Great Night Out And Another Affirmation Of The M43 Format

Sometimes, even at a little provincial paper, we get some really cool gigs. Last night I was the shift photographer for the Tassie JackJumpers game, a national grade basketball fixture.

Held at the Launceston Silverdome between the New Zealand Breakers and Tasmanian JackJumpers (one of the worlds nastiest and insanely aggressive Ants), I was expecting the usual lighting equation of ISO 6400, 1/500th to 1/1000 at f2.8 or a little better at f1.8 with a fixed lens, which is ok, but far from ideal and during warm up, it looked to be the case.

Then they turned on the TV lights and things went from ok to very, very good.

Suddenly, I had ISO 1600-3200 at 1/1500 and f2.8, which in these conditions felt like daylight.

This meant I could use my Olympus 40-150 and 12-40 zooms, both of which are ideal for this game “shape” and stick with two bodies ready to go (theoretically, I could have even used f4 lenses).

Any nervousness that I would not be up to the extra speed of the game quickly went away when the action started. I realised that at this level, that action is very fast, but clean. High school sports tend to be a mess of kids chasing the ball, with the quality of clean action shots raising in proportion to the level. At this level of things allows you to follow a single player for a few seconds with an almost guarantee of a photo opportunity arising.

In two periods, I netted 200+ clean captures from about 800 taken (most useable, but redundant to my needs), all without high speed drive being employed. I have settled on 7 FPS which allows me to take single discreet shots, but if I know I want to take another, such as the moment the bails fly off in a bowled-out result, it is just quicker to get with the shutter button held down.

The two other photogs there, national guys, were shooting Nikon mirrorless and undoubtedly came away with technically bigger and possibly cleaner files, but I also guarantee their gear cost 2-3 times mine, which netted more than good enough results, likely identical at realistic sizes and I would put my results up against the last gen of top end SLR’s.

If the light was lower, I could have switched to the 25, 45 and 75mm lenses, with basically the same quality (and double the reach of full frame equivalents), but less depth of field and flexibility. Still, I have had success with that kit plenty of times so it is a realistic fix.

A print deadline which forcing me to miss half the game and the usual pressures of “getting the shots” melted away as the tight and hard fought game sucked me in. I remember the stupid grin I discovered I had on my face at one point. Really cool stuff.

The other shots you need to get are crowd, support staff and coach huddle and player face shots.

The small and quiet form factor or mirrorless, along with face detection allowed me to get a camera into the huddle at some quite unique angles.

This is especially helpful to get players who are injured or sidelined, and for later use. The north of the state only gets a couple of JackJumpers games a year, so we have to make the most of them for a full year of stories.

You cannot forget the behind the scenes people, like this floor cleaner, one of the busiest people in the game.

My kit for the night consisted of the EM1x with 40-150 f2.8 and EM1 Mk2 with grip and 12-40 f2.8. I did have fast primes handy, but they were not needed. I missed nothing I successfully framed (and got some real Hail-Mary’s). This affirmation empowered me to grab a used, mint condition EM1x from ebay (15,000 shutter count, ex Japan) for less than half the price of a new one. This is a good balance for me, even with the Black Friday sales looming.

Leftovers Again? Or The Gentle Art Of Belligerence

I have a small (make that embarrassingly large) kit made up of leftover cameras (7) and lenses (8) kicking around home for my own use, occassional school jobs and just becasue (old cameras are worthless, except to the owner). The problem is I guess, all the cameras and lenses are capable no matter how cheap or basic, some are even spectacular and I am stubborn about using everything i have, finding an ideal purpose for each and every item.

The shining lights are my second G9, once relegated to video rig use only, now classed as a “general hauler” matched with it’s Leica 12-60 and the other is the Pen F.

The Pen F is a killer camera with it’s quirks, but loads of character. It also comes with a “preciousness quotient” which is to say, it will not be a day to day hack camera. It is a fine art pro camera or serious enthusiasts tool, and it has some non-pro oddities.

Negatives are the sum of several minor quibbles.

• It has poor electronic shutter performance at higher ISO’s (banding), a manual shutter that makes a “flappy” mechanical sound, especially when fired vertically.

• The exp-comp control is a dedicated ring, but requires a two finger turn. This is a feature I use constantly, so I find it frustrating.

