Re: Run and Gun vs Lighting and Setup?

[fuzzynormal]

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Interesting take! Any particular reason you prefer tight shots ?

I like to use longer focal lengths.  Not necessarily tight shots.  A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

[SRV1981]

21 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

I like to use longer focal lengths.  Not necessarily tight shots.  A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

Agreed actually. 

[herein2020]

3 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

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. 

 

Absolutely, golden hour is also where modern camera's 10bit really shines, letting you push the mids to proper exposure without a fill light and without the skin tones falling apart.  My biggest problem with golden hour is that it does not last very long, I shoot a lot of swimsuit fashion and modeling shoots during the summers and if it is for a designer vs an individual model I can't use the golden hour because there's not enough time to film all of the models before the sun sets.

  

48 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

I like to use longer focal lengths.  Not necessarily tight shots.  A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

 

That's a given, less edge distortion, more background compression.  That is why my favorite event lens is the 24-105 F4.0....wide enough at 24mm for groups and long enough at 105mm for good background compression when shooting individuals or punching in for detail shots even at F4.0. On the R7 with its crop sensor that's around 35mm-165mm which is perfect for both photography and video.

My favorite portrait photography lens is the 70-200 F2.8 and I typically shoot at 200mm whenever possible to get that perfect background compression and tack sharp image for studio and on location photography work.

 

[Ty Harper]

I am currently running n gunning in South America for a family passion project. I've got an R5C, a Sennheiser G3 that I plug directly into the cam, 6 batteries, a mini stand and a basic ballhead. I brought a Zoom F3 just in case but haven't needed it bcuz the audio I'm getting plugging the G3 directly in-camera is solid. I sold a bunch of my Canon lens so I could buy/bring a 35mm RF f1.8 IS and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 OS ART. I've been using all natural light, and figuring out subject placement day-of on the fly. Of course it helps that I'm in a place that is sunny and beautiful 24/7 - but I can tell you I was only comfortable travelling this stripped down bcuz the R5C comings with pretty much every light and visual measurement tool you need (except for timelapse). So far the interviews have looked great, grabbing b-roll has been easy (the various crop modes have also been clutch for this!) and I definitely see myself using this type of stripped down setup more often!

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, herein2020 said:

That is why my favorite event lens is the 24-105 F4.0....wide enough at 24mm for groups and long enough at 105mm for good background compression when shooting individuals or punching in for detail shots even at F4.0. On the R7 with its crop sensor that's around 35mm-165mm which is perfect for both photography and video.

Ditto. Sort of…

Quite a few times, at certain events, I have run with the combo of; single body + 24-105 f4 shooting FF stills plus cropped video and it is very liberating.

The only thing I don’t like about it is the size/weight and the relatively long extension of these mid to larger zoom lenses.

Twin body plus multiple lenses enters the chat…

For 2023, for stills, I have settled on the 28 + 65 indoors and 28 + 90 outdoors.

For the video side of things, 28-70 but shooting S35 so ‘42-105’ and using that small & light and barely extending zoom, only at the extreme focal length ends, so just ‘40’ or ‘105’.

I have pretty much always used zooms this way, ie, treated them as twin primes.

I just wish they were all internal like my Sigma 16-28.

A compact 70-200 would be very welcome and I have been tempted several times to switch to Sony, not because it’s Sony, the YouTubers camera system of choice, but because of 2 lenses:

Tamron 20-40mm f2.8

Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8

MUCH prefer Lumix and these lenses can also be adapted to Nikon (looked at a pair of Z9’s but the reality is I cannot do my job with less than 3 bodies and currently use 4) but it’s just not justifiable.

But if it were feasible…and in some future year, maybe it will be, I could build a system around these 2 lenses that tick all my boxes except size & weight with the larger Tamron.

[TomTheDP]

12 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I like to use longer focal lengths.  Not necessarily tight shots.  A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

I tend to find myself on 35mm most of the time, which I consider right in the middle. I feel it gives me enough depth without too much compression giving that almost voyeuristic look. I do like super wides occasionally even for close ups, though it can be too jarring.

I don't use super long lenses that much. I think its nice to get a POV look, like a perspective shot looking at something from afar. I did that a few times with my last project on a 120mm. Another use is trying to make a character feel more isolated. I mostly shoot narrative projects though so I guess lens choice becomes a lot more intentional.

[fuzzynormal]

3 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

lens choice becomes a lot more intentional.

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.

[herein2020]

12 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Ditto. Sort of…

Quite a few times, at certain events, I have run with the combo of; single body + 24-105 f4 shooting FF stills plus cropped video and it is very liberating.

The only thing I don’t like about it is the size/weight and the relatively long extension of these mid to larger zoom lenses.

Twin body plus multiple lenses enters the chat…

For 2023, for stills, I have settled on the 28 + 65 indoors and 28 + 90 outdoors.

For the video side of things, 28-70 but shooting S35 so ‘42-105’ and using that small & light and barely extending zoom, only at the extreme focal length ends, so just ‘40’ or ‘105’.

