Compromises

I have tried to write this post three times now, but hope that this angle will work.

Compromises.

What compromises can I live with, which ones can’t I.

Balance is the key.

The S5.

The S5 is the favourite at the moment, the “heart” choice. It is simply all of what I need, nothing of what I don’t.

I can live with all of its compromises, because of what it offers in codecs, recording formats, battery life (2.5 hrs), card needs (V30), ISO range (8000+) and DR (14 stop) performance as well as the added choices full frame offers;

• The limited format and bit rate choices. What I want is there, in the form I want it and the benefit of the full frame sensor seems to allow it to perform big tasks with a small footprint. The cropped 4k 50p makes the kit lens longer/faster in length (30mm f3.5-90mm f5.6) and the very long recording time in 4k, 8-bit (or 1080p, 10-bit) is how I would roll, simply for practicality.

• The AF is workable, but also not my only way of operating. It has hacks, alternatives (EM1x. G9, OSMO) and anyway manual is my preference. I will stick to Pana lenses and the ones that have a good rep (20-60, 50).

• The different format and lens mount. Fact is, this is the secret of its success and adds another arrow to my quiver for stills and video. I could logically even go for a different brand, but the Panasonic quality and menu systems work for me. The future? No harm done either way. It may be a one hit wonder or the foundation of my future direction, but for the cost, it only needs to do a handful of paid jobs and I am square. M43 is my stills format, but video is open to what is needed.

• The kit lens, which seems decent and the format is again the saviour. The slow aperture of the lens helps focus and retaining depth and it is video centric. Only $500 gets me a very good fast prime, but I may never need it and using legacy glass is an option. Back in the film era, medium format had better quality, even with a sub-par lens. In the modern era, full frame has become our new medium format, but the lenses are not a compromise, even the kit ones.

• The small HDMI port. I can use a dongle, or not worry. I doubt I will use an off board recorder and if I do, I will simply be careful and build a good rig with cable protectors etc.

The GH6.

This is the “head” choice. It is the biggest, most expensive and by far the highest specification. I would never need the spec (6k, ProRes), or at least doubt I will and if I do, it will not be tomorrow. The S5 can be upgraded to this with a Ninja if needed.

I would happily use the GH6 for it’s merits, but this is something I cannot get past;

• I cannot live with the card thing. I work with a redundancy, as any professional should and will not need the speed of the CFexpress only for backup. A $300+ card is too much for my work flow and I still have to address the card reader issue. An SSD would help and be cheaper, but then no power pack, so screwed either way.

The GH5.2.

This one will not go away, being the “gut” choice.

• The only real issue is the lack of advancement the GH5.2 offers for nearly as much as the other options. It does however come without strings. It adds video options aplenty, just no DR or ISO mitigation and for the cost of only the kit lens more, the S5 does add these. I have several other good M43 video options, so adding a true video camera into this stable needs to add more than just a few more bloated codecs, VLOG-L (when the other two add VLOG) and unlimited recording. The G85 does most of that for half as much again. Still in the mix, but doubtful.

Arguments For And Against The Front Runners.

Looking at my needs*, this is the state of play as of today;

The S5 ($2100 with lens + cage = $2200/$2700 with an optional 50mm later on) is the front runner so far, but the thinking is complicated.

For;

The S5 is enough to fix the main concerns I have for video (long recording, high ISO performance, better dynamic range), add a growth path and it does it effortlesly like a stock standard V8 engine just humming along. It has the added advantages of the full frame cinematic look, potentially made even better with a prime lens.

What it avoids is overkill.

No monster bit rate formats, no tricky tech, no steep learning curve with processing power or storage concerns. It tops out at 200mbs (internal) and is actually beaten by the G9 in some specs (4k/422/10 bit/60p vs 4k/422/10 bit/30p or 420/60p), but it can go external with some big increases (6k/422/10-bit!).

The S5 being a full frame gives me (according to several reviewers), better 4k/8 bit/420 than most smaller sensor 10 bit/422 cameras (and still has 10 bit/422 up its sleeve). This means a reasonable balance between it and the backup G9’s used in 10 bit, with long 4k recording times of over 2 hours on just 1 battery and a relatively light load on my laptops. I am not yet a pro videographer, but I do want quality and versatility, which means keeping things within a realistic envelope now, but being able to up my game considerably if needed. The S5 has many of the same specs out of the box as the Netflix approved S1H.

It is balanced with my already capable kit and directly addresses my primary shortfalls, but it can also go further.

I would likely get a 50mm or similar to have super-duper low light and shallow depth shooting, but the reality is, the dual ISO sensor with full frame sensitivity will still make the kit zoom better than my best M43 lens in low light and the M43 gear can do some heavy lifting here also.

Looking at the well respected kit lens in M43 depth of field terms it is equivalent to a f1.7-2.4 lens, has excellent close focus, a 50% crop factor in 4k/50 and the camera offers ISO 640 and 4000 (8000 is clean) as its secondary, meaning it gains more than two stops over the G9 as a base line at 1600 max (some noise), so it is effectively faster by comparison as well. With a $500 prime it gains 3-4 stops!

Put simply this camera, like a big V8 engine, does the hard stuff easily. No exotic extras, no hassle, no catches and the rest of my kit stays relevant. It also adds in a 3:2 ratio full frame stills camera (96mp HR), external recording and power and anamorphic support.

If I want to use it for a long period recordings (my main need), say with a drama production, 4k/8-bit/420/25p or 1080/422/10-bit/25p LOG is the most likely maximum format for the “A” cam, simply for practical storage, battery and processing. The OSMO or G9’s as “B” camera options can then be used in 4k or 1080p/10-bit/422/25p with Cine-D (or upgraded to VLOG-L) with an eye to balancing them out in post.

It is small, has no special card or power needs and handles like a GH%-G9 lite/G85 lovechild for video. Upgrade paths, should they ever be needed, include off board recording to 12-bit/6k/422/RAW external, prime lenses and external powerpacks. Potentially a fully enabled full frame GH6 for about another $8-1200!

Perfect.

Against;

The negatives are few. The AF is fine, just not totally reliable, which ironically helps make the decision not to use it easier. The EM1x, OSMO and G9 cameras, especially with their more than fast enough prime lenses and the added depth of field of M43 will give to those will be my run-n-gun cameras. The stabilising is best in it’s class, but again bettered by the M43 cameras and OSMO. Plenty of ways to get the job done.

The little issues of mini HDMI connection and only 8-bit/4k or 10-bit/FHD unlimited recording are mitigated by my realistic needs (i.e. I would not use them outside of these parameters anyway). The fact is, 4-6k/10-12 bit/422/LOG-RAW unlimited would eat up massive amounts of card/SSD space, battery and require speed and no-one has asked for it.

The crop is also a choice for added benefit.

From the recent production of Elf, which needed at least 1hr of continuous video.

*

The GH6 ($2300au + cage and card = $2700au) was the front runner for a while, but I have misgivings. This is clealry the better pure video camera and stays within my M43 landscape, but may just be too much of some things and not enough of others.

For;

Future proof video specs (can answer any of my needs at this point and for a few more years), best video AF and good stabiliser (probably no better than the EM1x and only marginally better than the G9, so not perfect), audio display, ProRes internal, best slo-mo. There are lots more but these are the only ones relevant to me. The stabilising is class leading, but the Oly cams beat it still and the AF is still not utterly reliable.

Against;

Half the cameras capabilities may never be used. The 6k, ProRes 10 bit 422 etc are all simply too much for my needs, as well as my computer’s processing power and my storage capacity. I would struggle to justify buying a single CFexpress card just to backup my footage and would need other extras. One reviewer worked out that to shoot a full days wedding shoot at full image power, they would need close to $10,000us in cards and storage!

It is big, expensive, dear to run, over complicated and out of balance with my other kit, or looking at it another way, most of it would be wasted on my needs. Most reviewers agree that the image quality, even if you limit yourself to these “lesser” settings it is still worth it, but I feel it is just too much to fix a few small problems (this all started with a Boxing day sale add and quickly got out of hand). I would be getting it for the features the S5 already offers, but at a premium and with strings attached. The S5 can be heavily upgraded if the need arises.

*

The GH5.2 ($1600 all up) is still in the mix, but seems the least likely at the moment. It does much of what the G9’s do, but little more, just to add what they do not.

For;

The GH5.2 is from the same generation as the G9 and the cheapest by a small margin. With better video specs than the S5 in some areas and better stab/AF, balanced against poor DR, ISO performance and VLOG-Light. It offers streaming, All-i at 400mbs (needs a V60 card minimum), G9 handling, menus and performance, so it is the closest in work flow.

It leans heavily towards video, but is otherwise a G9. I guess this means it is also the most sensible in this space.

Against;

No real improvement over the G9 in DR or ISO performance except when high bit rates are used and that comes with the storage and processing issues of the GH6. It begs the question of older ISO limits (1600) and fast glass being enough. For the money, it offers the least, even though it is the cheapest (by a small margin), but needs no added extras. Even the cage I have fits. In a lot of ways the G85 makes even more sense here, but then the S5 trumps that.

*

*Maximum 4k 10 bit 422 in short bursts for short film making, FHD for the rest, some hand held, most not, with some AF, more manual focus, in mixed light, with occassional long recordings, slo-mo etc, with 1-3 camera cross-compatibility.

Video. Where To Next?

My video growth path still vexes me.

There is a super special on at the moment with the GH5 Mk2 at $1600au ($1000 off) which is very tempting.

So the cycle starts again.

What is needed by me, now and in the immediate future?

• Flexible, high quality 1080p with options (10 bit, high speed, slo-mo, time lapse, good enough codecs and compression). Have that.

• Good 4k with some options (10 bit, 60p, slo-mo etc and again some codec options). This is client based, not me as 1080p is fine for my own needs. Have that.

• Something stabilised. The OSMO is my gimbal camera, the others do “hand held” look well. Have that.

• Long period recording. The OSMO is plenty for a few uses, but then it cannot do other jobs, so another option. Very Limited.

• Colour compatability across cameras. The OSMO and Pana Cine-D and standard profiles look similar enough, the Oly FLAT profile can be tweaked and I have multiples of the two bigger cameras, so colour matching can be achieved specifically or generally. Different angles look different anyway, so strict colour matching is not hugely important. Pretty good.

• A flexible codec for post pocessing tough jobs. The Natural look on Panas is lovely and well accepted, but not super flexible, nor even the best they offer. Their HLG and Cine-D are better. The FLAT on the Oly’s is nice and Cine-D like and the OSMO offers Cine-D or good standard. A RAW format would be nice I guess, but to be honest is more than I need at the moment. ProRes comes with issues for me with DaVinci, B-Raw is harder to source, DNxHD is an unknown, but looks good (needs more research) and VLog-L is decent. I could also just buy the upgrade key for the G9’s VLog-L. Weak.

