In light of recent news from Alabama, Hollywood and other places, I thought it might be time to re-post this one.......again.

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/05/approval-tacit-approval-implied.html

As money burns a hole in my pocket I re-think the portrait lens scenario with an old, adapted Zeiss 50.

Everything starts over coffee. I spent some time one morning reading about three lenses from Olympus while drinking a cup of Illy brand coffee I'd made and suddenly it seemed like the most brilliant and obvious idea would be to run out and drop $3,600 on three Olympus Pro primes. Primes that are  already well covered in my camera bag by state-of-the-art zooms from the titans of the micro-four thirds camp. I thought I wanted the new 17mm, 25mm and, of course, the 45mm. They are all f1.2 lenses so I had visions of super shallow depth of field and high sharpness. The coffee was very, very good too. I may still pursue this course of action because I am, admittedly, a bit eccentric...

But, in the course of ruminating over the consequences of spending even more money that I really didn't need to spend, I thought I'd convince myself of just how badly needed the new lenses were by putting on the front of my little Panasonic G85 body one of the Contax C/Y Zeiss lenses I have rolling around on the edge of my desktop, here in the palatial world headquarters of the VSL...

It's a 50mm f1.7. At the time of its peak popularity it was merely the "kit" lens that came, de facto, on the front of Contax film cameras. I bought it a few years back as an afterthought. Perhaps a momentary salve for the stinging, grand price of the Sony 55mm f1.8... I used it a few times and remembered it to be a fine performer on a full frame Sony camera but now I wondered just how well it would acquit itself on the diminutive m4:3 format cameras. Would it have the contrast and resolution needed to compensate for the Lilliputian geometry of the image sensor?

I put the Contax Zeiss C/Y 50mm f1.7 on a no-name adapter and we sped downtown at dusk. A torture test for sensor and lens. The test started with a cup of coffee and a vegan, lemon and hazelnut scone from Whole Foods. Just a little something to tide me over during the rigorous testing procedures I anticipated. 

The light dropped quick as I walked toward the new city library and the new arched bridge over Second St. I used the camera with the lens mostly set at f2.0 and shutter speeds around 1/125th of a second. Pretty soon I found myself down in the 3200 ISO territory we small sensor masochists fear so much...

I found that the Zeiss lens seems very sharp at f2.0. Even sharper at the several shots I took at f5.6. This 100mm equivalent lens is a good choice for portraits. Maybe as good as the Olympus 45mm Pro would be. But if I am to be truthful the fabulous marketing of the new 45mm will carry the day and I'll end up with a little less in my retirement account this year than I could have had....

Ah well.

After looking through the images taken with the 30 year old, bargain lens I just have to say once again that there's no magic bullet. No miracle optic that will make one a better photographer; a better artist. The 50mm is one of the perfectly sorted lenses that will find its way into my video equipment package every single time...

I'm still looking for the flare when shooting wide open. 

But this is like "Where's Waldo?" I just can't seem to find it...

The battle between two inexpensive, highly portable, big battery powered electronic flash units. Who wins?

Godox AD200 200 w/s Flash System in bare bulb mode.

Neewer Vision 4. 300 watt/seconds flash system with included reflector.

Flashes started to be fun again when normal sized, shoe-mount flashes started sporting rechargeable lithium-ion battery packs and providing great performance for what would once have been considered to be pocket change. I bought a small selection of Godox and Neewer branded flashes to make a thoroughly reliable and professional, barebones flash system for those times when my subjects have to be lit but I have to be able to carry everything into the shoot in a backpack. Coupled with great triggers those flashes do their part and even serve extra duty by working as additional background lighters in shoots that call for full white backgrounds. The lithium batteries go a long way toward making convenient lights packed with the power to go through hour long shoots with aplomb. 

But just when I settled down and accepted that there would still be times when I might need the 500 watt seconds put out by my "plug in the wall" Photogenic monolights, or my remaining Elinchrom 500 watt second monolights, I happened to come across the Godox AD200 (a model sold under a handful of different company names...). Here was, seemingly, the best of both worlds. It's a flash that kicks out 200 watt seconds of power and comes with a fun accessory; an interchangeable bare bulb head. Why should you like a bare bulb head? It's probably the perfect way to evenly fill a big softbox.

The AD200 is just a little bit bigger than a conventional hot shoe flash and it's also a bit weightier. It can be used across multiple systems with dedicated remotes for each camera system. The remotes deliver TTL control and high speed sync capabilities. If you venture across multiple systems you can pick up remote  radio triggers for each of the major camera systems for about $50 each. If you use the conventional flash head, which resembles a typical camera mounted flash, you can even make use of a built-in LED modeling light. It's not incredibly powerful but it beats working in the dark....

