So far I haven't used my GH1 at a wedding but I'm getting close to being ready to.

I think all-DSLR weddings would work magnificently for larger productions (eg 3 vid guys + sound op). With a crew like that you can afford to miss your focus pull once or twice. With a production like that you can get away with a 12 minute limit as long as the camera operators are staggering their recodings at pre-decided intervals. Plus the bigger budget of those companies means they could probably have a few spare bodies in case overheating pops up.

Where DLSR-only won't work so well is for one man weddings. In those situations you need to have your sound on your main camera rig (whether it's your onboard audio or an extra recorder mounted to your rails) so you can monitor audio. You need to have one camera that you can leave unnattended for up to an hour. You need one lens that can cover everything from the Bride walking past you down the Isle (sometimes only 1-2 feet away) to an extreme close up of the rings or the kiss from the back of the church. Plus you need a good form factor (I can't work without a top-handle) and the reliability of a smooth zoom rocker.

It will be interesting to see how the AF100, with all the additional bells and whistles of a video camera, changes how people use DSLR's/shallow DoF/interchangable lenses at weddings.

So far I haven't used my GH1 at a wedding but I'm getting close to being ready to.

The GH1 has a lot going for it for use at weddings. Some of the useful characteristics of it are:

- Usable viewfinder when shooting video.

- flip-out and tilt LCD display allows much easier positioning of the camera while maintaining a view of the LCD screen.

- No 12-minute clip length limit allows the camera to also be used unattended on a tripod.

- No overheating issue.

For this and other reasons, some believe the GH1 is an ideal wedding camera.

In the news section here, it appears that Sony will have a new camera releasing shortly (as in REALLY shortly), apparently compatible with the Alpha mount. If it's like the P&S Sonys w/1080p, it won't have a 12 minute limit (more like 30 minutes, which puts it into viable recording length for weddings). Tilt 3" screen, no VF, but with a nice screen like that... I think it would be doable. Probably won't be subject to overheating problems.

If it also has image stabilization on par with the XR/CX series, this could be an interesting little beast.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/478473-sonys-nex-cameras.html

EDIT - these are official, and even more interesting is a more video-camera like prototype/mockup linked on that thread.

I shoot 1-man all DSLR and haven't had any problems. 7D and T2i. The 12 minute clips are really not a bother. I've shot 14 weddings. I did use the XHA1 for the first 10, but I now leave that in the car.

This is great thread! One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that shooting weddings with all DSLRs is much more conducive to short-form/cinematic edits, than long-form documentary style or "traditional" wedding videos where everything is shown in its entirety.

For example, I get plenty of clients who have full-Mass Catholic ceremonies that last over an hour, and they want to see the entire thing with nothing cut out. Add to that 30 - 40 minutes of toasts at the reception... you know, when just about "everyone" wants to get up and say something.

I can't imagine the editing nightmare that would ensue, trying to constantly sync 12 minute chunks of video here and there.

So for those of you who now shoot DSLR only.... what do you tell your clients who want the long-form style of video? Do you simply say sorry we don't that... or do you still try to make it work?

Jeff, I shoot for a 1-song Highlight, a 30 minute Highlight and the entire ceremony and reception on the 7D and T2i. During the ceremony, I just click the start/stop button every 12 minutes. It's really no big deal. There are plenty of moments throughout a Catholic ceremony to hit the start/stop. For the 45 minute toasts, (which I did just have in March). Again, before each person does their toast, just hit start/stop.

How do you guys workaround the overheating factor? Do you just turn it off, if so, how long?

We haven't hit the really hot days yet, but right now we've found that just shutting the camera down for a minute seems to solve the issue. For any outdoor ceremonies we will have small white cloths on the cameras. A tiny, mini-umbrella or flat shade would be awesome though. I've been thinking about making up a flat shade on an adjustable arm. I just need it to be inconspicuous.

We are almost at the point where we are doing all DSLR shoots. Once we got a taste of DSLR there was no going back.

We haven't hit the really hot days yet, but right now we've found that just shutting the camera down for a minute seems to solve the issue. For any outdoor ceremonies we will have small white cloths on the cameras. A tiny, mini-umbrella or flat shade would be awesome though. I've been thinking about making up a flat shade on an adjustable arm. I just need it to be inconspicuous.

