SEARCH  WEBSITE

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). ABOUT YOUR LENS NEEDS "LENS-SENSOR" RECIPES (& LUTS) LEARN HOW EVERY LENS (& SENSOR) CAN DO BETTER...& WHY RELATIONSHIPS MATTER. "LENS-SENSOR" RECIPES (& LUTS) FOR HYBRID LUMIX CAMERAS Check out our database of CUSTOM RECIPES & LUTs BLOG A 100% REAL Budget Camera Blog When some people say "BUDGET" they still talk about cameras that are WAY MORE expensive than we can afford, but this blog is actually a low-budget blog. When I started out I was using super-low-budget filmmaking cameras like the Panasonic GH2, G5, G7, GH4, GX85 and G85...but I soon realized they could produce really good footage (as long as you use CUSTOM SETTINGS, LOL). READ BLOG Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link 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 ). So, I began testing every lens I could afford, and taking notes for each lens-sensor combination. I finally realized I would need a database to store all of this information, so I made this website (and now I offer a local LENS-SENSOR CALIBRATION SERVICE too). READ MORE Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link CAMERAS Lens-Sensor Recipes Here's is a list of all of the cameras we've tested. When I started out, I was using extremely low budget hybrid cameras like the Panasonic GH2, G5, G7, GH4, GX85, G85, and GH5 and soon realized they could produce really good footage (as long as you figured out the right CUSTOM SETTINGS ). So, I began taking notes of all of the CUSTOM SETTINGS that worked for each lens...and had to make this website to access the information fast, on-location. SEE SETTINGS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link LUTS Lens-Sensor LUTs Thank you for trying out these LUTs! It's super important to realize that these LUTs are the #2 step of the method (and that without our CUSTOM SETTINGS these LUTs won't do much). The goal for our "Lens-Sensor LUTs" was to help get the most out of budget lenses & cameras, by customizing the CUSTOM SETTINGS & LUTs to every combo. So remember, you need to use the lens-sensor camera settings while shooting (and then add a LUT during post-production). SHOP LUTS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link BTS Behind-the-Scenes Access Our goal is to create 100% REAL photos & videos (without A.I.). So, we came up with our "Lens-Sensor" CUSTOM SETTINGS (& LUTs ) to process the images. The reason we do this, is we think it renders a more realistic-looking image (than using heavy post-processing) and the key ingredient in these settings recipes is to use custom camera settings, specific to each lens-sensor combination. GET ACCESS Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp LinkedIn Pinterest Copy link

Here are the cameras I have tested. I started out using extremely low budget filmmaking cameras like the Panasonic GH2, GH4, GH5, G7, GX85 and G85, and realized they could produce really good footage, as long as you found the "sweet spot" in each lens-sensor combo. So, I began taking notes of all of the CUSTOM IN-CAMERA SETTINGS that worked (to produce a film look) for each lens I tested...then I had to make this website (to access the information fast, while on-location). REAL RECIPES Custom "Lens-Sensor" Recipes for budget LUMIX cameras. The Secret (How To) Panasonic GH5 Panasonic GH4 Panasonic GX85 Panasonic G85 Panasonic G7 Panasonic FZ1000 How I Adapt Old Lenses Best Budget "TELE" Lenses? Learn More: What Camera Settings Are Best (Differs for Each Lens?) Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS Panasonic LUMIX G85 This is the first camera I would buy, because it has good IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) a decent sensor, weather sealing, a flip-around screen (for vlogging) and a mic input. The screen is pretty accurate (almost as good as the GX85) which I think is important when you're learning filmmaking (it helps you make focus and exposure judgements without the need for an additional monitor). GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS Panasonic LUMIX GX85 This camera is a great deal, and is my preferred #2 camera (the G85 being the primary, as this one doesn't have a microphone jack). The image from this camera matches the Panasonic G85 perfectly, and so the settings I use are almost always the same (this makes sense to me, as it uses the same sensor, but slightly different processing). The screen on this camera is one of the most accurate I have ever used (and is good enough to make focus, exposure and even color judgements).This camera is also VERY useful as an architectural camera because it can use a tilt/shift adapter (with a wide angle) whereas the G7, G85, G95 cannot (because the pop-up flash overhangs the lens mount). I think the IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) is better than the G85 (which is REALLY good) and this feature