Dynamics Of Range

Dynamic Range.

Dynamic range is a subject that, like a lot of things where creativie and technical considerations cross, can be confusing and divide the field.

What I saw, what the camera interpreted and where it ended up, all diverge in some way. but this is the way I wanted it to look.

This scene could be openned up, but this is actually what I saw and how I saw it.

Harking back to older, technically limited image making, this file is usually not my thing, but today, while pondering dynamic range, I gave it a look.

Processing to taste removed much of the shadow detail, but that only draws attention to the areas of interest. It adds some mystery and feeling of tension.

More detail, but any better? The image looks nicer, less aggressive, but also more like a snap shot.

This image was processed with something like a 1970’s Kodak film feel. This period in Japan and film technology were both important to me. Less contrast would have “prettied” it up, but is nothing gained by that.

Dynamic range is a tool like any other, but like any tool, it has levels and subtle uses.

The Journey

My camera journey is long. I have used most brands and formats, been through the big changes, collected, shed, regretted, rejoiced.

I have travelled a journey and it has mostly been good.

1980’s

In the 80’s I had Canon, but wanted Nikon. The F1, F1n and T90 cameras were all top tier, in many respects better than their Nikon counterparts, but the mystique of Nikon was strong. All the big shooters were using Nikon or Leica, Canon was the “other” brand and Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and co were all good, but for amateurs (totally unfair and incorrect, but that was the perception). I also dabbled a little in Olympus late in this period and still regret dropping it completely, especially the lenses.

1990’s

In the 90’s I had Canon and felt smug. I switched to EOS, which by any measure was a success employing the larger mounting point, giving them an advantage in AF and as it turned out, early digital, even if it did feel like another brand for an FD mount user.

Canon had everything to gain and little to lose, being the obvious second brand, so logic and loyalty stayed on point and I switched, even if Canon offered nothing to assist me.

I had at that time a relatively new 300 f2.8 lens, a full arsenal of primes and decent enough zooms. Canon supported none of these*, so out went the old, in came the new. This was normal for many, but unusual at the time. Few switched brands, because there was little to gain. Film was film, a camera was a camera and things wore out slowly, only AF made any changes necessary.

There was also a little medium format stuff happening, but I soon regained my footing and stayed with 35mm.

2000’s

I still had Canon, but as the decade went on, I felt like a change. Digital started with a third hand 10D, a great camera, then into the usual suspects until I had a 5DIII…..for a weekend.

I had dabbled in a few mirrorless brands about this time, the curse of working in a camera shop in exciting times and (Canon) SLR’s were already feeling stale and a dead end.

Sony were even more soul-less than now and bizarre in application (NEX-7 & 5), Fuji were interesting but very sluggish (XE-1 & 2), Olympus and Panasonic were getting it together as a team (Pen 2, GF 1), but neither had all the answers (or view finders), Nikon and Pentax were lost and in denial and Canon were a mirrorless joke early on.

The Nex-7 did do nice black and whites, but ironically, their big issue at the time was a shortage of lenses, oh and it was a characterless pig to use.

The breakthrough came in 2012 in the form of the Olympus EM5, a camera that finally allowed me to shed all the others and I still have two working units. I bought my first at the same time as the 5DIII and at the beginning of the next week, bought the Canon back and got another EM5. Never looked back, even though many were sceptical.

2010’s

The 2010’s was the M43 decade.

I accepted I would probably never shoot sport again (very fast AF, but no tracking), but surprised myself with some successes. I also moved away from landscape to street and travel and generally revelled in getting as least as good files from my mini sensor cameras as the full frames of my last existence. I also enjoyed dumping the occasional SLR lens calibration issues.

If you told me 20 years ago this would be taken with a hand held 300 f4 (acting like a 600mm), using a sensor a quarter the size of a piece of film, at higher ISO’s than I would dare in a notoriously difficult indoor location, I would have laughed…until I realised you were serious.

This was the decade I started working as an actual photographer. Nobody is more surprised than I by that, but I cannot state enough how M43 helped make that happen. I could not have made it on my own.

