Macro Landscape, A New Genre?

Maybe even macro wide-angle portraiture? The Leica 9mm is creating some cool shots.

A macro landscape. The lens was only about 2” from the flower stamen. Bokeh is lovely, something a super wide MFT lens would usually have little se for, but the distances this lens can be used at mean it is employed regulalrly.

A regular landscape, 9mm style. A very easy to use lens, exhibiting a natural look, effectively hiding it’s super wide coverage. The Fuji 14mm (20mm eq) was good at this to, but lacked the fast aperture, stupidly good close focus and weather proofing (and it was a little heavier).

Kit Thoughts A Few Months In.

So where am I now and how did I get here?

First full month full time at the paper under my belt and some patterns have emerged.

Over thinking these things is easy, but when you just need things to be right, they have a habit of coming together on their own.

My day kit, which is the new nylon F2 Domke packed for any given day, but with no particular specialist lean is;

• EM1 mk 2 (no grip) with the 40-150 f4 Pro mounted. This was to be a gripped EM1 and f2.8 lens, but that required a bigger bag for little extra benefit.

• G9 with Oly 12-40 f2.8 Pro. This was to be the same camera with the Leica 12-60, but I prefer the clutch MF option and fixed f2.8 for video especially and the older, slightly mechanically compromised Oly lens is less precious. Interestingly, the 12-40 has great AF performance and no “rippling”.

• Pana 9mm and 17 and 45mm Oly primes. This was the 8-18, 25 and 45. Both options work, except the super wide is rarely used and when it is, the extra speed helps. There was also a large overlap of little value, especially for the added weight (oh the poor suffering MFT user!). The 15mm Pana was in this space also, but the loose Aperture ring and looser hood just make this lovely lens a little annoying in the field. It is matched now with the Pen-F.

This covers 18-300mm (full frame equiv.), has speed in all the important places, is light and the two cameras play to their strengths.

Australian dance legend and writer Graeme Murphy at a local book launch. The tiny 45mm is the perfect “over the shoulder” portrait lens.

The 12-40 is the lens I have concerns about with it’s “lumpy” zoom, but you know what? It is one of my favourites optically, has the handy MF clutch for video and I like the consistent f2.8 aperture. If it falls over one day, then so be it, but it will have earned it’s replacement by then and it seems the zoom frees up with use, so who knows.

The 40-150 f4 is the real deal, performing at basically the same level as the f2.8 version except for very extreme lighting scenarios (where the 75mm is the better option anyway).

The 15mm is an optical treasure and one of those “perfect” focal lengths. I get annoyed by the loose aperture ring and even looser hood, but can live with them for the look I get. I particularly like the Leica-Olympus combination for dodgy indoor light and that pairing disables the aperture ring (that thing is really light).

Hard to argue with a lens that is this strong even wide open. There is some genuine Leica magic at work. Now replaced by the less fiddly 17mm Oly, nothing has changed much. Both great lenses.

The 9mm has changed everything for me. I can now leave the 8-18 at home and feel very safe in low light shooting super wide. With a fast f1.7 aperture, 2” close focus and sharp, sharp, sharp, this thng is a powerful tool. The Bokeh is also amazing.

Expansive coverage in limited space is 9mm territory.

If the above kit is going into a known low light situation, I will swap out the 40-150 for the 75mm, which to be honest could be my everyday lens also. If something longer may be needed in good light, I have been known to take the 75-300 “kit” instead.

Uncovering the great chicken dumping scandal was safely handled by the $450 Oly super zoom. This lens loves bright light, showing lovely colour and good contrast and is as sharp as needed. If it is too slow for the light, then I get a more “grown up” lens. It also shares with the unlikely 9mm, great Bokeh, if it is ever relevant.

For maximum priority jobs like the PM’s visit recently, I simply grab the other EM1 Mk2 with grip and strap and 40-150 f2.8 mounted (shedding the 40-150 f4), which leaves the bag for my G9 with 12-40 and the first EM1 Mk2 sporting the 9mm. Much quicker for fluid situations, but the added bulk is unnecessary for most jobs.

Speed and sublime sharpness, the f2.8 40-150 is king and worth the bulk when needed.

For video, there is the OSMO with or without it’s water proof housing, the G9 and the Sennheisser MKE 400 mic.

The Leica 15 is also the ideal fast lens to have on when switching between video and stills. Now in the “home” kit, it is the ideal video camera prime.

I always carry a little Oly flash for fill (the one that comes with the EM1’s) and the Andoer LED panel, but rarely take the Godox 860 or 685 out now as I simply do not use them and in my light weight kit, they stand out as overly-heavy pocket fillers. If flash is needed, I have a small backpack ready with both Godox and the little controller, which I intend to add a small stand and modifier to.

I am tempted to go all primes, dropping the 12-40 for the 30mm Sigma or Oly 25 and the 75 for the 40-150, but then I would have a clutch of top end zoom lenses sitting around doing nothing!

*

Saturdays and some other days are sports days. This requires a re-think.

The F804 Domke is now used, which takes the 300 f4, 40-150 f2.8 (with TC if needed), 25, 45, 75mm and 75-300. The EM1x and EM1 mk2 with grip can also fit in mounted, but for most sports, I only take one camera these days and leave behind the lenses I know I will not need.

For most field sports the 300mm is used, sometimes with a second body and 40-150 (any of my three can work depending on light). In good light, I can even get away with the 75-300, which is ideal if I need an odd focal length like 500mm to compose perfectly. I have not come across a situation where I need a longer lens, but the TC can be employed if I do.

For smaller fields like hockey, the 40-150 with or without the TC works well.

Indoors, I generally use the 75 and a shorter lens in tandem. If the lighting is good enough, I may use a zoom, but I generally chase quality over versatility and stick to f1.8 lenses.

*

This leaves me with a decent little kit for me and the now occassional school job. A G9, Pen F, a pair of EM10’s, the 2 old EM5 Mk1’s and Pen Mini, with the kit 12-60, Leica 12-60, and 8-18’s and the Oly 40-150 (kit) as the backbone with the Pana 15, Sigma 30 and Oly 45’s for speed. This gives me a personal/travel, video, fine art and semi-pro kit, with plenty of options in reserve.

It is a little lacking for sport, so a few bits from above come home.

The actual light was several steps darker than gloomy (see below), but the 30mm really helps bring things to life. Flare and CA, both colour blotch and veiling are it’s Achilles heel, but if avoided it’s all gravy.

