SEARCH  WEBSITE

I love to help people (from beginners to "old" photographers alike) discover that photography and video can be easy...and affordable! BEHIND-THE-SCENES SELECT YOUR SORT: SHOT SCENE SEQUENCE FILTER by CITY To access episodes with behind-the-scenes content, log in and then click a WATCH SEQUENCE button below. Tacoma BTS: The Beach Beyond Brown's Point Lighthouse WATCH SEQUENCE While the official landmark is certainly the lighthouse, a beautiful but more peaceful beach lies just around the corner, and the locals (people and wildlife) prefer it.

All items are in working condition because we tested & reviewed each one. We get rid of items if we can't use them for our KIT PLANS, or they don't pass our QPACE checklist (Quality, Portable, Affordable, Common, Easy-to-Use). See the REVIEWS page (on our website) for more on what we did & didn't like about each product, because they still could work well for you (but just didn't work for us). SURPLUS CAN'T USE, OR DON'T NEED WORKING...BUT NOT PART OF OUR KIT PLANS All items are in working condition because we tested & reviewed each one. We get rid of items if we can't use them for our KIT PLANS , or they don't pass our QPACE checklist (Quality, Portable, Affordable, Common, Easy-to-Use). See the REVIEWS page (on our website) for more on what we did & didn't like about each product, because they still could work well for you (but just didn't work for us). Sort by CATEGORY CAMERAS SURPLUS Leather Camera Case for LUMIX FZ1000 (by MegaGear) All I did was open the box, put the camera into it, and then realized that it was going to take too much time to remove this case to put the camera onto a tripod (for VIDEO the FZ1000 needs a tripod, so this case doesn't work for me). [NO REVIEW] SEE ON EBAY* *As an Amazon or eBay Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases, which means I receive a commission if you make a purchase through a link (at no additional cost to you). CAMERAS, [NOT IN KIT] SURPLUS SOLD: The Nikon Z5 (v1) is NOT Good for Video I really wanted this to work because it is one of the few full-frame cameras, with IBIS, that were under $600...but even after adding custom, Nikon Picture Control files, this camera is horrible for video recording purposes. I was going to just keep it for doing stills only, but I really do need a hybrid photo & video camera if I'm going to spend this money. PODCAST REVIEW SEE ON EBAY* *As an Amazon or eBay Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases, which means I receive a commission if you make a purchase through a link (at no additional cost to you). CAMERAS, [NOT IN KIT] SURPLUS SOLD: The GoPro HERO4 Black Doesn't Have a Screen The HERO4 Black was supposed to be the top-of-the-line action camera of that time period, but it does not have a rear screen, yet the HERO4 Silver does...so I recommend buying that instead. To me, the lack of a screen on the HERO4 Black makes it impossible to use on a professional shoot. REVIEW ON BLOG SEE ON EBAY* *As an Amazon or eBay Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases, which means I receive a commission if you make a purchase through a link (at no additional cost to you).

CAMERAS Panasonic G95 I did not expect to like the Panasonic LUMIX G95 (probably because of all of the negative videos about it on YouTube) but after using it, I think it's one of the best budget hybrid photo & video cameras (for your #2 camera). See YouTube Playlist CANON NIKON OLYMPUS PANASONIC SIGMA TAMRON TOKINA MISC. & M42 CANON Canon [FD] DB Canon FD 50 1.4 S.S.C. DB Canon FD 50 1.4 S.S.C. ii DB Canon FD 50 1.4 DB Canon FDn 50 1.8 Canon [EF] DB Canon 50 1.8 DB Canon 50 1.8 ii DB Canon 50 1.8 STM DB Canon 70-200 2.8 DB Canon 75-300 DB Canon 75-300 ii DB Canon 75-300 iii DB Canon 75-300 iii USM NIKON Nikon [F,G] DB Nikon 17-35 2.8 DB Nikon 18-55 DB Nikon 18-55 ii DB Nikon 18-55 VR DB Nikon 18-55 VR ii DB Nikon 35 1.8 G DX DB Nikon 50 1.4 D DB Nikon 50 1.8 D +2X MACRO Nikon 70-300 D DB Nikon 70-300 ED Nikon 70-300 G Nikon 70-300 P OLYMPUS Olympus Olympus 12-50 3.5-6.3 Olympus 14-42 EZ Olympus 14-42 ii R Olympus 25 1.8 Olympus 40-150 4-5.6 Olympus 40- 150 4-5.6 R Olympus 60 2.8 MACRO PANASONIC Panasonic Panasonic 12-35 2.8 Panasonic 12-35 2.8 ii Panasonic 12-35 2.8 iii Panasonic 12-60 2.8-4 Panas onic 12-60 3.5-5.6 Panasonic 14 2.5 Panasonic 14 2.5 ii Panasonic 14-42 (Gray) Panasonic 14-42 PZ Panasonic 14-42 ii (Red "HD") Panasonic 14-42 iii (Ring) Panasonic 14-42 iv (Gray "HD") Panasonic 15 1.7 Panasonic 20 1.7 Panasonic 20 1.7 ii Panasonic 25 1.4 Panasonic 25 1.4 ii Panasonic 25 1.7 Panasonic 45-200 4-5.6 Panasonic 100-300 4-5.6 Panasonic 100-400 4-6.3 SIGMA Sigma