Video Evolution

The third podcast was recorded on Wednesday.

The system is still evolving, but not much more can be done.

Building for the future.

Sound is now the Zoom F1 with SSH-6 set to 60 degrees mid-side, placed centre of the table between the four panelists It still needs a little Eq after, but it is otherwise fairly clean and deep. I am going to try shooting across the room, removing the corner echo and cleaning up the messy background. You would assume the diagonal would be longer, but I realised we can hang the background foam-core panel on the wall, saving two feet.

I could have moved to Lav mics for less than $100 (3 more Boya M1’s and a second XLR to 3.5 adapter for the zoom, allowing 4 to be used at once). The little H5 does not get much of a run, but boy has it got flexibility. The problem with this is having to mic up four people, then being stuffed when a fifth guest is added one day or a mic goes down.

The mid-side shotgun allows me to deal with up to six, the maximum for the table.

Picture is fine. The Flat profile on the S5 is quickly becoming a favourite.

Lighting is what it is, which is to say the rule of “the subject should always be brighter than the background” is out the window. If it goes on to bigger things I have tons of muscle in the background, but as we are now, it is “what you see is literally……….”.

In Service, Some Real Satisfaction.

Today I shot a semi serious studio and candid portrait day for the Migrant Resource Centre. It was volunteer work, something that I am finding a bit of a revelation.

It really felt good and good to be useful.

I ran late all day, wearing a watch set to the wrong time by an hour* (I think I may have set it back from daylight savings, twice), but my habit of turning up early meant I was unknowingly just on time.

G9, 12-60 Leica wide open at about 40mm, one YN560 IV through a 42” Godox brolly and a silver reflector at waist level. Vignetting was added and the colour shifted after brushing in the background, using white balance.

The volunteer above gets the gong out of respect for the privacy of others, but you get the idea.

I used butterfly lighting to combat the limits of the small room, but should have used a larger continuous back drop as the 2.4 x 2.1m Manfrotto was not right for small children placed on the floor, or large groups.

Next time I will likely do a continuous cloth, then hang the collapsible in front, removing it if needed to reveal the continuous or simply have a bigger room and do several options.

The butterfly light I used allowed me to push the light and reflector up and down to suit heights from 3-6ft and the reflector the same (about 30 degrees above eye line is ok). If I had more room, a larger mod** would make subject size irrelevant. I might also look at continuous lights for one or more setups.

I used the grey side of the big Manfrotto collapsible. I started with the slightly smaller Pewter, loving the very slightly mottled look, but it was simply too small (as was even the bigger one and the room itself as it goes).

*I only realised at 2:30 when I went out for milk and hit the 3:30 school grid lock.

**7’ Brolly, maybe a 4’ soft box or a soft box into a screen for a more “book light” look.

The New Champion (Of Darkness)

My forced explorations of poorly lit sports venues has a new champion.

The local aquatic centre is impressive, amazing even. A modern, fully appointed pool complex sitting on top of the hill that dominates the city, it has it all. Views, facilities, good patronage and versatility.

The lighting though, can be truly rubbish.

During the day the treated glass panels let in some light, but it tends to be half and half, the artificial light then adding a sickly pall. Good results can be had, but it is on the outside edge of workable.

Even an F4 lens works in mixed daylight.

I assume there is a reason, most likely to do with safety, but the centre of the pool has no overheads. The wings are fine, sets of paired down lights running down both long sides, but the middle is in shadow.

Worse than that, the lights had a tendency to back-light players close to the goals, because the row of lights started about ten feet up the side and miss the ends.

This is the light to my eye. ISO 6400, 1/500th at f2.8.

Lightened to something printable, but suffering poor colour and some nasty, blotchy noise.

About as ugly as I will tolerate and only for news print or small web reproduction. Even as a M43 shooter, I am not used to this. M43 tends to give you sharpness and noise, something de-noising can deal with. From tests I ran last year, the D750 Nikon I was issued was no better, trading off slightly better noise control for lower sharpness.

On the wings, the light level was acceptable even if the colour and contrast is poor, so basically what I expected.

Fine for most uses. Exposing for this half of the space was a numbers game I could win.

Most attacks came down the wings, so all good, but I found myself chasing the action into the middle, where even the players said it was hard to tell the difference between the dark green and maroon team vests.

At 1/350th, this sort of shot is fine.

Options?

Drop the shutter speed to 1/350th, which is pushing it for action, but ok for semi static shots. This means shooting more, then sifting through to find the good ones.

Push the ISO to 12800, which probably would have been a good idea in hindsight because I know the noise in a well exposed 12800 file is better than an under exposed 6400 one. This is the trick to low light work, don’t under expose.

Use a faster lens. Not knowing the pool size used (8 lane 50m potentially, but only 25m was used on the night), I took my 40-150 f2.8 and 300, but as it turned out the 75mm would have been better.

The problem though is walking from a cold evening into a humid environment and I had a job right before so no time to acclimatise my gear. The 75mm is not weather sealed, so can be a fogging nightmare, the only flaw of an otherwise perfect lens.

Use the S5 and crop like hell. I am thinking I need to use this dual ISO camera more when I don’t know what I am going into, which may lead to a longer lens (the 85mm f1.8 could do a lot of indoor sports).

Add light. Flash used to be the only answer and still can be sometimes. Not sure it was cosher in this case though.

Get one of the new breed, like the OM-1, GH6 etc, possibly a G9 mk2 when released. These all seem to offer a stop or more high ISO performance. This was the one area swinging me towards the GH6 at Christmas.

Do what I did and suck up the fact that some files will be iffy for fine art purposes, but fine for the paper.

This is fine I guess, but we have a new champion in a less than desirable space. As you can see, the background is considerably lighter.

M43 does lag behind full frame in this area, which makes sense, but not usually by as much as you would suppose and I say this from using a kit that does not have the absolute top dogs in the class. Usually the lens advantage can bridge the gap. even get a little ahead, but sometimes a perfect storm of circumstances does conspire to fight your best efforts.

