Video Myths And Real Use Realities

Being new to the art, I have been a sucker to the standard video myths going around.

These are not bad things, it is just that in stills photography I am sorted, I know what I want and need. I get a new camera, I find out how good it is at doing what I need and I set it up to do it.

With video, I have been at the mercy of those who have gone before and that has, to be frank, cost me money, often confused me and usually for little benefit.

Rig after rig has been made, but usually, I have a camera in hand, caged to take a mic and maybe a handle and that is all. It works when I stay close to home (being a still togs routine) and do not over think or over build it.

The reality is I guess rigs are a way of differentiating a stills camera from a video camera, both practically and perceptually, but I feel much of it is based on perceptions of need not actual need.

A stills camera was once very different to a video camera, one being held to the eye in front of the face, the other to the eye from the shoulder. Mirrorless cameras are allowing us to do both either way and adding more to this is only necessary when you have no better option.

Even this seems over done.

Examples;

“Always start with a cage”

Good advice, but if you see where I am going below, ask yourself exactly what will it be used for?

No handles, no screen, no power options mean no cage needed. I will use them, because they add protection, I have them and they do take the odd extra accessory, but like all the rest, only if they do not get in the way.

I do always have a Neewer universal tripod plate on the base, because it allows easy mounting and un-mounting from the various items below or my tripod.

Peripherals to the core.

“After a cage add rails”

Rails take accessories like power banks and SSD’s and add a little “heft”. They accomodate chest and shoulder rigs, look cool, but they also take up a lot of room, are cumbersome and can end up being heavy (not always a bad thing).

I like a short rail set to hold battery/SSD options and one accessory I do like is a chest (leg/wall/shoulder) pad. A 16” rail set is a genuine benefit to a run-n-gun shooter, until it is not.

”You must get a screen”

So I did, two in fact and to be brutally honest, I find them unintuitive, limiting, messy and generally a distraction. My best results all around (and this fixes most other issues) has been to use the cameras touch screen or just put my camera to my eye………. *.

A lucky hit with this 1cm long fly, using manual focus and “drifting” with a 150 macro at T3 on a windy day. I simply could not have done this any other way without a lot of environmental control.

Yup just like stills shooting, this is (1) the best viewfinder in all conditions and (2) provides the most stable shooting platform. For AF I like the touch screen focussing and controls, which these cameras champion, so handing it over to another screen without this feature seems pointless**. The AF on the S5 or G9 mk1’s behaves better if you touch confirm the focus point.

Otherwise I manually focus and rarely find the screen better than the eye or sometimes even the rear screen for overall handling. They are clearer in lower contrast situations, but the eye piece is clearer again.

It is not a coincidence that this is basically the same way I shoot stills with a mirrorless camera, something I have been doing for a long time. Maybe if I came new into the video space I would adapt to other methods better, but now, whenever the job gets tough to pull off, I go back to what I do best.

The clip below is shot with a weighty 50mm cine lens on my S5 hand held, up to my eye using the body only stabe, not the static mode which is even better. I may see slightly better performance with an S5II, but I would only get dead still from a tripod.

There is also the battery weight and screen mount issue. I have several and the reality is, if you use a heavy battery the mounts tend to creep, especially if you want them “soft” enough to adjust. I have probably fixed this with a Smallrig NP battery adapter shifting the weight to the rails, but that may also be a wasted buy.

I will use mine for static jobs, to impress clients and share the view, but for me now and how I work, the rear screen just works, switching to the view finder when that fails.

Ironically, I find the cheaper 7” handy for large group photos, to catch those kids who enjoy adding “character” to their images.

“A top (side) handle is a must”

I have several and I do find them “handy” for carrying and for adding mics etc even for a little added peace of mind. Fact is, I don’t feel comfortable with them for movements. Ironically I only have a need for a top when I use a follow focus and screen, each perpetuating the need for the other.

Mostly I find movements are smooth enough with one hand on the camera’s grip and a hand under the lens or fingers on the left side handle if using touch focus, just like a stills shooter. Handles would only add similar but different contact points. A top handle is usually best when the rig is heavy, which is something I try to avoid anyway.

Something I also notice when the rig is heavy, is that the angle of a top handle tends to be too extreme to be comfortable, so a two handed grip and supporting shoulder strap works better for me.

If I add a left-side handle, it often ends up resting on the wrist of my focus hand when manually focussing (not always comfortably) or on my two end fingers if touch focussing, while also protecting my screen, but recently I started using a cheap screw-in straight handle which is more comfortable and mounts in seconds.

“You should get a gimbal”

Nope, never did, never will (actually have a mechanical one, but never use it). Stabilising is important to some extent, depending on circumstance and shooting style, but a big, expensive, complicated, fickle gimbal takes me into a place I don’t like.

Uh…no.

There are other methods of achieving smooth movements such as shooting in slo-mo, swinging your upper body while bracing the camera on a body strap, using a chest pad on rails and pivoting off your body or leg, suspending the whole thing from your strap, all requiring practice, but then so does a gimbal and they never run out of battery power.

I have noticed aslo that a lot of movements are used because of an available gimbal, movements that are a new tool, which is great, but often they have another way of being accomplished.

Forming a triangle is the key, which putting the camera to your eye also achieves. Of course if you look at the pros, a decent tripod works best.

I guess also determining what you have to achieve compared to being hooked on a new toy and feeling you have to use it is part of it. Have gimbal-will gimbal, seems to be common. Don’t have gimbal, will make do is also a choice.

To be completely honest I rate camera stabilisers over AF for video work, but neither overly highly.

I am a bit of a hypocrite here, buying OSMO’s, G9’s, G9II’s, EM1X’s and S5’s in part for their stabilising, but these are easy to apply and good but not often perfect.

Not perfect is good, not perfect is natural. It teaches you better technique and adds some organic feel to your shooting. It also reminds you that there are perfectly good tripods, sliders and even table tops at hand. Often the easiest answer is weight (but that would mean more crap!)*.

“A drone adds options”

They do, but they are also over used, so I will avoid them until I cannot anymore. I will focus on the basics and perfect them. Drones fall into the big production or cheap gimmick zones and need skills.

Great for an impressive establishing shot, an emotionally detached glide-over or a risky fly through, there are other ways and if you really need this and others do it better than I do. Often a business has some drone footage already, you just need to incorporate it with your end edit.

I do have a “faux” drone with my OSMO on a 3 mtr pole. This can do otherwise prohibited indoor overheads, under water shots, unusual fly throughs etc, so I do have a drone in a way.

“Follow focus rigs help manual focussing”

Yes they do, but they also make for over thought and fragile rigs, slow setups and lens changes and again, often seem more effort than their reward. The reality is, a good focus puller is like gold, but for an experienced stills shooter, they take what I know and turn it into an alien beast.

Again, like a screen I will use mine, but often not. The large gear is a good way of shortening throw, but touch AF, Panasonic lenses with programmed throw and even some stills lenses are as good for me. Even the short throw 12-40 Olympus has become second nature.

The reality is, I want to cradle the lens with my left hand, the hand that focusses*. Using a follow focus changes the balance to above or the other side.

One use I have found for it is upside down on the right side with a shoulder rig so my right thumb can pull focus, but that is my biggest set-up.

“Your best friend is a tripod (or slider)”

This one is true and goes all the way back to the beginning of image making.

Motorised sliders are little like gimbals and drones, in fashion now, but it will fade. A mechanical one gives you plenty of control for slo-mo’s.

Lots of these items are probably more use to a solo shooter like a motorised slider for B-roll in an interview, but are easily solved with a friend at hand.

“You need “X” (filter/old lens/retro grade) for the cinematic look”

This is more a matter of finding your own style than anything else.

The cinematic look is what? Go to the cinema and you will see all manner of “styles”, some near perfect, some edgy, dark or dirty, many created with gear well beyond most of us, some with less than you probably own.

More often than not, the cinematic look comes from good framing, good technique and vision.

I have legacy glass, streak and mist filters and tend to avoid them unless I am asked to add the “Netflix” look or “you know, like on the Star Trek movies”. It also make me laugh when people react better to the cheap or home made versions over the $200+ ones. Laugh until I cry that is.

*

A trend I am seeing here is, the more stuff you add, the more you tend to need to support it and the basics are still often the best option.

In my reality the camera is usually playing two roles, a true hybrid dynamic, so rigging up the camera for video makes stills impractical. I know from the paper that I can make a stills camera work for video, but not the other way around. Putting the camera to my eye for example excludes the use of rails, long mics, screens, cables, deep top handles etc, but being able to put it to my eye does not stop it being a video camera.

A screen needs power, often a handle to mount it on and that often removes features the camera offers. A follow focus changes camera dynamics, gimbals tend to own the whole thing and they all lead to other fixes, often expensive, heavy, un-intuitive fixes.

The longer I do this, the more I am coming to realise I don’t need it. Nice to have, impressive to look at, sometimes situationally indispensable, often over done and certainly over thought.

Looking into the future, sometimes I will use the rails for a power source (Mic, screen, light, interface), a mic interface (AMS-24), the chest pad, side handle and a top handle because that rig actually becomes heavy enough to use one and top handles do make mic mounting easier. This will be my go-to (or nothing) and the rest will be saved for those big interview shoots where time, space and the need for luxury will push to the front.

*Hand holding a heavy cine lens to my eye with an S5 is plenty steady, easy to focus and crystal clear even in daylight glare. I have been tempted by the S5II’s better stabe, but question whether I even need it.

**Some of you may also have already twigged that the best way to use the actual cameras best functions on a screen is the use their app on a phoen, avoiding messy cables at the same time.

