Levels Of Control

I wrote a post about this recently, the amount of control we have in our roles as photographers and videographers, but I thought a re-visit was worth while.

In a perfect world, we shoot what we want, how we want.

Light, sound (if video), perfect lens and camera selection, then time to perfect the ideal subject matter are the realm of top tier pro’s. These people got there though by over coming and embracing more limited forms of their creativity.

Tier 1.

You have no choice in the what, where or why of your subject, little control of technical elements, but still have to get the job done. This is the run-n-gun videographer or photojournalists playground.

What you do have control of is choice of camera, lens, sound and lighting gear that you can carry with you and employ quickly and efficiently.

This is usually limited to SLR/Mirrorless style cameras, professional grade, but not specialised lenses, small reflectors, fill or hand held lights and on camera sound.

Even these can stretch the friendship.

First control the ambient light. We switched off the bank behind the subject. Then a single Godox 860 flash fired into a 60cm white reflector on a chair (left) and a small 96 bead LED directly behind, set to warm. Sometimes you can get close to what you want with little, but the reality is, something could always be better. In this case, I would have liked the main light a little higher, a brolly, maybe flagged slightly and a stronger hair light out of frame. The weird line across the back was a result of old ceiling beams.

Personally I carry two M43 bodies, a selection of sharp and capable lenses, but all are chosen with weight and size in mind and the bare basics in lighting and sound fixes (flash, off camera controller, LED light, small reflector, MKE-400 mic).

First out is the flash, the zooms next for small scale indoor jobs or primes for outdoor events. The 12-40 zoom has a 4 stop ND filter almost permanently mounted on the front for video and to avoid high synch fill flash, the 17mm or 9mm primes are used in poor light.

My bag is heavy enough to make long walks a matter of shedding the unnecessary.

I do not shoot full frame!

Sometimes you just get a decent bit of help from the environment.

Tier 2.

This tier is a blend of what you want, mixed with what you cannot control.

This requires a surprising amount of extra effort and communication. First you need to find out more specifically what you will need to produce and the parameters you have to work in.

It may be a portable studio situation, a better than normal video interview, maybe even a specific point of view or time of day. Communication is crucial, then flexibility next.

This is what happens when you are not prepared. Great subject, wonderful interaction, a backdrop that is a little too short for unexpected little ones.

One of our togs at the paper fills the boot of one of the pool cars with extra gear and that car is known to be his. A Drone and lighting kit are the guts of it, but still a boot full.

For me, this is the difference between my best life and the daily life at the paper. I have a full portable studio kit, a portable video outfit with cinema grade elements, extreme sound fixes (for a videographer), a sports, low light and landscape stills kit, but I need to know what to bring and have time and space to use it.

Easy enough to achieve, as long as you have room for a couple of stands, a flash bracket, brolly and collapsible backdrop (or a lot of dark space).

Tier 3.

This is the almost professional level where you are kitted up, prepared, fully communicated with and basically, it is all about the process and end results. Obviously, you have to get results, often quickly and meet or surpass expectations, but you only have yourself to blame now, the ball is, as they say, in your court.

Looking at a well known example, Joe McNally is that guy these days, but for much of his career, it came as it came, he did what he could and the legend grew. Now he has a crew of assistants, specialists in several fields and all the gear he could ask for, but it did not come without a lot of effort, mistakes and probably some dark times.

Tier 4.

This is where you get full reign over the creative process, all the gear, time and resources you could want.

The only people who really have this amount control are hobbyists, the masters or self funded project managers.

The 12mm Is Here, A Mixed Bag, But Maybe It Is Over Now?

The little 12mm Vision Cine lens arrived just as I was writing my last post.

First thoughts;

• It is “stumpier” than the two Spectrum lenses, making it feel even heavier.

• The mount is not tight, something I am not used to with M43 and there is a slight catch when I dismount the lens, like a flange is slightly too big.

• The focus and T-rings are the lightest of the bunch, the focus so light I can turn it with just the power of my crazed mind (well, almost).

• It feels oversized on the M43 cameras, because it is so short and wide.

Images seem bright and even, good traits for a lens like this and in keeping with the stable. I especially like the muted colour and gentle highlight roll-off.

Slight near-far distortion setting in, so no more, no wider.

An odd choice?

