Lenses I Regret Selling

We all have regrets. My main ones photographically speaking are connected to lenses I have parted with. Otherwise, only a tripod (Berlebach) and head (Manfrotto fluid ball) come to mind. No cameras and only a few out of dozens of bags (Domke F3x Ballistic, Lowe Pro Pro Messenger, the bog green Think Tank rip-off)

The Olympus 12-100 Pro. Only weeks before I got my current job, I sold this to a friend looking for a stabilised lens for his Black Magic video cam. It would quite literally now be my most used lens for work, especially with C1/N1 handling high ISO work. What a time saver, but who knew. I would love to have it for video now myself. It had slightly nervous Bokeh, like many of the super sharp Olympus Pro zooms, but not too bad.

Prime lens quality through a genuinely handy zoom range.

The Panasonic 14mm x2 and 20mm primes (first eds). My 20mm, had a special something. Something I have not seen again in the newer one. AF was it’s downfall especially at a time when MF was not well supported (pre-peaking), but of course, that has improved over the years and if I had paired it with a Pana camera it would not have been as much of an issue. The 14’s were just great little lenses, replaced by an expensive new video centric model, but for what I paid and sold them for, these were a bargain.

Canon EF 400 f5.6, 200f 2.8 and 135 F2. The last gasps of my 30 year long Canon story, sold far too cheaply in response to my dislike at the time of the bulk of Canon cameras and the reality of M43 size, weight and performance. If I had the courage to hang on to them, they would have made nice additions to an RF kit, but that would have taken 10 years to realise!

The 400 was sharp and easy to handle as well as matching very well with a 1.4x tc. The 135 was clinically “perfect”, I believe the most stable Canon tele for mere mortals and the 200 had bags of lush, rich character.

In Olympus, I consider the 75mm to be the equal of the 135 and the 45 f1.8 has very similar character to the 200 (and it’s 85mm equivalent), which is to say it looks less “perfect”, more character biased, but still the same calibre. My 300 is superior to the 400 in many ways, but not by as much as the 30+ years age difference should make.

The 400 f5.6 (non-stabilised) could be hand held, even with a 1.4x teleconverter on it, down to 1/60th, which is bettered as a crop frame 600mm only by my Oly 300 f4 IS, although my humble 75-300 comes close as a 400mm equivalent. The shot above was taken with a 1Ds mk2, a special camera in its day and no slouch now.

Canon EF 70-200 F4L non IS. This one, or two actually, were possibly the best value lenses Canon had to offer for many years. I picked one up from a friend who went with the first IS version and swore the older lens was better. The second, bought new for $699au after selling the first one, was as good, pushing all the above lenses for perceived sharpness, but with twitchier Bokeh. No IS, or weather sealing, it was still a real bargain.

Canon EF 17-40L as a 28-65 on a crop frame. This lens is far from perfect as a full frame wide angle, even though many use it successfully as designed, but on a crop frame camera, it really shines. Small, light, tightly made and weather sealed (with a filter on), it made the ideal standard lens on a Canon crop SLR body, but unfortunately I had little love for those towards the end. Matched with the 70-200 above and mounted on the little 100D made for a very harmonious little outfit, much the same size and weight as my recent work kit of the Oly 12-40 and 40-150 pro’s. Realistically I only regret selling them because they worked and I liked them. If they were all I had now, I could function perfectly well.

Canon EF 50mm Macro. This is simply the best and most stable 50mm Canon made for EOS. Sure it was ugly, noisy and mechanically old school, but it was sharp, sharp, sharp. I had the original and then the slightly Bokeh enhanced newer one and loved them both dearly. It also filled the portrait lens gap between the above two on crop frame cameras (the much loved 85mm f1.8 was a little long).

Zeiss 85 f2.8 for MF Contax. I once purchased a few Contax lenses from a friend intending to adapt them to my Canon SLR’s. It worked well enough, especially with a custom connection adapter that actually replaced the rear plate, but MF on Canon SLR’s had mixed results (focus screen issues). I did however have more luck when I adapted them to the EM5 mk1, although again without peaking it was still a little iffy. The 45mm pancake, was ok, the 50mm f1.4 had good micro contrast, with adequate sharpness wider open and the 28mm I picked up later was decent. Ideal for film, they showed their age in Digital. The 85mm however could match my 75mm Olympus and 135L Canon lens. This lens was tiny, super sharp and had that Zeiss something special. The mount was also a tight and reassuring fit. I sold the lot to a friend/customer shooting Fuji who added a 135 later, but the 85 still haunts me.

Voigtlander 40mm f2 MF. This was a Canon mount and I loved it so much I almost got rid of everything in its same range , but the reality was, manual focus with a DSLR was problematic, especially without the option of changing focus screens. I remember a wonderful day with a 5D and the 40mm zone focussed at the Salamanca Market in Hobart. The combo got so many great shots at hip height and was so very easy to use that way.

It, from memory, had similar properties to my 17mm Oly. Ideal for street, it sucked taking close in portraits at F2 where you were really guessing focus, even with a better focussing screen. When the 5D3 came along with its fixed screen, I had to part with the lens. In hindsight (which is a bitch), it would have worked beautifully on an OMD as a portrait lens and likely even better for video.

Fuji 60mm macro and 27mm pancake bought as a cheap set. These made it as the last remnants of my Fuji experiment. The 27 was good all rounder and many believe better than the lens on the X100, the 60mm was sublimely sharp, but focus was an issue. I used them both with some success on an XE-1 and held on to that little kit as an alternative to M43 (along with a small Canon kit with the above lenses), but someone made me an offer and out it went. Like Canon, a little long sightedness and patience and I could have used it as the base of a decent little backup kit with the lenses below.

The superb little 27mm.

Fuji 14mm f2.8. This wide angle came at a time when I was not at all interested in wides and to its credit, it turned me. One of those unique wides that does not telegraph its wideness, I started to use it for more regular stuff, then sold it???. As part of a full Fuji kit, it was ideal, but Fuji was not my gig anymore so no need for it.

Fuji 18-55 f2.8-4. Early in the mirrorless emergence (Fuji XE-1, OMD EM5 mk1 and Sony NEX period), there were some real bargains. I picked up the 60mm and 27 in a set from the U.S. for about $300 au, several 14mm Panasonic and 45mm Olympus lenses which were being basically given away with kits, and the excellent 18-55 Fuji was super cheap in most kits. I think my first one was cheaper with a camera than the camera alone! This thing was very, very good and made AF capable even on the older Fuji cameras. If offered one in a kit over the 16-50 f2.8 Fuji at the right price, I would be perfectly happy with it and almost was recently. If I had kept my first one, a transition back to Fuji would have been far more likely.

Olympus 90 f2macro, 180 f2.8 and 28 f2. Film camera lenses from my first Olympus experiment. In hindsight all of these could have transitioned from Oly to Canon and then M43 really well, but who knew where the industry would have gone. When travelling in Melbourne, a shop assistant pushed my bag off the counter dropping my kit a few feet. The 90mm developed a slight tightness in focussing after that, so, being a pedantic pain in the A%#, I sold it to a macro nut who is still using it! The rest of the kit went soon after. Any of these lenses have the potential to work on a modern camera, so their value has tended to go up not down.

Canon FD 100mm Macro x3 and 20mm. These were my creative go-to lenses during my landscape phase (80-90’s). I had several macro’s starting with the old ring grip to the later model and all were ideal multi purpose portrait/macro’s. I think these spoiled me for macro lenses, as I have never been able to settle on one again since (Canon EF 100 and 2x50, Fuji 60, Oly 35 and a pair of Olympus 60’s have all come and gone) and I do not even own one now. The 20 was my favourite wide angle for years (even decades after it was sold) until the Fuji 14 came along.

Nikon 28 f2.8 on the 28Ti. Beautiful lens on a beautiful camera. If I had any desire to shoot film, this would have been my ride, but not for me and wasted if not used. This one is a little odd, but bare with me. The Nikon 28 f2.8 on the front of the little 28ti camera (and the camera as well). I have the distinction of selling this twice and regretting it both times. The reality is that film cameras, no matter how precious, have no real value to me*. The lens and camera were sublime. Nuff said.

Canon FD 24 f2.8 (old red “SSC” coated one-basically “L” series before they existed). This one was not sold, but broken. It had just taken one of the best slide era images I had ever taken, so its loss was cruel. Lesson to be learned……don’t over pack your bag ‘cos stuff jumps out.

*

It seems to me, my worst decisions were made because of cameras not supporting lenses. If I had the foresight, patience and money to sit on some of these many roads to image making happiness would have remained open, especially now with video in the mix.

*I traded a clutch of hoarded manual film cameras for a new printer, have bought and sold several sets, but have known through this whole process, that none would stick. I love film as much as I love photography, but in all practical ways it holds no real attraction for me now. Digital freed me to shoot (and for free), which allowed me to grow and be far more productive. It also opened up much better roads to sharing my images. The limitations (where I live) to being a film shooter are many and I have far too many strong memories of how it used to be. Going from bulk rolled Tri-X processed in a home made dual-bath Rodinal variant or Tech pan in Pyro to packaged HP5 and bog standard soup is too much of a wrench for this old shooter and I have no darkroom anyway.

Selecting Video Lenses

Putting a video lens kit together is similar to, but not quite the same as a stills camera kit.

Sharpness is desired, but unlike a stills lens, absolute sharpness has to be balanced with “character”.

What is lens character and why does it matter?

First we should consider that with stills photography, the capture lens can bring a lot of traits to the process, but overall, it is generally only flaws that matter as all else can be added (or subtracted) as needed. Before the old lens pundits take up arms, yes I agree that a special lens can bring something to the game, but so many looks and flavours can be post processed in, so that the lens becomes only one part of a creative chain.

I have had tons of old glass, tried them all on multiple cameras, film and digital, and have found that a good lens gives you freedom, a poor one forces “excuses”, such as avoiding known issues, creative processing or limited utility. I love my Olympus and Panasonic lens stable and can see the difference between lens A and B, including the difference in colour the two brands lenses and sensor combinations add to the mix, but I can also work towards them all looking the same or all looking very different to each other (or even themselves), in post. We also have to take into account the relative freedom of selecting shooting angle, aperture and filters that can all be applied shot to shot.

Video, especially limited* video production runs a bit differently.

For stills shooters it is equivalent to continuous jpeg capture with a fixed shutter speed (the 180 rule). You do not have the nearly unlimited post processing options of RAW files. Micro changes cannot to be applied “mid stream”, so the need for consistency often limits creative options. Your capture is much closer to fully defined at the time of shooting, with limited post and fixed output options.

This means that a video lens has to be mechanically capable and accurate to your needs while being visually opinionated if desired.

Mechanically, a good focus throw, silent AF-if used, smooth and preferably step-less aperture control are all desirable (but not critical).

Optically, you have to accept what the lens offers up front. Flaws can be seen as added character or just flaws. Luckily, with video, they tend towards adding character.

