Uncaged Creativity?

So, the other day I learned that hand held video is a bad idea if maximum quality is important.

Hand held has its uses, mostly linked to accepting the hand held look.

A proper Gimbal is needed (or a dedicated device like the OSMO Pocket) unless you are willing to accept the semi shaky ‘steady cam” look.

The down side of setting a camera up as a video device only, is when requested to quickly grab a still, you take what you get with all the wrong settings. This is the first stills shot taken with the G9 (over exposed jpeg, on auto). I won’t judge its performance based on this.

If you feel you have hand held covered, moving quickly undoes that. Big heavy cameras have an advantage, but again a handle and some weight is still an acceptance of a certain look, just for that looks sake. The reality is, documentary and street level shooters hand hold most often, most others do not.

I have come to realise this by doing it and it is not for me.

The useless handle and less useless T-Bar have come back into the fold as accessory supports when the camera is loaded down, usually on a tripod. It is actually ideal for this, packing away flat when not needed.

A bit unwieldy, but far better than the four inches of mic hanging out the back.

The handle is long enough to take the Zoom H5’s length, the T-Bar at the back (which being used as a handle prohibited) then adds three shoe mounts and allows for enough room for easy handling. I guess it will also be useful to mount and dismount the camera, but that will be short term, so no real danger of hot-shoe damage.

For most gimbal moves, limited as they will be, I have the Pocket.

*

If I should decide to go down the cage road again (I did*), the Niceyrig looks good. It has much the same utility as the dedicated Smallrig for half the price, but also fits the GH series (you never know) and with an extra cold shoe mount. It may also have better HDMI cord protection.

I have ordered a Smallrig handle for a Ronin Gimbal that will give me a left hand handle option with or without a cage. On the cage, it can be set wide enough to protect the flipped out screen. This may also be useful for the OSMO pocket, adding some rigidity to the phone/camera option.

I also have a Smallrig screw in handle coming, which is lower profile than the cold shoe one I have and can be fitted to the side of the cage. This may seem odd, but fitting this handle along the side of the cage instead of a side only handle may allow for wrist rest-stabilising while focussing. It can also be fitted as an up-down side handle if needed, maybe at an angle to.

ed. I have since ordered the Niceyrig cage for my kit, simply to have the option. With a cold shoe adapter it will take the existing handle properly. I can now also add a side handle to that or any number of other accessories.

First Field Test And Things Learned (Or Not Getting "A Handle" On Things)

After a day in the field, chasing my spider mad father in law around, I have learned a few things.

I have had to assign a left side button to Record (Fn3), because with the top handle on and used with the right hand, getting to the shutter button can be problematic.

I am now happy that all of my immediate* features are on physical buttons and the first layer of control interface. The touch screen is fine, but too small and fiddly, so best left for tripod work.

The fact is, the handle centralises and effectively puts one hand out of action. If you have one hand on the handle, one cradling the camera and focussing, you do not have a third hand free to do anything else. Without the handle, both hands are at control level, the right doing the bulk of the stabilising and dial/button functions, the left handling focus and screen functions.

Thinking on this I Googled “problems using hot-shoe handles” and several came up warning of hot-shoe breakages and the poor judgement used by the people employing them! I must admit, I was a little tentative at first, but there are so many out there, I just assumed it would be fine.

A G9 with decent lens on the front supported by 4 small screws, likely going into plastic, is a little worrying, especially as I immediately got myself into the habit of using the handle as standard, and this is a comparatively light rig compared to some (Canon SLR with Sigma Art?!).

It seemed like a good idea, but maybe in hindsight………

Looking at my results also, I have to admit, the camera needs to be well held to provide decently still footage, something that the handle alone, with this relatively light load, did not seem to provide. I do have the OSMO, bought just for hand held work!

Holding the camera still enough seems to come down to hugging the body when not moving, which the handle actually makes harder and switching to the OSMO when moving. It looks like a twin handle rig is better for movement.

A better option? This gives me my three cold shoes, without clutter and the top plate and main control dial are obstructed, which is good as they will not get changed by mistake. The rig also fits into more bags.

Viewing is also an issue in bright light, which is not helped by the handle at it pushes the camera further away.

Several times I needed to switch to the eye piece and needing a hat for the day (30 degrees C), the handle got in the way (hat off=burned nose). I could add a screen, which fixes some things, but exacerbates others.

A final point is the “lag” I personally seemed to experience getting myself organised with the handle taking priority. ISO, WB, Aperture, Focus and more need to be addressed immediately and the handle seemed to make holding the camera and operating the camera, two different processes.

Dropping the handle (saved for specific jobs-maybe on an Olympus), I placed the triple cold shoe bracket straight on the camera.

This seems to work.

The extra height, obstructive nature and left/right handedness of the handle is gone and I am just holding the camera, not the “rig”.

If I use the Zoom’s there will be overhang issues, but this will be mostly tripod work and I have ball heads for angling, adding height etc. The H1n/5 can be mounted sideways or reversed when acting as interfaces.