Looking at this from a whole other perspective, noise has lately become the un-tolerated enemy. A bit of noise is often invisible in print, even more so on line, but it seems standards are shifting to “no noise, perfect colour, smooth and sharp always” regardless of ISO, which for any photographer with ten years or more of working memory seems like an unrealistic ask.

Personnally I have lived through the ISO 100 slide film, 400 colour and 1600 mono negative film, ISO 1600, then 6400, now 12,800 digital barriers, so this is just another stage in the process.

Lessons We Teach Ourselves (When We Listen)

I am a details person. In photography especially, I go tight, seek patterns, clean and decisive, no clutter.

A small section of an otherwise ordinary bit of coastline.

I remember when I was young, I had a camera, but no car (priorities, right?). What I did have was the Cataract Gorge, a decent photographers training ground just over my back fence. It was not buffet of options, so sometimes a little stream had to stand in as a raging river and water fall (can be done).

Many rolls of Kodachrome or Fuji Velvia were exposed under ferns, through trees downward onto leaf details. I looked for the wonder of the small, the details we all tend to walk past (or on/through/over).

I can close in tightly with a long lens and do regularly, but most often I find myself compelled to move closer.

Long lenses and abstract clarity are familiar to me….

…but small as big is more common.

To clarify though, I have never been a huge macro shooter. My desire to take artistic images as opposed to reference level ones, negates the need to get that close. M43 lenses can usually get to a quarter or half life size with little effort, which is enough.

Shot with the humble 25 f1.8, one of several lenses capable of pseudo macro. As a hard study of these berries, it fails, but that is not my intent.

Revisiting my Japan files, the slightly surprisingly joyous rediscovery of my garden images in particular, I am struck by the change in my own processes. The reality is, detail chasing requires a little exploration, intrusion even. In our wilderness and semi wild park lands, this is accepted. In Japan it is definitely not ok.

My habits changed, seemingly unnoticed from shrinking my world by going to it, to defining medium to larger spaces more succinctly from a forced distance. You always have to shoot from the pathway, no exceptions. I did it, but did not feel the excitement I usually would, so I tended to dismiss the images at the time.

In short, this photographer has discovered the medium-large landscape years after practicing the form by necessity. That necessity breeding semi reluctant adaption with an heavy dose of “might as well, because I may not get back”.

I suppose the processes are identical, just the perspective was changed. The odd thing though is I consistently took the images even though they failed to impress immediately or in the shorter term afterwards. They seemed to need to stew for a while, waiting for a new me and a new processing paradigm to appreciate them.

We did not realise at the time, but this is one of the better known garden features in Japan, highlighted by Monte Don.

I am never going to be the magnificent vista, big sky, foreground to horizon image maker. That has never been me and is done so much better by so many others, but there is a middle ground.

Night Owl

Handling low light with M43 may seem like a trip to that formats “scary” place, but it turns out, the tools are all there.

As the sun drops, the mirrorless advantage first steps up, allowng you to shoot what you see, how you see it.

You can caress the file in exposure giving you more options later.

Fast glass and accurate focussing then come to the rescue. All these images are 8 years old shot on EM5 mk1’s so this has been the case for a while.

From the hip, fast and quiet.

The built in stabilisers, made all the more potent having to only support the smaller sensor.

Down to as low as 1 second.

As the ISO creeps it, things still hold together fine, the lenses becoming the primary empowerment tools. The 17mm Olympus in particular is a champion here.

Finally, processing handles what the system cannot. This is of course the norm these days, processing pulling more than just its weight and will likely do more in the future.

Kyoto Wandering

Some more garden shots from Kyoto.

I am still surprised I am responding so positively to these shots. They slipped under the radar first time around, but I am looking at them differently now. Each is getting a fair go, nothing is lost in the flood of files I tend to rush through after a trip.

These are beautiful places, each the result of sometimes generations of care and careful planning. Lacking the time to revisit them regulalry in person, all I can do is take the shots that feel right at the time, then revisit them this way.

What Do We Really Need Revisited, Or A Plea For Sanity.

A favourite topic of mine is looking at the realistic end point of our work, the tools needed to get there and their application. This was an obsession for a long time, then slowly shifted to a more intellectual exercise as my own processes and gear settled, allowing me to stop chasing rainbows and take a hard look at technical realities.

The photo and video industries are very quick to tell is that more is better. More pixels, higher resolution, faster operation, more options, more endurance, greater potential, but the reality is, we maybe do not need as much as we are led to believe.

This particular re-post was inspired by a visit to a friend about to go on a trip with a decent compact camera and a good eye at a time when some more Japan files have been stumbled acros. I keep seeing good images coming from gear considered so very sub-par by the current thinking.

Photographers and videographers are the worst judges of this.

We are generally pixel count and resolution obsessed, something the industry as a whole is pushing to stay relevant and alive, so always chasing better at the cost of more than good enough. This has always been the case, but like most things at the moment, it seems to have been turbo charged (although slowing thanks in part to COVID, which has allowed us to take stock).

In the film era, much desired improvements happened once a decade at most, bigger formats ruled, enlargement and viewing tools were limited, so the technology itself limited our choices and in turn these limitations forced better technique.

We as a group still turned out good work for over 100 years.

Firstly lets address the viewer.

Most of your viewers should not be practitioners. If they are, you need to get out more. The average viewer will be at first attracted to your subject matter, then their emotional contention to same. This connection may be driven by relevance or simply content, but without it, you have nothing. The average viewer will only be aware of the technical stuff when they are aware they fall short of the norm, showing faults of some type. With video, this is ironically most often related to poor sound.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that beholder is rarely concerned or even aware of the finer technical details.

So, what is the norm?

