The Project

A project involving people on the edge and their pets, highlighting their interdependency has just been completed, well the first step anyway.

Mostly dogs, with some chickens, it started as a beautiful but probably unworkable idea of portrait classes for small (or large) groups of people and their pets, but the project quickly changed as these things do.

The reality that “selfie” style photos would not be suitable or likely possible and that many did not even have the means or even the desire to try them and the lots of people and pets in one place was not possible, forced on us the need for a quick adaption, a massive re-think.

My personal desire was to be as helpful as possible, but to try and stay invisible. I gave myself the role of “tech assist”. I really did not want the project to become an art forum for me or anyone other than the subjects, but it soon became obvious that if we wanted photos of people and their pets and decent ones, consistent ones, that some effort would have to be made by the lone photographer in the room to get at least something done, then use subject contributed images, or the more natural ones from the sitting as supports.

Starting out simply and with the resources at hand (sight unseen before the day), the first group arrived to a small couch covered with a spare 6x9’ grey cloth backdrop (wanted to get it a little less “new” looking anyway) and my basic Manfrotto 1.8x2.4 Grey/Black collapsible (grey size used).

Lighting was kept similarly simple and I really did not want studio perfection, looking more for a fake window light or normal indoor look and too much consistency was also avoided.

One flash and one reversed brolly, then as shoot through, a 4” soft box, sometimes a little fill or hair light, using either a small LED panel or soft box. Nothing too contrived, just lightly applied and unobtrusive. It is amazing how forgiving and flexible this can be when you have the basics down.

I also needed to set-up and pack-up in minutes and work in different locations, so it needed to be portable and have a decently flexible but small footprint.

In the last shoot, I did feel a little more “art” should be applied, worried that the sittings were looking too similar and maybe even run the risk of being a bit stale. I left the Grey/Black behind and decided to give my slightly smaller 1.5x2.1 Pewter/Walnut a go. This did risk the contrived studio look, but maybe I thought, that was just me being overly controlling.

The second last shoot got the so far unused Walnut. When bought I was disappointed a little on close inspection, but of course close inspection was not the idea. It looks every bit as beautiful as the images I have seen. No risk the grey backdrop cloth would look too new after this project (it got peed on three times!).

Not a huge fan of the overly “paint brushed” looking backdrops I see around a lot. The Pewter/Walnut seemed to have enough texture to be characterful, but was subtle enough to be complimentary.

Over done backdrops can anchor the image, or steal its power. I really do not like it when the first thing you see is the backdrop, not the person.

This is the Pewter from another project. Even with this difficult framing, the people are the key.

It was also about the only one I actually liked both sides of.

The Pewter is cool, but neutral and it cam become the colours of my next favourite (Sage and Ink) by simply brushing the backdrop and shifting the colour balance in C1, but it is even more subtle than that.

The Walnut is similar with a warm or cool feel. The overall can go very warm and antique looking, but their is a small hint of steel blue in it that can cool right off. It looks to me for all the world like an old wall, the paint slowly rubbing through revealing past lives.

"Perfection", The Kit

I am putting together my kit for the little video project I am working on, called “Perfection” (TBC). This is a nature based study of my local area.

The idea is to put together a series of sample clips of the amazing things happening around my area using all the tricks the two (three) cameras can offer as well as some stills.

I will use it as a video portfolio and to help get my head around all the techniques on offer.

I do a lot of video regularly. but not with my best stuff or much of a plan.

The gear.

In the Neewer backpack (heavy)

Cameras;

• G9.2, tripod plate, cage, handle, monitor mount, SSD mount, SSD (flat, 1080, 10 bit/422, 300fps, time lapse).

• S5, tripod plate, cage, monitor mount (APS-C/ff, 1080, flat, 180 fps, 10 bit/422-420, time lapse).

• EM1x for stills. Stills are always a video option.

• Phone as remote for all the cameras.

M43 lenses;

• 9mm macro wide

• 12-60 std

• Sirui 24mm (focus transitions)

• 40-150 f4

• 300 f4 + plate

• 1.4x

Full frame lenses;

• 85 Lumix

• 50 Cine (focus transitions)

• 20-60 kit

• 150 macro + plate

In the 511 bag (light)

• OSMO kit which includes pole mounts and an underwater housing (Cine-D, 1080, time lapse/pano, slo-mo, faux drone pole).

Filter kit;

• 2x Matt box, ND, protect

• 2x 62, 67, 82 MBA, 1x 52, 72, 77 MBA

• 62 filters

• 67 filters

• 72 filters

• OSMO filters

• Rings 52-62, 62-67, 67-72,

Sound;

• H8 field recording

• H5 shotgun

• F1 on camera shotgun

• LCT 240 + wind sock

• SSH-6 + wind

• LCT 040 pair + wind + dual mount

• Cables (XLR, 3.5)

• Stand?

Vision;

• 5” Portkeys monitor + cables

• HDMI adapter

• NP batts

Seperate bits (as needed)

Stabilising;

• Tripod with video head

• Chest/follow focus rig (S5)

• Mini tripod legs with ball head

• Slider

• Boom pole (sound and OSMO)

• seat/pad

Camo cover.

Bokeh, Fighting The Good Fight.

What is Bokeh?

Ok, thousands of hands up (generous estimation of my readership).

Bokeh to many, and this is based on the perception of current practitioners is “balls of light in the background and their shape/quality”.

Partly true.

Mike Johnston, then editior of “Camera and Creative Darkroom Techniques” who (1) wrote the first articles in the west in the subject and (2) anglicised the name*, said it is literally “the flavour of the blur”, a term used by the Japanese for a form of art technique, but can also be used to describe “fuzzy” headedness. Notice it does not say the amount of the blur, just the flavour.

In Japan this has been a constant since before their appreciation of lens characteristics, but to the Western eye and ear, it was the result of a Japanese based photographer John Kennerdell talking to Johnston about something the Japanese revered, but we had no definition for, so he dedicated an entire edition of the magazine to it.

The main thing to keep in mind is Bokeh is almost always a factor in any image, or more precisely, the transition area from in-to-out of focus, something almost all images share unless you are into shooting brick walls or glass panels.

For me it was a revelation and put a name to something most of us were responding to, we just did not have a way of quantifying it. The Schneider vs Rodenstock looks now had a defined difference. Ironically, the Japanese were often bigger fans of German lenses for that very look, selling us their own lenses, that often were not rated as well.

More recently, coincidentally about the same time as the articles, Canon as one example had started to design their new EF range with Bokeh in mind, the 35 f2, 100 macro (1st ed) and others were getting strong reputations in Japan (and were featured in the articles) and their timing was perfect.

The 35mm is interesting, because it was emulating the great German lenses of the past, concentrating on smoother transitions with a wider lens at smaller apertures and longer distances than the current trend of more blur is better.

This image has an element of Bokeh. The lens is the 45mm Olympus f1.8 at about f4 or 5.6 from memory. The clouds are rendered slightly softer than the building front, the second building also, although only very slightly. The way a lens renders both of these elements is Bokeh, just as much as a close in shot at f1.8. Not a glowing ball in sight.

The use of words in our language is ever changing, but this must be a record. The word came into limited use in the later 90’s, when it was adopted by the small group of people in the know, then the masses grabbed it, Apple among others mangled the name (creating the mongrel dog weapon, the Bow-Kerr) in a series of ads and there you have it, new meaning, new name, little accuracy to source.

