B-grade B-roll (Or Thinking Of Thinking More About B-roll).

My B-roll is letting me down.

A prime example was a tour of a newly refurbished police station we did last week. The improvements were mostly hidden, or they could not be shared and as the staff were only notified of our arrival half an hour before, were clearly put on the spot. So, little to see and reluctant participants. Great.

To be honest, there was no much that could be used, but we wandered around anyway and I know I could have managed more. My B-roll skills are a little raw often shunted aside by the need to get stills as well.

I managed some room pans, an employee on a computer, a little random stuff, but unfortunately for the designated interviewee, they had to carry the bulk of the clip reluctantly and with little environmental help. Not good all around.

I keep shooting solid but often by nature, pretty boring talking head anchor video, usually 30-120 seconds, sometimes a couple of bits joined, then I shoot some crap B-roll, so in an effort to get myself onboard with this process, here are some thoughts I have picked up after watching far too many videos and my own ordinary efforts.

Take it seriously. A-roll is the necessary evil but not the only element. B-roll keeps it interesting, often making or breaking the clip.

Think like a stills shooter. If it is not a good stills shot, it is likely poor footage also. This also extends to “think like a cinematographer”. Never think small, it’s not cool dude, really.

Stills shooters will go to exotic focal lengths to change their viewers idea of something. Videographers can as well for some epic looks.

Establish! The establishing shot is a good start, filler, or finisher, but also a necessary element. Step back and shoot the whole press conference, maybe some externals of the location, a walk through, a wide shot, or slo-mo of the participants arriving If you do several, they can all be used. It does not need to be the opening scene from Bladerunner 2049, it just needs to establish context and place. Own this space!

Think in three steps. If you have a good element milk it. Shoot wide, then half body with action or an angle, then close in, either over the shoulder or tight on a detail with some action. Think angles, movement and actions. My C.I.A mantra comes to mind here.

Abstraction can work for you as well as it does in your stills and allows you to use it creatively.

Be clean and deliberate. Don’t over do or over think it. Often just a new angle or the subjects movement own will do, so no hanging off the ceiling with Dutch angles or drones deployed. Avoid things that you are not comfortable doing (practice new moves before hand) and be prepared to grab anything that comes. Really tricky shots are best left to main shots, B-roll just needs to be interesting, but too interesting or it gets distracting and looks gimmicky as well as time consuming.

Make enough B-roll to use as a complete video, The sometimes boring A-roll could be used simply as voice over, or a tight head shot at the beginning and end, nothing more. Overshoot B-roll both in content and clip length. Can’t have too much. Shoot with the mindset that the B-roll is the clip and the A-roll is the filler and shoot in a higher shutter speed or in slo-mo mode if you have it to break up or lengthen the footage. A few seconds of slo-mo changes the pace and can extend an otherwise brief clip.

Watch a news broadcast or commercial.

They often use this exact formula; voice over > establishing shot > B-roll moving closer or using multiple angles > end shot.

What Is Important?

Ok, a shallow grab at you attention, because this is a technical post, not a life changing philosophical discussion. Sorry ;).

In video, to be specific, what is important?

More precisely, in super quick video for sharing via a paper, what is important.

I have been shooting a lot of video lately, almost one short movie per photo job (5 clips yesterday including the sports podcast). I won’t pretend it is easy, but I have enjoyed the duality and the challenge. Oddly, the pressure of getting that winning shot is mitigated somewhat by the need to also get passable (not getting too carried away) video at the same time.

This is a phenomenon I discovered years ago playing sport. If I was carrying an injury or other impediment, I found it much easier to concentrate on the job at hand, with little time or room in my life for self doubt or to over think things. This seems to happening now. My stills are concise, on point, while my video is improving, but still short of where I need to be (B-roll especially- more on this later).

The reality is, my way of shooting stills is very close to the way video needs to be shot in most jobs. Over the shoulder interview, some B-roll and some stills. Silent cameras that can be used one handed are like gold, three hands even gold-ier (?!).

The Cobra as my spare “hand” is a good idea, but one I have not used yet, despite two ideal opportunities. The Cobra also makes an ideal semi-gimbal.

So, what has boiled to the surface?

The G9 in Standard profile (cont -5/all else 0/0/0) suits me for the paper. I am not after a “cinematic” look, just clean, sharp footage that I do not have to grade. I am finding Natural a bit flat for that and the clean whites of Standard suit the way I grade (for speed and to match the “Iphone” look the others are using). Reduced contrast is only for a little latitude in post.

The stabiliser is the priority after that, so three handy buttons are custom selected.

• None for tripod/monopod.

• Lock for hand held interviews.

• Normal for hand held with gentle movements.

• E-Stabe for full body movements, following, Dutch angles etc.

AF is not an issue. Until it can read minds and work faultlessly it is useless to me.

White balance is set to automatic for work, with a little room for correction from there or just accept what I get. If I have a little time, I can adjust with a white card, but time is rarely there to spend.

The little LED I have been carrying for months is also finally getting some use when fighting a backlit subject. This can be mounted on the Cobra for better directionally.

The MKE-400 mic, usually set to + gain with the limiter set on the camera handle most situation, well better than the on camera mics the other guys are using.

That’s work. Fast, direct, mobile.

My three big-rigs and the other cameras all have specific roles to play.

The work G9 is bare bones, which works fine for most things.

The second G9 with a zoom is for movements, rigs and braces. perfectly weighted with an attached top and side handle, and a plate for the chest and shoulder rigs. The depth of field of M43 with a wide angle lens even allows me to shoot with the shoulder rig in MF without a follow focus. At f4 with an 8-12mm giving me plenty of focus zone to physically move in and out of focus naturally, cinematically-organically (a thing?). This one is set to Natural (-5/-5/0/0) or Cine-D. I may upgrade it to Vlog-L with the key more to match grading with the S5 than anything.

The S5 is the premium unit when the widest dynamic range and best ISO performance is needed. Set up like the second G9, it has a Smallrig Gimbal extension handle attached to the base allowing me to connect a full sized HDMI solution to the cage side. It can also be used with the two bracing options, but the G9 is better for that with its smaller sensor (better stabe and focus depth), making the S5 the serious “A” camera. Flat profile is used for most work, no need yet for V-Log. What I love about the S5 is the base quality it provides without extreme measures. No All-i, RAW, SSD feed or super fast bit rates, extreme post processing needed, just good, done easily. The only issue of rolling shutter is fixed somewhat with APS-C cropping.

Asked to get a nice image of an interview, I managed to get said shot, then grab some of the interview, just as the reporter asked a good question, added some B-roll of the team training, then a bit of slo-mo while she was showing off a medal won recently. When TV are there, lights are supplied.

The OSMO makes the most sense for full gimbal moves……being a gimbal. It is also the odd angle, under water and hanging onto or out of moving vehicles camera.