As cool as the handle seemed at the time (Mark Bone insisted!), the reality is, I need to either gimbal or tripod the camera for the standard I am aiming for, or switch to the camera specifically bought for gimbal work. Weight helps with hand holding, but puts more strain on the hot-shoe mount. Hand holding while still with IS lock seems to be ok, but the handle did not help much here.

An option is a full C-Grip (and O-grip, when 2 are used together), which allows me to hold the camera several ways, switch hands while filming, use 2 hands, and load up the rig with no camera strain. They are bulky, but look to work.

Another option, but one I decided early on not to do, is a cage. Smallrig makes a specific one, Niceyrig has one for the GH5’s that apparently just fits the G9. The Smallrig is nicely done and has an Arca plate base (but my video head does not). I actually prefer the Niceyrig as it has 2 cold-shoe mounts (the Smallrig has one only and it is angled) and a larger cheese plate over the camera top-centre, allowing me to get a cold shoe adapter for the handle I have (if needed).

I could then add my triple cold shoe plate (making 5 with the cameras), my existing handle (making 6!) and have added protection around the camera. With this it would also allow me to add weight to the camera a little to help with hand holding.

On another note, the footage captured in 4k Cine-V (-5/-5/+0/+0) was scrumptious, with brilliant fine detail and cinema like colour. I have a ways to go, but it will come.

*ISO (2), Aperture, Peaking, Record (2), Ex tele converter, Histogram, Lock IS, WB (2) and focus (2).

Lens Tests, Video And Moving On

I used to love a good lens test. At first the chart and graph type made the most sense, then I moved on to more “real world use” tests. Now I tend to ignore them in favour of actually getting to know it.

I once thought that the very statement “use it and get to know it” was a bit of a cop-out. It did not address the realities of good, better, best or even the simpler good or bad, but I was wrong.

All modern lenses are pretty good and so were most older ones. Any major manufacturer from the 1960’s on made decent glass. Really crappy Chinese rip-off stuff was poor, later stuff, surprisingly good. Good and bad really needs to be reserved for new and functioning or old/damaged/mould ravaged or simple too old to include design parameters that are needed, such as lens coatings.

It stuck me that over 30+ years of photography, the only lenses I have had that were short of “professionally useable” were either broken (one or two and clearly so), very poorly calibrated and not identified as such (only one I am sure of and it was fine as a wide on film) or designed to be poor (plastic “toy” lenses).

We are talking about 100’s of good, useable lenses (to my shame).

Taken with a $100 40-150 kit lens. The sharpness defies scrutiny even at pixel level, the Bokeh is distinctive (subjective) and the colours punchy after a little post. Did I get the image I was after? Yup.

Have I stressed in the past over the merits of sample “A” to sample “B” of the same glass? More times than I care to admit to. I actually decided to never again buy a lens when I was not working at a shop, so I could try multiple samples and pick the best. You know, every time I did that, I came away fishing for a clear message. I often just ended up taking the one with tighter build, better mount fit or a perceived advantage in one single image over others, when in reality, I was likely to blame for any variance. I even remember picking one simple because the serial number had a coincidentally harmonious value! Talk about looking for signs and portents.

Deep seated suspicions about new lenses have always, with almost no exceptions, had no foundation of valid complaint. My 300 and 8-18 were bought with the mind set of a “it only has to please clients” buyer, both proving themselves superior samples after only a few uses.

“A lens is as good as the best image it takes” and “the fool who looks for trouble invariably finds it” are two mantras that work in opposite directions, but are both valid.

Video has re-invigorated my lust for knowledge, which has highlighted for me how little I have cared about lens test sites and opinions since working. In video especially I am more interested in character and handling.

My own glass is good and that is all I need to know.

This is where the “get to know your lens” bit comes in though and I have a much better handle on it than before.

If you use a lens for a while, you will get to know its strengths and ignore or avoid its weaknesses. Does an Olympic sprinter sit around wistfully lamenting their lack of Shot-put or climbing strength? No they don’t. They use what they do well, to do the best they can at their best event.

This means for me a different way of “ranking” my lenses.

For example;

17mm f1.8 has great contrast for tough light, excellent long transition Bokeh and handles well. This is the seat of your pants street lens. My EF 28mm 1.8 was a clone of this, with very similar characteristics and just as many detractors. This lens also shares the same palette as the kit 40-150.

Bit of a lighting nightmare. The 25 would have added glow, the 17 tamed it.

25mm f1.8 is slightly wider than a 50mm equivalent (about 45mm), has gorgeous “modern” Bokeh and lush, glowacious* highlights. It positively sparkles and feels the most “stable” of the four primes. There was a time I did not like or overly trust it. How times change. In Canon, this is like my 35 f1.4L performed on a crop frame camera. This lens has similar characteristics to my 75-300 zoom.

45mm f1.8 is reliably stable, but with added character. It is more serious than the 25mm, less forgiving than the 17, with Bokeh that intrigues, but never jangles. My Canon EF 200 f2.8 L shared these qualities, although the bokeh was even a little more playful.