I guess that is a thing now, but what about the actual phenomenon? Often a point of derision for many older photographers, it is still a real element in their work, even if the one way of describing it has been hijacked.

The damage is done and the dye cast, but I still reserve the right to push back a little, as much to retain the relevance of defining blurring quality in all its forms.

My Leica 15mm and Olympus 17 are a case in point.

They are nearly the same on paper, very different in use. The Olympus lens, designed I feel specifically for street shooters has (what I call) elongated transition or long throw Bokeh. This means that it retains cohesion in out of focus areas seemingly at odds with its math.

Even wide open with roughly the same distance from me to the first woman and then her to the next, cohesive detail is retained. The look is very old school Leica looking. You feel the woman in front is sharper, your eye is drawn to the woman behind and she seems perfectly sharp enough, then you come back tot he first woman with a “snap” of realisation that she is sharper again.

The 15mm is much more “modern” in its rendering, faster to drop away.

I am fine with soft and round highlights when there is no avoiding them, but this is not all there is to it. The IRIX macro is always going to require nice blur rendering, because being a long macro, it will see plenty.

The IRIX 150 at T3 has “feathery” Bokeh, which I feel tells a story better, even if it is a little less “perfect” to a modern viewer. Think I like the colour out of the IRIX more also.

The IRIX needs to have good Bokeh at normal distances though, because it is also a cinema lens. This is a real test of the lens, because it will determine if it has more than one use.

The Lumix-S 85mm at a wider aperture of f2 (and different framing) shows very modern “spongy” (my term) blurring and a more dramatic sharp-to-soft separation (keep in mind it is a shorter lens). To me it feels less settled, more subject oriented, but cleaner. The difference is in the flowers.

Not much to be done I guess except keep the history of the word and it’s use alive as long as possible.

Regardless, we use Bokeh daily, even with our own eyes and that will not change. How we use it is up to us and our needs and whether we call it out or just accept it is also up to us, but it is and it forever will be part of image making.

Just a last one for fun.

*Bo-ke, he added the “h” for pronunciation, but it did not work.

Wins And Missed Steps.

Lots bought lately, so how did I do and did I miss any steps?

The G9II, the original need addresser. A hard choice with S5II and S5IIx’s even cheaper, but it was the right choice. It did however sit at odds with my subsequent lens choices and last years purchase.

Of all the purchases I have made recently, this is the most easily overlooked, fitting seamlessly into a pretty well serviced landscape, but it is likely the most important long term giver, upgrading my M43 stills and my video overall.

Everything else below is really surplus to requirements, the G9II is a necessary enabler.

The handle is not the one I use now, but still a good fit, but the cage is the best I have bought so far.

Black Mamba cage and Arri top handle for the G9II. Both wins. Best fitting cage I have bought and neatest handle option. I have since added a second side handle also, making this a full cage.

The Lumix 35 and 85mm S-Primes completed my working S5 kit.

Now covering 35, 50 and 85 in the engine room for that camera in stills and video, the IRIX and kit zoom adding more range.

The Sigma equivalents have a reputation for being sharper, but the matched Lumix-S primes are beautiful, consistent and video friendly.

The 35 and 50mm 7Artisans cine lenses for under $500 and the IRIX 150 at near half price were awesome bargains. I doubt I would have dabbled if it were not for the price of these, but I am glad I have.

The IRIX 150 cine-macro was probably an odd choice, but has somehow meshed the cine and non-cine full frame kits together and I will admit up front, it is the most fun I have had in a while. My only regret is it was not available at the same price on an M43 mount so I could access the 300 fps slo-mo on the G9II with a 300mm 2:1 macro!

I would have doubted I could find a lens to match my 75 (150 equiv) Olympus, but maybe this IRIX beast is it.

The 7Artisans 12mm for M43 as a wide angle filler and M43 cine option was a miss on the whole.

Not sure what I was thinking there, but it seemed to make sense at the time and the lens itself broke my run of good lenses, being mechanically a bit “iffy”*.

Matt box filters are a revelation, Neewer ones more so, but the gong goes to the sub $40 Nisi clear filters. Instant peace of mind when using matt boxes.

Cineflare filters were a poor idea if I go into an anamorphic lens, but they make a lot of sense if not. I like the look in moderation and the flexibility of the filters, but I still have an itch for an anamorphic lens and that will come with flares always.

If I do go the 24mm, the M43 12mm and the filters above would have nearly paid for it in an M43 mount. Sometimes I avoid the thing I actually want with compensatory options that end up costing as much or more, but in this case, the Sirui was not a strong choice early on. In hindsight, it would have been the ideal M43-as-a-wide option for my cinema kit over a regular wide angle and a great all-in-one M43 cine choice. I have also bought a Sirui 24 spherical, which again would have been redundant with the anamorphic.

5.11 Range Ready bag, a huge win.

This could easily be called the “Cinematographers Ready bag”. The shape, pocket size (and their shape), comfort, build quality, price and accessories make for a one-bag utility option or multi bag expedition set. It even has 8 camera battery sized “mag” holders. Seriously well put together, it has that magic layout that so many other camera bags lack.

It is boxy, but sometimes cameras are boxy.

That’s a 480 LED panel inside. The pouch inside is removable and the insides tall enough to take a top handle mounted.

Getting a boxy video shaped bag is usually an expensive choice, but this does the same with bells-on for a quarter of the price. Want to put a camera in with cage and handle, maybe a set of matt box filters or a couple of bulky cine lenses? All good.

*A “wiggly” M43 mount (very rare) and one that catches on removal and an overly loose focus ring made the whole thing feel a bit sub-premium, something the Spectrum lenses do not feel and it actually cost the same as both of those together. A bad move after several good ones.

Quick Look At The Last Lens.

The Lumix 35mm arrived from backorder yesterday, but a busy day and lots of work lately made me a little apathetic to its arrival.

Old mate the spider web again. Bokeh in this example is decent and colour quite different to the cine lens.

Images like this remind me I am in full frame land, where f1.8 on a semi wide is shallow even over distance.

Decently sharp wide open in the centre.

Some obvious CA wide open in this torture test, but looks easy to remove.

Minimum focus is actually pretty good. This stump is bout 3” or 8cm across. Unlike the cine lenses, the Bokeh is busier, colour richer.

I shot this centred, then left and right, but hand held and only moments after mounting it on a camera for the first time.

Bokeh is a little messy, but a messy subject.

I thought I had an issue with the left side of the lens, until I realised I was at a different distance and angle.

Right side was more square on, so a more settled image.

Uses for this lens for my full frame kit are;

• Wide angle video lens. For videography I have several very wide angle video lenses*, but for more cinematic work, this is as wide as I will likely want to go, so I have both a modern AF lens and cinema lens in this space.

• Environmental, semi-wide portrait lens. This is the most depth of field sensitive wide angle I have. I used the S5 kit for a portrait shoot the same day the 35 later arrived and found it overkill for my needs**.

• Walk around lens. My standard for most work, especially if matched to an 85mm. I struggle with the idea of full frame for this type of application, being so comfortable with M43, but it is there and the S primes are very light, even if they are huge compared to M43 equivalents.

