Equipment recommendation for outdoor docu-style?

[dishan]

I'm used to shooting indoors, where I can control the lighting and the camera sits on a tripod and/or slider.
I have a gig coming up that involves sort of a nature documentary, where I'll be following a guy into a wooded area and record him explaining things he finds.

I'm not entirely sure if the equipment I have is well suited for this kind of shooting.
Here's what I have at my disposal currently (only listing things I think are relevant for this job):
- Canon t2i
- Panasonic GH2
- LCD Loupe (fits on both)
- Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 (EOS mount)
- Kit lenses (18-55 canon, 14-45mm panasonic, both have IS)
- monopod
- cowboy studio shoulder rig

I'm not mentioning things I don't think would be useful for this (vintage primes ranging from 24-200mm, tripods, sliders, lights, etc) nor audio gear because I'm not concerned about that (have a good wireless lav and recording system). I'm just trying to figure out how to follow this guy around and get good images.

I shot a quick test using the T2i and kit lens, figuring the IS on the kit would be helpful. Turns out zooming on the Canon kit lens at F8.0 still displayed the visible "clicks" of aperture adjusting (I figured that since I'm using more than F/5.6 anyway, it wouldn't have to adjust and change lighting as I zoom in or out on things. Turns out I was wrong). I didn't try the GH2 since I got it after that test. Seems like the GH2 adjusts aperture more smoothly on the kit lens, but I'm not entirely sure.

I like the idea of using the Tamron 2.8 because it has constant aperture as I zoom, but am I going to really regret not having IS?
I'm wondering if I use the monopod, and keep the camera steady when actually shooting, and/or the cowboy shoulder rig, perhaps IS won't be as necessary?

Also, I'm guessing the GH2 is better suited for resolving detail in the outdoors. Problem is, I have to adjust the aperture on the Canon body first (since it is EOS mount), then move it over to the GH2 where I can't adjust it during a shoot. Not a huge problem, I suppose, if I'm shooting outdoors where my F-stop will be pretty high and stay there most likely anyway.

What do you guys think? And please don't go all "well you should really consider a bigger video camera for the job instead". My big cameras are all standard def, and the client likes the look of DSLR on closeups (bokeh, etc). I'm open to purchasing additional equipment (lens, stabilizer, etc), but only to a certain price. I don't plan to do too many of these, so I don't want to invest more than I'm being paid.

Thanks!

 

[recordingwhiz]

Get one of those reflector kits that stow like a windshield reflector, that will help you get some additional light when you are limited.
and good durable bags or cases to protect your gear. and a box of lens cleaning cloths and a lens cleaning brush.
pack a couple of towels for just in case stuff. and garbage bags.
keep some snacks in your bag and plenty of water. and small first aid kit.

hope that helps

 

[dishan]

Get one of those reflector kits that stow like a windshield reflector, that will help you get some additional light when you are limited.
and good durable bags or cases to protect your gear. and a box of lens cleaning cloths and a lens cleaning brush.
pack a couple of towels for just in case stuff. and garbage bags.
keep some snacks in your bag and plenty of water. and small first aid kit.

hope that helps

LOL- all very good advice, but doesn't really answer my question!

As far as the reflector- I actually have one of those, but I did not plan to bring it along on a one-man shoot. I think lighting is forgivable on documentary-style shots like this... maybe even adds to the realism of it. I just want to make sure I can capture what he is describing, get some close ups/macro shots, and not give the viewer a headache from bounces/jitter/jello.

 

[Kin Lau]

I have several older manual focus 35-105/f3.5 lenses with constant aperture and internal zoom, that I can mount to either my T3i or GH1 and GH2. It's worth looking for them, they're quite cheap, but internal zooming gives you a much smoother zoom action, and the constant aperture helps too.

Oddly enough, none of the modern f2.8 short zooms are internal zooming, they're all internal focusing but all of them change the length significantly when zooming, and it's much harder to get a smooth zoom.

 

[dishan]

I have several older manual focus 35-105/f3.5 lenses with constant aperture and internal zoom, that I can mount to either my T3i or GH1 and GH2. It's worth looking for them, they're quite cheap, but internal zooming gives you a much smoother zoom action, and the constant aperture helps too.

Oddly enough, none of the modern f2.8 short zooms are internal zooming, they're all internal focusing but all of them change the length significantly when zooming, and it's much harder to get a smooth zoom.

