Channelling Film

The new look Japan files have been haunting me a little.

Their new found found brilliance and clarity is embraced whole heartedly, but there is another look that has been jumping out at me.

Another of the “three” set.

Sometimes, with the smallest push, they look a little film like.

Kodachrome to be precise.

This one has a strong early film look.

They are cleaner and sharper than Kodachrome (fixable), but the colour palette leans that way and with a little added contrast and maybe some reduced saturation, they are really taking me there.

Darker files in particular are responding like film and are screaming to be handled gently.

I know that the memory can play tricks, but I am willing to trust my instincts and visual memory here and I do have a secret weapon.

I have access to a sizeable library of books printed in the pre-digital era or later, but with a pre-digital mind set, that were taken more often than not with Kodachrome.

My concern is, these are EM5 mk1 files, which are literally a dying breed. The only camera I have that seems to have a similar look is the Pen F and I have heard that the sensor in the EM10 mk4 is similar, but the processors are newer.

Going Backwards, But With Intent.

Did something dumb today.

Asked by the sports editor to get some images of the state Junior Track Team, I proposed a not totally original, but also not thoroughly planned idea of sitting backwards on the trial bike, with my 9mm, going for some dramatic images.

To add to the variables, lighting was intermittent with only about 20% of the overheads on and the odd natural sky light, so the subjects tended to go bright/dark quite quickly (30km an hour quickly).

With the 9mm, able to focus down to 3cms, I actually had to be careful how close I got.

The sweet spot was 1/250th at ISO 1600, roughly f1.8 to 2.8.

Professionals all, the distances did not bother the riders especially at these relatively sedate (for them) speeds, but holding on, staying balanced, changing settings and getting the shot all came down to nerves and muscle memory for this newbie (me that is).

Keep in mind, the oldest rider is 16 and the youngest 14.

Being more sensible and using the 75mm wide open also worked.

Back to the 15 and 9mm’s for some statics.

Then long again.

My “ride”.

AFL Action (Or The Vertically Challenged)

AFL football at the highest level is a joy to photograph. Unfortunately for full enjoyment I would need to have a personal interest in it, because identifying the players, who are only numbered on the back, often tend to look similar and move really quickly can be tough.

many times you get the shot you want, then have to chase the numbers on the back of players running in three or four different directions.

All of the above are passable images, but they all failed the submission folder, because at least one players name was an uncertainty on the night (many have been confirmed since).

The curse for me is, the sports I like to shoot are not the ones I have an interest in.

The other little niggle, and this is one as old as news papers, is that in print, horizontal rules. You may be lucky to get one or two long verticals a page and the problem is, AFL is a “tall” sport.

Players pushing 2m on average, leaping regularly and high means a lot of wasted real estate to the sides if shot horizontally.

Most of the ones above have been cropped to vertical, so over half the frame is wasted. Shame only one or two may get used so only a few get supplied.

So, all this will go away when we go fully digital?* Unfrotunately for us, no. The powers that be, likely not photographers, decided that a uniform 16:9 ratio is the best for web. This effectively means no more marking images.

*Currently we make content first for print, then flesh it out for digital, but the looming cloud is doing only digital at our end with a separate print editorial team making a paper from that.

The Wonderful 75-300

The first trip images are still being explored. To be honest, I am finding (re-finding?) so many, that I am wondering how I am going to cull effectively.

I seem to have taken my best primes (17, 25, 45, 75 and the 75-300 as long work horse). This is not surprising and apart from the 12-40, may have been the bulk of my options at the time. A very workable kit, but now I think I would go with less (17, 45, 40-150 kit).

Of the lenses listed above, the cheapest was the biggest and longest, the 75-300. I have had two of theses, selling one, missing it and grabbing another and paid roughly $400au each time. Bargain.

The files are EM5 mk1 .dng files. They are responding to Capture 1 better in some ways than newer files, with massive shadow recovery, but strangely reduced highlight recovery. The highlights come back, but they are about as responsive as large super fine jpegs (an Olympus thing).

This has always been a favourite, but never like this. The 75-300 is a killer lens, especially in the shorter half of the range, but even I am surprised at the brilliance and clarity of some re-worked files.

I am also surprised how often I used it, especially considering the cool, dark, wet trip we had.

I had fast primes aplenty, but the slow super zoom stayed on even in tricky light.

This lens has very stable and pleasant image making properties, including nice Bokeh.

Too long really for this type of street grab, it never the less took plenty.

It seems I even chanced it in the dark arcades.

In its natural state, compressing a whole street into one plane.

More compression.

Some thoughts.

I seem to be drawn to yellow.

The 75-300 used to fill a lot of roles.

The .dng files may behave differently to straight RAW files from the EM5 mk1’s (in C1 anyway), but are a nice starting point.

I feel I missed a chance with the EM5 mk1’s and C1. What a combination they may have made.

The Video Rigs Complete

I missed an obvious video rig accessory when I bought the chest and shoulder rigs. I forgot quick release plates.

I grabbed a pair of Neewer ones, something they do well and cheaply and I know they will be compatible with my mechanical Gimbal and Tripod head plates (both Neewer). They do not line up perfectly with the Smallrig base plates, but are near enough and sit tightly.

I now have four head plates that are fully interchangeable with four accessories.

The big rig, probably only going to be used occasionally, but the handles might come in handy.

The matching Neewer quick release plates have joined the dots. They are a good size and cosmetic match, but the screws do not align perfectly. On the shoulder rig I managed to get two to align (just), but with the chest rig there is only one. Seems firm enough.

The Shoulder rig has some added weights from the Neewer Gimbal as I do not need the two heaviest ones. It just felt a little “floaty”, so the added heft anchors it better.

Possibly the LCD mount, but there are other options. The G9 has a top handle and a screen mount on the front of that.

The chest rig is simpler and most likely more often used as it is basically configured to aid how I actually shoot (hand held). I added the optional Ronin handle I bought a while back. This and the cameras own handle make a good balanced pair. Seems everything Smallrig ends up being useful.

There seems to be a red theme running through these accessories that matches the details on the Pana cameras. Irrelevant but nice.

All three video rigs have a plate, from the S5 in its cage, G9 in its and the universal Camvate one for the EM1x. There is a fourth plate for maybe the OSMO or the second G9.

More Format Thoughts

Running two formats again has been less vexing than I suspected it would be.

I bought the S5 not because it was the better format, but because it was the better value video choice at the time, in the context of my existing kit and needs. The 3:2 format, something I am not a huge fan of for stills even though I have used it since the 1980’s, is closer to the 16:8 ideal.

High ISO performance is exceptional and all the other little niggles I had like limited recording time and formats, dynamic range etc were all effortlessly sorted. The other option would have been the GH5mk2 and another couple of fast primes or the Pana f1.7 zoom, but the S5 kit was cheaper even than that.

These were video issues fixed by a video-centric camera.

I feared that full frame fever would catch hold again across the board, but it really hasn’t. I tend to forget I have it for stills.

For video, the S5 forms the nucleus of my more pro-end kit. It is the best supported and my first stop for serious projects, but the other cameras I have available* are still fully capable in their own spaces.

For stills though, and this is the curious bit, I still actually prefer M43. This is not a specific camera thing, because the S5 feels like a G9 in many respects, but in use, I find M43 a more practical format, capable of doing any job I need.

Quality.

This old pearl, likely the number one reason people avoid the format, was ironically the thing that attracted me in the first place.