75mm f1.8 is “Mr Perfecto”. Too good to be true, it adds in the glow of the 25mm to the richness of the 17 and 45mm’s for an all too pleased with itself ability to impress. Of the four, it is the most predictable and “same-ish”, so a sharp, but very specific tool. The lens I most appreciated in Canon was my 135 f2L. This is same-same, but lighter, cheaper, faster and effectively longer.

Which has the best quality?

Don’t care. I did once and far too much, but I can honestly say now, I pick them up as tools for a job, based only on their strengths, with little to no thought about their supposed weaknesses.

Hero portrait of an individual, low light candids or indoor sports lens = 75mm

Fast moving groups indoors, street or video on the move = 17mm

Small groups at a busy event, a “one lens” day, low light shots = 25mm

Edgy portraits or abstracts, street grabs in close, gritty portraits = 45mm

*A term coined by one of the Western brothers.

.

G9 Settings Already Fluid

The G9 is starting to feel like an extension of myself, well, maybe a well adjusted prosthetic, but things are already changing slightly.

The big change is Cine-V in place of Cine-D high speed as C3-3. High speed Cine-D is where the OSMO comes in. Cine-D will be used more for low light, where 50p is less relevant.

Random image inserted.

Cine-V on the other hand intrigues me. More cinematic and opinionated than Natural, but less flexible than Cine-D, this is for my projects.

I see my choices, as a new comer to video, like this;

Natural, which is used by many serious Videographers using Pana cameras, is ideal for semi-flat, semi cinematic shooting for the bulk of my work jobs. School shoots do not need to be “edgy”, just pleasant and smooth looking. This will have a standard 25p (PAL) and slo-mo 50p option in 1080 and 4k.

Cine-V is as limited as Natural, effectively being a jpeg equivalent, but brings out my inner cinematographer. It is “bigger” looking. With so far un-developed grading skills, this will get me there in the short term and as few are using it, gives me a different look to others using the same gear. This will only have a standard cinematic 25p (PAL) option.

Cine-D, the easiest to handle of the semi “LOG” styles has a good rep for handling difficult light, so I will use that when things are harder. This will only have a standard cinematic 25p (PAL) option, but will tie in well with my OSMO at in Cine-D, 50p for movement and slo-mo.

Other minor changes are to the F6-10 group, including the electronic stabiliser and grid on/off option, dropping mic volume (handled on mic) and Peaking (set to a primary button). These soft touch controls are more for tripod or set-up use, so no point is duplicating already assigned features.

How Did I Set Up My G9 For Video?

It has been an interesting couple of weeks.

The G9 has a lot more options for video than the EM1 and some of the terminology is new or different, so assigning the 20+ custom and function buttons has been a trick.

First up the hardware. The Ulanzi cheese plate on the Smallrig handle provides perfect balance and utility. I have 4 cold shoes and several screw mounts to choose from. I have several small ball and tilt head options and an extra handle coming also, so lots to choose from. The perfectly matching red on the Ulanzi and G9 dials was purely coincidence :).

Here is where I am at (in brackets will be the accessibility of the control from good/fair/poor).

The camera is set to Manual Exposure and the lens to Manual Focus unless specifically changed.

Shutter Button (good). This is set to Record. The little red button is off as redundant (and an issue for stray fingers). I have also enabled the “red frame” when recording which is awesome.

Top Dial Front (fair, but clicky). This has 2 functions (see “Nubbin” settings). The first is Shutter Speed that will never be touched, the second is ISO. Neither are important on this dial so it will mostly be ignored and unfortunately that is the best I can do.

WB/ISO/Exp Comp buttons (fair). These are basically redundant, but may come in handy occasionally. The way I will hold the camera (left hand on handle, right cradling the camera), means they are inconvenient to reach so no real bother.

Top Dial Rear (good, but clicky). This one is also a double feature (see “Nubbin”). The first feature is Aperture, the second White Balance. Unlike the front dial, these two will be used a lot, but not often during shooting.

AF/AE Lock button and Toggle (good to fair). The AE/AF button is set to AF only for quick one touch AF when the toggle is set to C-AF. Three of my four lenses have on lens MF over-ride or MF only, so that will be my master AF/MF control, but if I am using a different lens or want to do a smooth focus transition, I will switch to AF and touch screen selection focus.

The Nubbin (good to fair). The Nubbin is used primarily to switch the two top dial feature sets and to shift WB when selected. This seems to be a reasonable good double click to manual WB control, except it does require I touch the top rear dial to activate.

Fn1 (good-fair). This one is set to Ex Tele Converter. I will use this a lot, but not during a capture so it needs to be close, but not in a primary spot.

Main rear dial (good). This is the only near silent dial, so it gets ISO control. ISO is the main “while shooting” exposure control. Shutter speed is set, Aperture is also likely limited in available or desired choices, so ISO has to carry the load as the most granular and flexible exposure “lung”.

Fn2 (fair). This one is for the Histogram. I am not satisfied yet with Zebras. The theory is fine, but the actual values are far from comfortable for me. So many opinions, so many variables. I will stick with histograms for now.

