INTRO: So, I started using the term "proximity" to simply refer to the distance from the microphone to the sound source. Most audio people use this word in the term "proximity effect" to refer to added BASS and other distortions that occur when a person is too close to a microphone. Whichever way it's used, what I did was create a list of standard proximities, so I could systematically test each microphone & audio recorder combination I have (and come up with custom audio settings for each). ABOVE: I use the term "proximity" to refer to the distance between the sound source and the microphone. I then use this to figure out my custom (mic-specific) audio settings. To me, this makes setting up microphones & audio recorders super easy. ABOVE: Here are the "proximities" I use. The quality of the microphone and audio recorder do matter, but proximity might just be the most important factor when it comes to capturing good audio. WHY IS "PROXIMITY" SO IMPORTANT? Microphone proximity is not only an important consideration in regard to how realistic you want your sound to be (too close and it adds more BASS) but it's also important in regard to how "clean" your audio signal will be. You probably know that at close proximity, even inexpensive microphones sound good. Historically, the main reason proximity is important has been that it allows you to keep the record level of the audio recorder low (and therefore to avoid the added "noise" of the recorder preamp). However, when I started testing 32-bit float recorders, I realized I couldn't use a low gain setting to keep the "noise floor" low (because there is no "gain" on 32-bit float recorders!) I then realized microphone proximity is the now only way to keep the noise floor down (with a 32-bit float recorder). And yes, there can still be an issue with a high noise floor when using some microphones on certain 32-bit recorders. So, to figure out what custom audio settings to use (on each microphone and audio recorder combination) I established the following standards. The Proximity Method (For AUDIO): "CLOSE" (3.5 inches / 8.89 cm) "LAV" (7 inches / 17.78 cm) "VLOG" (22 inches / 55.5 cm) "BOOM" (35 inches / 88.88 cm) "AFAR" (16.4 feet / 5 m) USE FOR NARRATION, VOICEOVERS, PODCASTS I use this proximity for recording podcasts, voiceovers and narration. This places the microphone about 3.5 inches away or 8.89 cm. The trick to quickly approximate this distance is to make your hand into a fist, and then don't get closer to the microphone than that. The neat thing about this proximity is that a lot of these budget filmmaking microphones (mostly mini shotguns) sound pretty good at this proximity (check out my custom [mic-specific] audio settings to see the ones I've tested.) These mini mics (3.5mm plug, short interference tube) are also very affordable, and they're super small, and therefore super portable. What's also great about mini shotgun mics, is they almost all have a shock mount, and that most of those I've tested don't need an additional pop filter (to protect from plosives) which is normally needed when recording at this "CLOSE" proximity! USE FOR CLIP-ON (LAV.) MIC PLACEMENT This proximity is pretty self-explanatory, as it applies to using lavalier (or clip-on) mics. It's really easy to measure this distance by simply using the "hang loose" hand sign (for the distance between the mic and your mouth). This distance is approximately 7 inches/17.78 cm and can also be applied when hiding the mic in a person's clothing, or even in their hair. USE FOR VLOGGING (AT ARM'S LENGTH) The main attribute of the "VLOG" proximity is that it's typically used for placing a microphone on the camera's hot shoe (with the camera pointed towards yourself). Therefore, the easy way to remember this proximity is the mic should be no further away than arm's length. I know, some people (such as basketball players) have longer arms, but the idea is to place the mic no further away from the sound source than approx. 22 inches (or 55.5 cm). Some YouTubers also use this proximity for booming the mic (out of the shot) and the reason this works is because they're often really close to the camera. One last thing to remember about this "VLOG" proximity, is that it's important to use a "furry" windscreen when you're shooting outdoors (it helps protect the microphone from wind noise). Sometimes I even use a furry windscreen INDOORS, but it's specific to how each microphone-audio recorder combo sounds. USE FOR BOOMING FROM ABOVE (OR BELOW) This proximity is the traditional (Hollywood) boom distance, which is no more than 3 feet. I used to say my "maximum" boom distance was about 4 feet (and there are some mics you can push that far) but most brands are saying it's best to boom at 3 feet or less, so I changed this to conform to what everybody else is saying (though I've tested a number of mics that work well at around 4 feet). The reason I used to push my boom mic distance to 4 feet, was that I was trying to make it work for both WIDE AND TIGHT shots. A lot of filmmakers are able place the mic closer (while keeping it out of the shot) because they only use a single camera when recording. On the contrary, I prefer to "always shoot with 2 cameras (WIDE & TIGHT)" at the same time, so the mic needs a bit more distance to clear both the TIGHT & WIDE shots. Also, another thing about boom placement that's worth mentioning, is that the microphone can sometimes be placed BELOW the sound source (and not just ABOVE). The reason I sometimes prefer to place a boom BELOW is in situations where the ceiling is low and there is echo; if there's a carpeted floor, having the mic placed LOW will then reflect less (less echo). If the floor covering is tile or some other "reflective" material (even finished wood) it may be too reflective, but if it's covered with carpet (or a rug) it can work pretty well. USE FOR (DISTANT) NAT. SOUND CAPTURE This recording distance works quite well in situations where a bit of ambient background noise is good (such as outdoor "nat. sound" capture) because this proximity WILL increase the amount of background noise present in the recording. The reason is, the microphone is pretty far from the sound source, and this means you'll have to increase the recording level on the audio recorder (for non-32-bit-float recorders) or increase it in post, if you're using a 32-bit float recorder. It really depends on which microphone you're using though, because some are better than others for long-range recording (see my AUDIO SETTINGS data for details). The easy way to visualize this distance (and the way I came up with it) is to become aware of how close you can get to subjects out in the "wild" (such as birds, etc.) NOTE: I used to call this my "ZOOM" proximity, but I changed it because it was too easy to confuse this with the brand name Zoom (or even with zoom lenses). CONCLUSION: In an ideal world, we'd only use microphones at close proximity to keep the signal-to-noise ratio low (and to reduce the background noise). However, in many situations we can't get the mic that close, so we have to boost either the mic level (if it has power options) or the record level on the audio recorder (unless it's a 32-bit float recorder). So, what I'm doing is testing my favorite (budget) filmmaking microphones so I can test them at each proximity, and then provide settings recommendations specific to each combination (then posting them on the AUDIO section of my website). I know these settings won't be perfect, but my goal is to provide a good starting point (so you don't have to be stressed when recording). Next, we'll cover my favorite budget filmmaking AUDIO gear in PART 2: Kit Plans The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh?

