11.16.2020

So, if full frame cameras are Eldorado then why do I keep passing up the ones I have in the drawer and grabbing the GH series cameras for serious work?

And, of course, I am inconsistent enough to illustrate this particular post with a photo
from a full frame camera.... go figure.

This isn't going to be a long and deeply considered essay on choice but instead just a few observations about my own peccadilloes. Since 2009 I have been unable to let go of micro four thirds cameras no matter how hard I try and no matter how logical that move would be. There's something a bit addictive about the smaller format cameras that keeps me coming back for more. 

I thought we were done when I jumped whole hog into full frame digital cameras with my adoption of the wickedly good Lumix S1 series cameras around this time last year. I still admire them and I still use them on most of my photography assignments. They create big and richly detailed files and that's what I should always be looking for. At least that's the current, popular point of view, but I find myself not especially excited by the "idea" of them. With perfection comes a bit of boredom. 

I started to gravitate back toward the smaller format cameras from Panasonic about the time that digital video started to grab for more and more of my bandwidth. When I focused on making more videos and fewer photographs a few things became very apparent to me. 

The first is that sensor sizes are best taken in the context of your imaging intention. If you are on a quest for narrow depth of field and a noiseless file then a full frame (or bigger) camera is what you want. But if you are making videos and you want to move around while keeping deeper subjects in focus the logic gets slipperier. This is compounded if you'd also like to use your camera and lens on a gimbal. Then you start thinking about weight a lot more carefully.

I've shot with so many cameras and they all have distinct personalities. While most photographers seem to gravitate to cameras based on their imputed performance and their pedigree I've always felt like a bit of a contrarian. 

Have you ever noticed that all those guys who march around and say things like, "It's not the camera! It's the photographer!!!" and "The most important gear you possess is positioned right behind your camera!!!" are fully equipped with the latest, greatest, fastest and most well spec'd cameras and lenses they can lay their hands on? I've been doing this for a while and my anecdotal evidence says that's true.

I like the smaller cameras because they feel right. They've evolved beyond the need for technical supremacy and their reason for existence now is to make images that feel right and look good in the modern media we mostly use now. 

I'm packing to do a video shoot for a friend this evening. I could pack out a bunch of sinisterly good Lumix S-Pro lenses and an S1H with its buddy, the V-Log enabled S1, but my immediate and gestalt packing spasm found me stuffing the rolling case with a GH5, GH5S and a G9. That and a nice assortment of both native and third party lenses. Each one of these cameras has proven itself to be more nimble and graceful on a Ronin-S gimbal and all of them are capable of video that's as good as anything on the market --- at least if I do my job and light each scene well. 

I've been practicing today with a feature in the GH5S called "focus transition." You can use it to set up to three points that you want to rack focus between and the camera will do perfect focus pulls every time. You can set the speed of the transitions and even the start time. You have total control but the camera does the heavy lifting and the precision moves. I'm sure the feature is also somewhere on the S1H but I haven't looked for it. The GH5S just feels so familiar and friendly. 

Ben needed a portrait for work this week so we set up the studio and I found myself grabbing the GH5S and the Sigma 56mm f1.4 because, again, it felt comfortable and transparent in use. I found myself ignoring the camera almost altogether and concentrating on getting a sweet, smart, profound, happy look out of Ben. 

The list goes on and on. I've transitioned in my shooting of the outdoor concerts from using, almost completely, full frame S1x cameras to using nothing but m4:3 cameras to shoot the 4K video. And you know what? If we stick to using ISO 800 or even 1000 there isn't enough difference to justify spending more and hauling more.

I'm spoiled. I'll keep both systems. Someone will always want a 47.5 megapixel file. I might want to play around with near zero depth of field. But more and more the GH5's are the ones on the way to getting their shutters worn out. I can hardly wait to see what Panasonic delivers if they ever roll out a new, GH6!

Off to play. See you tomorrow. 

 

10 comments:

Eric Rose said...

I must say I was very tempted to dump my GH5 for the S series . VERY tempted. I demurred for all the reasons you mention plus the S series cameras just didn't feel "right" in my hands. Try as I did I couldn't see myself bonding with them. The GH5 has become an extension of my photographic brain. It does what I want, without any real mental effort on my part. We have become "one" as a mystic would say.

