What is my favorite lens to use with the Sony A7R2? Why it's a Nikon, of course.

Portrait for Austin Lyric Opera Ad Campaign.

Camera: Kodak DCS 760C. Lens: Nikon 105mm f2.0 DC

If you are a frequent reader of the VSL blog you know I sometimes change camera systems. To the uninitiated it may seem like I do this capriciously; like a raven following the latest shiny object. But the real reason I do so is just to confound the readers of various camera forums. I routinely drop thousands of dollars to see how many people I can get screaming, "Fanboy!" "Paid Shill!" "Gear Whore!" and, my favorite: "Tuck changes systems more often than I change my underwear." 

But I'll bet I've been more consistent in my use of lenses longer than many of these armchair behavioral psychologists have been alive. You see, I have been shooting with Nikon 105mm f2.5 and f2.0 lenses since 1982. That's 34 years. And for most of that time it's been the same unit I purchased in 1982 for more money than they are worth today ---- even factoring in inflation. I have used it with an adapter to shoot on Canon digital cameras and now, with adapters, to shoot on Sony's mirrorless cameras. I shot with it on Olympus OMD cameras and, of course, on the Panasonic GH cameras. 

You know what? It's still a damn fine lens. As good or better than many of the lenses I buy new from Sony, etc. today. Lens crafting hasn't evolved that much where quality is concerned; for the most part camera companies have just learned how to make stuff cheaper and more cheaply. 

While my favorite, all time portrait lens is the 105mm f2.5 ais Nikon the image above was taken with the 105 f2.0 DC (defocus coupling) lens. Same focal length but the f2.0 lens has a ring on the barrel that lets you shift in some distortion in front or behind the plane of sharp focus. 

This portrait may not be your cup of tea because it's not razor sharp but that's because we were shooting wide open with the full measure of available distortion applied. If you want to see sharp all you really need to do is grab one of the 105mm f2.5s, put the aperture at f5.6, focus carefully (the A7R2 is a much better candidate for using this lens than any Nikon body ----- remember? Focus Peaking and Focus Magnification, made easy). Keep the camera steady (using in-body image stabilization, where available = A7R2) and make sure your subject isn't moving faster than the set shutter speed is capable of freezing, and you're done. You'll have an amazingly good image; at least technically. 

What lenses did I keep in my hands when I switched from Nikon to Sony? Just three. The 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor, the 50mm f1.4 (ancient, original, pre-ai), and a pair of 105mm f2.5s.  The most amazing thing for me to read these days? It's about the perennial search for a great, fast portrait lens. And then I go into a well stocked camera store and see a couple of rows of clean, nice 105mm f2.5 ais lensed in the used cases; orphans just waiting to be of some use to a gifted artist or hardworking studio guy. Yours for the taking for around $150.

See, I don't change my mind that often. Oh, the camera bodies? They are more like film to me.....

Part of getting successful work done for clients is expecting the unexpected; and packing for it.

That Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared." ?  It's a pretty good idea. Fine-tuning my field kit for the job.

The phone rang early this morning. It was my electric utility client wanting to know if I could head out into the rain and join them for a rousing bout of videotaping and photographing the restoration of electrical power in flooded areas of central Texas. What could I say except, "I'd be delighted." And really, I am. This kind of work is so different from a lot of my typical day-to-day work, done in comfortable, interior spaces, mostly with well dressed people and close access to good-to-great coffee. But if you are heading to the middle of nowhere you have to think ahead and pack for the unexpected. The word, "client" is ancient Greek for "throws curve balls."

So, the plan, as it stands right now, is to head to a small Texas town where flooding has destroyed power poles and knocked down power lines. Our hope is to get heroic video footage of a crew getting a new pole sunk, new lines strung and the power restored. A bonus would be to capture this in driving rain with dark, brooding skies close overhead. The ultra-bonus would be that everyone working will be wearing rain gear with our client's logo on it.

What we're shooting is B-roll for future projects. Usually this means that we don't need to get more than just ambient audio but the first thing a client asked me last time we were out shooting storm B-roll was if we could do a quick interview. I hadn't thought about that in advance and so had showed up with just our camera, tripod and rain gear. When I left the house my over riding thought about lighting was the worry that we might not have enough light to make the little pixel wells twitch. It was dark and ominous at the time. So, of course, I forgot to bring along a neutral density filter, which immediately caused the sun to peek out. Enough ball dropping. I kicked myself and then got started on putting together a video "go" bag that has the basics.

