An Odd Kind Of Balance, But Balance None The Less.

My video kit is a little odd when I look at it, but somehow it seems to work for me.

It’s a matter of balance, something that settles me in many ways.

If I look at it theoretically I have this capacity, in order of best to worst;

Best AF (if used and with select lenses)

1. G9II (phase detect, MFT depth of field advantage)

2. S5II (phase detect)

3. S5/GH5s (late gen contrast detect, not trustworthy enough for some things)

The 2’s are pretty close but the more forgiving MFT depth of field and one or two lenses give it a slight edge, the 12-40 Oly interestingly seems to have a perfect balance of fast but smooth AF.

Best stabiliser

1. G9II (latest gen, MFT smaller sensor advantage)

2. S5II (latest gen)

3. S5 (previous gen, excellent for static hand held)

4. GH5s (rig weight and lens supplied)

Best processing range (colour depth, dynamic range, flexibility)

1. S5 (BRAW)

2. GH5s (BRAW)

3. G9II (LOG in ProRes/HQ)/S5II (LOG)

The full frame cams have higher dynamic range naturally (14 stops), but the BRAW cams are more pleasant to grade. ProRes on the G9.2 bridges the gap somewhat to the S5II in basic LOG. I know that the S5II in BRAW is probably the very best image quality I could achieve and the G9II may also be a wasted resource, but if I upgrade either of them to BRAW, I loose their portability and in the case of the G9II, it’s excellent internal codecs.

Best low light performance.

1. S5/S5II (full frame dual ISO)

2. GH5s (dual ISO)

3. G9II (expanded ISO)

The full frames again, but the lens options available to MFT do make a difference also. Some glass is only available to me or only as fast as it is relative to the focal length in MFT, but assuming F1.8 for both, then the Full Frames win (in some more compressed formats it is quite impressive).

The reality is, if I upgraded the S5II to BRAW capable, it would be my most powerful camera, but at the moment I have four options that all balance out in comparison.

The G9II is weakest in low light and grading range, as well as creating some monster files in Log/ProRes or LOG/PreResHQ, but has the best on paper specs (frame rates, and internal codecs) and it is the handiest, most reactive, steadiest and fastest. This is the cam I put in a sandwich bag to shoot on a small boat or in a stills bag just in case. Potentially it has the best in camera recording options, an advantage lost if I run it out to a RAW recorder, so I don’t, I just use the SSD out option. This is also possibly the most under appreciated stills cam I have, but that is another story.

My smallest rig, this one has the option of going onto a shoulder rig using AF and a wide angle (9mm), a tripod or a mechanical gimbal.

The SSD upgrades it to ProRes, so a small price to pay. If I had a GH7 with internal ProRes, I wuld likely still use an SSD as they are larger and cheaper than XF cards. The SSD holder is a Neewer, which I like more than most.

The GH5s is the camera that bridges MFT to full frame capabilities with good low light/dual ISO, the MFT lens advantage and excellent BRAW interface. Lacking stabilising, it is the “big rig” for static or careful hand held work, relying mostly on weight for hand held stability and that classic semi-steady look (although the 12-60 does add some real stabe). With the 7” BMVA, it is sound central and always the A-cam on sticks. Without BRAW, it only has V-LogL, but does have All-i codecs with a fast sensor and can even function as a decent low light MFT stills cam (something its closest competitor the BMPCC4k cannot).

The endurance rig, so the A-cam in interviews. Everything runs off the V-mount for a couple of hours at least.

The RigidPro rig (the S5II/G9II model), neatly holds the SSD on top of the camera, all cables are connected at multiple points or go through the rig. Very clean and simple. The screen mount and handle are a new configuration, replacing a nato rail handle and flexi arm, which were messier and made the rig hard to pack. Balance is a little forward depending on lens, but not too bad.

The S5 is the second endurance and BRAW camera (5” BMVA and V-Mount), giving me a decent stabilised and AF option, but I treat it more like the GH5s, using a heavy duty shoulder strap to aid stability and take some weight (works like a cine-sac without the bulk). The colours out of the GH5s and S5 are close, so I have my full range of lenses to pick from in an A-B pairing.

This one looks a little ungainly, but it is extremely well balanced, meant to be used from chest to hip height. The strap is my small and elegant solution to the cine-bag quandary.

The cabling is a little less controlled, something I will work on, but it is a simple rig. The BMVA 12G 5” is run by a large NP on the rails, with two smaller ones on the unit itself. The camera uses a standard battery as it is rarely employed for long shoots and if it is, I either use a V-Mount mounted under the rails or use it as a B-cam, so battery changes can be handled during the shoot.

