Boom Time!

Really, in lots of ways, but specifically, booming mics might be a thing soon and I must admit, I have not been on this properly.

Options.

• MKE-400 Sennheisser shotgun mic.

• Zoom SSH-6 on F1.

• SSH-6 with ECM-3 or ECM-6 extension cable to the F1/H5.

• Sennheisser MKE-600.

• Zoom M3 float shotgun.

• Something I own now in my extensive condenser and dynamic range to the AMS-24 or H5/F1.

• Use LAV’s.

Now booming means basically mic off camera-nearer the subject, so it is not always high above just closer, maybe on a stand or tripod. A mic should always be as close as possible to the subject.

A boom mic needs to be directional, have good off-axis rejection, good gain, low handling noise, good wind rejection and some control at the user end.

The SSH-6 is my first option, impressing me with previous uses and its mid-side option, but it has one issue, getting it close to a form factor that is practical. This can be fixed with the recently discovered ECM-3 or 6 meter cables from Zoom (you always need to check under every rock for ideas with these guys as they constantly surprise). Cost of the fix $100-120au.

The MKE-400 is the next logical option. Coming close to the performance of the MKE-600, but with built in shock and wind protection and running to a camera via a 3.5 cable, it is probably ideal. This one needs better wind protection than it currently has though. The provided “dead critter” is good, but not perfect. I could double “blimp” it. Cost of fix $0-400au.

The MKE-600 is in a lot of ways a duplication of the 400, but with better rejection and tighter gain, but not significantly superior and would be bought for just this role as I have other options for other duties. Cost of fix with wind sock $370-450au.

The Zoom M3 is interesting. It has everything the others have with 32 bit float, plus mid-side and a backup recording for added peace of mind (no levels required). The RF interference issue is unsettling, although that seems to be fixed. This mic is light, but very plasticky feeling and quite expensive. Fix cost $300au.

One of my existing condenser or dynamic mics could work. The Lewitt 040 Match and sE V7 are the most likely two. The V7 has a nice pattern, the 040’s are tiny and super sensitive. The dynamics probably need to be closer, the 040 might be a little thin sounding. Realistically, these are great indoor options, but not ideal for outdoors, especially as wind rejection is not in their design remit. Cost of fix $0-unknown for wind protection (the 040’s fit my Rode wind socks).

LAV mics like my M1 Larks are an option and a good one. The only real issues are obvious (you can see them) and they are limited to two users. In reality, these will be non-issues.

Thinking?

• My gut says spend the dollars on the MKE-600 and just get into a mic made to purpose.

• My heart says the SSH-6 on an extension, because it just works, is cheap and adds versatility to my Zoom kit overall.

• My head says the MKE-400 for the same reasons as both above. The 400 is also less likely to be used as I have previously as I will have the time for a proper Zoom rig from now on.

• A little voice on my shoulder, possibly with horns and a tail is whispering “Zoom M3”.

If I had no options except what I have now, the H5 or F1/SSH-6 works fine and at up to 30m, the F1 for boom pole work, as does the MKE-400 if the wind is within normal tolerances.

A Wind Noise Test

A basic test of the wind proofing of my current offerings and a surprise or two.

I got my Zoom kit out, the MKE-400 and a Boya MM-1 mini shotgun (which is my favourite in this class and it has a beefy wind breaker). My “wind” was a 40cm desk fan set on high from a few feet away on side to side rotation. If this was a stack of paper test, it would clear the it in seconds. I held each mic as close a half a metre from the fan.

The SSH-6 on the H5.

This is my main hope as the dead cat is decent and the mic powerful.

• Without; Ouch! This thing does not miss much.

• With; At any angle and with the mid-side pickup set at +5 to -20, slight but consistent wind sound.

Findings; Good enough for most uses, but will fail in strong or buffeting wind, possibly within fixable or ignorable tolerances. This probably rules out the M3 as that has basically the same mic in a different form.

The Boya MM1 into the H5.

• Without; not tried-no point.

• With; Ok, with consistent but generally quiet grumble. Handling noise was bad, but no shock mount used.

Findings; Not bad as an emergency option.

The MKE-400 into the H5 or Camera.

This is the logical choice, basically a MKE-600 lite.

• Without wind muff (but its own “blimp”; Ok. about the same as the Boya, but less consistent as I moved it around.

• With the muff; Better, about the same as the SSH-6 with its fluffy, maybe a little twitchier at some angles. The sock is thinner than the others, which is a shame.

Findings; Almost enough, maybe just a little under done as I have found in real world use. If I could do a decent home made blimp, I may be able to stretch this.

The surprise XYH-5 on the H5 (or H1n).

I added the H1n as well, because it is basically the same.

This one was only tried because it was there and I got its dead critter out by mistake.

• Without; Genuine pain and throw in some handling noise for good measure. Don’t try this at home kids.

• With the pop filter; About the same as the MKE on its own. There is also an “uber” pop filter also, but these are generally not the best wind barriers.

• With the fluffy (and it is fluffy, like a baby bird); The best by far. I could not get this to freak out. I even caught the fluffy on the fan trying to get a reaction!

Findings; This is the wind king both ways. It was by far the worst without shielding, the best with. Problem is an X/Y mic is not ideal for boom work being physically short and the wrong pickup configuration. I guess wide gain-thin sound is better than wind noise sometimes and the X/YH-6 has a 90 degree mode (if the wind sock fits it). This would be a good environmental option in every way, small, sensitive, wind proof and in the kit.

*

With my current resources I can do a boom mic in a few ways and even handle the nastiest of real world wind conditions, but it takes a village.

Am I better off just going the MKE-600 and a decent sock or blimp or work within my range now and see what comes, which often amounts to a lot of unfounded paranoia?

I could also maybe look at some other wind socks for the SSH-6.

Ed. We had a nasty weather front come through this afternoon so I had a chance to try the same test in blustery conditions and the same result. The SSH-6 and dead cat were good, almost good enough, but the XYH-5 and dead…gerbil (?) were even better with no hum, crackle or thump. I did get some rustling noise at first, but realised it was the head phone buds, not the mic!

The Stars, They Are (Re) Aligning.

I have officially given notice at the news paper, the second school went a few weeks ago, then I signed back on with the original school and committed my time to several not for profit organisations.

Happy days!

It feels good and it seems a good run of good luck (karma?) has been released.

Another Game, Same Process

The state team, the JackJumpers are doing well and it was as usual a lot of fun covering them recently.

On Being A Generalist And The Curse Of Specialist Opinions

I read a lot, research is probably closer to the mark and feeling a little under the weather today, I grabbed my laptop and decided to look at mics again (Zoom M3, MKE-600, Zoom F3 etc).

What struck me was hardly new, it just probably came at the right time and with time to explore.

I consider myself a generalist, someone who needs to be pretty decent, from an outsiders perceptions, at most things I try. A generalist comes unstuck sometimes when faced with specialist scrutiny, but specialists rarely cast their eye my way. Those people do their own stuff*.

Video, stills, audio all need to be done well enough to be professionally acceptable, but due to a small budget and often limited needs, I try to research as deeply as possible (I have been doing this for 30 years so reading between the lines has become a real skill), make clever moves, buy well, which requires patience, buy to do the end job, not take the many wasted micro steps that growing into a new field can sometimes force on you.

Mostly I want the best “bang for the buck” option.

I make mistakes, plenty of them, but so far, most of these have been slight, not catastrophic.

Stills.

My mix of Olympus and Panasonic M43 has been a giver. I have professional grade cameras and lenses covering 16-600mm (full frame equivalent), have depth, options, specialist gear and I always get the job done.

Never have I been accused of falling short technically (well gear wise anyway), so this has been a good move. I have some full frame for video, but rarely feel the desire to use it this way.