Sick of soft/sharp Canon files from 5D mk2’s, I was attracted to the bright and clear M43 files and that was out of their earlier generation EM5’s. I also tried Fuji and Sony, but both were behind in key areas at that point. In its early days m43 was giant killing. I still remember the Steve Huff comparison of the D3s to a lowly M43 EP-2 with equivalent lens in his 20mm Panasonic review. Daylight to the little tacker.

I laboured and stressed over this for a year or so, but time and time again, the little EM5 mk1, with my clutch of 14, 20, 45 and 75mm lenses were sharper, more accurate and brighter looking to this jaded Canon user when compared to some heavy and expensive old favourites (i.e. the Canon equivalents 24EF, 35L, 85 USM and 135L).

Granted high ISO is behind when compared to the modern bigger sensors (although other factors help mitigate this) and new mirrorless cameras from the big guns are bridging some of the other factors like mirrorless accuracy and speed, but I am more than happy to shoot for fine art with this format. It generally out resolves fine art paper.

An ISO 6400 image at f2.8, which if printed would be good to quite large sizes.

3D pop.

I can get it and surprisingly easily. Some of my M43 lenses are very good at this, even the semi wide ones. They tend to fall into two camps, both equally useful.

The fast transition lenses (the Leica’s, Oly 12-40, 25 and 75 as well as the f1.2’s) are ideal for highlighting a single subject plane, while the others tend to be longer transition (the 17 is a paragon here), which is perfect when you want a more forgiving and organic file.

This clean snappiness is from the wide angle 15mm at too long a distance to be likely, but still it is there.

This shot is another example of the clean separation the little Leica 15mm provides. I first saw this from early Leica, Zeiss-Contax and Zenza-Bronica glass with film, the ability to draw the eye to the sharp plane of focus, then let you drift back to the soft supporting elements, then back again.

Depth of field.

M43 offers the same tools for shallow depth, they are just applied at magnifications twice as long as their full frame equivalents. The advantage of this is that shallow depth is not as twitchy. I can and do use f1.8 lenses wide open all the time, just like a full frame shooter uses f2.8 which was not even a habit I had when shooting full frame/35mm for twenty five plus years.

About 100mm at f4 using the proper principals of shallow depth rendering.

This gives me effectively a two stop advantage in light gathering, without forcing a strong creative imperative on my images.

Even at f2.5, it has decent subject cut out. Now apply the math. The full frame equivalent would have to be twice as close, or be cropped by half again or be a much bigger and more expensive lens. It would also have to use f2.8 at ISO 6400 rather than 1600 at f1.8, to provide the same DOF if needed. If a higher pixel count camera was used like a 45mp Z9, thus evening out the pixel count when cropped, pixel density would be much the same as the un-cropped 20mp M43 file and if done regularly the bigger sensors extra unused real estate would be wasted.

M43 gives you slightly over two stops more depth of field with the same effective focal length at the same focussing distance. So, a 15mm lens is still a 15mm lens, but it magnifies like a full frame 30mm.

The 45mm wide open, showing the benefits of story telling depth of field. Blurring the background out completely would look nice on one level, but then becomes a portrait of a single figure only with no context other than blur. You can always add more blur, but not reduce it. Notice also how the blurring is in layers.

This is ideal for landscapes.

Easily achieved at a relatively moderate aperture, hand held, no tripod, in fact little technical effort made. I cannot remember a time when I felt I actually needed more than F8 (about f18 in full frame) for front to back sharpness. The laws of lens refraction being what they are, there is actually a slight advantage to M43 here.

Shape.

Yep, the actual shape of the file. M43 is a good fit for print, with plenty of quality to go 3:2 or even wider if desired. Full frame 3:2 ratio on the other hand tends to need cropping more often than not. Of the 30 odd templates we use at the paper, only a handful of inserts actually accept the 35mm format natively (yesterday I did a “Behind The Lens” article with eleven shots from a Tokyo garden. Only a two needed any cropping on our templates. The reality is a single image or matched pair stretching from side to side are a better fit in 4:3 ratio.

Square is well served and wider is much the same, as the extra included height in 4:3 is as relevant as it is in 3:2. It is just included, not excluded. I especially like 4:3 in verticals, finding 3:2 too skinny.

Flash.

This is a mixed bag.

On one hand the depth of field advantage effectively makes flash units 2 stops more powerful, turning speed-lites into heavy duty models, then these into mono blocks. My YN560’s act like AD 200 Godox units.

On the flip side, wide aperture shooting in daylight using high speed sync can be more taxing on the units, generally needing wider apertures, then higher shutter speeds to achieve. I fix this with a ND filter.

*

There are a couple of patterns forming here.

More blur can be added, but not taken away, meaning deeper depth of field can be reduced in processing, but not increased and a squarer shape can be cropped, but a thinner one cannot be expanded. This means in a nutshell, more flexibility.

My take away.

M43 can offer a more flexible, forgiving and logical format for stills photography and empower you at much reduced cost. Do not discount it based on perceived short comings or prejudices until you have tried it and if you do try it, make sure you use it properly.

The key is in the lenses, but they do not have to be ridiculously big or expensive super optics. Part of the magic is the quality of the glass, even at the cheaper end. The 9, 15, 25, 45 and 75 are all top tier, can fit into a small bag and go anywhere (covering 18-150 equiv).

The 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 zooms are near perfection optically, similar in size and cost to f2.8 full frame zoom, cover more range and are hybrid stills/video specialists. My 300 f4 can match it with any equivalent super tele out there at a third the cost and size. The list goes on.

It is important when looking at the systems in comparison to full frame to think more like motor bikes compared to cars rather than small cars vs bigger ones.

When comparing to APSC crop sensor cameras, the same math applies, just in half increments.

*2x G9’s (10 bit 4:2:2, 4k/60), EM1x (C4K), OSMO Pocket (4K/60), most of which are in video configuration as we speak.

The Triple

My street photography lacks a formula. It is purely an instinctive thing and I am fine with that. I see a form or the idea of one, then shoot.

Looking back though, I do see some patterns emerging.

Seems “The Triple” is a thing.

Three elements of interest in one frame.

They can be three people all acting differently.

Sometimes all doing the same thing.

Sometimes the people are not all people.

The dynamic seems to go something like this;

The point of interest.

This is the obvious eye catcher, often the person nearest the camera or most central (but not always). At the time this may have been what triggered the shot, or the element that completed the idea and provided the pivot point. I am often moving when I take these, so the “shape” is fluid.

The distraction. This is the element that either supports or contrasts with the primary elements.

The discovery.

This is the bit what brings the rule of three into play. This is the person or interaction that surprises or sneaks up on you. The third element is what makes it all work.

Usually the individual elements are mundane, only working because of the full story.

So, how often does this happen?

All of the images above were taken on one day in Harajuku on our first trip to Japan, so yes, I think it is a “thing”.

I love a street image with layers. One hit wonders are strong at first, but almost instantly dismissed. The layers do not have to be deep and meaningful messages, because the subjects all deserve some consideration as they are.

The Wedding

On our first trip to Japan, we visited the Meiji Temple in Tokyo, one of the biggest and most important monuments in Japan.

Like most, it is a working temple.

This wedding shoot unfolded in front of an audience of hundreds, as they drifted through the temple.

Proud brother?

Future Star.

I have shot a few weddings, but this one puts anything we do here to shame. A team of half a dozen handle everything from dressing to weather mitigation and all angles are covered.

The head photographer did not even seem to shoot, just coordinate.