My lens kit, based on some re-purposed left overs, duplicates, scrounged bits and lenses just better suited to video, comprise of;

The Olympus 12-40 f2.8 (neutral colour, smooth Bokeh). This lens used to be half of my daily shooting kit, but when the 8-18 Leica came into the fold, I increased my range by using that with a camera mounted fast 25 to the kit to fill the gap. It has also developed a slight “lump” in its zoom ring, which more annoys than limits me. On a more positive note, I appreciate the constant aperture and separate manual focus ring setup. This lens is a strong modern example of a sharp across the frame pro zoom with nice character. I also like the slight boost in colour depth and contrast it adds to the Panasonic sensor. The only time this will leave this kit is to shoot events with flash, which it seems to be particularly good (and lucky) at. The temptation is to use the 8-18 as it matches the camera, can be doubled** and goes theatrically wide, but the best fit (for now) is the 12-40.

17 f1.8 (neutral-warm colour, long transition Bokeh). A street favourite (nothing happening there at the moment), this lens has had little use over the last couple of years. What it has going for it for stills, also shines with video. The lens shows a slightly old fashioned colour palette, deep transition Bokeh and nice handling. On Olympus cameras, it looks contrast heavy and slightly antique, especially on the older sensors. It actually looks quite like Kodachrome 64 on an older sensor, which takes me back to my formative years. On The Panasonic it seems to be less heavy looking, but still pleasantly adds a little colour “weight” to that sensor. Something to be aware of with this one though, is it can produce an audible “clicking” sound (aperture operating) when operated in video, so if this an issue, do your research.

25 f2.8 old Pen lens (cool colour, antique contrast, unique-creative Bokeh, flare and haze). As old as me :0 and also still going, this was not the most revered of the old Pen system lenses, many of which can still cut it today, but for video it offers some really cool features. Wide open it has reduced contrast and I mean reduced contrast (read “semi-LOG” profile look), to the point of being hazy. It flares quickly but cleanly and provides unusual “ringlet” Bokeh. In post I have cleaned the haze up well and found it is sharp under that veil of white, but for video, I would use that for effect. One stop down and it changes personality completely! The lens regains many of the best photographic properties while providing distinctly old fashioned colour and contrast. It also has decent heft, a smooth manual aperture ring and good, smooth focus throw.

It just looks difference.

45 f1.8 (warm to neutral colour, smooth but interesting, even engaging, Bokeh). I have two of theses (used to have 3), so yes, I love it. Unlike the 25 and 75, I have always found this lens shows more character while providing equal quality. The 25 and 75 lenses produce smooth brilliance and real lush-ness, the 17 and 45 are more “old school” with simpler, moodier colours and plenty of micro contrast. This lens in particular tends towards smooth but contrasty, even punchy Bokeh, the sort that promotes exploration-which is good. It also has delightfully smooth focus. These two are the closest modern lenses I have to the old 25.

40-150 kit. Like the 17 and 45’s above, this lens is more about micro contrast with slightly muted colour. It is mechanically a little rubbish, but optically quite strong with good AF. I will not likely use it much, but for those times when a really long lens** is needed, maybe for an establishing or context shot, it will be more than adequate and it does not hurt that it weighs nothing.

Winner of best bang for the buck, the little 40-150 kit will be plenty of reach for a video kit and shares the same look as the 17mm.

For filters I have gone with Hoya Pro polarisers and ND’s basically because I already have some of them and want to be colour consistent.

A note on colour. between brands. Olympus cameras produce cooler and contrastier images naturally, with their lenses ranging from warm to neutral. Panasonic cameras tend to produce brighter, lighter colour (lime rather than spruce greens) and generally warmer files, although sometimes a little thinner looking. Their lenses tend towards a similar look. Keeping the brands to their own stables tends to exaggerate their respective looks. Mixing the two brands can produce a range of effects (I like the 8-18 on the EM10 for example), so I may have to add an Olympus back in as backup and to get the full range of colours I want. The G9 tends to be more effected, which is ideal, as I have mostly Oly glass.

*By limited I mean mainstream videographer cameras, limited to a form of LOG, that can’t shoot RAW video or even deeper LOG profiles.

**The G9 has a lossless 2x converter option for video so I can literally double all my lenses, giving me 24-600mm full frame range Ove two zooms and “double” primes. The little OSMO has a 26mm lens.

G9 First Impressions

First impressions is a little inaccurate as I have been selling these for close on 5 years, but in my home, with my needs addressed, this is a new camera.

Looking fully sick with its Smallrig handle, this is the business.

Very first impression, after using EM1 mk2 and EM1x cameras is that it is closer to an EM1x than a mk2. The nubbin control and general feel as well and the heft put into the “hard pro” category, so this is my EM1x for video.

Operationally it feels much nicer for video. This is a true hybrid, where the Olympus tended to need to be a more traditional stills camera with (good) video added on, as the G9 was on launch.

The menu is a dream, deep and comprehensive, but I have had to find out what some of the features actually are :). Setting up the custom menus was easier than with Olympus and that is (1) with 10 years of Oly use and (2) not reading the instructions (yet). I like that.

The G9 will be set up purely as a video camera, which is why I bought it, so the C1-5 and base settings will be cemented in soon (a firmware package is available to up the video specs and adding an off board recorder like the Ninja V would also boost its potential)

C1 will be my better standard settings, .MOV, 8 bit 4-2-0 4k 30p 150mbs in Cinelike-D, contrast reduced. This will basically match the OSMO at its top settings in look and quality.

C2 will likely be the base settings I will need just for daily grabs for socials, which are lower resolution than the best possible, but fast to process and transfer. This looks like it will be 1080 30/60p in Natural mode with sharpness and saturation dropped.

C3 (1) will be for slo-mo or hand holding (then slo-mo). This is up in the air at the moment as I have to compare 1080 at 180 frames to 4k at 60.

C3 (2) is a straight out of camera set, for shooting and handing over without processing. This will be like C-2, but without flattening.

C3 (3) will be my maximum setting. 10 bit 4-2-2, 4k 30p Hybrid Log Gamma. I doubt it will be used much, but 5 custom settings allows me to be prepared.

Pondering Life With The Zoom H5 (And H1n)

So, the H5 Is on the way and log with it, the SSH-6 shotgun mic.

After a brief moment of panic, thinking on the H6’s value (effectively the same price with the SMH-6 in the kit), I have quickly adopted a feeling of quiet confidence and contentment with this pending kit expansion. The reality is, the H6 is too big, in balance with the benefits it offers for my needs and the MSH-6 is not as useful as the SSH-6. Getting the H5 instead, pays for the second capsule.

Happy, just with a LAV.

This was the only real solution*, all things considered.

From here I can;

• Add 2 XLR condenser mics, while still using the onboard mics (or not).

• Pre-amp my various 3.5 mics including matched shotguns or the H1n, increasing their quality.

• Add one of several capsules (the SSH-6 side-middle shotgun and XYH-5 stereo), all of which cost less than specialist mics that they match in quality.

• Add 2 more dynamic XLR mics with an optional module.

• Record indoor interviews, concerts and drama performances at pro level.

• Interface with a computer, mixer or instrument.

• Record loud (140db max pressure) or quiet subjects (-120db noise floor).

• Record into, or separate from, my camera or a computer.

• Support all of this with the H1n, which can run to or operate separately from it. Maybe a good overhead or soloists mic.

So, up to 6 speakers, in two sets of X/Y’s and 2 singles, enough to do a decent band rehearsal.

Sound is important, possibly even more urgent to get right than good picture quality, but I needed to find a point of balance that felt just right. Anything less than the H5 (H2n, Saramonic + pencil mics, Roland P-07, a bigger shotgun etc) felt precariously short sighted and limiting. Much more (H6) was likely over complicating things.

The SSH-6 mid-side shotgun mic kills a flock of birds with one stone, when combined with the XYH-5.

• It provides a high gain shotgun mic of the same calibre as the D3 Pro or Rode NTG’s, but at the cost of a basic Diety D3 (sub$200au).

• It has left/right ambience which can be turned off completely or used for full “sound staging”. This allows the mic to be set (or processed in later) with the right amount of side volume, rather than the usual full rejection of a standard shotgun mic.

• It is louder than the older SGH-6 or indeed any other capsule in their range, so it provides better reach with the best tonal depth. For single vocal recordings at 3 mtrs or so, it sounds rich and natural and I am anticipating excellent results from concerts etc.

• It can be used with other inputs through the H5 unit giving me a directional shotgun with/without ambient and overhead pencil condensers or mixing board interface.

• The X/Y capsule provides the lower noise floor, best wide stereo coverage, smaller form factor and different sound generally. Between the two modules I feel I have covered the most bases possible.

It does have more measurable noise when compared to the others at the same level settings, but that’s because it is (a) considerably louder and (b) effectively two mics in one. If turned down to match the SGH-6 and focussed the same way, it is quieter and superior sounding and can be used further away than the MSH-6 with similar results.

Finally, I will add (maybe), a pair of Rode M5 or Lewitt 040 pencil condenser mics for overheads, pick outs or better area coverage, but I will wait and see, there is plenty of time and plenty still to learn.

The beauty of the H5 is its versatility.

You may never use the XLR inputs, or conversely may only use them and never attach a mic capsule, but either way, it is going to be well utilised. I expect to use it mostly as a free standing mic or with my 3.5 pin shotgun or LAV options, but it is reassuring to know, that the XLR ports are waiting patiently.

*The H2n was a close contender for this spot having 3-4 mic configurations built in, but for the price (3/4 as much as the H5), it lacked so many interface options, as well as the H5’s build quality. It is much closer to the H1n, that I already have.

**Wide area, wide area with focussed main, focussed main, main and sides.

Three Blind Mics

In my quest to get the best value, decently performing items for my video kit I have ended up with three mics that may seem the same (too similar as I will explain below), but this is only surface deep. Even though I have effectively tripled up on these, I can still justify owning them for a couple of reasons.

Dude, where’s the cheese?

The Rode Video Micro was the first purchased and the first of its type. It was bought by mistake, but as it turns out it was a fortuitous accident. The MOVO VRX 10 was the intended purchase, but I grabbed the Rode in error as it came up as the second item on the net searching for the MOVO and looked right (turns out MOVO is rare and relatively over priced in Aus, as it is possibly BOYA).

Already freighted, I resigned myself to returning it on arrival, but I decided to hang on to it because it had the best accessories, is a well liked and especially with my Zoom H1n used as a pre-amp, has very deep online support.

The dead cat looks and feels better than any other I have, the Rycote mount is the real deal and I trust the cable the most. This is the shortest of the three, but feels well made (and has survived a drop).

Sound is evenly balanced, if a little “small mic” sounding and it is the weakest. If you get it close to the target and add a bit of equalising, it can supply professional quality sound. Sound is very subjective and reviewers voices and environments vary, so take this, along with the many other audio samples available as opinion only. I find nothing offensive about its sound, but nothing stirs me either (I do like it more than the bigger Rode GO though). The treble is clean and uncluttered, the bass is below average for a mic, even of its size and much less than the Rode’s GO’s (which leans the other way). I do find the other mics slightly more full bodied before processing. If it suffers from anything it is “little brother” syndrome, being designed a decade ago to fit in a specific place in a large range of mics.

*

The Neewer CM-14 was purchased not long after for only $28au. This mic is longer and straighter looking, which is handy for the quite deep Smallrig shock mount I purchased with it. Its own shock mount is poor at damping handling noise, but has the advantage of allowing closer mounting towards the subject. It came with a pop filter and needs it.