Good call on the vintage zoom. I never considered them before because I thinking about using them in low light (f/2.8 is hard to find on vintage zooms). But since I'll be outdoors, that sounds like an excellent idea... that is, assuming I don't care about image stabilization.
Using the kit lens will give me a more limited but very workable range of zoom, as well as IS and autofocus (on the Gh2 at least) should I need it. But, I won't have constant aperture when I zoom. If I had to pick between them, do you think the constant aperture is more important than IS? What about mount options? cowboy studio shoulder mount, monopod... something else maybe? I would say steadicam or something, but I imagine holding it like that for so long will get very tiring very fast.

 

[Boncrek]

I think to anwer your question properly we would need to know what kind of monopod you have.
If its the most basic type then yes having IS would be good. If you have something like a Manfrotto 561BHDV then no you wouldn't need IS.
I've seen several videos using monopods and primes and they turn out fine without any IS.
The trick I hear is to stay ahead of your talent and film them arriving/doing their thing naturally.
Whatever you do please dont walk with your monopod because then its still shaky.
Use the flexibility of the monopod to move quickly and catch several static shots:
like a far wide, a medium and then closeups and then doing it all over again when you reach somewhere new.
Have your talent do the same actions for the closeups and the wides, those shots wouldnt need audio anyway since you'd use the audio from the medium shots.

 

[M. Gilden]

I think to anwer your question properly we would need to know what kind of monopod you have.
If its the most basic type then yes having IS would be good. If you have something like a Manfrotto 561BHDV then no you wouldn't need IS.
I've seen several videos using monopods and primes and they turn out fine without any IS.
The trick I hear is to stay ahead of your talent and film them arriving/doing their thing naturally.
Whatever you do please dont walk with your monopod because then its still shaky.
Use the flexibility of the monopod to move quickly and catch several static shots:
like a far wide, a medium and then closeups and then doing it all over again when you reach somewhere new.
Have your talent do the same actions for the closeups and the wides, those shots wouldnt need audio anyway since you'd use the audio from the medium shots.

Can't be worse than walking with that cowboy studio shoulder thing.
Its great for standing and shooting (especially since it offers hands-free support), but for walking, it is pretty much the worst thing you can do. Your body moves as you walk, and your shoulder and chest position bob all over the place... you're actually better off hand-holding the camera in my experience (which is already pretty bad!). If you don't need to film while walking, the shoulder thing might work, but the monopod will likely give you more freedom of movement and angles. Also, if you DO need to film while walking (although I agree with Boncrek that you should keep that to a minimum), holding on to the stick from just under the camera and letting the weight help swing freely and balance can actually stabilize your shot versus handheld. So maybe monopod is the best option? I will admit that I don't have much experience in that style of shooting either.

 

[Boncrek]

Can't be worse than walking with that cowboy studio shoulder thing.
Its great for standing and shooting (especially since it offers hands-free support), but for walking, it is pretty much the worst thing you can do. Your body moves as you walk, and your shoulder and chest position bob all over the place... you're actually better off hand-holding the camera in my experience (which is already pretty bad!). If you don't need to film while walking, the shoulder thing might work, but the monopod will likely give you more freedom of movement and angles. Also, if you DO need to film while walking (although I agree with Boncrek that you should keep that to a minimum), holding on to the stick from just under the camera and letting the weight help swing freely and balance can actually stabilize your shot versus handheld. So maybe monopod is the best option? I will admit that I don't have much experience in that style of shooting either.

The greatest example of monopod use I can find is from Stillmotion.
That's where I got the recommendation for the Manfrotto 561BHDV.
There philosophy is to not walk with the monopod at all.
That's what Steadicam and Glidecam are for IMHO.
Just use the monopod for several static shots like I described above and you'll do fine.
Having said all that however you can use it for walking, just use the entire length of the monopod as a counterbalance like M. Gilden described.
I've seen far too many videos where the "Cheap Steadicam" look is overdone however.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Just because you'll be working outdoors don't assume you will have plenty of light. In woods with any kind of "canopy" overhead things can get fairly dark quite quickly, so if you have the EF 28mm f1.8 I would use the T3i and have that lens handy in case you needed "fast glass" speed. No "zoom" but you could get by without IS on that one, and the perspective is "normal". Neither wide nor telephoto.

The EF-S 18-55mm "kit" lens is lightweight enough so you could have both lenses with you, the "kit" lens with it's 18mm "wide" setting could come in handy if there is enough light in the woods.

If there is any way you can "scout" the shooting location (or run tests in woods similar) you would know more what actual situation you will be in. As far as the possibility of being "limited" with just the EF 28mm...I.E. no zoom...