The lens is a genuinely wide lens, but not so much on M43. For me, I am adding a wide cinema lens to my kit, not a super wide for my video run-n-gun outfit (I have those).

Already cropped on an M43 sensor, there is some obvious distortion wide open.

Still very sharp in the centre though. Edge performance for cinema is not such a big deal.

The math (all in full frame equivalent lengths for consistency).

My cinema sweet spot is 28-90mm. Anything wider or longer is placed in the modern videographer or specialists realm, where compression and distortion are more accepted and creatively useful.

The lens is soft on the corners wide open and has some distortion, but most of the time, that is invisible. I don’t think this one is a genuine contender as a stills lens, especially with all the excellent 12mm options I have in M43, but a good fit for video.

A 24mm in my “cinematographers” space is pushing it, but there is nothing much available in the 28-30 range in this class of cheaper cinema lens and with a 35, not a lot of point anyway. Even a slight crop does not remove the near-far expansion of the wider lens, but a well corrected 24 is doable-just.

Some funky flare and sun stars, but like the other two, quite well controlled.

A 12mm in M43 is the one choice, an 16-18mm would have worked in APS-C, but no such beast is available in this price range. The 12mm in L-mount would have been an 18mm, which is too much.

Added depth of field with only a slight feeling of near-far expansion. A well placed 35mm will be the preferred environment lens, but sometimes that space is not available. A little 3D pop?

This has the huge advantage of adding my G9’s into the cinema kit with more features, extra depth and multiple angles, but there is more.

Nice gentle colour, good Bokeh and close focus. It will do.

If 1080 or near abouts is my output and it mostly will be, the G9’s have a feature that cannot be ignored. In 1080, they still use their full sensor area, so for their loss-less teleconverter modes no quality is sacrificed. They do not just crop in, they use the same number of pixels just from a smaller area of the overall sensor.

The same leaf as my last post. The colour is mostly warmish, somewhere between the 35 and 50.

The G9 Mk1 (2.7x) turns the 12mm into a 24 at one end and 65 at the other. The G9 MkII (1.6 and 2x) offers a 24, 38 and 48, almost the perfect trio.

Also the lens has some dodgy optical characteristics that cropping mitigates to some extent.

Can it be that this one lens can be an all in one cinema lens answer?

The left image is T2.9, the right T5.6. Pretty consistent except for my framing.

If it gets a mate which would be excessive, I would be looking at the 35 T1.05. This is respected as the best of the Vision series and comes in at a 70/112/140/190 respectively (so 24, 38, 48, 65, 70, 112, 140, 190). The only logic behind this would be to add options to its role as a “B” cam that my Lumix and other glass cannot do.

We will see.

Getting Myself Sorted.

I have a lot of video kit all of a sudden and a couple of excellent bags to put it in, but it was just not gelling.

The Domke 217 roller bag has been my video bag for getting from “A” to “B”, but it has not settled and the rest of my video gear sits around waiting for it’s ride to come home.

The 511 Range Ready bag, a re-purposed weapon hauler and a real find, is strangely suited for things cinematic, but trying to split the two kits between a M43 run-n-gun kit and a slower, more cinematic full frame kit was flawed in concept it seems and the bag situation only exaggerated that.

So, I decided to split it differently.

The video kit first in the 217 Domke, which comprises the two cameras (G9II and S5), the Lumix glass (8-18, 12-60 with 45 Oly and 30 Sigma), then the Lumix S lenses (20-60, 35, 50, 85), a cage and handle for each camera, the Portkeys 5” monitor (outside pouch), a side handle and the full 62 and 67mm filter kits.

The 35mm to come, but otherwise complete. All my video lenses have square “bumper” stickers for identification and protection (for the lenses I tend to drop in on top of them).

This is the modern working kit, the rubber-meets-the-road, getting it done, state of the art video enabler. Good range*, plenty of power and two mutually supporting kits that have their own strengths.

The G9II is the stabilised, AF reliable, movement and action camera, with high speed slo-mo.

The S5 is the high ISO, shallow depth of field, methodical problem solver.

Each is the “B” cam to the other.

*

The 511 bag, which does not have the benefit of wheels or a handle, can take enough gear to be prohibitively heavy, so what goes in it is as important as why.

It has become the “cinema” upgrade enabler to the above.

It has no cameras, as these are supplied by above (unless the spare G9 MkI or OSMO go in).

