The Last Piece Of The Puzzle?

My sound kit is at risk of getting out of hand, but still has a hole that needs filling.

I bought possibly the last (dynamic) mic for now, the Lewitt MTP 440 (not to be confused with the LCT 440, an entirely different beast).

The sE V7x which was my preference over the SM57 as an instrument mic, because rather than the aggressive presence boost, it has more bass depth with smoother highs (the sE V3 is actually closer to the 57). This is an instrumental specialist mic, poorly suited to vocals, although it is sometimes used here, but needs careful employment for that role (pop filters, handling noise).

The Lewitt MTP 440 can actually function better in the same space without extreme measures needing to be taken. It is also cheaper ($50au+), smaller, is matched in tone and relevance to its other instrumental partners my 040 Match pencil condenser pair and last but not least, fills the hole in my sound landscape (a versatile bass/guitar cabinet handler) every bit as well as the 7x and 57. This is actually the mic I needed first up to round out the 040’s, but the vocal side needed addressing first.

The little Lewitt 040 Match are often used with the MTP 440 in the Lewitt drum kits, so even they think it is a good idea.

The pair of sE’s are my general vocal specialists, the Prodipe TT1 a bit of a generalist/wild card and the Lewitts cover instruments. If anything more is to be added, the Prodipe M85 or Lewitt MTP 550 are in the “mix” (groan) for lighter, more transparent vocals, but I already have more mics than I will likely use or can run at once for little real difference. Maybe another 440 to balance the set or look at something completely different.

Some things with me just become obsessive rather than productive and I do suffer from self recognised “completists” syndrome.

If I could only use one type of mic, things would be tougher, but the MTP 550 Lewitt would be a good neutral and versatile choice as would the sE V7.

If only one brand was to be adopted, it would be Lewitt. Easy choice. The basic drum kit (2x 040 match, 340 Rex, MTP 440), LCT 440 Pure, DTP 250 and 550’s (basically the V3 and V7 equivalents). I could probably do the same with sE, except for the amazing 040’s. Hard to beat.

The big question still to be answered is whether the mics I have chosen will give me any real world differences through to a camera via the H5 or F1 Zooms. It may well be that a handfull of cheap TT1’s or sE V3’s would have been fine, but not being a sound engineer, I feel the front of house choices will be more decisive.

We will see.

Zooms For Video, Primes For Stills?

recently I asked “what lenses do you like” and pretty much ignored zooms, because the idea was do help define my (your) eye without the redundancy of the any focal length available zoom dynamic.

How about I contradict that now, go fully hypocrite even.

When shooting video, a zoom may be the better option.

I am going to assume that at least two focal lengths are required in most videographers kits.

Video has different needs, some of which can be hard or expensive to service, but also has some handy mitigations for the negatives zooms can bring.

Changing focal length in video is the same as for stills except it can interrupt your “rig” setup. Balance of cages, follow focussing attachments, filters etc can all be changed, but not fast and sometimes not fast enough. You could argue that the more contemplative nature of video production makes this irrelevant, but let’s be real, modern content creation is not that space.

Cinema prime lenses are designed to match each other and often come in sets (size, weight, ring placement, filters and even colours), but they are not cheap and often, to be consistent, each weighs as much as the heaviest of them. There are zooms available and often for less than a full set of primes, but these are at the top end of the range, quite rare and often massively proportioned.

Without a matching set of cinema glass, you may need to adjust to;

• changing filters and re-set their rotations (or buy duplicates of the same),

• re-balancing a gimbal/cage centre point,

• different focus throw and even direction if changing brands,

• shifting ring placement, especially with a follow focus,

• a different aperture range,

• changing rig balance,

• matching colours in post. Only cinema matched glass avoids this.

Some of these still need doing even with with matching glass.

A zoom fixes all or many of these issues. The only thing that may need some, but often not much adjustment is gimbal balance (or don’t zoom when using one!), but again, all the other stuff is fixed, so this is the only problem.

Situations that stretch stills cameras are sometimes less problematic for video.