• A low light wide for stills. If I need the ultimate low light handler for stage coverage etc, this is the one, or the 35 f2 cine lens of course.

This completes my full frame offering, mostly reserved for video and portraiture or low light support for my M43 kit. It covers 20 to 150mm (225mm in Super 35 video) with the IRIX macro at one end and the decent kit zoom covering the other to a professional standard.

I almost jumped at a Sigma 24 f3.5 DN special offer, but remembered I actually have a lens (the kit zoom), that covers that focal length at the same speed and well enough for my needs, so I think I am done now. There is a 7Artisans 14mm coming (14/21mm in video), but for cinematic work I would rather an anamorphic, probably on my M43 camera.

It is handy I guess to have similar focal lengths with different perspectives and Bokeh rendering with the same logic as anamorphic compared to spherical lenses***.

I poured a decent investment into my full frame kit, something I will have to justify as time travels on, the bulk in S-Primes and the IRIX, the other cine lenses were just a bargain I could not refuse.

As I said in my previous “winding back the clock” retrospective, I could as easily have skipped this (bought a GH5II or GH6), but nothing is ever wasted and if I get one of those clients who knows enough to insist on a full frame, but not enough to know why, the S5 and G9II are effectively interchangeable to look at, so who would know?

;)

*The 20mm end of the kit zoom and a clutch of M43 offerings.

** I used the Lumix 50, 85 and 150 lenses mostly at f2.8 and 3.4 for safety and to render the right amount of blurring and realised that f1.8 on my M43 lenses would have been the same. As for quality, there was plenty, but there is with M43 also (my G9II actually offering slightly more).

Any less depth of field would obscure the portraits relevance with the deliberately placed painting for an artistically inclined subject, the image for an art competition catalogue. This was the 85mm at f3.2, my 45mm at f1.8 would have been much the same (with possibly smoother Bokeh!). Something I realised later was the 45mm at 1.8 would likely have better highlight shape than the 85 at f3.2, where the iris is slightly closed down. Need to test that.

***I could actually use a 50mm as a 50mm, a M43 25mm as a 50mm and an anamorphic 24mm as a 50/35mm for visual variety.

Who Cares?

We (I) write a lot about the technical and creative things that float our boat, drive us crazy and otherwise amuse us in our photographic and video endeavours.

Who cares?

We the invested do, a lot. We get frustrated by the short comings of camera “X”, lens “Y” or processing programme “Z”. The never ending hunt for the perfect item for our needs is well, never ending.

Who else cares?

Nobody really and if we remember that, the path to creativity is much more rewarding.

I am not saying our viewers are simple, disinterested or artistically lacking. What I am saying is the little things that we hold as important, are not important in the fleeting moment we deliver our product and that is becoming, ironically more the case as the technical limitations we have been tackling since day one are slowly disappearing.

If we release ourselves from the deep immersive self-criticism that over exposure to a process can force on us, any creative process, our appreciation falls in line with our viewer. It becomes immediate, visceral, not halting or reluctant. We are free to go “whoopee”, not “yes, but…”.

I was just watching Fargo (series 5 ep 5 to be specific). During that show, an advertisement came on. I saw onion ring Bokeh in the many Bokeh balls in the background.

I noticed it, I understood it, but I did to care, because I realised that I only saw it because I was looking for it!

I realised that what may be described as “to your taste” when reviewing or criticising actually meant to the vast majority “as it is”.

Sure, there are things that do make a difference, like the transition of focus and judder or poor colour grading, but these have to be actually noticeably bad before they begin to matter and even then do they? Most viewers may sense something is amiss, then move on or just as often assume it was meant and “above their pay grade”.

Where is you eye drawn? Is it to the subject, what they are doing or is it to the many technical deficiencies this image has. It is a screen grab off ungraded 2mp video footage. Do you find the Bokeh pleasing or offensive, the colour strong or muted and the sharpness up to snuff or not? More realistically, did you only look at these things and in the context of an assumed to be deficient file, because I prompted you to look?

Sharp corners are an example of futile perfectionism. Only the initiated, the obsessed will even look there. It is actually really hard to get people to look at the corners of your image unless you compose them that way.

Quick and honest look at this file, what is the first, then second thing you see? For me it is the man then the red bag or the fire. Then look at the image at the bottom of the post.

Honestly, when was the last time you studied the far corners of an image except for when a lens test or critical examination was involved and when you saw what you saw, were you sure why you saw it? Maybe it was just out of focus, or there was some field curvature, aberrations, or poor design?

Perfection can be the reason for an image, but if not, it is rarely that important.

Sharp and clear edge to edge and for three layers deep, this is as good as anything needs to be, but lacking a central subject or any subject at all really, its perfection is its reason for being. Even then is anyone actually measuring that perfection, or just acceptation it.

The most creative of us are likely the most focussed. They are not focussed on the little things that keep us awake at night. They are focussed on the meaning, the connection and central subject. The rest is clutter that often needs to be removed, ignored or excluded, not obsessed over.

No ball, poorly framed, forced into mono to hide some glare and strong colour shifts, this image still works for me, because the subjects are compelling and even the third figure adds context.

The more I shoot the more I realise that the people we shoot for are less concerned about any technical element we fixate on and wholely concerned with the meaning and context of the image.

That does not mean the effort we go to is lost on them, it is just assumed or invisible unless it is made visible by being flawed or poorly applied.

We must always try hard to do our best, because when we do, we always reach a point of sufficiency with extra “credit” in the bank for our less than perfect efforts.

Did you notice this clanger bottom right? Caused by an unfortunate combination of out of depth of field bright glare, it looks pretty awful, but I did not even notice it until I went looking.

The Debt.

If you are a healthy, financially moderately comfortable white male of a certain age living in a first world country, the chances are you have had a decent run at things.

If so, spare a thought for everyone else who is not any one or possibly even all of those things.

Something that strikes me as I spend more and more of my time around people who have to accept any form of struggle into their lives on a daily basis, is how happy they are.

A coming together of unlikely connections. The young lady from Vanuatu is effectively in exile, sent away to work and send money home to her family. The boy spends most of his time looking at the sky, with his carer and faithful Retriever as his only companions. His new friend spent the better part of the day dancing and singing with him. She was invited by the Migrant Resource Centre to share their harmony day celebrations, he was a neighbour, attracted by the event and welcomed immediately.

Adversity is life, but how much adversity and how you cope with it is your life is the measure of a person.

My wife and I live on this planet in a modest way. I drive a small, economical car, live in a modest home, don’t exceed the needs of a moderate lifestyle and hope I am not greedy or lustful of things that when taking them is hurtful to others.

She is a teacher, I am a photographer with many avenues of sharing. We have no children, but children are a big part of our lives.

I have a debt to pay, one that I have to remind myself of constantly. I have not lived through a major war, been threatened by my neighbours, my government, or people different to me and I have never been in any real risk of hunger or sleeping rough.

I give up some of my time to help enable others with the one skill set I have, photo/video. It is not much, but it is something and I do it happily. I am aware that it is a shiny veneer on the massive untold, unpaid and often unthanked work others do, but if it can make them happier and help tell their stories, that need to be told, then I am happy to do it. Sometimes it just a chance to connect.

I am also aware I am a coward, hiding in my comfort zone behind my gear and processes, but I also hope that through this one avenue, I will grow into a better person and be able to give of myself in more depth.