The temple is in a massive park/wood near Shibuya station.

The Semi Professional Balancing Act (Or Listen To The Music, Not The Noise)

I consider myself a semi professional.

Odd thing to say from someone who earns their entire income from one source pool, but the reality is, I have never taken the one big step that would make me, to the common wisdom, fully professional.

That big step?

Spend a lot of money on perceived “top end” gear.

I like to think my gear is the very best “pro adjacent” equipment available and for all intents and purposes is professional in results and up to my personal expectations.

For travel, street, studio and events, I am there no issue, but for sport and other pursuits, I may seem a little under done.

The key to me is to identify what is important and what is just not, then target the fixes needed.

This image came from a heavily cropped M43 20mp image, poorly processed in C1 (my first month of using it and I missed the “Brightness” slider). If I knew it was going to be effectively 40’ wide I may have had a litter or two of kittens! Others, outside of my control decided to use it in this role and never questioned the credentials of the file.

It is not uncommon for clients to ask for “X” number of pixels, RAW over jpeg, Brand “Y” or video in 4 to 8k. Never lie to them, but a little education can go a long way. If you must, supply what they ask for as best you can, but try to stop your eyes rolling the first time the quality is dropped at some point and allow them to see for themselves, that often these big values have little real effect.

My stills kit is pro level M43 Olympus and Panasonic, just not full frame. To these two brands and Fuji in APS-C, these are their pro cameras and lenses, their best foot forward. The issue is often one of perception, Canon, Nikon and Sony are in the habit of “demoting” their smaller sensor cameras to retain the status of their full frames (Canon does not ever mark a crop sensor lens with a red “L” ring, even if it is effectively the same design as the full frame version). This has always been their habit and it does nobody any good.

I can embellish my credentials with numbers like 80mp, 60 frames a second, 6k RAW video etc, but these are just as irrelevant as many other perceived needs and a poor measure of me as a person or photographer/videographer.

I know from experience that full frame makes little or no difference in real terms, but standing next to a shooter with a FF Nikon 600 f4 with my equivalent M43 300 f4 can be humbling, even when I know that I do just fine thanks. I also know that many full frame, high pixel shooters, shoot smaller sizes regulalrly. Some even use crop mode.

Oh and after a day on my feet, I am a little happier.

Nice to able to run up and down the field edge with a 600 f4 and 300 f2.8 in hand!

The reality is, I do not earn enough to afford the top end Nikon or Canon equivalents and if I bought them, I would have to work very hard just to justify their purchase and see some real results advances. I would most of all, have to specialise*.

Specialising in a small market, can be a road to oblivion, with a decent number of practitioners sharing limited opportunities or in some cases having to actually create a perceived need to fill.

My M43 kit allows me to be a 90 to 95%-er at most things, when probably 75% is enough, becasue no chain of events is perfect. I am a jack-of-all trades, which is actually ok and diversity adds skills that can be shared across the board.

Don’t get me wrong, there are actually advantages to the system as well. More reach, easier sensor size to design lenses and stabilisers for, smaller, lighter, cheaper, more flash power (useable wide apertures), more depth of field leading to some genuine class leading results in these.

Landscapes, wildlife, sport, studio, reportage, portraiture, travel, video, street. All are specifically catered to and each can add to the other. Doing that with full frame would be expensive, for me prohibitively so and in some cases (street, travel), they would be preferred kit anyway.

The same is true with video.

The S5 has the same sensor as its bigger and more expensive brethren, but tops out short of their full specs. It does however have the ability to upgrade as needed, which is important. I feel it is best to pay for enough now, with a growth doorway available, rather than go top end in a field that (a) you may not go further with or (b) may not find a customer for.

The S5 is my enabler for top end 1080 with 4k as an option. Going 6k etc is just too much, but getting less than semi-professional grade 120/1080 is also a deal breaker. Even my G9’s and EM1x’s in M43 format, pushed sideways into the video role are capable of great things.

I am very aware that well exposed and balanced Natural profile footage with a light touch in processing, from a slightly dated, not made to purpose G9 impresses many and satisfies most. It gives you the end result needed without some steps, that can be skipped if you are proficient.

*

Sound is in balance with that. My best sound is 32 bit WAV (optionally RAW) from a pair of Lewitt 040 condensers into an H5 Zoom, or the F1 with my SSH-6 shotgun capsule. Not the best available, but in balance with my video output, which is to say high end amateur or semi pro. Even the quick fix of the MKE 400 is plenty for many.

A Sennheisser MKE 600, used by the TV crews I am around often, into a Zoom F3 or F6 would be the next step, but that more than triples the price, doubles the bulk and is overkill for my needs. In some areas, where a shotgun mic is not the best choice, I can even do better.

Like my stills kit, my video and sound kit is a decent B+ in most areas with a myriad of problem solving options, all within a decently realistic budget. If I make any part better, the rest are out of balance. I learned this lesson years ago when I ran good stereo gear. Everytime I upgraded one part, the rest had to follow.

From an amateur or starter kit, to “best value in class” is a decent and smart step, the researching of which is a great learning process. The step up to best available is a rule of diminishing returns, often with an audience of one (you that is).

Use 32 bit Float sound from a $2000 mic, with 6k 4:4:4 video, or shooting full frame 45mp RAW and your output potential will often, probably always, be lost at some point in the chain and rarely be apppreciated by the average client.

Record poor 720i with camera only sound or shoot poorly exposed 8-bit jpegs and you will be able to see where you fell short, most of the time, but again, some clients will not know the difference unless you show them.

Old camera, kit lens. No need for more.

The middle path is, in my opinion, the best balance with reasonable capabilities.

Under buying against reason is not, but over buying is just as silly. If balanced, most of your kit will be used most of the time, sometimes it will be stretched, then skill can get you the rest of the way.

Professional means reliable and capable and skill is the one timeless, no compromise “tool” at your disposal.

It is very easy to get caught up in one specialised field and feel you need more (currently talking myself out of an F3 Zoom Float recorder), but before the “must have” monster gets a hold, ask your self two things;

Who will notice/know other than you?

and,

is overall balance retained?

Looking at the F3 for example, the F1 is easy to use, the bird in the hand and takes a module or 3.5 jack mic. the F3 needs XLR mics, of which I have two, but the H5 can handle these. It also lacks gain controls.

Self noise is the term that gets you when researching sound. There is always a measure that becomes obsessive and “noise” of some type is often the culprit.

I dealt with noise in one form or another most of my life. Analaogue tapes were rife with it, but the sound was good when you were not looking for the flaws, only heard between the music. Digital noise is defining the “quality” of modern cameras, but we used to embrace film grain as a creative tool.

Even the universe generates self noise. Noise is natural, a total lack of it is unnatural, clinical. Listen to the music, not the noise.

Often the answer to an issue you are having is not more or better gear.

Maybe the solution is to come at the problem from a different angle, maybe it is already sorted and usually, just getting on with the job will clarify what you really need. Overcoming obstacles is the mark of a professional. Sometimes that is gear, sometimes it is how you use it.

Travel well.

*A specialist sports shooter in full frame would be using a Nikon (or Canon/Sony equiv) Z9 with 600 f4 or 400 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 with a wide and possibly standard zoom and flash unit. About $25,000.

A Specialist landscape shooter would be using the best wide angle, high pixel count full frame for about $6000 minimum, but if they shoot wild life also, the above kit comes into play.

An EM1x, 300 f4, 40-150 f2.8 and 8-18 and flash come in at about $9,000 and are still over the top for some tasks.

