Choices. They Make It Fun.

When the anamorphic lens arrives, I will add it to the matching (24mm) spherical lens from the same manufacturer (Sirui) and have, thanks to two MFT cameras with different sensor sizes (GH5s 1.8 and G9II 2x crop) cameras.

My thinking is the anamorphic on the G9II, working as (in ff terms) roughly a 50h/35w ff equivalent, the spherical on the GH5s, effectively shortening it to a 43mm, then cropped down in height to about an 80h/50w, the common denominator being a 50mm equivalent on one plane, but 35w coverage or 80h magnification.

Add to this a decent choice of other lenses, all spherical, but the key to it is this semi harmonious duality.

My first still from the anamorphic. The front subject is about 6” tall and 2’ away. The rear subject is twice the height and about another foot behind. Rendering is pleasant, Bokeh smooth, mild distortion obvious (curve not slight down angle). The poor grading is down to me using a Rec 709 codec (Natural) for speed over quality. The main issue I faced was focus as everything is quite small on the camera screen.

At the same horizontal width, the spherical will have about 75-80% more vertical magnification, modified slightly by the sensor size difference, but sharing roughly the same perspective, i.e. a standard lens on MFT. The feeling of depth and separation is very similar.

This is the spherical 24 cropped from the same place for (roughly) the same effect. No attempt was made to colour match, just fiddled as my eye took me, but they do look the same out of camera.

The above is the most likely scenario. The same distance with similar perspective, but different effective magnification.

So, what is actually different?

This is the anamorphic image cropped in to “normal” 16:9, for comparison to the spherical lens below.

The spherical lens as shot from the same place. Compared to the image above, there is a feeling of normality even without the wider view in play, in other words, they cannot be made to look the same.

Now comparing the two with the same horizontal coverage.

The extra width of the anamorphic really shows and there is a slight increase in depth expansion as well. The top image looks straighter and more normal. Notice the height of the files match closely.

Pushing the spherical back to match the coverage changes much. The compression effect between the two subjects feels very telephoto. My big takeaway from these two is the lack of intimacy the spherical offers. You can crop in to match the image height, which it looks like is somewhere in between the natural two.

If I were to swap them over, I would get a 43/28 and about an 90/60, so one wider and one tighter.

If I want the subject to be the same size in both images, the spherical lens will have to go almost twice as far back to achieve the 32mm (ff equivalent) coverage, but the reality is, I want the standard-wide and tight-standard dynamic, so the idea is the have them the same distance from subject, similar perspective (a “normal” lens range), but very different magnifications. This will allow me to shoot the same scene differently from the same distance on my own or shoot it differently from two distances.

*not sure about my math here, not my strong suit.

What They Pay Me For And Other Headaches

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.

The Best That We Can Do Needs The Best Tools We Have.

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.

Sometimes, I Love This Time Of Year!

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.

Oh, I Hate This Time Of Year!

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.

Irony Ignored, Solution Found.

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.

Full Frame For Stills? Jury Is Still Out.

I decided a while ago to concentrate on only using M43 for video and my full frame kit for stills.

The logic was sound enough.

My two “best” video cams are the G9II and GH5s, one because it has the highest specs and capabilities (best stabe, AF, BRAW output and internal codecs), the other because it is a dedicated video hybrid (dual ISO, lots of video stuff, BRAW out).

The S5 and S5II both have issues for me with video. One is older and not a great AF option (neither is the GH5s, but it is the “static” cam), the other lacks BRAW-out without an expensive firmware upgrade.

For stills, they add that golden promise of super high ISO performance, but I have found there are plenty of other issues.

Lots of nice Autumn files this year, good testing for the new lens……………..

……..and this from M43, which is technically it’s equal (at least).

The first issue I have, partly me and partly me underestimating my M43 gear, comes from the real benefit of higher ISO performance and depth of field in full frame. I have found I can drastically under expose a file shot at ISO 6400 and still get back a clean file, but over exposure is less certain. I have little fear of a shot 2-3 stops over in M43, but do not like the S5’s files I do the same with. If used at ISO settings ver 6400 (my M43 limit), over exposed files turn to s$#t and underexposed ones do run out of legs.

Using M43 in super low light, lenses wide open with a little extra post applied, as well as the beneficial difference in movement blur, depth of field and knowing my cams, makes me feel a lot more comfortable with M43.

S5II, 85mm ISO 6400 f2. The human AF was pretty good, usually picking the most centred, forward facing person, but not always.

EM1x, 75 f1.8. More a matter of grab and move on, no lag, no uncertainty. The colour is different, more down to my handling of Olympus and Pana files (the G9’s also give nice indoor colour). Funny that the M43 has shallower depth from the same place with basically the same depth of field and lens length math!

Issue two is handling. I shot some sport the other day and to give the camera (S5II) it’s due, it did not miss many, but the shutter button was squishy, the processes laggy and the whole thing felt detached. I have felt this with old G9’s, but they have DFD AF, so an excuse, but the S5II just feels like a poor fit for sport. I switched between the S5IIK and an EM1x and the difference was massive.

To add to that, the G9II did a bit of light duty the other day shooting some sport while my video subject was off court and it felt for all the world like an EM1x with a nicer screen! So, my best video cam is my logical future replacement for my stills cams, maybe even the right one now for indoor, low light jobs.

Issue three is banding. The two S5’s are my worst cams for banding. I have been caught a few times in familiar locations I thought to be ok. Banding in video is an easy fix, shutter speed and frame rate are built around it, but for stills, I now just go “noisy” shutter more often than not. I work close and in sensitive environments. My subjects have learned to ignore me, but noisy shutters on big cameras with big lenses (see below) may undo that.

Issue four is lenses, they are huge and really, really limit my bag and work flow options, often for little benefit. I have stopped packing a single full frame cam as a low light handler, the M43 f1.8 lenses do it well enough and are much smaller. I had hoped the 28-70 would fix this, but it is still similar in size to taking a M43 cam with 40-150 f4, which I do, but struggle with two bigger cams.

I bought a 28-70 f2.8 Sigma so I could have zoom flexibility with decent background blur for scenarios like the one I faced last month, a cramped red carpet arrival shoot with a slow zoom that rendered way too much ugly background. The range was ideal, the speed good and the lens has been satisfying, if not mind blowing.

This was the night I decided to buy the Sigma (or similar) after needing to mask out the background of every single file with my slow kit lens. Would the extra flash grunt offered by M43 with an F2.8 aperture have been better? Most likely. I was impressed by the S5II’s AF, not a miss recorded, but the G9II would at least match that.

