SEARCH  WEBSITE

OVERVIEW: 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? CONCLUSION: 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.

OVERVIEW: I used to think the story about lens fungus was a lie crafted by desperate camera salesman in an attempt to sell the latest (and most expensive) lenses. To me it all made sense: They don't want me saving money by buying vintage lenses BECAUSE THEIR COMMISSION WOULD BE LESS! Not only so, if they could convince me that putting (infected) used lenses into a camera bag with new lenses could potentially ruin the new ones, it might make me scared enough to buy an entirely new system (including a new camera!) Now, I am not against buying new cameras (which I do from time to time) but only when the "effect" outweighs the cost (i.e. it will make me money). So, I remained skeptical about this story of lens fungus for quite some time. Then something happened to my trusty, old vintage Nikon 80-200 f/4 AIS. Vintage lenses (especially old 80-200 optics) are becoming difficult to find without fungus. So, when I find one the last thing I want to do is introduce fungus myself! MY NIKON 80-200 THAT ALMOST DIED My Nikon 80-200 f/4 AIS, when used on a Panasonic Micro Four Thirds body with a .71x focal reducer, was an excellent low light tool, that didn't cost me anywhere near what the f/2.8 version would have. I used it for indoor photography (meetings and conferences) quite a bit, and I was happy with the quality and results. But, when I cleaned the Nikon 80-200 with a LensPen (following the instructions to BREATHE on the lens) immediately put the lens cap on and put it away (for what would become 3 months of storage) something bad happened. After three months of non-use (due to having switched to a Panasonic FZ1000 for most of my indoor telephoto work) I pulled the old "beer can" lens out of storage and was shocked to find the front element "frosted over" with lens fungus. I HAD USED LENSPENS SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE... At first, I had no idea why the fungus would have grown so quickly, when I had used a LensPen on it SEVERAL times before and had no problem. You may be saying the same "I've used a LensPen for YEARS, have ALWAYS breathed on my lenses AND HAVE NEVER HAD a problem with lens fungus!" I had too, and had in fact I had learned about breathing on lenses (to clean them) by watching camera salesman do it at a local (long since closed) camera store. I wondered "Why did my lens suffer lens fungus when many other people have not experienced the same issue?" When I was a kid, I remember seeing a camera salesperson breathe on a lens, and then use a lens cloth to clean it. I thought it was weird...but even the LensPen manual says to do it...but DON'T DO IT! IS LENS FUNGUS IS REAL? My question as to whether lens fungus is real has been answered, but not in the way I would have wanted. I almost lost one of my favorite vintage lenses. Because of the risk of the fungus spreading, I sprayed quite a bit of 70% rubbing alcohol on the face of the lens (not recommended)...followed by doing the same with the lens cap and then letting them sit until completely dry. Then I did it again, and this time used a clean lens cloth to try to wipe the rest of it off. The good news is, the rubbing alcohol removed the frosty layer of fungus on the front element. I felt sure I had damaged the multicoatings on the front of the lens in the process though...but I figured it was worth it to sterilize the lens (and keep it from spreading). The questions that remained were: "Will the fungus come back?" and "Should I continue to use a LensPen?" Here's a little inspiration to motivate you to keep fungus from growing on your lenses (i.e. cleaning them is no fun...sometimes there's no going back). WHERE DID THE FUNGUS COME FROM? As I thought about what to do, I remembered reading about how our mouths can be pretty dirty and contain a lot of bacteria and/or pathogens. I formed a theory that what may have contributed to the growth of fungus on the 80-200 lens was a dirty mouth (because it seems that a little of it may come out each time you breathe on a lens.) Also, if you follow up breathing on a lens by using a LensPen that had been used several times before (and put back into the wet and dark environment UNDER THE LENSPEN CAP) I figure that you may be introducing both old and new bacteria onto your lens each time you use that LensPen. DO I STILL USE LENS PENS? My answer is: sometimes, but I don't breathe on my lenses any more as the LensPen instructions say. I do my cleaning with Zeiss Wipes  #ad and sometimes I do finish it off with a CLEAN LensPen, (that I've never breathed on). CONCLUSION: In the end, the difference in my tests may have been that I put the lens immediately back into storage (after using a LensPen) while it was still moist, instead of going outside and shooting (perhaps in bright sunlight) soon after. Going outside may not only help a lens to fully dry out, but also would also expose it to UV light (which can help deactivate pathogens). I'm very thankful I was able to learn my lesson on a budget vintage lens, and not on a really expensive lens (not that I have any of those). If I would have lost the Nikon AIS 80-200 f/4 lens I would have only been out $60 or so, but I wasn't looking forward to going through the whole process of finding a rare copy WITHOUT lens fungus (which is becoming more and more difficult to do). If, however, you experience this loss with a more professional and more expensive lens (especially one you depend on) it could make or break your career. Therefore, don't do what I did with the 80-200 (breathe on it, use a LensPen and put it directly into storage for a period of a few months.)

