Camera Choice.

I don’t want to jinx it, but I have an orientation day with the local paper in Friday. The Examiner has a long and illustrious history, but like a lot of things laden with such a history, it is suffering by comparison these days. The photog staff is small, but capable and very experienced. I have known some of them for over thirty years. becoming one of them would at once feel odd and like a lost glove found and then worn.

They are looking for someone for a couple of days a week, which is perfect for my life style. The commitment to the school I have been working with for the last couple of years is strong, but flexible if needed. They are down to the last two candidates, so who knows.

This has come at a great time. I have been struggling to give the school my undivided attention and make ends meet, because the reality is, they only need a 9 month commitment and it is hard to find regular clients for a few months a year.

Gear?

I have a pretty good handle on what I need these days.

EM1 (something) + 40-150 Pro with 1.4 TC.

? possibly a G9 + 8-18 (video and stills).

EM10 or 5 + Prime (25 and/or 45)

OSMO kit and some small Mics

Godox flash

Domke F802 bag.

Late Autumn filler image. EM1, 8-18.

If I land the job, I may go for a second G9 as my second camera for this work, allowing the original to be used in its rig for video almost exclusively. I may also grab the 12-60 Leica or kit* as a replacement standard lens. The idea would be to have the second G9 set for stills, but with the custom settings set for video, same as my other G9.

The EM1x is also good for video, but harder to press into dual roles. That does not exclude the chance of getting another EM1x or EM1 mk2 or 3* and a 12-40/12-45/8-25 lens maybe. The reality is, as long as you shoot in 4k at capture, the video on the EM1x is very good, their 1080 would likely be fine for the paper and the AF and stabilisers are top notch. The EM1 mk3 is a hair behind in stabilising, but otherwise the same camera in a smaller body.

So, an EM1 mk3 with a new lens or similar and an EM1 mk2 as backup would work fine.

If I want to keep my kits separate, the Mk3 and 8-25 would be cleanest option, although the Mk2 and 12-40, are currently the best value.

For video, the G9 and 12-60 Leica or kit would be better in it’s own way also (dual stabilising up a notch with better AF also with brand matched systems). The 1080p and 4k options far out weigh the EM1’s 4k only. The other photogs at the paper have been using older model D500 Nikons, so my efforts should be technically equal or better and I will bet a lot simpler.

Too many choices!

Practicing what I preach, asking ”the right” question, I guess I need the best practical video for the paper (not highest quality, just fast and accurate, so either, but probably Oly for AF/stab. Secondly to replace my “lumpy” standard lens (12-60 Panas-either) and finally, have it all fit into an existing bag option, which is proving hard as usual. Non battery grip cameras can fit well with lens in bags like the F802 or LP Pro Tactic 350, but with grip and 40-150 Pro mounted, all bets are off*.

If you like to listen to little voices that drop hints or pose interesting questions, i.e. follow your instincts (and I do), then the Leica 8-18 has been impressing, the G9 quietly asking if it can be taken for a little run for stills and the overall balance of my kit I feel, needs more Pana for the different options if nothing else.

Adding a Pana into an Olympus kit would come with the usual issues of camera multi tasking and lets be clear, both of these are menu monsters, neither are even close in operation and neither are they similar in results. The G9 for me has been a video only camera, so setup was pretty straight forward. I just “undid” that for some stills and it took the better part of half an hour just getting the buttons back to a stills friendly configuration and take some shots (all my video settings are saved).

Will this add confusion for video and stills with just this camera alone without another brand sharing the bag?

Maybe, but I have coped up until now. The fact is, if a lens and camera are mated and used often, the habits formed seem to become agnostic. I use EM5 Mk1, EM10 Mk2, Pen F, Pen Mini, EM1 Mk2 and EM1x cameras side by side and each of those has different operational needs (often frustratingly so), so adding in a dual purpose Lumix may not be that hard in reality.

Lets have a play.

An ISO 6400 image, f4 at about 1/20th with the Leica wide angle. Compared to most of my Oly cameras, this seems to be quite “off” in WB, but it is a RAW file, so maybe we can fix it.

The slightest push to blue WB and there we have it, very pleasant (the green is close to exact). So, from worse than Oly at first sight to possibly better with the mildest of tweeks and the files seem to push around my work-flow faster than the Oly ones.

After a spin in ON1 No Noise, it comes up sharp, relatively noiseless and clean. This is close to EM1x performance from a camera a few years older and a notch below it. I always felt the G9 was a better camera than the EM1 Mk2 in sharpness and noise control and this confirms it to me.

I must admit the camera seems more complicated than my Olympus equivalents, with lots happening, lots to adjust to, but it was fast and accurate. The only issue was the screen resolution made the above file look a little softer than it actually was.

Adjustments, lots of adjustments.

Matching the Pana/Leica 8-18 to a G9 gives me a 16-95 pro lens in 1080p video, a properly matched Pana to Pana pairing for AF performance and corrections and a nice colour rendering (Panas’ tend to be cooler/brighter than Oly, so mixing them up gives you options). I have always liked the Leica 15 f1.7, but without a Pana camera it seemed a weak choice.

Lens wise, the 12-60** kit would give me a decent (better than decent) replacement for my “lumpy” 12-40. It lacks speed, but I have plenty of options there. Matched to the 75-300 Oly, I would have a decent “premium kit zoom kit” pairing for the school, covering 24-600 equiv. with plenty of fast primes to compliment them. If I split my kits as I want to, the school kit will change to this dynamic, which suits me fine as some of my lenses have been neglected lately, but never failed when used. I know what the school needs and sometimes using pro glass is over-kill.

The reality is, there is no better value around at the moment than the G9 and 12-60 kit for under $1400au. It is about the same as the G95 kit, or a EM10 Mk4 with equivalent lens. That is a lot of camera and lens for the price of a decent lens on its own. My slightly zoom-action-compromised 12-40 annoys me, but the reality is, it still works fine, especially on the video centric G9 rig, so for my school kit. It will keep on going as needed.

*The F802 bag is perfect as long as the camera is not gripped. No other bag I own works with grips except a back pack, which is problematic in itself. The Turnstyle 20L would likely work, or another F802, the bigger F833 Domke satchel, or even a generic “boxy” bag, but nothing I have now. If I stick to a non-gripped camera (G9, EM1 Mk2/3), then a second F802 would be perfect. Maybe black so I don’t pick the wrong one up.

**After a little research, the G9 with the excellent kit 12-60 can be had for as little as $1350au from an Australian retailer, the G9 with the Leica or EM1 Mk2 and 12-40 for around $2000 and the EM1 Mk3 with 12-45 f4 Pro for $2400au. I can get the EM1x for about $2500 body only, probably pushing price out a bit far and no lens.

Head; EM1 mk3 + 8-25 for $3000au. Most coverage, best “power”, most money.

Heart; EM1 Mk2 + 12-40. for $2000au Very good lens and camera combo, with minimum upheaval (really only depth added).

Gut; G9 + 12-60 kit for $1350au. Maximum give, minimum waste, biggest adjustment period.

Lens Habits

We all form habits in our working and home lives. Many of these habits revolve around thngs that work for us simply being repeated and things that don’t being discarded. Habits formed by realities.

Over the last couple of years, I have been flogging my gear and I have recently realised, my habits have changed as good results give me warm fuzzy feelings about some gear and less stellar performance has resulted in cold prickly feelings (although this has been less common, the warm fuzzies generally just winning out).

When I started out, my base kit was the following;

12-40, 45, 75-300. This was a handy kit covering the widest I felt I would need, to the longest, and a fast portrait prime to help balance out the slow 75-300. It was fine and got me to where I needed to be, but it did have its limitations, usually to do with sport, distance and winter light.

My kit now is the 8-18, 25, 40-150, 75. All but the wide angle are lenses I already owned, but their true utility was not discovered until repeated use produced consistently excelllent results.

The 8-18 was origionally bought to reduce my reliance on the 12-40, which had developed a “lump” in its zoom range and to pre-empt a predicted need for a wider lens, which turned out to be the case more often than I would have thought. What I was not expecting was a lens capable of producing something special, even adding a whole new look to my kit.

Great distorting control, beautiful colour and strong perfromance across the frame, this lens slots into my existing Olymus kit as an equal, but slightly diffferent partner. Apart from the Fuji 14 f2.8, I have rarely come across a wide angle with such a compelling case to be in my bag.

I tend to avoid the very widest settings unless needed, but even then, it is tolerable, even to me. If I had the luxury of time, I would have likely held out for the 8-25 Olympus, just for the extra range, but I am actually glad I did not have to choose, because there is something this something about this lens, something I would have missed out on.

