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

[herein2020]

42 minutes ago, Django said:

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.

 

I agree, its great to hear other people's perspectives even when sometimes I don't understand them like the whole focal length matching what your eyes see thing 🤣. I totally get the math, and I get the logic, but I don't get the point. Background compression, composition, and lens speed is the only thing I consider when selecting a particular lens for a job but that's just me.

 

42 minutes ago, Django said:

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.

You are right, its all about personal preference, but I can tell you first hand, that I will take the 24-105 F4 literally any day over the 24-70 F2.8 for events unless light is an issue. On paper they may seem similar but when shooting events you have no idea what the subject to camera distance will be; sure you can crop for photos but if you are shooting photos and video cropping is not an option. So many times the peak action at an event is in the middle of a crowd, or up on a stage, or where I live across some body of water and you are too far away for a 24-70.

Yes the 24-105mm F4 is big, its slow, and its not particularly sharp, but it is absolutely fantastic in every other way specifically for events, especially the Canon EF version since it also has lens IS. Modern cameras with crop mode options make it even more useful. On my R7 that lens turns into an approximately 35mm - 160mm FF equivalent and with the crop mode enabled that stretches all the way to 300mm and yes at some events I have needed every bit of it. 

My clients typically give me a shot list that is many times multiple pages and they expect wide, medium, and closeups of most of it or at least I do. There's no way to predict ahead of time how many people, obstacles, or even geography will be in the way until the time comes.  I mention geography because where I live water is literally everywhere both manmade and natural, its not uncommon for me to have to shoot over a small body of water or around water fountains, etc. 

In the old days the standard setup for event photographers was two bodies one with a 24-70 and the other with a 70-200, I can now cover 35-300mm with a single body. Sure its F4, but most events that I cover are in the daylight anyway, night/lowlight events are more intimate anyway so a faster but shorter range is not unreasonable for night events.

As far as primes go, I literally can't imagine shooting an event with primes, any event for that matter. When working one on one it is easy to just backup or get closer to get proper framing, with a fast or even slow moving event you just don't know how crowded it will be, how much space there will be to move around, exactly where the action will be, etc. In many situations you simply don't have the time or space to properly compose a shot with a prime or at least that's my experience. Sure I could do it, but it would definitely lower my content rate; anything that I know will lower my hourly photo or video rate I stay away from. In my proposals I write in my minimum hourly capture rate for photos based on the video requirements, type of event, etc. so anything that will make that capture rate harder to hit I stay away from. 

1 hour ago, Django said:

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

 

Flash is another thing that I always use at events unless the sun goes down and after that I always use a panel light even if there is enough ambient light to not need it. I approach my flashes like I do my lens choice, I never know what the lighting conditions will be or when the subject will be backlit and need fill lighting so I never shoot without a flash in the daytime. The vND filter greatly helps here, since my video is set to ISO800 for CLOG3 I typically set the photo side to ISO640 and the fill flash to 1/8 then dial in the vND so that the video is properly exposed; switching over to photos the subject is perfectly exposed via the fill flash while ensuring the flash becomes the key light by slightly under exposing the ambient which removes color casts and makes the subject "pop" a bit. Totally different from how I shoot in the studio.

For lowlight events I switch over to the fastest zoom that I have and use a panel light for fill. The biggest problem with uncontrollable low light that no one seems to talk about isn't the noise, it is the color casts from the ambient light sources; every possible shade of white lighting as well as non-white sources such as purple, green, blue, etc, these all affect skin tones terribly so I use my panel light and sync my WB with my panel light's Kelvin temp and have perfect skin tones every time because my panel light becomes the key light. Of course it also lets me keep my ISO at the native video ISO, but I care more about ugly color casts on the subject's skin more so than noise since any modern camera is great in the noise department.

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

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 🤪

Absolutely, or any scenario where you get stuck too far from the subject to compose the shot the way you want to. With zoom lenses plus the extra crop reach I don't really have this problem these days.  I have noticed a trend though where I seem to get farther and farther away from the action for one reason or the other; it feels like post COVID events are bigger and more crowded making it more challenging to get as close as I would like.

 

9 minutes ago, Django said:

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! 😉 

🤣 Actually these days in the LOOK AT ME EVERYONE AND SEE HOW MUCH FUN I AM HAVING world, at events people love the bigger cameras, they love posing and showing off to show the rest of the world how much fun they are having. but yes, I have been rigged up like the second picture many times but thanks to modern bodies I feel like those days are mostly past. One body, a good zoom, a speedlight or panel light (daylight vs lowlight), a small sling bag for batteries and I am all set for nearly anything these days. 