The EM1x, my super-spare, has a cage made out of a Camvate generic allowing it to used as the second AF/movement option. The AF and movement stabe are better than the G9, but the video handling sucks because you cannot set up a custom setting for video. If I am doing a big project, it will get a run, otherwise it is my spare stills camera-extraordinaire.

Not done yet here as I want to look at workflow and end needs soon.

Balance In Life As Well As Processes.

I have found balance in my life again.

St Patricks College had an opening in their media department when a friend and fellow shooter left. I had met De a couple of times at out of school sports gigs and when my wife started working there, the connection was made slightly more real.

I was asked to cover a couple of sports matches, a school dinner, a play and stayed on their radar. I could not take the full time position De left, because I do not have the graphic design experience, but they still had room to add me (casually, but contracted) to their staff.

These guys.

This means a couple of things.

I can grow the position, as it is a new role, shapeless mostly but with room to expand.

I can do it along side the paper and my volunteer work, until the two are inhabiting the same space, then drop one or the other (the paper most likely).

It gives me all the avenues of creativity that the paper does not and vice-versa. Actually going to drama rehearsals, video projects, stay longer at sport (and no captions).

It is a real connection, better than Scotch, which always kept me at arms length. I can meet people, be in the system, complete circles.

Basically, I am where I wanted to be originally with the other school only better and fresh. I am glad it has worked out this way as I have broadened my horizons, learned much and developed some perspective.

Japan Looming, Thoughts Turn To Kit.

Japan is looming again.

Normally settled feelings lately have started to become less settled as the date draws closer. Normal, but real none the less.

Gear?

What gear do I take?

This is a second period (era?) of travel to Japan for us, after cramming seven trips into five years, we have had COVID, two dogs leave us and two new ones arrive and an over three year travel break that put a definite full stop on that last period, allowing us to re-invent this next stage. Personally I have gone from part time photographer to full time, so my methods and processes have also evolved, hopefully not replaced old ones though.

Reflexedly I would reach for my two EM10 mk2’s with the 12-60/40-150 kit and 17/45 primes. Nothing could go wrong with this as they work and always have, without any real weight, bulk or financial risk involved.

The Pen F and Pen mini is the other way to go. The little red Pen mini is a great cross-body strap camera, amateurish and inoffensive.

The big question though is video.

Do I want to shoot video, would I use it, how good do I need it to be and what shape of end product am I aiming for? Would it just make things more complicated or could it be a new beginning, a possible creative re-birth? Could I in fact make the trip a video and audio exploration, with fresh eyes and ears?

I am on holiday and to be honest video is not yet a holiday. If I just shoot stills in a true street sense, I get the break from my day job that I really need. Staged shots and video are the work thing.

Street video?

Might be a thing.

The OSMO would add video when needed, a G9 would add more (same lenses as the EM10’s), the S5 could conceivably be the whole kit with its standard zoom lens and fast 50, maybe with an EM10 or G9 for stills work and the OSMO for movement? I have plenty of storage, so no issue there, about 100gb a day at 1080, with some left over for stills.

Do I want to revisit the same scenes the same way, or draw a line in the sand and bring a different me?

A G9 with the travel kit looks likely, maybe with an EM10 as backup. Even if I do not shoot video, the G9 has become my favourite fast and close camera.

When I choose the bag to take (also an issue), it may look like this;

G9 with 17mm, or 12-60 in good light.

EM10 with 45, or 40-150 in good light.

or maybe no to video considerations and;

Pen F and 25 or 45mm.

Pen mini and 17.

Could I actually even function with just the G9 and 12-60 Leica (maybe a fast prime like the 17 for night)? Arguably the best all-round combo I have, perfectly matched and relatively compact.

Still need a backup just in case, maybe the EM10 with either lens would do if disaster strikes?

This means the G9 and 12-60 for most, maybe the EM10 and 25 as an option.

If video is the main thing, the S5, two lenses (20-60 and 50) and a G9 with two lenses (12-60 and ?). The G9 for stills/video, the S5 for video and low light and maybe the OSMO for Gimbal work. The trick would be mixing the two slightly different Pana cameras seamlessly. Maybe two G9’s, but then the primary video beast is left behind.

Alien invasion. Would I miss scenes like this, or would they add to the experience if moving stock?

The bag is likely going to be the Tokyo Porter green satchel, not a camera bag by design, but capable none the less with an insert. This is big enough to take bought items, a spare coat, other bits, even a computer. The Pro Tactic would be the getting-there bag or possibly the bigger Neewer for all the pottery we tend to accumulate.

There is no real fear I will get this wrong, because as I have said recently, almost anything would work, but plenty of curiosity about what the future holds.

Just want to get going really.

The Balance

There is always a lot of comment on sensor size and format opinions.

Falling short technically is always on the mind of a photographer or videographer. Photography has always been an art form based on mitigating technical limits. Excessive noise, poor AF, poor stabilising, bad colour all threaten us, some sensors theoretically more than others, but there are so many other factors to consider.

This reality tends to form expectation habits of bigger = more = better. Gains made one way are often compromised in other ways.

First up, some clarification. A smaller sensor is a smaller complete sensor, not a “crop” of a bigger one. It is not a slice of cake, but a whole cake made to its own recipe.

I suppose the format of a camera is easily definable and logical to use as a measure, like the cylinders of a car engine, but just as misleading without context. Would you buy a truck to race a motorbike or expect that bike to pull a trailer?

The perspective that is rarely touched on though is balance of the overall offer. What does a system as a whole offer to counter any perceived short comings from its sensor base.

Like all things in life, it not a single element that determines the efficacy of a process, but the balance of all the relevant elements. Nothing works without balance.

A snap taken with a 150mm f1.8 equivalent. Not a lens to be carried lightly nor discreetly, but in m43 it is a relatively compact 75mm f1.8.

So, you have a smaller sensor than the “norm”. What is the flip side of that equation?

How do you achieve balance?

In M43 format the trick is in the lenses, which benefit most from the sensor size. Lenses in M43 are on the whole far cheaper and more easily designed and manufactured than their full frame brethren. A full frame 600 f4 is out of the reach of most of us, the province of professionals, people able to draw from a gear pool or specialists in a field and not a lens to be packed “just in case”.

The same reach and speed in a smaller format is a relatively achievable 300 f4, a lens that most brands make, but it’s role changes dramatically as does its place in the lens offering of its maker, so it is made to be a 600mm f4 for all intents and purposes. It is a flagship lens and is treated as such. This lens can be packed into a normal bag and used as a handy problem solver as well as its primary role.

So;

Longer effective lenses relative to the focal length that is printed on the barrel. Multiples of between 1.3x to 4x are all possible, when compared to the unofficial standard of “full” frame.

Faster longer (and sometimes shorter) lenses, which you can afford and can carry. A 75mm f1.8 acts as a 150mm f1.8 in the full frame format. This is not an illusion, not smoke and mirrors.