Sound is slightly more dynamic and intimate or “up front” than the Rode, with deeper tones and crisper, but more obvious “S-y” treble. I think it is either the loudest of the three or about equal with the Boya, just more dynamic sounding. My preference is for less obvious treble, which I personally find distracting and harder to fix than adding in some missing base. Never the less, the mic is popular and produces nice, full sound and is my best shotgun option on a boom indoors.

*

The last mic was bought very recently and it closes the loop on this journey. The Boya BY MM1 the first and best liked of three versions of MM1 available. This is very likely an alternative branding of the MOVO (so I likely got the one I wanted in the first place). It took a while to tentatively confirm this, but true or not it sounds and looks the same and comes packaged with the same accessories, so near enough regardless. That possibly explains why the MOVO is too dear and hard to get in Australia and is always imported via other countries, where the Boya came from a local at a good price.

The Boya was again under $30 au which is the right price (about half of the Rode). The main reason for grabbing it is for its sound, which is different.

The Boya has very deep sound with rounded, gentle treble, similar to the base model Rode Video Mic Go, but not as heavy sounding and adds a nice option in my kit. It can sound a little flat to some, but I like the option of the slightly overly deep “radio presenter” presentation for some voices. The Rode then takes the safe middle ground and the Neewer is ideal for the more dynamic opposite end of the spectrum. In reality, equalisation will even these out some, but it does not hurt to get part of the way there up front.

It also seems to be the most “pop” resistant which explains why it came with a dead cat, but not a pop filter.

Overkill?

Wasteful even?

Redundancy when working professionally is always wise and options in any field where variances exist is equally so. When the three add up to a little more than the cost of the very basic Rode Video Mic Go or a little more than half the value of the H1n and each offers a reasonable alternative (along with the Zoom). I do not see any real need to improve on these with more of the same. If a better shotgun mic is wanted, the SSH-6 for the H5 Zoom is a strong contender with the added lure of side mics.

*

The mic I have neglected to mention so far is the Zoom H1n, which I have tested along side these, but is in reality a different type of unit. The sound from the Zoom is more open, much more sensitive (with about the same volume as the Boya) and less focussed. This is good for echo prone locations (no interference tube issues) and groups as long as its needs are met. It has by far the worst handling issues, is very wind shy and is the biggest, but if you overcome these, the sound is well above its pay grade. The Zoom H5 coming soon, will likely become my one stop shop for most jobs, but it is nice to have options and backups.

I also have a Boya BY M1 LAV, which may be a handy problem solver. I prefer the sound of a boomed mic and the whole LAV thing does not appeal for my work flow. For $14 it was pointless to ignore this one. The sound from this is more intimate (a LAV thing), with similar tones to the Rode or even the Zoom, but louder.

In my daily kit bag, the Rode is currently the “go anywhere” mic for on camera or short boom use outdoors and on the fly. This is partly due to the “safe”, if underwhelming sound (neutral and inoffensive, with good cut out of unwanted background noise), the build quality/size and its accessories, which are simply the best.

The other two go in my video bag (unless testing reveals a better matched pair) with the LAV and Zoom H1n and now H5. They share this space with a better Smallrig shock mount, several cables and other accessories and an 8 foot boom pole.

If working off camera outside, the Boya is my choice.

If booming indoors, the Neewer is the preferred one, unless I am chasing the deeper tones of the Boya. This gives me two ways of handling different people and environments. Having heard the Boya MM1 Pro, I think the Neewer and it are close.

Both go through the Zoom H1n or H5 as a pre-amp.

Theoretically I could twin boom these two as they are nearly the same gain, but with 2 X/Y Zoom mics, I doubt that would be necessary.

As a direct shotgun option, especially for music, the SSH-6 is the winner, but the little mics are a far more sensible choice for booming.

The Doughnut Hole

Looking at this years images, it seems to me, I have started to develop a hole in my style.

By this, I literally mean a hole.

I think video has helped me identify it, but at the end of the day, reviewing recent work has shown the issue out plainly and clearly.

I currently shoot wide, wider than I have previously, mostly for establishing or context shots, then switch to close detail/portrait style to champion individual people or achievement.

My favoured shooting style for street photography and to be honest my personal photographic holy grail, is juggling multiple elements in the middle distance. The work of Sam Abell, Daniel Cox, Jan Meissner, most of the documentary style Nat Geo shooters past and present and the early street masters like Haas, Herzog and Leiter were all experts at layering their images with context and meaning, all in their immediate vicinity.

Concentrating on details is a portraitist or sports shooters method of operation and wide shots are the landscapers stock in trade that I am using more and more. My missing element (in more ways than just this) is developing my street “eye”.

Does this mean I have let my most powerful, treasured, but not yet perfected tool go blunt? Am I regressing to older and almost forgotten techniques at the expense of my favoured one, the very one I spent over ten years obsessed with?

Single layered, but full of interaction.

For me, to get this ideal across I need to use depth as well as width to compose and let my viewer follow their own story in a three dimensional way. Shooting long and shallow compresses and overtly defines, shooting wide often defines nothing.

My intention is to hide, often in plain sight, elements of context and mystery for the viewer to discover and tell their own story from. To my way of thinking, this is the pinnacle of visual story telling, YMMV. If an image has three revelatory moments, I feel I have succeeded.

Is this a problem and do I need to fix it in this context? Work seem happy, but I regularly feel like I have “missed a trick”.

One thing that has helped disguise this habit, so possibly highlights my own lack of awareness, is that when I do submit a file with some story telling density, it is more often than not featured in the half dozen or so shots the school posts on its website, facebook etc, often chosen out of thirty odd submitted images, so other people are reacting to them.

Video will likely fix this habit for me anyway. The reality is, wide and long shots are nowhere near as common in video as middle ground shots are, so concentrating on video, especially storyboarding , which likely helped me stop this habit forming further. It may cure me and make me a better photographer generally.

Depth is the key.

The Great Mic Journey (or "Can You Hear Me Scream Yet?")

Mics.

What a minefield.

The first question you always need to ask your self when trying to fix a problem is, what is the actual problem.

In a lot of ways, mics are like lenses. Some cover wide areas, some are more focussed, some offer better reach and some are the “nifty fifty”, trying to do all things well enough. Also like modern lenses, they are capable of good results right from the get-go. The 2 for &65au Behringer C-02’s are great at their preferred job when used well. This does not in any way help! Best, better, good enough is hard to ascertain when you do not have much experience in the field.

This is fun really, as it has been a long time since I felt this way about still camera gear, so the passion to learn and explore is enflamed, along with the frustrations.

My problem with sound (as I see it) is; I need better large area/group performance including multiple subject interview or band practice options than I currently have. My remit at the school is mixed and for video, largely untried, so versatility without critical compromise is the key. The school has already thrown at me, in my very short video career, a singing comp with 4 groups of 80-100 students in a gym, an interview of 3 people plus interviewer in an untreated classroom and an outdoor, single person broadcast shoot. It is the indoor stuff in particular that I want improved.

A major consideration is the school has a library of Rode and Shure mics, with access through a separate body to many more. If I can tap into this, then great. It saves me from having to buy my own.

I am not expecting to produce premium grade videos with theatre level sound, but I am trying to avoid obviously amateurish results (poor lighting, reduced noise, solid sound, no echo or tinniness, bad camera settings etc).

The kit as of last month without the Boya M1 LAV and Boya/Movo MM1. Small scale, for my current needs, so do my capabilities already match my actual requirements? I want/need more because I want to do more.

Weapons at my disposal have been bought with a “best bangs for the buck” mentality*, but also fairly blindly and without proper prioritisation of purpose. The biggest issue has been, I may have not been asking the right questions when I supplied the answers. (all prices are in Australian $ and are only noted for comparison).

Phase 1

Upgrading my shotgun mics

We hybrid-ographers (a thing? not sure but it sounds right) almost always go down the shotgun mic path for vlogging or on-the-fly video. This is logical, but very limiting. Shotgun mics are not the fix-all we tend to think they are, They are specialist, pinpoint devices used when (1) you have to point a camera and mic combo at a subject, often from a distance while rejecting surrounding noise or (B) you want to boom a mic down to a single subject, again rejecting ambient noise. For the former, a bigger, longer mic is best, for the latter, anything decent will do depending on bridging the mic to subject distance (boom). I can do the latter, the former I am trying to avoid.

So, the journey started with shotgun mics, but the need for a better pre-amp was identified early on (Olympus pre-amps. like most camera brands are poor), so I grabbed the well respected little H1n field recorder (-112 db). This gave me the pre-amp I needed and an X/Y stereo mic option that I did not fully understand at the time. This mic makes all my cheap shotgun mics a lot better (when used properly). These combos can surprise me sometimes and the H1n is without a doubt the best starter mic out there. The reality is, personal subjectivity combined with user and application variations and good (or bad) post processing, do even the field out a lot.

Upgrading to a better shotgun mic seems to need at least a $300 investment or don’t even bother at all (so many comparisons, so many tests, so much variation in opinion!). It looked like either the Deity D3, which is a small, but real improvement on lesser shotgun mics or more realistically further up into a D3 Pro, Sennheiser MKE 600 or Rode NTG series. Still a shotgun, still specialised, which really only gives my current configuration the same options, just a bit better. For me this is a little like the sensor format war. Small increases have a diminishing benefit, meaning you have to really up your game to make any real difference.

Shotguns mics also have a few down sides directly tied to their strengths.

They are very directional, tend to exaggerate room echo because of a property of their rejection tube and can pick up rear noise quite easily (not side though) which is common in my work environment (50 kids in front, 400 behind!). If you want decent reach and directional control outdoors, or maybe a studio boom mic, then they are ideal, otherwise they can be a bit of a trap.

Phase 2

Not just a shotgun mic

The Zoom H2n is tempting, as it gives a choice of X/Y, Middle/side (focusable) and 2 or 4 track omni directional in a compact package with 20hr twin AA endurance ($250). The noise floor is audible for field recording at -114db, but not general video, where it will be used. The price is a little prohibitive, because as versatile as it is, it lacks XLR inputs and the build quality of the H5 for only $100 saved. I may still need something else later which this largely prohibits. Last consideration is the placement of the mic if boomed high, which prohibits easy monitoring (one screen, but two mic directions).

The Roland P-07 popped up for a while with its quiet pre amps, bluetooth and A/B config, but very few audio samples and reports of poor bluetooth connectivity put me off for the price ($270).

Upgrading to the Zoom H5 ($370) with the same amps as the H6, adds plenty of versatility, seriously good build quality, and it has better X/Y sound when used directly than either the H1n or H2n. It will not greatly improve feeder mic quality that much over the H1n (which excels for its price), but can take 2-4 XLR mics. It can also take the other capsules (SSH-6 M-D shotgun), to be as versatile as, but more specialised than, the H2n and the SSH-6 is comparable to a $300 shotgun mic. In a series of comparison tests, the sound is deeper and more resonant than the H1/H2n’s and the noise floor (-120db) is audibly lower.

The H5 is a solid B+ in all areas, beaten out by more specialist kit**, but very capable at most things and an industry standard.

