Leaderboard

I don't think so. Most of the photography blog were just endlessly repeating "more resolution cameras, more resolution lenses, more resolution computers" but using different words over and over again. The odd post of "15 things to do with a fisheye lens" disguised this myopia, but it was the water that the entire camera internet swam in, and still mostly is. Now cameras have huge resolution and social-media can sustain the endless resolution-navel-gazing that people seem to want. I think there's room for one or two blogs that discuss non-resolution-based-topics, but that assumes that the writers actually have enough knowledge of non-resolution-based-topics to keep a blog alive. That's drastically fewer people than there were camera blogs, thus the "market correction" we're currently experiencing.

@kye @MrSMW To me shooting events has absolutely nothing to do with style, for me, style doesn't enter the picture until the editing stage for both photos and video when shooting events. My approach to events is that I have one job; capture literally everything; starting with the critical shot list and then going from there. For video my focus is peak action and variety, for photos my main focus is on the branding and the vendors, for a concert it would be the band members, and a few shots of the audience or peak action shots of people that seem to be enjoying the event the most. During the edit is when I can focus on stylistic color grading, transitions, audio tracks, etc for the video, and stylistic color grading and compositions for photos. For other types of projects I focus more on style during the shoot such as for music videos (budget permitting), modeling videos, fashion, promo, commercial, boudoir, etc, etc. But during events I stick to my one job; capture everything. So many times after an event the client will ask did I happen to get a shot of xyz vendor, or abc activation and most of the time I can say yes. For a concert I would get everything from the trucks that the band members arrived in to the crowds waiting in line, to the food vendors lined up around the venue, to the band itself, etc, etc both photos and video because I have no idea what was left off of the critical shot list that the customer might ask for later. For everything I shoot I try to get close, medium, and wide shots to provide variety, I mix in some totally random shots of small details like the instruments sitting on the stage before the band gets up there, or the lights in the tent above the stage, etc. Those details I use later to break up what can feel like monotony in the video and little details like that is how I attempt to re-tell the day for the viewer; focal length to me is the least stylistic thing I focus on and that's why there is no substitute for the 24-105 for me since there is no 35-150 option for Canon; even if there was, I would still prefer the 24-105 because its perfect on a crop sensor body like the R7. I also if at all possible try to get a few seconds of drone footage to show the big picture and further bring the viewer into the experience of the event. I guess all of that put together becomes my "style" but the last thing I would do is lock myself into primes during an event or multiple bodies if at all avoidable. For me my format/style works for me and has helped me build up a list of repeat customers so at the end of the day whatever works for you is whatever you should do. I can't see a single scenario where I would need that combination of lenses but that's just me. No hand wringing here after shooting years of events there are only 4 lenses I have ever needed for events: Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 - Obviously my first and favorite choice, it covers nearly all of the focal ranges you listed with one major downside; it too slow for lowlight. I use this lens for nearly everything until the sun goes down. Obviously it does not get down to 16mm but I don't like that focal length anyway when filming people due to barrel distortion at the wide end so I have a 16-35mm but I have never used it for anything except landscape and real estate. Sigma EF-S 18-35 F1.8 - When the sun goes down this is the only lens I use now that I have the R7. This works great for low light events for both photos and video when combined with a single panel light. Canon RF 70-200 - When I am shooting an event locked down with a dual camera setup (i.e runway shows, dance recitals, opera performances, etc), I put the 24-105mm F4.0 on the C70 and the RF 70-200 on the R7 and lock them both down on tripods. That's my long form/locked down event setup. Sigma EF 50mm F1.4 ART - I rarely use this lens these days since getting the R7, but occasionally I will pull it out for product detail shots if it is that kind of event so that I can get razor thin bokeh and have great low light performance. As far as trying to get people to 'feel like they were there', I guess I'm just not artistic enough to see how the lens focal length in any way can portray that feeling at all. To me I've never watched a video and thought; that focal length is exactly how my eyes would have seen it so I really feel like I was there. Instead I have watched videos and seen such a wide variety of activities portrayed in the video that is made me wish that I had been there....so that is my goal with event videos, to make the viewer want to buy tickets to the event next year because they missed it this year; and that is exactly how my clients use my event videos, they repost them the following year to try to bring up ticket sales. I also think since most people will watch the video on a cell phone, attempting to use focal length to pull the viewer into the event is an exercise in futility. With people's short attention spans and increasing need for stimulation to stay interested a good event video in my opinion is absolutely full of content that catches the eye every few seconds; its not uncommon for me to use upwards of 60 clips in an event video that is less than 90s. Of course this depends on the type of event as well, but in general more is better these days. A final consideration is that nearly all of my clients want an IG/FB/and YT version of each video. With a properly composed video, you can convert a landscape YT video into a portrait IG/FB video with a few mouse clicks and the video will need minimal re-composition. With the lenses I use and the way I compose the shots this all works out for me with minimal editing effort.