The current viewing base-line is 1080 to 4k screen viewing, often on small screens at that. The occasional need to “explore” details rarely happens on any but a purely technical level and must be balanced with applying the rule of the proper viewing distance.

Large fine art prints, billboards and huge, high resolution screens are usually viewed at the correct viewing distance and they all fall apart on closest inspection (a 4k screen is only 8mp resolution and printing comes eventually down to ink dots and paper texture).

Contrasting subjects, strong light, deep depth of field and clean lines all contributed to this images perceived “quality”. It could however have been taken by any decent compact camera.

Often the weakest link in the quality chain is outside of your control or irrelevant in real terms.

Ming Thein on his blog experimented with ultra high resolution printing and although successful, found that the ability to mimic on paper what a high resolution (36mp) file on a screen could potentially show (loupe-level detail of the moon on a landscape print), was possible, but ultimately irrelevant and cost prohibitive. Basically he came to the ultimate question of “yes, but who cares?”.

Ctein, a master printer, offered for collectors a cheap (printing cost and freight) 13”x19” print from an older 12mp EPM-1 Olympus M43 sensor image, a sensor known to be softer than later models, just to show that with good technique, pixels and sensor size are ultimately quite low on the quality control check list. The image of a large portion of a bridge showed individual rivets clearly. All his work has a thread of the practical application of sensible gear. His take is good technique beats just tech alone, or alternatively, no amount of tech will save bad technique.

So, what is important?

Separation.

Not always the primary quality concern of an image maker, separation adds to the perception of sharpness or lack of it.

Separation (sharpness) comes from many sources, edge contrast being the main element. Contrast is a combination of light, subject matter (texture and tone), control of noise or grain, depth of field, colour, clarity, lens sharpness and image “stillness”, all contributing to the visual elements of clear separation.

The two images below are identical except the left hand one has added contrast. No sharpness, just contrast in a variety of forms (gentle exposure+vignetting, clarity, dehaze, contrast). The right hand image is sharp, but lacks obvious tells for the viewer.

You can lose sharpness easily enough by compromising any one of these elements, but you do not add any more visual sharpness by throwing more pixels at the problem. This only matters when enlargement size or micro viewing become the main consideration and only after the rest have been addressed. Pixels are only the quantity, not the quality of the image.

The two images below were taken identically. The one on the left looks less sharp, because the right hand image has more contrast and cleaner elements. They are identical down to “chicken wire” level.

More pixels can actually detract from sharpness, if their higher needs are not met. A high resolution full frame sensor needs some pretty tight technique and premium glass to feed it. No amount of post processing will fix resolution lost to blurr, lens aberrations or soft corners, all more likely the bigger the sesnsor and higher the pixel count.

This image is cropped slightly to square from an older generation 16mp, M43 camera file, hand held with a medium grade 45 f1.8 prime lens. It has separation, contrast, shallow depth, colour and clarity. It would not be visually sharper with more pixels, but if enlarged enough, it will fall apart when the maximum enlargement size of the relatively small pixel count is surpassed. If image sharpness is retained with more pixels added then you can print it bigger, but all the other rules are at play here first.

As much as we all get a little thrill when we can see minute details like the small hairs on the leaf edge, who apart from a field scientist, obsessed photog or the occassional overly curious observer, looks this closely at a wider image. Go macro if this really interests you or accept it for what it is.

Pushed in as close as the 16mp sensor will happily go, there is still detail separation to be found, probably lost in a print or a screen. Notice also how the visible sharpness plane has shifted. The rear leaf looks sharp above, but has become a blurred background element at this magnification. Printing, although it can lose fine detail, can also organically smooth out digital artefacts, a useful trade off.

Sometimes, even with the best gear and technique an image by its very nature resists impressing us with its detail retention. A lack of separation at one level can however change context at another. In the image below, a lack of colour contrast and the finest detail being too small to see makes the wider image look high quality and textural but not “snappy”.

The crop reveals micro detail and adds contrast with simpler and cleaner elements.

Quality is dependant on so many things, pixels are just one and often not the biggie.

Bokeh is sometimes maligned by photographers who have not been exposed to its true meaning. Bokeh is not how much blurring a lens can render, which is mostly down to depth of field, but the quality or character of that blurring. This can effect perceived subject separation.

An example of smooth Bokeh and shallow depth of field can play for clean separation. One of the reasons photographers are often drawn to smoothly rendered Bokeh is it adds to the impression of separation by cleanly contrasting the sharp with the unsharp. This was one of the “Leica magic” characteristics so loved in the film era.

Sometimes, even when your sharpness ducks are not in a neat row, you can still get that “snappy” rendering. The Olympus 17mm, unique to me in that it renders background detail very coherently even at wide apertures, but still manages to separate middle distance subjects out.

Cleanliness.

I am not talking about the photographers hygiene or even their subjects, but image cleanliness.

This has layers so bare with.

A lack of actual image cleanliness, such as noise (grain), chromatic aberration or any other obvious technical flaw and poor techniques like missed focus or poorly arresting subject motion will reduce the objective quality of an image. The common offender is often flat, poor light mixed with high ISO Grain and mild subject movement, making poorly lit indoor sport the king of pain.

Contrary to this, sometimes grain or texture can actually add to separation and define edges as it has enough contrast and is clean in its own right. I had a friend, sadly passed away over a decade ago, who was very successful on the international fine art circuit with his ultra grainy black and white images. His methodology was to use super sharply defined film (later digital) grain on an otherwise clean base, rather than try to avoid it.

Sometimes when most of the elements of clean separation are missing, you have to take what you can. The soldier in the background is an ideal example of lost separation due to low sharpness, blended colours and other aberrations, but these in turn add to the feeling of clean separation of the bugler.

When things go your way, it can seem too easy.

Brilliant sun adding contrast, shallow depth of field and no noise or overly busy Bokeh all add to the quality of this image.