Too much for my needs or an ideal hub?

Its biggest issue is size. Putting it up high or on an arm is a push and I cannot adjust it from there, so feeder mics only (H1n/Neewer). It likely is an issue for hand held camera mounting (again H1n), so it would be a static interview or performance mic option only.

The base X/Y stereo capsule is very good and is slightly shock mounted. In comparisons, the H6 sound is ever so slightly deeper, which could be its different X/Y capsule (available separately), but the difference is well within the post processing envelope and only noticeable in direct control comparisons. The Mid-side stereo mic that comes with the H6 does not appeal, so at $520, it is overkill (even though the extra mic technically makes the H5 and 6 the same price). If it came with the SGH or SSH-6 shotgun capsule, then I would go that way. If I need more XLR inputs, I may later get the bulkier H6 or an F series, with the other mic options.

Ok, so how could I just control mics with a better pre-amp, without the extras I may not need?

Phase 3

XLR capable interface units

I looked first at the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 ($250) and Presound 24c ($270), both well respected interface amps, but they have one fatal flaw. They need to run from and through a computer and they can be picky. I pride myself on not needing to carry my lap top around, so no thanks, especially in a crowded hall with stills to take (I do not want to be that guy who is held up by “technical” issues or hears his laptop hit the decked concert).

However,

Googling “portable mic to camera interface” bought up a whole class of things I had missed before. The self powered, camera centric, XLR pre-amp interface.

The top contenders are the Juicedlink RM222 (sadly out of production), the Chinese made Saramonic group (several) and Beachtek. As an example of their utility, the Saramonic SLAX107 or Beachtek Mini can bolt on to the base of a camera, the smaller SPAX1 can clip on top. These offer 1-2 XLR and 1-3, 3.5 mic input options meaning multiple balanced LAV, pencil, condenser or shotgun mics sent directly through to the camera.

The Saramonics get wide praise, but have a twitchy nature QC wise. Their range is extensive with several 2 XLR options ranging from $100-220, all seeming to offer similar sound, but more knobs and switches as they get dearer.

The Beachtek are more reliable, but up to twice the price of Saramonics, so an H5 starts to look good again.

The Juicedlink 222’s are the most sought after (price ?), but the company seems to be semi shut down, so none around.

If I go this way or the H5, then mics are many and varied.

Phase 4

Matched small density condensers or pencil mics

Using the above with twin pencil mics gets me to multiple single locations, or X/Y, A/B or ORTF configurations. The main issue with these is getting any clear info on their utility for general use, especially vocals. Rode had a useful set of videos showing M5’s being used for a choir, a string a quartet and other situations, but that is really it (apparently Enya likes pencil mics for their intimate fidelity).

Contenders are the Lewitt LCT 040 ($270/pair), which are universally praised for music use, the versatile 3 capsule Neewer NW 410’s ($110/pair) which are again much praised, but have a recent thread of faulty units coming through (several Australian reviews, this year on Amazon complaining of only 1 working) and the Rode M5’s ($200/pair), that sit mid-way in all respects. I also thought of 2 sets of Behringer C-2’s for $170 all up, for maximum coverage and pair matching. It is possible to get the Saraminc SPAX1 and the Neewers for $250 all done ($300 with cables), but the Saramonic SRAX 107 with the Lewitts ($500) is more likely.

These are small and would give me versatile and very high quality sound, with minimal fuss. The units fit on camera and the mics are often twinned on a stand or boom. If used separately, they give uncoloured vocals in a standard cardioid pattern (as well as hyper cardioid or omni with the Neewer), reducing room echo compared to a shotgun and easy placement height and dispersion (the Lewitts are 44g each).

Opinions are however split on the versatility of pencil mics compared to wider diaphragm condensers.

Phase 5

Wide diaphragm condensers

If you google “voice recording mics”, what usually comes up is “wide diaphragm condensers are best”. This is fine, but for multiple subject/wide direction recording, they need some help, which their price and size may prohibit. They are also usually configured for indoor studio use and to be used individually.

The Rode NT1 was the only real contender here at $300au. So needing an interface and likely more mics the price has pushed this one out.

The other element here is the wide variety of condenser mics (mostly Rode and Shure) at the school, most likely on hand at any event I will need them.

Phase 6

Back to direct camera mics

Some time around here I came across the Rode Stereo Video Mic X ($700). This looks like an improvement on the H5, but things are starting to get out of control.

Back to shotguns?

Nearly, but no.

I want something more versatile and genuinely different to “just another shotgun mic”, which I have. A salesman in the shop I used to work in said yesterday “just use what everyone else is using (NTG)”, which for me, opened up a desire not to follow everyone else, but look at the huge potential of alternative directions.

The Movo/Boya situated close to my subject can “fake” the big mic sound, another LAV maybe also. Another of each/either could likely fix things well enough and save me hundreds of dollars.

A mic on camera is certainly the easiest option, but the Zoom can pre-amp up to a level just under a specialist bit of gear, so my return on investment is sound.

Phase 7

Decision

I will admit to nearly being stumped at this point, but a good nights sleep and it is a little clearer.

The answer is as simple as a Zoom H5.

My gut tells me, the simplest answer will suffice for my specific needs (H5). My heart yearns for the twin Lewitt pencil mics for maximum options, but for now, the H5 with the extra SSH-6 capsule will do.

The H5 keeps coming up with answers, except for its size, but I guess that is what the already owned H1n is for (and I hate redundancy).

An XLR interface will be sensible, because the school has a wide range of XLR mics at hand, so I can just plug in to that network.

The Zoom H5 lets me keep my options open.

It can upgrade and duplicate my X/Y recording, allow for 2 XLR mics (4 with a module), which can be used with the units capsule (twin pencil overheads with shotgun main). It has quieter pre-amps than the H1n (-120db vs -112db), a mid/side shotgun option as well as speaking the same menu “language” as the H1n. The H1n, which is no slouch, can then be the interviewers mic (feeding to the H5), the on the go camera rig pre-amp or a separate recorder for backup or discreet placement. Two areas the H1 and H5 compare well are as short range voice recorders and pre-amps. There are tonal differences, but not huge ones, so they can work in tandem (a bit like my OSMO and G9 will).

The H5 will allow room for another cheap matched shotgun, or some cheap pencils right now, but my gut says, see what I can do now with what I have and build as needed. I will predict that maybe a Rode NT1 condenser and Lewitt LCT 040 pencils would pair well, or maybe the school will loan me a pair M5’s or a Shure 27B.

So I have flexibility, strong functionality as is and practicality.

*Zoom H1n as an X/Y area mic or pre-amp for my Boya MM1, Neewer CM 14, Rode video micro mini shotguns and a Boya M1 LAV.

**The Rode Stereo Video mic X is a better X/Y mic, The Sony D100 a better field recorder, the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 is a better interface to a computer, the Saramonic SLAX107, SPAX 1 or 2, Juicedlink RM222 or the Beachkit micro are better direct camera interfaces, but the H5 sits on the step just below.

***Multiple configurations, multiple mics, multiple recording platforms, multiple character combinations. I could do a M/S main mic or twin shotguns for a choir, with a shotgun used for the soloist, or a main mic for a band, a shotgun on a guitar soloist and an overhead for the drums, or an omni mic for a debate and shotgun for the presenter etc. Nothing is top tier, but a deep kit with tons of problem solving potential.

Pre-visualisation And Faith

Ansel Adams was a great advocate for, and master of the technique of pre-visualisation. This allowed him to “see” the final negative and printed image in his mind and the various steps he would need to go through to get there.

This was a powerful tool for he and others of his generation(s), because shooting mono in a colour world, required the ability to visualise the processes required , rather than responding only to what was on the ground glass in front of them.

As I understand it, Adams could see all of the processes used in making a print in his minds eye, applying them “virtually” to the scene and predict the end print. I am sure this had a failure rate and he admitted himself that mistakes were regularly made, but overall, he was a pre-computer, computer for the photographic process.

I can make no such claim.

Sometimes the subject and light are known elements, but often you have to shoot and take what was in your minds eye on faith. Mirrorless cameras suit me fine and I would only go back if forced.

I and I assume most of us, shoot on faith. Not faith that everything I do will work how I want, just faith that by composing, applying decent technique and believing that my gear will allow a reasonable amount of processing flexibility.

This does have a hidden benefit.

I am not immune to the excitement of re-discovery and the dual benefit of shooting quickly and without too much thought to technical issues. The freedom to just get the job done, with some applied technique is the core of good photography and the longer you do it, the better you get at doing just that.

How about you? Do you shoot within a control envelope that guarantees results, or do you go more freeform and take what you get?

A Little Story Of Internet Research And Good Intentions

The Neewer Gimbal was a bit tricky to balance and starting with the wrong (helpful, but misguided) tutorial video did not help. I am eternally grateful to all the posters out there who make life easier for us all, but you still do have to be careful who you listen to.

I tend to prefer blog posts by women bloggers, as they are generally more realistic, less about ego and more to the point.

Well mostly.

With the Neewer gimbal, I watched a 22 minute long vlog post, that was very easy going and friendly viewing, but left me with a slight feeling of helplessness. The trick to balancing the gimbal, as I understood it from this video (which to be fair had a disclaimer at the end of something like “this is how we do it, please let us know if you know better”), was to;

1. Get the “drop” right, which is to say, use the right weights and stem length so that the gimbal, when held parallel, drops to straight in about 1.5 to 2.5 seconds. Too quick and it will “pendulum”. Too slow and it will have little incentive to regain its horizontal alignment when taken off of it. At about 2 seconds, it will allow reasonably fast movement to right itself, but not fast enough to want to swing when ever it is moved quickly….usually.

2. Once the drop is right, get the camera sitting straight by shifting it left/right or backward/forward using the base plate adjustments (this is the problematic bit).

3. You can also adjust the foot weights to fix front back unevenness.

4. Continue to adjust all of these until you are stable and the gimbal can be picked up from its sitting position without any discernible lean in any direction.

This took them about ten or more minutes to do and they (and I) found that when the drop test was completed, the camera tended to rotate. Mine usually went back and to the left, but when it settled, it did sit straight. the problem was, if balance needed to be re-adjusted, the same process had to be repeated over and over.

Ok I thought, such is life and off I went to my job with a well adjusted gimbal.

By the time I got to work (a short walk), the rig needed a slight adjustment and this took, as expected quite a while, with many, many micro shifts. I actually shot some footage, holding the handle of the gimbal at a slight angle to straighten it as I went. Not ideal, but it worked just enough to get the job done.

Later, I watched another tutorial about gimbal use, not brand specific or even about set up, just a general gimbal tutorial aimed at any user looking for tips and tricks for their best applications and one for people who it was assumed had their gimbals sorted. During the intro the magic words “centre of balance” were uttered and alarm bells started to ring loudly.

The video was dry, a little “masculine” and quite short at 5 mins, but it sure was to the point. I revisited my processes, starting with the pre mounting step of finding the cameras centre of balance, marking it on the plate and matching that with the little arrow on the gimbals top plate centre. I had missed this before. This is located directly over the gimbals stem.

Guess what?

The whole process was much easier and more consistent. It took roughly as long as the video, which ironically matched how long the other video and its process took in tandem. I also noticed that the drop test did not result in any rolling, the camera just settled straight and stayed that way.