This was the actual light, interesting but a challenge the 30mm was up to.

Lately the Sigma has made it’s way home because it is a funny critter, like a really sharp but sometimes fragile kitchen knife. One of the sharpest lenses I own it exhibits some strange behaviour and is a half step behind in AF consistency, so for work, the reliable 25 and 45mm Oly lenses appeal more. For me though, it is a bag of fun times waiting to happen!

So, many new lenses have come into my kit lately, but for work, I am leaning on tried and tested (and simpler) lenses like the 17, 25 and 45mm’s, leaving the less solid but more exciting options for home use (15, 30).

The specialist are as they should be, specialising, with the 75, 300 and 9mm’s becoming linch-pin power houses in their space.

My glut of 40-150 options is a plus in every way. All are good, but all offering something on balance.

Face Of Change

Politics is now in my daily life, but sometimes you get a look at the top end of town. I like our current PM. The camera tends to see the real person, no hiding, no smoke or mirrors. I studied our PM for over half an hour an at no time did he seem false, disingenuous, glib, robotic or disinterested. He was late, but that was likely due to spending time with people who need to be heard.

Our previous PM could be accused of lacking some of these.

Kit was different to usual.

Getting an hours notice to be an hour away, I quickly swapped out the 40-150 f4 for the f2.8 model with the mated EM1 mk2 I use for sport. This had nothing to do with lens focussing speed or sharpness, which I consider to be basically equal, but a possible need for a wider aperture if indoors. This allowed me to have the G9 ready with the 12-40, a lens I have rediscoverred an appreciation for. The EM1mk2 I use in my day bag was sporting the 9mm, which was the dual star of the show with the long lens.

Silent operation, multiple angle shooting (at one point I was actually holding the camera and lens in front of a TV cameramans’ stomach, directly below his rig, so sharing his angle without him even noticing), multiple cameras and therefore more lenses (18-300 covered, all with speed).

Fun, but tempered by the seriousness of the situation. The floods in this beautiful region of Tasmania have added just another layer of pain on a farming community that have been suffocating under multiple pressures for a while now. We can only hope as a whole, that visits like this make a real difference, now and in the future, becasue on-going effects of these disasters are often forgotten.

A Better Option

Work has issued me a decent Nikon kit. To put it in a fairer light, work has issued me the “dream” kit from ten years ago, but 10 years is a long time.

The D750 is a dated model and I think is maybe the weak link. Files from this camera and the 24-70 or 70-200 are not as good as my M43 files. No misplaced loyalty of blind bias here. I tested, I looked and I saw.

The 14-24 is still one of the best wide angle lenses on the market, but it is almost 8 (!) times the weight of my new crush, the Pana-Leica 9mm, two stops slower and wider than I need, oh and does not fit my cameras without an adapter so it comes with Nikon attached. This lens and camera combination are a serious decision point when going out. Taking it is like me packing my full kit twice!

The 24-70 AF-S disappoints. I am not sure if mine has a life as hard as the dents and scratches on its barrel would suggest, but regardless, this lens is not a patch on my 12-40 or 12-60 MFT standard lenses, not even the kit one. Bad CA, poor sharpness at the long end, mediocre overall. It may well be the camera, but something is not up to the standard I have come to expect.

The 70-200 AF-S is basically brand new. This was late replacement for my predecessors’ kit when his older lens was deemed un-repairable. I have tried this and the performance it offers is in the ball park of my 40-150 f2.8 or f4 lenses, but still the camera is the weak link.

The 400 f2.8, a lens I should be tickled pink to be in the same room as, is quite simply a weaker combination on the D750, than the 300 f4 on the EM1x. I have really tried to warm to it, but every test I do and the work of the other two photogs with theirs, just underwhelms by comparison. I am not taking a lens the size of an anti tank rocket launcher out, just to get same-same or not even as good results and a kit that limits me in movement and other camera lens option (I regularly shoot with the above and the EM1.2 and 40-150 on the other shoulder). Again we are back to the camera as possibly the weak link.

When asked whether I would like to go D850 or a Z6 mk2 as an upgrade (we can only hope), I initially said D850. This is I feel the best SLR on the market at the moment, but solves few issues and makes the assumption that the D750 is the weakest link in the kit.

Would I take out the whopping 400 and D850?

Simple answer is no, because it offers me nothing I cannot get now, while limiting me in other ways.

I had a thought though. If I go the Z6 mk2, a camera that is likely not going to improve AF performance on the SLR lenses, but may match the D750, then I could order it with the excellent little 24-70 f4 (remember the Z mount offers a stop less DOF than the normal full frame depth of field, due to its massive mouth-so three stops less than MFT), and the new AF-S 70-200 and 14-24 adapted across, then I may have a good day kit to take the strain off my own gear and retain the mirrorless advantage. From here I can even buy a fast prime (85), although a second body and primes (G9) would be logical for video.

I could then be the test bed for the team, the other two photogs getting D850’s. Z9’s would solve all our issues, but a small provincial paper on a limited budget will not stretch to them.

The tele and the wide angle beasts above would then be backups for the team as a whole, just not me so much.

I have a lot of time for the move Nikon has made with their Z mount, being very similar to, if diametrically opposite to the MFT philosophy, so a hybrid Z/MFT kit would be fine, even fun, but the truth is, Nikon is only just coming out of their transition period aches.

If I could buy a dream hypothetical all Z kit with Z9 as the basis, then great, sign me up, but this transition period is less than exciting. As an aside I would likely go Canon though. Their lens landscape growth is more advanced and I trust the cameras more, especially in all the tiers below “top dog”.

Finally, The Right Bag

The F2 arrived today.

The flash above is actually put into an end pocket, giving the G9 more room and I slip a couple of filters in its place.

With bags, I rarely know exactly what I am getting, so it was a nice process switching the whole kit from the F804 into this much smaller bag exactly as planned.

Rule 1 for my editorial day kit;

If it does not fit in the F2, it is not needed.

I have gone from skinny and tall (F802-retired), to deep and tall (F804-used for longer sports lenses), to deep and short (F2). I do feel I dodged a bullet going for this over the F3x, my kit filling the bigger F2 perfectly.