So many stories.

Today I will take some images of people living closer to the edge, with their loved pets and those they rely on, but I will only pretend to know what they go through, sometimes just to get to the event in the first place.

I have a debt.

It may never be paid.

I will try.

The Economics Of Madness

I have spent a lot on camera gear over the last few years, well according to my accountant.

From my perspective, however deluded and obsessed I may be, I have spent relatively little for what I have accumulated, but in what amounts and where is the money funnelled is interesting.

All values are in Australian dollars.

Cameras.

Many brands and more individual bodies over several generations, but I have been quite settled over the last decade and to my surprise, this generation I have actually worn out some cameras.

M43 cameras on the whole are well priced for what they are. In total over the last 11 years, I have spent probably $20,000. A lot is may seem, but this is 4x EM5’s, 2x EM10’s, a couple of Pen/Pen mini’s, a GH2, a Pen F, 2x G9’s, a G9II, 2x EM1x’s (1 mint second hand), 2x EM1 Mk2’s.

Most that I have still work, the older EM5’s it seems pack it in if you don’t use them, but they likely accounted for something like 1,000,000 shutter fires all up, so retirement earned. The remaining have a couple of million to go (one EM1x, G9 mkI and the Pen F are basically unused and the G9II is new).

This is similar to the value if a pair of full frame pro cameras, but with more depth and variety plus the ability to evolve. I would change little except that three years ago, if I had waited just a little, I could have had an EM1x on special for the price I paid for an EM1 Mk2 and if I chose the GH5II over the S5, life may have been easier this year.

Overall, my adoption of M43 has been a decisive win.

Other cameras at the moment are specialist and video centric. The S5 full frame is a good “other” camera, which led to a small system, but none will be wasted.

Lenses.

Vast forest of glass, some good, some mediocre not much that is poor.

In M43, I have had a lot of glass go through, but most of the better stuff has stayed for my current format, with only a few missed steps and little “shedding” (a sold 12-100 pro, 20mm Pana first ed stand out). I currently have 9 zooms, 10 primes, a cine lens and some legacy glass.

I have paid about $12,000au or so over the years, some of which from the “inside” working in shops, which currently includes full coverage from 16 to 600mm (F/F equiv), many weather proof, all sharp and many fast for their type, especially compared to full frame versions and some “character” options, most with redundancies.

All have a role either in stills, video or both.

Don’t even do the math on full frame equivalents, it’s eye watering. My whole arsenal would be swallowed in size, weight and cost by a 600 f4 alone. The only change I would make would be to have kept everything I ever bought in M43.

In full frame, I have 3 Lumix primes, a decent kit lens (20-127 in 4k), 2 legacy lenses and 3 cinema lenses 9one a serious macro lens), all for a little over $4,000. A total bargain and sound investment for the future. If I spend any more here though, bargains aside, it will start to be a pointless and diminishing exercise.

Mixing formats is usually pointless, but in this case I am happy.

Bags.

Never enough, never the right one.

No good news here, but fun none the less. Enough spent probably to cover a couple of camera bodies, but right now, I seem settled.

Domke bags have generally been good investments and the only regrets I have had are for those I sold off. The price of Domke bags has been steady over the years (see below), unlike some brands that lately seem to have taken on jewel-like preciousness. Even the F804, my worst recent gaff, is a very handy overnight bag with camera options.

Filson and Billingham are passion choices, rarely practical and both have over the last few years gone well out of sensible reach at $500+ for a Filson medium Field Bag and $650 for a Hadley medium! I paid about $250 for each of mine and thought that was a little rich.

Most other brands have been tried, Crumpler and Mind Shift/Think Tank standing out. These are either used or disposed of and replaced, in staggering numbers. Working in shops is hard, because the mark-up on bags is actually decent, meaning you buy cheap, sell for what you paid and can try them out (but still stuff up).

Standouts tend to be surprisingly useful and often better priced non-camera bags like the 511 Range Ready bag ($150), the Tokyo Porter satchel and a no-name little pouch from a vendor in Kobe etc.

Currently my collection would likely come is at about $2,000, but that is grossly over valued by the current prices and my oldest is an F2 Domke that I paid the same for in the 1980’s that they go for now.

No right answer here. You never know until you buy, then find use for the duds anyway, so dollar to dollar never a wise investment, but hard to waste money entirely.

Lighting gear.

Lighting has been a giver. My cheap as chips flash units have handled so many gigs, they are now well in the black, the LED panels are probably about even and the COB light’s although under used owe me little.

Very simple single speed light and cheap mod combination.

Lighting is a funny thing, a bit like owning a Tux. If you have it, you look for reasons to use it, if not you get by. In my case I bought a cheap suit and try to carry it off with some bluff and experience. My total costs for 4x Selens COB’s, 5x Neewer LED’s, 8x Flash units (YongNuo and Godox) is about $1500, or to put another way, a single Aperture 600D. My only real need is for a portable battery unit to make the entire thing portable.

Next time I would stick to one flash brand, stick to probably 1 TTL and 3 “dumb” units total and just get two decent LED’s as alternates.

Lighting mods.

This one is embarrassing. I have a dozen soft boxes, several brollies, a few reflectors, some domes, scrim and flagging, but tend to use a pair of Godox 42” brollies I bought right at the very beginning in desperation. Total cost, relying on the cheaper brands and careful research is under $1000, but could have been under $100!

If I did it again, four white brollies with removable backing and a large reflector.

Backgrounds.

This is an odd one. Obsessed with these things for a while, I eventually sprang for a Manfrotto 2.1x2.4 collapsible on grey/black. Rory Lewis would have been proud.

It paid for itself with the Telstra shoot, but I scratched an itch for the Pewter/Walnut as well. This one has only been used a couple of times, but I love it, especially the subtle texture of the Pewter.

Just the right amount of gentle texture and very pure colour.

They need more use. Other efforts include some 1.4m width leather-look vinyl, which on the whole are a success and cloth of several types.

Another handy item is the 2"‘ square slate-look vinyl tiles I use a lot (see the mic shot below). Go anywhere kitchen bench.

$1000 all up, the $650 of that in the 2 Lastolite-Manfrotto units.

If going again I would get e huge grey cloth one, the Pewter Manfrotto and a cheap black/white.

Sound gear.

Boy did this one get out of hand.

My goal, something outside of the usual videographers remit, was to be able to cover a school rock band or orchestra. The usual ways of doing this are a shotgun mic on camera or synching a separate sound source. Neither of these appealed (although I can do them), because I wanted better sound into camera and full control.

This required me looking at the problem more from a sound engineers perspective. I wanted to be able to either mic up one or more instruments or people directly, or cover a room. I can do either in multiple ways.

Interfaces, the bit in between have been mostly good and the usual one to the next to the next growth. The Zoom system works for me on the whole, but the H1n, is now mostly surplus and the F1 with an all too easily broken battery door (which is a common thing apparently), is a disappointment. I like the F1 and use it constantly, but it annoys me it broke so predictably. $1500 spend on 4 units, 3 capsules and a LAV and all are useful. I can take up to 8 XLR mics.

If I went again, just the H8 or an F6, with the capsules and an F3 with separate shotgun mics for run-n-gun (MKE-600/400).