Travis, do you think the outside temperature will affect these camera's for a half hour ceremony? I have my first outdoor rooftop ceremony tomorrow on the beach (I use the 7D and T2i) but it's still cool here in NJ.

Here's a bit of a different perspective on the DSLR issue. I think the camcorder manufacturers owe a big apology to the professional videographers of the world. Those who have the creative ability and passion to produce pieces that take advantage of the features that DSLR cameras provide have had to endure some hardship to do so. These cameras are very video "unfriendly" yet these admirable souls persevered and mastered their DSLR's in order to greatly improve the production value of their work. My hat is off to them.

But the future is bright. 2011 and 2012 should bring a new crop of large sensor VIDEO cameras that make the job much easier. It's great to see competition between the video camera manufacturers starting to show itself with large sensor video cameras.

Oh, and one other thing. After these new large sensor video cameras are established in the market, the market for used DSLR cameras should be very active. A number of videographers will sell at least part of their DSLR cameras when they buy large sensor video cameras. It makes me remember an old manual drill my dad had called a "brace and bit". Funny thing, after my dad got his power drill, he didn't use his brace and bit any more.

Travis, do you think the outside temperature will affect these camera's for a half hour ceremony? I have my first outdoor rooftop ceremony tomorrow on the beach (I use the 7D and T2i) but it's still cool here in NJ.

I honestly don't know. We filmed a wedding in the Bahamas a month ago and during the bride preps the camera was fine, but it overheated during groom preps (both were indoor and it wasn't all that warm). The ceremony was outside in the sun in the afternoon .. yet no overheating problems even though we didn't use white cloths or anything.

Last weekend we had an overheating incident again during preps, and it wasn't THAT warm in the room (maybe 75-80 max). But later on while filming outside we had no issues.

This past winter I ran a test where I started the camera rolling inside (temperature was 70F), and kept it recording to see how long it could go. At around 30 minutes the temp symbol came up but I kept recording. The camera was able to keep recording with no issues for the next hour and I eventually stopped it because the battery was running out.

So honestly, I don't quite understand the overheating issue as it seems to present itself somewhat randomly. There IS an update out now from Canon that makes the temp warning less sensitive, meaning it takes more to activate the warning. This doesn't actually solve the issue, though.

So far I haven't used my GH1 at a wedding but I'm getting close to being ready to.

I think all-DSLR weddings would work magnificently for larger productions (eg 3 vid guys + sound op). With a crew like that you can afford to miss your focus pull once or twice. With a production like that you can get away with a 12 minute limit as long as the camera operators are staggering their recodings at pre-decided intervals. Plus the bigger budget of those companies means they could probably have a few spare bodies in case overheating pops up.

Where DLSR-only won't work so well is for one man weddings. In those situations you need to have your sound on your main camera rig (whether it's your onboard audio or an extra recorder mounted to your rails) so you can monitor audio. You need to have one camera that you can leave unnattended for up to an hour. You need one lens that can cover everything from the Bride walking past you down the Isle (sometimes only 1-2 feet away) to an extreme close up of the rings or the kiss from the back of the church. Plus you need a good form factor (I can't work without a top-handle) and the reliability of a smooth zoom rocker.

It will be interesting to see how the AF100, with all the additional bells and whistles of a video camera, changes how people use DSLR's/shallow DoF/interchangable lenses at weddings.

I don't know what the fuss is all about. I did just fine with my DSLR on my first wedding. I added a Rhode mic on my camera and it works great to record all audio. For speeches and ceremony I hook up the my H4N and wirless to the house system or to the dj and it's sounds great. Like everyone is saying, it's more work, but not even the EX1r can shoot this *&%$@!^ good in low light.

I have had brides pee their pants because the footage looks so good. I kid you not, they say, "It really looks like a movie."

Don't shoot with DLSR.

More business for us.

Kelly, what type of video do you produce? Is it a cinematic highlights only? Or full ceremony and reception? Do you shoot with only 1 DSLR? How many crew do you have, and do you have a backup camera at all?

