In The Bag, Latest Revision

After a little while, I have settled into a basic day bag kit for my news paper work. The school, soon to be heavily reduced in load is less of an issue as I now know I can take what I need for the task at hand, but the paper is harder.

Not actually here yet, but a known dynamic (have another in khaki rugged-ware). Yes, in a MFT world, this can carry a full day kit covering 16-300 with fast primes, video and flash. Ironically, the bag was origionally designed for a full film era (full frame) kit, like an F3 Nikon, 20, 35, 85 and 180, film and flash.

Stage 1 the little day bag;

  • Domke F3x (Nylon)

  • G9 for wider lenses and video

  • 8-18 Leica (the 12-60 is the ideal one lens option, but it is not wide enough for all jobs)

  • Em1.2 for longer lenses

  • 40-150 f4 (the new shiny), or occassionally the 75mm if bad light is expected.

  • 15 and 45 f1.8’s for video, low light, subject separation and Bokeh (these are mounted on cameras as the first optons)

  • Godox 860 flash and controller (covers stills light). This is in one end pocket.

  • Black foamy things for the Godox

  • Sennheisser MKE-400 mic and small headphones (covers sound). This is all in the other end pocket.

  • 140 Andower RGB LED panel (covers video and stills light)

  • A short cable for the mic in case closer is an option

  • 46mm filter set (var ND, Black Mist)

  • Small super clamp and elbow joint for the mic or light

Stage 2 expanding on this and switching to the f802 or f804 bag for longer trips;

  • The Godox 685 and off camera controller

  • 12-60 Leica (better video option than 8-18)

  • Switch to the 40-150 f2.8 and tele converter for more speed/reach

Sports kit;

  • EM1x with 300 f4 or 75 depending on sport (worn with Black Rapid strap)

  • EM1.2 with grip and 40-150 f2.8 (worn with shoulder strap)

  • TT Turnstyle 10L (for those extras you may need)

  • 12-60 for groups and close work (one of the extras)

  • Godox 860 (another extra)

Video kit (based on school use, but we will see how my needs grow);

  • G9 rigged with 12-40 standard

  • Sigma 30 f1.4, because I like how it does video

  • 62/72mm filter pack (lots of ND, softener, polariser etc)

  • Mics etc as needed (Zoom kit, Lewitts, connection to systems)

  • Llights as needed (4 COBs, 5 LED’s)

  • The Neewer back pack




Back On Track

After an unsettling experience with the little Panasonic 35-100, I have just this very hour received the Olympus 40-150 f4 Pro.

Thanks to Claire and Bronwyn at Teds cameras in Australia for their excellent, efficient and friendly service. I went with them originally on price, but will be a repeat customer based on service (comments not sponsored).

First impressions were good. It seems heavier than the Pana, but is not by much and the odd mechanical design is out-weighed by the solid metal quality. Not sure, but it feels lighter even than the 75-300 kit lens in the bag.

This thing feels every bit as nice as the f2.8 lens, just half the size, price and weight, all for the cost of just one stop.

After a bunch of very un-scientific hand held, 1/15s, low contrast, ISO 1600 images (above), I decided to give it a fair chance to impress and went outside into a wet, but glowacious back garden.

Sharp, contrasty and pleasant looking, it instantly felt right. Colour in particular is attractive considering the cool spring light.

Very sharp.

Very.

The better close focus and reach are also appreciated. I noticed the close focussing limit of the 35-100 after a few shots, this lens with it’s extra reach seems to hit a sweet spot.

Bokeh, in front and behind the focus plane is very nice, better I feel than it’s bigger sibling.

No misses.

Macro lens sharp, seriously impressive (you have to remind yourself this is a tight crop)..

Left and right sides are also perfectly usable and CA free, unlike the Pana.

The lens it reminds me most of is the 75 f1.8, which can’t be a bad thing.

I am looking forward to the weight drop in my day bag, but also the possibiities this opens up for good light sports shooting. Matched to my 300 f4, I now have a lighter weight alternative for long football games.

Some Lazy Comparisons

I took a few shots with my D750 and 24-70 the other day, jpegs it turns out, at 12800 no less.

