One of the great things (and there are many) about Tasmania is, you are never more than two hours drive from a coastline or the mountains. Our base is one hour from either.
A lucky 1/10th hand held shot, not lucky with the time so much as the look as the fast moving water managed nice smoothness.
I think I actually prefer this one for some reason, maybe the textures.
Across the river from the school outdoor ed campus there is a dry creek bed used by early gold miners for run-off. Chances of finding gold are wishful, seemingly anything really, but the thing about the Australian bush is, you just never know.
Details are the thing, small and delightful
Maybe small and not so delightful. This little one may only be 4” long (we have already seen a 4’ adult), but apparently that makes no difference, so a little safety room was applied. The whole class walked past it luckily, I only noticed it because thinking we were all gone it moved when I went past last.
Macro has a way of producing little wonders.
Smaller than it looks.
The quartz base creek reflected light in interesting ways.
Back light works wonders.
Arriving about an hour early to the school photography camp, I grabbed a long lens (300 f4) and went for a wander.
Within a few minutes I found a pair of young swallows learning the ropes. The wind was strong and I admire their resilience (one was actually knocked over at one point), but for a few minutes, not much happened.
Then the plucky (and plump) one took flight. I missed it on the way out, but within seconds it was curling back.
Inspired by its sibling, the more cautious one gave it a go and I was ready this time. Looks like it’s sibling is giving instructions?
Within ten minutes of arriving, I had one of my best bird images of the year. It’s not something I do a lot, mostly just grab what presents around sports grounds etc, but even so, a win by any measure.
Looking a little further, I came across some bees having a productive time (same lens, which doubles as a super macro insect chaser).
The system seems simple. They dive in, get fully “loaded”.
Then they “do their hair” by pushing the pollen back to their hind legs. Looks messy, but seems to work.
This one was actually shot on the S5 and IRIX 150 macro the next day, but good for illustrating their “swimming”.
This seems to be bee-universal.
Twenty minutes and I am looking at some of my better insect chasing shots for the year (again not a thing with me often, but I do get the bug….. sometimes).
Camp is gooood.
*Well, first things first. Of course I use AI every day, but the sort that is part of any digital work flow, the mostly invisible type, the type that has always been creeping into everything we do on a computer and is only obvious if you have been paying attention. Here we are talking about overt, deliberate and invasive AI, AI that replaces the need for people like me.
“AI slop” is a term that I feel the desperate are clinging to as a justification of their organic way of existing, but the reality is, it will get better and better until it is almost “AI-nvisible”.
I say almost?
No matter how good AI generation gets, it is always retrospective.
It can show us three people crossing a finish line in the right order, wearing the right unifom, numbers etc, but it cannot pretend to actually have been there well enough yet (not enough information), and anyway, even if it could, it is not what actually happened, only a facsimile.
We do not yet have a hint of the sci-fi level “future generated”, the level of AI that would be needed to replace authenticity, other wise known as time travel (or a lot more information).
The information required for future generation comes from real sources now, so for a long, long time, actually being there still rules.
Authenticity is the need to be there, the real place with the real people doing the real thing in real time. The invested will accept no replacement.
AI in it’s current form is the enemy of authenticity, the Yin to it’s Yang. After an event has been recorded authentically it is liable for AI recruitment, but not before or even during (maybe a yet, on that last one).
If you only need an approximation, then AI is ideal.
I guess a marketer could “enhance” this as they need, but if I put up a genuine counterfeit, it would end me as a working photographer.
My remit is to capture authenticity. The onus is on me to be able to prove authenticity when required or my role becomes pointless, deceitful even. Not much point in putting up an image that the people who were actually there would contest.
I will use more AI as I go, that is guaranteed as tools improve across the board (DaVinci Smoth Cut seems to have gone up a level), but I will not ever need or want to use generative AI, just the normal digital enhancement tools that do help me enhance my captured authenticity.
Where does this line blur? Time will tell, but for me if it looks better after some work, it still needs to look right, I guess the danger is in my own perceptions shifting. I guess I resisted 20+ years of photoshop manipulations, so this is just an adjustment of that bar.
There is some push back against AI and there always will be, because people want to stay relevant. The danger seems to be the creeping shift in habits, that in hind-sight may shock even the younger generations. I am reminded of often comical (sometimes not) predictions of semi-brain dead humanity hurtling into the future, leaving most of the heavy lifting to computers until it lets us down, but in our immediate future the real battle will be in the details.
I am forced to stay true to my way of working. Nothing can change, so nothing will. What is done with my files after the fact is another persons concern, but at the pointy end, only real, being real matters.
AI is used generally to exemplify an idea, but without the need to be accurate to any source. Some things are perfect in a way they can only be if authentic. “Kids in a field” might produce a similar image, but not this image.
The only other realm safe from AI in theory, but it may come down to output and speed, is art. Artists use what ever medium is at hand and the movement to regress into harder forms over more convenient ones is part in parcel of the artistic mantra of “process over results”. AI if anything, will simply add another “convenience for the masses to avoid” for many as the facsimile print is anathema to the painter.
Art is ideas realised in form, so the result is irrelevant if the idea is hijacked by a process.
Oh look, we are back to authenticity again.
The future is always a mystery, mystery fuels fear and anticipation equally, but people will always fight to stay relevant, often despite themselves.
Trust is a funny thing. It needs to be earned, but allowing it to be earned means taking a chance on someone or something to see if, yes, they can be trusted.
Sound for video for me is a constant battle.
I have options, lots of options, but sometimes I just do not have the answer.
The hole in my game as a lone shooter, is when I need two reliable sound recordings (to guarantee one) with a moving or distant subject. I have to control video, lighting and sound, so doubling my sound streams at the camera end is just too much to juggle.
A shotgun mic needs proximity and direction, which limits shooting options. If it is the sync track it’s no big deal, but if it is to be the “A” track and the subject drifts or turns away, you a left with massive level variance, or nothing usable at all.
I have two wireless LAV options, the Hollyland M1 (white) and M2 (black) mics, but they are consumer grade and I have been caught out once or twice (wind, clarity, volume, range-possibly interference) and sometimes their placement, which is convenient, but not very stealthy, is problematic.
They also need watching and have limited and vague controls (3 sound levels, one using a simple -/+ button with no indicator). These are excellent, simple and effective for interviews in controlled environments, or as the reserve, with shotguns as the primary.
So, control, quality and reliability (range and signal) without on-the-go attention required.
32 bit Float fixes control.
With 32 bit float anything that can be heard can be picked up from a shout to a whisper, without distortion or degradation (within reason-everything gets recorded), especially wind clipping. Indeed many 32 bit float units lack a volume control at all as levels at the recording end are effectively irrelevant.
This also means that one mic can be used to cover two or more people in an intimate conversation, such as exchanging vows, a conversation in a car etc, or I could even use it sat in front of a load speaker to record an event and sync later with on camera sound.
To get truly reliable wireless LAV transmitters would require the Sony or Sennheisser units that are relatively bulky thanks to their antenna, still have to be plugged into something at the receiving end and are usually not 32 bit. Not to be ignored is the over $1000au cost per unit or the fact they are still range limited.
The easiest fix is a 32 bit float, body worn LAV recorder.
