A weekend shared between a school equestrian event and the paper.
Not the massive mount many had, but plucky, well loved and it turned on a dime, so really fast.
Also some football shots that will not meet the needs of the paper.
No contest. Cool pixelation effect down the leg from the running board.
For some, sport is a religion, prayer and all.
No ball, but strong none the less.
Growing tired of the paper dynamic, but there may be a light….. .
My days have a couple of dynamics that are as contrasting they are frustrating.
First job today, technically before official starting time, but all the better for it, was an interview with a local artist.
I love these.
No staged shots, just video, using a tripod this time and silent stills, all taken while the interview was being conducted.
Nothing like a passionate person in the space they call their own. The other photographers advised me to just wait until the interview was over and ask three questions as the basis of a quick video, then do the staged still shots. I cannot think of a better way to kill the vibe of the whole process.
How do you get someone to consciously repeat a spontaneous moment? You don’t. First time is the only time. Love the 16:9 shape.
Remembering her first visit to Florence to see Michelangelos “David”, discovering the unfinished works “The Prisoners”, and seeing first hand the chisel marks and first imaginings of the artist, “like he was right there”.
Then it all came crashing down to reality with a request for a staged, cliched, formulaic set shot for our winter appeal. The event and outcome were important, but the photo far from it.
No, not great, but done.
Probably more of a contrast than most because unfortunately, as I do not get many of the former.
Not much longer for this world of ups and downs I hope, but I seem to be useful for the moment and when I do get the chance to meet interesting people, well, I would not be anywhere else.
I have been looking around and pondering video options lately.
After some recent success with the G9’s, I realised the S5 has been neglected, which seems backwards, but in that vein, I decided to give the old Pen 25 f2.8 half frame lens another go, this time in Standard profile, no changes rather than the flatter Natural profile with reduced everything (which I do not actually like that much).
So what is against the above image? A screen shot taken from a video clip, made with a dated G9 stills-hybrid camera in base Standard colour mode, 1080p (10 bit, 422), no other changes, ISO 3200, with a 50 year old lens in manual focus. A lens prone to low contrast veiling flare wide open, with “guesstimated” white balance, hand held, manually focussed using only the camera screen, minimal grading by an editor still learning the basics (a little white balance shift, some added contrast).
The lens is sharp, pleasant to use and almost ideally suited to video, with a smooth (very old) manual aperture ring, perfect focus throw and a natural organic softness, especially wide open. Bokeh is a little busy, but that does tend to add to the “snappiness” of the rendering.
Just to prove it was not a fluke, an image from another clip, this time with slightly warmer white balance (what I guessed before the slight fix). really like the 3d effect this lens adds and focussing, with depth limited to M43 f2.8 is a breeze. Notice the double edge on the gold frame. It is a little like the 17mm, but with Ni-Sen or cross eyed Bokeh as a bonus.
I know most G9 shooters use the Natural profile, often with contrast and sharpness reduced, but I much prefer the cleaner highlights and better white balance rendering of Standard. I found myself time and again putting back in what was taken out and Standard is basically right where I want to get. I just make sure I keep the histogram inside the right hand edge and all is workable.
If I am doing a serious shoot, the primary camera is the S5 in Flat mode, which grades very cleanly, the G9’s in Standard and grade the S5 towards them.
My shift to Super-35 with the S5 for most things and the G9’s coming right for me is making for a useful and powerful kit, a four angle outfit, the with the OSMO included.
Super 35 is the original and most common format in movie making up until recently, when full frame “hybrid” cameras have become common.
It gets a lot of hate.
The S5/5II/5IIX all crop their 4k at the extreme end and this is seen as short coming, which I get I guess as it is sold as such. The lowly G9, a dated, photo-hybrid camera can shoot un-cropped 4k/60p/420 or 4k/30p/422 as is.
Is this really an issue or just perceived to be one?
Super 35 is a variety of formats based on the original purposing of 35mm movie film, which is when it was used sideways to 35mm stills film (or the right way I guess). In digital the format is still used in many top end cinema cameras, but the actual shape varies a little.
Cropping a full frame camera gets you something like Super 35 in the much maligned and oddly named APS-C format, which is still bigger than M43 and traditionally used by many semi-pro/pro cameras. Many of the big films from the film era were shot on S35.
A screen shot from a recent M43/G9 shoot, using 1080 in standard mode, with minimal grading. So much more on offer from even S35 in the S5 in FLAT profile, but even this “bare bones” offering is enough for most uses.
I have been doing a lot of reading and watching of videos on this topic recently and it seems that apart from a 1.5x increase (= more folks, more!) in focal length, there are actually few other down sides to cropping.
The S5 in 4k does not lose quality. It is still true 4k with no loss of resolution. The sensor is actually a 6k sensor, so this makes sense.
It does not add any noise or reduce light gathering, but the smaller surface area may show noise up quicker on close inspection.
The rolling shutter performance is 100% better (from 21ms to 10.5ms), which is enough to take it from average up to the very good class of cameras.
You are using the sweet spot of the lens, which is a plus for the 20-60 kit lens for example, a lens otherwise very stable except for soft corners wide open.
The kit lens becomes a more cinema standard 30-90mm (with of course the 20-28mm option in full frame). This more normal range suits me ideally for general use. My preference is for normal perspective wide screen, not wide lens distortion and perspective.
The middle of the road 50mm in turn becomes a true 75mm portrait lens for half the price of the 85mm and the 85 then becomes a 130mm f1.8! I actually like the slightly more relaxed and natural looking 75mm over the more aggressive 85mm anyway.
More lenses become available, including the TT Artisan 35mm I already own.
The loss-less pixel/pixel mode in FHD nets you a 3x increase in focal length. The 50mm becomes roughly a 225mm f1.8 and the kit lens covers 20-270mm overall.
The variable aperture lenses also get faster for their relative focal length (30mm is F3.5 rather than about f4-5 etc). This is the secret of M43.
The stabiliser is more efficient I am guessing, because it is the case with the M43 format, but this is probably balanced by increased magnification, if it is used.
You gain a slight increase in depth of field at the same magnification for easier manual and AF accuracy. Your 50mm acts like a 35mm in these respects, so a little of the M43 advantage. Shallow depth is still possible of course, but light gathering considerations do not force you to extremes as quickly.
All formats the camera offers now come with the same parameters, so no changing of “hats” mid stream. The cameras stats suddenly become a lot more exciting without the “oh but I have to switch” holdup. For me, UHD and S35 are fine so 100% choice.
There may be a small advantage in file size or sampling rates. Not sure here.
