Once in a lifetime shoot. What primes should I bring?

[MurtlandPhoto]

So, I've got a super exciting shoot coming up with some interesting constraints I'm trying to plan for. It's a concert with big name act. I'll be shooting and editing a recap video for the venue featuring all the goings-on before, during, and after the show including footage of the concert itself from the pit and some up close interactions with the performers. Lots of footage of the venue, the fans up close, signage, merch, everything—trying to capture every aspect of the show so folks can feel like they were there. My main camera will be the Sony FX6 and my second body will be the A7iv for backup/stills. I'll only be able to have a large waist (fanny) pack with me for accessories and extra lenses. I know one of my lenses will be my Sony 24-105mm f/4. My question is: what 2 primes should I also bring? I know where I'm leaning, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I have the SLR Magic MicroPrimes: 21mm t1.6, 35mm t1.3, 50mm t1.2, and 75mm t1.5.

[Anaconda_]

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.

[MurtlandPhoto]

7 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

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.

Ah hadn’t thought of this. It’s been several years since I’ve shot a concert and yes this venue gets HUMID.

[newfoundmass]

Yeah, it's probably a better idea to have two bodies with dedicated lenses instead of switching them. 

I think 35mm is a very good choice because you can also switch into APS-C mode and turn it into a 50mm, effectively giving you two focal lengths with one lens.

[herein2020]

On 5/2/2023 at 11:59 AM, MurtlandPhoto said:

So, I've got a super exciting shoot coming up with some interesting constraints I'm trying to plan for. It's a concert with big name act. I'll be shooting and editing a recap video for the venue featuring all the goings-on before, during, and after the show including footage of the concert itself from the pit and some up close interactions with the performers. Lots of footage of the venue, the fans up close, signage, merch, everything—trying to capture every aspect of the show so folks can feel like they were there. My main camera will be the Sony FX6 and my second body will be the A7iv for backup/stills. I'll only be able to have a large waist (fanny) pack with me for accessories and extra lenses. I know one of my lenses will be my Sony 24-105mm f/4. My question is: what 2 primes should I also bring? I know where I'm leaning, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I have the SLR Magic MicroPrimes: 21mm t1.6, 35mm t1.3, 50mm t1.2, and 75mm t1.5.

I agree with never changing lenses at a concert. I only change lenses if I can go back to my car and change inside the car away from the heat, dust, and people that want to ask me a lot of camera questions. 

But I also like to keep things simple, so for your situation I would (and have) shoot the entire event with the 24-105 F4. That's become my favorite event video/photo hybrid event lens of all time. Also with APS-C mode you can punch in all the way to 155mm when necessary.

Since you are carrying two bodies anyway (not something I would do I would just shoot everything with the R7, or in your case with the A7IV), I would pair the A7IV with the 50mm. 

The biggest problem I have with two bodies is that I only have 1 24-105mm lens so anything I mount on a second body will have less range; with a prime no way to compose groups if the prime is too long and no way to punch in for details if the prime is too wide; I also will lose time switching between the two instead of just flicking the switch to go from photos to video and back, and last but not least lugging around a second body in a crowded pit would be a royal PITA. 

I know nothing about Sony, so I don't know how much better the FX6 is for video vs the A7IV just like I don't know how good of a hybrid camera the A7IV is, but if the video quality is similar, I would rig up the A7IV with a side handle for video, large capacity SD cards, and a fill flash for photos and shoot the whole event like that with a single body and a single lens...this would fix the photo body lens problem, simplify your rig and the only thing you would need in the fanny pack is batteries.

I do it all the time with the R7 and in 95% of the cases the IQ is identical to my C70 and R5 but with the added benefit of great images as well.  I hate fiddling with gear at events and for me personally have found that one good hybrid body gets me more keeper shots and better variety of footage than fiddling with a complex gear setup. I know as videographers it is easy to get buried in the gear hype, but keeping it simple lets you focus on the moment vs the gear and that rewards you with more content and less missed chances during the event not to mention less chance of your gear getting damaged. One body in your hand is a lot safer than one swinging by your side in a pit.

If you decide to go with just the A7IV, I would set up the favorites menu with the APS-C crop in the menu to quickly punch in when distance is an issue for both photos and video, that's how I have my R7 setup, that combined with the 24-105 F4 is my setup for nearly anything except lowlight. For lowlight at events I switch to my Sigma APS-C 18-35 F1.8 with a Falcon F7 panel light.

Just my .02 and my particular niche is over 10yrs of shooting events exactly like the one you described. These days I only use two bodies for long form content or projects where I can lock down at least one of the cameras on a tripod.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I hate fiddling with gear at events and for me personally have found that one good hybrid body gets me more keeper shots and better variety of footage than fiddling with a complex gear setup

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.

