The (Real) Full Frame Difference

Full frame is in my kit now and my kit feels better for it.

Feels better, but is it actually?

I have covered this before, differently. The reality of the full frame difference is becoming more clearly defined for me, the more I use the format.

The good?

There is a difference in how I perceive ISO, happily going into 6400+ territory with my “high quality” hat still donned.

But,

this has to be in conjunction with faster glass. Something odd happens in low light. I find that without fast glass, usually using the 20-60 kit lens, the settings seem less user friendly than my usual M43 cameras produce. At f1.8 with a Pana S-prime, I do get an advantage in clarity and clean imaging at very high ISO’s.

Without a like for like matching of glass, I see little real value, much preferring a M43 lens wide open to a slower full frame lens.

This brings up the differences in format.

M43 gives you a lens with matching full frame magnification that provides you with a little more than two stops more depth of field. The format allows a 75mm f1.8 (my old “Bokeh king”), to act like a 150mm f2.8 full frame lens in full frame terms.

The 85mm f1.8, my current Bokeh king is a powerful lens, but as I found previously with full frame, using it wide open is often too much for anything but artistic works or beauty portraits and the reach is pedestrian in comparison to a M43 equivalent (170mm).

The ability to pick out this leaf is great, but rarely of actual use to a working pro. An even faster or longer lens would be even more specialised. The M43 version (75mm 1.8) would offer some extra actual reach for the effort. Temperatures here at the moment are chilly (for us). Liawenee on the central plateau recorded the same temp (-13.5 c) as Casey Station our Antarctic base today. It rarely snows where I live, but it does get cold.

The same shot focussed on the (dirty) window. I missed several my mere breaths, but that is the fickleness of full frame.

Some context.

All lenses of the same focal length offer the same depth of field as each other on all formats, all else being equal*. Shorter lenses offer more depth of field at a given aperture because they change perspective to wider (more or longer/tighter (less). What changes with format is magnification. The smaller the format, the greater the magnification.

A 50mm f1.8 on full frame is a standard-semi portrait focal length with very shallow depth of field wide open at f1.8.

In medium format, this lens becomes a wide angle, with surprisingly shallow depth for a wide lens from a full frame shooters perspective. Often the quality advantage of larger film or a bigger sensor was lost to the need to stop down more.

On M43 it is a 100mm equivalent (x2) true portrait lens with the same depth of field characteristics, so less shallow depth, but every aperture is safely usable and the loss ISO benefit of the format above becomes a two stop gain.

Another with the 85mm wide open. Something I am not used to these days, is taking a half dozen only to find most are very slight misses, this one being the only one where the focus hit exactly what I wanted (most hit the right flowers, just forward or backward of what I wanted). Lovely Bokeh, but tighter processes are needed. The IRIX 150 macro is a case in frustration, nothing to do with the lens, just a reality of the physics. If I did this shot with the 45mm wide open, I could trust that the forward flowers would be sharp. I just know it would be, because I am acclimatised to the format and the Book would be perfectly nice, just a little more coherent.

Which is better?

The M43 lens to me has the right balance between magnification and depth of field control in the real world.

A full frame 100 f1.8 wide open would have about two stops less depth of field than the M43 equivalent, which for most uses is an extreme application of Bokeh, would make the lens relatively huge and expensive as well as harder to make.

Full frame users often fall back on f2.8 zooms, both for their versatility and the reality that f2.8 is usually enough and safe.

Wide open on the 85mm is my happy limit and it does look nice. Focussing becomes critical, reducing the number of keepers. Things tend to be in or out, no compromise. I can get the same effect from the M43 45mm f1.8, just by getting closer, which is easier with a tiny little lens, or with my 75mm from further back. All are valid processes.

Simply put, I often, usually even, shoot wide open with M43 zooms and primes with little fear of missing half my subject. This nets me two stops more light, which means faster shutter speeds or lower ISO settings and somehow, the math always seems friendlier until I get to genuinely cave-like conditions.