By embracing its potential, you effectively double your lens arsenal, using full frame as the “B” option. This means you could have the 24 and 50mm lenses, with 35 and 75 as your normal working range. To me this is the ideal four and in balance*
*A wide angle is often used sparingly, but is required for some shots, the standard 50mm is also in an odd space between the often preferred and more natural 35-40mm and is not a true portrait focal length (it is a good compromise, but a compromise none the less). The 35 and 75 on the other hand are the “perfect” pair.
No point in writing this really as many more educated minds than mine have already gone here, but for what it is worth, as much for myself as anyone else, here are a few thoughts.
The first stanza;
AI can quite often replace the actual reality of a physical (digital) image. It cannot however replace authenticity.
Real person, real place, real time.
An advertising company can make an image out of ideas, an artist also and for school projects it will be handy (if allowed). For idle imaginings, time pressed projects or to fix the inevitable problems that arise, AI is an ideal, creative and fast path.
Would you let AI “make up” your wedding photos? How about your children’s school play? Will a news service (ironically using fewer and fewer photographers) be ok with a “something like the actual event” image and would their readers?
In some cases unfortunately they may, but authenticity and trust will be lost.
Made up is made up, no matter how good it may be. It is not the actual thing in the actual place at the actual time, so it does not count without some deceit employed. For many uses this is not important, for many more it is all important.
The second stanza;
Imagination needs inspiration.
Nikon South America has been advertising the benefits of actual photographer’s work. Much of it is from nature and much of it only means anything because it is real. Some of it would be dismissed as the workings of a fanciful mind, if not.
Want a purple tree? Does it mean anything other than as adornment for a sci-fi movie or children’s book unless it is an actual thing. Is it amazing just because it is purple and beautiful, or because it is real.
Sure, we manipulate now, but whole-sale manufacture is surely different.
In this jaded world of contrasts and contradictions, advertising fatigue, normalised falseness and an increasingly less engaged and trusting audience, is authenticity going to be the next big trend?
What would be the point of faking these guys? Apart from breaking the one main tenant of news reporting, authenticity, it would simply be a pointless exercise. Removing the stack of chairs from the background? Well that is another matter.
The third stanza;
From nothing or from something?
Most AI needs more than one base image to work from. A blank page to AI is as blank as it is for us. You ask it to do “X” and it needs to know what “X” is, what “X” may look like especially if “X” has many variants and it needs a context to modify “X” within.
“I want a mountain with a sunset, a beautiful lake and autumn trees” means nothing to AI if it has no stock library to draw from, no terminology to reference, so somebody has to take the images in the first place, then share them with the AI tool.
Are you ok with someone else always taking the images?
Variety may also be the first victim if we all get too lazy to go out and freshen up the pot!
Ponder this also.
How much effort are you willing to give an AI tool to make up your image.
Are you going to spend days describing every minor detail to an artificial mind or just accept its version? If not much, then why not just go and take it, then manipulate from a stronger base. Maybe take up painting even, might be quicker. Artists often abstract fine details for this very reason.
Nature does a lot of the heavy lifting here.
We rely on the world filling in a lot of the blanks, happy that it does so with simple reality. Take away that solid base and you have a lot of details to worry about. Obsessive compulsives may be busy.
Stanza four;
Why?
As I said above, why do we do it?
I take photos because I like to document the real things I see. I avoid blatant manipulation, because of the same thinking. Nature, humanity, life generally are all amazing, more amazing than anything I could come up with without enormous effort, much more effort than return.
As soon as one of my images looks a little “fake” from processing, I ditch it or start over.
Would a good travel or street photographer be happy siting at home and making stuff up from other peoples work?
How about a portraitist manipulating increasingly generic looking, fake but “perfect” people? Might save on lighting, but an unsatisfying path maybe.
People it turns out are real. Just ask them.
Would your family be happy with some pretend family pics of ever absent uncles and aunts, or would they prefer to actually see them and take their images while together?
Yes the time pressed advertising or commercial shooter will be happy to work with little to make much. This has always been the case. Want a perfect banquet, then make one up. It will just be easier to do and cost less, more of a skill switch than philosophical change of mind for some.
I was there, it was real and I shared. I could have lifted a similar image from the web and manipulated it, but it would not have physically taken me there, so it would have been irrelevant.
If we ask ourselves what are we trying to achieve, sometimes the best path is the most obvious.
Is it possible to get where we are going authentically, because maybe the journey is important also. Like the search for the perfect mechanical dog, maybe a dog is just better by design even if you need to employ some training, which in turn gifts you with a feeling of accomplishment and helps you develop more skills.
The Finale;
Stuff changes, always and forever, but the important things do not.
Some deeper, stronger things need to stay the same in that flowing river of evolution, like a stubborn boulder, because we need anchors in our lives.
We need authenticity or we question our relevance in this world.
You only have to see the recent trend towards “retro” ways of doing things, especially from our young, to see that authenticity is still important even for IT (and soon AI) natives.
It seems we all want to believe in something real.
AI is a wonderful tool, but it is not by definition as powerful as the real thing (it’s in the name Artificial Intelligence).
Of course the big problem will be identifying the real from the fake, or more likely who will care?
I can see a time when third world artists and creators will be much sought after, because they will have untainted, authentic voices.
While we are at it, the music industry may be the big looser. Music is a finite collection of combinations and variants, very mathematical as it goes. Give AI a generation and real musicians may no longer be needed, just song “makers”. The next big hit may be Elvis or The Beatles, back from the dead.
Ten percenter has two connotations here.
Being a photographer for a local paper means you need to be in the most literal sense, a photographic jack of all trades, a “ten-percenter”.
I have been a specialist in several fields either by passion or employment.
Specialising means making an effort to put all your skill, resources and focus into a single type of photography (or video) over all others, for a period long enough to matter.
A little obsession helps.
A basic portrait image of a subject for the paper. Where did the process come from? Years of thinking about photography in a variety of forms and genres.
This may mean a full day or several days concentrating on a drama production, months creating a landscape portfolio or years even, accumulating a travel stockpile.
Travel, street, landscape, studio portrait, environmental portrait, candid portrait, sport, wildlife, still life, astro, event, drama, music, time lapse, in film, digital stills or video, even sound. You name it, I have had a period, long or short, where this has been the keen focus of my interest. I tend to work things through to their logical end and move to the next interest, then sometimes come back again, sometimes not.
The candid shooter in me (a favourite), loves the down time between events.
Being a news paper photographer, especially at a small local paper, means you will tap into most of these interests regularly, so it is best you have them to call on.
