A fresh and strong Stamen wrapped in weather affected petals.
This is the M43 version and I took full frame (see tech and processes). EM10 mk2 with 12-60 kit.
The full frame mono, which I prefer I think for the extra texture provided by the 24mp sensor. S5 with the 20-60 kit.
After leaving the school, I have felt a little lost. The Paper has provided me with a solid base to work from, but it was obvious to me from early on, it would not satisfy my need to connect.
By connect I do not mean meet new people, because it certainly provides that. What I mean is, connect and follow through. I meet so many people who could just do with a little hand up. I like people, love animals and have developed a strong connection with the place I live.
The paper provides a valuable service, but it does not have the time, the need or resources to keep contact with the subjects of it’s many one-off stories and can only go so deep.
Dreamer? Maybe, but if you are lucky and able to help, then you should.
When I can, I pass on any images I can to worthy causes, but this has two issues. It does bend the rules a little at the already hard pressed paper and secondly, it only serves to remind me there is more to do.
I have decided that my soul and my mind both need something more than just one avenue of connection and that avenue should be giving without need for recompense. With this in mind I have started to look to not for profit and volunteer groups who could do with a little record keeping, event documenting, a gift to their charges of some images, maybe a feel good retrospective project or even a social or advertising presence they would not otherwise be able to to do or afford.
I could go deeper and give more than just my limited skill set, but it seems to me I should offer what I can do as widely as possible to do as much good as I can. We live in a very visual world, but often this constant need for quality content goes unserved.
A moment of brotherhood with the New Horizons football club who represented the state recently (and did really well).
An example is a music group who have formed several bands around members as young as 12 and as old as 85. This combination of free mentoring and the enabling of older members is a perfect match, but unfortunately, they have no funds, just lost their practice venue and may fold. If I can I will record their remaining concerts, maybe grow their presence or just be another voice that lets them know they are/were appreciated.
Part historian, part enabler, part support element, I hope that what I can bring to the show is of some value to someone somewhere.
The 20-60 Lumix S put me into a bit of a funk and in turn the first two weeks with the S5 were quite flat. It seemed nothing I tried worked with the new camera (format). My first adapter did not take, the zoom was fully not trusted, the 50mm S prime took a while to come, my first cage was a lie etc. Boohoo me :(.
I had read a lot of good things about it, then felt I had either a poor copy or opinions were over blown. A large part of my dissapointment I felt may have been a case of lens reality amnesia, coming from M43 where most lenses behave predictably into 3:2 full frame land again where corner sharpness and other bugbears tend to reside.
I went looking for problems where I knew I would find them (extreme corners at the wide end, wide open). I compounded this by not being very scientific in my testing, so focussing, movement and a myriad of other factors may be at play.
Let’s try again with an open mind.
At the long end, it is very stable.
I bought the 50 as the ideal “one lens” and because being the first and most popular prime it is half the price of the others, but in reality, the zoom is best at the longer end, so maybe the 35mm would have been smarter, but I did buy it as the do-all Bokeh lens foil to the zoom.
As a tight lens, it has good sharpness in the centre and across the frame wide open (f5.6 which is f2.8 in M43 terms), has nice Bokeh. Distortions seem to be well controlled also. I probably intend to use the S5 in super 35 mode (crop frame), so 60 becomes a very tight 90mm equivalent and the corners become less important.
So, the soft edges in 20mm?
Bit bigger. Decent enough for stills, fine for video even at f3.5 at the wide end.
Fears maybe slightly over stated?
For video in particular, I think this more than acceptable, especially if I crop in to S35 (20mm becomes a cropped 30mm macro) and treat the lens as an f5.6 lens through the range.
Wide angle close focus is an interesting idea, something the 9mm offers, but the zoom also gets you there.
A decent Macro as it goes. ISO 1000 as well.
A pleasant image with much to admire. This has the look of a fast prime in M43, so a happy place for me.
Very decently sharp where I aimed.
I feel this lens can easily be used along side the 50mm. I had intentions of adding the 35mm prime, but to be honest, I will store that idea and save the $1000au. There may come a time, but I would actually prefer a 28mm which would then become a 40mm in s35.
One of the important considerations when I bought the S5 and went into another format, was lens options and the possibility of using the camera for stills if video became a dead duck for me. For studio portraits for example the 50mm is a plus, but it also looks like the zoom will work just fine. If the video thing falls flat, I will press my S5 and COB lights into service as a constant light studio kit.
Looking at the lens overall, build is tight and sure, handling the same and the shared (67mm) filter thread and similar overall size to the 50mm is ideal. The camera just feels the same with either lens.
I got a job today down the western side of the Tamar river (Tasmania, not England).
The first job was a vineyard, the next two a hunt for a mysterious block of land and the last an interview with a cancer patient. Mixed bag.
From the day, a couple of unexpected images popped up.
Shore line detail Beaconsfield Tas.
Same
and more.
Flower detail Moores Hill vineyard.
For most of my still photography life (late 1970’s to now), I have thought in what is problematically called now “full frame”* values.
