SEARCH  WEBSITE

The goal of SilverLight Photo Co. is to help people all around the world, get good quality from their budget filmmaking CAMERAS & AUDIO. CAMERAS EVERY LENS NEEDS CUSTOM SETTINGS... CHECK OUT OUR (LUMIX) LIBRARY OF "LENS-SENSOR" CAMERA SETTINGS CUSTOMIZED CAMERA SETTINGS, FOR EVERY LENS-SENSOR COMBO. Learn more here or check out our database of "lens-sensor" settings & LUTs Keeping It REAL (Not using generative A.I.) Another Budget Filmmaking Blog (Not written by A.I.) The Story of The Settings (It's All About Relationships) Lens-Sensor SETTINGS (The custom in-camera settings) Lens-Sensor LUTs (Step two of the process) REAL Photos (No Photoshop trickery or A.I.) Budget Filmmaking KIT (Minimal, Basic & Advanced) REAL Reviews (Long-term gear reviews) The Lens-Sensor PODCAST (We talk about budget gear)

With all of the A.I. and Photoshopping going on, there's enough "FAKE" content out there, so we created a database of realistic looking CAMERA SETTINGS & LUTs that make it easier to capture photos & video almost SOOC using affordable cameras & lenses. MAKE REAL We only make 100% REAL content (no A.I.) With all of the A.I. and Photoshopping going on, there's enough "FAKE" content out there, so we created a database of realistic looking CAMERA SETTINGS & LUTs that make it easier to capture photos & video almost SOOC using affordable cameras & lenses. A REAL BLOG (WE DON'T USE A.I. TO WRITE BLOG POSTS) Articles are written about things we have actual experience with (can't say this for A.I.) REAL CAMERAS (INTERCHANGEABLE-LENS CAMERAS) Most of these cameras cost less than a good cell phone, but they work much better! REAL LUTS (WE ONLY DO LENS-SENSOR SPECIFIC LUTS) What seems to work best, is for LUTs to be specific to each lens-sensor combo. REAL PHOTOS (REAL PHOTOS & VIDEOS, NOT GENERATED WITH A.I.) We capture images using custom in-camera settings, and then apply realistic LUTs. REAL REVIEWS (REAL, LONG-TERM REVIEWS) We test and review good quality, low-budget photo & video gear...for a long time. REAL MERCH (SUPPORTING REAL CONTENT) We feature a lot of merch, mostly focused on the idea of "real" art (vs. generative A.I.)

Since this website is all about saving money by getting the film look with cheap filmmaking cameras (even though I "always shoot with 2 cameras") my memes mostly focus on the low budget filmmaking culture...as well as a few "former photographer" jokes. REAL VIDEOS Some of my favorite REAL videos (non-A.I.) COLOR (LUTs & Settings) COLOR (LUTs & Settings) Play Video Share Whole Channel This Video Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Copy Link Link Copied Now Playing Panasonic 45-150 (Panasonic GX85) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -5-4+3-4 + LUT 01:18 Play Video Now Playing Nikon 55-200 VR (Panasonic GH4) CINELIKE D -0-0-0-0 vs -4-1+5-3 + "Real" LUT 01:00 Play Video Now Playing Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii (Panasonic GH4) CINELIKE D -0-0-0-0 vs. -5-5+5-0 (LOW LIGHT) 01:08 Play Video Now Playing Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii (Panasonic GH4) CINELIKE D -0-0-0-0 vs. -5-5+5-0 00:58 Play Video Now Playing Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 D ED (Panasonic GH4) CINELIKE D -1+5+5-2 🐝 02:03 Play Video Now Playing Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 (Panasonic GH4) NATURAL -4+1+4-1 PARFOCAL TEST 01:45 Play Video Now Playing Panasonic GX85 with Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 AF-S (ED) NATURAL -3-3+4-1 🐝 01:24 Play Video Now Playing Minolta AF 50 1.7 (Panasonic GX85) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -2-2+5-0 + LUT 01:40 Play Video Now Playing Nikon 70-210 4 Series E (Panasonic GH4) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -5+1+2-2 + LUT 01:11 Play Video Now Playing Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 (Panasonic GH4) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -4+1+4-1 + LUT (THINGS) 4K 01:01 Play Video Now Playing Promaster 70-300 4-5.6 (Panasonic GH4) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -4+1+4-1 + LUT (PLACES) 01:03 Play Video Now Playing Sigma 18-35 1.8 (Panasonic G7) CINELIKE D -0-0-0-0 vs. -2-3+3+1 01:54 Play Video Now Playing Sigma 17-50 2.8 (Panasonic GX85) NATURAL -4-5+3-1 +3 SHADOWS 4K 01:39 Play Video Now Playing Sigma 17-50 2.8 (Panasonic G7) CINELIKE D -0-0-0-0 vs. -4-5+5+1 SHADOW +3 01:22 Play Video Now Playing Sigma 18-35 1.8 (Panasonic GH4) NATURAL -0-0-0-0 vs. -5-2+5-0 +3 SHADOWS + LUT (H.264 Master) v2 01:10 Play Video Now Playing Sigma 18-35 1.8 (Panasonic GX85) NATURAL -3-3+2-0 +3 SHADOWS vs. -0-0-0-0 01:18 Play Video GAFFER TAPE SUPPLIED BY