I also broke away from Adobe, the industry “Toyota” at the end of the decade and moved to Capture 1/ON1 and later DaVinci Resolve, something I will never regret.

2020’s

The 2020’s are still M43 based and I have never been more stable or productive, but with the emergence of video, full frame has been accepted back into the fold on a semi-probationary basis, something in all honesty probably I could have skipped.

I almost slipped with the S5IIx vs G9II thing, but thankfully stayed on track.

Winding the clock back to last year, I could have easily bought a GH5II ($1600au at the time), bided my time and added the G9II and the 10-25 f1.7, some cinema glass (7Art Vision, Sirui anamorphic and/or Nightwalkers) and been in a similar space. The S5 was the best buy last year, but a year is a long time.

A very tight crop (from a half body horizontal capture with some headroom) of a hand held 300mm image, taken on an EM1x at ISO1600 at a school concert last night. Processing was minimal colour balancing in Capture 1, a quick pass in-out of ON1 No Noise 2022 and here you are. My hit rate under these conditions is high enough, that I usually only take a single file.

Where next?

As is, I can shoot high enough quality images in almost any light beyond the needs of screen or print resolutions.

To be honest, I have only been submitting web sized files to the new school and they have been used for large screens, posters and the like with no complaints, so quality to burn. Video is the same. I can theoretically shoot 6k open gate in ProRes, but 1080p output from a variety of capture formats seems above and beyond anyones needs. The reason the G9II was the better choice is it gave me more practical capture benefits.

To be honest I doubt it will matter from now. I am not sure how long any of this matters, but any cameras these days are plenty, you just need to like what you have and use it.

We live in an age when the Sony FX3, a sub $6000au camera can make blockbuster movies (The Creator) and little M43 cameras can shoot billboards (I have, three times), so the only excuse we have is ourselves.

No more changing and second guessing, just use it.

*There was a compromise 1.2x teleconverter for long lenses.

Where Next Until The Funds Run Dry?

So far I have managed to add a G9II and some new glass, filters, rig parts for a decent amount.

The S5 kit in particular has done very well coming in at $6000au total for the body and kit lens, three S series primes, two cinema lenses and some legacy adapters. Four of these lenses were bought this week for $2200au total.

First up, some images are from my 50mm test. The 50mm is basically the same except for a slightly lighter focus ring and it is a hair longer. Optically though it is different. The Bokeh is more obvious being a longer lens and more pleasing than the 35 and the colour considerably cooler, closer to neutral.

First sharpness and close focus.

Close focus is not a thing, but even cropped in twice as close as the 35mm, it is sharp. Some of the close focus issue can be tackled by cropping the sensor making the lens a 75mm.

At T4 the 50mm has that nice balance of genuine sharpness and a good sense of “place” which is important for visual cohesion in film making.

The term “stable” comes to mind.

Plenty of detail there and pleasantly coherent Bokeh.

The lens reminds me of the legacy 25mm f2.8 “F” series half frame lens, except the Bokeh is genuinely lovely, almost feathery instead of being more “interesting”.

Wide open sharpness is enough to allow accurate focus and can tell a story and the Bokeh, is sublime. I would rarely use this aperture for videography, just too twitchy, but nice to have the option.

Wide open at the same crop as above. Nuf said and again, focus was sure and quick. Technical perfection is not needed, but getting this close to a decent stills lens is enough for sure. Love the feathery “brush stroke” Bokeh. I think that possibly the bigger sensor mixed with less technically perfect glass is a good combination, but the 12mm on my G9’s will confirm that.

Even off-centre sharpness is plenty reliable at T4 where it matters and surprisingly easy to focus for. Corner sharpness wide open is usually irrelevant for cinema glass because the eye rarely has time to explore there and the subject will often be off centre, but not in the corner, especially wide open.

Finally another comparison of the lens wide open and at the “cinematic” working aperture of T4. In both cases the blur stays well out of the way and allows the sharp area to sit apart from un-distracting transitions. The little cross in the background has a busy mottled pattern that is handled differently by the two apertures. The white jug in the shallower image is gorgeous!