35mm film, the bedrock of photography in the last quarter of the 20th century was the primary mathematical base line for most photographic assumptions. It was a given that a 50mm lens was the perfect mid-point of a vast array of lenses. The centre of the universe. The reality is, mathematically a 42mm is actually that lens (the diagonal of the 35mm film plane and a more natural look), but the hard to define, sometimes even harder to use 50mm was the easy fix.
The Olympus 25mm should convert to a full frame 50mm, but is actually closer to a 45mm. The ground zero for many stills shooters, especially from the film era as it sits right in the middle between wide and compressed perspectives.
All of this was of course, a myth.
APS-C popped up on my clearly limited radar in the 80’s as the “Advanced Photo System”, an attempt to simplify film shooting**. I thought it was an interesting, but doomed idea like 110 and 120 cassette film for the new generation. Like any smaller format at the time, it was facing the reality that for many, 35mm was considered “small” already.
APS-C soon re-emerged as the digital sensor size of choice and I assumed the format name had only one influence, drawn from recent history with the hint of being clever and new.
I also assumed the main technical consideration here came from the early difficulties and cost of making digital sensors combined with a realisation that maybe the full 35mm size was now not needed, an idea reinforced by the made to purpose four thirds sensor, but otherwise the stubborn adherence to a 35mm or “full frame” sensor seemed inevitable.
I was also dimly aware of “half frame” cameras common enough in the late middle of the century, even owning an antique 25mm Olympus half frame lens.
That’s it, fringe formats circling the “one true” format of 35mm.
*
Now, what if I was bought up a film maker, not a stills photographer?
If film making was my trade, the term “super 35” would have been my standard and all my perceptions would have shifted. Same film stock, different reality. APS-C and half frame would have felt like a return to common sense, a vindication of the original film stocks use.
The fact is 35mm still film was born from an adaption of 35mm movie film, but they made us load it sideways to make it longer/bigger!
This was a combination of using a roll film stock easily sourced in bulk and an attempt to make it a viable size for still photography. What was plenty for movie making used one way was a little on the small side for stills shooters decades ago. Indeed, that argument even plagued 35mm film up until it’s digital demise. Medium format (120 film in various ratios) was the true pro choice for many, large format for some. The little can of 35mm film was the amateur, adventure, sport or news paper photographers choice.
Olympus half frame and APS-C now made a lot more sense, being basically super 35 used normally. Super 35 is not a set in stone size, just a very close grouping using the same film stock, so APS-C is a decent enough term to use. The width tends to be fixed, but the height varies.
The main reason I have written this is because the lens language used by cinematographers, who rarely use full frame terms and just as rarely qualify that, were frustrating me, but then I realised, they came first in their space.
The slightly arrogant and misleading term “full frame” has often frustrated me as a digital convert. Apart from my adoption of the equally misleadingly named “Micro” Four Thirds format, I always felt APS-C was not a fully realised format. Fuji has proven there is much to be gained from it, but Canon, Sony and Nikon still treat it like the poor step child.
It seems that the film industry has a similar bias regarding full frame, it just goes the opposite way.
The interesting thing for me is, I assumed from a stills shooters perspective, they mean full frame when reading a lot of “what lenses do top end cinematographers use” articles and it seemed to make sense. Roger Deakin using a 28 or 40mm, many others preferring a 50mm all sat fine in my stills biased head, then it dawned on me they were actually talking about 40, 60 and 75mm lenses respectively.
The lens I feel is the true standard stills lens, the 40mm (FF), which sits between the standard 50 and semi wide 35, is actually considered by many cinematographers to also be a work horse, but used as a wide format 60mm (FF eq) or half way between a standard 50 and portrait 75mm lens.
So, most cinematographers shoot longer lenses as standard than most stills shooters or to be more accurate, cinematographers tend to haunt the same lens landscape portrait stills photographers do!
The sometimes misleading element here is the new wave of full frame shooters are using wider focal lengths naturally for vloging and “edgy” content creation, but the makers of major films generally are not. “Birdman” for example was shot on what I thought was a shockingly wide 18mm, but of course it is actually a less dramatic 27mm, still wider than average for movie making, but in the realm of normal. The same cinematographer however did use lenses as wide as a 12mm on a huge Alexa 65 sensor, for The Revenant which is really wide.
The take away for me is, I will look at my video needs differently now. My natural lean was towards a 24mm to cover wide in full frame and 35 in APS-C, but I am now thinking my 50/75 is likely enough, with the 20-60/30-90 zoom for wider shots. This does not exclude a full range of M43 lenses ranging from 16-600mm (FF equiv). There are many cinematographers who use only one or a small range of lenses and many major projects were filmed on one single lens. Commonly these are in the longer-standard end.
*Full frame meaning all the rest are less than full?
**Film that stayed in easy to old cassettes and stayed there for easy hanfding and storage. Unfortunately it adopted another format rather than stick with the 90%-er that is 35mm after all that time spent making it standard.
So video received a lot of attention over the last few weeks.
