Possibly more exciting, but also slightly more disturbing than cloud busting is fire watching.
Demonic faces and dancing ghosts? Take your time.
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?
Why choose a cinema lens?
Often, well sometimes, a cinema lens is identical in optical design to a stills lens from the same maker (Sony, IRIX, Sigma), but it is physically different and must fall within the parameters needed to make a cinema grade lens.
Thjis can mean different things to different people and there are ‘camps” of preferences in this field, but there also some constants.
A cine lens will have longer focus throw, smooth manual focus, manual and step-less aperture ring, consistent body shape and size (for rigging) and more often than not be at least 50% dearer.
Two 25mm lenses for the same format. One is designed for maximum edge to edge sharpness, high contrast and “modern” stills rendering while being auto everything. The other is designed for manual handling and things that look good, sometimes even when they are considered flaws or some older fashioned things like the 3D effect, deeper depth of field Bokeh, as well as the first thing you would grab in a fight. The smaller lens is also brighter in aperture.
What else do you need to think about, what is the actual difference?
Sharpness and contrast.
Cinema lenses, against current opinion, do need to be sharp, but they do not need to be photography or “perfectly” sharp, which is to say razor sharp edge to edge with biting contrast.
“Character” a term often used to hide unacceptable flaws in stills lenses are sometimes fostered in cinema lenses, even the dearest ones, because unlike stills, moving footage looks more natural with some softness or smoothness.
All these characteristics however, need to contribute the overall viewing experience.
Smoothness can be from the lens, the frame rate, lighting, filtering or motion blur. Even the old enemies of chromatic aberration are seen as “additives”.
The question you must ask yourself when choosing a cine lens, dear or cheap, old or new is “do I like the rendering?”. This is something you have to deal with at your end, visually, instinctively. Ignore the price tag, ignore the reputation and the test charts, just look at the results (in context).
There is a reason quite ancient legacy glass is used on some big production movies. It is not simple perfection they seek.
Bokeh.
Sharpness or the perception of it’s qualities often goes hand in hand with Bokeh or the subjective quality of out of focus elements, which is a thing at any aperture as long as there is even a small amount of focus transition.
The cinematic look generally includes some out of focus areas, areas that become as much a part of the image as the sharp parts, so the quality of that blurring cannot be avoided. Super shallow depth is rarely used in cinema except in extreme cases, so Bokeh at a more useable aperture like f4 on a full frame has to be taken into account.
Modern “perfect” glass comes at a price. The super soft Bokeh rendering of the latest Sigma or Sony G-master is nice if you need it, but from a cinematographers perspective, it may be too aggressive, too “perfect”, rarely applicable and lack a transitional or interest value beloved by the masters.
Like above, you need to see it in action and go with your heart and gut.
Three dimensionality.
A modern trend with super corrected still lenses is a “flatness” in rendering. This is always common in longer lenses to some degree, but seeking technical perfection in other spheres seems to exaggerate it. It is almost a blind spot fostered by recent designers, needed for them to deliver more fashionable qualities like resolution.
Like Bokeh above, three dimensionality and blur character are all part of the rendering of the frame, which may, against modern trends, need some interplay of depth. The whole moving frame will be visible for the whole time, so how that works with the blocking of the characters is critical to good videography.
The sharp/soft look, so good at softening a background to make a blogger look good may not work to tell a story. Nothing screams “digital video” more than that all too shallow depth and flat perspective.
Flare.
Flare is subjective as are most of the things we are dealing with are, but it is something you need to be aware of because situations where it may be a factor are virtually guaranteed.
Many like some flare, some more. Saving Private Ryan was filmed with lenses that were deliberately uncoated to exaggerate flare like older lenses, but too much or ugly flare simply ruins a shot.
Lenses will flare, but you need to be aware of how much, what type and whether it enhances the frame or ruins it for your vision.
This is a tough one, but thankfully many reviewers touch on this enough to get you part of the way there.
So, you need to like the sharpness, Bokeh, flare and 3d rendering of your lens.
Distortions.
Often tested to ridiculous extent and just as often corrected in camera by paranoid manufacturers, distortions are many and varied. In cinema, thanks mostly to classic anamorphic lenses used warts-and-all in many big budget movies by choice, distortions are not only tolerated, but often pursued.
Wes Anderson uses wide shots often with centred subjects. Take a scene from his movies, any scene really and look at the horizontals and edge sharpness. You will see bad things there, unacceptable to most stills shooters.
Not an architectural photographers dream, Anderson seems to also want to exaggerate this by his subject placement.
Handling.
Cine lenses are designed for use in heavy cinema rigs using focus pulling gears etc. It is important that this is recognised, because just buying one for hand held work may not be ideal. Talking from personal experience, some of my cine lenses feel good and work fine as hand held lenses (Hope 25, Sirui 24, Spectrum 50 ), while some are not as sweet.
They have by nature long focus throw, which for fast work can be annoying, but it is ideal for more measured work. This can be altered by changing the gear on your follow focus.
Equally, I enjoy many stills lenses for fast work, but the opposite is not true on the whole. When using stills lenses in a cine role, they are inconsistent and twitchy, often too small, lack focussing aids and aperture changes are “clicked”, even when electronically applied. I can use Pana lenses on Pana cams with electronically applied longer throw, which helps a little.
Cine lenses are usually mechanically matched, making rigging easy as changes are fast and limited to the lens only, not follow focus or rig alignment and weight should be similar. (see below).
Focus Breathing.
This is irrelevant in stills work, but important for focus transitions in video. Does the lens “shift” framing when focus is pulled a lot. This may not be a huge thing for you, but it may be.
Consistency.
Cine lenses are meant to be able to be used in matched sets. This is rare, even with dearer sets of lenses, but the closer the better. Colour matching (warm or cool), rendering (sharpness, Bokeh, flare etc), mechanical draw and placement of focus and aperture rings etc, should all be at least within the same ball park.
Even expensive sets may be less than perfectly consistent, but by intent, they will be close enough.
Even some cheap sets are close here (4 out of the 6 Hope lenses match well, two are slightly warmer or cooler).
I have actually mixed sets and brands with little issue after painstaking research and have a simple system of stickers (blue/white/yellow) to help remind me of warm or cool sensor and lens combinations (regardless of lens consistency, even cameras from the same maker can vary).
It can be a matter of buy what you like and see what works or you can be more scientific, research well and make your choice.
Do you need a cine lens?
To be honest, my full frame kit is well served by the Lumix-S primes, which have many of the benefits of a cine set (same filter, same overall size and similar weight, linear focus throw-on a Pana cam and similar rendering). They are light, reasonably priced and have a nice balance of sharp/smoothness, with well controlled focus breathing.
They are not perfect, but that is party because they are hybrid lenses.
In M43, it is the opposite. The Hope lenses are great value cine glass and my cherry picked extras, the Sirui 24 Nightwalker and Vision 12mm match adequately. The odd AF zoom pops up when AF and stabe is needed, but I have times when they are not. In another life, one where I would only have M43 format, I would have bought the two Pana f1.7 zooms, but that is another life.
There are levels of awareness in most things.
Ignorance can be bliss, but knowledge can be even better.
I have been trying to learn what I need to be a decent videographer and in that journey, I have come across “levels” of knowledge, or more specifically levels of teaching and expectation.
I started wanting to know how to use a Panasonic G9 for professional work as others were at the time. The G9 without a paid firmware upgrade has a very decent video capability including red frame recording, 10 bit colour, HLG, Cine-D codecs and good levels of control, but lacked LOG. For many Natural with the saturation and sharpness further reduced was enough, starting more than a few careers.
Cine-D had more latitude, but did not seem to be overly popular, HLG had more even more but was even less popular, so I stuck to the accepted norm.
The whole LOG thing seemed overly involved to me anyway, so I went with Natural profile, reduced contrast.
Unhappy with my results (muddy whites), I tried flat line, Standard profile one day out of desperation and got nicer, cleaner results to my eye (basically it looked like I liked to grade).
I was swimming against the tide of opinion, but it seemed to work for me. The sources I visited at the time leaned more towards the soft, warm, desaturated camp, where I wanted more punch, more of a match to my stills. Why would I want anything other than basically what I was looking at?
This was the breakthrough clip, the clip where I felt I broke free from the chains of reluctant expectations. It looked right, came easily and needed little adjustment (G9 mk1 12-40 Olympus lens).
Within that limited scope, I felt I must have been wrong, because nobody was using that profile, the accepted norm was at odds with what I was seeing in the TV shows and movies I liked. The modern videographer and even Netflix with it’s uber-dreamy look was a different beast to the “traditional” cinematographers needs.
I did notice also about now the butchering of correct photo terms and understanding like depth of field/aperture, applying video profiles to stills and generally an ignorance of some basics. The signs were there, but I was in unfamiliar territory, the newbie, so I just watched and learned..
At this point, success in the field seemed to be tied to getting white balance and exposure right and avoiding flicker. This was all very “front of house” to a dedicated RAW stills shooter, but I had to adapt to the needs of the medium, not the other way around..
My habit was to keep a 17mm lens in my bag with a 5 stop ND filter permanently mounted (which helped with high sync speed flash use also), white balance became an obsession, something I had managed to avoid dealing with for most of my RAW stills life and I even understood a little more about how the power grid worked.
LOG it seemed was the holy grail, the golden ring, the top tier and in many cases and it was perfectly fine as a professional aspiration. Combined with strong Black Mist filters and heavily (self) promoted Luts that tended to lean towards soft and low contrast looks. That look was all-pervasive, even my decades of photo experience was reluctantly adjusting to this new way of seeing.
Sharpness, saturation and contrast were the enemy, clarity a foreign concept and I needed to conform!
Why was I chasing a look I actually did not like?
I tentatively moved towards LOG when I bought the S5, but quickly went “backwards” again to the much more friendly “Flat” profile, being a sort of Cine-D without the catches (odd skin tones etc). Exposing LOG required extra effort (I thought) and the intricacies of it were above my pay grade, requiring the application of calibrated Zebras, Luts (video pre-sets) and other foreign concepts.
Basically my grading skills did not make enough difference to LOG footage to better the more main stream profiles and I could not commit to using Luts. It all seemed too pre-determined. I know Luts are only the first step in the editing chain, but they were somebody else’s first step, someone else’s opinion.
Better I go straight-line to something closer to my ideal, then push it a little from there. The whole LOG thing just seemed to over complicate the already complicated.
I felt like I was the video equivalent of a JPEG-only stills shooter. Limited, deluding myself possibly, but the whole video processing thing was just not doing it for me and LOG was more an enemy than a potential ally.
I did question some times why other people’s out-of-camera or phone footage looked great, my own older files even and my “semi-pro” level hybrid-cams were producing a whole other thing.
At this point I did not fully understand the importance of all the other processing stuff other than just the camera and lens, like lighting, which is actually more important!
Getting better at Resolve (well, I thought so at the time!), I decided to upgrade to Studio along with getting the Micro Panel, BMVA 12g 5” and Speed Editor to get better at it, which opened the door to RAW formats.
I was assuming ProRes would have been enough, which it turns out the old G9’s can feed out to the BMVA 3G, but I went sytraight into B-Raw, based on dozens of reviews and opinions, especially comparisons between Pocket 4 and 6k cams vs regular hybrids.