...That's what many of us older hands had to work with when we had just an SLR body and the 50mm "nifty fifty" that came with it long before zooms got so popular.

 

[dishan]

The greatest example of monopod use I can find is from Stillmotion.
That's where I got the recommendation for the Manfrotto 561BHDV.
There philosophy is to not walk with the monopod at all.
That's what Steadicam and Glidecam are for IMHO.
Just use the monopod for several static shots like I described above and you'll do fine.
Having said all that however you can use it for walking, just use the entire length of the monopod as a counterbalance like M. Gilden described.
I've seen far too many videos where the "Cheap Steadicam" look is overdone however.

Nice. That's a fancy monopod right there- mine is just a simple one, no legs like that on the bottom. Not that legs would necessarily be useful on the uneven ground of the forest, right?
I have just the cheap spike kind, but I can put a half decent fluid head on it, and use the ground and my face is connection points, as well as my hand on the lens.

And perhaps do a minimal amount of walking with it if needed. I'll do some tests.

Just because you'll be working outdoors don't assume you will have plenty of light. In woods with any kind of "canopy" overhead things can get fairly dark quite quickly,

This is very true and very wise. At some times I will have an overabundance of light. And at other times, a lot of shade. I will need to be able to compensate for that, so I'll probably want a lens that I can adjust f-stop on the camera (rules out the Tamron on the GH2).

so if you have the EF 28mm f1.8 I would use the T3i and have that lens handy in case you needed "fast glass" speed. No "zoom" but you could get by without IS on that one, and the perspective is "normal". Neither wide nor telephoto.

The EF-S 18-55mm "kit" lens is lightweight enough so you could have both lenses with you, the "kit" lens with it's 18mm "wide" setting could come in handy if there is enough light in the woods.

...
As far as the possibility of being "limited" with just the EF 28mm...I.E. no zoom...

...That's what many of us older hands had to work with when we had just an SLR body and the 50mm "nifty fifty" that came with it long before zooms got so popular.

Here's the thing- I don't own that lens OR a T3i. I have a T2i, which lacks the crop zoom function of the T3i, leaving me stuck at whatever focal point the prime offers. This may be fine for narrative or photography (you seem to be speaking from a photography background) where I can spend more time planning out my shots, but this really seems less than ideal for documentary style video work, doesn't it? Its not exactly as real-time as live event shooting, but it is somewhat similar. I don't necessarily have the luxury of pre-planning too many shots, I need to catch him in the moment as he is speaking naturally. I'm picturing the ability to quickly barrel-zoom up to some sort of growth or rock he is explaining, or catch something happening before it is too late.
I do own some nice wide primes, but I just don't think they are right for the job. Although you bring a good point regarding lack of IS on wide angles.

Meanwhile, is there any reason you think I would be better off using the Canon for this job? I would think the outdoors are better suited to a GH2 to resolve detail on branches and tree bark without moire and aliasing? Or are you just recommending that one because it is what you know?

 

[Boncrek]

Nice. That's a fancy monopod right there- mine is just a simple one, no legs like that on the bottom. Not that legs would necessarily be useful on the uneven ground of the forest, right?
I have just the cheap spike kind, but I can put a half decent fluid head on it, and use the ground and my face is connection points, as well as my hand on the lens.

And perhaps do a minimal amount of walking with it if needed. I'll do some tests.


This is very true and very wise. At some times I will have an overabundance of light. And at other times, a lot of shade. I will need to be able to compensate for that, so I'll probably want a lens that I can adjust f-stop on the camera (rules out the Tamron on the GH2).


Here's the thing- I don't own that lens OR a T3i. I have a T2i, which lacks the crop zoom function of the T3i, leaving me stuck at whatever focal point the prime offers. This may be fine for narrative or photography (you seem to be speaking from a photography background) where I can spend more time planning out my shots, but this really seems less than ideal for documentary style video work, doesn't it? Its not exactly as real-time as live event shooting, but it is somewhat similar. I don't necessarily have the luxury of pre-planning too many shots, I need to catch him in the moment as he is speaking naturally. I'm picturing the ability to quickly barrel-zoom up to some sort of growth or rock he is explaining, or catch something happening before it is too late.
I do own some nice wide primes, but I just don't think they are right for the job. Although you bring a good point regarding lack of IS on wide angles.

Meanwhile, is there any reason you think I would be better off using the Canon for this job? I would think the outdoors are better suited to a GH2 to resolve detail on branches and tree bark without moire and aliasing? Or are you just recommending that one because it is what you know?