I don't understand why they can't leave the website live and just stop updating it. Web hosting can be very cheap. They can leave affiliate links and ads to pay for the hosting. I have used the site many times when considering lenses and probably have clicked an affiliate price link, I expect the same applies to a big percentage of photographers and videographers.

There’s your answer. Work with what you have whilst keeping a future eye on that Z8 which I think may turn out to be something a bit special. But right now, be smart.

Great post with lots of practical / useful info! A few thoughts.. I would argue that no-one can help imparting their style to anything they shoot, simply because shooting involves so many decisions that it's practically inevitable that everyone will make them differently, at least in subtle ways. I can tell you, being someone who has never shot for a client, my "style" would likely involve not keeping the client happy, and based on some of the amateurish coverage I've seen online I think lots of working "pros" are also falling hugely short of hitting it out of the park, so if you're really delivering what the client wants then that's a big statement about your style right there 🙂 How close do you think the low-light performance of modern FF cameras are to letting you use a single lens (maybe a 24-70/2.8) for all (sensible) lighting conditions? When I combined my GH5 with the 17.5mm f0.95 my testing showed that the combo saw better in low-light than I did, so I was happy with that. Obviously the lens wasn't the sharpest wide open and this was to my tolerance of noise levels etc, but I have pretty good night vision and I figure if I can film everything I can see then that's success. There's a critical distinction between "feeling like they were there" and "feeling jealous they weren't there" and I think that the former suggests using a 35mm of 50mm lens and the latter suggests using the full range of focal lengths to make everything seem as awesome as possible. In terms of a lens giving the "feeling like I was there" feeling it's a subtle thing, but definitely there, and it's something that you can learn to see if you're interested in it. I know you're a working pro and are getting what you want so there's no need to explore this if you're not curious. For those that are curious to understand how lens choice can give this kind of feeling, there are some fun exercises I can recommend. The best one is this: Get a camera that can shoot in three focal lengths, a phone with three cameras is a great choice. If you're not using your phone I recommend either 16/35/80mm or 24/50/100+mm combinations. Film a very quick video, maybe of 8 shots, and film those same 8 shots with each lens, making sure to match the composition between the lenses. This means getting closer with the wide and being much further away with the tele. I suggest, to make this fun, making a video of an outing to a cafe with a friend who will let you film them. Either shoot each shot in quick succession on the same outing, or make a shotlist and go for coffee three times! Edit the 3 versions together with the same exact timing and matching the framing (crop in post to fine-tune it). Watch the three back-to-back and see how they make you feel about the person in the video, and about the experience in general. If you don't feel the difference, watch them on loop for a few cycles each day and see if you gradually start to feel differently about them. I haven't done the above directly, but as I tend to shoot videos using prime lenses, and often shoot little personal projects with a single prime, I've had lots of experience of making videos with one lens (anywhere from 15mm to 80mm FOV) and seeing the differences. One of the things that made me graduate from the "what new camera should I buy to make my videos better" mindset was really understanding what requirements a good edit had and where I was falling short, and that was in getting sufficient variety of shots. Not only do the variety of shots allow for keeping the visual interest up by having lots of shots ready to cut up into faster montages, and not only did more shots mean that the ones that made it to the final edit were more visually interesting, but it also gave me more shots to solve problems in editing. I've heard editors talk about editing as mostly solving problems, and I think that's true. To this end, I realised that just shooting more shots was a higher priority than the absolute quality of the shots I was getting. Of course, you can't shoot a million shots that all look like crap, but if you're making videos that are more b-roll driven (like you and I are) rather than dialogue driven, then the shots don't need to all look spectacular, just solid and with good composition and with the technical elements done properly. There's an episode of Parts Unknown in Tokyo that won or got nominated for a bunch of awards (American Cinema Editors Awards: Best Edited Non-Scripted Series - won, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Cinematography for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program - nominated, Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards: Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Nonfiction or Reality Program (Single or Multi-Camera) - nominated). It's free to watch on YT, even if you don't watch the whole thing (although I recommend it highly highly highly), just watch the intro to give a taste of the content of the episode... I pulled it into Resolve and cut it up on the timeline (as I showed in this thread) and the Tokyo episode was spectacular for a few reasons... Over 40 minutes it contained about 2500 clips, which is a cut per 1.04 seconds on average. But, that's not the full story, there are shots in there that are 9s and there are shots in there that are 4 frames. Lots of them! The edit sort of ebbs and flows, creating and building and releasing tension, etc. The shots aren't special. I mean, it's professional cinematography, but just skip around randomly in the YT video and see if these are breathtaking shots or if they're just solid normal shots that you and I could take. It's the latter. This is professional TV but using techniques that are rarely seen outside of trendy puke-inducing YT travel influencers. It includes speed-ramps, extreme slow-motion, crazy wide angle follow shots, overhead shots, under-shots looking straight up at people, etc. This is professional TV edited to the music to the extent it's more musically-driven in sections than most music videos are. It's shot in 1080p, on limited DR cameras (some shots in this or other episodes have the skies clipped or other issues) and often uses slow-mo footage at normal speed, which means it has very short SS video - and it still won an award for cinematography..... In short, it's a film-making masterclass for anyone who wants to edit fast, to music, for shot-on-location unscripted materials. Here's the timeline of it: V1 and A1/A2 are the actual show cut up at the edit points, the V1 on top shows the different sections of the show (different topics), the bottom three audio tracks are (top to bottom) voiceover, on-scene audio, and music. I use this view to understand the macro structure of the edit, which reveals how much of the show is essentially a music video, how much voice-over there is, etc. Here's a little bit zoomed right in to show the ebb and flow of the edit: For scale, the selected clip is 3s16f and the ones after the playhead are 7-9 frames long. What is clear from this section is that there's an interview section with music in the background and a 'normal' editing pace, then the music comes up and we get very fast editing of the band, then it goes back to the interview again. I have cut up 10 episodes of Parts Unknown, as well as a few other episodes of food shows like Chefs Table (as these are all heavily shot-on-location unscripted b-roll and music-heavy shows much closer to what I film than narrative or dialogue driven shows) and my overall lesson that I took away was these: The camera basically doesn't matter except in how fast it is to shoot with and how little it gets in the way The camera settings basically don't matter except if they make the footage literally unusable Get lots of shots and get as much variety and coverage as you can Learn to edit Learn to do sound design Everyone on YT who isn't also a working pro is either a featherweight or an outright joke who is just wasting everyones time To this end on my last trip I moved from my GH5 to the GX85 and using my phone as a second camera with a wide angle. Yeah, that's one of the most important aspects. The biggest critic of how you shoot is the person that needs to edit it together. I'm still getting to the edit and seeing gaps and all manner of issues in what I shot and trying to make mental notes for next time, but I'm also remembering the edit process when I'm out shooting so I'm learning and improving. TBH most folks around here talk about cameras like they exist in a little bubble and it's clear that most are trying to compensate for their lack of colour grading skills, editing skills, or sound design skills.