The trick is to bring your best kernels of that wisdom, when and as required.
I have gone to press conferences that turned into sporting events, local news stories that turned into semi-formal portraits, low key drama previews that produced a full rehearsal with the works and unknowns that have taken to all sorts of creative places.
Never used in this form, but this is the one I liked. These guys are specialists.
You have to adjust your thinking. You have to learn to do the best you can, compromise and hero practicality over quality.
So 10% means two things.
First it is a rough estimation of the amount of experience and training you will tap into from any single specialist field on a given assignment. I guess you draw from it all, but the reality is you can follow the trail back to a single experience in your photo “memory catalogue”.
Secondly, it is a rougher estimate of the resource pool you will be able to draw from. A portraitist uses lighting control, a sports shooter uses a clutch of otherwise over the top cameras and lenses and a landscape shooter worships a “built like a tank” tripod and filter set over all else.
How to pose an image? Place the subjects in their space, let them do their thing and capture the magic.
You use 10% of your skill awareness and 10% of the time and gear you would like to have to shoot for the top 10% of results.
The most common issue is gear.
Ignorance is probably bliss here, because knowing what you would like to do is often at odds with what you can do. My bag covers (full frame equiv) 18-300 with mixed zooms and primes, three light sources (flash, LED, reflector), a mic, phones and a pair of camera bodies all in a relatively small and light bag (Domke F2). Sometimes a tripod comes with me, often not.
What I would love to carry is a light stand or two and brolly or soft box, a bigger LED, tripod (always), more lenses, multiple flash units, several sound options with cables, a camera better suited to video (S5 or G9 properly rigged up) etc.
Because I do not work exclusively for the paper and we do not get designated cars, I do not have the luxury of having these at hand.
Sport has its own needs, but thankfully, you usually know what they are.
If I cannot carry it, I cannot use it.
If I cannot use it, I cut it out of my creative processes.
All I can do is take what I may need and hope for the best.
The second biggest issue is time.
Never enough, never the right time and always turn round speed over quality, so quality has to come from efficiency, selective compromise and acceptance.
Every specialist sees time differently. The landscaper thinks in perfect days and hours, the portraitist in split seconds, the sports shooter in even less than that. As a journalistic shooter, I see time as simply a “make the most of” proposition. Sometimes you get lucky, usually not.
Light, being the grist of our mill is usually a tug of war thing, which is where time is so cruel.
Sometimes it does not matter much. Light just is and the subject has to do the heavy lifting.
Sometimes it is hard to improve upon.
Sometimes you just have to make it work.
So, why the demise?
I doubt in the near future there will be a pool of long term photographers to draw from, cadets are thing of the past and the need is shifting to more “journalist with a phone on the spot” thinking. Ironically video, which is technically harder, should be where photographers migrate, but probably not.
The thing lost, as with so many similar stories like printed papers, or free to air TV, is that as soon as it becomes an unknown to a new generation, they do not know to miss it.
So, I have been reminded why I do this crazy thing called content creation.
The new school asked me to cover their Rock Band Challenge, which to be honest blew my socks off!
Several of the artists and bands were good, some were incredible and all were very, very, cool.
I shot both stills and video. The video was limited to static, because a student was wandering with a gimbal, but if needed I would have used a G9 on a shoulder or chest rig as a second angle, running the full set, but only dropping in the meant bits, ignoring the footage where I shot stills (if I use the shoulder rig, an advantage is it can be set down, looking slightly up, so it provides a second angle even when ignored).
Sound was the tricky bit, but a chance to try new gear.
I tried a simple system that for my needs (video) was safe and fine. I used a single LCT 240 mounted above camera on a goose neck and shock bracket as a “room” or ambient mic. This went into the H5 then to camera.
I got the same thing the audience got, warts and all, but on the whole, the balance of sound and video was more than ok. A few tracks had some noise and interference, possibly me turning the mic down too low in the face of quite high sound levels (that it actually handled just fine).
If it was all about me ( ;) ), I would have miked them up directly, especially the lower end instruments and the acoustics, or gone straight to the mixer, running as a side car to the whole thing, I chose not to. At least I have provided enough quality to sync to.
Impressed by the little 240. It was not given much of a fair go, but did really well and noticeably better than a standard shotgun mic in that space. The advantage was control in an environment that sometimes stretched that too far.
I could complain about limited space to work, excessive noise or constant “gear fear”, but not when you can have this much fun and contribute to the genuinely passionate efforts of these kids.
Next the paper asked if I could go to a late night rehearsal of The Cat In The Hat, put on by, you guessed it, my old school.
Knowing me, they requested me over unknowns and I returned in kind. A half dozen for the paper, 150 for the school-off the clock.
Every show has its “Horton” or Donkey (from Shrek) and they tend to be camera magnets.
I think I am a little worn out.
This sneaks up on you, but when over a few years you have been constantly opening new doors, changing and adapting and worrying a little or a lot about the future, finances, your relevance and the future of your career type as a whole, it soaks in, wares you down. I am also aware of a pending trip to Japan, something I have sorely missed over the last few years.
The paper was a good move financially, a bad one for peace of mind and personal happiness. I have learned a new way of doing my art, but also had to accept a lot of limitations and to look at the world a little differently. I would miss some parts of it like the access to sport and an awareness of the arts etc, but not much of the rest.
Know your true love and chase it. A lesson learned form others.
I knew this going in, but the period from December to April where I was held in limbo by the paper was past annoying (my resignation email was actually in the inbox of the editor who was terminated that very day. A sign or a bad habit continued?), so my journey at the paper has turned more into a holding pattern, a “wait and see” than a future pathway for me.
There are signs of light and life. The paper is switching to a more online footing which gives us more scope for images and video, even more scope for ourselves to function independently retaining some relevance.
Probably the biggest strain though has ironically been artistic frustration.
My ideal is to be in a dynamic environment where lots is happening and I can record it with stills, video, or sound, without the impediment of space, captioning and time limits. Somewhere where I can make a difference, help people realise their best self. A place where what I have to give will help others and as it goes, me to.
That should be a school right, or maybe a volunteer organisation even a news paper?
Problem is, all three schools I have been involved with are slow to embrace this. There are privacy issues and internal dynamics which I am aware of, but stuff is always happening and these kids come and go so fast, their lives and exploits are so short lived like capturing fire works.
The volunteer organisations are more of a surprise though.