I cannot imagine trying to shoot an entire wedding with a single camera, let alone a single DSLR. Yes, you can get great results most of the time, but it really is not worth the risk. You can get great quality b-camera's for under $500, so it's just not worth the risk of not having a backup camera. This applies to all wedding videographers, not just those using DSLRs, but I believe with the low-cost, high quality technology we have today, there is no excuse for not having a back-up, unmanned angle recording the entire ceremony (not just the first 12 minutes until it stops recording). I think a similar principle applies to all-DSLR videographers. It's too risky (even if you have 2-3 DSLRs) not to have a single, constant, back-up video source.

Yes, people are succeeding and I applaud them on their ingenuity and persistance but to have only DSLRs, is, in my opinion, playing with fire.

...Don't shoot with DLSR.

More business for us.

Now this is totally untrue. I understand the excitement of using DSLR's for weddings and events. I shot a Quinceanera this past weekend using only my DSLR. I would never say this quote as it is untrue. I read a thread on a forum where someone filmed a wedding using a red one. Had sample pictures and everything. The extracted images looked a whole lot better than most wedding videos I've seen here and vimeo but the guy did not say such a careless statement. When I get married the videographer who will be shooting my wedding is over $5,000 and guess what he'll be shooting it with. That's right not a DSLR. I'm hiring the person behind the camera and not the camera itself. I understand the excitement but it is a careless and untrue statement to make. Sorry

Monday

Some of the posts about flash card issues are starting to get me a little nervous ;)

I'm curious, for those of you who've had these issues... could you trace these issues to anything other then random error... such as you were using a budget brand card.. or perhaps should of done a routine full format before hand... or perhaps even using certain model/class cards within a certain brand?

I'm mainly interested in know what brands and models people trust the most (SanDisk is a given, but even then.. which models) and which ones should be avoided at all costs.. particularly if they seem misleadingly trustable. As event videographers this is of course extremely important because the luxury of "reshoot" isn't there and I think as wedding/event videographers you might have better insight due to the level of continuous use that is present and likely a instigating factor when it comes to card issues.

I certainly agree with the feeling of having a level of trust in tape and it's archive friendly characteristics... but for many projects/workflows... particularly an A cam where your recording off and on constantly.... flash/HDD capture is a whole new world of convenience and time saving.

Kelly, what type of video do you produce? Is it a cinematic highlights only? Or full ceremony and reception? Do you shoot with only 1 DSLR? How many crew do you have, and do you have a backup camera at all?

I cannot imagine trying to shoot an entire wedding with a single camera, let alone a single DSLR. Yes, you can get great results most of the time, but it really is not worth the risk. You can get great quality b-camera's for under $500, so it's just not worth the risk of not having a backup camera. This applies to all wedding videographers, not just those using DSLRs, but I believe with the low-cost, high quality technology we have today, there is no excuse for not having a back-up, unmanned angle recording the entire ceremony (not just the first 12 minutes until it stops recording). I think a similar principle applies to all-DSLR videographers. It's too risky (even if you have 2-3 DSLRs) not to have a single, constant, back-up video source.

Yes, people are succeeding and I applaud them on their ingenuity and persistance but to have only DSLRs, is, in my opinion, playing with fire.

Why do you need to record every second of the ceremony? The 12 minute clip is really a non-issue during a Catholic ceremony. The only time I worry about the 12 minute clip is during the toast and they rarely last longer than 12 minutes.

I have not read every response here but will give my recent conclusion.
Pro's : Great glass, less gear to carry

Con's : Focus, if they are moving and you are at a shallow DOF, you get some unusable footage while it tries to focus. HEAT, these things get hot, and can't help but wonder what the long term effect is going to be. Matching other footage is more difficult IMO.

I just did not like it, too many things to have to have just right, I like having the video camera do what its made to do, and I will continue to use the DSLR for fun stuff when I have time.

I've considered selling an HV40 and replacing it with a T2i (once they're not on back-order!). Does anyone have any experience with the exFAT-based sdxc cards yet? From what I understand, the file size limit on sdxc cards is so high that right now we would never have to worry about it. I noticed you can buy a 64gb Sandisk card on bhphotovideo for about the same price as two 16gb sdhc Sandisk cards. I wondered about heating issues, whether anyone has actually recorded for 30+ minutes on one.