As for build quality, this lens has been badly dropped twice (rare for my gear), and has come out scratched, but healthy, so A+ there. It’s performance has been impressive enough to have me looking at Panasonic more, maybe even enough to sway me to getting a second G9 with a kitted lens.

Issues? AF on the EM10’s is a little patchy, although not as bad with touch screen, which is very snappy even on the older EM5’s (and my preferred way of using it), the AF/MF switch needs some tape on it to reduce accidental actuation and………….nothing else I can think of.

*

The 25mm is still surprise to me. I have a complicated relationship with my 17mm, going from reluctant purchaser to outright groupie, all the while managing to ignore the “filler” 25. It turns out, this is my best portrait lens and my favourite video lens on the EM1x. It is superior to many other lenses I have ever owned and a great example of what makes M43 work for me, it just took me a while to get that.

It lacks the compostional power of the environment including 17, the flattering compression and characterful Bokeh of the 45 or the outright heroing of the subject the 75mm offers, but it is the champion of doing a little of all these things, with a comfortable working range and allpurpose ease of use they all lack.

This was a high ISO test shot, which shows off the lenses wide open sharpness and Bokeh. Very harmonious and creatively compelling. On the EM1x, this lens also seems to perform the best with touch AF and general handling.

Negatives? The lens is actually not a 50mm equivalent, more a 45mm, which is actually a benefit for me, but something to be aware of and it is not weather resistant, but I am also aware of that, so no real issue, just a shame.

*

The 40-150 Pro is a lens I sold off in my low period, a time when I was systematically shedding lenses as I moved towards a small travel-only kit. The 12-100 Pro was another casualty of that time and one I still regret selling in hindsight, but who knew where the future would take me.

Luckily, I managed to get it back for what I sold it for. The best thing I did all that year. This is my work horse. Any doubts that it can produce images as sharp and clean as my primes have been well and truly quashed. It is a brilliant low light option, long enough for most sports and versatile enough for most other tasks.

Tough light, no issue. This is my indoor sport, drama and classroom portrait lens.

This lens is also one of my most reliable AF performers. On any camera it seems to be one of the best I have. I remember using it with an EM5 mk1 for basketball and getting good results. The EM5 mk1 has fast aquisition, but no trackng at all, so I was relying on instant speed and accuracy only.

For extra versatility, the 1.4x teleconverter goes on this so seemlessly, I often forget it is on.

Issues? Nothing other than weight, which can be resolved by switching to the excellent 40-150 kit or 75-300 tele, both great lenses if light allows, and it has occasionally nervous Bokeh, but very occasionally and I have options.

*

The final lens and one I do not always use, but consider my “secret weapon” is the 75mm f1.8 (see Bokeh above). For rare occassions where I might need crazy soft Bokeh or even better low light perfromance, this one is added. It is quite simply my best M43 lens, but has to share a crowded space and is of limited utility due to it’s odd focal length (150mm equiv).

Sharp, brilliant, compressed goodness.

On a video camera it can become a 400 f1.8 at 1080p on the G9, something that I am dying to try.

Issues? Only the focal length and again a lack of weather proofing, which being a metal lens, means going from a cold outside to a warm room, can cause a lot of fogging. A lot.

*
I am sure my lens “habits” will change as time travels on, especially if travel comes back into the spotlight, but for the time being thsi is the kit.

My next camera is likely to be a second G9 with maybe the Leica 12-60 kitted. If that is the case, I will likley use that lens as my new standard for stills/video and leave the 12-40 on the rigged out G9 for video.

Further Thoughts On Properly Defining "The Question"

So, my search has been clarified with a little research, a little more retrospection and a re-defining of “the question”.

The question is realistically; Do I want to go down a true videographer pathway, or simply add depth to my existing stills kit, but in a video capable frame of mind.

The three realistic options now are;

Another Olymous EM1x in the sales, with room still for a Ninja V, but the whole Pro-res to DaVinci work flow is not really appealing. The EM1x is my preferred stills option, and depending on my future direction, possibly the only real option, but leaves the door open for better video if needed. In sales, they come in at $2000au, which is basically an EM1 mk3, with a built in grip, second charger and second battery for less than an EM1 mk3 body. I may even be able to score a good lens kit.

Gut choice; Increased depth, with a strong lean towards stills before possible further video upgrades. Realistically, I am a stills shooter with video as an option. This may be limited thinking, but if I loose an EM1 to long term use or bad luck, I would feel the gap. Video is limited to 4k, then downsized, which is an unneccesary drain on resources.

*

Nice place to think, unfortunately a long way away.

Another Panasonic G9, because to be honest, this is still the best value M43 camera on the market. As a stills camera it bests the EM5 MK3, EM1 Mk2, G95 etc on price and overall performance. It is also a good option to pick up a cheap standard lens (12-60 kit, or Leica, both great options, although the Leica for some reason is more often than not dearer in a kit than on its own?!). For $1500au or less (with kit lens), I could add a second G9, making an ideal second angle camera and have one that can be better set up as a decent stills option, something I would like to explore further.

Having two would also allow me to happily upgrade one or both to VLOG-L and get a cheaper off board recorder just for continuous recording if needed or even tag-team them. The EM1x could then be re-assigned back to mostly stills, cleaning up my processes and improving consistency. I can even rebuild my EM1x cage to fit it in a different configuration to the first one.

Heart choice: Logical depth for both formats, but especially video. I feel that embracing the G9 would pay off in video, where relegating it to a second camera role may dilute it’s usefulness overall. Another G9 cannot ever be a bad thing (I rate them above the EM1 mk2’s, closer to the EM1 mk3 in many ways and they are comparable to the BM in many real world scenarios-possibly even with nicer skin tones-YMMV). Even with a more than decent kit lens, it is still the cheapest option. Only the GH6 beats it overall, and in real terms only just at more than three times the price.

*

The BMCC4k. This one would be a massive boost to my video cabilities, opening the door to various RAW formats, but effectievly nothing is added for stills. It could however semi-free up my other cameras as stills cameras, or would it? The things it offers have to be balanced against what it does not do, meaning my existing options could still have their uses, but would I use them if there is a noticeable, unacceptable difference in quality? Realistically, would I mix a jpeg only stills camera into a RAW workflow?

Head choice; A strong, clean and logical video upgrade. An even stronger commitment to video in general, but a shift in balance and thinking. The nagging suspicion that the second I get it, it will be pressed into service is lingering and the “be taken more seriously” vibe also.

Ok.

The top two options do not unbalance my current video kit, but limit it to a certain level, a “pro-am” level. If 4k, 422, 10 bit Cine-D/Natural (opt. VLOG-L upgrade) from the G9, C4k, 8 bit, All-i, Flat profile from the EM1x/EM1 mk2’s and the OSMO’s 4k Cine-D are enough, then balance and relevance are retained. If not, then I am effectively starting again with the BMCC4k ans everything I have built up is wasted.

Is there sunshine behind the clouds of uncertainty?

The BMCC4k on the other hand, as good as it would be, especially for the money, would rise above the others for quality. I fear it would hog my video thinking, pushing the other cameras aside, then fall short in areas the others excel at.

But!

lf actually having a nobody-will-help-you-but-yourself video camera, a camera that will give me pro results (assuming that these are outside of the realm of my existing cameras), but better only if extra effort and skill are applied, then maybe it is a step in the right direction.

After using B-RAW/Pro-res in a variety of formats and a purely video-centric camera, would I pay even passing notice to the G9 and others? On the other hand, would a camera that cannot handle the weather, stabilise, or offer workable AF and is a video only-huge bag hog, be anything more than a part time option for a stills heavy hybrid shooter?

If an unbalanced kit is a risk, then more thought needs to be applied.

Have I said before how important balance is to my overly ordered mind?

The new dynamic would be a very simple BMCC4k primary, OSMO as gimbal camera and G9 as “B” camera, likely with the VLOG-L upgrade, so it has a decent chance of keeping up. A pair of specialist video cameras, effectively opposites to compliment each other and a decent support camera.

So, back to the question; Video aiming for pro level results or stills with video as a side line?

AAARRGGHH!

Before You Chase An Answer, First Look Closely At The Question

As the title suggests, I think when looking for future camera answers, I need to look at defining the question, before I look too hard for the answer.

Look very closely. Ok, maybe too close.

Do I need more resolution?

No.