In a seeming whirlwind, I shifted through LOG, past ProRes and into a true RAW space. This was the same pathway the makers of indie films and even Hollywood mainstream use, like makers of The Creator used, a consumer cam with an off-board recorder (Sony FX 3 into Atamos Ninjas in ProRes RAW ).
Potential realised?
This was real and better than LOG, but again, so much more to learn.
The difference though was the elevated relevance of the information and language of the sources as I chased different questions, needing different answers, like “RAW vs ProRes HQ”, “what is a Colour Space Transform node” or “what is a node even?”..
All of a sudden, in the blink of a google search eye, LOG was relegated to “baby” RAW, the new lingo was all about saturation, colour depth, high bit rates, Node trees etc, LOG was only the beginning of the next level not the end.
Already blessed with 10 bit colour from the humble G9, suddenly 12bit or even 16 bit was more the go.
It occurs to me, I made some good choices early on, exclusively using 10 bit was one of them.
All the vloggers I had been following now seemed like they were only scratching the surface with their own journeys, granted more aligned to their work flow needs.
I could place different shooters into the camps of young and popular “self taught” videographers following the pack, well trained “emerging professionals” often coming from a pro-colourist or sound engineer backgrounds and established professionals, the “true cinematographers” sharing their experience with the wider world.
The first group had set a bar, a bar for a long time I felt under qualified to reach for, then suddenly it was only a low hurdle, something to be moved past. I am not saying I had the skills, just an awareness of the path to follow and confirmation my gut was right all along, for me anyway.
Why keep shooting camera based LOG when for as little as $800au an off-board recorder could record RAW to an SSD or for $1700au, get a “ real” cinema camera like the BMPCC4k with it built in? I did not even bother with ProRes HQ from the G9II.
My current work flow is B-Raw constant quality Q5 for most, 5:1 for interviews unless I need more than 2 cams at once, then I switch to in camera LOG or Flat if just casual work.
If you can so easily access what real cinematographers use, why not do it?
Suddenly I was in a similar space to my stills work flow. White balance was only a suggestion (not really, but mistakes are no longer cruel), exposure more forgiving and what I saw, was actually close to what I was getting without the need for viewing Luts or other forced expectations.
Now Power grades were the thing.
For the first time, Resolve’s mind boggling options have started to even out and I am learning what to ignore.
Storage and work flow are as much to blame as ignorance I guess for avoiding RAW, but for this stills shooter, it turns out that the 4k/All-i/LOG (even ProRes) creators, making massive files and adhering to good, but not great work flows are missing out.
I used to shoot 1GB/min for Flat/10bit/1080/422 quality, I now shoot C4k/B-Raw/Q5/12Bit at about 1.5GB/min (it varies by subject, but not by much), so a vastly better result for an insignificant increase in storage space or media needs. Q5 runs as low as ProRes Proxy or up to ProRes LT, not the monster LOG/422 HQ files tht are actually a level below for editing.
It was hauntingly similar to my years of teaching stills. RAW avoidance came from unfounded fears of over complicating the seemingly easy, but “fixed” jpeg files, usually modified ironically with layers in Photoshop, a skill in itself. I have been a RAW shooter from day one and my pathways have always been straight and clear..
The reality is, you do have to process RAW files, but you can easily and logically fix problems. Jpegs are potentially processing free, but fixes and even changes are limited and complicated.
Below is an example of a relatively stuffed-up file from a basketball game the other night (mixing video and stills, I took it by reflex as I saw it, then adjusted). This level of recovery is simply not available with a jpeg file.
It was a doorway to controls and manipulations I could have only dreamed of as a colour slide or black and white film shooter.
B-RAW (as the example I have adopted) effectively shifts the whole LOG/All-i/ProRes paradigm into something much friendlier to use, more forgiving and sometimes, actually lighter on your system. It is easier to learn the editing flow when you have settled on the single most flexible and supported format in Resolve.
The files can be big, although not always, but the uncompresses RAW footage is easy on your computer because they do not need to unpack heavy compression and SSD’s are significantly cheaper and faster than SD cards.
I am now watching and reading about best Resolve work flows and the results match the expectations, which are top tier.
It turns out that the things I only recently learned are already old hat. Primaries, even LOG controls, a recent discovery, are now limited and dated. HDR Global, Colour Slice and Linear are the improved ways.
Now my language is one of “using what real colourists use”, the behind the doors expert tips and tricks. This information would have been mostly wasted on me earlier in the journey.
The reality is, the higher up the chain I go, the clearer the messaging and the easier it is getting to find answers and get results. We are often self shielded from growth by placing barriers between us and the reality we need to face. Cameras with codec limitations, programmes with multiple levels of control, a swamp of information plagued by the mosquitoes of doubt all contribute to slow and sometimes stunted growth.
B-Raw with as much skill as I can apply is finally becoming natural to me, but I have a long way to go.
What strikes me as I write this though and the reason for writing it in the first place is my journey, only a couple of years and hundreds of hours watching videos in the making, has had defined turning points, levels of awareness that on one hand I wish I had cut through earlier, but on the other, I see the need for the steps that I have taken.
My work flow is now B-Raw into the ProRig GH5s or S5, LOG if I need multiple matching cameras or sometimes just becasue it is the past of least resistance in a cramped bag or Flat in 422 ProRes for low stress jobs. My future may include another BMVA12g, maybe a Pocket 6k, or 4k, maybe not, but from this point I will only compromise when compromise makes sense.
I had a chance to use my Manfrotto backdrop the other day.
It cost a bomb, so always happy to use it. The client was given a few options, going with green screen for options (cast portraits going into the productions programme with a picture frame style presentation).
I thought at the last minute that the Walnut side of my backdrop might also be an idea, so I pushed it through the stage door at rehearsals and got a “oh, that’s nice”, so Walnut it was.
I bought the Walnut and Pewter because it was the grey I wanted (very mild texture) and the Walnut appealed, but I was aware that both are cool in tone.
What I wanted, and this was the only option from their large catalogue was the texture choice. The Pewter is a very mild texture, almost nothing, but not nothing. The Walnut has an…. old wall in an abandoned house…. thing going on. I dislike regular mottle, obvious paint strokes etc.
Not a huge photoshop user, I was going to painstakingly paint the background with the brush in Capture 1 and change it. Not a huge job for a small shoot, bit of a pain for 50+ subjects.
Then Lightroom and C1 bought in auto masking of subject and background and stuff got real.
This is the base colour, cool wood with blue-ish undertones and a slight vignette (exaggerated here for final edit). Excuse the wrinkled t-shirts of the subjects. I shot in mostly darkness, the other option was strong fluorescence, and they were sharing a couple of pro T’s to hide uniforms etc. G9 Mk1 and 25 or 45mm lenses.
Reducing saturation is an easy fix, Still cool, but suits this subject.
Bringing out the texture, highlighting the background colours a little, but pushing the base olive (white balance shift and colour channels), gives me a much desired Olive tone version. With more depth of field, I could bring out more texture and colour.
Or I can go the other way and blur it out more for an almost medium format look. No doubt I can smooth and feather these better, but for now as examples they work well enough.
Wanting to give the client some variety, I treated each subject as an individual on their merits. Same background, only white balance shifts applied to the background layer.
Texture requires a background replacement, beyond my care level, but colour and therefore feel of the image is an easy fix.
With the rustic Walnut side, the clean Pewter and Grey/Black/white plain I have all I need really. Colours are then the tools that let these come alive.
Often when I write these, I tend to get too pro-MFT for others and even myself sometimes, even if my intention is to promote the use of MFT format.
I will try my hardest here to apply my usually analytical brain to the facts of the matter to help you make up you own mind. There will be personal thoughts at the end, but not biased I hope.
The sensor.
The MFT sensor is about one quarter the size of a full frame sensor and about seventy percent the size of an APSC crop sensor. This does not mean it is only 25% as capable, because the law of diminishing returns says that more is usually less more as it goes. In the past it was always up to the bigger format to prove it’s worth, not the smaller one and smaller formats have generally punched more efficiently.
The reality is, software and processing often makes as much difference.
The sensor doubles the magnification of a given focal length, which means long reach can be achieved with smaller and cheaper lenses that fall closer to “ideal” design parameters.
Depth of field is also increased simply because the shorter lenses render it. A 300mm lens on MFT format will have the depth of field of a full frame 300mm, but the equivalent reach f a 600mm.
Your own needs will dictate what is important here, but usually when working for a client, more depth of field is a benefit, so if the widest practical aperture needed is for low light, there is a two stop equivalency gain compared to full frame (f1.8 on MFT = f2.8 full frame at the same effective magnification).
Wide angle lenses are correspondingly very short focal lengths increasing design stress, but given the difficulty of making good, sharp edge to edge wide angle lenses for larger formats, this seems to even out. My experience with MFT lenses is soft edges are rarely a thing, something I was always aware of in full frame
The sensor is squarer, which makes lens design easier also, or more to the point the perfect circle can be smaller as width and height are closer to the same.
The sensor will produce, when compared to the bigger format, either less resolution or more noise pixel to pixel. The sweet spot seems around 20mp for MFT, enough to produce bill-board sized work (assuming you are looking at proper a bill-board viewing distance). The pixel density of 20mp is roughly the same as the many of higher MP sensors in full frame formats.
These are often cited as ideal for cropping in on, so in some ways MFT is the high res full frame sensor cropped.
With modern processing applied, if a natural looking, sharp and clean image is needed and a little more time is allowed, clean ISO 12,800 images are possible, but realistically 6400 is the safe maximum if premium quality matters.
Lower res full frame sensors (24mp or under) are capable of several stops more clean output, some with dual ISO processors for an added edge. The two stops of extra depth of field and double the reach for the focal length of MFT can offer effectively two free ISO stops in some circumstances, but the “ISO free” feeling of a full frame dual ISO sensor cannot be matched.
This means that in real terms, a slow lens on a some full frame cameras can match a fast lens on an MFT cams at roughly the same resolution and with similar depth of field. The size, price and weight advantage of MFT can often be matched in these circumstances, but only at the same resolution.
This is basically the full frame makers applying the math in reverse for much the same effect.
Like a Renaissance painting, a shot taken with an ailing 16mp EM10 mk2 (the screen connection is twitchy, so I use it as an EVF only studio cam), a cheap 45 f1.8 (at 2.8) against my Manfrotto Walnut backdrop, probably worth more than the cam or lens these days and a cheap brolly/flash combo (at minimum power). One of MFT’s random advantages is a boost in flash power as I can select the “ideal” studio aperture (f2.8 in mft), which is a couple of stops faster than in full frame (f5.6), it bites you though when in bright sun and you want shallow depth.
No sharpening or other contrast processing in C1. Worth mentioning here I guess, I have two full frame cams that I could have used.
Full frame sensors are generally better at mistake mitigation.
Poor exposure, white balance and colour shifts can generally be bought back better (from my experience), but personally, I have not compared like to like. My own real life testing, done using older MFT vs new full frame cams has proven out the Goldie Locks rule;
If you muck up a little, either can be saved.
If you muck up a lot, neither can be saved.
If you muck up just right, full frame is sometimes better.
The long running argument has been that full frame is called that because it is the “true” base sensor size. This is based on 35mm film being the original work horse size, which it was not professionally even then, it was just the most convenient. The fact is 35mm film was only selected because it was a handy convenience, being the film industry standard, but the 3:2 ratio was not loved for publication, considered by many to be a useless size.
