Re: Run and Gun vs Lighting and Setup?

[SRV1981]

If you’re not lighting your subjects or scenes, doing more documentary style shooting and display on YouTube - is there much of a difference between what you use to shoot? (ie - iPhone 14 pro, fx30, BMPCC6K, C70?) 

Curious the thoughts on this when using just a camera and lens with hot shoe mic. 

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

If you’re not lighting your subjects or scenes, doing more documentary style shooting and display on YouTube - is there much of a difference between what you use to shoot? (ie - iPhone 14 pro, fx30, BMPCC6K, C70?) 

Curious the thoughts on this when using just a camera and lens with hot shoe mic. 

 

I have gotten to where I shoot almost exclusively with the R7 for events and hybrid photo/video work. For talking heads, long form content, concerts, etc. where the camera can be locked down and audio is more important then I use the C70. For commercial shoots and things like music videos I typically combine the C70 with the R7 as the b-cam.

For audio when running and gunning I typically use just a shotgun mic, the Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 lens and get pretty close to the subject to try to reduce background noise. When I am working with an onscreen personality doing impromptu interviews at events then I use a Sennheiser handheld mic and G4 receiver. For talking head work I use a Sennheiser G4 transmitter and receiver combined with a mini-XLR shotgun mic into the C70.

Some of it is depending on budget as well. If the budget is pretty low I will just use the R7 simply because I don't see the point in bringing the C70 to a lower budget shoot unless it will drastically improve my workflow. If the budget is high enough then I will use the C70 even for shots that I would typically shoot with the R7 (i.e. I will rig up the C70 on a gimbal if the budget is high enough, and forgo the R7's IBIS for the C70's improved DR/IQ when shooting handheld). 

At the end of the day I definitely make my camera selections based on the project type. If the project is 90% photography and 10% video then I will probably use the R5. If its 50/50 photography/video then I will use the R7, if I need two cameras then I will pair the R7 with the C70, if its 100% video then the budget and audio requirements will make me choose the C70 or R7, etc. etc. 

The great thing about the R7, R5, and C70 is that none of them need much rigging to work and all of them will produce great quality with or without rigging/lighting. I know BM cameras tend to need more rigging/lighting to get the best results which is why with my setup I can use any camera for anything from run and gun to studio work.

[MrSMW]

For me, the actual camera bodies remain consistent regardless of any shooting situation.

The only physical variables that I change are focal length choices and lighting with the latter very much depending on the specific scenario such as:

Church ceremony, although it’s a reasonable length thing to shoot, setting up any form of lighting would be a step too far. For me.

But a low light entrance or exit, or any other low light ‘run and gun’ situation, I might use an onboard video light.

Other more static situations in lower light such as say bridal prep, I might use a bounced constant light source, or a spot for something like speeches.

Otherwise as above, the actual camera ‘choice’ remains constant regardless, so my only choices are focal length and lighting, plus some in camera choices such as shooting log or a profile.

[SRV1981]

8 hours ago, herein2020 said:

 

I have gotten to where I shoot almost exclusively with the R7 for events and hybrid photo/video work. For talking heads, long form content, concerts, etc. where the camera can be locked down and audio is more important then I use the C70. For commercial shoots and things like music videos I typically combine the C70 with the R7 as the b-cam.

For audio when running and gunning I typically use just a shotgun mic, the Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 lens and get pretty close to the subject to try to reduce background noise. When I am working with an onscreen personality doing impromptu interviews at events then I use a Sennheiser handheld mic and G4 receiver. For talking head work I use a Sennheiser G4 transmitter and receiver combined with a mini-XLR shotgun mic into the C70.

Some of it is depending on budget as well. If the budget is pretty low I will just use the R7 simply because I don't see the point in bringing the C70 to a lower budget shoot unless it will drastically improve my workflow. If the budget is high enough then I will use the C70 even for shots that I would typically shoot with the R7 (i.e. I will rig up the C70 on a gimbal if the budget is high enough, and forgo the R7's IBIS for the C70's improved DR/IQ when shooting handheld). 