Fn3 Top left rear button (poor) is left for EVF/Screen switching as marked.

Fn4 Front button top (good). Peaking here. Like Zebras, I find magnification a taste I have yet to acquire, so I will stick to eye balling and peaking (blue) for confirmation.

Fn5 Front button lower (good). This one is set to IS lock. I have not used this yet, but is something you will use mid shot, so it needs to be naturally under a finger.

This next set are on the touch screen Menu (fair, but silent) and low priority (also subject to change). These are likely going to be used more for tripod work.

Fn6. Microphone volume (although volume will usually be handled by the input mic).

Fn7. Zebras

Fn8. Peaking

Fn9. Stabiliser

Fn10. Q Menu

The touch screen Movie Menu is set.

The Custom settings are all set with the above, then have their own Colour style/Log and quality setting.

C-0 (Movie M without a Custom setting assigned) is; 10 bit 1080p, Natural*, 25 frames/SS 50 (PAL) MOV as my every day social media quality.

C-1; 10 bit 1080p, Natural*, 50 frames/SS 100 (PAL) MOV is the same as above, but for movement and slo-mo.

C-2; 10 bit 4k, Natural*, 25 frames/SS 50 (PAL) MOV. This is my better setting for my more serious projects.

C-3/1; 8 bit 4K Natural*, 50 frames/SS 100 (PAL) MOV is the same as above, but for movement and slo-mo.

C-3/2; 10 bit 422 4K Cine-D*, 25 frames/SS 50 (Pal) MOV. This is for poor light and outside editing. It also matches the OSMO’s better settings.

C-3/3; 8 bit 420 4K Cine-D*, 50 frames/SS 100 (Pal) MOV. This is as above for movement and slo-mo. It also matches the OSMO’s better settings.

If I need to shoot HLG or Cine-V, I will change the C-0 settings as the job requires, but the above allow me to quickly transition from 1080P Natural to 4K Cine-D in three stages with two shutter speeds for each.

*

*Natural is a commonly used setting in Pana cameras with Contrast reduced by -2 to -5 so I went -3, Sharpness almost always reduced to -5, NR left alone and Saturation at -2.

**Cinelike-D is Contrast -5, Sharpness -5, NR +0 and Saturation -2. This is a semi LOG style, so can take a lot more Sharpening etc. and has a reputation for handling low light and extended dynamic range well. Unlike HLG, or V-LOG, it does not need any special allowances for viewing etc.

The Big Surprise.

(Letterkenny opening) So I was dropping my wife off at the airport the other day…….

At least 20ft long and 6ft high and a heavy crop! Go M43.

Not being a true staff member, just a contractor, I am sometimes out of the loop. This was taken early in the year, processed poorly in C1 (still finding my way back then), but was still blown up to bigger than I would have imagined.

At the intended viewing distance, it stands up more than fine. Imagine if I had used high res mode!

In Praise Of "Also-ran" Lenses

Two lenses I have the greatest of respect for, respect that has been earned, not assumed due to reputation or price, are my 17mm F1.8 and 40-150 kit lenses.

They both went on one of our last trips to Japan (insert sad face) doing the lions share of the work.

The kit lens was a real find. Purchased in a 3 lens starter pack, sold for the price of the included 45mm, but bought for the kit EZ 14-42 (replacement of an ailing 14-42 on my wife’s camera), the 40-150 was the last consideration of the three. Really just a bonus trash lens.

It has proven to be a real sleeper.

40mm on the zoom. Sharp, with good transition. What more could you want.

Its strengths are strong micro contrast, decent, but very malleable colour and good Bokeh. It’s weaknesses are known, basically coming down to crummy build quality.

I never get tired of being blown away by this lens. For all realistic uses, it matches the Pro lens, as long as the sun is out. To be fair, I recently used it at an indoor school event and it came through showing very mature contrast and detail, ideal for higher ISO work.

It can be gentle and delicate or punchy as needed (all of the files in the “Things I Love About C1'“ post were taken with it).

For me, any lens longer than the 17mm is a details lens. The 40-150 performs as needed up to fine art levels.

Bokeh is a nice surprise. Often sharing the load with the 17mm, its nice to have a dinky little kit tele on when things get tight. Both lenses share a “Fred Herzog” colour palette.

*

The 17mm f1.8 had a strange beginning.

Grudging chosen as the best mechanical option over the Pana 20mm (poor AF & MF) and the slightly dearer, but slightly sharper and more brilliant 15mm Leica, the 17mm has gone on to great things and I would not swap it for either of the above. It even holds it’s own against the ground breaking 17mm f1.2, although the two seem to be designed to do different things (he 1.8 for deep transition street, the 1.2 for wide portrait).

There is something very efficient and pleasing about its rendering and its ability to just get the shot.

Even with a fairly old fashioned rendering, it still packs plenty of brilliance, taming tough highlights well.

I believe strongly that this lens was made for street shooters. It has excellent contrast and highlight control, practical, long transition Bokeh and is sharp even at wider apertures. AF is instantaneous and MF is a pull-back ring away. I regularly shoot it wide open at night in AF and everything just works.