I am offering free video and stills for any event large or small giving them the opportunity to show the world what they are doing, but it ends up with me sitting and waiting. Even if I am in the habit of reminding them at regular intervals, I tend to only hear from them with “we should have called you” or “would have been great to have you there, but “a” thought “b” had it sorted” comments.
So far, the bulk of what I have done is end of year report portraits, which are fine, but not all I signed up for.
Gigs like this are perfect, but so rare. Sometimes it seems, you cannot even give it away.
The key is to be there under peoples noses all the time, but where, why and under what umbrella?
On a positive note I have realised my life was devolved down to all things photo based, so I have re-awoken my other hobbies, hoping to give myself some form of artistic release and the new found sound sphere is sitting patiently for me to get in, get on and use it.
The games room that became a studio has gone back to being a games room giving me more room, because the squeeze was getting to me and the reality is, I go to them, not they to me.
I have re-activated the games page on this site, something that does not sit perfectly for me here, but I have put years into it and don’t want to run three web pages and it gets considerably less traffic anyway (more of a thinking out aloud exercise for me).
Keep swimming I guess.
The current needs of the paper are for stills and video for every job.
Sounds fun right?
Given roughly 10-15 minutes at a job and sometimes as little as half an hour at the other end turn around*, the fun tends to fall away as efficient processes take over.
If you are lucky, there is a sit down, where both are possible. Then you just need a little B-roll.
Shooting both at the same time, because my process is to avoid the cliche shots, leaning to my strength of capturing people in action, not posed, I have a basic process.
Not posed, found. She was sitting to the side waiting for the ok to go and I grabbed this portrait. Semi-posed I guess.
Start with video (G9), but switch between stills (EM1 mk2) and video as able. If there is an “anchor” shot for video, that is an interview or presentation, then that settles the process. All you need then is some B-roll or stills for a slide-show.
The other togs recommended to me that I wait until after the interview and ask three questions, but I reject that, because the questions have been asked, the natural responses made. Video can be a natural result of the journalists interview, not its own thing. Revisiting this space has little appeal to anyone and the big difference is, the interviewees are looking to the journalist, not to camera.
Spontaneous moments either video or stills are golden.
Trying to shoot stills at the same time takes two shapes.
Video must be the priority, stills the tack-on, because video is based on the audio and a linear for, stills have no time stamp, no order needed.
Sometimes TV are there also, lights and all.
The first idea was to place the video camera on an ifootage monopod and shoot stills at the same time, but that had issues of stability, the need for a tilt head (I bought the 120cm) that did not then fit in the supplied bag (frustrating) and it did not weigh any less than the Velbon tripod I already own. I may revisit this on occasion with a proper tripod.
Performers perform, simple as that.
The second is to hold the camera as still as possible, which with the static stabiliser mode in the G9 is very still, then shoot stills with the other hand. If I get some nasty drift or jumps while doing it, I use B-roll or stills to cover it up, just as long as the sound is clean. I will carry the feet and head of the ifootage unit as a mini tripod option, but rarely have that luxury.
Some moments are not repeatable.
Processing then becomes a two pronged thing.
Process stills to support the words.
Do some video to tell a short version of the story, but not at odds with the written content.
To be honest, I feel we are headed towards a video only dynamic, but then that would be TV wouldn’t it.
Occasionally, you walk in and everyone performs.
I won’t pretend I have this knocked yet, but something gets done every job unless there is simply nothing to get.
All good practice.
*We roughly budget 2hrs perk job on average including travel, but some are much shorter, a few much longer.
Australia is good at a lot of sports.
World champions quite often in the two codes of Rugby, three forms of Cricket, Hockey, Netball and a ton of others, as well as strong enough to be taken seriously in many other world sports (Soccer, Tennis, Basketball, Rowing, Sailing, Cycling, snow sports etc), it is a surprise to many, that the most popular Australian winter sport is ours alone.
Australian rules “footy” is however, a game that is hard to describe.
Possibly a case of two merging into one,
No offside, no padding or protection, few limits on tackling (no blatant punching, strangling, pushing, tripping or kicking, but most else goes), it is seemingly formless until you get your eye in. It is suited to any body type, the tall, strong and fast, but mostly the brave.
or growing some more arms,
One of the very few games with two scoring grades* (6 pt goals and 1 point '“behinds”), it often bamboozles new watchers, but it can also mesmerise.
or maybe helping a friend perform a needed face plant,
Deceptively simple, the game is rough, tough and fast. At the top level, players can run a marathon in a game, criss-crossing the huge field multiple times each quarter.
but at the end of the day, the ball is all important. So they say.
At grass roots level, the game lacks some of the “aerial ping-pong” label the higher version is often tagged with, becoming more mud and guts.
few come away unscathed (yes, that is a boot mark on his face and no officer, he did not get the number plate),
No matter the level, the passion is the same, in fact there is a special place in sporting heaven for these local games where sons, daughters, mothers and fathers are on the field as their loved ones stoically watch on or join them on the field.
Taking a “mark” gives the taker a free kick, so great lengths are gone to and the results can be game changing.
This was the mark that led to the goal that tired the game and led to the home team winning. Even after the siren, the kick can be taken making for some famous moments.
Just confirming also, women and girls play with every bit as much passion.
With a recent surge in popularity, womens football has grown and grown.
Personally, I am not a huge fan, which makes me a bit of a pariah in my family as several relatives including a quite famous grand father played as high as state level (1937 best on ground vs Victoria and we won), but I have to admit it is the best sport to photograph.
*Its closest relative and sometimes representative teams play against each other in a hybrid version of both games, is Gaelic football, which also has a dual scoring system.
I am getting to the bottom of my inability to click with the paper and after a day at the new school, it made a lot of sense.
I have been blaming the chore/circuit breaker of captioning, but that is only part of the problem for me.
The real issue is low volumes of over thought images as opposed to many more taken in a more free form way, naturally and spontaneously. The captioning issue is a part of this, but it is more than that. I have never been attracted to the posed or constructed image. It is not and has never been me. I have tried, I really have, but never have I felt comfortable with “making” an image. Taker or maker, the subject of one of my earliest posts is clear to me.
I remember trying still life, waiting patiently for the right landscape light and after many weddings, I know which process I am drawn to.
I see, I take.
I do it a lot and I do it fast and quietly. The bulk of my “skill” such as it is, was developed around that process. This even comes out in my sports imagery. I do not shoot bursts, only single images using anticipation, practice and responsive gear.
I don’t mind studio work, in fact I really like it, but even then, it is about setting a scene and letting the players act within that. When I do shoot happily for the paper, I adopt a similar ethos.