Issue five is depth of field. Some of the benefit of the full frame high ISO performance is lost when fast apertures are applied. The reality is f1.8 is often too shallow on a full frame. On a M43 cam, it acts like f2.8 (by magnification) and I use them wide open as needed, f2.8 zooms in good light, f1.8 primes in low. With FF, I am struggling to find a usable balance and if I lean towards safe depth, the benefits are largely lost. This also effects flash use, the ISO benefit vs more actual power in M43 (from wider aperture).

Issue six is the reality that if I switch more to FF for sports, my next long lens will be my dearest or if not, may not add much at all. The 70-200 f4 Pana or 100-400 Sigma are both good options (both bigger than my 300!), but slow and short in reach by my current standards and with the S5II camera’s lack lustre performance for action, I can see myself drifting back to M43 when I can.

Regrets?

As I have written before, the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7 zooms on a pair of G9II’s with maybe a Sirui anamorphic set would have been the ideal video hybrid kit in hind-sight, cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, but that option was not on the table at the time.

The S5’s are good when I need a simple V-Log pairing, they are easy to use and if it were not for the BRAW thing, I would be tempted to use them for video only and all my M43 for stills (GH5s for low light?).

I am tempted to list the full frame kit, but I know that they do offer potentially better extreme low light and are both capable video cams (with known exceptions). I have the boxes, the gear is spotless and I got some bargains, so no massive loss. High ISO is a genuine benefit in video, the GH5s only offering one option (but enough?).

A re-configuring of my video kit would be to go back to the GH5s/S5.1 combo, the S5 being a decent hand held cam (the OSMO gimbal as backup) but enough. Both are BRAW capable, both less useful as stills cams, they share the same batts etc, then use the G9II and S5II as hybrids. It all feels a little pushed, but makes some sense.

I must admit, I feel having a foot in full frame land feels right, but M43 is not dead to me by any measure. If anything, it is stronger by comparison.

I may just upgrade the S5II, which would make it and the GH5s the logical pairing, the G9II then gets released for stills and the S5 mk1 as the hybrid?

A mess that can be fixed, I just need to see the path.

I Am Going To Plant, Lovingly Tend And Then Use A Special Tree.

There is a thing called a “Node Tree”.

Not this sort of tree, but this type of file.

I did not get it for a long time, partly because I am a stills shooter who tends to work in a pretty non-linear way, which means I tend do things in no set order from RAW, which is not great as I tend to be messy and over work my pixels and I am not consistent. I am getting better, but slowly and have only become more efficient by eliminating steps.

If you do things in the right order, do them well and complete them properly, you will get consistent results and minimise file damage from “over working” pixels.

Layers add the next level. Each separate one is discrete so that each job can be done properly then combined in the best order.

I felt Nodes were like layers in Photoshop, which I do not use.

Nodes are basically layers, which are separate processes that can be applied in a set order.

Video needs order more than stills.

My previous process was similar to my RAW processing, but it was wrong and it showed.

I would process B-Raw manipulations for exposure and white balance, then do the three-wheel dance of Lift/Gamma/Gain, which was then supplemented by LOG Shadows/Mids/Highlights because I read that these were cleaner and more logical. I often felt there was simultaneously too much to do and too little control. There was little consistency.

After a lot of research, became a switch to Linear Gamma using the gain wheel only, which allowed me to more gently control colour with one wheel and a less twitchy one at that. This was a breakthrough for me, because it allowed me to process by eye and more intuitively. This, combined with properly setting up my project settings and looking at colour better (Colour Slice and HSV Channels for saturation), were helping.

The whole thing was becoming more on point, but was not yet more organised.

Nodes organise.

Nodes are, it seems, are exactly what I need.

They separate each task so that maximum cleanliness and efficiency can be achieved.

Why?

• I want to do as little as possible to my files with maximum effect.

• I want to do the right manipulations the right way.

• I want to do them in the right order (this is very important).

• I want to be consistent, especially when different cameras and codecs are used**.

• I also want to make sure I remind my self of the options available.

I needed a Node Tree, something I never thought I would use and it turns out there are a lot of opinions on this. I have found the strength in power grading (not just applying LUT’s), which is also a perceived level of complication in that at some point you have to balance applied knowledge and skill with personal preference, not just trust to a bought Lut to do the work

No, there are no “one answer” rules here, but there are cleaner and stronger ways of working.

My sources are Cullen Kelly and Darren Mostyn with a little help from the excellent “Write and Direct” site. These three are all reliable, knowledgeable and accurate, but they also vary in answers such as;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSkEnupHUM

My Node Tree is based on Cullen Kelly’s latest with some mild changes to suit my (realistic) work flow, because some things he covers are still beyond me.

This assumes the use of B-Raw in some form to Da Vinci Resolve.

0. Project settings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnNqjPbfIG8 . If you choose custom, you can set the whole project up with the same in and out puts as a CST node, but simpler and the reality is, you still need to visit project settings to change tags and check other settings for your project, so why not do it all at once? The choices are also quicker with only a combined in and out to select rather than four.

or

(1). Colour Space Transform Node. This is the input transformation Node to tell Resolve what camera took the footage, what codec was used, what colour space is going to be used to process the file, which is the same as in custom project settings.

I am going to use the project setting route because I need simply choose the input type from pre-set project setting list and then apply any one of several Node trees as desired. With CST’s I can visualise each step on the tree, but two less Nodes makes for a cleaner work flow and I will not make mistakes, because I can see them on the clip. All I have to do in project settings is switch the project from B-Raw to Panasonic V-log input when I use it and select either Rec 709/2.2 or Cineon Log if I want to apply a film look. You cannot ignore project settings, other changes need doing anyway, so why not do it all at once. There will be four, two for B-Raw, two for V-Log, one each to Rec 709 2.2 and Condon Log for applying film looks.

1. Colour Balance Node. This node is before the one below (exposure) but will be used after it. This is the one wheel instead of three fix that pro colourists use and was a game changer for me. With a single wheel (Gain), I will be able to balance colour and white balance by eye with a gentle and precise touch. Right click > Gamma > Linear > Gain tracking ball (replacing lift/gamma/gain).

2. Exposure and Contrast Node. This can be done with the above wheel, but is better done in the HDR > Glodal window than the Primaries > Offset. The effect on shadows is cleaner, more linear and better separated. HDR > Global wheel = exposure, and the second part is putting in removing some punch in an image. HDR > Shadows/Highlight wheels = contrast.