My general rule, as someone that likes to spend as little money as possible, is to run the camera into the ground and only upgrade when it stops working or it no longer can do what you need it to do. I'm still running a GH5 and don't see a scenario where I "upgrade" for at least another year. There just isn't a need to. The image I get from it is more than enough, and the stabilization is still great. Those are my primary needs. I think Nikon is a fine system to invest in, and I think they are one of the most forward thinking companies when it comes to video right now. And with lenses you'll still get a decent amount back if you decide to sell them. Just my two cents!

Your spot on with my philosophy. For me, "feeling like they were there" means using focal lengths familiar to people and being positioned in locations accessible to people. Focal lengths like 24, 35, 50, and 85mm are all very familiar to folks these days whether they know it or not due to the smartphones in their pockets. Restricting oneself to those focal lengths ensures that the camera position feels authentic to the general audience and their experience. All that said, I chose to use the 24-105mm f/4 exclusively. I stuck close to those focal lengths mentioned above, but in the end switching lenses would have meant missing shots.

This is really unfortunate. DPReview seems to still be active. It's strange. They even posted a video (not by Chris & Jordan) on YouTube.

Apparently the ghost of DPREVIEW is lurking...

In fact, adding to the stacked sensor (and perhaps being even more important), the Z9 / Z8 have a dual dedicated image feed - one for the processor, and one exclusive for the EVF / LCD. Is a thing that I always thought that should be standard to mirrorless cameras, but since it is still so rare, should be costly to implement. I guessed that it could be done splitting the signal after it leaves the sensor, but looks like it should be implemented in the sensor itself.

