INTRO: "T-Lighting" is a simple, 2-light method that's faster and easier to set up than 3-point lighting but is less expensive (yet produces similar results). 3-point lighting is one of the staples of conventional filmmaking, and T-lighting is one of the best parts of my " Fake Filmmaking " method. If you haven't heard of it, I've been developing this method (of budget filmmaking) that's much easier than conventional filmmaking. This article introduces the first part of my "Fake" method: LIGHTS. We cover a few reasons why I think T-lighting is better than traditional 3-point lighting, but my plan is to create a more detailed "HOW-TO" guide in the future (if there's enough interest). ABOVE:  The video above is pretty old (it was the 2nd video I uploaded to YouTube) but it still serves as a brief overview of T-Lighting. WHAT IS "T-LIGHTING"? T-Lighting is a simple, 2-light setup which uses the #2 light as both the 3/4 backlight AND as a background light (and the main light is used the same way as it would be in 3-point lighting). The Reasons I Use "T-Lighting" "T-LIGHTING" IS FASTER (& EASIER) (Than 3-Point) "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE (Than 3-Point) "T-LIGHTING" WORKS IN SMALL SPACES (With Low Ceilings) NOTE 1 "T-LIGHTING" IS FASTER (& EASIER) It's "faster" because you're only setting up a total of 2 lights (and no boom for the "hair light"). It's "easier" for a number of reasons, including the first point, but also because there are ONLY 2 STEPS TO SET IT UP ! STEP 1 : Set up the "MAIN LIGHT" Parallel to the lens, 4 feet / 1.22 meters directly to one side of camera (at approx. arm's length) STEP 2 : Set up the "T-LIGHT" Perpendicular to main light, straight across the "clock dial" (at 10 or 2 o' clock, whichever's opposite of the main light) ABOVE:  The main reason why "T-lighting" is so much faster than 3-point lighting, is that it's less gear to set up (2 lights instead of 3+) and doesn't require a boom (for the hair light). NOTE 2 "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE ABOVE:  The truth is, when background lights are added you actually need more than 3 lights for 3-point lighting...so the cost is even GREATER than you may think (not to mention the cost of extra light stand and the boom for a "hair light"). WHY "T-LIGHTING" IS LESS EXPENSIVE This reason T-lighting is going to be less expensive, is that it requires only 2 lights, and 3-point lighting requires 3 (or more)! For T-lighting, the main light is about the same as it would be in 3-point lighting (a large, diffused light source) and it's probably the most expensive light in the kit. The second "T-light" isn't very expensive though, and the general rule I use is that it should be about half as powerful as the main light. This second light should also be "open" without a diffuser or barn doors (so the light spills to the sides). The light stand for the main light needs to be a good, heavy-duty one, but the light stand for the T-light doesn't need to be very big. I've even used a selfie stand, or a really cheap video tripod to mount the second light. The point is, when you compare this to the (long) list of items needed for 3-point lighting, the list of items needed to make T-lighting work, is going to be a lot shorter. NOTE 3 "T-LIGHTING" WORKS IN SMALL SPACES ABOVE:  I started my YouTube channel by filming myself in a small space (my bedroom) in which there was "no room for a boom". T-LIGHTING WORKS WITH LOW CEILINGS! Another reason I like the idea of T-lighting (more than 3-point lighting) is that it works when there's low ceilings. Ever tried setting up 3-point lighting while shooting in a small room? You know you really need to add light, but there's no room for a boom! So, the neat thing about T-lighting is you get the 3/4 backlight effect, but you don't need to set up a boom arm to make it happen. It just takes 2 small light stands and one of them can even be a little, tiny tripod (because it doesn't need to be as strong of a light source as the main light, and needs to be close to the ground, to hide it, anyway).  SUMMARY: I think T-lighting can produce a look similar to 3-point lighting, but it's so much quicker and easier to set up that I generally prefer it for a number of reasons. The T-lighting layout removes the hassle of having to find set up a boom for a hair light (because a 3/4 backlight is supplied by the "T" light) and that T-light also (side) lights the background, so you don't really need to add extra lights for that. Good news is you're done  bad news is: here's an ad (yet it does pay for THE BLOG )  If you liked the first ad  (Here's another one) But if you didn't  sorry...  (you'll get a chance to see more, in the future)

INTRO: My #1 budget filmmaking tip is "Always Shoot With Two Cameras" because this and my " 3 Simple Shots " make budget filmmaking super easy. It's also part of my " Fake Filmmaking " method, where I'm figuring out ways to make everything a lot more affordable (and easier) than it has been in the past. Still, some may wonder how this stuff is possible, either technically or financially. The good news is, I've come up with my 3 kit plans that not only make this technically easy, but are also budget friendly. My three kit plans are the Minimal Kit the Basic Kit and Advanced Kit . ABOVE:  My #1 tip (to make BUDGET filmmaking easier) is to "Always Shoot with Two Cameras". Above: Here's a video of my "dual-camera cage" in use. For more information about the shot composition, see my blog post about "3 Simple Shots"  I use for "Fake Filmmaking" . How To "Always Shoot With 2 Cameras" KIT PLAN #1: MINIMAL KIT PLAN #2: BASIC KIT PLAN #3: ADVANCED KIT PLAN 1 " MINIMAL " ABOVE:  It can't get any easier than the Minimal Kit . Mount a GoPro ( HERO4 Silver  or newer) on top of a "real" camera and you're done! MY MINIMAL KIT: EASY AND INEXPENSIVE To use this method, I simply mount a GoPro HERO4 Silver (or newer) on top of a "real" (interchangeable-lens) camera. Then, I compose the "TIGHT" shot (on the "real" camera) and then compose the "WIDE" shot (by simply angling the GoPro forward or back). This method is super easy to learn and do, and it's pretty inexpensive as well. It can even work using an older GoPro without image stabilization (such as the HERO4 Silver ) because stabilization isn't always necessary if mounted to a camera's hot shoe(dampens it). Getting a HERO7 (or newer) is better though, if you need stabilization. As a side note, I would NOT recommend the HERO4 Black, because it doesn't have a viewfinder or screen...but any GoPro model after the 4 has a screen (either Black or Silver).  