Impressive noise control, but not bitingly sharp and white balance is a little off.

Tonight I had the 15mm Leica on the Pen F and luckily my muse was handy. ISO 1600 this time, because the lens is faster.

Not a fair comparison I guess, but the Pen files are sharp and white balance is slightly more realistic.

After a pass through No Noise. The Pen F is probably my weakest 20mp camera noise wise, but has bags of clarity and nice character at higher ISO’s.

A couple of reasons for trying the 15mm on the Pen.

The aperture ring is problematic on a Panasonic. Nice idea, but really too light and hard to trust. It refuses to stay on “A” for more than a few shots and cannot be disengaged. On an Oly camera it just does not work, so problem solved.

A Missed Opportunity

I recently had the pleasure of photographing an interview with Indira Naidoo, an Australian journalist, turned writer and very inspirational speaker.

Clickity-click I went (well, silently anyway) and felt I had coverred some of the subjects many expressions so my journalist could choose the one that best suited his angle.

Only afterwards did it dawn on me, I had missed the perfect opportunity for a short video interview. We are not a TV station, but we do have an online presence, something that gets a lot more room and allows a diversity of output to deliver our news. What we can do, that the TV guys generally don’t, is a longer, more intimate sit down interview with lesser known locals.

It had all the elements. Clear questions answered in an articulalte and engaging maner, in a semi-controlled environment with decent (ish) light and background and in the perfect time frame of 2-3 minutes.

What went wrong?

Lets ignore the obvious one, an unprepared photographer not thinking outide the box and look at technical things.

I still need to take stills images, so I would have needed a small tripod or handy table to rest the video cam.

I did have some basic mics, but would have liked to have had something better like the F1 and SSH-6, a LAV or a condenser boomed.

Lighting is often an issue, but maybe one that I need not worry too much about.

So, a tripod.

I have a smaller Velbon Sherpa tripod with a very basic monopod head that I use for video. It is normal length three section unit and light, but sturdy and tall enough. Maybe a smaller one would be good, something I can strap to or maybe even put inside a bag? The minimum length (10-12cm) with a decent maximum (50cm+) is hard, but there are tons of options around so we will see.

The other, much simpler option to the tripod dynamic is to simply shoot stills, then do the video, then get some more stills again. Stills and B-roll can be used to make up a more interesting video than just the straight interview.

Option three, an option favoured by the other photographers, is to record sound separately, then shoot B-Roll for fill with stills. The problem with this is any synching of sound that is in line with the interview, but interrupted.

I do have a little Manfrotto table top tripod and maybe a monopod for the video rig to free up my right hand.

Sound?

For mics, I decided to get the one that has been hovering for a while, the Sennheisser MKE-400. This is basically the same sound quality as other similarly priced mics, but has an “X” factor. It is small and compact with a built in shock bracket and is surrounded by its own wind shock/pop filter “blimp”. It also has a forward facing cable socket, is self powered with a low pass and gain controls.

Compared to similar mics like the D3 Diety or various Rodes, it is smaller, more robust and far more convenient to use, while providing similar sound quality (less bass-muffled than many). As a Domke bag user, it is ideal for a front or side pocket.

My F1 and SSH-6 combo is still the better option for more controlled setups especially when some degree of ambient sound is desired*, but assembled it is really long (long-lens long) and quite deep with the shock mount connected and I am not keen on continually dis-assembling it between jobs as I want to avoid excessive handling.

This gives me a balanced approach. One semi-studio kit for big static set-ups when I am using a dedicated video kit and one for run and gun out of my day bag, but I will also add the H1n for environmental sound recording and backup. Both run off AAA batts, so logistically they are handily aligned.

Basically I have too many mics now, the lovely Lewitts are yet to be employed regularly, but I hope they will soon get a run with some drama recordings, otherwise, my two lives seem to have all other opportunities covered. The thing I have realised too late about sound is, it is easy to get up to a good standard for most uses, but anything more is often wasted. My maximum sound recording potential is probably now at the equivalent of 4k vision, but like 4k few output sources can tell the difference. My 1080p grade sound equivalent is probably going to be the MKE-400.