For video, a slower aperture zoom may be a blessing and is certainly less of a problem.

For stills, movement in low light may need a minimum shutter speed of 1/250th or higher pushing your ISO into less pretty places, or forcing a wider aperture/shallower depth of field if available, but with video 1/50th or 1/60th usually tops you out (180 degree rule at 24/25/30fps).

These shutter speeds with a maximum aperture of f2.8 and ISO’s up to 3200 handle most situations and are available to most camera and lens systems.

Depth of field? Even a MFT camera at f2.8 has decent shallow depth rendering for many practical purposes, especially if you are a manually focussing, enough room for smooth transitions without “more out than in” often being the case. Super shallow depth in video is desirable, but less so and often less practical than for stills.

The Oly 12-40 f2.8 on my G9’s provides (in 1080), a 24-215* equivalent range using the loss-less tele converter mode, takes the one filter set (62mm), with full time linear manual focus and good close focus. The colour and overall look matches obviously because it is the one lens.

If I want very shallow depth, some of the prime’s available match well enough with the added bonus of having their own set of 46mm filters.

The S5, 20-60 and 50mm are similar except (ironically), they do share the same filters so duplicates or some switching is needed. The variable aperture zoom is used at f5.6, giving me effectively the same depth as the f2.8 MFT lens.

Tricky for a stills camera, this is much easier to achieve and suitably “cinematic” in video.

My intention for the work G9 rig (or non-rig I guess) is to carry the Olympus 17 with ND filter mounted for video which gives me two focal lengths in video (FF 35 and 90mm), the 25mm as a low light stills lens indoors. This means really only having one very light weight lens more in the bag that can be used for stills in good light, but video in any light (bright light being the problem for video).

The fully rigged video G9 on the other hand gets the 12-40. It is a heavy lens, but one that works well for video with all the advantages highlighted above. This has the matt box ring, any filter needed and like the 17mm has linear manual focus that turns the same way and a fixed aperture. I have also grown to appreciate the light and bright Panasonic sensor and organic Olympus lens combination.

That kit also gets an EM1x and the Sigma 30mm, Leica 8-18 and 12-60 and the Oly 40-150 f2.8 for stills, any of which could be used for video also.

*The other zoom. There is another option available with a few catches. The G9 and other cameras I assume have some form of built in teleconverter or format change (the S5 has full to APS-c switch), that can “zoom” your lens providing two focal lengths. Limited to 1080 usually, because it is using a 4k sensor to crop without loss to 1080 (same as in post), this allows you a two step zoom.

Ohhh...I Gotta Stop

Deeply mired in mic-land here.

Dozens of comparison tests, lots of jargon (that I am starting to understand!), lots of A vs B vs C scenarios.

Maybe a trip away. Some time far from a computer (and my own head).

Take aways;

• No decent mic is the one answer (extreme solutions like the 441 Flex maybe, but nothing less and it can only be in one place). Every source and listening ear is different. My personal dislikes are compressed, flat, wooly and overly nasal sound with excessive sibilance, but we are all different.

• No decent mic is a poor choice, they all have a place. Avoid repetition of overt specialists and you should be ok.

• Know your limits. Output, input, audience, own tolerances. All have limits and like stills and video, they are likely lower than you think. Some test results were lost on me with a very decent set of headphones, so the rabbit hole goes deeper than I need. Mic choices can make a difference, but subtle differences are lost or can be processed out. Think Bass/Mid range/Treble, nothing more complicated.

• WATCH OUT FOR FAKES. I almost bought a super cheap SM57, but researched fakes and found it to be a common thing (apparently only missing serial numbers and lighter weight are the tell, something the provided photos conveniently did not show!). Ironically, I may never have known the difference being new here!

• Some things are constant. Most mics suffer from plosives and handling noise if used badly, some more than others, but all do.

• sE is apparently pronounced “Say”. Who knew?

My purchasas so far are;

• The sE V7 ($135au via Amazon ex Japan) as the best all-rounder when compared to the industry standard SM58. More open and detailed and prettier, it is the SM58 evolved. Personally I find the SM58 flat, nasally and compressed compared to most other options.