720p is my main submission format, 1080p my preferred “backup”, as long as it is robust, sharp and clear. No-one at this stage wants or needs more, so premium quality yes, increased size no. Even when I shoot 4k on the EM1’s it is simply to get better 1080, because their 1080 sucks.

Do I need better dynamic range?

Probably.

Doesn’t everyone always, but having said that, you shoot to what you can get and no-one knows the difference. No camera has ever supplied infinite dynamic range, so you use what you have. I find this with stills also. You use the DR you have, making the negative space work for you or fix it with lights etc. Shoot in gloom, for the gloom. Want to capture the bright outside and dull inside together? Add lights, which would likely be needed anyway regardless of your DR capacity. Movies like “Children of Men” use the best camera gear, but no added light and documentary shooters like Mark Bone work it well even with entry level semi-pro gear.

Do I need better format choices?

Yes.

Plain and simple, some type of true LOG or RAW would be great. I process my stills from RAW and I know the difference. Natural on a Pana and Flat on an Olympus are good, but rely far too much on pre-shot precision and locked in choices. This also helps answer the above question.

Do I need better ISO performance?

Probably. Maybe. Not sure?

Fast glass does most jobs well enough. F1.8 at 1/50th does not push me too hard in most circumstances. It’s only when deeper DOF becomes an issue that it, well, it becomes an issue. ISO 1600, f1.8 at 1/50th is useable even in poor light and unlike stills, it is movement tolerant. Effectively video has about 4-5 stops more movement tolerance.

Better AF?

Not really which surprises me.

I have good solid AF in the OSMO and EM1’s and good AF in the G9 (better with Pana glass), but to be honest, over reliance on AF is probably indicative of poor technical skill. Would I like perfect AF in all my cameras? Of course, but I have it when I need it and I have yet to find an AF system that can read my mind. That’s right folks, AF cannot read your mind.

Better MF?

If possible, but I can get by.

I do have a screen now, a cheap Feelworld F7 which helps a lot and the G9 is pretty good as is, but a better screen on one camera would be nice, even though it would not help the others. With the Oly’s I will always use their screen for Touch AF, because it is good enough and the ergonomics are perfect.

Better Stabilising?

Not really.

The OSMO and to some extent all my M43 cameras are strong here. Very slight improvements in newer models aside, these are a boost in an area where technique, smart thinking and more practice can net vast improvements, new tech only minor ones. A Gimbal for the bigger cameras would be better than camera stab, but I would loose that “hand held” feel. The G9 has nealry perfect “locked” stab for interviews.

How about Bit rates and colour depth?

Maybe. This gets a little tricky.

The G9 has 10 bit, 422, Long GOP, the Oly can do 8 bit, 420 but in All-i. I would love both in one to be honest, but again, improvements in any of the above would likely be enough to bridge this for me. On a practical note, 4-800 mbs All-i is a huge load on a system, when in the end result you may not be able to translate the difference.

Recording time?

Maybe. Again a surprise on reflection.

A real bugbear I felt, but if I look at it logically, there are very few times when I need more than a continuous 30 mins and if I do, running two or more cameras allows me to stop-start one, with a second angle to cover the gap (and the G9 is always ready to go). Not ideal I suppose, but how many times do you actually look at long periods of unbroken footage without at least an angle change? The other thing is of course, “unlimited” is usually still battery life limited, which may not be much longer than this anyway.

So, what is really missing?

If I accept that each of my existing cameras can provide decent enough quality in their specialist areas, but if I want a better, more professional base format to shoot with, then one real improvement path I could make, is the BM Pocket Cinema 4k for B-RAW or Pro-res formats or the Ninja V on the EM1x for Pro-res only. The BMV Assist 3G with Pro-res and B-RAW is also tempting for a lot of practcal reasons (batteries, cards), but I am still not sure it works with all my cameras, or in 4k.

If ease of processing pathways is important, the BM’s are the best ones really, avoiding the whole Pro-res to DNG conversion thing (or I could learn another software package).

Another option, and one that is a small compromise, but still a solid improvement is the GH6, which adds full VLOG and Pro-res internally (still needs an expensive card or Ninja etc), dual ISO, even better 1080p options, 10 bit, 422 colour depth, All-i compression and improved AF and stabilising (for Panasonic) with no recording limit. This camera then becomes the replacement for all the others for video (except the OSMO), freeing up all of those for either backup video or stills and has good colour compatability with the G9.

There is also the very real benefit of very sharp 100mp hand held high res and native 26mp for stills. This would be an admission that video for me is part of a hybrid life, not a sign of a stills shooter becoming a full cinematographer.

I could also buy it in a kit, which fixes my standard lens problem and it still has compatibility with the Ninja etc.

So, after all of that, it turns out that the only camera that can actually lift my game and answer all my questions, is the GH6, with the BMCC4k as a good value alternate.

Go figure.

New Camera Clarity....I Wish.

In looking at new cameras, I have been reminded that there are often more paths to where you want to go, than just the most obvious.

First up, what do I have now?

• The EM1x has class leading stabilisation, All-i compression, very good C4k, solid touch screen AF, but it has poor 1080p, Limited LOG options, only 8-bit colour depth, is time limited and has mediocre video interface.

• The G9 can shoot 10 bit, 4k, 422, fast and slow frame rate effects, customises very well, and has excellent 10bit 1080p, but it is time limited, especially in 4k 60 (10 mins), and has limited LOG options without a firmware update.

• The OSMO has excellent quality 1080 and 4k 60, is a true gimbal and can go on a stick or underwater (with a housing), but only has one focal length, needs a lot of accessories to be fully realised and is battery, but not time limited.

• My other EM’s are like the EM1x but less so in most areas.

A little colour for the first day of winter.

Basically, between the above cameras, if I am prepared and careful, I have the right camera for most tasks, but it takes a village as no one camera is the answer all the time.

For hand held movement or unusual angles, the OSMO is the one. For hand held with that steady-cam look, lens choices and All-i compression for busy subjects, the EM1x or an EM1 mk2 is the best and for tripod or hand held work, with lower subject movement based video, the G9 can provide top tier performance with a ton of tricks.

If I want better video, do I actually need to buy another video camera with the above options?

What options are there to upgrade what I have rather than replace anything?

A new camera would improve some performance parameters, but not by a decent amount for the cost and cannot replace any one of the above entirely.

The Atomos Ninja V is the one stop shop upgrade option for all my cameras at once and cheaper than any of them. The other option is the Black Magic Video assist, but the Ninja is cheaper and a very good fit for the EM1x in particular.

What would a Ninja add?

For the EM1x, my favourite video camera to be honest, the Ninja would give me Pro-Res RAW and no recording limit. Looking at samples, this is as good as I would ever need, seriously good stuff, right up there with a Black Magic, but on a more practical camera. Superior AF and stabilising combined with better formatting and screen performance and higher and longer recording capacity.

The G9 and EM1 Mk2’s and even my humble EM10 mk2’s would all benefit, as would most future cameras, making my choices more flexible!

$3500au for a GH6 or similar now seems possibly short sighted and bad value. The Ninja would give me much of what they offer with what I have now.

Basically, I would go from three good enough, but limited video camera options, two with semi gimbal stabilising and good AF, to a half dozen very capable cameras and the ability to decide which is the one I want to use and how. It will also supply a storage solution that off-sets the cost of buying more high speed cards.

My ideal would be a cheap EM1x later, something that seemed short sighted video wise, but not so much now.

So, my three camera options have now become effectively 5.

1. The BM Compact Cinema or Studio 4k ($1800) would give me a perfect tripod camera. This is a specialist video option, with price as its best motivation. I feel it would more often than not be left behind, making my other cameras more useful but question why I bought it in the first place.

2. The GH6 ($3200au) would up my overall video performance and add some stills benefits. Again, this is a good replavcment for cmaeras I have, but then what do they do? The G9 becomes a useful “B” roll camera, but would likely be used in preference as a stills camera.

3. The OM-1 ($3100au) adds stills performance and fixes some annoyances in Oly video. My camera favourite as it takes out the Oly wrinkles and ups overall performance nicely.

4. The Ninja ($700au + SSD $150+) adds Pro-res RAW, superior screen and storage options and upgrades all my cameras. This also adds high speed storage.

5. The BM assist 3G 5-7” ($650-900au) adds much the same as the Ninja, but takes SD cards and has B-RAW. I have plenty of decent cards, so this one actually looks better on reflection and B-RAW is a better fit for DaVinci.

All add unlimited, high speed recording.

The Reality Of Noise

Digital noise is a limitation we, as photographers, have been fighting in one form or another for a very longtime.

