kye

@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.
 
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.

The number of stops in IBIS is irrelevant - except for marketing purposes.  
The difference between a great IBIS and meh IBIS systems isn't the number of stops, it's things like the travel of the system (how large the movement can be before it runs out of travel to compensate), how fast it can react (high-frequency performance), motor strength, etc.  When you see an IBIS system failing to compensate for camera movement it will be limitations of these aspects.
The GH5 has similar number of stops as many other cameras at the time with inferior overall performance, it was some combination of other factors that made the difference between them.

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.
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.
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 😜

Nice.  Production design is cool, and the skulls as the drums made me lol.

Thanks Kye,
With a medium rig as my GH5 it's a completely different story.
My camera housing has three 1" spheres integrated so I can attach clamps and legs as tripod for macro or details which requires a stable position.

 
Fow wide angle shoot I just remove the legs, mount a diffrrent lens and port and I change floating arms to get a different bouyancy and trim.

A collection of some clips captured in and around some local parks in the past few weeks.
Shot in Blackmagic RAW (BRAW) using:
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - BMPCC 6K G2.
Blackmagic Video Assist 12G 5 inch connected to the Panasonic S1 & S5.
Lenses: Panasonic 24-105, Sigma 150-600mm (L Mount), Tamron Adaptall 2 90mm Macro (72B).
Thanks for looking, hope you enjoy.
 
 

My first production for a restaurant. Was very exciting. Had to go minimal, maximum one light, as the kitchen was quite busy. 🍚

 

Yeah this is really accurate. People use the term "filmic" to describe something wide in variance. Are we talking about 1950s film, 1970s, slide photography, modern 35mm stock etc etc. I'm actually not a huge fan of the crazy 16mm filmic look that's popular right now, nor the 1970s look. I don't mind most modern 35mm stocks (Kodak 8323 and such) a whole lot, but kind of prefer a more modern clean grade overall. 

This forum needs a section called 'Ask Kye'.
Again, I'm just messing and do enjoy your posts 😘

The number of stops in IBIS is irrelevant - except for marketing purposes.  
The difference between a great IBIS and meh IBIS systems isn't the number of stops, it's things like the travel of the system (how large the movement can be before it runs out of travel to compensate), how fast it can react (high-frequency performance), motor strength, etc.  When you see an IBIS system failing to compensate for camera movement it will be limitations of these aspects.
The GH5 has similar number of stops as many other cameras at the time with inferior overall performance, it was some combination of other factors that made the difference between them.

DR..  sure.
A camera can have as many stops of DR as you like - unless you're delivering in HDR then you just have the problem of what to do with all those stops in post.  If you spread them all out evenly then you end up with footage that looks like it hasn't been converted from log to 709.
Where do you think the "flat look" trend amongst YouTubers came from?  Think about it - professional outputs don't lack contrast and saturation, just the YouTubers.  The flat look is when the DR of your camera exceeds your ability to colour grade the footage.
In many ways then, more DR is actually hurting you rather than helping.
Don't believe the specs - better specs are only "better" when you don't actually make films.

The number of stops in IBIS is irrelevant - except for marketing purposes.  
The difference between a great IBIS and meh IBIS systems isn't the number of stops, it's things like the travel of the system (how large the movement can be before it runs out of travel to compensate), how fast it can react (high-frequency performance), motor strength, etc.  When you see an IBIS system failing to compensate for camera movement it will be limitations of these aspects.
The GH5 has similar number of stops as many other cameras at the time with inferior overall performance, it was some combination of other factors that made the difference between them.

DR..  sure.
A camera can have as many stops of DR as you like - unless you're delivering in HDR then you just have the problem of what to do with all those stops in post.  If you spread them all out evenly then you end up with footage that looks like it hasn't been converted from log to 709.
Where do you think the "flat look" trend amongst YouTubers came from?  Think about it - professional outputs don't lack contrast and saturation, just the YouTubers.  The flat look is when the DR of your camera exceeds your ability to colour grade the footage.
In many ways then, more DR is actually hurting you rather than helping.
Don't believe the specs - better specs are only "better" when you don't actually make films.

The number of stops in IBIS is irrelevant - except for marketing purposes.  
The difference between a great IBIS and meh IBIS systems isn't the number of stops, it's things like the travel of the system (how large the movement can be before it runs out of travel to compensate), how fast it can react (high-frequency performance), motor strength, etc.  When you see an IBIS system failing to compensate for camera movement it will be limitations of these aspects.
The GH5 has similar number of stops as many other cameras at the time with inferior overall performance, it was some combination of other factors that made the difference between them.