OVERVIEW: First of all, I think each sensor size has strong areas and weak areas...and some areas where they just can't compete. Yet, 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 have pressured people to take "sides" (and most have found themselves firmly aligned with one format or the other). To remedy this, I'm considering using both formats. If you've seen my lens-sensor settings tests of budget CAMERAS , you'll know I've been using M43. However, the lenses I use are usually old, full-frame Nikon F-mount lenses...so using those on full-frame won't be an issue (unless I need autofocus). Other than the cost, I'm kind of excited about this approach, as I think it can not only make people argue less (because we can experience the benefits of both formats) but it will also help us be better prepared to handle any shooting situation we may face. There have been so many arguments about what the best sensor size is, but why not just use BOTH? As far as lenses go, I use a lot of full-frame glass (adapted) on M43, but each has advantages and disadvantages. WHY NOT USE BOTH? 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 makes a lot of sense...especially if you want to " always shoot with (at least) 2 cameras " like I prefer to. The price of the cameras and lenses is much cheaper than full-frame, so you can build a budget 2 or 3 camera kit  for MUCH less. Yet, there are some things smaller sensors just cannot do. They can't blur the background as easily (when you really need to) and in low-light, Micro Four Thirds sensors NEED a 1.4 lens. The good thing is micro 4/3 cameras are often more compact and lightweight, making them ideal for on-the-go shooting. They also provide a crop factor that can be advantageous for telephoto work. Conversely, full-frame cameras excel in low-light situations and offer a wider field of view, which can be crucial for certain types of storytelling. 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)! NOTE: Filmmakers should be aware of the optical differences between formats. While a 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera provides a 600mm equivalent, the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and compression effects can vary, impacting the overall look of the footage. Understanding these nuances is crucial for achieving the desired aesthetic in your projects. M43 Positives: You can adapt almost any lens, ever (for real) Lenses are usually less expensive (except for Leica) 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. 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. NOTE: I REALLY like using a 50mm prime on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor, as it is probably the #1 shot that most of us recognize from "REAL" Hollywood films. I also like it because good vintage 50mm lenses are easy to find on the used market, and are a great low light tool. 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) 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 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.  CONCLUSION: Which ever way you go (either all full-frame, all M43...or some of both) I'm thinking it might be good is to embrace the learning experience that comes with using both formats. By experimenting with micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras, we can actual experience with 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. This blog post was taken from THIS PODCAST  (so check it out for more info).

