Skill Level Vs Gear Level

What is your skill level?

Does your skill level match or exceed you gear or is your gear waiting around for you to catch up?

For me, it goes something like this;

For sport, with the EM1x’s and a variety of Olympus and Panasonic lenses, I am nearly a match for my gear or if I am not, I am not aware of the short fall.

I get what I see, when I see it, I just sometimes don’t react as quickly as my gear can. When I am “in the zone” it feels amazing*, but if I have failed to practice, had a recent coffee or sugar hit, maybe just not trying that hard (or maybe too hard), then the gear patiently waits for me to catch up.

Netball is an ideal example.of a “zone” sport. The less I think about it, the “luckier” I get.

In the studio, I have too many modifiers, lights, backgrounds etc, but my skill level, probably my experience level actually, is a little behind. More time, more experimentation, equals better results. This is really a case of understanding the gear and it is what you need it to be when you need it, rather than it being technically ahead of you.

My early G9 video was a good match for my skill level, especially processing. The camera set to Standard/422/10 bit/1080p, graded with little effort. The camera became second nature to shoot with and still is, the Sennheiser MKE-400 generally producing quality balanced sound as did the Zoom F1/SSH-6 kit for the sport podcast and my turn around was super quick.

My upgraded video and audio kit** is above my pay grade at this point, but I am working on it. Grading V-LOG (or not), using nodes (or not), applying LUT’s (or not), even being generally consistent, shooting quickly and confidently, using my best-for the job-sound and lighting gear, are not yet native to me in this space, far from it, but that is all about application and practice. I probably have too many options in balance for my needs.

Sometimes you can apply one skill and gear set (sport) to another field (birding) with hauntingly familiar results.

The “gear does not matter” thing is a myth in reality. It does, but not as much as the user.

The gear should not hold you back, but if you over invest in hardware and under invest in knowledge and experience, then you have wasted money.

*The “zone” is found with practice and then not chasing it. It is all muscle memory and being in the moment. You know you are there when the process seems seamless and you find your self anticipating things faster than mere thought would allow, a bit like falling asleep.

**S5, S5II, G9II, lots of mics, The Zoom H8 etc.

Too Far?

I just watched a short report on BBC News at Six about the state of Grimsby, the poorest town in the UK pre-election.

Super shallow depth if field, jagged cuts (one sentence deserved three drop-back cuts apparently), soft focus (where there was any), booming, intimate sound.

Process over content, when content should have been all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6p24ene5peo

I hope someone has a word with the team, because I have rarely seen a more creator-centric hard news story.

There is a lot of shallow depth, “cinematic” footage on their site and many others are following suit, but this was distracting, not ground breaking and the people who mattered, got shafted by a need to impress.

Video Ratios And Formats, Some Temptations, Some Traps

My video work flow fits in with client needs.

1080p/16:9, enabled with 422/10bit/50p capture in Flat profile, basic grading. Flat is easier and more neutral to work with than Cine-D, well for me anyway.

I am exploring V-Log, but to be honest, I will likely just stick to Flat for most jobs unless dynamic range is a real issue, when V-Log may give me a stop or two more.

I use either Panasonic S or G series lenses or various cinema lenses, depending on what I nee to get the job done or sometimes a specific look.

DaVinci is my ride, even with the steep learning curve, mainly because it is free, but also because it is an industry standard, lack of ProRes conversion not withstanding.

Formats?

Anamorphic keeps raising its head, appealing more to the frustrated cinematographer in me than anything because the reality is, if I shoot in anamorphic for me, I may well create useless footage for most others.

Open gate or 4:3 ratio, handily the native format for M43 cameras.

Another option would be to shoot C4k or Open Gate, then crop as needed, still exceeding my 1080 standard. This looses the streaks (I have filters and don’t always love the look personally), the odd Bokeh balls (same, not a thing for me) and the standard-that-is-wide perspective anomaly*.

16:9 standard video format, minimum hassles, handy height for moving subjects.

C4k is a slightly wider format, hardly anything, but by maximising my capture, I can then crop slightly and get a genuinely wide 2:1 or wider aspect ratio.

Cinema 4k. Hardly noticeable, but still adds some problems, one of which is cropping back in to 16:9 to match other footage.

Cinemascope 2.35:1, or about what the 24mm Sirui anamorphic would render, except that the magnification to perspective ratio would change. Too wide for most uses?

Advantages are being able to crop as I want as with stills, sometimes finding looks that surprise, having the “normal” aspect to fall back on or even other ratios not previuosly used.

The “reel” roughly.

Other stuff.

The 24mm Sirui anamorphic is on paper the perfect lens. It gives me my staple focal length (50mm) on a M43 camera as well as my other main squeeze, (35mm) in width.

Streaks are well controlled, minimum focus is excellent by anamorphic standards (but still average) and the oddly shaped Bokeh balls are fairly tame thanks to the wider focal length. It has effectively no focus breathing, is sharp and reasonably priced at $799au (on sale). As I said, nearly perfect on paper.

Detractors and I am going with actual users here, not theorists, usually site a lack of anamorphic tricks, saying it is too tame, a lens you need to feed correctly for some stronger effects (good thing) and a few have said it is tricky to focus accurately. Peaking on some cameras (Fuji mentioned as well as a Sony) can be misleading.

If I got it, I would basically be buying a hobby lens. The real world uses would be limited and for clients, I have tended to use Panasonic lenses (S primes, S Kit and G/Leica) as much for consistency as the now handy auto-focussing. I have “hobby” lenses, the 7Artisans, Sirui Nightwalker etc, some legacy and the IRIX macro, that sits between these two camps.

If the lens was used for a whole project, or maybe as the primary lens with something like the Sirui Nightwalker 24 used as a cropped portrait lens, then it could work, but again, the format does not suit all (many) projects.

Rodger Deakins is a well awarded cinematographer and an example of someone who does not play here. He shoots spherical lenses and crops. Sure he is using Arri cameras and top end lenses, but cropping actually helps here. Less than perfect corners are hidden, distortions also.

The “cinematic look” when it is relevant, comes down to many, many factors, few of which are down to a simple format or lens choice. Format in particular probably comes down to client driven practicalities as much as anything.

If you subscribe to the 28mm on S35 (roughly a 40mm on a full frame) being the “perfect” focal length for video and stills;

https://noamkroll.com/28mm-lenses-the-secret-ingredient-for-achieving-a-film-look/

then the Sirui is technically straddling both sides of that at once (48 < 40 > 36). More width, more magnification = perfect middle ground, but is regular spherical lens, a 40mm (20mm in M43) actually better?

I am drawn mostly to anamorphic lenses for their contradictory width to height rendering, not much else, so I need to think on this for a while. Does it matter, is the lack of consistency more of a hindrance than a help, is a $800au lens worth it just for mucking around with or would it actually give me something powerful and interesting. The Sirui 16mm tempt, but again, I am tending to use my modern stills lenses more.

*Assuming the 24mm on M43 which is a 48mm full frame equivalnet in image height, but a 36mm in width. Is this the perfect lens?

Money To Mouth Time

I did a little follow-me shoot yesterday, mostly a stills day, but some video with the old G9.

The G9 was my main video camera, but now it sites at the bottom of the pile;

  • G9II: Highest bit rates, Best AF, Best Stabe, a few time but no crop or format limits.

  • S5II: Second best AF and Stabe, few time limits, some crops, no format limits.

  • S5: Probably even stabe to G9, ok AF, no format limits, but more time and crop limits than the S5II.

  • G9: Decent stabe (see sample), no crops, time limits applied to limited formats and ok AF with selected lenses. It can still offer 4k/60p/10 bit/422 for short clips and RAW out, so better than many.

So, basically the G9, a solid video option, has lots of in-house competition. The Stabe Boost mode (tripod-like lock) is good on all of them, hard to split, but movement stabe is a clear 1-4 ranking.

Having said that, this footage was a spontaneous grab with the old G9, 10 bit/422/1080 in Standard, with high movement (E-stabe), the 8-18 in MF, shot at 50p so I could slow it by 50%, “optical flow” and mild post processing stabe added. No rig, no handles, just a stills cam pushed into video role.

The footage has suffered at some point, likely upload compression or similar or maybe the applied processing (me) and there are two clear shift points, also down to me.

I guess the big question is, if I had taken the G9II and a gimbal, would I get noticeably better results for this, a very normal situation and would that extra gear and set-up possibly loose me more in stills missed, or changed my video/stills thinking? Would just the G9II or S5II with a stabilised lens be noticeably better?

For these jobs, I carry two cameras, one (G9) with the 8-18 in a small shoulder bag, one (EM1.2) with the 40-150 f4 and shoulder strap. Adding a gimbal and another camera would be quite a different proposition.

EM1x Fun

I remember reading a four year review of the EM1x recently while reinforcing my own feelings on the camera, but also looking for alternatives, other perspectives and learnings.

The user had bought his EM1x off a friend who had not meshed with it. They bought it for a song (about $800au the year it came out). The problem was “the camera had a mind of it’s own”.

On further investigation, the happy, but cautious new owner checked the function buttons and discovered two rarely used ones had strange settings assigned, the very same strange settings that kept activating “without me doing anything”.

My second EM1x (the first second hand one), was also a little twitchy. I remember it seeming being re-set when I got it, everything on base or auto settings, so I assumed that I could set the buttons and dials I use and it would be the same as the first one.