I have a few really good little shotgun mics so why another? Basically the quality, which is a level up (the MKE-200 is more their equivalent and noticeably thinner sounding than the 400) and form factor. The Neewer mini shotgun for example, with a rycote, wind muff etc is actually as big, but sacrifices some quality and is less robust.

Lighting?

It is easy enough to carry a small LED panel, just enough to add some contrast to a flat scene, but this needs a stand or clamp, which is another hurdle. If I can get a small and light weight tripod that fits in a small bag, then maybe one of my very light light stands and a 176 LED would do? Off angle, they are enough to at least reduce flat light and light very dark spaces. It can even be camera mounted, but I would rather more control.

If this becomes a thing, I may get something like the battery operated mini Aperture Amaran 60x light I came across recently and a little soft box (which I have), maybe some of the little Smallrig/Lume cube or Joby mini box lights or a bigger LED.

Thinking outside the obvious, probably to the more obvious, I could use reflectors, diffusers etc.

Like a lot of things, this runs the risk of getting out of hand, so first step, a good hand held rig, then the tripod and light option as a “step up”, then maybe more, but as I can actually go full on, it needs to be looked at as a series of logical steps. I am a bit sick of finding solutions to problems that may not exist or I may already have answers for.

*I did look at the MKE 440, a stereo shorgun option, but decided that the MKE 400 is more practical and does not risk cutting the zoom outfit out of the picture as an all too easy option. I have two X/Y, a pair of condensers and several shotguns, so another option is not needed. Balance.

What To Do Next

I sent the 35-100 f2.8 Mk2 back and I am totally comfortable with that. As a working pro, I could have made the lens work by avoiding the things that do not work well, but for the money paid, why should I have to.

I have had a great run with lenses, so I was due a dud. Lets hope that is out of the way now and my next move sorts the problem.

Speaking of the problem (weight), I now have a chance to re-think what I need.

The Olympus 40-150 f4 is top of the list. It has a good rep, is basically the same bulk as the 35-100 and effectively gives me a lighter weight version of the 40-150 f2.8 lens, which is the point and feels right. The extra reach is I guess an inevitability.

The speed and versatility of the 40-150 is hard to ignore. In good light, a lighter version would simply make life easier and a perfect match for the 300 f4, leaving me the heavier f2.8 for lower light shooting. It also adds a nicer Bokeh option than the sometimes twitchy f2.8.

Another 35-100, assuming I would have better luck, also makes some sense. The lens on paper was the right choice, but jitters abound. It felt good, but it just did not deliver reliably. The stop of speed means I can use it as a one lens solution, the f4 Oly would need one or two f1.8 lenses in reserve, which partly negates the point of a lighter weight lens. The Oly does share the same filter thread as the 12-60 and 12-40, has better close focus and possibly better weather proofing.

The reality is, the f4 Oly or the 100mm limit are both a compromise. The above image could have been taken with an f4 lens with little or no problem, or cropped slightly at f2.8, but either way, slight allowances need to be made and I do have the 75 f1.8 and 40-150 f2.8 anyway.

The Oly 12-100, a lens I loved, already owned and sold too cheaply, makes a lot of sense as well. It could conceivably be a one lens solution, maybe with a pair of small primes for Bokeh and speed? As a video and stills all-rounder it seems ideal (but I have several other “ideal” lenses). On its own it is heavy, but it effectively replaces the 12-60 and 35-100.

The Leica 50-200 is the last option. The dearest and possibly the least useful, it would give me a slightly lighter version of the Oly lens, with a little more reach, but a vaiable aperture.

An outlier is the 100-400 Leica. This lens is actually as fast as the 50-200 over the same range, then gives a heap more reach as well. It is like the 50-200, reasonably large and heavy, but otherwise could work. I have read several negative reviews about this lens, especially regarding its long term reliability and incompatibility with Oly cameras, so probably not.




A Good Lens?

The 35-100 got a run today along side my 40-150 on an EM1 mk2 at an all schools equestrian event.

