An Objective Look At Differences Formats

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).

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.

The Big Reality.

Light is all.

I am dealing with a reality that it needs to be dealt with.

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.

The RC220D from Smallrig is on sale at the moment ($300au), probably in response to a new model coming, but anyway, it is cheap, really cheap. I was interested in the Pro model, except the V-mount option is weak and the cost prohibitive.

On the other hand, the 220D is only a little dearer than the 120D, so no point in saving a little. I like the D’s also as they are stronger and more balanced 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.

Light And Easy

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?

1. A soft main light that can light two subjects.

2. A hair light which can also partially balance the second subject

3. 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, 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 a roughly ISO 100 1/25th 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 fur 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 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 possibly reduced by feathering the modifier. The shadows are a little harsh and the brilliance 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 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 (weelite) 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).

Nope Not The Sirui.

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.

Hello And Goodbye, A Video Story

Video came into my life a dew 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 quality and full control within a realistic envelope, while discovering along the way, lower levels can often be enough.

I must admit, it is easier 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 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 as well as placement limits, 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) are 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.

Random shooting in an uncontrolled situation has it’s place, but is usually not conducive to making something useful at the end of the day. Your content needs to be planned and work to a formula to some extent. With stills this is the same to a point, but the story is one of your telling, not something that will undo your fiction.

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.

The 1000mm Eye

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!

Opinions......Be Carefull

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.

A Philosophical Flip, Or Just Careful Choices?

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.

The Cinematic Look

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.

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. It looks realistic, but it is not. Natural light is rarely strong enough or perfectly balanced 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.

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 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.

Light direction, colour and balance are the 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.

The Domke F-810, Some Idle Pre-Arrival Speculation (Let's See How I Went).

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, Long Term Thoughts.

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.

Big Rig Sorted.

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.

The Ratio Of Creative (Video) Control

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 and contact end, so basically the capture end. The “back of house” is the running of the business in an administrative and stock handling vein, so it is the handling of the captured materiel.

Sometimes you 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 basically post processing, which requires time and settings that will allow that.

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.

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 8:2, although heavy photoshop users may be 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 more video specific ones like Cine-V. These give you literally what you see on the screen, 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.

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. 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 major errors in white balance etc are not easily fixed.

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.

For a while, this was my maximum quality level, being much easier to use than full LOG, but more flexible than a standard colour profile. Dynamic range and the ability to fix errors was limited, but less so.

7:3

Moving up to LOG or LOG-like colour profiles adds a vast amount of processing options. Full LOG profiles are heavily softened, allowing processing to add colour, contrast and exposure information, but also require exposure and white balance awareness and often need viewing Lut’s applied.

I avoided LOG for a while (even 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.

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 applied, so often LOG and ProRes are used together.

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 there was no comparison.

ProRes 422 may be an option as a better quality choice than 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, are effectively un-compressed 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 (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 to get sorted, while ironically, video footage, which can often have a Lut applied (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 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 RAW output, was only slightly bigger than the 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.

*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,

Video Quality Some Interesting Discoveries

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.

Pondering That Special Something.

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;

1. The same aperture at f2.8 on MFT format.

2. A roughly 50mm full frame equivalent focal length.

3. No post processing from a G9 RAW file.

4. 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, less 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.

The Benefits Of Living Where We Do

It is no exaggeration to say, where I sit right now in my living room, is only an hour or so’s drive from two coastlines, some very real mountains, and temperate rain forrest.

We chose mountains thanks to some friends suggesting it.

This pristine and very wild plateau is only one hour from home.

One hour from our near sea level front door and we are in a wilderness that without roads and good weather will kill you.

Because it takes sometimes more than a century for these to grow, board walks have been placed carefully through this wilderness.

Walking In To Form Part 4

Crossing the river again, back towards the Uni.

None of this was here ten years ago.

Same as earlier, just a different bridge.

Big rowing community here.

Last remnants of its old life as a rail yard once employing thousands of multi generational workers.

Just over the old rail bridge towards the car. This area can regularly flood, but still hosts several businesses.

Long Wattle bird caught shopping.

Not technically part of the walk, but later the same day, we got some weird cloud action.

Sometimes it needs forcing, but just getting out can work you into form.

Walking In To Form Part 3

Turning around at the half way mark, we move away from the river and straight into town.

The side door of the little corner store where I had my first job.

A splash of colour on the old Technical College building.

And more around the corner.

A quaint scene hidden just off the street. Launcestn is older than Melbourne, so it is not hard to find those little forgotten corners of post colonial architecture.

Through town and to the main park. In the terrarium, old also, but constantly changing.

Some scenes just make themselves.

Through the park to the new University precinct on the other side of the river. “The Shed” is a science building built on vacant land basically in the city area.

A view through to the old gas works.

Lots of shiny steel.

Next we return to the start looping over the river across the new foot bridge to the car.

Mixing It Up

The RigidPro rig is designed for the G9II nd the S5II with Tilta half cage or Black Mamba cage.

I have both, so go me (not planned, just happened).

Tht S5II made the most sense as it has a fan and the G9II seems so well designed for movement and run-n-gun as is, so of the two, it really did make sense. Perfect endurance cam for interviews, stage productions etc.

I made a little support rig for the GH5s, the G9II was left light and agile, the S5 relegated to stills only, maybe some support work.

It was fine, it made sense but it would not settle for me.

In some ways, other options were left languishing, the S5II, my most capable full frame maybe under utilised.

So, I did this.

Notice anything?

This is the S5, not the S5II and it fits, well kind of, but sometimes wins and losses even out.

It attaches on the base perfectly well, two screws, solid and tight. The centre of balance is fine as shown above, the the weight supported by the handle with very secure anchor points top and bottom, aligned with the solid main block of the rig, so the lack of a joint above the camera is basically irrelevant.

