fuzzynormal

I've become way too run n gun to NOT use VNR, but this is what I don't like about em.

Can confirm. Same on mine.

I did a series of docs a year ago recording wireless audio onto a H1. All audio was recorded "out-board" and, in post, the H1 audio and cam-audio tracks were synced with Plural Eyes. The Zoom and audio receiver were carried in my pockets. This allowed me to be rather incognito since that extra gear was off the camera. More importantly, this also allowed me to not be tethered to the camera via the headphone cable. Liked it better that way; no weird boxes, rubber bands, or wires on top of my camera --or wires running to the camera. That would be my recommendation, assuming you're willing to do a little post-audio-sync work. You'll get better audio using the H1 recording anyway, and your camera will have a little more freedom when out there actually doing stuff. (I love those old Nikkor lenses, btw. That's the 24mm, right?)

For "Man on the Street" stuff, it makes perfect sense. IQ isn't terribly important. Even with "pro" cameras and cameramen, if you watch local news broadcast you'll soon discover IQ is the least of their worries.

I shot 6 documentaries on the DMC‑GX8. The 4K IQ to my eye is impressive. The camera is pretty cheap used so you'd have some cash left over to get a decent zoom lens for it.

Teal and orange, baby. Teal and orange. We'll always have our mid 'aughts Teal and Orange.

Ha! I can imagine a wedding video made using the creepy doll montage from Man With A Movie Camera. The bride could be posed in various storefronts, ending with a scary doll that is riding a stationary bicycle using the bride's legs.

Most cameras covered here on EOSHD are for people that own their own gear on a tight budget and want to do as much as they can with cheap stuff. Pro cams like a C700FF are nice and all, but not the vibe of the website. It's confusing since the site is branded with "EOS," but that's a legacy quirk from the halcyon and heady Canon 5DII days. (woa, 10 years ago now) This site evolved with the market, while Canon somewhat abandoned low-end video. So, you have a website with a name that doesn't really jibe anymore, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Yup. I don't know the OP from anything, and maybe I'm projecting from the wisdom of my own experiences, but the original question seems like a naive one on a few levels. Maybe I'm wrong! No offense OP. Hope you were successful!

Imho, this is the most straightforward and practical advice in the comment thread. Also telling in that it has nothing to do with the gear...which is typically the case on most successful projects. Wonder what happened with the OP's shoot.

I get the "false-equivalency" argument. I shoot M43 all the time. And, if you look reeeeeely hard enough, I do think you can tell a difference, in aggregate, between M43 and FF. The telltales of FF shooting can be evident if you know where to look. For instance, usually a smoother bokeh and sharper focus with shallow DOF. A f2 through modern glass on a FF sensor, for example, can look "cleaner" in a way that M43@f.95 does not. These advantages, I think, are nit-picky though. The differences are subtle. It's often really hard to tell! And if a skillful someone is shooting m43 with fast glass, you're probably not going to know the difference or pay attention enough to care in the first place. I'm shooting a doc right now with the Voightlanders on the GH5 and I'd put it up against anything I've shot with my FF Canon equipment. If you're shooting M43 or FF, your viewer doesn't really care. Are you a good shooter? That's what matters. All that said, and like I've mentioned before, I still prefer to shoot FF on a fast 50mm prime for interviews. It's just easier to set up a shot 'kuz of space and lighting --and you can really throw the background out of focus with a f1.2. That forgives a lot of sins in corporate locations/environments. Hey, I'm a practical guy. OTOH, when shooting interviews with my M43 gear I tend to use my 42.5mm lens @f1.2 --and the DOF is wildly shallow and intense too. The flatness of the "portrait" FOV is a nice look unto itself. One just needs more physical space in the room to make that happen. Also, you end up farther away from the interview subject, which can impair any intimacy if you're trying to create such a thing. My decisions tend to be less about opticals and much more about other considerations. Freeing your self from the dogmas of "this vs. that" with gear is a big step to make. I encourage everyone to make it ASAP.