WARNING: A.I. CONTENT! I have to admit, I don't like generative A.I. but I am trying out A.I. to help me write this article...but it didn't do the research; it just converted THIS PODCAST into this article (and I'm not so sure it did a good job, yet). So...I hope you like it but if you don't I'm sure you'll let me know in the comments, LOL.  OVERVIEW: In the world of media production, content creation, and filmmaking, the choice of camera sensor format can often lead to heated debates. Many enthusiasts find themselves firmly aligned with one format, whether it be micro 4/3 or full-frame, often dismissing the merits of the other. However, I propose a different approach: consider embracing both formats. This recommendation stems from my belief that experiencing both sensor sizes can provide invaluable insights and foster a more harmonious community among filmmakers. ABOVE: Does sensor size matter, and/or WHEN does it matter? Famous films have been shot on Super 35 film stock, and other not-so-famous films have been shot on IMAX, but does it matter? DOES SENSOR SIZE MATTER? Historically, the divide between micro 4/3 and full-frame users has been pronounced. Micro 4/3 advocates often tout the advantages of their format, while full-frame enthusiasts defend their choice with equal fervor. This division can stifle creativity and limit the potential for growth among filmmakers. By encouraging individuals to explore both formats, we can bridge this gap and cultivate a more inclusive environment. Having experience with both micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras allows filmmakers to appreciate the unique benefits each format offers. For instance, micro 4/3 cameras are often more compact and lightweight, making them ideal for on-the-go shooting. They also provide a crop factor that can be advantageous for telephoto work. Conversely, full-frame cameras excel in low-light situations and offer a wider field of view, which can be crucial for certain types of storytelling. Why Not Multiple Formats? WHY MICRO 4/3? WHY FULL-FRAME? A DUAL CAMERA SETUP? LENS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORMATS A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE? WHY MICRO 4/3? THE LENSES ARE SMALLER AND... Micro 4/3 cameras, such as the Panasonic GX85 or G85, are particularly appealing for beginners and those on a budget. They offer a range of affordable lenses and accessories, making it easier to build a versatile kit without breaking the bank. Additionally, the crop factor of micro 4/3 cameras can be beneficial for sports and wildlife photography, where a longer effective focal length is often required. For example, using a 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera provides an equivalent focal length of 600mm, which is perfect for capturing distant subjects. Key Benefits: Compact and Lightweight: Ideal for travel and on-the-go shooting. Affordable Lenses and Accessories: Easier to build a versatile kit Crop Factor Advantage: Beneficial for telephoto work, such as sports and wildlife photography. WHY FULL-FRAME? THE LENSES ARE BIGGER AND... Full-frame cameras, like the Sony A7 III, have become more accessible in terms of price, making them a viable option for many filmmakers. Full-frame sensors typically deliver superior image quality, especially in low-light conditions , and optically they provide a more natural perspective with less distortion (because wide angle lenses don't have to be as wide to cover a scene. They're closer to that non-distortive focal length of 42.5mm, whereas a wide shot on Micro Four Thirds can be such a short focal length, it's in the single digits (i.e. 7.5mm). This lack of wide angle distortion is particularly important for narrative filmmaking, where maintaining a sense of reality is crucial. Key Benefits: Superior Image Quality: Especially in low-light conditions. Wider Field of View: Provides a more natural perspective. Less Distortion: Important for narrative filmmaking. A DUAL-CAMERA SETUP? As I delve deeper into the advantages of both formats, I recommend that filmmakers consider a dual-camera setup. For instance, pairing a micro 4/3 camera with a full-frame camera can provide the best of both worlds. The micro 4/3 camera can be mounted on top of a rig, while the full-frame camera serves as the primary unit on the bottom. This configuration allows for greater flexibility in shooting scenarios, especially when stabilization is a concern. Two Cameras On One Cage?: Micro 4/3 Camera: Mounted on top of the rig for dynamic shots. Full-Frame Camera: Serves as the primary unit on the bottom for superior image quality. LENS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FORMATS Filmmakers should be aware of the optical differences between formats. While a 300mm lens on a micro 4/3 camera provides a 600mm equivalent, the optical characteristics differ significantly. The depth of field and compression effects can vary, impacting the overall look of the footage. Understanding