• Better low light would be nice. M43 does struggle above ISO 1600 in video and that can only be fixed by (1) lighting (2) a dual ISO camera or (3) fast glass. I have two but not the third.

I ask myself firstly if I need more (only a lack of continuous recording comes to mind here and the OSMO and dual cameras actually fix that to a certain extent).

I have;

• OSMO 1 with 4k/60 Cine-D and 2k long recording (2 hrs). This can be my gimbal, continuous shooter and “funny places” camera. Not used enough now, it has the potential to produce pro grade footage and solve many common problems.

• 2x G9’s with time limited 4k, 10 bit, 4:2:2 Long-Gop in Cine-D/HLG/Natural (upgrade to VLog-L optional). These are so good, they really defy any need for an upgrade (for me). Continuous shooting is the only hassle and it can be avoided by using mutli camera angles, I just need to get good at synching in post.

• 2x EM1x with good C4k/24, 4K/30, ok 1080 All-i, the best stabe (although they are all good), OM-Log and Flat built in. I like the 4k out of these. the 1080 is iffy, but the 4k is not and compressing down works. I also like the FLAT profile. The Oly FLAT 4k is nice and organic looking.

• What’s missing?

Option 1

Thinking like this always bring up, with some issues, adding an off-board recorder.

If I add a basic one (BM Assist 3g or Ninja V) to a G9, I can have continuous recording and ProRes Raw or DNxHD from the Black Magic on the G9’s or ProRes Raw on the G9’s and EM1x’s with a Ninja V. The BM Assist 3g is the better option for similar money, but is limited to G9’s and 2k ProRes. ProRes is not an ideal fit for DaVinci. This will not make my cature better, but increases my post processing options and to a smaller extent gives me a better hand-on codec for clients.

Annoyingly there just does not seem to be an ideal fit for my two cameras. The Ninja-V likes the EM1x specifically, but not DaVinci. the BM Assist 3g likes both, but with limitations and the 12g is unfriendly to both. Ironically, if I upgrade my camera, the off board options open right up, but two birds……… .

The BMA 3g with a G9/EM1x would give me unlimted recording and with USB power on a G9 or 2 batts on the EM1x for under 1k, but I would probably stick to the same formats, so really just a glorified 1080 DNx recorder that upgrades any of these, but not all (1080 from 4k on the EM1x?).

Option 2

This one is to upgrade to another (!) camera.

For 1500au I can get (for the moment) the GH5 Mk2, which is basically the video-centric equivalent of the G9, with similar handling, colours and stills performance, while adding continuous recording, 400 bit All-i compession, Cine-D2, USB power and live streaming. It even fits into my G9 cage. Unlike the GH6, this one has no special memory card needs and the easily sourced battery life is good at 1hr/4k, especially when compared to the 20 min BMPCC4k, but it is a different type to the G9’s. The main thing it offers me over the G9 is continuous recording and streaming.

For about the same I can get a GH5, offering similar performance in video with some missing links like no internal VLog-L (optional upgrade like the G9), no streaming or stabiliser and now slightly dated video specs, but still very good, it is otherwise similar to the G9. This is a poor option at the moment with the GH5 Mk2 special, but normally good-ish value. It does take the same battery as the G9.

A G85. This little bugger offers very nice organic 4k and 1080p with no (battery life) recording limit for under 1k (I even get a free lens). It is pretty basic otherwise, but a working solution. Normally the price is the main temptation, but with the GH5 Mk2 on sale, that is less of a given at just over half as much (2 for the same price?). The strength of the G85 is good, natural looking 4k/24p with battery life recording limit (at least 1hr of 4k) and good stabilisation.

The reality is the G9 does many things better, but the G85 offers longer recording for about the same price as an off-board recorder and has Cine-D/Natural profiles. A neat little camera offering a basic G9-like option with long recording. This is a guilt free buy and a handy travel camera. The G9’s can do the heavy lifting for effects etc, the G85 handle the static “A” cam work.

The G95 should be a contender, but it simply is not. The sale GH5 mk2, a better camera in almost every respect is almost the same price, the G85 a lit cheaper and the G9, which does not crop it’s 4k is about the same price and again a better camera overall. All it offers is VLog-L, but that is not a deal breaker. Struggling to see the appeal of that one.

The GH6 lifts video in some areas and upgrades overall performance argueably making it the best Panasonic all-rounder, while adding complications. The card options are less straight forward, the cage is different, the battery also and the cost puts it up into the “oops, not again” catergory. A GH5 mk2 I can swing maybe as a long term layby guilt free. The other bodies and off boards are even cheaper, but the GH6 is in the last Pro camera ever catergory and I already did that with my second EM1x. It is the top dog though, developing a reputation as a solid pro choice. A bargain right now but overkill with bells on and for me misguided?

A late comer, the S5. I had no real interest in fullframe, but when I think on it (prompted by a similar price to the GH5.2), it gives me the dynamic range of the BMPCC4k, betters the ISO performance of the BMPCC4k and GH5S with a full frame and dual ISO sensor, good size, with a decent stabiliser, workable AF (the G9’s and EM1x’s stay relevant due to slightly better performance here), better codecs with VLOG full (not light-real LOG) and the continuous recording issue is addressed in 8 bit 4k, even with a single battery, which apparently lasts well over 2 hours, meaning all I need is a second battery for 4 hrs+. It actually seems like the love child of a BMPCC4k, GH5S, A73 and GH6, offering bits of each. Unlike the GH6, it has no special needs or considerations. It just works and ironically, it is smaller by a large margin.

Lenses are addressed early on with the decent kit 20-60 and maybe a fast prime later, maybe not.

The BMPCC 4k for a little under 2k is the DaVinci friendly option, lacking most of the niceties of the Panas, but just great video. Colour is different to the Panas, which is an issue that would possibly lead to more cameras, so caution needed. The camera makes more sense than the GH5s which shares the same sensor, the better BM Assist (the top 12g is not compatible with my cameras and is a similar price) or the GH6 as a static camera option. It suffers from some hardware annoyances, storage etc, and poor battery life but as a static camera, all of these are somewhat avoidable.

Random image filler.

A dedicated video camera. These are a minefield for me, but there are some good options available. Great zoom, stabiliser, sound options etc, but not my area of strength. I also have to face the reality that all of this may end up as just a stills kit with occassional video.

The OSMO Pocket 2. I hardly use the OSMO 1 that I have so why? The mk2 has a zoom, adds a second camera with a few features that can do continuous static recording, so the other can do floating work. I also have a ton of accessories for these and the quality is very good.

Option 3

This is the best likely. Stick with what I have, use it wisely.

I have good maximum quality (4k/60 10 bit 4:2:2), recording longevity (OSMO 120 min capture), multiple angles (7x 4k and 10x 2k options), rigs and accessoiries to suit and limited experience or as yet much need in this field. This also allows me to sit on this for a while, see what the future brings and adapt as needed.

Upgrading the G9’s to VLog-L or using HLG to Rec709 (various techniques available for the well known G9), synching from multiple cameras to cover stoppages, using the OSMO for continuous footage etc all help make what I have work.

*

So the short list.

If I just want to add 2 battery limited but organic and pleasant HD/4k, the G85 will do that. AF, stabilising etc are better on the G9’s, but I have 2 of those, so the idea would be to keep using the G9’s for my main cameras (my “bar”) and the G85, EM1x’s and OSMO for their respective specialist tasks. Long recording is really the only thing I lack, so this is the easy, expedient and logical fix and it sits within my current work flow envelope. For under $1000 I can also get a good no-name grip and battery and it even comes with a kit lens. It will also make a good travel option. All up $1000

If I want to up my video generally, without changing my current dynamic, the GH5 Mk2 is the one and the relatively small extra cost is soooo tempting. Basically a video-centric G9, this is a serious camera and only about twice the price of the G85 (or $2-400 more than the G9). At worst it becomes the one dedicated hybrid stills-video camera in a stills based kit, the role of the G9’s at the moment. It also needs few accessories (a cheap C-type power pack) for battery/card limited recording and it fits my Niceyrig G9/GH5 cage. I now have mains powered sound, so a mains/power pack camera would complete that loop. Maximum video improvement with minimum hassle. All up about $1700

If I want the ISO performance of a GH5S or BMPCC4K with better dynamic range, some GH5/G9 conveniences and the benefit of full frame, the S5 jumps up and says “pick me!”. It is newer and more convenient than the BM, cheaper than the GH5S or GH6, about the same price as the GH5.2 if you count the lens ($2100au) and gives me that full frame option for stills or video. It will lead to a prime or two, but all in good time. For now it is a “super G85” or even a “light GH6”. It lacks some of the video specs of the GH5.2 in some areas, bettering it in others (Log/14 stop DR), but it all feels useable! Some specs of the GH5.2 are realistically out of my league. The S5 just screams “use me” offering better base quality without stretching my processing or skill set. The kit lens is video biased, which is where I will use it (for me I have to remember that f5.6 in FF is f2.8 in M43). I also really like that the G9’s etc are still relevant. The GH5.2 does seem to risk slight overkill in a stable of G9‘s and EM1x’s, maybe just doing some things again, rather than differently or better and what it does do better may be above my pay grade. All up (to start) $2200, maybe $3000 total.

If I want all both unlimited recording and better codecs, then an off-board option is the way. The Ninja V is the best off camera option overall if 4k is wanted from all my bodies and DNxHD is acceptable. The BM Assist 3g is a better unit in many ways, but limits me to 1080p DNxHD. These are a bit of a trap. The unit at the moment is a bargain with the cast module for $700au, but you need a SSD ($250+), connections, power etc, so well over $1000 in real terms. basically too complicated. (A S5/G9/G9 combo with the module is appealing, but I do not have $4000+). All up about $1000.

840mm Of Saviour

So, I went to shoot a boat race.

I had a plan (he says). Based on a previous trip to see the same race (Launceston to Hobart), I knew that there was a reasonable chance that I could get some good, tight action pics as they moved through a tight part of the Tamar river, a spot called Garden Island. The race starts about 5km further down the river.

I remember the last time there was a chaotic tactical bun-fight at the river choke point as the yachts contended with tides, headwinds and each other. At one point it felt like we could reach out an touch the boats and thatbthey would have to touch each other!

Hmmmmmm…..thrilling. The likely winner.

I felt a bit of a twit armed with my longest lens (300 + 1.4tc which is 840mm on a full frame), my 40-150 and a hopeful 12-40 in case they got that close, as they motored past on their way to a secondary start line, just waving and relaxing!