The main compartment takes a G9 with 12-40 (switched back to for video), an EM1 mk2 with 40-150 f4-nose down, then has room for three more lenses, some of which are fatter than the ones I had in the F804 with it’s skinny lens divider. The F802/804 dividers took thin lenses well, but even the squat little 9mm and Sigme 30mm pushed them. The 4 divided compartments in the F2 are both bigger and more flexible.

The two front pockets, originally designed for batteries and note pads, are now perfect for mobile phones and well, notepads and batteries. I really like the two pen holders! On the two bigger bags, these were full sized pockets, that tended to swallow up gear.

The inside lid holds my access card, spare bits and accessories.

The “front” end pocket, assuming I wear the bag on the right shoulder, is for my mics (Sennheisser MKE 400, phones and Boya LAV), the rear one takes the Godox flash if needed. These are smaller and flatter than the separate end or front pockets on the F800 series, which is ideal. Again, nothing migrates to the bottom.

So, it has less wasted height and fewer pockets but can still do the job.

As I had hoped, based on having an F3x in ballistic a few years ago, the Nylon is soft to the touch, soft light coloured nylon is used inside as well and it is rubber backed, so it is possibly more weather proof than the canvas Domke’s.

It all comes down to kit. Change your kit, change your bag, so the real story is what has changed in the bag itself.

The 40-150 f2.8 Pro has become the 40-150 f4 Pro, reducing size and weight by half (this is occassionally swapped out for the 75mm, which is a similar size and weight).

The 8-18 Leica is now a 9mm Leica, which is not only considerably faster, but so small and light, I already had a habit of losing it in the F804.

I am not using gripped or built-in grip cameras, the older EM1 mk2 and G9 doing everything I need. If I do take the EM1x or similar, it still fits well enough, just making access to other lenses less practical.

If flash is needed, the Godox 860 or 685 is packed with the remote controller.

My 176 Neewer LED is now a small Andoer 140, which is only slightly heavier than the battery for the 176.

I have the little 15 Leica and 30mm Sigma (or Oly 45mm) as options to the zooms, but otherwise, that is it.

So,

After a tying day chasing flood waters (300mm of rain in our area today), the bag showed a couple of decent characteristics.

• It is really water proof.

• It is a decent shape for bad weather handling.

Another Freaky Image

This 9mm Panasonic is a really cool bit of gear.

It has been a long time since a single little lens has given me something that I have never had before.

An Australian $5 note (about $3 U.S.).

My contribution the flood of Queen portraits.

Not sure when I can use something like this, but nice to know it is there.

I might do a series of flower-head landscapes.

Oh, and eye detect worked perfectly on this image.

Appreciation For "Odd" Focal Lengths.

Some habits are hard to break.

When MFT format was first introduced, Olympus generally produced lenses that made sense to full frame users (35, 50, 90mm equivalents etc), well up until they produced the slightly odd* 75mm (150mm equiv). Personally, I wished they had made a 50mm f1.8 and 100mm f2, the classic 100 and 200mm’s, but the performance of this lens was just too good to ignore. At the time it was better on paper and in results at least equal to my favourite Canon lens, the 135 f2L.

• 18mm and wider were once considered the “weird” wides, true perspective benders. These days, zooms going to 16mm are common, but these were once special application lenses and as rare as they were expensive.

• 20mm gets you past 90 degrees and was once seen as the extreme end, almost too much for many.

• 24mm is just short of 90 degres coverage, and was a little too wide for a range finder camera (Leica M series etc) to take without a separate view finder. Ths was the landscape shooters standard.

• 28mm is a nice even 75 degrees, but is actually the limit of a non electronic, built-in range finder camera’s focussing coverage.

• 35mm makes a decent semi wide standard, especially if you accept the 50mm as standard.

• 40 (42mm) is the mathematical standard standard for 35mm, being the actual measured diagonal of the 35mm film frame and is visually the most realistic, some say boring of focal lengths. This one is the longest lens that does not compress in any way. If you like the 40mm as I do, then the 35 and 50 can be skipped.

• 50-55mm the “nifty” 50 or as I sometimes call it the 50-50, because it has no real optical opinion, but leans ever so slightly towards tighter-more compressed. A hard lens to master, but powerful if you do.

• 58-60mm is the other side of the compressed-not compressed threshold, genuinely stepping into the “portrait” range. Once popular, it was also a common Nikon micro lens.

• 75-90 are the work horse portrait lenses, all pretty similar depending on your working range, waht was avaialble and tastes.

• 100-105mm was the classic macro lens length.

• 135 was the longest a non modified length a range finder camera could take.

• 180-200, basically the same depending on your brand of choice (Nikon liked 105 and 180, others went 100 and 200).

• 300 and longer were a matter of application and availability, with the 300 f2.8 being the holy grail of most.

There were exceptions, but generally, these were the standard “steps” available.

Panasonic and Sigma on the other hand, started to choose focal lenths that made more sense to them and the format, with no allegiance paid to past standards. The 15 (30mm), 20 (40mm), 30 (60mm) and 60 (120mm) all made plenty of sense to an outsider, but possibly confused ex-full frame converts. They are nice even numbers, but they have another, more immediate effect. They actually make more sense in a kit.

One of the first images taken with the 15mm. It felt “roomier” than the 17, while still easily avoiding distortion.

For me, a 30mm equiv is the perfect standard wide. I find 35mm very comfortable, but feel it needs a wider partner like a 10-12 (20-24mm), which still leaves room for something wider still and some indecision, where the 30mm is just wide enough to be matched to a wider lens (the 9mm) without the need for a filler and is slightly more versatile in this space. The 30mm effectively covers two focal lengths, 28 and 35mm which for me seems to be a decision point.

The 20 (40mm) is the “true standard”, or at least a 42mm equiv is and was once a common focal length. I had the first version of this lens, sold it and never replaced it, because the Oly 25mm I have is actually closer to a 22-23mm (45mm).

The 30 Sigma (60mm) is also a better standard portrait lens than the official standard 25 (50mm), getting completely away from any hint of wide distortion, but less compressed and distancing than a 75-90mm equivalent. I find my 25 (50mm) lens is better for a two person shot, but a 15-17 (30-34mm) is better again for groups. Again, like the 15 (30mm), this gives me better coverage and a more confident solution. I can jump from the 15 to the 30 then all the way up to the 75mm rather than run the 12, 17, 25, 45 and 75.