I'd only get one if I was constantly doing corporate stuff and needed to make the client feel like they were getting their money's worth. That's a big "if," but I've been there. I hired a guy with a GH4 a few years back simply because he could make it look fancy. Matte box! Rails! Oooooooooo.

"hey guys...and if these tablets pleasest thou, yay, may thouest not forget to like and subscribe?" Anyway, Liam's a midwest guy, correct? DVD still goes a long way in the fly-over states, especially if you're angling towards anyone GenX or older. The thing you need to keep in mind is that if you're gonna go around and hustle your wares in the flesh, you have GOT to be good at it --and that means enjoying doing that sort of thing. If you don't like it, you're just going to be wasting your time.

Ummmm....

That's fair enough. I got seduced by early LUMIX cams and then Olympus IBIS. The kit size of smaller gear suits me. These cams work well for my jobs, but I do still have a soft spot for the FF cameras.

I use them for stills too. No complaints here. My Oly 2.8 pro lens does render a little more detail if one is pixel peeping, but nothing I've noticed to be remarkable compared to 2.8 on the Voights. Anyway, this is the most EOSHD'y of EOSHD topics. The great debate among camera nerds. As if sensor size one way or another really matters to people that actually shoot stuff that gets used for any real purpose. I mean, I have footage from my old XH-A1 that rivals most of the footage I shot this year. I certainly have my own preferences for shooting FF and like it, but ultimately it's not going to make a big difference on what is shot and deliver on a job.* Just curious, but aside from something needed in extreme low-light situations, can anyone here provide an example where what they did on M43 or FF would ultimately matter a hulluva lot to the client? *to the people I usually gig for anyway

Wide open I don't like so much. I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split. That looks good to me. No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster. I always liked the look. Clean but not pristine. If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me. For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

They're great. I use the 25 and 42.5. I have a job coming up wherein I need to go wider FOV and I'll turn to the Voightlander brand yet again by buying the 10.5. When I'm shooting without Voightlander lenses I tend to look at that footage and say, "Meh." And, yeah, I'm invested now into M43 glass. Paying more in lenses for shallow DOF and M43 is annoying, but it is what it is. Still, I do love FF with a wide open (and cheap) fast lens for interviews. Low soft lighting with lots of bokeh and 3D pop. It's a look that's just special...and very easy to accomplish. So there's a pragmatic appreciation for it as well when one's trying to do a lot on a production with limited options.

!

Maybe ask the Egyptian dentist that responded to my OP ;-) Yeah, this was from years ago, but it's the Polish movie "Ida." Coincidental that this should surface again as I'm the DP on a S16 film shoot later this month and we're going to do static shots pretty much the whole way.

Always seems like a good idea until you try it. Looks like I'm 1 and 2. Although...what's the difference?

You got it, and "prosumer" is my end of the pool. More and more kids are peeing in it these days, and I don't expect that to stop anytime soon.

I sort of agree with this. However, the guy doesn't give a rip about IQ, he just went for it. He's obviously a capable director based on his legacy, but obviously he's also a shit shooter. So then, considering all that, what's more important? That he did it or that he did it poorly? Look, I shot and edited a PBS thing a year ago. Didn't write/direct. It looked pretty good ... but it was also as boring as a month old turd. I'd rather watch whatever tacky melodramatic silliness William Friedkin decided to make than rewatch any of the episodes featuring my work. These are the existential musings for many filmmakers. Do you get in your own way by adhering to the demanding technical strictures of the craft, or do you just not care so much and get 'er done, focusing on more important things like storytelling? (or in Bill's case here, an apparent trashy cash grab, coasting on his notoriety) It's not easy for many of us, but just deciding to be creative however you can is honestly the best way forward.

Some sort of FZ model looks like. I've had a couple of these over the years as backup cams on my travel shoots. Too much magenta.