Thanks For The Offer..........

As one of the full time photographers, I now have my own kit.

Nikon D750 (soon to be upgraded I hope), a decent condition 14-24 (heeeaavy), ok 24-70 and a near new 70-200 (latest edition) are the core. There are other bits, but basically that is it……oh except for a monster 400 f2.8!

Is there really any choice? One needs a chair, a monopod, health cover, the other can be worn painlessly.

Above is a real world test taken in the office. The Nikon monster (below) was resting on my knee at 1/80th, auto ISO, the Oly was held at the same shutter speed. The Nikon files were a little under, which of course I did not notice, being used to WYSIWYG photography. The first crop was about the same relative to the actual image taken (400 vs 600), the tighter one was a less fair same size to the eye crop.

On very close inspection, the Oly image is sharper down to pixel level, but either can do the job. The big consideration is how they do it. Funny to think the lens that is getting closer actually has more depth of field. The reality is, I think my 40-150 on an EM1x (as a 300) can match the big girl above even with a 4mp and 100mm handicap.

The Big Nikon is limiting due to size, the Oly is not. The Oly can be used in tandem with a 40-150 on a second body. The Nikon can be used with a second camera, but requires some “handling”, which means it is not fast or easy to do. You don’t leave things lying around at big games, so being able to run, lay down, get up and run again without dropping anything is priceless.

I have managed with the Oly kit to shoot the kicker of a ball with the long lens, then switch to the shorter lens to catch the mark only meters in front of me. The combination of stabilising, portability, empathic focussing, one hand operation and no residual fatigue add up to more chances.

This then leads us to process. The Nikon takes from me exposure preview, post capture playback and nearly uninterrupted vision as well as my electronic shutter. It is smooth enough, but going back to a relatively dim view finder with little useful information feels fragile and distracting.

Now for the rest of the kit.

Like for like (roughly). I am currently buying a smaller bag. Maybe the big Domke f804 is the one for the Nikon kit?

The only lenses that are similar in size are the 70-200 and Oly 40-150, but in reality the tiny 35-100 Pana is the actual equivalent!

It is mine to use and I may well do so, out of curiosity if nothing else, and I will play the game so the powers that be do not think we can all run our own gear.

Funny how my once dream kit is actually now an impractical, unattractive option.

The Forgotten, Problem Child Who Did Nothing Wrong.

My camera stocks are deep and capable. I can handle weather, speed, multiple angles, video, high resolution, super quiet, super quick, basically lots of things.

One camera stands out as the most beautifully made, but unfortunately least practical of the lot.

The Pen F, a collectors item now as Olympus has officially stopped making them, is a camera that has had its chances, it’s even travelled and has taken some of my favourite images, but it fails to get a run more than once or twice a year. Probably a good thing for an item so precious, but troubling in a world where nothing stands still and I am no collector for it’s sake alone.

Why does it get ignored?

Focussing is assured, but it lacks tracking, so in many ways it is just an updated EM5 mk1. One benefit of this is the sensor creates very sharp and detailed images, I think because there are no phase detect pixels on it.

The shutter is nice, but seems to change pitch when fired vertically and sounds less solid than other Olympus cameras. It puts me on edge a bit, sounds “flimsy” like an old cloth shutter. The electronic shutter also has the usual early electronic shutter issues like banding and a colour caste etc at quite low ISO settings (800 is safe, 1600 twitchy, 3200 often off limits). In this respect it is about the same as the EM10 mk2’s.

It has some handling quirks. The creative options dial on the front is in a poor location for my and others’ hands, the knurled dial face rubs against my middle finger. I have added the optional hand grip and it helps, but not much.

The battery and card compartment are shared on the bottom. This is neat but amateurish. The door feels about EM10 grade so having to open it constantly, as a pro camera needs, could be problematic. If used as a travel camera, this is less of an issue.

The rear screen, likely optional for many who want the true view finder camera experience is sizeable, but fiddly to deploy. It is the most hide-able of my screens, which is deliberate, but annoying when you actually want to employ it in a hurry.

Video is fair, but it has no mic option or 4k. I feel Olympus could have left it off completely as the whole reason for this camera being made, like the Fuji X Pro series, is to take us back to a different time, a gentler, simpler time, one where cameras just took photos.

The matched pair.

The exposure compensation dial is a great big dedicated knob on top, but it is stiff. You need a thumb and finger, not just thumb, making it uniquely annoying in my Oly camera collection as it is a feature I use instinctively.

Even though it is heavy and precisely made, it like the often matched 17mm and 75mm lenses lacks weather sealing, a detail that a world traveller or street shooter would appreciate.

ISO performance is fair, but not an advance over older cameras. There is a nice quality to the high ISO noise, film-like and sharp, but compared to EM1’s, it is more of a creative consideration.

Something special out of something ordinary.

Is it all bad?

No, of course not.

The camera is a celebration of craftsmanship, even sans weather proofing. It is weighty, all metal-cold and reassuring and there are no external screws.

Saved up for special shots like this one of a friend, it is capable of bringing the goods when needed.

The files are special.

Coming from a fleet of EM5 mk1’s, I bought it as the only 20mp Oly camera available after I left hospital six years ago. Empowered by a long enforced rest and inspired by a single photo mag my mother dropped in to me (totally out of the blue), I decided to grow my photographic interest again that resulted in a return to a photo shop, then to the school and now the paper, so I guess it is a loadstone item, an enabler.

After it, I bought an EM1 mk2 and the Pen F still out-shone the newer camera in base image quality. The EM1 mk2 has on sensor phase detection and I felt lost something from the earlier cameras, something the Pen F not only retained, but seemed to exemplify.

At the time, I remember thinking it was like shooting full frame again and years later, the files still stand up against cameras like the G9 or EM1x. The G9 is actually the closest in feel, except for better ISO performance.

Matched to the ancient 25mm old Pen G-series lens, it feels and looks good, but the lens has been drafted into the video kit. The matched 17mm is the right fit as is my spare 45mm.

Old school meets new for old school.

Uses?

Landscape imaging at 20mp. It can do high res, but it is an earlier generation, so best left at its native res. The handling and weight make it good on a tripod, but weather proofing would be ideal. It does have a trump card, an old fashioned screw-in cable release socket!

Studio portraiture, where its average ISO performance is irrelevant.

Travel and street. It is not the most or least practical, but it feels right and is built for heavy use (except the card door). It also looks and feels right which can be more important than you would expect and it has excellent creative modes for previewing possible post processing, like the Kodak Tri-X like mono mode and some old school colour looks. This may seem irrelevant, but to be able to see in black and white helps enormously with compositional choices and inspiration. Shoot in RAW, see in JPEG mono.

A better electronic shutter application would be good, allowing silent operation in low light without fear, but the mechanical shutter is decently quiet and in black and white, I have found banding often disappears.

Personal use and “changing creative hats” fine art projects. Just a great camera to have around and to run outside your usual kit and it actually helps that it feels and acts differently.

Would I sell it?

No. It is special and I know that.

Unforgiveable..........Another Bag

My circumstances have changed significantly. I have been offerred and have accepted a full time role with the paper and also hope to retain some sort of connection to the school, which I will miss terribly.

The reality is, the school cannot offer more than a casual (semi-exclusive, but casual) arrangement, while the paper gives me all the things I should prioritise at this time of my life, basically security long and short term.

The work is much the same, just different in scale and seriousness.

From here, I can still offer the school a large amount of useful time with the flexibilty the paper offers and the other two photograpers have been enormously supportive (we basically run ourselves).

So why another bag?

The state of play after a month (in days worked, actually three calendar months) is, I can easily carry my minimum kit in a smaller bag than I have now, but lack that smaller bag. The Filsons’, Porter, Crumplers all fail one way or another**.

The f802, my current bag is bigger than needed, which creates two issues.

The first is foot print. It is just a long and somewhat bulky bag, even with it’s slim profile and the alternate f804 is even deeper as well as long. The slender, long and semi-rigid shape, a benefit in most ways, tends to make it hard to manoeuvre through crowds, or to change some items easily (small lenses get swallowed up).

The second issue is, it tends to get full of “just in case” items, that are not generally being used, so thanks to weight and bulk, I tend to remove it when working, causing a distraction and limiting options.