Easier lens design allows for better sharpness across the frame. You get used to this, but have to remember just how hard it is to make those super fast full frame lenses to the same level.

More depth of field at the same magnification and aperture, meaning you can get away with wider apertures with minimum depth of field.

Generally better close focus. My 9mm, 300mm, 25mm and 12-40 are all semi-macro lenses and the actual macros in the ranges go to 2x magnification easily and again cheaply.

The power of a 600mm, with all the benefits of a 300.

The swings.

You compromise the sensor size, something that I find more and more often is less of an issue than many assume and often not within needed parameters.

The round-abouts;

You get a bonus in most other ways.

ISO 12,800, cropped by over 50% and dealing with poor light colour. This file stands up well against a lot of full frame files I have seen recently in our and competitors papers. The very latest cameras and lenses make a difference, but at a premium and only at the very extreme end of things, and even then not by that much. The other culprit is possibly processing as most papers are locked into an Adobe only work flow.

The very top full frame or larger sensor cameras with the very best lenses are measurably superior to their smaller sensor equivalents. How much and does it actually matter is the question and also do you personally even have the luxury of choice.

In the real world, comparing a roughly equally priced OM-1 and 300 f4 vs a mid to upper end Canon/Sony/Nikon full frame camera and variable aperture super zoom* will give the win to the M43 offering. Only money, weight and size tip the quality scales in the full frame makers favour.

I can personally carry, comfortably, a kit of two pro grade cameras, lenses from 16-600 (full frame equivalent) in a regular camera bag and no lens is slower than f4. I also have the luxury of carrying several diminutive fast primes as well.

I have no fear of very low light, cropping heavily, high speed, slow shutter fire hand holding any of the other nasties photography can throw up, I just tackle them differently than a full frame shooter.

So, are your images sharp and easily achieved? Are they clean and contrasty? Do they make you feel good? If you can honestly say yes to all these questions, then what are you worried about?

If not, then what is the problem and what are the solutions. Selling up and chasing another brand rarely nets satisfaction, so only go there if you must.

A friend at work has a 25 f1.2 Oly. This lens defies low light and shallow depth of field needs. It is only about the same size as a regular 50mm f1.4.

Travel well.

*Optionally a higher pixel count camera with the same lens and cropping to match produces similar results. Same-same.

**If full frame is “full”, then a four cylinder engine must be a “half engine” in comparison to a V8?

Look Away........Please.

My favourite weapon of choice at the moment is to ask my subjects to “look away”.

A busy shop, busier subject, this was a quick job. The subject struck her own pose while pondering what to do. Perfect.

Coming from my habit of shooting “over the shoulder”, the subject looking away has become my favourite composition

The voice of tomorrow, just wish the wind put a little life in the flag!

In each case below, all taken in the last few days, the left image was an “over the shoulder”, the right hand one taken posed, but with a similar dynamic.

Nothing wrong with a straight look to camera, but my subjects and I are generally both happier with the more natural “look away”.

What Lens Do You Like And Why?

I think I can finally say that I have reached that point where I can do most jobs with what ever lenses I have at hand. Of course I have preferences and can feel a little lost if my first choice is not available, but I have learned over the years to embrace the first world problem that is using second or third choice.

Sometimes the “wrong” lens can force a new way of seeing.

Obviously a random selection of three primes could really bite me, like a choice of three wide angles to photograph the Americas cup….. from the shore, or equally a set of premium super telephoto’s to use in a 6’ deep studio, but assuming a normal spread for a normal job, I can happily adapt to three prime lenses even if they were picked by someone else.

My happy place?

Right now if I had to choose three lenses to most of my work with it would look something like this;

A 40-45mm equivalent* or near (my f1.8 25mm Oly is actually closer to a FF 45mm). Over 50 is too portrait specific, wider encroaches on the next lens too closely. The humble 40mm*, is closer to the true mathematical standard lens being the sensor “diagonal”, is a gentle take on the tighter 50mm, less aggressive and closer to what the eye sees (80mm matches our eye magnification, super wide our dual lens coverage, but 40mm is closer to our natural perspective).

A 28-30mm equivalent* which to me is the balancing point between wide and standard lenses covering around 70-75 degrees. Wider is too much for me normally, only used when space or width dictate.

One of my favourite shots from last year, this one sold me on the relatively new 15mm.

A 135-150mm equivalent* being long enough to be called a true telephoto, but not so long that it becomes a specialist lens. The big gap this leaves is ok. For this lens perspective more is more.

The ability to crop is an important factor here, so in all cases, these lenses are wider than may be ideal, while rendering a “normal” looking image.

My old favourites in Canon full frame were the 35 and 135 L’s, but I was equally happy with their slower cousins or the Voightlander 40mm. Strangely, I adapted well to them as 55 and 210mm lenses easily enough and embraced my 85 as a 135, then using the 17-40L as a handy 28-65 standard (and a more stable lens avoiding its dodgy FF corners).

This is possibly when I learned to break the “must haves-according to the time tested formula” thinking and replace it with a “what do I actually want, bugger the numbers” mind set. I learned I actually tend to use longer lenses and for me 28mm is my preferred wide angle limit. I was an early days crop sensor poster boy.

Next?

Something a little more purposeful in a portrait lens, like a 60-70mm equivalent*. This is the perfect pairing with a 40mm, basically giving you a pair of 50mm’s with some mild bias.

Then a long lens, 300-400mm*, assuming there is a need.

Sometimes there is no substitute for extra reach.

Finally a wide, from 18-20mm*. More than that sets my teeth on edge for most subjects. I do have the 8-18 Leica, but can’t remember the last time I used its widest end. I have little use for these, but have to consider the needs of others.

*

Ok, what if it was only two lenses and your needs were “normal” (editorial/street/people) in nature?

The 40/60mm* combo is appealing if a little limited, so if limited to two lenses only, I would go for a stronger 35/90-100mm* pairing, to avoid the two looking same-ish.

The focal range disadvantage of a prime has to be embraced.

Another option here and one that is at odds with my “which prime” theme here is the all-rounder zoom (24-XX) and a fast prime. The lens that works best here is the 50mm, which provides the strongest Bokeh power with useable, versatile coverage. My S5 kit is nearly a perfect fit here with the 20-60 kit and 50 f1.8, but a favourite travel kit is the 12-60 kit Panasonic and 17mm f1.8 Olympus.

One lens?

My head says a 35-40mm does most things gently, my heart wants the world to always suit a 28-30mm, my gut goes more toward an eminently practical 45-50mm.

It is more about perspective (of the lens) than anything else. Magnification is often a matter of moving your feet or cropping. Perspective is fixed.

For travel I am always more than happy with the cheap, light and excellent M43 kit zoom and basic prime options.

