We surplus items after doing REVIEWS if they didn't pass our Q.P.A.C.E. checklist (Quality, Portable, Affordable, Common, Easy-to-Use). So, all the gear works (we tested it) but it just didn't work for our workflows. SURPLUS PHOTO & VIDEO GEAR GET GREAT DEALS ON CAMERA GEAR WE'VE REVIEWED! We surplus items after doing REVIEWS if they didn't pass our Q.P.A.C.E . checklist (Quality, Portable, Affordable, Common, Easy-to-Use). So, all the gear works (we tested it) but it just didn't work for our workflows. Sort by CATEGORY CAMERAS SURPLUS Is the Quantaray 50 2.8 MACRO the Same as the Sigma? A lot of online reviewers say this lens is the same as the Sigma EX of the same specifications, and people are saying it's pretty good. However, on the camera sensor I tested it on (the Panasonic LUMIX S9) this lens isn't faring very well, for a number of reasons. READ THE REVIEW VIEW 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 SURPLUS (SOLD) Panasonic G95 + Sony DT 16-50 2.8 + Minolta 50 1.7 + Extras Wow, so disappointing...the G95 is not working well when using my in-camera custom settings method (which I rely on for some of my workflows). The first lens I tested turned out great (that 70-300 1:2 MACRO I really like) but then a couple of the most important lenses (which tested really well on the older G85) were just not a good match. [NO REVIEW] VIEW 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 Panasonic LUMIX GX9 is Not Good? (for VIDEO) I recently purchased a LUMIX GX9 (and a G95) with the hope there would be a relationship similar to what the GX85 and G85 have (those two are excellent for video, and their output is identical). However, as I tested the GX9 and G95, I was super disappointed by the low video quality. LISTEN TO REVIEW VIEW 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 SURPLUS (SOLD) The Panasonic LUMIX G85 is a Great B Camera So, I sold this camera to save money to buy a full frame camera (the LUMIX S9) but I miss it and I may buy another in the future. There are just so many good things about this camera (click READ THE REVIEW for the details). If nothing else, it's great if you need a 2nd or 3rd camera, for concurrent camera angles. READ THE REVIEW VIEW 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) Panasonic PV-DV953 Mini DV Camera (Hybrid) I waited over 20 years to buy this hybrid camera. It was introduced in 2003, and I wanted it back then, but I'm glad I waited. It was one of the first HYBRID cameras from Panasonic...and it was way ahead of its time (but the image quality just isn't cutting it, LOL) [NO REVIEW YET] VIEW 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. LISTEN TO REVIEW VIEW 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 is Impossible to Use (There is No 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...but 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. READ THE REVIEW VIEW 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).

Our goal is to make budget filmmaking cameras create a more film-like image by using custom, Lens-Sensor SETTINGS & LUTs for each of the lenses we test. We mainly do affordable lenses, because this is the main "focus" of SilverLight Photo Company (making good stuff on a budget). RECIPES EVERY LENS NEEDS "LENS-SENSOR" RECIPES & LUTS *THESE LUMIX CAMERAS WORK MUCH BETTER WHEN USING LENS-SENSOR RECIPES (& LUTS ) WE MAKE LENS-SENSOR RECIPES & LUTS FOR LUMIX CAMERAS We make RECIPES & LUTs that turn hybrid LUMIX cameras into professional workhorses. Check out our database of Lens-Sensor Recipes & LUTs ABOUT What Are Lens-Sensor Recipes (& LUTs)? The main reason to use custom "Lens-Sensor Recipes" (& LUTs ) is that every lens sends light to a sensor differently. Some sensors like sharp lenses (especially those with an optical low-pass filter) and some don't like a lot of sharpness. Some sensors love lots of color saturation, yet some can only take a little. Before I knew this, I was searching (for years) to find the perfect lens-sensor combo...until I realized that they need CUSTOM SETTINGS (now called Recipes ). LEARN MORE Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link CAMERAS Lens-Sensor Recipes I've been testing some super low budget hybrid cameras like the Panasonic G7, GX85, G85, GX9, G95, GH4 and GH5 and I've discovered they all can produce great video, as long as you use the CUSTOM SETTINGS . After testing, I started taking notes of the settings that worked for each combo, and then made this website, to be able to access all the info, fast. SEE RECIPES Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link LUTS Lens-Sensor LUTs Thank you for trying these LUTs! It's important to know these LUTs are the #2 step of this method (the CUSTOM SETTINGS are the 1st) and without those...these LUTs don't do much). So remember, use the lens-sensor camera settings while your're shooting and add the appropriate LUT during your post-production. SHOP LUTS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link

Oops, looks like this is the wrong path. Check the URL, or go back to the homepage and try again. GO BACK HOME