HOW TO:  USING THE MINIMAL KIT TO RECORD "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS For using the Minimal Kit , the method (for composing my WIDE & TIGHT shots) is pretty easy. First, I compose the TIGHT shot (the camera on the bottom with the prime lens) and then I adjust the GoPro (or other action camera) on the top. The reason I do it in this order, is that the TIGHT shot needs to be more or less pointed right at the subject you are filming, whereas the WIDE shot is easier to just point in the approximate direction of the scene. ABOVE:  (OUTDATED) I used to recommend using a cell phone as the second camera (for the Minimal Kit ) but after testing a GoPro HERO4 Silver ...and comparing the price (on the used market) to a good iPhone, I changed my (budget) recommendation. KIT PLAN 2 " BASIC " ABOVE:  The key to always shooting with 2 cameras, is to be able to control both cameras at the same time. This need led me to creating this "dual-camera cage" I use for my Basic Kit . ABOVE:  A home-made dual-camera cage in use. To make one, all you have to do is get a well-built cage, make sure it has mounting points on top, and add an extra ball head. THE BASIC KIT: TWO "REAL" CAMERAS The first thing I do is find a cage (there are a lot of them out there, but I like this one #ad ) that is sturdy enough to hold 2 cameras. The WIDE shot camera will go on the bottom (normally) and the TIGHT shot will go on the top. All I do to mount the cameras is add a small, but strong ball head (or monopod head*) to the top level of the cage. I prefer a monopod head if I need to handhold the entire cage, but if it's mounted on a tripod (static) I prefer to use a ball head (as it's easier to compose a 2nd shot using a ball head). To mount the camera to the bottom, most cages include a standard 1/4-20 mount on the bottom/inside of the cage. All I do is mount a quick-release plate for the camera, there. That's pretty much all I do to create a "dual-camera cage" for the Basic Kit (except for maybe mounting an audio recorder and/or wireless receiver) but when we move to discussing the "Advanced Kit" things are going to get more interesting (HINT: I mount an Atomos HDMI recorder/monitor PLUS an HDMI switcher to the rig, and sometimes add another camera). NOTE: To mount the camera on the top of the cage, most cages have a bunch of reverse 1/4-20 mounting holes all over, so it's easy to attach a camera mount.  HOW TO:  USING THE BASIC KIT TO CAPTURE "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS Using the Basic Kit is sort of the opposite of using the Minimal Kit . First, I compose the WIDE shot (usually the camera on the bottom) and then I lock the tripod in that position. Then, I compose the TIGHT shot (usually the camera on the top) using the ball head (or monopod head). For this "BASIC" method I don't talk about hand holding this whole rig (I do in the Advanced Kit ) but I'll just say that it takes a bit of practice to get coordinated enough to handle both cameras at the same time. One thing I do recommend to make it easier, is make sure one of the two cameras is using autofocus (and if you're on a Panasonic camera, make sure you're using "Single Shot" AF and NOT "Continuous"...and use "back button" or touch to focus using the touch screen). The reason having one camera use AF, is that it's not easy to focus pull (i.e. manually focus) two cameras at a time, but I find I can handle it, if one of them is using AF. KIT PLAN 3 " ADVANCED " ABOVE:  My " Advanced Kit " gets a bit crazy: I mount an (Atomos) HDMI recorder/monitor (plus an HDMI switcher) on the cage, then add a 3rd camera. THE ADVANCED KIT: ADD AN HDMI RECORDER (& ANOTHER CAMERA) The Advanced Kit plan adds to the dual-camera cage of the Basic Kit with an HDMI switcher and recorder, plus a 3rd (or 4th) camera on a second tripod (or gimbal). This kit plan really speeds up both in-studio and on-location shoots and is capable of covering most scenarios, with a single camera operator (you read that right). I use an HDMI recorder such as an Atomos recorder #ad or Blackmagic Video Assist #ad with an HDMI switcher #ad to not only capture a backup of whichever camera is being used, but to provide a sort of pre-cut copy (on the external hard drive) that is quicker to edit. Recording to the external recorder (in the uncompressed ProRes format) captures better color as well as making motion (non-static) shots look better due to the lack of compression artifacts. Also, I add a 3rd camera (with a telephoto lens) because it helps when capturing detail shots and "cutaways" which tell the story in a more complete way (in my opinion) and it also makes the editing process more enjoyable. I may go into more detail (about how a single user can operate this 3rd camera) but I might make a mini course about it (and charge a little money?) 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: You may have read my post What Camera Settings Are Best? (Differs For Each Lens?) where I cover how I think every lens deserves its own settings (because each lens sends light to the sensor differently). If not, check out that post, but the idea is that I test every lens I get to figure out what I call lens-sensor specific camera settings (and LUTs) to make the footage look more "cinematic". I call them "REAL" settings because my goal is to not just to make each lens-sensor combo look as "cinematic" as possible, but to make it look REAL enough that it's not a distraction to the viewer. To do this, I bring each lens-sensor combination to what I call a "base" where the image looks realistic (like what your eye sees). ABOVE: While testing a Canon FD 50 1.4 (on my Panasonic G7) I came to the conclusion that while good, there are some lenses that can't render a realistic look, no matter how hard you try. What that means for me, is they won't match other lenses. So, I decided to create a rating system that shows how close each lens-sensor combo can get to being "REAL". WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL (ABOUT BEING "REAL")? Well, the main reason I like to keep the footage "REAL" is because I don't like the technical aspects of filmmaking to overwhelm the artistic and/or storytelling aspects. I also don't like spending lots and lots of time shooting, only to discover some of my footage isn't going to be able to match other cameras. So, now let's talk about WHY I think my system can help make that process of shot matching (and other things) so much easier. We'll start with what type of rating/grading system I use (hint: it's letters) and then we'll go into more detail about how I use it to rate lenses. WHAT RATING SYSTEM DO YOU USE? The standard I use to express the ratings is simply the A, B, C, D, F letter grading system which all young Americans have grown to love (or hate) from years of formal education. It's not an exact science (like, where did the letter "E" go?) but I use the system because most people can relate to it. ABOVE:  There are a number of things that can either make and image look "REAL" or fake, including the contrast, sharpness, noise reduction, color and sometimes hue settings. It's important to note that these are lens-sensor specific settings. WHAT ATTRIBUTES AM I RATING? I know there are more complex systems out there to rate the "IQ" of lenses (and other systems to rate the digital resolving power of sensors, etc.) but with my system, I'll try to keep it simple: CONTRAST (Too much can kill image details by blowing out the highlights and crushing the shadows.) SHARPNESS (Excessive sharpness can reveal the pixel structure of a sensor which can make it look too "digital".) NOISE (Too much "noise" is distracting, unless it looks like film grain?) COLOR (Oversaturated color is another thing I consider to be distracting, and it can also emphasize colored artifacts in digital noise, which is even more of a distraction.) RATING 1 CONTRAST To me, if you get the contrast of a shot to look "REAL" (on all cameras) you're getting pretty close to matching all shots. I think varying degrees of sharpness (between cameras/lenses) can be acceptable, if the contrast of the two shots, matches. So, CONTRAST might just be the most important lens attribute (when it comes to not only "shot matching" but also to rendering what I call a "REAL" looking