Now if you are trying to sneak into an event and film candidly then yes, my rig would not be optimal.

[Django]

Not really talking of sneaking in but there are places like churches, cathedrals, museums here in Europe where walking in like you stepped out of the Terminator set just isn't an option no matter who your client is. Certain countries while running & gunning may also require discretion or extra permits. Obviously a whole different thing if your covering Coachella!

It's actually great you bring up geography/terrain because I feel that's really the key difference of your lens setup and preference vs others like mine. I live and work in Paris, France. Corporate, art, retail, fashion & music. Venues/locations are usually quite small. I work in tight spaces most of the time, I also like to blend in and move around so the more light/discrete the better. That's I guess why primes and wide to medium zooms work for me. No real need for big tele. 

That said I will be doing a couple music fests this summer, two weddings etc so your input and @MrSMW is definitely valuable even if we may have different preferences! Lots for me to dissect in both of your posts and I haven't yet read all in this thread. Good stuff folks keep it coming!

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I will take the 24-105 F4 literally any day over the 24-70 F2.8 for events

Well try and get your heads around this one…

Given the choice of my 28-70 f2.8 or my 24-105 f4, I’ll take the 28-70 every time.

Why? 

Size, weight, minimal extension of zoom but perhaps more importantly, actual focal lengths.

24 is a bit wide for me as a medium wide and I prefer 28 or 35 but in recent years, I have settled on 28 as it’s about the sweet spot for not making stuff look out of proportion.

I get why some folks like 50mm but personally find it a bit too ordinary/boring so prefer 65/70.

105 is a bit ‘meh’ to me either being not much longer than 90 (which is my other principal lens/focal length) but well short of 150+ which is what I’d ideally need for longer stuff.

So 28-70 used only at 28 or 70 is about 85% of my (stills) work these days with the other 15% split approx <5% 16mm and 10% 90.

For video, simples, as above x1.5…although having said that, I am going to be trialling 6k 30p ‘open gate’ in a couple of weeks, as long as I can control/get around any flicker/banding.

Why not just go with PAL standard 25p? No option for slow mo…which I am moving away from a little by going for a milder 80% instead of 50% ie, 30 on a 24 timeline.

And having said all of that, my ideal focal length lens would be that Tamron 35-150 which would combine 2 bodies down to one, but that would mean switching systems to Sony or Nikon. And I’ve looked, but not!

In the end, we’re all different and have different needs and tastes 😬

[herein2020]

55 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Well try and get your heads around this one…

Given the choice of my 28-70 f2.8 or my 24-105 f4, I’ll take the 28-70 every time.

Why? 

Size, weight, minimal extension of zoom but perhaps more importantly, actual focal lengths.

24 is a bit wide for me as a medium wide and I prefer 28 or 35 but in recent years, I have settled on 28 as it’s about the sweet spot for not making stuff look out of proportion.

I get why some folks like 50mm but personally find it a bit too ordinary/boring so prefer 65/70.

105 is a bit ‘meh’ to me either being not much longer than 90 (which is my other principal lens/focal length) but well short of 150+ which is what I’d ideally need for longer stuff.

So 28-70 used only at 28 or 70 is about 85% of my (stills) work these days with the other 15% split approx <5% 16mm and 10% 90.

For video, simples, as above x1.5…although having said that, I am going to be trialling 6k 30p ‘open gate’ in a couple of weeks, as long as I can control/get around any flicker/banding.

Why not just go with PAL standard 25p? No option for slow mo…which I am moving away from a little by going for a milder 80% instead of 50% ie, 30 on a 24 timeline.

And having said all of that, my ideal focal length lens would be that Tamron 35-150 which would combine 2 bodies down to one, but that would mean switching systems to Sony or Nikon. And I’ve looked, but not!

In the end, we’re all different and have different needs and tastes 😬

All very true, for me 24mm on the R7 is actually around 35mm so we are on the same page there, but for me I use the 105mm end (around 155mm) FF equiv for background compression for detail shots and also for reach at the long end. I would say that I spend maybe 50% of my time below 70 but the full 50% of the rest of the time I am above 70, that's just how often I need take detail shots which is where I use background compression since F4 isn't particularily fast, and also where I am far enough away from the action to the point that I need the longer focal lengths for a quick shot or I want to punch in and fill the frame with some activity.