Sigma 16 1.4 DC DN DB Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 EX Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 ii DB Sigma 17-50 2.8 Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DB Sigma 18-35 1.8 DB Sigma 30 1.4 DC DN TAMRON Tamron DB Tamron 10-24 3.5-4.5 LD DB Tamron 17-50 2.8 +SHIFT (#ad) DB Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC +SHIFT (#ad) DB Tamron 70-300 LD Di DB Tamron 75-300 LD TOKINA Tokina DB Tokina 11-16 2.8 DB Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii DB Tokina 12-24 4 DB Tokina 12-24 4 ii DB Tokina 12-28 MISC. & M42 Misc. & M42 DB Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 DB Pentax Super-Takumar 50 1.4 ii DB Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50 1.4 DB Asahi SMC Takumar 50 1.4 Koah 35 1.2 Koah 50 1.4 Minolta AF 50 1.7 Min olta A F 50 1.7 ii Min olta MD 50 1.7 Promaster 70-300 SETTINGS Qu antaray 70-300 4-5.6 LD Qu antaray 70-300 4-5.6 LDO Rokinon Cine 24 T1.5 Rokinon Cine 35 T1.5 Rokinon Cine 50 T1.5 Rokinon Cine 85 T1.5 Vivitar Series 1 70-210 3.5 Vivitar Series 1 70-210 2.8-4 Vivitar Series 1 70-300 4.5-5.6 INFO KEY: DB = More lens data at lens-db.com LENS FILTER KEY: SETTINGS or BARE = Unfiltered UV = UV Filter ND8 = Neutral Density (and #) VND = Variable Neutral Density CPL = Circular Polarizer BPM = Tiffen Black Pro-Mist® GG = Tiffen Glimmerglass® LENS ADAPTER KEY: + ADAPTER = Standard adapter (no optics, etc.) +BELLOWS = Macro bellows (plus adapter) +BOOST = Speed booster (i.e. focal reducer) +HELICOID = Macro helicoid (expands in/out) +SHIFT = Perspective control adapter (i.e. shift) +TILT = Tilt adapter (angles focus plane) +TILT/SHIFT = Focus plane, perspective control Read: " How I Adapt Old Lenses (for Micro Four Thirds) " REMEMBER TO "REFRESH" PAGE TO SEE NEW DATA

INTRO: While testing camera systems (mostly for hybrid and video production use) I started searching for a way to get the 3 Simple Shots (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE) that are part of the SHOOT43 multicam method, and in so doing, I've learned 2 things: #1: WIDE shots are troublesome on Micro Four Thirds, but terrific on full-frame, and #2 TELE shots (telephoto) shots are troublesome on full-frame, but terrific on Micro Four Thirds. This realization really opened up a new way that I think about sensor sizes and I'm no longer loyal to either format. I think the problem is I was trying to make one sensor size do everything. Now, I play to the strengths of each format, and this has made figuring out my 3 Simple Shots (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE) a lot easier...though it hasn't made full-frame cameras more affordable, so I'm still using mostly Micro Four Thirds. BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. There's a difference between the wide shot on an action camera and a REAL camera...but exactly why does the (wide angle) shot look so different? It's a combination of both the sensor size AND the lens focal length. The Myth of "Equivalent" Focal Length I love using Micro Four Thirds cameras, but there's a lot of advice online that is just wrong, and there's kind of a myth about "equivalent" focal lengths. People say things like, “A 25mm lens on M4/3 is like a 50mm on full frame” but that really isn't true. Yes, 2x 25mm does equal 50mm, but 25mm and 50mm lens designs are totally different...and so they produce different distortion and subject/background relationships. For example, the “non-distorting” focal length (what looks most like what our eyes see) is about 42.5mm in full frame terms. When you go wider (lower numbers: 35, 28, 24mm) you start getting into wide angle optics which distort the image to capture more of the scene, on a sensor with a smaller physical size. Bridge cameras (1" sensors or smaller) and action cameras face the same small-sensor issue (of needing wider optics to cover the scene) and tiny phone sensors are even worse. The main point is, it's the lens, not the sensor that decides what the image is going to look like. The SENSOR is only determining how much of that lens’s image you are able to capture, kind of like cropping. So, when you use different lenses—say, a 25mm on a M4/3 sensor or a 50mm on full frame—the images really aren’t the same. Therefore, I think it's better to learn what each type of lens optic does, and then decide what camera (sensor size) you need, based on how much of the image you need to capture (from said lens). Table of Contents: PART 1: About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing PART 2: The WIDE Shot = Full Frame is King PART 3: What's Wrong With Wide Angle? PART 4: The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) PART 