As a photography enthusiast, I’ve always been drawn to the idea of using speed boosters with my Micro 4/3 cameras. The concept is enticing: take a relatively inexpensive lens, like a Nikon 50mm f/1.8, and transform it into a 35mm f/1.2 with the help of a speed booster. The affordability of these adapters, especially the Viltrox NF-M43x (Nikon mount version) at around $79, makes it an attractive option for many. However, my journey with speed boosters has been fraught with challenges, leading to the unfortunate demise of two of my cameras. You probably already know that I don't recommend the Canon to Micro Four Thirds Viltrox EF-M2ii speed booster. It fried the electronics of my Panasonic GX85. if you haven't heard the story, you can read my conversations and notes on my YouTube short  regarding it. THE ALLURE OF SPEED BOOSTERS Speed boosters can significantly enhance the capabilities of Micro 4/3 cameras. For instance, the Nikon mount version allows you to use older, budget-friendly lenses while achieving a wider aperture. The Canon mount version, which I previously recommended, is pricier at around $220, but it also offers similar benefits. Unfortunately, I had to stop recommending it after experiencing electronic issues with my Canon mount speed booster, which ultimately led to problems with my Panasonic GX85. ELECTRONIC ISSUES WITH THE CANON-MOUNT VILTROX (EF-M2II) The Canon mount Viltrox EF-M2ii speed booster/focal reducer caused significant electronic issues with my GX85. I was using an old Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX lens, and the combination resulted in glitches, corrupted files, and erratic behavior with the shutter speed dial. Despite attempts to factory reset the camera, the problems persisted, leading me to conclude that the speed booster was the culprit. I'm not the only one who has had problems with this speed booster...After this damaged the electronics of my Panasonic GX85, I cringed watching the guy in this video attaching the adapter to a bunch of his cameras! ABOUT THE NIKON-MOUNT VILTROX SPEED BOOSTER (NF-M43X) My troubles didn’t end with the Canon mount Viltrox EF-M2ii. I initially believed that the Nikon mount Viltrox focal reducer (the NF-M43x) would be a safer bet since it has no electronic contacts. I recommended it to others, especially for those who don’t need autofocus. However, disaster struck when I dropped my Panasonic G85 while I was out shooting sports. The camera fell onto a hard surface, and upon reviewing my photos, I discovered a scratch in the upper left corner of every image. Upon inspection, I found that the scratch was on the lower right corner of the lens, which is the opposite of where it appeared in the photos. It seems the impact of the drop caused the stabilized sensor to move, causing it to impact and scratch the sensor of my G85. My theory is that the design of the Viltrox focal reducer places the glass element closer to the sensor than any OEM Panasonic lens, which is dangerous when using it on a camera with a stabilized sensor. This experience made me wary of Viltrox speed boosters, and actually of speed boosters overall (because of the risk of damaging your camera if it's dropped). I thought the Nikon-mount version of the Viltrox speed booster (the NF-M43x) would be safe because there are no electronic contacts on it so I started recommending it...until I dropped my G85 and it scratched the sensor. WHAT ABOUT METABONES? All of this brings up questions about the Metabones speed boosters (which are really good in a lot of ways) and if they could also scratch an IBIS sensor if dropped). I don't really know if they would even solve this problem (of potential damage with IBIS sensors) because ANY speed booster/focal reducer optic has an inner element that is closer to the sensor than OEM lenses...so they could potentially scratch a sensor too. There is a compatibility chart that does warn about some of these things, and I could guess and say that because the Metabones .64x works on the GX85 (per their chart ) that maybe the same pattern would be true for the Viltrox, but it's a .71x (so it's not an apples to apples comparison). Plus, that Metabones is NOT recommended for the G85, so it really gets sticky and I don't really want to guess with the Viltrox and ruin my camera (as I don't want anybody else to go through what I went through...losing two of their cameras). WHAT ABOUT PIXCO? I tested a third brand called Pixco, which offers focal reducers at even lower prices than Viltrox. However, I’ve found that some