A 35k+ kit of a pro level full frame camera, 600mm f4 and the holy trinity of f2.8 zooms for my needs?

No way.

Video.

Panasonic has been my main ride here and it has been all good.

The G9 mk1 (with latest firmware, but not the upgrade key), the G9 Mk2 and my full frame S5 have all provided something here, often beyond my actual needs and with the OSMO pocket, not much escapes me now.

Full frame was a good move in last years landscape, a slight miss-step in light of this years, but the lenses that have come my way have been amazing. Always room for good lenses.

Sound.

Zoom has been my main recorder and interface base line and probably my one rare submission to the norm, although my approach has been unusual. Sennheisser, Lewitt and sE are my mic choices outside of that.

In all cases, I have prosumer grade by cost, but can manage most pro needs by buying carefully, with a plan and to my skill set now and in the future.

*

Getting there.

I review deeply, carefully and comprehensively. I have effectively developed another skill over the years, reviewing reviews. This started with photo mags in the 1980’s unbroken through to now with the internet.

When reading reviews, the first thing you need to work out is who is writing the review, what they personally use or need (if they do at all), what context their review is written from, what forces were at play at the time of writing and any hidden or openly revealed allegiances or bias.

Lets unpack the rules of the game.

First, what questions are you asking?

Are you looking for affirmation or clarity. Is hard and often unkind honesty genuinely sought after or are you looking until you find the answers you want? When you find those answers, do you understand them or do they raise even more questions? If they do raise questions, are these due to poor reviewing, overly technical talk or have you just broken through to another knowledge ceiling (which is good).

The reviewer.

If the reviewer is a generalist, like a generic tech mag doing a “best buys” article, where they may be drawing from other sources or limited reviews of their own, then they are limited in scope, but can still be helpful if used in conjunction with other similar reviews (the rule of three comes in here).

I only yesterday read a “best audio recorders for professional videographers” list which had the Zoom H8, H5, F1 and H1n on it (the first two as numbers 1 and 2). It was an Australian mag, so the availability, price and local popularity of the products had to be taken into account and the mag in question was a photo mag, not an audio one.

It may look the biz, but I am realistic. I know it does what I need now, probably way more, but I am open to upgrades in the future if they are warranted.

Great! I have those, job done, nice buys, but I have read other lists that do not even mention most of them and I would have to say if I were to write the same list myself, I would probably have added other interfaces from Zoom and their competition and dropped one or two from the list.

I would have because I have read more and looked under more stones, owned some and found issues and tricks. The problem here was the title “professional” videographers, should have probably read “aspiring to be professional”, but even then, it was a seriously slanted perspective.

If the reviewer is a specialist, they may have extremely high expectations so you have to put yourself in their thinking “shoes”. This comes from being in this space all the time and it happens to anyone.

The more you know, the less you tolerate and the higher your base-line expectations or assumptions may be. Many of these reviewers are reasonable and fair, but comments like “unacceptable noise floor” or “unusable edge softness” are usually too critically measured for every day users**.

Only a top end sound engineer or overly critical “wall chart” photographer will likely ever even notice these issues, the average punter, will probably not notice them even if you point them out.

Noise, both visual and audible are my two favourite Bugbears. Rarely does either matter, both are removable with software and often the chosen presentation platform removes them anyway, but measuring these two beasties can go to extreme levels.

Worse still are the pseudo-specialists, the theoretical experts, who do exhaustive reviews with flawed technique or incorrect assumptions and rarely actually use the gear. They use jargon and assumed imperatives to push their case, often with little idea themselves. These are rare, but not impossible to find.

Incorrect comments or terminology like “more of a depth of field”, “smaller apertures” when they actually mean wider ones*** (smaller numbers), or illogical conclusions like “this lens produces grainy images” are giveaways if you know what you are looking for, but that’s the point. If you know enough to pick frauds, you probably already know the answers.

If the reviewer is a new owner and someone who does not have the luxury of other options, but seems to know what they are doing and are doing it well enough, they are a good source of real world usage and discovered issues, but not a good comparison point.

I tend to like these reviews as they are honest and often enough once you have narrowed the field. They avoid analysis paralysis. Be careful of overly effusive “I bought it so I better like it” bias, even sponsored pushing, but often that comes across quickly.

Special mention - Forums.

Forums have to taken for what they are, often a helpful but rarely controlled space. Some of the weirdest, most misleading and harmful opinions I have come across come from these, which is a shame as they often contain the best way of getting multiple opinions in one place and a good feel for how something sits in its relative space.

Reviewers by definition tend to sign up more or less to a basic expectation of fairness, information paring and objectivity, well, more or less.

Forum goers adhere to no such guidelines, so range from those who actually put miss-informaion to the test and placate misgivings or reduce confusion to blatant attacks on any who disagree with their take on this micro world.

I use forums usually to find specific answers to specific questions or the get a feel in a general sense for a product or brand when I am new to a space. I never accept them as gospel.

Mixed loyalties.

We are all aware more or less that sponsorship is a thing, something some rely on to make a living and good on them. Many are up front about this, but not always.

Lists and reviews by stores will always have a certain level of bias, often this is hidden in their omissions. They are highly unlikely to negatively review their own products, so in lieu of a bad review, they will often not bother or may even divert.

These reviewers are also very good at giving exceptions to products like “if you are looking for a good budget item” or if you need battery operated, so always take these exceptions into consideration.

Context.

This is a tricky one. The title of the review may give you some idea what the reviewer is thinking, but even then, time, location and use case will often shift this.

Is the item the same price now as when reviewed****, is it dearer or cheaper in the reviewers country, has anything come out since that might compete with it (even a newer model of the same), what other gear are they using, what purpose are they working towards, are there other elements at work?

All of these factors can and often do have some effect.

A surprise can even pop up here when a working professional reveals a bit of gear that they probably would not have even thought to use until circumstances forced a work around and the results exceeded all expectations. Real use retrospectives and long term user reviews can be the the most useful you will come across, as long as they are relevant of course.

Need often creates clever work-arounds and rediscovered features and applications. You may even find a fix you already have.

Out of context.

Look outside the box as well. The best place to find the right info may not be where you think.

I recently found a brilliant video bag (5.11 Range Ready bag), while shopping for utility pants. I literally tripped over it in the shop and came away with a cheap, perfectly formed, robust bag capable of taking those oddly shaped video rigs and accessories.

Limiting myself to camera bags only coughed up the same, over priced specialist bags.

The drag effect.

This one is a little bit of a side note, but something I have added today, because the day after I published this post, it actually happened and I had not thought of it before in this way.

When you find something you like, you follow the trail, find more reviews, opinions, users, often you lose sight of the relevance of that item/idea/effect in the larger sense.

This came to light for me when I had a chat with a fellow videographer, someone I had not talked to in a while and someone more advanced than I, about cine lenses, or more specifically alternatives to brand name lenses for M43 format.

He mentioned names I had not stumbled over and I did the same for him. We had both found our “holy grail” brands, but neither had found each others.

I felt 7Artisans, TTArtisans, IRIX and Sirui were the best of their type and he threw new names at my like Kamlan or reminded me of discarded ones like Laowa or Samyang (based on being a store employee most likely).

We both learned something, but I learned the additional lesson that when you follow these trails, you tend to find what you are seeking, possibly at the expense of a wider view.

*

For me, the magic lies in a product that has minimum wastage, can be duplicated in some way adding depth and redundancy, is a class leader and often versatile, which for me is usually set to moderate or semi-pro level and finally is easy to use.

*I did photograph a wedding for a wedding photographer once. It was his daughters and he was forbidden from taking a camera.