Proper portrait performance from the Sigma 30mm. Very slight compression, good DOF drop-off and a natural feel, but not so tight it forces the shooter to disengage with the subject. As a “one lens” option, I prefer the 25mm Oly, but in tandem with a wide lens, the 30mm makes more sense.

The rule with a primes kit is to skip at least every other focal length. You are not trying to cover all focal lengths, just represent each type of perspective. Think less place holders and more super wide, gentle wide, short compressed and long compressed perspectives as story telling tools. With these new lenses and their re-imagined focal lengths, it is possible to fudge 2 into the space of 6 lenses. Feet and angles do the rest.

9 (super wide), 15 (standard wide), 30 (standard portrait), 75 (long) (18, 30, 60, 150 equiv). Is this the perfect primes kit for my uses? In reality, I will use a tele zoom, because “zooming with your feet” is less practical with long lenses, but in lower light, the 75mm is a life saver.

The only slight issue is the AF speed of the Sigma, but for sport I still have the 25, 45, 75 combo. For general use, the Sigma is at least 90% as fast as the better Oly lenses and basically the same performance as the Oly lenses on the G9.

I have some great zooms, but it seems now, I also have a workable primes kit.

*I say slightly odd, because the full frame equivalent was the more random seeming 135mm. This was the longest lens early range finder style cameras could practically take without special focussing attachments (28mm was the widest), so it was a matter of necessity, not some divine plan.

9mm Of Goodness

The tiny and I mean tiny, 9mm lens arrived today. The shiping box it came in felt empty, the little box it was packed in was tiny and the lens itself……tiny.

This thing is perfect as a replacement for my already handily sized and priced 8-18. It is wide enough to handle most needs, fast enough to solve low light tight group shots and the close focus is ridiculous.

Weird huh!

To be clear, the 8-18 has done nothing wrong, but having a huge overlap with the 12-60, it is too big and slow (f4 aperture at the long end), to share a bag with the other zoom. Basically I am carrying a zoom, only to use the widest end occassionally. It’s wide front end limits insert and filter choices and the range, although good, lacks a constant f2.8 aperture or enough range to nullify the need for the 12-60 (the 8-25 Oly would have just).

The 8-18 lens has been relegated to the home, travel and landscape kit.

Stupidly close focussing with pleasant Bokeh. Not characteristics you would associate with a super wide angle.

Lovely Bokeh at normal distances wide open. This is a 9mm that can still produce nice subject separation.

Off centre performance is even and good wide open (crop from above). I have not tested the extreme corners, but it looks good so far and that Bokeh is impressive.

My ideal is to use this, the 15mm and the Sigme 30mm on the Panasonic camera, then a 45 and the 40-150 f4 on the Olympus. The 12-60 may be swapped out for the mid range primes in good light or used as a one lens solution, but the 9mm, lighter even than the Sennheisser mic I bought the other day, will be a permanent fixture.

The bag keeps getting lighter and smaller, but more capable.

Bag Change Forces New, Better Thinking (or Maybe A Wrong Move Avoided)

I have been using the F802 bag for the last few months with the paper.

Something that has become a bit of a pain is the shallow profile of the bag. It is deep, but when loaded, the smaller lens partitions become squashed in. The reality is, my gear has gotten shorter and in some cases wider.

The F3x Ballistic was possibly the answer, but it failed to come and on chasing it up, it is waiting for replenishment with no ETA. The distrubutor does have an F2 in Ballistic, and even though it is bigger, it is cheaper. Bigger may be a blessing.

The F2, the original Domke “shooters bag” or as I call it the “Lunch Box” has the dual distinctions of being my first Domke and one of the few I have not had multiples of.

My problem with it in the past was its “boxy” design, but I get it now. If you have 2 bodies with smaller lenses on and do not need the extra height for long lenses (something that has changed in my kit since ordering the F3xB), then this bag makes lots of sense and I know from owning one still, that it does not collapse in and sits down safely**. It is basically the footprint of the F804 without the height, so everything is at “first layer” access. No fishing around in the depths trying to find lost little bits.

If I go with an all primes day kit or small zooms and primes, this layout is ideal.

Unlike the F3x, which is taller but smaller overall, it will accomodate 2 bodies with lenses lying on their side without issue and have room for 2x2 small lens inserts* (in the F3, one camera sits against the back wall which can be uncomfortable), and have room for several smaller bits. Unlike the taller bags, it will not fall over when put down, which is one of those things that wares over time. Also, unlike the F3x, it has a hard base option.

My existing F3 ruggedware is probably the better form for this bag anyway. The body hugging form factor really suits the thin canvas style.

Compared to the Crumpler Muli, it also offers two large end pockets. The Muli is limiting in that regard. My mics, lighting and flash kit go into these, saving space on the inside for just lenses and cameras.

The zipped pocket is on the inside of the top flap. This is less prone to accidents than the F802’s outside ones (I slip the lid out of the way when working, sometimes spilling bits of gear out if the zips are undone).

I also like the idea of the small front pockets for a note pad. This is mandatory now and ironically, the F802’s huge pockets are a pain here also, because they either go sparsely filled and wasted or stuffed and things get lost.

The F2’s little open pockets are note pad sized. Funny that, being a reporters bag.

Why another when I still have my first?

Same reasons as the F3xB purchase. The Ballistic version is softer inside and out, lighter coloured inside and can take gear with more handling comfort than the canvas. My original is also an older design.

The original shooters bag again after all these years.

Who knew?

*My base kit now is the EM1.2 with 40-150 f4, G9 with the Pana 9 and 15mm, Sigma 30mm (or 12-60 if speed is not needed) and possibly the 75mm for low light. The F2 can take all of these without too much effort. This gives me a full range outdoors kit (18-300 equiv), and a decent low light primes kit (9, 15, 30, 45 or 75, which is an 18-150 equiv). An option I may go with is the 9/15/30/45/75 all primes kit.

**It did roll off a back seat the other day, but landed the right way up and all was good.

Still Not Keen Even After A Fair Go

I have been trying to find a reason to use the expensive and comprehensive Nikon SLR kit I have been issued.

No really, I have.

The reality is though, every time I pick it up and try to find a valid space in my work flow for it, It just falls down.

Take this comparison for example. I was trying to find a happy place for my near new 70-200 FLED on the D750. Ignoring the fact that it alone weighs as much as my 40-150 f4 and EM1 mk2 body combined, I thought for small jaunts, close work or the jobs where you really do not want to be flogging your own gear, it could be the best option. AF was good, but the results were less impressive (I blame the D750 camera).