ISO limits in M43 are 1600 for “A” grade quality, also thought of as “no thought or action required” territory. The workable limit for professional quality work, with more or less effort** is 12,800 which I rarely need, but if I do, that and my clutch of f1.4 to 1.8 primes covers most situations. To be fair, I have rarely if ever had the noise or grain in an image questioned except by another photographer and even then, it is usually a win.

In M43, I can easily carry my f2.8 work horse zooms and a small set of 1.8 primes as well. It is no effort to pack two bodies and lenses covering full frame equivalents of 16-300 f2.8 and 18-150 f1.8 at the same time. Even a 600 f4 is a minor consideration. When I was with the paper, I was almost at the point I could confidently work with the 9, 15 f1.7’s and 45, 75 f1.8’s, for all my editorial work. The cropping power of a 20mp M43 camera off a sharp prime at a lower ISO (thanks to the lens speed/depth of field thing) was phenomenal, especially for web and news print. I had effectively 18-400mm f1.8 at hand. Below is a sample from my 300mm, a lens of equivalent quality.

In full frame, I have not needed to push past these same settings, but would if I used the kit zoom instead of a fast prime (would I?). All ISO settings I have used sit in the “A” grade range, higher than 12,800 is untaped so far, which proves the point to some extent.

Colour and dynamic range are deeper, white balance in particular. I find myself doing a little less work on images taken in crappy light. This may be generational, not format based as most of my M43 cameras are at least four years older and the G9II has not been put directly up against the S5II yet.

Negatives?

The bulk of four relatively modest Panasonic full frame lenses is significant, bag limiting actually, while the coverage is weak (20-85). I have no plans to add long telephoto lenses other than the IRIX 150 cine-macro, nor could I justify the cost as the benefits are few.

So it stands to reason given the above math, that focussing is harder to nail with full frame, even with the S5II being a strong performer. This is why the G9II is more reliable in moving video, simply because at the same magnification and aperture, it is using a wider lens with more native depth of field and the smaller stabiliser also adds stabilising power.

Current fashions of super shallow depth aside, practical depth is easily achieved near wide open with M43 making lenses like the excellent 10-25 f1.7 a very practical consideration, where a f2.8 zoom in full frame shares similar performance, cost and weight, they lose light gathering power.

M43 lens sharpness and speed is also easier to achieve as is close focus. My tiny little Leica 9mm f1.7 is relatively cheap, weather sealed, optically strong and focusses to a few centimetres. There is no full frame equivalent, just like my 75 (150) f1.8, the 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s, tiny and sharp 45 f1.8 or 15 f1.7 and many others.

The image quality of M43 to full frame should only be measured in pixel density to real numerical values and practical ISO performance, which in most cases, is no different like for like. The pixel density of the EM1x is about the same as Z9, so a cropped Z9 file is basically the same, except that you paid for more and are using less***.

We passed the time of good enough or not cameras. All modern mirrorless or DSLR cameras have good enough image quality for most professional uses, so good, better and best are like the 8, 9 and 10 scales on a graph.

Ironically, the M43 camera can likely exceed maximum pixel count of a full frame with advanced sensor shift high res, so it goes both ways, just differently.

Super sharp down to eyelash level, a friend and dedicated full frame sport shooter was impressed by the sheer clarity of this and my other sport images, format not mentioned. There is no doubt in my mind that my keeper rate, something that allows me to shoot single frames these days, comes down to mirrorless camera reactivity and the M43 depth of field advantage. My friend uses a Canon 500 F4 DSLR lens (5D4’s) and finds the depth of field often too shallow, but her backgrounds are softer. She does suffer from back issues, which she refuses to confirm are kit based.

Lens design.

I cannot remember the last time a soft edge bothered me, even wide open, something that reared it’s head again with my full frame cinema glass and my otherwise excellent 20-60 kit lens. Even the S-primes are a little soft wide out, wide open (but the depth of field is so shallow it hardly matters).

*

So, when do I think to myself “oh good, I can now use the frame”?