3. Saturation-Global. This one I will just do as Cullen does. HSV > Colour space > (turn of channels 1 and 3) channel 2 only = Saturation.

This is the end of the core manipulations.

4a*. (Parallel Node top) Saturation-Specific. This is also a Cullen recommendation, to use Colour Slice for more specific saturation and density changes. The common trend here is to use newer generation tools that work cleanly and more precisely than older, more global tools. > Colour Slice.

4b*. (Parallel Node bottom) Power Windows. This is a little beyond my pay grade just yet, but I will be using it a lot I hope. It is the ability to locally effect an image area with masking, picking etc.

My intention is to have a basic and advance tree, the basic tree will drop 4a and 4b.

5a to 5x. Textures and Effects. This is where the little extras are added like noise reduction, de-blur, filters etc, because they are destructive if used too soon (heavy handed tools with high system drain), so tend to slow down my computer (especially de-blur and noise reduction). Nodes added as desired or needed.

I do not need this one below, but if I had used a CST-in then;

(7). Colour Space Transform Out. This is where the wide gamut colour space is transformed back into a more deliverable form. So you have gone from opening up the work space to now delivering something standardised. DV Wide Gamut > DV Intermediate > Rec 709 > Gamma 2.2 (because my monitor is not reference standard or I would use 2.4).

• This may be changed to DV Wide Gamut > DV Intermediate > Rec 709 > Cineon LOG if I want to apply a pre-loaded Resolve film stock look.

So, basically project settings, 3 core Nodes which should produce a finished base file, up to 3 secondary ones for effects, fixes, deeper repairs and then other stuff like audio afterwards.

*A parallel Node is used when several Nodes are of equal importance coming from a previous Node and no linear contamination is wanted.

**By using consistent project settings I will be treating B-Raw and V-Log files the same way, but still getting maximum quality from each. Technically B-Raw files have their own window and settings, but using Pana cams, not all of these are fully enabled, so for consistencies sake, using the same project settings and node tree is faster.

Getting Into A Groove, Setting Targets.

I have decided to not only embrace my current role as “AFL photographer”, to try to perfect it, make it my Ikigai if you will, my point of practice towards perfection.

Already making some gains and that is mainly just by choosing to.

I did two matches on Sunday, both regional junior representation games, so fast, high quality games, especially the U17 girls game that was at least a match for the great game I attended last weekend.

I came away from the first day with about 1500 files over about 3 hours of play, which seemed restrained, but on processing about half were misses*, the other half split into “keepers”, “secondaries” and “don’t submit, but don’t trash”, the last three all go into the master file backup.

I was happy overall, but the processing time was still excessive and I felt there was plenty of fat to trim off the bone.

The field was wet and muddy, soon to break up, but the girls game defied that and was fast and flowing.

My favourite of the day. This is a more than 50% crop off the 300mm, so full ground coverage.

There is no doubt that luck plays a role, but only after you create a conducive space where you can exploit it.

The boys however produced a scrappy game, with rare points of acrobatic action and a matching low-end score.

On Monday, I was determined to be more precise, more surgical.

I do not use consecutive fire, taking singles only, so it is all about anticipation, timing and judgement. I feel the sniper nets more efficient results than the machine gunner and certainly stays more engaged with the game and saves time in processing.

This is gear related to some extent.

The EM1x in silent mode with the stabilised 300 or 40-150 (f2.8 or 4) give me a gentle experience, I am a silent viewer, slicing out moments with speed and precision and thanks to the reactiveness of the camera, the AF speed of the lenses and plenty of practice (plus the afore mentioned luck), it feels instantaneous and intuitive.

It is basically down to me.

I can get better and the gear limitation envelope is deep enough to cover me as I improve. It is down to my skill level, I doubt the gear will top out, which is reassuring.

Two games again, U14’s this time and the roles slightly reversed. The girls game was good, probably close to yesterday’s, again defying the ever more stressed surface and to add to the mix, we had even more rain over night.

The boys game however was more like the fast and flowing game I was hoping for the day before.

Just after a few of us on the sidelines had been discussing the poor judgement of seagulls as to where to settle, they contributed to this file. Kind of sums up provincial football.

The second day was matched in every way, but with under 1000 files total.

Many of these are the mandatory team and pre-post game shots, the rest are action captures or events (I avoid player embarrassing moments, but document injuries etc, a habit from the paper) and I try to get every player doing something “heroic”, but know I fail too often.

A perfect game?

Maybe 200 files a game, all useful, every person and all image “shapes” covered, but I have a long way to go.

*Misses are basically useless for my needs, not always out of focus or even poorly composed, just lesser files to the better ones or suffering “intruders” cutting across the view as I took them.

A Conversation

My utilisation of M43 format is a choice made eyes wide open. When I started at the paper, the two long term togs there were either in one case curious or in the other dismissive of my choice, which led to a conversation that went something like this (roughly, from memory);

So, why do you use that format and brand* rather than the kit we have for you**?

The size and weight are far better and I like the lenses (results).

(Tog 2) But the little sensor must be a compromise in quality?

It is only a little smaller than the APS-C sensor in the D500 and has it’s advantages and remember, you hired me based on a portfolio made with it..

(Tog 1) Advantages?

Size, depth of field, sharpness, stabilising, AF accuracy (mirrorless over SLR’s).

(Tog 2) Example?

Ok, what is your favourite lens and camera combo?

(Tog 2) My 20mm f2.8 Nikkor on a full frame, which never fails to deliver. and can fit in my pocket (not issue kit)

Ok, I have a Pana/Leica 9mm (18mm FF) f1.7 that will be sharper, especially wide open, focus closer, is weather sealed, even lighter, faster focussing and two stops faster, but has the same depth of field as your wide open.

(Tog 1) My 70-200 f2.8 on.my D500, making a 300 f2.8 and really sharp.

Sure, my 40-150 does the same, but is faster focussing (on an EM1x), smaller and lighter. I have compared the one you gave me and that combo (on a D500) is not as sharp as mine.

(Tog 2) Yeah but in low light, the bigger sensor cams are better!

Ok, when we do National League basketball, what do you use?

(Tog 2) My D750 with 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8’s.

I use much the same on two EM1x’s, but get more depth of field wide open and for that we do not need to go over ISO 3200, so quality is basically the same. How about in the crappy light at the local basketball centre?

(Tog 2) Same gear, but I like to keep the ISO down to 6400, so my shutter speeds suffer.