The 24-70 f2.8, bit old, bit batterred, does not impress at all. It reminds me far too much of older Canon lenses that needed work every file and had “points of consideration” in their range. With several MFT lenses in the wings to cover both of these lenses, I guess they were bound to come up short. I would even put my kit 12-60 up against it.

The base D750 image. RAW (this time), ISO 4500 to achieve 1/200 at f2.8. There is a massive depth of field difference here as well as the good old SLR “guess the exposure compensation” issue. Don’t get me wrong, I used to be ok at that, but why go back?

After some light processing. Very shallow depth of field, quite sharp, little hazy (have applied de-haze) and the white balance was a little yellow that I failed to fix completely.

EM1 with 40-150 f4 image ISO 1600 f4 1/90th. Exposure and white balance are spot on.

More depth of field, razor sharp, well exposed with near perfect white balance (and 100mm closer). This had less processing than above! This is not supposed to be my best tele lens. remember also, this is a 20mp MFT vs a 24mp Full Frame.

I am not cheating, pushing one over the other, just trying to get to the bottom of this. In an ideal world, I would use the work gear, but see no reason yet to compromise.

I could use the Nikon gear at a pinch and honestly thought processing through C1 would make all the difference, but if anything it pushed them further apart. When I compared the 24-70 to my Leica 12-60 in Lightroom, the Adobe programme actually bought them down to being quite close. In C1 they were streets apart.

More tests, with ISO not a consideration.

Oly file, Nikon file and uncropped base file.

Now putting weight into the mix.

No I am not going to use gear over twice the weight and size of mine, especially is it is less reliable to use. I carry without issue, two bodies (saves mucking around), 16-300 range with several fast prime options. With the Nikon I would go 2 zooms and 1 body only and still be behind. What if I need a wider or longer lens? Immediately 1kg+ gets added.

This goes to one of my biggest frustrations, something I hit reguarly in the shop. Only the major brands get proper support from Adobe and unfortuantely most reviewers use the industry standard Adobe RAW as their base line. Bit like using a standard Toyota to try out a race track.

If you shoot Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus or even until recently Sony, look somewhere else for best service. Adobe will “normalise” your images down to their level making them become their stereo-type. Fuji will have weird artefacts, MFT will be overly noisy and Sony will have crap colour.

Does not need to be that way.

Until I switched, I thought ISO 1600 was my upper limit. With C1, I use ISO 6400 regulalry and with ON1 No Noise, I even push to 12,800 with decent results.

Cricket, The Gentle Game That Proved A Challenge

Cricket is quite unique. It is a gentle sport, genteel even, but as sports go, it is a surprise packet to capture.

I have always assumed, more fool me, that it would be an easy sport to shoot, making summer the lazy season. I think I shot it a total of three times for the school, with mixed success.

Over the first two days of competiton this season, I began to realise, this may be one of the tougher sports.

On the first day, I shot a womens match and must admit, I only just got enough shots to make it work, but I was shadowed by the senior photorapher, so we netted plenty.

Day two and the mens match, I was on my own, but lessons learned, I had a better time of it.

The first challenge is selecting the right lens focal length. Longer is better, to a point, but thanks to the different dimensions of the grounds and the reality that the pitch in the centre shifts during the season as different strips are used, there is no perfect choice.

Angle and timing, oh and luck, tons of luck.

I shoot with a 600mm (FF equiv), which is too tight at some angles to get both the batsman and the up to the stumps, wicket keeper in the shot.

Only on some angles could this be taken. The wicket keeper is to me one of the most predictably dramatic and active characters in a game.

Paul, the senior photog at the paper uses a 400mm and crops, but I still also have to crop, so to me, the longer lens is more appealing.

The other option, but not one I have attempted yet, is to have a second shorter lens on a body for close action.

Quite a heavy crop from a 600mm file, but still plenty of quality for paper or internet use.

It is long enough for length-ways shots of the keeper.

The golden shot. It can be frustrating to keep an eye on the keeper, but just once in a while, it comes through (who missed by a mile).

Next is timing. I am still less than keen on high motor drive blitzing, but cricket is a game of short bursts of fast action, so I was open to it at first. I tried some 15fps technique, but did not see any great results. The fact is, the first shot is usually the one, timed well or not, otherwise you are just blazing away and relying on luck which will only give you a full card, hours in front of a screen and probably the same hit rate.

First frame, a result of timing, not saturation bombing.

Shooting with the intention of never seeing the ball is the secret. If you wait to see it, you are too late. Basically time your shot with the batsmans’ swing. I settled on a 5-7fps low rate, which allowed me a slightly faster follow-up series than single button pushes, but I can always limit it to one.

It is easy to get lost in trying to capture “the” image, but it is actually more important to tell a story, so mixing up angles and concentrating on different aspects of the game is important.

Is this bowler regularly getting the better of the batsman? Focus on the keeper.

I felt it was coming and got lucky, unfortunately from the back, so not perfect, but still.

Is the batsman getting the better of the bowler and favouring the off-side? Line up the batsman playing a stoke, but allow yourself the option of shooting past them to the fielders in the background. or ideally, get the batsman looking at the ball after it is hit on the other side.

The first rule of any sport is having the ball in shot, but it is not possible to rely on the batsman hitting at you every time, so sometimes the best shot is without a ball.

Bowlers offer several points of best action. I like the follow through, which is best shot facing straight on. This shot breaks the ball in shot rule, but Is still like it.

The more traditional bowler shot.

Once you have a clutch of the required batsman mid-stroke or bowler following through shots, it is time to look for something new. Tough turf for this, as there are limits and most roads have been taken, but there are still options.

The next hurdle is patience and time. If you have the time, you still need to be patient, but with a plan. Like a good hunter, you need to decide to get a shot or cover an angle and stick to it. This also means trying to predict the flow and momentum of the game.

Not a genuine game changing moment, but interesting in a mix of shots.

If you do not have much time, then you need to be creative and take what you can.

A good way of capturing faces that are either concealed behind helmets when batting or if they do not bowl, is the stalk them in the field.

What ever you do, don’t forget to keep an open mind.

Like football, cricket also has its flower friends. The Oly 300mm really does make a good super macro.

Ed. On arrival at work today, the sports editor cleared up a few things from his perspective. Story is king. He liked the shots, using the ones that showed the most about the game in one shot for print and a small gallery on line. Overall a win.