I could put less in it, but there are some other issues with shape and layout.

For a “walk out the door” kit especially for high octane, on the run jobs, I can take as little as this;

G9, 12-60 or 8-18 Leica, 15mm Leica, which handles the bulk of my general subject shooting, with speed with video handled. The 15mm in particular has become my go-to lens for groups and close work.

EM1 Mk2, 35-100 Pana and 45*, which can do all the “Bokeh” and reach work. In good light, the slow 75-300 is fine and still less than half the weight of the 40-150 Pro.

*This could also be paired down a single Pana camera now with a dedicated tele.

Optional extras, packed as needed, can be as little as a Godox flash kit (1 unit with off camera controller), a Neewer 175 LED panel, the OSMO, 8-18 and a Boya twin mic kit.

This will fit in a Domke f3x bag as long as I do not carry all of it at once and unlike the f802, it likes big cameras with smaller lenses (the slim f802 does not like “fat” cameras as much, but can take long lens mounted, the f804 which is even bigger can take both), and a lot of space is wasted under the face down camera with a small lens on, or small lens spaces get crowded.

Another odd thing to complain about is, the f802 has too many pockets. The 2 huge front pockets, 2 end pouches that are not wide, but the bigger one is deep, 2 outer lid pockets, 2 wide inner sleeves, the spaces between the insert and main walls and a rear sleeve pocket that are all capable of swallowing lots of things. I have developed the habit of stripping it out occasionally and tend to find missing pens, masks, even batteries and cards.

The f3x has a single broad front pocket, secure inner lid and back pockets and 2 large end pockets which are just right in size and location for flash and mic kits and the inside lining is integral, saving space and removing variables (places things can hide). The best of the f series bags really.

The G9 or Em1 with a grip and small to medium sized lens are happily handled, with the two zooms in the inner sleeves. Without grips, the cameras can sit on soft items.

If I do take more or bigger items, then the f804 or f802’s can be used, but if possible, a smaller profile can be achieved and alternatively, I have a pair of small Lowe pro strap-on cases from an older bag that can go on the F3’s strap (hold my mic kit or a rain jacket).

Basically, the f3x and f802 bags are opposites, which is good.

I have already owned a Ballistic, Green canvas and still have a rare (read exclusive to Bic Camera Japan) Green rugged-ware wax canvas. My Domke past is embarassingly deep and diverse. In MFT land, it has been an odd fit, being a design dating back to when Nikon F3 kits ruled (F3+Drive, 20/35/85/180 or similar).

I clearly love the design, seeing it as the ultimate body friendly all-you-need kit bag, but have struggled to make it work for MFT gear.

There are two reasons for this.

The inner lens sleeve pockets are not anchored at the bottom, so most small MFT lenses slip out from under them and the non Nylon f3x bags are rudimentary, dark and rough inside making it hard to find these aberrant items. In a nutshell, things get a little lost and tend to migrate.

So, why have I ordered another F3x?

The Ballistic has a soft, padded and light coloured nylon lining, which reduces both of the above issues and provides a smooth, clean and gear friendly feel. This is the only F3x I feel like using as it comes. I have put other inserts into f3’s before, but lost the insert pockets, flexibility and come capacity doing so. Another easy fix and one that seems to be a good fit for my current thinking, is to put big zooms in the inner pockets and mount small primes on the bodies.

It is also immediately soft and “hip hugging”, which only the very soft and semi-greasy rugged-ware ones can match out of the box and it is as water resistant as the waxed, without treatment.

The distictive soft nylon liner and unique layout of the F3x with sewn-in lens dividers.

After getting the 217 case, I was reminded how much I liked the heavy duty Ballistic nylon of my last f3xB. Smooth, thick, soft and more modern looking than either the canvas or most of the smaller Nylon Domkes, the Nylon used on the larger bags is “lush”.

This is also one of the two bags recommended to fit into the 217 roller case pockets, but unlike my green rugged wear one, it does not feel or smell greasy and if folded for a while will not crease up like a old cotton shirt.

Another tiny benefit, and I have tried this, is the f802 tends to fall off the handles of the 217 roller case when hauling the lot, but the smaller footprint f3x does not.

Just making excuses really.

New bag, always cool.

**The Filson Field Camera bag sags making access frustrating (I can fix this with a rigid base plate, but that reduces the effectiveness of another bag), the regular Field bag has a poor flap and access design for camera users plus the metal buckles jingle obviously and its outside pockets are much less useful. The 2 Crumplers are either too small for a kit or too rigid for comfort (and also a bit small) in the case of the Muli, which is really obvious when you use Domke bags. The Porter is good with an insert, but lacks pockets. The older f2 Domke is too boxy.

Micro Four Thirds Magic, The Sigma 30mm F1.4

I have written a lot on the site about Bokeh. I was there at the beginning when Mike Johnson wrote and edited the first definitive articles, even created the name (shame it is mostly miss-pronounced), which then became the phenomenon and have been keenly aware of it since.

It may seem odd then, that I am not a keen proponent of the whole “super Bokeh ball” craze. Bokeh is a lot of things, wide open blobbiness is only one of them. Having said that, getting a single lens in my kit that heroes it is a plus, especially when it is a lens with other decent properties.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC is one of three lenses all gaining a strong following, especially with Sony and MFT users. Sony crop frame users are enjoying the quality they offer in a fairly thin fields, MFT users, spoilt by choice really, are responding to the speed to price and quality equation.

First up, things I cannot show you.

AF on an Olympus EM1 mk2 is solid. I place it in the same league as my Oly 25mm on an older EM5 mk1. Very fast, mostly reliable, but with the odd moment of “?” and I would not choose it over a native lens for tracking AF. On a G9 I found it less reassuring, but serviceable, more like the older Pana 20mm f1.7 on an old EM5.

Handling is sublime, with smooth operation near perfect balance and top end (plasti-metal) build quality. If it was all metal it would feel colder, but not necessarily better.

Optically, it is a real adventure.

Firstly a disclaimer. I did not realise until after I had finished, that the shots were recorded on my second card in JPEG, so all these findings are up for re-review, but interestingly I did not realise at the time.

Very nice. I do feel a little bit odf a sell out though, paying into the ultra blurry crowd. There is a small touch of Canon colour here, maybe even echoes of a full frame look.

Another check for off centre sharpness (just noticed the fringing on the top set).

All good.

Black and white conversions have a Sony like quality, contrasty and crisp. If I had realised this was a JPEG, I likely would not have messed wit it, but it has a certain quality.

Close focus contrast holds up and Bokeh is nice for this type of imaging.

Focussing is accurate enough to use the Bokeh avaialble creatively, and it has some very nice properties.

I feel very excited about the potential this lens has for creative blur, in much the same way I appreciate the 17mm Olympus lenses’ ability to hold detail in out of focus areas. Horses for courses.

Below are a coupe of f1.4 and 2.8 comparisons and a pair showing background and foreground Bokeh wide open (which is very nice).

But it did not take me long to find this………. .

Yikes!

The photographic “first world problem”. Not really an issue these days. as long as it is cleanly one coloured, but still, the worst CA of any lens I own and it takes many forms, but in fairness, I doubt the firmware in the EM1 would be applying proper or any JPEG corrections, so maybe more to this story.

Dangerously thin depth of field from the “no shallow depth” MFT format. I seriously question the need for super shallow depth aperture use on full frame cameras except to satisfy curiosity and for special effects. To me, a fast portrait lens in this format is more than enough.

Barely practical.

After this set of tests, I still decided to use it today for some group shots. The cut-out of the group was good, but always risky to use a new bit of gear on a job second day out of the box. As it turns out, I stuggled to get the cooler shaded area blue out of the white shirts and hold balance for the rest.

Still surprised I did not realise these were JPEGs. The first giveaway with C1 you are using a non-RAW image is poor highlight recovery (turns the whole image grey). You need to use Brightness and Exposure to balance out overly brilliant images.

Is it a fourth good lens purchase in a short space of time?

The Leica 12-60 is a strong win. At f4 it is too slow for some uses, but overall, it replaces the ailing 12-40 for most uses.