5: The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! PART 6: The Importance of Working Distance PART 7: Use Multiple Cameras PART 8: Extra Tips About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing Most people use the classic language: wide, medium, and tight shots. I like to say wide, tight, and tele. The reason is that a “tele” shot always uses a telephoto lens, while “tight” and “medium” aren’t always clear about what lens you need to use. And in practice, what matters is both what the shot looks like and how you get there—lens and sensor size together. Hollywood technically names shots by how much of the subject is in the frame (not just the lens), but as someone trying to systematize real-world setups, I think it makes sense to focus on both how the scene appears and the tools we use to get there. The WIDE Shot: Full Frame is King For wide shots—the kind that cover a whole room, landscape, or scene—full frame shines. Why? Because full frame sensors let you use more “normal” focal lengths (35mm, for example), which naturally distort less. On M4/3, a 35mm becomes your tight shot; on full frame, it’s a true wide shot with realistic proportions. That realism is why photojournalists historically loved 35mm on film: It was wide, but not crazy. Full frame simply gives you a more honest, un-distorted view for wide shots than any crop sensor or phone (which rely on intense wide-angle distortion to get more in frame). Why a Full-Frame WIDE Shot is More Realistic: Full-frame sensors can produce wide shots with less distortion at moderate focal lengths (35mm–42.5mm). This can result in a more natural, immersive view with accurate proportions. Historically, 35mm on full-frame has been a standard for photojournalism due to its perspective. Most people don't see wide angle distortion unless it's pretty extreme (as is the case here). The reason is that we've seen so many half-way distorted images, that we don't know it's not normal. What's Wrong With Wide Angle? Wide angle lenses stretch the image out at the edges and make subjects in the center look smaller. Classic “fisheye” lenses are an extreme case—think of old peephole door viewers, where the middle is tiny and the edges are curved and stretched. More “rectilinear” wide lenses (the kind that try to keep straight lines straight) didn’t arrive until the late 80s/early 90s, and even those can’t escape every bit of distortion, especially as you shoot wider than 14mm. This distortion is obvious in real estate photography; small rooms look huge, doors look unnaturally wide, and buyers wonder why reality doesn’t match the photos. That’s the lens at work, not a “lie,” but definitely a stretch. I’m currently experimenting with ways to minimize this, including tilt-shift lenses, but the key takeaway is: Sensor size and lens type have a huge effect on how wide shots feel. Wide Angle Distortion & Architecture: Ultra-wide lenses are often used to make spaces look bigger, but this can misrepresent reality. Distortion may cause features like doors and windows to appear stretched or out of proportion. This effect can be noticeable in real estate photography, where rooms may appear larger and features like doors and windows may look distorted. Wide-angle lenses (24mm and below) can stretch the edges of the frame, making objects near the edges appear larger and those in the center smaller. Tilt-shift lenses may help correct perspective and reduce stretching. Tilt-shift lenses** can help correct perspective distortion, maintaining straight lines and accurate proportions. Using moderate wide angles and correcting distortion in post-production are also options. The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) For basic tight shots—think from the waist or chest up, or showing half a room—M4/3 and APS-C (1.5/1.6x crop sensors) are where it’s at. They give you a wide choice of affordable 25–50mm lenses (vintage or modern), and you can control working distance easily. Full frame cameras lag here: The lenses cost more, and you have less reach for a given size and price. Unless your full frame camera can crop into APS-C mode on demand, I’d give this job to crop sensors (with a slight edge to M4/3 for value and no recording limits on many Panasonic bodies). About Medium (Tight) Shots: Focal lengths of 25mm–50mm on micro 4/3 (50mm = 100mm equivalent) are commonly used. Full-frame cameras may have limitations such as shorter recording times or overheating. Micro 4/3 cameras may offer longer recording times and good value for this purpose. The "TIGHT" shot (which most call the "Medium" shot) is pretty easy to capture with all sensor