Resigned to coming home with “file” shots of the boats, I spied in the distance the very wide sand bar that juts off Kelso Beach a little further up river.

I felt I had missed my chance because a local informed me the race would likely go out into the ocean to start. Even if I was on the other side of the river, this would be a case of “dots on the horizon”.

A nice flotilla shot, but look, there in the background.

As I drove off the point, I looked over at George Town on the opposite side of the river and it looked like the secondary start might actually be inside the heads. I hatched a quick plan.

Driving the 2km up to Kelso I was greeted by a 1/2km of sand bar and yes, the yachts were circling ready to start directly opposite me.

Off I went, determined to trash a perfectly good pair of shoes. Take them off I hear you say! No chance. The sand is mixed with sharp rocks, shells and “locals”, so shoes on and just have to try to dodge the bigger tidal pools (not so successfully as it goes).

Literally millions of these little crabs…….

…..and plenty of birds

Pretty happy with the 840mm combo (crop from above).

So, was it worth it?

Ironically now fighting strong winds, but also thick sea mist and still pretty decent distances to the boats, I got at least a feeling of the race.

The RAW files were ok, but could be better.

C1 De-haze applied, some cropping and a little colour correction and we have a decent image of the likely winner and the lighthouse as a point of interest/scale.

Lessons? There are always lessons.

• Take my ratty old winter “mud” boots, even in summer.

• Never give up.

• Go to other side of the river next year (I could have taken the shots I wanted of frantic crew highly cropped tight on deck and compressed yachts).

• My TC and 300 work well (all the shots above are with that combo). I do not trust the AF for sports without adressing the firmware on the lens, but otherwise good quality.

The Photocross 10, A Win?

The PC 10 arrived yesterday and it is exactly as advertised.

It is bigger than the TT 10 in real terms, being squarer and deeper overall. My 40-150 f2.8 with a screw on metal hood (much less fragile than the Olympus one), sits in it nose down as does another zoom (8-18) and EM1x body or G9 and third lens. This is ideal as my sports companion.

They look similar here.

My F2 will remain my day bag though, because I have found it very useful for taking notes on with a A5 note pad. The pad sits on top, which allows me to shoot and take names as I go.

Full, this bag feels heavy, so I guess the bigger 13 would be quite uncomfortable full.

New Workflow?

I decided to duplicate my base model MacBook Air M1 to reduce hassles going back and forth from work, add a backup and depth (my iPads have both died and my desktop is getting old).

I installed Capture 1 23 and ON1 22 as will as DaVinci Resolve 18.

This thing is fast! It uploaded 60 odd RAW files today in about 5 seconds, previews included!

C1 and ON1 seem to be better together in this form, but I was reminded by ON1 to use DNG (RAW) files not TIFF’s that I use based on an early recommendation.

Experiment time :).

The RAW file processed to my liking.

Retaining natural sharpness and detail.

A TIFF in and out of ON1 with default settings.

A RAW sent directly over as a DNG, then processed when it came back to C1.

Takeaway is this (and I looked closer);

The RAW looks the most natural, but has a little noise visible (ISO 800).

The TIFF looks better all-round, but is just starting to look a little processed, i.e. a little plasticky around the bricks and some natural glow is missing (ON1 No Noise often takes out small highlights from eyes etc).

The DNG is the cleanest and sharpest, but is looking a little over done. I actually dropped sharpness back in the C1 processing.

The biggest issue for me with overly aggressive noise reduction is the loss of fine detail in textured areas like 100 year old bricks. The curious bit is the TIFF, by not being as “open” to processing I guess, is that is holds onto the RAW detail better.

Looking the other way, a church steeple.

The RAW. This is nice and looks right.

The TIFF processed as above is clearly crisper, especially on the tiles.

The DNG is up another level again. I could process the RAW sharper, but of course this does not go across and the TIFF does not take to much more post processing. The main thing is to either reduce ON1 sharpening or sharpening in C1 as the halo effect is obvious. I noticed in both the above files that the colour is less brilliant, but that is likely me processing less aggressively, probably responding to a cleaner file.

Take aways;

The RAW files look the most natural and will likely print out as well as needed.

The TIFF’s retain the look of the processed RAW, then refine. At ISO 800, there was not much to fix, so next test is to see how ISO 6400 is handled both ways.

The DNG files are more powerfully processed, but it also looks that way. The top file especially has some plasticky “over perfect” parts and some fine detail has been removed. In the lower file, it actually looks better, so the different processing flows may be best applied to certain subjects selectively.

A note on processing generally.

I have found that with C1, the whole Lightroom noise vs sharpness leading to marbling and grittiness thing has gone away. I rarely touch sharpening, never noise reduction (do not even have the tool enabled), taking what I get as it comes then apply Dehaze, Clarity, White Balance and various Exposure tools.

If noise is an issue from ISO 6400 up, the file goes to ON1, usually on default settings, then out again, a process of 20 odd seconds and I gain roughly 2 ISO settings of clarity and sharpness.

If focus or even a little noise has robbed me of some sharpness, I will often brush it in, although No Noise adds some anyway.

I have no fear of ISO 3200 or even 6400 often in C1 and not much aversion to as high as 25,600 with ON1, which tops out my needs for pretty much any job. Lightroom limited me to 3200 maximum on M43 files. By this I mean sharp and clean, not bearably awful, that may print ok small.

This is my base line, which is a C1 ISO 6400 file, no ON1.

This means also that I am fast.

Most files are fine with one or two sliders of work, many need nothing and if they need major work, I batch drop them into ON1, which now seems to be much quicker (10 files in a minute). If I could just learn to shoot straight lines straight, I would be even quicker!

Bag Retrospective, A Busy Few Months

Having bought way too many bags over the last few months, the idea of looking back and revisiting my thought processes (my spending spree), is a little daunting, but often the best lessons are learned by looking back.

It started with a perceived need for another, better bag for my work with the paper. I had a very workable Domke F802, but wanted to keep it for the school, which at the time was half of my work, and felt the layout was possibly not right for the paper. Other options were the Filson Field Camera bag, Domke F3 rugged, an ancient Domke F2, LowePro Pro Tactic 350 and the Think Tank Turnstyle 10.

Crumpler Muli (4000?). This bag prompted an article on the perils of buying sight unseen as the usual problem of the supposed capacity and the real capacity were at odds. The bag does hold exactly what some have said, but in the wrong configuration for me (read broken-down, not ready-to-go). For a single camera and a couple of lenses it is fine, but for me it excels as a getting to work bag. It is quite rigid, which makes toting a laptop and other bits reassuringly stable. Putting this down to a learning opportunity, I moved on.

Height and depth was the main issue. With my new kit (40-150 f4 and 9mm with gripless cameras) it is probably better, but at the time the f2.8 and 8-18 pushed it too far and a lack of extra pockets is a pain.

Domke 804 black. This one was a lucky find, but has proven to have the rare and unlikely issue of actually being too big. It will get, as all my Domke bags do, plenty of use in a role not yet defined, but as a day kit bag it is massive and unnessary. The main idea was to replace the F802, my workhorse with a bag that could take a body with battery grip (EM1x, EM1.2 with grip), which it turns out is total overkill. From here I went back to the F802 for the height without the depth and the added pockets I have for the F802 mean it is actually bigger in real terms.

The Domke F3x ballistic. This did not happen, but I wanted it to. In hindsight, the F2 is the better choice I guess, although my current push for a smaller kit might have been a perfect fit for it (the bag was made for a small film era kit like an F3 with drive, 20, 35, 85, 180, which is surprisingly close to a modern mirrorless kit). In other words, this bag might have saved me getting both the F2 and the Photocross 10, but more likely, each of these is a better bag at their respective jobs, but still……. . I actually have one of these in green rugged-ware (very rare BIC camera special edition), but I would prefer a lined one.

Domke F2 ballistic. This is an old friend revisited and updated. The older F2 is now 30+ years old and lacks the lining of the ballistic bags. This is a win mostly, apart from still being a shoulder bag. I will use this for full day kits as it is perfect for the kit it was bought for. The 4 compartment divider and decent main camera compartment fit my gear as well as any bag and I appreciate the pen holders, small front pockets and the way the bag sits on the floor, but the boxy shape can haep it roll off a car seat and it is big on the hip.

See a trend?

Mindshift Photocross 13. This one, like the F3x was the wanted item that turned into something else and probably for the better. I wanted a bag that could take my sports kit, but was more convenient than the Turnstyle 10 (too small) or the Pro Tactic 350 (too….backpack).

Mindshift Photocross 10. This is the (hopefully) right bag for the job above. I think that maybe the 13 would have carried too much and been too big. The 10 is more likely to do a better job of the TT10’s role.

The search for the perfect bag is as futile as much as it is fun, but the need to get something that genuinely does the job when you actually need it for work (not just a hobby) quickly sorts the junk from the winners. I have lots of bags, some not even mentioned here, but they are all useful for something.

Big NewZ

So, after being issued a mixed kit of old and new Nikon DSLR full frame gear, for me not an enticement, the powers that be at the paper have now relented and decided we need…….Z9’s!

Big news for me, this is the camera that will fix my editorial needs, but for sport I will stick with my M43 stuff. The main reason for that is my weight and reach options and the fact I have two very reliable EM1x bodies and good glass (see my recent article on full frame superiority).

What may happen though is the Lightroom processing stream will be fine for most stuff, meaning I will use my gear for some jobs, the Nikon and Lightroom for others, but the bulk of my own gear can now stay at home (to do what, I am not sure, but hopefully something).

Looking at the Z9, and being aware it sits at the top of the Nikon tree, I am happy to use it as much as possible, but the same things I have said before hold true to some extent. The weight of the camera and a standard lens are still a consideration when I can use other gear with perfectly good results (45mp FF is overkill for a newspaper, but the D6, which the other togs wanted, are nearly impossible to get).

A Z9, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 will come in somewhere near 3.5-4kg. I can carry two bodies and several lenses with a wider range to that or a lot less. I will however really appreciate the quality of the Z9 for editorial work, especially its ability to shun flash, crop heavily, process easily and use the super shallow depth of field when needed using relatively average lenses*.

Not overly worried about quality, but nice to be using gear supplied, not my own.

At 149x150x91 and 1350g compared to the EM1x at 144x147x75 at 997g means it is not much bigger than an EM1x, until you put a lens on that is. Having said that, I would not be interested in an EM1x for editorial work, as I feel it would be overkill.

Bags, my other hobby, will be interesting. I am thinking the F-2, F802 or F804 for the Nikon, the PC10 for M43 kit. It may be the other way around or the whole thing may just go wrong. I have tons of bags, so I am sure something can be found even for the large Z9 body, but no more bags!