The kit 12-60 is also very good except for some CA I noticed in tree branches today. It has a nice quality in strong light, a bit like the 75-300 Oly.

The 15mm is a total winner, a genuine kit enhancer. It manages to make itself relevant next to the favoured 17mm and empowers the G9’s.

The Sigma is more of a specialist and a lens that is exciting to use, with some awareness applied. CA, which is fixable, is a genuine issue and the fast aperture, although the main reason for buying the lens, needs to be used carefully. If the lens was a native Oly or Pana lens, it would have more reliable focus, but would also be several times more expensive.

My main concern is using it for video. CA there could be a tough fix.

So, happy enough, but unlike the three Pana lenses, a mixed bag.

Loving The New 15mm

Sometimes a lens comes along that gives you a special something in a space where you thought you had all you needed.

Stymied by a shortage of 30mm Sigma lenses to fill my order, curious about the “Leica” factor I seem to be seeing in the 12-60 and 8-18 lenses and after a fast G9 solution (aperture and AF), I grabbed the quite expensive 15mm f1.7 Leica.

A shot for book week taken for the paper, a similar one was published today (this one is from the next second after, so a different image technically), the little Leica shows it’s character and quality.

The centre is bitingly sharp (no processing after C1 default import and some highlight recovery) and has that clean separation I was hoping for, basically a wide angle with a little telephoto depth control.

Even though Cap was slightly out of focus, a little localised sharpening still picks him up.

Another of two parents in their happy space. Same clean cut away of the subjects, but enough depth to guarantee a useable file.

One of my favoirite lenses if =s the 17mm Oly, but I have to say, the slightly cleaner and crisper image wide open, the slightly wider angle and surprisingly sure footed AF performance, not only on the G9’s it was bought for, but also on an OM10 mk2 (a camera that has been troubled by other Pana lenses), may push the Oly into street and travel only where it excels.

Matching the 15mm with an Olympus 45mm (on an Oly camera), reaps rewards in cohesion and balance.

Similar performance, although the Olympus files have a “denser”, warmer feel to them.

Added to this, but not properly tested yet, is the 30mm Sigma, found through a different source.

Quick And Dirty Comparison, 15mm and 17mm Lenses

Just because they were at hand.

No processing applied to the wider shots, some sharpening applied to the close-ups, to maximise their potential. G9 used and the 17mm was pulled back an inch to match magnification, but it was not quite enough.

The Oly is slightly warmer, but that is known.

My claims of different Bokeh rendering, may be over stated. I tested these once before and felt I perceived, without prompting, a real difference there, but in this situation, the 17mm seems to be more Bokeh empowered. The “heavier” look is there though and the mechanical differences are also still relevant.

At f2.8 they are both close to their best, showing every hair and even paint texture.

Leica #3

The little 15mm arrived today.

I have bounced off this lens many times. It was a little superior to my 17mm f1.8 in a few ways (contrast, edge sharpness wide open, contrast in poor light), but missed out for a few reasons;

• It came second. I already had the 17mm and had grown to like (later love) it.

• It was a Pana lens in an otherwise entirely Olympus kit, which at the time (EM5 mk1 based kit) meant possible shortcomings in AF performance.

• It had a really cool manual aperture ring, that unfortunately does not work on Oly cameras. These sorts of things lead to camera purchases, which at the time I was not interested in.

• It was dear for a small lens, especially compared to excellent lenses like the 12-40, Sigma 16 etc.

What does it offer now?

• The Leica look, which I hope will pay dividends for video.

A wide angle MFT lens at medium distance, even wide open, struggles to separate focus plains……..

…….or does it? At 8ft away, there is still a defined separation from the background and it has gorgeous contrast.

Wide open Bokeh is silky. This is a big point of difference to the 17mm, which has a more “old school”, deep transition Bokeh look (useful for street image making), but harder to apply for bringing out a near subject.

At f2.8 it is sharper, but also holds onto that clean, almost 3D separation. This is almost stronger in effect than the 25mm. Nice skin tones also.

• It is an ideal dual focal length in video (30mm amd 80mm FF equiv used with the G9s’ 1080 loss-less 2.7x Tele Ex or 30 and 42 in 4k).

• It covers an area I use a lot, allowing me to free up the 17mm for personnal use.

• It matches the G9’s and other Leica lenses with a fast option, although I have already noticed it “ripple focusses” in face detect video AF.

• Directly compared to the 17mm, it offers a very different Bokeh rendering (tbc?) and therefore applications and brighter, cooler and lighter colours (making 4 options between the two with different cameras). It is different, which is relevant.

This lens will go into the general or core kit as a second standard lens option for the G9. This closes the loop, giving me a Standard zoom and fast semi-wide for the video capable Panasonic and a tele zoom and short portrait lens for the EM1.

I missed out on the Sigma 30mm due to impatience with long term stock shortages, but it this lens has scratched an itch and gives me a better option overall. I may get the 30mm later, or even the 56mm, but to be honest, they do not really add anything to an already deep kit.

In zooms I have true wide covered (8-18), standard (12-40/12-60/12-60k), tele (40-150/40-150k/75-300), and in primes; standard wides (15/17), standard Bokeh (25), portrait and strong Bokeh (45x2/75) and long tele (300). If I get a Pana tele at some time and another wide, I can run the two kit idea, but I am fine, just fine as of now and can most importanrly, do the jobs I have.

Wish list lens is possibly the 10-25 f1.7, which could fix a few issues, including giving me a second wide angle.

The Amazing 300 (600) F4.

A lens that has really empowered me to take on pretty much anything long lens related, is the Olympus 300 F4, which acts in the MFT format as a 600mm for magnification, but has the effectively depth of field of an F4 300.

Over half way across the field.

With plenty of cropping available.

And when you are waiting for the action to return from the far side of the ground, this is at your feet.

With again, a ton of cropping ability. Only my 75mm is its equal, sharing that quite rare smooth-razor sharp look.

Weatherproofing, a carry all day form factor that fits into a regular bag, awesome AF, semi macro close focus, dual stabilising, sharp wide open edge to edge and 70% cheaper than full frame equivalents. What is not to like?

Crazy Amount Of Tests, Some Choices Made.

Lots of video testing today.

Which profile, which lens, which filter? Too may choices, but always a good idea to experiment. You often don’t know what questions will be asked of you in the field, so you need to try to ask them yourself beforehand.

Testing gets results, just thinking about it, or leaving it to chance only leads to frustration.

Lenses

The old Oly Pen lens (1960’s G-Zuiko, 25 f2.8) is interesting.

A direct comparison between it at f2.8, where it exhibits some veiling flare, f4 where it cleans up and my new Oly 25 with and without filters has revealed;

The Old lens at 2.8 is the softest and coolest in tone, exhibiting an antique colour palette. This could be really useful and provides a clean simple path to a distinctive look, but it is only three focal lengths maximum (25 and the two Tele Ex options on the G9, 1.4 and 2.7x)

At f4 it is less soft by a noticeable margin (stills post processing leads me to believe f2.8 can be raised to match it), but also seems to cool off even more.

The 1/8th strength K&F Black Mist on the new 25mm is the softest modern filter and the warmest (quite “glowy”). At about a 1/8th filter grade less soft than the old lens at f2.8 it is the “Netflix” option. Nice for interviews and “friendly” looking work.

The Kenko is the least soft of the two filters and more neutral in colour, barely softer than no filter (which is my preference). This is a filter I could leave on for most jobs. This filter seems to exaggerate what it sees, not add something obvious like the K&F.

The naked, new Oly lens at f2.8 is sharpest and cleanest as expected, but at f1.8 exhibits a very slight touch of glow of its own, not as strong as the Kenko at f2.8, but still just there.

My 12-60 is a star, looking cleaner, snappier and contrastier than the Oly 12-40, but for cinematic video, this is not necessarily a good thing, so the 12-40 is further cemented as my work horse video zoom. If I were to use the Leica for interviews, I would likely use it with the Kenko or even the K&F. The Oly I may just leave alone as the happy medium.

My intention is to stick to primes (15, 25, 25, 45, 75), using the loss-less Tele Ex feature for 2.7x (1080) or 1.4x (4k) extension, but the 8-18, 12-40 and 12-60’s will cover the extra range needed.