At the end of the day I definitely make my camera selections based on the project type. If the project is 90% photography and 10% video then I will probably use the R5. If its 50/50 photography/video then I will use the R7, if I need two cameras then I will pair the R7 with the C70, if its 100% video then the budget and audio requirements will make me choose the C70 or R7, etc. etc. 

The great thing about the R7, R5, and C70 is that none of them need much rigging to work and all of them will produce great quality with or without rigging/lighting. I know BM cameras tend to need more rigging/lighting to get the best results which is why with my setup I can use any camera for anything from run and gun to studio work.

Very cool and thanks! But what about image? Do you feel the c70 image is distinguishable when watching YT versus the R7 let’s say? 

[SRV1981]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

For me, the actual camera bodies remain consistent regardless of any shooting situation.

The only physical variables that I change are focal length choices and lighting with the latter very much depending on the specific scenario such as:

Church ceremony, although it’s a reasonable length thing to shoot, setting up any form of lighting would be a step too far. For me.

But a low light entrance or exit, or any other low light ‘run and gun’ situation, I might use an onboard video light.

Other more static situations in lower light such as say bridal prep, I might use a bounced constant light source, or a spot for something like speeches.

Otherwise as above, the actual camera ‘choice’ remains constant regardless, so my only choices are focal length and lighting, plus some in camera choices such as shooting log or a profile.

So what dictates camera choice? Again if the context is YT output and it’s run and gun style work? Does it really make a difference what camera it is ?

[Thomas Pawlowski]

To me the camera is more important if you have no control of lighting. I'd take an Alexa everytime as it handles natural light really well, unless you are shooting in the dark where you need like 12,800 iso.

 

Now is it worth the time effort considering what you'll likely be paid for run and gun shooting, probably not.

[herein2020]

15 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Very cool and thanks! But what about image? Do you feel the c70 image is distinguishable when watching YT versus the R7 let’s say? 

 

First off I want to caveat this with the fact that I am not an IQ purist, I am not constantly in search of that perfect camera to try to replicate Hollywood magic; instead my focus is on nearly everything but IQ. I focus on things like workflow optimization, ease of grading (the C70 wins this category hands down BTW when set to Cinema Raw LT), audio options, shooting features (IBIS, ND filters, etc), battery life, and of course above all DOES IT OVERHEAT (here the C70 wins again). IMO any modern camera above the PS bodies produces fantastic quality; the story you are trying to tell, the lenses used, and the lighting all affect quality far more than the camera body.

With that said, no, I don't think the IQ is distinguishable between the R5, R7, and C70 on YT for 95% of what I shoot. I keep the C70 in CLOG3 to match the other two to make the color grade easier. Now there is the remaining 5%; when a scene is a high DR scene, has strong highlight rolloff, or is perfectly lit and when the C70 is in CLOG2 then and only then does the C70 display enough of a quality difference to possibly be noticeable even on YT. 

I think the same can be said for most camera ecosystems (BM, Sony, Panasonic, etc.). 

I also briefly mentioned lenses earlier; I do think all of the cameras listed above would produce noticeable IQ improvements with "cinema" lenses; but my typical project is nowhere near the budget required to use lenses like those. The vendor's camera campaign videos produce the quality you see using the same bodies you and I purchase; but with $60K - $100K worth of rigging and a full support team. Those videos are nice to see the art of the possible (and they are hosted on YT), but achieving that look is unrealistic for most of us. I still like watching them though because they prove my point that the story, lighting, and rigging affect the quality far more than the camera body.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

So what dictates camera choice? Again if the context is YT output and it’s run and gun style work? Does it really make a difference what camera it is ?

The camera you have and nope, for YT output any finer nuances or differences will be crushed to death in the compression.

[FHDcrew]

3 hours ago, Thomas Pawlowski said:

To me the camera is more important if you have no control of lighting. I'd take an Alexa everytime as it handles natural light really well, unless you are shooting in the dark where you need like 12,800 iso.

 

Now is it worth the time effort considering what you'll likely be paid for run and gun shooting, probably not.