INTRO: The first thing to ask yourself is "Do I really need autofocus?" If you don't or you don't mind just experimenting with manual focus, read on. The good thing is, SOME old lenses can not only be very affordable, but very good...even better than some of the newer options, especially with newer (and sharper) camera sensors. So, lets get into exactly HOW I adapt old lenses (to Micro Four Thirds) and if you're wondering "Isn't adapting lenses as simple as buying an adapter, and putting it on the camera?" Well, it kind of is, but what I'll be talking about is the decision-making process that led me to coming up with the information you'll see in my notes below. It's about how I keep the image quality high, even when using smaller sensor (Micro Four Thirds) budget filmmaking cameras. WARNING: I no longer recommend focal reducers/speed boosters FOR CAMERAS WITH I.B.I.S. (In-Body Image Stabilization). The reason is, I dropped my camera (with a Viltrox NF-M43x on it) and the sensor got scratched (I'm pretty sure it was because the optic of the speed booster sticks into the lens mount more than an OEM Panasonic lens). There are a ton of options when it comes to adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds, as you can adapt almost ANY lens mount (because of the small sensor size). WHY ADAPT OLD LENSES? Adapting vintage lenses can be a cost-effective way to enhance your image, especially if you're working with budget cameras (around $600 or less). I’ve found that many vintage lenses have characteristics that can help you produce great images (when paired with the right camera and CUSTOM, LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS). Adapting vintage lenses is one of the most rewarding things about using Micro Four Thirds, as you can unlock new looks with the unique image qualities of vintage lenses. Oh, and when I say "vintage" I include the late 80's and early 90's AF (autofocus) lenses, so keep that in mind. Why Some People Go Vintage: Character: Vintage lenses often have distinctive color profiles modern glass can’t replicate. Manual Control: A tactile, hands-on shooting experience with manual focus and aperture rings. Affordability: Many high-quality vintage lenses are available for a fraction of the price of new. Build Quality: All-metal construction and solid mechanics are common in older lenses. Flexibility: Adapted lenses can give you access to focal lengths and apertures not available natively on MFT. I actually consider AF lenses from the late 80s and early 90s to be "vintage". The Minolta AF mount (now called Sony A) has a number of super good lenses...and they're affordable too! HOW I ADAPT LENSES: INDOOR VS. OUTDOOR When adapting old lenses to Micro Four Thirds, the first thing I think about is what environment I'll be shooting in. I start by separating INDOOR vs. OUTDOOR situations, then I categorize the choices into my "3 Simple Shots" which are based on my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE). HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (INDOORS) WIDE = "BOOST" (unless "SHIFT" or AF follow) TIGHT = "BOOST" (almost always) TELE = "BOOST" (almost always) HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (OUTDOORS) WIDE = "SHIFT" (unless AF follow) TIGHT = "HELICOID" (macro adapter) TELE = "HELICOID" (or "BOOST"*) ABOVE: My most important tip regarding adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds INDOORS is "Boost whenever you can". However, there are a few exceptions to this rule (see below). INDOORS WIDE = BOOST Indoors (or in low light situations) Micro Four Thirds sensors often need a +BOOST (i.e. a focal reducer). There are two reasons they need this: 1.) They need a wider max. aperture to expose the sensor to more light, and 2.) They may need a wider angle (a shorter focal length) to get everything in the shot. However, if there is enough light indoors, I would always prefer to use a SHIFT adapter #ad (for correcting architectural distortion) but that can only work if your lens is both wide enough, and it has a decent maximum aperture. (This is why I love using the Tokina AT-X 11-16 2.8 #ad ). The other reason I wouldn't use a +BOOST would be if I needed to "follow" using touchscreen AF (autofocus). ABOVE: When using Micro Four Thirds INDOORS I like using a speed booster, but not because of low light (you can add light indoors) but to create a background blur in smaller spaces. Bad news is, now I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING SPEED BOOSTERS WITH IBIS, so I only do it with my GH4, G7. INDOORS TIGHT = BOOST The first reason I use a +BOOST indoors is simply to increase the amount of light being sent to the sensor. This allows me to use a lower ISO (which is really important for Micro Four Thirds cameras). Also, the indoor "TIGHT" shot is usually used for a "talking head" people shot, so the speed booster helps to create shallower depth of field (i.e. more background blur). INDOORS TELE = BOOST Since there really isn't any (affordable) telephoto lens that is as fast as F/1.4, I almost always add a speed booster for telephoto shots (INDOORS). There aren't many BUDGET options for low-light telephoto lenses either, so that makes this situation even worse. There are expensive F/2.8 options (and even a 50-100 1.8 from Sigma) but I often need something in the range of 70-300 for telephoto, especially after applying the 0.71x focal reduction of the speed booster. So, in many cases, the 200mm at the long end of a 70/80-200 2.8 isn't enough, even on Micro Four Thirds with a 2x crop factor. So, what do I do? Well, this is one of those rare times when I push my ISO up (to 800 max.) and add a +BOOST (speed booster). With a BOOST, even an F/4.5-5.6 70-300 zoom can (often) work in low light. I rarely push my ISO up to 800 when using Micro Four Thirds (and never higher) because the smaller sensor and the higher ISO will create a grainy image and/or overly noise-reduced image. ABOVE: My When adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds OUTDOORS, the first thing I do is add a "SHIFT" adapter to the WIDE shot, and then macro "HELICOID" adapters to the rest. OUTDOORS "WIDE" = SHIFT I love "SHIFT" adapters so much that I try to use them whenever possible (for "WIDE" shots). Also known as "perspective control" adapters (taken from "perspective control lenses") they can keep architectural lines of buildings straight, which ends up adding realism to the shot (in my opinion). There's more detail in my book on Amazon #ad (has a special section about using shift lenses for Micro Four Thirds) but I can quickly say that once you use a shift adapter or lens, you'll never want to go back, and you'll probably be able to see why I even try to use them in low-light situations where I would normally use a speed booster. ABOVE: I can't tell