image). Yannick Khong has a really good article on " micro contrast " and I really love how he puts the emphasis on his goal of creating "more realistic images"! However, I have a slightly different opinion when it comes to which lenses are considered "good" and which are "bad" because I think it can depend on which SENSOR/CAMERA the lens is sending the light to, but this points back to my central theme that "It's all about (lens-sensor) relationships". Ansel Adams (the famous photographer who created the Zone System ) was also well-known for being a master of controlling contrast. Getting the REAL look isn't the only reason I give my shots a "Reality Rating". It's also because my goal is to get more dynamic range out of each sensor, based on how light is passed through the lens, etc. "REAL" RATINGS FOR CONTRAST: A = The contrast looks REAL. B = The contrast looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The contrast looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The contrast looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The contrast looks FAKE. RATING 2 SHARPNESS In all of the testing I've done so far, I've only come across 3 lenses that could not render acceptable sharpness...and I'm pretty picky. What that means to me is the problem with most lenses is not having too LITTLE sharpness. So, that brings me to one of the worst problems of many modern lenses (besides excessive contrast) too MUCH sharpness. The problem is, when they're paired with the digital sensors of today, the sharpness often reveals the digital nature of the sensor, and this is where any "REAL" organic film look is lost. Some lenses are just too sharp and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is one of the "biggest offenders". It has a lot of good traits, but when it come to rending a REAL looking image (on certain cameras) it doesn't do well. "REAL" RATINGS FOR SHARPNESS: A = The sharpness looks REAL. B = The sharpness looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The sharpness looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The sharpness looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The sharpness looks FAKE. RATING 3 NOISE I'm in the process of doing more testing and research about this lens attribute, as it's something that is difficult to explain and quantify, but the short version of this story is that I think some noise is distracting, while other noise can look like "film grain" which some people really like (if you were born in the era of watching film-based films, I guess). That's why I say this one can be a bit difficult to explain or quantify, yet my overall goal is for the image to look "REAL" so I guess I would say that if the noise looks "organic" (i.e. like film grain) then it is better than if it looks "digital" (more like pixels). "REAL" RATINGS FOR NOISE: A = The noise looks REAL (looks "organic"). B = The noise looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The noise looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The noise looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The noise looks FAKE (looks "digital"). RATING 4 COLOR The difficult thing about color, is that fashion trends change, and the appetites for too little or too much color sway back and forth. My solution is to keep it "REAL". Make color look like our eyes see. Not too much, not too little, just enough (to quote a book from my childhood). The result is a standard, one which may seem boring to some, but which is a good starting point for all. If we make "REAL" our base, all shots from all of our cameras should match. Some people don't prefer realistic color, but I think it's one of the things that makes scenes more believable and therefore immersive (if you can picture yourself there, you probably weren't distracted by the COLOR!) "REAL" RATINGS FOR COLOR: A = The color looks REAL. B = The color looks ALMOST REAL (is not distracting). C = The color looks HALF REAL, HALF FAKE (halfway distracting). D = The color looks MOSTLY FAKE (is distracting). F = The color looks FAKE. WHAT'S UP WITH "HUE"? You might wonder why I don't have "HUE" listed, when it is one of the variables that you can adjust on certain cameras (such as the GH4, GH5, etc.) HUE refers to the color accuracy, whereas the "COLOR" setting is focused on just the color SATURATION. I think the color SATURATION can make things look "FAKE" a lot faster than a slight shift in color HUE, but the main reason I don't use the "HUE" setting, is that some cameras don't have this option (especially the cheaper ones I have) so I'm sticking to the controls that exists in all of the budget filmmaking cameras I have (Contrast, Sharpness, Noise, Color). MY SETTINGS DO NOT CORRECT FOR WRONG WHITE BALANCE While both lenses the camera SENSOR can have a color bias, another reason I don't adjust the "hue" with camera settings, is that I think this is the job of proper white balance. Therefore, I think it's important to use a white balance tool #ad (or even a piece of paper) to correctly set your white balance. 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: This article is the antithesis to a video I posted on YouTube about my Top 3 Budget Lenses for Filmmaking . That was focused on my favorite BUDGET options, but NOW we're going to focus on a few "dream" lenses that I still bought for a pretty good price, but which where not a good idea. I wanted these lenses for quite a while (maybe because everyone else seemed to want them). The 3 lenses were a 50mm F/1.2 (I tried the Canon FL 58mm, then found a Porst for a really good deal, made by Fujica) the Sigma 18-35 F/1.8, and a 70/80-200 F/2.8 (I had both a Canon EF, and an older Nikon). ABOVE:  I tried two vintage 50 F/1.2 lenses, the 1st was the Canon FL 58mm, the 2nd a (minty) vintage 50mm Porst made by Fujica, but ended up liking my Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D    #ad    (with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster    #ad   ) better. My "Dream" Lenses: THE FAST FIFTY  (I don't usually need F/1.2, even INDOORS) SIGMA 18-35 1.8  (I'd prefer a SHIFT adapter, with an 11-16) 70/80-200 2.8  (too heavy to use on my 2-camera rig) DREAM LENS 1 THE FAST FIFTY It seems like everyone dreams of owning an F/1.2 50mm. They're bigger, cost more, and let in more light (wide open, at least) than less expensive 1.8 versions, so they must be better right? I was convinced in theory, until I tried one, then another. They were both terrible at F/1.2, and though I'd heard people say they would be, somehow I didn't believe it. So, I ended up shooting at 1.8 or even more. It turned out, even with small M43 sensors, that I didn't often need more than F/1.4 (even INDOORS)...and the amount of bokeh (blurred background) was plenty (yes, even with a Micro Four Thirds sensor). I began to think buying an F/1.2 wasn't worth it. I know you can get better results from a $1500-ish Canon L-series 50 1.2, but aside from that, the vintage options I was able to afford were not usable at F/1.2. Also, I came across a strange (but unfortunately common) problem of flicker, which occurred when under certain LED lighting (in a restaurant). I tried fixing it by changing the shutter speed, but letting in more light (even at 1.4) actually made the problem worse. I just couldn't get the right exposure with the given variables. Then, I started testing a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D #ad with a Viltrox