The Draft Is Up!

Hunting down some older glass.

Not obsessed, because then I would get sad about the 300+ lenses I have owned over the years.

So far;

An old Helios 58 f2 44-2 I found on a gifted Praktika in my junk box. It has oil on the blades, but works. This has an M43 mount making it a near useless 120mm equiv, but I may get an L-Mount. Having said that, it is one of the few that breaks the 50mm habit.

A Minolta 45 f2 that appeared in the same box, no camera, no idea what its story is. It looks to be a bit of a favourite for video, so a lucky find. L-mount coming.

A minty late model Pentax PK SMC 50 f1.4, which is newer than the more favoured ones, but very nice. This came from my father-in-laws left overs box last night (never hurts to ask). I think I am leaning away from full blown “retro” lenses, but I am still open to lenses with some character so I have high hopes for this one. L-Mount coming, M43 mount at hand.

A TTArtisan 35 f1.4 on the way (new for $100au). This is L-Mount 50mm equivalent in APS-C only. New-old lenses look fun. If I was buying this for stills, I would likely be sweating on build consistency, but for video, I could hardly care less. It will be what it is.

A lovely colour palette and very well behaved stopped down, the 25 F lens is a go-to. The 43mm filter thread means adapter rings are needed, but when sourced, it is all good.

My F series half frame Olympus 25mm f2.8, which is a favourite and perfect for the M43 cameras. This was saved from a throw out box at the camera shop I worked at and lucky I was to see it. Wide open it has a sharp but hazy look (almost like Cine-D profile), but one stop down it tidies up well. Old school colours and contrast and unique Bokeh with some easily found out of control flare mean it is probably closest to the Helios in performance.

The very cool Bokeh the 25mm displays, and the amazing sharpness and colour for a 50+ year old lens. The background is a black rubber mat with large white flecks.

Some funky flare and CA wide open. It behaves quite predictably, pretty much giving retro lovers all the goods wide open, then cleaning up well stopped down. Interesting little flare “cross” lower right.

Lenses I wish I still had (sob);

Any of my massive FD kit including several “L” zooms, SSC primes (pre-L pro glass) with a call out to the 50 and 100mm Macros, 20mm f2.8, 135 f2, 200 f2.8, 24 f2.8 SSC, 35 f2. I ran FD Canon for over 20 years often grabbing older SSC versions when I could (the 24 f2.8 SSC was da bomb!), owning at one point or other most of their range, even an ancient 135 Flouride.

Any of my extensive OM kit, the 90 and 50 f2 Macros, 21 and 28 f2, 35-70 f3.5 and 180 f2.8 in particular. I only had Olympus for a relatively short time, shedding it when I went into EOS mainly because the OM4ti cameras I had were getting twitchy, but it spoilt me for other brands, hence my happy adoption of M43.

Some favourites from my similarly huge EF range, the 135 f2L (perfect), 28 f1.8, 200 f2.8L (characterful), 70-200 f4L (non-I.S. and both I owned were top performers), any of the macro’s especially the first model 100mm (Bokeh king*), many primes (L or not) like the 85 f1.8, 400 f5.6L and 35 f1.4L mk1, 24 Tilt/shift L, Voightlander 40 f2, 17-40 f4L etc. My revolving door of EOS gear often involving multiple purchases of the same lens was expensive and extensive.

My Bronica 75mm, which was special.

Some Pentax 67 glass, the 90mm in particular.

The odd Nikon lens that passed on through, as well as some Pentax, Minolta and several screw mounts including another mint Helios on a similarly near mint Zenit XP.

And finally, the very, very sweet Contax glass I bought as a set from a friend with the 85 f2.8 and 50 f1.4 as standouts. The 85 in particular made a very good 170mm on M43 and was suitably tiny. It was as sharp as my 75mm Oly which means it was top 5 all time for me and the mount adapter was a perfect fit. At the time there were no MF peaking M43 cameras, so I found it hard to use well, but of all the lenses I have sold, it is the most missed.

*

No time to lament, because I will be aiming for consistently good quality primarily (Lumix S series), leaving the retro look to the young re-discoverers. I have enough to have fun with and may yet find some secret sauce.

The 20-60 is decent (soft edges at the wide end are dissapointing), but I have forgotten how limiting a slow zoom is, even with a dual ISO full frame sensor, so the faster glass will be employed most of the time. The 50mm is pending and the 35 f1.8 is likely or possibly the 24 (also used as a 35 in APS-C), but not much else as the zoom handles wide well enough for video, I am spoilt for M43 choice and use wides sparingly.

*This lens and the EF 35 f2 were actually called out specifically in the first Bokeh article printed in English (Photo Techniques May/June 1997).

Old, Good Glass.

The Pentax 50mm f1.4 is good glass.

It has a genuinely beautiful quality wide open. Sharp on the focus point (hair in front of the eyes), but dreamy all around.

If I punch up the contrast it responds, but I really like the retro-soft-smooth contrast. Stopped down it hardens up nicely.

Something special.

With more contrast.

This acts as a 100mm on M43, but when my L mount adapter comes, I expect this, the Minolta 45, possibly the Helios 58mm, the TTArtisan 35 f1.4 (as an APS-C 50mm) and the Lumix 50mm to offer a range of tools, most being twin focal lengths on full frame or APS-C (S35). The adapted lenses can also be used as 2x crops in M43 format.

Lets Try A Little Harder Folks.

Photography is tough to get your head around technically.

Add in video and it gets even tougher, but it does not help when the already contradictory terminology is confusingly or inaccurately described.

For example.

Apertures are wider (which means small numbers), not smaller, because smaller means a smaller aperture hole (which has a bigger number) and a resulting deeper depth of field rendering*. I have actually had to sit through a lengthy vlog post by a well liked and quite knowledgeable reviewer who constantly said a wide aperture lens had “more of a depth of field” (!?) when he actually meant it could achieve “shallower” depth of field (i.e. less), just to get to a small point of interest.

Occassionally there is an on screen correction, probably after the comments section pulls them up, but just as often, they do it all again in a later video.

Apart from the casual, on-trend use of English, the reviewer was just plain wrong, further confusing the already confusing. Even if he had said depth of field “effect”, he would have made some sense (assuming he meant more Bokeh or shallower), but the quantitive description was at odds with a qualitative get-out-of-jail.

It is hard.

Smaller numbers = wider apertures = less depth of field = more light.

Conversely bigger numbers = smaller apertures = deeper depth of field = less light.

This all makes little sense on the surface, but never the less is correct and unfortuantely Shutter speeds, ISO’s and other elements of the craft get similar treatment. Add all this to the difference in formats and the baked in pre-conceptions that come with them, which also have a couple of hard rules often ignored** and it all just gets brain melting, so it is even more important to be consistent.

This often seems to be more of a video thing, probably because the bulk of the new guard in this field are younger and their photographic grounding is less solid. Some of my favourite vloggers are guilty of this so I am not on a hate crusade, just hoping for a little more professionalism.

I am also accepting of the changing face of English, the largely AWOL “ly” in our current vernacular and the often redundant use of terms like “most unique” (it either is or it isn’t), but lets try to actually learn the right terms with the technical stuff, not just regurgitate the errors of those we follow.

Another bug-bear of mine is format bias, under qualification or even ignorance***. I remember reading the Lonely Planet guide to travel photography a few years ago, horrified to find the writer jumped between full frame and APS-C terms without any qualification. One sentence stated the standard lens was a full frame 24-70 L series (but big for travel I would have thought), the next sentence proposed the EF-S 10-22 as a wide and 55-250 as a long tele, ignoring the fact the latter two would not even fit on a full frame camera and they come from completely different stables of Canons range! It was like the writer cherry picked sentences from Canons Lenswork guide, but had little real idea.