Safe to say, I would use either of the Spectrum lenses for stills work.

Next?

I am tempted with the last of my self-allocated funds, to get either a Sirui anamorphic* 24 or 35 or the 7Art Vision series 12mm. These would all be for M43 mount, because full frame has had enough love.

All focal lengths from here will be referring to full frame equivalents for consistency.

The Sirui’s would then be either a 48mm lens image height/magnification with 32 to 36 width depending on format chosen, or a 70mm lens image height with 42 to 46mm width.

Interesting pair.

The 24mm is a standard+wide, the 35mm a portrait+standard.

The 24mm appeals most because I would prefer a wider “staging” lens with more subtle anamorphic effects and much better close focus. Thinking along the line of a lens that could complete a short project with a single lens, the 24mm is a challenge that excites.

The faster 35mm would in effect be just another 50mm equivalent (making 15 in total!).

The regular 12mm would be equal to a 24mm wide angle with the same dynamic as the above two for M43, fixing the cinema wide angle hole I have**, while also adding M43 cameras to the equation.

It has good reviews in the Vision series, which do not seem to be a strong as the Spectrums across the board and the close focus offers a similar excitement factor to the Sirui 24.

This matches the Spectrum lenses for filter size, heft and feel. I am guessing that even without inbuilt stabilising on the G9 mkII or G9 mkI it would be gimbal-like thanks to the heft and balance with excellent depth of field (12mm on M43 is still a 12mm for dof), so focussing will not be an issue. If it is successful, I would be keen to look at the 35 T1.05 or Nightwalker Sirui T1.2 for M43 as a tele option over the cropped 50 Spectrum. The 35 is apparently the best of the Vision series.

The other advantage is the 12mm on M43 is a better lens than on a full frame sensor cropped to APS-C. First up, it is covering a smaller sensor area for the same resolution, so variances across the frame are better corrected (the sweet spot effect).

Secondly, it is a more versatile focal length at 24mm than the APS-C 18mm. Even 24mm sits on the edge of my ideal cinema lens range, but 18 is a true run-n-gun videographers lens and I have those. It seems to be decently corrected and under a third the price of the 24mm Lumix prime.

I think based on the versatility and consistency of the 12mm option on M43 cameras, plus the bargains around at the moment, it is the way to go and the Sirui’s can be left on the back burner.

Would I be simply adding another 12mm to M43 (I have 4 already)?

No, for all the above reasons.

Using the Spectrum cine lenses which cover 35, 50 and 75 (crop), the 24mm angle rounds out the set, adds another camera option to the mix with top end stabilising and a few features only the G9II has.

*I did just spend half as much as one of the lenses on some Moment cineflare filters (blue and gold and their cinebloom 5%), because I do like the odd streaky effect, but I also like the control, consistency and ability to use them on almost any lens (67mm thread fits all but the big cine lenses).

The anamorphic lenses can be a bit over the top and hard to control or avoid and I could care less about the in-house secret that is oval Bokeh balls. The extra width can be achieved by shooting 4-6k and letterboxing.

**The 7Art cinema lenses from either series seem to miss a full frame 24 equivalent or a 16mm for APS-C crop. The 12 on M43 is the only option. This has the added benefit though of allowing me to use a second camera with similar glass and cropping from 4-6k, I even have options and the wide angle in a M43 camera allows for more run-n-gun, moving rig options.

Big Time Pretenders

The 7Artisan lenses have done nothing but impress and I feel I have to share the experience.

All samples shot with the 35.

They are lumps of things, that with the S5’s decent stabiliser (not G9 mkII or even G9 mkI or S5 mkII level, but still decent), they have a similar dynamic I would guess to a much heavier cinema camera. Sweeping movements are smooth enough to retain an organic look without annoyance, but not gimbal super-smooth.

Is the 35mm sharp?

Yup (close focus at T4)

The focus throw is smooth and long. This can be simulated to some extent with the linear MF settings in the Lumix cameras and lenses, but the smooth resistance and consistency cannot.

Bokeh, below is very cool.