of their products, like the Canon FD focal reducer, do not always focus to infinity (depends on the lens) let alone the fact it might have the same problem as the Viltrox (with how close the optic gets to a stabilized sensor). So, this inconsistency can be an issue for users who may not realize that certain lenses are incompatible with their adapters. It’s super essential to test each lens with each adapter to avoid disappointment. THE AFTERMATH: A HOLE IN MY KIT As a result of these experiences, I can no longer recommend either the Canon or Nikon mount speed boosters from Viltrox. This leaves a significant gap in my camera kit, as I relied heavily on the Viltrox 0.71 focal reducer for low-light shooting and achieving a wider aperture. Now, I’m left with a scratched G85 sensor and a GX85 with electronic issues, which is incredibly frustrating. Also, I wish I still could use the focal reducer for protection (to keep the sensor from getting dust on it every time I change lenses). Yet, that's not as much of a problem as is replacing the low-light capability of a 50mm f1 .8 that turns into a 35mm f1 .2 (with the .71x focal reducer). LOOKING AHEAD: A SEARCH FOR ALTERNATIVES With my current situation of not being able to use speed boosters on sensors with IBIS , I’m exploring alternatives to fill the low-light void. The reason is that my tests show that a number of the budget filmmaking cameras I've used need at least an f/1.4 in some low-light situations. There are a number of good f/1.4 options from Panasonic/Leica ( @ NigelBarros has a lot of good videos on these on both of his YouTube channels ) yet due to budget, I’m considering trying some third-party 35mm f/1.4 lenses from brands like Mieke  and 7artisans . My goal is to figure out a super budget-friendly camera system that can handle almost any situation, ideally with two cameras that are under $600 each. This is becoming difficult when using only Micro Four Thirds cameras , especially now that this speed booster option has been removed. The Panasonic GX85 and G85 have served me well (when using speed boosters) but without speed boosters, they really need an f/1.4 lens in low-light situations. So, I’m contemplating upgrading to models like the Panasonic G9 or GH5, which do better in low light, and are certainly becoming more affordable and maybe adding a full-frame camera .  CONCLUSION: So, while speed boosters can enhance the capabilities of Micro 4/3 cameras, my experiences have taught me to approach them with caution. The risks of damaging your camera or encountering electronic issues are significant, and I hope my story helps others make informed decisions about their gear. So, I no longer recommend either the Canon nor the (all-manual) Nikon mount version of the Viltrox speed booster. The reason is that the risk of ruining your camera (especially if you drop it) is just too great. Here's a  PODCAST   that inspired this article.

OVERVIEW: The first thing to ask yourself is "Do I really need autofocus?" If you don't or you don't mind just experimenting with manual focus, read on. The good thing is, SOME old lenses can not only be very affordable, but very good...even better than some of the newer options, especially with newer (and sharper) camera sensors. So, lets get into exactly HOW I adapt old lenses (to Micro Four Thirds) and if you're wondering "Isn't adapting lenses as simple as buying an adapter, and putting it on the camera?" Well, it kind of is, but what I'll be talking about is the decision-making process that led me to coming up with the information you'll see in my notes below. It's about how I keep the image quality high, even when using smaller sensor (Micro Four Thirds) budget filmmaking cameras .  WARNING: I no longer recommend focal reducers/speed boosters FOR CAMERAS WITH I.B.I.S. (In-Body Image Stabilization). The reason is, I dropped my camera (with a Viltrox NF-M43x on it) and the sensor got scratched (I'm pretty sure it was because the optic of the speed booster sticks into the lens mount more than an OEM Panasonic lens). There are a ton of options when it comes to adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds, as you can adapt almost ANY lens mount (because of the small sensor size). INDOOR vs. OUTDOOR When adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds, the first thing I think about is what environment I'll be shooting in. I start by separating INDOOR vs. OUTDOOR situations, then I categorize the choices into my " 3 Simple Shots " which are based on my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking  (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE). HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (INDOORS) WIDE = "BOOST" (unless "SHIFT" or AF follow) TIGHT = "BOOST" (almost always) TELE = "BOOST" (almost always) HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (OUTDOORS) WIDE = "SHIFT" (unless AF follow) TIGHT = "HELICOID" (macro adapter) TELE = "HELICOID" (or "BOOST"*) ABOVE: My most important tip regarding adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds INDOORS is "Boost whenever you can". However, there are a few exceptions to this rule (see below). INDOORS WIDE = BOOST Indoors (or in low light situations) Micro Four Thirds sensors often need a +BOOST (i.e. a focal reducer). There are two reasons they need this: 1.) They need a wider max. aperture to expose the sensor to more light, and 2.) They may need a wider angle (a shorter focal length) to get everything in the shot. However, if there is enough light indoors, I would always prefer to use a SHIFT adapter  #ad (for correcting architectural distortion) but that can only work if your lens is both wide enough, and it has a decent maximum aperture. (This is why I love using the Tokina AT-X 11-16 2.8  #ad   ). The other reason I wouldn't use a +BOOST would be if I needed to "follow" using touchscreen AF (autofocus). ABOVE:  When using Micro Four Thirds INDOORS I like using a speed booster, but not because of low light (you can add light indoors) but to create a background blur in smaller spaces. Bad news is, now I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING SPEED BOOSTERS WITH IBIS , so I only do it with my GH4, G7. INDOORS TIGHT = BOOST The first reason I use a +BOOST indoors is simply to increase the amount of light being sent to the sensor. This allows me to use a lower ISO (which is really important for Micro Four Thirds cameras). Also, the indoor "TIGHT" shot is usually used for a "talking head" people shot, so the speed booster helps to create shallower depth of field (i.e. more background blur). INDOORS TELE = BOOST Since there really isn't any (affordable) telephoto lens that is as fast as F/1.4, I almost always add a speed booster for telephoto shots (INDOORS). There aren't many BUDGET options for low-light telephoto lenses either, so that makes this situation even worse. There are expensive F/2.8 options (and even a 50-100 1.8 from Sigma) but I often need something in the range of 70-300 for telephoto, especially after applying the 0.71x focal reduction of the speed booster. So, in many cases, the 200mm at the long end of a 70/80-200 2.8 isn't enough, even on Micro Four Thirds with a 2x crop factor. So, what do I do? Well, this is one of those rare times when I push my ISO up (to 800 max.) and add a +BOOST (speed booster). With a BOOST, even an F/4.5-5.6 70-300 zoom can (often) work in low light. I rarely push my ISO up to 800 when using Micro Four Thirds (and never higher) because the smaller sensor and the higher ISO will create a grainy image and/or overly noise-reduced image. ABOVE: My When adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds OUTDOORS, the first thing I do is add a "SHIFT" adapter to the WIDE shot, and then macro "HELICOID" adapters to the rest. OUTDOORS " WIDE" = SHIFT I love "SHIFT" adapters so much that I try to use them whenever possible (for "WIDE" shots). Also known as "perspective control" adapters (taken from "perspective control lenses") they can keep architectural lines of buildings straight, which ends up adding realism to the shot (in my opinion). There's more detail in my book on Amazon  #ad   ( has a special section about using shift lenses for Micro Four Thirds) but I can quickly say that once you use a shift adapter or lens, you'll never want to go back. (You'll probably be able to see why I even try to use them in low-light situations where I would normally use a speed booster, etc.) Now about why I say not to use the shift adapter if you're doing a "follow" is that I " Always Shoot With 2 Cameras " and when doing so, I find it's much easier to control 2 cameras when 1 of the 2 is using touchscreen autofocus (because you're manually focus-pulling on the other shot). This even works on my Panasonic M43 cameras, if using Single Shot AF. ABOVE:  I can't tell you how much I love using an inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter    #ad   on Micro Four Thirds. What this means, is you can turn almost any (Nikon F/G mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, including variable focal