Back page and large. All drama and anyone with an eye for the game will know exactly what has happened.

New Lens Happiness

The f4 40-150 is a winner in every sense.

The f4 lens runs the risk of replacing both of my other 40-150 lenses. It is not noticeably heavier than the plasticky kit lens and the consistant f4 through the range is handy. It is substantially lighter than the f2.8, as sharp, as fast in focussing and at least as weather proof. It is also $1000au cheaper to replace.

Apart from the performance difference between it and my copy of the 35-100 Pana lens I have respect for, but suspect I got a low end copy, the lens is delivering very much the same performance as my f2.8 with only the one stop of difference.

Something special about the look. Like the 17mm, the Bokeh transition point is hard to pick, making it look natural and contrast is punchy. Unlike the f2.8, I did not have too much trouble with high contrast images, something it shares with the 300mm f4. The f2.8 lens is the master of making the dull look brilliant, the f4 pair are kings of controlling high contrast blow out.

Shooting a junior school athletics day, I missed probably 3-5% of my images all day and put most of those down to me. I was using an EM1 mk2, so the EM1x would have gained me a couple of points. While waitng for the next group of runners, I chased Swallows.

Really very impressive image quality. Bokeh is less troubling than the occassional oddness of the faster lens. A tool, not a consideration.

The reality is one stop is actually not that much benefit.

As a rule, if f4 is not fast enough at all, probably f2.8 will not make enough difference (an extra ten minutes in fading light or a slightly higher success rate with a still too-slow shutter speed). I find that f2.8 for me is simply a matter of depth of field control. If I am struggling at f4, I will likely switch to f1.8, because in most cases I can.

This lens and my 75 f1.8 have a combined weigh and cost that is less than the f2.8 zoom, so overall better options.

F2.8 is stretching it in this light (6400 at 1/500), f1.8 allows for 1/1000th at ISO 3200 and some nice “cut out” depth of field. I go from quite useable, to genuinely high quality.

The f2.8 will be the one lens option for sports under lights or smaller fields, the f4 zoom for brighter light and the 300 for larger field sports. For indoor sports, I will turn to the f1.8 primes.

A news paper front cover image on a slow day (dumped chickens and noisy roosters slipping through the legislative cracks, who knew?).

For travel, the kit lens is still king, because weight and replaceability are all important when travelling.

My New Mantra

I have cracked an easy to remember mantra for news paper imaging.

C.I.A.

Easy to remember, but more importantly, not just a set of convenient letters, it is a set of the right terms that coincidently make up a very recogniseable label to remember.

C

C is for Control, which may mean Communication, Connection or finding a Composition depending on whether you have to deal with a person, random element or an inanimate object. This is where you formulate the image idea, determine how many pepople will be in it and any props that will be used. This often means putting down your camera and dealing with the elements of the image.

With people, up front honesty is the key. Tell them you are there for them, not just you. It is hugely important that you control the space, but without being pushy or aggressive, lacking empathy or being intrusive.

After explaining what I was looking to produce, moving in close did not put the subject off. Sigma 30mm f1.4

I

I is for Interaction, Intensity or Interest. No stunned mulletts, no limply hanging arms, no lack-lustre poses. Get the subject doing something, even if it is just crossing their arms and looking purposeful. Apart from a lack of a smile, nothing says lost-disintrested-confused more than limp arms and an expressionless face.

The easiest way of course is to observe a person doing what they do, otherwise, making them look like they are doing something is the answer.

Using the interaction between two characters created a dynamic better than the sum of the parts. Using natural poses also helps. A silent camera is a boon here. After a minute or two, both subjects ignored me, so I got video and stills without intrusion.

A

A is for Angle or Action. The first is to get the actual shooting angle, depth of field and lens perspective right, then work the composition. Choose your light direction, decide on light controls if needed, then fill the frame with the above (the “I”) and shoot it as the situation demands. Angles is especailly helpful to me, to remind me to work this. It is amazing how much difference a few degrees makes. The number one no-no, is a wall of people. Avoid flat walls of people, god they look amateurish.

Looking for a Vogue magazine vibe at a school fashion parade preview, shooting slightly up added a remote and regal feel to suit the designers stated intention.

The second is what happpens if control is limited to cpturing the Action.

In an image like this “C” stands for control through reactive composition and the right settings, “I” is for timing the best point of intensity and A is for Angle and Action together.

C.I.A.

Easy to remember and flexible.

The Bokeh Boss

I love Bokeh and all its uses, but I am not one of the new age Bokeh “discoverers”, being more interested in the wholistic effect of Bokeh, not the more specialised modern take.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 does however give me an outlet when the Bokeh bug hits me (all images at or near wide open).

Real Bokeh for Bokeh lovers.

But still bitingly sharp where needed.

Very clean and well balanced front and back Bokeh. A true creative tool.

The issue is of course, how quickly it gets over used and used inappropriately.

The lens does offer a delicateness that is different to any other lens I own, even ones that are only a hair slower in aperture.

At longer distances, the lens still has the ability to cut-out subjects cleanly.

A strong working kit needs options.

These may be problem solving, creation enabling and are often task specific. A strong Bokeh enabler is a tool like any other, but it does not need to be over done. A single strong example is plenty for my needs, although I do have several lenses that fall into this class.

My 75mm was previously my Bokeh king, but it does require a longer working distance.

The 30mm is a full frame 60, which I feel is perfect for the role. It is a genuine, but short portrait lens, wide enough to do groups are reasonable distances, but any shorter/wider and it would struggle to easily offer Bokeh as a tool. I have been tempted by the 56mm, but to be honest, it is too much of the same it ist sake only and would get squashed between two excellent 45mm lenses (smaller) and my 75mm (longer).

Prime Directive?

I would love to be a prime lens shooter.

One of the advantages of MFT is the small form factor of all their lenses, meaning toting your version (and there are a few ways now) of the holy trinity* is a completely different experience to the full frame shooter.

Two of the trinity compared. The 14-24 is heavier than both of the Leicas together. To be fair, the Oly 7-14 and 12-40 Pro are the true equvalents, but there would still be a massive weight advantage to the MFT pair.

The only area the MFT format falls behind apart from depth of field control, (which has advantages in either format), is in low light. The light at the end of that relatively short tunnel, is that the added depth of field MFT offers, means you can shoot 2 apertures wider for the same depth of field at the same subject magnification.