**I had to choose between the Lewitt 040 Pure LDC with basically no noise floor and the 240 Pro MDC with a relatively higher noise floor. I went with the 240 (twice but for less), because I wanted depth, consistency and a rough price and performance balance with my 040 SDC’s and 440 dynamics (2 of each). Listening to some first field recordings through the 240 to the H8 Zoom revealed clarity and quietness far beyond anything I had ever heard.

If I had bought the dearer mic, I would have attributed all this to the superior quality of the mic, but the reality is the noise floor of the 240 was out of my danger zone and completely irrelvant if there is any actual noise to record.

***This one is common and really ticks me off. When understanding that a wider, brighter, larger aperture with less depth of field is a smaller number and a smaller, darker, closed down one with more depth of field has a larger number, is hard enough already. It does not help when the so-called advisor gets it wrong.

One of my favourite video Vloggers tends to call wider/brighter/opened up apertures smaller, which is just wrong.

****The Zoom H8 was almost twice it’s curent price on release a few years ago. It is now placed in the “great value as a skilled all-rounder” class, down from the “premium music recorder” class. I bought it as the former for under $500au, but many reviews were made when it was in the latter at $900-1100au. Was it a good buy? I doubt my needs will ever exceed what it offers, but it does give me a better than 90%’er in the areas of podcasting, field, music and video work.

Zoom Me Up Scotty!

Another Zoom is on the way.

This is a pint sized interface to fix the one small issue I have, which is powering XLR condenser mics with something small enough to attach to a rig.

The H5 is great, but even with the main capsule removed it is heavy and bulky and relies on a single screw thread for connection.

The F1 and EXH-6 twin XLR capsule does not provide phantom power to condenser mics.

The H8 is another beast all together.

This little critter is a giver.

The AMS-24 is a highly flexible and portable musicians interface, but it can also a handy, light, tough little twin XLR interface to a video camera, providing the needed phantom power.

It can be strapped to anything, dangle, go into a bag or pocket or be clamped to a stand.

I have looked at a lot of Zoom devices and this one, a decent special at $169au, seems to be the best fit. Basically this with a pair of Lewitt 040 Match SDC’s and you have a small universal recording kit or with a LCT 240 Pro makes a pod casting power house. At -120 dbu it is not a field recorder, but close enough for general use and better than many cheap recorders (same noise as the H5).

The even smaller AMS-22 was on my radar also, being only half the size, but it lost the option of battery power and the single input may have been limiting for only a little less money and really neither weighs much (AMS-24 is well under 200g with batts).

The bigger AMS-44 was not appealing because for its size and bulk with 4 mics attached, the H5 and even the H8 come into play and are even better platforms for that mess.

The Rise And (Self Driven) Demise Of A Newspaper Photographer

If you have been following this journey for a while (and thanks!), you will know I came from a hobby/self motivated snapper and camera salesman/teacher of over three decades to being a school then newspaper photographer almost by mistake and that was in the face of COVID lockdowns.

The school thing was a revelation for a photographer with no real intention of doing it as a career, but not a real job and that really hit home when our island state, previously impervious to COVID, opened the flood gates again and we went into semi-lockdown for six months, effectively shutting me down also.

I grabbed an opportunity for some hours at the local paper, something I had never really desired, because to be honest, I had trialled it years before as a temp and knew it was not going to be a road to satisfaction, only a rare, stable photographic income stream.

This became a full time job quite quickly, but when I realised I did not want that single tracked future, it became a part time job again, but glacially slowly. I missed an opportunity to work for the school I started with again (by a mere three months!), but luckily found another through contacts made ironically at the paper.

I always stuggled with the papers needs. I can do it, but I do not enjoy it. The very quick turn around, little to no prep, minimal equipment, very unnatural posed images and often poor reproduction along with a the lack of support and clear feedback at the paper have made me question not only if I am doing it right, but also if I want to do it at all (photography that is).

Once, this would have been my dream job, but it is a shadow of its former self, as are most things these days.

Not me, but good skills to learn.

In complete contradiction to that, I have been the papers video champion, something that surprises me as I came to the paper with the least experience in this field, but seem to be the most adept at shooting video and stills at the same time and turning these around quickly*. I also pay the most attention to the details I feel are important like microphones, lighting etc.

According to Dailymotion, our video server, we are creeping up on 1,000,000 views since using this service, which for our paper is about one year. Thanks to shooting our sports podcast which accounts for about half these views, it seems I am responsible for about 90% of that, maybe more and certainly the bulk of our in-house content. The sad reality is also, I only work half the week and rarely shoot video on the weekends.

Unfortunately, even though I seem to be in a position to (re)invent this space, there is little to no scope to take it further, because just like stills with the paper, you get it done with what fits in a shoulder bag (G9 mk1, MKE-400 mic, 12-40 Oly with ND filter, a small LED and occasionally a small tripod).

I feel this is a crucial part of our offer as a news service now prioritising online content over print, but it seems locally anyway, I am a little ahead of my time.

The other three photographers and almost all the journalists are shooting little or no video and it seems to be going mostly unnoticed when it is supplied, even though nationally, we are ahead of most in ratio of videos to stories posted (about 80%, not the 100% expected by head office, but far better than most). Ours are also local content not generic national clips which is so important for a local paper.

At first this was a gear thing, my humble G9 Mk1’s adding a tripod like stabiliser, great OOC 10 bit/422, 1080p and good sound with my MKE-400, compared to the D750 and D500’s the others were issued, but they now have Z9’s, so no excuses.

Anyway.

I am leaving the paper soon, hoping to pick back up with a school (the first one) as a base and do some private work (fear + excitement = working for yourself). Not for profits are still in this picture and may even be able to actually hire me occasionally, saving them money and adding some to my soon to be reduced income, but I am still doing these for the love of it.

Good for everyone.

New year, new, happier life path.


*I shoot my video while the journalist conducts their interview, as I do many of my candid stills, then set up a staged shot at the end. My 1-2 minute clips are produced in under 30 minutes, often faster depending on content. This occasionally, but rarely fails.

Night Walking

The Sirui on a G9 mk1 for testing (stills and video).

G9 Mk1 standard profile (set to defaults), ISO 1600, 1/60th, T1.2 about two stops under by the camera meter.

A little grade. The trick with this camera is to avoid very high ISO settings and under exposure, which work hand in hand.

Not about Selena, more about the Bokeh from the blinds in the background.

Wide open off centre. Not bad, certainly fine for video.

The meaty 7Artisan Spectrum lenses on the S5 feel good, the G9’s with the Sirui are equally nice, but different. Switching either dynamic seems pointless as they are both ideal for each system.

Now a quick switch to the G9II.

Stills from video are a thing these days. G9II Flat with a light grade.

Manual focus, hand held. Too easy.

Panning, The Other Motion Capture

When you have been watching things go around tracks for a little while, getting something different comes to mind.

With cars, it is usually a panning shot, but this can be difficult, sometimes impossible with erratically moving subjects.

Panning needs a few things;

• A subject that is moving predictably left to right and stays the same size.

• A fairly stable subject, with few moving parts and those parts should be contained. Heads in particular should be still, wheels turning looks good.

• A shutter speed that is slow enough to blur the background and some moving parts. The slower the better, but I find about 1/90 to 1/125 is about right.

• A smooth follow action that starts before and finishes after the image capture.

Turns out trotting or harness racing has the right balance of elements.

The driver and horse tend to be quite stable, the wheels turn neatly and the track is smooth and clean.

The next day at the horse racing I had little luck, but that was expected (too much head movement).

Odd and unwieldy as they look, these things move, something I wanted to convey. The key here is the still head.

The “frozen" action shot lacks that feeling of speed and danger (another rider came off on this corner and went home in an ambulance).

Bikes can work, sprinters also, but rarely distance runners, field sports can offer up the odd win, but generally smooth motion sports only.