The S5II is potentially the strongest cam, but without the paid upgrade it is actually the weakest. G9II level AF and stabe are counter balanced by the needs of full frame (shallower depth of field, larger sensor to stabilise), the low light is equal to the S5II, in LOG it has the equal best dynamic range and all things considered, it mixes it well just as is, no RAW, no ProRes, just native LOG. The extra bulk of lenses is a consideration, but unlike the G9II, it does not need an SSD bolted on, so same-same really.

Balance.

All cams are capable of excellent results, they just get there differently. All are rigged to do their role as well as I need with static/endurance, semi mobile/endurance, mobile/static and purely mobile rigs. Any can do another role, but as is, they are each best suited.

I can hand hold the GH5s, I can use the G9II as a static B-cam or in low light with fast glass, the S5 as a run-n-gun or the S5II as any of these roles, but no one camera is the perfect answer to all roles.

For a light weight interview setup, the two S5’s in LOG work fine. For run and gun the G9II is king, the S5II the ideal hybrid and for maximum impression made, the GH5s in the RigidPro rig and cine lens looks the biz. I can run three anamorphic lenses at once and if needed trust two cams to their own devices in AF.

Could I make a single super camera or cameras? Sure. The S5II with 7” BMVA and RigidPro rig would be the “A” game, but then other cameras as well suited would be sidelined and their strengths, poorly applied, would not enough to balance things out.

The only option missing as I see it is the BMPCC4k, which would add a third BRAW camera, with no off board recorder needed and some more recording options, but do I need five cams?

Something Special?

A cheap little lens has intrigued me for a while.

The TTArtisans 35 f1.4, a $75au budget lens (in L-mount), designed for APS-C and MFT cameras came into my life a few years ago. It was one of those times I was looking for something a little out of the box, something different, for video mainly where I was keen to get away from the usual. I do lament the many wondrous lenses I let go over the years. I hope they are being used by other shooters.

Shooting stills with an S5 means cropping after the fact, because this is an APS-C lens, no doubt, but I have shot full frame video with it and “letter boxed” the crop like an anamorphic and cropped square for stills and the coverage is fine.

Even square there is a hint of vignette.

Sharpness is the expected mixed bag of central sharpness decent to dreamy wide open, razor sharp stopped down and the corners fall into the “character” camp.

At f2.8 it is as sharp as I would ever want for 4k video.

Sharp with smooth rendering. No processing applied.

Wide open, it is lovely, with obvious vignetting.

Not super sharp, but attractive. Between wide open and 2.8 I have effectively two different renderings.

Wide open again at a longer distance, so maybe sharpness varies at different distances?

A nice 3d rendering.

My main application for this lens would be video, a lens with a retro vibe shot full frame and cropped to suit. I have done this and it works.

Train Dreams

I just deleted my Netflix account, but ended on an unexpected note of exceptional, emotional pain and bliss in equal measure.

It finished and I started to uncontrollably sob. I do shed the odd tear, usually to animal or feel good stories, but this let something out I feel may have been hiding for a long time.

Nothing to do with it, just a favourite place.

Life is. Simple as that and Train Dreams celebrated that in every way possible.

Loss, love, time, hope, dept, connection.

I hope they get a lot of recognition for bringing this beautiful and shattering story to life, but a part of me feels the makers have already had their reward.

The takeaway for me, not that it matters I guess, is how lives lived are often undocumented and pointless in the eyes of all except those who live or share them. I withed that for Robert, there would be a record made of who he was, what he did and who loved him, but with the deepest sadness I realised that Robert, a person of fiction, was representing the bulk of us, the incredible sea of lives lived and forgotten. Even if a record was made, a photograph (like the one sadly lost in the fire), or a written record, that time would be the final arbiter of its importance.

Anything any one does for their own immortality is pointless in the long run, the only thing that matters is the effect they have on people here and now. If life is ultimately pointless, then the only thing that matters is how we live it. Looking at a smaller circle, anhting we do to impress others is also ultimately an untruth to ourselves.

Even mountains die, as do suns and gods, the only part of history that matters is the bit you are living now.

Watch it or not, I am just happy that it, like the remains of our natural world are out there, whether we see them or not.

No more words.

How Much Quality Is Needed?

There is a revolution happening and it is moving fast.

Once, not that long ago, to make quality content, you needed a camera and lenses that most could not afford. People became cinematographers by going to school to access these cameras and the people who know how to use them.

You can now walk into a camera shop and spend under 10k and have enough gear to create a scene from many top tier movies. People and other resources are needed to copy anything that is thrown at you and of course the reality of CGI or AI is often an element, but at the core, the base line of it all, a good camera and lens, so good in fact you may need to reduce its inherent hard-sharp quality, are available to all of us who want them.