The aperture ring is slightly stiffer, which is good, because even though it is smaller and to the rear of the lens, I have grabbed it once already thinking it was focus. The slight difference in dampening helps identify it. A follow focus (arriving imminently) will fix this and assist with long throws, which are a little tricky hand held at 270 degrees.

Close focus on the 35mm is very good, but the bees did not like the 86mm wide monster eye looming over them, so I had to drop back.

Some 150 fps (6x) 8bit/1080/420 from the S5 at T11. The long throw was very handy here.

Optically, they are solid and “cinematic” looking, by which I mean and lets face it, everyone has a different take on this, they are sharp, but not clinically sharp, contrasty, but not harsh and they flare a bit, but not like a broken bottle in the sun.

It’s a bit like, they walked up the drive to the house of modern lens perfection, got to the porch and took a seat to watch the sun go down, no need to go any further, nothing to prove.

The thing I like about cinema lenses and this goes for legacy glass also, is they are allowed to have different characteristics at different settings. Bokeh, flare, colour, sharpness all change by T-stop and distance chosen, so you can decide on the look you want, then set the lens settings that support that, rather then the modern habit of matching perfection all through.

I only have a couple of lenses in my M43 stills kit with that ability to shift their role internally and even then only by a little. The Vision 25mm is probably the most effective at that, being super soft and dreamy wide open, then crazy sharp and contrasty at T4, but this is too much for many.

Basically straight into the sun, the right hand file with a little dehaze. Interesting little blue blob in the top flower stem. I have modern stills lenses that would struggle with this, especially wide open.

Even cropped right in, there is nice sharpness and flare control. This lens cost me about $200au!

With a top handle, the kit sits reliably in hand. It is just reassuringly beefy.

For $215 and $279au respectively (about 45% off locally), they are the truest of true bargains.

The 35mm’s colour shift is fixed easily enough by hitting WB adjust (assigned to the thumb nubbin) and drop it straight down towards blue/magenta two notches. Seems to match the 50 then.

Time Travellers

Playing with the G9II, a camera I think I may only just be getting to realise the potential of, I shot some 300 fps footage today. I have to say, this was easy and the results surprised me.

I followed this little worker around for about two minutes. A mix of in and out of focus footage, thanks to poor manual focus (the Lumix turns in the opposite direction to the Olympus I am more used to), some wind, body movement and f5.6 depth of field which looked like about a centimetre at most.

The two or so minutes turned into over one hour of footage!

Lots of fun and oh so easy, well apart from the veritable age of out of focus footage.

The lens was the 12-60 Leica, with 270 degree focus throw set and the footage was 1080/10 bit/422 in Flat profile (except the first clip that was Standard).

Baby Steps

No RAW support yet for the G9II, so jpegs only.

ISO 4000, Sigma 30 f1.4 wide open with animal eye detect.

G9 30mm f1.4 ISO 400 with a little late evening negative exposure comp.

S5 jpeg

The very strong “cut out” of full frame lenses wide open is stronger, but is it any better? I think it actually has a slightly flatter look even thought the lens is technically shorter.

The S5 RAW, a little tweaked.

Second G9 ISO 4000 jpeg taken as close to the above as possible and again a little negative exposure comp.

Not very scientific, jpeg to jpeg and two cameras I am not very familiar with for stills, but there is a slight advantage to the S5, but the G9 files are very decent at ISO 4000. The S5’s 50mm is of course working with less depth of field, so accuracy is more important.

I for a second pondered returning the G9II for a S5IIx, but the reality is, and I have been through this, the S5 Mk1 is enough for the difference to be catered for, the G9 empowers my M43 kit enough to keep it relevant.

There is no doubt the S5 files are a little cleaner and more delicate, but the G9 files are more than useable, probably to the point of irrelevance in the real world.

I need Capture 1 to update so I can look at the RAW files as the C1 advantage is lost to jpeg processing. Colour differences are irrelevant, as there are many variables such as lens and settings.

Colour Matched? Don't Think So.

Cinema lenses are made for a variety of reasons. They match physically, or al=t least their controls usually do, they are often colour matched, some even match in Bokeh and other characteristics and they are generally consistent in focus throw and feel.