sizes. If you're on a full-frame sensor, you'll need to use a little telephoto; I prefer a crop-sensor with a less-distortive 50mm. The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! For tight and telephoto shots, especially things like distant details, you need a lot of “reach.” On full frame, getting a true 600mm-equivalent telephoto is both outrageously expensive and really heavy. But put a 300mm vintage autofocus lens (from the bargain bins!) on a Micro 4/3 body, and you get the same field of view for $30–$50, and a lot less weight. Another bonus: In-body image stabilization (in cameras like the Panasonic G85 or G95) is really effective with those older, non-stabilized telephoto lenses. With M4/3, keeping your subject in focus is actually easier at high “equivalent” focal lengths, since they don’t have razor-thin depth of field like 600mm on full frame. M4/3 simply does telephoto and tight shots best for cost, handling, and results. Why Micro Four Thirds Works for Telephoto Shots: Micro 4/3 sensors can provide a 600mm equivalent field of view with a 300mm lens. Lenses for micro 4/3 are often lighter and more affordable. In-body image stabilization (IBIS) on certain Panasonic models can be helpful with older, non-stabilized lenses. Some vintage 70-300 lenses (the Tamron, Promaster, Quantaray 1:2 MACRO version) are a really good value. Cost, size, and weight are why I like Micro Four Thirds for TELE shots. I apologize for using this meme again, but the point is, when you're using full-frame your telephoto lens has to be a lot bigger to cover the sensor. The Importance of Working Distance Another crucial factor is how far you need to be from your subject to get the shot. For portraits, you hear the advice: use 85mm or 100mm, not 50mm (for full frame). Why? Because on a 50mm, you need to get closer for a head-and-shoulders crop. Closer means faces start to look distorted—noses grow, features warp a little—even with “normal” lenses. Working distance matters for macro/close-ups, too. With a short lens, you have to get close, which blocks light, startles insects, and creates practical issues. So, the right lens/sensor combo isn’t just about field of view, but how you physically work. How Sensor Size Influences Working Distance: Micro 4/3: A 50mm lens may require standing 7–10 feet from the subject for a tight shot. Full-frame: Getting a tight shot with a 50mm requires getting closer (sometimes results in big noses) Portraits: Lenses such as 85mm or 135mm on full-frame are often chosen to avoid distortion and provide flattering compression. The last question is: What's the solution to all of this madness? What I do is use multiple cameras (change your camera, not your lenses!) P.S. I use a lot of adapted Nikon-mount lenses, so they work on full-frame too! Using Multiple Cameras One of the things I try to avoid at all costs, are "jump cuts". Jump cuts are abrupt changes in framing that occur when a person only used a single camera for a talking head shot, and edits things out of the footage. This can be very distracting in interviews or narrative work...and the solution is to "Always shoot with (at least) two cameras". Using two or more cameras allows for simultaneous capture of WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE shots. This can provide more flexibility in editing and help create a more dynamic final product. Extra Tips: TIP 1 MATCH CAMERA (SENSOR) TO SHOT TYPE Telephoto: Micro 4/3 for reach, stabilization, and affordability. Medium/Tight: Micro 4/3 for flexibility and longer recording. Wide: Full-frame for minimal distortion and natural perspective. TIP 2 SELECT APPROPRIATE LENSES Vintage lenses can be useful for telephoto work on micro 4/3. Tilt-shift or moderate wide-angle lenses may be helpful for architectural photography. Fast, sharp primes are often chosen for tight shots. TIP 3 DON'T BE EXCLUSIVE TO ONE SENSOR SIZE Each sensor size and camera system has its own strengths and limitations. Assigning each task to the most suitable tool may be more effective than relying on a single system. CONCLUSION: When you stop trying to make one camera do everything, everything becomes easier. Simply give each sensor size the job it does best. You’ll spend less on lenses, your shots will look better, and you won’t be wrestling with the limitations of any one system. So, instead of worrying about which focal length “matches what (on another sensor size)” I now focus on choosing what lens (focal length) I want to use to get the look I want, and then SENSOR SIZE considerations are all about how much of that image I want or need to use. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh?