NF-M43x speed booster #ad (which renders something around F/1.2 if needed, wide open). The results were so much better than the 1.2 lenses wide open, I haven't looked back. ABOVE:  The high contrast and sharpness of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 make capturing good dynamic range difficult outdoors (though my custom camera settings  do improve it). DREAM LENS 2 SIGMA 18-35 1.8 This next lens is a favorite of many. My first reason for not liking it may be a personal one, but that's because I like to use a SHIFT adapter (especially for WIDE shots) as often as possible. (I hope to write an article about shift and tilt shift adapters soon, but the bottom line is that it allows you to correct the perspective and not angle the camera upwards.) The problem with using this lens on a shift or tilt/shift adapter though, is it's too heavy, which puts strain on both the lens mount and the adapter (as there can be a some play m budget adapters). Also, because 18mm is not wide enough (at times) for a WIDE shot, and because I can't add a focal reducer/speed booster to the SHIFT adapter to increase the field of view, I don't like it. What I do instead is use a Tokina 11-16 2.8 (on that shift adapter) to get a wide enough angle. Lastly, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 isn't really a good OUTDOOR lens in general, not only because the F1.8 max. aperture isn't needed outdoors, but also because the high contrast and sharpness of this lens isn't a good match for many of the lighting situations we (sometimes) face outdoors. ABOVE:  I rented a Canon EF 70-200 2.8 (used on a Metabones XL 0.64x speed booster) and also purchased an older Nikon AF 80-200 2.8, but both were too heavy, clumsy. DREAM LENS 3 70/80-200 2.8 Now, I'm going to talk about a lens I used to love, as that had served many of us well when film (and sensors) just needed more light; the fast 2.8 tele. I wrote an entire article just about why I think the less-expensive 70-300 lenses are now (often) a better way to spend my money (see the article here ) and if you start by looking at the prices of 70-300 lenses vs. 70-200 2.8 lenses (new or used) you'll see where I'm going. The average price of a (vintage) 70-300 is around $100 US, while a 70-200 2.8 optic is well over $500. To me, this is an important point, but because this article is focused on "dream" lenses, we'll kind of ignore this to start with. However, one point that is REALLY big for me, is that the 2.8 versions are also HEAVIER lenses. Not only does this make your camera backpack heavier, but also makes it difficult for me to use this lens on lighter-weight ball head tripods (it takes several adjustments each time to get the image framed up right). Yet worse, is that to mount it to the top of one of my 2-camera rigs #ad (an important part of my workflow) is impossible, making lighter 70-300 lenses the clear winner.  SUMMARY: So, if money were NOT an issue, would I still avoid these 3 lenses? Yes. I think there are just too many workflow problems they introduce, so I figure why pay more, for more of a headache, just to get an extra stop of light and a non-variable aperture? You wouldn't be zooming while shooting anyway, right? 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: When I discovered how easy it was to do portraits with video, I was sold. I had done portraits, weddings and other freelance photography gigs for over 20 years, and this difference (between shooting stills for portraits, often using flash, and shooting video) was shocking. With flash photos, the challenge was always that you had to take the shot at JUST THE RIGHT MOMENT to capture good a smile, and you had to do it over and over again (waiting for the flash to re-charge after each shot) whilst encouraging the person to keep smiling as they endured the process. Now, compare this to my first day using VIDEO to shoot portraits: There were 5 or 6 employees that needed a business-style portrait, and none of them had the time for it. I simply composed the shot, rolled video and held a casual conversation with each subject (for about 5 minutes each) and pulled the best frames from the video files. I was completely done in less than an hour. Not only that, but they all like their pictures. One person remarked "I NEVER look good in portraits, but these (look good)!" ABOVE:  Portrait subjects don't always sit still, as they typically don't have time to waste (especially business shoots). This is one reason I think video portraits work better. WHAT IS 6K/4K PHOTO MODE? What we're talking about here is Panasonic's 6K/4K PHOTO mode. It's tech that's been around for almost 10 years, but somehow it never caught on. (I have a theory as to why it didn't work (back then) but I've also got an idea that I think can make it work now.) If you haven't heard of Panasonic's LUMIX 6K/4K PHOTO modes, they're video recording modes, designed for extracting still images, but they allow you to shoot in 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios, instead of the traditional 16:9 video aspect ratio, and I prefer to shoot HORIZONTALLY (to increase the cropping options) and I'll talk more about this point soon. ABOVE:  A while back, DPReview did a segment on 6K/4K PHOTO mode, which I thought was pretty good, but to me it seemed like they put too much emphasis on the "180-degree shutter" rule issue. WHY SHOOT PORTRAITS WITH VIDEO? So then, why do I like using this mode to shoot PORTRAITS? Well having been a stills-only photographer myself (who is transitioning to video) I've found it's much easier to shoot portraits using video, for both time and other reasons (it captures much better facial expressions). I do understand there are pros and cons of using video to capture stills, because you need to use high shutter speeds to freeze the action (with the resulting videos not following the traditional "180-degree shutter" rule) but once you know this part, capturing portraits using 6K or 4K video, has very few downsides. The biggest objection some have is that you won't be capturing in RAW (as of yet) because these modes currently capture as compressed video files, and only allow you to extract a compressed JPEG. This brings up the topic of shooting JPEGs SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) and this is where I've come up with a solution. I've been working to create this really nice website where I share custom SOOC settings, for shooting with my budget filmmaking cameras, SOOC! WHY HASN'T "6K/4K PHOTO MODE" BECOME POPULAR? You might be like me and be asking "If these (6K/4K PHOTO modes) were such a good idea, why didn't they catch on?" or "Why aren't all photographers using this for portraits already? My guess is that photographers haven't been willing to stop shooting in RAW, because they haven't mastered shooting SOOC (Straight Out of Camera). I know that makes a lot of people worried, because not shooting in RAW means figuring out how to get a quality image using in-camera settings, and that's a challenge...especially in the area of dynamic range. However, dynamic range is not as important as you may think for PORTRAIT photography (as it would be for landscapes, etc.) but it is still a challenge, as it means you have to master lens choice and in-camera settings. So, this comes back to the fact that I created a database of all my CUSTOM (SOOC) CAMERA SETTINGS (specific to each lens and camera I've owned) and the exciting part, is this