There is no doubt that noise and film grain before it, can cripple an image, or at the very least force you into a look that may be at odds with your vision.

Excessive noise is probably the first thing that comes to mind for M43 shooters or at least those looking in from the outside. I must admit, I have never really been overly sensitive to it coming from 1980’2 to newer film, early digital, then mid to later full frame, Fuji APS-C, then finally into M43, all with Adobe Lightroom (except film). Noise was for much of the time, pretty much fully in line with my expectations. Nothing to worry about up to ISO 800-1600, take care up to 3200, use 6400 when a little desperate and ignore anything beyond as basically “unhelpful”.

M43 does have some advantages over larger formats, providing faster and longer lenses in smaller and cheaper packages (sometimes even providing lenses simply unavailable to FF shooters), as any lens is effectively double the actual focal length but still acts like it’s true focal length, improving the performance of applied stabilisers.

What happens though when a higher ISO is the only way to get the job done?

The three files above and the one below and their close-ups were taken with a M43 camera at ISO 12,800, processed first in Capture 1, then popped across to ON1 for a clean-up. Interestingly, one of the files needed very little work, one was a bit better and one cleaned up more noticeably, but was still useable.

My main concern is not visible noise, but other quality stealing factors like washed out colour and mushy detail. Even Bokeh is effected by noise. At first some more noise smooths Bokeh and noise reduction even helps, then it steals away the sharpness, which tends to blur Bokeh….if that’s a thing.

C1 seems to keep the colour strong, ON1 holds sharpness while removing noise to acceptable levels. I have used ON1 with Lightroom, but the M43 file that goes across is less clean, so the resulting file, although it looks very close at first, is the result of more aggressive processing.

Colour is a little cool and flat, but that is the horrible day here and I was not keen to mess with my samples too much.

The fact is, and I know this from real world use, this much noise disappears in many scenarios and is acceptable in most others. Printing in particular tends to even things out, as does small screen viewing (see the images above).

I also know that for real world use, an f1.8 to 2.8 lens and a decent shutter speed is achievable in most lighting conditions, which is where the M43 advantage kicks in.

The very rare times 12,800 is actually needed, it is not horrific by any means. I may even go higher.

Editing, Culling And Fresh Eyes

There is such a thing as being too close to something to be able to see it clearly.

I have started one of those tasks that is very much a punishment for being lay last holiday break. I an gonf through 2500+ images that have stacked up in my catalogue, that should really have been looked at before now, but to be honest, in some cases I am happy I have had to go back with fresh eyes.

One of the first things I noticed was the base quality of the files. The 17mm f1.8 lens took pretty much every single shot on a trip to Melbourne recently. This lens came out early in M43’s relatively short lifespan and reviews “back then” (several years ago) tended to be very math based. Charts for resolution, chromatic aberration, vignetting and contrast can often hide the true nature of a lens. I have noticed that lately, this lens more often than not comes up on M43 top ten lens lists, even making the top spot of one.

As a street lens, I feel the combination of the format, the characteristics of this lens and a choice of camera form factors, make this as good as it gets. There are specialist street cameras out there, but to be honest, I can match any of them, and have the versatility of drawing from a full system.

Next, cropping changes. Small, niggling suspicions that files are not strong enough, are addressed.

While culling three quarters of the files (the tough bit, but necessary), colour also gets re-assessed.

Often an overlooked file can re-surface, or a favourite re-processed with fresh eyes.

This one was lightened and brightened.

Some just reinforce their appeal.

The unique perspective and character of the 17mm.

The 17mm f1.8 was the only lens for this kit I bought semi-reluctantly. Basically, in the early days of M43, the options were few. This one was the only workable choice, but even then, it felt like a filler until something “better” came along. Well others did come, but I will not part with it now. Almost every image taken on the Melbourne trip was shot with this lens at f2.8.

Camera Choice Getting Harder Or Easier?

I am still tentatively looking at new camera options.

The Black Magic 4k have largely fallen away, not being considered generally practical enough, even though its value is by far the best. I feel I would fall back on the G9 or EM1x far too often to justify a great, but largely “dumb” video camera, with poor or no AF and no stabiliser. My logic may be flawed.Isn’t it better to have a few cameras that do different jobs than the same thing done differently?

• With a 4k BM I would have the ideal tripod/studio/pro grade camera,

• the G9 for general video and optional stills use with better than ok stabilising and AF options,

• the EM1x for solid semi-gimbal hand held movement with the best AF and finally,

• the OSMO for genuine gimbal smoothhness and many other creative options.

All offer similar quality 4k, which in most cases would be down sized to 1080 or smaller.

Ok. May have befuddled myself there. Having four specialists makes plenty of sense, seeing as I already have three of them.

An unrelated filler image from a recent insurance shoot.

The OM-1 is appealing more now as a stills and genuine video option. It has no limits in shooting time and no annoying breaks in its footage. It seem to be nearly faultless with video AF and has much sharper 1080p. For stills, I will give it to the Oly overall for AF and low light performance, but both it and the GH6 are excellent.

It looks to have some better video customisation options, something the other Oly’s are poor at, making on the go switching between roles difficult. AF for both shooting forms comes with the very real consideration that most of my lenses are Olympus.

On this, I could buy with the OM-1 and possibly a kitted 12-100, 12-45, the new 12-40, 8-25 or 20 f1.4. So many choices.

The GH6 on the other hand has better hand held high res (100mp with better subject movement control and sharpness), which gives me a surprising stills benefit and ties in well with my Pana/Leica wide angle. Olympus seems to be better at 50mp than 80mp. I do not use this much now, but for the odd group shot with genuine single face lift-outs, it might be handy. There is also the advantage of a few more pixels natively.

For video, it lifts the Pana into the same realm as the BM’s, offerring genuine LOG, 120 4k, in camera cooling, 10 bit in most formats and much better AF. I also like the synergy of the G9 as backup to the GH6 as primary.

Lens options for the GH6 are the unlikely 10-25 f1.4 video or the 12-60 Leica. Both appeal, but being Pana lenses, they may lack some AF compatibility with my Oly cameras, but offers better compatibility with the Panas and dual IS.

So where am I now?

My gut says the OM-1, because I like the 4k video, would usually use the stills functions more and have found the video focus and stabiliser on the EM-1x very solid, so slight improvements would be more than adequate. Having said that, for many of my real needs, the EM1x is plenty and it does not get a lot of work overall. This and all of my video cameras could also get an upgrade by adding the Ninja V (G9 becomes a true 4k beast, Oly’s get RAW etc).

My head says the BM 4k (studio or compact cinema?), for the value. For the same price as an older OM or GH camera, I would have a very good specialist 4k RAW video camera with better processsing options (with free Premium Da Vinci for life), which is perfectly calibrated to the camera and is real RAW. This is my preferred stills processing option. The OSMO, G9 and various EM-1’s are all valid options with strengths of their own. The BM would be the premium static camera and the pro video camera with an eye to upskilling into pro grade cameras.

Lenses are out of the picture, pushing the overall price up again, but I have saved enough to choose what I want or even look at some of the cinema specific ones. Accessories are also a consideration. Smallrig frames are up to three times the price of Pana ones (so I would likely skip one, using another camera), and Gimbals, a real consideration, push the camera closer to the others in overall cost, but again, this where the others come in. In it’s envisaged role, I think it would be best left as is (I favour the studio anyway), being relegated to the serious tripod camera.

My heart says the GH6. This camera continues my transition into a mixed Pana/Olympus system, gives me some new features and harmonises well with the G9 as both a backup stills and video camera. Dual ISO, more stills pixels, better hand held high res, a cooling fan, two record buttons and VLOG are on the plus side. My only concerns are the slight shortfall in AF compared to the OM-1, but it is still more capable than the G9 and likely equal to the OM’s I have. The EM1x could then be sidelined as a video camera.

Operation would be nearly identical to my G9 set-up and the video, even though it is overkill, is likely as good as the BM 4k in real terms. The lens options are also tempting. I have had wonderful results out of my Oly stable, but I must admit, the Leica/Pana 8-18 does have a special look that I appreciate. The handy premium 12-60 is the likely one, or the excellent 12-60 kit or even the 15 1.7, all available kitted with the camera.

*

The other more balanced (Head/Gut/Heart) and probably realistic option is to get another cheap G9 the Ninja V, making all my existing video cameras better. The second G9 would let me carry one as a second EM1 level stills camera with better video ready to go, which is harder with Oly cameras as they do not let you set video specific custom modes.