Every now and then, usually when shooting field sports, the shutter speed would lock out at about 1/8th, the view finder get oddly blurry with lag-ghosting and I would discover after some frustration, that it was in ND mode (blocks light to the sensor for long exposures in good light, usually done with a filter and tripod).

These shots. The 300mm (600mm ff) is too long even on this ground to get all of tall subjects in centre field, so I use vertical orientation.

I would dive into the menu, fix it and forget it.

The first time I was at a ground with an LED running board around the ground’s fence line that was making everyone’s viewfinders play up (Z9’s the worst, EM1x’s slightly), so I put it down to a quirk of electronic view finders and shutters tricking the cam into an odd mode.

Recently it did it twice in a day and no running board, so I checked the settings and sure enough, the bottom-front button was set to live ND. I don’t use that button on the EM1x’s because basically I don’t need to, but it seems, when shooting rare verticals*, I have a habit of pushing it.

This has settled me in a couple of ways.

That EM1x felt a little problematic with this happening (just this, nothing else) and it made buying the next one a little risky. One button fixed and my mind is settled on two cams.


*Most clients prefer horizontals with the option of cropping verticals themselves.

Stabilising, What Do I (We) Really Need.

I did a proper video shoot recently, just video, not video on top of stills.

I felt confident, equipped, capable, except for the gimbal moves needed to match some footage taken in the past that needed to be replaced. The OSMO was used, but it suffered from lens flare (can’t move the sun in relation to a building) and not looking the same as the other footage. The OSMO is a powerful tool, but has limits, like no hood option and the Mk1 has strong magenta flare if pushed.

I also had the benefit of using some previously taken footage from a Sony mirrorless on a gimbal, a Canon C70 used on a tripod etc and a drone. This was interesting to see how the pro’s do it. Something I noticed before I even looked close, was none of the footage matched.

My most stable options are the G9.II, the S5.II, the older OSMO Pocket 1 and the three EM1x cams, that I don’t use as video cameras, but they do handle AF and stabe well. Along with these I have several rigging options, poles, a cheap mechanical gimbal, which produces decent results and a set of wheels for my tripod, although these need a very smooth surface as the wheels are small and hard.

It is also easy to forget how good some older cameras are;

https://youtu.be/BFpVG_7qfC8

Recently, I realised my most comfortable and stable shooting experience was to the eye, a subsequent search for a decent eye level finder resulted in a bigger rubber cup for the S5. This does not help with movement, but it makes most other shooting forms better as well as accurate manual focussing.

On top of this are the usual tricks of using slo-mo and digital stabe in post.

Plenty of options I guess, or am I fooling myself?

The G9.II and to a lesser extent the S5.II get top marks for in-camera stabilising, some call them “Go-pro level”*, but I feel the best use for them is as a strong foundation of another system, like a mechanical gimbal or some kind of rig.

The big question is can I justify or do I really want/need a Ronin S3 mini or similar or maybe the OSMO Pocket 3 with the O-1 as a backup? It seems I would be buying the Ronin for that last 10-20% of perfect smoothness, that is not always wanted anyway.

To be honest I am bit sick of buying things that won’t get used, especially when they seem trend driven, but by the same token, drones and gimbals tend to be front of mind for most clients.

I guess we need to rewind and think about what my or anyone’s real world needs are when it comes to camera movements.

I will go, and have gone on record as saying I think gimbals are over used. The ability to move with some your footage is cool and as valid an option as any, but how often is too much? I know shooters who use them almost always, some don’t even own a tripod or other option.

Your subject moves, so do you need to all the time? There have been films made recently with almost entirely gimbal stabiliser rigs (1918, The Creator), but they are exceptions and the need to be portable and mobile was part of their story to tell, not the gimick they used to tell it.

More importantly how much becomes about the movement, not the subject. A still camera heroes the subject, a movement, any movement can also, but it can also easily become the hero element at the expense of story depth and subject connection.

Panning is an old favourite, but it is really the role of a tripod and technically challenging or simply a decent brace and hip pivot. The G9.II etc can handle it with a little practice, the OSMO with a simple setting, the old G9 even works.

Slider moves, best done with, you guessed it, a slider (I have a 120cm one, never used).

Hand held, which is to say, that very common and regularly used non-stabilised brick of a cinema camera creating its own inertia held by a decently strong and practiced user, with just a slight movement to give it away. I can do better with just the G9.I in boost mode, so including the EM1x’s, that makes eight options!

Following or leading. This is the meat of it, the big gimbal move for me (not a vlogger, so that whole headache is removed). I don’t often do these, but they have their place as b-roll or intro footage.

The trick is not so much the stabiliser, but the movement.

The reality is, a gimbal would still need practice, a second person to avoid trips and falls and would it be used simply to justify owning it?

Basically creating a problem to fit a known solution and maybe not for a whole lot better result than I can do now.

The OSMO does this well enough except for limited dynamic range, fiddly sound options, a slightly digital look and poor low light performance, but within limits, it works well and is designed to purpose. Ironically, the big issue with the OSMO is lack of weight.

The G9.II on a mechanical gimbal in slo-mo, maybe some weights and digital stabe could also do this with some practice, for the few times it matters. It could be I do all this research, analysis, some purchasing, then use the damn thing once a year while regularly practicing to make sure I can.

I did several videos for the Migrant Resource Centre recently, none of which required complicated movements, although I did use plenty of basic moves without even stressing over it. I kind of just let instinct take over and it worked fine.

General active shooting, which is a little of all of these on the go and reactive, you know, the little movement, maybe with a focus transition, mini pan, small companion follows, a rise or drop.

The reality is, a gimbal is not something you have on camera all the time. It is a specialist bit of kit with a required skill base and changes the flow of things. The camera as is, basically rigged out, is much more flexible.

Dolly moves. These include up-down, in-out, swinging around etc, usually done with a studio crane, rails etc. Again the OSMO floats to the top as the only realistic option especially for overheads or under water etc. Being able to go on a pole and be run remotely (hard cabled to an old phone) or in an under water housing is the OSMO’s thing.

*

After a lot of research, it seems the one thing gimbals are not perfect at are up-down (walking) movement control. This is the bit you have to work on regardless and some skilled cinematographers can do this without a gimbal, but their cameras tend to be heavier. After several tests, it seems the G9II, rigged several ways, can almost conquer this.

With e-stabe, lens O.I.S, some added weight, judicious handle placement and practice, all shot for slo-mo and generally “keeping it real”, I feel like it may do the job and the OSMO is there when it cannot.

I tried with the with G9.II and 12-60 Leica at 12mm;

  • Top handle only. Pretty good, but lack of weight was ironically an issue. Adding left/right stabilising arms might help.

  • Shoulder rig with weights and front handles. Quite good for walking movement, very good for pans and swing moves and perfect for static.

  • Shoulder rig without handles. Not as good as above, but less bulky.

  • Chest pad into the shoulder. This was decent, smaller and lighter than above.

  • Chest pad into the body. Very good for pans and static, no good for walking.

  • Shoulder pad into the shoulder. This was much the same, not overly comfortable, but the weight helped.

  • Top handle with shoulder pad and weights (I have added some weights from my mechanical gimbal). This created a perfectly balanced ‘follow me” rig, with the minor issues of banging into things (about 40cm long) and being low angle.

  • Mechanical gimbal. Smooth, but hard to control the cameras facing. For simple follow moves, more than adequate and I feel practice will sort most issues.

  • Top handle with left side front handle facing up (from my shoulder rig). This has promise except for walking.

The ideal will be something that combines the above. A bracing handle set-up, a body anchor point with the option of a top handle running rig, some weight, lots of practice.

Some ideas to try;

  • A top handle mounted sideways. I find the front-back orientation less than perfect.

  • A centre handle underneath, with weights. Basically making the camera heavier with down force.

  • Balancing with two under arms. Same as above, but maybe better.

  • Using the eye cup**, chest pad on short rails and (maybe) front arms for the best “SLR” style experience.

It seems to me, the best option may look something like this;

G9II on a set of short rails, with the chest pad close enough so I can use a larger eye-piece**, then either front handles (maybe with weights) and a top handle for follow-me shots. The lens may be the 8-18 or 9mm, so I can use the best stabe, which crops heavily.

The front handle, oddly well balanced with the little weight added, can be used like this, pointing up, across or flat as needed. The tripod head is of course only to help with the image. The top handle also allows for mic attachment or even a monitor. I may add a second handle behind the camera on the right side. You need two contact points, but which two is important.

Below is a rough little clip using this rig at 50% slo-mo. I had to negotiate two stairs and some uneven ground.

So, to sum up.

$400au buys me a logical solution (Ronin RS 3 mini), but one that does not automatically address all my needs, just makes the journey seem easier and may impress-reassure some clients.

$850au gets me an updated OSMO, a camera that has its benefits, but again, is not without exceptions and can be a bit of a one trick pony (a second one trick pony). I guess the price needs to be realistically $1200+ to account for the OSMO 1 and accessories that would likely go to waste.

$0au for a plethora of existing options, all based on the OSMO, the G9.II, G9.I, S5.II and EM1x’s. I bet, with some practice, I will be able to mimic a gimbal in some situations.

The OSMO does some things better than a gimbal, the G9.II gets close and is more flexible, the use of other methods gives me a broader palette.

Is it worth spending real money on ideas that (1) come up rarely and (2) I almost have knocked now?