• It can be uncomfortable, but the expensive little grip helps.

• The on-off control annoys me for some reason and I have a habit of turning it off (can’t say why).

• It has only one door for the card and battery and it does not feel “long term”.

• No phase detect tracking focus.

• It is heavy, surprisingly heavy, especially for a camera with no weather sealing. The heft is reassuring, but this thing feels like it is as heavy as an EM1x in the hand (but isn’t).

• The back screen, probably meant to be optional only on this camera, is so flush with the camera, I find it hard to flip open. I guess the idea is to ignore it like it is not there, a bit like the Fuji X-Pro 3 where it actually isn’t, but the view finder is not the biggest or best they have made. Probably not a negative really :).

• The video, something I would not use on it is nice, but it has zero external sound options and no 4k (why even bother?).

Performance is otherwise similar to an EM10 mk2, except for the special sensor, JPEG abilities and bespoke build.

In many areas it is over built, in some it seems well under done. It is almost like the mandatory but designer-disliked digital bits were farmed out to the spare parts division, the rest lovingly given to semi-retired film camera elves to make.

The Pen F sensor is very different to the EM1’s. It has a no phase detect pixels, producing very sharp and delicate images (even for MFT), although the high ISO performance sits below the newer sensors. It performs to me, like a fully evolved EM5 mk1 sensor, which is not a bad thing at all.

An area the Pen F is different to most is in it’s handling of JPEG’s. With dedicated “film” looks, a bit like a Fuji, but more natural looking and with an enormous amount of tweaking possible, it was the hobbyists dream camera. Hidden a little by that, but logical I guess, the camera produces very good mono images from it’s RAW files also.

Good black and white conversions from digital are not as easy as you might assume. Contrast, especailly deep blacks, clean whites and strong micro contrast are missing in straight conversions, so you need to apply firm but delicate processing with a film users awareness of what is missing. Shooting film for 20+ years helps here.

Of these two images above (using the 30mm), I could accept either, but the mono is far more robust and to me more exciting as a genuine point of difference to the norm. The muted colour is interesting, but if I am going to shoot mono, this is the camera for the job. Even the noise becomes more grain-like, much like the old EM5 mk1 files.

Often with digital mono conversions, I feel the need to push the contrast and clarity sliders more than a little. With the Pen, I seem to respond to more “grown up” tones. In film parlance this is similar to the difference between a “hot “ film like FP4 with a sharp “S” curve (brilliant highlights, deep blacks, short trip between the two) vs a “cool” film like Tri-X with it’s smoother shadow and highlight roll-off, gentle whites and softer blacks. The camera also has 4 custom functions, so plenty of playing around to be had with a latent memory of your experiments.

Aside from the look and character (and I feel different head space) mono brings, it also removes most CA issues, all colour oddness, allows for haze and flare to be repaired and even ignores most banding. Black and white already has a different set of strengths and weaknesses, the Pen F seems to emphasise these.

A straight JPEG in Mono 2 (apparently Kodak Tri-X like) with +1 highlights and slight yellow filtering using the 15mm. I can add grain, different effects, different film looks, colour sensitivities and tones. Too many options. As a preview, a reminder even, it is good and in large super-fine JPEG, it is often enough.

Of course in digital you get both colour and mono if shooting RAW and a neat quirk is that the manual focus peaking reverts back to colour, so you even get a mono to colour preview option.

*

Lenses for the Pen F have always been assumed by me to be the 17mm and 45mm f1.8’s and the old half-frame Pen 25mm just for fun (and good results). The 17mm often came kitted with the Pen F and the 45 is the obvious partner, but I have two alternatives.

The two that I have put aside, have similar quirks (read annoying realities for day to day pro work), but can also produce that special something, as long as your job does not depend on it.

The Leica 15mm f1.7 is a tad harder/contrasier/cooler/crisper looking than the 17mm. The 17mm’s strengths lie in it’s handling of tough, even strong lighting situations and deep transition Bokeh (forgiving depth of field traansitions). The 15 is more about bringing out the best micro detail, glow, edge to edge sharpness and some modern 3D pop, although again the real differences are minimal.