could unlock this door to the almost-lost but powerful feature Panasonic created, called "6K/4K PHOTO" mode! WHY IT CAN WORK NOW (CUSTOM "SOOC" SETTINGS) So, the big question is, how are we going to control the image quality if we can't shoot in RAW? Well, I'm super excited to introduce an idea I've been working on for the last year (or so). I'm calling it " Lens-Sensor Specific SETTINGS & LUTS ". So, the answer is "Yes! There is a way to get great results by shooting SOOC (Straight Out of Camera)". Huh? Really? Lens-sensor-WHATs, you may say? Okay, there's much to talk about for this topic (since it's literally why I created my website to start with ). So, if you want to read that whole story, there's another article on my BLOG page (links at the bottom of it) about What Camera Settings Are Best (Differs For Each Lens?) Then after that, carry on below: HOW TO (TIPS): USE 6K/4K PHOTO MODES (PANASONIC) USE A FAST SHUTTER, HIGH ISO (NOT 180°) USE CONSTANT LIGHT SOURCES ('COURSE) WHITE BALANCE (FOR EVERY SCENE) USE LOW-LIGHT LENSES (2.8 OR LESS) USE MY (SOOC) LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS SHOOT HORIZONTALLY (BUT IN 4:3 OR 3:2) START A CONVERSATION (& START ROLLING) ABOVE:  While you could use almost any camera to record 4K video portraits, the best way is to use a camera that has a 6K/4K PHOTO mode (Panasonic) so you can shoot 4:3 or 3:2 "open gate" horizontal video (not 16:9) for more cropping options. TIP 1 USE 6K/4K PHOTO MODES (PANASONIC) The first tip would be to use a camera that has 6K/4K PHOTO mode, not only because it makes it easier to start and stop recording images (including options for pre-burst capture) but it also allows you to record in sort of "open gate" video aspect ratios of 3:2 or 4:3, which provide more cropping options than shooting vertical (9:16) video. You could kind of make this work with any camera that can record in 4K, but it would be recording in a 16:9 aspect ratio which would pretty much mean you'd need to shoot vertically to have a decent amount of image resolution...and I don't like shooting vertical video (see TIP #7 ). MY FAVES WITH 4K (OR 6K) PHOTO MODE: Panasonic G7  #ad   (4K) Panasonic GX85  #ad (4K) Panasonic G85  #ad (4K) Panasonic G9  #ad (6K) Panasonic GH5  #ad (6K) TIP 2 USE A FAST SHUTTER, HIGH ISO (NOT 180° SHUTTER RULE) The main reason (I believe) photographers and filmmakers haven't picked up on the benefits of using the 6K/4K PHOTO modes (on Panasonic cameras) is they don't (typically) agree about what SHUTTER SPEED to use. Photographers usually go for the highest shutter speed possible (to reduce blur) and filmmakers use a rule called the "180-degree shutter rule". I think shooting portraits with video will work okay (for both sides) though, as you can use a shutter speed of 1/60 second (if the subject isn't moving too fast) and that works with that 180-degree shutter rule (it's double or 2x the 30p frame rate used by the 6K/4K PHOTO modes). TIP 3 USE CONSTANT LIGHT SOURCES ('COURSE) 'Course you would use constant light sources, this is video, right? Don't worry though, I like to keep things pretty simple, and I don't (generally) add light OUTDOORS. Then, for INDOOR shoots, I use my very simple technique I call " T-lighting ". T-Lighting is a really easy way to get "cinematic" lighting (for video or stills) in a few minutes. It means you don't have to bother with tricky "3-point lighting" techniques that require more gear and setup time (including setting up a pesky hair light on a boom, etc.) ABOVE:  Video portraits require constant light sources, of course. When you're shooting INDOORS, you'll probably need to add light, so I just use 2 lights (using my T-Lighting  method). When I'm OUTDOORS, I like to keep it simple by not adding light (if possible). TIP 4 WHITE BALANCE (FOR EVERY SCENE) Using the SOOC method (and not relying on RAW and fixing stuff in post-production) means you'll have to get your white balance right. The CUSTOM SETTINGS I recommend make the picture profile settings work well to get the exposure right (using the viewfinder) but it's still a challenge to get the white balance right. Some lenses tend to have their own "color bias" (too orange/warm or too blue/cool, for example) so you can't always rely on the camera's built-in white balance presets if you want an accurate rendition of a scene. You'll also run into a variety of non-standard lighting conditions including sunsets or early morning (what they call "golden hour") which aren't covered by most camera's WB presets! ABOVE:  My custom (lens-sensor specific) settings do a lot of things to keep scenes looking "REAL" but they don't fix the white balance (sometimes keeping up can be a challenge). TIP 5 USE LOW-LIGHT LENSES (2.8 OR LESS) Unfortunately, this tip is not always budget-friendly, as low light lenses are (usually*) more expensive than non-low-light lenses. The good thing is, this tip primarily (no pun intended) applies to shooting INDOORS (without adding lights). So, when shooting video portraits (or using 6K/4K PHOTO modes in general) you may need to shoot at higher shutter speeds than video people normally do for video, to "freeze" the action (i.e. you don't want motion blur). This is because you'll be pulling still frames from the video. This means you may need to "fast" glass of F/2.8 or less (at least F/1.4 for Micro Four Thirds) when shooting in low light situations. However, you need to be careful when you shoot with wide aperture, low light lenses though, as there is far less depth of field, so making sure the subject is IN FOCUS can be challenging!) Shooting with a lot of background blur does help create that "cinematic" look though, which is how I describe my style to portrait clients. ABOVE:  A budget-friendly (inexpensive) way to rig a low light lens (for Micro Four Thirds) is to use the Viltrox Nikon-mount NF-M43x .71x focal reducer    #ad  (avoid the Canon-mount version) and add a Nikon 50 1.8    #ad  to it. This turns it into an approximately f/1.2 lens, which provides enough light, for most situations. TIP 6 USE MY (SOOC) LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS Shameless plug here: my "lens-sensor specific" custom camera SETTINGS are an absolute lifesaver in this situation, and if you're not familiar with them, check out my Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS page. What I do is calibrate each lens to make the video footage look as close to "real" as possible using SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) in-camera settings. I do this so I can hand the video portraits over to the customer immediately (on-location) and for details skip to TIP #10. ABOVE:  I've been testing a lot of lenses (with the cameras I currently have available to me) and one thing I've noticed is that not all lenses look good on certain sensors (cameras). TIP 7 SHOOT HORIZONTALLY (BUT IN A 4:3 OR 3:2 ASPECT RATIO) Before you conclude that I'm crazy, first consider that the Panasonic 6K/4K Photo modes allow you to use 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios (in addition to the normal 16:9) so you'll have more cropping options than you might have expected from the (horizontal) video files. If you were to shoot in the normal 16:9 video aspect ratio HORIZONTALLY, vertical cropping wouldn't work too well, as the image would be tiny. You might be asking why I don't I just turn the camera on its side and shoot VERTICAL 9:16 video, and sometimes I do (when