herein2020

Even the R3 is micro HDMI, hard to believe but its true.

You are right, it does work if you select external monitor only. For me only the R5 and C70 work the way that I think it "should" work, but at the end of the day you can livestream and record internally with the R7 with a clean HDMI feed and it probably works the same way for the R6II. So for me, its back to the original cripple hammer problem which is the micro HDMI port, just the two times I plugged in the HDMI cable to test this feature felt like I was going to break the port. I can kind of understand no full HDMI port on the R7, but the R6II and R5? Really Canon? My Canon Rebel has a better HDMI port than the R5.

Very interesting find, I tested with my R7 and it does the same thing, if anything is connected to the HDMI port it disables internal recording. I then tested with the R5 and it will record internally while the HDMI cable is connected but it has that ridiculous 30 min time limit. The C70 of course has neither of these limitations. I don't use an external monitor with the R7 so I had no idea it has this limitation. Canon really knows how to screw you in strange and mysterious ways. The only way that I can think of to do what you want to do is with an external recorder that is also a monitor but IMO that is a PITA with the micro-HDMI port since it is so flimsy. I have been shooting more long form content lately and I was actually considering using an external monitor with the R7 when it is locked down on a tripod to see the screen better, but I decided against it due to the micro HDMI port, now I realize it won't work at all due to the Canon cripple hammer. For streaming, there is no way to use the WiFi to do it? I don't ever turn on the WiFi so I am not familiar with its capabilities but I thought there was a way with a laptop to connect directly to the camera and have the video stream sent to the laptop.

I think that is the biggest first lesson to learn when shooting for someone other than yourself is; don't fall in love with your own footage. We have all shot a shot that looks so perfect we want to show the world the whole thing so we let it run a little bit too long; but the reality is no one else cares about that shot except you and by letting it run too long you start to lose your audience. I still find myself doing it occasionally and I have to remind myself to stay aligned with what the customer wants, not what I like the best. Ground hyperlapses is one thing I have never done. I've done simulated ones where I shoot 6/7K images then keyframe camera motion, but a true hyperlapse where the camera is moving I have never done. I think it looks really impressive and would look good in events but it just seems like it would take so much time and the other problem would be all the people upset that you are not talking to them or taking their picture while trying to stick to the hyperlapse path.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 🤣 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.

@Chxfgb I agree 100% with @kye, I maintain my own website and some weeks I spend more time on it than actually shooting content. It needs updates nearly weekly, frequently the update will break something or change the look of something so I have to troubleshoot, Google changes their SEO algos so I have to try to keep up with that, the website needs to be backed up, backups need to be monitored to ensure they were successful, you have to monitor and renew your domain name before it expires, you have to monitor and renew your hosting plan before it expires, if you make one penny of revenue then state, local and feds govs all want to split that penny into non-equal parts while making sure that you get the smallest part of that parted penny, etc. etc. My site is relatively small, I can only imagine how much additional work would be needed for much larger sites. Also, the longer the site ran without new content the fewer visitors it would receive until it reached the point where the only ones viewing the content were the admins. Behind the scenes it was probably already close to being there anyway; the hardcore photography enthusiast demographic is exponentially shrinking and as it does sites like those will appeal less and less to whoever is left.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

The only good news is that cameras are so good these days and social media has reduced most forms of produced media to warranting barely more than a passing glance so no matter what camera you buy your biggest competitor will be the cell phone vs the camera you did not buy.

I see a lot of these types of posts and really think only you can answer those questions, each of us has our own shooting style, also each of our responses will come from a position of bias; either conscious (deliberately trying to sway you to adopt their chosen ecosystem) or subconscious (their shooting style matches their gear so well that they really want you to see just how great your experience will be with their setup). So with that long winded caveat out of the way, I personally am now a 100% Canon shooter so that you will know that everything that comes after that statement will probably have a bit of Canon bias in it because yes, my current Canon setup (C70, R5, R7) fixes every problem I had with every previous setup and happens to fit my particular requirements perfectly. Option 1 - Based on my limited knowledge of Nikon, I would take the same route I took when I was shooting with the Panasonic S5....there's simply no way I would invest in more glass, with the S5 I went with an EF adapter which let me switch to Canon far cheaper than if I had gone all in on L mount glass. Option 2 - If you only have a single lens right now, now is the perfect time to decide once and for all what ecosystem you are moving to, if you truly believe you will change ecosystems in the near future that will determine what adapter and lens ecosystem you move to. If you are going Canon then obviously EF or Sony then E mount. The one problem with the EF route is that you will be buying older EF glass and if you move to Canon then you will be stuck with all of that EF glass; not a bad situation to be in since EF glass is way cheaper than RF and with EF glass and an RF mount camera you have access to the excellent Viltrox vND filter, but its just something to keep in mind. I personally went with this option and all I had to do was buy the RF to EF adapter to start using my EF glass on my R bodies. Option 3 - Once again only you know your financial situation, how badly you want a new ecosystem, etc. As a Canon shooter though, there is no way I could recommend the R6 due to its continued overheating problems. The R7 or R6II is the far better choice right now. The S5 II would be a hard one since it has literally everything but the kitchen sink; but you would either be buying into what I consider the dead L mount "alliance" or once again need to stick with non native EF adapters and EF glass you also wouldn't have access to the vND EF to RF adapter which is somewhat game changing for event shooters like myself. Sony I know nothing about but if you are into photography at all then the A7IV is probably a better choice than the FX30.