And a separate question. (And I know I'm going to catch a beating for mentioning auto-focus...) How does auto-focus work on a dSLR? More problematic in low-light? Any dof still present?

exFAT-based sdxc cards... the file size limit on sdxc cards is so high that right now we would never have to worry about it. Sorry, but that's incorrect. The recording limit is a function of the camera, not the card.

64gb Sandisk card... anyone has actually recorded for 30+ minutes on one.You can record up to 30 minutes in one take *in standard definition* with a 4GB card if it's fast enough (Class 6 or better). While a 64GB card will hold a total of three hours of HD video, the longest single clip you can record in HD would be appx. 12 minutes no matter what card you use, because the recording limit is a function of the camera -- not the card.

Thanks for the clarification. Does it require the operator to hit the Record button after each 12 minute increment, or does it just automatically start a new file? That wouldn't be such a big deal, if so...

It does *not* automatically start a new file. Upon reaching the 4GB clip length limit (which is appx. 30 minutes in SD mode or 12 minutes in HD mode), the camera stops recording and does nothing else until the camera operator makes an input.

You should also note that the camera will not alert you or notify you that recording has stopped. You have to keep a careful watch on the recording time.

I want to see one - ONE - wedding highlights clip from DSLR shooters that doesn't include several shots going from out-of-focus to in-focus. I also want to see a DSLR clip that follows a bride up the isle perfectly in focus with shallow DOF, (which is the whole reason to use this technology, right?) as she moves (and I mean really crisp, not just close) from the far end of the room to right up next to the camera without an edit. I want someone to show me it can be done, because I'm very skeptical, I'll admit it.

What I see all the time is shots going from out of focus to in-focus, and edits to cover up the messes. I'm absolutely sick of seeing out of focus stuff from these cameras. It's unprofessional, no matter how "stylistic" it looks at the moment - because it's not really being done stylistically in the vast majority of clips I've seen - it's done to cover up lousy focus.

Why am I skeptical? Because I've worked extensively with DSLRs and different lenses. I know that the Canon lenses have extremely sensitive and limited control - they weren't meant for video follow focus. Congratulations to those who have learned to handle them well - but it's still not how they were meant to be used. Again, I want to see a long isle shot with shallow DOF that stays in focus the entire length of the walk with no edits.

I LOVE my DSLR. It does what it does VERY well, and gives great beautiful shots. But I do get sick of seeing bad focus being disguised as style, and it's becoming a rampant disease with these cameras!!

I need to say first that I think my post was a bit harsh, so I'd like to apologize. I do not mean to sound like a hater or curmudgeon. I'm not anti-DSLR, really I'm not. I'm just not impressed much with a lot of the stuff I'm seeing in clips from people who are using them.

I'm not talking about zoom - I'm just talking about keeping a subject in focus as they move from far away to close to the camera. To me you have two choices - set a small aperture that will keep the subject in focus throughout (which most any videocamera already does easily), or you can keep a larger aperture and get that shallow DOF that DSLRs are known for, but in the tradeoff you lose the ability to keep the subject in focus unless you have mastered on-the-fly focus. With some situations and lenses a small aperture is not going to be practical.

To me it's just a really risky proposition to rely on DSLRs exclusively to get great-focused crucial material, for lots of reasons. But keeping a bride in-focus perfectly throughout a walk toward you from the back of the room down the isle is just one example. I'm bringing this up because I've had to deal with this issue personally more than a couple of times - in fact I just did a wedding where 10 bridesmaids came down the isle one-by-one, and I was up behind the officiant and having to keep them in focus throughout with my DSLR. Given the lens I had on the camera, the aperture I was stuck with due to lighting constraints, and other factors, it was very difficult to keep them in-focus as each one walked down the isle. I did pretty well, but some of my shots were not usable. A video cam with decent auto-focus would have made this much easier - not even an issue, usually. In this case I'm not sure I was doing myself or the bride any favors by getting hit/miss focus with the DSLR, and I do feel like I'm at least somewhat practiced and experienced working the DSLR focus. Woe to someone who isn't.