I'm using 2 or 3 cameras on one camera cage, ha, ha) but when I only use 1 camera, I find shooting HORIZONTALLY (in 4:3 or 3:2) provides more cropping options in post. WHY I SHOOT PORTRAITS HORIZONTALLY: Images can be cropped later (vertically or horizontally) Horizontal shots show more of the environment (after all, I do call them "environmental portraits") It's easier to keep the subject in the frame (with horizontal composition) It keeps me from having to change my camera mount (when shooting video vs. stills) Horizontal is the only way to shoot large groups! Using horizontal framing is good practice for filmmaking (my goal anyway) ABOVE:  After years of trying to take portraits at the perfect moment, I figured out that recording video is much easier, especially using Panasonic’s 6K/4K PHOTO modes. TIP 8 START A CONVERSATION (& START ROLLING) This is where you'll experience how easy (and fast) this portrait technique can be! Simply start a conversation with the portrait subject, press record in 6K/4K PHOTO mode (or hold it down, depending on the mode) and wait until you know you've recorded some good smiles. That's all it takes, and I find this approach of shooting video portraits not only makes the shoot go way faster, but the shots that are captured are much more natural than if a subject was "posing" for the camera (like they would with flash photography methods).  SUMMARY: So, can SOOC save the 6K/4K PHOTO mode from sinking into oblivion, and is the feature a legit photography (and filmmaking?) tool? Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I think shooting portraits with video is the only way to go, and now that I've got a library of custom SOOC camera settings, I'm ready to go, and I'm almost ready to say goodbye to using flash photography (for portraits) forever...and I made this little meme to celebrate . 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: This article will cover the KIT PLANS I use for budget filmmaking AUDIO . I'll go over what I use for each of my kit levels (Minimal, Basic, Advanced). The short version is, if I only need to record audio of one person, I use my Minimal Kit (a Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder #ad + LAV mic + Comica CVM-MF1 #ad (furry windscreen). If I need to capture audio from 2 sources, I use my Basic Kit and if I need to capture audio from 3, 4 or more sources, it's my Advanced Kit . Each kit uses a simple system I call the "Proximity" method, which uses custom (mic-specific) settings that are based on the distance from the sound source, to choose my settings. So, in this article I'll go over my KIT PLANS and then I plan to cover my METHODS in the future. ABOVE:  The Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder is at the center of my kit for dialog recording. Not only can it be used with LAV mics, but it can also be used with mini (3.5mm) shotgun mics. IS BUDGET FILMMAKING AUDIO GEAR ANY GOOD? There are some budget microphones and audio recorders that are good. Some have limitations though, and that's why I created an AUDIO SETTINGS database (to save my custom settings after finding the "sweet spot" of each microphone/audio recorder combo). Budget was the first consideration, but getting good quality from the budget gear has always been my main objective. At the same time, I always try to make everything as easy as possible, so I can maintain the quality, even when I'm stressed or running low on energy. My AUDIO Kit: MINIMAL KIT: 1 LAV BASIC KIT: LAV, SHOTGUN ADVANCED KIT: LAVS, SHOTGUNS, X/Y RECORDER MINIMAL KIT 1 LAV I think the easiest way to get good audio for just one person, is to just use a Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder #ad + LAV mic + Comica CVM-MF1 #ad furry windscreen. Using this 32-bit float recorder means you don't have to set your levels. Then, adding that FURRY windscreen (otherwise known as a "deadcat") you can record either INDOORS or OUTDOORS with no worries about wind. The only thing you'll need to do is make sure you place the microphone at the correct recording distance (or proximity ) from the person's mouth. (To do this, I simply use the "hang loose" hand sign to measure the distance from the mic to the persons mouth, which is about 7 inches or 17.78 cm.) MINIMAL KIT: LAV Zoom F2 #ad (or F2-BT Bluetooth) Zoom LMF-2 Lavalier (included) Comica CVM-MF1 (Furry) #ad Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad SanDisk Extreme PRO® #ad BASIC KIT LAV, SHOTGUN Then, for my Basic Kit I add a mini (3.5mm) shotgun mic, and another Zoom F2, but this time the Bluetooth version. This gives me the option of using either a LAV or a mini shotgun with the Zoom F2 32-bit float recorder (which works really well in my tests). It can be used on top of the camera, but I don't generally recommend doing that (even when vlogging) as using the LAV in that scenario is much more predictable. I use the shotgun mic (at my "CLOSE" proximity) for podcasting, as well as using it in the standard "BOOM" position (and sometimes even for recording ambient audio from "AFAR"). BASIC KIT: LAV Zoom F2    #ad   (w/LMF-2 Lavalier) Zoom F2-BT    #ad   (w/LMF-2) Comica CVM-MF1 (Furry) #ad (x2) Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad (x2) SanDisk Extreme PRO®  #ad BASIC KIT: SHOTGUN Comica VM20 #ad (Shotgun Mic) ADVANCED KIT LAVS, SHOTGUNS, X/Y RECORDER So, this is where the kit gets a little bit more complicated (though some items are just duplicated) yet when we talk about the METHOD, that's where there's going to be a lot more information to cover. I add another shotgun mic, but this time I go for the wireless version of the Comica (the VM30). I don't usually NEED the wireless option for the second shotgun mic, and I'd actually prefer to use it wired (plugged into a 32-bit float Zoom F2) but I'm open to testing the wireless version (especially since it can be a good tool for INDOOR shoots, etc.). When it comes to my "Advanced" recording method, I also like to add an X/Y (2-channel stereo or 4-channel surround) recorder to the mix, and that's why I've tested a number of budget X/Y audio recorder options as well. This allows me to add another layer of real, ambient audio to the scene. ADVANCED KIT: LAVS Zoom F2 #ad (w/LMF-2 Lavalier) Zoom F2-BT #ad (w/LMF-2) Comica CVM-MF1 #ad (Furry) (x3) Eneloop Pro (AAA ) #ad (x3) SanDisk Extreme PRO® #ad ADVANCED KIT: SHOTGUNS Comica CVM-20 #ad Comica CVM-30    #ad   (Wireless) ADVANCED KIT: X/Y RECORDER Zoom H1essential #ad ChromLives (Windscreens)  #ad   Movo SMM2 (Shock Mount) #ad  SUMMARY: So, we will get into each METHOD with additional articles (one for each kit level, etc.) but the audio KIT isn't too complicated in a lot of ways. It starts super simple, with a single 32-bit float LAV (for the Minimal Kit ) and then adds a mini shotgun mic (and additional audio recorder) in the Basic Kit and then for the Advanced Kit you simply add another shotgun mic, then a stereo (X/Y) recorder. 