(Tog 2) I use my fast 85mm sometimes (also not issue), but still use the zooms as needed.

Yeah, I often switch to my 150 f1.8 (I switched to FF terms there) for one end and a shorter f1.8 prime for the other

(Tog 2) 150 f1.8? Never heard of that one, must have cost a bomb!

Ok, bit naughty there, in M43 it a very sharp 75 f1.8, but same same.

(Tog 1) So I could use my 85 and crop?

Yeah but I am shooting with no crop, you are now shooting 10-12mp (which is plenty for paper use, but I can still do the same for I guess a 300 f1.8).

(Tog 2) Ok, what is the limit you will use?

I have never needed higher than f1.8 and ISO 6400 to get 1/750th or higher for indoor sports, so the limit is comfortable, the format makes the lenses more powerful and the reverse also. If I do need to go lower, it is not as bad for me with shorter actual lenses than the equivalent on a full frame.

(Tog 2) Yeah, I had to push into ISO 12,800+ the other day with f2.8 and 1/500th, which was not pretty. I should have carried a faster prime in case, but do not carry one normally and it would be this (holds up a massive 85 f1.4 also not issue).

I do carry both, because they are smaller, but also, the format needs it. I usually carry a pair of zooms (in FF terms), a 24-80 f2.8 and 80-300 f4 and fast 18, 35, 90 or 150 primes and 2 cams (G9 and EM1.2), so range and speed.

(Tog 2) In that?! (pointing at my Domke F-2).***

Yes, and a flash.

(Tog 1) Why two cams?

Because I prefer to change cams than lenses.

(Tog 2) Dust an issue?

Never. Olympus have the best sensor cleaners. Never had to clean one.

(Tog 2) Never?

Never. I just find lens changes take twice as long as switching cams an I can set up a cam and lens combo better.

(Tog 1) Ok, how do you shoot football?

A 600 f4 on one body and one with 80-300 f2.8 and a third cam with a wide zoom if needed in a small bag.

Yeah, not the same.

(Tog 2) Not possible!?

Ok, a white lie again, I used full frame equivalent focal lengths. For me that is a 300 f4, 40-150 (f4 or 2.8 depending on light) both on EM1x’s and shoulder slings and my 8-18 on a EM1.2 in a small bag. The whole lot weighs about the same as the D500 with 400 f2.8 alone.

No seat or monopod?

No. I walk around a lot more and can run if I need.

That’s handy. I am always looking for somewhere to leave my long lens and bits when I go into the middle or change rooms.

Can you crop that little sensor?

Down to about 20% without anyone noticing. Remember, the pixel count is basically the same as your cameras as long as the image that it captures is as good,

Have you?

Yes, and you have seen it.

Really, when?

Yesterday’s back page (decent crop of a footy shot roughly the same as below).

…………… oooohh….kaaaay.

So the perfect system?

No, like anything there are compromises, but for what we do, none that I cannot find an answer for.

You say there is more depth of field, so how about shallow depth of field?

When was the last time you took a news paper shot with super shallow depth of field, like a 50mm at f1.8 and close, unless you needed the aperture for super low light? The reality is, I use my lenses wide open most often and have about the right amount of DOF for subject separation and story telling background.

Just about perfect and not even wide open.

True, f2.8 is usually my limit and only if I have to or want the effect.

Do you use flash much?

Yes and the bad news guys, is my flash is effectively two stops more powerful thanks to the depth of field thing (f1.7 = f2.8). I do need an ND filter for daylight fill with shallow depth as the advantage flips then, but I have a dedicated lens for video anyway (I produce my tiny 17mm f1.8 with 5 stop ND from a little pocket).

(Tog 1). I will think of you when I use my 400 f2.8 next! This tog grabbed a Z9 with both hands when issued and loves the ability to crop the 45mp sensor so his massive 400 is a 6-800mm, but then I broke it to him, that is basically what I am shooting with, for less than half the size and a quarter the price.

(Tog 2). Not convinced but interesting I guess. Shame you are letting that gear go to waste (I had already swapped out my new 70-200 with Tog 1 who was using an old push-pull).

I was there for 18 months and Tog 1 was always open minded to the benefits and my work process and I learned a lot from him. Tog 2 was intransigent, a Nikon SLR shooter through and through. The same tog pushed for D6’s over Z9’s until Nikon set him straight that they do not make them any more.

My replacement, who was actually the guy I replaced when he got sick, is a Fuji shooter, so I guess he will have to go through it all again!

*Olympus, but I used Oly and Pan combined.

**D750, D500, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f2.8’s and 400 f2.8 if needed, all well “worn in”.

***One tog has the biggest bag I have ever seen and tends to use the boot of his car for storage, the other often limits himself to what goes on a shoulder, so few creative options once on the job.

Reality Check

I had a great time the other day with my new lens.

Full frame for me has been a journey of reluctant and conditional migration with a feeling of “I have no excuse, I can do anything I need now”, so a new and moderately exciting lens in the fold a lens bought to fix a perceived problem, that did, was a find.

Pretty photos of back-lit leaves, a lovely Autumn blush captured relaitvely easily and with needed quality…….. so where am I going here?

Looking out the back door the other day, locking up to go out n a job, I saw some lovely light on the last of the leaves for the season.

I grabbed the camera at hand (EM1.2 and 40-150 f4) and shot these, thinking at the time they were easier to take than the full frame ones and just as good. If anything, they are a little more brilliant and vibrant.

The reality is, in good light* I actually prefer M43 format for all the reasons i have said before. It is faster, easier to use, has all the needed quality and is much easier to get into the field. The secret is in the lenses and the mathematics that empowers them.

In poor light and if I make a mistake, full frmae is better, but sometimes only just.

*ISO 6400 or lower, natural or artificial light that is not too weird.

The Little Lens The Could (But I Forget To Let It)

My 17mm Oly, the pedestrian f1.8, not the very special f1.2, was once my “one lens” answer. It along did probably half my Japan images over 7 trips, was my video/daylight flash lens mated with an ND filter for the paper and if I was travelling very lite*, it and one of my 45 f1.8’s would be the kit.

Lately, the Panasonic 15mm has been doing more duty in that role for two fairly lame reasons. The Oly has very occasionally failed to AF, which may be down to the click-back option getting loose and the Pana all-too-light aperture ring being fixed (literally-with a bit of tape), making it the more useable option (a real role reversal).

The two are similar but different.