A G9 with a 12-60 kit lens (or maybe a specialist video lens as the 1080 cropping options effectively make it a dual lens) and the Ninja V would come in under the price of the BM4k with accessories and get rid of the one thing that annoys me - 30 minute time limits. I already have rig options, accessories and consistency of operation. I could even add a full gimbal with little fear of blowing out the budget advantage.

A Monster Calls

The ARTDNA 48” soft box arrived today hot on the heels of the 36'“. It does not at first seem that much larger, but in comparison to the other already decently sized one, it is a monster. It actually blocks out the ceiling light.

The 36” is a self assemble model with, 14 ribs inserted into the Bowens S-mount. To break it down requires some real dis-assembly, but unlike when you recieved it, the assembly is not too tedious and the diffuser panels do not need to be removed. Out of the bag, each rib has to be inserted, but after, they only need to be taken out of the Bowens mount.

14 ribs and 14 fiddly little clips, but only the first time.

The 48” is umbrella-like in assembly, that is you don’t have to insert all of the ribs. Unlike my other 120cm brolly soft boxes though, it is a shoot through from the Bowens S-mount, not a shoot from inside reflector. It is pre-made, assembled into working form by pushing down the stem from the inside. Rather than clipping in the diffuser, it simply velcros into place taking a few seconds, so easier overall than the 36”, but different.

A sturdy umbrella mechanism. The 36” is broken down by taking most of the ribs out of the Bowens mount under tension, this one just pops shut.

My main concern is its weight. The thing is huge and by its very nature, fairly front heavy. There is no way I would attach it to front of one of my cheaper COB lights, but a plastic Bowens bracket held it happily on an angle for an hour or so. The smaller one can just fit through a standard door assembled, the bigger one has no hope.

The big question for me is whether there is any real advantage in these over the reflector 48” soft box brollies I have. They are physically heavier and bigger by design, harder to assemble and generally dearer (not in this case, but generally), so they will have to offer something. There are easier to change on the fly, but that assumes they are assembled and the lights used will take them.

The 36” on the left has a nice brilliance to it (no processing applied, not even exposue). It is also about a stop brighter (1/16, f5.6, ISO 200 with a YN560 III). The bigger unit has a more neutral, softer look and more open shadows, similar to my 7’ white brolly (it is also a tie for unwieldiness). Apart from the lack of brilliance, this thing manages the magical one light portrait. Maybe with a hair light?

I prefer the colour and brighness of smaller one, but the larger one more pleasantly shapes Meg’s face. The difference in magnification is because the smaller one actually sticks out further, forcing me to move closer or catch its edge.

The Fantastic Capture 1 (oh, and Mr Fox)

I am on record saying that Capture 1, especially for a Micro Four Thirds user, has been a revelation. With Lightroom, an acceptable balance between sharpness and noise control was regularly unachievable past ISO 1600, but with C1, I cannot remember the last time I needed to use noise reduction, worried about import sharpening or clarity, unless I had pushed a file to stratospheric heights above ISO 6400 or under exposed badly. Then I will drop it into ON1 No Noise from C1, expecting premium results and usually getting them.

There was a transitional adjustment to be made, something that I have really only recently come to fully understand, but now I understand the best process pathways, my results are regulalry more to my liking.

Brilliance, the control I missed early on, is a whole other fish to Exposure control. LR relied on a natural (un-natural?) lushness to its colour and contrast and it looks good, very “Hollywood”, but comes at a cost. C1 comes with a more mature and honest base-line. I felt early on that it lacked any form of natural punch or glow, but on discovering the Brilliance slider, I not only found that punch, but a better way of controlling exposure also.

In the sets above the first, flatter original files are nicely boosted and cleaned up using a little added Brilliance control and the snap and glow comes out, colours benefitting most. It is almost as if the glow comes out from within the file rather than a global layer of brightness across it.

The third file has the same amount of Exposure applied, weakening contrast and colour. It is just lighter, not better. In Lightroom, my usual process would be boosting Whites, dropping out Blacks and adding Exposure overall. This would have the effect of boosting contrast more gently than just adding Exposure or Contrast. It took two or three sliders and the base line brightness of the file would not change fundamentally.

How do I use it?

I will apply Brightness to a dull or dark image before the Exposure, Contrast or Highlight/Whites sliders. The placement of it in C1 lower down the pecking order than most is annoying, but workable. If I use Exposure first, then Brightness used to balance. Brightness is one of those few festures I use in both a positive and negative context. Often though I tend to drop Exposure back to where it was and I find the Contrast slider too aggressive for normal files.

Dehaze is the next most useful to my work flow.

I found Dehaze in LR (possibly limited by the age of my computer curtailing LR upgrades) was a little crude and simplistic. Doing what it was designed for, it was fine when needed, but that made it an emergency measure like noise reduction, not something with a wider utility.

In C1, the Dehaze slider has become for me the little “snap” enhancer that many files appreciate and is rarely destructive. It can in extreme cases, even add a feeling of three-dimensionality.

In the first file below, C1 has retained decent balance between noise reduction and sharpness on import, so where to next? Add Contrast, Exposure, maybe Brightness? Perhaps Shadows lifted and Highlights dropped back?

In the middle file some Exposure was added, generally lightening, but also slightly washing out the file.

Dehaze was added to the right hand file and this is the secret. Once you have caressed a troublesome file, Dehaze puts back in the normal, the strength. This allows you to work a file a little more aggressively, knowing you have a wonder tool that can gently add back in what other things have erroded.

When do I use it?

Any time a file is a bit flat, I first apply the needed fixes, then use Dehaze to put back the needed contrast. Like Brightness, the Dehaze control seems to add from within, not just layer over the surface. It is especially good at fighting the “HDR” look that strong use of the Highlight or Shadow sliders can create.

The only down side is colour tends to intensify, with Olympus files anyway, often towards Magenta, but that is fixable. This is likely a response to the core colours in the files, so others may find different behaviour.

I also use it when the file is hazey, but I guess that is in the name and never if the actual image requires a hazey look.

Keep in mind, C1 reduces the need for many controls I used automatically in LR like Noise Reduction, Sharpeing (often locally applied), the Blue channel in Camera Calibration for better portrait colour and Clarity (again often locally applied with the brush tool).

So;

My Lightroom work flow was;

• Import with boosted Blue channel, some Sharpening and if the preset required it some Noise Reduction,

• deal with White Balance issues,

• locally apply with the brush tool, Sharpening, Noise reduction and Negative sharpenning into semi-soft areas,

• apply Clarity or Blacks were used for more “snap”, Highlights often recovered as able and I found them quite bright in LR.

My C1 basic workflow is;

• Import with base settings,

• pause before getting too excited,

• adjust Brilliance or less often Exposure and White Balance if needed, less often Shadows or Highlights ,

• use the brush or gradient filter etc if needed for localised Dodging, Sharpening/De-sharpening,

• add Dehaze to taste, less often Contrast or Clarity (these get more of a go in mono).

I almost never touch Noise Reduction or Sharpening, my two bug-bears in LR.

When you are processing over a thousand images like I did this weekend (school ball), having the files import basically “good enough to go”, means I can concentrate on minor improvements if needed. I spend more time removing pesky photo bombers than worrying about noise etc, which would have been my first thought with LR. I have effectively removed a couple of steps from my flow.

Different Roads, Different Tools

Mine is a life of diversity.

One day I will be asked to photograph large groups, the next, I will be covering sport, maybe later the same day a social event, some drama or an after hours excursion.

Diverse, fun, challenging.

The gear requirements are heav. II am not a true pro, but experienced and widely equipped. However, each year I learn a little more, making some things easier and sometimes focing wholesale changes on my gear and processes.

If I had to rank the difficulty of each style I need to employ, I would use two criteria;

Gear, which is obvious but needs to be looked at,

and,

process or the knowledge, experience and control needed.

I will rank them from 1 (easy-amateur) to 3 (serious commitment).

Sport Indoor (3/3). Fast medium teles, through to equally fast shorter lenses, f1.8 on MFT is fine, 2.8 on a full frame. Good ISO performance through the camera or post processing and good AF. My EM1 mk2’s are fine, the EM1x just a little better with ON1 No Noise if needed. EM1’s, 4x f1.8 primes, 40-150 and 12-40 f2.8’s.

The sport that defined my thinking, indoor swimming. Poor light and long distances.