*M43 gains the benefit of about 2 stops of extra depth of field at the same taking aperture as a full frame because the lens used to match the same magnification is half as long (M43 45mm = FF 90mm etc so f1.8 looks like f2.8-ish). The Nikon Z mount uses such a wide mouth, that it actually looses a stop of depth at the same aperture as other full frame lenses (f4 = f2.8 DOF). This means that in effect the Nikon Z mount looses 3 stops of DOF when compared to M43 a bit like a small medium format camera, which for me will give me (1) lots to remember and (2) strong tools to use in tandem.

Fun In The Treehouse

Friends have a vinyard and wanted to get some nice images for their website.

Payment as promised was in kind, a dozen bottles of their excellent (and quite expensive) Pinot Grigio, but I would have done it for free.

Another reason for this post is to share the process and to reinforce the power of M43 for shallow depth of field work. I have said before, the shallow depth of field control of M43 is enough for most tasks, sometimes still too shallow. The ability to use any aperture on the lens is a real bonus.

When using full frame, I would go to anything wider than f2 very sparingly and can remember many times when I double or tripple checked focus, often using live view on the rear screen with manual focus if able. With M43 mirrorless cameras I just place my focus point and shoot.

The bulk of these images were taken wide open on my f1.8 45, 75 or f2.8 12-40 and 40-150 lenses, or close to it.

The 75 wide open. Shooting basically straight into the sun, the background Bokeh is a little busy due to the relative distances of the lens to subject and subject to background. The slightly nervous uprights are grasses about ten feet behind the bottles.

This is better with nothing directly behind the subject. The lighter coloured blurred object to the left is the vinyards treehouse.

The above two images were taken the first day just to try out some ideas.

Shooting again into the sun, this time bouncing off the water, I tried using just reflections off the house front (mostly glass).

The image above is recoverrred as far as C1 can, but failed to hold enough information for my idea.

Wanting to try to preserve the background (Schouten Island), I switched to an off camera Godox 860 flash, lens stopped down to f6.7 (f13-16 ish on a full frame) for some hint of shape, using high speed sync. Even with M43, there is little chance of holding detail when things are this far separated at any aperture, but I hope I nailed the balance.

The above image shows how useful flash can be even when daylight is strong. My wife held the flash about two feet to the left firing through a hand held 42” Godox brolly.

Next we decided to incorporate the actual tree house into the images.

First attempt is interesting, using a soft foreground for a frame using the 150mm f2.8. The 40-150 Pro has some slightly nervous background Bokeh.

A little more coherent. 75mm f3.5.

An off-cut vine used foe some interest. This vine strand did a bit of work, but after about 30 minutes, it started to look a little tired. The 45mm wide open is a little warmer than the 75, which makes processing less straight forward.

12-40 at 28mm f2.8. I used this lens often at 28mm without looking at the zoom position. I could have used my 25 or 30mm lenses if I had them with even smoother blurring.

There were a lot more images of family etc, but I will let the client use these as desired.

Back to the house and flash was tried again, used more as gentle fill than to fight the sun, but we found that the brolly alone in reflecter configuration was enough. Lesson I learned here was to clean the glass! 28mm on the 12-40 f2.8.

Going for more context, 17mm at f6.7 on the 12-40. Flash through the brolly again.

Some final detail shots while the greenery was at all useful. 45mm f1.8, the natural warmth of the lens helping here.

Gear list;

• 1 EM1x (the new one)

• 1 45 and 75 f1.8’s

• 1 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8’s

• 1 Godox 860 flash and off camera controller

• 1 Godox 42” brolly and hand bracket

• 2 bottles, glass (clean) and a bit of greenery

• 1 vinyard complete with tree house

A Mindshift

The Mindshift/Thinktank Photocross 13 eluded me and at the time it was a little disappointing because I really felt it would be a problem solver, but on second thoughts, maybe it was, like a lot of things, a win in disguise.

Originally I wanted a bag that could take my sports kit, but realistically that may have been unworkable. The PC13 would have still struggled with gripped bodies (EM1x), even M43 ones, so I would have had to break down combinations, defeating the purpose of the exercise and not really achieving anything over the LP Pro Tactic 350 or other options (Domke F-804).

The Turnstyle if it was compared looks to be the next incremental drop down in size.

Looking at my day kit, trying to change up the heavy bag on the shoulder dynamic, I decided instead to use my TT Turnstyle 10L as the base, hopefully working from the sling “workbench” with ungripped cameras and a few lenses. The F-2 Domke is nearly perfect, but it is still a shoulder bag.

The Photocross 10 kept coming up a few times when I went looking for alternatives and it has a few benefits compared to both the PC 13 and TT 10.

The mouth is wider, so easier to work with gear and maybe even a two camera kit again. The TT10 is surprisingly big inside, but the two ends can get a little cramped even with the zip fully open. The PC10 is more of a three sided-flap opens forward setup rather than a single sided “gaping mouth” zip. The TT is a better travel bag, a little more secure, but the PC may be the better work bag.

It is a little bigger than the TT, squarer and deeper. It may even be big enough to effectively do what I wanted with sports, a job the TT10 is almost big enough for, but a touch more room (especially height) would make a huge difference. When I did the basketball recently, the TT10 easily took my spare lenses and accessories, even taking my second body, but not in ready-to-go form and it was a little cramped when I went to add a flash.

One helpful reviewer compared the PC13 to a Domke F-2, and they were basically the same volume if very different shapes. This means that if the PC10 is 80% of that, which it looks to be, then it should take my cut down kit, maybe even a smaller sports kit*.

The other small benefit, apart from the fact it is actually available, is that it is a fair bit cheaper. About $70-80au on average. If I love it, I can then gauge the chance of the bigger bag working and I can get some idea of the weight when loaded, so the PC13 may come later.

*For football I intend to use the 40-150 f4 instead of the f2.8, which will change things.

The Mythical Superiority Of Full Frame

This one will never go away.

There is no doubt from my persepctive* that this is just another of those phurphies told by an industry bent on selling more/bigger/newer cameras, but I know there are a few of us who disagree and can prove it if needed ;).

Shape

First, lets look at the history of “full frame”.

When the first makers of compact and portable stills cameras went looking for a film stock to make a “miniature” camera format, easily sourced 35mm film stock was the logical, the only real choice. It was first used as the movie shooters used it, but vertically being the later named “half frame” of 18x24 4:3 ratio. The later Simplexpresented a pair of options, one of which resulted in an odd shape the wider 3:2 ratio 24x36. The 3:2 ratio was never popular with print makers, magazine editors or even frame makers, but it was bigger which matterred when quality was premium. Leitz then adopted the horizontal format officially and that cemented the 35mm 3:2 format into history.

Almost all formats that came before were squarer, but this did not stop 35mm “full frame” from shoe-horning itself into the mainsteam market.

Fast forward to the dawn of digital and the term “full frame” became known as the professional format, almost promoted to a status of mystical superiority. This was because the early formats of digital, forced by technical realities of making sensors, were smaller, but also some common sense prevailed and a few deliberately went away from 3:2 full frame.

Canon and Nikon as the main players were never happy relinquishing full frame as their pro offerring**, but the reality was, the economy of sensor manufacture guaranteed full frame sensor cameras sat at the top of the tree, further reinforcing the perception they were the one true format, the format to aspire to.

Some companies looked at the whole thing from scratch, such as the 4:3 consortium, who decided to (1) go back to a better shape for print and at that time screen and (2) chose a sensor that actually made lens design easier. It was easier for them, because Olympus in particular had not much of a working legacy to support and Panasonic and Fuji effetively started their push here, choosing 4:3 and APS-C respectively as their primary formats.

While we are on it, I feel there are really only two true formats of choice, the square and 16:9 wide screen or wider. The square is convenient, equitable, expressive and logical, while the wide screen format is proven to make sense to our two eyed view of the world.

The 3:2 format is not as settled, crops poorly and forces a wide/tall choice that is often not satisfying or even convenient. The sensor is also too wide for good lens design. The designer need to cover a lot of width for a low content of height.

below are four crops (well three and an original). Which is best? Up to you, but the bottom two to me are more decisive, more poweful, the top two are much of a muchness, the 4:3 one though is more versatile.

When chosing a shape for my images I find the square is exciting and freeing, cinema wide feels “right” and a little epic looking. My standard 4:3 is convenient and less wasteful to make square, but 3:2 is a poor compromise of all of these. The reality is, 3:2 is not a shape enabler it is a shape forcer like square or wide screen, but more limiting. Interestingly, no one I have ever submit my images to has every noticed or complained about my squarer submissions.

My editors both at the school and the paper say the same thing, “shoot horizontal, so we can crop vertically if needed”. Almost all the templates we are forced to use still ignore 3:2 as the norm, often forcing us to accomodate wider or squarer.

This image has enough height at the distance shot. On a 3:2 ratio camera a little more width would have been needed. It can also go vertical with ease.

Ok, so full frame, a format that is the current pro choice is by default an odd choice and has a mixed history. Remove nostalgia and legacy and it makes little sense to stay with it in the modern era. Like the mirror, it is a hold over from the past, a convenience, a habit, supporting the legacy of the two big guns in the industry.

Quality

Next, we need to look at quality or more accurately sufficiency.

What do we actually need? The line peddled regularly is we need more, but ironically, highly ironically, the only medium that needs more resolution in real terms is print, a form of image viewing that is dying before our eyes. When we needed quality in a print based world, resolution or raw image quality was elusive, creating a desire that was hard to sate, but now we have tons of quality and the software to fake it if needed, few ever do.

Taken from a half body (+) image.

I was talking to a friend the other day who is running a 60mp Sony, but never uses his images for more than screen viewing! The proper viewing distance rule has always been the limit that addresses print size needs. Print a billboard, then stand back and look at it. Stand close enough to see the dots that make it up and you cannot see the image. How close do you sit to your TV screen? You are dot or pixel peeking and only photo nerds do that to prove a pointless point.

Enough for most people is 2mp (a 1080p screen), maybe 8mp (4k), but even then, a good screen and good base image quality will defy you seeing any real difference at proper viewing distances. We are constantly looking at high res on lower res screens or the opposite, almost never realising the inherent compromise. Some of the sharpest images you see on TV are still recorded on 720 HD. Even 4k is only 8mp.

What resolutuon did the masters of painting have or the vast majority of film photos in the 20th century? They satisfied all our visceral needs at the time and are often revered now, because they were good in all ways relevant and the technical limits did not stop that from happening. The large format film shooter had enough quality to satisfy any needs, even in the 1930’s, but most of us were happy with less.