INTRO: If full-frame cameras weren't so expensive (here's a list of affordable full-frame cameras ) wouldn't everyone just buy full-frame cameras? Well, as of now cost is still the problem, but if it were not that's a good question. However, I think each sensor size has both strong areas and weak areas, and some where they just can't compete with each other; so I think people would buy both. But, for some reason in the world of media production, filmmaking and "content creation" this battle between camera formats (sensor sizes) has often involved heated debates. The horrendous insults and peer pressure of this battle has pushed people toward taking "sides" and most have found themselves firmly aligned with one format or the other! To address this, I've been considering using both formats. If you've seen my lens-sensor settings tests of budget cameras , you'll know I've been using Micro Four Thirds. Yet, most of the lenses I use are old, full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses...and so using these on a full-frame sensor won't be a problem (unless I start to think I need autofocus). So now, other than the cost of full-frame cameras , I'm excited about this approach, and I hope it can not only make people argue less (because we'll experience the benefits of both formats) but also help us to be prepared for any shooting situation we encounter (which is the goal after all). BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. When deciding which sensor size works the best for you, one of the biggest factors is the LENSES! WHICH SENSOR SIZE IS BETTER? In my opinion, if you're just starting out (or are just on a limited budget and/or just want to travel lighter) Micro Four Thirds can make a lot of sense (especially if you want to " always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras " like I do). The prices of the camera bodies and lenses are much cheaper than their full-frame equivalents, and so you can build a 2 or 3 camera system  for much less. Yet, there are some things that smaller sensors just cannot do. They can't blur the background as easily (when you need to). Then, in low-light situations, certain Micro Four Thirds sensors (GH4, G7, G85, GX85) really need an f/1.4 lens. Full-frame cameras on the other hand, usually work better in low-light situations and have no trouble blurring the background with most lenses...but there are some downsides. Full-frame camera bodies are getting smaller (see the LUMIX S9) but the lenses are not only bigger, heavier, and less portable, but they've been way more expensive (though there are a few new brands working on solving this). There are lots of things to compare though, so let's do details. Comparison of Formats WHY MICRO 4/3? WHY FULL-FRAME? A DUAL CAMERA SETUP? LENS DIFFERENCES... A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE? WHY MICRO 4/3? THE LENSES ARE SMALLER AND... Micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic GX85 or G85, are particularly appealing for beginners and those on a budget. They offer a range of affordable lenses and accessories, making it easier to build a versatile kit without breaking the bank. Additionally, the crop factor of micro 4/3 cameras can be beneficial for sports and wildlife photography, where a longer effective focal length is often required. For example, using a budget 70-300 lens (from the 1990s) on a micro 4/3 camera provides an equivalent focal length of 600mm, which is perfect for capturing distant subjects. That is one of the main reasons I like using Micro 4/3 (because the optics of a 70-300, for example, are a LOT smaller and lighter than an equivalent crop on full-frame). A Micro Four Thirds camera and a 70-300 can provide decent framing of almost any shot, even from a distance! Keep in mind that for TELE shots especially, it's important to have a camera with good IBIS, which many of the popular M43 cameras is do (the GX85, G85, G9, GH5, etc.). Having said all of this, I really do like using a Micro Four Thirds body with a wide angle lens on a TILT/SHIFT adapter  (see that post)! This tiny lens is actually a TELE zoom lens (for Micro Four Thirds). The full-frame equivalent would be a 90-300mm...but there are optical differences between formats. For example, an actual 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera would provide a 600mm equivalent, but the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and telephoto compression are different, which will impact the overall look of the shot. M43 Positives: You can adapt almost any lens (for real) Lenses are usually less expensive (except for Leica lenses) Lenses are usually smaller and lighter (more portable) A telephoto lens is effectively longer (good for sports, wildlife, etc.) IBIS is better on Micro Four Thirds (especially on Panasonic) TILT/SHIFT Adapters are available (no other format can do this as well) Good M43 camera bodies are cheap (G85, GX85, G9, GH5) M43 Negatives: 1. Worse in low light 2. Wide Angle shoots look more distant (due to shorter focal length) 3. Some older bodies have bad AF (pre-phase-detect Panasonic) WHY FULL-FRAME? THE LENSES ARE BIGGER AND... Full-frame cameras aren't really affordable for me (yet) so they're not really a viable option, and full-frame  lenses are not only more expensive, but also bigger and heavier most of the time. So, what are the advantages of full-frame? Full-frame sensors do typically deliver superior image quality (especially