Even foreground distractions can be mitigated. With cars also, it allows for wheel movement, that is far more dynamic and interesting than frozen wheels.

This one is a split between slow enough to read the background, fast enough to feel like a pan. This is a combination of a slightly faster shutter (1/180) and a slower car in the corner.

Not a pan, but the “grail” shot I guess is tight and panned.

The only issue is, if you get too carried away with panning, you are not prepared for the rare “incident” at the faster shutter speeds required.

Longer lenses are generally easier because they give you longer sweeps of a relatively similarly sized subject, but the most dramatic can come from wide angle lenses.

Days Racing By.

New Years eve and day were spent covering harness and horse racing.

Can you believe Christmas and New Years have gone already?

Not my thing really, but surprisingly cool to photograph.

The Cressy Harness racing event first in stunning light, with a track covered in a quite reflective gravel surface adding clarity and brilliance to the shots.

There is a restrained aggression to this sport.

It also added a certain grit to the shots.

The shape of this sport is photogenic in the extreme. the slower, lower racers and their rigs frame well and thanks to the width of the rigs, they are usually well spaced.

My 40-150 was a little too long for this (a 35-100 would have been perfect), so the groups were a little tight.

Gets you more involved though I guess.

New Years day saw me at the Longford racing carnival,

Grass, overcast light, faster horses and looser groups.

Aware that the finish would have tight crowds on the rails, possibly even tighter bunched horses and the reality that in one race already the winner was lost behind a crowd, I decided to try something new.

Climbing the hand rail of the only major grand stand I managed the two elements I wanted, the winner of the Cup and the decent crowd at this well supported event.

Big Wheels Keep Turning (Or The $10 Fix).

My Smallrig follow focus has been a good investment, but the gear (43T or 43 tooth) is designed for fairly short stills lens focus throw. To focus a stills lens from close to infinity may only take 60-90 degrees of rotation, which the 43T is ideal for.

The problem I have arises when you have the option of setting your stills lenses to a longer 180-270 degree throw or you employ actual cinema lenses.

My Spectrum, Sirui and IRIX lenses are either 270 or 180 degree throw, which when used with the 43T takes two or more full rotations of the focus wheel to go from close to infinity focus and usually requires you take your hand off, interrupting smooth focus to go from even near to relatively near. This means it is sometimes easier to just use the lens as is, which is pointless.

The 65T gear, discovered when I was looking for a rotation handle or similar for the follow focus rig (it has a square hollow in the handle that looked like it might have a use, but no) effectively halves the rotations.

The gear wheel is about twice the size of the original, making the focus rig quite a bit bigger, but the throw is much better and the focus wheel sits out more evenly.

I will hang on to the 43T for the odd stills lens I may adapt, but I doubt I will use it otherwise except for maybe macro work.

ed. another benefit is when the rig is reversed (when on a shoulder rig), the focus control now sits out far enough to be turned with my right hand.

The (Mostly) Blessings That Are Zoom Audio Recorders

I have relied on Zoom recorders of various types since the beginning of my video/audio journey.

The H1n

Cheap, light and capable. You can do and learn a lot with this little unit and it seemed very natural that it would float to the top in my early days.

The H1n was a sound (eh!) investment and the first one that many make on their journey to something better. Even professionals would rather a H1n to most other non specialist sound recorder options and it is very versatile.

This mic is sensitive, but has quite high self noise (only an issue in quiet situations like studios). It is a good device to learn when or even if this matters.

The trick with this little guy is to think outside of the box. It is light enough to go into a suit pocket as a LAV recorder or even just as is. It can be mounted in odd places with screws or tape, used as a backup or even on camera. It is a little like the OSMO Pocket of the sound world.

The H5

I bought the H5 to be a “proper” interface with a pair of Lewitt 040 Match pencil condensers. It did improve my recording options and quality, even though I did not think the actual utility of the unit through for my needs at the time.

I would guess the H5 is the most popular or at least best known single pro-am Zoom or even non-Zoom unit* because it is versatile, tough and decently good at everything it does.

It is often the logical next step for those wanting to enter this space, then holds on longer than many as a decent enough answer for even seasoned pro’s. It is in a word “handy”.

An updated H5 with quieter amps and a better interface would probably be the G9II of the audio world.

Needed accessories for mounted use. A bit much for a small rig.

The H5 added a pair XLR inputs, a lot of recording options, removable capsules and better self noise than the H1n. It is solid, reliable, has good battery life with capsules and records nice sound, but it has a fiddly menu, not the best self noise performance in it’s class, its battery life suffers* when powering condenser mics and it is too cumbersome to use with a camera rig (although I have seen plenty try!).

Capsules

Only a sample of the options on offer, but some of the strongest. The dual XLR capsule EXH-6 is solid and clean, the SSH-6 is a powerful shotgun and mid-side mic, the XYH-6 has 90 and 120 degree cover and the XYH-5 has shock mounts.

For the H5, H8 and F1, I have the two X/Y capsules, the SSH-6 mid-side shotgun and the twin XLR adapter.

The XLR unit seems quieter than the ports in the H5 in both ways. They are clean, but about two notches on the dial less sensitive.

The SSH-6 keeps floating to the top of my just get-it-done list with clear and powerful pickup.

Neither of the XY capsules get much use, but they are handy to have. The XYH-6 seems to be the better of the two, the XYH-5 is reserved for on camera use with the F1.

The F1

The little F1 on its efficient shock mount (warning though, once mounted it is hard to remove), the SSH-6 and XYH-5 capsules and the little power bank that partially fixed my broken battery door troubles (note the cable tie).

The F1 was bought in response to the H5’s bulk being unrealistic for on camera shotgun mic work, which annoyed me with excellent the SSH-6 at hand. I bought the LAV option as it was cheaper and the second shotgun held no interest.

The F series are “field”, not “handy” recorders, meaning they put sound quality over other factors, but the F1 is a contradiction, being so small it is handier even than the H1n and it takes capsules. I am torn which is the better LAV option out of the H1n and F1, so both are capable, but for on-camera work there is no comparison.

There are some other things going on though.

The battery issues from the H5 are a thing**, but worse and the fiddly little battery cover door is a disaster. When it is not broken it was fiddly and the frustrating. When it is broken, which most do it turns out, it is “throw it against the wall” annoying.

This also highlights the lack of local service options for Zoom. They have a warranty, but outside of that you are mostly on your own.

With the need to change batteries almost every time you use it for serious work, my door being held tight by cable ties, it is something I tend to just avoid, which is a shame**.

I can’t remember the self noise figures, but I think the F1 may be as good as the H8 with capsules, or even better and with the shock mount and SSH-6, it is a very decent shotgun/mid side mic. The manual volume dial is really intuitive.

Most Zoom devices share similar controls, the manual dial is my favourite, but the menues are usually different enough to need some practice. Even terminology like the handling of “mid-side” angles is different on every unit!

The power fix is a separate 5v power dock, which does ask the question why Zoom decided to use different connection ports for their H5, H1n and F1 units? More frickin’ cables!

I could have called it quits here, but a desire to run more than four XLR mics or more than two condensers (which need power from the unit, something the XLR adapter does not offer), got me looking at the F6, AMS-24 and H8. What tipped me over was price once I had read the H8 had better amps on it’s XLR ports than he H5/6, nearly as good as the F6 and the potential of even more mics.

The H8

Quite a different beast, especially with the EXH-6 capsule (which weighs half as much as the recorder).

The H8 is a monster, although only actually a little bigger than the H6, just very differently shaped.

With adapters it can take as many as 10 XLR mics, which is a whole rock band*** and the amps for these are better than the other H series units, although the capsule performance is apparently the same as the H5 and H6 recorders. The F6 is still better (-127 compared to -124 db self noise), but not by much so the H8 is plenty and takes more mics (8 with my setup) as well as other capsules.