A Special Place To Start The Journey Of Golden Light.

The Koishikawa Korakuen Gardens near the Tokyo Dome is a paradise in the middle of a bustling city. This could be said of most temples and gardens, but this one in particular was special and was the launching point for our “golden hour” walk to the Ginza district.

This was one of our brave days, where we chose to get lost and see where we ended up.

The steep hills running down to a river was new to us then and are still unique now.

100m from a highway.

As many reviewers say, you really do forget you are in a city of 30 million people.

Built around one large and two smaller lakes, with a feeding river, the gardens are a genuine nature haven attracting Cranes, Herons and King Fishers.

With the benefit of hind sight, we probably set out on this journey too late in the day, but were rewarded by beautiful light from beginning to end.

Every garden in Japan has a feel, a theme. This one had many.

The walk after this is one of our favourite memories of the early trips, slightly diluting the walk around these gardens, that would otherwise have been as powerful.

Many paths.

We may not have even risked the longer walk if not for the calming effect of this space.

Faces Of A Lost Place

The old Tokyo Fish Markets are gone now. We were lucky to see them a few times as they were, which is to say run down, well worn work spaces filled with real people.

Here are some of their faces from the first trip in 2015.

Catharsis

So, the long awaited process of going through my many files from seven, pre COVID trips to Japan has been started. Going old school, I have assigned a diary to the process, which was only semi organised until now.

A long journey, but one I cannot put off any longer.

Some initial thoughts.

Capture 1 is handling the files with a delicacy and surety that Lightroom lacked, especially at the time. My skills and expectations have changed, but the process is majorly different.

This file is a little soft (mild double imaging of moving subjects) and my processing at the time concentrated too much on that at the expense of the overall file. This version has a very mild global fixes and a minimal amount of brush sharpenning over the central girls face.

Artificial colour, tone and harshness are gone. The Hollywood OTT colours have given way to more delicate and realistic tones. A few previously “pushed” files may suffer in the short term, but just like my overall journey over the past few years, I will adjust and appreciate a more realistic representation.

All the images from this wet day in Kyoto have represented to me the coldness, hardness of the light. Just opening them up in C1 has bought new feelings of excitement. From one image I liked, I now have a full set.

The old Adobe balancing act of noise vs sharpness, which took several processing steps to address (oh it is all coming back to me!), particularly from noisy shadows and the overly “simplistic” look of EM5 mk1 files is giving way to a cleaner, sharper and more mature look.

The 17, 25, 45 and 75mm primes as well as the 75-300 went on this trip with a pair of EM5 mk1’s and all shone brightly.

The files seem reborn and I am a little sad I have not seen them like this before. I am also more than a little sad the EM5’s did not get more of a life with C1, which may well have fundamentally changed how I shot and processed with them.

I am excited by the potential, my eyes opening to more files I gave up on, some that I missed and a few that will be different for sure.

My “Reservoir Dogs” shot. The version I have been uploading from my blog files is colder, harder and less balanced overall. I used the brush tool a lot to avoid global issues, especially in shadow noise and I clearly remember being a little addicted to over the top colour, often applied just to see what would happen.

Starting methodically with the 2015, files in order, I have culled 4000 downloads to about 1000 with internet potential, some already visited, some not. From here the much more stringent question of print level quality comes into play and from there I will decide on (from the prints) which ones I will include in the book or books.

The original was frustrating, leaning towards cool and odd colour. This has been slightly warmed and that is all. The soft/sharp dynamic seems to be more pronounced and cleaner. There is a slight hint of Magenta in the file that I could remove, but when both C1 and LR agreed that it should be there will accept it as a true representation (often the windows had a slight cast).

Aster the initial reduction, I am expecting a roughly 10% keeper rate at each level, so from the above 1000 about 100 will get printed as my long term portfolio, 10 will make it to a book with about 100 needed maximum.

Feels about right. I have had these kicking around for years and only a handfull of each group have the visual endurance to go further.

Our first and still best visit to this quirky cemetary outside Kyoto. The stone statues only date back to the 1970’s, some even have head phones on! From just this one short visit I have a series of images that excite me. It is like revisiting the country and reshooting with different cameras.

The surprise to me though is a few of the contenders are not the ones I expected. I will have to go slow and be open minded or I may miss files. I may even relook at the original files once I have gone through just to make sure I do not miss any more.

Japan has so many interesting sights, many just mundane places. Osaka rail station.

Is it possible I may even develope a mind set I have since lost, just by trawling through these again. Maybe we should all go back to old projects and not only re-process them with newer techniques, but at the same time learn from them, discover something we have lost.

An old favourite, I think now it fails to make the grade.

We are going again later in the year so I am on a kind of time limit of at least needing to know what I have already, possibly reinventing my processes from here on with that in mind, allowing a full stop to be firmly set.

It rained so much on this Spring trip. Hiroshima, Kyoto, most of Tokyo were “umbrella” days, giving the trip a theme and probably shifting our outlook of Japan. On a differnet trip, we sufferred a heat wave, so like anywhere when is as important as where.

A photographer reborn? A lot of “re’s” above so something is stirring from the past.

The Twins, But So Very Different

My two favourite lenses are on the surface very similar, but scratch the surface and they are actuall very different.

The Olympus 17mm f1.8 was the lens that had to be. My most used “standard” lens in 35mm photography was something in the 35-40mm range, with many tools applied to address that need.

The Canon 35 f2, 35 f1.4L, several 24mm’s on APS-C, a Voightlander 40mm f2, Fuji 23 and 27mm, Sony 20mm etc. When it came to M43, the Panasonic 20mm mk1 was an early favourite, but suffered from slow AF on an Olympus (early issues) and equally poor manual focus. The Olympus 17 f2.8 was considered generally poor so I dodged it, but turns out it had excellent 3 dimensionality. The Panasonic 14mm was nice, but a little wide and fly by wire MF. I had two of these as they were free with most early Panasonic cameras, but let them go for far too little and the Sigma 19mm never impressed, especially at only f2.8 (but I got the three Sigmas for a steal in a set so another regretted sell off).

At the time the only realistic contender was the Olympus 17mm f1.8, a lens that had mixed reviews early on, but was otherwise mechanically stable and decently priced.

Nothing to complain about here.

Early reluctance aside, it won me over the old fashioned way by taking very nice images, to become one of my “desert island” lenses. It is not perfect, no lens is, but it is predictable and good at what it was designed for. More importantly it has character.

After it was bought and used on several trips away, the Leica 15mm came out. A little wider, a bit dearer and second cab off the rank, it was tried (the benefit of working in a shop), but failed to be substantially better than the 17mm. Plenty of reviews put it a little ahead, but for $700 odd (at the time the price of the 12-40 f2.8 zoom), there was always something better to spend my money on and it really felt like duplication of a favourite, especially a lens that constantly came through for me.

One of the features of this lens is its ability to tame strong light, something I am often drawn to with my street shooting. It glows, but does not blow out.

It has a brilliance and warmth that reminds me of film. Early images with the EM5 mk1’s were something special, but as I upgraded cameras, even adding Panasonics into the mix, it has never failed to impress.

A surprise was its strength with landscapes. This thing is razor sharp and has long transition Bokeh, which means pushing depth of field a little is very easy.

The lens has both high sharpness and a gentle smoothness that helps reduce the super sharp digital look. It is “organic” looking.

Hand held landscapes at less than optimal apertures (f1.8-4) still give good results with coherent backgrounds.