Set the scene and let the players function within that, then capture the semi-scripted image.
Got to be natural, or as natural as possible.
Posing was not an option here, I did not even speak the language.
The give away was video.
Shooting video is for me, basically the same as shooting stills my way. The problem at work now is I want to shoot video and stills at the same time. The other guys shoot their stills in a set process at the end of the interview or press conference, they often shoot their video the same way.
I have to adapt, but the good news for me is having the school for shooting my way, I do not feel totally trapped in a foreign space.
Sound for me is more important than video.
Let me put that another way.
Video comes reasonably easily to me now, sound stresses and excites me in equal measure. It is quite certainly a case of superior application setting video free.
The sE sisters, the support act to the Lewitt band. There is also a soloist, some French allrounder.
So much to get wrong, but the potential for success is unlimited and to be honest, getting sound right is the ultimate “master the basics” scenario.
As I and many before me have said, sound is half of video, until it goes wrong then it is all of it.
Looking at my work flow, I have created an interesting niche.
> After matching a mic* to a subject, either a capsule or XLR feed,
> it goes into a Zoom interface (F1/H5/H8),
> which sometimes adds effects, levels, compression etc,
> is then sent to camera via a puny 3.5 stereo cable,
> and finally tweaked in Fairlight (DaVinci Resolve) to support the video.
The choke point is probably the 3.5 cable, or maybe the camera, processing, or more likely me in a form yet to be revealed.
An option is to send the audio to a DAW (digital audio workstation) via direct connection or SD card, then do a better job of editing, but to be honest, it is still only going to go to a video.
At the end of the day, the camera is the limit to my quality needs, the work up front merely designed to guarantee a good start.
Have I over done the mic thing?
Probably, but I have not spent a fortune and each is suited to a task (and darn cool).
*Type, quality, capture and handling needs from on camera shotgun to hand held dynamic.
The Lewitt brand grabbed my attention a couple if years ago when I deeply researched useful XLR mics for my H5 to lift it beyond it’s capsules capsules.
The mission was tough, as a videographer will balance practicality with performance, but I did manage it, even though the mics, a matched pair of 040 Match pencil condensers were rarely used.
They added a level of sound capture different to the capsules I owned, technically better, but mainly different in application and made the most of the H5’s full feature set.
They were an unlikely win for someone new to all this.
Lewitt seem set to add more dissent to the strangle hold Shure have had on the dynamic mic market for years, but it is in their condensers they produce some low cost winners.
The LCT 240 Pro is a medium diaphragm vocal and general instrument specialist. Like the 040’s this seemed to be one of those “punch above your weight” mics, although being a condenser it produced a problem, something that the H5 could not fix. The Zoom could only power two condenser microphones and I would have three to pick from.
It could however manage two dynamic mics with the EXH-6 adapter. I then went looking for dynamic mics and settled on the sE V series as the best modern upgrade to the venerable Shure pair (SM57/58).
I also picked up the Lewitt MTP 440, the polar opposite of the 040’s, but equally well reviewed and another “Shure killer”.
This quickly led to more mics, then the H8. The H8 opened up options, powering up to six condenser mics.
After this I did still get the LCT 240, deciding to use it as an either/or with the 040’s, then the a second 240, thanks to some stock shortages and mix-ups with other choices, which happened literally minutes after committing to the Zoom H8 so I can now use all together.
I finished the set with a second 440.
Two 040’s for all things high and clear, with area coverage as a bonus.
Two 240’s as the work horse mid-range vocal and instrument specialists.
Two 440’s as low end and high sound pressure beasts designed to do their job without effecting their more sensitive friends.
The last 440 is on the way and I consider myself lucky to get the last one I could find. Some Lewitt mics seem to be scarce in these parts at the moment. No 340tt, 340 Rex, or 440’s and few of the others. I almost bought the Beat kit (340 Rex, 440 and 2x 040’s), because nothing would be wasted (and you get a cool box).
All three mics are gaining strong reputations as respective class leaders. All stand out, even in Lewitts own impressive and growing pack.
Why pairs?
Mainly because with pairs of the same mic, matched or not, you have consistent and predictable problem solvers with room coverage and stereo imaging.
Why the same brand?
Because when a brand makes a set of mics, they often have simialr tonal properties designed to overlap harmoniously. The 040’s cover all thing except the bass heavy. The 440’s are solid and smooth through the lower range, but effectively absent in the high register and the 240’s sit somewhere in the middle to high end.
(The thought has crossed my mind that 2x 040 and 2x 440 would have likely fixed most needs)
They compliment each other, without sonically fighting each other for space. High frequencies especially blocking up is a genuine issue apparently, something the 440’s help reduce by adding depth without adding top end unless wanted. They can work as a one mic solution up to probably strings or acoustic guitar, then show their weakness in very high registers.
These personify my philosophy of hunting down balanced and complimentary, best performers in their class, in reasonably priced forms of all types.
The sE series are the same. I have the presence pushy V3, neutral and solid V7 and wide ranged and versatile V7x, but being dynamics, their role is limited.
Everything has levels.
You need to find your level, perfect it and decide to either remain there or push further. There are genuine benefits to both roads and neither is the “right” path.
In western society we tend to push the onward and upward philosophy (grow or die), in the east, there is just as much of a “perfect where you are” thinking, as it, just as much as anywhere else, is never so perfect it cannot be bettered (Ikigai).
I have three skill sets now I guess. All three can support or improve the other, all effect my attempt to capture people and their lives in some way and all three are a balance of art and technical application. Below I will self assess and rate (out of 5, 5 being fully pro in the field)
Love to know who she sees.
Stills
The long term giver
Photographically I would have to call myself an experienced all-rounder. I have specialised, obsessed even, but lately, I just prefer to dabble broadly.
The paper throws most things at me in a get in-get out quick format, but lots of variety and problems to solve. The main thing is, we have to do it reasonably well.
Sport is a priority on weekends, weekdays are all things editorial. Speed is the real skill and accepting compromise.
Balance.
This is fun, but more time would be nice and less chasing of names and team lists. I have however discovered I can cover a game in ten minutes.
To be honest, I am past the stage of just doing one thing any more. Sport, studio, landscape, even street would not satisfy on their own, not claiming to be an expert in any, but I rarely feel the desire to dive head long into any form of photography these days. Variety keeps it fresh, variety is needed.
My level I guess is 3.5, which is a content photographic wanderer with nothing to prove after a very long apprenticeship.
My ambitions are few, so 4 maybe, because constant practice brings improvement, mostly about getting my style to match my job description. I think 5 requires a level of obsession I now reserve for new things.