As we move through our image making history, we are sold the idea that quality is all. This is true to an extend, but what we need to remember is quality is a combination of things all supporting each other, not a single number or value.

Ask yourself this;

If M43 or crop frame are inherently inferior, then why would any company, especially one with 100 years of innovation and excellence behind it stake it’s whole future on these formats? Why indeed would a photographer who was working in a camera shop with all it’s buying advantages buy into that system and then, with the opportunity to re-think their path, choose it all again and go even deeper?

One day a few years ago I decided to test my Fuji and Olympus cameras and lenses against each other with the intention of choosing between them in the short and longer term. All was going fine until I discovered, after a lot of normal sized viewing, that the Fuji images were actually taken as small jpegs (amazing jpegs being a Fuji thing, so that bit was no surprise).I had this set to take some web images for ebay. I had not noticed even at 8x10 print sizes, that the Fuji files were tiny. Super sharp, colourful, but tiny. One of the main reasons this went unnoticed was my determination to look at the images fairly, using the 29” screen of my Mac without peeking closer and a decent print as the gauge. Turns out the Fuji files just filled the screen with little more to offer, but were fine for that.

Contradictions are plenty. The mobile phone industry and even most full frame makers are quick to sell us on the benefits of their 1” sensor super compacts, their APS-C range or even the smaller sensors in their remaining compact cameras, but then they want you to believe that anything short of full frame is a compromise unworthy of a professional.

From 12mp on in crop frame, only printers or pixel peepers were dissatisfied. The rest of us could not tell the difference and the customer/client/employer usually does not care. My sisters favourite image I have taken for her was on a 6mp crop camera and she always comments on the “quality” of the image.

Search the internet for examples of people "fooling” clients or viewers with their lesser gear posing as top flight equipment***. M43 passing as full frame, low res prints indestinguishable from high res. The list goes on and on, all made irrelevant by application and even time itself.

If the next great thing is needed to make future images, then what about everything that came before?

In the film era, format did make some difference, because lacking computers for post we could only enlarge like to like. Physics at work. Start with a bigger negative then you can enlarge to a bigger size, but even then, some of the benefit of the larger formats was lost due to the difficulty of making better, larger format lenses. The Nikkor 55 micro blew away the standard 80mm Hasselblad lens for actual resolution measued in lines-per-mil, a lens that in itself had a near perfect reputation, but it relied very much on the bigger format for its raw quality.

Convenience and Empowerment

I can go on forever about the massive size difference between my M43 lenses and their full frame equivalents, but lets look at this seriously.

The squarer M43 sensor is a lens designers shape of choice. A square sensor matched to a circular lens shape makes the most logical choice, so closer to square makes more sense than not. This means the sensor offers more useable area for the design and even smaller lenses.

Not a choice for me. The newer Olympus is at least a match for this well respected war horse and the rest speaks for itself.

The reality is if they went with a half sized 3:2 ratio, the sensor area would have to be even smaller or the lenses bigger. The lens mounts on M43 cameras are quite relaxed, in comparison to some full frame ones anyway (the Sony mount actually clips the sensor corners). Nikon has gone super wide with their Z series cameras, but that is again partially because of the shape of their sensor. They could actually squeeze a 4:3 medim format one in there also and may intend to.

I can realistically carry a 600 f4 around with me in my day kit and regulalry have a 300 f2.8 at hand. My 300 f4 is a toy compared to most. There are examples with every lens I own of bigger, heavier, more expensive full frame equivalents, that are often optically compromised or are even more ridiculaously oversized to avoid that. Look at the Sigma ART series for example. Packing 2-3 of their FF 1.4 primes into a bag is no laughing matter, but in M43, it is not a big deal (although they are bigger than most M43 lenses as they can fit APS-C also).

My cathartic moment came when I was showing a friend my Canon 35 f1.4L and my Panasonic 20 f1.7. The size difference was drastic, but I knew that my images at that time (5d mk2 vs EM5 mk1) were effectively the same, the Oly often winning on speed and focus accuracy and always for convenience.

Would I, knowing what I know, sacrifice my current flexibility and freedom for the assumed, but mostly un-provable advantage of full frame quality? No way.

This file is a crop from the image below. Taken on a tiny, relaitively cheap zoom acting as a ff 300 f4 equivalent, it is more than enough for any uses, even without aggressive post processing.

I work with two photographers who omly take a small part of their FF kit with them on a job, because the whole lot is back breaking. I cannot help but wonder if they miss opportunities by leaving things behind. I have a comprehensive kit including 18-300 FF equivalent focal lengths in zooms and some fast primes, two cameras, video and flash accessories, all in a bag that would only handle one of their bodies and an attached lens. I still manage to complain about weight!

Real Benefits

The most often sited benefits of full frame compared to smaller formats are better high ISO noise control and shallower depth of field when needed. These two really wrankle and are the foundation of many full frame users feeling of superiority and non full framers sense of injustice.

Depth of field is a creative tool, but who is to say one format is better than the next. If you want super creamy, super shallow depth, the difference between M43 and FF formats is not going to make a huge difference.

For a real change in depth of field try large format with movements! The rules of depth of field are based on lens magnification, aperture, distance to subject relative to their distance to the background. Basically, the same lens on any format will produce the same DOF, but will be effectively different in practical focal length. There is a lot going on here and relatively small differences in sensor size, determining actual lens magnification, is only one small element. Even a compact camera can achieve very shallow depth of field if used well.

Even at effectively 600mm at f9 on a full frame, there is not enough depth of field to get all the birds sharp. I rarely complain about having too much depth of field.

I find professionally, a little more depth of field is always a good thing. I can fake less in post, but not more. I can use my f1.8 lenses wide open more often than not, gaining the benefit of their light gathering power without worrying about stupidly shallow depth of field.

This brings us to the second point, noise at high ISO settlings. I will go on record here and say I believe software will kill this monster way before sensor size make any real diffierence. I can regulalrly use ISO 6400 in my work, which is more than enough, with little fear of dissapointing a client (they never seem to notice). There is a balance between the quality of the latest M43 sensors and good processing.

Add to this the above mentioned depth of field advantage and I can shoot two ISO settings lower than a full frmae shooter in the same situation. Sure the Full framer can buy the same focal length and speed and gain those ISO settings back, but can they?

A full frame pro body and 150-200, f1.8 to f2 lens would come in at $10-1500au+ (if available at all). The closest I have seen is the Canon 135 f2L, a great lens, but matched or actually beaten by the Oly 150 f1.8 (75 f1.8) at half the price and smaller. This on an EM1x comes in at about $3500au. The full framer can also crop if blessed with more pixels, but that often evens out the advantage as 40mp+ drop to 20mp odd, the same as the M43 camera and that resolution advantage you paid for is lost.

ISO 25,600 properly exposed with a quick trip through C1 and ON1 No Noise. More than just a rescue mission.

Relying on a full frame camera’s sensor and running the files through the same old soup is fine, but why limit yourself to using just the sensor size? If you do go the extra yard, then how much better is sensor A vs Sensor B? When you look a little deeper you see that the world has changed. We can all get enough from a lot less. I have seen amazing results from the latest phones.

Full frame has it’s advatages as does any format, but the relentless push for it to be the sole format for small cameras seems one eyed and pointless. To me it just seems to be the middle ground of the range of formats available and like many middle points, it is a compromise of ideas, master of none. Sometimes it forces a larger dynamic, but not add a decent enough jump in quality.

If the ability to shoot good enough quality for a fine art grade 16"x20” print from a well treated ISO 3200 file is enough, then M43 will do fine, maybe more than enough. For screen filling, even less is needed. Before you go and get that monster sensor camera with 30+ MP, and a lens stable to match, consider what you are actually going to use it for. It may be that less is more.

Just my take.

*20+ years working in camera shops, 35+ years using cameras of all formats and media.

**Canon never made a red ring lens for APSC, Nikon never even fully fleshed out their lens offerings for crop sensor and Sony still under sells and supports their excellent APS-C cameras. Ironically, I found many of their older lenses performed much better on crop sensors.

***Luminous Landscape have plenty, as does the Lens Rentals blog, Ming Thein, who shot a Rollex commercial with a 1” compact, etc, etc, etc.

Can It Be Done?

I am in a funk with photography at the moment. I am working through it, but still have a way to go.

One line of thought is address uncertainty with a review of processes and gear.

What do I use, what should I use and how do I use it?

What I use currently is a good and sensible coverage which forced a few new lenses in specifically to reduce weight. This is designed to handle anything, to be the swiss army knife or boy scout kit. Safe.

G9, EM1 mk2, 9, 17, 45, 12-40, 40-150 f4, flash, Led, mic.

What I should use is the gear that inspires me to shoot my way.

So the question is, if I was shooting purely for myself, what would I use?

Wanting to avoid flash, preferring single focal lengths for clarity of vision and having a depth of field advantage, I would use my fast primes for shorter work. This is less logical for longer lenses (although the 75 could do most things), so my f4 zoom usually, then the 75 for known poor light jobs.

Could I function with a single EM1 mk2, 9, 17, 30, 40-150 f4, an led panel all in a Think Tank Turnstyle 10?

The story telling 17mm just gets the job done. Why clutter that thinking with a zoom?

This is basically my travel kit, my “seeing it my way” kit.

Effectively weightless; 9, 17, mic, led.

Very light, but of substance; EM1.2, 30, 40-150 f4.

Bags.

The Turnstyle 10 is small, but can take this kit with room and the outer and inner pockets will hold the other stuff I need. It is even weather proof.

Maybe the Tokyo Porter or waxed Domke f3x?

What could go wrong?

Cameras break down, which is always a possibility, but the other two togs go with a single body and I would have spares at hand in the office (maybe put one in the car in case). I use two cards so the first level of failure is covered.

Not enough coverage? I can go 18mm FF equiv, 16 is my widest, which requires a zoom, but if 18 does not do the job, should I be taking the image anyway? Remember, my images-my way.

Not long enough? This is rarely a thing, because I know the 150 can be cropped in to crazy small frames for print media (6-800mm eq).

A 150mm lens doubled by M43 then cropped into about a 700mm FF equivalent. Fine I feel.

Too dark?

If f1.8 or f1.4 does not do it, then the LED can add some light or maybe again I need to consider the shot. We rarely shoot in total darkness and if I know that is what I am going into, I will swap the 40-150 out for a flash (same-same).

Video?

Unfortunately, there is not much happening here, but if it does, all I need to do is add the mic back in using a small bag attached to the strap of the TT. The G9’s do video better overall, but the EM1 mk2 in 4k is no slouch. The sound is better with a mic (always the case) and the 4k capture is decent, even good. The 1080p is ok, but 4k is better if I can do it.