The Pana/Leica has a modern Bokeh rendering, quick to transition to softer, making the sharp look sharper, while the Oly has a longer and more natural transition, ideal for handling street shooting in iffy light with either AF or zone focus.

Shot wide open at f1.8 (not sure why), it is hard to pin point the exact point of focus and the transition to the fully out of focus areas. You get the sharpness of the sharp subject (near bike), but only when your eye lands there. The whole seems harmonious and natural, then “wham” the sharp bit hits you. Notice the end of the street is still slightly coherent, you can almost read the writing on the awning or the number plate. In the Pana image two samples below, the background quickly becomes busier and messier and that was shot at f2.8.

Another image showing the duality of natural transition and snappy subject grabs. Try to pick the point where razor sharp becomes incoherently soft. It’s hard with this lens, even the top of the building in the far distance is recognisable.

The 15mm has a more defined sharp/soft feel making it seem like a longer lens, but also making the image look flatter. Being wider, it often feels longer than the 17, a handy feature when you shoot groups and do not want that unflattering semi-wide look.

A favourite image and one I can identify immediately as made with the 15mm (at f2.8) over the 17. The 17 would have rendered a less bright image, slightly muted colours and more natural-longer transition to the background, but a little less “pop” on the subjects. The Oly has a more “glassy” film look, the Pana is more digital-perfect.

A similar aperture, showing deeper transition and more natural colour. I feel often, more so now that I know what to call it, that it renders very “cinematic” images.

The 15 has that Panasonic image lightness and brightness, the colours leaning toward lime greens and orange reds. This is nice on Oly cams, adding some brilliance, while the more “organic” looking Oly handles strong light very well and adds some body to Panasonic files.

The lens “shines” so to speak in brilliant light, adding film-like highlight roll off.

Finally, the Oly is empathically sharp in focus (for stills, there are some issues with video), while the 15 is occasionally unreliable on Oly and sometimes even Pana cams. It to is poor for video AF.

Something I regularly underestimated with this lens is its ability to shoot landscape images, even wide open, at night, hand held. The above shot was taken at f1.8 where all it’s “flaws” should be evident.

Razor sharp, even though many early reviewers gave it mediocre technical reviews. This and the Canon 28 f1.8 USM, another lens with mixed reviews, but users including me loved it, first opened my eyes to the reality that reviews are no replacement for actual field use.

It loves shiny surfaces, metals, brightly lit city scenes, wet leaves etc.

Hard to find technical fault.

It is not perfect, no lens is. The corners wide open are apparently poor, but that may be field curvature as the Bokeh tends to make that very hard to see.

Stopped down to f2.8 and there is little to complain about corner to corner and with its forgiving transition, you rarely need to stop down further, meaning it is an ideal low light scenery or street lens.

The Bokeh is far from perfect as the modern measure suggests, yet it is so very creatively conducive (f2.2), allowing you to think-shoot and see what you got later. There is a feeling “stage setting” in its rendering.

Flare is ok, nothing to write home about especially wide open, but it also natural looking. It seems to like daylight flare well enough, but if it gets too messy, the lens produces an image with neutral shortcomings, more overall veiling flare.

The modern habit of shaping flare and artefacts is missing, it just does or does not get it done, but it rarely adds anything odd. Very rarely I see a little purple or green artefact, very rarely.

My 8-18 Leica for example can be relied upon to add a little something and my 9mm offers some very magical flare cones when you push it, but this lens will rarely.

Blown highlights are gently lost to pure white, again transitioning from light, to very light to lost white, but gradually. I actually think the gentle veiling flare helps with that.

The 15 and the 9 Pan/Leica lenses have more interesting, even beautiful flares, but they are introduced and sometimes distracting.

You can throw it into almost any lighting situation and it will come out with an image, but it may have some added character.

Contrast is strong in the mid range, micro contrast I guess, highlights are muted and shadows open, so a soft S-curve, a little like Tri-X film stock developed in Rodinal, an old favourite.

Under the hoop is a regular use, although I have shifted to a 25 for more safety room, but it did well. The blobby little lights are fine, natural looking and nothing else is added. Again the long transition Bokeh allows for zone focus with plenty of safety. The Dehaze slider in Capture 1 is a good friend of the lens.

Mine is worn, grubby and forgiven for its random and mild indiscretions, but to replace it now means a new version, which I am not sure about. The other lens in the mix is the 20mm f1.4, a lens that theoretically betters it, or even the 17 f1.2. Maybe, maybe not.

Even if it becomes AF un-viable, I will still use it in MF and be happy I have it at all.

If pushed to describe an “invisible” lens, I would start here. The lens sees like an eye, it renders similarly. It never feels like the opinion of the lens influences your view of the world, it just looks like it looks.

Colour is neutral to warm, but I have noticed this lens handles mixed light better than some lenses. Not sure why?

All of the above lend themselves to great mono performance, no wonder it and the Pen F with it’s mono pre-sets were packaged together.

This post was sparked by using my video dedicated laptop, cleaning out some old files in Capture 1, something I might need to do more often.

*My usual travel kit is the 12-60 Pana and 40-150 Oly kit lenses for versatility, the Oly 45 and 17 for speed and size. The whole lot with a pair of smaller cams come in at about 1.5kg. Pretty powerful and versatile. If I know I am going into confined spaces, the 9mm may be added, only adding 120gms.

Domke Bags, A Running Review From A Dedicated User.

It’s not all Domke around here, but it is close.

Pick the gear*, then pack the bag is the routine and most often, I choose a Domke as the only real choice.

My stable is probably at it’s best ever right now. Some have come and gone, some even come back again, but overall, there are very few days I cannot pack to suit the needs of the job and if I make an error, it usually involves a non-Domke bag choice.

The surprising little F-810 is the main crush at the moment.

This super little bag feels like it was designed for me. It has several of the best elements of other bags without their annoyances (no, nothing is perfect, not even Domke). A recent and I guess a tentative one, I accepted the substantial price ($250au), colour (black, when I was chasing something softer) and even based on slim reviews, I jumped and was surprised how good it was.

A neat and unassuming little hauler.

A pair of perfectly sized, flap secured front pockets, an organiser pocket split into a full width and two half width pockets, a cover flap that covers them and two small flap pockets, but does not cover the bag top, which does have a zip opening main compartment that each hold a decent sized camera and lens combo, a double lens divider between them (not the 4 compartment it came with) and finally a rear pocket big enough for an Ipad, that can be zipped open to slip over a suit case handle (see the F-7 below for a very different dynamic to that).

Deceptively large as it goes.