you how much I love using an inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter #ad on Micro Four Thirds. What this means, is you can turn almost any (Nikon F/G mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, including variable focal length (zoom) lenses! OUTDOORS "TIGHT" = HELICOID (MACRO) If you haven't noticed from my lens test videos (on YouTube) I like to be able to shoot macro anytime I'm outdoors. There's a number of ways to do this, but the way I like to do it is to use a macro helicoid adapter #ad . The reason I like this approach (instead of buying a macro lens) is that it allows me to test almost ANY lens at a macro distance, even though they weren't designed for this. It also means I can use more low-light capable lenses, such as a 50mm 1.4, and be ready for both INDOOR and OUTDOOR situations (compared to most macro lenses being an F/2.8, F/3.5 or even an F/4.0). OUTDOORS "TELE" = HELICOID (MACRO) The reason I add a "BOOST" to a telephoto lens OUTDOORS, is that sometimes these tele lenses can be heavy, and my focal reducer ("speed booster") has a tripod mount on the adapter which bears the weight of the lens, instead of the camera's mount. Lighter lenses such as the 70/75-300 4.5-5.6 variety (from the early AF era in the 90's) don't need this special mount, so I use a macro "HELICOID". (If someone would design a macro helicoid adapter WITH an integrated tripod mount, THAT would be great!) ABOVE: When shooting OUTDOORS, there are so many moments you can miss if you don't have a MACRO lens! To be prepared for this, I like to always have a macro helicoid adapter #ad on hand. These are golden as they pretty much turn ANY lens into a MACRO! SO, WHAT LENS MOUNTS DO I PREFER? I’ve tested a variety of lens mounts, but I only want to discuss those I’ve personally used. I believe in sharing experiences rather than speculating about products I haven’t tried. This post will not cover every vintage lens mount but will focus on the ones I’ve tested and found noteworthy. CANON FD First of all, I will only quickly state here (because I have an entire podcast episode about it) that there are some nice Canon FD lenses I really liked (especially the FD 50 1.8, not the 1.4) and so I've purchased several of them. However, it seems like more than half of the Canon FD lenses I've had have problems with mold (which can contaminate other lenses, etc.) but if you find one that smells clean, it might be worth it trying. MINOLTA MD (& AF) One of my favorite lens brands to adapt are Minolta lenses (the company that Sony bought in 1995 to boost it's camera department). I especially like the older manual focus Minolta MD series, and I think they're certainly worth considering. The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is an optical jewel, and the build quality is good. Also, the autofocus era Minolta lenses (from before they were purchased by Sony and called Sony A mount) are also really good, and what I really like is that most of the Micro Four Thirds adapters give you a de-clicked/stepless aperture (which is especially good for video production). NIKON F Nikon F mount is probably my top recommendation for adapting vintage lenses (if you only had one mount). The clickable aperture control on the Nikon F lenses makes them easy to adapt to other systems, including Canon EF. For Nikon F-mount lenses, I particularly recommend the first autofocus generation (and the D-series) such as the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D, which is a fantastic bargain at around $50 to $60. The build quality of these lenses is pretty good (not as good as the manual focus era, though) but the main point is they have great optics. Optically, I think the 1st generation Nikon AF lenses are one of the most color-accurate lens lines ever (not so with the next generation of Nikon lenses from the 1990s). The older (manual focus) Nikkors do have better ergonomics with larger manual focus grip area, but the optics on a lot of those older lenses wasn't very accurate or complete (Nikon glass seemed like it didn't render the full spectrum of color, and had a warm bias). Also, another thing to note about Nikon lenses is they focus in the opposite direction of most other brands (filmmakers complain about this the most, because of their focus-pulling habits). OLYMPUS OM Olympus OM lenses were the first adapted lens I ever tried (and why did I ever sell it)! The 50mm f/1.8 is excellent optic. This lens is so good I had a DP from the Discovery Channel look at a shot I had set up with this and say "Wow!" So, the old manual focus Olympus OM lenses are well-known for their optics. Plus, I really like that they have the aperture control on the front end of the lens, which is not only easier to use, but it means they can be easily adapted to Micro 4/3 cameras with a cheap adapter (and they can also be adapted to Canon EF too, if you need to). PENTAX K So then, about Pentax. I've only tried the super-vintage Super Takumar lenses, so I should probably not say much more. The Super-Takumar that I tried had to be de-yellowed (because of the radioactive elements in the coatings) and so I didn't want to spend much time getting custom settings figured out for it, since the lens was probably going to change. Oh, I also tried tiny Pentax 110 lenses, and that was fun (but the edge sharpness isn't going to be there). So, maybe I'll come back to them later. ARE ANY AF LENSES CONSIDERED VINTAGE? If you don't mind stretching the definition of "old" (or "vintage") I think some of the best lenses (good quality, for not much money) were actually from the early AF era (when AF/autofocus was in the 1st generation). This would make the lenses be from around the 1980s, when I think Nikon and Canon produced some of their best lenses. The Nikon AF and AF-D lenses are probably some of the most color-accurate, realistic-looking lenses I have ever used! The second thing to be aware of, is some of the OLDER vintage lenses might have problems with fungus...and fungus is no fun (I almost lost a lens to it). IF THERE'S NO MULTI-COATING, I DON'T BOTHER So, buying (and hunting for) vintage lenses can be a lot of fun, but before you get too addicted, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is that there was a time when vintage lenses weren't very good when they didn't have multi-coatings. As interesting as they may look, those kind have rarely (pun not intended) been worth my time. Therefore, the general rule I follow to stay within the multi-coated era is to not buy lenses from before World War 2. ABOVE: There are some really great old lenses out there, but before you get too excited, smell it (like Jared @Fro Knows Photo does) and inspect it for fungus. You don't want it spreading to other lenses. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh???