Field Sport (2-3/2). Long glass, with faster shorter lenses as the action moves closer or the light goes f4 being the outer limit. The enemy is poorly lit night games which can even rival indoor sports for difficulty. Fast cameras are also a requirement. After a horror night game exerience at the local hockey centre, I discovered ON1 No Noise in combination with C1 and they literally changed my thinking on what is “low light”. I now use 6400 confidently and 12800 if needed, where once 3200 gave me the jitters. EM1’s 40-150 f2.8, 300 f4 or the 75-300 if the light is good and the action slower, 1.4x converter and something wider for half time.

Large Groups (1 or 3 with lights/1). If light is good, a basic camera and standard zoom lens are all you need. If shooting indoors, a faster lens is useful as long as you can get back far enough to use the wider aperture, or lots and lots of light. MFT gives me a 2 stop depth advantage, but I still struggle to light up large areas. The main thing is to be on top of the process, i.e. crowd control. Any camera, 12-40 f2.8 or f1.8 prime, 4+ flash units with silver reflectors and constant lights if needed.

Portraiture (1/3). This is one of the easiest gear wise, with any camera and a fast(ish) prime generally all that is needed, generally f2.8 on a full frame or 1.8 on MFT, with a basic kit lens being ok if flash is used in a studio, where depth of field is largely controlled by light, not aperture. Lighting can be cheap and easy or as crazy as you want. This is one of those areas though where experience and communication out shine gear. Any camera, any MFT f1.8 prime for available light or any lens if in a studio. 1-2 lights, with mods and reflectors, which could be as easy as 2x 33” brollies on cheap stands with cheap flash units and lots of experimentation.

Performances (3/3). Poor light, movement, distance, limited angles, all the good stuff. I usually use primes, but sometimes if the light is strong enough an f2.8 zoom can work or even my longest lens at f4. Any camera (EM1’s for movement), any longer fast lens.

On a well lit stage, most lenses can be used, even the 300 f4.

Field trips (2/3). These include any trip outside of the school, but not camps or sporting events. A pair of zooms, one wide, one long with a TC or longer slower zoom on a good light day and a camera and maybe a fast prime. 2x anything, but generally a basic camera for the wide and an EM1 for the tele, 8-18, 40-150 pro or 75-300/40-150 kit and a 45 f1.8.

Camps (2/2). These can be tricky and specific, but generally weather proofing is the main priority, then coverage. Again a pair of zooms, one wide, one long and a camera for each (avoid changng if possible) and maybe a fast prime for low light candids. 2x EM1’s 8-18, 40-150 pro and a 25 f1.8. I may take a flash, but will generally avoid lighting in favour of authenticity and have had need of the 300. The OSMO also comes in handy in its water proof housing.

Social events (2/1). These are usually a formal entrance area and some on the fly, so I use an EM1 and 17mm with flash for the mobile stuff and my “lucky” EM10 with the 12-40 for the flash kit. Formal kit; A specific EM10, 12-40, YN 560 with reversed brolly (and a second one ready for larger groups), an LED for fill and to help focus. The on the go kit, EM1 with Godox TTL flash and black foamy thing for bounce, a 17 and occassionally 75 for stage work. Lots of backups especially backups.

Video Interviews (2/2). This settled quickly through working and not being messed with. A single prime lens, the 25mm f1.8 (wide open) and the G9 or EM1x. I usually run the SSH-6 mic in close on its own stand if static or off camera if not and use a single light or natural light when able with a little LED for rim and a reflector for fill. G9 for set spaces or EM1x if less controlled for better focus, 25 f1.8, F1 and SSH-6

Freestyle video (2/3+). Hand held, follow focus, patchy sound, make it up as you go along. This is tough to master and the province of full time videographers, but it is also tons of fun. It also covers the creative side of set video production. Gimbals are recommended, so my OSMO and EM1x are the go to’s. I have had success with the caged EM1x and 25mm and the OSMO is a given, just needing better sound (which is coming).

Group/Event video (3/2). This one is different to interviews becasue you have more to contend with with sound, but usually stereo sound will work. Any lens needed will work, from 17 to 45, with the H5 running a pair of condenser mics or its XY or SSH capsule (as well). G9, any lens, H5 and XLR condenser mics, XY capsule, SSH capsule, lots of light, a backup rig of the EM1x and F1 for second angles or just backup and even a third camera for same.

Event video (3/2). As a rule I shoot stills unless specifically tasked otherwise, but occasionally I will try to cobble together a little video while shooting. My primary video camera for this is the OSMO, the secondary camera is either an EM1 in dual role or the G9 specifically. Always the OSMO, a mini tripod, sometimes the weatherproof housing and occasionally the G9 and 12-40.

My own travel and street (1/3). I generally stick to light weight and easy to use and gear that I trust completely. Needless to say, if not working in this space, I could pack my entire camera kit up into a small bag! Pen F, Pen Mini, 17, 40-150 kit, 45.

Sport Back And A Chance To Stretch My Legs

For those with no idea what you are looking at, this is Australia’s winter obsession, Australian Rules Football or “Footy”. It is an interesting sport to shoot. It moves faster than most, with long range, any direction kicking and fast hand work, criss-crossing the large field almost continuously, so long, then quickly not so long lenses are a must.

“The Ruck”, starting a play sequence after a goal or time period end.

I was lucky, having the boys and girls senior teams playing at the same time.

Faster glass is good. This shot was taken late in the afternoon in mid Autumn gloom (f4, 1/500, 3200). You need decent shutter speeds and reach, which can be expensive (yay for M43).

Solid wins to both teams have cemented them in as early contenders (the boys made the state final last year and I swear they are even taller this year!).

A “hand ball”, designed to stop rampant “chucking”. Getting lower increases drama.

Truly a game for anyone, the tall, the fast, the tough and the tenacious all get a go.

On the technical side, I use a 300 f4 on the EM1x for as much as I can, the EM1 mk2 and 40-150 for closer, both on straps, ready to go. Even at this level, the game can move too quickly for camera changes, so I have some very tight 300 (600mm eq) shots that I like, but fail to tell the story.

Next Camera?

So, a micro 43 user who is always looking for the next camera is suddenly spoilt for choice.

The condenders are;

Black Magic Cinema Pocket or Studio 4k. This one is the video only option and really only on the list because;

• It has RAW video.

• Is made and not surprisingly supported by Da Vinci (and comes with lifetime support).

• The Studio has a pro grade screen.

• The Studio interfaces with the schools Black magic multi command unit.

• It has a video specific sensor. Fewer pixels, equals better ISO performance.

• It has cinema grade colour and that special look.

• It is under $2000au.

but, it has no stabiliser or AF, nor is it a stills camera and it is huge, although I have other options.

The new OM Solutions OM-1 because;

• It is a slight improvement for stills performance across the board even compared to the EM1x. Noise and dynamic range looks to be even better, otherwise the same on paper.

• It has the best AF for stills and video, of the three.

• It has improvements for video to do what I need, getting rid of the pesky breaks in footage and (unconformed) improving 1080p.

• It has better lens compatibility for my kit (which is mostly Oly).

• I could buy it with one of several desirable lenses (12-100, 8-25, 12-40, 12-45 etc).

but, it is not the strongest video camera, but then again it is enough for my needs (good 1080 is the key).

The Panasonic GH6 because;

• It is fully featured as a video/stills hybrid especially for 1080p.

• It has a dual ISO sensor for better low light performance and dynamic range.

• It has the highest standard resolution for still capture and is the first to break the 20mp barrier.

• It is an improvement to the G9 and others without changing that Pana look.

but, although it is better for AF, it is still not perfect and it is overkill in video specs*. There is no way I would ever use the top end features (6k etc), so a lot of money for some better 1080p, without perfect performance otherwise.

Other options, for when I come back to earth are another G9 for $1000 with an Atomos Ninja V, which would upgrade the G9 to a continuous 4k 422 beast and the EM1x as well (one upgrade, several better cameras). This would come close to giving me a Cinema 4k in real terms, with AF, IS and better compatability with my existing kit.

A GH5, G95 or G7 for full time recording at 1080 or 4k, which is also fixed with the Atomos, so tough one.

An OM1 mk3 or EM1x on special.

Looking at my video capabilites I already have;

• 4k/30p 422 or 1080/180p 10 bit in several formats for short stints, with AF/IS, which is plenty for very high quality capture. The Ninja upgrades this to continuous capture.

• Even better AF and IS with the heavier EM1x with nice C4k 8 bit, that is sharp and exceeds my basic needs, which is to down res it to 1080p. The Ninja upgrades this to RAW.

• 4k/60p with true gimbal stab, versatile application and handling, including under water with the OSMO Pocket.