 

[kye]

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.  

[MrSMW]

4 hours ago, kye said:

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.

Indeed.

My own approach that I have settled on is an 'indoor set up' and and 'outdoor set up' that requires just one single lens change on one of my 3 bodies.

Body 01 = longer form, static video using a 28-75mm zoom = 28-40mm indoors and 50-75mm out. Doubles as a gimbal camera but I'll typically use the 'indoor' focal length for this purpose and it never crosses over with the static use. The only difference is how far zoomed out or in the lens is (that never comes off) and whether it's on the gimbal or the tripod using the same Swiss Arca mount.

Body 02 = hybrid with 28-70 welded on and is shot at either 28 or 70 but nothing in between, ie, like a twin prime set up.

Body 03 = hybrid with 16-28 indoors (shot 16 or 28 only, ie, as above, like a 'twin prime' set up) and 90 out.

4 hours ago, kye said:

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.

And why I have an indoor and an outdoor set up of focal lengths because it's about the distance to subject which using different focal lengths (but never anything extreme) is 'equalised' based on where I can position myself, ie, closer indoors (usually because of walls) and further away outdoors, because it's possible to do so.

For consistency and a 'look' it works and from the video side is basically 2 focal lengths; 42mm indoors (occasional 28) and 75 out with occasional 105 or even 135 out at very specific, but limited times.

4 hours ago, kye said:

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.

There's a fella I know who is most definitely not 'world famous' and nor will he ever be who does just this and restricts everything he does to just 28mm.

I don't think he's an artist, but taking the piss. Or at least, restricting his coverage for the sake of his 'art'. But then again, if his clients like his work/results and are happy to pay for it, then fair enough, but I couldn't do it...though have in the past using just 35mm for an entire year professionally. I came to the conclusion I was being a pretentious artiste and taking the piss. So stopped doing it 😜

[herein2020]

@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.

 

13 hours ago, kye said:

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.  

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.  

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.

[kye]

Great post with lots of practical / useful info!

A few thoughts..

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

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 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 🙂 

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

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.

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.

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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!
3. Edit the 3 versions together with the same exact timing and matching the framing (crop in post to fine-tune it).
4. 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.

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

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.

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...

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.  
4. This is professional TV edited to the music to the extent it's more musically-driven in sections than most music videos are.  
5. 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.

7 hours ago, herein2020 said:

With the lenses I use and the way I compose the shots this all works out for me with minimal editing effort.

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.

[MurtlandPhoto]

14 hours ago, kye said:

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.

 

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.

[Kisaha]

We shoot a very popular show with 2 GH5 and 12-100mm Olympus 4f lenses. 

I remember years ago for the same project we were carrying video cameras with suitcases full of lenses! It wasn't only tiring and stressful for us, but for the presenters also and the whole production..

We also use the same for recording performances/live events. You do not have the time to change lenses.

When I take pictures and I have to cover everything, I use 2 bodies with a workhorse zoom (and a flash just in case, there is no shame on that!), and a prime that fits the occasion (for more "artistic" and/or personal approach) and usually, a 3rd small body (I have always some kind of backup with me, even when I just use one body) with some oddball lens (ultra wide or even fisheye, just for a couple of "weird" ones.

[kye]

7 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

.......but in the end switching lenses would have meant missing shots.

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

You do not have the time to change lenses.

I've developed the habit of hitting record on the camera prior to composing and focusing so that I can maximise the number of recorded usable frames that are available for the edit.

My process is typically:

• Carry camera around in hand, with wrist-strap for safety/security
• If I'm in an interesting spot, camera is on and kept awake (half-pressing the shutter every so often prevents it sleeping)
• When I see something I start to raise the camera from by my side, and I hit record on the way up
• I compose and focus as quickly as possible
• Record the shot

I find that even with this method I often end up with clips that have 1s of usable video in them once the focus and composition have been achieved, which are hard to use in an edit and had I been just 1s quicker I could have had a 2s clip and it would have been profoundly more useful in the edit.   I sometimes reframe in post slightly so I can use earlier frames if the camera was still moving a bit.  

Literally 1s matters.

[herein2020]

21 hours ago, kye said:

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 🙂 

I think a lot of what you see online these days looks the way that it does especially for events due to budget. It is very easy to find events to cover, it is even moderately easy to find events that will pay you to cover them; it is much harder to find event organizers that value the coverage enough to pay what it takes to hire someone who takes pride in their craft.  Many organizers want to pay next to nothing because the money they spend on the photographer/videographer comes directly out of their profits. Another challenge is the impact of the event footage is hard to measure from a marketing standpoint; did the event footage gain you those 800 extra attendees the following year or just word of mouth?

