Learn, But Also Think

I read al lot about my craft, which is becoming more and more watching and listening, but anyway, I research. It is fun and rewarding, but mostly necessary.

You get an eye for researching when you have done it a lot.

You learn to question and interpret, rather than just accept. One opinion, even a trusted source is one opion. Get more, but don’t go down the “analysis paralysis” path. Find a few trustworthy sources, determine the angle of their point of view and take the “gist” of their meaning.

“A” says this is the best, “B” rates it second, “C” clearly has an agenda, “D” seconds “A” and “B”, but with more relevant context to you and “E” exhaustively tests all option for you to make up your mind. Enough, maybe even too much.

Example;

When I started using the G9 MkI for better video, the bulk of users pushed “Natural” colour style with -5 sharpness, -5 contrast and varying opinions on the other settings, but generally minus not plus. This simulated a simple “flat” profile.

I had some issues at first. I did not know to set DaVinci to Mac screen simulation in preferences, I did not use Luts (weren’t many), just sliders in the Primaries window and just winged it from the get-go. My footage was sometimes nice, sometimes hard to like and often it bit me when I needed it most. My skills and understanding were not aligning to the expectations others had created. The main issue was colour. It often drifted to a warm hue and I found it hard to remove the “muddiness”.

I realised, I actually liked the flat profile on my Olympus cameras more.

Frustrated, I sat back and thought about the process.

What I was trying to do was get to basically a “Standard” profile look. I wanted decent contrast, crispness and good colour. Standard mode gave me that, so in a leap of desperation fuelled good faith, I switched to Standard mode and guess what?

It worked a treat.

Clean, clear and brilliant, with fewer and gentler colour shifts, whiter whites and I rarely touch either contrast or sharpness in camera or after. For me this works and that is all that matters.

A shot I have used before, but an exemplar of the process. This is out of camera Standard profile 1080/10bit/422 with a very slight grading to add a little more punch. The G9 and Olympus 12-40 lens combo work well giving me a sharp, but slightly organic look and the colour is natural (well, Standard actually).

The footage is good enough, that I have even used a single 1080 frame as a news paper pic and nobody noticed.

I have two cameras that can shoot video better (S5 and now G9II), but for much of what I do, they offer too many options. The G9 mkI cameras are perfectly enough for most fast work.

Another example is dynamic range, one of those things people worship and it is important for big productions and as a safety net, but in real world situations, especially for run-n-gun, all you actually need to do is make sure you do not blow out the highlights and accept that inky blackness of well…inky blackness. Drama often comes from negative space, which is actually easier to achieve with a compressed dynamic range.

A third example is sound gear.

Self noise if the bugbear of many reviewers, but I have found in real world situations, that it rarely matters. You either have enough sound to cover it, have other quality issues like the sound itself or environmental factors.

The fourth example is the M43 vs full frame thing.

I was torn when buying the G9II, but pushed myself into getting one because I knew that M43 has been my stable platform, my comfort place and my enabler for over three camera generations without fail. It is fair to say, if the GH6 was this camera, I would have gone this way last year, but at the time, the S5 MkI was the better buy.

So why question it now?

A couple of S5II reviewers had recently switched from M43, a few have dropped pearls of wisdom like “the overall shift to full frame” and yes, the S5II’s have fixed the short comings of previous models so that there is a genuine four horse race going on in full frame land, but other formats exist for a reason, some of them compelling.

M43 will always suffer from limited support, especially with the OM System emerging (but still going), Panasonic’s more recent lack of new models (about to change), Black Magic shifting into more formats (but still do M43) and that nagging doubt of sensor size mattering.

Well it does matter, but it rolls both ways.

Is a car better than a motor bike or a truck better than a car just because they are bigger?

Each has strengths and weaknesses. You just need to apply the best strengths to the most obviuos weaknesses.

What did I need?

Best in class stabilising, better M43 video AF to support my huge lens arsenal and All-i/LOG recording. The G9II is that enabler, the S5IIx was almost but not quite. All it offered was better low light performance (with known catches) and I already have that in the S5 mkI.

Anyway, I digress.

What I am trying to say in too many words is;

Look, learn, grow, but most importantly, question.

You be you and let others share being themselves. It all helps, but it is also only part of the story.

You Should Want What Makes You Happy

Seriously, you should want what makes you happy, but not what you think makes you happy, because someone else tells you so.

Cinema lenses are a real case in point.

The very best cinema lenses, which cost about as much as a decent car, are all flawed by still photography standards.

Because in some situations, flaws are good*.

Technical perfection is technical perfection. It is not visual perfection for every possible situation or viewer.

The same with auto focus and other auto features. Creativity often hides in the imperfect, so mitigations, when used, need to take that into account.

An auto focussed, gimbal stabilised, clinically sharp and perfectly colour balanced clip looks…….. clinical and process-obvious. By process-obvious I mean the process itself becomes the exemplar. It is so sharp, so perfectly lit, so clean, that it makes you the viewer, aware of that.

This is a still image I recently inserted into a video project. The video was good quality, clean, bright and colourful, but the stills all jangled a bit looking much snappier than the video. They were just too sharp, too contrasty. (EM1 MkII, 45mm at f2), just how I like my stills, but not my video.

This often takes you out of the immersive space you and the film maker need you to be in to buy into their world over your own.

This version of the still image was edited to be closer to the video and it fit in much better. I used several sliders in ways I would never use for stills. The softening simulates the way we see. The secret sauce of stills photography is the “frozen” nature of it, allowing you to see all that fine detail. Video does not need that.

As soon as you are aware of the process, the process has failed.

“Organic” is often the word used to describe imperfect but attractive footage, “invisible” could be another.

Having said that, this can go too far also. I caught out of the corner of my eye the other day an old episode of NCIS or JAG, in all its double strength-soft filter glory. Too much.

The other day I was looking for samples of the 12-60 Leica lens used in video and I found a very good clip shot on a GH5 and graded to perfection. It was so sharp, it appealed to the stills shooter in me, but after a half minute it repelled the videographer. I was transfixed by the technical quality, but that state ruined the film maker’s intent.

They did not compel me, they lost me to awareness of process.

Interestingly, my wife also responded on a more emotional level, commenting “it’s too hard looking”.

To this end, that perfection that we can all too easily find, is being degraded intentionally.

Filters, legacy lenses, creative grading and cinema lenses are all ways of taking the edge out of video footage and put the natural feel back in.

*I just bought some cheap (read super cheap) cinema lenses for my S5. I paid into the need for a different look, something magical and “organic”. I will test all my 50mm lenses tomorrow and see if modern stills, legacy stills, cinema or super budget lenses make a difference to the base look of a stills image and if that will translate into footage.

Unbalanced, Apparently

It occurred to me the other day, the gear I use the most, the gear that makes me the bulk of my income and the gear I love to use and like the most, are not the same.

My oldest EM1 MkII, the battered G9 MkI, my sand impeded and recently dropped 12-40 f2.8, the 40-150 f4 that has developed even more “wobble” than it came with, the 17mm, which has dropped out of my favourites along with street photography, my second 45mm and the 9mm (which I like, except I rarely use the focal length), the MKE 400 mic and a Godox 860 flash in a Domke F7 or F2 are the day kit, the earners.

Do I have better options for this type of image? Yes I do, but on the day, the oldest EMI mkII and the little 40-150 f4 did the job.

My S5, G9II, pair of EM1x’s and others, plus the bulk of my lenses, lighting, sound gear, studio kit, stability options are not.

These it seems, are for me and my dreams.

I could probably function perfectly well with the beaten up day kit for most jobs and who knows for how long?

A Reversal Of Thinking, But For A Good Reason.

I said very recently, that my full frame ideal cinematic video kit was a 35mm and a 50mm with Super 35 crop values os 50 and 75mm. I believe this enough to have effectively done it three times*, one with S series primes and the other with cinema lenses.

I just bought an 85 because……..

1) It was on special at a little over half RRP.

2) It is for stills mostly, but for less cinematic, more reel based video it will be used also.

I would really like to access the very useable stills potential of the S5 for indoor sports.

Seems to make sense.

I rarely struggle in this situation, using ISO 3200 and f2.8, but when the big lights are off, it is tougher.