It’s strengths lie in all the things other Domke bags do without the oversized nature or sometimes omitted features of my other bags. The pockets are all ideal for real gear, like phones, batteries, cards and the internal space fits full sized mirrorless cams with pro lenses (S5II with standard zoom, EM1x with 40-150 f4). The flap is not in the way when working and their is not a wasted panel or space. This is in contrast with basically every other bag I have, great as they are.

It swallows gear. Full sized cameras and lenses are not an issue and the divide hold even a decent sized zoom. Above G9+8-18 and S5_28-70 Sigma, 9, 40-150 f4 and 45mm

My most common working method is a shoulder slung cam, two in the bag with lenses and spare bits as needed.

On top of all that it is smart (the bag I was chasing at the time) and seemingly small. It stands up when full, sits lightly on the shoulder (I rarely use the amazing shoulder pads), it is lined, has hard feet (only Domke I have with) and the big zip is smooth and soft enough to avoid wear and tear, something that worried me before I bought it, but quicker and quieter than negotiating velcro flaps.

Negatives?

The rear pocket zip head can rub on my leg, so I have adjusted how I carry it.

It does not come in any other colour (I wanted my only casual Sand coloured bag) and the Ballistic (J series), that would have looked even smarter is long gone.

It is out of production, but can still be found new (Photovideo Extras in Australia for example).

By it’s nature it is not as weather sealed as flap-lid models, but it is small enough to go under a coat.

Optional end pockets would be perfect and are technically available, but not a perfect fit.

In comparison;

The F-2 (ballistic black) was my main squeeze at the paper.

A classic inside and out.

Capable of holding much the same load as above, except it’s boxier shape limits the size of fold down reflectors and accessories, and it is less dextrous in crowded spaces, but it does hold 1 or 2 more lenses, has two large end pockets for flash etc. and an inner lid pocket for precious items.

The end pockets are the key to this having more capacity overall than the 810, but the 810 wins with bulky items.

It is not a tie though, the F-810 suits my needs better most often, but it is close and the F-2 is genuinely water resistant, something I need to consider.

The F-7 “Double AF” bag (faded black) is a mixed bag so to speak. It is big, basically an F-2 with F-810 height which should be a good start and yes, it can hold a few larger items like my 40-150 f2.8 standing upright, but it is frustrating.

Odd design choices like a 4-point top handle, that only works when the lid is buckled down (replaced by the 2-point handle from the F8-4) and the useless for anything other than as a giant belt loop, back panel spoil an otherwise roomy bag.

With all it’s volume, it lacks a single long pocket option. The back panel is reserved for a supplied belt support and there is no inner pocket like the F-802/804, nor even a gap between internal liner and bag frame. So, no provision for anything like a small reflector, flash mod, small tablet, large writing pad or book etc.

Inside, it has three discrete compartments, all large-ish, but often less than ideal. Sometimes I can squeeze something in between the internal dividers (making the inside more friendly), but not much, really annoying.

I often use it for fast working jobs, then get frustrated by the inner workings that fight fast camera change overs, especially with full frame cams. I found this quite limiting at the paper and when I eventually realised this I went back to the F-2.

No, it cannot handle the “double AF” SLR kit with lenses on it boasts (2 large bodies and small primes or smaller cams with medium lenses maybe), it struggles with bigger lenses generally (the F-810 can actually hold larger combo’s), although the 40-150 f2.8 does fit in standing up. It seems determined to squander it’s extra space.

Occasionally it hits a purple patch of usefulness, but not as often as I would like. I am hoping that by purchasing a decently sized full frame standard lens (Sigma 28-70), I will be able to mix formats, something that at the moment eludes me (2x S primes basically fill it)

F-802 (worn-in olive) was my original pro-bag, the first bag that held bigger kit. I have since empowered my work flow with smaller gear options (9mm instead of 8-18, 40-150 f4 instead of f2.8), hence smaller bags are employed, but it still has one perfect use-case.

The capacity of these four pockets is truly massive, I mean clothing sized items.

No fewer than four laptop sized compartments. Decent width, very deep.

When I need to shoot field sport and process at the event it has the ability to take my 300, 40-150 f2.8, wide zoom and laptop with water, food, reflector vest and rain-ware or a sun hat. It has two of the biggest front pockets in the line and I have the two end pocket options (a 901 and 902), so big items like a rain coat are possible as well as a kneeling mat for hard or wet ground. It is tall and just deep enough for bigger cameras like the EM1x mounted on a long lens. The slimline form is also good for negotiating crowds.

An EM1x and f2.8 tele are no issue.

No bag is useless, but many are used sparingly.

The F-804 has fallen into limited use as a hauler, but the 4 section divided from the F-810 has made it more useful and the Neewer backpack is the same. The 217 roller and 5.11’s are video dedicated, the F-3x (rare olive rugged) and Filson Field Camera bag (rarer caramel rugged) and many other bags get very occasional runs when I have time and little real stress or their very specific benefits suit.

Sport is a whole other thing.

I usually wear two combo’s the EM1x + 300 and EM1x + 40-150 (aperture speed as needed) for field sports, or the same with a short tele (75, 40-150) and standard (25 or 12-40) for indoor, with a small bag (Mindshift sling or Crumpler shoulder) and wide angle, occasionally a spare camera and/or flash. The F-802 is used only if a laptop is needed.

When travelling, this all goes out the window, the bag chosen first filling the role of comfy travel companion, the camera gear chosen to suit it.

*Usual kit; EM1.2 + 40-150 f4 or 75 (strap), G9 + 15, EM1.2 or EM10.2 + 45, 9mm. Flash if needed may push the point for a bigger bag ((F-7), longer lenses or a laptop also (F-802). Expected future kit; S5 + 28-70, G9 + 9, EM1.2 + 40-150 f4 or 75, which is pressing the point.

This Football Thing

I have been shooting little else lately and that is fine as it is the national game and Tasmania is (may) be getting a team in the National league soon.

As I have said before, I am no deep-grain fan of it, but I also like to shoot it and so many people I know are involved in the community. There are growth paths, including one I had a discussion about recently, so even now at this stage in my career, there may be a future. Who knew?

It does get tedious as most things do, eight straight hours of juniors yesterday for example, but the recovery time, that is the time that needs to pass before I am keen again is surprisingly short.

One of the best aspects is the growing female involvement. Instead of just being the engine room of most clubs doing the thankless tasks that are needed to make it happen, girls and women are now fully accepted competitors.

The play is engaging and the commitment unquestionable.