I also frequently refer back to cell phones because they are my number one competitor. Since event organizers typically want to pay next to nothing, it is far cheaper for them to just hire a "social media expert" than a real photographer/videographer. "Social media expert" these days is code words for someone with a cell phone who will post mediocre photos and videos throughout the event for barely more than the current minimal wage.

21 hours ago, kye said:

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?

I still think its not quite there yet.  Of course, we first have to agree on just how dark lowlight really is, but IMO without a panel light no lens works well after the sun goes down unless there's practically enough lights to turn night into day. With my Falcon F7 panel light on full power and with the R5 at its second native ISO of 3200 I might be able to use the 24-70/F2.8 but I have never tried it.  I would rather have a faster lens that I can then stop down a bit with the panel light than to have a setup at the very edge of what it can handle lighting wise.

21 hours ago, kye said:

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.

I agree 100% which is why I brought up the fact that my focus for events is to promote the event for the following year which is what my clients hire me to do for most types of events. Their goal is to make people see what they missed and instill a desire to catch it next time...which is what drives ticket sales and is how they justify the cost of hiring me vs a "social media expert". Sometimes they hire me to make their vendors/sponsors happy and then the focus is more on the sponsors than anything else. With those types of clients I have to balance showcasing the sponsors while also trying to keep the video feeling like an endless array of sponsor logos and employees. So yes, there subtle differences depending on the client's reasons for hiring a videographer/photographer.

 

21 hours ago, kye said:

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.

That is 100% key to a good event video.....or for most videos for that matter, variety is literally everything. Hollywood has mastered this through many subtle tricks that keeps you mentally engaged such as slightly different camera angles every few seconds, switching points of view during conversations, etc. etc. The average clip these days is less than 3-5s even in feature length movies before something has to change (audio, pov, camera angle, etc, etc.).

And yes, editing is really about solving problems more than anything. Picking the right audio track, sequencing the video in a way that you lead the viewer on a logical journey, making sure there are highs as well as lows; hype reels in particular must have lows in order for you to mentally appreciate the highs, there are different types of video "flows" I call them based on how you want to impact the user (building, peaks and valleys, epic, cinematic, etc.) and these have nothing to do with color grading, they are strictly how you tie the audio to the video and sequence the video in a way to lead the viewer on a specific type of journey.  My favorite is when a new client shows me a video that they like and I immediately recognize the flow/style that they are looking for based on how the videographer sequenced the video (audio, speed, transitions, and specifically the flow they used).

22 hours ago, kye said:

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 

 

It is a little funny to me because a lot of what you just stated I have been saying here since the day I joined. I know people love to pixel peep, and focus on the gear, and think they are one camera away from being a better videographer/photographer but the reality is at the end of the day most of that doesn't matter. I frequently bring up the fact that Hardcore Henry was filmed with GoPros and a grainy cell phone video of Kim Kardashian will get millions of views; the takeway here is that the gear really doesn't matter anymore, if you have content people want to watch any camera will be good enough to do that. Variety, content, and simplicity (which frees you up to get more content with less work) is really all that matters for most videos.

Any modern camera even cell phone cameras provide fantastic quality and I could even say that these days the camera is the least important part of the ecosystem. I spend way more time fiddling with audio, lighting, and stabilization than I do camera bodies or settings. These days I literally just glance at the histogram for exposure, keep center cross hairs for CAF, and make sure my WB is somewhat close to what it should be. 

22 hours ago, kye said:

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.

To this day I still do the same thing. I still have problems to solve in the edit, and I still watch other people's videos to see ways I can improve my trade. To me it is an endless cycle of learning, application of what you have learned, then refining your approach to yield the best results with the least amount of work. 

I still reach little points in my edit where I wish that I had kept that composition for a few more seconds to get me to the next jump point, or had held the camera a little steadier to keep from having to post stabilize etc. One of the latest additions to my own personal journey is adding camera movements that will let me more smoothly transition to the next shot which is tough with events because you have no idea until later what the next shot will be or if you will even use that particular clip. But if you shoot a series of clips all with certain camera movements that naturally lead into the next shot then if you use any clip from that series it will make the edit look better.

I have also learned over the years that shooting some of the most random content imaginable during the event/trip/project/etc. can sometimes turn out to be the best part of the video. Totally random things like the stage lighting at a concert, the chandelier at a private VIP event, a palm tree blowing in the wind......etc. In the edit right when you need a break from the endless event footage you thank yourself for being able to cut to that footage before continuing.

 

7 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

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.