Here's the bag I use:

Yes. No. It's not a "camera bag" sanctioned by the general traditionalists of either field; video or photography. It's a freaking tool bag. But you know what? I'm starting to wean myself off any sort of specific-to-the-photo-industry bags because they are frightfully expensive and, in my opinion, of no greater utility than stuff made for working men and women who carry around heavy tools for eight hours a day, five days a week.

I started collecting various sizes of Husky tool bags when I realized that most of what we were hauling to locations were accessories, not precious, delicate cameras. Sure, if you are getting on a plane and traveling on a vacation/photo adventure that doesn't require more than a camera, a few lenses and some extra batteries then you should stick with your Domke bag, over one shoulder, on its elegant strap. But consider, we have one open top Husky bag that is just filled with XLR cables and various connectors. Does that call for a Billingham Bag? (Of course, I would choose the Downton Abbey model with the mink liners....)? 

I think many users have one bag and it's configured to match what they always carry. For non-commercial photographers that's usually a camera and a couple of lenses. But we seem to be re-configuring our cases all the time; to match the jobs at hand. As an example, I used the smaller version of the bag above two nights ago for the theater shoot. Two bodies and two lenses fit well and the bag was easy to carry and work out of. None of these bags are intended to go into checked airline luggage so concerns about ultimate toughness are not so cogent.

Here is how the bag opens (above). It reminds me of my great grandfather's leather medical bag. The opening is as wide as the bag but is rigid and pulls back into a closed position quickly. This open maw makes it easy to reach in a grab the thing I want. You'll notice that instead of traditional dividers I'm just putting cameras into neoprene Zing cases to cushion them and to add a layer of water and dust resistance. The bags themselves are a thick and sturdy canvas-like material that is very water resistant. Water will get in through the top zipper so if you have a fantasy of yourself standing in rain shooting, with your loyal bag beside you, you might want to get a poncho for your bag as well. 

So, the bags are very well made, relatively water resistant, voluminous and rugged. They must cost a fortune, right? Well, I haven't checked the Billingham Bag prices lately but would conjecture that you can buy a couple of hundred, various Husky bags for the price of the smallest Billingham made to hold one point-and-shoot camera. Seriously though, the bigger bag, shown above and above, is about $30 to $40 at one of the big box hardware stores. While it's a bit big to carry around for street shooting it does have an included shoulder strap to help you in getting from the car to the location you'll shoot in. 

What's in this bag? After my supply missteps on the last few outings I have this one stocked and ready. It contains two small, Manfrotto light stands, two Fotodiox 312 AS LED lights with extra batteries. One Rode Reporter (dynamic) microphone. One wired Audio Technica Pro-70 lavaliere microphone with an extra battery. One short XLR cable to the Reporter mic. One small, Beachtek mixer, which also matches impedance for the balanced to unbalanced connection. One set of good, ear covering headphones, one Zing bag full of neutral density, variable neutral density and polarizing filters with adapter rings, and cheap rain covers for two cameras. I have a cheap (but comfortable and effective) shoulder mount for my cameras.  I also have a green garbage bag folded up in there somewhere in case the case and I get stuck outside in a rain storm. Finally, I have two Power Bars in a side pocket, just for emergencies. 

When I am ready to hit the door and I drop in an RX10-2 and an RX10-3 cameras, as well as a small bag with four or five extra batteries. My final addition is a larger, lithium battery which will allow me to re-charge camera and phone batteries on the road.

Being pre-packed saves me time and saves me from making inventory mistakes. 

The car usually contains a Manfrotto video tripod with a 501hv head and a five-in-one collapsable reflector set, as well as swim gear and three or four extra sets of goggles. 

The Husky bags are great. I have a small one for grabbing cameras and heading to shoots with no video or audio components. It's just right for most available light situations (gear wise) and it cost a whopping $19.  I also have a big, Husky rolling case which holds as much as my original Think Tank Airport Security roller but cost me only $69. It also has bigger wheels. But, in defense of the Think Tank roller the Husky will not fit in the overhead compartment of an airplane.... I guess that's why we have both. For working out of a car, or off a cart on location, the cheaper bags are just as good as anything out there. 

There are discussions about ultimate bags and weight. I understand entirely. If I'm traveling intercontinentally and intend to work out of my bag, in an ambulatory fashion, I would always default to my Domke bags but job after job informs me that it's the overall amount of gear that requires more logistics not the portage of a camera and a few lenses. 

It seems silly to grouse about a few extra ounces on the camera bag when you are hustling up the stairs with two or three heavy C-Stands in your hands, or a brace of sandbags, or the bags full of electrical cables, etc.