The true format for film makers is a loose group of sizes lumped into the “Super-35” category and it probably should have been for stills shooters as well (the rare half frame movement), which is 35mm film shot sideways across the length, how it was meant to be. This is roughly APS-C or even close to “Academy” MFT in size..
MFT format is a rationalisation of that thinking and as formats go, it has much to offer.
To be honest, the main reason I feel MFT has had such a rough go, is simply because the big three, Canon, Nikon and now Sony have so much invested in the 35mm full frame format nearly exclusively. If they really cared about a quality boost that made a difference, medium format would be more common.
If APS-C was properly supported by the big brands, it may well be that full frame would have withered on the vine by now or been relegated to “studio” camera use, but the insistence on supporting legacy formats leading to a assumption that those formats were “true”, evinced by the “crop” term used for other formats, became a watch word for “minimum required quality”.
The question is I guess, does any specific format have benefits that align better with your needs, for your work than a larger one.
A final thought on APS-C. The slightly bigger/slightly smaller format has never to my eyes proven an option, simply because it is usually a poorly supported compromise, Fuji excepted.
On direct comparison, intending to buy some Fuji a few years ago when I had some money to spend, MFT still beat it for sheer hard sharpness, which I preferred over Fuji smooth and glossy and the noise difference was not compelling, but the MFT the lens options were (I instead bought the EM1x, 300mm and 8-18, all of which have paid for themselves repeatedly).
I guess also, if the argument for use big to crop is relevant to you, then maybe start small and don’t crop may also work?
For my own use, I find MFT benefits generally outweigh the down sides and in real terms I have never, ever been taken to task regarding the quality if my work, quite the opposite in fact. The sports team at the paper preferred my “brighter and cleaner” looking basketball files, which I joked must have been because I used a smaller and older sensor and “non issue” processing, but were more down to small, cheap, fast and sharp lenses pulling more than their weight.
Sharpness and detail are not the issue, only clean files under extreme duress, so extreme it is rarely relevant.
Full frame has it’s place in my video kit and for the occasional very tough lighting situation where needed quality possibly outstrips the realistic potential of the circumstances.
Light is all.
It is the core of photography, video and all art forms really. How light is controlled and used, how it works with the final element, what is adds are the key to art.
I am dealing with a reality that it needs to be dealt with a little better than it is.
Basically I need more light in fewer options. Light for video and constant light for portraiture. I have a quad of cheap 60-80w COB lights, the same in LED panels, two portable 60w COB (Smallrig and Amaran), lots of mods and lots of ideas.
What I do not have, without setting up multiple weaker lights, is something that can punch a bit harder, maybe even be daylight for me when needed.
This, more thn most things I touched on previously is a case of “making do” not really being enough.
The older RC220D from Smallrig is on sale at the moment ($249au), probably in response to the new model coming, but anyway, it is cheap, really cheap. I was interested in the Pro model, except the handy V-mount option is quite weak and the cost was prohibitive.
The older 220D is only a little dearer than the 120D at the moment, so no point in saving a little to lose a lot. I like the Daylight model because it is stronger than the Bi-colour, while being cheaper.
This, a Smallrig lantern, 55cm soft box, the two 60’s, some motivation light and some diffuser panels and I should be set. Book light is the ideal and one of the easiest to do in the field (a cheap reflector and diffuser sheet of white cloth)
This will be able to fill a 72” brolly, a lantern, a large soft box with grid, manage book light and even fake some sunlight.
The little 60’s then become the perfect environment boosters adding fill, hair and background light.
I have been looking for a light and easy video interview lighting setup for a while now.
The elements are there, portable lights, small stands etc, but modifiers have been a problem.
I want it to be a “one trip from the car” kit, which does allow for a light trolley to be used, but not much else.
What do I need?
A soft main light that can light two subjects.
A hair light which can also partially balance the second subject
At least two background light sources, to motivate the light and add interest.
My light options are an Amaran 60d, Smallrig 60b, Weelite RB9 and some little LED’s. I have four more COB lights and several LED panels, but these are my smaller main lights, able to fit in one bag.
Amaran 60d is D for daylight only, NP batt or wall power and Bowens mount.
The Smallrig is B for Bi-colour, has an internal batt with C-type powerbank charge, but not a Bowens mount.
The RB9 is RGB, internal batt and has limited modifier options.
Between them all, I can run for about one hour constantly at full charge without wall power, but that is pushing it, but for each I do have other power options.
Main light is probably going to be the Amaran as I can run it the longest and it has the most grunt as well as the limitation of daylight colour is less of a problem. So, this is the key, literally.
I tried a few ways of making this quite weak little light enough for my needs.
All images EM10 Mk2 and 25mm Olympus lens.
First I went for a book light idea, using the light into a westcott white brolly then out through a diffuser panel. This only needs two stands and has reasonable efficiency.
Lovely open light devoid of hotspots, but quite dull, flat and cool. The room was dull, the hallway indicating that the overcast day and closed shutters would have produced a flat and mirky image at the ISO 400 1/80th f2 exposure (allowing for roughly ISO 100, 25fps, 1/50th at f2 shoot, so plenty of power in reserve).
Next I tried a few large soft boxes I have, but the weight of these, especially on the front of the little light using a very light stand was not feasible.
Looking around I found no less than four, 4’ reflector soft boxes, the sort you have to put the flash inside of, but they also shift the centre of balance to the stand head, not the front of the light and are easy to set up. I found little use for these preferring simple brollies, but for this they may be ideal.
Much brighter and slightly more efficient with some pleasing brilliance, this is also more controllable, the light spill on the wall could possibly be reduced by feathering the modifier. The shadows are a little harsh and the brilliance is maybe too much. It would also need fill.
Next I removed the front diffuser cloth and had my wife hold the large diffuser in front of the mod.
A nice compromise, but two stands needed and again very little control over spill.
Ok, so softer, but maybe one stand and more control.
My last test was an idea I like from the start and is easy as. I clamped a sheet of soft white diffuser cloth over the 4” with it’s diffuser on.
There we go and I can use the large panel now to flag spill or as a fill reflector. Oddly, the exposure was the same as the others. It is warmer and more 3d than the top one, while being close in softness. A small hair light behind (RB9) and I am done. The Smallrig will be used to “paint” the background.
Compared to the book light on the left, there seems to be little real difference overall, just a little more contrast and a mire 3d look.
So, the winner is an Amaran 60d on a cheap Neewer stand (one of their super light fold back leg models that bend when stressed), a Godox 4” bounce-brolly modifier, a $5 sheet of white cloth, two pegs and that is it (grand total about $300au).
Well, this happened.
Don’t say I cannot take a hint!
Reviews are interesting, but lets assume that different copies and different testing procedures may throw up inconsistencies. According to one reviewer, the Sirui is the better lens optically, but since then I have found several that contradict that, one offering a very handy direct comparison of footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKdFwreVyN4.
The Sirui 16 T1.2 has proven too hard to find at a decent price (over $600au). I could wait, but with my video “breaking through” lately and my vision becoming more focussed, filling this last hole has become a priority, especialy as I have embraced the GH5s with no stabiliser except rig weight.
Every time I searched for the Sirui, the Hope popped up and Sirui right now just seems to be too hard to source. The logic of matching my 24mm Sirui with a 16 is sound and the 16 seems to be one of their best, but the further logic of a small set of Hope lenses and the Sirui 24 kept just for very low light is also sound.
The slower Hope is possibly less versatile, but the reality is the Sirui super light focus pull is possibly too light and the extra speed I will rarely use, combined with a $200 price difference (only here in Australia it seems), means the Hope was re-ordered.
The 16/25/50 Hope series come in at 32/50/100 on most MFT cameras, but on my GH5s become a 28/45/90 near perfect combo backed up by the 24 Sirui (48/43) for speed and the Vision 12 (24/21) for wide.
I also have of course a raft of AF glass, but my direction is to force a clear divide between stills and video with the “catch all” G9II as the AF exception, the rest of my video being mostly MF cine glass.
For $456au, half paid for by cancelling some pre-ordered games (funny how work blunts that flame), seems like a logical move, over $600 not so much.
Video came into my life a few years ago and has been on the whole a fun ride.
I now understand so very much more than I did before and have been introduced to a very different landscape of information, mentoring, growth paths and influences.
Like I usually do, I have gone for the “gold ring” of best image quality and full control within a realistic envelope, while discovering along the way, lower levels can often be enough.
I must admit, it is easy to get information, but harder to get good information than it was with my stills journey, or was it more that it was a different time for both?
I feel lucky though, that I had a decent enough grounding in the basics to see the red flags, because there were many.
Recently I have reached a decision to effectively stop my “commercial” videography and relegate (or elevate) it to self motivated, fully controlled and better regulated projects with a fairly narrow focus.
I want to shoot documentaries and interviews, usually for the same projects, and I want/need controlling creative input. I do not shoot overtly commercial stills (some are used commercially, but that is only one use for them), so why do commercial video?
All those commercial videos I have been done have been, as they say in the classics, “very much the opposite of fun”. Teleprompters limiting camera and lens use and placement as well as compromised microphone choices and running to scripts do not float my boat, as well has a raft of “directors” second-guessing everything I do (with little idea) is my kind of hell.
I got early on that video is different to stills shooting in several ways.
Video needs to be shot to a story “shape” of some kind.
I take stills, I deliver stills, they decide how they want to use stills.
Video for most clients has to be delivered in a package and shot to make that package.
Your content needs to be planned and work to a formula to some extent.
Usually you, the shooter will be making that content useful.
If you give a client a ton of stills, they will use them as they see fit. If you dump an hour of footage on them, even graded and cleaned up footage, most will have little use for it and if they do, you may not like the outcome.
When you are making that content into something, communication is key.
It is your project to make, but someone else’s to use for their needs, so you are making it to their vision. This one is tough, because as you make the most of what you have, inevitably other stake holders will be inspired after the fact and want more or different.
So, it takes longer.
The ratio (for me) of three hours shooting stills is one hours processing, is at least flipped, or worse. A full hour of capturing various clips may end in many hours of processing, re-processing and more (see the point above).
Technical considerations are more and less forgiving.
If you are doing sound, video and lighting, you are jugging a lot of balls at once, any of which will bring your work flat if you mess up. Unlike stills, “fixing it in post” is less powerful and has draw backs. I now use B-Raw (Q5) and it helps, but there is still less tolerance “front of house”.
It cannot be done while you are shooting stills.
Well one or the other suffers anyway. I guess 4k or higher res can have stills lifted and maybe that is the answer, but for me at least, switching hats constantly tends to produce nothing of worth in either format.
It requires more gear, especially gear that you do. ot find in a still shooters bag.
Constant light sources, microphones, reflectors and diffusers, stability of some sort, rigging and even different cameras are required. The modern hybrid camera is fine, but it is more than just turning a dial.
I have looked back at my last year and realised, most of my unwanted stress has come from video work. Not the work itself, just it’s shape. Lack of creative control, poor communication resulting in zero planning, unrealistic time frames resulting in limited gear application have robbed me of the desire to offer this service.
The reality is, nobody wants to pay for it at a realistic hourly rate, unless they know up front and are willing to engage the whole you. “Just some quick video” has become a time eating lie to me.