I have pretty much always used zooms this way, ie, treated them as twin primes.

I just wish they were all internal like my Sigma 16-28.

A compact 70-200 would be very welcome and I have been tempted several times to switch to Sony, not because it’s Sony, the YouTubers camera system of choice, but because of 2 lenses:

Tamron 20-40mm f2.8

Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8

MUCH prefer Lumix and these lenses can also be adapted to Nikon (looked at a pair of Z9’s but the reality is I cannot do my job with less than 3 bodies and currently use 4) but it’s just not justifiable.

But if it were feasible…and in some future year, maybe it will be, I could build a system around these 2 lenses that tick all my boxes except size & weight with the larger Tamron.

I wish Canon had something comparable to the Tamron even though that's a big heavy lens; I like everything about the 24-105mm especially on a crop sensor except the fact that the lens barrel falls down when the camera is hanging by my side, and the zoom ring is not smooth so very difficult to zoom while recording.  The RF version added a lock button but I am not paying $1299 to fix those two minor things not to mention I would lose my RF vND adapter setup.

For my typical event work I only need one body now thanks to the R7 so I am down to one body and two lenses; 24-105 F4 for daytime work and 50mm F1.4 for lowlight / night. The F1.4 at 1600ISO combined with an F7 Falcon Eyes panel is enough to light individuals and small groups of 3-6 people at night.

[TomTheDP]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

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.

I guess longer lenses feel less intimate to me. As an extreme example lets say being on 16mm for a close up feels to me like you are actually right next to the person vs say being on a 85mm. Though I would agree that longer lenses generally look more pleasing. All personal preference at the end of the day of course.

[MrSMW]

10 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I wish Canon had something comparable to the Tamron even though that's a big heavy lens; I like everything about the 24-105mm especially on a crop sensor except

I think the problem is that the 24-105 has always been considered (by manufacturer’s, more a ‘kit’ lens than a ‘pro’ lens.

Like many, I prefer lenses to be as small and light as possible (which is why I love the Sigma Contemporary line of primes and compact zooms and for me are the sweet spot of lens in all regards) and I do like my Lumix 24-105 in terms of the quality of image that it puts out, but it’s back up and/or my all weather lens.

The reality is, for my use, f4 is just too slow for around 30% of my use case.

If Sigma or Lumix was to produce something like the Tamron 35-150, even with a constant f2.8 aperture, I’d be all over it.

Even something ending at around 120mm would be fab.

I’d even be extremely happy if a ‘pro’ 24/28-105mm f2.8 with internal or very short zooming came out though the compromise would be size & weight, it would be a compromise I could live with.

The reality of the Tamron 35-150 is that it is what I would call a ‘compromise lens’ (they all are to one degree or another) and for me would require a battery grip or the handling on even a short shoot would be awful, never mind a 15 hour gig.

Going a bit off topic here, but hey ho… 🤪

[TomTheDP]

11 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I think the problem is that the 24-105 has always been considered (by manufacturer’s, more a ‘kit’ lens than a ‘pro’ lens.

Like many, I prefer lenses to be as small and light as possible (which is why I love the Sigma Contemporary line of primes and compact zooms and for me are the sweet spot of lens in all regards) and I do like my Lumix 24-105 in terms of the quality of image that it puts out, but it’s back up and/or my all weather lens.

The reality is, for my use, f4 is just too slow for around 30% of my use case.

If Sigma or Lumix was to produce something like the Tamron 35-150, even with a constant f2.8 aperture, I’d be all over it.

Even something ending at around 120mm would be fab.

I’d even be extremely happy if a ‘pro’ 24/28-105mm f2.8 with internal or very short zooming came out though the compromise would be size & weight, it would be a compromise I could live with.

The reality of the Tamron 35-150 is that it is what I would call a ‘compromise lens’ (they all are to one degree or another) and for me would require a battery grip or the handling on even a short shoot would be awful, never mind a 15 hour gig.

Going a bit off topic here, but hey ho… 🤪

For me shooting narrative projects a solid 20-85 cinema lens would be amazing. 20 is just wide enough to cover most wide angle needs on S35 and 85 is long enough to cover most shots on that end.

[Kisaha]

16 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

For me shooting narrative projects a solid 20-85 cinema lens would be amazing. 20 is just wide enough to cover most wide angle needs on S35 and 85 is long enough to cover most shots on that end.

The Panasonic 20-60mm is a great cheap kit lens, maybe best in business right now (in very cheap kit lenses!).

The XF 16-120mm f4 almost made me go Fuji recently..

I use the 18-135mm EF-S in my R7 that I used to use on C100 cameras for run and gun situations, it is convenient with vND adapter..

The CN-E 18-80mm is interesting..

My workhorse in NX was the 16-50mm 2-2.8f..