Lenses are the M43 mount 12mm 7Artisan Vision, 25mm legacy half frame, then full frame 35 & 50 7Artisan Spectrum, 35 ttArt (APS-C only), 150 IRIX macro and 50mm legacy Pentax.

With these are the mat boxes and mat box filters, the 7” monitor, tools, OSMO accessories, follow focus, NP batteries, some lights, rig accessories and assorted “bits”.

Not the kit in it now, but a earlier image. In the bag next to the removable insert is a 480 RGB LED panel.

If I am doing a big project, then the two go (and more), if not, then only the roller is needed.

*M43 range is16-120mm in 4K, up to 240 in 1080p and lots of other options available. The full frame is 20-85, 130 in APS-C. This is a wider range than a “cinematic” kit.

**This is 24-225 (macro) if APS-C, M43 and full frame are mixed.

More Fun Than The Early Settlers

An ironic statement I guess, but for me, yes the IRIX is a fun lens and I have only used it for stills so far!

In close at T5.6, you choose what you want and let the lens smear out the rest.

Just going with my body sway, I got front and back in consecutive shots, both showing nice Bokeh.

The trick with outdoor hand held, long lens, full frame macro is…….. don’t do it unless you have to. Depth of field of 1mm or less, several sources of movement, manual focus (AF just adds another variable), camera movements etc all conspire, so do it with realistic expectations.

Having said that, this was my first attempt at this with the lens at T3!

So I guess this is the bit where I confess, I did not hit the mark again on the next 10 or so images, even at T8.

Below are a series of shots, a mix of T3 and T8 images showing just how twitchy and powerful this lens can be (number 5 is actually a miss).

Longer distances are something I am curious about. Macro corrected lenses in the modern era are perfectly good normal range lenses, but the reality is, even IRIX has made a second lens in this focal range for normal use. The weather here has not been conducive to proper tests, but the images have been consistent and solid.

T5.6

T3 (a little under because I forgot to change the ISO from 4000 at T3)

As a portrait lens it will be stellar. Below is an unprocessed image, slightly processed and cropped.

More to come, but my 12mm just arrived!

The IRIX Has Landed

So the IRIX has arrived, sounding for all the world like some type of D&D monster and monstrous it is.

Not as heavy as I thought though. Really not a strain on the camera, but for best balance, the lens mount will be used.

Not hugely bigger than the 7Artisans, nor as “lumpish” in heft.

My usual test system, highly random, consisting of some hand held, high ISO (8000), wide open shots.

Nice and sharp, super thin depth of field (expected).

Most of my images were not great as I have already found the peaking on the camera screen when used wide open is not accurate enough.

Crappy day here, windy and dull, so little chance of super results outside.

Wide open, depth of field is mere millimeters, so hunting for sharpness is a little pointless, but the Bokeh!

It does not feel like an overly long lens, or cumbersome.

Just gorgeous. This is a soft colour, soft subject and soft light, so soft is desired.

A CA torture test

Wide open DOF is again impossible, but no CA that I can see and sharp (well for about 1mm)

Low light triumph. ISO 4000 odd at about T5.6

Focus in the near to far realm is surprisingly quick and accurate. Other things come into play like super twitchy DOF and twitchier bodies! I have not before employed the “macro drift” technique for longer range stuff.

This one took several tries, that T3 DOF not very forgiving of even slight body movements.

Gorgeous again wide open.

The point of focus was hard to find, but acceptable when detected.

At T5.6 the fall-off is still very nice. There were a lot of Bokeh ball tests done on line, but take out that specific look and Bokeh is very, very nice. This separation reminds me of when I shot medium format.

Hmmm…., very fine detail, Bokeh a little less smooth.

Right, sod the wind, lets see what this baby can do.

One of a dozen attempts at ISO 800, 1/800th T8. All were sharp…..somewhere!

A little closer. Pretty gorgeous, for a fly.

Ok, just showing off now :). Sobering to think I had about three times this close focus power up my sleeve and APS-C cropping also in video (just aware it may not have liked being crowded). I think I could have shot it this close natively………. .

Last set of close-ups before we test the worrying bit for a macro lens, longer range stuff.

There is that wide open Bokeh again. May I swear? Frikkin’ amazing!

At T8, still very nice, but still very focus twitchy.

Very sharp where focussed and yes this is where I focussed.