The main reasons I dislike the 15mm for work are actually mechanical. The aperture ring, always active on a Panasonic camera, is far too light, the hood comes off every second time I pluck it from my bag and the AF on an Olympus (where the aperture ring thing goes away) is a half step behind in reliability.

The 17 makes an ideal day bag lens. It is simple, robust and reliable with a handy MF clutch for video.

The 15 is a better personal projects lens, where you have time to enjoy it’s gorgeous build and refinement and very stable imaging quality, without it’s all too touchy annoyances pissing you off.

The 15mm also feels just right in MF, which ironically is a stiff switch control. So more reliable and the also very light and smooth throw and direction are ideal. This is something that should have been perfect on the 17mm, but never sat as well. The Leica just seems to work. I use white peaking and accurately hit what I want often using my pinky to focus.

*

The second lens is the 30mm Sigma f1.4.

This is a transcendent lens in many ways. Super sharp wide open, even sharper stopped down a little with great separation, although the latter can be a little two dimensional looking. It is the portrait-Bokeh king and a lot of fun.

What is not so much fun is it’s wild and seemingly random CA and some interesting (which is a bad word here) flare combined with mixed AF performance over my range of cameras. Rather than just relegate it to studio work (also a Pen F happy place), I intend to use it for self motivted work.

Lovely separation, interestingly muted colour and sharp.

Even wide open, it is sharp, but there is the hint of CA oddness, something that goes away in black and white.

A much more stable image.

What both have in common is a look that should be best supported by the equally interesting Pen F.

I am especially excited about black and white with this combo as the main issues with the Sigma tend to go away in a black and white work space.

This was a tough image to get up in colour. Nearly impenetrable shadows that washed out to milky mush when lifted. The Dehaze slider, which usually fixes this, robbed the image of it’s delicateness. The Pen F and Sigma were both stretched, but in mono, it held together very well, showing off that f1.4 Bokeh.

Not a confidence inspiring colour capture.

MF with the Sigma is nice, with decent throw, a huge and smooth focussing ring, which also turns the right way, but at f2-1.4 I rely on AF. A shame I cannot use back button AF focussing on the Pen F.

If these were tools, they would be the tip of the spear, specialist ones. The ones that may break if handled badly or inappropriately, but are required for the very best results, like a super slim filleting knife or even a scalpel.

The third lens for this outfit is the 75mm, but that has other work to perform.

For My News Paper I Would Issue A Micro Four Thirds Kit.

An are own completely by Nikon and Canon for most of it’s modern life is the newspaper industry. Since SLR cameras have been practical, these two have been in a tussle for the attention of working pros of print media.

News print does not require ultimate quality, even today.

What it does need is a flexible, maleable file able to handle some tough image conditions, capable of good contrast, clean and accurate colours, good sharpness (even after heavy cropping) and a support system that allows for a massive variety of circumstances and subjects.

From a photographers perspective, that system should be a light and small as possible (rare), because nothing is more frustrating than an important bit of kit being left at the office or in the long distant car boot, due to excessive weight or size.

My kit;

• Super wide; 9mm or 8-18 if I know I will need it (often replaces the standard lens).

• Issued a 14-24, which is optically near perfect but a genuine, gale force rated paper weight weighing more than my equivalent zoom and camera.

• Standard lens; Can be a couple of light weight f1.8 primes or a 12-40/12-60 zoom.

• Issued a 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor that weighs as much as all of these together and is as long as my tele.

• Telephoto; Options in various forms ranging from the 75mm f1.8 for speed, 40-150 f4, f2.8 or 75-300 if long may be needed outdoors. I have even been known to take the kit 40-150. The f4 is the usual option, beng a perfect balance between performance and portability

• Issued a 70-200 f2.8, heavier than any of the Oly options, even the quite bulky f2.8 Pro.

• Sport; The one area a specialist bit of kit is mandatory, I have the above mentioned lenses and my 300 f4, which is plenty long for anything we cover. The f2.8 gets a lot of work here, sometimes with a TC as does the f4 and the fast primes are ideal for indoors.

• Issued a 400 f2.8. Ouch-no way unless I have no other option!

• Cameras; Include a G9 for standard lenses and video and an EM1 mk2 for longer lenses. I could cut this down to one body, but this saves changing lenses on the fly, gives me depth and specialist cameras best suited to task.