Doing exactly what I recommend you do not do, I bought filters in the biggest size of lenses I was using at the time (62mm) and had a couple of older 72mm ones. 62mm is not a size that would cover full frame lenses or bigger zooms, so I have ended up with a real (literal) mixed bag of filters and stepping rings. All 72mm’s probably would have been better.
As it goes though, with my mat boxes and the set ring sets they give you, duplicates and options may be handy.
G9 on the left, S5 on the right.
The sensible thing I did was buy two Smallrig Mini Mat Box Lite’s because you get the second mat box for only about $25 more than the adapter ring set alone. Smallrig would really help us out with separate adapter rings even at premium prices.
I now have 5x 67mm lenses, 2-3x 62mm and various smaller ones, so getting 1x 67/72/77/82 per mat box or 1x 52/55/58/62/86 in the optional set, you have to fiddle a bit and pretty much guarantee some waste, but with a little out of the (mat) box thinking, I have managed to cover all of my dedicated video lenses with adapter rings via stepping rings. Even the little 43mm (Pen F 25) and 39mm (TTArt 35) lenses get one. I only have a half dozen wasted rings for 77/82/86mm lenses and who knows.
My filter sets are semi-standardised at 62, 67 and 72 with a few 46mm ones (really small lenses look odd with really big filters). They are a mix of VND, ND, Pol, 1/8 and 1/4 Black Mist type (various) and a cheap Blue Streak.
Wins have been the Smallrig basic cage for the S5, which is a tight, slim and logical fit, the mat boxes and the cheap blue streak filter from China I grabbed for &25au. Using the logic that a home brew blue streak is a couple of pieces of fishing line stretched across the lens, I felt a cheap filter would add enough of the effect and maybe some other cool flare effects for minimal harm and it looks like that is right. The blue streak are really the only bit of the Anamorphic puzzle I am missing, but did not want to go over board, becasue I feel I will use it sparingly.
The filter looks fine, adds something and came in a really nice filter box, possibly only bettered by the K&F ones.
Failures to one degree or another ar the bulk of the legacy lens adapters because it turns out the the MD lens is a dud (massive, disfunctional flare at wide apertures) and the PK adapter was a dud also (another one coming). I have resolved to just stick to the Lumix S range for the S5 with the 35 TTArt for personal projects and see how the PK 50 goes. I will however be buying with super 35 APS-C format in mind.
I have two mentors at the paper when I need advice on sports I may have already covered, but not for the paper, or events that are new to me.
One voice tends to be “shoot tight, tight as you can”, the other leans towards shoot wide then let the journalists decide.
For swimming at the infamously dingy (probably unfair, lets say “interestingly” lit) Launceston Aquatic Center, which uses naturally light, but only from one side, my instincts push me towards my 40-150 f2.8. This usually nets me 1/500-1000 at ISO 3200 or equivalent.
The problem is though, when shooting for the school, I have the luxury if picking my lane, my subject and even my time. Lots are taken, but of whom is not so important.
For the paper it tends to be middle lane favourites and I need to get at least one decent shot. Using the shorter lens limits my angles and my opportunities.
So the 300 f4 (600 eq) made the cut this time, partly for the above and partly because I needed it anyway for cricket later.
This forced 6400 ISO on me, but C1 sorted that.
I can shoot from about 1/4 into the race, from the destination end at a 50m pool, and I shot right up to the last few meters. This one was shot between the legs of an official standing on the blocks!
A trickier proposition side on and to be honest maybe a little too long, but still powerful and clean.
The 40-150 was pressed into service for podium and starting block shots, and that lens with the 1.4 TC is also a contender, but overall the 300mm was the winner on the day.
One of the advantages of M43 is of course is I am mobile, agile even in an environment that benefits from that. A complex is hot, busy and slippery under foot, so light weight and compact gear is a bonus.
Covering a concert in shared space, it is important to get context and scale.
Sneaky Sound System at Festivale Launceston.
Start wide with a long lens.
Then wide up close.
Then work tighter,
looking for the magic balance of context and impact,
until you get into the realm of “intimate”,
then you get there.
Tasmania has a reputation for being cold and lush. The reality is, through the midlands farming districts, which take up the bulk of the centre of the state, are just as dry and brown as most of Australia’s farming land in summer.
Dead gum trees can be a bit of a problem also (they do not seem to thrive on their own), although photographically, they are givers.
Love these myself, so any chance I get to share…… .
A week off and all my gear in one place has allowed me to have a fresh look and change a few things.
The image above shows my basic “day” bag for the paper. It is comprehensive and capable, but a smidgeon too heavy fully loaded.
The core is the EM1.2, 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f4. If I am in a hurry and know I will use lights or know for sure I will not need to, these are the three items I go with. If I know I am going into a poor light, fast movement location and lights may be problematic, I will pack the 25 (not pictured), 45 and maybe even switch the 40-150 out for the 75 f1.8.
The G9 body* removes the need for lens changes, and the 12-40 gives me instant manual focus over-ride for video, except I have to get used to the more natural feeling rotation again after switching my video kit to the Lumix direction for consistency. The G9 suits the short lens ideally, but they can interchange.