• The sE V3 ($130au locally, $111au on Amazon ex U.S.) as the brighter and more punchy alternative to the V7. A bit more like an instrument mic “lite”, the V3 is more about boosted presence (like the SM57), less about safety and neutrality.

• The Prodipe TT1 ($70 ex UK), a smoother, darker mic (I think/hope). Like the V3, this is a more open than the SM58 (hard to find comparisons, but an Eastern European singer had a good, clear sample video). We shall see. It was cheap and apparently punches well above its weight, so a decent filler anyway.

• A matched pair of Lewitt 040’s which are class leading overhead, acoustic condenser mics. Anything delicate, stereo, or light will be covered by these, with only low end underwhelming.

• A Lewitt MTP 440 for the bottom end that the matched pair do not cover. This can also do darker vocals.

My next purchase, as I possibly intend to end up with more mics;

• The Prodipe M85, which looks to be a good vocal specialist (San Lyon have some great clips). A rip-off of the SM58, comparisons are favourable, with the French mic offering lighter and more open sound.

• Another 440, V3 or V7 depending on what I hear. The main thinking here is if one shows superior handling and plosive rejection.

• The LCT 440 or 240 for a condenser option, but that still leaves me with the problem of only being able to run 2 of 3 condensers.

• The Lewitt dynamics (250 or 550) are a more versatile, open vocal option. In hindsight an all Lewitt kit* would have worked and has merit, but their Dynamics just failed to blip on the review radar before I committed to other options. The curse of being the new kid I guess (for both of us).

I will only bother with another mic if I can tell a difference between the ones coming and find one that either reinforces the best of them or adds something different/missing**.

Other cool purchases include a set of 4 Gravity flexible arms (2x 60cm, 2x 46cm), an elegant solution to my mic stand needs. These will screw into the top of regular light stands and bend as needed. They take plenty of weight, so mics will not be a problem. For $100 I have converted 4 light stands to mic stands.

I looked at dedicated mic stands but just ran out of care factor. I have several levels of Neewer stands from cheap and unused to super light, to medium and heavy weight. Can’t use them all for lights, all bought when things were cheaper, so some can be re-purposed.

A bag of coloured pop filter foams. You never know.

*2x 040 Match, MTP 440, MTP 550 and another vocal maybe like a LCT 240/440 Pure.

**Went with the MTP 440.

Workflows.

I seem to be developing two defined video work flows

For the paper, my stills are set (RAW to Capture 1), but video has had a transformation based on realistic needs and my own expectations and observations.

It is hoped that we will be making a small clip for every job, which even if we can get the processing down to 20 minutes each is unworkable. Travel time, taking and processing of stills and video for an average of five jobs a day does not fit into the time allowed and that assumes the jobs are evenly spaced (rarely) and five is the lot (also unlikely).

Level 1 is for fast turn around for above shooting Standard profile (contrast maybe a little reduced for safety) cuts out a lot of grading time and matches across all my Panasonic cameras as well as the OSMO Pocket well enough. It also looks similar to Iphone footage if I need to blend. This goes to DaVinci then out to 1080 .mov.

Most situations have a contrast range that this profile can handle. if not, I have to decide how far I want to crush shadows to retain highlights. Basically like shooting JPEG’s really.

For “better” work, like school projects, personal stuff and commercial work, I lift to one of two levels. There is an expectation for both of the below that processing will be for quality, not time constraints.

Level 2 is employing the Flat, Cine-D or modified Natural modes (as available*) which, across all my cameras, even the Olympus, can be aligned well enough. This has plenty of processing room if I am careful and allows me to use what ever tool is the best for the job. I do the work podcast in Flat on the S5.

Level 3, saved for pro jobs is the 14 stop dynamic range Vlog. Limited to the S5, this is the top end and will rarely be used, but nice to know it is there. If there is a call, I will front up for Vlog-L on one of the G9’s which matches reasonably, maybe get a S5 Mk2 or just shoot in the above for supporting footage.