Off Topic, But Important.

The Trump regime is blatantly and arrogantly working for itself over anyone else.

Any of the smallest transgressions of the last few months or even the term before (especially the blatantly mutinous end), would have toppled any President of the past.

Seasons come and go, but it is an illusion of normal.

It is like some type of (bad) dream time, similar to the environmental blindness we are showing. Media swings from a cursory over view of another unprecedented natural disaster with hundreds lost, or a human hate tragedy leading to even more lives forfeit, to far too much time on a demonic celeb fallen from grace. We waste time and attention on these idiots while Rome burns.

When will America wake up to the reality that when he is faced with a setback, a reversal that he needs to face down or lose power………..he will, what ever it takes. His “army” will be all the loathsome people he has bought, pardoned or given air to.

His enemy will be all the people who should be able to stop him, but have been disenfranchised. It is clear the only people he respects are similar power monsters.

America is coming off as a selfish “what you gonna do for me” state, even more cynical and untrustworthy than the real villains of the world.

For me, the mid-terms will be key as the lethargic masses wake from their slumber and the missing 35% vote, but if he is going to suffer a big defeat, how far will he go to keep power and who will be left in a position to stop him?

The clock, or clocks are ticking.

A Great Game

Sometimes, the stars align and you get a great game to cover, which is to say, great action, some meaning to it and great light.

The indigenous round game between two tough clubs, Georgetown and Rocherlea, both hard working class clubs, had all that. Both clubs had members with a vested interest, both had something to prove.

One was justifying their top of the table and power house dynasty status, the other the younger player’s aspirations and for both the mantle of the “hard men” of the league.

The skill level was high, but not much went uncontested.

Aerials were strong except the main two in the ruck had poor timing much of the day.

They did however produce my favourite shot, even without the ball!

A telling last frame of the day with the score heavily n favour of the veteran team, still holding on to the mantle of league leaders with legendary status.

Last quarter huddle for the losing side. We all knew it was not their day today.

For me, this about ideal.

The levels above (Northern rep, State rep then National League) are all cleaner and faster, but often lack the heart of playing for and in front of your people on the boundary. At lower levels, like the 10 junior matches I covered the next day are great and necessary to grow any sport, but lack the skill and commitment.

This game is up there with one of my favourites, all from about this level.

Some things are larger than sport, but sport can often and simply be the point of commonality needed to open conversations.

New Lens Happiness

It is not a new phase or even a questioning of known realities, but my new Sigma lens is very very good.

It is technically sound, which I knew (hoped) it would be, but more than that, it actually makes me excited to use it.

We have had a great Autumn and our garden is maturing nicely.

My full frame journey was based pretty much completely on video needs.

I felt I needed long recording capability and a better codec. Better low light, AF and sound handling were all in the mix, but not as much.

A gentle blue tone in the shadows and warm highlights.

the S5 mk1 was simply a better buy than a GH6 for me at the time (cheaper, easier to feed, better low light results and potentially better “short cut” quality). It did cause an un-needed rift in my kit, something waiting a few months for the G9II mated with f1.7 zooms would have avoided, but who knew the G9II with phase detect AF, unlimited record, excellent sound, better stabe, full Log/Pro-Res to SSD etc would be a thing.

I then landed some bargain cine glass, including an IRIX macro for half price which seemed to validate the choice, then a couple of decently priced S Primes at prices I have not seen since further solidifying it, which led to wanting another body and getting an S5II on sale.

Repeatedly, full frame was the go, even though I did buy the G9II anyway.

A little split toning (warm highlights like Sepia and cool purple shadows like Selenium, without the toxic fumes). Lovely tonality.

Video has become less utilised lately forcing me to re-purpose some of my dedicated video cams and ironically it was the full frames that have been switched.

The S5II lacking RAW output to a BMVA, the S5 being the less capable RAW shooter compared to the GH5s and G9II or more to the point, the more useful stills cam as the other two have plenty of competition, meant that my stills kit gets a useful poor light boost, but lenses were lacking.

A good standard lens was needed and with a little research (I had kept an eye out and this was regularly mentioned as a well priced option), I jumped and have found a little sleeper.

I am finding the Bokeh very pleasant if a little “modern” for my taste.

The last time I was this excited about a new lens was the IRIX 150 Cine-Macro, a lens that got back into old and exciting thinking.

The excitement comes simply from something new that gives me a reason to take photos, something I do all day every day because I have to, not just because I want to.

I have been a little unkind to this lens, accusing it of being a little “on trend”, but there is little wrong with that, just a feeling of sheepishly following the pack and not thinking outside the box (which is part of the problem).

It can be a little busy, but never ugly.

I think I can deal. This is a great, reliable and understated lens with a lot to offer.

The reality is, many of these images were taken in sharp and contrasty light, but the other realities are that light like that is what we chase and a lens handling that light is not a given.

Happy days.

Winners And Losers

Sport photography is a combination of story telling and record keeping.

The better you cature it, the more compelling the image, the more likely you will be to create an audience and keep it.

At first, any in focus, reasonably dramatic and interesting image is considered a winner, but as you get more practiced, the ok, the good and the better images start to become clearer.

These are fine, but they are a dime a dozen (I got 17 of them in this game alone) and they are a poor shape for print. Still impressive to see the heights reached though.

The running hero shot is a must. These need to be noble, uncluttered (un or victoriously contested) forward facing and clean. Used as stock images for player based stories, the more of these you get, the better, but they are rarely compelling.

The “player in control” shot is the other version of above.

No amount of athletic awesomeness makes up for the players facing the wrong way (for me) or the ball missing or cut in half.

This image has a dramatic contest, tight, strong and emotive. It is not mobile enough though, looking too much like the break down of play (which it was).

I love these, but they often fail when faces are lost or if the angles are too tight.

The “eyes on the ball” shot is full of intent, but this one lacks a feeling of direct pending or contested contact, it only has intent (and the focus is a little off).

Timing is the key to this one, a little contest and some mild drama, but not quite enough of the latter. I feel I am “on” when the ball is caught just on the tip of the finger or surrounded by hands that have not yet taken it (I do not rely on burst shooting which I find time and time again breaks my feeling of connection). I feel as yet unrealised potential is more compelling than actual contact.

Like any story, an image needs a hint of a journey and a destination or an overcoming victory, all encompassed in one frame, generally using several of the these elements at once.