The process is now;

1. Balance the camera and lens (!!!) on the base plate and mount it centred on the gimbal with the provided centre point marker.

2. Get the drop right, aiming for about a 2 second drop. As an aside, an EM1 with 8-18 or 12-40 only needs one of the smaller weights, front and back on the 24” Neewer carbon fibre gimbal.

3. Adjust the sliding base plate left/right to balance the camera and lens evenly.

4. Adjust the stem weights front and back to get forward and backward balance right if needed, but by centring the camera, this is basically sorted.

5. Done.

It seems that until the centre point is found, every adjustment tends to work against the next, making for a long and frustrating process of adjust, check, re-adjust, check, re-adjust check etc.

The moral of the story is, longer posts may not be the best option.

This is less important today than the other day as I have an Osmo Pocket coming, but it is still good to have options.

Eureka Moment

I was watching one of those really helpful videos the other day. The sort that put the icing on this already multi layered cake.

The video was entitled “make cheap cameras look cinematic”, cheap meaning DSLR or Mirrorless, not RED cameras.

It was about the third in a row from Mark Bone, who is really good at rubber-meets-the-road advice. All three points made sense;

1. use a handle-already ordered as it turns out and researching its use is how I found this vid,

2. use ambient light that will not over stretch your cameras dynamic range (don’t be afraid of the dark),

3. and finally use old lenses for their character.

Old lenses, like the huge array of old Canon, Contax, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Minolta and other glass that has passed through my hands over the last 30 years, but are now pretty much all gone.

With one exception.

I have finally found a use for the ancient Pen 25mm f2.8. Not only is this lens sharp, but wide open it has very little contrast (auto “flat” mode?), it’s almost hazy but sharpens up nicely. One stop down it is very sharp and the contrast comes back with that old lens look (cool contrast and interesting Bokeh).

An actual aperture ring, good focus throw and a some decent heft. All good features for a cine lens. The Pen F will have to make do.

Unique Bokeh and beautiful colours. The swirls add to the pop of the in focus elements.

Funky flare wide open (quite well controlled stopped down) and some decent, but pleasant enough CA :).

Quite striking colour and contrast. This wall has slightly lighter and warmer colour in real life. The way the lens reacts to a modern Olympus sensor reminds me of Canon colour or Kodachrome 64 slide film. It will look different on the Pana, but that just gives me two palettes to work with. I am hoping that on the Pana it will take on a perfect balance, but if not, the EM1 I have used for video will be rigged out with this lens alone.

My lens kit for the new G9 is the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 (which has become less utilised with the arrival of the 8-18), the 17 f1.8 Olympus with its handy bokeh and again an older lens look, the character filled 45 f1.8 and the old 25. All of the lenses can be extended in video without quality loss.. Olympus lenses are also a good match for Panasonic sensors if you want a middle ground between cool/hard and warm/light colours.

The Osmo 1 comes with a 26mm f2 equivalent ideal for general use.

More than enough, probably too much.

The Infection

Well, I have an infection. Not COVID, but with a need to analyse every bit of moving footage I see.

After a period of video tech saturation, getting my head around what I have and what I need for capturing decent vision and sound (small time, but high on bang for the buck value), I have hit the next level of my learning curve.

Avoiding processing for the moment apart from some basic iMovie stuff, because I can (thanks to support from work), I am concentrating on only content gathering, but with a heightened awareness of the process and its requirements.

So I am infected.

The excellent videos from “Tomorrows Filmmaker” and “Studio Binder” have inspired me. I cannot now look at a film without “seeing” the elements that make it.

The film that inspired this post in particular is on as I write. It is the quirky and brilliant “Sometimes, Always, Never” by Carl Hooper.

The Drama of life, captured one way, soon to be captured another. I feel there is a direct link between stills to moving stock.

It starts with a beautiful shot using the rule of thirds and a very wide aspect ratio, then moves to an equally cool shot trucking across a “typical” British seaside scene, then to a clever two person medium shot using a three section bedroom mirror, on to a slightly surreal shot of a car driving through the countryside, that looked hyper real to the point of being deliberately fake, at odds with its surroundings in an old school, projected background way, then to a wide angle master shot sequence set in a moodily lit room populated by four people, deliberately placed and shot.

Straight down time lapse for eating and scrabble play, pull back master shots, creative use of the rule of thirds, lens angles, trucking across and creative use of framing, silhouettes, shadows, cut lighting, lots of depth, strong complimentary colours etc.

Lots of cool stuff and a great tool for beginners to play “spot the technique”.

There are plenty of examples all through the movie that are brilliant. Many break the rules at the right time and in the right way. There are elements of Amelie, anything Wes Anderson and other favourites.

What a little sleeper.

Is this curable, this inability to just watch, and not appreciate process, or analyse?

Do I want to be cured?

The thing that struck home the most to me is the “less is more” mantra. The best cinematography is rarely full of movements, jarring light or sound unless these are the creative elements. Less really is more. “Quality over quantity” is as relevant here as anywhere.

Something I have really noticed is how much I have not noticed.

Stressing my own movements and procedures, I am noticing that there is a lot more “roughage” in modern film making. “Loose” movement is a lot more common than I realised. An episode of Dr Who I am watching now (later), is almost completely shot in a smooth hand held style. I really doubt I would have specifically noticed that before.

Suddenly, I am watching films with different criteria, often films that I traditionally would avoid. While watching “Red Election”, I picked up on a thread of blue/yellow lighting contrast, a lot of deliberate camera movements on “Endeavour”, and in contrast, the relatively staid shooting techniques of older productions, due to most likely to technical limitations.

I could not even watch an add for the New South Wales tourist board without counting the movements and transitions used.

The rules that come home to me time and again are;

• Plan.

• Decide on your shot type, framing and aspect ratio.

• Use movements, lighting, depth of field, lens perspective, colour, tone and angles well, but creatively.

• Establish expectations from the beginning.

• Be controlled and clear in your work.

• Create a style to call your own. A signature for consistency.

• Avoid those things that break the “fourth wall”, (unless that is what you are going for of course), so no aggressive zooming, focus shifts, or uncontrolled shake.

• Pay attention to all the elements of movie making, which include the above, then editing and sound. They are all connected. None will save you is even one is off. You don’t have to be good at all of them, just aware of them and get them achieved through others if needed.

Sure there are law breakers out there, but I will guarantee, they earned the right, by doing things well before they pulled them apart, a bit like jazz.

I am not a pro, nor will I ever be in this world of wonder, but striving for the best results, just like with my more comfortable stills shooting, will get you the best result you can achieve at that time. Trying to achieve less will diminish everything.

Video Prioritised Better Or Too Much?

Video.

Crunch time is coming.

The Osmo gave me a good increase in my video capabilities and to be honest, it is enough to do many things, but as a primary video camera, I am re-purposing one of my EM1’s for the task.

A full re-purpose is required, because trying to set an EM1 for video and stills is problematic. It can be done, but to be honest it is a pain, so it is either all in or go home.

Having one EM1 out of action is ok, as long as my camera stable is all good as is. If I need a backup or simply want a better camera in my day bag*, then I have to reset this one to its preferred job, then back again.

There are other issues also, which speak more to the EM1s limitations as a video camera.

For stills, I could not ask for better, but for video, I have felt a little stretched.

The EM1’s have good to very good quality 4k/30p and excellent stabilisation, but there are a few things that could be better. Their LOG is poor so you are limited to FLAT profile. They cannot do 4k/60p, their 1080p is a little less than exciting and their files are annoyingly split into multiple segments in processing.

I prefer the warmer Panasonic video colour for most jobs (social media), their cameras are true hybrids, when they are not genuine video cameras that is.

My crush at the moment is the very stable and empowered veteran, the G9.

Originally launched four years ago as a still camera hybrid, as opposed to the GH line that are video camera hybrids, the G9 has had some serious love recently . It received an almost unprecedented firmware upgrade, giving it much of the GH5’s video capabilities, especially for a semi regular, semi pro user like me. It can now genuinely be called a true hybrid.

It started life a level level above the EM1 in video so the firmware puts it well ahead and many of its eccentricities have been ironed out. It can be custom set for video use (3 sets), has a lossless x2 teleconverter making the Oly 12-40 effectively a 24-160 f2.8 FF equivalent, can shoot 4k/60p, 10 bit 4K/30p, 180 frame 1080p super slo-mo and better 1080p, can stream, record out to an external recorder (with no time limit) and be powered externally, which all add to it alsombeing a capable equivalent to the EM1 as a stills camera. With a paid firmware option, you can even add Wave form and a better LOG to its already impressive stats.

If you want it set up for video, but also useable as a stills camera, you can transfer a full set of still camera settings to a card and nearly instantly change its personality and back again.

It is the video-centric lean of all Panasonic cameras that shines through most. Focus, Zebras, custom settings, focus controls, twin high speed card slots are all better than the Olympus offer, so the EM1 can get back to its main job as a stills stalwart, but still be a capable video backup, especially for hand held work. It lacks a few top end GH5 features, shutter angle being particularly annoying, but near enough.

The other deciding factor is the colour. The Panasonic d-cinelike format matches the Osmo and the base colour is much closer than the Oly in Flat profile. The EM1 has very cool looking video, with a lean towards blue/green/magenta, the Pana and Osmo are warmer and brighter looking. To have good b-roll or alternate angles, with matching colour is helpful.

Is this too much for a very part time and still budding videographer or is it the perfect do all fix, for the price of a base model Oly or other mid range Pana (Black Friday sale $1100 au)? Even if I was only after a stills camera, the G9 is unsurpassed value, coming in at the current price of a lower-mid range EM10 IV or less than the 2 year old EM5 III.

Compared to its own brethren, there is the GH5, which is too dear and overkill for my needs, the G95 that crops its 4K/30p, but still at about the same price and is a lesser camera over all. The equally old G85, that is actually not that much cheaper and lacks a headphone port and 4K/60, but has a lens for the cheaper price. The capable little G100 was tempting, but size is not the issue, performance is.

The only others in the mix are the Sony RX10 IV, which is also too dear or the Black Magic Cinema Compact, but I am not too keen to dabble in that field, as I know nothing about them and again, they are dearer.

The G9 is untouched on its pedestal as the best value camera overall. If I go even further into video, it can be upgraded, used as the backup camera or a replacement stills shooter for an ageing Oly body.

There are also the added benefits of better AF for my 8-18 Leica and my employers 35-100 and compatibility with their DJI Gimbals, which do to play well with the EM1’s.

The negatives are few.

The battery is different, but big. The AF with Oly lenses is a bit hit or miss, but good enough as a stop gap and really irrelevant for video (I have the tracking ability of the Osmo and the Leica lens if needed). Another menu to learn adds to my current curve, but that is weighed against the many added options and a different menu on a video specific camera which probably makes more sense than adapting to a different way of using a camera I am also using for stills.

Not much else really.

A very small element is some future proofing. If Olympus withdraws from the race, I have started to make a gentle transition into Panasonic. If Pana starts to slip, I have a decent showing of their range.

I just pulled the trigger on one so there will be an imminent answer to all my hopes and concerns.