Microphones are a hobby with its own motivation it seems. One thing I can say for it though, is you can get some great gear for little outlay, you just have to find a way to use it.

Apart from the MKE-400, several little shotguns and the zoom capsules (about $300 total), I seem to be the video guy with a studio in his bag. 6x Lewitt’s, 3x sE V series and a Pro-Lanen mic came in at about $1500 total, which on balance is a decent collection, but for what? Not sure.

The Hollyland Larks are a decent LAV solution, but not my preferred idea.

The MKE-400 was a great investment, see below for the rest.

I want to use it all, but have little opportunity. Some field recording, maybe some drop in video, voice overs, ambient sound, even a poor band with need of a cheap demo recording?

Either my secret super power or a waste in the whole. All comes doen to me I guess, but one advantage of sound gear is, it does not evolve super quickly. The mics most of these are competing with are 50 year old Shure SM 57/58’s, so not a use it or loose it proposition.

“I will have two flat ones, two small ones and a packet of gravel”.

If I went again, the Lewitts would be enough (2x 040 pencils, 2x 240 room/vocal condensers and 2x 440 DM bass/instrument mics), but the sE V’s and TT1 are handy for a panel situation.

Overall, nothing much wasted and if so, not a fortune. I can see how easy it is to spend vast sums in areas that need little, but the advatage of being broke most of the time has taught me to look for the things that have fallen through the cracks or secrets well kept.

The Sweet Spot Part 1

My sweet spot for high performance lenses seems to be in the portrait range.

What is a portrait lens?

Generally a lens in the full frame range of a full frame 50 to 135mm is the range, but longer and occasionally shorter lenses get a gong.

They should be sharp, but not harsh, fast aperture, with “nice” contrast and Bokeh.

All lenses will be noted with their actual focal length, conversions are assumed by format.

The most common of specialist lenses, the humble portrait lens, which means different things to different people, has been a haven of optical perfection, character or occasionally both. They start at the humble 50mm and can go as high as true telephoto lenses.

Macro lenses also fall into this group and often they make excellent if unforgiving portrait lenses.

The great irony of this dynamic is that portrait lenses are easy to make well, even near clinical perfection, but the subject is often the least responsive to “technical” perfection.

I remember years ago being lustful of the best, sharpest, most aberration controlled lenses, then I learned that many portraitists actually preferred less perfect glass. They were looking for a flattering character, a forgiving nature and that “special something”.

Examples I recall were many Mamiya 6x7 lenses, a Bronica 75mm I once owned and even the Rodenstock enlarger lenses for reproduction, that were less “hard” sharp than Schneider’s offerings.

First up, my M43 format lenses (double these for full frame equivalents)

Sigma 30 f1.4.

This lens is sharp, very sharp. I appreciate it’s clarity and reliable edge to edge performance, but I am unsure about colour or contrast in some situations. AF is also a mixed bag on the Panasonic cameras, something I have to consider, because I often prefer Panasonic colours for skin tones in many situations. For a while I was interested by the 56 f1.4, but I will hold off for a while.

Olympus 45mm f1.8 (x3).

Yep I have had three of these, down to two now. Half of my basic travel and street kit (17+45), I love these, really appreciate their quality and character and feel good having one in my bag, which being tiny, they do effortlessly. I don’t use them as often as I would like, something I am trying to address. Even when half of the 2+2 kit, it takes the lesser load.

A very good lens for candids, the 45 adds some “pop” to any image.

My quiet interview portraits are the main application of this lens.

I love its gentle nature. The 75 is punchier, more dramatic, the 30mm more surgical, the 45 is the most “invisible”. I usually shoot wide open, which is about f2.8 on a full frame.

Lovely, reliable, inconspicuous Bokeh front and rear. The 17mm it is often paired with has more elongated, coherent Bokeh, so the difference is appreciated.

Even when you grab a close plane of focus, there are story telling powers available.

The 45mm has a more 3D look than the more compressed 75 and a little more “grit” and this is not just down to the difference in focal length.

This is also a very comfortable length to use in a studio situation.

75mm F1.8 Olympus.

The 75mm Olympus is the lens I most rely on for premium, clean, powerful results, especially candids and event work. The long focal length (150mm in full frame) stretches things in some locations, but if I have room, it delivers and if I need reach, it is a life saver.

The extra working distance is useful.

Through two panels of sun drenched glass, it has taken on a softer palette, but is still crisp.

The ability to sit aside from events, but still reach in with a light beater is a powerful tool.

This lens is so reliable to me, I chose it and a camera I had never used before for this shoot of the board of Telstra Australia.

12-40 f2.8 Pro Olympus.

The work horse lens, this one gets used way more than I probably intend, but when I just need to know I am covered and the quality will be good, this one is used, “sticky” zoom and all.

I lobe this lens for controlled light situations where light angle and intensity will control depth as much as aperture.

The 40-150 f2.8 Olympus.

This one his the ultimate generalist, but no less powerful as a specialist portrait lens.

Dragged out of my sports kit for special occasions (this is our Prime Minister).

Not people, but you see what I mean.

Next I will look at my full frame options, but I need to use them a little first.

Winding Back The Clock (Or Black Friday Retrospective And Possible Regrets)

What if………… .

This time last year, Black Friday and Christmas wore me down with bargains. I held on for a while, but eventually it got too much.

Panasonic were offering the GH5 mkII for $1600au, the GH6 for $2600au and the S5 (kit) for $2100au.

All of these were bargains, all were much better than I expected and all at a time when I was probably settled for the most part, but I had the chance to fix a few video issues I was aware would likely come and bite me (note; they have not yet).

I had two G9 mk1 cameras, neither with the upgrade key**, but both firmware updated to be surprisingly good at video.

I did not have unlimited (actually battery limited) recording, a decent Log profile, wave forms, shutter angle or high bit rate, All-i recording.

I went with the S5 kit, because it was the best buy I felt. Even though it added a new format, had some compromises (still no All-i, some cropping, some time limits), it freed me in other ways and it was such a good buy. Most reviewers agreed, the image quality was superior even with all the other limits.

The GH6 was frustrating with it’s expensive card needs and still compromised AF, the GH5 II was comparatively old tech.

The S5 was just the easiest path to better video if that was my only short-fall. Even the APS-C, 8 bit options were lauded by many as very good, so no fuss, no pain and a whole new toy.

Like most people, I did not of course, imagine a G9II would appear with so much to offer*, but still, there was likely going to be something.

A stills grab from a 1080p, G9II file.

What could I have done better with the benefit of hindsight?

The GH5II would have been ideal as the needed filler.

We all know a camera like that can do an awful lot. Probably more than I need.

It gave me pretty much everything on my list, was low maintenance (same batts as the G9 mk1, no ridiculous card needs, better but not excessive recording options). As cheap new as a second hand one only days before, it was sensible, with remote live streaming as its trick card.

Where would that have led?

For me probably a G9II anyway, because it is just better in most ways, possibly the 10-25 f1.7 super lens and/or the set of Sirui anamorphics and maybe a couple of Sirui Nightwalkers. The GH5II would then make an excellent B-cam.

Do I regret the S5?

I am a little disappointed in myself that I broke away from M43, something I did intellectually, but not completely happily. Two kits are messy but workable and do fill some holes. The bizarre run of cheap L-mount lenses has made a difference.