This is true. If you have the control anything made in the last 10 years can look great, especially if you only have online delivery. Throw away that control over lighting and all of the sudden things like dynamic range and highlight rolloff become immensely important 

[TomTheDP]

4 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

This is true. If you have the control anything made in the last 10 years can look great, especially if you only have online delivery. Throw away that control over lighting and all of the sudden things like dynamic range and highlight rolloff become immensely important 

I mean at the same time a lot of these new cameras do handle natural light pretty well, especially the full frame sensors. I think the big differentiator is still the lack of 14 bit readout on most cameras. Dynamic range is pretty respectable but we are still only getting a 10-12 bit readout. I'd love to play with 5D MK3 raw footage. I imagine its lacking in dynamic range but has a certain mojo due to the 14 bit readout.

What I found with the S1 sensor is the dynamic range was good enough for most scenarios, even some pretty difficult ones. I find after using lower end cameras for many projects from production to post, and now using an Alexa from production to post, you can tell the difference. If you are just comparing single frames maybe not as much, but overall the Alexa sensor and color science is just easier to work with and looks better when pushed really hard.

If I wanted to be smart I'd get a RED Raven or Komodo for quick projects. You still get that great IQ, albeit not an Alexa, but in a much smaller and less power hungry package. That would be run and gun enough for me.

[fuzzynormal]

On 3/6/2023 at 4:16 PM, SRV1981 said:

when using just a camera and lens with hot shoe mic.

FWIW, aside from the pro stuff, I'm pretty close to being camera body agnostic now that we're into the 2020's.

My preference is to use a 40-50mm prime lens on M43.  Or 85 on FF.  It just looks more cinematic to my eye.  Anything in the "portrait" regions of focal length.  Not a fan of wide angle filming unless it's very considered shots.   I don't like a lot of different focal lengths in my videos.

DOF I prefer modest, but not ridiculously shallow.  bleh.   f4 on FF and F2'ish on m43.

I also use a tripod when I can.

Just those choices alone makes the stuff I shoot look wildly different than most 'content' online.

I've been sticking with that for awhile now.  I like it.  I shoot natural light mostly.  Learned to take advantage of the situation rather than putting up my own lighting.  For instance, I almost always shoot now by turning off the lights in a room and using window light; repositioning my camera/subjects to get the best lighting angles in those situations.

It's always funny when I turn off the lights, the client turns them back on thinking a mistake has been made "Don't you need lights?"  Nope. "The natural light from the window looks wonderful, let's give that a try."  And I turn the overheads off again.

Even a horrible office room can look decent with natural light and a little repositioning.

[FHDcrew]

On 3/7/2023 at 5:34 AM, SRV1981 said:

Very cool and thanks! But what about image? Do you feel the c70 image is distinguishable when watching YT versus the R7 let’s say? 

I'm gonna be honest man, I would really quit worrying about cameras and focus on your craft.  For the longest time you keep posting about camera recommendations and advice.  This is great for sure, but I'm sure you have a wonderful camera already.  They're all great.  They all have great DR.  They all have great color.  They all have more than enough low light.  They all have more than enough shallow DOF with the right lens.  So go out, film and learn lighting, even just natural lighting.  Focus on things like that instead of the pursuit of cameras all of the time.

[herein2020]

@SRV1981 I think we are all saying pretty much the same thing; stop worrying about the tech (technology) and focus on the tech (technique). Feature length films are being shot on GoPros and music videos are being shot on iPhones. 

I stopped worrying about sensor size, camera vendors, and camera technology in general a long time ago. I have the same set of Canon EF lenses that I bought almost 10yrs ago. I would be perfectly comfortable shooting nearly anything with any camera I own. The story you are trying to tell, the subject matter, the camera movement, etc is all way more important than the gear.

Yes I enjoy discussing gear on here, and yes I am very picky with what gear I ultimately en  up buying but mainly because I need it to last a long time, cover a wide variety of project types, and deliver the quality that my clients expect. But I don't pixel peep, I don't need the absolute latest and greatest, I don't change my gear every few years, and I don't stress over the small stuff like a missing half stop of dynamic range or FF vs crop sensor, etc. 

