Is that to suggest good photography owes its merit to the lens that was used? Not sure I understand the point. From what I've learned, a good mic doesn't do much to compensate for inexperience.
I'm deep in that transition--or, rather, diversification--right now, having done a couple decades in photojournalism, and it seems to me the two most important points are missing--
1. Audio. That's the most important by far. There's no video without being at least competent in that skill, and boy oh boy is it different from shooting stills. It's a fun challenge approached with the right attitude (and some decent kit), but it's a huge challenge nevertheless, presuming you can't always hire a real pro to do it.
2. Keep your visual style, but jettison your shooting habits, even down to how you move, with extreme prejudice. If you shoot video like you shot stills, you'll screw yourself regularly.
Is that really an unsecured transmitter hanging (even swinging?) right next to the mic, where it would presumably detonate against the boom pole when it's moved?
"I won’t follow you with a camera for three years and hope that at some moment you get tired of me, and then become the real you. I don't believe that this is the best way to do it. But of course, there are different ways of making documentaries."
Um, yes, like not following them for three years and not staging bullsh*t out of laziness, then bloviating about some fictional higher truth that can only be reached through staging subjects. Thankfully a new wave of great documentary film makers have figured it out without resorting to fabrication, which is far more the unfortunate tradition of documentary films than it is "refreshing."
A lot of the comments remind me of my favourite New Yorker cartoon, of two crestfallen-looking artists sitting on a wall, one of them saying "I wish I had the funding to really say something"