Both of course help develop skills for the other.

*Flat on the S5 and EM1’s, Cine-D on the OSMO, G9 or Natural on the G9.

Priorities

Why have I been obsessed with microphones again lately, when the end product of my work is basic sound capture into a hybrid video camera?

A few reasons.

• Bad sound is more off-putting than bad video and screams “amateur” far, far louder (literally I guess). Ask anyone in broadcasting, sound signal is designed to hang on longer than video signal because it needs to. People will tolerate temporary video degradation if the sound is still good, but not the other way around (would you rather listen to a radio or look at a movie with white noise?).

• Bad sound is less easily fixed than bad video and often sneaks up on you. Not that bad video is that easy to fix, but it is often more obvious at capture and can be replaced by other clips or stills if needed. Often bad video is also a matter of degrees, where problems with sound can quickly be catastrophic such as uncontrolled plosives, drop outs or feedback, things that often the main subject of your footage has no idea about. The odd crackle or crunch is annoying, but more than that and people switch off, or over.

• Improving sound is relatively easy and cheap to do. The entry point for sound is the limited and often rubbish in camera mic, so improving on that is easily done simply by trying. This also means you can tackle the problem a few different ways, all within the price range of a single top end lens or new camera (all my sound gear has cost me less than my 40-150 f2.8 new, which includes 3 Zooms and a dozen mics/capsules). From camera mic to cheap shotgun to better shotgun to cheap interface and mic to better mics is a range of say $20 to $600. After good enough levels have been reached however, throwing more money at it for my uses anyway is pointless. Only a sound engineer would know any different, while nuanced video continues to deliver for everyone.

• Finally, I have found that sound is fun and to this semi-jaded old shooter, both video and its required running mate sound have opened new and exciting horizons for me, so I reserve the right to dwell a bit in this space. I have awoken my inner cinematographer and roadie.

What an I trying to achieve?

I want to provide my employers and clients with decent video and balanced, better than ok sound for use from social media up to local TV commercial grade. Mostly I want to avoid bad sound first, then improve on it where I can easily and effectively.

I am realistic and aware that gear can climb and climb into stratospheric levels of cost and complication, but I am also aware that the time tested truism of “know the gear you have” always trumps big dollars poorly spent or worse, under used. Balance is as always of primary importance.

Capabilities, needs and where they meet.

The Zoom H5 is the crossroads tool at the centre of my kit. Not the best of its class, it is still highly capable and probably the most versatile option of its type. As a mic to camera interface, it is ideal. Basically if I cannot fit it to this, I probably don’t need it.

The engine room. The X/Y capsule is handy, but probably the least useful of my many options. Up to 4 XLR feeds (with the EXH-6 adapter), shotgun with mid-side, direct interface with external sources, including computers, backup recording, mono to multi line recording (in RAW also), built in effects. It has more than I understand at this point.

Mic choices do make a difference, but again, nothing over the top, just the right tool for the right job. Dynamic, condenser, cardioid, omni directional, mid-side, super cardioid, hyper cardioid are all available to or through it.

The Zoom F1 is the H5 lite, but with other tricks. Smaller so it can be worn with a LAV mic, it is the remote presenter, or on camera Zoom capsule option (the H5 is too big for either). The pre-amps in the F (Field) series are a smidgeon quieter than the H (Handy) series, so if the lowest noise is desired, the F1 is it. This can even feed to the H5 adding more mics and placement options. The cool thing with Zoom gear is it all fits in with itself.

The Zoom capsules are the easy solutions to most problems. The SSH-6 is a directional shotgun with mid-side capability (directional mono to front with some, more or no ambient stereo sound). I have found this excellent at picking up a group of four panelists evenly around one side of a round table.

The X/Y and EXH capsules add other options.

The matched pair of LCT 040 Match Lewitts are highly respected overhead, fine detail condenser pencil mics, punching well above their weight for acoustic instruments, drum overheads and wide area recording (concerts etc). Condenser mics need phantom power to work, the H5 supplies that.