That was definitely the best decision. Keeping the setup simple will get you the most content; using that particular zoom lens will perfectly cover both your photography and video needs, and while the sun is up at an event there is no other lens I would rather have. It sounds like at the end of the day you are satisfied with how the project turned out and that is all that really matters.

7 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

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.

Of course, everyone has their own opinions and for me my focus is on what my clients want and without fail what they want is as much content as possible above all else; lens stylistic choices aside. The only two things that I use different focal lengths for (via the zoom ring) at events is for composition and background compression. 

I guess I just don't understand at all how any focal length will make you feel like you are actually at a certain place. For me personally there is no focal length made that will make me feel like I am somewhere or feel "familiar" to me when looking at a flat two dimensional screen. The exception to that IMO would be a 3D headset or something like that.  To me content is full of everything from closeups to far away wide shots depending on camera to subject distance (just like in real life eyes to subject size and distance), so I guess I just don't see how particular focal lengths will matter but again...that's just my opinion. Having the right focal length for the composition you want and having a lens that is long enough or fast enough to compress the background when needed and is fast enough to accommodate the available light are my only lens considerations when shooting events.

I think I understand a little more of what you mean because you mentioned being in areas accessible to people but I still just don't see how focal length plays into that at all. Maybe after so many years of shooting events my only mindset is helping the organizer sell more tickets or impress their sponsors or maybe because I use the 24-105mm so much at events I am already creating the feeling you describe, but if so then it is definitely purely accidental.

[herein2020]

52 minutes ago, kye said:

I've developed the habit of hitting record on the camera prior to composing and focusing so that I can maximise the number of recorded usable frames that are available for the edit.

My process is typically:

• Carry camera around in hand, with wrist-strap for safety/security
• If I'm in an interesting spot, camera is on and kept awake (half-pressing the shutter every so often prevents it sleeping)
• When I see something I start to raise the camera from by my side, and I hit record on the way up
• I compose and focus as quickly as possible
• Record the shot

I find that even with this method I often end up with clips that have 1s of usable video in them once the focus and composition have been achieved, which are hard to use in an edit and had I been just 1s quicker I could have had a 2s clip and it would have been profoundly more useful in the edit.   I sometimes reframe in post slightly so I can use earlier frames if the camera was still moving a bit.  

Literally 1s matters.

A very easy trick to stretch that 1s to 2s is to simply shoot at 60FPS. I still use that trick to this day for some events because I won't know when I will need to stretch a clip to the proper audio breakpoint, of course not all footage lends itself to being slowed down but you would be amazed at how much useable footage you can get out of such a simple trick. 

Also another simple trick is I never use a wrist strap and only use a full shoulder strap, this lets me bring the camera up and immediately have 3 points of contact with the camera for added stability (left hand, right hand, camera strap) which when combined with IBIS helps increase useable content as well. There are also a lot of tricks you can do with a camera strap to mimic gimbal movements without a gimbal (crane, truck, etc.) for the few seconds that you need.

Last but not least, I always have a side handle and cage on my hybrid rig. This helps keep the horizon more stable and gives me mounting points for HW without using the camera's hotshoe which also gets me into a stable shooting position faster.

[kye]

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I think a lot of what you see online these days looks the way that it does especially for events due to budget. It is very easy to find events to cover, it is even moderately easy to find events that will pay you to cover them; it is much harder to find event organizers that value the coverage enough to pay what it takes to hire someone who takes pride in their craft.  Many organizers want to pay next to nothing because the money they spend on the photographer/videographer comes directly out of their profits. Another challenge is the impact of the event footage is hard to measure from a marketing standpoint; did the event footage gain you those 800 extra attendees the following year or just word of mouth?

Yeah, marketing is tricky.  I suspect that these days all products are priced so that the "join today with the link below and get 10% off!" is actually the real price and by having every sales channel being careful to use their unique code you are basically adding traceability to your sales funnels.

You could recommend to the event organisers that each post they make in the marketing campaign feeds a unique ID to their sales funnel, that way they'd be able to get at least some sense of how many people saw the hype edit and then bought tickets.  Of course, lots would see the reel, then go to the main site later, or buy tickets through some other channel.

Do you deliver one edit, or a few?  I'm not sure how the economics goes, but maybe there's an opportunity for you to deliver one edit like you currently do, plus a few shorter teasers?  Once you've edited the normal edit you do, the other ones could all be based on a single shorter audio sequence (maybe just a single build up / release, and maybe only having 6-15 shots in total) and would all just include shots that were already in your normal edit.  You could feature only one sponsor in each of these teasers, and just edit these in bulk, replacing the sponsor on each one and replacing the crowd shots for identical but different shots.  If the sponsors were included in multiple videos (the main one and their own teaser) maybe the event organisers can do a better deal with the sponsors perhaps..  just a thought.