alone makes this an excellent pick. GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS Panasonic LUMIX G7 This camera is good for leaving in the studio, but I don't like using it in the field. The lack of IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) means you need a larger, heavier tripod (or gimbal) to use it effectively. Also, the inaccurate screen isn't a good tool for beginners who need to make exposure and other image judgements using it (instead of an external monitor). The GX85 and G85 screens are much better (but the GH4 screen is even worse than the G7). GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS Panasonic GH4 I was almost done with the GH4 for a number of reasons (lack of IBIS, inaccurate screen, weird color) until I started seeing some of the best deals EVER (with the 12-35 2.8) showing up on OfferUp (I used to see deals like this on the GH2 and I'm super happy to see them again, now with the GH4). I don't like this camera for ON-LOCATION work due to the lack of IBIS (and the terrible screen) yet I still believe it's a good tool for studio work, so I began looking into it again after selling the first one I had. GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS Panasonic FZ1000 I'm pretty close to being convinced that the FZ1000 is a truly professional filmmaking tool. After 2 years of testing, I figured out how to make this camera produce a "non-digital" looking image by using custom camera settings which you can find on my website . I would buy this camera before you buy an expensive telephoto lens because it is almost the same price. However, it isn't very good in LOW LIGHT, but it's a great OUTDOOR tool. There's more information in my article called Is The FZ1000 Good For (Budget) Filmmaking? . GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS GoPro (HERO4 Silver or Newer) Putting a GoPro on top of your "real" camera is a really easy way to get a #2 shot. I would say the HERO 4 Silver is the best deal, if you don't need stabilization (which you don't need as much when it's mounted to the top of your camera). The HERO4 Silver is the oldest I would go, and if you need image stabilization, go 7 or newer (I think the 8 is the best overall #2 camera for super low budget filmmaking). GO TO SETTINGS AMAZON* #ad EBAY* #ad OFFER UP* *The Amazon, Ebay buttons are affiliate links (#ad) but the OFFER UP link just initiates a used item search. ALWAYS CHECK THE "USED" MARKET!

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 SORT: by SHOT by SCENE by SEQUENCE FILTER by CITY If image is black & white, final photos & videos are in post-production phase (please check back, and refresh).

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: As I’ve been testing budget camera systems—especially Micro Four Thirds (M4/3) I started looking for a simple, reliable way to set up shots regardless of the "format". This really opened up a new way of thinking about sensor sizes and trying to figure out how to make one sensor size do everything; now I play to the strengths of each format, while separating them into my 3 Simple Shots  ( WIDE , TIGHT  and TELE ). 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. Can't Micro Four Thirds Do Everything? 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. This shot was taken with a vintage Nikon AI-S 80-200 that only cost around $40. You could get this on a full-frame camera too, but not at this distance. 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    UTILIZE IN-BODY IMAGE STABILIZATION Panasonic micro 4/3 bodies are noted for effective stabilization, especially with manual lenses.  TIP  4    PLAN FOR MULTI-CAMERA SHOOTS Using at least two cameras can be beneficial for interviews or dynamic scenes. Consistent color and exposure settings across cameras can simplify editing.  TIP  5    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 else gets simpler. Give each sensor size the job it does best. You’ll spend less, your shots will look better, and you won’t be wrestling with the limitations of any one system. Breaking down the workflow down this way—by matching the right tool for each shot type—has taken away a lot of pointless complication. Instead of worrying which focal length “matches what on another sensor,” I just ask: Which setup does THIS job best, at a practical price? It’s made things faster, easier, and more consistent, and freed me up to focus on the creative work (while keeping the image looking REAL ). So, next time you plan your shoot —whether it’s corporate interviews, documentaries, interiors, or anything else—consider splitting the load: WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE ... and let each camera and lens do what it does best. 