A little tighter crop and different day from the 7Art 50mm Spectrum. Same, same, but different. Looks like the Spectrums will be able to pull their weight.

Some shots have that lovely cinema softness, or is that the DOF talking?

When you find the point of focus, it is sharp, it is just surrounded by the smooth softness of out of focus blur.

Decent range.

The smeary background Bokeh is interesting at longer focal lengths. Again like the sharper Olympus lenses, but more “painterly”. I see why IRIX made a second, non-macro version of this one, just for those landscapers who shoot past 20’ more often than not.

The sharpness reminds me of the 300 f4 Olympus. Really fine and delicate, probably too fine for obvious bite, but it is there and I feel the lens is very forgiving.

This one was revealing. It looked ok on the screen, but closer inspection showed……..

…..insanely fine detail.

When I bought this lens, mostly on impulse, I had a wish list of things that would help me avoid regretting the purchase, some of which were unlikely.

I wanted;

• a super sharp, super well corrected macro lens in the modern sense,

• a useful portrait lens with stunning Bokeh, but not overly “hard” sharp,

• a nicely cinematic look for normal use, something that would blend in with my 7Art lenses without looking too much better or different.

How did it go?

It has passed all tests so far (first hour is the killer it seems).

It is super sharp in close, scientifically so, but not the sort of sharp that makes it harsh or single minded. Wide open it has a mix of gentle contrast and smooth blurring that allows it to look good for cinema use.

The focus throw is surprisingly useful. Even with 270 degree throw, it only gets labour-some in close, where it needs to be.

In APS-C video mode, it has more reach, more macro, but is harder to handle. The 150mm native focal length is really natural.

A win, which is good, because it was a step over the line.

Lens Excitement After Buyer Regret

So, the IRIX lens is on the way.

I struggle with illogical purchases, even bargains, even massive bargains.

They tend to force a need in me to make sense of them even if that does not make sense, but I think I can deal with this one.

The 150 is a Macro, which is a specialist lens, likely the only one you need for an entire project of some sorts, but very limited for others.

It is, like most macro lenses perfectly corrected for close work, but also like most macro lenses, the longer range imagery is still very good, because it is so well corrected. I used to always buy macro lenses automatically in my previous gear lists, because they were so good.

Canon FD 100 f4, EF 50, 100mm and even the massive 180 f3.5 for a short while, the OM Olympus 90mm f2 (a special lens), the even the EM 60 and 35mm lenses, that ended up going back or my father in law scored (spider expert, felt right).

Often bigger, slower (max aperture) and dearer than the same lens in regular configuration, they had that other thing, that macro thing, which I used occasionally. Most importantly, they were very well behaved.

M43 broke me of the macro habit because most M43 lenses focussed close enough for my needs without any help, even some long and wide ones. A quarter life size was usually reached, sometimes even closer.

This type of thing is all in a days work for most M43 lenses and as close as I needed (EM5 Mk1 12-40 f2.8).

Back in full frame for video (mostly), I have hit the wall hard in a few areas, as expected. Lens size, cost and weight, poor close focus, distortion, soft corners, vignetting and all the other monsters that M43 lenses usually avoid are all back in fashion it seems.

The 7Artisan lenses are allowing me the cinema look with minimal outlay ($800 for three lenses) thanks to some lucky buys, but the Irix will add superior quality where it is needed, for closeups, tight shots and commercial work, hopefully while offering the cine magic for other applications.

In full frame it is not too crazy tight, basically matching my favourite M43 lens the 75 f1.8, but with S35 (crop) as an option, I have another 50% of reach at the same close focus.

Projects are coming to mind.

It is spring here and gardens and nature are literally buzzing with life. I have a desire to do some closeup flower and insect shots for a project called “perfection”, celebrating the symmetry and spectacular sights of nature.

My tools;

• G9Mk2 with up to 300fps slo-mo in 1080, 120 in 4k.

• S5 and G9II/G9I with 4k/50/422 (crop on S5) in Log.

• 9mm Mft close focus wide angle (18mm at a few cms).

• 300 Mft close focus tele with up to 2x crop in 1080 (1200mm at less than 1m).

• 150 FF/S35 Irix macro at 1:1 or 1:1.5 at S35.