Focussing was a nice surprise on the whole. It was smooth and responsive and seemed to be pretty much as accurate as the Oly lens. This was better than expected.

At 100mm it is sharp and contrasty, but not as contrasty as the Oly lens. Bokeh on the other hand is smoother and more natural.

At the short end, it is much the same.

There were misses, but there were a few with the Oly lens also, so aside from yet un-foreseen behaviours, I am confident to use this lens for work on either brand of camera.

The Oly lens sometimes has a weird look to just out of focus areas, almost a fringe-like glow. The Pana lens seems to do much the same with near misses, a bit CA like, but I am also aware this may be a silent/electronic shutter issue.

Busy and slightly disturbing, but simply out of focus areas, just out of salvageable range, or something worse?

The stunnig sharpness of the Oly lens, but notice the nervous Bokeh in the trees.

The reason for the added question mark above is some less than confidence inspiring results from a lecture shoot in poor indoor lighting. Even with dual stabilising, I failed to get as many keepers as I thought I would using the G9 in continuous focus. More testing needed. I think that in single shot focus it may be more reliable, or maybe even continuous on the EM1. If it fails to impress after a day or two more, I will possibly return it, but I know how some lenses need a settling period.

I am due a dud, but it looks like apart from some early jitters and learning each lenses character, all is well across the board (a lens is as good as the best images it takes, but also how often it produces them). Incidentally, I have spent $3500au on a pro Leica standard, kit standard, pro short tele, Sigma super fast portrait and fast Leica semi wide. None of these lenses were mandatory buys, but they add options and depth, which is also part of the MFT advantage.

I took a bunch of images on the way to work, all within a few minutes and the same location roughly. In each, at longer distances and close inspection, there is no discernible point of focus down the right hand side, the near pole being closest. This did not seem to show up at shorter distances, but when I focussed specifically on the right side, the rest was quite out, much more than DOF would suggest.

ed. This has been returned as it looks like there is a decentering issue. It can produce nice files especially close up, but interestingly, most of the horse jumping files I shot on the weekend were able to disguise the issue because they were mostly shot left to right and on an angle. Brick wall and other field tests have shown it to be “twitchy” to say the least. The other effect seems to be the lens offers effectively shallower depth of field than the same settings on the 40-150 Oly. Not sure what to go for in exchange, but the Oly 40-150 f4 is appealing.

The Last Lens I Needed.............

Weight.

When it all comes down to brass tacks, weight is the limit of your comfortable kit. It determines what you have at hand on any given day, how your bag handles and your maximum potential creative capabilities.

The big Nikon kit reminded me of the bad old days, days when limiting options due to physical limitatins was simply a reality. Want your big lens, leave most everything else behind and concentrate on it and it alone. Zooms remove the need to carry several primes, but often weigh as much as many of these combined anyway (the original 180 + 85 combo vs the 80-200 “stovepipe” Nikon is a classic example).

I went another way.

After only a few weeks with the paper, a very different dynamic to my school duties, I have become keenly aware of weight. At the school I tote to a place, often with just exactly what I need, then work from a dropped bag. With the paper, mobility is key. No dropped bags, no multi camera and lens setups, just lean and mean.

A G9 and EM1.2 carried together give me more depth and speed than the other guys who go out with just a single full frame Nikon DSLR and need to change lenses, but my size and weight advantage has been lost here slightly. Lenses are the only way.

In my recent post, I compared the lenses the the paper issued me with my current kit. Huge differences in size and weight with little or no difference in performance make it a no brainer (a no back strainer), to stick with the road I have taken.

So, I bought the 35-100 f2.8 II, a lens that by even MFT standards is small. Compared to a Nikon (Canon, Sony etc) 70-200 f2.8. It feels like a toy copy, but it is the real deal.

There are plenty to choose from, but overall, this one makes the most sense in my densely populated MFT arsenal so why this lens?

The new Olympus 40-150 f4 is much the same size, price and weight, but with a the full stop less light and an extending barrel, as well as the opportunity lost to get a long Pana lens into the fold. I think I would still feel something would be missing in my kit. The option of carrying one G9 only would be nice, but without a dedicated tele, it is fragile, limited.

