7Artisans Lenses?

Not sure what is going on here, but I have bought several 7Art lenses over the years and have had consistently good luck with anything 50mm (equivalent) or longer, but mixed luck with shorter lenses.

The 12mm Vision is very loose on the mount, but focusses nicely/lightly and is a winner optically.

The 35mm Spectrum is a little tight, hard to use without a follow focus and the mount has a tiny amount of play which is noticeable because of it’s tight focus pull. This varies between cameras and the one I use it on (S5) is the better of the two.

The 16mm Hope arrived today and well, the bad luck continues. The other two Hope lenses have been great. Nice and consistent mechanically, hand holdable, smooth to use and sharp.

The 16 has by far the tightest focus pull of any lens I have used in a while*, tight being possibly flattering and the mount on my G9II (first cam I grabbed) is loose in the extreme, like or worse than the 12mm, but the 12mm does not resist focus pulling.

On the GH5s, it is less so, so being it’s likely home, all is ok I guess……, but it needs a follow focus and even then, it is a very different experience to the 25 or 50. I bought it as a run-n-gun lens, which is not where it would shine, if at all. To be honest, I have always suspected that for that type of work, a stabilised and/or AF zoom lens (8-18, 12-60) would probably be used anyway.

The reality is, the G9II misses little and can act like a gimbal cam if used well, so why compromise?

It looks ok optically, well so far after just a couple of images.

Ed. Soft down the left side with very bad, as in bright blue and blotchy CA (see bottom right). I struggled to get consistently sharp shots with it after about 50 attempts, then switched to the 25mm and got 4 out of 4. I feel it is poor close and de-centred.

It is going back and I will probably not bother with another. It was a lens I baulked at once, then went for, then regretted (the 12mm after cropping is fine), then was disappointed with anyway. Not auspicious by any measure.

In answer to the question I posed in another post, “Do you need a cinema lens?”, I guess for me it is also a tough question, very dependent on circumstance.

I do not need them for commercial work, indeed my go-to lenses for most of my commercial jobs are the safe and easy to use Lumix-S primes or the decent kit zoom for my S5’s, the 8-18 or 12-60 Leicas for the G9II (used with stabe and AF for that role) and the GH5s, my most cine rigged of cams gets cine or stills glass as needed (often the 12-40 Olympus which has excellent optics, just worn mechanics).

The 25 and 50 Hope lenses were bought as matching interview lenses, but to be honest I have the Spectrum and Lumix primes and they are the 35/50 combo I use most.

I guess I just like having cine glass, the lenses I have are excellent, the experience is sometimes better than using AF stills lenses, promoting good disciplines when it makes sense to use them and they do look the biz, but no, I do not need them.

This rig actually looks odd with a tiny M43 prime up front.

I am not going to make a movie, probably not even a documentary, just do little jobs that mean something to me, so I will call it here. Maybe another BMVA12g, so I can double cam with B-Raw.

My “head” ideal would have been the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 zooms in MFT (and no full frame), or the S-Primes (24 to 85) in full frame (35-135 APS-c), but probably not both.

From here, even though I prefer the format and technically my two “best” video cams are MFT, it seems now my video direction is leaning more towards full frame, so possibly the 24 S-Prime to complete my set, the excellent 24-70 Leica or maybe the well liked 24-105 or even a Sigma f2.8 model?