INTRO: So, I started using the term "proximity" to simply refer to the distance from the microphone to the sound source. Most audio people use this word in the term "proximity effect" to refer to added BASS and other distortions that occur when a person is too close to a microphone. Whichever way it's used, what I did was create a list of standard proximities, so I could systematically test each microphone & audio recorder combination I have (and come up with custom audio settings for each). ABOVE: I use the term "proximity" to refer to the distance between the sound source and the microphone. I then use this to figure out my custom (mic-specific) audio settings. To me, this makes setting up microphones & audio recorders super easy. ABOVE: Here are the "proximities" I use. The quality of the microphone and audio recorder do matter, but proximity might just be the most important factor when it comes to capturing good audio. WHY IS "PROXIMITY" SO IMPORTANT? Microphone proximity is not only an important consideration in regard to how realistic you want your sound to be (too close and it adds more BASS) but it's also important in regard to how "clean" your audio signal will be. You probably know that at close proximity, even inexpensive microphones sound good. Historically, the main reason proximity is important has been that it allows you to keep the record level of the audio recorder low (and therefore to avoid the added "noise" of the recorder preamp). However, when I started testing 32-bit float recorders, I realized I couldn't use a low gain setting to keep the "noise floor" low (because there is no "gain" on 32-bit float recorders!) I then realized microphone proximity is the now only way to keep the noise floor down (with a 32-bit float recorder). And yes, there can still be an issue with a high noise floor when using some microphones on certain 32-bit recorders. So, to figure out what custom audio settings to use (on each microphone and audio recorder combination) I established the following standards. The Proximity Method (For AUDIO): "CLOSE" (3.5 inches / 8.89 cm) "LAV" (7 inches / 17.78 cm) "VLOG" (22 inches / 55.5 cm) "BOOM" (35 inches / 88.88 cm) "AFAR" (16.4 feet / 5 m) USE FOR NARRATION, VOICEOVERS, PODCASTS I use this proximity for recording podcasts, voiceovers and narration. This places the microphone about 3.5 inches away or 8.89 cm. The trick to quickly approximate this distance is to make your hand into a fist, and then don't get closer to the microphone than that. The neat thing about this proximity is that a lot of these budget filmmaking microphones (mostly mini shotguns) sound pretty good at this proximity (check out my custom [mic-specific] audio settings to see the ones I've tested.) These mini mics (3.5mm plug, short interference tube) are also very affordable, and they're super small, and therefore super portable. What's also great about mini shotgun mics, is they almost all have a shock mount, and that most of those I've tested don't need an additional pop filter (to protect from plosives) which is normally needed when recording at this "CLOSE" proximity! USE FOR CLIP-ON (LAV.) MIC PLACEMENT This proximity is pretty self-explanatory, as it applies to using lavalier (or clip-on) mics. It's really easy to measure this distance by simply using the "hang loose" hand sign (for the distance between the mic and your mouth). This distance is approximately 7 inches/17.78 cm and can also be applied when hiding the mic in a person's clothing, or even in their hair. USE FOR VLOGGING (AT ARM'S LENGTH) The main attribute of the "VLOG" proximity is that it's typically used for placing a microphone on the camera's hot shoe (with the camera pointed towards yourself). Therefore, the easy way to remember this proximity is the mic should be no further away than arm's length. I know, some people (such as basketball players) have longer arms, but the idea is to place the mic no further away from the sound source than approx. 22 inches (or 55.5 cm). Some YouTubers also use this proximity for booming the mic (out of the shot) and the reason this works is because they're often really close to the camera. One last thing to remember about this "VLOG" proximity, is that it's important to use a "furry" windscreen when you're shooting outdoors (it helps protect the microphone from wind noise). Sometimes I even use a furry windscreen INDOORS, but it's specific to how each microphone-audio recorder combo sounds. USE FOR BOOMING FROM ABOVE (OR BELOW) This proximity is the traditional (Hollywood) boom distance, which is no more than 3 feet. I used to say my "maximum" boom distance was about 4 feet (and there are some mics you can push that far) but most brands are saying it's best to boom at 3 feet or less, so I changed this to conform to what everybody else is saying (though I've tested a number of mics that work well at around 4 feet). The reason I used to push my boom mic distance to 4 feet, was that I was trying to make it work for both WIDE AND TIGHT shots. A lot of filmmakers are able place the mic closer (while keeping it out of the shot) because they only use a single camera when recording. On the contrary, I prefer to "always shoot with 2 cameras (WIDE & TIGHT)" at the same time, so the mic needs a bit more distance to clear both the TIGHT & WIDE shots. Also, another thing about boom placement that's worth mentioning, is that the microphone can sometimes be placed BELOW the sound source (and not just ABOVE). The reason I sometimes prefer to place a boom BELOW is in