The 9mm adds a fast wide, semi macro option. Occassionally I will drop the 12-40 if the job can be covered by the 9 and 25.
Light is handled in this order;
Natural whenever possible or,
a 60cm diffuser/reflector or,
a small LED panel or,
a Godox flash (off camera). I will leave the fash if I can becasue it is the heaviest single thing in the bag!
The Sennheisser mic has seen little use, but it weighs so little I am fine with having it handy.
The bag is the Domke F2 ballistic, bought to purpose.
*
The second bag is the sports/event kit.
This kit is modular, being drawn from and added to from the day kit as required.
The pair of EM1x’s* are the backbone, one with the primary lens (300 or 75 or 40-150) and the other with the “support” lens (8-18, 40-150, 75-300).
I rareky carry all of this becasue each sport has more specific needs.
Cricket for example is often handled by one camera and the 75-300 alone or with the 300mm (and T/C) if light or reach may be an issue.
Football (AFL) and Rugby gets the 300 on one camera and 40-150 f2.8 on the other. On nice days, I will take the 40-150 f4 zoom to save weight.
Hockey is usually the 40-150, sometimes with the T/C. The pitch is smaller than a football ground, which makes coverage easier.
BMX etc can be covered by either 40-150.
Basketball and Netball in good light get the 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8’s, but in low light I switch to the 75 and 25/45 primes. This is often the same venue, just sometimes better lit by sport.
Equestrian is handled perfectly well by the 75-300 or 40-150 f4 zooms.
The list goes on, but you get the idea and I have found that if I am caught with only my day bag, the 40-150 f4 and 45mm have been adequate to get the feel of any sport.
The second EM1x* did not add much as the second body that the EM1.2 did not do perfectly well, but that camera has been switched to video duties and it is nice that I always have an EM1x at hand even if some time in the future one is down. It is also nice to have two identical bodies when working fast.
The bag is the Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 AW, a bag I have a love-hate relationship with (maybe love is too strong a word). I also use the Domke f804 or Photocross 10 whenever I can.
*My intention is to drop the G9 and shift it to video only, using a second lighter EM1.2, also possibly replacing the second EM1x that I may then use for stabilised video (and have up my sleeve for sports). This would mean I only have one battery type at work and the well used EM1.2’s can do the Lion’s share of the work. I would have effectively a whole EM1x as surplus or for video. This means 2x EM1.2 and 1 EM1x for work.
The 50mm Lumix S arrived today.
Full frame with speed. I will do a realistic look at the true benefits and pitfalls of full frame vs M43 using this lens and my 45 Oly, but the reality of a wider perspective and shallow depth adds a tool.
Nice Bokeh and sharp at 1.8.
Really sharp. I can get this kind of performance out of M43, but the potential for creative blurring has shifted and the high ISO performance is genuinely better. This is ISO 8000 wide open. Black cat in a Cole mine anyone?
This lens has turned my luke warm thinking on the S5 totally around. The zoom it came with is good, I will admit that, but it is slow (small maximum apertures), so it shows me little that M43 cannot do (f5.6 full frame is roughly f2.8 in M43, which I have plenty of) and highlights the M43 advantages like better stabilising.
The Pentax prime is potentially another winning lens, but until a decent adapter comes, I can only speculate. The TTArtisan as a cropped 50 is a nice novelty, a “look” lens and the MD 45 may also be a sleeper. The Panasonic just has that all around pleasant feel.
Decently fast, very sharp, lovely in the hand (light but smooth and solid feeling), with very serviceable Bokeh. A no fault lens. A very safe bet and I can assume from the many reviews, that the whole set are the same.
Video with it is a very nice experience. The lens seems quite forgiving in manual focus. Clear snap is obvious, but not in that clinical in-or-out way. This means I have a state of the art modern bit of glass with some old school character and genuine utility. It feels like a soft caress and friendly, not brittle and torturous.
Within a few days, the S5 has gone from a base kit to a fully caged, mat boxed, dual handled, fast glass and filter mounted, animal.
Since getting the S5 I have had some mixed days.
My first cage, the Andoer one did not fit (screw would not align).
Today I got the basic Smallrig one and all is good. The left side was a little light on holes for a handle, but I have managed with an adjustable one.
I also recieved the L mount TTArtisans 35 f1.4. This is only recommended in APS-C mode and I got it for some character video.
First up, the lens feels tight and smooth, very tight on the mount in fact. The focus ring is small and set well back, so a little adaption will be required. It also turns the same way as the Pana lenses, so a little win.
Some scenes do not need “cutting edge”.
Nice.
Wide open focus is easy enough to get, except I think the actual depth is shallower than the actual indicator…indicated. I managed to get the bottom of the lens in focus, but the top is slightly out, not totally accurate to the red fringe I saw.
There is some CA, but that is part of the magic and I will take it for the slightly funky, “silky” look of its rendering.