Video
The immediate satisfier
In video I am more of a serious dabbler with high aspirations but realistic expectations at this point. I can tentatively go “full noise” into VLOG, LUT grading etc, or shoot more drop-and-go style. Like a lot of things, the more you know, the more you realise you only need to use some of it. Do what works.
I realised a while ago that I generally processed to clean and strong contrast with decent sharpness, so I have adjusted to shoot that way, which mostly means exposing to retain highlights (shadows add drama and depth).
The G9’s have been good lately set to Standard profile, -3 sharpness, -2 contrast, ISO on the thumb dial for exposure, manual focus and just get going. C1 is 50fps at 1/50th, C2 33% slow-mo, C3 1/100th at 50fps low ISO and deep depth (f8) for sunny outdoors when I cannot apply an ND filter. It also means a black mist filter can soften from a sharp base.
Just a crummy screen shot because for some reason DaVinci will not let me export this file as a jpeg, but enough to show the base quality the G9 gives me in Standard profile taken “on the fly”. I increased contrast very slightly and that was the same for all of the clips. I would be happy enough with this as a still, let alone a frozen video frame.
Lighting is a big element here, because video has different needs to still photography.
My level here is about 2, the excited explorer with a few wins under his belt. Still lots to learn, but an awareness I am ahead of some and on a steady, measured path to learn more. The main thing here is to keep the passion alive. I am lucky I guess that content creation was my main focus for the first couple of years, putting it all together came later and that is where the growth path is longest/hardest. Got to be fun, never a chore.
My ambition is about 3.5 (or 4.5 in my specific field of quick videographer), which is to say I want to match my technical skills to my possibly over the top ideas. Go OTT!
Sound
The inescapable support act
Sound is a curious thing.
Long before cameras, for me, there was sound. I was a true audio-file, so much so that one of my first jobs, well one I actually liked, was at a local specialist Hi Fi store. I could talk for hours about the difference between European, Japanese and American speakers, the value of valve amps, power streams, Ohm ratings etc. Yep I can bore you in many fields.
Somewhere that fire died and I became a regular “little stereo on the shelf” guy, with a huge music collection.
The fire is back.
I doubt I will ever own a mixing board, maybe not even use a DAW. I just want the best straight to camera sound I can get in a fully self sufficient and enclosed kit. With the H8, H5 or F1 as my capable “middlemen”, I will concentrate on the quality of my sound capture front of house, not so much the processing side. Basically I want my video and sound to be as straight forward as my stills work.
My level here is about 1.5 so I am the “try anything I can do to improve the feed to my camera, with no ambition to replace a sound pro” guy. I have realistically gone well past the videographers pale, which usually stops at a pro grade shotgun mic, but this is fun, new and nothing will be wasted.
My ambition is probably a solid 3 which is to explore what I can realistically do and let it grow naturally, maybe indulging my hobbyist side along the way. If I can assess a situation, apply the best fix and walk away confident I have better than just adequate results (and have results), I will be happy. I must admit, having a powerful mic on my H8 and just listening is also fun, even therapeutic.
*
The balance of these three fields is not yet right, but it will come.
My photography is not floating my boat at the moment, but the new school will fix that I hope. My video is ok, getting better every day and my sound has big ideas and I hope big capabilities, even though many are only theoretical at the moment.
We have had some terrible weather here lately. More like spring with the “Roaring 40’s” blasting across, so where you get a hint of something nicer, it is worth grabbing.
My old friend, close to moving on I feel.
Oh, and it seems lately I need to remember that this is primarily a photo blog.
A case of unlikely retrieval. The silhouette image was underwhelming, so some exploration was attempted.
This is a good exercise to. I had my whole bag with me but just used the 45mm.
Just outside work, last glance.
Another front coming, but let’s pretend for a moment that this is the reality.
No Lewitt DPT 340tt for a month or more, so I switched to the DTP 340 REX. None of those for even longer, but the company I was dealing with withheld the right to refund me (my bad, agreed to their terms but missed the no stock warning). If so I could chase one of the elusive Lewitts, but now it is either a long wait or rethink.
Ok, what to do.
Every compromise I have had to make has worked out, so I decided to think more along the lines of the handy generalist rather than specialist needs, something I pretty much decided on with the 340tt, then went away from with the REX.
The need is for a lower register instrument mic, and another possible vocal option.
I have decided on the sE V7x, the instrument tuned version of the V7.
As a vocal mic, many like it, but it handles badly, needs a decent pop filter and is too strong in low frequencies to avoid either completely.
Bass is handled well enough by this one as it has some pretty extreme proximity effect*, something sE actually shows on their frequency chart, so they obviously think it is a useful tool, not a weakness. This can add that lower end kick if needed, or more balanced detail if backed off a bit. The MTP 440 is the well controlled instrument mic, the TT1 has that European something and the V7x has warm character.
Again, going into a camera not a mixer, so it’s more about listenable effect than sonic perfection.
I like this. The V7x was on my radar early on, then Lewitt became dominant, but each to their own. The Lewitts own the condenser space for me, the sE’s have a solid presence in the dynamics.
The sE set now covers bright, neutral and deeper. The Lewitts give me the condenser fine detail and area cover and the TT1, yet to be defined, adds maybe what ever may be needed. The sE V7x now guarantees the sE V7 can be reserved for vocal use.
The V7x and MTP 440 are both deeper sounding than the presence forward SM57, meaning I do have options down in the sub 100 Hz range. Not lots, but also not specialising. I am not going to mic a kick drum specifically, but may need to point something grunty at a set or pick out a Cello.
The H8 also arrived today.
Very impressed.
It is lighter and smaller than I thought, not much heavier than the H5 and it has smaller dials and hard plastic build rather than the rubber coated…..hard plastic of the H5. The H5 seems bigger in scale, simpler in options.
The H8 feels hard, precise, clicky and reassuring. The “softness” of the H5 is quite different. The Metal EXH-6 on the H8 actually makes it feel top heavy, but it also feels right. The XYH-6 capsule now switched to the H5 to empower it a bit* is also quite heavy compared to the XYH-5. Bit of an ugly pair, but workable.
The two XYH capsules are also interesting when compared.
I have heard comparison recordings and I personally rate the XYH-6 as better to my ear. It also has the 90/120 degree option, so the H5 will have a slight boost in performance, the H8 is reserved for XLR inputs where it is a better performer (most owners and reviewers say the H series are all equal in capsule performance, but not in XLR input recording, which is the real reason for the H8).