*Plenty of reviewers are getting close to gimbal results with e-stabe high for quick and dirty walking tests. Basically, if they tried harder, it would be close to as good.

**The one I just got for the S5 is awesome. It came with a screw driver and screws, instructions and fits well. The depth makes a difference.



Make It Like Your First Time, But Also, Like It Is Your Last.

I am revisiting Dan Winter’s biography ”Road To Seeing” and a line from it hit home. He said “I make it a habit to approach every picture as though it were my last”.

This, tipped on it’s head is like a feeling I have, that each image should be a new start, a fresh take, a reinvention, apply “beginner mind” maybe.

Both may be able to live in the same space, or are these one-liners even relevant unless you are in need of telling a story.

The attitude that you should cast aside your past, “kill your babies” as the art world so perilously puts it, is on one hand an empowering of the present-future over the past, assuming only forward growth matters.

Sometimes a moment is fleeting, something that cannot be repeated, or re-done.

So you are, as it were, only as good as your next image, but does this make your past redundant or at least demote it to parts of a journey that needs to be pushed aside for us to go forward. No dwelling in the past. The past is gone.

We are only ever the sum of our past though. It is us up to now and everything we have done.

The past launches us into the future.

The second dictate, that maybe each (serious) image you make needs to be treated as if it is the last you will make, so that you need to give it your all, your magnum opus as it were, is also a powerful termination point for creative excellence.

Powerful stuff.

If you pull it off, how do you know?

Have you reached a point of technical or artistic prowess beyond anything you have done before?

Can you even measure that?

Do you even want to?

Should any image be “the one” or is the effort to make it so powerful a motivator, that repeated defying the reality of failure is needed. In other words, can we get better, without needing to always try to.

Like the oft used trope “the gear does not matter”*, these are both handy catch cries, but possibly as misleading. Users of these terms, people who have come to realise that they are “there” in their journey, feel these thoughts are relevant, but for the rest of us, should we apply these borrowed labels/restrictions/tenets on ourselves, or should we wait until we see retrospectively that we are also “there” and a one-liner may sum up our process and philosophy, but it also may not.

I once knew a man who rolled out a “saying of the day”, likely taken from one of those daily planners that mechanically apply these pearls of wisdom in printing. The effects was not what he desired, the power of each often at odds with the mood and any relevance to time or place.

Often the power of other’s efforts empower our own, but it is easy to take this too far, to forget where we are in the picture.

Using a good catch phrase can be helpful in context, but it is also a good way of creating a false ceiling.

Maybe we should always be open to new ideas that do not need to be “coined” for others ears, just done, understood and allowed to strengthen us as needed, fall away when not.

Life is sometimes not as simple as a beginning a middle and an end, but a constant.

Labels are irrelevant, titles also.

*The gear itself does matter, but in balance with all other factors. “Only the gear mattering is not a thing” is maybe closer, or “the gear, experience, talent, luck, subject and effort all matter”.



Zero To One Hundred In Not Long At All And The Continuing Problem Of Getting It All There.

Since leaving the paper, my video has dropped off a lot.

Worrying really, because I was only just feeling comfortable in that space and less is very much less in this new media type.

Then out of the blue, the school has asked me to put together a video for a project that is a few years behind schedule (COVID casualty), using some graphics, some supplied b-roll and a virtual walk through, as well as an interview to be shot replacing the original. It stars the old school head, now moved on to fresh pastures.

My deadline is the interview in two days, the video by early next week.

It will include elements of graphic over-lays, several different cameras and sources. Lots of variables.

Nothing to something in a no time, careful what you wish for.

Attitude is the priority here.

A resounding “can do”, but realistic drawing on pre-armed confidence. I have been keen for this, so I better grab it.

Testing.

The original interview was a moving monster, quite literally. the Head walked through the labyrinthine school gardens with a gimballed cam in front. Messy, busy, rushed looking. They don’t want that again thank heavens, but I will take the OSMO just in case.

Sound first and as usual, testing reveals surprises.

I did a simple “mic on camera” test using the S5 as the base camera (my interview cam). I sat 6 feet away, placed the mics on a stool and talked to (and filmed) each mic.

The MKE-600 was solid as expected. The sound in a controlled room was nice, the pickup about perfect. I had the pickup on camera at 0db, so relying on the decent Panasonic amps on basically a 1:1 basis.

the MKE-400 was not tested, but previous experience suggests it would be nearly as good, with a slightly wider pickup pattern. Maybe better for two people.

The F1/SSH-6 combo on the other hand, was noticeably more sensitive. -8db on camera, 5.5 out of 10 on the F1’s dial, so a lot of headroom. The Zoom has a little more sibilance, but that also depends on other factors.

I thought I had a noise issue at first, then realised I was picking up the air conditioner.

The Zoom also has other benefits.

It is known and proven, has more reliable power (my main concern with that unit has turned on it’s head with the little power pack), a tactile volume dial on the unit, can be set to various levels of mid-side pickup (wider pickup if two people are interviewed, which may be the case), has a known wind sock option and at a pinch, the A/B capsule is even better at handling wind (I would just run the F1 in closer).

Even more usefully, I can run the option below and the Zoom can record for itself as a backup, placed anywhere.

The Hollyland Lark M1’s have not been used properly yet and they came a close second to the Zoom in this test for sound quality, maybe even ahead, depending on the sound you want.

You get a deep, intimate sounds from these, but like many LAV’s, it is a bit flat.

If I had a chance to set up in a more controlled space, the Sennheiser would show its pedigree, but in this run-n-gun situation, the reliable old Zoom system, the MKE-400 and the Larks make the most sense.

The alternative is using the Lekato wireless units to get the 600 closer. It looks like its role will be as purchased, as a close booming mic with maximum rejection, other mics are there to handle other situations. I did use it successfully recently, so maybe I will take them all and see which two float up on the day.

I could even do both shotguns, the Zoom recording itself, the 600 to camera.

So, what happened?

I used the 600 as the wind picked up and the Sennheisser with the Rode WS6 handled it better. I put it on the small ifootage stand hard wired, pointed between both speakers and all good.

The camera with 50mm was perfect, no lighting was needed and I negotiated the tele prompter well enough.

*

The biggest issue and this is one that keeps coming up, is how do I get what I need, where I need, without breaking the back, breaking the gear, the bank account, or leaving chunks of it out of sight while I make multiple trips, or worse just leaving things behind?

The problematic items;

  • 4x 1m long stands, needed for backdrops etc

  • My C-stand, needed for anything with stability issues, like a boomed mic, multi lights, big brollies. This is has a centre column that is 1.6 long.

  • Any long modifiers, which include the lantern, my big brolly, my 4’ soft boxes.

  • Sound gear, that ranges from a mic in the camera bag to a full audio kit in a hard case and a case for cables.

  • My COB lights, in their own hard case and a another case full of cables etc.

  • The Amaran “portable” lighting kit, in it’s own case with Smallrig soft box, small stands etc.

  • Wide flat things like 5-in-1’s, my Manfrotto collapsibles etc. Some of these are over 70cm’s wide.

  • Rolls of backdrops, all 1.5m wide, 2-3m long about 8 of.

  • Cameras etc. The etc is all that gear like mat boxes, filters, cables, batteries, rigging and on and on.

  • A tool kit.

  • My cine-lenses in a hard case.

Nice mod, but it needs a big stand, a long arm and it is three feet tall on it’s own.

The options are;

Carry each bit on it’s own, which is my now and it is not working.

Use a tall hand truck trolley and cinch cables (have this), which handles the hard cases especially, takes some tall things like stands ok and goes up stairs etc. A smaller collapsible trolley was less useful, not handling long items, nor my weighty gear.

Get the 5.11 CAM’s bag, which can take weight and bulk with a 1m stand (gun) section in the base. It would need re-packing of some stuff like audio gear and it cannot take many things pre-packed inside, but one case could probably be carried separately. It could work with the COB lights or Audio kit separate, but not both.

Get the 5.11 SOM’s bag, which is the same but smaller and can take 70cm (medium) stands. Too much of a compromise for only a little less.

Get one of those collapsible gardening trollies, the fold down type. This handles anything, any way it comes, with the one small issue of not handling stairs. All my pre-packed gear just goes in, long things on top, wide things all good standing up, all semi flat terrain handled.

As for stairs, the few times this would be an actual issue, thanks to wheel chair friendly environments, I could unpack-re-pack with only a short trip from one end to the other.

The CAM’s and SOM’s bags are also expensive enough (over $400au), that I can even come up with maybe a second option within budget. I would love the CAM’s, but the reality is, there are still so many things that it does not handle and re-packing would become an art form in itself.





Resolution, Perfect Cameras and Other Useless Junk.

Might be in a bad mood, but often with me, that gives me clarity.

My S5, 7 Artisans 50mm T2 cine lens and a bare rig seem to be the biz at the moment. When I have better cameras, why?

I have really struggled with the whole video thing. Not the tech, not the processing (as much), not the settings or results, just the doing of it. My solution is as old school as it gets.

I put the camera to my eye like a SLR stills shooter would, which is not how I have shoot a lot of my stills since some time in the early 2010’s and guess what?

It is generally more often in focus, steady, smooth and well composed. It is not a coincidence that serious cinematographers prefer eye cups to screens. DP’s and directors use screens to share and setup shots, but the actual camera tech, more often than not, uses an eye cup.