A matched pair mics that take on many up to five times their price. Good as they are though, they are not designed for the more brutal sources out there (i.e. no bass). If combined with something more audibly robust though, they are ideal.

The sE V3 & V7 combo are dynamic mics. These are a very different fish to condensers, less sensitive, but handling what the more delicate Lewitts don’t like, like grunty, high pressure, in your face sources and rough handling. They can be directly handled by the talent which adds another dimension to my offer. These do not need phantom power, so the H5 and/or the EXH-6 adapter can be used.

If I do not want to use a Zoom, mainly for the paper where room is an issue, the excellent Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun is used.

If only sound is needed or a handy backup employed, the Zoom H1n is an option as are the Zooms above.

I do have a couple of LAV mic solutions (F1, H1n with wired LAV’s, but have not gone heavily into this and synching multiple sources is likely a pain). I may look at the Hollyland Lark M1’s or Smallrig W60 options later, but don’t love the idea of these. Mic-ing up several people is impractical and not necessary for me, but the odd far away source may be a thing. For most group situations, the SSH-6 has worked or a dynamic each.

So sound is a front of house priority, but once fixed to the level you need, move on, there is always more to improve in other areas. Sound needs to be “not bad” with little praise to be gained for a videographer after that.

There is even a whole level of quality lift still available to me. I can record RAW audio from the Zooms and sync later in post. Not sure it makes enough difference at this point, but nice to know I have a next level option.

Mike Me Baby.....Again!

With a new school in the mix, thoughts are turning to more exciting mic options.

My sound set-up, is I feel quite capable in most areas, but not masterful in any. I can film groups, do run-n-gun, some instrumental recitals, interviews, groups podcasts, but there is something missing.

My ambition is to be true “music” level.

True vocal recording for best quality, not just efficiency and deep, resonant frequencies. These have so far been handled by the SSH-6, which has turned out to be a bit of a fix-all option, but considering I can get specialist mics for most tasks, I feel I need to lift this a step.

Oops, forgot the MKE-400, but this is the core of the kit now. Plenty of versatility, great fine detail, but lacking a tactile element and some vocal/full grunge instrument handling.

For sound at the moment I have all the videographer options covered, like a couple of good shotguns (MKE-400, SSH-6+F1), two sensitive and accurate matched pencil condenser mics for X/Y, A/B or close instrument placement (Lewitt 040 Match to H5), a few fixed X/Y options (H5, H1n), but nothing that is purpose made for voices or deeper sounds.

This is the current fit, both Zooms on shock mounts. The pending EXH-6 will fit in the hole on the right where the H5 shock mount did go, but I will have to look at more storage options with the dynamics on the way.

What if I needed to do a singer and guitar, small group or a full drum kit recital? How about bad environments, odd voices or some instrument combinations. I need to think genuine problem solving.

How much would I need it?

Cannot say. Maybe never, maybe regularly. A bit like a Tux or little black dress in the wardrobe, if you have one, you can plan to use it, if not you need be ok to just say no sometimes.

Keep in mind, and something I tend to loose sight of so very easily when I dive into the world of sound engineering (or most things), is that all this eventually goes into is a camera via a humble 3.5 jack. Also, the H5 has the ability to interface with supplied sound, so do I even need my own mic if I have it?

The common problem with vocal and instrument mics is that not all sources are the same, so if only one is a available, a neutral, work horse all-rounder or top of the line fully transparent model are the only two sensible choices, nothing with too much attitude or colour. Otherwise a choice of several would be better?

The search started sanely enough.

A Lewitt LCT 240 medium diaphragm (sub-1”, over 1/2”) condenser. Unlike the 040’s, which get universal praise regardless of price, the 240 is more a “good value” option. Solid but not as giant killing as the little pencils. This has kit balance, is well priced and feels controlled (maybe constrained is a more accurate term).

To my ear (with sooo many limits assumed) it sounds similar to the 040’s, close enough to the mic below and is different enough to be worth bothering with. This combined with one 040 pencil could make the perfect high end-budget voice + instrument setup. Even though it is considered “entry level” by Lewitt, the reality is the end point is limited (see above).