The videography and photography fields are vast, and there's way more important things to learn like proper lighting, color grading, audio, etc. that are far more important than what gear you use. If anything, the number 1 thing to focus on is getting and keeping clients.

As far as lighting goes I am with @FHDcrew, nothing beats natural light for most projects. Some projects of course are made for artificial lighting such as music videos but not because the lighting is needed; more so because the lighting is needed to add a certain mood to the video.

I have shot many a fashion show and other event where the lighting is terrible; my favorite is events that start right around sunset and continue into the night. For those types of projects I use a simple camera mounted Falcon Eyes F7 video light, adjust my photo and video settings accordingly and shoot with my fastest lens (F1.4 FF). 

[SRV1981]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

FWIW, aside from the pro stuff, I'm pretty close to being camera body agnostic now that we're into the 2020's.

My preference is to use a 40-50mm prime lens on M43.  Or 85 on FF.  It just looks more cinematic to my eye.  Anything in the "portrait" regions of focal length.  Not a fan of wide angle filming unless it's very considered shots.   I don't like a lot of different focal lengths in my videos.

DOF I prefer modest, but not ridiculously shallow.  bleh.   f4 on FF and F2'ish on m43.

I also use a tripod when I can.

Just those choices alone makes the stuff I shoot look wildly different than most 'content' online.

I've been sticking with that for awhile now.  I like it.  I shoot natural light mostly.  Learned to take advantage of the situation rather than putting up my own lighting.  For instance, I almost always shoot now by turning off the lights in a room and using window light; repositioning my camera/subjects to get the best lighting angles in those situations.

It's always funny when I turn off the lights, the client turns them back on thinking a mistake has been made "Don't you need lights?"  Nope. "The natural light from the window looks wonderful, let's give that a try."  And I turn the overheads off again.

Even a horrible office room can look decent with natural light and a little repositioning.

Interesting take! Any particular reason you prefer tight shots ?

[A_Urquhart]

On 3/7/2023 at 11:16 AM, SRV1981 said:

If you’re not lighting your subjects or scenes, doing more documentary style shooting and display on YouTube - is there much of a difference between what you use to shoot? (ie - iPhone 14 pro, fx30, BMPCC6K, C70?) 

Curious the thoughts on this when using just a camera and lens with hot shoe mic. 

For 'run n gun' I'd say the camera is MORE important than if you are taking the time to light.

You wan't something robust, that has most of the controls at your fingertips and allows you to plug in and control/monitor a microphone easily. You also want something that has good Image quality, a good codec and good dynamic range to handle the vast variables that Run n Gun has to deal with.

When you have more time and control over the scene, you can get away with less Dynamic Range as you can light for the camera.

I wouldn't run n gun with an iPhone but after that, C70, R5, Pocket 6K,FX30, S1, S5, GH6 etc etc are all great cameras and will not hold you back.

IDK what camera you have but if looking to buy, I'd recommend the Pocket6k Pro or G2 for it's BRAW Codec and super intuitive menus. RAW for Run n Gun is not necessary but does give you more of a chance of recovering a shot when it comes to exposure and white balance in post. There is a reason why most productions I work on shooting Alexa 'only' shoot ProRes, big crews can light accordingly so RAW is not required but for Run n Gun it comes in handy.

I also personally don't recommend AF for Run n Gun. If you have one chance to get the shot, you don't want to risk the AF losing the subject and throwing focus off wildly while it searches for it again. AF systems are getting better and better but the viewer would rather see a shot where you might lose focus momentarily and pull it back organically that a shot where AF goes crazy looking for the subject. AF has a time and place, but manual focus is my pick for Run n Gun work.

This is also why I prefer APS-C sensors, for the same light gathering, you get a slightly deeper DOF to work with that is still shallow enough to look pleasing by today's standards. 

Most importantly, choose a lens that is easy to work with. For fast paced doc work, a Par focal zoom will make your live easier.