It went on, interchanging formats, terminology and brands with little clarity, even dropping a picture of a medium format film camera in as a landscape option for fun. I wondered at the time how many people got confused, frustrated and even wasted money and time thanks to this tome of mis-information.

This also rears its ugly head when a presenter postulates that anything other than the format they use is useless, ignorant of the benefits or history of any others.

While we are at it;

It is Bo (as in Bone), ke (as in Kettle) not Bow-kerr. The “h” was added in the vain hope it would help with pronunciation. The source is Japanese, the Anglicisation dates back to a magazine article in the mid ‘90’s, so check if you need (not hard). Then send Apple a nasty email for their part in buggering it up.

Again, this one is a term for describing the quality of blurring and focus transition, not a measure of quantity. It applies to all images with any out of focus elements and their transition. More Bokeh is more Blur, but better Bokeh is subjective and everyone has a different take on it, so try not ot get too obsessed with it and be kind people. Nobody is wrong here unless they are, well…. wrong.

Rant over,

pretty photo,

moving on………. .

*I used to explain this one by “think of it as a unit of measurement. Bigger number equals deeper depth, like more inches or more fence posts, which is easier than trying to explain the idea of calibers.

**Such as the rule that the same focal length at the same distance to subject has the same DOF at the same aperture no matter the format, but the angle of view and magnification change.

***Like “full frame” is the standard and one true format, even though it was once a hard to sell compromise format based on necessity from its very beginning (don’t get me started). All formats are “full frame”, unless you accept that the term only applies to one, a bit like saying a V12 SUV is “full car” and all others are “cropped”. Try selling that to a Ferrari owner.

****. I just finished watching a lengthy video on the different focal lengths used by different cinematographers, with 19 of the greatest compared, their movies dissected and their thoughts translated. Even a helpful chart at the end. It only occurred to me half way through that it did not seem right. What they were saying and what I was seeing were two very different things. The wide angles talked about were wide, but not as wide as they should have looked. An entire movie like Alien ressurection shot on a full frame 14mm? Seemed fanciful and impractical, then it dawned on me.

At no time during the video or the written article it was embedded in, did the presenters bother to qualify the format parameters (although a shot of Spielberg draped over a super 35 camera might have given it away). They are, I now assume, talking about super 35mm focal lengths, or basically APS-C crop!

My assumption and probably the assumption made by most viewers in this full frame dominated world would have been full frame lenses on full frame hybrid cameras, because that is what most modern videographers are pushing as normal, especially those of us still learning (I was only reminded super 35 was/is the dominant cinema format when researching Anamorphic lenses and the S5).

The Cohen brothers using a 27mm makes more sense now. It is the s35 equivalent to a FF 40mm! Even Kubrick occassionally using a 9.8mm makes some sense (a FF 14mm).

S5 Quick Thoughts

I have a little (very little) time to look at the S5.

First up, I shot jpeg’s which was my bad, but did the job. This was immediately apparent when I went to process them with the Exposure slider dulling down the files. I have found in C1 the Brightness slider is way better for jpegs.

The jpegs processed well enough, handling some highlight and shadow recovery, which may be better than my M43 jpegs, but not the RAW’s.

It is not as nice in the hand as the G9 or even the EM1’s. It is smaller feeling than the G9, especially in the grip and the bulky kit zoom feels oversized on it. The cage coming (Smallrig) will address this and as a video camera, body only handling is irrelevant.

The general handling is different, mostly fine, just different. Some button changes, a few new and the odd missing button, dial or lever. As a video camera, I find it more than workable, even preferable, but we will see.

The lens looks good, although without checking RAW files It is hard to tell. I am not using it for stills, but if I do, the 20-60 is fine for most tasks and a fast prime or two will fill in the gaps.

Full frame depth of field os a bitch! Oh boy do I miss M43 DOF and how quickly did I forget my first 30 odd years of full frame shooting? Focussing on a flower head I often missed the fly I was aiming at, at f8! Everything seemed as sure footed as M43, but apparently no.

Close focus is interesting. The 60mm end of the lens is pretty ordinary. The 20mm end on the other hand is similar to the Leica 9mm allowing for macro-landscapes.

High ISO performance is predictably next level.

ISO 6400 was very quickly employed lacking a fast bit of glass.

The lens has some distortion and is not super sharp on the edges, wide open at the wide end (nor razor sharp even stopped down), but for video, which will be its sole use, it will be fine.

Basically equal to ISO 400 in M43.

I am satisfied the lens is well enough centred, but may keep looking while my 14 day return option is open.

Overall I am happy that the kit does exactly what I wanted, a dedicated pro-grade hybrid video cam, made to purpose, pnly surplus in the area I have coverred well now.

My initial thoughts are that, and this is not just a m43 fan boy talking, there is a lot less difference than most would expect, except in the two known areas, of very high ISO and video.

The files are very clean throughout the range and the cameras video pedigree is obvious. The thinking is very different to the G9. A dedicated video button, more video features and a bias towards video terminology.

While We Are At It, What About Anamorphic!

Looking into video I guess will always come with an awareness of Anamorphic lenses.

Very brief history. To make fight back against the availability of the TV, the movie industry started to shoot in wide screen on standard 35mm film stock, using horizontal “squeeze” lenses and then projected the footage with matched “de-squeeze” lenses. The result being very wide capture on skin 35mm film (Movies were shot across the film, not length-ways like stills cameras).

Most Anamorphic lenses cost a bomb, often coming in at 100k+ for a set, so they are only hired for films, but lately a few genuinely good options have become available at reasonable prices. Sirui, Laowa and others can be had for around $1000au, and decent modifiers like the Moment option are even cheaper.

They came with a distinctive look and a few unique elements;

Wide screen as in wider than 17:9 C4k.

You can get as wide as a 3:1 ratio even with longer lenses. This means width and reach with compression. A genuinely unique look, but something cropping can do, with a slight quality drop. If you shoot full height full frame then crop in, I guess you get super wide Super 35 .

This kind of thing.

Linear (and other) flare.

It can be used for effect or toned down, but either way, it is a thing. You can also use filters to get blue, gold or even rainbow flare lines. Even a bit of fishing line stretched across the lens will do. Any cheap/old lens, a damaged or grease smeared filter, can all flare and be used more judiciously.

Oval shaped highlights.

Bokeh, but not as you know it. Spherical lenses (normal lenses) generally create round or occasionally “cats eye” or other odd looking Bokeh balls, but Anamorphic lenses almost always create oval ones. This is the easiest way to pick a genuine Anamorphic lens. This and the streak thing above can be achieved with any lens using a bit of oval card and fishing line taped to it. There are even tutorials on line for this.

Distortions and focus draw.

The special something most aficionados are drawn to even more than the above, this is also a lens by lens thing.

As tempting as it is to use the de-squeeze feature on the S5, I think I would be happier to take short-cut pathways for occasional and less permanent application of these effects. The streaking is a love-hate thing, general flaring the same* and distortion and oval Bokeh balls are to me more a sign of an Anamorphic being used than an always desirable outcome.

I can see a raft of experimental lens and filter ideas being explored, but no massive outlay on true Anamorphic lenses.

*I get the current desire to re-explore old flaws for the character they add, but lets face it, they are flaws. Chasing the look is just that, a look, not a fix for bad content, gimmicky process or poor technique. Legacy glass can offer a level of organic rendering, but chasing the worst of the past is the latest in a long line of a passing fads.