Being a condenser, there is no way I can run all three Lewitt’s out of my Zoom H5, so the little Zoom AMS 24 or 44 popped up as an interface fix that feeds to the H5 or to run on their own. Versatile, some new features, depth, but familiar dials and interface. Basically a non-32 bit float capable F3 solution for less than half the price. May still get one, just for convenience.

Messy though. Things into things into things potentially adds little nasties and more chances of failure.

While reviewing the 240, the LCT 440 naturally rose to the surface as the next step up, reducing self noise to less than half, adding some warmth and depth (this does get class leading reviews like the 040’s), but the price is actually higher than the 240 and AMS 24 together with the same problem of sharing ports!

I then discovered the LCT 441, which is actually four or five mics in one (eight if you believe the hype), giving me a genuine problem solver of 440 quality. Another class leader adding “shapes” to my offer. Most of these shapes though can be done using the 040’s.

Still messy and now we are talking $400+. Overkill and more to the point, is this actually adding anything?

By now this may be getting out of hand and balance*.

I have to remind myself that these are reviewed by musicians, not videographers, so I have to shelve the budding sound engineer in me and stay on task, think of end uses, not pie in the sky potentials.

Looking away from Lewitts, the Rode NT1’s of various generations are owed due respect. The mic most often compared to the 440 in reviews as a good base line, this is an industry work horse, comes with great build quality and warranty, lots of accessories and the newest/dearest, 5th Generation, even has 32 bit float out (needs a DAW, via USB connection) and some software cleverness. Cheaper than the 441, some even as cheap as the 240, it seems a no brainer.

Problem is, it looks and feels like a stage mic, but does not act like one. It is side directional, does not love handling and is ugly (sorry Rode). It is also very directional, making it a great studio mic, but less versatile than I would like.

This planted a seed though.

I have never looked at dynamic mics because, based on the ones I have seen, which were wireless, I assumed they needed their own power and I have more than enough batteries to worry about (be kind, I had never looked closely).

They don’t, being noise driven they need nothing but a cable, but are generally less sensitive than condensers. They can however be handled, are far tougher, provide better all-round studio grade quality at a lower price point*. and with a $99 accessory (Zoom EXH-6), I can run a pair into either the H5 as well as the condensers or the F1, which has no XLR ports. So the F1 can be a separate recorder, or even feed into the H5 like the interface above while also recording its own backup.

What a potential problem solver.

Rather than getting the F3 as a small XLR recorder, the F1 gets an upgrade (no 32 bit float though or phantom power through this capsule) and the H5 turns into effectively an H6. I could even use four dynamic mics in a panel situation through the H5.

The Shure SM57 & 58’s are the industry standards, genuinely respected and proven with millions of users and thousands of performances and recordings made with them (apparently Bon Iver made his whole hit album with a single SM57 as just one example). It looks though, like the 50 year+ reign of this pair is under threat with a ton of options, the slightly sexier and clearer sounding sE V7/V7x and cheaper, livelier sE V3 just two.

The V3 seems most like the SM57 with a wide cardioid pattern and less noise, the V7 is slightly different, safer and more neutral like a refined SM58 (?) vocal specialist and tighter in pickup (super cardioid).

The pair make for a good problem solving duo. Voices are different so it makes sense to offer different mics. The V3 is more up front, punchier, the V7 more reserved and controlled. Neither is “right”, but both are relevant, so both makes sense.

For less than some of the above condenser solution and less complication, I can get the sE V7 ($135au) or sE V3 ($120au) and the Zoom EXH-6 ($99)** capsule. This gives me a vocal mic, but also an instrument option with the added advantages of direct handling, robustness and near bullet proof high decibel tolerance.

As proof of the benefits of a little thought with sound, I could build up an arsenal of dynamics each suited specifically to different tasks, all for the cost of a mid range lens.

A little more aggressive than the V7, but for into camera work, the extra punch is preferable and it is cheaper than the V7. I will likely end up with both to handle different voices and subjects.