 

[SRV1981]

49 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

For 'run n gun' I'd say the camera is MORE important than if you are taking the time to light.

You wan't something robust, that has most of the controls at your fingertips and allows you to plug in and control/monitor a microphone easily. You also want something that has good Image quality, a good codec and good dynamic range to handle the vast variables that Run n Gun has to deal with.

When you have more time and control over the scene, you can get away with less Dynamic Range as you can light for the camera.

I wouldn't run n gun with an iPhone but after that, C70, R5, Pocket 6K,FX30, S1, S5, GH6 etc etc are all great cameras and will not hold you back.

IDK what camera you have but if looking to buy, I'd recommend the Pocket6k Pro or G2 for it's BRAW Codec and super intuitive menus. RAW for Run n Gun is not necessary but does give you more of a chance of recovering a shot when it comes to exposure and white balance in post. There is a reason why most productions I work on shooting Alexa 'only' shoot ProRes, big crews can light accordingly so RAW is not required but for Run n Gun it comes in handy.

I also personally don't recommend AF for Run n Gun. If you have one chance to get the shot, you don't want to risk the AF losing the subject and throwing focus off wildly while it searches for it again. AF systems are getting better and better but the viewer would rather see a shot where you might lose focus momentarily and pull it back organically that a shot where AF goes crazy looking for the subject. AF has a time and place, but manual focus is my pick for Run n Gun work.

This is also why I prefer APS-C sensors, for the same light gathering, you get a slightly deeper DOF to work with that is still shallow enough to look pleasing by today's standards. 

Most importantly, choose a lens that is easy to work with. For fast paced doc work, a Par focal zoom will make your live easier.

 

Manual focus makes sense I’d have to practice.  As I’ve said before, iM not dying to buy a camera. I enjoy convo regarding the topics im

intetested in. 

[herein2020]

1 hour ago, A_Urquhart said:

 

I also personally don't recommend AF for Run n Gun. If you have one chance to get the shot, you don't want to risk the AF losing the subject and throwing focus off wildly while it searches for it again. AF systems are getting better and better but the viewer would rather see a shot where you might lose focus momentarily and pull it back organically that a shot where AF goes crazy looking for the subject. AF has a time and place, but manual focus is my pick for Run n Gun work.

This is also why I prefer APS-C sensors, for the same light gathering, you get a slightly deeper DOF to work with that is still shallow enough to look pleasing by today's standards. 

Most importantly, choose a lens that is easy to work with. For fast paced doc work, a Par focal zoom will make your live easier.

 

 

I think AF depends on what you are shooting. My run and gun projects are mostly events, fast paced, only a few seconds to get photos and videos per shot, fiddling with MF can be quite limiting in those scenarios. I do still use MF quite a bit, but I would rather have great AF to choose from when needed than to be forced to always use MF.  Even the best AF systems can be completely unpredictable especially with eye tracking and subject detection, so when I use AF I keep it simple and stick with the cross hairs only.

I agree with you on APS-C, I don't need razor thin DOF and I mostly only shoot wide open when shooting in low light where every stop helps. To me, APS-C sensors are great because their IQ is just as good as FF but overheating seems better controlled with them and they tend to have better battery life.

[FHDcrew]

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

As far as lighting goes I am with @FHDcrew, nothing beats natural light for most projects. Some projects of course are made for artificial lighting such as music videos but not because the lighting is needed; more so because the lighting is needed to add a certain mood to the video.

It certainly goes a long way! If you use golden hour right for example you can get beautiful lighting without needing ANY lighting gear!  This frame I shot is from a 4 1/2 year old FF camera! Lighting and grading are what set things apart visually.  I’m serious cameras are close enough in terms of IQ that it doesn’t matter. 

[FHDcrew]

(Enlarge the frame to see proper colors. The regular preview desaturated the image haha I hate online color inconsistencies)

[TomTheDP]

probably best thing to do is rent a few different systems for different projects and see what you like using the best. If you work someone in the video field most of the advantage of a certain system is just practical usability for whatever it is you shoot.