Bokeh is gorgeous, really gorgeous. It is fun, freeing even to be looking for softness, character (i.e. applied flaws) because for video, that is like gold and secondly, because I have a ton of “perfect” lenses already, which can get boring. I am even ok with the horrendous vignetting wide open in full frame mode (it’s not too bad stopped down). Like the little Pen antique lens, it is full of gorgeous “creative considerations”.
Lots of yummy blobbiness.
$100 well spent.
A small setback is the K to L mount adapter I got from Urth same delivery. It refuses to give me anything other than a “lens not correctly connected, do not push lens release button while using” indicator and feels like it will just slip off if I am not careful. I think the hole is possibly not large enough or is slightly mis-aligned.
$50 poorly spent.
Win some, loose some.
A last trip away before Megs holidays finish. Down the East coast to see friends.
All the way down we were in full sun, with dark, brooding light of the coast.
This is not exaggerated, but needed some post to really bring out the contrast. In the background is Coles Bay, a truly magical place, but a bit mythical looking here.
Not my usual thing, but I felt like pushuing these in black and white. The trick with mono is to not hold back. You are abstracting by definition, so dont let “reality” intrude on your minds eye.
Probaly my favourite, as it is a little cleaner than the one above.
My travel kit is usually a 12-60 Panasonic and Olympus 40-150 kit lenses. These are perfectly good quality wise, super light and the 12-60 is even weather sealed. If I need wider the 9mm is added and if the Pen F is packed for street (or even if it is not), I will take the 17 and 45mm primes also. This kit can do most things and weighs basically nothing excepting cameras (1-2 EM10 mk2’s or the Pen Mini are not bad, but the Pen F is a dead weight).
Also useful, the two zooms are 58mm and the primes 46mm filter size (1 with a step adapter).
I feel there are three levels of creative intent or creative necessity depending on how you look at it.
Trade
A trade can be done well, but creativity is not the point of it.Accuracy and consistency are. The trades person is not re-inventing the design (certainly no the wheel), but is aiming to give what is expected. Individually, standards are set, ranging from just enough to call it down to exceeding expectations. The Japanese term ikigai suits the upper end of this where the process is refined and perfected, transcending the process and touching on art, but not quite.
This image is a simple effort to just get the job done. Little is added, nothing abstracted away from literal representation.
Craft
Craft is the next step creatively from trade, where the maker becomes the designer, the modifier and the door is open for evolution. Craft often comes with an expectation of beauty. This is not beauty for beauties sake, but beauty in the craft, taking a trade and improving on its practical, no nonsense requirements. Again ikigai is relevant, probably even more so, but either way, once perfected, another step up in thinking is needed to go further.
Using light, tight framing and a little luck, this image takes a literal image of a building, then pushes past the basic need to represent to transport us into a better, stronger place.
Art
The artisan takes craft or even a trade and intentionally focusses all their efforts on eliciting an emotive response. It does not have to be beautiful or even nice, but it does have to be meaningful. Literal interpretation becomes the enemy, the let down.
Removing any attempt to simply and literally show the subject, this image relies entirely on interpretation. Without scale, colour or context, this image either works or it doesn’t on an emotional level.
From the trade level where an image basically just needs to work, then to craft where the potential for it to be improved upon or at least look better while working, finally to an art form where function means less than the object itself.
So, why this wander down the philosophy of creative process?
I have finally worked out why I cannot commit myself to the paper full time.
This was my preferred shot from a recent shoot. It had the mood of each player caught as I saw them, but in colour it did not work (had to be colour) and my interpretation of the band members was not ideal for the paper. Rolling Stone maybe, but not the local paper.
If it is a trade level job, there is little room for craft, as most processes are set in stone and certainly no art. Ironically the only time art comes into it is when we are doing one of our “behind the lens articles” where we often showcase our own interests, usually totally at odds with the job we are employed to do.
You can do your trade better or worse, but you cannot do it to differently. Maybe a shooter for National Geo or The Sunday Times has the time and resiurces to elevate a trade to a true craft, but in a small provincial news paper, a trade is the limit of our purview.
I have felt from the start that I am not a perfect fit for this work. I can do it, but I more often than not compromise my own preferences and processes. The school and drama productions I have been involved with allowed me work as suits me for the benefit of all, but time, relevance and expectations curtail that at the paper. Always have, always will.
A rare time when the subjects were found and not staged (they were taking a selfie). This is me, but unfortunately, the rest of the images were not as real or relaxed.
Am I being unfair?
It is what it is, or more to the point it is what it has to be. Sport and the odd call-out does allow me to shoot my way, but generally editorial is a place of little interest.
Sometimes the subject brings their interest to you and you can meet them in the middle, but even then, I would love to immerse myself into their environment, not just drop by and grab quick snap.
I know me enough to know that I can adapt to a point, but I have to have an outlet for my methods, both to satisfy my life balance, but also to allow me better control on what I dislike doing. If the editorial stuff is a part time thing, then I can switch hats knowing there is more to life. If it became permanent, I do not like the fit or the look of just that one hat.
People being themselves in their environment always works, but is so very often impossible to achieve.