I truly love the way it handles contrasty light. I have many images that seem to work fine with this lens, that may run a little too hot for others such as my more “lush” rendering 25mm.

The focal length and other attributes promote “in your face” imaging. The lens in combination with a small camera like the EPM-2 is too small to be taken seriously. I shoot quickly, from the hip and with focus set at either 2m at f2.8-5.6 or I use AF wide open at night and just expect to get my shot.

The very long transition Bokeh allows misses to be tolerable, sometimes even better than hitting the intended target.

Wide open the transition from sharp to out of focus is quite invisible. The doorway is out of focus, the busses fully, but are still coherent and harmonious. The modern trend of fast transition sharp to soft Bokeh has been bucked here in favour of a less aggressive, more forgiving approach.

These two, a backup 45mm f1.8 for night/portrait and two small cameras (EM10 or EPM) and you have a very capable and responsive travel kit that comes in at a little over 1kg.

Ed. The Panasonic 9mm now adds a super wide element, for a little over 100g.

Things I Love About Capture 1

There are a couple of sliders in C1 that have become my go-to.

When I first started using C1, I used it like Lightroom.

Big mistake.

Not only are the features different, but their capabilities and application combinations also differ. I remember being disappointed with my efforts processing a set of bright light, midday images for a new set of signs. Controlling the highlights made the whites muddy and reducing overall exposure, then lifting the shadows tends to give an artificial “HDR” look.

I missed the “Brilliance” slider.

The top four sliders, that is the four found in the assumed primary processing panel (Exposure, Contrast, Brilliance and Saturation) are powerful enough for a large number of global fixes. My Lightroom habits had been quite different.

Brilliance allows you to add brightness and separation to a flat image or drop a very contrasty one back to a workable range and in both situations, the image stays natural looking. Contrast in C1 is more dynamic, so I tend to use it a lot less. Brilliance effects the “punch” of an image in a gentler way.

The first image below is the base, the second is lightened using the Exposure slider, the last is lightened using the Brilliance slider. The last file gains shadow detail, but holds contrast and unlike the Shadows slider, it does not take on the “HDR” look.

Early on, I felt Lightroom naturally added more vibrance and “Hollywood” to a file, but the more I use it, the more I realise that C1 has this and more, but starts from a more realistic base. Brilliance is one of the tools that empowers the user to enhance, or tame as needed. I have come a long way from Canon files through Adobe, both capable of mesmerising saturation and glow, but often at the expense of accuracy.

The second slider is the De-Haze control, which gets its own panel.

Lightroom has this one also named the same, but hidden in a panel with various other controls (I forget which), but I found it to be very clumsy by comparison. It worked when the situation clearly needed it, but as a more generalised tool, it was far too punchy.

The De-haze slider can be applied to any file that lacks the clarity and crispness you need. It does its job very well, but I am also amazed how often it brings out the punchy quality in a file that just looks a little flat.

De-haze has replaced Clarity (I liked this in LR, but less so in C1) and often Sharpness, Saturation and Contrast.

Again, the first file is the base, the second is lightened using Exposure, the third is re-envigorated with some De-haze.

If you over push it, it can be a little harsh and over saturated looking, but then those files probably did not need any De-hazing. Unlike Contrast, it is not terminal when pushed too far, just pointless.

A very good use for De-haze, is when some shadow or highlight recovery is used. Both tend to flatten out mid tone separation and De-haze firms it back up again.

Both of these work well with jpegs also.

The easily re-arranged panels in C1 have allowed me to try various layouts and this is where I have settled.

At the very top is Library, minimised until needed.

Below that is the Layers panel, used only if I activate a layers based feature, so minimised until needed.

The Dynamic Range panel is next. This one is the fine control after the one below, but due to lack of room I like to have it above the primary panel, just out of sight, but there if needed.

The primary Exposure panel (Exposure, Contrast, Brilliance, Saturation) is at the active top of the pile.

Below that is White Balance. I find it best to fix this after Exposure/Brilliance have been set and with added Saturation so I can better identify the issue. Then the Sat. gets dropped back again.

Below that De-haze. De-haze is the punch replacer if any of the above have sucked the life out of an image.

So, original, Exposure lightened and Brightness reduced to control the highlights, then finally De-haze added.

From here there is a revolving door of panels depending on the job, consisting of Spot Removal, Vignetting, Colour Control, Sharpness (rarely used globally, but often applied to soft areas with the brush) and Clarity/Structure (all added with the brush).

There are others, some of which I am yet to come to grips with, but as is, this layout does the job.

No programme is perfect. C1 has a several controls that I find lack subtlety in favour of strength, but the ones above seem* to be the most natural looking and have more than enough grunt to do the job. Lightroom failed my needs by being weaker overall at its base line. The sharpness/noise dynamic in particular fell way short of C1 for an M43 user. The acid test will be re-processing my Japan files with C1, as some were processed to Lightrooms strengths, which as not the same with any other programme.