At the type of events that I shoot, the clients expect a full compliment of detail shots of the vendor's wares and that's when I use the long end for background compression. To me the 24-105 at 105 looks better when taking detail shots vs the 24-70 at 70. 

I also shoot almost exclusively handheld these days and the Canon 24-70 does not have IS where as the Canon 24-105 does so that's another plus.

[Kisaha]

On 5/12/2023 at 8:23 PM, herein2020 said:

All very true, for me 24mm on the R7 is actually around 35mm so we are on the same page there, but for me I use the 105mm end (around 155mm) FF equiv for background compression for detail shots and also for reach at the long end. I would say that I spend maybe 50% of my time below 70 but the full 50% of the rest of the time I am above 70, that's just how often I need take detail shots which is where I use background compression since F4 isn't particularily fast, and also where I am far enough away from the action to the point that I need the longer focal lengths for a quick shot or I want to punch in and fill the frame with some activity.

At the type of events that I shoot, the clients expect a full compliment of detail shots of the vendor's wares and that's when I use the long end for background compression. To me the 24-105 at 105 looks better when taking detail shots vs the 24-70 at 70. 

I also shoot almost exclusively handheld these days and the Canon 24-70 does not have IS where as the Canon 24-105 does so that's another plus.

Agree with everything, just add to this my experience.

For me, even the 105 is sometimes limiting, that is why I prefer the 18-135 EF-S for Canon S35 (or APSC) run and gun, and that is why usually I go with the Olympus 12-100mm 4f..

I do cover the whole spectrum of moving images (from mainstream drama, to indie documentaries) so I understand what everyone says.

My last jobs were a feature film (I did sound) that we used just cine primes, a documentary with Pocket 4K cameras and the 12-100, Alexa TV ad (did sound), another one with 4K/6K cameras (did sound) and Sigma EF (18-35, 50-150), TV show with GH6 and 12-100mm, a theater/music performance (GH5+BlackMagic cameras with Olympus lenses), Canon C300mkIII + C70, a couple projects with Sony cameras, e.t.c...

There is no ONE style of preferred setup. Depending the job and the project you have to adapt. It is a lot different to work on a scripted short, a verite documentary, a TV ad on Alexa, a live performance..

If you cover something, is more important to have the right moments than have just a few of them with great style..in the end, the content is more important than the form.

Of course you try to have a great balance of those, but first be sure you cover the basics and then add some artistic style if you can.

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Agree with everything, just add to this my experience.

For me, even the 105 is sometimes limiting, that is why I prefer the 18-135 EF-S for Canon S35 (or APSC) run and gun, and that is why usually I go with the Olympus 12-100mm 4f..

I do cover the whole spectrum of moving images (from mainstream drama, to indie documentaries) so I understand what everyone says.

My last jobs were a feature film (I did sound) that we used just cine primes, a documentary with Pocket 4K cameras and the 12-100, Alexa TV ad (did sound), another one with 4K/6K cameras (did sound) and Sigma EF (18-35, 50-150), TV show with GH6 and 12-100mm, a theater/music performance (GH5+BlackMagic cameras with Olympus lenses), Canon C300mkIII + C70, a couple projects with Sony cameras, e.t.c...

I agree, the 105 can fall a bit short at times but that's the power of APS-C, I can double that 105 end to 300mm with the R7 + crop mod; it really was a genius addition by Canon and I am not sure that any other APS-C camera offers an almost 3x crop like the R7. 

I couldn't deal with the 18-135 EF-S lens, I hate variable focal length lenses, for me they are way too unpredictable for event use, I would spend too much time fiddling with the vND filter to keep everything properly exposed and the background compression would be harder to do at F5.6.

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

There is no ONE style of preferred setup. Depending the job and the project you have to adapt. It is a lot different to work on a scripted short, a verite documentary, a TV ad on Alexa, a live performance..

If you cover something, is more important to have the right moments than have just a few of them with great style..in the end, the content is more important than the form.

Of course you try to have a great balance of those, but first be sure you cover the basics and then add some artistic style if you can.

That is definitely true, I think this particular thread was focused more on event work since the OP asked about shooting an event. I do not cover as wide of a spectrum as you do, maybe if you include all of the photography work that I do as well but not video; but I definitely have a variety of setups depending on the projects requirements (photo only - R5, Photo/Video R7, Video only C70 or R7, etc, etc.) along with the different lens setups depending on what is needed along with audio, lighting, effects, props, etc. 