Cheap cinema lenses will provide some of those benefits, but not all.

The two Spectrum lenses are gorgeous physically, feel solid and smooth.

They are however, far from colour matched and they have a little focus breathing (but I knew this going in).

Top row; the 35 as shot and graded quickly.

Bottom row; 50mm as shot and poorly graded (too much magenta).

I think with pairing these two, the 50mm with a light grade will be my base line, the 35 will then have to come to it (graded 35 and ungraded 50 look close).

The Fifties Go Head To Head

The 7Artisans cine lenses arrived not 10 minutes ago, but I was already set up to do this test.

Not totally successful, because the legacy PK 50mm f1.4 decided (probably the adapter), not to close down for me for a “working” aperture shot, but close enough to start.

I am not looking for sharpness or even lens distortion controls, but the look, the “magic sauce” if there is any or more to the point anything to actively avoid.

The camera in the foreground is 1m from the sensor, the flowers about 60cm behind and the picture frame/wall about 70cm further.

Top row; Lumix 50mm S at f2 and 5.6. Modern Bokeh, neither spectacular nor offensive.

Bottom row; Lumix 20-60 at 50mm f5.3, Lumix 50mm S at 5.6. They seem well colour matched.

Nice modern lenses with good control and some character. The kit zoom seems to have different blurring characteristics to the prime, with only .3 of a stop difference.

Next the new 7Artisans lens.

Hell of a thing to do, test a very unfamiliar lens straight from the box, but hey, they work or they don’t. Realised after that all the markings are on the side not the top, which I assume is a cinema thing.

Top row; 7Art at T2 and T5.6

Next row; crops of 7Art at T2, Lumix S at F2. Missed focus a little on 7A lens, because the lens front looks sharp but not the camera top.

Next row; crops 7Art at T5.6, Lumix at F5.6.

Bottom row; tighter crops 7Art at T5.6, Lumix at F5.6.

Quick takeaway.

The 7Art lens needs careful focussing wide open and shows some obvious CA, but I feel, displays better Bokeh. The CA is likely exaggerated by the slight focus miss in a torture test situation. No monitor was used, but the lens scale agreed with the 1m range. I like the Lumix more this wide, but neither is bad.

These things are chunky. I felt like someone had melted my 300mm down to a lump of glass and metal and handed it back to me “compact”. Focussing etc was gorgeous.

Stopped down it is similarly sharp to the Lumix, but less contrasty and slightly magenta/cooler. I like the Bokeh of the 7Art a little more.

Next is the Legacy PK mount 50mm f1.4.

Top row; PK 50 at f2, Lumix S F2

Bottom; PK f2 off centre, Lumix F2 off centre crop.

The Pentax shows some Ni-Sen or “cross-eyed” Bokeh. It is also cooler than the Lumix with some mild issues wider open, but looks decently “cinematic”. There also seems to be more of a 3D effect from the older lens.

I think I actually like the flowers more in the wide open Pentax image. They are more interesting, blooming in the optical senses.

Finally the very cheap TTArt 35mm for crop sensor.

I shot this at the same distance (and the lens scale agreed), then cropped it close to the other 50mm lenses. This was because it has a slightly different rendering on a crop sensor format, so I wanted to confirm how much.

Top; TTArt at f2 and f5.6

Bottom TTArt at F2 and Lumix S at same.

Even thought the TTArt is pleasantly blurred, the full frame to crop difference, or to be more accurate the difference between a cropped 35 and a true 50 is quite obvious.

The difference is even more obvious in close. The TTArt is a little smeary on the little village, but the camera is sharp. The slight stretch in perspective is interesting also. Being half way between full frame and M43, this is telling.

As I said, not as scientific as I was aiming for, but a decent attempt and enough to give me an idea.

The Lumix S lenses are safe and strong without being unreliable. The 7Artisan is slightly less reliable, but interesting wide open and solid closed down.

The Pentax may be a little sleeper. The Bokeh is jittery, but more aggressive.

The TTArt is also interesting.

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.