*My daily kit comprises an EM1 Mk2 (long lenses), EM10 Mk2 (short lenses) and EM5 Mk1 (fast prime lens). This combo is duplicated and regularly rotated with each model doing its own job well.

The EM1 has the tracking speed needed for a tele, the EM10 has the flip up screen and plenty of touch focus speed that works well for wide angle use and the EM5’s take good honest portrait images and seem to handle artificial indoor lighting better than the newer cameras (the RAW files seem less confused by the schools lighting mix in C1).

I also have a Pen mini and Pen F as backups to the above, for personal use and the EM1x is reserved for action based events. If the EM5’s die, the Pen F will do that job.

Budget Tools For The Budding Film Maker

I have done a lot of research lately.

This is usually fun for me, but only when my interest is piqued or focussed on the subject at hand, which is videography. Because it is new to me technically and inspirationally it has never felt like hard work. I am far too excited for that, but it has felt pretty full on, so clear wins are grabbed with both hands.

The tools I have discovered in my research have been accumulating slowly but surely and I feel it is time now to look at what the part time or beginner film maker needs to look at and some ways of addressing them.

Video (obviously).

Picture or footage is obviously important. It is not the only element, but without video you have no….video, so we don’t have any reason to be here.

First up, you need at least one decent video camera (DSLR/mirrorless, or 4K video camera etc) and preferably another option as backup or for other angles (phone, older camera). If these match in colour and settings, life will be easier, but use what you have.

My tools of choice are an Olympus EM1 mk2 (I have one specifically allocated to video), and the Osmo Pocket mk1, which allows me to always have a video camera with me. The EM1x and my other EM1 mk2 are also set up for video (back thumb dial to 2) while shooting stills as the hand held option for secondary angles etc. These are going to be used in 4K at 24 frames (and 1/48th) or 60fps for the Osmo, even though my client/employer rarely needs anything more than 720 U-Tube quality for social media.

Paying attention to some basic rules is important.

Video and composition;

• Use the 180 degree rule (shutter speed set at 2x frame rate) to give you the best quality footage.

• Use All-i compression over IPB for quality. It is less necessary if there is not much movement in a shot, but if you can and have the space, use it for file quality.

• Shoot in LOG or Flat colour profile if you intend to post process/colour grade your work.

• 24fps is the most natural looking and the industry standard, but 60fps allows for natural slow motion, helps in brighter light and smooths out fast action.

• Be aware of the rule of thirds to use it either correctly or creatively and know why you are breaking the rules.

• Keep movements to a minimum and make them as smooth and deliberate as possible. Buy the right accessories for the right job.

• Natural movements are; Panning, tilting, pushing in, pulling out , tracking/trucking, camera rolls, static camera, arcing and booming. These will all feel and look right.

• Unnatural movements are; zooming, focus racking, hand holding without stabilisers. These all add a feeling of tension, but are less natural looking and show the process, so use them deliberately for effect only.

• Plan and justify (make sense of) movements, be they at the camera end or the subjects.

I have a decent tripod with a smooth video head for pan and tllt, a 120cm rail for sideways and angled tracking/trucking and push in-pull out moves, a gimbal for hand holding the Olympus, but also the Osmo for proper gimbal work, because the Neewer-Oly rig takes some practice and is heavy.

Lighting;

• Always shoot towards the shadow side of a face.

• Control light whenever possible. Use cool blue/green backgrounds contrasted with warm main or rim lights for best effect.

• Always “justify” your light (make it make sense) and balance it, making it look natural.

• Lean towards less light not more.

I have a basic 3 light kit. The 660 bi-colour Neewer LED is my main or key light, often diffused behind a screen or through a diffuser cloth. The 480 RGB light adds colour contrast to backgrounds (usually cooler) and the little 176 LED is my hair or warm balance light. They all run off the same batteries or ac power. More small lights would help make backgrounds interesting.

Sound:

Sound is more important to get right than video. Poor sound kills good video, but mediocre video can survive with good sound.

• Employ the right mic for the job. It is not necessary to get a handle on the cardioid patterns of various mics, just apply the right mic to the job. Shotgun mics are good for aiming at single people from a camera or even better a boom. LAV mics are best for distances or multiple people mic-ed up separately, wide area stereo mics are best for performances etc.

• Control your environment. Echoes need to be avoided or mitigated which is often as easy as a soft blanket hung off a stand or placed on the floor. Avoid large indoor spaces like gyms for best sound.

• Get you mic as close to the subject as possible, especially if the environment is poor.

My gear consists of the Zoom H1n for area capture and as a pre amp between another mic and camera (which makes all other mics better) and allows for separate sound recording to camera, the Rode Video Micro, Boya MM1 (same as the Mono version) and Neewer CM-14 shotguns (they each sound and act slightly different and are cheap enough to collect for depth), a Boya BY-M1 LAV, which can run through or from the Zoom (I intend to add another LAV and a splitter).

The core of my kit (aside from the EM1) and a good basic video kit for anyone. The Osmo offers pro level 4k 60p with a real gimbal (and a big screen with a phone attached). The Zoom is a hugely versatile device as either a pro level area/interview/boom mic or a pre-amp for other mics (because camera pre-amps generally suck) and the Neewer is the best mini shotgun mic for the money (or possibly any money). The three (and the Boya BY-M1 LAV, Boya MM1 mics not pictured cost me under $600 au. This is a serious little Vloger or indie film makers kit.

These are not the writings of a long term veteran in this field, rather the result of a pretty intense six months of transition from long time stills to part time video shooter. Still photography is a good platform for any videographer, but I have actually found that learning video has helped my still shooting as much if not more.

I hope my time spent researching and my very basic summation of what I have learned is of help.

Neewer and DJI, The Video Problem Solvers

I have written before about my brand selections and the reasons for, but here is a recap.

Olympus is my camera brand of choice. I like the M43 format and will give Panasonic their due, but in the end, Olympus has an edge for me and my way of working. Lenses are less set in stone, but I still have a majority of Oly glass.

Random image with nowhere else to be. Plovers really are odd looking birds.

Domke wins overall with bags, but the collection is pretty diverse and lately my Filsons have been getting a good go.

I use Macs.

Capture 1 with ON1 No Noise have replaced Adobe for processing.

I have a brace of Yong Nuo flash units for my portable studio, but also use Godox as my TTL units. I could easily use either exclusively and get great results from both. YN’s tend to be cheaper and are very tough, Godox though are slightly ahead with “smarts”, but there is really not much between them. If I need heavier duty flash I will get a YN 200 or Godox AD200 open bulb strobe.

Neewer however has become my go-to for all things accessory as they seem to be, time and again, the best and most consistent cheaper option in areas where cheap is not always guaranteed. I am in no way sponsored by them or any other brand mentioned here.

I just purchased a 120cm slider (aluminium), to add to my video options. This goes with my non-motorised Gimbal, video pan head, ball head, numerous light stands, a C-Stand, light mods, a wheeled tripod dolly, mini shotgun mic and several LED lights.

It is hard to state how good these all are for the cost. I have rarely paid more than a quarter of the cost a different (better/dearer) brand item and sticking to Neewer seems to guarantee a base level of quality that avoids the rubbish end. Nothing I have bought so far has fallen short of my realistic, but serious users expectations.

This means in real terms I can try things that may work for me or not, take my wins and consign my losses to the experience bin without much pain. Either way, the trip has been fun.

The 2.6m steel light stands, 3m+ C-Stand, 660 and 480 LED panels, CN-14 mic, heads and various modifiers have all been winners.

The Gimbal is still a work in progress, but I have not given up as I have not really given it a fair go until recently, where it performed as well as could be expected given my lack of practice. Even if it does not work as I need, the plate is universal and worth a third of the unit’s value and it can be used as a decent stabilising monopod for stills. The Osmo (see below) will add much to my options, but there will be times when the Gimbal will be the other option.

The slider is probably a fringe item in reality, but at $70 au, I am sure I can find a use for it, even if it is just as a large and versatile table tripod. The reality is, if you have access to something, it gets used and expands your creative thinking which is generally considered to be better than useless speculation.

In total, my capabilities have extend to a dolly mounted tripod with a fluid head, a Gimbal and a Slider along with the Olympus legendary near-Gimbal like stabiliser capabilities and as of today an Osmo Pocket for even better Gimbal shooting. I want to avoid MS-1 (sensor and digital stabilising) as it crops and I feel drops quality slightly. MS-2 (sensor shift only) is the go and looks like it plays nicely with other stabilisers.

To be honest, I am still learning here, but a recent event showed me a huge difference in quality between some tripod mounted footage I shot and a colleagues hand held footage with identical kit. There may have been other elements at work such as careful manual exposure, a static spot avoiding flare, to adhering to the 180 rule etc, but I feel the tripod and generally less going at the camera end may have been the difference.

Like most things, old and well tested methods, mixed with the best of new tech are where the true balance lies. Tripods, a tool I always push for still shooting, even though I have a tendency lately to not take my own advice, are really the first and often best call for video users.

Sliders and dollies add to a tripods versatility, expanding their usefulness exponentially. Gimbals are all the rage at the moment, but they cannot do everything as well as these other tools. They are just one option. The main thing with any tool is, if you are going to use one, do it well and keep it proportionate and relevant.

One of the best ways of ruining footage when starting out (and stills for the matter) is to make it too busy and loose. A Tripod makes a stills shooter take their time and think before shooting and has exactly the same effect for video. It does not matter what techniques you use, a little thought and planning makes a huge difference and consistency or repeatability comes from control.

I have been asked to do some footage and stills of the school art exam exhibition as an introductory video for the end of year celebration. The common go-to and what was done previously, is to simply do a Gimbal walk through which is great for context, but not enough on its own. I intend to explore anything I can to up that so I started working on ways of making static subjects less static.

A walk through will still be used as an establishment shot, but I will also use a tripod and dolly for these rather than going totally free hand. This will be supplemented by, focus and zoom shifts and panning, mixed with stills as stepped zoom-ins some with rolling twists (edgy!), more stills then some footage with focus and zoom transitions etc. So far after some quick research I have over 20 options to look in to. Fun. The slider will not come in time, but this job is the catalyst for its purchase and will pay for it.

*

ed. After the job a review has revealed the following;

Some things need to be done repeatedly to get them right, even by the pros.

The Gimbal, when balanced well is fine for what I need. A DJI Osmo Pocket is an option to this that I have just bought, as gimbals in general have many considerations that need to be looked at, like weight, size and practicality. You may technically be able to run with a heavy, gimballed camera, but should you?

Follow an idea through, or drop it if its not a goer. Don’t be precious, try lots of techniques, keep what works and keep exploring forward.

Speed is all. Practice and experiment. Some movements are better slow (60 fps or higher allows for slow-motion also which looks great and smooths out movement “jitters”), while some are better fast or time lapsed.

As a side note, I am still a little amazed how much good information there is out there for budding photographers, videographers and sound techs. Seriously, there is just so much and it is often very good and free. I first noticed this with studio lighting, then video settings, mics and now cinematography and story boarding.

I cannot claim to be adding much more than opinion as I share my journey, but I intent to contribute as much as possible, because sharing is learning.