• There are also slo-mo, time lapse, on sensor shift and a few other bits to master.

Do I need a new camera?.

Better AF is tempting, but the EM1x with touch or for interviews is fine and the G9 is good enough also, but I usually use MF. My output os 1080p, nothing more.

*One reviewer, who shoots day long weddings, worked out he would need several thousand dollars worth of cards to run the camera at full res for a single day.

Few More Inches, Big Difference

So what is the difference between a 26” and 36” soft box made by the same company with every other variable mitigated?

The left image on the larger mod is considerably more open, warmer and softer. Brightness was close to the same (1/2 stop to the little one, but I also aimed it straighter, where the 36” was feathered).

Depth of coverage is also excellent, better than my depth of field!

The smaller one is better for this type of thing though.

Another Win For Neewer...ARTDNA......Neewer, whatever.

I received a large box today. A large, light weight box.

Inside was a Chinese puzzle. It is one of those shoot through soft-boxes that needs a little construction. 14 (!) spines inserted and pushed into the bowens ring, then 14 inner baffle clips (pesky little things) and what do you have?

Probably something a little big for a small studio, especially with the construction process involved.

The soft box, all 34.5” of it, was bought as an ARTDNA, but came in a sealed Neewer bag. This was not a huge surprise as the same softbox is listed that way also. What is a surprise is the price. I paid half the Neewer price ($42au), just as I did with my 26” and the massive 48” I ordered just after this one for even less! I can only just get this out the door, so the 48” may not get a heap of use.

Nicely made, went together as it should have. The 26” is on the floor below and unfortunately you can see both corners of the room so pretty cosy!

So, a win for Neewer by proxy?

A win for me ;).

The Budget Logic Revisited

I consider myself a lucky hobbiest when it comes to my current employment. I kind of fell into a job that is a perfect fit for my varied photographic experience and in turn I offer the benefits of this depth to a school that can use any and all parts of it. Some things neither of us new at the time would surface.

The flip side is, I have had to upgrade my gear in several directions at once, as I came into my current employment after a kit scale down and was basically only equipped for street and travel. I am only casually employed so my income can be inconsistent.

My saviours are the brands that are classed as “beginner” or copy brands, but there is more to it than that.

Yongnuo was the first of the original “heart breakers”. In a time dominated by name brands and older after-markets, like Metz or Nissin, YN entered the market with reliable, powerful and solidly made alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, they were the first of the straight-from-China brands and quickly carved a grudging respected name for themselves. I started with a YN 560 III have since purchased five YN560 IV’s and they have been solid and reliable, one has even been dropped three times (!) and is still going well.

I bought the 560 III at a time when I had little use for one, but it was cheap and I trusted the brand. I simply did not have a need or interest in an expensive Olympus unit, much the same as my time with Canon.

Godox came on the scene a little later and quickly overtook YN as the “smarter” alternative. Yongnuo seemed to slip into a less aggressive role as the second option both on price and technical advancement, but still had its supporters especially in the semi-smart flash range. YN are also coming back now with a great LED range. I purchased a couple of Godox “smart” flashes (685/860), simply because their reputation in this space was very strong at the time and the similar YN’s slipped under the radar.

These two brands sit in the “respected cheaper option” bracket. Many top shooters recommend them and they are reliable and honest in their offerrings. They have earned their place in the market. I personally prefer them to the reasonably cheap, bottom end name brand options like the Apurture Amaran COB lights, that are better, but still much dearer.

*

The next step down is a personal favourite and the brand that I feel sits at the very top of the “cheap knock off” brands, pushing hard to be in the same league as Godox/YongNuo. I have found Neewer to be predictable and generally honest in their advertising, but you have to be realistic and shop around. there is a bit of “creative” pricing as the name grows. As a testiment to their quality, they seem to be an Amazon favoured brand.

They are often offered and reviewed as great value options, but can suffer from a reputaion for manufacturing inconsistencies with some products. That can make even their great value seem less appealing*. This has meant that I tend to lean towards their non-electronic items, with the exception of their LED panels and COB lights. Neewer products tend to stand out, sometimes sharing their products with other brands, but more often having their own cosmetic touches and features. I did just jump at a air on NL140’s, based on some new reviews, before finding out they are a little twitchy around poor power consistency, but we will see.

An example of Neewer’s value are their COB video lights. I bought two of these recently for $85au each. It occurred to me this morning that I bought two of these and a similar no-brand one (getting to that), for the same price as a single well respected, but still budget friendly Godox SL-60 (about $260au).

The Godox SL-60w and Neewer SL-60w are often directly compared (go figure), with the Godox coming in as the slightly better made option (slightly quieter fan, slightly nicer accessories, slightly better build), but producing basically the same light (I actually prefer the Neewer’s slightly more even and warmer output) and importantly for Neewer, similar reliability.

A win for Neewer.

In a second example, I bought a pair of the new Godox 120cm soft boxes for $100 recently, assuming they would be much the same as the two Neewers I bought last year for about the same, but they seem better in many respects and came with grids. Both do the same job, but the Godox just looks and feels a little better built for the same money and, I am going to test them, but will assume better light also.

From the Neewer in my first studio test group. Really like this light, regardless of price.

A win for Godox.

Below Neewer sit the “transient” brands, the brands that access the huge Chinese manufacturing base, often sourcing the same parts, even the same items or are cobbled together as copies of the copies, sometimes with surprising results…...both ways. Brands like Selens, Abeststudio etc are a mixed bag. Some will claw their way into respectability, others will come and go and some will stay locked into a single product type, doing what they do well and sticking to it. No matter their business model, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

The Selens COB light I bought most recently is a good example of a better result. It was dearer than the Neewer, but promised to be up to three times more powerful. In actuality it is maybe 20% more powerful, but it is heavier, quieter and has nicer accessories. In this class of gear, the reassuring Neewer “punch above their weight” vibe changes to “read between the lines” or “take with a grain of salt”.

The Selens (not even branded as such on the box or unit) looks to be a hybrid of parts from other models. The outer shell is identical to the Neewer SL-60, but the internals and accessories are different and heavier. The front end actually looks like the older Neewer 60w or even the Godox and the output looks similar to the Godox (slightly “hotter” and a little stronger than the Neewer), so who knows.

The Selens 150w has been a good find, but it could have gone either way and for more than a Neewer ($109), it’s value is just on the right side of the ledger.

A narrow win to Selens (representing no-name brands).

The reality is, if the option is nothing or these, I will bring these brands on board. After a while you get a feel for them. For example I cannot pull the trigger on Neewer mics due to a reputation for poor build consistency*, no matter how good their happy user reviews are and the price difference between their base model flash units compared to the bullet proof YN’s is so little it does not count (I found a YN560 IV for $71 after a quick search, $60 for the Neewer), but for lights, they are just too good for the money right now and light is light.

Are they reliable? I have three for the price of one so, reliability by depth.

*

*The Neewer matched condenser mics, their XLR cables, their large diaphragm condenser mics all review well for quality of output, but not manufacturing consistency. I bought a pack of 6 cables and they are all identical, but others have said about 1-2 per set are poor. That’s a win, but I decided against the Condensers after a spate of negative recent reviews on Amazon. I will watch that space.

The Future

Today was a strange day.

I had a meeting with my current employer regarding a job for a friend of his, and conversation wandered to my role, my future and my needs. It turns out I am worth more than I thought I was.

Nice to know.

The afternoon was filled with real estate photography, tagging along with an experienced team trying out their processes, some of their gear, including a drone, and generally learning and sharing some ideas.

To be completely honest, the whole thing left me cold and is obviously bothering me as it’s 3:40am here.

It took me a while to work out why, but I resisted the process from the get-go. To be clear here, I have embraced change in my current role, taking on video, new programmes and processes, but something about this took me straight back to my old job in the camera shop. A job I found my self resisting more and more.

The primary stake holder insisted on using a tripod for accurate framing and edge straightness. Good advice. The sort of advice I would give and did for 20+ years. There is also the valid consideration of customer perceptions. I even had the same tripod they were using in my car boot.

I resisted and continued hand holding because nothing I was doing fell into my current “zone of fear”, although I was a little sloppy, taking half considered snaps, not realising that my images were going to be used as “live” ones.

Flash was used by the photographer I shadowed, mostly to make up for the short comings of their Canon 17-40L and the usual SLR realities (how quickly these have become “old school”). A great old lens but a good example of a film era “pro” lens, one that would pass muster to the eye with decent contrast and colour, but falls short these days of high res screen critique. I had four of the same YN560 flash units in my car boot.