The benefits of the AD200 are that it packs a lot of power into a small package. That, and the use of a big, robust rechargeable battery pack, convinced me to pick one up for the princely sum of $300. I still think it's a good deal and it's joined my extreme portable flash system as the main light, which I use in a big Phottix 47 inch octabox. 

After using it on a number of projects (We're currently gearing up for job #86 for the year....and we've got a lot booked between now and the end of the year...) I was ready to take the plunge and buy one or two more with the idea of finally getting rid of the plug in the wall dinosaurs. Side note: there is profound pleasure, after years of taping down electrical cables for safety, at not having to find a wall socket and run extension cords in order to put a flash somewhere. Trust me, it's a big deal. 

As I was getting ready to order I glanced around the consumerverse at Amazon just to see what else was available. It was then that I came across the second flash in this review, the Neewer Vision 4. 

This flash is configured and sized like a conventional, traditional mono light with a Bowens mount for reflectors and speed rings. It's got a nice LCD panel on the back along with rational controls and is easy as pie to set up and understand. It comes with its own Bowens mount, standard reflector and a small, dedicated flash trigger. Nothing fancy on the trigger --- it's totally binary; put it on your camera and it will trigger the flash when your camera fires. It does have four groups so you can use multiple Vision 4 flashes and fire them on four different channels. Or you can put them all on the same channel and fire them at the same time. There's no TTL control and no power ratio control on the remote. The flash doesn't feature TTL mode either but that hardly matters to me. We've been using manually set flashes for nearly 40 years now and we finally know our way around the use of a flash meter....

The Neewer unit (spell check hates that extra "e".....) weighs in at four pounds and has a removable lithium ion battery that fits into the body of the flash in what I think is a very nicely done design. The flash unit is being touted in their online advertising as having been: "Designed in Germany." And I do find it more elegant and solid than most of the lower priced flashes. This unit also uses a low powered LED as a modeling light. 

Attention: As is the case with most battery powered units the modeling light on this unit only stays lit for approximately 30 seconds. If you want to see it again you have to hit the modeling light switch. This is the single flaw in what would otherwise be a perfect, low cost studio light!!! There must be a way around it....

So, when it comes right down to it which flash wins? Right off the bat I'll say that if you don't need to relentlessly miniaturize the stuff in your life I'd go with the Neewer unit, hands down. Using the Godox AD200 with a softbox or octabox requires a second stand adapter with its own speed ring adapter to mount up everything. The unit is commendably compact and so far has proven to be reliable but that smaller form factor means less effective heat dissipation, and every now and then the flash pauses to recover from overhead (we're talking about brief, one or two minute pauses after over 100 quick, half power flashes; it's less heat sensitive with the bare bulb head mounted. But there it is....). Also, the mounting accessory to put the Godox AD200 on a light stand needs a lock washer between the mounting stud and the flash body to keep the flash from unintentionally swiveling on its mount. Finally, while you gain some automation in the form of TTL and high speed sync the LCD panel is smaller and much less intuitive.

But here's the big deal: When I bought the AD200 I thought it was fairly priced for the amount of power and flexibility one received. It was $300. I spent an additional $25 on dedicated reflectors and diffusers as well as another $20 on a soft box adapter. 

When I bought my first Neewer Vision 4 unit it came with a very robust, integrated stand connector which can also double as an "off-stand hand grip" if you wanted to have an assistant hand hold the rig and position it for you as you shoot this is perfect. It also came with the standard Bowens type reflector. And the remote trigger. The total price at the time was $259. After using it to do a number of headshots last night with a big octabox I decided, finally, that I liked it so much that I actually would replace all of the last century A/C powered mono lights I've accumulated and use two of these as my main lights and the AD200 as a background or accent light. When I went to order another unit I discovered that the current price is, right now, an amazing $219. 

I'm honestly a bit astounded. I've paid much more for much, much worse flashes. I paid nearly $600 for a recent Nikon flash (model number repressed by my memory of its horrible-ness) that overheated if you shot more than 10 full power flashes in a row. It would shut down completely and you had to remove the batteries and let the unit cool for ten full minutes before it recovered from it's diva swoon. 

Try using a piece of sh*t like that for a critical client event...

Then there was a similar Sony equivalent made around the time of the original a99. It was a complete stinker as well. And equally expensive. 

So, to be able to buy a much more powerful flash, the battery of which will deliver up to 700 full power flashes at 300 watt seconds before the need for a recharge, with no dramatic, mid-shoot swooning or sissy behavior, for a mere $219 is amazing to me. I have cables that cost more. The performance, pricing and power of the Neewer Vision 4 makes it an incredible bargain. 

I did purchase a second unit. I clicked the link yesterday evening and should see it arrive on Monday. I'll charge the battery and put the new flash through its paces but I'm confident it will be a real winner. 