Not Bad

So the bottom of the food chain for my kit is an older M43 camera and a kit lens.

I have standards and as it goes, these reach those standards.

This image has all the quality I need for a portfolio image, a news paper front or as a web page hero.

This is the original.

So, what was it taken with?

The camera was an Olympus M43 format EM1x which is not my bottom end choice, but it could as easily have been taken with one of my aging and beaten up EM1 Mk2’s, maybe even an old EM5 Mk1 which is now over 12 years old (and I have done and may well again).

The lens is the slightly better than kit level 75-300 f4.8-6.7, wide open at 300mm (600mm full frame equivalent), which is its weakest area. The lens is stunningly sharp up to 250mm and gets better using f8 at 300mm.

Good enough?

Was it a fluke?

No faces shown on these deliberately, but most did have sharp and clear.

Same settings and crop….

Yes, I have better options, but do I really need them in this low pressure, well lit space?

and again.

Lots more, about 400 to be exact. The AF on this lens is a little slower than my other options and is one of the few lenses I am actually aware of the focus in action. I miss some, but I do anyway, because the reality is folks, the human is often the weakest part of the machine.

Evolution

It is not often you get to return to a place or space where you defined and established yourself as the person you want to continue as from that point and as a different and more experience version of that person.

It is humbling and it often comes with an awareness that you have changed, as has the place. If you are lucky, you get to connect with the magic again, but with an awareness you have evolved and with evolution you need to adapt.

I am trying to adapt to a few things since returning to the School, because to be honest I have changed more than a little. My goals are similar (to please my viewers with my offerings and cement my place in the establishment again), my techniques and gear are basically the same with the exception of expanded video and it seems my rhythm has returned pretty much.

I am aware someone filled my role when gone and they are still in the picture, but I have returned to a welcoming fold, no hard feelings either way, but an awareness there is a point of comparison.

What has mainly changed is my productivity and efficiency.

When I was previously given six hours to cover a swimming carnival at the schools internal pool, a favourite spot with special light and constant action, but a tight space, my output was high as everything that worked was kept. Now, with more practiced skills, it can be a little over the top.

I took just under 2000 files, I submitted 640, because if the paper taught me one thing it was to be efficient and fast and get the shot, a habit I don’t want to lose, but what frustrated me was the heavy culling during the shoot, afterwards in processing and on submission.

An hour spent (a long time for the paper) could theoretically net 200+ decent images from probably three to ten times that many (depending on your motor drive setting), but the needs of captioning and realistic use usually dropped that to ten only required. I adapted by using the lower end of drive settings (single shot), reduced my chasing of unlikely outcomes, ignored “filler” images and generally learned to leave when I felt I had what I needed, not necessarily what I wanted.

My math is now 100 submitted images an hour assuming the action does not stop and one in three keepers is ideal (no bursts, so low waste), so about 300 images taken.

The big change now is providing variety in a space I know and one that has limited options.

The head-goggles-cap shot is my meat and potatoes because it is safe and relevant, but several hundred runs the risk of boring the viewer.

There are already a lot of rules for this type of thing, especially in this jaded, suspicious world, rules I am keen and bound to abide by. If a file is captured that is not appropriate in any way, it stalls at the next step.

Modern software can detect a profile or partial face on social media to help any not well meaning person find their target and our sheltered little part of the world tends to attract people who just want, or need to be left alone, so heavy vetting is applied.

Abstraction and chasing pure photographic beauty with only a hint of specific subjects works for a few, allowing future users to post without fear.

This combined with a need to be respectful but relevant forces on me a set of creative constraints that are challenging to work with, but challenge is the road to satisfaction when you overcome it.

The haunting, contemplative generic shot is a solid choice and has the benefit the viewer may still recognise themselves.

Layering works for a change. Occasionally you get three arms at the same angle, but I cannot show you those as they have faces!

The rare “ripple” shot, an award winner once, they are just a matter of “saturation luck” these days.

Tight, active, emotive and anonymous.

Some motion blur, which tends to burn your shutter count with sporadic wins (you need a still point to wrap the motion around and at this level, the kids are rarely that smooth). The one clear face is known to me and safe enough.

Some more blur. More effective if you are directly side on, but there were electronic thingies in the way.

Finally the detail and odd angle shots that you see over a long day.

Always fun, even if it is getting harder to do a good job, but I would not be anywhere else.

The next carnival is the senior school at the local aquatic centre, a location with its own challenges.

Gear used for the day consisted of an EM1x with either 40-150 f4 or 75-300 kit zoom and my oldest G9 mk1 with 12-60 Leica. The G9 had a “moment” possibly heralding its imminent demise, but after a lot of work and the odd drop, I can forgive it its failings. The poor thing was running hot all day doing stills and video (and heat).

The Heart Rules....Ok.

I often ask myself when a question is big, important, life changing, what does my heart want, what does my head think and what does my gut intuit.

The reality is, the heart should rule.

If you want to be happy, no other answer works. Happiness is following your heart, using your head to make that work and letting your gut cover the small details.

The head is required to avoid stupid moves, but it should never over rule the heart on a base level. Let it guide, give wise council and avoid pit-falls, but when it drives the car, you take the highway and miss all the good stuff.

The gut is like the head, only instinctive. Instinct and reason are a good, if often combative pair. A choice is always good when your heart guides you, your gut says “yes”, your head says “what he said”. If there is no cohesion here, the heart may want what it cannot have, but if possible, you still need to keep it in the picture.

Filters And Film (Well Video)

I am going to use the Sirui in anger for the first time on Thursday and thought I might add a “cinematic” filter for some fun.

First up, the reference image (G9II jpegs, Sirui 24mm at T2.8 and ISO 1600).

A little of that “cinemtaic” glow already.

The Black Mist filters first, of which I have two in this size, a Neewer 1/8 and K&F 1/8.

The Neewer is strong, but not over the top (something I want to avoid)

The K&M is weaker, less aggressive, so I will consider the Neewer to be equal to a K&F 1/4.

Now the faux-anamorphic streak filters. I have a Blue Neewer and a Blue and a Gold K&F.

The Neewer gives me something even with a warm light.

The K&F Blue is nearly invisible here, giving a slight hint if rotated, but very slight. I have seen this before, this filter has fine lines and seems to only respond to cool coloured lights and then mildly. I like that. The odd streak adds a random something, an overly strong effect can be annoying. The Neewer, a very cheap filter gives me a more OTT effect if needed.

The K&F Gold reacting to the warm light, which shows roughly how the Blue reacts to cool light.

Kudos to the bare lens for adding a slight, but controlled flare look, very nice and nothing to worry about.

The K&F filters are elegant, restrained, classy. I like that they can be mounted and forgotten about doing nothing overly pushy, but still doing something. I can see myself putting especially the blue on and seeing occasional effects, seemingly randomly, very natural.

The Neewers are more aggressive and slightly warmer, although they seem to be well behaved otherwise*. These will possibly be useful in difficult situations to get a reaction from or for stills lenses with little character.

I have other filters in different sizes, a Kenko mist in particular, but with adapters I can try them all. Maybe later.

*A good sign as I have several Neewer filters for my matt boxes.

The Micro Four Thirds Legacy

Micro Four Thirds has left a legacy.

It’s future is a little uncertain, probably not in peril, but maybe on the decline, but there is no doubt the things that drove the early mirrorless movement have had an effect on the the priorities of all designers regardless of brand or format.

What M43 needs I think is to be seen as what it is, a smaller option to full frame with most of the quality of larger systems, especially in video.

Size was always a part of the journey, the perceptions of shallower depth and words like “micro” fuelling thoughts of cameras that may be crazy small, but in reality for many brands, with lens adapters, larger sensors etc, nothing changed greatly in this space.

Three of the many contradictions found in the mirrorless landscape. The EM1x is the same handling size as a Canon or Nikon pro camera, because this class of camera needs to be big, the Lumix G9 is also “full sized” but universally praised as one of the best handling cameras available (I am one of its fans) and the Pen F in front is a solid lump of metal, feeling for all the world like a film era classic like a Leica M or my old Canon F1n.

The thing that made a real difference was a smaller sensor, leading to smaller lenses.

I remember doing this once a long time ago, comparing my Canon 85 f1.8 to this very lens. Both true portrait lenses. The lens on the right is very light for its size, but it fills a big hole in a M43 users bag.

Light weight followed in a way except sometimes even the smallest M43 lenses adopted metal again and many were built to a premium level, so again lightness was not always a given, but in direct comparison they still had an optical edge.

A different equivalence. The metal M43 75mm (150 f1.8 ff equiv) weighs more than the plastic fantastic 85mm, being one of my heavier M43 lenses by size.

This format difference did not always lead to a lighter bag because you could carry the same lenses as a full frame user, but gain a benefit in reach, so many including I, did. My base bag kit is 16-300 (ff equiv) with a mix of decently fast zooms and primes, but in full frame that would be impractical, but all too easily I added a true 300mm, making a 16-600 lit.

The big lens at the back is a 300 f4, which is much the same size in all formats and a big ask to lug around for only 300mm in full frame, but as a super light 600mm, it often pays its way. The little zoom in front is an actual M43 300 f4.

The resulting effect seems to be going two ways.

On one hand, full frame lens makers are happy to make some of the biggest and heaviest super primes ever, but on the other, the push for super light weight plastic bodied lenses and sometimes even old school pancakes style lenses is strong and common to all brands.

Nikon, Canon, Panasonic and even Sony, the makers of some of the biggest monster lenses are all offering a light weight alternative.