It never occurs to me to worry too much about focus with any aperture f2.8 or smaller at anything but very close focussing distances.

Even wide open, background inclusion is smooth and natural.

The Oly wide open is often a surprise. The metadata says f1.8, but the look of the image defies that. The point of focus is assumed to be the man in the middle, but look at the girl in the red skirt left side background. Girl I said, because I can be pretty sure even with a massive depth of field drop off. The Olympus is ideal for smoothing the transition of in and out of focus areas helping form story telling images.

So, why get the Leica anyway?

I bought the Leica when I startted earning again to scratch an itch, deepen my options in an important space for me and allow me to assign one lens to my work kit and keep the other for myself. The 15/30mm equivalent focal length is odd, but as logical as anything else I guess and definitely does not feel closer to a 14 (28mm) in use.

The catch was which one for which job?

The Leica originally went into the day bag with the G9, but the touchy aperture ring, something you cannot disable on a Pana camera, was annoying as was the all too easily detached hood. I was already adjusting to a different driving, phone, processing and dual brand camera dynamic and this was just an easily fixed frustration, quickly dealt with.

It took some lovely images, but things settled when I switched to the Olympus.

The 15L was then matched to my Pen F for something very special. Both share a crisp, delicate, cool palette, something akin to Kodachrome 64.

That snappy sharp to soft transition, so characteristic of the Leica and so very different to the Oly. The Leica is not sharper than the Oly, but uses its “draw” to give you that impression by creating more sharpness contrast.

Recently I have put the Leica back in my EM1.2 based work bag to make a better spread with the 9 Leica and 25 Oly (which is actually closer to a 23mm). The Oly cameras ignore the aperture ring which is ideal. The hood is fixed with a tiny bit of duct tape. The extra coverage balanced by the very well controlled 3D pop of the lens and its ability to handle iffy light appeals at the moment. We will see. I also like the Olympus sensor and Panasonic lens tones combined.

The Oly 17 is now again on the Pen F, its natural home.

For now.

The Leica shines at clean separation, making it effectively a wide portrait lens (the 9mm is the same).

The Leica has a cooler colour palette than the Oly 17 with gentle greens and blues**, and has more attainable 3D “pop”. It is also better at adding some life to dull light situations and seems to mesh very well with the EM10 mk2’s in artificial light. The 17mm, if it has one flaw, is a little lack lustre when the light is muddy and murky, in contrast to its excellent handling of strong light.

It also struggles to offer modern fast drop-off Bokeh, the Leica is a very contemporary exponent here. The 17mm is the ideal street lens allowing you to miss focus a little without any obvious signs, the Leica is better at heroing the subject at the expense of the background, just don’t miss.

The Leica acting as a wide-portrait lens. Lovely skin tones, sweet Bokeh and gentle, natural colours.

Clear separation of foreground and back. The Olympus would make this transition less obvious, more inclusive and more organic. Both good options, just different.

The Oly lens showing it’s more forgiving nature. I usually set it at f2 to 4 and about 5 feet on the manual focussing ring.

The other thing the Leica adds is a delicacy, sometimes even a thinness. The Oly lens makes an image look organic and natural, heavy with inherent colour. The Leica adds a brilliant crispness, without being heavy handed.

The Oly lens is so forgiving, shots like this are instinctively grabbed, with no real fear of an unworkable miss. The reason I have so many favourite images taken with this lens is because it gets them for me, simple as that. I can theorise that the Leica would have rendered a sharp curtain, then less clear background elements.

The Leica tends to tame lift poor light. In strong light it is fine, but in mixed, soft or flat light, it shines.

They are to my eye identical in central sharpness, but different in rendering. I use either wide open, but with different expectations.

I am going by feel here as much as science. I have tried to prove my feelings by comparing Bokeh etc, but find it harder to make fact than hypothesis. Regardless, the Oly is my ideal street lens, made to purpose with its long draw Bokeh, true manual focus, safe colour and strong light handling with added organic depth, the Leica is a solid exponent of a modern wide-portrait and poor light fixer.

*Four zooms, two primes.

**This is the Panasonic look and adds options with a mix of Panasonic and Olympus sensors. The 17mm is warmer and richer in colour.

Many Hats

I find myself wearing many hats at the moment.

Editorial

(the day job)

This is about coverage and creativity on the fly, often actually trouble shooting. I use a pair of EM1.2’s with a 9L, 15L, 12-40, 45, 40-150 f4. If I need to do some longer distance including some sport without a chance to access my sports bag, the 75-300 often does the job and the 25 and 75 Oly are swapped out for the zooms if I know I am going into very low light. Domke F2.

No filters other than protect, a flash or LED light, often with a light weight modifier, or 5-in-1 and that’s it (I am about to add a small studio kit bag for the car boot with a second flash, Smallrig soft box and stand). If video became more of a thing, I would swap out one EM1.2 for a G9. The zooms and 9mm are also weather proof.

The special something the 15mm Leica offers.

Sports

(the cool bit of the day job)

An EM1x with a primary tele lens (75, 40-150 f2.8 or f4 or 300 f4) as the back bone with sometimes a second body (EM1x or EM1.2 depending on the sport) with another of the above, the 8-18 wide, 12-40 or a fast prime. Basketball or Netball for example is often the 75 and 25 in poor light, 12-40 and 40-150 in good. Pro Tactic 350 back pack or Pro Runner 10 and Black Rapid Strap.

Amazing what can be accomplished with the “bottom end” of my pro kit (Em1.2 and 40-150 f4),

or the top (EM1x and 300, shot indoors).

Street

(the enduring passion)

Pen F (screen inverted so it feels like shooting film), 17 and 45. If two lenses are needed, sometimes the little Pen Mini or an old EM5 mk1 is used. Many bags as suits the trip and location.

A whole weekend with just a single camera and the 17mm was freeing and allowed for a good holiday in its own right (being a bus drivers holiday otherwise). I never felt, as we wandered around, that I was missing out without a multi lens, multi camera kit.

Travel

(the other passion)

A pair of OM10’s with the Pana 12-60 and Oly 40-150 kit and maybe some or all of the above street kit, depending on the trip. The travel kit covers daylight, scenic and general shooting with a good range for weight ratio, then the Street kit does low light. I also add a 58mm 10 stop ND and Polariser for scenic and special effects. The OSMO may also get a trip away next time over seas. Many bags as suits the trip.

Quality is never an issue with these kit grade lenses and their negligible weight is a blessing on long walks.

Videography

(the new horizon)

The S5 is the core of this, the OSMO, a G9 and the backup EM1x are options with differing capabilities. my lens collection is wide and varied, all designed to give me different looks and coverage, but most hovering around the standard range, like the Leica 12-60, Sigma 30, Lumix (FF) 50 etc. Lots of filters (ND, Softening), various rigs and cages, COB lights, mics etc. The Domke Roller, Neewer back pack and several other bags and cases.

Studio Portraits

(the desired career)

Frustrated from lack of opportunity, not options or ideas, this is easy and fun. Apart from lights, back drops, stands etc, which are in abundance at several levels from light and easy to OTT when needed, this pretty straight forward, as it is the least gear stessing environment. Usually a G9 or EM10, 12-40 Leica/kit, 45 and 75mm, and even kit lenses are fine (you control the light and depth of field is largely irrelevant). This is a business I intend to grow. The S5 will likely get a go here to out of curiosity, but it is not really needed. Domke F840

For studio work, lenses and cameras are pushed to the back of the cue, with lighting and technique taking centre stage.