• Several close focus lenses such as the 7Art 12mm (Mft), 35 T2 (ff), and most MFT lenses such as the 12-40, 25, 12-60 etc.

Looking for 1080 output, I will shoot both 4k and 1080 for capture.

In this scenario, the Irix fits in perfectly, allowing the S5 to play with the little guys.

That Anamorphic Thing And "What The Hell?"

Anamorphic videography is a lot easier than it used to be, well up to a certain level anyway.

I like some aspects of it, feel others are a “legacy” look, that are akin to just jumping on a well trod wagon and going for the same ride as others and some parts I really do not like.

Wide screen is a thing.

Roger Deakins and the Cohen brothers are fans of shooting normally and “letterboxing” for the close-wide look. This appeals to me except there is a benefit to a lens with “X” magnification and “Y” width that are actually at odds with each other.

The Sirui 24mm for example is a 48mm equivalent by height and a 32-36mm by width on M43 same format.

This appeals on a lot of levels.

The next thing is that flare, the over the top, sometimes beautiful sometimes annoying streaks that come from point light sources and some other stuff, that can be great or just over bearing.

Not a fan of having no options here. I have blue and gold streak Moment filters coming and I think that will do. About 90% of my video lenses will be able to take them and I can choose the when and the why.

The streaks I find attractive to add something to an otherwise bland night scene, to busy up some stage work or simply for the fake anamorphic look, filters will give me the option and some control, a dedicated lens would not.

The oval Bokeh.

This is a look some videographers drool over. The rest of the world is likely oblivious (I was), so no, not a thing.

From the Vision 50mm. I like round circles. Oval circles do not make sense to me.

The softness.

This is not necessarily a benefit, but it is a thing and is often used because it is there. It can be achieved in a variety of ways. The Sirui lenses ironically avoid this, by being decently sharp. Like most other anamorphic elements it can be mimicked but also controlled with filtering or processing.

Much to ponder…….

…..

…

.

So, can anyone explain to me why I just bought the IRIX 150 T3.0 cine macro (L-Mount)?

What a monster. Biggest full frame lens I will own and possibly the most bizarre.

It is too long, a macro, manual focus with an enormously long throw and it is big, heavy and a filter eater. Also, it is on its own in my kit, no logic, no pattern, no “friends” to speak of.

It was really cheap for a split second thanks to a Black Friday-1 only in stock deal. It went from being the price of a decent camera body, to the price of a Lumix S prime.

The same company that had a blink-and-you-miss-it sale on the 7Artisan lenses, dropped this on me while I was poking around aimlessly.

Should not poke around…..might find something.

Often do.

If I can get this from the cheap 7Artisans 35 (a massive crop mind you), imagine where the IRIX could take me?

This has stretched the friendship, but I will attempt to justify it like this.

Here goes.

Be kind.

In L-Mount there are very few affordable tele or macro lenses. This does both of those with cine touches and as for AF, well, I will leave that to my M43 gear or the excellent 85mm.

Superior sharpness, Bokeh, flare resistance, real macro, some reach* and speed, for about $1100au. Hard to argue with and it may even open up whole areas of video (or stills) shooting I had not considered.

Video a play, from the back of the theatre?

Maybe a set of compressed, uber-Bokeh portraits?

An iris-level closeup to start a scene?

Maybe even some sports videos?

Maybe.

Where will it really lead?

I guess that comes down to how I look at it. The collector/completist/obsessive in me may want another IRIX to match (30 T1.5, my “one lens”), but if I look at it as an expansion to the Lumix S primes for genuine sharpness or the 7Artisans for cine goodness, or even just as a one off specialist lens with only itself for company, it makes sense (sort of).

Still, it was cheap by any measure and for me, more to my liking than a super wide. Compared to spending at least two thirds as much on a stills macro, which I would use in manual focus anyway, it really is a bargain.

The lens does also match my favourite Olympus lens, the 75 f1.8 (almost exactly the same specs), so this may be my “thing”. Like that lens, it is a specialist, an elite option, the best at what it does in my kit.

To be honest, it was just one of those moments I felt I needed to grab with both hands. Even if I want to sell it later I will likely break even, which is rare in this game.

It has also helped me kill off any thought of adding Anamorphic glass. I think now I can call myself a confirmed spherical lens user. Hold me to that!