Paths Collide

Sometimes my worlds collide.

Cosplay and LARPing are not my chosen expressive pathways, but I still recognise them under the same overall umbrella of pop culture that I subscribe to.

Being an old school table top and pen and paper role player, board and war gamer, I feel like a cultural grand father to these guys, who have taken the baton and run with it.

Scarlet Witch, levitating spell book and all.

Searching for some stories on a quiet Saturday, one of our journalists found two related, but exclusive events, both within minutes of the other.

M’aiq The Liar. Must have been hot in there.

Taspop Cosplay get together at the Gorge Basin and Southern Isles LARP event at the Trevallyn Reserve.

Southern Isles LARP group.

A great and welcoming cadre of passionate people.

Physics And Anatomy

We only get two of the JackJumpers games a year here, but have plenty to write about, so netting as many shots as possible is a priority. The team is also playing against teams our sibling papers cover, so images for all are a plus.

I am still amazed how physical these games are. Even the smaller guys are my size (just sub 6’ and medium build), but even the larger players can jump higher than you would expect, often going unnoticed at normal speed.

A feint and pass.

Not sure where the ball is, but effort expended none the less.

Ballet stars with supporting dancers?

The defender (Will Magnay) does this game in, game out.

Over and over.

Practical Bokeh

I often talk about “practical” depth of field.

To me, this means depth of field that allows you to (1) use DOF obviously and creatively as a tool and (2) retain story telling elements. Basically, not too much, nor too little.

Below are a set of images taken using the widest aperture of f1.8 on an Olympus 45mm at about 2-3 metres from the focus point. This is about f3.4 on a full frame lens in the same circumstances.

I find this lens has interesting Bokeh. It never fails to catch my eye for better or worse, but rarely lets me down. It needs to be said here, Bokeh is a qualitive term for the rendering of out of focus areas of an image, not just a quantitive one.

A snappy foreground with a soft, but not completely lost background.

The story was one of a team talking about the making of a new venture.

Team meaning more than one.

Connections.

Each image has a clear (and razor sharp) point of focus, but also a secondary element. This element needs to be part of the story, but also not a distraction to the main subject on first viewing.

Front and back supporting elements.

The image below is a single subject portrait, lens still wide open, but there are background context elements.

The large wall mural, also taken at f1.8, shows the detail retained by the increased distance.

Less DOF in all these cases would have lost these contextual elements to mush. I like silky smooth Bokeh as much as anyone and occassionally employ it as a useful tool, but it rarely offers more than a single dimension creatively.

A one trick pony, sometimes gorgeous, sometimes a shallow trick, but a one trick pony none the less.

What I am saying is, even if I had a larger sensor and/or wider aperture available, I would rarely use it. The 75mm f1.8 is my Bokeh king. A powerful tool that I use sparingly. The proof will be the 50mm f1.8 Lumix lens coming for the larger sensor S5.

Will I go Bokeh crazy or prove my point?

Why Stick With M43?

I have betrayed my beliefs! I pick up my full frame S5 at the end of the week.

Well, betray is an exaggeration, modify for a specific need maybe.

My commitment to M43 is still very real. I am shooting another JackJumpers game tomorrow night, a national grade basketball game, with no room for error. No fear, no nerves, just anticipation.

Here are the reasons I am sticking with the system.

The math.

No matter how you stack it up, full frame answers always come with a catch. Same reach equals many times the size/weight/price, some lenses are simply not available and many are impractical. No full frame shooter can comfortably carry a full range of lenses covering 16-600 with apertures of f4 or faster in a shoulder bag, simple as that. The M43 trade off is theoretically more high ISO noise and a reduction of the shallow depth of field look, but tobe honest the reduction in performance in both these areas is over stated and M43 (for me) strikes the better balance.

If I had to choose between a occassional and very slight performance penalty or not being able to take the shot, there is no choice. Sometimes I am actually empowered, not hindered.

Examples;

75mm f1.8 is a 150mm f1.8. Not many takers and none are the size of a mini soda can or the price of a run of the mill 75mm.

An early EM5 Mk1 image, showing the quality the system offered in its earliest days. I have an A2 poster print of this and it exceeds the print media in quality.

9mm f1.7 is a 18mm f1.7. Super sharp, super small and light compared to monster full frame equivalents and a very rare wide angle macro.

The power of a f1.7 18mm equiv in a limited environment.

45mm f1.8 that is a 90mm f1.8, that is an over sized thimble. This lens is small enough to fit inside a standard full frame 50mm f1.8. Some M43 lenses are so small, I have taken to placing soft white, table leg foot protector pads to stop me dropping them on each other in my bag. I can also write the focal length on these which helps. Take lens “X” just in case? Why not.

Bokeh enough? Shot wide open, silently and from the hip. Sharp down to individual eye lashes.

300 f4, rated is as one of the best of its type, but one that acts like a full frame 600 f4! No competition and for someone like me not even a consideration. $10,000 plus lenses are specialist tools, cumbersome and too limited in application to be justified. My 300mm can go in my day bag. In my world a full frame 600mm f4 stays in the shop unbought.

Maximum power in a tiny package.

I could continue, but here is the thing. All M43 lenses are good and most replace much dearer/heavier/more expensive full frame equivalents. This means I can buy more, carry more, use them in sensitive locations and for the makers, lens design is easier (which was part of the point).

The end result is a very good 20mp (or more) image from a massive variety of lenses you can afford.

The Cameras.

Pro grade build, built in grip, dual battery and card, near perfect AF, 60 fps, class leading stabilised body with super sharp 20 odd mp sensor? D6, 1Dx etc, all expensive flagship cameras, but three to four times more expensive than the EM1x. Also most lack I.B.I.S, and all lack the build it loss-less 2x tele converter that is M43 unless they sport 40+ mp. High ISO performance? Back to the lenses equation above for a two stop advantage and A-grade ISO 6400+ is no issue with decent processing. There are higher MP cameras, but at huge cost and the pixel density starts to balance things out. Also, you need to ask your self when was the last time someone wanted a massive print off you that would be looked at too close (I have had bill boards printed from cropped M43 images).

ISO 6400 with C1 processing only. In the original file I can read the sponsors logo on the JackJumpers shirt second to back row, left hand side.

Dust cleaning performance, stabilisers, silent shutters etc. Lots of firsts, plenty that still hold true as competitive or class leading. The smaller sensor is easier to stabilise, clean and the silent shutter in the later models is becoming fully useable. My EM1x’s have 400k shutters, but I rarely use the mechanical shutter.

More math.

A depth of field advantage that means I get the very useable DOF of a 2.8 lens at 1.8 and two stops of extra flash strength. Often seen as a disadvantage I would postulate that the DOF of M43 is just about perfect in the professional world. You can shoot wide open without fear that the subject will be a narrow sliver of twitchy sharpness. Ironically, the AF is so accurate it could be workable with that narrow DOF, but does not have to. There is plenty of chance to use shallow depth as the rules still apply, just with longer lenses, but it is not dangerously, impractically shallow.

ISO 6400 wide open at f2.8 holds no fear.

Video.

With Panasonic in the mix, video was always a priority, but now even Olympus is getting it together, with all the above advantages. My kit is genuinely hybrid, mixing and matching as suits.

Two brands. Two brands working towards the same goals, sharing the same lens mount and hot shoe system. There is actually a third brand (Black Magic), but not for stills.

Processing. In an Adobe world M43 is a harder sell, but do yourself a favour and look elsewhere. Capture One, DXO, ON1 etc can all do a better job, and not just with M43. Once I moved the C1, a lot of my qualms disappeared.

So why add a full frame if I am happy?