length (zoom) lenses! OUTDOORS " TIGHT" = HELICOID (MACRO) If you haven't noticed from my lens test videos (on YouTube ) I like to be able to shoot macro anytime I'm outdoors. There's a number of ways to do this, but the way I like to do it is to use a macro helicoid adapter  #ad . The reason I like this approach (instead of buying a macro lens) is that it allows me to test almost ANY lens at a macro distance , even though they weren't designed for this. It also means I can use more low-light capable lenses, such as a 50mm 1.4, and be ready for both INDOOR and OUTDOOR situations (compared to most macro lenses being an F/2.8, F/3.5 or even an F/4.0). OUTDOORS " TELE" = HELICOID (MACRO) The reason I add a "BOOST" to a telephoto lens OUTDOORS, is that sometimes these tele lenses can be heavy, and my focal reducer ("speed booster") has a tripod mount on the adapter which bears the weight of the lens, instead of the camera's mount. Lighter lenses such as the 70/75-300 4.5-5.6 variety (from the early AF era in the 90's) don't need this special mount, so I use a macro "HELICOID". (If someone would design a macro helicoid adapter WITH an integrated tripod mount, THAT would be great!) ABOVE:  When shooting OUTDOORS, there are so many moments you can miss if you don't have a MACRO lens! To be prepared for this, I like to always have a  macro helicoid adapter    #ad on hand. These are golden as they pretty much turn ANY lens into a MACRO! VINTAGE LENSES, CAN BE DANGEROUS So, buying (and hunting for) vintage lenses can be a lot of fun, but before you get too addicted, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is that there was a time when vintage lenses weren't very good (when they didn't have multicoatings) and as interesting as they may look, those have rarely (pun not intended) been worth my time. So, the general rule I follow (to stay within the multicoated era) is to not buy lenses from before WW2 (World War 2). In fact, if you don't mind stretching the definition of "old" (or "vintage") I think the very best lenses were actually from the early AF era (when AF/autofocus was in the 1st generation). That means the lenses will be from the 1980s, and that's when Nikon and Canon produced some of their best BUDGET stuff. I think Nikon AF and AF-D are probably the most color-accurate and REAL looking lenses I have ever used (and the Nikon AF-D 50 1.8 might be my favorite lens ever). The second thing to be aware of is that some of the OLDER vintage lenses might have problems with fungus...and fungus is no fun ( I almost lost a lens to it ). ABOVE:  There are some really great old lenses out there, but before you get too excited, smell it (like Jared @Fro Knows Photo does) and inspect it for fungus. You don't want it spreading to other lenses.

OVERVIEW: Once you experience using a perspective control (shift) lens, you probably won't be able to shoot architecture without one. 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 (a good Nikon or Canon version is around $1,500...There are a couple of LESS expensive options from Samyang or Rokinon, but they're still $700). The good news is, for Micro Four Thirds users, there's 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. UPDATE: When I initially wrote this article, there weren't any (native-mount) Micro Four Thirds tilt shift lens options, but now there's one from 7artisans    #ad  available on Ebay for less than $200 US...and that link is the lowest price I found. I haven't tested that one so I won't make any comments, but I will update this article if I am able to get one. 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. As I side note, this isn’t something that's possible with full frame (1x) format yet can sort of be done with APS-C/Super 35 (1.6/1.5x crop) sensors, though not as well. Let me quickly explain why this can't be done (as well) with a full frame sensor. DOES THIS ONLY WORK ON M43? No, it works on 1.5/1.6x crop sensors too, but not as well. The biggest reason why the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor works better with TILT/SHIFT adapters than on the 1.5/1.6x sensors, 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 they 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. CONCLUSION: 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 it's 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.

OVERVIEW: 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 3 "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. CONCLUSION: 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?