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

INTRO: As a budget photo & video geek, I’ve always been drawn to the idea of using a speed booster on my Micro Four Thirds cameras. The concept is to take a relatively inexpensive lens (like the Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 D) and transform it into a 35mm f/1.2 with the help of a (.71x) speed booster. The idea is cool, but the high price tag of (some) of these adapters in the past (not saying names) has made it kind of unattainable for me. Then along came the Viltrox brand; a lower budget option that seemed like the perfect solution. I bought one, then 2 more, and I was happy...until they ruined 2 of my favorite cameras (a LUMIX GX85 and then my G85). Let's talk about what happened, and try to figure out if there is any safe ways to use these things. UPDATE: I no longer recommend focal reducers/speed boosters FOR CAMERAS WITH I.B.I.S. (In-Body Image Stabilization) but I think they are still a REALLY GOOD tool for cameras without IBIS, and one of those is the GoPro ILS (Interchangeable Lens System). BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. You probably already know that I don't recommend the Viltrox EF-M2ii (Canon EF to M43 speed booster) because it fried the electronics on my Panasonic GX85. However, I still recommend the Nikon-mount version, the Viltrox NF-M43x (only for cameras without IBIS). The Story: WHY WE LIKE SPEED BOOSTERS ISSUES WITH VILTROX EF-M2II (for CANON) ABOUT THE NIKON-MOUNT NF-M43X WHAT ABOUT METABONES? PERHAPS PIXCO THEN? THE AFTERMATH: A HOLE IN MY KIT LOW-LIGHT ALTERNATIVES? WHY WE LIKE 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. ISSUES WITH THE VILTROX EF-M2II (for CANON) 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 (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 Viltrox speed booster (the NF-M43x) would be safe as there are no electronic contacts, so I started recommending it...until I dropped my G85 and it scratched the sensor (the G85 has IBIS). 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). PERHAPS PIXCO THEN? 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). LOW-LIGHT 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. SUMMARY: 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 the PODCAST that inspired this blog post. 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: While testing camera systems (mostly for hybrid and video production use) I started searching for a way to get the 3 Simple Shots (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE) that are part of the SHOOT43 multicam method, and in so doing, I've learned 2 things: WIDE shots look unreal on Micro Four Thirds, but real on full-frame (with a moderate wide lens) yet TELE shots look (more) real on Micro Four Thirds, yet unreal on full-frame (because of telephoto image compression). This realization really opened up a new way that I think about sensor sizes and I'm no longer loyal to either format. I think the problem is I was trying to make one sensor size do everything. Now, I play to the strengths of each format, and this has made figuring out my 3 Simple Shots (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE) a lot easier...though it hasn't made full-frame cameras more affordable, so I'm still using mostly Micro Four Thirds. BTW, this post may contain affiliate links, which means we receive a commission (at no cost to you) if you make a purchase through a link. There's a difference between the wide shot on an action camera and a REAL camera...but exactly why does the (wide angle) shot look so different? It's a combination of both the sensor size AND the lens focal length. The Myth of "Equivalent" Focal Length I love using Micro Four Thirds cameras, but there's a lot of advice online that is just wrong, and there's kind of a myth about "equivalent" focal lengths. People say things like, “A 25mm lens on M4/3 is like a 50mm on full frame” but that really isn't true. Yes, 2x 25mm does equal 50mm, but 25mm and 50mm lens designs are totally different...and so they produce different distortion and subject/background relationships. For example, the “non-distorting” focal length (what looks most like what our eyes see) is about 42.5mm in full frame terms. When you go wider (lower numbers: 35, 28, 24mm) you start getting into wide angle optics which distort the image to capture more of the scene, on a sensor with a smaller physical size. Bridge cameras (1" sensors or smaller) and action cameras face the same small-sensor issue (of needing wider optics to cover the scene) and tiny phone sensors are even worse. The main point is, it's the lens, not the sensor that decides what the image is going to look like. The SENSOR is only determining how much of that lense’s image you are able to capture, kind of like cropping. So, when you use different lenses—say, a 25mm on a M4/3 sensor or a 50mm on full frame—the images really aren’t the same. Therefore, I think it's better to learn what each type of lens optic does, and then decide what camera (sensor size) you need, based on how much of the image you need to capture (from said lens). Table of Contents: PART 1: About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing PART 2: The WIDE Shot = Full Frame is King PART 3: What's Wrong With Wide Angle? PART 4: The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) PART 5: The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! PART 6: The Importance of Working Distance PART 7: Use Multiple Cameras PART 8: Extra Tips About The WIDE, TIGHT and TELE Thing Most people use the classic language: wide, medium, and tight shots. I like to say wide, tight, and tele. The reason is that a “tele” shot always uses a telephoto lens, while “tight” and “medium” aren’t always clear about what lens you need to use. And in practice, what matters is both what the shot looks like and how you get there—lens and sensor size together. Hollywood technically names shots by how much of the subject is in the frame (not just the lens), but as someone trying to systematize real-world setups, I think it makes sense to focus on both how the scene appears and the tools we use to get there. The WIDE Shot: Full Frame is King For wide shots—the kind that cover a whole room, landscape, or scene—full frame shines. Why? Because full frame sensors let you use more “normal” focal lengths (35mm, for example), which naturally distort less. On M4/3, a 35mm becomes your tight shot; on full frame, it’s a true wide shot with realistic proportions. That realism is why photojournalists historically loved 35mm on film: It was wide, but not crazy. Full frame simply gives you a more honest, un-distorted view for wide shots than any crop sensor or phone (which rely on intense wide-angle distortion to get more in frame). Why a Full-Frame WIDE Shot is More Realistic: Full-frame sensors can produce wide shots with less distortion at moderate focal lengths (35mm–42.5mm). This can result in a more natural, immersive view with accurate proportions. Historically, 35mm on full-frame has been a standard for photojournalism due to its perspective. Most people don't see wide angle distortion unless it's pretty extreme (as is the case here). The reason is that we've seen so many half-way distorted images, that we don't