My cine kit is an odd collection of budget cine-like lenses, now an actual cine grade lens, some legacy glass and state of the art modern lenses spread over three formats, but it still feels right. I feel that maybe, just maybe I have matched roles, to cameras, to lenses.

• The run-n-gun G9 Mk2 has a full range of M43 glass, the 12mm Cine for hand held and maximum depth and can be expanded to more regular lengths with loss-less teleconverters.

• The more serious S5 has the core cine lenses, a mirrored set of regular AF primes, then this monster portrait/macro option. The cine glass is carefully chosen, the Lumix lenses a “perfect” hybrid lens kit.

• The OSMO is a useful gimbal/odd places and angles camera, more useful than a gimbal in many ways.

Taking stock, I am still in the “not completely mad” category of full frame users, keeping the lot within the cost of a Sony A7s3 and G master zoom.

Oh and I got a small rig mini follow focus today and it rocks!

*In APS-C mode, it is even a 225mm with 1 1/2:1 macro. In pixel to pixel mode, the mind boggles. How about high res stills mode? Wow!

ed. I just thought of something cool. Maybe a project using the 300 F4, IRIX, 12mm 7Art and 9mm Leica, all capable macro lenses, all tackling it differently.

The Advantage Of Options.

At the paper we have a sports podcast.

It started with an idea, was decently tacked from day one and is running along well enough to come to the attention of the senior management.

Technically, it has been all my show up front (sound, video, lighting-well the first two, lighting is rubbish but nothing I fix). The result is passed up to our video team, who polish it, add other elements and launch it.

Sound was a win from day one. The very first was an over complicated dual Lewitt 040 Match overhead X/Y setup in an attempt to avoid that cavern sound of the untreated room and cover the group evenly. Boom arms, heavy stands and average results made me think simpler.

The Zoom F1 was then employed with the SSH-6 set on 60 degree mid-side. Worked a treat and has been our staple ever since (the next 29 eps).

There are problems though.

The master volume is on the mic (F1 unit) sitting on the table in front and with the very hot pre-amps in the S5 (all Lumix), I have it at 2-3 and need to be very careful about distance and setting, which vary if the group changes size.

The team of 4 guys have the full range of voices from booming bull-frog to a near whisper. Placement and a little post are ok, but I tend to have to rely on the camera’s internal limiter for safety.

The F1 and SSH-6 assembled (I like to leave it as is rather than pull it apaer every week), are long and fragile, so they get a huge space in my video bag, much bigger than I have to spare (equal to 4 lenses, which I now have).

The other issue is the F1 tends to spook me with battery readings (usually 1 or 2 of 3 bars with Eneloop pro’s after only one use), so I change them every session and the little broken battery door is a major pain.

Lastly, I am acutely aware of the massive arsenal of condenser and dynamic mics I have sitting around unused while over-using this one problem solver.

Wish I could say this is it…….

The team sit around one side of a small circular table for their panel-like discussion. The shotgun has no trouble picking them up, so maybe a less sensitive dynamic mic would do the trick and the cardioid pattern will also help tame the room.

I decided to give the Prodipe Pro-Lanen TT1 a go as a one mic solution. It is sensitive for its type, handles well, is small, cheap and tough. It is not matched to any other mic sets (Lewitt or Se V’s) just a cheap buy. It looks nice enough on the table and the cardioid pattern is set, so less prone to my fiddling.

The top combo may not look much smaller, but when you consider they can be stored upright in a single lens-sized space or even a front pocket of the Domke roller, then compared to the F1 and SSH-6 (with foam cover) that I want to lay length-ways, so it takes up 4 spaces, it is much better. Even the XLR cable is not that much larger than the 3.5.

This goes into the H5 (or H8* or F1 with XLR adapter) via a more robust XLR cable**, which I have control of from the camera end and with more volume-output options. I can also rely on the stronger battery life, or just use AC power (not an option to the table mic).

It packs down to a smaller space, about the same as a single lens.

The last benefit is, I could add another three dynamic mics to this easily enough, each matched to a voice.

A simple test revealed an open and robust sound and less background noise.

The F1 can now do the job I bought it for which is as a better shotgun mic (or X/Y capsule) on camera.

Nice to have options.

*Which also adds the podcast mode!

**A decent quality 7.5m Neewer XLR cable, colour matched to the blue table cloth we use, is actually cheaper than a decent 6m 3.5 cable at about $12.

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.