The low cost and the good utility of the Husky line of bags allows me to dedicate bags to certain stuff. I mentioned the audio cables but I also have a bag full of various scrim materials, flags, nets and diffusion, along with grip heads, for use on Westcott flags. I marked it with a Sharpie so I know which bag to pull of the shelf when I need it.

This morning I made sure each camera had a 64 Gigabyte SDXC card inserted and formatted and I stuck them into the video bag, along with five extra batteries. The case is in the car and now I can zoom away from the studio knowing I haven't inadvertently forgotten that one widget that makes everything else possible.

Today, if a client asks me to do an interview I'll whip an appropriate microphone out of the bag, set my audio levels and get to it. Peace of mind. Pre-packed inventory. 

Note: I am kidding about Bellingham Bags. I know some of you have invested as much in fine and proper Billingham bags as the rest of us have in a good lens. You have a vested interest in wanting the bags to last forever ---- it will take that long to depreciate them. ( wry smile emoticon imagined here).

Welcome to June. This is the month in which we write about cheap-ass camera bag substitutes.

A quick re-cap of my work at the theatre last night. Warning: This blog post does NOT include anything about the Sony RX10mkiii.

It was kind of a relief to be back on familiar ground, taking photographs instead of working with video yesterday evening. It was another dress rehearsal shoot for the folks at Zach Theatre. This time we were shooting a farcical English comedy, "One Man, Two Guvnors."  The play is classic theater and the cast was great. Martin Burke is one of Austin's finest comedic actors and he brought some really great energy to the stage last night; as did the rest of the cast.

What a departure from the very serious productions Zach has produced in the last few months! In a total departure from the standard procedure the house opened 40 minutes before the show and there was a full bar up on the stage. Audience members were invited up to buy drinks and walk across the stage. There was a 1960's cover band playing right up until curtain --- on the same stage. A very festive atmosphere to be sure.

This is the first production I've photographed with my full complement of Sony products. My last theater adventure was the dress rehearsal of Holland Taylor as "Ann Richards" and I did that one with the a6300 and the quixotic 18-105mm f4.0 G lens; backed up by a Sony RX10mk2.

Yesterday afternoon I pulled together a kit to take to the performance and it all fit in a very small Husky tool bag. The top of that bag opens wide for quick access... It cost $19 at Home Depot. It's a great bag for a small assortment of day to day stuff, like a note book, some pens, a phone, two cameras and two lenses. Maybe a little zipper pouch with some batteries in it as well.

There was no hesitation in packing yesterday. I grabbed the A7R2 and the a6300 along with the 70-200mm f4.0 G lens and the 24-70mm f4.0 Zeiss lens. I loaded both cameras with fast, 32 gigabyte cards and I brought along an extra battery for each camera.

I set up dead center in the house, just below and in front of Eric Graham, an old friend, and the person who shoots the video documentation of the shows. The row I set up in the cross over row between the two sides of the house so there is no row in front of me. I have the house manager block off the seven center seats so I can shoot from the center and have three empty seats on either side. This is a holdover from the days when I shot with Nikons and other mirrored cameras that were loud enough to disturb audience members sitting adjacent to me. It's still good because I can lean left or right to get a better viewpoint and it also means I'm walking in front of fewer people if I need to get up and re-position to shoot an important shot of an action that plays to one of the corners of the stage.

I put the 70-200mm on the A7R2 and the 18-105mm on the a6300. After a brief consultation with the lighting designer and the videographer I decided to shoot in Jpeg. We'd need to send a ton of files over to the marketing people the next day and extra fine Jpegs at around 20 megapixels is much more fun to wade through than 42 megapixels of raw mania...

I was comfortable in doing so because the nature of the play meant that the stage was lit brighter and a bit less dramatically (dynamic ranges challenges!) than a drama. The videographer asked me to go up on stage with a white towel he keeps in one of his camera cases so he could white balance under actual stage lighting. The lighting designer confirmed that the color temperature didn't change much during the performance. Eric set 3000K on his cameras while I opted to go a slight bit warmer at 3200k. The lighting in the theater is predominantly LED and bare it's seems balanced to around 4400 to 4600K but a large number of the lights used in this production were gelled warm.

So, with the A7r2 set to medium resolution, extra fine, we were getting 18 megapixel files while the a6300 set at large gave us 24 megapixel files. Not a very big different, mathematically speaking.

With the color temperature/white balance set I started looking at ISO settings. Even though the light levels were higher than I am used to working at I decided to set both cameras at ISO 1250 because, well, they make 1250 look like "old school" 200. I've switched from my previous way of using AF in the theatre because the two Sony cameras have PD elements on the sensor and both are very, very fast to acquire subjects. I had both cameras set to C-AF using zones. I'd put the zone over the subject I wanted to focus on a wait for the tiny green boxes to light up in the desired areas. On the A7R2 I'd push one of the focus hold buttons that surround the front barrel of the lens and shoot away, holding the button until my subject changed position. Same with the a6300 except you have to use the AEL/AF lock button instead.