This may not be what you want. Blur, movement, texture, grain, other colour weirdness may be the desired elements of an image, in which case a designed-to-be-flawed Holga, relic SLR or home made pin-hole film camera will likely be the tools of choice/ If not, cleanliness will help raise your perceived image quality to the next level.

Ironically, the video industry is mostly trying to avoid overly sharp “digital” looking footage, often employing softening filters to “take the edge off” or in other words, “dirty up” the image. Separation in movies is often desirable, but the hyper-realistic hard-sharp look is not.

*

The other form of image cleanliness is compositional clarity.

Have a clear message and communcate it cleanly. This comes with experience and a decent dose of inherent talent (I rely on experience mostly).

This has two benefits. On the one hand it makes comprehending the image easier for the viewer so they look at it instinctively, not critically. On the other, it reduces visual distractions and increases the feeling of subject separation.

A worker at Hangar 17 distillery. The elements are kept simple, the only “clutter” is relevant and additive.

OK, so from the above, where am I going (again)?

• Take good, compelling, relevant photos or nothing else matters.

• Use good technique and learn your gears strengths and limits to unlock its potential (which few ever do fully).

• Do not get distracted by arguments about sensor size, pixel count of resolution until you undeniably come across a situation you cannot solve any other way.

• Learn to appreciate your own work on its visual strength, not its technical short comings.

• Look at the best of what others do, but avoid the obsessive need to find out what gear they used, because ultimately, it does not matter. Looking at photos is good, obsessing over gear is pointless. I did for years and the take away is, it is wasted time.

*

Pixels/Resolution is not all important, only technically relevant at the extremes of reproduction. End viewing needs rarely require more than the current base line (20-26mp). Software empowerment aside, only large printing fine artists or scientists genuinely need more than this. Sharpness and clarity on the other hand, is important.

For video, 1080p is what most clients actually need, even if they think they need 4k or more. Good 1080p trumps poorly realised 4k every time. Often 4k is reduced in size for common use, with no inherent advantage. Again, quality trumps quantity.

Sensor size has some relevance for image cleanliness, especially in low light, especially for video, but often good technique can fix any issues. As a smaller M43 sensor stills user, I use fast glass (also with a depth of field advantage), good processing, exposure tricks and lighting to solve all the issues I come across and if these do not work, only a small handful of bigger sensor cameras would offer any real benefit before they also fall over (we are talking about shooting in near complete darkness with very demanding expectations). Use the kit that best suits your needs, the math evens out.

Embrace your camera, but if the images it makes fall short, look to technique before buying a new one. Maybe a new lens if you only have the kit one, something fast for shallow depth, maybe a prime to help train your eye and guarantee top quality. A (good) tripod can help, then migrate away from jpegs to RAW or do a workshop in a field that interests you, but try to avoid more pixels just for their own sake. It is the path of least reward.

*Studies have shown that the quality difference of video resolutions over 4k at this point in time, even if viewed at an uncomfortably close distance, is effectively invisible to the eye. The same goes for printing. A billboard at the correct distance can look razor sharp, even though at closer distances it is made up of golf ball sized blotches. Quality at the correct viewing distance is paramount, not resolution.

Another study at a major technical university (RMIT I think?) showed two prints the same size side by side in a thoroughfare with passers by asked if they noticed anything. One was printed at 72 dpi, the other at 300 dpi or maybe higher. Very few viewers noticed any difference, even though the faculty were experts in the field.

A further example is a pair of older articles on The Luminous Landscape website. One is the story of a 50mp medium format landscape shoooter who used a 12mp G9 Canon compact camera for record keeping and found he could print to the same standard size as the MF camera before even his experienced friends could not see a difference.

The other showed prints made from 8, 24 and 50mp cameras of the same street scene. At very high enlargements there was more detail in very small image elements like the fine print on a parking sign, but even the higher MP cameras could not resolve details well enough to be seen on a print. At normal sizes and viewing distances the 8mp image was effectively enough.

People Of All Types.

I get the need to make a street image special by adding that extra element, but I also feel strongly that just people, regular people, not doing anything out of the ordinary, just being themselves, are motivation enough.

A dozen stories in a frame.

Each a million moments of experiences had or to come, blended together into one understanding.

Pasts combining to make a future.

Pasts and futures passing without connecting.

Emotions, greater or lesser, caught fleetingly.

Treasures Found, Treasures Lost.

The more I revisit old Japan files, the more I find. Some are known, just not looked at. Some feel like someone else took them. I know I was there, but only the image proves it.

I guess the Capture 1 dynamic is part of it, maybe the slow burn of files and even occassionally, the finding of an idea I chased at the time, that I needed to forget and re-see to understand fully.

I am also monumentally sad that the combination of the old EM5 mk1’s and Capture 1 has been discoverred after the best of my set of old EM5’s is passed. I truly respect their low light handling and clarity, something Lightroom robbed me of at the time. Of course I have them acting in concert now, but many other files have come and gone and practices adjusted to suit.

My ideal camera now would be the EM5 sensor with newer processors, but calibrated towards the same look as the old cameras processors.

To their credit, I cannot now tell the difference between their and the newer Pen F files, something I used to be able to do. Lightroom made the EM5 files look gritty and simple. C1 has elevated them to the Pen F level.

To be honest, I would take a pair of new EM5’s right now, maybe with a thumb nubbin added and maybe a 400k shutter.

Why The S5 Is Taking Over Video.

My personal comfort zone has been the G9 for video and for hybrid shooting, it is hard to beat. The EM1’s would also be great, but they fight hybrid use, lacking useful custom control settings, meaning switching quickly is not a thing.

My current G9 hybrid process is;

Set the basic settings for stills, but set all the Custom functions to video in a variety of formats.

The G9’s are decently heavy hitters in video, especially if you run them out to an off board recorder. As I have them, sans the V-LogL upgrade option, they are better than average hybrids, but I have found the contrast is higher than the GH series, probably to suit stills. I could get a Ninja V or BM off board recorders, but have chosen not to as they cost nearly as much as the cameras.