[mercer]

The problem I have always had with zooms is that I was either compromising the shot for the luxury of not moving my setup, or I kept moving to get the sweet spot (pop) of the specific focal length I was zoomed in/out to... so the old saying about primes... Zoom with your feet... was still necessary to hit the sweet spot.

Of course, time was still saved because I didn't have to change lenses, but I also found that I was mostly using a small portion of the zoom range... usually between 40-65mm. At that point it's easier to split the difference and swap out the heavier zoom for a 50mm, and use my feet to zoom.

But then I was losing IS, so I needed a monopod or I wasn't able to hit that lens' sweet spot, so I started going a little wider, but then I'm compromising my specific style for the mechanics of the shot...

Point being... there are always compromises with run and gun. 

[kye]

On 5/12/2023 at 9:48 PM, herein2020 said:

For lowlight events I switch over to the fastest zoom that I have and use a panel light for fill. The biggest problem with uncontrollable low light that no one seems to talk about isn't the noise, it is the color casts from the ambient light sources; every possible shade of white lighting as well as non-white sources such as purple, green, blue, etc, these all affect skin tones terribly so I use my panel light and sync my WB with my panel light's Kelvin temp and have perfect skin tones every time because my panel light becomes the key light. Of course it also lets me keep my ISO at the native video ISO, but I care more about ugly color casts on the subject's skin more so than noise since any modern camera is great in the noise department.

Yes, this can be an absolute killer...

I filmed a friends birthday party on a GoPro once, which was in a nightclub, and edited it up as a sort of birthday present for her.  I put it on a handle and in it's waterproof case (it was an older one that wasn't water resistant when naked) and let them pass it around and sort of crowd-source shots.  The footage I got back was great from the perspective of angles and content, and the noise was obviously an issue being that it was an older GoPro and the nightclub was almost pitch black in-between the light pulses/flashes, but the colour rendering from the various "white" light sources was spectacular, and not in a good way.  This combined with the GoPros 709 colour science was an incredibly difficult challenge to colour grade, because so many shots were close-enough to neutral to need to be balanced but were so far from proper that it was a real challenge.

I see similar things in street markets etc where every vendor has their own brand of 70 CRI LED lights that are all different colours to each other, with some vendors even having a mixture of several different colours just in their own booth.  Or even string lights where you can tell which bulbs they're replaced and not matched the existing ones.

It's like stepping into an alternative universe where you can see all sorts of colours, but not in a good way.

On 5/12/2023 at 10:10 PM, Django said:

It's actually great you bring up geography/terrain because I feel that's really the key difference of your lens setup and preference vs others like mine. I live and work in Paris, France. Corporate, art, retail, fashion & music. Venues/locations are usually quite small. I work in tight spaces most of the time, I also like to blend in and move around so the more light/discrete the better. That's I guess why primes and wide to medium zooms work for me. No real need for big tele. 

I think this is potentially the most significant factor that defines what focal lengths you need.  For my own videos of my family I worked out that what I wanted was environmental portraits, and I wanted to shoot them from where I was standing, which was generally at a comfortable distance from them (here in Australia the personal space distance is on the larger side) but without having other people in-between us.

I settled on 35mm equivalent, as I felt that the 28mm that smartphones used at the time was too generic a look, but on my last trip I used the 14mm on the GX85, which works out to be a 31mm in 4K mode and I didn't mind or even notice that it was much wider, so I think I might have gotten over my phobia of the 28mm look.  Certainly there are situations where it's too crowded for the 35, and in some situations (for example in a crowded local market in India where you were pressed up against at least two other people at all times) I had to film by using my phones wide angle and do it from above, as if I held my phone at eye height it might have been touching both my head and also my wife's at the same time!

For my work I like to get the perspective that the video is from my own individual perspective, so I shoot the things I see from where I am when I'm seeing them, but within the confines of what lenses I have.  Obviously this is counter to @mercers point about zooming with your feet, but I find that human vision can easily be "zoomed" in that you can easily narrow your attention when looking at a far away object, so I think there's some flexibility if you're trying for the perspective a human might have rather than just watching events and not being in them (as you are in most narrative work).  Yes, your eyes are still a wide-angle lens and light from the table you're sitting at and from the people sitting next to you is still hitting your retina but because you're staring at the sailboat out on the water you're no longer aware of the people and the table, you've kind of zoomed in cognitively.