Profiles

I will take back what I said about Cine-D. It looks like Cine-D will be my work horse profile, after a clutch of real-world tests comparing it to Cine-V and Natural. It is quite different to the other two and has one major advantage. It does not need reduced contrast for grading. This means in theory less noise as I am not artificially creating low contrast by opening up the shadows, it is baked into the profile. It does however need less colour, so that it’s OTT colour response can be controlled. My settings for the three were:

Cine-D (-0 Cont, -5 Sharp, -3 NR, -5 Sat). This is actually quite nice out of camera. A little extra colour (Boost, not Saturation in DaVR), and it handles tough scenes like an open window and deep shadows under curtains better than the other two. I can live with this straight out of camera for that modern glowy look, or push it a little for a more feature film vibe. The soft filters also look like they play well with this profile and Saturation is pretty accurate (my wife was wearing and apple green jumper and I used a bright orange toy for some of the tests and C-D came the closest to matching them (Natural was the furthest).

Cine-V (-5 Cont, -5 Sharp, -2 NR, -0 Sat). Basically the opposite to C-D, and needing more care with exposure. That neutral colour I was happy with turns out to be less predictable than I thought. Colour is strong, but twitchy, leaning towards magenta and contrast quickly blocks up. This does look nice ungraded with the Kenko filter, but has little room to move outside of that and I seem to be able to get the similar look from C-D.

Natural (-5 Cont, -5 Sharp, -2 NR, -0 Sat). I would likley add some saturation back in (+1 or 2) as this is usually boosted in post and it could be used as is for that straight out of the can footage.

HLG? Let’s not go there, too hard.

The NR settings for all are just space holders. More research needed there as this is the only setting that varies drastically between users.

Cine-V has been relegated to maybe a future special project, Natural as the “out of the can” only option, with Cine-D as my everyday “RAW” equivalent and I will just get used to any colour weirdness as I go (I do have some Lut’s available for this, lens options and filtering). Cine-D also fits in with the OSMO’s only “pro” colour profile setting.

Image Resolution

I am after, above all, image smoothness and a clean, flexible file. I do not really care what file size that comes with. I compared the same footage at 4k-10 bit, 2k-10 bit and 2K-8 bit.

There is no doubt that 4k shows more detail than 2k (1080), even on my little Mac Air laptop screen, but that is not all of the story as I export at 1080 or even sometimes 720 (no-one yet has asked for bigger). At 2k the image has a clean simplicity, a natural smoothness. At 4k you can see more fine detail, but there is no inherent real “quality” benefit, if anything, it can be a busier, more hard-sharp looking and video-like to my eye.

It may be my dodgy, hand held, very non-scientific testing process also, but after three separate tests, native 1080 seemed to show slightly higher base sharpness than the down scaled 4k. Lots of variables here, me and my DaVinci learning curve certainly being the biggest, so probably nothing to that, but at least it was not worse!

I think I will set both 2 and 4k custom settings (the 2k ones up front) and both will be 10bit, just in case.

Cameras

This is a no-brainer I guess. I bought two G9’s for video specifically, but the EM1.2’s and EM1x are no slouches here. Their 4k Flat profile was pleasant to use and very sharp looking. I may very well use these in tandem with the G9’s for some jobs, especially hand held shooting as their moving stabiliser is better than the G9’s and their All-i (limited to 1080) is better at handling a rapidly changing scene, but the G9’s win at static hand held steadiness.

The OSMO comes in as the true Gimbal/go-into-strange-places camera.

One Kit Man Survives His First Day

The world did not end, the sky did not fall on our heads, all is well. One mixed kit man is viable.

The G9 just works for wide and standard lenses and the lenses I have for it are now matched. I really like the skin tones and artificial light handling of the Panas. From 16-120 (FF equiv), I am covered, which handles 80% of my editorial work.

G9, 15, 8-18, 12-60 Leicas.

It grabbed the dancers face when I trusted it to (she appeared from below and in the dark). The 15mm would have been ideal here, but I did not have it at the time.

The EM1’s fit like perfectly formed, well worn leather gloves for long lens work. The intuitivelly fast EM1.2 gets shots I often don’t even remember trying for. I have 24-850 covered with the total Oly kit, 80-600 in the core alone. This covers 95% of my sports, portrait and event work.

On me almost before I could switch from the 300 to my second camera and 40-150, I still managed a sequence “from the hip”.

EM1.2 40-150 Pro, 75-300, 45, 75 and 1.4x TC

No blackout with instant response, means no high speed drive modes need be applied for speculative bursts to see what the camera gets (which tend to feel to me like they have the same control as the downward drop of a roller-coaster-whhhheeeeeeeeeeee). No break from following the action, with the added benefit of the stabiliser helping me see everything smoothly is a very comfortable experience. I feel like a sniper compared to other sports shooters with their SLR machine-guns clacking away. Ironically I often have the highest frame rate options (18/sec with AF or 60 without), but feel no compulsion to use them.

EM1x and 300 f4. As fast as I can form the thought, push the button and let the camera do it’s thing, it just happens. If I hit, it hits. The above was a single frame not taken from a sequence, with another soon after just to confirm the players number (not needed as it goes). I have learned to give anything a go with often surprising results.

Both systems being MFT, means they can both do the other’s job if needed and perfectly well, just not as ideally as the matched units. I have used the G9 with an Oly telephoto with enough success to get the job done (actually better than expected) and had few issues with Oly cameras with Pana lenses.

The marriage of a G9 (used for the first time for stills) and the 75mm Olympus. One missed shot over a 1 hour photo shoot and that was still close enough to use.

The real benefits of this path are now dawning on me;

Consistency. One work flow for all my work, paper, school and private. It also helps that I no longer have to remember to switch over a few items I have not duplicted, like my wide angle or 75 prime (or be tempted to buy their duplicates).

Cost. I can indulge my curiosity with some new glass and backup specific cameras, but not have to run two kits at “full-noise” levels, or scavenging from one to cover the other if needed. This may naturlly grow my kit to basically the two kit dynamic, but it does not have to. I can also put more money into other useful items such as a back-up laptop for personal use.

Depth. I can basically repeat the whole kit and swap out parts as needed, but the core stays the same. I also have 9 batteries spread between these two, and that’s before I add any other cameras.

Specialisation. I thought this could be avoided, but the reality is, a G9 rigged for video, a pair of EM1’s just for sports, a small studio/event kit, are all ideal kit splits, rather than trying to duplicate the same thing twice and have specialist needs covered. As I get to know my gear better, I am realising that some bits are great at some jobs, ok at others. My 12-40, badly in need of servicing, is my work horse video lens, but does not have to carry a full load as a day to day standard.

Leftovers. I now have a bunch of “leftovers” for my own use. The Pen F, my 17, a 45 and the two EM5’s with some kit zooms (12-60, 14-42, 40-150), make for a more than decent street/travel kit.

Bags. The Domke f802 or f804 (still deciding) take the core, the 217 carries the rest and is used to store them. Some smaller bags are used for specific jobs like sports, but otherwise, that is it.

Making The Grade

Like a lot of users of Panasonic G series cameras, I have used the Natural colour mode as my work horse setting. I have shifted the settings within that quite a lot, but at the end of the day, Natural has been…..natural.

After discovering the “use Mac colour profiles” option in Da Vinci preferences, which has finally allowed me to get something close to what I see when I grade as my end result, I have been wondering “is there anything else?”.

First up, a quick word on what I am looking for. “Cinematic” is thrown around a lot and tends to you down the paths of filtering, legacy lenses and post, but from what I have seen, it has the following elements;

Atmosphere. Filtering does not replace haze or other real atmospheric elements. Bloomng of highlights is one thing, but actual halation, lighting, Bokeh and naturally “thick” air are not the same as filtering.

Depth of field control. Deep or shallow, it is just the same as still photography and this includes composition and focal length selection. This also speaks to finding a point of balance with each lens I have, looking for the best combinations of depth and sharpness/Bokeh for each at different distances. I have a ton of options**, so this is where the fun is. My ancient Pen 25mm used wide open at 2.8 is a good example of a lens with both a useable flaw (halation and hazing) and creative element (weird, old school Bokeh).