The strong mark is a reliable winner, but like the centre bounce or boundary throw in, it is a predictable staple and needs to be above average or contextually important, like a game winner, or just better than the usual. It is also a good hero shot if you can marry the right player to the right action.

This is getting there. Drama, a feeling of desperation and a player breaking through to free play in front of a gallery of concerned allies are all decent themes, the level of action though is a little pedestrian.

So, what makes a winner for me?

For me, an image needs drama, timing, a strong feeling of action and momentum, with context and that special something, usually to do with eyes on the ball.

This one has the important connection point, the player’s eyes on the ball, the ball seemingly floating and the “breaking free” feeling of the file above, but with more desperation. Even the ball is the right orientation and the player starred on the day, so a hero shot for spotlight articles etc.

This is my favourite from this match, but fails slightly by being a little remote and the late afternoon light is a little too contrasty. The angle is ok, but slightly more forward facing would be better, or even directly face-on would have been spectacular. Timing is spot on, the feeling of avalanche-like momentum also, so nearly there. It is hard to over stress the importance of eye on ball.

It is stronger tighter, but the first file was already cropped (I was following the action with a shorter lens), this one is pushed to the “news print only” level.

When you go looking, with tight cropping you can find more like the above, but there is a limit.

Every game I find myself pushing for better images, rejecting many I would have once called acceptable.

Shooting for the paper was easy by comparison. All you needed was a back page winner, maybe a small gallery of 3-6, possibly a specific player called out or an event that stopped play etc. With a lose and small remit, a ten minute stint will usually get you the job done.

Shooting whole games for one side or an organisation can be harder, because you have more time, but you have to fill it. I usually aim for 100 usable files from one hour of shooting, but with sport, where one hour may be the whole show, I chase more like 2-300. Editing is then the tough bit.

Next Day, More Good

A little excited I have added some genuine utility to my kit, I took the new lens for another wander this morning.

Determined to get on top of the close focus performance, something I had read was average wide open in most reviews, I needed to find it’s peak and where it is strongest.

Same scenario as yesterday, but AF set to be more precise, which is needed.

This is soft light, so you get soft contrast, but sharpness is there.

Something that struck me today is how much easier it is to get some of these images with M43 gear and the quality is often indistinguishable.

As soon as you get into that portrait range, it starts to really shine.

Rich and contrasty, nice blur.

Accuracy sorted, getting what I want when I want it, which is the important thing for a working pro.

At the wide end, it holds up well, maybe needing to be at it’s very close minimum focus before it falls apart.

Edges are fully usable.

I would not want a stable of these perfect but bland lenses, but it sure is nice to have one.

In mono, something I find tends to make or break a lens, the high micro contrast and lack of brilliance is handy a bit like the films I used to like and reminds me of my old NEX 7, which did great mono if not much else.

Gentle highlight roll-off is a nice feature for a mono shooter.

This image (from above) is a good example of the ability to open up a contrasty scene in mono without it looking pushed.

Here is my reminder. At f2.8, at even a decent distance, the close background is still soft, so no wonder my semi-macro’s were too shallow and twitchy to be useful by far.

The Sigma Has Arrived, Time To Stress A Little, Then Hopefully Relax.

The Sigma 28-70 f2.8 Contemporary has arrived. All a bit rushed and done before I even had a chance to get my head around it, but it felt like the right fix for the right problem at the right time.

First impressions;

• Tight and true, very solid feeling.

• Heavy and reasonably long but slim, which is what I was after. It will effectively replace three primes with the footprint of a large M43 lens.

• Sharp? Still testing (see below).

My main take away after having it for only minutes is, it is a good fit on an S5/S5II, balanced and well proportioned, but to be honest, boring as bat sh&t.

Just a bit….bleagh.

Cannot help but say it, but there is nothing about this lens (cosmetically) that excites me. It is exactly what it needs to be, but on first sight, that is a lot dull. As a working tog, I know how little that matters, but still….. .

Using it, the real test.

AF performance is quick and quiet. I was not sure how good, but after trying the kit zoom straight after, it is as good for stills.

Optically, well, I must admit to being a bit of a dick here.

Armed with cameras I am not as familiar with using as my usual, intuitive kit, shot wide open and close up in a format I use rarely (how soon we forget the lessons of decades), at high ISO’s hand held inside and on a windy day outside. The light was mixed, some soft, some cool, some bland.

Nothing was sharp! I had a dud! De-centred to hell!

“How is my luck so bad” I asked myself (after the poor 16mm Hope and soft down one side 35-100 Pana a couple of years ago), but I also know that first impressions can be strange and misleading.

I was convinced years ago that I had a bad 40-150 f2.8, a lens I now consider one of my most reliably awesome.

I got some wins, but had to search for them.

Twitchy was the name of the day, but I knew that, using the settings I had chosen, or I should have.

I went back and processed todays work images and then with a slightly more realistic frame of mind, tried again.

The shot below and a far side crop was taken at F6.3 and yes, it is very, very sharp.

Back to f2.8, but not a semi-macro this time, more the sort of thing I bought it for.

This is the range I would actually use the lens at and it has all the elements I wanted, fast drop-off blurring, sharp, contrasty, ideal for “cutting out” subjects in scenarios like the ball arrivals the other night.

I will admit it to all who are reading. I am not a huge fan of modern “perfect-but-flat” rendering lenses, but sometimes it is exactly what I need. That super creamy Bokeh and almost green screen-like cut away look is useful when you need it.

I have to give it to the lens, it is boring on the outside, but the images are quite beautiful, if lacking a little brilliance.

Lovely feathery Bokeh interesting without being distracting.

Nice foreground Bokeh

Again, nice background Bokeh and rich contrast.

Lovely contrast and snap against a smooth background. Overall, a very harmonious look.

So, what am I seeing?

Strong contrast, very modern Bokeh complimenting high sharpness, good colour, nice balance if a bit predictable and slightly muted brilliance. A workhorse commercial lens.

A bit like the Sigma 30mm for M43, it is technically very sound, has some charm and does the expected job perfectly.

I usually like other types of lenses more, old fashioned lenses, lenses with some character and three dimensionality, but I need perfect lenses like these to get some jobs done as only they can.

The rendering is like the 15mm f1.7, but with versatility that I could only get with a M43 10-25 f1.7 at twice the price (and not as useful a range, meaning buying both) and it looks a little like the S Prime 85 f1.8, the lens it will be regularly partnered with.

The range is ideal. I have the 85 for true compression and avoid anything longer than 70 or wider than 28mm for “normal” images. I have 20-24 covered in the kit zoom when I need.