7 hours ago, mercer said:

Point being... there are always compromises with run and gun. 

Absolutely.  My experience has mostly been that I'm experiencing all of them at all times!

[ac6000cw]

9 hours ago, kye said:

My experience has mostly been that I'm experiencing all of them at all times!

You're certainly not the only one - isn't that what makes it an interesting challenge? 🙂

But on the other side on the coin, it's everyone's different choice of compromises that gives their productions a personal 'look' - the world of the 'moving image' would be a very boring place if everyone used the same 'look' and style...

[herein2020]

On 5/12/2023 at 10:10 AM, Django said:

Not really talking of sneaking in but there are places like churches, cathedrals, museums here in Europe where walking in like you stepped out of the Terminator set just isn't an option no matter who your client is. Certain countries while running & gunning may also require discretion or extra permits. Obviously a whole different thing if your covering Coachella!

It's actually great you bring up geography/terrain because I feel that's really the key difference of your lens setup and preference vs others like mine. I live and work in Paris, France. Corporate, art, retail, fashion & music. Venues/locations are usually quite small. I work in tight spaces most of the time, I also like to blend in and move around so the more light/discrete the better. That's I guess why primes and wide to medium zooms work for me. No real need for big tele. 

 

Yes you are right, the same goes for here, certain churches don't allow flashes during weddings, many events/venues don't let you bring anything even resembling a professional camera on their property or in their venue unless you get approval first which of course is nearly impossible to get. For places that are that bad, I just tell my client that I refuse to film there. These days I don't really do the tourist thing anymore but if I did even the R7 would probably be too big for venues like that. 

I didn't even think about the smaller size of the venues there. I have been to Europe a few times and each time, the smaller size of everything was the first thing I had to get used to. By comparison most things in America seem large to the point of being wastefully excessive. Events are the same way, most events are in huge venues with large crowds and the zoom lenses really help close those gaps. I think with smaller venues I would be more likely to consider primes or something like the 24-70 F2.8. I guess that's why it was hard for me to even imagine some of the lens choices that people were making here when I was thinking about the amount of space I need to cover in my typical event. I have even used the 70-200 on occasion because things were just so far away or so high up that the 105 wasn't long enough for me to capture the level of detail that I wanted. BTW the 70-200 RF F2.8 is incredibly stable handheld even at 200mm way more so than the EF version ever was.

On 5/14/2023 at 2:12 PM, mercer said:

Point being... there are always compromises with run and gun. 

Its funny, I don't look at them as compromises at all as long as you deliver something the client is willing to pay for. At the end of the day it is just photos and video footage, to me it's only a compromise if you compare it to something else you could have done or some other equipment you could have used, but if the client is pleased with the final product then I consider that as having picked the right equipment for the job even if that client happens to be yourself.

Sure you could have picked a sharper lens, shot with a higher resolution camera, used a gimbal instead of handheld, etc. etc. but none of those things mattered in the end so I don't consider not using those things to be a compromise.

[MurtlandPhoto]

Such an awesome discussion here. Thank you everyone!! Small update: the concert has happened. I ended up using only the 24-105mm f/4. Thanks to many of you I realized that changing lenses would have cost me shots, no matter how much I wanted the look from my primes. Light wasn't an issue as the FX6 is amazing at its second base ISO. 

Technically speaking the shoot went very well. I was on-site for 2 days capturing all sorts of BTS footage of load in and set up. There were a few pretty dramatic setbacks, though. As with many big name acts, there were some strict PR guidelines put in place that I could not control. So, I wasn't able to get many of the types of shots I'd originally scoped for this project. The video is being reviewed by the band's management now. So, hopefully another update coming soon.

[MrSMW]

Thanks for the update and good to hear it went well. And with the 24-105!

Almost tempted to give it a whirl at my next wedding…except it’s my least reliable AF lens for stills in L Mount, but good for video.

Not tried it on the PDAF S5ii…and probably won’t actually as it’s a bit big and bulky compared with my other lenses and juggling 3 bodies.

I have got a non-pro event coming up on the Normandy coast around D Day (all that stuff is about 1.5 hours for me) and providing one of my battery grips has turned up by then, I may give it a go, - PDAF + Lumix 24-105 because I did some testing this last weekend up and around Utah Beach, but the 28-70 was definitely a bit short! As expected though, so on me.