The number of stops in IBIS is irrelevant - except for marketing purposes.  
The difference between a great IBIS and meh IBIS systems isn't the number of stops, it's things like the travel of the system (how large the movement can be before it runs out of travel to compensate), how fast it can react (high-frequency performance), motor strength, etc.  When you see an IBIS system failing to compensate for camera movement it will be limitations of these aspects.
The GH5 has similar number of stops as many other cameras at the time with inferior overall performance, it was some combination of other factors that made the difference between them.

Much appreciated, Kye. I had fun with this. I do my share of corporate talking heads but THIS is what I like to do. I even added a line to my website about offering a special rate for conservation and climate-related projects.

I think there are three things going on.  
1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.
2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.
3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

There are a few things that would benefit you to understand.
Firstly, no camera on the market these days is "accurate" - they all apply a strong look to the image.  Those that apply a colour profile (either 709 or log) apply a significant number of colour tweaks to the image, and those that shoot RAW get similar tweaks in post when converted to 709 by a colour space transform or a LUT etc.
Secondly, all the looks from all the manufacturers share a number of common traits.  I've compared quite a lot of different cameras over the years and shared the results here, so go digging if you're curious.  These traits are essentially things that the human eye finds desirable, and they began with film (which was in development for decades and decades with the all the worlds best image scientists all working on it) and then when digital gradually took over this processing continued in development.
If you don't agree with this, or aren't aware of it, find footage of a colour checker from as many camera brands as you can and just look at the curve applied to the greyscale and look at a vector scope of where the hues are falling - they're not falling where they should if the image was even remotely "correct".
Thirdly, non-camera nerds see the world very differently to us, and it's not like we all agree on everything.
I suggest you find one of these people that prefers Fuji and load some images into Resolve and start adjusting things and see which things they don't care about and which things makes them hate the image when you change them by only a tiny amount.  This is how you can find out, in broad terms, what it is that they like and are sensitive to about Fuji in-particular.

One of my favorite projects from 2022 (I just wish they used a better thumbnail):
 

I've been running some tests over the past 6 months or so with different cameras and lenses trying to simplify my entire workflow and gear. Over the years, in search of the perfect camera/lens(es) combo(s) I've become a slave to the gear that collects dust in my closet.
Anyway, I feel like I know which direction best suits me, but I figured I'd share some of my results.
Here are a couple frames from the Sigma FP and Nikkor 24mm f/2 ai-s lens. I've never really been a huge fan of wide angle lenses but there is a good reason to have one in my kit. On other cameras, I have found the Nikon lens to be lacking and it's flaws show, but I could always recognize that there is something funky and great about the lens, especially wide open. It wasn't until I shot it with the FP that I saw its true potential...

My color work probably needs some tweaks, as they look a little too contrasty for my normal tastes.

I think there are three things going on.  
1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.
2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.
3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

I think there are three things going on.  
1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.
2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.
3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

I think there are three things going on.  
1) People can't colour grade and they're trying to buy their way out of learning.  
As Resolve has grown in popularity the number of people that got access to a colour-managed workflow or colour space transformations has grown, and the number of people that can get the look they want from whatever camera they are using has also increased.
2) People don't remember what film looks like.
The number of "filmic" images that look nothing like film has gradually turned from a trickle to a vast deluge, to the point now that many people trying to get the look of film may have never seen it, or wouldn't recognise it even if it showed up with the film-strip not yet cropped out.  Over the last year or so I've been rewatching older movies and TV shows shot on film, from back when this was how all TV and movies were shot, and at times I've watched several hours of film a day for weeks or months straight.  Most so-called "filmic" content online looks nothing like film, in practically any way.  It does, however, remind me a lot of 4K GoPro footage, but with 15 times the dynamic range of both a GoPro and most film processes.
3) People have changed what they like.
As time goes on, "cinematic" looks more and more like video every day.  The so-called "cinematic" videos that people like, speak fondly of, share, and aspire to, all look nothing like what cinema actually looks like.  I lost count of the number of times I argued online about sharpness and resolution and depth of field and colour science and colour grading and began to question myself in the face of almost universal online opposition.... then I'd go see a movie and I'd be reminded that I was right and everyone else was blind, has stopped going to the cinema, is full of shit, or all of the above.

Time for me to post some Tevidon 25mm love. Finally got to film a clip, got to like it, grade it and post it. First one is in the big and mighty GX85 thread. Lovely, quirky and most of all such a satisfying lens and combo. cheers 🙂
 
 

Dear friends, some shutter therapy with the beautiful GX85. Lens is a gem too. I will post the second video in the lens section. 🙂