Something that became a selling tool to early mirrorless adopters has become an expectation, even if it was mostly based on false beliefs.

Personally I switched over more than ten years ago for two reasons.

I did like the smaller size and old school form factor as well as having fond memories of Olympus their glass, their philosophy, but none of these meant anything if results fell short.

The reality is when Olympus released the first EM5 with a sharper sensor, exceptional stabiliser, super accurate contrast based AF and new lens designs*, I felt released from old and stubborn habits.

Olympus effectively shamed the big players into making their own sharper sensors with no low-pass filters, newer lenses and tightening up their overall performances. I remember an early blogger (2013-ish) relating his own epiphany, when comparing his new EM5 to his trusted 5D mk2 Canon, noticing that the AF was more accurate and predictable (static subject), the files noisier at high ISO settings, but sharper and he could drop the ISO in this situation anyway because of the stabiliser and accuracy combined with the depth of field advantage of M43.

The 5DII was the king of the time, so who the hell was this little usurper?

More followed with Steve Huff and many well followed bloggers comparing big to small, new to old and surprising many including themselves.

My own experiences mirrored this. My Canon kit was full of the Canon full frame favourites, but lens calibration issues, soft edges, unnecessary heft to performance ratios, an awareness of ageing designs, especially AF motors and edge softness and the reality of tiny little M43 glass often beating them out, combined with the smooth-soft 5DII sensor made switching an imperative at the time.

I see little difference in sharpness, detail, information with M43 and the ISO thing is often evened out by the x2 math with lenses and DOF, but there is a difference in dynamic range and recovery of extremes, which is the reality of more or bigger pixels. It is not twice as good, just better by being bigger, but not by miles.***

Another example. The 17mm Oly was a reluctant buy for me at the start of my M43 journey, not a compelling performer on paper, but it quickly showed-up my Canon 35 F1.4 L (first model) at less than half the size and a third the price and the physically closer EF 35 F2 was optically pleasing but mechanically ancient by comparison. Just after I went away from Canon they produced the 40 pancake and a new 35 f2, but I had waited long enough. The 17mm went on to be one of my favourite lenses still to this day.

The end result being a predictable response by the sleepy photographic whales to the school of hungry little sharks nipping at their flanks.

The area mirrorless struggled with was phase detect AF for tracking, but that would come and then go to a new level, Sony winning the race, Canon, Fuji, Olympus and now Panasonic are right there, but in most other areas, mirrorless was fresh, new and often just better.

The mirror was a brilliant idea of necessity, but never the straightest line to the ideal.

Being new and exciting also helped I guess. Most photographers get restless at some point, I am no different, so new ideas tend to get a leg up with some, others holding on to old ideas for far too long.

The ascendency of Sony was a surprise to many, but not early mirrorless adopters as they lifted this already promising movement into full frame territory, so if you were already on the mirrorless steed, not the tired old SLR nag. It felt inevitable.

The younger generation’s adoption is telling. They want results over all else, so lumpish lenses, full frame cameras and the “non-camera” brand Sony mean little. With fresh eyes, they just want what works.

How much of this was down to M43 and Fuji?

The EM5 Mk1 sensor and most other Olympus sensors are Sony made, the lens pedigree of the brand is known and small was always their mantra. This shows that all things are connected, but sometimes certain elements raise to the top of the pile. “Giant killing” is a catchy phrase, but a stirred giant is problematic to the pesky awakener.

M43 and its exponents did much to change perceptions, but even they would have known that the big four (and Fuji is a huge player, if a little understated) would eventually come back at them.

Video is to me the most interesting case in point.

The 4:3 format has a lot of advantages in video and is quite close to the family of similar sensors lumped into the Super 35 group, which covers the bulk of movie cameras for the bulk of movie making. When you take away the perceived need for more pixels for stills, low pixel count M43 sensors are even relatively light safe.

Full frame is becoming the mid-range norm for videography, but is it really needed?

The reality is, Sony is not the king of video at the moment because it is full frame, but because it got video AF right first. It’s main competitors are full frame, but none of the brands had much hope without AF performance being addressed.

I bought a full frame for video, ironic really as stills are where full frame should make more difference, but I felt at the time (18 months ago), that I needed better low light performance and the M43 offering (GH5s, BMPCC4k) were expensive and ageing. The S5 was the most logical. A year later and I would have been more than happy with the G9II, so even the stalwarts like me can get the jitters and be proven wrong.

The cinematic sweet spot is about f4 on a full frame which is f2 on an M43 lens, this gives you two more ISO settings. Stabilisers, rolling shutter, focus accuracy, size, weight, expense, lens design exceptions are the M43 specialities, all of which help video. Ironically, the S5/S5II perform more to my liking in APS-C mode.

I could have stayed with M43 and found other ways, The G9II and 10-25 f1.7 would have been fine.

Anyway….drifting.

I think from my time in camera shops during the last twenty years that M43 and Fuji were the guilty fear of the bigger players, in denial for far too long, but I also feel they have done much to catch up and use their larger format advantages fully.

This means we have more choices, which is a good thing surely. When I go out the door to shoot most things, I still choose M43 in preference**, only looking at full frame when extremely low or murky light is likely or I need another capable video camera to match my M43 cameras.

*Every lens in my M43 and even the older 43 format were up to twenty years newer than the glass Canon and Nikon were pushing at the time. Every lens I compared to the M43 format lenses were early AF generation lenses. Not Digital versions, but older film AF lenses. They were all fine, but showing their age when compared. At the time of EM5’s release it had the fastest first acquisition AF on the market and it still holds up 12 years later.

**Ease of use, size and weight which lead to more options, flash performance, familiarity, depth and finally, reassuringly and consistently decent results.

***My S5 is one of my newest cameras and the G9II still does not have RAW support, but I can see the difference in my M43 files when pushed.

The Great De-Rig

Rigging video gear is fun.

A big rig is a pain.

For many, it is almost a hobby in its own right, but sometimes less is very definitely more.

The G9II is a good case study here.

The camera has a superior stabiliser for its class. It also has very accurate and screen based touch sensitive AF. The benefits of M43 format help here also.

This means that it does not really need a gimbal, a screen is also less useful thanks to the touch screen AF and it follows that a follow focus is also not required.

Basically the big rig I had planned has become, especially for the G9II pretty much pointless.

This is ideal as the cameras role in my life is to be the ultimate run-n-gun camera, with an alternate role as my premium high-bit capture device.

All-i recording, a fast sensor with minimal rolling shutter, excellent high shutter options, responsive AF and workable, organic stabilising all combine to make a great on-the-go beast and help empower my large range of lens options.

My rigging kit for the G9II has reduced substantially, allowing me to add other elements like lighting and sound into a bag previously full of rigging options.

No, that is not all, but it is close. Notice the lack of cabling. Only the optional SSD drive and power banks need them and they stay low and tight.

The basic camera is in the “loving” embrace of the “Black Mamba” cage. This is a great fit which does come at the expense of some connection options, but as time goes, these are become less important.

The cage is on a generic tripod plate for mounting on several accessories (tripod, rails for battery plates, the chest brace and shoulder mount* options, but no follow focus). It is a pain to remove, so I do not bother, using it for extra protection and as a brace point.

The lens is a new development.

The 12-60 Leica makes so much sense adding dual stabilising, harmonious AF performance, even manual focus ring controls (throw and linear option), but the beaten up old Olympus 12-40 is back for several reasons.

The fixed aperture, organic look and the “pull-back” manual focus ring which is far more practical than a switch or an assigned (wasted) button and it also turns the same way as my cinema lenses. It is linear by default and even with a fairly short throw, I am used to it now.

AF performance is a surprise also, as quick and accurate as the 12-60 even with a decent age and branding gap.

The slightly lumpy zoom also worries me less as the lens is now more of a kit of primes than a zoom.

The 12-60 is now my standard stills lens, the lighter weight and longer range a benefit there.

The second lens is the Sirui 24 T1.2, ideal for low light and that “cinematic” look and a very light 180 degree focus throw, so no follow focus needed. I also have an antique Pen 25 f2.8 for a bit of retro flare and funky Bokeh or the Sigma 30 f1.4 for all the modern benefits.

The last lens, but only occasionally packed is a wide, like the 8-18 or 9mm.

Handles seem to be the key.

I have an Arri mount top handle and a pair of side handles. The left hand side handle is usually used (it helps anchor the left hand even when resting on my wrist) and a right hand one I do not use much, but like to have it anyway for sweeping moves.

Between the three handles and cage, I have 7 cold shoes, which are plenty for the various accessory and mic options I may pick. The MKE-400 sits nicely on the top handle, the F1 and SSH-6 Zoom also and the MKE-600 gets some needed breathing space on the top handle if reversed.

The last option and not something I will use much, is the SSD drive mount.

The whole thing can be carried with a Black Rapid safety strap with the various handles etc protecting the camera and lens. The strap can also be used as a “gimbal sling”, meaning suspending the camera by the strap, which can be surprisingly useful.

As soon as I add anything else, the whole thing seems to lose its relevance. The G9II is very nearly capable of doing it’s thing without any help, so anything you do add needs to be a benefit, not just bolted on dross.

The big 5.11 bag now has a new calling*.

I can now fit the new Amaran 60D portable light, my Weeylite RB9, a pair of Neewer light tubes, the above rig attachments, mics and all the other useful bits you need for a portable video kit.

Add a small and a couple of super light stands for the LED’s and you are set to go.

The only other reason I would rig up the G9II is for battery help, like a power bank for the camera to reduce battery change stoppages.