Smoothness, from good practice (24 fps/180 degree shutter), good technique (invisible technique, nothing too obvious or clumsy), well choosen lenses (smooth sharp, not hard sharp) with the right apertures selected, good exposure (and lighting) and gentle camera settings. Filtering can be a benefit here, but not necessarily the usual suspects.

Dynamic range is a curiousity. Very few films have milky blacks, so why chase them obsessively if 90% of the time, you are going to punch them straight back up. Sure, a safety net is important for some projects, but for a true cinematic look, my tastes lean more towards inky, than milky.

I decided to do some non-scientific testing.

Non-scientific testing is a good thing. It is what you do naturally, not in a controlled environment. I am not trying to write an expose on the G9’s possible performance characteristics, but rather, “get some rubber on the road” and feel my way through. To use some intuition not just cold logic because intuition is where the creativity lies.

The clips were shot for “perfect” exposure in mind, i.e.the histogram “hump” middled.

Token still file, but something like what I am after.

Natural first, as a base line comparison. As is usually the case, I found the base image nice (-3 cont/-3 sharp/-0 NR/-1 Sat), and it responded quite well to some mild grading. I find with this, that the Lift slider is usually used only in negatives for adding contrast, but too much blackens shadows, the Gamma slider does the most work, but has still has only a small range and the Gain slider is used sparingly or not at all. Not much room to move. Saturation is however a life saver. Some added colour saturation, lifts the whole file as does a touch of contrast.

Cinelike-D is a favourite of some, loathed by some and comes with known issues. I instantly disliked both the base colours and how it handled grading even with a Lut applied. It was probably me with my limited knowledge of video grading I know, but I am the point. It has too be right for me right now or why am I doing this? Cine-D needs heavy reduction of Saturation for better colour control, otherwise it is pretty good.

HLG. Like above, HLG, which I will admit needs more control when shooting, controls I did not apply, was flatter than Cine-D and took a lot to bring up. Not a fan, although I know it has the potential to be a saviour in tough light, having the widest dynamic range outside of a true Log or RAW profile, but it needs to be learned separately and I do not feel I need it. Not going down this road unless strong highlight recovery is needed.

Cinelike-V has always fascinated me, becasue unlike Natural or the other baked in profiles, it is actually video-centric. I tried it with fairly “hard” settings (-2 cont/-2 sharp/-0 NR/-0 Sat) and got what I expected, a punchy, put pretty much fully “punched” file with blocked out shadows and strong colour. The wins, were a reasonably flexible file with pure colour and a look that appeals to me, but is not universal in application. Cine-V needs heavy reduction of contrast, which will likely be re-applied.

Cinelike-V softer (-5 cont/-5 sharp/-0 NR/-2 colour). This was nicer. It looked flat, but not Log flat, responded well to post and unlike Natural, Lift, Gamma and Gain seemed to have more elasticity and seem to respond equally (this is close to the Flat profile from 4k EM1’s, which I found nicer to grade than Panasonics’ Natural profile). I have gone from one strong and two semi-hobbled controls, to three evenly balanced ones. The same goes for white balance and saturation etc, but the shadows were still a little black (just like in the movies?). I may up the sharpness if I end up using diffusion filters (-2 or 3), but otherwise, this looks like a winner.

Cinelike-V softer, exposed to the right (about a stop over). Interesting. I can blow out highlights here, even loosing detail on white paper, but if I get it right, I have shadow detail (if that is actually what I want!*), highlights I can use and a ton of room in the middle for “character”. Another bonus is, this looks to be a popular profile for low light. Pushing it hard, there is a very slight green cast (expected from some reviews I have read as it shows in the GH5/G85), but it is slight.

*

I am currently leaning towards Cine-V exposed normally. A few tests have been completed, more to come, but compared to my current work flow, I have a more movie-like look with more control and cooler colour. The base C1 settings are 25/50 (Pal), 10 bit, 422, 1080p, Cine-V (Contrast -5/Sharpness -5/NR -2/Saturation +0) and I am looking at adjusting the highlight curve to -2/-3 without filtering, with my post processing work flow aiming to adjust contrast to suit, exposure and white balance only if needed. Fast and efficient.

Saturation is up for debate for the same reasons as Contrast and Sharpness, but unlike these, it is not a safety thing, more an opinion.

Something else that really appeals, is the reality that not many people use Cine-V, so my habit of swimming upstream continues.

*To be honest, I like the deep blacks and “Guy Richie” look of straight Cine-V, but guess I need to be able to adapt to the needs of my clients (Or maybe they need to adapt to what I offer?). I may set the G9’s to a series of Cine-V pre-sets, some with different frame rates, some with different resolutions and some just different.

**15 Leica, 17 Oly, 25 Oly, and old Pen 25, 45, 75, 12-60, 12-40, 12-60 kit.

Kit Mixing, Good Idea Or Not?

My kit seems to be getting bigger, but my “depth” of capabilities, on balance across two kits, is still elusive.

The main issue is forming the two fully functional kits, each on their own capable of shooting video and stills at pro or semi-pro levels. I know some (most) of my lenses even at kit level can take images that are good enough for most needs, but their specs leave something to be desired (f6.7!). I have to cover all my needs with range, speed and quality and I don’t think I can do this twice.

The best option for indoor sports is an Oly with the 45 or 75. The best options for foeld sports are the 300 or 75-300 , again on an Oly. The best and easiest to achieve video comes from the G9 with matched lenses, which means some shorter Oly lenses are less than ideal and the Panas do not play nicely with my many long Olympus lenses. Everything is a compromise if I try to do a “King Solomon” split.

With this reality hitting home, I have decided to stick with a single core kit for both jobs, but one that has specialist options available.

This is a mixed kit, but a consistent one, one that I will use day-in, day-out. I have noticed that even with lenses that turn in different directions and very different cameras, I can get used to specific dynamics quickly (story of my life at the moment*), maybe even more easily than changing totally from one to another on different days.

Mixing things together? What harm could it do?

Cameras.

As it stands at the moment, the kit gets a G9 for video and standard/wide angles. This is matched with the 12-60 Leica, 8-18 Leica and (coming instead of the Sigma, due to zero stock) the 15mm Leica prime (a 15 + 40 1.7 in 1080p). I am falling in love with this camera for stills and video and it is streets ahead of the EM1’s for hybrid use**.

I have managed to get the G9 very settled with stills, leaving the custom functons for various video options. These quite literally change the cameras’ personality from a fast, clever and capable stills camera to any one of several specialised video camera configurations.

The G9 is very sure footed for close work with dedicated Pana glass and its semi compact camera AF options are very reliable. Unlike the Olympus cameras, I feel more confident just letting the G9 do it’s thing in close and busy environments. This trio offer a full focal length range in video, (16-400mm in 1080p video-full frame equiv) and 16-120 for stills. Handling the G9 in these close quarters is just really intuitive. I also like the G9’s handling of tricky indoor lighting.

The second camera in the kit, but by no means the lesser one, is an EM1 mk2 for longer lens work. This is matched with a 45, 40-150 Pro and 1.4x tele converter. These are still the better MFT cameras for long lens work with tracking, especially with my all Oly lens options***.

I really prefer the tight accuracy they offer here rather than the overly busy G9 dynamic (the G9 offers custom configurations, but they are limited, where the EM1x is genuinely customised). For good light days or just to lighten the bag, I swap the big 40-150 out for the excellent 75-300 (honestly cannot see the difference in good light and the slower lens seems to handle higher contrast better).

Plenty sharp enough, decent AF and great at handling crazy bright light, the 75-300 is plenty.

These two mini kits, even though they are very different, form the core. At a push, either can to the other’s job, but horse to favoured courses.

The OSMO is also at hand for gimbal style shooting.

This outfit has Boya mic, Godox flash and Neewer LED kits.

This all (just) fits neatly in the f802 Domke with added pouches, although the OSMO, accessories and wide angle are only taken if genuinely needed.

I tote the extras including the sports kit below and my laptops in the Domke 217 roller.