• When I am going into a very dark artificial light situation with no hope of flash being used and the distances are not too great. I will still use M43 for the bulk, but might add the S5II with the 50 or 85mm lens. This is as much down to lens choice as any other factor. My 9 and 75mm cannot be matched, but my 15/17, 25, 30 and 45 basically can, so I have a choice to make.

• When I have the luxury of time, control and want less processing to do. I know my maximum available objective quality is in full frame, but this needs balancing with the ease of getting that quality. I am also aware that any extra quality is minor, usually irrelevant at the end of the chain. I am doing a portrait shoot this weekend and will take both formats for their relative benefits****.

• When shooting cinematic video in low light, where the noise fixes are harder to apply and less effective and depth of field control is more of a creative imperative. I like f4 on full frame, f2.8 on APS-C, f2 on m43 for the same feel, so at depth matching apertures in this space, cleaner high ISO performance does matter. The original deal breaker of the S5 was dual ISO at the price.

I bought full frame for video and to be honest, this is my main use case, but even then, for moving video I will go to the G9II always, even the G9 Mk1 feels as confident as my full frames.

The G9II has fewer limits in video formats and crops than the S5II (or X), which is a specific comparison I know, but could hardly be more relevant in this case.

I sometimes regret adding the mess that is a little full frame to my kit as most issues could have been solved by lenses.

The S5, S5.II, 35, 50, 85 S-prime and 35, 50, 150 cine lens kit could as easily have been a GH5.II, later a G9.II, 10-25 and 25-50 f1.7’s and a set of Sirui Nightwalker (16, 24, 55) and/or anamorphic lenses (24, 35, 50). The cost would have been similar, but my M43 dynamic would have been intact, my choices cleaner and my bags and filters smaller.

I don’t regret it though as full frame adds a few (few) benefits, some depth and new ways of seeing and capturing the world.

*Same aperture, distance to subject, subject distance to background etc.

**This is using Capture 1, which has proven time and again to provide better sharpness to noise performance than Lightroom and ON1 No Noise fixes what it cannot.

***When the Nikon rep came to the paper last year trying to sell their new $25,000au 300mm f2.8 (and add a $9k Z9), her big push was to “crop those pixels for effectively a 2x teleconverter”. I could not help but think that would then basically equal my EM1x and 300mm, which I could buy six times over!

****EM1x with 40-150, 75 and 45 Old, Sigma 30, S5II with 35, 50 and 85. The 35 will give me shallow depth at a wide angle, the 85 maximum cut out, the 75 more reach, the EM1x is better for movement and the S5 can handle possible dappled or bland light better.

Perfection

If I were asked what makes a perfect short film or an example of the best of two realms of creation, because any small part can be lifted and delivered as an example or an exemplar in short film making, the first episode of “The Bear” series three “Tomorrow” would be a good place to start.

Any two or three minute part would do, the whole thing was jaw dropping.

A perfect crafting of perfection in crafting.

Few words, no context, unless you know the previous two seasons intimately and even then, none needed to enjoy it.

So many answers, so many questions, it is yet another masterwork from a series of masterworks.

Never fails to surprise.

Dedicated people can do amazing things and the one thing they all have in common is unwavering focus and hard, hard work.

Because All Roads Seem To Lead There.

I believe fixed focal length lenses are the best option for video, as long as the video being produced does not need instant focal length changes, like covering a live sporting event.

The reasons for this are many and many others have looked at this in detail, but basically my reasoning is;

• It makes more sense to the viewer to have the lens/camera move, than for it to zoom. In real life, things move, we do not zoom our eyes in and out. Video as opposed to stills mimics a shared real life experience rather than a captured frozen moment of it, so the process itself becomes obvious.

• Cinema zooms are heavy, generally slower and more expensive as well as limited in options. Simply not gonna happen in my world. If they are not cinema grade, then they do not zoom smoothly and without breathing.

• They are faster, or if nit they are a hell of a lot cheaper for the speed.

• They make things clean and remove unnecessary mental clutter. I shoot better with primes, always have, always will and video has really bought this home to me yet again. The rule of making the most of the focal length you have* is so much more relevant in this space.

Which focal length would I call my go-to?