The Creator for example was filmed using a Sony FX3 with an antique Kowa anamorphic lens out to an Atomos recorder. This entire kit, in multiple, fit into a single plastic box. As Oren Soffer said in an interview (roughly) “If the camera gives us that basic quality we need, then done, move on, many other factors will matter more” and “All that matters is you have the right tool for the right job”.

Using that as a base line means any of the new range of hybrid cameras can record internally or externally the codecs and quality needed. Examples are the Nikon ZR with Red RAW, the S1II Panasonics with ProRes Raw internal and ARRI colour, or anything going out to an Atomos Ninja or Black Magic recorder like the FX Sonys.

What do you really need for top end quality?

Codec.

The minimum you should use would be LOG, almost universally available in a modern hybrid camera. It will open up the full dynamic range of the camera and is usually well supported by third party and software makers. You can get away with a lesser codec like Cine-V or HLG, but dynamic range or support is usually reduced in favour of out of camera ease, a poor trade.

DR is important, probably not as important as good lighting and exposure, but if a camera offers it, you may as well access it. Great work can be made with less than 12 stops of DR, but if you have access to 14+, then take it.

Minimum; LOG, preferably RAW

If your camera can feed RAW data out over an HDMI (or in some recent releases even intenally), then you should look at an off board recorder like the Atomos Ninja V or BMVA 12g. Most modern bodies will feed out to one or the other. The files will be huge, but that is the reality of it, big quality comes from big files.

Access to 10 bit/422 or better colour depth is also ideal. Recording LOG in ProRes will expand this depth. This depth will pay back in spades when colour grading. Off board RAW recorders will increase your bit rate to 12 or even 16 bit, maybe even get you to 4444 colour. The more colour depth the better.

Minimum; 10 bit/422, preferably 12 bit+

The Black Magic option talks empathically to Resolve, a programme I struggled with early on, but the higher up the codec food chain I went the better that experience became. You will have huge files, but they will be the quality you are chasing.

I have found that generally LOG and RAW formats are supported by users far better than out of camera codecs, which makes life easier and ironically, the bigger the file you record at the front end, the easier the editing after (less unpacking of highly compressed files). This means I can process massive 4k BRAW files on a base model Mac Mini.

A note on editing. Learn to power grade, which is to say, try to avoid buying someone else’s LUT’s, aim to know how to get your own look, save it (power grade) and apply as desired. LUT’s are a cheat and you learn little.

Camera and lenses matter less than above, so choose the camera that gets you to where you need to be in a form and price point that works for you. Loom to recently replaced models and second hand, but there are also deals available in new like the BMPCC4k for $1700au (with built in BRAW and ProRes RAW with nearly any lens adaptable to the MFT mount.

Minimum; A camera that provides the above with good ergonomics, handling and battery life.

Lenses only need to provide the look you are after.

This rig has changed constantly and still is, but it does the following; It records RAW (with the BMVA 12g, not mounted), it records for a long time, it is pleasant t use, it produces the look I want. A small bonus is, it looks like more than it cost ($4000 total), being basically a S5 Mk1, BMVA 12g 5” (absent), V-Mount RigidPro rig, Spectrum 50mm, handles and cable.

Cheaper anamorphic glass can add a professional look cheaply, re-housed legacy lenses are not only cheap, but actually preferred by many top flight cinematographers, budget cine glass may make life easy or add some character and even semi-pro cine glass is getting cheaper. Cropping a legacy lens and adding a streak filter can even fake anamorphic (something I have done for under $100).

Zooms are convenient, but a small set of primes are better.

Lenses I like for film making are my Hope and Spectrum primes, my TTArt 35mm, Sirui anamorphic, antique half frame 25mm, select AF lenses (12-40, 17, 45 Oly, 12-60, 9 Pana, 35, 85 S-Primes). None of these are overly expensive, some are dirt cheap.

Minimum; A decent zoom, or preferably a small set of primes.

An Ongoing Commitment And Revelation.

Most of videography and cinematography is starting to look the same. Derivative creation, a contradiction in terms is the norm.

If you say I saw an ep of the latest hit programme or movie and described it as “you knoe, the desaturated, soft, glowey one with the dramatic back light”, well, you are descibing them all really.

The technical reality is digital footage has a look, something decidedly un “filmic” so measures are taken to address that, ironically, un-sharpening the sharp, reducing high resolution and flattening contrast of high dynamic range, high acutance footage.

The result is predictable and unexciting.

Time to break some rules.