The one area I cannot beat full frame, the S5 specifically is in super high (dual) ISO performance and dynamic range when shooting video, an area I do not have an equivalent to ON1 No Noise for, although the BMPCC4k and SH6 came close, but with their own issues.

The S5 delivers good enough results to make a difference without me having to go into the above “bad math” equivalents. Delivering fullframe benefits while staying M43 small (smaller than a G9) with very decent, light weight lenses. The 20-60 kit and 24 to 85mm f1.8 lenses are excellent, do the job and keep the whole thing sane. There was simply no better value option that addresses all of my needs. Ironically, one of the other benefits of the system is Super 35 or the crop sensor option for video.

It will not grow beyond this because it does not have to.

If the S5 did not deliver, I would have stuck to M43 offerings with their various considerations, like the GH5.2 (enough really, but not much more than I have), GH6 (price/storage), GH5s (price and stabiliser) or BMPCC4k (stabiliser/size/AF), which would likely have dealt with the problem well enough, but the S5 specifically addressed each with a better balanced and overall cheaper alternative.

This is not really a format thing, more of a specific camera for a soecific need, much like my existing kit of EM1x’s for sport, G9’s as hybrids and EM1.2’s as work horse, day cameras. If there was a genuine M43 alternative in this soecific case I would have gone for it.

Ting......Swoooooosh!

Huge sound for an otherwise quiet game. I would not like to be in the way of one of those drives.

Australian Junior Golf at the Riverside Golf Course, Launceston.

So, what do you do when you have one hour to cover the golf?

One of several with the “T” joining in.

You run around a lot!

Balance and power. Shot was a little cramped, but I made a bad call lens-wise. I could (should) have used the 75-300, which is ideal for this sort of game. Instead I hauled the 300 f4 (used above) and 40-150 f4 in tandem. Too fiddly, too much light gathering and far too much, unnecessary AF speed.

The brief was (1) get locals and (2) get the likely winners.

T-bird? A junior anyway, so all good.

I was also aware I had to look out for snakes, but the number of birds down there was eye opening.

The standard was high enough that the sand traps were generally avoided, so I had to grab my chances.

I always like a chance to shoot a new sport, but to be honest, I think a lifetime of Golf photography would have to come with a healthy dose of love for the game.

Trying for something new.

Nice way to spent part of a day though.

The Cinematographer As Street Photographer As Cinematographer

Learning about cinematography has armed me with a better vernacular to understand and explain my street photography.

Terms like “blocking”, Mise-en-scene and storyboarding have allowed me to see that both share much in common, so much, that I feel it is possible to hone one skill set with equal benefit to the other.

A frozen action conveys a single mood, but would the cinematographer agree with this representation?

Mise-en-scene is literaly “setting the scene”. Cinematographers do this on two levels. They first identify the place, time and potential atmosphere, then “dress it” for the period or feel of the production. From here they apply many technical elements like lens features, filtering, angle and camera movements, then they introduce the final elements, the players.

The street photographer does much the same, just working with what they get and attempting to “sum-up” the scene with a single capture.

Not a cinematic shape (open gate?), but the other “true” shape, the square. A square movie? Interesting thought.

Blocking is the placement of the players and their props to convey (1) their place in the story, (2) their importance in the scene and (3) the subsequent flow of said scene. This is done with light, physical placement, movement, focus and sound, using camera angle and other elements for stronger effects, but the core of it all is Mise-en-scene and blocking.

Central placement makes the main, stronger character obvious, but the scene holds other elements. In a street scene we have the luxury of exploration, but the cinematographer needs to make these elements attract the viewer in the right order and at the right time or they are lost, fleeting moments.

I have always had a lean towards the magnificent elegance of the wider scene complimented with more intimate, tighter shots of individuals, which in many ways sums up my street photography.

Street photographers can only identify the scene, be patient and snap at the right time. The scene is played out in front of their eyes and then in the heads of their viewers.

What happenned, who is doing what and why?

Reservoir Dogs, Osaka style.

Luck, efficiency and patience play equal parts, but street shooters do have the advantage of only needing a single frame to tell the story.

Possibly the end of a walk through scene, the blue witches-hat gives us a visual anchor that replaces the womans blue dress as the highlight colour using the 60-30-10% colour rule, (60% primary grey-white, 30% supporting beige and 10% contrast or highlight blue).

Street photography is like cinematography, but without the control. The idea is to convey an idea of a place and/or people, using only what is on offer, making that work as able.

If cinematigraphy is the controlled flow of a moving scene, street photography is the momentary arrest of the same. Both are powerful, but potentially have very different results. Street photography conveys the story through careful inclusion and omission, cinematography does not have that luxury. A stills shooter on a movie set could very well tell a contradictory story to the cinematographer with a few well chosen images.

Setting the scene for either requires an authenticity, one that comes naturally with street shooting, because the shooter has only recognised, not “set” the scene.

The cinematographer sets natural spaces based on a falsehood, that then have to look natural.

Light, movement and placement. This could easily be a scene in a movie, but as a street shot it has added authenticity.

Cinematography and street photography are therefore often identical except for the pre-amble.

The Cinematographer recognises the potential of a found location, then manufactures an environment.

The street photographer recognises the potential of the found space and times their capture.

Same result, different amount of exerted control.

One of my favourites with a fleeting glance of the three element rule. Cinematically, this one would transition well to any of the three subjects, but this specific moment would likely be lost.

For me, the golden rule of street photography is the “three element” rule. I like to include, when I can, three active elements in a frame. This is not always possible or even relevant, but if I can, I do.

A simple composition, lacking the three element rule.

Probably better a little squarer, but I cannot find the original file, this is better blocked for street with three elements and could be used cinematically to transfer our attention from one, to another, to another subject, following the inward and outward movement of specific players.

I guess the lot of the street photographer is as challenging as the cinematographer, just different.

The beauty of the two learned in tandem is the lessons from one do indeed help the other.

The street photographer side of me is always looking for that “cinematic” frame and I guess I always have been without knowing it (drawing on my memory bank of old photos and I now realise old movies).

My newly dicoverred cinematographer side is now looking to create effectively a moving street image.

Bit O' Mono

More from the concert the other night, this time with a little classic touch.

Our journo Duncan reflected in the glasses.

Cool tatt.

So Why A S5 Mk1 On The Third Of January?

I hope I am not the only one and that my choice makes sense to a few of you, but here is the thing. On the day before the highly anticipated Panasonic S5 Mk2 was launched, I bought a Mk1.

Here are my reasons, sound or not.

• Extended video dynamic range, which is an area that can always be improved. This is nlikely to change with the new model.

• Higher ISO performance, including for stills. Not a must and something I have always managed, but why not? Again, unlikely to change.

• Continuous recording, which is the thing that started this journey. Same.

• Battery life, to support that continuous recording. Etc.

• Inproved base video quality out of the gate, which means 10-bit, 4k/1080, 4:2:0/4:2:2 and easily achieved without needing extreme measures. Unknown, but this is enough.

• Value (third pricey thing I have bought for photography since November), with a lens it came in at $2000au, making it the best value hybrid full frame on the market, if it’s capabilities suit. Undoubtedly cheaper.

• Stabilising. It is class leading for a full frame. Unknown, but unlikely to be vastly improved.

• LOG profile. I use Natural or Standard for some stuff, Cine-D occasionally, but true LOG is a must ongoing. This is all I need. The S5 has full LOG, the GH5 and upgraded G9’s only the light version. Al. can go out to a device, but the S5 has a small HDMI connector, which may be upgraded as the majority do not like it.