*Lumix S Primes, 7Artisan Spectrum cinema primes and a legacy 50mm and TTArt 35 S35 lens.

The Generational Learning Gap

I have been around still photography long enough to see several transitions.

From black and white to colour (not the beginning, the later ascendancy-not that old), manual to auto focus, film to digital, stills to hybrid.

Through all of that, there has been a common thread of old hands adapting, sharing tricks and growing or falling away and a new generation moving through. The transition has been relatively seamless and each new crop of image makers has had a wealth of support and even healthy competition.

Video has been different.

Most capable videographers were at the top tier, highly specialised, because most other video was shoot and use, not shoot to a higher standard, process to that standard and make a movie or similar. It was too hard, too expensive and most importantly, irrelevant to most end users.

Ironically, stills were harder to take, but easy to use, movies were easy to take, hard to use.

This has meant with the massive growth in this area from entry level through to more serious practitioners, new adopters have basically been left to make their own rules.

The reason I say this is, it is very obvious to me coming in late, that this is the case.

When researching stills gear, techniques and processes, most of the faces I see are close to my own.There are plenty of younger shooters, some suffering from “terminology mis-alignment*”, but on the whole, the pread of photography “experts” spans all generations evenly and all bring something to the game.

When looking to current videographers for information and inspiration, only a very few and these are aligned to more serious presentation formats like “In Depth Cine” or “Studio Binder”, are in my age bracket.

As a rule I am in the hands of those younger than I and often even half my age.

Got no problem with that, as long as they get their facts straight*.

My point is more one of wonderment, that a whole generation of videographers/content creators/Hybrid-ographers are effectively learning their trade at the same time they are creating its shape.

Sony has benefitted from this the most, being the right one at the right time. Nikon has suffered and Canon has teetered on the balance point. Panasonic is the great under-achiever, with similar street cred as Canon in video and plenty of respect, but only now getting it together and Fuji can do as they wish, playing well here or not it seems.

This would not have happened in a purely stills landscape, because as Nikon have proven decade after decade, their stills loyalty base has managed to weather several mis-steps, but in video, they barely rate a mention.

For me personally, it has been fun learning new stuff, but also a little perplexing.

On one hand, the masters ply their trade skilfully and the many watchers analyse what they do.

For me this is the ideal. The shape, orientation, subject and choice of monotone (sharp and contrasty) are perfect. To many, this is the opposite end to their wish list.

On the other, the whole “Junior brigade” effortlessly produce “reels”, master the art of creative editing and push the old rules past breaking point, then come back and do it all again.

I have always felt that in stills and video, some things are timeless and content trumps tricks, but I am also aware that vertical format, short, attention grabbing clips with little or no real content are a thing and I have to adapt.

I am happy to learn, really, but I am also glad I have some background and history to draw on, because it gives me a more solid base to grow from.

Ironically, the stills shooters coming through are still intrigued but the timeless nature of film and mono imaging.

*Some bad habits are creeping in like the mis-pronunciation and poor understanding of the term Bokeh (Bone-Kettle, not Bowkerr) and the persistent and confusing use of wide/small/larger/deeper/lesser etc when talking apertures are also not helpful.

Bokeh is not just more blur, but the transition between blur and sharp at any aperture in any image.

Deeper is more depth is a bigger number is closing down to a smaller aperture. Wider is shallower depth (more blur) is opening up the aperture is a smaller number which is a wider aperture. Confusing enough without getting all wrong. These things are not suggestions but rules and even casual mis-use of them is confusing to those trying to get a handle on a difficult subject. Terms like “a bigger of a depth of field” from a major influencer, apart from meaning nothing, are misleading when talking about wide apertures. This just pisses me off!

Bit O' Fun

Looking at cinema lenses again for the S5, I stumbled across a bargain.

The 7Artisans Spectrum 35 and 50mm T2 lenses are on sale (Aust distr.) for under $500au combined. The 85 was not on sale, but as recently written, I would not have been as keen anyway, so for half the price of a single Lumix S prime, I have mirrored both with matching cinema lenses.

Unlike the G9 kit, these are far from balanced, but they will be used on tripod, shoulder and chest rigs and the heft will add to stability on the less capable S5.

Heavy as they look.

Why?

A different look, a different experience and process and because they were a bargain. They also add a little street cred to impress the uninitiated. I now have an excuse to buy a follow focus finally for my chest/shoulder rigs, which will both be more handy.

Manual focus pulling and lump heavy lenses are a different experience to the S Primes and an itch I wanted to scratch. M43 was not coughing up the goods (crop factor often too much*) and L mount options are few, so the 7Artisan Spectrums, universally preferred to the bulk of their Vision series, are the go and for $200-250 each, well, I have bought filters for more.

I stumbled over them more or less, assuming they would be dearer than the less well corrected Vision lenses I had dismissed them, but a review of the Vision series on Anson & co, where he cited the Spectrums as just better, led to several more linked reviews and the court ruled. These are good for the money, even better for half of it.

So, for under $2000 I have two very stable, matched, light, AF capable stills/video prime lenses, a similar zoom and two chunky, all manual control cinema lenses. About right for the S5 kit.

ed. I went back the next morning to show my wife and deal over. Gotta be quick.

*Odd how the 50mm’s keep coming up better. The Sirui, 7Art Vision and even Nisi Athena 50’s are all their best in range, the other lenses, the ones I want for MFT in particular are often the lesser ones, except for these, where all three seem similar.

Balance

So, this happened…….

Well, the bit in the middle anyway. I asked the question of the local camera shop, basically to match the internet price of the more aggressive, but genuine Australian store offers plus $50 for freight (generous). The security and piece of mind of the local guy is worth it. Oh and look at the Bokeh wide open (45mm), beautiful, but also practical.

Not an hour after I went into town to pick it up, the Smallrig “Black Mamba” cage arrived.

First impressions;

The body and menu was no surprise from having an S5 already, the cage is a perfect fit, the side handle is good as usual and the little top handle, something I had at hand, seems perfectly matched in form and function.

The reason I say this and something that will maybe deter me from looking at the 10-25 f1.7*, is balance. This is the action cam, the light runner.

I can hold it loosely and it just sits perfectly balanced front to back and sided to side. The hood is a screw on, because the one that comes with the Sigma is rubbish.

The three lenses in the picture, the under used 8-18 and 12-60 Leica’s and the Sigma 30 f1.4 are all a in perfect balance.

The little 15 and super light 9 are not, but that is hardly surprising.

Animal eye detect is impressive on all lenses and they seem roughly equal in performance up front.

Customising is slightly better than the older G9, a few little niggles fixed, but of course there is a lot more to consider. The Q menu will be important, so I have left that button as found.

There is still a 35mm coming for the S5, then all done.

*A few things at work here. The lens is expensive, very good, but maybe for video too good and I have effectively a whole reserve kit of good glass, just screaming to be used already. Size and weight have just hammered that home.

A Matter Of Perspective

When pondering full frame lenses, I went straight to the stills photographers catch-all of full coverage.

The duality of full frame/super 35 magnification as a video benefit gave me a perfect 2 for 1 set of 24/35 and 50/75.

Something did not sit quite right though.

Video, from a content creators perspective tends to employ wide angle lenses a lot, especially vlogging, so something from a full frame 24 or wider.

Cinematography on the other hand, tends to use lenses that stay within the “invisible” envelope. This envelope is the range of semi wide to the shorter tele lenses (f'/f 28mm to about 90mm) , where width of view and magnification are in line with the human eye**.

I knew that getting the 24 to be effectively a 35 in crop mode would not be a real compromise of the S5 sensor, but I also knew, that the bought full frame focal length would rarely be employed for serious filming.

Serious filming, lets unpack that.

Video for clients often involves getting the job done to a decent, but not an overly artistic level. This was fine, but not all I want to do. Commercial videography can creep into the cinematography realm at the top end, but with genuine intent, your perspective changes.

I want to do more serious interviews, creative shooting, something better, that does not rely on gimmicks, funky transitions or special effects, something more aligned with character driven content.

Mise en scene or “setting the scene” is a lot more than just lens perspective and editing tricks. Angles, depth, focus, lighting, movements, blocking and more are the tools used. The lens often is a conservative or natural (invisible) choice. Lens perspectives outside the norm are used, but sparingly with an acceptance that the effect becomes the scene.