The Z9/Z8 are different cameras for a different purpose to the Z6II. If you need a camera for that purpose (predominantly professional sports/photojournalism and/or 8K video or 4K handoff of ProRes) then the advances in development are obvious and are directed to support the performance of those roles. As such, the developments are about functionality rather than being frivolous trinkets. The stacked CMOS sensor providing a zero blackout EVF when shooting bursts because readout speeds are fast enough to negate a mechanical shutter being a prime example. If you don't need any of the functionality that these advancements support for what you are doing then it doesn't mean the development has gone in the wrong direction, it just means its not a direction you need because you have no specific need for the target use of these specific cameras. For everyone that does, though, the development effort has absolutely gone in the right place.

You're in a good spot in that F mount glass is so damn cheap at the moment. I have the z5 and and have been using my F mount glass on it as well as slowly buying Z mount glass over the past year or so. If I were you I'd poke around and find a Z mount 24-70mm f/4. It's a pretty awesome lens and can be found around $400. If that's too pricey, but the F mount 24-85mm f/3.4-4.5 VR, it's a very similar lens but can be found for like $200. The other F mount lens that is always going with my at the moment is the latest nikon 70-300mm AF-P. Super sharp throughout the range and works so well on the Z cameras. I'd grab or look into those two lenses, though there are truly some other great F mount lenses out there like the 16-35mm f/4, the 70-200mm f/4, and all the telephoto stuff. You can also get a v1 or v2 70-200 2.8 for really cheap too. Going EF or E mount is another viable option for sure, but I'd probably target the Z 24-70 to start. If you buy it used, you won't really lose any money if you go to sell later and get out of the system and will most likely be able to bundle it with your camera.

Embargo lifted. Its got same video specs as Z9 so you get N-Raw, ProRes Raw etc. Pretty sweet camera!

All I can do is rule out the Mi 10T Pro. It doesn't do 120fps. It isn't an option for any resolution. Maybe it's because frame drops are common. It just goes up to 60. I recommend you ask on their Discord server, where you will probably get a fast answer in the dedicated Xiaomi room.

100% agree with you here. And it’s like my mind has been split. A good chunk has consistently been in the mindset of stop worrying about gear. Just keep progressing and learning as you go. And I see the results; what I make now in all aspects is better than what I made 2 years ago. When I was shooting with the exact same gear. I really see the impact learning various skills such as lighting and color grading have really amped up my visuals. But yes I still struggle with the very tendency I know is awful and tell people never to get into. The tendency to obsess over gear, having those “if only” moments. I spoke to a friend who shoots on a Nikon D850. Told him about how I wanted to upgrade from my Z6. He asked why, I said because I don’t like how long it takes to use the Atomos Ninja V / Ninja Star each time I setup.He asked how long it takes to setup, I said maybe a minute at the longest His reply: “Isn’t it funny how just 60 seconds can seem so long?” Anyways, thanks for the therapy session @kye. I need to not worry about upgrading my camera because I genuinely don’t need to do so.

I totally understand why people are trying to buy their way to better videos, it's a much easier experience to research cameras and discuss (dream) about what cool new things you could buy, and it's brutal to admit you don't know much about a subject and start studying it (forcing your brain to work hard) and to do that for months and months. Unfortunately, that's what it takes to actually become a better film-maker. I posted over in the "Once in a lifetime shoot" thread about the Tokyo episode of Parts Unknown that won a bunch of awards, but long story short, the cinematography didn't include any shots that were amazing in a grandiose kind of way, but it had a huge variety of solid shots from creative angles the editing and sound design were absolutely spectacular - end result.. awards and nominations, and a great viewing experience that is far from the pedestrian nature of most professional content, let alone us mere mortals. The innovative nature of that episode alone is enough to make you crawl into the foetal position under the blankets, but the news is actually tremendous... most of the content in the world is so bland by comparison that to create solid professional-level edits you don't have to get to knowing 80% of what the greats know - a solid 20% will do just fine.

Don't buy anything unless the lack of it gets mentioned by a client, or drives you nuts in the edit. Instead, focus on colour grading, editing, sound design, storytelling, etc etc. Some of the biggest videos that get the most views or likes etc are shot exclusively iPhones, lots of working pros are shooting on 5+ year old cine/ENG style cameras, and some of histories most critically acclaimed TV and movies were shot in SD on a single prime or zoom lens - if you can't make good enough videos with your Z6 and a Ninja Star and a few AF or MF lenses, then the problem isn't the camera.

Here is a third test video I shot with the ZV E1, kit lens, and internal mics at 4K 60p in the sun at 70 degrees F:

The only good news is that cameras are so good these days and social media has reduced most forms of produced media to warranting barely more than a passing glance so no matter what camera you buy your biggest competitor will be the cell phone vs the camera you did not buy.