The 50-200 Leica is only a third dearer than this lens, adds more reach and metal build, but it is really a duplicate of the Oly lens, so it is a bit bulky and is actually slower in aperture at the shared longer end (100mm) than the little Pana lens. It would fit into my F3x bag, but not as neatly as the Pana.

The 75mm, which has been my go-to up until now is roughly the same size, but lacks range and weather sealing. This lens will be kept for special occassions and tasks like indoor sports, the 35-100 will be the day to day work horse.

My 40-150 plastic fantastic is probably close to this lens in sharpness, but lacks the Bokeh quality and is so very slow in comparison. F5.6 is workable in many situations, but not the ones the Paper sends me into. The other issue is weather proofing and build quality generally. When it comes to travelling, I will be torn here.

So, in summary, the Pana lens offers a genuinely small, consistently fast, tough and robust short tele option with quality, but more importantly pleasant imaging qualities, which no other lens I have or can get can offer.

Would it be my only option?

If I only had this, many sports will be out of reach, literally, but it would be fine for a travel or street kit.

Like my poorly 12-40 f2.8 Olympus lens (must get that fixed), this lens has a smoother, gentler look than the 40-150 f2.8 and very nice Bokeh. If the Oly 40-150 has one flaw (apart from weight), it is slightly nervous Bokeh which seems to come with the sharpest of their lenses.

It is also sharp as shown in this limited set of images. To be honest, the number of lenses I own that could produce this image is getting ridiculous, but none have the ergonomics of this one.

Swirly Bokeh, an old school gem!

Minimum focus is good, but not great.

Sharp enough to crop though, but to be honest, this lens has opened up my thinking a little, reminding me there is more to a lens than passing a sharpness test.

AF is interesting. The rippling effect is there in spades on the G9, but it is plenty fast. The effect is less obvious on an EM1, but is also very fast and smooth. I am getting better with this. I realise that within the chaos that is the DFD focussing process, sharp capture is usually nailed, you just have to go with it. I can’t focus 240+ times a second.

This is important. I need a lens that will work better on both platforms, something that does not seem to happen as well the other way around, although if pushed, I know I can manage.

Nice colour, again attractive Bokeh. This is stable, prime-like behaviour, as has the 12-40. The very colour accurate Lime green wall is a Panasonic thing.

An issue I need to get to the bottom of is the red stabiliser warning on the camera when the lens I.S. is disengaged. It seems if I turn it off on the lens, I loose it all together. Need to research this.

Without testing, the colour and contrast look to be a good match to the Oly cameras. Mixing the two brands can have benefits. The more organic, richer look of Olympus files and the lighter, brighter Pana lens look gives me a balance that sticking to one brand only, lacks.

The same works with Oly lenses and Pana cameras, but I must admit to liking the formar most*. Just this morning I shot a Fathers day function with a G9 and Sigma 30mm and EM10 mk2 and 15mm Leica. There was something about both sets of images, but the Oly/Pana ones were a touch more stable.

Yep little one, almost getting boring. Buy a lens, test it, get great sharpness and dig a little deeper until you find what ever little bugbears are hiding in there and move on.

I have bought a lot of lenses lately with generally a growth in my capabilities.

The 15mm Leica. Total win. Mounted on my G9 as the first go-to option for close work involving people.

The 12-60 Leica. Another win and a good replacement for the 12-40 Oly. My core “one lens” option. I will get the 12-40 serviced, but it will still likely be my video standard.

The kit 12-60. An eminently sensible purchase and surprisingly reliable. My core travel lens. In good light, it handles anything the Leica can.

The Sigma 30. A fun addition, less practical and stable than the others, but very powerful when applied logically. This is my “cut-out” lens at closer distances. It has a very delicate rendering with Bokeh in bucket loads, but I am not super keen yet to trust it in critical situations.

The 35-100. An itch scratched and sensible need fulfilled. My EM1 kit tele for the every day kit, trading a 50mm reduction in range for a 50% reduction in weight and size compared to the 40-150 Oly.