So, all I really need are a couple of lens perspectives, not blanket coverage.

Option one is the ubiquitous 24 or 28-70 zoom, but f2.8 on a zoom does not really add anything over a M43 fast prime.

The 30-35mm is the environment lens and one I am usually more confident with. In 16:9 or wider, it has width, depth and context, but also separation (assuming f2-8 to 4 on a full frame or f1.7-2 on M43) and the ability to convey mood. It looks natural to the eye. Bokeh is a balancing act of some, but not too much and becomes one of the tools available. Any wider and this becomes problematic and some stretching of perspective becomes obvious.

Depth of field here is a tool for layers of environmental inclusion.

This is the 17mm Olympus at f2 (roughly ff 35mm f4). There is separation, but it is subtle and harmoniously inclusive. I was shooting from a low angle so perspective is a little exaggerated, but this is as wide as I would go.

The 45-50mm (and the 35 in Super 35), the first of the true portrait lenses, adds a very slight feeling of compression (42mm on a full frame is the true middle) and some genuine “cutting out” power. Although the perspective changes from 35 to 50, it looks more like a “punching in” than a shift in compression.

Depth of field is now a powerful tool, something that can be used at either extreme.

The 75-90mm (the 50mm in crop mode is a 75) is the end of the normal portrait lenses. Just falling short of obvious compression, it adds reach and even more separation. Being a crop also adds great close focus capability. From 50 to 75 is again a “punch in”, but jumping from 35 to 75 is a true change of perspective from one extreme to the other (the group to the individual), but still acceptable. Jumping up to 90mm or longer as an obvious flattening of perspective, often enough to jangle.

Depth of field now tends to be degrees of shallow, with deep depth hard to achieve.

I also have a pair of “character” lenses, the 7Artisans 35 and Pentax 50mm that do the same but differently.

17mm with the G9’s 2.7x loss-less teleconverter crop (about ff 90mm). There is true and obvious separation. A little long for my taste, but M43 seems to lessen the compressed look of a slightly longer lens.

The main thing is, I have subtle shifts of perspective, but stay within the window of a normality.

If I were to buy true cinema glass, a big investment, I would likely go first a ff 30-35, then 65-75 and finally a 45-50, so in effect this is what I have (although I would actually prefer the slightly wider options). The IRIX 30 T1.5 (+45 in S35) was in fact perfect, but not easily attained in Australia, so I dropped it.

The reality is, I could shoot most of my video in one lens, especially with the built in crop-jump and it would likely be the 35 (50).

30mm at the outer edge of the short lens. Perspective runs the risk of getting a little “opinionated” here.

You do not need a wide range of lenses for cinema grade shooting, in fact some of the greatest film makers of all generations have been limited or deliberately limited themselves to one or two focal length only. Knowing your “eye” and the lens that translates that is more important than variety for its own sake.

You have lots to work with and worry about, so settling the “perspective” early on smooths the process.

Also, and this is not a small thing, shooting 4k for 1080p output gives you a lot of in frame cropping.

The fact is, I would likely never use the 24mm or 85mm lenses for serious work because the perspectives are too extreme. The S5, to my mind, is now complete in my world as a serious, but creatively conservative video camera.

My S5 is my “interview” A-cam, the G9II my “action” A-cam, each providing backup to the other with little compromise. It only needs these two or three gentle perspective shifts to work with a solid zoom as backup. The G9II as content creator will have the works from 16-600mm equivalents (before 4k cropping).

*

*On a side note, “wolfcrow” on his tube channel talks about the perfect aperture for cinematography. This is of course not the only one, but the most used and often most useful. It is usually about T4 on full frame, T2.8 on Super 35 (crop sensor) and T1.8 on M43.

This of course changes with focussing distance, but it is a good starting point and even at different distances tends to work. Up close you get intimacy, further back you get layering and at “half body”, you get subtle separation with natural to the eye drop off and focus shifts are also natural.

This is also a favourite of mine for stills work. The “must have more” Bokeh crowd tend to want shallower and shallower depth, with some like Tony Northrup earning derision for completely blurring out the background so it hardly matters if they are standing next to a beautiful lake or a brick wall.

The f1-7/2.8/4 users have context in their images, are using the lens at usually its most harmonious aperture (sharpest, least obvious blur to sharpness ratio, best corrections), find it easier to focus pull and they effortlessly get that cinematic look of separation within their environment.

**We employ two 80-85mm tele lenses with corrected fisheye coverage, something lens technology cannot yet match, but up to 85 magnification or as wide as 28mm width seem right to us. Anamorphic lenses can get closer giving us the “height” of a longer lens, but the “width” of a wider one.

Nothing Beats A Good 2x4

An old tradies saying, but I have another definition.

I am determined to get the G9 MkII because my need now is for a good action video camera. With it, I may get the 10-25 f1.7 to maximise it’s potential for slo-mo, All-i, stabilising and AF, which is my main needs addressed.

The S5 mkI though is far from redundant, but what form it will take needs some thought.

I really want to maximise its value. It has had very little use, but also not come close to it’s full potential.

Lets assume that for many uses (mine), it is plenty unless the above become an issue. It was a few months ago and still holds its own, but the AF and stabiliser have fallen into the “not good enough” category oh so quickly.

So, if these are irrelevant points, the camera needs to be professionally rigged up and part of a kit.

• Unreliable AF becomes cinema grade manual focus pulling or the G9II.

• Stabilising becomes from a gimbal, tripod, shoulder or chest rig, good old fashioned weight or again the G9II/OSMO.

• All-i and Slo-mo are handled by the G9II.

If, lets say, you can accept that Super-35 (crop sensor) mode on the S5 Mk1 is a useable thing, which according to several reviewers it is, then you have effectively two lenses in each lens. You just need to get over it, which being a regular M43 shooter, I certainly can. The S5’s have forced crops in some modes, so you cannot avoid it.

The other benefits of S35 are better rolling shutter control, always using the sweet spot of the lens and you get more reach for free, with the benefit of more depth of field than a full frame application of the same lens.

When looking at my S5 lens kit, originally I bought it with the quite excellent kit lens, then I picked up the 50mm f1.8 S so that I could realise the real high ISO potential of the camera and that full frame-shallow depth look (which I know is partly illusion, but hey).

The cool thing was by employing crop mode, I got the 75mm f1.8 focal length effectively free and the close focus stays the same. To be honest, I actually find it more useful as a short portrait lens.

So, looking at options for the S5, assuming I want to flesh it out to a more useful part of my kit, I have settled on three possible options.

1. Get a set of the various “budget” cinema lenses, like the Sirui “Nightwalker”, or 7 Artisan “Vision” lenses,

2. a mid range cine lens like the IRIX 30 T1.5 or Nice Athena 50 T1.9,

3. or buy one more S series primes from Panasonic.

A little antique character is good and I have the 1960’s 25mm F series Pen lens for M43 and the Pentax 50mm f1.4 and TTArt 35 for that.

Budget cinema lenses are designed for S35. This is limiting and puts me off. As well as that, the Sirui Nightwalkers, my preferred set are not available in L mount. I might actually look at the Sirui’s for my M43 gear** (50/70/110) and maybe the Vision 12/25 for maximum “character”.

These lenses also have a mix of looks and qualities that although nice are compromised slightly (the Vision 25 and 50 are both very soft wide open) and they lack one of the main cinema lens requirements, which is matching colour**.

*

The IRIX could be the one serious lens/camera solution, making the S5 Mk1 a settled video rig (total cost sub $4kau), with a pair of Pana lenses as backup for stills and extra reach. It would be a 30/45 combo, which to me is the perfect all-round lens range. This thing is huge (which is good!), optically more stable than the Sirui level lenses and built to last.

There are possible handling issues with the lens, weighing in at twice the camera’s heft, but it does have a forward mounting point. These issues may be benefits on the shoulder or chest rigs.

The Nisi 50mm is a little longer than I wanted, but the better performer of the mid-range lenses. A shame their 25 or 35’s weren’t better or they would be a no brainer, but adding another 50 seems a little dull.