Example;
I said yes recently to covering the first two, hour long rehearsals of a school play. Apart from these being poorly chosen rehearsals as they were the very first cast gatherings and little had been organised and I only found this out the day before, needed to be mostly video content including interviews, rehearsals and behind the scenes.
No time to plan, little idea of the actual needs of the relevant parties (or even who they were), unknown location, space, lighting etc, meant bringing lots of gear and winging it.
I shot for the two hours, with some stills as well when able.
I have since been making short promo clips, longer introduction clips, interview sets, also providing stills, many of which are video lifts, because it turned out they needed a lot more stills than I was led to believe and have easily clocked up 10 hours of editing, much of which came down to the ping-ponging of cuts via dropbox, then re-cuts and re-re-cuts until I have it how they want.
I am not yet finished. The job paid four hours total, because I only ever charge one hour processing per job maximum, based on my stills work flow. Could I charge more? Probably not.
What would I have liked to have done? Communicate with the actual parties directly, choose better rehearsal times, write or review the script (to a story shape), have the collateral supplied before not after, look at the space and have a clearer idea of the what and why of the job.
On the other hand, two of my charity jobs are interested in several mini documentary projects, with a concept, start, middle and ending, all controlled by me.
They have a longer run time, some over several weeks, are interviews, not scripted remarks and creative control is basically up to me.
These are what I want to do. I have the luxury of choice, so I will exercise that freedom.
An interview late last year, more my style, but rare for this client.
*
This means in practical terms, I will be reducing my dedicated four camera video kit to two cameras (S5/GH5s) with the G9II as backup for movement etc and the S5II becoming effectively a stills cam.
My cinema lenses and associated gear will be tighter, stills glass also going into the general kit. The 12-60 Leica does add stabe to the GH5s, to a level I find acceptable, so it may be the exception.
The reality that the G9II is in many ways my most capable video cam is not forgotten, but for my needs, it is a specialised tool. It still needs and can support the BMVA 12G for B-Raw, but is the only cam I have that can do ProRes HQ into an SSD.
Solid B-Raw, heavy cams, traditional stabe techniques and some cinéma vérité licence are where I want to be. Gimbals etc are more of a commercial necessity.
My stills kit will score two new cams (G9II/S5II) and some handy lenses, which may still be used for video occasionally, likely doing any drudge video work “out of the bag”, something even the G9 mk1’s can handle often..
The reality is, they offer good AF, stabilising and quality with minimal fuss for those jobs I choose to handle with them, the minimal fuss ones I am trying to mostly avoid, but will have to do sometimes. They also do add some genuine video muscle to my day kit, but again, without the rest of the kit that makes the difference.
I am now happy enough with my editing skills for my work, avoiding the “cutesy” trickery and effects of commercial work, sticking to real subjects and the best, pure practices. Things like gimbals, AF, zooms etc were all stresses I embraced to satisfy other people’s needs, not mine.
Not wanting to make movies here, just genuine stuff, no gimmicks.
I always know who I am with stills, but it took a while to get it with video. Last year I just said an unqualified “yes” all the time, hungry to grow, usually resulting in adequate results, but not always and I rarely felt like I had broken through to a controlled space. I learned a lot, some of which is to so “no” some times.
This year it is more a qualified “yes, but this is how it goes, or maybe you should find someone else”. I earn the bulk of my income shooting stills, so that is where the bulk of my time, money and effort should go. Video is just for me or others if I fit their needs in a shape I choose.
The steep learning curve, with no real direction or shape, so much that is new, all the time it seems, have made the trip seem insurmountable some times, but if I am true to me and don’t try to become some type of super all-rounder, then I can get what is important defined and perfected.
Micro Four Thirds is under seige at the moment.
It always seems to be and from my perspective it is unjustified, pointless even.
It is a valid format with advantages and disadvantages, but I have found, and I use multiple formats, that the advantages generally win out.
Relatively poorer low light performance than full frame
vs
More reach from lighter, cheaper, faster and often sharper lenses.
I know what I chose and why.
Here is a little gallery of some cricket shot today on an “aging” EM1x and the Olympus 300 f4, crops on the left, unprocessed originals on the right. Due to iffy light ISO 800-1600 were used, no noise reduction applied.
Generally I find the 600mm equivalent a little long for side shots, because I like to tell a story and the lens only includes a single element, so I shoot lengths-ways down the pitch and include if I can the bowler, batter and relevant fielders (easier with spin bowling as the keeper is behind the stumps).
Having enough quality from a six year old, 20mp MFT sensor for effectively a 1000mm crop though is handy.
Below is a sample of a “delivered” set, no before and after to compare and who would know!
Still down to counting stitches on the ball.
All silent shutter and hand held.
The big shame is, only we, the obsessed users pixel peep every file to excrutiating detail and these files stand up to that, yet we also hammer the format for not being as good as full frame or to cut to it, nt good enough.
Good enough for what? Car sized enlargements viewed at too close a distance? Almost all images are viewed small on compressed formats or to the limits of the print process, designed to be viewed at the correct distance. Only we have the luxury or seeming need to look closer.
If size and quality ratios are accepted, then how much is too much?
I remember the Nikon rep coming to the paper I worked at last year with her $25,000au 300mm Z-series lens, pushing the benefits of cropping the 45mp Z9 to get effectively a 600mm with about 20mp resolution “still far more than print publication or online needs”.
So, a $33,000au combination to get a cropped equivalent to my $6,000 300mm Oly and older model EM1x combo. Even if there was a difference in AF performance (the Nikon gear is newer, but I have no complaints), or optical quality (genuinely doubt it-and I compared direclty), is there enough difference to really matter? I hit what I aimed at and used single captures, no drive (even if 60fps is possible).
Since leaving the paper I have been keeping an eye on the other togs work in news print and online. I am not seeing a vast difference in quality with the newer gear, which proves that the end use is usually the final arbiter.
The 300 f2.8 is faster when used shorter you say! I could still manage to add a second body, a 75mm f1.8 (150mm eq), 40-150 f2.8 (300mm eq) and Panasonic 200 f2.8 (400mm eq), for about half the Nikon kit.
The other point of note is, I walked around the boundary all afternoon, chasing the right angles for each bowler and batter, something a huge 600mm full frame lens or even the hefty 300 would have limited. When at the paper this gave me a wider range of images in a shorter time.
Even managed some bird photography (or was it an accountants convention?).
I have shot cricket with the 40-150 f2.8 before when forced, cropping my 300mm equivalent to as much as a 600mm/10mp combination and nobody noticed!
This is prompted, by a podcast from Tin House Studio (at the very end)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt3JVrWxB1s
Opinions. As someone once said, “Opinions are like a#%eholes, everyone has one and not everything they produce is good”.
It is getting increasingly hard to;
1) Find clear and evenly balanced, correctly informed opinions from people who know.
2) Be able to tell the difference.
I am going to share an opinion here, but I hope it is a fair assessment of the state of things.
It is easy to get advice, but hard to get good advice, which I fear is going to become the norm.
Video suffers from this more than stills, because the base of older videographers is just not there.
The easiest way is to go back to known and respected sources, unfortunately harder with video, as so much has changed so fast. Books, written about photography are still trustworthy, blogs and vlogs are generally a mixed bag.
Proof?
Terminology for one, something that bothers me way too much, is paying the price of poorly educated people educating the next generation.
Example;
There is a raft of poor depth of field and aperture terminology going around, which to be honest make one of the hardest things to get your head around even harder. “A depth of field” is not a thing and should not be used as a catch-all to describe shallow depth of field or Bokeh. An image has more or less depth of field, but you need to say that.
Bokeh is also not just a term for super shallow depth of field, but rather a term for all sharp-to-soft depth of field transitions and their many qualities.
Wider apertures (along with other factors) = shallower depth of field = smaller f numbers = more light. Bokeh effects always result from this, not just from the amount of blur.
I would be wealthy if I scored a dollar for every time I have heard “more of a depth of field”, meaning shallow depth of field effect, or “smashed it with a bigger aperture”, but meaning a bigger number, not an actual bigger aperture which is a smaller number.
Another is using the term Lut for stills imaging when you are using a pre-set, which in stills should be called that and should not be treated as a fix-all like in video (and neither should it be in video). The habit of selling LUT’s does nobody any favours if the user needs to know more about colour grading.
Other opinions, more dangerous than annoying are the “never” or “only” ones, you know the type, the ones that inform you that there is apparently only one true way to do something properly, one brand, format, codec or programme worth having and all the rest are sub-par. These may not even be that obvious, just gently biased through faintly praising others.
Sometimes these are quite simply paid bias or worse ignorance.
Yet to meet someone who has done it all, used everything and tried every possible connotation of the art, so how would they actually know? One thing I have learned is, all brands have something to offer and no one way is the right way, but also the grass is seldom greener on the other side.
Always shoot RAW! I do, except for when I don’t.
Always use primes (or zooms). What utter crap. Each lens and use case needs to be looked at individually, not as a philosophy of type bias. I have a preference for primes because I have found they are generally better bang for the buck. Give me a pair of cheap, fast, but conservative primes over a monster super zoom any day, but that is my choice. The reality is, my zooms often surprise me, but my fondest memories are from a few special primes I have owned.
If you have f1.4 you should use it (often with miss-pronounced Bokeh or incorrect depth of field terminology).
Way to make all your images look the same as everyone else’s and chicken out of forming an proper story telling frame. Depth of field is like light or air or anything else, it has flavours, quantities and moods, so why not use them all.
Only use brand or format “X”.
Use what works for you, which is likely what you have and remember, brand preferences come and go. Ten years ago, Sony was only emerging in the industry until they got video AF right before everyone else, then they jumped over older brands, but for a long time they struggled to produce a decent lens. According to some recent reviewers, they seem to have invented superior lens design! To non AF users (i.e.professionals), they are still just one of many mid range brands.
Never crop, always crop, never post process (for authenticity), always post process for the best results (subjective), etc.
For this one I would simply flip it. What do you want. Decide this before you shoot and make the shooting process fit that. Why should an arbitrary choice made by some tech or committee many years ago decide for you what shape/size/colour or tone your work should be?
I like square, wide screen and sometimes, just as it comes. Colour gives way to mono as appropriate and I reserve the right to treat every image as I feel without using pre-sets or LUT’s to hide behind.
The best creators have an idea, then they do what is needed to realise it, they do not start with “my camera does this, so this is what I do”. Wes Anderson did not go out and buy a “Wes Anderson kit and LUT pack” and gain his signature look from that. Many will only decide on photography at all if it is the right medium.
My advice, and this is an opinion, but one that I hope makes sense, is do you rather than copy, create new rather than mimic, research when you have a valid question and then take the “vein” of truth from several sources. Don’t be afraid to fall back on time tested techniques when in doubt, because they tend to weather time better than trends. Read older and more respected sources if you are getting contradictory information and question, question, question.
Look at the masters, not so you can copy, but take heed of their journey, the way they did not copy, but created their own look.
Ask yourself who is talking as much as what they are saying. You may identify with the face on the screen and they may be very charismatic, but do not just accept what they say if that little voice in your head throws up a question mark. Anyone doing this for less than ten years may very well be caught up in the same vast ball of mis-information out there (but still consider themselves “veterans” or worse “guru’s” none the less).
The reality is they are getting results they like, so their opinions are valid, but are they sharing their thoughts accurately and are their ways ideal for you?
On that, listen to you inner voice. Intuition and instinct are the most under utilised resources we all have.