I have even ordered a deeper eye cup for the S5 and I am trying to come up with some way to use the shoulder rig with it, but focussing is the catch. The chest rig may work, still testing.

  • It is clearer in any light. Lets face it, it is the best screen you have and has no flare or glare issues.

  • It is bigger than the rear screen (relatively and practically).

  • It allows me to see the composition better, to be more engaged. This goes for stills also. I shoot tighter and more controlled images this way and always will, so it stands to reason.

  • It is more stable. I am the tripod. Even my movements as long as they are subtle and controlled are smoother. There is a time to move away from the eye, but often that is to a tripod or slider anyway.

  • It is more compact and faster to use. Pull the cam out of the bag and go. No rigging, no attachments, no cables.

Taken on the old Olympus 25mm f2.8 half frame lens at f4 (see below), this is it. The little handle on the side is for the heel of my hand or finger tips to rest on and to give the screen something to protect if when used. The top handle is mostly there for carting, getting out of the bag and putting accessories on (the big nose MKE-600 in particular likes to be set back a little). The tripod foot is for obviously what it is named uop as, but also helps stabiliser my hand.

In the same vein as above, I am going to try a little experiment.

I am only going to shoot video on a 50mm (ff equiv). I have plenty, they all have their “thing”, it makes life easier and seems to fit my eye at the moment. The 50mm above in full frmae, the 35 on APS-C, the 24mm Night Walker, 12mm with 2x digital extender in M43, 25mm Antique (above), 50mm Pentax SLR lens, 35 and 50mm Lumix lenses, 25 modern Oly etc. Lots of options in how to render the same magnification. I may even get that 24mm Anamorphic (50mm equiv in height/35mm in width or even the 35mm as it is a 70mm in height but a normal in width).

I am not curtailing my creative options, because every lens and format has different characteristics, just settling on a sensible focal length for now until I am ready to move on.

I find in video focal length is more of a comfort thing than a creative necessity.

Framing close-ups, wide shots, panning, focus drifts, deep or shallow depth etc are all creative options, but focal length tends not to be to big one. It is not a coincidence that many DP’s even those who use a variety of formats and even focal lengths, tend to sit close to a standard (of their own choosing) for most projects. Some even stick religiously to one lens and the spread of favourites tends to be either side of the humble 50mm.

The Creator for example was shot predominantly on a single Anamorphic 75mm Kowa with a full frame sensor (tight portrait lens in height, semi wide angle in width).

Bit over the camera sphere at the moment. Want to hear what you need to hear and you will find it, good or bad. Too many opions, few with a clean moral slate, many misguided or fans/haters.

Just use what you have, it is better than most anything available up until recently, oh and resolution should be your last concern.

Anyway, rant over, off to work again after a couple of weeks sick.

Powering The Process

Batteries, a boring but necessary subject, a little like talking about air or water really, you need it, but resent that need at the same time.

Image from an iPhone, because well, nothing else had batteries.

This is what it takes to keep the machine running.

Top left are the NP batts, mostly Neewer. The 970’s are genuinely useful, giving me a solid hour with the Amaran 60D, two with the big Neewer LED’s, even longer with the smaller ones and if I use a monitor, I can leave them on for a decent period.

The little 550’s are another story. Useless really for anything heavy duty (10 mins on the 60D), they are reserved for short monitor runs while shooting for weight or little LED’s, but I always need to take a few, making their smaller size redundant.

I bought the better Smallrig NP adapter, that allows 5, 12 and 7.5v outputs and is less cumbersome than the INIU power packs below.

Next we come to the Eneloop Pro AA and AAA’s. Excellent, just excellent. These made flash use a pleasure, usually giving me a full night to a set, maybe a change later in a big evening as well as keeping the bulk of my Zoom gear at the ready.

Another advantage of these is their long sitting time. I can keep one in my MKE-600 case and know it will give me hours of power, months after being charged. I could not be bothered tracking them all down, forgetting where they are all hiding, but I bought 30, or was it 32?

They cost me (30-32x AA, 12x AAA, not all pictured), about $200au, but they have saved me that already and I have only just tapped into their expected life span. I think I worked out at the time they cost about 2c per use*, much cheaper than less reliable throw-aways.

Top right are the Old batts for the Pen, EM10 and newer EM5’s. These see too little use and I will likely have batts well after I have cameras. They last well and charge decently quickly.

Below them are the work horse batts for the EM5 Mk1’s and Pen F. Some of these are over 12 years old, but they still go. My biggest issue like above, is camera bodies to put them in. The Pen F is really it and I use it too little. Lack of use makes the batts lazy, but lack of need for the cameras they run makes that too real.

The two INIU power packs have given me new confidence with sound and rig gear**. I can charge most things from them, including my newer cameras. With one rig mounted I can use a mic, monitor and interface without fear or pack a large sound rig knowing if the AA’s are a little tired, I can simply go around them. I ran the H8 with several mics in a test recently and after an hour of use, 1 of the “pads” had gone out, meaning I still had at least 80% of the larger pack.

The little generic phone pack (upper left of the INIU’s), connects magnetically to the troublesome Zoom F1, fixing the power/battery door issues I had with that unit in one move. I have used it for a dozen jobs and it shows full bars (dots).

Powering this unit has been difficult. Even the Eneloop bats only show reduced power reading from fresh, leaving you wondering when they will fail, so to be safe, I always changed them each job. This was problematic because the battery door broke, as they often do, leaving me a fiddly and frustrating cable tie remedy. The magnetically attached power bank is elegant and efficient.

The GODOX batt is for the 860, which is the difference between that and the cheaper 685. The 685 with Eneloops is very good, but at the time I felt I needed a flash that could handle high speed sync (using a burst of flash) multiple times in a row. Often the stand out at big jobs, it can go and go and go with constant high demand placed on it. I mean to get another batt, but to be honest I may never use it and the 685 is more than adequate as a reserve.

Next we come to the 9 (!) EM1 batteries. 2 with each for the EM1x’s, 1 each for the EM1.2’s and a spare for the grip. Probably capable of 12-15,000 images without charging, I can safely handle most jobs, even month long field trips, but you cannot have too much power. An added bonus is, if I use the 8 (!!!) chargers I have, I can have all but 1 up and going from flat in one hour and the green indicator lights are bright enough to read by. I can also load the three EM1x battery sliders, for near instant change-over.

Lower left are the G9.1 batts. These are good, solid batts, but charge slowly. They are a pair of originals and a pair of Better Batt copies and I cannot see any difference in performance, but the after markets were 20% of the price. I can get about an hour of 10bit/1080/50p recording, but annoyingly the cameras only do half an hour at a time.

Above them are the S5/G9.2 batts, again a mix of original and after market. These are better batteries overall (and/or the cameras drain less) and share some compatibility with the ones above (I think they fit old cams, but not the other way), but I have enough not to care.

If away from power for any length of time, my endurance is quite high.

The INIU’s and an older bank, the little phone one and my RB9 Weelite (which can charge) supply about 60,000mah which can power a phone, OSMO, little LED’s, laptop, camera or Zoom interfaces, I have enough AA’s to fire about 4000 full power flash fires, AAA’s for various other bits, can run an EM1 for over 10,000 frames, a G9.2 for 5-6 hrs of video, a G9.1 for 3-4 more hrs or 3-4000 stills, my various lights could give me 4-8hrs of one of them at a stretch, the Pen F and an EM10 could add another 5-8,000 stills.

Not a massively interesting subject, but usually the first practical consideration of a working pro. I am happy that now I can record up to an hour continuously with three matching video cams, one for a lot longer if I have a decent card, sound for even longer and with backups. Importantly I have no nagging fear of batteries being my betrayer.

It struck me when writing this, I have never tossed out a rechargeable battery from any of my current gear, some of which dates back to the release of the original EM5 or Pen’s. Batteries it seems need not be the reason we cannot function, long or short term.

*The math is something like 500 full uses per battery at 2700mah each.

**The newer cams can charge from the packs, some even run from them, so I can technically run continuous recording of sound and video from a pack, but the single C-type is also used for SSD drive connection, so I am limited by either battery or recording medium. Only an off board recorder could address this.

Learning From Others And The Past

I have been doing this a long time and one of the things you have to be wary of is shutting out other opinions.

I have gone through this space several times, so you tend to take the teachings of others with a grain of salt, because you actually have heard much of it before and your “on trend” radar is hyper sensitive.

Trends come and go, the basics stay firm, which tends to allow an attitude of “nothing you have to say will change what I know”.

James Popsys is a photographer who’s work resonates with me in much the same way Michael Kenna’s did many years ago. Kenna works in black and white using strong tones and clean compositions, Popsys works in modern colour, but their basic principals are similar.

Hero the subject with clean simplicity of compositions and/or colours.

Something Popsys does that was a real alarm bell to me, is avoid the modern reflex of lifting or bringing up shadows and pulling back or “recovering” the highlights. He does this because he wants to hero the subject. The important elements not the image as a whole.

We do this regularly with depth of field, so why not with exposure?

I said modern reflex above, because basically in the film and early digital era, you sucked the lollie you had, which is to say, shadows were shadows, highlight were highlights and you composed and exposed with this in mind.

There was some room to adjust, but it was not habitually (or automatically) applied because it was hard and often not seen as necessary, and then it was only really in the mono darkroom. The thing is, even in the darkroom we showed restraint and used negative space regularly.