The main draw is, at sub $2000au they are potentially only a little more than the Sirui set or not even twice the 24 prime. Neither is perfect, but a little “cinematic” softness wide open is a good thing, and both fall short of “dreamy” ie. soft.

*

Panasonic on the other hand designed the S series primes to be true hybrid lenses.

Using them as stills lenses, they are fine, with the benefit of one filter size, light weight (plastic, which is also good in a different way), good AF and consistent and respectable optical properties.

For video though the bodies match close enough that even on a gimbal, nothing has to change They are optically stable, but not as “cinematic” or character filled as dedicated ones.

*

With the duality of formats available, the IRIX and 24mm are talking to me for completely different reasons.

24/36 and 50/75. Just about the perfect range and in two cases I do not even need to change physical lenses, but the 30/45 mid range combo is as even handier as an all in one lens. I could always revisit the 24 when a bargain pops up.

Probably one of my points of indecision is knowing what I actually want in a cinema lens. Look aside, what focal length or lengths am I in need of? My 2x4 set fits my perceived (pre-conceived) needs, based on many years of still photography and possible client scenarios, but when the rubber meets the road, what would I make a serious project with. What do I want.

Like a lot of purists, I feel drawn to a pair of focal lengths. Something in the 30-40mm range and something in the 45-60mm range. The IRIX does these, the Lumix lenses do both with extras range either end.

My main gripe with the 24 is the price. Ranging from $1100 to 1600au, they have so much competition and are really only offering iffy AF on the S5 I and consistency.

The kit lens adds slightly wider (20mm) and longer (60/90), but can either way, now be put in the “auxiliary” class for backup, risky work and day trips.

*Noise does not increase, nor sharpness or quality drop, but you are looking at the end product effectively closer, i.e. enlarged slightly by cropping. This is still dual ISO and larger than M43.

**Ironically if you mix the 24 and 55 Sirui and 35 Vision, you get a better matched set optically with warm colour and the best IQ.

The Power Of A Good Prime And Benefit Of A Handy Zoom.

National grade cricket yesterday.

A chance to give the 300 a run and also the handy 75-300 zoom.

The 300 gives me that lovely tight (sometimes too tight) high end tele look. The backgrounds do not blur as much as full frame lenses, because it is still a 300, not a 5-600mm, but that can be handy for story telling and context.

As for story telling images, you do get the odd opportunity.

Shooting sports often means thinking through scenarios, not just getting in the best angle for a single shot. Will you get a story teller? An image with multiple supporting elements in it or will you come away with a bunch of “hero” shots and nothing else.

The image above was taken with my second camera, with the 75-300 mounted. It has layers and relevance. The batsman was a middle order player who had scored the highest score in a low scoring match. The score board in the background could have told the whole story better, but I was caught unprepared with too little depth of field at f8, ironic considering it is a slow M43 lens and thanks to poor timing I slightly obscured the name (a half second before would have had the batsmans name in front and the bowlers behind), but the idea was there.

The more I shoot sport, the more I think about story teller images.

It is basically the same mindset I use for street photography, working from back to front and making sure all the elements are in focus, more or less.

Time Of Choices ( Or G-Day Approaches)

So, I have decided on my school and future pathway.

Now time to pick a camera.

It turns out I have a better tax return coming than I originally thought, so this has become both more exciting and more complicated.

I suppose I need to first take stock of what I can do now, what I can and cannot do and what I do want to do in the future.

In M43 I have several cameras capable of 4k in some form, but only the G9 Mk1’s make the grade in good quality 1080 and they are limited in recording time and codec choice. Options increase in 4K land where even Olympus comes into the frame, but again, codec and time limits. I could upgrade one or both the G9’s to V-LogL, but at this stage I feel that is $100 (each) better spent and all could be upgraded with a Black Magic Video Assist, but we are talking $1000au or there abouts for a partial upgrade of one camera at a time.

If I do not add to my M43 offering in video, I relegate the format to stills only, which I feel is a waste of a ton of great glass and a betrayal of the truisms I have come to learn about M43 in general especially for video.

M43 can do the job, no doubt.

With my little video-centric full frame kit, I have gained 14 stop dynamic range V-Log, battery limited recording and many video-centric camera features as well as clean high ISO performance, possibly even a little better than the newer cameras, but in reality, thanks to my limited range of lenses, I really only have a 50mm (75mm in crop mode*) to realise that difference.

The S5 Mk1 also has some advantages over the newer cameras (according to trusted sources). The image is less sharp, or to put it another way, less over-sharpened. Video sharpness is not ideal for some filming, but can be added in more easily than taken out.

*I intend to use it as a crop/full frame hybrid, doubling my lens “range”.

This is well within the reach of a M43 camera and fast lens now, even without LOG available. “Cinematic gloom” is fine for documentaries and the movies, but I am not in that space and if I were, the S5 is at hand.

Stabilising, focus, frame rate options etc all take a hit, because these are easier to achieve in M43 land.

What I really lack is a shoulder/handle rig “follow camera”, with capable AF outside of my nifty, but limited OSMO, as well as any All-i recording formats and a second body with unlimited recording and true V-Log.

The more I can get in camera the better. No reliance on external recorders, gimbals etc with the exception of the SSD-out memory option.

So, what is important?

AF has limited uses for me as I do not vlog. If used it needs to work and be controllable. It is not a replacement for practiced intent and if used, extra depth of field would help. Note also, there have been reports that AF is less reliable with some filters on (Black Mist etc). Limited win to the G9II and M43 in general.

Stabilising is more useful and a priority. The S5’s are good, even the Mk1 good enough for some uses and better than most, but again the format advantage and slightly newer tech of the G9 makes it genuinely useful. Useful but like AF not perfect, so it needs to be seen as a handy problem solver, not a game changer, or a replacement for better technique. Another limited win to the G9.

All-i recording and near or full RAW codec access is the next level up, the pro safety net for some situations. Not strictly needed in 95% of my shooting situations, but possibly limiting if unavailable. The 5x and G9 share this space equally and with the SSD-out support needed, but the cheaper S5II is out of the race. No difference.

Formats and Dynamic Range. Not sure open gate is a real thing for me, and Super 35 does not scare me, but the G9 has no cropped formats which is cleaner and does not require hat-swapping**. Again, I have the S5 I, so adding a lens or two to that will still offer good full frame/S-35 options. Win to the G9/M43 format.

**Dedicating a needed function button or custom setting to frame size swapping.

Lens choice. Clearly a win to the M43 now as I have basically a full unused set in the wings***. Full frame has that lovely S prime series which I have started and most cinema kits (7Artisan Spectrum series) make more sense in full frame. Win to the G9 now and the 24mm would round out the S5 I.

***8-18, 12-60, 15, 30, 45.

Future proofing. I am deeply in M43 land and happy. I like the advantages it offers, am aware of the exceptions and have enough gear to see me through the next half decade. Updating M43 is a matter of the odd new body to replace the fallen and these are often more capable and cheaper than full frame options.

The trend is to switch to full frame at the moment, but equally, M43 is hitting a purple patch, offering plenty of the good stuff and mitigating most of the bad. It will always suffer by comparison in certain criteria, but only if you look on the surface. G9 for my time and place, the S5 kit could be added to later if needed. A full conversion is out of the question and not needed.

Slo-Mo. This is real and a practical tool. 1080/300 and 4k/120 are game changers for me. The G9 wins hands down adding a full stop more over the full frames.

High ISO capability. By recent standards, the G9II has high ISO capability, but the full frame sensor, especially a dual ISO, lower pixel count setup will always win.

I also doubt very high ISO work would share stressed AF and stabilising needs. I have control over my environment and do not need to guarantee results in ridiculously stressful situations.

If needed I have the S5 and fast glass (f1.8 at 6400+) and M43 with same (f1.# at 3200), which makes both useable within “realistically applicable” limits . Full frame across the board would add a couple of clean stops, but needs fast glass to achieve that, which then pays the depth of field cost and excludes my other backups. S5 limited win and I have one already.

Option 1

The G9II ($3000) is the best video camera for my use case as it offers the best AF, stabilising and widest range of frame rates (with no forced crop), the best rolling shutter performance, as well as the dual front buttons I have come to rely on. It also adds the not insignificant benefit of upping my stills capabilities and drawing from a wide range of very good glass. Basically there are no catches.

