The Jungle Explorer

Okay, thanks.

Where are all you guys getting these graph charts that look like this?

I hope you are not talking about me. I listened to your advice. I may not be in a financial spot to implement it right now, but that does not mean I did not hear what you said. It like captain Jack Sparrow says. "The only thing that really matters is, what a man can do, and what a man can't do."

I use one of three primary lenses. My all around is the Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS. This is a really good lens for walking around. When I am shooting wildlife, I use mostly use a Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG HSM, which on my A6500 gives me about 600mm of reach. This is an older model of lens, but I can get some really sharp video with it, if the light is good. If I can get close enough or need to shoot in lower light, I use the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM. Here is a video I got recently. I took me several weeks of studying this wild coyote's patterns to get into a position close enough to get this shot. https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/374204545 Here is one with sound. It is okay, but I would like to get much better sound than this. https://stock.adobe.com/stock-photo/id/374071701

I do have a rode pro mic and it is quite amazing, but the truth is, there is almost nowhere, in the US especially, where there is true silence in nature. At least not when you are shooting, which with my style is almost always a random unexpected event because I mostly film true wild animals in their natural habitat. It is crazy how many times I thought I capture a perfect moment, only to listen to the video and realize there was a plane flying noise in the background, or a dog barking in the distance, or the mic was picking up my breathing the whole time. What I really need a is some sort of telescopic mic, that only picks up sound in a small region around the subject. My Rode does pick more sound in front, then from the rear, but when set to high sensitivity, it still picks up a lot of stuff behind it.

I am shooting with a Sony A6500. I am shooting at XAVC S 4K 30P 60M. Should I be shooting in some other setting? My videos look fantastic to my eyes. Here is a screen shot of the properties of one of my videos.

My issue is upload. I live in a rural area with very slow internet. My upload speed is like .03 Mbps on average. A 4K clip of 10 seconds is about 100 MB. That is like a two hour upload for me, if everything goes well. I have frequent service interruptions, and this causes the ftp upload to fail and start over again. I left my FTP uploader running all night with five 10 seconds video to uplaod. Only one had finished by this morning. I am using Filezilla. Is there a better FTP uploader that has a resume function? You know, so that the file does not have to start over from stratch each time there is a connection issue?

Okay. I have never done 4k footage, so I am just trying to figure out what the go with from the start. I am going to start doing more 4K footage than photos from now on, because the market for nature shots is all but dried up and the commissions are so low, it is not worth my time anymore. I am not sure 4K footage will be any better, but it will be less work and if I do sell any, the rewards will be greater hopefully. It is just hard to make a side income these days. People have 100K invested in equipment to sell micro-stock for pennies. There is no way they will ever earn enough to even pay for their equipment, let alone any other production cost involved. It is not only in photography, it is everywhere. My wife is Native South American and makes beautiful traditional native jewelry. She thought she could sell her stuff on Etsy, so I opened opened an account listed a bunch of her work. Then I stared looking at similar stuff for sell and knew it would never work. People were selling fabulous pieces that takes 30+ hours to craft, for $20. We know how much the materials cost to make the stuff, and at $20 they are barely breaking even on materials cost, not to mention making nothing for 30 hours of skill and labor to craft the piece. I told my wife to forget it. There are too many people out there doing things as a hobby and could careless if they make any form of reasonable income. When a brain dead pothead can make 10,000% more flipping burgers at McDonalds then I highly skilled craftsman, something is wrong in the universe.

Thanks. Is 10 seconds a good length for nature clips? Say stuff like, a deer fawn nursing, or a bird singing in a tree?

Thanks. Great advice. I actually do have great nature audio, as I record it intentionally to use as background sound effects in my youtube videos. The issues is matching it to the scene, and that would take time that is not warranted, as you pointed. In some clips the audio it is crucial, such as the clip I am working on at the moment, which is a close up 4K video of a "White-crowned sparrow singing in the early morning with chorus of birds singing in the background" (this is the title I am going to use with it). But the audio on this video is awesome and clear, because it was a super calm morning with no other sounds going on (car driving by, dog barking, jet overhead, etc.)

So I have been shooting some 4K nature clips and have amassed a small collection of decent footage. As we all know, when shooting in nature, the audio is not always the best. So have have three options. Leave the original audio, mute the audio, or replace the audio with a pre-recorded quality nature sound. I am just wondering which is the best option?

Thank you for clarifying. This is new information to me. I was under the mistaken impression that DSLRs had all but rendered Camcorders obsolete for all but Hollywood style production. I looked up the FS7. Starting at 7K, I would really have to start focusing 100% on stock footage to justify spending that much on a piece of equipment.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not arguing in favor or against anything. I simply do not have enough understanding of the issue to make an informed statement. I am not in the mood to argue, I am here to learn. I only know what I know. I do not know what I do not know. What I know is, when I was looking for a good video camera for my YouTube channel, it seemed the the consensus at that time was that the a6500 was the cream de la cream for video. I watched dozens of review videos from leading tech reviewers praising the video abilities if the A6500. So this was my impression of the camera. I only know what I know. When I say that I have never heard people refer to the a6500 as a bad camera for video, that is because I never have. I am not saying you are incorrect. I simply have never heard what you are saying. I beg you to not ge snarky with me because you think I am some fanboy that is just out to defend their camera or camera brand. I assure that nothing could be farther from the truth. What I am, is not rich. If I could afford to drop 5k an a top Canon or Nikon body and 10 to 20k on the best 800mm telephoto lens out there, I would. There is no brand loyalty in me. The only loyalty I have is to my bank account. I am also not one of those people who are impressed by newest an skinniest. People have been doing great photography and videography for a long time without the latest greatest newest tech that just came out last week. So, I am cautious of people who only know how to push the latest tech, as if everything before it was garbage. While I am not a fanboy or bias, people that have this addiction to the latest and greatest seem a bit bias to me. None of what I have said is directed at you. I have said things things to help you understand where I am coming from, so that you will not misunderstand me again as you did in your last post. To answer your question as to why I did not have any video clips in my portfolio. I simply have not focused on video for stock. YouTube is my primary focus when it comes to video. I love nature and love shooting macros. I do it for my own enjoyment. If started doing stock images, just because, Why Not? I mean, I am already going to do it, so why not make a little money on it? But selling stock images has pushed me to try to improve my photography, so I think it has been beneficial in that way too. As far as your comment about YouTube just being a video selfie. I agree with you 100% on this. This is why that in not one of my over 300 videos, do you ever see my face. I have created a channel that is moderately successful in which no one of my 8,000 subscribers has a clue who I am. Why have I done this? For one, I really hate with a passion how every other YouTuber shoves their face in the camera so close that you can count their nose hairs. They are about one thing, Themselves. My channel is not about me the person. It is a DIY teaching channel and it is all about what I am teaching. It does not bother me that no one who I am. I am not seeking personal fame. It does however bother a lot of viewers, who do not understand why I do not a follow the crowd and shove my face in the camera and say "Look at me!". I am not a crowd follower, just as I am not a camera brand fanboy. Just call me Mr. Opposite. Now, I repeated my last question from my my last post. "What camera do you think is better for video then?" Written on my smartphone, so there will be typos. 😉

I have never heard this before. I bought the a6500 specifically for my YouTube channel, because it was a really popular option for youtubers at the time. What camera do you think is better for video then. I mean within economic reason. I realize you can spend 100k on a good video setup.

My plan is to upgrade to the A7R III, which, from my research, is competitive with the best on the market. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.