The Specialists

Sports/Action

My EM1x and EM1.2 with grip back these up for sports, event, low light etc, with matched 75mm for indoor and 300mm for outdoor on the “X”with the core 40-150 and 45’s as backup on Mk2. This also allows me to set these into ready-to-go configurations.

For close indoor sports, the G9 and Pana lenses can also be used, the pending fast 15mm in particular probably going to be a real asset. For sports, I usually go with the Turnstyle 10L for a third camera and/or wide angle, extra bits etc and the cameras over the shoulder or in the f804 if I need to tote them somewhere.

Video

The second G9 is rigged exclusively for video with the 12-40 (true manual focus and that minor zooming issue), the ancient 25mm Pen lens for character and the modern 25 for Bokeh and low light. This camera is used in the more professional Manual Focus mode, so brand mixing is not a big deal and the two brands do work well together in many respects (colour, handling etc). I usually use the big Neewer backpack for the video kit.

The EM1x can also be rigged up for big video days and likes the 25mm.

Studio/event

I cannot go past my two “lucky” EM10’s for this type of work. Both have proven time and again, their happiness going “to the ball” and help me ignore fears of more expensive gear getting nicked when I am wandering a large hall or going inside to out. The 16mp sensors in these are plenty and their naturally warm reproduction suits flash work well. Every shot they take, extends the life of a more professional camera.

The lenses I use are the 17 and 45mm from my personal kit, which handle these environments perfectly, with the capable Lumix 12-60 kit for large groups (at 12mm f4 it is nearly identical to the Leica). All the lighting and stands etc go into a pair of long Neewer duffle bags, the flash kit and cameras into a small backpack..

Personal/Travel

For myself, I have the Pen F, Pen mini and a pair of old EM5’s with the lenses from the above event kit (the 17 and 45 and the 12-60 kit) plus the very capable little 14-42 and 40-150 kit lenses and the 75-300. These do travel, home snaps and personal stuff. So many bags here, basically all the ones that don’t get a run elsewhere.

*

*The work cars are Korean automatics, very different to my manual, converted left hand drive VW and they issued me an IBM laptop, where I use a Macs They even gave me an iphone, but I have switched to an Android, so my older brain is getting a welcome dose of ambidextrous, adapt-itis.

**The Olympus cameras can be used effectively for video, but with the exception of the EM1x, there is little help provided, meaning if you set one up for stills, you then have to re-set a legion of settings quickly for video, then back again and the custom settings do not recognise video options. ironically, because I am not trying to run two kits, I can now set an EM1 up for video if needed, especially for hand held run and gun style (probably the EM1x).

***My foray into Pana-Oly sports shooting went better than expected, but was not a reassuring or overly pleasant experience. DfD lenses for DfD cameras is the way to go, although the Pana lenses on Oly cameras seem less weird. I can see a 50-200 Leica on the horizon, or maybe the 35-100, just to open this up a little and add a fast, smaller premium zoom for travel etc.

Video Processes Refined

My video processes have come a long way. From frantic a need to accessorise, I have shed much of the complication, falling back mostly on what the cameras I use have to offer out of the box.

There is a balance to my kit, being what I would call a B+ level kit, an enthusiast capable outfit, with moments of pro brilliance.

Cameras.

A hand held G9 works well, even for extended periods. I have now added a second as a stills camera, but to be honest they are now both doing dual duty. The customisation and useability of the cameras allows me to, with a single turn of the main dial, switch from fully stills to fully video configurations. The EM1’s cannot do this. The Olynpus cameras do have better stabiliseation for movement, but they lack the slo-mo quality, which is the better way to use it anyway.

I use 10 bit, 422, 1080p at 25, 50, or in 8 bit at 25-33% slo-mo (all custom settings). This is often exported at 720p, so my files are not excessive, but still good to have in reserve.

This means my pain-stakingly built rigs are being used less and less. The G9 specific one ironically gets used more with a tripod. It adds up to four cold shoes, so for mics, monitors and lights, it is useful, but for stable handling, I keep it basic, even go without often.

AF is also a surprise. The combination of 12-60 (either one) and G9, are capable and with the latest firmware seem to have reduced the “pulsing” effect. Combined with touch focus, the face detect or central area modes seem to be very reliable.

Natural colour mode, with still being tweeked settings seems to have some room for movement and I am starting to trust auto White Balance as being good enough to get me in the processing envelope. This has made exposure, controlled by the main rear dial (ISO), the only thing to deal with outside of composition and focus. I will be looking into other modes ssom, so this may change.

I have looked at RAW (Black Magic Pocket Cinema 4k), various LOG formats (firmware or off board recorder) and settings, but to be honest, if I get slightly muted Natural mode right in camera, then do a little post, for my needs I am happy and do not need anything else.

The OSMO is a nice match to the look of the G9 footage when graded, but straight out of camera has less I can change. It adds a real gimbal dynamic and a decent backup. If I was involved in a larger project, I would likely switch to Cinelike-D with both, but otherwise, as is, it is ok.

Sound.

Mics are either full a bore H5 with Lewitt condensers, SSH-6 shotgn or XY module, or a simple Neewer shotgun. For most footage, which will have a cover track applied, I will just use the built in mics to help with synching.

Lenses.

Now, this has actually just changed in part due to the writing of this article. I had basically settled on the Olympus 25mm for interviews*, using it’s shallow depth and wide open sharpness and the shorter focal length is ideal for on camera shotgun mounting and the 12-60 Leica to replace the 12-40 Oly for general shooting.

*I like the colour, dual stabilising, range and smooth action of this lens and already, combined with a few setting changes to Da Vinci, I am seeing changes for the better and a Leica 15mm is on the way to hopefully take this idea and further it.

Monitor.

The monitor is being used when I have the camera on a tripod, but it’s actually most useful when I am doing large group shots. Really helps being able to see all the faces.

So, to sum up the following have been simplified; rigs, stabilisers and handling, mics, lens choices, AF and lighting. This, with better processing has given me a fast and efficient work flow for through-put, but I still have to get the editing my own movie thing perfected.

Many things I was advised by the internet reviewers to not trust or avoid (formats, AF, hand holding) or use religiously (handles, monitors), I have actually found to be unnecessary or quite useable as is within realistic tolerances.

Cross Pollination Pain

I had a boys hockey match on my calendar today, but the weather was truly awefull so the team shot was postponed. I went anyway to try out a combination I had high hopes for.

The G9 and Olympus 40-150 Pro.

Odd night.

I experienced for the first time the “rippling” effect non DfD lenses can exhibit on a DfD camera. Sometimes it was like heat haze, sometimes more like an oncoming migraine.

I was convinced that most of my images were out of focus, which was a shame because the image quality was good, great even. ISO 6400 without any ON1 applied, was very useable.

Shot under barely adequate lights, the images were clean and bright looking and white balance was easily adjusted.

Turns out my keeper rate was actually close to 70-80%. The camera had a frustrating post shot lag that I overcame with a higher frame rate. Oddly, I generally do not use any type of drive for sports. I prefer to fire single shots, sometimes in sequence, but not bursts. Addictive as they are, bursts seem to me to lack control. Each image is a choice, an expression of skill and even t high frame rates, it is easy to miss-time a critical moment, miss focus errors or to see the action shifting. The EM1’s are reactive enough that I do not need to use continuous drives, but struggling to get the G9 to behave, I tried this and seemed to settle that aspect anyway.

AF was a handful. I settled on a custom setting of a 5 square cross, that annoyingly cannot be moved around the screen (?). Anything else proved too twitchy or just grabbed anything. I think the full screen option is ideal if there is nothing else in the way, but on a busy field, it just grabs shouders etc in the foreground. I did use several custom settings but settled on 2 I think.

Some sequences were spot on, others missed and refused to find focus, but frustratingly, some lost aquired focus for no logical reason, and refused to re-find it.

Groups were no issue.

Clean, close action was quite reliable……..

So, question is, could I use this if I had to?

It produced, over a half of hockey, enough files to be workable (30+ for one team, 40+ for the other), but it was not a reassuring or overly pleasant experience. Compared to the EM1x (with this lens), I felt detached from the process, sometimes shooting blind and expecting less than I actually got.

….even surprising sometimes.