The 10-25 f1.7 ($2400au) gives the G9 the same effective performance as a f2.8 lens on a full frame, but with all the above advantages as well as being the most “realised” video lens and a more useful range (20-50). This does introduce the problem of massive filters because I have so far topped out at 67mm, so another $300+ minimum is to be factored in. I have fast primes from 9-75mm and decently fast zoom from 8-150mm, so this is really only a limited “one lens” solution with video advantages.

An adequately lit stage scene (1600, 1/320th, f1.8). In this case 1/50th (25fps) at about ISO 400 f1.8-2 would have been fine.

Prioritising the M43 train of thought would be logical, feels right and would work, but my half hearted full frame excursion may be called into question.

Option 2

The S5 IIx ($3000) brings that high ISO advantage, but only if fed good glass and is it relevant to have two high ISO monsters? If not, it is basically a G9II with fewer frame rate choices, forced crops and less sure footed stabilising and AF.

If I add the 24mm ($1000) I would have a 24/35 and 50/75 set if I embrace crop format and a later purchase of the 85mm could add a decent 130mm for sport and a little compression.

On balance 2 Full frames and 2-3 primes is solid, but hobbling my M43 video capabilities in favour of a video limited full frame kit seems pointless and for my uses, handiness is more important than specialising.

Option 3

This is a hybrid of 1 and 2.

If I accept the G9II is the best video/stills all-rounder and I am well serviced in lenses with plenty of fast primes from 9-75mm (18-150) and a couple of under used Leica zooms covering 8-60mm (16-120) as well as all the other glass, I can still get the 24mm f1.8 for the S5.

Completing that 2 = 4 lens kit, making its one real advantage of high ISO performance fully realised, makes sense and leaves the door open for maybe a 5S IIx later.

Total cost sub $4000au.

I would then have interchangeable action/interview cameras with the other, the older G9’s, and the OSMO as backup.

Everything stays within my envelope of sanity and both kits are empowered.

Sorted………

A Bokeh Refresher

This old pearl again, but I like to revisit it because, well it is important to me we get it right.

Bokeh is an Anglicised Japanese term used to describe the “qualities” the out of focus or in-to-out of focus transition points of an image exhibit.

It originated in our Western awareness from a 1980’s magazine (Darkroom and Creative Camera Techniques) edited my Mike Johnson, who devoted a whole edition to it* after a conversation with a Japanese based contributor John Kennerdell.

He had noticed the Japanese measure sharpness and other characteristics of a lens, then look at the non sharp transition points and blur areas of a lens. Less scientific and more subjective, it was called by them Bo-ke, or the “flavour of blur” and had a series of sub-classes like Ni-Sen (cross-eyed). Interestingly, while the Japanese were selling their super sharp and contrasty lenses to the world, they actually preferred German glass for its Bokeh characteristics.

This image has a Bokeh element even though it seems to be sharp front to back. From the pumpkin head back it is transitioning. It is almost impossible to retain even depth of field sharpness in an image unless you are photographing a flat subject like a wall, so most images have an element of Bokeh.

This is commonly hijacked by the “more blur is better Bokeh” crowd, but it is actually not correct. Bokeh refers to all transitions not just the amount of blur and the blurs quality. All lenses have a Bokeh “look” be they extreme or mild, from long or short lenses, near or far and often change character as the variables are shifted.

Pretty standard stuff. A 45mm at f1.8. It acts like a 90mm on M43, but is still effectively the same as a full frame 50mm in depth of field rendering, just twice as far away.

Bokeh is easier to measure and identify at the extremes, but Japanese aficionados look at more than just f1.4 lense wide open in near-far scenarios. Some Bokeh super stars of the past were actually wide or semi wide lenses used at stopped down apertures like the Leica M series 35 f2 lenses.

Near perfect Bokeh from the Olympus 300 f4. This is of course a cheat, using effectively a 600mm f4 wide open at 1m, but it shows that most lenses can produce perfect modern Bokeh in the right circumstances.

Same lens, same day different circumstance. Here the same lens shows snappy and compressed rendering, but the background objects (old pier stumps) are a little busy. In very close inspection a little “ringlet-y”

A third example take from the same place as the flower above. This one highlights the very busy background or “Ni-Sen” effects this lens can exhibit.

It is also subjective. One persons perfection is another’s blobby mess, or busy mess.

Bokeh has also to be taken in context to other photographic principals like flare, contrast and sharpness, but of these it is the quiet one, the one that we often respond to, even if we are not sure what or why.

This is not a portrait of a person, this is a location portrait of a person (politician) in a specific place (Launceston’s Gorge entrance). M43 at f2.8 on a short portrait lens is just about right. When I purchased a full frame again, the widest apertures again became “special case” apertures.

Micro Four Thirds format gets canned a lot for lacking “depth of field effect”, but personally, I use its ability to allow wide open lens use in almost any circumstances with useful Bokeh rendering. I would rarely use a full frame lens wider than f2.8 unless doing a product, art or personal project.

Taken with a M43 15mm (full frame 30mm magnification, but still a 15mm) wide open at f1.7. There is to my eye the right amount of in focus snap and out of focus detail, the transition blending perfectly. If this was a full frame 35 f1.8 used this way, there would have been a much faster drop-off from focus to out of focus, something that would have lost the balance of the image. A full frame user may have been happier with the background drop-off, but all things in consideration, I like this more.

A client will rarely want a single subject cut out of its environment, set against a sea of incoherent blur, as beautiful as it can be. Stopping down a little helps tell a story, create a sense of place, so with m43 you get wide open and a little stopped down at the same time.

How much is too much? This is a 45mm at f1.8. A full frame 85 at f1.4 would have separated the subject out much more, but why? It may have looked more “pro” to some eyes, but the subject would be the same, the location still blurred out, just unrecognisably.

All of the images below use an element of Bokeh, all achieved with M43 gear. Ironically I over did it a bit, missing a few “landscape” style images for greater context. At issue here is not the amount, but the quality. A few image show nervous looking rendering (40-150 f2.8), something I am aware of, but other viewers may also respond to even if they are not sure why.

Using Bokeh to pretty-up a nasty background is sensible photographically and part of the reason they pay us, but if over used, it looks same-ish and lacks context. Using Bokeh to support a main subject, maybe not using as much blur as possible, but more contextual blur is also why they pay us to do the job.

Sometimes more depth is important, but Bokeh still plays a part.

Remember also Bokeh is not the only separation tool. Light, movement, contrast and many other elements can be used to control an image. Most studio photographers use small apertures for greater depth of field, then control depth through light.

Anyway, whether you subscribe to the modern “more and smoother is better” camp or find the perhaps old school longer and gentler, even invisible transitions more useful, Bokeh is a thing.

*I have a review of it on my books and bags page.

Must Be Better, Must be New.

We as a race of people in the first world are obsessed.

Many do not even realise it, some even complain, but we are driving a need for constant change, for improvement, for redundancy of the old.

Ten years seems like a long time in the world of tech.

Once, the needs of a human extended to survival only. This evolved to become “quality of life”, the curse of intellectual awareness, until now when for those of us lucky enough to be a part of it, so the minority in the first world, quality of life seems centred around “constant upgrading of the quality of things”.

Quality in turn has diverged into several branches.

On one hand old fashioned qualities like consistency, build quality and longevity are still desired, but on the other, a quick turn-over, newer is best best tech regime seems to be dominating.

Ironically, thanks to turbulent recent times and cultural imperatives, the Japanese, responsible for a large amount if this tech, often live in a world devoid of overt technological incursion.

As photographers, and to no lesser extent videographers, we are slaves to tech, its limits and enabling power in balance (the recent Optus outage maybe a warning we are not there yet).

This inevitably creates a newer is better dynamic, one which ironically seems to be meeting some resistance from the “old school look” chasers.

Apart from the true retro hold-outs, intolerance of older gear with its less capable noise reduction, imperfect AF and less than bullet train performance seems all pervading to someone who has lived their photographic life through many stages.

Photography has always been a case of technical limit mitigation, often leading to creative signatures. Perfection seems to be the signature we are heading towards. Like the car industry, the trick seems to be providing what everyone else is providing, which preserving some way of standing out.