It seems 50mm (full frame equivalent) is the one, because I keep buying them. In a lot of respects it matters little. You use what you have, it moulds your thinking and becomes comfortable.

• 7Artisans 50mm T2 Spectrum on a full frame. My favourite Spectrum lens.

• Lumix-S 50mm f1.8 on a full frame. A very solid base.

• 7Artisans 35mm T2 Spectrum, 52.5 on APS-C crop.

• Lumix-S 35 f1.8 52.5 on APS-C crop. Near perfect with this crop.

• TTArtisans 35mm f1.4, 52.5 on APS-C crop (needs to be cropped). Imperfect but tons of character.

• Olympus 25mm f1.8 on M43. This one is closer to a 22 = 45mm in reality.

• Legacy 25mm f2.8 on M43. Old and nice to use with character.

• Sirui 24mm Nightwalker on M43. A 48mm and very natural feeling.

I have left the Helios 58 and Pentax 50 f1.4 SMC out of this.

The reality is, I like a slightly wider lens, something around a 40mm, but these are thin on the ground, so I am adapting. The Olympus 25mm comes closest, being closer to a 45mm equivalent, but is probably the least “cinematic” of the bunch.

My full range for video is 16mm (M43, no crop), to 150mm full frame/225mm APS-C or 1000mm (ish) in M43 with crops etc.

This space has been visited before, but I now have matched cameras (G9II and S5), so I can compare apples to relative apples.

Now there are other motivations here also.

Top end cinema lenses are nearly perfect or they are very specifically imperfect as desired by the cinematography world. My “budget” cinema lenses are imperfect, but not character specifically by design, just acceptably imperfect, sort of a “take what you get and justify it as cinematic” thing that is common at the moment.

Inconsistency in colour is the big issue.

What I need to know is, are they actually good at my intended working apertures (F2.8 to 4 full frame, 2 to 2.8 APS-C or 1.8 to 2 M43) or if not are they bad in a good way? Can my stable of 50mm lenses be used for a variety of looks, or are they too far apart to be used this way?

Do any stand out one way or the other?

Consistent testing practices included a tripod, manual focus confirmation, controlled light, timer release and the same default processing. I used the G9.II and S5.1 as their sensors match best. The S5.II is warmer than either.

Inconsistencies included not always using F/T4 for full frame and 2.8 for APC crops and f2.8 was used for two of the M43 lenses instead of f2, one because I had to and for some reason, the Spectrum 35mm is out of focus, which based on previous experience, is down to me not the lens.

I really am crap at this these days, but it does the job.

50mm T2 Spectrum

This one has a cooler, more Magenta look than the 35mm below, with lighter focussing and aperture rings. I like it more overall. Nicer to focus, Bokeh is nicely separated, if a little “interesting” and the centre is sharp. It is a cropped 75mm, an interview lens also. On the S5 Mk1 test camera, it is cooler than on the S5II.

T4 was chosen as the ideal working aperture for a full frame lens.

35mm T2 Spectrum as APS-C

Obviously warmer, mechanically tighter and physically slightly shorter than the 50mm, this one is less liked for hand held work, but with a follow focus applied it is much the same. I can normalise these two, but find the 50mm is actually closer to the big IRIX in reality. The big advantage of this one is it is a 35 and a cropped 50mm, so one lens for two focal lengths like above, but possibly more useful.

T4 was a mistake, clearly rendering more depth than the crop frame T2.8 would. I like the warmth, but it is different enough from the 50 to be an issue. Also focus may be a little backward, my bad. Even so, the Bokeh is maybe a little smoother and the lens more organic looking. I like it more optically, but less mechanically.

35 TTArt f1.4 as APS-C

Horrible to use manually with its tiny little focus ring, the results are interesting, even exciting. I like this heavily letter-boxed as a faux anamorphic lens, warts (distortion, obvious vignetting, funky Bokeh, C.A, flare) and all.

TTArtisan 35 F4. Again should have been f2.8. This needs cropping on a full frame, so technically it is at its best/only effective focal length although it can be used as a 35mm with a wide crop. Stopped down, it is hard to beat for under $100au.