So, relying on a single camera, 18-300 range and limiting accessories to what I actually use.

Maybe a thing?

I had the TT10 at work when I wrote this and no, it is not possible. The bag holds it all, but only just and is not convenient for fast work. The Mindshift 10 is on the way, which should do the job better.

A Little Test

A little test to see if you the viewer can see any real difference here.

No hints given what you are looking for, except to say, I have written in the recent past about the real differences between some lenses.

M43 blesses us with a large and well established lens landscape with a couple of things that you can take to the bank.

All the lenses, especialy the long ones, are relatively small compared to larger format kit.

The sensor size and shape was selected with lens design in mind.

There are a lot of giant killers in the range, whether they be pro or not.

Answer?

The 1st, 3rd and 5th images were taken with the multi thousand dollar 300 f4 Pro, which is large and expensive for a M43 lens, but a holiday in the sun compared to an equivalent full frame 600mm f4.

The rest were taken with the slightly better than kit level 75-300, usually at about 200-250mm where the extra width helps on a small ground and ironically the extra depth of field helps tell a story. This lens loves f8, especially below 250mm where it is nearly impossible to split from the 40-150 and 300 Pro lenses. At 300mm wide open, I can sometimes pick it….sometimes.

The give-away is the slightly nervous Bokeh on the Pro 300’s files with a hint of “ringlet” Bokeh (look at the roses in image 3 or the brickwork in image 1), but this is balanced with shallower depth of field for better separation .

The zoom was shot across the ground with a messier background, but still looks less bothersome (the out of focus sign on image 2 & 4 and wheel hub in image 6). The other benefit of the “sunshine” lens is it’s ability to tame strong contrast. I usually do less work to the files.

Rarely do things line up conveniently in photography, but this sunny day story teller is the perfect cricket lens (as long as the sun is out). It offers good compositional control, excellent contrast and is plenty sharp. I find on many smaller grounds, it is hard to get the keeper and batsman in the same shot or the bowler side on with a 600mm equiv and the 40-150 with tc is a little short.

For winter sports like AFL, there is no competition. It’s slow aperture and less assured AF mean the cheap zoom will go back into my home kit, but for summer sports, it is a regular option and is small and light enough to always be included.

Why?

I guess I have the best job in the world, so why doesn’t it feel like that at the moment?

After a solid six months of balancing two jobs and never feeling like I was doing either any real justice, I am maybe a little burnt out and realise that what I loved, the school, the kids and staff were what made me happy, not the photography, which is just the vehicle.

My role was special and quite unique, but had no security and no real future.

Working for the paper is a shift further away from where I want to be. It is photography, real photography, sometimes exciting, often useful, but rarely as satisfying. The imaging is fine I guess, although the nature of the work often forces me to go to a dark place, the place where images need to be posed! Add to that the constant chasing around for names for captions, which is all pervading and I often forget why I want to do it at all. My last week before holidays seemed to be one captioning nightmare after another.

I am AWOL in this process at the moment. If I do not turn up to play, then what is the point of the game?

I guess after a long six months of giving two masters all I have, sometimes seven days a week for weeks at a time, I am just done. Making decisions when you feel like this is always a mistake, but when won’t I feel like this?

Not enough attention paid to the important things.

My C.I.A mantra is actually more spot on than I realise and may eventually be my escape route or the harbinger of my doom. I need to work on it, to ponder the reality of my situation. I need to embrace or reject it. I need to trust my instincts. I have to accept the consequences.

We all gotta eat, but at what cost?

Control is key. I need to control the elements in my images much better. I am not accustomed to this at all. Control for me has been, pretty much for my entire life with cameras, all about watching and taking (graciously), not forcing or manipulating. I guess I do need to manipulate, but passively. I need to put the elements in place and take what I get.

Probably not what a politician would expect from a newspaper photographer, but this is what I saw. So shoot me.

Interaction or interest are the main imaging tools you need to make a posed image look natural, so my Control needs to facilitate that.

Elements in place, interaction naturally achieved. Also, there is nothing wrong with a smile.

Action is the interaction bit happening and angle the point of difference. No more static poses or flat wall groups!!! Use the scene, the provided elements and make it mine.

Use the elements in concert, change your angle, look for contradictions or supports, that is, things that are not expected.

Will I make it?

I know I can if I have to, but how much do I want to compromise my own standards to just do the job? Also, how many images per week am I ok with taking contrary to my own tastes in balance with those I can do to suit them?

I may need to drop a day or two so I can pursue my own ends, using the paper as my base-line, but not my everything.

I do not have to travel too far to find my happy place. I was asked to take a quick portrait of a friend and colleague Reverend Grace Reynolds (School Chaplain) the other day.

Managing to miss each other at every turn, we ended up in the same place at the same time for a New York minute and I found some passable natural light in a large room in the school dormitory. The resulting portraits were really just a hint at what is possible, but were satisfying all the same.

An unguarded moment between ideas and a reminder to me how powerful constant light portraits with silent cameras can be.

So I guess in answer to my own question, why not? Lots of worse things I could be doing.

An Argument For Prime Lenses

I like my lens stable across the board. There is honestly not one lens that is irrelevant, nor one that does not offer a point of strength. This may be weight, price, performance, versatility, power or simply that I like it, but no matter the lens, there is a point to owning it.

However!

My prime lenses, more often than not, take my best images. This has nothing or little to do with optical quality of zooms, it is all to do with the strengths of prime lenses and the way they make me work.

The Leica 15mm cuts out subjects better than any zoom I own.

Their first strength, lens speed (meaning aperture setting). All of my prime lenses (except my 300 which is a special case) are faster than f2. This means they have more depth of field options and produce consistently better quality images in low light.

his image had no depth of field issues, as it was shot on my 9mm, but the benefit of f1.7 allowed a low ISO image in an environment that usually eats light.

An example of this was my shoot today for the school. Mostly shot in the school gym or classrooms, the Leica 12-60 (G9) and Oly 40-150 f2.8 (EM1 mk2) did the lions share, but the couple of dozen images I took with the 15mm on a lowly EM10 mk2 stood out. Better sharpness (lower ISO and cleaner separation), better contrast (same, but also the lens), more keepers (same). Even a weaker camera did not stop it doing a better job, in fact this combo keeps surprising.

Their second strength is seen by many as a weakness, so bear with me. Using a prime (i.e. non-zoom) lens forces you to move your feet and think differently, but I have found this comes with a healthy dose of clarity of purpose. I grab a camera with a prime and feel instantly empowered by the single mindedness of the gear. No standing flat footed and just popping shots, it makes me really think about my other options other than simply changing focal length. I usually find myself moving soon after picking this more limited kit.

I also have the added problem of running two brands that zoom in opposite directions, meaning I need to create work processes to avoid operational confusion. To this end I have limited my standard working kit zoom lenses to Olympus where possible, using Pana/Leicas for personal use and the occassional school job. Even then, I miss the odd shot, zooming the “wrong” way. You can set the focussing to match, but not the zooming.

The power of a long and fast lens against a messy background.

Thirdly, but by no means least importantly, the Bokeh or “draw” of a prime lens is a predictable thing. A prime takes care of angle of view, then you get to know it and use the lens character to suit. A zoom has a lot of different personalities, making it much harder to predict and simply stops me from thinking that way. Generally the only predictable Bokeh behaviour zoom lenses have are negative and equally, most primes show strong Bokeh characteristics (not always, but mine do).

My 9, 15, 17, 25, 45, and 75mm’s are known quantities and are used to highlight their strengths. The crop of excellent zooms I have unfortunately do not work like that. They take great images, but they make me take them differently and in some cases actively avoid some backgrounds where possible.

Finally, their form factor generally aids in camera handling and general movements. This is not as clean-cut as above as some of my zooms are quite small, but there is no doubt, when comparing my best/biggest/heaviest zooms with my primes, there is a mile of difference. My largest fast prime, not counting my 300mm is the same size as my smallest pro zooms.

The reality is, I am never far from commiting to a primes only dynamic. The fact I already own some great zooms is the only hurdle. The convenience of zooms cannot be forgotten, especially for fast moving situations, but primes only can get the job done even gaining some of the above benefits, you just need more than one camera.

What would I use as my ultimate primes kit?

• 9mm Leica the little ripper that only just came into my life. This fixes the wide end.

• 15mm Leica the slightly technically better of the two semi-wides, but a more logical focal length.

• 25mm Oly the nifty fifty that is closer to a 45mm, my ideal “one lens” focal length.

• 45mm Oly my favourite regular portrait lens, but I would likely switch to the 42.5 f1.7 Pana for better close focus.

• 75mm Oly the ultimate long portrait and indoor sports lens.

• 200mm Leica with matched teleconverter. This is effectively my 300 f4 with another option.

Lacking the 200mm, I guess I can make do with the 300 ;).

After writing this today, I shot a pair of basketball matches with my 75 and 17mm f1.8’s with great results. the school gym I shot in is quite dark needing f1.8-f2 for 1/1500-2000th at ISO 6400 (slightly over exposed by a half stop for cleaner files).

Sharp, clean and well separated, this file could have been shot with my 40-150 f2.8, but at a 2 stop cost, so either a risk of some movement blur, some noise or a bit of both. No ON1 No Noise was applied, but would have made the image very high quality.

Embarrasment Of Riches (Cameras)

This is the bit where I do feel a little out of control.

Most of my lens choices were either needed in sme (justifiable?) way or were effectively costless due to kit bargains or trades with friends etc. Cameras are the working mechanisms of photography, so it is realistic to say your kits life span is measured in working camera lives, but still… .

(4 but really 1) EM5 Mk1. The cameras that started it all. I only have one reliable one left, three with various issues, but working in some way and if I could I would grab a new one, but alas, there are none. The sensor in the original OM-D is special especially in high ISO shooting. The review button was always oddly placed, they have no tracking focus (but are still fast in first grabs) and 3 of my 4 had a little crack in the rear screen housing that compromised their weather proofing, but otherwise, I love these little guys. They are all tired, they have earned a rest. I only the other day realised that almost all my Japan images were taken with these and processed in Lightroom. End of an era.

The two at the back are only good for home projects and require some well earned patience, the one in the middle, my first and a sentimental favourite is usually ok except the occassional “no-go” day and the front one, a later special edition, ironically sporting some tape over a broken lug hole, is the best mechanically.