• Some semblance of consistency with my current work flow, especially if I am mixing formats. Same.

Looking at it realistically, the Mk1 is lauded as nearly the perfect semi-pro or pro hybrid except for mixed feelings on the AF, so a day does not change that drastically. The Mk2 may be the perfect pro-am tool, but second best is fine and I doubt I will trust AF for my needs (not a vlogger).

What is missing?

The new phase detect AF, which would be nice, but to be honest, there are work arounds for the DFD system and other options.

AF was not a driving priority of the camera purchase. I have come to terms with my demons here with other similar cameras (G9) and other options (EM1’s). I am not a vlogger, do not use AF for creative work and the DFD focussing of the G9’s has proven to be fine for things I need it for. My next lens was very nearly a MF 7Artisans 35 T1.5, so really, AF is a sideline for me for video.

The reality is you need to learn to manually focus.

The bigger reality is this;

I may never buy another MFT camera or lens………… .

Loosing sight of what I have believed for a while now?

I am not dropping the system, in fact I am anticipating a reassuring period of FF/MFT comparisons, but I have plenty, too much maybe*. Full frame gives me a new upgrade path if it is relevant, but there is no rush.

No, eyes still on the ball.

I guess my next camera will be a S5 Mk2 (maybe next year), then maybe a longer lens to round out the kit, or maybe not. The 50mm f1.8 S is next, a Smallrig mini matt box lite also, then I will see what the year brings.

I can even see a time where the Mk1 and the kit 20-60 are used in my day kit, replacing a G9 just for the better low light performance, with the Oly and telephoto combination.

Still hard to argue with a handy sized, AF responsive, pro-grade 840mm.

Sound is sorted, so is camera/lens/filtering and work flow. I just need practice and clients to produce for.

*The luxury of a pro grade daily work kit, specialist sports kit, studio outfit and dedicated video kit with a little put aside for personal projects and backup.

Video Priorities

After lots of research, far too many videos and articles, I am starting to get a handle on this video thing.

So, after all that what is actually important?

Sensor size. Contrary to popular belief, sensor size is not the be-all of video. The generally assumed larger sensor advantage in low light is partly off-set by the depth of field advantage of smaller sensors, especially for manual focus (f1.8 acting like f2.8), but individual sensors and cameras are important by comparison.

The thing that bigger sensors do have an advantage with until tech catches up is dynamic range. This again can often be controlled or worked around and even the best cameras need some help in some light, but when things are not under your control, higher DR does help. Rolling shutter, colour, lens quality, stabilising and handling are also effected by sensor size one way or the other, so choose based on your needs, not other’s opinions or baked in pre-conceptions.

Resolution is also not the king of all considerations. 1080 is the current requirement for most clients in the regular real world. Shooting higher is fine, especially if the camera feature or your post processing vision needs it, like cropping in, shifting across the frame etc, but few people want more than 1080 for online or even TV use and up-scaling is a thing.

The trick is, it needs to be good 1080. I have a 2k TV and I can tell the difference between good quality productions and lower ones. The Rookie is one that I regulalry reference, becasue it looks super sharp and clear on my TV and is recorded in RAW 720! Theoretically it is not even enough to fill my screen, but it does and it looks great doing it. The best quality you can do on any format is going to be better than the next level up done at a stretch.

For example, I shoot the EM1x in 4k, simply because it is better base quality, pixel for pixel than it does with 1080 (don’t know why). I also make sure not to use that camera for some jobs. This not because 4k is fundamentally better than 1080, but because their 4k down scaled from an EM1x/Mk2 is just better than their so-so 1080. I then down scale it to 1080p on export. With Panasonic cameras, 1080 is fine and unlocks a huge array of features. Most cameras have a sweet spot, which is where you need them to perform, so buy the sweet spot, not the stretched outer limit.

Dynamic Range. This one is interesting. It is totally possible to use a low (10-12) DR range camera for serious work, especially if the footage is taken in a LOG or RAW format (see below), you just need to take a stand on what is worth keeping and what can be lost. Moody and dark themed projects can actually benefit from inky blacks and low contrast scenes will not produce horror stories. More DR however opens up lots of creative choices and allows you to shoot with fewer on-the-spot concerns.

The sort of high DR image I am aware of looming in the future.

Bit depth is important, but only to a point. 10-bit is the basic requirement these days. It is not that 8-bit cannot do the job, but more depth makes everything easier down the track and avoids little issues like banding in solidly coloured transitions like the sky. It is not like the difference between RAW or jpegs in stills photography (see colour codecs below for that), but it does help sometimes.

It is also a relatively small added footprint compared to other quality increases, especially for the return. Higher than 10-bit does not seem to be of much benefit to an intermediate grade shooter only cinematic work, so like resolution, 10-bit is the benchmark and some programmes cannot even handle more than 8-bit.

Colour depth. 4:2:0 seems to be enough here. 4:2:2 is better apparently for green screening and heavy grades, although modern software seems to be able to handle nearly anything, so 4:2:0 is a good bench mark. Drastically lower is an issue, especially if any grading is needed. In the last two 10-bit/4:2:0 seems to be a good balance.

End Format. MOV is better than MP4, but either will do and the difference can depend more on other factors. MP4 has more acceptance post processing, so if you are unsure of the end use, use it, but otherwise MOV is better.

Colour codecs are like the difference between RAW and jpegs in stills photography.

It goes something like this;

1. RAW. Great if you can get it, but also have the tools and need maximum grading quality. Apple ProRes and Black Magic B-Raw are often at loggerheads, so be sure what your processing stream, end use or user will need.

2. LOG. The blue ribbon for most pro-am users, true LOG is enough to make movies with. Every brand has their own, but if true LOG is available, it guarantees the best DR and allows serious grading and a measure of processing safety.

3. LOG-light. An intermediate step, likely soon to be a thing of the past. LOG-L offers the flattest profile for grading outside of true LOG, but lacks the smoothness and dynamic range of the real thing. Some LOG profiles are probably closer to this in reality, like OM-LOG 400.

4. Cine-D/HLG/Flat etc. Best in show for most recent generation cameras, these supply a semi-LOG flatness by fair means or foul. Never without their quirks, these were often the favourites of the last generation of camera users and were sometimes even seen as preferable options to light LOG profiles. For example, I like Olympus FLAT over their OM-400 LOG profile., because it behaves more predictably, even though it is not theoretically as powerful.

5. Standard colour profiles, often “flattened” in camera. The jpegs of the video world, these are fine if you get the rest right. In the pre-easily access to LOG era (just the other day) the biggest issues are baked in colour and limited dynamic range, but often the OOC results had good noise control and as with stills, they all end up jpegs in the end! Choosing or controlling light and contrast are important, but if you can get close to where you want to end up, these save a lot of hassle. Panasonic Natural (often at -5 sharpness, contrast and saturation) was the staple of most GH5 and earlier shooters, often sticking with it in preference to other options until true LOG became available.

The lure of true LOG processing and the safety it offers is too hard to resist these days. These are well supported by most processing software (DaVinci has a LUT* for VLOG to Rec 709). Down from that, I feel that just shooting OOC Standard or Natural profiles are plenty for quick drop work.

*

So, we have 1080, MOV (output), from input of 25 to 150 fps, 4k or 1080, 422 or 420, 10-bit (8-bit if necessary), LOG or as close as you can get resulting in at least a DR of 12 stops. It is surprising how many cameras offer this level of input/output. The “ancient” hybrid G9 does all but the highest frame rates in 4k, but does not have LOG. The OSMO pocket gets close with Cine-D and the S5 sits very comfortably in this space, unless long recording is needed where it drops to 8-bit (which I would use for this type of work anyway). Between all my cameras I have all my needs covered one way or the other and usually all at once.