Panasonic S-prime 35mm f1.8 as APSC

Interestingly, the Pana 35 and 50mm lenses also have colour consistency issues, just not as bad as the Spectrums. I have felt this before and this test bares this out. The 35mm on the warmer S5.II and the 50mm on the S5.1 would maybe even things out much like the Spectrums, but closer and reversed. Maybe the Spectrum 35 above is close to right as the Bokeh looks similar.

The 35mm cropped at F4 has a more modern, flatter rendering with fast transition Bokeh. No explanation for the added glow and brightness as nothing changed.

Panasonic S-prime 50mm f1.8

This is a solid and handy lens, one that can be cheap enough to get multiples for consistency. I feel it is close to the most neutral in every way, the “bar” to be set.

F4 on the 50mm (actually the right setting for once). Nice Bokeh, nice colour, but the 35mm seems a little “snappier”.

Sirui 24mm T1.2 on M43.

This is a full frame 48mm equivalent, so slightly wider and closer to my ideal. Like the 50mm Spectrum, it is light and pleasant to use hand held. Bokeh is nice, sharpness also. Colour is warm, like the Spectrum 35 and Pana 50mm.

T2 on M43 is slightly more depth of field than F4 on full frame, but close enough. This lens has T1.2 up it’s sleeve also.

Olympus 25mm f1.8 on M43

A modern lens in every way, I use it too little, especially for video. It has a nice balance of contrast and clarity for a modern lens, but focus by wire is an issue.

F2.8 on the Olympus 25mm f1.8, also a little wider in angle of view, which is known. When the 25 f1.2 came out, inevitable comparisons were made (and this lens held it’s own), but it was also revealed as being slightly the wider of the two.

Legacy 25mm Oly F series Half Frame on M43

Straight from the half-frame range of the 60’s via the throw out box at the shop I used to work at.

F2.8 on this lens is a thing. It is quite gently hazy wide open, a little like Flat profile compared to Standard. Stop it down one stop and it is clearly crisper and richer, but it is effectively shooting at F8 in full frame, out of my ideal range. There is something about this lens.

Some thoughts.

The M43 lenses are close in colour, even though they are split by type, brand and in one case over 50 years! I actually had to check I had not exported the same shot three times.

I like the slightly wider coverage and the Sirui is capable of matching the clear cut-out of F4 on the full frame lenses with two extra stops of light.

Colour consistency is disappointing and something testing helps sort out. I have colour matched sets, just not in the same sets, nor on the sensors in the cameras. If I treat each lens as it’s own creature, then I guess no problem, but quick switches of “matching” sets, is not a thing.

Colour groups (roughly).

Cool Blue-Magenta: Panasonic 35, Spectrum 50, Artisan 35.

Neutral: Panasonic 50.

Warm Yellow-Green: Spectrum 35, all the M43 lenses.

My preferences, on these cameras, are:

The 35mm Spectrum for its warmth, versatility, close focus and overall rendering, but on the S5II the warmth is maybe a little too much and the 50mm handles better. I will make this the S5.1’s standard lens, the S5.II and 50mm the “B” cam.

The 50mm Panasonic for its neutrality and overall stability. This is the safe go-to for commercial interviews etc with the added benefit of being a cropped 75mm portrait lens. This and the Sirui below share similar Bokeh rendering.

The Sirui 24mm is probably the best cine lens overall except for heft, which can help. The G9II has the best stabiliser, but the lens is lighter. It all equals out I guess. The rendering, Bokeh, extra speed (my fastest lens), handling and slightly wider coverage, 67mm filters, all add up to a compelling choice. If the 16mm matches it’s colour, I may get that to. The Sirui and Spectrum 35 are close in rendering, so I can match the G9.II to the S5.1.

I bought the Spectrums on special and they make the S5.I more relevant, but the Sirui is probably a better “one lens” solution and the new 16mm makes it even more compelling.

The Olympus legacy 25mm is a sleeper. Nice to use, unique look, added character and nice focus throw.