Float fixes the control issue, body worn removes wireless range and signal reliability concerns and effectively make range irrelevant (you could shoot a person inside a car or building, on the far side of a noisy group or even at maximum visual range).
This means I only need consider battery life, secure screw in mic connectors, a locking mechanism and something easily worn/hidden.
The Zoom F2 recorder has always been on my radar, but the cost of a single unit has usually been prohibitive ($350au per unit, dear enough to look at top end cordless units). I just picked one up new (in white) for $175au and it is the Blue Tooth version that I would probably not otherwise have bothered with.
The provided LAV mic is fine, not spectacular, but that can be fixed later with a (Diety W.Lav Pro or Sanken Cos-11). I also have a matching black mic from my F1 kit.
Not the Blue Tooth version shown above, which I probably would not have bothered with, except it was free.
The main things, control and reliability are now sorted, quality is workable and size, well it is smaller than some camera batteries.
I have the Zoom F1 already that could also be used as a worn LAV recorder, but annoyingly the battery door is broken and my fix, a magnetic power pack*, is not wearable and it is already twice the size of the F2 . It is also not 32 bit float, so I would be nervous until the results were “in the can”.
It is however one of my best shotgun options as it can record internally, it has an analogue volume control, the excellent SSH-6 mid/side shotgun capsule, small footprint and excellent shock mount, so it is probably best applied that way anyway.
My second LAV option, probably worn by an interviewer, a more clued-in wearer, is my H1n or I guess any “H” series depending on space.
This is the missing link, the reliable and easily used LAV I have been waiting for to support my already strong on-or-to camera mic range.
*The problematic F1 will be fixed properly by running a C-type cable from my V-Mount battery on the big rig, but I cannot run that to the camera because there is loop feedback, so it becomes the backup to a plugged-in to camera mic. I could get a cable from the RigidPro to the F1, but don’t really need to.
A cheap cinema lens is a little like a cheap sword.
A cheap sword can hurt, even kill, it just sometimes lacks finesse.
Equally, a masterwork blade in the wrong hands is more likely to hurt the wielder than the intended target.
A cheap cinema lens is not a weapon, but the comparison stands.
They look the goods, do the job more or less, but what are the pitfalls, what are the catches.
I own a few, quite a few.
I have some 7Artisans Hope, Spectrum and Vision, Sirui anamorphic and Nightwalker lenses and a lone IRIX tele-macro. All were carefully chosen from many offerings to better match each other than even their actual set-mates often do, which is part of the reason for this post.
It has not all been perfectly smooth sailing, but a fun voyage.
I have returned one Hope lens due to poor mechanical and optical performance, which can happen to any lens offer and as I have said above, another reality of buying cheap lenses.
So, what are they in reality and how do they hold up compared to dearer glass?
The premise is, cine glass is allowed some “character”, does not need modern mechanical refinements like AF or complicated zoom construction, does not need to be light or compact and super fast lens speed is often considered excessive.
Mechanical consistency is important and these have that potential by design, but it is often more than just intent that is needed.
I have found that they are not reliably consistent in focus or aperture ring resistance nor mount tightness.
Some a delight, genuinely, some have issues enough that I need to be aware of what they will not do for me.
These are my favourites to focus pull without a speed focus attached.
The 35 Spectrum is quite tight compared to the very nice 50, the 50 Hope is slightly heavier to pull than the near perfect 25, the IRIX is professionally damped-near perfect (a little tighter than the Hope 25) as I will assume all of their lenses are, the Sirui anamorphic is slightly heavier than the Hope 25 similar, the 12mm Vision a little lighter, the Sirui Nightwalker so light it almost feels broken.
I guess I should also include the Lumix S-Primes in this group, a set of semi-matched lenses with stills/cine features. Mechanically, they are excellent, but need to be on a Lumix cam to give you long throw.
Lens mounts have on the whole been good, with only a few exceptions. I can handle a slightly loose mount as long as the lens is light in other respects. The Hope 16mm failed here, tight to focus, but loose on the mount, making it genuinely compromised. The thing actually made a slight clunking sound and shifted when used, not ideal for a video lens.
My Vision 12mm, Sirui anamorphic and Spectrum 35 are loose on some mounts (S5II, G9II). The 12mm is the loosest, but it is so light to focus pull and so wide, I rarely care.
The rest are more or less tight depending on the camera (my S5 and GH5s have tight mounts).
In comparison my stills lenses that are most often used for video, (L-mounts, 12-60, 9mm Leica), lack longer natural focus throw, manual apertures and take a follow focus without attaching a separate ring, but on average are about as consistent mechanically (the 20-60 and 28-70 are also slightly loose on the S5II’s mount).
Optics.
This is difficult to clearly measure.
Cinema lenses are usually extraordinary in some ways, but also often quite poor in others. They have character, which can also be labeled “workable flaws”, especially anamorphic and legacy glass. These obvious flaws are embraced, but have to (1) fit in with the creators vision and (2) not stand in the way of that creation.
Below are a some test images recently taken with my Hope 25, an example of a “heart breaker” budget offering. this lens is a pleasure to use and could easily slip into my stills kit.
Flare is acceptable until it is not, distortions also. Sharpness needs to be “transparent”, so the lens does not show itself as the hero of the shot. Soft edges can be accepted even sought after as can distortion, chromatic aberration and flare. Contrast and colour is often flatter to allow for wider dynamic range capture, more can be added later.
The stills lens paradigms of razor sharp, super high contrast, super saturated, super smooth Bokeh, perfectly corrected and flare free need to be ignored in favour of a smooth rendering, predictable flaws and a more natural look.
Distortion? Sure, we have plenty and for top end directors like Wes Anderson, they become signature, taking a short coming and making it part of the process.
Some top end cine lenses are actually near perfect, because sometimes that is wanted, but even then, they are capable of rendering moving stock differently to highly corrected stills lenses.
This image taken with my Sirui Nightwalker at minimum distance and wide open at T1.2 is beautiful, but falls short of being usable in most situations.
They have that special something.
This is the key to it really, a cine lens needs to add beauty in some form without distraction, or if it adds distraction, it needs to be intended and still beautiful. Cinematographers often chase a distinctive look, but that look needs to be transcendent, spectacular, not just crude gimmick.
The reality is, to get the very best, the cutting edge control of aberrations and clarity, but also some magic, the best lenses are needed. I recently googled the lens used by the makers of The Bear and was stunned, but not surprised by the $38,000u.s. price tag. I guess if you want both quality and character, it costs.
Probably the thing that stands out with cheaper cine glass, even the IRIX, is a lack of a mature confidence, that feeling that “you will know it when you see it” quality. They are often good at some things, but fall short somewhere.
My Hope and IRIX glass is reliable, clean and well controlled. They are surprisingly well corrected, sharp, clean, smooth rendering and relatively problem free, but they are not adding that signature look, just reliable quality. They are the start of the road, but it is long.
The IRIX 150 is a favourite lens for any use.
My Spectrum and Nightwalker lenses are more character heavy, with some more obvious short comings, the Sirui anamorphic is also a good performer, ironically in a class of lenses renown for their fickle attributes.
At the level of of the IRIX ($2000au) each, there are lenses gaining a reputation for true cinema magic, like the Thypoch Simera-C and their stable mates the DZO Vespids, but the IRIX range leans more towards well corrected, slightly boring purity and lenses at this level still fall foul of the optical consistency gods. They are stills grade, but not yet perfect cine grade.