Few cords, no gadgets, just czmera, handles and the minimum of extras.

*

The S5 is a different matter, being the “static” camera and less stable and AF capable.

This gets the works, mat boxes, follow focus, a set of rails for power options and screens, but that is the point of that camera and anything that may come after (another S5 as it goes). I do not require or trust AF in this format, so will likely just add another S5 for stills and rig up my current one for video.

I am starting to settle with this kit now. I did a job the other day with the G9II on a tripod, trusting the AF for shooting stage action without me there and the S5 hand held. This was all wrong because I was over reacting to things that did not eventuate.

I was fearful of the low light performance of the G9II and should not have been (as well as the EM1x for stills, equally unwarranted), I also over-estimated the danger of shallow depth of field covering a distant presentation stage with full frame or relying on the S5’s AF. Again nothing I needed to worry about.

Looking at this retrospectively, I should have used the cameras to their strengths giving the G9II a fast lens and gone free and easy, the S5 gaining some extra depth thanks to its high ISO power for stage cover. I may preach it, but it seems I do not listen to my own gospel.

*the shoulder rig in particular is seriously useful with the G9’s AF and stabe.

Further Thoughts On Formats

Basketball yesterday and as I have been doing lately, I am trying to directly compare full frame and M43 as I use them.

EM1x, ISO 3200 (careful to not underexpose), with no fears of sub-par quality. This gym needs ISO 3200 for 1/750th at f2.8, set manually as the background changes from bright to deep shadow.

Plenty of speed for action grabbing, plenty of quality for tight crops or decent print sizes.

I have enough reach for tight shots from the gantry.

Wide is also effortless to use, this series were all shot with the 12-40 at 12mm/f2.8, ISO 1600, 1/500th and one handed. In M43 this is effectively the same as 24mm at f5.6-6.7, so zone focussing is fine. G9 mk1 this time a camera that has very good low light performance.

The main practical difference to full frame is in the rendering of backgrounds. Even at f2.8 and 100-150mm, the format is rendering the same depth as a 200-300 at f5.6.

It is true that 150 f2.8 is the same on both formats at the same focussing distance, but when the extra reach of M43 is employed (a benefit in every other way), those relative distances change and the sharp drop-off of a 150 f2.8 is expanded.

I am half a court away from the subject, she is the same again from the background, which is quite coherent. A 200-300 f2.8 full frame lens would offer the same lens speed, but the background would be much softer, also meaning of course that the focussing would have to be spot-on and would cut out a player even from one quite close.

So, what about full frame.

The 85mm f1.8 on the S5 felt good, but the S5 has a far less reactive shutter button than the EM1x or even the G9 mk1.

Focus was sure and there was little or no sign of pulsing, which shows how close that system came to getting it right.

There is a quality jump here and these next two images were shot at ISO 4000 and f1.8 which was excessive, but the point was to see the real difference of both elements.

The need for accuracy is obvious, with two people almost touching being on different focussing planes. Image is clean and the colours deeper, which is something I have noticed. If M43 is treated well, it is fine in most light. If you starve M43 of light at higher ISO settings, your colour palette drops off considerably, but I have only used EM1x and G9 Mk1 cameras thus far, the newer generation are still untried.

Delicate is my take away from these, almost glass-like, but also a much lower hit rate when tracking a single target in a mob. The 75mm f1.8 for M43 allows me more reach or the same dynamic if a lot closer. I must admit that I do like this look, it is “bigger” feeling, partly because of the depth, partly the colour (cooler), partly the shape (3:2 as opposed to 4:3) and partly the delicate nature of the image.

The 85mm is effectively my longest/fastest lens combination, but only if I am using the 75mm or even the 40-150 f2.8 at longer effective distance (2x magnification). If I use them at the same distance, gaining the doubling effect, but probably not needing it, they are much the same.

I am responding positively to the full frame shots, but I also have to be aware of other factors. The colours are different, especially when compared to stretched M43 files. The S5 is cooler, almost Canon like in its handling of warm-to-cool subjects and the S-prime lenses are very good.

Comparing M43 zooms to S-Primes in poor light is a little unfair, but when you do the math, it should be actually totally one sided, but it is apparently not (the M43 combo should be loosing 4-6 stops of performance).

Another thing is brand differences. I have found G9 Mk1 images more pleasing in this particular gym than Oly files and this was the case again today (the Oly files look a little warm and flat, the G9 files cooler and more delicate). The G9.1 is of course not much fun with long Oly lenses, but in hind-sight the 75 Oly on the G9.1 should have been tried also as a fairer comparison.

My take away from this and other recent experiments is there is little to be gained from the bigger format with longer lenses unless (1) the lens offers enough speed at the same reach to make the better ISO performance matter and (2) focussing/technique/subject/light allow for ways of reducing a potentially higher miss rate.

I still prefer my EM1x and 75 f1.8 to the S5 and 85 f1.8, but know I have that other option if shooting in a coal mine! The G9 Mk2 when I have RAW available may well bridge this gap.

My Full frame journey continues, at this point stopping stills at normal range and video.

Maybe the IRIX would have been fun?

The Forgotten Lens

When I worked with the paper, I decided early on the buy the 9mm Leica as my wide angle and leave my 8-18 zoom at home for other jobs.

Pictured on the left as almost an after thought, it was at that time in one of its many “which kit and why” periods. Truth be told, it is probably my favourite zoom.

I only really bought the lens as a safety net option when I was building up a pro kit, because my widest was a 17mm and I knew a few jobs may bite me eventually. Almost immediately, it saved me with a large group shot in a confined space and as a lens in its own right I really liked its form factor and image quality.

It did not make the cut in my journalistic kit though because it was too slow (I felt) at the longer end at f4 which was a standard focal length for me, and the bulk of it’s range too wide for general use, so to save weight and bulk (it is a little wide to fit in some over stuffed bags easily), the 12-40 f2.8 Pro was re-adopted instead*.

Ailing as that lens was I saw it as a “use it until it fails” proposition and it proved to be a worthy companion, a great video option and the “lumpy” zoom slowly smoothed out with use.

A win-win I guess, but the excellent 8-18 was neglected.

Recently my kit has become more of a pack-it-as-you-need-it dynamic, rather than a catch-all, so my thinking has evolved.

The 8-18 has become a good option for outdoor jobs and I am reminded of its very good properties.

• It is sharp, Leica sharp with character, great contrast and consistency. Bokeh, when it gets a chance is gorgeous.

• It handles flare as well as any lens I own. It generally follows that simple lenses with less glass are better here, but the 8-18 can actually handle shooting straight into the sun no problem, something most other lenses I own cannot do.

• It also handles very strong light well. The Olympus 75-300 is also a star here, smoothing out highlights well, so the two give me an extreme 16-600 ff range in a light weight package (with a tiny 45mm prime in the 35-150 gap), ideally suited to overly bright light.

• Sun stars are nice, not something I use much, but they are nice.

• It handles well, even though I am more used to the Olympus direction of things. To be honest, it is my favourite zoom lens to use.

• It is tough. I have dropped it twice, even with its limited use, and it has come away with a scratch or two, but nothing else.

• It shares the same 67mm thread as my Lumix-S lenses, so it is the ideal standard for the G9II in a mixed video kit.

• It also offers a handy video range, especially with teleconverters or E-stabiliser crops applied.

When maximum weight reduction or space saving are not a priority, it is a very well balanced lens overall. Not at all heavy or large by most standards, it was ridiculous that I could replace it with a “better’ option, but Panasonic did make that amazing 9mm f1.7 Leica**.

Negatives?

The hood scratches easily and the Leica 9mm and 8-25 Oly exist, but to be honest, in this new working world of mine, I can now take both Leicas! The f4 thing does not seem to be a thing really, if I use the lens for its intended purpose and in the semi-standard, fast glass range I am over serviced really. Even at f4 the lens shows an ability to render smooth backgrounds with real Leica “pop”.

*I realised later that the 8-18 with a 15, 17 or 25 fast prime was actually the same weight as the 12-40 and 9mm (the 12-40 is actually the heaviest, but the 9mm the lightest), but the “shape” of the new kit was better and the 12-40 because a better lens for it. Video for me at the time was also a priority and the 12-40 provided the perfect interview range with instant manual focus override. I also carried a 45mm f1.8 either way, so the need for a fast normal was probably reduced.

**The bulbous 7-14 Olympus never appealed on many levels, nor the older 9-18, Panasonic 7-14 or Laowa 7.5, the 9mm becoming the best option and I would have bought originally if available. The only other lens I would have looked at is the Oly 8-25, which may still happen.

Interesting If Ridiculous Comparison

Bit of fun and something that I did not intend to do, but it made sense at the time.

The S5 and IRIX 150 have quickly become my go-to macro kit.

Results can be spectacular and keeping in mind it is a capable video option as well, the logic of it all is hard to argue with.

The shot above was one of a handful of successes from nearly a hundred images. I got plenty in focus to some extent, but not precisely enough, with only about 1/4 of the Ladybug in focus, “focus on the eye” became very important.

The big issue is razor thin depth of field and manual focus with subjects that are often moving, sometimes shy and on a moving platform as well. Manual focus is desirable here, because it is one less variable, but even with the very long throw of the IRIX, it is twitchy.

A rare true hit.

Artistic macro is fine if often frustrating, so you get what you get and make it look pretty. Scientific macro is another matter and needs control.

Eyes or antennae, but not both and this was at T8!.

This is macro, good and bad. Long lenses for reach, high ISO settings for good depth and fast shutter speeds or lighting, with limited creative options and patience.