*With a Mac, Olympus and me in combination.

2 Hats Require 2 Heads?

The processes of video and stills photography are different.

Earth shattering observation I know :).

I went in eyes open, but I think I have to adjust my pre-conceptions, to allow for how and how much, they differ.

Taking stills is a process of capturing single images to tell a story. Each image stands on its own, but if done to a theme and done well enough, select images from the sequence should tell a story. Taking each image is a singular process, an immersion, with its own victory that stands alone even if it took several to land that one.

Identify, compose, shoot, repeat.

A nothing sort of grab shot that might end up on the cover of a music department retrospective, but mandatory stock for video.

A lot of stills shooting is quite satisfying on a frame by frame basis. Sometimes I come awake from a job excited by a single superior image. Unless you miss your subject completely, any interpretation is accepted as your interpretation. The misses never tell.

Video shooting requires a stronger sense of continuity. The ability to capture the less dynamic moments as support structure for a more coherent story line is paramount. A bunch of random grabs could be cobbled together, but don’t push your luck. You need to work to a plan, shoot a lot of footage that may feel a little pointless in itself, but when combined with the pivotal moment captures, make a better whole.

You need to pre-visualise or “see” the end product and work towards it. You need to plan.

A stills shooter may take some B-roll style images, as they present, a process that often defines their style, but the movie maker needs to take B-roll.

I am still a little unsure here. It seems to be very unformed all of this footage, but that is because I am not yet (don’t need to) tell a story. Mark Bone, in one of his excellent podcasts says the story has to build towards an ending, using the journey to raise tension as the main character overcomes all barriers to success. Maybe when I have an ending to work towards, it will make more sense.

You should do this with stills, but the formation of the story is less about connected images and more about images supporting words. I generally juts trust that I will instinctively take enough fillers to get the shoot fleshed out. Video needs to support itself. Even with narration, it needs to make sense in and of itself.

This does require two creative hats to be worn, but maybe also two heads.

In the beginning of this journey, I felt that a good eye for stills would help with video. It does sort of, but the reality is you need to think differently when you switch between mediums. Tackling video with a more ad-hoc still photographers mentality will lead to disaster. Shooting stills like a videographer would likely be too stilted, too formulaic. Somewhere in between may suit both.

My video learning curve is steep already. Even putting aside the technical side, which is fun but mammoth, the re-training of my eye and the reality of concentrating more on the “jpeg” like process up front will be the biggest hurdles (documentary materiel maybe).

The combining of stills and video really make for a powerful combination. The moving stock takes you there, the still adds impact and raises the importance of a singular moment. It allows you to hover over that moment without it feeling strange or convoluted. The advantage of this approach also is the continuity the video adds to the stills capture.

The trick is doing it.

Coming Together; Audio And Video

“Sound is half of video”. A common saying, but inaccurate in a way.

“Video with poor sound is rubbish, poor video with good sound is acceptable, both done well is ideal”.

There you go, that’s closer.

My gear…….well no, not even close. Only some of the gear used by VJAM, a local event hosting business. If they “lose” a couple of Oktava 012’s one day, “I know nothing” :).

Talk to any movie maker and they will tell you, sound is the linchpin their vision hangs on. Get any part of the whole process wrong and all of it suffers, but start with sound or suffer the most later. There is a reason sound hangs on longer than vision when there is a signal problem with a broadcast. It is designed to.

My Zoom H5 with X/Y and Shotgun with mid/side stereo capsules provide a good base, along with the H1n (X/Y) as support, but for full problem solving capabilities, other mics are needed.

I have several (different) small shotgun mics for booming (Neewer, Boya, Rode), but what about large groups or paired interviews?

Small diaphragm condensers are a good choice here and can employed in a variety of patterns. The junior section of the school I work for use Rode M5’s as standard tools for choirs and Oktava 012’s are used by our major event partner.

The M5’s would have likely done the job for me also, but for only a little more the excellent Lewitt 040 Match, in a perfectly matched pair are available. These consistently review well (with plenty of samples), having more brilliance, smoothness and punch than mics twice as expensive. They are tiny and well made, at 44g and roughly the same size as my basic shotguns, but sound much bigger than they look.

I have no idea how these will mesh, but needing to start somewhere, I think they will give me several options to handle the most likely situations..

Scenario 1: Choir.

The H5 with SSH-6 in front with stereo imaging as suits, then the two pencils high left and right, set as A/B or X/Y. My hope is the H5 will get the “body” of the performance, the pencils adding detail.

Scenario 2: School rock band.

The same as above, shotgun aimed at the lead singer with stereo mid-side for guitars, one Lewitt over the drums and one over the keyboards. Further tracks can be recorded by the H1n. Again my hope is the H5 will get the “body” of the performance, the pencils adding detail.

Scenario 3: Single musician (piano, drums etc).

Lewitts in close, X/Y or A/B config. These are the better instrument mics and have the lowest noise floor, so I will set these up if possible, or use the capable XYH-5 or SSH-6 capsule if not.