This means in real terms, you can use a faster lens and because of the MFT sensor to lens advantage, actually chosen with lens design in mind, there are plenty of cheap, fast and high quality MFT lenses out there.

They are of course, prime lenses, because regardless of format, zooms faster than f2.8 are vanishingly rare, with literally only a half dozen available (2x Sigma f1.8’s and 2x older 43 Oly f2 lenses come to mind, but I may have missed a couple).

The power of a 90 f1.8 equivalent in MFT. Plenty of depth of field, sharp wide open and long enough for this shot, all from a lens the size of a nail polish bottle and one at the cheaper end of the range.

I shot with a full clutch of fast primes in Canon full frame**, but the weight of those “L” lenses was prohibitive (read, generally a pretty shitty experience). I tried the beast lenses on dinky cameras with some success and kept my choice limited, then switched back to f4 zoom lenses on 5D’s, but at the end of the day, I had either speed or versatility, but not both and never with a major weight dispensation.

In MFT, two cameras with a handfull of primes is a real kit possibility. Even a three camera kit would be ok (EM10 Mk2).

F1.8 on MFT, which is f3.4 on a FF. Shallow enough for separation, but not so shallow as to be impractical.

I have (in full frame terms) 30, 35, 50, 90 and 150mm covered at f1.8 or 1.7 and 60mm at f1.4. The missing link is a wide and the Leica 9mm (18mm) is on the way. A 24mm equiv would be nice, but a highly corrected 18mm will be safer and as useable for those times when genuinely wide is needed and I do have 12 (24mm) covered several times now.

My core would be the 9 (18), 15 (30), 25 (50), 45 (90) all at less than 200g each and the 75 (150) at about 400g. The quality I can get means I can crop by half or more, so in real terms, so I have effectively 18-300 or more covered, all at f1.8. With a G9 and EM1 mk2 the whole kit would come in at less than 2.5kg. This would also mean I would be able to get away with a little flash like the one the EM1 came with or a small LED.

To be honest, the 8-18 and 40-150 f4 do not add much weight, but they do lack speed for the many indoor horror stories I have to deal with, so I still need a couple of primes.

The other advantage of the 9mm would be for times when the 12-60 is the logical main lens, but something wider may be needed, meaning I still have to pack the similarly sized and largely over-lapping 8-18 just in case. When shooting sport with long lenses I often have to do a victorious team or locker room shot at the wider end. Both these zoom lenses take up substantially bigger spots in a bag than a prime. The 130gm 9mm could be shoved into a jacket pocket, rather than a separate bag.

I could even switch back to a slim-line Domke F5c, which is perfect for a small lens kit. It has room at the top for a couple of cameras with mounted lenses, an opening in the lower front for 3-4 small primes (just avoid the F5CX weather proof, which does not have the front pocket) and two flexible 3-part dividers. This bag, one of my past favourites, is so small, it could be accused of not being the real deal.

Alternately, I have several satchel type bags (Tokyo Porter, Crumplers and Filsons) that could work or the pending F3xB, that could now take a 2 lens divider (that won’t fit bigger lenses).

*Wide, standard and long f2.8 zooms, which replaced for many older shooters, the tight four of a wide (20-24), semi wide (28-35), short tele (85-100) and longer tele (180-200) of the pre zoom era.

**24 tilt/shift, 35 f1.4L, 50 macro, 85 f1.8, 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L and 400 f5.6L. All lovely lenses, but all heavier than anything I would carry now in a prime that did the same thing (except my 300 f4).

The Little Problem Solver.

The new Sennheisser MKE-400 mic arrived today.

Smaller than I was expecting, it is really the right mic for a Domke bag pocket. Having the stabiliser and wind suppressor inside the mic cage or “blimp” is brilliant. Even a little Boya or Neewer pencil shotgun, once you add a rycote and fluffy is a little big and fragile for my bag pocket, but this one, a mic of a different level, is ideal.

The forward facing cable is inspired, although mine crackles a little on the camera end (still need to check what the culprit is). This allows the shooter to use the camera to the eye, a mirrorless advantage, without cables sticking into their forhead and I am guessing reduces cable snagging and clutter.

It may not be a versatile as the F1+SSH-6 combo, but it is at least 50% smaller and removes the fragility and/or excessive ware and tare of constant disassembly.

A completely differnt creature for storage.

In use on a G9.

Used to Zoom analogue dial gain controls, a three option switch was a bit more of an adjustment than I guessed. On neutral or flat gain, the G9’s mic volume needs to be set at about +0 db or more (tested against music played at talking volume), but with the +20 db high setting applied, it works best at about -6 db or less.

When the music peaked on the high gain setting, it blew out quickly, but was still loud-comfortable to the ear.

So, outdoors or at some distance, high gain with -6db is a good start, inside, closer or with good subject volume to work with, normal gain and +0 is the go.

There is audible background noise at the high setting, but it is in balance with the gain in volume applied. In other words, if you need it, use it and it will likely go unnoticed, but if you are in a quiet space, use the normal setting and get closer if you need, or in the case of the G9, turn the camera volume up, because it is not too bad by comparison.

Quality was very nice, about the same as the SSH-6.

I will be using this in conjunction with a Boya M-1 LAV (when room echo is an issue) and H1n Zoom (wider coverage and ambient sound), so I will have options at hand, but the whole kit still comes in under the Zoom kit above (basically a Domke bag pocket full).

The Pro's and Con's Of Burst Shooting

Burst speed is often quoted as a feature of sports and action orientated cameras.

This makes sense as there is litte excuse for these days for going home without the shot, especially in the digital era, especially with cameras that can often shoot 10+ images per second.

Personally, I feel the modern cameras available today can actually offer a very different benefit.

The three images below were not taken in burst mode. They were all taken as discreet single files, one after the other, but with a single shutter button push for each.

Why?

Because I feel that hitting the subject with a high speed frame rate shutter is (as I tried to say previously), a little like the scary and out of control feeling of a roller coaster dropping. It is exhilarating, but lacks control, connection and saturates rather than selects.

This is not necessarily a style that is available to everyone, but with instant firing cameras, with little or no blackout, continuous focus tracking, stabilising and smooth-gentle fire (silent even), you can enter sniper, rather than machine-gun mode.