For more character, you can go super cheap, like legacy glass such as the Helios 44-2 or the TTArt 35 f1.4 for under $100au. It has bags of character, looking for all the world like an anamorphic lens without the wide frame, but is only really an option for art projects.
Super sharp in the centre, but obvious distortion, swirly Bokeh, soft edges, just like an antique anamorphic, all for chump change. It even gets “better” is you use it on a full frame and split the difference in cropping. Its tiny form factor gets it zero marks in the handling department.
Seriously, this is from a major Marvel production, complete with edge weirdness, CA and distortions galore.
I have faith in my cine lenses for their reasonable consistency across both M43 and FF*. They are solid, look great (i.e. impress clients) and work as indicated. I do not feel they are a compromise optically compared to my stills glass, sometimes they even have more pleasant Bokeh and a better video image overall (I am keen to try the Hope lenses in the studio), some even have effectively no focus breathing, but I also realise there are very special lenses out there with long and proven pedigrees and eye watering price tags to match.
Mechanically they vex me slightly, but it seems the bar is set quite high there.
In a nutshell, they do act like cine lenses and can produce professional looking results, just don’t be too picky when comparing one lens to another.
The IRIX macro is a mid range cine lens, my dearest by a wide margin, but still not in the top tier.
So, mechanically less than perfectly consistent and optically strong but boring or just ok, with character?
Even some mid range glass can be accused of the same, so still great value.
Subjectively measuring and comparing top end with budget lenses is largely pointless. Even if they cost ten times more, it is still possible a budget lens can beat them in some way.
The fact they often only come in mounts to suit the very top cameras, is always going to give them precedence. Hard to compare Arri Alexa footage on lens “X” to FX-3 footage on lens “Y”, when they cannot be or are just not ever directly compared.
As for the many AF super stills lenses around?
The trade off of using “best practice” manual focus and aperture selection has to be weighed against the advantages of touch screen AF. They both have their place.
On the plus side, the whole collection of 8 lenses, often bought on sale has cost me sub $4000au or to put it another way, about the same as a single mid-tier cine lens**.
If I went again, I would likely have bought the IRIX 150, 30 and something in between (65) at the insane sale price I found the 150 ($1100au), but in E-F mount and used them on all my cams with an adapter. The 30mm could then be a 30, 45 or 60 depending on the format used.
Of course lens selection is only one part of a complicated and inter-dependent web of factors, but it is no less important for that and if you ask a cinematographer, the matching of the right lenses to the right camera is the foundation point of the process.
My current process is;
Use the GH5s and S5’s (using B-Raw) which have the less reliable AF with cine glass and support rigs (various) for static and more serious work, especially personal projects.
I then use the G9II and S5II as “B” cams with the same or as my movement cams, relying on touch screen AF and in camera V-Log to keep the rigs small, I use stills-hybrid lenses.
If the G9II and S5II are used as “B” cams with their format mates, I will match lenses.
My most used lenses for a variety of reasons are the Hope 25 and 50, Sirui anamorphic 24, the 35, 50 and 85 S-Primes, 12-40 Oly and Leica 9mm in AF and increasingly for hybrid run and gun, the Sigma L-Mount 28-70.
*The Vision and Spectrum series are mostly consistent in ring placement, but vary wildly in rendering, wide open performance and colour temperature within their own sets, so I have “cherry picked” from these. The Hopes are closer, but still vary slightly in temp. The two Sirui lenses are both warm and similar in rendering even though they are different by design, closer than their own stable-mates.
**If I had my time over I would have simply gone the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 Pana zooms in M43 (only) and/or the full set of Lumix S-Primes for full frame, but then I may have missed out on some fun glass.
The IRIX 150 macro has become a stills macro lens even more than it is a cine lens. My other desire with it is to try portraiture, but not yet, more macro for now.
Bokeh time!
The 150 macro struggles to get deep depth when used as designed. This is a macro thing. You get this close to stuff and your f5.6 depth goes from meters to millimeters.
Is the IRIX sharp?
Yep, at macro and normal distances.
The Bokeh and colour depth are truly beautiful.
It is also a great portrait lens, if a little hard to use.
The IRIX is a clinical lens, but it has a lovely clean and vibrant look.
I gave the little Sirui 24mm Night Walker a run today. Similar circumstances, bright, low wind, same subjects.
I had high hopes, because this lens has been used before to good effect, but I struggled to get excited.
Sharpness.
Not convinced in comparison with the Hope 25 or 50.
At f2, with clear focus confirmation, this is the best of four attempts.
Extreme manual close focus accuracy, hand held is always problematic, but this was doable yesterday with both Hope lenses.
I backed off a little and used a friendlier angle. Nice Bokeh and colours.
Still not convincing up close. It is likely the lens is not happy this close.
A more normal range.
Better at slight distance, nicely “cinematic” as they say. This is much the same as the lack-lustre 16mm Hope I sent back, that feeling of being near, but never on target until you realise you have been trying too hard for too long and other lenses just get there.
This from the Hope 50 is sobering. The light is slightly better, but still, the Sirui is not a macro champion.
Handling.
This lens has very, very light in focus and aperture rings. It is the only lens I have that requires a focus pull rig to help give it some resistance!
The aperture ring is so light, I do not trust it for fast application. The combination of the super fast aperture (T1.2 of f1.1) and no ability to turn your back on it (it seems to shift on its own some times), means it is only really good for calculated work, not run-n-gun. Taping it down at f2 or 2.8 is an option I may need to apply.
The lens is otherwise light and tight and pleasant to have on the camera. I really want to like it and nearly bought the 16mm when the Hope failed based on that feeling, but I am glad I held off (and there were none around) and went with the anamorphic.
Bokeh.
Blurring is gorgeous, but that has to weighted against sharpness.
It has more “character” than the Hope lenses, for better or worse. There is a feeling of excitement, but not one of control.
For video, where smoothness, contrast and good transition trump sheer sharpness, it is pleasant enough.
Wide open it gets “impressionistic”, which is cinematographer code for mostly useless.
3D pop.
There is lovely separation and a feeling of snappiness at normal distances, although the Bokeh is a little Ni-Sen (cross-eyed) looking in the branches.
For video and even stills, this is great visually, which I guess is all that really matters.
Flare.
Like the two Hope lenses, it handles flare well.
Hello Sun, my old friend.
Nice control of this hellish situation. No clue why the leaves top right corner are sharper than most of the rest of the out of focus frame?
I think a fair test needs to be at distance as this lens performs poorly in close, but seeing as it will be used as a letter-boxed pseudo-anamorphic portrait lens (roughly 48mm width and 70mm height) to compliment the true Sirui anamorphic, it may be fine.
The Hope pair are seriously good lenses, reliable, resistant to issues and pleasant to use.
The Night Walker is less so all around, it is more of a character lens, reliable within limits, but it will have a place in my kit, especially when whimsical uber-Bokeh is wanted.
Anamorphic lenses are becoming better known and more widely applied by people other than top tier movie and TV producers.
They have become quite affordable and the support from cameras and software also more common.