Given the choice between these two units I would always pick the bigger Vision 4 unit. The one exception would be times were I need to carry everything by myself ---- for long distances --- then I think I'd consider bringing along the AD200 as a main light. But I might just default to one of the many fine, smaller, but no less capable units I own, like the one at the bottom of the page. It delivered the goods at last week's gala. The light was sweet. 

Stunned by a price drop to $219. A reflection of people having too many choices?

Or not enough advertising on the part of the vendor?

No bad reviews.....except one person who could not be bothered to read the specs....

So, what's the rationale for owning so many Panasonic cameras at once? You can't use more than one at a time, right?

As you might have noticed I've added a bunch of Panasonic gear to the inventory all at once. We've got a couple of GH5s, a G85 and the FZ2500 here at the studio. My friends, VSL readers and any number of interested parties asks, from time to time, why the heck I want to have so many similar cameras banging around in my equipment bag. And to someone outside my particular business it does look just a bit irrational. On the other hand I think that the best scenario in the world for me would be to own three identical GH5s and nothing else. I may yet talk myself into divesting the G85 and the FZ to make this happen; but it all begs the question: "Why?" Why the duplication? Surely modern cameras aren't plagued with so many flaws that one must have many redundant back-up cameras to make it through a shooting assignment. So what's the reason --- if there is one...

This might be a good explanation since it's based on "real world" experience...

About a week ago I had a meeting with a friend who is also a video producer. He asked if I would be interested in working as a second camera operator on a two day video assignment that's coming up. I wasn't booked on the two days in question, and I really like working with the guy, so I said yes.

Then we got down to discussing the particulars of the job. He's usually a Sony FS7 shooter but has been interested in using, and maybe acquiring, some Panasonic gear. He asked me to bid on providing the lighting and a camera package, in addition to my day rate for shooting. We discussed the camera needs and decided that we'd like to use three cameras and we'd like them to all be from the same color family so editing would be consistent and efficient.

There are several important interview shots that will need operators on "A" and "B" cameras (one on the interviewer, one on the interviewee) as well as a wide camera to catch an overall point of view which would be a useful establishing shot. That means several of our important scenes will be three camera set-ups. The beauty of using the same cameras for all is total consistency in tonality and look. We'd white balance all three cameras to the same target and carefully meter each one which would save us time in editing. 

While the big interviews would be made with the cameras on tripods we would both be shooting b-roll over the two days in locations separate from each other. We'll use the same basic camera settings and use the same white balancing targets even though the stuff we are shooting is at locations miles apart from each other. 

Since we both abhor the idea of being on a paid, professional shoot without back up cameras we'll each work with GH5s as our primary cameras and then use the FZ2500 and the G85 as back-up cameras.  That's a total of three cameras with a back-up in reserve for the big interview set-ups and two cameras with two back-ups for the location. Four cameras. That's every camera I currently have in inventory. 

What does this get us? Multiple cameras means we get our interviews, in three separate shots/angles in one long take instead of having to shoot in the old fashion, single camera mode in which we would have to shoot all the material from one angle and then reset and shoot the whole scene over again from a second angle. An incredible timesaver for everyone involved. 

Having the back-up cameras means never having to say you are sorry if a primary shooting camera gets destroyed or stops working.  Three of the cameras take the same lenses while the fourth camera has its own permanent lens. Since all the cameras are from the same company the color science between cameras is very much the same and (blessedly) the menus are all designed to be similar and recognizable to a user of any other camera in the system. 

Since we are being paid for the rental of the cameras they are making money for the business while I am making money for the business. 

This is not an isolated case. We have used multiple cameras on our video and video+still shoots for the Theatre, for our Healthcare clients and for several of our tech clients. In each case we were able to get better coverage more quickly and to cover non-scripted interviews in a linear series of takes. This is so important when working with non-professional talent who get flustered when they are called on to repeat something they've said in exactly the same way.... 

We use multiple cameras for other reasons as well. Often, when we're set up and waiting for an executive to arrive and participate in an interview an art director, hellbent on making use of our temporary "downtime" will ask us to leave the main set-up and "get a quick photograph of XXXXX."  If we've got a camera on a tripod locked down and fine tuned for a video shot the last thing I want to do is unplug the digital video recorder/monitor, unplug the microphones, pull the camera out of its cage and off the tripod and then switch all the settings to work as a still camera. It's far better to have a back up camera set up for still work, in addition to your primary video shooting camera. If the executive/subject is delayed you can satisfy your client's imaging needs by pulling the extra camera out of the bag and having it be ready to shoot still photos in an instant. 

When you are informed that your subject is headed down the hall toward your primary set-up you can toss the "still" camera back in the bag and get back to your preset, locked down "video" camera and be ready to shoot just as soon as you've said, "Hello." 