When I look at this image I do not see “tiny lens on a small format EM5 Mk1”. I see the image for what it is, not what made it and this is usually the case unless there are obvious signs. Images taken on film and last century are still my place of inspiration, the work of masters such as Sam Abel, Saul Leiter etc reigning supreme.

Film grain was a constant and something that although not ideal, did add a character to images we were all accepting of. The more technically minded would spend excessive time on remedies, often only gaining the slightest advantage. Generally grain was avoided, limiting photographic options, or embraced, allowing creative interpretation to come into play.

Sebastiao Salgado is one of many examples of a photographer who created beautiful work using his very real quality envelope as a tool, not a deterrent. Is his work any less relevant because of technical limitations, does it need to be consigned to the “this was ok, but…” junk pile?

It has power through a relevance of subject, time and place. The technical look is all a part of that, something we often only appreciate in retrospect.

Some things just work, relatively unchanged for generations and are used until they stop.

What will happen when an image only has a perfectly rendered subject, without any other signature look, a time stamp, a point of difference? We have become good at faking that look through software, but something is always lost in the process.

I am deeply engrossed in the camera “A” vs “B” quagmire at the moment, something that has highlighted to me yet again how focussed we are now on seeking perfection and hair splitting comparisons. Things need to be the best, not just good enough.

A few months ago, my S5 Mk1 was fine as my premium video option. Limited to LongGOP, realistically manual focus and non-fan assisted recording times, I felt it had more than I needed presently, especially as my fully six year old G9 Mk1’s, stills-centric hybrids are doing the bulk of my video work anyway.

I have the jitters over which of a full frame or M43 super camera to pick from, when only months ago, neither camera was even an option.

We all know better is always possible, but have we lost the art of making the most of what we have? Our pioneering forbearers knew how to adapt, to modify and improve within very limited envelopes. We can be accused of just waiting for the next big thing to make everything better than before.

The reality is, better is only slightly better. These things are incremental, but perceptions can exaggerate improvements. Maybe our need for more is fuelling both this need and it’s false perception.

The much talked about video AF improvement in Panasonic cameras is a perfect example. Yes it is better, but the old system was not unusable, was certainly not always the best or only answer and the much improved sysem is still not perfect (no system is). We have shifted not from completely useless to completely perfect, but more like a shift from 85% efficiency with some awareness applied to relatively effortless 95% success. Skill, awareness and practice all come into play here.

The thing we risk loosing if we keep chasing automatic perfection is the ability to “drive the car” ourselves. Automation in all things is usually fine, but as an option, never the only option.

Recently my wife told me a story of a think tank group formed to refine and define the thoughts of other sub-groups.

They stuck the various submissions into an AI system to generate an overview.

People matter.

The point of the whole exercise was to allow people an opportunity to express themselves. The AI did a fine job of defining the text and succinctly reducing it all down to a few lines, but did it understand the hidden meaning, the nuance, or have the ability to adjust or re-define some of those thoughts in context of the place or person or ultimately understand the end use?

Not the AI’s fault, it was just working within the limits of what it knew. It did a fine job of clarifying the materiel within the remit it was given, but the people involved learned little and the AI felt nothing.

Anyway back on point.

Our world is far from perfect, but to this weathered eye, we in the lucky part of the world seem to be diverging more and more between the things that are genuinely important and an obsessive need for technical advancement.

Anyway, back to my hair splitting.

Harmony Through Art

One of my volunteer organisations, Migrant Resource Centre North, one of several devoted to the integration and enablement of recently arrived migrants from non English speaking, sometimes third world countries is running a combined art project, something I have had the honour or recording with both stills and video.

Understanding that health issues are often shrouded in fear and mystery to many, the organisation uses group based events like this as a way of easing into these conversations.

Two groups, one mostly Nepalese and Bhutanese, the other predominantly Eritrean are creating art using simple techniques from their home lands, which will be combined with local artists work into a final presentation.

The workshops are as uplifting as they are varied. I have been recording some background sound and each has been an exercise in contrast, but with a common thread of community and connection.

The images submitted are colour, these mono one are for me really.

Somehow, I feel mono imaging is a great equaliser.

When all is reduced to tones, these tones become harmonious and effectively equal. Skin colour, cultural and ethnic cues become just tones, equal to each other and beautiful.

Another element I have come to understand is, don’t eat before you go. Food is an integral part of sharing of labour and communal gatherings and it is all good.

Choices, The Luxury Of A Good Life?

My wife and I subscribe in a fairly open minded and realistically reserved way to the power of both western (Arabic) and Chinese astrology. The two are linked, even running in an identical pattern of 12 signs, one by month the other by year and hour, but can be studied separately as well. We mix them both as desired and drink the cocktail happily.

My mother was a bit of a white witch, into anything and everything, so in my early life it was assumed these things were part of the world we lived in. As I grew older I began to compartmentalise my life and my upbringing, so all things supernatural fell into the realm of a bit of fun, a game to play with friends, sometimes with revealing results, sometimes not. Oddly I never forget someone’s star sign, even after I have forgotten their name and I do have a better than 1 in 12 track record of guessing them.

Meg is a teacher and we can not help but notice the direct correlation to her relationship with different year groups and their signs, often retrospectively, because as I said, we are not obsessive about it. Favourite year groups and ones she connected with less well are often quite obvious when the “stars are aligned”.

This is the year of the Rabbit.

It is meant to be the year of the Cat, but apparently, the Cat was too lazy to turn up on badge day and relinquished their year to the slightly more active and accomodating Rabbit (amazing what a bit of fear can do).

We are both positively aligned to the Rabbit. It is in my triangle of best compatibility being a Sheep (sometimes called Goat in western translations, which is confusing) and it is Meg’s “wild card” outlier as she is the Dog.

Anyway, running against that expectation we have both had pretty rough years, or have we?

In both our worlds, we have had many offers, plenty of success, lots of recognition recognition and growth and generally a feeling of being on top of what we do, or in my case an awareness that others feel that way, even if I do not always feel it myself. We have both had setbacks, but these have often been small things, or often out of our control, sometimes losses we are not sad about relinquishing and the reserved and relaxed Rabbit would probably say “just walk away” anyway.

For me it has come from general unhappiness at the paper (but still success in many ways), a new relationship with a school that has welcomed me, even if I have been slow to embrace it fully and now the re-emergence of the original school as an option for next year.

Choosing between a combination of probably two of them is tough and something I am not enjoying (today is D-Day for one school so this is it guys).

Boo-hoo, poor old me, I have too many choices in my life, tough gig.

Yup, need to get over this, pick a ride and make the most of it. Someone else will get an opportunity when a hole is created, others will deal. Things can turn quickly so make the most of the good and choose wisely, an important thing for when they are not so good.

As I often say, buy a new house on a gloomy day in the middle of winter. If you like it then, you will like it everyday.

Scotch Oakburn college was where it started.

After quitting my job at a camera shop, just in time for COVID to hit, I was cursing my timing, when the school called for interest in a pool of photographers to call on. I applied and possibly because I was the only fully equipped applicant and known to the school from previous dealings (via the shop ironically), I got the whole pool allotment to myself.

It was great for three years and genuinely tough to leave, but COVID level budgets eventually forced my hand. I needed a real job and the paper (see below) was hiring a part time tog. Covering all my own expenses with an income close to unemployment benefits was only acceptable on any level because I was loving the environment, the chance to work as a photographer and grateful during COVID, to be working at all.

I never once took any type of COVID benefit, even though I probably qualified, but I did spend part of my small inheritance from when my mother passed early on on gear, which empowered me through to now. Thanks mum!

The school is well serviced, but small enough so that I can make a difference. It has two campuses, one of which is literally over the road from home and they have guaranteed a minimum hour/school week load (as a self employed contractor) of about the amount I dropped from the paper. I made friends who are still in my life and for a short minute, I felt the door to other options was about to open, but I closed it in the name of “security for my future” with immediate regrets.

The Examiner news paper.

The grand old lady, going for nearly 200 years is a shadow of its former self and changing constantly, but still going and still viable. I dislike the photographic process there, but like the people, the variety, contacts I have made and appreciate it for opening my eyes to what goes on in this town (lots as it happens). It was never really a contender as a single career option, but it would make a decent base with which to work from.