If you only ever have access to just one lens it is going to determine your future growth path, so choose carefully (maybe the case for zooms). My own experience is shorter fixed lenses rarely fail to produce, but zoom telephotos are wise.

Annie Leibovitz for example, said in one of her books that her style and signature look were probably influenced by her first lens, the 58mm on the front of her first camera (Minolta SRT 101). I guess this is the same for many of us, but I would love to know if this forced perspective helps a young shooter develop an “eye” better than a zoom or makes no real difference. One lens can I guess teach you just as much about what you don’t have.

Why primes?

The advantage of primes over zooms is a little dated, or more to the point some advantages are no longer a given (lower distortion, sharper primes etc), but they are still there. As a rule you will get professional quality with a base model prime, which is not guaranteed with a kit zoom, but at the top end, the best zooms can match most primes.

What the primes do offer is good lens speed (f2-8 or faster) without the premium size or price and when push comes to shove, they will always off the very fastest glass. Generally speaking pro zooms and the slowest primes overlap at f2.8 with some rare and notable exceptions.

They are also cleaner to pre-visualise with.

So, what is your “desert island” lens focal length or lenses and even if you are a zoom lens user, where do you find yourself more often than not?

*Full frame focal length used so halve these for M43 etc.

Still The Worst Light, But Possible

Soccer again last night and a gloomy evening as well. By 5pm the light was poor, by 6 it was genuinely grim.

My longest fast lens is the 150 f2.8, which nets me a bright 300mm full frame equivalent and I am convinced that the 40-150 f2.8 is slightly faster than the numbers suggest.

ISO 12,800 is not a pleasant place to play, even with an EM1x (even a full frame). There are newer cameras in M43, but very few cameras are happy in this space.

Cropped in to compensate for the lens limit (the 200 f2.8 would be about ideal), it is still fine for print, but starting to show the signs of high ISO degradation.

A quick pass through ON1 No Noise (2022) and the noise cleans up, the sharpness stays, maybe looking a little “perfect plasticky”, but for print, perfectly fine. The colour is an issue, but the lighting does not give you much to work with.

Very high ISO settings are always a compromise, and M43 sensors are logically going to be more effected. Bigger sensors, all things being equal, are going to have bigger pixels which gather more light. If the larger sensor is packed with more pixels, there is still an advantage, because the noise is relatively smaller, less visible. Having said that, a full frame 300 f2.8 or 150 f1.8 for that matter are either fiction or out of reach, so the M43 “equalising” factor are at work again.

So, the limit?

First up, it is always better to go up an ISO higher than you are comfortable with rather than over hopefully hanging around a lower one, knowing you are under exposing. Noise is in the shadows, more light reduces that. ISO 12,800 with the EM1x properly exposed, at 1/500th and f2.8 are capable of handling almost any action well enough for my needs. I just need to trust that. I do need to check the G9’s also.

ISO 12,800 on an EM1x is my new benchmark, something I never thought I would say, but after respectable results at the mirky indoor pool recently and my third trip to the light sink that is Prospect Park, I am increasingly more comfortable than I have been.

Ed. I looked at the printed file in the next days paper and directly above was another togs shot, a full frame image taken at a different match on the same ground, showing clearly more noise and movement blur. Maybe I am keeping up.

Prime Lenses, All We Need?

Modern photography has a few trends that are by nature more common than not, but what they have emerged from, the start of their path of evolution, still has relevance.

Zoom lenses in particular are an assumption when you start your photo or video journey, but their polar opposite, the prime or single focal length lens still has some strengths, may even be coming back into vogue again for all the right reasons, but I guess the question needs to be asked;

Can we do everything we need with just one or the other?

This is as much philosophical as practical, or maybe a mindset over a true need.

Personally I am a bit of a fish swimming up stream here.

I like zoom lenses when shooting landscapes, because when you have your spot for a tripod, often limited by geography or angle, the ability to zoom for precise and considered composition is a benefit.

In contradiction, I actually prefer prime lenses when shooting hand held, especially with wide angles.

There are sound reasons.

(I will use M43 terms here and remember this is my thinking for me, so you do you)

Working fast and close often requires making an early decision on composition, then allowing yourself time to quickly work angles. This does not require a large, imposing zoom, in fact, it is really not helped by bringing an extra variable to the table. Even if I am using a zoom, I tend to choose a focal length (pick a lane), often either end or a familiar one, then use it like a prime. I must admit to thinking of my zooms as a set or pair of primes.

Perspective, magnification and intimacy are all controlled by movements, even better than with zooms. You do not need to cover every micro focal length, just very wide, semi wide and close to normal, which is to say 8-10, 12-17mm, 20-30mm.

A case if gentle movements of a prime, no zoom needed or wanted.

I find this much cleaner in thinking. You have chosen a lens, basically any lens and you work within the envelope it offers. You can do anything you need with it, truly. Obviously if you pick your widest lens and want eyeball intimacy, odd things can happen, but you know that going in, so pick better or change lenses (cameras) if needed.

Ok, when using longer lenses, this rule is less cemented.

With longer lenses a zoom can give you the equivalent of a lot of footwork, often footwork that is not possible, and because perspective is not as dynamic, basically always being more or less “flattened”, it really only comes down to magnification and background blur.

Caught short by only using my longest lens at the football, the drama of this shot was lost. There was another person needed to tell the story. Zoom? probably or another prime on another camera.

I personally could still work with just primes. For much of my sport for example, I usually only use one prime telephotos. The only exception is the 40-150 pair, often used for filler or close action in an otherwise large field sport and as often at one end or the other.

A heavy crop from the 60mm end of a zoom. Plenty for my needs.

The reality is, with the latest cameras and lenses, for some forms of imaging at least, cropping is powerful enough for most uses. The 75mm Olympus for example could easily crop to the equivalent of a 200mm for print, making it effectively a 150-400 f1.8 in full frame terms.

This is a greater than 50% crop of a similar quality lens making my 300 a decent 1000mm full frame equivalent lens.

The problem area for me tends to be the transition from semi wide to semi long. This is the standard zoom range, but then you have the zoom issue, the slow aperture problem. With very few exceptions, zoom lenses are slower in aperture, heavier, bigger and clumsier to use. carrying a few of them tends to preclude toting a clutch of primes as well.

What has my bag filling evolved into?

A true wide (9mm Leica), a semi wide (either 15mm Leica or 17mm), a standard (25 Oly which is closer to a 22mm) and a short portrait (45mm). For my longer options it tends to be a matter of lighting, selected from the 75 for f1.8, 40-150 f2.8 or 40-150 f4.

For street it is even easier. A semi wide for 90% of the time (17mm) and a short tele for compression, a little reach and bokeh (45mm). I can even run with just the wide.

Frame Judder, Is It A Real Problem?

My issues with mustering footage come down to a choice to use panning.

Funny thing is, I don’t like panning.