Social media people who are live posting images also have the potential to sell this years event by posting images from this years event, rather than a hype reel from last years event.  It's difficult to do that with video - have you seen the "same day edit" thing that some wedding videographers do where they show an edit of the wedding at the reception?  That's film-making at it's most extreme!

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

That is 100% key to a good event video.....or for most videos for that matter, variety is literally everything. Hollywood has mastered this through many subtle tricks that keeps you mentally engaged such as slightly different camera angles every few seconds, switching points of view during conversations, etc. etc. The average clip these days is less than 3-5s even in feature length movies before something has to change (audio, pov, camera angle, etc, etc.).

Two great rules of thumb I find very useful are:

• For each shot, when the cut happens and this clip appears your brain starts looking at it because it's new, but there's a moment when your brain says "ok, I saw that" and stops looking..  you should cut just before that happens.
• The edit should feel too fast when you're editing it.  
  I've cut things to be the right speed and then when I've come back to them weeks later I found they felt a bit slow and needed tightening up a bit.  Obviously with hype reels you're trying to cut fast and really make it a spectacle, but it's a good rule of thumb I've found.

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

It is a little funny to me because a lot of what you just stated I have been saying here since the day I joined. I know people love to pixel peep, and focus on the gear, and think they are one camera away from being a better videographer/photographer but the reality is at the end of the day most of that doesn't matter. I frequently bring up the fact that Hardcore Henry was filmed with GoPros and a grainy cell phone video of Kim Kardashian will get millions of views; the takeway here is that the gear really doesn't matter anymore, if you have content people want to watch any camera will be good enough to do that. Variety, content, and simplicity (which frees you up to get more content with less work) is really all that matters for most videos.

Any modern camera even cell phone cameras provide fantastic quality and I could even say that these days the camera is the least important part of the ecosystem. I spend way more time fiddling with audio, lighting, and stabilization than I do camera bodies or settings. These days I literally just glance at the histogram for exposure, keep center cross hairs for CAF, and make sure my WB is somewhat close to what it should be. 

I've gone through a learning curve to get here, and I guess it's easy to say that things don't matter, but that's only true once you've developed an understanding of how to use all the technical settings, which focal lengths and apertures you use and how they relate to the shots you get and the situation and approach you have to where and how you shoot, etc etc.

The other challenge that I have that you probably don't have is the size of the camera rig.  For example, if I'm using the GH5 out in public then it gets far more attention than the GX85.  Even the GX85 is less noticeable when it's got the 14mm pancake lens on it vs the 12-35/2.8.  In that sense, knowing how good the 2x digital zoom is matters because I'm pushing the equipment right to its limits because I can't just rig up more without creating issues in post (like people in the shot staring at me because they've noticed I'm filming).

Even this is larger than I would like.....

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I still reach little points in my edit where I wish that I had kept that composition for a few more seconds to get me to the next jump point, or had held the camera a little steadier to keep from having to post stabilize etc. One of the latest additions to my own personal journey is adding camera movements that will let me more smoothly transition to the next shot which is tough with events because you have no idea until later what the next shot will be or if you will even use that particular clip. But if you shoot a series of clips all with certain camera movements that naturally lead into the next shot then if you use any clip from that series it will make the edit look better.

It's amazing what you see in the edit that you didn't see when shooting!  Early on I worked out that hitting stop immediately after something happens is a bad idea, partly because the camera often chops off the last second, but also because having some room to breathe in an edit is useful.  So now when I think I've got the shot I count to three before hitting stop, but it's funny how many times I've tuned out while shooting and then when I get back I see something great happen that I have no recollection of and the clip just ends right in the middle of it.  

One thing I learned from street photography was to always be aware of what is happening around you and to anticipate the moments before they happen so you can be setup and capture them.  I guess maybe I've switched to that mode during the 3s wait at the end of a shot and didn't see what was happening right in front of me!

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I have also learned over the years that shooting some of the most random content imaginable during the event/trip/project/etc. can sometimes turn out to be the best part of the video. Totally random things like the stage lighting at a concert, the chandelier at a private VIP event, a palm tree blowing in the wind......etc. In the edit right when you need a break from the endless event footage you thank yourself for being able to cut to that footage before continuing.

Absolutely.  I also really like shooting - much more than editing actually.  So I am frequently treating shooting days as one of those 'how many different shots and variety can I get' photography challenges, but with video.  This often means I have a good variety of shots, but often means I have 20 shots of the same thing if I happened to be somewhere with only one thing worth shooting lol.