Some images are all about the sky, but many are not.

I remember responding often positively to “high key” mono images, images that often had large areas of near white in them. They were clean and brilliant and the few black or nearly black tones “popped” out of the image. You could make an element more powerful simply by dropping the others back.

Lighter or darker? Lighter would add an element of composition. It would allow the roof line to jump out and maybe even a little lighter. Darker is the reflex, but aren’t we over moody skies and heavy vignetting?

There was one specific case where Gordon Lewis of Camera and Darkroom magazine processed an image and asked Michael Karman, the subject of his interview, to do the same. Even he preferred the Karman image and it was lighter, brighter.

The Karman image on the right.

I was told a long time ago that the most common new printer error is printing too dark, something that I have noticed in my own work in digital. I tend to “normalise” the image “balance” it for better or worse. I think this may also be why I occasionally drift back to mono, chasing that clarity of message, but fall short of being as brave as I would like.

This was the sky, but apart from the authenticity of the rendering, the white cloud also bring the main elements to the fore. If i darkenned the sky it would look fake, would rob the main elements of power.

So why the compulsion to balance out an image from highs to lows, to normalise it?

Because we can I guess and like a lot of things in the digital world, killing our old film enemies seems paramount. No noise, no distortion, full dynamic range, every little detail on show are fine, but they rarely add anything artistically to an image.

Don’t be scared of black shadows or white skies. They exist and sometimes suit the image better than anything else.

The image as delivered, sky darkened.

The image closer to as shot, possibly stronger?

So, the message to self and anyone else who may feel the same is question habits, remember positive responses and push back against the norm.

Only You

It is hard to please everyone, impossible actually.

Don’t try.

We are all blessed with a different take on things, a set of likes and dislikes, or even more extreme loves and hates. These come from so many different influences and cultural imperatives, that even a sibling or partner’s are so different to your own, they are unrecognisable to some outsiders as closely connected.

So, who are you out to please with your art*?

If you want to please others with your work, impress them, to win them over, then you had better live with the reality that you will likely lose more often than you win. Sure you may have a huge “following”, be “liked” by many, but how are you getting there?

Is this really you or a fabrication made to fit the perceptions of others? Sometimes it seems the more likeable you are to some, the easier it is for others to go the other way.

There is only one audience that has the potential to genuinely like what you do and be honest with you about why or why not.

You.

You have to like you or at least the work you do.

If you do, you win every race, clear every hurdle.

The irony is, if you just do you, you probably have the same chance of impressing someone else as you have trying to be what you think they want you to be, but you may impress better people, people who are not impressed by falsehood or shallow ideas.

We all have a sense of not being enough, that the likes and dislikes of others are better, more valid or real than our own.

People in the moment are all that count.

You need to get over that, embrace the perspective that is yours, because something that it always is, that other’s will never be, is the best representation of you and you are ok.

Ok?

You should be able to make your art into what you want to see, no more no less and let the world deal with that. Nothing else has any meaning or is as honest and to be honest, too many choices confuse everyone.

It is easier to be yourself, like the truth is easier to remember than a lie.

There are people out there who only photograph one subject, but if they do it as their passion their "Ikigai”, literally “the reason to live” as the Japanese would say, then it is fine an their passion shows through.

I am lucky enough to be living my Ikigai in a way.

At the paper I managed “what I do well (enough)” and being paid for it. It should have been more, but the paper should have also and once was. At the school, I manage all four, if maybe the paid bit is a little thin, but it is enough.

My passion is to photograph people in their place of living, learning or work just being themselves, because I know a good image can make someone else’s life better and I feel I am good enough at it (better at it than I am at not doing it that way), but I also know that the same formula a little out of alignment, like at the paper, is not the same.

Why not?

The process of creation was more limited in opportunity and there was less need of my better images**, the steps between me the creator and the end product were mostly out off my control and most importantly, I generally did not care about what I shot. Often I did, but mostly I did not because I was not allowed the time for connection to care.

I realised that the main thing I needed was spread of audience, which I guess is the “what the world needs” bit. The world did not need, as far as I was concerned, a single file chosen by a third party from a range of story telling images or worse a single “set” formulaic shot, which to my mind said “I have given up”.

Passion in others, captured with passion is a thing. These island dancers at a school event were very invested in their work, it was spiritual, their Ikigai and capturing it fell inside the bounds of mine. For the paper it would have been a quick drop in for an interview, pose an image, get a caption, go to the next job, then let the journalist or editor decide which to use. For the school, I was there from start to finish and every submitted image (50 odd) went back to the dancers.

Rarely you got a job where a single image did scratch every itch, but it was more luck than anything else. This environmental protest had theatre, passion, commitment, lighting, composition, relevance. All done in a few minutes.

Sure, this way of working could have been my Ikigai by forced intent (a contradiction), but it lacked one of the other important elements. It was not “what I love” and it showed. I did not like my images, so why would I expect others to.

The rub is of course, doing stuff for an audience, not for yourself if you do it technically well enough will strike a cord with someone and it often did (which kept me going for a while), but with the hollowness of knowing I was not one of them.

I found the more that certain others liked my work, the further it was from my own ideal, with the exception of the sports team on the whole.

So you be you, because nothing else makes sense.

Easy to say, so all the advice I can offer is if you truly do not care what others think, then you are probably on the right track.

After at the beggining of a creative life, people are free to be themselves, because they are not sure what they are actually going to be. When some form starts to take shape, it becomes more dangerous. Many artists break on to the scene with reckless creative optimism, only to collapse under the weight of self doubt as they question how they got there and worse, how to stay.

If you stay in love with the subject, process and results, it is easier to ignore those doubts. You like it, so it is ok. When you ask yourself “what do others expect of me?” you are basically doomed.

Be you.

*Only the art matters, the craft, gear used and methodology are just processes perfected and nobody cares, or if they do, maybe they are also off the path.

**Sometimes down to something as simple as a page fit.

Bit Of Improv.

To prove my commitment to some cameras only being used for work and other for play, I visited friends yesterday with just the Pen F and a couple of primes.

So, when asked to do some promo images of their wine and property, to follow up on some a few years ago, I caught was a little under prepared (I actually only packed a camera last minute).

Last time, I used an EM1x, my pro 2.8 zooms, some flash, the odd brolly, a dissuser or two, a tripod. You know, the gear you should use.

This time I had the Pen F with some iffy batteries (The old batts for these are……old and under used, so they often say full when loaded, then die a few minutes later), the 15mm Leica and 45mm Oly 1.8.

First image, when inspiration struck (hard not to with the sun rising over Tassies east coast and that view). The reflection was a problem, but the house, a wall of glass provided a decent reflector.

The birthday boy in one of his makeshift super hero outfits. Hard to find better light.

Superhero sidekick (with un-kickable ball). The 15mm handled the flare well, the sun is literally on the edge of frame.

One of the possibles, pre-clone tool. The superhero is providing shade, the sidekick some context and Bokeh interest, I just need to get rid of the unwanted pre-shadow. Again, all the glow is provided by the house.

With some early success, we tried some other ideas.

The reflected light was more distant, but effective enough.

No gear, no issue, if your environment supplies these tools.

Plenty to chew on.

EM1x Arrival Out Of The Blue Brings A Little Happiness

The (second) second hand EM1x was bought with simple math.

$1060au for a 12777 shutter fire camera from a top rated seller means, all being as represented, less than half last retail price (based on the best I have seen new), for 90+% of a new camera (based on a 400k rated shutter*).

There is always the chance the camera has done a lot of work with the electronic shutter, which may not be recorded as a fire (not sure, need to check), so physical condition comes into play, as well as back story if you know it.

A studio cam can sit on a tripod for years and be treated well, but do a million fires, while a travel cam may not take many shots, but can be physically beaten up.

The nice surprises came in a run.

It arrived today (Friday, bought Tuesday), a full week ahead of my expectations and with free post.

It came in a box that is in the same condition as the two I have already, which is to say, bought > stored. The Oly black boxes mark up easily, so a spotless one is a good sign.

Inside it looked clean and tidy. The re-packer had been thorough and respectful.

The batteries have the smallest of wear marks, always a good sign.

Love this camera.

I cannot find a single wear mark or scratch, so better condition than my current two.

Dirty paint is a give away. Nothing there.

*Shutter count is often used a tool for determining age, but the reality is, a camera has many ways of being damaged, worn out or abused. The reality is a shutter, like an engine can be replaced more cheaply than a damaged sensor or split mother board.

My final butchers bill for the three cams, one new the other two mint second hand, is $4500 or less than a Nikon Z8 body or only $1300 more than my new G9II.

The Work Horse EM1x Again

I wrote a post recently about the longevity of my M43 gear.

Guess what happened right after?

Both EM10.2’s have decided that their screens only work on some angles if at all, which is problematic for menu access, the oldest EM1.2, which has taken 1mil+ files, is tired, but occasionally gives me a full day without problems, although the top deck seems to be the issue (shutter button won’t fire sometimes and one of the function buttons engages without need), the newer one is relegated to second sport camera and even it is sometimes “twitchy”.

The oldest G9 that I dropped last year has real issues with video (sensor goes crazy and locks up after shooting some), but seems fine with stills.

None of them are unusable and will be used, but they all come with “stuff”.