Going m43rds was really hard at first as I always felt better having the latest and greatest instrument at my disposal. Which for me was FF Nikons. Having the latest and best camera was one less thing I had to worry about. I have to say going to m43rds was done initially with trepidation but now I can't see myself ever going FF. For what I am doing now the cost benefit ratio is definitely in favour of the GH5.

So now lets see Ben's portrait!

Eric

Ronman said...

Hi, Kirk. I'm really enjoying your video content these days. Thanks again for sharing!
And you're definitely speaking the truth regarding lessening the the load. Unfortunately I'm now being pushed in the opposite direction.
I've been enjoying the smaller format Fuji X-T3 with either an 18mm prime or 18-55mm zoom when I need to attach it to my Weebil S gimbal. Results are terrific, i.e., very smooth and cinematic. But I also enjoy hand-carrying for some of my video work, and have been trying out my Lumix S1 with its IBIS and relatively light - comparatively speaking - 16-35mm f/4 lens (plus the terrific audio pre-amps, wow!). I'm finding it to make some pretty nice clips, just a little 'first person' edgy without being jittery. But while this is a great hand-carried combo, it's not something I'd like suspended from the Weebil. And though I'm inclined to replace one of my X-T3's with the X-T4 due to it having IBIS, I'm also doing allot of video work outdoors under natural light, requiring me to really dial up the ISO. This is becoming more problematic with shorter days now being upon us. The APS-C Fuji's do great work in low light, however, after using the S1, my mind (and eyes) have been opened. So, I'm thinking instead of the X-T4 I may instead try out a Lumix S5 to get the hand-carrying advantages of the S1 combo, only in a much lighter package I can strap to my Weebil when needed. But it's a tough call, made even more so due to either choice requiring me to forego favorable attributes unique to either system.

Pale Fire said...

Well, you've always got great, striking, natural work from your m43 systems.

Comfort with a camera and system is often wildly unappreciated in the chase for an extra theoretical 2%. At core, once the science of a photograph is good enough what left is the art (the main thing).

I say that as a scientist.

Enjoy your writing and your work because you're intrigued by the science and engineering, but love the art.

Mark

Marcio K said...

"Serious work" is the answer. You look for tools that makes the job done, in the best way that is needed by the job. Not for bragging rights in internet forums.

crsantin said...

So far I've resisted the temptation to go full-frame. I've got a bunch of older cameras and lenses and for personal video work my iPhone 11 pro is terrific. My best photographic work happens with a Sony a6000 and the Sigma 30mm 1.4. 24mp is enough and the focus system on the Sony is very good. The camera just seems to work with me so it's the one that gets the bulk of my time.

Michael Matthews said...

That photo is not inconsistent. Clearly she’s saying, “Wait a minute. Think about this.”.

Chris Beloin said...

Greetings Kirk:

Now put that Olympus 12-100 back into your kit and you are good to go!

I continue to believe it is my best zoom so far.

Chris

Mitch said...

Hmmmm. Are we repeating history in the professional space by heading back to the time where we broke down the dogma of 35mm being only for "general" work and medium format was the only "clear" choice for those who wanted the highest quality? I remember the time frame where 35mm, some killer lenses (200mm F2 anyone?) and well designed film stocks were delivering some pretty impressive results making that medium format superior quality argument less persuasive ...

adam said...

a while back I was convinced the olympus fire sale had started in earnest after they got sold, less so now but still some amazing bargains to be had, saw em1 mk2 with the 12-100mm pro for £1200 or so somewhere this week, tempted by the 12-45mm pro for size & weight but will see what black friday week brings

Davonroe said...

I've long felt that camera makers were working against their nature in the rush to "full frame". The consumer market has been driven by "small but good enough" since Kodak introduced the Brownie. That's why smartphones have destroyed the digicam. 35mm is overkill for the way most of us are sharing our images, and as someone whose last film camera was medium format, I have no desire to "go big" anymore. I've made 13x19 prints from every digital camera I've owned after my first. m43 is more than enough for me. If Panasonic made a 35mm version of the GX8, I'd consider it. I'd prefer if they made an m43 version of the 20-60 "kit" lens.