Scenario 4: Small group interview.

Mic each speaker with a cardioid if only two or in two pairs with X/Y. If time or space are an issue, the XYH-5 can do. LAV’s are also good here, but I prefer regular mics and they are more versatile.

Scenario 5: The most common scenario I will likely face is the one person interview in a variety of locations. The best way of handling this is either the schools LAV (through my Zoom) or a boomed shogun.

Decisions, Decisions

So getting the G9 was the easy bit.

The rig used by one of the moving shooters at the recent school “Celebration” (Black Magic Pocket Cinema I think?). These guys are seriously pro, so I am aiming at the big void between their work and the basic 1080p in Auto stock we have been shooting for You-tube on an EM1 mk2 (EM1’s have nice 4k but relatively poor 1080).

Now the many choices of format, bit rate and codec have raised their heads, making me very happy I have several Custom settings (6 if you count C-0 or no custom-as is setting) and a plethora of function buttons to work with.

The Custom sets (all other settings the same except Zebras).

C-0 (Video M setting as set). The school rarely needs anything better than 1080 for most things, so my base setting will be that, but in the interest of best quality I will use 25p (PAL) in Natural*, 10 bit MOV format (MP4 was tempting for its smaller size, but I use Macs, so MOV makes sense). Why compromise on the quality available at any file size?

C-1 will be the same at 50p for slo-mo/movement shots.

C-2 will be my basic “better” quality format, based on many G9/GH5 shooters preferences, 4k, 10 bit, 25p, MOV in Natural* colour mode.

C-3/1 will be the same at 50p for better slo-mo.

C-3/2 is the bad light problem solver, but with issues of its own. 4k, 10 bit, MOV, 25p, Cinelike-D**. This is better apparently at night shooting and has more DR than Natural, but needs more processing.

C-3/3. This one is still in limbo. My thinking is either a “best I can do” production grade, HLG, 4k, 10 bit, 422, 25p, MOV, (but would rarely need and may not be able to process myself!) or a very lite 1080p, 25, MP4, 8 bit, just for run and gun. No rush.

The first four settings are important to get right now. These will be the base of my work flow, designed to be good, but also fast and easy.

The next level up, will require some up-skilling and will rarely be needed for my day to day.

The OSMO.

The OSMO is a lot easier thanks to offering fewer choices.

For day to day, 1080p, MOV, 50 will be fine at Normal quality.

For quality matching the G9’s 4k, I will use 4k, MOV, Cine-D (maybe), 50 at Best quality. This severely limits recording time as it heats up quickly, but I have no intention of using my “movement” camera for overly long scenes, just B-roll.

This is now, but who knows what is coming. I am sure my settings will change as my personal journey continues.

*Natural at -3 Contrast, -5 Sharpness, +0 NR and -2 Saturation based on the majority of shooters recommendations. This will require good technique as it lacks as much post processing power as the LOG/semi LOG settings. Avoiding strong contrast is needed, but much of what I shoot is in controlled light, so that should not be a real issue.

**Cinelike-D at -2 Contrast, -5 Sharpness, +0 NR and -1 Saturation based on the majority of shooters recommendations. This semi LOG setting will increase dynamic range, especially at night, but stays within easy post processing parameters.

Contrast reduction is a very common thread and ranges between -1 to -5, so I will go -3 in natural and -2 in Cine-D for now and see if it is enough. Tasmania has harsh light a bit like Scandinavia, but much of my footage will be indoors.

Sharpness is almost universally set at -5 for a smooth, flattering, very cinematic look. Only one blogger left it as was and their footage was brilliantly crisp, but looked more like good video, not serious cinema.

Noise Reduction is rarely touched.

Saturation tends to be either -1 or -2, so I will go -2 in Natural and -1 in Cine-D.

Orientation Day

A couple of things came to mind recently.

In my photographic life, we have shifted from a “portrait orientation for magazine cover” process to a “horizontal to match screens” expectation. e have also gone through several preferred formats to end up pretty much where we started.

In my formative years, you always had to shoot that portrait orientated cover shot image in each set. No good getting the cracker of an image in horizontal, that would only ever be a page sharer or maybe a centre fold if you were lucky, but without the cover shot to sell the mag, no-one was going to get to look in the centre.

Right shape for the shot on this occasion and used to help determine if the touch was made.

In my current role, I have to shoot mostly horizontally. This is because of the obvious landscape orientation of a screen, but also allows a portrait to be extracted as needed.

I find portrait mode better for long lenses though when shooting sport.

Half a cut off body with room each side in a horizontal composition makes little sense, but a tight top to bottom shot feels right even if too tight. You have the same sized subject at longer distances, but effectively gain the “height” to your image of a shorter lens used horizontally.

The action was too fast to switch to the camera with the shorter zoom, so I just followed and shot.

Another that would be pointless in horizontal. I am often surprised how close they can get with a 600mm equivalent pointed at them in this orientation. The next phase was a quick try.