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: When the plastic battery door latch on my Zoom F1 broke, I was almost ready to stop recommending this budget field recorder on my website (where I have a database of CUSTOM SETTINGS for budget filmmaking AUDIO gear). My first response was to grab a strip of my trusty Gaffer Power #ad gaff tape to get it working (it won't power on if the door is open). I put off dealing with it for a bit (as all good creative procrastinators do) until I remembered I had purchased the Zoom F1 at Sweetwater.com and their service department is pretty good. So, I gave them a call, they called Zoom (directly, I guess) and within the week, a little padded envelope arrived. When I looked inside, I was stoked. Inside the envelope was 2 new battery doors (yes, 2) with re-designed METAL LATCHES! I was impressed that Zoom actually recognized the weakness of the product, and re-manufactured the battery doors. My faith in Zoom was restored...and then I tried to install the new battery door, myself. ABOVE:  Zoom fixed the battery cover issue of the Zoom F1    #ad ! They actually changed the design from being a plastic battery latch TO A METAL ONE (see picture above)! I called Sweetwater.com  (where I bought it) after my original plastic battery door latch broke (after very little use) and they contacted Zoom, who mailed a replacement part in a few days! IS A BROKEN BATTERY COVER A BIG DEAL? If the battery cover on your Zoom F1 breaks you're out of luck, because it won't power on without the door closing. I do recommend doing a quick fix with black Gaffer Power gaff tape but this isn't a very convenient long-term solution. The good news is, Zoom has re-designed the battery door with a metal latch , and they will send you a new one for free. Even better, if you bought it through Sweetwater they'll contact Zoom for you, and you'll get a replacement part in a few days (depending on where you live). However, before you decide to install this yourself, let me just say that my first recommendation is you send the unit in to Zoom (so they can do it). It's not easy, and I am quite surprised I was able to do it (I'm not very good with things like this). If you want to give it a try, expect it to take 2 or 3 hours...and then get ready to get something wrong, and have to do it all over (several times). How To Replace the Battery Cover: CONTACT ZOOM (OR SWEETWATER*) ZOOM WILL MAIL YOU THE PART(S) REMOVE THE OLD DOOR (TWO SCREWS) TAKE APART THE NEW ONE (EASY) PUT IT BACK TOGETHER (NOT EASY) STEP 1 CONTACT ZOOM (OR SWEETWATER*) If you purchased your Zoom F1 at Sweetwater.com the first step would be to call their customer service line at (800) 222-4700 or you can contact Zoom directly, either using their " Contact " page (depending where you live) or by emailing them at: info@zoom-na.com ABOVE: Go to zoomcorp.com/en/us/contact/ to contact Zoom directly, or you could contact Sweetwater if you purchased it there (but I'm not sure if they can help if you didn't, etc.) STEP 2 ZOOM WILL MAIL YOU THE PART(S) The great thing about buying this through Sweetwater was that when I called them about the problem, they contacted Zoom, explained the problem, gave them my mailing address, had the part shipped to me within the week. I can't say how fast you'll get a response if you contact Zoom directly, but either way I think the best way to fix this issue is by getting the new (metal latch) version of the battery cover from Zoom. ABOVE: Zoom Corp. sent me the new (metal latch) battery door cover for free (actually two) which I received in a matter of days after talking to Sweetwater's service department. STEP 3 REMOVE THE OLD DOOR (TWO SCREWS) This is the easiest part of the whole process (of course) and as soon as you see all the pieces inside the battery door, you know how difficult the rest of the process is going to be. ABOVE: You can see where the old (plastic version) of the battery door latch broke off and is missing (to right of screwdriver head). This first step was easy (getting the old door off) but the next number of steps almost made me send it in to Zoom (which is what I recommend). STEP 4 TAKE APART THE NEW ONE (EASY) Before we take this next step, let me repeat that my first recommendation is that you send the unit in to Zoom so they can do the service on it. Like I said before, it's not easy, and I am quite surprised I was able to do it. However, if you still want to give it a try, I would budget about 2 or 3 hours for the process...and prepare to get things wrong and have to do the whole thing over, about 2 or 3 times. This first step is the easiest, but there's no going back after you start (unless you send it to Zoom after you get tired of working on it). ABOVE: Here are all of the included parts, and the new metal latch is shown at right. STEP 5 PUT IT BACK TOGETHER (NOT EASY) So, here's where the REAL fun begins. I warn you that these pictures make it look easier than it actually is, so don't expect to be able to get this right the first time (it took me about 3 times, with 30-minute breaks in-between...to keep from getting discouraged). ABOVE: The first step is to set up that little springy thingy exactly as you see it here (the left arm of the spring goes in a slot between some plastic tabs, and the right side of the spring needs to be partially tensioned (cocked) as it sits against a slot on the right. ABOVE: This next step is very tricky (not that the last one wasn't). You have to pull that metal tether thing out of the battery bay, over the metal bar (the belt slot of the recorder) and onto a little tab inside the door (it's very difficult)! It takes a very delicate touch, and multiple tries. ABOVE: Now comes the part that you won't get right the first time, and will realize that you have to do it all over again. Without moving that delicate metal tether thing off the little slot, take the black plastic plate, and place it on top of the whole thing (the trick is, you have to maintain pressure on it the whole time [with a tool or your finger] or the metal tether will move off the slot). Okay, once you've got it, don't move. ABOVE: This is the last difficult step (and maybe the most important). It's where you insert the new metal latch (shown by red arrow) into a slot, and make sure it pushes against that little springy thing we set up at the beginning. This step is very difficult to explain...what you're doing is making one side of the latch push against that spring, so it becomes "spring loaded". Again, you probably won't get this right the first time you try, and you'll find out if it worked after you finish the next step. ABOVE: Once the new metal latch has been added, you can put the two screws back in (but make sure to KEEP APPLYING PRESSURE to the top of it, until the screws are back in...or that springy thing inside (and/or the metal tether) may move...and you'll have to start all over. ABOVE: Here is what it looks like when you're all done! Make sure the metal latch works (and can be pushed either right or left to lock or unlock the battery door). Again, don't get discouraged if you don't get this right the first time. I had to completely start over (at least) three times before it worked.  SUMMARY: I must say that dealing with this battery door was quite a ride. First, there was the disappointment of the (original plastic) latch breaking and me wondering if Zoom would even have a fix for it. Then, there was the joy of remembering that I had purchased it from Sweetwater (who has a 2-year guarantee) and the interesting feelings I had when they told me Zoom was sending me replacement parts (I had anticipated a full replacement but didn't know what to expect with replacement parts). Then the exhilaration of seeing that they had re-designed the door with A METAL LATCH...but then the pain of installing it myself. If you're still reading this...I should say again: just send it in to Zoom if you can...it is not any fun to install it yourself. 