• Issued an aging D750. This is a full frame camera, with its advantages and disadvantages*

• Other bits include a flash (860 Godox), off camera controller, little LED light, Mic, small reflector and diffuser. My 2 stop depth of field advantage effectively make my flash units perform like Godox AD200’s and if I went to these, they would act like mono blocks.

• The same would go for the issued kit except the flash would be working harder, but maybe other elements could be skipped*.

The bag I usually carry is a fully packed F2 if primes are my lenses of choice or F802 for bigger zooms. I use primes only for guaranteed low light jobs or “light” editorial, zooms are the “big event” option. The f4 Pro floats between the two kits.

For sport, depending on the day, I usually carry the F804 or Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 with which ever big lenses are needed and either an EM1x on it’s own or a second EM1 mk2 for backup.

If I needed to carry the Nikon kit, I would likely alternate between the 14-24 or 24-70 with the 70-200. The F804 is the logical bag or maybe the F802.

So, apart from weight, which is the benefit, not the reason for my choice, why would MFT be a good fit for a paper?

Quality

Tons of quality in MFT, especially for low news print and web use, but I have proven to myself and others, fine art grade as well. To be honest there has been too much quality for most uses for ages, but the industry keeps pushing….. I have found after a lot of testing, that the ageing D750 (not the best choice for a paper, but the only one our small provicial will spring for), with any of my issued lenses is less sharp and contrasty than my MFT cameras (any) and my lenses (any). This is not hot air or blind loyalty, because belive me, I want to use the issued kit if I can, but I just cannot make myself regress back to this dated system, with the added handicaps of size and SLR limits.

In a nut shell, you want to be able to salvage, crop and adjust within reasonable limits, not be held back by low quality base lines. Using MFT, I rarely sweat the small stuff.

My 20mp beats the older 24mp I have at hand, simple as that and even that older camera is excess to our needs. Many paper shooters would prefer a 12mp ISO-proof camera (D700 Mk2 or A7s) than more pixels with limts. The above shot was also shot at ISO 1600 (in a rush), something I did not notice until I checked.

Lens Range

Super wide to very long are not an option for us. The inside of a crane cabin at 200 ft, a game of sport at distance are day to day stuff and these things need to be with us, not hypotheticals.

Super wide from MFT is no issue with lenses ranging form 8mm fish-eye to several zooms and a wide fully corrected prime.

Standard focal lenghts for most systems are a cast of thousands and MFT is no different. Where it does differ though is in offering weather proofing, manual focus clutch and video grade AF motors at affordable prices and even the crappiest are sharp.

MFT also offers some super fast and very wide range options here, even both at once (8-25 f4, 12-100 f4, 10-25 f1.7).

In Tele lenses, the true advantage of MFT comes through. Not only does the system offer a 2x reach benefit, but the offerings are many and consistently good.

Turning up to the cricket with my srelatively mall 300 f4 is good for me, but may be perceived as the “junior” option to the huge optics the other photographers use, but when I pulled out my 75-300 kit? The above is also a 50% crop from that lens, which provides the near perfect 500mm focal length.

When a super long lens is needed, I only have to carry a 300 f4 or even the 75-300 kit in good light, not the brutish but shorter 400 f2.8.

If the field is smaller, my 40-150’s (various) will do fine, giving me FF 300mm from 150 (or the Leica option of FF 400 from 200).

The far end of the court is fine with a 300mm f2.8 equivalent.

When long and fast is required for indoors, my 75 f1.8 gives me the equivalent of a 150mm on a full frame and my tiny 45 is a powerful 90mm. In fact I can go 18, 30, 35, 50, 90 and 150 at f1.8 and 60mm f1.4, all in a tiny bag.

Clarity, reach, speed and Bokeh to die for. All from a lens that sits in the palm of your hand and cost what a “normal” lens costs.

All focus closer than FF lenses of the same reach, meaning no dedicated macro is needed and the bulk are weather sealed to some extent. These are all new designs also, so no old clunkers left over from the 90’s (looking at you Canon).

All things are possible in FF, but at huge cost in weight, practicallity and budget. Anyone can reasonably afford the MFT options.