Thinking about picking up a 70-300 for that kind of thing. In fact, I’ll go and check prices right now 😉

[Kisaha]

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Thanks for the update and good to hear it went well. And with the 24-105!

Almost tempted to give it a whirl at my next wedding…except it’s my least reliable AF lens for stills in L Mount, but good for video.

Not tried it on the PDAF S5ii…and probably won’t actually as it’s a bit big and bulky compared with my other lenses and juggling 3 bodies.

I have got a non-pro event coming up on the Normandy coast around D Day (all that stuff is about 1.5 hours for me) and providing one of my battery grips has turned up by then, I may give it a go, - PDAF + Lumix 24-105 because I did some testing this last weekend up and around Utah Beach, but the 28-70 was definitely a bit short! As expected though, so on me.

Thinking about picking up a 70-300 for that kind of thing. In fact, I’ll go and check prices right now 😉

The Lumix 24-105 is bigger than the usual EF one? I have never seen a Lumix full frame lens on the field, everyone adapts EF or have Sony cameras anyway..it would be interesting to check the new PDAF performance.

[MrSMW]

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The Lumix 24-105 is bigger than the usual EF one?

Probably about the same…

I’m just not a fan of big lenses and especially if they extend a long way.

I was moving over to f1.4’s from my f2’s, but when they arrived and I put them on my cameras, it was a definite no. I’d rather shoot higher ISO, so I sent them back.

The biggest lens I currently use is the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 which only extends about an inch max when zoomed out.

Maybe I’m a bit odd, but I’d rather shoot 2 bodies with smaller lens to get the same focal lengths as a single body with a bigger zoom.

I think of and use all zoom lenses as X + Y and not X to Y, ie, if the 24-105 was internal zoom, I’d maybe use it more, but then again, it’s really too extreme for my needs as I use zooms like primes, ie, only at their extreme ends so 28 + 70 = good, but 24 + 105 = meh.

So my 24-105 sits in a bag most of the time as back up/wet weather.

I would use an all prime set up if I could, but that eternal equation of number of bodies plus focal lengths required buggers the mathematics up!

I would make an exception for Tamron’s 35-150 however because it’s just so versatile for my needs.

But that would require a change to Sony or adapted to Nikon and that is not happening any time soon.

So my current set up for my needs are:

28 + 70 zoom welded to Body 01

16 + 28 zoom or 90 with Body 02

18 (27) + 50 (75) APSC zoom welded to Body 03 (static and gimbal use only)

I would like something like a 150 as a compact AF prime, but it does not exist in L Mount, 105 being the longest f2.8 (without going up to massive 135mm f1.8) or 70-200 zooms which are not for me.

I really hope that Sigma come out with either:

A. A compact 70-200 Contemporary I Series to pair with the 28-70, but actually a 70-180 like the available Tamron might make more sense and be smaller?

B. An equivalent of the Tamron 35-150 except make it constant f2.8 as the f2 at the wide end changes very quickly and I would rather it did not.

C. Get completely funky and do something like a 40-120 f2.8 with internal zoom and I would never buy another lens 😬

[BTM_Pix]

Was the title of the thread a clue to the name of the artist?

If so, did the audio section of the contract say “And you may find yourself working with a shotgun mic” ?

[MrSMW]

That takes me back 😂

[kye]

While we're talking about event shooting... 

What are people's attitudes towards slow-motion and speeding things up (timelapses)?  I'm curious from the point-of-view of the edit, rather than just the logistics of shooting them.  

@herein2020 already talked about shooting 60p in case you need to stretch footage in post, which is an obvious use of this and makes total sense in the context of social-media event hype trailer style videos.  This could be sort-of an "invisible" use where it's not so obvious (or visible at all), but things like 120p conformed to 24p or time-lapses are a lot more obvious.

Do you find they have a place in your edits?

I'm asking because I'm contemplating what place they have, if any, in my edits, and looking for opinions....

[MrSMW]

Well I used to shoot all my events at 50p so I had the option of real time at up to 50% slow motion and my productions were typically 1/5th real time and 4/5th slo mo.

That’s all changing from next week as I’m switching to shooting 30p + 60p despite being in a PAL region.

30 is my new go to after research and testing with 60 being my option and productions will now be approx:

1/5th in real time + 1/5th at 40% + 3/5ths at 80% + probably squeezing in a flowing timelapse or two + some slow shutter drag stuff from late on.