A gap that I felt might have an easy fix, like a plate or space filling washer, something I have plenty of, but no, not to be.

To be clear here also, the camera in this configuration is not going to be used as a hand held rig, it is going to be static, usually manual everything, reliable and capable. If I try hand held, I will be looking for “big heavy camera” micro jitter control, as opposed to in camera stabe.

Given that the whole thing is not super heavy, the balance point is well supported and the cam will not be handled heavily, I do not see a problem other than the strength of the Nato rail handle, rated by Smallrig at 10kg!

The gap?

The gap actually solves an issue.

Running out of real estate even on this large rig, I have been pushed for room for an SSD mount (if using the BMVA), as well as a mic and handle.

This fits neatly, snugly enough to be secure and out of the way.

It gets better though.

The GH5s, my only non-stabilised camera would, it turns out, be an even better fit (so to speak) for the rig. The GH5s is my most specialised video camera option, bought as such, eyes open. It was bought as basically a Pocket 4k alternative to support my growing range of manual focus cinema lenses and is my most video-centric camera (It’s in the “H” you know).

The GH5s fits well, maybe better than the S5, it has a different dummy battery cable-out hole, in the front of the cam instead of the battery door (which needs adjusting to), is maybe better at static interview AF (if used) than the S5 and the lack of any stabe is balanced with the bulk of the kit and it’s intention.

The cage I have for the GH5s is my least inspiring or useful, being a compromise option for the G9 mk1 and GH5 series, something the rig will care little about, but is actually lines up with the RigidPro better than the S5’s and the unlikeable bulk is just a more relaxed surround, so I can run cables through it and the “bumper-bar” is more pronounced, more protective.

The S5 also has it’s small HDMI issues (and fixes that cause their own issues), the GH5s does not, while the GH5s has an older screen and view finder, so less of a hit there. Even the rear button and dial layout seem to be more logical for rig use (more sparse).

Oh, and of course, it is the only cam that does not handle basically the same as any other (S5, 5II and G9II are the same body shape).

The S5 on the other hand was intended to be my “eye” camera, the camera I would follow action with using a deeper eye cup, something I would miss.

Coincidentally, the gap is the same.

As the year progressed, I surprised myself as I drifted back towards MFT format for video.

Low light aside, the G9II, even the older G9’s called me and after buying the Hope glass and the GH5s, things shifted clearly for me. Full frame became more of a stills/video option.

Overheating issues look to be pretty minimal, the GH5s running cleanly and gently, made to purpose, the S5II is in the wings if needed.

The new look kit is now;

G9II for movement and action. basic cage, minimal stuff, touch screen AF, very reliable in that role. This is unchanged.

GH5s is now the “big rig” camera, the interview and video-centric work horse. The G9II and GH5s can share similar glass, so they form the core of the “commercial” kit..

The S5 Mk1 is the “B-cam” for static video and personal projects using cine glass. I get good results from this setup. It can be used with the NP batt option.

The S5II is now the hybrid, filling the role of the G9II as needed, but as a stills cam also. It can also be used with the NP battery bank as the backup to above.

Why?

Because it cannot shoot B-Raw without a paid upgrade (not going to happen), nor All-i, is wasted in a static role, has a half cage that suits hybrid use and the best AF for stills and stabe for video.

It just did not feel right caging it up in the RigidPro rig, where the GH5s feels like it is at home.

Walking In To Form Part 2

From the Uni campus, barely ten minutes into our walk, we continued along the river to the Sea Port region.

The Esk has a long and dramatic history of flooding. The flood walls erected over the last twenty years are part defence system, part memorial.

I cannot remember the name of this old pub, but built on swamp land, it does not share two straight lines in a row.

This earth wall was raised a few feet and only a few years later the “once in a hundred year” flood reached the top, but the suburb behind was spared. As weather patterns change, this is predicted to be more of a “once a decade thing”.

Through the hole is the Boags Brewery and other older industrial buildings but there is a river between.

Tagging comes and goes, a little on the heavy side at the moment.

The river, Boags and Windmill Hill in the background. Hard to belive the rest of the city centre is only s few blocks away.

After crossing the bridge, we came to the Sea Port, a reclaimed industrial warf, childhood memories of the “Cotswold Prince” leaning unhealthily against it always come back to me (later sunk down the river as a divers wreck). This area is tidal, made problematic by the dam up river, so at low tide these boats often sit on mud.

In the background over the river are the old silo’s now a luxury hotel and eating hub.

This shot came after a conversation I had with my wife about the difference between colour and mono images. In mono, the textures and size of the hotel would dominate, but in colour, the two yellow (or red if there were any) elements grab you first. To the right is the massive playground build a decade ago, apparently one of the biggest in the Southern hemisphere.

Moving past Home Point, we come to Royal park and the old flood wall.

Deliberate graffiti foreground, native Aboriginal inspired, less desired in the background, but to be fair, the whole wall at the back is covered with sanctioned graffiti to support the skate park, so a little “bleed” is expected.

To the right is the largest bridge and behind it the oldest (King’s Bridge, just visible on the right), that jon the West Tamar region to the city. The canyon behind is the gorge, a spectacular walk in it’s own right with parklands, athe oldest electric power station in the Southern hemisphere and swimming baths if you do not want to brave the Basin itself.

There are working boat yards on both sides of the river, this classic getting much needed love.

A park ends the official top of the river, with this textural wonder. Heading around to the mill in the image a couple up. The park, like much of the rest of the river’s edge, has been massively upgraded, but is mid re-work at the moment so angles are limited.

One of those images that beg the mono question.

Half way, so I will stop here.

Feeling good.