I think these are very valid things to bring up when discussing the pros and cons of DSLRs for weddings. Are we really doing the best job for a bride by trying to use these cameras exclusively on wedding shoots, given how many variables can make for bad focus so easily? I'm not so sure. For some shots it's not a problem at all, and I totally agree that they have their place - a big place - in the toolkit. But exclusive use for weddings? I'm not sold, by a longshot.

Bill, I feel you. When the first DSLR wedding footage came out and it was in and out of focus and had the micro-shakes and jello-effect and whatnot, I was on the side that called it out. I had people come back at me and say that the micro-shakes were part of the 'organic' look that they were going for. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Sloppy focus and all sorts of other things seem to get looked past and it's not right just because 'some' of the imagery looks good.

And Bill, you're also right that trying to ride the focus and follow a bride perfectly down the aisle is not likely to happen with DSLR's. But for how we shoot and edit, it's not an issue. We use multiple cameras (and plan on adding even more) so that we have preferred 'shot fields' if you will. In other words, for certain parts of the day we have a specific plan on where a particular camera is supposed to have critical focus. So for the bride coming down the aisle, we may plan out to use the wide shot initially, then cut to a medium shot of the groom waiting for her, then cut to a medium shot of her walking down the aisle (from behind), then cut to a close-up of her and dad from the front, then a wide as her and dad approach the end of the aisle, then a medium profile shot to show the hand-off of the bride to the groom. With this kind of detailed approach you can plan around the issues of filming with shallow DOF and instead make it work FOR you.

I won't lie, it's more work and more stress. d;-)

I need to say first that I think my post was a bit harsh, so I'd like to apologize. I do not mean to sound like a hater or curmudgeon. I'm not anti-DSLR, really I'm not. I'm just not impressed much with a lot of the stuff I'm seeing in clips from people who are using them.

I'm not talking about zoom - I'm just talking about keeping a subject in focus as they move from far away to close to the camera. To me you have two choices - set a small aperture that will keep the subject in focus throughout (which most any videocamera already does easily), or you can keep a larger aperture and get that shallow DOF that DSLRs are known for, but in the tradeoff you lose the ability to keep the subject in focus unless you have mastered on-the-fly focus. With some situations and lenses a small aperture is not going to be practical.

To me it's just a really risky proposition to rely on DSLRs exclusively to get great-focused crucial material, for lots of reasons. But keeping a bride in-focus perfectly throughout a walk toward you from the back of the room down the isle is just one example. I'm bringing this up because I've had to deal with this issue personally more than a couple of times - in fact I just did a wedding where 10 bridesmaids came down the isle one-by-one, and I was up behind the officiant and having to keep them in focus throughout with my DSLR. Given the lens I had on the camera, the aperture I was stuck with due to lighting constraints, and other factors, it was very difficult to keep them in-focus as each one walked down the isle. I did pretty well, but some of my shots were not usable. A video cam with decent auto-focus would have made this much easier - not even an issue, usually. In this case I'm not sure I was doing myself or the bride any favors by getting hit/miss focus with the DSLR, and I do feel like I'm at least somewhat practiced and experienced working the DSLR focus. Woe to someone who isn't.

I think these are very valid things to bring up when discussing the pros and cons of DSLRs for weddings. Are we really doing the best job for a bride by trying to use these cameras exclusively on wedding shoots, given how many variables can make for bad focus so easily? I'm not so sure. For some shots it's not a problem at all, and I totally agree that they have their place - a big place - in the toolkit. But exclusive use for weddings? I'm not sold, by a longshot.

Bill, I give my brides the option of choosing my conventional video camera or my DSLR. They are ALL choosing the DSLR. So if they are happy, who are we to argue?

Michael, from an aesthetic point of view, of course DSLR is the way to go. The images are beautiful - that's why we all use them. And any average video editor can probably put something together that hides or masks the vulnerabilities I was discussing. But those vulnerabilities still exist, whether we educate the client about them or not. It's about mitigating risk from a shooting point of view.