The one area the F6 excels in mounting directly under a camera, but with cable running all over the place, that hardly reduces clutter.

The menu is a vast improvement over the other units using a colour touch screen interface, split menus for its several different roles and better battery life (and indication) than the others. I also appreciate most features have their own switch, which sometimes makes it feel like it has fewer features.

It is an odd creature, bigger than the H5, but smaller in scale, meaning the dials are smaller, the buttons tighter and it is blacker, harder, lighter and flatter feeling than the H5. It actually feels like it is made by a different company.

It also allows access to some extra capsules, like the ambisonic VRH-8, the powered EXH-8 4x XLR/TRS addition (10 XLR’s!), the XAH-8 X/Y+A/B (which I wish it came with), making it another class of interface in several ways.

AMS-24

This one fills a hole in my kit. I cannot power condenser microphones (Lewitt LCT 240 and 040) with anything small and light weight on a video rig. The F1 and dual XLR capsule does not supply power, the H5 is bulky and lacks contact points, the H8 is even worse.

At under 200g (with batteries), this can take two powered XLR mics and feed them out to a video camera (via the headphone output or USB-C). It can connect to the rig via soft strapping, be clamped or stuck to the rig or mic bracket or put into my pocket even. It is even light enough to just “dangle” if needed. One handy setup is to strap it to a power bank.

It also has the before unrealised benefit of allowing easy control of incoming and outgoing sound with main control dials. This is especially handy with less sensitive Dynamic mics, where you can set your incoming and out going gain in better balance. The other Zooms have easy incoming control, but often output is less intuitive (menu dive in the H5).

I can even use it to remotely run a couple of mics outside of, or to the H8.

*

Like a lot of things in my kit, the Zooms are an odd mix, but they work and no single item is useless or easily improved upon.

So, what is my take after a few years and a few units?

Overall I like them which I guess is obvious by my support of their line, as they are often the most flexible and straight forward answer, but they are not perfect. I really like how they just work and I rarely feel let down by the results, but their physical design is all over the place.

The company reminds me of Fuji. They are capable of anything, but department “A” and department “X” seem to operate in their own worlds and they rarely fix known issues (like the F1’s battery door).

I get excited by the options available, like the UAC-232 or M series, F2 and F3 float recorders and the F6 field recorder amongst others, but for now I am happy enough.

Most issues are fixable because above all else, they are flexible. Most are a recorder, an interface and a mic and the more I research sound options for musicians and videographers, the more Zoom devices I tend to see.

*The H6 takes 4 XLR mics, but is just that bit bigger and sound performance is much the same. The H4n is an H5 without a removable capsule and the original H4 has H1n grade amps. The H2 is interesting, but I have done its role several ways.

**The Zoom H5 and F1’s seem to have poor battery indicators with rechargeable batts, rarely giving three bars even with fresh Eneloop pro batts (set correctly), then drop to one bar very quickly and leave you unsure from that point when they will fail (often not for a while), so you change them over and over and I do not feel like trusting them for a 1hr video recording. It can be a little like driving a car on empty, not knowing when the actual “reserve” will give out. This is fixed with external 5v power from power banks, but that is the only option and adds more complication.

***A singer and their guitar, 3-4 amps or straight connections, overheads and main drums and a spare or two and/or the whole thing from a mixer.

Another Nifty Fifty..............Really?

Plenty of choice in this range now with the Sirui 24mm Nightwalker arriving.

Maybe an over serviced focal length?

Blue ring. The IRIX and this one stand out as different in a lot of ways.

Cosmetically, more of a middle ground look. Not overly cine, not stills.

To my surprise they are all similar in size. The surprise came from a massive difference in heft.

My oddly shaped cine kit seems to have balance still, in a literal sense anyway. The Sirui feels nicely weighted, but more like a solid stills lens.

The Spectrums are only a little heavier apparently, but the heft, their feeling of solidness is clearly greater, like the difference between aluminium and steel.

Very different up front. The 67mm filter thread gives me access to the bulk of my filters on a cine lens.

The lighter weight is a boon on the better stabilised M43 camera, the extra weight of the Spectrum lenses makes the S5 with its larger sensor and less efficient stabilising, more stable.

The mount is tight and clean, unlike the 12mm Vision lens.

The focus and aperture rings are a surprise. The Vision and Spectrum lenses are generally slightly damped, often the focus ring a little less than the aperture ring although they are seldom the same as each other, but the Sirui seems to have no dampening on either ring.

I am not at all bothered by the focus ring as it is fine and will usually have a follow focus used with it, but the aperture ring is something I will have to watch, possibly even tape it into place.

Wide open, focus is seemingly easy to acquire thanks to good contrast and sharpness (all images are with base Capture 1 in-out settings on an OM1.2), but depth of field is full frame-like.

Most of this series were in focus more or less, which considering it is my fastest lens (T1.2 or about F1.1), accuracy was tricky. The Bokeh is nice and clean, depth of field pleasantly transitioned and colour and contrast nice. There may be a little more brilliance to this lens than the Spectrums, but the Bokeh seems less gentle.

I remember being very content with the organic Bokeh of the Spectrum lenses. The Sirui sits about half way between the Spectrum and most of my stills lenses. It is capable of very nice blur, but it is also sometimes a little nervous, especially with defined edges.

Minimum focus is 0.3m, which is closer than this. Is it super stills lens sharp? No, but it is not meant to be and again, this is wide open at f-nothing.

The lens is a 48mm equivalent, but looks a little wider possibly because of some barrel distortion in close.

All 50’s in one form or another.

Lots of 50mm options (ten or more over the three formats), so an obvious base line to work from.

According to a test I have seen, the 35 Vision and 24mm Sirui are apparently similar in warmth (although I am not seeing that above), the 50mm cooler, the 35 and 50 match in “rendering” but not colour, the Sirui is a little different, but I think they and the IRIX can all be used in the same projects without too much issue.

My ideal cine lens would be the 30mm IRIX full frame which would also be a 45mm in APS-C, but the bill for that one is more than everything above. In an ideal world it would be the 21/32, 45/67, 65/98 and 150/225 IRIX, but in an ideal world there would be no wars, no famine, no disasters.

This is the cheap and solid option for my M43 kit and it fits well. The anamorphic 24mm was also tempting and a good point of difference, but I would like to put that to bed. I will try this lens with streak filters and some 2:1 anamorphic width and see what I get.

Next on the list is the Zoom M3 mic, which looks interesting.

Funny Little Lens, The TT Artisans 35mm f1.4.

Reading up on a hair brained idea (buying a 30mm f1.4 IRIX Dragonfly I found cheap in EF mount and adapting it to M43 and L-Mount), I rediscovered a couple of bits I had forgotten about.

The TTArtisans 35 f1.4 (L-Mount), that I bought last year to add to my full frame kit was a quickly forgotten curiosity, mostly because I did not use the S5 much and when I did, I kept it simple with the 20-60 zoom.

All metal including the screw in cap, the lens feels premium.

Being a crop frame lens, we are dealing with an APS-C or Super 35, 50mm or a 70mm in MFT format (where it may be less “characterful”).

The rings are befuddling. The aperture ring (front) is tiny and feels like it runs the wrong way (f1.4 is on the left end). The focus ring at the back is hard to locate, defies follow focus alignment and feels like it should be the aperture ring.

For a budding retro cinematographer or “old school” stills shooters it is probably a dream lens.

The brass tacks of it though is it is a very mixed, dare I say optically confronting bit of kit.