Each shot keeps connection and each can be claimed as a selected take, not down to manufactured luck. By manufactured luck, I mean all the usual care and experience were applied to get into a space where a good shot could be taken, but the actual winning frame is one taken from a bunch of “blind” frames.

If I take 200 images, I hope that they represent 200 potentially useful images, not the best one from each batch of 5-10 images. They are not of course, because I am not that good, but they are all intended to be. The ultimate goal is to shoot a game of football, with less than 100 images, 15-30 being “A” grade, the rest nearly good enough or used for number comformation. Minimum waste and ware, minimum processing time, maximum productivity and efficiency, maximum job satisfaction.

Monkey Business

The little 40-150 f4 Pro continues to impress.

After a mixed experience with the 35-100, I have stumbled across possibly the nicest and most balanced imaging tool I have ever owned.

Super crisp and punchy, without being overly aggressive.

Stunningly crisp with nothing needing to be added, so over processing is avoided. Just super sharp. I have several lenses that could have taken this image, but it is reassuring to know I also have this one.

Lovely Bokeh and general feel. Nothing brings attention to itself other than the clarity of the subject.

Crisp edges, just on the edge of focus softness, contrasting with a pleasantly soft background.

Focussing is on par with the other pro 40-150, which is a s good as I have.

Beautiful colour and contrast.

Long enough for the odd bird up a tree.

With plenty of cropping power. Even at f4 on a MFT camera, onlt the beak tip is perfectly in focus.

I think what I am responding to most, is the balance this lens offers. I have several lenses with some very commendable properties, but few that have a little bit of all of these in one. The colour of the 75-300 or 75 prime, the sharpness of the 300 f4, the form factor of a kit lens and the AF of my 40-150 f2.8.

A Story Of Three Work Horse Lenses

I now have three 40-150 lenses.

Excessive?

Maybe, but it does not feel like it. I really enjoy the depth and choices I have. I have a super light weight, a light weight and a big bruiser option, two with weather sealng, one fast aperture.

Only a few small digits apart.

Lens number one is plastic down to the mount, feels cheap, weighs nothing, costs less and is the “slowest” of the three at f4-5.6. It is however very fast focussing, sharp and contrasty and offers a high level of micro contrast. It even feels tightly made, if a little fragile.

The second, a very new lens for me, probably has the nicest Bokeh, is also super sharp and contrasty and has a constant f4 aperture. It weighs twice as much as the first lens, which is still not much at all and less than half as much as the bigger one, which is why I bought it, to give me a pro-grade lens that keeps my bag light in tandem with a fast prime.

The last lens is a pro through and through. Fast in all respects and sharp through the range, this lens has one minor flaw, showing slightly nervous Bokeh in some situations, but other than that, it just rocks. It also takes the two matched tele-converters, so it is the most versatile overall. I would take it everywhere, except that it sits on the outside of the MFT comfort envelope.

So, three very different lenses, with very different reasons for being in my kit.

The only time they are hard to split it turns out, is when comparing their optics.

Using decent enough Bokeh balls for effect. Kyoto train station.

Hollywood movie set lighting. Kanazawa alley way

Candid moments taken nearly instantly. Kyoto aqueduct.

A stand-in macro lens, although the spider was not exactly minute (about 4” across). Kyoto roadside.

More glowacious light. Tokyo landscape.

Edge to edge sharp, detailed and near perfect aberration control, a really fine art grade file. Kanazawa train station.

All of the above, speed, control and glow. Kanazawa street-scape.

Seeing as I have only had the f4 lens for a day and the big lens would never be taken on a trip, I guess you may have realised that every image above was taken with the $150 bit of kit junk. Long live kit junk (though probably unlikely).

Not a bad starting point for a trio of work horse lenses.

Something Cool Out Of The Blue And A Six Month Retrospective.

The Telstra Australia 2022 Annual report is out and they have used my board portraits and a couple of other shots.

Andrew Penn CEO and Managing Director. I gave them background options. Options are good, options show you care.

What is really cool is, they went with one of my coloured backgrounds matched to each person (blue for above) , something I only really supplied as samples, but obviously went down well. I tried to match the colour to the colouring of the subject and outfit, then did several higher contrast, warm and cool takes on their look, so plenty to choose from.

This is a win on multiple levels.

It proves to me that a simple non-textured grey background is enough for most cases, using digital re-colouring or lighting to change the tone. Textures etc are fine, but are far less flexible after the fact (still tempted to get the Pewter/Walnut Lastolite though).

It proves also, that my technique and skills are up to serious scrutiny, because I also supplied the RAW files and they went unused.

I have been published in a major company publication as a true portrait photograher and have the originals to prove it.

My M43 kit, a Pana-Oly hybrid on the day to be exact, passed muster. No reason it would not, but always nice to be able to prove the point at the pointiest end of the wedge.

I have now managed National level political candids, corporate portraits, serious large school group images and AFL level sport with my “toy” cameras. Bring it on.

(un-edited extra file) Previously, a professional school photo company used full frame cameras at f8-11, and multiple lights, which tended to look flat and produced busy shadows (4 for every leg and head). Looking for something cleaner, the school approached me to give it a go. Using the increased depth of field M43 offerred, I managed natural light at f2.8 for this group and even hand held for the smaller groups in a later shoot. In the original file, your can read some of the badges.

Australias’ deputy treasurer Stephen Jones. The 75mm wide open is a perfect match for face-depth at these distances. The same lens on a full frame is less powerful, forcing a crop and losing half your pixels or a longer lens (if available) is dangerously shallow in depth of field.

My first and the seasons’ last AFL game at UTAS stadium in Launceston. Of the half dozen photographers there, I was the only one able to wander the edge of the ground, not laden with a monster lens, mandatory seat and other bits. I actually walked to the ground. Still amazed at the height these guys achieved.

A studio kit that cost less than $1000 is more than enough*. In fact lens, camera and studio kit came in at about $2500 total and I had tons of options in reserve (I could have done it all again and some). Being small and portable, I was in and out in just over half an hour.

The job paid for my relatively expensive Manfrotto/Lastolite portable back drop and bracket, so I now have no pressure on to use them again (but I will).

Big year so far.

*2x 42” Godox Brollies, 1 small soft box for rim light, 3x YN 560 IV flash units and controller, 2 medium and one small Neewer light stand and a larger Neewer stand for the Lastolite foldable backdrop, which is by far the dearest item.