It is funny though, I might have thought I got heaps of shots at a particular location but then in the edit it always seems like so much less, so much so that I've often wondered if clips are missing but when I try and recall all the shots I took they're all there on the card.  Too much is not enough.

46 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I guess I just don't understand at all how any focal length will make you feel like you are actually at a certain place. For me personally there is no focal length made that will make me feel like I am somewhere or feel "familiar" to me when looking at a flat two dimensional screen. The exception to that IMO would be a 3D headset or something like that.  To me content is full of everything from closeups to far away wide shots depending on camera to subject distance (just like in real life eyes to subject size and distance), so I guess I just don't see how particular focal lengths will matter but again...that's just my opinion. Having the right focal length for the composition you want and having a lens that is long enough or fast enough to compress the background when needed and is fast enough to accommodate the available light are my only lens considerations when shooting events.

You have to experience it to see it.  If you're curious then make the test films I suggested.

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

A very easy trick to stretch that 1s to 2s is to simply shoot at 60FPS. I still use that trick to this day for some events because I won't know when I will need to stretch a clip to the proper audio breakpoint, of course not all footage lends itself to being slowed down but you would be amazed at how much useable footage you can get out of such a simple trick. 

60p would be great in that instance, but considering that most of my footage is normal speed, how would you suggest I conform the 60p onto a 24p timeline?  It would result in a 3:2 cadence, which I don't really like the idea of.  Plus my bitrate would be stretched significantly.  I'd contemplate shooting 48p but none of my cameras have that, which is unfortunate.  I'm also shooting on iPhone, GX85, and GH5, so they'd all have to have it.

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

Also another simple trick is I never use a wrist strap and only use a full shoulder strap, this lets me bring the camera up and immediately have 3 points of contact with the camera for added stability (left hand, right hand, camera strap) which when combined with IBIS helps increase useable content as well. There are also a lot of tricks you can do with a camera strap to mimic gimbal movements without a gimbal (crane, truck, etc.) for the few seconds that you need.

I've tried a strap in the past, even a few variations, and also things like gorilla pods etc.  I'm a much more agile shooter than  these things tend to allow and I find they get in the way too much.  I'm just as likely to be doing an overhead follow shot from as high as I can reach, putting the camera out the window of trains etc, or doing low angles etc.  

I've also moved away from movement in my shots because I didn't really know what I was doing in the edit with them and they tended to restrict my options.  Now I mostly just try and hold the camera as steady as I can (considering it's so small).  I often have to add stabilisation in post and sometimes get frustrated with how much movement there was, but then I remember that I was freezing cold and the wind was howling and I was holding the camera at full arms-length, so there were reasons.  I've chased better stabilisation for years but have concluded now that anything I can do will make the camera larger (so the footage suffers in other ways) and whatever camera shake there is after the IBIS and my best efforts to hold it still is actually a reflection of what happened and so has a place in the final edit.  A nice smooth slider footage of an arctic base being blown away in a snowstorm wouldn't be the best aesthetic to convey the experience!

[herein2020]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, marketing is tricky.  I suspect that these days all products are priced so that the "join today with the link below and get 10% off!" is actually the real price and by having every sales channel being careful to use their unique code you are basically adding traceability to your sales funnels.

You could recommend to the event organisers that each post they make in the marketing campaign feeds a unique ID to their sales funnel, that way they'd be able to get at least some sense of how many people saw the hype edit and then bought tickets.  Of course, lots would see the reel, then go to the main site later, or buy tickets through some other channel.

Do you deliver one edit, or a few?  I'm not sure how the economics goes, but maybe there's an opportunity for you to deliver one edit like you currently do, plus a few shorter teasers?  Once you've edited the normal edit you do, the other ones could all be based on a single shorter audio sequence (maybe just a single build up / release, and maybe only having 6-15 shots in total) and would all just include shots that were already in your normal edit.  You could feature only one sponsor in each of these teasers, and just edit these in bulk, replacing the sponsor on each one and replacing the crowd shots for identical but different shots.  If the sponsors were included in multiple videos (the main one and their own teaser) maybe the event organisers can do a better deal with the sponsors perhaps..  just a thought.

I don't recommend to organizers anything at all about how to actually use the videos/photos unless they ask. I learned years ago that they are nice enough people but most tend to take offense if you in any way try to tell them how to do any other area of their job. They are typically handling $1M+ worth of vendors, getting venue permits, managing sponsors, obtaining equipment, transportation, food, supplies, etc. etc; basically managing a massive project which is the event; they don't take kindly to advice from their photographer/videographer. if they hired me that's enough for me, how they run their business is their business unless they ask me for advice. Unsolicited advice is a quick way to not get re-hired the following year.