these nuances is crucial for achieving the desired aesthetic in your projects. Lens Comparison (By Format): Full frame (1x) is best (least distortive) for WIDE shots Super 35 (1.5x) is best for MEDIUM shots (esp. 50mm) Micro Four Thirds (2x) is best for TELE (telephoto) shots The reason I think full frame is better for WIDE shots is that it doesn't require as wide of a focal length to capture a wide angle image (and therefore there is OFTEN less distortion from the optics). Super 35/APS-C (1.5x, 1.6x crop) is good for medium shots (which I call a "TIGHT" shot) because a 50mm prime on Super 35 (was made popular in Hollywood). I REALLY like using a 50mm prime (sometimes vintage) on a Super 35 (1.5x crop) sensor. It is probably the shot that most of us recognize from "REAL" films and movies, but I also like it because it is a very popular (i.e. easy to find on the used market) low light tool. On Micro Four Thirds (2x sensor crop) TELE shots are really easy to shoot. The main reason I like using Micro 4/3 for the TELE shots is that the optics (a 70-300, for example) are a LOT smaller and lighter, and can provide decent framing (from a distance). It's also important to note that the IBIS on many of the popular M43 cameras is REALLY good (GX85, G85, G9, GH5, etc.) and that's really important when using a TELE lens! A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE? Ultimately, my recommendation is to embrace the learning experience that comes with using both formats. By experimenting with micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras, filmmakers can gain a deeper understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. This knowledge not only enhances our skill sets but also contributes to a more unified perspective within the filmmaking community. As filmmakers, we should move beyond the divisive rhetoric of sensor formats and celebrate the diversity of tools available to us, and recognize that each format has its place in the creative process. CONCLUSION: So, I urge filmmakers to consider the benefits of using both micro 4/3 and full-frame cameras. Each format offers unique advantages that can enhance your storytelling capabilities. By stepping outside of our comfort zones and exploring different sensor sizes, we can cultivate a richer understanding of the craft and contribute to a more inclusive filmmaking community. Whether you’re a seasoned professional or just starting, the journey of discovery awaits—so grab your camera(s) and start exploring!

OVERVIEW: Have you ever thought about shooting SOOC, but were worried the dynamic range would suffer? Well, I don't want to be that confrontational guy who says "Don't ever shoot in LOG" but I will say, I've been working on a solution that can not only make SOOC video work, but that can help improve the relationship between the lens and the sensor (because each lens sends light to a sensor differently). So, in this blog post I'll cover a few of the reasons I use "I-Cs" (In-Camera Settings) and why I think it's a better option for those of us who aren't experts in color grading (vs. shooting flat or in LOG). You'll have to admit shooting SOOC is a lot more fun, but you're probably wondering how it will affect your "dynamic range". Well, you may be surprised how good it can be when using my custom (lens-sensor specific) settings . ABOVE: This blog post will explain why I use custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings and an SOOC workflow, and how it not only makes it easy to color grade (compared shooting "flat" or in a LOG profile) but makes the whole experience more enjoyable, overall. WHAT IS "SOOC FOR VIDEO"? You may not have heard the term SOOC in the context of shooting VIDEO. Or, you may have HEARD of it, but never thought it was legit idea for video capture. So, let's go over the definition, and my take on using it for video. SOOC means "Straight Out of Camera" and as I mentioned, it's been primarily used by "lazy" still photographers who didn't want to shoot RAW (and process their images later). You might say, the photographers who do this are "fake" photographers, and Jared Polin (@froknowsphoto) and his clever series of "I Shoot RAW" t-shirts, made this idea into sort of a religion. On the other hand, for those who shoot SOOC, it's kind of an anti-post-production movement of sorts, of which I understand some of the applications (a lot of news, sports and other quick-turnaround jobs require shooting in JPEG, etc.) The real question is then, are there any benefits to an SOOC workflow for VIDEO? I guess the first, and most obvious application is LIVE video, but beyond that you might ask "What's the point?" The short story is, I figured out a way to make SOOC video work but the long story is, I had to create a library of custom settings to make it work. ABOVE: In the video above, I'm showing a test of how using CUSTOM (lens-sensor specific) camera settings can improve the image SOOC (this blog post will explain why I use what I'm calling an "Almost SOOC" workflow). WHAT ARE "LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS"? So, you probably already knew what SOOC meant, but you may be wondering what "lens-sensor settings" are. This, as I mentioned, has been a long story, but I've published a lot of podcast episodes about it (plus some YouTube lens-sensor settings test videos) that tell and show more about this concept (links at the bottom of this page). So, go ahead and check out those resources first if you want additional info. Why I Shoot SOOC (vs. Log or "Flat") IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE EXPOSURE IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE COMPOSITION IT'S MORE INSPIRING THAN "SHOOTING FLAT" IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE IT MAKES POST-PRODUCTION SO EASY! REASON 1 IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE EXPOSURE I'm not sure how to say this, but the people who tell you that you need to be able to read a histogram, and set your "zebras" correctly to judge exposure, are a bit idealistic. Most of us didn't know how to do these things when we were first starting out, and even after we learned, we'd still would mess up our exposure while shooting in log modes. So, who's to say that using your screen to judge exposure, doesn't work? You DO need a camera with an accurate screen, but if it has that, I think this method can be more accurate than mentally decoding a histogram into the light and dark areas that make up a scene. It's especially important if you're using a stepless (de-clicked) aperture or a variable ND to adjust exposure, (because you'll need to see the actual image, as you make these adjustments). Then, if we are telling people to use "zebras" to avoid highlight clipping, I would say we can do that by looking at a non-log version of the image on the screen. Who really wants to have those little zebra lines all over our image when shooting anyway? I think that can destroy creativity even more! That leads me to my next two points about composing your image, and about just plain feeling inspired in the process. ABOVE: Getting the exposure right is much easier when your image is WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). Using my custom SOOC settings makes the image on the camera monitor a lot closer to the final image, and it's therefore easier to judge exposure. REASON 2 IT'S EASIER TO JUDGE COMPOSITION Trying to compose a shot can be tricky if the screen you're looking at is all grayish. My first tip was a bit technical (judging exposure, etc.) but this one (and the next) fall more into the "artistic" category...yet the same principle applies: It's MUCH easier craft an image, when you're not looking at a screen of grayish-looking, log footage! You might say "It CAN be done, You're just LAZY!" but my point is that it can't be done AS WELL, because you're not looking at an image that is accurate to the final image. It feels almost like going back to shooting film, when you have to imagine what your final image will look like, not being able to see the image you're actually recording. It also reminds me of the early days of digital (still) cameras, where the best advice you could give an aspiring photographer was "Don't trust the screen on the back of your camera, and make sure to look at your images on a good, calibrated computer screen." So, to make composition easier, use my custom camera settings and get your image looking good, in-camera. ABOVE: My custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings make it easier to "get artistic" while you're trying to compose your image, because you'll see exactly what you're getting. REASON 3 IT'S MORE INSPIRING THAN "SHOOTING FLAT" This point is almost a repeat of the last, but this one is more focused on the struggles artists go through creating an image. It emphasizes what we call the "intangible" aspects of the craft of filmmaking, the part that is art (there's more to capturing a good image than having a technical mindset). So, if you're an "ar-teest" shooting with my SOOC videos settings should make your job a lot more enjoyable...but, I know you're probably still waiting for me to prove your dynamic range won't suffer (more resources are below). ABOVE: Artists like to make things look good IN-CAMERA, so I try to get my CUSTOM SETTINGS to be as close to SOOC as possible, but sometimes I have to add a LUT too. REASON 4 IT'S A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE There are a number of reasons why using the SOOC method (and not relying on RAW and fixing stuff in post-production) is less expensive. The first is that you don't have