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: Once you experience using a perspective control (shift) lens, you probably won't be able to shoot architecture without one (and you'll probably find other shots that can benefit from the perspective control too). However, those of us who aren't terribly rich probably gave up on the dream of tilt/shift lens ownership long ago because of the high price tag (a new Nikon or Canon version is around $1,500). The good news is, for Micro Four Thirds users, there is a less expensive (and more flexible) option: An inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter #ad that can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a tilt/shift lens (yes, you read that right)! Keep in mind it only works with specific Micro Four Thirds cameras but this is still pretty great for the price. Let's talk about how to do it. ABOVE:  There's a number of tricks you can do with Micro Four Thirds that you can't with full frame cameras, including buying an inexpensive TILT/SHIFT adapter to turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a perspective control lens. WHY IS THIS SO AMAZING? Well, not only does this mean you can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, but it ALSO means you can do this with variable focal length lenses (zoom lenses). The reason this is so important, is that having a zoom lens with TILT/SHIFT capability means you have a ton of compositional control over the image. Not only can you zoom in or out a little bit to change composition, but you can SHIFT up or down to frame the shot as well. This is something that you have to experience to understand (at least I did) but we'll go into exactly how to do this in a little bit. DOES THIS ONLY WORK ON M43? So, this is also works on 1.5/1.6x crop sensors, but not as well. It also sorta works on full frame, but let's talk about why that doesn't work very well (hint: you'll need medium format lenses). The biggest reason why the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor works with TILT/SHIFT adapters, is because of the principle of these adapters: they use a lens from a larger sensor format to create a larger image circle, and then it will move ("shift") within that larger image circle. So, on M43 (MIcro Four Thirds) you can do this with either full frame or DX/cropped sensor lens, but If you use a DX/cropped sensor lens on a cropped sensor camera, there's nowhere to go (the image circle is used up). The reason is that the “image circle” of the lens has to be larger than your sensor. That's why if you try doing this with a full frame camera, you’d have to adapt a MEDIUM FORMAT LENS to make it work. There are full frame TILT/SHIFT adapters available (for medium format lenses) but the problem is it's difficult to find a lens that's WIDE enough from the medium format lineup (because what's considered a wide on medium format is not the same on full frame). So, on an APS-C/Super 35 sensor (such as the Sony A6500, etc.) the problem is much less of an issue, but you still can only use full frame lenses and that makes it harder to get a good wide lens (for a low price). ABOVE:  An example of an image taken with a wide-angle lens, WITHOUT a perspective control adapter. The camera had to be angled upward toward the building, which causes distortion. (Taken with the overly sharp Sigma 18-35 1.8.) ABOVE:  This image was taken WITH a shift adapter (this time using a cheap Nikon 18-55 v1). The camera is level, and the lens was "shifted" up. How To Use TILT/SHIFT (on Micro Four Thirds): STEP 1: BUY A (COMPATIBLE) M43 CAMERA STEP 2: BUY A TILT/SHIFT ADAPTER STEP 3: BUY A NIKON F-MOUNT LENS STEP 4: PRACTICE USING SHIFT (NO TILT) STEP 5: PRACTICE USING TILT (NO SHIFT) STEP 1 BUY A (COMPATIBLE) M43 CAMERA I need to quickly point out that not all Micro Four Thirds cameras work with TILT/SHIFT adapters. The reason is silly, and it's not because of any differences between Micro Four Thirds sensors (they're all the same size, I would guess). Rather, it's the design of the exterior of the camera that matters. The rangefinder-style cameras work, but some of the smaller SLR-style cameras usually don't (see the M43 compatibility list below). The actual reason is that the part of the camera that is just above the lens mount CANNOT BE OBSTRUCTED (for the lens to "shift" up). The non-rangefinder style cameras often have either a pop-up flash or just an un-necessarily large awning that extends over the lens mount. I jokingly call it an "awning" but the bad news is that it renders a lot of otherwise great M43 cameras useless for using with TILT/SHIFT adapters. So, below is the compatibility list (as far as I know at time of writing): (M43) CAMERAS THAT WORK*: Panasonic GH2 #ad Panasonic GH3 (?) Panasonic GH4 #ad Panasonic GH5    #ad     Panasonic GX85 #ad Panasonic GX9 #ad Panasonic G9 #ad (M43) CAMERAS THAT DON'T* Panasonic G7 Panasonic G85 Panasonic G95 *I'm working on testing this TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad on as many camera bodies as I can, so I'm sure