They do not look hugely different, but the H-6 on the left is about twice the weight and the foam and fluffy I have for the H-5 and H1n are not going to work. The mics in particular are huge. The capsule was a bonus, effectively shaving $100-150 off the real price of the H8, but I am thinking now that the H5 may get more gigs as a main player with this and the SSH-6 as options. Not just a backup option, kind of like getting two new recorders at once.
The XYH-5 capsule is now “relegated” to the F1 as a compact on-camera option, making the most of the F1 and its own shock mounts. The MKE-400 is my first choice on-camera mic, but sometimes I want something different or more powerful.
*Responds possibly disproportionately well to lower frequencies the closer you get.
The LCT 240 it turns out was an inspired, if forced, shift in thinking. Mostly forced as it turns out, I cannot brag about my clear thinking.
I had an idea to build up a kit of mics so that a band could be filmed, all with my supplied kit.
This was of course a thin premise, because said band would either have their own mics, have a sound tech who could simply supply me with all their sound or what I have to offer could still fall short even at 9 (!) microphones.
What am I really likely to need?
Record individuals, non musical events, interviews, debates etc, but mostly record spaces.
This changes everything. Instead of a clutch of dynamic mics aimed at individual cover, I need to look more at tried and true methods of recording events with minimum mics.
The second MTP 440, aimed at adding another amp/piano/drum kit/vocal generalist, was just another of the mic types I am less likely to need. I am not the roadie I like to think I am. I am the fly on the wall record keeper. When it was cancelled, I realised, the dynamic only thinking was unnecessary after the H8 was ordered.
I am happy to have some dynamic stage mics, five as it goes, each with their role, but no more. My thinking was flawed, but mostly by mistake the worst of it has been averted.
He is part of something bigger, so not my concern. The bigger event is, but running my own massive system along side what is there is unfeasible. Simple but effective is the key.
Ironically, the H5 and EXH-6 capsule forced me down the dynamic mic road, which led to the H8. If I had bought the H8 at the beginning of this journey would have allowed me to stick with condensers, but until my collection grew, the H8 was not on the radar.
As my understanding grew, I slowly realised the potential of what I originally owned and the best path to take, which was likely the pair of LCT 240’s as an option to the 040 matched pair!
These are the mics that will record large areas and allow me to work to my common needs, and independently of others. This is how I will most often be working.
Thankfully, the dearest mics are the most useful.
A school concert already fully setup with a tried and true broadcast system?
Sure thing, because I will have my little OTRF, spaced A/B or X/Y pair in there as well.
School rock band doing a quick gig?
A 240, maybe two will cover the room, with the odd placed mic if needed and able. The school rock challenge is coming and as expected, they are fully sorted for sound, but for my video I will cover the room with the LCT 240.
This adds to the odd student interview, a panel, maybe a podcast? That is where the dynamics come in. Sometimes I might just be the guy with the handy mic that saves the day. White Knight syndrome much!
No real harm if I had bought the second 440, I just would have used it instead of the 340tt, but the forced re-think, more towards the H8’s expanded capabilities, really was a blessing and it all happened in a blurred half hour the other day (bought the H8 on impulse, got a back order notice minutes later on the MTP 440, bought the LCT 240).
The H6 was more of an either-or thing back when I got the H5 and was too expensive and over the top for my needs then. Buying it now would have been a retrospective move, because for very little more (about $50au), the H8 adds considerably more capability with better pre-amps, more phantom power connections and significantly better interface. having a H5 and H6 would not have provided a logical balance. The H5/H8 dynamic makes more sense.
If (but not likely), I were to get another mic at this stage, it would be the LCT 441 flex, which is possibly the one mic I should have bought. The omni and figure eight polar patterns adding options, but I also know that between the several options I now own, these patterns are possible anyway, at least to the standard I need.
Sometimes when you bury yourself in a new field the answer comes too late to avoid missed-steps, but occasionally you can get lucky anyway.
*My perfect budget “get it done” kit on reflection is almost what I have now;
2x LCT 240 (area cover or acoustic/vocal)
2x 040 Match (area cover, overhead, acoustic)
1x MTP 440 (deeper instruments)
1x DTP 340 (deeper again). sE V7x here (useful proximity effect) and second 440.
1x MTP 550 (primary “hand-held” dynamic mic). sE V7 here.
1x MTP 250 (vocal dynamic, handy second option). sE V3 here.
Surplus. The TT1.
Something I like to talk about is the quality of the M43 format.
Something I hate dwelling on is the quality of M43 format.
Here is the reality. I do a lot of work for a lot of different people. The thing that keeps coming up is the quality of my work. Sharp lenses, clean and brilliant files, accuracy, speed, consistency.
None of these are an accident.
The format has a single technical negative, which is the mathematical reality of (all things being equal), higher visual noise at the same high ISO settings as a full frame camera. Nothing else is insurmountable and some of the negatives are for some people positives (more depth of field).
However, being one quarter the size of the full frame, does not mean one quarter the quality or four times the problems. In direct comparison to the other two experienced pro shooters at the paper, I have beaten the older D750’s and lenses for noise, sharpness and overall performance and even against the Z9’s (with older slr lenses) hold my own. I am not even using the latest offerings from M43.
M43 cameras don’t just take good enough images,
they take great images and they do it easily (EM10 mk2, 17mm f1.8 wide open, not my “A” game).
The thing is, you have to be ok with the format. No amount of convincing will be enough if down deep, you are convinced that full frame offers more in a way that actually matters.
A Ferrari can theoretically go faster than a Lexus, but often cannot in the real world. There is always a mitigating factor that will stop the faster car meaning anything and in turn expose its short comings like fuel economy, repair cost, cost of running and impractical everyday design.
At the end of the day, the only way most of us can actually see our superior quality is at 1-400% on a computer screen, a medium almost nobody else uses or cares about.
I use the format because early on, it gave me more and faster and at quality was at least as good as my Canon full frame cameras (5D mk3). They were eminently portable and had better lenses across the board (even comparing L glass). Much of this has been upgraded, especially the newest lenses, but at great cost and they are still huge.
My sound kit (yep, that again, sorry), is pretty versatile.
I can go compact shotgun on camera, better shotgun, even better with mid/side, take it off camera, use a variety of X/Y, A/B, ORTF, multi mic or even direct feed options.
I am on the threshold of field recording, well entrenched in intimate music capture, can do a podcast, a panel, a concert, a band, a choir, work remotely with plans to fill the only hole (wireless).
In all this, one mic has been a standout.
The LCT 240 Pro.