I really like my two 7Artisan Hope lenses, the 25 and 50mm in MFT format (45/50 and 90/100 respectively on the 1.8x GH5s/2x other MFT).
I chose them carefully and had decided to buy the 16mm at some point to make a set. I did not get it in the end, channelling the money in other directions, but also I was not as sure about that one, it just felt like a lazy set maker.
The 25 is near perfect, the 50 possibly even sharper and the pair make for a very decent MFT interview set. The 25 is warmer than the 50, well most of the set actually, so perfect colour matching is not happening, but we are only talking 200kelvin, well within processing limits.
I also have the 7Artisan Vision 12mm (21/24), which after a rocky start has become a favourite in the rarely needed wide angle range, and the Sirui Nightwalker 24 T1.2 (43/48), which is super fast when needed and a different handling experience. but there is still a hole in the space I tend to use most (30mm-ish). I have camera lenses, like the Leica 15, Oly 17, but nothing cine format.
The Hope 16mm was still the logical contender, but unlike the 25 and 50’s, it has high CA when close focussed, some corner softness wide open (which at only T2.1, is often used), has average flare control etc and to be honest, the role of the Hope lenses, which is the “stable” studio interview performers, did not fit ideally with this focal length, especially with both existing lenses becoming slightly wider on the GH5s.
The Sirui 16mm Nightwalker (SNW) T1.2 is raising it’s hand again.
Before the Hope lenses, this was probably the inevitable purchase. The SNW shares the 67mm filter thread I have a lot of effects filters for, matching my Lumix-S series and my intended filter base size until the Spectrum and Hope lenses serviced by matt box filters. It is nice to handle with run-n-gun shooting and wide open seems much the same as the Hope 16. The thing is, wide open is T1.2. At a matching T2.1, it is better than the Hope.
It is also warmer in rendering, which actually matches the Hope 25 and SNW 24’s closer, has a very nice rendering, possibly with more character than the Hope lens and is similarly priced. I also feel it is nice to have a couple of matching lenses to add choices in a controlled dynamic.
It is a little weak wide open at it’s closes focussing distance, but stopped down to T2 (still faster than the Hope), it cleans up very well.
An odd set, the 7A Vision 12, Sirui 16 and 24 and the 7A Hope 25 and 50. They are all however, the best of their series and ideally aligned to purpose.
The Hope lenses are stable and bullet proof, ideal for set interviews and critical work.
Very stable glass for any purpose. Basically no nasties to think of, clinical and safe. These allow me to be a little risky with lighting placement while running a dual cam setup.
The SNW’s are more character filled, optically strong, over two stops faster, very light to focus, while taking smaller filters and are a smaller, lighter design, so better for run-n-gun.
The 24 Nightwalker stood out recently in a test for 3D pop in my 50mm equivalents, which to be honest was meant to allow the Hope lenses to shine. They did, but the 24 was right there. This was taken at T2.8, still showing some separation, which other lenses did not always.
The Vision 12mm is the right lens for wide angle for me and happens to match the Hope lenses in ring placement and look. The 10mm Hope is the weakest and too wide, the SNW’s offer nothing this wide.
The 12mm has impressed. The other Vision lens I would get is the 35 T1.05, but the others are a mixed bag. The mount on this one is not tight, so I put it aside, but on using it, I have come to appreciate it’s optical consistency and mechanically, it aligns with the Hope lenses.
The reality is, budget, even mid-range cine lens sets can be optically stable, sharp and well made, but within each set, there is usually some variation in colour, rendering and optical performance.
The 7Artisans Vision series stand out for being so mixed, that they are hardly a set, but individual lenses do stand out in different ways. The 12 and 35 are well behaved, the 25 and 50 less so, almost “dreamy” in rendering.
The Hope and Nightwalker series are overall better, but by no means perfectly matched (but even the much dearer Nisi Athena lenses have better and worse in their range), so apart from mechanical variables, there is little real reason not to mix the very best of each series together to make a superior budget cine set, especially if sub-sets within these make sense.
Ed. There is of course the elephant in the room of would I use a traditional cine lens for more run-n-gun video if I have two zooms and some primes, with AF and even some stabilising at hand? The reality is, the G9II is my “in hand” cam and that comes with several handling advantages.
Ok, a bit of a ramble and a can of worms to open, worms with sharp teeth maybe, but here goes.
How do you make an image look cinematic?
Do you even need to, and if you feel you do, what is the benefit?
I can 100% guarantee you cannot buy what’s needed in just a lens and camera package. That will only get you some of the way there. You have to bring the rest and with it a lot of experience, means of control and effort.
Huge crews and massive budgets empower us, but they alone do not make it happen either, which leaves a little room for us to find our own way.
Start by creating separation, layers and depth, or in a nutshell, make an interesting, majestic and enthralling still image and then make it move.
How?
Use light, focal depth, colour, contrast, framing and sound.
Big budget movies spend a lot of their budget on not just cameras and walk away, they use their large crew and their experience on control of light and colour, sound and scene.
Light.
Light and contrast.
Contrast with control..
Lots of light is needed to look like not much light, but not much light when controlled gives us contrast and contrast is cinematic.
Very few movies rely on ambient light, even outdoors on a sunny day there is help for the sun, something to control shadows or control of the light overall. It looks realistic, but it is often not real. Natural light is rarely strong enough or perfectly balance especially when used dramatically, so the trend is to remove the light, then replace it with something better.
Research this. The reality is surprising and is not limited to a few fringe cases.
Very rarely, natural light can be un-naturally powerful and cinematic, but the problem is, it is fleeting and unpredictable.
For example, in a scene from “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood”, Brad Pitt is driving down a dimly lit highway, the shot is of him driving, shot from the side passenger seat or another vehicle in seemingly natural light. The light is enough, just, gloomy maybe, but in keeping with the expectations of the viewer, enticing us with subtle glimpses, very controlled ones.
The reality though was massive light banks stretching along a decent length of road, then bought back down to look like they are not even there. The unlit image would have been deep shadows of little interest and very occasional glimpses of interest, the manufactured reality is far more attractive.
This gives the cinematographer two things.
Control of light shape, contrast and colour and plenty of light for a clean image.
Yep, just for that bit of that scene with the end result looking effectively unlit.
A lot of lift for this amount of reduction. but that’s Hollywood. Similar images can be found for so many other films such as the enormous light boxes hanging over the “Sleepy Hollow” set, all to produce dark, but even and controlled light.
Light direction, colour and balance are key. Flat light looks amateurish, contrast and angles make the same scene better and less of more is generally more. Very few Hollywood cinematographers do not use back lighting or fill.
Cinematic images tend to be precise and minimalistic. Warm or cool, hard or soft, strong or mild, the look is highly controlled.
Be aware, that when you are looking at a naturally window lit indoor scene, you are probably not. Motivated light, which is light that looks like it is coming from a logical source is usually much stronger and controlled than the real thing, but like well applied makeup you are either unaware of it, or on some level very aware but appreciate the masterful use of it.
Make it work on all levels.
If it helps, create a solid still image first. A still image that looks like a still taken from a movie (not a set, but the end product). By doing this, the image can stand on it’s own, not rely on the distraction of movement.
This image was the result of natural sunlight, a cheap reflector and a glass shower enclosure. Technique was important in harmony with light and contrast control.
Processing may help here with an extreme example but relatively easy being shooting in daylight and processing to look like night.
Focus Depth.
Shallow depth of field is not cinematic by definition, but it is a way of creating separation. A lot of movies are shot at smaller than wide open aperture on a fast prime (smaller meaning a bigger number = a small hole = more depth of field). Often f4 on a full frame, f2.8 on Super-35 crop, (f2 on MFT) or deeper are used most often affording the DP some focussing room, adequate depth of field to cover the subject naturally with mild, natural (ideally invisible) focus drop off, like our eyes actually see, not the uber shallow depth f1.4 craziness commonly used my videographers looking for that “special” look.
I feel they are responding more to the pro-stills look of overtly soft backgrounds, more than than cinematic beauty.
This image is cinematically beautiful. It does not need super shallow depth or compression tricks, just composition, great lighting colour and control. Many of the great directors avoid super shallow depth, Speilberg and Deakins in particular often using more depth to tell a deeper, layered story.
Separation is actualised by placement of the characters relative to the lens and each other (blocking) and other elements like light and contrast.
Colour and mood.
Use the colours you are dealt, but to the best of your ability and if you can, and if they are not working replace them, shift them or if you have no other option, lose them completely.
Modern cameras can handle low light well, so drop the light out which allows you to work with less artificial light if less is all you have. Quite often on the making of “The Creator”, lots of small LED’s were used and the shadows crushed. Instead of a lot of light then bought down, they used little lights and bought them up.
Plenty of documentary film makers can achieve a cinematic look, but they must follow the light, not control it.
Audio.
Good sound trumps video for effect or more to the point, poor sound makes it all fall over. Deep, clean, intimate and appropriate sound, just like lighting really effect your footage.
Shot strength.
Movies are made up of around 1500 separate shots. Videos tend to need fewer. Each one matters to the whole.
Crew size.
The reality is lighting, sound and electrics are all specialist skills. We all fool ourselves we can do bits, but the reality is, no we cannot. For just a few seconds of one angle of several, as part of a relatively short scene may take dozens of man hours, thousands of dollars worth of gear and years of experience. Reality.
Effortlessness.
What do I mean by that?
Gear can help here, but it is basically that feeling that you and your gear are not stretched and that comes across to the viewer as invisible competency, or majestic constraint maybe? Regardless, the effort must be seen to be within an envelope of constrained control and therefore not seen.
The right movement, the right look, the best technique, all executed effortlessly and more importantly harmoniously by professionals with the needed (not necessarily the “best”) gear.
Expansiveness.
Try to use the whole frame and with it the whole space for a look of expansiveness. Some of my favourite scenes in movies are the scene setting room shots of the subject off centre and the room doing some work. This plays into the point above. Make the viewer feel like they are in a space, not just in someone’s face.
This may also be used with shallow depth, but often equal sharpness front to back works best.
Subject.
Good acting and direction, or even poor acting with great direction.
Finally, a word on softening.
It is true that cinematic work usually looks softenned in some way. This is sometimes becasue f the medium, film looking more organic and natural than digital, but the myth that black mist filters are always used is a myth. Softness comes from contrast control, filtering is often only used to make digitally hard frames look less so.
The “Netflix bloom”, is a trend borne of need to control harsh highlights (something digital often fails at), consistency of look and flattery for the actors, which then became a habit or expectation, but like most things, technology will address this and the look will gradually go.
Personally, I have found myself avoiding filters lately, even my 1/8th strength seeming over the top, using a little softening in post if needed.
Cine lenses can help sometimes, because they are either limited in sharpness and contrast by quality (cheaper lenses that would nt cut it as stills lenses), or by design (flawed character people, by design). I have found budget cine glass is as sharp as a lot of stills lenses, even as well controlled in other areas, but often have deliberately (?) softened contrast to help capture more detail in a compressed range, which in video is good.
It is more than just tasking inferior lenses to less stressful jobs, or at least it seems to be, but when this perfect-imperfect philosophy is also put into multi thousand dollar glass, it seems more of a real thing. Really sharp, well corrected lenses are great, but why is it the very best lenses are rife with flaws and still preferred by the best cinematographers?
I guess it is time to rewind and “nut-shell” this.