The new Oly is also under used.

An odd thought comes to mind.

It seems most of my 50mm lenses are under used for stills, the last lenses to take usually, the opposite is true for video, where I find them the “one lens that does all”, even if a slightly contradictory “normal” focal length**. Handy and natural to use.

Other considerations are of course zooms. The Olympus 12-40 and Leica 12-60 are work horse lenses with added benefits, but that’s another story. The limit of f2.8 is also actually ideal for video.

My ideal set is a matched set of 35/50, 50/75 full frame/crop, but it seems getting true matching lenses is tough short of the sort of money I am not spending. The reality that some sensors also do not match (S5 vs S5II) may help ironically, but still, consistency across the range would be good.

• S5 (cool) likes the Spectrum 35 and the 50 Lumix (warm)

• S5II (warm) likes the Spectrum 50 and Lumix 35 (cool)

• G9II (cool) seems to treat all of it’s tested lenses equally (neutral/warm).

Now all I have to do is find matching LUT’s!

Ed. This of course does not cover flare, contrast, etc, but it is a start.

*Probably the opposite rule of “don’t make everything look the same by zooming” is closer.

**Not long, not wide, but not as neutral as the 40mm “true” standard.

But First You Need A Decent Photo

The more I work on my B-roll and video overall, the more I am struck by the reality that if you make a good photo to start with, then a good bit of video should result.

As a starting frame, this holds up.

This is one of the potential advantages of being a stills photographer turning to video*.

The starting point should be a second in so the viewer can absorb the whole idea.

The stills shooter knows that their image is a single moment of time that has to stand up to extended viewing. This makes them more aware of the whole image, especially when extended depth of field is employed.

Directors like Wes Anderson go to excruciating lengths to create stunning and detailed frames with not a lick out of place. They use deep depth of field (sometimes faked with layered models), employ the whole width of the frame and shoot true wide or anamorphic wide.

Most of us would not see these painstakingly perfect little elements of their frame unless we freeze them and study the still, but if we do, the elements are there. So if they are making a movie frame and most of the small details would only be noticed on repeated viewings and many would be lost without the ability to freeze the frame, why do it?

It still matters. A perfect frame is seemingly invisible but it matters.

I remember many years ago an example in I think Camera and Darkroom magazine of an image that had far too much information for the print medium (news paper) compared to another with exactly the right amount.

You could see the difference. I remember then having a revelation that what we do does matter, even if it feels like it is lost in the end result.

*Another is composing and stabilising with the camera to the eye, which is different and often better.

This Old Pearl Again

I have struggled through my entire photographic life with this, knowingly or (mostly) unknowingly.

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/06/11/take-or-make-by-david-lykes-keenan/

The divide between photographic maker or taker is not always simply one of process, nor client desire, it is sometimes one of life philosophy. A photo maker and photo taker may be as different as a plumber is to an electrician or possibly more accurately an architect to a builder.

I know plenty of shooters who need to exert control, even if their desire is the capture reality. I saw a lot of it at the paper, people doing the same thing the same way for many years, decades even, means they have a self expectation, a deliberately limited process, something I pushed hard against adopting.

I struggle to “make” a photo. I am trying to reason why, so maybe I can do something about it, but the reality is, watching, not telling is too deeply ingrained in me and not just in my use of this medium.

I have always disliked fakery.

Ironically, the taker is more generous, not wanting to assert their opinion on the subject, just their interpretation of them.

The maker takes control.

In photography, the reality is, some of the process is always manufactured, whether it be a choice of film, developer, camera brand in digital, shooting mode, or processing, something is always made up, controlled, but it is where and when the choices are made that makes the difference.

Pre-visualising a loose concept, a desire for the shape and capture of a hunt is very different to making a fully formed concept from scratch.

Walking out the door to take street images with a selected camera and lenses, a choice between zooms or primes, RAW or jpeg, film of digital, night or day, colour or mono, all must be made or you cannot function and they will effect the end result, but they are selected tools, not selected props in a stage play of your making. The subject, sought after with the above gear, still has to decide for itself, what you will get to compose you image.