To clarify this position also, I do not want full frame for stills, M43 is my happy place, but for video, full frame with it’s much higher ISO tolerances is a genuine benefit. It is nice to have a full frame around for stills, but I just have not found a need.

M43 does all I need for stills. and has been fully supported to this point

I now intend to run the G9’s as stills cameras, with occassional mobile rig use (the inherent deeper depth of field and stabiliser advantages at play). The S5 however is just too good as a video option.

The S5 just has too many practical advantages over the G9’s.

The profile options (V-Log, Flat, Cinelike-D2 etc). Flat in particular seems to be like modified Natural, but even flatter. This is ideal for me and a decent equivalent to Cinelike-D available from my other cameras.

Continuous recording. The bugbear that short of an off board recorder, will always hold the G9 back.

Overall better “GH” like contrast. Ironically, this is where the G9 could even the field with a flatter profile. The S5 gets all the options, the G9 not quite. I could upgrade it to VLog-L or an off board, but the S5 with lens added so much for relatively little.

Dual ISO settings. Basically, the S5 is ISO free compared to the G9’s, although the M43 depth advantage does give the G9 two more stops (useable f1.8 = ff 2.8), making up for the natively better FF ISO performance, but the dual option puts it into another league.

Both valid, but the S5 just works better for me. The red record button is a bit lost, but I don’t use it anyway. The only minor issue is the cage is very smallrig biased, so other brands cold shoes and handles do not always fit ideally and the handle is slightly off balance when mounted centrally.

Better video camera settings. This is the big one, from Wave forms, Vectors, shutter angle, many, many more video menu settings, including sound and visual assists. Honestly I could fill a page. The difference between a G9 and the S5 is the same as the G9 to an EM1 mk2, which is to say, there is daylight between them. The EM1’s are stills cameras with capable video hidden inside, but little effort to make them comfortable to use in that space. The G9 is the true hybrid favouring neither at the expense of the other, the S5 is a video camera first, the easier stills options is effortly added by default, but is not a priority.

Little things like no top panel screen, which may seem odd, but for video the real estate is better dedicated to useful buttons and vision relegated to either the rear screen or in my case the 5” Portkeys. In a cage, the G9 screen is partly obscured anyway. The on-off switch is separate to the shoot button, and protected under the cage, the smaller card door, but bigger other flaps.

The only exception is the Smallrig cage, that is a better fit than my GH5/G9 Niceyrig one, but lacks a few screw mount holes on the left side. I have fixed this to a point with a Smallrig plate bolted to the side, but just one set of matching screw threads would have been good.

Of course, there are down sides (accounted for in balance with the price), like new batteries, new lenses etc, but these have mostly become non issues, absorbed into the equivalent options in M43 (the dearer GH6 also needed an expensive card etc, GH5 an off board and gimbal).

My goal was to take the easiest route to easy to take, quality 1080 and occassional 4k footage within a realisticly achieved envelope. The S5 achieves this easily with a minimum of fuss and upgrade paths if required are many. It also meshes well with the OSMO as the full gimbal-odd angle option. The S5.2 AF is not a draw as I manually focus and the slightly higher upgrade options are well beyond my needs.

If I went again, I may have gone the GH5.2, just to keep it sane, but the saving at the time was only about $400au, which did not even cover the S5’s extra lens. I would have All-i recording and live streaming, neither of which seem to matter that much.

If I ever upgrade any of my cameras, a G9.2 would likely be the way, adding hopefully better video options than the G9, phase detect AF and stabilising that all my M43 lenses could take advantage of and GH6 level stills performance (or better).

Video Hard Line

So, I did my little podcast video the other day and it well……ish.

Considerations made so that a workable “anyone can do it” system is achieved;

• No sound treatment in a bare little room, a melamine table top and covering four panelists with my Lewitt 040 matched pair in X/Y config, overhead on a boom into an H5. Sound was clear but “boxy”.

• No control of lighting apart from a little fill light from an ancient Bowens flouro unit (found in the work store room). Light was flat, unexciting, but even. More light is not an option becasue I am not hauling it in every Wednesday and the idea is to be able to adapt, not control, so we can go on in the future.

• The camera was a G9, lens 12-60 at 12 (not a big room), with a 0.5 Black Mist Kenko filter on in Natural mode (-5, -5, -2, -2). Not enough post control and the filter was too soft.

This in mind, we managed a 30min single take, with a 1 min over-run thanks to the G9 limit.

What I would have done differently with this setup.

• I would have used a single mic, as the X/Y was not required (subjects quite far away, but tightly grouped).

• I would have at least sound treated the table.

• Can’t do much with the rest, as it needs to be sit and go.

What I am going to try though, with a desire to up the ante a little, but make the whole thing less difficult to set up is;

• Switch to the S5 in Flat mode (like V-LogL/Cinelike D, but closer to useable OOC and better skin tones probably set to -2 contrast). The 20-60 will also give me more framing options.

• Treat the table with a cloth (a big blue rug to match the backdrop).

• Use the F1 and SSH-6 mid/side shotgun, probably on about -5 M/S, but I will play around with it, placed about 4 foot back, low and in front (hence the table treatment). The SSH-6 is more focussed and tonally resonant than the highly sensitive Lewitts and considerably easier to set up. I can also hide 1 3.5 cable easier than 2x XLR’s.

• There will also be a backup H1n X/Y mounted. This may even be on the backup G9 incase all this goes pear shaped.

I will also take the X/Y capsule for the F1, in case hiding it behind a football prop mid table is a better idea. It has a shock mount, so the table should be fine.

Last time I went in with a backpack, roller case and shoulder bag. This time, the whole lot will fit in a backpack. The isea is to shoo this every Wednesday, even if I am off, so the whole kit needs to be simple and easy to use.

Easy as………….