Cinematic images are a combination of controls and effects, the camera and lens combination only being a small part of the whole. If you want that cinematic look, try this;
Look at the movie scenes that blow your mind and reverse engineer them. Don’t go to “shot on what” and buy the multi thousand dollar kit they used. It is mostly irrelevant. Do what your eyes see and control the lighting, the blocking and the story telling, don’t seat the technical stuff.
Finally, if you like something, do not question it, go with it. Your opinion is really the only valid one here.
No Bag is perfect, but some brands tend to make bags that are acceptably good regardless of specific, usually minor, flaws or annoyances.
The Domke F-2 is nearly perfect for me these days, just a little short for some larger lenses.
The F-7 is taller, but lacks a single large pocket, that even the F-2 can provide, thanks to a waist belt accomodation that I will never use. This means that this relatively big bag struggles with a folded down small 5-in-1 reflector or large note pad, let alone a tablet.
The F-802 is the perfect tall bag, hard to fault, but the shape is quite specialised. Tall and thin has it’s advantages, but also some disadvantages, especially for MFT kit with sometimes tiny lenses and cameras. I have found that taller bags seem lighter on the shoulder, which is not nothing.
The F-804 is an over sized F-802 and not a favourite bag. The extra depth is sometimes handy, but that is rarely needed. Until recently, I had struggled to make it work (see below). This bag manages to be both tall and deep, but without some of the benefits of either.
A F3x is always on hand (I have had several, but only my limited edition green rugged-ware is left), basically a mini F-2 with a smaller main compartment, but the same external pockets. In reality it is the “one big camera and a trio of f2.8 zooms” design, so less relevant in the mirrorless era. If I start using a EM1x more, maybe it will be handy?
The F-6 is also like a small F-2, but with a full sized main compartment and no end pockets. I have had one, let it go and see little point in chasing that one down.
The F5C is the biggest of the F5 series (I have had the other two briefly), a slim little “Tardis” bag capable of handling a surprising amount of gear. I again have had a few, but found the large flap annoying, although the zip top was to my liking.
and so on.
A couple of things I have found them useful in the past are;
Zip top opening, but with no over-flap to fold away (F-5 series).
A slightly dressier design so I can use it at functions (my F-802 is looking a little army surplus these days).
A new internal shape, just to see and avoid repetition. A less “boxy” shape would be handy, as I have two bigger slim satchels, which are maybe too big sometimes.
The now discontinued, but it turns out still available new from my favourite supplier (Photo Video Accessories in Australia) F-810 accommodates the top zip thing, is slightly more professional looking, slimmer form factor and the flap covers the front pockets only, not the main compartment (compromising weather proofing I guess, but I have options).
It is not perfect (perfect would have been sand colour, a colour I have never had or the J-810 in sleeker ballistic nylon), but it is different and has a range of currently unavailable features.
So bought sight unseen, but having researched and owned enough Domke bags to start my own museum, I am confident enough.
What will it be like? Let’s have a crack at guessing.
It should hold a similar load internally to the F-2 (at least the F-6/F3x), just differently and a little taller. Unlike many other bag brands, what you see is genuinely what you get with Domke, so I feel confident this is real.
One of my small gripes with the F2 is I cannot perfectly house two cameras with lenses on, but it will take one. The other is nose down into a lens compartment with three more lenses. In a few older adds for the F-2, two bodies are shown without lenses on and four lenses in the divider, but I work faster than that.
Height is also a limiting factor, the 40-150 f2.8 is too tall even off camera. This led me to get the F-7 as an impulse buy in Japan and previously the F-804. I do not regret those, but they have their own issues and the f2.8 zoom with a camera on is still pushing it.
I am not expecting it to have the same relaxed width, because it is not as wide, but it is a little taller. I am also not expecting the same issues other tall bags have, where small items (like small MFT lenses) disappear inside.
The front pockets will not be as big as the F-802’s, but they look bigger than the F-2’s and have covers. Sometimes with the F-2 I feel uneasy with the open top front pockets, so I don’t use them for small and loose items. The huge ones on the F-802/4 on the other hand are secure, but so large they tend to lose things (they can fit two full sized flash units each!).
The little zip pockets on the flap like the F-802/4 may be more useful as the flap will not be in the “ready” position I often use, where it is folder back against my hip. This gets the flap out of the way, but makes the top lid pockets both uncomfortable full of batteries etc and impossible to reach on the go.
They are also quite large, so I have been known to check them multiple times before I finally find a missing card or battery and finally, if you fold the flap over with the zips open, every thing spills out.
It could maybe be upsized with a 901/902 pouch on one or both ends, but the sleek shape is ideal when needed, no need to make it into something it is not and after all, I have multiple other options, including mounting these pockets onto my F-802 as the 810 may play the role of the smaller bag.
I remember the zips sometimes being a little rough on gear and naturally lacking weather proofing provided by a flap, but the zip thing does allow easier access to gear than a flap covered bag and less chance of things jumping out.than with the flap pulled back. It is also slim enough to go under a coat flap.
*
Ok, so fast forward to today when it arrived.
I thought my knowledge of Domke would be reasonably sound, but I am happy to admit, I got several elements of this bag wrong.
It seems smaller than I thought, but hey, I kind of expected that.
The F-802 lurking behind, a bag I consider to be large-medium. The difference though is in depth. the 810 actually takes the F-2’s base board, meaning it is effectively a tall F2 with satchel pockets (so I may order base).
It turns out that is deceptive, it just looks small.
The camera is the EM1x, not a small camera and the lens is the 40-150 f2.8 complete with fixed metal hood, which it turns out does fit even with a camera on it (just).
The internals are about the same as the F-2, but taller, so some of the space can be lost to an MFT user.
The four section divider is much the same as the F-2’s, just taller and felt a little squashed by the bag’s shape (or lack of without a base board). I have put that divider into the F-804, which needed something to define it and the insert has better “spread” in that bag. Surprisingly, it fits that larger bag quite well.
I then put a two section lens insert in, which gives me two larger spaces for cams. These are genuinely large, like the bigger ones in the F-7 and it turns out I can put in them two decent sized cameras with lenses mounted (G9 with 8-18 and EM1 with 12-40 or 40-150 f4) and have two tall compartments for other gear.
The same camera and lens swallowed by this Tardis of a bag. The lens inserts easily hold a 75-300, a flash or a stacked pair of small primes. The EM1x could have a small zoom on also.
The other pockets are interesting.
The two front pockets are basically the same as the F-2’s (large smart phone sized), but with covers, so unlike the F2’s, they are secure. Again, like I expected, but the smallest covered pockets I have bought so far.
They look large……….
…until you compare them to the F-802’s, but are still bigger than most of my other bags.
Behind these are a “small” organiser space, with multiple small pockets and card holders etc. All of this is covered by the flap, but the flap does not cover the main compartment, so no need to fold it back. Wins all around.
I say small, but an ipad would fit in here, my phone, wallet, a large note book and other bits fit easily. This is the “reporter” element of the bag. The lining is nice.
The top flap pockets are also relatively small, maybe too small for my decently sized hands, but secure and ideal for a wallet, cards, batteries or my car key. I find these on the F-802 and 804 are maybe too big and have a habit of spilling stuff when I draw the flap fully over, but these smaller ones are ideal and the flap is front only.
About perfect.
The back pocket is full sized also, but maybe too small for a laptop. This has a bottom zip so it can be used as a handle sleeve on a suit case (a combination I would have loved on the F-7).
Ok, so my 13” M1 Air in a case does not fit perfectly (but it does fit), but a tablet or large note book would fit.
Handily, it unzips so you can run a suit case handle through it for travel. Also of note, this is the only Domke I have with feet. One of my very minor issues with the bag (has to be something I guess), is this zip and cover “lump” rub obviously against my leg worn when on my right shoulder.
Thoughts?
A great bag, as described and decently roomy if maybe too small for a full day kit which may include small clothing items, water bottles etc, but way more useful than some recent non-Domke purchases.
The little Vanguard I bought recently with the same things in mind. Nearly useless by comparison. Below I have images that show the over thought and under useful tablet pocket, cramped top access (easier to zip it and lift the whole flap from the rear) with added and required Billingham dividers and the odd bottom flap for a tripod I never intend to buy. It’s not useless, but another example of the perils of over complicated bag design and slightly misleading advertising.
By comparison, the Domke, with a mix of a flap-covered small pockets, the zip top, which it turns out is not at all abrasive (I had even forgotten there may have been an issue there), decent height and depth, all in a small and smart looking package is nearly perfect, as long as I use other options when appropriate that is.
Issues?
So far and we are only talking about a few jobs, the lump I mentioned above that of the zip on the back and protective cover rubs a little and there was not much padding or shape in the base, fixed by swapping out my old 1980’s F-2 base board, which fits perfectly.
Otherwise it seems a very good fit and even full, is not great bother.
My embarrassingly large collection of Domke bags may finally be sorted now, but we will see.
F-2 is a day bag option (the older one is reserved for specialist kit).
F-7 is a bigger version of the same.
F-802 is the “tall” day bag when long lenses are needed, added pouches give it huge capacity.
F-804 is mostly used with the roller bag for big video jobs.
217 roller is my full frame video bag (S5, S5II and Lumix-S lenses).
F-810 is a day bag option, reserved for better turned out jobs or when hight is more important making the F-2 less useful.
The F3x oiled cloth is my wet weather bag.
Ed.
Since going back to work, I have used it exclusively, because so far I have not needed to look elsewhere. With minimal thought, more time tested bag user instinct really, the top flap pockets have become by fresh and used battery/card pockets, the front organiser fits my phone and wallet ideally as well as a note book, the front pockets take handy extras and my basic day kit of 2 bodies, two primes, two zooms fit in any configuration.
The little Vanguard has become my 2 small cams and 4 primes bag for personal days.
The Zoom F1 mini field recorder is a curious beast, sometimes reassuringly my best option, sometimes frustratingly difficult to use.
The recorder is in the “Field” range, not the “Handy” range. This means it is designed with clarity first, which may explain some of it’s handling short-falls.
What I have come to love.
Sound quality is at least as good as the much dearer and bulkier H8 when using the many mountable capsules (maybe equal to the H8’s XLR inputs, which are better in performance than the capsule interface).
The SSH-6 Mid/side shotgun, not the one that can come packaged with the unit, the decent SGH-6*, is strong, sensitive and clear thanks in part to the mid-side mic option (it is basically three mics), which means it can include more or less sound from the periphery. This is something most shotgun mics lack and is handy in two ways.
Most obviously as the name suggests it is not just a highly directional shotgun mic. It can be used for focussed, less focussed or broad coverage (which can also be balanced in post from RAW audio) meaning in real terms, you can expect to use it for interviews etc, then switch to environment coverage for events, blend the two for more open environmentally inclusive or group interviews. My most often use-case is small groups or pairs set to about 30% for guaranteed wider coverage.
Secondly, it can avoid some of the usual issues of shotgun mics in echo-prone spaces. Shotgun mics have long, thin rejection tubes used to reduce side sound from muddying the primary source.
In a real world situation, by using this mic combo, I tend to avoid having to deal with very poor echoey, or “cave-like” sound, only realising the fact when I use a different mic in the same situation. No matter the situation, I can usually get something decent out of it.
On sound generally, it is warm, deep and quite natural. There is limited sibilance and usable reach is good, at least equal to the MKE-600.