There is actually nothing it offers that is greatly improved over M43, the lenses I have picked up have been the key.

Still, more options and some possible future proofing.

I feel that the future is likely either (a) I call this game quits soon an go back to an obsessive hobby, or (b) I will creep slowly into full frame land with a solid, basic stills and video kit using M43 for all things it is better at with a ton of depth to get me there.

Probably just another camera to be honest and maybe a 24mm from someone (probably Sigma). The G9II has upgraded M43 for me, nothing much to do there now.

For me sport, wildlife etc are very much a matter of having the gear, so one day when I am no longer shooting M43 (when everything is literally worn out), I will simply drop the things I cannot achieve.

*I think most people assumed the G9II would be much the same as the Mk1, with time, Vlog-L, and resolution limits. I even assumed you would again have to buy the key for Vlog-L. Nobody thought it would be a S5.2x with added stuff.

**This adds V-LogL and wave forms.

Some 50mm Spectrum Tests And Finding Balance With The IRIX

My day jobs have been keeping me busy this year, so for myself I am limited to just a little garden snapping.

The question on my mind is, “can the Spectrum lenses keep pace with the IRIX macro?”.

The IRIX has the dual role of adding a decent tele to my “modern” full frame video kit (35, 50, 85 Lumix) and my more retro cine lens kit (24-m43, 35, 50, 75-crop).

Fine detail is there even at T2.

Different day to the last time I used the IRIX, duller and about to rain.

Some added warmth and punch.

The IRIX in close. Very nice colour in good light, but more than the other lenses?

Bokeh is characterful, but not as smooth at T4.

A cool palette, but close to the actual light and the IRIX. The 35mm is a different story.

My old mate the cob web is sharp and clean and the colours and blurring are excellent.

Actually very good. If not as good as the IRIX, at least comparable with their roles taken into account. The colour does look simpler, less sophisticated, but that may be the light.

Quite different roles.

The IRIX seems to share the deeper, less muted colour of the Panasonic 85mm.

To my eye the sharpness of the three is effectively irrelevant, all falling into the “sharp enough for any video application” pool, but colour is different. I may need to reduce the IRIX down to the level of the others.

The 50mm is cool-muted, the 35 warm-muted and the IRIX neutral-strong/clean. More testing needed and with a little more care.

That Anamorphic Thing Again, But Maybe With A Light Touch

Anamorphic lenses are not going away it seems.

Do I need one?

Probably not, but would I use one?

Probably.

There are a few things that come with them, some I like, some I could care less about.

They flare more or less, often more and with consistently blue coloured steaks. They are sometimes a little or a lot soft, most suffer from some edge issues, some strong distortions, oddly shaped oval and “cats-eye” Bokeh and most suffer from generally poor close focus.

I bought some Moment Cineflare filters* to scratch that itch and they are a great controllable and flexible option, but it is the one thing that only anamorphic lenses can offer, the wide screen effect at longer or normal focal lengths that I crave.

2:1 width or more is completely possible with a standard spherical lens and some cropping, but there is more to it.

The 24mm is the same as a 48mm ff equivalent on a M43 camera in height, that is to say squeezed or de-squeezed, the hight of the frame looks like a 50mm lens, but the de-squeezed width is closer to a 32-36mm lens (depending on the squeeze). A 50mm or 35mm cropped are a 35 or 50mm cropped as far as perspective and relative magnification are concerned.

An anamorphic lens is the only lens that can give you that 50/35 combo.

A standard lens with the width of a semi wide or a portrait with a standard lenses view are both appealing, but for my needs, based on what is reasonably available, the Sirui 24 f2.8 on a MFT mount looks to be the one for the following reasons.

• It flares, but not as uncontrollably as the others and the clean steaks are a nice neutral blue.

• It has oval Bokeh balls (not a big thing for me), but again they are controlled and generally small.

• It is a wide lens that is also a normal lens, which is the idea I feel. The ability to use it as a close portrait, wide environment or middle ground story teller is important. I could see it being used exclusively for a project.

• Optically, it is a decent lens. Distortions, softness and edge quality are all closer to a normal lens than the worst (best?) of anamorphic offerings.

• It has decent close focus (for an anamorphic) and no focus breathing, something the other lenses in the range, especially the 35mm do not do well. It does change squeeze factor at close distances, which needs to be taken into account, but nothing major.

To me, an anamorphic lens in an otherwise normal kit needs to bring that “big screen” feel for establishing shots or near-to-far blocking.

Nothing more, just that.

Longer focal lengths I can sort with longer lenses and crop. I know this is not strictly true, but for me it is enough, because once a lens is only long or only wide the magic is lost. It is the wide lens that is not a wide that appeals.

If someone is big in the screen it is because you are close to them and the same for longer distances, without exaggeration. Once I have magnified or expanded perspective the effect is true to life for that look.

A nifty-fifty with a semi wide view and some controllable cinematic coolness.

Perfect.

If it were to be added to, the cheaper 50mm makes sense as a true point of difference (100mm equiv image height, with about 65mm width), but see above for reasons why this will likely not happen.

*Below are the filters I have, used on a Panasonic 50mm (clockwise from top left).

The gold Cinestreak is strong, but it matched the light colour.

Used horizontally (so the streaks go vertical). The image looks jarred, but is sharp in close.

The cheap blue streak I got from Amazon ($25au) is strong and “hazy”. This could be useful, actually looking more like an anamorphic lens.

The Blue Cinestreak is mild, but the blue colour is fighting the gold lights in this case.

Plenty sharp, but pretty busy.

The no-name blue streak will be used as the “dirty” effect filter.

The Under Used G9 mkII

I have had the G9 mk2 for a few weeks now and have used it a grand total of three times.

Why?

There are a couple of things I guess that may have combined to make this so.

I did buy a new M43 camera, but I also bought some great glass……for my full frame kit.

The S5 held the mantle of most under used camera for the previous year, not becasue I did not like it, but because it was relegated to the role of video specialist and that meant sitting around waiting for decent projects. The G9II has become its stable mate, making the stable more powerful, but even more frustrating for it.

In full frame land, the two 7Artisan Spectrum lenses and the IRIX 150 are great and great fun to use.

The G9II has the same old glass I have had for a while now.

Boooooring.

:)

No, not really and good video AF is a revelation, but yeah, they are not new, so the excitement value of the kit overall is low.

The reality is, the G9II is an enabler, a powerhouse and an across the board upgrade, but it is also a known entity, something that does not excite as much as the new ground I am travelling with the S5 and cine lenses. If I were just interested in a stills camera, maybe another EM1x or the OM-1 would have been in the mix, but as a hybrid, there is no comparison.

This rig, just finished the other day may even out the field. The G9II provides the stabiliser, the lens adds the cinema look and fun, but the reality is with an AF lens the camera is empathically usable. Auto focus, white balance and exposure just work.

The full frame kit however has found new legs.

The best lens bargains were for the less established full frame L-Mount and these have been as amazing as they have been exiting. For under $2000au I have added three cinema lenses and for another $2000au three hybrid friendly Panasonic primes, basically making two kits.

A bargain, maybe even a fated windfall, but only in L-mount.

The other element I guess and we have looked at this above, is the relatively limited use I have for my serious video gear.