They have several characteristics that are often actually perceptual evolutions of forced compromises, such as oval shaped Bokeh balls, horizontal highlight streaks and other odd optical behaviours, but they exist for a reason and that reason is wide screen.
A recent cast interview of the school version of The Cursed Child shows the full potential of anamorphic lenses (it looks a little flat after screen shot-ing). Oval Bokeh is largely absent, there is only a hint of a streak on the right side and there is a little bowing on the edges, but none of these are so extreme they preclude me using the lens for real world jobs.
To be honest, when I bought the 24mm anamorphic, I was expecting to use it rarely and only for my own projects. It turns out, the lens is a lot more useful and empowering than that.
The shot above was taken with the 24mm Sirui on the GH5s, my “A” cam. The focal length is equivalent to a full frame 45mm in height, so a very natural perspective, but almost 30mm in width, meaning that with little effort, I managed to get the entire stage area of the theatre in from half way down the aisle while keeping the perspective and magnification natural.
This is the key take away. It is not extra width you are chasing, any wide angle can do that, it is width without the side effects which are stretched perspective, ever shrinking backgrounds and unwanted distortions.
The 24mm specifically was chosen because it is a normal lens in M43, but also because it is a well controlled anamorphic. Streaks, oval Bokeh and other oddness is kept within relatively normal bounds, or can be exaggerated when wanted. It is a “clean” lens by anamorphic standards.
Will I use anamorphic lenses a lot?
Probably not and I need two to do dual cam shots.
The 50mm now.
First up, my initial thoughts on these two lenses were that they were slightly different siblings, but from the same family for sure.
I lost an hour of light, but this is for fun, not science.
Sharpness.
It looks sharper than the 25 to the eye, much like my 40-150 f2.8 looks sharper than the 300 until you look closer. More micro contrast, more contrast overall maybe, but the un-sharpened files can look over sharp.
Easy to attain sharp focus, thanks in part I am sure to the longer minimum focus distance.
Handling.
Slightly tighter focus ring, but much the same otherwise and identical feel on the camera. I did find focussing easier, especially close up, but while it is longer, it does not get as close, so more DOF. The lack of good close focus is not an issue for its intended use (interview b-cam), but for general use it could be frustrating.
Bokeh.
Interestingly, in close-up comparisons anyway, the inability of the lens to get as close does reduce observable Bokeh compared to the shorter lens.
Still very nice, but that snappier contrast creates a slightly different dynamic. My work method with these two lenses is to put a mild 1/8 Glimmer-glass on the 25 and a stronger looking 1/8 Black Mist on the 50, which seems about right.
Very clean separation.
This clarity is on par with my IRIX 150 macro.
Flare.
Like the 25mm, the 50 can handle some stress.
Again straight into the sun.
Lower contrast maybe, but again, not a fair comparison. Basically no CA and great flare control. No issue having a light in frame with these two.
3D Pop.
About the same at the same magnification.
About the same 3d look as the 25, just twice as far away.
Looks soft, but it is shallower depth of field on the long lens.
Some foreground Bokeh, just because I found it so easy.
Sharp, really sharp.
Super sharp.
I am aware there is a slight colour temp shift in these two, but to be honest it is about the same as the difference between my camera sensors, so a slight shift of angle, a different filter or a micro shift in processing is as much. The look of the two is harmonious, but not identical and that is not down to the difference in focal length alone.
Really tired at the moment, for the right reasons (lots of work), but tired and cannot remember the last time I had a day off*.
Time to play.
Hope 25mm time, revisiting a lens I liked the day I got it and apart from the hiccup of the sub-par 16mm (bad copy, not bad lens), I like the series.
What am I looking for?
Good behaviour, a lens that gets out of the way, is invisible or at worst only adds nice things.
Sharpness.
Beautifully sharp. Like my 300mm, the sharpness holds down to micro levels, but can seem elusive on first glance. Smooth, mild contrast super sharp.
For video, this is lovely, heck for stills it is sublime.
Handling.
Silky smooth ring movement with a touch of resistance, tight mount, decent heft but balanced. I am finding hand held, wide open near macro shooting is hit and miss, but the peaking on the G9.1 is possibly not fine enough.
Bokeh.
Oh yeah.
Smooth, well behaved with a little character.
Nothing to dislike, which tends to be the Bokeh thing. It’s fine or you notice it and don’t like it.
Flare control.
In the image below I am shooting straight into the sun with only a small spring leaf between the lens and old Sol. Some of my best stills lenses would struggle here.
Seriously good performance.
There it is, peaking through.
3d “pop”.
A bit subjective here as “pop” and good transition can be at odds, but for this lens and it’s intended use (interviews), a lovely amount of separation. The shot below also provides a decent check on vignetting and distortion.
My ideal here is when your eye drifts from the sharp to the soft effortlessly, then jumps back to the sharp point without jarring, something I first noticed with some Leica film lenses. What I do not love is a massive step between the two, a real sharp/soft-no transition dynamic.
For some reason I have always struggled to get super sharp Silver Birch trunk images, but there you go.
Not just a good cine lens, but a great lens in any role.
The 50mm next.
*being a day free of camera use or processing.
M43 format has it’s fans and detractors.
The fans cite small size, value for money, sharp and fast. The detractors give maximum quality potential a fail and hero extreme performance.
Extremes?
I will admit there is more quality in a full frame file, measurably and occasionally visually (usually only by direct comparison and again, in extreme cases), but is M43 simply a physical manifestation of an exercise in wishful thinking?
The secret of the system, as the designers realised, is in the lenses.
The lenses enable the true benefits of the system to flourish. If you buy into M43 and skimp on lenses, say stick with a couple of slow kit lenses, then yes, you are not on an even playing field.
Low light.
The full frame high ISO advantage is real, by about two stops in my world*. This two stop advantage can, in some cases, most real world situations, be countered by the lens advantage.
The standard working pro kit, the 24-70 f2.8 on a full frame body can be matched by the f1.7 Leica zooms. These are similar or smaller in size than a pro f2.8 zoom, cine grade sharp, video optimised and provide a range over the two lenses of 20-100 (full frame equivalent). These two added stops of light gathering, do not come at a cost in depth of field, as M43’s f1.7 is roughly the same as FF’s f2.8 in depth rendering.
The M43 advantage is on show here, fast apertures made practical by workable depth of field.
This then extends into other super fast lenses that have either more reach than a full frame equivalent (a humble 75mm f1.8 for example acting like a super speed 150mm), a super light and sharp 9mm f1.7, relatively small f1.2 primes and other lenses either much bigger, dearer or sometimes completely absent in FF arsenals.
A lens that will not make my list of stand outs, the 17mm Oly is never-the-less a firm favourite.
They are always sharp and well corrected, thanks in part to the designers choice of formats. The reality is, it is easier to make lenses when the format is smaller and squarer.
When do I appreciate full frame?
When I have reached the extreme edge of M43 performance, which is rare, then I have a little more up my sleeve to deal with extreme exposure and colour balance horrors.
We are talking ISO’s over 6400, often under exposed or otherwise stressed, apertures at the extreme end like f1.8 and needing shutter speeds of 1/500th or higher in often really poor, flat lighting.
This is not conducive to quality images, but also not as rare as I would like, so we are talking bad light in a bad location, no prep, no other options, otherwise known as desperation photography.