(2) EM10 Mk2. These are my “shutter savers”, used for low octane school jobs, but also good travel cameras. The sensor is an evolution of the EM5’s but the images are a little different. I have found they shine with flash images at events and the silver one is my lucky camera for those times. Even though these feel light weight, a cheap ebay Arca-Swiss grip plate has added some serious heft to one and the original grip rounds out the other. The silver one also seems to really like the Leica 15mm, so I use this combo as often as I can. The black one has a slightly dicky card release spring, so I feed out by cable and they are both past worn in, so we will see.

(1) EPM2-mini. The little red Pen that shares the same sensor as the EM5 mk1’s has taken some of my favourite images and tends to go unnoticed as a street camera, likely due to its amateurish good looks. Matched to the 17 or even 14-42 kit, it is the shoot-from-the-hip option. This may be the last original sensor body I will have soon, so special. Really want to take it back to Japan for one last go.

The second generation. The two EM10’s looking very different due to their grip additions are lightly used and take nice images. The silver one has become a favourite, probably replacing the silver EM5 and constantly seems to be the hero camera of tough gigs (first ball, low light etc). The Pen F is my most prized, something special for me camera. “Little red” is my hip weight street specialist, particulalry well matched to the 17mm.

(1) Pen F. My personal camera and a modern classic. With a lean towards contemplative documentary style shooting, studio portraits and landscapes, it has its quirks, but these tend to force purer work flows, so all good. Wish it was weatherproof, but the bulk of the lenses I like to use it with aren’t either (75, 45, 17).

(2) EM1 Mk2’s were my workhorse cameras up to now. They did the lions share of work for the school, daily editiorial for the paper and some travel. The oldest one looks a bit rough, but that is clumsy tape used to hold the handle rubber down which started to lift a little and I got carried away. It is actually quite comfortable. With the lastest firmware the AF is close to as good as any EM1’s and I have found the gripped one is a very good pairing with my 40-150 f2.8. I like this also because the grip allows the strap to run from right top to right underneath. One card door is sticky some times and they have done a decent amount of work. The main issue I have with them is the lack of the little “nubbin” control.

The engine room. My day to day work-horse stills kit and video specialists (one of the G9’s is usually video rigged). The front EM1 looks a little batterred, but that is my clumsy fix for a slightly lifted rubber panel. The neaerest two are my day kit, the other two reserved for specialist jobs.

(2) G9. The Panasonic G9’s are in my opinion the best value M43 cameras on the market. Still in the top two Panasonics for stills and a competitive video option, they are very attractive no matter how you look at them. AF performance for sports is far better with a Panasonic lens on, workable but odd with Olympus, so I use an Oly for long lenses and the Panas with standard-shorter because they are very responsive in close. I trust the face detect AF and static stabiliser performance for video more than even the EM1x’s and they sit between the EM1x and the EM1.2’s for ISO and image performance. The sensor or processor are different to the Oly’s providing brighter and more delicate images, that can seem a little thinner, and the two brands respond differently to each others lenses. I often mix Pana and Oly gear for effect. The 12-40 is especially good for video, taming the sensors lighter look and adding proper MF.

(2) EM1x, this super camera is the top of the pile offering for stills capture, also very good 4k video and is the ultimate for handling, durability, AF and stabilising. My original EM1x is at the moment my primary sports camera usually mounted with the 300 (outdoor) or 75 (indoor), but I may soon shift the new/second hand one into day to day work and may well just use the EM1x’s for work. They are supremely customisable (except for video), even down to the AF configurations and the uncluttered layout which really helps with operation. The EM1x also handles electronic shutter issues (banding etc) better than the other cameras and the poor pre-amps for sound are improved over the EM1 mk2’s. They are big, but not overly heavy and the benefit of the extra real estate is genuine.

An imposing sight. These two are my sports specialist.

Too much? I guess so, but I am the sort of person who likes to be prepared now, not chase replacement gear as needed. My work horse kit is duplicated and interchangeable as well as offerring a dual video or dual stills combination.

The personal cameras are either surplus or kept as task specific units. The Pen F is a delight, but not practical, the EM10’s are ideal for static sork or travel and the Pen mini is likely to be my last of the early generation sensors.

The two EM1x’s are there for a reason. Built in grips and extra durability are not always necessary, but when they are, the best cameras are at hand.

Being A Little Stubborn, But With Good Reason.

I use Macs, Capture 1 and M43 and I choose these aware of the benfits and pitfalls of each.

Work has supplied me a powerful HP Z laptop, Lightroom and a full frame Nikon DSLR kit.

The laptops compared are interesting. The HP costs at least twice as much, is heavier and larger than my base model M1 chip Mac Air, but the Mac looses little by comparison. I bought a second one the other day as a backup for work, but both still come in under the cost of the HP. I looked at more powerful ones, but unless you go up a few cogs, there is little to gain and the M2 chip actually does some things slower! These HP’s are also showing a weakness in their USB-A ports, most suffering from some “twitchiness” after light use.

M43 for me is a fully evolved space. I am afraid of nothing! Sporting way too many options, I realise just how powerful the system is as I can often tackle a tough subject several ways. Even my most basic kit* can produce images that satisfy “fine art” me, not just “get it done” me. Going backwards into old tech full frame DSLR’s, with their monstrous FF lenses to get (at the moment) only about the same quality, does not appeal in any way.

Enough quality to crop aggressively without detriment. This is effectively a 300mm field of view from a lens the size of a full frame kit 70-200 short prime or cheap superzoom.

The original was fine at roughly FF 80mm equiv, but the ability to shoot wider and sort it later is a bonus.

Roughly a 400mm equivalent crop. Want to know the time? I can read most of the watch faces in the image.

Capture 1 vs Lightroom is for me a no brainer. Even with all the nice bells and whistles the latest version of Lightroom has, the Adobe base file processing is a step behind and looks to be quite heavy handed in application (user aside). I work with two photographers who are constantly fighting the noise vs sharpness game even with full frame files, but are tending to use the new subject and background select options regularly. Even files processed in C1, then run through LR with no processing (for our internal upload process) seem to take on some nasty artefacts and grittiness.

I cannot remember when that balance was a real concern for me with C1. I have literally never used the Noise Reduction slider in C1, using ON1 deliberately, but rarely. The programme even removed some of my concerns regarding the slightly softer files from my EM1 mk2’s, which it turns out was more of an Adobe processing issue and gave me a better understanding of colour accuracy, removing some of the Olympus warm/magenta bias from earlier models. I now treat my G9, EM1.2 and EM1x and older camera files equally for quality, but I do pay attention to their differing colour and the way some mesh with different lenses.

If I go into a messy space like a badly under exposed ISO 6400 file or just want the very tightest processing for a stressed file, I may drop over to ON1 No Noise, but otherwise I tend to leave both sharpening and noise reduction to the basic import settings and deal with my usual considerations, like my seeming inability to shoot a straight horizon.

My belief is the petty arguments between format sizes will be largely over taken by processing. The real visual difference between M43 or even 1” sensor images in almost all circumstances compared to full frame or even bigger formats has proven to be, time and again, not as relevant as some would think**. Processing is making sensor size and pixel count even less relevant. On one hand the “my phone is plenty” crowd are at odds with the “you need a full frame to be pro” mob, with M43 sitting somewhere in the upper middle. The reality is, even the 1” sensor is enough for most uses.

If the image is in focus, it rarely gets dumped for other reasons and even if it is a little out, some localised brushing-in of sharpening and clarity can often fix it. Lightroom and No Noise could work, but I would be using ON1 a lot more. In this case, I would likely switch to importing through DXO to Lightroom.

Ironically the thing that has empowered me to be in this place has been the technical quality of my images, not my disguising of compromises.

Need more realistically?

More is there. 600mm FF equiv hand held cropped to 400%.

*EM10 mk2 or EM5 Mk1 with the 12-60 Pana and 40-150 Oly kit lenses, which are the core of my travel kit.

**The now defunct Luminous Landscape site did several excellent de-bunking articles, one comparing a series of shots taken on a tripod mounted Hasselblad MF to a hand held Canon G9 compact (used for record keeping images). The photographer found it hard to split them so printed them out at decent sizes for his friends to look at and found they could not pick the difference. Another test had an 8, 20 and 50 mp comparison of Canon FF cameras. These tests always found that there was a measurable difference, but not a practical-visual one. Even visual tests of A2 prints at different print resolutions (72, 180, 240 and 300 dpi) have shown that 90% of people or more, even people in the industry, cannot see a difference unless they are told to expect one and even then they often guess wrong.

I Have A Problem

So, I have a problem.

It has been zero (“0”) days since I last bought a camera bag. No token or badge for me!

The Mindshift/Think Tank Photocross 13 has been on my radar for a while. I have the Think Tank Turnstyle 10 and it has been great, but it is just too small sometimes. The Lowepro Pro Tactic 350 (first model) is my least liked, but quite often used bag, so looking at it logically (ahem), it only felt right, necessary even to get the lovechild of the TT design and the PT’s size.

The need, yes lets get to the need, because there is one (seriously), for a bag that can be used at sporting events capable of carrying the 40-150 f2.8, 300 f4, flash and a backup gripped camera, that can be worn and worked from, even when I am running.

A shoulder bag is a no-go here, just too impractical and the LP back pack is similalrly annoying as I have to take it off to get at it, contary to the promise of the design. The LP is also regularly frustrating, often being a hair too small for most of the rigs I would like to put in it. It even struggles with a M43 gripped body standing up!

The P-Cross hopefully, and I have done enough research here to be sure, should be able to take the 40-150 f2.8 and/or the 300 f4 standing up in the bag, or even one of these mounted on a camera. I have photographic evidence of it taking the 70-200 and 100-400 Canon slr lenses.

The 70-200 in that config is about the same as the 300 f4 or 40-150 f2.8 with hood on. Looks like there is room to spare.

A small advantage of this bag also in getting into good habits with this type of sling bag. I will use the TT for travel, but fear I may forget to zip it before re-slinging, so a little in the field habit forming is needed. Occasional bags (habits) can get you into trouble, regularly used ones do not.

There is a possibility if this works as envisaged, I will end up using this as my every day work bag.

Ed. this bag has proven to be very hard to track down, so I am going to give it a miss. It is the right choice, but comes at a time when I really need to question any purchase in light of my opaque future plans. In reality I have several bags that can take the afore mentioned gear, I just wanted the most comfortable option.

Embarassment Of Riches (Prime Lenses)

Followng on from my zooms post, things get equally hedonistic in primes land.

I could (should?) probably work with primes only, missing only the Panasonic 200 f2.8 to fill the main hole in my game, but lets not get too carried away. My best working method seems to be zoom tele lenses and prime shorter ones.