Given that traditional video cameras with the capabilities of the newest Panasonics cost tens of thousands of dollars only a few years ago the redundant approach gains you much and costs you next to nothing (or nothing) when it comes to image quality and usability. Five thousand dollars for three 4K video cameras; two of which are capable of shooting at 60p and in ridiculously information-rich All-I files. That's less than the cost of a high end video tripod...

We'll use the cameras mentioned here for many projects and we'll sell them when there's an obvious step up. If the current prices of the Panasonic GH4 (used) are any measure we won't end up losing much money at all in the transaction. It's almost like getting to use a bag full of cameras for an extended period of time for somewhere around $2,000. So much potential and capability for such a small investment....

Finally, we might want two identical bodies even if we never, ever touch the video button. We'd set up one body with something like the Olympus 17mm f1.2 Pro lens and a second camera with an Olympus 45mm f1.2 Pro and have the perfect combination for reportage at client shows and events. Shoot with on the dangle it on its strap and grab the other. Just like we did in the film days. 

Photo courtesy of ODL Design.

Do you take your camera out in rough weather? How rough? Do your cameras generally survive?

The annual Ferrari Owner's Parade in Rome.

One of the things I always grapple with is the idea that our modern cameras are weather sealed. It's a great idea but on some level I'm always incredulous about camera maker claims. I still grab a big Ziploc plastic bag to take along when I head outside and it looks like rain. 

The Panasonic G85 is supposed to be splashproof and dust proof. I'm never sure what that really means. And so, my question to the virtuous and brave readers of VSL. Can you share with me your experiences  of taking modern digital cameras out into inclement weather? Do you routinely use an unprotected camera in the rain? Do you take any sort of precautions? Are there limits you won't push beyond with your gear? Have you ever experienced a gear failure that was a result of soaking your camera?

The worst thing I've done with a camera is to stand in torrential rain shooting video with the Sony RX10iii for half an hour. Nothing failed. I did have duct tape over the battery and card doors.....

What's your most riveting weather+camera story?

I mentioned photographing a keynote speaker at a recent gala. Here's a couple of stage shots. Nothing sexy but the WB?

Panasonic GH5 + Olympus 12-100mm f4.0 Pro. 

Manual Exposure, Manual White Balance =3000K 

ISO 640.

With good stage lighting in place electronic flash should never be necessary. 

It's been a while since I worked in the Kleberg Theatre. Less light compared to the Topfer Stage. But more intimate...

About a week and a half ago, on a Sunday evening, I had the assignment to create marketing photographs for another production at ZACHTheatre.org. It was "A TUNA Christmas" which is a holiday comedy spoofing life in a small time, Texas town. Tuna Texas. The play is directed by Jaston Williams who is rightly famous for co-writing and co-acting in the nationally touring original, "Greater Tuna." 

If you grew up in Texas you've met nearly every character in the play, at one time or another. If you are a new transplant to the Lone Star State this play will help bring you up to speed on the basics of rural Texas living. The production is both hilarious and sweet, with a dry humor that generally has me stunned with laughter. 

Three actors play all 25 citizens of Tuna Texas so costume changes are fast and furious. I was amazed at how convincing the actors were in every role. I could have sworn they had a company of eight or ten....

But I was there to make photographs with my little cameras. I used two wildly different models to do most of the images. In the seat to the right of me I had my Panasonic GH5 with the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 Pro on it. In the seat to the left I had my Panasonic FZ2500 super bridge camera. I alternated for fun, for focal length coverage, and just to experiment. I also brought along a 40mm f1.4 and used it more sparingly. I wanted to see what I could put out of focus in the background....

Unlike the bigger theater space I usually work in the Kleberg stage projects into a (much smaller) space with seating on the left, right and in front of the stage. The theater seats about 200 and is a much more intimate space. But being our oldest theater space in the Zach Theatre compound it also has the oldest (and weakest) lighting gear. While working with most productions on the bigger stage I can keep my cameras comfortably around ISO 800 but in the Kleberg space everything pretty much needed to be shot at ISO 1600 in order to get subject freezing shutter speeds with mostly wide open apertures. 

Before the rehearsal started I asked the lighting director to give me a "light wash" that was made up of the dominant light structure for the most of the play. I walked out onto the stage and placed a Lastolite gray/white WB target in a spot shielded from the colored lights that spill across the background and made a custom white balance with each camera. I varied the WB a bit during the show but hewed pretty close to 3200K with a bit more magenta dialed in and that seemed to work fine for most of the photographs. 

The production practiced austere minimalism when it comes to set dressing but it hardly matters because the script is so great and the dialog is delivered perfectly. This is a situation where the video will be a better sales tool because you'll be able to hear the voices and see the nuanced gestures that make the characters so authentic. But I tried my best to make the stills work hard. 

If you find yourself in Austin and bored (highly unlikely) between now and the new year you might want to spend an evening at "Tuna Texas." You'll likely be glad you did.