I resisted again, relying on the better quality of my 8-18 Leica and C1 processing. This proved to be enough.

Hand held single capture, no flash. This file was not pushed to the limit either.

There was also a push for bracketing (with flash), to allow the off-site processors (based in India?), to do their magic. The EM1x can do this easily enough in a single capture, even hand held.

I resisted, continuing to shoot single RAW files within histogram indicated limits and processing with C1, which gave me all the brilliance, dynamic range and detail I need.

Then there was the drone. I have no issue with them, possibly even getting one myself soon, but there is a push for me to be the pilot of one, where others have resisted. Not sure why. It actually looked like fun if not that compelling.

I am resisting, realising that I would basically be specialising in a few areas of little interest like returning to Photoshop processing, Drone piloting, going back to old habits of rigid SLR landscape photographer, working for a selling based business, all that I have little interest in, just to earn minimum wage.

I am resisting!

Why did I not just do what the others did?

I am pretty sure that the whole process could be done quicker and more efficiently my way, especially with processing that could concievably be done on the spot and finalised in the same time the shoot alone took. From a value to agent perspectie, does using more gear slower, with a heightened deception of complication and slow processing pathways make more sense than much the same result faster?

“Know thy self” comes very much to mind and “read the signs”, but so does “belligerent old bastard”.

Is it wrong at my age, which is old enough to know what I like, but young enough to still have to think to my future path, to turn down an opportunity to do a little work in a field adjacent to what I like, but one I really dislike, to help keep the job I like? Should I take the hint from my current and prospective employers and back myself, sticking to the job I love and seek more of the same?

To be honest I would just as happy doing ten hours a week in a shop.

Give me people, movement and purpose or don’t bother.

My future has to include a better income and more security and both of these paths could lead that way, but I expect some friction in the near future if I try to juggle both and I will certainly bias towards my current employer.

Always looking for something new. This was a three shot in camera HDR, not my usual thing, but interesting to try (hand held!). I think this is easily achieved with a single shot and C1.

Life is better when there is balance. Taking on new things is also important, but retaining balance is the key.

I have seen many people for example take promotions, only to find their job is no longer what they enjoy or are good at. What they lost, they gave away, often unable to see the solution or feel it is a retrograde step.

As you get older you realise that you can easily pass your point of maximum happiness without realising it. It is not a lack of ambition, because isn’t ambition to find happiness?

Be careful what you wish for.

Constant Light Portraits

I love people,

I love photography,

I love portraiture of all types,

I do not love the guessing game that is flash photography when dealing with the controlled but fluid environment that portraiture should be.

Moments grabbed with flash can be powerful and seemingly perfectly timed, but in reality, unless the subject is wotking with the photographer knowingly, holding a pose, the process can be one of luck or manipulation.

The problem is, you get a good look, a perfect moment and you have to guess what that look will be like the split second you take the shot or worse still, you don’t get the shot if your light is recharging (rare but it happens). Even if recharging is not an issue, multiple flash fires can be intense. Unfriendly even.

Control is theoretically easy, but not for every shot, every time.

Another small point, but possibly significnt, is the look. Flash lighting can be perfect, boringly perfect. Lots of depth, guaranteed frozen movement, sharp, contrasty and white balanced.

Shot with a single flash and some reflected fill, this image owes its softness not so much to the modifier (26” double soft), but more to post processing. Flash gives you tons of depth, movment freezing assurance and clarity, but softness comes more from modifier size and post processing.

Not a small issue, although this is sometimes a benefit also, is subject awareness of the process. A good model with set themselves between each exposure, following the shutter sound and flash fire.

A first timer however, may react quite the other way and may find the whole thing very invasive.

The answer may be continuous light.

The new “faux” Oliphant grey Jonah leather-look fabric (colour number 4), “tanned” up. The f1.8 aperture on a 45mm still provides sharpness on the eye, but softens all else making the background texture only a gentle suggestion. The Neewer SL-60 pushed through a 42” shoot-through brolly at only 30% looks very natural and the background lighting was a known commodity pre-shot.

Constant light would allow me to see before I shoot, to use the silent shutter, which also gives me the option of hand held high res images (50 or 80mp). This really doesn’t make much difference……until it does.

Finally, and this is a biggie, constant lighting allows for video to be captured or even for the same lighting set-ups to be used at different times, for different purposes, using the same formulas.

So, from the perspective of a sitter, no flash, no camera noise, just conversation and connection. For the shooter, what you see is what you get, more connection to the process and and more control. May be a thing.

Actually a focus miss due to subject movement, but the animation conveyed adds more than technical perfection. It is all about the eyes sharp and clean, or is it.

The main issue with constant lights is in the name.

To be powerful enough to provide clean and powerful light, giving equally clean and colourful exposures at “safe” smaller apertures, the light has to strong. Strong light can be uncomfortable.

This relatively low quality image is a lift from some 1080 video (2mp). The point is though, Daisy the dog is not keen on flash, but ignored the large modified constant light. Conversely, the same light through my 26” double baffle was too bright and needed to be too close for softness.

To shoot with subdued constant light means higher ISO’s and/or wider apertures. Not ideal for quality? My MFT cameras and lenses may give me enough room. With f1.8 performing similarly to f2.8 on a full frame I can have a Mark Mann style shallow depth, which is intriguing, as well as keeping other quality issues under control. It may even introduce “a quality” in and of itself.

The two constant light images above (not the video lift), were taken at f1.8, 1/60-80th, ISO 200 at 35% power. Meg said it was not uncomfortable and the flash “popping” was gone. Silent shutter closes the loop, taking away all process sounds, except the quiet hum of the Neewer light.

There is also the possibility I can control light spill better.

My two kits are plenty for the two jobs they are designed for.

For stills, I have potentially* 7x GN 60 flash units, which in MFT format are 2 stops more powerful thanks to the DOF advantage, so it’s like having 7x Godox AD200’s for a full frame. I have a ton of mods for these, a few of which are not constant light compatible, but most are.

For video, I have probably 400w output total from a wide range of COB and LED lights. For these, I have a couple of dedicated mods, most of the flash ones can work and they often (in my kit), provide more even and open light. Something I struggle with on the “square” flash units. This is not really enough to promise good quality stills if used conventionally. F4 to f8 and ISO 100-200 need a lot of light. F1.8 to 2.8 on the other hand is quite do-able.

*5 from one system, 2 from another, but slave firing is possible.

Nanah, nanah, nanah, nanah....Tom-man)

Super hero cape, two mini drills and Tom-man is born (aka “The Fixer”).

On lighting.

This was taken using a Neewer 43” umbrella soft box (one of my oldest and cheapest mods) in butterfly mode, in front and slightly above me and a medium Neewer strip box underneath for fill. EM1 mk2 and 45mm at f4.

Next Step And Some Thoughts On New Lights

I feel an urge to get the light grey in the same fabric as my brown backdrop, so I can do a mixed drop style image, have a lighter colour to start with and a back-up. For $120au 2.8x4m coverage with matching textures, just different shades. Alternately, I may just get a second 3 or 4mtr piece, so I can do a joined 3x3m with off-set panels (or not).

In other news;

The Neewer NL140’s arrived today.

I was trying to put off getting the second Selens 150w and managed to spend more on two of these lights, but they were cheaper per light.

First impressions;

Very cheap.

The body is very light, very plasticky. The barn doors are plasticky-stiff, the pivot locks etc feel like they will not take much punishment and the design, in two parts, seem overly complicated and quite large. The cases they came in could each easily accomodate both of my other LED panels or indeed, two COB lights..

The lights are bright, but not much more so than my 480 RGB, which to be fair did cost twice as much and like a lot of things, is getting even dearer in this troubled world. They are quite comfortable to be in front of though, so maybe they will fill a niche.

They do run a fan, which is quieter than the Neewer COB’s, but not as quiet as the Selens.

Another small thing, likely related to their app-run nature, they are always set to 3200k, 0% when I turn them on.

The limitation of wall power only without a V-mount battery or optional V-mount to NP adapter is ok I guess, but I have to wonder how many people would have multi hundred dollar V-mount batteries and buy these cheap lights, and the adapter costs half as much as the light! NP slots would make a lot more sense.

The known issue of (repairable) power spike capacitor blow-outs may be a pain, so I will use a spike protector on them.

All up not my best Neewer purchase (although I am glad I did not pay $250+ea RRP on the Neewer site) , I guess they will be used as studio fill lights, maybe head shot specialists, but will not get much other use and in reality the second Selens (bought anyway), would have been a better purchase.