Weddings

(the occassional gig)

This kit is picked per job, rare as they are at the moment. Usually something between my editorial, street and studio options, with video if needed, like a G9, EM1x and S5 or similar. Filson Field Camera bag, Black Rapid Strap.

Drama

(a bit of fun)

This is often done with basically the Sports kit with video added if required. The 40-150 f2.8 and 75mm get a lot of work, the 8-18 also. Pro Tactic 350 pack or Domke F802.

Nature and Landscape

(where it began)

For this and I wish there was more of it, I tend to raid my Sports kit (longest and widest lenses), sometimes the Travel kit for light weight options. The lens I miss here is the 12-100 f4, but moving on as I realise I would still use longer and wider, the 8-18, 300 with T/C and 40-150 f4 forming the core with filters for the wide and all are weather sealed, so the super zoom would actually be excess.

An EM1x and G9 for cameras (11 batteries all up for extended periods away) and I am ready. Macro is lacking here it may seem, but the 8-18 is ok, the 300 amazing for insects and the 40-150 useful. Might get the Oly 30mm macro one day, but if I need, the 12-40, 25 and 9 are all real options.

If I am not after wild life, just landscapes, the 75-300 is taken with the wide. It just takes lovely images without fuss and can work ok as a good light wildlife lens. If travelling super light for and for landscapes only, an EM1.2 (7 batts) the 9L (macro), 12-60 and 40-150 kit lenses would go (18-300) and all but the kit tele is weather sealed. One Planet Pack or day pack, modified Lowe Pro Inverse 100 waist bag.

Events

(the necessity)

Events are likely a thing of the past for me without contact with the school, but are easy enough. If I take what I need from the studio kit, a fast lens or two with an on camera flash I am sorted. EM10’s like this work, an EM1x if light is an issue, the 12-40 or 12-60 for the studio shoots and 17, 25, 45 and 75’s for walk arounds when bounce flash is used. Sometimes the whole event can be covered by the 12-40. Domke F804 and other bags as needed.

Keeping it simple and adaptable is the key. A pair of stands, 2 brollies and 3-4 YN 560 flash units work fine even for big groups (brollies are very versatile and efficient), backgrounds are often avoided unless requested using the room lights and natural darkness as my “ambient” background. One of my favourite techniques is a long hall with chandeliers or side lights, a regal chair or two and some shallow depth from a lower angle, balanced with warm light gels. This is gorgeous and refined with minimal effort.

Where is all this gear kept?

I leave the editorial bag at work overnight unless I am off for several days, the sports kit goes in on the relevant days and I am putting together a small prtable studio rig. The rest is either at home or in the car packed as video, event/studio, street or travel kits. There is always an emergency mini studio in the car.

The Sony Train And What Do You Really Need?

Sony is everywhere at the moment. Every job I do has another photographer there with a Sony Axx and G master or Sigma ART prime on. They are still killing it with focus, have some very good glass (a bit OTT, but all credit to them and they have certainly addressed the glaring weakness from their early day) and their low light performance is the one to beat.

Sure, they are clinically perfect, in both a good and bad sense, but hey.

For the new generation of shooters, this is the Sony era, everyone else seems to be playing catch up.

I guess the big questions are still to be answered.

Question 1; Can AF ever read you mind?

AF is never used on major film productions, because even if you could (you actually can) programme an AF system to do what a human can do, it is still easier to use an experienced human to focus for you. Transitions? At what speed, what focus steps, how smooth? Human does instinctively and organically what the computer is told to do. The big pole is a miss by a computer is obvious, because it is confused often resulting in an over correct, where a human miss is subtle, gentle and can be fixed the same way.

Same difference I guess, but we are soon to reach that point when the human is the quant choice, not the automatic option. We are not however, there yet and the human touch will never be irrelevant, just rarer as computers offer “easier” fixes than muscle memory.

AF right now, no matter how good cannot read your mind or creative processes and even on the rare occassions it can make do, it is only replacing some small effort on the users part.

Question 2; Other than in run and gun trouble shooting situations, would you ever use a super high ISO setting rather than better lighting?

We once had to work with a very small range of low ISO settings for even decent quality (40-200 in my life time, 1600 being nasty). This range has expanded massively, but ask any pro and they will use the best ISO, not the highest when they have any choice in the matter. Expanding our options is always good, but at some point enough is actually enough.

Documentary and news shooters even subscribe to this, but often they have to compromise. Sure workable (not pretty) ISO 800,000 is great when you need it. Do you need it? Would you ever compromise the quality of your footage/stills unless you had to? Video only needs 1/50th of a second, stills maybe 1/350th does most things, so there is an achievable outer limit.

Once clean ISO 6400-12,800 is achieved, you are capable of handling most situations.

Question 3; How much lens is too much?

I touched on this recently. Super shallow depth and creamy Bokeh is a thing, possibly and over used thing and it is often not needed, nor even practical. In the past, the f1.4 lens was a must for low light, because ISO’s were limited, but now that is almost a thing of the past, that only leaves very shallow depth of field for creative purposes or bragging rights*.

An extreme situation handled by an f1.8 lens.

To be honest, if your background is that unworkable and ugly, then you probably need to use one of the many excellent background replacement tools available, control your lighting, or just go with f1.8 to 2.8 and better technique. Any lens can render a soft background if you apply good technique. One of my favourite lenses for soft Bokeh is a f6.7 zoom!

Question 4; How much resolution do you actually need?

Seriously, what are your end user expectations and what do you need to get there? Internet use, book or brochure printing? Even fine art has a limit usually imposed on it by a factor not camera related, so before you go and produce really massive files, only to have them down sized by up to 90% for web or print uses, think about your real needs. A high res, poorly executed image is of less use than a sharp, clean and clear lower res one.

I am in the habit now of just sending clients web sized images with the masters filed away for other uses. Rarely do they ever ask for anything bigger. My highest pressure pro shoot, the Telstra Board portraits ended up being printed as passport sized images in their annual report. This is also a f2.8 M43 file (see Q3)

The same with video. Anything over 1080p or 4k is for hypothetical future proofing***, something that is likely not a real issue for most footage that ends up at 720 or 1080 for web use. Pet projects, record keeping and sales to Netflix aside, the end viewing medium is likely 1080, maybe 4k and likely the watcher will not be able to tell the difference anyway, especially if it is upscaled.

I always find it funny how the high res crowd are also addicted to softening filters for that true movie camera look, which is often just less digitally perfect.

Like most things, quality is not necessarily best measured as quantity and larger quantities can introduce issues of their own like the need for ridiculously highly corrected lenses just to break even.

*

Most of the issues being addressed at the moment are only issues if you let them be.

1. Good practices have always been enough in the past and tech should not be a lazy replacement for them. How did we survive up to now? Good technique, knowing our gear and avoiding known pit falls.

2. Other things matter, like having proper lens coverage**, good colour, practiced technique, a relevant subject, being quiet, nimble, empathic, having happy shoulders for working long periods, not drawing attention to yourself or being “that” person.

3. F1.8 does basically the same job as f1.4 for creative blurring etc, if you know how to use it and for low light makes so little difference it comes more down to a lens by lens comparison or software choice. Save yourself the cost, bulk and hassle of the brutish lens and go with the other guy. They not only do the job, but sometimes have even better AF, handling or other benefits and often the slightly slower prime and a Pro f2.8 zoom cost the same as one or two “super” primes. Ask yourself honestly how often you will use f1.4 and does every lens have to be that fast?