in low-light) and the ability to blur the background more (i.e. shallow depth of field) is appealing to many people. (I think the blurred background trend has been leveling out, thanks to the video about bokeh addiction and the follow-up historical tutorial ) because people are realizing most real, professional movies don't always blur the background. it's really still photographers who still believe it's a good idea. The truth is, you can actually get a blurred background using smaller sensor cameras...and not just with an F/1.4 (or a TELE lens). It also depends on the subject distance, etc. If you're trying to get your TELE (telephoto) shots, full-frame is not the best option. TELE lenses are much heavier, larger and more expensive on full frame. I learned this first hand when I had this old Nikon 80-200 2.8. FULL-FRAME IS BETTER (FOR THE WIDE SHOT) Are there any unique strengths of full-frame sensors then? I think there are, but it's in something not many people are talking about: less-distortive WIDE shots. The reason is, full-frame cameras don't require as short of a focal length to capture a wide angle image. Therefore, a wide angle can be closer to that magical, non-distortive focal length of 42.5mm (where there's the least distortion from optics). If you go wider than 42.5mm, you'll introduce wide-angle distortion characteristics (and there are a variety of them) which range from being almost non-noticeable to looking like a full-on fisheye lens. The benefit of full-frame is that you can use a moderate wide angle lens (such as a 35) and capture enough of the scene...and it still look pretty realistic (and accurate). If you're creating a WIDE shots on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor however, it's not going to look as real. (Super 35 is perfect for TIGHT or or medium shots, but not so much for the WIDE shots.) The worst format for WIDE shots would be Micro Four Thirds (2x sensor crop) then, because you will need the shortest focal length to project the image onto a smaller (2x crop) sensor. Full-Frame Positives: Superior image quality (especially in low-light conditions) It's easier to blur the background (if you need to) Less distortive WIDE shots (provides a more natural perspective) Full-Frame Negatives: Camera bodies are more expensive (they are going down though) Most lenses are bigger and heavier (than M43) Lenses are often more expensive (than M43) Telephoto lenses are REALLY huge (and SUPER expensive) AN AFFORDABLE FULL-FRAME CAMERA (<$1,000)? Here's a quick list (if I missed any options let me know in the comments) of the best mirrorless (not going with a DSLR, for a number of reasons) full-frame cameras being sold for under $1,000 US, and it's clear there isn't much available for around $600, which is where I want to be. These are average Ebay prices (taken from both auction and buy it now listings) and you can find better deals at times, but it would be the exception. The links are Ebay affiliate links (see above notes for disclaimer). *I don't always mind having a crop in video mode, because I'm used to the 2x crop of Micro Four Thirds sensors! Product Price (Used) Notes (Good) Notes (Bad) Canon RP ~ $600 ? No IBIS, limited video specs (only 24p in 4K) and bad AF in 4K video mode. Nikon Z5 ~ $634 I bought this, tested it, and it is REALLY bad for video...so it's kind off my wish list now. 1.7x crop (in 4K video mode) yet the worst problem is the video quality. Even after creating custom Picture Controls (lens-sensor specific) it's really bad. Nikon Z6 ~ $789 IBIS, No crop in 4K video mode No SD card slots (only expensive CF Express, etc.) Panasonic S1 ~ $875 IBIS, combo tilt/flip-out screen Bad AF, no real-time LUTs Panasonic S5 ~ $860 IBIS Bad AF, no real-time LUTs, 30-minute video recording limit Sony A7rii ~ $757 IBIS (first generation) 4K video is only good in 1.5x crop sensor mode (I don't mind*) MY SOLUTION: A DUAL-CAMERA SETUP! As I delve deeper into the advantages of both formats, I recommend that filmmakers consider a dual-camera setup. For instance, pairing a micro 4/3 camera with a full-frame camera can provide the best of both worlds. One camera can be mounted on top of a rig, and the other on the bottom. This configuration gives you greater flexibility as it prepares you for a lot more shooting scenarios (and it also makes people think you're weird, but we need to stop caring about that anyway, right?) One advantage of smaller, lighter cameras, is you can mount multiple cameras ON ONE CAGE! Also, keep in mind that it really helps if the cameras have good IBIS (especially for the top camera/cameras). Two Cameras On One Cage: Helps you get two shots (WIDE & TIGHT) using just one tripod! I usually put the camera with the WIDE shot on the bottom, and the TIGHT shot on the top  SUMMARY: Which ever way you go (either all full-frame, all M43...or some of both) I'm thinking it might be good to embrace the learning experience that comes with using both formats. By experimenting with micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras, we can actually experience the strengths and weaknesses of each format. Hey, maybe by stepping outside of our comfort zones and exploring different sensor sizes, we can learn why people are so loyal to the other? Each format really does offer unique advantages and when used together, they can really enhance your content creation capabilities. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?