So, after the second recording, sound was better, but I will push it in a little closer. I have ordered a foamy to make the F1+SSH6 look more table top-like, the dead cat was a little distracting. The mic was more resonant than the 040’s, but I can reduce noise (self and ambient) and improve depth if I get just a half foot closer. The SSH-6 on 30 degree mid/side covered everyone evenly.

Video quality was fine. The S5 in flat mode was far more flexile than the Natural G9 files. Lighting is still rubbish, but it is what it is. We have a dedicated room, it is shared by the whole team though.

We did another 12 minute single take.

Night From Day

There are plenty out there who can shed more light (!) on this, but here is an example of a useful trick.

If you asked to take a night candle lit vigil image in the middle of the day, there is a relatively simple way of doing it.

Set you camera to manual and (1) choose a shutter speed within your flash sync and ISO/Aperture combination (low ISO/small aperture) to make a dark exposure. Go for 1-2 stops under, or dark to the eye, so basically useless as is. You are exposing for the background here, so ignore the subject. An ND filter can be useful here also, allowing shallower depth of field if desired.

Then use a flash to put light on you subject only. I used TTL, which is painfully twitchy, but Manual would work also. The flash was also in a 26” soft box, slightly feathered, but straight or bounced flash would work.

For this file I then vignetted the edges and used the brush tool to warm up and lighten the front of the subject to exaggerate the effect of the relatively useless candle. This worked well against the cooler surrounds.

That Leica Thing

So, I took the Leica 15mm with me the trip to Perth, because I wanted to see if my feelings on the lens are a little in my head or actually a creative consideration.

There is that snappy sharp/soft dynamic. The Oly usually lacks the snappiness of this lens, adding in a more natural, less obvious transition. It is no less sharp, just less showy about it. This technique was a common trick used to increase the illusuion of sharpness in the film era, basically increasing the perception of sharpness with contrasting softness.

The woman is sharp, her husband softer, son quite out of depth of field and the vendor a soft blob in the foreground. This is not how the Oly 17 would render this scene. Neither is better and in a perfect world a little switch on the side of one lens allowing either option would be cool.

Not a keeper on any other level, this file is ideal to show the sharp/soft/softer/softest character of the lens wide open. I would guess that the Olympus 17mm in the same space would have a gentler roll-off, making it more of a sharp, softer-sharp, soft spread.

Wide open sharpness is exceptional, snappy and crisp.

A Hoot

Did a little gig today, of a gig.

The Swamp Owls are a new blues band, made up of some local music veterans and they have some genuine talent.

I took the opportunity to play around with the files.

A little negative clarity, saturation and some added contrast.

Big Lens Power, Or The Small Sensor Advantage.

The Olympus 300mm has been one of those purchases that shifted things for me, very much in the right direction. This lens has the equivalent reach of a 600mm in full frame terms, but being a lowly 300mm f4 (they are like the 50mm f1.8 of telephoto lenses), so it was much easier for Olympus to make a cracker and in larger quantities. The same goes for the 75mm f1.8.

I saw a second hand 600mm f4 Nikkor in the local camera shop window the other day and it struck me just how OTT these things are when compared to my 300 as a 600.

Even at 1/2 its own retail (about $6000au), it is still twice what I paid for the 300mm and at the end of the day, if you put a sharp 20+mp sensor behind it, it is the same in real results.

The equivalent of a full frame 1000-1200mm lens still with enough quality to print to a decent size.

The sharpness of the lens out resolves the sensor, which is ideal I guess and it makes the equation simple.

How far can you crop 20mp from any sharp and well lit sensor?

All the images below are cropped to a greater or lesser extent.

And this one just because I like it.

The real advantage of M43 is in the lenses, or more to the point, what the lenses really are in comparison to their full frame equivalents. With M43 sensors matching larger ones of the same pixel count, the only advantage of a full frame is in low light, but again, the lenses can even up the field.

150mm f1.8 ff (not actually available, but a $1700au 135 f1.8 or $8,000 au 200 f2 are the closest) = A very reasonable $600 75mm f1.8 M43 that fits in a pocket.

A $10,000 300 f2.8 = The long end of my $2,000 40-150 f2.8.

A $15-18,000 full frame 400 f2.8 = The amazing $3,000au Leica 200 f2.8 (with matched teleconverter).

A $20,000+ full frame 600 f4 = The Olympus at $4,000 and the matched TC is about $400.

Even at the other end of the range, the Leica f1.7 9mm matches some very expensive. large and optically fragile lens.

Try doing that with a 1.5kg+ full frame kit.

So, ok, the full frame camera could have a 40+ mp sensor behind it allowing the full frame to crop to equivalent reach at the same pixel density, but two things happen here (well one and one fails to change). The big lens stays the same (size, weight, price) and the pixel density gets much closer, so the sensor noise is now much closer.

What does this mean to you and I?

You can own a 150 f1.8 easily, a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 for reasonable money and put a powerful pro-end camera behind all of these for less than the cost of a full frame equivalent lens alone.

The full frame sensor does have an advantage, mostly in noise control, but only if the camera has an equivalent lens.

Depth of field.

A full frame sensor can offer shallower depth of field all things being equal, a great boon to portraitists, but what if you do not actually need that, because f1.4 on a full frame lens can be impractical.

Shooting sports or stage drama is tough, so more depth for the better light gathering settings is an advantage.

Both players sharp, the background is soft enough not to distract, but remain interestingly relevant, the lens wide open at f1.8/150mm equivalent.

Shooting with an f1.8 lens that renders the equivalent of f2.8 depth of field is a real advantage. The more expensive full frame f1.8, if it exists, when gathering the same light for a lower noise advantage, loses depth of field so it needs to be (1) more accurate with focussing and (2) there needs to be enough in focus to matter.

Travelling (Really) Light, Without Compromise.