That's an important question. Two advantages of an external mic mounted on the camera over internal mics that are now negated by the ZV E1 are that you can choose directionality and conveniently use a deadcat to muffle wind. So that then leaves pure audio fidelity, which might vary by sound source. The ZV E1 videos I posted have recordings of various instruments including voice. So one can judge whether the audio is good enough for these sources (forward direction was used; uncompressed 16bit 48Hz audio was recorded internally).

I think it's ridiculous that people need to even come up with their own solutions to a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with. That's just me though!

I think that once any company is sold to ‘portfolio management companies’ whose main intent is to try and make money from it but don’t really give a fig about who the user is, it’s a pretty quick downhill slide into oblivion.

Is there also the question of style? The traditional thinking is to use the tools and techniques that allow you to take whatever shots present themselves in the scenario you're put in. This is what leads to the hand-wringing that comes with wanting a 16-200mm F1.2 lens that weighs under 1lb and fits in your pocket. The alternative is to abandon the premise that you need to able to take every possible shot and instead focus on the shots that matter. World-famous photographers have developed a signature style that people hire them for, which often involves a very limited variety (but very high quality) in their output. I understand that the client will have expectations of at least some variety in coverage, but I wonder if there's a middle ground? ie, what options from the below can be eliminated? Super-wide (<24mm) - used for taking shots of the whole venue, or of one or two centre-framed subjects in close quarters Shallow-DoF shots Telephoto shots (>70mm) - tight portraits or for compressing the background If you can work out what you can do without, and still keep the client happy, then it will better help you work out what to take. For example, I can imagine a situation where a 24-70/4 and a 35/1.8 could give enough coverage but also not be prohibitive. Or even a 16-35/2.8 and a 70/2. In terms of variety in the shots, you can shoot wide/mid/tight/macro from high/mid/low/overhead angles which is 16 different 'shots', and by the time you get a variety of those with each subject you'll easily have enough variety. Plus the variety of shots you get will also be subject to how quickly you can work. If I can work five-times faster than the next guy then I can get five times as many different types of shots, so even if I was limited to a single prime I'd still have the advantage just through quantity. There's also the goal that people 'feel like they were there'. For that, you should really be filming the whole thing with a single 35mm or 50mm prime as that's how the human eye sees. If you make a nice edit with 16mm and 100mm shots then it's not going to have that same feel.

This. Over the last decade+ especially, transitioning from being a photographer to a ‘hybrid shooter’, I have gone through periods of ‘gear creep’. Each time I reach a peak I say enough is enough and downscale it all…only to find the volume of kit creeping back up. I have just been through such a peak and had another ‘enough is enough’ moment but this time it really is enough. There is of course a fine line between being able to cover every single possibility and having just enough tools to do a job. My own experience is providing you do have sufficient tools for the task, then less is usually more. I don’t specifically shoot concerts, but events. There is nothing better than having one ‘do it all’ camera and lens combo in your hands, that you are familiar with, at all times. 24-105 for most brands or even better, Tamron 35-150 for Sony (or adapted for Nikon) would also be my pick on a single body, in this case the A7iv because it is a hybrid and the FX6 is not.

Battery life is ok but not amazing. Probably similar to the GH6 which I tested here: If shooting on sticks for interviews or whatever I hang a USB powerbank from the tripod and then it lasts all day.

It’s OK. Just that, ie, not terrible and not superb. Other than my gimbal unit for video use, I am switching to battery grips for hybrid use and my pair of inbound S5iix’s. One in the body, one in the grip and another on charge. I think the grip one goes first so if that is the case (it usually is) then maybe one swap later in a typical 12 hour day should be good. I don’t shoot non-stop for 12 hours obviously… 🤪😉 Batteries are cheap, can go in pockets and take seconds to swap so IMO, batteries have always been a non-issue for me. Any situation where it has any chance of running out, powerbank clamped on the tripod.

So 4 then.

I would recommend not changing lenses at a concert. Firstly you'll lose time finding enough space to change them, or balance the lenses in your arms and risk dropping everything. But most importantly, concerts get hot and you will 100% get condensation on the sensor, meaning you'll be unable to shoot anything for a minute or so each time. Better to have two bodies with a nice combination of primes (say the 21 and the 50) But I would personally stick to the zoom on cam A with a super wide prime for cam B.

Imaging Resource is gone (really), without announcement. https://petapixel.com/2023/05/08/imaging-resource-is-now-offline-as-the-camera-website-shuts-its-doors/ Was my preferred, above DPReview.

Part of the camera history just gone like that