Could I find an outlet and stay full time? Maybe but to be honest I do not want to. A camera in my hand seven days a week, ten hours a day is not the secret to a creative workflow, especially if most of that time is spent conforming and going through the motions.
Reducing my hours, but retaining as many weekend shifts as possible gives me plenty of sport, arts and time to chase other fields which may be more schools, personal projects, portraiture, travel, but what ever it is, it will not be the same process, rinse and repeat.
A favourite, this is one of those times when the process such as it is, actually succeeds. If I can, I prefer to put people into a natural space and let them be them. It’s easier with kids as their limited attention span, balanced with a natural desire to perform, usually paves the way.
The tools of my trade are also a consideration. I use my own gear in preference and still add to it (S5, EM1x etc), but often I am buying for work of a shape the paper will never want. Also, leaving most of my gear at work seems disheartening, like it is given over and lost to me. I feel disconnected to my processes, my kit and my feeling of ownership.
A vast studio kit and capable video setup is never going to be utilised, my capable sound kit boils down to basically a MKE-400 mic and several cameras and lenses are simply surplus. This is not an exciting prospect. I bought these things to use, not sell off near new, through lack of use.
It cannot be all there is.
I just watched “Kodachrome” with Ed Harris playing a hybrid of Steve McCurry and David Alan Harvey.
Kodachrome for a long time defined the way we saw the world. This was a world that was much the same as the one around us all, but the Kodachrome interpretation was not and we excepted the films version to define our view of far off places. It was not a lie, or if it was, we all paid into it willingly, but the reality of it is, by choosing your film, any film, we decided how the world would look at the end of the process.
Kodachromes magic was it dominated a time when the world was opening up to us all, where exotic places were becoming a known thing, a Kodachrome interpreted thing. From the 1950’s to the end of the century, national Geographic and other publications gave us a look into worlds only dreampt of.
A digital camera (Pen F) using a lens from the early period of Kodachrome (F mount half frame Olympus 25mm f2.8) giving me a slightly Kodachrome vide.
No choice is irrelevant in photography, art or any other creative pursuit. You pick your interpretive tool and you get the look you expect.
The demise of the K-14 Kodachrome process, or mainstream film for that matter did not mean the end of image capture, it just meant that what we were used to, what we had learned to expect, to love even, was gone.
This was already happening.
From the early 90’s I had drifted towards Fuji Velvia, because as lovely as the gentle warm tones deep reds and contrasting if slightly unnaturally cool tones of Kodachrome were, I required the more vibrant and accurate greens and blues of Velvia for landscape work, at the peril of pink skin tones.
A thoroughly modern shot with a slightly 70’s filmic look.
In the digital era we have lost the tactile reality of film. There is no patient, reliable and relatively timeless memory store hidden in a cupboard or under the bed*. Digital is an illusion unless you print from it, just unrealised bits, while film could be ignored for generations before it got its chance to be revealed.
*K-14 slides are rated at 100 years plus if well stored and well processed black and white prints about the same, but ironically, digital resources will be able to do something with them ongoing. Try opening a 100 year old digital file on an ancient storage system, when we get there.
Working with cameras lately tends to make me feel disinclined to pick one up at home.
Holidays on the other hand, especially a few days in, bring out a whole different me.
This is an out of camera jpeg.
Saw this so I resolved to grab a camera, the Pen F to be precise with the 15mm Leica on it.
No card. Crap! For some reason I had shoot without enabled. Not my habit.
Card protected! Double crap. Check it and it was not, but second time in it behaved.
Battery dying!
Really!
Finally, settings ok, card in, battery holding on and snaps taken.
Another in colour. Love this combo (the girls and camera/lens).
The third of my three lovely girls.
I guess I could count my blessings and go with the flow (it is the year of the Rabbit after all). I have full time work with the paper, security and an unlikely passion-career late in my working life. A career I guess I have earned after all these years, but still, lucky.
I am however, deliberately stepping back from full time to re-open old avenues, that in hind sight I should have left ajar and open even more doors.
The school has moved on because I forced them to and no hard feelings, but they have said they will keep me in mind. Never offering more than a supplimentary income, unfortunately supplementary to nothing in my case, it was however a very fulfilling connection, one that I am still mourning.
My situation now though is tenable, which is more than I could say a year ago and more excitingly, I am now more flexible.
Financially the tax man may also be kind. Dropping two days from my week may result in only about a reduction of one days take home pay, so making up the difference, or at least part of it, may not be too hard. A little here, a little there, but most importantly, a lot more variety and creative freedom.
I thought I missed the school at first, but I have realised, I actually miss the variety, which the school was not actually offering anyway. I had ambitions well past their needs, equipment also, so drama, portraiture, self driven projects, video and more commercial work are the focus, not just hitching my ride to a single client.
More of this.
So, a 24mm lens added to my (full frmae) video kit would allow for a wide perspective, bordering on the exaggerated. A look that if employed, I might use better in M43 to express or even the 20-60 zoom, where the softer corners may actually work in its favour if they are an issue at all.