situations where the ceiling is low and there is echo; if there's a carpeted floor, having the mic placed LOW will then reflect less (less echo). If the floor covering is tile or some other "reflective" material (even finished wood) it may be too reflective, but if it's covered with carpet (or a rug) it can work pretty well. USE FOR (DISTANT) NAT. SOUND CAPTURE This recording distance works quite well in situations where a bit of ambient background noise is good (such as outdoor "nat. sound" capture) because this proximity WILL increase the amount of background noise present in the recording. The reason is, the microphone is pretty far from the sound source, and this means you'll have to increase the recording level on the audio recorder (for non-32-bit-float recorders) or increase it in post, if you're using a 32-bit float recorder. It really depends on which microphone you're using though, because some are better than others for long-range recording (see my AUDIO SETTINGS data for details). The easy way to visualize this distance (and the way I came up with it) is to become aware of how close you can get to subjects out in the "wild" (such as birds, etc.) NOTE: I used to call this my "ZOOM" proximity, but I changed it because it was too easy to confuse this with the brand name Zoom (or even with zoom lenses). CONCLUSION: In an ideal world, we'd only use microphones at close proximity to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low (and to reduce the background noise). However, in many situations we can't get the mic that close, so we have to boost either the mic level (if it has power options) or the record level on the audio recorder (unless it's a 32-bit float recorder). So, what I'm doing is testing my favorite (budget) filmmaking microphones so I can test them at each proximity, and then provide settings recommendations specific to each combination (then posting them on the AUDIO section of my website). I know these settings won't be perfect, but my goal is to provide a good starting point (so you don't have to be stressed when recording). Next, we'll cover my favorite budget filmmaking AUDIO gear in PART 2: Kit Plans 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: The first thing to ask yourself is "Do I really need autofocus?" If you don't or you don't mind just experimenting with manual focus, read on. The good thing is, SOME old lenses can not only be very affordable, but very good...even better than some of the newer options, especially with newer (and sharper) camera sensors. So, lets get into exactly HOW I adapt old lenses (to Micro Four Thirds) and if you're wondering "Isn't adapting lenses as simple as buying an adapter, and putting it on the camera?" Well, it kind of is, but what I'll be talking about is the decision-making process that led me to coming up with the information you'll see in my notes below. It's about how I keep the image quality high, even when using smaller sensor (Micro Four Thirds) budget filmmaking cameras. WARNING: I no longer recommend focal reducers/speed boosters FOR CAMERAS WITH I.B.I.S. (In-Body Image Stabilization). The reason is, I dropped my camera (with a Viltrox NF-M43x on it) and the sensor got scratched (I'm pretty sure it was because the optic of the speed booster sticks into the lens mount more than an OEM Panasonic lens). There are a ton of options when it comes to adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds, as you can adapt almost ANY lens mount (because of the small sensor size). WHY ADAPT OLD LENSES? Adapting vintage lenses can be a cost-effective way to enhance your image, especially if you're working with budget cameras (around $600 or less). I’ve found that many vintage lenses have characteristics that can help you produce great images (when paired with the right camera and CUSTOM, LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS). Adapting vintage lenses is one of the most rewarding things about using Micro Four Thirds, as you can unlock new looks with the unique image qualities of vintage lenses. Oh, and when I say "vintage" I include the late 80's and early 90's AF (autofocus) lenses, so keep that in mind. Why Some People Go Vintage: Character: Vintage lenses often have distinctive color profiles modern glass can’t replicate. Manual Control: A tactile, hands-on shooting experience with manual focus and aperture rings. Affordability: Many high-quality vintage lenses are available for a fraction of the price of new. Build Quality: All-metal construction and solid mechanics are common in older lenses. Flexibility: Adapted lenses can give you access to focal lengths and apertures not available natively on MFT. I actually consider AF lenses from the late 80s and early 90s to be "vintage". The Minolta AF mount (now called Sony A) has a number of super good lenses...and they're affordable too! HOW I ADAPT LENSES: INDOOR VS. OUTDOOR When adapting old lenses to Micro Four Thirds, the first thing I think about is what environment I'll be shooting in. I start by separating INDOOR vs. OUTDOOR situations, then I categorize the choices into my "3 Simple Shots" which are based on my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE). HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (INDOORS) WIDE = "BOOST" (unless "SHIFT" or AF follow) TIGHT = "BOOST" (almost