know it's not normal. What's Wrong With Wide Angle (on Smaller Sensors)? Wide angle lenses stretch the image out at the edges and make subjects in the center look smaller. Classic “fisheye” lenses are an extreme case—think of old peephole door viewers, where the middle is tiny and the edges are curved and stretched. More “rectilinear” wide lenses (the kind that try to keep straight lines straight) didn’t arrive until the late 80s/early 90s, and even those can’t escape every bit of distortion, especially as you shoot wider than 14mm. This distortion is obvious in real estate photography; small rooms look huge, doors look unnaturally wide, and buyers wonder why reality doesn’t match the photos. That’s the lens at work, not a “lie,” but definitely a stretch. I’m currently experimenting with ways to minimize this, including tilt-shift lenses, but the key takeaway is: Sensor size and lens type have a huge effect on how wide shots feel. Wide Angle Distortion & Architecture: Ultra-wide lenses are often used to make spaces look bigger, but this can misrepresent reality. Distortion may cause features like doors and windows to appear stretched or out of proportion. This effect can be noticeable in real estate photography, where rooms may appear larger and features like doors and windows may look distorted. Wide-angle lenses (24mm and below) can stretch the edges of the frame, making objects near the edges appear larger and those in the center smaller. Tilt-shift lenses may help correct perspective and reduce stretching. Tilt-shift lenses** can help correct perspective distortion, maintaining straight lines and accurate proportions. Using moderate wide angles and correcting distortion in post-production are also options. The TIGHT Shot: Any Sensor Works (1x, 1.5x, 2x) For basic tight shots—think from the waist or chest up, or showing half a room—M4/3 and APS-C (1.5/1.6x crop sensors) are where it’s at. They give you a wide choice of affordable 25–50mm lenses (vintage or modern), and you can control working distance easily. Full frame cameras lag here: The lenses cost more, and you have less reach for a given size and price. Unless your full frame camera can crop into APS-C mode on demand, I’d give this job to crop sensors (with a slight edge to M4/3 for value and no recording limits on many Panasonic bodies). About Medium (Tight) Shots: Focal lengths of 25mm–50mm on micro 4/3 (50mm = 100mm equivalent) are commonly used. Full-frame cameras may have limitations such as shorter recording times or overheating. Micro 4/3 cameras may offer longer recording times and good value for this purpose. The "TIGHT" shot (which most call the "Medium" shot) is pretty easy to capture with all sensor sizes. If you're on a full-frame sensor, you'll need to use a little telephoto; I prefer a crop-sensor with a less-distortive 50mm. The TELE Shot: Micro Four Thirds! For tight and telephoto shots, especially things like distant details, you need a lot of “reach.” On full frame, getting a true 600mm-equivalent telephoto is both outrageously expensive and really heavy. But put a 300mm vintage autofocus lens (from the bargain bins!) on a Micro 4/3 body, and you get the same field of view for $30–$50, and a lot less weight. Another bonus: In-body image stabilization (in cameras like the Panasonic G85 or G95) is really effective with those older, non-stabilized telephoto lenses. With M4/3, keeping your subject in focus is actually easier at high “equivalent” focal lengths, since they don’t have razor-thin depth of field like 600mm on full frame. M4/3 simply does telephoto and tight shots best for cost, handling, and results. Why Micro Four Thirds Works for Telephoto Shots: Micro 4/3 sensors can provide a 600mm equivalent field of view with a 300mm lens. Lenses for micro 4/3 are often lighter and more affordable. In-body image stabilization (IBIS) on certain Panasonic models can be helpful with older, non-stabilized lenses. Some vintage 70-300 lenses (the Tamron, Promaster, Quantaray 1:2 MACRO version) are a really good value. Cost, size, and weight are why I like Micro Four Thirds for TELE shots. I apologize for using this meme again, but the point is, when you're using full-frame your telephoto lens has to be a lot bigger to cover the sensor. The Importance of Working Distance Another crucial factor is how far you need to be from your subject to get the shot. For portraits, you hear the advice: use 85mm or 100mm, not 50mm (for full frame). Why? Because on a 50mm, you need to get closer for a head-and-shoulders crop. Closer means faces start to look distorted—noses grow, features warp a little—even with “normal” lenses. Working distance matters for macro/close-ups, too. With a short lens, you have to get close, which blocks light, startles insects, and creates practical issues. So, the right lens/sensor combo isn’t just about field of view, but how you physically work. How Sensor Size Influences Working Distance: Micro 4/3: A 50mm lens works for the tight shot (and renders a more natural-looking image). Full-frame: Using a 50mm for a TIGHT shot requires getting closer (sometimes results in big noses) Full-frame: Lenses such as 85mm or 135mm are often used to avoid distortion, but they add compression. The last question is: What's the solution to all of this madness? What I do is use multiple cameras (change your camera, not your lenses!) P.S. I use a lot of adapted Nikon-mount lenses, so they work on full-frame too! Using Multiple Cameras One of the things I try to avoid at all costs, are "jump cuts". Jump cuts are abrupt changes in framing that occur when a person only used a single camera for a talking head shot, and edits things out of the footage. This can be very distracting in interviews or narrative work...and the solution is to "Always shoot with (at least) two cameras". Using two or more cameras allows for simultaneous capture of WIDE, TIGHT, and TELE shots. This can provide more flexibility in editing and help create a more dynamic final product. Extra Tips: TIP 1 MATCH CAMERA (SENSOR) TO SHOT TYPE Telephoto: Micro 4/3 for reach, stabilization, and affordability. Medium/Tight: Micro 4/3 for flexibility and longer recording. Wide: Full-frame for minimal distortion and natural perspective. TIP 2 SELECT APPROPRIATE LENSES Vintage lenses can be useful for telephoto work on micro 4/3. Tilt-shift or moderate wide-angle lenses may be helpful for architectural photography. Fast, sharp primes are often chosen for tight shots. TIP 3 DON'T BE EXCLUSIVE TO ONE SENSOR SIZE Each sensor size and camera system has its own strengths and limitations. Assigning each task to the most suitable tool may be more effective than relying on a single system. CONCLUSION: When you stop trying to make one camera do everything, everything becomes easier. Simply give each sensor size the job it does best. You’ll spend less on lenses, your shots will look better, and you won’t be wrestling with the limitations of any one system. So, instead of worrying about which focal length “matches what (on another sensor size)” I now focus on choosing what lens (focal length) I want to use to get the look I want, and then SENSOR SIZE considerations are all about how much of that image I want or need to use. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh?