The 24 would force either an adoption of a true wide angle as a main option, possibly used more often than I normally would, and something the zoom would do probably as well, or a forced crop to s35, just to bring it back into the realm of normal/useful and justify the cost. (24+35+50+75)
A 28mm (when it comes) would do the same but less aggressively and rather than duplicate the 50mm in s35, it would add the neutral 40mm. This would be as wide as a normal lens could go. (28+40+50+75)
A 35mm equivalent cropped to roughly C4k. This looks about right for wider and establishing shots.
The 35mm would keep everything fairly straight and visially accurate making the process invisible, but allowing for a 35-50/50-75 range between two lenses with a duplication of the 50mm. This may come in handy for either switching between two focal lengths without changing lenses or for a second camera, kind of like a two end zoom. (35+50+50+75)
Add to these premium modern lenses a clutch of 40-50-ish legacy lenses and I have tools aplenty to explore.
To me, this is the tightest and most exaggerated I would want, taken with a 90mm equivalent on M43. The kit zoom comes very close to this in s35 mode and the 50mm in crop would do it also.
A hypothetical 40mm would probably not add much to the kit that a 35/50 pair do not offer and these both have a slightly stronger effect, but if it was available first, it may have been the “one lens” option.
My thinking is the 35 would actually become my standard full frame lens with the option to crop to 50mm, the 50/75mm for tight compression, super shallow depth option with the zoom for the occasional wide and tight or establishing shot.
If I shoot full frame with a mind to crop to an Anamorphic looking 2+:1 super wide screen, then the 35 would end up being a 40-45ish lens anyway.
In a nutshell, all roads lead to a fairly conservative 35-75 range in various forms, with M43 and the kit zoom as “lungs” to explore other ideas.
The takeaway is only the anount of compression and depth rendering really matter. Coverage is more a matter of camera placement after these considerations ahave been sorted and aperture choice a final creative control.
The S5 is barely through its second battery charge, but I am planning the future.
The main consideration, becasue the camera is several levels better than I have had and that was more than adequate, is to look at lenses.
My main core, assuming the legacy glass bent I am on now becomes a sideline, not a primary consideration, is to add a second prime to the kit.
The zoom is fine, especially for video and adds the wide angle I feel I may need to cover a stage, the most likely application for the S5’s long recording options, but for making short, multi angle productuons (seems a big term for small ambitions), I will stick to primes.
Choices.
Wanting to stick to the Lumix S line because Panasonic has gone to such lengths to get them right, the 24 and 35 are the logical, only choices. They are about the same price, the same size/weight/look/performance, which is the point, so the only consideration is process.
The 24 appeals as a dual 24 and 35 (cropped) option. If I shot wide-cropped full frame in an appempt to get poor mans Anamorphic coverage, then the 24 makes coverage easy, but also pushes the subjects back. Very environmental, epic even, but maybe too much? The cinematographers who used true wides in the past have been edge pushers and angle workers. This option appeals also, but is it too much early on and I do have several M43 options if needed*.
After a little research I am surprised to find how many top tier cinematographers who use a small range or some times even a single lens in their work. Hitchcock for example used almost exclusively a 50mm.
The 35 on the other hand gives me back my 50mm in crop mode if I use some form of “super35” APS-C crop mode. The 35 seems a natural place for me, leaning towards a wide-normal base, with the 50 and the do-all tight lens. It would also be a good standard if I shoot wide or square stills.
Are a 35 and 50mm different enough to warrant both? I feel making films is less about lens choice and more about everything else. In stills photography, you are working the subject, the subject cannot bring much more thna a single split second. A choice of lenses and angles adds variety to a still capture.
In video, the subject moves, interacts etc, so capture is less about lens choice and angle, more about “blocking” the elements in the scene. You really only need to offer the basic angles of normal-wide (uncompressed)/normal (middle compression)/normal-long (compressed) and the 35(50)/50(75) can do that without adding any distortion or blatant opinion to the frame. Again, I can go into extraordinary looks with a G9 covering from 16-600mm using Natural, Cine-D, HLG or VlogL for a close enough colour matching.
A bit of separation and compression, the other side to slightly wide, slightly epic.
Two lenses that would have made this all easier would have been a 40mm, which is the ideal focal length for me. In stills shooting the 40mm is at once the most natural and potentially the most boring focal length, but the first feature is perfect for video and the second mostly irrelevant. The 35/50mm dynamic makes you hit either side of the natural 40mm more specifically, more aggressively, forcing a choice, where the 40mm lets you relax into it. 60mm in APS-C also feels like a more opinionated version of the 50mm. Like the 35/50 straddling the 40, the 40/60 straddles the 50. I guess it is all too close to really matter.
The second lens is the 28mm, which feels more like the right wide to compliment a 50mm and converts to the magical 42mm in APS-C. To me, the 28mm has always been the boring wide, not strong in effect, not epic in coverage or natural enough to be used universally, but again in video, it seems to be the 40mm of wides. Perfectly innocuous. The 50/75mm can then be the tight-flat lens, the 28/42 the work horse, the establishing shot lens.