*

*The OSMO Pocket has been ordered, because, even if I get quite good at using the Neewer Gimbal, I cannot just “pop” it in to my bag just in case. I have to have a clutch of reasons for buying new gear at the moment and the Osmo (1) has provided a solution to enough to justify its purchase.

• It provides a Gimbal of no small ability, fully integrated with its camera.

• It provides a dedicated video camera with no recoding limit (2hrs of 4k approximately with a full batt).

• It is small and compact allowing me to pack it in my day bag (with the Zoom 1 mic) “just in case”. Using an OMD as my video camera is problematic as changing from one to the other is not seamless and accessories (Gimbal, rail, tripod, dedicated camera) are prohibitively cumbersome without an emphasis on video as the job. This effectively deepens both my stills and video kits.

  I went with the older Pocket 1 over the 2 because of price, a better general purpose lens (26mm not 20mm), a better case design and overall stability of functionality (the 2 has some firmware releases needed to be perfected, improving tracking and wi-fi performance). I have ordered a cheap silicon outer case for better weather sealing and storage.

Birding Proficiency Surprise

I am not a birder, as stated before, but like a lot of photographers with a big lens at hand, birding calls as the occasion arises.

On a recent school camp, I had a lot of time on the beach waiting for things to happen out on the water, so birds became my distraction. I did not set any special settings (I have a 1x4 and 5x1 config set in the EM1x, but this was the EM1 mk 2), just pointed and shot.

I started off well enough. This shot was the best framed of several in a sequence.

My first subjects were seagulls floating on the fairly strong breeze, so not too hard.

These guys were a different story, very fast and low, making the background messy enough to increase the likelihood of back focus misses, but on the whole I had few problems.

I had plenty of time to practice as the kids paddled against a strong current to a small island off shore and back again. I was pretty happy with the results and with a little confidence and luck I started to assume rather than hope.

This is slightly cropped, but only slightly and this one was going with the breeze. The 300 f4 and (any) EM1 have surprised again. Hand holding a 600mm equivalent for long periods is unrealistic with a full frame rig, but I managed this for over an hour comfortably.

One thing I really enjoy with my current job is the variety it offers and there is no doubt I am more confident trying almost any type of imaging. My day may comprise of a quick student portrait, then a group, maybe studio ID shot, class sit in, sport (any type), promo image for an event and then a ball that evening (and has). This requires not only a lot of gear and familiarity with it, but the ability to don a different creative hat and wear it confidently.

Success at a little impromptu birding is a happy side effect of becoming a generally more capable photographer who is growing into various roles.

Feeling The Power Or A Year In Retrospect

So a working year is coming to it’s head with the TCE students leaving for exams last week. There is more to the year, but the TCE’s leaving really sets the tone for the end of year countdown. The count for submitted images so far this year is about 15-20,000 with 3-4 times as many taken overall.

What has changed, what has gone out and what has grown?

I gave video a go.

Not claiming to have any skills with processing (yet), my focus has been on video and sound capture only. Things have been going ok, but sometimes the “two hats” needed for stills and video are a stretch. It is genuinely hard to think differently at the same time and Olympus cameras are not ideally set-up for video-stills changes on the fly. I may address that with a dedicated camera or simply carry an extra model as needed (my issue here is a lack of microphone supporting models outside the EM1’s).

I have enjoyed learning the ins and outs of sound/mics, the formats and benefits of my chosen brand over others (awesome stabilisers and AF), but do need to shoot more for my own processing, when I get the hang of a programme that is.

For mics, the Neewer CN-14 mic wins best bang by a mile, edging out the more expensive Rode video-mic micro as a boom mic and the Zoom H1n best overall sound and versatility (awesome pre amp), but I will admit to grudging respect for the little Rode video-mic, the one I did not intend to buy (and it has the best accessories).

High ISO processing and processing in general.

Well Adobe is gone. Never thought I would say that, much less actually do it, but no regrets on any level. Never much of a Photoshop user, Lightroom seemed rudimentary in the extreme compared to Capture 1 on so many levels. Anytime I got the jitters, a quick trip back to Adobe reassured me I had done the right thing.

ON1 RAW, DXO and a few others were contenders for a while also, but for base image quality, ease of processing for bulk jobs and features, Capture 1 won out with a little help from ON1 No Noise for more useable ISO 6400-12800 (!) files. I am being unkind here really. For “useable” read frikkin’ awesome, game-changing files.

Seriously, clean and sharp ISO 12,800 from M43 at decent sizes! After Adobe, I sometimes feel like I “upgraded” to full frame and forgot to tell myself.

Cameras and Lenses.

The EM1x continues to impress. I feel an almost empathic connection to this camera, but to their credit, the older EM1 mk2’s, especially with the firmware update are a hair behind. I always use these for long lenses and focus tracking. For shorter lenses I find flip-up touch screen focus more useful so the EM10/5’s are better.

My EM10’s, or my “shutter savers” are doing more work than you would expect. They have their limitations professionally, but when used with wider lenses and touch focus, they never miss a beat. For some reason, the silver EM10 seems to thrive as a studio camera, so it is always the first one asked “to the ball”.

The old EM5 mk1’s are flagging, two having fallen away (banding and shutter issues), but the other two are still trust-worthy and the original batteries are still good after 7-10 years each! If a job requires a second or third camera, especially one that may get damaged, I will always take one along. You will often find the “filler” 25mm on this.

The Pen F and Pen Mini are kept just for my own use.

For video, I am tempted to get a Panasonic (G100, G95 or G9 on clearance). This will give me more depth, better AF on the 8-18 and a video specialist (mostly set-up, not results). Optionally, another Oly with mic jack (EM5 mk3 or EM1 mk2 on clearance) or to replace the EM1 mk2 I have set up now as a stills camera (EM10 mk4, EM1 mk3).

The 300mm Pro leaves me speechless regularly. Anything I point it at takes on that premium tele look, usually reserved for lenses many times it’s price. I am not as impressed with the AF using the 1.4 TC, but IQ is still optimal. A recent shoot at a yr6 beach/water camp sometimes felt like a high end commercial shoot.

The 25, 45 and 75 primes are my go to portrait lenses. Each has it’s own qualities, making the actual focal length less important than the individual lens’s character. The 25 gets the most use as the “filler” between the 8-18 and 40-150 with lovely smooth separation at a practical focal length, the 45 is my bigger Bokeh lens with more crunchy character and the 75 adds a bit of that big lens feel, like the 300mm.

The 40-150 Pro seems brighter than it says on the barrel with excellent micro contrast, making it the poor light king even though I have faster glass. The Bokeh is iffy with busy backgrounds, but being aware of that, I use another lens when that is important (75). This lens loves the tele-converter. So much so, sometimes I forget it’s on for long periods.

The 12-40 is still a consistent giver and my favourite video lens unless cropping is an issue (the stronger stabiliser option crops heavily). I am switching more and more to tripod+dolly or gimbal for transitions to reduce stabiliser issues.

The 8-18 Leica has that special something and is a joy to use. It also turns out it is tough, surviving a drop the other day (saving the EM10 mk2 it was mounted on). I am surprised how often I use the wider end, but I try not to over do it as super wide distortion is no friend to people, just places. It also crops to a nice range in highly stabilised video.

The 17mm has become a capable close quarters shooter. A favourite combo is mounted to the little Pen mini on a long cross-body strap. It’s fire engine red and at a good height for kids so acts as both a distraction and capable snap shooter. This lens is ear marked for video also as its Bokeh and MF application are ideal.

Bags.

I am still struggling to find the perfect bag, but most of the time the Domke F802 wins out. It holds everything and does it with integrity after two plus years of solid use. The optional pockets are rarely needed, but the capacity they add is immense (and potentially back breaking).

Attempts to use a “nicer” looking bag have had mixed results. The Filson Camera Field Bag has a very annoying tendency to sag when over loaded, the regular Field Bag has poor external pockets for photography and the flap is a little big, but I still prefer it to the CFB. The CFB is now relegated to personal use or very light jobs. The CFB may benefit from a semi rigid insert like the Domke has.

The new little $50 au Crumpler is a winner, if small, carrying as much as the CFB in practical terms.

The big Neewer backpack is great at it’s designed purpose (massed haulage) and is now my video bag, the love-hate relationship I have with the Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 goes on. It never ceases to surprise me how often I use the PT 350. Recently I discovered how much better it is with the inserts from the Neewer!

The Think Tank Turnstyle 10 is the best long day sports bag as long as it holds everything needed.

Lighting.

One day I will find out just what these are capable of. So far, no job has needed more than 2-3 at most.

My Yongnuo mini studio has not yet been pushed to capacity. For a recent board of directors portrait I used three into a 72” brolly for a group of 12 (roughly 8-12 foot distance to subjects), but still ended up at ISO 400, f2.8 and 1/128th, so near bottomless grunt to tap there (one of the benefits of M43 depth of field). Eneloop pro batts have totally changed the way I look at my flash units. I cannot remember the last time I charged any.

The lithium powered Godox 860 has been my day bag work horse and has been a boon for bright light fill (high speed sync). The 685 is nearly as grunty with Eneloop batts, but is rarely needed. TTL is handy when moving fast.

Still struggling to come up with an ideal way to transport my studio rig in a single trip (long stands being the main issue). Golf bag trollies, tool chests on wheels and a few other ideas have been floated, but at this point a long Neewer bag strapped onto a utility trolly is working well enough. The reality is, portable and studio are not perfectly compatible ideas.

The LED lights have come into their own with video in the picture, although I am yet to use them regularly. They still get a go as rim lights. The reality is, strobes kill them for grunt, but they have their uses. Earlier this year I used one at the yr10 ball to help with warm fill and focus. A single flash and brolly did the main job, but the LED made it sooo much easier.

*

The low light safety/Bokeh king 75mm has dropped away lately, allowing me to mount the 25 on a body, but I sometimes throw in a 45mm just for the Bokeh. The sunglasses case is my emergency kit of cards, batteries etc. I have also dropped the optional end pocket off lately.

My daily working kit has evolved into the 8-18 on a “lesser” camera like an EM10, the 40-150 Pro on an EM1 and 25mm on another camera (EM5) or ready at hand. The switch to the 8-18 has freed up the 12-40 for video.

There is usually a flash or two (860/685 Godox or Oly kit), but these are being used less and less thanks to C1/No Noise, ironically just as I am getting the hang of them.

If shooting smaller kids, a little orange “pumpkin-cat“ from Electric Town in Japan called Shi Shi comes along. There are many long faces when I forget it.

Other bag fillers are my Rode video-mic micro, the 1.4 TC, a 60cm 5-in-1 diffuser/reflector panel and an off camera TTL controller for the Godox. Less often the little 176 LED for video or stills fill (yet to be used for video). This all goes in the F802.

My sports kit is the EM1x and an EM1 mk2 with the 300 and 40-150 Pro’s respectively, backed up by my third EM1 or something else with the 12-40 or 8-18 mounted. If the 300 is not needed, I will throw in the TC or for more sedate sunny day shoots, the 75-300 is more than enough. For very low light, the fast primes go in instead of the 300. If possible I only take the Turnstyle 10 or a small backpack if working from one spot.

For really light jobs I will sling an EM1 over my shoulder and a second camera and lens in the little Crumpler. I like those jobs.