Are you the director on this outdoor shoot? or just the cinematographer?
Actually if you are either you should still have creative control over what is shot and how.
If the client wants good footage and for it to be done well then you have to take a little time to prepare it.
I'm not talking hours of prep for one shot here.
Just 10-15 minutes to setup a shot properly can make a big difference, long enough for you to get "coverage" from 3 different angles or views.
Even documentaries try to plan their shots ahead of time.
Only in some action-type settings do they just "run n' gun".
This type of shoot sounds a lot more planned and controllable to me

The comment on variations in light is so true.
I remember I was shooting a voxpop on an island trip and had to deal with really blazing outdoor sun (lots of shadows under eyes)
and then really dark shade under the tree canopy.
I hope you fare better than I did in terms of correct exposure because I know I didnt do mine properly all the time and some was too overexposed.

 

[dishan]

Are you the director on this outdoor shoot? or just the cinematographer?
Actually if you are either you should still have creative control over what is shot and how.
If the client wants good footage and for it to be done well then you have to take a little time to prepare it.
I'm not talking hours of prep for one shot here.
Just 10-15 minutes to setup a shot properly can make a big difference, long enough for you to get "coverage" from 3 different angles or views.
Even documentaries try to plan their shots ahead of time.
Only in some action-type settings do they just "run n' gun".
This type of shoot sounds a lot more planned and controllable to me

Oh, no, there is definitely time to plan ahead enough to use the monopod, that comment wasn't directed towards you. I meant for Bruce and his prime lens advice.
I think a zoom would be far more appropriate so that I can change the FOV without cutting in between, right? Prime lenses are great for narrative shots with preplanned camera movements and/or photography, but I don't feel like it would be an appropriate tool for this kind of job- do you?

 

[Boncrek]

Oh, no, there is definitely time to plan ahead enough to use the monopod, that comment wasn't directed towards you. I meant for Bruce and his prime lens advice.
I think a zoom would be far more appropriate so that I can change the FOV without cutting in between, right? Prime lenses are great for narrative shots with preplanned camera movements and/or photography, but I don't feel like it would be an appropriate tool for this kind of job- do you?

I agree with you completely on the zooms. My zoom of choice (wishlist) would be the Canon 17-55mm F2.8.
Its fast, has Image Stabilization and is sharp. The only downside is its expensive and an EF-S only lens.
I tend to use a zoom as a variable prime anyways lol

 

[dishan]

I agree with you completely on the zooms. My zoom of choice (wishlist) would be the Canon 17-55mm F2.8.
Its fast, has Image Stabilization and is sharp. The only downside is its expensive and an EF-S only lens.
I tend to use a zoom as a variable prime anyways lol

That is a great lens, but it assumes I use the Canon instead of the GH2. Using it on an adapter will have the same problem as my current Tamron (stuck at whatever F-stop it leaves the Canon body with), plus I lose the IS.
The truth is, I'm not against using the Canon, but I figured the deep focus shooting outdoors would look sharper and better on the GH2.
Sadly, there is a glaring absence of constant aperture zooms in micro 4/3rds that have stabilization. I'm not even sure there is a "wishlist" lens for me there, much less one that I can afford for this. Maybe I could rent one, but there would have to be one good enough to bother renting and I haven't found it yet.

Meanwhile, here are my choices that I think are practical:
1) Use the GH2 for sharper image quality, on a monopod with a fluid head (no legs, sadly), and the kit lens for IS (but varying aperture, hoping it won't visibly "click" when zooming to keep f-stop at the same value).
2) Gh2, monopod, some vintage zoom with constant aperture (lose IS).
3) Use the T2i (native EOS lenses, but also softer video and aliasing on deep focus), monopod, Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 (no IS, but constant aperture)
4) T2i, monopod, some other (possibly rented and/or purchased) wide zoom with IS.

After testing the Canon kit lens and seeing how the aperture visibly "clicks" while zooming in/out to compensate for the iris size, I don't consider it an option. I'm not sure yet if the Panasonic kit is as bad, it seems to allow more in between values, perhaps it doesn't produce as many hard stops.

I'm not sure which way I'm leaning out of those 4 yet, so any additional advice/opinions are welcome. Also, I if there are any other options I should consider, I'm all ears!