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 you want quality, but don't want to spend a lot of money on cameras for budget filmmaking ($300-$600/each) these are the cameras I recommend. These don't have good AF (autofocus) so you'll have to get used to manually focusing, but they can adapt almost ANY vintage lens (ever made) and they have good IBIS, which means you'll get stabilized footage even with manual focus lenses. Oh, because 2 of these are Micro Four Thirds cameras, there's a number of tricks you'll be able to do, that you can't with full frame (the GX85 can even take a TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad ...something very few cameras can do). ABOVE:  The Panasonic G85    #ad    and GX85    #ad    are great budget filmmaking cameras  because they have great IBIS, and can adapt almost any vintage lens available. The FZ1000 is also a good deal because it has a built-in Leica telephoto lens! WHY BUY A SINGLE CAMERA? The first thing I say when people ask which camera they should buy is "Don't buy a single camera; buy 2". The #1 thing I teach about budget filmmaking is " Always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras ". The reason is, I'd rather shoot with 2 cameras and have 2 angles to choose from (when it comes to editing). The question is "How can I possibly afford 2 cameras, when I'm struggling to find a deal on just one?" You might be excited to find out, you can probably buy all 3 of these cameras, for the same price you'd pay for JUST ONE of those most YouTubers recommend! MY CAMERAS: CAMERA #1: Panasonic G85 CAMERA #2: Panasonic GX85 CAMERA #3: Panasonic FZ1000 CAMERA 1 PANASONIC G85 ($300-$500 used) If I could only buy one camera (for budget filmmaking) and didn't have much money, this might be the one I'd buy. The only reason it might not be my favorite camera EVER, is that I like using a TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad and you need the Panasonic GX85 for that (the adapter can't move up and down on the G85). WHY I LIKE THE PANASONIC G85: The low price ($300-$500 used ) It has excellent IBIS (In-Body Image Stabilization) It produces a good image (with most lenses ) It shoots in 4K (with no record limit) It has weather sealing (on the body, but not every lens) It matches the GX85 perfectly (same color science, sensor) It has a flip-out screen (but I actually like a flip-up at times) It has a microphone input (but I use an external audio recorder ) WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? The AF (autofocus) is not good (I manual focus with vintage lenses anyway) You can't use TILT/SHIFT adapters on it (it hits the popup flash ledge) No headphone output (I monitor with an external audio recorder ) *I always shoot with 2 cameras, and my 2nd favorite budget filmmaking camera is the GX85. ABOVE:  My "Minimal Kit" consists of a Panasonic G85 + a GoPro (HERO4 Silver or newer). This captures two shots in one take (makes things much easier during editing). ABOVE:  The Panasonic G85 is the first camera I would buy, but because the price is so low, I'd actually add a GX85 as well to use the TILT/SHIFT adapter I love    #ad   . CAMERA 2 PANASONIC GX85 ($300-$500 used) As I mentioned, this is probably my favorite camera for budget filmmaking (but I always shoot with 2, so I'm using a G85 with it). The main reason I like this camera, is that I can turn almost any (Nikon-mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens with a special (~$125 US) adapter #ad . I had always wanted a TILT/SHIFT lens, and I actually rented one at times, but they have been SO expensive, I never thought I'd own one, until now. Now, I shoot all of my WIDE shots with this camera and this TILT/SHIFT adapter #ad and I just can't imagine not shooting without one (it adds so much realism to each shot). WHY I LIKE THE PANASONIC GX85: It's also very affordable ($300-$500 used) It also has excellent IBIS (even better than the G85) It also produces a good image (almost identical to G85) It shoots in 4K (and has no record limit, same as G85) It matches G85* perfectly (same color science, sensor) It allows the use of TILT/SHIFT adapters (G85 does NOT) WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? It doesn't have a microphone input (but you only need it on 1 camera) The battery life isn't very good (I use a dummy battery + power bank) *I always shoot with 2 cameras, and my 2nd favorite budget filmmaking camera is the GX85. ABOVE:  My favorite thing about the Lumix GX85 is that you can use a TILT/SHIFT adapter (the rangefinder style design means there is no pop-up flash to block the up/down travel). This turns this camera into a really good tool (I don't like shooting buildings without it!) ABOVE:  Here is an example of using a TILT/SHIFT adapter    #ad   with the Panasonic GX85 (I have tried a few brands, and so far the one I like is this one    #ad   on Ebay). CAMERA 3 PANASONIC FZ1000 ($300-$500 used) I have a dedicated post about the Panasonic FZ1000 , which I recommend reviewing if you're thinking about this camera, but I'll try to give the shorter, condensed version here. Overall, the FZ1000 is a really good tool, with a (built-in) 25-400mm equivalent lens (which you can control using the Image App) and a pretty good 4K image (in sufficient light, i.e. OUTDOORS) it's a super-convenient #3 camera to be able to pull out of your bag and set up quickly. It needs a camera cage to be sufficiently stable (even though it has OIS/Optical Image Stabilization in the lens) and it's not good in low light (INDOORS) but other than that, it's a camera that I really like having for adding a 3rd, close-up (or wide angle) shot, without a lot of fuss. It does have a 30-minute record limit, so it will be the camera that you have to "babysit" for longer events, but I've done it, and it's not too much of a problem (especially since the other 2 cameras, the G85 and GX85 will just keep on going after you press record). WHY I LIKE THE PANASONIC FZ1000: It's also a really good deal ($300-$600 used) It has a great (built-in) telephoto lens (25-400mm 2.8-4.0)* Focus AND ZOOM can be controlled with the app It shoots in 4K (and looks good with custom settings ) It takes the same battery as the G85 #ad (and G7) WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE? It's not good in low light (I use only OUTDOORS) It needs ND OUTDOORS (I use a good ND8 filter #ad not a variable ND) It has a 30-minute record limit (you'll need to hit record again) *If you were to purchase an equivalent telephoto lens, it would be more than this camera! ABOVE:  The Panasonic FZ1000 is a great tool for the price. You can check out my blog post about it here: Is the Panasonic FZ1000 Good for Budget Filmmaking?    SUMMARY: So, if you want to buy a 2 or 3 camera system FOR LESS THAN $1000, I highly recommend these three cameras. There are certainly limitations to using the smaller Micro Four Thirds (G85 and GX85) sensors, and even more limitations when using the 1-inch sensor on the FZ1000, but I think they can do the job in most situations, and having 2 or 3 camera angles is a great way to create a professional look...way better than having a single camera angle, and using "jump cuts" throughout your production. Anyway hope this helps, and make sure to use my custom settings for CAMERAS and AUDIO to get "REAL" looking footage from of your cameras, and "GOOD" audio from your mics. 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?