There is an outlier though.

The IRIX monster on the S5 and the tiny and super light 9mm on a G9 Mk1.

M43 has some advantages in macro, mainly being smaller, more powerful macro lenses, often easier close focus due to the format, good stabilising, weather proofing and in some cases, more natural depth of field, but the reality is, at very high magnifications, depth of field is uniformly non-existent.

The Leica 9mm is a super wide angle, but it also has the capacity to focus so close, I have to remove its shallow hood to avoid touching the subject or the platform they are using.

The hit ratio on this type of shot, manual focus used again, was much higher. I am actually so close to this ladybug, I almost touched the leaf end.

The usual trade off with full frame and M43 is high ISO performance vs two stops more depth of field. The reality is, most serious macro shooters use flash, so M43 is a good idea for prepared macro shooters generally.

Easy to do, but I had to back off from minimum focus. This is a crop of about half.

The full frame is smooth and clean, but depth is unforgiving. This is a slight crop from near minimum focus.

Super blobby shallow depth is possible with the 9mm, you just get a lot closer.

Some context.

Not a hit, but close and if I tried a bit harder I am confident I could get some rippers. The bee was curiously not too bothered by a lens only a few centimetres away (the top-left foreground flower is on the same stem).

Even side-on, the 9mm is unable to get the whole beetle, but I was shooting at about f1.8 and ISO 1250.

Other factors.

Handling the S5/IRIX kit hand held was tiring, frustrating and slow. The long throw is a bonus in macro, but if something was even a little out of the focus plane, it took a few shifts to find.

I found the stabilising on the S5 was fine, no images lost due to shooter movement.

To get depth of field that had a small chance of capturing the bulk of a 5mm long beetle, about T5.6-8 is required, then ISO 6400 or more was needed, sometimes 16,000 (in a shady back garden location) for a movement capturing 1/350th or better.

The files were smooth and processed well, but unfortunately, even after fifteen minutes or so, I only came away with a handful of useful images and tired arms. I did get some decent video, which suffers less from high ISO/Shutter speed needs.

The clip below shows how easily the S5 and IRIX work together hand held with manual focus transitions (please excuse the grade, I was not paying attention to my exposure).

The non bug-chasing images from the IRIX are gorgeous.

The G9 and 9mm were as different as you could get.

Handling was a breeze often one handed, manual focus easier to achieve, with the unusual problem of often getting too close to the subject, but depth of field is more forgiving and AF is an option. I was using generally f1.8 to 2.8 at ISO 800-1600 for 1/500th or better.

The process was fun, easy and the files processed well.

The interesting thing and something I have felt before, was the math did not line up. I am happy to shoot with wider apertures in M43, but even then, the light gathered seems to be more in the same situations. No science to back that up, but it seems I am in ISO 6400 territory often with full frame, rarelty with M43 and I am not overly fearful of that anyway.

The Rot Setting In?

One of my jobs this week is to take those special images of spaces at the school, usually used for report covers, web pages etc.

By instinct I put my 8-18 on the Pen F, a camera I reserve for this type of thing, then add a 40-150 (any would do, but the f4 was chosen). I added a 25 f1.8, for a little Bokeh magic and to fill the gap.

I then decided to add the S5 with 20-60, 85 for stills and IRIX cinema-macro 150 for video.

I then woke up from my deeply in-grained habits and took out all the M43 stuff.

The main reason was I realised I only needed one format and although either would do fine, but the reality is, the S5 does stills and video, the G9 Mk2 still does not do stills yet (no RAW support until I update Capture 1 and there is a story there).

Suddenly the bag got lighter, the process easier, but I became suspicious of another influence.

Was I in need of a change, or worse, am I growing tired of an instinctively perceived shortfall in M43 or does it hold true that either would do, so take what is best for the day?

I have to admit that in some extreme circumstances, the S5 produces a better image. This is not depth of field related, because as pretty as very shallow depth can look, it has proven to be predictably impractical as I knew it would be and the low light benefit is again not as great as some assume, again thanks to the more useable wide apertures on M43. Shallow depth is good for removing unpleasant backgrounds, but I do not have the luxury of shooting bad backgrounds, because my images have a need to be “in context”.

The difference is found in extreme light, dynamic range, i.e. retrieval of shadows and highlights in photographically bad situations.

I pride myself on making most images work to a certain level, no matter how bad. The combination of two brands or two “takes” on any situation, the added advantage of many lens combinations and my basic, but focussed skills with Capture 1 and ON1 No Noise have made workable images out of rubbish situations more than a few times.

At some point though, it gets too hard.

Screens are on my list of things that make life harder than it needs to be (big water bottles on desks, garbage bins and uneven socks also). Exposure tricks, banding, flare and odd colours all combine to make podium and presentation shooting a little tough. Is a full frame the answer, maybe better technique or something I just have to deal with?

Who or what is to blame?

I pushed the S5 to see just what is possible.

I had a tripod, but no flash and I don’t use HDR processing, but I had a feeling I should lean towards the highlights.

Ok, not bad. This came up with minimal effort, no special tricks or software other than C1 layers and the dynamic range suite.

The reality is though, most things can be fixed another way, because we have been for decades.

I have been in the habit of shooting loose and fixing in post. Not the wholistic photoshop way, using layers and introduced elements, but the shoot RAW and pray version. This is sloppy and not the fault of my camera.

The older G9 and EM1.2’s have been improved upon also and my choice of which to go for has sometimes been poor. The G9 for example can handle indoor lighting in a nicer way than the Oly cameras, providing a warm and pleasant look, until that is, it falls apart completely, then the more natural Oly look does better. The new G9 and later OM’s are improvements, but don’t have or use them in this role yet.

The room this was taken in leans heavily towards lighting purgatory. Dull, greenish flouro haze comes to mind with a little reflected natural light. The G9 with a 45mm f1.8 Oly lens (above) or the EM10.2 and 15mm Pana/Leica lenses seem ideally matched for it. The mixed combinations can be life savers, Panasonic’s light-warm rendering and the more grounded Olympus colours sharing the load harmoniously.

I am of course leaving out the obvious culprit.

Experienced as I am, bad habits creep in, absorption in my subject forces poor technique and when the rubber meets the road, I could often do better.

Shooting into hazy-diffused light is often forced on me and few lenses or cameras do that happily. I do remember a time when I avoided scenarios like this, now I seem to tempt fate a lot more.

The Sigma 30mm wide open is good, but the situation torturous. This is fill-flash territory, but that was not an option.

A fair go.

I know sometimes I make choices based on limited information. I have a tendency to forgot the years of good service M43 has given me, the reality that my entire portfolio, my current career even is down to it and I re-committed time and again to the format.

I used to work in a camera shop and had the luxury of comparison at hand. A weekend with camera “X” was all I needed to be happy with what i had chosen. The S5 is partly playing that role now.

I have to learn again to see the difference between the things I can fix and those I cannot.

As a prime example, yesterday was a blue sky, clear and brilliant day and the campus I shot was on a hillside, getting the full brunt of that. I did the shoot with the S5 and the images were correspondingly crisp and brilliant. The full frame images did process easily.

Lovely quality in good conditions, but so is M43. This was the 20-60 kit lens, so I was not even giving the S5 an unfair go.

Today I shot the junior school campus, a prettier space, but the light was hazy, filtered and the campus is located on a more crowded suburban space with cross-light, and cool shadows.

I deliberately packed the Pen F, 8-18, 40-150 f4 and 25 f1.8.

Todays effort on the other school campus.

Tons of subjective quality, but the files were duller. Despondent? No, I realise the light was different.

If there is a genuine difference, I will use the best tool for the job, which makes me happy the S5 is at hand. Plans to add another are simply to balance out a slightly over sized kit of cinema and stills lenses, but in M43 land I am done, not because I have lost faith, but because I have all I need and more.

The reality is, I am just aware that I have a lot of glass for the L Mount and feel one camera is under done here. I have always worked with more cameras, always had depth and one feels fragile. Having said that, I have money in the bank and can fix this if needed.

I would like a dedicated “big-rig” video camera and a stills support camera to go with the small kit of Panasonic-S lenses. I have the video camera, so it is probably a stills option.

What to do?

The Sigma FP ($2.5k) would add a decent video option for my cinema lenses. As a stills camera it sucks a bit, but it would be rigged for video and that is that. Other issues like huge files, battery life, rigging are not insignificant, but the image quality is spectacular. Compatibility with the other cams may be an issue.

The S5 could get a twin ($2k), because to be honest it is enough, especially for stills and compatibility is guaranteed. What it does not offer in video is already handled better by the G9II/M43.

The S5Mk2 ($2.5k) has some better features (and some not), most probably unnecessary for me*, the “X” is the full frame G9II, but still not in some ways and I have been through this. The top end featurs of the G9II/X are both over-kill for me. More mundane things like handling, stabilising etc are the crux of it.

A second hand S1H appeals ($3-2.5k), but lacks battery compatibility, is big, heavy and dearer than the equally powerful S5 series.

A BMPCC6K in L mount is another option, but the dearest ($3.6k).

*Dreamscapes of movie making aside, my real world needs are high grade 1080p/50p, occasional slo-mo, 10 bit/422 colour and a flexible profile (FLAT or Standard), with VLog and 4K/50p as a welcome option. I could add a couple of off board recorders for multi-cam RAW, but doubt I would use it.

The Logic Of Three Shotgun Mics

When shooting video, sound tends to be the last thing to be addressed and the practitioner then realises it is the most important and most involved. It is effectively another hobby or skill set.