M43 at ISO 6400 is droppable to a high standard, plenty for on line or print and small, light 600 f4 lenses are possible.
Ok, so back to the real world.
Within the umbrella of M43 lens options there are standout lenses, lenses that punch even further above their weight and often bridge the gap between formats.
I do not have many of them, but I do have some of the best glass I have ever owned in this format.
The 75 f1.8 is one of the few lenses I have owned that actually makes an image so good to the eye, it can elevate it above its own technical limits. I have never had a lens that has captured so many hero images, impressed so many people, myself included. My old champion was the excellent EF 135 f2, bettered in many ways by the Olympus and one of the reasons I dumped FF Canon and went fully into M43.
An early street grab using an old EM5. Colour, Bokeh, sharpness, speed. It’s got it all, except weather proofing, which is a shame.
The 300 f4 is an empowering tool like few others. A hand-holdable, easily carried, super sharp, super fast, tough, semi macro, 600 f4 lens with an insane stabiliser. This lens handles like a 300, produces results like a 600.
The reality is, a super fast wide and full frame 600 f4 would be out of most peoples price range, ridiculously big and heavy and likely no better.
This file is not cropped, but the from this lens I regularly crop to 20% of the file and nobody ever questions the quality.
The 9 and 15 mm Pana-Leica primes are both exceptional in their sharpness, rendering and control of nasties, with a little extra quality to boot. The 9mm in particular has much in common with the 300, being a semi-macro, optically superior, highly usable and handy example of an extreme lens. These make the oddballs so much more usable than most.
An old favourite, the 15mm reliably makes such a beautiful image almost always wide open.
The 40-150 trio. The f2.8 is superb, I feel slightly faster than it’s f2.8 rating, has high contrast, is tough and zippy. Perfect for tough weather, low light sports shooting.
The f4 version loses nothing in optical quality, but halves the heft.
The only reason I would not use this lens is if light is poor or an unknown, otherwise I will run this lens over the f2.8 most of the time. Technically I do not love it, the barrel has a slight wobble and the zoom feels “dry”, but it is extremely weather proof, sharp and has even better Bokeh than the f2.8.
The kit version can actually hold it’s own and is so light I can add it to a bag with little thought. It is plastic, but tightly built, nicer even than the f4. This goes into my bag when I do not think I need a telephoto, just to be safe.
Kanazawa Japan was a stand out day for us and this little “junker” was my go-to. “Hollywood” light all day, no fear or qualms.
Sigma makes a trio of wonder lenses, of which I only have the 30mm, but it is a stand out. The extra speed is nice, the quality wide open even nicer. I do not love the lens, but I respect its awesomeness.
Singling out a few seems unfair as there are so many amazing lenses I use every day, but that I guess is the point. Lots of excellence, some transcendence, little effort or expense needed.
M43 is not a compromise unless you compromise. It can handle most tasks with little difficulty and for me, quite often I choose it over full frame because I prefer the handling and ease of use, but there are also times when it is the only logical choice, but it is always in the lenses.
I did a job last night that allowed me to reunite with a friend, an ex student at the school I work with and try some studio techniques, limited though they were.
For consistency, I shot the cast of the pending school musical the same way.
A single strobe into a silver reversed Westcott brolly, the Manfrotto Walnut/Pewter collapsible background (Walnut side) for a background.
The 45/45 angle is safe, but a little moody for these, so I went slightly more straight on and for some subjects, it was magic. Bright, clean, colourful and ideal for small programme shots.
A mild hair light was added from a window catching some reflected sunset warmth.
For some though it washed out features and failed to “sing”.
I would then try a stronger angle and sat a white brolly to the side for some fill, but it was harsh.
Charlotte is an ex student and wardrobe coordinator for the show. We had a little time, so we used it to finesse her image and as crew, she could use an image that did not match the cast shots.
I ditched my first attempt at Charlottes portrait, because the lighting above washed her out so badly it did not make it past first review.
I felt the image above was fine, but not ideal for her. The background excited me, but the shadows were too harsh. More fill, a hair light or becasue I did not have anything at hand, change the main light angle.
When limited to a single light and a makeshift (weak) reflector, there are only a few options available.
“Butterfly” also called “Hollywood” light, uses a single light directly overhead (slightly above and forward), a reflector is then used to bounce some light back up to fill shadows.
My reflector, a hand held white brolly was a little hopeful, but better than nothing. When the subject has fair skin, but strong facial features, Butterfly lighting is a good option. The slight blue shift I applied to the background manages to highlight her brilliant red hair without overpowering her complexion.
The reality is, you only have to shift your light a little bit to get a strong range of effects.
So, back to the heading.
Most of my portrait work is done with a portable studio rig that consist of 1-2 basic $100 strobes (YN 560 IV or Godox 685 which are plenty strong enough), a flash controller, 1-2 flash brackets, 2-3 stands, a Westcott silver 42” brolly, a pair of white shoot-throughs and sometimes a 110cm reflector. I also take a sheet of diffusion cloth to soften light further. Most of this fits into a single Neewer “golf” style bag.
The kit I use most often including bag probably comes in at $400au.
This gives me a main light, a hair or fill and a reflected source.
My background is either what ever I find, something hanging or a Manfrotto black/grey or Walnut/Pewter collapsible background requiring a stand and magnetic support arm. The colour is irrelevant, but the texture is not.
The Walnut background has a great texture, the colour can be changed as easily as applying white balance changes to a background mask.
Cameras are usually an Olympus of some type (I seem to have disproportionately good luck with EM10’s), sometimes a Panasonic G9, lenses range from 12-40 f2.8, 12-60 Leica, 45, 75 or 25 Oly primes. I am yet to try the S5’s as so far I have not needed to. The controlled environment of studio photography really suits M43. Lenses do not have to be super wide aperture or exotic, just smooth-sharp that render pleasantly. My 45 is a favourite, but the 12-40 gets the bulk of the work.
If I have the luxury of time and space, I would set up several lights with their own flash each for a large soft box and larger 72” brolly and switch between them as needed.
If you want super soft, it can be as simple as bouncing a flash onto a surface then through diffusion, called book light.
The big 72” brolly can even be used directly behind you, creating a light similar to a ring light, but without the odd eye reflections.
My kit is a mixed one, because my needs are varied.
It has stills and video elements, two brands and formats, kits of varying shapes, because I do a lot of different things and sometimes the same things different ways. So, what do I do, what do I use, when and why.
Outdoor sport.
This has been a staple lately, something I am extremely comfortable with and my kit is becoming so very intuitive.
EM1x + 300mm (cross body black rapid lens strap), EM1x 40-150 f4 or 2.8 by light (cross body camera strap), with a 25, 8-18 or 12-60 in a small bag if needed for teams shots and other angles depending on the sport and job dynamic, with a third body (EM1.2, EM1x or G9) if speed matters more than compactness.
Occasionally, for bright light, low speed sports like cricket, I will use the capable 75-300 or 40-150 + 1.4x (the fixed 300 can be too long on some grounds). If the game is on a small field like tennis, the 300 will just be left behind.
The full frame equivalent of 80-300 and 600 is about perfect for football.
Indoor sport.
This falls into two categories, bad and decent light (rarely good light).