Realistically, the 35mm with a single step forward or back can be the above lenses and again, it is more about coverage and the right compression for the job. Maybe too wide would be a hard lens to use, bringing obvious deepening of perspective?
The 30mm angle of view, about as wide as you can go without obvious perspective tells. The zoom cropped is a 30mm.
The zoom may be enough, but I am not super impressed by it yet. More testing needed. It was effectively free with the camera, but I would have liked to have been more satified with it. to be honest to shock of a slow lens with twitchy depth of field even at f5.6 was a bit of a shock.
I believe what I say when I espouse the benefits of M43, but even then, FF considerations came as a shock. Having to go to ISO 6400 at 1/50th f5.6 in a “dull” room when ISO 400 at f1.8 in M43 would have been ideal! I will have the f1.8 full frame lens soon, but that comes with the very shallow depth issue :). Most of the complaints about S5 focussing are exaggerated by the shallow depth of full frame. The G9 is in the same place with AF and stabilising, but the smaller sensor blunts the issues.
My testing has been loose and blatantly unfair so far, pixel peeping stills taken hand held with a new camera, so maybe when I stop being the “man who looks for trouble and invariably finds it”, the poor thing will be able to impress me and cover all the true wide angles I need. Me being me I went straight to the far corners wide open at the widest focal length looking for de-centring issues and found consistent but slightly soft results.
I need to take a big dose of “we are not in M43 land anymore Toto” and remember that kit grade lenses, no matter how good, are going to have some “warts” in full frame. It seems nicley sharp in the centre and at less extreme focal lengths, so I need to deal. Video is far more tolerant of imperfections, indeed the trend seems to be to chase them, so come on Rod, embrace it.
Funny thing is, I was a little worried having a full frame back in the house would spoil me for M43, but the opposite has happenned. I have rediscoverred my love the balance M43 gives me for stills. The ability to shoot wide open on my primes without fear of depth of field traps and for video, the forgiving nature of the M43 DOF is a blessing, especially with manual focus.
Have I made a mistake going into full frame? No, because again, it is not about the format as much as the specific camera.
True Vlog, 14 stops of dynamic range, continuos recording with good battery life, no special card needs, USB-C charging/power, video-centric features, supporting lenses, dual formats, but most importantly super clean high ISO performance that frees me to use the camera, lens and aperture as I creatively want, not within forced limits. These features all put it ahead of its rivals at the time. Would a GH6 or even GH5.2 been enough? Sure and part of me wishes the choices were easier, but the S5 was/is the winner right here, right now on a $2000 budget (just!).
*Lacking Vlog, the G9’s can be colour matched close enough for alternate angles and B-roll.
I guess all that matters is what the eye sees.
We talk about resolution, clarity, sharpness, glow, etc, but at the end of the day, the numbers do not count, only what the eyes see matters.
Speaking of eyes, how about this (taken from a heavy crop from a 20mp M43 file as it goes).
The reality is, no amount of detail is enough for some, but most people cannot see a difference unless it is the difference between good enough and not good enough.
Once good enough is reached, it is a long way before you reach something obviously better.
Once you put it out there, all that matters is the impression given. This performer Kate Rigby broke a pick mid set and nobody noticed. Perception is all, details are irrelevant.
4k to 720p, 10 to 50mp. Does it matter at the end of the day if the story told and the process invisible?
The story you say?
I have looked at a lot of fore and against videos, read far too much and even watched I think, every single video on the real differences between 4k and lesser resolutions and what comes out time and again is;
If the footage is well put together, interesting and engaging, no-one cares. Story is all.
If the footage is boring, static and dry, you lose your audience regardless and no amount of technical power will save it.
One reviewer even set out to see if the difference between 4k and 1080p was noticeable to the viewer, but sneakily slotted some 720 and 8k in. No-one would be able to tell without breaking the golden rule, which is “you should always look at any visual media in the way it was intended to be seen”. A bill-board looks good at 100m, a large TV at 5m.
The reality is, most of the movies you have likely watched on a big screen up to now, have likely been shot at 1080 or lower and up-scaled, or often not.
Emotive images come from somewhere other than purely technical spaces.
In other words, do not look too critically, too close or for too long. Very little art was made to be studied on a deeply technical level and most artists are poor straight technicians.
Be awed by the mastery and technique of the artist, but not the technical resolution or fine detail rendering beyond the capabilities of the medium used. Look close enough and even the Mona Lisa becomes mere brush marks!
The very argument that better resolution equals better art nullifies all that has come before.
The fact is, most cinematographers are not looking for pimple rendering detail (or they and the makeup artist may come to blows). The quality of the quality is always more important than the quantity of the quality.
Every time resolution goes up a notch, there is a counter blow towards “character”, which is another name for endearing “imperfections”. As early as the 1920’s black net stockings were stretched across lenses to take the edge off and in the digital era, where surgical perfection is the norm, the retro throw-back movement is gathering steam.
Like I am working towards, I hope you are all in the habit of judging your images by their content, not their technical prowess.