We have been issued Z9’s at work (ok, not me yet as it goes being the new guy, or is it because I am already sorted?), a camera that I feel is the current top dog in the full frame world, well, best all rounder anyway. It is definitely the best thing Nikon has made putting them back on the map, just a shame the rest of the system is still a little behind the competition.

Looking at my own gear, I am still happily sticking with my own system for all the reasons previously stated, probably only taking a “Z” when damage or very poor light are likely, but maybe not even then*. I am job sharing now, so the other tog will be stoked to get an instant upgrade. The deal breaker is that even though it is mirrorless, it is still weighed down by monster lenses, especially the older glass we have.

Looking sideways at the near future of travel to Japan starting up again, my kit is pretty solid. I have a lot of pro gear, lots of options and combinations, but travel has special needs.

Weight is the big one. The single easiest way to rob myself of that holiday feeling is to weigh myself down like I do at work (relative to the other guys that is). M43 was designed to be smaller, but can still get heavy with pro end gear and a 300mm f4 is a 300mm f4 in any system.

Coverage is secondary and really comes down to where and what. For Japan street, temple details and landscapes, a little wildlife and some city scapes are the core, so semi wide and short tele are fine, more is a bonus, but rarely needed. Lens speed is more useful, because we go out at night (and it is the land “Bokeh” came from).

Here is the travel kit;

2 bodies (2x EM10.2’s, or EM5.1’s or a Pen F + EPM-2). This is a little unsettled, but no big deal. Any of these would do. Possibly the Pen Mini on a long strap with 17mm, and one EM10.2 with a spare in the hotel room. On big days, I can take the second EM10 to save lens changes. Even just the weighty Pen F on its own.

9mm f1.7 Leica.

The emergency super wide or fake semi wide. It also does time as a macro, second wide and wet weather lens (depending on camera).

No Japan travel images from this one yet.

17mm f1.8.

The work horse of the lot and the only metal lens (but not weather proof). My street paragon, landscape ring-in and desert island lens.

Instinctive partner is the term.

45mm f1.8.

The low light candid and Bokeh lens, foil to the excellent but slow (aperture) lens below. I have two of theses (once 3), tending to rely on them, but rarely appreciate them enough (the other anchors my work bag).

This has been pressed into service as a wildlife lens, cropping that excellent quality to safe limits more often than I would have thought possible.

40-150 kit.

Hard to argue with a lens that weighs no more than the ones above, costs less and sometimes cannot be split from my two Pro 40-150 lenses.

As long as it does not break, the weight to quality ratio is sublime.

The reality is, the 17 and 45 or 40-150 would do, but the backups are so light, it hardly matters.

I have no qualms that any of these will let me down, optically or even physically. Light weight gear travels well and safely, is easily replaced, has redundancies (the backup 9mm and 40-150 kit could do the job coming in at roughly 300g) and stays under the radar.

I have found semi padded Domke bags (or similar), a little internal padding with light weight gear avoids hard hits and lazy drop-downs better than heavy gear, only falling on top of the lot and crushing it is a potential problem.

Bags are many, something I will likely stress over, but short listed so far are the Turnstyle 10, PhotoCross 10, Tokyo Porter satchel, a nice leather satchel I have, the Filson Otter Green Field Bag (not the camera one) or the little Crumpler or Kata satchels (I forget the models). Comfort is the thing, so this will likely sort itself out. The Tokyo Porter, ironically as it is not a designed to purpose camera bag, has proven to be the most practical, has a low profile and holds a lot of shopping.

To get there I will use the Lowe Pro, Pro Tactic 350, which will be half empty to allow for some fragile items to come back and an emergency change of clothes on the way over. Don’t love the bag, but it is useful for travelling.

Other than that I will take a bunch of batteries and cards, but no hard drives or computer. No need.

The 2023 Lens Awards, (Because I Am A Little Bored And These Are Fun).

So, what better time to write a lens awards post than now.

Why?

Why not ;).

These awards may not make a huge amount of sense, written as they are seemingly randomly, but they do to me, as the lens and my instinctive reaction to it takes me.

“Lens that was bought for physics then won my heart for most surprisingly useful”;

Panasonic Leica 9mm f1.7.

This lens removed a lot of weight and some indecision from my bag packing, covering for me the “necessary evil” of a super wide angle. It covers the 8-18, but also acts more like a semi wide standard.

It focusses macro close, is as light as a feather, seems to focus by telepathy, empathy even, handles nasty frontal light, is weather sealed, makes my Domke F2 bag a perfect fit for my kit, is totally useable wide open so is almost always. The only negative is, my otherwise excellent 8-18 has become surplus.

Hanging off the ass end of a Moped doing 40kmh, this shot was easy with the super light and responsive 9mm, except at one point I actually touched one of the cyclists (still in focus).

A handy and stable problem solver, that is starting to be a creative leader.

“The lens I kick myself most often for not taking”;

Olympus 75mm f1.8.

Seriously, the amount of times I wish I packed this for low light is getting ridiculous. The 75mm makes shooting in any light possible. Super sharp, brilliantly, contrasty and colourful, yet somehow gentle with gorgeous Bokeh. It only lacks weather proofing and it can be a little perspective flattening to be considered perfect (oh and it could have been a 100mm f2).

I know that it could easily replace a short tele zoom, especially if teamed with the little 45mm.

Just yummy.

Sometimes that flattened perspective is ideal.

“The lens that was bought with some early trepidation, that just gets better over time”;

Olympus 17mm f1.8.

No technical review or test would lead you to think this lens is perfect at anything, but it has two sides, both good. On the one hand, it is the perfect street lens, offering fast AF, old school MF and ideal Bokeh or “draw”, helping to make the most of the M43 depth of field benefit.

On the other hand it makes an unlikely landscape hero. I cannot put my finger on it, but the landscape files have an organic lushness and biting sharpness, both in harmony.

After learning to love it for street, it then suprised me by being just great at landscape.