Flash and Low Light

MFT has a 2 stop depth of field advantage which translates to longer fast lenses with more depth of field wide open and/or more flash reach. Shooting small groups at 30-150mm using f1.8 (FF f3.4), ISO 800-1600 with bounced flash in large rooms is standard for me. This would be f2.8 at ISO 3200-6400 in FF. The advanyage of lower base noise in FF is mitigated in all practical terms by these MFT format advantages and good processing streams.

Relatively small and silent cameras, sporting tiny lenses allow for real life to be captured. After a minute or two of interviewing, this couple, celebrating their 70th anniversary,they were simply ignored me. The journalist was surprised to find out I had shot 50 odd stills and some video, all from the table edge, without noise or fuss.

Cameras, Build and Handling

The EM1x is a better built and designed camera than any similarly priced FF cameras. It is faster, tougher and generally better laid out for professionals, mimicking the Nikon D6 or 1D Canons. The G9 and other EM1’s are the same roughly as a 5D, D750 or D500 level cameras, so as good as I was issued, but newer, smarter. Being mirrorless, they do video better and the other advantages of mirrorless are too many to mention here, but lets just say, I would not happily go backwards.

Focussing

AF in the latest mirroless cameras, from the early adopted brands and the top tier of the later migrating mainsteam ones is top notch and has the potential to go further faster. MFT is a real player here, no issue. To be honest, the sheer speed and accuracy of the original EM1 mk5 was eye opening and a major deciding factor for me to switch even though sports shooting was a matter of predictive AF or MF single gabs, but the latest generations of tracking AF have removed any doubts.

Video

MFT is one of the top formats for video, which is a little less bothered by ISO performance. The other MFT advantages come in here, like the speed to length/size ratio and stabilising, so for many it is the only choice. For our needs, it is better than enough.

So, what would I issue?

The base kit could be drawn from so many options.

EM1x with 8-25, 40-150 f4’s, the 300 (maybe shared), with 17 or 25, 45 and 75 primes, a Godox flash, MKE 400 mic and small LED (16-600, video and low light covered). The lot coming in at about $12,000au or less than just a big full frame tele. If the photographer prefers, the 40-150 f2.8 could do the job of the f4 and 45/75mm’s, the EM1x could be an OM-1, or a pair of EM1 mk3’s. If a Ninja-V was handy, the EM1’s could be upgraded to pro quality footage as needed. This provides very serviceable 4k in FLAT format with amazing stabilisation.

If video is even a higher priority, a pair of Panasonic G9’s, 8-18 (or 9mm), 12-60, 15 , 42.5 1.7 and 50-200 or 200mm prime and teleconverter, giving a range of 16mm f2.8 to 600 f4, for about $10,000au per tog.

Or any number of other combinations including a hybrid like mine.

For me, I would likely go the Pana kit with the 9mm, 15, 12-60, 42.5 f1.7 and 50-200 and extender. This covers 18-600 with options.

Would there be any complaints outside of the usual of having to learn new gear (which is just as real even moving to the same brand in mirrorless)?

I feel that most qualms would fade away when the results come in, the real benefits are discovered and the general health and wellbeing of the togs is improved. Basically, when any prejudice against the smaller format fades away through use. There is plenty of substance to feel like you have the “real thing” (an EM1x feels as “real” as any camera I have owned including the F1n or EOS 1Ds Mk2 Canons and even a G9 feels as solid as a D750), excellent weather proofing, answers to all the tough questions and the reality is, with modern processing, even MFT is relatively light proof if ISO 12,800 is your comfortable limit.

A Lens Re-discovered and A New Partner Settles In

When I got the job with the paper, one of the things I felt I needed to address was my standard, workhorse mid range zoom with it’s “lumpy” zoom.

I had started to use lenses around this one and usually avoided it for anything other than video, where I appreciated its manual focus application (pull back ring) and the low need to zoom.

Recently I decided to just use it until it fell over as the replacement (a 12-60 f2.8-4 Leica) proved a magnificent performer, but was less easy to use for video, with less easy to apply MF and not a constant aperture (and it moves from f2.8 quite early in the range). As well as this the color balance I like with Pana cameras and Olympus lenses (and the opposite to the same extent). Panas have bright and light colours, Olympus are “meatier” and cooler, so the two mixed tend to hit a perfect neutral ground.