These tubes do tend to increase echo as the sound enters the front in layers of second hand bounced sound. The mid-side mics seem to overpower that to some extent, by simply recording the sound properly.
A mic I would love to compare it to is the MKE-440 dual shotgun from Sennheisser, a great area mic with 3D sound, but one I suspect, would offer little more than the SSH-6.
I can mount it on the left or right of this rig and it sits slightly higher than the MKE-600, which is better for matt box use.
The F1 is the smallest and most versatile way of employing this or most of the other Zoom capsules. I had the H5 Handy recorder, but the sheer bulk of that unit meant using the SSH-6 as an on camera mic is not feasible, even after large rigs emerged. The F1 is much smaller and has an excellent shock mount option.
Optionally, you can attach another mic capsule like the X/Y’s or the twin XLR adapter etc. The smaller X/Y from the H5 is a very compact fit and ideal for event or area recording.
Not a common use case as I find the SSH-6 more versatile, but it is compact, sensitive and way better than any camera mic.
The accessories are excellent, which is why many people persevere with Zoom devices.
Compared to my other mic options, the MKE-400 and 600’s, it has several benefits, but only after a few issues were sorted.
First, it records a backup internally.
The MKE-400 is very neat on my various rigs, undoubtedly a cleaner set-up than any other option and on lighter run-n-gun rigs or for stuffing into a small pocket just in case, it is often the only option. It is short, self contained, has three sound levels, turns itself on and off with the camera and the sound is excellent.
Compared to the F1/SSH-6, it is limited in sound level choices and is less easy to set, it relies on long life AAA batteries, but as I found out the other day, they can go at the worst times and if using the wind sock, the warning light is hard to see.
The supplied wind rejection sock and shock mount, both using a clever combination of internal and external applications are good, but neither are perfect.
The MKE-600 is longer, needs to be turned on and off (something I regularly fail to do and it is the only mic I have with no automatic off option), it has no sound level control on the mic, meaning you need to access it on camera or via an interface, neither are straight forward or always convenient, but sound is excellent and very focussed.
On camera it is sleek and low profile, but the shock mount and provided pop foamy are the least effective of the three. I fixed the wind issue with a Rode fluffy, but the shock mount thing is real.
Height or length is one way of choosing, but there is more to it than that. Notice the huge difference in controls. The F1 is a full microphone interface with tactile volume control, multiple effects, low pass filters and limiters, the 600 only has a low pass on-off option. The F1 can also be used as a body worn LAV or remote placement mic. The Zoom also has an effective shock mount.
The F1/SSH-6 is not ideal for boom or XLR wireless use, something I do use the MKE-600 for, so each to their own.
Things I do not love?
The F1 has a fragile battery door. It broke surprisingly easily one day after a very short drop to a bench top. I researched it and yes, it is a known thing, so common in fact, it makes you wonder about a unit on the market for years.
First I used a cable tie to hold the door shut, which was fine, except Zoom devices need fresh batteries often for peace of mind (the battery meter can be simplistic and misleading), which was beyond frustrating. I remember one of my regular subjects asking “oh, do you need to do that battery thing again and if so, will it take long?”. Not cool.
I can slide the tie forward, replace the batts and slide it back, usually.
The second fix was a small power bank, magnetically attached to the side of the unit via the USB port and is very long lasting, but it can be knocked off easily.
This works well, as long as you are careful.
The last and by far the best option, is attaching it to my V-mount battery on the RigidPro rig or the NP battery adapter on my other rig. The extra cable is a small price to pay for a mic that runs any time the camera does.
Secondly.
It does seem fragile when the capsule is on the interface. It probably is not, but I feel it has a point of weakness. To be clear here, none of my Zoom devices have broken here, in fact apart from the door above, nothing on any of them has ever broken, but I tend to avoid excessive mounting-dismounting of capsules, which means carrying it is sometimes problematic (I tend to put the H5 and F1 in a hard case with capsules n).
Last, but not least.
That F%$#ing washer. What were they thinking? The F1’s shock mount has (had) a small plastic washer between the foot and locking screw. It makes quick mounting the unit nearly impossible. You have to hold it up when mounting the shock mount, often a two hand job, annoying and sometimes it gets stuck.
I fixed it……….
Grrrrrr.
To put all this in context.
It is my best and most easily used on-camera mic option with the best controls, power option (now), backups and features. It now inspires confidence in contrast to my frustrations with it over the years and is quite simply my most versatile and reliable problem solver.
It does not do everything better than other choices, so I have others at hand.
The MKE-400 is smaller and lighter if needed, often in my day bag as a seriously good handy option.
The MKE-600 is potentially better than either, but due to other issues is reserved for boom or static use.
The other Zoom interfaces (H1n, H5, H8, AMS-24) are employed when they make more sense, which usually involves XLR’s and multiple microphones or as backups.
*The F1 comes in a LAV or shotgun kit. I would suggest buying the LAV version, which is cheaper, then looking at other capsule options.
The “Big Rig”, my video work horse is not how I thought it would be, but it is maybe even better.
The RigidPro rig was bought because I had the G9II and S5II cameras in (coincidentally) the right cages to fit. It seemed like a sign, but ironically, I have not used either with it.
The S5II with fan, V-mount, big cards or SSD via the Video Assist seemed the ideal “endurance” rig, but it just would not settle with me. I have enjoyed the occasional jaunt wth the S5II as a stills cam and even bought the Tilta half cage to allow hybrid use. Fixing it into the more cumbersome rig seemed a shame.
The rig was bought so I had a grab and go, no need to check or change anything, commercial grade camera that looks the part and does the job. I feel five steps should be all you need from bag to go.
The RigidPro rigs are designed to attach top and bottom. Four large gauge screws anchor the cage solidly (Smallrig Black Mamba or Tilta Half cage specifically), then it is just a matter of adding the bits you need to the ample real estate provided.
Did it fit?
Yes and no, but mostly yes.
After trying the S5 mk1 first, I was enthusiastic to say the least. I love finding undiscovered solutions, the ability to be flexible and find the “magic sauce”. The RigidPro it seems, can fit basically any of my Lumix cams (6 in total).
The GH5s cage, in an older Smallrig “semi-generic” GH5/G9 cage that I have always struggled with, anchors really solidly at the base with three screws, but leaves the same half centimetre gap at the top the S5 had. It has as much solidity as many connections I have used, so depending on overall weight and distribution, it should be fine.
The key is the central lifting point. I will not want to put all the strain on the top-front of the rig.
Why the GH5s over the S5 mkI or II or G9II?
The GH5s, is a dedicated video hybrid, older than any other camera I am currently using for video (even older than the MkI G9’s I think), but is still a current “H” cam with much the same engine room as the BGH1 box cam, which is a Netflix approved. Unlike the BGH1, it is self sufficient and multi role if needed.
The “full noise” rig, complete with matt box, MKE-600 mic (or Zoom F1/SSH-6), follow focus and handle. The rails can be pushed back in line with the body, the follow focus, Mic, handle, matt box and BMVA come off and it becomes quite small.
It compares favourably with the the Pocket 4k and has several desirable improvements, such as better internal battery life, the ability to take stills, Lumix cross-compatibility and system familiarity, reliable AF, a smaller form factor. (and a more self sufficient one.
The sensor is video specific, using only 10mp on an MFT base (slightly bigger actually), with no stabiliser and shaped to properly accomodate various formats it is the best of both formats with full frame-like noise performance and dual ISO’s but the advantages of MFT in all other areas (it is actually quite close to true Super 35).
Unlike my other MFT cams, C4k is not a compromise crop as the sensor is larger, the crop factor is actually 1.8x, not 2x and the camera maxes out at C4k, not 6k in RAW, which is ideal for me as the files are plenty, but smaller.
For me there were added advantages of already having a cage, spare batts at hand etc from my G9’s, but the final nail was the price. It was cheaper than the Pocket 4k from a local B&M retailer (which is rarely the case) so it jumped into my thinking. About a week after I bought it, it jumped back up $1000au with the same supplier, proving it was a bargain.
The GH5s’s layout seems well suited to rig use. The usual wheel is handy, buttons smaller and fewer than the new cams but logical and the thumb nubbin and Q buttons are missing, but these are hard to locate in the rig anyway. I feel my thumb is less confused by the feel and being the only different hybrid in my video kit, it is not an issue to adjust in this situation.
I am using two of the four D-taps, one for the screen, the other to run the dummy battery. The GH5s has a a front of body dummy battery cable port, something I missed at first and was a little unsure about. I do have plans to use a third for a Zoom interface, but seeing as all four I have are different fittings (?!), I need to think on which.
It ended up being the F1, which I feature in a later post, using the V-Mount batteries USB ports.
The dummy battery cable runs out the front, under the handle and the bulk of the cable disappears into the alcove provided by the rig. The key for me arrived in the form of a Smallrig cable clamp locking the under-loop cable securely.
Very clean cabling from the dummy batt and up to the monitor. The huge gap in between the rig core and the camera can take a lot of excess cabling meaning you have flexibility without having to find shorter options..
A screen or BMVA are powered by the V-Mount, so a cable runs from the rig to these, also held in place when not connected by a Tilta cable clamp.
The gap on the top of the camera fixes an issue I did not have any good ideas for. What to do with the Sandisk SSD I will use with the BMVA? These are large and flat, eating up real estate easily. It turns out, after fiddling with the S5.1 idea before this, that it fits into the gap left between the top panel and camera.
On the other side, the large HDMI connection provides for a screen or Video Assist. This short right angle to right angle Blue Kondor cable cannot lock it in the BMVA cage, but is secure enough. A Tilta cable clamp on the top of the rig sorted out all three cables used currently.
The Tilta clamps on the rig top hold the HDMI and power cables when not used.
The two rails underneath line up with the lens mount and V-mount battery, so the packed away profile of the rig is not compromised.
I had a really nice little C-to-C type cable for the SSD to BMVA, but it was not fast enough (the give away was the BMVA freezing up), so I had to use a better, longer one.
The monitor or BMVA is attached using a Neewer magic arm with Arri attachments at both ends, which is fast and ideal. It collapses small, but can extend or angle well.
The Neewer magic arm allows the BMVA to be collapsed, extended or laid length-ways down the rig for travel.
Under the rig is a Neewer tripod plate, which matches all my other heads (three tripods, a monopod, a mechanical gimbal, a slider and pair of rail units). Standardising on these makes the whole kit work better together.
This has the optional chest/leg brace. If I want this and the follow focus, I just need to add a longer rail.
So, steps?
Camera out of bag, attach lens and matt box if not already on (I have a bag that can take the whole thing assembled), add tp handle if needed, attach BMVA if not attached, cable it (2), add mic if needed, headphones go into BMVA if shooting RAW or camera if not, setup follow focus (or just attach if rigged up),
Mostly broken down, it can run from lens mount to battery back. You can see the SSD clearly here just above the camera.
I have a second rig with similar performance, consisting of the S5, a rail set with NP battery, the monitor or BMVA and top handle, but it lacks the heft and sheer endurance of this rig, finding it’s most valued form with the chest brace as a light run-n-gun rig or second cam.
I have been looking at video codecs and it has been revealing, but also a little confusing.
To my mind, I have been thinking of capture codecs and post processing a little like running a shop, something I have experience with.