Panning has it’s uses, but generally for smaller, tighter projects, it is over used. There is almost always movement in a frame, but I feel strongly, that movements that attract attention to themselves need to be used carefully. In a nutshell, I won’t miss not using it, even if the urge to move is strong to this stills shooter.

In preference, focus shifts, multiple angles, panning around the subject, following, walk throughs, simply letting the subject move in front of a still camera can all be as powerful. The pan tends to hero the landscape for establishing shots, great for big flicks, but overdone for smaller. It is possible to make an entire, high quality production with a still camera. It is the norm for many top end movies.

One angle sets the scene.

The other adding intimacy.

The subject carries the frame, gimmicks not needed and I was able to shoot stills at the same time.

Movements are a creative tool, but do we need them as often as we think? Personally I like to use them in a considered, restrained way. When story boarding I will tend to think 2 or 3 to 1 static to movement and even then the movement will be contained.

Occasionally a stronger one will be warranted, maybe even an extreme one, but as often as not, the subject is the stronger element. I guess also you need to ask yourself, are you using a movement to enhance a bad idea, a boring subject or a poor angle?

There is a lot of pressure to come up with new and exciting transitions, movements and angles, but like most things, content and picture/sound quality always come first, often negating “over worked” cinematography.

Ed. Looks like the judder culprit may be related to the stabiliser. Go me!

Yep, It Was Freedom And It Was Good.

My wife was a little miffed on the weekend and rightfully so. A rare weekend off together had been planned as a visit to close friends on our beautiful east coast.

St Pats College, my wifes employer and an occasional employer for me made both the seconds and senior state private schools football finals and requested my skills to cover them.

Wow, what a day.

Over three hours of high quality, desperate and close football, from two of the best school teams in the state. St Pats who are mid domination dynasty and Hutchins, the powerhouse of the south.

The St Pats seconds went down bravely. This was a little sobering after their two convincing wins last year. They can be beaten and it could happen today!

The big game was exactly that. After scoring the first two goals, the St Pats boys had to weather a strong drive from Hutchins, ending in a low scoring and desperate game and a deficit of over a goal coming into full time. So to paint the picture, the three quarter time talk came down to future memories, hard earned goals nearly reached, the 14 players who are moving on at the end of the year finishing on a high after a strong few years and most importantly, leaving nothing in the shed. I was convinced even though I knew the other guys would be getting much the same talk.

It worked. It really worked.

A late fourth quarter “mark” (a clean catch that in AFL means an uncontested kick from a set “mark” is allowed) and the subsequent goal produced identical scores. Then St Pats defended a heart stopping minute more to hang on and two, five minute overtime periods would be played.

They came out strong, scoring three time in the first period, but two were one point “behinds” (8 points total). The game shifts then to one of desperate defence and a fear of losing their gains. It is funny how sport messes with the mind. Ten minutes ago there was an unlikely shift of momentum, but after gaining it, there is often a natural mind shift to a fear of it reversing just as easily. When you have it to lose, it maybe feels more fragile.

They hung on for the second period giving away I think a single point (Australian rules has a dual scoring system with a single point for a “behind” off to the side of the goal posts and 6 points for a clean goal.

The tactical difference is that after points they restart from the goal line, the goals go to the centre, so ironically, the points were in favour of the opposition, because they needed to stay down that end and get at least two before a goal.

There was a lot of skill on display.

Plenty of desperation.

And as always, plenty of spectacular marks. Still in awe of the height some of these kids get.

Highlighted by the one that led to the goal, then to the draw, then to overtime and the eventual win.

At the top of that mountain is number 13 for St Pats, the game changer and a future star.

Of the 1100 files taken over three and a half hours, 350 were submitted, 50 kept in reserve (most of the above are from that set), because they either focussed on the opposition or they are “seconds”. Occasionally I just missed them first time through and about another 100 are good enough to be used, but just surplus (some players get-got too often to bother with all the takes).

I was happy with my one shot at a time process, my timing seeming to be on for the whole job and the freedom of not having to get numbers was exactly that.

Phil from work covered the seniors game, well five minutes of it with four other jobs to do, hammering a half dozen passages of play with 20fps, sharing a yarn and the cold, he crucially got one of the game winning number 13, but I was happy with my system, which was a contrast in almost every way. He had his ten images used in the paper and online.

Fixed The Judder, Roll On In The Flicker!

So today I had one of those days that showed me the potential of my video process at work.

The paper has started to push for better content for online, which is right in the wheel house of video.

The trick is to turn around a fully realised one to two minute mini movie, usually a speaker and some B-roll, in about half an hour, then do it again, because we are now dropping twice a day rather than working towards a papers deadline. The reality is, there is no guarantee we will even use the footage, but it needs to be ready none the less.

Today I had it all.

The two TV stations sent their crews, who usually work together, and we stills shooters tend to either sit back and watch or piggy back where we can. I prefer the latter. Today, with my mind on video, but no specific need, I could not resist. The two TV crews in this environment went full “Ken Burns”, setting a beautiful scene (literally thanks to the work in the background).

Seriously, how could you resist.

I set up the G9 with the 15mm at 1080p/10 bit, managed to capture several clips at the 15mm setting and with the 2.7x loss-less converter setting (same as above roughly, taken on the EM1 and the 45mm at the same time!).

This one shows the semi “book” reflected light technique used to light the scene.

So yes, I managed some stills at the same time, but needed the mechanical shutter to avoid banding, which should have been my first warning.

The gentle click of an EM1 can be heard if you listen for it.

There was clearly some flicker from the lights, because I had set the camera to 30p to reduce panning judder (which it seemed to), but then I was running at the wrong frame rate for the 50hz lights. Sometimes the view finder acts up more than the actual sensor, so I kept going.

Alas, no.

Frustratingly, the footage looks every bit as good as the stills, when you freeze it anyway.

Seems like I have to shoot at 25 or 50p, then maybe process at 30p, to see if I can beat both. Still lots to learn.

On a happier note, I successfully shot video with the G9 and stills with the EM1 at the same time. Cool.

I may invest in one of those monopods with feet, so I can juggle this better.

I just ordered an iFootage Cobra 2 120 aluminium monopod/table top tripod, which will allow me to shoot free hand easily and reduce the (relative) strain of the 300mm for all day shoots. At $125au it seemed a steal. Another handy use is lighting, flash and even mics, so it will not go to waste. There is also a flat foot for those uses and some accessory legs. Lots of options.

Full Frame Realities

Rather than re-hash the full frame vs M43 thing (again), I am going to look at it from the perspective of “natively shallow depth of field vs deep depth of field systems”.

I am a fan of M43 (no kidding), but I think that now, even after reacquiring a full frame (for video mostly, curiosity came a close second) and having the opportunity to use it for stills, I may be locked into an M43 work flow that I do not want to break.

The workable range is the key.