All shots taken from my day at work (A pump house re-development, a vigil for Cassius Turvey, tragically killed and a 70th wedding anniversary).

Always a well behaved lens, with excellent sharpness across the frame and pleasant, practical Bokeh.

It is very sharp, but also has a very pleasant rendering. Not hyper sharp, more smooth-sharp.

The funny thing is, the more I use it, the smoother the zoom action becomes. It is (touch wood) pretty much perfect at the moment, being used day in, day out.

Celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary, capturing this couple (combined age 186) in natural light at ISO 1600, the camera and lens combination is crisply sharp, but at the same time on a G9, delicate and gentle.

Now, every standard lens needs a longer partner.

The obvious choice and one I truly love, is the Oly f2.8 40-150 Pro. Hard to criticise this lens with a straight face, but it has one small issue. It is quite big and heavy for the MFT format. This lens requires a bag that is tall if the lens is mounted on a camera, ready to go. I have that bag, the f802 Domke, an and reliable friend, but sometimes the depth is too much for the rest of the kit on balance.

To fix this I bought the 40-150 f4. To be honest, most days I could get away with the 40-150 kit “junker”, but the IP53 weather sealing and constant f4 have been useful already. It also shares the same 62mm filter thread as the 12-40, for my many filters.

This is one of those lenses that makes you think creatively.

“Vigil”. Like the 12-40, it is sharp anywhere around the frame at any aperture and focal length, with pleasant Bokeh (the f2.8 can get nervous occassionally, the f4 less so), but leans slightly into the hard-sharp camp.

“Road to progress”. The longer lens is mounted on an Oly camera, but still retains a bright and pleasant feel.

The combination of the 12-40 on a G9 and 40-150 on an EM1 mk2 is nearly ideal. I have the 9, 17, 45 primes at hand, but the two zooms do the bulk of my day.

The Leica is proving to be the ideal all day lens for my school kit.

Getting By

I have transferred the bulk of my kit to work, intending to use it as I intended when bought, regardless of, almost in spite of, the huge Nikon kit I have been issued.

EM1.2 (long lenses and action)

G9 (video, wide and standard)

9, 12-40, 40-150 f4, 45 and 17mm make the core.

EM1x (300 or 75)

EM1.2 (Grip and strap, zooms or widest)

25, 75, 75-300 (a lazy luxury for bright light sports), 40-150 f2.8 and 300 make up the sports or event kit.

This leaves me with a decent enough kit for my own use and the occassional school job. This is in truth close to enough to work with is any one of the better tele lenses was added.

G9 (video and pro body)

Pen F (premium image quality, but some compromises in tracking AF etc)

2x EM10.2

2x EM5.1

Looking a little light on in telephoto lenses, the “home” kit has the pocket rocket 40-150 kit at hand. All images taken on a G9 at ISO 800-3200.

8-18 Leica, 12-60 kit, 12-60 Leica, 40-150 kit, 15 Leica, 30 Sigma and 45mm primes. With the 40-150 f2.8 bought home from work, I could function with just this and the bulk of my video gear is perfectly also.

The Sigma 30mm in it’s element (f2). This thing is sharp!

Let’s not forget the solid 45mm also. This lens has a beautiful gentle sharpness, ideal for portraiture and has fewer exceptions to consider than the quirky 30mm.

My intention over the Black Friday to Christmas sale period is to pick up another Em1x, then semi-retire the oldest Em1 mk2 to home and school use. The main reason for the “X” over other EM1’s is the durability (latch opening card and battery compartments) and imporved handling. It also comes with a second battery and charger and has the “grip” built in, so effectively $500+ of free accessories. The GH6 was on the radar, but for the difference I can afford the Ninja-V or similar to upgrade all the cameras.

I am looking forward to travelling next year.

The 9, 15, 45, 12-60 and 40-150 kit lenses cover a decent range for travel (18-300eq), weighing in at about 6-700g total. That’s five decent to exceptional lenses for about the weight of a full frame standard zoom lens, covering genuine extremes, fast options and optical quality (even with some weather sealing). With a Pen-F and EM10 mk2, the whole will come in at less than 2kg and fit in the Turnstyle 10.

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).