As far as multiple edits, it depends on what was in the proposal. I offer add-ons to every project such as social media orientation, multiple videos/edits, etc. but it all depends on their budget and what they are willing to pay for. A video per sponsor though wouldn't be feasible; that would take way too much time away from the rest of the event with minimal added value. Sponsors that want that typically pay for their own dedicated photographer/videographer or bring their own social media expert to provide 24/7 coverage of their participation in the event. As I mentioned earlier, content is king, there is no way you would get enough content to create a dedicated sponsor video when you are shooting a big event with hundreds of sponsors multiple buildings/tents to cover, speaking engagements, ticket sales coverage, etc. etc. I would rather create nothing, than something mediocre which would alienate the sponsors and would probably result in something they wouldn't even use all the while taking time away from your actual client who hired you to cover the whole event. 

Plenty of times smaller vendors/sponsors have complained if their setup didn't make it into the video and I tell them then hire me to cover your participation in the event and I will be your dedicated photographer/videographer.....to date not a single one has been willing to pay for their dedicated coverage. So at the end of the day they can complain but if they aren't a paying client then my focus will always be on making my paying client happy.

6 hours ago, kye said:

Social media people who are live posting images also have the potential to sell this years event by posting images from this years event, rather than a hype reel from last years event.  It's difficult to do that with video - have you seen the "same day edit" thing that some wedding videographers do where they show an edit of the wedding at the reception?  That's film-making at it's most extreme!

I have seen that, I don't think it would be that difficult to do if you had two people and a fast editing laptop; you would just hand off your media cards to your assistant, have an audio track ready to go in advance, probably just a basic ambient audio track and throw together some key moments from the grand entrance, ceremony, and venue shots. With a slow enough audio track you could easily stretch each clip to 12s or more which makes the edit much easier and since weddings are slow anyway it would all look natural. But the common theme here is always the budget; the budget would have to be healthy enough to pay for that assistant and that editing laptop. I could throw together a 5min edit like that in less than 30min as long as the laptop was fast enough to not have to wait for proxy media/import/export delays.

7 hours ago, kye said:

The other challenge that I have that you probably don't have is the size of the camera rig.  For example, if I'm using the GH5 out in public then it gets far more attention than the GX85.  Even the GX85 is less noticeable when it's got the 14mm pancake lens on it vs the 12-35/2.8.  In that sense, knowing how good the 2x digital zoom is matters because I'm pushing the equipment right to its limits because I can't just rig up more without creating issues in post (like people in the shot staring at me because they've noticed I'm filming).

That is true, I don't do any candid filming so to me the camera size doesn't matter. I only shoot candid videos when I first get a camera to test it out and for those situations I go to public places and use longer lenses to film far away people/crowds/subject matter or there's a few tourist spots nearby where everyone is filming everything so I will go there where it is no big deal.

7 hours ago, kye said:

60p would be great in that instance, but considering that most of my footage is normal speed, how would you suggest I conform the 60p onto a 24p timeline?  It would result in a 3:2 cadence, which I don't really like the idea of.  Plus my bitrate would be stretched significantly.  I'd contemplate shooting 48p but none of my cameras have that, which is unfortunate.  I'm also shooting on iPhone, GX85, and GH5, so they'd all have to have it.

I only deliver at 30FPS so for me 60FPS just gives me more options without conformance issues. I like to have the extra frames and not need them then need them and not have them but I don't deliver them I just shoot them. There are ways to conform 60fps to a 24p timeline but they are not as elegant as 60fps on a 30fps timeline.

7 hours ago, kye said:

I've also moved away from movement in my shots because I didn't really know what I was doing in the edit with them and they tended to restrict my options.  Now I mostly just try and hold the camera as steady as I can (considering it's so small).  I often have to add stabilisation in post and sometimes get frustrated with how much movement there was, but then I remember that I was freezing cold and the wind was howling and I was holding the camera at full arms-length, so there were reasons.  I've chased better stabilisation for years but have concluded now that anything I can do will make the camera larger (so the footage suffers in other ways) and whatever camera shake there is after the IBIS and my best efforts to hold it still is actually a reflection of what happened and so has a place in the final edit.  A nice smooth slider footage of an arctic base being blown away in a snowstorm wouldn't be the best aesthetic to convey the experience!

I have actually gone in the opposite direction, with the R7 the stabilization is so good that it does not feel realistic so I deliberately add slight camera movement just to give it more first person realism. I have also noticed how the IBIS actually gets in the way sometimes; I will add deliberate slight camera shake or movement and there will be a delay while the IBIS tries to smooth out the movement then it will suddenly catch up and the movement looks less natural than I intended. But yes, that level of stability is only obtained with a larger body, 3 points of stability and the side handle.