always) TELE = "BOOST" (almost always) HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (OUTDOORS) WIDE = "SHIFT" (unless AF follow) TIGHT = "HELICOID" (macro adapter) TELE = "HELICOID" (or "BOOST"*) ABOVE: My most important tip regarding adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds INDOORS is "Boost whenever you can". However, there are a few exceptions to this rule (see below). INDOORS WIDE = BOOST Indoors (or in low light situations) Micro Four Thirds sensors often need a +BOOST (i.e. a focal reducer). There are two reasons they need this: 1.) They need a wider max. aperture to expose the sensor to more light, and 2.) They may need a wider angle (a shorter focal length) to get everything in the shot. However, if there is enough light indoors, I would always prefer to use a SHIFT adapter #ad (for correcting architectural distortion) but that can only work if your lens is both wide enough, and it has a decent maximum aperture. (This is why I love using the Tokina AT-X 11-16 2.8 #ad ). The other reason I wouldn't use a +BOOST would be if I needed to "follow" using touchscreen AF (autofocus). ABOVE: When using Micro Four Thirds INDOORS I like using a speed booster, but not because of low light (you can add light indoors) but to create a background blur in smaller spaces. Bad news is, now I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING SPEED BOOSTERS WITH IBIS, so I only do it with my GH4, G7. INDOORS TIGHT = BOOST The first reason I use a +BOOST indoors is simply to increase the amount of light being sent to the sensor. This allows me to use a lower ISO (which is really important for Micro Four Thirds cameras). Also, the indoor "TIGHT" shot is usually used for a "talking head" people shot, so the speed booster helps to create shallower depth of field (i.e. more background blur). INDOORS TELE = BOOST Since there really isn't any (affordable) telephoto lens that is as fast as F/1.4, I almost always add a speed booster for telephoto shots (INDOORS). There aren't many BUDGET options for low-light telephoto lenses either, so that makes this situation even worse. There are expensive F/2.8 options (and even a 50-100 1.8 from Sigma) but I often need something in the range of 70-300 for telephoto, especially after applying the 0.71x focal reduction of the speed booster. So, in many cases, the 200mm at the long end of a 70/80-200 2.8 isn't enough, even on Micro Four Thirds with a 2x crop factor. So, what do I do? Well, this is one of those rare times when I push my ISO up (to 800 max.) and add a +BOOST (speed booster). With a BOOST, even an F/4.5-5.6 70-300 zoom can (often) work in low light. I rarely push my ISO up to 800 when using Micro Four Thirds (and never higher) because the smaller sensor and the higher ISO will create a grainy image and/or overly noise-reduced image. ABOVE: My When adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds OUTDOORS, the first thing I do is add a "SHIFT" adapter to the WIDE shot, and then macro "HELICOID" adapters to the rest. OUTDOORS "WIDE" = SHIFT I love "SHIFT" adapters so much that I try to use them whenever possible (for "WIDE" shots). Also known as "perspective control" adapters (taken from "perspective control lenses") they can keep architectural lines of buildings straight, which ends up adding realism to the shot (in my opinion). There's more detail in my book on Amazon #ad (has a special section about using shift lenses for Micro Four Thirds) but I can quickly say that once you use a shift adapter or lens, you'll never want to go back, and you'll probably be able to see why I even try to use them in low-light situations where I would normally use a speed booster. ABOVE: I can't tell you how much I love using an inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter #ad on Micro Four Thirds. What this means, is you can turn almost any (Nikon F/G mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, including variable focal length (zoom) lenses! OUTDOORS "TIGHT" = HELICOID (MACRO) If you haven't noticed from my lens test videos (on YouTube) I like to be able to shoot macro anytime I'm outdoors. There's a number of ways to do this, but the way I like to do it is to use a macro helicoid adapter #ad . The reason I like this approach (instead of buying a macro lens) is that it allows me to test almost ANY lens at a macro distance, even though they weren't designed for this. It also means I can use more low-light capable lenses, such as a 50mm 1.4, and be ready for both INDOOR and OUTDOOR situations (compared to most macro lenses being an F/2.8, F/3.5 or even an F/4.0). OUTDOORS "TELE" = HELICOID (MACRO) The reason I add a "BOOST" to a telephoto lens OUTDOORS, is that sometimes these tele lenses can be heavy, and my focal reducer ("speed booster") has a tripod mount on the adapter which bears the weight of the lens, instead of the camera's mount. Lighter lenses such as the 70/75-300 4.5-5.6 variety (from the early AF era in the 90's) don't need this special mount, so I use a macro "HELICOID". (If someone would design a macro helicoid adapter WITH an integrated tripod mount, THAT would be great!) ABOVE: When shooting OUTDOORS, there are so many moments you can miss if you don't have a MACRO lens! To be prepared for this, I like to always have a macro helicoid adapter #ad on