Another change for me was to be able to shoot both cameras in the silent mode, which is really silent mode and not "silent mode."  Really, the only way you know whether you've taken a photograph is seeing the review image coming up in the finder. The lack of mirror slap, combined with good image stabilization in both lenses, and in the A7r2 meant NO photographer induced motion blur.

Speaking of finder... I have gotten into the habit of just turning off the rear screen altogether. It's as obnoxious as the screen of a cellphone in the theater and with a great EVF there's no good reason to add any light pollution to the space. I can review in the finder and set menu items in the finder as well. I have to give high regards to the EVFs in both cameras. They are absolutely the closest to the final image of any camera I have yet used. I am able to use the finder, along with zebras set at 100% to accurately judge exposure. How accurate? Well, I could have sent along all 1300 images without making a single exposure correction after the fact. I didn't because I wanted to add some shadow recovery to a good number of shots and I fine-tuned everything else out of habit.

The images were impeccable. Both camera and lens sets delivered images that were correctly color balanced, sharp and with appreciable dynamic range. I like to add a bit of clarity slider to give shots destined to run small a bit of "presence."

After I edited the take in half (or less) I did my post production and started the upload to Smugmug.com. I make a web gallery so everyone who needed or wanted to see the images (theater staff) could do so concurrently. I'm sending links with folders of downloadable files from Smugmug to the executive who heads up marketing for distribution to the people who will actually use the images for public relations and marketing. They'll make a subset of the images to send along to social media and conventional media.

The Sony's were small, light and outrageously good. The lenses don't have too many faults (as long as I have distortion correction set for the 18-105....) and the battery use wasn't the drama most people would profess it to be. I changed batteries at the 800+ mark in the A7R2 and not at all with the smaller camera.

So, now I have used my little Sony collection for several events, a bunch of video, a theatrical dress rehearsal, two product shoots and about 40 portraits. Am I still happy? Yes, where do I sign up to be "paid off" by Sony? I would dearly like just one or two more things.... A second A7r2 and a 55mm f1.8 lens. Or maybe the 50mm Loxia. But overall? Happy as can be. But ready to become a fanboy for the right price....(not).

The Steve McCurry Tempest in a Teapot.

You have probably all seen Steve McCurry's most famous photograph. It's the photograph of the Afghani woman with the haunting green eyes. It graced the cover of National Geographic and has been reprinted endlessly, everywhere.

For most of his career McCurry made his living as a magazine editorial photographer. From all indications he performed well, followed the rules and made a living traveling the world. In the last decade he transitioned from magazine editorial work into the art world and has been using the skill set and vision he honed in his previous career to make work that many, many people find truly evocative.

Recently he has been taken to task, sometimes harshly, for apparently PhotoShopping some distracting elements out of his work. The important thing to remember here is that he is not enlisting this work into the world of hard news or breaking news. Rather, it is being sold as "art" in galleries and on the web.

The knee jerk argument, if I can sum it up, is basically: "Once a starving photojournalist always a starving photojournalist!!!" His critics would hold him to journalistic ethics and standards even though he is no longer working in that field or having his work used to directly illustrate news.

To me this smacks of indentured servitude to a cause.

I say, that at this point, all bets are off. The once free press is now settled into the hands of about seven major holding companies and they all have agendas put in place to serve a tiny elite of plutocrats and their pet causes. Photojournalists are being discarded like old VHS tapes. The contract calling for a lifetime of service to the ideals of the free press is null and void by those who no longer work in that niche.

Here's what I wrote in the comments at theOnlinePhotographer.com in response to Michael's thoughtful article, and the reason and unreasonable comments that followed:

Steve McCurry is a very, very good photographer. He may have been a photojournalist at one time and should, then, have hewed to the rules of that industry. For many years now he has worked outside that field and just creates art. His manipulations have no more or less merit than the contrived set ups of Crewdson or Skoglund. The art is the art. He is not working in breaking news. He is not manipulating images in the service of some political agenda. He is creating art. No different than the legion of photographers who routinely edit out teen acne, double chins and wrinkles in images of graduating seniors or mid-level corporate managers. His vision now includes the ability to hone or distill an image for our enjoyment. If he was shooting for the NYTime, hard news, to illustrate a news story then he was out of line. If he was showing us his impression of a place and time and people then screw the critics and go for it. Tell me that every landscape photographer whose work has ever graced a gallery wall didn't burn in some sky, take out a piece of trash in the foreground or pretty up the colors. Should we dig up Ansel Adams and burn him at the stake for his egregious over-darkening of the sky in Moonrise over Hernandez, NM.? Photojournalism is one of those jobs that's been beaten to a pulp by the economy and cast aside by media moguls. McCurry left the fold to do what he does best and make a bit of money for a decent retirement ---- and now a bunch of fat and sassy armchair quarterbacks, who've never risked dysentery and war are going to deny the guy his chance to be an aging artist with some sort of financial safety net under his feet? Get real. Put your Hush Puppies on, button up your cardigan and go out for a walk. Contemplate your misplaced outrage and then direct it somewhere meaningful.

If you disagree I'd like to know the reasons why. Not "how I feel" but what rational and logical belief causes you to champion your cause. We are no longer living in the age where the news is anything but un-tinted by the interjection of corporate holding company self-interests; why then should photographers be the symbolic surrogates that help give credibility to an already fixed system?

Give McCurry a break. His art appeals to a broad cross section of our culture. His work is good and visually satisfying. What he did for a living before becoming an artist should not be part of our assessment of the value of his work. 

As I sat editing in still photographs to my recent video project I had new thoughts about what aspect ratios to shoot...

When I shoot portraits I sure like working in a square format. This will come as no revelation to people who have followed the blog for a while...

For most commercial stuff I've been shooting whatever the actual, full format of the sensor is. The reason, no doubt developed in earlier times (the era of insufficient resolution), it to take full advantage of the total number of pixels available.

But as I sat editing video and trying to add still photographs to it I discovered that it might be a better idea, going forward, to shoot the routine documentary work and corporate advertising work in a skinnier format; something like 16:9.

We now have ample resolution at our disposal and shooting with an aspect ratio like 16:9 means we're not losing much quality but we might be gaining a library of images with more flexibility for multi-media work.

Now I know that someone out there will tell me that they have a series of sub-routines hardwired in their massive brains that can immediately identify the intended future use of every image they create which then informs them exactly how much space to leave in their 3:2 composition for future cropping. The rest of us mere mortals would do better with a formal guideline.

The issue in video is that every 35mm, m4:3 and square frame will have to be chopped, top and bottom, to work in the much more horizontal video format. If we start by setting our cameras to the video crop (16:9) we can compose a shot that we know will work for both still and video. With a 24, 36, or 42 megapixel camera we can easily cropped off the ends of the frame without a visible reduction in quality.

For me frame lines in a finder are NOT enough. I want to see the frame, sitting in a field of black, that shows me the exact edges without my mind having to remember to stay "within the lines."

After my time in video editing this week I think I am about to become a photographer of extremes, with my Sony cameras set to 16:9 for general shooting and then set to 1:1 for portrait work and art that will never grace the moving screens. Can't think of a more practical way to do it.

While the a6300 and the A7R2 don't give me 1:1 they do both give me 16:9 and that's a good start. Both the RX10s provide a wider range of aspect ratios that also includes 1:1. I wonder if the RX10iii would also make a good portrait camera? Next experiment?

Just something I fell asleep thinking about last night...

Shooting squares in 2009. I thought this would make a perfect book cover for my best photography book.

 I wrote a book back in 2009 that was published by Amherst Media in 2010. It was called Commercial Photograpy Handbook: Business Techniques for Professional Digital Photographers.

 I like the photograph because I seem to like beautiful women and I know I like beautiful cameras. I shot this with a Hasselblad 500 CM and actual, real Neopan 100 black and white film. It was one of those weeks when I was feeling decidedly retro.

The publisher chose a different cover design and that's their prerogative; but I think they left a lot of business on the table since beautiful women trumps still life and commercial photography collage any day of the week.

I re-read that book today over a tuna sandwich at Thundercloud's sandwich shop. It stands up well. Of all the technical books I've written I have to say that the writing, the information and the images are the very best of my endeavors.

There were some photos in the book that put me back in the mindset of shooting to the square; something I think it well leveraged by the EVF finder cameras. One can set the aspect ratio to 1:1 and the finder shows the exact crop with no extraneous distraction. Very nice.

And I'm sure you know where I am going with this..... yes, the Sony RX10iii has a wide range of settable aspect ratios, at your vision's service. Just cue them up and shoot. "Yes!" He said, "I will."

The video rough cut is out the door. Time to play for a while......

Oh yeah, and buy the book! Commercial Photography Handbook.  Read it like a novel....

Mr. Friedman. Gosh I wish he was our state's governor.