 

[Kin Lau]

Good call on the vintage zoom. I never considered them before because I thinking about using them in low light (f/2.8 is hard to find on vintage zooms). But since I'll be outdoors, that sounds like an excellent idea... that is, assuming I don't care about image stabilization.
Using the kit lens will give me a more limited but very workable range of zoom, as well as IS and autofocus (on the Gh2 at least) should I need it. But, I won't have constant aperture when I zoom. If I had to pick between them, do you think the constant aperture is more important than IS? What about mount options? cowboy studio shoulder mount, monopod... something else maybe? I would say steadicam or something, but I imagine holding it like that for so long will get very tiring very fast.

I have the Manfrotto 561, and the legs do give it significant stability, and it does setup quickly on a trail. The footprint is only 5-6 inchs across, and I've often found boardwalks and trails not wide enough for my tripod. The only concern would be how heavy the zoom is... these 70/80's zoom are rather heavy, heavier than either my T3i or GH2, so on the monopod, it might be a bit lopsided.

 

[M. Gilden]

I have the Manfrotto 561, and the legs do give it significant stability, and it does setup quickly on a trail. The footprint is only 5-6 inchs across, and I've often found boardwalks and trails not wide enough for my tripod. The only concern would be how heavy the zoom is... these 70/80's zoom are rather heavy, heavier than either my T3i or GH2, so on the monopod, it might be a bit lopsided.

On boardwalks and trails, perhaps. I can't imagine the legs being helpful if the ground is completely uneven!

Looks like a cool monopod in general, though. Might keep an eye for one in the future.

 

[Kin Lau]

On boardwalks and trails, perhaps. I can't imagine the legs being helpful if the ground is completely uneven!

Looks like a cool monopod in general, though. Might keep an eye for one in the future.

The legs are good for a tilt of about 15 degrees in any direction, so the surface doesn't have to be flat or even. I can typically find at least 5-6 inches worth of relatively even ground even on the roughest trails. If I can't, then I'm probably hanging off the side of a cliff .

 

[Boncrek]

I can typically find at least 5-6 inches worth of relatively even ground even on the roughest trails. If I can't, then I'm probably hanging off the side of a cliff .

That sounds like an interesting shot!

 

[dishan]

I have several older manual focus 35-105/f3.5 lenses with constant aperture and internal zoom, that I can mount to either my T3i or GH1 and GH2. It's worth looking for them, they're quite cheap, but internal zooming gives you a much smoother zoom action, and the constant aperture helps too.

Oddly enough, none of the modern f2.8 short zooms are internal zooming, they're all internal focusing but all of them change the length significantly when zooming, and it's much harder to get a smooth zoom.

Trying to find a good constant aperture vintage zoom on ebay. Seems harder than I expected- the ones that list only one aperture value look like they might be constant in the title, but when you click on the picture you can clearly see markings like "3.5-4.5" on the lens. Stupid ebay sellers and their misleading descriptions!

Do you know of any specific constant-aperture zooms in this range that I can search for? What exact values, mount, etc, so I can narrow down my searches?

 

[dishan]

Forgot to mention, I tested the GH2 kit lens, bumped it up to F/8, and took it around zooming while filming.

I gotta say, how does ANYONE use these kit lenses as a video zoom? They all visibly adjust for aperture as you zoom! I thought maybe it would be smoother than the T2i kit lens since the GH2's kit seemed to allow in between aperture values when left wide open and zooming (the canon would try and hold the F-stop until it had to suddenly jump to the next one).

Either way, it seems all of these kit lenses don't allow smooth zooming while holding an aperture. That means I'll have to use a constant aperture zoom to do this right. I mean, it might not be so bad if the camera didn't have to adjust for the changing aperture in clicks, and rather just got a bit darker as I zoomed... The way I see it, if I'm set to use F/8 on the wide side (where the max is 3.5), and I zoom all the way in (where the max is 5.6), would the aperture still be only 2.1 off from where I started? Or does it move exponentially? I'm not 100% sure about how this works. But if starting off at F/8, and zooming it brings it to F/10.1, it probably wouldn't look as bad as the sudden clicks of light when the automatic iris opens up a bit after a zoom. Regardless, it doesn't seem that I can force the camera not to do that so this is a moot point.

Since there aren't any constant aperture zooms on the GH2 with image stabilization (unless I'm just not aware of one?), that means I'm stuck with the Canon if I want to be able to zoom and still have IS.

So, that all boils down to:
What is more important for an outdoor shoot like this- Image Stabilization, or the moire/aliasing free higher-resolution image?

I'm leaning towards the GH2's higher quality picture at the moment, but I think I'll need to invest in a constant aperture lens that has aperture control (as Kin Lau suggested). I think it might be annoying to be stuck at a certain F-stop with my EOS Tamron on the adapter. *sigh*