fuzzynormal

Yes. Also when on sticks and or a monopod. IBIS is a fun tool, but no when to say when.

I remember doing this too. A robin nested outside my grandmother’s living room window back in the 80’s. I hooked up a VHS camcorder and we watched/recorded. Cute! Also discovered how mama birds make sure the nest doesn’t get covered in poop. As for your modern birds, nowadays I think I’d use a ‘cheep’ nanny cam.

I really enjoy the field shooting flexibility good IBIS allows. Once one knows how to really use it as a videographer it can become indispensable. As a guy that loves shooting on sticks that no small admission.

Well, we're all 'Sailing to Byzantium,' eh?

Maybe at a movie's premiere!? I grew up in no-where's-ville-midwest-USA. I watched a ton of movies as a kid, but almost exclusively at the second-run and drive-in screenings. We also had a regional movie house that did 1$ matinees. Ain't nothing that screened there that didn't look abused. Ironically, I don't think I actually saw a pristine print of a film 'til I saw "Hateful Eight". Also, I just watched "After Hours" again. It's on HBOMax. First time in almost 40 years. THAT'S what a lot of movies really looked like. Now add a ton of scratches and bad projection onto it and you'd get the idea.

Depends on the doc. I use hybrid cams and removable lenses for my docs.

I like smaller sensor cameras for the super-zoom capability they typically offer. Also camcorders with built-in ND filers are nice.

Seems like you have a process that works and you're content with it. Very cool. I'm in the same boat. Since I'm low low low budget, I shoot what I can with what I can and align as best as possible in post. I just spent a month and a half filming with a shitty 500mm lens simply because that's all I could afford. It's not great, but it's not a deal breaker either. So, off into the field I went and I used it. And also, combining multiple cam footage with different lenses is not that hard unless, as a filmmaker, you're incredibly intent on having an extremely tight cohesiveness to the IQ --and are desperately striving for seeking out that extra 5% of IQ. Your test prove that consolidating various footage is viable, and my anecdotal experience follows. I know a lot of us here really want to find the perfect recipe for all of the above, throw in some secret sauce to make it all work, and that'll make us sit back in the editing seat and go "golly, doesn't that look wonderful!" However, since consumer IQ tech is pretty damn good now, as a documentarian my goal isn't about the tech, more often it's simply get the shot that tells the story, then tell that story. These days, when it comes to IQ, I worry much much more about the floor than the cieling.

Well, I'm assistant editing with ARRI footage. [name drop!] Seriously though, filming our own thing this month with a XPRO2, EM10III, iPhone, and a GH5. I even used the old Canon 5DII the other day. All over the map. I guess you can throw in GoPro and DJI while we're at it. 7 camera manufactures, one project. Also, all the different lenses we've been using are ridiculous.

Funny you should say that because the mouse character was always supposed to be animated, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. So the director put a puppet on her hand and we did it that way. The film is free to watch this week on the website: www.agiftforallagesfilm.com

Dang. Now I sorta feel like shooting a short with the old 5DII sitting on the shelf. Although it's true that I never really wanted to dabble in RAW for editing back in the day --as the workflow was off-putting. Might be worth learning something old and make it new again.

Doesn't seem to bump up pace of reading much for me --maybe the bold print even got in the way a little?

It's not a practical suggestion to actually do the thing. Anyone with the means would choose Arri over a 12 year old hacked camera all day long. This absurdist theory is just to illustrate that the separating degrees of IQ isn't the thing that makes or breaks a film.

Fair enough. Oly never has been the best at the video side of things. Good, never great. Always a little behind with their IQ, I agree. Still like 'em though. I'm still shooting some stuff every now and gain with a cheap EM10II and I do like the colors. With the OM-1 I have a specific documnetary on the agenda that includes bird photography and video --so that makes it a good fit. Damn lens costs 8K though. Sheesh...still that's cheap compared to other manufacturer's glass made for birding. But, like you mentioned, buy it, use it, sell it.

Have the XH2. Thinking about getting the OM-1. What's your real world "nope, it's going back" sentiment about the OM-1?

Yeah, I can't explain my attraction to Olympus, but there it is.

You're right. Helps prove the point, really. They shot Nomadland on more expensive gear because they like the prestige of it. (among the technical niceness of an Arri, no doubt) In theory, I'm pretty confident that they absolutely could've shot Nomadland on a hacked 10 year old 5DII, claimed they used an Arri, and then were "stylistic" in the color-grade. Not too many in the Academy would doubt it, if anyone.

You can't tell me that most of us here have the technical skill to make an Academy Award Winning film like Nomadland. It's brain-dead simple if you have an inkling of video production craft. Storytelling maybe not so much, but that film could've been shot on a 5DII and no one would care or notice.

I vote for print. Ironic that you say "short attention span" when the fact is one can read things a hell of a lot faster than watch the same words delivered in a video. Myself, I'm probably going with the dark horse in this hunt; so much so it's not even mentioned: The OM-1. I got some pretty specific needs coming down the pike this year so that camera just makes sense. I'd wager there's not many of us out here in the wild that'll be using that body exclusively for video production.

Years and years ago I literally used a counterweight'ed lead pipe to do some stuff that I wanted to look smooth'ish, but still very much handheld. The rig weighed about 10 lbs when done. Not the type of thing you want to run around with ALL day, but for short stretches it was perfect for the look I wanted. Something like this:

It's kind of like the old-school difference between "broadcaster" and "filmmaker". Aspects of both crafts can often be interchangeable and muddied, but there's a philosophical difference between the two. 'Broadcasting' the States has most often been about making quick, often shitty, content. News, game shows, talk shows, soap operas --just constant stuff stuff stuff. A lot of that is now being built on independent folks, rather than organized broadcasting business entities, but it's still the same low-effort-with-the-narrrative content. Decent filmmmakiing is considered and slow. There's typically a serious effort to infuse some story telling art into it. Churning out content... eh, there's some of that, but not so much.

The gig economy is the future economy. As a freelancer my whole life I ironically find it kinda sad, actually. It's yet another corporate race to the bottom.

I've literally bought Oly and a few Panasonic cams because they looked cooler than other manufacturers. I then beat them all to shit until they looked ugly as sin, but still...

It's intentional for me as well as I'm most often doing docs or corporate personality profiles. So, rationalizing it as bringing the viewer intimately into their world. As you mention, using that bit of focal compression as a way of isolating the person unto themselves. OTOH, my wife and I did a narrative short last year and we ended up using 18mm on M43 mostly. So, 36mm FF equiv. Felt like the right choice as the main characters were a couple. To the topic's OP: as you see, none of these decisions are reliant on specific camera brand purchases.