herein2020

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😬

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 🤪

I hate being tethered to recorders, its clunky, requires another set of batteries and zaps the whole point of IBIS equipped mirrorless: handheld portability. If you're always shooting on sticks I guess its just an extra step to your rig but if you wanna go handheld it kinda sucks. So its not just the setup time, its a clunky affair.
Nikon really put its users in a corner with the lack of internal log. Its why I never considered those cameras despite being a long time Nikon shooter with still a couple nice vintage F-mount lenses left.
Then you have the limited upgrade path, basically Z8/Z9. Expensive. And no cine line.
All these could be valid motives to switch systems. As others noted, only you can decide what your best move is.
If you think you can swing a Z8 down the line, maybe better to wait and do option 1. F-mount glass is definitely a good incentive to remain in the Nikon ecosystem. We often gush over new bodies but its the lens collection you wanna be thinking about longterm.
 
 

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.

Your spot on with my philosophy. For me, "feeling like they were there" means using focal lengths familiar to people and being positioned in locations accessible to people. Focal lengths like 24, 35, 50, and 85mm are all very familiar to folks these days whether they know it or not due to the smartphones in their pockets. Restricting oneself to those focal lengths ensures that the camera position feels authentic to the general audience and their experience.

All that said, I chose to use the 24-105mm f/4 exclusively. I stuck close to those focal lengths mentioned above, but in the end switching lenses would have meant missing shots.

@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.

@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 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.

@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.

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.

Imaging Resource is gone (really), without announcement.

https://petapixel.com/2023/05/08/imaging-resource-is-now-offline-as-the-camera-website-shuts-its-doors/

Was my preferred, above DPReview.

This.
Over the last decade+ especially, transitioning from being a photographer to a ‘hybrid shooter’, I have gone through periods of ‘gear creep’.
Each time I reach a peak I say enough is enough and downscale it all…only to find the volume of kit creeping back up.
I have just been through such a peak and had another ‘enough is enough’ moment but this time it really is enough.
There is of course a fine line between being able to cover every single possibility and having just enough tools to do a job.
My own experience is providing you do have sufficient tools for the task, then less is usually more.
I don’t specifically shoot concerts, but events. There is nothing better than having one ‘do it all’ camera and lens combo in your hands, that you are familiar with, at all times.
24-105 for most brands or even better, Tamron 35-150 for Sony (or adapted for Nikon) would also be my pick on a single body, in this case the A7iv because it is a hybrid and the FX6 is not.
 

I really have no bias at all; I literally just grab whatever camera works for me and go shoot with it; I don't do the pixel peeping thing, I am not an IQ purist, I don't sit on YT and watch reviews all day...in fact I am probably one of the least IQ purists on this forum. I also have never even watched a GoPro IQ or review video, I think I watched a single GoPro video on stabilization when I was buying the 8 (the guy mountain biking down a rocky trail and still getting stable footage sold me on the 8), but I have never purchased a GoPro for IQ.
BTW I am not basing my opinion on the Hero 8, I am basing it on the videos you posted along with my own firsthand experience with small sensors starting with the Hero 3 and drone cameras.  I honestly couldn't care less about sensor size as long as it is producing the IQ that I need.
With all of that said, I still see the "sensor/lens haze" in the videos you posted and in every video out of my drones and GoPros. I do think with some very precise color grading and some very specific scenes with perfect lighting and colors in the scene it could be possible to eliminate it, but unless all of those conditions are met, I see the haze instantly when I am watching your sample videos; not because I am looking for it but simply because it is there; in fact I have seen the same haze when using the Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 lens, or when looking at dashcam or CCTV footage.  The exact same camera with the Canon EF 24-105mm F4 L lens is a night and day difference proving whatever is the weakest link will decide the final IQ.
Like I previously mentioned, I think some of it may be due to the lens quality that they use on GoPros or it could just be the resolving power of the sensor; either way it is immediately noticeable to me. But you don't have to convince me, shoot with whatever works for you, maybe when the GoPro 20 comes out they will have eliminated it; either way, its no big deal, my Hero 8 is still perfect for what I got it for and its IQ is good enough for what I need when I need a camera that can do a job none of my other ones can; all I am saying is that for me; GoPro has IQ problems that codecs, bitrates, and color profiles can't fix.