Throwing the kitchen sink at it?

Kind of, but in a considered storyboard cohesive manner as in it’s all pre-planned such as; couple exit ceremony with confetti? Well that’s shot in 60 to end up as a 40% speed closer and fade out from the chapter ‘Ceremony’. Shoot for the edit basically.

I’m setting up each of my cameras with 5 custom settings; indoor stills, outdoor stills, 30p indoor video, 30p outdoor video, 60p outdoor video.

Timelapse and shutter drag stuff, I will just manually set at the time.

I’ve spent too much time juggling kit in recent years intending to up my capture game but it’s been getting in the way of creativity/intent so some fundamental changes have been happening…

[herein2020]

14 hours ago, kye said:

While we're talking about event shooting... 

What are people's attitudes towards slow-motion and speeding things up (timelapses)?  I'm curious from the point-of-view of the edit, rather than just the logistics of shooting them.  

@herein2020 already talked about shooting 60p in case you need to stretch footage in post, which is an obvious use of this and makes total sense in the context of social-media event hype trailer style videos.  This could be sort-of an "invisible" use where it's not so obvious (or visible at all), but things like 120p conformed to 24p or time-lapses are a lot more obvious.

Do you find they have a place in your edits?

I'm asking because I'm contemplating what place they have, if any, in my edits, and looking for opinions....

I sometimes use time lapses or hyper lapses to help tell the story. I mainly only use hyperlapses with drone work and occasionally timelapses to show a setup, or for dramatic effect such as to show the sky rolling across the horizon.

I have a dedicated Canon Rebel T6s that I use just for timelapses, it has incredible battery life with the dual grip handle (over 2,000 images in one timelapse once and it still had over 50% battery life remaining), plus I don't want that high shutter count on one of my more expensive cameras, additionally I like to set up my timelapse camera somewhere and leave it while I go shoot other content so there's the theft concern as well. Lastly, it is blazing hot here in the summer and it has never once overheated during a timelapse so its a great little timelapse camera.

Many times I have lugged the timelapse camera with me planning on setting up a quick 15min timelapse to use as the opening or closing for the video and many times it's just a not a good fit, either there's no place I feel is safe enough to leave it while I do other things, or the sky is completely cloudless so it would be a wasted effort, etc. 

As far as where in the edit I tend to find them the most useful, for me its usually the very beginning opening sequence or the closing i.e. a timelapsed sunset is a nice closing shot especially in places where I cannot use the drone. But without the right conditions (cloudy skies, progressive changes, etc.) timelapses aren't worth the time or effort to me.

When editing 60FPS on a 30FPS timeline I do occasionally only slow down say the last few seconds of a longer 5 or 10s clip, just enough to stretch it to the jump point which keeps the rest of the clip real time while getting it to the logical jump point, also sometimes I combine 60FPS with optical flow to drop all the way down to 25% to simulate 120FPS without actually shooting 120FPS if I want truly slow motion; this effect followed by a speedramp can be quite dramatic.  I know purists may say optical flow isn't "pure" enough slow motion, but in DR with the right settings it does a really good job depending on the content being slowed down.

13 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Well I used to shoot all my events at 50p so I had the option of real time at up to 50% slow motion and my productions were typically 1/5th real time and 4/5th slo mo.

That’s all changing from next week as I’m switching to shooting 30p + 60p despite being in a PAL region.

30 is my new go to after research and testing with 60 being my option and productions will now be approx:

1/5th in real time + 1/5th at 40% + 3/5ths at 80% + probably squeezing in a flowing timelapse or two + some slow shutter drag stuff from late on.

Throwing the kitchen sink at it?

 

I decided years ago to stick to 30FPS and 60FPS for all of my work unless the client specified 24FPS, or PAL....for me it eliminates all of the conformance issues and reduces the problems with pans, eliminates the jittery look, etc. etc. I figured out long ago I will never be a Hollywood feature film videographer so the 30FPS delivery framerate looks the best with the least amount of work to me.

[Kisaha]

It is very important to know your place and understand your concept completely, in the pro world.

That is number one.

I recently did a documentary series with young directors (one director each 25minutes episodes), almost all of them did more than 5 hours interviews! that was too much for the project, the concept behind it, and the budget.

As of the technical stuff. When I was doing such work I always shot 50p (more is just too much) and used whatever technique I considered appropriate. A few timelapses and hyperlapses were good transition tricks also. Speedramp also. Whatever..