In poor light, which is most of my basketball and netball, I will use a EM1x + 75 f1.8 for the far ends of the court and second and the 25 f1.8 for the close end. This varies little. I can capture most of a basketball or netball game from the mid point with the 75 (150mm ff-e), but that is not always possible, often the court end is all you have, so the duet is more practical.
If the light is good, I will switch to the 12-40 and 40-150 f2.8 pair.
A location capable of all light types depending on the level of sport. National grade basketball is indoor sunlight, local netball, very much reduced.
Sport is all about getting the job done, not much else. You can be as creative and prolific as you wish, once you can guarantee the shot is captured sharply and cleanly. My limits on M43 are ISO 6400, 1/500th lens wide open at f1.8-2.8, which can handle anything people are expected to watch.
Better is always better of course, so when 1/1000th is reached, the ISO comes down. One advantage of M43 is the extra depth of field gained for a focal length. At a given magnification you have effectively 2 stops more depth, so f1.8 = 2.8, f2.8 = f5.6 etc. A 600mm lens (full frame equivalent) is a 300, so wide open at f4 (f8), there is plenty of depth to play with for the amount of effective light gathering which is not affected.
Sometimes there is a little too much background info, but post processing can always reduce that, it cannot add in missed depth.
The format’s prime lenses are universally sharp wide open, so no issue there either.
With Japan on hold for a while for a variety of reasons, Meg and I decided to go to Adelaide for a short week.
South Australia is a little like home mixed with most Australian tropes, but unlike Perth it is not the “big dry” and it avoids the feel of the faceless metropolis Melbourne or Sydney can give me. The people are generally friendly and real, the places worth going are quite accessible and the city itself is surrounded by hills similar in climate to here.
I took my habitual light weight kit with an old G9 instead of the usual OM10.2, which added weight and was mixed in capabilities (more on that to come).
Glenelg
Lenses are the 12-60 Panasonic and 40-150 Oly kit lenses, combined weight negligible with the 25 f1.8 for speed if needed. I carried the lot over in the Crumpler Muli 4000 bag, then tried to switch the day gear to a small satchel, but the G9 proved to be a little big, so I kept using the Muli with laptop etc removed.
Hahndorf
The nice surprise was the lenses, yet again producing the goods.
Hahndorf
No sharpening added, in fact not much processing at all and some really fine art quality results.
Glenelg
The weather was generally poor, great for a draught stricken state, but not so much for a tourist.
Glenelg
Photo opportunities came down to a day in the Adelaide hills, a trip to the zoo and a morning walk in Glenelg where we stayed.
Adelaide Zoo
The only negative was the combination of the G9 and 40-150 for moving subjects or low contrast quick grabs. It missed some and stubbornly refused to let go of the background. User error possibly, but not a combo I would trust for sport.
Adelaide Zoo
Glenelg
Aldgate
Glenelg
Adelaide Zoo
Kit lenses can be oddly satisfying. Their light weight reduces mechanical sloppiness and increases drop robustness (they don’t hit the ground as hard), even can even be weather sealed (12-60 is rated as such). They are often sharp, distortion and flare resistant thanks to unambitious design parameters. They are by far the best performer you can get for the money and can be eminently replaceable (never buy a camera without one).
Strathalbyn
Adelaide Zoo
Adelaide Zoo
Adelaide Zoo
Both lenses produced great results as usual, the 12-60 kit cementing its place with me as my core travel lens, the 40-150 was already a known thing. The bulk of the kit’s weight was the camera.
Adelaide Zoo
Video is back on the table with my clients, buoyed by the new sense of control in my work flow and some clarity in the roles my cameras play.
The G9II is the movement cam, limited to V-Log, but otherwise not limited at all, the GH5s is the static cam with the big rig and B-Raw and the S5 is the hand held, semi-static, semi-movement cam, again in B-Raw.
You cannot control some things though and that is what they pay professionals to deal with.
When they can.
I had to record a rock group the other day, junior kids, but a springboard programme to the next level and a special thing in the junior campus.
I was excited, I felt ready to nail this one after minor disasters last year.
Boy, can things go wrong, even when you know the space, the people and the job.
Like previous jobs in this space, things have a habit of changing from booking to brief to actual performance, even if that is only a day or two.
I turned up with the GH5s ready to do the band and a second camera to do cut aways (S5) I knew I would likely be stuck in place, so I needed to be able to control angles in other ways.
A 7 person ensemble, it has a fairly small footprint, but also expected to have little room to move. The light was going to be adequate at best in the space (school gym). It was likely to be flat and poorly directed as the lights are for a gym, not a stage and there is a screen a great big screen.
It turned out that at the last minute, i.e that morning, it was decided the entire yr4 and 5 choir was added, taking up the entire space, the band was then squashed into a dark corner, so flat, poorly directed and as it went, not much of either. As a bonus the choir was backed by the huge screen with a white page projected on it!
Two nightmare scenarios for the price of one.
This I can handle with stills processes, accepting compromise as part of the deal, but I am still getting the hang of it with video. The light was flat and dingy, the cameras pushed, all my experience tapped.
Flat, low, non directional, mixed value spill light from crappy overheads on the band, about ISO 3200 and 3400k (some older globes were warmer), or silhouettes against a screen and even the 12mm on my GH5s (21mm equivalent) was not wide enough to get them all in, and that is even if a wall of tiny kids would be acceptable. I was planted about 8-10 metres from them and no way to set up differently.
The other nightmare, poor front light, even worse behind. Both images EM1.2 ISO 6400 f2.8.
Choose your pain, we had plenty.
The solution on the spot was point camera “A” at the band as planned, use the movement or “B” cam to include the rest of the kids, all while taking stills.
I had it covered I felt. B-Raw into both cams, both are low light comfortable, focus etc were pretty easy. All good.
When I got the footage into Resolve, it hit me. It is not for nothing that lighting is probably the first thing on a cinematographers mind when setting up a shot. I can handle most things with stills, but still recognise the signs when expectations and realities collide. Flash for example is most often used to pretty things up, not just make them take-able.
This is what they pay me for, to choose when and how to add that extra something needed to take an image from merely recorded to well recorded.
In video, it is even more important, because you have fewer options in post and as moving footage, it has to work as a cohesive flow.
Where is the problem rooted.
With me basically. This, as the title says is what they pay me for.
In my years of stills shooting, much more in the last ten or so, making the bad better or even good has been an automatic assumption on a daily basis. When shooting for myself and occasional other jobs, I used to place jobs into ideal where I controlled the when-where-why and desperate where the situation controlled me categories, I now have a sliding scale with ideal as a rarity, almost a luxury. The reality is, when everything is easy* anyone with a phone can do it.
With my video, the issues have been the same, but the tools less known to me and I have hidden behind various excuses, but the reality is, I need to up my game, take more control and responsibility and lower my self-criticism threshold when I know I have been beaten by circumstances. With video there is often more of a need to control the space, or you will face tougher post processing fixes (well, I do anyway), or face the reality or compromise.
*good light, no magnification or exposure issues, no movement and a conducive subject.
When we asked to do the best that we can, we tend to instinctively go to certain thing, gear, resources, processes, that we know will allow that to happen. These are the things where the heart, head and gut all intersect.
A random snap taken while waiting for a job to become something.
For me, one of those things is the Olympus 75mm f1.8.