What is rarely used professionally is the 75-300, 40-150 kit and 14-42 EZ (video contender, maybe Gimbal specialist). If I travel in the near future, these will get a go I am sure (travel/street kit 14-42 kit, 17, 45, 40-150 kit).

*

Overall, my processes have become more streamlined and practical, my self belief strengthened and my ability to function with any gear available has improved. I do however intend to continue to work on my shooting style/processes. I want to improve my image relevance for the school and avoid getting stale, while improving consistency, a tricky balance.

I know that setting up shots is still my weak area, being a life long candid shooter, so much ongoing effort will be focussed there, but I am happy to say, my employer is open to my style also, as long as I get the job done.

Another Good Combo, Or Perfect Bokeh?

Bokeh has been written about quite a bit, plenty on this site alone, but what is “perfect” Bokeh?

For me, from a working perspective, perfect Bokeh is a look that has the following characteristics;

• It has to have clean separation of a sharp subject and soft background.

• The background needs to be unobtrusive, but needs some definition for story telling.

• The useable depth of field, and working distance need to be useable.

I have found lately, that all of these are easily achieved with my Olympus 25mm f1.8 (on any camera, but the Pen F or EM10 mk2 work well). For social events, I have been falling back heavily on the unassuming little EM10 and 25mm combo lately for portraits and other cameras and zooms for general shots.

Let’s look at the math of this combo.

In full frame terms you have the depth of field of a 24mm wide angle at f1.8,

but also,

in full frame terms, you have the perspective and magnification of a 50mm lens (closer to a 45 in this case, but near enough). The result is perceived of of two stops smaller for the magnification.

So you have in real terms a 50mm f2.8 equivalent. This is not often seen as shallow enough depth of field for most in this “Bokeh mad” time, but from a practical and more importantly, relevant way, it is ideal. I remember the 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor being a favourite back in the day. Also, a friend has a habit of shooting full frame 24mm f1.4 Bokeh portraits, using much the same math.

Practicality? Any shallower and groups of 2 or more people risk a face drifting out of best focus. F2.8 zooms are the work horse lenses for most full frame shooters, so f1.8 in M43 is no different.

Relevance? Shallower depth of field can create beautiful soft backgrounds, but also tend to blur out any environmental context. Context is important, otherwise you might as well take all of your shots in a hallway or studio.

Two of the adults (staff) attending a recent school event, they are nicely “cut” out of their background, both in good focus (and sharp), but their softer background is also coherent enough to tell a story (what, when, where). There were better examples, but they featured children and parents, so I will not use them. Processing was limited to a little colour balancing in C1 and are mostly in response to the slightly warm nature of the EM10’s sensor. The important elements here are a sense of place, with clearly defined main subjects.

If I had a f1.2 lens would I use it at f1.2? Likely not (after a short period of Bokeh love/lust that is). F1.2 is too shallow to trust in a working environment (studio’s aside) and would likely rob a shot of a feeling of being part of something.

The end result of this, is that I can set the lens to f1.8 for great light gathering, assured that I will always get a row of people sharp, but still soften the background nicely. The balance of elements is easily achieved and reassuring.

Colour vs Mono, Or The Need For Accuracy vs Creativity

My mono re-birth has started slowly, but relentlessly.

This has started a few conversations both with others and in m own head.

One such conversation about the processing of colour vs mono bought to light the reality of the two mediums and it goes something like this;

With colour imaging, accuracy of the colour is vitally important unless it is being deliberately, creatively modified to control mood or deliberately buck reality.

Mono imaging needs to be tackled with maximum creative effort to be valid always. Unlike colour, it requires pushing, not accuracy (which is basically irrelevant).

Bold statements?

Totally off pace even?

Look at it this way and see if you agree.

A colour image has a point that is crossed only if the intention is to bend or deny reality. This would be done with mood in mind as the main trigger, because colour controls mood, but not much else. Colour can be stunning, bland, low or high impact, cool, warm or neither and is almost always the pivotal value to be controlled. In other words, when working with colour you have to choose to be either accurate or creative, but seldom both and often that choice is out if your hands.

This makes working with colour highly particular, but also very powerful. Get accuracy wrong when it is needed and you have a technically poor image. Creatively you can engender a variety of responses from emotionally compelling to outright revulsion. This is a sharp sword with two sharp edges.

Neither of the images above are close to accurate, but both elicit an immediate mood response.

To be honest, working professionally, colour is the bane of my life. Almost always shooting in mixed indoor light, I have to process for beauty and accuracy more often than any other consideration. Some of the rooms I shoot in (when flash is out of the question), are bland, dull, poorly lit and “beige” in the extreme, with messy backgrounds and usually a limited working area and time frame. Whole concerts have been shot under lighting that is less than pleasant. Nothing that cannot be fixed, but the fixing tends to be all consuming.

Black and White or Mono imaging has a totally different set of processing needs.

Mono removes the dual elements of emotion impact and depth perception provided by colour alone. Colour images automatically trigger emotional responses by their very nature (show someone the same image with warm and cool white balance set and see what I mean). The same can be said for mono images with tones applied.

In the set above, the first image has no immediate emotional impact due to having no inherent colour, only subject, composition and the viewers own take on mono images in general will have an effect. Much could be done to the image, but without a colour bias, it lacks an immediate statement, standing on it’s own two legs. The other two do make an up-front statement (a heavy handed one), setting their mood as the first thing perceived, subject and composition coming after.

Rule one; Only pure mono has no colour “opinion”.

Colour also helps us perceive depth, by “placing” colours more powerfully than tones alone can do.

This image to me is simply a yellow foreground contrasting with a harmonious, supporting red background, all other compositional elements are largely irrelevant.

In mono, the tones, textures and sharp-soft transitions are all important, but these do less to impart a feeling of depth and mood. They effectively flatten the image. The out of focus rio wire fence has become as strong a compositional element as the rear car, something largely ignored in the colour shot. The shot also looks flat, which brings us to the next bit.

Mono needs to be treated differently.

Something I find I do every time I purposefully re-enter the world of mono (deliberately, not when inspired by a specific image), is to treat it like colour. This is the first barrier to good mono imaging.

Just like in the film era, converting a colour image to mono rarely produces a good file. Why? It is because the world tends to be just shades of grey when the colour is removed. An image made up of mostly grey tones is dull and muddy. Green, red, blue, grey, orange, dark yellow are all basically a similar shade of grey when straight converted from colour. Mono film was designed to be sensitive to different colours differently, so that it would separate tones and coloured filters can also be employed for more control/power.

Grey tones are needed in a mono image, but they are weak on their own, they tend to need contrast, both micro (mid tone) and more globally (the extremes). If you do not do some serious prodding, straight conversions are as a rule pretty poor. Think of taking a Bell curve and turning it upside down. You want less convergence in the middle, more on the extremes and a steeper, sharper curve towards them.

First rule; make the changes your gut tells you to, don’t settle for the computers version, ever.

With a little tweaking, the flat jpeg file from above has come to life. The key word here is separation. You need to increase separation of the tonal elements in a mono image. It is not strictly necessary to always have a paper white or ink black in an image, but they are a good place to start. More importantly, the mid tones need to be separated well. In the above file, the yellow channel was lightened, the red one darkened and overall contrast slightly increased.

Tones, texture and brilliance.

After separation has been successfully applied, the three elements above are your next tools to apply.

Tones are part in parcel of the separation issue above, but they are also important to the greater image. Texture and tone share much the same space, allowing good contrast control

Not A Great Combo, But Hey!

My Pen F has become the no work only play camera.

Several reasons, but it mostly comes down to practicality. The Pen has a great vibe as a personal, immersive camera, but a poor handling dynamic for on the go, working for someone else, pro work.

It has in it’s corner;

• Possibly the best base IQ of any of my cameras at lower ISO’s (100-800).

• Very usable JPEG’s, but I only use them as a preview (especially the mono ones)

• Great weight and solidity.

• An off-set view finder and a rear screen that just begs to be turn inward (looks nice, feels right).

• Nice looks that don’t scream “pro at work”, more enthusiast at play.

• Great manual focus handling.

What it does not offer:

• Great high ISO performance (on par with EM10 mk2). Like the EM5 mk1 the noise is tight, like good film grain, but at higher ISO’s the images just lose something.

• Tracking AF. None to be had. AF is snappy, but useless for sports.

• High ISO silent shutter (regularly bands at 1600).

• Any similarity to any other camera I use, so switching mid job can be troublesome.

• A separate battery and card slot.

• Any consistency with batteries or accessories to my work horse cameras.

• Nice shutter sound. In vertical mode it sounds “flappy”.

The little kit I tend to carry around with it consists of my spare 45 F1.8, the under used 17 f1.8 and my “just in case” 40-150 kit/junk tele.

The tele gets used more than I would have predicted, but the handling combination of the heavy, all metal Pen and super light plastic zoom is far from re-assuring. I see visible wobble, something I am not accustomed to. It is effectively the opposite dynamic to my 300 on the EM1x, which feels (and is) solid as a rock.

Looks though, can be deceptive.

This (Pardelotte), came from….

…..this. Plenty of light, but a flighty subject, blustery wind and my least steady feeling combo.

I expect great results from my 17 and 45. Both seem perfectly designed for (or the other way around) the Pen. The kit lens just feels like a wind cup up front, but the results I get are consistently good.

Capture One Ascendant

So far, and I feel with little likelihood of changing at this stage, Capture 1 with ON1 No Noise as a very high ISO support element are my work flow foundations.

The other contestants in my “Love Island” of processing choices fell away for a variety of reasons;

Lightroom is just not good enough at the base level. Micro four thirds images can suffer from relatively more noise and LR’s “gritty” base processing only makes things worse. I feel it is a shame that so many reviews of M43 are done using Adobe processing, because it does the format no favours. To put this into perspective, I processed all my images up to last Christmas using Adobe and managed well enough (I still prefer the colours when all is going well), but avoided ISO 3200 or higher and sometimes could only resort to mono for a workable mage.

DXO was good, with possibly the best base image processing of all, but the high ISO work was sloooow and the overall workflow was not to my liking for high volume work. I dabbled with the idea of the “quick fix” version for pre-processing and stick with LR for further post, but again, the core image processing is not that much different to C1, with ON1 processing high ISO files much quicker.

ON1 RAW 2021 is not up to standard. The workflow is potentially ideal, but processing is a pain with a small operating panel, less than premium results (compared directly to C1) and the noise reduction is poor, unless you send the files into No Noise, which I already do from C1. The files are a little better than LR, so if it was a LR vs ON1 thing, then I would go with the cheaper and slightly better option, ON1 RAW. I have the 2022 version, but it does not at this stage to be any better (more work to be done).

These are the options so far, but I am keeping an open mind. If things change with some of the others, especially the work flow, I would possibly add them in or switch, but at this point, right now, C1 and just works and works well.

C1 has the ability to sharpen the slightly out of focus (which fell slightly backward of the desired point here), can add natural punch and three dimensionality and rarely does it look over done if you are careful. I also appreciate the comprehensive lens corrections, which may not be as good as DXO’s (not sure), but are a lot better than the LR ones, that don’t exist(in my dated version anyway (ironically the reason I switch to C1 in the first place).