to buy a camera with RAW video (or just 10-bit) capabilities. I'm looking forward to the day when said cameras are actually affordable, but until then, I think we can make 8-bit work better than it has been (at least while we're in our Fake Filmmaking stage of growth). Another reason it's less expensive to shoot SOOC is that (if you have an accurate screen on your camera) you don't necessarily have to buy an external monitor that can load a LUT. You can, and you still might want to (just to have a larger screen and focus-peaking assistance) but my main point is that using my SOOC settings makes it possible to use your camera's built-in screen if you need to. Then, if you add an external monitor for some reason, you really don't need to load a LUT, because my CUSTOM SETTINGS usually get you pretty close (it will depend on each lens-sensor combination). Furthermore, there are a number of other technical things that can be easier when using the SOOC technique, such as getting your white balance right (not saying you shouldn't buy a Color Checker if you can afford it). REASON 5 IT MAKES POST-PRODUCTION SO EASY! This is the part that will make you feel lazy, but shameless plug here: my "lens-sensor specific" camera settings are what make it all work (and the LUT does the final tweak). If you're not familiar with the concept of my CUSTOM SETTINGS check them out on my Budget Filmmaking CAMERAS page. How it works is that (after I calibrate each lens for each camera sensor) you simply use my custom settings while shooting, then apply my mild LUT (to finish the image). You'll need to adjust for exposure, add sharpening and check white balance, but there's not much else you need to do (so much easier than a LOG workflow)! ABOVE: My custom (lens-sensor specific) camera settings help make video footage look as close to what I call "real" as possible...SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) but I am working to make a "finishing LUT" for each combination also. CONCLUSION: If you're skeptical about shooting SOOC for video, go ahead and try some of the settings on my website (if you have the same camera and lenses I have). After you try some, I think you'll see they can do a pretty good job in the area of dynamic range, and the workflow is SO much faster and easier than shooting flat or in log! If you want more information about this process and why I think SOOC video can work, check out some of my podcast episodes (and other articles on my blog) listed in the links below, and I hope we meet again. To learn more about how and why I create and use Lens-Sensor LUTs & Camera Settings check out the following podcast episodes: MORE INFO: Lens-Sensor LUTS: Every Lens Has It's Own Story Why and How I Shot Match (Using Lens-Sensor LUTs) Why LUTs Should Be Lens-Sensor Specific When I Use Camera Color Settings vs. LUTs Using Camera Color Settings In Addition to LUTs The Easy Way to Use LUTs (Introducing Base LUTs)

OVERVIEW: My #1 budget filmmaking tip is "Always Shoot With Two Cameras" because this and my " 3 Simple Shots " make budget filmmaking super easy. It's also part of my " Fake Filmmaking " method, where I'm figuring out ways to make everything a lot more affordable (and easier) than it has been in the past. Still, some may wonder how this stuff is possible, either technically or financially. The good news is, I've come up with my 3 kit plans that not only make this technically easy, but are also budget friendly. My three kit plans are the Minimal Kit the Basic Kit and Advanced Kit . ABOVE: My #1 tip (to make BUDGET filmmaking easier) is to "Always Shoot with Two Cameras". Above: Here's a video of my "dual-camera cage" in use. For more information about the shot composition, see my blog post about "3 Simple Shots" I use for "Fake Filmmaking" . How To "Always Shoot With 2 Cameras" KIT PLAN #1: MINIMAL KIT PLAN #2: BASIC KIT PLAN #3: ADVANCED KIT PLAN 1 " MINIMAL " ABOVE: It can't get any easier than the Minimal Kit . Mount a GoPro ( HERO4 Silver or newer) on top of a "real" camera and you're done! MY MINIMAL KIT: EASY AND INEXPENSIVE To use this method, I simply mount a GoPro HERO4 Silver (or newer) on top of a "real" (interchangeable-lens) camera. Then, I compose the "TIGHT" shot (on the "real" camera) and then compose the "WIDE" shot (by simply angling the GoPro forward or back). This method is super easy to learn and do, and it's pretty inexpensive as well. It can even work using an older GoPro without image stabilization (such as the HERO4 Silver ) because stabilization isn't always necessary if mounted to a camera's hot shoe(dampens it). Getting a HERO7 (or newer) is better though, if you need stabilization. As a side note, I would NOT recommend the HERO4 Black, because it doesn't have a viewfinder or screen...but any GoPro model after the 4 has a screen (either Black or Silver).  