In a place lenses and cameras feel strained, the 75 empowers, acting as a full frame equivalent to a 150mm f1.8, with (2.8 depth of field), the perfect indoor sports lens.
It might be used on a G9 to allow it to be warm and generous, or an EM1x as my most powerful indoor sports lens, or any other Olympus as a natural, crisp and saturated, but what ever the camera, this lens produces over and over.
Through a sun flared window.
It probably gets my vote as “most likely to be replaced if lost”, “most commented on” (images not physical lens as it is quite ordinary in hand), and “most likely packed as a safety net bit of kit”.
Is it so unique that nothing else could do what it does?
I have other excellent prime and zoom lenses from Olympus, Pana/Leica and Sigma also (the 56 f1.4, I lens I do not own is meant to be sharper!), the Pana 85 f1.8 on my full frame impresses, but this lens is the full package being top tier quality, long and bright, while also being small and affordable.
I often categorise my lenses as hard (30 1.4) or smooth (300 f4) sharp, modern (15 f1.7) of old fashioned (17 1.8) Bokeh, warm or cool colour tone and high (40-150 f2.8) or low (40-150 kit) contrast, but this lens seems to defy those camps, managing to be all of them at once, a chameleon.
It is not perfect.
On cold days the freezing metal body can fog for ages on a hot camera body, so reliably in fact I always carry a plastic 45 as a backup.
It can have a “flattening” effect on subjects like a lot of longer lenses, which I guess is both good and bad.
It has the tiniest bit of chromatic abberration wide open in extreme circumstances, but it goes away easily.
This was the first shot I noticed it, a little fringing on the name tag.
Even with massive cropping potential and the best reach to speed ratio I have, I sometime swish it was a 100 f2, then I could leave my heavier zooms behind. This was the dream at the paper, to go all primes* with this as the longest, but a 100mm (200mm ff/e), would have been perfect.
So, how would I rank it in my kit of tricks?
At least as high as the 85mm S-prime on a full frame camera as my shallow depth, low light with reach, lens.
*9, 15, 25, 45, 100, covering 18-200 in full frame all f2 or faster.
So, the anamorphic is back on the table. I was contacted today regarding some owed funds for a project I did a few months ago that came up in the end of year review. I would have been ok with it being a volunteer job, but at the extreme as it pushed me for time and extended my resources.
The results were as good as I could do at the time (better now though), using the two full frame cams in LOG, my Pana primes and a shotgun/LAV combo for sound (which I failed to nail in any of the six interviews, managing to find a different problem each time), although I did nail the music performance in the last one using the LCT 240 condenser into the H8.
I would now use B-Raw (I only had one BMVA at the time), the GH5s and S5 in combination and overhead mics, as well as the improvements in Resolve 20 for audio processing.
Anyway, this deserves a small reward, so the 24mm Sirui anamorphic will be purchased, if for no other reason than to scratch the curiosity itch.
The logic of buying a single anamorphic lens into a purely spherical landscape and why that lens?
I am after a dynamic that is fun, has something out of the ordinary, because the rest of my process if deliberately ordinary. I want cine gear for cine thinking, not regular gear for standard work, but also, I want to be able to use it for the less edgy stuff also.
Apart from the MFT anamorphic benefits in format shape and overall usability, the lens itself is the pick of them I feel for an MFT user.
The 24mm compared to it’s stable mates has the most flare control, best close focus, stable sharpness through it’s range (which starts at 2.8), has a warm tint (see below) is the standard-wide focal length I favour and finally, it may well fit into my existing kit seamlessly.
The 24 will force a wider angle of view (about 2.4:1 or about 21.6:9) with what you would call a “standard” or un-opinionated lens for MFT.
It has the same image height as a 48mm full frame equivalent spherical lens which is to say, the vertical focal length remains unchanged. On the GH5s it is nearly my ideal 40 (43mm) with its slightly bigger sensor.
The width or horizontal coverage however is equivalent to a full frame 36 or 28mm depending on camera.
This is the “perfect” normal-but-also-wide look I associate with anamorphic**. Longer lenses, to my eye, tend to loose that broad staging as they both naturally compress the subject and reduce depth of field, both characteristics that largely hide the expansive look I am after. They are intimate lenses, that tend to blur the destinction. This is from looking at a ton of sample videos where I can see it with the 24, but not so much with the others.
I like normal lenses, tending to hover around the 35-70 range. Apertures, rendering and lens handling provide plenty of options, but the overly wide or long look often does not appeal
My logic is a pairing of the Sirui 24mm anamorphic and the spherical Sirui 24mm Night Walker I already have, which should share a similar overall look in sharpness, warm colour etc, is I that will have the ability to crop* the 24-NW in to about a 55-65mm height equivalent (depending on specific camera, need to do the math-or not) with the same image width as the anamorphic at 48mm equivalent, but also keep the compression about the same as normal.
A slightly longer spherical lens cropped.
So a matching pair of standard lenses with different characteristics that best suit their use (I prefer circular Bokeh and the more compressed look of the spherical for longer, tighter lenses, the anamorphic look for wide, but the 24 is tame that way anyway).
The 24-A has very clean flares, something I can match with my Moment flare filters. The NW is faster (T1.2) for shallow depth, which suits it.
Another spherical lens (30mm Sigma) cropped to about 2.4:1. I would have dropped back a little if using the 24-NW for this (a heavy crop from 4:3), but still retain the slightly more compressed look of the spherical lens.
So, oval or circular Bokeh, standard-wide or compressed-standard coverage, blue streaks that can be controlled or even removed, shallow depth with compression, or natural looking deep and wide from the same distance, from two matched (kind of) lenses and the lone NW now has a purpose.
I struggled to commit to a semi wide because as much as I like the focal length for stills, it pushes the scene away, loses intimacy and connection. The 24-A does not.
With the two sensor sizes available in M43, I can go as wide as 28mm coverage or as long as (about) 65mm magnification and compression or 35 and 55 depending on cameras, even more crop with stabe, which covers basically all I need. My gut says the Anamorphic will end up on a standard M43 cam (G9II) as a 48/36, the spherical on the GH5s as a 55/43
The bit I will need to see to fully understand is the normal-that-is-wide and tight-that-is-normal dynamic I am forcing. Might be I just have two useful lenses with different skill sets, but I hope there is more than that.
The Hope lenses are the “straight” guys, the safe interview lenses, no frills, no introduced character. The Sirui lenses are the edgy, cinematic pair with lots to work with or control if needed.
*Currently I am shooting RAW out but to a 1080 work space so heavy cropping is not an issue.
**I do love a wide set, characters moving within it in long takes.
So, the anamorphic bug has hit again, thanks mainly to some really cheap offers at the moment.
The Sirui anamorphic lenses for MFT/APS-C are all about $500au or $299 US, which is a good 60% under original retail and 40% under the current street price (about $799au-when I can find them).
What are the perceived benefits?
You get (on the 24mm with MFT), a lens with the same image height as a 48-50mm full frame equivalent (i.e. normal), but the width or angle of view of a 32mm, or if I went with the 35mm, a 70mm equivalent in height and about a 45mm width (which is similar to letter-box cropping a spherical 24mm).
2.4:1 is a lot of screen width to fill, but also the easiest way to increase the perceived “cinematic” intentions of a lens. I do not think I would want to wider than “scope”.