Full frame is not a serious option, looking more like the results from a Holga or Diana plastic film camera. The vignetting is cool/crap also with some “magnifying glass” edge artefacts at smaller apertures. Wide open at longer distances it is just cleanly “peep-hole” darkened.

Bought with character in mind, it seems I succeeded.

A rough APS-C crop. Nice, snappy separation wide open, massive edge distortion and muted colour. Maybe a perfect start for a fake anamorphic?

Bokeh like it’s 1979!

In focus we get snappy sharpness and pleasing blur. Distortion is a very real thing though.

The Bokeh in this shot is very reminiscent of the old 1960’s Pen F series half frame 25mm I have, as is the colour. When taking these, focus was a little hard to get. Peaking was a little fickle thanks to low contrast and a very thin plane of sharpness, but I hit more than I missed overall. It helps when you are not going for perfection from the get-go.

For stills, it shoots square well, giving you all the height of the frame almost the perfect cut off point to avoid the corner vignetting.

Dizzy yet? This image had a boost in contrast to combat the often flat look. Flat = cinematic = good?

Maybe a candidate for a faux anamorphic look, shot full frame with a 2:1 crop, a streak filter if I can step it down to the odd 39mm thread and then see what happens.

The focussing thing is problematic as 3ft to infinity is a thin hair of range, but maybe I have my itch for an anamorphic look answered?

At about 2:1 the far corners are lost to weirdness, the rest though is interesting. This is at f4 up close, so the vignetting takes on a whole other thing (top right).

Full Frame, What Would I Do Differently?

If I could wind the clock back to last year, with perfect hindsight of course, I would have either not done it at all, or saved a lot of money by chasing just the cinematic side of it.

The Lumix S primes are nice lenses. They are sitting in an odd spot in my kit/life.

They are auto focus lenses supported by a decent AF stills camera, but a video camera with issues. These issues are only highlighted by the newer S5 series, but even more so by the G9II.

Taken on my cheapest lens, the TTArt 35 f1.4 ($75au) which is very unlike these consistently sharp, modern and matched ones.

If used for stills only, Sigma makes a cheaper, smaller and sharper set.

If you take AF out of the equation, then the cinema lenses I have recently bought are better options for video. These have more character and are substantially cheaper (2:1 in this case).

The “other” three, the three I like to use and feel are better bang for my cinema buck.

It seems I have either;

A second “modern” cinema set,

or

A stills set, which could have been cheaper.

or

A hybrid set, with a better cinema option available.

The cine glass was a steal and it mostly came first, but I still went with completing the S-prime set?

I have two each of the 35 and 50mm full frame lenses, the cine lenses are my favourite.

I only have one 85mm, but I would have likely skipped this focal length for video with APS-C 75mm available (or bought the 85 Spectrum).

I have a 150mm macro, which to be honest is the oddest of oddities, but great fun and an equally good/bad fit for either set.

For cinema, wider is not really an issue, so the 20-60 can do that, but if I was only doing cinema lenses, the new 7Art 14mm would have done (or the IRIX 30mm for less than the three Lumix primes). The ideal in hind sight would have probably been the 30 and 150 IRIX for about $3k.

An even smarter idea may have been to do only Sirui Nightwalker lenses in M43 and APS-C L mount as perfectly matched sets, although they are poorly matched within their own range lens to lens. For example, two Sirui 24’s acting as a 35 in L-mount and 50mm in M43 mount equivalents would match perfectly, then a pair of 55’s (110 in M43, 85 in L-mount), but the 24 and 55 are slightly different to each other in colour.

All four would have come in under the Lumix S lenses, with room for maybe another like the 35 (50) in L mount.

Got to stop living in my recent past and embrace (or sell) all of my kit, but in answer to the question, I would have rigged up the S5 as a cinema camera (with Spectrum and/or IRIX lenses) and mostly left stills to M43, or gone M43 all up, or just bought the S-primes, but then I would have missed out on those bargains.

Best Buys Of The Year

Looking back at a mixed year, what were the best things I invested in, the things that made a genuine difference, expected or not.

#1

Panasonic G9 Mk2

Not much I can really say here. In a time where M43 is under porbably more pressure than ever, this camera (along with the OM-1) are proving not only the relevance of the system, but also the power of the smaller sensor, the system and the math of the whole thing.

An odd paradigm has emerged in my gear. I have never felt more content or enabled by M43, with many avenues still to be explored (10-25 f1.7, OM-1 etc), but I seem to be spending a lot more on full frame lenses?

It is almost like M43 has become my stable, safe, go-to format and full frame is filling the role of the “curiosity”, the hobby format.

I can barely believe that in the months prior I was torn between a Sigma FP, Black Magic pocket and the GH5II for a video upgrade. The G9II smashes these in all the important areas, offering a huge array of recording formats, class leading stabilisation**, class competitive AF, decent enough high ISO performance (the lens/depth of field advantage is at play here) and all for a fraction of the cost of its real competition.

Unlike the S5 which is a bit of a specialist (see the next entry) or even the very capable S5II, the G9II is the perfect all-rounder and a genuine hybrid. Capable of anchoring a serious video rig, it is also the king of run-n-gun, no accessory video performance, as well as a stills camera upgrade in a decently priced mid range camera.

For me, it is the first of the next generation of “no excuses” hybrids. Cameras that can be bought with one role in mind or both.

There are cheaper cameras but they are dated, better cameras but they are much dearer and often still fall short somewhere and the closest matches have a mix of features that for me are nowhere near as harmonious. It is interesting to note that Sony FX3 cameras are often compared to Panasonic S5IIx’s, which apart from the bigger sensor are less well specified than a G9II.

Could G9II’s have made a movie like the Creator and even offered some small advantages in handling, flexibility and costs?

Probably.

The apertures used wold be wider for the same depth of field effect, thus allowing for lower ISO’s and the look might change, but probably not and the handling of the camera would be vastly different, for the better.

They have more in-camera video features than even the FX3, can match them with off board performance only losing a stop or maybe two of dynamic range, have plenty of anamorphic lenses available and more often than not, the big Ronin gimbal would have been surplus. The high ISO difference can be balanced by depth of field and magnification advantages of M43 mount lenses.

#2

The IRIX 150 Macro

The G9II highlighted the almost pointless divergent path for me last year that was full frame, but the lens bargains I have picked up have helped justify my two format kit.

The two 7Artisan Spectrum lenses and the IRIX were all bought for less than the IRIX alone at normal price. The IRIX was the ultimate spontaneous purchase, defying logic in many ways, but unlike the G9II, which was very much a head and gut choice, the IRIX was all heart and it does make my heart sing.

The S5 has fallen into its proper role of support or “static” camera to the more flexible G9II. The IRIX has massively increased its utility. Ironically, these cine lenses and the Lumix S-primes (just edged out for number 5 spot), have stolen the limelight from the G9II, something I need to get sorted**, but at least the S5 has been getting some love.

#3

5.11 Range Ready Bag

For only $150au, this is as close to the perfect cinema gear bag I have seen and at less than a quarter of the price of the photo brands.

The rear pocket holds 8 batteries (not pistol magazines!), coincidentally Panasonic or NP550 sized. The two front pockets take mat boxes and their filters like they were made for them. The large end pocket takes a 7” monitor, the smaller one takes my 5”. The main compartment is capable of taking a whole rig ready to go or the parts of several. It is rigid enough to stack and even full it is comfortable to carry.

The whole bag screams “industrial grade”, something many top price camera bags fail at.

#4

Lewitt LCT 240 Pro

Of my huge and mostly under used sound kit, the bedrock mics, the ones that could do almost anything I need are the pairs of Lewitt 040 Match pencil condensers and LCT 240 medium diaphragm condensers. The 040’s are old news, the 240’s are my best sound (most sound?) purchases this year and I bought a lot of mics.