The more options you have in editing, the better your end-product will be. If your options are more limited because almost-in-focus or not-even-close focus taints 30 - 40% of your shots due to all of the aspects of the DSLR that have been discussed ad-infinatum, then your end-product will not be as good as if you had more usable material.

You could play it safer with a DSLR by getting more or less static shots and probably squeeze more usable footage out of it than if you were moving around a lot. My wish list right now has a DSLR on it to use just as a stationary cam - I'd love it. I do think that doing stationary stuff with the DSLR is somewhat of an under-utilization of its capabilities, but whatever. They would make great stationary cams, even with the 12-minute limit on certain cameras. I do think, however that most people who get their first DSLR are NOT using it as a stationary camera, thus opening themselves up to those pesky focus issues.

Overall, it's just something that anyone considering DSLRs should know about - that it is more difficult, and somewhat more risky for the average mortal to shoot with than videocameras. You have to make concessions and buy additional gear to really utilize them in a comparable way to videocams. This discrepancy will not be around for too long - but it does exist now.

My wish list right now has a DSLR on it to use just as a stationary cam - I'd love it. I do think that doing stationary stuff with the DSLR is somewhat of an under-utilization of its capabilities, but whatever. They would make great stationary cams, even with the 12-minute limit on certain cameras. I do think, however that most people who get their first DSLR are NOT using it as a stationary camera, thus opening themselves up to those pesky focus issues.


You might want to consider the Panasonic GH1 Panasonic | Lumix DMC-GH1 Digital Camera (Black) with | DMC-GH1K It makes a great lock down DSLR. It doesn't have a 12-minute limit and it isn't prone to overheating. It uses an electronic viewfinder which means that it can be used while shooting video. It has a LCD screen than can be tilted so it allows positioning flexibility when shooting. It also has selectable auto focus which can be useful in some shooting situations.

Just thought I'd update this as so much has changed after one season shooting events with the T2i's:

Started with:

$800 Canon T2i
$800 Canon T2i
$800 Canon T2i
$160 Canon BG-E8 Grip
$160 Canon BG-E8 Grip
$100 10 x Generic T2i Batteries
$815 Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS (used)
$608 Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
$1006 Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS (used)
$420 12 x Patriot SDHC 16gb Class 6 ($35 each)
$179 LCDVF Viewfinder
$99 Neutral Density Fader
$239 Zoom H4N (refurbished)


Current kit:
Tokina 11-16 mm f2.8
Sigma 20 mm f1.8
Nikon 35 mm f1.4
Pentax 50 mm f1.2
Olympus 55 mm f1.2
Rokinon 85 mm f1.4
Canon (IS) 70-200 mm f2.8
2 x Tokina 80-200 mm f2.8

Shopping for a deal on a Canon 135 2.0L...

Wow how things change over time.
I just shot a wedding with a ex1r and a 5d II / 50 1.2 with a zacuto z finder and follow focus.

I love my EX1r, but in low light its not as good, IMO not even close.

I am not sure if I want to go all DSLR or not but here are a few things that makes me want to.

First off, I would never shoot with one camera regardless of what kind it was. This makes a card going bad not as tragic as it is made out to be. The EX1r also uses solid state and can also go bad with over an hour of footage on it.

Shallow dof looks great and also there are ways to give you more room for error.
For example using a 5D II
35mm lens at f 2.8 15 foot from the couple gives you 10.5 feet of DOF.
50mm lens at f 2.8 15 foot from the couple gives you 4.7 feet of DOF.
100mm lens at f 2.8 30 foot from the couple gives you 4.6 feet of DOF
200mm lens at f 2.8 60 foot from the couple gives you 4.6 feet of DOF.

So you can have some wiggle room for things like slow dancing etc, I do feel you need a 35mm lens to give you that cushion and use as a safe shot when trying to nail that close up shallow dof look, or at least I will use that when I am working solo.