4:3 ratio is older and more logical than the now common 3:2 ratio. When 3:2 reigned (35mm film), the risk was always that even your portrait shots would end up losing a little length (or height). Look at a national Geographic cover. They are 4:3 ratio. I am lucky I guess, that with 4:3 in a 3:2 world, I am closer to one of the true formats, square*.

*For me, there are only two formats, square and wide screen (16:9 or more). Sure was very popular with medium format shooters, who had quality to spare, because it could be effortlessly made horizontal or vertical. Wide screen is just more cinematic, dramatic and evocative.

Balance

Working as opposed to pursuing a hobby tends to very quickly shift your perspectives on gear use.

I have always liked (needed) balance. Things have to make sense. Yes I have issues, but more importantly, I have learned to recognise this.

When a hobby-ist by choice, my gear tended to be perfected for some hypothetical future. I spent far too much time stressing the look or theoretical capability of my kit and far too little considering real consequences. Now it is based purely on genuine needs and nothing more.

Balance has now become synonymous with performance matched with depth and practical application.

My recent purchases have felt very “in balance”.

The Panasonic G9 at Black Friday prices allowed me to do video seriously, but free of pressure. Yes it can produce MOV 10 bit 4k or 4k 60p in various semi LOG styles and very nice it is. It also has 2 further levels of upgrade possible (Atomos Ninja V and paid firmware) but I have likely enough as is.

The G9 is of course a perfectly adequate replacement for an EM1 that may fail and provides a different colour palette and better AF on my Pana lens. It has several features other than video that are similar to, but not the same as Olympus equivalents and it opens the door to a Panasonic shift in direction if needed in the future.

The OSMO Pocket (1st model on sale), is the ideal companion to the G9. It shoots similar quality 4k 60p in Cinelike-D, so matching is simple enough, even for me. It provides exactly what the G9 lacks and nothing is redundant. With the two, I can set up the primary camera and then flit around the periphery with the OSMO, shooting from above, down low or slider like.

If a really big shoot is envisaged, an EM1 can be pressed in to service to add its very decent 4k Flat profile and excellent stabiliser.

For $1500au I have expanded from a decent 4k camera option up to 3 with movements and depth fixed.

Who knew that the mic in this picture and the science behind it would mean as much to me now as the lens that took the image.

The Zoom H5 has likewise provided a pair of onboard mic options (XYH-5 and SSH-6), for about the same price as any other two decent mics of similar spec, but it also provides several other options. Twin XLR inputs, a quality pre-amp for my various 3.5 mics, safety recording etc all make for a serious audio “hub”.

The H5 sits in just the right place for me.

It is only $100au more than the plasticky H2n. The H2n does have multiple mic options on board, but it is seriously cheaper feeling and limited past what it provides out of the box (no capsules, no XLR input). The bigger H6 is a better option if you really only want an interface with static mic options. If I bought it for its onboard mics though (potentially good value with 2), it did not come with the two mics I wanted (XYH-6 is not shock mounted and the MSH-6 has only short range) and finally it is just too big and impractical for a field videographer to use on camera (the H5 is pushing it).

No other brand offered the same value, versatility and performance balance, for my needs.

Into the very good 3.5 capsule line-in (XYH-6), I can plug in either the Boya/Movo or Neewer mini shotgun mics for booming or the Boya LAV. Price to performance is well sorted here also. The Neewer in particular is nearly indistinguishable from 5x dearer mics like the Diety D3 at close distances.

Headphones are something often overlooked by videographers, but with a mixed and now quite extensive audio kit and some grand ideas, I need to know what I am recording.

The same goes for editing. Guessing what something sounds like is a recipe for disaster. I managed to pick up a pair of Audio-Technica M40x, over ear studio monitors for the same price as the M30x’s. Sound Sense has a very good comparison site that tests a lot of these, and after listening to several comparisons, these consistently reproduced the source sound more faithfully than any comparable “cans”.

Again, not over or under done, good enough to trust and much better than iPhone buds.

The next step is to add a pair of matched small diaphragm cardioid pencil mics. These will allow me to mic up a vocalist, speaker, separate instrument, choir wings or ambient sound in conjunction with the primary SSH, X/Y or other mics.

Seeking the same balance equation as above, I am looking at a pair of the Lewitt 040 Match (since purchased), which look to have more brilliance and punch than the similarly priced Rode M5’s. This is important, because I will be pushing them to fill the space left by the primary. No idea if this will work, but from what I have picked up and observed, the theory is sound enough. To be clear, I am not looking to make Hollywood block busters, just provide good to very good field grade sound.

My stills kit has felt well balanced this year, so adding anything always risked knocking that off balance.

My daily kit consists of cameras old and new, lenses to match with the same in the wings and specialist cameras and lenses set aside. I had a surplus of lenses, which is now sorted neatly.

My lighting is under control and processing power roughly double my capacity from the beginning of the year.

Video, for a considerably smaller outlay, has found new value in my three LED panels (a stills experiment that did not work as well as I hoped), put my neglected tripod to use and taken my video/sound capabilities into new and “well balanced” territory.

All is good with the (my) universe which makes my wife happy.

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.