I can do an interview, band, orchestra or individual performance, field, room, overhead, amp, studio, booth, even camera mounted recording and the sound quality is knocking on the door of the LCT 440 Pure, a genuinely well thought of pro studio mic. Sometimes it is even the better choice.

All this for under $200au.

Between these two pairs and the pair of MTP 440 dynamics bought for clean low end, I have a three way fix that works together, separately or as a matched unit.

Five of the six in the set.

#5

Zoom H8

A soft one this one, more of a logical upgrade like the G9II than a bolt of lightning from nowhere. I was keeping an eye on the price of these for a while and jumped when one came up for under $500au. The H8 adds more inputs, cleaner amps for XLR mics (but not the capsules), several operating modes, some extra effects, a better interface than my other Zoom devices and a very decent X/Y capsule.

This means I have the potential of up to 8 mics (could be 10 with a different accessory), or enough to mic up a small rock band, cover an orchestra with an overhead array with some direct mics to key instruments and/or a vocalist, cover a soloist with multiple mics, three or four singers with instruments, a panel of up to 8 people or any combination of these. It also opens up some interesting options for field recording and I can match mics to the right subject.

Not a high or even mid range specialist interface for serious music or field recording, it is the perfect hybrid enabler for a videographer and has no real weaknesses in any area. It is also an upgrade to the handy H5, releasing that to my podcast kit.

The “Spider” has doubled my sound capabilities.

Honourable mentions go to the S-Prime Lumix lenses, 7artisan cine-primes, the TT1 Pro Lanen condenser mic, Domke F7.

*Unlike the S5’s these can operate without a gimbal, which is the true measure of in-camera stabilisation.

**The Sirui 24mm for the G9/G9II will even this out, making both cameras a good support for the other in their respective roles. The Sirui will sacrifice the AF, but get the benefit of the stabe.

Anamorphic Crunch Time (Or Should That Be "Squeeze Time").

This anamorphic thing seems to be hanging on, but the more I research, the more unsure I become.

The coverage.

This is why I want one. The ability to shoot with a standard lens that is also a wide angle. If standard lenses are my base line, then having one that will make my subjects the same size as they are normally, but with a wider angle of view is a useful, maybe even enabling tool.

I am not interested as much in longer focal lengths, because they have a tight compression effect that is perfectly good as is, nor am I after anything wider, but a standard that is a wide? That is a thing.

The flares.

I bought flare filters (Moment Cinestreak) for the very few times I may want to add them to an otherwise dull scene in gloomy or dramatic light. I am not in love with the effect when over used, or even much at all, but a vehicle at night in an otherwise drab location may benefit from them. I realised the only time I actually liked the look was in an excellent video by Mark Bone on making a documentary about a trail bike legend.

The Bokeh.

Wide screen from a longer lens is fine.

Could not care less about oval Bokeh. Funny how something many dislike in spherical lenses is actually a sign of accomplishment with anamorphic’s. It is to me simply an insiders signature, a mark of coolness for those in the know, but otherwise just an artefact of a technical limitation. Must admit to noticing it a lot more, but before I knew what to look for, it did not register.

Distortions.

Much like Bokeh, I will take what comes, but not chase it in its own right.

Organic look.

This is down to a lot of things, lenses only being one of them.

The Sirui 24mm on MFT is the one that appeals because it seems* that most of the things I could care less about are well controlled, the one thing I do like is ideal at about 2:1 stretch.

So, after some deliberation, I am getting the spherical Sirui 24mm Nightwalker lens. This is on special at the moment and gets me a second cinema lens for M43 (all I need with tele ex options). Too many uncontrollable elements with the anamorphic, that I can apply as needed with regular lenses, but not remove from an anamorphic.

Between M43 and full frame I now have (in ff terms) a 24 mft, 48 mft, 35 ff, 50 ff, 150 ff, 50 aps-c, 75 aps-c, 225 aps-c. It is bit all over the place, but makes some sense to me. Sirui are hinting at another two lenses, hopefully one will be a 16 (32mm on mft). The Nightwalker shares the same 67mm filter thread as the bulk of my M43 lenses, which is handy.

*the lens flare thing is mixed.

A Rig

I have not had much of a chance to set up video rigs lately, some things actually never tried, so while I was “playing”, some snaps and thoughts.

Images taken on an EM10.2 with Helios 58mm 44-2 lens.

An unprocessed file to get started. Smokey.

Now some graded images.

The Portkeys PT5II monitor is small contrasty and well featured. I have another 7” one, but this one is the run-n-gun one. The cabling on this camera is a little messy due to the small HDMI adapter, but on a G9 or G9II it is much cleaner.

A processed image.

The 50 or 35mm 7artisans are perfectly balanced on this rig with the follow focus and the monitor for accuracy make the whole thing very easy to do.

I have ordered the 65T (65 tooth) gear for the follow focus though, because the throw from infinity to close focus with the 43T on my cine lenses is two full revolutions of the wheel. I was looking for a little handle to go into the square hole in the FF, but no such thing it seems.

The chest brace is not one of those things often talked about, but I find it ideal. Resting against any part of my body, the inertia of the whole rig (it is pretty heavy) gives me cinema camera grade (i.e. heavy) stabilising on the S5, rock steady on the G9II and again it is balanced for follow movements off the handle.

The shoulder rig and the G9II are also brilliant, but on the S5 I have to rely on the patchy AF.

The Dragon Looms Large

Year of the Dragon is coming and I may take a lesson from it.

This year and a good part of the one before was a mix of multiple fingers in many pies. Some, like the volunteer projects were spectacular things to be a part of, some like the second school became a mix of repeating past events but differently and the paper paid the bills.

Ultimately, the schools have been a carrot I could never quite reach, the paper a safer bet financially not spiritually, so taking a hint from the Dragon, this year coming I will be cutting loose the things that do not fit and concentrating on those that nourish my soul or my meagre financial needs as needed.

Just do it.

Goodbye to schools it seems.

Scotch Oakburn was the perfect job and little of what I had to offer was ever wasted, but it was not a real job. St Pats was closer to a job, but not as diverse, nor as open to my skill set being biggr, with more resources.

Neither will ever be a replacement for the paper and including them adds a decent but inconsistent income stream, but they also fight for attention in an already crowded space and sometimes the effort is greater than the return (says the guy who does his best work for free!).

I often feel I am trying to get my job to fit me and my capabilities, not the other way around. I have an interest in sound gear, but little use for it, much the same goes for top end video and studio portraits. These things haunt me as unrealised pursuits.

Maybe they should just be regular old hobbies, like most people have, you know, the ones where you don’t need to justify every purchase against its earning potential.

If I just stick to the paper, my volunteer interests and most importantly of all, and this one is actually a bit of a revelation, do something for myself, I may get back some life balance.

In that vein, the Sirui 24 anamorphic is back on my radar just because of the look, just for me, nobody else and my projects are turning a little more towards the things I am passionate about.

Happy holidays.

What's In A Shape?

This is a re-tread of an older article, but I write what is on my mind, so here we go;

Often when I or others talk about M43 format it is purely from a quality perspective. To be honest I am well and truly over that. I have a full frame again now, plenty of good glass and I see little real difference in objective quality for most uses.

The shape however has been a more interesting journey.

When processing the files for a new project, 3:2 ratio was needed to fit the one rectangle, three square grouped print format we will be using.

I have just been reminded what a pain that is to work with.

In the images above, the exaggerated 3:2 ratio shows it’s worst attribute, cramping the vertical composition. The 4:3 is far more relaxed, even the square, not properly composed for that format feels better.

The three above show the other side of this. The 4:3 file as shot has a useful shape for cropping. The 3:2 changes little except add a feeling of less headroom, the 16:9 looks more dramatically cinematic, tighter, but for a reason and the wider view fits the way we see the world better. If you draw in tighter with the 3:2, you lose width.