This leaves me with the G9.2, S5 and S5.2 for video mostly (and the full frames are not serviced with a full range of lenses for stills work), the pair of EM1x’s in good condition, reserved for sport, the second relatively new G9.1 which is a backup for stills and video.

The EM1.2’s have been great and can be credited with me going pro and staying there. The newer one is still a sport work horse, saving one of the EM1x’s from unnecessary work and seems to work particularly well with the 40-150 f2.8 as well as having the preferred strap lug config of grip base and camera (which hangs sideways).

I do find the handling of these older cameras lacking without the thumb nubbin, especially as all the new ones have one, but they work well as applied.

The G9.1’s have always been a favoured second cam/video option with better handling than the EM1.2’s, better video codecs and a different look, but not for sport or action with Oly lenses (do-able, but not fun). Lately I have been aware of the G9.2 and S5’s not getting enough use as video hybrids and two of the three are better stills cams than the G9.1’s.

I have pushed it at times recently, like a recent school ball with 2 hours of arrivals, three more of formals and socials, with an EM1.2 that had some issues (the newer one above that kept engaging the WB and ISO control, sometimes quite confusingly), the other even sicker one with a wide angle and the dropped G9 that is less than fully trusted. I could have used my reserve cams, but chose to go with depth of familiar bodies, not re-configure my sports cams.

All worked out well enough, but I cannot say there were not issues and I did not miss a shot, but sometimes only got one choice of several.

Next time or the time after?*

I feel thinly covered at the moment, which may sound ridiculous as many photographers get by on a single body (something I feel is professionally irresponsible and dangerous). I like to have depth in the many areas I cover, not just be “ok” with no backups or push the wrong tool into a space. Without the luxury (?) of a single super camera, I depend on specialists.

To put this into perspective, three EM1x cameras cost less than a single second hand Z9. All three of my Panasonic video specialists (over two formats) cost me the same as a singe A9.2. I have a lot of cameras, but the overall investment is a constant trickle, not a massive hit all at once.

To me, the responsibility of a professional is to be “bullet proof” to adversity, so turning up with a a single expensive body or a handful of iffy cameras, with the likelihood of needing them all, is not depth, it is desperation.

Depth of decent is best. No camera can survive being dropped off a cliff, out of a boat, being run over, so a single body is perilous as well as inconvenient.

The camera that comes to the surface every time except for video is the EM1x.

Reasons are many.

Image quality. The “X” is what I consider the first of the latest generation of M43 cameras. The dual, 4 core, TruePic 8 processors, out of date only a short time later with the release of the EM1.3 do a good job of running the camera and learning how you shoot. Early AI at work.

Cropping is easy and powerful. 20mp is plenty if technique processing and glass are up to it.

They provide good banding control (better than any other camera I have-the newer S5’s even being relatively poor), good enough high ISO performance for anything I do, at least a stop better than the EM1.2’s, probably about a stop behind the very latest M43 cams, but with the latest processing, this gap is nearly irrelevant (the old EM1.2’s are actually fine).

Time after time, they get me what I see. ISO 6400 is clean and sharp.This is a notoriously poor location, something I have gone from loathing to looking forward to thanks to cameras like these and C1 processing.

Sharpness and colour are in the mix against the best M43 and APS-C cams, something that is an improvement over earlier cams and enough for real world use**.

Lenses, the true M43 advantage, empower the camera (or any M43 system) to great heights. Hand held 600mm f4, tiny 150 f1.8, maybe a super sharp little 18mm f1.7 or 20-50 f1.7? All affordable and class leading (M43 focal lengths are half the above).

I got used to shooting with a small, but super hand held sharp 600mm, then cropping into the equivalent of 2000mm with little issue (ball stitch/name level). The sports journalists often commented on the brightness, warmth and clarity of my images, especially my inside sports shots, a combination of the EM1x, the M43 lens advantage and processing. I used to joke it must have been my older, cheaper camera with the smaller sensor and “other brand’ processing - which they did not get.

AF is plenty and by that I mean it is better than me. The battle is getting the subject in the frame-the human bit, the camera will do the rest. The various custom AF shapes are ideal (single three stack with five columns across the frame is a favourite).

I snipe with this camera, taking single, silent shots, near instantly and still get surprised when it gets me shots I reacted to instinctively, but too late.

Mixed and low light levels, with silent shooting…..no problem.

Handling. This is the area the EM1x gets a lot of negative press for and it makes no sense.

Why is it so large with such a small sensor?

Because sensor size has never been the determining factor of camera design, it is only an enabler of some design choices.

It is big, like any other professional camera out there, but smaller than some and it could even be argued that the smaller sensor leaves more room for other things, like liquid cooling, stabilisers, dual processors.

Handling large lenses and bringing medium-large hands to the party needs a decent sized camera, regardless of the sensor size. These cameras are designed for working humans, not to a concept or to make a weight stressed traveller happy.

You could make it smaller, but then it becomes a different class of camera and you would have to ask why? The other EM1 cameras, like all other semi-pro bodies have a grip option, this one just has it included and seamlessly integrated.

All the other cameras live on the regular camera space, less specialised, less special.

Why are the Nikon D6 and Z9, or Canon 1D and R3 cameras large? Not because of their large sensors, but because of their pro-design needs. If mount size mattered, the Z9 should be even bigger than the rest.

Secondly the button layout is smart and clean.

No duplication or clutter common with grip-added cameras.

The control panel is perfectly placed for either orientation, the already cluttered Mk2 needs another control panel, but the EM1x has a centrally placed one so it gets another nubbin. Sometimes when a grip is added, the controls are less responsive than the camera’s own. Not so when they are built in. Notice the button density at the Mk2’s base and lack of options on the grip. it even allows room for the screen to be shifted enough to make the eye piece larger.

When the grip is an add-on, it wastes space where the join is, space is lost. Cramped buttons that are not identically placed to the main body and the dial layout is rarely perfect for vertical/horizontal mirroring. Sometimes the grip even feels different.

There is not even a top screen, just a clean and simple layout. You can run around with it and the settings have not magically changed on you.

Discreet dials, textured and well spaced buttons, nothing redundant, no clutter. Not even an auto or “art” option. Oh, another little thing. The eye cup is hard, something you are reminded of after a couple of hours of shooting, but unlike the Mk2’s they do not fall off. Industrial grade.

I love how it feels. It fits my hand perfectly (average male), gets cooing sounds from friends of all hand sizes when shared and feels like it was carved out of solid (if light weight) metal.

They are fast, no delays for any functions. The camera is never in the way.

The Pana’s are slow to fire up, the EM1.2’s occasionally “squishy” in operation, the lesser cam’s menus are annoyingly simplistic and different.

AF for example is usually a stack of three boxes, vertically aligned in either orientation, with five rows to pick from. With only a gentle flick of the nubbin, I can go from central to right/left third and another for hard right/left.

The doors are designed for longevity with soft release latches, not tension flick-slide doors that get stiff and twitchy.

The view finder, which also gets some criticism is fine for me. Not sure what the problem is there and it is clearly better than the EM1.2 that works fine.

Some Z9 users I sat next to at the footy recently were complaining of banding from some background screens. I had no issues in that scenario.

They are reasonably light, lighter feeling than they look, unlike the Pen F that feels heavier than it looks, but the lenses make the real difference, not the camera.

They are actually light enough that I can tell if there is one, two or no batteries inside just by picking one up.

The pair of f2.8 zooms each on an EM1x cover the whole game. Some screen refresh weirdness in the background, but no other fall-out. These are the TV lights, but still very clean quality even when compared to the other photographers full frame cams.

The LCD is better than the G9.1’s, which are better than the EM1.2’s, which are also fine.

Video stabe and AF is excellent and it can be upgraded to a better than good video cam with a Ninja-V (12-bit RAW), but I have other options.

I like the files. They process easily from a neutral base. I had a moment recently during processing, where the Sigma 30mm and EM1x fooled me into thinking I had shot a job with my full frame. The images had that delicate, almost fragile clarity.

It has the first generation of workable hand held high res, focus stacking, tracking AF and other state of the art features. Enough, more than enough.

It USB charges.

I am still using lesser and older cameras happily, so these, as “old” as they are, are still an upgrade of no small measure.

Full frame look, from a M43 camera and Sigma lens.

Nothing I have is as physically tough, not even my drill!

The EM1.2’s have had some lifting rubber, the doors feel brittle after thousands of openings, some parts of the body are shiny, some stiff, some worn, some sticky even. The “X’s” are built for more, up to pro Nikon or Canon grade, which were the competition when it was released***.

The dual battery slider is much faster to change than the dual locations on the EM1.2 with grip (you need to take the grip off for battery 2) and the battery life is better. I have shot 1000 images in a day with 1 batt and had power left, probably 3000+ would be possible with two (and you get two).

It does have an annoying habit of flashing that one battery is exhausted, fixed by popping it out, but a small constant red “dot” would be enough.

The very last element that makes the EM1x so compelling for me at the moment is the price. New they ranged from $4-2K, mine being close to the bottom end.

They are however about $1000-1300au second hand, even in near mint condition. A second hand EM1.3 is usually dearer, the OM-1 dearer again, even EM5.3’s are similarly priced. The size and perceived special purpose nature of the camera is against it in the market place, but that suits me just fine.

I have toyed with the idea of getting some other cameras fixed or serviced, but a near new second hand camera is only a little more. Getting an EM10.2’s screen fixed for example was quoted at $350. I can buy one for that and I have two screens to fix (3 screens = 1 EM1x).