You are limited in aperture selection by the lens and the realities of photography. If you want deep depth of field and good quality it usually (still) means a lower ISO and slower shutter speed, which in turn relies on some type of stabilisation like a tripod or internal camera and/or lens stabilising or the movable feast that is lighting. If your subject is moving, then those options go out the window.

With M43 I get the same objective image quality at ISO 400 as a full frame camera gets (pixel count being roughly equal) at ISO 1600. The difference is, the M43 camera gives me the same depth of field or more at an aperture two stops wider open (say at f1.8 compared to 2.8-3.4 on a full frame), so those two stops are made back up by the lens.

The real difference in the field amounts to a system where you can always use any aperture on the lens safely.

Wide open at a relatively tame closest focusing distance, the 50mm S at f1.8 still separates easily. Too easily to be useful most often. If this was taken for artistic effect, then fine. If it was taken for a client wanting a shot for a catalogue, then a smaller aperture would have been needed and all the benefits of the bigger sensor go out the window.

Taken at ISO 3200 at 1/60th with a lower ISO, the stabiliser and smaller sensor dynamic in M43, and I know this from years of doing it, would have let me use f1.8 at ISO 800 and 1/15th or even slower or even f1.4 at ISO 400. Same difference mathematically except for two factors.

The first is more confidence the image would be sharp with M43.

The second is there is enough quality to do almost anything, so more is needed why?

There is no doubt there is room for shallow depth of field in photography. The image below, at f2 is nice, but not very informative. It is also fully achievable with M43, just shift the math.

But even at F5.6 from a flat perspective, the table is not fully sharp.

Models supplied by “The Horse”, my other mini-hobby.

Oddly to many older photographers who constantly fought against shallow depth of field, the real advantage of full frame is often cites as easily achieved shallow depth. The reality is it is on trend, but not often practical.

Look at the work of the best portraitists. They use the deepest they can get away with, only resting to very shallow for a specific look. No portfolio shots for the subject, just the photographer.

Juddering Question.

I finally got an answer to the juddering issue I have been seeing a lot in my footage.

Juddering looks like a little lag that shows when panning.

I was not sure what caused it, but the net coughed up some common problems, mostly subscribing to the “panning too fast” school of thought. Apparently, the rule of thumb goes something like “it should take seven seconds to go from frame edge to opposite edge in a pan”. This is dependent on a lot of other factors like lens coverage etc, but the rule is “slower is smoother”.

Problem is, it still happened. A subtle but un-ignorable series of little jumps. That gorgeous smoothness of film in cinema just seemed beyond me.

The variances of cameras, lenses, sensor speed, shutter to frame rate combinations, panning speed, resolutions all seemed to come up at one point or another, but what is the culprit, why is digital panning such a mine field?

I see it in professional productions, old and new, film or digital, then see examples of perfection in the art from just phone footage.

Turns out it is down to frame rate shot at compared to the playback devices hertz rate, which with most devices is 60 or 120 hz. Recording at “cinematic” 24fps for smoothness actually makes this worse. By not matching the frame rate to the playback hertz rating and using a slower frame rate which exaggerates judder (smooths other movement), there is more than a mild chance of a frame or more being “dragged” to fill the time line (24 into 30/60/120 does not fit evenly). I have been using 25fps as a compromise between 24 cinematic and to match our PAL region. I though it a better fit than 30 fps. Turns out most devices need 30fps.

Does this mean shooting at 25 to avoid recording flicker and editing at 30 to avoid playback judder or the other way around? Not sure, still researching. Sure enough today I got some flicker at 30p so it may be a case of shooting one, then up-rating in processing.

It looks like a high frame rate (with 180 shutter rule applied), to match the NTSC rates for playback, will help, but may not be the perfect answer.

Dualities (Or The Best Of All Worlds)

So, the work bag has settled down as a hybrid system, hybrid capabilities powerhouse. Almost all I need for anything, which is the point of it.

It does this while being small and relatively light, which means there is room for other kits built more to purpose.

So, what else?

Sport has become a 50-50 commitment for me since dropping back to part time. I deliberately asked for weekends over week days for the dual benefit of being more available to charities and not for profits and to lean heavily into the sports end of things.

I also did this for the paper, assuming they would use this opportunity to bring in a younger, hopefully female shooter as a cadet (the four of us cover the fifty something white heterosexual male demographic just fine, but apparently there are more out there) and the weekends are a hard ask without a decent learning period. You often work alone, have to do a variety of sports and editorial on a tight schedule and process to a deadline.

They went for the guy I was originally job sharing with, just with a cleaner roster and our original roles swapped. This is a product of needing willing victims who can go for it out the gate, which unfortunately limits our choices. I do wonder what happens when the four of us retire at the same time, or maybe I am worrying about the wrong thing?

Anywho.

My sports bag is the love/hate project that is Lowe Pro Pro-Tactic or I use the Mindshift Photocross 10 if I need to go lighter;

• EM1x and EM1 Mk2 bodies. The second Em1x has been dropped because I rarely use two cameras at once these days and the Mk2 it is plenty when I do (it loves the 40-150 f2.8). I came to realise a while back that the lenses make more difference than cameras.

• 12-40 f2.8 which I find wide enough. Originally I used the 8-18, a great lens I had not found a home for, but I rarely get that close, but do find 18mm f4 it a little short and slow for general duties.

• 40-150 f2.8, the work horse for smaller field sports. If I need a second camera and the light is good, I will sometimes use the much smaller f4 version.

• 300 f4 the field sport work horse. The 1.4x is used for sailing etc.

• 75 f1.8 is the low light problem solver.

On the weekends I usually work out of this exclusively, unless I have an editorial job and time to switch.

Ok, that is the paper covered. but what about other work?

The Commercial kit, which is less about moving fast and more about solving problems;

Neewer backpack and a series of smaller bags.

• The G9/EM1x dynamic (‘cos I have them).

• Both have cage options in case the whole gig is video-centric.

• OSMO Pocket kit for gimbal work.

• 12-60 Pana-Leica. The standard that does so much.

• 8-18 Pana-leica. This is the wide for this kit, also a good video option and shares my 67mm filter set.

• 30 f1.4 Sigma. The super shallow depth of field and low light video and studio lens.

• Pen “F” mount (half frame) 25 f2.8. A “retro look” standard lens.

• Lots of filters and video rig options.

If video is a big deal or the primary task, I take another bag which is self contained or adds to the above.

Domke 217 Roller;

• S5 body in a cage (growl).

• 50 and 20-60 full frame lenses.

• 35 TTArtisan and Pentax 50 f1.4 “retro” lenses.

• Monitor and mat box, filters etc. This also has the bulk of my Mics for more serious work.

Other bits are;

• A hard case with my full mic setup.

• A large hard case with 4 COB lights

• Several LED panels, modifiers etc.

• Backgrounds, stands, clamps, brackets etc.

