The S5 is barely through its second battery charge, but I am planning the future.
The main consideration, becasue the camera is several levels better than I have had and that was more than adequate, is to look at lenses.
My main core, assuming the legacy glass bent I am on now becomes a sideline, not a primary consideration, is to add a second prime to the kit.
The zoom is fine, especially for video and adds the wide angle I feel I may need to cover a stage, the most likely application for the S5’s long recording options, but for making short, multi angle productuons (seems a big term for small ambitions), I will stick to primes.
Choices.
Wanting to stick to the Lumix S line because Panasonic has gone to such lengths to get them right, the 24 and 35 are the logical, only choices. They are about the same price, the same size/weight/look/performance, which is the point, so the only consideration is process.
The 24 appeals as a dual 24 and 35 (cropped) option. If I shot wide-cropped full frame in an appempt to get poor mans Anamorphic coverage, then the 24 makes coverage easy, but also pushes the subjects back. Very environmental, epic even, but maybe too much? The cinematographers who used true wides in the past have been edge pushers and angle workers. This option appeals also, but is it too much early on and I do have several M43 options if needed*.
After a little research I am surprised to find how many top tier cinematographers who use a small range or some times even a single lens in their work. Hitchcock for example used almost exclusively a 50mm.
The 35 on the other hand gives me back my 50mm in crop mode if I use some form of “super35” APS-C crop mode. The 35 seems a natural place for me, leaning towards a wide-normal base, with the 50 and the do-all tight lens. It would also be a good standard if I shoot wide or square stills.
Are a 35 and 50mm different enough to warrant both? I feel making films is less about lens choice and more about everything else. In stills photography, you are working the subject, the subject cannot bring much more thna a single split second. A choice of lenses and angles adds variety to a still capture.
In video, the subject moves, interacts etc, so capture is less about lens choice and angle, more about “blocking” the elements in the scene. You really only need to offer the basic angles of normal-wide (uncompressed)/normal (middle compression)/normal-long (compressed) and the 35(50)/50(75) can do that without adding any distortion or blatant opinion to the frame. Again, I can go into extraordinary looks with a G9 covering from 16-600mm using Natural, Cine-D, HLG or VlogL for a close enough colour matching.
A bit of separation and compression, the other side to slightly wide, slightly epic.
Two lenses that would have made this all easier would have been a 40mm, which is the ideal focal length for me. In stills shooting the 40mm is at once the most natural and potentially the most boring focal length, but the first feature is perfect for video and the second mostly irrelevant. The 35/50mm dynamic makes you hit either side of the natural 40mm more specifically, more aggressively, forcing a choice, where the 40mm lets you relax into it. 60mm in APS-C also feels like a more opinionated version of the 50mm. Like the 35/50 straddling the 40, the 40/60 straddles the 50. I guess it is all too close to really matter.
The second lens is the 28mm, which feels more like the right wide to compliment a 50mm and converts to the magical 42mm in APS-C. To me, the 28mm has always been the boring wide, not strong in effect, not epic in coverage or natural enough to be used universally, but again in video, it seems to be the 40mm of wides. Perfectly innocuous. The 50/75mm can then be the tight-flat lens, the 28/42 the work horse, the establishing shot lens.
Realistically, the 35mm with a single step forward or back can be the above lenses and again, it is more about coverage and the right compression for the job. Maybe too wide would be a hard lens to use, bringing obvious deepening of perspective?
The 30mm angle of view, about as wide as you can go without obvious perspective tells. The zoom cropped is a 30mm.
The zoom may be enough, but I am not super impressed by it yet. More testing needed. It was effectively free with the camera, but I would have liked to have been more satified with it. to be honest to shock of a slow lens with twitchy depth of field even at f5.6 was a bit of a shock.
I believe what I say when I espouse the benefits of M43, but even then, FF considerations came as a shock. Having to go to ISO 6400 at 1/50th f5.6 in a “dull” room when ISO 400 at f1.8 in M43 would have been ideal! I will have the f1.8 full frame lens soon, but that comes with the very shallow depth issue :). Most of the complaints about S5 focussing are exaggerated by the shallow depth of full frame. The G9 is in the same place with AF and stabilising, but the smaller sensor blunts the issues.
My testing has been loose and blatantly unfair so far, pixel peeping stills taken hand held with a new camera, so maybe when I stop being the “man who looks for trouble and invariably finds it”, the poor thing will be able to impress me and cover all the true wide angles I need. Me being me I went straight to the far corners wide open at the widest focal length looking for de-centring issues and found consistent but slightly soft results.
I need to take a big dose of “we are not in M43 land anymore Toto” and remember that kit grade lenses, no matter how good, are going to have some “warts” in full frame. It seems nicley sharp in the centre and at less extreme focal lengths, so I need to deal. Video is far more tolerant of imperfections, indeed the trend seems to be to chase them, so come on Rod, embrace it.
Funny thing is, I was a little worried having a full frame back in the house would spoil me for M43, but the opposite has happenned. I have rediscoverred my love the balance M43 gives me for stills. The ability to shoot wide open on my primes without fear of depth of field traps and for video, the forgiving nature of the M43 DOF is a blessing, especially with manual focus.
Have I made a mistake going into full frame? No, because again, it is not about the format as much as the specific camera.
True Vlog, 14 stops of dynamic range, continuos recording with good battery life, no special card needs, USB-C charging/power, video-centric features, supporting lenses, dual formats, but most importantly super clean high ISO performance that frees me to use the camera, lens and aperture as I creatively want, not within forced limits. These features all put it ahead of its rivals at the time. Would a GH6 or even GH5.2 been enough? Sure and part of me wishes the choices were easier, but the S5 was/is the winner right here, right now on a $2000 budget (just!).
*Lacking Vlog, the G9’s can be colour matched close enough for alternate angles and B-roll.