Other factors.

Light matters. Good light fixes much of the above, bad light makes the simple impossible. If you go artificial lights, work out first what you actually need. A couple of decent and powerful lights are all that is needed rather than a clump of weaker ones. In a studio, a couple of 60W COB’s are fine, but outside a reflector or diffuser may be more useful as the sun will win that fight.

Filtering. ND filters are a must. If you intend to obey the base rule of cinematography (the 180 degree rule), then ND filters will give you control in an otherwise restricted space. Depending on the look you are after, some type of soft filtering will help reduce dynamic range, soften (bloom) highlights and add that currently in fashion Netflix vibe. Anything that helps remove the super sharp digital look will work.

Handling. Get this bit right for you. Tripod, cage, gimbal, shoulder rig. All useful tools, but not all needed for everyone especially not all at once. With IBIS, often the simplest path is the best. Everyone has an opinion here and few are wrong, just wrong for you maybe. The best way seems to look at rigs made for your camera and work style specifically and to be honest you will likely find one. Most of them are modular so little is ever wasted. I just cancelled a cage order for the S5, because I actually prefer a half cage and already have one in my Camvate universal. The handle on the camera is usually the most comfortable.

Think before you jump. Try to “virtually” step through your needs and working preferences before committing. I have toyed with follow focus rigs, but think they are needlessly complicated unless you have a shoulder rig. Shoulder rigs also appeal, but again, they come with catches. Screens are a help, unless they are not. The touch AF on the Oly and Pana cameras is such a useful tool, I find a bigger screen with out that facility just gets in the way, so I avoid them unless I am working statically. If you only need a mic on the camera, then you maybe need no accessories.

My method (just me, maybe not you), is to focus with the lens as normal or the touch screen, view with same, unless I have a need to share. For sound I use a Zoom interface with either a shotgun or other mics piped in or my Sennheiser Mke 400 straight. A basic cage helps here, until, again it does not and I need to mount the H5 on it’s own platform (hence the Zoom F1).

Top handles I am undecided on. If I am literally running-and-gunning with the rig, they are the best with soft hands, but otherwise I find they just get in the way. Best thing I did was get a cold shoe removable one.

Focus. Focussing is of course important for any camera, but video has differnt needs to stills. With stills a single shot needs perfect focus, then the next is aquired and so on. With video you need both more control of focus movements and the smoothness these are made with. Vloggers etc may have a need for AF, and at this level, AF is often a replacement for years of focus pulling practice. Manual focus is so much more important in video than stills, because the process is on-going. It is totally possible to use AF for Vlogging, interviews or even action where consistent acquisition of a target is all that is needed, but for film making or story telling, it is a constraint. I have had some success with touch AF and it is generally smooth and consistent, but again, it works at the speed it chooses, not necessarily what you need.

The simple answer though is manual focus. The simple answer unfortunately, is often not that simple. You need manual focus with linear focus, which is to say, you need the focus to be mechanical, predictable and smooth. Non-linear focus means you actually change the focus throw with the speed you turn the ring. Go fast and you over shoot, go slow and it takes forever. Linear focus travels the same distance regardless, which is one of the benefits of cinema specific or legacy lenses.

Lenses. Cinema lenses are not sharper or custodians of a special sauce for cinematic looks, they are however often easier to use for video. Linear manual focus, often with a ridged focus ring to accomodate a focus pulling device, “T” stops rather than ”F” stops and attention to things like focus breathing and size consistency, all help, but they are not needed to produce good video. Many companies are paying special attention to their lens designs with video in mind.

An example relevant to me is the Lumix S range, which helped me to decide on the S5. Four prime and a few zoom lenses all with matching filter threads, programmable linear focus throw and nearly identical handling make life easier for the videographer.

Battery life. Not much point in having unlimited recording if the battery will not last. An C-type power connection is ideal. It allows for portable power packs or even direct to wall charging.

Sound. This is the big one! Sound makes or breaks video. Nothing that sound adds will make your footage look better, but poor sound will ruin it. How far you go is up to you, but at least invest in a decent shotgun or LAV mic for interviews, maybe a sound processor or portable mixer if you need or even something that can plug into a sound mixer. I have taken a belt and bracers approach using some Zoom products and a variety of mics (brand and type), so I can handle anything from standard on the fly interviews to band recordings direct from their own sound mixer. Again like all the above, opinions are many, so read and listen until patterns emerge.

*A LUT or Look Up Table, is a preset for processing RAW or LOG formats. Because consistency is important, applying LUTs can make all the difference for projects and save a lot of micro adjusting.

Summer Glow

“Can you work late?” usually ends with something like a politician is announcing something bland and unlikely, but sometimes, just sometimes it results in a free pass into a low key music event, likely the best place to be on a gentle summers evening.

Mostly local talent, of which there is plenty, with an out of town headline act, the event promised nothing if not a relaxing way to spend a Friday night.

SPKEZY, a veteran ensemble and really good guys.

The Over The Shoulder Portrait Turns 90

I had a short job today talking to (well photographing), a ninety year old local menswear store proprietor, Don Pitt. Managing the store for 74 years, mr Pitt is still as sharp as the pins he uses when altering a suit.

While Duncan our journalist interviewed him, I did my usual “over the shoulder” portraits, which often end up being the ones we use. Quite the story teller, mr Pitt was fully aware I was snapping silently away (can you “snap” silently?).

Happy 90th mr Pitt!

Tech stuff; EM1 mk2 or G9 with 25 and 45mm Oly lenses wide open at f1.8. I will say it again, what I love about this system is you can use them wide open and get just enough smooth blur for a decent portrait without loosing the context. I thought the silent shutters had some banding issues under these lights, but in processing they seemed a lot less obvious.

CIA Refined And Consolidated.

Something that has been working for me, when I remember it at least, is the C.I.A. mantra I have been using for my recent jobs. Pics from two small jobs today.

C for Control and Composition. Get the elements you want defined, exclude what you do not want and explain your idea if necessary. Share what your goal is. Often explaining it will identify other options or subject objections and hearing it out loud often helps settle things.

How do you photograph 51 interns without it turning into a simple mob shot? You don’t. Use the space, the larger group as secondary subjects and focus (literally) on the main subject, the administrator holding the class. I could have worked the interaction better, but I am getting there. The exclusion element is shallow depth of field, hard but not impossible to achieve with a 9mm lens!

This is often a combination of a pre-conceived idea and then an adaption to reality. I try to sum up the image idea in three words. For the images below it was girl-sails-red.

I is for Interaction and a point of Interest. Once the subjects are arranged and the “shape” of your image is settled, it is time to make sure nobody has empty hands, limp arms or a look of being lost and uninvolved. As simple as a piece of paper, something to settle the viewer that this is a photo of an active person, not just a set-up shot (which of course it is).

A is for Action or Angle. Either or both, which allow you to capture any movement and/or work the shooting angle, which to a certain extend also sets the mood and power of the shot. Shoot from above, below, lengthways, through, but work these angles. Avoid if you can a flat wall of people in front of a flat wall. Movement also helps the subject to feel like a natural fit in their own photo.

Using a foreground element that matched the shape and colour of the sails on the t-shirt (as well as adding relevance, because the Mirror class of boats always use red sails) helped add a pleasingly settled feel to this otherwise straight portrait image.

What Ever Is Needed In, 1080 Out

I have been looking at a LOT of videos on quality, format, bit depth, etc.