OVERVIEW: Greetings! If you're not familiar with my budget filmmaking system I call " Fake Filmmaking " it's a method I've been developing that's much easier than conventional filmmaking. The system covers the 3 main components of filmmaking: LIGHTS, CAMERAS & AUDIO, and every bit of it is super easy (in a technical sense). This article is an introduction to the CAMERAS part of the system, and it covers what I call my 3 Simple Shots . ABOVE: I think I've figured out HOW TO: Always Shoot With 2 Cameras but can my "Fake Filmmaking" method truly cover all conventional filmmaking shots, with only 3 shots? HOW DOES THIS ALL WORK? Well, conventional filmmaking uses a long list of shot types that need to be memorized, sometimes requiring storyboards for each one. My "Fake Filmmaking" system only uses 3 SHOTS to capture everything, but in a more flexible (and realistic) way. I Always Shoot with 2 Cameras so I'm always capturing at least 2 shots of everything (WIDE & TIGHT). Then, my third shot (TELE) adds flavor to the sequence using close-ups and/or macro. It saves you from having to shoot things over and over (like you must do when only using a single camera). This method shifts your focus from just thinking about a single shot, to being in the right place, at the right time as the story unfolds. The 3 Simple Shots WIDE (~17/~24/~35)* TIGHT (~35/~50/~70)* TELE (70+/100+/135+)* *The three numbers in each shot represent the lens focal length for each sensor size . The 3 sensor sizes I cover within my system include: Micro Four Thirds (2x crop) Super 35/APS-C (1.5x/1.6x Crop) and full frame (1x full-frame, no crop). Each lens focal length is shown in millimeters. SHOT 1 WIDE FOR "ESTABLISHING", "EXTREME LONG", "LONG", "FULL" SHOTS The WIDE shot is usually the establishing shot used for almost every scene. I always like to have at least 2 cameras rolling to avoid jump cuts while editing, and the WIDE shot is often the #1 shot I compose while using this method. It's also one of the two classic shots in talking head interviews. ABOVE: Wide establishing shots are an essential part of REAL storytelling, so I think it's worth having a dedicated camera (to make capturing these a lot quicker...no lens changes). SHOT 2 TIGHT (ALSO CALLED "MEDIUM") USE THIS FOR "MEDIUM", "CLOSE-UP" SHOTS While the WIDE shot provides a sense of place, the TIGHT shot emphasizes details of a scene, especially the expressions of a subject's face. This is not only often used as the #2 shot of the classic 2-shot interview/talking head scene, but it is also one of the most basic filmmaking shots in general. It uses a standard focal length lens (of ~25 to 35mm on 2x, ~35 to 50mm on 1.5/1.6x, and 70 or 85mm on full frame) and is very familiar to most audiences, and it does not optically distort the image. ABOVE: I like using a lens slightly over the standard focal length (based on the sensor size) for scenic shots sometimes, as it renders things more accurately (no wide angle distortion). SHOT 3 TELE FOR "MEDIUM", "CLOSE-UP", "EXTREME CLOSE-UP" SHOTS First of all, this requires a 2nd tripod, whereas the 1st two shots utilize one of my dual-camera rigs. I call this a TELE shot because (when used at a normal 6.6 feet / 2 meter camera-to-subject distance of a "talking head" scene) it can be used to capture "extreme close up" shots of a person's face or eyes. However, this only applies if the telephoto lens has macro capabilities (such as with many 1990s vintage 70/75-300 lenses). I also list this extra shot as an option, because you can tell the story without it, but these shots can really help add interest. ABOVE: Extreme close-up shots can also be taken with a medium focal length lens (85mm or so) if the close focusing is good enough (usually you'll need a real macro lens). CONCLUSION: While I do plan on going into more detail regarding these 3 shots in the future (beyond the application of talking head scenes) I've been pretty happy with how these 3 shots have gotten me through most scenes. Keep in mind that my method isn't meant to limit your options but is rather a way for entry-level filmmakers to start creating as quickly as possible. They may want to progress to the more complicated and conventional filmmaking methods as they expand their skills, but my goal for this system is make it really, really easy and that's why I call it Fake Filmmaking .

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

OVERVIEW: 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 . BELOW:  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?)