For my own personal journey, the answer to my anti conformist reaction is to look at the field I have been working in for the last 35 odd years.

Rule 1

Compose a video frame as I would frame a stills image. It sounds simple but as I will explain below, I seem to have forgotten everything I have learned already as if it is irrelevant. It has never been more relevant. This also means controlling exposure, white balance and focus with the same ease I do for stills.

Rule 2

Use more natural light. Not exclusively, but as much as possible. I do use flash in my stills work, but only when the situation requires it, basically when there is no natural light, but when I do, I aim for natural or at least invisible.

Simple natural light, all I normally use.

Rule 3

Soften only to reduce the video look of my footage, no more. This may be with a filter, in camera, selection of a lens, or maybe in post, but only soften towards a natural look and un-digitise, not a stylised trend.

Rule 4

Avoid cliche traps, be original. There are so many pervading formula around that are very easy to fall into as safe habit and this is ripe for simple AI replacement. AI preys on the accepted trend, not the bespoke or unpredictable (yet). Only originality and effort has any legs now.

Rule 5

Remember where I came from and how I got there.

Without yet mastering many current habits, I find I am already pushing back against many of them. This video thing has seemed too hard sometimes, but I realise I have ignored my instincts in favour of slavishly adopting the wisdom of others. With still photography my style developed in a relative vacuum. I was inspired by images I saw in books and magazines, conversations with people who knew more than me, reverse engineering, learning by doing. This is something my video journey has lacked.

With video, my learning tends to come from Youtube, which leads to opinion, misinformation, a lack of personal experimenting, no internal growth. I don’t work that way, never have.

This does not mean inventing a new framing like that weird subject jammed into on the short corner thing or rejecting needed tech, it means chasing a better shot, not just a better execution of the same-same. If the remit is “build a better race car”, then you need to conform to the needs of the race, but if the remit is “just get there faster”, then maybe a 4WD and going straight line across country wins or even learn to fly.

Rule 6

Make rules for consistency of vision and its delivery, but these rules must hero simplicity and quality over gimmicks and they may/must break some current rules that do not suit.

Rule 7

Be authentic. In a world where illusion is the norm, be authentic to your subject and your self. There is no other way to be taken seriously and in some way, relatively time-proof.

Rules are important, but they are only a guide, not a coral. I am sure I will bend, break or modify these to some extent, but the journey matters. The journey however needs to be taken and the clearer the destination, the easier it is to execute.

End Of The Year Retrospective

Another year done and summer holidays to look forward to.

So, what went well and what failed to launch?

Another year of amazing young people entering the world of adulthood. EM1x 40-150 f2.8

I have a more solid client base, with AFL Tas, two schools and some sports associations to fall back on, but not enough to call a real job yet.

My sport is in a good place, plenty of experience, gear is sufficient to get the job done and feeling confident. Football and basketball are the two big ones, low light my only minor concern, but overall I am pretty happy. I may get the new Panasonic 100-500 to expand my full frame reach, but we will see.

Grass roots sport is important to me.

Events are solid, my school needs also. I have processes that I know I can rely on.

Video is still a heavy load, but I am in a good place with it from a basic processing perspective, my grading and consistency are where I want them to be, I just need more practice putting things together.

Gear that has proven itself again and again;

The EM1.2 and original G9’s have survived another year. My four work horses have over 3 million frames up between them, so anything from here is gravy baby!

My Godox 860 flash is a hard working beast that can do over 2000 shots in a night without breaking a sweat and regularly does.

The Black Magic 12G recorders providing B-Raw and studio Resolve have cemented my video capabilities and the GH5s/S5 combo seems to work. I am a B-Raw convert, even if that means limiting myself to two cameras, but ProRes 422 HQ (G9II) is a decent filler codec.

The G9.2 is making its presence felt as the “gimbal” cam I need, getting better results every time I use it. The current winner is a handle on either side, but it varies.

The S5.2 and Sigma 28-70 have become my low light problem solvers.

Hope Cine lenses. Two of many in the crowded mess that is my cine lens stable, but also my happy place that I go to more often than not. On the GH5s they are 45/90mm, so perfect,, on the G9II they are 50/100, so I have combinations.

I only wish they would do them in APS-C L-Mount so I could get another 25 that is a 35 equivalent.

My 300, 40-150’s, 12-40, 15, 9 are heavily used and showing it, but still have legs. The rest of my M43 lens kit needs to be used more and the 30 Sigma, 8-18 and 45’s are getting some.

The EM1x’s, which do the hardest jobs I do, do them perfectly well. Faint praise? I would love maybe a little better low light performance (6400 tops them out, 3200 is better). They are as fast in focus aquisition as I can compose, i.e. my misses are almost always mine, so I do not need faster.