In the end a 3:2 ratio crops down to wide screen with less waste, 4:3 crops square better.

A little history.

The so called “full frame” format was a Frankenstein’s Monster created mid 20th century and was effectively a second bite at taking the one existing roll-film stock (35mm movie film) into a useful small stills camera format.

Used as the film industry did, it was naturally in “portrait orientation”, because stills cameras lay the film on its side. Half frame was basically Super 35 format sideways, but there were two problems.

The first was one of framing. Portraits were the original hero images, but as the landscape and groups of people became more important to photographers, vertical framing became less useful.

A very typical landscape image taken with a 3:2 ratio compact camera by a friend.

More power comes with less image. Instead of scanning up-down, you are now drawn side to side.

The second problem was one of quality.

Moving stock can hide a multitude of sins, but stills shooters were putting this mini format up against medium and large format cameras. It was a big ask, especially early on. Laying the film on its side and increasing the overall length fixed both of these problems.

The result was a publishers nightmare.

Too wide or tall for a decent book or magazine fit forced constant cropping and a need for photographers to shoot with that in mind (most top end magazine editors demanded 6x6 to crop or 6x7 negatives, dismissing even the best 35mm images for their shape).

As the above lens test images show, there can be a lot of “negative” space in a 3:2 ratio image. It can cramp vertically, have too many distracting elements, lack strength and be a waste of sometimes limited quality.

Ironically the format was also not wide enough to satisfy the true landscape buffs who wanted at least 2:1 ratio.

If you look at all other formats available at the time, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 3, 4 or 5:1 panoramic or even 126 format, no other format is so rectangular by nature or occasionally not rectangular enough. Even TV screens jumped from 4:3 ratio to wide screen 16:9, ignoring the in between 3:2 ratio.

On top of that, the format requires a larger lens mount and bigger lenses to service the outer edges of the frame than most other format relative to capture area*. Lens coverage is measured from corner to corner, so the wider the rectangle, the larger the coverage area, much of it wasted.

It was a stretch (in the worst sense), but it was also the peoples format, the format of the modern camera and it was gathering momentum. Like with a lot of things, common sense went out the window, economics took over.

Other formats were available and often professionals would use medium or large format for both the extra quality and the more sensible shape, but 35mm has been the format of the masses since the 1960’s.

All credit to them, the makers produced practical and sexy cameras, so the format as flawed as it was, was convenient, well supported, likeable and cheap, so it managed to rule over all.

So why are we still stuck with 3:2 ratio “full frame” as our go-to format in the digital age?

The great irony of this bastard format being called “full”, when all formats are “full” to their own requirements and what constitutes “fullness” is a matter of opinion if even relevant, still annoys me, but I can move on, really..…I can.

Sure digital is more forgiving of all formats, but it is also more exciting for that. You can have what ever you want, so why does 3:2 rule?

Nikon, Canon and the dregs of the other major brands had a legacy, one that needed feeding while we transitioned from film to digital. Even when economics and tech forced a smaller format on them in early days, they still stuck with 3:2. Makes no sense, but old habits I guess.

If any of these brands actually adopted a 4:3 ratio, they would have instantly improved their ageing lenses performance (removing the pesky extreme corners where things go so wrong**), made their format more compatible with most print formats and reduced the cost of their sensors by a decent percentage***. The actual drop in objective quality would have been insignificant in the real world. I can only assume they kept to the 3:2 shape for consistency, biding their time until the larger 35mm format re-emerged.

Nikon could have kept their mount intact and the all too small Minolta/Sony mount would also not have to force lens design miracles to fit around the cut-off sensor corners****.

They would also have found the format friendlier to the square social media formats and even reduced the need for vertical grips on cameras. It may have even changed the shape of the camera.

Olympus, Panasonic, Black Magic and Fuji were not tied to any tangible legacy. They had the freedom to do as they wished.

M43 is actually the only made to measure, was produced digital camera and lens format designed with many of the above elements in mind. Better lens design, better format fit, smaller cameras and lenses. It has been a long time since I stressed over corner quality, something I was always aware of with earlier Canon full frame DSLR lenses.

It is smaller, but it also makes more sense.

Another irony is the need for full frame champions to push their quality advantage when most formats, now even decent phones, can provide more than enough quality. Full frame is bigger, but the math at play in other areas can even it out as I have discussed previously.

Like Bokeh, we are stuck with the current state and perceptions of this as Sony, Nikon and Canon are writing the history we will be reading, but as with all history, there is always more to it than the big print headlines.

Probably the one shining light for M43 format is open gate video. The 4:3 shape is more versatile for horizontal movie and vertical reel framing, but who said logic will prevail this time around.

*Another area of confusion are print shapes. You can print 8x12 or 8x10, one the “older” shape the other to fit 35mm conventions. There are 35mm equivalents to most regular print shapes but they are the exception, not the rule. In a shop I worked in for over a decade, we used to do a “wedding special” of 6x8 prints on pearl lustre paper on Mondays. Only one of our customers ever asked for or possibly even knew of the 6x9 option we offered. In other words over 99% of our customers were asking for a forced crop print format!

** I remember a sample image from the brand spanking new 5D Mk1 posted, taken with the 17-40 f4L wide open at 17mm. This lens was and is well liked, but in the far corners at wider apertures, these is not discernible resolution. In 4:3 ratio, that would magically disappear. The best match for the circle is of course the square. Just sayin’.

***Sensors are made in wafers and cut down. Flaws are inevitable, making larger wafers less economically reliable. make them smaller and you get more from a wafer.

****Have a look when you can, their sensor corners are actually obscured by the mount flange, making for some pretty interesting, expensive and huge lens designs.

18 Months To See It (Or TARDIS)

I have never felt a good fit for the paper.

I knew before I started that the type of image making the paper needs was never my desired end point.

It took me a while, but I got there.

It is because I have never been a photo maker.

This I made, but it took a little time for the elements to come together. It was what the sitter asked for, job done.

This one came as I was leaving, a moment of recognition, the light, background and feel completely changed.

The closer I come to that successfully is putting people in a space and watching what happens. To take control of space and time (relatively*) and let it come naturally. I rarely have either of these in my daily life at the paper.

Sport is easy for me, because it is all recognition, even off game.

I loved shooting for the first school, because that was exactly what I had, time and space to see images. It felt free and natural to me. Few staged images (but some control and time to prepare), no titles required, just see it, shoot it, move on. The next school is similar, but not quite as easy yet. It will come.

It seems I am a decent photo recogniser or taker if you will.

The paper rarely allows me the time or resources to work as I am best suited, forcing me to adapt, which in turn is robbing me of any real reason to continue. I love photography as I have always loved it. I do not like it much at all in this other, contrived form and never will.

It is not so much a matter or failing to learn new ways, but a recognition of a genuine repulsion to a process and the results there of.

Very much not me, but front page stuff as it goes. It is like an out of body experience some times, like someone else is driving. The worst bit is I know I could have done the kids justice with a little actual rehearsal shooting, but this was all we had time for.

It is not actually new. I recognised this over a year ago, but I managed to push it aside and struggle against it, which explains my sometimes strong feelings of inadequacy and detachment from my work.

The best thing I did was go part time to chase some of the old feeling, but Japan opened my eyes to a missing something, a broken link.

How do I fix this?

Not sure, but just like AA, I guess the first step is genuine recognition and admitting I have a problem, then growing forward from there. I guess also, I have to ask myself if I want to “fix” it at all.

Video is ironically a salve. I shoot mine as an interview is happening, which on one hand gives me a natural feel, but on the other robs me of my best stills.

*Insider Dr Who joke realised there.