The old axiom “sound is half of video” is partly correct. The reality is poor sound kills video dead, better sound lifts it, at a minimum balanced sound is a must, not an option.

If I had to recommend one mic to a mixed format videographer it would probably be the Zoom SSH-6 mid/side shotgun on your choice of Zoom device (several available). The device will determine the overall quality and functionality as well as the form factor.

The reason I would choose this mic capsule is its versatility, which ties directly into the other thing you need, a decent interface.

The mic is a warm, clear and sensitive shotgun mic, meaning it can be pointed at one or two people over 1-2m range and reject sound to the side, or it can have some or a lot of the ambient sound recorded to add a feeling of place, a larger group, an orchestra, band or event. This can even be done “RAW”, so you can balance it later. It just seems to often be my first choice or my first backup every job.

I have used it to cover four person round table panel or an interviewer (out of shot) and main subject in front. The mid-side option also reduces echo and some other ambient effects, which pure shotgun mics can suffer from.

It really is a versatile and high quality mic.

Put it on the F1 (with a shock mount) and you have a useable on-camera option, with secondary recording, handy volume control and many other options like limiters low cut.

On the H5 it is a hand held recorder with even more options, on the H6 and H8 and it is the backup/alternative recorder to other specialist mics (which on using I have occasionally preferred).

There are even more options, but I am not familiar with them.

So, why more mics?

My day bag at the paper was multi purposed so tended to be cramped. The Sennheiser MKE-400 was an attempt to match the base quality of the SSH as a shotgun with something compact and easy to use.

In this role it excelled.

The compact form factor includes a decent wind “blimp” and a built in shock mount and the included wind sock with applied low pass filter are decently effective wind mitigators. Sound is excellent and reasonably directional. It is not as tight as the SSH on “0” width, but it allows for decent directional control and good rejection of unwanted side noise. For general news paper use, I found it about perfect in rejection. A lot of voice, a little ambient.

The mic was also cleverly set up, with front mounted cables, a short back end and the above innovations. The shock mount was very effective, the wind blimp/sock had its limits*, but most do and the camera could lay on its back with the mic in the hot-shoe.

The missing link was a bit of reach with a more directional mic.

I have used the F1 and H5 with a long 3.5 lead to the SSH and could do the same with the MKE-400, but neither offered a true cordless option** and I do not want to rely on or overly like LAV mics. To my ear they sound flat (in the price point I can afford), nor do I trust their reliability either technically or as a worn option, not regularly anyway. They are also usually limited to two people and a need to control the space.

The MKE-400 with an XLR adapter worked well with the Lekato XLR wireless units which sowed a seed, but it was a bit of a mess and the mic is not ideal for booming.

I decided I needed a true wireless directional shotgun, not as a constant option, but an option none the less. The main thing is it must have battery power to work with the Lekato, which quickly narrowed the field.

The Synco Mic-D1 floated to the top as a good cheap and specialised mic. The D1 became elusive and my resolve to go with a more respected option sent me hurtling towards an old favourite, the Sennheiser MKE-600.

The 600 is not as useful as the 400 in a day bag kit or on a small rig, nor is it as versatile as the SSH-6, but it offers at least as good side rejection as any in its class.

It is only a half level below the MKH-416 industry standard boom shotgun, which puts it in genuinely professional company.

So, the justification for the three;

The MKE-400 provides a more than decent go-anywhere mic straight to camera or 3.5 interface, has three volume levels and is all “forward facing”, which helps with on-camera use. It is a perfect all-in-one on camera package, but fairly limited because of that.

This mic is all about a capable shotgun, something many brands do well, but with clever thinking to push up the list. Combined, they make for a very handy option.

The SSH-6 offers a versatile capsule mic on a Zoom device, add another dimension with mid-side recording and seamless and tactile volume control. Still the versatility king, it requires a Zoom interface connected to it, so it does remote recording fine, but needs synching later (there is an extension cable available, but I rejected this as a limited and expensive option). It is cumbersome on camera and impractical as a bag mic. It does make an ideal back-up as the interface units can record a separate track.

The tactile volume control, best option available for run-n-gun use, the mid-side mics, combined with its greatest strength (or weakness), of direct connectivity to a Zoom device make this a unique shotgun. On its own it is a contender and if you own the Zoom device already, it is very cheap for its quality.

The MKE-600 offers a clean, XLR or wireless capable, focussed and highly directional interview mic. This is the pro interviewers choice. It is bulky on camera and very long. It does not come with a true dead “critter”, so I have ordered the Rode WS7, which seems to be a favourite.

The least versatile, so most specialised. Battery power makes all the difference and justifies the slightly higher price than competitors, turning this XLR based unit into a very versatile option.

This is of course only one type of mic and I have others, but it is proving to be the most important for general video use, the others more specialised.

*turns out my best wind rejector is the Zoom XYH-5 capsule and dead gerbil, which makes little sense.

**without synching audio later.

The Two Hander

I have my Basketball process down these days. Practice is needed to keep my “eye” in, as with most things, but the actual process is so comfortable, I can pack and go with as little gear as possible and know I will be ok.

This example is from a game today for the school, their 1st team against of all teams, the other school I worked for last year. Odd that I knew the other schools players better than my own teams, but year 11’s from last year are on my radar, year 10’s from the year before less so.

Anyway, back to the process.

I use two cameras, one for under my nose, one for the other end of the court and approach.

The first is an EM1x in “three boxes stacked” focussing configuration and the 75 ,1.8 Olympus.

This allows me in M43 terms a 150 f2.8 full frame equivalent with enough quality (thanks to the f1.8 aperture) for clean, robust ISO 16-3200 images even in the not-so-great light of the local basketball centre.

I use this lens for play at the other end, usually my teams defensive end,

Even with a little cropping, few of the images from this end are unusable, even with the lens wide open. Blurred backgrounds are not a thing at this level.

then follow the play out of that end,

and hold your nerve as long as you can as the players move towards their attacking hoop.

I tend to do this more later in the game as the feel of it is well established, tactics become predictable and I have my “safety” shots.

It is also ideal for 10-rows-up bleacher shots, something that adds another dimension,

and is especially handy if you are at your defensive end and cannot get to the other easily.

The lens is also the best option for free-throws or bench shots, ideal for portraits of a player, the mood of the game or record keeping.

Even with a 150mm equivalent, there is room for some context.

This is the left hand sorted. I used to have this on a strap, the second camera on another strap, but it could become a tangled mess and was sometimes even too slow in swapping. I now just hold the camera with a hand strap for security. I am not zooming so the second hand is not needed for the second camera.

The second camera (EM1.2) holds the wide or the near-action lens. This can be anything from a 9 to 30mm (18-60 in FF). The most used are either my 15 Leica or 17 Olympus, the 15 a favourite in this particular setting as it’s colour seems to like the lighting a little more (on an Olympus camera).

Uncropped it is a different take on the free-throw.

The frantic action under the basket can be captured from the sides, but players usually block something important. You are mostly guaranteed an unobstructed view from the end as long as you stay out of the umpires way.

Even with the 9mm, which I used once for a basketball camp, not a game, there is tons of room for cropping and re-shaping as needed, but also some sense of grandeur and you get enough players to make sure everyone is covered. I use the widest aperture and a larger 3x3 focus grouping in the middle of the frame and just keep the action there.

This one was taken with the 25mm Olympus, one of the longer options. This lens is usually longer than I like to use, but can get you good intimacy.

The second camera is on a strap over my right shoulder. I find grabbing this one handed, either vertically or horizontally is easy and fast, but only if I hold onto the other camera, not try to switch between two dangling, strapped cameras.

When I shot televised JackJumpers games for the paper, these lenses were swapped out for the the 40-150 and 12-40 f2.8 Pro lenses on a pair of EM1x cameras, but the lighting on these courts is not strong enough and the zooming or extra depth of field at f2.8 are not needed. I also could not move around at those games, so I sat with one camera in hand and one on the floor in front of me.

Like daylight, so F2.8, ISO 1600 and 1/500th are no issue.

The floor at that venue could hardly have been harder. I remember that even with a neoprene pad to sit on, my biggest issue after a game was not getting back and processing before deadline. It was being able to walk to the car!

Every Camera, Every Lens, No Waste

I have a zero waste policy, something that is likely a reaction to the rampant waste I have been guilty of for many years.

For far too long I bought and sold, completely out of proportion to my use or need. I lived in a world of hypothetical scenarios and fanciful non-accomplishment. People loved my cast-offs, which were often mint/boxed and way too cheap.

The turning point came with M43, or the EM5 Mk1 to be precise.

I bought one after a couple of Pen cameras wet my appetite to support the meagre lens options available about the same time I bought the 5DIII and some more EF-S lenses for my crop frame Canon cameras.

The 5DIII and lenses lasted a weekend, traded back for another EM5 and some more M43 glass.

Never looked back.

*

The “shutter savers” first, cameras that spare more specialised cameras each time I use them.

EM5 Mk1 (1-4)

The EM5/1’s are pretty worn out now. Two are basically dead, two a bit twitchy, but get use for personal projects, as a third camera or for possibly camera killing situations. The images out of these older cameras still hold up and why not?

They produce clean, sharp and flavoursome, almost “filmic” images that often strike a chord with viewers. I would not bother with them now for sport or high pressure jobs, because why would I with so many specialist options available.

There is just something about the files from these cameras.

EM10 Mk2 (2)

My little givers are for me basically my EM5/1 replacements. Often used for travel, jobs around small children, because they are cute and silent, something the EM5’s lack. One has lost the ability to show its LCD when it is used horizontally, but otherwise, not a hiccup. They are also my lucky event cameras, school balls and the like.