INTRO: Have you ever thought about shooting SOOC, but were worried the dynamic range would suffer? Well, I don't want to be that confrontational guy who says "Don't ever shoot in LOG" but I will say, I've been working on a solution that can not only make SOOC video work, but that can help improve the relationship between the lens and the sensor (because each lens sends light to a sensor differently). So, in this blog post I'll cover a few of the reasons I use "I-Cs" (In-Camera Settings) and why I think it's a better option for those of us who aren't experts in color grading (vs. shooting flat or in LOG). You'll have to admit shooting SOOC is a lot more fun, but you're probably wondering how it will affect your "dynamic range". Well, you may be surprised how good it can be when using my custom (lens-sensor specific) settings . ABOVE:  This blog post will explain why I use custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings and an SOOC workflow, and how it not only makes it easy to color grade  (compared shooting "flat" or in a LOG profile) but makes the whole experience more enjoyable, overall. WHAT IS "SOOC FOR VIDEO"? You may not have heard the term SOOC in the context of shooting VIDEO. Or, you may have HEARD of it, but never thought it was legit idea for video capture. So, let's go over the definition, and my take on using it for video. SOOC means "Straight Out of Camera" and as I mentioned, it's been primarily used by "lazy" still photographers who didn't want to shoot RAW (and process their images later). You might say, the photographers who do this are "fake" photographers, and Jared Polin (@froknowsphoto) and his clever series of "I Shoot RAW" t-shirts, made this idea into sort of a religion. On the other hand, for those who shoot SOOC, it's kind of an anti-post-production movement of sorts, of which I understand some of the applications (a lot of news, sports and other quick-turnaround jobs require shooting in JPEG, etc.) The real question is then, are there any benefits to an SOOC workflow for VIDEO? I guess the first, and most obvious application is LIVE video, but beyond that you might ask "What's the point?" The short story is, I figured out a way to make SOOC video work but the long story is, I had to create a library of custom settings to make it work. ABOVE:  In the video above, I'm showing a test of how using CUSTOM (lens-sensor specific) camera settings can improve the image SOOC (this blog post will explain why I use what I'm calling an "Almost SOOC" workflow). WHAT ARE "LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS"? So, you probably already knew what SOOC meant, but you may be wondering what "lens-sensor settings" are. This, as I mentioned, has been a long story, but I've published a lot of podcast episodes about it (plus some YouTube lens-sensor settings test videos) that tell and show more about this concept (links at the bottom of this page). So, go ahead and check out those resources first if you want additional info. Why I Shoot SOOC (vs. Log or "Flat") IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE EXPOSURE IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE COMPOSITION IT'S MORE INSPIRING THAN "SHOOTING FLAT" IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE IT MAKES POST-PRODUCTION SO EASY! REASON 1 IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE EXPOSURE I'm not sure how to say this, but the people who tell you that you need to be able to read a histogram, and set your "zebras" correctly to judge exposure, are a bit idealistic. Most of us didn't know how to do these things when we were first starting out, and even after we learned, we'd still would mess up our exposure while shooting in log modes. So, who's to say that using your screen to judge exposure, doesn't work? You DO need a camera with an accurate screen, but if it has that, I think this method can be more accurate than mentally decoding a histogram into the light and dark areas that make up a scene. It's especially important if you're using a stepless (de-clicked) aperture or a variable ND to adjust exposure, (because you'll need to see the actual image, as you make these adjustments). Then, if we are telling people to use "zebras" to avoid highlight clipping, I would say we can do that by looking at a non-log version of the image on the screen. Who really wants to have those little zebra lines all over our image when shooting anyway? I think that can destroy creativity even more! That leads me to my next two points about composing your image, and about just plain feeling inspired in the process. ABOVE:  Getting the exposure right is much easier when your image is WYSIWYG  (What You See Is What You Get). Using my custom SOOC settings makes the image on the camera monitor a lot closer to the final image, and it's therefore easier to judge exposure. REASON 2 IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE COMPOSITION Trying to compose a shot can be tricky if the screen you're looking at is all grayish. My first tip was a bit technical (judging