One of those things that either a school or the paper might offer.

St Patricks College.

The biggest single high school campus in Tasmania (2000 students and staff), welcomed me easily and efficiently, giving me “in house” casual status, something that made life a whole lot easier.

The lack of younger students (different feeder school) and to be honest the better equipped nature of this school makes it on one hand easy be at, sometimes more anonymous to work in and there is little pressure (or realistic chance) to learn every name or be on top of everything, but on the other hand, I have struggled to see just yet, where I fit in.

They like my images, but video is yet to be tapped and their media department is so extensive, I might not be needed there at all. I shot a whole series of videos for their rock challenge event that I was really happy with, but they already had plans.

The other Wolf (Launceston Grammar) being beaten by a gutsy and skilled St Pats, state champion soccer team.

Not a small thing also is the person I have been dealing directly with, is actually leaving this week as well, so ties recently made are also soon to be broken with no guarantees for the future. There is possibly a chance of an increased role, but equally, a chance of nothing at all (see below).

Unfortunately, working for two of the three private schools in a city this size is not an option.

I have often thought of the two older Protestant based private schools in Launceston (Scotch and Grammar, both of which I have worked for), as a pair of hungry Timber wolves, eyeing each other off across the valley floor. The big Brown bear that is St Pats, a Catholic school with massive support from the church is content to do its thing without fear of the two wolves, but is wary none the less.

The Scotch wolf is keen to have back the cub of their making, the bear is a little sad that another of those many taken into its fold is going, but hrrumphs, shakes it off and moves on. The wolf, feeling more lucky than smug takes back into its leaner holdings with part of its life that I like to feel made it a less mean than the life for a wolf needs to be.

or

The bear, content to be quiet protector offers the cub an easy and satisfying life free of the fears and the stresses of the Timber wolf’s life, the wolf wanders off looking for another stray to guide.

*

So, I have accepted a continuation with the “big Bear”, because at the end of the day, they have been great, easy to work with and after a quick (totally unfair pressure on my part) conversation this morning have even pledged greater connection in the future. In the end it came down to which “sorry but” email did I want to write less.

Seems they like me and I like them.

This means dropping my load at the paper back again to two days, about the right amount to stay sane and do the cool sports stuff on the weekends.

Regrets?

Not yet and I don’t intend to have any.

Always happy to make way for anyone with real problems :).

Field Recording Nerd Awakens.

Had to happen I guess.

It is a perfect spring day here and the H8 needed a run as did some of the mics.

I went down to the local dog park located by a river, a place we use for our dogs and we often comment on the number of birds we see and hear.

I actually sat over to the left around the bend a little.

I hopped out of the car to be greeted by five heavy duty weed whackers going full bore and a remote lawn mowing vehicle.

A little wander down the road and the sounds of light industrial mayem abated.

The kit I had was pretty representative of my overall offer.

• The H8 in field mode.

• The SSH-6 mid-side shotgun, which has become my standard answer to most things.

• A Lewitt LCT 240 Pro, representing condensers and my favourite “room” mic.

• The Se V7 representing dynamics, yet to be used seriously, so time to play.

• My M40x cans.

First up I tried the LCT on a small light stand, no shock bracket and only a foam wind cover. No wind noise (no wind), but pretty much 100% handling feedback. Even the headphone cable rubbing on the stand leg came out all to perfectly. These are studio mics, so allowances have to be made, the shock mount sitting at home would be one of them!

I had to turn up the gain to 7-8 to get signal, which surprised me, but more on this in a moment.

The sound however, was sublime. I closed my eyes and let every little bird sound, distant traffic noise, dog walkers and a whole lot of other stuff I could not pin-point wash over me. Seriously relaxing stuff.

Next the SSH-6 which was again pushed up to about 7-8 before I heard anything (again see below), was good and clean and the mid-side control, although different again to either the F1 or H5 was interesting to play with (one has degrees, the other two use levels, but they don’t match each other).

Not as pure and delicate as the LCT, it was more resistant to handling noises and the fluffy cover completely blocked wind noise (that I had to fake by blowing on it). I know from other reviews that there is nothing to gained by using the H8 with this over the F1 or H5, so it is not my way forward. The H8 was bought for XLR cable mics, where it shines.

I thought to bring my original EM5 Mk1 and the 12-60 Panasonic kit lens. Not a bad pairing although the EM5 is starting to get forgetful, dropping the odd frame (just like the heavily used one I bought off a friend).

Lastly, I tried the V7. Much more focussed than the LCT, it was clean, but I had to max it out to 10 to hear anything so I wrote this type of mic off for field work. Shame as it was the best for handling and has decent side rejection.

Ok, time to fess-up.

The reason I was having to drive these pretty hard was totally my mistake. I plugged the phones into the line-out jack (I have been using the F1 a lot and it only has one line for phones and output), not the headphones out. The line output was set on less than 50%.

When I realised and switched, which was during the second run of the 240, I almost blow my head off!
Suddenly 4-5 gain was plenty. Even the V7 was decent enough, but still not a real field mic, maybe an interview mic?

Now the fun really began.

I could hear small wag-tails chirping 20 feet away like they were at arms length, heard some dog walkers coming thanks to their fur friend’s jingling collars, that turned out to be 50 feet away and behind the mic, then I picked up some ducks disturbed by those same people and dogs, who it turned out were 40 feet in the opposite direction.

Their busy conversation was more varied and interesting than I thought it would be.

Even small wag-tails flitting over head were not only discernable, but I could picture where they came from and where they went. I even got the drop on a mosquito, before it got danger close.

Sound comes in layers it seems. After the five minute rule had come into effect (about how long it takes skittish birds etc to ignore you and come back), I could pick out about ten bird sounds and over twenty other sounds from man made noise to water babbling somewhere near by.

The longer I sat, the deeper it went.

I must admit, I am a little hooked.

The Future Of News

I feel sometimes, that the news paper industry, TV and the internet are all heading to the same point and just do not see it.

I shoot video next to a TV camera so we can add that element to an online story, while the TV journalist often shoots stills for their Facebook or web page and the TV camera operators often use cameras similar to mine for their overlay or “B” roll. Ultimately we are all heading towards an online only platform, but still with an ever decreasing “older” format to support.

When will we just merge into the same thing?

Shooting both is difficult, especially for me, because I like candid images and candid video, but it is do-able*. Slowing things down and doing one or the other means that one is “staged”, something I am not fond of especially for video, which is always better first time around.

Does it work?

This is news delivery in the now.

On Monday I put up five videos. One got 3000+ hits (short presser at police HQ about a suspicious death), one got 2000+ hits (ever popular dogs home plea for funds), the other three, all niche stories, accumulated 1000 odd between them, the very worst with only 180 hits (of colourful Highland dancing which I found odd).

To put that 6000+ hits in a day from one source into context, it is a decent percentage of our overall engagement for the day, running both as story toppers and in a newest/top five editorial stories playlist. Like all good monsters, it eats it’s own tail, feeding the machine.

Yes it works, but it is also hit and miss**.

It is inevitable that the various forms of media will merge towards the one true platform, being online, but I do not intend be there to see it from the inside. For those that are, things will change, but change is the norm, not the exception.

*Shoot video during the interview until you have a decent 1-2 minutes of continuous audio, then shoot some overlay and stills.

**The Pressbox, our weekly podcast that we do in house for local sport varies between 1500 to 15000 hits depending on season and event covered. The top end is by far our best performer, usually in football finals month, the lower end is the bar to reach with other subjects.

Is It Worth It?

I currently have potentially three jobs to choose from, but none of them are complete or very compatible with each other. On top of that are all the volunteer groups I am involved with, which are becoming increasingly important to me, but need some compatibility with paid employment.

One school has made an offer that is slightly better than the previous one. More money budgeted for photography post COVID), but no security. This is a tough one because I reluctantly left them, missed a second chance to reconnect when the paper stuffed me around and now have to probably cut ties for good.

The other school is having an imminent staff change which may mean more or less work and security for me and the paper is the reluctant constant, seemingly with a place for me, even if on my end a relatively undesired one.