INTRO: Once you experience using a perspective control (shift) lens, you probably won't be able to shoot architecture without one (and you'll probably find other shots that can benefit from the perspective control too). However, those of us who aren't terribly rich probably gave up on the dream of tilt/shift lens ownership long ago because of the high price tag (a new Nikon or Canon version is around $1,500). The good news is, for Micro Four Thirds users, there is a less expensive (and more flexible) option: An inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter #ad that can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a tilt/shift lens (yes, you read that right)! Keep in mind it only works with specific Micro Four Thirds cameras but this is still pretty great for the price. Let's talk about how to do it. UPDATE: The tilt/shift adapter I was recommending became loose, and then I tried to take it apart to fix it, and now I feel like I understand the Humpty Dumpty situation better...and so now I've been testing some other options (including a "real" tilt/shift lens) but for now, I still recommend this same adapter but just with the notice that it may only last for a few months, or maybe longer depending on how heavy the lens you're using with it is...I hope to update with any new recommendations. ABOVE: There's a number of tricks you can do with Micro Four Thirds that you can't with full frame cameras, including buying an inexpensive TILT/SHIFT adapter to turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a perspective control lens. WHY IS THIS SO AMAZING? Well, not only does this mean you can turn almost any (Nikon F mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, but it ALSO means you can do this with variable focal length lenses (zoom lenses). The reason this is so important, is that having a zoom lens with TILT/SHIFT capability means you have a ton of compositional control over the image. Not only can you zoom in or out a little bit to change composition, but you can SHIFT up or down to frame the shot as well. This is something that you have to experience to understand (at least I did) but we'll go into exactly how to do this in a little bit. DOES THIS ONLY WORK ON M43? The method works on both Micro Four Thirds and 1.5/1.6x crop sensors, and it sorta works on full frame, but not as well (hint: you'll need medium format lenses). The reason why the smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor works best with TILT/SHIFT adapters is because of the principle of these adapters: they use a lens from a larger sensor format to create a larger image circle, and then it will move ("shift") within that larger image circle. On M43 (MIcro Four Thirds) you can do this with either a full frame or a DX/cropped sensor lens...but If you use a DX/cropped sensor lens on a DX/cropped sensor camera, there's nowhere to go, as the image circle is all used up...so the lens has to be designed for a larger sensor than the camera you are working with. WILL IT WORK ON FULL-FRAME CAMERAS? There are full frame TILT/SHIFT adapters available, but to make this method work with a full frame camera, you have to start with a MEDIUM FORMAT LENS! The problem with that, is it's not only harder to find good deals on medium format lenses, but it is also difficult to find a lens that's WIDE enough to use on a smaller sensor, because what's considered to be a WIDE lens on medium format is not the same on a smaller sensor (full frame). 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 as 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). There are other options out there (another one is pictured below) but each has its pros and cons. The one with the best build-quality is the Kipon (SHIFT-only) adapter. The only problem with this version, is there is no way to close the aperture with newer Nikon G lenses (they don't have a manual aperture control) so you can only use it with Nikon F lenses...and this makes it difficult to find lenses that will work, especially when you're looking for an ultra-wide. One of the most well-built SHIFT adapters I have used is the Kipon. They make another version that also controls the TILT (this only controls SHIFT, no TILT) but I like using it because of the traditional knob-type adjustment, like old PC Nikkors. The problem is, it only takes Nikon F lenses, with a manual aperture control. 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 a panoramic tool) but we're focused on using this for video, so we're not going to go there yet. We'll try to keep this simple, and just repeat that using a shift lens is as easy as keeping the camera level and then composing your shot by shifting up or down (instead of pointing the camera up or down, which would introduce linear distortion in architectural lines). ABOVE: Using a SHIFT lens (or adapter) is a lot easier than you might think. All you have to do is level the camera, then compose the shot using the shift movement (seriously)! STEP 5 PRACTICE USING TILT (NO SHIFT) Describing lens "tilt" in a practical way, is a bit more difficult than describing "shift" but let's give it a try. TILT refers to the ability to control the focus plane, by changing the angle of the lens to the film (or sensor) plane. Most often, you'll see people using the tilt function to create a "miniature effect" but it can also be used in the opposite way (to increase how much is in focus). This can really help for macro purposes, and also helps when you want to shoot wide open (usually in low light) and need more of the foreground in focus. ABOVE: Using a TILT lens (or an adapter with TILT) is all about changing the angle of the focus plane. The benefit is that you'll be able to get more in focus with a shallower depth of field, meaning you can keep more of the foreground in focus, but still blur the background. SUMMARY: I can't help being excited about this topic, because TILT/SHIFT adapters for Micro Four Thirds made my dream of owning a tilt/shift lens a reality. I mean it when I say I can hardly use a "normal" lens for WIDE shots anymore, because I just can't ignore the angular distortion (in architecture) that happens when you have to angle upward (on a non-shift lens) to compose the shot. If you're worried about the added complexity, I will tell you that using TILT/SHIFT is a lot easier than you might think, and all you're giving up (compared to a native lens) is autofocus and electronic aperture control, which to me is totally worth it, in most cases. The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free ) I know, sometimes these ads look the same... ...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh?

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

INTRO: During COVID-19, I started creating YouTube videos and podcasts, and I realized that creating videos was taking much longer. With going back to work looming, giving up making videos (and only recording audio podcasts) was something I didn't really look forward to. So, I started trying to figure out a way to make video production as easy as creating PODCAST episodes, and as crazy as it may sound, I think I may have figured it out! NOTE: This was the first blog post I ever published (way back in 2021) and it was too complicated, so I've been working on streamlining it. ABOVE:  To simplify production, I started treating my YouTube videos more like a podcast: I would simply clap when I made a mistake, edit out the claps, and switch cameras. "Why can't making videos be as easy as creating a podcast?" Before I heard about Anchor (which is now Spotify) I had been uploading podcasts to YouTube (I know, that is not what it's for). I had captured lots and lots of ideas as audio recordings, and I thought I should share a few. It was so much faster to create an (audio only) podcast episode than it was to create a video, and that was discouraging. So, I started asking “What if I could make creating a video as easy as creating a podcast? Would that solve my problem?" Now, after a lot of testing, I've come up with a list of things that helped me make the process of creating videos easier & faster, while maintaining good quality. TIP 1 SIMPLIFY YOUR IMAGE (WEAR A HAT?) Anything you can do to simplify your self-image (yet still maintaining the appearance you want) can save time. To record a podcast, I don’t have to comb my hair or dress nicely, but just get a solid audio recording. This has been one of the main reasons I've been able to capture so many audio-only podcasts: I can record any time inspiration strikes (in the morning, at night, in the middle of the night.) I don’t have to prep my wardrobe (do laundry) comb my hair, put on a tie (which I did to hide the lavalier mic) or even shave! For video, you want to look presentable, so it's a little more work. ABOVE:  The reason I started wearing a hat was to keep from having to do my hair. I thought it was pretty neat to have my logo embroidered onto it (Vistaprint) but then I got tired of wearing it. TIP 2 SIMPLIFY YOUR SET (& KEEP IT SET) One of the most important time-saving ideas I came up with was to keep my "set" in a state of readiness. For podcasting this was easy, as it could be as cluttered as ever and I didn't have to worry about it. For video however, I knew I would have to come up with a system to keep things ready, so here's my (short) list of rules: The rules for keeping my set ready: Keep desk clean and in shape for recording Blankets need to stay over the windows (for lighting and audio reasons) Background (back table) needs to be empty (unless I'm featuring a product there) TIP 3 SIMPLIFY YOUR PRE-PRODUCTION Most people who read from a script sound like they are reading from a script (only good actors can make reading a script sound natural.) So to start out, don't write a script. Just write down your MAIN points (on a PowerPoint, a Word document or even on a napkin) and just make sure to cover those points while recording. This helps me stay on topic, and it makes the videos shorter (both things audiences usually like) and it reduces time spent in "pre-production". TIP 4 SIMPLIFY YOUR PRODUCTION The overall idea is to reduce the setup and tear down so this is easy enough to do (even when you are stressed or have little time.) This way you can keep the production value up and get other things done too! ABOVE:  To simplify production, I mount 2 or 3 cameras on one tripod using a camera rig    #ad  and two ball heads. Then, to simplify POST production, I capture the signal FROM ALL 3 CAMERAS into a single HDMI recorder. My Production Checklist Leave the set set up (Leave at least the lights and tripod set up.) If you can afford extra cameras (to leave set up in the studio) this can help save time. Use a single, heavy-duty tripod to mount 2 cameras on a "dual camera cage" (one camera for the "WIDE" shot, and another for the "TIGHT" shot ). This saves space and yet lets you capture two camera angles (check out that blog post for more information about the camera angles). Tape the floor with gaffer tape    #ad   where any pieces of furniture which need to always be in the same place go (perhaps where you stand, etc.) Use manual focus lenses and tape them with gaffer tape    #ad  (so you don't have to focus & zoom each time you set up) and take them off when you need to use your camera outside of the studio. TIP 5 SIMPLIFY YOUR POST-PRODUCTION I think I've come up with some real time-savers for this part. The biggest timesaver has been to use the footage from the 2 cameras that external HDMI recorder (SSD hard drive) instead of taking the footage from each camera's memory card. Using the ProRes files will speed up your computer, and also provide better-looking footage, but there is an even more important (or should I say "more timesaving" side effect.) You will be able to just dump all clips from the SSD drive onto your timeline AND THEY WILL BE IN ORDER (because when you switch before going to the HDMI recorder, they stay in sequence.) Doing this is super simple, and if you haven't tried it I encourage you to try. You can also edit directly off of the SSD drive (if your hard drive is getting full.) My Post-Production Checklist Use the video files captured to the HDMI recorder (instead of pulling the memory cards from each camera) because these HDMI clips contain footage from BOTH CAMERAS! Drag the MAIN POINT screens (which were exported from PowerPoint) into the timeline and place them where you refer to that main point Edit and export (it's really easy using Davinci Resolve as there are presets for YouTube, Vimeo, etc.) ABOVE:  I've since added a mount for an overhead camera for top-down shots (it's a dog grooming frame    #ad  ) but other than that, I've had the same setup for years now. The long version (every step): STEP 1 SET UP 2 CAMERAS (ON ONE TRIPOD) I will go into detail about this setup in a video, but the short story is that I use two identical cameras  #ad on an inexpensive dual-camera cage  #ad mounted on a single (heavy-duty) tripod. Then, I prefer to use 2 manual focus lenses (a Nikon-mount 50mm f/1.8  #ad and Tokina 12-24mm f/4  #ad each on a on Viltrox .71x focal reducer  #ad ) which are gaffer-taped to the correct focus point and aperture setting (so they are ready to go any time). STEP 2 SET UP AN HDMI SWITCHER (OR AN "ATEM MINI") Feed the two cameras VIA short, 50cm right angle HDMI cables  #ad into a small HDMI switcher  #ad (or an ATEM Mini) then into an Atomos recorder  #ad . STEP 3 SET UP YOUR AUDIO After testing a number of (more complex) audio setups, I've settled on using a lapel-mounted lavalier mic (either wireless or wired to a recorder in my pocket). Using the wireless option lets me feed the audio into one of the cameras while recording, instead of having to sync it in post, but either way it's a lot easier than what I was doing before. I also prefer the sound from a lavalier, because it picks up just a little bit of the environment (instead of sounding like I'm in a recording studio, which doesn't sound very "REAL" to me, though I sometimes do that with my podcast). ABOVE:  I set my AUDIO settings using a method I'm calling the "proximity" method  (it's based on setting the levels specific to the recording distance, the mic (and audio recorder) being used, and the wind protection. This doesn't matter AS MUCH if you use a 32-bit float recorder. STEP 4 START RECORDING (AUDIO & VIDEO) I mention this even though it’s obvious, because I have at times, skipped this step (smiling). So, make sure to start the 2 audio recordings (on the computer and on the external audio recorder) the two cameras and on the Atomos HDMI recorder. STEP 5 SWITCH CAMERAS OFTEN (WIDE & TIGHT) There are a few reasons to do this, so let me explain. First, if my primary audio (the audio plugged directly into the Atomos external HDMI recorder) is not satisfactory, I will need to sync the video to a second audio file, the recording from either the computer or the external audio recorder. If this is the case, the programs that provide features to sync video to audio (it’s now built into Premier Pro and Davinci Resolve) work consistently well only if there is a spike in the audio (e.g. the clap). I know this because I tried this with clips in which I was speaking more quietly, with no loud parts (and no clap) and those two previously mentioned programs (Premier Pro and Davinci Resolve) told me the audio did not match the video (which it DID, but perhaps there was not enough volume to match the waveforms.) So, clap at every clip, and I will next talk about clapping after every MIS-TAKE. ABOVE:  Let's face it, you're going to make mistakes (on camera and in life) but even if you're broadcasting live, it's not the end of the world. If you're NOT broadcasting live however, you can simply "clap after every mistake" (and edit the claps out based on the audio waveform). STEP 6 CLAP AFTER EVERY MISTAKE In addition to clapping every time you start a new clip, I clap every time I need to make an edit. This is the EXACT system I was using when editing my podcast audio and it makes the editing process go very fast. STEP 7 SWITCH CAMERAS AFTER EACH MISTAKE As we have all probably seen, editing out a mistake and staying on the same shot usually results in an obvious jump (in the position of the person’s mouth or body) revealing that a piece was taken out. To avoid this, simply switch cameras after every mistake (and clap at the end of the first shot and the beginning of the second.) Check out the next step to see how this makes it much easier when editing. STEP 8 EDIT THE VIDEO (CUT OUT CLAPS) So, here is the biggest secret: I use an external HDMI recorder (such as an Atomos Ninja 2, or a newer recorder such as the Ninja V  #ad ) which is either attached to a Blackmagic ATEM Mini (or an HDMI switcher  #ad ) which results in all of the footage, from multiple cameras, ending up on one hard drive. If I use the ATEM Mini switcher, this results in a single file. If I use the HDMI switcher I linked to above, it results in multiple files, but they're sequential, and they're all on one drive. (This