It also comes with two batts and chargers and the otherwise optional “grip” is included, so about $600 of free accessories, making the body only about $4-500 in real terms. Try picking up an EM1.3 for that or even a Mk2 then add the extras.

The reality is, 95-98% of the images I have taken in M43 and over 99% overall, including most of what you see on these pages were not taken with the “X’s”. They are a reserved luxury, a “full noise” option when other cams can’t do it better, or at all.

I only use two for premium sport events.

I really need to get over that and bring my best cameras to the front.

The Mk2’s, G9’s and old EM5’s have done the lions share of my work for over ten years, but the EM1x’s are the gold standard. Worried about using my last line of reserved cameras, I then picked up three Panasonics in the last 18 months, so maybe a time for change!

I actually found it hard to find non-sport images taken with them, as I used a Mk2 or G9 for most week day jobs.

I want to use each camera until it falls over, but sometimes this has been fraught to say the least.

My current “A” team has always been a G9 for hybrid/video and an EM1 for stills and I have often used others, because I have them and they still work.

My new “A” team should now be the S5.2/G9.2 and EM1x.

A 300mm (150 f2.8) from the other end of the court.

Other options?

The G9’s have similarly good handling in a smaller package (still big for M43 format), but lack the AF chops of the “X”. Even the new G9.2 is no better. You can still buy G9 mk1’s for $1200 or so new, but I won’t, because video is covered and their sport shooting falls short. They are well made, but one drop shortened the life of my first, so they are no EM1x.

The Pen F can match the base image quality, but not the high ISO, banding control or AF performance.

Even the S5’s fall behind in all areas except ISO performance and video. The ISO is nearly irrelevant when other factors are taken into account, the video thing is known, it’s why I buy Pana’s.

The “left-overs” will be used as suits for personal projects, studio or non critical work.

*

So, to summarise, I bought another EM1X from Japan. About $1200au with import duties, from a 99.9% professional seller (eBay Japan 2023 seller of the year), in mint physical condition, boxed with under 13k shutter fires (from 400k rated), with all accessories.

I cannot in all good consciousness see a better buy right now. Spending up to three times as much for new seems like very poor economics, unwarranted really. Spending the same on a lesser camera is also illogical.

I am struggling with the size of full frame lenses at the moment, but the EM1x body still fits in my most used bags (Domke F2, F7, F802), thanks to the smaller M43 lenses.

I will now have a daily/event EM1x as my stills and action cam, two more as sports bodies and some other cams as video specialists and for slower work, along with some backups for personal or low stress jobs.

Better performance will allow the use of zooms over primes, the better handling and AF will save me shots. More money spent on a newer camera would not net me much more, maybe less in some ways, would break the consistency of my work horse units and be a waste really. I don’t have 2k+ to spend, but a little over 1k is reasonable.

My working shutter life has extended my roughly half a million and by my reckoning it cost about $200 a working year.

The other cams will probably soldier on forever now, but I feel like I have lifted my base game.

The G9II is being used more as a daily video camera, the other near new G9 as the hybrid still/video second cam, the EM1x as the primary stills cam for AF performance.

Another perspective.

https://smallsensorphotography.com/e-m1x-4-year-review

*The stand-out on the night was the Godox 860, that shot over 1000 images that night and still had all its bars at the end of the night.

**M43 sensors seemed to go through three stages. The early ones, pre-phase detect AF were amazing in their day. The format then went through a mixed mid-life crisis period where full frame went ahead again, then they “grew up” about the EM1x/G9 and after, where only the mathematical differences between formats mattered.

***The EM1x was designed to push the case for M43 as a professional format in the Tokyo Olympics that did not happen. Fate caught Olympus out as it did everyone, the delay dealing a death blow to their plans.








My Recent Past In Retrospect Part 3

Some jobs were genuinely fun and often the result of taking the advice of another.

Rob Shaw, the senior sports reporter/sub-editor, a long term journo, was always appreciative of my desire to improve and explore.

On his suggestion, I hopped on the back of a moped at the state junior cycling team training camp and had the team follow for a couple of laps.

Insert me, vespa rear (facing backwards) and you have to idea.

Aware that I was the only part of the machine not perfectly in tune, I spent the first lap getting balanced and comfortable, then started shooting. My weapon of choice was the G9 (mk1) and 9mm lens set to f2.8 and manual focus at about 2 ft. Turns out 2 inches would have also worked.

With a 9mm lens on a M43 camera, the perceived distance is elongated. At one point I may had actually touched a wheel and the riders in the shot above were only 3-6 inches away.

This was the rider I may have contacted. The hands are about 2-3 inches from lens end.

No matter how good a shot idea is and how well it comes out, you need variety.

Go long-go wide is a good starting point.

Some Mini Leica Magic

The (old) G9 and Leica 9mm have become a low light staple.

Bought early on at the paper as a weight reducer (40-150 f4, 9 and to a lesser extent the 15mm were all purchased under the feeble excuse of weight reduction, but they did actually make a difference).

Lovely flare control, contrast and sharpness and I really do not care where I point it.

A find I can hand hold in almost any light and the combination of a fast, super sharp and well controlled M43 wide angle, which even at f1.7 gives me tons of depth of field.

The more I use it, the more impressed I am becoming.

The series below were shot basically directly into a strong stage spot light literally just cropped out of the top left side of the frame.

I would normally not push my gear that hard, asking it to see what I could not with my own eyes.

Turns out, it had some cool tricks up it’s sleeve.

“Bubble flare”, very in keeping with the vibe of the night.

With a little, just a little de-haze applied in C1, it held detail and contrast, while allowing the funkiness of the flare to still rule.

I particularly like the larger ring around the side. For comparison, I also tried the trusty 12-40 Olympus in the same spot and got a wall of white light, much as I expected.

So the list of goodness this little lens has to offer now includes;

  • Super light weight.

  • Weather sealed.

  • Small, but comfortable.

  • Flare resistant to a huge degree.

  • When not, flare enhancing it seems.

  • A wide angle macro (3cm close focus).

  • Sharp at any aperture, but I rarely move away from f1.7 to 2.8.

  • Near infinite depth of field, even wide open (it is a 9mm).

  • Near telepathic AF.

  • Nice manual focus.

  • In video it performs brilliantly and provides an 18/36/50mm focal length.

Zero space, lots of things going on and point and hope focussing, no issue.

Only inches from touching the handle bars.

You Have To Do Your Own Work.

As photographers grow and adapt to their client’s needs, they tend to take two technical and creative pathways.

Path one is the perilous path of the “make it up as you go” shooter.

Faced with their subject, this shooter falls back on safe ideas that have worked before or if needed, experiments on the spot, often with surprising results ….. both ways.

Experience reduces risk, or as I have seen recently, sometimes creates a predictable and complacent work methodology.

This is potentially exciting, a little unnerving (or should be), but often inefficient. The shooter has the luxury of time for other things and by deliberately limiting their purview and range of capabilities, they can work within a false sense of security mixed with often habitually well suppressed anxiety.

Sometimes the players, tech and the location work it all out for you, but usually not.

The second shooter works much the same way, but all the experimentation is conducted before it is needed. The intention is for nothing to by left to chance, but the process is usually more one of excited exploration.

Currently reading Dan Winters’ retrospective, I am reminded that the best “on the fly” shooters are rarely that. Joe McNally, the master of flash use in reflexive situations is actually an implementer of well practiced ideas, some of which have been used often before, some not, but all based on literally decades of experience.

He often uses self effacing terminology, but behind that humbleness, is a hard work ethic, years of calculated mistakes and a genuine love of in the field problem solving. You don’t do that well without preparation.

I guess you can get to a place where your experimentation is actually within an envelope of the mostly known, mostly predictable, but that takes a lot of time on either pathway.

When I started studio style shoots, I felt the freedom to working within a controllable space. As I worked, I became more and more aware of the power of less, which came in handy when big ideas failed to fit in small spaces.

The above shoot was completed in a room less than 8x8 feet wide with only room for me, my one light stand and even then I was peaking out from under my single umbrella and the subject. Even the backdrop was leaning on the wall as there was no room for a stand. I knew before hand that a single brolly in a semi-butterfly light configuration would work.

Testing once is better than stuffing up multiple times in the field.

The idea I guess is to stay excited about the potential of what you can do, or intend to anyway, so you will want to experiment in your own time. When the fire goes out, so does your desire to do better. It becomes a chore and chores are rarely done to a higher level.

Reinvent, explore, dare to try, stay motivated, but recognise when maybe, it is time to move on.



Some Stuff To Do With Portraiture

Got that portrait bug again.

Not sure what got it going, but it is here and I have been having fun.

Looking at a problem that has been close to me buying the most ridiculously large bag ($450au 5.11 CAMS bag), so I can take all* my stands, mods, flash units, LED’s etc, I decided to look at the problem another way.

Manfrotto 5002BL Nano light stands seems to be the go if you want small stands. My smaller Neewer stainless are 70+cm long for 2.1 meters tall, the Nano’s are 50cm long for 2 meters tall.

That 20cm means I can fit them in a small 40L suit case (that I have already). They take 4kg and seem steady enough with a flash, bracket and Smallrig 55cm soft box on (the stem bends, which seems to be what they do happily). I would be happier with a brolly or brolly soft box because they are centre balanced and softer for their size, but the soft box fits in the case, my brollies don’t.