The Sennheisser MKE-600 is fast becoming my go-to mic, especially with the F2 recorder attached or connected to the BMVA 7”.

The RigidPro rig and V-Mounts have totally changed how I deal with all things video. One power source for all my rig, a professional looking and acting camera setup.

The Lewitt LCT 240 Pro is also a little wonder, recording some big spaces with decent presence. I hardly use any of the other mics, but they are there.

Domke F810, F2 and F4 bags and more have all done as asked.

the 5.11 Range Ready and Patrol Ready bags, both handle my video gear and combined, cost less than a true video or camera bag.

Possible future purchases or directions.

The 5.11 CAMS roller case is in my thoughts. This one bag is 40” long, has a semi rigid base section, a large top section and can I feel, carry all I need for any job in one bag. I have tried a lot of different configurations fro several bags, trolleys clever packing, but this bag, a $500 purchase on its own could be (do I dare use the over used term?), a “game changer” (there, I said it).

It could comfortably hold new and my large AD-01 Tripod, several light stands, some large brollies, a soft box, several mic kits (in hard cases), two or three full camera rigs (in ready to go configurations), backdrops, tools etc and have room for clothing and stills gear. The only issue is to get to tripods etc, I have to lift the main compartment, but I think I can work that and by that stage, the cameras would be out anyway.

The alternative can be anything up to five bags and cases on a trolley, something that is a movable feast to be honest.

The Two Lenses You Need For Animal Photography

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

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

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

Devilish light, but needs must.

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

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

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

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

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

Test Thoughts Continued.

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

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

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

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

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

So, soft conclusion after test round 1 is;

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

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

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

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

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

Also I found this excellent site today.

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

The Bag To End All Bags?

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

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

Yep, all the stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

Expensive?

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

What do you get?

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

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

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

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

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

So, what will fit in it.

In the lower section;

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

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

The top section;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Carry All My Stuff mk3.

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

The Curse Of The 50MM?

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

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

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

Does a few millimetres either way really make a difference?

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

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

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

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

Taken with the equivalent to a 60mm, I always feel this lens makes a difference to a standard 50, but does it really? Possibly the specific lens ads more opinion than the focal length alone? The rendering of this lens is quite flat, a modern thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This brings up the other thought, that if the 40mm becomes ground zero, but is then not perfect for every desired shot, where to from there? Is a 40 and 60 or 28 ideal? This suddenly starts to look like a three lens kit. I noticed when the Vespid 40 was on my radar, that the 21mm was also softly included in my thinking** and the 40’s saving grace was the 40/60/70/80 combo on various mounts.

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

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

On top of all this, we all respond to certain lenses differently to others!

Shit, I could even use a zoom………..***

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

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

***Turns out when I use a standard zoom, I tend to hover around 28-30 and 60-70mm!

Some Test Results

Ok, testing has started.

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

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

First question.

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

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

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

Second tests

Are the two Sirui 24mm Anamorphics as good?

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

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

Test 3

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

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

Test 4

Which lenses stand out in my full frame kit.

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

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

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

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

At about 300% there is good detail.

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

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

Test 5

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

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

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

Conclusions after round 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In full frame however it becomes both easier and harder.

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

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

My safest bet is the S-Prime Panasonic set.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Has Never Been More True

This is a reality;

Gear is getting dearer, but not necessarily better.

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

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

A developmental spiral of death.

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

Another opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

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

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

2

DZO Vespid 40 T2.1 series 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

Some Resolve And Clarity (Please!)

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

My video restlessness had reared its head again as it does every sales period. Lots has been written, some about to be reinforced and some might seem to be contradictory.

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

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

Just because you can, does not mean you should.

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

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

No gimmicks are needed if the content is strong enough. It is not for nothing that the big award winners this year are “naturalistic” in look. Maybe we are all a little tired of it.

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

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

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

What is wrong with clarity, natural rendering and reality?

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

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

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

Maybe I will do some black and white?

The Haunting Of A Restless Mind

Some things just will not go away.

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

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

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

Basically this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 5TB of storage in a variety of forms.

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

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

Why do we buy anything?

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

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

Ok, sermon over.

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

My order of video quality priorities is;

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

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

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

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

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

The Vespid 40mm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beautification And Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, So One Lens To Rule Them All?

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

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

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

The Hope lenses are strong in most areas.

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

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

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

Let me elucidate.

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

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

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

So, eight lenses in one?

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

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

Ok, taking stock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balance is the key.

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

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

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

Choices Made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checklist;

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

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

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

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

• Clear pathways forward with a little left over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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