“Front of house” is a term used to describe what you do at the customer facing direct contact end, so basically the capture point of video. “Back of house” is the running of the business in an administrative and stock handling vein, so it is the post shoot handling of the captured materiel and the pre-shoot prep.
Sometimes you can do most of the work front of house with lighting, composition etc and if done well enough, that is often all you need. If the footage is to be used live, or with little or no processing added, then front of house is all you have.
Back of house is relying on post processing, which requires time and settings that will allow that.
Why?
Because processing of these compressed files is always destructive resulting in files breaking up and loosing visual integrity. You simply cannot shoot to fix it later, but you can give yourself a little wriggle room.
Two things effect this, one more than the other and for a while, I had them a little mixed up.
Codec or the capture type, ranging from IPB/Long-GOP, All-i, to RAW will determine the bit depth and compression. Unless RAW is used the colour profile will determine contrast and saturation applied, which in part effects compression etc, but less so.
Compression makes files smaller and easier to share, but reduce processing depth and require “unpacking” by the computer, which can be a strain. The less compressed the file is, the easier it is on your system to process but the original files are bigger.
I will now throw out a rough guide based on my understanding with a ratio of ten values for front of house:back of house, meaning combinations that require mostly front of house controls applied like lighting, white balance, exposure etc, or back of house like post exposure ISO and white balance, colour grading etc.
You should always employ best practices, but sometimes the choice is made for you.
There are other factors at play of course, like bit depth, specific camera performance etc, but these have less effect overall, so I will assume they will be addressed as suits the user and camera.
As an example, this is how I see my RAW stills; 6:4 meaning nearly equal work at the capture and processing ends, leaning always towards capture as the more important. If I shot JPEG’s it would be more like 8:2, although heavy photoshop users may think it is closer to 5:5.
A RAW stills file usually needs a little coercing, but it does not resist this input and more.
9:1
IBP or All-i codecs"*, with basic camera selected Rec709 colour profiles like Standard or Natural or even more video specific ones like Cine-V. These give you literally what you see on the screen, but with little room to move. Reducing saturation, contrast and shifting white balance are very limited and tend to break up the files quickly, although adding is less restricted, which is why many reduce contrast and saturation. You can give yourself a little more room to move by reducing saturation and contrast, but maybe only a 8.5:1.5 shift is achieved.
For set interviews and less busy subjects with controlled light and time to set the camera correctly, these are fine and are often equal to much higher grade codecs in end results. The reality is, this is where you are headed, so it is possible to get there at the start, as long as you control all of the variables.
I have had great results from my G9 mk1’s in Standard profile, Long-GOP/422/10 bit, as long as I get white balance right in camera and avoid extreme exposure ranges.
8:2
Semi-LOG colour profiles like Flat or Lite-LOG allow more processing of colour and contrast, but do not effect compression. You have some post control, but errors in white balance etc are still not easily fixed.
For a while, this was my maximum quality level, being easier to use than full LOG which requires extra exposure awareness, but more flexible than a standard colour profile.
7:3
Moving up to LOG or LOG-like colour profiles adds a relatively increased amount of processing options. Full LOG profiles are heavily softened, allowing processing to add colour, contrast and exposure information from a very forgiving base, but also require exposure and white balance awareness and often need viewing Lut’s applied.
I avoided LOG for a while when it was available, but the reality is, if you are limited in codec choices, it is the best option for serious video creation, as much for it’s support structure as anything else. Learn as much as you can about properly exposing LOG.
6:4
Next we change codec to something like Apple ProRes which delivers less quality loss with less compression. Colours etc are still baked in, so up front choices are important, but overall quality is potentially higher and processing relatively easier.
The colour profile you choose is still important here as what goes out to the capture device is ProRes with a colour profile like LOG applied, so in camera settings are important. Personally I am interested in knowing if a standard profile like Natural and ProRes 4:2:2 HQ would make a difference.
The files below were shot with the wrong WB setting and exposed for the open side of the face. It pushed and pulled well enough, but the test was against B-Raw and in this circumstance, with my limited skills, there was no comparison.
ProRes 422 may be an option as a better quality choice than those above, but 422HQ has not impressed me with it’s strong contrast and less malleable properties in post than B-Raw and the size is considerable, even in 1080.
5:5 RAW formats in video are a complicated thing, but let’s assume they mean much the same as they do for stills, which are effectively un-compressed, unprocessed files.
Two things happen here. The lack of compression (althought here are sub-choices within the format) means files can be large, stressing capture devices and storage, but as there is no compression at the outward end, computers can handle these more easily (there no compression to “unpack”), as long as the file size does not bother them.
The reason I have applied an even higher ratio to this than stills is the reality that moving footage often requires more work, even if it is harder and less efficient. With stills, it is totally realistic to assume a well exposed RAW capture may only need a little saturation or contrast to get sorted and the reality is, most processing platforms apply a small amount of pre-set information, while ironically, video footage, which can often have a Lut applied (a pre-set look up table of settings), often needs that and more, which being connected and sequential is often harder.
The file below was a pleasure to grade. I bought it up to bright and cheery like the last file, made it more or less contrasty and adjusted white balance easily. Shadow detail was bought back up (deep blue using false colour, so I would have assumed completely lost), highlights showed no sign of blowing out and my wife’s hair, which broke up a bit as she spoke in the ProRes files, was clean and sharp.
The best bit is, the C4k constant quality Q5 RAW output, was only slightly bigger than the 1080 ProResHQ footage.
B-Raw in Q5 constant quality seems to be a sweet spot and is recommended by Black magic for “TV serial content”. It processes like RAW stills, without the oddness of LOG profiles or the still present limits of ProRes.
The reality of these things is clear to me. Any capture format can work, but the more flexibility you want, need or are forced to use, the more information you need to capture and retain.
My two baselines are ProRes/Flat for simple and controlled jobs, ProRes/Log (or just LOG) when I need more latitude and either cannot use or do not have a BMVA to spare, but may need to match it, and B-Raw/Q5 when I can, but limited to a single unit at the moment.
I would like to like ProRes more, but B-Raw is clearly stronger, more flexible and intuitive and lighter on my system (more hard drives are cheaper than new hardware).
*IPB such as Long-GOP are a combination of bespoke files supported by extrapolated files, the most common codec available in consumer cameras or All-i using clean files per frame,
So, it looks like I am a B-Raw convert, probably at Q5 (constant quality) compression.
In C4k on the GH5s, drawing as needed can range in compression from 21 to 58 MB/s, compared to 4k ProRes 422 HQ at a flat 117 MB/s (I used 1080 for my test at 27 MB/s).
That is a manageable file size with the added benefit on the GH5s of full sensor width C4k, so cropping etc are also possible.
Some reviewers, rare unfortunately because constant quality is harder to quantify, consistently state that the file sizes are smaller overall, large only as needed and plenty good enough for most uses. Constant quality is better than constant bit rate 8:1 (15:1 to 6:1 (as required), but vastly smaller than 5:1 compression at a flat 20 mb/s.
The flexibility of the files in processing is really very good, especially in the highlights and white balance. I do not get the full B-Raw benefits in processing, but the file flexibility is there and what is missing from the RAW options is available from normal processing.
My wife in home improvement mode, standing up in the name of research. This footage was compared to some ProRes and the difference in quality of fine details and post processing was huge. The file size was about 40% larger (the files were the same size, but the ProRes was longer by about 40%). GH5s, BMVA, Hope 25mm, Smallrig 60w into a reflector, exposed for the lit side of her face (green with false colour), white balance I must admit was neglected (3800 by mistake) and fixed with little trouble (the light was set to 5600, so I simply changed it to the same). The skin tones were better than the ProRes, that did not handle the WB error well.
Pans are smooth with little or no “judder” (a long term Bugbear of mine), colours natural and the exports are much closer to what I see on the screen (another issue with video editing).
There is still room for anything from Standard, Flat and Natural Rec709 modes, some V-Log and ProRes, but to my eye and for my needs, B-Raw Q5 is it. I may need to get another 12G for matching cams and I will also probably upgrade the S5II to B-Raw support for that one seems to be well supported.
Another change and one that may be even more exciting is adopting false colours.
Seriously folks, it took a New York second to learn and works intuitively. To nut-shell it, green-greys are middle grey (green = middle grey or skin tones) or there abouts, pink-blues are under, yellow-reds are over. In RAW you are well in the ball-park. Unlike true colours, they are simplified and consistent. You can expose to taste and by eye, something I struggle with using histograms or even wave forms.
So, B-Raw flogs V-Log for safety and versatility as well as being easier to “eye-ball” with exposure and white balance, the cost being occasionally larger files, but sometimes not (according to Black magic, Q5 maxes out at about the same as PR 422 Lt, but matched HQ for quality. Also colours are easier to use than other forms of exposure control.
These two changes fix most of my issues.
At the moment my G9II is off for warranty repair, a front function button not working, but oddly, I am not missing it. No stabe on the rigged GH5s is interestingly not an issue, the S5/S5II’s getting more love and I would even use a G9 mk1 in ProRes at a pinch*.
My learning curve with DaVinci has been challenging to say the least, but I am getting there and using B-Raw actually makes the whole thing easier.
*Given my time over, I may even have just bought two 3G’s for my old G9’s, but I am glad I have grown here.
What is that special something we all chase?
I will have a look at that in a post soon, but part of the answer is in lens rendering.
This is not a lens quality that often aligns with high price, state of the art glass. It is something far more elusive and often runs against the usual current of super lens design.
The five lenses tested below share four things;
The same aperture at f2.8 on MFT format.
A roughly 50mm full frame equivalent focal length.
No post processing from a G9 RAW file.
Unfortunately poor focus control.
Lens 1 is sharp, has nice Bokeh and decent, maybe high contrast.
Lens 2 is very similar, maybe a little pinker and warmer. This lens is also a little wider than marked.
Lens 3 has a softness of contrast, but more than that, a more three dimensional, more a sharp/smooth look. It is a little cooler as well. I did miss focus on this one (the front leaf), so the more coherent background may be down to that.
Lens 4 is mre like the two at the top, is slightly wider looking than the top, reference image. It does however look a little different to those lenses, less “flat”.
Lens 5 is a mix of less aggressive contrast, but strong smooth/soft rendering.
Lens 1 (left) and 5 (right). To my eye, and it is hard to be totally objective because I know which they are, the left lens has that very modern, brightness and contrasty, but flat rendering (look at the shape of the table). The right lens is deeper looking if that is a thing, maybe more three dimensional? It is not depth of field, so there is something.
The variable was focus, which I tried to be accurate with (all manual as three lenses were manual only). Lens three copped a miss I feel, but the rest were pretty good.
Lens 1 is the 12-40 Olympus at 25.
Lens 2 is the Olympus 25 f1.8. I know this lens is wider than marked, about the same as the 24 Sirui as it goes, or maybe even wider.
Lens 3 is the half frame 25mm f2.8 (which is less contrasty wide open)
Lens 4 is the Sirui 24mm
Lens 5 is the Hope 25mm
The same combo below. Highlight detail is retained well by the Hope, detail looks the same and is it me again, or is the Hope ever so slightly more three dimensional and tonally smoother?
The reality is, the “cinematic look” comes down to a lot of elements working together. Cameras and lenses are two, but just two.
To create depth, which is the key, you need all of these elements to work together, but each also needs to be addressed. I am keen to explore lenses first, as I have plenty of them and I can control this in my space.