• A comprehensive flash kit.

Other options.

For events a couple of unlikely suspects emerge simply because they work.

Any bag I need (Domke F802-804 are common);

• 2x EM10 Mk2

• A zoom, usually the 12-40 or 12-60 Leica.

• A fast standard prime for groups, usually the 17.

• A fast long prime for stage and candid usually the 45 or the 75.

• Flashes.

My travel and street setup are basically surplus to all the above and I hope they will get a run soon.

Any bag, usually based on the needs of the place (Filson, Tokyo Porter, Domke);

• Pen F, Pen Mini 2, EM5 (last one standing), or EM10 from above.

• 12-60 Pana kit, 40-150 Oly kit, for travel.

• 17 and 45 Olympus for street and low light. Both these lenses do got used for events etc.

Humble cameras and lenses can do great things, they just need to get there in the first place.

Future plans?

Assuming I stick with photography, the future does not need a lot of investment.

My want list consists of only a possible game changing camera (OM-1, G9 mk2, S5 Mk2) whuch highly depends on the direction I take and if the S5 is the way I go, I will pick up one or two more S series primes (24, maybe 85).

The reality is, my core work kit has a mirror set for backup, my sports gear gets 3-5 days work a month and my current processes are getting cleaner and cleaner, meaning that with their build quality they are unlikely to be stressed for quite a while. My S5 is being used as an occasional video camera and my pool of backups can also be used as “shutter savers” when possible.

I have unused lights, more flash power than I can use, a half dozen mic options.

If I cut it down by half, I would still feel ready for anything.

The Best Of Both Worlds

My new-old mixed kit is a blessing in disguise.

Early on in my time with the paper, I was in need of some clarity of process. Suffering a little from “imposter syndrome”, I was aware of having to champion my strengths, develop new ones and try to mitigate frustrating errors as I worked.

Shifting to an all Olympus kit was the quick answer, easily done when the paper’s promise of using video turned into a bit of a paper Tiger. Secretly relieved, as I am happy enough with my video and sound recording quality, but not my relatively untried, quick-fire editing skills, the all Oly stills kit was clean and easy to get my head around as I dealt with other things.

A trip to melbourne reminded me of the bright light loving Olympus kit’s strength.

Also, jugging stills and video is not as easy as some would think.

Well, video is back and I am dealing with the dual dynamic.

Much happier now with the prospect of a dual brand kit, having settled into a good all-Olympus work flow and having time to appreciate the missing benefits the G9 offered*, it has become a good, versatile system.

The G9 is teamed up with the 9, and 15mm Leicas. The natural look of this kit is like the Oly with fill flash applied.

The EM1 Mk2 has the bigger load of the 25, 45, 40-150 f4 (or 75).

Sure footed in the extreme, the Em1 Mk2, which is a few generations behind the latest Olympus/OM systems offerings still has plenty of legs for most work (I often use the other one as my second sports camera). I use EM1x’s for sport and the G9’s for hybrid video, but for long lens work, these work.

When I first blended the kit, the Panasonic was matched to the Olympus 12-40 and 17mm lenses, their quick manual focus switching seen as a good thing**. This hampered the camera a little, so an all Panasonic grouping is better.

I did try the 8-18, but at the time it was a poor physical fit for my bag and a little too wide-short and slow in low light (f4 at the commonly used end).

If I want to tame strong light, the Olympus gear is best and for dull light, the Panasonic kit adds glow.

This all Olympus file has a glow about it, but the reality was, the light was blinding. I love the film like look of files like this.

The secret though is in the inconsistencies.

Lacking a wide Oly lens, the EM1 can deliberately mute the delicate and bright 9 and 15mm’s a little. Conversely, the longer lenses on the Panasonic camera are given a little brightness, a little punch in poor lighting.

A harmonious combination of the G9 and Olympus 45mm. The colour from all Panasonic kit tends to look like the love child of Canon and Fuji colour. Light, brilliant with a warm/cool tension, but delicate, almost thin. Adding in the Oly 45 or 17mm’s with their warmer coatings and organic colour tends to ground the sometimes “flighty” files.

Then on the other end an EM10 Mk2 and 15mm Panasonic. This is a favourite combo, the 15mm cooling off the often too-warm EM10 files and adding a delicateness. The camera on the other hand gives the delicate 15mm some depth.

The big thing is the handling mess that was working fast with two different cameras seems to have settled into the rhythm of my life, which is Apple to Windows, Capture 1 to Lightroom, stills to video, Samsung to Iphone, Hyundai to VW on a daily basis.

Maybe this all helps keep this old brain nimble?

*Nicer handling for fast ISO selection, better wide area people acquisition in close, quick video switching, faster switching between AF points and silent to enabled mechanical shutter. I also prefer the low light performance with its own lenses and the quick electronic/mechanical shutter switch is handy also.

**I usually use MF for video. It always works and when I miss, I miss naturally and control the recovery. If the subject is semi static or I want a smooth transition, I use single shot AF and the touch screen.

Freeee.....dom!

This weekend off, I am shooting sport.

Bus drivers holiday?

No, not really, because this is a paid job (for a change) outside of work for the school my wife works for. I am filling a hole left by their photographer who moved on recently.

For the second year running, they have both boys teams in the football finals. I covered them last year, literally the week before I started with the paper, so a full year has gone by.

This is actually from the year before that again, when St pats played in the seconds before Scotch played the seniors.

Two games, no captions, just like last year!

My enduring memory of that period was my weak knee causing me to limp quite badly and making kneeling unrealistic. I am (touch wood) a lot better now, so more angles and I will be able to follow the action better.

Another bonus is the second EM1x and the 40-150 f4 so more speed, less weight.

100% usable files, no chasing numbers, no wasted frames, no hours spent in front of a computer afterwards just to load them up on a deadline, only processing, no stress.

Punching Above Our Weight.

The state weight lifting championships the other day gave me another chance to try to reinvent the wheel (well maybe the whole axle).

The space was limited, the light iffy, but character filled it.

The facilities in our small state for many sports are often a little sad, especially considering the talent we produce per head*.

Enough weight to bend the bar! Still does my head in.

There is currently in a debate over the impending billion dollar “super stadium” build, pushed or more to the point demanded by the lure of a national football team (AFL), but the whole thing seems a bit lop-sided in favour of only one elite sport.

Most other sports have a similar story, like the national grade basketball team the Jackjumpers, who made the final on their first year in the comp. A game at the next level down on their usual playing court was stopped because of a lifted floor board. We avoided the embarrassment of a national game being stopped mid TV broadcast by luck only.

The list goes on and on, but back to the story at hand.

The best shots turned out to be warm-ups in the cramped space next door.

Now that we are focussing on web first publication, we can tell stories with our images, so all angles need to be explored.

One of the lifters here (above) is number three in the country and has her whole career ahead of her, but like so many other “fringe” sport athletes, she is balancing work and training with limited facilities and opportunities.