I am still sorely tempted to get the GH5 Mk2, simply because it is such an easy and cheap fit for my kit, keeps the M43 dynamic alive and is enough to fix my immediate needs, but I have been caught up in the full frame thing.

For stills I know that for all my needs, M43 is not only adequate, but actually preferable to full frame. Massive expensive lenses on equally large and even more relatively expensive cameras is just not a good or logical road for me to take. A full frame 3:2 ratio camera for landscapes would be interesting, but I know that it is not needed.

For video, there are a few considerations.

For M43 I am pretty much sorted. The G9 is a match for a GH5.2 except for a few areas like VLOG-L (not the full thing and upgradeable), All-i (very big files), continues recording (the deal breaker) and a slightly contrasted look, but otherwise plenty and for my needs, really enough. What it lacks, the OSMO or EM1x provide to an extent, so I have to remember to hero these very capable cameras, because they all are. Indeed any of them can make professional content and regularly do. I have bought well so far.

So why an S5?

The S5 adds only what my M43 kit cannot and does it with minimum redundancy.

Very clean high ISO capture, 2 stop wider dynamic range, unlimited (to card/power) recording, the elusive and possibly irrelevant full frame look.

It seems that the S5 can produce very nice quality even in 1080, 420, 8-bit, LOG or Natural footage. Footage that has a certain something that (maybe) even M43, 10 bit, 422, 4k can only just match? Hard to be sure.

Richard Wong and Ryan Harris and many others can blow my mind with their M43 4k from even the older GH5, G85 or even G7’s, but the footage from the S5 just seems to be pro-grade with minimum effort. The S5 does not ever break 200 mbs, even in 10-bit and only has 8-bit continuous recording, but nobody I have come across has ever complained about the video (or stills) quality, even with the kit lens. My analogy of the quietly humming V8 compared to the screaming, turbo charged 4 cylinder holds true.

It seems to force limits that make practical sense to me. I would not shoot extended footage in 4k, 422, 10-bit, because, well, no-one would reward me for the massive files I would dump on them. It even crops to “super 35” with its 4k/50, but the ease with which it produces such beautiful footage is very, very appealing and the crop can even be useful. It has 10-bit 422 4k, as does the G9, so when I feel the best only will do, but again massive files, rare need.

So, if excellent 1080 is my ideal, then when I achieve that, 4k can even be up-scaled successfully from that.

The question of 1080 brings up the inevitable “future proofing” question, but I look at it this way;

If anyone is interested in my footage in 20 years time, the look, the fashions, the format and realistically the subject will all be 20+ years older, which like now, will look right for the time, but also, technology will likely allow for smart upsizing, 3D rendering or any other current fashion anyway so why make life unrealistically difficult now. We live in a “new only please” world. Archiving is for museums.

It is a bit like vacuum sealing all of your food, just in case, when you can buy fresh later anyway when your mood changes. I have seen digitally coloured black and white footage from the 1940’s that looked ok, so anything will be possible, if anyone cares. Technology will (or has) make most arguments against 1080 (or pixels, bit depth, formats etc) irrelevant quite soon. Recently Nasa enhanced an old medium format negative to show a whole face, hidden in shadow until now. What Nasa did this week, we will all be able to do in a few years.

The key is the quality of the captured footage, not necessarily the quantity. As I have written before, there are countless examples of very high quality video and movie footage taken in lower resolution formats, then upscaled (or not) without anyone ever noticing a difference. “The Rookie” for example is recorded in a 720 format, a very high quality 720, but 720 and Game of Thrones was filmed 1080 and up-scaled to 4k.

In my world, none of my few video clients have ever asked for 4k or if they have, it has often been based on misguided assumptions of required professionalism, something that they do not question on receipt of the footage. It is a bit like clients asking for high megapixel RAW files for magazine or online work, not realising, they have little clue what to do with them. My temptation is to shoot 1080 only, but the reality is, if 1080 is your intended output, 4k is still a useful recording format, because it allows you to crop to 1080 within the frame.

The G9 as a great example, has some very impressive options in 1080. It does 180 frame high speed (slo-mo), 10-bit, 422, 60p and even has focus shift (using 4k) and time lapse options. It also focusses faster and requires relatively little card speed or space. Going into 4k, it, like most cameras offers a much smaller range of options, topping out at a respectable 420, 10-bit, 60, but that is it. In 1080, you decide what you want, in 4k you chose from what you can.

The other advantage of course is, almost all slo-mo, time-lapse, long recording and other special effects from pro-am cameras, are limited to 1080/FHD. Even the GH6 is a powerhouse of slo-mo and other effects, but most are available only in 1080.

This file is a near impossible combination of M43 math (hand held 2000mm eq), software (for heavy De-hazing) and wet feet. In years to come, processing will make it even better.

The reality is, if you stick to a 1080 work flow with most modern video cameras, all of their best options are often unlimited and unrestricted. The rest of the world is not ready for your 6k RAW footage!

My hope with the S5, and my research seems to bare this out, is that the camera will produce superior 1080, which offers all of it’s sensor size benefits unconditionally, and from there I can do what I want.

Final Thoughts On The S5 (Before I Jump)

Why am I probably adding an S5 into a happy M43 users kit?

Needing a camera that would break the 30 minute recording limit, which is a major pain, but has to be addressed, I responded to an add for a cheap GH5.2.

Could have bought it and moved on. The same site had an add for the S5, GH6 and others all equally cheap in a combination of Boxing Day sale, new releases and pending end of model run-outs.

Light breaking through at last? Getting a lot of mileage from my crane shots :).

The S5 floated to the top for several reasons.

1. It gives me a better video camera than the G9/EM1x/OSMO setup I have now, by simply having a larger, dual gain sensor and full LOG. The many reviewers* all agree that with very little effort and no special considerations, it can give me better base image quality**, with better processing and longer recording times. It has decent battery performance of over 2hrs in 4k, delivers 14 stops of dynamic range without tricks and great results in ordinary recording modes, uses two regular SD cards (V30’s will do me) and provides clean ISO 8000 plus.

2. The G9’s and EM1x’s actually cover my M43 needs as long as my other concerns are met. High quality 4k 422 10bit, slo-mo, great stabilising etc are all done here. Sure the GH6 may better these and add a ton of codecs and colour profiles, but still it is just more M43 for a 1080, 10 bit, 420 shoot and drop user.

3. It is great value. The body is basically the same price as the GH5.2. It needs the excellent kit lens, but for only a little more it still under cuts the GH6 body alone (I can even add the 50mm for less than the GH6 and a CFX card). It can also adapt legacy glass on a 1:1 basis. I can even use my existing cards, when a GH5.2 would need something faster for it's 400mbs All-i.

4. The GH6 is overkill in many regards just to get the other elements the S5 can match (DR/ISO) or the EM1x (stabilising/AF). To get the most out of it, I would need to go to a place that I do not want to go.

5. All of it is additive. The GH5.2 is a G9 with video features, and only a few for me are genuinely better. The GH6 is the same, but even harder to justify as it is the equal of my EM1x/G9 combo for stabilising and AF, but again, not genuinely better for my meagre needs. If I got another M43 camera, my excitement would be tempered by the knowledge I have too many already. The S5 adds a new format, a new lens path, a better video interface and even better stills if needed.

6. It fits my philosophy of “best bang for the buck”. The G9’s are the best value M43 hybrids, the EM1x’s are the best value pro sports/adventure camera system and the S5 is the best value full-frame semi-pro hybrid.

If the GH5.2 had full LOG, was a little cheaper (or the S5 dearer) it would likely have won out simply because it is the simplest path and has access to the best/only lens range I have, but only VLOG-L with a small saving are not balanced out by the seldom used 4k All-i recording, dual UHD-II slots and slightly better stabilising (especially considering the G9’s actually provide all of these except All-i and unlimited recording).