hand. These are golden as they pretty much turn ANY lens into a MACRO! SO, WHAT LENS MOUNTS DO I PREFER? I’ve tested a variety of lens mounts, but I only want to discuss those I’ve personally used. I believe in sharing experiences rather than speculating about products I haven’t tried. This post will not cover every vintage lens mount but will focus on the ones I’ve tested and found noteworthy. CANON FD First of all, I will only quickly state here (because I have an entire podcast episode about it) that there are some nice Canon FD lenses I really liked (especially the FD 50 1.8, not the 1.4) and so I've purchased several of them. However, it seems like more than half of the Canon FD lenses I've had have problems with mold (which can contaminate other lenses, etc.) but if you find one that smells clean, it might be worth it trying. MINOLTA MD (& AF) One of my favorite lens brands to adapt are Minolta lenses (the company that Sony bought in 1995 to boost it's camera department). I especially like the older manual focus Minolta MD series, and I think they're certainly worth considering. The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is an optical jewel, and the build quality is good. Also, the autofocus era Minolta lenses (from before they were purchased by Sony and called Sony A mount) are also really good, and what I really like is that most of the Micro Four Thirds adapters give you a de-clicked/stepless aperture (which is especially good for video production). NIKON F Nikon F mount is probably my top recommendation for adapting vintage lenses (if you only had one mount). The clickable aperture control on the Nikon F lenses makes them easy to adapt to other systems, including Canon EF. For Nikon F-mount lenses, I particularly recommend the first autofocus generation (and the D-series) such as the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D, which is a fantastic bargain at around $50 to $60. The build quality of these lenses is pretty good (not as good as the manual focus era, though) but the main point is they have great optics. Optically, I think the 1st generation Nikon AF lenses are one of the most color-accurate lens lines ever (not so with the next generation of Nikon lenses from the 1990s). The older (manual focus) Nikkors do have better ergonomics with larger manual focus grip area, but the optics on a lot of those older lenses wasn't very accurate or complete (Nikon glass seemed like it didn't render the full spectrum of color, and had a warm bias). Also, another thing to note about Nikon lenses is they focus in the opposite direction of most other brands (filmmakers complain about this the most, because of their focus-pulling habits). OLYMPUS OM Olympus OM lenses were the first adapted lens I ever tried (and why did I ever sell it)! The 50mm f/1.8 is excellent optic. This lens is so good I had a DP from the Discovery Channel look at a shot I had set up with this and say "Wow!" So, the old manual focus Olympus OM lenses are well-known for their optics. Plus, I really like that they have the aperture control on the front end of the lens, which is not only easier to use, but it means they can be easily adapted to Micro 4/3 cameras with a cheap adapter (and they can also be adapted to Canon EF too, if you need to). PENTAX K So then, about Pentax. I've only tried the super-vintage Super Takumar lenses, so I should probably not say much more. The Super-Takumar that I tried had to be de-yellowed (because of the radioactive elements in the coatings) and so I didn't want to spend much time getting custom settings figured out for it, since the lens was probably going to change. Oh, I also tried tiny Pentax 110 lenses, and that was fun (but the edge sharpness isn't going to be there). So, maybe I'll come back to them later. ARE ANY AF LENSES CONSIDERED VINTAGE? If you don't mind stretching the definition of "old" (or "vintage") I think some of the best lenses (good quality, for not much money) were actually from the early AF era (when AF/autofocus was in the 1st generation). This would make the lenses be from around the 1980s, when I think Nikon and Canon produced some of their best lenses. The Nikon AF and AF-D lenses are probably some of the most color-accurate, realistic-looking lenses I have ever used! The second thing to be aware of, is some of the OLDER vintage lenses might have problems with fungus...and fungus is no fun (I almost lost a lens to it). IF THERE'S NO MULTI-COATING, I DON'T BOTHER So, buying (and hunting for) vintage lenses can be a lot of fun, but before you get too addicted, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is that there was a time when vintage lenses weren't very good when they didn't have multi-coatings. As interesting as they may look, those kind have rarely (pun not intended) been worth my time. Therefore, the general rule I follow to stay within the multi-coated era is to not buy lenses from before World War 2. ABOVE: There are some really great old lenses out there, but before you get too excited, smell it (like Jared @Fro Knows Photo does) and inspect it for fungus. You don't want it spreading to other lenses. 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. Full-frame TELE lenses are much heavier, larger and more expensive; 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?