It is no exaggeration to say, it has taken more of my favourite images than any other lens I have ever owned. It is my desert island lens (shame it is not weather sealed for such duties).

Street-Landscape, the perfect combination. This lens is also my “taming crazy light” lens.

“The lens that empowers me to do things I previously only dreamt of“;

Olympus 300 f4 Pro.

This was close, because the 75 and 40-150 f2.8 are in the mix and the Leica 200 f2.8 a lens that I do not own, would be equally useful, but the 300 is without doubt the most dependably exciting lens I own.

Like a magic wand it snaps onto what I aim at instantly. I need to update the 1.0 firmware to see how much better it can be!

It is almost always shot wide open and I can crop the files down to ball stitching. It is effectively (for news print and web use), a hand held, bag portable 2000mm lens equivalent.

Simply only possible in my kit thanks to this lens, shot through the legs of a timing official in ugly light.

Then, when you are between shots, looking down nets you this thanks to the 1.4m close focus.

I have several macro lens options, none of them considered “normal”.

Ok, what next?

“The lens that…………deserves credit for soldiering on?”;

Olympus 12-40 f2.8.

Mechanically compromised after a trip to the beach clogged up the zoom, then replaced with the 12-60 Leica, it was pressed back into service for the paper and has been a giver, freeing up the more I use it. It still surprises me how nice the files are. It has a similar look to the 25 f1.8, lush and sharp, but not harsh, with clean Bokeh.

Teamed with the 40-150 f2.8, it covers most of my basketball needs, only being replaced by primes in low light.

Ok, next….. .

“Lens that punches about it’s weight (very literally)”;

Olympus 40-150 kit.

This could have been the 40-150 f4 Pro or the 75-300 also, as both do a lot for their footprint and cost, but the $299 kit lens (bought in a promo kit for under $100), plastic crap really, is often hard to pick optically from any of my telephoto lenses, earning the little “ED” label.

Never any doubt.

Fine art grade files, which it has no right to produce.

This file and the one above came from a series taken on a perfect day in Kanazawa Japan. The “Hollywood” light was hard to interpret, but the crappy little kit lens made the grade, I did not even think about it after the first few files.

“The lens most missed”;

12-100 f4 Pro.

I really need to let this go, but it was a stupid mistake at a low point. Other lost glass falls into this category, but with other considerations, like the 400 f5.6L Canon (last Canon lens), Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (relegated to unneeded twice!), first edition 20mm Pana (crappy focus), Voightlander 40mm f2 EF (the 5D3 fixed screen negated f2 MF accuracy) and others, but the 12-100 wins through practicality and relevance alone.

Honourable mentions go to most of the rest;

• The 75-300 for great reach and quality at a budget price.

• The 25 and 45 (x2) for their faultless performance.

• The 15mm for nearly knocking the 17mm off it’s perch and still being relevant.

• The pair of 40-150 Pro’s for being my dual work horse lenses, both excellent, and effectively interchangeable.

• The 12-60 and 8-18 Leicas and 12-60 Panasonic zooms, all late comers that have done nothing wrong apart from shadowing other good lenses.

• L mount 50mm S for keeping the mojo intact when I went full frame.

• The 20-60 S for allowing the FF move.

The lenses that did not make the cut are the Sigma 30 which is great, but surplus it seems and the TTartisan 35 which is too small and fiddly for my video rig.

ANZAC Day

ANZAC day this year was my shift. I have no issue getting up before dawn to celebrate what is in many ways the birth of our national consciousness. The red light pushed me to try mono.

This year is also the 50th anniversary of the end of Australias participation in the Vietnam War, the veterans looking now how WW2 veterans looked to me when I was a child.

Later in the day, the main march and ceremony took place. The bugler and honour guard took their assigned places again, this time amid a massive crowd.

Finally, this is Arthur Quarrel, a veteran of South Korea, with a handshake grip like a vice and a keen eye. He was one of only a handful of men awarded a special decoration by the South Korean government.

Out Of The Blue

Sitting in on the daily meeting to set the paper right, a must for a daily, I was heartened by the new digs, new editor and general vibe, but the best was to come.

Lamenting the lack of use my video kit has been getting, my ears pricked up when the sports editor resumed a conversation with the new head editor about a pod cast they were planning to try out tomorrow.

The question was asked “I hope our phone will do, maybe a better mic, but the room has a lot of echo, so any suggestions ?”. I tried not to jump to eagerly, but maybe a new S5, pair of Lewitt 040 Match overheads into a Zoom H5? Maybe a Sennheisser MKE400 or Zoom SSH-6 Zoom into my F1? Options were many, time short, fun to be had.

No relevance, but both things make me feel good.

Unlike most jobs like this at the school, I have tons of time (!), cooperative clients, who just want to get it right and a controlled environment. Wow, too easy.

Wow, way to be over confident.

Now I just have to remember how to use it all. Huh, joking…...well, almost.

I have not actually plugged any of this into the S5, so maybe the G9 would be sensible. The Zoom is battery hungry with the Lewitts, but I have the AC adapter, also untried. Lots of new, so keep it simple, work up as needed and arrive early, like an hour early, maybe more.

I will start simple and work up, or should I do the opposite. Should I go for the best I can, then work back with some idea of the bar I have to meet? I have a night to think on it.

If this works out, it will be my regular Wednesday gig, which is ideal as I work every Wednesday on the new roster, with two other photographers most of the time.

Tonight I will be testing, checking, packing. Tomorrow is the day. Glad I am reading “The Real Deal” by Joe McNally. Lots of resolve after failure, lots of bouncing back and moving relentlessly forward. I need that message drummed home at the moment.

Night Walk Kyoto

The time of character filled alleys, bizarre people and veiled danger is gone from many popular street destinations, but I am ok with that.

Regular people, just being themselves can scratch the itch for me.

Technical stuff was the usual. EM5 Mk1 with the 17mm f1.8 wide open and a combination of MF and AF used.

Lots of phones.