The specific lenses in question however have other things I need to consider. Previously, all I wanted was the 24. I had done my research and it ticked all the right boxes.
The 24mm focusses closer, has slightly better controlled flare (cleaner, sharper, not less), but is slower at f2.8 (the 35 is 1.8). Reviewers have said it tends to squash close focus subjects a little, easily fixed in post if I notice it.
It has zero focus breathing but some mild edge “character” on MFT (more on APS-C), well controlled flares and the weird “waterfall” Bokeh is there, but not distractingly so.
The 35mm can drop the depth of field out and is of course faster, but a regular lens letter-box cropped can also do that, so I guess I have answered my own question. Focus breathing is slight, distortions less pronounced, flare a little messier.
They are both sharp, but apart from that normal considerations come into play, like what is my ground zero in lenses? I have a lean towards the standard 50mm or slightly wider, about 40-50mm ff equivalent.. A 48/32 or 43/28 on the GH5s is about perfect.
Or is it?
Anamorphic to me is a broad canvas format, a full scene with all its elements and the 1.33x squeeze, gives you that width, that grandeur. The 24 is “normal” enough to be used as a medium-close portrait lens, wide enough to include scenes and can do details.
It’s the whole scene, the story of the place and subjects placed in it.
If I get the 24mm I could later add the 35 or 50 later as the accompanying lens, or use it as the wide lens with the 25 and 50 Hope lenses as the long options (with cropping).
The Sirui 24 Nightwalker may also be the perfect foil for it, it’s half-sibbling or creative foil, giving me a super fast lens that when letter-boxed in post would be effectively longer and more compressed, cropped in top to bottom to fit the width needed from the same place.
Both 24’s have warm colour tone, so matching them should not be an issue (I would shoot the spherical with 2.4:1 grid lines to aide framing, something the Panasonic cameras provide, they even have edge shading) and the Nightwalker also has the super shallow depth option.
A harmonious pairing?
I am aware that compressed, shallow depth of field imaging is easily over used. The wider frame forces me to create a stronger scene, better composition and smarter, tighter interactions, which appeals to me as a fan of the “long take”. The tighter lens has a different dynamic.
There may be a reason I have never managed to fill the semi wide angle range with my kit or finish the Nightwalker set. Maybe I do not want a semi-wide, I want a wide that is also a standard? Maybe fate has made this too hard to fix for a reason. The 16mmNW has been impossible to source lately, the Hope 16mm disappointed after the previous two (just that specific copy).
I feel for videography, a true wide is pointless as the main subject will be pushed away, the anamorphic wide-that-is-close option fits better.
Ok, what are the real benefits.
I have lenses with lots of character (TTArt 35 f1.4, 1960’s Pen half-frame 25 f2.8, 7Art Spectrums), I have flares via more versatile filters (gold and blue), can do wide screen (17:9 C4k or 6k cams cropped) and could care less about the Bokeh. Both the flare and bokeh are double edged swords as far as I am concerned.
The reality is, when I see a movie made with anamorphic lenses, I often only ever know by the flares (which I sometimes find over the top and may have been added in post anyway) and the Bokeh (usually when I look for it to confirm the flares). From the inside, we are obsessed with this at the moment. On the outside, the average viewer may or may not respond to the anamorphic effects. Hard to say and when you pint them out, the experiment is broken.
The actual characteristic I really like, wide screen, is sometimes impractical commercially and often too wide anyway, although the 1.33x squeeze of these lenses (2.35:1 or about 21:9 equivalent) is about right.
So, what do I really want?
I would only apply flares to certain dark or bland subjects, the Bokeh is irrelevant, perspective also (evinced by the fact I cannot decide if I care).
I only really want wide screen at about 2:1 ratio or slightly wider or 18-20:9 and to be honest, an anamorphic would only force this on me, not facilitate it.
2:1 ration (or 18:9). Plenty of “cinematic” feel achieved with a spherical lens and a practical format. I can of course always undo this if needed.
Personally, I feel the choice some top directors make when they adopt anamorphic lenses is more based on the characteristics of the lenses themselves and this is often drawn originally from a desire to have that “movie look” or emulate a favourite film or directors legacy, which, like a lot of things is in turn based on old forced habits, adaptions made to fix problems.
The need for the movie industry to chase wide screen to combat TV, when limited to film stock, evolved into anamorphic lenses with oval diaphragms (that squeeze more on to the frame), which in turn led to linear flares, oval Bokeh and perspective changes, only one of which can be seen as an actual benefit to me and none are mandatory for film making.
Ironically, it is only with digital cameras that whole thing is available to average folk and they have effectively removed the need in the first place.
Like black and white film or the SLR mirror, it was not originally a choice, but a work around that then gained “elite” status and a creative signature, because well, the early movie makers had no choice, although here was choice within the forced element. You think of a creative work and you automatically accept the look it has, because the two are directly linked.
Nostalgia and forced habits create expectations and acceptance.
Like those forced realities, not having the need anymore does give us a choice, so what to choose?
Get one, have some fun and wedge it into an otherwise spherical work flow, scratch that three year itch, or go “Roger Deakins” and shoot clean, then add effects after? Maybe a little of both, using spherical glass and the occasional filter or funky lens.
Probably no, as I have once again managed to talk my way through this.
Third time now, must move on and save my money.
So, I have been trying a lot of different rig setups lately.
The G9II is the problem, in that it is the most powerful hand held camera, but attempts to attack it to the BMVA 12G 5” have been problematic (fixed now though*).
While experimenting, a lot, I have tried all sorts of no-gimbal fix and this, “The Swaze” is the best and by far the simplest.
Cute isn’t it! No, well that depends on the hours you have invested in testing and finding it I guess.
The simple solution to the problem was arm freedom, body angle and down force.
Every other system I tried was decent, but always came down to finding the perfect balance between rigidity and softness, then practice my smooth walking.
Walking it seems is better, easier and more consistent if you stand straight and keep your head still, like they used to teach in deportment school, often with a tea cup and saucer on top of the head! Do not bend your knees, don’t lean over, and avoid anything you cannot sustain.
All you need to do is arrest the rocking motion of walking, the rest is acceptable to an extent.
The problem is videographers are usually stooped to view screens or camera focus rigs, so I ditched the BMVA for this rig and just use the flip screen for focus checking.
There is no doubt, Sony’s ascendancy over the last short decade or so came from their AF being reliable enough to be used with a gimbal and in turn gimbals becoming realistically within reach.
Before remote focus pulling became reasonably affordable, it was the only option. Poor colour science, a slim range of lenses, bland cameras that seemed to change but not improve each model were all fine as long as you got results.
For a while there you were mad if you did not use a gimbal/Sony combo, weren’t you?
This can be said of most major brands now and with that comes options like the world’s best mirrorless stabe.
The handle above allows you to stand straight, can be used from the top or bottom (or on the side I guess, need to try that) and is intuitive to use. A second hand supporting the base and applying thumb to screen focus control and you are sweet.
The lens is the 8-18 that not only preserves some wide angle when using high stabe, fits my main filter pack and stays the same length, but also seems to do a better job than the dual stabe 12-60, but that is only my gut feeling.
The irony?
It is an extension handle for a gimbal!
My next step is to try it with a video head and handle.