OVERVIEW: While learning to promote my own business, I've been thinking a lot about advertising... but anyone in the advertising business knows that simply THINKING about it doesn't do anything. In fact, it sort of contradicts the primary meaning of the word "advertising" ("the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements"). So, what does not advertising have to do with the famous quote about mousetraps? ABOVE: According to Wikipedia, the form of the quote we've probably all heard was a "misquotation" of Ralph Waldo Emerson's original statement. DID HE REALLY SAY "MOUSETRAP"? The quote we all have heard is "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." According to Wikipedia however (I know, not always a perfect source) Ralph Waldo Emerson never said anything about mousetraps . He did say something similar to the part about the world beating a path to your door, but the products and services he mentioned did not include a mousetrap. Even so, I think this saying can be misunderstood, and it "does not mean what you think it means" (to quote another, slightly less reliable, source ). IS ADVERTISING NOT NECESSARY AFTER ALL? So then, for those of us who often emphasize the importance of advertising, this phrase seems to say that if we invent something special, new and great, we don't really need to advertise, because the automatic result is "...the world will beat a path to your door". This is almost completely opposite of what I've been learning about advertising, because if no one KNOWS about a product or service you have created or provide, then how can it sell? WHAT'S THE REAL QUOTE (WHAT DID HE MEAN?) Regarding this super popular quote, this Wikipedia article states what Ralph Waldo Emerson really said, compared to the quote that we all have heard: " Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door " is a phrase attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson in the late nineteenth century. [1] [2] The phrase is actually a misquotation of the statement: "If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods." — Ralph Waldo Emerson [2] WHY DO I THINK THIS QUOTE CAN BE MISLEADING? We know there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of ideas that have been submitted to the Patent Office but haven't been acted on. We haven't heard of most of these ideas, and that proves just having a good idea doesn't make it sell. Good ideas, like laws in science, can't be proven to be good without real-world testing. WAS WORD OF MOUTH IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL? I believe the second (and now, the most popular) version of the quote fails to emphasize one important (implied?) aspect of Ralph Waldo Emerson's original words: word of mouth advertising . When Mr. Emerson said "If a man has good corn or wood, or boards..." I think it would have been an assumption (in those days) that the audience would know that word of mouth advertising would be a part of the story. It was in the days before radio and television, and was certainly before social media was a part of our daily lives! The main point is that for a product or service to become popular, first people would have to experience that product or service, like it, and then would certainly tell others as a result. So, my guess is was what CAUSED the increase of traffic to the home of the inventor (the "broad hard-beaten road to his house...") would have been word of mouth...which, being a form of advertising, shows how important advertising is. Good ideas don't sell themselves. You have to put them out there. CONCLUSION: So what do we take from all of this? I believe both versions of the quote can serve a similar purpose and together they emphasize two (2) things: The necessity for your product or service to be "better" (though I think a non-saturated market provides sufficient demand for (or at least can tolerate) inferior products or services. The necessity for people (at least a few, who can start the "gossip chain") to KNOW about your product or service.

NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS FAKE (HUMOR) I like peas in the pod, but I don't like what I call "Dis-em-podded peas." So, I wrote a poem about how it all happened...how people first started separating peas from their pods. FAKE HISTORY OF "PODCASTING" Back in the days before TV, when radio ruled the airwaves, an unfamiliar sport emerged. In this sport we can see its roots remain, in the name of our (online) radio talk shows. It all began when farmers started taking some peas out of their pods and casting them off, to the side. Some started to see how far they could toss, those pods without peas. They practiced their form, and footwork and such, until casting became, all but a sport. After a while, their fan base grew (dads, moms, boys and girls, grandmas & grandpas too). Then, unofficially, the sport got it's start, and farmers began to compete. Yet, sad to say, when COVID came, the fans were forced to stay home. Only them announcers, (and the farmers themselves) were cleared to stay, in the field. So, alone with a purpose, them announcers flew, to game after game, and fight after fight. They followed every toss, every twist and turn; day after day, night after night. "Farmer Dan winds up, such a master of the game..." Announcers would gush, and build their fame. On and on them broadcasts roared, to keep them fans, from getting bored. Sponsors and sponsorships, there weren't a few: Chips and salsa, and every kind of brew. ...after a while, the world seemed stuck, watching them farmers, pull peas, then shuck. Since those days, the buzz hasn't ceased, if anything the noise has INCREASED! So now we know, why people toss peas, and that what it was, was Pod-cast-ing .