Pen Mini

The little red camera will likely be my last working copy of the older EM5 sensor, the camera itself is often used to distract little ones, other people when I am street shooting and if I need to let someone else use one.

*

The more serious stuff now.

Pen F

This special camera is mine, all mine! Ok they all are, but this one is a little protected, so I use it mostly for studio portraits or my own landscapes (it uses an old plunger style cable release and the grip is an Arca-Swiss tripod mount).

My special projects camera.

It is not weatherproof, particularly fast, has no focus tracking, suffers from poor silent shutter banding, forgettable video options (no Mic option), generally performing much like an EM5 or 10, but it feels special and the images are the best of that older, non-phase detect enabled sensor.

EM1 Mk2 (2)

The EM1’s have been my work horse cameras for stills particularly. They have both had a flogging and will continue to, but the key is sharing the load with all the others, so they get a decent rest when I can spare them.

A rare run for sport as the “B” camera.

G9 Mk1 (2)

The Panasonic G9/1’s are the “other” work horse cameras, but with a video lean. I prefer the way these handle, the layout and for some jobs the lighter and brighter colours, but to be honest unless video is a possibility, it is an either-or thing with the above. One of these is my most battered camera, the other hardly touched on a reserve video roll.

The Telstra shoot was my biggest private job to date. Trusting at the last minute to the G9’s perfect skin tones after some tests the night before.

EM1x (2)

The “X’s” are my sports cameras, which also stretches to events and really important stuff. These handle similarly to the G9/1’s and the image quality is close especially in low light. I especially like the responsive thumb nubbin and selectable focus zones (3 tall/wide with limited selection bands my preferred). Dated now, they still hold up and are built to take a lot. If the EM1/2’s and G9/1’s had a love child…. . This is possibly the most under rated and cheapest pro camera on the market (remember it comes with a free built-in grip and two batteries and chargers), I bought my last one mint second hand for $1300au.

For the PM, what else would do?

G9 Mk2

An upgrade across the board, the G9/2 is a video camera first, but if I need next gen stills it can be used. All up, this is my best camera. It has much deeper video specs than the S5 and is better in every other respect than most of the other cameras above, especially on balance.

Lifted off 1080 video and good enough for print.

S5 Mk1

The dreaded full-frame that had to be (or not?), the S5 is the second video cam, or the first if extremely low light or “full rig” and interview style video is wanted. The G9/2 is the more versatile camera over all, but the S5 has its uses and I may even add another (or a Sigma FP) as I am feeling the pressure of too many full frame lenses. As a stills camera, it is excellent and can be used for the very worst light, but so far I have not needed it.

I am still on the fence here. My fear is I will eventually succumb to full frame fever, something I know is not needed, but it is nice to have to option and the lenses I have picked up for L mount have been fun and cheap on the whole. If I had my time over I would have bought one or the other lens kit (S-Primes or Cine).

OSMO Mk1

Now so very much “old news”, this is still capable of 4k/60p as a decent gimbal option. It is also my underwater and high places camera. I need to use it more.

The point is, no camera is useless. Even a dated, technically challenged camera with a small sensor even, can produce images that satisfy clients. They don’t need or often want to know the why and how, but of course showing them the camera before can be unwise.

Generally, working for the school again, I use a G9/1, EM1/2 and EM10/2, each with a lens mounted and a couple of other lenses to round out the needed range, but I would rather grab a small, dated, cheap camera, set up to work with a specific lens, than change a lens mid stream.

The usual use case for each is;

G9.1 with Olympus 12-40 for stills and video. Occasionally now this is the 8-18 if I do not want to carry a bag or the light is decent.

EM1.2 with a long lens as suits (45, 75, 40-150, 75-300).

EM10.2 (or EM5/1) with a fast wide like the 15 or 17mm (the 12-40 may have a ND filter mounted for video, so this backup is much less fiddly than changing lens/filter etc).

I can duplicate these three cameras and effectively the lenses.

The 9mm is usually packed in the bag, sometimes the 30mm Sigma or the 25mm.

*

Why not an EM1x or G9.2?

No need.

These are kept for specialist jobs and a future when the EM1/G9 pairing and its second take ware out.

If you know your camera like an old friend and use it appropriately, no matter how old or limited, you are better off than someone struggling to get to grips with a new super camera.

The same goes for lenses.

I have no fear using the 12-60, 40-150 and 75-300 kit level lenses if lens speed is not an issue and the very best* AF is not critical. This means I can drop one in a bag that probably has little need of the range, just in case.

The f1.7 and 1.8 primes are like this also. You cannot complain with a straight face about their quality, so their tiny size is just a bonus. Throw a couple in your bag, a half dozen even.

*My 75, 40-150 f2.8 or f4, 300 f4 and the old 12-40 seem the best I have.

The Fated Hand.

My search for a Synco D1 has been a miss. Two have been ordered, both have fallen through and I am going to take the hint (and try to get my money back from one “seller”).

The mic is good, very well priced, but a few things were on my mind.

• The 100hr battery needed for wireless operation (needs its own power for the Lekato to work) does not have an on/off switch apparently, meaning I would have to (a) remove it each use and (b) keep a spare.

• It was also very long and I was wondering what bag would be able to take it.

• Finally the D1 looks to be on run-out.

• The brand has a bit of an iffy rep. Paid for reviews, “rip-off” designs, granted a common enough thing, and few top tier reviewers or retailers dealing with them.

• The pricing was all over the place. Rip-offs of rip-offs?

The Sennheiser MKE-600 has always been the one in the back of my mind, but until recently it seemed to be basically a less practical run-n-gun option to the MKE-400 or Zoom capsule SSH-6 I already have.

The 400 is to my mind the ultimate “always ready” shotgun mic*, being small, self contained, and high quality, the SSH-6 has again great quality with mid-side capability and the convenience/inconvenience of being a Zoom capsule.

Needs change and my possible future need is for a better boom mic, preferably one with a cordless options and better range and rejection.

I have other options to the clip, may be set for a wind sock, the bag is going to be replaced by a hard case with phones, the Lekato kit etc and the ‘plosive filter kept.

Longer, especially at the rear, no inbuilt shock mount or wind blimp like the 400 or the capsule convenience of the SSH-6 previously made it and only marginally better overall sound than either made it for me, a poor choice, but this morning I did some video with a shotgun (SSH-6 on camera with F1, mid-side to “0ff”) and it has proven to be again the way to go.

I just need more flexibility.

I have found a well priced one (about the same price as the RRP of the MKE-400 and from a genuine dealer), so about twice the price of the D1.

Genuine brand, better battery life (with on-off feature), sound that is often favourably compared to the MKH-416, compatibility with the 400 for dual mic-ing and a local retailer.

*The mic is on a shock mount inside a blimp, which solves a lot of problems.

An Elegant Solution

More mic fixes.

The Zoom F1 has a good reputation for sound, versatility and features.

A good bit of kit, when it works. Notice the cable-tie, which is not standard :).

It has a poor reputation for ruggedness though thanks to the dodgy battery door cover. The battery spring is strong, the little plastic clip holding the batteries in is shamefully flimsy. Mine broke after a minor drop of a few inches to a wooden desk top.

Turns out, many go like this.

Zoom is not well supported in Australia and mine is out of warranty, so it was annoying and considering I was using the F1 and SSH-6 as my main system for the new sports podcast at the paper, a possible project killer.

I came up with a decent fix, using a 2c cable-tie. This worked, but it did not make life much easier. The door was a sh%t design before it broke, it is almost unworkable with a cable-tie safety clip. The shock mount is also very hard to remove, only making things clumsier.

The relative ugliness of the original fix, made even more annoying by the need to pull it back over the record button to release the door. If you go the other way, you need to cut the tie and start over. The next solution is also partly visibly here filling the 5V charger port.

The F1 is a pain because its battery level readouts (common with Zooms) usually drop to two out of three bars with fresh Eneloop pro batts almost immediately, then down to one bar soon after leaving you with little idea how long you have. I was in the habit of changing them every shoot.

Not fun.

The new fix is more elegant in every way.

A mini power bank attached magnetically to the micro USB adapter pictured above. The reason for buying the magnetic option was to be able to re-purpose the unit if needed. Happily, the magnetic adapter seems to offer the spacing I need to clear the shock mount and cable-tie.

I took a chance and bought a 3000 mha mini phone charger, which manages to fit thanks to the magnetic adapter sticking out a little and the added bonus is, it has a reliable battery meter and greater capacity. The magnetic hold is decent, but not impervious to a knock, so I will have to be aware of this, or maybe come up with something to help.

No more door, no more iffy battery meters, no more messing with cable ties.

It even looks a little cool.

Cheap Fix

On the hunt for an off-camera, but wireless mic option, I have stumbled across a few ideas.

Cables cause clutter, they can pick up interference and they are limited in placement and range, but they are cheap and reliable.

Wireless has a few benefits that can outweigh the obvious downside, which is reliable signal when compared to hard cabling. Wireless offers simple and safe booming, stand placement and even hand holding options and generally longer range, although this decreases reliability.

The Lekato wireless transmitters seem to be clean, solid and reliable options as long as you don’t get anything substantial in the way (5 khz units have less robust signal for non line-of-sight signal, but are less prone to other interference), which for my use case, usually LOS over 5-10 mtrs maximum, is fine.

This opens up a lot of mic options.

The dynamics I have, the TT1 Pro Lanen being the most sensitive, need to be too close to the subject. I have tested all of them and the reality is, the mic needs to be in frame to work well, which is often ok, but not always. These are hand held, treat ’em rough stage mics.