The 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8’s did most of my heavy lifting.

*More than our quota of international sports stars (we once boasted two national cricket captains at the same time, then a third not long after and always have a disproportionate number of Olympians and world champions for our half a million head count, currently boast one of the best female swimmers in the world, rowers, cyclists etc and more and more we are exporting basketball and soccer players etc). We tend to take this for granted, but the reality is, these people put in the effort with little support and often have to leave to reach their potential.

No Space, All Good

I did a portrait shoot today for a not for profit. I knew I had the whole board room to shoot the job, but the thing I did not know is the board room table, and an impressive thing it was, took up 80% of the room.

I had some depth, but no width. I literally had the choice of whether to use my 1.5 or 2.1 wide Manfrotto backdrop taken from me. I had 1.5m….just. My original intention was to use a main light 45/45* on the left and a second one low and behind on the right side as a dual fill-rim light.

No hope, so what to do**?

The end of the room I was able to use had full length windows with thin Venetian blinds and the direct sunlight was on the other end, so I pressed these into use. I started the morning with the blinds closed, but on opening them, I got a little fill, just a little.

Not bad. Processing can easily fix misses, but it is still easier when doing lots, to just get it right. This was my first subject, all 6’4” of him. Good thing I bought the tall stand. The grey on grey left shoulder is just separated from the background. Oops, just noticed the background picking at the top.

Using the shutter speed to control the ambient light (that is what happens with flash work), it works as the master control of natural light fill. It also controls the background darkness, well the bit the flash does not blitz. Normally I would be happy with no ambient, but in this case I went with just a hint.

About 1/160th gave me a hint of natural light from the darker right side.

My favourite and the manager of the organisation, so nice to do a decent job.

Aperture at f4 and ISO 400 gave me a very usable 1/64 power through a shoot through brolly. I really need to explore my huge arsenal of mods, but for now the brollies just work.

So, a one light, ambient fill image. They look a little flat, but are consistent and useable.

Other stuff; G9 with 12-60 Leica, YN560 flash through a 42” Godox brolly and the Manfrotto Pewter background.

*45 degrees to the left, 45 decrees above for safe if not dramatic angled light.

**In hind sight I could have used a small, flagged LED panel, which I had packed.

Dare To....

This subject is the director of a small theatre company “Dare”, working out of the back of another businesses converted store house.

Possibly full of character under different circumstances, it was not an automatic win today.

The Panasonic G9 and 15mm with those lovely skin tones. The natural brightness of Panasonic sensor and lenses adds a little snap that prints well. I was happy shooting only Olympus for a few months and sure was more convenient (1 battery type), but I must admit, there is a lot to be said for having options.

My usual style of shooting over the reporters shoulder was the way to go as there were no rehearsals, no props and now one else there.

My kit has change a little recently. The push to do video has come on hard and strong, meaning I have gone back to a shared Olympus and Panasonic kit.

The Olympus EM1 Mk2 with 25mm f1.8 wide open.

A rare miss shows its very nice Bokeh. The catch with face detection mode is if it gets confused, it tends to go well wrong.

It is not that the Oly cameras cannot do good video. Indeed they have some benefits over even the Panasonic G9’s, but they are a pain to work with in a hybrid space.

Unlike the Panasonic cameras, you cannot set up a custom work space, really needing to dedicate a camera to purpose, bacuse “just switching” is not easy.

Want video with the G9? Turn to C1 through C3-3 (1080p/25 Natural, 1080 33% slo-mo, 1080p/50, 4k/24 Cine-D, 4k/50 Cine-D, with all buttons and dials dedicated to video). Video is also the same, with Aperture priority my standard for stills. I use ISO for exposure, the main dial on the back controls of that.

With the EM1 Mk2, you need to switch to video, then remember to set the mics, ISO, ect to the right settings from scratch.

Basically one second compared to one minute.

For stills it is literally a mixed bag.

The two brands have some areas they are each better some times than the other like high ISO electronic shutter banding. Usually the Oly is fine, but occasionally the Pana likes a space better.

Handling is the big win for the Pana. I just love the extra real estate and more flexible custom settings. Anything anywhere basically and more switches etc to do it. I have ISO on the back main dial, there is a switch on the front for silent shutter on/off, the nubbin is better for AF point selection and the quick menu is a little more direct. The menus do my head in and try as I might, I have never been able to get both my G9’s functioning exactly the same, but once they settle, they are very nice to use (there is actually a save to card and transfer menu option that I have not used, but that is not the point).

All of these feature on the Oly take another step or two movements to complete. The EM1x/Mk3/OM-1’s fix some of these to an extent, but right now in my day kit, the G9 wins. The Oly cameras are smaller though and turn on quicker.

AF is the Oly strength. The G9 has excellent AF, better even when you just let the camera decide (human/animal detect is quite clever but not infallible), but requires Panasonic lenses to support it and my most powerful long lenses are all Olympus.

I knew this going in and have even found the G9 workable with some Oly telephoto lenses, the newer 40-150 F4 in particular, but the reality is, if you want to shoot sport regularly, a G9 with Oly glass is not a perfect match.

In balance, the G9 is better suited to close work, the lenses I have fitting that space perfectly, the Oly’s for me do the long lens work and again, my lenses are ideal**.

Oddly, some lenses work better on their opponents bodies. The 15mm has an annoyingly loose aperture ring that I cannot disable, unless it goes on an Oly camera. It also has a delicate and light colour palette, which brightens the more grounded Oly look.

The Pana combination likes a little more “retro” pushing and pulling.

Conversely, the 12-40 and 17mm Olympus are great video lenses on the G9 with good ergonomics and very organic looking colours, reducing some of the over-sharp Panasonic footage. The G9 has very contrasty video, so many users set contrast and sharpness to -5 in Natural mode, but even then it can look a little hard.

Also added back to the kit is the 25mm, because I miss that filler focal length after deciding not to use a zoom standard lens, a mic (the Sennheisser MKE-400) and some filters in 46mm (2-400 ND and BPM 1/8th).

The Sigma 30mm could replace both the 45 and 25mm lenses, but its focussing is a little less sure footed and it is quite large on its own. The 45mm can be shoved into the smallest space in my bag, the 30 with hood takes up similar space to my 75mm.

I know that the Pana cameras and lenses can brighten up gloomy images, but the Olympus can better control overly bright surrounds and looks more organic. Mixing lenses and bodies can reveal some perfect synergies.

I also prefer the Oly cameras for flash. I rarely get a lost file to poor decision making from an Oly.

*9, 15, 12-60 kit, 12-60 Leica, 8-18 Leica.

**45, 75, 40-150 kit, 40-150 f4, 40-150 f2.8 75-300, 300 f4. There are also 12-40, 17 and 25mm options, but for the G9 I stick to Pana.