is what I used to do before I got the ATEM Mini, and it has it's pros and cons...the good part is you can color grade each camera separately, but the bad is you've got to sync the audio to every, single clip.) ABOVE:  All I have to do is edit it in the same way I do for a podcast, which is by looking for the spikes in the audio that occurred when I clapped after each mistake, and then edit those out. STEP 9 EXPORT & UPLOAD (TAKES LONGER THAN AUDIO) As I mentioned above, this step is REALLY EASY if you're using Davinci Resolve, since all you have to do is click to navigate to the "Deliver" section (button at bottom) and select "YouTube" (or the destination platform) wait a little bit (depending on the speed of your computer) upload, and you're done! UPDATE: I no longer recommend the "YouTube" preset in Davinci Resolve, especially for the compressed footage that comes out of the super-low budget filmmaking cameras I'm using. I use the "H.264 Master" method now (certain cameras like the Panasonic G7 really need this, or the footage will show lots of compression artifacts). It takes longer to upload, but it's faster to export, and the improvement in quality is worth it! CONCLUSION: Does this cover everything? Let me know in the comments below. I know that in many scenarios you may want to add a few graphics (such as screenshots, etc.) to support the dialog in such a video, but we're going to give it a try without much added and see if it works out. Thank you everyone! 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: 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. 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 scare me into buying an entirely new system! 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 lens: it got an infection. 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. The only thing worse than BREATHING on a lens (and then using a Lens Pen) is using a FAKE LENS PEN to clean your Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 and having it smear glue (from underneath the cleaning pad) on it! DO I STILL USE LENS PENS? Yes, but I don't breathe on my lenses any more to moisten them, as the LensPen instructions say to do. I'll spray Zeiss Lens Cleaner or do my cleaning with Zeiss Wipes  #ad but sometimes I do finish it off with a LensPen (that I've never breathed on). CONCLUSION: In the end, I still recommend using the REAL LensPen (be careful of the fake ones, like in the image above). it's really, really important to not breathe on lenses to "clean" them though, and that's the main point of this article (sorry for repeating it so much). I'm glad I was able to learn this lesson on a low-cost vintage lens (and not on a really expensive lens)...If, however, you have to experience this loss with a more professional and expensive lens (and maybe one you depend on) that could really affect your budget (and maybe your career, if you think you need expensive lenses). So, don't breathe on your lenses, and especially don't do it right before putting them into storage for a long time. 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?

THIS BLOG POST IS FAKE: 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. The REAL 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 . 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: After I wrote my first blog post (about making video production as easy as podcast production) I started thinking about how to optimize my workflow in general. What I discovered may save loads of time and creates what I call a "multimedia" content creation workflow. IT STARTS WITH AN IDEA (ON A PAPER NAPKIN?) We've all heard about how the original Pixar team came up with almost all of their most popular ideas in one meeting, while writing notes on a napkin. (If you haven't, read about it here .) So, not enough can be said about the importance of CAPTURING (important) ideas when you have them, I'm going to take this concept of idea capture a little bit further. We're going to talk about how to craft those ideas into true multimedia content. Lets go over various capture methods I've used, and their pros and cons. OPTION 1 PEN & PAPER (NAPKINS?) The obvious benefit of this method is speed and, uh, cost I suppose (although there are less expensive and more environmentally friendly options than paper napkins). The cons include: Limited space Difficult to draw on napkins (if you're likely to do that) Environmentally unfriendly OPTION 2 TYPING (ON A SMALL COMPUTER) There is bit of a trick to this one here, and I believe it lies in finding a small, low-cost, touchscreen Windows "convertible" laptop WITH EXCELLENT BATTERY LIFE. The reason for the "small" is so that you can take it everywhere with you. The reason for the low-cost, is that you don't need to worry about making this the only laptop/tablet that you buy. The reason I prefer it's a touchscreen is for how much more efficient they are for editing text and word processing (selecting text is super easy on a touchscreen). Finally, the reason I mention having a Windows tablet is that you can download Microsoft Office and use all of the other productivity tools you use on your desktop computer. Remember, this computer doesn't need a very fast processor, etc. It just needs to have enough storage space. NOTE: One thing that is very important to watch out for when buying a Windows tablet/laptop is to make sure it has AT LEAST 64GB of storage (32GB is not big enough for Windows 10 anymore, though it was for early versions). OPTION 3 AUDIO NOTES I like this method because, for me, it's often the fastest way to CAPTURE ideas, but the negative is that it can take some time to re-listen to your audio notes (and then turn them into text). Therefore, it used to be my favorite method, and I still use it when I'm tired, but it has fallen to second place behind typing on my little computer. OPTION 4 VIDEO NOTES I am still working on improving my video production methods, so this one is still more work than it should be. (I hope to update you all when I figure this part out!) The benefits include the ability to SHOW people things and not just talk about them. Remember show-and-tell from grade school? The cons of this method include larger file sizes, more gear and higher skill-level requirements. OPTION 5 POWERPOINT (1 SLIDE PER POINT) I left this method for last, because I'm really excited about it (though I'm still developing this technique). What I've been doing is using PowerPoint to, sort of, create storyboards with words. (I do plan on adding rough sketches as well, but not yet.) There are a ton of benefits to using PowerPoint including: It allows you to create a text file and then import that into PowerPoint (to AUTOMATICALLY create slides at each line break!) It makes it really easy to move "slides" around (to change the order of your ideas) It lets you add (hidden) notes to each slide (which can be exported or printed if needed) It allows you to add graphics (images and/or clip art) You can actually use it as a presentation tool as well (the original intent of the app!) NOW THAT YOU'VE CAPTURED THE IDEAS... After you've captured your idea in one of these "raw" formats, how does one craft that idea into a finished piece of media, such as a blog, a podcast or a video? Well, that's the fun part (for creatives) and it's what this article was supposed to be focused on. It's where I had an "ah-hah!" moment, and came up with what I'm calling a "true multimedia workflow". SO, WHAT'S A TRUE "MULTIMEDIA WORKFLOW"? In the old days, "multimedia" was just a fancy term that meant you could work with art, audio and video on a computer, which was quite a new thing back then. Now, I use the term multimedia to refer to a process of simultaneously creating content in multiple formats AT ONCE! This means you'll be creating a blog, a podcast and a video all in ONE WORKFLOW. My goal is for this to save time (therefore money) with the result the content has been unified across all media, which then can translate to better SEO. BONUS TIP THIS CAN HELP WITH "SEO" The short version is: It helps the SEO because you START with a blog post, which requires a title and URL and to name the image(s) to match the blog URL (Source: Louise Myers, Visual Social Media, article here ). Then, you can either create a podcast or a podcast AND a video using the blog as your script! NOTE: Remember that it also helps to make sure your YouTube title and thumbnail image are consistent with the content of this media pod as well. 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?