My condensers are better, but their pickup pattern is too wide for single person interviews in outdoor settings. These are instrument or booth mics.

I have the MKE-400 shotgun, which when used with an XLR to 3.5 adapter to the Lekato worked well. The cable I have is quite long, the mic best suited to on camera use, the overall result a little messy and that mic is the “always in the bag” mic, so the rest just would not be with it.

The Zoom SSH-6 is a Zoom shotgun capsule and a good one, so it needs to be attached to a Zoom device which is limiting. The ECM-3/6 extension cabless were on my radar, but again, are limited to the capsules only. The SSH-6 has a gain dial at the mic end. This means to control sound I would need to use the camera, which is not as intuitive or clean as the mic dial.

I looked at the Comica wireless shotgun, but it is a big investment for a mic no better than the MKE-400 and it is a closed loop, so if anything goes wrong it all falls apart. I will always go for a more versatile and better supported option. Basically I would like my “B” option to be similar to my “A”, not a whole other set-up I need to bring.

The Zoom M3 popped up again, offering 32 bit float RAW, so I could boost on camera sound, but this takes processing, something I want to avoid. I am not confident in that space yet and want to avoid unnecessary “clutter” physical or not. It is also, like the Comica, a one horse show.

I would much prefer a dedicated shotgun, with native XLR connection, but this requires battery power because the Lekato’s do not supply phantom power.

The MKE-600 Sennheiser is expensive on balance and there is too much repetition, compromise and unwanted versatility for what I need. The MKE-400 or SSH-6 are almost as good, offer this versatility and the 417 is better for booming but far too dear.

I need something that does what the 400 or SSH-6 do wirelessly, while not trying to be them in their space.

I stumbled across Synco during my searches.

The first review was a “is the Synco Mic-D2 a cheap version of the MKH-417 Sennheiser?”, which got my attention. The general consensus is no, it is not a replacement for the industry standard 417, although in controlled environments, it is almost impossible to tell by ear which is better, they are just different. It is a genuine option in the sub $400 semi-pro range.

After a lot of reviews, not many from main stream reviewers and there is a taint of a “buying” reviews scandal with this company, I am satisfied that for $170au, the Synco Mic-D1, the older and less sensitive version is a decent (very) long shotgun mic, with the minimum of features I need including battery power.

I will not be putting mine on a camera.

The newer D2 gets the most reviews (and the controversy), my search engine often defaulting to it even when I requested only D1 reviews, but there were a few direct comparisons between the two and other mics.

It boils down to;

• The D2 sounds surprisingly similar to the MKH-417 (which is 5x dearer), some say as good but different, either way, it is decent in this space.

• The D1 sounds very much the same, but needs about 25% more gain. This was often using Zoom devices, so results that matter to me.

• The D1 compares favourably to the MKE-600, NTG3, NTG2, S Mic 2, S Mic 2s, etc, which are all much dearer. Micro differences in range, rejection and tone aside, they are all enough, this one is enough on a budget.

Nobody complained it was super gain hungry like an SM7b, just weaker than some mics and self noise seems well controlled even after boosting. The MKE-400 adapted to the Lekato’s had plenty of clean gain, so I am happy I have the range.

If it works out I may even get the D2 as well for cabled use, the pair combined coming in at the price of the MKE-600, as it has better rejection and gain, but probably not as I have other options.

My setup will likely be the boomed or stand mounted* mic with the Lekato wireless adapter to the receiver on the Zoom H5, AMS-24 or F1 (with XLR capsule) to camera with backup recording and the Zoom H1n next to it or the Lark M1’s as a safety track. I will have cables at hand and use them if able, but if not, this looks workable.

My aspirations for sound recording are realistic. I just want decent, fit for purpose gear for each application. I have made a few miss-steps with too much music-centric gear, but it all has its uses and I have learned a lot. This mic seems to be a good option for occasional, specific use, when size and mobility can take a back seat to the best and simplest design choices.

*The TV crews I worked around at the paper used a mic on a shared low stand.

The Image Making Process (Or The Joys Of Being An Introvert).

I am finally free of the news paper as my main commitment.

What does this mean?

Income is now patchy and lower, but my everyday process for image making is much closer to my ideal. I am an introvert who has evolved methods of workable extroversion, but I am an introvert none the less.

For me, image making is very much a matter of immersion, patience and observation. I have found, especially lately, that by projecting my introverted, non aggressive personality, I can get images from people with little overt interaction. With thirty odd years of sales, teaching and cold contact interaction, I have the tools I need to go into any situation, but the true me is still there.

Staging images, breaking my concentration to get names, being obvious and controlling are not me. Never will be, but I have proven I can do it when I need to.

You cannot make this happen, it just does.

Last Days In The Press Corps.

I had the double weekend shift on my last working week with the paper. On one hand I will not miss that, but on the other, weekend sport could be a highlight and the one time when the chore of captioning and image opportunities are in some type of balance.

Westbury.

Cricket final.

My last sporting event.

It fits.

James Tyson on the stumps. No run out, but close. My 600mm (ff equiv) is too long for telling multi person stories in most sports, but hard not to use.

The Westbury Shamrocks are mid-dynastic high point, the third in their long history. A sweet little town just outside of Launceston, Westbury has swept the pools of all possible formats they entered in northern state mens cricket.

Ollie Wood mid delivery. I aim for one image in the delivery leap and one on follow through. I could take 20-60 a second, but you only improve your timing with single shot captures. The giant stumps are a good, quirky background, the score board, just off to the right is also ideal.

Another angle. I like this as it has the potential of multiple elements coming into play, but again, the lens is a little long. I tend to aim centrally, so the bowler is in frame as they peel off and possibly appeal or I can go left for a keeper stumping or catch etc. A 500mm equivalent would be ideal, which is why I often use the 75-300 zoom.

From the batsmen’s perspective.

The double weekend shift was a good way to end, reminding me of one of the reasons I am keen to move on, but also giving me a chance to reinforce feelings of accomplishment.

Eighteen months ago, I would have baulked (possibly wilted) at working both days of the weekend on my own, in Cricket finals season no less.

“The enemy” in this case a player from Ulverstone on the north coast which is covered by our competition (The Advocate).

By this time, I have evolved from “hope I get a useable shot”, to “this is what I am aiming at achieving” and usually getting it. Not bragging, just assessing my growth.

All the above elements in one image (except the ball).

Sport in particular has tightened up considerably, less shots being taken, better results achieved from those I do take.

I will miss the winter sports like local AFL, Basketball, Netball and the people I potential could meet, but not much else.

A Boom Outlier.

Looking at wireless mic options, I may have stumbled on a double fix.

Dynamic mics are well serviced with wireless options, but they have other issues with boom use.

Dynamic mics do not need a power supply (called phantom power), they are tough and handle well (“drop the mic” is a dynamic mic thing, you do not want to drop a more sensitive condenser), can withstand high sound levels, close proximities, tend to have good basic wind/pop protection and are cheap for their quality. As little as $100au can get you a good one.

They are generally considered poor for boom work though, because they are less sensitive and tend to have a wide polar pattern, meaning they need to be quite close for best results. If you can get them close though, they are perfect for voices.

The sE V7 got a run today as a wireless option, with booming as a possibility. The V7 is not my most sensitive dynamic mic, the TT1 Prodipe is better, but it was decent enough into a H5 (the H8 and possibly AMS-24 may be better). The TT1 has already handled a “round table” panel situation with all speakers over a foot and a half from the mic, which was beyond all expectations.

The big suprise is wind handling. My fan test on the base unit produced a low, even hum, but when I stretched another foam pop cover over the top, it basically disappeared! This will also help with the original intent of the filter, removing ‘plosives from too-close speakers.

Being a stage mic, handling is not an issue, but weight potentially is. It is much heavier than a shotgun, but is well balanced and not a great strain (no cabling is a nice mitigation). If I drop it, I have no fear of damaging the mic, maybe what it lands on though.

The polar pattern in supercardioid, not the tightest, but not totally unusable. Even Cardioid, which I s basically “all forward” is acceptable depending on surrounding sounds.

More focussed Hyper cardioid is preferred, or even tighter.

Lobar or shotgun patterns are very tight, which allows for high rejection of off-axis sounds, but for this application, controlled booming for interviews and podcasts, it may be fine (I have shotguns). This pattern can also be problematic in poorly treated spaces as the rejection can cause out of phase echos.

The big advantage though is, dynamic mics are reliable options for wireless adaptation with cheap units like the 5.8 Ghz Lekato kit ($125au). These are solid, reliable and rugged. Every option for shotguns, Lav’s or condensers, seemed expensive, messy, twitchy and fragile by comparison as well as usually being based on 2.4 Ghz signal, which is much more crowded air space.

Plenty of reviews later and I am happy with this versatile and cost effective option.

They will plug into anything XLR, have four channels and are low profile. I could set up four of my vocal mics with these. Even if the boom thing is a stretch, I will have an interview, performance or presentation option.

All good.

Best thing is they are making my least used mics more useful.

I will get another (or maybe more) if they work out.

The nearest contenders were the ECM-3 Zoom adapter cable, same price, but cabled and limited, the Comica MV30 wireless shotgun, which is expensive ($300au) and not probably a better mic than the Zoom SSH-6 I have, or finally the MKE-600 ($350au), which is still cabled and not a huge upgrade over the MKE-400 other than better rejection and maybe a slightly longer range (talking feet not meters). The AMS-24 interface that just arrived could problem solve easily enough, but is still messy.