Hi Denny.
I've just posed some questions in another thread on this subject. As a long time video camera user with a eye on DSLRs.
Do you carry around a fleet of cameras each with one of those different lenses on to be able to grab the shot you want, or do you work in a team?
I do like the look that can be achieved from these cameras but I find it difficult to get my head around how I'd work spontaneously at a wedding if I had to be changing cameras when I saw a different shot that I wanted.I know that you can use zoom lenses but do they not somewhat loose the benefit that these cameras provide of wide aperture and shallow depth of field. I am use to my Fujinon x20 1.4f that gets me from 30 - 600 (35mm equivalent) on tap.
I notice that many of the lovely atmospheric shots in low light (e.g. a church interior) are only achieved with a 50mm 1.4f prime lens. I haven't use one so I'm happy to stand to be corrected.

I will also add my audio would change very little if I switched, here is why.
Ceremony
I use 2 wireless lavs, and a shotgun being mixed with a sd 302 mixer going into both the ex1r and Sony PCM-D50, and have the Zoom H4N recording ambient, full auto, set it and forget it. I have yet to use the Sony recorder, but its there if I need it and would become the main audio if I went all out DSLR

Reception
wireless handheld and zoom H4 on a mic stand at DJ speaker, shotgun on the EX1r, handheld and shotgun mixed and recorded to both ex1 and Sony recorder, Zoom full auto again.

I know the full auto is not a great idea, but its only been used as back up to back up. I listen to it once in a while and its quite good. I have it set up that way so I can have it up and recording in seconds.

Going all out dslr may have me adding a second zoom recorder but I have always been one to have backups.

In my case with my main photography cameras being 2 1D IV's when it came down to the vows, would probably have 3 cameras recording video, one taking the stills I need and sacrificing video capture at that second while the still is being recorded. This way for the most critical part of the ceremony would have 2 2/3 cameras recording video.

Hi Denny.
I've just posed some questions in another thread on this subject. As a long time video camera user with a eye on DSLRs.
Do you carry around a fleet of cameras each with one of those different lenses on to be able to grab the shot you want, or do you work in a team?
I do like the look that can be achieved from these cameras but I find it difficult to get my head around how I'd work spontaneously at a wedding if I had to be changing cameras when I saw a different shot that I wanted.I know that you can use zoom lenses but do they not somewhat loose the benefit that these cameras provide of wide aperture and shallow depth of field. I am use to my Fujinon x20 1.4f that gets me from 30 - 600 (35mm equivalent) on tap.
I notice that many of the lovely atmospheric shots in low light (e.g. a church interior) are only achieved with a 50mm 1.4f prime lens. I haven't use one so I'm happy to stand to be corrected.

George, I am not afraid to use zooms to be able to do exactly what your saying, and also L glass looks great wide open, but does not have to be used that way.

My 50 1.2 was never used at 1.2, I often went up to 2.8 giving me a nice shallow dof and still some room if the couple moved not to loose focus.

While the zooms will not give you as much range as yours do, its a lighter rig so often your feet can help with the zoom.

Thanks Denny.

No problem but remember I am still on the fence and not like the pros on this forum, they know a lot more about it than I do.

My situation is a little different in that I do very little video but wanted it to be great, thats why I got the ex1r, did have 2.

I know technology is changing fast, and although the ex1r will always have a place in the market, I do not want to hold on to it so long its not worth much. I believe there is like 17 hrs on it so if I am going to make the switch its probably a good time to sell it.

Pity your in the states Denny as I know someone here who is looking to buy one.

Hi Denny,


For example using a 5D II
35mm lens at f 2.8 15 foot from the couple gives you 10.5 feet of DOF.
.

Just to put that into perspective: Drop that to f1.4 (and lower iso/grain) and you're down to just under 5 ft DOF. Put that 35 1.4 on a crop-sensor camera and you're down to 3 ft. Put an 85 1.4 on that crop-sensor camera and you have exactly 6 inches of DOF - 3 inches in front and 3 inches in back.

Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Joel that is the beauty of the DSLR, if your subject is not moving you have that option.

I really want to do some testing and get a 5D as wide as the ex1r using my 16-35 2.8 and see which is cleaner while still not have too thin a dof for say dancing at the reception.

I am scared to just jump in with both feet to DSLR, but the footage is so stupid sharp its hard not too.

Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Thanks Joel...... way cool find there !!!!