9mm Leica. A recent purchase to reduce weight in my bag, this little lens is a gem. It handles everything I throw at it, never looks overly wide in use, is useable wide open, has gorgeous Bokeh and is nearly flare free (great for shooting into ceiling lights at sports games). It often feels like I am using my 15 or 17mm’s until I realise it is covering so much more. My preferred day kit is the 9mm with a standrd zoom or a pair of primes and my 40-150, so the 8-18 has been bought home for landscapes and school work. It is so light, it will also be added to my travel kit. Nothing to complain about here.

Did I mention it is also my best macro lens?!

15mm Leica. This was bought partly because I always wanted one and partly to replace the 17mm for work. I felt the slightly wider lens would be better and wanted the 17mm for my home kit. The 17mm has gone back to work, not because there is anything wrong with this lens optically, but mechanically it is annoying. On a G9 (my wide angle work camera) the aperture ring is too light and easily turned and the hood comes of very easily, but equally frustrating, the MF switch is very tight. On an Olympus camera the aperture ring is ignored and the Pen F, a camera I use in gentler situations, is far less likely to be handled quickly or lenses changed often, so the hood thing is fixed. As for AF/MF, I use the Pen F in Manual Focus usually, so the tight switch is actually handy. Only issues are mechanical and not insurmountable.

That Leica magic at work again.

17mm f1.8. The lens I literally had to buy, being the only practical option in the early days of M43, but it is now a cemented favourite. I use it for work again, loving the generous and forgiving rendering and solid behaviour. The reality is this lens is much misunderstood. I is accused of crummy Bokeh, but in reality it is designed to render long transition blurring, i.e. forgiving transitions and the other complaint is flat colour, but again, it seems to be designed to control hard light, both desirable street shooting features. There is a little flare, but little else to worry about.

Shot wide open and focussed on the mouth, this stable (get it?) little lens gave me long transition Bokeh and generally good behaviour. Few of my lenses would have been able to deliver such a seamless rendering.

25 f1.8 Olympus is my “nifty fifty” that actually isn’t. It really renders about the same as a full frame 45mm, but that is fine, because I actually prefer slightly wider than 50. This thing is the prime equavalent to the 12-40 f2.8, by which I mean it is razor sharp, but it is smooth, not brittle-sharp. There is a lushness and depth to its rendering and unlike the 17mm, my specialist street lens, it is a true portrait lens with smooth and modern Bokeh. Not a lens I warmed to easily, it has become one of my clutch lenses.

This is also my second best macro prime.

30mm f1.4 Sigma Art. A lens that offers something different, the super sharp Sigma is quirky, fun and powerful, but not super dependable. AF performance varies, flare can be problematic as can CA and colour is a mixed bag on some sensors. I get excited about it, especially for black and white, but also a little nervous, so I have stopped using it for work. A mixed bag specialist.

A good solid choice for studio work.

When it behaves, this is a very delicate tool…

….and very sharp.

45mm f1.8 a lens I have two of and once even had three. These were sometimes free in kits in the early days of M43 as was the excellent 14mm Panasonic in theirs, all to promote the benefits of the burgeoning system. Apparently sharing the same optics as the 25mm, I do not equate them as being the same. The 45 has a grittier and more neutral feel to me. It also lacks the same close focus power, but regardless, it is as reliable a performer as the 17 or 25mm lenses. This is always a part of my day, travel and sport kits. Only close focus disappoints and not by much. The Panasonic 42.5 is better there, but no great matter.

Never disappoints and it’s tiny form often goes unnoticed.

A consumate portraitists partner.

75mm f1.8. There is no doubt that this is one of my top two or three lenses. Great Bokeh, wide open sharpness and AF and all in a small, but solidly made package. I could drop a thousand images in now and all would be perfect in their own way, proving that this lens is adept at sports, portraiture, technical limit stretching and flying the flag for the design benefits of M43. To me it’s main distinction is it’s ability to be both razor sharp and lush-smooth, which bucks the trend with Oly lenses that tend to be either high in mico contrast and sharpness at the cost of some nervousness in their Bokeh or smoother but less micro detailed. Not this one. Is it perfect? Nearly, it has some detectable, easily removed CA wide open and even with it’s sublime build quality, it lacks weather sealing, a bit like the Pen F and not very Olympus-like. The effect of that is it has a habit of fogging up in winter, and it can sometimes render physically flattened looking files.

One day, I will have to print this just to see how big it can go. Not bad for a hand held snap near wide open.

Capable of producing this……

….from this.

300 f4. This lens was purchased on a whim. I had the money and my wish list lens was the new Olympus 100-400, but I decided to try the prime at the same time and even just tooling around in the shop and testing a firmware 1.0 copy, I could see daylight between them. I keep trying to explain to the other togs at the paper how nice it is to walk around a field of play and grab genuinely sublime 600mm equivalent images with blindingly fast AF and ridiculous sharpness, all without breaking my back, but they will just have to lug their monster 400’s around and take my word for it. It does have one weakness, occasionally nervous Bokeh with small “ringlet” highlights similar to, but milder than, the ones a mirror lens would produce. They are not image destroying but noticeable, so I try to avoid busy backgrounds with lots of little specular highlights.

That true super tele look. I have a few lenses that push the resolution limits of my viewing screen regulalrly. Other than ringlets, which only happen in certain circumstances, Bokeh is generally ok.

Not many lenses on this earth that can give you this…..

…..and this, from the same place (not kidding). I was seeking shade and got this snap while waiting for the riders to arrive.

Even useful for candid portraits, if you can back off far enough.

From my lenses I generally split my lens kits into the following.

Day kit; 9 and 17, 45 or 12-40, 40-150 f4 or 75.

Indoor Sport; 9, 12-40 or 25 and 45, 40-150 f2.8 or 75.

Outdoor Sport; 8-18, 40-150 (any), 300 or 75-300.

Travel; 9, 15, 45, 12-60 kit, 40-150 kit.

School/Home; 30, 12-60 Leica, 75-300.

Video; 12-40, 25 old, 25 new, 45, 75.

Fine Art mono; 15, 30, 75.

That’s lenses covered, now to cameras.

Embarrasment Of Riches (Zoom Lenses)

I have an embarassment of riches now, with several backups to my most used lenses and occasionally a backup for those.

8-18 Leica. Personally I feel no great need for a lens wider than 12 (24mm), but when working in this business your need has to be very specific to be able to honestly say you do not need either a very wide or very long lens occasionally. This has proven to be a brilliant lens to cover this range and was useful from day one. I am not a super wide convert, but this lens certainly comes through. It’s edges can get a little iffy at extreme settings, but nothing to stress over and it seems more obvious in video than stills (I owned the Canon 17-40L and got by, anything after that is a win).

Utter………madness.

Fine art grade snap shot.

I made no friends shooting real estate hand held with this lens. Apparently I needed to make it look more difficult…..

12-40 f2.8 the standard lens that needs a service. Ideal as a work horse video lens, but recently put back into my day bag and with use the “lumpy” sand gritted zoom seems to be easing. I love the images this lens creates, as it leans a little more towards a smooth-lush look. Only the slightly iffy zoom bothers me and the mk 1 version of this lens seems to occasionally have a few mechanical issues.

The three main advantages of this lens for work over the newer 12-60 Leica are (1) It owes me nothing (2) it zooms the same way as the 40-150’s, which for reactive sports is golden and (3) it has the constant aperture and manual focus clutch for video.

12-60 Leica bought to replace the above assuming it’s assumed pending mechanical failure, adding better AF performance on a G9 and a wider range. Every bit as good as the 12-40, though different, this lens is now my personal or “other” jobs standard. There is a little something extra to the Leica lenses. Hard to put my finger on, but something. I will never regret buying this lens even if the one above and the one below probably make it a luxury.

“Glowacious” as Brett Western would say.

It does shoot more than trees, but these really highlight it’s glow.

12-60 kit was to be the backup for the 12-40. It has been shunted aside by the Leica, but is still handy to have around. Like the 40-150 kit below, this is a stellar performer regardless of the price, that will likely be reserved for travel only. In all honesty, this would have been enough to backup the 12-40 Oly, but was bought after the Leica in a G9 kit for effectively nothing. Like many good modern kit lenses, the only thing to complain about are “on the label”, which are lens speed and build.

A very reliable image maker. Colour is less brilliant than the Leica, but still pro-grade.

40-150 f2.8 is the sports master. This lens is the most capable in lower light and takes the teleconverter without consideration. Without doubt one of my confidence boosting lenses, but also one of the biggest. I sold this to a friend for a year and am soooo glad he sold it back to me reasonably. Only reservation and this goes for many of the super sharp, high micro contrast Oly lenses generally, is slightly nervous Bokeh with busy backgrounds.

The reach and speed to handle basketball at both ends with one lens. Bokeh on this one is lovely unless the out of focus elements are complicated or fine, then they can look a little messy.

40-150 f4 has quicky become my work-horse tele, replacing the much bigger and heavier f2.8 model for most jobs unless low light is a genuine issue and even then, there is not much in it. I have seen no visible or mechanical difference between the two, except maybe Bokeh, where the slightly less powerful f4 lens seems to be smoother.

Just really sharp. The background trees with the f2.8 would likely be slightly softer, but a little more “nervous ringlet” looking. Even the M43 shallow depth of field sacrifice is tempered by the “snappiness” of the rendering.

Every little detail is there.

40-150 kit has got to be the best bang for the buck lens in the range. Seriously sharp and responsive, this lens is a no-brainer when travelling or for personal stuff, but I could also seriously use it for pro work (with a couple more for backup at $100 each :)).

Nuff said….

75-300 has gone from being my most used tele to hardly ever used lately, but Cricket season has given it new life. It provides the handy ff 500mm focal length and is very sharp at this length also, especially if stopped down to f8. I often cannot pick it from my other teles except that I appreciate it’s gentle handling of strong light and pleasant Bokeh. Cricket has less stressful AF and lighting needs, so this light-heavy weight is ideal. It is a little underwhelming to look at so I take the bigger lenses also, then pack them away confident I will get the shot. The rendering is most like the 12-40 lens, smooth and sharp. Slooow maximum aperture (something like an f13 at 600mm full frame equiv) but that strangely never holds me back and slightly plasticky build, but still seriously better than the 40-150 kit. This and the 12-60 kit provide a nearly unbroken 24-600mm range.

Sometimes 600mm is too tight and 400mm unnecessarily looses quality, so 500 is the best. Nobody ever noticed these files mixed in with the 300 f4’s! It is also better at handling high contrast than my Pro lenses which tend to run a little “hot” here and the Bokeh (such as it is) is very smooth.

Another ideal situation for this lens. How could anyone complain about such a nice image?

The lens I wish I could add here is the excellent 12-100, but I will put selling that down to a bad idea on a bad day and try to move on.

Next primes.