[Django]

Fun thread, always neat reading other peoples perspectives when it comes to tools for certain jobs! I don't specialise in event coverage but I do have a few lined up this summer so interesting to get seasoned pros weighing in while I'm in active prep mode.

Now obviously everyone has their own particular preferences when it comes to gear and lens choice in particular. I don't think there is a right/wrong way to do it just use what you're most comfortable with to get the job done. Zoom lenses seem most popular for event shooters for obvious reasons, I'm just not a big fan of them, especially wide range ones like the popular 24-105mm F4. While I understand the versatility of such lenses they are often big, heavy, slow & optically inferior. All concessions I'm usually not ready to make no matter the convenience. The 24-70mm f2.8 is imo a much better compromise but hey to each his own.

I also learned photography shooting primes, often with just one or two lenses. Mostly on 35mm point & shoot. Later a nifty fifty because they were cheap. My lizard brain is just wired to certain focal lengths. And that has carried over through to videography.. I guess its a cine thing also. 

My favourite focal length and prime combos do vary depending on task & situation so I can't really recommend a single one. For example its the 28mm Summicron that lives on my Leica M9. I mostly do street photography with that setup so its the focal length that best resonates with me for that type of work. 28mm equivalent is also what most smartphones use as their normal lens and for a good reason. Bit wider than 35mm but not as much distortion as 24mm and under. 

On Sony, a Batis 25mm & 85mm is usually my preferred combo. As with APS-C crop and clear image zoom I also get a pretty full range in between and over.

On Canon, its a fuller range of primes and zooms. Most of my lens collection is EF/L. Mostly wide to mid.  I've stayed away from telephoto zoom lenses because of size, weight and cost. I usually work in intimate settings and am not afraid to get up close & personal with my subject. Obviously some gigs like sideline sports shooting or other remote applications may forbid that but that's just not my scene or style of shoot. 

On 5/9/2023 at 11:21 AM, MrSMW said:

There's a fella I know who is most definitely not 'world famous' and nor will he ever be who does just this and restricts everything he does to just 28mm.

I don't think he's an artist, but taking the piss. Or at least, restricting his coverage for the sake of his 'art'. But then again, if his clients like his work/results and are happy to pay for it, then fair enough, but I couldn't do it...though have in the past using just 35mm for an entire year professionally. I came to the conclusion I was being a pretentious artiste and taking the piss. So stopped doing it 😜

Well like I've just said the 28mm lives on my Leica, so I honestly don't think he's necessarily "taking the piss". While I would probably not shoot an entire wedding with that setup, I have witnessed actual 'world famous' photographers that work with just a couple primes, if not just a single lens. I've never thought of it as particularly pretentious or restricting. I think it can actually be quite liberating. And of course it does give a consistency within a series which can be useful.

Obviously "art photography" or even studio photography is very different from event or wedding, so tools may vary. But again there is really no right or wrong way.

Also flash photography was mentioned and there is nothing wrong with that either, it can be quite creative other than having a functional purpose.

Working with primes or even just one prime means traditionally being quick on your feet which isn't always ideal or practical but with high resolution and cropping is bit less of an issue. The Leica Q series had an interesting approach with the 28mm prime and various fixed crop modes emulating other focal lengths thanks to a 47mp sensor. Of course not close to being the same as using dedicated primes but a cool concept nonetheless for an ultra minimal setup. I know a couple famous pros such as Greg Williams use the Q2 exclusively for red carpet events.

 

On 5/11/2023 at 3:50 AM, herein2020 said:

I guess I just don't understand at all how any focal length will make you feel like you are actually at a certain place. For me personally there is no focal length made that will make me feel like I am somewhere or feel "familiar" to me when looking at a flat two dimensional screen.

This is an old concept that simply takes into account the human eye that has a focal length equivalent of about 25mm, an angle of view of around 50mm and an aperture range equivalent of about f2 to f8. So staying within that range with a prime or two would subconsciously emulate the human vision on a 2D screen or paper (since this concept harkens back to pre-digital days). 

 

[MrSMW]

33 minutes ago, Django said:

While I would probably not shoot an entire wedding with that setup

That's my point. You get stuck at the back of a cathedral with permission to shoot from there and only there and your only lens is a 28mm...

A word beginning with F and rhyming with duck comes to mind 🤪

[Django]

Oh for sure although generally speaking one could argue that an inconspicuous compact rangefinder setup like this..

just might grant you closer access in certain situations than coming in loaded like this:

Not really an option I know as a wedding photog but sometimes less is more! 😉