4. Getting off the more, more, more train helps you grow personally, rather than your kit increasing, with a corresponding reduction in savings. I have seen far too many young shooters tote a massive kit of gear to a job that does not need it, and I wonder how many jobs they have to do to break even? Should two A7r4’s, a trio of 35/50/85 G master lenses, really be a pair of A7 mk3’s, a 24-70 and 85 f1.8, saving you $1000’s and offering a better range?

5. Software will be or is already the fix for many current problems. The recent NASA negative retrieval exercise that bought an astronaut out of an inky shadow is only a taste of the future.

6. Finally, it sometimes helps to just stop worrying. Cheaper kit is cheaper to replace, easier to carry and the whole thing can be replaced easily, allowing you to concentrate on better work.

A 75mm f1.8 acting as a 150mm f3.4 on full frame. Regardless, f1.8 was enough. F1.4 would have added a half stop fatser shutter speed or half stop lower ISO and even softer background, but may also have lost a part of the subject. In other words, even If I could, I would not have used wider.

*A local shooter at a Mayoral swearing in ceremony recently showed me his Nikkor 0.95 lens, that he intended to use when he did the studio lit portraits in a small room? A 50mm f1.8 would have easily done that, but oh, the wanker value!

In a presser yesterday at a small graduation ceremony, photographer “X” was so tied to his G Master 50mm, that he spent far too long shuffling people around a small room until they all fit in his shot. A Pro 24-70 would have been ideal, but the super fast prime, which I bet he did not shoot at F1.4 when his group needed to go three deep to fit the shot, was a hindrance (I also wonder how big the images will ever need to be from a rushed group shot). As an aside, I got the same shot over his shoulder with a tiny M43 17 f1.8 at 1.8 (ff f3.4) with room to crop!

**I rarely use my 8-18, but when large groups may come into play, it is handy. Having a set of super sharp, super fast primes at the expense of more width or length just does not make sense. Look at the older shooters who run a pair or three zooms and a select fast prime or two as options. This comes from a long history of just working and cannot be more relevant than now.

I bought the wide lens along just in case for this shoot. Group shots were a last minute thing, then they got bigger and bigger on a crowded stage, but 16mm eq covered it. No other lens I own solves as many problems as this one from so little use, but when it is needed, there is no other option. Another fast prime instead? No way.

***Nothing shot from the later 20th century to now is unwatchable, but you can tell the generational differences and changing styles. We seem at the moment to have a fixation on video resolution without a true understanding of the realities of change and viewer perceptions. Things will change regardless of our attempts to arrest it. Our footage in 20 years will look dated no matter what we do, because preferences and tastes change, techniques evolve and quality (not just resolution) increases. Shoot 8k if you feel you need to, but nobody but you will know and none will request these massive files “as is”. Ironically, future software will likely allow for massive upressing anyway.

The Power Of The Crop

I am not a huge fan of massive pixel counts, but the ability to crop heavily makes all the difference. My 300mm on the EM1x seems to be happy with about 1/4 of the frame used (about 1200mm in full frame).

Bad Day Turned Good.

I had a horror day planned today.

A full day for two, about eleven jobs on a Saturday, was unrealistic for just one when the other tog came down with COVID.

We culled, shifted, adjusted until it became four sporting events and two editorial shoots with a small easement for processing. I was still expecting a late one and for something to go wrong.

Sporting events can be a mixed bag, but today I got lucky.

Adult grade athletics with pole vaulting, hurdles and more.

Every event had clear numbering, good and accurate sources for identifying the people that belonged to them and the events were more photogenic than some.

A couple of quick editorial jobs, requiring different gear and another frame of mind. Gotta love diversity.

A demonstration of robotic remote surgery. They peeled a tomato later on.

Then some football.

I did muck this one up a little, taking only my 600mm, forgetting that I usually go two camera and lenses, but the long lens only meant I got some really tight images.

Funny thing is, my favourite sport to watch and play is Cricket, which I don’t much like photographing it especially in a hurry, but my least favourite sport to watch after horse racing, AFL (I just have no interest), is one of the best to photograph.

Two games of Cricket and day done.

The Limit?

So it had to happen. I may have found my limit for gear stress.

Turning up to a local soccer match, state league, but at an older ground, I found out just how low the light can get and the game still go on. Please keep in mind, the images I have uploaded are significantly lighter than actual field on the night.

ISO 6400 is ok and ISO 12,800 is possible for the odd shot, but really needs ON1 for every file. 300mm eq F2.8 is also ok, especially for a smaller soccer pitch, but 1/500th is a little slow and even then I was a tad under exposing (I lost a few potentially good ones). My 75 f1.8 would have been fine, but a little short when pressed for time.

I got away with it, but only just. To be honest I was surprised how low it was. The players seemed fully adjusted, but I wonder if is possible there is worse to come? The hockey ground is also poor, but I think the artificial pitch bounces more light back up.

A blurry ball is a guarantee, but with timing, subject movement can be tolerable, even cool.

To be honest, the tight, mono noise was not a big deal to me and the files are sharp, but I am getting touchy about my images, even for the paper.

Interestingly, the files printed on news print brilliantly.

Full Frame, Of Mind

The S5 has been sitting around waiting for some love. To be honest so have a lot of my cameras, but this is different.

The S5 represents several things.

Opportunity. All the possibilities that a better video (and stills) camera can offer.

Hope. Hope that the reality meets the expectation.

Fear. Fear that the M43 kit I love and use may be under threat and that the imagined potential is not real.

Pressure. Pressure to use it, even justify it. I have M43 cameras that dont get used enough, but this was a glove thrown down. The GH5.2 would have been the “softest” challenge made, the GH6 probably middle and the S5 a genuine “let’s do this”, even if it was the cheapest*.

Regret. Regret that I did not go M43 in a GH6 or GH5.2 to block out all the above.

Apathy. No great driving force or project to chase to help me just get on with it, which comes mainly down to work, work, work.

The 50mm S is lovely.

Tons of quality, even when pushed.

Nice Bokeh.

The 50mm Pentax adds options, especially for video. There is also the Super 35 TTArtisan and others.

The kit zoom is decent enough, offering wide angle macro as a bonus.

ISO 1000 is actually a low ISO for this camera.

It is different, but in a good way.

The differences for stills are a “bigger” and deeper looking file with more crop-ability, lower noise and better dynamic range. The negatives are the extra care that needs to be taken with steadiness and shallow depth that still catches me (and I am already over the super bokeh thing).

Same, same backwards, which is what I always say about M43.

This is just a reminder to me that again having both systems is a benefit. I also like the balance of this combination, with a M43 heavy system and the S5 as a “lung” when needed.

The extra shallow depth of field, higher ISO capability and thanks to that and a more movie-centric design, give generally better video, so make this useful to fix those specific things, but M43 is still my preferred option for most other things because of it’s better AF, stabilising, deeper depth of field and double reach. I just find M43 cameras easier and more fun to use.

The reverse would be too much size, weight and cost for the return with M43 relegated to just being the “little” option. I did this and the urge to follow the M43 path was too strong.

*The S5 with two lenses cost less than the GH6 body only and only slightly dearer than the GH5.2 with one.

Stocktake Time

Sometimes to relieve GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), the best thing you can do is go and look at old or even more recent reviews of your current gear.

This has triggered me to look at my kit, the future, possible upgrade paths and things that really need some well earned appreciation.