Looking further, I also found the budget-not budget sounding-Prodipe TT1 Lanen for under $100au. This one has a silkier, deeper sound apparently like a Sennheisser E835, is highly efficient and also robust so it offers a third option to the two above. These were made from hand selected Chinese parts by a respected sound guru (Ludovic Lanen) for ridiculously low cost and are regularly compared favourably to multi hundred dollar mics.

For deep or soft voices needing a lift I can use the V3, for neutral voices the V7 and for high pitched or thin voices the TT1. The NEAT Worker Bee II or Prodipe MC-1 are also on the radar for plosive prone subjects and the sE V2 may need looking at. There is room for a fourth or more, but I will sit on this one until I have the three ordered ones in hand. The ideal would probably be a set of one type for consistency and a few problem solvers.

This would also add student interviews (student to student even), high sound pressure instruments like straight down the mouth of a horn, kick drum, amp etc, as well as take some serious physical abuse (all things condensers are less well suited for). With the F1, it would even be possible to wear the kit interview style and sync later if needed.

Still coming in (with adapter), under the cost of just the LCT 441, I now have several ways of recording anything from a rock band, a full orchestra, stage play, interview, a panel to a solo instrumentalist, all with backup options.

The EXH-6 can also take inputs from sound boards etc, so I could potentially feed into both Zooms.

Zoom recorders are known for their relatively noisy pre-amps, especially in their H series (and the AMS interfaces apparently). This is less of an issue with condensers, but with less sensitive dynamic mics it is something to watch. The F series field recorders though seem to be better, so the F1 and EXH-6 capsule may well be better than an AMS anyway.

Where am I right now?

Tool kit;

• Robustness (physical and audible) > dynamics (Se V3/V7, TT1).

• Sensitivity > condensers (040 Match).

• Convenience > on camera mics and capsules (MKE-400, F1/SSH-6 or X/Y caps).

• Versatility > external feed into H5/F1 or one to the other.

• Discreetness > LAV’s (not strong here, but something useable).

• Safety > a Zoom not used with a capsule (H1n, F1 with SSH-6 or X/Y).

The future?

If I do need to add wireless to the kit, something I want to avoid for a variety of reasons (added complication, sound quality and technical inconsistency), I may look at the Hollyland Lark M1 or Max, Smallrig W60 kit or make my dynamic mics wireless with adapters.

Versatility, my favourite strength.

Something else I have learned is the baseline for some microphone types seems to be the Rode NT1 and Shure SM58’s. Look past these though, because the market is evolving in exciting ways.

*Podcastage podcast, which is good fun and very informed, has a great episode about the threshold of money spent to benefits gained. The Dynamic mics in particular tend to flatten out at the sE V7 level, with little to be gained after that for reasonable value. Condensers on the other hand tend to keep improving to the $400+ range, so my research was on point and my path went the right way it seems.

**Just ordered the sE V3 and EXH-6 from a local supplier, then I got an sE 7V for less than the price of the V3 on special ($135au) through that rain forrest crowd, ex Japan. Pays to keep poking. Total cost $370 for 2 mics and adapter (or the cost of the Lewitt 440 alone). Then I grabbed the TT1 for $70 ex UK (the big river guys again). I may grab another TT1 to make 4 all up if it is good or the V3 or NEAT worker bee.

Cinematic Movies Or Modern Video.

Cinematic looking footage is the holy grail for most videographers at the moment.

What is it?

Depends on who you ask.

Generally, shallow depth of field, high sharpness veiled in overall “bloomy” softness with good dynamic range, especially in highlights with a little added colour magic seems to be the core it.

How do we get it?

The sharpness thing is fun. Most videographers complain about the over-sharp video look, so they soften it with a variety of antique lenses, some introduced haze or filtering.

Odd really. We chased sharpness for ages, now it has become the enemy for some. I guess the ideal is “natural clarity” rather than “clinical perfection”.