*My order of preferrence is roughly this;

  • Oly cameras with Pana lenses (depth and balance and on older EM5 mk1’s a delicateness)

  • Pana with Pana (bright and light, good in poor coloured lighting)

  • Oly with Oly (rich and deep colour, struggles a little in bad lighting colour)

  • Pana with Oly (some function issues and colour similar to option 1).

Please keep in mind though, the EM1x and Pen F are slightly different to the rest of the Oly stable, so micro climates abound.

Pisa And The Art Of Interaction

My career as a news paper photographer has been short, comprising in total less than twenty days, spread over a couple of months of two day weeks with my other photographic hat* being worn the rest of the time, but when your editor says “This story may be the front page, no pressure”, you need to rise to occassion.

The story was a box in a town square on a rainy day.

At the time, I slipped into “get the principals near the object and compose decently” train of thought, which to be fair is part of the PICS** tool I use for these occassions, but unfortunately it lacked enough of the the “I”, which is interaction. Pinning all of your creative needs on three faces and a box is a big ask. Few people carry that kind of pictorial “grunt”, even when they are two local artisits and the City Mayor and box, even one filled with artwork, is still a box.

I left thinking, and this is the unforgivable part, that I had little to work with, so a fairly straight, painfully safe take would uphold the integrity of the paper, the people and the context of the story, even if it did not set the world on fire.

Connor from the cast photos for the school production I shot yesterday, playing the part of the butler in “Clue”. It is rarely this easy.

So how come I can think of at least seven more creative options now, at 2 in the morning?

Looking at the problem from a damage control perspective, simply stole away my creative thought stream, which in hind-sight needs to be revisited. I think I need to come up with a more detailed and potentially fruitful process.

National Deputy Treasurer, Stephen Jones taken earlier in the day. Candid can get the pic, but it is hard to rely on.

What did I have to work with?

Two friends who had not seen each other in quite a while, both artists, one with a photographic background, who were reluctant to stand in front of a TV camera, but seemed more relaxed with stills.

One mayor, who had recently announced his retirement so was relaxed and is a decent sort if a little stiff in front of a camera, as most of us are in the moment.

A modified shipping container in all its stoic glory, complete with art, rain covered and with a reflective glass front on an overcast day. Not exciting in itself.

Plenty of room to move.

Time, I had time.

If this type of job is handled using the following formula, I feel there is hope.

Take the people and create an interaction.

Make the interaction interesting and contextural.

Compose for the subject(s).

This interaction can be done physically (the two artists and maybe the Mayor collaboratively “pushing” the 2 ton box into place, or looking around the corner “finding” it and its treasures), using perspective tricks such as the classic Leaning Tower of Pisa foreground tourist holding up the toppling edifice, or holding the box in their hand(s), or even a little more mystically, using refected faces (a bit of clarity brush work could hold detail in the glass and beyond).

If none of these work, maybe a more artistically contemplative take one using the two artists, one resting" her head on the others’ shoulder looking whistfully at the contents from side on close, or from behind compressed with a long lens. Lets also not forget angle, light, lens perspective, but you get the idea……..think, intuit, create. Look at the elements and let them help you.

Bugger, the more I think about it, the more I come up with!

My favourite would be the most invested and photo aware artist “holding” the box confidently in her hand using a near-far perspective trick, Pisa style. The artist in question was impressively tall with long elegant hands, so all the elements were there and she would have sold the feel of it, it just needed the photographer to man up.

PICS is a good enough mantra, but more emphasis is needed on the “I”.

Interaction in context is all. Someone holding something like a loaf of their own baked bread is fine. Holding a bunch, or holding it on a tray or peeking out from under a pile of loaves can get cheesy (context), but adds that element of connection, which is a triangle formed by you between the subject, their interacion with the object and the viewer.

With this in mind I have changed my mantra slightly to PICCS;

Person, Interaction, Context, Composition then Shoot, with the “I” writ large.

Next time.

*School photographer, which is in many ways a lower octane, but more intimate take on news photography.

**Person, Interaction, Composition, Shoot.

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.