The road is a mystery, it rambles, the terrain shifts, the subjects have no controllable time table.

This may not be acceptable for a client or creative director, working to a time frame and the expectations of another. If they allow the process to bloom, it may transcend their expectations, but it is risky, inefficient.

The commercial photographer must make an image. Tools are as important, even more so possibly, because compromise cannot be put down to the whims of the world, but lead back to the maker only.

Concept to realisation is a straight and unforgiving road, a highway made for speed to the destination.

Art is the grey area. Making is part of the process more or less, but making to a non-conformist concept is the difference. Even the established “old school” landscape shooters (and street shooters) are working within strict parameters, even if they do not know or realise it.

I still struggle to manufacture images, which is a problem in my new role, just not as common as before. The paper demanded a manufactured image, but would accept a naturalistic version if it fit the rather limited criteria. If you were cover sport, a street parade, a concert or even conflict, then “what you see is what it is” can work, should really, but for most front page fodder, making the “shape” is all important.

Dated, small minded, artistically loathsome come to mind, but it is what it is.

Pushing back against that is tough and ill-advised. I know that sometimes you win, but you always need the fall-back of “that” image, the one that often even the subject resists.

My track record of landscape shooting has generally been poor, something I put down to patience, but the reality to me is, it feels manufactured.

Sport, something that works within limited constraints feels relatively free, which is an illusion I know, but the feeling is one of capture, not placement, asserting limited control, not exerting full control and the creative responsibilities that come with that.

This is primal drama manufactured by sport. Not natural, but emotive none the less, because it is a real response to an artificial environment.

Even stage drama, make to measure, is still a hunt to the shooter, just a hunt within a cage. It is the people, the, dare I say it, human drama that makes it real even if it is no more than superficial. Composing low with backlighting adds drama for example, so it is taking some control, but there is no two way communication.

This performer is offering drama, the photographer capturing that intent using everything at hand.

Skill Level Vs Gear Level

What is your skill level?

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

For me, it goes something like this;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Far?

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

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

Process over content, when content should have been all.

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

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

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

Video Ratios And Formats, Some Temptations, Some Traps

My video work flow fits in with client needs.

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

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

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

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

Formats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “reel” roughly.

Other stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money To Mouth Time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EM1x Fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has settled me in a couple of ways.

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

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

Stabilising, What Do I (We) Really Need.

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

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/BFpVG_7qfC8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some ideas to try;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, to sum up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The past launches us into the future.

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

Powerful stuff.

If you pull it off, how do you know?

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

Can you even measure that?

Do you even want to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels are irrelevant, titles also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attitude is the priority here.

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

Testing.

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

Sound first and as usual, testing reveals surprises.

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

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

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

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

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

The Zoom also has other benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what happened?

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

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

*

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

The problematic items;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A tool kit.

• My cine-lenses in a hard case.

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

The options are;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution, Perfect Cameras and Other Useless Junk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Powering The Process

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

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

This is what it takes to keep the machine running.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning From Others And The Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Karman image on the right.

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

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

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

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

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

The image as delivered, sky darkened.

The image closer to as shot, possibly stronger?

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

Only You

It is hard to please everyone, impossible actually.

Don’t try.

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

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

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

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

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

You.

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

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

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

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

People in the moment are all that count.

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

Ok?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you be you, because nothing else makes sense.

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

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

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

Be you.

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

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

Bit Of Improv.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With some early success, we tried some other ideas.

The reflected light was more distant, but effective enough.

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

Plenty to chew on.

EM1x Arrival Out Of The Blue Brings A Little Happiness

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

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

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

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

The nice surprises came in a run.

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

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

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

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

Love this camera.

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

Dirty paint is a give away. Nothing there.

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

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

The Work Horse EM1x Again

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

Guess what happened right after?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next time or the time after?*

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons are many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it so large with such a small sensor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly the button layout is smart and clean.

No duplication or clutter common with grip-added cameras.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It USB charges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I only use two for premium sport events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other options?

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another perspective.

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

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

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

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