Cameras

I will spare you the “any camera you have is the right camera” rhetoric, but I will say that the time of cameras getting demonstrably better every generation is well past. Any camera made in the last ten years is good enough, but some are better at some things than others and none are perfect.

For example, my best performers (EM1x) are dearer and bigger than the others, my favourites to use (G9’s) do not play perfectly with some lenses and my sentimental favourites (EM5 mk1) are tracking AF limited and aging, but as a team, they are more than capable.

Remember also, that any camera capale of producing a sharp and clear 8mp image can still out resolve a 4k screen and can print to a decent size. With this in mind, often the best value cameras are the ones you own, not the ones you want.

2x G9.

The G9 is my favourite camera. A near perfect ergonomic blend of Canon and Nikon. I use a pair of EM1.2’s for the paper and they are more than fine, but the G9’s just handle so much better, so are reserved for commercial, hybrid and studio work. The G9 is a bigger camera with more dials and buttons than the EM1.2 and sometimes I get lost in the menus, but at the end of the day, a properly set up G9 is the best stills and video camera hybrid.

The AF with a non Panasonic tele lens can be twitchy and the stabiliser is not as good as the EM1x with movement, but is at least equal for semi-static work. I also like the image quality technically as much as the EM1x, but emotionally, maybe more.

The portrait kings, with only the “toy” EM10 mk2’s coming close.

Status; A new G9 would be interesting, even a GH6, but until something really rocks my world, the G9 is nearly the perfect camera. There may even be another firmware upgrade or two and a tele lens to round out their capabilities.

Ignore the tape, it is only covering slightly lifting rubber on that hand grip, but has become quite comfortable.

2x EM1.2.

The workhorse EM1.2’s always surprise. I have felt these are under some pressure, but realistically, they are still quite new for pro cameras, are close to as good as anything else I have and have surely paid for themselves. The lack of the thumb nubbin lever is really the only negative, but I adapt. Some of the early negatives I read about and observed with the Mk2’s like greenish colour casts and slight softness, effectively disappeared when I switched from Adobe to C1. Lesson learned.

In the early days of the EM1.2 I felt they were a compromise on the quality I got from the Pen F and EM5’s, having better AF at the cost of a compromised sensor, but with C1, all that went away. The G9’s and EM1x’s are better in low light by about a stop, but that is it.

Status; I will likely get an EM1.3, EM5 mk3 or maybe an OM-1 if one dies, or use a G9 if video comes back into the frame at the paper. My G9 for wide, EM1.2 for longer lenses kit worked ok, but the G9 is bigger than an EM1 and the two battery thing was annoying.

2x EM1x.

The “X’s” are my sports cameras and they play very happily in that space. I also really like the handling, clean layout and ironically for an M43 lover, the size. Performance exceeds my needs and skills.

Pushed into a different space, enjoying the more flexible dynamic range the X’s offer.

Status; I bought a second one this last end of year because it is simply the best camera I have used and still holds up against the OM-1 and EM1.3.

Pen F.

Love this camera, but use it far too little. Travel, landscape and studio are it’s true lanes, none of which are getting much of a go at the moment, but I hope to change that.

The sensor in this camera is a very differnet beast. Sharper, harder and truer than the other cameras, it is less capable in low light, although the noise is film like. This is the fully realised evolution of the EM5 Mk1 sensor, before the phase detect version took over.

Status; A classic I use not close to enough, but still love. No way or need to replace it.

S5.

This full frame camera was bought for video primarily, but stills are an option. I deliberately bought the Mk1 on sale instead of the Mk2 which was released the day after, because it was more than enough for my needs and by far the best value available when compared to the GH5.2 and GH6 on sale at the same time. This camera feels like a standard V8 compared to the turbo 4 cylinder M43 cameras I have and was the straightest path to pro grade video I could take.

The S5, with a running mate G9, which is how I need to look at it.

Status; The S5 changed the capabilites of my kit in key areas, offerring the fixes for video I needed and a doorway to full frame, but to be honest, I doubt I will get too carried away here. Maybe a Mk2 and a couple more primes or a kit tele, but nothing much else.

2x OM10.2.

These little winners are my light travel and event cameras (2 bodies, the kit 12-60 and 40-150 and 2 small primes weight about 1kg). The silver one in particular is my lucky flash camera, meshing really well with artificial light, especially with select lenses.

Status; No need to upgrade or change these until one or both die, but they owe me nothing (I bought both cheap on clearance) and they get an amateur grade working life. If I did need to replace one, a OM10.4 would likely be it, because the sensor is close to the one used in the Pen F (two birds…..).

The mixed bag of “hobby” cameras, all more than capable.

1-2x Pen Mini mk2.

One belongs to my wife, one is mine. These are the older 16mp sensor also and I love their files. Just my opinion, but for me the 16mp sensors put out by Fuji, Olympus/Panasonic and Nikon were a real sweet spot. These are hip level street cameras and I truly hope they will get another trip overseas.

Status; see EM5 mk1 below.

1-4x EM5.1.

A bit tired, but much loved and still used for personal stuff. The first cameras I have ever used until they died and I will miss the sensor when the last one falls over.

A file that defies technical criticism, from a 13 year old camera.

Status; Use them until there is nothing left, then lovingly shelve them. These are still capable machines for many tasks and the files have a certain something. Unfortunately, they are getting a little old to pick up as second hand deals, so their end is imminent.

Cannot forget the cameras that got me here.

As you can see there is a pattern. The Olympus cameras do the hard yards and thankless paper work. The Panasonics are more for love projects and the “spares” are used to reduce the load on others and personal stuff.

Cameras that fall in and out of favour when looking ahead are legion.

EM10.4 (pen F lite), EM5.3 (EM1.2 lite), OM-5 (EM1.3 lite), OM-1(latest and greatest), EM1.3 or a cheap EM1.2 (known beast at the right price), GH85 (a decent video option), G7 (also a good 4k video “B” cam), GH5.2 (live streaming, 400 bit All-i), GH6 (Super M43), S5.2 or a cheap S5 (fleshing out full frame), maybe a Sigma FP (with Lumix S lenses). All are great, some ideal, so I have options and intend to keep an eye out for best bargains.

Quality that still impresses me from M43 is a common thing.

Looking at my kit in a job specific way.

Landscape. No need to improve. I have plenty of quality and high res that is never used.

The kit 12-60 Panasonic.

Sport. Two EM1x’s and EM1.2’s as backups are tons. Nothing needed here. Maybe a Panasonic long lens to increase my options. I already had a 35-100 miss-fire, but may try again.

Can you use a hand held 600 f4 in a humid, dark and crowded environment?

Editorial. My day bag is the most heavily used kit, with two well used, ut healthy enough EM1.2’s. I will replace these with the best buy available when I need, or maybe demote an Em1x or add a G9 if video becomes a thing again.

The 12-40 on an EM1.2, light as was, channeling Rosie the Riveter.

Travel. Never a latest and greatest thing, I take pride in getting my images from “hobby” level kit. Two EM10’s the Pens and even my last EM5’s are fine.

A kit tele on a basic camera.

Street. Any camera, the less “pro” looking the better. The little Pen Mini on a 60” strap for wide and maybe an EM10 or 5 with the kit 40-150 or 45 for long.

A product of organisation and reaction speed, not a super camera.

My next trip to Japan will be with the Pen F, Pen mini and my last reliable EM5 mk1. Lenses will be the 9, 15, 25, 45 and 75 primes.