This leaves me unsure. the Leica 50-200 would empower the G9’s to possibly match the EM1’s, but I doubt it would beat the EM1x, so I may get another top-end Oly (EM1x, EM1.3 or OM1) or stick to the “filler” plan of a 35-100 Pana so I can get some use of the Pana’s for indoor sport especially and take some of the load off the Oly cameras and lenses.

I have read that te G9’s, when properly supported by harmonious glass are actually better at some things anyway, like approaching subjects and busy groups.

More Sport, More Lessons Learned.

The perfect combo for football, one I went away from last week and the images were weaker, is my 300 on the EM1x and the 40-150 on a mk2. The 300 is on a black rapid strap, the EM1.2 on it’s own, both easily switched as needed. About 80% of the images are taken with the longer lens covering an arc from mid ground right across the main flow of play (the very far side is a little too far away), and is used even when the action is a little close for tight shots. The shorter one handles things in the near quarter, which provides a totally different feel. Generally you want the ball in shot, but sometimes, the players tell the story on their own.

Bit of old school black and white, takes me right back to my earliest days.

The gallery below is a mix of Womens basketball from the southern national league and state Netball. Both high calibre games, very fast and the usual lighting and angle constraints. Oddly, the 75mm which is ideal for Netball is too tight for the basketball, that has less room to move arounfd the court and more action happens in the “D”. Next time, the 45mm will be used for this and I will shoot from behind the basket, not the corner to reduce crowding.

Low Light Needs Full Frame?

Most shooters will follow this logic; low light photography means full frame cameras.

Bigger sensor, less noise. But is that really all the story?

First up, what is really needed?

For most photographers, “hell” is a fast and erratic subject in low light, sometimes ugly, low contrast light. The worst I have had to deal with is a forgotten back room of the local sports centre, probably last done up some time in the ‘80’s and often used for Ping Pong or Badminton. Even to my eyes, it was dim, you know that slightly surreal light that defies comfort, but for my camera it was not at all a pleasant experience (we are still in therapy, poor thing).

If a sport or performance is lit well enough for viewers to see normally, then ISO 32-6400 with an aperture of 1.8 to 2.8 should be able to provide a workable shutter speed of 1/500 of better. If the light is super dark for “creative” uses, then shooting for how it looks is best. In other words, no photographer would be asked to shoot sport in total darkness and drama may have some very dark moments for effect, but no-one expects daylight looking images from these.

A full frame camera can deliver very clean 3200 and more than useable 12800 with little effort, but relying on the fastest aperture lenses heavily reduces magnification. If needed, a lens with an f1.8+ aperture in particular is usually limited to 100mm or so. Because the better performing full frame cameras are currently limited to 20-24mp or so, cropping becomes the limiting factor. So sports like Basketball or Netball are limited to the near third of the court and still need cropping.

In M43, the two or so stops of ISO disadvantage can be mitigated somewhat thanks to the 2x magnification factor and deeper depth of field it provides. It is all in the lenses. By disadvantage, I mean ISO 32-6400 is still pro callibre, but may need work if underexposed, or to be blown up to very big sizes or cropped heavily, but the real difference is not that much these days. Sufficiency is on reach with all decent modern tools, only extremes are out of reach for some.

This, at 6400…

…..from this with minimal work (C1 and ON1 No Noise all at standard settings).

A 75mm lens in M43 for example, which has similar pricing and size to the inexpensive full frame equivalent is a different beast to the full frame version. It has the magnification of a full frame 150mm, with no sensor cropping. The M43 camera offers its full 20mp compared to the full frame that may be cropped down to maybe 10-12mp or so.

Flipping that, have a hunt and see how many f1.8 150mm lenses are out there for full frame cameras and their price.

Secondly, the full frame depth of field is retained, so the 75mm is acting like a 150 f2.8 lens for focus depth while gathering f1.8 light. The norm here for a full frame shooter is a pro 70-200 f2.8, but that comes at the price of 2 stops of light at the same depth of field. The difference reduces.

Wide open at f1.8 (2.8 equiv) allows me to cut out a subject, but get all of them in as well.

Thirdly, the greater magnification means the AF system is focussing tighter on the desired framing, not wider with more chance to grab the wrong subject (which can go unnoticed at the time). For some sports, I have to use a single point or a small row of 2-4 points to cut through a crowd. Face detect can work here, but again, it needs to be tight to keep, well, focussed.

So, no sensor cropping with a f1.8 medium tele with accurate focus and the depth of field of a 2.8 lens. The two stop ISO drop, if it actually matters at all, is mitigated somewhat*

Good enough quality for most uses and similar to what is coming out of the full frame cameras the other togs are using.

A fourth element, but one that the new raft of mirrorless lenses is reducing all the time, is the M43 lens design advantage. The format was choosen for a variety of reasons and the smaller, squarer format, reduces the need to make extraordinary focal lengths** was one of them. All of my lenses perform professionally wide open, even the cheaper ones, becasue all are asked to do something relatively easy. A good medium tele is a sweet spot for most makers, it just goes further with m43.

A final, but less relevant thing in this space is the advantage smaller sensors have with stabilising. Apart from Olympus’ advantage in tech, it is simply easier to stabilise a smaller sensor.

A shot taken with a hand held 600mm at a reasonably high ISO and low shutter speed. Not affordable, nor likely possible with full frame and really, who wants to be “that” guy lugging a huge lump of glass around a school concert. This was taken before No Noise came into my life, so even better is possible.

My standard for indoor sport is my 40-150 pro, but if the ISO’s are hovering around the 6400+ mark for 1/1000th, I will put the 75 or a 45mm on, netting either ISO 1600 or a faster shutter speedor a compromise between the two. I have never run out of options.

*ISO 6400 is very useable with M43 cameras and decent (not Adobe) processing. This handles most jobs fine. Past that, I can still compete thanks to the maths in m favour, but everyone is starting to see reduced quality.

**The Olympus 75 and 300mm and the Panasonic 200 f2.8 are all top of the line in their class, which is quite easy to achieve at these relatively conservative focal lengths. Rare and bulky 600mm lenses for full frames however are not realistic for most (the Nikon 400 2.8 at work is a monster), pushing their price up even further. You could actually buy 2x EM1xs’, the 40-150, 75, 8-18, 300, 200 with matched extenders for the price of the Canon 600 f4 and the bulk of it for the price of the camera needed. At the end of the day, either way you have a super fast 20mp camera with 600 f4 capable of pro results up to ISO 6400, just that one fits in a shoulder bag and costs 1/4 the price of the other.

Clear Wins And Soft Losses

I have made a few purchases and kit choices lately, so here are the wins and losses.

Wins.

A second G9. I loved the G9 on first sight, but it never felt like the right camera for stills. My all Oly lens kit, the price of the smaller EM1 mk2 with phase detect AF and the huge differences in interface put me off the G9, but as a video camera option last year it was and still is a no brainer. This is where the rot set in, well that and the addition of the excellent 8-18 Leica. My video centric set-up for my one G9 was fine, but when it came to fleshing out my kit, another just seemed logical. Closer in many ways to an EM1x than an EM1.2 for 1/3rd the price, with better video specs and a better than average kit lens opton, mad if I didn’t.

A 50% crop from a G9+12-60 Leica, ISO 6400 file. Minimal processing required (nothing done to this outside of C1 import settings). I have often had issues with the white balance of this space, EM1 mk2’s turning it a little green/yellow and I struggled to make the files look clean and bright. The G9 files need minimal fixing.

A single pass through ON1 No Noise, with no other tweaks made. This is a very tight crop and fully useable as is. M43 at high ISO, with movement, dodgy light, instictive capture speed, electronic shutter, then minimal processing? All good.

Leica 12-60. The 12-60 kit is great and for peanuts, probably a must buy, but leica lens matched with a G9 has been a revelation. I was worried it would be a compromise as the variable aperture 8-18 has occassionally felt like, but I had not matched that lens to a G9 and the diference is massive. ISO 6400 is sharp, colourful and clean and all perfromance handicaps disappear. Just magic.

Domke f804. A lucky find and one I would have regretted not getting. I really don’t need it, but I am so glad I had a chance to grab one when it popped up. A bit of practical history at work and a bag I feel will find more uses as time goes on.