HOW TO:  USING THE MINIMAL KIT TO RECORD "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS For using the Minimal Kit , the method (for composing my WIDE & TIGHT shots) is pretty easy. First, I compose the TIGHT shot (the camera on the bottom with the prime lens) and then I adjust the GoPro (or other action camera) on the top. The reason I do it in this order, is that the TIGHT shot needs to be more or less pointed right at the subject you are filming, whereas the WIDE shot is easier to just point in the approximate direction of the scene. ABOVE: (OUTDATED) I used to recommend using a cell phone as the second camera (for the Minimal Kit ) but after testing a GoPro HERO4 Silver ...and comparing the price (on the used market) to a good iPhone, I changed my (budget) recommendation. KIT PLAN 2 " BASIC " ABOVE: The key to always shooting with 2 cameras, is to be able to control both cameras at the same time. This need led me to creating this "dual-camera cage" I use for my Basic Kit . BELOW:  A home-made dual-camera cage in use. To make one, all you have to do is get a well-built cage, make sure it has mounting points on top, and add an extra ball head. THE BASIC KIT: TWO "REAL" CAMERAS The first thing I do is find a cage (there are a lot of them out there, but I like this one #ad ) that is sturdy enough to hold 2 cameras. The WIDE shot camera will go on the bottom (normally) and the TIGHT shot will go on the top. All I do to mount the cameras is add a small, but strong ball head (or monopod head*) to the top level of the cage. I prefer a monopod head if I need to handhold the entire cage, but if it's mounted on a tripod (static) I prefer to use a ball head (as it's easier to compose a 2nd shot using a ball head). To mount the camera to the bottom, most cages include a standard 1/4-20 mount on the bottom/inside of the cage. All I do is mount a quick-release plate for the camera, there. That's pretty much all I do to create a "dual-camera cage" for the Basic Kit (except for maybe mounting an audio recorder and/or wireless receiver) but when we move to discussing the "Advanced Kit" things are going to get more interesting (HINT: I mount an Atomos HDMI recorder/monitor PLUS an HDMI switcher to the rig, and sometimes add another camera). NOTE: To mount the camera on the top of the cage, most cages have a bunch of reverse 1/4-20 mounting holes all over, so it's easy to attach a camera mount.  HOW TO:  USING THE BASIC KIT TO CAPTURE "WIDE & TIGHT" SHOTS Using the Basic Kit is sort of the opposite of using the Minimal Kit . First, I compose the WIDE shot (usually the camera on the bottom) and then I lock the tripod in that position. Then, I compose the TIGHT shot (usually the camera on the top) using the ball head (or monopod head). For this "BASIC" method I don't talk about hand holding this whole rig (I do in the Advanced Kit ) but I'll just say that it takes a bit of practice to get coordinated enough to handle both cameras at the same time. One thing I do recommend to make it easier, is make sure one of the two cameras is using autofocus (and if you're on a Panasonic camera, make sure you're using "Single Shot" AF and NOT "Continuous"...and use "back button" or touch to focus using the touch screen). The reason having one camera use AF, is that it's not easy to focus pull (i.e. manually focus) two cameras at a time, but I find I can handle it, if one of them is using AF. KIT PLAN 3 " ADVANCED " ABOVE: My " Advanced Kit " gets a bit crazy: I mount an (Atomos) HDMI recorder/monitor (plus an HDMI switcher) on the cage, then add a 3rd camera. THE ADVANCED KIT: ADD AN HDMI RECORDER (& ANOTHER CAMERA) The Advanced Kit plan adds to the dual-camera cage of the Basic Kit with an HDMI switcher and recorder, plus a 3rd (or 4th) camera on a second tripod (or gimbal). This kit plan really speeds up both in-studio and on-location shoots and is capable of covering most scenarios, with a single camera operator (you read that right). I use an HDMI recorder such as an Atomos recorder #ad or Blackmagic Video Assist #ad with an HDMI switcher #ad to not only capture a backup of whichever camera is being used, but to provide a sort of pre-cut copy (on the external hard drive) that is quicker to edit. Recording to the external recorder (in the uncompressed ProRes format) captures better color as well as making motion (non-static) shots look better due to the lack of compression artifacts. Also, I add a 3rd camera (with a telephoto lens) because it helps when capturing detail shots and "cutaways" which tell the story in a more complete way (in my opinion) and it also makes the editing process more enjoyable. I may go into more detail (about how a single user can operate this 3rd camera) but I might make a mini course about it (and charge a little money?)