Lots of lenses, several cameras, loads of sound gear, lighting and “rigs”, but little real need on a day to day basis. There is no doubt this is the area that has replaced stills for me as a growth path, but motivation and time are thin.

Annoyingly, my excellent but limited G9 Mk1’s are getting the bulk of the video work, the run-n-gun stuff, they are the “earners”. The much better S5 and G9II are on the side line because I quite simply do not want to waste them for little jobs at the paper, where some 1080p, 422, 10 bit, LongGOP in Standard profile stuff is tons (actually sounds pretty good when I say it like that).

The G9II is going to do a lot of work, but I bought it for what I did not have* and that is where I will use it.

Its one serious job so far, documenting a Migrant Resource Centre art group, where I had a technical (technician!) issue and lost some files, but video lifts like the one above were plenty (1080/50p, 422, 10 bit, Flat profile). Truth be told, this is good enough for the paper and the G9II is not even trying. These files also confirmed the 12-60 Leica as a good match to the G9II.

The S5 will be the more serious cinema camera, the G9 mkI’s for less serious or B-roll etc and stills.

Well, that’s the plan anyway.

*AF, All-i, Stabilising

The G9 Mk2 Contradiction Or Intellectual Logic And Instinct

I bought a G9 Mk2 recently and even though the bulk of lenses I have bought recently are for full frame L-mount, it is still the right “A” camera, now and into the immediate future.

What I wanted was what it offered and it was the only option, but I feel in the future, when full frame (a term I hate) catches up, that logic may tested. Then it may become the “B” cam, but we will see.

The fact is, the G9II is one of the most exciting and balanced cameras released this year in a valid format that falls within the varied “Super 35” envelope.

Seriously, what is not to like, unless you (a) don’t like Panasonic’s excellent colour science, (b) their nice to grade V-Log, (c) their huge and amazing range of lens options, (d) their handling and performance or, (e) their best value to price features set for both video and stills?

Other than the unwarranted pressure on M43 at the moment*, are there any real problems looming?

Apart from the intellectual logic of M43, something that is often overshadowed by singular, non contextual or circumstantial comparisons to other sensor sizes (like ISO performance in isolation), M43 does not have the legacy of 35mm film formats shared by the “old guard”, although ironically it is even older if you consider 35mm film was used first “sideways” as Super 35 or “half frame” for movies, a format closer to M43 than full frame is.

I shot film for longer than I have been using digital (just), but I still decided to put the bulk of my resources and effort into M43. I know the difference and see it for what it is.

Canon and Nikon were the big boys, Sony came through on their legacy and Panasonic joined more recently, mostly to combat the shift to Sony. Fuji and Olympus have avoided the common format and seem to be doing fine in their niche and any short comings from either system are not format related.

I have been distracted lately by sale period L-Mount bargains, but the reality is, the ripe fruit on the tree for me is M43, the still ripening fruit, belongs to the larger format Panasonics. By this I mean, full frame Panasonic cameras with their advantages are not yet M43 killers and won’t be until they can do what M43 does better.

The G9II feels like a fully realised “next gen”, no compromise hybrid camera and a shift in thinking. The S5II’s do not quite fit that mould.

I am happy enough with the S5 mk1 for the same reason. What the G9 does is so much more, it is effectively a different class, the S5 is great at what it does, the Mk 2’s only slightly better.

Can I fully trust the S5II’s AF and stabilising compared to the G9II? No. The G9II does allow the closest to gimbal stabilising of any camera like it and the AF, though not perfect, is better with the advantages of M43 depth of field and so many great lenses.

I have a huge M43 lens arsenal, which combined with the best range of video features any camera in its price range (or even many higher) it is so powerful. 16 to 600mm in full frame? No thanks, not even an option.

The G9II has the other selling feature which is stills ability with the above features. I could have easily justified it just for just that, just as I have bought it primarily as a video option.

I have to admit, after once declaring I “may never buy another M43 camera after the S5”, then buying one, I think I have real balance now, so probably I can say again with more certainty, I will probably never buy another M43 camera, but I won’t be buying anything until full frame cameras have reached this point.

It is not that the system is dead, but that it is compete for me. M43 has all the answers I need, unlike full frame that is still a little lacking. I look at M43 as fully realised, full frame as the thing about a generation, maybe two from that place.

I have two EM1x stills cameras for sport and they are quicker than I am. I now have the G9II for video, but also as a future stills champion, but the results out of even my old EM1 Mk2’s, EM10 Mk2’s and Pen F are still satisfying clients and the state of the kit ranges from worn in, to standby fresh. Even my now failing EM5 Mk1’s still take lovely shots.

If I had not jumped at the S5 last year, maybe getting the GH5II instead (actually my “gut” choice, the S5 the “head” and the GH6 the “heart”), my path would have likely been different*, but as it stands, my future purchases will likely be another full frame camera at some point (S5III, or possibly a cheap S5 or Sigma FP) and maybe another IRIX lens (30 T1.5) to make a workable premium cine lens set.

The mixed kit thing is a pain to be honest, but I have made it work and pushed at the benefits of both, sometimes coming up with solutions that a single system could not have achieved.

It is nice to be able to say “yes, I have full frame, but choose to use M43”.

If you do not have the luxury of buying the very dearest gear, efficiency lies in cherry picking the cheaper options. Maybe Sony could have managed all these in one format, but the lenses alone would have crippled my budget and I simply do not like their colours or the cameras.

Each system can work entirely independently for video. The M43 kit is up for gun-n-gun, fast operation and stills. The full frame kit for more measured work and it would be fine for a studio, portraitist or travel/street stills shooter. Having both is a luxury, or more honestly a distraction.

If I look at it from a monetary sense only, avoiding full frame would have saved me about $8k over two years, but that would have likely been largely eaten into to get the same holes filled*** and the bargains I have achieved lately have mostly been thanks to the less common L-mount. The 7Art and Irix lenses were in stock clearances, most other mounts were full price, even the M43 ones.

The S5 kit, which is now extensive, was mostly down to bargains and best buys, so I should not feel pressured to build on it. I could have also completely avoided the cinema glass, just going with the S Primes, but where is the fun in that?

*The M43 only path would have satisfied, the only real benefits coming from full frame being high ISO shooting (Mostly irrelevant with fast M43 glass and only relevant with fast FF glass) and lens choice (also mostly irrelevant by picking different glass). Lenses like the IRIX 21 over the 30, or the 12 and 35 7Artisans Vision and Sirui 24 and 55 Nightwalkers (the pick of each set) would have done cinema lenses or maybe even a set of the Sirui anamorphic’s.

**By pressure I mean the cloud hanging over the Olympus to OM systems transition, mostly in the minds of detractors and the up until recently, stagnant offerings from Panasonic and Black Magic as well as their expansion of their full frame offers.

***Another M43 body (GH6, GH5II), a cinema lens (10-25 f1.7) and maybe the odd prime like the Sigma 56 and some cinema glass, so $5-7k anyway.

The 85 In An Every Changing Landscape (And Don't Trust The Screen!)

Not sure why in M43 I often struggle with the 85-90mm focal length equivalent (42-45mm), but I do. It was a favourite in Canon full frame and a lens I could not see myself without, enough so that I managed to hoard three Oly 45’s.