The logic of putting money into glass is also not lost on me. Ryan Harris and others have done much with their GH5’s (even mk1’s) and good lenses, so the 10-25 f1.7 or cinema lens would also be an option, but I am only saving $500! In balance, 4k/30p or 1080/60p, 422, 10 bit with the same stabilising and fast primes from the G9’s and better stabilising and AF from the EM1x and OSMO seem like a decent support act.

If the GH6 did not have strange card needs, it would make the logical choice. I can get around the other issues, but if I need a redundancy (second card), it is just too much for a simple job. Adding an SSD is an option, but that excludes a power pack etc, etc.

The only real negative is breaking away from my M43 only habit, but what ever works.

I am still fairly soft on this choice, sometimes wanting to stay sane and maximise compatibility (GH5.2) or go future proof and get the best of all worlds (GH6), but time is running out. The sale is over as of weeks end, so I need to get on with it.

I guess the big questions are;

Do I just want to fill the holes in my game?

Do I want to up my game easily, but at the expense of my M43 roadmap?

Do I alternatively want to go “ultimate” video in M43?

*Geeky Nerdy Techy, Sam Holland, Ryan Harris, Caleb Hoover and others.

**I want the best 1080p capture I can get. 4k is great, but 2k is my practical upper limit. The S5 can even be up-scaled to 4k. The S5 can capture “big” looking 1080, up to ISO 8000+, with a huge dynamic range for more than 2 hrs per battery charge at high speeds (or slo-mo) and 422 10 bit depth. The G9 can also do some of that (just the ISO thing), so they will be nice backups.

And The Winner Is............. The Gut, ............ Or Maybe The Heart?

I get carried away. It’s a thing. Sometimes I catch myself before something silly happens, sometimes not.

Serious choices especicially tend to snowball, stagnate, re-animate like a tired zombie that can hardly be bothered eating free brains, then I often settle quietly on the right choice or the cycle continues and a decision is never made (which means to me, take the hint and don’t make one). Often the choice, if made, was staring me in the face the whole time!

If you asked me what I would have liked two weeks ago for video, I would have answered “continuous recording and a choice of better codecs, but nothing that makes my current gear irrelevant or incompatible”. The camera that would have come to mind as I said this would have been the GH5 or GH5 II or maybe the G85, which I have always had a soft spot for.

The reality is, I am more than happy with my current video kit, with the exception of the continuous shooting issue which is rare, but sometimes unavoidable and the lack of a LOG format, even a light one, which forces careful shooting and an acceptance that some things cannot be retained.

So far, my processes on the G9’s have settled on 1080p, 10 bit, 422, Natural or Standard, occasionally Cine-D and a concerted effort to get it right in the camera. The quality is lovely, but sometimes I am forced into a situation that stretches this past my happy place. This does not however tax my system or my skills if all goes well. I am basically looking at the best I can get with the straightest and simplest path.

The little email trigger that my local B-a-M camera store sent me was for a heavily reduced GH5 mk2 (sub $1600au). It quickly turned into entertaining ideas of equally reduced GH6, S5’s, then to the BMPCC4k etc.

Remember, continuous recording, better codecs, system consistency…….. .

Of the three contenders, the one that made the most intellectual sense was the GH6. This has been pushed aside simply because it does not feel like a balanced choice and has some major hurdles to overcome unnecessarily ($300 cards needed for backup, for features I will not use). It is easy to get caught up in the “big talk” of 6k, ProRes Raw etc, but this is all well beyond my needs, or even my capabilities to use. 10 minutes of 6k 422 10 bit would see my system have a little break down and no client I have would be well disposed either. 4k, usually down sized to 1080 or just 1080, 422, 10 bit is my limit. So, no GH6 for me, even at the current price.

*

The most exciting idea is the S5, which not only fixes the main issues I have, but also adds massive increases in dynamic range, ISO performance, full VLOG and even a new lens for the same body price as the GH5.2 (lens extra). The only accessory this needs is a cage, as the basic battery performance is impressive at 2hrs+ recording in 4k. I have a universal cage at hand and maybe a lens or two down the track, maybe no. Lenses are dearer on the whole, although the 50mm is actually not and legacy glass is a 1:1 conversion.

The S5 is a G9 upsized, but also to an extent a GH series with more video-centric features, then getting the job done with minimal effort. All reviewers agree, it gives you the goods easily and quickly, which for me is important and it has the best battery life.

Never going above 200mbs (V30 cards), it delivers something special even in 1080p, Natural, 8-bit, 420, and some of its negatives are actually positives, like 50p 4k cropping (increasing the effective reach of the fast end of the kit lens). Remember I have other cameras that do their thing well, while this does its. If I need to in the future I can up-grade to off board 6k, 12-bit RAW, but I seriously doubt I would ever need this.

If it has a concern, it is that the G9’s etc may not be up to matching the footage as B cams, but I feel they will when treated well, being essentially GH5.2’s without a few bells and whistles.

*

The gut choice, the one that nagged the loudest was the GH5.2, not because it is the best value, nor the best performer, but because it is simply more than enough and had the fewest “conditions” attached (the G85 is probably enough even). The only accessory it may need is a power pack or second battery for long term recording for under $100. It sits in the middle of the pack in most important areas, but it does feel like a compromise, or more to the point a missed opportunity.

The GH5.2 is effectively the match of the G9, just the video-centric hybrid with all the above conditions met, but in real terms (for me), not a major jump up. It is of course a good partner to these, but for just a little more, I can improve and deepen my kit, even address a few small issues like adding linear focus and full frame stills.

Overall the S5 seems to offer the most and threatens the least system wise. It means Trunnigntwo systems, but is that such a bad thing if the benefits are delivered effortlessly. I do not need another M43 camera, so why not introduce a different growth path?

Hand held run-and-gun or B cam, sports and street stills? G9, EM1x, OSMO.

Better low light, high DR, best upgrade path (the G9 is often not fully compatible with Ninja V’s etc), highest DR stills, easily controlled best quality, and/or long recording, then the S5 is the one.

We all need help to see the way sometimes.

This is me being real, not “hypothetical” me. Hypothetical me may need to buy a better video camera one day, but not this year and Panasonic is about to drop a lot of goodies on us, so a bad time to spend too much unwisely. A new S5 has been announced and with it will likely come firmware updates for existing models. Maybe these will trickle down to the S5, GH5.2, even the G9, maybe not, but again, it is enough.

*

When you look at the card and storage needs of higher res formats, the reality quickly dawns on you that even increasing to 422, or 10 bit, or 4k, let alone all of these, puts you into painfully heavy storage space bracket. Massive cards get dumped into massive hard drives and computers groan under the weight of it all, then often only turning out 1080p for a client.

Shooting codecs are more important. RAW sits at the top, full LOG formats come next, then light LOG, down to HLG, Flat or Cine-like until you finally get to regular picture profiles, Natural being a Panasonic favourite.

The video I get out of my G9’s in Natural or Standard, especially with a 1/8 black net filter is impressive enough to my customers. More is simply for me to fix errors, help control the uncontrolled, fiddle or show off. Just like in stills, a perfect jpeg is the end point, not a step. The S5 effortlessly adds more safety net, without massive overheads.

The big question is, which is better, M43 All-i 1080p VLOG-L or the S5’s Long-GOP with a bigger sensor and VLOG full? The GH6 and S5 seem to be a close match, but often the S5 is not trying as hard and still wins in DR and ISO performance. S5 for me.