Now that I decided going RF (still debating if that was the right move..) I want something like the NX lens, but 4f would be enough for me for run and gun..I value weight and size more now that I am not 28years old (I am not even 29 anymore!), Because the long end is "cheap", I would LOVE an 15-70, let's say, PZ maybe, 4f. That would be good for shitters too, ehm..I mean KreAtorZ! So they can market it alright for most people..

 

Canon is X1.6 crop..loosing something even in the conversion..why Canon?!!!

X1.5 is cheaper and more convenient than gaining 1 mm at the wide end of a lens!!!

 

[TomTheDP]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The Panasonic 20-60mm is a great cheap kit lens, maybe best in business right now (in very cheap kit lenses!).

The XF 16-120mm f4 almost made me go Fuji recently..

I use the 18-135mm EF-S in my R7 that I used to use on C100 cameras for run and gun situations, it is convenient with vND adapter..

The CN-E 18-80mm is interesting..

My workhorse in NX was the 16-50mm 2-2.8f..

Now that I decided going RF (still debating if that was the right move..) I want something like the NX lens, but 4f would be enough for me for run and gun..I value weight and size more now that I am not 28years old (I am not even 29 anymore!), Because the long end is "cheap", I would LOVE an 15-70, let's say, PZ maybe, 4f. That would be good for shitters too, ehm..I mean KreAtorZ! So they can market it alright for most people..

 

Canon is X1.6 crop..loosing something even in the conversion..why Canon?!!!

X1.5 is cheaper and more convenient than gaining 1 mm at the wide end of a lens!!!

 

I might have to consider the 20-60mm for the Sigma FP. Been using the Alexa mostly which is only EF mount or PL mount. The CN-E 18-80mm looks good for a cinema lens but 4.4 is a bit slow for S35. Really need a f3 or 2.8

[herein2020]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:01 AM, MrSMW said:

I think the problem is that the 24-105 has always been considered (by manufacturer’s, more a ‘kit’ lens than a ‘pro’ lens.

Like many, I prefer lenses to be as small and light as possible (which is why I love the Sigma Contemporary line of primes and compact zooms and for me are the sweet spot of lens in all regards) and I do like my Lumix 24-105 in terms of the quality of image that it puts out, but it’s back up and/or my all weather lens.

The reality is, for my use, f4 is just too slow for around 30% of my use case.

If Sigma or Lumix was to produce something like the Tamron 35-150, even with a constant f2.8 aperture, I’d be all over it.

Even something ending at around 120mm would be fab.

I’d even be extremely happy if a ‘pro’ 24/28-105mm f2.8 with internal or very short zooming came out though the compromise would be size & weight, it would be a compromise I could live with.

The reality of the Tamron 35-150 is that it is what I would call a ‘compromise lens’ (they all are to one degree or another) and for me would require a battery grip or the handling on even a short shoot would be awful, never mind a 15 hour gig.

Going a bit off topic here, but hey ho… 🤪

 

The nice thing about the Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 is that on a crop sensor with a speedbooster it turns into an F2.8.  Canon released the RF 28-70 F2 and it is massive and $3K so I can't imagine what size or cost a 24-105 would have to be to reach F2.8.

Canon really wants to set themselves apart and wants people to buy RF lenses especially now that it is a closed system and they have to know how many people would love a 24-105 F2.8 so I would imagine if there was any possible way they could have made it work within typical budget and size constraints they would have. 

 

6 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The Panasonic 20-60mm is a great cheap kit lens, maybe best in business right now (in very cheap kit lenses!).

The XF 16-120mm f4 almost made me go Fuji recently..

I use the 18-135mm EF-S in my R7 that I used to use on C100 cameras for run and gun situations, it is convenient with vND adapter..

The CN-E 18-80mm is interesting..

My workhorse in NX was the 16-50mm 2-2.8f..

Now that I decided going RF (still debating if that was the right move..) I want something like the NX lens, but 4f would be enough for me for run and gun..I value weight and size more now that I am not 28years old (I am not even 29 anymore!), Because the long end is "cheap", I would LOVE an 15-70, let's say, PZ maybe, 4f. That would be good for shitters too, ehm..I mean KreAtorZ! So they can market it alright for most people..

 

Canon is X1.6 crop..loosing something even in the conversion..why Canon?!!!

X1.5 is cheaper and more convenient than gaining 1 mm at the wide end of a lens!!!

 

 

The R7's 18-150 kit lens is actually an incredibly useful range, if I was doing the tourist thing on a trip I wouldn't hesitate to bring that one lens. It is only useful during the daylight though and I hate variable aperture lenses so I don't use it for any professional work. I also notice an optical degradation in quality when compared to L glass especially at the long end.

The Sigma 18-35 F1.8 is pretty useful as well when you need lowlight and zoom capabilities. That is one long and heavy lens though, but its my favorite lowlight non run/gun lens, it is also difficult to balance on a gimbal because it is so front heavy but it does work with my R7 on a Ronin RS2.

I keep thinking about using it more for lowlight events, but it is incredibly loud when focusing and I never know when I need the shotgun mic so I don't trust it when audio is needed.