It may be that on the occasions I am looking for maximum blurring the 75 is the best option, or it may be the format compression or shape.

I tend to prefer the 60-75 range or longer in M43, but in full frame, the 85 is back!

Gorgeous. Raw into C1, minimal processing.

On par with the IRIX at this level.

This is good, considering I have large gap between 50 and 150 in my cinema lenses, so this has to do double duty as my longest full frame stills lens and my cinema filler.

I have to remember to, that this is my shallowest depth of field or “Big Bokeh” lens, being slightly longer than the 75 Oly at the same speed. The IRIX can monster it, but only because it can focus closer.

f1.8 on the left, 2.8 on the right. I am reminded yet again that extremely shallow depth of field looks cool, but it is not very practical.

Sharp wide open, but not crazy harsh.

The S5 rear screen is not super. All of these looked soft on close inspection, so I have to trust they would be fine. I seriously thought this lens was faulty when I first looked, but every out of focus looking image proved to be in focus.

Nice blurring, but different to the look the cinema lenses have been providing.

It did struggle with close focussing and that is mediocre at best, but that is what the IRIX is for!

Now about that.

Windy again here so the IRIX tests were…….tested.

This is the same plant as above ten minutes later at minimum focus distance. I think the Bokeh king in this situation.

I know I bought this for video, but my “belt and braces” approach, having it as an occasional macro seems to have worked out.

Every serious macro I have bought has been about $1-2000au or equivalent at the time, this one no exception (I think my first 100 FD f4 was $400au thirty plus years ago). The big difference is, I have never enjoyed using a long macro as much, nor had the whole cinema thing up my sleeve as well.

Rustle in the scrub?

Yep and I got it several shots in a row. At longer distances the lens throw compresses, making tracking this guy quite easy.

Straight into the sun!

Some more Bokeh fun.

Spider? Turns out no, but to my eye it is was 3mm spec.

And finally a failed attempt at the berry sprig from above (really windy).

All of these images except the top and bottom ones were taken from the same sitting spot.

A team that has the answers I feel and fits surprisingly well with my M43 kit, offering clearly more blurring when needed (rarely), better close focus (again rare) and superior low light performance, which can also be helpful.

The pair cost about $2000au, but I could not be happier and neither was on any kind of shopping list a month ago!

What Is A Cinema Lens?

This is something I have had to tackle myself recently and the answer is as interesting as it is sometimes vague.

A cinema lens is sometimes the same recipe optically as a stills lens, such as the IRIX or Sony ranges, but this is only one interpretation of the cinema lens dynamic. If this is the case, generally the needs of cinema users come first, the stills lens gets superior optics, but loses the cine lenses mechanical benefits.

Possibly too perfect from the IRIX cinema macro, but that can be tamed and like other cinema lenses, it shares the desired optical qualities of smoothness, clarity and gentleness.

Regardless they are mechanically divergent, with manual (only) focus throw that is usually a lot longer than a stills lens and a click-less and step-less aperture ring that is measured in “T” stops* often with a lot of rounded blades for smoother focus transitions. Bokeh for these lenses is not an occasional thing, it is as important as the sharpness and contrast of the optic.

The same but very different. The Lumix S is a feather weight which is both good and bad, but the cine lens is a solid metal brick (the Lumix feels like a toy in the other hand), helping with hand holding and general heft. In more specific terms, the Lumix does the job efficiently and reliably, the 7Artisans is more tactile, engaging and refreshingly difficult to use. The Lumix does however have some cinematic traits, being part of a set of matched lenses in a new trend to bridge the gap.

Where they are generally different, is in lens set consistency. The focus and aperture rings all line up and are toothed for attaching to follow focus or aperture rigs, the filter threads are often the same, the colour is close and other optical characteristics are shared. This is even the case with cheaper ones, except that they sometimes vary in colour or flare characteristics, but not by much.

Part of a set of three, these are not all the same in overall length, but the two toothed rings are identically placed and the three lenses are close to the same weight and center of balance for gimbal and rig balancing. These are “budget” lenses so some characteristics are not perfectly matched, such as colour (the 35mm is obviously warmer in tone, but processes to be in line easily enough) and the focus ring resistance is a little different, but this is irrelevant on a follow focus unit.

7 Artisans Vision series and Sirui Nightwalkers are a case in point. Each set is matched mechanically, but colour varies slightly lens to lens, some being neutral, some warmer (they can actually be intermingled for better consistency, but then you lose other consistencies).

Optically, cinema lenses are generally well corrected, with flare, distortions, vignetting, chromatic aberrations and Bokeh (blurring) focussed on, but sharpness can be surprising.

They are sharp, more or less, some even top tier sharp by any measure, but there are some lenses that are deliberately less than ideally sharp as modern stills lenses unless you value beauty over clinical perfection.

The file above was shot on the S5 with the Spectrum 50 T2 (at T2.8) as a test of the quite excellent and cheap Neewer 4 stop ND I bought for my mat box. I used Flat profile and no processing was applied. The combination of the profile and lens has created a gentle looking file with a huge amount of room for post. It is like the lens adds a half a “Flat” profile on its own. Something else evident here is the added stability the heft of the lens adds.

A single frame with a colour grade.

Perfection is not very cinematic, not very characterful, but more importantly, it is not “invisible” or natural looking. Perfection tends to take attention away from the subject and place it back on awareness of the process.

One of the great ironies of modern video creation is the trend to “take the edge off” digital perfection using filtering, post processing or applying lenses with less than perfect sharpness (or sometimes all of these).

The two lenses below, the Lumix S 50 f1.8 (left) and 7 Artisans 50 T2 Spectrum (right) were shot as was, with no post processing and deliberately taken in harsh light at F/T 4 the “cinematic” aperture, to promote invisibility and balance the scene.

The Lumix lens is responding to the high contrast scene with sharpness, high contrast and blown out highlights, but very modern Bokeh. The cinema lens is lower in contrast and has less aggressive blurring, but it is still sharp.

Types of sharpness are important especially when you put a multi thousand dollar price tag on them and this is the thing directors and cinematographers are very aware of.

Anamorphic lenses in particular have issues that would make them unworkable as stills lenses, but these built in problems are actually much sought after in cinematography. Designed to “squeeze” the footage then “de-squeeze” it out again after to allow super wide screen coverage (off film originally), they have unusual flare and Bokeh effects often at the expense of superior sharpness and require “de-squeeze” capabilities in either the camera or processing.

I guess to sum up, a cinema lens is a lens that heroes natural rendering with smooth and non-distracting optical characteristics and an ideal mechanic design for full manual control. Unlike a stills lens, it is not out to impress, but to be an enabler for the overall process.

The lens needs to make the process invisible to promote viewer immersion and above all, it needs to make the image attractive in a gentler sense.

No compromises are reached to achieve this, often meaning they are big, heavy and expensive, but not always. This also means though, that decent lenses can be had for little outlay. Removing weight, high contrast and sharpness and auto focus alone takes away the biggest expenses of a lens.

*”T” stops are basically more accurate than “F” stops for lens to lens and metering consistency.

A Nice Surprise

My 1TB 1000x speed SSD drive arrived today and I am genuinely surprised how small it is.

50x faster and over 100x bigger (than an admittedly meagre card), for a third the price of a fast 256GB card.

The G9II has already saved me hundreds.

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.