I have lots of potential capabilities yet to be unleashed, plans to increase these and a desire to empower which ever organisation I am involved with, but realise that no single one will give me the room to use all of these, not even half of them as it goes and I do not seem to be able to come up with a combination that works.

I often think if a choice is impossible to make, don’t make one, just change tack. As someone said recently, if nothing is going right, turn left.

I doubt I can be bothered with photography or video as a hobby any more, so getting out of this industry will likely mean killing off my one over-riding passion of the last three decades, but sometimes hanging on is worse than letting go.

Is it worth it?

Was the last five years just a distraction or my true calling finally faced up to?

I came to it late, so I have no history to fall back on. My skill set previously was in retailing, but that fails to inspire.

Should I just give it up and re-train, maybe go into something that gives me a fresh start, a fresh perspective and cut loose what was mostly pipe dream driven (sound, video) and just stick to what is working?

Back to the daily grind?

I have found often that the day after I make sweeping decisions, I usually cut off options for when things inevitably change, but I am in the situation now, at 2 in the morning, of facing a yes/no answer to one of the above tomorrow, without knowing where the others sit and just realised it may actually be a relief to cull the herd.

Most importantly, I need to think of my long suffering wife.

She has done the lions share of the earning over the years and always steps up. I am also not as they say, getting any younger.

Happiness or responsibility?

Can either survive without the other?

Definitely the G9 MKII.......Or The S5 MKIIx?

The G9II is a no brainer I guess and a large part of my motivation is to continue with M43 as I know it is the smart choice, but a talk I had with a student at the school the other day did sow a seed of doubt.

I recommended to him the S5 II (should have insisted on the “X” as he stated clearly he was interested in video).

This was because I still feel twitchy recommending M43 to anyone who shows any reluctance to embrace a smaller sensor. The problem is, doubts tend to lead to scapegoating. Something does not work well enough, blame the sensor.

In all probability, the sensor has allowed the user to take advantage of the better stabiliser, AF/depth of field advantage and cost to quality benefits, but that advantage often comes from awareness of the benefits through experience, not blind faith.

Looking at the S5II and the G9II, there is no contest for me.

The G9II is an incremental improvement in all areas except very high ISO performance (but solid enough) and that is something the S5 that I already have can handle (according to Ed Prosser even better) and it justifies me owning that one. The G9II has (very) high bit rate All-i, USB to SSD recording, better stabilising, more reliable AF, better slo-mo, more relevant stills features, even higher resolution.

Very high ISO work would likely be manually focussed and a single camera, so the single S5 is fine (when a powerful G9II with 1.4 lens fails) and the newer cameras do not apparently improve on that. Anything else, especially multi camera shoots would be lit properly, well within the tolerances of the G9II (or even G9.I) with a fast prime, of which I have many.

The S5IIx is maybe another matter.

For a lower base body-only cost than the G9 (assuming lenses are available, which they are), the 5IIx matches the G9II’s video features, but with the higher ISO benefit. The saving is off-set by the need to buy a 24mm f1.8. I would intend to use the full frame/super 35 options to make four focal lengths out of two (24>35 and 50>75). If I get that camera, I will get that lens, if not I will stick with the current combo of the 20-60 and 50 only.

Even with a second kit lens, the S5IIx is only slightly dearer at the moment than the G9II body only.

This would mean I would sacrifice the handiness of the G9II, a camera I consider as close to a gimbal free camera as there is in this class, the best M43 AF for video and the best M43 slo-mo options (4k 120p/1080 300p), for a shift to full frame only for serious video. The S5x is actually slightly behind in video specs, but not by much.

Feelings now are still leaning towards the G9II otherwise my large investment in lenses and work flow habits are less logical. Some loyalty to the system that empowered me to this space is due and given, but video is a special case in some ways.

So.

Do I want to have limited M43 for video, using the system only for run-n-gun straight from camera work (2x G9 mk1’s) and stills, then focus on S series only for serious video? The S5x can of course take stills, but I would only have a handful of lenses, all short and no intention of going down that path again in great measure. So far $2500 has bought me a seriously good FF backup system, but $3500+ would be needed to get it up to semi-complete (S5x and 24mm).

The image below is a screen shot of beautiful 1080p/10bit/422 OOC quality, all I need for quick use, but the AF, stabiliser, dynamic range and codec choice of the G9II would be good also.

Alternatively, do I buy the ultimate M43 hybrid, really only intending to use it for video, but be able to switch it out completely to stills if needed and cut my losses in full frame for now, relegating that format to the role of support/static and high ISO work?

The S5.I is not a bad backup, only lacking All-i recording and the handling benefits of the G9II, something only one camera needs to do at any one time.

I have 14+ lenses for this system, basically a full video kit on top of my stills gear and the thought of using my 300mm in some other indoor venues for stills is tempting. Adding more lenses would also not be out of the question, because it is still my main system and they are cheaper, smaller and lighter.

One factor, though not a big one and thanks to Sam Holland’s review here. The G9II colour matches the cooler S5I better. The S5II and GH6 share warmer tones, but nothing a simple Lut won’t fix.

The G9 is the favourite now, ironically because there are fewer compromises.

• AF > G9 wins. The deeper depth of field and next gen application.

• Stabiliser > G9 Gimbal like, where the S5’s are next level down.

• Battery life > G9

• Non cropped video formats > G9 again ironically thanks to the smaller sensor.

• Slo-mo options > G9

• Ergonomics (extra front button and smaller lenses) > G9

• High ISO > S5 (any model, so I actually have this knocked).

• Overheating > theoretically S5II(x), but most reviewers have stated it is a non issue up to battery life, even when stressed.

• Lens selection > G9 (14 M43 lenses covering 16-600, even up to 2000 FF equiv).

As usual the format’s power and advantage’s come down to lenses. I have those.

This is something that needed to be explored before, not after, but explore I have.

The G9II is closer to the S5x than the S5II, superior in many ways to the GH6 and it empowers my stills kit a few generations past the EM1x, my current champion. I held off on the OM-1, GH6 and even EM1 Mk3, because they basically only added one or the other feature set. The G9II offers an across the board upgrade.

Yep, no brainer.

On Travel.

I live in a beautiful, sheltered place.

The down side can be travelling from it.

The trip from Japan to home (Tasmania, Australia) was technically eleven and a half hours of train (Kyoto to Kansai 1.5 hr), air (Kansai to Cairns 6.5hr), air (Cairns to Melbourne 2.5hr) and a final plane trip (Melbourne to Launceston 1hr).

It travelled, including a short trip before leaving, for 40 hours and that was with relatively few hiccups.

We awoke on the 11th at 6am for a 5-6km walk (normal), then a three-train trip to the little community of Kibune out side of Kyoto, a lovely walk up the road from the train station, which was unfortunately semi-shut down due to a combination of mid season break and we assume some COVID closures.

Worth it, but a less drastic travel experience would help keep the connection.

The walk back and tri-train return, then a break to change and prepare brought us to 4pm, which was departure time for Kansai. About 80 minutes by train and you are in the mini city that is the Kansai international airport. We have to arrive early to avoid mix-ups and fit the not too early-not too late, window the airline enforces.

With post COVID flight reductions, the untrustworthiness of our national carrier* and some expected unknowns, we often had to take the safer option over the more time expedient one for transfers, which meant taking the 4-5hr lay over, rather than the 2-3hr. Add in a few expected delays and you enter the “dream sphere of doom” that is modern air travel.

Hours on hard seats, aimless walking, bad and often expensive food (Cairns international terminal the record holder with a $16 packet of sandwiches!), with sporadic and restless sleep all add up to a major circuit breaker between home and the holiday just had.

It often takes us several days to settle back into our memory space of enjoying the trip, sans post trip grumpiness.

I have deepened my natural dislike of airports, the process of travel and generally the sacrifices made to get somewhere worth going.

Seems a looong time ago.

We will see how long it takes to dampen the memory enough for me to want to go anywhere again. Europe, with its 26hr + flight time used to be a two year recovery/forget process, but even Japan, with no real jet-lag and relatively short travel distances is going that way.

ed. a couple of weeks later and it all seems like a distant memory. Maybe with less travel angst, it might seem closer?

*an issue even they have recognised with a new CEO and board shuffle hopefully changing things.