exposure, etc.) but this one (and the next) fall more into the "artistic" category...yet the same principle applies: It's MUCH easier craft an image, when you're not looking at a screen of grayish-looking, log footage! You might say "It CAN be done, You're just LAZY!" but my point is that it can't be done AS WELL, because you're not looking at an image that is accurate to the final image. It feels almost like going back to shooting film, when you have to imagine what your final image will look like, not being able to see the image you're actually recording. It also reminds me of the early days of digital (still) cameras, where the best advice you could give an aspiring photographer was "Don't trust the screen on the back of your camera, and make sure to look at your images on a good, calibrated computer screen." So, to make composition easier, use my custom camera settings and get your image looking good, in-camera. ABOVE:  My custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings  make it easier to "get artistic" while you're trying to compose your image, because you'll see exactly what you're getting. REASON 3 IT'S MORE INSPIRING THAN "SHOOTING FLAT" This point is almost a repeat of the last, but this one is more focused on the struggles artists go through creating an image. It emphasizes what we call the "intangible" aspects of the craft of filmmaking, the part that is art (there's more to capturing a good image than having a technical mindset). So, if you're an "ar-teest" shooting with my SOOC videos settings should make your job a lot more enjoyable...but, I know you're probably still waiting for me to prove your dynamic range won't suffer (more resources are below). REASON 4 IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE There are a number of reasons why using the SOOC method (and not relying on RAW and fixing stuff in post-production) is less expensive. The first is that you don't have to buy a camera with RAW video (or just 10-bit) capabilities. I'm looking forward to the day when said cameras are actually affordable, but until then, I think we can make 8-bit work better than it has been (at least while we're in our Fake Filmmaking stage of growth). Another reason it's less expensive to shoot SOOC is that (if you have an accurate screen on your camera) you don't necessarily have to buy an external monitor that can load a LUT. You can, and you still might want to (just to have a larger screen and focus-peaking assistance) but my main point is that using my SOOC settings makes it possible to use your camera's built-in screen if you need to. Then, if you add an external monitor for some reason, you really don't need to load a LUT, because my CUSTOM SETTINGS usually get you pretty close (it will depend on each lens-sensor combination). Furthermore, there are a number of other technical things that can be easier when using the SOOC technique, such as getting your white balance right (not saying you shouldn't buy a Color Checker if you can afford it). REASON 5 IT MAKES POST-PRODUCTION SO EASY! This is the part that will make you feel lazy, but shameless plug here: my "lens-sensor specific" camera settings are what make it all work (and the LUT does the final tweak). If you're not familiar with the concept of my CUSTOM SETTINGS check them out on my Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS page. How it works is that (after I calibrate each lens for each camera sensor) you simply use my custom settings while shooting, then apply my mild LUT (to finish the image). You'll need to adjust for exposure, add sharpening and check white balance, but there's not much else you need to do (so much easier than a LOG workflow)! ABOVE:  My custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings help make video footage look as close to what I call "real" as possible...SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) but I am working to make a "finishing LUT" for each combination also.  SUMMARY: If you're skeptical about shooting SOOC for video, go ahead and try some of the settings on my website (if you have the same camera and lenses I have). After you try some, I think you'll see they can do a pretty good job in the area of dynamic range, and the workflow is SO much faster and easier than shooting flat or in log! If you want more information about this process and why I think SOOC video can work, check out some of my podcast episodes (and other articles on my blog) listed in the links below, and I hope we meet again. To learn more about how and why I create and use Lens-Sensor LUTs & Camera Settings check out the following podcast episodes: MORE INFO: Lens-Sensor LUTS: Every Lens Has It's Own Story Why and How I Shot Match (Using Lens-Sensor LUTs) Why LUTs Should Be Lens-Sensor Specific When I Use Camera Color Settings vs. LUTs Using Camera Color Settings In Addition to LUTs The Easy Way to Use LUTs (Introducing Base LUTs) The following ads help fund THIS BLOG  (Click one to send me money for  100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3  of them eh?