I'm missing some. if you know of any that don't work, leave a comment below. The main reason certain cameras won't work (with TILT/SHIFT adapters) is they have sort of an "awning" that obstructs the upward "shift" movement of the adapter. STEP 2 BUY A TILT/SHIFT ADAPTER As I mentioned, the Panasonic GX85 #ad is probably my favorite camera for using a TILT/SHIFT adapter, because of the "rangefinder" design of the body. I shoot all of my WIDE shots with this camera and the TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad I use is only $125 US on Ebay! I just can't imagine not shooting without one now (it adds so much realism to each shot). I have used a few of these adapters, but this one is the best I've found (the others have problems such as being loose, only taking Nikon F, not G lenses, or having a metallic, blue coating THAT COMES OFF, AND COULD GET ON THE SENSOR). The only thing about the one I like is it is only available on Ebay (not on Amazon). STEP 3 BUY A NIKON F-MOUNT LENS Let's talk about buying a lens to use with a SHIFT or TILT/SHIFT adapter. My main point is to get a Nikon F-mount lens, but the reason isn't that the adapters aren't available in other lens mounts (they are) but that most of the LENSES I like are either made by Nikon or are available (cheaper) in the Nikon mount, for some reason. Here's a short list of lenses I've tested on the TILT/SHIFT adapters I've had. Most of the time people use SHIFT or TILT/SHIFT with WIDE lenses, so that's what this list is, but you could pretty much use any Nikon F or Nikon G mount lens on this adapter (I even use telephoto lenses on it once in a while, LOL). MY FAVORITE LENSES (FOR TILT/SHIFT): Tokina 11-16 2.8 #ad Nikon 17-35 2.8 #ad Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX #ad Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX #ad Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART #ad *The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is a bit too heavy for most of the TILT/SHIFT adapters I have. ABOVE:  Another example of using a TILT/SHIFT adapter    #ad    with the Panasonic GX85. This might be my favorite camera EVER, as it can use a TILT/SHIFT adapter due to the rangefinder-style design and 2x crop sensor (the GX9 works too but has more crop in 4K). STEP 4 PRACTICE USING SHIFT (NO TILT) Let me first take a shot at simplifying the definition of "shift". I think by telling you how the shift function works in practice (which is super simple) you'll feel less worried about whether or not you can do this. To use a shift lens, all you have to do is make sure the camera is level (I use a bubble level on the hot shoe) and then shift up or down to compose the image. That's it. Yes, you can rotate the shift mechanism to allow for left and right shift (for use as panoramic tool) but we're focused on using this for video, so we're not going to go there. We'll keep it simple, and just repeat that using a shift lens is as easy as keeping the camera level and then composing your shot by shifting up or down (instead of pointing the camera up or down, which would introduce linear distortion in architectural lines). ABOVE:  Using a SHIFT lens (or adapter) is a lot easier than you might think. All you have to do is level the camera, then compose the shot using the shift movement (seriously)! STEP 5 PRACTICE USING TILT (NO SHIFT) Describing lens "tilt" in a practical way, is a bit more difficult than describing "shift" but let's give it a try. TILT refers to the ability to control the focus plane, by changing the angle of the lens to the film (or sensor) plane. Most often, you'll see people using the tilt function to create a "miniature effect" but it can also be used in the opposite way (to increase how much is in focus). This can really help for macro purposes, and also helps when you want to shoot wide open (usually in low light) and need more of the foreground in focus. ABOVE:  Using a TILT lens (or an adapter with TILT) is all about changing the angle of the focus plane. The benefit is that you'll be able to get more in focus with a shallower depth of field, meaning you can keep more of the foreground in focus, but still blur the background.  SUMMARY: I can't help being excited about this topic, because TILT/SHIFT adapters for Micro Four Thirds made my dream of owning a tilt/shift lens a reality. I mean it when I say I can hardly use a "normal" lens for WIDE shots anymore, because I just can't ignore the angular distortion (in architecture) that happens when you have to angle upward (on a non-shift lens) to compose the shot. If you're worried about the added complexity, I will tell you that using TILT/SHIFT is a lot easier than you might think, and all you're giving up (compared to a native lens) is autofocus and electronic aperture control, which to me is totally worth it, in most cases. 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?