The 240 is strong when compared to all the other mics.
More detailed and brighter than the sE V7.
Less aggressive and more delicate than the sE V3.
More open than the TT1.
More versatile than the MTP 440 (but a nice match).
Deeper and less sensitive than the 040 Match.
More versatile than any of them because not only can it do their jobs, but it also has that very condenser rendering all of its own.
Not the only mic I need (that would be the 441 Flex), but more versatile than any other I do have.
There is still a hole though.
Really deep bass instruments, even people wanting to go full “radio voice” without resorting to proximity effect*, which is a cheat and easy to over use.
I had a second MTP 440 in mind, but have decided to go a little darker, somewhere between the DTP 340 REX, Lewitts true kick drum mic and the snare specialist 440. The DTP 340 TT is designed primarily for toms, which are the drum between snare and kick. Lewitt also rates it as a double bass, percussion, bass and guitar mic. Some even use them for acoustics, woodwind and brass, vocals even. I guess it could even be a poor mans sE7x.
The frequency chart reveals significantly deeper and stronger bass sensitivity than the 440, which drops out smoothly from +0db at 100 Hz. This one actually goes up from 100 to 200 Hz, holding on down to 50 Hz and spikes strongly at 2-3k, but drops right away after 10k in the higher frequencies. The only other mics I have that can go close to this bass performance are the sE V’s and maybe the TT1 that exhibit strong proximity effect* to achieve this.
A true bump in the dark space.
Not heaps of comparison videos (a blessing possibly), but when compared directly to the SM57, it makes the 57 sound both thin and inwardly compressed. One guitar comparison in particular really highlighted the clean, open and clearly deeper bass notes.
The Lewitt thing seems to be modern, transparent clarity with brilliance. They are not to everyone’s taste, but if you prefer this type, they are premium.
It is half the weight of a 440, shorter and about the same price, so a good alternative to another MTP 440, sE V7x or even the classic SM57.
Am I done now? I actually have one more mic than I can run at once through the H8 (but could press the H5 into service and sync later), so yep, I am done, but a little more versatile and I feel safer. Too many mics means I am not forced to find a job for them all, just use the best set.
Oh, and I do need to do a new mic map.
*Proximity effect is when you get really close to a mic to enhance the lower frequencies. Over done it creates overloaded, muddy and hard to fix sound. Used well it enhances “radio voice”, but not naturally.
It has been a big two to three weeks, so time to revisit my choices and take stock.
Thoughts of maybe bettering my sound options started with the LCT 240, a mic I had identified as a good allrounder, a “sweet spot” mic if you will.
Being a condenser*, the LCT 240 would have been limited through my H5 as I would only be able to use one 040 Match, so I decided to look at dynamic* mics.
Can open, worms everywhere.
My knowledge of all things audio has increased tenfold (probably 1/10th of what I need though). Many mics were bought (including the LCT 240), accessories as well until I had more than I could use at once, but felt I have something for every occasion, plenty of depth and some real potential power here.
I finally bought the H8 after a lot of thought, but almost impulsively. I missed the very best EOFY bargains, but managed roughly $500au all up. Dearer (F6) and cheaper (AMS-44) options were in the “mix”, but in the end, I just closed the loop efficiently and relatively sanely**.
Then, after all that I bought another LCT 240, well I had the mic I wanted cancelled and switched routes which all in all, may have been a lucky change.
So I started with the LCT 240 and ended with the LCT 240 (twice).
Balance has somehow been retained. Yes my mic arsenal is in overkill territory for my current uses, but I intend to increase those and the H8 just made it all make sense. As I like to say, if you have an outfit in the wardrobe, you find places to wear it, if not, then you just learn to stay home.
My quick take on the mics after some vocal tests into the H5, all hand held***, and I will put a role it might play in a rock band scenario in italics.
The family so far, just waiting on the second 240, then maybe the second 440 or a 550 (ed. DTP 340). Too many choices.
sE V7 stands out with reserved neutrality and lowest handling noise. Sibilance is well controlled as are plosives**. This is the “safe” mic. I get why people like this mic and I may get another. Drums, amp or vocals especially if handled.
sE V3 sounds like a brighter version of the V7, with slightly more handling noise, slightly higher pitch, but a good second option and a better fit for some voices and instruments (as expected). I had hoped to make these my work horse set, but will hold off for now. Amp, maybe another instrument, flatter vocals.
TT1 Pro-Lanen is different enough from the others to be useful. Higher in sibilance but full bodied and about he same as the V3 in other respects. I was tempted by the M85, but I have plenty of light and bright mics, so maybe another of these. This one also has more gain than the other mics, about one notch on a Zoom dial. The ultimate filler and fixer, pretty much what ever is left.
MTP 440 Lewitt is lovely and screams “heavy duty” in every respect. I have put a second on hold for now, but apart from no external pop filter and relatively poor handling noise, this is my second favourite dynamic for vocals. Drums or amps, vocals if needed, high volumes.
2x LCT 240 is revelatory in comparison to the dynamics. Clearly higher in gain (2 zoom notches), very sensitive to its environment and with wide coverage, two of these could cover a concert no issue. These are also good for stand-off vocals. I found plosive rejection* was perfect with just the foam and even decent without (using the decent working distance). Main vocal, acoustic guitar or second vocal.
2x LCT 040 are even more sensitive. I chose well originally it seems getting what has to be the best bang for the buck mics going around. Drum or strings overhead, acoustic guitar, even vocals.
Overall, some mics are standouts in one way or another, but like a lot of things, careful use, post processing and the limits of other links in the chain tend to make them all even out. This has given me pause to stop and think about those extremes and the basics. The MTP 440 has the most punch, the 040’s and 240’s clearly have the most clarity and sensitivity, the rest are too close to split. Even the Zoom capsules are still considered decent by comparison.
Future options might include the MTP 550 as a good allrounder with superior feedback rejection and handling, maybe the second 440 or sE V7, maybe something I do not even know about yet (DTP 340 TT) or nothing.
*A more sensitive type of microphone that requires power from a plugged in source called “phantom” power. Dynamic mics do not, are generally less sensitive, but more durable.
**I am finding more and more that the bugbears people test for are rarely a real world issue. Researching made me think noise and plosives were a wide spread curse, but I am finding it hard to find them on some mics, even those not designed to avoid them. Handling noise is more of a thing, but mics designed for it are fine, those that aren’t should not be used that way. Simple.
***Another use for the H5 is mic placement. The H8 can be bedded down for a recording session, the H5 then used as a walk around plug and test unit for fine adjustments.