It seems you need to achieve it first, then you need to take the edge off it. Unsharp is just poor and gritty not acceptably mushy. Clean and sharp first, then smooth and soft combined is the business.

Depth of field is a double edged thing. You do not always need shallow depth, but you need a feeling of compression and grandeur, even at smaller apertures. This is often why full frame cameras and anamorphic lenses are used, because they add this easily, but M43 can also. Super-35 film, the Hollywood format of choice for decades is actually as close to M43 as full frame.

Dynamic range and colour science are intertwined also, because one without the other is less than half the story. Hard to explain, but you know it when you see it, there is an edge provided by some cameras, even with smaller sensors, when compared to many larger sensor cameras, often down to capture profiles, colour gamut and processing options. The BMPCC4k for example has that “something special” even though it is dated, less sharp than newer cameras and uses a smaller sensor.

Lighting. This is nothing to do with the camera, so anyone can achieve this.

*

So, where does that leave digital video, or more to the point using the bulk of cameras used as they were designed?

I have recently discovered a few things.

I love the Standard profile from the G9 with full sharpness (i.e. left at “0”, maybe reduced to -2 or -3, still testing), but with contrast dropped to -5 for some headroom. When I first researched the G9 and video, everyone** pushed Natural at -5/-5/x/x. I did as I was told, but it has never been a perfect fit. Natural tends to make highlights a little milky and I keep trying to bring the contrast back up, often too harshly. Standard profile gives me crisp whites, reducing the need to push contrast.

This breaks many of the above rules.

It is still contrasty*, but has a tiny bit of head room in post. The trick is, get it right in camera. I am competing with iPhones on auto here, which are not to be sneezed at, but I have the advantage of sensor size.

Ken Burns enough? A snap from an M43 camera, with nothing “cinematic” done except for lighting. The video on the day, though ruined by banding, looked similar. Just concentrate on the highlights then push your post as far as you dare. Shadows = drama, so what’s the harm? Snappiness is wanted, complete background mush is not.

It has limited dynamic range*, probably around 8-9 stops, but that just means I have to pick my fights (locations), live with dramatically crushed shadows or blown out highlight or preferably supply some lighting. Often if I do not have much control over the location it is because TV are dictating a setup, which actually helps me no end.

If I keep the histogram centred or to the left, I am usually ok. I have a custom setting with Cine-D loaded just in case and might get the Vlog-L key.

It is too sharp by the cinematic school of thinking*. So why do I love how sharp it looks? A very mild Black Mist is available or some post. We will see.

I get basically straight from the camera, what I process towards. Just like shooting JPEG’s. If I nail this process, my footage does go beyond the basic video on the run look.

*

Because shooting both stills and video is tough, I need to get some things sorted. The above helps, but more has to be addressed.

Leaving a Variable ND filter or a BM, even a weak one on my main shooting lens for the paper does not make a lot of sense and changing mid stream is also not viable, so I am going to probably carry a dedicated “cinema” rigged out lens, maybe the legacy 25 Pen lens, or the 17 with the 15 as my low light stills shooter.

In good light the 17 is fine, but in low light, the 9 or 25 could cover me.

My filter kit is a mess, with multiple sizes and redundancies, but this is where poor choices and hoarding come to the rescue. I can basically kit a single 46mm lens out for video just for the work kit and have a full set of 62mm filters for the main video kit on the 12-40 zoom and 67’s for the S5 rig.

Using an Olympus lens on both G9’s keeps manual focus consistency and feels more natural to me with the advantage of the tactile manual snap back (the switches on the Lumix lenses are not). The Sigma 30 goes the Pana way, but will be used more for static interviews as would the S5’s lenses. If I get an S5 mk2 I would have serviceable AF available. This is for run-and-gun shooting so these two set-ups need to be intuitive.

So, back to the original question. Cinematic-soft or snappy-modern video? I actually like the snappier video look with maybe the slightest softness.

*If I add a 1/8 Black Mist filter I get some pleasant highlight softening and slightly increased dynamic range.

**Rich photo was the rare exception and I have to say, I liked his super sharp, super saturated footage.

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.