I forgot to put the two C-mount flash brackets in, but they fit fine. I can also add the RB-9, two flash units and controller, but they would probably be in their respective camera bags anyway. The heaviest bit of the kit is the Amaran power brick and 970 NP batts.

The case is about the same volume as my Domke roller bag, just a different shape. I can now take my G9II small backpack setup (The case is about the same volume as my Domke roller, just a different shape).

I can now take my G9II video backpack kit, which handles sound, some lighting and the camera with this case for lighting, with little discomfort.

Alternatively, it can be studio lighting lite, meaning two flash units with brackets and stands, the soft box and or a couple of brollies strapped to the outside (or in my tripod bag).

The background above is one of my cheap backdrop rolls. The “Jonah” faux leather furniture fabric is my “Annie Leibovitz” look backdrop. For $17/m and 1.5m wide, it can be cut to any length (this is over 3m), looks a bit like an Oliphant hand painted and comes in several colours. I have the Donkey brown above, a grey version, a light stone and tan leather.

The leather-like fabric drops creases out as you watch, can be walked on, painted, wiped down, crumpled for effect , is soft to sit on and light. Because it is furniture fabric, it comes in 1.5m wide rolls. Curtain fabric can be wider, but not in this stuff unfortunately (leather curtains anyone?). For wider you can either hang it sideways or hang several panels in Leibovitz style “backdrops in a working space”;

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/photos/2017/05/star-wars-the-last-jedi-portraits-annie-leibovitz

These were fun and although they have not been used much, they are great to have along side my Manfrotto Pewter/Walnut and Grey/Black collapsibles.

Hankering for something else, I decided to look into other colours. Fuelled with enthusiasm, I went to the local Spotlight fabric shop with a half dozen book marked on my phone, but found most were either too shiny or simply not what their picture looked like.

Undaunted I kept looking.

I came back with a soft sky blue cotton canvas, a darker mottled denim blue and a different take on the faux leather, a faux suede in a steel grey. The Faux suede looks like it can have a fake brush effect applied by hand or….brush, but I am not sure it will make any photographic difference.

The two cloth ones are matt, durable and heavy. One was under $12/m for a double sided weave and has a perfect ragged edge if the backdrop is fully visible (on trend it seems).

The cheapest one about 2m behind my model (meet Joe Black) with the Smallrig softbox above my head pointed down for some butterfly effect. Some texture, variable colour based on light wash and it is hanging straight and uncreased over the one above without even clamping.

This is the cloth quite close and fairly accurate to colour, That wonderful balance between slight texture and perfect consistency. I am tempted to go back and get the remains in the roll, because I think it could take a some gentle spray paint magic or a wrung out look.

Tests are good and give you confidence in your processes.

I now know the little softbox is more efficient than a reversed 42” white brolly by about 2 stops, but harsher also. It is great for light travel and fine for video fill, but for big light I have several options including removing the diffusers and shooting into a wall or ceiling, placing a 60cm 5-in-1 in front of it, maybe adding some diffusion cloth.

This is the softness from a reversed brolly. These are Godox 42” in slightly warm white, which I find suits balls and other events well. The backdrop looks closer to its most desired colour here, catching more spill. I much prefer a slightly textured look than a block colour, but if needed I have my Manfrotto solid grey which can produce most colours.

I found a great video by Gavin Hoey (after I shopped!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIy7_dKZv-Q&t=36s and his recommendation is to go stretchy fabric. This allows you to stretch creases out with clamps, then looks like seamless paper, but without the hassle. I think this makes the most sense for block and vibrant colours, so my next buy may be red, yellow, lime green and orange in these colours. He also had some other cool uses for soft fabrics.

My whole setup is pretty simple.

I use a pair of the Neewer 2.4m stainless steel stands (that do not fit in that case), a pair of Smallrig super clamps holding a 1.8m curtain rail with a bunch of cheap “A” clamps and optionally a second rail low, for stretch tension. The whole lot (if you ignore my Manfrotto set-up**) came in at about $150 to start with and about another $200 in fabric so far for seven types and more coming.

*CAMS actually stands for “carry all my stuff”.

**Two backdrops and the magnetic bracket for about $700au

The $350 Manfrotto is nice, but so is the $25 cloth.

Flash And The (Other) Exposure Triangle.

The Exposure Triangle is the bedrock of photography.

All images, no matter what they are taken with have these three elements in balance to get the desired exposure.

Light passes through a hole (the Aperture), for a period of time (the Shutter Speed) into a photo sensitive surface (film or sensor) which has an ISO (light sensitivity rating) to create a captured image.

Adjusting any or all of these three values is how we control the amount of light needed to expose the image properly, but also, to adjust depth of field we can use the aperture, to capture motion blur we can set the shutter speed and to control the image quality vs light sensitivity we use the ISO setting (although these are all up to other factors also).

Aperture

Shutter Speed ISO

Simple when you know it, applicable to most situations with a little adaption of thinking or terminology.

When you have determined the correct exposure, whether it is “technically perfect” or to your own creative tastes, changing any of these values requires changing at least one other to compensate.

If you want to open up the Aperture to make your depth of field shallower, you will also be letting in more light (through a bigger lens opening), so you need to reduce light by either dropping the ISO value lower (making the sensor less light sensitive) or increase the shutter speed (less exposure time) or a combination of the two.

Mastering these and their inter-relationship is the core of photography.

*

Using flash is a rare exception, but when you get it, it is as easy to apply, possibly even easier.

The above triangle is still just as applicable for ambient exposure when using flash which is to say, to capture the amount of environmental light you want before the flash capture, but for the flash exposure itself, this is the new triangle;

Aperture

Flash Power ISO

Shutter speed has been replaced by flash power for a couple of reasons.

Shutter speed has an effect on flash in that it is often restricted to a maximum “flash sync” shutter speed otherwise the flash fire may not cover the whole sensor or film plane when it fires. High speed or “FP” flash can fix this but requires substantially more power and some flash and camera combinations cannot use it.

The second reason is, flash is substantially faster than camera shutter speed, anything up the 1/100,000th of a second. The camera shutter is like a snail compared to a bullet, so flash works effectively independently (except for the sync speed thing above). Aperture and ISO still matter, because they are not speed dependent.

Changing the shutter speed will have effectively no effect on flash exposure, only background exposure levels.

Balance is key.

This is an ambient only exposure, using the room lights and no flash. The shutter speed is just fast enough to avoid subject blur at the distance shot with a wide angle lens.

Once you have chosen a shutter speed, aperture and ISO that gives you enough environmental light, but also fast enough shutter to freeze ambient motion if needed*, then you set your flash power to balance it’s own exposure, effectively like a second shutter speed for a second exposure requirement.

This is the same space with ambient light capturing the background and flash capturing the foreground. In this case the flash was fired upwards with most coming off the ceiling and some bounced forward off a white card to help even out the coverage. Notice that the background is warmer looking than the more daylight balanced flash lit area.

In this image, the background is deliberately under exposed because there is nothing of great interest except the background pin lights (the table to the right is only just visible).

A catch here can be adding in enough ambient light to see the important elements as wanted as the flash exposes the main subject, but not at too slow a shutter speed to capture it’s motion, which will result in ghosting of the subject (blurred motion around a sharp flash capture).

If your main subjects are in shadow, the shutter speed is not overly important as the flash “speed” is plenty to arrest movement. It is when you mix both flash and strong ambient light so they are fighting for the same subject that problems can arise.

This image avoids too much dance movement blur by capturing the foreground shadowed subjects. These would otherwise have little exposure so would have been black silhouettes. The dancers under the lights in front of these girls would be at risk of blur, because they are better lit naturally and the shutter speed was only 1/100th, not fast enough to freeze motion. The laser on the right looks a little blurred at this shutter speed.

For me, switching from TTL to manual gave me a stronger understanding and also more control over this space. TTL, effectively auto flash, has it’s uses, but manual is more reliable, more efficient and unlike the film era when you had to do mildly complicated math every exposure, it is as easy as turning a dial and getting a feel for the space.

I know I can walk into most rooms with a M43 camera set to ISO 800, 1/100th and f2.8 (depending on ambient light levels) with the flash set at 1/8th power* and I will be roughly right to go. Flash power may shift from 1/1 to 1/16th depending on other elements, but 1/8th seems a good average.

If using a fixed light on a stand (bounced brolly), it is almost always 1/16th power**, ISO 800, f2.8, 1/100th at my normal working distance (about 3mtrs).

If your camera settings are consistent, you only have to learn your flash output by eye and guestimation can be plenty close enough, especially if the ceiling is an even height and distances similar. I find that thanks to the clean nature of flash exposure, being about 1 stop under or 2 over does little harm, so shoot first, adjust, shoot again if needed.

Flash is a great tool and needs to be mastered if you want to be able to handle most situations at a professional level. It can seem daunting, but the reality is, it only takes an awareness of a few new variables, often easily controlled ones and with some experimentation you are quickly in a much better space.

I now find flash a safe place to play, not a mysterious beats with teeth.

*This is done by either capturing the motion if the shutter is fast enough, or cutting the light down so only the flash captures anything.

**Godox 860 or 685 or **YN430 IV. I use the Godox for walk around with TTL as a safety net, the all manual YN’s for static setups, but either can do either.