Domke 217 case. The back saver I needed and a grat way of just staying organised.

Selens COB 150 lights. Quiet, powerful and cheap.

Zoom F1. This has made the Zoom kit eminently practical. The H5 and H1 are fine for most uses, but basically suck as on camera shotgun setups. The F1 gives me a decent pro shotgun/mid-side with the SSH-6, but also offers an XY capsule, LAV and others, all in a small and well damped rig. It also supplies a backup track. Backups are good ‘k.

Manfrotto 1.8x2.1 Black/Grey collapsible back drop and bracket. Got the portrait job of a life time and it literally paid for itself.

Soft fails.

Crumpler Muli 8000. Good but unnecessary. Lots of bags, many as good or better, just a drain on finances and solved nothing.

Neewer NL 140 lights. These are fine I guess, but they need a cable, can have tendency to blow a fuse and are very cheap feeling. They did not cost me much, but still, not my best purchase and they would have paid for a much better Selens COB with change.

12-60 kit. A great little lens for travel or as a sacrificial lamb in bad weather, but after grabbing the Leica, I could have passed on this one.

Hard fails.

Nothing yet, so my luck has been running with me.

Bag Follow-ups

The Crumpler Muli 8000 is a nice, sound, well made bag, but limited in it’s uses mainly because of the odd inserts and lack of pockets. Even using M43 gear, I find a two camera and three lens kit is its realistic limit. The big front pocket is decent, but that and the computer divider are basically all you have. I could add some pouches to the ends, but I have none that fit the horizontal straps.

This bag has highlighted for me how I have moved away from rigid bags in favour of flexible and soft body huggers.

Uses? A shall job grab bag that looks nice or maybe I will assign it to small portrait or studio kits.

Nice looking bag though.

The f804 is a winner in that it is the first bag I have bought in a long time that is actually exactly what it was advertised to be. It is big, the footprint quite deep, but I have options there when that is too much. If the base panel is removed or exchanged, I can soften it down, an insert can be used for some rigidity or added depth when used as it was meant to be.

The rear panel, used for carrying it on an extended suit case handle will be put to use soon, with the 217 Pro-roller. This was part of the reason I grabbed that bag.

Uses? The school kit, because I tend to use several cameras with a mix of zooms and primes (hate changing lenses in the field).

The big 217 case has arrived and like most of my Domke purchases, it has exceeded expectations, or more to the point, it actually met them.

Not deep enough to take a long lens standing, it can take every other bit of gear without issue.

Sme real wins, some mild losses, but nothing will be wasted.

New Kit Dynamic, Some Thoughts

Today I did my first big engagement for the school with my Panasonic-centric kit*.

In a word….awesome. The G9 is made for this environment. I loved the face detect accuracy and feed back, my custom layout, which included ISO on the back wheel and a few other touches was more instinctive and faster and the 12-60 Leica lens just rocks! As I oved from brightly lit outdoors to mixed light rooms, the thumb just rolled to adjust. For ISO performance, I put it up with the G9, which I put down to the sensor not having to house phase detect pixels. I noticed early on a big difference in sharpness to noise betweent eh G9 and EM1 mk2’s in Lightroom, but C1 bridged much of that gap. The EM1x matched the cleaner sensor with more powerful processing, but only matched it. AF paid the price, but for some tasks, the G9 still beats the EM1.2’s.

The G9 also handles the mixed lighting I have to deal with better, with white balance and ISO quality that generally means less processing. For the school, I shoot quality in bulk, so less processing is a boon.

The electronic shutter seems to be banding free up to ISO 3200 at least. I have not tried it everywhere or at higher ISO’s, but so far, all good.

Even the reversed zoom action is not a big deal. I feel I can get the hang of this by using only G9’s for the zoom lens work and primes on my EM5’s amd EM10’s for the school and limiting the Pro Oly cameras and zoom lenses to the paper, but it may just be one of those things that takes some adjusting to for each job.

Performance with Olympus lenses is surprisingly good. I shot a very speculative sequence with the 75mm in a poorly lit gym and it hit more than I expected wide open. Not sure I would expect better from an Oly camera. This was in face detect and with no specific AF considerations used, so more may be possible. This may put on hold my desire to get a long Pana lens for this kit (35-100 or 50-200).

It’s funny how your needs change. I would have once felt under done in a school shoot without my 40-150 Pro, but now the combination of a 75 prime and slower long lens (40-150, 75-300 kit) is enough. Ironically, I started with these two and felt they were enough, bought the big zoom back off a friend and quickly became dependant on it.

I have pressed the f804 into service for the school. At the school, especially because I use more cameras and with them prime lenses, the bigger bag gives me plenty of room to handle three mounted and ready to go. School shoots tend to be about reacting to and capturing every opportunity, the paper needs more method, less volume.

A beautiful morning in the school gardens.

The f802 is better it turns out for the paper, where I need fewer cameras, but ever changing choices of lenses and lighting. It has two extra external pockets (900 series pouch additions). The f804 is just roomier in the main compartment, but without pockets, it lacks options.

From the long haul 217 roller bag (best purchase this year), I pack the f802 as needed, with the bigger pocket even handling a 200 LED kit or rain coat.

*G9 for stills, G9 for video (both backups to the other), 1 of 2 EM10.2’s and 1 of 2 EM5’s with the 8-18, 12-60 Leicas, 45, 75, 40-150 kit and 75-300 kit lenses, all in a f804 Domke.

Saturday Sports Day

Only a few weeks in, or days really seeing as I only do two a week, I have scored a few Saturdays, which are sports days primarily. Friday tends to be a flurry of editorial, but Saturday is all about things done with balls.

I was allocated the bugbear of all, Netball. the reasons it is not loved by all are several.

The game has a natually stop-start nature, no flow like Basketball with movement of the ball prohibited and the ball carrier is also limited to a few seconds before disposal (not that top end players wait more than a split second).

Add to this generally poor indoor light, a small and reatively crowded court (7 players a side) with sometimes very little movement room around the edges. It is fast at this level only adding to these limits.

And finally, players may switch position every quarter, so their allocated bib may not match the pre-assigned player from quarter to quarter. This last is vital as we have to caption images correctly and my last game had look-alike sisters who played in similar but constantly changing spots, so you may find yourself trying to match action shots to old club team images. At this level, the players do have their names printed on the back, but even then, you need to get the shot, then get the back of the player in the same sequence. Some of the shots below could not be submitted, because I could not be sure.

Tactics?

M43 actually gives you a massive advantage here. My 150 f1.8 equiv 75mm, used wide open still means I need ISO 32-6400 at 1/1000th or so, but with C1 and ON1, that is not a problem and depth of field is nearly ideal, being f2.8 full frame equivalent. I can get the main player(s) razor sharp and some pleasantly softened support characters.

Stalikng one player can be the best way of guaranteeing one player, but you still need to get the others around them (or exclude them). This also requires a certain amount of time.

The EM1x and this lens are almost empathically fast to focus. I set a 1x3 tall AF point pre-set in vertical (I wish Olympus would allow a 2 wide, but they only offer 1 or 3), to cut through groups to the subject I want and it also seems to work ok in horizontal for longer shots.

Many of these are cropped, some quite heavily, but I have my full 20mp to play with. A full frame with the same lens at half the magnification would need to be 40mp+ to match that with a similar lens or you would need to use a longer, probably slower lens and loose the ISO advantage. It would also be focussing on a wider area, so less precise.

So all that taken into consideration, I had to shoot either end of a football match, with Netball in between and the transit time was about 10 minutes either way. I managed a quarter at each contact, which can be plenty. My big error was to try to do the football with only my shorter tele and the 1.4x (56-210 for 110-420 equiv). This proved a little short for only two quarters of the game, relying on all the action being on my side of the ground. Next time I will go back to what works, my 300 and 40-150 in tandem, so much for saving the back!

Practice will make me improve and I am already getting an eye for the editors preference (tight), but on a technical level, all is good.

The EM1x with an EM1 mk2 as my second camera, 12-40, 40-150, 75 (indoors) and 300mm kit is perfect and the lot can be transported in a single shoulder bag!